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.

***

Eight people in Maine have died with COVID after being fully vaccinated, according to the latest numbers from Maine’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which confirmed a total of 457 breakthrough cases in the state.

Initial data suggest breakthrough cases in Maine are more common in older individuals and people with underlying health conditions — the same populations that, among the unvaccinated, are most at risk of hospitalization or death from the virus.

About half of the vaccinated people in Maine who tested positive for COVID had not experienced symptoms when contacted by case investigators, according to the Maine CDC.

In Maine and other states, anyone who tests positive for SARS-Cov-2 two weeks after receiving the single-dose Johnson & Johnson shot or completing the two-dose Moderna or Pfizer vaccination is recorded as a breakthrough case.

The daughter of one Maine woman who died from the virus despite being vaccinated said she wishes there was more information available about breakthrough cases. If she had known more, she said, she would have taken more precautions despite her mother’s vaccination status and been more insistent that she seek testing and treatment when she first had symptoms.

On June 3, Napa County California announced a fully vaccinated woman, who was more than a month past her second Moderna shot, died after being hospitalized with COVID. The 65-year-old woman had underlying conditions and tested positive for the Alpha variant, The New York Times reported.

“I’m very sad that she had a sufficiently severe illness that it actually led to her death,” said Dr. William Schaffner, medical director of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases and a vaccine expert at Vanderbilt University. But “we expected to have the occasional breakthrough infection,” he said.

As of June 9, there had been more than 5,723 breakthrough COVID cases identified in California, according to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH).

Of the 5,723 cases, at least 417 people were hospitalized and least 47 died. Approximately 48% of cases were missing hospitalization data. It is not known if the primary cause of hospitalization or death was COVID or if there were other causes.

There is little data about COVID vaccines’ effectiveness in people with underlying health problems, especially immune impairment, because they weren’t included in the vaccines’ initial trials, CDPH said. But there is growing evidence people who are immunocompromised may not mount a strong response to the vaccine.

As The Defender reported last month, emerging research shows 15% to 80% of people with certain medical conditions aren’t generating many antibodies, if any, after receiving a COVID vaccine.

According to NBC News, people taking medications that suppress their immune system, those on medication for inflammatory disorders and those with blood cancers showed a significantly weaker antibody response to the vaccine.

An organ transplant study published in JAMA found 46% of 658 transplant patients did not mount an antibody response after two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines. Researchers think the lack of reaction is probably a result of taking a class of immunosuppressive drugs, called antimetabolites.

Other states continue to report breakthrough cases, among them Texas, which recorded  more than 768 breakthrough COVID cases through June 1, with 8% (61 cases) resulting in death.

In Washington, the state’s Department of Health reported 1,837 cases of breakthrough infection through June 9. Of those, 10% resulted in hospitalization and 31 people died from COVID-related illness. The majority of cases occurred in the 35 to 49 age group.

CDC stops counting breakthrough cases unless they result in hospitalization or death

The CDC says it is working with state and local health departments to investigate COVID vaccine breakthrough cases — yet unlike state health departments, as of May 1, the agency said it is tracking only those breakthrough cases that result in hospitalization or death.

The CDC said it made the change in how it counts breakthrough cases to “maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance.”

But according to Dr. Robert H. Shmerling, senior faculty editor of Harvard Health Publishing, there could be other reasons for the CDC’s decision. “First, there’s the challenge of messaging around encouraging people to get vaccinated,” Shmerling wrote. “Focusing on breakthrough cases may send a misleading impression that the vaccines aren’t effective. This might complicate efforts to battle vaccine hesitancy.”

The change in breakthrough reporting results in a lower overall number of reports of breakthrough cases in the U.S.

According to CDC data, a total of 10,262 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine breakthrough infections had been reported from 46 U.S. states and territories as of April 30, including 995 hospitalizations and 160 deaths.

The CDC’s website states actual vaccine breakthrough numbers are likely substantially higher 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. This is particularly true in instances of asymptomatic or mild illness.

As of June 7, the CDC received 3,459 reports from 47 U.S. states and territories of COVID vaccine breakthrough infection that resulted in hospitalization or death. Of the 3,459 reports, 1,691 (49%) occurred in females, 2, 642 (76%) occurred in people 65 or older, 3,275 (95%) resulted in hospitalization and 603 (17%) died.

As with previous reporting, the CDC said reported breakthrough infection was likely an undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons and was a snapshot that could be used to help identify patterns and look for signals among vaccine breakthrough cases.

People who get COVID have long-lasting natural immunity

As The Defender reported, 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 study, available on medRxiv, provides insight into how the immune system protects the body once a COVID infection is confirmed.

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.

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.

To better understand immune memory of SARS-CoV-2, researchers led by Drs. Daniela Weiskopf, Alessandro Sette and Shane Crotty from the La Jolla Institute for Immunology analyzed immune cells and antibodies from nearly 200 people who had been exposed to COVID and recovered, The Defender reported.

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 that natural infection induced a strong response, but this study showed that response lasted, Weiskoph said.

Another study in Nature assessed the lasting immunogenic effect of T-cell reactivity to SARS and SARS-2. Data showed that natural immunity was very robust — and likely more robust than any immunity derived from a vaccine.

The Defender previously reported on breakthrough cases in Washington, Florida, South Carolina, Texas, New York, California, Minnesota and the Island of Seychelles, which has fully vaccinated more of its population against COVID than any other country in the world.

*

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

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

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.

***

Some expected that during the G7 summit (which took place in England this weekend), some advances would be made towards solving the current Northern Ireland (NI) crisis. That wasn’t so. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson held meetings with French President Emmanuel Macron, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and with top officials. However, he complained the European Union (EU) simply was not taking a “sensible or pragmatic” approach to the issue, and he even threatened (should the bloc not compromise) to employ an emergency clause to suspend agreed upon rules.

The EU demands the British government implement the new checks on goods coming into NI from the rest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK). However, such checks impose a heavy burden on local businesses and have been disrupting trade and causing protests – and thus are a threat to peace in a region with a long record of conflicts. Johnson is in fact worried about British territorial integrity.

The new arrangements were aimed at keeping an open border in the island (between NI, which is part of the UK, and its southern neighbor, the Republic of Ireland). This is an important issue because bringing back a wall within Ireland would be a painful reminder of years of conflict – after such a hard-won peace. It is a peculiar situation today, because, with Brexit, the rest of the UK, that is, Great Britain (GB) – which comprises England, Wales, and Scotland – has left the European Union bloc; however, Northern Ireland remained a part of the bloc, together with neighboring Republic of Ireland (R.O.I.). Thus, both Irish states have an open border because they share a Common Travel area, and both are participants in the European Single Market, which Britain has left. That has made the Irish sea a kind of de facto frontier between the two islands, that is between GB and the island of Ireland.

The NI unionists (or loyalists) are worried because, they claim, the current scenario weakens their ties with Britain. Those are mostly Protestant working class Northern Irish people who consider themselves British-Irish and oppose both Republicanism and the unification of Ireland (the Republic of Ireland is mostly Catholic).

On Saturday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called for a “pragmatic solution” to the post-Brexit border issues with the UK and NI. On Wednesday, there was already a four-hour meeting in London between (Johnson’s Brexit minister) Lord David Frost and the European Commission Vice President Maroš Šefčovič to discuss the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee, as part of the Northern Ireland Protocol (a protocol to the Brexit agreement covering the special case of Northern Ireland). London blames Northern Ireland while Brussels blames Brexit itself. There is an ongoing trade issue, and Brussels has also threatened retaliatory actions should London not implement the protocol. Those could include targeted tariffs, and some are already talking about an EU-UK sausage war. EU-UK relations are clearly deteriorating and Northern Ireland is back in the Trans-Atlantic agenda.

In this context, anti-protocol parades go on all over NI and they bring back concerns that “maximum instability” could arise, involving paramilitary groups. On Monday (7), for example, a parade took place in Portadown, Co Armagh. Masked men took part, some carrying a UVF flag (the Ulster Volunteer Force, a loyalist paramilitary group). Such protests could escalate leading to a campaign of civil disobedience (against the Northern Ireland Protocol), thereby causing great instability.

Meanwhile, talks between the EU and the UK over the issue of the protocol, as we have seen, seem to be going nowhere. Both David Foster and Maroš Šefčovič stated they would work towards achieving a solution before 30 June when a ban on certain meats (including sausages) is supposed to come into force. For Boris Johnson the goal remains avoiding a border on the Irish island while at the same time protecting trade with the UK, even after Brexit. US President Joe Biden (who proudly claims Irish roots) has been pressuring the UK to compromise on border checks.

Tom sum it up, the Brexit arrangements have come to a deadlock over the issue of the Northern Ireland Protocol regarding the so-called Brexit Trilemma – the impossible task of simultaneously ensuring that there is no hard border on the Irish island; and no customs border in the Irish Sea; while Britain, in its turn, leaves both the European Union Customs Union, and the European Single Market. The UK government chose to sacrifice the second item, thus creating a de facto sea frontier, which is causing many problems for the Northern Irish population. And this, in its turn, has reactivated unhealed old quarrels.

The core of this great divide is a political-ideological conflict (between Republicanism/Irish nationalism and Monarchism/British loyalism). Irish nationalism historically intersects with left-wing politics – as espoused by the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) or by the more radical Sinn Féin – while unionism has a long history of cooperating with the so-called far-right. However, the left-right paradigm cannot be applied smoothly to the Irish situation, nor can the concept of ethnic conflict – although many sociologists have pointed out a tendency towards the ethnicization of Irish protestants (in a context of educational segregation), as in the case of Ulster-Scots ethnolinguistic revival.

The irony is that while Boris Johnson voices his concern about the situation in Donbass on the Russain-Ukrainian border, he might have to deal with his own potential political conflict – with ethnic and religious overtones – within the UK. And such is far from over.

*

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

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

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.

***

With the exception of his perseverance in a long overdue withdrawal from Afghanistan, President Joe Biden has been assiduously pursuing policies that make the world a more dangerous place for Americans, up to and including opening up the country’s southern border to waves of illegal immigration. Ironically, if an opinion poll were to be taken in the United States it would likely show that most respondents regard the Republicans as America’s designated conflict-friendly party based on the fact that the GOP is considered to be more “conservative” and therefore more likely to resort to force. But that assumption is not actually true as the Republican Party historically has been reluctant to embrace foreign engagements while presidents like Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and even Donald Trump were measured in their responses to developing international crisis situations. Trump, for all his aggressive language and several missteps, actually started no new wars and may even have been genuine in his desire to extricate from foreign conflicts only to be circumvented by his advisers and the entrenched government bureaucracy. He was widely condemned as a “Putin puppet” even though the bilateral relationship actually worsened during his time in office due to his inability to overcome the Establishment forces lined up against him.

Historically speaking, it is the Democrats who can be credited with conniving to enter both the First and Second World Wars while more recently entering into wars that served absolutely no national interest in places like Libya and Syria. They can also get credit for increasing the use of one-off cruise missile attacks supplemented by terrorism-like tactics that might reasonably be construed as war crimes, to include killing civilians using drones based solely on the target fitting a “profile.”

It might be reasonably argued that Washington has only one really important bilateral relationship and that is with Russia since Moscow alone has the capability to destroy the United States. There too it was the Democrats who seemingly deliberately sought to turn a post-Cold War reconstruction of Russia into a looting of the country’s natural resources combined with an encroachment of NATO right up to the Russian border, both initiated and implemented under Bill Clinton. The relationship has been suffering ever since, nearly leading to war when Barack Obama’s Administration spend $5 billion overthrowing a government friendly to Russia in Kiev in 2014. Russia has repeatedly claimed, not without some justification, that successive American administrations have continued that process, using various means to undermine and replace the Putin government.

The Democrats also were the driving force behind the Magnitsky Act, which was sponsored by Russia-phobic Senator Ben Cardin and signed by President Barack Obama in 2012. Using the Act, the US asserted its willingness to punish foreign governments, particularly Russia, using sanctions and other means for claimed violations of human rights. Russia reacted angrily, noting that the actions taken by its government internally, notably the operation of its judiciary, were being subjected to outside interference. It reciprocated with sanctions against US officials as well as by increasing pressure on foreign non-governmental pro-democracy groups and western media operating in Russia, which meant that the Act was actually counter-productive. Tension between Moscow and Washington increased considerably as a result and Congress subsequently approved a so-called Global Magnitsky Act as part of the 2016 annual defense appropriation bill. It expanded the use of sanctions and other punitive measures against regimes guilty of egregious human rights abuses though it has never been applied against well documented serial human rights violators like Saudi Arabia and Israel. It was also sponsored by Senator Ben Cardin and was clearly intended to threaten Russia.

More recently there has been the totally fabricated Russiagate that was intended to place the blame for Hillary Clinton’s defeat by Donald Trump on the Kremlin and Russian President Vladimir Putin. And the pro-Democratic Party media has been working hard to come up with other “news” pieces that depict Moscow as the enemy du jour, including the now discredited claim that the Kremlin has been paying Afghan fighters “bounties” to kill American soldiers.

Now Joe Biden is preparing to meet with Vladimir Putin in Geneva on June 16th and the prospects are not good even if one discounts Biden’s having labeled Putin as a “killer” lacking “soul” as little more than hyperbole. The meeting was requested after a phone call to Putin arranged by Biden in April, at a particularly tense moment when Ukraine was threatening to retake the Crimea from Russia, using its supply of lethal weaponry from the United States to do the job. Washington and the NATO alliance also declared that their support for Kiev was “unwavering” even though they recognized that Ukraine would have little to no chance of defeating the Russian army. The Kremlin responded to the threat by rushing troops to its border and the US sent warships to Turkey to enter the Black Sea, though it quickly withdrew them when Putin made clear that their appearance offshore of Russian territory would be considered a major provocation.

Some rational voices in the US government are, however, prepared to step back from the precipice. William Burns, currently Director of the CIA and Ambassador to Russia under George W. Bush, reported concisely how Moscow viewed the Ukraine situation. He observed in a cable entitled “NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES” that “Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains ‘an emotional and neuralgic’ issue for Russia…” But even the New York Times is having difficulty in finding a positive outcome that will result in better “management” of the bilateral relationship, reporting that “The meeting comes at the worst point in Russian-American relations since the fall of the Soviet Union about 30 years ago.”

To be sure the spin surrounding the meeting has been intense, with the US media running stories about new cyberattacks on America’s infrastructure, attributing them to Russia with scant evidence, while Putin responded by declaring publicly that he does not expect any breakthroughs, observing that the fractured bilateral relationship has unfortunately become “hostage to internal political processes in the United States itself.” Putin has said repeatedly that he wants his country to be treated with respect by a US that perversely perceives itself as “an exceptional nation, with special, exclusive rights to practically the entire world…I cannot go along with that.”

Biden for his part is also piling on the rhetoric, pledging that he will “stand up to Putin…from a position of strength.” Upon arrival in Britain at the start of his European trip, where he is desperately seeking to be relevant, he pledged to strengthen ties with America’s allies, an interesting objective as it has been recently revealed that the US has been aggressively spying on its closest friends in Europe. He also warned Russia that it will suffer “robust and meaningful” consequences if it engages in “harmful activities.” It was not a good starting point for a meeting intended to establish a modus vivendi between two adversaries. And there is additional noise coming from the Democrats. Former CIA Senior Russia Analyst Ray McGovern asks whether Democratic Party “Representative Jason Crow, really believe[s] that ‘Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure out how to destroy American democracy.’ And what does Speaker Nancy Pelosi mean exactly, as she keeps repeating ‘All roads lead to Putin’? Are we correctly informed that Hillary Clinton suggested President Putin was giving President Trump instructions on January 6th as [the] Capitol building was attacked?”

The most recent hint of what Biden will want to discuss to make points with the media is that it will be heavy on “human rights,” which is, of course, the issue to raise when all else fails. Human rights means Magnitsky-plus and the subject of imprisoned Russian dissident Alexei Navalny, who is likely an agent of both the CIA and a number of other western intelligence agencies, will undoubtedly come up. That suggests that Washington will yet again be seeking to interfere with Russian internal politics, which will in turn mean that the discussion will go nowhere.

The Times and some other analysts speculate in somewhat positive terms that the meeting might actually be mostly about establishing channels of communication that will enable the two countries to deal confidently with each other, closing the door on any possible surprises that might inadvertently lead to war. Putin has said that he is prepared to “work with Biden” while both Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan have indicated that that will be looking for areas of agreement, to start relations moving in the right direction. If so, it will of necessity avoid any detailed discussions of Ukraine and Syria, where the US and Russia have opposing views, though in both those cases it might benefit from some clarification of where the “red lines” are for the two sides. Areas that are likely to be common ground might well include climate change and combatting COVID and it is hoped that those areas of agreement might lead to other lines of communication.

Sergei Lavrov has in fact to a certain extent set the tone for the gathering, complimenting the US foreign policy team of Secretary of State Toni Blinken and Jake Sullivan for communicating “frankly” and “respectfully” at previous meetings in Reykjavik and Anchorage. Lavrov also made clear that the Biden people, though sure to be highly critical of Russia, might be expected to be more predictable than the Trump rotating cast of characters at cabinet level who frequently contradicted themselves.

But all of that said, it is highly unlikely that Biden will try to mitigate the major irritants between the two countries, even though that is what he has promised to do, because that would mean treating Russia as an equal. Of prime importance are the disagreements that could lead to war, including future status of Ukraine and also Georgia, the bump in the road caused by the current situation in Belarus, and the role of Russia in the Middle East. Biden will also lean heavily on the cybersecurity issue as that is currently popular in the media, but as Putin has already denied any Russian hand in the hacking that discussion is likely to go nowhere. Likewise, any claims that Moscow interfered yet again in US politics during the 2020 election will only poison the discussion.

At the end of the day, the hostility of the Democratic Party towards Russia, which has been festering ever since 2016, will prevail and it is likely that nothing dramatic will come out of the meeting of the two presidents. It is clearly in the United States’ national interest to disengage from those areas like Ukraine which Russia sees as vital and which are of no value to the US, but it is unlikely that Biden or any of his closest advisers can see that far. The Democratic Party in power and controlling both houses of Congress as well as the presidency can only be relied upon to deal with any developing crisis involving Russia with a heavy hand.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

Video: Bill Gates’ Vaccine Experiment with Indian Tribal Girls in 2009

By Global Research News, June 14, 2021

Indian tribal girls were used as guinea pigs. With 1.3 billion people, India is a good base for pharmaceutical companies to make a killing and also kill a lot of people in the process. The manipulation of people by the media.

Biden’s Message to NATO Summit: U.S. Has Sacred Obligation to Article 5 War Clause

By Rick Rozoff, June 14, 2021

Voice of America today ran a story about the tenor and theme of President Joe Biden’s presentation at tomorrow’s NATO summit in Brussels with the headline Biden to Reassure Allies of US Commitment to NATO Mutual Defense Clause.

International Alert Message about COVID-19. United Health Professionals

By United Health Professionals, June 14, 2021

Stay home, save lives » was a pure lie. Remove the following illegal, non-scientific and non-sanitary measures : lockdown, mandatory face masks for healthy subjects, social distancing of one or two meters. The lockdown not only killed many people but also destroyed physical and mental health, economy, education and other aspects of life.

Shock Therapy: How Austerity and Privatisation Destroy Nations

By Rod Driver, June 14, 2021

Politicians from rich countries have tried to forcefully ‘persuade’ other countries to use an extreme economic system with few public services and very little regulation of big companies. This is usually called neoliberalism. The rights of big business and investors have priority over everything else.

Pity the Poor Billionaire

By Klaus Marre and DonkeyHotey, June 14, 2021

It’s been a mixed week for billionaires. On the one hand, ProPublica revealed that many of them don’t pay their “fair share” in taxes (unless you think the fair share for somebody with a net worth of $100,000,000,000 is to pay nothing or very little).

Joe Biden and Boris Johnson Team Up to Develop U.S./U.K Partnership on 6G Development that Includes A.I. 

By B.N. Frank, June 14, 2021

A 2019 survey revealed that 82% of Americans thought Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) technology would be more harmful than helpful.  They seem to have been onto something as warnings about A.I. keep pouring in.

Truthful Accounts: A View from Nicaragua on Propaganda and Corporate Media Journalists

By Stephen Sefton, June 14, 2021

Efforts to depict journalism as if it ever existed in the idealized form of its propagandists have become increasingly ridiculous. Journalism, like accountancy, is just another sub-category of reporting. Like accountancy and other reporting activities, journalistic reporting can be good or bad, exceptional or mediocre, honest or criminal.

CDC Caught Cooking the Books on COVID Vaccines

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, June 14, 2021

For many months now, we’ve known the COVID-19 pandemic was the result of statistical manipulation and a fraudulent testing strategy. I detailed this scheme in “COVID-19 Testing Scandal Deepens” and “Astonishing COVID-19 Testing Fraud Revealed.”

Nigeria’s Buhari-Twitter Spat: Big Tech Power, “Hate Speech” and National Sovereignty

By Adeyinka Makinde, June 14, 2021

Buhari’s tone was in keeping with the violent culture of Nigeria’s security apparatus which as the SARS protests highlighted is one which has been historically disproportionate in response and undiscriminating in effect on guilty parties and innocent bystanders.

Nightmare Scenario: Vaccinated Children Developing Myocarditis, a Debilitating Form of Heart Inflammation, at Alarming Rates

By Teodrose Fikremariam, June 14, 2021

In a stunning new development, the CDC announced this morning that they will convene an “emergency meeting” on June 18th after an alarming number of children developed myocarditis—a condition that causes an inflammation of the heart—after they were “vaccinated”; this debilitating ailment was especially prevalent in young boys.

Video: Toxicologist Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay to the CDC: Stop Vaccinations

By Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay and Kristina Borjesson, June 14, 2021

A veteran toxicologist and mechanistic biologist, Dr. Lindsay explains the science and troubling evidence behind her recent public plea before the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to stop all covid gene therapy vaccine campaigns.

Video: Elections Celebrations and Cruelty of Western Sanctions Against Syrian People

By Eva Bartlett and Syria Insider, June 14, 2021

Yes. Well, I would start by noting that the countries that I am from America and Canada, before the last presidential elections in 2014, they closed the Syrian embassy specifically to prevent Syrians from exercising their right to participate in democratic presidential elections.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Video: Bill Gates’ Vaccine Experiment with Indian Tribal Girls in 2009
  • 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.

***

Voice of America today ran a story about the tenor and theme of President Joe Biden’s presentation at tomorrow’s NATO summit in Brussels with the headline Biden to Reassure Allies of US Commitment to NATO Mutual Defense Clause. In the report it cites a pledge Biden made in an address to American Air Force service members at the Royal Air Force Mildenhall base on June 9: “In Brussels, I will make it clear that the United States’ commitment to our NATO Alliance and Article 5 is rock solid. It’s a sacred obligation that we have under Article 5.” Today the White House posted an online fact sheet on the summit which contained in its opening paragraph this stark statement: “During the Summit, the President will reaffirm the enduring Transatlantic bond through NATO and underscore the United States’ ironclad commitment to Article 5 – an attack on one is an attack on all and will be met with a collective response.” 

In the Mildenhall speech Biden also celebrated the fact that the U.S. and his host country, the United Kingdom, were founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He failed to add they’re both nuclear powers and have fought together in NATO’s wars in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Libya. NATO was characterized by the American commander-in-chief as “the strongest military and political alliance in the history of the world,” adding, “that’s not hyperbole.” Both points rare instances of veracity from him. NATO in fact is unique in a manner that cannot be exaggerated. It is unique in the following ways:

  • it is the only military alliance in the world
  • it is the longest-lasting military bloc in the modern history of the world, this year marking its 72nd anniversary
  • it is the largest military bloc ever, with 30 members and 40 partners on all six inhabited continents (up from 16 members and no partners 30 years ago)
  • it maintains military relations with as many more nations, including the 55-nation African Union and Troop Contributing Countries from the Asia-Pacific region and Latin America that served under its command in Afghanistan
  • it has waged war in three continents (Yugoslavia in Europe, Afghanistan in Asia and Libya in Africa)
  • it is the only military alliance to have ever included more than one nuclear power (the U.S., Britain and France) and to openly proclaim itself a nuclear alliance
  • it is the only military alliance that has defined outer space as an operational domain as well as air, land, sea and cyberspace, and that has just opened a Space Centre (in Germany)

There are several other aspects of NATO and its activities that are unprecedented in scope and nature. Not the least important of which is its Article 5 mutual military assistance provision, the essence of which is:

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them…will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

There is no greater threat to peace, to world peace in the nuclear age, than for a military alliance of 30 nations (and growing) to be prepared to go to war (including against nuclear powers) at the request of any of its member states.

It is that collective defense obligation that Biden has focused on since taking office in January and that he will highlight at tomorrow’s thirty-nation summit. It is in fact a central theme, arguably the main one, of his foreign policy.

In his virtual address to the annual Munich Security Conference in February he said:

“We continue to support the goal of a Europe whole and free and at peace. The United States is fully committed to our NATO Alliance, and I welcome Europe’s growing investment in the military capabilities that enable our shared defense.

“You know, to me and to the United States, and to us, we’ll keep article – we’ll keep faith with Article 5. It’s a guarantee. An attack on one is an attack on all. That is our unshakable vow….”

In an opinion piece in the Washington Post on June 5, Biden wrote (or had attributed to him):

“As new technologies reshape our world in fundamental ways, exposing vulnerabilities like ransomware attacks and creating threats such as invasive AI-driven surveillance, the democracies of the world must together ensure that our values govern the use and development of these innovations – not the interests of autocrats.

“Those shared democratic values are the foundation of the most successful alliance in world history. In Brussels, at the NATO summit, I will affirm the United States’ unwavering commitment to Article 5 and to ensuring our alliance is strong in the face of every challenge, including threats like cyberattacks on our critical infrastructure.”

Dividing the world into NATO allies, partners and affiliates against the four nations that Washington and Brussels have branded autocrats, authoritarians and threats to the rules-based international order – Russia, China, Iran and North Korea (now five with diminutive Belarus) – is being done in the name of a global Manichean struggle between democracy (us) and autocracies (them). At the Mildenhall air base Biden also said:

“I believe we’re at an inflection point in world history – the moment where it falls to us to prove that democracies will not just endure, but they will excel as we rise to seize the enormous opportunities of a new age.

“We have to discredit those who believe that the age of democracy is over, as some of our fellow nations believe. We have to expose as false the narrative that decrees of dictators can match the speed and scale of the 21st [century] challenges.”

And after offering obligatory diplomatic platitudes about preferring to get along with Russia (if it would only change its ways; all its ways), he canceled out that message with these assurances:

“But I’ve been clear: The United States will respond in a robust and meaningful way when the Russian government engages in harmful activities. We’ve already demonstrated that. I’m going to communicate that there are consequences [for violating] the sovereignty of democracies in the United States and Europe and elsewhere.

“I’m going to be clear that the Transatlantic Alliance will remain vital – a vital source of strength for the UK, Europe, and the United States. And I’m going to make sure there’s no doubt as to whether the United States will rise in defense of our most deeply held values and our fundamental interest.”

A European and ultimately a global crusade by history’s most formidable military bloc to make the world safe for democracy in the face of tyrants, despots, autocrats, dictators and authoritarians – most bearing Russian surnames.

The U.S. chargé d’affaires at NATO headquarters (Biden is yet to name an ambassador), Douglas Jones, further clarified U.S. international military priorities in recently stating that while NATO needs to confront challenges presented by China, Russia remains the “most immediate threat to the common security of the allies.”

Speaking to Euronews, Jones confirmed that Biden’s main message to his 29 allies at the NATO summit will concentrate on “recommitting the United States to NATO and expressing the iron-clad commitment of the United States to Article 5.”

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, speaking recently in the U.S. at an Atlantic Council event, asserted this concerning alleged cyberattacks of the sort regularly attributed to Russia:

 “In a way it doesn’t matter whether it’s a kinetic attack or a cyberattack, we will assess as allies whether it meets the thresholds for triggering Article 5. It sends a message that we regard cyberattacks as seriously as any other attack.”

For all its assertions that it is a political-military alliance, NATO is a military bloc with Article 5 as its bedrock.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Iran hawks are pulling out all the stops in their campaign to prevent Iran and the United States from returning to full compliance with the 2015 nuclear accord. 

The latest effort comes in the form of an opinion piece published last week in Politico Europe by Foundation for Defense of Democracies fellows Benjamin Weinthal and Alireza Nader, purporting to show that Iran is currently seeking to develop nuclear weapons, and therefore, they claim, American diplomats should “take a timeout” from the JCPOA negotiations.

Weinthal — whose portfolio includes harassing people on Twitter — and Nader cite “European intelligence findings about the Islamic Republic’s illicit atomic weapons activities” which “make it clear that Tehran sought technology in 2020 for constructing nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.”

It’s a clever presentation that could easily fool a casual reader into believing that Iran is indeed developing nuclear weapons under the noses of U.S., European, Russian, and Chinese diplomats (if you can believe that Weinthal and Nader of all people know something they don’t). But the evidence they culled from these European intel reports — which are public, by the way — prove no such thing.

The first piece of evidence they cite is a public Swedish Security Service report that has concluded the following:

“Iran also conducts industrial espionage, which is mainly targeted against Swedish hi-tech industry and Swedish products, which can be used in nuclear weapons programs. Iran is investing heavy resources in this area and some of the resources are used in Sweden.”

The key line they want you to focus on here is “which can be used in nuclear weapons programs” — or in other words “dual use” technologies. But the report does not state outright that Iran is using this stolen tech for nuclear weapons, just that it’s possible.

What Weinthal and Nader also don’t mention is that the Swedish intel report also said that Russia, China, and Iran have tried to “gather information and knowledge from Swedish universities and colleges,” but it only singled out Russian and Chinese activities, i.e. not Iranian, as focused on “military research.”

Next the FDD fellows claim that Dutch intelligence has concluded that “Iran’s regime sought technology for nuclear and possibly other WMD weaponry.” But here again, the evidence they present does not support their conclusion.

They quote a Dutch intel report saying, “The joint Counter-Proliferation Unit of the AIVD and the MIVD [the country’s Military Intelligence and Security Service] is investigating how countries try to obtain the knowledge and goods they need to make weapons of mass destruction. Countries such as Syria, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea also tried to acquire such goods and technology in Europe and the Netherlands last year.”

Again, Weinthal and Nader are seemingly relaying this information because they want you to focus on the term “weapons of mass destruction,” which does not necessarily mean nuclear weapons. And they don’t say what the Dutch mean by that either.

The reality is that what constitutes WMD is quite broad. For example, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security defines WMD as “a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological, or other device that is intended to harm a large number of people,” while the FBI says WMD can be defined simply as “[a] destructive device, such as an explosive or incendiary bomb, rocket, or grenade.”

But what makes this particular piece of evidence — that is meant to prove “Iran’s intention to develop nuclear weapons” — even weaker is the Dutch don’t say what Iran has done specifically, only that it, along with three other countries, have engaged in some very general activities aimed at acquiring “knowledge and goods” for unspecified WMD.

Continuing this trend, Weinthal and Nader then claim that intelligence reports from two German states, Bavaria and Schleswig-Holstein, “outlined Tehran’s efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction material on German soil in 2020.”

But here again, Iran is lumped in with North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan as conducting general nefarious activities related to non-specified WMD. They write:

“Proliferation-relevant states like Iran, North Korea, Syria and Pakistan are making efforts to expand their conventional arsenal of weapons through the production or constant modernization of weapons of mass destruction,” the state of Bavaria’s agency wrote in its report. The German state of Schleswig-Holstein disclosed in its intelligence report the deceptive methods Iran uses to cover up its efforts to secure illicit technology for the world’s most deadly weapons: “Proliferation-relevant countries such as Iran, North Korea and Syria, but also Pakistan, try to circumvent safety precautions and legal export regulations and to disguise illegal procurement activities. To do this, they turn to mostly conspiratorial means and methods,” the intelligence agency wrote.

In no way do any of these intel reports that Weinthal and Nader cite say explicitly that Iran is, in their words, seeking technology “for constructing nuclear weapons.”

But even if that was true, it’s unclear why that would mean the United States has to pause its pursuit of rejoining the JCPOA, which would prevent Iran from using any of this technology it has supposedly illicitly acquired to build a nuclear bomb.

Of course what Iran is up to in Europe based on these public intel reports is not good, which is why what Weinthal and Nader propose — “[a] joint U.S.-EU task force … with its findings released, at a minimum, to Congress” — isn’t that crazy of an idea. But why does that have to come at the expense of diplomacy to officially, and permanently, limit Iran’s nuclear program?

The article concludes by claiming that International Atomic Energy Agency Director Rafael Grossi is also “sounding a warning” and they quote him saying that the IAEA “found traces of uranium that has (sic) been subject to industrial processing in different places, which had not been declared by Iran.”

But what Weinthal and Nader don’t tell you is that Grossi is sounding an alarm about something completely different from what they claim these Europan intel agencies are reporting. The IAEA chief was not talking about current Iranian activities. He’s referring to what Iran had done prior to the cessation of its weapons program back in 2003 and the need for Iran to come clean about those activities, which of course it should.

The reality is that Weinthal and Nader already have a conclusion in mind and they are in search of evidence to support it. In fact, they provide a subtle hint that their presentation is completely bogus when they complain that these European intel reports “have gotten relatively little attention from Western journalists.” Indeed, there’s a reason for that: most Western journalists’ BS detectors probably started flashing red when presented with this information.

Moreover, the “Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community” issued in April concluded: “We continue to assess that Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities that we judge would be necessary to produce a nuclear device.”

The bottom line is this article isn’t meant to present facts in an objective, good faith manner, but instead its purpose is to provide another piece of flimsy ammo for opponents of diplomacy with Iran to get back on the path to regime change and/or war.

*

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

Featured image is from Silent Crow News

CDC Caught Cooking the Books on COVID Vaccines

June 14th, 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.

***

COVID-19 has been a pandemic of false positive tests; the thing that kept the fraud going was the fact that laboratories were using excessively high cycle thresholds (CTs) when processing the PCR tests, resulting in false positives

Now, as over 100 million Americans have been “vaccinated” against COVID-19, the CDC is lowering the CT from 40 to 28, but only when diagnosing vaccine breakthrough cases — cases where fully vaccinated individuals are diagnosed with COVID-19

To make matters worse, the CDC also will no longer record mild or asymptomatic infections of those who were immunized as “COVID cases.” The only cases that now count as COVID cases for someone immunized with the COVID-19 vaccine are those that result in hospitalization or death

While healthy people continue to be misdiagnosed as having COVID-19 when they really don’t, thanks to an excessively high CT, the CDC is simultaneously minimizing the number of breakthrough cases by using a CT that will minimize the number of false positives

Other countries are also manipulating data to boost COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and hide breakthrough cases. In the U.K., COVID-19 will only be listed as the cause of death if the patient actually died from an active case of COVID-19 and nothing else

*

For many months now, we’ve known the COVID-19 pandemic was the result of statistical manipulation and a fraudulent testing strategy. I detailed this scheme in “COVID-19 Testing Scandal Deepens” and “Astonishing COVID-19 Testing Fraud Revealed.”

Now, as the infection has become endemic in most parts of the world and the mass vaccination drive is in full swing, U.S. health authorities are massaging data and revising testing recommendations yet again — this time to hide the ineffectiveness of the vaccines. As reported by Off-Guardian, May 18, 2021:1

“The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) is altering its practices of data logging and testing for ‘Covid19’ in order to make it seem the experimental gene-therapy ‘vaccines’ are effective at preventing the alleged disease …

The trick is in their reporting of what they call ‘breakthrough infections’ — that is people who are fully ‘vaccinated’ against SARS-Cov-2 infection, but get infected anyway. Essentially, COVID-19 has long been shown — to those willing to pay attention — to be an entirely created pandemic narrative built on two key factors:

1. False-postive tests. The unreliable PCR test can be manipulated into reporting a high number of false-positives by altering the cycle threshold (CT value).2

2. Inflated Case-count. The incredibly broad definition of ‘Covid case,’ used all over the world, lists anyone who receives a positive test as a ‘Covid19 case,’ even if they never experienced any symptoms.

Without these two policies, there would never have been an appreciable pandemic at all, and now the CDC has enacted two policy changes which means they no longer apply to vaccinated people.”

CDC Is Cooking the Books on COVID Breakthrough Cases

Originally, the CDC recommended labs use a CT of 403 when testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection. This despite using a CT above 35 was known to create a false positive rate of 97%.4 In short, by using an exaggerated CT, healthy people were deemed stricken with COVID-19, and the fraud was further propped up by introducing the fallacy that asymptomatic carriers were responsible for a large portion of the spread.

Now, the CDC has suddenly lowered the CT considerably — from 40 to 28 or lower5 — in what appears to be a clear effort to hide COVID-19 breakthrough cases in those injected with the COVID-19 vaccine.

To understand just how significant of a change this is, consider that the CT refers to the number of cycles the PCR test is run at, and each cycle doubles the magnification of the viral RNA fragment that the test supposedly looks for.

That means a switch from 40 to 28 reduces the magnification, i.e., the sensitivity of the test, by more than 4,000 times. The end result is far fewer positive test results. However, this only applies to people who are being tested for breakthrough infection.

So, as vaccinated individuals are contracting the illness, they’re now less likely to register as positive cases, which makes the “vaccine” appear more protective than it might be in actuality.

Had a CT of 28 been used all along, we would have had nowhere near the number of “cases” currently touted and the pandemic would have been declared over sometime in 2020. Conversely, were a CT of 40 or higher used to diagnose breakthrough cases, you can be sure the numbers would be far higher than currently reported.

Mild Infections No Longer Count

To boost the appearance of vaccine efficacy even further, the CDC also will no longer record mild or asymptomatic infections in vaccinated individuals as “COVID cases.” The only cases that now count as COVID cases — if the patient has been vaccinated against COVID-19, that is — are those that result in hospitalization or death.6

Meanwhile, if you’re unvaccinated and come down with a mild case, or if you test positive at a higher CT and have no symptoms, you still count as a COVID case. As explained by Off-Guardian:7

“The CDC has put new policies in place which effectively created a tiered system of diagnosis. Meaning, from now on, unvaccinated people will find it much easier to be diagnosed with Covid19 than vaccinated people. Consider…

Person A has not been vaccinated. They test positive for Covid using a PCR test at 40 cycles and, despite having no symptoms, they are officially a ‘covid case.’

Person B has been vaccinated. They test positive at 28 cycles, and spend six weeks bedridden with a high fever. Because they never went into a hospital and didn’t die they are NOT a Covid case.

Person C, who was also vaccinated, did die. After weeks in hospital with a high fever and respiratory problems. Only their positive PCR test was 29 cycles, so they’re not officially a Covid case either.”

As of April 30, 2021, the CDC had received a total of 10,262 reports of vaccine breakthrough infections,8 which it admitted was a “substantial undercount,” as they’re using a passive surveillance system that relies on voluntary reporting from state health departments.9 May 17, 2021, the number of breakthrough cases was slashed to 1,949, as the new guidance that only takes hospitalizations and deaths into account took effect.10

Double Standards Drive Public Abuse

By keeping the old rules for unvaccinated people — which results in a large amount of false positives and an overcount of “cases” — and applying new rules for vaccinated individuals that result in a significant number of false negatives and an undercount of cases, you end up with statistics that conform to the propaganda of the mainstream media, which falsely suggests COVID-19 is far more prevalent among unvaccinated people and that the vaccine works far better than it actually does.

All of this is to support getting as many people vaccinated with this worse than worthless, dangerous “vaccine.” As noted by Off-Guardian:11

“This is a policy designed to continuously inflate one number, and systematically minimize the other. What is that if not an obvious and deliberate act of deception?”

When asked why the CDC would not include asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases if they’ve been vaccinated, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said that it’s because vaccinated asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic people carry very little virus.12

Convenient isn’t it? This reply was never given when they were counting asymptomatic, falsely positive COVID tests as “cases,” equating them instead to deaths to increase fear in order to drive people to get vaccinated.

As I’ve explained on many previous occasions, in order to be infectious, you need a sufficiently high viral load, and the viruses must be live in order to replicate. A significant problem with the PCR test is it cannot differentiate between dead or inactive viral debris and live virus.

The reason a healthy person can test positive for COVID-19 is because the test, when used at a high CT, will magnify noninfectious or harmless segments of DNA that are not related to infectious viral particles. So, again, the CDC is now admitting asymptomatic people pose no real infection risk, but they only apply this logic to those who have been vaccinated while continuing the lying charade for the unvaccinated.

Lockdowns Should Not be Based on Mass PCR Testing

More and more information is coming out showing how PCR testing has been misused. As noted in one German study, posted on the preprint server medRxiv, May 19, 2021:13

“RT-PCR testing as a tool for mass screening should not be used alone as a base for pandemic decision making including measures such as quarantine, isolation, and lockdown.”

They based this conclusion on the fact that only 40.6% of positive test results had used a CT of 25 or lower. At this low CT, a positive test result has a decent chance of being accurate, which means even if symptoms are mild, the patient is likely to be infectious.

The remainder of positive tests, 59.4%, were using a CT above 25, which means they were more likely to be false positives. As detailed in “The Insanity of the PCR Testing Saga,” to obtain 100% confirmed real positives, you have to use a CT of 17.

Clearly, self-quarantining and lockdowns are irrational if nearly 60% of so-called COVID cases are noninfectious. The PCR test can also detect dead viral RNA for months after an active infection, making the test even more unreliable.

One country that has acknowledged the madness of mass PCR testing is Sweden which, at the end of November 2020, stopped relying on this test to determine cases. As noted on the Swedish Public Health Agency’s website (translated from Swedish):14,15

“The PCR technology used in tests to detect viruses cannot distinguish between viruses capable of infecting cells and viruses that have been neutralized by the immune system and therefore these tests cannot be used to determine whether someone is contagious or not.

RNA from viruses can often be detected for weeks (sometimes months) after the illness but does not mean that you are still contagious. There are also several scientific studies that suggest that the infectivity of COVID-19 is greatest at the beginning of the disease period.

The recommended criteria for assessing freedom from infection are therefore based on stable clinical improvement with freedom from fever for at least two days and that at least seven days have passed since the onset of symptoms. For those who have had more pronounced symptoms, at least 14 days after the illness and for the very sickest, individual assessment by the treating doctor.”

A COVID-19 working group met April 19, 2021, to discuss whether these rules needed to be updated in light of new variants. It was decided that no change in rules was needed.16,17

UK Is Also Manipulating Data to Hide Vaccine Failure

Signs that other countries are starting to manipulate data to hide vaccine failure are also evident. For example, in the U.K., they’ve now dropped the rule that anyone having tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 28 days of dying is to be counted as a COVID-19 death.

Now that vaccines are out, COVID-19 will only be listed as the cause of death if the patient actually died from an active case of COVID-19 and nothing else. As reported by iNews:18

“The modelling sub-group of the Government’s scientific advisory committee Sage says that the 28-day definition was useful before widespread vaccination, because deaths in hospital within a month of a positive test were most likely due to COVID-19.

However now that tens of millions of the UK population have received their jabs, deaths from other causes could still show up in the daily data if they have previously tested positive for coronavirus.

A senior Sage source said: ‘If the definition remains the same, these people would be counted as ‘vaccine failures’, whereas the vaccine prevented death from COVID, but they really died from something else.'”

An Undeclared War Against the Public

While many people around the world still believe COVID-19 has been one of the deadliest pandemics in modern history and those of us who have survived are the lucky ones, the facts indeed tell a very different story.

When you look at how case rates and death statistics have been collected and reported, and how those parameters have changed along the way, you realize that the pandemic was a mirage, created through the manipulation of data and nothing else.

More than a year and a half has been stolen from us in an undeclared war against the public. Even with mounting awareness of the facts, the deep state players responsible for this cruel hoax are not likely to call it quits. They have a long-term goal, and that is the complete takeover and control of the global wealth and population.

So, as we move forward, we can expect more cover-ups, more obfuscation, more attempts to whitewash the truth and protect the guilty parties. Case in point: The COVID Commission Planning Group, tasked with planning the creation of an “independent” investigative commission like that for 9/11,19 is filled with people who have serious conflicts of interest.

As reported by the Miller Center,20 the COVID Commission Planning Group is backed by charitable foundations that have been part of a technocratic alliance that for years, in some cases decades, have been plotting and planning for the wealth redistribution and global power grab we’re now experiencing.

The chosen leader of this new planning group is Philip Zelikow, former executive director of the 9/11 Commission21 and a member of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Development Program Advisory Panel.22,23

Zelikow, a former director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, is also a current strategy group member of the Aspen Institute,24 a technocratic hub that has groomed and mentored executives from around the world about the subtleties of globalization.

He also directed the Markle Foundation’s Task Force on National Security in the Information Age,25 the focus of which has been to make information relating to potential security threats discoverable and accessible to officials.26

Bioterror Is the New Never-Ending War

In a May 16, 2021, article, Off-Guardian details Zelikow’s conflicts of interest, and why the COVID-19 pandemic is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon, at least if the technocratic deep state looking for a Great Reset can prevent it:27

“Zelikow’s involvement, among other things, suggests we are in the second phase of a long war of terror waged with two weapons – military and medical – whose propaganda messaging is carried out by the corporate mainstream media in the pursuit of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset …

You can be certain it won’t end soon and that the new terrorists are domestic dissidents … the commission justifying the government’s claims about COVID-19 and injections (aka ‘vaccines’) will be hard at work writing their fictive report that will justify ex post facto the terrible damage that has occurred and that will continue to occur for many years …

‘Now is the time to just do what you are told,’ as Anthony Fauci so benevolently declared … The authorities have told us what’s coming. Pay attention. Don’t be fooled. It’s a game they have devised. Keep people guessing. On edge. Relieved. Tense. Relaxed. Shocked. Confused.

That’s the game. One day this, the next that. You’re on, you’re off. You’re in, you’re out. We are allowing you this freedom, but be good children or we will have to retract it. If you misbehave, you will get a time out.”

Indeed, fear has been weaponized with devastating effect over the past year, and it is what allows the destruction of our freedoms.

The Time to Stand for Freedom Is 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.

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. The answer is peaceful mass civil disobedience. It’s time to say NO to any and all pandemic measures.

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.

I have no doubt that we will ultimately stop the globalists’ drive toward loss of personal freedoms and global tyranny. It’s not going to be easy. It may take years, and it may get far worse before it gets better, but if we unite, there’s no doubt we will win.

*

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

Featured image is from Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In a stunning new development, the CDC announced this morning that they will convene an “emergency meeting” on June 18th after an alarming number of children developed myocarditis—a condition that causes an inflammation of the heart—after they were “vaccinated”; this debilitating ailment was especially prevalent in young boys. The onset of heart inflammation in children post-injection was so prevalent that Seattle Children’s Hospital issued a guidance that instructed health providers to inquire about the “vaccination” status of patients who are admitted to the Emergency Room with complaints of chest pains.

Even as they acknowledge this horrifying development where children who are perfectly healthy one second end up being stricken with heart palpitations, shortness of breath, electrocardiogram (EKG) changes and elevated cardiac biomarkers, the CDC and the medical establishment writ large continueto encourage parents to get their children injected with experimental “vaccines”. In the very guidance Seattle Children’s Hospital published to ring the alarm about myocarditis in kids, they note that the CDC “continues to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for people 12 years and older”.

It’s one thing for adults to gamble with their lives and subject themselves to gene therapy cocktails that are not fully approved by the FDA and enroll themselves in ongoing clinical trials by by turning their arms into sacrificial limbs, but pushing mRNA and adenovirus tainted needles into the arms of children is malicious in ways that is indescribable. As horrific as Covid-19 has been, a point I acknowledge because I lost my mother to this dreaded virus last year, the fact is that children have by and large been spared from this cursed pandemic. According to the CDC, the Covid-19 mortality rate of people 21 years or younger is 0.08%. Given this indisputable truth, encouraging and manipulating children to get jabbed with a “vaccine” that neither prevents contraction nor transmission is truly the stuff of Josef Mengele.

As much as I want to express a sense of relief that the CDC and their enablers in mainstream media are finally paying attention to the perils that these biotech snake oils present, I know full well that the “emergency meeting” will be nothing more than a dog-and-pony show. Beyond the fact that they announced this news on Friday, which is a day governments and public personalities dump bad news so it can be lost in the shuffle over the weekend and be forgotten by the time Monday arrives, there is broader question that is begging to be asked. Why in the hell are they waiting nearly a week to convene a meeting to address this terrifying development that is scaring the hell out of millions of parents instead of jumping on calls immediately?

Far from taking bold steps to address this public health emergency, the CDC will pretend to be concerned, hem and haw like they are seriously studying this crisis only to issue an edict that children coming down with heart inflammation is not related to the “vaccines” and will quickly go back to promoting the “vaccination” of children. They are already doing this exact thing before their sham meeting is convened; Tom Shimabukurom a CDC “vaccine safety official”, has started to minimize this grim development by trying to diminish the frequency of myocarditis in children post-“vaccination”.

The crutch they will be leaning on to discredit what hospitals throughout America are witnessing is a statistical gimmick; they note that more than 300 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna’s “vaccines” have to be administered and that “only 226 cases” of myocarditis or pericarditis have been confirmed in people younger than the age of 30 after they were jabbed. What this deceptive statement omits is that the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System—the tool the CDC uses to document vaccine injuries and deaths—only captures 1% of all adverse events related to vaccinations. To this point, most cases where children develop heart inflammations are not reported; the true figure could be exponentially greater than 226 cases.

But even if we assume that “only 226” children were harmed by the “vaccines”, that is nothing to sneeze at given that only 100 cases of myocarditis would be expected for this age group. The risk of developing heart inflammation is more than twice as likely in kids who are jabbed versus those who are not. Fisher-Price recalled their Rock ‘n Play inclined baby sleeper after 50 babies were killed as a result of their shoddy product yet here we are with at least 226 children who have been grievously injured by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna’s mRNA “vaccines” yet the CDC continues to recommend the use of these deadly nostrums.

The CDC’s actions have gone beyond negligence and are now firmly in the realm of wanton endangerment. A few months ago, they tweeted that people who recovered from Covid-19 should nonetheless get “vaccinated”. This statement is blatantly false, researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis stated:

“It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau. Here, we found antibody-producing cells in people 11 months after first symptoms. These cells will live and produce antibodies for the rest of people’s lives. That’s strong evidence for long-lasting immunity.”

This fact has been affirmed by none other than the National Institute of Health in a study they published January 26th, 2021. They state “after people recover from infection with a virus, the immune system retains a memory of it”. They go on to affirm “immune cells and proteins that circulate in the body can recognize and kill the pathogen if it’s encountered again, protecting against disease and reducing illness severity.” The CDC, WHO and the duplicitous organizations who are pushing this “vaccination” agenda are suppressing good news when it comes to natural immunization, alternative approaches and early treatment in order to gas light people into getting jabbed needlessly.

The heads of CDC, NIH, and FDA as well as every Biotech executive and political leaders who have taken part in this intentional campaign to mass-inject over 2 billion people globally should face charges in Nuremberg Trials 2.0. This is especially true given that the evidence points to the fact that Covid-19 was created at either the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Fort Detrick or both and funded by factions within the US government. Biden, Gates, Fauci et al have the blood of over 650,000 Americans and 3.5 billion plus people globally on their hands.

As to the safety and efficacy of the “vaccines”, Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Sinopharm and Sputnik’s products have yet to be proven safe and effective. The aforementioned VAERS has been in use for close to two decades; the number of injuries and deaths documented for nearly 20 years has been surpassed by the number of injuries and deaths attributed to these “vaccines” in less than a year. As Dr. Richard Urso and I discussed in an interview that aired two days ago, these  experimental boosters are causing more damage than they are ameliorating the risk of Covid-19. Consequently, doctors who recommend these gene therapy injections are breaking their Hippocratic oath and doing harm by encouraging their patients to engage in acts of self-harm.

After people like Robert Kennedy Jr, Naomi Wolf, Cynthia McKinney and I have been maligned for months and dismissed as “conspiracy theorizing” anti-vaxxers by mainstream media and their benighted followers, what we have been saying all along is now coming to fruition. I questioned the origins of Covid-19 only to be censored mercilessly as Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and LinkedIn all deleted my accounts even though the establishment now acknowledge that the virus was most likely manmade after “fact-checking” this reality to be false not too long ago.

This same treatment of silencing dissent has been given to millions of people who dared to question the safety and efficacy of these “vaccines” in a fascist attempt to suppress information that threatens to eviscerate biotech corporations’ talking points. In a land that prides itself for being a beacon of free-speech and cherishes the rights of a free-press, the Second Amendment is being shredded by internal enemies who have zero allegiance to America nor humanity and instead have fidelity to only their globalist master. The truth is finally coming out; this is but the tip of the iceberg, five months from now, we could very well be experiencing a global holocaust.

I take no joy in writing this article; I know that there are many people who might end up reading this article who have either gotten jabbed or had children or loved ones “vaccinated”, including my own family members whom I love dearly and pray that my apprehensions about these boosters never come to pass. The last thing we need at a time like this is divisions; now, more than ever, is a time that calls for unity irrespective of our differences. To this end, I hope that we can debate this topics without reverting to ad hominem and letting conversations devolve into food fights. More importantly, I sincerely pray that we don’t demonize one another and instead treat each other like fellow human beings.

As I noted earlier, adults have the right to get jabbed or refuse to participate in clinical trials as they choose; just as much as I ask people who believe the way I do to respect folks who got jabbed, I likewise ask the “vaccinated” to speak against mistreatments like partitioned restaurants and segregated concerts like the one being held in Madison Square Garden this weekend that is reserved “for jabbed people only”. I also appeal for both sides of the debate to find middle grounds of agreement even if we disagree on the broader point. I would like to think that “vaccinating” children without their parent’s notification, presence or consent is one such common cause. As more news emerges about the dangers these “vaccines” present to children, another area of consensus could be the end of injecting children all together until these particular “vaccines” are proven safe and effective over time.

Though all of us have been carrying the cross of Covid-19 for more than 18 months, children have been particularly impaired by this nightmarish pandemic. As if it’s not bad enough that we force children to wear masks indoors and wound them emotionally, psychological and potentially physically in ways that could lead to an unimaginable mental health crisis when they get older, we are now turning them into lab animals. Another doctor I was talking to a couple of days ago noted that we are living in a society that is suffering from a collective PTSD and that this level of trauma leads to mind-boggling errors of judgment. Before we do further harm to ourselves and our children, let us pause and reassess the way forward and stop listening to politicians, pundits and opinion leaders who are make more money the more we endure tribulations.

If you are a parent, I beseech you to not let your children get “vaccinated”. As mentioned earlier, the overall mortality rate of Covid-19 is less than 1% to begin with; this figure drops to near zero for people under the age of 21. This insane “vaccination” agenda has nothing to do with science or public safety, it’s all about money and other the pernicious desires that people like Bill Gates have expressed publicly to reduce the global population as evidenced at the 4:30 mark of this TedTalk he gave in 2010. Children have their whole lives ahead of them, do not cripple or kill them to “protect” them for a virus that is barely touching them.

*

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

All images in this article are from Ghion Journal

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The MoD’s internal think-tank, the Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre (DCDC) along with the German Bundeswehr Office for Defence Planning (BODP) has published a disturbing new report urging greater investigation of – and investment in – human augmentation for military purposes. The following is a brief summary of the 100+ page document with short comment at the end.

Human Augmentation – The Dawn of a New Paradigm’ argues that humans are the ‘weakest link’ in modern warfare, and that there is a need to exploit scientific advances to improve human capabilities.

“Increasing use of autonomous and unmanned systems – from the tactical to the strategic level – could significantly increase the combat effect that an individual can bring to bear, but to realise this potential, the interfaces between people and machines will need to be significantly enhanced. Human augmentation will play an important part in enabling this interface.”

Suggested human augmentation to explore for military purposes includes the use of brain interfaces, pharmaceuticals and gene therapy.  Humans, argues the report, should be seen as a ‘platform’ in the same way as vehicles, aircraft and ships, with three elements of ‘the human platform’ to be developed: the physical, the psychological and the social (see image below).

The report defines human augmentation as ‘the application of science and technologies to temporarily or permanently improve human performance.’ It then differentiates between human optimisation which can “improve human performance up to the limit of biological capabilities without adding new capabilities” and human enhancement which can take the humans “beyond the limits of biological potential.”  While noting that night vision googles and binoculars should be technically be included in the definition of human augmentation, the reports states it is focusing  “on the implications of novel science and technology that are more closely integrated with the human body.”

The authors of the report argue:

“We want ‘war fighters’ – whether they be cyber specialists, drone pilots or infantry soldiers – to be stronger, faster, more intelligent, more resilient and more mobile to overcome the environment and the adversary. As technology has become more sophisticated our thinking has become more focused on the machine rather than the person, but this needs to change if we are going to be effective in the future.”

Although “advances in artificial intelligence, robotics and autonomy mean that human processing power, speed of action and endurance are being rapidly outpaced by machines” say the report, it accepts that machines “have weaknesses of their own.” Suggesting that  humans have ‘an advantage in the areas of creativity and judgment,’ the report argues that human augmentation is needed in order to take greater advantage of the developments in these areas:

“Future wars will be won, not by those with the most advanced technology, but those who can most effectively integrate the unique capabilities of both people and machine… Human augmentation is the missing part of this puzzle.”

High-end augmentation

After outlining the basics of human optimisation such as sleep, nutrition and dietary supplements, the report turns to what it calls ‘high-end augmentation’.  It outlines and discusses four ‘core human augmentation technologies’ that it suggests are crucial to explore in this context: genetic engineering, bioinformatics, brain interfaces and pharmaceuticals.” It then turns to their implications for the military.

Arguing that the deployment of armed forces is being made increasingly difficult by the proliferation of long-range precision weapons, the report suggests that greater use of unmanned systems in conjunction with lighter, mobile and more versatile ground forces is the solution. “Human augmentation will directly support these solutions” the report asserts. Through brain interfaces, personnel will be able “to increase the combat power they can bring to bear by networking them with autonomous and unmanned systems.”

The increasing use of computers and AI in warfare means that the “cognitive load on personnel is likely to increase, particularly for those involved in command and control.”  It suggests that ‘bioinformatics’ – the  study and analysis of large amounts of biological data – could help at the recruitment stage by “identifying commanders and staff with the right aptitude for command and control roles.”  It goes on:

“Brain interfaces, pharmaceuticals and gene therapy could all play a significant part in optimising and enhancing command and control proficiency. In the short term, non-invasive brain interfaces could improve performance by being used to monitor cognitive load, develop better processes and improve training. In the longer term, brain interfaces could network brains with headquarters providing a completely shares operating picture, improving the quality and speed of decision-making.”

However, the report acknowledges that such human augmentation will have an impact on personnel as they prepare for life after the military.

“The use of invasive human augmentation may require surgery to remove or downgrade implants that may not be permitted in civilian life. Reintegration to society could be complicated from a technical perspective but learning to live without military-grade augmentation could present even bigger mental health challenges.”

Attempting perhaps to put a positive spin on it, the reports goes on: “equally, veterans who have benefitted from human augmentation in Service life may be highly sought after by civilian employers.”

A scant look at ethics

In a relatively short section on ethical considerations, the report states that it does not address larger ethical questions about human augmentation as they “rightfully continue to be the subject of wider debate.”  It does, however, make clear arguments in favour of military use. In particular it declares:

“Defence cannot wait for ethics to change before engaging with human augmentation – we must be in the conversation from the outset to inform the debate and understand how ethical views are evolving.”

In a sign of how it is going to make its argument in the debate, it likens opposition to human augmentation to the opposition by some to vaccines, saying that the discovery of smallpox saved millions of lives but was condemned at the time by some of the world’s leading thinkers.  “We cannot assume human augmentation will be automatically effective or accepted in its intended use, no matter how beneficial its effects may be. Human augmentation may be resisted by elements in society that do not trust the effectiveness and motive of augmentation.

At the same time, the authors of the report make clear that military developments in this area should not wait for public agreement or ethical debate but be “based on the national interest in terms of prosperity, safety and security.”

“The imperative to use human augmentation may ultimately not be dictated by any explicit ethical argument, but by national interest. Countries may need to develop human augmentation or risk surrendering influence, prosperity and security to those who do.”

Ominously, the report argues that “relationships with industry and academia will be key to understanding how emerging augmentation technologies could be repurposed or developed for Defence.”  Life sciences, unlike nuclear physics or cryptography has “relatively little experience of classified research and its links with national security apparatus are less developed.”  This relationship – including with “government departments responsible for health and social care” – need to be “revised” declares the report, urging a move towards “a more sophisticated relationship between the public and private sector” in this area.

The report does not underestimate the opposition to such moves, but insists, as ever in these type of discussions, that if  we do not develop these systems, our enemies we be able to use such squeamishness against us:

“Successfully exploiting human augmentation will require Defence and society to face up to uncomfortable ethical and legal dilemmas. So far, Defence organisations in liberal democracies have adopted a ‘wait and see’ approach, choosing to let ethical debate and technical developments play out. This passive stance will cede momentum to our adversaries and cause Defence to miss opportunities to improve the well-being and effectiveness of our Armed Forces.”

Eroding humanity from warfare

The argument, as this report makes, that we are weak and ineffective in the face of sophisticated and deadly enemies is far from a new one. It has been used for centuries to develop and sell tools to increase our lethality and reach in order to project deadly force around the globe. But there is a qualitative difference between equipping a soldier with night-vision goggles or a high-powered rifle and implanting a computer interface in the brain of a drone pilot in order to increase data processing or network with an AI. That is before we get to the idea of somatic gene engineering to reduce pain thresholds or increase cognition.

The increasing use of computers, robotics, unmanned and remote systems in warfare is – in part – about enabling the erosion of humanity from warfare. Eroding hesitation, empathy, risk to oneself. Eroding the possibility of capture rather than kill. Eroding public knowledge and understanding of what is happening on the ground thousands of miles away.  Such remote warfare distances us, in different senses, from the consequences of our warfare.

Human augmentation – as the report acknowledges – could change our understanding of what it means to be human. But using human augmentation to eliminate so-called weaknesses in order to increase our aptitude for organised violence also threatens our humanity. The notion that humanity  is a weak link to be eradicated in order to be more lethal is simply appalling.

*

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 Drone Wars UK

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on British MoD Report: Embrace of “Human Augmentation” to Fully Exploit Drones and A.I. for Warfighting
  • 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.

***

Politicians from rich countries have tried to forcefully ‘persuade’ other countries to use an extreme economic system with few public services and very little regulation of big companies. This is usually called neoliberalism. The rights of big business and investors have priority over everything else. Public and community interests are ignored. People’s lives, their health, their jobs, pollution, the environment – all of these things become irrelevant when businesses are not properly controlled. This post summarises the policies that poor countries have adopted, due to violence, threats, bribes or personal self-enrichment, for much of the last 50 years. Note that these policies are very different from the policies that advanced nations used during their development.

Many critical writers had been saying this for many years, but were mostly ignored. In the year 2002 the former chief economist of the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz, wrote a landmark book entitled ‘Globalization and its Discontents’, which brought these criticisms to a wider audience.

a) Spend Less – Cut the heart out of the patient 

We saw in earlier posts that government spending is at the heart of every successful economy. Despite this, poor countries are told that the government must spend less on public services, even when military spending is sometimes increased. This means that less is spent on water, sanitation, education and healthcare, in countries where the existing systems are already inadequate. Teachers, doctors and nurses lose their jobs. Some children cannot get an education, so they have no way of getting themselves out of poverty, and many poor people cannot get treatment for even the most basic medical problems. The government is also encouraged to cut wages and end assistance to the poor, such as food subsidies. The current word for this is austerity.(1)

b) Remove Controls on Money – Cut off the blood supply

Poor countries are advised to allow money to flow into the country, so rich people from other countries can invest more easily. More than anything else, those with money want a global system where money can flow freely between countries with no controls. Unfortunately this usually means that money can also flow out of poor countries very quickly, creating instability. Giving up control of money flows is a bit like cutting off a patient’s blood supply. In the past, many readers would have found it difficult to understand how flaws in the financial system can devastate economies. However, the 2007 global financial crisis affected even the wealthiest countries. The financial system, and control of money, is so important that it is discussed in other posts.

c) Privatise – Selling off the Family Jewels

Privatisation is where industries that are owned and run by the government, such as water and electricity, are given or sold to private owners. They claim that profit motivates them to be more efficient. This is propaganda. The US has one of the most privatised healthcare systems of any advanced nation, yet it is far more expensive than any other country’s, without noticeably better results. When the world’s steel industries were compared, the most efficient steel companies were found to be the government-owned businesses in South Korea and Taiwan.(2)

Privatisation in the developing world usually means a small number of big companies taking control of a whole industry. (This is known as oligopoly). These companies can be from overseas, or owned by rich locals with government connections. The process of handing over these industries is extremely corrupt and has been called ‘briberisation.’(3) The end result is that they can charge high prices, even for providing basic essentials.

A good example of the downsides of privatisation could be seen in Bolivia in the year 2000. The water supply had been privatised and prices immediately tripled. Locals were not even allowed to collect rainwater. They were expected to pay for every drop of water they used. The American company in charge was Bechtel, which has powerful connections in the US government, notably through former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Large numbers of people protested because they could not afford the water. Eventually Bechtel and their business partners were forced to leave the country.(4)

In African countries where the water system has been privatized, and even very poor people have been charged for water, it was found that some of those people would sooner walk for four hours each day to get free water, rather than pay for it. After privatisation in South Africa, many people found their water bills cost one-third of the family’s income. In Johannesburg, 22,000 people were disconnected each month because they could not pay their water bills. This led to an outbreak of Cholera, on a scale not seen for many years, because hygiene standards declined so much.(5) The importance of clean water cannot be stressed enough. A certain minimum amount of water has to be provided to the poorest people for free.

There are many examples of unsuccessful privatisations throughout the world. One of the most notorious was the Californian electricity system. This led to the collapse of major corporations, such as Enron. The senior people at Enron realised that at certain times of the day, there was enough demand for electricity that by closing down a power station for unnecessary ‘maintenance’, demand would exceed supply. It was then possible to charge much more for electricity. The price increased dramatically.(6) US politicians had been ‘bribed’ to deregulate the energy markets. Politicians in poor countries can be bribed just as easily as in the US.

There is a very good reason for electricity, gas, water, sanitation, phone lines, roads and railways being owned and run by a government. They are known as natural monopolies because each requires an expensive infrastructure. There is no point in ten companies all building railway lines between two towns, each being used by a tiny fraction of the population. It is better to have a single rail line used by everyone. However, if the single line is privately owned, the owners will overcharge users in order to make bigger profits.

Austerity and privatization are connected.(7) Austerity decreases the quality of public services. This makes it easier for private companies, and their supporters in government, to use propaganda to mislead the public into believing that a private system is better.

The final set of policies that have been forced upon poor countries is known as free trade. This is so important that it will be discussed in a later post.

Shock Therapy

Rich countries try to insist that poor countries adopt these policies very quickly. This is known as ‘shock therapy’. Unfortunately, rapid economic and social change creates hardship for large numbers of people, even in countries with social safety nets.(8) Without these safety nets, the results are much worse. The usual outcomes of this whole system include the creation of a small number of wealthy locals, and poverty for a large segment of the population. The transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest happens not only between countries, but also within the country. Each nation loses control of its finances. Many people struggle to afford even the basics.

The End Result – Poverty and Death

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, US advisors tried to persuade the Russian government that Russia could quickly change from its existing Communist system to an extreme version of capitalism. As with almost every other country that has tried this, poverty increased throughout the country. In 1992, the price of bread increased 100-fold in less than a year.(9) It has been estimated that the number of people in poverty increased by over 70 million people. Life expectancy in Russia declined at a rate that would normally only be seen during wartime, with one commentator describing the extra deaths as economic genocide.(10) A handful of people with strong government connections took over many state-run businesses, such as gas and oil companies, and became billionaires. They were known as the Oligarchs.

One of the leading economic advisors who helped to implement these policies, Jeffrey Sachs, admitted years later that he eventually realised that the extreme policies recommended to Russia were about “finishing off the cold war.”(11) This meant that senior planners in the US government wanted to destroy Russia’s government-backed industry, and replace it with an economic system where US companies could access resources and exploit the people.

Similar results can be seen in most countries that followed these policies. When they were applied in Peru in 1990, the price of bread increased 12-fold overnight. When they were applied in Mexico from 1980-2000, the spending power of many Mexicans dropped to a quarter of what it had been previously.(12) One of the leading experts, Jason HIckel, has described these policies as the largest single cause of impoverishment in the 20th century.(13) In each country that adopts these policies, a handful of people get rich very quickly. This was particularly notable in Mexico and Argentina, where billionaires were created almost overnight. If a group of people from one country suddenly become rich, it is usually because they have stolen the wealth of the nation. As one writer put it:

“This system is just another rigged game to enable the movers and shakers to get richer.”(14)

Advanced Countries Are Now Being Destroyed Too

Before 2008, the focus of these policies was on developing countries. However, since the global financial crisis the same policies have been applied to advanced nations. We have seen extreme austerity applied to Greece with catastrophic consequences. They have also been applied to Britain, with austerity leading to significant underfunding of social services and the National Health Service (NHS). At the same time there has been a gradual, stealthy privatisation of the NHS. Ever more wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the super rich. Inequality is rising to levels that we have not seen for a century. There are more and more people queueing at foodbanks and sleeping rough on the streets.

These outcomes are not accidental. The economic policies that create them are deliberate choices by governments. There is no evidence that austerity is ever necessary. These governments are gradually destroying state-run services to encourage people to use private alternatives, ultimately to make rich people richer. Since 2008 it has become more and more obvious that many governments, including those of the US and Britain, do not represent their people. Enriching themselves and their cronies is clearly their priority, irrespective of the harm this does to society more generally.

*

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.

Rod Driver is a part-time academic who is particularly interested in de-bunking modern-day US and British propaganda, and explaining war, terrorism, economics and poverty, without the nonsense in the mainstream media. This article was first posted at medium.com/elephantsintheroom

Notes

1) Isabel Ortiz and Thomas Stubbs, ‘More austerity for developing countries: It’s bad news and it’s avoidable’, Inter Press Service, Nov 2019, at http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/11/austerity-developing-countries-bad-news-avoidable/

2) Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and its Discontents, p.54

The evidence that private monopolies are more efficient than state ones is also very weak. John Kay, The Truth About Markets, 2004 

3) Joseph Stiglitz, cited in Greg Palast, ‘The Globalizer Who Came In From The Cold’, 3 Sep 2001, at http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0903-Economist.html 

4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochabamba_Water_War

5) 10 Million Water Cuts After South Africa’s Water Privatization, Nov 4, 2002, at www.afrol.com/html/News2002/sa024_water_private.htm 

6) Enron Scandal at-a-Glance, Aug 22, 2002, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1780075.stm

7) Michael Hudson, J is for junk economics, p.265

8) Michael Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty

9) Michael Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty, p.207

10) Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine, p.238

Notzon et al, Causes of Declining Life Expectancy in Russia’, Journal of the American Medical Association, March 1998, at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9508159/ 

11) Jeffrey Sachs, Interviewed by Tim Sebastian on BBC Hardtalk, 22/01/03

Episode unavailable but its existence is confirmed at http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/01_january/22/hardtalk_sachsjeffrey.shtml 

12) David Bacon, ‘World labor needs independence and solidarity, 4 March 2000, at www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/26/206.html

13) Dinyar Godrej, ‘A brief history of impoverishment’, 20 April 2020, at https://newint.org/features/2020/02/10/brief-history-impoverishment

14) James S. Henry, Blood Bankers, p.289

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.

***

Address issues which Ukraine, the West’s client state, does not like and you could end up on a ‘hit list’. Because that’s apparently how flourishing democracies roll…

Last week, photojournalist Dean O’Brien participated in a United Nations meeting to give his perspective on the war in Donbass, Ukraine’s breakaway region in the east. Shortly after the discussion, O’Brien came under fire from the Ukrainian embassy in the UK.

However, smears from Ukrainian officials are nothing compared to what the controversial ‘enemies of Ukraine’ database, the Mirotvorets (Peacekeeper) website, could bring.

In May, O’Brien and I discussed this hit list, noting that we were both on it, with photos of us published on the witch-hunt website.

It’s a website called ‘Peacemaker.’ It’s anything but, really. It seems to be a hit list, a target for journalists or anybody that goes against the grain in Ukraine. If you’re reporting on them, they see you as some kind of threat and put you on this list,” he said.

The platform was created in 2014, shortly after Crimea was reabsorbed by Russia and the Kiev government’s military campaign in eastern Ukraine was launched. As TASS noted in 2019, Mirotvorets “aims to identify and publish personal data of all who allegedly threaten the national security of Ukraine. In recent years, the personal data of journalists, artists or politicians who have visited Crimea, Donbass, or for some other reason have caused a negative assessment of the authors of the site, have been blacklisted by Peacemaker.

Talking about the horrors that Donbass civilians endure under Ukrainian shelling is, according to this rationale, a threat to Ukraine’s national security. As is going to Crimea, maintaining that Crimeans chose to be a part of Russia (or, as many in Crimea told me, to return to Russia) and criticising the influence neo-Nazis wield in Kiev.

The most worrying thing is that they seem to be able to get a hold of people’s passports, visas,” O’Brien told me. “The fact that they can get a hold of your passport photo, your visa photocopies, these can only come from official government offices in Ukraine. This is a governmental website, it’s been discussed in parliament, to close it down. They’re not interested in closing it down. This website is kind of like a hit list, really.

That might seem like an exaggeration, but people listed on Mirotvorets have been targeted and even killed.

A report by the Foundation for the Study of Democracy titled “Ukrainian War Crimes and Human Rights Violations (2017-2020)gave the example of a Ukrainian journalist assassinated in 2015 after his personal details were published on the website.

A few days before his death, Oles Buzina’s details, including his home address, had been posted on the Canadian-based Mirotvorets website, created with the initiative of Anton Gerashchenko, the Ukrainian deputy minister of internal affairs. The people listed on it are recommended for liquidation and arrest, and the total number of people listed are in the tens of thousands.

According to many experts, it was the listing on the site and the publication of the home address that prompted the murder of Oles Buzina, Oleg Kalashnikov, and many other opposition figures by members of the Ukrainian ‘death squads’.

Back in 2015, Georgiy Tuka, who participated in the creation and operation of the site, stated that, of the people listed on the site, “more than 300 were either arrested or destroyed,” the report states.

When in April 2015 the Ukrainian parliament’s Commissioner for Human Rights Valeriya Lutkovskaya launched an effort to shut the list down, the then-adviser to Minister of Internal Affairs Anton Gerashchenko threatened her position and stated that the work of the site was “extremely important for the national security of Ukraine.” He said that “anyone who does not understand this or tries to interfere with this work is either a puppet in the hands of others or works against the interests of national security.

So the website remains active, with Ukraine’s security service reportedly stating that it did not see any violations of Ukrainian law in the activities of the Mirotvorets website.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, too, has refused to have the website shut down, ironically claiming that it’s wrong to interfere with the work of websites and the media.

Let’s remember that in Ukraine, untold numbers of journalists, activists and civilians have been imprisoned, and killed, for their crimes of voicing criticism of the government and neo-Nazi groups.

Ukraine isn’t the only country to host such a hit list. Although Stop the ISM (International Solidarity Movement) – the project of crazed US-based journalist, Lee Kaplan – named activists, including myself, for our crimes of reporting on Israel’s brutal bombardment of Gaza in 2008/09, the website has since changed format and is far less detailed. But cached versions show the extent of its insanity, including a clear call for our murders:

ALERT THE IDF MILITARY TO TARGET ISM

Number to call if you can pinpoint the locations of Hamas with their ISM members with them. Help us neutralise the ISM that is now definitely a part of Hamas since the war began.”

Others on the kill list were named for their crimes of reporting Israel’s systematic abuse and killing of Palestinians. Their personal details, including passport information, were published.

An article on this heinous website noted: “The dossiers are openly addressed to the Israeli military so as to help them eliminate ‘dangerous’ targets physically, unless others see to it first.”

Although arguably that website was the project of one lunatic and their allies, the fact that for many years it stayed active and called for the murders of international peace activists speaks volumes on America’s own values.

I’m sure these two hit-list examples are not isolated ones. Quite likely, there are similar lists targeting journalists reporting on the crimes of other countries. But they are the height of absurdity, and fascism: targeting people whose reporting aims to help persecuted civilians.

Meanwhile in Donbass, Ukraine reportedly continues its shelling of civilian areas. Recently in Gorlovka, a northern city hammered by Ukrainian bombing over the years, a mine blew off part of a woman’s leg as she gathered mushrooms.

In spite of the hit list, journalists, rightly, continue to report on these war crimes.

*

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

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine (where she lived for nearly four years). Follow her on Twitter @EvaKBartlett

Pity the Poor Billionaire

June 14th, 2021 by Klaus Marre

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

It’s been a mixed week for billionaires. On the one hand, ProPublica revealed that many of them don’t pay their “fair share” in taxes (unless you think the fair share for somebody with a net worth of $100,000,000,000 is to pay nothing or very little). On the other hand, heroic lawmakers like Mitt Romney (R-$280 million) in the Senate and Josh Gottheimer (D-$9 million) in the House have indicated that they have no interest in changing that — certainly not for something as silly as fixing the country’s crumbling infrastructure and giving the economy a much-needed boost.

It’s pretty clear that the uber-rich are getting a raw deal here. People should just leave these captains of industry alone so that they can focus on what they do best: sitting back and watching their vast fortunes grow by leaps and bounds. After all, this is how our trickle-up economy is designed to work.

And that’s something the detractors of these courageous capitalists conveniently overlook as they rail about this perceived injustice: These billionaires are just following the letter of the laws they paid others to write.

So let’s take a look at some of the unfounded criticisms directed toward these modern-day moguls and debunk them once and for all.

First, it’s false to say that these titans of trade pay no taxes. Sure, maybe they are paying a much lower income tax rate than the employees of their companies or their maids, butlers, dog walkers, dog tutors, dog hairdressers, chauffeurs, gardeners, pool cleaners, yacht captains, private jet pilots, or spaceship commanders, but they do pay the sales tax. That means when they buy a pack of gum, they pay exactly the same rate as any of the above. That’s the very definition of fairness.

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, William Tell

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey / WhoWhatWhy (CC BY-SA 2.0)

In addition, nobody is talking about the sacrifices these admirable tycoons have to make. Sure, compared to non-rich Americans, they pay only a fraction of income taxes, but they also were not eligible for the stimulus checks most people got earlier this year. And did you hear Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates complain about this? You did not, because they are true team players.

Then there is the specious argument that the well-deserved riches these bold stewards of the economy have accumulated could be used for something better than space travel, sports teams, planes, extravagant homes, or simply sitting in bank accounts.

For example, these commie critics say that, with just a fraction of the wealth the 10 richest Americans amassed in the past year (a measly $521,000,000,000 between them), it would be easy to eradicate world hunger for 12 months, which is estimated to cost $116 billion — i.e., about one-fourth of the extra money these ten philanthropists made in the year of a pandemic.

Is that reasonable? Of course not. Let’s get real, folks. How many of the hundreds of millions of starving people in the most impoverished countries would get a Facebook account or buy a Tesla? Not many. Then why would Mark Zuckerberg spend even a dime of the extra $59 billion he is now worth on helping them? And why would Elon Musk give even a penny of the $147 billion he earned through his hard work?

And, sure, this would prevent countless people from starving to death… but it would also prevent them from picking themselves up by their bootstraps.

It’s also important to note that the extra $1.615 trillion that America’s billionaires made last year is simply a reflection of their hard work.

The annual median income of a full-time American worker is nearly $55,000. Now, based on the figure above, Zuckerberg made one million times as much last year. Some people think that shows that the system is completely out of whack, but were these naysayers at the Facebook offices all year? How can they say for sure that Zuckerberg didn’t work one million times harder than a teacher or a factory worker?

Speaking of the Zuckster, a video went viral this week of him throwing spears and shooting arrows. We can only assume that this is his way of getting ready to fight off a mob of jealous peasants who believe in the rhetoric that the current system is somehow “unfair.”

Is that really how we want him to spend his time — getting ready for some type of reverse Hunger Games — instead of helping erode US democracy or providing a platform for radicalizing Americans? Certainly not.

This brings us to the final argument the enemies of tried-and-true American capitalism are making: that there is an increasing “wealth gap” that is “bad” and “divisive.”

Really???

Then explain this: If these billionaires are so divisive, how do they manage to keep uniting a deeply partisan and sharply divided Congress on the most important issue of our time — ensuring that the richest Americans and their businesses can continue to pay next to nothing in taxes.

It’s commendable how the super-rich can bring Republican and Democratic lawmakers together — through sheer determination, having truth and justice on their side, and making gazillions in campaign contributions to both parties.

It’s truly admirable, and they deserve a lot of credit for that… Even better, let’s make it another tax credit.

*

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.

***

Efforts to depict journalism as if it ever existed in the idealized form of its propagandists have become increasingly ridiculous. Journalism, like accountancy, is just another sub-category of reporting. Like accountancy and other reporting activities, journalistic reporting can be good or bad, exceptional or mediocre, honest or criminal. Among the most insidious fables people in the West tell themselves is that European and North American countries promote honest reporting and freedom of expression. However, countries from Libya, Iran and Syria to Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela offer undeniable examples of how absurd that fiction really is.

A personal anecdote relating to Nicaragua encapsulates the reality of reporting in the West. Recently, I asked a very well regarded freelance foreign journalist who has covered Latin America for decades, mainly for European media outlets, if they might be available to interview a well known Sandinista in Nicaragua about this year’s elections. This reporter replied that they’d like to, but could not because the media with which they work rejected reporting on Nicaragua giving what this person regarded as a true and fair view of events here. The implications of that are at once both very sinister and notably commonplace.

On one level, to be able to secure work with practically any media outlet, reporters generally have to accept the outlet’s editorial policy and ideological leanings and comply with them. Nowhere in the world is that unusual. But taken to another level, this reality is very sinister because it means reporting honestly on, in this case, Nicaragua, but it could be Syria or any country under attack from the US and its allies, is subject to abrupt and brutal professional, economic and social repression. Not only does any professional journalist determined to report honestly on countries like Nicaragua risk losing work and income. The knock on effect is that they might end up ostracised by colleagues unwilling to be contaminated by association, thereby risking their own professional status, economic well being and social stability.

Nor does it make sense to try and pretend this is merely a matter of some isolated chilling effect with no implications beyond a few media outlets. Corporate political power in North America and Europe suffocates public life so completely that it is practically economic suicide and certainly a recipe for isolation for people engaged in almost any kind of reporting to defy the limits set by the two dominant varieties of political consensus. Neither the neoliberal fascism of right wing politicians like Donald Trump or Boris Johnson nor the neoliberal fascism of more social democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton or Angela Merkel tolerate dissent. Everything is subordinate to the marriage of corporate and political power and the imperatives that union engenders.

Stepping out from under the protection of the respective broad political mafia networks those flavors of fascism afford, guarantees economic hardship, social isolation and, in extreme cases like those of Julian Assange, Craig Murray and many others, criminal prosecution. This is so most obviously for media journalists and people working in Western NGOs or major international institutions headquartered in the West. But it is also true for research scientists, economists and other financial professionals, academics of all kinds, anyone engaged in reporting that one way or another affects corporate elite interests and the policies they favor, including their respective countries’ foreign policy. More than ever, the ethos is one of ultimatums “you’re either with us or against us” or, in its even more overt gangster version, “do what we want, or else…”

Thus, reporting is deliberately made subservient to very broad but generally unacknowledged political allegiance. In the United States, Democrat party aligned media like National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting System, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and the plethora of similar outlets, and more so their Republican aligned opposites, will never report the truth about Nicaragua or any other country resisting US and EU government wishes. Nor will their counterparts in Europe like the BBC, the Guardian, El País, Deutsche Welle, Le Monde, the Irish Times nor any other similar undeservedly prestigious European media outlet. The foreign affairs reporting of all such media consists generally of blatant pro-US propaganda.

The same is true of the reporting sources that feed these media. In the area of human rights, Amnesty International, the International Federation for Human Rights and Human Rights Watch, for example, undeniably skew their reporting to attack the targets of the US and the EU governments and correspondingly downplay abuses by US and EU allies. This is clear from any just comparison between these NGOs reporting on the violent guarimbas in Venezuela or on Nicaragua during the violent failed coup attempt of 2018 and their reporting on the repression of legitimate mass protest by the narco-terror authorities running Colombia.

What is extraordinary about the case of Nicaragua is how readily even self-styled anti-imperialist reporting outlets ape the aggressive coverage of their mainstream counterparts. The experience of writers supporting Nicaragua’s Sandinista government against US and EU government efforts at regime change has been salutary. No matter how carefully one presents the facts nor how thoroughly one references one’s arguments to authoritative sources, the general consensus among even a great many self-styled progressive media, in either English or Spanish, is to reject out of hand any effort at a true and fair view of events in Nicaragua. In effect, these self-styled anti-imperialist media outlets actively support the aggressive imperialism of the US government and its allies against Nicaragua.

One way to counter this culture of absurd falsehood is to publish first hand interviews with Nicaraguans at grass roots rendering personal accounts of their own experiences, lives and opinions. Such genuine testimony is readily verifiable, freely given and rooted in personal, daily reality. This material contrasts greatly with the kinds of false witness confected under subornment and duress so typical of accounts rendered in Nicaragua’s opposition aligned media and non profits virtually all of which are funded by the US government and its corporate owned non profits. This is so not just in the case of Nicaragua but also for Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, anywhere under economic, diplomatic and psychological warfare attack from the US and its allies

Most writers in solidarity with Nicaragua’s Sandinista Revolution write because we love Nicaragua and its people and completely reject efforts by the corporate owned US and EU governments to overthrow its very successful socialist government. No one pays us to write in defense of Nicaragua’s right to self-determination. We do so because US and allied attacks on Nicaragua are illegal and unjust. For that reason, because we are genuinely independent, no one is able to intimidate us with the implicit threat of unemployment and poverty. We write out of conviction based on diligent research and irrefutable testimony.

By contrast, most reporting on Nicaragua is by corporate owned media journalists, corporate funded NGOs and Western government financed institutional bureaucrats working under a ruthless system of intimidation and effective censorship. They never corroborate their reports with genuinely independent sources and they consistently omit facts contradicting their accounts. They permanently recycle false reports from Nicaragua’s opposition aligned NGOs and media, all financed directly or indirectly by the governments of the United States and the European Union. With complete cynicism, they describe these highly compromised sources as independent. Western reporting on Nicaragua confirms that North America and Europe have practically no genuinely independent media nor do they have a culture of freedom of expression.

*

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 Tortilla con Sal.

Featured image is from Tortilla con Sal

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Truthful Accounts: A View from Nicaragua on Propaganda and Corporate Media Journalists
  • 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.

***

“Many of those misbehaving today are too young to be aware of the destruction and loss of lives that occurred during the Biafra war. Those of us in the fields for 30 months, who went through the war, will treat them in the language they understand.” – Tweet issued at the account of Muhammadu Buhari.

I have a nuanced view about the action taken by Twitter to remove the tweet by the Nigerian President earlier this month.

1. I understand the anger and displeasure felt by many because:

(a) Buhari’s tone was in keeping with the violent culture of Nigeria’s security apparatus which as the SARS protests highlighted is one which has been historically disproportionate in response and undiscriminating in effect on guilty parties and innocent bystanders.

(b) Buhari’s comments were appropriated from an earlier speech in which he was specifically responding to the violent acts against state personnel and property in the South East of the country by the Eastern Security Network (ESN), an armed counterpart of the secessionist organisation, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). His choice of words relating to the “language they understand” is seen by many in the ethnic Igbo-dominated South East as the reflecting the sentiments of the atypical Northern Nigerian oligarch who orchestrated the murder and maiming of thousands of innocent Igbos in the North during the pogroms of the 1960s.* The ensuing civil war with secessionist Biafra which witnessed mass starvation, is still viewed by many Igbos as a continuum of the brutality that had been unleashed on them prior to the war.

(b) Many pointed out that Buhari’s tone in relation to the acts of lawlessness in the South East is missing when he has addressed issue of the Islamist perpetrators of mayhem in the North East of the country where an insurgency by Boko Haram and lately the Islamic State has led to continuing instances of mass murder and a large level of population displacement. They also charge Buhari with being silent about the atrocities perpetrated by Fulani herdsmen in clashes with farming communities around Nigeria. Himself an ethnic Fulani, Buhari is often accused of tribalism and ineptitude in his handling of this matter, which like the Islamist insurgency is becoming one of longstanding duration.

2. However, the other important aspect of this incident concerns the power of the Big Tech corporations Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, which are all monopolies. Their interference in the privacy rights of their subscribers is well known. But another pernicious aspect of the conduct of these corporations is the power which they attempt to wield in relation to countries. For just as they have cooperated with the US government and powerful corporations in infringing the privacy rights of their subscribers, so it is the case that the Big Tech companies have been accused of interfering in the affairs of sovereign nation states by either doing the bidding of the United States government and its intelligence community** or by pushing a decidedly “liberal agenda” on the rest of the globe.

It is worth concentrating the mind on whether they are qualified to act as an arbiter in what they claim to have been a form of “hate speech”, but which others see as the inalienable right of the head of a government to address the violent actions of a proscribed organisation.

So, while I understand the doubts of some and the revulsion of others at the words of President Buhari, it is important to bear in mind the wider issues related to the intolerable attitude of the Big Tech giants whose self-designated powers pertaining to censorship and political umpireship must be scrutinised and where appropriate should be challenged.

*

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, Adeyinka Makinde.

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: President Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria (Credit: Nigeria Presidency/Handout via Adeyinka Makinde)

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.

***

Observers are divided over whether Nigeria’s decision to ban Twitter in response to the platform deleting a controversial tweet by President Buhari directed against southeastern separatists is a principled move in support of national sovereignty or an anti-democratic one aimed at stifling growing dissent.

Africa’s most populous nation of Nigeria recently banned Twitter in response to the platform deleting a controversial tweet by President Buhari directed against southeastern separatists. He threatened to “treat them in the language they understand”, which was interpreted by the company as “abusive behavior” and thus a violation of its community standards. The background context is complex but an admittedly oversimplified explanation is that the oil-rich southeastern region is once again experiencing a rise in separatist sentiment led by the so-called “Indigenous People Of Biafra” (IPOB). This is attributed to a confluence of factors including seemingly growing economic inequality there and increased displeasure with the perception of northern Muslims wielding disproportionate influence over this majority-Christian region.

The modern-day nation of Nigeria has always been roughly divided between the Muslim North and Christian South since its colonial-era unification under the British. This fault line is responsible for a myriad of Hybrid War threats that were elaborated upon by the author in his detailed strategic risk study on the country back in early 2017. Just like Africa’s second most populous nation of Ethiopia on the other side of the continent which is presently suffering from a revival of separatist violence, so too does Nigeria seem destined to fall back into this historical pattern as well. Cosmopolitan countries such as these, especially ones with such massive population sizes, usually find it very difficult to maintain national unity for prolonged periods of time. These preexisting tensions are also sometimes exploited by foreign forces, but it’s unclear if that’s the case with both right now.

The point to pay attention to though is that Nigerians are becoming increasingly confident with publicly expressing their dissent against the status quo, be it through last fall’s regrettably chaotic protests against the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS) that some blame on provocateurs and/or the state itself or the spate of separatist violence that’s been observed in the southeast. This is simply an observation and no value judgment is being made about either of these movements or the many others that are popping up across the country. On top of that, Nigeria is still struggling with its campaign against Boko Haram terrorists in the northeast and also fears the creation of a black hole of instability along its border with Cameroon in the event that so-called “Ambazonian” separatists there join forces with the neighboring “Biafran” ones.

Absent a radical political solution which seems extremely unlikely due to the state’s unwillingness to compromise on issues that it regards as integral to its national security, it’s very possible that the situation might eventually spiral out of control, including through the worst-case scenario of a more robust crackdown on the southeast that could raise fears of rekindling the bloody civil war of 1967-1970 that killed an estimated several million people. Against this backdrop, it’s somewhat understandable why President Buhari would talk tough on Twitter against IPOB, but the potential consequences of the darker scenarios that he might be implying also explain why Twitter decided to delete his tweet. At the same time, though, both of their responses can also be constructively criticized.

President Buhari’s controversial tweet could have been interpreted as a dog whistle by some nationalist forces to carry out attacks against some of the people from the southeast, while Twitter’s hypocritical claim that access to its platform is a so-called “essential human right in modern society” is debunked by its banning of Trump and many others (mostly his supporters) for purely political reasons. Observers can also rightly argue that Twitter’s deletion of President Buhari’s tweet represents a form of Western meddling in the country’s affairs, which explains why his decision to indefinitely ban Twitter is a principled one. Nevertheless, it’s also likely that he plans to exploit this opportunity to stifle growing dissent seeing as how that platform is increasingly used to organize protests and perhaps even militant/terrorist actions against the state.

It’s therefore inaccurate to describe his move as being either a completely principled one in support of national sovereignty or an anti-democratic one since it compellingly incorporates both elements. It’s within Nigeria’s sovereign rights to ban Twitter, with or without the company’s provocation against its President, but that doesn’t mean that ulterior motives related to stifling rising dissent aren’t also served by this measure. Twitter was clearly meddling in Nigeria’s domestic affairs, which created the perfect pretext for the country to opportunistically exploit for other ends. It’s unclear exactly how long the ban will remain in effect, but it’s obvious that it serves immediate security needs related to the state’s attempt to regain control of the country’s socio-political dynamics that have been slipping from its grasp.

*

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.

***

Privately-operated non-profit and for-profit charter schools[1] run by unelected officials are legal in 45 states, Washington DC, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

According to a 2018 state-by-state information chart from the Education Commission of the States, more than 25 states (including Washington, DC) either do not require charter school teachers to be certified or allow charter schools to hire a large portion of teachers with no teaching certification (see this).[2]

And, on average, charter school teachers have fewer years of teaching experience and fewer credentials than their public school counterparts. They also tend to work longer days and years than public school teachers while generally being paid less than them. Further, many charter school teachers are not part of an employee retirement plan and are treated as “at-will” employees, which is linked to why nearly ninety percent of charter school teachers are not part of any organization that defends their collective interests.

A few examples of charter schools with uncertified teachers are worth noting. A May 30, 2019 article in The Palm Beach Post titled, “Underpaid, undertrained, unlicensed: In PBC’s largest charter school chain, 1 in 5 teachers weren’t certified to teach,” points out that the Renaissance Charter School chain in Florida routinely employed large numbers of substitute teachers and operated many schools where a quarter to a third of the teachers were not certified to teach.

Several years ago, one of the main charter school authorizers in New York State unilaterally further lowered teaching qualifications for teachers in charter schools. It willfully ignored numerous public demands to not further dilute teaching standards, prompting a lawsuit against its arbitrary actions. An October 18, 2019 press release from New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) titled, “Court rejects fake certification scheme for charter school teachers,” reads in part:

“After the union fought back against ‘fake’ certification for some charter school teachers, a midlevel appeals court this week ruled the SUNY Charter Schools Committee does not have the authority to set its own standards for certifying teachers. NYSUT President Andy Pallotta said the court ruling is a big win for the union and the profession. ‘This is about preserving what it means to be a teacher in New York State’, Pallotta said. ‘This would have created a two-tiered certification system and allowed unqualified educators to practice in some charter schools’.”

While public school teachers in North Carolina have to be trained and certified to teach in public schools, charter schools are exempt from such requirements and can hire uncertified non-educators to teach (see this). And while they enroll a significant percentage of youth, in Arizona “Teachers at charter schools are not required to have any certification” (see this). Many other examples from across the nation could be given.

Taken together, these facts help explain why there is such persistently high teacher turnover rates in the crisis-prone charter school sector—a situation that does not serve students and families well. It is no accident that there has been an uptick in recent years in the number of charter school teachers striving to unionize. The most recent example comes from Chicago (see this).

It is not possible to build a modern society and nation by creating more corporatized schools that are segregated, non-transparent, deregulated, run by unelected officials, and staffed with a large number of uncertified teachers. Such neoliberal arrangements lower the level of education and are a slap in the face of thousands of teacher education students around the country who spend years and thousands of dollars training to become effective certified teachers.

*

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.

Shawgi Tell, PhD, is author of the book “Charter School Report Card.” His main research interests include charter schools, neoliberal education policy, and privatization. He can be reached at [email protected].

Notes

[1] The “non-profit” versus “for-profit” distinction is generally a distinction without a difference: both types of entities engage in profit maximization. Charter school promoters always downplay the fact that there are many charter schools, including “non-profit” charter schools, run by for-profit entities.

[2] Public schools sometimes hire uncertified teachers as well, but what makes the corporatized charter school sector different is that many charter school laws are intentionally and explicitly set up to evade certified teachers. This usually has to do with the neoliberal goal of “cost-cutting” and profit maximizing. Such a set-up lowers the level of education.

Featured image: CC BY-SA 3.0

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A 2019 survey revealed that 82% of Americans thought Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) technology would be more harmful than helpful.  They seem to have been onto something as warnings about A.I. keep pouring in (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

In 2019, telecom executives gave U.S. congressional testimony that they had NO independent studies proving that 5G is safe.

Later that year, Biden was confronted with this fact while he was campaigning and said:

Full video:

Since taking office, there has been no indication that Biden has ordered any studies to thoroughly study 5G.  He has also not addressed American concerns about reduced property value (see 1, 2, 3) and increased energy consumption (see 1, 2) as well as risks to cybersecurity, privacy (see 1, 2), public safety (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8), health (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), and the environment.  Last monthscientists submitted a letter to President Biden asking him to protect the public from 5G and other unsafe technology.  Instead he’s already working on developing 6G and implementing more controversial A.I.

From Fierce Wireless:

U.S., U.K. team to tackle 6G

The U.S. and U.K. announced plans to develop a detailed science and technology partnership agreement, which is set to include a provision for strategic collaboration on the development of 6G technology.

Over the next year, the countries said they will define a statement of intent focused on advancing “proposals on future technology such as 6G” and strengthening cooperation on “digital technical standards.”

The partnership will be part of an updated Atlantic Charter deal signed by U.S. President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. The original version of the document was signed in 1941 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill to outline a vision for the post-World War II world.

Beyond 6G, the revamped charter will cover collaborations to improve critical supply chain resilience; boost emerging fields such as artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum technology; and enhance the accessibility and flow of data to support economic growth, public safety and scientific processes.

U.K. Digital Secretary Oliver Dowden said in a statement the revised charter “marks a new era of cooperation with our closest ally, in which we commit to using technology to create prosperity and guarantee the safety and security of our citizens for years to come.”

The announcement came just days after researchers in Finland and Japan struck a deal to collaborate on 6G.

Read full article

5G opposition is worldwide due to economic, environmental, health, and safety risks.  Cities AND entire countries have taken action to ban, delay, halt, and limit installation AS WELL AS issue moratoriums.

The majority of scientists oppose 5G deployment.  Since 2017, doctors and scientists have been asking for moratoriums on Earth and in space (see 1, 2).  Since 2018 there have been reports of people and animals experiencing symptoms and illnesses after 5G was installed (see 1. 2, 3, 4).

Americans opposed to 5G may click here to sign a letter asking the Biden administration to stop deployment immediately.

*

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

Featured image is from Activist Post

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Joe Biden and Boris Johnson Team Up to Develop U.S./U.K Partnership on 6G Development that Includes A.I.
  • 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.

***

Summits often feature grand statements and needless fripperies.  In Cornwall, the leaders of the G7 countries were trying to position and promote their relevance as the vanguard of democratic good sense and values.  They, the message went, remained relevant, valuable and essential to the order of the earth, despite challenges posed by the autocrats. 

Never let contradiction get in the way of such a united front.  Babbling about liberal democratic values matters little when it comes to crusty realpolitik.  The UK and the US continue to supply armaments to their favourite theocracy, Saudi Arabia, even as they take issue with Russia and Chinese actions they deem aggressive, cruel or authoritarian.   Germany’s position on dealing with Russia remains distinct within the grouping, not least on the issue of energy politics and the Nord Stream 2 gas project.  Nor does the G7 necessarily share the same attitude in dealing with China, each having had its slant in coping with Beijing’s actions in recent years.

The China Syndrome has produced some form of united response at the summit.  Welcome, then, to the Build Back Better World (B3W) initiative.  This will entail, according to a White House factsheet, “a values-driven, high-standard, and transparent infrastructure partnership led by the major democracies to help narrow the $40+ trillion infrastructure need in the developing world, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.”  The initiative will also involve “the G7 and other like-minded partners” coordinating and mobilising “private-sector capital in four areas of focus – climate, health and health security, digital technology, and gender equity and equality – with catalytic investments from our respective development finance institutions.” 

A senior official in the Biden administration told Reuters that, “This is not just about confronting or taking on China.  But until now we haven’t offered a positive alternative that reflects our values, our standards and our way of doing business.”    

Since 2013, President Xi Jinping’s multi-billion dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has niggled the sphere of influence watchers.  While the developed world went into something of an investment coma after the Great Recession of 2007-9, notably in developing economies, China took its wallet out.  Attached conditions to the investment would be few; questions about human rights, freedoms and business transparency would not be obstacles.  As this was happening, high-income states went into chatter mode while keeping their shut purses, formulating principles for quality infrastructure investments.

The BRI infrastructure program, currently featuring 2,600 projects, is China’s geopolitical bridge to developing states, linking Beijing through an assortment of road, maritime and rail projects.  These include the $100 billion China-Myanmar Economic Corridor, and the $62 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor.  Over time, the initiative has moved into 5G technologies and fiberoptic networks. 

The BRI initiative is also a way of jostling out countries long presumptuous about keeping their backyard free of competition.  (Australia, for instance, has shown alarm that its long standing position as Pacific bruiser and charity giver is facing dethroning.)  And it has worried recipient states initially warmed by Chinese offers of investment.  In 2016, Pakistani Senator Tahir Mashhadi, chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Planning and Development, issued a warning.  “Another East India Company is in the offing; national interests are not being protected.  We are proud of the friendship between Pakistan and China, but the interests of the state should come first.”   

The G7 states have been doing much head scratching as to how to rival and blunt the BRI.  In 2019, the Trump administration, along with Japan and Australia, suggested their own counter: the Blue Dot Network, the principles of which underpin B3W.  The BDN initiative seeks to promote “equality infrastructure investment that is open and inclusive, and transparent, economically viable, financially, environmentally sustainable and compliant with international standards, laws, and regulations.”  The inaugural meeting of the Blue Dot Network’s Executive Consultation Group took place on June 7.

While not specifically referencing the BDN (anything deemed worthy by President Donald Trump is to be assimilated rather than acknowledged), US President Joe Biden has been making regular sprays about, as he told reporters in March, establishing “a similar initiative coming from the democratic states, helping those communities around the world.”  

In April, Biden and his Japanese counterpart, Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, met to discuss “practical commitments” in establishing an alternative to BRI projects.  There was a special emphasis on promoting and protecting “the technologies that will maintain and sharpen our competitive edge” based on “democratic norms that we both share – norms set by democracies, not autocracies.”

Cornwall has become the site for similar assurances.  The B3W is all about, as the Biden administration claims, “offering a higher-quality choice”.  The choice will be offered “with self-confidence … that reflects our shared values”.  Kaush Arha, who worked as the US G7 sherpa for the Blue Dot Network in 2020, sees the way paved “for BDN to earn the endorsement of the G7” and feature at the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties in November.

The details of this new plan, for all its claims to transparency, remain opaque.  In the first place, it places strong emphasis on private sector contributions that are supposedly drawn in an open, accountable manner.  Robert Daly, director of the Wilson Centre’s Kissinger Institute on China and the United States asks the question “whether this is going to be actually new funding, new capacity to build infrastructure in the region, or is this a repurposing and repackaging of resources that are also available.”  Eventually, the participating powers will have to show the money.

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Vague Alternatives and G7 Summitry: The Build Back Better World Initiative
  • Tags: ,

How COVID-19 School Guidelines Are Harming Kids

June 14th, 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.

***

It became clear early on that children and teens are at very low risk from COVID-19, with a 99.997% survival

Masking, social distancing and virtual schooling persisted nonetheless, even as experts sounded the alarm about their probable implications, including physical, psychological and behavioral adverse effects

Speaking at the Advanced Medicine Conference May 30, 2021, Leila Centner, chief executive officer and co-founder of Centner Academy in Miami, Florida, detailed many of the risks posed to children by COVID-19 school guidelines, along with the inconsistencies and lack of research behind their use

A number of states have now banned mask mandates in schools, often as the result of public outcry; Stand for Health Freedom has a form you can use to ask your governor and department of education to lift harmful COVID-19 guidelines in your child’s school so students can return to normal, healthy learning environments

*

Click the image on the right to watch the video.

Children may end up being among the greatest casualties of the COVID-19 pandemic — not because of the virus but due to the restrictions placed upon them over the last year, which have interrupted mental, social and emotional development in unprecedented ways. It became clear early on that children and teens are at very low risk from COVID-19, with a 99.997% survival.1

Masking, social distancing and virtual schooling persisted nonetheless, even as experts sounded the alarm about their probable implications, including physical, psychological and behavioral adverse effects.2

Speaking at the Advanced Medicine Conference May 30, 2021, Leila Centner, chief executive officer and co-founder of Centner Academy in Miami, Florida, detailed many of the risks posed to children by COVID-19 school guidelines, along with the inconsistencies and lack of research behind their use.3

Centner made headlines in April 2021 after informing teachers that if they’ve been vaccinated for COVID-19 they can’t work at the school due to the unknown effects the experimental drug could be having on unvaccinated individuals.4

CDC COVID Guidelines May Be Harming Children

In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s operational strategy for K-to-12 schools continues to recommend the “consistent use of prevention strategies, including universal and correct use of masks and physical distancing.”5

Any intervention, including mask usage, which may cause adverse effects, must have benefits that outweigh the risks, but no research has been done to ensure that universal masking of children is safe or effective. Despite this, one of the two key prevention strategies recommended by the CDC for schools to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is the requirement for “universal and correct use of masks.”

The Centner Academy did not require masks at any point during the pandemic, but did not have any hospitalizations from COVID-19. While they did have cases, most that occurred among students were asymptomatic, Centner said.

It’s important to note that Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has flip-flopped on the usefulness and need for masks multiple times, from “Americans shouldn’t be wearing masks because they don’t work,” to masks definitely work and should be worn by everyone, to you should wear not just one but two, for safe measure.

He’s gone from promising a mask-free existence once the vaccine rolls out, to insisting mask-wearing is still necessary after vaccination because vaccine-resistant variants might pop up, to proposing we might need to wear masks every flu season in perpetuity. Yet, signs are increasing that masks do pose risks, including to children.

At the University of Witten/Herdecke in Germany, an online registry was set up where parents, doctors, pedagogues and others can enter their observations about mask wearing in children. Using data on 25,930 children,6 with an average mask wearing time of 270 minutes per day, 24 health issues were reported.7 A majority of parents (68%) reported impairments in their children due to wearing a mask. They recorded symptoms that:8

“… included irritability (60%), headache (53%), difficulty concentrating (50%), less happiness (49%), reluctance to go to school/kindergarten (44%), malaise (42%), impaired learning (38%) and drowsiness or fatigue (37%).”

They also found 29.7% reported feeling short of breath, 26.4% being dizzy and 17.9% were unwilling to move or play.9 Hundreds more experienced “accelerated respiration, tightness in chest, weakness and short-term impairment of consciousness.” The researchers concluded:10

“The frequency of the registry’s use and the spectrum of symptoms registryed indicate the importance of the topic and call for representative surveys, randomized controlled trials with various masks and a renewed risk-benefit assessment for the vulnerable group of children.”

Masks Cause Anxiety, Panic Attacks, Headaches and More

Centner’s presentation featured Dr. Jim Meehan, an ophthalmologist and preventive medicine specialist who has performed more than 10,000 surgical procedures and is also a former editor of the medical journal Ocular Immunology and Inflammation. He has conducted an evidence-based scientific analysis on masks, which shows that not only should healthy people not be wearing masks but they could be harmed as a result.11

In the video, Meehan warned universal masking of children is experimental and the safety hasn’t been proven. Further, he says the official change in guidelines from first telling people to avoid mask-wearing to later mandating it in many places wasn’t the result of “new science” but rather was the result of lobbying.

In his practice, Meehan said he’s seen horrendous harm as a result, with dozens of children facing health problems including:12

  • Anxiety
  • Facial rashes
  • Oral ulcers
  • Panic attacks
  • Infections
  • Cavities
  • Struggling to breathe
  • Dental problems
  • Throat abscesses

Meehan previously compiled 17 ways that masks can cause harm, which include:13

  • Medical masks adversely affect respiratory physiology and function
  • Medical masks raise carbon dioxide levels in the blood
  • Medical masks trap exhaled virus in the mouth/mask, increasing viral/infectious load and increasing disease severity
  • The furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 increases cellular invasion, especially during low blood oxygen levels
  • Wearing a face mask may give a false sense of security
  • Untrained and inappropriate management of face masks is common
  • Masks collect and colonize viruses, bacteria and mold
  • Contact tracing studies show that asymptomatic carrier transmission is very rare
  • Face masks are dangerous and contraindicated for a large number of people with pre-existing medical conditions and disabilities
  • Medical masks lower oxygen levels in the blood
  • SAR-CoV-2 has a “furin cleavage” site that makes it more pathogenic, and the virus enters cells more easily when arterial oxygen levels decline, which means wearing a mask could increase COVID-19 severity
  • SARS-CoV-2 becomes more dangerous when blood oxygen levels decline
  • Cloth masks may increase the risk of contracting COVID-19 and other respiratory infections
  • Masks compromise communications and reduce social distancing
  • Masks worn imperfectly are dangerous
  • Wearing a face mask makes the exhaled air go into the eyes
  • Face masks and stay at home orders prevent the development of herd immunity

Centner also featured Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, a New York pediatrician, who warned that masks could be harming children’s brain development. By promoting fear, stress, panic and anxiety, it keeps children in the “fight or flight response” driven by the brain. This influences the capacity of development and higher functions of the brain.14

Children’s Mental Health Is Suffering

Rates of suicide in youth increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 compared to 2019. Significantly higher rates of suicide-related behaviors, including suicide ideation and suicide attempts, corresponded to times of increased COVID-19-related concerns, according to research published in the journal Pediatrics.15 Social isolation imposed during the pandemic has been cited as reason for pushing some children with mental health issues “over the edge.”16

Centner also highlighted a May 2021 announcement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), which will make $14.2 million from the American Rescue Plan available to expand mental health care access to children.17 In a news release, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said:18

“Children are struggling with a range of emotional and behavioral challenges arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, especially those in families with lower incomes or who face other obstacles to health care.”

It’s estimated that 22% of U.S. children between the ages of 3 and 17 are suffering with a mental, emotional, developmental or behavioral condition.19

Dr. Peter Breggin, a Harvard-trained psychiatrist, was also featured in Centner’s presentation. A former consultant at the National Institute of Mental Health, Breggin has called COVID-19 restrictions placed on children a “crime against humanity” and an experiment in social engineering aimed at creating docile pawns in a “global predatory system.” Speaking with Wilson County News, Breggin said:20

“I was a kid during World War II, and I never saw anything like these even back then. Americans have never been docile like this, even in wartime. And the more you can mask a child, the less they can connect, and less they connect the more docile they become.

Similarly, the more that you teach them to do absurd humiliating things, the more they give in to anything you demand. Ultimately, the more freedom you take away from them as children, the more you can take away their freedom as adults.”

States Are Banning Masks in Schools

A number of states have now banned mask mandates in schools, often as the result of public outcry. An executive order prohibiting government entities from mandating masks in Texas took effect June 4, 2021.21

A similar bill was enacted in Iowa in May 2021, which also bans school mask mandates. In a statement, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds stated, “The state of Iowa is putting parents back in control of their child’s education and taking greater steps to protect the rights of all Iowans to make their own health care decisions.”22

In similar moves, Arkansas plans to ban mask requirements for schools by the end of summer 2021,23 and South Carolina issued an executive order that allows parents to opt their children out of mask requirements at school.24

A number of Wisconsin school districts have also lifted mask requirements,25 while Florida’s education commissioner Richard Corcoran sent a memo to district superintendents stating face masks should be voluntary for the 2021-22 school year because “they serve no remaining good at this point in our schools.”26

Indeed, even during the height of the pandemic, a CDC study found mask requirements for students had little effect on COVID-19 incidence at Georgia schools, while improved ventilation, such as opening a window, reduced cases more than mask mandates for staff and teachers.27

Take a Stand for Health Freedom

If you’d like to get involved, Stand for Health Freedom, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting basic human rights, constitutional rights and parental rights, has a form you can use to ask your governor and department of education to lift harmful COVID-19 guidelines in your child’s school so students can return to normal, healthy learning environments.28

They’ve also created the Putting Our Kids First presentation to take to your school board officials, which contains data and video testimony from doctors, parents and children about the harms of COVID restrictions in schools.29 Many of the school districts that have lifted mask requirements have done so in response to requests from parents and the public, showing that every person has the ability to make a difference in their community.

*

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 NBC 26 October 20, 2020

2, 7, 9 Montana Daily Gazette, January 25, 2021

3, 12 Odysee June 1, 2021

4 Slate April 27, 2021

5 U.S. CDC May 15, 2021

6, 8, 10 Research Square, 2021; doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-124394/v2

11, 13 MeehanMd.com November 20, 2020

14 Center for Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation, Stress and the Developing Brain

15 Pediatrics March 2021

16 Penn State Health February 3, 2021

17, 18, 19 HHS.gov May 20, 2021

20 Wilson County News March 9, 2021

21 Office of the Texas Governor May 18, 2021

The Killer in the Bloodstream: the “Spike Protein”

By Mike Whitney, June 13, 2021

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

The Elephant in the Room: Cell Phones

By Edward Curtin, June 13, 2021

The elites who consider themselves gods, such as those at the World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, and their ilk throughout governments, corporations, media, etc., know that cell phones are fundamental to their plan for a fully digitized world.

The Copenhagen Summit for Democracy: The New Nazis

By Christopher Black, June 13, 2021

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.

Netanyahu’s Last Hurrah?

By Stephen Lendman, June 13, 2021

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.

Lawsuit Claims Merck’s Gardasil Papilloma Virus Vaccine Caused Severe Injuries to Teen

By Robin McCall and Dr. Gary G. Kohls, June 13, 2021

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.

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

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 13, 2021

Pedro Castillo is a trade-union leader and former school teacher from the Northern Andean region of Cajamarca. He is committed to poverty alleviation and job creation. Exacerbated by the Covid crisis and the lockdown, Peru is currently in a state of mass unemployment, extreme poverty and despair beyond description.

The West should Embrace a Multipolar World Order

By Megan Sherman, June 13, 2021

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.

How Washington is Positioning Syrian Al-Qaeda’s Founder as Its ‘Asset’

By Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal, June 13, 2021

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.

Is a “Climate Lockdown” on the Horizon?

By Kit Knightly, June 13, 2021

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.

Fakery and Covid Insanity: Must Mankind Bow to “False Gods”?

By Julian Rose, June 12, 2021

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 “Great Zero Carbon” Conspiracy

By F. William Engdahl, June 11, 2021

The globalist Davos World Economic Forum is proclaiming the necessity of reaching a worldwide goal of “net zero carbon” by 2050. This for most sounds far in the future and hence largely ignored. Yet transformations underway from Germany to the USA, to countless other economies, are setting the stage for creation of what in the 1970’s was called the New International Economic Order.

This is How Doctors are Puppets for Vaccine Manufacturers

By Global Research News, June 13, 2021

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.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Killer in the Bloodstream: The “Spike Protein”

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.

***

Transcript below.

Speaker 1 [00:00:00] Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to welcome in our program Syria Insider Weekly, the distinguished Canadian American journalist Eva Bartlett, who is well known for her objective coverage of the events of Syria, especially her sincere efforts to expose the Western falsehoods and fabrications about Syria. Eva Bartlett, I’m glad to have you here on our program. Thank you very much. Thank you. I would like to begin by asking you about the Syrian presidential elections held last week since you have been here on the ground witnessing and covering the voting process. How do you see the high turnout among Syrian voters? And what is the message sent by the Syrians to those you call Syria haters after President Assad’s landslide victory?

Speaker 2 [00:00:47] Yes. Well, I would start by noting that the countries that I am from America and Canada, before the last presidential elections in 2014, they closed the Syrian embassy specifically to prevent Syrians from exercising their right to participate in democratic presidential elections. So my comment about Syria haters has to do with that. And in general, the coverage of Syria, which in Western media has excluded the vast majority of Syrians, not giving them a voice. And by doing so, they’re excluding the fact on the ground the reality that Syrians overwhelmingly chose the president, Bashar al-Assad, and respect and love him. And I consistently tell people outside of Canada or outside of Syria, I should say, that this is the reality. I mean, I’ve been hearing this since I came here in 2014. So for me, the the importance of these elections was both to both a show of defiance to the West and allied nations that have been warring upon Syria for a decade. And also just something beautiful. I mean, I’ve seen in the course of my many visits to Syria, I’ve seen and heard many terrible things. And Syrians have paid a great price in defending their sovereign state. And again, all respect to the martyrs in Syria who have defended your country, so you’ve paid a heavy price. But on Election Day, in the days after, it was just a joyous scene, just seeing Umayyad Square near us, it’s filled with Syrians celebrating. And so for me, this is what was really most momentous.

Speaker 1 [00:02:21] So in your opinion, what is the importance of the of the reelection of President Assad despite the uproar, all the uproar in the West?

Speaker 2 [00:02:32] Well, it just shows the West that they can fund and arm and send terrorists from around the world into Syria. But they and like I said, they can make Syrian civilians and Syrian soldiers and all of Syria pay a heavy price. But they could not succeed in their mission to install a puppet government to rule Syria. So Syrians have spoken of the very loud and unified voice saying, no, we decide our future and our future right now is with President Bashar al-Assad.

Speaker 1 [00:03:06] So do you expect any major change in the way the US and Europe deal with Syria after millions of Syrians took to the streets saying no to the Western imperialist hegemony of their country?

Speaker 2 [00:03:19] I’m sorry to say no. I don’t expect a change. I would like to be naively optimistic and say I do. But the fact is, America continues to occupy Syrian soil, as does Turkey, as you know. And the EU is talking about, you know, like they’re all imposing sanctions on the Syrian people the EU wants to send money to areas not under the control of the Syrian government. So it’s clear that, unfortunately, they want to extend the pain and suffering of Syrians. I do hope, though, however, the alliance that Syria has built with their regional allies will continue to bring positive changes to Syria in the infrastructure, in enabling Syrian refugees to return home and in a positive political developments.

Speaker 1 [00:04:06] So why do you think the Western governments hate to hear the truth about Syria? You have been yourself subject to harsh criticism because of your role in exposing the lies and the false videos of the White Helmets about the alleged chemical weapons in Syria.

Speaker 2 [00:04:27] The West hates to hear the truth about Syria because, again, they had this project, as we all know now, by twenty twenty one and should have known fairly early on in the war against Syria. They had a project to destabilize your country, to divide your country, to make it into a sectarian nation which Syrians rejected and the project failed. And so when somebody speaks the truth, when somebody says actually this is what Syrians want, they don’t want these foreign actors to come into the country and rule over them in and impose Sharia law over them. They want to be able to live as they’ve always lived. So, of course, the West would hate to hear those truths and attacking the messengers, not myself only. Of course, many, many journalists and people have spoken out about Syria have been severely smeared. But, you know, at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter because we know that what we’re saying is the truth.

Speaker 1 [00:05:21] So the EU has just extended the legal and immoral sanctions on Syria. What is the message to those governments who claim to be defending democracy while at the same time they are inflicting suffering starvation on the Syrian people? I mean, ordinary Syrian people?

Speaker 2 [00:05:41] Absolutely. The message is those governments are liars and hypocrites. They don’t care about Syrians. And by imposing more and more sanctions against the Syrian people, they say they’re they’re doing it to target that the government. I won’t use the word that they use because it’s disrespectful, but they know full well that they’re attacking your economy and they know full well that’s going to create incredible pain among ordinary Syrians. And so this is why I say, again, those governments, including my own especially, are hypocrites. And if they ever cared about Syrians, they would stop occupying your land and lift the sanctions.

Speaker 1 [00:06:20] Finally, a word that you want to tell to the Syrians who are watching us and who feel grateful for your effort to expose the truth.

Speaker 2 [00:06:31] Now, it’s the other way around. We around the world feel grateful to Syrians. This might sound corny, but really, people around the world were amazed at the resilience of Syrians, again, both Syrian civilians, army and leadership, because it’s been 10 years of war against you all with the most powerful nations on Earth. And you stood strong and tall. So you really gave people gave people outside of Syria hope that that things can change, that the hegemony of America cannot continue. So I would say on behalf of people who follow my work, thank you to Syrians.

Speaker 1 [00:07:08] Thank you for your time. And we wish you all the best. Thank you. Thank you.

*

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

Featured image is from The Greanville Post

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Elections Celebrations and Cruelty of Western Sanctions Against Syrian People
  • 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.

***

Foreign embassies are reopening in Damascus, Syria.  Many shut down after the armed conflict began in 2011.  A handful of embassies remained open throughout the conflict, such as China, Russia, Iran, and the Czech Republic.

The Czech Republic was the only European Union country to remain steadfastly open in Damascus throughout the conflict. At least eight Czech officials are currently based in Damascus, including economic and political attaché, as well as a Military and Air Attaché and Adjutant Defense Attaché.

In August 2012, the Czech Republic accepted a request by the United States to be its “protecting power” in Syria. The arrangement allowed Washington to engage in backchannel communications with the Syrian government, an indication that Washington trusted Czech diplomacy.

Hungary resumed limited embassy duties last year, and Cyprus has rented a building for use as their new embassy location.  Greece has raised its flag, and that of the EU over its embassy; however, has not yet completed the process of reopening.  Serbia has sent its diplomat to Damascus amid plans to reopen its embassy.

Besides all the routine refurbishing and maintenance which goes into reopening a building of historic importance in Damascus, there are the new precautions of living with COVID-19 amid a pandemic. New protocols will have to be put into place to serve the public.

Bouthaina Shaaban, the political and media adviser to President Assad, said on May 26, “Efforts are being made to upgrade ties with Saudi Arabia, and may soon have positive results.”

Saudi Arabia is expected to reopen its embassy soon.  A high-level meeting was held in Damascus and a follow-up meeting was proposed. Saudi Arabia is recognized as one of the most important Arab nations.  Having good Syria-Saudi relations would be a breakthrough and pave the way to restoring Syria to the Arab League.

Shaaban also mentioned the visit by Syrian Tourism Minister Mohammed Rami Martini to Saudi Arabia in the first such trip by a Syrian minister to the kingdom in recent years.

Martini traveled to Riyadh to attend the 47th meeting of the World Tourism Organization Committee for the Middle East on May 26 and 27 and met with his Saudi counterpart, who had issued an official invitation from the Saudi Tourism Ministry and the World Tourism Organization Committee for the Middle East.

Oman had kept its embassy open throughout the conflict, and in 2020 appointed a new ambassador to Damascus.

The UAE reopened its embassy in 2019, and Abkhasia and Libya (eastern section) opened their embassies in 2020.

Germany began sending Syrians back home after it was determined that Damascus is now safe from terrorist attacks. However, they limited this plan to Syrians with a criminal record in Germany.

Denmark has begun a process of refusing to renew residency permits. Citing improved security situation, and the war being over, the move began to quickly deport Syrians as part of a 2019 immigration bill.  The law makes it clear that residency permits are for a limited period, and are dependent on the security situation in their home country.

President Bashar al-Assad won over 90% of the vote on May 26.  Some of those voting for him believed that he could bring back the stability and peace they lost in 2011 after the US-NATO plot to overthrow the government began.  While Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy, and others have lost their seats of power, President Assad remains in Damascus fighting terrorists who follow Radical Islam, the same ideology which President Macron of France has declared won upon.

The war is over, but there is one battlefield that is now dormant but may heat up. The last remaining area occupied by Jibhat al-Nusra, the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, is parts of Idlib province in the northwest.  Turkey’s support of the Radical Islamic ideology keeps Idlib locked in a status quo.  At some point, the civilians will have to be freed, either through negotiations or through a military operation.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Embassy Reopenings in Damascus as Syria Returns to Normalcy
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A veteran toxicologist and mechanistic biologist, Dr. Lindsay explains the science and troubling evidence behind her recent public plea before the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to stop all covid gene therapy vaccine campaigns.

Dr. Lindsay is joined by dozens of other leading scientists and doctors calling for a halt to the use of these vaccines.

*

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.

Protecting Borders, Not Life

June 14th, 2021 by Robert C. Koehler

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.

***

Remember the Space Force?

You know, the sixth branch of the U.S. military, officially created in 2019, “establishing space as a warfighting domain and guaranteeing that the United States will dominate in that environment just like all others.”

Thus declared President Donald Trump at the time, unleashing a Hollywood script on the global and perhaps the intergalactic future. John Wayne lives, and he’s wearing a space suit!

But what if — so it occurred to me the other day — advancing human technology actually opened up a deeper awareness in the human soul? What if, for instance, the powers that be — the militarists, the politicians, the issue-defining media — found the world they thoughtlessly perpetuated, the world cluttered with borders and enemies, broken wide open by this awareness? What if we found ourselves on the brink of profound, not superficial, awareness . . . and this awareness was the dawn of evolutionary change?

I believe this is actually the case. But cynicism and superficial certainty keep too many people from seeing it.

There may be no better example of this institutionally sanctioned certainty (a.k.a., ignorance) than the Space Force. It hasn’t been in the news much since its inception, but a group of military leaders, scientists and other “space professionals” had a three-day meeting — “U.S. Space Force Space Futures Workshop” — earlier this month. A report from the meeting is forthcoming. My guess is that it won’t be too much different from the report that was publicly issued following a similar meeting two years ago.

Among the conclusions from that report, titled “The Future of Space 2060 and Implications for U.S. Strategy,” is this baby:

“A failure to remain a leading space power will place U.S. national power at risk. To avert this, the U.S. coalition must promote and optimize the combined civil, military, and commercial exploitation of space to best serve the nation’s interests.”

The report also quoted Lyndon Johnson, who once said: “Control of space means control of the world.”

Yee-haw! Launch those missiles, boys!

My guess is that the poet Archibald MacLeish wasn’t quoted by any of the space professionals at the meeting. MacLeish, on Christmas day in 1968, just after the Apollo 8 astronauts had shown the world the photograph known as Earthrise — Planet Earth rising over the moon — wrote the following:

“To see the Earth as it truly is, small and blue and beautiful in that eternal silence where it floats, is to see ourselves as riders on the Earth together, brothers on that bright loveliness in the eternal cold — brothers who know now they are truly brothers.”

Yeah, I know, this is just “art” — fancy, decorative sentiment to hang in your living room or whatever. It has nothing to do with the real world, which is full of communists and wild Indians and, oh yeah, Chinese, who seem to think it’s their turn to rule the world (and maybe the solar system).

The problem here isn’t so much the military and its impenetrable mindset focused on strategic advantage and victory. The problem is the media, which generally fails to establish a larger context for this discussion, to challenge the military mindset with an Earthrise consciousness or, indeed, to acknowledge the existence of this consciousness: that Planet Earth, a vulnerable superorganism afloat in the universe, is the home of all of us.

The planet is alive. We are one. How might this possibility — this reality — impact national and global planning for the future, both within and beyond the planet? Is this not a question we’re capable of asking at, and beyond, a national level?

Is it not possible that the time has come for us to start learning what we already know?

Consider, for instance, the concept of national borders — which is the delusionary “reality” the Space Force sees its mission as protecting out there in the Great Beyond. These demarcation lines, often violently established and maintained, basically slice the planet into random pieces of itself.

Todd Miller, in his book Build Bridges, Not Walls: A Journey to a World Without Borders, asks: “What if we were to see borders not as shields, but as shackles keeping the planet in an unsustainable status quo of inequality, racial divide, and climate catastrophe?”

And philosophy professor Michael Marder, writing last year in the New York Times (quoted by Miller), notes: “Survivalism has always followed a trajectory parallel to that of virulent nationalism. . . . Following the trail of the theological doctrine of salvation reserved for the select few, this attitude abstracts human beings from the environmental, communal, economic and other contexts of their lives.

“As panic sets in in some quarters, personal border closure imitates the knee-jerk political gesture: Food and medical supplies are hoarded, while the wealthiest few prepare their luxury doomsday bunkers. But what the novel coronavirus demonstrates, in contrast to these survivalist fictions, is that borders are porous by definition; no matter how fortified, they are more like living membranes than inorganic walls. An individual or a state that effectively manages to cut itself off from the outside will be as good as dead.”

Shouldn’t all this be part of the discussion? And I don’t mean in some abstract and marginalized way. The point of the Space Force, I fear, has nothing to do with protecting the planet’s future, or even its partial future (known as U.S. interests). Its point is to extend the planet’s random borders beyond the stratosphere.

*

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 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.

***

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