All Global Research articles 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.

***

Singapore is planning to become the first country to stop counting COVID-19 cases on a daily basis and just treat it like a normal seasonal Flu.

The south-east Asian country has recorded just 36 deaths since the start of the pandemic, and officials now want to ditch measures such as counting infection numbers each day.

A blueprint has been laid out by three leading members of Singapore’s Covid-19 taskforce to end 18 months of tough restrictions in order to restore quarantine-free travel and public gatherings.

The hope is to let people “get on with their lives” by scrapping tough rules and instead controlling the virus through other means.

“Instead of monitoring Covid-19 infection numbers every day, we will focus on the outcomes,” the trade, finance and health ministers wrote in a joint op-ed in the Straits Times.

“How many fall very sick, how many in the intensive care unit, how many need to be intubated for oxygen, and so on. This is like how we now monitor influenza.

“We can’t eradicate it, but we can turn the pandemic into something much less threatening, like influenza, hand, foot and mouth disease, or chickenpox, and get on with our lives.”

Full details of the roadmap have yet to be revealed, but ministers suggested measures such as breathalyser-style tests, more therapeutic treatments and greater personal responsibility.

Singapore’s proposal could be an early sign of the world starting to live with Covid after more than a year of restrictions across the globe.

Meanwhile, a group of doctors have penned an “urgent open letter” to Singapore’s expert committee on Covid-19 vaccination, calling for the vaccination of youths in Singapore to be stopped until the US CDC clarifies why a teenage jab recipient died.

*

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 GreatGameIndia

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Singapore: First Country to Stop Counting Daily COVID-19 Cases and Treat It Like Normal Flu
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As Big Tech, the Biden Administration, Hollywood, politicians, employers and health care providers around the nation galvanize the public to undergo Covid vaccination, the number of casualties who have died or suffer life-threatening effects from the experimental mRNA injections continues to climb.

Those who don’t want to be herded into the mass drug trial are told to just “get on with it” so we can “safely” move on with our lives.

Despite the unrelenting effort to censor “vaccine hesitancy,” thousands who are experiencing the vaccines’ ill effects are resorting to a private Facebook group to sound the alarm on the medical malpractice.

In post after post, over 25,900 members of “The COVID 19 Vaccine Victims & Families Group” detail the horrific health abnormalities they have suffered, including strokes, blood clots, excessive bleeding, needle-like pain in their limbs and paralysis, after receiving Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines.

Irrespective of the heartbreaking testimonies, Facebook inserts a disclaimer on each of the group members’ posts to assure users the vaccines are “safe” and “effective.”

“COVID-19 vaccines go through many tests for safety and effectiveness and are then monitored closely,” the notification states, citing the World Health Organization.

The notification directs users to Facebook’s COVID-19 information Center, which promotes the vaccine and provides locations offering vaccines in each state.

According to the CDC’s own data, the number of deaths linked to vaccines skyrocketed in 2021.

According to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database, over 1,750 Americansdied from vaccines during the first 3 months of 2021.

That number is now at 6,997.

Americans experiencing bizarre Covid vaccine injury have no legal recourse in a U.S. court of law. Drug companies have total immunity from liability if you die from their vaccines.

In February, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar of the outgoing Trump administration invoked the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act declaring COVID-19 to be “a public health emergency warranting liability protections for covered countermeasures.” The 2005 law assures companies “cannot be sued for money damages in court” over injuries related to the administration or use of products to treat or protect against Covid until 2024, unless there’s “willful misconduct” by the company

The Food and Drug Administration, which provides and approves the pharmaceutical companies’ products for mass distribution, has sovereign immunity for authorizing the vaccine for emergency use.

“You also can’t sue the Food and Drug Administration for authorizing a vaccine for emergency use, nor can you hold your employer accountable if they mandate inoculation as a condition of employment,” CNBC reports.

*

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.

Alicia is an investigative journalist and multimedia reporter. Alicia has contributed to numerous outlets, including the Gateway Pundit, Project Veritas, InfoWars, World Net Daily, Townhall.com and Media Research Center, where she exposed public corruption, fraud and abuse in government, media and Big Tech. She has a Bachelor of Science in Political Science from John Jay College of Criminal Justice. She served as a War Room analyst for the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee. She also served in the Correspondence Department of the George W. Bush administration. Alicia is originally from New York City and currently resides in Washington D.C.

All images in this article are from Gateway Pundit

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Facing growing outcry, OPCW Director General Fernando Arias went before the UN and told new falsehoods about his organization’s Syria cover-up scandal — along with more disingenuous excuses to avoid addressing it.

In the two years since the censorship of a Syria chemical weapons investigation was exposed, the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Fernando Arias, has vigorously resisted accountability.

Arias has refused to investigate or explain the extensive manipulation of the OPCW’s probe of an alleged April 2018 chlorine attack in Douma. Rather than answer calls to meet with the veteran inspectors who protested the deception, Arias has disparaged them. The OPCW Director General (DG) has even resorted to feigning ignorance about the scandal, recently claiming that “I don’t know why” the organization’s final report on Douma “was contested.”

Facing growing pressure to address the cover-up – most prominently in a “Statement of Concern” from 28 notable signatories, including five former senior OPCW officials – Arias came before the United Nations Security Council on June 3rd to answer questions in open session for the first time.

In a nod to the public outcry, Arias backtracked from a previous statement that the Douma controversy could not be revisited. But while appearing to suggest that the investigation could be reopened, Arias offered more falsehoods about the scandal, and new disingenuous excuses to avoid addressing it.

This two-part report summarizes Arias’ latest evasions and distortions, which include the following:

  • Rejecting proposals for resolving the Douma controvery, Arias invoked restrictions that do not appear to exist. Arias falsely claimed that the OPCW’s Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) has “no authority” to examine the suppressed Douma evidence. Arias also claimed that he personally has “no authority whatsoever to reopen this investigation,” even though the OPCW’s regulations contain no such limits.
  • To discredit the vast quantity of work that was done for the investigation’s original report, which found no evidence of a chlorine attack, Arias falsely stated that the “bulk” of analysis was conducted after its chief author was no longer involved. To advance this falsehood, Arias cited a fabricated figure.
  • Arias tacitly retracted a previous false claim that no state has challenged the Douma report’s conclusions. But instead of acknowledging that prior falsehood, he replaced it with a new one.
  • Arias did not answer direct questions about the documented scientific fraud in the Douma probe, and how he plans to address it. The DG ignored a question from the Russian delegation about why the Final Report omitted the conclusions of NATO member state toxicologists who ruled out chlorine gas as the cause of death. And for the third time, Arias did not respond to a question asking whether he will agree to meet with the dissenting inspectors.
  • A recent BBC podcast interviewed a purported OPCW source who discussed sensitive information and criticized the Douma whistleblowers, as well as the organization’s first Director General, José Bustani. Arias offered an absurd excuse to avoid launching an investigation, stating that he would only probe the breach of confidentiality if the BBC’s source “is identified.”
  • Arias continued to deceptively minimize the role of the key dissenting inspector, Dr. Brendan Whelan. Arias downplayed the fact that Whelan was the scientific coordinator and chief author of the team’s original report, and falsely claimed that he was only involved “in a limited capacity.”
  • Arias also continued to falsely downplay the role of the second known whistleblower, Ian Henderson. Arias’ latest distortions about Whelan and Henderson are addressed in the second part of this report.

Arias’ UN appearance was the latest chapter in a saga that has upended the world’s chemical weapons watchdog. In April 2018, the US, UK and France bombed Syria after accusing its government of committing a chemical attack in Douma. In March 2019, the OPCW released a final report that aligned with the US narrative that Syria was guilty of dropping chlorine gas cylinders on a pair of apartment buildings, including one where dozens of dead bodies were filmed. But an extraordinary trove of leaks soon exposed that the OPCW had published a whitewash.

Internal OPCW documents showed that the inspectors who investigated the Douma incident had found no evidence of a chemical weapons attack. The files also revealed gross inconsistencies in the prevailing narrative that chlorine was the cause of death. These findings, if released, would have reinforced strong indications that extremist insurgents who controlled Douma had staged the incident, just as Syrian forces were set to retake control. But the Douma evidence was concealed in a multi-stage cover-up.

Unknown senior OPCW officials were caught trying to doctor the team’s original report to falsely suggest evidence of a chemical attack. A delegation of US officials also visited the Hague and, in a highly irregular move, tried to convince the team that chlorine gas was used by the Syrian government. The bulk of the original team who deployed in Douma was sidelined, replaced by officials who, for the most part, had not even set foot in Syria. The result was a deceptive final report that erased the key findings of the censored original.

Although the OPCW leaks first surfaced in May 2019, Arias did not face direct questioning about the controversy until December of last year, when he came before the United Nations Security Council. However, Arias refused to answer in open session, and reportedly gave vague, non-substantive answers in private.

The Director General’s decision to return to the UN to answer questions in open session followed growing public pressure, led by former senior UN official Hans von Sponeck, as well as Bustani, the former OPCW chief. Arias’ reliance on falsehoods and hollow excuses offered the most stark display yet that his handling of the Douma cover-up cannot be defended in good faith.

OPCW chief falsely claims “no authority whatsoever” to address Douma cover-up

Just weeks before his UN appearance, Arias told the European Parliament on April 14th that when it comes to the OPCW’s Douma scandal, “the matter is closed.”

But when he came before the UN Security Council on June 3rd, Arias changed his tune. Rather than personally closing the door on revisiting the probe, Arias now claimed that he does not have the authority to re-open it. Arias did so by citing OPCW rules and restrictions that do not appear to exist.

Arias’ fallacious excuse came in response to a new proposal to break the impasse. In April, the Berlin Group 21 – established by former UN assistant secretary general Hans von Sponeck, former OPCW chief Jose Bustani and Richard Falk, an eminent Princeton Law Professor – put forward a way to address the dispute over the Douma report. They urged Arias to allow the OPCW’s own Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) — a subsidiary body made up of 25 independent scientific and technical experts who serve in their personal capacities — to assess the claims of the dissenting inspectors.

“The SAB possesses the necessary scientific and technical expertise,” the Berlin Group 21 statement said.  “[We] believe that leaving the scientific debate to the scientists, who best understand the issues at hand, would provide a more objective and rational approach to begin resolving this unfortunate and highly damaging controversy that surrounds the OPCW and indirectly endangers global security by eroding confidence in future findings relevant to alleged uses of chemical weapons.”

At the UN Security Council, Arias rejected this proposal, claiming that his hands are tied by the OPCW’s own regulations:

 The goal of the Scientific Advisory Board is written, in the terms of reference, is to enable the Director-General to render specialized advice in connection with very sophisticated, very complicated matters and issues related to chemicals and chemical weapons.  Which means that the SAB has no role to assess the findings of the FFM.  The FFM is entrusted to investigate and activate an investigation to produce a report.  And this report—I sign the report, I don’t touch it—it goes directly to the policymaking organs, in this case the Executive Council.  Which means that the SAB has no authority to reassess the investigation of the FFM or to assess any opinion of the inspectors produced on a personal basis.

In claiming that the SAB “has no authority to reassess” the Douma FFM’s findings, Arias is invoking a restriction that does not exist.

In citing the SAB’s terms of reference (ToR), Arias failed to mention that it – along with the Chemical Weapons Convention — explicitly allows for the establishment of a temporary working group of scientific experts to provide recommendations on “specific issues” – exactly as the Berlin Group 21 proposed. Paragraph 9 of the SAB’s ToR states:

In consultation with members of the [Scientific Advisory] Board, the Director-General may establish temporary working groups of scientific experts to provide recommendations within a specific time-frame on specific issues, in accordance with Article VIII, paragraph 45 of the [Chemical Weapons] Convention.

 Contrary to Arias’ claim, there is nothing preventing him from convening a working group of scientific experts to review the particularly “specific issue” that is the Douma investigation – arguably the most internally contested specific issue in the OPCW’s history. Yet Arias is claiming that he is somehow hindered by regulations that, in reality, explicitly grant him the authority to do exactly what he now claims he cannot.

In stating this excuse, Arias also dismissed the work of the dissenting inspectors as having been “produced on a personal basis”, and therefore not subject to reevaluation. Yet there was nothing “personal” about the Brendan Whelan authored-original report, completed in June 2018 and reviewed and sanctioned by other inspectors, including the team leader. What remains unknown is who exactly were the senior OPCW officials who personally doctored its contents – a question that Arias has refused to investigate.

Arias also offered another hollow excuse. The OPCW chief claimed that he can no longer revisit the Douma investigation because it is no longer “in the hands” of his office, but instead the policy-making organizations of the OPCW. According to Arias, that power now lies in the hands of the Executive Council, (the rotating group of 41 member states who govern the OPCW), and the full Conference of State Parties (all OPCW member states):

 I have to say that the report of the FFM directed to Douma is in the hands of the Executive Council and the Conference.  The Director-General has no authority whatsoever to reopen this investigation that concluded and was reported to the Executive Council, and through the Executive Council to the Conference.  The matter is in the hands of the policymaking organs and not of the Director-General.  The Executive Council was already seized of the matter in March 2019.

 This is the first time that the Director General has claimed that the report is out of his control, and instead “in the hands” of a higher body. In introducing this escape-hatch, Arias is now giving the appearance that in principle he no longer objects to a reopening of the investigation. In reality, he is skirting responsibility for that decision by passing it to executive bodies that have blocked any efforts to discuss the cover-up right from the start. Upon the release of the Douma final report in March 2019, the Executive Council immediately voted down a proposal to hear from all of the experts who worked on the Douma case. The US delegation lobbied to block the vote by reportedly arguing that such a hearing would be akin to “Stalinist trials.”

Contrary to Arias’ assertions, the Chemical Weapons Convention does not support his claim that once a final report is issued, it becomes “in the hands of the Executive Council and Conference.” The relevant passage of the CWC simply states that the “Director General shall promptly transmit the preliminary and final reports to the Executive Council and to all States Parties.” (Part XI of the Verification Annex to the CWC, Investigations of Alleged Uses of Chemical Weapons, Section D [Reports], paragraph 23.)

There is nothing to suggest here that the Executive Council – or the State Parties — becomes the custodian of these reports, or that the Technical Secretariat (TS), which the Director General oversees, somehow loses control over them.

This is indeed borne out by past practice. It is common for the TS to make amendments to final reports and issue them without the Executive Council’s permission. Such amendments, which are issued as official TS “Addendums” to published reports, can be minor technical or typographic corrections, but also major substantive additions.

This practice includes a previous OPCW investigation in Syria. After publishing a final report on alleged chemical attacks by insurgents in Syria in December 2015 (S/1318/2015/Rev.1), Syrian authorities invited the OPCW to return in order to collect further evidence that the report claimed was lacking. The FFM team paid a second visit to Syria one month later and published an Addendum to the final report — with details of its additional deployment — in February 2016. (S/1318/2015/Rev.1/Add.1).

The Addendum contains no mention of the Executive Council, and there is no record of any EC vote to authorize it. The opening paragraph reads:

 This addendum provides information further to “The Report of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria Regarding the Incidents Described in Communications from the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and Expatriates and Head of the National Authority of the Syrian Arab Republic” (S/1318/2015/Rev.1, dated 17 December 2015’).

 In the case of Douma, no one is even proposing that the OPCW return to Syria, as it did after issuing that final report of December 2015. The OPCW is simply being asked to hear from the Douma probe’s own inspectors, and address their complaints, including the doctoring of the mission’s original report. Arias is passing the buck to a concocted higher authority in order to avoid exercising his own.

Disparaging whistleblowers, OPCW chief cites a fabricated figure

In one of his few attempts to make a substantive claim in defense of the Douma investigation, OPCW Director General Ferando Arias has repeatedly asserted that “most of the analytical work took place” in the last six or seven months, when the dissenting inspectors were no longer part of the Douma Fact-Finding Mission (FFM). Because of this, Arias has claimed that the whistleblowers “had manifestly incomplete information on the Douma investigation,” rendering their protests “egregious.”

At the UN Security Council, Arias doubled down on this argument by adducing, for the first time, a purported figure to substantiate it. According to Arias, 70 samples were analyzed by the OPCW in the last six months of the investigation, when the dissenting inspectors were no longer involved. Arias made this claim twice:

The FFM, after Inspector B departed, worked for more than six months, during which the bulk of the results of the investigation was got by the team.  For instance, out of the more than 100 samples, around more than 70 results were brought in those last six months of the investigation.

 Of course, the bulk of the investigations related to Douma came after I arrived to the Organisation after July 2018.  Of the more than 100 samples, more than 70 good samples were analyzed after the summer of 2018.  The bulk of the investigation, the bulk of information, the bulk of analysis, of all the information that had been gathered came after the two inspectors left.” 

Arias’ claim that “more than 70” samples “were analyzed after the summer of 2018” in the “last six months of the investigation” is a demonstrable falsehood. Unless the OPCW somehow failed to report dozens of analyzed samples until now, the claim of 70 samples is a fabricated figure. In reality, the final report on Douma shows that just 44 samples were analyzed throughout the entire probe. And just 13 of those samples were analyzed after the issuing of the interim report — i.e., after the dissenting inspectors were out of the picture.

With just 44 samples analyzed for the entire probe, and just 13 new samples analyzed in the final six months, this means that 70% of the Douma investigation’s total sample analysis was in fact conducted in its first month.

Completely inverting that reality, Arias has now produced a phony figure that paints a false picture of the work conducted in the six months after the dissenting inspectors were sidelined.

According to the Final Report, 70% of the total chemical samples analyzed were analyzed in the probe’s first month. Just 13 samples were analyzed in the last seven months, undermining OPCW DG Arias’ new claim that 70 samples were analyzed in that period. (Excerpt of Aaron Maté’s UN presentation, April 16 2021)

By claiming that the “bulk of the investigation” was conducted after the whistleblowers were no longer involved, Arias is also erasing other critical areas of work conducted in the first two months and included in the suppressed original report.

As I recently detailed in a UN presentation, a comparison between the interim report of July 2018 and the final report of March 2019 shows that the vast majority of the investigation was already done in the first two months in multiple key areas: 100% of the research of the scientific literature; 87% of the total interviews had been conducted and analyzed; a meeting with four NATO toxicologists had been convened, and 98.5% of the metadata analysis of media files from Douma was undertaken. In addition, a complete epidemiological study was reported in the original report, much of which was expunged from the final report.

This means that, contrary to Arias’ claim, the bulk of the work was in fact carried out in the probe’s first two months.

Retracting one falsehood, Arias replaces it with another

At the European Parliament in April, Arias falsely claimed that no state party has challenged any of the Douma report’s conclusions, and that Russia even “agrees” with them:

The conclusions of the report, paradoxically, have never been disputed by a state party. Even the Russian delegation agrees with the conclusions.

Arias’ implausible contention was that, despite the heated two-year public dispute over the Douma investigation, no member state has challenged it. Yet Syria and Russia have vigorously challenged the report’s findings, within the OPCW itself and in a series of UN Security Council debates.

As The Grayzone has previously reported, this phony talking point was first put forward by the NATO-tied website Bellingcat last year. Bellingcat produced excerpts of a letter that it claimed was sent by Arias in June 2019 to Dr. Brendan Whelan, the key dissenting inspector. This letter, Bellingcat declared, “reveals that at a diplomatic level behind closed doors, the Russian and Syrian governments have both agreed with the conclusions of the OPCW report.”

But The Grayzone then revealed that not only was this claim ludicrous, but based on a “letter” that was never actually sent. The Grayzone obtained and published Arias’ actual letter to Whelan, which contained none of Bellingcat’s text.

In a sign that he has now recognized the fallacy of the Bellingcat-promoted talking point, Arias tacitly walked it back in his June 3rd UN appearance. But instead of acknowledging his previous error, he replaced it with a new one. Arias now claimed:

None of the 193 Member States of the OPCW have challenged the findings of the FFM that chlorine was found on the scene of the attack, in Douma.

 To support his claim about chlorine found at the scene, Arias cited a note verbal (diplomatic correspondence) from Russia:

I have here in front of me a note verbal of the Russian Embassy, dated the 26th of April 2019, note #759 that includes an attachment.  Its a Russian Federation paper, based on the conclusions of the report of the FFM in Douma.  And this note required me to disseminate this report. This note, or report attached to the note by the Russian Embassy in The Hague said, Conclusion.  The Russian Federation does not challenge the findings contained in the FFM report regarding the possible presence of molecular chlorine in the cylinders, etc.”  This is on the web page from the Organisation.

 Arias’ own source undermines his claim. Whereas Arias told the UN that no state has “challenged the findings of the FFM that chlorine was found on the scene,” his evidence for that statement – a Russian note verbal – simply states that Russia “does not challenge” that there was a “possible presence of molecular chlorine in the cylinders.”

The Russian correspondence goes on to explain why it explicitly does challenge the final report’s conclusion that chlorine was likely used as a chemical weapon. Responding to Arias at the UN, Russian Ambassador Vasily Nebenzya read the relevant passage in full:

The Russian Federation does not challenge the findings contained in the FFM report regarding the possible presence of molecular chlorine on the cylinders.  However, the parameters, characteristics and exterior of the cylinders, as well as the data obtained from the locations of those incidents, are not consistent with the argument that they were dropped from an aircraft. The existing facts more likely indicate that there is a high probability that both cylinders were placed at Locations 2 and 4 manually rather than dropped from an aircraft. Apparently the factual material contained in the report does not allow us to draw a conclusion as to the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon. On that basis, the Russian Federation insists on the version that there was false evidence and on the staged character of the incident in Douma.

Therefore, the only contention that Russia did not challenge is that of a “possible” presence of molecular chlorine in the cylinders found in Douma. That is for obvious reasons.

No one has argued that there was no possibility of a chlorine presence. There were, after all, two chlorine cylinders found at the scene, so traces of chlorine could be expected. In reality, the OPCW did not even report any finding of chlorine gas on the cylinder. They found chloride, a breakdown product of chlorine gas but also a very common substance in the environment, and in household products like table salt and other chloride salts. Chloride theoretically could have been dispersed around the cylinders.

Other possible evidence of chlorine gas use came from very low traces of various chlorine-containing organic compounds (CLOCs) found at the scene — most, if not all, of which can be present in the environment. Because the OPCW failed to test background samples – an oversight or deliberate omission that Whelan later described as scientifically indefensible – it could not determine if these trace quantities of CLOCs found at the scene pointed to chlorine gas use, or if they came from benign sources.

When challenged at the UN on his misrepresentation of the Russian note verbal, Arias did not offer a rebuttal. He instead tersely stated: “The Russian note verbale is published and that is what they have to say.”

Arias’ willingness to deceive the UN on the details of the Douma probe and the OPCW’s own capacity to address it also extends to his portrayal of the whistleblowers, as we will explain in detail in the second part of this report.

*

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

Aaron Maté is a journalist and producer. He hosts Pushback with Aaron Maté on The Grayzone. In 2019, Maté was awarded the Izzy Award (named after I.F. Stone) for outstanding achievement in independent media for his coverage of Russiagate in The Nation magazine. Previously, he was a host/producer for The Real News and Democracy Now!.

Featured image is from The Grayzone

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

One question that many people ask with regards to the events of September 11 was why the U.S. Air Force went missing in action for over 90 minutes as four lumbering commercial jets traveled around American airspace at will. Now with the death of Donald Rumsfeld, 88, the world may never know.

Prior to the attacks of 9/11, a mosquito couldn’t penetrate U.S. airspace over Washington, D.C. without being intercepted or swatted down. So what went wrong that fateful Tuesday morning? For an answer to that question it is necessary to look at the actions and non-actions of then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, second in military command only behind President George W. Bush, who was out of the loop at the time, visiting a class of elementary school students down in Florida.

Rumsfeld, as Pentagon chief, was in charge of the National Military Command Center [NMCC], which was responsible for coordinating with the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] in the event of a hijacking. But when Rumsfeld’s presence was needed more than ever before in his career, he went missing in action. So what exactly was Donald Rumsfeld doing on the morning of September 11?

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, around 9 a.m., just after American Airlines Flight 11 had slammed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, “Secretary Rumsfeld was having breakfast at the Pentagon with a group of members of Congress. He then returned to his office for his daily intelligence briefing. The Secretary was informed of the second strike in New York [9:03 am] during the briefing; he resumed the briefing while awaiting more information.”

Various individuals pleaded with the Defense Secretary to cancel his morning appointments after news that a second plane had slammed into the World Trade Center. Yet Rumsfeld rejected their desperate appeals. The first person to meet with Rumsfeld after it was clear America was under attack was CIA agent, Denny Watson, who was responsible for giving Defense Secretary his intelligence briefing each morning. At 9:03 a.m., Watson was in the anteroom of Rumsfeld’s office where she witnessed the second plane hit the South Tower live on television. Moments later, she is called into the office and, clearly aware there are more pressing matters at hand, doesn’t bother to remove the President’s Daily Brief [PDB] from her briefcase. “Sir, you just need to cancel this,” she tells Rumsfeld upon entering the office, as cited in David Priess’s book, ‘The President’s Book of Secrets’. “You’ve got more important things to do.” Rumsfeld, however, insists on going ahead with the meeting. “No, no, we’re going to do this,” he tells her.

An incredulous Watson has a seat as the Secretary of Defense flips through the PDB.

Watson was not the only person who tried to impress upon Rumsfeld the urgency of the moment. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, Victoria Clarke, wrote in her 2006 book Lipstick on a Pig that she went directly to Rumsfeld’s office after the second plane hit. “A couple of us had gone into… Secretary Rumsfeld’s office, to alert him to that, tell him that the crisis management process was starting up. He wanted to make a few phone calls.” Rumsfeld reportedly told Clarke to report to the Executive Support Center (ESC) and wait for him. Clarke would wait a long time. Yet that was not the only emergency meeting Rumsfeld failed to attend on the morning of September 11.

The acting-Deputy Director of the National Military Command Center, Captain Charles Leidig, who was substituting for Brigadier General Montague Winfield on this very morning, called an emergency ‘significant event’ conference (SIEC). According to the Commission Report, the meeting “began at 9:29, with a brief recap: two aircraft had struck the World Trade Center…” Now if that summary failed to get Rumsfeld out of his office then clearly nothing would.

At 9:37 a.m., eight minutes after Captain Leidig had called the emergency response meeting, the Pentagon was rocked by what numerous witnesses said felt like a bomb detonating inside of the complex. The Commission Report briefly describes what action Rumsfeld took next: “After the Pentagon was struck, Secretary Rumsfeld went to the parking lot to assist with rescue efforts.” Now just try and rationalize that decision.

Rumsfeld, the highest ranking commander of the U.S. military aside from the President of the United States, has taken it upon himself to inspect the crash site and assist with the search and rescue efforts. A quaint, touching story that the media happily devoured, and the Commission Report completely ignored, but an altogether implausible one. That is not to deny the claim, however, that Rumsfeld was on the front lawn of the Pentagon assisting with the rescue efforts. Indeed, there are photographs showing the Defense Secretary, with a security detail at his side, doing exactly that.

Paul Wolfowitz, in an interview with Vanity Fair, spoke glowingly about how his boss responded to the emergency: “He went charging out and down to the site where the plane had hit, which is what I would have done if I’d had my wits about me, which may or may not have been a smart thing to do, but it was. Instead, the next thing we heard was that there’d been a bomb and the building had to be evacuated. Everyone started streaming out of the building in a quite orderly way.”

So Wolfowitz is somehow of the opinion that Rumsfeld abandoning his command post and dashing outside to the Pentagon blast site, where more attacks could have been forthcoming, was the best course of action. The media papering over Rumsfeld’s disastrous actions did not stop there.

In the New York Times, journalist Andrew Cockburn provided a breathless account of Rumsfeld, the military man of impetuous action, as he inexplicably traversed about two miles around the Pentagon – each side of the Pentagon complex is around the length of three football fields – to inspect the damage site and help the wounded instead of leading the nation at its most critical hour. Brace yourself because this is classic.

“There were the flames, and bits of metal all around,” Cockburn writes, quoting Officer Aubrey Davis of the Pentagon police, who served as Rumsfeld’s personal bodyguard during this mindless morning jog. “The secretary picked up one of the pieces of metal. I was telling him he shouldn’t be interfering with a crime scene when he looked at some inscription on it and said, ‘American Airlines.’ Then someone shouted, ‘Help, over here,’ and we ran over and helped push an injured person on a gurney over to the road.”

Cockburn proceeds to pin media laurels on Rumsfeld’s chest when what the Pentagon chief really deserved was a military tribunal: “[T]hose few minutes made Rumsfeld famous, changed him from a half-forgotten twentieth-century political figure to America’s twenty-first-century warlord. On a day when the president was intermittently visible, only Rumsfeld, along with New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, gave the country an image of decisive, courageous leadership… Over time, the legend grew. One of the staffers in the office later assured me that Rumsfeld torn his shirt into strips to make bandages for the wounded …”

Keep in mind, Rumsfeld was paid to serve as chief of the military, not as a nurse.

Rumsfeld returned to the Pentagon building by 10 o’clock and despite desperate pleas from staff members, he continued to avoid the command center as if it were a leper colony. Instead, he went back to his office where he had a phone conversation with President Bush, though, as Cockburn reported, “neither man could recall what they discussed.”

Rumsfeld did not make it to the command center until 10:30 a.m., which, by that time, was too late to do anything of consequence, except to have a phone conversation with Dick Cheney, who was holed up in the basement of the White House.

As the authors of the Commission Report noted, “Secretary Rumsfeld told us he was just gaining situational awareness when he spoke with the Vice President at 10:39. His primary concern was ensuring that the pilots had a clear understanding of their rules of engagement.” Well, that concern arose about two hours too late. Rumsfeld’s presence at this point was no longer even symbolic. The emergency, for all intent and purposes, was already over. Now it was up to the media to twist this unforgivable dereliction of duty into some sort of act of heroism. And it was only too happy to comply.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Was Donald Rumsfeld Guilty of ‘Dereliction of Duty’ as Pentagon Chief on 9/11?
  • Tags: ,

‘Rule Britannia, Britannia Rule the Waves…’

July 7th, 2021 by Eric Margolis

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Time was when Britain’s mighty fleets ruled a quarter of the earth’s surface. I’ve been savoring the names of its dreadnaughts and battle cruisers like George V, Prince of Wales, Hood, Princess Royal, Iron Duke and scores of other renowned warships.

Last week, the imperial British lion made a last, feeble roar by sending one of its new anti-aircraft destroyers, ‘Defender,’ to annoy the Russians by patrolling off the south-western coast of Crimea.

Russia and Ukraine both claim Crimea, which had been Russian since 1783. After a drunken dinner, the late Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, ‘gave’ the Crimean SSR to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic.

Russia reoccupied Crimea, one of Russia’s most important naval bases, after a US-led coup overthrew Ukraine’s pro-Russian government in 2014. The UK, US and rest of NATO insist Crimea belongs to Ukraine. Of course they do. They engineered it.

HMS ‘Defender’s’ baiting the Russian bear took place while NATO naval and air forces were holding threatening war games over the southern Black Sea to intimidate Russia and embolden allies like Romania, Bulgaria and Poland, the three weak sisters of Eastern Europe.

This tempest in a teapot suddenly became a farce after a stack of soggy secret British naval documents was found behind a park bench in Kent. ‘Defender’s’ mission was discussed in them, Russia’s possible response, and, of all crazy things, potential new British operations in Afghanistan. All to please Uncle Sam, of course.

These embarrassing documents caused an uproar in Britain, made the government look like fools, and put the lie to Whitehall’s claims that the naval operation was only an innocent patrol. Britons are very intelligent people but tend to be sloppy and poorly organized. Britain has been a happy hunting ground for Soviet/Russian spies since the war.

Small wonder the French call Britain ‘perfide Albion.’ The Brits are masters at intrigue, double-dealing and propaganda. British propaganda drew the United States into two world wars. In our era, Britain has assumed leadership of western propaganda efforts against Russia and its allies.

Most Russians, who tend to be well-educated, are well aware of Great Britain’s 1853 invasion of Crimea, in league with France, the Ottoman Empire, and the then kingdom of Sardinia. The Crimean War was a bloody, three-year war designed to wrest the strategic peninsula from Tsarist control and thwart Russia’s expansion into the Balkans.

This nasty war saw the British finally storm fortress Sevastopol and temporarily reduce Russia’s influence in the Black Sea and Balkans. For France, the war was a thrilling return to military victories after the dark years of the Napoleonic wars. For Britain, it was also a triumph in spite of the disaster at Balaclava and heavy casualties due to disease. But, in the end, the war proved a stalemate: the foreign powers withdrew from Crimea and left Russia to lick it wounds.

The next serious invasion came from Germany and Romania in 1941, led by the great German general, Erich von Manstein. The second siege of Sevastopol lasted 250 days. I’ve walked over many of the old Soviet forts that so long resisted German attacks. Crimea was one of the hardest fought campaigns of WWII. Sevastopol was named one of the Soviet Union’s ‘hero cities’ for its legendary resistance.

No one who knows history should be surprised that western moves on Sevastopol and Crimea produced such a strong Russian reaction. Imagine how the US would react to a Russian naval squadron staging war games in the Gulf of Mexico or off New York City.

The point of the ‘Defender’ exercise was to humiliate Russia and show off its weakness, all part of the longer-term US/British/NATO strategy to splinter the remaining Russian Federation in a similar manner that the old Soviet Union was torn apart. That’s what the big NATO Black Sea exercise is about. There will be many more.

*

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: The Royal Navy Type 45 Destroyer, HMS Defender. (OGL v1.0)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This is a controversial report based on the findings of Spanish researchers. It remains to be fully ascertained.

What is required is to have precise details on the composition of the mRNA vaccine, from one or more samples of the drug, also including the identification of the so-called digital microchip.

Independent laboratory studies  based on several samples of all four major mRNA “vaccines” are required, namely AstraZeneka, BioNTech-Pfizer, Moderna Inc, Johnson and Johnson.

Statements pertaining to future impacts of the “vaccine” must be corroborated and confirmed.
.
Several of the statements pertaining to the dangers of the vaccine by Dr. Jane Ruby in this report are premature and cannot at this stage be corroborated.
the Spanish study must be acknowledged and taken seriously.
It should be noted that while the “fact checking” media reports deny the existence of graphene oxide in the mRNA vaccine vial, several reports confirm patent applications pertaining to the use of graphene oxide in vaccines. e.g. Nano coronavirus recombinant vaccine taking graphene oxide as carrier

***

Dr Jane Ruby joins Stew Peters to discuss a scientific report that just came out from the University of Almería School of Engineering in Spain entitled, “Graphene Oxide Detection in Aqueous Suspension: Observational Study in Optical and Electron Microscopy”, where it was found that each dose of the Pfizer shot “was found to contain 6 ng of RNA and 747 ng of graphene oxide, which is 99.103% of the medication.

 

Dr Ruby draws our attention to a 2016 study, “Toxicity of graphene-family nanoparticles [GFNs]: a general review of the origins and mechanisms”, which found, “Several typical mechanisms underlying GFN toxicity have been revealed, for instance, physical destruction, oxidative stress, DNA damage, inflammatory response, apoptosis, autophagy, and necrosis.”

She says,

“These graphene sheets that investigators found in the Pfizer vial, when they get into your system and when they start to penetrate your cells – which they have a lipid nanoparticle that pushes them into your cells – you get oxidative stress…

“It destroys literally everything inside the cell. It explodes the mitochondria. It creates a situation where the body is on a 10-Alarm fire truck and inflammation, cytokines, chemokines. This incredibly violent…inflammatory storm comes in and it has particular affinity for creating acute inflammation of the lungs, it creates an inflammatory storm in cardiac tissue and in brain tissue.

“Stew, this is going to tie directly to strokes, to the heart attacks – and we’re giving this to pregnant mothers and babies? This is really something everybody’s gotta start paying attention to.”

Stew asks her if graphene oxide is a poison and she responds, “It is most definitely a poison.”

Stew says,

“Spanish researchers have found that over 99% of the Pfizer vaccine is graphene oxide, is that right?”

“That’s right. Stew, there’s no other reason for this to be in there except to murder people… If the rest of the companies that are pushing these jabs, all four of the companies in the US are filled with 99% of this toxic industrial chemical, I don’t know what to say to you but everybody better shut everything down right now. This is really dangerous.”

Stew replies,

“This is horrific. I get chills listening to this. I don’t know why the media’s not picking any of this up. They’re in on it. They want you dead. They’re part of the murder plot…

“OK, let me ask you question. Aside from pre-meditated murder, what might be another motivation for one to fill another person’s body, their entire make-up with this graphene oxide? What else does this stuff do, other than poison and kill people?”

She responds,

“The only other explanation I could come up with, as a scientist, myself is that this is a mass-uninformed, without-consent global experiment, because they’ve never been able to get this into humans on an experimental basis.”

Stew asks,

“When they authorized this for emergency use, the efficacy was broadcast everywhere – fake, false lies, complete lies – they said that this thing killed the coronavirus, known as COVID-19, 98.6% success rate, whatever – how can they prove that? Was that just a lie? Did they just make up an arbitrary number? Is that documented anywhere? Does thing really delete or combat the SARS-CoV-2 virus?”

She replies,

“Stew, I’m going to go back to the beginning. The PCR test is a fraud perpetrated by Christian Drosten and Olfert Landt. The coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated, its protein sequences have never been demonstrated or validated, no one can prove to us that it ever really existed.

“Did something exist last year? Something flying around now that’s a flu? Lots of different versions of the Common Cold? Yes, yes and yes. But no one’s ever proven or shown an isolate; verified an isolate of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. That’s number one.

“And I want to add one more thing. These Spanish researchers in the group said that when you look at the different symptoms at whatever was the SARS-CoV-2 from last year, or a few residual cases now, they are all symptoms that would also be caused by excess graphene oxide in your body: the storm in the lungs – and by the way, they’re preparing an inhalant version of this “vaccine”. And God help us, Stew, because it’s more potent, it goes right into the lungs and it creates a pulmonary storm of pneumonia right away and you’re gonna see, if they get this into Emergency Use Authorization, you’re gonna start seeing respiratory flash pneumonias and rapid deaths…

“Since the Nuremberg Trials, you cannot experiment on human beings, regardless of the drug, the disease state, you cannot do it without the approval of a Human Subjects Review Board. That’s an independent board that approves your protocol and your informed consent, which no one’s ever seen – a real informed consent about these jabs…

“There’s also some information coming in and we’re going to see more and more of it and we’re going to talk about it, of the fact that when you get your body filled with enough graphene oxide, with the warmth of your body and…if it draws the oxygen into it, that [the graphene oxide] can be manipulated and your body can be affected by…the 5G network, which we haven’t seen be completely set up and rolled-out yet and so there’s a lot of concern around that. 

“At that point, it’ll just be the residual people who haven’t died of lung or heart disease from this excess toxic chemical.”

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Reports that US and British aircraft carrying arms to ISIS were shot down by Iraqi forces (Iraqi News 2015) were met with shock and denial in western countries. Yet few in the Middle East doubt that Washington is playing a ‘double game’ with its proxy armies in Syria. A Yemeni Ansar Allah leader says ‘Wherever there is U.S. interference, there is al Qaeda and ISIS. It’s to their advantage’ (al-Bukaiti 2015). However key myths remain important, especially to western audiences. Engaging with those myths calls for reason and evidence, not just assertion.

There is no doubt that the Arab and Muslim peoples of the Middle East hate the terrorist monstrosity called ISIS, ISIL or DAESH.

Polling by the Washington-based Pew Research Centre found that 99% of Lebanese, 94% of Jordanians and 84% of Palestinians had an ‘unfavourable’ view of ISIS. As Lebanon’s constitutional system requires sectarian identification it was also found that 98% of Lebanese Sunni Muslims rejected ISIS (Poushter 2015). That latter finding discredits the common western assertion that ISIS somehow springs from Sunni communities. Less than 1% in Lebanon, 3% in Jordan and 6% in Palestine viewed the banned terrorist group favourably. The remainder did not express an opinion. Of all Syria’s neighbours, Turkey had the lowest ‘unfavourable’ view of ISIS, at 73%; the favourable score was 8% (Poushter 2015). The aim of this chapter is to help clarify what role Washington has had in creating or turning loose this Frankenstein’s monster.

Washington maintains two closely linked myths as regards terrorism in the Middle East. Then there is a ‘fall-back’ story.

The first ‘existential myth’ is that, from 2014, the US became engaged in a war against extremist terrorists, in both Iraq and Syria. This followed several years of trying to topple the Syrian Government by backing illegal armed groups, which it calls ‘moderate’. Through this myth the US claims to be playing a protective role for the benefit of the peoples of the region. The second myth is that there is a significant difference between the ‘moderate rebels’ the US arms, finances and trains, and the extremist terrorists (DAESH or ISIS) it claims to be fighting.

These claims represented a shift in the rationale for the war on Syria, from one of ‘humanitarian intervention’ to a revival of the Bush era ‘war on terror’. The ‘fall back’ story, advanced by some of Washington’s domestic critics, is that US practice in the region has created a climate of resentment amongst orthodox Sunni Muslim communities, and the extremist groups emerged as a type of ‘organic reaction’ from those communities to repeated US interventions. This story hides the more damaging conclusion that Washington and its allies directly created the extremist groups.

However there is little point in simply asserting that last version, without evidence. The ‘existential myth’ of a western war on terrorism is so insistent and pervasive, and backed by such a commitment in political capital, arms and finance, that it is very difficult for western audiences to accept this new ‘war’ might be a charade. Further, diplomacy requires that stated policy positions be pursued to their logical conclusions, and that the aims be tested. For these reasons I suggest we should document the key elements of evidence, on Washington’s relationship with the sectarian terrorists. After that we can draw better informed conclusions.

It is certainly true that prominent ISIS leaders were held in US prisons. The Afghan recruiter for ISIS, Abdul Rahim Muslim Dost, spent three years in the US prison at Guantanamo (Bienaimé 2015). ISIS leader, Ibrahim al-Badri (aka Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) is said to have been held for between one and two years at Camp Bucca in Iraq (Giovanni 2014). In 2006, as al-Baghdadi and others were released, the Bush administration announced its plan for a ‘New Middle East’, a plan which would employ sectarian violence as part of a process of ‘creative destruction’ in the region (Nazemroaya 2006). While there have been claims that al-Baghdadi is a CIA or Mossad trained agent, these have not yet been backed up with evidence.

Nevertheless, according to Seymour Hersh’s article, ‘The Redirection’, the US planned to make use of ‘moderate Sunni states’, in particular the Saudis, to contain alleged ‘Shiia gains’ in Iraq brought about by the 2003 US invasion. These ‘moderate Sunni’ forces would carry out clandestine operations to weaken Iran and Hezbollah, key enemies of Israel (Hersh 2007). This plan brought the Saudis and Israel closer as, for somewhat different reasons, both fear Iran.

In mid-2012, US intelligence reported two important facts about the violence in Syria. Firstly, most of the armed ‘insurgency’ was being driven by extremist al Qaeda groups, and second, the sectarian aim of those groups was ‘exactly’ what the US and its allies wanted. The DIA wrote:

‘The Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria … There is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers [The West, Gulf monarchies and Turkey] to the [Syrian] opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime’ (DIA 2012).

The US also observed (and certainly did not stop) the channelling of arms from Benghazi in Libya to ‘al Qaeda groups’ in Syria, in August 2012. These arms were detailed as including 500 Sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 rounds and 400 howitzers missiles, of 125mm and 155mm calibre, all shipped to the Ports of Banias and Borj Islam, in Syria (Judicial Watch 2015). According to Michael Flynn, the former head of the DIA, and consistent with that intelligence, President Obama made a ‘wilful decision’ to support al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other ‘jihadist’ groups (Newman 2015). This all confirms motive, complicity and consistency of the process, from the early days of the Syrian conflict, building on former President Bush’s ‘New Middle East’ plan. Washington covertly approved the arming of al Qaeda groups in Syria, seeing its own advantage in that.

Probably the most convincing confirmation of US complicity with its terrorist ‘enemy’ has been the admissions from several senior officials that their main regional allies have financed ISIS. Those officials include the US Vice-President, the head of the US Armed Forces and the Chair of the US Armed Forces Committee. In September 2014 General Martin Dempsey, head of the US military, told a Congressional hearing ‘I know major Arab allies who fund [ISIS]’ (Rothman 2014). Senator Lindsey Graham, of the Armed Services Committee, responded with a justification, ‘They fund them because the Free Syrian Army couldn’t fight [Syrian President] Assad, they were trying to beat Assad’ (Rothman 2014; Washington’s Blog 2014). These were honest, if criminal, admissions.

The next month, US Vice President Joe Biden went a step further, explaining that Turkey, Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia ‘were so determined to take down Assad … they poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad … [including] al Nusra and al Qaeda and extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world … [and then] this outfit called ISIL’ (RT 2014; Usher 2014). Once again, these were consistent and credible admissions, except that Biden sought to exempt the US from this operation by blaming key allies. That caveat is simply not credible. The Saudis in particular are politically dependent on Washington and could not mount any major initiative without US approval. Not only that, the US systematically controls, by purchase contract and re-export license, the use of its weapons (Export.Gov 2015).

Washington’s relationship with the Saudis, as a divisive sectarian force in the region against Arab nationalism, goes back to the 1950s, when Winston Churchill introduced the Saudi King to President Eisenhower. More recently, British General Jonathan Shaw acknowledged the contribution of Saudi Arabia’s extremist ideology: ‘this is a time bomb that, under the guise of education. Wahhabi Salafism is igniting under the world really. And it is funded by Saudi and Qatari money’, Shaw said (Blair 2014). He was right.

Other evidence undermines western attempts to maintain a distinction between what came to be called the ‘moderate rebels’, by 2013 openly armed and trained by the US, and supposedly more extreme groups such as Jabhat al Nusra and ISIS. While there has indeed been some rivalry, the absence of real ideological difference is best shown by cooperation and mergers. For example the collection of US-backed groups called the ‘Free Syrian Army’ fought alongside ISIS and against the Syrian Army for several months in 2013, to gain control of Syria’s Menagh air base, near Aleppo (Paraszczuk 2013). Hoff points out that one of the ISIS commanders in the Menagh operation, Chechen Abu Omar al Shisani, ‘received American military training as part of an elite Georgian army unit in 2006’ and continued to receive US support in 2013, through his FSA alliance (Hoff 2015).

Long term cooperation between these ‘moderate rebels’ and the foreign-led Jabhat al-Nusra was seen around Daraa in the south, along the mountainous Lebanese border, in Homs-Idlib, along the Turkish border and in and around Aleppo. The words Jabhat al Nusra actually mean ‘support front’, that is, foreign support for the Syrian Islamists. Back in December 2012, as Jabhat al Nusra was banned in various countries, 29 of these groups reciprocated the solidarity in their declaration: ‘We are all Jabhat al-Nusra’ (West 2012). Soon after the 29 group signatories became ‘more than 100’ (Zelin 2012). There was never any real ideological difference between these sectarian anti-government groups.

The decline of the ‘Free Syrian Army’ network and the renewed cooperation between al Nusra and the string of reinvented US and Saudi backed groups (Dawud, the Islamic Front, the Syrian Revolutionary Front, Harakat Hazm) helped draw attention to Israel’s support for al Nusra, around the occupied Golan Heights. Since 2013 there have been many reports of ‘rebel’ fighters, including those from al Nusra, being treated in Israeli hospitals (Zoabi 2014). Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even publicised his visit to wounded ‘rebels’ in early 2014. That led to a public ‘thank you’ from a Turkey-based ‘rebel’ leader, Mohammed Badie (Israel Today 2014). Semi-covertly, Israel backed all the armed groups against Syria, occasionally assisting them with its own missile attacks (Kais 2013).

The UN peacekeeping force based in the occupied Golan reported its observations of the Israeli Defence Forces ‘interacting with’ al Nusra fighters at the border (Fitzgerald 2014). At the same time, Israeli arms were captured by Syrian forces from the extremist groups (Kais 2012; Winer 2013). In November 2014 members of the Druze minority in the Golan protested against Israeli hospitals being used to help wounded al Nusra and ISIS fighters (Zoabi 2014). This led to questions by the Israeli media, as to whether ‘Israel does, in fact, hospitalize members of al-Nusra and Daesh [ISIS]’. A military spokesman’s reply was hardly a denial: ‘In the past two years the Israel Defence Forces have been engaged in humanitarian, life-saving aid to wounded Syrians, irrespective of their identity’ (Zoabi 2014). In fact, not even a humble farmer gets across the heavily militarised Occupied Golan border to retrieve a stray goat. ‘Humanitarian’ treatment for al Qaeda terrorists is different.

The artificial distinction between ‘rebel’ and ‘extremist’ groups has been mocked by multiple reports of large scale defections and transfer of weapons, to the extremists. In July 2014 one thousand armed men in the Dawud Brigade defected to ISIS in Raqqa (Hamadee and Gutman 2014; Ditz 2014). In November defections to Jabhat al Nusra from the US-backed Syrian Revolutionary Front were reported (Newman 2014; Sly 2014).

In December, Adib Al-Shishakli, representative at the Gulf Cooperation Council of the exile ‘Syrian National Coalition’, said ‘opposition fighters’ were ‘increasingly joining’ ISIS ‘for financial reasons’ (Zayabi 2014). In that same month, the Al Yarmouk Shuhada Brigades, backed and trained for two years by US officers, were reported as defecting to ISIS, which had by this time began to establish a presence in Syria’s far south (OSNet 2014). Then, over 2014-2015, three thousand ‘moderate rebels’ from the US-backed ‘Harakat Hazzm’ collapsed into Jabhat al Nusra, taking a large stock of US arms including anti-tank weapons with them (Fadel 2015a). Video posted by al-Nusra showed these weapons being used to take over the Syrian military bases, Wadi Deif and Hamidiyeh, in Idlib province (Bacchi 2015). Debka File, a site linked to Israeli intelligence, says the heavy weaponry provided to the Syrian ‘opposition’ by the USA, Israel, the Saudis, Jordan, Turkey and Qatar includes tanks, armoured vehicles, rockets launchers, machine-guns, anti-aircraft weapons and ‘at least four types of anti-tank weapons’ (Debka 2015). The scale and consistency of the ‘defections’ strongly suggests management to channel these arms, along with fighters, to make ISIS the best equipped group. A similar conclusion was noted by US Senator John Kiriakou (Sputnik 2015b).

Recruitment of fighters for ISIS was certainly a heavily financed affair, and not an ‘organic’ drift of resentful ‘Sunni’ youth. In late 2014 the Afghan Abdul Rahim Muslim Dost was said to be ‘leading efforts in northern Pakistan to recruit fighters for ISIS’ (Bienaimé 2015). Soon after this report, Syrian jihadist Yousaf al Salafi, arrested in Pakistan, said he had been hired to recruit young men in Pakistan to fight with ISIS in Syria. He says he received $600 for each fighter he sent, working with a Pakistani sheikh and using US money (Variyar 2015). Who knows what the middle-men took, but this sum is several times the salary of an average Syrian soldier. As with Jabhat al Nusra, recruits came from a wide range of countries. Cuban journalists interviewed four captured ISIS jihadists from Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan. They were recruited in a larger group which had passed freely through Turkey and across the border into Syria. They were assisted to participate in this ‘holy war’ by offers of a house, a good salary and a bride. More than 300 people were killed by their car bombs (PL 2015).

ISIS had US weapons by various means in both Iraq and Syria when, in late 2014, a ‘non-aggression pact’ was reported in the southern area of Hajar al-Aswad between ‘moderate rebels’ and ISIS, as both recognised a common enemy in Syria: ‘the Nussayri regime’, a sectarian way of referring to Alawi Muslims. Some reported ISIS had purchased weapons from the ‘rebels’ (AFP 2015).

With ‘major Arab allies’ directly backing ISIS and a steady stream of fighters and arms passing to ISIS from the collapsing US-backed ‘moderate rebel’ groups, it is a small leap to recognise that US and ‘coalition’ flights to ISIS areas (supposedly to ‘degrade’ the extremists) might also have become covert supply lines. That is precisely what senior Iraqi sources began saying, in late 2014 and early 2015 (Iraq News 2014). In mid-2014 ISIS began seizing US weapons, but this was put down to incompetence on the part of the Iraqi Army (Sharma and Nestel 2014).

However, soon after that, US air drops of arms were seized by ISIS troops on the ground. Was this US incompetence or US planning? As reported by both Iraqi and Iranian media, Iraqi MP Majid al-Ghraoui said in January that ‘an American aircraft dropped a load of weapons and equipment to the ISIS group militants at the area of al-Dour in the province of Salahuddin’ (Sarhan 2015). Photos were published of ISIS retrieving the weapons. The US admitted seizures of its weapons but said this was a ‘mistake’ (MacAskill and Chulov 2014). Then in February Iraqi MP Hakem al-Zameli said the Iraqi army had shot down two British planes which were carrying weapons to ISIS in al-Anbar province. Again, photos were published of the wrecked planes. ‘We have discovered weapons made in the US, European countries and Israel from the areas liberated from ISIL’s control in Al-Baqdadi region’, al-Zameli said (FNA 2015a).

The Al-Ahad news website quoted Head of Al-Anbar Provincial Council Khalaf Tarmouz saying that a US plane supplied the ISIL terrorist organization with arms and ammunition in Salahuddin province (FNA 2015b). Also in February an Iraqi militia called Al-Hashad Al-Shabi said they had shot down a US Army helicopter carrying weapons for ISIL in the western parts of Al-Baqdadi region in Al-Anbar province. Again, photos were published (FNA 2015a). After that, Iraqi counter-terrorism forces were reported as having arrested ‘four foreigners who were employed as military advisors to the ISIL fighters’, three of whom were American and Israeli (Adl 2015). Israel’s link to ISIS seems to have passed well beyond its border areas. In late 2015 an Israeli Colonel Yusi Oulen Shahak was said to have been arrested with an ISIS group in Iraq.

The Iraqi Government linked militia said Shahak, from the Golani brigade, was a colonel who ‘had participated in the Takfiri ISIL group’s terrorist operations’ (FNA 2015c). Six senior Iraqi officials have been cited detailing US weaponry and intelligence support for ISIS. Captured ISIS fighters said the US had provided ‘intelligence about the Iraqi forces’ positions and targets’ (FNA 2015d). The western media avoided these stories altogether, because they are very damaging to Washington’s ‘existential myth’ of a ‘War on ISIS’. However they certainly help explain why Baghdad does not trust the US military.

In Libya in 2015 a key US collaborator in the overthrow of the Gaddafi government announced himself the newly declared head of the ‘Islamic State’ in North Africa (Sputnik 2015a). Abdel Hakim Belhaj was held in US prisons for several years, then ‘rendered’ to Gaddafi’s Libya, where he was wanted for terrorist acts. As former head of the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, then the Tripoli-based ‘Libyan Dawn’ group, Belhaj was, in the past, defended by Washington and praised by US Congressmen John McCain and Lindsey Graham (Sputnik 2015a).

Evidence of the covert relationship between Washington and ISIS is substantial and helps explain what Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Faysal Mikdad called Washington’s ‘cosmetic war’ on ISIS (SANA 2015). The terrorist group was herded away from the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq but allowed to operate freely in Eastern Syria, against the Syrian Army (Fadel 2015b). The extremist group is used to justify a foothold Washington keeps in the region, weakening both Syria and Iraq. But Washington’s ‘war’ on ISIS has been ineffective. Studies by Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgent database showed that ISIS attacks and killings in Iraq increased strongly in the months after US air attacks began (Lestch 2014). The main on-the-ground fighting has been carried out by the Syrian Army, with its allies, and the Iraqi armed forces, with support from Iran (Lister 2015).

All this has been reported perversely in the western media. The same channels that prominently report (virtually celebrating) the ISIS killing of Syrian soldiers have also claimed the Syrian Army was avoiding or ‘not fighting’ ISIS (Richter 2014; Vinograd and Omar 2014). That alleged ‘unwillingness’ was part of the justification for US bombing inside Syria, another false pretext. While it is certainly the case that Syrian priorities remained in the heavily populated west, multiple media reports make it clear that, well before the strikes by the Russian air force in October 2015, the Syrian Arab Army was the major force engaged with ISIS (YNet 2014; al Arabiya 2014; Reuters 2015), as also suffering the worst casualties from that terrorist group (Webb 2014). When it comes to avoiding ISIS, the reverse has been the case. The evidence tells us that Washington’s lack of will against ISIS is linked to the fact that the terrorist group remains a key tool against the Syrian Government. That also explains why the US refuses to coordinate with the Syrian Army against ISIS (King 2015). This is consistent with the central ongoing aim of ‘regime change’ in Damascus or, failing that, dismemberment of the country. Such an aim was rejected by the US and others at a Vienna conference (Daily Star 2015); but US practice speaks louder than its words.

The contradictions of the US position – of claiming to fight ISIS while covertly protecting it – were thrown into sharp relief when in late September 2015 Russia decided to add air power to the Syrian Army’s efforts, against all the terrorist groups. When the US refused to cooperate with Russia, Washington’s media and NGO cheer squads immediately shifted their chorus of Syrian Government ‘killing civilians’ to that of Russia ‘killing civilians’. That had little effect on matters. At the time of writing, with that powerful Russian assistance, ISIS and the others are retreating and the Syrian Arab Army and its allied militia are gradually reclaiming areas that have been occupied for some time (AFP 2015).

Closer cooperation between Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon’s Hezbollah threaten to seriously degrade US dominance in the region. In the Iraqi military’s recent offensive on ISIS-held Tikrit, the Iranian military emerged as Iraq’s main partner. Washington was sidelined, causing consternation in the US media. General Qasem Suleimani, head of Iran’s Quds Force was said to have been a leading player in the Tikrit operation (Rosen 2015). Not least amongst the new developments has been the creation of an intelligence centre based in Baghdad and shared by Russia, Syria, Iraq and Iran plus Hezbollah (4+1). This signals a new measure of independence for the Baghdad government, long thought to be a puppet captured by Washington (Boyer and Scarborough 2015).

This article has presented sufficient evidence for us to safely draw these conclusions.

First, Washington planned a bloody wave of regime change in its favour in the Middle East, getting allies such as the Saudis to use sectarian forces in a process of ‘creative destruction’.

Second, the US directly financed and armed a range of so-called ‘moderate’ terrorist groups against the sovereign state of Syria while its key allies the Saudis, Qatar, Israel and Turkey financed, armed and supported with arms and medical treatment every anti-Syrian armed group, whether ‘moderate’ or extreme.

Third, ‘jihadists’ for Jabhat al Nusra and ISIS were actively recruited in many countries, indicating that the rise of those groups was not due to a simple anti-western ‘Sunni’ reaction within the region.

Fourth, NATO member Turkey functioned as a ‘free transit zone’ for every type of terrorist group passing into Syria.

Fifth, there is testimony from a significant number of senior Iraqi officials that US arms have been delivered directly to ISIS.

Sixth, the ineffective, or at best selective, US ‘war’ against ISIS tends to corroborate the Iraqi and Syrian views that there is a controlling relationship. In sum we can conclude that the US has built a command relationship with all of the anti-Syrian terrorist groups, including al Nusra ISIS, either directly or through its close regional allies, the Saudis, Qatar, Israel and Turkey. Washington has attempted to play a ‘double game’ in Syria and Iraq, using its old doctrine of ‘plausible deniability’ to maintain the fiction of a ‘war on terrorism’ for as long as is possible.

*

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

Sources

Adl, Carol (2015) ‘US, Israeli Military Advisors Arrested In Iraq, Accused Of Aiding ISIS’, Your News Wire, 7 March, online: http://yournewswire.com/us-israeli-military-advisors-arrested-in-iraq-accused-of-aiding-isis/

AFP (2014) ‘Syria rebels, IS in ‘non-aggression’ pact near Damascus’, Global Post, 13 September, online: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/140912/syria-rebels-non-aggression-pact-near-damascus

AFP (2015) ‘Syria gaining ground in ‘nearly every front’’, The Daily Star, 23 November, online: http://www.thedailystar.net/world/syria-gaining-ground-nearly-every-front-176662

Anderson, Tim (2015) ‘Daraa 2011: Syria’s Islamist Insurrection in Disguise’, Global Research, 5 July, online: http://www.globalresearch.ca/daraa-2011-syrias-islamist-insurrection-in-disguise/5460547

Arabiya al (2014) ‘Syrian Govt. bombs ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, 63 killed’, 25 November, online: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/11/26/-Syrian-government-airstrikes-kill-63-in-Raqqa-monitor.html

Bacchi, Umberto (2015) ‘Syria: al-Qaeda Nusra Front shows off huge cache of US weapons seized from moderate Harakat Hazm rebels’, International Business Times, 4 March, online: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-al-qaeda-nusra-front-shows-off-us-weapons-seized-moderate-harakat-hazm-rebels-1490378

Bienaimé, Pierre (2014) ‘ISIS Now Has A Point Man Recruiting Fighters In Pakistan’, Business Insider, 20 November, online: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/isis-now-has-a-point-man-recruiting-fighters-in-pakistan-2014-11

Blair, David (2014) ‘Qatar and Saudi Arabia ‘have ignited time bomb by funding global spread of radical Islam’, Telegraph, 4 October, online: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11140860/Qatar-and-Saudi-Arabia-have-ignited-time-bomb-by-funding-global-spread-of-radical-Islam.html

Blanford, Nicholas (2011) ‘Assad regime may be gaining upper hand in Syria’, Christina Science Monitor, 13 May, online: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0513/Assad-regime-may-be-gaining-upper-hand-in-Syria

Boyer, Dave and Rowan Scarborough (2015) ‘White House alarmed as Iraq uses intelligence center operated by Russia, Iran, Syria’, Washington Times, 13 October, online: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/13/iraq-uses-intelligence-center-operated-by-russia-i/?page=all

Bukaiti al, Mohammed (2015) ‘Yemen’s Hidden War’, Rolling Stone, October, Issue 767, p.82; also online: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/yemens-hidden-war-20150730

Curtis, Mark (2012) Secret Affairs: Britain’s collusion with radical Islam, Serpent’s Tail, London

Daily Star (2015) ‘Moallem welcomes Vienna statement on Syria’, 2 November, online: https://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Nov-02/321197-moallem-welcomes-vienna-statement-on-syria.ashx

Debka (2015) ‘Assad loses battles as US, Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Qatar and UAE arm Al Qaeda’s Syrian branches’, 4 May, online: http://www.debka.com/article/24578/Assad-loses-battles-as-US-Israel-Turkey-Jordan-Qatar-and-UAE-arm-Al-Qaeda%E2%80%99s-Syrian-branches

DIA (2012) Intelligence Report ‘R 050839Z Aug 2012’ in Judicial Watch, Pgs. 287-293 (291) JW v DOD and State 14-812, 18 May, online: http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/pgs-287-293-291-jw-v-dod-and-state-14-812-2/

Ditz, Jason (2014) ‘1,000-Strong Syrian Rebel Brigade Defects to ISIS: FSA Rebels Demand US Arms, Threaten to Quit War’, Anti-War.Com, 8 July, online: http://news.antiwar.com/2014/07/08/1000-strong-syrian-rebel-brigade-defects-to-isis/

Export.Gov (2015) ‘Dual Use Export Licenses’, US Export Agency, online: http://www.export.gov/regulation/eg_main_018229.asp

Fadel, Leith (2015a) ‘The Last of the “Moderates” – Harakat Hazzm Disbands to Join Islamists’, Al Masdar, 2 march, online: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/last-moderates-harakat-hazzm-disbands-join-islamists/

Fadel, Leith (2015b) ‘Anti-ISIS Coalition Uses ISIS to Fight Assad in Favor of the Rebels’, Al Masdar, 2 October, online: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/anti-isis-coalition-uses-isis-to-fight-assad-in-favor-of-the-rebels/

Fitzgerald, Denis (2014) ‘UN peacekeepers observe IDF interacting with al Nusra in Golan’, UN Tribune, 4 December, online: http://untribune.com/un-peacekeepers-observe-idf-interacting-al-nusra-golan/

FNA (2015a) ‘Iraq’s Popular Forces Release Photo of Downed US Chopper Carrying Arms for ISIL’, Fars News Agency, 28 February, online: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13931209001345

FNA (2015b) ‘Iraqi Army Downs Two British Planes Carrying Weapons for ISIL Terrorists’, Global research, 24 February, online: http://www.globalresearch.ca/iraqi-army-downs-two-british-planes-carrying-weapons-for-isil-terrorists/5433089

FNA (2015c) ‘Israeli Colonel Leading ISIL Terrorists Captured in Iraq’, Fars News Agency, 22 October, online: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940730000210

FNA (2015d) ‘Captured ISIL leaders in Iraq confess receiving intelligence support from US’, Fars New Agency, SOTT, 25 October, online: http://www.sott.net/article/304825-Captured-ISIL-leaders-in-Iraq-confess-receiving-intelligence-support-from-US

Giovanni di, Janine (2014) ‘Who Is ISIS Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi?’ Newsweek, 8 December, online: http://www.newsweek.com/2014/12/19/who-isis-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-290081.html

Hamadee al, Mousab and Roy Gutman (2014) ‘1,000 Syrian rebels defect to Islamic State in sign it’s still strengthening’, McClatchy, 8 July, online: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/middle-east/article24770164.html

Hersh, Seymour (2007) The Redirection’, The New Yorker, 5 March, online: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

Hoff, Brad (2015) ‘ISIS Leader Omar al-Shishani Fought Under U.S. Umbrella as Late as 2013’, Levant Report, 18 September, online: http://levantreport.com/tag/menagh-airbase/

Iraqi News (2015) American aircraft dropped weapons to ISIS, says MP, 4 January, online: http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/american-aircraft-airdropped-weapons-to-isis-says-mp/

Israel Today (2014) ‘Syrian Rebels Thank Netanyahu for Israel’s Compassion’, 23 February, online: http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/24453/Default.aspx

Judicial Watch (2015) ‘Judicial Watch: Defense, State Department Documents Reveal Obama Administration Knew that al Qaeda Terrorists Had Planned Benghazi Attack 10 Days in Advance’, 18 May, online: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defense-state-department-documents-reveal-obama-administration-knew-that-al-qaeda-terrorists-had-planned-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance/

Kais, Roi (2012) ‘Syria: Rebels use Israeli arms’, YNet, 27 January, online: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4181733,00.html

Kais, Roi (2013) ‘US confirms: Israel attacked Syrian missile base’, YNet, 31 October, online: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4448123,00.html

King, Justin (2015) ‘Mounting Evidence Shows US Does Not Want ISIS Defeated’, Mint Press, 24 February, online: http://www.mintpressnews.com/mounting-evidence-shows-us-does-not-want-isis-defeated/202479/

Lestch, Corrinne (2014) ‘U.S. airstrikes fail to slow down brutal ISIS attacks: report’, Daily News, 14 November, online: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/u-s-airstrikes-fail-reduce-brutal-isis-attacks-report-article-1.2011021

Lister, Tim (2015) ‘Battle for Tikrit: Despite billions in aid, Iraqi army relies on militia, and Iran’, CNN, 11 March, online: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/11/middleeast/lister-iraq-iran/

MacAskill, Ewen and Martin Chulov (2014) ‘Isis apparently takes control of US weapons airdrop intended for Kurds’, Guardian, 22 October, online: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/22/isis-us-airdrop-weapons-pentagon

Nazemroaya, Mahdi Darius (2006) Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a ‘New Middle East’, Global Research, 18 November, online: http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882

Newman, Alex (2014) ‘“Moderate” Rebels Armed by Obama Join al-Qaeda, ISIS’, New American, 21 November, online: http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/19583-moderate-rebels-armed-by-obama-join-al-qaeda-isis

Newman, Alex (2015) ‘U.S. Defense Intel Chief: Obama Gave “Wilful” Aid to Al-Qaeda’, New American, 11 August, online: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/21384-u-s-defense-intel-chief-obama-gave-willful-aid-to-al-qaeda

Paraszczuk, Joanna (2013) ‘Syria Analysis: Which Insurgents Captured Menagh Airbase — & Who Led Them? EA Worldview, 7 August, online: http://eaworldview.com/2013/08/syria-feature-which-insurgents-captured-the-menagh-airbase/

PL (2015) ‘Yihadistas revelan cómo se reclutan militantes para el Estado Islámico’, CubaDebate, 25 June, online: http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2015/06/25/yihadistas-arrestados-en-siria-revelan-como-ee-uu-recluta/#.ViwjaSv9iF_

Poushter, Jacob (2015) ‘In nations with significant Muslim populations, much disdain for ISIS’, Pew Research Centre, 17 November, online: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/17/in-nations-with-significant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/

Putin, Vladimir (2015) ‘Who are Syria’s moderate rebels?’ Daily Star, 24 October, online: http://www.thedailystar.net/world/who-are-syrias-moderate-rebels-161989

OSNet (2014) ‘Syrian rebels in the Golan defect to ISIS’, OS Net daily, December, online: http://osnetdaily.com/2014/12/syrian-rebels-golan-defect-isis/

Reuters (2015) ‘Syrian air strike kills two Islamic State commanders’, 7 March, online: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/03/07/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-islamicstate-idUKKBN0M30F320150307

Richter, Greg (2014) ‘Syrian National Coalition President: Assad, ISIS Not Fighting Each Other’, NewsMax, 30 September, online: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/syrian-coalition-assad-isis/2014/09/30/id/597645/

Rosen, James (2015) ‘Quds force leader, commanding Iraqi forces against ISIS, alarms Washington’, Fox News, 5 March, online: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/05/iran-quds-force-leader-commanding-iraqi-forces-against-isis-alarms-americans/

Rothman, Noah (2014) ‘Dempsey: I know of Arab allies who fund ISIS’, YouTube, 16 September, online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA39iVSo7XE

RT (2014) ‘Anyone but US! Biden blames allies for ISIS rise’, 3 October, online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11l8nLZNPSY

SANA (2015) ‘Mikdad: US Turkish agreement to arm and train terrorists means failure of de Mistura initiative’, Syrian Arab News Agency, 21 February, online: http://www.sana.sy/en/?p=29385

Sarhan, Amre (2015) ‘American aircraft dropped weapons to ISIS, says MP’, Iraqi News, 4 January, online: http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/american-aircraft-airdropped-weapons-to-isis-says-mp/

Sharma, Versha and M.L. Nestel (2014) ‘Terrorists Seize U.S. Weapons in Iraq’, Vocativ, 16 June, online: http://www.vocativ.com/world/iraq-world/terrorists-seize-u-s-weapons-iraq/

Sly, Liz (2014) ‘U.S.-backed Syria rebels routed by fighters linked to al-Qaeda’, Washington Post, 2 November, online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-backed-syria-rebels-routed-by-fighters-linked-to-al-qaeda/2014/11/02/7a8b1351-8fb7-4f7e-a477-66ec0a0aaf34_story.html

Sputnik (2015a) ‘US Ally in Libya Joins ISIL and Leads Its Forces in the Country – Reports’, 3 May, online: http://sputniknews.com/news/20150305/1019074958.html

Sputnik (2015b) ‘US Congress Arms ISIL in Syria Via ‘Moderate’ Opposition – ex-CIA Officer’, 7 October, online: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151007/1028130762/US-congress-arms-ISIL-in-syria-via-moderate-opposition.html

Usher, Barbara Plett (2014) ‘Joe Biden apologised over IS remarks, but was he right?’ BBC News, 7 October, online: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29528482

Variyar, Mugdha (2015) ‘Funds for ISIS Recruitment Came From US, Says Pakistani ISIS Commander’, IB Times, 29 January, online: http://www.ibtimes.co.in/funds-isis-recruitment-came-us-says-pakistani-isis-commander-621906

Vinograd, Cassandra and Ammar Cheikh Omar (2014) ‘Syria, ISIS Have Been ‘Ignoring’ Each Other on Battlefield, Data Suggests’, NBC News, 11 December, online: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/syria-isis-have-been-ignoring-each-other-battlefield-data-suggests-n264551

Washington’s Blog (2014) ‘Top U.S. Military Official: Our Arab “Allies” Support ISIS’, 16 September, online: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/top-u-s-military-official-arab-allies-support-isis.html

Webb, Sam (2014) ‘Up to 70 Syrian army chiefs beheaded by ISIS after jihadis make advance on second city of Idlib that has been held by Assad’s forces for more than a year’, Daily Mail, 28 October, online: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2810598/Up-70-Syrian-army-chiefs-beheaded-Isis-jihadis-make-advance-second-city-Idlib-held-Assad-s-forces-year.html

West, Diana (2012) ‘Syrian Rebels: We Are All Jabhat Al Nusra (Al Qaeda)’, Free Republic, 12 December, online: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2967671/posts

Winer, Stuart (2013) ‘Syria says it captured Israeli weapons from rebels’, Times of Israel, 21 August, online: http://www.timesofisrael.com/syria-says-it-captured-israeli-weapons-from-rebels/

YNet (2014) ‘Syrian strikes on ISIS stronghold kill 29’, 6 September, online: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4568098,00.html

Zayabi al, Adib (2014) ‘Syrian rebels increasingly joining ISIS: Coalition ambassador’, Asharq al-Awsat, 25 December, online: http://english.aawsat.com/2014/12/article55339780/syrian-rebels-increasingly-joining-isis-syrian-national-coalition-ambassador

Zelin, Aaron Y. (2012) ‘Rally ‘Round the Jihadist’, Washington Institute, 11 December, online: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/rally-round-the-jihadist

Zoabi, Hiba (2014) ‘Israel said to treat wounded members of IS and radical Syrian groups’, i24News, 10 November, online: http://www.i24news.tv/app.php/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/50457-141110-israel-said-to-treat-wounded-members-of-is-and-radical-syrian-groups


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Video: COVID-911: From Homeland Security to Biosecurity

July 7th, 2021 by The Corbett Report

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This was originally published in September 2020.

9/11, as we were told repeatedly in the days, weeks, and months after the attack, was the day that changed everything. And now a new event has come along to once again throw the world into chaos. But whereas the post-9/11 era introduced America to the concept of homeland security, the COVID-19 era is introducing the world to an altogether more abstract concept: biosecurity. This is the story of the COVID-911 security state.

For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.

For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).

*

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: Coronavirus Disease 2019 Graphic. (U.S. Air Force Graphic by Rosario “Charo” Gutierrez)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”—The Second Amendment to the US Constitution

You can largely determine where a person will fall in the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment based on their view of government and the role it should play in our lives.

In the first group are those who see the government as a Nanny State, empowered to look out for the best interests of the populace, even when that means overriding our rights as individuals and free will.

These individuals tend to interpret the Second Amendment to mean that only members of law enforcement and the military are entitled to own a gun. Case in point: President Biden recently (and wrongly) asserted that “the Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon.”

In the second group are those who see the government as inherently corrupt.

These individuals tend to view the Second Amendment as a means of self-defense, whether that involves defending themselves against threats to their freedoms or threats from individuals looking to harm them. For instance, eleven men were recently arrested for traveling on the interstate with unlicensed guns that were not secured in a case. The group, reportedly associated with a sovereign citizens group, claimed to be traveling from Rhode Island to Maine for militia training.

And then there is a third group, made up of those who view the government as neither good nor evil, but merely a powerful entity that, as Thomas Jefferson recognized, must be bound “down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” To this group, the Second Amendment’s assurance of the people’s right to bear arms is no different from any other right enshrined in the Constitution: to be safeguarded, exercised prudently and maintained.

How to exercise this right is the question that keeps jockeying for supremacy before the U.S. Supreme Court. After declaring more than a decade ago that citizens have a Second Amendment right to own a gun in one’s home for self-defense, the Court has now been tasked with deciding whether the Constitution also protects the right to carry a gun outside the home. The case, NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Corlett, takes issue with a state law that requires a license in order to carry a concealed gun outside the home.

On the heels of Corlett is another legal challenge to the state’s authority to regulate—or ban outright—gun ownership outside the home. The attorneys general of 21 states—including Louisiana, Arizona, Montana, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming—have filed an amicus brief in Young v. Hawaii asking the Supreme Court to uphold Hawaiians’ Second Amendment rights to bear arms outside their homes.

Unfortunately, while the various federal circuit courts of appeal continue to disagree over the exact nature of the rights protected by the Second Amendment, the government itself has made its position extremely clear.

When it comes to gun rights in particular, and the rights of the citizenry overall, the U.S. government has adopted a “do what I say, not what I do” mindset. Nowhere is this double standard more evident than in the government’s attempts to arm itself to the teeth, all the while viewing as suspect anyone who dares to legally own a gun, let alone use one in self-defense.

Indeed, while it still technically remains legal to own a firearm in America, possessing one can now get you pulled over, searched, arrested, subjected to all manner of surveillance, treated as a suspect without ever having committed a crime, shot at, and killed. (This same rule does not apply to law enforcement officials, however, who are armed to the hilt and rarely given more than a slap on the wrists for using their weapons against unarmed individuals.)

Now the Biden Administration is setting its sights on gun control.

Mark my words: gun control legislation, especially in the form of red flag gun laws, which allow the police to remove guns from people “suspected” of being threats, will become yet another means by which to subvert the Constitution and sabotage the rights of the people.

Giving police the power to preemptively raid homes in order to neutralize a potential threat is a powder keg waiting for a lit match.

Under these red flag laws, what happened to Duncan Lemp—who was gunned down in his bedroom during an early morning, no-knock SWAT team raid on his family’s home—could very well happen to more people.

At 4:30 a.m. on March 12, 2020, in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic that had most of the country under a partial lockdown and sheltering at home, a masked SWAT team—deployed to execute a “high risk” search warrant for unauthorized firearms—stormed the suburban house where 21-year-old Duncan, a software engineer and Second Amendment advocate, lived with his parents and 19-year-old brother.

The entire household, including Lemp and his girlfriend, was reportedly asleep when the SWAT team directed flash bang grenades and gunfire through Lemp’s bedroom window.

Lemp was killed and his girlfriend injured.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, had a criminal record.

No one in the house that morning, including Lemp, was considered an “imminent threat” to law enforcement or the public, at least not according to the search warrant.

So what was so urgent that militarized police felt compelled to employ battlefield tactics in the pre-dawn hours of a day when most people are asleep in bed, not to mention stuck at home as part of a nationwide lockdown?

According to police, they were tipped off that Lemp was in possession of “firearms.”

Thus, rather than approaching the house by the front door at a reasonable hour in order to investigate this complaint—which is what the Fourth Amendment requires—police instead strapped on their guns, loaded up their flash bang grenades and acted like battle-crazed warriors.

This is what happens when you adopt red flag gun laws, which Maryland did in 2018, painting anyone who might be in possession of a gun—legal or otherwise—as a threat that must be neutralized.

Meanwhile, the government’s efforts to militarize and weaponize its agencies and employees is reaching epic proportions, with federal agencies as varied as the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration placing orders for hundreds of millions of rounds of hollow point bullets. Moreover, under the auspices of a military “recycling” program, which allows local police agencies to acquire military-grade weaponry and equipment, $4.2 billion worth of equipment has been transferred from the Defense Department to domestic police agencies since 1990. Included among these “gifts” are tank-like 20-ton Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, tactical gear, and assault rifles.

Ironically, while the Biden administration’s gun control efforts have helped to spike gun sales nationally, the government has made no effort to curtail its own addiction to weapons of war, a significant number of which have conveniently been “lost” and used in violent crimes in communities across the U.S.

We’re talking about rifles, pistols, machine guns, shot guns, and grenades. Some of these weapons were lost through gross negligence. Others, however, were trafficked by military police.

The U.S. military boasts weapons the rest of the world doesn’t have, and it continues to develop even more weaponry, each deadlier than the last.

Make no mistake: every last one of these weapons will eventually make its way back to domestic police forces to be used against the American people.

Included in the government’s military arsenal are armed, surveillance Reaper drones capable of reading a license plate from over two miles away; an AA12 Atchisson Assault Shotgun that can shoot five 12-gauge shells per second and “can fire up to 9,000 rounds without being cleaned or jamming”; an ADAPTIV invisibility cloak that can make a tank disappear or seemingly reshape it to look like a car; a PHASR rifle capable of blinding and disorienting anyone caught in its sights; a Taser shockwave that can electrocute a crowd of people at the touch of a button; an XM2010 enhanced sniper rifle with built-in sound and flash suppressors that can hit a man-sized target nine out of ten times from over a third of a mile away; and an XM25 “Punisher” grenade launcher that can be programmed to accurately shoot grenades at a target up to 500 meters away.

What the government has yet to acknowledge, however, is that its own gun violence—inflicted on unarmed individuals by battlefield-trained SWAT teams, militarized police, and bureaucratic government agents trained to shoot first and ask questions later—is not making America any safer.

Indeed, the U.S. government may be the most egregious perpetrator of gun violence in America, bar none.

All the while gun critics continue to clamor for bans on military-style assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing bullets, the U.S. military is passing them out to domestic police forces.

Under the auspices of a military “recycling” program, which allows local police agencies to acquire military-grade weaponry and equipment, more than $4.2 billion worth of equipment has been transferred from the Defense Department to domestic police agencies since 1990. Included among these “gifts” are tank-like, 20-ton Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, tactical gear, and assault rifles.

There are now reportedly more bureaucratic (non-military) government agents armed with high-tech, deadly weapons than U.S. Marines.

While Americans have to jump through an increasing number of hoops in order to own a gun, the government is arming its own civilian employees to the hilt with guns, ammunition and military-style equipment, authorizing them to make arrests, and training them in military tactics.

Among the agencies being supplied with night-vision equipment, body armor, hollow-point bullets, shotguns, drones, assault rifles and LP gas cannons are the Smithsonian, U.S. Mint, Health and Human Services, IRS, FDA, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Education Department, Energy Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing and an assortment of public universities.

This is the double standard at play here.

How is it that while violence has become our government’s calling card, from the more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans by heavily armed, black-garbed commandos and the increasingly rapid militarization of local police forces across the country to the drone killings used to target insurgents, “we the people” are the ones who must be regulated, restricted and banned from owning a weapon?

If we’re truly going to get serious about gun violence, why not start by scaling back the American police state’s weapons of war?

I’ll tell you why: because the government has no intention of scaling back on its weapons.

We’ve allowed ourselves to get so focused on debating who or what is responsible for gun violence—the guns, the gun owners, or our violent culture—and whether the Second Amendment “allows” us to own guns that we’ve overlooked the most important and most consistent theme throughout the Constitution: the fact that it is not merely an enumeration of our rights but was intended to be a clear shackle on the government’s powers.

When considered in the context of prohibitions against the government, the Second Amendment reads as a clear rebuke against any attempt to restrict the citizenry’s gun ownership.

As such, it is as necessary an ingredient for maintaining that tenuous balance between the citizenry and their republic as any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, especially the right to freedom of speech, assembly, press, petition, security, and due process.

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas understood this tension well. “The Constitution is not neutral,” he remarked, “It was designed to take the government off the backs of people.”

In this way, the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights in their entirety stand as a bulwark against a police state.

To our detriment, these rights have been steadily weakened, eroded and undermined in recent years. Yet without any one of them, including the Second Amendment right to own and bear arms, we are that much more vulnerable to the vagaries of out-of-control policemen, benevolent dictators, genuflecting politicians, and overly ambitious bureaucrats.

When all is said and done, the debate over gun ownership really has little to do with gun violence in America. It’s also not even a question of whether Americans need weapons to defend themselves against any overt threats to our safety or wellbeing.

Truly, the debate over gun ownership in America is really a debate over who gets to call the shots and control the game.

In other words, it’s that same tug-of-war that keeps getting played out in every confrontation between the government and the citizenry over who gets to be the master and who is relegated to the part of the servant.

The Constitution, with its multitude of prohibitions on government overreach, is clear on this particular point. As 20th century libertarian Edmund A. Opitz observed in 1964, “No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words ‘no’ and ‘not’ employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.”

In a nutshell, as I make clear in Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms reflects not only a concern for one’s personal defense, but serves as a check on the political power of the ruling authorities.

It represents an implicit warning against governmental encroachments on one’s freedoms, the warning shot over the bow to discourage any unlawful violations of our persons or property.

As such, it reinforces that necessary balance in the citizen-state relationship. As George Orwell, who plays a starring role in my new novel The Erik Blair Diaries, noted, “That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”

*

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.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute. His books Battlefield America: The War on the American People and A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State are available at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Preface

by Alexander Losev, Director General, Sputnik Asset Management

“Beyond the Dollar Creditocracy: A Geopolitical Economy” is how American and Canadian economists Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai, respectively, titled their paper centred on the rise of the dollar to the financial Olympus and a potential de-dollarisation.

Weak growth in the global economy, low and negative interest rates, the risk of endless stagnation and rising inflation, and prospects for a prolonged recession are, unfortunately, part of the economic reality. Clearly, the globalisation-based financial supercapitalism model, of which the United States was a beneficiary for quite a long time, and which relied on endless lending and financialisation, which turned the commodity markets into financial ones, has run its course.

The global economy has reached the apex of an all-time lending boom, but the expansive growth of debt shows that most national economies are supported mainly by massive public and private borrowing. A major vulnerability has been identified in the global economic system that took years to build: halting the Fed’s printing press, another crisis sweeping the United States, or even a slight increase in interest rates, will trigger a major economic crisis unseen since the Great Depression.

Many economists, analysts and researchers from different schools and areas strive to find a way out of the dead-end and to show prospects for new geoeconomic models. A book by Klaus Schwab, the founder of the Davos Forum, about the global reset received wide coverage in the media not so long ago[1]. It claims that the post-pandemic world will never be the same. It is certainly interesting to hear views on the future coming from the billionaire community, but there is also China and its position and a leftist train of thought.

The paper by Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai, who are anti-imperialist leftists, also explores the reasons for the financial world being the way it is, and how one can put an end to dollar hegemony and to create a multicurrency financial system before existing imbalances completely destroy everything.

But before you delve deep into the paper about the collapse of the dollar creditocracy, you need to take an objective look at the general picture of global finance.

So … The total amount of global money, including coins, banknotes and account balances, amounts to the equivalent of $37 trillion, with the US dollars per se accounting for about half of that amount, $19.2 trillion. If you add deposits to this amount, the global money supply in a broad sense will be equivalent to $98 trillion. And the entire value of global finance, which includes, in addition to money, investment vehicles (stocks, bonds or loans), derivatives and cryptocurrencies, exceeds $1.2 quadrillion.

Here are a few more figures … The global stock market capitalisation amounted to $96 trillion as of late 2020, and the US market accounted for 54 percent of that amount. Global debt (public and private) exceeded $280 trillion[2] as of early 2021, and the share of dollar denominated debt liabilities amounts to 57 percent of this total.

Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson’s writings about dollar-denominated creditocracy are based on objective facts. The US dollar accounts for 85 percent of all settlements around the globe; it makes up 62 percent of the central banks’ gold and foreign exchange reserves; more than half of global debt is denominated in US dollars and half of global cash also exists in the form of US dollars.

But were they too quick to jump to a conclusion about the collapse of the dollar creditocracy by analogy with the collapse of the British pound’s hegemony after WWII? Can that much money, assets and liabilities just up and disappear, vanish, or be replaced by something else?

Clearly, global money will not go away overnight, although every year sees many publications about the collapse of the dollar or the United States losing its financial hegemony. Even a nuclear war cannot destroy that many assets. In the paper titled “Risk, resilience, and rebalancing in global value chains”, released in August 2020[3], the McKinsey Global Institute estimates global economy losses from a hypothetical nuclear conflict at “only” $15 trillion. Losses from a pandemic caused by a dangerous virus are estimated at $30 trillion in the same paper, and losses from a “common” economic crisis at $10 trillion.

Of course, this does not mean that the dollar will dominate global finance forever. The Herbert Stein[4] law can already be used with regard to dollar dominance. It says: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” And this is happening not only because the United States has lost its hegemony, but also due to the enormous currency issue by the US Federal Reserve which, in the last few months alone, has slashed the value of the dollar against the basket of major currencies by 15 percent, as well as because of the excessive use of sanctions and the United States weaponising the existing dollar asymmetry in global finance and using it as a tool to exert pressure on its opponents and competitors.

Indeed, the distribution of cash and capital flows around the world is largely driven by what the main reserve currency, the US dollar, is doing and monetary cycles in the US. And it was the financialisation that went alongside the globalisation that made most markets dependent on fluctuations in the US Federal Reserve’s monetary policy or the state of the US economy. The shortage or surplus of dollars flowing into the outside world leads to changes in the output of goods and services in the real economy of the rest of the world.

Decades of ultra-soft US Federal Reserve policy are the main reason behind the market bubbles and never-ending booms and busts in the global economy and the financial markets, amid a record-high level of global debt as a percentage of GDP (as of the time of writing, the debt has exceeded 355 percent of global GDP), low global economy growth rates and ever-shrinking investment.

Often, in order to compensate for the capital outflow caused by the Fed, or in order to redress their trade balance or balance of payments, China and a number of US trade partners responded by either devaluating their national currencies (currency wars), or using countermeasures to stimulate their economies and resorted to commodity dumping.

The dollar-centric system will inevitably transform into some kind of new financial system, possibly, a multicurrency and partly digital financial system. After all, the dominance of the British pound sterling came to an end at a certain point. Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson describe this fall of the pound in much detail in their paper, and also provide arguments as to why continental powers, including the Russian Empire, introduced a gold standard for their currencies to compete with the pound before WWI.

Does gold stand a chance of becoming money again? We will again find the answer in the numbers. The volume of gold held as a reserve by all central banks amounts to $11 trillion, and this is clearly not enough to provide money for the global economy with a GDP of $87 trillion, international trade and 7.7 billion people living on planet Earth.

Can the history of global money provide a clue about what turns global finance may take going forward? Perhaps, this is the main question I have for Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson’s paper. The world has changed to become more digital and, unfortunately, unstable. The geopolitical picture is beginning to resemble the one that prevailed over 100 years ago before WWI. Some analysts believe that, in the third decade of the 21st century, a new era will begin in the economy, politics and lifestyle – the Age of Disorder – an era of clashing cultures and interests. Once over, it will give rise to a new world order as has happened more than once in the history of humankind.

Therefore, it makes sense to focus separately on how the US dollar, beginning with the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944, has become the main currency for trade settlements, savings and reserves. As noted in the study, the United States entered WWI as a nation of debtors and emerged from it as the largest creditor gaining access to European markets that were previously off-limits to the United States.

Following WWII, the United States became a superpower and gained not only political and economic superiority, but also the experience of how to profit from wars. US capital turned out to be the main beneficiary. Michael Hudson and Radhika Desai called it “creditocracy,” although the American public then also felt the touch of economic prosperity and a noticeable increase in prosperity. At a time when the economies of the Soviet Union, Europe and Japan lay in ruins, the United States became the world’s main manufacturer and exporter, and imperatively created the demand for dollars with its military-political influence, trade and … currency issue.

Dropping the gold standard and reformatting the Bretton Woods system in 1971 took place not only because of the collapse of the meeting of the Committee of Twenty on reforming the monetary system, as Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson say in their paper, but also due to the fact that because of rapid growth, international trade was simply running short of the level of gold backing needed in order to have the right amount of dollars for the global financial system to pay for goods and services and to keep the dollar monopoly intact in the process. The United States decided that international trade was more important than the gold backing of currencies. Indeed, it depreciated the dollar, but since then, everyone has been buying real goods on credit. And here we can agree that the creditocracy has been revivified.

After the Jamaica conference on January 8, 1976, gold became a common commodity, and the IMF issued a ban on payments in gold between the states. Special Drawing Rights (SDR) were introduced. At the same time, the “Triffi n Dilemma[5]” referred to by the authors of the study was resolved. The dilemma is about a disparity that arises if the national currency of only one country is used for international settlements between many countries: “in order to provide other countries’ central banks with the amount of dollars necessary to form national foreign exchange reserves, the United States must constantly experience a balance-of-payments deficit, which undermines confidence in the dollar and reduces its value as a reserve asset; therefore, a balance-of-payments surplus is required to build confidence.”

The Jamaican system refuted this paradox. Indeed, in order for the international settlements to take place as intensively as possible the United States must operate with a permanent balance-of-payments deficit. But this deficit is covered by the issue of credit money, and the internal US budget deficit and the growth of money supply do not contribute to inflation, since they correlate with the goods that are manufactured outside the United States. Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson are right when they say that financial engineering has outperformed industrial engineering in the United States.

Now is the time for a new level of financial engineering, but not in a specific country such as the United States or China, but all over the world. Financial bubbles will burst sooner or later. What’s next? Many countries will need to find an answer on their own. Let’s thank Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson for trying. But let’s also keep the following circumstances in mind. The 2020 coronavirus crisis revealed the ineffectiveness of global governance institutions, which failed to help states coordinate their efforts to combat the spread of the virus, and which are very limited in terms of the choice of tools for lifting the global economy out of recession. Dealing with the crisis aftereffects often leads only to the issuance of more dollars, euros, yen, yuan, etc.

The current geopolitical changes are laden with a great deal of uncertainty. Competition is exacerbating and regionalisation is accelerating. Digital technologies in finance and e-commerce have become the prerequisites for survival of so many businesses. The constraints created by the existing global financial infrastructure will stimulate the creation of multiple alternative information and financial networks. The finance technology and the banking sector will change, and money supply will take on outlines of its own. Given these circumstances, the value of innovation is increasing, but the cost of mistakes has also become high. All global financial system transformation projects must be tested for the possibility of cooperation between countries and for the possibility of interacting with digital networks and they need to be evaluated based on long-term viability in the context of an evolving economic model.

The countries that create their own rules and technologies and consistently uphold their interests, including in the financial sphere, keeping in mind the ability of digital currencies to bypass old dollar-based international payment systems overseen by the US Treasury in cross-border settlements, will have the edge in the transformation that is currently underway.

Of course, in the early stages, many countries will face pushback from the United States, as this paper mentions. But it will be difficult to oppose objective processes, and will be almost impossible as technology improves; therefore, the multicurrency global financial system will sooner or later become a reality and the ideas of digital currencies will be supported by many countries.

Introduction

As President Biden continues his predecessor’s New Cold War on China, it is clear that the pandemic has vastly accelerated the on-gong shift in the international balance of power, away from the US and towards China. For former US Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, it was likely a ‘hinge of history’: ‘[i]f the 21st century turns out to be an Asian century as the 20th was an American one, the pandemic may well be remembered as the turning point’. It would erase 9/11 and 2008 from memory and rank alongside ‘the 1914 assassination of the Archduke, the 1929 stock market crash, or the 1938 Munich Conference’ (Summers 2020).

However, Professor Summers misses the point. The twentieth century, from our point of view, was actually more an attempted American Century than an accomplished one (Desai 2013) and the shift away from it is looking more certain and decisive than the ‘ifs’ in his assessment let on. The pandemic is less a hinge than an acceleration of the decline of US power based on financialised neoliberal capitalism (Desai 2020a). The structure of world domination that the US had sought to foist on the world in recent decades is breaking down. The US never succeeded; the structure was too unstable and volatile to work. Therefore, one cannot blame the pandemic for reversing even its limited successes. The reversal is rooted in a geopolitical economic earthquake whose rumblings date back decades. They have loosened more and more countries from the contradictory and crisis-prone structures of US domination.

The core of all international power structures of the ‘capitalist mode of foreign relations’ (Van der Pijl 2014) lies in the international monetary system – what James Steuart called ‘the money of the world’ in 1767, referring to the means by which countries settle their trade or financial imbalances among one another. The domination the US sought to exert was no different. At its heart lay the dollar-denominated international financial system that we call the Dollar Creditocracy. It has undergirded the dollar’s world role since the early 1970s and its unravelling leads the denouement of US power.

The financial commentariat is already expressing foreboding of the dollar’s coming doom. ‘The decline of the U.S. dollar could happen at “warp speed”’, warns Market Watch, while Reuters reports more sedately on how ‘King dollar’s decline ripples across the globe’. While set-tos between dollar boosters and gloomsters have long been a feature of the crises that have regularly punctuated the dollar system, what was remarkable is how many are changing sides. Benjamin Cohen (2020) warned of the end of the dollar’s ‘exorbitant privilege’ and Stephen Roach (2020) warned of a 35 percent drop in the dollar index over the coming two to three years. Although some boosters such as Barry Eichengreen (2020) stuck to their guns, they were clearly low on ammunition, unable to fi nd solace in anything other than lack of alternatives.

Such commentators sense that doom lies ahead. However, they are far from explaining why. Cohen blamed it on Trump’s disastrous pandemic management, added to his tendency to weaponise the dollar, and Roach blames it on increased US borrowing. However, these explanations, like most commentary on the dollar’s world role, is tangled in that combination of wishful thinking and wager that one of us identified as the international financial intermediation hypothesis (IFIH) (Hudson 1972/2003). It emerged from the difficulties that ended the dollar’s link to gold in 1971 to conjure up a new basis for the dollar’s world role. By making the so-very-clever argument that the US was no ordinary indebted country but the world’s banker and that its deficits were loans to the world, a public service the world should accept gratefully by lifting capital controls and deregulating finance, this interpretation attempts to normalise the transformation of the US economy from super creditor to super debtor. However, it was never more than a barely adequate fig-leaf.

Our purpose in this article is to cut through this interpretation. Despite its faults, it dominates our understanding of the dollar system. In its place we reveal one that is theoretically sound and accords with the historical record, a geopolitical economy (Desai 2013) of the international monetary system of modern capitalism. We begin with a theoretical outline of how money operates under capitalism. We then consider how capitalism needs world money and, at the same time, makes its stable functioning difficult. We then go on to trace the fundamental instability of the modern international monetary systems based on national currencies of dominant countries, from the gold standard to the current volatile and predatory dollar-centred system, and their close connection to short-term and speculative as opposed to long-term and productive finance. We conclude by discussing of the key instabilities of the dollar system and the paths that various countries and international organizations are already taking to move beyond its destructive logics.

Read the full report here.

*

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

Radhika Desai, Professor, Department of Political Studies; Director, Geopolitical Economy Research Group; President, Society for Socialist Studies

Michael Hudson, Veteran of Wall Street; Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri at Kansas City (UMKC)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On July 2nd, fleeing questions from reporters about U.S. plans in Afghanistan, President Joe Biden sought refuge behind the July 4th Independence Day holiday. Yet he obliquely acknowledged that the U.S. will use some level of “over-the-horizon” air attacks to prevent the Taliban from taking power, attacks that will include drones and manned aircraft, possibly even B-52s.

Here is a portion of President Biden’s remarkable exchange with the press, which occurred at the close of his comments on the June 2021 jobs report:

Q: Are you worried that the Afghan government might fall?  I mean, we are hearing about how the Taliban is taking more and more districts.

THE PRESIDENT:  Look, we were in that war for 20 years.  Twenty years.  And I think — I met with the Afghan government here in the White House, in the Oval.  I think they have the capacity to be able to sustain the government.  There are going to have to be, down the road, more negotiations, I suspect.  But I am — I am concerned that they deal with the internal issues that they have to be able to generate the kind of support they need nationwide to maintain the government.

Q: A follow on that thought on Afghanistan —

THE PRESIDENT:  I want to talk about happy things, man.

Q: If there is evidence that Kabul is threatened, which some of the intelligence reports have suggested it could be in six months or thereabout, do you think you’ve got the capability to help provide any kind of air support, military support to them to keep the capital safe, even if the U.S. troops are obviously fully out by that time?

THE PRESIDENT:  We have worked out an over-the-horizon capacity that we can be value added, but the Afghans are going to have to be able to do it themselves with the Air Force they have, which we’re helping them maintain.

Q: Sir, on Afghanistan —

THE PRESIDENT:  I’m not going to answer any more quick question on Afghanistan.

Q: Are you concerned —

THE PRESIDENT:  Look, it’s Fourth of July.

When the President refers to “over-the-horizon capacity that we can be value added,” he is referring to a plan, that appears might cost $10 billion, to fly drones and manned attack aircraft from bases as far away as Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait to assist the current Afghan central government in defending itself against the Taliban.

His statement is the first acknowledgment that the “over-the-horizon” air operations, that reportedly may rely very heavily on drone assassination and drone targeting for manned aircraft, will be directed at the Taliban.

In congressional testimony in June, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said that “over-the-horizon” operations would focus on “elements that can possibly conduct attacks against our homeland,” suggesting Al Qaeda and ISIS as targets but not foreclosing attacks against the Taliban.

The President’s remarks about “over the horizon” as “value added” flowing into “but the Afghans are going to have to be able to do it themselves with the Air Force they have,” is reminiscent of former President Richard Nixon’s attempt to argue that the puppet government of Vietnam was developing the power to defend itself, attempting to cover U.S. tracks out of the horribly disastrous U.S. colonization project in Vietnam.

“Our air strikes have been essential in protecting our own remaining forces and in assisting the South Vietnamese in their efforts to protect their homes and their country from a Communist takeover,” Nixon said in a 1972 speech to the nation.

How Nixon's Invasion of Cambodia Triggered a Check on Presidential Power - HISTORY

Biden’s strategy for Afghanistan looks like Nixon’s Vietnamization policy for Vietnam which subcontracted and outsourced the war. [Source: history.com]

The apparent U.S. decision to continue to assist the Afghan central government from the air comes in company with a New York Times report saying that President Biden has placed “temporary limits on counterterrorism drone strikes and commando raids outside conventional battlefield zones like Afghanistan and Syria, and it has begun a broad review of whether to tighten Trump-era rules for such operations, according to officials.”

A similar report in Foreign Affairs says that there has been an apparent reduction in U.S. drone attacks, and details elements of a “bigger rethink” process that the Biden administration is said to be going through to limit civilian deaths and reevaluate how the U.S. should respond to “the overseas terrorist threat.” A goal of the administration, the report says, is to end the U.S. “forever” wars.

It must also be said, however, that these reports indicate that President Biden fully intends to continue the U.S. drone assassination/pre-emptive killing policy of Bush, Obama and Trump, possibly with more care for civilian casualties but in defiance of international principles of war, as outlined on BanKillerDrones.org, that would rule out the use of weaponized drones and military drone surveillance altogether whether inside or outside a recognized combat zone.

It appears that the reformist talk from Biden officials, much of it unattributed and therefore having no accountability, is intended to divert and placate those of us citizens who are repulsed by continuing drone atrocities, such as those leading 113 peace, justice and humanitarian organizations which signed a letter demanding “an end to the unlawful program of lethal strikes outside any recognized battlefield, including through the use of drones.”

Drones fly, children die': US activists launch massive anti-drone campaign — RT USA News

Anti-drone activists and the peace movement are being rebuffed by yet another administration. [Source: rt.com]

Apart from the view, noted above, that drone attacks and surveillance are illegal anywhere, we have to question the U.S. having turned the entire world into a potential “recognized battlefield.”

Even though U.S. ground forces have largely left Afghanistan, it is clear that the Biden administration considers Afghanistan a legitimate battlefield for U.S. air forces.

In President Biden’s “value-added” remark, one can see a clear message: Regardless of talk of a more humanitarian policy of drone killing and ending “forever” wars, the president has decided that prolonged civil war in Afghanistan is in the interest of the U.S.

Possibly this is because continued turmoil in Afghanistan will be unsettling and preoccupying to her neighbors, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and China. Possibly it is because a civil war will make it easier for corporations and banks to exploit Afghanistan’s mineral, fossil fuel and opium wealth.

Certainly, continued U.S. air assaults in Afghanistan will generate money for U.S. military contractors.

With continuing U.S. air and commando attacks, Afghanistan can turn into a Libya, a divided, stalemated, suffering, bleeding country, where Turkey, Russia and China test their weapons and seek advantage.

Indeed, the U.S. is negotiating with Turkey, over the objection of the Taliban, to maintain “security” at the Kabul International Airport.

Undoubtedly, the Turkish political/military/ corporate elite, who have their own expansionary ambitions, will use its drones, among them the semi-autonomous Kargu 2, to try to hold the airport and surrounding territory.

The Black Alliance for Peace released a statement on June 25 opposing “any effort to prolong the U.S. war on the Afghan people, including efforts to keep the United States engaged in any form in Afghanistan.”

The statement expressed concern for “the continued operation of U.S. special forces and mercenaries (or contractors) in Afghanistan, as well as U.S.-pledged support for Turkish military defense of Kabul International Airport, a site that has continued to be a major U.S. military stronghold to support its imperial presence.”

President Biden would do well to heed this statement, along with a petition to him, circulated by BanKillerDrones.org, urging no further U.S. air attacks against the Afghan people.

Now that Independence Day has passed, perhaps the President will be more willing to answer questions about the real goals of “over the horizon.”

*

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.

Nick Mottern Co-coordinates BanKillerDrones.com and is Coordinator of Knowdrones.com. Nick can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image: U.S. jets bombing Afghanistan. These attacks will not end despite the formal U.S. withdrawal by September 11th. [Source: wired.com]

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

 

***

 

This is a controversial report based on the findings of Spanish researchers. It remains to be fully ascertained.

What is required is to have precise details on the composition of the mRNA vaccine, from one or more samples of the drug, also including the identification of the so-called digital microchip.

Independent laboratory studies  based on several samples of all four major mRNA “vaccines”, namely AstraZeneka, BioNtech-Pfizer, Moderna Inc, Johnson and Johnson.

Statements pertaining to future impacts of the “vaccine” must be corroborated and confirmed.

***

Today, La Quinta Columna has made an urgent announcement that they hope will reach as many people as possible, especially those involved in health and legal services, as biostatistician Ricardo Delgado, Dr. José Luis Sevillano and the team of researchers and professors with whom they have been conducting their research have confirmed the presence of graphene oxide nanoparticles in vaccination vials.

In program nº63, the team showed some photos of the analyses carried out, specifically results obtained by optical and transmission electron microscopy observation, reserving the results of other techniques used for future programs. They also announced that the report based on all the techniques performed, which allowed determining the presence of graphene oxide, will be made official by the researchers who performed the analyses very soon.

Orwell City, as always, has translated the message from La Quinta Columna and subtitled the video they shared a few hours ago on their official Telegram channel.

Hereafter La Quinta Columna shall provide you with information vital to your health, physical integrity and that of your environment.

The masks being used and currently marketed contain graphene oxide. Not only the ones that were withdrawn at the time, as indicated by the media, the swabs used in both PCR and antigen tests also contain graphene oxide nanoparticles.

The COVID vaccines in all their variants, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, Sinovac, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, etc., also contain a considerable dose of graphene oxide nanoparticles. This has been the result of their analysis by electron microscopy and spectroscopy, among other techniques used by various public universities in our country.

The anti-flu vaccine contained nanoparticles of graphene oxide and the new anti-flu vaccines and the new and supposedly intranasal anti-COVID vaccines they are preparing also contain enormous doses of graphene oxide nanoparticles. Graphene oxide is a toxin that generates thrombi in the organism, graphene oxide is a toxin that generates blood coagulation. Graphene oxide causes alteration of the immune system. By decompensating the oxidative balance in relation to the gulation reserves. If the dose of graphene oxide is increased by any route of administration, it causes the collapse of the immune system and subsequent cytokine storm.

Graphene oxide accumulated in the lungs generates bilateral pneumonias by uniform dissemination in the pulmonary alveolar tract. Graphene oxide causes a metallic taste. Perhaps this is starting to make sense to you now. Inhaled graphene oxide causes inflammation of the mucous membranes and thus loss of taste and partial or total loss of smell.

Graphene oxide acquires powerful magnetic properties inside the organism. This is the explanation for the magnetic phenomenon that billions of people around the world have already experienced after various routes of administration of graphene oxide. Among them the vaccine.

In short, graphene oxide is the supposed SARS-CoV-2, the supposed new coronvirus provoked before the disease called COVID-19. Therefore, we never had real isolation and purification of a new coronavirus, as recognized by most health institutions at the highest level and in different countries when they were questioned about it. COVID-19 disease is the result of introducing graphene oxide by various routes of administration.

Graphene oxide is extremely potent and strong in aerosols, as is the alleged SARS-CoV-2. Like any material, graphene oxide has what we call an ‘electronic absorption band‘. This means a certain frequency above which the material is excited and oxidizes very rapidly, thus breaking the equilibrium with the proliferation in the organism of the toxicant against our natural antioxidant glutathione reserves. Precisely this frequency band is emitted in the new emission bandwidths of the new 5G wireless technology. That is why the deployment of these antennas never stopped during the pandemic.

In fact, they were among the few services that were maintained, apart from a special surveillance by the State Security Forces and Corps to these antennas. We suspect in that the 2019 anti-flu campaign graphene oxide was introduced in these vials, since it was already used as an adjuvant.

With subsequent 5G technology trials in different parts of the world, COVID-19 disease developed in interaction of external electromagnetic fields and graphene oxide now in their bodies. Remember that it all started in Wuhan, and this was the first pilot sample city in the world to do the 5G technology trial in late November 2019. It’s a coincidence in space and time.

Both the pangolin and bat soup versions were simply distracting elements. The purpose of the introduction of graphene oxide is even more obscure than you might imagine. Therefore, it is more than enough for you to assimilate this information and ‘reset’ the knowledge you had of the disease up to now from the highest governmental institutions telling the population to protect themselves and even forcing them with that which will potentially make them sick with the disease itself. Logically, now that we know that the cause or etiological agent of the disease is precisely a chemical toxicant and not a biological agent, we know how to attenuate it: by increasing glutathione levels. Glutathione is a natural antioxidant that we present in reserves in the organism.

A few details will help you to understand perfectly everything that has been reported in the media. Glutathione is extremely high in children. Therefore, the disease has hardly any impact on the child population. Glutathione drops very considerably after 65 years of age. Therefore, COVID-19 is especially prevalent in the senile population. Glutathione is at very high levels in the intensive sports population. This is why only 0.22% of athletes had the disease.

You will now understand why countless studies in practice have shown that treatment with N-acetylcysteine (which is a precursor of glutathione in the body), or glutathione administered directly, cured COVID-19 disease very quickly in patients. Plain and simple because the glutathione levels were raised to cope with the administered toxicant called graphene oxide.

The discovery made here by La Quinta Columna is a full-fledged attack of State bioterrorism, or at least with the complicity of governments to the entire world population, now constituting crimes against humanity.

It is therefore absolutely essential and vital that you make this information available to your medical community. General practitioners, nursing and health services in general, but also local and regional media and press, as well as all your environment. La Quinta Columna estimates that tens of thousands of people will die every day. In our country alone when they make the new and upcoming 5G technological switch-on.

Bearing in mind that now it is not only the elderly in nursing homes who are vaccinated in that flu vaccine with graphene oxide, but, as you know, a large part of the population has been vaccinated, or graphenated, with gradual doses of graphene oxide.

The body has a natural capacity to eliminate this toxicant, which is why we propose you up to a third dose per year for all the years to keep the graphene in your bodies.

We have each and every one of the proofs of what has been manifested here. Meanwhile justice is trying to act, people will continue to be pushed off a bottomless cliff. If you are watching this audiovisual material, you will understand that for more than a year you have been totally and naively deceived from the highest institutions. Only now will you understand all the incongruities that you observed on your television news.

To complement this valuable information you can access https://www.laquintacolumna.net or our Telegram channel: La Quinta Columna TV, where more than 100,000 people are already aware of the truth and are not part of the massive deception to which they were subjected. Please make this video viral all around you and let’s stop among all of us. The destiny that is in store for us, fruit of the Agenda 20/30 roadmap, depends only on us.

Thank you for your attention.

—La Quinta Columna.

*

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

Featured image is from Mercola

Covid-19 and the Falsification of Death Certificates: The CDC’s “More Often Than Not” Clause

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 07, 2021

A  December 2020 CDC report confirms that 94% of the deaths attributed to Covid have “comorbidities” (i.e. deaths dues other causes). For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups.

mRNA Vaccine Inventor Erased from History Books

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, July 06, 2021

As recently as June 14, 2021, Malone’s contributions were extensively included in the historical section on RNA vaccines’ Wikipedia page. He was listed as having co-developed a “high-efficiency in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection system using cationic liposomes” in 1989.

The Failure of “Vaccine Passports”

By Swiss Policy Research, July 06, 2021

SPR and some other independent expert groups warned very early on that “vaccine passports” – promoted by Bill Gates and his ID2020 alliance – are doomed to fail (from a medical perspective), simply because covid vaccines cannot achieve sterilizing immunity (i.e. prevent infection and infectiousness), especially not against new coronavirus variants.

British Doctor’s Damning Legal Letter on NHS COVID Misconduct

By John O’Sullivan, July 06, 2021

Principia Scientific International is delighted to share with our readers a stunning legal letter from a UK doctor putting the NHS and politicians on notice that they engage in a conspiracy of “lies” about the COVID19 pandemic and the dangerous “vaccines” being deployed.

Stop Silencing Us: An Open Letter to Facebook, Google, Twitter and Social Media Platform Employees

By Teodrose Fikremariam, July 06, 2021

It is precisely because the flow of information is so imperative that wars are fought in the realm of public opinion as much as they are on battlefields. A coworker who served in the US Army once told me that the most dangerous job in the military belongs to comms personnel. She described how all military campaigns start with trying to take out the enemy’s ability to communicate; a fighting force that is not informed and loses situational awareness is one that is easily defeated.

Deadly June 10th Spill of Toxins from U.S. Military Base in Okinawa Could Sick and Kill Thousands

By Pat Elder, July 06, 2021

On June 10, 2021, 2,400 liters of “firefighting water” containing PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) were accidentally released from the U.S. Army Oil Storage Facility into Uruma City and other nearby locations, according to Ryukyu Shimpo, an Okinawan news agency.

The Killer in the Bloodstream: the “Spike Protein”

By Mike Whitney, July 06, 2021

The Spike Protein is a “uniquely dangerous” transmembrane fusion protein that is an integral part of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. “The S protein plays a crucial role in penetrating host cells and initiating infection.” It also damages the cells in the lining of the blood vessel walls which leads to blood clots, bleeding, massive inflammation and death.

International Alert Message about COVID-19. United Health Professionals

By United Health Professionals, July 07, 2021

Know that the same mistakes made in the H1N1 epidemic are being repeated today in the COVID epidemic. You are the victims of the biggest health scam of the 21st century regarding the real danger of the virus, the measures to be taken, the figures, the tests and the treatments, and this was done with the same techniques of manipulation used during the epidemic of H1N1 or the Iraq war. Experts, professors of medicine as well as scientific and medical collectives began to alert others of this as early as March 2020.

It’s Saigon in Afghanistan

By Rep. Ron Paul, July 06, 2021

The end of the 20-year US war on Afghanistan was predictable: no one has conquered Afghanistan, and Washington was as foolish as Moscow in the 1970s for trying. Now, US troops are rushing out of the country as fast as they can, having just evacuated the symbol of the US occupation of Afghanistan, Bagram Air Base.

French Government Considers Making COVID Vaccine Mandatory for Everyone Aged 24-59

By Paul Joseph Watson, July 06, 2021

The French government is considering making the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory for everyone aged 24-59 in response to concerns over a “fourth wave” of infections. After Prime Minister Jean Castex announced that he would push for the compulsory vaccination of caregivers, the French Senate expressed their desire to expand the measure to cover young and middle-aged adults.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: COVID-19 and the Falsification of Death Certificates: The CDC’s “More Often Than Not” Clause
  • Tags:

Introduction

At the outset of the pandemic, the CDC had been instructed to change the methodology regarding Death Certificates with a view to artificially inflating the numbers of “Covid deaths”.  According to H. Ealy, M. McEvoy et al 

“The 2003 guidelines for establishing death certificates had been cancelled. “Had the CDC used its industry standard, Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting Revision 2003, as it has for all other causes of death for the last 17 years, the COVID-19 fatality count would be approximately 90.2% lower  than it currently is.” (Covid-19: Questionable Policies, Manipulated Rules of Data Collection and Reporting. Is It Safe for Students to Return to School? By H. Ealy, M. McEvoy, and et al., August 09, 2020

CDC Deaths Attributed to COVID-19. Comorbidities 

A  December 2020 CDC report confirms that 94% of the deaths attributed to Covid have “comorbidities”,(i.e. deaths dues other causes).

For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death. The number of deaths with each condition or cause is shown for all deaths and by age groups.

On March 21, 2020 the following specific guidelines were introduced by the CDC regarding Death Certificates (and their tabulation in the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS)

COVID-19: The “Underlying Cause of Death” and the CDC’s “More Often Than Not” Clause 

Will  COVID-19 be the underlying cause of death?  This concept is fundamental. 

The underlying cause of death is defined by the WHO as “the disease or injury that initiated the train of events leading directly to death”.  

What the CDC is recommending with regards to statistical coding and categorization is that COVID-19 is expected to  be the underlying cause of death “more often than not.”

The CDC combines these two criteria. “underlying cause of death”, more often than not.

Will COVID-19 be the underlying cause of death? 

“The underlying cause depends upon what and where conditions are reported on the death certificate. However, the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID- 19 being the underlying cause more often than not.”

The above directive is categorical.

Below are CDC concepts and justifications

The Certifier is not allowed to report coronavirus without identifying a specific strain. And the guidelines recommend that COVID-19 must always be indicated.

(see below): (source CDC)

The certifier cannot depart from the CDC criteria. Covid-19 is imposed. Read carefully the criteria below:

“What happens if certifiers report terms other than the suggested terms?

If a death certificate reports coronavirus without identifying a specific strain or explicitly specifying that it is not COVID-19, NCHS will ask the states to follow up to verify whether or not the coronavirus was COVID-19.

As long as the phrase used indicates the 2019 coronavirus strain, NCHS expects to assign the new code. However, it is preferable and more straightforward for certifiers to use the standard terminology (COVID-19).

What happens if the terms reported on the death certificate indicate uncertainty?

If the death certificate reports terms such as “probable COVID-19” or “likely COVID-19,” these terms would be assigned the new ICD code. It Is not likely that NCHS will follow up on these cases.

If  “pending COVID-19 testing” is reported on the death certificate, this would be considered a pending record. In this scenario, NCHS would expect to receive an updated record, since the code will likely result in R99. In this case, NCHS will ask the states to follow up to verify if test results confirmed that the decedent had COVID- 19.

… COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc.”

There are no loopholes. These CDC directives have contributed to categorizing Covid-19 as the recorded “cause of death”. Two fundamental concepts prevail throughout:

The “underlying cause of death”

The “More Often than Not” Clause which falsifies the Cause of Death 

And these two criteria are imposed despite the fact that the RT-PCR test used to corroborate the “cause of death” provides misleading and invalid results.

In practice, as outlined above: “probable COVID-19” or “likely COVID-19,” will be considered as the cause of death without the conduct of a PCR test and without performing an autopsy. 

Case Study: Flawed “Estimates” of the Cause of Death in Quebec

The criteria establishing the “underlying” Cause of Death in the US are based on “the more often than not” clause (see above) established nationally by the CDC.

In Canada, the criteria differ from one province to another. Categorizing the cause of death in Canada’s Province of Quebec has been the object of gross manipulation.

According to a directive from Quebec’s Ministry of Health (April 2020):

“If the presumed cause of death is Covid-19 (with or without a positive test) an autopsy should be avoided  [emphasis in original document] and death should be attributed to Covid-19 as the probable cause of death. In addition, deaths whose probable cause is Covid-19 are considered natural, and are not subject to a coroner’s notice. “ (emphasis in the original document).

The directive does not allow the counting of co-morbidities. Applied on April 16, 2020, this directive was conducive to an immediate sharp increase in the number of deaths attributed to Covid-19:

44.9% of total deaths in Quebec were attributed to Covid-19 (week of 11-18 April 2020) (see table below).

According to Montreal’s La Presse, “April [2020] was the deadliest month” . But  did La Presse consult the directives of the Ministry of Health:

Below are the (daily) causes of death for Quebec corresponding to the week of April 12 to 18, 2020 (immediately following the government directive) measured according to the criteria issued by the Ministry of Health.

Are these figures the result of the so-called deadly pandemic? Or are they the result of the Ministry of Health’s “guidelines” based on erroneous criteria?

  •  “presumed” case pertaining to Covid,
  • “With or without a positive test”,
  • “probable” cause of death,
  • “Autopsy should be avoided” in the case of Covid-19.
  • Deaths of which the probable cause is Covid-19, are considered natural, and are not the object of a notice to the coroner

According to Mr. Paul G. Brunet, of the Council for the protection of the sick (CPM):

“… We realized through the denunciations by some of the doctors that people did not die from COVID, but from dehydration, malnutrition, abandonment, laments Mr. Brunet. So what did the thousands of people in CHSLDs [old persons nursing homes] and private residences really die of?” (quoted in La Presse, translated from French)

 

 

***

The above text is an excerpt from Chapter III of Michel Chossudovsky’s E Book entitled.

Click link below

The 2020 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset” 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Covid-19 and the Falsification of Death Certificates: The CDC’s “More Often Than Not” Clause
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

You must have found yourself in a situation where, although you know that what you are saying is true to you and you are open to dialogue, the person you are sharing with shuts you up. A lack of common ground limits dialogue and, for real communication to happen an attitude of openness is required.

Ted Aoki, an educator at the University of Alberta, creator of “Curriculum in a new key,” was a bilingual and bicultural person. He proposed a curriculum for education inclusive of lived experiences inviting teachers and others to create and educate from a “bridge,” a space in the middle were new things are allowed to emerge. His focus was in the “House of Being,” a place where authentic being with others is the main concern.

Aoki, aware of the East-West conversation, perspectives and ideologies, wanted to encourage dialogue between two world views. He illustrated enlightenment with words from the poet Leonard Cohen:

There is a crack in everything; that’s how the light comes in. (1)

The exchange of views can be made more difficult when the dominant Media increasingly deforms truth, offering propaganda and lies instead. It is challenging to be balanced in such a situation; many people prefer to remain in the easier road of “belonging” rather than questioning. I can still expose my views but I often feel as the “Martian” in the room.

Although, I am used to be different and often joke about coming from another planet, I know there are limitations when perceived as an outsider in the land. Still, my experience with the political suicide of my own land, the end of concerns for the well being of all people – vulnerable, poor, children, women, elderly, disabled, ill, has showed me much. I witnessed the surge and collapse of urban guerrillas, a military coup and a return, to be soon betrayed, to a project for the people. These experiences have value in increasing understanding everywhere. And yet, experiences from the third world are viewed often as somehow irrelevant, the first world thinks itself somehow unique and untouchable.

This pandemic, almost a curse, has made visible something the Western world may want to ignore: its incompetence in dealing with a serious challenge requiring thoughtful and caring political stewardship and effective collective action. We are still dealing with the consequences of the 2008 economic collapse, and, more recently with the financial crisis emerging in connection with this pandemic forcing the closing down of economies and the isolation of people.

Western countries, although strongly affected, deny it becoming a bit desperate in allocating responsibility. Desperation, like hatred, is not a good advisor; it often turns to blaming others for our limitations and follies. In such cases, ideology and propaganda come handy in defining someone to blame.  It is our story, the story of the West and of our view of the “other” found in the Eastern world, identified as different, less than us, often the enemy we are free to conquer, plunder or destroy. Remaining blind to what is taking place is no longer an option. Remaining quiet to what we see makes us complicit, while crimes and destruction this time may include the world itself.

Pandemics 101

In developed Western countries, the pandemic, initially ignored, became very stressful, problematic. Inevitably leading to a questioning of our ways: How can we (the center of what is right) have been so wrong about this virus? Still, almost everywhere in the western world –developed or not, there was denial of the seriousness of the pandemic and its effects on the economy and people. Mystifications about science keep affecting how we deal with it. Public outrage and rallies question appropriate health measures taken to protect us.

It is mayhem and reminds me of how people can take to the streets against a ridiculous change, like the new taste of Coke, but can fail to ask with similar fortitude for better working conditions, a living wage, public health, education, housing or increased equity. We are dealing with an organized disinformation machine, or too many people are lost in the fog and need to be rescued.

The most interesting information emerging thanks to the pandemic, challenges dominant definitions about who is “essential” to society and the economy.  It became obvious that well paid lawyers, accountants, financiers or corporate CEOs are not essential. Workers are.

Health care workers, food industry workers, transportation workers, teachers and child care workers, people producing our food or working in commerce and so on, proved to be essential to our survival.

In Canada, and because of the risk essential workers face, an incentive was added to their wages; it was small and temporary but it highlighted that their role is essential to us. This insight about who is truly essential to life should not disappear with the pandemic, but remain with us to help us move, beyond the romantic praising of essential workers, into working with them  ensuring a living wage. It should also encourage us to examine the economy we are allowing to thrive, and its dominant ideology devaluing workers, the creators of value, and promoting the rich and top earners, an overhead all of us pay for. (2)

The Economy yes, but what kind of Economy?

We hear about the economy often but mostly the script is the same. I wonder, listening to people whether they know what kind of economy we have. Would they support it if they understood how it works against most of us?  In 2017 Rutger Bregman explained clearly that we live in a reverse welfare state, with politicians assuming vast wealth is created at the top and trying to convince everybody of this. Still, it is the other way around: productivity is not defined by the size of a paycheque, and wealth is not made by top earners but by workers. There are 2 ways to make wealth, he explained, work and rent. Work taps into our knowledge and know-how to create value. Rent uses power to control the value created –land, knowledge, money. Rent extractors or rentiers make their living at the expense of all the people who work and make value. (3)

In the 19th century rent was associated with having an estate and inheritance, and rentiers did not care about showing us they were lazy, overweight and love smoking big cigars. Today rentiers are slimmer, seem to work hard and present a much more pleasant and healthy image. But the main work they still do is ensuring and increasing rent collection. Rent seeking goes from Wall Street to Silicon Valley; there are rentiers everywhere, in Apple, Amazon, Airbnb, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Uber and Big Pharma. We have “platform capitalism,” so Facebook’s income is rent collected off the millions of people posting pictures and videos. Uber is usurping the taxi sector while Airbnb is doing the same to the hotel industry. Much of the financial sector is downright parasitic: offering loans to everybody for anything while inflating the prices of things and getting a percentage for themselves. (3) When they collapse the state goes to their rescue: a win-win proposition for them but not for us, who carry and pay for state debts while seeing our personal debts grow too. (4)

We can ask: if rentiers are so bad why do we put up with them? For mainly two reasons: the first is that modern rentiers know how to masquerade as decent, hard working people who create jobs. They can afford the best professional image-makers and know how important image is, so they make sure they present well. The second reason is that we are complicit with them and their cash cows, the housing market and pensions. It has worked well: most of us would love to live from rents and in high style. Rentiers can also afford expensive lawyers, make financial contributions to politicians and own the press so they have journalists working for them. Rentiers take the best minds society produces to engross their ranks in draining our economy and our countries of their natural vitality. Recognizing that workers are the ones creating value is crucial in understanding basic economics. Giving workers what they deserve for their efforts is an effective way of controlling rent seekers; it also decreases the cost of doing business, eliminates monopolies and ends opportunities for rent creation. (3)

During the pandemic some rentiers became even richer: more online buying avoiding corona-virus enriched Amazon, and people working from home added to the income of video communications like Zoom. Most essential workers show to work everyday facing risks of contagion, many receive very low wages.

After two years of closing-opening non-essential businesses because of the pandemic, our focus is on getting over it moving to the magic land of “recovery.” Long term effects of the virus on the health of people infected and surviving it, or the effects of the pandemic on the economy are not often discussed. When encouraged to think about a return to “normal life” many of us know it will be a “new normal.” Some signs of recovery are surreal: Can housing prices go up with high unemployment, loss of income, earnings and profits?  Are we doing well despite traveling being limited, tourism and the leisure industry seriously affected and having high personal and national debt?  It is surreal to believe that we are richer “for our debts” or that increasing market value of homes can continue to grow for ever. Such surrealism should help us see the kind of economy we are in.

The main challenge we face, however, is one of understanding. Education for instance, what most people believe should pave our road to success, has caused many young people to be indebted and squeezed as they pay interest on debts, receive low wages and face higher costs of living. In 2016, Dean Baker pointed to the myths connected to the economy and markets saying: markets are not from Nature or God but the result of policy decisions. In the US, upward redistribution was structured by policy decisions and, he points, it needs to stop: it is lowering demand, increasing unemployment levels and benefiting only the 0.1% of top income earners, mostly in the financial sector.  Worse yet, favouring upward redistribution can trap the US economy in a downward spiral.  Baker is relevant to all of us in the West, the US model is the one most follow. (5)

The choices made, Baker points, are not “laissez faire” or “free market,” but operating on government to benefit a select group. Banks have become too-big-to-fail and attempts at regulating them (like Dodd-Frank) are not working: regulators cannot assess risk accurately if they do not see the complete picture. Braking up big banks and recognizing the need to reduce rent-seeking opportunities in order to increase demand and decrease unemployment is the only solution. The impact of decisions is everywhere:  a dominant push to reduce budget deficits have favored government extending patents and copyrights, more costly to people in higher prices for meds for example, but invisible in the budget. A reduced dollar could lower US trade deficits but it will increase costs to major retailers and corporations and their low-cost supply chains in the developing world. Thus, policy decisions are political; and those who hold power protect their interests avoiding any change that affects them negatively. In such situations finding someone to blame can be seen as a way out, and Russia and China look like appropriate enemies. (5)

A New Cold War with China

We heard about the “New World Order” from George W. Bush. We still remember the never found “weapons of mass destruction” that led the US and allies into the destruction of Iraq –killing more than 200 thousand civilians, some say many more, in the name of “democracy and the preservation of peace.”  The costs of war are high. (6)

The 2008 financial collapse, followed by the pandemic and the 2020 crisis, have real effects.  The pandemic caused more than 600 thousand deaths in the US, some say more, and government was unable to prevent its top leadership from becoming infected. The pandemic trapped most of the Western world in a 2 year loop of opening and closing economies with ongoing new cases.  China, on the other hand, dealt with the pandemic effectively, with less than 5 thousand people dying from it and its economy functioning within 3 months. Chinese people could mourn their dead and celebrate their COVID heroes. China, aware of its success, attributes it to their “Socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Their model outperformed Western neoliberal capitalism by leaps and bounds, raising living standards, creating public wealth, serving and meeting people’s needs while dealing well with crises. Still, their measure of success (creation of public wealth or raising living standards) is not ours: neoliberal capitalism works mainly at increasing the wealth of a selected group. During their last trade negotiation, the Trump administration asked China to dismantle its state-led economy (planned and efficient) as it “could never compete against the superior free-market economy of the US.”  It was a failed attempt by the US elite to have China committing suicide and opening its doors to neoliberal pillaging. Their alternative option seems to be war against China –cold and hot. (8)

The situation with China, argues Noh, is similar to the one Iraq faced: the US is escalating rapidly while already engaged in a hybrid war with China in multiple domains. There is economic warfare (trade sanctions and tariffs), technological warfare (attempts to seize TIKTOK and attacking Huawei), legal warfare (380 bills in Congress, 14 individual/state lawsuits, legal kidnapping), diplomatic warfare (consulate shutdowns, breaches, callings for “regime change”), military posturing (in the South and East China Seas, strategic weapons encircling China -400 bases: the Pacific Pivot). There is civil subversion (color revolutions in Hong Kong and other places), and academic warfare (FBI’s China Initiative opening cases against Chinese students/researchers in the US while considering all students as potential spies).  Finally, information warfare is creating false stories of massive human rights abuses, concentration camps and accusing China of releasing the Covid19 virus on purpose. It is all geared at inciting people to hate China and manufacturing consent for war. (8)

Taking sides…

China offers a threatening alternative model of development (one) that is non-capitalist, non-Western, and non-colonial. As such, it undermines the west’s neocolonial domination of the third world and its debt-trap-based forced underdevelopment, subservience, and expropriation. It also offers a model of state-led ecological development. All this signals new possibilities of hope and transformation for the world. The ruling classes in the west will go to war to prevent this.” (8)

Canada is involved. The RCMP detained Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer of Huawei, at Vancouver airport in 2018 when she was in a flight to somewhere else. The RCMP followed a deportation order issued by the US. Since 2018 Meng Wanzhou is under house arrest, wearing an electronic bracelet, a pawn of the US and allies’ strategy to stop China’s development. Many Canadians have raised concerns about her arrest, finding it unlawful and arbitrary, misogynist and racist. But the Canadian government allowed it and it is now caught in the middle of the US-China conflict, apparently unable, or unwilling, to act on its own benefit by freeing her. This pattern is not unique to Canada.

In Australia politicians in power take side with the US in favor of war with China. Mike Pezzullo (Home Affairs Secretary) publicly summons the “dogs of war against China” placing Australia on the warpath. He does it because of the unconditional, even misplaced, alliance of Australia with the US.  There is an inability to recognize and accept fundamental shifts in the distribution of wealth and power transforming the world and the regional strategic orders. America is weaker economically, diplomatically and militarily than it has been since WW2. Australia needs a broader and deeper understanding of Asian cultures and language; this skill gap still existing lowers Australian capacities to understand the region and it is role in it, a challenge perceived as dangerous by many Australians. (7)

Can we do anything beyond trying to understand better? We should question what we are told about China, there is plenty of proof of US pervasive lying in Iraq and other countries prior to attack them during “war against terrorism,” a terrorist war itself. We can learn to separate propaganda from truth by paying attention and reading between the lines. We need to be attentive to “projection,” as abusive governments like abusive people, project onto others what they do themselves. Most people understand that wars are criminal and would like them banned.

The costs of US war against Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, both human and material, have been estimated by the Costs of War project in more than 800 thousand civilians killed directly from war violence, unaccounted number of wounded, and a very conservative estimate of 37 million people displaced (that could be as high as 59 million). Economic costs to the US alone are estimated in 6.7 trillion dollars in budgetary costs, and can be as high as 8 trillion dollars. There are no estimates on the costs to governments and economies of the countries attacked or the others affected by these wars. There are no cost estimates for the care of war refuges, destruction of infrastructure, damages to health systems or environmental degradation. There are no numbers about civilian deaths as a result of malnutrition, lack of water or access to health care, much greater than deaths from combat. (6)

Only deranged people can even consider the possibility of engaging in what it could lead to WW3, or plan on this aware that not only the US but also China, Russia and others have nuclear weapons. But, the American people are not “in power,” a narcissist and parasitic elite is. We need to challenge racist assumptions that construct an “enemy” where there is none. We need to challenge any excuse for war, as war seems to be merely the “plan B” of the American elite.

*

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

Notes

(1) Lee, Yu-ling (2017) Lingering on Aoki’s bridge: Reconceptualizing Ted Aoki as curricular techno-theologian, University of British Columbia.https://www.academia.edu/31862940/Lingering_on_Aokis_bridge_Reconceptualizing_Ted_Aoki_as_curricular_techno_theologian

(2) Hammonds, Clare et al (2020, June 5), Stressed, Unsafe and Insecure: Essential Workers need A New, New Deal, Center for Employment and Equity, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

https://www.umass.edu/employmentequity/stressed-unsafe-and-insecure-essential-workers-need-new-new-deal

(3) Bregman, Rutger (2017), Wealth isn’t created at the top; it’s only devoured there, The Guardian, from Ecologise:   https://ecologise.in/2017/04/10/rutger-bregman-no-wealth-isnt-created-top-merely-devoured/

(4) World Population Review (2021) Debt to GDP ratio by country, https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/debt-to-gdp-ratio-by-country

(5) Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer (2016), Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington DC.

Free pdf download: https://deanbaker.net/books/rigged.htm

(6) Costs of War Project, Fact Sheet: The True Costs of post 9-11 Wars, (2019), Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University,

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/about/Overview%20One%20Pager%202021.pdf

(7) Binok Kampmark (2021) Giving War with China a chance, Counterpunch, https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/04/30/giving-war-with-china-a-chance/

(8) K.J. Noh (2020) The US is Set on a Path to War with China. What is to be Done? Counterpunch, https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/16/the-us-is-set-on-a-path-to-war-with-china-what-is-to-be-done/

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 by Global Research on January 30, 2021

What matters most at this point in time is not the peddled stories of Covid-19’s life-threatening proliferation but rather the enormous effect of those stories in the lives of people whose fear has already evolved into paranoia. This whole situation has likewise led them in a unilateral direction without considering in-depth transcripts of research studies produced on the other side of the fence.

The same people have developed the tendency to ignore the fact that the researchers involved in these studies are competent and distinguished scientists whose expertise is recognized in prestigious academic institutions and professional organizations.

It doesn’t matter anymore how comprehensive and evidence-sustained these studies are. Nobody wants to listen because of the simple reason that people have already been caught in a loop of lies and fear and there is no way out. Well, it is not that there really is no way out; there is, but they are just incorrigibly blinded to the core that such blindness has drawn them away from the way out.

To be more accurate,  it could actually be more of an issue of deafness rather than blindness because nobody wants to listen to how they could find the way out. That is the common aftermath of getting brainwashed–all the windows of possibilities are shut off and any attempt to show them the way to unlock such windows is already an exercise in futility. 

People have been agonizing in the face of massive economic disempowerment, disenfranchisement and devastation. But no one, except a few, has the will, courage and initiative to stand up and confront the diabolical powers behind this tragic state of affairs. What rules the situation is nothing but paralysis as no one has the guts to break away from the profound deception that what has befallen the globe is an incontrovertible pandemic. No one is able to break away from the widespread lies that have engulfed humanity. 

Behind all these is the extensive power of the post-industrial media used to manipulate consciousness and exploit the material conditions from which we have been programmed to draw the meaningfulness of life in the present dispensation.

This is the very “unpleasant place” where humanity is located and as long as we don’t reach that point of realization that this is a “shithole”, no more no less, no redemption is in sight. We are condemned and this condemnation is all for the benefit of the powers that be who are behind this infrastructure of the hell that they created on planet Earth.

Yes, hundreds of thousands are getting infected day in day out. But on what basis?

On the basis of PCR tests conducted all over the world.

Hundreds of thousands are getting infected according to the highly unreliable testing device and procedure.

And mainstream media are always waiting at the sideline to globally disseminate the news of how things are getting worse. In the process, all other diseases–particularly those that affect the respiratory system–have already been expunged; all is Covid-19. Even recorded deaths generally fall under the category of Covid-19.

As critical minds navigate the rough terrain of the infernal landscape created and sustained by the perpetrators behind the manufactured pandemic, we don’t only find people scared to the bones but among them are hardcore “dogmatic” believers who have gone extremely ballistic against all defiant viewpoints aimed to falsify the indoctrination they get from the propagandists of the pandemic lies.

Confronted by this reality, there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel.

Or is there really a tunnel? Perhaps we are all in the bowels of “Plato’s cave” and the most crucial problem now is the majority just refuse to take the initiative to find the way out.

*

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.

Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. A retired academic (Associate Professor IV), he taught Philosophy and Social Sciences for more than fifteen years at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On June 30, Health Canada released the second annual report on (MAiD) euthanasia and assisted suicide. The data was gathered from the reports submitted by the medical or nurse practitioners who caused the death. There is no requirement that a third party or neutral person submit the euthanasia reports to ensure their accuracy.

The report does not even attempt to uncover potential abuse of the law. The data in Québec’s report indicated that at least 13 assisted deaths did not comply with the law.

The 2020 Canadian MAiD report indicates that the number of assisted deaths increased more than 34% in 2020:

In 2020, there were 7595 reported assisted deaths up from 5,660 in 2019 and up from 4,478 in 2018.

(MAiD) euthanasia deaths represented 2.5% of all deaths in 2020.

The number of MAID deaths in 2020 increased by more than 34% from 2019. The increase in 2019 from 2018 was more than 26% with every province experiencing an increase in the number of MAID deaths.

When all data sources are considered, the total of number of (MAiD) deaths reported in Canada from legalization until December 31, 2020 is 21,589.

Based on the fact that the Ontario data, which is published monthly, indicates increases in assisted deaths in 2021, I estimated that at least 4000 assisted deaths occurred in the first 6 months of 2021, meaning more than 25,000 MAiD deaths have happened in Canada since legalization.

British Columbia has the highest percentage with 4% of all deaths by (MAiD).

There is significant difference with the number of euthanasia (MAiD) deaths in each province. The data indicates that British Columbia has the highest percentage of (MAiD) deaths (4% of all deaths) and Quebec has the second highest percentage (3.1% of all deaths), while Newfoundland has the lowest percentage of deaths by euthanasia (0.9%).

British Columbia has been the most aggressive province to promote euthanasia and is forcing healthcare institutions to facilitate killing their patients. For instance:

  • A recent story from BC concerned a cancer patient who was being pushed to euthanasia (Link).
  • In February, the Delta Hospice Society was defunded by the BC Ministry of Health because they refused to be complicit with euthanasia (Link).
  • In 2019, Alan Nichols died by euthanasia in Chilliwack BC, even though he was not dying but deeply depressed. His family begged the doctors to re-assess Alan based on the fact that Alan had lived his life with chronic depression, but they refused (Link).

Nature of suffering among MAID recipients

Practitioners reported that suffering among MAID recipients was closely tied to a loss of autonomy.

The most frequently reported reason for the patient asking to be killed was loss of ability to engage in meaningful life activities (84.9%) followed closely by loss of ability to perform activities of daily living (81.7%). Inadequate control of pain, or concern about it (57.4%), loss of dignity (53.9%) and inadequate control of symptoms, other than pain, or concern about it (50.6%).

I am particularly concerned that 18.6% or more than 1412 people listed loneliness and isolation as a reason to die by MAiD.

If Canadians had access to excellent end-of-life care then 57% would not state that inadequate control of pain or concern about it and 50% would not state that inadequate control of symptoms, other than pain, or concern about it are reasons to be killed.

On March 17, 2021 the Federal Government passed Bill C-7. The government has predicted that Bill C-7 will lead to a 20% increase in the number of MAiD deaths in Canada. Based on the fact that there were 7595 euthanasia deaths in 2020, it is possible that there will be more than 9100 deaths by lethal injection in 2021. Recent Ontario data suggests that this is exactly what is happening (Link).

Canada’s federal government and the Québec government have both established committee’s to discuss the further expansion of euthanasia in Canada.

The current Canadian government is committed to more death by euthanasia.

There is more information in the Second Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying that I will cover in future articles.

*

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

Featured image is from The Ethics Centre

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada’s 2020 Euthanasia Report and “Assisted Suicide”: Almost 8000 People Died by Lethal Injection, 1412 People Died Because of Loneliness and 4% of Deaths in BC Were Euthanasia
  • Tags: , ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Over eight days, from June 25-30, Haiti had been subjected to increasing state-sponsored, imperial and gang violence. Massacres killed almost 60 people in Port au Prince, including in Cité Soleil, Delmas and Pétionville, as well as on on Rue Magloire Ambroise. Prominent human-rights activist Antoinette (Netty) Duclaire and journalist Diego Charles were two of the victims.

In light of this violence, the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) once again affirms its support for the Haitian people and condemns the continued US/UN/OAS backing for the illegitimate Jovenel Moïse administration. Not only do we repudiate the continued violations of human rights in Haiti, we denounce the attempts by the Moïse government and its handlers—especially the Organization of American States (OAS) and the U.S. State Department—to force legislative and presidential elections and an illegal constitutional referendum under an undemocratic voting structure.

Moïse, who has been ruling Haiti by decree since January 2020, has been attempting to pass a referendum to re-write Haiti’s 1987 constitution.

“We support the Haitian people, who have maintained that there is no chance for credible elections to be held while Jovenel Moïse is in power,” says BAP member and Haitian Chris Bernadel. “We stand in solidarity with the Haitian people against the corrupt and illegitimate regime of Jovenel Moïse, which has been enabled through the support of the U.S., OAS and the United Nations.”

Illegal, according to Haitian law, the proposed referendum has been rejected by every sector of civil society, and opposed by the majority of Haitians.

Yet, a recent OAS report on Haiti not only supports the constitutional referendum, the organization also is pushing for Moïse to single handedly appoint a new prime minister, cabinet, and Provisional Electoral Council in order to move forward with both the referendum and presidential, municipal, and local elections.

These elections will be neither credible, nor legal. The current government is illegitimate. And currently, no clear path exists for free, fair and transparent elections under these conditions.

Yet, the white overseers of Haiti—the United States, the United Nations and the OAS—continue to push for this illegal referendum and elections. The United States has continued its material, logistical and political support of Moïse’s administration. It has spent at least $12.6 million since Moïse was elected in support of dubious elections and bogus political processes. Although the United States acknowledges that thus far, preparations for the referendum “have not been sufficiently transparent or inclusive,” Joe Biden’s administration has not come out against the referendum. Instead, the Biden-Harris administration has focused on the primacy of holding elections in the fall. At the same time, the UN and the OAS also have provided support for Moïse. The OAS has helped by revising the text of the proposed constitution, apparently to remove some of the more controversial aspects from the first draft. The UN also is advising the national police on an electoral security strategy.

Since February 7, when Moïse’s mandate as president had expired, BAP has been calling for the U.S. government and the rest of the so-called “international community” to respect Haitian sovereignty and the will of the Haitian people. We have consistently condemned Western imperialist meddling in Haiti, and BAP members have rallied in Chicago, Washington, D.C. and New York to demand the Biden-Harris administration and Western entities—such as the Core Group and the OAS—end decades of interventions that have violated the right of the Haitian people to transparent democratic processes.

We continue to support the Haitian masses, and express solidarity with the Haitian peoples in their quest for sovereignty and freedom. We condemn the continued imperial violence in Haiti that has been dismissed as merely gang violence.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Human Rights Violence in Haiti: Continued U.S./OAS/UN Support for Unconstitutional Actions by Haiti’s Illegitimate Government
  • Tags: ,
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Myanmar’s Crisis Follows Predictable ‘Libya Model’ Pattern

mRNA Vaccine Inventor Erased from History Books

July 6th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

June 11, 2021, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology, Dr. Robert Malone, spoke out on the DarkHorse podcast about the potential dangers of COVID-19 gene therapy injections. The podcast was quickly erased from YouTube

Malone is concerned about government not being transparent about risks, and that people are being coerced into taking these experimental injections, which violates bioethics laws

He believes the risks outweigh the benefits in children, teens and young adults, and that those who have recovered from natural SARS-CoV-2 infection should not get the injection

Five days after his DarkHorse podcast appearance, Malone’s scientific accomplishments and contributions were scrubbed from Wikipedia

As recently as June 14, 2021, Malone’s contributions were extensively included in the historical section on RNA vaccines’ Wikipedia page. June 16, his name was removed and his accomplishments attributed to nameless researchers at the Salk Institute, the University of California, and the University of Wisconsin

*

June 11, 2021, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology,1 Dr. Robert Malone, spoke out on the DarkHorse podcast about the potential dangers of COVID-19 gene therapy injections, hosted by Bret Weinstein, Ph.D. The podcast was quickly erased from YouTube and Weinstein was issued a warning.

To censor a scientific discussion with the actual inventor of the technology used to manufacture these COVID-19 shots is beyond shocking. But the censorship of Malone goes even further than that. As reported in the video above, Malone’s scientific accomplishments are also being scrubbed.

Wikipedia Scrubs Malone’s Scientific Contributions

As recently as June 14, 2021, Malone’s contributions were extensively included in the historical section on RNA vaccines’ Wikipedia page. He was listed as having co-developed a “high-efficiency in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection system using cationic liposomes” in 1989.

In 1990, he demonstrated that “in-vitro transcribed mRNA could deliver genetic information into the cell to produce proteins within living cell tissue.” Malone was also part of the team that conducted the first mRNA vaccine experiments. In short, his scientific knowledge of mRNA vaccines is unquestionable.

wikipedia entry

Two days later, June 16, 2021, just five days after Malone’s appearance on the DarkHorse podcast, his name was removed from the Wikipedia entry. Now, all of a sudden, the discovery of mRNA drug delivery is accredited to nameless researchers at the Salk Institute and the University of California, and his 1990 research confirming that injected mRNA can produce proteins in cell tissue is accredited to nameless scientists at the University of Wisconsin.

wikipedia entry removed

Hungarian biochemist Katalin Kariko is now suddenly praised by mainstream media as the inventor of mRNA vaccines.2 It’s a convenient choice, considering Kariko is the senior vice president of BioNTech, the creator of Pfizer’s COVID injection. Kariko’s unofficial biography also includes being a communist-era police informant.

As noted in the featured video, this goes beyond censoring. It’s revisionism — a “1984”-style rewriting of history to fit the official narrative of the day. The danger of this trend is incalculable.

What Did Malone Say About mRNA Vaccines?

Watch the video here.

The take-home messages Malone delivered on Weinstein’s podcast were that government is not being transparent about the risks, that no one should be forced to take these experimental injections, that the risks outweigh the benefits in children, teens and young adults, and that those who have recovered from natural SARS-CoV-2 infection should not get the injection. In a June 24, 2021, interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News (above), Malone said:3

“I am of the opinion that people have the right to decide whether to accept vaccines or not, especially since these are experimental vaccines … My concern is I know there are risks but we don’t have access to the data … We don’t really have the information we need to make a reasonable decision.”

A significant part of why we don’t have adequate data is because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration purposely decided not to require stringent post-vaccination data collection and evaluation. This too was revealed in Malone’s DarkHorse interview.

Why did the FDA opt for lax data capture on a brand-new, never before used technology slated for mass distribution? Clearly, without post-injection data capture, there’s no way to evaluate the safety of these products. You cannot identify danger signals if you don’t have a process for capturing effects data and evaluating all of it.

First Risk-Benefit Analysis of COVID Shots

Malone also points out that risk-benefit analyses have not been done, and that’s another objection he has. What data we do have, however, indicate these COVID-19 injections could be the most dangerous medical product we’ve ever seen.

For example, 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,4 which historically has been the most hazardous. The COVID shots are also seven times more dangerous than the pandemic H1N1 vaccine, which had a 25-per-million severe side effect rate.5

Coincidentally, a peer-reviewed risk-benefit analysis6 was in fact published in the medical journal Vaccines the same day Malone spoke to Carlson. It revealed that the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) to prevent one COVID-19 death using the Pfizer injection is between 9,000 and 50,000, and that for every three COVID-19 deaths prevented, two are killed by the injection. According to the authors, “This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.”

The Spike Protein Is a Bioactive Cytotoxin

In his DarkHorse interview, Malone noted that he had warned the FDA that the spike protein — which the COVID-19 shots instruct your cells to make — could pose a health risk.

The FDA dismissed his concerns, saying they did not believe the spike protein was biologically active. Besides, the vaccine makers specifically designed the injections so that the spike protein would stick and not float about freely. As it turns out, they were wrong on both accounts.

It’s since been established that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein does not stay near the injection site,7and that it is biologically active. It is responsible for the most severe effects seen in COVID-19, such as bleeding disorders, blood clots throughout the body, heart problems and neurological damage.

These are the same problems we now see in a staggering number of people having received one or two shots of COVID-19 gene therapy. The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein also has reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries.8,9,10

Despite that, Pfizer opted not to perform standard reproductive toxicology studies. For more in-depth information about how the spike protein can wreck your health, see my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D.

COVID Jab Campaign Violates Bioethics Laws

In his interviews with Weinstein and Carlson, Malone stressed that there are bioethical principles and bioethics laws in place to prevent undue risks in medical experimentation, and that those laws are currently being violated. He went into far more detail on this in a May 30, 2021, essay:11

“… the adult public are basically research subjects that are not being required to sign informed consent due to EUA waiver. But that does not mean that they do not deserve the full disclosure of risks that one would normally require in an informed consent document for a clinical trial.

And now some national authorities are calling on the deployment of EUA vaccines to adolescents and the young, which by definition are not able to directly provide informed consent to participate in clinical research — written or otherwise.

The key point here is that what is being done by suppressing open disclosure and debate concerning the profile of adverse events associated with these vaccines violates fundamental bioethical principles for clinical research. This goes back to the Geneva convention and the Helsinki declaration.12 There must be informed consent for experimentation on human subjects.”

Experimentation without proper informed consent also violates the Nuremberg Code,13 which spells out a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation. This set of principles were developed to ensure the medical horrors discovered during the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II would never take place again.

In the U.S., we also have the Belmont report,14 cited in Malone’s essay, which spells out the ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research, covered under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46 (subpart A). The Belmont report describes informed consent as follows:

“Respect for persons requires that subjects, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them. This opportunity is provided when adequate standards for informed consent are satisfied.

While the importance of informed consent is unquestioned, controversy prevails over the nature and possibility of an informed consent. Nonetheless, there is widespread agreement that the consent process can be analyzed as containing three elements: information, comprehension and voluntariness.”

Americans, indeed the people of the entire planet, are being prevented from freely accessing and sharing information about these gene therapies. Worse, we are misled by fact checkers and Big Tech platforms that ban or put misinformation labels on anyone and anything discussing them in a critical or questioning way. The same censorship also prevents comprehension of risk.

Lastly, government and any number of vaccine stakeholders are encouraging companies and schools to make these experimental injections mandatory, which violates the rule of voluntariness. Government and private businesses are also creating massive incentives to participate in this experiment, including million-dollar lotteries and full college scholarships. None of this is ethical or even legal. As noted by Malone in his essay:15

“… as these vaccines are not yet market authorized (licensed), coercion of human subjects to participate in medical experimentation is specifically forbidden. Therefore, public health policies which meet generally accepted criteria for coercion to participate in clinical research are forbidden.

For example, if I were to propose a clinical trial involving children and entice participation by giving out ice cream to those willing to participate, any institutional human subjects safety board (IRB) in the United States would reject that protocol.

If I were to propose a clinical research protocol wherein the population of a geographic region would lose personal liberties unless 70% of the population participated in my study, once again, that protocol would be rejected by any US IRB based on coercion of subject participation. No coercion to participate in the study is allowed.

In human subject clinical research, in most countries of the world this is considered a bright line that cannot be crossed. So, now we are told to waive that requirement without even so much as open public discussion being allowed? In conclusion, I hope that you will join me; stop to take a moment and consider for yourself what is going on. The logic seems clear to me.

1) An unlicensed medical product deployed under emergency use authorization (EUA) remains an experimental product under clinical research development.

2) EUA authorized by national authorities basically grants a short-term right to administer the research product to human subjects without written informed consent.

3) The Geneva Convention, the Helsinki declaration, and the entire structure which supports ethical human subjects research requires that research subjects be fully informed of risks and must consent to participation without coercion.”

Clearly, Malone is preeminently qualified to speak on the topic of COVID gene therapy: Not only is he a highly ethical physician committed to integrity, but he actually invented the very technology and performed the first mRNA vaccine studies. The fact that he is now censored by Big Tech and outright being erased from scientific history is a crime in and of itself, and something that should worry just about everyone.

This egregious example of censorship vividly demonstrates just how degenerated the media has become. The only possible explanation is that anyone or any piece of information that interferes with as many people getting the COVID jab is removed. Nothing that counters this narrative is tolerated despite every bit of information is making it clear that these COVID jabs are the biggest crime against mankind in the history of humanity.

If Malone can be erased, what chance do the rest of us have to not encounter the same fate? The parallels between everyday reality and the fictional but uncannily prophetic book “1984” are mounting by the day. Where it will take us is obvious. We’ll end up in a world where faithful adherence to the lies of the day is the only choice. To prevent such a fate, we have to get engaged and expose the lies by sharing facts, data and truth in every which way we can.

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

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

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

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

*

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

Notes

1, 11, 15 Trial Site News May 30, 2021

2 The New York Times June 10, 2021

3 Fox News June 24, 2021

4, 10 Trial Site News May 25, 2021

5 Insurance Journal December 29, 2020

6 Vaccines 2021; 9(7): 693

7, 8 Trial Site News June 6, 2021

9 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine (BNT162) Original Biodistribution Study in Japanese, English follows page 10. Ovary data see English page 7 (PDF)

12 World Medical Association WMA Declaration of Helsinki

13 Nuremberg Code of 1947

14 HHS.gov The Belmont Report

Featured image:  A hand holding an mRNA vaccine vial. (Spencer Davis / Unsplash)

The Failure of “Vaccine Passports”

July 6th, 2021 by Swiss Policy Research

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

With vaccine effectiveness down to just 60%, the case for “vaccine passports” implodes.

SPR and some other independent expert groups warned very early on that “vaccine passports” – promoted by Bill Gates and his ID2020 alliance – are doomed to fail (from a medical perspective), simply because covid vaccines cannot achieve sterilizing immunity (i.e. prevent infection and infectiousness), especially not against new coronavirus variants.

New data from Israel now confirms that the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against infection and even against mild symptoms caused by the Indian variant has already dropped to just 64%, while effectiveness against severe disease remains above 90%. The effectiveness of DNA adenovector vaccines like AstraZeneca is likely already below 60% (against infections).

In a particularly remarkable case, a vaccinated Israeli caught the Indian variant in London, infected another vaccinated person in Israel, who infected another vaccinated person, who infected about 80 students at a high school party. In all likelihood, most of these transmissions occurred pre-symptomatically, i.e. without people knowing they were infected and infectious.

The status of “vaccine passports” in the US (Technology Review)

As the above map shows, many US states have already banned “vaccine passports”, though people may still require them for international travel. In the UK, the situation remains somewhat uncertain, whereas the EU and several Asian countries remain determined to implement their “vaccine passport” schemes. Israel phased out its “green pass” in June, but there are talks of “reactivating” it.

After face masks, lockdowns and “contact tracing apps” (inserted into three billion mobile phones by Google and Apple), “vaccine passports” are yet another major “failure” in the international response to the coronavirus pandemic. Instead, the goal should be to achieve vaccine protection against severe disease in the high-risk group, avoid vaccine casualties in the low-risk group, and make progress in the research and use of effective and affordable early treatment options.

*

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

Featured image is from The Freedom Articles

All Global Research articles 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 French government is considering making the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory for everyone aged 24-59 in response to concerns over a “fourth wave” of infections.

After Prime Minister Jean Castex announced that he would push for the compulsory vaccination of caregivers, the French Senate expressed their desire to expand the measure to cover young and middle-aged adults.

“The body published a report from its Common Mission of Information on Thursday, advocating for mandatory vaccinations of young to middle-aged adults on the grounds it could significantly lower hospitalization rates and deaths,” reports RT. The report issued a stern warning: “act now to limit impact”.”

Mandatory vaccines are being pushed partly because the country is lagging behind other European countries in their rollout, with under a quarter of people aged 30-49 having been inoculated and only half of 50-64 year-olds receiving the jab.

The government is also considering sending doctors lists of people who haven’t taken the vaccine so they can be pressured into getting it, while the ability for the unvaccinated to submit negative COVID tests in order to be able to travel could also be withdrawn.

This isn’t the first time that France has considered imposing draconian measures to make people take the vaccine.

Back in December, a bill was proposed that would have banned unvaccinated people from being able to use basic services like public transport.

The proposed law mandated that citizens have proof of a negative COVID test or “preventative treatment, including the administration of a vaccine” in order to “access transport or to some locations, as well as certain activities.”

However, the legislation was dropped after fierce protests. One wonders if French people will have the same reaction to the prospect of mandatory vaccinations.

*

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

Featured image is from America’s Frontline Doctors

It’s Saigon in Afghanistan

July 6th, 2021 by Rep. Ron Paul

All Global Research articles 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 end of the 20-year US war on Afghanistan was predictable: no one has conquered Afghanistan, and Washington was as foolish as Moscow in the 1970s for trying. Now, US troops are rushing out of the country as fast as they can, having just evacuated the symbol of the US occupation of Afghanistan, Bagram Air Base.

While perhaps not as dramatic as the “Fall of Saigon” in 1975, where US military helicopters scrambled to evacuate personnel from the roof of the US Embassy, the lesson remains the same and remains unlearned: attempting to occupy, control, and remake a foreign country into Washington’s image of the United States will never work. This is true no matter how much money is spent and how many lives are snuffed out.

In Afghanistan, no sooner are US troops vacating an area than Taliban fighters swoop in and take over. The Afghan army seems to be more or less melting away. This weekend the Taliban took control of a key district in the Kandahar Province, as Afghan soldiers disappeared after some fighting.

The US is estimated to have spent nearly 100 billion dollars training the Afghan army and police force. The real number is likely several times higher. For all that money and 20 years of training, the Afghan army cannot do its job. That’s either quite a statement about the quality of the training, the quality of the Afghan army, or some combination of the two.

Whatever the case, I am sure I am not the only American wondering whether we can get a refund. The product is clearly faulty.

Speaking of money wasted, in April, Brown University’s Cost of War Project calculated the total cost of the Afghanistan war at more than two trillion dollars. That means millions of Americans have been made poorer for a predictably failed project. It also means that thousands of the well-connected contractors and companies that lurk around the US Capitol Beltway pushing war have become much, much richer.

That’s US foreign policy in a nutshell: taking money from middle-class Americans and transferring it to the elites of the US military and foreign policy establishment. It’s welfare for the rich.

Meanwhile, the Costs of War Project also estimated that the war took more than a quarter of a million lives.

The Biden Administration may believe it is saving face by installing a military command of nearly 1,000 troops inside the US Embassy in Kabul, but this is foolish and dangerous. Such a move establishes the US Embassy as a legitimate military target rather than a diplomatic outpost. Has anyone at the Pentagon or the State Department thought this through?

Plans to occupy the airport in Kabul are also unlikely to work. Does anyone think that, having come this far, an emboldened and victorious Taliban are going to sit by as US or allied military occupy the Kabul airport?

Trillions of dollars wasted and millions either killed or displaced from their homes. For nothing. The lessons of Afghanistan are simple: bring all US troops home, defend the United States as necessary, and leave the rest of the world to its own business. We’ve tried it the other way and it clearly doesn’t work.

*

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

Featured image: U.S. Army Sgt. Christian Cisineros takes a moment to speak with his interpreter March 17, 2009, while on a dismount patrol mission near Forward Operating Base Baylough in the Zabul Province of Afghanistan. Cisineros is assigned to  Company B, 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, U.S. Army Europe. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Adam Mancini/Released)

10 Years Since the Arab Spring

July 6th, 2021 by James J. Zogby

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A decade ago, we were in the throes of what observers in the West termed the “Arab Spring.” An assessment is now in order.

Because Western analysts assumed that these uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen were organically linked, mirroring the revolutions that brought down the Communist regimes operating under the protective cover of the Soviet Union, they termed them the “Arab Spring”. These Arab uprisings, however, were not threads of one unraveling region. While sharing some common characteristics, in each instance local factors shaped them.

One shared feature was their almost exclusive occurrence in the so-called “Arab Republics”, countries that for decades had been ruled by military regimes that lacked broad legitimacy and had become increasingly ossified and corrupt. Also, each of these uprisings started as largely non-violent youth-led protests focused on poverty, employment, and the desire for greater freedom and political rights.

Despite being branded “revolutions”, only in Tunisia, though it is still in a fragile state, has there been a true revolution, bringing about a change in governance.

In Egypt, nothing close to a revolution occurred, with the military retaining control after deposing Mubarak and later the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite Egyptians’ deep concern with the Brotherhood’s attempt to impose its agenda, the military may have created a problem for themselves. Our polling shows that, as a result of increased repression, Egyptians’ approval of the military has plummeted by more than 35 points, and Egyptians now say they are worse off than they were before and have less hope for the future.

The experiences of Syria, Libya and Yemen have been different. As societies fragmented by sect, tribe and region, with the deposing of old regimes, groups either sought or were sought out by external powers, resulting in prolonged bloody civil conflicts; outcomes remain uncertain.

Even with this checkered record, new uprisings are still occurring, including sustained mass protests in Sudan, Algeria, Lebanon and Iraq in recent years. While distinct and not fundamentally linked, each uprising has exploded for similar reasons: lack of jobs and needed services, bad governance, and hopelessness.

The revolts in Algeria and Sudan are somewhat similar to those in the other “Arab Republics” with only Sudan a potential success story. With Sudan’s military dictator deposed, and after continuing protests, the military agreed to form a new government sharing power with civilian leadership. With a projected three-year run for this “experiment”, only time will tell whether the transition leads to full civilian control.

The outcomes in Lebanon and Iraq, where the demands are similar, and include an end to sectarianism, are even more difficult to predict. The repressive violence of Iranian-supported militias in both countries, and the stubbornness of corrupt sectarian elites in Lebanon, pose real roadblocks to change.

Ten years after the first uprisings, the fragile “stability” that once characterised the old order of the “Arab Republics” has given way mostly to chaos. Despite their uneven success and uncertain futures, there are lessons to be learned.

Regimes should know that repression cannot replace unresponsive governance. Leaders should respond to the protestors’ legitimate concerns and offer them real hope for change.

The protesters, especially in Lebanon and Iraq, must develop a coordinated leadership, a coherent program of demands, and a plan for implementation. Where possible (e.g., Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, and Iraq), protestors must organise politically for the next election, to prevent the uprisings from being co-opted by the Muslim Brotherhood or other politicised sectarian movements.

The US must understand that any new Iran deal must include pressure to stop exploiting sectarian divisions and end its meddlesome and violent behaviours in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. And the US should focus future assistance to these governments on job creation, private sector growth, and improvements in education, healthcare, and delivery of social services.

*

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 writer is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute.

All Global Research articles 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.

***

María will finally be leaving the United Kingdom today, Monday, bound for Valencia, after a nightmare that has lasted two weeks. She still doesn’t know when she’ll be getting her passport back, but she is taking it for granted that the document will now permanently reflect that she was deported from a European country.

María is not her real name. She is aged 25, and would rather remain anonymous. Like dozens of other youngsters, she thought that an adventure in the United Kingdom was still possible. But she came crashing down to Earth after falling foul of the reality of Brexit and the country’s new immigration laws, which are very tough and highly restrictive.

On May 3, María was detained on arrival in Gatwick Airport, and was taken to the Yarl’s Wood migrant holding center in Bedfordshire. For four days, she received no information about her situation, could not access her personal belongings, and had to live with the suspicion and fear that a Covid-19 outbreak could see her stuck there indefinitely.

“I can’t say that I was badly treated,” she told EL PAÍS. “Fortunately I had my own room, given the need to isolate us. But I felt very confused, because there was absolutely no information about the situation. As far as I remember, in the canteen, there was a girl from the Czech Republic, an Italian, an American and two South Americans.”

The British government and the European Union countries have spent more than two years releasing information about the rights and situation of European citizens who travel to or work in the United Kingdom, and vice versa. All of those who can prove that they were living in the country six months before Brexit finally became a reality, on December 31, 2020, have the right to apply for EU Pre-Settled Status or EU Settled Status, the temporary or definitive right to remain in the UK and which grants bearers the same rights they enjoyed before the country left the EU.

Read the full article here.

*

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

Featured image: A baggage check-in point at Gatwick Airport in the UK. (Source: El Pais)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

One thing you won’t find in corporate media obituaries of Donald Rumsfeld is any estimate of how many people died in the wars he was in charge of launching.

You do see occasional references to the US troops he sent to their deaths—as in the AP‘s obit (6/30/21):

Defiant to the end, Rumsfeld expressed no regrets in his farewell ceremony, at which point the US death toll in Iraq had surpassed 2,900. The count would eventually exceed 4,400.

And in the New York Times (6/30/21):

Mr. Rumsfeld, more than four years out of office, still expressed no regrets over the decision to invade Iraq, which had cost the United States $700 billion and 4,400 American lives.

But the Afghan and Iraqi lives lost as the result of the wars Rumsfeld managed—which by the most careful estimates outnumbered the US dead by a factor of a hundred or more (PLOS Medicine, 10/15/13; Lancet, 10/12/06)—simply go unmentioned. This, of course, greatly facilitates the job of the obituary writer, who is required to present every deceased member of the Washington establishment as a complicated, ultimately lovable character, regardless of the scale of their crimes.

Or as the Washington Post (6/30/21) put it: “Mr. Rumsfeld was more complex and paradoxical than the public caricature of him as a pugnacious, inflexible villain would suggest.”

‘Handling’ Iraq

Of course, a catastrophe on the scale of the Iraq War can’t be presented as an unvarnished success for Rumsfeld. But neither can it be presented as a criminal act of aggression, because that would indict Rumsfeld’s co-conspirators, many of whom are still alive and plenty of whom still have jobs either in the federal government or the nation’s premier media outlets. (During that war, many professional journalists covered Rumsfeld with an enthusiasm that approached idol worship, referring to him as “America’s new rock star,” a “father figure,” a “sex symbol” and “America’s stud”—Extra!, 3–4/02).

So you need a strategy for criticizing Rumsfeld without directly addressing the fact that he supervised wars of aggression that killed multitudes of people.  Perhaps it was his management style, as the Post suggested when it reported that “his handling of the Iraq War eventually led to his downfall.”

Rumsfeld “failed to set a clear policy for the treatment of prisoners,” the Post‘s Bradley Graham wrote, which is a peculiar way of saying that Rumsfeld specifically approvedmost of the forms of torture used at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, including the use of stress positions, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, isolation, sexual humiliation and threats from dogs—along with “mild, non-injurious” beatings.

He could have been more of a people person, the Post intimated:

While capable of great charm and generosity, he often seemed to undercut himself with a confrontational, gruff and belittling manner that many found offensive.

Or, perhaps, Rumsfeld was really the victim and not the perpetrator of the Iraq War—as the AP suggested with its original headline, “Donald Rumsfeld, a Cunning Leader Undermined by the Iraq War.” AP later switched that to “…Who Oversaw a Ruinous Iraq War,” but the attempt to evoke pity for Rumsfeld is still there is reporter Robert Burns’ lead:

Calling Donald H. Rumsfeld energetic was like calling the Pacific wide. When others would rest, he would run. While others sat, he stood. But try as he might, at the pinnacle of his career as Defense secretary he could not outmaneuver the ruinous politics of the Iraq War.

‘Success’ in Afghanistan

Another tactic employed by AP was to “balance” the problematic Iraq experience with the supposed bright spots of Rumsfeld’s career—notably the invasion of Afghanistan:

US forces invaded Afghanistan on October 7, and with Rumsfeld at the Pentagon helm the Taliban regime was toppled within weeks…. Within months of that success, President George W. Bush’s attention shifted to Iraq, which played no role in the September 11 attacks.

The Washington Post likewise presented Afghanistan as an example of Rumsfeld’s characteristic brilliance:

Mr. Rumsfeld was initially hailed for leading the US military to war in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks…. In the wake of the Afghan invasion, Mr. Rumsfeld hoped to devise a similarly innovative war plan for toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.

Reading these tributes, you could almost forget that in Afghanistan Rumsfeld launched the US’s longest overseas war, one that has killed nearly a quarter of a million people (including 70,000 civilians) without achieving any of the democracy-building, rights-protecting goals that were used to sell the occupation—or even completing its original task of capturing Al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden. (He was instead assassinated years later in Pakistan.)

Describing Rumsfeld’s arrival in Washington, the Times‘ Robert McFadden wrote:

He seemed like an All-American who had stepped off the Wheaties box—a strikingly handsome Midwesterner radiating confidence, taking on big tasks and doing everything well.

Could any war criminal ask to be remembered more fondly?

*

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.

Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org, and has edited FAIR’s print publication Extra! since 1990. He is the co-author of The Way Things Aren’t: Rush Limbaugh’s Reign of Error, and co-editor of The FAIR Reader. He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere. Born in Libertyville, Illinois, he has a poli sci degree from Stanford. Since 1997 he has been married to Janine Jackson, FAIR’s program director.

Featured image is from FAIR

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Principia Scientific International is delighted to share with our readers a stunning legal letter from a UK doctor putting the NHS and politicians on notice that they engage in a conspiracy of “lies” about the COVID19 pandemic and the dangerous “vaccines” being deployed.

The medical doctor is Dr Sam White who worked for 17 years as an NHS practitioner until his conscience told him he could no longer serve the corrupt purpose of mass deception and unethical medical conduct over the fake pandemic. Dr White gained an enormous following online after posting this video below:

Watch the video here.

We urge our British readers to use Dr White’s carefully worded, lengthy legal letter as a template to send to their own National Health General Practitioners and health authorities. A link to the PDF with more precise references is here.

Ask your doctor/health authority representative: is this letter correct? That way they have a duty of care to give a formal reply.

Thereby, we can all play our part in holding to account those who are either evil, too lazy or ignorant to defend lives against this crime against humanity.

FULL TEXT OF LETTER

Sir Simon Stevens

Chief Executive Officer NHS England

2 July 2021

Dear Mr Stevens

Re: My Client: Dr Sam White

I am instructed by Dr Sam White, a GP.

Dr Sam White has had his licence to practise within the NHS suspended by letter from the NHS dated 26 June 2021.

Please treat this letter as a public interest disclosure or whistle blow in that it raises allegations of alleged criminal conduct and breach of legal obligations by those leading the covid response.

Dr Sam White has had his licence to practise within the NHS suspended by letter from the NHS dated 26 June 2021. Please treat this letter as a public interest disclosure or whistle blow in that it raises allegations of alleged criminal conduct and breach of legal obligations by those leading the covid response.

The reasons given for my client’s suspension have been inconsistent. My client has been told one thing verbally and another in writing. What my client has been told in writing is he has been suspended on the basis of his social media output.

My client’s social media output does not differ in any material extent to other clinicians also with an online presence who have not been suspended. My client raised concerns during his NHS five year revalidation appraisal process with the NHS in November 2020.

All of these concerns were raised during the revalidation appraisal process and overlap with what is in my client’s social media content.

The NHS took no action on either the substance of the concerns raised in my client’s appraisal nor did the NHS take any action against my client for raising those concerns during his appraisal. My client’s appraisal was signed off by the NHS Responsible Person.

The same Responsible Person who later suspended my client. It would appear that the reason the NHS took the action they did of suspending my client from practice in the NHS was the fact that the contents of Dr White’s video went viral clocking up over a million views in June 2021.

The NHS appears to have taken umbrage at my client letting the cat out of the bag. The NHS appear to have acted in the way they did because my client pointed out that there are a number of elephants in the room. My client is entitled to point out alleged wrongdoing and is also entitled not to be victimised for so doing.

My client’s social media output sets out two main propositions which are further developed here:

  1. The vaccine programme has been rolled out in breach of the legal requirements for clinicians to obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated.
  2. That the requirement to wear face coverings in an NHS setting is in breach of common law obligations not to cause harm and breaches statutory obligations in relation to provision of PPE.

My client has instructed me to write to you setting out the complaint that he has been victimised and harassed for telling the truth by the organisation you head. Clinicians should feel able to voice genuine concerns relating to alleged malpractice without fear for their ability to practice within the NHS being suspended.

The truth that Dr White is telling may be uncomfortable for you to hear. But hear it you must. I am instructed to copy this letter to the relevant regulators as well as law enforcement.

I am also instructed by my client to publish this letter on social media as the public has the right to know what is happening and how truth is being suppressed.

The allegations are that the following groups of people have committed unlawful and potentially criminal acts in breach of their common law obligations to act in the best interests of the public as well as in breach of their common law obligation of doing no harm to the public.

The Nolan Principles of Standards in Public Life are alleged to have been breached.

The groups of people who my client alleges have breached common law obligations are:

  1. HM Government.
  2. The Executive Board of the NHS.
  3. SAGE.
  4. Senior public office holders within the civil service.
  5. The Executive Board of the MHRA.

In relation to the MHRA they have failed to ensure that the vaccine advertising programme meets their common law obligations as well as their statutory obligations. The MHRA in granting emergency use authorisation for the vaccines has failed in their obligation to consider whether there are safe and effective medicines available as an alternative to vaccination.

The MHRA is failing in its obligations in failing either to instruct a bio-distribution study is conducted on those who have been vaccinated or in failing to publish the findings of such a bio-distribution study.

A bio-distribution study is a study of what happens to the vaccine after it is injected into the body. I am instructed to set out the factual allegations in a comprehensible way, free of jargon, so the general public can follow what is being said.

To assist my client has provided source material to back up every single one of his principal facts and that source material will be referenced via footnotes or endnotes. The Vaccination Roll Out: Clinicians practising within the NHS are obliged to do two things when administering a vaccine:

  1. To do no harm.
  2. To obtain the free and informed consent of those being vaccinated. The law on free and informed consent is set out in the case of Montgomery. Montgomery’s case which went to the Supreme Court laid down the principles for what amounts to free and informed consent. 1. That the patient is given sufficient information – to allow individuals to make choices that will affect their health and well being on proper information.[1]
  3. Sufficient information means informing the patient of the availability of other treatments. [2]
  4. That the patient is informed of the material risks of taking the vaccine and the material risks of declining the vaccine.

Breach of these principles on free and informed consent is professional gross misconduct at an individual level.

At an organisational level if the NHS does not have clear evidence that every person being vaccinated has given free and informed consent it will render those holding executive office within the NHS as legally liable for those institutional failings.

The Government has set the vaccination strategy. The NHS has led the roll out. The strategy and roll out has included the provision of information to the public.

Much of the information has been inadequate or misleading.

1. Montgomery Guideline 1: Sufficiency of Information:

The provision of information has been inadequate. The principal source of information

to the public has been the following:

  1. The Daily Press Conferences.
  2. The NHS badged advertisements.
  3. The Patient Information Leaflet.

The information presented has not informed the public of the following material risks:

  1. The material risk of being infected with the coronavirus.
  2. The material risk if infected of being hospitalised by the coronavirus.
  3. The material risk if infected of not being hospitalised by the coronavirus.
  4. The material risk of dying from the coronavirus infection.
  5. The material chance of recovering from the coronavirus infection.
  6. The material chance of having an asymptomatic infection.
  7. The numbers of people with existing antibody immunity or memorised T cell response.

Before we come to what information has been presented to the public it should be noted that those presenting the information have not publicly declared at the press conferences their financial links to the vaccine industry.

Public Office Holders should act with integrity and transparency when presenting information to the public, particularly information relating to public health.

Those financial links include direct investment in the vaccine industry as well as financial assistance with grants from charitable foundations set up by those with investments in the vaccine industry. [4]

It should be noted that Moderna’s share price has risen from $10 to over $200 [5] in the space of eighteen months. Bill Gates and his charitable foundation are significant investors in Moderna [6], one of the companies supplying a vaccine. It should also be noted that Bill Gates has a known association with Geoffrey Epstein. [7]

Many of those presenting the information to the public are associated with or employed directly or indirectly by organisations who have been financially funded by the Gates Foundation.

The MHRA, the UK regulatory body approving the vaccines, has itself been funded by the Gates Foundation. [8]

Finally, the former secretary of state did not declare to the public that he had a girlfriend and he did not declare that that girlfriend had financial links through her business with PPE and other contracts [9] over which Matt Hancock had responsibility.

When presenting information on a public health matter the Nolan Principles require transparency.

The Nolan Principles requires those presenting the information to declare any interests publicly so that those receiving the information can determine whether the information has been presented in an objective way or in a way that lacks balance and may favour any undeclared interests.

How many people know for example that our Chief Medical Officer has been or is involved in Vaccine organisations which have been substantially funded by the Gates Foundation as well as other vaccine businesses? [10]

How many people know that our Chief Scientific Officer has substantial investments in Astra Zeneca?

Dominic Cummings talked about Mr Gates’ influence in government during his session in select committee.

If a Public Office Holder is presenting information about public health to the public, those people should be upfront and transparent about their interests and who has funded those interests as they might have a bias towards vaccination when other more optimal routes may be available.

Vaccination should not be presented as the only route out of the declared pandemic when there are other routes that can be run in tandem.

The Officials should level with the public.

It seems from day one the Public have been informed via press conferences that there was only one medical route out of the pandemic and that was via vaccination. That route is not the only available route.

Quicker, cheaper and less risky routes are also available as an alternative to those who have no need or desire to be vaccinated and these routes have been known about for many months.

Taking each risk in turn:

The material risk of being infected:

  1. The Government and the NHS has supplied information to the public information on the number of infections.
  1. That information does not differentiate between:
  2. Those individuals testing positive without a Doctor or nurse diagnosing that individual and confirming that they are infected and or are ill with covid.
  3. Those individuals testing positive where a Doctor or nurse has diagnosed infection in that individual and has diagnosed that they are ill with covid.
  4. The principal diagnosis tools have been:
  • The lateral flow test.
  • The PCR test.
  • Primary Care in the form of General Practice Doctors have by and large been kept out of the diagnostic loop.

The NHS’s internal leaflet says that a positive test should not be relied on alone but a clinician, a Doctor or nurse, should confirm the fact of infection by clinical diagnosis.

6.The tests have been subject to major criticism for being unreliable and producing false positives. [11] The writer of this letter has a letter from his MP stating that the tests used can test for any Winter virus. It is probable therefore that the data presented by the government as infections with coronavirus also includes individuals who have tested positive but the test has failed to distinguish what sort of virus is present and whether that virus is old or recent.

  1. Dr Fauci admitted that PCR tests do not test for infectiousness. [12]
  2. Reports of schoolchildren testing positive using lemon juice show how unreliable these tests are. [13]
  3. The inventor of the PCR test has also stated that the PCR test should not be used as a diagnosis tool.
  4. The Portuguese Court of Appeal said it is contrary to international law for a positive test result alone to be used without a Doctor or nurse also seeing the person with that test result and diagnosing an infection. [14]
  5. The public do not know how many people have been classed as an infection on test alone or on test and clinical diagnosis. That is a major failing in gathering data and presenting data.
  6. The cycle threshold at which the PCR test has been set is too high to give reliable data on infection.
  7. The WHO suggested re-setting the cycle rate on the PCR test in January 2021 it is unknown whether the NHS has adopted that advice. [15]
  8. The press conferences have heightened the public’s sense of the material risk as the information presented has in my client’s view exaggerated the numbers in a material way.
  9. There has been no publicity at all at the press conferences that covid is not a High Consequence Infectious Disease. [16]

The material risk of being hospitalised with covid:

  1. The numbers of hospitalisations of people with covid has been presented to the public at the press conference and then disseminated via news broadcasts.
  2. That information has not differentiated between:
  3. Those presenting in hospital with covid illness.
  4. Those presenting in hospital with another condition who have subsequently been tested positive for coronavirus.
  5. Whether those hospitalised with coronavirus have caught the infection in hospital.
  6. The information presented to the public has also not set out the numbers of people who have recovered from covid.
  7. In assessing material risk the public need to have adequate information.
  8. The allegation is that the information has been presented in such a way to make the public think that the material risks are greater than they are.

This has either been intentional or grossly negligent. Presenting information in a distorted way affects the public’s ability to weigh up the material risk that coronavirus presents.

The public are unable to give proper informed consent to vaccination if the material risks have been exaggerated or distorted.

The material risks of dying from covid:

  • The information presented to the public does not differentiate between:
  • Those dying from covid.
  • Those dying from another condition but who have tested positive within 28 days of death.
  • Those dying from another condition but who have tested positive after death.
  • The death certificates are allowed to be signed by Doctors who may not have seen the individual who has died before death.
  • Anyone who has died within 28 days of a positive test is recorded as a covid death.
  • The public is unable to determine what their material risk is of dying from covid as the numbers of deaths from covid have been exaggerated and are unreliable. The CDC in the USA has recently presented its information in a different way to enable any individual to find out how many people have died from covid alone without having any other medical condition or co-morbidity. [17]
  • A Portuguese Court has recently found that the numbers of people said to have died from covid has been exaggerated. [18]
  • The data about risk of dying has also been confused by the fact that Do Not Resuscitate Notices have been used unilaterally without consent and the widespread use of Midazolam during the pandemic in care home settings. [19, 20]
  • The information that has been presented shows that the distribution of risk is uneven.
  • Those under 75 who are healthy are unlikely to die from covid.
  • The risk is asymmetrical.
  • The vaccination roll out has been symmetrical.
  • The government’s communication on vaccination has been inconsistent.
  • The Prime Minister of the country in January 2021 described the vaccination roll out as an immunisation programme. That communication gave the public the impression that vaccines would provide immunity.
  • The vaccine trials have been set up have as their trial design and trial protocol to reduce symptoms [21]. The Prime Minister was at best sloppy with his language as the vaccine trial protocols was to test for efficacy of symptom reduction.
  • It should also be noted that the vaccine protocols also refer to the use of PCR tests in the clinical trials, despite those tests’ known unreliability. [22]
  • None of the vaccines provide immunity. None of the vaccines stop transmission.
  • Initially the government said that only those identified as vulnerable should be vaccinated. That then changed. Mr Gates met with the PM before the change in policy, this meeting with Mr Gates was to discuss a global vaccine strategy. [23]
  • Initially the government said that children would not be vaccinated. That then changed.
  • Initially government said restrictions would be released when 15 million people had been vaccinated, that then changed.
  • Initially government said it had no plans for vaccination passports, that then changed.
  • Providing inconsistent and changing information does not enable the public to have adequate information to give informed consent.

The Patient Information Leaflet:

The NHS has provided the Patient Information Leaflet to some patients who are being vaccinated.

That Patient Information Leaflet does not present the material risks and the material benefits of the vaccination in an adequate way:

  1. The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the vaccines are still in clinical trial.
  2. The Patient Information Leaflet does not make any reference to alternatives to vaccination.
  3. The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the mRNA vaccines are experimental in that these vaccines have never been used before and there is no data on medium term to long term safety. mRNA vaccines are described by the FDA as gene therapy. [24]
  4. The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the clinical trials being run to show the safety and efficacy of the vaccine did not include particular cohorts of people including pregnant women and the very elderly. There is therefore no evidence available to show that they are safe and efficacious for those cohorts.
  5. The Patient Information Leaflet does not make clear that the clinical trials are only using people who have not been infected with covid. There is therefore no data on safety and efficacy for vaccination of those who have been infected. Many people who have been infected with coronavirus are also being vaccinated.
  6. The Patient Information Leaflet does not set out the difference between the absolute risk and the relative risk from coronavirus infection.
  7. By being vaccinated each individual is reducing their absolute risk of being infected and dying from covid by 1 percent [25] means that no one should be under any pressure from any family member to have a vaccination or indeed any medical treatment. The NHS website even states that in its section on informed consent. [28]
  8. The vaccination adverts give the impression that the vaccines have been licensed rather than the true position which is that they have been emergency use authorised which is a lower regulatory threshold than licensing.
  9. The advertisements infer that the vaccines are safe. Safety is about risks. The adverts make no reference to the risk, however small, of serious adverse events.

Information on Vaccine Passports:

  • HM Government has linked vaccination with the ability to travel using a vaccination passport. [29]
  • Many UK citizens know at least one person whose only reason for being vaccinated is to go on holiday.
  • HM Government has been coercive in linking release of restrictions to vaccination.
  • A publicly funded National Health Service is breaching its obligations to its patients in not distancing itself and calling out such unlawful government coercion. NHS clinicians should not be used as conduits for government policy. That politicises health.
  • The NHS should make it clear that it does not endorse coercion or any fettering of an individual’s right to consent or decline any medical intervention.

Advertising of the vaccine:

The NHS allowed its logo on a series of adverts using celebrities to promote vaccination. It is also alleged that a number of celebrities have been paid to promote the vaccine via their social media.

  1. None of the vaccines have received marketing authorisation from the MHRA [2]6. So there is a question mark as to whether an emergency use authorised vaccination should be advertised at all as there is very limited number of vaccines to choose from.
  1. Advertising of licensed medicines is strictly regulated. The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 [27] make it a criminal offence for licensed medicines to be advertised by celebrities and any advert should notify the viewer what the active ingredient is in the vaccine if there is only one active ingredient. These adverts breach the law in my client’s view.
  2. The NHS has taken no steps to distance itself from HM Government’s attempt to fetter every UK citizen’s right to decline any medical intervention.
  3. The advertising campaign has placed pressure on people to have a vaccination. In the advertisement it is suggested that vaccination protects other members of a family including the elderly. However free and informed consent means that no one should be under any pressure from any family member to have a vaccination or indeed any medical treatment. The NHS website even states that in its section on informed consent. [28]
  4. The vaccination adverts give the impression that the vaccines have been licensed rather than the true position which is that they have been emergency use authorised which is a lower regulatory threshold than licensing.
  5. The advertisements infer that the vaccines are safe. Safety is about risks. The adverts make no reference to the risk, however small, of serious adverse events.

Information on Vaccine Passports:

  1. HM Government has linked vaccination with the ability to travel using a vaccination passport. [29]
  2. Many UK citizens know at least one person whose only reason for being vaccinated is to go on holiday.
  3. HM Government has been coercive in linking release of restrictions to vaccination.
  4. A publicly funded National Health Service is breaching its obligations to its patients in not distancing itself and calling out such unlawful government coercion. NHS clinicians should not be used as conduits for government policy. That politicises health.
  5. The NHS should make it clear that it does not endorse coercion or any fettering of an individual’s right to consent or decline any medical intervention.
  6. Montgomery Guideline 2: Availability of other treatments:
  7. The NHS has published no information in its Patient Information Leaflet on the efficacy of other available treatments available to combat coronavirus infection or the disease of covid.
  • The body has an incredible way of treating itself if it is infected.
  • It’s called the immune system.
  • The NHS should not be proposing a medical intervention when most people have a readily available treatment system to combat the infection and disease namely their immune system.
  • The immune system for most people will fight off the infection by the production of antibodies.
  • Further that immune response will be memorised by the T cells and B cells and will provide long lasting protection.
  • It is proven from SARS Coronavirus 1 in 2002 that T cells and B cells memorise the antibody response for many years. [30,31]
  • There has been very little information to the public on the efficacy of the immune system to fight off any covid infection. The immune system is the first line of defence yet has been ignored by our NHS and by the government and SAGE.
  • It is accepted that the thymus gland which produces T cells and B cells gets less efficient over the age of 70 or if a person is immune compromised.
  • Taking vitamin D will enhance the immune system. These have only been provided as supplements.
  • At no time during any of the press conferences has the government and its advisers stressed the importance of the immune system and how to take care of it as a first line of defence against coronavirus. It’s only ever been about the vaccine. The failure to provide adequate information of the role of the immune system is an egregious breach of Montgomery.
  • Immunity gained via infection is better than any immunity enhancement from vaccination.[32]
  • Professor Whitty, to be fair, did say that for most people covid will be a mild illness. He therefore implied, without expressly stating it, that most people’s immune system will fight off the illness arising from a coronavirus infection.
  • There is now ample data that there are a number of therapeutics that will work to prevent infection, and prevent hospitalisation and death.
  • Those therapeutics are:
  • Ivermectin. There are numerous studies showing the efficacy of Ivermectin, it is also proven safe [33, 34] Courts have ordered the use of Ivermectin in some jurisdictions.[35]
  • HCQ and Zinc.[36]
  • Budoneside or anti-inflammatory respiratory inhalers [37, 38]
  • The evidence has been available for some time that all these work to prevent infection, to prevent, hospitalisation and to prevent death.
  • There is limited or no information in the Patient Information Leaflet on available treatments other than vaccination.
  • Why haven’t these medicines been made available? These medicines have been successful in a number of other countries and have prevented death and hospitalisation.
  • Why hasn’t the MHRA investigated these other available and cheaper alternatives before granting emergency use authorisation to vaccines with no proven long term safety record?
  • My client cannot understand why the NHS does not make available safe and effective medicines. This is grossly negligent.
  • These safe and effective medicines and the immune system are the elephant in the room. The NHS does not want to look at them. The regulator does not want to look at them. SAGE does not want to look at them. The government does not want to look at them. Who’s pulling the strings?
  • The question is why isn’t the public being given a choice? Do commercial considerations and political agendas take precedence over public health? If so that’s an extremely serious matter.
  • The NHS and the government appear to be very quick to vaccinate the population but very slow to consider and make available cheaper, safer and effective alternatives, to give the people an option. Why is that?

2. Montgomery Guidelines: Risks of Vaccination:

  • At none of the press conferences have the risks of vaccination been presented.
  • The advertising campaigns infer that the vaccines are safe.
  • The mRNA method of vaccination is considered a gene therapy product according to the US FDA. [39]
  • Serious adverse event data is being collected by the MHRA. But is not being disseminated to news outlets or via the press conferences [40]
  • That serious adverse event data is not being presented by Government or the NHS in its Patient Information Leaflet.
  • Data from deaths falling within 28 days of vaccination is not being collected, let alone communicated.
  • The Salk Institute has found that the spike protein, a constituent component in the vaccine or the vaccine’s mode of action, is a toxin.[41]
  • The Japanese medicine regulator has found that those who have been vaccinated have a concentration of spike proteins in every organ of their body, in particular the ovaries [42]. This study is a called a bio-distribution study.
  • The NHS does not appear to have done any bio-distribution study of those who have been vaccinated.
  • The MHRA has not required a bio-distribution study to be conducted to check the safety of vaccination and if there has been a bio-distribution study conducted it has not been communicated to the public.
  • A number of regulators around the world have required health authorities to stop using the vaccine on health grounds.
  • The last UK emergency vaccine after swine flu was also suspended on safety grounds after 50 deaths.
  • The material risks from vaccination known to date are:
  • Death in extreme cases. Over 1300 deaths reported on the yellow card system.[43]
  • Bells Palsy.
  • Thrombo-embolic events with low platelets.
  • Capillary Leak Syndrome
  • Menstrual disorder and extreme bleeding.
  • Myocarditis and Pericarditis.
  • Antibody dependant enhancement.
  • The public is not able to give informed consent to vaccination as the data on the material risks on vaccination is being inadequately collated and the data that is collected is then not communicated to the public at any Press Conference.
  • The public is being informed that the vaccination is a public health benefit, the risks of vaccination are not being communicated in as systematic way as coronavirus infections and deaths are communicated.
  • It is up to individuals to decide whether they want to take material risks, however low the likelihood of the risk materialising, yet no or inadequate information is being presented on those risks.
  • Adults may shortly be asked to give consent to vaccination for their children when the risks of coronavirus to children is exceptionally low. This is one of the reasons my client did not want any involvement in the vaccination programme.
  • Every clinician vaccinating any individual must tell the individual of the risk of a serious adverse event, however small that risk is. This requirement does not appear to be built into the vaccine roll out in any systematic way.

My client is raising these concerns in this letter and these concerns are consistent with his obligation as a professional to act in accordance with the law and with professional ethics. The public who paid his wages up until recently deserve nothing less.

The second issue is the requirement for the public to wear masks in the NHS setting.

  • The requirement to wear a mask in an NHS setting is unlawful for the following reasons:
  • The requirement is for the public and clinicians to wear masks on NHS facilities.
  1. The mask is not defined.
  2. If the mask is a piece of PPE, the 1992 PPE Regulations are engaged. [44]
  3. The employer is obliged under regulation 6 to evaluate both the risks and the suitability of the PPE.[45]
  4. Any evaluation of the risks would have to pose three questions:
  5. What are the risks of asymptomatic infection?
  6. What are the risks of symptomatic infection?

How are those risks best mitigated?

  1. To answer the first question the risk of asymptomatic infection is low. [46] Dr Fauci said that asymptomatic infection has never been the driver of any respiratory virus.
  2. The risks of symptomatic transmission are higher.
  3. What is the best way to mitigate the risks?
  4. To provide category 3 PPE masks is the answer as they show efficacy in reducing transmission. These have not been provided or indeed mandated by the Health Secretary.
  5. PPE Regulations require all masks to meet EC standards and to be category three in the case of the risk posed by biological agents. [47]
  6. The masks provided to NHS clinicians are not category three. It is against the law to provide unsuitable PPE. It is also mandatory to follow the PPE regulations. [48]
  7. The NHS has issued guidance that any person on NHS facilities must wear a mask. There is however no requirement for the public to wear a category three mask.
  8. The requirement for the public to wear any mask in any NHS facility does not provide any benefit to the public. [49, 50]
  9. The requirement for the public to wear a mask in any NHS facility poses a material risk. The risks of mask wearing is of bacterial infection plus a risk of hypoxia for prolonged use. [51]
  10. There is also the risk posed by CO2 and a RCT reported in JEMA found 6 times the safe level of CO2 in children wearing masks. [52]
  11. Anything other than a Category 3 mask is inadequate as PPE for the risk of infection posed by a biological agent.
  12. The NHS has a policy that any patient or relative must wear a mask as must any clinician.
  13. However there is no requirement that the masks have to be PPE. The masks therefore pose more risk than benefit.
  14. The masks that are being worn by the public are unregulated.
  15. Some of the masks have been manufactured in China and contain toxins.[53]
  16. The NHS has failed the public in its guidance as unregulated masks pose more risks than benefits.
  17. The NHS has failed its staff by requiring all staff to wear masks which pose more risks than benefits.

The issues raised by my client and other clinicians who have not been suspended raise issues about the integrity of those leading the Covid response. They raise issues about whether the information that has been provided to the public has been collected and presented fairly.

They raise issues of breaches of the law and accepted standards in public life. They raise issues of whether private individuals with charitable foundations have too much influence on policy direction and whether the financial support offered by those individuals and foundations is healthy in a transparent democracy.

How can the National Health Service be endorsing the government policy of vaccine passports when that policy:

  1. Makes those who wish to rely on their own immune system second class citizens.
  1. That policy gives privileges to citizens who take a medical intervention, vaccination.

By endorsing the vaccine passport policy the National Health Service is not only endorsing a breach of international law which makes sacrosanct an individual’s right to decline any medical intervention without any repercussion but also breaches the UK law on informed consent.

Since when did the National Health Service morph into the National Pharmaceutical Distribution Service?

The writer of this letter has a backlog of whistle blowers to advise with examples of pressure being placed on employees within care and NHS settings during the covid pandemic, including exaggeration of covid bed occupancy and hospitalisation, such pressure is unethical and contrary to the standards the public expect in public health settings.

Please feel free to contact me directly for any further clarification, in the meantime we have copied in the relevant regulators who no doubt will conduct a full and independent and robust enquiry into the issues raised in this letter.

I look forward to hearing from you with a full response to the points raised.

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*

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 Principia Scientific

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Throughout the scope of human history, information was wielded by the “elites” as a means of conditioning the masses to accept inequality and comply with the status quo. The most powerful weapon ever created by mankind was not the atomic bomb, media has always been the ruling class’s most potent ordnance. It’s for this reason that the Bible was once monopolized by the Catholic church and why Nazis burned books; the more information people have, the harder it is to keep them subjugated.

Information is power and those who own it are all powerful.

It is precisely because the flow of information is so imperative that wars are fought in the realm of public opinion as much as they are on battlefields. A coworker who served in the US Army once told me that the most dangerous job in the military belongs to comms personnel. She described how all military campaigns start with trying to take out the enemy’s ability to communicate; a fighting force that is not informed and loses situational awareness is one that is easily defeated.

Social media was supposed to break the iron grip the plutocracy have over information and democratize news in ways that empower the average Jane and Joe. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and the like promised to deliver a new day of citizen-journalism that could truly create a marketplace of ideas where the winners and losers are not determined by money but by the merit of people’s content. This grand experiment in self-determination was aborted the minute the major social media platforms decided to go public and seek fortunes ahead of their principles.

Far from breaking the paradigm where information is consolidated and monopolized by governments and the billionaire class who own them, Facebook and Twitter cast their lot with the establishment by silencing dissent and censoring people who don’t agree with conventional wisdom. The muzzling of independent journalists like me and countless millions who do not comply with the edicts of the government-media-corporate complex did not start 18 months ago when this dreaded pandemic shattered normal and plunged us head first into the abyss of fear and uncertainty; to the contrary this Orwellian level of censorship we are witnessing started by targeting people on the fringes only to see the net expand and ensnare anyone who dares to question authority.

I have been writing about the safety and efficacy, or lack thereof, of the Covid-19 “vaccines” since December of 2020. The more my articles drew eyeballs, the more I was censored. Over the past three months, my Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and LinkedIn accounts have all been deleted as if I’m a danger to the public. Yet nearly everything I’ve been writing about, from the origins of the virus to the fact that these “vaccines” do not prevent contraction nor transmission of the Coronavirus, have been proven right. The job of a journalist is not to copy and paste biotech corporations and government talking points but to challenge them to ensure transparency. I have been continuously silenced for exercising my rights which are enumerated and guaranteed by the First Amendment.

This malicious silencing of journalists and people who commit the cardinal sin of asking questions about Covid-19 and Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson’s experimental “vaccines” has nothing to do with protecting the public. A full three months before Coronavirus was detected in Wuhan, a global exercise by the name of “Event 201”—an event sponsored by none other than Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and my alma mater Johns Hopkins University—outlined steps that were to be taken in the event of a “hypothetical” pandemic.

One of the actions that was called for was for social media sites to censor people who question the “vaccines”. What you are now doing is something that we premeditated and planned months if not years before Covid-19 arrived to take my mom and nearly 4 million people around the world.

I write this open letter to employees at Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit and other social media sites who are engaging in censorship. My aim is not to vilify you but to appeal to your sense of morality and justice. I know the vast majority of you are good and decent people who go to work daily trying to contribute to the betterment of society. Moreover, I also know that a lot of you do not agree with what is taking place as you watch news being manipulated and society being engineered through algorithms and newsfeed suppression. I know this is not what you signed up for; you did not spend fortunes going to college and sacrificed long hours to graduate with honors only to become minders of governments and to be the capos of corporations.

I fully expect to be deplatformed by Twitter after they permanently suspended my primary account three months ago. Facebook did likewise as they deleted an account I opened up in 2007. But if the price of seeking truth and questioning authority is banishment and exclusion from the 21st century’s public square, so be it. I have experienced far worse in my life, including nearly two years of homelessness, for me to be cowed into compliance by threats of censorship. However, it greatly saddens me to see America, the country that gave refuge to my family and me when my homeland turned us into refugees, reverting to the practices of tyrants like Mengistu Hailemariam who forced us to flee in 1983.

A society that censors is one that is on its deathbed. I really ask you to look into your hearts and ask yourselves if you are OK with the way things turned out at your place of employment. If you are not, instead of seething everyday you go to work knowing that you are complicit in this ongoing abrogation of truth, reach out to some of your fellow workers and find ways to defy in order to stand up for justice. If enough of you raise hell and demand change, it can happen overnight. We are headed for very dark times over the coming days and weeks, I implore you to be on the right side of history instead of following orders you know in your hearts to be unjust.

*

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 Ghion Journal

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On June 10, 2021, 2,400 liters of “firefighting water” containing PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) were accidentally released from the U.S. Army Oil Storage Facility into Uruma City and other nearby locations, according to Ryukyu Shimpo, an Okinawan news agency.

The Okinawa Defense Bureau said the toxic materials flowed out of the base due to heavy rain. The concentration of PFAS in the release is unknown and the Army is not forthcoming. The spill is believed to have emptied into the Tengan River and the sea.

During past investigations conducted by the prefecture, the Tengan River has been found to have high concentrations of PFAS. Poisonous releases of toxic chemicals by the U.S. military are commonplace in Okinawa.

Agent Orange ingredients found at Okinawa military dumpsite | The Japan Times

Excavation of toxic waste at military dumpsite in Okinawa revealed 61 barrels of Agent Orange ingredients made by Dow Chemical. [Source: japantimes.co]

Consider how the latest spill is treated in the Okinawan press:

“On the evening of June 11, the Defense Bureau reported the incident to the prefectural government, Uruma City, Kanatake Town, and the fishermen’s cooperatives concerned, and asked the U.S. side to ensure safety management, prevent recurrence, and promptly report the incident. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs conveyed its regrets [about the incident] to the U.S. side on June 11. The Defense Bureau, the city government, and the prefectural police confirmed the site. Ryuko Shimpo has inquired about the details of the incident to the U.S. military, but as of 10 P.M. on June 11, there has been no response.”

If the Army responds, we know what they are likely to say. They will say they are concerned about the health and safety of Okinawans and are committed to ensuring safety management and making sure there’s no recurrence. That’ll be the end of the story. Deal with it, Okinawa.

Okinawans are considered second-class Japanese citizens. The Japanese government has repeatedly demonstrated it cares little about the health and safety of Okinawans in the face of repeated toxic releases from U.S. bases. Although the small island of Okinawa comprises just 0.6% of Japan’s land mass, 70% of the land in Japan that is exclusive to U.S. forces is located there. Okinawa is about one-third the size of Long Island, New York, and has 32 American military facilities.

Okinawans eat a lot of fish that are contaminated by exorbitant levels of a particularly deadly variety of PFAS that flows into surface waters from the American bases. It is a crisis on the island, due to the high concentration of American military installations. Eating seafood is the primary source of human ingestion of PFAS.

The four species listed above (from top to bottom) are swordtail, pearl danio, guppy, and tilapia. (1 nanogram per gram, ng/g = 1,000 parts per trillion (ppt), so the swordtail contained 102,000 ppt)  The EPA recommends limiting PFAS in drinking water to 70 ppt. [Source: Created by Kunitoshi Sakurai (Okinawa Environmental Network Caretaker, Professor Emeritus, Okinawa University]

Futenma

On April 17, 2020, a fire suppression system in an aircraft hangar at Marine Corps Air Station Futenma discharged a massive volume of toxic firefighting foam. Foamy suds poured into a local river and cloud-like clumps of foam were seen floating more than a hundred feet above the ground and settling in residential playgrounds and neighborhoods.

The Marines were enjoying a barbecue in a massive hangar outfitted with an overhead foam suppression system that apparently discharged when the smoke and heat were detected. Okinawa Governor Denny Tamaki said, “I truly have no words,” when he learned that a barbecue was the cause of the release.

Okinawa Governor Denny Tamaki shakes hand with U.S. Marine at Futenma base in 2019. [Source: thereaderwiki.com]

And what would be an appropriate response from the governor now? He could say, for example, “The Americans are poisoning us while the Japanese government is willing to sacrifice Okinawan lives for the never-ending U.S. military presence. 1945 was a long time ago and we’ve been victims since then. Clean up your mess, United States Forces Japan, and get out.”

Organic fluorine compound contamination detected at six times index value in Uchidomari River

Giant carcinogenic foam puffs settled in residential neighborhoods near the Futenma Marine Corps base in Okinawa. [Source: ryukushimpo.jp]

When pressed to comment, David Steele, commander of Futenma Air Base, shared his words of wisdom with the Okinawan public. He informed them that “if it rains, it will subside.”

Apparently, he was referring to the bubbles, not the propensity of the foams to sicken people. A similar accident occurred at the same base in December 2019 when a fire suppression system mistakenly discharged the carcinogenic foam.

Marine General Apologizes for Massive Firefighting Foam Leak on Okinawa | Military.com

U.S. Marine Corps Col. David Steele, commanding officer of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, explains to Okinawa Vice-Governor Kiichiro Jahana where some of the firefighting foam was captured in a base underground storage tank on April 17, 2020. [Source: military.com]

In early 2021, the Okinawan government announced the groundwater in the area around the Marine Corps base contained a concentration of 2,000 ppt of PFAS. Some U.S. states have regulations in place that prohibit groundwater from containing more than 20 ppt of PFAS, but this is occupied Okinawa. A report by the Okinawa Defense Bureau said that the foam releases at Futenma “had almost no effect on humans.”

Meanwhile, Ryukyu Shimpo newspaper sampled river water near the Futenma base and found 247.2 ppt of PFOS/PFOA in the Uchidomari River (shown in blue.) Seawater from Makiminato fishing port (top left) contained 41.0 ng/l of the toxins. The river had 13 varieties of PFAS that are contained in the military’s aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF).

The foamy water flowed out of sewer pipes (red x) from Marine Corps Air Station Futenma. The runway is shown on the right. The Uchidomari River (in blue) carries the toxins to Makiminato on the East China Sea. [Photo courtesy of Pat Elder]

So, what does it mean that the water has 247.2 parts per trillion of PFAS? It means people are getting sick.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources says surface water levels that exceed 2 ppt pose a threat to human health. The PFOS in the foams wildly bioaccumulate in aquatic life. The primary way people consume these chemicals is by eating fish. Wisconsin recently published fish data near Truax Air Force Base that shows PFAS levels remarkably close to the concentrations reported in Okinawa.

This is about human health and the extent to which people are being poisoned through the fish they eat.

In 2013, another accident at Kadena Air Base spread 2,270 liters of fire-extinguishing agents out of an open hangar and into storm drains. A drunk Marine activated the overhead suppression system. The recent Army accident released 2,400 liters of the poisonous foam.

PFAS-laced foam fills Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, in 2013. A teaspoon of the foam in this photo could poison an entire city’s drinking reservoir. [Source: jonmitchellinjapan.com]

In early 2021 the Okinawan government reported that the groundwater outside of the base contained 3,000 ppt of PFAS. Groundwater drains into surface water, which then flows to the sea. This stuff doesn’t just disappear. It continues to run out of the base and the fish are poisoned.

The Army’s Kin Wan Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricant storage facility in Uruma City is immediately adjacent to the pier, which is used to receive different types of weapons and ammunition.

According to the commander of Fleet Operations Okinawa, “Tengan Pier is a popular off-base spot for surfers and swimmers. Located in Tengan Bay on the Pacific Ocean side of Okinawa, this particular spot offers one of the highest concentrations of marine life found anywhere in this region.”

That’s just swell except for one problem: U.S. military activities threaten the continued health of that very marine life, and the marine life of the ocean. In fact, the new base construction in Henoko threatens the ecosystem of coral reefs, the world’s first extinct ecosystem. Nuclear weapons may once again be stored in Henoko, if the base is ever completed.

Kin Wan receives, stores, and issues all aviation fuel, automotive gasoline, and diesel fuel used by the United States Forces on Okinawa. It operates and maintains a 100-mile petroleum pipeline system that reaches from Futenma Marine Corps Air Station in the south of the island, through Kadena Air Base, to Kin Wan.

This is the aorta of the American military presence in Okinawa.

U.S. military fuel depots like this around the world are known to have used vast quantities of PFAS chemicals since the early 1970s. Commercial fuel depots have largely stopped using the deadly foams, switching to equally capable and environmentally friendly fluorine-free foams.

Takahashi Toshio is an environmental activist who lives adjacent to the Futenma Marine Corps base. His experience in fighting to control noise levels from the base provides a valuable lesson in the necessity for resisting the Americans who are ruining his homeland.

He serves as the secretary of the Futenma U.S. Air Base Bombing Lawsuit Group. Since 2002, he has helped to pursue a class-action lawsuit to end the noise pollution caused by U.S. military aircraft. The court ruled in 2010 and again in 2020 that the noise caused by the operation of U.S. military aircraft is illegal and beyond what is considered legally tolerable, that the Japanese government is also responsible for the damage caused to the residents and must financially compensate the residents.

Residents holding placards reading US Military out protect the relocation of the new U.S Marine Airbase construction on...

Okinawan residents call for removal of U.S. military bases. [Source: teenvogue.com]

Since the Japanese government does not have the authority to regulate the operation of U.S. military aircraft, Takahashi’s appeal for a “flight injunction” was rejected, and the damage caused by aircraft noise continues unabated. A third lawsuit is currently pending in Okinawa District Court. It is a large class-action lawsuit with more than 5,000 plaintiffs claiming damage.

“After the Futenma foaming incident in April of 2020,” Takahashi explained, the Japanese government (and the local government and residents) were unable to investigate the incident that occurred inside the U.S. military base. The U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, gives priority to U.S. forces stationed in Japan and prevents the government from investigating the site of the PFAS contamination and the circumstances of the accident.”

In the recent Army case in Uruma City, the government of Japan (i.e., the government of Okinawa) is also unable to investigate the cause of the contamination.

Takahashi explained, “It has been shown that PFAS contamination causes cancer and can affect fetal development and cause disease in small children, so investigating the cause and cleaning up the contamination is essential in order to protect the lives of residents and fulfill our responsibility to future generations.”

Takahashi says he has heard that progress is being made in the U.S., where the military has investigated PFAS contamination and has assumed some degree of responsibility for the cleanup. “This is not the case with U.S. troops stationed overseas,” he argues. “Such double standards are discriminatory and disrespectful to the host countries and to the regions where U.S. troops are stationed, and cannot be tolerated,” he said.

*

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.

Pat Elder is a peace and environmental activist who has run for Congress on the Green Party ticket in Southern Maryland. He can be reached at: [email protected].

The Plandemic: A Sudden Tyranny Imposed by an Entity that Shall Remain Unnamed

By Peter Koenig, July 05, 2021

People in BC are free to move around, without wearing masks, without social distancing, without any of the restrictive measures imposed by the Trudeau Government on 18 March 2020. Coerced vaccination is over. And no more vaccination certificates.

World Economic Forum (WEF) Announces Creation of Orwellian ‘Global Coalition for Digital Safety’

By Leo Hohmann, July 05, 2021

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.

New Study of Israeli Data Shows COVID-19 Vaccines Lack of Benefit and Much Harm

By Informed Choice Washington, July 05, 2021

We calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) from a large Israeli field study to prevent one death. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side effects and the number of cases with fatal side effects.

FDA Ethically Obligated to Pull COVID Injections Off the Market, or Risk Becoming Complicit in Crimes Against Humanity

By Lance Johnson, July 05, 2021

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.

Father and Daughter Died Four Days Apart Despite Taking Different Brands of COVID Vaccines

By Angela Bininger, July 05, 2021

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.

To Prevent Three Deaths, COVID Jab Kills Two

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, July 05, 2021

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.

Is Foreign Meddling in Ethiopia Actually a Proxy War Against China?

By Andrew Korybko, July 05, 2021

Africa’s second most populous country of Ethiopia has recently experienced a surge in foreign meddling over the past year. This former kingdom, which was among the world’s oldest prior to its 1974 revolution, has always proudly defended its independence. Emperor Menelik II defeated the Italians in 1896 and secured his compatriots’ independence during the height of European colonialism.

Drinking Coffee in the Early Morning Rain and Thinking of Donald Rumsfeld

By Edward Curtin, July 05, 2021

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.

Video: Senator Ron Johnson: Censored and Suppressed on Critical COVID Issues

By Senator Ron Johnson and Kristina Borjesson, July 05, 2021

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-b oggling 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.

1,007,253 Injuries 1,403 Dead in the UK Following COVID-19 Injections According to UK Government

By Brian Shilhavy, July 05, 2021

The UK Government’s reporting system for COVID vaccine adverse reactions from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency released their latest report today, July 1, 2021. 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.

Latest CDC VAERS Data Show Reported Injuries Surpass 400,000 Following COVID Vaccines

By Megan Redshaw, July 05, 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).

Anglo-American Tripwire Traps Russian Bear

By M. K. Bhadrakumar, July 05, 2021

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. 

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Video: Senator Ron Johnson: Censored and Suppressed on Critical COVID 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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Emergency Program Act Ministerial Order No. M275

“I, Mike Farnworth, Minister of Public Safety, and Solicitor General, order that, effective at the end of the day on June 30, 2021, the attached declaration of a State of Emergency throughout the whole of the Province of British Colombia, made on March 18, 2020, and subsequently extended, is canceled.”

“The Province of British Columbia has formally extended the provincial state of emergency, allowing health and emergency management officials to continue to use extraordinary powers under the Emergency Program Act (EPA) to support the Province’s COVID-19 pandemic response.

The state of emergency is extended through the end of the day on July 6, 2021, to allow staff to take the necessary actions to keep British Columbians safe and manage immediate concerns and COVID-19 outbreaks.” (emphasis added)

 

In other words, the State of Emergency in British Colombia, as a possible precursor for the rest of Canada, is no longer valid?

People in BC are free to move around, without wearing masks, without social distancing, without any of the restrictive measures imposed by the Trudeau Government on 18 March 2020. Coerced vaccination is over. And no more vaccination certificates.

This is the approximate date (mid-March 2020) of the general lockdown throughout the world, in all of the 193 UN member countries at once. A sudden tyranny imposed by an entity that shall remain unnamed, “high-above the UN system”, has been cowardly accepted by the UN system and by all its coopted member governments.

Yes, all 193 UN member governments have been coerced, by threat or reward, to follow this nefarious criminal and deadly agenda – a depopulation and life-digitization agenda to be implemented under the guise of a pandemic, actually, a plandemic. It is virologically impossible that a virus, deadly or not, spreads throughout the world as a pandemic at once, within days.

And even less so, a virus, like the corona virus which is essentially a flu virus – with mortality rates from about 0.3% to 0.8%. This “new” covid virus is not a new version. It is an updated version of the SARS virus that was directed at the Chinese genome in 2002 / 2003.

In retrospect, the 2002 / 2003 SARS virus was like a trial balloon. Both the 2002 / 2003 and today’s versions were laboratory-made – certainly not in China, as the west keeps claiming. Readers may have noticed, western lies are endless, repetitive and ever viler and more vicious.

Today’s covid-lie version which is supposed to invade and lock down the entire world, has been renamed as SARS-Cov-2, and in January 2021 renamed again by WHO as Covid-19. This worldwide plandemic was planned for decades before. See also the 2010 Rockefeller Report.

 

The master “trial” i.e., simulation before launching the virus globally, was Event 201, a computer simulation in New York City on October 18, 2019. It was sponsored by the World Economic Forum – WEF, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, which, by the way, is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. May it be noted that the Gates and the Rockefellers are among the most notorious eugenists on the planet.

The Event 201 was attended by professionals with links to UN agencies, especially WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank, the IMF, and more, as well as renowned national health agencies including the CDC. See this.

The 201 simulation produced some 65 million deaths and a gutted world economy – massive unemployment, famine, misery and more death from famine and desperation.

The Covid-19 Plandemic

In reality, the worldwide damage done during these last 15 months is unfathomable.

As of today, this plandemic has already affected at least 2 to 4 billion people throughout the world – and more – many more – will be affected within the next five to ten years – “coincidentally” the so-called UN Agenda 2030, or Agenda 2021 – if, and this is the Big IF – We, the People, do not wake up and stop this crime of epical proportions in solidarity.

Part of this agenda is an extreme, well-planned food shortage throughout the world.

Reports are coming out of India that the government buys up food crops from farmers at preferred prices – just to let it rot and destroy. Millions of tons of food crops are being devastated, expected to be leading to massive death by famine.

These food shortages in India and elsewhere may also affect Europe, the US and other parts of the world. In the US, Bill Gates has recently become the largest single “farmer”, as his foundation bought up more than 269,000 acres of farmland throughout the United States (about 110,000 hectares).

 

Is this land being used for producing food, or for preventing food production? The Gates farmland purchase was reported by NBC – but strangely, the NBC reference to their report has been deleted from the internet. Fortunately, it is still available on different other websites, i.e., on this one.

As it stands, Canada may be leading the way for the rest of the world to peel off the criminal covid restrictions and – most importantly, Canada is legally pursuing and prosecuting the perpetrators of these human rights infringing covid measures. They are supported by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, German-American lawyer, and his team of lawyers, and the large German Investigative Committee. Dr. Fuellmich’s claims of crimes against humanity have already been accepted by Canadian’s Highest Courts.

All of this – or most of it, especially the abrogation of the nefarious Canadian “Declaration of the State of Emergency”, may not yet be known to the wide Canadian public, because mainstream media do not report it. Therefore, people may still be subject to – totally illegally – pressure and coercion of mask wearing, vaccination and constant and dangerous PCR-testing.

May this refreshingly good news, the abrogation of the Emergency Law, soon be surfacing for all to see and understand – so that a massive solidarity move can bring back Canada to normal.

May Canada become a shining example for the world, in overcoming this deadly psychopathic attempt by a few dirty-rich “non-humans” – to drastically reduce world population and digitize the survivors into “robotic humanoids”.

*

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

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

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

Featured image is from Flickr

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Plandemic: A Sudden Tyranny Imposed by an Entity that Shall Remain Unnamed
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

.

Abstract

Background

COVID-19 vaccines have had expedited reviews without sufficient safety data. We wanted to compare risks and benefits.

Method

We calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) from a large Israeli field study to prevent one death. We accessed the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl) to extract the number of cases reporting severe side effects and the number of cases with fatal side effects.

Result

The NNTV is between 200–700 to prevent one case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95% confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination.

Conclusions

This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.

View full text here.

*

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

All images in this article are from Informed Choice Washington

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New Study of Israeli Data Shows COVID-19 Vaccines Lack of Benefit and Much Harm
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The tyrannical, brutal cynicism of keeping Julian Assange in Belmarsh prison remains one of the more inglorious marks of the British legal system and, it should be said, its sponsors and colluders. Having won his case against extradition to the US, if only in deeply qualified terms, the UK keeps the WikiLeaks publisher banged up as the appeals process stutters.

The case against Assange could have been thrown out under any number of grounds. Unfortunately, the judgment halting his extradition to the US on 17 charges based on the Espionage Act and one charge of computer intrusion was framed in purposely narrow terms, ignoring the patently political nature of the proceedings.  Were it not for District Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s January 4 ruling accepting the state of his precarious health, risk of suicide and the dangerous conditions he would face in the US legal system, the publisher would no doubt be facing special administrative measures and, most likely, the life-sucking interior of a supermax.

A central, and impairing problem in the ruling, was its comfortable acceptance of virtually everything submitted by the prosecution, including the contention that Assange was no journalist, and that he conspired with various associates to hack and make off with classified material.  The judgment also refused to consider – given the ongoing investigation in Spain against the security firm UC Global – that the Central Intelligence Agency had compromised the legal credibility of proceedings by bugging Assange’s privileged conversations in the Ecuadorian embassy.  “This court has no access to the information discovered from this investigation,” reasoned a dismissive Baraitser.  Sordid proposals by US intelligence officials to abduct or assassinate Assange, adduced in court by two anonymous witnesses formerly in the employ of UC Global, could be dismissed as having no bearing on the case.

As if this was not sufficient to sink the matter and open the prison doors of Belmarsh to the founder of WikiLeaks, another dire revelation was made in the Icelandic biweekly Stundin on June 26.  A vital prosecution witness wished to come clean on his testimony.  Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson, that sketchiest of characters, admitted that the testimony gleefully used by US prosecutors had been riddled by fabrications.

In 2011, Thordarson piqued the interest of the FBI after planning a DDoS attack on an Icelandic website in concert with Hector Xavier Monsegur (“Sabu”).  Monsegur, posing as a member of the hacking outfit LulzSec, had become an informant for the FBI.  With touted links to WikiLeaks and Assange (Thordarson was not the shy, retiring type), the FBI sought the teenager’s services.  Thordarson had, in fact, been a noisy volunteer tasked with raising money for the organisation.  During the course of his revenue raising operations, he embezzled over $50,000.    

Not content with these additions to his resume, the teenager shamelessly rode the WikiLeaks reputation train, making contacts with journalists, being subsidised on trips where he could claim to be an official representative of the organisation.  During this time, he pilfered material from WikiLeaks, copying the documents of Renata Avila, a lawyer assisting Assange and the organisation.    

The DoJ indictment does not explicitly name Thordarson or the Icelandic nexus, but little is left to the imagination, given that Assange was visiting Iceland “in early 2010” to aid the country’s politicians and media outlets prepare the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative.  The IMMI resolution, unanimously adopted in the Icelandic Parliament on June 16, 2011, aimed to make Iceland a safe haven for journalists and whistleblowers by protecting freedom of expression and freedom of information.   

The indictment alleges that Assange, in early 2010 and while in contact with Chelsea Manning for reasons of obtaining “classified information […] met a 17-year old in NATO Country-1 (‘Teenager’), who provided [him] with data stolen from a bank.”  The indictment goes on to claim that Assange asked the “Teenager” in question “to commit computer intrusions and steal additional information, including audio recordings of phone conversations between high-ranking officials of the government of NATO Country-1, including members of the Parliament of NATO Country-1.” 

This nasty filling to the superseding indictment expanded the allegedly conspiratorial nature of Assange’s conduct, a measure undoubtedly designed to tag a few more years to any prison sentence that would be handed down.  This would also blacken Assange’s journalistic credentials and any claims to free speech protections.

No longer a callow teenager and having served time for financial fraud and sexually abusing minors, Thordarson told Stundin “that Assange never asked him to hack or to access phone recordings of MPs.”  He now insists that he had “received some files from a third party who claimed to have recorded MPs and had offered to share them with Assange without having any idea what they actually contained.”  Thordarson failed to go through the files, or even verify whether they had audio recordings as claimed by the third party source.  The allegation that Assange instructed him to access computers in order to find such recordings is also dismissed as false.

The Stundin article also delves into the chat logs and new documents “never before published”.  While Thordarson did gather them himself – a warning of self-partiality there – they do cover conversations with WikiLeaks staff and his unauthorised contact with various hacking groups, connections made when moderating the online IRC WikiLeaks forum. 

The logs are not flattering.  They reveal a person prone to embellishment and mendacity.  The big headed “Siggi” considered himself a “chief of staff”, the fictional director of communications in WikiLeaks, and second in pecking order in terms of finding recruits for the organisation. Independently of WikiLeaks, he urged hackers to target Icelandic entities and websites with distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks.  Thordarson, roguishly, gives the impression that such conduct was expected of him by Assange, though there is no evidence that he was ever spurred on to do so.  Further to that point, any purported instructions by Assange to pursue such an enterprise would have been at odds with his fruitful relationship with Icelandic politicians and press outlets at that point.

The sinister conclusion to draw here, notably through the FBI link, is that a DDoS attack was conducted against the websites of several Icelandic government entities with the approval of US authorities.  Linking Monsegur to the supposedly WikiLeaks-directed Thordarson would be one way of implicating Assange.  The US authorities, reasons Ögmundur Jónasson, Iceland’s Interior Minister at the time, “were trying to use things here [in Iceland] and use people in our country to spin a web, a cobweb that would catch Julian Assange.”

Despite having chalked up a decent prison record and possessing the profile of a fully-fledged sociopath, Thordarson was revisited by US authorities in 2019.  The prosecution of Assange, seen as a legal and risky cul-de-sac by Obama era officials, became a priority for President Donald Trump’s Attorney General William Barr.  In May 2019 Siggi was offered an immunity deal by the DoJ’s deputy assistant attorney general in the department’s National Security Division, Kellen S. Dwyer.  In addition to giving Thordarson immunity from prosecution by US authorities for his testimony, Stundin revealed the guarantee by the DoJ that they “would not share any such information to other prosecutorial or law enforcement agencies.”  Iceland’s law enforcement authorities would be kept in the dark.

The Stundin exposé might have been an early birthday present of sorts for Assange, who turned 50 on July 3.  But instead of hearing news of an impending release, the Australian publisher had to content himself with faithful commemorations held in his honour and sketchy coverage about these latest revelations in the mainstream press.  The UK continues to remain Washington’s deputised jailor, while Thordarson, emboldened by his agreement with the DoJ, continues his habitual forgeries.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Morgunblaðið/Árni Sæberg/Iceland Monitor

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Africa’s second most populous country of Ethiopia has recently experienced a surge in foreign meddling over the past year. This former kingdom, which was among the world’s oldest prior to its 1974 revolution, has always proudly defended its independence. Emperor Menelik II defeated the Italians in 1896 and secured his compatriots’ independence during the height of European colonialism. One of his successors, Emperor Haile Selassie, promoted the Ethiopian cause at the League of Nations after Italy’s fascist invasion in the run-up to World War II. His efforts generated global sympathy for Ethiopia and etched its struggle in the minds of many.

In the present day, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed is following in the tradition of his predecessors by standing firm against the latest foreign meddling campaigns that once again threaten Ethiopia’s independence. The most pressing is the American-led Western pressure against him following his decision to commence a law enforcement operation in the rebellious Tirgray Region last November. To oversimplify a complex situation, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) – previously the most powerful member of Ethiopia’s former ruling coalition – broke with PM Abiy, launched a separatist campaign, and was designated a terrorist group.

The TPLF was upset at the pace and scope and PM Abiy’s ambitious socio-economic reforms. They were also reportedly very unhappy with his success in ending Ethiopia’s nearly two-decade-long conflict with neighboring Eritrea which separated from the former in 1993 following a three-decade-long struggle. PM Abiy was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2019 for ending this war. Although he began his rule by implying a vision of broader decentralization, PM Abiy ultimately had to recalibrate his policies due to the inadvertently centrifugal consequences thereof. This generated dissent among some of its diverse people that the TPLF then exploited.

The lingering conflict there has prompted US-led Western accusations of war crimes against the Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF), which in turn were the pretext for Washington to impose sanctions against several individuals allegedly linked to them. America is also leading the charge in warning about a supposedly impending famine in the Tigray Province that its perception managers strongly imply would be solely due to the ENDF. Furthermore, an airstrike in the region last month is reported to have caused many civilian casualties, thus leading to more US pressure. Addis Ababa described all of this as an “orchestrated attack” against Ethiopia.

Concurrent with this is another meddling campaign led by Egypt through the Arab League. Cairo accuses Addis Ababa of weaponizing the Nile River due to its plans to fill the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). The North African state recently succeeded in getting the Arab League to call on the UNSC to intervene in this dispute. Ethiopia, meanwhile, believes that only an African Union-led resolution is acceptable. China also supports this proposal, and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said earlier this month that his country opposes foreign interference in Ethiopia’s internal affairs.

The recent surge in foreign meddling there might be part of a proxy war against Chinese interests in Africa. Ethiopia’s developmental paradigm was powerfully influenced by China’s after the end of the former’s civil war in 1991. China is Ethiopia’s top trade and investment partner. The People’s Republic also helped construct the Addis Ababa-Djibouti Railway, which serves as the Belt & Road Initiative’s (BRI) flagship project in the Horn of Africa. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Ethiopia was Africa’s fastest-growing economy. The Chinese-Ethiopian Strategic Partnership is mutually beneficial and serves as a shining example of South-South cooperation.

Foreign meddling aims to undermine this partnership and could potentially result in Ethiopia’s disastrous “Balkanization” in the worst-case scenario. This makes Ethiopia the latest victim of Hybrid War, and the stakes couldn’t be higher considering that it’s Africa’s second most populous country. Nevertheless, just as it’s historically done, Ethiopia is standing strong against the latest foreign pressure. The US, its Western allies, and the Arab League must stop meddling in Ethiopia’s internal affairs and the GERD issue should be resolved via African Union-led talks, not the UNSC. No matter what happens, Ethiopia can always count on China’s support.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pakistan: Police Superintendent Malik Imtiaz Mahmood Drops Dead Minutes after Experimental COVID-19 “Vaccine”

All Global Research articles 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 Israeli Health Ministry yesterday blocked scores of Twitter accounts belonging to Israeli citizens critical of Ministry vaccine policy, especially regarding vaccines for 12-15-year-olds.

The purge was apparently done in coordination with a recent public thread that included tagging a “list” that was recommended to be blocked “as an act of herd immunity” against those critical of the new policy.

Children’s medical rights advocate Dr. Avshalom Carmel wrote:

“The Ministry of Health is blocking citizens who criticize it? That’s called McCarthyism, isn’t it? Is it Coronafascism, or just the misuse of high-tech knowledge by an unknown programmer?”

Legal experts in Israel called the Health Ministry move “definitely illegal,” explaining that the State Comptroller in 2016 ruled that social media blocking by elected officials infringes on freedom of expression and is prohibited. There have also been administrative petitions in the past, resulting in decisions affirming that a government ministry is prohibited from depriving a person of access to information and participation in discourse.

A morning show in Israel said they would “look into the matter”.

The Israeli Health Ministry did not immediately respond to an America’s Frontline Doctors  request for clarification.

*

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 iStock

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

They were in the country for the extraordinary summit of Heads of State and Government organized by the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

The event was primarily called to review progress made in the implementation of the theme of the 40th SADC Summit; SADC: 40 Years Building Peace and Security, and Promoting Development and Resilience in the Face of Global Challenges, which was earlier endorsed by the SADC Summit in August 2020.

The first SADC Business Forum featured prominently as part of the comprehensive agenda, and other significant issues discussed included regional integration, cooperation and development.

The topic that got special attention was regional security and its possible impact on business and investment climate, with a particular focus on Mozambique and from broader perspectives, as a whole in southern Africa.

Under the Chairperson of SADC and the Extraordinary Summit, President of the Republic of Mozambique, Filipe Jacinto Nyusi together with 15 leaders from Southern Africa, finally, after several months of go-forth and back negotiations agreed to form a regional Standby Military Force.

The sources of funding for the force made up of a contingency fund and contributions from the Member-States that participate in the force, which should contribute between themselves with $7 million (€5.8 million).

While multiple barriers including high tariffs, customs rules and pitfalls on border-crossing with stocks still remain and hamper regional economic integration, Mozambican President Filipe Nyusi, in a speech, reaffirmed commitment to turn SADC into an example of regional integration, taking into account its geostrategic position and the existing energy potential.

Mozambican leader, during the Public-Private Dialogue and Business Forum, urged speeding up the ratification of protocols essential to economic integration.

The establishment of a customs union that evolves into a single market and monetary union is still a huge challenge. It delays the process of ratifying protocols on regional trade. The imbalances that characterize each of the states, such as great differences in macroeconomic stability, uneven levels of industrialization, lack of complementarity in the structure and production base and inefficiencies in the value chain.

Comparing all regional economic blocs in Africa, SADC seems unique but it is critical to fast-track reforms for a better business environment and macroeconomic stability, which are indispensable for attracting foreign investment to the regional bloc. Thus, the SADC Business Forum was, purposely held to bring together initiatives and projects, and match synergies to create opportunities.

Agostinho Vuma, the President of the Confederation of Economic Associations of Mozambique (CTA), has acknowledged, over the years, that tariff and non-tariff barriers are an obstruction to economic integration in southern Africa. There are so many challenges, such as the prevalence of tariff and non-tariff barriers, that stand as roadblocks to regional integration, according to Agostinho Vuma.

On the other hand, low production capacity and prohibitive interest rates imposed by banks weaken economic development and regional integration.

Some reforms are practically needed, that are conducive to the strengthening of private sector companies in southern Africa and that could drive the rapid integration of the region’s economies in a future free trade area, and that could attract foreign investors to strategic sectors in the region, he explained taking his turn at the podium.

The SADC Business Forum also debated the socio-economic impact of COVID-19 and post-pandemic recovery strategies, infrastructure and regional corridor development. Industrialization focused on improving the balance of trade within the countries of the region, the role of the energy and mineral resources sectors and the participation of national business in megaprojects were thoroughly discussed.

Domestication of the SADC Industrialization Strategy with a Focus on Improving the Trade Balance. The session, moderated by Ciyong Zou, UNIDO Program Director, drew many participants who reviewed the processes on the integration and popularization of the strategy by the private sector.

Infrastructure: Development of SADC Regional Corridors. The participants here reviewed regional transport corridors that support the trade and regional integration agenda and further focused on interventions needed to form structures and attract investments. The establishment of the SADC Regional Development Fund in 2015 aims at mobilizing funds for key infrastructure and industrialization projects.

Industrialization remains SADC main economic integration agenda since April 2015, when the SADC Industrialization Strategy and Roadmap 2015-2063 was approved. The Vision 2050 is also premised on three inter-related pillars, namely industrial development and market integration; infrastructure development in support of regional integration; and social and human capital development.

In order to make entrepreneurship an asset in the collective structure of the region, the discussion panels share, reflect and promote the existing regional dynamics and good practices, with a global impact on the ecosystem and initiatives for the development of entrepreneurship.

Energy, Mineral Resources and the Local Content Value Chain; Agribusiness: promoting and linking regional reference value chains; Entrepreneurship in SADC: Ecosystem and Development; Socio-economic impact of COVID-19 in the region and recovery strategies. The participants looked at the challenges imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic, and what needs to be done as recovery pathways in the strategic regional sector.

Zimbabwe, through ZimTrade, show-cased its trade and investment opportunities. It related to the realization of its foreign policy objectives, particularly the development and integration agenda, according to Zimbabwe Chronicle.

The SADC region, with a market of 350 million consumers, seeks to leverage the existing potential, to raise trade and investment within the region, and within Africa and to the outside world.

Statistics on various economic areas are difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, the SADC Secretariat in an email told this research writer that in 2018, SACD’s total exports amounted to $154 billion and the total imports were $149 billion.

The SADC comprises 16 states: Mozambique, Angola, South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Eswatini, Democratic Republic of Congo, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Seychelles, Tanzania, Zambia and Comoros.

Within its framework, the bloc collectively seeks to promote sustainable and equitable economic growth and socio-economic development, forge deeper cooperation and integration, to ensure good governance and durable peace and security, so that the region emerges as a competitive and effective player in the southern region, in Africa and the world.

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Southern African Leaders Discuss Regional Economic Integration
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Over a year and a half ago, in mid-October 2019, Chile experienced a wave of massive protests calling for structural changes and these self-organised marches reached a level of coordination and magnitude unprecedented for decades in the country. The social upheaval, which started against the increase in public transport fares, installed one of the deepest political crises of the last period, giving way to demands for the fall of the current constitution, elaborated during the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in 1980 , validated by the redemocratization governments.

In response to these revolts, the Chilean national congress called a plebiscite, institutionalizing the constituent process that had already begun in the streets with popular organization. Despite the numerous criticisms of the agreement of November 15, 2019 (“Acordo por la Paz” [Agreement for Peace]) between parliamentarians to establish a popular consultation, citizens enthusiastically attended the polls. And the results of the referendum finally ended up reflecting not only the plural social effervescence of the “estallido social” (social explosion) of 2019, but also decades of demands for profound transformations.

Still facing the complexities of the pandemic, the Chilean people went to the polls on October 25 in 2020, and with the highest voter turnout in the past 8 years, chose to end the Pinochetista constitution. With a resounding result of 78.27%, the option to derogate from the neoliberal constitutional text was achieved, and with 78.99% it was decided that the drafting body would be composed of members fully elected to conform to the constituent convention. The 2019 cry of indignation was legitimized with a significant and undisputed presence at the polls (50.9%), when a country with a history of low electoral participation managed to change the country’s politics deeply .

After the triumph of “Apruebo” [Approve] and “Convención Constitucional” [Constitutional Convention] in the plebiscite, and as a result of the increase in the numbers of Covid19 contagions, the government of Sebastián Piñera postponed municipal, regional and 155 assembly elections from 10, 11 and 15 April 1to 16 May. Amidst an unequal dispute with the candidacies raised by the economic elite and the invisibility of the proposals and campaigns of the left, the people answered the call to choose their representatives. And once again, the citizenry voted to be consistent with the outcry of the 2019 social uprising, and also to bury the parties that form part of the “political duopoly” (traditional right and center-left), those that ruled for 30 years of democratic transition.

A light of hope

In response to the clamor in the streets and to protect the constitutional process, Chile took a sharp turn to the left. The message to the political parties that formed part of the democratic transition was clear, and both the official right and the center left suffered a historic defeat. However, more than a punishment to the traditional political elite, it is important to highlight that the excellent results of the last election are due to the articulation of popular struggles and social organization. With the 2019 revolt, the country saw a growth in politicization and social organization in neighborhoods, among organized football fans, cyclist collectives, popular assemblies raised in occupations for decent housing, “olla comunes” – instances of community participation raised by women. There were more and more feminist collectives exploding in every corner of the country, in addition to the interest in discussing the constituent process.

Without a doubt, this was the cry that was heard at the polls on 15 and 16 May, when an electoral process unique in Chile’s history marked the new victory of leftist forces in the election of Constitutional Convention, municipalities and regional governments, the latter being carried out by direct vote for the first time in the country. A surprising result that reduces the right to the place of a minority in the constituent process, even though it is over-represented with its 37 elected representatives (23.9%), however, without reaching the two thirds quorum established by the “Agreement for Peace”, criterion that could obstruct the deep transformations of the Constitutional Convention. Fortunately it wasn’t like that.

The big surprises in the election of the constituent assemblies were the “Lista del Pueblo” (The List of the People), a pact that formed mostly candidacies of social fighters and won 16.1% of the seats; and also the independent candidacies, which total 41 assembly members distributed in different lists. To close the great result of the left forces, the “Lista Apruebo Dignidad” (List of Approve Dignity), a pact of the Chilean Communist Party and Broad Front – a radical left coalition that emerges in 2017, formed by leaders of the 2011 student movement – was the great winner among party coalitions with 18%, of the constituent seats.

The Chilean constituent process was marked by the principle of parity, a demand raised by women, and which also elected 17 representatives of native peoples with reserved seats. Such mechanisms of equity and historical reparation mobilized feminists and Mapuche indigenous peoples after the Agreement for Peace to influence their participation in the construction of the new Constitution. Regarding the municipal election, there was a renewal led by the left and a significant rise of women to positions in city halls and as councilors. One highlight was the election of Irací Hassler from the Communist Party, a 31-year-old feminist who defeated Felipe Alessandri from the National Renewal (the party of rightist President Sebastian Piñera) and will be the new mayor of the commune of Santiago, the capital and largest city of Chile.

The List Approve Dignity was also successful in the Region of Valparaíso, electing as governor Rodrigo Mundaca, a long standing social fighter in defense of water as a universal right in Chile, in addition to guaranteeing victories in the city halls of the cities of San Antonio, Valparaíso, Quilpué and Villa Alemana, almost all led by feminist women. A resounding success that will undoubtedly mark the trend for the presidential race that takes place in November 2021.

The struggles that built today

The “estallido social” (social explosion) that had already taken place in the first months of 2020, added to the context of the health crisis, unquestionably highlighted the main failures that Chilean society had already been denouncing for years. The Chilean working class, it should be remembered, was not until that moment on a sleepwalking and lethargic pilgrimage inside a false propaganda of democratic stability and the overcoming of poverty. During the last 15 years in the country, the struggles in defense of the environment, the feminist movement and the student movement (in 2006 with the “Revolución Pingüina” [Penguin’s Revolution] and 2011 with the “Revolución Estudiantil” [Student Revolution]) have given the guidelines to reconfigure the collective political sense, placing the crisis of the neoliberal model at the center of the public debate.

Beyond the student movement, We must emphasize the strength of the Chilean feminist movement, which was also the protagonist of this awakening. The uprisings of 2019 and the opening of a constituent process – which will write the first joint constitution in the world – cannot be explained without the organizing and convening capacity of feminists. Not now, not at other times. Feminists played such a fundamental role in the entire process of social resistance in Chile, not only in the current constituent process, or when they massively led people again to question institutional violence in 2018. It is important to remember that Chilean feminists also have a history of powerful resistance against the Pinochet dictatorship.

A feminist historical legacy that adds strength and recognition, not only in academic spaces, but appropriating everyday discussions, establishes the need for a political dispute to achieve a structural change in social relations. Without a doubt, the feminist struggles in Chile today, as well as the student movement, are part of a continuum of unified struggles. Struggles that question how commercial education serves to maintain the sexual and reproductive division of work and care, which point to the feminization of poverty that the Chilean neoliberal system reproduces in its privatized pension system, which denounces the fierce precariousness of life through defense of profit in all areas.

In this way, the entire process that has taken place in Chile since October 2019 was more than anything a political opportunity to challenge, that is; to challenge the neoliberal model and demand the construction of a new country, with a feminist, anti-colonial perspective , anti-predatory and economically extractive, anti-racist, and also claiming a plurinational state. Nevertheless, one of the central challenges is to convert this force expressed in the ballot boxes into an organizational force that does not loosen the constituent process, taking up the “cabildos” (instance of direct representation of the communities) and linking them with the elected representatives. Above all, it remains clear that it is necessary to continue fighting so that our efforts do not end up again redesigning another neoliberal social agreement, this time renewed and legitimized by the ballot box.

*

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.

Sabrina Aquino is director of Fundación País Digno and feminist activist of Convergencia Social.

Featured image is from Brave New Europe

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As 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 Maduro spoke 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.

Featured image is from Brasil Wire

All Global Research articles 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.

***

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.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Senator Ron Johnson: Censored and Suppressed on Critical COVID Issues
  • Tags: ,

US ‘Airstrike Diplomacy’ Continues in Syria-Iraq

July 5th, 2021 by Brian Berletic

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On June 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. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.

Iraq’s prime minister, Mustafa al-Kadhimi, made that clear. He condemned the US strikes as a “blatant and unacceptable violation of Iraqi sovereignty and Iraqi national security.”

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.

Featured image is from Al Mayadeen English


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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 statistics speak for themselves. The United States’s annual near $800 billion military budget is more than the next 10 nations’ military spending combined. The next highest funded armed forces, China’s, spends less than one-third of what the U.S. does.

Chart, bar chart Description automatically generated

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.

VINE Base Nation

Map of U.S. overseas military bases, 2016. [Source: geographicalimaginations.com]

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.

Pequot War | History, Facts, & Significance | Britannica

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).

The Military and Sports – Bracing Views

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]

Featured image is from newjerseyleisureguide.com

To Prevent Three Deaths, COVID Jab Kills Two

July 5th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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

Hospitalized or fatal COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases

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.

U.K. data also show vaccinated people are at significantly increased risk of dying from the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 than unvaccinated ones, which suggests antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) might be at play.

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.

Notes

1 Trial Site News May 25, 2021

2 Insurance Journal December 29, 2020

3 CNBC March 25, 2021

4 Vaccines 2021; 9(7): 693

5, 7 Jennifer Margulis, Halt Covid Vaccine, Prominent Scientist Tells CDC

6 Algora.com Public comment by Janci Chunn Lindsay

8 Player.fm A Shot in the Dark, Episode 95 Janci Chunn Lindsay interview June 24, 2021

9 AHRQ December 7, 2007

10 The Vaccine Reaction January 9, 2020

11 BMJ 2005;330:433

12, 13 Cureus June 15, 2021; 13(6): e15664

14, 22, 23 Trial Site News June 24, 2021

15 FDA.gov CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel Instructions, July 13, 2020 (PDF) Page 35

16 Clinical Infectious Diseases September 28, 2020; ciaa1491

17 CDC.gov COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Case Investigation Guidelines (PDF)

18 CDC.gov COVID-19 Breakthrough Case Investigation and Reporting, Identifying and Investigating COVID-19 Breakthrough Cases

19 CDC.gov COVID-19 Breakthrough Case Investigation and Reporting May 25, 2021

20 CDC.gov COVID-19 Breakthrough Case Investigation and Reporting, How to Interpret These Data

21 CDC.gov COVID-19 Breakthrough Case Investigation and Reporting as of May 17, 2021

24 Public Health England Briefing 15 June 3, 2021

25, 26 WSJ Opinion June 22, 2021 (Archived)

Featured image is from Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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

To order his book click the cover page.

“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

Hijacking My Flag!

July 5th, 2021 by Philip A Farruggio

All Global Research articles 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.

***

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.

Two days ago NATO Air and Maritime forces (as distinct from or as a combination of NATO’s Allied Air Command and NATO’s Maritime Command) held an Air Defence Exercise (ADEX) in the Black Sea “to improve Alliance cooperation, practise air-maritime communications and build stronger relationships between Allies.” In shorthand, to prepare for war with Russia in and off the coasts of the Black Sea.

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.

All images in this article are from The Empowerer

Selected Articles: Vaccine Billionaires and Human Guinea Pigs

July 5th, 2021 by Global Research News

Vaccine Billionaires and Human Guinea Pigs

By Colin Todhunter, July 02, 2021

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.

Horn of Africa: Washington’s Next Arab Spring?

By F. William Engdahl, July 02, 2021

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.

Today’s Science Deniers: What We Owe Galileo After 400 Years

By Prof Susan Babbitt, July 02, 2021

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.

Who Ordered the Killing of Malcolm X?

By Jeremy Kuzmarov, July 02, 2021

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.

The Biggest Crime Committed During Vaccine Heist. The Suppression of Ivermectiin

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, July 02, 2021

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.

5 Bizarre New Plagues that Have Made Headlines in the United States Within the Last 30 Days

By Michael Snyder, July 02, 2021

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.

The Gladiators Are Back. The Tyrannical Drive to Vaccinate More than 7 billion People on Mother Earth

By Peter Koenig, July 02, 2021

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.

China: The Long and Winding Multipolar Road

By Pepe Escobar, July 02, 2021

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.

Heavy-Handed Marketing of COVID Vaccines, Passports Brings George Orwell’s ‘Freedom Is Slavery’ to the Fore

By Children’s Health Defense, July 02, 2021

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.”

US Censorship Is Increasingly Official

By Alan MacLeod, July 02, 2021

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.”

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Vaccine Billionaires and Human Guinea Pigs

All Global Research articles 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 UK Government’s reporting system for COVID vaccine adverse reactions from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency released their latest report today, July 1, 2021.

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.)
  • Moderna: 5 deaths and 18,548 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

by The Daily Expose

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.

The report titled ‘SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England’, is the 17th technical briefing on alleged variants of concern in the United Kingdom and makes for extremely interesting reading once you realise what the statistics are actually telling us.

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.

Read the full article at The Daily Expose.

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.

From the 6/25/21 release of VAERS data

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:

This week’s total VAERS data, from Dec. 14, 2020 to June 25, 2021, for all age groups show:

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.

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.

Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.

*

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

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

Featured image is from CHD

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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 Rover vehicles 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)

Anglo-American Tripwire Traps Russian Bear

July 5th, 2021 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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). 

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.

If the new Bucharest Nine format (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia), the realization of the century-old Intermariam project to cordon Russia off from Europe, is the vertical line, the proposed 5 +3 bloc will be the horizontal one in the West’s pincer movement.

*

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)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 5 + 3: Turkic Superstate in Caucasus, Central Asia Under NATO Tutelage
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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:

  1. 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.”
  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.
  3. 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.”
  4. Other available voting opportunities provided by the state’s entire voting system.
  5. “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.

Copyright © Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

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

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All Global Research articles 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.

***

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 Times observed 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 Leggett disagreed

“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 Price was 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)

First posted by GR on May 25, 2001

All Global Research articles 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.

Even though doctors and patients are heavily discouraged from reporting vaccine injury, the reports are still flooding into the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. One forum on reddit has over 25,000 reports of vaccine injury. Facebook has taken down groups that report on tens of thousands of vaccine injuries. The CDC is now limiting the tracking of “breakthrough” coronavirus infections that occur in fully vaccinated people, to make the shots appear effective.

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.

The FDA is now ethically obligated to protect Americans and pull covid injections off the market, or risk becoming complicit in crimes against humanity. This historic petition is available for review and 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.

Featured image is from Vaccine Injury News

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.

Full article here.

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.

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.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

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.