All Global Research articles 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.

***

Israel’s move to shut down a key healthcare body in the occupied territories will have “catastrophic consequences” for Palestinians in need of medical attention, global rights group Amnesty International warned.

Israeli army forces raided the Palestinian Union of Health Workers Committee (UHWC) headquarters in Ramallah on Wednesday, breaking down the door, confiscating computers and memory drives, and issuing a military order forcing the office to close for six months.

The UHWC runs hospitals and health clinics for marginalised communities and has repeatedly been targeted by Israeli forces, Amnesty said.

Employees have faced harassment and arrest for the health providers’ alleged affiliation with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a political party with an armed wing.

“Israel’s shutdown of its headquarters will have major consequences for the provision of essential health services to thousands of Palestinians, a programme for women’s health that was at the headquarters has now stopped,” Saleh Higazi, Amnesty’s deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa, said in a statement.

Read the full article on Al Jazeera.

*

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 Palestine Solidarity Campaign

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The late Palestinian scholar and activist Edward Said wrote in 1996 that the phrase ‘complex situation’ “too often is a rhetorical signal given before a lie is to be pronounced, or when a grave and immoral complicity with injustice is about to be covered up.” Both-sides-ism appears often: we saw it in Charlottesville in 2017 as Trump declared “good people on both sides.” We saw it on May 4, 2021 when Mississippi police killed a father and his baby boy, then referred to the father’s ‘murder suspect’ status and contorted a baby into a ‘juvenile’ to obfuscate blame and undermine the gravity of the harm. 

Edward Said was specifically targeting liberals’ use of ‘complex situation’ in the above quote. Reading it my mind went immediately to Palestine, a situation that, despite its constant portrayal as complex, is fundamentally one of occupier and occupied.

It’s as simple as this: in a video on my Twitter feed Saeed Odeh’s father huddles over his sixteen-year-old child’s lifeless body, planting kiss after kiss on his face, sobbing. One of the men present with him, and then another, and another, rest their hands on the father’s back, to comfort this friend or neighbor or—I don’t know what these men are to each other, but in this moment they are each other’s anchor. Habibi habibi habibi, the father says to his son, as the men remind him, so gently, to keep it together. One of them tells him there’s time for one more bawsi, one more kiss goodbye.

Or this: Saeed’s sister, a small girl with a messy pony tail, is crying in every photo I come across. In one image she holds a phone that is almost bigger than her forearm as she faces a poster of her brother. She is trying so desperately to hold on to this image of him, alive, even while I know she has seen his shrouded body, and she will never not remember this day. I wonder what memories will carry her through the days and years ahead.

We live in a world where certain people have to display their suffering for their humanity to have a chance at plausibility. And one where this humanity, granted by self-appointed gatekeepers, is a precondition for the legitimation of resistance against injustice. Saeed’s family, like every family, should have the right to grieve in private. Neither I nor anyone else outside his community should know how this boy looks dead, or what this father sounds like when he cries.

In an occupying ethno-state, the occupier is ipso facto innocent. We have seen in Sheikh Jarrah Israeli forces form human shields to protect Jewish Zionist settlers as they assault the Palestinian inhabitants whose homes they are trying to occupy (via ethnic cleansing). And we have seen these same Israeli forces repress and attack the inhabitants of Sheikh Jarrah themselves.

Meanwhile the occupied are by-default guilty—and less-than-human, as testifies the ease with which the occupier issues collective punishment and displaces and restricts rights. If Palestinians, when they suffer Israeli state-sanctioned terrorism, do not offer their bodies, their children’s bodies, as evidence of the breadth of the injustice they face, their aggressors will have won twice. Stilling the life, then silencing its aftermath.

Circumstances dictate what details about a person warrant mention, and what we remember. Were Saeed to introduce himself, he might have said he was a footballer, played on his local team. Liked school or didn’t, dreamed to be something more precise than alive in the future. I can’t ask him, I don’t know.

Instead, from news sources we learned a sixteen-year-old boy named Saeed Odeh from Odalah, a village near Nablus, was shot twice in the back with live ammunition by Israeli forces. He was prevented from receiving medical care for fifteen minutes at least. Another boy, who tried to help Saeed, was shot by soldiers and injured also. In a photo from the night her son died, Saeed’s mother can be seen sitting in the passenger seat of a car, barely conscious. The funeral procession the next day stopped in front of Saeed’s school, where rows of men prayed before his body, draped with a Palestinian flag.

Erasure of Palestinian life, since before the mass expulsion of Palestinians from their homes in 1948, remains ongoing. This erasure is material: massacre-propelled ethnic cleansing, home demolition, carpet bombing.

And the erasure is also narrative, via social media censorship, as when Instagram and Facebook continue to mass-delete reporting on the violence in Sheikh Jarrah and Al-Aqsa.

As when The New York Times and other outlets referred to the ongoing forced expulsions of Sheikh Jarrah families from their homes as “evictions,” or when the Israeli Foreign Ministry referred to ethnic cleansing (gently termed “Judaizing,” or preservation of Israel’s “Jewish character”) as a “real-estate dispute.”

As when The Jerusalem Post wrote a teenager had been shot in the midst of “violent clashes,” a favorite buzzword for both-sides-ism, and didn’t so much as mention his name.

As when Israeli forces stormed Al-Aqsa mosque on May 7, 2021, using stun grenades and firing rubber bullets at close-range with, as usual, intention to maim (at least one person was blinded, 200+ others wounded). They attacked worshipers, then attacked makeshift medical spaces where the injured were being treated, and media outlets and American officials called all of this what? “Clashes.” A “scuffle.” “Confrontations.” “Tensions.” A “face off.”

As when Israeli forces attacked Al-Aqsa again on May 10, throwing tear gas and stun grenades and firing rubber-coated bullets into one of Islam’s holiest sites, this time injuring hundreds and killing at least one person inside the mosque, all while denying medics access to the wounded. Against 10,000 armed Israeli troops who attacked them in order to vacate the mosque during Ramadan for Jewish settlers celebrating Jerusalem Day, Palestinians had rocks to defend themselves and their holy space; still, the media insisted on ‘clashes.’ Reuters opened an article with the breathtakingly irrelevant line,  “Palestinian protesters threw rocks and Israeli police fired stun grenades and rubber bullets in clashes outside the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem on Monday as Israel marked the anniversary of its capture of parts of the city in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.” Opening with Palestinians first (as ‘protesters’ rather than ‘civilians’) to imply cause-and-effect in the wrong direction? Wedging a historical moment in to suggest ideological–Arab vs Israeli–rather than immediately material–police attacking civilians–cause of the violence? Writing in the title that violence ‘erupted’–another both-sides-ism favorite–as though the violence wasn’t ongoing? All these framings imply two equal sides, and obscure the gross power imbalance systems rooted in supremacy necessitate by definition.

The erasure is also of memory. I have watched clips of Palestinian parents mourn over their children’s bodies since I was a child. Enough time has passed that it is now easier to see myself in the parents. Israeli occupation forces killed a child on May 6, 2021. Israel has killed thousands of Palestinian children, deemed terrorists-in-the-making, disabled thousands of others. And it will continue to do so. As Saree Makdisi wrote, “it is not possible for a settler-colonial regime to racially enable one people at the expense of another people without the use of violence.”

Part of Israel’s propaganda is to reduce these children to faceless statistics, numbers obscuring personhood. The goal is not so much erasure of blame as of the victim in their entirety. As the numbers of injured and dead rise, the magnitude of the suffering somewhat paradoxically becomes harder to fathom, as the singularity of a life collapses into anonymity. This is why in the face of aggression these videos and images are invaluable: the reality of loss is each time and for each person specific, and it is heartbreaking, and it is unforgettable.

His name is Saeed Odeh. I will not write, ‘he loved life,’ because that implies some of us do not. I will not write ‘peaceful’ because I have already written ‘child,’ and because I want no part in systems that require some of us to qualify our existence or earn our humanity. I will tell you he was murdered. And I will tell you there will be no accountability, no consequences for those who, when the ‘complexity’ settles, killed a child.

*

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.

Mary Turfah was born and raised in Dearborn, MI, to a Palestinian and Lebanese family. She graduated from Yale University and is concurrently a medical student at the University of Michigan and an master’s student at Columbia University in the MESAAS department.

Featured image: A photo of Saeed Odeh that is being shared on social media. (Twitter)

First published on August 24, 2020

It is vitally important to acknowledge that the same so-called “experts” in the medical/academic/scientific community, many of whom have serious undisclosed financial conflicts of interest at the NIH, the CDC, the NIAID, the FDA, the WHO, Medical Schools, teaching hospitals and many state Departments of  Health (not just Rhode Island) that are currently advising politicians, presidential candidates, presidents, senators, congresspersons, governors, mayors, educators and journalists about the experimental, fast-tracked Covid-19 vaccines are the very “experts” that pushed Merck’s Fast-tracked Gardasil (and GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix HPV Vaccine).

Gary G. Kohls, August 24, 2020

***

The national law firm of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman filed a Gardasil lawsuit against Merck today on behalf of a 19-year-old woman, alleging the company misled the FDA, legislators, doctors and moms about the safety and efficacy of its Gardasil vaccine. The lawsuit asserts Merck purposely downplayed the risk of Gardasil’s ingredients, including a proprietary aluminum compound (a potent neurotoxin) and secret and potentially hazardous DNA particles. Plaintiff Julia Balasco alleges she suffered and continues to suffer severe and permanent physical injuries such as an autoimmune disease known as postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) after receiving multiple injections of the human papillomavirus (HPV) Gardasil vaccine.

Attorneys Bijan Esfandiari, Nicole K. H. Maldonado, Michael L. Baum, co-counsel Robert F. Kennedy, Jr and local counsel Christopher E. Hultquist of Hultquist Law in Providence, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf of Ms. Balasco, who alleges her vaccine injuries were so severe and debilitating, she was physically unable to attend most of high school. The case number is 1:20-cv 00364.

The complaint against defendants Merck & Co. Inc. and subsidiary Merck Sharp & Dohm Corp., both of New Jersey, seeks damages based on the following causes of action:

  • Negligence
  • Strict Liability (Failure to Warn)
  • Strict Liability (Manufacturing Defect)
  • Breach of Warranty
  • Common Law Fraud
  • Violation of Rhode Island’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act

The lawsuit also seeks punitive damages against Merck.

According to the complaint, Merck failed to properly test Gardasil before the HPV vaccine was fast-tracked and administered to millions of young girls and boys throughout the United States and the world. Furthermore, Merck knew or had reason to know that its vaccine was defective and ineffective, but instead of warning the medical community and the public, the company wrongfully concealed information and further made false statements concerning the safety and efficacy of Gardasil.

“Merck spent more money marketing and advertising Gardasil than any vaccine manufacturer in history,” says Gardasil lawyer Nicole K. H. Maldonado. “The company made billions telling the parents of young girls that Gardasil could eliminate cervical cancer without having any proof to back up the claim. Now, with thousands of severe Gardasil vaccine injuries reported, we intend to hold Merck accountable for concealing known safety risks in the name of massive profits.”

“Before there was Gardasil, there was Vioxx,” says attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “Merck paid billions to settle civil allegations that it purposely hid Vioxx’s cardiovascular risks. They also paid $950 million in fines as a result of their criminal conduct. When Gardasil came along, the boardroom at Merck joked that its HPV vaccine could ‘Help Pay for Vioxx.’ Sure enough, some of the same shadowy cast of characters who were involved in the Vioxx scandal worked on Gardasil, and they employed the very same methods of manipulating science and obscuring risks as they did with Vioxx. And just as with Vioxx, Gardasil has left a calamitous health disaster in its wake.”

What is Gardasil?

In 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the Gardasil HPV vaccine after being “fast-tracked” in just six short months. The FDA’s fast-track process is designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs or vaccines to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need like providing a treatment for an epidemic which has no existing treatment. Gardasil met neither of these criteria. Cervical cancer was far from epidemic status and the existing PAP smear plus follow up removal of abnormal cervical tissue had substantially controlled most cervical cancers. In fact, according to the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program (“SEER”), the incidence of deaths from cervical cancer prior to the introduction of Gardasil in the U.S., was on a steady decline with a rate of 2.4 per 100,000 women.

Notwithstanding, in its bid to fast-track Gardasil and prove that the vaccine treats a serious condition and fills an unmet medical need, Merck allegedly presented misleading data to the FDA suggesting that HPV infections and some abnormal cervical tissue–cervical interepithelial neoplasia (CIN) lesions–inexorably result in cancer, hence the urgent need for the HPV vaccine. The complaint indicates those contentions are untrue.

Merck sought and received FDA approval for Gardasil based on its theory that HPV alone causes cervical cancer, and that Gardasil could eliminate cervical cancer and other HPV-associated cancers. According to Balasco’s attorneys, however, Merck’s theory is unproven – Gardasil has never been shown to prevent cervical cancer, itself. On the contrary, studies have shown that systemic administration of Gardasil leads to increased rates of cervical cancer and other serious health issues.

According to the complaint, Gardasil contains a host of hazardous ingredients, including at least one ingredient that Merck failed to disclose to regulators and consumers. Gardasil contains a secret DNA adjuvant and potentially hazardous ingredient, HPV LI-DNA fragments, to make the vaccine more potent. According to the allegations, Merck used this hidden adjuvant to prolong the immunological effects of the vaccine, but illegally omitted it from its list of substances and ingredients in the vaccine.

Gardasil also contains a particularly toxic aluminum-containing adjuvant – Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate (AAHS), which is a potent neurotoxin created by Merck, that can result in very serious harm, according to the complaint. Studies show that AAHS can trigger autoimmune disorders and other serious conditions and has never been proven safe. Federal law requires that manufacturers cannot add adjuvants to vaccines that have not been proven safe.

Gardasil also contains borax, polysorbate 80, and genetically-modified yeast, all of which can cause adverse events, the lawsuit alleges. Merck never tested any of these added ingredients for safety in vaccines.

Gardasil Clinical Trial 

In clinical trials, those who receive the active medication are compared with those who receive a placebo. This is to measure the vaccine’s safety against an inactive (inert) placebo, such as an injection of a saline (saltwater) solution.

Merck’s Gardasil clinical trials, however, did not use a true placebo, the complaint alleges. Instead, the company “spiked” the placebo with AAHS and the vaccine’s other additives, which resulted in approximately equal numbers of subjects in the vaccine group and the placebo group suffering adverse reactions. This gave the impression that the Gardasil HPV vaccine was “as safe as a placebo” when, in fact, significant numbers of subjects in both treatment groups suffered many serious medical conditions, including symptoms of autoimmune disease, the lawsuit maintains.

Teenage Girl Developed POTS After Two Gardasil Injections

According to Julia Balasco’s complaint, she was 13-years-old when she received a Gardasil shot for the first time in August of 2014. A happy, healthy girl with a love for cheerleading, Julia had never experienced serious medical issues before her first Gardasil injection.

Julia’s mother, Michaela, allowed her daughter to receive the Gardasil shot after years of exposure to relentless online, print, and television marketing by Merck representing that Gardasil is very safe, that Gardasil prevents cancer, and that “good mothers” must vaccinate their pre-teen daughters with the Gardasil vaccine. Little did she know that Merck had engaged in “Disease Mongering” and used false advertising and scare tactics to enhance Gardasil sales. A year later, Rhode Island mandated the Gardasil vaccine for all school children before 7th grade entry.

Within hours of receiving the first dose, Julia experienced flu-like symptoms, including achiness, headache, nausea, and low-grade fever. The symptoms lasted for approximately 24-48 hours. In the weeks that followed, Julia experienced ear pressure, tinnitus, and headaches. Her symptoms were atypical and over-the-counter medication did not bring her any relief.

A few months later, Julia experienced more frequent and severe ear pain and tinnitus. Her mother took her to her doctor who prescribed Julia steroids. She received her second dose of Gardasil during this visit and proceeded to experience the same flu-like symptoms as before.

As months passed, Julia began to experience headaches of varying seriousness and continued to deal with ear pain and tinnitus. She also complained of fatigue and body aches. Her symptoms were severe enough to increasingly keep her from attending school.

Julia and her mother visited multiple specialists to understand why she was experiencing these “spells” that caused severe dizziness, headaches, ear pressure, and tinnitus. No one could give them a satisfactory answer or relief, and her symptoms continued unabated.

When Julia was due for her third Gardasil injection, her mother started to believe that Gardasil may have been the cause of her daughter’s symptoms. The family doctor agreed that the timeline following each of the shots and the symptoms Julia experienced was suspicious but could not say for certain that Gardasil was the cause.

Julia was put on several different medications over the next several months but nothing alleviated her symptoms. She continued to miss school regularly and saw her quality of life diminish. Her mother helped her change her diet and altered her school schedule to include online learning in the hopes of reducing her stress and improving her symptoms. Nothing worked.

After being diagnosed with fibromyalgia and years of struggle, Julia’s life continues to be altered in very dramatic ways. Now 19, she struggles to keep up with friends and cannot participate in many of the things she used to enjoy. She was forced to stop cheerleading because she could no longer participate, and has switched to online learning exclusively instead of attending in-person classes.

“This is no life for anyone,” her mother says.

According to the complaint, Gardasil caused Julia Balasco to develop serious and debilitating autoimmune disease, including POTS, and a constellation of adverse symptoms, complications, injuries, and adverse events.

POTS is an autoimmune disorder that can be incapacitating; it affects a branch of the nervous system that regulates functions we do not consciously control, including blood pressure, heart rate, perspiration, and body temperature. People with POTS often experience fainting, migraine headaches, anxiety, and  other life-altering health issues.

If Mrs. Balasco had been informed about the known safety risks associated with Gardasil, she never would have allowed her daughter to receive the HPV vaccine.

Gardasil, the Most Expensive Vaccine on the Market, Also Causes the Most Injuries 

Julia’s symptoms after receiving Gardasil, are far from unique. According to data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), more than 64,000 case reports of adverse events have been reported after individuals received the Gardasil vaccine. Experts estimate that only one percent of vaccine adverse events are actually reported.

According to the complaint, Gardasil now has more reported injuries than any other vaccine, and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out millions of dollars in damages for Gardasil-induced injuries and deaths.

Gardasil is also the most expensive vaccine on the market; two doses of Gardasil 9 presently cost about $450, plus the cost of two office visits. In 2018, Merck made $2.2 billion from Gardasil sales in the U.S. alone. In 2019, Merck made $3.7 billion in worldwide Gardasil revenue.

Ms. Balasco seeks to hold Merck accountable for its alleged negligent, reckless, and fraudulent conduct, and for causing her physical and emotional injuries and harms as a result of Gardasil. Today’s lawsuit alleges the company willingly placed Gardasil’s profits ahead of patient safety. Ms. Balasco is requesting that exemplary (punitive) damages be assessed against Merck to deter the company and other would-be defendants from engaging in similar alleged reprehensible conduct.

“It’s too late for my daughter. The damage is already done, but it’s not too late to warn other parents about the truth about Gardasil,” said Michaela Balasco, Julia’s mother. “Thousands of families are going through what we are going through. I have made friends around the world whose children are suffering like my Julia. She is not alone. I want Gardasil off the market so my grandkids and other children don’t have to needlessly suffer these injuries.”

Additional General Allegations Against Merck

  • Merck provided financial incentives to legislators to attempt to make the Gardasil vaccine mandatory in all school children;
  • Merck pushed Gardasil using trusted doctors and third party front groups;
  • Merck deceived regulators and the public by classifying many serious adverse events, which afflicted nearly half of all study participants, as coincidences;
  • Merck manipulated the study protocols to block participants and researchers from reporting injuries and designed the studies to mask any long-term adverse events
  • Merck deceived regulators and the public about its pivotal Gardasil Clinical Trial (Protocol 018);
  • Contrary to Merck’s representations, Gardasil may actually cause and increase the risk of cervical and other cancers;
  • Merck has concealed the fact that Gardasil (including its adjuvants and ingredients) induce and increase the risk of autoimmune diseases;
  • The Gardasil vaccines’ harms are not limited to the United States, rather the vaccines have injured patients all over the world:
  1. In light of Gardasil’s serious and debilitating adverse events, the Japanese government rescinded its recommendation that girls receive Gardasil;
  2. Denmark has opened specialized clinics specifically focused on treating Gardasil-induced injuries, including Gardasil-induced autoimmune diseases;
  3. Gardasil-induced adverse events caused the government in Colombia to conclude that Gardasil would no longer be mandatory;
  4. India halted Gardasil trials and accused Merck of corruption after the death of several young girls who were participants in the trial.

About Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman

Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman is one of the nation’s leading law firms representing victims harmed by the Gardasil HPV vaccine. In practice since 1973, our firm has won more than $4 billion in verdicts and settlements on behalf of more than 20,000 clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims across the nation, including cases against major pharmaceutical companies.

The firm has repeatedly been honored and awarded for its $2.24 billion groundbreaking and landmark jury verdicts against Monsanto (now Bayer) for its Roundup weed killer causing cancer.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is co-counsel on this case. Mr. Kennedy has been fighting for safer vaccines for years. He is not “anti-vax” as some would label him, but is a staunch advocate for safe and effective vaccines. His reputation as a resolute defender of the environment led him to be named by Time magazine as one of the “Heroes for the Planet.” As a protector of waterways around the world, Mr. Kennedy has sought to alleviate mercury pollution and prevent mercury contaminated fisheries. As he says, this does not make him anti-fish, he is anti-mercury in fish. Likewise, he is not against safe and effective vaccines, he is opposed to toxin contaminated vaccines.

Mr. Kennedy was also co-counsel with Baum Hedlund on the Monsanto Roundup cancer cases. He is Founder and President of Waterkeeper Alliance and Founder of Children’s Health Defense, an organization devoted to promoting childhood health by exposing and reducing toxic exposures that harm children’s health.

Baum Hedlund is at the forefront of the Gardasil vaccine lawsuits and is in the beginning stages of litigation. So far, we represent two dozen clients but expect to see these numbers grow rapidly as we are receiving hundreds of calls now that the word is out that plaintiffs can sue Merck in civil court if cases do not resolve in vaccine court.

It is important to note that, while there is currently a great deal of controversy surrounding vaccines, our firm wishes to stress that we and our clients are not against vaccines. They have the potential to eradicate disease and save millions of lives.

We are, however, against intentional efforts to mislead consumers about the safety and effectiveness of a drug or vaccine. Our firm has always fought—and will continue to fight—for the rights of consumers to be fully and honestly informed about risks associated with any drug, vaccine, chemical or medical device. We will work tirelessly to ensure those rights are defended and victims of injustice are compensated for their injuries.

*

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.

Featured image: Julia Balasco, Gardasil Plaintiff (Source: ExpertClick)

The Copenhagen Summit for Democracy: The New Nazis

June 13th, 2021 by Christopher Black

On May 10-11 a conference was presented by the “Alliance of Democracies” in Copenhagen that claimed to “unite free peoples” against authoritarianism, to promote the rule of law, to advance the “technological control of democracy,” freedom of expression and US leadership. It was heralded as a forum for guests to hear from prominent individuals on “the frontlines of defending democracy.”

But the true purpose of the Summit was revealed by the opening invitation from the 12th NATO Secretary General (2009-2014) and 24th Danish Prime Minister (2001-2009), Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who celebrated the fact that the first Summit in 2018 was opened by Joe Biden and by the fact that it was moderated by Politico’s Ryan Heath and former ABC and CNN correspondent, Jeanne Meserve, who if not assets of the CIA, acted as if they were.

In an opening video, still on their website inviting people to attend, Rasmussen claims that the USA is the “defender of democracy” against oppression and then immediately cited Belarus, Myanmar, Hong Kong, Taiwan as places where ‘democracy is under threat.” Rasmussen played his role of piper of the NATO propagandists to the end and the clearly scripted and small audience in attendance dutifully played along.

At the opening of the conference Rasmussen once again claimed that the US led the “democracies against “authoritarianism “ without defining what the latter word means. What government is not an authority? What government does not have laws and mechanisms of government that the citizens are to follow and obey? Is the American police state, the state in which 3 people are killed by the police every day not an “authoritarian state” a state in which only two parties, with almost no difference between them, are allowed to vie for power, and in which the media are completely controlled by the secret services and their link to the corporate powers that control the government, not “authoritarian”?

And are not the socialist democracies of China, of Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, and the capitalist democracies of Russia and other nations unwilling to bend to the will of the USA also democracies? Of course they are and the socialist democracies provide the people with more ability to have a say in government decisions than our parliamentary style democracies.

So, we understand that Rasmussen is misusing language to fool people so that they cannot see behind the veil and realise that he represents the powers of capital that want to control the world and by “democracy” he really means, the free flow of western capital, and by “authoritarian” he means any nation that refuses to be controlled by western capital.

He went on to state that the “western democracies, and NATO,” the armed fist of western capital, “actively support “protestors in Hong Kong, Myanmar, Belarus, Venezuela, Belarus in their “desire for freedom” Some freedom, some desire. Freedom to overthrow socialism, all progress for working people, for the poor of the world, freedom to overthrow even capitalist states that do not obey the orders of western capital.

He then called for what he called a Copenhagen Charter, modelled on the Atlantic Charter that created NATO, and having a clause 5 similar to NATO’s Article 5, whereby any western democracy threatened by for example China, can call on its allies to take retaliatory measure against the alleged offending country. This idea is to be brought forward at a World Democracy Summit to be opened by President Biden later this year. He used as an illustration the mild sanctions that China placed on some US and European personalities in response to their economic warfare and sanctions placed on China. Of course Rasmussen never mentioned that it is the USA and its allies that are the ones dictating to the world what to do, using their military and economic power to assert their claimed authority over the world, who are, in fact the supreme authoritarians of the world.

In case viewers did not yet understand who was running the show Rasmussen stated that, “US leadership is crucial” and the “purpose of this Summit is to “provide ideas to President Biden for the global summit conference” later this year.

He then introduced a series of American sycophants. I will not burden you with all of them, as you can watch the conference for yourselves on their website. I will draw your attention to those that set the tone and the main focus of the conference so you get the sense of it.

The first person of note was the President of Slovakia, Zusana Caputova, who blathered on about the “importance of the rule of law” to an audience who all support the American violations of international law around the world, American aggression around the world, and who have nothing but contempt for international law, the sovereignty of nations, and like a dutiful minion of the hegemonic power declared that the countries that challenge their “rules based order,” that is, the American dictatorship, must be condemned and forced to relent.

She ended by stating that, “supporting activists in Hong Kong is not foreign interference in China’s internal affairs.” This, from a flunky for the Americans, who have been using the false claims of Russian and Chinese interference in their internal affairs to bang the drums of war against those two nations for several years.

But then something surprising occurred, The next speaker, Nico Jaspers, CEO of the polling organization, LATANA, stated that his organisations polls showed that, world wide, the United States was seen as the greatest threat to democracy and as creating the greatest economic inequality for its citizens than any other nation.

You could hear a pin drop as he spoke and the confused looks on the audience present. But he covered himself in an acceptable way by agreeing with the suggestion by the odious Jeanne Meserve that this perception was no doubt a glitch due to the terrible reign of Donald Trump and that, under Biden, all would be well.

Then came Uffe Elbaeka Danish Member of Parliament who echoed the previous speakers and also declared Denmark’s support for the Hong Kong “activists that is the 5tth columnists in Hong Kong working for western intelligence agencies whose sole purpose is not the betterment of the lives of people in China, but the destruction of the Chinese Communist Party and China as a sovereign state. He ended his speech with a call to boycott the Beijing Olympic Games.

Tom Tugendhat, head of the UK Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, continued the attack on China and the Communist Party, and though he had to acknowledge that the Communists had brought prosperity to China he was evidently angry that they did and the capitalists did not, and stated that economic prosperity “is no good under an authoritarian regime.” This from a man who comes from a nation that saw millions flee as immigrants to other countries after World War Two due to economic hardship, and whose people today are barely able to cover their bills, and when they cannot sleep rough on the street, a nation that became powerful by colonising large areas of the world, including India where they reduced the people to poverty they are still struggling to escape and which ruled Hong Kong during its occupation as a fiefdom without any democracy whatsoever.

He exemplified the overpowering hypocrisy of the event when asked what the thinks of the recently imposed sanctions by China by stating,

“Sanctions are an attack on the people that impose them, they come back to bite you.”

He said this with all earnestness as if he actually believed the nonsense coming out of his mouth, this man whose nation has joined in all the sanctions imposed on many countries by the USA around the world. When one hears someone talking about a reality that does not exist it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the speaker is delusional. But so it is.

This charade turned into farce with the next series of speaker the first being Tsai Ing-Wen, who was introduced as “the President of the Republic of China”, who referred Taiwan as a “country” instead of the Chinese province it is, and who called on the USA to enhance Taiwan’s defence and raved on about “fighting socialism and authoritarianism.”

Then followed members of parliament from, France, the EU, Japan and Australia who repeated the attacks on China who were then followed by the presentation of Juan Guaido as the “Interim President of Venezuela,” news I am sure to Venezuelans, then Nathan Law the Hong Kong 5th columnist working with the British in London, who was touted as a “leader of the democratic opposition,” by Wai Wai Nu, touted as the same for Burma, the western, colonial name for Myanmar, and finally Sviatlana Tskhanouskaya, the insurrectionist NATO asset who was introduced as “the Leader of Democratic Belarus.”

The theatre continued with a series of speakers calling for the control of social media, in order, of course, to “ensure free speech,” and to prevent “foreign interference.” The fact that all the speakers before them had called for foreign interference into the affairs of China, Russia, Venezuela, Myanmar, Belarus was lost on them.

The first day ended with the Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine, Olha Stefanishyna, appearing in order to beg that Ukraine be admitted to NATO and the EU so that Ukraine can be protected against “Russian aggression.” In seeming support of her plea, next appeared US head of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, who repeated the false claims of Russian interference in the dubious US elections, then by American Army General McMaster, National Security Adviser, and talking head at the right wing Hoover Institute, who began his comments by attacking President Trump as an ‘enemy of democracy.”

It would seem the USA is about to enter a period of one party rule if the Democrats get their way. But you see, one party rule in that case is “ensuring a return to democracy in the USA.”

He continued by attacking the rule of he Communist Party of China as ‘undemocratic,” declared that the CCP is America and the worlds “top enemy,” thereby admitting that the struggle between capitalism and communism is far from over, and then demanded that China release the two Canadians detained on spy charges. He said nothing about the kidnapping and holding hostage of the Chief Financial Officer of Huawei, Meng Wanzhou, detained in Canada for two years on fabricated US charges of violating the illegal US sanctions against Iran.

The day ended with more propaganda, this time against Russia from Adam Schiff, Chair of the US House Intelligence Committee, who falsely accused Russia of spreading false information and called for the need to “formalise the link between the western intelligence services and social media, in other words total control of social media by the secret services, and lastly Lisa Peterson, the new US Ambassador for Human Rights for Biden who blathered on in the same manner about human rights everywhere except in the USA.

The second day of the Summit was dedicated to a series of young people from the eastern nations that had once been part of the USSR, from Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Romania, and a couple from small Latin American US allies, all computer programmers, who had been assigned projects to develop systems and platforms to manipulate elections, to detect and eliminate “fake news,” and “malign actions,” who all used the example of alleged “Russian influence” on US and UK elections in their remarks and the threat to democracy represented by Donald Trump. Their entire line was that social media needs to be controlled, that elections have to be run “properly,” code for producing a desired outcome; that peoples thoughts and actions must be controlled and predictable.

All through the two days of the event it struck me that I was watching a conference of Nazis. They wore different style clothing than did Hitler and his forces in the 30s and 40s but they spoke the same way, talked the same way, are as ruthless and murderous as the Nazis, have the same objectives as Hitler, the destruction and occupation of Russia, China, Europe, the world; who pretend they are democrats but are themselves the ones who want to create a totalitarian world state, that is a state under the total control of the USA and its vassals, are willing to commit any crime to do it, and who care nothing for the lives of those they destroy.

What were the Nazis in Germany but the armed, violent fist of German capital, intent on wiping out socialism, the rights of labour, of dominating and exploiting the world, who are expert at creating division among peoples, of using bigotry and prejudice for their ends as the Nazis did with the Jews and others. They too drew on the forces of fascism from all the dark corners of Europe and the world to support their aggression and crimes.

Since the USSR collapsed their forces have ruthlessly destroyed country after country and are now advancing on Russia and China. But just as Hitler got what was coming to him, so these new Nazis, who want it all, want to put the whole word under their boots, will end up with nothing. In trying to destroy they will be destroyed, so long as we are on guard. Their conferences reveal them for what they are, black shirts with the smiles of sharks. Mac the Knife is back in town. Be warned. Be prepared.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Copenhagen Summit for Democracy: The New Nazis

Netanyahu’s Last Hurrah?

June 13th, 2021 by Stephen Lendman

On the cusp of being replaced as Israeli prime minister, Netanyahu isn’t going quietly into that good night — far from it.

After extremist settlers and other far-right elements were denied permission for an unacceptable march through Occupied East Jerusalem’s Old City, Netanyahu OK’d what’s virtually sure to heighten tensions more than already.

His aim is all-about inciting clashes between Occupied Palestinians and Israeli extremists who want the city for exclusive Jewish use.

After senior Hamas official Khalil al-Hayya warned on Monday “against letting the march approach East Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound,” a Tuesday statement by the Netanyahu regime said the following:

“The parade will take place (on June 15) in a format to be agreed between police and the parade’s organizers.”

By aiming to incite violence in Occupied East Jerusalem, Netanyahu likely seeks to involve Hamas as a way to resume war on the Strip that unnamed senior IDF officials said left unfinished business after 11 days of Israeli aggression ended.

Netanyahu likely hopes that resumed conflict throughout the Occupied Territories is his best chance to halt transition of power by aiming to shift support of one or more 8-party opposition bloc members — at the 11th hour — from a Lapid/Bennett government to him.

At this time, Knesset members will vote up or down on transition of power this Sunday.

With a one-seat majority advantage, the opposition bloc is set to end Netanyahu’s 12-year reign of terror if he’s unable to stop what appears inevitable.

While a new government — if Sunday’s swearing in goes as planned — can reverse Netanyahu’s permitted March, opposition bloc member Gilad Kariv denounced his disruptive move, saying:

It’s “another chapter in (his) attempt to leave a scorched earth.”

Because prime minister-designate Naftali Bennett is heavily pressured by ultranationalist hardliners, he may permit the march to avoid a tumultuous start to his tenure.

With heightened tensions in Occupied East Jerusalem, a spark or threatened one could ignite violence in the city that could spread throughout the Occupied Territories.

If held, the so-called Flag March was scheduled to pass through Damascus Gate into the Muslim quarter of East Jerusalem’s Old City.

While likely to be along an alternate route at this time, the risk of inciting conflict is high if the unacceptable march takes place.

According to Haaretz, Netanyahu and supportive “Religious Zionism racists Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir are trying to set the region aflame” in attempt to block transition of power or disrupt it straightaway if he’s unseated.

Since a 61-seat opposition bloc was formed to replace Netanyahu-led Likud, he’s gone all-out to undermine transition of power.

Last Sunday, he told Likudniks that “journalists are taking part in (what he called a) propaganda machine enlisted in favor of the left (sic), but you don’t have to be afraid of laying into” its elements (sic), adding:

Israelis are “witnessing the biggest election fraud in the history of the country (sic)…”

He condemned what he called “violence from every side (sic), even as others are silent as incitement rages against us (sic).”

“You cannot consider criticism from the right as incitement (sic) and criticism from the left as a legitimate act of freedom of expression (sic).” 

“This is an attempt to frame the right as something violent and dangerous to democracy (sic)” — that’s nonexistent in Israel and throughout the West.

It’s “not too late” to vote against what he falsely called a “dangerous left-wing government (backed by) terror-supporters (sic).”

If Lapid/Bennett replace him on Sunday, he vowed to “bring (the new government) down very quickly,” adding:

“This is a government that will not be able to resist the return of the US to the dangerous nuclear agreement with Iran (sic), which will allow it to develop an arsenal of nuclear bombs that will threaten our very existence (sic).” 

A “government that depends on supporters of terrorism (sic) will also not be able to act in a systematic and consistent manner against the terrorist organizations in Gaza (sic).”

Inflammatory rhetoric by him and his extremist supporters is likely to continue through Sunday’s swearing in ceremony and after a new government replaces him.

Hardline extremists like Netanyahu never quit, express regret for their unacceptable actions, or comply with the rule of law they disdain.

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

 Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Netanyahu’s Last Hurrah?

This is How Doctors are Puppets for Vaccine Manufacturers

June 13th, 2021 by Global Research News

First published in November 2014, this incisive article raises several important issues pertaining to vaccines.

Of relevance to the covid-19 crisis, Vac Truth points out the following: 

“Manufacturers hide information from doctors about ingredients and conceal their sinister plans for vaccine production so that doctors will continue to feel comfortable recommending vaccines.”

***

Doctors have no possibility whatsoever of knowing the complete composition of vaccines, nor do health authorities – or, in fact, anyone else.

Here are some of the methods manufacturers use to conceal the presence of ingredients in vaccines:

Trade Secrets

Some “GRAS” (acronym for Generally Recognized as Safe) substances are not revealed due to trade secrets. This includes many oils, including peanut oil.

This is one reason why there are millions of people in the world who are allergic to peanuts and other vaccine ingredients. [1] 

Dispensation from Labeling Requirements

Incredibly, the presence of almost any substance may be concealed on the condition that manufacturers apply for dispensation to official labeling requirements.

This exemption applies even to the presence of neurotoxic substances such as aluminium, which is included in many vaccines to stimulate immune response.

Regarding concealment of the presence of aluminium in vaccines, Dr. Paul King states:

“Because aluminum adjuvants are “regulated” substances used in vaccines before the FDA came into existence, they are subject to the regulations set forth in 21 CFR Sec. 610.15a.

However, the FDA has added a subsection (d) to these requirements that states,

(d) The Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research or the Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research may approve an exception or alternative to any requirement in this section. Requests for such exceptions or alternatives must be in writing.”

Mercury in “Mercury-Free” Vaccines

“Many vaccine manufacturers voluntarily began producing ‘supposed’ mercury-free vaccines in 1999. The June 2006 lab result from Doctor’s Data run counter to vaccine manufacturers’ claims. For example, some product inserts currently claim that a trace amount of mercury exists in the final product but the amount has been greatly reduced. Others claim to be producing completely mercury-free products. All four vaccine vials tested contained mercury despite manufacturer claims that two of the vials were completely mercury-free. All four vials contained aluminum, one contained nine times more than the other three, tremendously enhancing the toxicity of mercury.” (Health Advocacy in the Public Interest, 8/12/04)

Presence of Traces of Food Protein is Concealed

“Only the FINAL culture is listed on the package insert. Until then they use FOOD WASTE! This is another source of minute traces of food protein that some unlucky child will get in a vaccine. Every food oil known to man can be used in the vaccines. They are highly refined which only means not all children will get a food allergy, only the unlucky ones who get the remaining protein particles in their vaccine. The oils and who knows what else fall under “self-affirmed generally recognized as safe ingredients,” not even our government is entitled to know what is in the vaccines.”

“Charles Richet, a Nobel Prize winning doctor discovered (over a hundred years ago) that proteins injected into the bloodstream will result in the development of allergy to that protein. In other words, food proteins in vaccines can cause the development of food allergies!” (Barbara Feick Gregory) [1]

Foreign DNA Residue in Vaccines

Manufactures are aware that vaccines contain residue from culture media used in production. This includes tissue from insect cells; yeast; mouse brains; tissue from pigs, guinea pigs, rabbits, dogs, and calf lymph; hens’ eggs; chick embryos; monkey kidney and testicle cells; retinal cells; aborted human fetal cells; and cancer cells. [2]

Impossible to Remove All Foreign DNA Residue

“Manufacturers have been instructed to ensure the final vaccine contains less than 1 million residual animal cells and the amount of stray DNA is less than 10 ng per vaccine dose. These regulations admit that animal DNA is injected into human babies and adults with every shot.” [3]

Presence of Foreign DNA May Be Unknown Even to Manufacturers

As analysis methods have become more advanced, some ingredients are unexpectedly discovered long after vaccines have been marketed.

One of many examples is SV40 DNA in polio vaccines, which has been administered to millions. [4] [5] It has been detected in human malignancies and can be passed through generations.

Other examples of contamination include the unexpected discovery of pig virus DNA in rotavirus vaccines and retrovirus avian (bird) leukosis virus in a measles vaccine. [6]

An independent researcher discovered aluminium-bound recombinant DNA in Gardasil, classed as a biohazard. The consequences are unknown and may be horrific. [7] [8]

Doctors do not know the amount in each dose of the following:

Mercury:

Mercury in the form of thimerosal is included as a preservative in multi-dose vials. If vials are not shaken thoroughly between each dose withdrawal, the last doses will contain large amounts of mercury. This is because mercury is heavier than water and sinks to the bottom of the vials.

Latex allergen:

Amounts vary according to the degree of leaching from rubber components of syringes and vial stoppers.

Microbial contamination:

Increases according to the number of times doses are withdrawn from vials.

Virus antigen:

May be in the form of particles which are suspended in the vaccine fluid. The amount of antigen varies according to the technique of the person who administers the vaccine.

As more doctors pose pertinent questions, manufacturers and health authorities are planning to conceal even more information from them so that doctors may feel comfortable and positive about vaccines.

Sinister Plans For Manufacture of Vaccines From Human Cancer Tumors Will Be Kept Secret From Doctors

At a meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on September 19, 2012, at which FDA and vaccine manufacturers were represented, the topic was Consideration of the Appropriateness of Cell Lines Derived From Human Tumors For Vaccine Manufacture.

Part of the transcript of the meeting was salvaged and has revealed that authorities and manufacturers are concerned that doctors may feel uncomfortable about the intention to use human cancer tumors for vaccine production.

There was a discussion, as follows, about several ways to conceal this information from doctors and the public, including its omission from package inserts and how to present the disgusting method of vaccine production to doctors so that they may find it acceptable:

DR. DAUM (Chair, VRBPAC):

“ … a few people have said it directly — is the scientific community’s perception, including the practicing medical community, and also the lay public. They are going to hear that we are recommending or that you are doing or that the manufacturers are making vaccines with tumorigenic cell lines and say, oh, my God, even if there’s no scientific basis to say, oh, my God.

I think we’re better off heading that discussion off at the pass and starting some of the ideas that Dr. Marcuse said, which is a Scientific American type of article informing practitioners — and I had some lunch conversations with other people that talked about some of the vaccine-consuming community that might perceive a very great difference even if scientifically there isn’t one.”

Conclusion

  • Relevant information is intentionally hidden from doctors so that they may feel more comfortable about recommending vaccines.
  • It is impossible for doctors and health authorities to know the complete composition of vaccines.
  • The moral ethics of vaccine promoters, including health authorities and doctors who recommend or administer vaccines should be questioned, when the compositions of vaccines are unknown.
  • The legal justification for official approval of vaccines should be questioned when the ingredients are not known.
  • “Informed consent” is impossible when relevant information is concealed.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on This is How Doctors are Puppets for Vaccine Manufacturers
The U.S. Food & Drug Administration on Friday said Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) must dump millions of doses of its COVID-19 vaccine manufactured at a Baltimore factory plagued with sanitary problems.
While the federal agency cleared about 10 million doses, The New York Times reported that the batches being discarded are around 60 million doses.

Without confirming the number of vaccine doses, the FDA said in a news release that it had authorized two batches for use, that several other batches were not suitable for use and that others were being evaluated.

The agency said it could not yet authorize Emergent BioSolutions Inc’s (EBS.N) plant for manufacturing the J&J vaccine, as production at its Baltimore site was halted by U.S. authorities in April and J&J was put in charge of manufacturing at the plant.

The J&J doses from this site expected to be exported to other countries and are already in vials and ready for use.

Safety concerns about the J&J vaccine together with with slow U.S. demand for vaccinations in general have limited rollout of the one-shot vaccine to a standstill. Nearly half of the 21 million doses produced for the United States remain unused.

The FDA said its decision permits the J&J doses to be used in the United States or exported, and the FDA will share relevant information about the doses’ manufacture with regulators where the vaccine is shipped.

J&J confirmed that the FDA authorized two batches, but was silent about the doses regulators decided to toss.

“Today’s decisions represent progress in our continued efforts to make a difference in this pandemic on a global scale,” Kathy Wengel, J&J’s chief global supply chain officer, said in the statement.

Last month, Emergent Chief Executive Robert Kramer said he believed there were 100 million doses of J&J’s vaccine ready for review and that regulators had already begun the process.

The April pause followed a discovery that ingredients from AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine, also being produced at the plant, actually contaminated a batch of J&J’s vaccine. AstraZeneca’s jab is no longer being produced at that plant.

Specifically, an FDA inspection found a considerable list of sanitary problems and bad manufacturing practices at Emergent’s plant.

Europe’s drug regulator also said Friday that batches of the J&J vaccine made for Europe at the time the contamination issues were found at the Baltimore plant would not be used.

The EMA did not say how many shots were affected, but Reuters believes it to be millions of doses, making it harder for J&J to meet obligations to deliver 55 million doses to Europe by the end of June.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US: FDA Asks J&J To Discard Millions of COVID-19 Vaccine Doses
A PBS Frontline special is the latest vehicle in a PR campaign to legitimize rebranded Syrian al-Qaeda, HTS, and market its leader Mohammad Jolani as a competent American “asset.” 
**
March 2021 marked the 10th anniversary of the Western regime-change war on Syria. And after a decade of grueling conflict, Washington is still maneuvering to extend its longstanding relationship with the Salafi-jihadist militants fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.With the northwestern province of Idlib under the control of a self-proclaimed “Syrian Salvation Government” led by the rebranded version of Syria’s al-Qaeda franchise, and protected under the military aegis of NATO member state Turkey, powerful elements from Brussels to Washington have been working to legitimize its leader.This June, PBS Frontline aired a special, “The Jihadist,” featuring a sit-down interview with Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, de facto president of the “Syrian Salvation Government” and founder of the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda originally called Jabhat al-Nusra, today re-branded as Hay-at Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS.
Syrian Al Qaeda leader Mohammad al-Jolani (L) with PBS Frontline’s Martin Smith

Having traded in his battlefield garb for a freshly pressed suit, Jolani was presented with the once unthinkable opportunity to market himself to a Western audience and pledge that his forces pose no threat to the US homeland because they were merely focused on waging war against Syria’s “loyalist” population.

The PBS correspondent who conducted the interview, Martin Smith, previously starred in a 2015 PBS special, “Inside Assad’s Syria,” which presented a US audience with a rare and relatively objective look at life inside Syrian government-controlled territory, as insurgents backed by NATO and Gulf monarchies encircled and terrorized its population.

Whether or not he realized it, when Smith returned to Syria this March to meet Jolani, he was on more than a journalistic field expedition. A network of think tanks and Beltway foreign policy veterans were engaged in a simultaneous push to remove Jolani and his militant faction HTS from the State Department’s list of designated terrorist groups.

This would open the door for international acceptance of his de facto government in Idlib, which regime-change advocates view as an important piece of leverage against Damascus, and as a human warehouse for the millions of refugees languishing there.

In turn, the audacious PR campaign would consolidate a branch of the organization responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States into a de facto US asset.

The campaign to normalize Jolani was publicly initiated by the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think tank with close ties to the Biden administration and NATO. By the time of Smith’s interview, operatives from a network of Gulf-funded, pro-Israel think tanks had spent years quietly lobbying for Washington to support al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, and succeeded in securing shipments of weapons from the CIA to some of its battlefield allies.

Though figures involved in this coordinated lobbying push were featured in Smith’s PBS Frontline report, they were presented to viewers as dispassionate analysts or former officials with no ulterior interests.

Framed as hard news yet shaped by one of the most insidious public relations campaigns in recent history, the nationally broadcast PBS special provided an effective vehicle for rehabilitating a jihadist leader and perpetuating the decades-long dirty war against Syria.

Whitewashing US and foreign support for Syria’s extremist insurgency

When Muhammad Jolani first crossed the Syrian-Iraqi border in 2012 with a small detachment of fighters, he belonged officially to al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, an extremist group responsible for countless attacks on US military occupiers and Shia civilians across Iraq.

Upon their thrust into Syria, Jolani’s forces enabled the late self-proclaimed leader of the caliphate, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, to establish his Islamic State, or ISIS, in the northeastern city of Raqqa. A feud over strategy and finances soon prompted Jolani to split from the Islamic State and establish Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian franchise of al-Qaeda, with the explicit blessing of the jihadist group’s global leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Martin Smith recounted this history in his PBS Frontline report, albeit briefly, while neglecting any mention of the scandalous covert US operation that made Nusra’s rise possible.

Smith, for instance, neglected mention of the prescient August 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment which stated clearly that “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” and that the Western-backed opposition would likely create a “Salafist principality in eastern Syria” if weapons were placed in the hands of anti-Assad Islamist militants.

Despite the warning, in 2013, the CIA launched Operation Timber Sycamore, an arm-and-equip program that funneled up to $1 billion per year (one out of every $15 in the CIA’s budget) into material support for an armed opposition thoroughly dominated by Islamist extremists. It was the agency’s largest covert operation since a similar initiative in Afghanistan in the 1980s, which gave birth to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Just as the DIA predicted, an extremist “Salafist principality” took root in northeastern Syria, while Al Qaeda’s local franchise quickly emerged as the dominant force within the armed opposition.

Nusra militants – including a former fighters of the CIA-created “Free Syrian Army” – were filmed cutting open the chests of Syrian soldiers, tearing their hearts out, and eating the organs raw (while receiving sympathetic media coverage from the BBC).

Syrian rebel eating heart Abu Sakkar
Abu Sakkar, a former CIA-backed Free Syrian Army militant who later joined al-Qaeda, eating the raw heart of a soldier

As it seized control of the Idlib province and moved to take Damascus, Nusra earned a reputation for grisly suicide attacks and executions, while instituting a medieval-style theocratic regime in the areas it controlled. An undercover 2017 documentary filmed by local residents, “Undercover Idlib,” exposed the dystopia that unfolded under Nusra control. All non-religious music and public celebrations were banned, the wearing of colorful headscarves outlawed, and Druze and Christian residents were killed or forced to convert at gunpoint.

Rather than being uprooted from its “safe haven,” Nusra was encouraged by its NATO-aligned sponsors to rebrand and superficially distance itself from al-Qaeda so it could survive. First, in 2016, the al-Qaeda franchise changed its name to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, then morphed into Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) the following year.

Under tutelage from Turkey, which controlled the northern border of Idlib, HTS subsequently formed the “Syrian Salvation Government,” and embarked on a PR campaign for international legitimacy.

Mohammad Jolani announces the formation of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, in 2016

Syria’s rebranded Al Qaeda branch courts Western media

In 2020, Idlib’s “Salvation Government” established a media relations office to assist the entry of Western journalists and provide them with fixers to guide them in its territory. While independent reporters (including the co-author of this article) have been subjected to waves of online abuse by mainstream Western correspondents for visiting Damascus, a New York Times tour of Idlib that was openly managed by al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate took place without a hint of criticism.

Martin Smith’s March 2021 visit to Idlib was a similarly guided venture. His report on Jolani blended interview footage with scenes of the HTS leader pressing the flesh with residents of Idlib City, conveying the image of a popular retail politician stumping for local office.

Mohammad Jolani greeting locals around Idlib as a PBS Frontline crew films

Idlib “does not represent a threat to the security of Europe and America. This region is not a staging ground for executing foreign jihad,” Jolani reassured Smith. Over the past decade, he added, “we haven’t posed any threat to the West.”

In the interview, Smith focused entirely on whether Jolani would attack the West or not, demonstrating a near-total lack of interest in the lives of the millions of Syrians trapped under HTS’ neo-feudal rule in Idlib, and the minority groups threatened by its sectarian violence in nearby areas.

Dressed in a pressed shirt and blazer suitable for any job interview, Jolani rattled off rhetoric about the “Syrian revolution,” while stressing that his Salafi-jihadist brethren and Washington shared a common goal: regime change in Damascus.

Abu Mohammad al-Jolani HTS Syria PBS
The leader of rebranded Syrian al-Qaeda, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, doing a friendly interview with PBS in Idlib

Days after Smith left Idlib, HTS stoned three women to death as punishment for alleged adultery. It was far from the first public execution carried out by the group. Back when it was still known as Nusra, the al-Qaeda affiliate shot a woman in the head in the middle of a plaza in Idlib because she, too, had been accused of adultery.

None of these gruesome events were mentioned in Smith’s June 2021 PBS report, which represented the culmination of a years-long campaign to normalize HTS control in northeastern Syria.

Al Qaeda Al Nusra Idlib execution woman adultery
Syria’s al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra executing a woman in public in Idlib in 2015 after she was accused of adultery

“Al Qaeda has really got it right”

A powerful Brussels-based think tank that is funded by Western governments helped ignite the PR campaign to legitimize HTS with a highly sympathetic 2020 “conversation” with Jolani.

The think tank behind the whitewash, the International Crisis Group, gets the plurality of its funding from the European Union, Germany, France, and Australia, among other countries. It is effectively a Western intelligence cutout, and has consistently, over years, advocated for more Western military intervention in Syria.

The Crisis Group revealed that it had “[spoken] with Jolani in Idlib for four hours in late January” of 2020 while it pushed a narrative that he had become a new man.

“Following a series of rebranding efforts and internal transformations, Jolani told us, HTS presents itself today as a local group, independent of al-Qaeda’s chain of command, with a strictly Syrian, not a transnational, Islamist agenda,” the think tank wrote.

The softball interview was promoted by prominent members of the Syria regime-change lobby, including an Israeli fellow at the neoconservative, Washington DC-based Newlines Institute, Elizabeth Tsurkov, who has emerged as a de facto jihadi whisperer of the US and Israeli foreign policy nexus.

Tsurkov complimented the extremist rulers of Idlib, writing, “HTS is arguably the most pragmatic al-Qaeda offshoot to exist.”

Then there was Ken Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch (HRW), a billionaire oligarch-funded NGO that frequently promotes sanctions and regime-change operations against governments that have been targeted by Washington, from Syria to Venezuela, China to Nicaragua, Belarus to Bolivia.

Roth took to Twitter twice to promote the International Crisis Group’s interview with Jolani. Both of his tweets demonized the Syrian government and its ally Russia while making no mention of the array of crimes committed by the Salafi-jihadist militia in Idlib.

Roth’s message was clear: liberal interventionists in the Western human rights industry were on board with the HTS rebranding campaign.

In February 2021, the International Crisis Group published a follow-up paper explicitly aimed at convincing policy makers to remove the rebranded Syrian al-Qaeda franchise from the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.

“HTS’s continued status as a ‘terrorist’ organisation (as designated by the U.S., Russia, the UN Security Council and Turkey) presents a major obstacle,” lamented the authors of the absurdly titled paper, “In Syria’s Idlib, Washington’s Chance to Reimagine Counter-terrorism.”

A co-author of the document, Syria consultant Noah Bonsey, called for Western policymakers to show more “nuance” on the rebranded al-Qaeda extremists.

The thrust of the think tank’s argument was that, unlike ISIS and other al-Qaeda affiliates, “HTS has distanced itself from transnational attacks and the militants who advocate for them.” In other words, the extremist group’s campaign of violence is acceptable as long as it stays focused on the Syrian government and its allies – not on targets in Western countries.

The usual suspects enthusiastically promoted the policy paper, including the former Israeli soldier, Tsurkov.

Perhaps the most influential member of the Syria regime-change lobby on Washington’s K Street, Charles Lister, happily promoted the proposal as well.

The British pundit, who does not speak Arabic, has spent years advocating for Syria’s Islamist extremist occupation from within think tanks such as the Brookings Doha Center and Middle East Institute, which are funded by theocratic Gulf monarchies.

During a 2017 panel discussion at NATO’s de facto think tank, the Atlantic Council, Lister described Idlib as “the heartland of al-Nusra,” acknowledging that “Al-Qaeda’s relative success in Syria has seen its ideology and its narrative mainstreamed, not just in parts of Syria, but also in parts of the region.”

At a subsequent 2018 Capitol Hill panel discussion aimed at gathering congressional support for military intervention, Lister gushed about Nusra, “Al Qaeda has really got it right, I hate to say… Their strategy is so much more effective on the ground. They are winning hearts and minds.”

Lister has even celebrated Jolani as an Islamist version of Che Guevara who “goes deep on modern Arab political history.” As for HTS, Lister praised them as “a more politically mature and intelligent jihadist movement.”

Rankled by the successful advocacy by Lister and his Gulf monarchy-backed colleagues for arming Islamist fanatics in Syria, Brett McGurk, the former US special envoy against ISIS, grumbled to a reporter that the think tankers “got a lot of people killed.”

By 2021, Lister was comfortable enough to call for the rebranded al-Nusra franchise to become an official Western asset.

James Jeffrey Turkey
US special envoy on Syria James Jeffrey with Turkey’s defense minister in Ankara in 2019

James Jeffrey and Andrew Tabler’s undisclosed Turkish and Israeli ties

The PBS Frontline special on Jolani provided an uncritical platform to James Jeffrey, the former US special representative for Syria engagement, and Andrew Tabler, a de facto Israel lobbyist and think tank pundit, presenting them to viewers as serious Syria experts without disclosing their longstanding ties to two of the most pernicious foreign backers of Syria’s Islamist insurgency.

HTS is “the least bad option of the various options on Idlib, and Idlib is one of the most important places in Syria, which is one of the most important places right now in the Middle East,” Jeffrey declared to Frontline’s Martin Smith. He was finally acknowledging what was already well known in foreign policy circles but which few dared to say out loud: Washington has been allied with al-Qaeda in Syria.

The United States has not had formal diplomatic relations with Syria for years. Damascus formally broke contact with Washington in 2012 over its support for armed militants seeking to overthrow the country’s internationally recognized government.

The absence of diplomatic relations has led to the appointment of a series of US special envoys. One of the most influential, and aggressively interventionist, of these envoys has been Jeffrey.

When mainstream US media outlets mention Jeffrey, they are often careful to stress that he has served in both Republican and Democratic administrations, branding him as a bipartisan figure with extensive experience working at diplomatic posts in the Middle East.

What is almost never mentioned in the many glowing media portraits of Jeffrey, however, is his deep commitment to strengthening ties with Turkey, his close personal ties to the government in Ankara, and his fellowship with one of the most influential pro-Israel think tanks in Washington.

From 2013 to 2018, Jeffrey was a “distinguished fellow” at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a DC-based think tank that effectively serves as a cutout for Israeli intelligence. There, Jeffrey co-authored policy papers with neoconservative operatives such as Dennis Ross, advocating for hardline anti-Iran positions and even more US intervention in the Middle East.

While presenting Tehran as the “biggest challenge” for the United States, Jeffrey has been an enthusiastic advocate of closer cooperation with the Turkish government. In a report at WINEP, he maintained that “Turkey is one of the most important countries for the United States overall, and of central importance for U.S. policy.”

Jeffrey called for Washington to build deeper ties with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who he noted is “the most powerful Turkish leader since Mustafa Kemal Ataturk established the Turkish republic in 1923.” Jeffrey warned that failing to do so could inspire Ankara to improve its relations with longtime rival Russia.

James Jeffrey Erdogan Syria
Top US diplomat James Jeffrey with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Alongside the United States, Turkey has played a pivotal role in the regime-change war on Syria. Ankara worked with the CIA to create training camps inside Turkish territory, while southern Turkey became the de facto base for Syria’s political opposition in exile, with cities like Gaziantep serving as a hub for Western intelligence agencies and their assets.

For years, Erdogan maintained an open border with his southern neighbor, allowing tens of thousands of hardened Salafi-jihadists from around the world to enter Syria and wage war on the Assad government. This arrangement, known informally as the “jihadi highway,” allowed the Syrian opposition’s foreign sponsors to send billions of dollars worth of advanced weapons, including anti-tank missiles. It also gave extremist insurgents free rein to go back and forth across the porous border, seeking reinforcements and escaping retaliations by Damascus.

Ankara directly supported fanatical Islamist groups inside Syria, playing a “double game” with ISIS and effectively turning al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra into a proxy.

The Turkish military has illegally invaded Syrian sovereign territory several times since 2016, and Ankara military occupies parts of Idlib and northern Syria. The rebranded al-Qaeda extremists who run Idlib, HTS, collaborate openly with the Turkish military.

Jeffrey publicly broadcasted his pro-Ankara views when, in March 2020, he and then US Ambassador to United Nations Kelly Craft visited Turkey on a joint trip. On the southern border with Syria, the two diplomats posed for a photo op with the Western government-funded White Helmets, while calling for the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad and reaffirming Washington’s support for Turkey’s policy in Idlib.

James Jeffrey Kelly Craft Turkey Syria White Helmets
US Syria envoy James Jeffrey and UN Ambassador Kelly Craft in southern Turkey, posing with the White Helmets, in March 2020

A few weeks before the visit, Jeffrey conducted an interview on Turkish TV that was republished by the US embassy. The US special envoy on Syria enthusiastically defended Ankara’s military occupation of parts of Idlib: “There the United States totally agrees with Turkey on the legal presence and justification for Turkey defending its existential interests against refugee flow and dealing with terror and finding a solution to the terrible Syrian conflict with the war criminal regime of President Assad. We understand and support these legitimate Turkish interests that have Turkish forces in Syria and specifically in Idlib.”

Jeffrey later admitted that he had lied to then-President Trump about the number of troops in Syria to prevent a total withdrawal. “We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there,” he boasted to the military website Defense One.

A 2019 report in Foreign Policy identified Jeffrey, alongside neoconservative operative and former National Security Advisor John Bolton, as part of a group of anti-Iran hawks who “repeatedly sought to reverse Trump’s Syria withdrawal over nearly two years, culminating in a disastrous Turkish invasion that has destabilized the region.”

Foreign Policy explained: “Jeffrey began making plans to stay in northeastern Syria indefinitely as an obstacle to Assad’s attempts to consolidate power. In particular, Jeffrey’s team aimed to deny the Syrian president and his Iranian backers access to the coveted oil fields in Deir Ezzor province, which are mostly under SDF control.”

Despite Jeffrey’s relentless advocacy for more Turkish control in northern Syria, PBS Frontline’s Martin Smith portrayed him as an objective expert who was delivering clinical policy analysis uncorrupted by any ulterior political interest.

Similarly, Smith interviewed Andrew Tabler, who offered effusive praise for Turkey’s role in Idlib. Though Tabler works for the same pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy which employed Jeffrey for years, Smith presented him to viewers as a former journalist with years of supposed expertise on Syria.

In fact, Tabler has aggressively advocated a US regime-change war on Syria during apparently paid Israel lobby lectures like the one he delivered to the Israel Club of Florida’s Valencia Isles.

“The United States needs to develop and execute a plan to develop its Sunni allies’ spheres of influence in Syria to help retake and stabilize those areas from ISIS and al Qaeda,” Tabler told his pro-Israel audience. “However, such an operation will only succeed if Washington not only maintains its goal of al-Assad stepping aside, but adds a military component to the strategy as well.”

WINEP’s Andrew Tabler at the Valencia Isles Israel Club, October 15, 2015

Both Israel and Turkey have played central roles in destabilizing Syria from its north and south. And in Washington, figures like Jeffrey and Tabler have helped advance the interests of these two religiously sectarian human rights violators with zealous dedication.

But none of this context was provided to viewers of Smith’s PBS Frontline special on Jolani, leaving them with the impression that the two regime-change lobbyists were merely a couple of seasoned and unbiased analysts.

“Well, it’s complicated”: A PBS reporter on Jolani’s record as Al Qaeda leader

The June 2021 release of Smith’s PBS Frontline report prompted an exuberant Twitter victory lap by Lister, who erupted in quasi-orgasmic celebration at the portrayal of HTS as a “semi-technocratic ‘govt’”, and touted his own 10 years of work whitewashing the exploits of its jihadist founders.

Though Jolani’s de facto job interview with the US government was received positively inside the Beltway, an independent  interviewer managed to challenge Smith on his approach.

He was Scott Horton, the Austin, Texas-based libertarian anti-war author and Pacifica radio host. In an interview with Smith before the full PBS special appeared, Horton asked Smith if he confronted Jolani about his militia’s record of slaughtering members of Syria’s Druze religious minority who refused to convert to Islam, or the vicious theocratic regime he operated from East Aleppo to Idlib.

Smith responded with spin that sounded like damage control for al-Nusra: “Jolani says that a lot of mistakes were made,” the journalist said. Later, he insisted, “Well, it’s complicated,” when challenged about Jolani’s rampage of sectarian violence.

HTS is “considerably different” from al-Qaeda, Smith maintained, and “don’t participate in large-scale attacks against civilians.” He even insisted that Jolani had pledged protect the rights of Druze, Christians, and other religious minorities – although all have been ethnically cleansed from Idlib or forced to convert.

Finally, Smith claimed that Syria’s secular president was exponentially worse than the rebranded al-Qaeda leader, whose forces permitted no one but Sunni Muslims to exist under their rule. “There is no comparison between Assad and Jolani,” he argued.

In one of his only direct criticisms of HTS in the interview with Horton, Smith conceded that HTS’ prisons “can be pretty nasty places,” adding in another massive understatement that Jolani “still runs a pretty tough ship.”

However, the PBS reporter insisted that Jolani never affiliated with al-Qaeda because of ideology, but rather because of the terrorist group’s powerful “branding.”

“At this point they’re trying to get the West to warm up to them,” Smith conceded. “They are engaged now in an ongoing effort to try to set up dialogue with the West; they would like to have the terrorism designation lifted.”

Smith insisted that despite the ongoing public relations campaign on HTS’s behalf, he was not a participant in it. “The Americans are tired of wars in the Middle East,” the journalist claimed, implying that Jolani is someone the imperial planners in Washington can rely on to leave in charge.

Whether or not he was wittingly complicit, Martin Smith and his PBS Frontline report represented the culmination of the Washington-led lobbying campaign to clean up Syrian al-Qaeda’s image and secure its status as a respectable US proxy.

Lindsey Snell, an American independent journalist who was held captive by Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria, scoffed at the public relations campaign waged on behalf of HTS by American media and think tanks. In an interview with The Grayzone, Snell said HTS still upholds the same ideology as ISIS, but has decided to appeal to the West in order to preserve its influence in Idlib while pocketing millions of dollars a month in international aid and oil money.

“Actually, their rebranding campaign started when I was their captive,” Snell told The Grayzone. “They changed their name for the first time and they announced their split from Al Qaeda when I was their captive. And of course, it didn’t actually change anything.”

“To this day most of them still call themselves ‘Nusra,’” Snell added. “Their split from Al Qaeda was really just a cosmetic, surface level thing and they’re still the same terrorists inflicting Sharia law on everyone in their territories.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Washington is Positioning Syrian Al-Qaeda’s Founder as Its ‘Asset’
  • Tags:

Peru: What Will be the Nature of a Pedro Castillo Government?

June 13th, 2021 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

As we go to press,  June 11, 2021, the results published by Peru’s National Electoral Processes Office (ONPE) point in favor of Perú Libre’s candidate José Pedro Castillo Terrones against Fuerza Popular’s Keiko Fujimori

Right wing candidate Keiko and daughter of former president Alberto Fujimori (who is currently serving a jail term) has claimed fraud and has requested “to annul around 200,000 votes”. 

Uncertainty  prevails. The election observation mission of the Organization of American States (OAS) which constitutes a de facto mouthpiece of the US administration has “called on authorities to wait until challenges to the vote had been resolved before calling a winner”.  

***

Exacerbated by the Covid crisis and the lockdown, Peru is currently in a state of mass unemployment, extreme poverty and despair which is beyond description.

Pedro Castillo is a progressive trade-union leader and former school teacher from the Northern Andean region of Cajamarca. He is committed to poverty alleviation and the implementation of an extensive program of job creation.

The country is in a neoliberal straight-jacket.

The World Bank so-called estimates of poverty in Peru are “fake” (27 % of the country’s population  below the poverty line). Independent analysis suggests that at least 70% of Peru’s population is below the poverty line, and extreme poverty is of the order 35% to 50%. 

Will Castillo be in a position to reverse the tide of corrupt US sponsored politics which goes back to the presidency of Alberto Fujimori (1990-2000)? Will he be able to implement a progressive economic and social project?   

What will be the nature of a Castillo government? Will Castillo gain the support of the Biden-Harris administration? 

What is important is to assess José Pedro Castillo’s political entourage. He has already made a number of commitments. His advisory team [equipo tecnico] has already been chosen. This is standard procedure in Latin American elections.

Pressured by Washington, there are indications that a Castillo government would adopt what might be described as a “progressive” neoliberal agenda, with the support of the Left, as well as the tacit endorsement of the Biden Administration with certain pre-conditions, prior to his inauguration on July 28, 2021

It is worth noting that the OAS has overseen the election process (on behalf of Washington) and has not reported any “irregularities” in favor of Castillo.

If Washington had been opposed to socialist candidate Pedro Castillo, the US State Department would have instructed the OAS to question the legitimacy of the election results as they did in Bolivia in November 2019, resulting in a de facto US sponsored coup d’état which compelled President Evo Morales to resign and leave the country.

Political Alliances and Advisory Teams

Pedro Castillo is supported by Veronika Mendoza, the leader of Nuevo Perú (Bloomberg, June 9, 2021). What is at stake is a strategic political alliance between Castillo’s Perú Libre and Mendoza’s Nuevo Perú.

Mendoza is a progressive figure in Peruvian politics. Her party is backing Castillo. An agreement was signed between the two parties. Mendoza has appointed a “team of professionals” to draft a government plan (See Bloomberg, June 9, 2021, emphasis added)

What this suggests is that Castillo has already accepted an advisory team, appointed by Mendoza, who is slated to play a central role in the Castillo government. During the second round election campaign, Castillo’s chief economic adviser  is  Pedro Franke, a former World Bank economist.

Leading up to the second round, Pedro Franke has largely been involved in public relations statements in support of Castillo’s candidacy.

While Franke has a populist rhetoric, he is nonetheless committed to mainstream “free market” economics. The question is whether a Pedro Castillo government would conform to “The Washington Consensus”.

The country is already in the hands of foreign creditors. The latter are also providing “financial assistance” in relation to the covid crisis.

Continuity: A de facto and ongoing neoliberal package of economic and social interventions (under the auspices of the World Bank, the IMF and the Inter-American Development Bank (ADB))?

Neoliberalism with a Human Face

Pedro Franke has already put forth a people’s market economy on behalf of Pedro Castillo whom he compares to Luis Ignacio da Silva.

While he endorses Castillo’s program of mass employment creation,  he is committed to “fiscal prudence and inflation-targeting, and is opposed to nationalization of companies”.

“Fiscal Prudence”? What this suggests is that a Castillo government will not be able to create employment without the endorsement of Peru’s external creditors:

“We don’t want to nationalize the mining and oil industries, or other sectors, said Franke.

We don’t want generalized price controls or a dual foreign-exchange rate or to impose currency controls like Chavez did.”

These statements suggest that the Castillo government would not confront the foreign mining conglomerates, it would also  abide by IMF-World Bank conditionalities.

The issue of price controls is of course crucial. Recall the adoption by Alberto Fujimori of the IMF shock treatment economic agenda in August 1990. The retail price of gasoline increased 30 times overnight.

IMF “economic medicine” invariably triggers increases in the prices of essential consumer goods, while freezing wages. Under present conditions (covid crisis) this would precipitate a large sector of the Peruvian population into extreme poverty and despair.

In a press Conference on June 2, 2021. Pedro Franke stated:

“The three essential measures are:

A broad program of credit at low interest rates that reaches agriculture.”

Second, a public investment program that will generate direct and indirect employment.

Another measure that will be taken will be to “defend and promote local production.”

“We insist that the potato –a national product– must be promoted, (as well as) the national production of rice. … 

The industrialization of the country is essential, as well as the support for entrepreneurs and innovation ”, he said. …

Franke dispels the possibility of creating employment through monetary policy: “Our proposal is responsible with a responsible fiscal and monetary policy. Our proposal includes a fiscal balance …  ” namely “austerity measures”.

See his TV interview in Spanish

The foregoing statement confirms that foreign creditors rather than the government will call the shots on employment creation. In an interview on June 8, Pedro Castillo confirmed that:

“he would respect the central bank’s authority and that he was not planning nationalizations or expropriations, but added a tax overhaul on mining was needed to help pay for planned healthcare and education reforms.” (Reuters, June 8, 2021)

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Peru: What Will be the Nature of a Pedro Castillo Government?
  • Tags:

The West should Embrace a Multipolar World Order

June 13th, 2021 by Megan Sherman

There have been many obvious signs of Western defensiveness, protectiveness and isolationism against the emergence of a multipolar BRIC ascendancy, which is interpreted as a threat to hegemon America’s unilateral geopolitical strategy, so brutally imposed on the ever evolving politics of world order, to the understandable dismay of humanitarian diplomats.

The most important expression of scepticism towards the BRICs consists in the cynical, calculated engineering of hostility towards China by the CIA, who exploit racist orientalist sentiments to stoke an irrational hatred, sinophobia, which prevents the west taking lessons from a -misunderstood – superpower which, when studied with no agenda, has greatly improved the quality of life of its citizens, as well as benevolently assisting in alleviating poverty internationally.

The progressiveness of China’s policy is shown by the fact that they evidently view international diplomacy as a non zero sum game, an economic negotiation where net benefits for one actor is shared by other parties. To the contrary, America approaches diplomacy as a zero sum game and fiercely fights for exclusive rights to the winner’s spoils. The average American has been deeply conditioned by the supremacy of neoliberal doctrine to exhibit the traits and reflexes of a ‘rational utility maximiser’ who privileges self gain before all else. China, where this highly propagandised model of human behaviour is rejected by the dominant culture, promotes collectivism, diplomatic cooperation and mutual aid.

The diplomacy of the BRICs is radically different from preceding logics of statecraft that sought to ensure intrusive global dominance for the markets and trade of the West. Arguably the most important facet of BRIC diplomacy is the anchoring internationalist ethic of the UN, which enshrines mutual, multilateral, peaceful development as its core goal. America is still trapped in an obsolescent quest for global dominance that makes peaceful coexistence difficult. Money/oil is their answer and Iran their question. The “democracies” of the west are ruled by banking dynasties who exert influence over domestic policy and global war making. On the other hand, emerging BRICs are ruled by experts in public policy administration who reached high office through skill, not inherited wealth.

But despite their clear moral lead over the West, the BRICs aren’t impervious to corruption. The West has its devious strategies for subverting them politically. One has to question whether the dubious psycho-geographical powers of Cambridge Analytica helped far right Bolsonaro gain power in Brazil, where he is creating existential struggle for indigenous communities. One also has to ask whether the controversial social credit scheme in China is a Cambridge Analytica beta.

Nevertheless the BRICS are the truest hope for internationalism, who honour their citizens with bold democratic gestures, because it pays to not put ones soul up for trade.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The West should Embrace a Multipolar World Order
  • Tags:

Is a “Climate Lockdown” on the Horizon?

June 13th, 2021 by Kit Knightly

If and when the powers-that-be decide to move on from their pandemic narrative, lockdowns won’t be going anywhere. Instead it looks like they’ll be rebranded as “climate lockdowns”, and either enforced or simply held threateningly over the public’s head.

At least, according to an article written by an employee of the WHO, and published by a mega-coporate think-tank.

Let’s dive right in.

THE REPORT’S AUTHOR AND BACKERS

The report, titled “Avoiding a climate lockdown”, was written by Mariana Mazzucato, a professor of economics at University College London, and head of something called the Council on the Economics of Health for All, a division of the World Health Organization.

It was first published in October 2020 by Project Syndicate, a non-profit media organization that is (predictably) funded through grants from the Open society Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and many, many others.

After that, it was picked up and republished by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), which describes itself as “a global, CEO-led organization of over 200 leading businesses working together to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world.”.

The WBCSD’s membership is essentially every major company in the world, including Chevron, BP, Bayer, Walmart, Google and Microsoft. Over 200 members totalling well over 8 TRILLION dollars in annual revenue.

In short: an economist who works for the WHO has written a report concerning “climate lockdowns”, which has been published by both a Gates+Soros backed NGO AND a group representing almost every bank, oil company and tech giant on the planet.

Whatever it says, it clearly has the approval of the people who run the world.

WHAT DOES IT SAY?

The text of the report itself is actually quite craftily constructed. It doesn’t outright argue for climate lockdowns, but instead discusses ways “we” can prevent them.

As COVID-19 spread […] governments introduced lockdowns in order to prevent a public-health emergency from spinning out of control. In the near future, the world may need to resort to lockdowns again – this time to tackle a climate emergency […] To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently.

This cleverly creates a veneer of arguing against them, whilst actually pushing the a priori assumptions that any so-called “climate lockdowns” would a) be necessary and b) be effective. Neither of which has ever been established.

Another thing the report assumes is some kind of causal link between the environment and the “pandemic”:

COVID-19 is itself a consequence of environmental degradation

I wrote an article, back in April, exploring the media’s persistent attempts to link the Covid19 “pandemic” with climate change. Everybody from the Guardian to the Harvard School of Public Health is taking the same position – “The root cause of pandemics [is] the destruction of nature”:

The razing of forests and hunting of wildlife is increasingly bringing animals and the microbes they harbour into contact with people and livestock.

There is never any scientific evidence cited to support this position. Rather, it is a fact-free scare-line used to try and force a mental connection in the public, between visceral self-preservation (fear of disease) and concern for the environment. It is as transparent as it is weak.

“CLIMATE LOCKDOWNS”

So, what exactly is a “climate lockdown”? And what would it entail?

The author is pretty clear:

Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling.

There you have it. A “climate lockdown” means no more red meat, the government setting limits on how and when people use their private vehicles and further (unspecified) “extreme energy-saving measures”. It would likely include previously suggested bans on air travel, too.

All in all, it is potentially far more strict than the “public health policy” we’ve all endured for the last year.

As for forcing fossil fuel companies to stop drilling, that is drenched in the sort of ignorance of practicality that only exists in the academic world. Supposing we can switch to entirely rely on renewables for energy, we still wouldn’t be able to stop drilling for fossil fuels.

Oil isn’t just used as fuel, it’s also needed to lubricate engines and manufacture chemicals and plastics. Plastics used in the manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels, for example.

Coal isn’t just needed for power stations, but also to make steel. Steel which is vital to pretty much everything humans do in the modern world.

It reminds me of a Victoria Wood sketch from the 1980s, where an upper-middle class woman remarks, upon meeting a coal miner, “I suppose we don’t really need coal, now we’ve got electricity.”

A lot of post-fossil utopian ideas are sold this way, to people who are comfortably removed from the way the world actually works. This mirrors the supposed “recovery” the environment experienced during lockdown, a mythic creation selling a silver lining of house arrest to people who think that because they’re having their annual budget meetings over Zoom, somehow China stopped manufacturing 900 million tonnes of steel a year, and the US military doesn’t produce more pollution than 140 different countries combined.

The question, really, is why would an NGO backed by – among others – Shell, BP and Chevron, possibly want to suggest a ban on drilling for fossil fuel? But that’s a discussion for another time.

AVOIDING A “CLIMATE LOCKDOWN”

So, the “climate lockdown” is a mix of dystopian social control, and impractical nonsense likely designed to sell an agenda. But don’t worry, we don’t have to do this. There is a way to avoid these extreme measures, the author says so:

To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently […] Addressing this triple crisis requires reorienting corporate governance, finance, policy, and energy systems toward a green economic transformation […] Far more is needed to achieve a green and sustainable recovery […] we want to transform the future of work, transit, and energy use.

“Overhaul”? “reorienting”? “transformation”?

Seems like we’re looking at a new-built society. A “reset”, if you will, and given the desired scope, you could even call it a “great reset”, I suppose.

Except, of course, the Great Reset is just a wild “conspiracy theory”. The elite doesn’t want a Great Reset, even if they keep saying they do

…they just want a massive wholesale “transformation” of our social, financial, governmental and energy sectors.

They want you to own nothing and be happy. Or else.

Because that’s the oddest thing about this particular article, whereas most fear-porn public programming at least attempts subtlety, there is very definitely an overtly threatening tone to this piece [emphasis added]:

we are approaching a tipping point on climate change, when protecting the future of civilization will require dramatic interventions […] One way or the other, radical change is inevitable; our task is to ensure that we achieve the change we want – while we still have the choice.

The whole article is not an argument, so much as an ultimatum. A gun held to the public’s collective head. “Obviously we don’t want to lock you up inside your homes, force you to eat processed soy cubes and take away your cars,”they’re telling us, “but we might have to, if you don’t take our advice.”

Will there be “climate lockdowns” in the future? I wouldn’t be surprised. But right now – rather than being seriously mooted – they are fulfilling a different role. A frightening hypothetical – A threat used to bully the public into accepting the hardline globalist reforms that make up the “great reset”.

Many thanks to all the people on social media who brought this to our attention.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is a “Climate Lockdown” on the Horizon?
  • Tags:

In recent months a crisis situation in the USA food supply has been growing and is about to assume alarming dimensions that could become catastrophic.

Atop the existing corona pandemic lockdowns and unemployment, a looming agriculture crisis as well could tip inflation measures to cause a financial crisis as interest rates rise.
.
The ingredients are many, but central is asevere drought in key growing states of the Dakotas and Southwest, including agriculture-intensive California. So far Washington has done disturbingly little to address the crisis and California Water Board officials have been making the crisis far worse by draining the state water reservoirs…into the ocean.

So far the worst hit farm state is North Dakota which grows most of the nation’s Red Spring Wheat. In the Upper Midwest, the Northern Plains states and the Prairie provinces of Canada winter brought far too little snow following a 2020 exceedingly dry summer. The result is drought from Manitoba Canada to the Northern USA Plains States. This hits farmers in the region just four years after a flash drought in 2017 arrived without early warning and devastated the US Northern Great Plains region comprising Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and the adjacent Canadian Prairies.

CAL512341

As of May 27, according to Adnan Akyuz, State Climatologist, ninety-three percent of the North Dakota state is in at least a Severe Drought category, and 77% of the state is in an Extreme Drought category. Farm organizations predict unless the rainfall changes dramatically in the coming weeks, the harvest of wheat widely used for pasta and flour will be a disaster. The extreme dry conditions extend north of the Dakota border into Manitoba, Canada, another major grain and farming region, especially for wheat and corn. There, the lack of rainfall and warmer-than-normal temperatures threaten harvests, though it is still early for those crops. North Dakota and the plains region depend on snow and rainfall for its agriculture water.

Southwest States in Severe Drought

While not as severe, farm states Iowa and Illinois are suffering “abnormally dry” conditions in 64% for Iowa and 27% for Illinois. About 55% of Minnesota is abnormally dry as of end May. Drought is measured in a scale from D1 “abnormally dry,” D3 “severe drought” to D4, “exceptional drought.”

The severe dry conditions are not limited, unfortunately, to North Dakota or other Midwest farm states. A second region of very severe drought extends from western Texas across New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada and deep into California. In Texas 20% of the state is in “severe drought,” and 12% “extreme drought.” Nearly 6% of the state is experiencing “exceptional drought,” the worst. New Mexico is undergoing 96% “severe drought,” and of that, 47% “exceptional drought.”

California Agriculture is Vital

The situation in California is by far the most serious in its potential impact on the supply of agriculture products to the nation. There, irrigation and a sophisticated water storage system provide water for irrigation and urban use to the state for their periodic dry seasons. Here a far larger catastrophe is in the making. A cyclical drought season is combining with literally criminal state environmental politics, to devastate agriculture in the nation’s most important farm producing state. It is part of a radical Green Agenda being advocated by Gov. Gavin Newsom and fellow Democrats to dismantle traditional agriculture, as insane as it may sound.

Few outside California realize that the state most known for Silicon Valley and beautiful beaches is such a vital source of agriculture production. California’s agricultural sector is the most important in the United States, leading the nation’s production in over 77 different products including dairy and a number of fruit and vegetable “specialty” crops. The state is the only producer of crops such as almonds, artichokes, persimmons, raisins, and walnuts. California grows a third of the country’s vegetables and two thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts. It leads all other states in farm income with77,500 farms and ranches. It also is second in production of livestock behind Texas, and its dairy industry is California’s leading commodity in cash receipts. In total, 43 million acres of the state’s 100 million acres are devoted to agriculture. In short what happens here is vital to the nation’s food supply.

California Crisis Manmade: Where has the water gone?

The water crisis in California is far the most serious in terms of consequences for the food supply, in a period when the US faces major supply chain disruptions owing to absurd corona lockdowns combined with highly suspicious hacks of key infrastructure. On May 31, the infrastructure of the world’s largest meat processor, JBS SA, was hacked, forcing the shutdown of all its US beef plants that supply almost a quarter of American beef.

The Green lobby is asserting, while presenting no factual evidence, that Global Warming, i.e. increased CO2 manmade emission, is causing the drought. The NOAA examined the case and found no evidence. But the media repeats the narrative to advance the Green New Deal agenda with frightening statements such as claiming the drought is, “comparable to the worst mega-droughts since 800 CE.”

After 2011, California underwent a severe seven year drought. The drought ended in 2019 as major rains filled the California reservoir system to capacity. According to state water experts the reservoirs held enough water to easily endure at least a five-year drought. Yet two years later, the administration of Governor Newsom is declaring a new drought and threatening emergency measures. What his Administration is not saying is that the State Water Board and relevant state water authorities have been deliberately letting water flow into the Pacific Ocean. Why? They say to save two endangered fish species that are all but extinct—one, a rare type of Salmon, the second a Delta Smelt, a tiny minnow-size fish of some 2” size which has all but disappeared.

In June 2019 Shasta Dam, holding the state’s largest reservoir as a keystone of the huge Central Valley Project, was full to 98% of capacity. Just two years later in May 2021 Shasta Lake reservoir held a mere 42% of capacity, almost 60% down. Similarly, in June 2019 Oroville Dam reservoir, the second largest, held water at 98% of capacity and by May 2021 was down to just 37%. Other smaller reservoirs saw similar drops. Where has all the water gone?

Allegedly to “save” these fish varieties, during just 14 days in May, according to Kristi Diener, a California water expert and farmer, “90% of (Bay Area) Delta inflow went to sea. It’s equal to a year’s supply of water for 1 million people.” Diener has been warning repeatedly in recent years that water is unnecessarily being let out to sea as the state faces a normal dry year. She asks, “Should we be having water shortages in the start of our second dry year? No. Our reservoirs were designed to provide a steady five year supply for all users, and were filled to the top in June 2019.”

In 2008, at the demand of environmental groups such as the NRDC, a California judge ordered that the Central Valley Water project send 50% of water reservoirs to the Pacific Ocean to “save” an endangered salmon variety, even though the NGO admitted that no more than 1,000 salmon would likely be saved by the extreme measure. In the years 1998-2005 an estimated average of 49% of California managed water supply went to what is termed the “environment,” including feeding into streams and rivers, to feed estuaries and the Bay Area Delta. Only 28% went directly to maintain agriculture water supplies.

This past January Felicia Marcus, the chair of the California State Water Resources Control Board, who oversaw the controversial water policies since 2018, left at the end of her term to become an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) one of the most powerful green NGO’s, with a reported $400 million in resources to wage legal battles to defend “endangered species” such as the California salmon and the Delta Smelt.

Appointed by green Gov. Jerry Brown as chair of the State Water Board in 2018, Marcus is directly responsible for the draining of the reservoirs into the ocean after they filled in 2019, using the claim of protecting endangered species. In March 2021 with Marcus as attorney, the NRDC requested that the State Water Resources Control Board Marcus headed until recently, take “immediate action” to address perceived threats to listed salmon in the Sacramento River watershed from Central Valley Project (“CVP”) operationsThis as the state is facing a new drought emergency?

In 2020 Gov. Gavin Newsom, a protégé of Jerry Brown, signed Senate Bill 1, the California Environmental, Public Health and Workers Defense Act, which would send billions of gallons of water out to the Pacific Ocean, ostensibly to save more fish. It was a cover for manufacturing the present water crisis and specifically attacking farming, as incredible as it may seem.

Target Agriculture

The true agenda of the Newsom and previous Brown administrations is to radically undermine the highly productive California agriculture sector. Gov. Newsom has now introduced an impressive-sounding $5.1 billion Drought Relief bill. Despite its title, nothing will go to improve the state reservoir water availability for cities and farms. Of the total, $500 million will be spent on incentives for farmers to “re-purpose” their land, that is to stop farming. Suggestions include wildlife habitat, recreation, or solar panels! Another $230 million will be used for “wildlife corridors and fish passage projects to improve the ability of wildlife to migrate safely.” “Fish passage projects” is a clever phrase for dam removal, destroying the nation’s most effective network of reservoirs.

Then the Newson bill allocates $300 million for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act implementation, a 2014 law from Jerry Brown amid the previous severe drought to prevent farmers in effect from securing water from drilling wells. The effect will be to drive more farmers off the land. And another $200 million will go to “habitat restoration,” supporting tidal wetland, floodplains, and multi-benefit flood-risk reduction projects—a drought package with funding for floods? This is about recreating flood plains so when they demolish the dams, the water has someplace to go. The vast bulk of the $500 billion is slated to reimburse water customers from the previous 2011-2019 drought from higher water bills, a move no doubt in hopes voters will look positively on Newsom as he faces likely voter recall in November.

The systematic dismantling of one of the world’s most productive agriculture regions, using the seductive mantra of “environmental protection,” fits into the larger agenda of the Davos Great Reset and its plans to radically transform world agriculture into what the UN Agenda 2030 calls “sustainable” agriculture—no more meat protein. The green argument is that cows are a major source of methane gas emissions via burps. How that affects global climate no one has seriously proven. Instead we should eat laboratory-made fake meat like the genetically-manipulated Impossible Burger of Bill Gates and Google, or even worms. Yes. In January the EU European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), approved mealworms , or larvae of the darkling beetle, as the first “novel food” cleared for sale across the EU. 

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

F. William Engdahl is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (C RG)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

We are living in the land of fake-believe.  Nothing is as it seems in this virtual world invented and monopolised by deceivers. A world in which warriors of truth are named ‘conspiracy theorists’ and masters of the lie are named ‘upholders of the truth’. And all the while, a largely hypnotized humanity bows down its head to this vainglorious game. This game of thrones.

The messages being broadcast to the world by what is known as ‘the media’ are an incomprehensible jumble of fact and fiction; with fiction coming out very much on top. ‘Fake news’ designed to rob us of our ability for independent thinking while selling the line of the architects of control, no matter what.

In the great majority of cases ‘the media’ manifests with no actual journalism involved, just a robotic feed-through to Joe public of the ‘spin of the day’, spiced-up by the fear formula. It’s a menu that changes very little wherever one is in the world – an endless repetition of fake believe – until one can’t be sure that one is who one is and/or whether one is maybe on another planet altogether.

 A helium balloon on a string, sporting an agenda invented and scripted by the devil himself. And the longer it goes on the more unreal it all becomes. Yet it is ‘actual’, in the sense that it is actually happening. It’s just that, since the logic is the reverse of human logic, we are experiencing a back-to-front reality.

In this place, the Minister of Health’s role is to ensure citizens get sick while the doctor is there to ensure the sick never recover.

The nurse’s job is to be master of the poisoned needle.

The school teacher’s role is to ensure the physical separation of pupils and to enforce the wearing of the mask. The policeman’s job is to push society into a crime, and at the head of this show, is, of course, the Crime Minister himself.

Then what about we the people? What is our role within this sadistic drama?

Why, to be culled of course. Not all and not all at once.

Oldies first, because they are ‘useless eaters’ and a drain on the economy. They know something too, and that’s not good. Some may be ‘useful’ but only as sterile cyborgs, not as thinking, feeling human beings still capable of rational judgment – no, they must go – and the sooner the better.

Since the reality of this open attack on humanity is simultaneously an expression of its insanity, many are lost, not able to grasp the complexity of this fact. So this insanity also moves amongst us ‘we the people’. In fact, public obedience to the beast is simply another form of insanity.

Obedience to the beast is what most conceive as constituting ‘a responsible citizen’.

Doing what one is told to do carries with it a quasi-religious moral imperative. A sense of self righteousness concerning one’s duty to follow the script, the diktat of the status quo. Never to step out of line.

Who would ever have guessed, just eighteen months ago, that a very significant percentage of the world’s population would unthinkingly follow the call of madmen to accept being locked-down in their own homes?

So ready to be so obedient; so ready to be hypnotized into submission to the protagonists of the New World Order/ Great Reset.

“The WEF Klaus Schwab explained that human beings will soon receive a chip which will be implanted in their bodies in order to merge with the digital World.

RTS: “When will that happen?

KS: “Certainly in the next ten years.

“We could imagine that we will implant them in our brain or in our skin”.

“And then we can imagine that there is direct communication between the brain and the digital World”.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg6BlXuj8cM .

Addiction to Virtual Technologies

Now a key accomplice to our present state of abstraction and enfeeblement lies in an addiction to  virtual technologies, the cell phone being the chief culprit. We – and it – together, have created a 3D world which is not this world, but a digitalized virtual version. The great danger is that this digital version will, through constant reliance upon it for information and communication, seem more real than the real world of emotions, instincts, nature, earth and the elements.

This is what transhumanist promoters are pressing for and governments going along with – to become permanently plugged-into the virtual electronic grid and have this connection hard wired via a direct chip-based feed from super-computer to human brain.

Just as the genetically modified Covid hook protein jab is sold as a protective ‘vaccine’, so too will a computer chip with direct access to the brain, be sold as a ‘cure’ for our apparent inability to process a vast quantity of supposedly essential – but actually useless – information. A technocratic mind is being promoted as the Omega point for humanity, while intuition and heart are being downgraded to junk status.

I write extensively about this in my book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind’.

The dark political agenda – we are right to name it “Satanic” – so evident at this moment, is closely integrated with the digital processing of the human brain and psyche. Those leading ‘the way of the lie’ in this fabricated Covid holocaust, are relying on we the people not recognizing that their political proselytizing is a stage managed deception designed to push through ever more constricting centralized control, leading to totalitarian dictatorship: The New World Order/Great Reset.

So long as a large percentage of mankind spends more time engrossed in an algorithmically controlled digital reality – than time spent engrossed in ‘real life’ – our self elected leaders of deception will have no difficulty mind controlling the masses into following its program. A program  that includes the jab-insertion of a magnetic chip called a ‘vaccination’, designed to keep steering humanity into permanent slavery to an anti-life dictatorship.

Man seeing ‘the machine’ as a god – if not God –  has been a thematic of insightful authors for the past century or more. ‘Deus ex machina’ is not a fantasy for those currently wedded to their mobile phones. In fact, what they are subconsciously ‘wedded’ to is the addictive convenience afforded by these little microwave time-bombs; and after a while most cannot even imagine life without them.

Further high-tech so called ‘breakthroughs’ are already in the pipeline. ‘Zero point’ quantum energy; anti-gravity ‘faster than light’ transportation and ‘celestial chambers’ for all manner of molecular body repairs. Not to mention synthetic plasma foods made by quantum computers and having nothing to do with food grown from seeds in the soil.

All this and more is rushing mankind towards so called ‘solutions’ to so called ‘problems’.  A World Economic Forum led ‘Great Reset’ is currently being pushed upon us, on the absurd notion that we need ‘a grand solution’ to a non existent problem called Global Warming.

Equally, scientific ‘progressives’ believe we are all being held back from liberation by the constraints of gravity rather than by our disastrous lack of spiritual awareness.

But can anyone stop long enough to ask if any of this is the path most likely to support the evolution of man as a sentient, warm, loving and creative being?

Is speed and high-tech wizardry deepening human experience or making it more sterile?

Are the protagonists of futuristic solutions like ‘the internet of everything’ sane people? Do those who go along with such notions actually believe some nice men and women are steering mankind in a direction that fulfills our deeper desires and aspirations?

Are we so lost as to believe it is worth living under a dictatorship in order to ensure that this dark madhouse gets to become the main agenda on planet Earth?

And lastly, are those promoting a digitalised algorithmic future in any way wise, far sighted, spiritual beings? Or are they simply the latest exploiters of trends whose origins are to be found in Illuminati and secret society annals of history?

These are the questions that need to be factored-in to our thinking each time we hear about another ‘breakthrough’ in man’s technological prowess. There is more to living than playing with machines and then passively subjecting one’s self to their ability to manage one’s life.

Only by stopping to listen to the deeper call that comes from “the real God within ourselves” can we be guided onto the path of actual wisdom. Where that path takes us is what constitutes genuine ‘progress’ for humanity.

Only technologies, medical treatments, educational policies and governing bodies that follow this path – are worthy of being defined as ‘progressive’.  Anything and everything else is fake. Fakery has no place within a steadily emerging consciousness that reveals man to be a higher being, gifted with deep powers of love, empathy and a burning desire for true global justice.

Human race, cease playing powerless victim to your self imposed jail-sentence. Take control of your destiny – move forward into the light.

*

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

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and holistic teacher. His latest book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is particularly recommended reading for this time: see www.julianrose.info

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

My bottom line is this. There is an interest in the United States to work with Russia. We should and we will. If Russia seeks to violate the interest of the United States, we will respond. We’ll always stand in defense of our country, our institutions, our people and our allies.

– U.S. President Joe Biden, April 15, 2021

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

U.S. President Joe Biden has just departed for Europe as of Wednesday and is of this writing thick in the midst of talks with his G7 allies – everything from trade, vaccine donations, climate change, rebuilding infrastructure and taxing multinational corporations are in play during the high powers scrum.[1]

From there, Biden heads out to Brussels for talks with leaders of NATO and the European Union to discuss the challenges threatened by Russia and China, and about getting more contributions from all their allies.[2]

All of this would set the leader of the free world with abundant strength of numbers before facing off with the final stop on his visit – a meeting in Geneva with Russian President Vladimir Putin.[3]

Going into this discussion with what National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan described as “the wind at his back,” it can be imagined that the new president is perhaps chomping at the bit to ground the man once known as America’s puppet master in his corner and let him know that “America is back!” He’ll be in a good position to grill him on the massive SolarWinds cyberattack, election interference, build-ups on the Ukrainian border, the imprisonment of opponent Alexei Navalny, and his support for Belarusian President’s arrest of an opposition journalist.[4]

On the other hand, the positions of the two leaders given their relative positions might seem to induce in Putin not so much cowering, as laughter.

If we are to turn our attention to a viewpoint countering the vast legions of the U.S. publishing press, one would be hard pressed to find an example uniquely qualified to present it than our guest this week on the Global Research News Hour.

Russian-American writer and blogger Dmitry Orlov broke down the actual positions of the two presidents, outlining really how much of an attack machine is built on rumour and lies and how if Biden doesn’t change any element of his position, Putin has no incentive to expect anything coming out of this convergence.

In a long conversation taking up the majority of the show, Orlov also examines the threatening moves by NATO, the coronavirus situation as viewed from Russia and the Sputnik V vaccine, the role of the virus from within a geopolitical context, and of the impending collapse of America.

Dmitry Orlov emigrated from Russia where he was born to the United States in the mid-1970s. He has degrees in Computer Engineering and Linguistics and has worked in the fields of high energy physics, internet commerce, advertising and network security. He has now moved back to Russia. He is the author of numerous articles. His books include: Shrinking the Technosphere: Getting a Grip on the Technologies that Limit our Autonomy, Self-sufficiency and Freedom (2016), The Five Stages of Collapse: Survivors’ Toolkit. (2013) as well as  Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Experience and American Prospects (2011). Dmitry Orlov blogs at cluborlov.com.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 320)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

  1. Trevor Hunnicut, Steve Holland (June 9, 2021), ‘Biden begins European visit with a warning for Russia’, Reuters; www.reuters.com/world/us/with-g7-summit-first-stop-biden-embarks-8-day-trip-europe-2021-06-09/
  2. ibid
  3. ibid
  4. Agence France Presse (June 9, 2021), ‘Joe Biden touts ‘tight’ US-Europe ties as he embarks on diplomatic marathon’; www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3136692/joe-biden-touts-tight-us-europe-ties-he-embarks

The U.S. paid 32.1% more per dose for the Pfizer vaccine, compared to the EU

Between the two areas, the Sanofi vaccine has one of the smallest prices gaps of only 12.9%

.

.

Comparing COVID Vaccine Prices between the U.S. and EU

Over two billion COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered around the world.

But the price governments have paid for the vaccine varies, depending on the region or country. Here’s a look at five major vaccine manufacturers, and their price per dose in the U.S. compared to the EU.

COVID-19 Vaccine Prices: Cost Per Dose

Generally speaking, the EU has paid significantly less than America for a range of COVID-19 vaccines. Pfizer has the biggest price gap, with the U.S. paying 32.1% more per dose.

Manufacturer U.S. Price (per dose) EU Price (per dose) % Difference U.S. is paying
Pfizer/BioNTech $19.50 $14.76 32.1%
Moderna $15.00 $18.00 -20.0%
Sanofi $10.50 $9.30 12.9%
Johnson & Johnson $10.00 $8.50 17.6%
AstraZeneca $4.00 $3.50 14.3%

There are a few factors that might explain the price difference. One is early funding—Germany donated millions towards Pfizer’s development.

And while the U.S. did commit to purchasing hundreds of millions of doses of the Pfizer vaccine, the country didn’t provide any funding for the vaccine’s actual development.

Moderna is the only vaccine on the list that is actually cheaper in the U.S., at $15.00 per dose. However, considering that Moderna’s CEO had initially predicted governments would be charged $25-$37 per dose, it looks like both the U.S. and EU managed to negotiate a good deal.

 Vaccines Prices

Immunity is the Biggest Cost Saver

At the end of the day, the cost of the vaccine itself is pretty insignificant compared to the economic and emotional toll of an ongoing pandemic.

For instance, a study out of Harvard University estimated the total economic cost of COVID-19 in the U.S. to be in the $16.1 trillion range.

»Want to learn more? Check out our COVID-19 information hub to help put the past year into perspective

Where does this data come from?

Source: Unicef
Notes: Values are in $USD

On 25 May 2021, the Indian Bar Association (IBA) served a 51-page legal notice on Dr Soumya Swaminathan, the Chief Scientist at the World Health Organisation (WHO), for:

[H]er act of spreading disinformation and misguiding the people of India, in order to fulfil her agenda.”

The Mumbai-based IBA is an association of lawyers who strive to bring transparency and accountability to the Indian justice system. It is actively involved in the dissemination of legal knowledge and provides guidance and support to advocates and ordinary people in their fight for justice.

The legal notice says Dr Swaminathan has been:

Running a disinformation campaign against Ivermectin by deliberate suppression of effectiveness of drug Ivermectin as prophylaxis and for treatment of COVID-19, despite the existence of large amounts of clinical data compiled and presented by esteemed, highly qualified, experienced medical doctors and scientists,”

And:

Issuing statements in social media and mainstream media, thereby influencing the public against the use of Ivermectin and attacking the credibility of acclaimed bodies/institutes like ICMR and AIIMS, Delhi, which have included ‘Ivermectin’ in the ‘National Guidelines for COVID-19 management’.”

The IBA states that legal action is being taken against Dr Swaminathan in order to stop her from causing further damage to the lives of citizens of India.

Dr Soumya Swaminathan, WHO Chief Scientist

The notice is based on the research and clinical trials carried out by the ‘Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance’ (FLCCC) and the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) Panel. These organisations have presented an enormous amount of data that strengthen the case for recommending Ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.

The IBA says that Dr Swaminathan has ignored these studies and reports and has deliberately suppressed the data regarding the effectiveness of Ivermectin, with an intent to dissuade the people of India from using it.

However, two key medical bodies, the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Delhi, have refused to accept her stand and have retained the recommendation for Ivermectin, under a ‘May Do’ category, for patients with mild symptoms and those in home isolation, as stated in ‘The National Guidelines for COVID-19 management’.

It is interesting to note that the content of several web links to news articles and reports included in the notice served upon Dr Swaminathan, which was visible before issuing the notice, has either been removed or deleted.

It seems that the vaccine manufacturers and many governments are desperate to protect their pro-vaccine agenda and will attempt to censor information and news regarding the efficacy of Ivermectin.

The legal notice can be read in full on the website of the India Bar Association.

Colin Todhunter is an independent journalist who writes on development, environmental issues, politics, food and agriculture. In August 2018 he was named as one of 400 Living Peace and Justice Leaders and Models by Transcend Media Services, in recognition of his journalism.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on WHO’s Chief Scientist Served with Legal Notice for Disinformation and Suppression of Evidence
  • Tags:

In guidance quietly updated June 1, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said there is a higher-than-expected number of cases of myocarditis among young teens after the second dose of an mRNA COVID vaccine.

Based on a May 24 report from the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group (VaST), the CDC on June 1 updated its website with the following language:

“Data from VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System] show that in the 30-day window following dose 2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, there was a higher number of observed than expected myocarditis/pericarditis cases in 16–24-year-olds.”

The updated language differed significantly from the CDC’s statement two weeks earlier, which said rates of myocarditis were not higher among vaccinated people.

On May 17, the ACIP said it was investigating reports of myocarditis and pericarditis occurring after mRNA COVID vaccine — particularly in adolescents and young adults — that seemed to occur more often in males than females, more often following the second dose and typically within four days after vaccination. Most cases appeared to be “mild.”

The CDC’s VaST Work Group originally said its monitoring systems had not found more cases of myocarditis than would be expected in the population, but members of the committee on vaccinations said healthcare providers should be made aware of the reports of the “potential adverse event.”

On May 26, the CDC announced it was investigating 18 reports of heart inflammation in recently vaccinated teens in Connecticut who received a COVID vaccine. All 18 cases resulted in hospitalization.

A study published June 4 in the journal Pediatrics reported seven boys between the ages of 14 and 19 were hospitalized for heart inflammation and chest pain within four days of receiving the second dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, The Defender reported. None of the teens were critically ill, but all were hospitalized.

Only one of the seven boys in the Pediatrics report displayed evidence of a possible previous COVID infection, and doctors determined none of them had a rare inflammatory condition linked with COVID or pre-existing conditions.

The study’s authors concluded it is possible myocarditis or pericarditis may be an additional rare adverse event related to systemic reactogenicity, but “No causal relationship between vaccine administration and myocarditis has been established.”

As The Defender reported today, the Oregon Health Authority has confirmed at least 11 cases of myocarditis or pericarditis — inflammation of the sac surrounding the heart — in all age groups following COVID vaccination.

The latest data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) showed 40 casesof heart inflammation in the 12-17 year adolescent age group reported after COVID vaccination — all associated with Pfizer.

On June 2, Israeli health officials found a “probable” link between Pfizer’s COVID vaccine — which the country has relied on almost exclusively in its vaccination drive — and dozens of cases of heart inflammation in young men following the second dose.

After the ministry received reports of heart inflammation, including myocarditis, following recent COVID vaccination, a panel of experts were appointed to investigate the issue

In a statement, Pfizer said there is still no indication the cases are due to its vaccine. Myocarditis is often caused by viral infections, and COVID infections have been reported to cause the condition, the drugmaker said.

Pfizer’s partner, BioNTech, said more than 300 million doses of the COVID vaccine have been administered globally and the “benefit-risk profile” of the vaccine remains positive.

“A careful assessment of the reports is ongoing and it has not been concluded,” the company said. “Adverse events, including myocarditis and pericarditis, are being regularly and thoroughly reviewed by the companies as well as by regulatory authorities.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on CDC Admits Teens Vaccinated With Pfizer or Moderna at Higher Risk of Heart Inflammation

It’s been said that Boris Johnson models himself on Winston Churchill, and if ever there was confirmation of that it was at the G7 summit today when he met with US President Joe Biden.

A new Atlantic Charter was announced, mirroring that drawn up between Churchill and Roosevelt in 1941 to lay out the ‘post-war order’.

The UK government press release reads:

“The original Atlantic Charter included landmark agreements to promote democracy, free trade and increased opportunity for all. It was one of the greatest triumphs of UK and US relations and did more than any other agreement to shape the world order, leading directly to the creation of the UN and NATO. The 2021 Atlantic Charter will recognise that, while the world is a very different place to 1941, the values the UK and US share remain the same.”

It refers to key areas where the UK and US can work together – defence, trade and combatting the pandemic. The importance of collective security is stressed, along with countering ‘cyber attacks’. Nothing specifically new in the area of defence was unveiled, but this is hardly surprising given the two nations already have the closest bilateral security relationship in the world.

In fact, if one judges by the press release, there is very little of significance planned for bilateral cooperation. There is a mention of a ‘technology agreement’ to be signed next year to facilitate British firms to work with their US counterparts.

There are immediate plans to open up transatlantic travel as it was restricted during the pandemic. And some vague references to ‘economic cooperation’ and ‘acting urgently on climate change’. No bombshell announcement on that elusive Anglo-American trade deal.

But should we expect anything else? Let’s face it, the Atlantic Charter is more about symbolism than anything else. It’s about reaffirming the ‘special relationship’ and strengthening the position of the West at a time when its global influence is waning. After the G7 is an exclusive club – only certain wealthy western nations can attend. Boris Johnson wanted to invite South Korea, Australia and India to join this year to make a D10, but his suggestion was turned down.

What is notable, is that the rhetoric differs somewhat from that of Johnson’s previous assertions about Global Britain. Whether this is all just a show for the Americans or whether the British PM has been forced to roll back on his ‘Rule Britannia’ approach and acknowledge the importance of the bilateral relationship, is not clear. In March this year the UK’s ‘Integrated Review’ was published which gave quite a different impression of Johnson’s plans; one of an independent, Post-Brexit Britain, that was self-sufficient and keen to carve out its own path. The Review stated that the new ‘fragmented’ international order required a different approach to that of previous governments. It said that “Over the last decade, UK policy has been focused on preserving the post-Cold War ‘rules-based international system’” but that now we had entered an era “characterised by intensifying competition between states”, therefore a “defence of the status quo is no longer sufficient for the decade ahead.”

Furthermore, the Integrated Review acknowledged the existence of the ‘multipolar world’ for perhaps the very first time in an official document, and spoke of adapting to a ‘more fluid and competitive international environment’. It placed little emphasis on the transatlantic relationship and was more about how Britain alone could shape the world. There was no mention of the importance of strengthening western hegemony or the unipolar world which emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union. It was all about Britain, Britain, Britain.

This is all a far cry from the words of Johnson and Biden this week. In a piece for The Times, Johnson felt he had to emphasise how important the US relationship is to Britain, stating ‘But we would never wish to go it alone; on the contrary, we are blessed with alliances that help to keep us safe and advance our values.’ The very fact he had to spell this out suggests that doubts across the Atlantic had been raised on this issue.

Indeed, prior to Thursday’s summit meeting in Cornwall, tensions were mounting between Washington and London.  It emerged that last week Joe Biden sent Boris Johnson a demarche (diplomatic rebuke) over his handling of the Northern Ireland border question, accusing him of ‘inflaming’ the situation and ‘undermining trust’ of US allies by having checkpoints set up. As The Times noted, such formal protests are more frequently lodged with adversaries, not allies. Although Johnson stressed after meeting Biden that the two were in ‘complete harmony’ over the Irish border question, there can be no doubt that behind closed doors the rhetoric is not so positive.

So while the two leaders have put on a good show of unity in Cornwall this week, reading between the lines you can tell that the US-UK relationship is not quite as special as it once was. Politics is about personalities, and Boris Johnson is more of a Trumpian figure than a Churchillian one, and therefore not an obvious friend of Joe Biden. The relationship will continue to be one of pragmatic cooperation, as Boris Johnson emphasises his priority is Britain, not America


Johanna Ross
is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Johnson and Biden’s G7 Atlantic Charter is more show than substance

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 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 May 4, 2021

One of the world’s most prominent medical doctors with expertise in treating COVID-19 has gone on the record with a scathing rebuke of the U.S. government’s approach to fighting the virus. He says the government’s strategy, carried out in cooperation with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the United Nations World Health Organization, has resulted in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths and is now being followed up with thousands more deaths caused by a mass-injection program.

Dr. Peter McCullough, in a 32-minute interview with journalist Alex Newman, said if this were any other vaccine it would have been pulled from the market by now for safety reasons.

McCullough holds the honor of being the most cited medical doctor on COVID-19 treatments at the National Library of Medicine, with more than 600 citations. He has testified before Congress and won numerous awards during his distinguished medical career.

Between Dec. 14 and April 23, there were 3,544 deaths reported to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS], along with 12,619 serious injuries.

One might expect these numbers would trigger an exhaustive investigation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. But the opposite has occurred. According to McCullough, the government has taken what amounts to a passing glance at the alarming numbers and dismissed them with a bare minimum of scrutiny.

“A typical new drug at about five deaths, unexplained deaths, we get a black-box warning, your listeners would see it on TV, saying it may cause death,” McCullough said. “And then at about 50 deaths it’s pulled off the market.”

The U.S. has a precedent for this. In 1976 during the Swine Flu pandemic the U.S. attempted to vaccinate 55 million Americans, but at that point the shot caused about 500 cases of paralysis and 25 deaths.

“The program was killed, at 25 deaths,” McCullough said.

Compare that type of response to the government’s reaction to much higher reported death numbers related to the Moderna and Pfizer shots and the contrast is alarming, McCullough said, especially when the shots have not even been granted full FDA approval and are only being allowed on the market under an Emergency Use Authorization.

“In the U.S. today [as of late March] we have approximately 77 million people vaccinated for COVID and we have 2,602 deaths reported, so it’s unprecedented how many deaths have accrued,” he said.

“Then on March 8 the CDC announced on their website with very little fanfare,  that they had reviewed about 1,600 deaths with unnamed FDA doctors and they indicated not a single death was related to the vaccine,” he added. “I think that was concerning in the academic community.”

McCullough said he knows from first-hand experience that doing a thorough investigation into 1,600 potentially vaccine-related deaths would have taken months to complete.

“I have chaired and participated in dozens of data safety monitoring boards and sat on those committees and I can tell you that this type of work would have taken many months to review all the labs, the death certificates and all the circumstances of an event. It is impossible for unnamed regulatory doctors without any experience with COVID 19 to opine that none of the deaths were related to the vaccine.”

Previous studies, including one from Harvard University, estimate that only 1 to 10 percent of all vaccine-related deaths get reported to VAERS. So in all likelihood, there are more people dying than even gets reported, yet the FDA can’t come up with a single death related to the Moderna and Pfizer shots.

“Reporting a death requires a healthcare worker to enter it into the system,” he said. And if the death does not occur within the normal 15-minute monitoring period they often go unreported. Most deaths occur within 72 hours of the shot. “They pile up on day one, two and three,” he said.

As a matter of comparison: There are 20 to 30 deaths reported every year to VAERS related to the flu shot. That’s with 195 million receiving flu shots. Compare that to the COVID shot, which resulted in 2,602 reported deaths through 77 million vaccinations.

That’s a stunningly high ratio of deaths to vaccinations, the highest for any vaccine in U.S. history, and yet no major media outlet has launched an investigation. Independent journalists and researchers such as Alex Newman, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Leo Hohmann have been ruthlessly censored.

“So the U.S. government has made a decision, along with the stakeholders – the CDC, NIH, FDA, Big Pharma, World Health Organization, Gates Foundation – they have made a commitment to mass vaccination as the solution to the COVID pandemic and we are really going to be witness to what’s going to happen in history. We’re sitting on, right now, the biggest number of vaccine deaths, there’s been tens of thousands of hospitalizations, all attributable to the vaccine, and going strong.”

McCullough testified before the U.S. Senate on Nov 19, 2020.

“I estimated at that time we could have saved half of the lives lost,” he told Newman. “There are now current estimates that we are up to about 85 percent of all lives lost could have been saved with something called sequenced oral multi-drug therapy.”

But instead, the government and its “stakeholders” in Big Pharma chose to focus on vaccines. At the same time, news organizations were recruited to present only one side of the vaccine story.

Mainstream outlets have agreed to not allow any news critical of the shots to reach the American people. This corrupt collusion falls under the Trusted News Initiative, a global collaboration signed onto by Big Tech social-media giants and many of its corrupt corporate media “partners.”

The partners signed onto the Trusted News Initiative to date are: Associated Press, AFP; BBC, CBC/Radio-Canada, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), Facebook, Financial Times, First Draft, Google/YouTube, The Hindu, Microsoft, Reuters, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Twitter, The Washington Post. The New York Times has also participated in the past.

Reporting facts related to the dark side of the experimental mRNA vaccines is considered “dangerous disinformation” by the globalist media elites behind the Trusted News Initiative.

Dr. McCullough describes ‘whitewash of historic proportions‘

“So I think this was effectively a scrubbing, like we’ve seen elsewhere. There is a Trusted News Initiative, which is very important for Americans to understand, this was announced Dec. 10, and this is a coalition of all the major media and government stakeholders in vaccination, where they are not going to allow any negative information about vaccines to get into the popular media because they’re concerned about vaccine hesitancy, that if Americans got any type of fair, balanced coverage on safety events then they simply would not come forward and get the vaccine.”

“The Trusted News Initiative is really troublesome,” he continued, “because we’re now at record numbers of deaths, they continue to occur every day.”

Confirming a LeoHohmann.com report from earlier this month, McCullough said the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, while it does have issues with blood clots, is actually the safest of the three vaccines now being offered to Americans.

“In my professional opinion, the safest vaccine on the market was the J&J vaccine. And that was pulled for very rare blood-clotting events. We had seven million people vaccinated but the estimates are for the other two vaccines available, the blood-clotting rates are probably 30 times that of J&J, and these others are going strong.”

McCullough suggested that there is an incestuous relationship between the U.S. government and certain elements within Big Pharma, which causes regulators to look the other way when confronted with safety issues.

“A lot of Americans don’t understand how tight these stakeholders are. Keep in mind the NIH [National Institutes of Health] is a co-owner of the Moderna patent, so they have a vested financial interest in keeping these vaccines going,” he said.

More than 15 months into the COVID nightmare, the evidence is beginning to suggest the U.S. government colluded from the outset with the Gates Foundation, CDC, FDA, the United Nations World Health Organization and Big Pharma to make the vaccines the central focus of the global COVID response effort. They started promoting the vaccines before they were even out of clinical trials, McCullough said, which is against U.S. regulatory law.

More reports of high death counts

LeoHohmann.com has been getting reports that confirm Dr. McCullough’s warning that harmful events caused by the vaccine are being covered up by the medical establishment, the government, the legacy media and social-media giants Google, Facebook and Twitter.

A physician with a practice in the Kansas City area told LeoHohmann.com that of a recent 500-person sampling of nursing-home patients who received the COVID injection, 22 died within 48 hours. That represents an astonishing 4.4 percent death rate. Most people in the Kansas City area nursing homes are receiving the Pfizer shot, he said.

“I can’t prove they all died of the vaccine, all I can prove is it happened within 48 hours,” the physician told LeoHohmann.com.

“The requirements are they only need to be monitored for 15 minutes. So we are never going to know the real numbers,” he said. “If it happens outside of that 15-minute window it’s going to be impossible to prove… If the FDA approves this then God help us.”

The Kansas City physician requested his name not be revealed for fear that he could lose his medical license.

A Canadian doctor, Dr. Charles Hoffe, recently broke his silence and went public in defiance of a gag order, blowing the whistle on how “Moderna shots killed, disabled patients.”

McCollough said the government has never placed a focus on treating sick patients, choosing instead to focus on the WHO recommended strategy of social distancing, lockdowns, masking and vaccines. If the strategy had focused instead on a regimen that includes a multi-drug treatment of early onset symptoms, tens of thousands of lives could have been saved, he said.

In a December 2020 paper, A Guide for Home-Based COVID-19 treatment: Step by step doctor’s plan that could save your life, McCullough prescribes a four-pronged strategy that includes contagion control, early home treatment, late-stage treatment and lastly vaccination.

“I talked about the four pillars, with the first pillar being contagion control [wearing masks and lockdowns]. We’ve spent a lot of time on that. But really the missing pillar, if we would have spent our time focusing on sick patients, that would have had the highest public-health value.

“But what happened in the U.S. was we developed a game plan …that we were going to promote the importance of social distancing as part of contagion control and just have the population wait for a vaccine. There have been no updates on treatment, not outpatient, not inpatient. We don’t hear anything about sick patients. All we heard was about masking, lockdowns and wait for a vaccine.”

*

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.

Featured image is from LeoHohmann.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.

***

Provocative new book documents the unsavory alliance between the Mafia, the CIA, and the corporate establishment that transformed America into “the world’s most dangerous nation”

During the years of the Trump presidency, popular and scholarly discussions of the erosion of U.S. political and legal norms frequently contrasted the Trump era with a supposed golden age of U.S. democracy in the mid-20th century.

Jonathan Marshall’s new book, Dark Quadrant: Organized Crime, Big Business, and the Corruption of American Democracy (Rowman & Littlefield, 2021) effectively challenges this narrative and the myth of the “greatest generation.”

The book details the largely neglected story of how well-protected criminals organized the corruption of U.S. politics and business at a national level after World War II.

Traditional U.S. historians, according to Marshall, have treated corruption as a “barely detectable eddy in the large current of events, with no lasting political or even moral significance.”

They ignore the ties between organized crime and dominant political figures, ranging from Harry S. Truman to Lyndon B. Johnson to Richard M. Nixon, along with the role of the mafia and CIA in subverting Third World nations.

As such, they present an incomplete picture, which plays into belief in “American exceptionalism”—that the country’s politics are more morally pure than other countries.

“Americans,” Marshall writes, “must arm themselves with greater knowledge of the long-neglected ‘dark quadrant’ of our national politics in order to shrink its power and strengthen our democracy.”

Harry Truman: The Pendergast’s Man

Marshall begins his story with Harry S. Truman, a failed businessman and law school student whose political rise was fueled by his backing by the mafia-linked Pendergast political machine in Kansas City.

Kansas City in the 1920s was a center for vice. Thomas J. Pendergast—who was convicted in 1939 on federal tax evasion charges—was the “ruling spirit behind” the “roaring business” of gambling, prostitution, bootlegging, the sale of narcotics and racketeering,” in partnership with political boss John Lazia, an ally of Al Capone’s Chicago outfit.

Truman’s political career began in 1922 when he was elected county court judge in Eastern Missouri as Pendergast’s hand-picked candidate.

Young Truman recorded in his diary how he let a former saloon keeper and murderer who was “a friend of the big boss,” as he termed Pendergast, steal about $10,000 from the general revenues of the county, though he rationalized the decision by claiming that it “kept the crooks from getting a million or more from public bond issues.”

Text Description automatically generated with low confidence

Political advertisement for Truman when he was running for county judge in Eastern Missouri with the backing of the Pendergast political machine. [Source: pendergastkc.org]

With Pendergast’s help, Truman won election to the Senate in 1934, just before the indictment of senior police officials in Kansas City for perjury after they had protected criminal mobs and racketeers. Within a few years, Truman was doing everything in his power to block a threatened federal investigation of rampant vote fraud in Kansas City during the 1936 election.

U.S. Senator Harry Truman and Tom Pendergast

Truman, far left, with Pendergast to his left, at the Democratic Party national convention in Philadelphia in 1936. [Source: flatlandkc.org]

In return for this and other political favors, Pendergast allies, such as Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Robert Hannegan, secured Truman’s nomination as Roosevelt’s running mate at the 1944 Democratic Party Convention in Chicago over Henry Wallace, an anti-fascist progressive who had the overwhelming support of the delegates.

When Roosevelt died nine months later and Truman became president, he issued pardons to 15 members of the Pendergast machine who had been convicted of vote fraud in the 1936 election. Three weeks into his term, Truman further fired the U.S. attorney in Missouri who had prosecuted vote fraud in Kansas City and sent Pendergast to prison along with 250 members of his organization.

According to Marshall, these were the first of many acts of “favoritism, influence peddling, and outright corruption that plagued the Truman administration until voters repudiated the Democratic Party in the 1952 election.”

In a major roundup of Truman’s record published in 1951, two veteran national political reporters at Look magazine condemned the “friendships, favoritism and frauds” that had fostered “immorality” and “corruption” under Truman’s auspices. “Political morality in Washington had sunk to the lowest depths in a quarter of a century,” they charged, citing “four members of the White House staff” and “fourteen high Federal officials” among the nearly “900 Federal employees” who had been “caught trying to improve their private fortunes through their positions on the public payroll.”

This assessment contradicts the attempt by noted historians like David McCullough and Alonzo Hamby to elevate Truman’s reputation and present him as one of the nation’s great presidents.

Look magazine reported that the Truman administration’s alcohol tax unit granted scores of liquor licenses to known hoodlums and mobsters. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) under Truman further privileged issuing loans to political donors who included mob-connected business owners.

When Truman’s Attorney General, Tom Clark, protected Pendergast’s successor, the racketeer and famed bootlegger Charles Binaggio, by restricting an FBI investigation into the blatant theft of ballots during the 1946 Democratic congressional primary on behalf of Truman’s favored candidate, Truman wrote to his wife Bess that “everybody was elated.”

Binaggio went on to help Truman raise $150,000 during his hard-fought 1948 presidential campaign.

Clark meanwhile was appointed by Truman to the Supreme Court—despite calls for his impeachment as Attorney General for ordering the parole of half a dozen leaders of the Chicago crime syndicate barely a third of their way into ten-year sentences for extorting over a million dollars from Hollywood studios as a favor for Chicago’s Democratic machine.

Politics of Anti-Communism

During the 1940s and 1950s, corrupt politicians championed the politics of anti-communism in order to divert attention from the growing nexus between organized crime, big business and government.

At the center of this nexus stood FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (1924-1972), who cultivated mob connected businessmen in his war against communism, while refusing to cooperate with the Kefauver Committee’s landmark investigation of organized crime in 1950-1951.

Before being known as an anti-communist red hunter, Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-MN) had earned the moniker the “Pepsi-Cola kid” after pushing through a bill lifting federal controls for sugar that benefited Pepsi.

McCarthy also received donations and stock tips from East Texas oil billionaire Clint Murchison, Sr., prompting him to vote with the oil interests on every piece of legislation of that era, including the 27.5% oil depletion allowance, the Tidelands oil bill, which provided for state rather than federal control of submerged oil lands, and the Kerr-Thomas gas bill, which exempted the sale of natural gas from Federal Power Commission rate regulations.

In 1954, McCarthy was censured by the Senate not only because of his infamous communist smear campaign, but also because he had attempted to obstruct an investigation into his finances, which would have revealed improper payoffs by Lustron, an Ohio manufacturer of prefabricated steel houses, in return for its receipt of a generous RFC loan.

China and Dominican Lobbies

Besides McCarthy, one of the leading sponsors of anticommunist legislation in the 1950s was Pat McCarran (D-Nev.), who was known as the “gamblers Senator” and became the model for the corrupt Nevada Senator Pat Geary in Francis Ford Coppola’s film, The Godfather: Part II.

McCarran was a devoted member of the China lobby, introducing a bill to provide $1.5 billion in loans to the faltering government of Chiang Kai-Shek in China.

The U.S. government supported Chiang in the Chinese Civil War against the Chinese Communist Party led by Mao Zedong. By the late 1940s, however, Chiang was hopelessly corrupt and had lost the mandate to rule in China, which had fallen to the communists.

Smiles of victory and friendship are flashed here by President Truman and Mme, Chiang Kai-Shek as they meet at the White House during a visit to Washington of the wife of China's Generalissimo Chiang. They're enjoying news from the Far East

Harry Truman meets with Madame Chiang Kai-Shek in 1945. [Source: torontopubliclibrary.ca]

Chiang and his top supporters established an effective lobby in the United States, funded in part through proceeds from the drug trade and other illicit commercial activities, which controlled the media and paid off influential politicians extending to the ranks of Defense Secretary Louis Johnson.

The China lobby’s intimidation tactics decimated the ranks of independent Asia experts to the extent that, by the mid-1950s, no one who knew anything about that part of the world remained in the State Department’s Far Eastern Division. The disastrous wars in Korea and Vietnam were a major result, along with U.S. backing of regressive governments and opium warlords in Southeast Asia.

The China lobby set the standard for other influential lobbies, such as the Dominican lobby promoting dictator Rafael Trujillo (1930-1961), who made tactical alliances with U.S. mobsters, politicians, and U.S. intelligence officials.

Like Chiang, Trujillo was effective at using the politics of anti-communism and bribed U.S. congressmen with cash and prostitutes to secure their support for a large sugar quota and arms sales.

The highest-ranking recipient of Trujillo’s cash was Vice President Richard Nixon, who allegedly pocketed $25,000 from him in September 1956 for his reelection campaign.

CIA-Mafia Alliance

Trujillo’s network helped to direct counter-revolutionary operations against Cuba following the Castroist revolution in alliance with the CIA and mobsters like Meyer Lansky who had been kicked out of Havana by Castro.

A group of people in a room Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Tourists and Cubans gamble at the casino in the Hotel Nacional in Havana, 1957. Meyer Lansky who led the U.S. mob’s exploitation of Cuba in the 1950s, set up a famous meeting of crime bosses at the hotel in 1946. [Source: smithsonianmag.com]

The CIA at this time hired mob bosses Sam Giancana and Santos Trafficante Jr., to kill Castro.

The agency’s mob liaison, Johnny Rosselli, had served hard time for labor racketeering and extortion of the movie industry and was later stuffed into a 55-gallon drum and dumped into the waters off Florida after he testified before Congress about the JFK assassination.

JFK and his brother Robert had signed their death warrants when they had decided to go after the mob. They were both probably assassinated by professional criminals that had infiltrated the U.S. government and were able to operate with impunity above the law.

Mob-Connected Fixers

The corruption of the Washington political elite was enabled by the work of mob-connected fixers whose names Marshall helps resuscitate. One Henry Grunewald, who donated $1,600 to Truman’s 1948 election campaign, installed a telephone trunk line directly from his home to the Bureau of Internal Revenue so he could fix tax cases more efficiently.

Henry Grunewald. His mob connections originated with his work as a corrupt prohibition agent. [Source: vintageimagephotos]

Another, I. Irving Davidson, was described as “the representative of all that Jack and Bobby [Kennedy] fought against—Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo, Hoffa’s Teamsters, the Somozas’ Nicaragua, the Texas rich, the CIA, Castro, Nixon, the mob.”

Lyndon Johnson’s closest political aide, Bobby Baker, reported a personal net worth of more than $2 million in 1963 despite receiving a salary of less than $20,000 per year, and was sued for influencing a defense contractor to hire a vending machine company, Serv-U, in which Baker had a hidden interest.

According to columnist Drew Pearson, Baker served as “the pimp” for Johnson along with President Kennedy and Senator George Smathers. He would introduce them and other congressmen to beautiful women at the plush Carousel resort motel he owned in Maryland and Quorum club he helped establish across from the Senate office building, where they could relax with “party girls.”

One of Johnson’s first calls after returning to Washington following the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, was to get an update from Abe Fortas, his crisis adviser and Baker’s attorney, on burgeoning congressional investigations into Baker’s influence peddling, sweetheart business deals and Washington sex—something that Johnson was very apprehensive about.

Part of Baker’s fortune was made in consort with some of the Kennedy Justice Department’s top targets for prosecution. Among them was Edward Levinson, a senior associate of Meyer Lansky, who headed casino operations at the Havana Riviera before the Cuban revolution, and then invested with Lansky and Frank Sinatra in the Sands hotel in Las Vegas.

An FBI bug overheard Levinson arranging with Baker to fix the award of a federal architectural contract on behalf of a Las Vegas firm in return for its owners purchasing eight $1,000 tickets to a Democratic fundraising dinner hosted by President Kennedy and Vice President Johnson in January 1963.[1]

According to Jack Halfen, a partner of New Orleans mob boss Carlos Marcello, Johnson accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from syndicate-backed businesses over the span of a decade, and in return helped kill anti-racketeering legislation in the Senate, including that which banned interstate transportation of slot machines, regulated racing wires, [and] aimed to rewrite the tax laws to make it tougher on gamblers.

A Maryland insurance broker, Don Reynolds, testified before the Senate that Johnson also had demanded illegal kickbacks in exchange for political gifts.

Murchisons

One of Johnson’s primary financiers dating back to the beginning of his political career in the early 1940s was Clint Murchison Sr. (1895-1969), an East Texas oil millionaire and Baker associate who had connections to the Genovese crime family, the Chicago Al Capone outfit, Las Vegas gamblers and the Teamsters.

For years, Johnson would attend breakfasts at Murchison’s home to collect campaign cash and returned the favor by ensuring generous subsidies to the oil and gas industry.

After World War II, Johnson campaigned to overturn the regulation of natural gas prices by the Federal Power Commission and launched a red-baiting campaign against a progressive member of the commission, Leland Olds.

The latter’s removal exemplified the emergence of a bullying political culture in Washington in which advocates of the public interest were branded as traitors.

The TFX Scandal

In November 1962, Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara, Navy Secretary Fred Korth and Air Force Secretary Eugene Zuckert overruled four previous Pentagon evaluation panels and awarded General Dynamics and its main partner, Northrop Grumman, a $7 billion contract for the Tactical Fighter (Experimental) TFX, which became known as the F-111.

A month before the announcement, the Fort Worth Press published a story citing top government sources, which warned of a political fix.

It noted that General Dynamics’ largest shareholder, Henry Crown, would have been well-positioned to nudge the selection process in his favor as President Kennedy and Vice President Johnson owed their 1960 victory in part to the Democratic machines of Jacob Arvey in Illinois and Arvey’s protégé Paul Ziffren in California, along with their hidden patrons in the Chicago outfit, all of whom were tight with Crown.

On November 20th, a member of the Senate investigations subcommittee strongly hinted that Vice President Johnson might have wielded his influence to steer the TFX award to his home state contractor (General Dynamics, based in Fort Worth). Inside the Pentagon, the TFX was known as the LBJ.

On November 22nd, the day of Kennedy’s assassination, Drew Pearson had prepared an explosive column alleging that Johnson had intervened with Air Force Secretary Zuckert to swing the contract to General Dynamics. It also implicated Henry Crown—who had put $1,000 into LBJ’s campaign for the Democratic Party nomination in 1960—and raised questions about links to Bobby Baker and his infamous Quorum Club.

When Kennedy was killed, it conveniently blotted the TFX scandal out of the nation’s consciousness. Pearson was forced to cancel his column and TFX hearings planned by anti-corruption crusader John McClellan’s subcommittee were called off, resuming only in 1969 after Johnson had left the Oval Office.

In secret testimony before the Rules Committee on December 1, 1964, Don Reynolds testified that, one day when he was in Bobby Baker’s office, Baker showed him $100,000 worth of hundred dollar bills that Roy Evans, the President of Grumman Aircraft, had left in a paper bag “for the TFX contract.”

Reynolds also stated that “the leader” (Johnson) “had interceded to make sure that the TFX was awarded to General Dynamics Corporation.”

The committee referred the matter to the FBI for investigation, though with little apparent follow-through.

Here’s to the State of Richard Nixon

Besides Johnson, Henry Crown had contributed generously to Richard Nixon, prompting Nixon to visit Fort Worth in the final days of the 1968 presidential campaign where he declared that the F-111 would be “made into one of the foundations of our air supremacy.”

In January 1972, President Nixon approved a controversial $5.5 billion space shuttle development program with General Dynamics as a prime subcontractor to North American Rockwell (successor to North American Aviation), while Henry Crown handed over a $25,000 contribution to the Committee to Re-Elect the President.

Nixon’s relationship with Crown fit a pattern that dated back to his first race for Congress in 1946 against liberal incumbent Jerry Voorhis.

The young Nixon at that time amassed tens of thousands of dollars in unreported contributions from southern California oil companies, banks and movie moguls, whose favor he returned by supporting legislation to curb unions, exempt key industries from anti-trust action, promote oil drilling, and cut funding for public housing and education.

A picture containing text, newspaper, sign Description automatically generated

[Source: nixonfoundation.org]

Nixon’s 1946 campaign was also critical because it began his career-long partnership with his ruthless political consultant, Murray Chotiner, a Beverly Hills lawyer whose clients were mostly bookmakers and gamblers. Chotiner had one word of advice for Nixon: attack. Nixon’s successful House and Senate campaigns in 1946 and 1950 were notoriously ugly, full of insinuations that his opponents were soft on communism and crime.

Chotiner introduced Nixon to Jewish mobster Mickey Cohen, who ended up in Alcatraz after being convicted of tax evasion in 1951 and again in 1961. Cohen donated $5,000 to Nixon’s 1946 congressional campaign (about $50,000 in today’s dollars) and squeezed other colleagues in the underworld for more contributions.

After Nixon came back to win the 1968 presidential election on a law-and-order platform, Cohen wrote to columnist Jack Anderson: “In my wildest dreams (never) could I ever have visualized or imagined 17 or 18 years ago that the likes of Richard Nixon could possibly become president of the United States. Let’s hope that he isn’t the same guy that I knew: a rough hustler (and) a goddamn small-time ward politician.” (p. 178)

Of course, Nixon remained always the same.

While signing into law the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 as president, most of his Justice Department’s organized crime targets were allies of big-city Democratic Party politicians.

President Nixon also fired one of the country’s most effective organized crime prosecutors, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Robert Morgenthau, who just before had directed a grand jury to investigate Cosmos Bank of Zurich, where Nixon was suspected of having a secret account.[2]

Additionally, Nixon fired U.S. Attorney in San Diego Ed Miller, one of the “city’s true battlers against entrenched corruption,” who prosecuted the brother of the business partner of one of Nixon’s closest personal associates and biggest campaign contributors, C. Arnholt Smith, the owner of the San Diego Padres, who had raised $1 million for Nixon’s 1968 election.

When an IRS investigator handed Miller’s replacement, Harry Steward, a report on illegal campaign contributions by Smith and acts of bribery that violated the Corrupt Practices Act, Steward allegedly told him to “knock it off” and refused to issue a grand jury subpoena.

Nixon’s close ties to the mob emerged from his long political alliance with the Teamsters Union, which was a prime ally of the Chicago outfit along with the Hollywood studios as they crushed a militant Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) and supported the anti-communist purge of the motion picture industry.

Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa was investigated by the Justice Department in 1957 for involvement in a fraudulent Florida venture (Sun Valley) that sold boggy land to unsuspecting Teamster members as retirement property.

He gave generously to Nixon’s 1960 presidential campaign and encouraged other Teamsters to do the same in 1968 when Hoffa was behind bars after being convicted of mail and wire fraud for improper use of Teamsters pension funds.

Once in the Oval Office, Nixon got the Justice Department to indict the key federal witness against Hoffa twice, and instructed Attorney General Richard Kleindienst to derail any further investigations against Hoffa or his allies.

Nixon further helped secure Hoffa’s release from prison while plans were being developed to recruit Teamster “thugs” to beat up anti-war demonstrators.[3]

Nixon’s moral turpitude was exposed on a wide scale during the Watergate hearings, which were prompted by Nixon’s illegal spying on his Democratic Party rivals during the 1972 election.

The burglars who broke into the Watergate Hotel were globe-trotting CIA officers who had been involved in the 1954 Guatemalan coup, the Bay of Pigs and CIA-mafia plots against Castro, which Nixon championed.

ᖇOᗷEᖇT ᒍᗩY ᗰᗩᖇᑕᘔᗩK 🌹 on Twitter: "June 17, 1972 Watergate burglars arrested #rjm #arrested #burglars #CREEP #DemocraticNationalCommittee #DNC #GGordonLiddy #HowardHunt #HRHaldeman #JamesMcCord #JohnEhrlichman #JohnSirica #VirginiaAvenue ...

[Source: twitter.com]

According to ringleader G, Gordon Liddy, the purpose of the break-in was to determine what dirty secrets the DNC’s boss, Lawrence O’Brien, had learned about Nixon while working as the Howard Hughes organization’s top Washington political adviser after the 1968 election.

These secrets included $100,000 in cash payoffs made by Hughes, owner of a major aerospace company, via Nixon’s close friend, Charles “Bebe” Rebozo, in 1969 and 1970, and Nixon’s treasonous sabotage of Lyndon B. Johnson’s proposed peace talks with North Vietnam in 1968, which would have benefitted Nixon’s adversary, Hubert Humphrey, in the election.

Triumph of the Deep State

Donald J. Trump was a direct heir of Nixon: Both were mentored by Joe McCarthy’s mob-connected lawyer, Roy Cohn, and ruthlessly attacked their opponents.

Trump’s ties to organized crime dated back to his years as a New York real estate mogul when he hired demolition workers controlled by the Genovese crime family and purchased concrete from companies owned by mafia families.

Though Trump’s supporters were convinced that Trump was a victim of a “deep state” conspiracy against him, Trump’s election was in fact a culmination of the triumph of “deep politics,” which Marshall defines as a “form of organized and systematic corruption, or covert influencing of policy and administration, on a scale that subverts national democratic norms.”

The organized and systemic corruption was briefly exposed in the 1950s Kefauver hearings on organized crime and as a result of the Watergate scandal and Church Committee investigations into the CIA, but never effectively contained.

The presidents featured in Dark Quadrant were able to pass some progressive legislation—ranging from the desegregation of the armed forces under Truman to the Civil Rights Act, Medicaid and anti-poverty initiatives under Johnson, to Nixon’s establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—and presided over a period of economic prosperity.

However, they ultimately governed in the interests of their corporate and mob-linked donors, betrayed democratic values, and corroded the nation’s moral fabric.

With a new Cold War heating up, U.S. leaders now strive to present U.S. global leadership as necessary to save the world from Russian and Chinese autocracy.

Marshall’s study reminds us, however, that the United States evolved after World War II as a corrupted dollarocracy. Its rhetoric about promoting democracy around the world as such rings hollow.

*

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

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

1. Levinson was involved in a scam to launder casino revenues for the mafia along with Benjamin Sigelbaum, another of Baker’s business associates who had invested in Serv-U.

2. Morgenthau was also an enemy of Nixon political ally Roy Cohn, who was facing a trial on federal charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, bribery, extortion and blackmail.

3. After being forced to resign from the White House in disgrace, Nixon’s first public appearance was at a Teamsters golf tournament. 

Featured image: Harry S. Truman and Kansas City mafia boss Tom Pendergast in 1919. [Source: cafnr.missouri.edu]

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Here is the website for all 305 studies of the effectiveness of HCQ in Covid threament.  If used early, HCQ is very effective in curing Covid and reducing mortality rates.  Except for the Westernized parts of the world, HCQ is used:  c19study.com 

Here is the website for all 96 studies of Ivermectin for Covid treatment.  Ivermectin is even more effective, especially in late treatment of Covid: see this.

Despite the overwhelming evidence of two safe and effective cures for Covid, Big Pharma, public health bureaucrats such as Dr. Fauci, medical associations, hospital and corporate medical care organizatons, and the prestitutes have worked together to deny effective and safe treatment to Covid patients.  Indeed, it is a fact that almost every Covid death is due to the denial of treatment by effective cures.

It is a known fact that the Covid vaccines are dangerous.  For many—especially youth—the vaccine is more dangerous than Covid.  Yet despite the clear evidence, the propaganda has been turned higher to encourage vaccination for youth. It is extraordinary that medical care organizations are so incompetent or so corrupt that they value Big Pharma vaccination profits higher than human life.  Many of these organizations notify doctors who treat Covid patients with HCQ and Ivermectin that they are not following the health organization’s procedures.  Repeat offenders can be censured and fired. In other words, doctors are prevented from using effective and safe treatments for their Covid patients.  

In other words, it is the doctors who save your life who are dispensable.  The ones who protect Big Pharma’s vaccine profits are the valued ones.

From the beginning Covid has been a conspiracy against health and life. Covid is a profit-making agenda and an agenda for increasing arbitrary government power over people.

There should be massive law suits and massive arrests of those who block effective Covid cures and impose a deadly vaccine.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from America’s Frontline Doctors

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Did El Salvador just add another nail in the coffin for the US dollar?  El Salvador just made Bitcoin the country’s legal tender that can possibly bypass the future use of the US dollar.  The bold move must have made the US government and the Federal Reserve bank very nervous at this point in time since many countries around the world have been dumping US dollars including China, Russia and Iran. 

Reuters headlined with the latest news on El Salvador becoming the first country to adopt the bitcoin, ‘In a world first, El Salvador makes bitcoin legal tender’ reported that “El Salvador has become the first country in the world to adopt bitcoin as legal tender after Congress approved President Nayib Bukele’s proposal to embrace the cryptocurrency.” Bukele said “It will bring financial inclusion, investment, tourism, innovation and economic development for our country.”  Bukele’s plan has inspired other Latin American countries including Paraguay who is also in pursuit of making bitcoin legal tender.  According to zycrpto.com, a news source that reports on crypto currency trends said that Paraguay will most likely join the bitcoin revolution following El Salvador’s lead.  On June 5th, Bukele’s first announced that he will submit a bill to make bitcoin legal tender in the impoverished country:

In a videotaped announcement on June 5, El Salvador’s president Nayib Bukele stated that he was planning to submit a bill next week to make bitcoin legal tender. The founder of Lightning Network-powered bitcoin payments firm Strike, Jack Mallers, revealed that he had been working with El Salvador to implement a plan to help the nation adopt the bitcoin standard. If Bukele’s plan is approved by Congress, the Central American country will be the first in the world to formally adopt the OG crypto

And the El Salvadorian congress came through and approved the bill.  Bukele believes that Bitcoin can change El Salvador for the better since “he indicated that 70% of the population does not have bank accounts and is working in the informal sector. In other words, Bukele expects bitcoin to improve the life and future of millions of Salvadorians.”  As Bitcoin becomes more mainstream, other Latin American countries such as Paraguay and others will surely follow.  According to the article, The Deputy of the Nation, Carlos Antonio Rejala Helman had tweeted an announcement that Paraguay “will be launching a major project related to bitcoin and PayPal.”  Helman has declared “as I was saying a long time ago, our country needs to advance hand in hand with the new generation. The moment has come, our moment. This week we start with an important project to innovate Paraguay in front of the world!” Similar to gold, bitcoin can be a used as a “hedge against uncertainty”:

The crypto rally of 2017 was primarily led by retail investors as institutional investors stayed on the sidelines since they didn’t have faith in the bright future of cryptocurrency. The bull market of this year has shown that bitcoin is a viable hedge against uncertainty just like gold and that it is not going anywhere. With this realization, several institutional investors dipped their toes into the bitcoin market. This includes leading publicly traded firms like MicroStrategy, Square, and Tesla that added bitcoin to their balance sheets as an alternative to cash

El Salvador and Paraguay’s move into the crypto space is just the start of something that can spread like fire throughout Latin America.  The article points out the fact that the US Federal Reserve continues to print money at unprecedented levels that will eventually lead to inflation, “Now, countries like El Salvador and Paraguay have accepted the fact that hard-capped, decentralized bitcoin could not only bolster their economies but also shield them from unprecedented money printing.”  El Salvador wants to free themselves from the US dollar since “the Fed’s actions could be buoying the economy of the U.S. but they are certainly harmful to small dollar-dominated countries like El Salvador.”  The idea is to grow their economy and not rely on the world’s reserve currency:

Bitcoin gives unbanked societies the chance to participate in the global economy and escape the shackles of the greenback, part of the reason why it’s gaining popularity in Latin America. All in all, El Salvador and Paraguay’s gravitation toward the top cryptocurrency is a mighty step towards mainstream adoption

From El Salvador to Ecuador: The Adoption of the US Dollar

Historically, El Salvador has experienced numerous military interventions by the US since the end of the Spanish-American War.  The U.S. has supported one dictatorship after another which has led El Salvador to become a living hell with high crime rates and extreme poverty.  In 2001, the U.S. intervened in El Salvador once again, this time with the U.S. dollar.  Washington and the International Monetary Fund(IMF) had supported El Salvador’s move with open arms.  The New York Times reported the development at the time ‘INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS; U.S. and I.M.F. Welcome Salvador’s Adoption of Dollar’ which stated that “El Salvador’s decision to adopt the United States dollar as its currency won immediate support from the United States Treasury Department and the International Monetary Fund yesterday, reflecting a growing trend in Latin America to embrace the dollar as official tender.”  Well that was no surprise that Washington and the IMF supported El Salvador’s transition to accept the dollar as it’s legal tender.  But there were some debates among economists on how it would affect El Salvador’s economy.  The report said that “some economists say such moves enhance financial stability and may help attract foreign business because investors are reassured of getting their money out without suffering a foreign exchange loss.” Others suggested otherwise:

Critics say that so-called dollarization makes little sense because it turns over an important tool used in macro-economic management to the Federal Reserve of the United States. The Fed uses its control of interest rates to stimulate or cool the American economy, but does not directly consider the needs of other nations that use the dollar

The Treasury Secretary at the time, Lawrence Summers said in a statement that ”Combined with a strong economic policy framework, this step should help contribute to financial stability and economic growth in El Salvador and its further integration into the global economy.”  Several years later, the mainstream-media changed its views, well, sort of.  The Los Angeles Times ‘In El Salvador, the dollar is no panacea’ said that “this Central American nation adopted the greenback as its official currency in 2001, thinking the move would spur economic growth. But the ubiquitous “$” sign on shoe racks and vegetable bins hasn’t been the magic elixir many had hoped. And it’s been a particular disappointment among low-income shoppers and vendors here.” The LA Times used a potato peddler by the name of Jessica Janette as an example of how the US dollar has been a failure in El Salvador.  The report describes Jessica’s struggle:

Potato peddler Jessica Janette said she used to sell 100 pounds of spuds daily from the dirt-encrusted pile in her tiny stall. Now, she’s lucky to move that much a week. The switch from El Salvador’s former currency, the colon, to the dollar drove up the prices of many staples as producers and merchants rounded up to the nearest nickel, dime or quarter. Many workers’ salaries never caught up. Janette’s customers are pinching pennies as tightly as she is.  “Life is harder now because I can’t make ends meet on the little I earn,” said the barefoot 27-year-old single mother. “The dollar is a curse”

In El Salvador, there were those in favor of dollarization and those that were against it.  “Critics of El Salvador’s currency change say it’s a prime example of how dollarization’s costs can outweigh its benefits if policymakers don’t follow through with other measures to strengthen the economy.”  According to Silvia Borzutzky, a professor of political science and international relations at Carnegie Mellon University who is critical of the dollarization process of El Salvador’s economy claimed that “The poorer you are, the worse it is,” Borzutzky said that “the policy has had extremely negative effects on the lowest-income groups without doing much to help the overall economy.”  On the opposing view, the report said that “Many in El Salvador’s business and financial circles as well as the conservative Arena party supported the move.”  and that “they touted it as a way to bulletproof the banking system, lower inflation, reduce interest rates and ignite economic growth by attracting more foreign investment.”  The move was also political because “they also saw it as a way to keep monetary policy out of the hands of the leftist FMLN party, which some feared was gaining political ground.”  El Salvador was not the only country in Latin America to adopt the US dollar as the report also mentioned Ecuador’s dollarization process of its economy in 2000:

Some experts say an extreme measure like dollarization wasn’t necessary. Unlike Ecuador, which sought refuge in the dollar to quell hyperinflation, El Salvador’s inflation the year before dollarization was 4.3%, modest by Latin American standards

Even in the case of Ecuador, dollarization has taking a toll on its citizens according to an analysis published in 2016 titled ‘Examining the Effects of Dollarization on Ecuador’ by Sam Wang, a research associate at  the Council of Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) which states that dollarization has caused hardships among Ecuadorian citizens.  “Every day since 2015, thousands of Ecuadorians have crossed the bridge from Tulcán, Ecuador to the border town of Ipiales, Colombia to go shopping. Goods they purchase in Colombia include food, cars, television, and even bulldogs” according to the analysis.  Former Ecuadorian President Raphael Correa who issued a “call of conscience” and to “offer support to the national production  by buying Ecuadorian products.” Wang continued “In addition to Panama and El Salvador, Ecuador is one of the Latin American countries that uses the U.S. dollar as the only official currency. Ecuador does not print its own bank notes.”  With the U.S. dollar appreciating against other currencies throughout Latin America, Ecuador’s goods became more expensive over the years: 

In recent years, the U.S. dollar has continuously appreciated against other currencies in Latin America, making the price of goods in Ecuador higher than that in neighboring Colombia and Peru. Ecuador abandoned its old currency, the sucre, during a severe economic crisis in 2000 and has been using U.S. dollars ever since.

With the appreciation of the U.S. dollar, doubts have emerged regarding the fate of dollarization. A recent Wall Street Journal article stated that Ecuador “has the misfortune to be an oil producer with a ‘dollarized’ economy that uses the U.S. currency as legal tender.” The appreciation of the U.S. dollar against other currencies has decreased the net exports of non-oil commodities from Ecuador, which, coupled with the fall in oil prices, has constrained the country’s potential for economic growth

Correa pushed for an electronic currency at the time for domestic use as a way to further “de-dollarize” the Ecuadorian economy:

The government of Ecuador has also cast doubt on the success of dollarization; as early as 2014, Correa said that “dollarization was a bad idea.” In the same year, he established a parallel electronic currency for domestic use, which some believe is the first step of de-dollarizing the economy

Maybe Ecuador will follow El Salvador’s lead in making crypto currencies legal tender to avoid using the US dollar if of course, another Raphael Correa gets elected to office.  In an interesting turn of events, other countries such as Panama and Brazil are also contemplating the use of bitcoins for their economies as well.

Whether bitcoin becomes mainstream or not,  Washington has used its dollar hegemony by imposing harsh financial sanctions on their adversaries for far too long.  El Salvador has surely inspired Latin America and perhaps the rest of the world to follow suit.  Although it’s only a first step, but it’s a step in the right direction that can lead to economic freedom and distance itself away from Washington’s grip as its dollar hegemony is slowly but surely collapsing under its own weight.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Silent Crow News.

Timothy Alexander Guzman is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Silent Crow News

G7: Desperately Seeking Relevancy

June 11th, 2021 by Pepe Escobar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The upcoming G7 in Cornwall at first might be seen as the quirky encounter of “America is Back” with “Global Britain”.

The Big Picture though is way more sensitive. Three Summits in a Row – G7, NATO and US-EU – will be paving the way for a much expected cliffhanger: the Putin-Biden summit in Geneva – which certainly won’t be a reset.

The controlling interests behind the hologram that goes by the name of “Joe Biden” have a clear overarching agenda: to regiment industrialized democracies – especially those in Europe – and keep them in lockstep to combat those “authoritarian” threats to US national security, “malignant” Russia and China.

It’s like a throwback to those oh so stable 1970s Cold War days, complete with James Bond fighting foreign devils and Deep Purple subverting communism. Well, the times they are-a-changin’. China is very much aware that now the Global South “accounts for almost two-thirds of the global economy compared to one-third by the West: in the 1970s, it was exactly the opposite.”

For the Global South – that is, the overwhelming majority of the planet – the G7 is largely irrelevant. What matters is the G20.

China, the rising economic superpower, hails from the Global South, and is a leader in the G20. For all their internal troubles, EU players in the G7 – Germany, France and Italy – cannot afford to antagonize Beijing in economic, trade and investment terms.

A G7 rebooted as a Sinophobic crusade will have no takers. Including Japan and special guests at Cornwall: tech powerhouse South Korea, and India and South Africa (both BRICS members), offered the dangling carrot of a possible extended membership.

Washington’s wishful thinking cum P.R. offensive boils down to selling itself as the primus inter pares of the West as a revitalized global leader. Why the Global South is not buying it can be observed, graphically, by what happened for the past eight years. The G7 – and especially the Americans – simply could not respond to China’s wide-ranging, pan-Eurasian trade/development strategy, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The American “strategy” so far – 24/7 demonization of BRI as a “debt trap” and “forced labor” machine – did not cut it. Now, too little too late, comes a G7 scheme, involving “partners” such as India, to “support”, at least in theory, vague “high-quality projects” across the Global South: that’s the Clean Green Initiative , focused on sustainable development and green transition, to be discussed both at the G7 and the US-EU summits.

Compared to BRI, Clean Green Initiative hardly qualifies as a coherent geopolitical and geoeconomic strategy. BRI has been endorsed and partnered by over 150 nation-states and international bodies – and that includes more than half of the EU’s 27 members.

Facts on the ground tell the story. China and ASEAN are about to strike a “comprehensive strategic partnership” deal. Trade between China and the Central and Eastern European Countries (CCEC), also known as the 17+1 group, including 12 EU nations, continues to increase. The Digital Silk Road, the Health Silk Road and the Polar Silk Road keep advancing.

So what’s left is loud Western rumbling about vague investments in digital technology – perhaps financed by the European Investment Bank, based in Luxembourg – to cut off China’s “authoritarian reach” across the Global South.

The EU-US summit may be launching a “Trade and Technology Council” to coordinate policies on 5G, semiconductors, supply chains, export controls and technology rules and standards. A gentle reminder: the EU-US simply do not control this complex environment. They badly need South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.

Wait a minute, Mr. Taxman

To be fair, the G7 may have rendered a public service to the whole world when their Finance Ministers struck an alleged “historic” deal last Saturday in London on a global, minimal 15% tax on multinational companies (MNCs).

Triumphalism was in order – with endless praise lavished on “justice” and “fiscal solidarity” coupled with really bad news for assorted fiscal paradises.

Well, that’s slightly more complicated.

This tax has been discussed at the highest levels of the OECD in Paris for over a decade now – especially because nation-states are losing at least $427 billion a year in tax-dodging by MNCs and assorted multi-billionaires. In terms of the European scenario that does not even account for the loss of V.A.T. by fraud – something gleefully practiced by Amazon, among others.

So it’s no wonder G7 Finance Ministers had $1.6 trillion-worth Amazon pretty much on their sights. Amazon’s cloud computing division should be treated as a separate entity. In this case the mega-tech group will have to pay more corporate tax in some of its largest European markets – Germany, France, Italy, UK – if the global 15% tax is ratified.

So yes, this is mostly about Big Tech – master experts on fiscal fraud and profiting from tax paradises located even inside Europe, such as Ireland and Luxembourg. The way the EU was built, it allowed fiscal competition between nation-states to fester. To discuss this openly in Brussels remains a virtual taboo. In the official EU list of fiscal paradises, one won’t find Luxembourg, the Netherlands or Malta.

So could this all be just a P.R. coup? It’s possible. The major problem is that at the European Council – where governments of EU member-states discuss their issues – they have been dragging their feet for a long time, and sort of delegated the whole thing to the OECD.

As it stands, details on the 15% tax are still vague – even as the US government stands to become the largest winner, because its MNCs have shifted massive profits all across the planet to avoid US corporate taxes.

Not to mention that nobody knows if, when and how the deal will be globally accepted and implemented: that will be a Sisyphean task. At least it will be discussed, again, at the G20 in Venice in July.

What Germany wants

Without Germany there would not have been real advance on the EU-China Investment Agreement late last year. With a new US administration, the deal is stalled again. Outgoing chancellor Merkel is against China-EU economic decoupling – and so are German industrialists. It will be quite a treat to watch this subplot at the G7.

In a nutshell: Germany wants to keep expanding as a global trading power by using its large industrial base, while the Anglo-Saxons have completely ditched their industrial base to embrace non-productive financialization. And China for its part wants to trade with the whole planet. Guess who’s the odd player out.

Considering the G7 as a de facto gathering of the Hegemon with its hyenas, jackals and chihuahuas, it will also be quite a treat to watch the semantics. What degree of “existential threat” will be ascribed to Beijing – especially because for the interests behind the hologram “Biden” the real priority is the Indo-Pacific?

These interests could not give a damn about a EU yearning for more strategic autonomy. Washington always announces its diktats without even bothering to previously consult Brussels.

So this is what this Triple X of summits – G7, NATO and EU-US – will be all about: the Hegemon pulling all stops to contain/harass the emergence of a rising power by enlisting its satrapies to “fight” and thus preserve the “rules-based international order” it designed over seven decades ago.

History tells uss it won’t work. Just two examples: the British and French empires could not stop the rise of the US in the 19th century; and even better, the Anglo-American axis only stopped the simultaneous rise of Germany and Japan by paying the price of two world wars, with the British empire destroyed and Germany back again as the leading power in Europe.

That should give the meeting of “America is Back” and “Global Britain” in Cornwall the status of a mere, quirky historical footnote.

*

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.

Reposted complete article from LewRockwell.com

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on G7: Desperately Seeking Relevancy
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

After the failed November 1940 discussions in Berlin, of the Soviet Union’s foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov, both he and his leader Joseph Stalin occasionally remarked that Nazi Germany was no longer so prompt in fulfilling its obligations to Moscow. This was relating to the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, of 23 August 1939, an agreement which was meant to last for 10 years. Stalin and Molotov did not attribute much significance to the slacking off in Berlin’s punctuality, as the delivery of German goods and technology to Soviet Russia increasingly did not appear on schedule.

Unknown to Stalin and Molotov, on the very day the Soviet foreign minister had landed in Berlin for talks, 12 November 1940, Adolf Hitler secretly issued Directive No. 18. It outlined the planned German invasion of the USSR, including the envisaged conquest of major cities like Kiev, Kharkov, Leningrad and Moscow. On 18 December 1940 Führer Directive No. 21 was completed, which stated that the Wehrmacht’s attack on the Soviet Union should proceed in mid-May 1941.

For Russia, as 1941 advanced beyond its opening weeks, the warning signs about the German threat were becoming difficult to overlook. False reports were featured in the Nazi press about “military preparations” being made across the border in the Soviet camp. The same German media tactics had preceded Hitler’s invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland.

On 23 February 1941, the Soviet Defence Commissariat published a decree stating that Nazi Germany was the next likely enemy (1). Soviet frontier areas were requested to make the necessary preparations to repel the attack, but the Kremlin did not respond.

On 22 March 1941, the Russian intelligence agency NKGB obtained what it believed to be solid material that “Hitler has given secret instructions to suspend the fulfillment of orders for the Soviet Union”, regarding shipments tied to the Nazi-Soviet Pact. For example the Czech Skoda plant, under Nazi control, had been ordered to halt deliveries to Russia. On 25 March 1941 the NKGB produced a special report, expounding that the Germans had amassed 120 divisions beside the Soviet border. (2)

For months there were concerning cables coming from the Russian military attaché in Nazi-occupied France, General Ivan Susloparov. The German authorities had curtailed Soviet embassy duties in France, and in February 1941 the Russian embassy was moved from Paris southwards to Vichy, in central France. Only a Soviet consulate was left in Paris.

Image on the right: OKH commander Field Marshal Walther von Brauchitsch and Hitler study maps during the early days of Hitler’s Russian Campaign (Public Domain)

During April 1941, General Susloparov informed Moscow that the Germans would attack Russia in late May 1941. Slightly later on, he explained it had been delayed for a month due to bad weather. At the end of April, General Susloparov collected further information about the German invasion through colleagues from Yugoslavia, America, China, Turkey and Bulgaria (3). This intelligence was forwarded to Moscow by mid-May 1941.

Again in April 1941, a Czech agent reported that the Wehrmacht was going to execute military operations against the Soviet Union. The report was sent to Stalin, who became angry when he read it and replied, “This informant is an English provocateur. Find out who is making this provocation and punish him”. (4)

On 10 April 1941 Stalin and Molotov were given a summary by the NKGB, about a meeting that Hitler had with Prince Paul of Yugoslavia at the Berghof, in early March 1941 (5). Hitler was described as telling Prince Paul he would begin his invasion of Russia in late June 1941. Stalin’s response to the alarming reports, such as this, was one of appeasement of Hitler, though a similar strategy had failed for the Western powers.

Remarkably, through April 1941 Stalin increased the volume of shipments of Russian supplies to the Third Reich, amounting to: 208,000 tons of grain, 90,000 tons of oil, 6,340 tons of metal, etc (6). Much of these essentials would be used by the Nazis in their attack on Russia.

Marshal Filipp Golikov, head of intelligence for the USSR’s General Staff, insisted that all Soviet reports relating to Nazi plans were forwarded directly to Stalin. Other accounts informing Moscow about an impending Wehrmacht invasion came from abroad too. As early as January 1941 Sumner Welles, an influential US government official, warned the Soviet Ambassador to America, Konstantin Umansky, that Washington had information showing Germany would engage in war against Russia, by the spring of 1941. (7)

During the final week of March 1941 US Army cryptanalysts, experts at deciphering codes, started producing obvious indications of a German relocation to the east. This material was relayed to the Soviets (8). America’s cryptographers had cracked Japanese codes in the second half of 1940; including the Purple Cipher, Japan’s highest diplomatic code, which ensured that the Franklin Roosevelt government was uniquely well informed of Tokyo’s intentions.

The US commercial attaché in Berlin, Sam E. Woods, came into contact with high-level German staff officers opposed to the Nazi regime. They were aware of the planning for Operation Barbarossa. Woods was in a position to discreetly observe the German preparations from July 1940, until December of that year. Woods sent his findings to Washington. President Roosevelt agreed that the Kremlin should be told of these developments. On 20 March 1941, Welles once more saw Soviet Ambassador Umansky and forwarded the news. (9)

Russia’s embassy in Berlin noticed that the Nazi press was reprinting passages from Hitler’s 1925 book ‘Mein Kampf’. The paragraphs in question were about his proposal for “lebensraum”, German enlargement at the Soviet Union’s expense.

Image below: German troops at the Soviet state border marker, 22 June 1941 (Public Domain)

The Russians had a formidable espionage agent, Richard Sorge, operating in Tokyo since 1933, the year that Hitler took power in Germany. Sorge, a German citizen and committed communist, established an especially close relationship with the imprudent Nazi ambassador to Japan, General Eugen Ott. The data Sorge received was not always 100% accurate, but it allowed him access to the most confidential and up to date German plans.

On 5 March 1941, Sorge dispatched to the Soviets a microfilm of a German telegram sent by the foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, to the German ambassador Ott – and which outlined that the Wehrmacht attack on Russia would fall in mid-June 1941. On 15 May, Sorge reported to Moscow that the German invasion would start somewhere between 20 to 22 of June (10). A few days later on 19 May Sorge cabled, “Against the Soviet Union will be concentrated nine armies, 150 divisions”. He later increased this figure to between 170 to 190 divisions, and that Operation Barbarossa will start without an ultimatum or declaration of war.

All of this fell on deaf ears. Sorge, who had his vices being a heavy drinker and womaniser, was ridiculed by Stalin just before the Germans attacked as someone “who has set up factories and brothels in Japan”. To be fair to Stalin, at the late date of 17 June 1941 Sorge was not fully certain if Barbarossa would go ahead (11). Why? The German military attaché in Tokyo became unsure if it would proceed, and sometimes a spy is only as good as his or her sources.

Meanwhile in March 1941, Russia’s State Security forces acquired an account about a meeting the Romanian autocrat, Ion Antonescu, had with a German official named Bering, where the subject of war with Russia was discussed. Antonescu had in fact been informed by Hitler, as early as 14 January 1941, of the German plan to invade Russia, such was the prominent position Romania held in Nazi war aims. The German-controlled Ploesti refineries in southern Romania produced 5.5 million tons of oil in 1941, and 5.7 million tons in 1942. (12)

Italian dictator Benito Mussolini learnt of the German attack on Russia only after it had commenced – in part because Hitler believed he did not really need Italy, he had not asked for their help; and it was also hardly Italy’s fight, considering that country’s position cut adrift somewhat in south-central Europe. The Italian people, furthermore, would not want their troops involved in a brutal conflict against Russia, and which had nothing to do with Italy. The Duce had other ideas, and after the war the Austrian commando Otto Skorzeny correctly wrote, “Benito Mussolini was not a good wartime leader”. (13)

By mid-March 1941, the Soviet leadership had a detailed description of the Barbarossa plan (14). The period, throughout March and early April 1941, saw tensions rise significantly between Berlin and Moscow, notably in south-eastern Europe. The American author Harrison E. Salisbury noted, “This was the moment in which Yugoslavia with tacit encouragement from Moscow defied the Germans, and in which the Germans moved rapidly and decisively to end the war in Greece, and occupy the whole of the Balkans. When Moscow signed a treaty with Yugoslavia on April 6 – the day Hitler attacked Belgrade – the German reaction was so savage that Stalin became alarmed”. (15)

On 25 March 1941 the Yugoslav government of the regent, Prince Paul, had signed an agreement in Vienna, which effectively made Yugoslavia a Nazi client state. Nevertheless, just two days later patriotic factions in the Serbian populace, assisted by British agents and led by chief of the Yugoslav air force, General Dusan Simovic, overthrew the pro-German regency. They installed a monarchy headed by the teenage king, Peter II of Yugoslavia; and a new government was formed in the capital Belgrade which declared its neutrality. Upon hearing this, Winston Churchill declared it to be “great news” and that Yugoslavia had “found its soul” while it would receive from London “all possible aid and succour”. (16)

Hitler was irate at Churchill’s gloating and the sudden reversal in Yugoslav policy. Feeling he had been betrayed somehow, he decided to teach the Yugoslavs a lesson. Hitler ordered his Luftwaffe chief Hermann Göring to launch a furious air attack on Belgrade. In the days from 6 April 1941, thousands of people were killed in Belgrade from Nazi air raids. On the ground Yugoslav forces were no match for the Germans, who were helped by the Italians, and the fighting was all over after less than two weeks. Churchill’s aid and succour was sadly not forthcoming.

The Nazi-led Axis powers likewise invaded Greece on 6 April 1941, and by the middle of that month the Greek position had become untenable (17); therefore on 24 April British forces in Greece began their evacuation of the country. This was an operation the British had by now developed a real expertise in, as to escape the German blows they previously evacuated Dunkirk, Le Havre and Narvik.

Because of his subjugation of Yugoslavia and Greece, Hitler on 30 April 1941 postponed the attack on the Soviet Union until 22 June. It has sometimes been claimed that this delay, of just over five weeks, was a central factor in later derailing Barbarossa. Though an attractive one, this theory does not stand up under closer inspection.

The Nazi invasion eventually petered out, but largely due to strategic errors committed by the German high command and Hitler, such as not directing the majority of their forces towards Moscow, the USSR’s communications centre. Moreover, Canadian historian Donald J. Goodspeed observed, “the middle of May was really too early for an invasion of Russia. Before the middle of June, late spring rains would ruin the roads, flood the rivers, and make movement very difficult except on the few paved highways. Thus, since the initial surprise thrust had to go rapidly to yield the best results, Hitler probably gained more than he lost by his postponement”. (18)

The spring and early summer of 1941 were particularly wet, across eastern Poland and the western parts of European Russia. Had the Germans invaded as originally intended on 15 May 1941, their advance would have bogged down in the first weeks. It is interesting to note that the Polish-Russian river valleys were still overflowing on 1 June, according to the American historian Samuel W. Mitcham. (19)

On 3 April 1941 Churchill attempted to warn Stalin, through the British ambassador to Russia, Stafford Cripps, that London’s intelligence data indicated the Germans were preparing an attack on Russia. Stalin gave no credence whatever to British intelligence reports, because he was distrustful of Britain even more so than America, and it is likely such warnings if anything increased his suspicions further.

In late April 1941 Jefferson Patterson, the First Secretary of the US Embassy in Berlin, invited his Russian counterpart Valentin Berezhkov to cocktails at his home. Among the invitees was a Luftwaffe major, apparently on leave from North Africa. Late in the evening this German major confided to Berezhkov, “The fact is I’m not here on leave. My squadron was recalled from North Africa, and yesterday we got orders to transfer to the east, to the region of Lodz [central Poland]. There may be nothing special in that, but I know many other units have also been transferred to your frontiers recently” (20). Berezhkov was disturbed to hear this, and never before had a Wehrmacht officer divulged top secret news like that. Berezhkov passed on what he heard to Moscow.

Throughout April 1941, daily bulletins from the Soviet General Staff and Naval Staff outlined German troop gatherings along the Russian frontier. On 1 May an account from the General Staff to the Soviet border military districts stated, “In the course of all March and April… the German command has carried out an accelerated transfer of troops to the borders of the Soviet Union”. Try as the Germans might, it was impossible for them to conceal the gathering of vast numbers of their soldiers. The German presence was obvious along the central River Bug boundary; the Soviet chief of frontier guards asked Moscow for approval to relocate the families of Red Army troops further east. Permission was not granted and the commander was upbraided for showing “panic”. (21)

Nazi reconnaissance flights, near or over Soviet territory, were increasing as the spring of 1941 continued. Between 28 March and 18 April, the Russians said that German planes had been sighted 80 times making incursions. On 15 April, a German aircraft was forced into an emergency landing near the city of Rovno, in western Ukraine. On board a camera was found, along with exposed film and a map of the USSR (22). The German chargé d’affaires in Moscow, Werner von Tippelskirch, was summoned to the Foreign Commissariat on 22 April 1941. He met stiff protestations about the German overflights.

Yet Nazi planes were hardly ever shot at, because Stalin forbade the Soviet armed forces from doing so, for fear of provoking an invasion. In early May 1941 the German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels wrote in his diary, “Stalin and his people remain completely inactive. Like a rabbit confronted by a snake”. (23)

On 5 May 1941 Stalin received from his intelligence agencies a report detailing, “German officers and soldiers speak openly of the coming war, between Germany and the Soviet Union, as a matter already decided. The war is expected to start after the completion of spring planting”. Also on 5 May Stalin gave a speech to young Soviet officers at the Kremlin, and he spoke seriously of the Nazi threat. “War with Germany is inevitable” Stalin said, but there is no sign the Soviet ruler believed a German attack was imminent. (24)

On 24 May 1941, the head of the German western press department, Karl Bemer, got drunk at a reception in the Bulgarian embassy in Berlin. Bemer was heard roaring “we will be boss of all Russia and Stalin will be dead. We will demolish the Russians quicker than we did the French” (25). This incident quickly came to the attention of Ivan Filippov, a Russian correspondent in Berlin working for the TASS news agency. Filippov, also a Soviet intelligence operative, heard that Bemer was thereafter arrested by German police.

In early June 1941 Admiral Mikhail Vorontsov, the Russian naval attaché in Berlin, telegrammed his fellow Admiral Nikolai Kuznetsov, who was in Moscow, and stated that the Germans would invade around the 20th to the 22nd of June. Kuznetsov checked to see if Stalin was given a copy of this telegram, and he found that he certainly received it. (26)

*

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.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1 Harrison E. Salisbury, The 900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad (Da Capo Press, 30 Sep. 1985) p. 59

2 Ibid., p. 60

3 Ibid., p. 61

4 Robert H. McNeal, Stalin: Man and Ruler (Palgrave Macmillan, 1st edition, 1988) p. 237

5 Salisbury, The 900 Days, p. 63

6 United States Congress, Proceedings and Debates of the U.S. Congress, Volume 94, Part 9, p. 366

7 Salisbury, The 900 Days, pp. 61-62

8 John Simkin, “Operation Barbarossa”, Spartacus Educational, September 1997 (Updated January 2020)

9 Ibid.

10 Salisbury, The 900 Days, p. 65

11 Geoffrey Roberts, Stalin’s Wars (Yale University Press, 1st edition, 14 Nov. 2006) p. 68

12 Evan Mawdsley, Thunder in the East (Hodder Arnold, 23 Feb. 2007) p. 50

13 Otto Skorzeny, My Commando Operations: The Memoirs of Hitler’s Most Daring Commando (Schiffer Publishing Ltd., 1 Jan. 1995) p. 238

14 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 36

15 Salisbury, The 900 Days, p. 63

16 Basil Liddell Hart, A History of the Second World War (Pan, London, 1970) pp. 151-152

17 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 Apr. 1985) pp. 384-385

18 Ibid., p. 390

19 Samuel W. Mitcham, The Rise of the Wehrmacht: The German Armed Forces and World War II (Praeger Publishers Inc., 30 June 2008) p. 402

20 Salisbury, The 900 Days, p. 62

21 Ibid., p. 64

22 Ibid.

23 Mawdsley, Thunder in the East, p. 8

24 Robert Service, Stalin: A Biography (Pan; Reprints edition, 16 Apr. 2010) p. 407

25 Salisbury, The 900 Days, p. 61

26 Ibid., p. 66

Featured image: Elements of the German 3rd Panzer Army on the road near Pruzhany, June 1941 (Public Domain)

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

June 11th, 2021 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on This Week’s Most Popular Articles

Does the PCR Test Affect the Pineal Gland? Humans and “Transhumans”. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger

By Peter Koenig, June 10, 2021

Dr. Stuckelberger goes on saying – and I am paraphrasing – that the different task forces of experts advising the decision makers are all fraught in conflict of interest, because they have been told what they have to advise, that they were dismantled many times since the beginning of the “plandemic” by real scientists, but these real scientists, who present real science are not published, because all the media are bought.

The Israeli Government Is Changing, but Some Things Remain the Same

By Philip Giraldi, June 10, 2021

Israel is undergoing a change of management, with reliably hardline Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu being replaced by extreme nationalist Naftali Bennett. Bennett has at intervals favored the disenfranchisement of non-Jewish Israeli citizens and the ethnic cleansing of all non-Jews from historic Palestine, killing them if necessary.

China’s High Speed Rail. Profit-Driven New Cold War Against China

By Danny Haiphong, June 10, 2021

A new report published in Railway Age magazine and written by the Information Technology Innovation Foundation (ITIF) has sounded the alarm about China’s growing high-speed rail sector. The report comes amid escalations in the U.S.’s New Cold War against China, of which technology is a key component.

Cell Phone Apocalypse

By Arthur Firstenberg, June 10, 2021

I recently received a letter in the mail from a woman in Florida describing the illnesses from which she has suffered for the past dozen years: Hashimoto’s disease, liver dysfunction, sinus infection, “exploding head,” complete loss of smell and partial loss of taste. “After all this time,” she wrote, “I now wonder how much radiation has been a part of my illness.”

China’s Space Program

By South Front, June 10, 2021

While national prestige is a major motivating factor behind the construction of aircraft carriers and major surface combat ships (though less so with the largely invisible submarines), the same is even more true for space projects, such as high-visibility “first flights” or “first landings”, not to mention of course space stations.

High-end Warfare: U.S., NATO End Live-fire Space War/Star Wars Drills in Arctic

By Rick Rozoff, June 10, 2021

The fourth iteration of the Formidable Shield air and missile defense exercise started off Scotland’s Hebrides islands on May 15 and ended in Norway’s Arctic North on June 3. Europe’s largest anti-missile exercise, it was led by U.S. Sixth Fleet and conducted by Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO. The two share a commander, Vice Admiral Eugene Black III. (As NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe and the commander of U.S. European Command are the same.)

Cleveland Clinic: Already Had COVID? Vaccine Provides No Added Benefit

By Megan Redshaw, June 10, 2021

A Cleveland Clinic study of the effectiveness of COVID vaccines in people with a history of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and those without found those who had COVID but weren’t vaccinated appeared to have acquired strong natural immunity. A new preprint study by the Cleveland Clinic found people previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 were less likely to be reinfected than fully vaccinated individuals who never had the virus — suggesting the vaccine is of no benefit to people who already had COVID.

Global Pushback Against Tyranny Has Begun

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, June 10, 2021

The PCR test is at the heart of the COVID-19 scam. Without the PCR fraud and the asymptomatic spreader lie, the COVID-19 pandemic would have been a short-lived blip.

There Is Still Time to Stop the $735 Million Arms Sale to Israel

By William Hartung, June 10, 2021

The Biden administration sparked vocal protests at home and abroad with last month’s decision to go full speed ahead on a sale of $735 million of precision-guided bombs to Israel. The sale moved forward even as Israel was in the midst of a devastating bombing campaign in Gaza that killed over 250 Palestinians, including at least 67 children, and drove 52,000 people from their homes.

Vaccine Casualties: Is the CDC Hiding the Real Numbers?

By Tea Lynn Moore and Dale Hawkins, June 10, 2021

The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) is the post-marketing surveillance system the FDA asks healthcare professionals to report adverse vaccine events to. The system is passive, meaning: when a healthcare professional recognizes a connection between an adverse event and a vaccine, the report is only made when they choose to take the time out of their day to record it.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Does the PCR Test Affect the Pineal Gland? Humans and “Transhumans”. Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger
  • Tags:

Leão Africano à Caça de Novas Presas

June 10th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

Começou ontem, o Leão Africano, o maior exercício militar do continente, planeado e liderado pelo Exército dos EUA. Compreende manobras terrestres, aéreas e navais em Marrocos, na Tunísia, no Senegal e nos mares adjacentes – do Norte de África até à África Ocidental, do Mediterrâneo até ao Atlântico. Participam 8.000 militares, metade dos quais norte-americanos, com cerca de 200 tanques, canhões autopropulsionados, aviões e navios de guerra. O Leão Africano 21, cujo custo está previsto em 24 milhões de dólares, tem implicações que o tornam particularmente importante.

Num movimento político decidido basicamente em Washington, o exercício está a ser realizado este ano pela primeira vez no Sahara Ocidental, ou seja, no território da República Saharaui, reconhecido por mais de 80 Estados membros da ONU, cuja existência é negada e combatida por todos os meios por Marrocos. Rabat declara que desta forma “Washington reconhece a soberania marroquina sobre o Sahara Ocidental” e convida a Argélia e a Espanha a abandonar “a sua hostilidade para com a integridade territorial de Marrocos”. A Espanha, acusada por Marrocos de apoiar a Polisario (Frente de Libertação do Sahara Ocidental), não participa este ano no Leão Africano. Washington reafirmou o seu apoio total a Marrocos, chamando-lhe “um grande aliado e parceiro não-NATO dos Estados Unidos”.

O exercício tem lugar este ano, pela primeira vez, sob uma nova estrutura de comando dos EUA. Em Novembro último, o Exército dos EUA Europa e Exército dos EUA África incorporados sob um único comando: o Exército dos EUA Europa e África. O General Chris Cavoli, que chefia o comando, explica a razão desta decisão: “Os problemas de segurança regional da Europa e da África estão indissociavelmente ligados e, se não forem controlados, podem rapidamente propagar-se de uma zona para outra. Daí a decisão do Exército dos EUA de fundir o Comando Europa e o Comando África, de modo a “mover dinamicamente forças de um teatro para outro, de um continente para outro, melhorando o nosso tempo de resposta a emergências regionais”. Neste âmbito, o Leão Africano 21 integra-se no Defender-Europe 21, no qual estão envolvidos 28.000 soldados e mais de 2.000 veículos pesados. É praticamente uma série única de manobras militares coordenadas que tem lugar da Europa do Norte à África Ocidental, planeadas e comandadas pelo Exército dos EUA Europa e África. Objectivo oficial: combater uma “actividade maligna no Norte de África e no Sul da Europa e uma agressão militar adversária”, uma referência óbvia à Rússia e à China.

A Itália participa no African Lion 21, tal como no Defender-Europe 21, não só com as suas próprias forças mas como base estratégica. O exercício em África é dirigido a partir de Vicenza, pela Task Force do Exército dos EUA para a Europa Meridional, e as forças participantes são fornecidas, através do porto de Livorno, com materiais de guerra do Campo Darby, a base logística do Exército dos EUA que está mais próxima.  A participação no Leão Africano 21 faz parte do compromisso militar crescente da Itália em África. A missão no Níger é emblemática, formalmente “no âmbito de um esforço conjunto europeu e americano para a estabilização da área e destinado a confrontar o tráfico ilegal e as ameaças à segurança”, na realidade para o controlo de uma das áreas mais ricas em matérias-primas estratégicas (petróleo, urânio, coltan e outras) exploradas pelas multinacionais americanas e europeias, cujo oligopólio é posto em risco pela presença económica chinesa e por outros factores. Daí o recurso à estratégia colonial tradicional: garantir os seus próprios interesses através de meios militares, incluindo o apoio das elites locais que baseiam o seu poder nas forças armadas, por trás da cortina de fumo de confrontar as milícias jihadistas. Na realidade, as intervenções militares agravam as condições de vida das populações, reforçando os mecanismos de exploração e de subjugação, resultando num aumento de migrações forçadas e nas tragédias humanas subsequentes.

 

Manlio Dinucci

Il manifesto, 8 de Junho de 2021

 

Artigo original em italiano :

Leone Africano a caccia di nuove prede

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Leão Africano à Caça de Novas Presas

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Israel is undergoing a change of management, with reliably hardline Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu being replaced by extreme nationalist Naftali Bennett. Bennett has at intervals favored the disenfranchisement of non-Jewish Israeli citizens and the ethnic cleansing of all non-Jews from historic Palestine, killing them if necessary. He opposes the creation of any Palestinian state and routinely describes Palestinian protesters as terrorists while stating his belief that they should be shot on sight. He has also boasted of his shooting Palestinians during his military service, saying at one point “I already killed lots of Arabs in my life, and there is absolutely no problem with that.” He was heavily involved in “Operation Grapes of Wrath” in Lebanon in the 1980s, where his commando unit killed numerous civilians, and takes pleasure in recounting his participation in Israel’s war crimes.

All of which means that there will be no respite from the brutal Netanyahu reign of terror which has been prevailing on the West Bank, in Gaza and also in Jerusalem itself. If anything, the pressure on Arabs forcing them to leave will intensify. Evidence that the recently negotiated cease fire was little more than a pause in the plan to mitigate international pressure before continuing to make the former Palestine Palestinian free is already available. Israeli police and army units have been arresting hundreds of Arabs, many of whom are Israeli citizens, not because they have broken any of the “rules” imposed by the Netanyahu government, but as a preventive measure to have them identified, allowing them to be safely locked away when the next round of fighting begins. Eighteen hundred arrests have been reported since unrest began in April, but the figure is probably much higher than that. An estimated 25% of those who are detained are children and 85% of those children arrested report that they were physically abused.  Also, at least 26 Palestinians have been killed while resisting. It has been claimed that the police, embarrassed by being ridiculed by protesting Palestinians, are “settling scores” and “closing accounts,” frequently using savage beatings during arrests and as collective punishment to break the Arab resistance.

Israeli police have also been active at and around the al-Aqsa mosque, where they have been denying Muslims access to the holy site while promoting sightseeing visits by Israeli Jews. This is a clear violation of the rules established for access to the mosque and it sends a strong signal to Palestinians that there is more to come and the intention is clearly that they will eventually be removed by whatever means necessary from Greater Israel.

The Director for the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel (ADALAH) Hassan Jabareen observed recently how the violence over the past month was deliberately provoked by Israel both to shore up Netanyahu’s electoral prospects while “the massive arrest campaign announced by Israeli police…is a militarized war against Palestinian citizens of Israel. This is a war against Palestinian demonstrators, political activists, and minors, employing massive Israeli police forces to raid the homes of Palestinian citizens.”

The Israelis, who clearly have a sense of humor, called the first phase of the mass arrests “Operation Law and Order.” The raids themselves have been carried out inside Israel itself and on the West Bank. Those Palestinians who are citizens of Israel have what has frequently been described as “second class rights” in the country’s judicial system. Although Israel claims its Arab citizens—roughly 20% of the nation’s population—have equality under the law, even the pro-Israel US State Department has repeatedly accused Israel of practicing “institutional and societal discrimination” toward its Arab citizens.

As a consequence, Palestinians who are arrested are indicted, charged and in some cases detained indefinitely under existing state of emergency and anti-terror legislation. A common charge is “incitement” which requires little or nothing in the way of evidence. Many of the arrested Palestinians have in fact been released after payment of exorbitant bails, averaging about $1,000. One Palestinian activist reportedly paying $7,400 to be set free.

It should be noted that the armed Jewish settlers who rioted in the lead up to last month’s fighting, destroying Palestinian homes and other property, have not been identified and detained by Israeli authorities. Activist Remi Kanazi notes how “Apartheid inside Israel is when Jewish Israeli mobs chant ‘Death to Arabs’ and brutalize Palestinians in their neighborhoods, while the cops do nothing, only for those same cops to conduct mass arrests of Palestinian citizens two weeks later.”

Outside of Israel proper, other Palestinians, who are citizens of the Palestinian Authority or who have United Nations documentation, have no rights at all under Israeli law and are being detained at will and, in many cases, indefinitely, without any access to legal counsel or to family members. Most of them were not doing anything illegal, even by Israeli standards, when they were arrested. They were guilty of being Palestinian.

In one example of how the process works, well-known Palestinian activist Iyad Burnat, who had previously been arrested at age 17 and imprisoned for two years for having thrown stones at Israeli soldiers has been targeted. He lives in Bil’in on the West Bank and has had his two sons abducted from their home in recent night invasions by Israeli security forces. Abdul Khaliq, 21 years old, was taken away on May 17th and Mohammed, 19 years old, was abducted on May 24th. They are being held in the Almasqubia detention center in Jerusalem and have been denied any contact either with their parents or legal counsel. The Israeli authorities have provided no explanation of why they were arrested in the first place.

In another recent example of the brutality of the Israeli police, al-Jazeera reports in detail how thirteen-year-old Mohammed Saadi was kidnapped, blindfolded, beaten and threatened with a gun to his head by five policemen working undercover in his hometown of Umm al-Fahem. Saadi was among thousands who gathered for a funeral procession held for Mohammed Kiwan, a 17-year-old boy who had been shot and killed by Israeli police a week earlier.

Activists among the Palestinians observe that the Israeli repression has proven counter-productive. Most Palestinians now understand that the Israelis intend to exterminate them. One observer notes that “The fear barrier has been broken. Israeli forces are up against a people who no longer have anything to lose. The young men in Jerusalem don’t see they have a future to look forward to, due to socioeconomic factors that is either the result of or exacerbated by the occupation policies towards them. These people are defending their right to exist, their homes and their homeland, and had it not been for their resistance, Jewish settlers would have taken control of many places in Jerusalem.”

Clearly, the Joe Biden administration will do nothing even if the Israeli government were to arrest and torture 100,000 Arabs, but there is growing sentiment even in Congress and the Zionist controlled media that “what is wrong is wrong.” Congresswoman Betty McCollum’s has twice introduced a bill, which is languishing in congressional committee, that calls on the United States to block aid to Israel that can be perceived as being used to arrest, beat and imprison children. Her legislation the Promoting Human Rights for Palestinian Children Living Under Israeli Military Occupation Act​ H.R. 2407 amends a provision of the Foreign Assistance Act known as the “Leahy Law” to prohibit funding for the military detention of children in any country, including Israel.

McCollum argues that an estimated 10,000 Palestinian children have been detained by Israeli security forces and prosecuted in the Israeli military court system since 2000. These children between the ages of 11 and 15 have sometimes been tortured using chokeholds, beatings, and coercive interrogation. As of September 2020 there were an estimated 157 children still detained in Israeli prisons, a number that has certainly gone up dramatically given the current crackdown by the police and army. Even though Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will surely block any attempt to let the McCollum bill see light of day one can at least honor the Congresswoman for what she is attempting to do and hope that some day the United States government will finally act honorably and help deliver liberty and justice for the long suffering Palestinians.

*

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

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A new report published in Railway Age magazine and written by the Information Technology Innovation Foundation (ITIF) has sounded the alarm about China’s growing high-speed rail sector. The report comes amid escalations in the U.S.’s New Cold War against China, of which technology is a key component.

China is by far the world leader in high-speed rail investment and development, sporting more than 35,000 kilometers (21,700 miles) of high-speed rail, or 68 percent of the world’s total. The ITIF itself admits to China’s rapid success in this sector since its first high-speed rail line was completed in 2008:

Since then, China has opened thousands of kilometers of high-speed lines with speeds ranging from 200 to 350 kph. To do this, China spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the world’s most expensive public-works project since President Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System of the 1950s. 

The United States might learn from China’s success in investing in high-speed rail and try and emulate it; however, according to the ITIF, China’s high-speed rail policies damage “innovation” by privileging domestic market development and state-owned enterprises over the interests of private, foreign firms primarily residing in the West. China is accused of employing a form of “mercantilism” to manipulate the global market at the expense of the superior capabilities of Western, Japanese, and American investors.

The term “mercantilism” has been used by big business interests in the U.S. and West to portray China’s policy of indigenous development as a high crime against the free market. In fact, the ITIF has been sounding the alarm about China’s prioritization of its own tech sector since 2013.

It lamented that China was no longer keeping its promise “to be a low-cost production platform for foreign multinational corporations (MNCs).” As if the Chinese government’s function was to serve the latter’s needs and not that of its own people.

The ITIF’s latest report focusing on China’s high-speed rail sector comes amid escalating U.S. attacks on China’s tech sector. Most associate this “tech war” with the Trump administration’s sanctions on China’s Huawei Corporation and social media apps such as WeChat and TikTok. However, the Biden administration and its allies have been just as aggressive in their attempts to forestall China’s technological development.

Biden has proclaimed that the U.S. is in a battle against China to “win the 21st century” and has expanded the list of Chinese telecommunications and supercomputing companies on the U.S.’s blacklist. In a recent speech to the UK-funded Chatham House, neo-con hawk and twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton passionately claimed that the U.S. is at “the mercy of China” and demanded that the U.S. “take back the means of production.”

The U.S. war on China’s tech sector therefore shares widespread bipartisan support. As this analysis will demonstrate, far from calling for more public investment in the needs of an increasingly destitute U.S. workforce, the ITIF’s new warnings about China’s high-speed rail sector reveal how powerful economic interests are pushing for a new Cold War with China alongside the perpetuation of neoliberal economic policies that prioritize the interests of multi-national corporations.

Who Is behind ITIF?

Richard Haass, the President of the Council on Foreign Relations noted in a 2002 speech at the State Department that think tanks serve as an important bridge between policy and action, and have been shaping U.S. foreign policy for over 100 years.

What Haass leaves out is that the majority are funded by corporate and military interests to help condition the public and skew public policy in a direction that favors capitalist elites and not the public at large.

The Information Technology Innovation Foundation (ITIF) claims to be an independent public policy think-tank based in Washington, D.C. However, a closer look into its background demonstrates that ITIF is a pillar of free-market fundamentalism and the military and corporate domination in world affairs required to maintain the U.S.-led neoliberal order.

Currently, it is one of several players driving a false and demonized view of China that may very well provoke a new world war.

The ITIF receives the vast majority of its funding from U.S. corporations in every sector of the economy. This includes the two largest employers in the United States, Walmart and Amazon.

More notable in the realm of technology and militarism is the host of donors from the defense and U.S. big-tech industries. Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and leading Silicon Valley corporations as well as the Charles Koch Institute join an alliance of U.S. monopolies and industry associations backing the ITIF.

The same corporations backing the ITIF have led the charge in pressuring Washington to take a hostile approach to China’s tech sector, whose success threatens them. Amazon and Northrop Grumman, the major arms manufacturer also are top sponsors of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).

Logo, company name Description automatically generated

[Source: antinuclear.net]

ASPI has produced several dubious reports on China’s supposed repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Some of these reports attack journalists who have challenged the official narrative, notably at the Grayzone project. ASPI publications have generally been used by Washington to enhance sanctions against China over “human rights” claims.

A group of people standing in front of a building Description automatically generated with medium confidence

Cover of ASPI report on the persecution of Uyghurs in China’s Xinjiang province. Military-funded think-tanks are playing up China’s alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang to mobilize public opinion against China. [Source: saveuighur.org]

ITIF founder and President Robert D. Atkinson is a champion of global neoliberalism who is regarded highly in elite circles as a tech policy guru.

Prior to founding the ITIF, Atkinson served as Vice President of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think-tank of the Bill Clinton-led Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that sports initiatives such as the Neoliberal Project. Atkinson has served as an adviser for every U.S. administration from Bill Clinton to Donald Trump.

Atkinson currently holds a post as an adviser for the Minister of Science, Research, and Innovation in the UK. He also serves on the Markle Foundation’s Task Force on National Security, which helped write the 9/11 Commission Report and regularly lobbies for the privatization of the national security state in Congress on behalf of the Foundation’s president, Zoë Baird, Bill Clinton’s failed Attorney General nominee.

In a testament to his commitment to Clinton-era neoliberalism, Atkinson argued in a 2011 article that progressives should drop social welfare policies and instead “support corporations” in their fight against  “foreign mercantilism.”

More recently he has been warning about the China “threat”which he uses as a pretext for promoting the implementation of his conservative economic ideals.

China’s High-Speed Rail Ascendency a Nightmare for Neoliberalism

Given Atkinson’s history, it should come as little surprise that the ITIF’s report Heading Off Track: The Impact of China’s Mercantilist Policies on Global High-Speed Rail Innovation reads like a cartoonish screed against public investment.

Authored by Nigel Cory, the report provides an inside look into the nightmare that China’s high-speed rail presents to the global order of neoliberalism.

Mercantilism is a derogatory word devised by free-market fundamentalists to describe the prioritization of domestic market development. According to the report, China’s largest rail manufacturer, the CRRC, is state owned and “has the largest share of the global high-speed rail market due to its dominance of the Chinese market.”

What is particularly troublesome to the ITIF is that China’s early reliance on foreign technology to develop its high-speed rail sector has been gradually replaced with domestic alternatives.

The report blames China’s dominance over its own market for the failures of European, Japanese, and U.S. rail manufacturers to keep up with high-speed rail production. European firms such as Alstom or Japanese firms such as Hitachi are described as “innovative” more than a dozen times yet have seen their market share in the industry decrease as much as fifty percent since 2007. The United States does not have a single high-speed rail firm capable of developing high-speed rail and has thus fallen the furthest behind.

US High Speed Rail Association

[Source: ushsr.net]

That more “innovative” firms in the U.S. orbit have fallen behind China is an obvious contradiction. To explain away failure, the ITIF outlines measures China has taken to unfairly keep foreign corporations out of the Chinese market. Many of these claims are contradicted in the report itself.

“Forced technology transfer” is a particular sore point for the ITIF and forms the basis of claims of “stolen” intellectual property constantly made by the United States and its allies. China is accused of forcing foreign firms to share technology on an unequal basis. Yet so-called “forced” technology transfers are not forced at all. Rather, as the report explains:

China’s ongoing requirement for 100 percent Chinese-owned technology in many procurement contracts, combined with foreign firms having to engage with majority-Chinese owned JVs [joint ventures] in order to submit a bid, amounts to a de facto mandate to transfer technology to local partners. Foreign firms continue to capitulate because they have no choice—they either give up their technology or lose out to other competitors in the growing Chinese market.

Describing this scenario as “forced” obscures the actual problem: that China does not allow its high-speed rail market to be controlled and dominated by foreign, mainly U.S. and European, firms. Rather, China allows foreign firms to invest in rail development only if Chinese firms maintain majority ownership and are allowed access to information which allows them to develop the technology domestically.

While the ITIF claims foreign rail firms had “no choice” in doing business with China, it also admits that these same firms entered into such agreements willingly in part because China was not expected to catch up to its foreign peers so fast.

Another particularly sore point for the ITIF is China’s bidding process. Foreign rail firms must partner with a Chinese firm just to hold a license to operate and compete for procurement contracts in the Chinese market. Foreign firms are allowed no more than forty-nine percent of the shares in any joint venture.

As the report laments, only a limited number of entirely state-owned companies are allowed to contract for projects in China, thereby ensuring little flexibility in the way revenue is spread between foreign and Chinese partners.

A huge fear among the industrial and financial magnates that fund ITIF is that China’s model for infrastructure development in the high-speed rail sector will spread globally. The report expresses anguish over the Belt and Road Initiative directly, the massive government-led global infrastructure plan that China hopes will create sustained trade relations between itself and nations along the old Silk Road.

China has appointed CRRC, its foremost state-owned rail company, to develop rail projects abroad such as the Sino-Laos railway set to debut before 2021’s end.

The global expansion of China’s high-speed rail sector is particularly problematic because of its disregard for profit. High-speed rail is a costly endeavor which requires massive investments in research and development and components that can range from $17 to $21 million per kilometer of rail. The report quotes an unnamed executive who makes clear that foreign firms lack “the full weight and money of the state behind them in the way the Chinese rail companies do.”

In sum, China is accused by the ITIF of unfairly gobbling up market share from foreign firms by “stealing” intellectual property and “forcing” technology transfer. No proof is provided by the ITIF that verifies either claim. More importantly, the report simultaneously admits that foreign (read U.S. and EU) firms are unable to compete with China in large part because high-speed rail requires massive public investment rather than the prioritization of private profit.

Sanctions: Economic Weapon of the New Cold War

To punish China’s public investment in high-speed rail, the ITIF recommends first and foremost that foreign competitors, principally the United States and Europe, pursue sanctions against China. Thirty-nine countries around the world currently suffer from starvation sanctions imposed by the U.S. or EU. Sanctions are an act of war that cuts off a country’s access to the international market and, in the cases of Iran and Venezuela,prevent the import of crucial supplies necessary to sustain human life.

The World Must End the US' Illegal Economic War. Sanctions Imposed on 39 Countries - Global Research

CodePink activist protests U.S. worldwide sanctions.

The ITIF specifically calls on the EU and the United States to work together to prevent Chinese acquisition of rail firms and contracts abroad. This would amount to a de facto blockade of China’s access to European and U.S. technology required for the development of high-speed rail and is not dissimilar to existing U.S. sanctions on the semiconductor industry meant to slow China’s progress in the realm of “smart” technology.

The ITIF also suggests that U.S. and European governments adopt higher prices for public procurement contracts for foreign investment in rail projects and more stringent screening processes to essentially prevent China’s high-speed rail sector from expanding into the industrialized world.

Perhaps most damning is the ITIF’s inclusion of the demand that the World Bank withdraw financial support to China. Historically, the World Bank has operated alongside the IMF as an enforcer of global privatization, particularly in the Global South.

Structural adjustment programs implemented in countries across Asia, Latin America, and Africa have reinforced neocolonialism and massively increased extreme poverty around the world to the benefit of financial elites in the U.S. and Europe. That the ITIF would demand the withdrawal of World Bank funds from Chinese-backed high-speed rail projects demonstrates the lengths the U.S. and its allies will go to contain the rise of China.

Sanctions are indisputably the economic weapon of choice in the U.S.-led New Cold War on China. While many who politically identify as “left” in the U.S. and West see China as a “capitalist” country, it is clear that the U.S. and its allies employ targeted sanctions not on capitalist firms but on socialist development in China and elsewhere.

The ITIF specifically targets state-owned enterprises in China for sanctions in the same manner that the U.S. currently enforces targeted sanctions on state-owned enterprises in Belarus and Myanmar.

Regardless of whether the justification is “human rights” or “competition,” the effect of sanctions is to starve countries of their capacity to meet the needs of their people in the hopes that they will either “play ball” with U.S. and EU hegemony or see their political systems replaced with more compliant regimes.

China does not “play ball” with U.S. hegemony. China maintains public ownership over key sectors of the economy such as high-speed rail and disregards U.S. and European sanctions placed on poor nations across the Global South. This is evidenced by China’s massive bilateral relationships with Iran and Russia. China is also Europe’s, Latin America’s, and Africa’s largest trading partner.

Furthermore, high-speed rail marks only one area where China has surpassed the U.S. and European powers technologically. China leads the world in artificial intelligence, regenerative medicine, and a host of other sectors that once were dominated by private U.S. and European firms.

china

Visitors check their phones behind the screen advertising facial recognition software during the Global Mobile Internet Conference (GMIC) at the National Convention in Beijing, China, April 27, 2018. [Source: pri.org]

Sanctions are thus deemed necessary to arrest the development of China’s large publicly driven tech sector from taking the reins as the foremost economic power. The ITIF published a follow-up article authored by Robert Atkinson himself which anguished over the reality that Chinese state-driven development is fast becoming the engine of the global economy.

This article appeared to reflect a tacit admission of the failure of the economic model Atkinson and his ilk have tried to impose on the rest of the world, and reaffirmation of China’s policies.

Free-Market Fundamentalism Spells Doom for Humanity

The ITIF not only calls for sanctions but also for direct public investment to spur “innovation” and make the U.S. and its allies competitive again. The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee has followed these recommendations by approving $110 billion in basic research in the tech sector.

Still, there is an obvious contradiction in the demonization of China’s state-owned economy and the U.S.’s decision to increase government spending in tech research to counter China. This contradiction is unlikely to be resolved given that the New Cold War is predicated upon the religion of free-market fundamentalism—an ideology which is foundational to U.S.-led neoliberal capitalism.

As economist Michael Hudson remarks, the New Cold War on China is essentially a clash of two systems:

Today’s Cold War 2.0 aims to deter China and potentially other counties from socializing their financial systems, land and natural resources, and keeping infrastructure utilities public to prevent their being monopolized in private hands to siphon off economic rents at the expense of productive investment in economic growth. 

Free-market fundamentalism spells doom for humanity. It is that which Secretary of State Tony Blinken chastised China when he said they were not following the “rules-based international order.”

Free-market fundamentalism is behind the massive bailouts and stock buybacks Biden supported under the Obama administration and the massively bloated U.S. military budgets, which pad the profits of private weapons manufacturers.

Abroad, free-market fundamentalism inspired the 1973 CIA-backed coup in Chile, sanctions on Zimbabwe for its engagement in land reform, and the dozens of societies destroyed by the U.S. in the name of “freedom” and “democracy.”

China’s high-speed rail sector is now under fire from the U.S.-led neoliberal order precisely because the titans of big tech and finance cannot imagine development that does not place the massive profits of capitalists such as Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates in command of international politics.

Think-tanks such as the ITIF serve as mouthpieces for their Wall Street and Silicon Valley funders. It is quite clear from ITIF’s report on high-speed rail that, beneath the bellicose rhetoric and policies of the U.S.-led New Cold War on China, is a very real attempt to stymie the progress of alternative economic arrangements to neoliberalism on the world stage.

*

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.

Danny Haiphong is an activist and journalist in the New York City area. He and Roberto Sirvent are co-authors of the book entitled American Exceptionalism and American Innocence: A People’s History of Fake News—From the Revolutionary War to the War on Terror(Skyhorse Publishing). He can be reached at [email protected], on Twitter @spiritofho, and with the Black Agenda Report on Youtube at The Left Lens with Danny Haiphong.

Featured image is from silknsteel.podbean.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.

***

During the hours of Tuesday night, areas in central and southern Syria were subjected to missile attacks carried out by “Israeli” warplanes across Lebanese airspace, while the Syrian air defense forces confronted the hostile missiles and shot down a number of them.

Sources reported that the enemy planes launched their missiles from Lebanese airspace, focusing on locations in the south and west of Homs Governorate, central Syria, in addition to other locations in the south of the country.

The Syrian air defenses were able to confront a number of hostile missiles, and shot them down before reaching their targets. The sounds of explosions resulting from the response were widely heard in various parts of the cities of Damascus and Homs.

A Syrian military source said during a statement issued during the attacks:

“At 23.36 pm on Tuesday 8-6-2021, the Israeli enemy carried out an air aggression from over Lebanese territory, targeting some targets in the central and southern region, and our air defense media confronted the aggression’s missiles. Some were dropped.”

The source confirmed that the Israeli aggression did not result in any casualties, stressing that its effects were limited to material damage.

The Israeli occupation planes carry out missile attacks from time to time towards Syrian territory, with a focus on the vicinity of the capital, Damascus, at a time during which the Syrian anti-aircraft forces are able to work effectively in terms of confronting hostile missiles, and shooting down large numbers of them, before they reach their targets.

*

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 SANA

Rebel Women: Past, Present, and Future

June 10th, 2021 by Barbara Nimri Aziz

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Naomi Osaka initially garnered global acclaim as a tennis champion. Today she is a rebel. Thank you, Naomi.

Seeing how she defied the norm regarding participation in press conferences, the public gained a strikingly different perception of Ms. Osaka. Ultimately this athlete’s dissidence may be her most remembered and influential victory.

Riotous, rebellious, defiant; warriors, insurgents, dissidents, sirens, pioneers, innovators:– women and girls who simply will not accept the norms set for them are growing in number, historically and currently (thanks to awakened, skillful researchers).

“I expect something else (other than what you defined for me)”, girls insist. When we realize our dreams for ourselves, inevitably we widen paths for others. We redefine standards, as Osaka’s refusal is surely doing. Let’s also redefine these women as ‘rebels’ since this word symbolizes the insight, the fight and the burden that change calls for.

Rebel girls were once wearisome, impractical or suspect annoyances. In recent years they became reimagined and popularized as heroes. In the West, this transformation could be traced to its modern feminist movement. In 2016 a dynamic perception of ‘rebel’ was introduced in a children’s picture book chockfull of women stories. Goodnight Stories for Rebel Girls is the creation of pioneer editors Elena Favilli and Francesca Cavallo whose first edition featured not one but a hundred accomplished women from various places and times. Its first edition sold millions and was translated into many languages. New editions, spinoffs and imitations followed.

In the Goodnight Stories portraits, rebellion is not characterized by military figures like Joan of Arc, Maoist guerrillas or African warrior queens. This history highlights scientists, political activists, artists, athletes, and pilots. Significantly, its ‘rebel girl’ is as much the child reader as those accomplished ladies on its pages. These selected ‘goodnight stories’ are for girls’ night-(and day)-time dreams.

The book’s extraordinary impact is surely due to it being far more than a few page-long biographies; Goodnight Stories actually offers an alternative history of humankind. This isn’t a story of one woman in a news feature, nor an empress, i.e., an exception. Here is a whole race:— accomplished women from across many centuries and diverse cultures. Their personalities and achievements retell the history of civilization. They offer child readers a new vision of human potential– a host of models, a myriad of ways that youngsters might consider their lives. It rewrites history, and it redefines ‘rebel’.

This collection may also affect how writers, anthropologists and historians reframe their accounts of women, as evidenced in titles of recent biographies. Take for example The Rebellious Life of Mrs. Rosa Parks (2021) where authors Jeanne Theoharis and Brandy Colbert examine Parks’ six decades of activism. They challenge earlier perceptions of her as an ‘accidental’ actor in the American Civil Rights Movement. To young people, ‘rebellious life’ might more poignantly characterize that extraordinary career and demonstrate how Park’s contribution was not a single event but an unrelenting campaign. Any women’s ascent needs to be understood as a sustained struggle against obstacles she confronted, perhaps personally, from childhood, certainly within patriarchal society, and against prevailing cultural norms.

We find rebel celebration in Wake, a new collection, also designed for young readers. In Wake: The Hidden History of Women-Led Slave Revolts author Rebecca Hall defines her subjects, Black women who fought against their enslavers, as warriors. (Only rebels could manage what they did.) This book is moreover written to reclaim a once-secret history. (Black slave revolts by men are fairly well documented, not those led by women.) So, in addition to recording warrior biographies, Wake challenges cover-ups, an insidious all-too-common process that means the pursuit of rebel women’s histories has to address flawed historiography. Our work on rebellious lives frequently involves recognizing and exposing history’s secrets. (Also see Wayward Lives, Beautiful Experiments.)

When I first undertook to record the suppressed careers of two Nepali women Yogmaya Neupane and Durga Devi, both early 20th century rebels, I faced two challenges: I had to rely on oral accounts from a fading source—a community of elderly ascetics living in a hermitage, women dismissed by others as ‘unauthoritative’; then references to both rebels were essentially erased within a few decades of their deaths. Nepal’s ruler imposed a strict ban on Yogmaya and her surviving followers, suppressing any record of her work. While  Durga Devi was made ‘forgotten’ by angry male adversaries after her relentless career of shaming them, first in a (successful) fight for her property rights, then exposing their corruption.

As I uncovered these women’s careers, it became clear how their sheer determination to resist, as we find with Osaka, often necessitates some degree of rebellion.

Similarly, women like the talented Pakistani vocalists recorded in Fawzia Afzal-Khan’s Siren Song needed supreme efforts to persist in the face of personal threats and marginalization in order to protect and foster a rich music tradition. Afzal-Khan’s account of the careers of Malka Pukhraj, Roshanara Begum, and Reshma is a rich biography; it  also illustrates multiple ways women performers negotiate around challenges thrown in their path by political turmoil and by standard societal demands. We may not think of musicians as rebels, but Afzal- Khan’s sirens are just that, as are some of America’s great Black vocalists, e.g. Nina Simone and Marvin Gaye.

*

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, Barbara Nimri Aziz.

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

All images in this article are from the author

China’s Space Program

June 10th, 2021 by South Front

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Stakes

While national prestige is a major motivating factor behind the construction of aircraft carriers and major surface combat ships (though less so with the largely invisible submarines), the same is even more true for space projects, such as high-visibility “first flights” or “first landings”, not to mention of course space stations. To be sure, the Cold War-era space race did yield tangible benefits to its main participants, US and USSR, in the form of advancements in rocketry, space navigation, communications, and other technologies with national security and civilian applications. Yet it wouldn’t be a “race” if there were no benefit from being the “first” to cross certain thresholds, such as first satellite, first man, first spacewalk, first orbital rendezvous, first man on the Moon. The ability to accomplish these “firsts” marked the country in question as being worthy of global leadership on account of the prowess of its scientists and the power of its political system capable of mobilizing resources necessary to accomplish spectacular feats. Therefore for all the expense space programs entailed, the “hard” and “soft” power benefits made them highly worthwhile and even cost-effective government expenditures.

Last but not least, the competing space programs made it all but impossible to turn space, including the Earth’s orbits, into one country’s exclusive domain. If, say, the United States had enjoyed an unchallenged monopoly on space flight, it is possible that it would turn The Final Frontier into its sovereign domain, just as it did with other “frontiers” in US past. While the idea of outer space being a universal good to be shared by all of humanity, it should be noted that idea was not codified until the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which still remains in force today. The fact the concept of national sovereignty over space had to be codified in international law is a reflection of notions to the contrary that were evident in the 1950s and 1960s, and which were made first untenable by the Soviet space successes of those decades. The Outer Space Treaty was little more than a legalistic reflection of the de-facto status quo created by the bipolar balance of power between the two nuclear superpowers, which meant that even if one of them made an attempt to claim sovereignty over space, the inevitable outcome would be war.

Full Spectrum Dominance

The end of the Cold War and the Soviet collapse meant that the door to space weaponization was if not open, then at least propped ajar. The 1990s-era Rumsfeld Space Commission’s final report included recommendations for the use of space, and when the Bush/Cheney administration took over, it is often forgotten that before 9/11 the course of their national security policy was heavily geared toward aeronaval and space warfare at the expense of capabilities for land warfare. The appointment of USAF General Richard Myers whose career revolved around space capabilities was an indicator of that trend that was abruptly curtailed by 9/11.

After about a decade of diversion into unwanted and unanticipated counterinsurgency warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, wars that were supposed to be victoriously wrapped up within a matter of months as if they were Tom Clancy novels, United States returned to the problem of space with a vengeance, and the current frenzy of activity evidenced by the extensive support granted to a variety of private entrepreneurs interested in commercial exploration, most notably Elon Musk and his SpaceX, suggests a desire to make up for the lost time and possibly even accomplish what could not be accomplished during the Cold War, namely the extension of US sovereignty to, if not orbital space, then to a celestial body in the form of planet Mars.

The emphasis on establishing permanently manned outposts on the Moon and Mars is likewise indicative of a renewed desire to extend US sovereignty to those celestial bodies. The Outer Space Treaty does, after all, acknowledge the sovereignty of every space object, manned or unmanned. A Mars Base, for example, would classify as a space object, except in this instance the space object would also control “real estate”, so to speak, on Mars. United States’ recent track record with international treaties is such that one cannot rule out either a unilateral withdrawal from Outer Space Treaty or a highly novel reinterpretation within the realm of “rules-based international order” that would naturally justify US claims, possibly with certain US client states, for example Great Britain, brought into the operation to give it an international character.

US turn toward unilateralism also means there will be rather less international cooperation in space in the coming decades. Probably no single object better exemplifies the evolution of the international system over the past several decades than the International Space Station (ISS). Consisting of five Russian, eight US, two Japanese, one European, and no Chinese modules, the ISS is falling victim to the emerging great power rivalry that threatens to end international cooperation on space exploration before it ever really took off, as US, Russia, and China each have plans to establish their own national space stations.

2021: China’s Space Turning Point?

For decades, China’s space program appeared to be an unhurried version of the Soviet one, with gradual build-up of launch capabilities in the form of the steadily growing family of Chang Zheng (Long March) rockets which have maintained an outstanding reliability record and account for a quarter of the world’s commercial space launches in spite of US restrictions dating back to the 1990s. For many years, however, China’s space hardware so far has not exhibited any spectacular technological breakthroughs, and likewise the pace of manned flights has remained low. The Shenzhen spacecraft is closely pattern after the venerable Soviet Soyuz design, with a capacity of three cosmonauts, and has performed only six manned missions between 2013 and 2016.

In contrast, February 2021 proved a spectacular month in China’s space program, with a list of accomplishments no space power would thumb their nose at. That month saw the landing of the Tianwen-1 unmanned Mars lander, making China the third country after United States and Russia to succeed in that endeavor, and the launch of the Tiangong Space Station (TSS), the aforementioned Chinese manned space station which was overshadowed by the likely deliberately fostered artificial media panic over where the top stage of the Long March 5B booster rocket was supposedly going to crash. Once completed with additional modules, TSS is expected to be of a size and mass approximately the same as the Soviet/Russia Mir Space Station that was decommissioned in 2001.

February 2021 is unlikely to be a flash in the pan event, given the uptick in the planned Chinese manned space flights. A Shenzhen flight is to take place in June 2021, with the destination being the TSS, another one is scheduled for September 2021, and two more missions are scheduled for 2022. More distant projects include exploration of the Moon and Mars.  Manned Moon landings and an unmanned Moon research base which are to take place in the 2030s, though these missions may require a new generation of spacecraft to be developed. A September 2020 launch of a Long March 2F rocket appears to have been a test of the Shenlong spaceplane that has been in development for nearly two decades. While Shenlong is a small craft with a  length of only 12 meters that is intended for unmanned missions, it is unlikely it is the only spacecraft design currently under development in the People’s Republic of China.

China That Can Say No

It remains to be seen whether China’s space program will remain a national symbol of power and glory or evolve into an international effort that will include Russian and even EU participation. So far China appears to be determined to go it alone. There are reports that the TSS orbital inclination angle is such that it would be very difficult for spacecraft launched from Russia to dock with it. While the Tangong and Shenzhen, as well as the Chinese space program in general, owe a great deal to Soviet and Russian technical assistance, China may be understandably concerned to establish its own reputation as a spacefaring power rather than a country still technologically dependent on Russia in that respect. On the other hand, the TSS is expected to perform international science experiments, and one also must not underestimate the alienating effects of US foreign and space policies on other countries. Moreover, United States has had a considerable head start in its renewed race for the Moon and Mars and is throwing colossal amounts of money at its various spaceflight programs. While much of that money is spent wastefully, United States remains a formidable space rival and here too its ambitious space goals may yet drive China and Russia toward greater cooperation.

*

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 South Front

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The White House announced that the file of the Syrian war will be present on the agenda of the upcoming summit between the US and Russian presidents, where the White House National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan, stated that US President Joe Biden will discuss issues related to Syria during the summit that will be held with the Russian president, “Vladimir Putin“.

It is believed that one of the most prominent Syrian issues that the two presidents will discuss is related to the issue of humanitarian aid access, especially since Sullivan made it clear during his statement that his country has a very clear position regarding humanitarian aid, and there must be humanitarian corridors in Syria to deliver aid and save lives.

He is scheduled to meet the Russian and American presidents, on the sixteenth of this month, as part of a summit, which is the first of its kind between the two countries since Joe Biden took office.

Political analysts believe that the results of the expected summit will clarify more, the reality of the directions of the new US administration regarding Syria, and it will reveal whether there has actually been a change in American attitudes, especially since Biden has made several statements since taking office indicating his intention to cooperate to end the Syrian war, most notably the one in which he said that his country “is not interested in Syrian oil and seeks to cooperate with Russia to activate the operations of the international coalition against “ISIS“, in addition to taking a decision to revoke the license of the American company responsible for the process of extracting oil from Syrian fields.

*

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 Mideast Discourse

All Global Research articles 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.

***

“Several live-fire and simulated engagements against subsonic, supersonic, and ballistic targets demonstrations will take place during the exercise, including the first defensive live-intercept of a ballistic missile using multinational data systems to track the target. The multinational cooperation for a ballistic missile intercept in outer space is truly remarkable and proves the Alliance’s commitment to interoperability and defence.”

The fourth iteration of the Formidable Shield air and missile defense exercise started off Scotland’s Hebrides islands on May 15 and ended in Norway’s Arctic North on June 3. Europe’s largest anti-missile exercise, it was led by U.S. Sixth Fleet and conducted by Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO. The two share a commander, Vice Admiral Eugene Black III. (As NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe and the commander of U.S. European Command are the same.)

Properly called Exercise At-Sea Demo/Formidable Shield (ASD/FS) 2021, it included 16 ships, 31 aircraft, and some 3,300 military personnel from ten NATO nations in the live training events: Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the U.S.

The deputy commander of Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO (STRIKFORNATO), Royal Navy Rear Admiral James Morley, said of the exercise that it was “one of the most complex and intensive integrated Air and Missile Defense events ever undertaken in the European theatre.” And he added that it “has taken place across the maritime, air, and space domains, involving 150 warfare training serials and live events, demonstrating the resolve and capability of the NATO Alliance to provide collective defence.”

The reference to space domains was not insignificant as agencies, commands and organizations participating in the two-and-a-half week maneuvers included the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, NATO’s new Space Command, U.S. Navy’s Task Group Integrated Air and Missile Defense, STRIKFORNATO’s Integrated Air and Missile Defense, NATO’s Ballistic Missile Defense Operations Centre at the Allied Air Command in Ramstein, Maritime Theater Missile Defense Forum and Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems. The U.S. Marine Corps 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit conducted its first High Mobility Artillery Rocket System launch in Europe during the exercise.

The flagship for the exercise was the Spanish frigate ESPS Cristóbal Colón. Referring to its name (Christopher Columbus in English) and improving on the claim by the STRIKFORNATO deputy commander, above, Task Force 64’s commander, Jonathan Lipps, who led the exercise, said:

“Like the namesake of this warship, you will lead an international armada at sea that will make history conducting the world’s most complex joint and combined integrated air and missile defense exercise across the Maritimes. From below sea level to low earth orbit, you will reinforce the importance of mission command across all domains in high-end warfare….”

The exercise shifted to and ended at the Andøya Space (formerly named Andøya Space Center and Andøya Rocket Range) rocket launch site, rocket range and spaceport in the Arctic region of northern Norway.

One drill featured the U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Paul Ignatius and the Royal Netherlands Navy’s air defense command frigate HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën, with the first launching a Standard Missile-3 interceptor missile to destroy a live medium-range ballistic target. The event was described by the American military as one “mark[ing] a major milestone in the scientific effort to integrate allied space sensors into NATO IAMD, comprising rigorous engineering efforts between several countries and major contributions from the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA).”

Also, U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Roosevelt conducted a dual-layer Integrated Air and Missile Defense scenario employing two Standard Missile-3s and two Standard Missile-2s against a simulated medium-range ballistic target and what was referred to as a live raid of subsonic targets. U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Ross conducted an air defense engagement using an SM-2 against a subsonic target as well. New systems were tested against “supersonic high-diving targets plummeting…at speeds in excess of 12,000mph – 16 times the speed of sound.”

Spain’s Cristóbal Colón, the Royal Norwegian Navy guided-missile frigate HNoMS Fridtjof Nansen and the Dutch De Zeven Provinciën frigate fired Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles.

The U.S. has 62 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers like those mentioned above and 22 Ticonderoga-class guided-missiles cruisers equipped with the AEGIS Weapons System and capable of launching Standard Missile-3s. The land-based version, part of a program known as Aegis Ashore or European Phased Adapted Approach, have been stationed in Romania and are scheduled to be deployed to Poland as well. Four (soon to be six) Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers are based at the Naval Station Rota in Spain under joint U.S. Navy-NATO arrangements.

A comprehensive sea- and land-based system of hundreds, ultimately thousands, of Standard Missile-3’s deployed by the U.S. and its allies creates the possibility of employing them for the second phase of a first-strike attack (conventional or nuclear) against the military assets of an adversary (e.g., Russia, China, Iran, North Korea); that is, using them to neutralize any missiles not destroyed in the first phase.

The Missile Defense Agency’s mission director for Exercise At-Sea Demo/Formidable Shield said of the exercise: “The MDA is dedicated to furthering the warfighter’s understanding of the ballistic missile threat, and how to negate it….No training can replace actually detecting, tracking, and negating a ballistic missile. The more exercises of this type MDA can support, the more confident and proficient the warfighter will become in using our defensive weapon systems.”

In the words of U.S Navy Commodore Brett Lefever, Deputy Integrated Missile Defence branch at STRIKFORNATO, ahead of the event: “Several live-fire and simulated engagements against subsonic, supersonic, and ballistic targets demonstrations will take place during the exercise, including the first defensive live-intercept of a ballistic missile using multinational data systems to track the target. The multinational cooperation for a ballistic missile intercept in outer space is truly remarkable and proves the Alliance’s commitment to interoperability and defence.”

In short the exercise was used to test U.S. and NATO antiballistic missile capabilities. With nothing short of what the STRIKFORNATO official celebrated as a ballistic missile intercept in outer space.

*

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: Standard Missile-3 Block IIA launch (Source: Anti-bellum)

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Israel’s political situation is proving quite precarious for outgoing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

As a result, he’s struggling to prove that he’s required at the lead, since Tel Aviv’s enemies will allegedly flourish if Netanyahu is not there.

Late on June 8th, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) struck various targets in southern and central Syria. According to Syrian media, air defense systems managed to shoot down some Israeli missiles which were fired from the direction of Lebanon.

Not all missiles were shot down and some caused damage. The Syrian Observatory of Human Rights claimed that violent explosions were felt in Damascus and around the city, followed by Israeli strikes on military positions of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA). It also claimed that 10 pro-government fighters were killed in the strikes.

Air strikes also took place in the south of Homs province and in the border zone between Homs and Tartus.

This is the first strike attributed to Israel in nearly a month, and it coincides with Netanyahu’s struggle to remain in seat. There is no official confirmation from the IDF on carrying out the strike.

In addition to Israel’s regular assertions, the “moderate opposition” in Greater Idlib also frequently breaches the ceasefire regime and shells the nearby settlements.

Militants in the region shelled several villages in nearby Hama province, in the villages of Jubas and Dadikh, and farmland was damaged. No casualties were reported.

On June 7th, militants fired 6 rockets at the village of Jurin in the northwestern province of Hama, causing damage to residential buildings and private property.

In northern Syria, the perpetual state of chaos between the Kurdish groups and the Turkish-backed factions also continues.

The Kurdish Afrin Liberation Force reported that it had carried out a successful operation against the Turkish Armed Forces and pro-Ankara militants.

Between June 1 and 4th, the Kurdish group reportedly killed 13 Turkish soldiers and 2 pro-Turkish faction members. Two vehicles were destroyed.

In confirmation, Ankara admitted to losing a single serviceman in northwestern Syria.

On June 8th, a car bomb exploded in northern Syria’s Afrin causing extensive damage to nearby property. No casualties were reported.

Still, violence in northern Syria is the norm. The Kurdish groups and Turkish-backed factions continually carry out operations against each other. Infighting among the pro-Turkish groups is also not uncommon, with civilians frequently being injured and sometimes killed in collateral.

With the Syrian Arab Army reactivating air defense systems in northern Syria, it could mean that an attempted solution to the plight may be coming sooner rather than later.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A Cleveland Clinic study of the effectiveness of COVID vaccines in people with a history of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and those without found those who had COVID but weren’t vaccinated appeared to have acquired strong natural immunity.

A new preprint study by the Cleveland Clinic found people previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 were less likely to be reinfected than fully vaccinated individuals who never had the virus — suggesting the vaccine is of no benefit to people who already had COVID.

The Cleveland Clinic recently studied the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination among people with a history of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and those without. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the necessity of COVID vaccination in persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2.

The study, available on medRxiv, provides insight into how the immune system protects the body once a COVID infection is confirmed, the Cleveland Clinic said.

The clinic studied 52,238 employees. Of those, 49,659 never had the virus and 2,579 had COVID and recovered. Of the 2,579 who previously were infected, 1,359, or 53%, remained unvaccinated, compared with 41%, or 22,777 who were vaccinated.

The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among three groups — those previously infected who remained unvaccinated; those previously infected who were vaccinated; and those previously uninfected who were vaccinated — compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated.

Of all infections during the study period, 99.3% occurred in participants who were not infected previously and remained unvaccinated. In contrast, 0.7% of infections occurred in participants who were not previously infected but were currently vaccinated.

Significantly, not one of the 1,359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study, according to the Cleveland Clinic.

The study’s conclusion appears to support what others, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, have said about immunity in people previously infected with the virus. In a livestreamed conversation last month, Fauci told Howard Bauchner, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, it’s unlikely people can get COVID more than once.

Fauci however continues to recommend everyone get the vaccine — unlike Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky) who as The Defender reported, has been one of the most vocal opponents of vaccinating people who have already been infected with SARS-CoV-2.

During a May 24 interview with John Catsimatidis on his radio show WABC 770 AM, Paul, a physician, said he was making the personal decision not to get vaccinated because he already had COVID, so he had acquired natural immunity. He said there was no evidence to support vaccinating people who’ve already had the disease.

Paul told Catsimatidis:

“Frankly, all of the studies show that I have just as good of immunity as the people who’ve been vaccinated. Now in a year’s time, if people say ‘Oh people that had it naturally are getting infected a lot more than people who’ve been vaccinated,’ I might change my mind. But until they show me evidence that people who have already had the infection are dying in large numbers or being hospitalized or are getting very sick, I’ve just made my own personal decision that I’m not getting vaccinated because I’ve already had the disease and have natural immunity now.”

Paul has often challenged Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, during Senate panel hearings on Fauci’s recommendations that people who have had COVID need the vaccine.

“Sorry Dr. Fauci and other fearmongers, new study shows vaccines and naturally acquired immunity DO effectively neutralize COVID variants. Good news for everyone but bureaucrats and petty tyrants!” Paul said March 21 in a tweet.

In his tweet, Paul pointed to a study published online at the JAMA Network showing vaccines and naturally acquired immunity effectively neutralize COVID variants.

In a May 27 op-ed in the Courier Journal, Paul wrote:

“To dictate that a person recovered from COVID-19 with natural immunity also submit to a vaccine — without scientific evidence — is nothing more than hubris. If you have no proof that people who acquired natural immunity are getting or transmitting the disease in real numbers, then perhaps you should just be quiet.”

Paul said people are getting re-infected in large numbers after being vaccinated, which he said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) quietly admitted on its  website. But people are not getting reinfected after having the disease naturally.

Paul said the CDC originally tried to hide the fact there were “no studies showing that getting the vaccine if you already have natural immunity is of any benefit at all.”

According to Paul, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) got the CDC to admit there was no science to support the agency’s recommendation that people with natural immunity to COVID need the vaccine.

As The Defender reported, Massie called out the CDC in April when he found vaccine studies showed no benefit to people who had coronavirus and that getting vaccinated didn’t change their odds of getting reinfected.

The CDC claimed “the COVID vaccine would save your life or save you from suffering, even if you’ve already had the virus and recovered, which has not been demonstrated in either the Pfizer or Moderna trials,” Massie said in an interview with Full Measure. Massie contacted officials at the CDC about the misinformation. Officials there  acknowledged the information was false, but instead of correcting it, tried to rephrase the mistake.

“Facts are facts,” Paul wrote. “I’m no more likely to get or transmit COVID than someone who is vaccinated. We know this. Doctors know this. Scientists who design vaccines know this. Vaccines are created to attempt to replicate the immunity we get from having been infected with a disease,” Paul said. “Vaccines are a replacement for natural immunity. They aren’t necessarily better. In fact, natural immunity from measles confers lifelong immunity and the vaccine immunity wanes over a few decades.”

Paul pointed to a recent British study where David Wyllie, consultant microbiologist at Public Health England, and others found no symptomatic re-infections from COVID after following 2,800 patients for several months. In fact, Paul wrote “there have been no reports of significant numbers of re-infections after acquiring COVID-19 naturally.”

Shane Crotty, virologist at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, conducted a study analyzing immune cells and antibodies from nearly 200 people who had been exposed to COVID and recovered.

Crotty concluded:

“The amount of (immune) memory (gained from natural infection) would likely prevent the vast majority of people from getting … severe disease, for many years.”

The results, published in Science, showed the immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection. Previous studies showed natural infection induced a strong response, but this study showed that response lasted, said co-author Dr. Daniela Weiskopf.

In a recent study in The Lancet, Dr. Florian Kramer noted:

“The findings of the authors suggest that infection and the development of antibody response provides protection similar to or even better than currently used SARS COV-2 vaccines.”

Increased risk of vaccine injury in those with previous infection

As The Defender reported, numerous scientists have warned vaccinating people who already had COVID could potentially cause harm, or even death.

According to Dr. Hooman Noorchasm, surgeon and patient safety advocate, it is scientifically established that once a person is naturally infected by a virus, antigens from that virus persist in the body for a long time after viral replication has stopped and clinical signs of infection have resolved.

When a vaccine reactivates an immune response in a recently infected person, the tissues harboring the persisting viral antigen are targeted, inflamed and damaged by the immune response, Noorchasm said.

“In the case of SARS-CoV-2, we know that the virus naturally infects the heart, the inner lining of blood vessels, the lungs and the brain,” explained Noorchasm. “So, these are likely to be some of the critical organs that will contain persistent viral antigens in the recently infected — and, following reactivation of the immune system by a vaccine, these tissues can be expected to be targeted and damaged.”

Colleen Kelley, associate professor of infectious diseases at Emory University School of Medicine and principal investigator for Moderna and Novavax phase 3 vaccine clinical trials, said in an interview with Huffington Post, there had been reported cases in which those who previously had the virus endured harsher side effects after they received their vaccines.

Dr. Dara Udo, urgent and immediate care physician at Westchester Medical Group who  received the COVID vaccine a year after having the disease, had a very strong immune response very similar to what she experienced while having COVID.

In an op-ed published by The Hill, Udo explained how infection from any organism, including COVID, activates several different arms of the immune system, some in more robust ways than others and that this underlying activation due to infection or exposure, combined with a vaccination, could lead to overstimulation of the immune response.

Udo called for an intentional, well-planned approach to avoid eliciting adverse immune responses in those who had been “COVID-primed” and suggested only one of two doses be given to previously infected people, or none at all.

In a public submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, J. Patrick Whelan M.D. Ph.D., expressed similar concern that COVID vaccines aimed at creating immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein could have the potential to cause microvascular injury to the brain, heart, liver and kidneys in a way that does not currently appear to be assessed in safety trials of these potential drugs.Based on several studies, Whelan said it appeared that the viral spike protein in the SARS-CoV02 vaccines is also one of the key agents causing damage to distant organs that may include the brain, heart, lung and kidney.

*

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 Children’s Health Defense

Torture Enters the Courtroom

June 10th, 2021 by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

For the first time in American history, a federal judge last week authorized the government to admit as evidence in a criminal case in a public courtroom words uttered by the defendant that were obtained under torture.

The fruits of torture — which is any cruel or degrading or intentionally painful or disorienting behavior visited upon a person in captivity to induce compliance or to gratify the torturer — are not permitted in any court in the United States, and their inducement is criminal.

Here is the backstory.

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a low-level former member of the Taliban, is accused with others of plotting the suicide bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 that killed 17 American sailors. He has been in U.S. custody since 2002 and at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since 2004. When he was first captured, he was turned over to the CIA for interrogation, not the Department of Justice for prosecution.

The practice of the federal government immediately following 9/11, when it captured anyone overseas from whom it believed it could extract national security information, was to hand the person over to the CIA for torture — the feds call it “enhanced interrogation” — at a “dark site” in a foreign country with which the U.S. does not have an extradition treaty.

The reason for the location of the torture was the erroneous belief by DOJ and CIA officials that torture conducted or condoned by American personnel is not prosecutable if it occurs outside the U.S.

That has never been the law in the U.S., but it has been the practice of the DOJ and the CIA to shield their personnel with secrecy when they are caught engaging in torture in a foreign country.

However, because either the tortured person or someone connected to whatever the tortured person revealed was to be tried in a federal court, and because no federal court can admit evidence against a defendant that was obtained under torture, the feds devised a scheme around this.

That scheme called for FBI “clean teams” to interrogate the tortured person after the torture was completed, using conventional and lawful interrogation techniques. These techniques often proved more successful than CIA torture. Because these techniques were lawful, and the person being interrogated was advised of his rights and treated humanely by the FBI, the information thus obtained from him was usable in federal court.

At trial, a defendant can always demonstrate that he had been tortured, not to obtain the jury’s sympathy but to enable his lawyers to argue to the jurors that they should disregard as unconstitutional, immoral, unlawful and un-American whatever evidence the torture produced.

Al-Nashiri’s lawyers told the court and the prosecutors at Guantanamo Bay that they intend to argue at trial to the jury that the government has the wrong man and that the true plotters have already been killed by U.S. forces. The feds, in order to counter that argument, told the court that they have statements that al-Nashiri made during his torture that can arguably be used to question his defense.

If the trial judge in the court in Guantanamo Bay had followed the law — the Constitution, the statutes and the rules of procedure, all of which profoundly reject the fruits of cruel and unusual punishment and shocking behavior — as well as American history, he would have excluded from the trial whatever al-Nashiri told his torturers while they had a broomstick well into his rectum.

If the trial judge had followed the law and our values, he would have dismissed the case against al-Nashiri because the government’s behavior shocks the conscience. If the trial judge had followed the law, he would have ordered the torturers into his court room and had them arrested on the spot.

But the trial judge in this case did not follow American law and rejected American values and all sense of human decency when he authorized the government to introduce at trial a partial transcript of the statements al-Nashiri allegedly made under torture. He also broke with 230 years of precedent. He also gave judicial credibility to governmental barbarism and nihilism in the extreme, which holds that individual human beings are subject to the state and, since their rights come from the state, they and their rights exist at the pleasure of the state.

The government lies, cheats, steals and kills; and it has written laws that permit it to do so and make legal recourse against it nearly impossible.

But nothing it does is more damnable than torture.

Torture is the ultimate triumph of the state over a person and the ultimate degradation of personhood. It is a complete rejection of the values of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. And it doesn’t work.

The history of torture is the history of victims divorced from reality by overwhelming fear and unbearable pain and willing to say whatever the torturers demand in return for a cessation of the pain. Stated differently, the fruits of torture are divorced from the truth. As a truth-producing mechanism, torture is a failure.

Many appeals remain for al-Nashiri before his jury trial comes to pass; and torture — with all its sufferings by victim and perpetrators — is part of the history of his case. I trust that saner judicial heads in the appellate process will prevail and this precedent-shattering and monstrous decision will soon be overturned. But its damage is done.

The government of the United States engages in torture and will continue to do so until the torturers are punished. And the prosecutors for whom the torturers work will someday try again to get the fruits of their barbaric behavior legitimized in an American courtroom.

When will the government stop the use of torture? Whom will it torture next? Why does it swear to uphold the Constitution and then trash 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.

Global Pushback Against Tyranny Has Begun

June 10th, 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.

***

March 20, 2021, on the 1-year anniversary of the first COVID-19 lockdown, people in more than 40 countries took to the streets to peacefully demonstrate against COVID-19 lies and tyrannical measures

Mainstream media have near-universally censored any news of this global demonstration. Those that did report it either understated the global nature of the event and its attendance, or misrepresented the intent of this “Worldwide Freedom Day”

The intent behind Worldwide Freedom Day was to tell our elected officials and unelected global leaders that we withdraw our consent to unconstitutional overreaches and attempts to strip us of our rights and freedoms, and that we will no longer submit to and cower in fear

The PCR test is at the heart of the COVID-19 scam. Without the PCR fraud and the asymptomatic spreader lie, the COVID-19 pandemic would have been a short-lived blip

Lies have been able to stand through the implementation of universal censorship of anyone who speaks truth and points out the scientific fallacies that drive the pandemic narrative. With these psychological tools, they manufactured the greatest hoax the world has ever seen

*

March 20, 2021, on the 1-year anniversary of the first COVID-19 lockdown, people in more than 40 countries took to the streets to peacefully demonstrate against COVID-19 lies and tyrannical measures.

The documentary above, “The Pushback,” details the day the world stood together against government overreach and the destruction of human rights — and why we must unite, every day, and push back.

Chances are, you didn’t hear about this global rallying cry for freedom, as the mainstream media have near-universally censored any news of it. The few that did report it either understated the global nature of the event and its attendance, or misrepresented the intent of this “Worldwide Freedom Day.”

Freedom From Fear

So, just what was the intent behind this global demonstration? In short, to tell our elected officials and unelected global leaders that we withdraw our consent to these unconstitutional overreaches and attempts to strip us of our rights and freedoms, and that we will no longer submit to and cower in fear. As noted in the film, fear and hysteria were carefully nurtured using a false narrative that said:

  • A deadly novel virus is sweeping across the planet
  • No one is immune and there’s no cure
  • Asymptomatic people are major disease vectors, and therefore:
  • We have to shut everything down, isolate everyone and wear masks until the whole world has been vaccinated

And, of course, anyone who challenges this crazy narrative is labeled a danger to society. Every part of this narrative is false and unrealistic. In reality:

  • SARS-CoV-2 poses a high risk to a very limited group of people and a negligible risk to the vast majority
  • Few are susceptible to severe illness or death
  • There are several effective treatments available
  • Asymptomatic people — historically known as healthy people — do not spread the infection
  • Lockdowns and mask mandates did not work and have caused great harm
  • Vulnerable people have been harmed instead of helped

Ground Zero of the False Narrative

March 3, 2020, the World Health Organization tweeted out a comment by WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, which said:

“Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected.”

It makes COVID-19 sound like a serious problem indeed. The problem is that Ghebreyesus compared apples and oranges. He reported the case fatality rate (CFR) of COVID-19, versus the infection fatality rate (IFR) for the flu.

As explained in the film, CFR is the proportion of deaths from a disease compared to the number of people diagnosed (the total number of confirmed cases). The IFR, meanwhile, is the proportion of deaths from a disease compared to the total number of infected individuals, confirmed or suspected.

Since CFR requires the infection to be confirmed through laboratory testing and clinical evaluation, and the total number of infected people can be hard to determine and includes suspected cases, the CFR is always lower than the IFR.

By conflating CFR and IFR in the same sentence, comparing two different sets of statistics, Ghebreyesus grossly overstated the threat of COVID-19. Stanford University researcher John Ioannidis pointed this out in a March 7, 2020, response, in which he said, “Reported case fatality rates, like the official 3.4% rate from the WHO, cause horror — and are meaningless.”

October 14, 2020, Ioannidis published a review of 61 seroprevalence studies1 showing that the IFR for COVID-19 was actually only 0.23% — a far cry from the CFR of 3.4% — and for people under the age of 70, the IFR was just 0.05%. In other words, COVID-19 is actually less deadly than the flu. Many have noted that the IFR for flu is typically only around 0.1%, and even at that, COVID-19 is less deadly for people under the age of 70.

PCR Test Added Fuel to the False Narrative

As noted in the documentary, at this point, there are so many false narratives it’s hard to know where to begin, but a good place is the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, as it is at the heart of this scam. If it weren’t for this flawed test, there would be no pandemic to speak of.

The fact is, the PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.2 This is a crucial point, since inactive and reproductive viruses are not interchangeable in terms of infectivity. If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick and you cannot spread it to others.

What’s more, the test was developed using nothing more than computer modeling of a genetic sequence. No actual viral isolate from a patient was ever used in the development of this test.

November 30, 2020, a team of 22 international scientists published a review3 challenging the scientific paper4 on PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 written by Christian Drosten, Ph.D., and Victor Corman. The Corman-Drosten paper was quickly accepted by the WHO and the workflow described therein was adopted as the standard across the world.

The 22 scientists demanded the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted due to “fatal errors,”5 one of which is the fact that it was written (and the test itself developed) before any viral isolate was available. All they used was the genetic sequence published online by Chinese scientists in January 2020.

As if that doesn’t make the test unreliable enough, laboratories were instructed to amplify the RNA collected far too many times, resulting in healthy people testing “positive.” The number of amplifications is known as the cycle threshold (CT).

When you get a positive result using a CT of 35 or higher, you’re looking at the equivalent of a single copy of viral DNA. The likelihood of that causing a health problem is minuscule. Yet the WHO,6,7,8 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention9 were recommending CTs between 40 and 45, thereby guaranteeing a vast majority of “cases” were in fact false positives.

How the Greatest Hoax in History Was Fashioned

As detailed in the featured film, widespread PCR testing gave the mainstream media the fodder needed to create hysteria. For months on end, every broadcast had a tickertape showing the number of “cases” detected.

Other fear-induction tactics included universal masking and 6-foot social distancing rules, replete with plastic barriers everywhere and signs on every floor telling you where to stand and in which direction to walk.

One of the primary tactics that drove the narrative that masking and social distancing were necessities was the lie that asymptomatic people were spreading the infection. Anyone could be a lethal threat. No one was to be exempted from suspicion.

That old man with a cough? Lethal threat. That muscular jogger, flushed from fresh air and exercise? Lethal threat. That pink-faced precocious 2-year-old? Lethal threat. A fearful public soaked up the propaganda and started verbally and physically attacking non-maskers without regard for logic, reason or science.

Without the PCR fraud and the asymptomatic spreader lie, the COVID-19 pandemic would have been a short-lived blip. The lies were able to stand for one reason and one reason only, and that was the implementation of universal censorship of anyone who spoke the truth and pointed out the scientific fallacies that were driving the pandemic narrative.

With these psychological tools — preceded by a single carefully crafted revision of the definition of “pandemic” a decade ago — they manufactured the greatest hoax the world has ever seen. Indeed, you could say the redefinition of pandemic was what brought us to this precipice in the first place. The WHO’s original definition of a pandemic was:10,11

“… when a new influenza virus appears against which the human population has no immunity, resulting in several, simultaneous epidemics worldwide with enormous numbers of deaths and illness.”

The key portion of that definition is “enormous numbers of deaths and illness.” This definition was changed in the month leading up to the 2009 swine flu pandemic. The change was a simple but substantial one: They merely removed the severity and high mortality criteria, leaving the definition of a pandemic as “a worldwide epidemic of a disease.”12

By removing the criteria of severe illness causing high morbidity, leaving geographically widespread infection as the only criteria for a pandemic, the WHO and technocratic leaders of the world were able to bamboozle the global population into believing we were in mortal danger.

What Works and What Doesn’t

The total discarding of science is perhaps the most perplexing part of this pandemic. We’re told to follow the science, but what they actually mean is that we must do as we’re told, without evidence. As noted in the film, we’ve long known what works and what doesn’t, when it comes to pandemic disease mitigation.

Effective measures include hand-washing and isolating the sick. Everything we’ve been told to do over this past year falls squarely in the “proven ineffective” category, and that includes large scale quarantines, border closures, school closures, social distancing and universal mask use. What’s worse, everything we’ve been told that is necessary to save lives, actually fuels disease.

What Was the Pandemic Really About?

In my best-selling book, “The Truth About COVID-19 — Exposing the Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports and the New Normal,” I detail the backstory of how the COVID-19 pandemic was created and, more importantly, why. If you do not understand the geopolitical landscape we’re in right now, you will struggle to understand why anyone would possibly lie about a virus and create a pandemic out of smoke and mirrors.

In a nutshell, a small but highly organized technocratic elite have used this pandemic as a justification for eroding liberty, freedom and democracy from Day 1, and the reason is because they want to usher in a whole new global system. The global elite refer to this new system as the Great Reset, the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Build Back Better plan.

Make no mistake, the plan — as laid out in various papers and reports, including s 2010 Rockefeller Foundation report,13 in which they describe their “Lockstep” scenario, which is a coordinated global response to a lethal pandemic, and its 2020 white paper,14 “National COVID-19 Testing Action Plan” — is to use bioterrorism to take control of the world’s resources, wealth and people.

The plan is to use the need for coordinated pandemic response as the justification for permanent surveillance and social controls that hobble personal liberty and freedom of choice.

To learn more about the hidden power structure running this global reorganization toward authoritarian control, see “Bill Gates Wants to Realize Global Vision in His Lifetime,” “The Great Reset and Build Back Better,” “Technocracy and the Great Reset” and “Who Pressed the Great Reset Button?

The Time to Stand for Freedom Is Right NOW

In 2007, Naomi Wolf published “The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot,” in which she lays out the 10 steps to tyranny. She’s now warning everyone, everywhere, that we are at Step 10. Once Step 10 locks into place, there’s no going back. It’ll be too dangerous to fight back.

Right now, you might face police brutality or censorship. If that dissuades you from doing your part in standing against the totalitarian dictates right now, in the future, you’ll lose everything.

The good news is the would-be tyrants have not won yet. That said, we have no time to spare. We have no time to remain idle, hoping it will all just go back to normal on its own. In countries where citizens do not have a Second Amendment right to bear arms, the answer is peaceful mass civil disobedience.

In the U.S., we do have the Second Amendment, which allows citizens to own and bear arms, and the mere possibility of an armed uprising makes it more difficult for a tyrannical government to get their way. That said, peaceful disobedience is the primary strategy in armed countries as well.

We must also rally behind legislation that prevents the alteration of laws that safeguard our freedoms. To that end, Wolf has started the Five Freedoms Campaign, which you can find on her Daily Clout website.

The campaign focuses on creating legislation to preserve key freedoms and prevent emergency laws from infringing on our freedom to assemble, worship, protest and engage in business. Legislation is also being crafted to open schools, remove mask mandates and eliminate requirements for vaccine passports.

Hope, in the Face of Tyranny

I have no doubt that we will ultimately stop the globalists’ drive toward global tyranny. It’s not going to be easy. It may take years, and it may get far worse before it gets better.

The founders of the U.S. fled repressive societies or were children or grandchildren of those who did. They had to personally reckon with criminalized speech, arbitrary arrests and state sanctioned torture and even murder. The men who signed the Declaration of Independence knew that if they lost the war, they would be executed for treason.

These men and women were radicals, fighting for liberty and personal freedoms. They had a vision of reality that was an absolute slap in the face of what the rest of the world tolerated. They were willing to sacrifice their lives to turn that vision into a reality. Most all of us have forgotten their sacrifices and have capitulated to the carefully constructed narrative to create fear that allows most to give up their claim to freedom.

The Founders trusted us to remember our history and remain ever vigilant, to keep the precious web of liberty and personal freedom that they constructed from evaporating so that there would never be an American tyrant. The creators of the U.S. Constitution understood that the price of liberty was eternal vigilance.

Hopefully, enough people will see through the mainstream fog and see the truth of where we’re headed and how we got here (if you don’t, read “The Truth About COVID-19”), and once you understand who the actual enemy is, you become less fearful and more efficient. You can now help educate others, so that they understand what’s going on, how they’re being deceived and what they’re actually about to give up.

Lastly, there are legal solutions that can help thwart the globalist takeover, technological solutions that can strengthen citizens’ lobbying power, and censor-proof technologies that will allow us to circumvent current Big Tech monopolies. We have to work on all of these fronts but, together, I believe we can resecure freedom for our children and future generations.

*

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 Bulletin of the World Health Organization October 14, 2020

2 CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel July 13, 2020 (PDF)

3 Corman Drosten Review Report

4 Eurosurveillance, Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus by real-time RT-PCR

5 Undercover DC December 3, 2020

6 WHO.int Diagnostic detection of Wuhan Coronavirus 2019 by real-time RT-PCR, January 13, 2020 (PDF)

7 WHO.int Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCOV by real-time RT-PCR, January 17, 2020 (PDF)

8 Eurosurveillance 2020 Jan 23; 25(3): 2000045

9 FDA.gov CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel Instructions, July 13, 2020 (PDF) Page 35

10 The BMJ 2010;340:c2912

11 Wayback Machine, WHO Pandemic Preparedness May 1, 2009 (PDF)

12 Wayback Machine, WHO Pandemic Preparedness September 2, 2009 (PDF)

13 Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development

14 The Rockefeller Foundation, National COVID-19 Testing Action Plan — Strategic Steps to Reopen Our Workplaces and Our Communities, April 21, 2020 (PDF)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A new government is expected to be formed in Israel this week, finally ending the 12-year reign of Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister.

Yair Lapid, the leader of centrist party Yesh Atid, managed to convince the leaders of eight different parties, ranging from religious nationalists to left-wing social democrats, to form a new coalition government, thereby avoiding the need for yet another Israeli election (the fifth in two years).

Such a coalition would have been unlikely in any other circumstances. News of the successful talks led to celebrations among Israel’s anti-Netanyahu voters.

The new government marks a significant shift to the right, echoing the results of the most recent election, in March, which saw an increase in votes for right-wing parties.

The leader of the right-wing Yamina party, Naftali Bennett, a hardline religious nationalist who previously led a prominent settler group, will assume the premiership for the first two years of the new government’s four-year term, before handing over to Lapid.

Key positions are reserved for centrist and right-wing parties such as Yamina, New Hope, Yesh Atid, Kahol Lavan and Yisrael Beiteinu, while minor roles will go to representatives from left-wing parties Labor and Meretz. For Israeli society, a right-wing government is acceptable and even preferred, and many are celebrating the imminent ousting of Benjamin Netanyahu.

No celebrations in Sheikh Jarrah

But the mood is very different in Sheikh Jarrah, the Palestinian neighbourhood in East Jerusalem at the centre of the most recent political upheavals, following attempts to forcibly expel several Palestinian families last month.

Israeli authorities seem unlikely to slow down the pace of ethnic cleansing in Sheikh Jarrah or other threatened neighbourhoods in Jerusalem, such as Batn Al-Hawa in Silwan. The ongoing Israeli court cases to expel Palestinian families from the latter “flagrantly violate the prohibition in international humanitarian law of forcible transfer and amount to war crimes”, according to Amnesty.

I spoke to numerous residents in Sheikh Jarrah, from different families and of varying ages. They had one thing in common: a heightened fear of what is to come.

Nabil Al-Kurd, the 77-year-old father of prominent activists Mohammad and Muna Al-Kurd, said that he has no hope in any Israeli government, past, present or future. “My hope lies only in God, and the new generation of politically aware Palestinians who mobilised global attention towards the issue of ethnic cleansing in Jerusalem.”

A day after I spoke with Al-Kurd, his 23-year-old twins Muna and Mohammad were arrested (they were later released). Their arrest was a form of intimidation, a response to their activism, which led to millions around the world learning about what was happening in Sheikh Jarrah. The twins mobilised through grassroots movements in Jerusalem, on social media platforms via the hashtag #SaveSheikhJarrah and by speaking to major international media outlets.

Kamel Ahmad (37), another resident, told openDemocracy that a change of personnel in the Israeli government does not mean any change in policy. He is worried that the new government will do its best to attract right-wing support from Netanyahu’s traditional base, to prove itself worthy of Israel’s largely right-wing electorate.

Veteran activist Saleh Diab said that the issue in Sheikh Jarrah is much larger than court cases about forced evictions. “There is no difference when it comes to Israeli politicians, whether they’re Labour, Likud or a third generation of political parties,” he said.

Saleh knows that the Israeli government wants to “maintain a solid Jewish majority in Jerusalem” – as stated in the ‘Jerusalem Outline Plan 2000’, the Jerusalem municipality’s master plan.

The new government is likely to be more right-wing and harsher in its approach towards Palestinian Jerusalemites fighting to stay in their homes

Ala’ Salaymeh (24) also lives in Sheikh Jarrah. She told openDemocracy that she expects the worst from the incoming government. She spoke of an anticipated rise in repressive policies, including the arbitrary arrest of activists, and more extreme measures as punishment, such as the revocation of Jerusalemite IDs or denial of access to medical insurance and services.

“Bennett’s anticipated government is likely to be more right-wing and harsher in its approach towards Palestinian Jerusalemites fighting for their right to stay in their homes,” she added.

Since early May, Israeli police have arrested more than 1,900 people across Israel, the vast majority of them Palestinian, plus a further 348 since the announcement on 20 May of a ceasefire in Gaza. A lawyer with the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, an Israeli NGO, said that the campaign of mass arrests was clearly “a policy of suppressing demonstrations” rather than maintaining order or fighting crime.

Jonathan Pollack is a 39-year-old Israeli ‘solidarity’ activist who is continuously present in Jerusalem’s threatened neighbourhoods. He is particularly worried about the pressure that Netanyahu’s right-wing allies will exert on the new government. He spoke of the ongoing incitement targeting Naftali Bennett’s Yamina party: “This might push Bennett to prove himself even more, and absorb the fringes of Israel’s right, to ensure the survival of his political career in case the current coalition collapses once Netanyahu is out of the picture.”

More right-wing than Netanyahu

In a televised statement made on Sunday, Bennett requested his new government be sworn in on Wednesday 9 June. He appealed to Netanyahu directly, saying: “We are allowed to choose a government that you are not the leader of. One that is ten degrees more right-wing than yours.” Netanyahu responded by calling Bennett a “liar”, and continued to incite anger against his party, in the hope that several Yamina MKs would defect, sabotaging Bennett’s attempt to unseat him.

The more right-wing government expected to be sworn in this week will be guided by ultra-nationalist politics, with the centre, left-wing and Islamist parties in the coalition serving as political fig leaf.

The new governing coalition is held together primarily by its aim to oust Netanyahu from power. By granting Bennett – the leader of a small party with just seven seats in the Knesset – the first rotation as prime minister, Yair Lapid considers his role as leader of the opposition fulfilled.

Israel’s dysfunctional political system has spilled its damage on to the streets, allowing incitement of and violence against Palestinians to go unchecked.

The wave of escalating tension was perhaps most visible in the behaviour of Israel’s police in recent weeks. Officers raided Al-Aqsa Mosque, harassed Palestinians in Jerusalem, and waged a “militarised war against Palestinian citizens of Israel intended to intimidate and to exact revenge as punishment for their political positions and activities”, as the director general of human rights organization Adalah said in a statement to Al Jazeera.

This escalation showed what a distracted political leadership can lead to. It eventually put Israel in a corner, as it faced a militaristic response from Palestinian resistance factions in Gaza and a wave of mass protests by Palestinians across historic Palestine.

Dysfunctional alliance

The new government will not be able to make any major policy changes, say observers. If anything, it will be more dysfunctional and more right-wing, risking further incitement and violence towards the Palestinian communities across historic Palestine.

Naftali Bennett and his political partner in Yamina, Ayalet Shaked, are both famous for their pronounced anti-Palestinian position. Together, they will occupy major positions within the new government.

Bennett did nothing when Shaked nearly wrecked the coalition talks by claiming the top seat on the judicial appointments committee, pushing aside the Labor party leader Merav Michaeli. This is a sign of what is to come; Bennett needs his right-wing ally and will meet her demands at the expense of his weak left-wing partners.

Bennett and Shaked will be backed by pro-annexation and pro-occupation parties, namely Yisrael Beiteinu, led by Avigdor Lieberman (with seven seats in the Knesset), New Hope led by Gideon Sa’ar (six seats) and Kahol Lavan, led by Benny Gantz (eight seats). The above-mentioned ensemble is known for its support for policies of dehumanisation and violence towards Palestinians.

Some might say that the coalition’s hands are tied due to its fragile alliance with the centrist Labor (seven seats) and left-wing Meretz (six seats) parties. But in reality the right-wing coalition partners will be reaching out to attract support from Netanyahu’s allies in the Knesset.

By signing on to the coalition, Mansour Abbas, head of the United Arab List (Ra’am) party (four seats), is saving his political career. It was predicted that, if a fifth general election was held, Abbas’s position as party leader would be up in the air, and his party would not make the electoral threshold necessary to enter the Knesset unless it rejoins The Joint List, a political alliance of four Palestinian-majority parties.

The United Arab List had put forward demands to satisfy its electorate, focusing on Arab communities in the south of Israel, rather than having a general agenda to serve the Palestinian community at large.

Palestinians across the occupied territories and Jerusalem, and those who hold Israeli citizenship, are not hopeful about what is to come. If there is a silver lining to this new government, it is its fragility. But if this fragility is caused by the constant incitement by Netanyahu and his allies, it will only push the coalition parties further and further right as they try to attract Netanyahu’s supporters.

Bennett expects a new government that is “ten degrees more right-wing” than Netanyahu’s, but for Palestinians the shift to the right might be even more extreme than that.

*

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: Graffiti on the Israeli separation wall dividing the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Abu Dis (Photo: Ryan Rodrick Beiler via shutterstock.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.

***

The Biden administration sparked vocal protests at home and abroad with last month’s decision to go full speed ahead on a sale of $735 million of precision-guided bombs to Israel. The sale moved forward even as Israel was in the midst of a devastating bombing campaign in Gaza that killed over 250 Palestinians, including at least 67 children, and drove 52,000 people from their homes. As with all Israeli military actions, the attacks relied heavily on U.S.-supplied weaponry, including precision-guided bombs and Lockheed Martin F-16 combat aircraft.

The new bomb sale is just the latest installment in a U.S. policy of supporting Israel’s military that goes back decades — over $236 billion (adjusted for inflation in 2018 dollars) in assistance since the founding of the Israeli state, more than three-quarters of it in the form of military aid. And Israel is three years into a ten-year U.S. commitment of $38 billion in military assistance — the only such long-term arrangement with any U.S. ally.  Israel has largely escaped accountability for its indiscriminate uses of U.S. military equipment, such as 2008’s Operation Cast Lead, which resulted in the killing of 1,383 Palestinians in Gaza, including 333 children. The United States does not even keep track of which military units get which U.S. weapons, making it extremely difficult to apply human rights strictures like the Leahy Law, which prohibits U.S. assistance to military units that commit gross violations of human rights.

Key members of Congress like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders attempted to block the bomb sale last month, but those efforts were unsuccessful, in significant part due to the short notice provided regarding the sale and the Biden administration’s determination to push it through quickly. But this is not the end of the story. The Biden administration can still stop the sale should it choose to do so. This week a group of 100 peace, human rights, and political groups released a letter urging the Biden administration to do just that. The letter had a broad range of signatories, including faith-based groups such as Churches for Middle East Peace, American Muslims for Palestine, the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) and Jewish Voice for Peace Action along with more secular groups like Defense of Children International – Palestine, Justice Democrats, Indivisible, the Sunrise Movement, MoveOn, the Working Families Party, and Democracy in the Arab World Now (DAWN). Foreign policy think tanks like the Quincy Institute and the Center for International Policy also signed onto the letter. The breadth of support for the demands to block the bomb sale underscores the fact that opponents of uncritical military support for Israel are growing in strength, and are not going away.

Hassan El-Tayyab, the legislative manager for Middle East Policy at FCNL, summarized the thrust of the letter as follows:

“The Biden administration must use its existing authority to block delivery of this $735 million in new offensive arms sales to Israel. Moving ahead with these transfers will be seen as an endorsement of Israel’s indiscriminate attacks on Gaza and encourage more acts of violence against Palestinian civilians. The administration’s efforts should instead be focused on delivering humanitarian assistance to Palestinians, helping with reconstruction efforts in Gaza, using U.S. leverage with Israel to end its occupation and blockade, and supporting the diplomacy needed to achieve a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”

Beth Miller, Senior Government Affairs Manager at Jewish Voice for Peace Action, further noted that “It is outrageous that the Biden administration would even consider an arms sale to Israel, especially in the wake of the Israeli military’s most recent assault on Gaza. The world just saw exactly how Israel uses these weapons — to destroy infrastructure and wipe out families. By rubber stamping the sale, Biden is giving a green light to the Israeli government to continue killing Palestinians with our weapons. Under no circumstances can this sale go through.”

So far the Biden administration has made only the mildest of criticisms of Israel’s attacks on Gaza, as well as its wider suppression of Palestinian rights and routine repression of Palestinians in both the occupied territories and within Israel. The administration’s approach was underscored in a recent statement by Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. Asked in an interview with Axios whether Israel would be held accountable for attacks on a building in Gaza that housed the headquarters of Al Jazeera and the Associated Press, he reiterated the administration’s main talking point: “Israel has the right to defend itself, and it was on the receiving end of indiscriminate rocket attacks.” Blinken went on to say that “Israel, as a democracy… has an added burden to make sure it is doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties.” Given the death toll in Gaza, it is clear that Israel was not taking adequate precautions, but there’s no sign yet that the Biden administration is serious about imposing consequences for Israel’s misuse of U.S. weapons.

The attacks on Gaza are just one part of an Israeli approach that Human Rights Watch has described as imposing “deprivations [that] are so severe that they amount to crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.”

Now is the time to change course on U.S. military assistance to Israel in response to its ongoing repression of Palestinians. Stopping the bomb sale would be a good place to start.

*

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: Smoke rises after Israeli airstrikes on Gaza City, the Gaza Strip, Palestine, Wednesday, May 12, 2021. (Nick_ Raille_07 / Shutterstock.com).

An Open Letter on U.S. Media Coverage of Palestine

June 10th, 2021 by Hassan Abbas

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Finding truth and holding the powerful to account are core principles of journalism.

Yet for decades, our news industry has abandoned those values in coverage of Israel and Palestine. We have failed our audiences with a narrative that obscures the most fundamental aspects of the story: Israel’s military occupation and its system of apartheid.

For the sake of our readers and viewers — and the truth — we have a duty to change course immediately and end this decades-long journalistic malpractice. The evidence of Israel’s systematic oppression of Palestinians is overwhelming and must no longer be sanitized.

In April, Human Rights Watch released a 213-page report that documented Israeli authorities committing “crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution.” Leading Israeli human rights group B’tselem characterized the region as governed by a regime of ethnic supremacy.

These terms — apartheid, persecution, ethnic supremacy — are increasingly gaining institutional recognition after years of Palestinian advocacy, and we, as journalists, need to examine whether our coverage reflects that reality.

Take, for example, the language used in the recent coverage of East Jerusalem neighborhood Sheikh Jarrah. Media outlets often refer to forced displacement of Palestinians living there — illegal under international law and potentially a war crime — as “evictions.”

This term misleadingly implies a real estate “dispute” between tenant and landlord, an inaccurate depiction of the state of affairs. The United Nations considers East Jerusalem occupied Palestinian territory, meaning Israel’s territorial claims there are not recognized. More importantly, using the term ignores the well-documented aim of the Israeli government to establish and maintain ethnic dominance over Palestinians.

During the last few days of Ramadan, Israeli forces violently attacked worshippers at the Al Aqsa mosque compound with tear gas and rubber-tipped bullets. Journalists didn’t call this an “attack” or “assault” on Palestinians, but rather a “clash,” as if both sides shared equal culpability and agency in the escalation.

When Israel attacked Gaza, media outlets framed it as a “conflict” between two equal entities, ignoring the total asymmetry in power. Under the guise of objectivity, rockets fired at Israel — which caused significantly less damage than Israeli airstrikes — were covered just as much as Israel attacking medical facilities and leveling entire residential buildings, clouding the nearly one-sided scale of violence and destruction.

The asymmetry in context does not just extend to the language we use; stories tend to disproportionately amplify Israeli narratives while suppressing Palestinian ones.

Too often, media outlets uncritically repeat Israeli military claims about its assault on Gaza without asking for evidence or proof, despite clear examples where Israeli officials spread false information. Journalists reported the claim from Israeli forces that they had launched a ground invasion — that was false.

The human toll caused by Israel’s bombardment is indisputable: Hundreds dead, more than 65 of them children. While statements made by Israeli officials and their defenders justifying the killing of civilians went unchallenged, Palestinian civilians had their humanity interrogated: Journalists asked whether they support violence or Hamas rockets.

Troubling still, reporting wanes considerably when Israel halts its airstrikes. Palestinians are ignored in so-called times of “peace” despite attacks and other hostile aspects of life under occupation continuing after the ceasefire.

Though there have been exceptions that accurately reflect the plight of many Palestinians, they are few and far between.

As journalists, we are entrusted with a profoundly important mission in a free and democratic society, the power to inform the people and guide the national conversation, from the family dinner table to Capitol Hill.

We are calling on journalists to tell the full, contextualized truth without fear or favor, to recognize that obfuscating Israel’s oppression of Palestinians fails this industry’s own objectivity standards.

We have an obligation — a sacred one — to get the story right. Every time we fail to report the truth, we fail our audiences, our purpose and, ultimately, the Palestinian people.

All signatures are verified

If you’re a current or former journalist and would like to sign this letter, please fill out this form.

Hassan Abbas — The Arab American News

Nesima Aberra

Spencer Ackerman — The Daily Beast

Meha Ahmad

Amal Ahmed — The Texas Observer

Maha Ahmed

Ahmed Ali Akbar — Freelance journalist

Tabir Akhter — BuzzFeed

Laila Al-Arian — Al Jazeera English

Laura Albast — Independent journalist

Mohsin Ali

Dalya Al Masri

Mohammad Alsaafin — AJ+

Yousef H. Alshammari — Independent journalist

Daniel Alvarenga

Najib Aminy — Reveal

Arielle Angel — Jewish Currents

Bethany Ao

Michael Arria — Mondoweiss

Alexandra Arriaga

Shakeeb Asrar — Independent journalist

Alex Atack

Munir Atalla

Kelsey D. Atherton

Ibtisam Azem

Rubaina Azhar

Sarah Aziza — Independent journalist

Arash Azizzada

Fatima Bahja

Ibrahim Balkhy — Vice News

Jonathan Ballew — Independent journalist

Dana Ballout

Julia Barajas

Vincent Barone

Moustafa Bayoumi

Mohamad Bazzi — New York University

Kim Bellware

Nassim Benchaabane

Noah Berlatsky — Freelance journalist

Johana Bhuiyan

Sam Biddle — The Intercept

Ariel Boone

Genevieve Bormes

Diane Bou Khalil

Assia Boundaoui — Independent journalist

Ari M. Brostoff — Jewish Currents

Alleen Brown — The Intercept

Kristina Bui

Dell Cameron — Gizmodo

Alma Campos — South Side Weekly

Alejandra Cancino

Aaron Miguel Cantú — Freelance journalist

Nora Caplan-Bricker — Jewish Currents

Roane Carey — Former senior editor/managing editor, The Nation

Christi Carras — Los Angeles Times

Brandon Caruso — NowThis News

Rosalie Chan

Kathy Chaney

Bettina Chang — City Bureau

Tauhid Chappell — Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists

Aida Chavez — The Nation

Lakeidra Chavis — The Trace

Siri Chilukuri

Jennifer Chowdhury

Annia Ciezadlo

Julia Clark-Riddell

Rachel Cohen — Freelance journalist

Mari Cohen — Jewish Currents

Sarah Conway — City Bureau

Erin Corbett — Freelance journalist

Ethan Edward Coston

Iris M. Crawford

Cora Currier

Jamal Dajani — Arab Talk Radio, KPOO

Jim Daley — South Side Weekly

Meg Daly

Dan Q. Dao

Anna Therese Day

Britni de la Cretaz

Sam Dean — Los Angeles Times

Grace Del Vecchio

Pauly Denetclaw

Phi Do — Los Angeles Times

Jack Doppelt

Leyla Doss

Karim Doumar — ProPublica

Maya Dukmasova

Ben Ehrenreich

Dara Elasfar — ABC News

Mariam Elba — ProPublica

Diana Elbasha

Sarah Eleazar

Tamer El-Ghobashy

Melissa Bunni Elian

Bian Elkhatib

Khalid El Khatib

Adam Elmahrek

Armand Emamdjomeh

Azad Essa — Middle East Eye

Melissa Etehad

Rose Eveleth — Flash Forward

Fatima Farha

Abdallah Fayyad — Boston Globe

Kiera Feldman — Los Angeles Times

Cat Ferguson

Sam Fouad

Benjamin Freed

Megan Fu — City Limits

Julia Furlan

G. Daniela Galarza — The Washington Post

Leor Galil

Simon Galperin

Eric M. Garcia — Freelance writer

Sarah Geis — Independent journalist

Masha Gessen

Ali Gharib

Carl Gibson — Freelance journalist

Lyndsey Gilpin — Southerly

Nathan Goldman — Jewish Currents

Melissa Gomez

Sam Gonzalez Kelly

Anand Gopal

Naomi Gordon-Loebl

Kia Gregory — Independent journalist

Ryan Grim — The Intercept

Abraham Gutman

Iliana Hagenah

Zahra Haider — NowThis News

George Hale

Abbas Haleem — Chicago Tribune

Katie Halper

Rachelle Hampton

Nikole Hannah-Jones

Mina Haq

Syed Haq — Intern, WBAI

Ali Harb

Devindra Hardawar

Kavish Harjai — NowThis News

Akil Harris — The Intercept

Lance Hartzler

Lila Hassan

Kelly Hayes — Truthout

Massoud Hayoun

Alexandria Herr

Jack Herrera — Independent journalist

Maia Hibbett — The Intercept

Eoin Higgins

Soleil Ho

Kristie-Valerie Hoang — INSIDER

Arya Hodjat

Joshua Holland

Juwan J. Holmes — The #FightToWrite Initiative

Brent E. Huffman

Nausheen Husain

Rummana Hussain — Chicago Sun-Times

Suhauna Hussain

Fatima Hussein — Washington Baltimore NewsGuild

Mukhtar M. Ibrahim — Sahan Journal

Nur Ibrahim

Dahlia Ibrahim

Nader Ihmoud — Palestine in America

Medha Imam

Zainab Iqbal

David Bradley Isenberg

Aymann Ismail

Nader Issa

Esther Iverem — On the Ground News Productions

Joseph Darius Jaafari

Malik Jackson — South Side Weekly

Sarah Jaffe

Maryam Jameel

Katrina Janco — Freelance Journalist

Ben Jay — Law360

Corli Jay — Freelance Reporter

Jamie Jiang — The Daily Bruin

DaLyah Jones — Press On

Sameea Kamal

Alex Kane

Sarah Kaplan — The Washington Post

Tony Karon — AJ+

Alexander Kaufman — HuffPost

Anumita Kaur

Sarah Kerson

Hana Khalyleh — Gannett

Amina Khan

Ahmer Khan

Aysha Khan

Saira Khan

Nader Khouri — Former photojournalist, Contra Costa Times

Rami G. Khouri

Tammy Kim

Elizabeth King — Independent journalist

Evan Kleekamp — Study Hall

David Klion — Jewish Currents

John Knefel

Madhu Krishnamurthy

Sadef Ali Kully — Freelance journalist

Akela Lacy — The Intercept

Laila Lalami — The Nation

Natan Last

Maya Lau

Sam Leeds

Natasha Lennard — The Intercept

Sarah Leonard — Lux Magazine

Aimee Levitt — The Takeout

Jasper K Lo

Erin B. Logan — Los Angeles Times

Crispin Long

Iacopo Luzi — Voice of America

A.Z. Madonna — The Boston Globe

Adam Mahoney

Wajeeha Malik

Barry Malone

Travis Mannon — The Intercept

Elize Manoukian

Sanya Mansoor

Christopher Mathias — HuffPost

Gracie McKenzie

Jesse Mechanic

Brittny Mejia

Ellie Mejia — City Bureau

Naib Mian — Condé Nast

Sebit Min

Jack Mirkinson — Discourse Blog

Kiran Misra — Independent

Tanvi Misra

Shereen Mo

Linah Mohammad

Steven Monacelli — Independent

Jesus J. Montero

Philip Montoro — Chicago Reader

Taylor Moore

Evan F. Moore

Benedict Moran

Sawsan Morrar

P.E. Moskowitz

Alaa Amy Mostafa — Reveal

Zainab Mudallal — The Washington Post

Maria Murriel — Pizza Shark Productions

Ali Mustafa — TRT World

Razzan Nakhlawi

Native American Journalists Association

Arionne Nettles — City Bureau

Laura Newberry — Los Angeles Times

Caitlin O’Hara — Freelance photojournalist

Edward Ongweso Jr. — Motherboard, VICE News

Deanna Othman

Samuel Park

Ariel Parrella-Aureli — Block Club Chicago

Ismael Perez

Fiza Pirani

Jacob Plitman — Jewish Currents

Brandon Pope

Randy R. Potts

Asmahan Qarjouli

Hafsa Quraishi

Isra Rahman — AJ+

Manny Ramos

Omar Rashad — Mustang News

Lizzy Ratner

Jacob Resneck

Gideon Resnick

Adam M. Rhodes — Chicago Reader

Sam Richards

Irene Romulo — Cicero Independiente

Isabella Rosario

Sarah Ruiz-Grossman — HuffPost

Sam Russek — Freelance journalist

Jordan S.

Sana Saeed — AJ+

Andrea Sahouri

H. Said

Michael Sainato

Richard Salame

Miguel Salazar

Maryam Saleh

Javeria Salman

Mythili Sampathkumar

Tara Santora

Nour Saudi

Jaya Saxena

Jeremy Scahill

Benjamin Schneider

Gabe Schneider — The Objective

Mai Schotz

Jessica Schulberg — HuffPost

Liliana Segura — The Intercept

Marybeth Seitz-Brown

Jackie Serrato — South Side Weekly

Salifu Sesay — Gimlet

Abby Sewell

Jashvina Shah

Sana Shah

Fuad Y. Shalhout

Sanskriti Sharma — Other Collective

Christopher Shay — The Nation

Annie Shields — The Nation

Destry Maria Sibley — Freelance journalist

Zachary Siegel — Independent journalist

Brandon Soderberg

Marie Solis

Alice Speri — The Intercept

Anna Sterling

Peter Sterne — Independent journalist

Rennie Svirnovskiy

Elise Swain — The Intercept

Saleema Syed — Chicago Tribune

Zayna Syed

Nadia Taha

Sally Tamarkin

Alex Tatusian

Saidu Tejan-Thomas Jr.

Rekha Tenjarla — The New Yorker

Josh Terry

Prem Thakker

Priyanka Tilve

Rebecca Traister

Avery Trufelman

Esther Tseng

Irene Vázquez

Aria Velasquez

Robyn Vincent

Travis Waldron — HuffPost

John Washington — Freelance journalist

Noor Wazwaz

Emily Wilder

Nona Willis Aronowitz

Rawan Yaghi — Freelance journalist

Alex Yoon-Hendricks

Ata Younan — Freelance journalist

Ehab Zahriyeh

María Inés Zamudio

Margaret Zukin

Journalist — ABC News

Journalist — Al Jazeera

Journalist — Al Jazeera English

Journalist — Al Jazeera Media Network

Journalist — Block Club Chicago

Journalist — Bloomberg News

Journalist — CNN

Journalist — Colorado NPR member station

Journalist — Condé Nast

Journalist — Condé Nast

Journalist — Condé Nast

Journalist — Freelance journalist

Journalist — Freelance journalist

Journalist — Freelance journalist

Journalist — HuffPost

Journalist — HuffPost

Journalist — Independent journalist

Journalist — Los Angeles Times

Journalist — Los Angeles Times

Journalist — National Public Radio

Journalist — NBC News

Journalist — NowThis News

Journalist — NowThis News

Journalist — NowThis News

Journalist — NowThis News

Journalist — NowThis News

Journalist — NowThis News

Journalist — PBS

Journalist — ProPublica

Journalist — Slate

Journalist — The Associated Press

Journalist — The Atlantic

Journalist — The Atlantic

Journalist — The Boston Globe

Journalist — The Forward

Journalist — The New York Times

Journalist — The Wall Street Journal

Journalist — The Wall Street Journal

Journalist — The Washington Post

Journalist — The Washington Post

Journalist — The Washington Post

Journalist — VICE

Journalist — WNYC

Journalist — WNYC

Journalist — WNYC

*

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 Medium

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Satellite imagery reveals several areas of primary rainforest were cleared alongside agricultural fields in the Brazilian Amazon, all in close proximity to Indigenous and protected lands.

In March, the Global Land Analysis and Discovery (GLAD) lab at the University of Maryland detected areas of newly cleared forest in Lábrea municipality, in the state of Amazonas. Satellite imagery from Planet Labs confirms that the deforestation occurred in four areas and covers around 2,115 hectares (5,226 acres).

Satellite imagery from Planet labs shows deforestation between December 2020 and May 2021 in Lábrea, Amazonas state, Brazil. Screenshot from Global Forest Watch.

Satellite imagery from Planet Labs shows deforestation between December 2020 and May 2021 in Lábrea, Amazonas state, Brazil.

The largest of the deforested areas covers approximately 1,180 hectares (2,916 acres) and is with within 4 kilometers (2 miles) of the Kaxarari Indigenous Territory, which was threatened by fires in August 2020 from the adjacent croplands.

The northernmost cleared areas are close to Iquiri National Forest, a sustainable-use area that’s home to rare and threatened animals such as the eastern pygmy marmoset (Cebuella niveiventris), gray woolly monkey (Lagothrix cana), jaguar (Panthera onca), and giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla). As forests are fragmented, these animals have fewer pathways to move across the region.

Another view of the region shows recent deforestation amid the surrounding protected areas. Forest fragmentation can restrict the movement of animals among protected areas. The effects of deforestation also extend beyond the boundary of the cleared area, causing “edge effects.”

Lábrea municipality has been called a “crime factory,” its remote location and lack of law enforcement acting as a catalyst for illegal deforestation and land grabbing. Lábrea saw the fifth-largest increase in deforestation in the Amazon in 2019 and ranked as one of Brazil’s top five most deforested municipalities in 2020. The majority of privately owned forests have been cleared for cattle ranching in the region, Maurício Monteiro reports for Repórter Brasil.

Between January and July 2020, Lábrea had the fifth-highest number of forest fires of any Brazilian municipality, according to INPE, the national space agency. Fires typically follow deforestation in the Amazon, with land being cleared and then burned to make way for agriculture. Deforestation and fires in Lábrea were concentrated around the São Domingos rubber plantation, Monteiro reports.

Heat spots in areas with Prodes warnings (2017-2019). Area next to the borders of the Kaxarari Idigenous Land, in Lábrea, Amazonas state. Taken 17 Aug, 2020. CREDIT: © Christian Braga / Greenpeace

Fires next to the borders of the Kaxarari Indigenous Territory in Labrea, Amazonas state, Brazil, on Aug. 17, 2020. Image by Christian Braga/Greenpeace.

Forest destruction in the Brazilian Amazon hit a 14-year high for the month of May, amounting to 118,000 hectares (292,000 acres), an area roughly 20 times the size of Manhattan, according to INPE’s satellite-based deforestation tracking system, DETER.

Increased deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has been blamed on the administration of President Jair Bolsonaro. Since he took office in 2019, deforestation in Brazil has increased by nearly 50%, reaching a 12-year high. In 2020, land conflicts also hit a record high, with 1,576 cases recorded by the Catholic Church-affiliated Pastoral Land Commission, which has tracked conflicts for the past 35 years.

Experts say land grabbers have been emboldened by relaxed regulations and amnesties granted by the government. For instance, a measure proposed in 2019 (Provisional Measure 910) would allow those who illegally deforested protected federal lands before December 2018 to buy that property at reduced rates, granting them amnesty in the process.

“Brazil`s environmental regulations have been gutted under the Jair Bolsonaro presidential administration,” Phillip M. Fearnside, an ecologist at Brazil’s National Institute for Research in Amazonia (INPA), wrote in a commentary for Amazônia Real, “[T]he recent passing of control of both houses of congress to the coalition of parties supporting the president … will ease passage of a series of bills further dismantling environmental protections.”

Roughly 20% of the Amazon has been cleared since the 1970s. As a result of deforestation, fires and climate change, the Amazon dry season is getting longer and mega droughts more common. Some scientists warn that the Amazon is nearing a tipping point when precipitation diminishes until the rainforest transitions into an impoverished, less diverse savanna ecosystem that provides less function. Already, the ability of the Amazon to absorb COis declining and trees are dying at a faster rate. Ongoing destruction raises serious concerns about the fate of the world’s largest rainforest, and the plants, animals, and people it sustains.

*

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

Liz Kimbrough is a staff writer for Mongabay. Find her on Twitter: @lizkimbrough_

Featured image: Jaguar by Eduardo Merille via Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Contagious Lies: CDC Claims Hospitalization Rising Among Unvaccinated Teens — Contrary to Its Own Data

By Daniel Horowitz, June 09, 2021

We all knew this was coming. In order to justify the forced vaccination of children, the powers that be would somehow have to overturn 15 months of observations that COVID is less a threat to children than the flu and that unvaccinated children are less at risk than vaccinated adults (100 times less at risk than seniors), even if we are to believe Pfizer’s efficacy data.

Norwegian Health Chief Scolded for Saying COVID-19 Pandemic “Nearly Over”

By Paul Joseph Watson, June 09, 2021

A Norwegian public health professional received a massive official backlash after he suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic was “nearly over” judging by the country’s plummeting case numbers. Norwegian Institute of Public Health chief physician Preben Aavistland tweeted a graph showing rapidly declining hospital admissions along with the words, “Well, there goes the pandemic.”

Why We Petitioned the FDA to Refrain from Fully Approving Any COVID-19 Vaccine this Year

By Prof. Linda Wastila, Dr. Peter Doshi, Hamid Merchant, and Kim Witczak, June 09, 2021

We are part of a group of clinicians, scientists, and patient advocates who have lodged a formal “Citizen Petition” with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), asking the agency to delay any consideration of a “full approval” of a covid-19 vaccine. The message of our petition is “slow down and get the science right—there is no legitimate reason to hurry to grant a license to a coronavirus vaccine.”

Over 90% of the News You See on Television Is Owned and Controlled by Just 5 Giant Corporations

By Michael Snyder, June 09, 2021

The way that people view the world is greatly shaped by the “news” that they see on television and read on the Internet.  Unfortunately, much of that “news” is produced by just five enormous corporations.  In fact, although the numbers vary from month to month, more than 90 percent of the “news” that Americans watch on television is controlled by those five corporations.

How Billion-Dollar Foundations Fund NGOs to Manipulate U.S. Foreign Policy: A Case Study from Nicaragua

By Rick Sterling, June 09, 2021

U.S. foreign policy is increasingly promoted by billionaire-funded foundations. The neoliberal era has created individuals with incredible wealth who, through “philanthropy,” flex their influence and feel good at the same time. While these philanthropists can be liberal on some issues, they almost universally support U.S. foreign policy and the “free market.”

The War Over Genetic Privacy Is Just Beginning

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, June 09, 2021

As of 2019, more than 26 million people had added their DNA to ancestry databases. It’s estimated those databases could top 100 million profiles within the year, thanks to the aggressive marketing of companies such as Ancestry and 23andMe. It’s a tempting proposition: provide some mega-corporation with a spit sample or a cheek swab, and in return, you get to learn everything about who you are, where you came from, and who is part of your extended your family.

Vaccine Casualties: Is the CDC Hiding the Real Numbers?

By Tea Lynn Moore and Dale Hawkins, June 10, 2021

The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) is the post-marketing surveillance system the FDA asks healthcare professionals to report adverse vaccine events to. The system is passive, meaning: when a healthcare professional recognizes a connection between an adverse event and a vaccine, the report is only made when they choose to take the time out of their day to record it.

Minneapolis Erupts Again After Another African American Is Killed by a Federal Task Force

By Abayomi Azikiwe, June 10, 2021

Demonstrations have taken place in Minneapolis since June 3 when news quickly spread throughout the city saying yet another Black man was gunned down by law-enforcement. On June 3-4 numerous businesses were damaged, and property taken, when crowds gathered during a police examination of the area where the shooting occurred.

The “Three Seas Initiative”: The West’s “Answer” to China’s Belt and Road?

By Brian Berletic, June 09, 2021

To counter not only China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) but also Russia’s growing ties with Western Europe, an “alternative” infrastructure drive is being proposed that if and when completed, Washington, London, and Brussels hopes will further contain Russia and cut China off from European markets.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Contagious Lies: CDC Claims Hospitalization Rising Among Unvaccinated Teens — Contrary to Its Own Data
  • 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 of May 14, 2021, in the US, 227,805 COVID vaccine adverse events, 12,625 COVID vaccine hospitalizations, and 4,201 COVID vaccine deaths have been reported to VAERS… but the true number may be magnitudes higher.

The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) is the post-marketing surveillance system the FDA asks healthcare professionals to report adverse vaccine events to. The system is passive, meaning: when a healthcare professional recognizes a connection between an adverse event and a vaccine, the report is only made when they choose to take the time out of their day to record it.

In 2010, Harvard Medical School was granted $1 million by the US Department of Health and Human Services to investigate VAERS to see how efficient it is and to create a new automated monitoring system. They analyzed data by creating an automated system within their own Harvard Medical System. Their report, titled: Electronic Support for Public Health – Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System found that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported to VAERS.”

As brilliantly efficient as Harvard’s newly created automated system was, it was never adopted by the country as planned. As Harvard stated in their final report, “Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.” So basically, upon learning of how few adverse vaccine reactions were actually reported to VAERS, the CDC (whose job it is to monitor disease and adverse reactions) chose not to accept a solution to the under-reporting problem.

Ten years later, despite the US government promising they would have a better safety monitoring system (known as BEST) up and running time for the COVID jab (it’s still in the “developmental stages”), the problem of fewer than 1% of adverse vaccine events being reported persists.

According to VAERS, there’s only 4.7 cases of anaphylaxis per million doses of the Pfizer vaccine and 2.5 cases of anaphylaxis per million doses of the Modena vaccine. But an article in JAMA found a wildly different result. The article, titled Acute Allergic Reactions to mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines, studied Mass General Brigham employees who received their first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (half received Pfizer and half received Moderna). Of the 52,805 participant employees who received their COVID-19 vaccine, they found that “98% did not have any symptoms of an allergic reaction after receiving an mRNA vaccine. The remaining 2% reported some allergic symptoms” however, severe reactions consistent with anaphylaxis occurred at a rate of 250 per million -100 times the VAERS rate!

So, now it appears VAERS only catches roughly 1% of anaphylactic reactions to the COVID mRNA vaccines -despite the fact that anaphylaxis is a reaction that is quite easy to spot (since the symptoms are severe) and easy to link to the vaccine (since symptoms typically arise within 30 minutes of the jab). The blood clotting disorder linked to the AstraZeneca vaccine, known as VITT, is also quite easy to catch since the condition does not occur naturally (previously the condition was only seen in gene therapies and as a reaction to certain medications). But what about complications that are less easy to spot? Heart inflammation, dementia, and infertility are all conditions that some experts suspect a COVID-19 vaccine may trigger. The slow onset of some conditions, along with the passive reporting system currently in place, may mean these complications won’t come to light in time.

Not only does the CDC seem uninterested in uncovering the true number of adverse vaccine reactions, the CDC also appears to have little interest in learning of the true effectiveness of the vaccine.

The CDC has been recording “breakthrough infections,” which are cases where a person tests positive for SARS-Cov-2 ≥14 days after they have completed all recommended doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. According to the CDC, the data is recorded to “help identify patterns and look for signals among vaccine breakthrough cases.”

For a long time, we’ve known that actual vaccine breakthrough numbers are likely higher than reported, as the surveillance system is passive and relies on voluntary reporting from state health departments, and may not be complete. In addition, some breakthrough cases will not be identified due to lack of testing (since most people don’t continue getting tested after they’ve been vaccinated). But recently, the “breakthrough” infection” numbers have been under-documented for an all-new reason.

Effective May 14, 2021, the CDC announced a change to their criteria in reporting breakthrough cases. According to a statement on the CDC’s website, the agency said to help “maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance” it will stop recording COVID breakthrough infections unless they result in hospitalization or death (whereas unvaccinated individuals who test positive for COVID-19 still count as a “case” even if they are asymptomatic).

Additionally, in April of this year, the CDC issued new guidance to laboratories recommending a reduction of the PCR test’s Ct (cycle threshold) value to 28 cycles (from 40 cycles), but only for fully vaccinated individuals being tested for COVID.

Both changes will result in lower overall numbers of reports of “breakthrough cases” in the U.S.

The change in Ct value, for instance, will make the tests wildly less sensitive for vaccinated people, while keeping the tests overly sensitive for unvaccinated people. According to the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Disease, patients who test positive with a Ct above 33 are not truly infected (meaning they are not contagious or symptomatic, and carry barely any virus). An investigative piece by The New York Times revealed that 90% percent of people testing positive did not test positive until after 30 Ct (meaning 90% of “cases” carried barely any virus or were false positives.) So, the CDC’s decision will artificially deflate the amount of “breakthrough cases” (by well over 90%) in comparison to unvaccinated individuals.

It is quite clear that the CDC has a goal of decreasing vaccine hesitancy in the general public by creating the illusion that the COVID-19 vaccines are performing better than they truly are. We keep hearing from officials that the vaccines are “safe and effective,” but how could we possibly know this when the CDC seems concerningly disinterested in recording both adverse vaccine reactions and vaccine efficacy. The truth is: we don’t know much about these vaccines and the system is set up in a way that prevents us from uncovering true numbers.

It may be that people are not getting vaccinated “because science,” they are getting vaccinated “because $cience.”

*

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 Druthers

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Vaccine Casualties: Is the CDC Hiding the Real Numbers?
  • 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.

***

Demonstrations have taken place in Minneapolis since June 3 when news quickly spread throughout the city saying yet another Black man was gunned down by law-enforcement.

On June 3-4 numerous businesses were damaged, and property taken, when crowds gathered during a police examination of the area where the shooting occurred. Nine people were arrested in the immediate hours after the killing.

Tensions had already escalated earlier on June 3 when the city removed a barrier erected around what has become known as “George Floyd Square”, marking where the horrendous police execution took place on May 25 of 2020. Residents in the area quickly set up other barriers preventing normal traffic at the thoroughfare around 38th and Chicago.

Initial reports in the corporate media from the Uptown section of the municipality indicated that the victim wanted on a murder warrant was shot to death by County sheriff deputies. Several hours after, however, it was revealed that the man was not wanted for murder and was killed by multi-jurisdictional squad operating within a fugitive task force attempting to serve a warrant. News reports were later corrected to indicate that the victim was not wanted for murder.

The Marshals claim that the victim, identified as Winston Boogie Smith, Jr., 32, a father of three, was being arrested on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Even the local Minneapolis StarTribune was forced to print a correction in regard to the circumstances surrounding the killing of Smith.

Witnesses in the vicinity said that they heard several gunshots in connection with the incident which occurred in a parking structure. The deputies involved in Smith’s death have been placed on paid leave pending the outcome of an internal investigation by the federal agencies.

Federal law-enforcement agents claim that Smith was sitting in a parked car and purportedly failed to comply with commands by the officers. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under which the agents are assigned have said that Smith had produced a weapon prompting a fatal response.

Emergency medical personnel summoned to the incident later pronounced Smith dead at the scene. A spokesperson for the U.S. Marshals were quoted in the StarTribune saying that the warrant for Smith’s arrest was issued in the state of Minnesota.

There was a woman in the vehicle with Smith who was injured by flying glass. No information is available about the number of police agencies involved in the task force. Media reports say two officers fired their weapons at the vehicle occupied by Smith and the unidentified woman.

A friend of Smith, Shelly Hopkins, questioned the official narrative being promoted by the Marshals. The circumstances surrounding the incident remain unclear while the federal law-enforcement agencies attempt to justify the death of Smith.

Hopkins was quoted by the Associated Press as saying:

“I wasn’t there. I don’t know exactly what happened. But I know him. And he didn’t deserve that… He had the best heart out of anybody I’ve ever met in my life.”

Another close friend of Smith, Waylon Hughes, told the Associated Press as well that she was not aware that the victim carried a firearm. Her assessment of Smith was that he cared very much about his children and friends.

The victim’s brother, Kidale Smith, questioned the law-enforcement version of events which resulted in Winston’s shooting death. Smith emphasized:

“This man had a family, and he’s just like anybody else. (People) always try to pin something on a man and try to identify him as a criminal, especially if he’s Black. You’ve got seven unmarked cars and you shoot a man in his car. You don’t even give him a chance to get out… You’re the U.S. Marshals. You’re supposed to be highly trained men, and you can’t handle a simple situation?”

Smith’s family is demanding transparency in the investigation. Reports indicate that the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) and the U.S. Marshals Service does not allow its agents and officers from other law-enforcement units assigned to its task forces to wear body cams.

Activists have been protesting everyday since the killing of Smith. At least two different organizations, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Black Lives Matter in Minneapolis, are calling for the removal of the head of the U.S. Marshals Service in the state of Minnesota. Demonstrations are being held outside the home of Ramona Dohman, the director of the Marshals Service.

According to the Minnesota CAIR’s executive director Jaylani Hussein:

“The system in this state is fundamentally flawed, and the federal oversight is also fundamentally flawed. We need transparency and accountability.”

Black Lives Matter Minnesota co-founder Monique Cullars-Doty described the law-enforcement killing of Smith as “reckless.”  She accused all agencies involved of being “completely reckless” and acting with “an intentional lack of transparency and an intentional lack of accountability.”

Since the police killing of Smith, the U.S. Assistant Attorney General in the region has ordered the usage of body cams for federal agents. Whether this will be implemented remains to be seen.

Black Man Killed by Hawaiian Police

Meanwhile earlier during the month of April in the U.S.-occupied state of Hawaii, another man was killed by the Honolulu police. Lindani Myeni, 29, was a South African immigrant married to a Caucasian woman whose family has lived in Hawaii for three generations.

Myeni and his wife, Lindsay, had moved to Hawaii from Denver with their two children in the hopes that the racism they experienced in Colorado would not be present in the Pacific islands state. The circumstances under which he was killed by police remain obscured due to the lack of information from the state authorities and the U.S. government.

Lindsay Myeni said that apparently Lindani had entered a home in Honolulu after taking off his shoes. He was wearing a traditional Zulu head covering representing his ethnicity from South Africa. His shooting death occurred after he had exited the home.

The South African government has repeatedly demanded information on the incident from local authorities and the U.S. State Department. South African diplomatic personnel in the U.S. have persistently sought an explanation for the killing of Myeni.

South African Minister for International Relations, Naledi Pandor, issued a statement on the position of the African National Congress (ANC) led government in regard to the police killing of one of its citizens. Pandor emphasized on behalf of her ministry that:

“The department also conveyed to the U.S. Embassy in Pretoria the concerns of the government about the lack of a comprehensive report on the circumstances that led to the death of Mr. Myeni and the utterances by the Mayor of Honolulu that the police had acted correctly. A request was made that the State Department should intervene to obtain a report as soon as possible and that the personal belongings of Mr. Myeni should be returned to the family. A follow-up request was later made to the U.S. Embassy for Mr. Myeni’s belongings, including his cellphone, to be returned to his family without further delay. As of 25 May 2021, the Consul-General in Los Angeles reported that the requested police report was still outstanding. The lawyers of Mrs. Myeni undertook to inform the Consul-General once there are new developments on the matter.”

Lindsay Myeni took her husband home for burial in Richards Bay located in KwaZulu-Natal Province and is currently living with her in-laws in South Africa. She has applied for permanent residency in South Africa and does not want to return to the U.S. in the immediate future.

Failure of the U.S. Congress to Pass the George Floyd Policing Act

These two incidents of police killings of men of African descent, one from the U.S. and another from the continent, illustrates the continuing crisis in police-community relations. A George Floyd Policing Act designed to institute reforms on a national level has still not been passed by the Senate.

The family of George Floyd visited the White House on May 25, the one-year anniversary of the brutal police execution, to push for the immediate adoption of the bill. The Act was passed by the House of Representatives along party lines in March due to a Democratic majority. It has yet to be voted on in the Senate which is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats.

Nonetheless, the police abuse, brutality and killings continue despite the mass demonstrations and rebellions which have taken place over the last year since the killing of Floyd. What is required is the total dismantling of the existing system of law-enforcement and criminal justice which has its origins in the forced removals of Indigenous people and the enslavement and national oppression of Africans and other communities of color in the U.S.

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Huawei’s HarmonyOS Aims at US Tech Dominance

June 10th, 2021 by David Goldman

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Huawei’s HarmonyOS Aims at US Tech Dominance

Pakistan and Russia in Gas Cooperation

June 10th, 2021 by Vladimir Danilov

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pakistan and Russia in Gas Cooperation

All Global Research articles 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 US positions in Syria keeps weakening in recent years as the Syrian authorities gradually restore civil infrastructure and government institutes destroyed during the long-term war. By successfully conducting the presidential elections, Damascus virtually frustrated the plan of the White House for the establishment of a puppet Syrian government.

Seemingly, such situation did not suit the American intelligence and special services. The CIA leadership has rather quickly found the solution in prisons for former ISIS terrorists that are controlled by the Autonomous administration of the North and East Syria. In particular, Americans started recruiting the extremists in Gweiran and Shaddadi jails located in Hasakah province. The jihadists were viewed by the American intelligence as the most appropriate tool for the achievement of the US political and military goals in Syria. What is the motivation of Pentagon?

At first, American military experts than anyone else know all aspects and have impressive experience of the use of illicit armed groups in foreign conflicts for the sake of the US interests. Everybody knows the list of examples. Most prominent among the recent ones are Afghanistan, Libya, and, of course, Syria where Washington backed the Free Syrian Army in his war against the Syrian armed forces. Many years of using “proxy warfare” proved to be extremely instrumental so the American military leadership expectedly continued to stand by this strategy.

Secondly, the emergence of ISIS itself was due to the long-term hidden activities of the American intelligence services. The former US President Barak Obama acknowledged this fact in one of his interviews. It can be assumed that Washington just prepares a “revival” of well-trained extremists, who are ready for everything for money and the release from prisons, to carry out subversive operations in central Syria.

In other words, the ‘method’ of exploiting militants is not new to Washington, Americans have previously created powerful group, which will pose a serious threat for the Syrian army even with a little training and access to necessary arms. It is on these activities the American military advisors, who train militants to carry out subversive operations in central Syria, concentrated their efforts. In addition to conducting armed attacks, it is remarkable that the tasks of terrorists will include destroying supply lines and establishment of control over crossings on Syrian- Iraqi border. Moreover, a number of well-trained extremists are considered by the CIA as capable of assassinating the incumbent president of Syria and other top level officials.

It is difficult to take issue with that a series of terrorist attacks in the government-held territories not only will potentially explode the reputation of the Syrian authorities, but will be conductive to maintaining a threat of further distribution of the international terrorism. Many western mainstream media will not remain uninvolved and fill informational space with numerous publications over the alleged inability of Bashar Assad to ensure safety of the Syrian citizens.

We can only hope that both Damascus and the world community will be able not to allow such arbitrary behavior and violation of the international laws. Similar adventurism of U.S. intelligence will hardly allow the USA to achieve a desirable aim, but can quite generate a new wave of bloodshed and the revival of terrorism not only in Syria, but also across the entire Middle East.

*

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.

Ahmad al-Khaled is a Syrian journalist with four years of experience in covering the Syrian conflict and ME politics in general. His articles are published in leading regional and global media (Youm7, Ahl Masr, Rai Al Youm, Al Masdar, Ahval, Jerusalem Post, 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.

***

Mark Taliano published the second edition of Voices From Syria with co-author Syrian journalist, Basma Qaddour.

Mark is an educator and an activist.

He writes: 

“We are all being swept across a stormy frothing sea, rudderless, despairing. Not one of us is alone. When we find a common language of truth and peace, we will find salvation. The cancerous hands controlling our fates, our thoughts, our minds, keeping us apart, will be no more. Then we will be free.”

Indeed.

Mark talks with me about Syria and he minces no words in describing the evil unleashed on the Syrian people by the United States, Israel, and their allies through their terrorist proxies, Al Qaeda, Daesh and other mercenaries. We discuss the recent election in Syria and its meaning.  We also discuss the scamdemic and the dictatorship we are under with the excuse of a virus from his perspective in Ontario, Canada.

Mark researches and writes for Global Research with Michel Chossudovsky. 

*

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net.


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.

***

To counter not only China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) but also Russia’s growing ties with Western Europe, an “alternative” infrastructure drive is being proposed that if and when completed, Washington, London, and Brussels hopes will further contain Russia and cut China off from European markets.

Called the “Three Seas Initiative,” it is described in a Bloomberg op-ed titled, “This Is How Europe Can Push Back Against China and Russia,” as:

…a joint endeavor by 12 eastern members of the European Union to update the physical and digital links between the Baltic, Adriatic and Black Seas.

The op-ed argues that the initiative is the only way to fight off “Russian bullying and Chinese meddling.”

But upon closer scrutiny – even the selling points made by the author – Andreas Kluth – reads instead like a thinly veiled attempt to bully and meddle in Europe – and at the expense of the obvious opportunities trade and ties with Russia and China will bring.

Kluth’s argument includes blaming the Soviet Union’s neglect of Eastern European nations as the reason they lack modern infrastructure today, claiming:

Though economically vibrant, most of this region still lags the rest of the bloc in infrastructure. Travel by road and rail takes two to four times longer on average than in the rest of the EU. 

What’s missing in particular is good highways, railway tracks and gas pipes running north and south. This is a legacy of the Cold War. The Soviet hegemons made sure that Russian gas, tanks and troops could easily move east-west, but cared not a hoot about other connections among the countries they occupied.

Yet the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 – 30 years ago. If Eastern Europe currently still lacks modern infrastructure – it would be more appropriate to state that it is Brussels who “cares not” about making improvements.

The infrastructure proposed is also curious. The op-ed claims:

Projects include, for example, a port in Croatia that could welcome ships carrying liquefied natural gas — from the US, for example — and the pipelines that would bring this gas north to partner countries. Poland already has an LNG terminal.

This is not necessary infrastructure though. Europe already has access to hydrocarbons in the form of Russian energy moved into the region through existing pipelines and at costs much cheaper than LNG shipped across the Atlantic from the United States will ever be.

The inclusion of this “example” reveals Kluth’s hand and the true nature of this argument – this isn’t about stopping imagined “Russian bullying,” this is about imposing very real American bullying.

In other words, expensive infrastructure would be built specifically to put in place energy imports that would cost more and come with far more strings attached politically than Russian energy. These strings would include – and the op-ed itself mentions this specifically – cutting off relations with both Moscow and Beijing.

And regarding Beijing – Kluth accuses China of seeking political favor in return for infrastructure investments and construction projects – citing Hungary as an example of a partner nation “compromised” by its relationship with Beijing. Kluth claims that Hungary has blocked EU condemnation of alleged “human rights abuses” by China – never considering that the accusations themselves may have been politically motivated in the first place by opponents of Beijing.

Kluth – after describing the Three Seas Initiative as a means of escaping “bullying and meddling” – makes clear that US and EU investment in the projects should themselves come with political strings attached – noting:

…the EU should also be clear about its expectations. First, all involved, including Hungary, must acknowledge the geopolitical subtext and unambiguously declare their allegiance to Brussels, foregoing dalliances with Beijing. Second, the initiative mustn’t become the germ of an eastern bloc that defines itself in opposition to the rest of the EU.

While Russian “bullying” and Chinese “meddling” remain squarely in the realm of politically-motivated accusations – Kluth is openly declaring Washington’s and Brussels’ intentions to invest in a neglected Eastern Europe are predicated on acquiring unflinching obedience and the full surrender of national sovereignty – a proposition made without any hint of intentional irony.

Three Seas Initiative: About Primacy, Not Progress 

US foreign policy has been and continues to be predicated on maintaining global primacy. Any nation, anywhere on Earth that challenges Washington’s ability to act upon the global stage with absolute impunity is designated an enemy and thus targeted through a combination of political, economic, and even military coercion.

Two nations that have found themselves on this list for decades are Russia and China.

Both Russia’s re-emergence after the collapse of the Soviet Union as a major global power and China’s rise both regionally in Asia and globally – have demonstrably inhibited Washington’s worst impulses.

While Washington describes both Russia and China as threats to global peace and stability – it was Russia’s intervention in Syria that prevented the nation from suffering a similar fate as Libya or Iraq at America’s hands.

It has been China’s incremental rise that has created viable alternatives for nations across Asia just now working their way out from under the shadow of America’s Indo-Pacific “primacy” – a notion still included openly as part of US foreign policy – demonstrated in a “framework” paper published as recently as the Trump administration.

Notions of “Russian bullying” and “Chinese meddling” are geopolitical projections made by Western policymakers in a bid to justify a continued campaign of coercion – and not just against Russia, China, and nations along their peripheries – but also against allied nations like Germany who seek to diversify their ties between East and West – US sanctions targeting German companies involved in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project with Russia being only the latest example.

Perhaps the ultimate irony of all is that as Washington and Brussels attempt to dangle the promise of modern infrastructure over the heads of Eastern Europe – Kluth of Bloomberg himself admits that China has already come through in the case of Hungary – and Russia has been reliably pumping cheap energy into Eastern and Western Europe since before the collapse of the Soviet Union – and of course – ever since.

Once again – while pointing the accusing finger elsewhere – the US and its EU partners reveal themselves as the central threat to peace and prosperity. In reality, Chinese infrastructure projects coupled with US-EU investments, and cheap energy from Russia would be most beneficial to the nations of both Eastern and Western Europe – but clearly what is in the continent’s best interests run at cross-purposes to Washington’s and thus while Russia and China have never demanded exclusive economic ties with Europe – Washington is.

*

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

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. 

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

All Global Research articles 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.

***

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken crossed a red line last week while commenting on the 32nd anniversary of the 4 June 1989 events in Beijing. For all intents and purposes, he sought to provoke another Color Revolution in China through his factually inaccurate description of what happened on that fateful day. The average Western news consumer was likely misled into believing that it was a so-called “bloodbath” of allegedly “peaceful pro-democracy activists” when in reality it was an externally encouraged and highly violent regime change attempt that was thankfully stopped through the authorities’ responsible and timely intervention.

The reasons for why that event happened in the first place are myriad but are largely connected to the manipulative information warfare campaign that foreign forces waged inside of China at the time. The global context was such that the communist countries of the then-Soviet Union’s former Warsaw Pact were experiencing unprecedented unrest of a similar fashion and provoked in a parallel way. Coupled with the activities of foreign agents operating within the People’s Republic under diplomatic and other covers such as humanitarian ones, some citizens were misled into attempting to replicate those scenarios at home.

That was a gross error of judgment on their part as they were, consciously or not, behaving as pawns of a foreign regime change plot aimed at ushering in the West’s complete dominance of International Relations in the last few years of what many now consider in hindsight to have been the Old Cold War (as compared to what quite a few compellingly describe as the ongoing New Cold War). The aftermath of that incident spurred the Communist Party of China (CPC) to prioritize securing the People’s Republic from Hybrid War threats, which in turn resulted in the promulgation of decisive policies related to regulating foreign media and organizations.

Concurrent with those security-centric policies was the CPC’s continued focus on comprehensively improving the lives of its citizenry so as to simultaneously build a modern socialist country alongside ensuring that nobody feels neglected and is thus vulnerable to falling under foreign influence. The outcome of these prudent policies is that China achieved historically unprecedented growth and is now the world’s top economy by some metrics. So successful has this forward-looking strategy been that China is now assisting its countless partners across the world in replicating its growth model via its Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) investments.

In recent years, China has also sought to pragmatically counteract foreign cultural influences that have proven themselves to have pernicious consequences for domestic security whenever they uncontrollably spread throughout other societies. The newfound focus on prioritizing China’s unique civilizational attributes and in imbuing its citizenry with associated patriotic sentiments has created a social firewall against these ever-evolving Hybrid War threats without cutting the country off from the rest of the world like some other states have done when attempting to defend themselves from the aforesaid.

With these impressive socio-economic and security accomplishments in mind, there’s absolutely no way that the US will ever succeed in provoking another Color Revolution in China. This isn’t just a boastful statement either but is proven by recent events in the Hong Kong Special Autonomous Region (SAR). America’s attempt to export its cutting-edge Color Revolution technology to that city dramatically failed and represented a major setback for its strategic plans. In fact, one can even say that it was a huge self-inflicted blow to that country’s soft power since the rest of the world now knows that its regime change attempts can be stopped.

The US can no longer wield the Damocles’ sword of Color Revolutions over the heads of sovereign states like it used to since their people are no longer as scared of these scenarios as before after China recently showed that they can be thwarted. With this Hybrid War tool of American policy increasingly becoming irrelevant and the country’s appetite for conventional military interventions declining by the day as it urgently focuses more on resolving its growing number of domestic crises, one can predict that a new era of International Relations might be inevitable whereby the world will soon become much more peaceful than at any time in recent memory.

*

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

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Sure, China is having a good pandemic. Life since the initial COVID outbreak in Wuhan is pretty much back to normal. Few restrictions are in place in Beijing or Shanghai. But globally? China is the new bogeyman. In corporate speak its brand image has been damaged. The crackdown in Xinjiang and its far from convincing protestations that COVID did not leak from a Wuhan lab has holed its credibility beneath the water line.

The trouble with the China rising to global dominance scenario is it is nonsense but it does suit certain factions in Washington and Beijing. It allows the US to have an enemy, and maintain defense spending. Beijing can pander to nationalist sentiment, otherwise known as “wolf-warrior diplomacy”. You know the story… stumbling America hampered by global commitments will give way to the more disciplined, regimented and innovative challenger. China’s president, Xi Jinping is not taken in by this. He knows, and has stated publically, that excessive growth and the corruption it inevitably brings will damage the party. His raison d’etre for wanting to become leader, back in 2012, was to save the party from itself, ensure its survival. Better to have a little growth and unquestioned party supremacy, he warned, than a booming economy with the party haemorrhaging power and authority.  Has he succeeded? As Zhou Enlai, the late Chinese premier, is often credited with saying about the success of the French revolution “it’s too early to say’’.  Zhou was actually referring to the student revolt in Paris in 1968.

The indicators are there, flashing in plain sight. Strong economies have strong currencies. Swift, the financial services network, stated that the Chinese currency the renminbi is used in less than 3 percent of international payments this year, compared with the dollar’s nearly 50 percent share.

Colleges, incubators of growth, are hampered. Global university rankings vary but all put Tsinghua and Peking, the country’s leading universities, outside the global elite, dominated by American and British institutions.

Transport systems are vital in a country with such a large population. High-speed trains are very comfortable but not as good, or as fast, as they had been promised. China had a simple destination and it failed; overtake Japan where the shinkansen, or bullet train, is almost a national symbol. It has been in service for almost 60 years and not one fatality. China’s ministry of railways, once a powerful entity, was found to be so corrupt it had to be scrapped and taken following  the Wenzhou train crash in 2011 that claimed 40 lives.

Its technology, much heralded, is also short-circuited. Facebook, Alphabet, and Twitter are global powers. Their Chinese counterparts , Tencent, Baidu, and Sina Weibo can barely make their presence felt beyond the Chinese border. While mobile phone payments are increasingly the norm in Beijing, the US has a commanding lead in developing the chips that power computers.

Constant state intervention is not good for sustained growth. Beijing bureaucrats dictate bank loans for inefficient enterprises and pointless infrastructure projects. An inadequate welfare system and a waste-ridden property sector, damages economic prospects.

China lacks global ideological clout. It is an economic power but it is nowhere near being the dominant one. The Belt and Road Initiative and a record of rapid economic development are worthy achievements but they are not a model that can easily be transferred to other countries. Soviet communism inspired revolutions. China wants trade deals but its economic model does not inspire. Foreigners are not rushing across its borders to seek work. And it is not a threat to the US. The threat to Washington lies much closer to home.

*

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

Featured image is from TheAltWorld

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The China Rising to Global Dominance Scenario. China, The “New Bogeyman”
  • Tags: ,

Mexico: President AMLO Meets Vice President Kamala Harris

June 9th, 2021 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Since the beginning of the American electoral process, the Mexican government has bet on Joe Biden’s project as an alternative to the migration crisis and as a way to guarantee financial resources for Latin America. However, the US president’s delay in fulfilling his promises has led to growing instability in relations with Mexico. This week, analysts around the world announced the beginning of a “new era” in bilateral relations between Americans and Mexicans with the first official meeting between Kamala Harris and Andrés Manuel López Obrador, where several topics of mutual interest were discussed. However, it seems too early to believe that such a meeting will have a real positive impact on relations between the two countries.

Earlier this week, US Vice President Kamala Harris personally met with Lopez Obrador in Mexico. Harris saw it as an extremely profitable opportunity and ensured a prosperous future in bilateral relations, guaranteeing the beginning of a “new era” in US-Mexico ties. “I strongly believe that we are embarking on a new era that makes clear the interdependence and interconnection between nations,” she said. This optimism was shared by several analysts who published articles in media outlets around the world announcing the success of the meeting and affirming that this is the starting point for a future of cooperation and mutual prosperity.

Despite the apparent success of the meeting, any optimism regarding this topic should be carefully considered. The US and Mexico have always had tense, unstable relations. In general, the interests of any Latin developing nation collide with Washington’s plans in its international projections. With Mexico, it is no different. The Latin country tries to assert itself as a protective state for the developing nations of Central America. As a Latin country in North America and with an economy considerably stronger than most other Latin nations, Mexico plays a of regional political power and mediator in conflicts between Washington and the Latin world – which obviously does not interest the US.

Currently, one of the most relevant points in the clash of interests between the US and Latin nations is the migration issue. Biden, whose electoral base was the Hispanic population on American soil, promised a comprehensive and efficient migration reform that would legalize the situation of thousands of Latinos in the US. It would be unfair to say that Biden has not made efforts to legalize immigrants – much progress has been made, but the long-awaited reform has not yet happened and may not occur anytime soon. The current migration rates have already been severely criticized by American society, in addition to having generated a diplomatic crisis with Canada due to the allocation of illegal immigrants on the northern border. The Biden Administration will, of course, maintain moderate efforts to disguise the problem, but it will not take any radical steps to legalize all immigrants. Mexico, as a mediator of interests between Latin States and the North, is impatiently awaiting a definitive response from the Biden Administration regarding the migration issue – and the longer Washington takes to resolve the problem, the more this harms Mexican interests.

It is not by chance that the meeting between Obrador and Harris did not make any progress regarding migration. On the other hand, some extremely important topics were addressed – mostly due to pressure from the Mexican leader. This is the case, for example, with American financial support for Latin nations. Economic instability in Latin America – especially in Central America – is an extremely sensitive topic, as it affects not only the interests of Latin countries but also the American interests, because the more poverty in these countries, the more there will be immigrants in the US. Central American nations pressure Mexico to demand from Biden a financial assistance to the countries of the North Central American Triangle – Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala -, which has been promised for months and remains without any real effect. At the meeting, both leaders signed a memorandum of understanding promising to mutually collaborate for the economic development of southern Mexico and northern Central America. But, in practice, this will depend on the US government’s investment priorities.

Another point also discussed at the meeting and of central importance is the issue of combating the pandemic. Washington recently shipped 2.7 million doses of AstraZeneca and promised to ship one million single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccines. The gesture was a great diplomatic “kindness” with the neighboring country, considering that the US still prohibits the export of the vaccine – similar actions were taken with Canada, India and South Korea (all important geopolitical allies of Washington). This indicates that Washington really intends to make Mexico a closer nation with friendlier relations, but the problem is what that would imply for Latin countries. Mexico wants the US to help poor Central American nations fight the pandemic. The US is not interested in operating such assistance, which will also lead to more crises and migration flows, given the social impacts of the pandemic.

As a result, we have a vicious cycle where relations between the US and Mexico are getting better and better on points that concern only these two countries, but they do not advance in the agenda of aid to Central America. At the heart of this problem is the migration issue: the more crisis in Central America, the more immigrants in the US. Washington wants to curb migration but is currently unwilling to invest in mechanisms to avoid migration flows due to other “priorities” of the US government.

It is undeniable that Biden is willing to maintain good relations with Obrador, but for that he will demand that the Mexican president abandon his role as representative of the interests of the Latin nations and mediator in the dialogue between Central America and Washington – which Obrador will not do. The Mexican leader is not willing to give up his role as a mediator, not because he cares a lot about Central America, but because this role is of central importance for Mexican geopolitics: it is Mexico’s international projection as a regional political power. Washington wants Mexico close as a subordinate, not an allied power, so conflicts of interest will continue.

So, the meeting between Harris and Obrador was undoubtedly very important, but it was not a great advance. The topics discussed at the meeting were absolutely superfluous and only served the interests of these both countries, ignoring the most important issues (concerning Central America). Therefore, this may indeed be the beginning of fruitful bilateral relations, but it is far from being a “new era”.

*

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

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

We all knew this was coming. In order to justify the forced vaccination of children, the powers that be would somehow have to overturn 15 months of observations that COVID is less a threat to children than the flu and that unvaccinated children are less at risk than vaccinated adults (100 times less at risk than seniors), even if we are to believe Pfizer’s efficacy data.

“CDC director reports spike in teen hospitalizations, urges parents to vaccinate kids over 12,” was the headline at the Hill on Friday, reporting on the CDC’s new study of hospitalizations. Naturally, it caught my attention because we all know that hospitalizations among all age groups have been plummeting to record lows across the country in recent weeks. It turns out that along with its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the CDC published a “study” purporting to show an increase in hospitalizations among 12- to 17-year-olds, with one-third of them being in the ICU and 5% of them being placed on ventilators.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky was ready to pounce. “I am deeply concerned by the numbers of hospitalized adolescents and saddened to see the number of adolescents who required treatment in intensive care units or mechanical ventilation,” said Walensky in a statement.

Of course, the solution is the great experimental gene therapy. “Until they are fully vaccinated, adolescents should continue to wear masks and take precautions when around other [sic] who are not vaccinated to protect themselves, and their family, friends, and community,” Walensky stated.

CNN dutifully echoed the false data and the premise it engenders without investigating it.

But there’s one problem. The CDC’s own data show that hospitalizations among all groups have plummeted over the past six weeks. It turns out they picked arbitrary start and end points – an old trick they’ve used with mask studies – which coincides with a period of increased hospitalizations among all age groups, including those with high vaccination rates.

The study period of the CDC’s report was from March 1, 2020, to April 24, 2021. It just so happens that April 24 was roughly the peak period for ALL age groups!

Most of that mini increase (after the major winter spread) was due to the final spring spread in the northeast and upper Midwest. Based on the CDC’s headlines, one would think that childhood hospitalizations are spreading now and that they are rising relative to other age groups. In reality, they have plummeted and only rose slightly from a near-zero baseline earlier this year along with other groups.

If anything, the April 24 “peak” hospitalization rate among teens was lower than the peak during the winter, yet nobody ever felt there was an emergent situation with teen COVID hospitalizations during the worst months of the winter.

This is the same thing the CDC and others did when they picked arbitrary start and end points last year showing a decline in cases after mask mandates were instituted, while ignoring the massive subsequent increase over the winter in these same places.

But here’s the kicker: Hospital rates among children actually increased more slowly during the early spring spread than among those over 65, which is the most vaccinated demographic.

So, there is no way to chalk up that superficial increase with an arbitrary start and end point to lack of vaccination. It’s merely a reflection of a time when cases went up mildly in a minority of the country (while plummeting in the South and West). Whatever tiny baseline of hospitalizations there are among children went up commensurately with the baseline increase during any other period of spread. Of course, today, hospitalizations are lower than ever. There is zero evidence that vaccination rates played any role in that trend.

Finally, numerous studies, including the CDC’s own data, show that there is a much higher rate of fake COVID hospitalizations among children than adults, aka when there is no proof they were hospitalized because of COVID. According to this very report from Friday, 46% of those reputed teen hospitalizations were “not clearly COVID-19 related.”

What’s worse, almost half of those teens in the observational study where the cause was unclear appear to have been admitted for psychiatric reasons!

In other words, it’s likely the depression induced by the very panic the CDC is trying to exacerbate among kids that has engendered a decline in mental health leading to hospitalization, not the virus itself.

According to the U.K. Daily Mail, a recent U.K. survey of humanitarian organizations found that “more than a quarter of 75 charities surveyed said some children had expressed suicidal thoughts, while 41 per cent said some had been abused at home in lockdown.” In the U.S., the CDC reports 1,139 deaths from COVID under the age of 25, but concedes that 30% of those deaths included could not plausibly be linked to the virus. At the same time, there were over 2,500 non-COVID excess deaths for that age cohort, meaning that the panic, hysteria, drug overdoses, and suicides likely killed 3.5 times as many teens and young adults as the virus.

It doesn’t take a forensic investigator to realize that there has been a plethora of teenagers in the hospital due to the lies overstating the threat of the virus to them. Naturally, at a time when COVID is increasing in all age groups, a certain percentage of those youngsters will test positive for the virus. Accordingly, any subsequent death of any teen who tested positive – whether he or she died from drugs or suicide – will be recorded as a COVID death.

In May, New York magazine published a story highlighting new studies showing that the pediatric hospitalization numbers for COVID have likely been dramatically inflated throughout the country. The first study, published in the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, was conducted by Stanford researchers and examined 117 reputed COVID hospitalizations among those under 18 at a children’s hospital in Northern California. They found that just 7.7% exhibited severe illness and 12.8% critical illness. Overall, 45% were classified as “unlikely to be caused by SARSCoV2,” and it appears that most of the others weren’t suffering life-threatening illness.

The second study, published in the same journal, found in America’s fifth-largest hospital that, among patients younger than 22, 40% had “incidental infection,” only 47% were “potentially symptomatic,” and just 14% were “significantly symptomatic.” They further found that “Fifty-five percent of incidental and 47% of potentially symptomatic patients had at least one identified comorbidity, while 90% of significantly symptomatic patients had at least one.”

The twisted irony is that the CDC is lying about COVID hospitalization trends in order to get children to vaccinate when, in fact, vaccine-related hospitalization are really on the rise today. Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease specialist at UCSF, tallied the data from just one reported serious side effect listed in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), myocarditis, and found that hospitalization for myocarditis post-vaccination among 12-17-year-olds is currently 12 times greater than hospitalization for COVID. Why do our “public health experts” not find that current trend alarming?

It’s quite evident that the pandemic in America is over with and it never affected children, even during its peak. However, the pandemic of lies, fear, panic, and emotional abuse is continuing indefinitely until Pfizer and Moderna satiate their rapacious appetite for children’s blood. Who will defend our children?

*

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 Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. (Raed Mansour/Flickr)

All Global Research articles 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 Norwegian public health professional received a massive official backlash after he suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic was “nearly over” judging by the country’s plummeting case numbers.

Norwegian Institute of Public Health chief physician Preben Aavistland tweeted a graph showing rapidly declining hospital admissions along with the words, “Well, there goes the pandemic.”

Aavistland then made the fatal error of being upbeat about the end of the pandemic when speaking to a newspaper, saying things “are going very well” and that Norway is “in the final sprint” against the pandemic.

“Here in Norway, the pandemic is almost over. We can start preparing for an everyday life where the corona has very little place in our lives,” Aavitsland told Verdens Gang.

The physician also compared the situation to a forest fire where very few pockets of flames were left to be extinguished.

“Very few are hospitalised and only several thousand cases of infection are discovered every week,” he said. “The numbers are declining rapidly at the same time as more and more people are being vaccinated. We will see some small outbreaks here and there, but we know how to stop them within three to four weeks.”

For the sin of being optimistic, Aavistland was verbally crucified by the government and the medical establishment.

Mads Gilbert, the head of the emergency medicine department at the University Hospital of North Norway, accused Aavistland of “sabotaging” the fight against the pandemic.

“High-level role conflicts are very destructive. It sparks uncertainty, ambiguity and confusion. It must be extremely frustrating for the hard-working local health teams to get this type of double communication from the national top management,” Gilbert told NRK.

Espen Rostrup Nakstad, Deputy Director of Health at the Norwegian Directorate for Health and Social Affairs, said there was “no reason to rejoice” because of the existence of variants and the fact that not everyone has been vaccinated yet.

Prime Minister Erna Solberg also asserted that people should keep complying with what they are ordered to do by authorities.

“It is important not to revel in joy in advance. People may start thinking that they don’t need to be vaccinated, or that we stop doing as the authorities do,” she said.

Frode Forland, director of infection control at the National Institute of Public Health, said Norwegians couldn’t begin to think about life returning to normal until after the end of the summer.

The backlash Aavistland received yet again emphasizes how scientific and government elites literally never want the pandemic to end because it has enriched them with so much power.

Now that the precedent has been set in terms of the public’s cowering response, expect authorities to re-impose rolling lockdowns at the drop of a hat by merely pointing to new variants of COVID-19 or new viruses entirely.

*

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.

***

We are part of a group of clinicians, scientists, and patient advocates who have lodged a formal “Citizen Petition” with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), asking the agency to delay any consideration of a “full approval” of a covid-19 vaccine. The message of our petition is “slow down and get the science right—there is no legitimate reason to hurry to grant a license to a coronavirus vaccine.” We believe the existing evidence base—both pre- and post-authorization—is simply not mature enough at this point to adequately judge whether clinical benefits outweigh the risks in all populations.

The covid-19 vaccines in widespread use have emergency authorizations (EUA), not actual approvals, a crucial regulatory distinction that reflects major differences in the level of regulatory scrutiny and certainty about the risk-benefit balance.

Our petition doesn’t argue that risks outweigh benefits—or that benefits outweigh risks. Rather, we focus on methods and processes, outlining the many remaining unknowns about safety and effectiveness—and suggest the kinds of studies needed to address the open questions.

If the FDA listens to us, they won’t give serious consideration to approving a covid-19 vaccine until 2022. Our first request is that the FDA require manufacturers to submit data from completed Phase III trials—not interim results. Trials by vaccine manufacturers were designed to follow participants for two years, and should be completed before they are evaluated for full approval, even if they are now unblinded and lack placebo groups. These Phase III trials are not simply efficacy studies; they also are necessary and important safety studies (as the study titles say), and all collected data remain invaluable.

We also call on FDA to require a more thorough assessment of spike proteins produced in-situ by the body following vaccination—including studies on their full biodistribution, pharmacokinetics, and tissue-specific toxicities. We ask the FDA to demand manufacturers complete proper biodistribution studies that would be expected of any new drug and request additional studies to better understand the implications of mRNA translation in distant tissues. We call on data demonstrating a thorough investigation of all serious adverse events reported to pharmacovigilance systems, carried out by independent, impartial individuals, and for safety data from individuals receiving more than two vaccine doses, in consideration of plans for future booster shots. We ask the FDA to request necessary studies in specific populations, including those previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, pediatric subjects, and those with immunological or other underlying medical complexities. Given the nature of the novel vaccine platforms, our petition asks for experts in gene therapy to be included among the external committee advising the FDA.

These are several of our major requests. The petition has been signed by a group of 27 clinicians, researchers, and consumer advocates with diverse experiences and thoughts about the pandemic. We all agree that there remain many open, unanswered questions surrounding the efficacy and safety of covid-19 vaccines that must be answered before the FDA gives serious consideration to granting full approval.

These are the reasons why we lodged our petition. There is no need to rush approval to help stop the pandemic because the vaccines already have Emergency Use Authorization. Yet a rushed process is the very possibility that now confronts us. In the past month, Pfizer and Moderna submitted formal applications for “full approval.”

Covid-19 vaccines are already fully accessible to all Americans who want one. EUAs have enabled their widespread use, and can remain in place even after the expiry of the SARS-CoV-2 public health emergency declaration, as is the case for various Zika products. Even without full approval, covid-19 vaccines will remain available for all who want them under EUA.

Some surveys suggest that vaccine hesitancy in the United States is due, in part, to lack of full FDA approval. While approval might lead to increased public confidence in covid-19 vaccines, as well as provide legal support for employer-instituted vaccine mandates, to approve a medical product for these reasons is outside FDA’s regulatory purview. Approval decisions must be driven by the safety and efficacy data. The potential unintended consequences of a rushed approval may contribute to growing mistrust of the US public health and regulatory institutions.

Finally, regarding the elephant in the room: publicly raising any element of hesitation about covid-19 vaccines will be seen by some as irresponsible, stoking unfounded fears in the public’s mind and contributing to the “vaccine hesitancy” problem trumpeted every day. But the alternatives—privately raising concerns or simply remaining silent—are arguably more detrimental to public trust in the long run. Staying silent is not the responsible option.  And the implications of only privately raising concerns to regulatory bodies are murky—most would probably not be acted upon, and if they were, it would promulgate the baggage of insufficient accountability and transparency in decision making.

To us, the Citizen Petition seemed the most responsible approach: voice our concerns in our own words, in a professional and transparent manner, through a formal mechanism that can promote accountability in regulatory decision making.

Approving a covid-19 vaccine now risks setting a precedent of lowered standards for future vaccine approvals. The “FDA approved” seal must represent a high bar—and premature licensure of a covid-19 vaccine could seriously damage public confidence in regulatory authorities, particularly if long-term safety issues were to emerge following licensure. Keeping covid-19 vaccines under EUA regulations would also encourage vaccine manufacturers to continue investing resources in completing the necessary safety and efficacy studies for a potential FDA consideration of full licensure in the future.

For each covid-19 vaccine, the benefits may ultimately outweigh the harms. Or not. Or we may end up in a more nuanced position, finding that benefits outweigh harms for some populations, but not others.  Only time—and better evidence—will tell.  And so it is vital we allow the scientific process the time required to gather and assess the evidence to be confident in the decisions we ultimately have to make.

Our citizen petition and supporting documents are filed under Docket ID FDA-2021-P-0521 on regulations.gov. Anybody can comment on the petition, or read others’ comments, including the FDA’s official reply once it arrives.

*

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.

Linda Wastila is Professor and Parke-Davis Endowed Chair of Geriatric Pharmacotherapy at the University of Maryland Baltimore School of Pharmacy. She has conducted policy and epidemiological research focusing on intended and unintended outcomes of clinical and policy interventions involving medications and their safety over the past 30 years.

Peter Doshi is an associate professor of pharmaceutical health services research at University of Maryland Baltimore School of Pharmacy and senior editor at The BMJ.  He has been calling for greater independence and transparency in covid-19 vaccine related decision making.

Hamid Merchant is a subject lead in pharmacy at The University of Huddersfield and has experience in pharmaceutical research and development both from industry and academia. His clinical knowledge and expertise in pharmaceutical formulation helps in understanding the clinical and therapeutic principles underpinning drug delivery and the science of dosage-form design.

Kim Witczak is a global drug safety advocate with over 25 years of advertising and marketing experience. She co-founded Woodymatters, an organization started after the death of her husband due to undisclosed side effects of antidepressants. Kim is currently Consumer Representative on the FDA Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee. 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why We Petitioned the FDA to Refrain from Fully Approving Any COVID-19 Vaccine this Year
  • Tags: , ,

Quick Facts on Israel’s New Prime Minister Naftali Bennett

June 9th, 2021 by Institute for Middle East Understanding

All Global Research articles 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.

***

Born to American parents who immigrated from San Francisco to Israel in 1967, Bennett is a far-right ultranationalist who staunchly opposes Palestinian statehood or self-determination of any kind in Palestine/Israel. 

Although not a settler himself, from 2010 to 2012 he was head of the main political body (Yesha Council) that represents Israeli settlers living on occupied Palestinian land in violation of international law and is a staunch supporter of Israel’s settlement enterprise.

A former member of the Likud party, he was Netanyahu’s chief of staff from 2006-2008. As the leader of the Jewish Home party (2012-2018), he was a key partner in Netanyahu’s coalition government, serving as minister of education and minister of diaspora affairs. During the previous government, he was minister of economy and minister of religious services. He was also minister of education (2015-2019) and minister of defense (2019-2020) under Netanyahu. In 2018, he left Jewish Home to form the New Right party.

Bennett has repeatedly stated his categorical opposition to a Palestinian state being created in the occupied territories. Instead, he proposes Israel unilaterally annex the approximately 60% of the Palestinian West Bank that fell under full Israeli control under the supposedly temporary Oslo Accords, where most Israeli settlements are located. In 2014, Bennett told journalists Israel “will be gradually attempting to apply Israeli law [annexing] on Israeli controlled areas of Judea and Samaria [the occupied West Bank].” In 2013, he declared: “I favor implementation of Israeli sovereignty over the zone where 400,000 (settlers) live and only 70,000 Arabs.” Bennett also ridiculed then-ongoing US-led negotiations under the Obama administration, declaring it’s “all a joke.”

In 2014, Bennett wrote an op-ed for The New York Times, “For Israel, Two-State Is No Solution,” repeating once again his opposition to Palestinian self-determination and his plan to annex 60% of the West Bank. In 2013, he told the New Yorker magazine: “I will do everything in my power, forever, to fight against a Palestinian state being founded in the Land of Israel.” A few months later, in June, he declared: “The most important thing in the Land of Israel is to build, build, build [settlements]. It’s important that there will be an Israeli presence everywhere. Our principal problem is still Israel’s leaders’ unwillingness to say in a simple manner that the Land of Israel belongs to the People of Israel.”

In 2014, then-Minister of the Economy and Religious Services Bennett released a letter addressed to Palestinian citizens of Israel, who make up about 20% of the population, warning them against becoming a “fifth column.” According to press reports, the letter, written in Arabic, was riddled with errors.

Bennett also advocates increased Jewish control over the revered Noble Sanctuary mosque complex in occupied East Jerusalem, known as the Temple Mount to Jews, which is the third holiest site in Islam. Extremist messianic Jews want to build a temple in the Noble Sanctuary, which would spark a major religious conflagration in the region and beyond. In February 2014, Bennett told a meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations that Israel was attempting to exercise greater control over the Noble Sanctuary, stating that he had already taken measures that would “ultimately influence the eastern side of Jerusalem, and that will include the Temple Mount.”

In October 2018, Bennett said that if he were defense minister he would order a shoot to kill policy against Palestinians attempting to walk across the boundary between Israel and Gaza, where nearly 2 million people have been trapped under an illegal Israeli siege and naval blockade for 15 years. When asked if he would instruct soldiers to kill Palestinian children, Bennett said, “They are not children — they are terrorists. We are fooling ourselves. I see the photos.” At that point, at least 140 demonstrators had been killed by Israeli soldiers, including at least 29 children according to the UN, as well as medical workers and journalists, and more than 29,000 others injured, as part of the Great March of Return.

In 2013, Bennett sparked controversy when it was reported that during a cabinet meeting on releasing Palestinian prisoners he declared: “If we capture terrorists, we need to just kill them… I’ve already killed a lot of Arabs in my life – and there is no problem with that.” Asked for clarification by journalists, a spokesperson said Bennett meant Israeli soldiers should be ordered to kill Palestinians instead of capturing and imprisoning them.

*

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

What to Expect When Biden, Erdogan Meet

June 9th, 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.

***

Expectations are soaring in Ankara over the forthcoming meeting between US President Joe Biden and his Turkish counterpart Recep Erdogan on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Brussels on June 14. Erdogan said recently, “I believe that our meeting with Mr. Biden at the NATO summit will be the harbinger of a new era.” 

Without doubt, the US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s remarks at a White House briefing on Monday on Biden’s first presidential tour abroad carried positive vibes — that Biden is looking forward to reviewing the “full breadth” of Ankara-Washington ties and discuss Eastern Mediterranean, Syria, Afghanistan and other regional issues as part of an “expansive agenda” next week, while acknowledging that the two leaders will also look at the “significant differences” between the two NATO allies. 

Most important, Sullivan transmitted a “presidential message” to Erdogan personally:

“President Biden knows Erdogan very well. The two men have spent a good amount of time together and they’re both, I think, looking forward to the opportunity to really have a business-like opportunity to review the full breadth of the relationship.” 

The conventional wisdom amongst analysts is that the US and Turkey are hopelessly entangled in a messy relationship. But then, the two countries also have a long history of sequestering their alliance from deep differences. At the present moment, what lends enchantment to the Turkish American alliance is that Washington consistently regarded Turkey as a “swing” state which can tilt the West’s relations with Russia.

Add to that now a further dimension, with an eye on Turkey’s unique geography, as regards the US’ prioritisation of China’s exclusion from the western world. There’s no gainsaying that the upcoming meeting in Brussels will be a high-stakes affair.  

With a touch of exaggeration, perhaps, one can even say that Biden’s meetings with Erdogan (June 14) and Putin (June 16) are joined at the hips. In almost all the “talking points” that Sullivan singled out — Eastern Mediterranean, Syria and Afghanistan — Russia is a sleeping partner. 

And more so, if we recognise that an “expansive agenda” cannot but include the entire swathe of the region where Europe and Eurasia overlap, which is turning into a theatre of contestation between the US (NATO) and Russia  — from Central Asia to the Caspian and Caucasus; and, from the Black Sea northward across Ukraine. 

To be sure, the Biden administration is preparing well for the upcoming meeting with Erdogan. To borrow an expression that Sullivan used to graphically thumb sketch Vladimir Putin, Erdogan too is a “a singular kind of personalised leader, and having the opportunity to come together in a summit will allow us to manage this relationship and stand up and defend American values most effectively.” 

Much preparatory work has been undertaken. Two top US diplomats travelled to Ankara in recent weeks for consultations —  Deputy Secretary of State, Wendy Sherman and the US ambassador to the United Nations (who carries cabinet rank), Linda Thomas-Greenfield. The State Department announced that Sherman would “underscore the importance of the US-Turkey relationship as we work together with our NATO ally to confront mutual challenges, and discuss areas of concern.” 

The US Mission to the UN at New York said in an announcement last week that Thomas-Greenfield would discuss “opportunities to strengthen the US- Turkey relationship, work with our NATO ally to address global challenges (and) improve cooperation on Syria.”  A senior US diplomat at the New York mission called this “a moment of intense engagement” with senior Turkish officials ahead of the Biden-Erdogan meeting. 

The US diplomat added that Turkey is “a critical NATO ally, and we have a strategic relationship that spans an enormous breadth of issues and concerns, including global and regional security issues, obviously, economic issues related to democracy and human rights.”  

The Turkish side too began preparing for the Biden-Erdogan meeting through past several weeks since Biden pronounced on April 24 the taboo “Armenian genocide” — after the 1915 wartime massacres under the Ottoman Rule. It was a red line for Turkey and Ankara should have reacted harshly — ranging from a closure of the İncirlik are base to the US or even stoping the operations of the ABM radar base in Malatya-Kurecik in eastern Turkey, a strategic asset of the western alliance system in encircling Russia. 

But Biden’s profound experience in international diplomacy was on display when he put a call through to Erdogan prior to making the announcement on the Armenian genocide and offered to meet in Brussels in June.

Interestingly, prior to that phone conversation, Sullivan made a call (April 23) with Erdogan’s top aide İbrahim Kalın where they reached a “consensus” on the exact wording that Biden would use in his announcement the next day whereby the blame for the Armenian genocide would be placed at the doorsteps of the dying Ottoman Empire and ensure Ankara wouldn’t be wrestling with compensation lawsuits in American courts by the heirs of Armenians who fled to the US in 1915 or after.  

Sullivan’s tactful diplomacy and Biden’s gracious gesture had a magical effect on Erdogan. By the way, a third call also came from Washington to Ankara to follow up on Biden’s conversation with Erdogan: this time around, State Secretary Antony Blinken called his Turkish counterpart Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu.

Indeed, three top-level calls from Washington to Ankara within two hours on April 23! They ensured that Biden’s announcement on April 24 all but became a non-event. Suffice to say, Biden’s highly inflammatory announcement has since become a damp squib. The highly excitable Turks have since moved on. 

The episode testifies to the inherent strength and resilience of Turkish-American alliance. This is the touchstone to apply to reassess Turkey’s current “Islamist” ruling elite. The point is, amidst the cacophony over “Neo-Ottomanism”, Turkey’s apparent obsession with “strategic autonomy” or Erdogan’s mercurial personality traits, the Turkish elite cannot afford a rupture in the umbilical chord that ties them to the western world. 

Turkey’s Islamist elite are as much the inheritors of Ataturk’s legacy that their country’s destiny lies with the West. The Americans — Biden, in particular — would know that home truth. Therefore, the leitmotif of the Biden-Erdogan summit is going to be the tango at a personal level between the two presidents whose genius for dealmaking is a legion.  

Having said that, the differences, concerns and interests that keep Washington and Ankara apart are not to be underestimated. That needs a separate analysis. But make no mistake, a process of reconciliation is due to commence. 

*

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: US Vice President Joe Biden (L) and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan at their last meeting at Yildiz Mabeyn Palace, Istanbul, Jan. 23, 2016 (File photo)

All Global Research articles 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 way that people view the world is greatly shaped by the “news” that they see on television and read on the Internet.  Unfortunately, much of that “news” is produced by just five enormous corporations.  In fact, although the numbers vary from month to month, more than 90 percent of the “news” that Americans watch on television is controlled by those five corporations.  Smaller outlets such as Newsmax are trying to make a dent, but it is an uphill battle.  Internet news is more diversified, but in conjunction with the 15 billionaires that own and control America’s newspaper industry, the same five corporations have come to dominate online as well.  The tech giants have certainly helped their cause by designating them as “trusted sources” and by adjusting algorithms to ensure that we get a steady diet of the “news” that the media giants are constantly putting out.  The entire system is designed to direct us to certain voices, and those voices are constantly working very hard to alter what we think about things.

According to one survey, the average American spends 238 minutes a day watching television.  If you allow anyone to pump that much propaganda into your mind day after day, it is inevitable that the way that you view the world is going to change.

Sadly, a lot of people out there still believe that the big corporate-owned news networks are the “guardians of democracy” and are just looking out for their best interests.

Needless to say, that is not even close to reality.  In our day and time, everyone has agendas to push, and the big corporate-owned news networks are not any exception.  The “journalists” at those networks are going to shape the news to push the messages that their corporate masters want them to push, and anybody that believes otherwise is simply being naive.

So exactly who are these five giant corporations that own and control almost all of the news that we see on television?

Well, the first is AT&T’s WarnerMedia which owns CNN

The Cable News Network (CNN) is a multinational news-based pay television channel headquartered in Atlanta.[3][4][5] It is owned by CNN Worldwide, a unit of the WarnerMedia News & Sports division of AT&T‘s WarnerMedia.[6] It was founded in 1980 by American media proprietor Ted Turner and Reese Schonfeld as a 24-hour cable news channel.[7][8][9] Upon its launch in 1980, CNN was the first television channel to provide 24-hour news coverage,[10] and was the first all-news television channel in the United States.[11]

The second is Comcast which owns NBC News

NBCUniversal Media, LLC is an American mass media and entertainment conglomerate owned by Comcast and headquartered at 30 Rockefeller Plaza in Midtown ManhattanNew York City.[5]

NBCUniversal is primarily involved in the media and entertainment industry. The company is named for its two most significant divisions, the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) – one of the United States’ Big Three television networks – and the major Hollywood film studio Universal Pictures. It also has a significant presence in broadcasting through a portfolio of domestic and international properties, including USA NetworkSyfyBravoTelemundoUniversal Kids, and the streaming service Peacock. Via its Universal Parks & Resorts division, NBCUniversal is also the third-largest operator of amusement parks in the world.[6]

Of course Comcast also owns cable news outlet MSNBC

MSNBC is an American news-based pay television cable channel based in New York City. It is owned by the NBCUniversal News Group division of NBCUniversal (a subsidiary of Comcast). It provides NBC News coverage as well as its own reporting and political commentary on current events.

Disney has now become the largest media company in the entire world, and they are the proud owners of ABC News

The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) is an American multinational commercial broadcasttelevision network that is a flagship property of Walt Disney Television, a division of Disney General Entertainment Content of The Walt Disney Company. The network is headquartered in Burbank, California, on Riverside Drive, directly across the street from Walt Disney Studios and adjacent to the Roy E. Disney Animation Building. The network’s secondary offices, and headquarters of its news division, are in New York City, at its broadcast center at 77 West 66th Street on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

ViacomCBS may not be as big as the other corporations on this list, but their control of CBS News gives them a tremendous amount of influence…

CBS (originally an abbreviation for Columbia Broadcasting System, its former legal name that was used from 1928 to 1974) is an American commercial broadcast television and radio network. It serves as the flagship property of the CBS Entertainment Group division of ViacomCBS. The network is headquartered at the CBS Building in New York City, with major production facilities and operations at the CBS Broadcast Center in New York City, and CBS Television City and the CBS Studio Center in Los Angeles.

Last, but certainly not least, Fox Corporation (which is controlled by the Murdoch family) owns and controls Fox News…

Fox Corporation is an American mass media company headquartered in New York City. The company was formed in 2019 as a result of the acquisition of 21st Century Fox by The Walt Disney Company; the assets that were not acquired by Disney were spun off from 21st Century Fox as the new Fox Corp., and its stock began trading on January 1, 2019.[6][7][8] The company is incorporated in Delaware.

It is owned by the Murdoch family via a family trust with 39.6% interest;[9] Rupert Murdoch is chairman, while his son Lachlan Murdoch is executive chairman and CEO. Fox Corp. deals primarily in the television broadcast, news, and sports broadcasting industries. They include the Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox Television Stations, Fox News, Fox Business, the national operations of Fox Sports, and others. Its sister company under Murdoch’s control, the present-day News Corp, holds his print interests and other media assets.

Many consider Fox News to be the “conservative alternative” to the other major news networks, but the truth is that the “news” that Fox News produces is not really that much different from the “news” that the other networks produce.

Every day, millions upon millions of Americans have conversations that center around the “news” that they just saw on television.  So those that decide what the “news” is going to be have an extraordinary amount of power.

Just look at what happened when the Fauci emails were revealed.  They showed that Dr. Fauci had been lying to us over and over again, and they also showed that he was involved in a massive conspiracy to cover up the true origin of the pandemic.

But CNN, MSNBC, NBC News, ABC News and CBS News all decided that it wasn’t going to be a scandal, and so most Americans don’t believe that it is one.

On Monday, a British news source published a bombshell story about text messages in which Hunter Biden used some of the most racist language imaginable, and that should be front page news all over the country.

But the big news networks are being silent about Hunter Biden’s text messages.  In fact, I couldn’t even find a single reference to the story on the homepage of Fox News.

So Hunter Biden’s racist language is not going to be a scandal because they don’t want it to be a scandal.

Meanwhile, Chris Harrison is being permanently canceled for simply suggesting that a contestant on his former show should be given “a little grace” for a mistake that she made in her past…

“We all need to have a little grace… Because I’ve seen some stuff online, again this judge-jury-executioner thing, where people are just tearing this girl’s life apart,” Harrison said during the interview. “I’m not defending Rachael. I just know that, I don’t know, 50 million people did that in 2018. That was a type of party that a lot of people went to.”

He continued: “The woke police is out there. And this poor girl Rachael, who has just been thrown to the lions. I don’t know how you are equipped when you have never done this before, to be woke enough, to be eloquent enough, to be ready to handle this.”

When are we finally going to get fed up with all the hypocrisy?

If Chris Harrison is going to get canceled simply for wanting to show a little bit of grace to someone, how much more does Hunter Biden deserve to get canceled for the horrific language that he used?

But Hunter Biden is not going to get canceled because he is off limits.

He can literally do anything that he wants because his father is in the White House, and the mainstream media is going to protect Joe Biden at all costs.

It is at this point in the article that I should encourage everyone to turn off the mainstream news networks and never look back.

But we all know that the vast majority of Americans are going to continue to watch their favorite news networks no matter how corrupt they become, and that is extremely unfortunate.

*

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

Michael Snyder‘s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com. He has written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters.

Featured image is from End of the American Dream

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Over 90% of the News You See on Television Is Owned and Controlled by Just 5 Giant Corporations
  • Tags: , ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In Iran, the beginning of June has been marked by a “pandemic” of fires in various locations.

On June 6th and 7th, two separate fires took place in the Islamic republic, with one happening near Tehran and the second in the central Kerman province.

The first fire took place in the city of Zarand in Kerman, at a steel factory.

The accident reportedly occurred due to the spillage of molten material.

In spite of ample evidence in videos and eyewitness reports to the contrary, authorities said that there had been no explosion.

According to local sources the explosion was so strong that people in villages and surrounding regions of Zarand were jolted.

There is also some speculation that it was somehow expected with personnel being evacuated hours earlier.

Less than a day later, a massive fire broke out at the Behnoush soft drink factory which is located to the west of Tehran.

The fire had started in an open-air storage area where flammable materials were stored.

No casualties were reported as a result of the fire.

Both fires were ruled as accidents, and it is a likely scenario as temperatures in Iran are quite high at the moment.

On June 2nd, a massive fire had broken out at the Shahid Tondgooyan refinery in Shahr-e-Rey, south of the capital Tehran, state media reported.

Hours before the incident in Shahr-e-Rey, the largest ship in the Iranian navy caught fire and later sank in the Gulf of Oman under unclear circumstances.

There is room to speculate, however, over the last few months, fires erupted in several military and industrial facilities across Iran.

Despite being dubbed as accidents, and keeping in mind the climate, the frequency of these fires could potentially suggest some were not accidental.

Separately, hopes are high in Iran, as months of negotiations on the Nuclear Deal have come to a close as representatives of all signatories have returned to their respective capitals to discuss further steps.

Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian top nuclear negotiator, said that good progress has been made in this round of talks, but there are still disagreements on key issues.

Additionally, Iran’s foreign minister Javad Zarif said that full compliance by the US to the deal needs to be resumed so that actual progress can be made.

However, US secretary of state Antony Blinken has one more time admitted that he was unsure whether or not Tehran was interested in rejoining the deal.

Negotiators have produced at least 20 pages of text with various options on how to solve the remaining hurdles.

Many points were made in regard to the lifting of sanctions, the limited use of centrifuges and more and it is expected that negotiations will continue in the following months.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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


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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Fires and Explosions in Iran. Hopes for Nuclear Deal Rescue Flicker
  • Tags: ,