Selected Articles: Video: COVID-19 Criminality

June 8th, 2021 by Global Research News

Video: Covid-19 Criminality

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Ariel Noyola Rodriguez, June 07, 2021

Worldwide, people have been misled both by their governments and the media as to the causes and devastating consequences of the Covid-19 “pandemic”. SARS-2 is upheld as the “killer virus”.  And now the Covid vaccine is presented to public opinion as the “solution”, which will allow us to resume a “normal life”.

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

By Julian Rose, June 07, 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.

Wuhan Lab Upheld as Source of COVID-19: China as a Target. Corrupt Political Circus on Behalf of Super-Rich

By Emanuel Pastreich, June 07, 2021

The commercial media is full of reports about the possibility that the COVID19 virus was released from a laboratory in Wuhan, China and the Republican Party is using this unfounded accusation as a means to further its anti-China agenda.

CPSO to Ontario Doctors: “Shut Up or Lose Your Licence”

By Karen Selick, June 07, 2021

CPSO commands Ontario’s doctors not to make any statements that might be considered anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing, or anti-lockdown. It forbids them to promote “unsupported, unproven” treatments for COVID-19. (Unproven by what standards? CPSO doesn’t say.) Doctors are further forbidden to make comments that might encourage people to act contrary to public health orders.

Video: Indian Bar Association Charges WHO Chief Scientist with Crimes Connected to Suppressing Ivermectin

By Dipali Ojha and Kristina Borjesson, June 07, 2021

Dipali Ojha, head of the Indian Bar Association’s team that crafted the Legal Notice, details the alleged criminal acts in which the World Health Organization’s chief scientist, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan engaged, some of which carry penalties up to life imprisonment or death.

Video: Syrian Presidential Elections, 2021

By Mark Taliano, June 07, 2021

Watch this video presentation on the 2021 Syrian Presidential elections.

Why Is There Such Reluctance to Discuss Natural Immunity?

By Jon Sanders, June 07, 2021

If you’re among those of us who aren’t tribally invested in Covid politics but would like good information about when life will resume as normal, chances are you’re interested in herd immunity. You’re likely not interested in having to rely on the Internet Archive for good information on herd immunity.

Biden-Moon Summit: A New Era of Washington-Seoul Alliance?

By Prof. Joseph H. Chung, June 07, 2021

President Moon Jae-in went to Washington with the invitation of President Joe Biden. The summit took place on May 21st. After a day of discussion in a friendly and relaxed environment, the two presidents announced a joint statement which went far beyond expectation of Koreans. In fact, it points to a new and much stronger Washington-Seoul Alliance. Indeed, it could be the new charter of the bilateral alliance.

Netanyahu’s Legacy of Hate Defines His Long Goodbye

By Richard Silverstein, June 07, 2021

On Wednesday, Benjamin Netanyahu was toppled from power after 12 consecutive years as Israel’s prime minister. He served an earlier three-year term as well, making him the longest serving leader in the country’s history.

How USAID Created Nicaragua’s Anti-Sandinista Media Apparatus, now Under Money Laundering Investigation

By Ben Norton, June 07, 2021

With tens of millions of dollars over years of work, CIA front USAID helped create and train Nicaragua’s anti-Sandinista opposition. At the center of its operations is the elite Chamorro Foundation, which stands accused of money laundering.

Were “the Elderly… Being Killed in Hospitals, Care Homes, and Hospices” During the Pandemic?

By Mike Whitney, June 07, 2021

Jacqui Deevoy is an investigative journalist who has interviewed over 50 whistleblowers who believe their parents or partners were euthanized while in hospital. While I have no way to verify their claims, Deevoy’s presentation of the evidence is compelling to say the least.

More Than 10,000 Vaccinated People Catch Covid-19, Leading Many to Question if Vaccines Really Work

By Ramon Tomey, June 07, 2021

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said it has recorded more than 10,000 cases of so-called breakthrough infections. These infections involve people who contract COVID-19 at least 14 days after their final COVID-19 vaccine dose. The public health agency still insisted that such instances are “relatively rare.”

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Video: COVID-19 Criminality

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 this new illustration, we’ve broken down long, global supply chains to show you how the destruction of the Amazon rainforest and abuses against land rights activists and forest communities are linked to the food on our plates and the banks we use.

Beef isometric illustration full

Here we’ve focussed on beef production in Brazil, the subject of our December 2020 investigation Beef, Banks and the Brazilian Amazon. Cattle grazing is the leading driver of deforestation emissions in Latin America. We see a similar dynamic – of global companies sending a clear message to other suppliers that profit can be made from clearing trees – with other products like palm oil and soy.

As we show in the illustration, a whole host of businesses, from cattle ranchers to fast food joints and supermarkets, are complicit in these abuses. Crucially, it’s those in the middle of the chain – the multinational beef traders and the global banks and investors who fund them – that incentivise those further up the chain to clear land for pasture, connecting consumers and bank customers further down the chain to these harms.

That’s why it’s vital that laws to curb deforestation tackle the players all along the supply chain – including the financial engine room that powers the whole system, international banks and investors.

It starts with biodiverse Amazon rainforest

Beef isometric illustration rainforest

STOPPING THE DESTRUCTION OF RAINFORESTS TO MAKE WAY FOR PASTURE FOR BEEF PRODUCTION COULD REDUCE BRAZIL’S AGRICULTURAL CARBON EMISSIONS BY 69%. NATHAN HACKETT / GLOBAL WITNESS

Home to an incredible 390 billion trees, the Amazon is one of the earth’s frontline defences against climate breakdown and home to 34 million forest peoples.

It absorbs vast amounts of emissions from the air, helping to reduce global heating, and it transpires water – creating huge rivers of moisture in the air, forming large clouds that keep temperatures down. The clouds drop rainfall thousands of miles away, used by millions as a source of water. It hosts unparalleled biodiversity and is home to communities who have managed the forest sustainably for generations.

Beef isometric illustration indigenous communities

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND FOREST COMMUNITIES HAVE PROTECTED THEIR FORESTS FOR GENERATIONS AND GENERATIONS. NATHAN HACKETT / GLOBAL WITNESS

Community voices are ignored or silenced

For over a decade, Brazilian communities, civil society organisations, indigenous peoples and scientists have been raising the alarm on how the beef sector is enabling people to profit from deforestation. In some cases, people face threats, violence or criminalisation for speaking out.

Ranch owners cut down the trees to rear cattle

Yet this precious resource is being destroyed at an alarming rate – as people seek to profit from turning it into a man-made monoculture of pasture. It is estimated 70% of cleared lands in the Brazilian Amazon are now populated by cattle, with cows outnumbering people in Brazil.

For decades, Brazil dramatically improved its efforts to crack down on the destruction of the Amazon, leading to an 80% reduction of deforestation. However, the Bolsonaro government has now cut funding for forest conservation and environmental law enforcement and is rolling back the recognition of indigenous lands, undermining efforts to preserve this vital ecosystem.

Beef isometric illustration logging

AN ESTIMATED 70% OF CLEARED LANDS IN THE BRAZILIAN AMAZON ARE POPULATED BY CATTLE. NATHAN HACKETT / GLOBAL WITNESS

Some of this land is grabbed from indigenous peoples who suffer from threats and violence when they stand up to protect their forests.

And burn the remaining vegetation – often causing wildfires

Fires driven by deforestation have been ravaging the Amazon at record speed, with 30% more deforestation in 2020 than in the same period in 2019.

Beef isometric illustration forest fires

FOREST FIRES DRIVEN BY DEFORESTATION CONTINUE TO RAVAGE THE AMAZON AT RECORD SPEED. NATHAN HACKETT / GLOBAL WITNESS

Cattle are moved between different ranches

There are three different types of ranches for breeding, rearing and fattening cattle. Permits should show which cattle have been transported between which ranches.

  • Breeding: where cattle can be bred and raised up to 8-10 months
  • Rearing: where they can live for up to 16 months
  • Fattening: these ranches buy from the cattle breeding and rearing ranches, and supply the players along the next step of the chain, the slaughterhouses.

Beef isometric illustration cattle ranches

CATTLE ARE TRANSPORTED BETWEEN DIFFERENT RANCHES FOR BREEDING, REARING AND FATTENING. NATHAN HACKETT / GLOBAL WITNESS

In just one Brazilian state over three years, we found an estimated total of 140,000 football fields’ worth of deforestation resulting from cattle ranches.

Traders – funded by major banks – buy cattle from the ranches 

Next are the companies you may never have heard of: the multinational beef traders JBS, Marfrig and Minerva. They source cattle from thousands of independent ranches, slaughter them – over 18 million cattle in 2017 – and sell the beef on to the supermarkets, fast food companies and importers. These are multi-billion dollar companies that are rapidly expanding how much beef they source and sell.

Between them, these traders account for some 64% of exports of Brazilian beef, reaching markets in the UK, EU, US and China.

Beef isometric illustration traders

THE TRADERS BUY CATTLE  FROM THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENT RANCHES, SLAUGHTER THEM AND SELL THE BEEF ON TO INTERNATIONAL MARKETS. NATHAN HACKETT / GLOBAL WITNESS

They are no strangers to concerns about how their business is linked to the forest crisis. They all have no-deforestation pledges, and are supposed to monitor whether beef entering the supply chain is linked to forest destruction and human rights abuses.

Yet, in one state, these traders bought cattle from a combined 379 fattening ranches (direct suppliers), which contained 20,000 football fields’ worth of illegal deforestation. Our investigation showed that they also failed to monitor 4,000 cattle breeding and rearing ranches (indirect suppliers) which the fattening ranches bought from, containing an estimated 140,000 football fields of deforestation. JBS, Marfrig and Minerva denied all the allegations about the fattening ranches, and claimed they were taking action to monitor their indirect suppliers (see their responses in Beef, Banks and the Brazilian Amazon (pdf), pages 10, 20 and 25).

The message this sends to ranches is that there is money to be made by destroying forests in order to use the underlying land for cattle.

(But they couldn’t do it without finance)

And who is bankrolling the traders? Famous financial institutions including Barclays, Morgan Stanley and Santander. They provide the traders with loans and other forms of financial backing, offering commercially-attractive rates. This not only gives traders the cash they need to continue their operations, but it also tells the market that banks approve of the traders’ business activities, reinforcing their standing and reputation.

In response to our investigation (pdf), the banks claimed they analysed these risks carefully, had no-deforestation policies in place and were committed to zero deforestation.

Beef isometric illustration finance

FAMOUS FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS PROVIDE THE TRADERS WITH LOANS AND OTHER FORMS OF FINANCIAL BACKING. NATHAN HACKETT / GLOBAL WITNESS

Supermarkets, importers and fast-food joints buy from the traders

Famous supermarkets and brands, such as Burger King, Sainsbury’s, Subway, McDonalds, Walmart, Carrefour and Nestle are all  reported to be recent customers of the beef traders.

Beef isometric illustration supermarkets

FAMOUS SUPERMARKETS AND FOOD BRANDS BUY FROM TRADERS JBS, MINERVA AND MARFRIG. NATHAN HACKETT / GLOBAL WITNESS

These companies should be in crisis mode, given their links to egregious  environmental harms and abuses happening further up the chain. Yet they are failing to take decisive action. New laws are needed that require them to ensure that they are not importing or using products linked to deforestation. Already efforts are underway in the EU and UK to enact such laws.

Consumers unwittingly buy beef linked to deforestation

Beef isometric illustration consumers

YOU COULD BE LINKED TO HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AND DEFORESTATION VIA THE BEEF YOU BUY OR VIA YOUR PENSION FUND OR BANK. BUT YOUR GOVERNMENT CAN CHANGE THIS. NATHAN HACKETT / GLOBAL WITNESS

Even if you don’t buy beef, you may be linked to human rights abuses and deforestation via the banks who are financing the traders. Unknown to you, your pension fund or your bank could be giving loans or holding investments in these companies.

However, governments have an opportunity to change all this. Lawmakers in the UK, EU, and potentially even the US are proposing new laws to end their complicity in global deforestation. However so far, these discussions are focused mostly on prohibiting products linked to deforestation from being imported or used. This means the money pipeline could continue – so banks and investors might still profit off the very products that a new law would ban.

If governments are serious about the climate crisis they must tackle the role of finance in global forest destruction. They must ensure that no business – including banks – can profit off forest destruction and the human rights abuses behind it.

*

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

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 Covid vaccine business is a multibillion dollar endeavour. The mRNA vaccine is unapproved and experimental.

It has been authorized for so-called emergency use on behalf of Big Pharma. “Emergency Use” is not justified.

This article documents the process of unregulated enrichment of Big Pharma,  focussing on Moderna Inc’s mRNA Covid vaccine.

***

Moderna is hard at work ramping up production of its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, which is projected to reap over $19 billion for the company by year’s end. But given that the pandemic is easing in parts of the world, what’s less certain is how 2022 will play out.

After a breakout year, Moderna sees strong reason to believe 2021 won’t be a one-off boom year. That’s thanks to the predicted need for booster shots and additional supply deals coupled with stronger pricing power, Jefferies analysts wrote to clients Thursday following a conversation with CEO Stéphane Bancel.

The Jefferies team thinks Moderna could drive $15 billion in 2022 revenues, with an upper limit of $30 billion. Where the company lands will depend on how the pandemic progresses, fear of infection and whether the company can produce future products, like a combo shot against COVID and the flu.

Plus, it’s possible that Moderna could start charging more per dose given its high efficacy, reliable manufacturing and absence of serious side effects that have plagued other vaccine developers, the analysts said.

Moderna has said it can churn out between 800 million to 1 billion doses this year, and about 3 billion by 2022. The company has been ramping up supply lines with CDMO heavyweights and is planning a massive expansion at its own U.S.-based facilities to meet its lofty supply expectations.

With more doses coming down the line, Moderna is already engaging with countries who weren’t able to secure supply this year, as well as with those that previously ordered adenovirus shots, Jefferies analysts wrote.

And discussions are ongoing with nations that already have supply deals, given that many have yet to begin inoculating children. The company’s shot has been used in people ages 18 and older, although the company is working to expand its use to those as young as 12, including in the U.S.

The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based biotech is also developing three potential booster shots to target troublesome virus variants, including a lower dose of its original vaccine, one developed to target the variant first found in South Africa, and a combination of the two.

It’s thought that some countries will “want to ensure there are adequate orders” for booster shots as early as six months to a year after the first vaccines were administered, the Jefferies team said.

Pandemic shots aren’t the only sales prospects Moderna has in its back pocket, Jefferies said. The mRNA developer is also working on a shot for seasonal influenza, with initial results anticipated by the end of the year.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on After Breakout Year, Moderna on Track to Generate $15B+ in 2022 Thanks to More Demand, Higher Prices: Analysts
  • Tags: , ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The world watched aghast last month as Israeli forces during Ramadan stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam, attacking and injuring hundreds of worshipers. The IDF proceeded to target schools, media centers and hospitals in Gaza—frequently described as the world’s largest open-air prison because of the state of siege it’s been under since 2007—killing hundreds, injuring thousands and forcing tens of thousands to flee.

Describing these events in The Hill (5/27/21), former high-ranking Republican Rep. Mike Rogers identified a different culprit: Iran. “Iran’s involvement in the current crisis is barely concealed,” he wrote, accusing the Islamic Republic of encouraging and “direct[ly] enabling” the violence. “Iran’s destabilizing influence is seen across the region,” the US official pontificated:

From Yemen with its support of the Houthis to Lebanon with its support of Hezbollah, its backing and support of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and its attempts to undermine democracy in Iraq. Tehran seeks not stability, growth, or peace, but chaos and instability in the region, and it is proving effective in this pursuit. Iran’s policies in the Middle East have done nothing but bring ruin to the region.

Other pundits laid the blame on Hamas. “Arab governments may criticize Israel for its actions in Jerusalem and the bombing, but they are very wary of Hamas’s desire to destabilize Israel/Arab relations,” wrote David Makovsky and Dennis Ross in the New York Daily News (5/14/21).

“The terrorist group [Hamas] will keep arguing that the only way to liberate Palestine is through armed resistance, not the more palatable tactics of its rival, Fatah,” wrote the Wall Street Journal (5/25/21), adding that “quashing radical Islamist movements that destabilize the Middle East and threaten US allies is a key aim of US regional policy.”

Dictionary vs. mediaspeak

Others might question whether the US, who just blocked multiple United Nations’ ceasefire attempts while greenlighting $735 million worth of arms sales to Israel, might be a more obvious “destabilizing” factor in the conflict and the region more generally.

Yet this appears not to have been considered for one moment. That is because, while the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “destabilize” as “to cause (something, such as a government) to be incapable of functioning or surviving,” in media and political speak, “stability” often simply means “under US control.” Therefore, by definition, the US cannot destabilize another government or region; only foreign actors can do such a thing.

To be fair to Rogers, he was merely echoing the statements of President Joe Biden, who said in February, “We must address Iran’s destabilizing activities across the Middle East,” and those of the most influential think tanks in Washington (e.g., Council on Foreign Relations, 7/16/14; Center for American Progress, 7/17/15; Heritage Foundation, 10/16/17; American Security Project, 3/5/21), who constantly accuse Iran—and not the US—of destabilizing the region.

Decoding ‘destabilizing’

Once we remember what “stability” and “destabilizing” mean, news from many of our most influential outlets makes much more sense. In 2014, the New York Times editorial board (6/18/14) condemned China for “threatening the stability and security” of nations in the South China Sea, but did not comment on its own government’s actions in the region, such as encircling China with military bases and conducting war games with nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in the South China Sea.

More recently, it reported on Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s trip to Tokyo to try to build up a military alliance against the People’s Republic (New York Times, 3/16/21):

Mr. Austin noted Beijing’s “destabilizing actions” in the South and East China Seas, saying, “Our goal is to make sure that we maintain a competitive edge over China or anyone else that would want to threaten us or our alliance.

This passage makes far more sense if “destabilizing” is read to mean “US-challenging.”

Reserved for official enemies

Since the US and its allies can’t really be out of their own control, it is not surprising that the word is largely reserved for enemy states. Venezuela, for example, is commonly denounced as having a “destabilizing” effect on the region (e.g. Washington Post, 4/10/06; Reuters, 11/27/08, 6/28/09). Throughout the 2000s, President Hugo Chávez led a group of Latin American governments intent on pursuing a domestic and foreign policy independent from the US.

The New York Times (6/1/05), after lamenting that George W. Bush’s Free Trade Agreement for the Americas had been rejected; that the Organization of American States had ignored the US-backed candidate, instead electing a Chilean socialist as secretary general; and that Chávez was pioneering a new Latin American news network (TeleSUR) and signing oil deals with Argentina and Brazil, noted that for these reasons the Bush administration considered him a “destabilizing force.”

Later that year, the Times (12/19/05) told readers that the US saw Chávez, Bolivian President Evo Morales and Cuban leader Fidel Castro as part of a “destabilizing alliance.” This makes no sense whatsoever under the dictionary definition, as the new regional unity was actually helping Latin America prosper. But is perfectly understandable under the Washington-centric interpretation of the word. The US later helped overthrow Morales, and has attempted to do the same in Venezuela and Cuba, no doubt in an attempt to bring increased “stability” to those countries.

No ‘intent to destabilize’

This is far from a new concept. In the 1970s, the United States conducted a campaign of covert violence and economic warfare against the democratically elected Chilean President Salvador Allende, doing “everything we can to hurt him and bring him down,” in the words of Nixon-era Defense Secretary Melvin Laird.

Still, Nixon National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, the architect of Chile’s descent into a military dictatorship that killed or tortured tens of thousands of its own citizens, crashed the economy multiple times and drove hundreds of thousands into political exile, insisted that stability, not destabilization, was his goal. “The intent of the United States was not to destabilize or to subvert,” he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, while privately assuring Nixon that they had “created the conditions as great as possible” for the coup (National Security Archive, 5/26/04).

Media follow Kissinger’s lead: US actions abroad, no matter how damaging, are often presented as bringing about stability. ABC World News (6/10/14) for instance, described the Iraq invasion as “America’s fight to bring peace and stability to this country” (FAIR.org, 6/11/14). This is still the official rationale for keeping troops in the area, one which is echoed by prominent think tanks (RAND, 4/24/18; Council on Foreign Relations, 5/28/18).

Imperial lexicon

An entire lexicon of terms has been built up  in corporate media to justify and launder violence. Enemy states are controlled by “regimes,” not “governments” (FAIR.org, 8/20/18); it is “aggression” when they do it, but “defense” when we do the same—or worse (FAIR.org, 4/30/21). It is not “torture,” it is merely “enhanced interrogation techniques” (FAIR.org, 4/2/14). We “stabilize” countries with our “muscular” foreign policy (FAIR.org, 8/28/20), while they destabilize regions merely by existing.

It is important to highlight these rhetorical tricks and call them out so that officials and hawkish pundits can less effectively sell the public more conflicts around the world. Hopefully your country will not be picked out as in need of stabilizing next.

*

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.

Alan MacLeod @AlanRMacLeod is a member of the Glasgow University Media Group. His latest book, Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, was published by Routledge in May 2019.

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.

***

Russia’s National Welfare Fund (FNB) will no longer have U.S. dollars: within one-month, existing assets will be divided between the euro, the yuan and gold. In the U.S., they are already calling it a “political” decision.

All super profits from the sale of oil are put into the FNB, and it is part of Russia’s international reserves. According to data from the Central Bank on May 28, the FNB reached a historic high of $600.9 billion. The decision to exclude the U.S. Dollar from the FNB was announced by Finance Minister Anton Siluanov on June 3.

At present, dollar assets account for 35% ($40 billion) of the FNB, but will reach zero in a month. In addition, the share of the pound sterling will be reduced from 10% to five, the share of the euro will increase to 40%, and the yuan to 30%. Gold will be included in the fund for the first time and will account for 20%.

“In today’s structure, we have about 35% of investments in the FNB in ​​dollars and 35% in euros. Now we have to get rid of dollar assets completely,” said the Russian Finance Minister.

The news that Russia would get rid of the dollar in the FNB provoked a stormy reaction in the West. For example, London-based BlueBay Asset Management described the move as “very political.”

“The messaging is ’we don’t need the U.S., we don’t need to transact in dollars, and we are invulnerable to more U.S. sanctions,” said Timothy Ash, a senior emerging markets sovereign strategist at BlueBay Asset Management. He added that it could be interpreted as a sign that Moscow is expecting more sanctions from the U.S.

In April, the Biden administration warned of further sanctions. The decision to exclude the U.S. dollar from the FNB was made ahead of the upcoming June 16 meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his American counterpart Joe Biden. Analysts point out that the sell-off of dollars is an obvious consequence of increasing geopolitical tensions and part of efforts to reduce the economy’s dependence on the U.S. currency. In Moscow, they want to minimize losses from U.S. sanctions against the banking sector, and therefore limit dollar operations.

The U.S. currency is also losing its value and thus its attractiveness to investors. For example, during 2020, the dollar depreciated against the euro from 0.8934 to 0.8149, i.e. by almost 9%. In 2021, a decrease of another five to seven percent is also possible due to the printing of more U.S. dollars that has accelerated inflation and reduced the value of the dollar.

Analysts also consider the investments of FNB funds in precious metals to be economically correct. For the first time, gold – with a share of 20% – will be involved in the fund’s structure.

A federal law allowing a similar allocation of funds was signed by Putin in December. The aim is to diversify investments, ensure their integrity and increase profitability. Gold is a universal monetary equivalent that does not lose value and is insurance against sanction risks. If relations between Washington and Moscow continue to deteriorate, Russia’s dollar accounts may be blocked – there is no similar threat to gold.

Investing in gold protects the global money market from inflationary processes necessary for stimulating monetary and credit policies, especially during a pandemic. It will also increase asset diversification and return, as well as reduce credit risk.

The FNB also has the advantage that it is still relatively unknown in the global financial system despite the fund having $185 billion in assets. Its entry into the precious metals market will be a significant event. Russia’s maneuvers to buy gold could have significant consequences for the West.

The Central Bank has aggressively bought precious metal over the past ten years, making Russia one of the largest holders of gold in the world. Virtually all gold mined by Russian companies passed to the regulatory authority. However, in April last year, the Central Bank suspended purchases and allowed exports abroad.

Since then, gold supplies abroad have increased significantly, with much of it being bought by Western countries, especially the United Kingdom.  With this strategic move by the FNB, Russia is not only more protected from any strengthened sanctions by the West, but is now setting itself up as a major precious metal dealer – thus further securing Russia’s monetary sovereignty by protecting its economy from future attacks.

*

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.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

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.

***

The commercial media is full of reports about the possibility that the COVID19 virus was released from a laboratory in Wuhan, China and the Republican Party is using this unfounded accusation as a means to further its anti-China agenda.

Donald Trump claimed credit recently for having identified China as the source of the virus and he demanded of 10 trillion dollars in compensation.

The Biden administration has demanded an investigation of the Wuhan labs so as to fend off this Republican assault, but since he has put opaque pay-to-play intelligence organizations in charge, and not established accountable international research teams, he guarantees that we will receive a politicized and meaningless report.

The entire circus is intended to distract the population as long as possible from the true origins of this crisis: the bid of a handful of the super-rich to employ a hyped up “virus” pandemic as a means to gut the government, the medical establishment, research institutes and the media permanently and to create a brave new world in which the “facts” that serve as the basis for policy decisions are decided in secret by them with no accountability to anyone. They now can make up figures for how many suffer from COVID19 at will and no one can prove them wrong in any media source that most citizens know about.

They dictate policy, whether lockdowns, quarantine, masks, or vaccines, in secret and then order the Congress, the White House, or research institutes and prestigious newspapers, to follow their mandate. This radical alteration of the landscape of decision making in the United States is the deadly outcome of the COVID19. It is a shift that, if citizens cannot apprehend its nature, will be fatal for the nation.

Although it is entirely possible that some of the deaths attributed to COVID19 were the result of the use of bioweapons (whether those of America, China or other countries). But the media is not trying to investigate that question at all. Rather the reporting about COVID19, and the Wuhan Lab, is deeply flawed and aimed primarily at creating hysteria and confusion, and at dumbing down the population as a whole.

The super-rich have been largely successful in this gambit and they currently they are paying off approved “experts” to stir up all sorts of pointless debates regarding the source of the outbreak, the nature of transmission and the proper treatment—anything that points away from the rich, and the investment banks they control, having played any role in this scam.

Although COVID19 is treated in many academic journals, this virus itself has never been subject to a rigorous scientific investigation and there is much doubt among scholars that the illnesses attributed to COVID19 are a result of that specific virus, or any number of other viruses, or even other diseases.

The confusion about COVID19 is real. It is not the result of a virus, but rather of deep corruption in the entire scientific community (globally) so much so that we cannot even determine the facts. Most all medical research today is funded by corporations tied into Wall Street at one level at another—whether direct funding of research, or support for the endowments of research institutions.

The flagrant acceptance by law makers of deeply flawed science, and the criminal manner in which they facilitate, even encourage, the destruction of the precious lives of children by unwarranted lockdowns, mask wearing, and social distancing is more than enough reason to demand that every politician involved in pushing, or repeating, the tale of a COVID19 pandemic resign and face criminal prosecution.

I do not wish to suggest that China was not involved in this bogus pandemic. The Chinese government, like every other government, has bought into this entirely implausible tale from the start. Most likely Beijing did so because multinational investment banks and the super-rich have as great a stranglehold on China as they do on the United States, or France, or Russia or Japan.

We live in a world unlike what existed three years ago, and unprecedented in human history. Our first task is to wrap our minds around this fact. The corrupt media and political culture of the United States cannot possibly help us to understand how our world works.

The point of the recent media coverage in the United States is to set up China as a target, as the evil one, so as to make this conflict seem to be between nations.

For the super-rich leading this project, sometimes referred to as “the Great Reset” that is exactly what they want. For their plans, nation states are irrelevant. But they are a create way to inhibit global cooperation.

The primary conflict behind COVID19 is between classes: between a tiny handful of global elites and the rest of humanity.

Although the move to pin everything on China is a slight-of-hand trick intended to distract, and no doubt to secure big classified intelligence budgets, Chinese have also been intimately involved in the promotion of this COVID19 operation, what we refer to as “the controlled demolition of the global economy.” There are Chinese super-rich as well who support the “Great Reset” agenda. Moreover, China has grown its own corrupt military-industrial complex over the last twenty years that purposely distorts security issues to increase its budgets.

There is only one way out of the COVID19 hall of mirrors. We must recognize, as painful as it may be to do so, that the entire system of governance in the United States, and most countries in the world, is now so thoroughly corrupt that it is incapable of assessing the facts and pursuing a positive, scientific response.

We cannot address the disgusting willingness with which hundreds of medical experts (not just Bill Gates’ favorite acolyte Anthony Fauci) have stepped forward to back social distancing, lockdowns, masks and vaccines without the slightest scientific evidence, unless we confront another similar tragedy.

We must first go back to the original assault on science in America that took place twenty years ago and that made this COVID19 pandemic possible.

COVID19 would not have been possible if we had not been subject to an intensive anti-science campaign after the 9.11 incident.

After the September 11, 2001 “attacks” on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, hundreds of scientists stepped forward to assert that it was possible for two skyscrapers, constructed of steel and reinforced concrete, to collapse into dust simultaneously, after being hit by two planes.

That argument would not pass in a high school physics class, but Harvard professors, and the vast majority of public intellectuals, were happy to swallow that tale hook, line and sinker.

It was a moral bankruptcy in America, and a deep corruption of education and science, that made it possible for millions to accept a ridiculous conspiracy theory as the mainstream explanation for the 9.11 incident. Should it should surprise us, then, that, twenty years later, so many are ready to accept an even more ridiculous tale?

When will we start to make progress? When can we move beyond this COVID19 nightmare?

We will only do so when we recognize that the entire system is corrupt to the core and that we must engage in a revolutionary rebuilding of institutions, of culture and of habits that will make us ultimately more human, more intellectually rigorous, and also will lead us back to the values of our Constitution.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Wuhan Lab Upheld as Source of COVID-19: China as a Target. Corrupt Political Circus on Behalf of Super-Rich
  • 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.

***

On April 30, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) announced explicitly a controversial policy that many Ontario doctors had intuitively feared it would adopt. Its Twitter feed, @cpso_ca, contained the framed statement shown below.

CPSO commands Ontario’s doctors not to make any statements that might be considered anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing, or anti-lockdown. It forbids them to promote “unsupported, unproven” treatments for COVID-19. (Unproven by what standards? CPSO doesn’t say.) Doctors are further forbidden to make comments that might encourage people to act contrary to public health orders.

Finally, there’s a naked threat: say the wrong thing and you’ll face “disciplinary action”. This translates into, “We’ll suspend your licence, cut off your income stream and impoverish you.”

This is a horrifying statement from both a medical and a legal perspective.

A courageous group of doctors calling themselves Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth quickly pushed back with this online Declaration. As I write this, 548 doctors and 14,487 concerned citizens have already signed it.

The doctors make these three major objections. First, the CPSO is commanding them to abandon the scientific method, which requires vigorous, open debate in order to test existing theories and improve upon or replace them with more accurate ones. That’s how science advances.

Second, the CPSO is commanding doctors to breach their pledge to patients to seek out and apply evidence-based medicine in their care and treatment. Instead of a full range of current and emerging evidence from multiple sources, doctors are restricted to applying stagnant information from only one source: the government.

Third, doctors are being ordered to violate their patients’ right to be fully informed before receiving medical treatment. This implies that doctors will also have to violate their own duty to obtain fully informed consent, putting themselves at risk for eventual lawsuits. Full information about masks, social distancing and vaccinations is not something you can impart to a patient in a 5-minute office visit. Half the world has spent the past 15 months seeking out information about these subjects, and there’s still plenty of room for debate.

It’s therefore easy to see why doctors are outraged by the new CPSO policy. But as a lawyer, I can see two other problems.

First, the dictates of the CPSO violate the Ontario Human Rights Code. Section 6 of the code says: “Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to membership in any trade union, trade or occupational association or self-governing professionwithout discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex…” [emphasis added].

The CPSO’s threat is a clear statement of its intention to discriminate on the basis of creed. Although some people interpret “creed” as religion, it actually has a broader meaning. If ever anything qualified as a creed, a doctor’s Hippocratic oath would. It requires doctors to use their own judgment for the benefit of their patients and to “abstain from whatever is deleterious.” Doctors also pledge to “give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked.”

Any doctor who has extensively researched the scientific literature on mask-wearing, social distancing, lockdowns and COVID vaccinations will know that there is an increasing body of evidence that all of these practices can do more harm than good. More than 5,100 vaccination-related deaths have this been recorded in the US database called Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), where adverse events are notoriously under-reported. The number in Europe is over 10,000. Doctors can’t “un-see” this information. It forms an important part of the cost/benefit analysis in determining whether or not COVID vaccines are appropriate for their patients.

The CPSO, by threatening the licences of doctors who speak up about these issues, is forbidding them to exercise their creed and discriminating against those that do, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

Doctors also have rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: section 2 rights to freedom of conscience, belief, opinion and expression, as well as section 7 rights to liberty and security of the person. The CPSO statement, with its implicit threat to cut off doctors’ incomes, violates these rights. As the body exclusively empowered by the state to govern doctors’ conduct, there’s no question that the CPSO is an agent of the state and is therefore governed by the Charter.

Other professionals in the health care industry – chiropractors and naturopathic doctors – have told me privately that they too are being bullied into silence and forced to comply with inadvisable practices such as masking.

Eventually, this issue will come before the courts – possibly when a doctor disobeys the CPSO and is facing disciplinary action, or when doctors proactively hire lawyers to sue the CPSO for violating their rights. For me, the moment can’t come too soon.

*

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.

Karen Selick [send her mail] is a retired lawyer who now works as a freelance writer, editor, and video maker.

Featured image is by Ali Raza from PxHere

Beijing and Hanoi Boost Military Cooperation in South China Sea

June 7th, 2021 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Beijing is preparing its maritime strategy to respond to Western incursions into the South China Sea. The commanders of naval forces of China and Vietnam have agreed to establish a hotline as part of a larger effort to ease tensions in the South China Sea. The joint efforts in maritime security arise as a consequence of a broad process of rapprochement between the two countries, which are trying to improve their military, diplomatic and commercial relations.

According to a recent article in the South China Morning Post, Rear Admiral Tran Thanh Nghiem, commander of the Vietnam Navy, held online conversations with Admiral Shen Jinlong, commander of the Chinese Navy, to discuss military relations between the two countries. The outcome of the conversation was a common agreement to improve the exchange of information between the two navies regarding the South Sea and other topics of mutual strategic interest. It has also been decided that both military forces will work towards the creation of a joint maritime patrol system in the Gulf of Tonkin.

In his conversation with the Chinese leader, Nghiem praised the recent efforts that have been made to improve bilateral relations between China and Vietnam, particularly in matters of naval defense and security. Faced with so many tensions and threats posed by American and Philippine incursions in the South Sea, the partnership between China and Vietnam becomes a central point to prevent the emergence of maritime conflicts in the region.

It is important to note how this military cooperation points to a different future than many analysts previously predicted due to some tensions in relations between China and Vietnam. In recent years, both countries have gone through some difficult moments in their bilateral relations, especially with regard to disputes over the Mekong River and the Paracel Islands. The small diplomatic crisis was enough for many analysts to believe in a future of tensions and disruption of bilateral relations, which is evidently not materializing.

In late May, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and Vietnamese President Nguyen Xuan Phuc talked by telephone and pledged to increase bilateral cooperation on various issues. On the occasion, Xi said that both sides should follow a strategic perspective in their relations and that the Chinese government is willing to adhere to a policy of friendship with Hanoi. The Chinese president also highlighted the importance of resuming investments in the Two Corridors, One Belt project, which is a connectivity initiative between China and Vietnam that is part of the Belt and Road Initiative. On his part, the Vietnamese president called for more efforts in health cooperation in combating COVID-19, new economic and commercial investments, and mutual efforts to ensure stability and security at sea, respecting the UN rules on international maritime law.

Obviously, tensions between China and Vietnam still exist. Both countries have a number of disagreements and disputes that will not be resolved so quickly. On the issue of the South Sea itself, China faces demands from Vietnam, as well as from the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. However, regional tensions must be resolved regionally, without influence from foreign powers. As the Philippines allows American interference in regional affairs as a way to confront China, Vietnam comes to fear the emergence of conflicts in the region and seeks greater friendship with Beijing as a way to face the foreign presence. Although Hanoi and Beijing have several differences, their regional problems are secondary to the possibility of a conflict involving the US – which supports the Philippines.

Furthermore, the Vietnamese strategy consists of simultaneously becoming strong enough to guarantee its interests in relation to China and also friendly to seek cooperation that avoids conflicts. This is the opinion of Le Hong Hiep, senior fellow with the Vietnam Studies Program at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore, who states: “While trying to upgrade its military and maritime law enforcement capabilities to deal with China’s assertiveness on the ground, Vietnam also wants to promote bilateral political, economic and military peaceful cooperation where it is possible to maintain a mutually beneficial relationship with China (…) Promoting bilateral naval cooperation is part of these efforts”. In other words, the Vietnamese national strategy in relation to China includes guaranteeing its interests and preventing Chinese incursions, but it does not include any aggressiveness or rivalry, being a point to be resolved diplomatically and simultaneously with several bilateral cooperation projects.

Indeed, China and Vietnam are likely to increase their bilateral military cooperation as tensions in the South Sea continue to involve foreign interests, which means they are likely to cooperate more and more in the coming months, considering Biden’s aggressive foreign policy towards the Chinese presence in the region. On the other hand, with less international intervention in regional affairs, it will be possible to resume multilateral negotiations for the creation of the “Code of Conduct for the South China Sea”, which would regulate the rights of each country in that sea. Negotiations for the agreement were interrupted by the pandemic but may resume as the rate of immunization with vaccines increases – but for that to happen, Washington will have to stop imposing its interests in the region.

*

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

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The United States Africa Command’s (AFRICOM) upcoming African Lion exercises from 7-18 June are embroiled in controversy as a result of the Western Sahara conflict. Recent reports indicate that Spain won’t participate in the drills like previously planned officially due to alleged budgetary reasons, but speculation about the possibly true reasons are swirling. Russia’s Sputnik cited Spain’s El Pais as claiming that Madrid pulled out in order to not legitimize Morocco’s contentious claims to the European country’s former colony of Western Sahara where some exercises will be held, while the Moscow-based outlet also referred to Maghreb Intelligence‘s report that Morocco and the US pressured Spain to do this out of opposition to its recent hosting of a separatist leader.

Brahim Ghalil, the founder of the Western Sahara’s Polisario Front and president of the partially recognized Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) left Spain earlier this week for Algeria after receiving treatment there for over a month. During his stay in his region’s former colonizer, he also appeared before the court via video in response to allegations that his movement was responsible for war crimes against dissident Sahrawis. The judge ultimately decided not to detain him owing to lack of evidence. Morocco was furious with Spain for hosting him in the first place though, and some observers interpreted the unimpeded influx of approximately 9,000 migrants into the North African Spanish town of Ceuta a few weeks back as Rabat’s asymmetrical response.

The core of historical Spanish-Moroccan tensions, which are now spilling over to affect the US’ AFRICOM exercises, is clearly the unresolved status of Western Sahara. Morocco claims the former colonial territory as its own and exercises de facto control over most of it while the Polisario Front regards this as illegitimate because relevant UNSC Resolutions on determining the disputed region’s final political status haven’t yet been fulfilled despite several decades since their promulgation. In addition, former US President Trump recognized Morocco’s sovereignty over this region late last year in a contentious policy reversal regarded as a quid pro quo for Rabat’s normalization with Israel at the time.

Although Spain’s hosting of the Polisario Front leader was described by its government as an apolitical humanitarian gesture, it was interpreted by Morocco as a hostile move implicitly extending support to him and his movement. Rabat is concerned about Madrid’s post-colonial influence in Western Sahara, while Spain’s stance seems to be that it’s not actually meddling but is simply reminding Morocco about international law. While the real reasons why Spain pulled out of the African Lion exercises are presently unclear, provided of course that its official explanation wasn’t fully forthcoming, it’s evidently the case that this unresolved conflict is now affecting the US’ African policy.

The US clearly supports Morocco’s claims of sovereignty to Western Sahara despite the issue remaining unsettled in accordance with the relevant UNSC Resolutions, with Washington regarding Rabat as much more important of an African partner than Madrid if push came to shove. This isn’t just due to the fact that Morocco is entirely located in Africa and in a geostrategic corner of it at that unlike Spain which only has a two small exclaves along the continent’s northern coast, but might also be motivated by economic reasons considering the fact that copious phosphate reserves are thought to lie underneath Western Sahara’s soil. In fact, The Atlantic even wrote in 2016 that this disputed region has the world’s second-largest reserves of this resource.

This little-reported fact adds a new strategic dimension to the conflict, making one wonder whether the relevant players – which include not just Morocco and Spain, but also neighboring Algeria which backs the Polisario Front – are more interested in phosphate than territorial sovereignty and international law like they’ve claimed. It also makes one wonder whether the US recognized Morocco’s control over Western Sahara in order to exploit the economic opportunities under its soil. Observers also shouldn’t forget Spain’s speculation that Morocco recently weaponized the large-scale migrant influx to Ceuta by passively facilitating it at the very least, which if true would raise serious questions about Rabat’s ethics.

Altogether, it’s clear that the unresolved Western Sahara conflict is reshaping the US’ contemporary approach to Africa. In Washington’s mind, its unilateral recognition of Rabat’s sovereignty over the disputed territory settles the matter, though Madrid, Algiers, and others still regard it as an open issue. The deteriorating relations between Spain and Madrid over the former’s hosting of the Polisario Front’s leader for medical treatment and subsequent refusal to detain him in response to war crimes accusations will likely impede cooperation not only on a bilateral basis but also a multilateral one in the AFRICOM context. This could result in a worsening security situation with respect to terrorism and migration, thereby putting Europe at greater risk of these threats.

*

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

Denmark Offshores the Right to Asylum

June 7th, 2021 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This has been a fantasy of Danish governments for some time.  There have been gazes of admiration towards countries like Australia, where processing refugees and asylum-seekers is a task offloaded, with cash incentives, to third countries (Papua New Guinea and Nauru come to mind).  Danish politicians, notably a good number among the Social Democrats, have dreamed about doing the same to countries in Africa, returning to that customary pattern of making poorer states undertake onerous burdens best undertaken by more affluent states.  

The government of Mette Frederiksen has now secured amendments to the Danish Aliens Act that authorises the transfer of asylum seekers to other countries as their applications are being processed.  The measure was secured on June 3 by a vote of 70 to 24, though critics must surely look at the absence of 85 MPs as telling.  The measure is not automatic: the Danish government will have to secure (or bribe) the trust of third party states to assume their share.  

Government spokesman Rasmus Stoklund left few doubts as to what the new law entailed.  “If you apply for asylum in Denmark, you know that you will be sent back to a country outside Europe, and therefore we hope that people stop seeking asylum in Denmark.” 

Stoklund’s language of warning evokes parallels with Australia’s own campaign of discouragement, marked by a highly-budgeted effort featuring such savage products as No Way.  You Will Not Make Australia Home.  In the video, Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, then chief of Australia’s effort to repel naval arrivals known as Operation Sovereign Borders, is stern in threatening that “if you travel by boat without a visa you will never make Australia home”.  Other delights involve a graphic novel, translated into 18 different languages, promising trauma and suffering to those who end up in a detention centre in the Pacific, and the feature film Journey, where an Iranian mother and her child seek sanctuary in Australia.  The Danish propaganda arm will have some catching up to do.

Who then, are the third country candidates?  Denmark already has a memorandum of understanding with the Rwandan government that covers migration, asylum, return and repatriation.  Its purpose is to target an asylum system which supposedly gives incentives to “children, women and women to embark on dangerous journeys along migratory routes, while human traffickers earn fortunes”.  When it was made, Amnesty International’s Europe Director, Nils Muižnieks could see the writing on the wall, calling it “unconscionable” and even “potentially unlawful”.  But for Rwanda, just as it is with Pacific island states such as Nauru, money is to be made.  Such countries effectively replace demonised people smugglers as approved traffickers and middlemen.

The response to the legislation from those in the business of advocating for refugees and the right to asylum has been uniform in curtness and distress.  Filippo Grandi, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, voiced strong opposition to “efforts that seek to externalise or outsource asylum and international protection obligations to other countries.”

UNHCR spokesman Babar Balloch could only make the relevant point that the legislation ran “counter to the letter and spirit of the 1951 Refugee Convention”.  Moves to externalise “asylum processing and protecting of refugees to a third country… seriously risk setting in motion a process of gradual erosion of the international protection system, which has withstood the test of time over the last 70 years”. 

Balloch is evidently not as attentive as he thinks: those wishing to externalise such obligations have well and truly set this train in motion.  The 2018 EU summit went so far as to debate the building of offshore processing centres in Morocco, Algeria and Libya to plug arrival routes via the Mediterranean.  The UK government is also toying with the idea of an offshore asylum system.

Bill Frelick of Human Rights Watch’s Refugee and Migrant Rights Division distils the relevant principle being sacrificed.  “By sending people to a third country, what you are essentially doing is taking what is a legal right and making it a discretionary political choice.”  It is an increasingly attractive, if grotesque policy, for wealthier countries with little appetite to share the burdens of sharing the processing claims under the UNHCR’s Global Compact on Refugees.

Unfortunately for Frelkick and their like, the Danish government is proving derivatively consistent.  It has been opting out of the European asylum system since the 2000s, doing its bit to fragment an already incoherent approach in the bloc.  The centre right government of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, just by way of example, was proud to reduce the number of asylum seekers and those wishing to settle in Denmark.  In 2004, 1,607 people were granted asylum compared to 6,263 three years prior. 

The approach of the current government is to negate the very right to seeking asylum in Denmark, aided by third countries.  And there is not much left to do, given that the country received a mere 1,515 asylum applications in 2020, its lowest in two decades.  Of those, 601 were granted permits to stay.

Lurking, as it always does in these situations, is the Australian example.  The right to asylum is vanishing before the efforts of bureaucrats and border closing populists.  The UN Refugee Convention, like other documents speaking to freedoms and rights, is becoming a doomed relic.

*

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]

Red Alert: Only One Earth. Environmental Emergencies

June 7th, 2021 by tricontinental

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 from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Making Peace with Nature (2021), highlights the ‘gravity of the Earth’s triple environmental emergencies: climate, biodiversity loss, and pollution’. These three ‘self-inflicted planetary crises’, the UNEP says, put ‘the well-being of current and future generations at unacceptable risk’. This Red Alert, released for World Environment Day (5 June), is produced with the International Week of Anti-Imperialist Struggle.

What is the scale of the destruction?

Ecosystems have degraded at an alarming rate. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) report from 2019 provides stunning examples of the scale of the destruction:

  • One million of the estimated eight million species of plants and animals are threatened with extinction.
  • Human actions have driven at least 680 vertebrate species to extinction since 1500, with global vertebrate species populations dropping by 68% in around the last 50 years.
  • The abundance of wild insects has fallen by 50%.
  • Over 9% of all domesticated mammal breeds used for food and agriculture had become extinct by 2016, with another thousand breeds currently facing extinction.

Ecosystem degradation is accelerated by capitalism, which intensifies pollution and waste, deforestation, land-use change and exploitation, and carbon-driven energy systems. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, Climate Change and Land (January 2020), notes that only 15% of known wetlands remain, most having been degraded beyond the possibility of recovery. In 2020, the UNEP documented that, from 2014 to 2017, coral reefs suffered from the longest severe bleaching event on record. Coral reefs are projected to decline dramatically as temperatures rise; if global warming rises to 1.5°C, only 10-30% of reefs will remain, and if global warming rises to 2°C, then less than 1% of reefs will remain.

As things stand, there is a good chance that the Arctic Ocean may be ice-free by 2035, which will disrupt both the Arctic ecosystem and the circulation of ocean currents, possibly transforming global and regional climate and weather. These changes in the Arctic ice cover have already triggered a race among major powers for military domination in the region and for control over valuable energy and mineral resources, opening the door even further for devastating ecological destruction; in January 2021, in a paper titled Regaining Arctic Dominance, the US military characterised the Arctic as ‘simultaneously an arena of competition, a line of attack in conflict, a vital area holding many of our nation’s natural resources, and a platform for global power projection’.

The warming of the ocean comes alongside the annual dumping of up to 400 million tonnes of heavy metals, solvents, and toxic sludge (among other industrial wastes) – not accounting for radioactive wastes. This is the most dangerous waste, but it is only a tiny proportion of the total waste thrown into the ocean, including millions of tonnes of plastic waste. One study from 2016 finds that, by 2050, it is likely that there will be more plastic by weight in the ocean than fish. In the ocean, plastic accumulates in swirling gyres, one of which is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, an estimated mass of 79,000 tonnes of ocean plastic floating inside a concentrated area of 1.6 million km 2(roughly the size of Iran). Ultraviolet light from the sun degrades the debris into ‘microplastics’, which cannot be cleaned up, and which disrupts food chains and ruins habitats. The dumping of industrial waste into the waters, including in rivers and other freshwater bodies, generates at least 1.4 million deaths annually from preventable diseases that are associated with pathogen-polluted drinking water.

The waste in the waters is only a fraction of the waste produced by human beings, which is estimated to be 2.01 billion tonnes per year. Only 13.5% of this waste is recycled, while only 5.5% is composted; the remaining 81% is discarded in landfills, incinerated (which releases greenhouse and other toxic gases), or finds its way into the ocean. At the current rate of waste production, it is estimated that this figure will rise by 70% to 3.4 billion tonnes by 2050.

No study shows a decrease in pollution, including the generation of waste, or a slowing down of the rise in temperature. For instance, the UNEP’s Emissions Gap Report (December 2020) shows that the world at the present rate of emissions is on track for warming by at least 3.2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100. This is far above the limits set by the Paris Agreement of 1.5°-2.0°C. Planetary warming and environmental degradation feed into each other: between 2010 and 2019, land degradation and transformation – including deforestation and the loss of soil carbon in cultivated land – contributed a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, with climate change further worsening desertification and the disruption of soil nutrition cycles.

What are common and differentiated responsibilities?

In the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development declaration, the seventh principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ – agreed upon by the international community – establishes that all nations need to take on some ‘common’ responsibilities to reduce emissions, but that the developed countries bear the greater ‘differentiated’ responsibility due to the historical fact of their far greater contribution to cumulative global emissions causing climate change. A look at the data from Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre’s Global Carbon Project shows that the United States of America – by itself – has been the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions since 1750. The main historical carbon emitters were all industrial and colonial powers, mainly European states and the United States of America. From the 18th century, these countries have not only emitted the bulk of the carbon into the atmosphere, but they also continue to exceed their fair share of the Global Carbon Budget in proportion to their populations. The countries with the least responsibility for creating the climate catastrophe – such as small island states – are the ones hardest hit by its disastrous consequences.

Cheap energy based on coal and hydrocarbons, along with the looting and plundering of natural resources by colonial powers, enabled the countries of Europe and North America to enhance the well-being of their populations at the expense of the colonised world. Today, the extreme inequality between the standard of living for the average European (747 million people) and the average Indian (1.38 billion people) is as stark as it was a century ago. The reliance by China, India, and other developing countries on carbon – particularly coal – is indeed high; but even this recent use of carbon by China and India is well below that of the United States. The 2019 figures for per capita carbon emissions of Australia (16.3 tonnes) and the US (16 tonnes) are more than twice that of China (7.1 tonnes) and India (1.9 tonnes).

Every country in the world has to make advances to transition from reliance upon carbon-based energy and to prevent the large-scale degradation of the environment, but the developed countries must be held accountable for two key urgent actions:

  1. Reducing harmful emissions. Developed countries must urgently bring about drastic emission cuts of at least 70-80% of 1990 levels by 2030 and commit to a pathway to further deepen these cuts by 2050.
  2. Capacitating mitigation and adaption. Developed countries must assist developing countries by transferring technology for renewable energy sources as well as by providing financing to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change. The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change recognised the importance of the geographical divide of industrial capitalism between the Global North and South and its impact on respective inequitable shares of the global carbon budget.

That is why all of the countries at the numerous Climate Conferences agreed to create a Green Climate Fund at the Cancun Conference in 2016. The current target is $100 billion annually by 2020. The United States under the new Biden administration has pledged to double its international finance contributions by 2024 and triple its contributions for adaptation, but, given the very low baseline, this is highly inadequate. The International Energy Agency suggests each year in its World Energy Outlook that the actual figure for international climate finance should be in the trillions. None of the Western powers have intimated anything like a commitment of that scale to the Fund.

What can be done?

  1. Shift to zero carbon emissions. The world’s nations as a whole, led by the G20 (which accounts for 78% of all global carbon emissions), must enact realistic plans to shift to zero net carbon emissions. Practically speaking, this means zero carbon emissions by 2050.
  2. Reduce the US military footprint. Currently, the US military is the single largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gases. The reduction of the US military footprint would considerably reduce political and environmental problems.
  3. Provide climate compensation for developing countries. Ensure that developed countries provide climate compensation for loss and damages caused by their climate emissions. Demand that the countries that polluted the waters, soil, and air with toxic and hazardous wastes – including nuclear waste – bear the costs of clean-up; demand the cessation of the production and use of toxic waste.
  4. Provide finance and technology to developing countries for mitigation and adaption. Additionally, developed countries must provide $100 billion per year to address the needs of developing countries, including for adaptation and resilience to the real and disastrous impact of climate change. These impacts are already borne by developing countries (particularly the low-lying countries and small island states). Technology must also be transferred to developing countries for mitigation and adaptation.

*

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 tricontinental

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.

***

.

Dipali Ojha, head of the Indian Bar Association’s team that crafted the Legal Notice, details the alleged criminal acts in which the World Health Organization’s chief scientist, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan engaged, some of which carry penalties up to life imprisonment or death.

*

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.

Video: Syrian Presidential Elections, 2021

June 7th, 2021 by Mark Taliano

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.

***

Updated the video on July 19, 2022


*

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.

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net where this article was originally published.


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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Syrian elections have come and gone, but ISIS remains, with the necessity to contain the terrorist group.

On June 2, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that more than 110 airstrikes were carried out on ISIS hideouts in the central region.

Approximately 100 were attributed to the Russian aerospace forces, with the remainder on the Syrian Arab Army (SAA).

There are no numbers of casualties, however as a result of May’s efforts, at least 27 ISIS terrorists were killed and 41 wounded.

Both the SAA and its Russian support are pushing to contain ISIS further in the central region, and that is happening with mixed success.

Russia suspended the salaries of former rebels in the southern Syrian governorate of Daraa because they refused to step up their efforts against ISIS.

Daraa’s former rebels joined the fight against ISIS in central Syria in February under the banner of the 8th Brigade, a unit of the army’s 5th Corps of the SAA.

In April, the 8th Brigade faced a major backlash from Syrian opposition supporters after sending reinforcements to the central region. Many in the opposition don’t see the battle against ISIS as theirs.

In May, the brigade members flat out refused to send any reinforcement, and as such their salaries were held back. Since the “moderate opposition” in these regions doesn’t view ISIS as a threat, and as such there is no need to fight against the terrorists.

Meanwhile, despite the pressure, ISIS continues its attacks.

On June 1, ISIS terrorists targeted a vehicle carrying supplies for the Syrian National Defense Forces near the town of al-Salamiyah in eastern Hama with an improvised explosive device.

ISIS main stronghold in central Syria is the Homs desert, which lays between eastern Homs and western Deir Ezzor.

Due to Syrian and Russian military pressure most of the terrorist group’s recent attacks took place in eastern Hama, southern Aleppo and southern Raqqa.

In the Homs countryside, weapons caches left by other militant factions are being steadily discovered and cleared out, which also limits ISIS’ reinforcement opportunities.

In al-Hawl camp, which hosts thousands of families of ISIS militants, many children are still being educated by their mothers by ISIS propaganda.

Some 50,000 Syrians and Iraqis are housed there. Nearly 20,000 of them are children.

A separate, heavily-guarded section of the camp known as the annex houses another 2,000 women from 57 other countries, considered the most die-hard ISIS supporters, along with their children, numbering 8,000.

This presents a significant threat of resurgence. UNICEF, as well as the Kurdish groups are attempting to avoid such a scenario, but there seems to be little progress.

*

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.

***

If you’re among those of us who aren’t tribally invested in Covid politics but would like good information about when life will resume as normal, chances are you’re interested in herd immunity. You’re likely not interested in having to rely on the Internet Archive for good information on herd immunity. Alas, it’s become a go-to place for retrieving, as it were, previously published information on herd immunity that became inconvenient post-vaccine and then virtually Memory-Holed.

Over the past 15 months, the litany of Experts’ True Facts and Science regarding various aspects of SARS-CoV-2 has changed more often than the starting lineup of a bad minor league ball club. Covid-19 is spread by droplets, especially from asymptomatic people, until one day it was airborne all along and people who weren’t sick in all likelihood weren’t even sick.

Stay at home, you’re safer indoors, even stay away from parks and beaches; well, actually, outdoors is the place to be. Masks don’t work against viruses and are actually unhealthy to wear if you’re not sick, then suddenly they did work and without one you might as well be shooting people. Everyone knows and PolitiFact verified that the virus couldn’t have been created in the prominent infectious disease lab doing gain-of-function research on coronaviruses in bats coincidentally at Covid Ground Zero until, one day, PolitiFact had to retract the entire “Pants on Fire!” article. And so forth.

Unfortunately, information about herd immunity has also not been immune to this kind of meddling. Until recent months, people readily understood that active immunity came about either by natural immunity or vaccine-induced immunity. Natural immunity comes from battling and defeating an actual infection, then having your immune system primed for the rest of your life to fight it off if it ever shows up again. This immunity is achieved at a sometimes very high personal price.

Vaccine-induced immunity is to prime your immune system with a weaker, non-threatening form of the invading infection, so that it’s ready to fight off the real thing should you ever encounter it, and without your having first to risk severe illness or death.

Those interested in herd immunity in itself likely don’t have a moral or political preference for one form of immunity to the exclusion of the other. Immunity is immunity, regardless of whether a particular person has it naturally or by a vaccine. All immunity contributes to herd immunity.

Others, however, are much less circumspect. They seem to have forgotten the ultimate goal of the public campaign for people to receive vaccination against Covid-19. It’s not to be vaccinated; it’s to have immunity. People with natural immunity — i.e., people whose immune systems have faced Covid-19 and won — don’t need a vaccine.

They do, however, need to be considered in any good-faith discussion of herd immunity. There are two prongs to herd immunity, as we used to all know, and those with natural immunity are the prong that’s being ignored. It’s not just mere oversight, however. Fostering such ignorance can lead to several bad outcomes:

  • People with natural immunity could be kept from employment, education, travel, normal commerce, and who knows what other things if they don’t submit to a vaccine they don’t need in order to fulfill a head count that confuses a means with the end
  • The nation could already be at herd immunity while governors and health bureaucrats continue to exert extreme emergency powers, harming people’s liberties and livelihoods
  • People already terrified of Covid — including especially those who’ve already had it — would continue to live in fear, avoiding human interaction and worrying beyond all reason
  • People could come to distrust even sound advice from experts about important matters, as they witness and grow to expect how what “the experts” counsel diverges from what they know to be wise counsel while it conforms to and amplifies the temporary needs of the political class

Those of us wanting good information certainly don’t want any of those outcomes. But others seem perfectly fine to risk them. They include not only elected officials, members of the media, political talking heads, self-important bureaucrats, and their wide-eyed acolytes harassing shoppers, but strangely also highly prominent health organizations.

For example, late last year Jeffrey Tucker showed that the World Health Organization (WHO) suddenly, and “for reasons unknown,” changed its definition of “herd immunity.”

Using screenshots from a cached version on the Internet Archive, Tucker showed how the WHO altered its definition in such a way as to erase completely the role of natural immunity. Before, the WHO rightly said it “happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection.” The WHO’s change stated that it happens “if a threshold of vaccination is reached.” Not long after Tucker’s piece appeared, the WHO restored natural immunity to its definition.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), seemingly apropos of nothing, on May 19 issued a “safety communication” to warn that FDA-authorized SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests “should not be used to evaluate immunity or protection from COVID-19 at any time.” The FDA’s concern appears to be that taking an antibody test too soon after receiving a vaccination may fail to show vaccine-induced antibodies, but why preclude its use for “identifying people with an adaptive immune response to SARS-CoV-2 from a recent or prior infection?” Especially after stating outright that “Antibody tests can play an important role in identifying individuals who may have been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and may have developed an adaptive immune response.”

Then there is the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, that ubiquitous font of fatuous guidance. He had told people that herd immunity would be at 60 to 70 percent immunity, and then he started publicly cinching those numbers up: 75 percent, 80 percent, 85 percent, even 90 percent (as if Covid-19 were as infectious as measles). He is quoted in the New York Times admitting to doing so deliberately to affect people’s behavior:

“When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, ‘I can nudge this up a bit,’ so I went to 80, 85.

Now — or better put, as of this writing — Fauci has taken to arguing herd immunity is a “mystical elusive number,” a distracting “endgame,” and therefore not worth considering. Only vaccinations are worth counting. As he put it recently, “We don’t want to get too hung up on reaching this endgame of herd immunity because every day that you put 2 million to 3 million vaccinations into people [it] makes society be more and more protected.”

While composing an article about natural immunity and herd immunity for my home state of North Carolina, I happened to notice that the Mayo Clinic had removed a compelling factoid about natural immunity. It’s something I had quoted in an earlier discussion of the matter and wanted to revisit it.

Here’s what the Mayo Clinic once wanted people to know in its page on “Herd Immunity and COVID-19” with respect to natural immunity: “[T]hose who survived the 1918 flu (influenza) pandemic were later immune to infection with the H1N1 flu, a subtype of influenza A.” The Mayo Clinic pointed out that H1N1 was during the 2009-10 flu season, which would be 92 years later. That finding attested to just how powerful and long-lived natural immunity could be.

natural infection definition

As can be seen from the Internet Archive, however, sometime after April 14 the Mayo Clinic removed that compelling historical aside:

updated natural infection definitionThe Mayo Clinic also reoriented its page to feature vaccination over “the natural infection method” (method?) and added a section on “the outlook for achieving herd immunity in the U.S.” This new section stated that “it’s not clear if or when the U.S. will achieve herd immunity” but encouraged people nonetheless that “the FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective at protecting against severe illness requiring hospitalization and death … allowing people to better be able to live with the virus.”Why, from people who know better, is there so much interest in downplaying or erasing natural immunity?

Is it because it’s hard to quantify how many people have natural immunity? Is it out of a mix of good intentions and worry, that discussing natural immunity would somehow discourage (“nudge,” in Fauci’s term) people from getting vaccines who otherwise would? Is it simple oversight, being so focused on vaccinations that they just plain forgot about natural immunity? Or is something else at work?

Whatever the reason, it’s keeping Americans in the dark about how many people have active immunity from Covid-19. It’s keeping people needlessly fearful and suspicious of each other. It’s empowering executive overreach. Worst of all, it’s tempting people to consider government and business restrictions on the unvaccinated, regardless of their actual immunity.

*

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.

Jon Sanders is an economist and the senior fellow of regulatory studies and research editor at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, North Carolina. Jon researches a broad range of areas, including energy and electricity policy, occupational licensing, red tape and overregulation, alcohol policy, executive orders and overreach, poverty and opportunity, cronyism and other public-choice problems, emerging ideas and economic growth, and other issues as they arise.

Featured image is from AIER

Biden-Moon Summit: A New Era of Washington-Seoul Alliance?

June 7th, 2021 by Prof. Joseph H. Chung

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

President Moon Jae-in went to Washington with the invitation of President Joe Biden. The summit took place on May 21st. After a day of discussion in a friendly and relaxed environment, the two presidents announced a joint statement which went far beyond expectation of Koreans. In fact, it points to a new and much stronger Washington-Seoul Alliance. Indeed, it could be the new charter of the bilateral alliance.

The general observation is that the summit was a success. One of the reasons of the success was, probably, President Biden’s trust in the remarkable leadership of President Moon leading to outstanding achievements of Moon’s government in its management of the pandemic, the democratization of the economy, growing technological autonomy, affirmative diplomacy and its inter-Korea and Washington-Pyongyang peace dialogue initiatives. One thing was that President Moon also seemed to have confidence in President Biden’s ambitious projects of infrastructure investments and generous social welfare program.

The agreements in the joint declaration may be summarized in this way.

First, contrary to the expectations of many observers of Washington-Seoul relations, the Biden government respects both the Trump-Kim Summit of June 12, 2018 and the inter-Korea Summit of April 17, 2018.

This means three things of paramount importance. To begin with, the U.S. and the DPRK would seek for new bilateral relations. The DPRK will undertake complete denuclearization on the Korea peninsula. In addition as far as two Koreas are concerned, the Korea war is ended and the inter-Korea economic cooperation becomes feasible,

Second, the statements have promised a new Washington-Seoul alliance of vaccine production and its global diffusion. According to this alliance, Samsung Biologics will produce Moderna vaccines. In addition, Moderna has signed a few MOUs for joint vaccine-related research projects with Korean government and research institutes. In short, Korea will become the vaccine hub in the world. This shows Biden’s confidence in Korea’s capacity of vaccine production and Moon’s vision of making vaccine as global public good. This is, in fact, vaccine diplomacy competing with Chinese vaccine diplomacy.

Third, the joint statement means also the creation of a Washington-Seoul partnership in the creation of global value chain of semiconductors and batteries needed for electric automobiles. Samsung, LG and SK will invest in the U.S. as much as 40 billion USD for the production of chips and batteries needed for electric cars. This project is a part of the process of de-coupling of the value chain presently dominated by China. This could mean in fact the beginning of the de-coupling of the China-dominated value chain of automobiles

Fourth, the joint statement deals with some issues which are sensitive in the present context of Sino-American hegemonic rivalry in the Indo-Pacific region. The document says that both parties are concerned with the Taiwan crisis without mentioning China. The document mentions also the Quad with no reference to China.

However, in the document, Korea, along with the U.S., opposes all activities that undermine, destabilize and threaten the rule-based international order in the South China Sea and beyond. This is another part of the document which might invite China’s displeasure.

In relation to the DPRK, both sides agree for the improvement of human rights problem. This is a sensitive issue for Pyongyang. On the other hand, Biden’s nomination of Kim Sung as special North Korea envoy may be good news for Kim Jong-un.

Fifth, the Missile Guidelines was amended allowing South Korea to develop missiles which can 2,000 km long enough to attain China.

In the eyes of China, the joint statements mean Seoul’s active participation in Washington’s China containment policy. Therefore, South Korea finds itself in a delicate position in which it has to find a difficult balance between “security protection” by  Washington and trade interest with China.

This is, in fact, the repetition of Korea’s geopolitical dilemma. There is an old Korean saying that Korea is a shrimp squeezed between two whales. If the whales collide, the shrimp will die. Once again, Korea finds itself between two whales but, this time, not as a shrimp, but as a dolphin which is surely more intelligent and stronger than the shrimp.

Through his brilliant performance at the Summit with President Biden, President Moon might have succeeded in making Korea a super intelligent dolphin capable of preventing the whales from colliding.

If this is the case, President Moon will leave his office with the legacy of being one of the most capable diplomats in the history of Korea.

*

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

Prof. Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics and co-director of the East Asia Observatory (OAE) of the Study Center of Integration and Globalization (CEIM), Quebec University in Montreal (UQAM)

He is Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from VOA News

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On today’s episode of The Backstory host Lee Stranahan and co-host John Kiriakou discussed current events, including eight protestors killed in Syria, and a Los Angeles County, California firefighter is suspected of shooting two of his colleagues.

GUEST

Frank Serpico – Whistleblower, Former NYPD Officer, and Activist | Corruption, The Knapp Commission, and Whistleblowers

Taylor Hudak – Journalist & Editor with AcTVism Munich | Update on Julian Assange Health, Craig Murray, Taylor’s Covid-19 Reporting

In the first hour, Lee and John spoke with Frank Serpico on Frank’s exposure of NYPD corruption, the code of silence in the police department, and political corruption in America. Frank spoke on his work assisting whistleblowers with legislative protection and how the term ‘whistleblower’ is viewed in other countries. Frank spoke on his travels around the world and his discussions with police departments in other countries.

In the second hour, Lee and John spoke with Taylor Hudak about Julian Assange’s father and brother on tour in America, Craig Murray going to prison, and doctors concerned with Covid-19 misinformation. Taylor spoke on the Craig Murray prison sentence for his reporting of the Alex Salmond trial and his preparations to enter prison. Taylor spoke on her discussions with doctors on the topic of Covid-19 and the media collusion with the US government on Covid-19.

Also, we touch upon news that autonomous killer drones might have attacked people in Libya, according to a report from the United Nations Security Council’s Panel of Experts on Libya.

*

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.

Netanyahu’s Legacy of Hate Defines His Long Goodbye

June 7th, 2021 by Richard Silverstein

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On Wednesday, Benjamin Netanyahu was toppled from power after 12 consecutive years as Israel’s prime minister. He served an earlier three-year term as well, making him the longest serving leader in the country’s history. 

There may well be twists and turns yet to come. The Knesset has not sworn in the new government and Netanyahu may be able to peel off right-wing members of Yair Lapid’s coalition. In recent years, it has sometimes felt like everything can be imagined except the end of the man who rules Israel. Even if he is removed, we know he will not be done. But at this point it is worth considering his reign, which has offered little in the way of achievements.

At home, he ruled by division. Not only did he demonise the usual suspects, such as the leftists and assorted activists, he even raged against human rights groups for testifying to UN tribunals about possible war crimes and passed legislation compelling them to reveal publicly their foreign donors. He demonised his political opponents and went far beyond mere disagreement. Netanyahu’s opponents were traitors to the nation. They would sell out the country by permitting a Palestinian state and would be soft on Hamas and let the rockets to fly once again, the prime minister said.

Even within his own Likud Party, Netanyahu tossed away former proteges like stale bread. His chiefs of staff were notorious for becoming his fiercest political rivals. In fact, the prime-minister designate, Naftali Bennettonce served in that very role, as did Avigdor Lieberman, who cut his political teeth under Netanyahu. Even his mentors, like former president Reuven Rivlin, who helped bring him to power, were viewed as threats. When Rivlin ran for president, the prime minister ran an ultimately failed campaign to sabotage his candidacy.

No coherent vision

Netanyahu hardly espouses a coherent political programme around which his supporters could rally. He relied mainly on an ultra-nationalist settler ideology that has permeated Israeli society and now dominates the levers of state power. He built tens of thousands of new homes in settlements. Under his rule, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians continued from their lands both in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem.

His goal became, along with his settler patrons, to destroy any possibility of a Palestinian state. In this he was wildly successful. Currently, no political party, even those purporting to be left-wing, has made Palestinian national rights a priority. Centrist and leftist politicians downplay such views. You hardly ever hear support for a two-state solution. The only figures advancing this argument are US Democrats and American Jewish liberal Zionists.

In 2018, Netanyahu shepherded the Nation State Law to its passage in the Knesset. It excluded Palestinian citizens of Israel from any official national status. Arabic was no longer an official state language. Henceforth, Israel was to be a state of – and for – Jews only. Palestinians, who became citizens of the state in 1948, felt deeply disrespected. Their rights, such as they were, have been trampled on. In fact, one can trace the riots which spread like wildfire throughout mixed Jewish-Palestinian towns in Israel last month to this hated legislation.

As part of his longstanding efforts to concentrate power in his hands, Netanyahu succeeded in controlling much of the nation’s media. Some of these efforts involved orchestrating deals in which corporate executives were rewarded financially for offering favourable political coverage. Currently, Netanyahu is on trial on three separate criminal counts. Had the new governing coalition not been formed, a guilty verdict would have forced him to resign.

External enemies

Regionally, the fear Netanyahu generated among Israelis over external enemies created an artificial sense of cohesion, permitting him to unite the country in the face of such hostile forces. He needed enemies like Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah in order to preserve his hold on the Israeli electorate. He launched a decade-long terror campaign against Tehran and what he claimed was its attempt to gain regional dominance.

He directed Mossad to sabotage Iran’s nuclear programme by assassinating scientists and bombing missile bases and nuclear facilities. Netanyahu ordered air strikes against Iran’s military bases in Syria and mounted strikes on Hezbollah, one of Tehran’s major regional allies, which also fought alongside Syrian government forces.

In 2014, Netanyahu launched Operation Protective Edge by invading Gaza to stamp out rocket attacks against Israel. Over 2,300 Palestinianis died. The vast majority were civilians. The attack led to a ceasefire, but resolved none of the major outstanding issues dividing Hamas from Israel.

Last month, facing a new onslaught of Hamas missiles fired in response to Israeli police brutality at al-Aqsa Mosque and in solidarity with Palestinian families in Sheikh Jarrah, Netanyahu again mounted an offensive against Gaza. This time, the military operation lasted only 11 days due to the intervention of US President Joe Biden. Hundreds of Palestinians died.

Unlike the previous assaults, neither Israelis nor the world were persuaded by Netanyahu’s claims that Israel was only defending itself from Hamas rockets. Instead, they viewed the merciless Israeli air strikes as acts of aggression against a civilian population. The war had no strategic objective other than helping to keep Netanyahu in power, since his political rivals did not dare to plot against him as long as the country was at war.

As the world turned against Israel, Israelis themselves had grown weary of his belligerence and bellicosity. In particular, they grew weary of the multiple charges of corruption filed against him by the attorney general.

A legacy of hate

Like former US President Donald Trump, Netanyahu has always had the support of a strong minority of Israelis who believe in him no matter what he does. But he never commanded a majority. Instead, like Trump, the majority of Israelis disliked and distrusted him, but never enough to create a unified opposition that could dislodge him from power.

He remained in power as long as he did not because he was loved, but because the opposition was fragmented, and no-one who could command enough support to topple him rose up. In part, this was due to Netanyahu’s success at smearing his rivals and turning them into damaged goods.

Netanyahu has left a legacy of hate, fear and betrayal in his wake. There is a massive wreckage strewn across the political landscape. Israel is more divided than it has ever been between rich and poor, secular and religious, Palestinian and Jew, right and left. This is a testament to Netanyahu and what he wrought. Even with the new government coming to power, it does not promise to undo the damage, because the coalition itself is an amalgam of political parties with conflicting ideologies and agendas.

The question facing Israel and its new leaders is whether they can repair the damage he inflicted; or whether his influence will linger, and the country will continue the downward slide toward the authoritarian rule he initiated.

*

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

Richard Silverstein writes the Tikun Olam blog, devoted to exposing the excesses of the Israeli national security state. His work has appeared in Haaretz, the Forward, the Seattle Times and the Los Angeles Times. He contributed to the essay collection devoted to the 2006 Lebanon war, A Time to Speak Out (Verso) and has another essay in the collection, Israel and Palestine: Alternate Perspectives on Statehood (Rowman & Littlefield) Photo of RS by: (Erika Schultz/Seattle Times)

Featured image is from Shutterstock

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Am 22. Mai 2021 erschien in der New York Times ein erstaunlicher Artikel: Ein langer Essay über eine bevorstehende Abnahme der Weltbevölkerung. Diese wird mit einer Reihe von (irreführenden) Argumenten begründet. Die massive Impfnötigung, der wir derzeit ausgesetzt sind, wird dabei natürlich mit keinem Wort erwähnt. Vielmehr soll der Artikel unsere Aufmerksamkeit gerade davon ablenken.

Der «vaccine deep state» hat eine klare Agenda: nämlich, dass bis 2022 mindestens 70% der Weltbevölkerung die mRNA-Stoffe verabreicht bekommen haben. Das Spike-Protein, dessen Produktion sie anregen, ist eigentlich eine Bio-Waffe: es greift in das Immunsystem ein und wird in vielen Fällen Blutgerinnungen, Lähmungen, eine Fülle von neurologischen Störungen sowie Thrombosen — und schliesslich den Tod verursachen. Wenn es einmal injiziert wurde, könnten die Auswirkungen irreversibel sein …

Offensichtlich werden «corona-skeptische» Websites von anonymen Akteuren enorm unter Druck gesetzt, damit sie ihren Widerstand gegen das «Impfen» aufgeben. Der tiefe Covid-Staat spricht eine deutliche Sprache und arbeitet auch mit direkten Drohungen. Das belegt beispielhaft dieser Beitrag von Natural News vom 28. Mai 2021.

Denken wir darüber nach — aber immer mit der Prämisse, dass diese Leute nicht damit durchkommen werden. Unser Sinn für Menschlichkeit und unsere Widerstandskräfte sind viel stärker als ihr teuflischer Plan. Wir müssen aufwachen und solidarisch zusammenstehen — und das wird auch geschehen. Und weil sie das wissen, sind sie so verzweifelt, so viele Menschen so schnell wie möglich zu «impfen», bevor das Ganze auffliegt. 70% der Weltbevölkerung ist ihr Ziel. Wer einmal die Spritze erhalten hat, für den gibt es womöglich kein Zurück.

Dies eine Zusammenfassung, die Peter Koenig zu seinem Artikel «Depopulation and the mRNA Vaccine» verfasst hat. Wir haben sie ins Deutsche übersetzt (Anm. d. Redaktion).

*

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.

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

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and  co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

With tens of millions of dollars over years of work, CIA front USAID helped create and train Nicaragua’s anti-Sandinista opposition. At the center of its operations is the elite Chamorro Foundation, which stands accused of money laundering.

The US government has spent years cultivating a ring of right-wing media outlets in Nicaragua that played a central role in a violent 2018 coup attempt. This network is now being investigated by the Nicaraguan government on allegations of money laundering.

These publications are an integral part of a political opposition that Washington has carefully managed, trained, and funded with millions of dollars over the past decade. While relentlessly accusing Nicaragua’s leftist government of corruption, they have been suspiciously obscure with their own finances and record-keeping.

The institution at the heart of the US-backed influence network is called the Fundación Violeta Barrios de Chamorro para la Reconciliación y la Democracia, or Violeta Barrios de Chamorro Foundation for Reconciliation and Democracy – often referred to simply as the Chamorro Foundation.

Run by one of the richest and most powerful family dynasties in Nicaragua, the Chamorro Foundation is perhaps the most important domestic organization in coordinating the political opposition to the Central American nation’s socialist-oriented Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN).

The Chamorro Foundation is a central vehicle for Washington’s massive financial, technical, and logistical support to the Nicaraguan opposition, acting as what the CIA refers to as a “pass-through” – a third-party organization that serves as a seemingly independent channel for US government funding to foreign political groups and media outlets.

Since the Sandinistas came to power in 2007, the United States has funneled tens of millions of dollars to opposition groups in Nicaragua through its soft-power arm the US Agency for International Development (USAID), a CIA front that has long been used as “humanitarian” cover for operations to destabilize independent left-wing governments, especially in Latin America.

Internal reports from USAID show that the agency does much more than just fund anti-Sandinista political organizations, NGOs, and media outlets in Nicaragua; it births them, nurtures them, and trains them in every aspect of politicking, from electoral strategies and public relations to outreach and social media messaging, branding and marketing to organizing and building broad alliances, developing technology skills and navigating legal issues to managing finances and accounting.

This Grayzone investigation illustrates how USAID has helped to create Nicaragua’s anti-Sandinista opposition from the ground up. The right-wing political forces that comprise it are anything but organic; they are the product of an enormous campaign of foreign meddling by US government interference at every single level of Nicaraguan society.

The US astroturfing has been especially effective in forming Nicaragua’s anti-Sandinista media apparatus. Publicly available records show that USAID has spent at least $10 million specifically on opposition media outlets in Nicaragua since 2009. Of that money, USAID sent more than $7 million to the Chamorro Foundation from 2014 to 2021.

Given that much of the information that USAID discloses about its support for the political opposition and media outlets in Nicaragua is redacted, these figures are likely conservative estimates.

USAID Nicaragua Chamorro Foundation

A partial list of USAID grants for the Nicaraguan opposition’s Chamorro Foundation

Western European governments have supplemented Washington’s efforts in cultivating the anti-Sandinista opposition, with a special emphasis on the press.

European Union member states have handed out millions to the Chamorro Foundation, using the influential opposition group to fund right-wing news outlets. In 2020 alone, the foundation received €831,527 (more than $1 million USD) from the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID), an arm of Madrid’s soft power that is modeled after USAID.

The Western funding has been bolstered with millions of dollars from Washington’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED) – another CIA front that exists to push regime change across the globe. Between 2016 and 2019, the NED provided at least $4.4 million to Nicaraguan opposition groups, including media organizations, according to public records – although this is likely an underestimate as well.

Spain funding Chamorro Foundation Nicaragua AECID

€831,527 in funding for Nicaragua’s Chamorro Foundation in 2020 from the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID)

These are exorbitant sums of money in Central America, one of the poorest regions of the world, where the minimum wage amounts to around $200 per month. Such foreign funding is the main force keeping Nicaragua’s right-wing opposition afloat – especially given that polling show it has mere single-digit support among the general population.

Many of the media outlets bankrolled by USAID in these programs traffic in blatant fake news and extremist content, while inciting violence against the Nicaraguan government and supporters of the Sandinista Front.

The prominent tabloid opposition network 100% Noticias, for instance, which is funded by USAID through the Chamorro Foundation, regularly transmitted calls for Nicaraguans to overthrow their elected government during the violent 2018 coup attempt.

The director and founder of that US-funded station, Miguel Mora, stated in an interview with Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal that he wanted the US military to invade Nicaragua, violently remove the elected Sandinista Front party from power, and capture President Daniel Ortega. He cited Washington’s 1989 invasion of Panama as a model.

Miguel Mora US Noriega style operation

The director and founder of the USAID-funded right-wing media outlet 100% Noticias, Miguel Mora, calls for the US to invade Nicaragua and overthrow its elected government, in an interview with The Grayzone

“What I see from the United States is it doing a Noriega-style operation, like in Panama,” Mora told Blumenthal in an interview in Managua, days after the putsch fizzled out in July 2018.

“They come, they grab the [Ortega-Murillo] family, they take them away, and the army is not involved. In two days, 24 hours, this is solved, if there were US intervention like that,” the US-funded 100% Noticias director said.

“So what I see, instead of the United States giving weapons, like what it did with the Contras, is that they come and do a Noriega-style operation,” Mora added.

While USAID bankrolled violent, far-right, coup-plotting elements like Mora, internal documents reviewed by The Grayzone show that it was simultaneously supporting liberal NGOs that exploited issues like LGBT equality, women’s empowerment, and Indigenous rights, to provide the rightist anti-Sandinista opposition with progressive cover.

USAID Nicaragua sexual abuse children

USAID boasting, in an internal report on its Nicaragua operations, of exploiting sensitive issues like sexual violence against children and women, LGBT equality, and Indigenous rights as cover for its anti-Sandinista operations

The USAID-backed coordinator of many of these opposition groups, the Chamorro Foundation, was accused of fiscal improprieties this May, and the Nicaraguan government launched an official investigation on suspicion of money laundering, stating that it had found “serious financial inconsistencies in the reports presented to the government and the amounts received by the foundation.”

Serious questions about the Chamorro Foundation remain unanswered. This February, the organization announced that it had voluntarily suspended its operations in Nicaragua as a form of protest against a law passed in October 2020 by the nation’s democratically elected National Assembly that requires NGOs funded by foreign governments to register as foreign agents. (The legislation was harshly condemned by Washington, although it was modeled after an 83-year-old US law.)

However, while the foundation claimed to have legally shut down in Nicaragua, it still continued receiving large sums of money from foreign governments. In 2020, Washington gave the Chamorro Foundation at least $1.3 million, and as of this May, the US government sent the group at least $419,000 more for 2021.

Exactly where this money has gone is not clear, and what happened with the millions in its bank accounts when the foundation shut down is not known.

The Chamorro Foundation has denied the charges by pointing to a 2020 audit done by an accounting firm called Baker Tilly Nicaragua S.A. (a company that is closely linked to the country’s right-wing opposition). But the USAID inspector general’s office admitted in an internal memo that there was no external peer review of the audit, noting that it did not meet Washington’s own Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) requirements.

A high-profile elected member of the National Assembly from a left-wing party allied with the Sandinista Front, Wilfredo Navarro, accused the Chamorros of using a money-laundering ring to fund the 2018 coup attempt in Nicaragua.

“Between the Chamorro Foundation, the Grupo Cinco [another Western government-funded media organization run by the Chamorro family], and other NGOs, they laundered money and sent more than $30 million to pay the killers and torturers, the authors of the pain, destruction, and death in the failed 2018 coup,” Navarro alleged. “Neither justice in heaven or on Earth will forgive them. Their hands are full of blood.”

For its part, the Chamorro family has thus far stonewalled, refusing to publicly provide concrete answers to the lingering questions about its finances.

In a revealing response to the allegations of financial malpractice, the founder and director of the foundation, opposition politician Cristiana Chamorro – the elite daughter of the right-wing former president of Nicaragua after whom the foundation is named – rejected the investigation by immediately citing the authority of her patrons in the US government.

Cristiana Chamorro insisted in an official statement, “The US State Department rejected the charges of money laundering against the Violeta Barrios de Chamorro Foundation based on audits they conducted that did not find evidence of money laundering or diversion of funds.”

Managua’s Public Ministry replied by politely reminding Chamorro that Nicaragua is a sovereign country and the US government does not control its justice system. “The statement by the State Department is not relevant to the investigative process taking place in Nicaragua, which is being carried out according to the Constitution and laws of the Republic,” the ministry wrote.

Cristiana Chamorro appeared to have forgotten that she was a citizen of Nicaragua, not the United States. Her confusion was perhaps understandable, however, given that her foundation – and the Central American nation’s right-wing opposition as a whole – has been not only financially sustained by Washington, but created, cultivated, and propped up by the US government over the course of a decades-long foreign meddling operation.

Nicaragua’s oligarch family tries to retake control, with help from Washington
The Chamorro family has long been one of Uncle Sam’s most reliable assets in the region. An oligarchic clan descended from Spanish colonialists, the Chamorro dynasty boasts seven former presidents of Nicaragua, tracing back to the very first head of state of the republic in the 1850s.

The modern history of the Chamorro family clearly reflects Washington’s role as the guiding force behind Nicaragua’s right-wing opposition.

Cristiana Chamorro’s mother, and the namesake of her foundation, Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, was the first opposition president to come to power after the 1979 Sandinista Revolution that toppled Nicaragua’s decades-long US-backed military dictatorship.

In the 1980s, Washington poured millions of dollars into violent far-right death squads, known as the Contras (short for “counterrevolutionaries” in Spanish), which resorted to terrorist tactics in a failed bid to overthrow the socialist Sandinista government.

One of the most important leaders of the Contras was Edgar Chamorro – another member of the same oligarchic family. He later turned against the murderous paramilitary groups, and published a revealing letter-to-the-editor in the New York Times in 1986 titled, “Terror Is the Most Effective Weapon of Nicaragua’s ‘Contras’.”

“The ‘contras’ were, and are, a proxy army controlled by the U.S. Government,” Edgar Chamorro wrote. “If U.S. support were terminated, they would not only be incapable of conducting any military activities against the Sandinistas, but would also immediately begin to disintegrate. I resigned rather than continue as a Central Intelligence Agency puppet.”

Edgar Chamorro’s description of the anti-Sandinista opposition in Nicaragua as a proxy of the US government that would collapse were it not for Washington’s enormous economic, political, and logistical support remains true today.

Violeta Barrios de Chamorro only came to power in 1990 thanks to a presidential campaign that was directed and financed by the US government. Her victory reflected the exhaustion of a population sapped by a decade of Washington-sponsored terrorist war – compounded by an economic crisis created by an illegal US blockade of their country, as well as an implicit US threat to levy even more sanctions on the impoverished nation if Ortega won.

Nicaragua Violeta Barrios Chamorro US Congress 1991

Right-wing Nicaraguan President Violeta Barrios de Chamorro speaking before the US Congress in 1991

Violeta Chamorro’s presidential campaign was one of the first projects of the US government’s newly created National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a CIA front that still bankrolls the anti-Sandinista opposition today.

Her presidential tenure was an unmitigated disaster, and the horrors that working-class Nicaraguans suffered through during that period, which they now call the “neoliberal era,” are seared into their collective sociocultural memory. Despite massive economic assistance from the United States and debt forgiveness by its financial organs the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, Violeta’s Chicago Boy-style policies led to skyrocketing poverty and inequality, unleashing an epidemic of organized crime, drug-trafficking, and prostitution in Nicaragua, creating one of the highest murder rates in the world.

Violeta Chamorro’s departure in 1997 was followed by another decade of neoliberal rule that continued the trend of widespread poverty and inequality. To perpetuate her legacy, she founded the Violeta Barrios de Chamorro Foundation the year she left office.

When the leftist Sandinista Front won Nicaragua’s 2006 presidential election and returned to power a year later, the Chamorro Foundation became the central pass-through for US government funding to the opposition.

The foundation is run by Violeta’s daughter, Cristiana, who is the top opposition choice for Nicaragua’s November 2021 presidential election, and the preferred pick in Washington. Although she has no real political experience, Cristiana’s sponsors in Western governments and corporate media outlets frequently refer to her as an “opposition leader.”

Cristiana has been aggressively boosted by mainstream corporate media outlets, becoming a regular fixture on CNN en Español, which lavishes praise on her as the “woman who promises to save Nicaragua.”

The scion of a veritable aristocratic clan, Cristiana has marketed herself as the second-coming of her mother, making it clear that she hopes to inherit the presidency with her aristocratic last name – and a little help from her friends in the US government.

Cristiana Chamorro Nicaragua VOA

US government-funded Nicaraguan opposition figure Cristiana Chamorro, interviewed by Voice of America

USAID-funded Chamorro Foundation and NED sustain coup-mongering Nicaraguan right-wing media
In addition to their enormous political and economic influence, the Chamorro dynasty has significant control over Nicaragua’s media. The country’s two largest newspapers, La Prensa and Confidencial, are run by Chamorros – and funded by the US government. And the Washington-backed Chamorro Foundation is used to sustain other right-wing outlets in the country.

Western governments and corporate media outlets often accuse the Sandinista government of opposing freedom of the press and freedom of speech, but the reality is that the majority of Nicaraguan media outlets are neoliberal and viciously anti-Sandinista.

The opposition’s media apparatus in Nicaragua consists of newspapers such as La Prensa and Confidencial; TV channels Canal 10, Canal 11, Canal 12, and Vos TV; the outlet Radio Corporación and radio show Café con Voz; as well as online outlets 100% NoticiasArtículo 66Nicaragua Investiga, Nicaragua ActualBacanalNica, and Despacho 505, to name just a few. This is further supplemented by dozens of right-wing social media influencers.

These domestic outlets receive heavy amplification from foreign-based corporate media networks, which broadcast nonstop anti-Sandinista propaganda – and quite a bit of fake news – day in and day out.

Sustaining most of the Nicaraguan opposition outlets is a steady flow of US government money through the Chamorro Foundation.

These media platforms played a key role in the violent coup attempt in Nicaragua in 2018. The Washington-funded outlets spread fake news, openly incited violence against Sandinistas, and even called on opposition supporters to attack the government and kill President Ortega.

As mentioned above, the founding director of the influential right-wing network 100% Noticias, Miguel Mora, called for the US military to invade his country and overthrow President Daniel Ortega in a “Noriega-style operation,” in his July 2018 interview with The Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal.

With the help of USAID funding through the Chamorro Foundation, 100% Noticias also sent its reporter Lucía Pineda Ubau to the violent barricades erected by armed coup-plotters, known as tranques, where she encouraged viewers to join them and take up arms against the elected government.

100 Noticias tranques Lucia Pineda coup USAID

Right-wing media activist Lucía Pineda Ubau from US government-funded Nicaraguan outlet 100% Noticias promoting armed coup-plotters at a tranque barricade in 2018

Another fanatical right-wing Nicaraguan media personality who advocated for the coup attempt in 2018, host Jaime Arellano of Radio Corporación, openly broadcasted his support for former US President Donald Trump.

Arellano, known as “El Pingüino,” posted a photo on Facebook in 2020 of himself wearing a Trump hat, accompanied by the text “Nicas for Trump.”

Arellano and 100% Noticias staff were among the media figures who were called in for questioning by the Nicaraguan justice system in May 2021 as part of its investigation into alleged money laundering.

Jaime Arellano El Pinguino Trump gorra

Right-wing Nicaraguan media personality Jaime Arellano “El Pingüino” expressing support for Donald Trump

Nicaragua’s top two newspapers, La Prensa and Confidencial, are slightly more measured in their messaging, but essentially espouse the same extremist viewpoints.

For her part, Cristiana Chamorro – who was educated in the United States and has never had a real job other than positions she inherited from her family – is not only director of the Chamorro Foundation; she is also vice president of La Prensa.Both institutions are funded largely by Washington, which effectively makes Cristiana an unofficial employee of the US government.

La Prensa is directed by Jaime Chamorro Cardenal, Cristiana’s uncle. Following the 1979 Sandinista Revolution, the newspaper served as Washington’s key propaganda weapon. During the US terror war in the 1980s, the NED used La Prensa to spread pro-Contra disinformation.

The Chamorro family also ran the leading newspaper El Nuevo Diario, which closed down in 2019. Meanwhile, the other major Nicaraguan opposition news outlet, Confidencial, is run by Cristiana’s brother, Carlos Fernando.

Carlos Fernando Chamorro is essentially the Rupert Murdoch of Nicaragua. Thanks to the many millions of dollars he has received from Western governments over years, Carlos Fernando has built a veritable media empire.

The most important weapon in Carlos Fernando’s information warfare arsenal is Confidencial. He uses it to churn out non-stop propaganda against the government of President Daniel Ortega, while pushing an aggressively neoliberal editorial line that makes Fox News look like a bastion of journalistic rigor.

Confidencial refers to Nicaragua’s elected government as a “dictatorship” and “regime,” and often pushes dubious stories and disinformation with little basis in fact.

This May, for instance, Carlos Fernando’s publication sought to distract from the government’s investigation into his family’s alleged money laundering by running an absurd story that claimed an attempt by the Managua mayor’s office to collect unpaid back taxes owed by Nicaraguan corporations was part of an “extortion scheme.” Confidencial has also accused the mayor’s office of “fiscal terrorism” for forcing wealthy elites to pay taxes.

The institution that bankrolls this disinformation factory is the US government. Confidencial is funded by the NED, through the companies Invermedia and Promedia, which Carlos Fernando owns.

NED Invermedia Nicaragua Confidencial Carlos Fernando Chamorro

US NED funding for Invermedia, owned by Carlos Fernando Chamorro, used to run Confidencial

Confidencial is also financed by the Swiss government, an appropriate patron given that Carlos Fernando has employed a Swiss bank-style strategy to create a panoply of de facto shell companies to rake in foreign funding for anti-Sandinista media outlets.

In addition to Confidencial, Invermedia, and Promedia, Carlos Fernando runs an influential group called the Centro de Investigaciones de la Comunicación (CINCO).

The Grupo CINCO, like his sister Cristiana’s Chamorro Foundation, is funded by another EU member state, the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID).

Spain funding grupo CINCO Chamorro AECID

Spanish government funding to Carlos Fernando Chamorro’s Grupo CINCO

Carlos Fernando Chamorro helps run Grupo CINCO with the prominent opposition activist Sofía Montenegro. They are allied with the Movimiento Renovador Sandinista, or Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS), an ostensible social-democratic opposition party founded by upper-class NGO activists and academics who claimed momentary loyalty to the Sandinista movement in the 1980s, but broke with it when it lost power in the 1990s.

When the Sandinista Front returned to power in 2007, wealthy liberal intellectuals like Carlos Fernando Chamorro and Montenegro emerged as some of the government’s most vehement opponents. They allied with Washington, reaping substantial paychecks from the United States’ regime-change entities.

Nicaragua-based journalists Nora McCurdy and Stephen Sefton uncovered photos showing Montegro holding friendly meetings with the US embassy, alongside MRS leaders.

MRS Nicaragua US ambassador

US Ambassador Laura Farnsworth Dogu meeting with Sofia Montenegro and MRS leaders in Nicaragua in March 2016

The MRS has never been able to earn more than 6% in a presidential election, but its petit-bourgeois members dominate Nicaragua’s NGO sector, media, and academia. The MRS was a significant player in the violent US-backed coup attempt in 2018, helping to organize and supply the various elements vying to topple the elected government.

In January 2021, MRS leadership shed any pretense of loyalty to Sandinismo and renamed their party the Unión Democrática Renovadora (Democratic Renovation Union), or UNAMOS.

The website NicaLeaks published a leaked internal USAID document revealing that Montenegro and the Grupo CINCO that she helps run with Carlos Fernando Chamorro are funded by the US government.

In 2016, USAID gave Montenegro a one-year grant of $80,000 to fund her anti-Sandinista media work.

USAID Nicaragua Grupo CINCO Sofia Montenegro

USAID funding for Nicaragua’s Grupo CINCO and MRS activist Sofia Montenegro

Other shell organizations run by Carlos Fernando Charmorro include the little-known Fondo de Apoyo al Periodismo Investigativo, as well as the Costa Rica-based Asociación Productora de Periodismo Independiente. Then there is his radio station Onda Local, and his TV shows, “Esta Semana” and “Esta Noche.”

The closeness that Carlos Fernando and Cristiana Chamorro enjoy to the US government was reflected in the fact that they were both invited to sign an open letter in 2020 organized by the NED, which accused “authoritarian regimes” of exploiting the Covid-19 pandemic to “tighten their grip on power.” They were joined by a slew of powerful right-wing political leaders from across Latin America.

US and EU baselessly accuse Nicaragua of money laundering while funding rich elites accused of money laundering
Among average working-class Nicaraguans, it is well-known that the Chamorro oligarchs control myriad shell companies, front groups, and political NGOs, and have many millions of dollars flowing into their multiple bank accounts from a variety of foreign sponsors. The family is notorious for its financial murkiness.

The government’s investigation into alleged money laundering by the Chamorro Foundation comes at a time when Nicaragua is trying to crack down on rampant tax evasion by local elites.

This May, Nicaragua’s National Assembly voted to strengthen the laws on money laundering, in order to better combat the crime, noting that new technologies like cryptocurrencies have made it easier for plutocrats to hide their wealth from taxation.

The increased enforcement of laws against money laundering and tax evasion is partly aimed at boosting Nicaragua’s tax base, which has been hard-hit by the 2018 coup attempt and the subsequent, aggressive US sanctions that effectively locked the country’s economy out of the Washington-controlled international financial system.

In February 2020, Nicaragua was placed on the “greylist” of the Financial Action Task Force, an instrument created by the G7 nations ostensibly to reduce money laundering, but which is, in fact, an economic arm of NATO designed to punish countries that refused to toe the neoliberal line demanded by Washington and Brussels.

That same year, the European Commission added Nicaragua to its short list of “high-risk third countries” – another economic attack on the Sandinista government disguised as a measure against money laundering.

While Western governments employ dubious accusations of money laundering to economically strangle Nicaragua, they continue funneling tens of millions of dollars to conservative Nicaraguan elites who are infamous for shady book-keeping.

USAID’s explicitly stated goal in Nicaragua: “political transition”
The main financial sponsor of Nicaragua’s political opposition has been the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Most grassroots Sandinistas are familiar with USAID’s dark history in the country, and the organization’s name has become synonymous with meddling and destabilization.

During the 1980s, USAID helped the CIA run covert operations to arm and fund the far-right Contra death squads. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams admitted that the Reagan administration sent weapons to the Contras on so-called “humanitarian aid” flights.

Today, USAID plays a similar role in Washington’s attempts to topple the democratically elected leftist government not only in Nicaragua, but also in Venezuela.

USAID was used to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to a parallel Venezuelan coup regime led by Juan Guaidó. The agency was also integral to a violent US coup attempt against Venezuela in February 2019. In 2021, the US government’s own inspector general’s office acknowledged that USAID committed fraud in order to fund regime-change efforts in Venezuela.

The fact that USAID wants regime change in Nicaragua as well is hardly hidden. The agency admits on its own website that USAID has run a program in Nicaragua sponsored by its Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI).

USAID OTI Nicaragua

USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives (OIT) program pushing for regime change in Nicaragua

The OTI’s goal is simple: to overthrow governments that challenge Washington’s political and economic domination of the world. It states this quite clearly on its website, explaining that the office “supports U.S. foreign policy objectives” and “provides fast, flexible, short-term assistance targeted at key political transition.”

USAID/OTI boasts of supporting “Independent civil society, independent media, and human rights defenders” – or in other words, the right-wing opposition – in Nicaragua during and after the failed 2018 coup d’etat, pushing for an “exit from the current political crisis” and an end to the democratically elected government of President Daniel Ortega.

USAID/OTI was exposed for running a similarly putschist plot to overthrow Venezuela’s elected President Hugo Chávez. A secret 2006 US State Department cable published by WikiLeaks shows that the USAID/OTI regime-change strategy was aimed at “Penetrating Chavez’ Political Base, Dividing Chavismo, Protecting Vital US business, and Isolating Chavez internationally.”

In Nicaragua, USAID is advancing the same goals: penetrating the Sandinista Front’s base, dividing Sandinismo, isolating President Ortega internationally, and of course, advancing the interests of US corporations.

In 2020, The Grayzone exposed USAID’s latest regime-change scheme in Nicaragua by exposing a leaked internal document revealing the agency’s Responsive Assistance in Nicaragua (RAIN) program. This project calls openly for the overthrow of the Sandinista government, as well as imposing neoliberal reforms based on a “market economy” and the “protection of private property rights,” and purging the military, police, and all state institutions of any trace of Sandinismo.

USAID’s $9.4 million “Media Strengthening Program” bankrolls Nicaragua’s anti-Sandinista outlets
As the recipient of at least $7 million from USAID from 2013 to today, the Chamorro Foundation is the central node in contemporary USAID operations in Nicaragua.

Much of the information surrounding USAID grants for Nicaragua is redacted from documents, citing the Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act of 2016 as justification. The redactions have become more comprehensive since the failed 2018 coup attempt exposed the extent of US penetration of Nicaraguan civil society.

In 2020, for instance, an organization in Nicaragua received $2.82 million from USAID, but the agency redacted the recipient’s name and the nature of its activities. In 2021, USAID again obscured the recipients of and reasons for a $1.6 million grant, as well as another $1.2 million grant.

This means that this $7 million figure given to the Chamorro Foundation is likely just a conservative estimate, and the actual sum of US financial support for the foundation and other anti-Sandinista opposition organizations could be significantly higher.

USAID redacted Nicaragua

USAID redacts information about many of its largest grantees in Nicaragua-related funding

The public records that do exist show that USAID ran its programs supporting the opposition in Nicaragua through various contractors, including the following:

• National Democratic Institute (NDI), which also trained opposition forces against socialist President Rafael Correa in Ecuador
• International Republican Institute (IRI), which played a key role in US-backed coups against Haiti’s progressive elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide
• Freedom House, a regime-change lobby group
• US Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS)
• World Bank’s International Finance Corporation
• International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX)
• RTI International
• Global Communities
• Creative Associates International
• FHI 360
• Chamorro Foundation

Internal USAID data reviewed by The Grayzone shows that USAID has a decade-long, multimillion-dollar program with the Chamorro Foundation to create, fund, and train right-wing media outlets in Nicaragua.

Titled the “Media Strengthening Program,” the initiative is highly secretive. However, USAID records show that, in 2014, the agency signed a $9.4 million agreement with the Chamorro Foundation to oversee the program, which was earmarked to run through 2023.

As of May 2021, more than $7 million of that allotted $9.4 million has been delivered to the foundation.

USAID Nicaragua data Chamorro Foundation Media Strengthening Program

USAID Nicaragua data showing $9.4 million allotted to the Chamorro Foundation to run the Media Strengthening Program from 2014 to 2023

There are no internal reports exposing the scope of USAID’s Media Strengthening Program, and almost no mention of it on the internet, aside from two audit reports published by the agency’s Office of Inspector General.

USAID does, however, operate a similar “Media Strengthening Program” in Mozambique, another formerly colonized country that is governed by the revolutionary party that overthrow the colonial regime – in its case, FRELIMO, or the Liberation Front of Mozambique.

In Nicaragua, the website NicaLeaks published leaked internal documents showing that at least 12 opposition media outlets were “partners” of the Chamorro Foundation, and therefore received funding from USAID.

Among the USAID/Chamorro Foundation’s key partners is the right-wing network 100% Noticias, which played a key role in the failed 2018 coup attempt, spreading fake news, inciting violence against Sandinistas, and encouraging viewers to take up arms against the elected government.

Chamorro Foundation USAID 100 Noticias Miguel Mora

USAID funding for Nicaragua’s right-wing media outlet 100% Noticias through the Chamorro Foundation

The head of 100% Noticias, Miguel Mora, who called for the Panama-style US military invasion of Nicaragua in 2018, personally received $43,100 from USAID through the Chamorro Foundation in 2015. And this grant is from just one year in a decade-long program.

USAID Chamorro Foundation 100 Noticias Miguel Mora

USAID funding to Miguel Mora, the head of Nicaragua’s right-wing media outlet 100% Noticias, through the Chamorro Foundation

Another recipient of USAID money through the Chamorro Foundation is La Prensa – the same newspaper where foundation director Cristiana Chamorro serves as vice president.

This means that Cristiana has double-dipped USAID money, using it not only to fund her Chamorro Foundation, but also to pay her family and herself.

Chamorro Foundation USAID La Prensa

USAID funding for Nicaraguan right-wing newspaper La Prensa, through the Chamorro Foundation

This is a clear conflict of interest; as head of the Chamorro Foundation, Cristiana controlled how much money would be sent to the newspaper she helped run.

NicaLeaks obtained another USAID document showing the agency approving the foundation’s disbursement of USAID money to La Prensa. This meant that the US government knew Cristiana was using its citizens’ tax dollars to enrich herself and her family members, and took no measures to impede her corruption.

Given its shady financial dealings, it should be no surprise that the Chamorro Foundation is being investigated on suspicions of money laundering.

USAID Nicaragua La Prensa Chamorro Foundation

USAID approving funding for the Chamorro-run newspaper La Prensa through the Chamorro Foundation

Washington claims its support for media outlets in Nicaragua is a means of supporting “independent journalism” and the freedom of the press. In reality, the records clearly show that the United States seeks to destabilize the Sandinista government by propping up and promoting the country’s leading right-wing political operatives.

USAID trained and funded Nicaraguan opposition leaders, holding in-person meetings to coordinate with media
While precise details about USAID’s $9.4 million Media Strengthening Program through the Chamorro Foundation are redacted, a look at an array of USAID operations supporting opposition groups in Nicaragua can shed critical light on the foundation’s activities.

Between 2013 and 2018, USAID simultaneously oversaw a separate operation to support anti-Sandinista groups in Nicaragua, earmarking more than $6 million in funding for Capacity Building for Civil Society Advocacy (CBCSA). USAID’s partner for this program was the Dexis Consulting Group, which in turn subcontracted the work out to Chemonics.

Chemonics is a for-profit company that contracts with US government agencies in sensitive areas around the globe, specializing in destabilization and intelligence operations. The founder of the firm openly admitted he created it to “have my own CIA.”

The Grayzone documented how Chemonics was used to provide millions of dollars in US government funding to the White Helmets in Syria, while also helping to destabilize the government of Ecuador’s democratically elected socialist President Rafael Correa.

Publicly available data show that USAID gave Dexis/Chemonics at least $6,117,000 to run the Capacity Building for Civil Society Advocacy initiative.

USAID Nicaragua Dexis Capacity Building Civil Society Advocacy

USAID funding to contractor Dexis/Chemonics for its Capacity Building for Civil Society Advocacy (CBCSA) program in Nicaragua

When the CBCSA program concluded in 2018, Dexis/Chemonics prepared an internal report summarizing the successes of the initiative. The publicly available document shows how USAID not only funded opposition leaders in Nicaragua, but drilled them in methods to undermine the Sandinista government.

USAID said one of the program’s principal objectives was to “Improve the capacity of CSOs and individuals to increasingly coordinate and network with one another, the private sector, and media outlets to promote awareness, advocacy, and activism.” In other words, CBCSA aimed to cultivate opposition leaders and build an anti-Sandinista alliance uniting US-funded NGOs, powerful business interests, and the press.

USAID took credit for creating 126 “alliances and partnerships” and supporting 224 civil society organizations as part of the five-year CBCSA program.

Using an acronym to refer to anti-Sandinista civil society organizations (CSOs), USAID said “CBCSA worked with CSOs to establish partnerships with the private sector.”

One of the main so-called civil society organizations that USAID’s CBCSA program utilized was the Chamorro Foundation. Using another acronym to refer to the Violeta Barrios de Chamorro Foundation (FVBCH), USAID boasted that it “worked with FVBCH … to ensure increased dissemination of the CSOs’ activities through independent media outlets.”

CBCSA even organized quarterly “in-person networking and outreach” meetings in Nicaragua, bringing together US-funded NGOs and opposition media outlets for sessions on improving anti-Sandinista messaging.

USAID boasted, “These meetings provided CSOs the opportunity to coordinate with one another and with media outlets.” It added that a majority of attendees had “increased press coverage because of the meetings.”

The report singled out the Chamorro Foundation specifically as a group that helped “ensure increased dissemination of the CSOs’ activities through independent media outlets.”

The USAID report published a photo showing Nicaraguan opposition figures meeting to share tactics under US tutelage.

USAID Nicaragua meeting Chamorro Foundation media

An in-person USAID meeting bringing together Nicaraguan opposition civil society groups (CSOs) and media outlets to train them to better destabilize the Sandinista government

In addition to training opposition activists and connecting them with businesses and the media, USAID boasted that “CBCSA designed digital and media campaign materials, including posters, Twitter messages, and Facebook pages” for the anti-Sandinista groups.

In other words, a noted CIA front helped create and run social media accounts for Nicaraguan opposition organizations.

As cover for these anti-Sandinista operations, USAID cynically exploited issues like sexual violence against women, LGBT equality, and Indigenous rights. It even helped launch a campaign called “Let’s raise voices against child sexual abuse” as cover for opposition activities.

USAID Nicaragua sexual abuse children

USAID boasting of exploiting sensitive issues like sexual violence against children and women, LGBT equality, and Indigenous rights as cover for its anti-Sandinista operations

USAID highlighted in its report that CBCSA’s work creating, cultivating, training, and funding the anti-Sandinista opposition was complemented with help from the Central American branch of the Kellogg corporation, as well as the Catholic Church.

In an unintentionally comical section demonstrating the total subservience of Nicaragua’s opposition to Washington, the report noted that “CBCSA provided guidance and training to RED LOCAL and FVBCH to purchase air tickets for consultants and staff to ensure compliance with the Fly America Act, including how to document an exemption for individual travel. RED LOCAL and FVBCH now have the knowledge to compliantly purchase U.S.-funded travel in the future.”

Cristiana and her Chamorro Foundation can now sleep comfortably with the assurance that, whenever they want to fly to Miami or Washington, Uncle Sam has it covered.

USAID’s $2.8 million “Nicaragua Media Program” designed “to advance U.S. interests”

USAID’s Media Strengthening Program and Capacity Building for Civil Society Advocacy initiative were just two of the agency’s many operations aimed at attacking Nicaragua’s leftist government.

From 2010 to 2013, USAID ran a very similar project called the Nicaragua Media Program, with $2.8 million in funding.

While the 10-year Media Strengthening Program was run out of the Chamorro Foundation, the three-year Nicaragua Media Program was run by a contractor called Family Health International (FHI) 360.

At the end of the project in 2013, USAID produced a final performance evaluation report, which stated clearly, using an acronym for the Nicaragua Media Program, that the “NMP sought to advance U.S. interests.”

The document noted that the USAID program was actively promoted by then-US Ambassador Robert J. Callahan, and added, “The broad dissemination of USAID messages served to promote the United States Government (USG) presence [in Nicaragua].”

USAID Nicaragua media program

USAID’s Nicaragua Media Program to support anti-Sandinista outlets and “advance U.S. interests”

The report revealed that the Nicaragua Media Program ultimately awarded 45 grants ranging from $10,000 to $15,000 each year to anti-Sandinista media outlets, for a total of $2.8 million over the three years.

This is a substantial sum of money in a region where the minimum wage is around $200 per month.

USAID’s Nicaragua Media Program carried out operations in 12 cities and two autonomous regions across Nicaragua.

Among the main goals of the program, USAID admitted in the report, was “promoting economic growth, with equity to private sector-led growth and market-led agriculture” – in other words, advocating for neoliberal economic reforms.

Another openly stated USAID goal was “implementing the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR).” This placed the program directly at odds with the Bolivarian Alliance, or ALBA, that President Daniel Ortega joined when he returned to power in 2007, an economic bloc unifying Nicaragua with fellow leftist governments in Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, and Ecuador.

One of the cornerstones of US foreign policy in Latin America since the ALBA was created in 2004 has been to force countries to leave the alliance. Honduras’ democratically elected left-wing former President Manuel Zelaya explained to The Grayzone that the US government threatened him, warning Honduras could not join the ALBA; and when he did so, he was soon overthrown in a Washington-sponsored military coup.

Many of the opposition outlets funded by the Nicaragua Media Program received multiple grants, and the report boasted that “NMP funding helped several media outlets remain in business.”

The report surveyed recipients and found “75% of the interviewed grantees believe that NMP support was essential for them to stay in business.”

One of the striking features of the evaluation is that USAID compiled a list of influential Twitter users in Nicaragua. Many of those named are recipients of US government funding, and almost all are opposition supporters.

The list is a bit dated, given the report was published in 2013, but it is proof that the US government is watching influential foreign voices on social media.

USAID Twitter influencers Nicaragua

A list of Twitter influencers in Nicaragua compiled by USAID in 2013

USAID also compiled a list of Nicaraguan general media influencers, demonstrating the agency’s careful monitoring of the country’s press and identification of those who best serve US interests.

Noticeable in both of these lists was that nearly all of the influencers identified at that time were supporters of the political opposition. USAID is clearly not interested in pro-Sandinista influencers, only in amplifying anti-Sandinista voices.

USAID Nicaragua media influencers

A list of Nicaraguan media influencers, compiled by USAID in 2013

The contractor that ran the Nicaragua Media Program for USAID, FHI 360, boasts on its website that it was not the only project it was running for the agency.

FHI 360 had another USAID contract for a neoliberal initiative called “Market-Based Opportunities for Conservation and Sustainable Tourism in Nicaragua.” One of the prominent young Nicaraguan “entreprenuers” who was trained in this USAID program and publicly promoted by the firm, Nestor Bonilla, is a die-hard anti-Sandinista opposition figure who now lives in Panama.

USAID, Chamorro Foundation, and Nicaraguan corporations exploit women to boost anti-Sandinista opposition

Before it launched the Media Strengthening Program in 2013, USAID ran another operation in Nicaragua through the Chamorro Foundation, exploiting the issue of women’s rights to strengthen the anti-Sandinista opposition.

In 2009, USAID incorporated the Central American nation into a larger international soft-power project, launching what it called Voces Vitales Nicaragua, or Vital Voices Nicaragua.

Voces Vitales Nicaragua was the local manifestation of the Vital Voices program that emerged out of the US government under the Bill Clinton administration. Then-First Lady Hillary Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright used the initiative to support female opposition leaders in countries targeted for regime change, and to push neoliberal economic policies that benefited US corporations behind the guise of women’s empowerment.

In Nicaragua, the project was run by the Chamorro Foundation – the obvious choice for any neoliberal US initiative – with Cristiana Chamorro as one of its leaders.

In addition to the funding the Chamorro Foundation received from USAID for this program, it raked in hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from large corporations like CitiBank.

The Clinton-led Vital Voices program states clearly on its official website that its goal is “to promote the advancement of women as a U.S. foreign policy goal.”

US Voces Vitales Nicaragua Chamorro Foundation

The USAID “Vital Voices Nicaragua” program run in the Chamorro Foundation

USAID wages multi-million dollar hybrid war on Nicaragua’s Sandinista government

The programs described above represent just the surface level of the unconventional war that Washington has waged on Nicaragua’s Sandinista government.

The minute details of most of these USAID programs are not known because the specifics are redacted. However, data on the agency’s website show tens of millions of dollars more have been poured into supporting opposition groups.

One of the largest projects run by the US government in Nicaragua is its Municipal Governance Program, which received a whopping $29,999,763 from USAID between 2010 and 2020.

USAID’s Municipal Governance Program in Nicaragua was run by the US-based NGO Global Communities, which notes on its website that, in addition to functioning as a government contractor, it “partners” with corporations like Chevron, Coca-Cola, Goldman Sachs, IBM, and Walmart.

USAID Nicaragua Municipal Governance Program Global Communities

Internal USAID data shows $30 million in funding for opposition groups in Nicaragua through its Municipal Governance Program

USAID says this program “promotes the effective engagement of citizens with municipal governments to influence decision making, demand accountability and transparency, and improve management of public resources,” by “strengthening networks of key civil society organizations (CSOs)” and helping them “conduct better oversight of the government-funded projects.”

In other words, USAID’s Municipal Governance Program is a massive, $30 million, decade-long project to support and develop anti-Sandinista forces in local governments in Nicaragua, in order to weaken the authority of the central government.

USAID’s description also hints that its Municipal Governance Program was aimed at bolstering opposition NGOs in their activism against the Sandinista government’s infrastructure projects. And at the top of the list of Nicaraguan infrastructure projects that Washington has worked to sabotage is the long-awaited construction of an inter-oceanic canal that could challenge the monopoly of the US-created Panama Canal.

Nicaraguan government officials have said they believe the canal project – which was being built with help from Chinese companies – was a major reason for the violent US-backed coup attempt in 2018. The project is currently on hold.

Another enormous, decade-long operation run by the US government in Nicaragua is called the Democratic Leadership Development Program. This initiative is technically not run by USAID, but rather by another US regime-change arm, the National Democratic Institute (NDI).

The NDI is one of the main branches of CIA front the National Endowment for Democracy. Overseeing both of these outfits is USAID, which ultimately funds the NED through the State Department budget approved by Congress.

USAID’s public records include figures spent by NDI projects. They show that in the 10 years from 2010 through the end of 2019, the NDI spent more than $21 million on its Democratic Leadership Development Program (DLDP) in Nicaragua.

USAID NDI Nicaragua Democratic Leadership Development Program

Funding for the US National Democratic Institute (NDI) Democratic Leadership Development Program in Nicaragua

There is almost no information publicly available about the Democratic Leadership Development Program. USAID’s website has a brief summary that says it “brings together respected Nicaraguan and international institutions and experts to support democratic political processes by strengthening democratic leadership of youth,” and “supports the development of a core group of young political leaders that fosters a more transparent, participatory and democratic society.”

This description makes it clear that the program was aimed to create, train, and cultivate anti-Sandinista opposition leaders in Nicaragua. Such an interpretation is reinforced by one of the only other places on the internet that mentions the Democratic Leadership Development Program: the LinkedIn profile of the former NDI country director for Nicaragua, Julian Quibell.

His page shows that Quibell, in his words, “Oversaw the design and implementation of a 10 year $22.9 million dollar USAID democracy and governance project focused on youth leadership and citizen participation in a challenging environment with increasingly closed political space.” That reads as a fairly clear implication that NDI was training young anti-Sandinista leaders to undermine the leftist government.

In case it wasn’t clear that NDI’s work in Nicaragua was explicitly partisan, Quibell revealed that he managed “relations with media, civil society and political party leaders, private sector, international cooperation and diplomatic corps.”

Julian Quibell NDI Nicaragua Ecuador

The LinkedIn profile for the Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Mexico country director for the US National Democratic Institute (NDI)

This enormous NDI program helped set the stage for the attempted 2018 coup d’etat. And soon after the failure of the violent regime-change operation in Nicaragua, Quibell moved to Ecuador, where he become country director for NDI’s operation there.

The Grayzone has documented how the NDI was used to train and fund opposition parties and leaders in Ecuador to oppose the leftist Correísta movement founded by former President Rafael Correa. The fact that Quibell transferred to Ecuador in 2020 is significant, because these NDI-cultivated forces were integral in handing the 2021 presidential election to right-wing banker Guillermo Lasso.

Before he worked in Nicaragua, Quibell was also NDI country director for Mexico, where he admits on LinkedIn that he “cultivated and maintained relationships with Mexican government officials at the federal, state, and municipal levels, as well as key civic and political leaders.”

Another US regime-change front and NED subsidiary, the International Republican Institute (IRI), has also been active in Nicaragua.

USAID data show that the IRI has spent at least $8 million to fund Nicaragua-based projects since 2013, although what exactly these programs are is not known because the information is redacted.

As The Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal has documented, the IRI played a significant role in a 2004 US-backed military coup against Haiti’s first democratically elected president, left-wing liberation theology advocate Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

USAID Nicaragua International Republican Institute IRI

International Republican Institute (IRI) funding for programs in Nicaragua

USAID’s own website transparently illustrates its role as arm of US political power that aims to advance neoliberal governance and shatter any political movement or party that presents an alternative economic model.

In 2019, the year after the failed coup, for instance, more than 90% of USAID grants for Nicaragua-related programs were classified under its “Government and Civil Society” sector, whereas spending on public health, agriculture, and the environment was almost non-existent.

USAID Nicaragua 2019

USAID’s Nicaragua-related spending in 2019

Of the $34 million that USAID allotted for Nicaragua-related programs in 2020, $22 million – nearly two-thirds – were classified as “Government and Civil Society” spending. Another $5.2 million, or 15%, went to USAID’s own operating expenses.

The fact that USAID uses its supposed “aid” money to support right-wing opposition forces in Nicaragua is reflected most explicitly by the record-breaking surge in its budget in 2006.

That year, the neoliberal President Enrique Bolaños was very unpopular, and opinion polls showed that Daniel Ortega and his socialist Sandinista Front were on the verge of returning to power after 16 years in the opposition.

Washington was desperate to beat back the so-called Pink Tide, or wave of progressive movements that were winning elections across Latin America at the time. So the US government returned to a strategy it had used with President Violeta Chamorro: attempt to bribe the Nicaraguan people with enormous offers of aid.

In 2006, USAID poured a staggering $260 million into projects in Nicaragua. Most of that funding went into an infrastructure, rural development, and transportation project run through Washington’s Millennium Challenge Corporation.

But the windfall spending failed, Ortega won the 2006 election, and Nicaragua shifted back to the left. By 2009, USAID spending had shrunken from $260 million down to $45 million, and by 2012 to just $34 million.

USAID Nicaragua spending 2006

A record-breaking $260 million in USAID funding for Nicaragua’s right-wing government in 2006, the year before the Sandinistas returned to power

USAID’s own data make it clear without a doubt: it not a humanitarian entity, but a mechanism for political infiltration and destabilization that cultivates and funds right-wing opposition to the Sandinista government.

It is therefore not hyperbole to say that the US government in essence created Nicaragua’s political opposition, and directs its activities today.

As a product of foreign meddling, Nicaragua’s opposition reflects an extraordinary case study of Washington’s toxic legacy in the region and across the globe.

*

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.

Ben Norton is a journalist and writer. He is a reporter for The Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast, which he co-hosts with Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com, and he tweets at @BenjaminNorton.

Featured image is from The Grayzone

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said it has recorded more than 10,000 cases of so-called breakthrough infections. These infections involve people who contract COVID-19 at least 14 days after their final COVID-19 vaccine dose. The public health agency still insisted that such instances are “relatively rare.”

According to a Russia Today (RT) article, the CDC reported 10,262 instances of fully vaccinated people becoming infected with COVID-19. The figures published in the May 28 edition of the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report came from 46 U.S. states and territories. Less than seven percent of those who suffered breakthrough infections were hospitalized with COVID-19 symptoms. Meanwhile, a total of 1.6 percent – or around 160 people – died as a result of these breakthrough infections.

The same RT report said it was “likely” that the number of breakthrough infections is much higher than reported. According to the CDC, this is because reporting of such breakthrough cases is voluntary. It also does not include asymptomatic COVID-19 patients who were never tested.

Despite the more than 10,000 cases of breakthrough infections reported, the CDC has insisted that these cases are “relatively rare.” The public health agency said: “The number of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths that will be prevented among vaccinated persons will far exceed the number of vaccine breakthrough cases.”

The CDC announced early this month that it would limit monitoring of breakthrough cases. The public health agency said it would only report patients with COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infection that were hospitalized or died. It explained that the move aimed to “help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance.”

CDC official Dr. Thomas Clark said in an interview that “few worrying patterns” in their collected data prompted the shift in reporting strategy. “I don’t think we’re missing out on this data. It’s just sort of a package of how we’re looking at these questions [regarding breakthrough infection,” he said. The CDC official added that other studies looking at the severity of COVID-19 infections in vaccinated and unvaccinated people are being planned.

COVID-19 tests also have a role to play in the increased number of breakthrough infections

The reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test is the gold standard for COVID-19 testing. However, even its inventor Kary Mullis said that the test should not be used as a diagnostic tool. But a May 18 Off-Guardian report elaborated on how the CDC makes use of RT-PCR test data to paint COVID-19 vaccines as effective. (Related: Evidence emerges that COVID tests are faulty. FDA and CDC admit as much.)

According to the report, the CDC used two main factors to justify the purported effectiveness of vaccines. First, it altered the cycle threshold (CT) values of the PCR test for COVID-19 – which was unreliable to begin with. These tests were then manipulated to reflect a high number of false positive results.

Second, the agency made use of the broad definition of COVID-19 cases. According to the current definition, anyone who shows a positive test result even though they have no symptoms at all is automatically considered a COVID-19 case.

The article also alleged that the public health agency made two new rules for vaccinated and unvaccinated cases. First, it removed asymptomatic or mild infections from the definition of a COVID-19 case – which the agency announced early this month. This meant that vaccinated people who experience COVID-19 with little to no symptoms will no longer be considered COVID-19 cases.

Second, the CDC lowered the CT value of RT-PCR tests from suspected breakthrough infections. A late April 2021 update on the agency’s website instructed state health authorities to “submit only specimens with a CT value of [less than] 28 … for sequencing.” It continued that sequencing is not feasible with specimens that have a higher CT value. This essentially meant that the CDC suggested laboratories to lower CT values to 28 cycles or less for potential breakthrough infections. (Related: Vaccinated people now being tested at 28 PCR cycles, which almost guarantees a “negative” covid result.)

The Off-Guardian article ultimately remarked that the CDC’s new policies “effectively created a tiered system of diagnosis.” It said: “From now on, unvaccinated people will find it much easier to be diagnosed with COVID-19 than vaccinated people. If the new rules are applied, the only possible result is that the official records will show that COVID-19 is much more prevalent among the unvaccinated. This is a policy designed to continuously inflate one number and systematically minimize the other.”

*

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

Featured image is from Vaccine Injury News

The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 06, 2021

The Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) test was adopted by the WHO on January 23, 2020 as a means to detecting the  SARS-COV-2 virus, following the recommendations of  a Virology research group (based at Charité University Hospital, Berlin), supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

US Actively Prepares for War with Russia

By Valery Kulikov, June 06, 2021

It is quite apparent to everyone that, at present, the socio-economic and political situation in the United States is far from stable and society increasingly polarized. In fact, even members of the current US military and political elite admit this in their public speeches. Hence, President Joe Biden and his team have been trying hard to unite the nation and guide it in a less divisive direction.

Unthinkable Thoughts. The Spike Protein

By Josh Mitteldorf, June 06, 2021

The spike protein is the part of the virus structure that interfaces with the host cell. SARS 1 and SARS 2 viruses both have spike proteins that bind to a human cell receptor called ACE-2, common in lung cells but also present in other parts of the body.

How the Media Hides the Record of Vaccine Deaths. Deceives Americans

By Dr. Michael Thau, June 06, 2021

VAERS relies entirely on voluntary reporting, but hardly anyone knows it exists, so it is bound to capture a mere fraction of actual side effects. When Tucker Carlson drew attention to the reports piling up in VAERS, the Washington Post, Forbes, and most other disparagers failed to mention his explicit reference to a group of Harvard researchers who conclusively demonstrated that the VAERS detection rate is abysmal.

Europe Without Neutrals: NATO Lures Ireland into Global Military Network

By Rick Rozoff, June 06, 2021

On June 1 the Irish Times disclosed that Ireland’s Department of Foreign Affairs recently recommended to the nation’s Commission on Defence that Ireland expand military integration with NATO and the European Union. In the first case with the military bloc’s Partnership for Peace program which the country joined in 1999.

Israel Reports Link Between Rare Cases of Heart Inflammation and COVID-19 Vaccination in Young Men

By Gretchen Vogel and Jennifer Couzin-Frankel, June 06, 2021

The COVID-19 vaccine made by Pfizer and BioNTech appears to put young men at elevated risk of developing a heart muscle inflammation called myocarditis, researchers in Israel say.

Video: Pfizer’s Criminal Record. Largest Medical “Fraudulent Marketing” Case in US History

By US Department of Justice, June 06, 2021

“Fraudulent marketing” is an understatement: The mRNA vaccine announced by Pfizer – BioNTech is based on an experimental gene editing mRNA technology which has a bearing on the human genome.  The standard animal lab tests using mice or ferrets were not conducted.  Pfizer “went straight to human “guinea pigs.”

Inherit the Hypocrisy? ”Inherit the Wind”(1960) of the McCarthy Era

By Philip A Farruggio, June 06, 2021

A must see movie for all Americans is ”Inherit the Wind” (1960, Stanley Kramer, Director). To those who never saw this film, it accurately portrays the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tennessee. The trial of substitute high school teacher John Scopes was for breaking Tennessee’s Butler Act, which forbade the teaching of evolution in state funded schools.

A Timeline of “The Great Reset” Agenda

By Tim Hinchliffe, June 06, 2021

Say it’s 2014 and you’ve had this idea for a technocratic Great Reset of the world economy for some time now, but it only works if the entire planet is rocked by a pandemic. How do you go about selling your idea?

Doctors vs Health Authorities. Clinically Proven Drugs vs the Jab. Who will Prevail?

By Michael Welch, Dr. Stephen Malthouse, and Dr. Peter McCullough, June 05, 2021

Whether or not you consider the virus be considered real, the world has seen a crushing blow to our liberties, our economies and even our way of life due to the lockdown and restrictions initiated in March of last year. Witness the shops, bars, and restaurants going bankrupt. Witness the museums, operas, concert halls and symphonies denied audiences.

More than 5,000 Covid Vaccine Deaths in America, 25,359 “Serious Injuries” and Almost 300,000 Reported “Adverse Events”

By Megan Redshaw, June 05, 2021

This week’s number of reported deaths among all age groups following COVID vaccines passed the 5,000 mark, up 759 from last week, according to data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The data comes directly from reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: How the Media Hides the Record of Vaccine Deaths. Deceives Americans

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.

***

Phoenix Express 2021, the AFRICOM-sponsored military exercise involving 13 countries in the Mediterranean Sea region, concluded last week. While its stated aim was to combat “irregular migration” and trafficking, the US record in the region indicates more nefarious interests

Phoenix Express 2021 (PE21), a 12-day US-Africa Command (AFRICOM)-sponsored military exercise involving 13 states in the Mediterranean Sea, concluded on Friday, May 28. It had kicked off from the naval base in Tunis, Tunisia, on May 16. The drills in this exercise covered naval maneuvers across the stretch of the Mediterranean Sea, including on the territorial waters of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Mauritania.

The regimes in these countries, which cover the entire northern and northwestern coastline of Africa, participated in the drill – one of the three regional maritime exercises conducted by the US Naval Forces Africa (NAVAF). Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, Malta and Spain were the European states that participated in the drill.

Among the heavyweights deployed in the exercises was the US navy’s USS Hershel “Woody” Williams (ESB 4). The 784-feet-long warship is a mobile military base which “provides for accommodations for up to 250 personnel, a 52,000-square-foot flight deck.. and supports MH-53 and MH-60 helicopters with an option to support MV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft,” according to the Woody Williams Foundation. “The platform has an aviation hangar and flight deck that include four operating spots capable of landing MV-22 and MH-53E equivalent helicopters.”

When the warship entered into its maiden service with the US navy in 2017, Capt. Scot Searles, strategic and theater sealift program manager at the Program Executive Office (PEO) Ships, said, “The delivery of this ship marks an enhancement in the Navy’s forward presence and ability to execute a variety of expeditionary warfare missions.

The Algerian National Navy frigate El Moudamir (F911), Egyptian Navy frigate Toushka (F906) and Royal Moroccan Navy multi-mission frigate Sultan Moulay Ismail (FF 614) were also part of PE21, bringing with them a range weapon systems including surface-to-surface and surface to air missiles, torpedo launchers, heavy naval guns and naval radars.

According to a press release by the US navy, the purpose of this exercise was to test the ability of the participants “to respond to irregular migration and combat illicit trafficking and the movement of illegal goods and materials.”

Smugglers moving goods across the border also illicitly traffic migrants fleeing war or economic crisis in their home countries. AFRICOM has on multiple occasions acknowledged that instability in Libya is the driving force behind the migration crisis.

Who is destabilizing the region?

While ‘Russian intervention’ is blamed for the instability in Libya, AFRICOM played a key military role in the Libyan war in 2012, deposing Muammar Gaddafi, who was a staunch opponent of expanding US military footprint in the region, with the help of radical Islamist organizations. With the exception of Algeria, all the other north African states which participated in PE21 had supported this war in Libya, which has led to mass distress migration.

Many Islamist organizations which emerged amid the anarchy caused by the war were also used by the US and its allies in the Syrian war in a bid to overthrow president Bashar al-Assad, triggering another major wave of destabilization and migration.

Noting that “Syrians.. have (also) entered Libya from neighboring Arab states seeking onward transit to refuge in Europe and beyond,” a US Congressional Research Service report states: “The International Organization for Migration (IOM) reports that nearly 654,000 migrants are in Libya, alongside more than 401,000 internally displaced persons and more than 48,000 refugees and asylum seekers from other countries identified by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).”

The report in 2020 acknowledged that with “human trafficking and migrant smuggling.. trade has all but collapsed compared with the pre-2018 period.”

This migration wave, caused in no small part by AFRICOM-coordinated military interventions in Libya, has since been purported as a reason for further militarization of the region through such exercises as PE21 sponsored by AFRICOM.

The hysteria surrounding migration whipped up by right-wing parties has provided politically fertile ground for the US to mobilize state militaries for such drills. This is despite a fall in undocumented migration.

The need to respond to ‘irregular migration’ with warships is one of the official pretexts which, like the ‘war on terror’, has been used to further the militarization of Africa through AFRICOM since it was established in 2007.

Meanwhile, notwithstanding the fact that the main cause behind the explosion of terrorist organizations in the region was the 2011 Libyan war in which AFRICOM itself was an aggressor, it continues to be portrayed as a bulwark against terrorist organizations. Its operations in Africa over the last decade, including hundreds of drone strikes, correlate with a 500% spike in incidents of violence attributed to Islamist terrorist organizations.

Credit: Africa Center for Strategic Studies, US Department of Defense.

The Chinese boogeyman

Another justification given by the US for AFRICOM is the perception of a growing Chinese influence. “Chinese are outmaneuvering the U.S. in select countries in Africa,” General Stephen Townsend, commander of AFRICOM, told Associated Press late in April, less than three weeks before the start of PE21.

He went on to claim that the Chinese are “looking for a place where they can rearm and repair warships. That becomes militarily useful in conflict. They’re a long way toward establishing that in Djibouti. Now they’re casting their gaze to the Atlantic coast and wanting to get such a base there.”

Calling out the lack of credibility of this claim, Eric Olander, a veteran journalist and co-founder of The China-Africa Project, wrote: “The Chinese are looking for a base but he doesn’t provide any specifics or any evidence to back up the claim. Again, we’ve heard this before… for years in fact. For all we know the general doesn’t have any more refined intelligence than the same speculation that’s been floating around African social media all these years about a new Chinese base in Namibia or was it Kenya or maybe Angola?”

Townsend also pointed to the Chinese investments in several development projects in Africa. “Port projects, economic endeavors, infrastructure and their agreements and contracts will lead to greater access in the future. They are hedging their bets and making big bets on Africa,” he claimed.

This has been disputed by Deborah Bräutigam, director of the China Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, who concluded that China’s economic engagements in Africa are not of a predatory nature.

Bräutigam argues that Chinese economic engagements on the continent are very much in line with the economic interests of these African states, providing jobs to locals and improving public infrastructure.

Neither the concocted threat of Chinese domination of Africa, nor terrorism and irregular migration add up to the raison d’etre of AFRICOM. As former AFRICOM commander Thomas Waldhauser explained to the House Armed Services Committee in 2018, the purpose of AFRICOM is to enable military intervention to propagate “US interests” across the continent, “without creating the optic that U. S. Africa Command is militarizing Africa.” However, the 5,000 US military personnel and 1,000 odd Pentagon employees deployed across a network of 29 bases of AFRICOM in north, east, west and central Africa present a different picture.

AFRICOM has its headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, which sponsored PE21. While this exercise was still underway, preparations for African Lion 21, Africa’s largest military exercise, had already begun.

*

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

Featured image: Tunisian navy personnels aboard USS Hershel “Woody” Williams (ESB 4) on May 23 when the Phoenix Express 2021 was underway. Photo: AFRICOM

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 heart wrenching video of a Palestinian teen searching for his memories from under the rubble of his home razed to ground in the recent Israeli bombing has gone viral.

“What are these?” the boy is asked.

“Flower”, the boy replies even as tears roll down his cheek.

“From home”, he says when asked from where he got them.

The boy says he was at his grandparent’s home when it was bombed by the Israelis.

“Gaza damage cost”

Giving estimate of Gaza damage cost, Housing Ministry said 16,800 housing units had been damaged. Of those, 1,800 had become unfit for living and 1,000 were destroyed completely.

The Hamas media office estimated the bombardments had caused $40 million in damage to factories and the strip’s industrial zone and other industrial facilities, in addition to $22 million in damage to the energy sector.

Israeli air strikes and artillery fire on Gaza killed 254 Palestinians, including 66 children, and wounded more than 1,900 people in 11 days of conflict, the health ministry in Gaza says.

A barrage of thousands of rockets and other fire from Gaza claimed 12 lives in Israel, including one child and an Arab-Israeli teenager, medics say. Some 357 people in Israel were wounded before the two sides agreed for a ceasefire on May 21, 2021.

Many independent analysts have claimed that the latest Hamas-Israel was another attempt by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to remain in power.

However, as per the latest update, even the bloody war has not saved Netanyahu and all indications are that his days in officer are numbered.

Latest news from Israel said, Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid have agreed to form a coalition to oust Netanyahu.

“Palestinians on new Israeli government”

Many Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza have dismissed a change in the Israeli government, saying Bennett, the nationalist leader and former defence minister due to replace Netanyahu, would likely pursue the same right-wing agenda.

Bassem al-Salhi, a representative of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), said the prime minister-designate was no less extreme than Netanyahu.

“He will make sure to express how extreme he is in the government,” he said.

“Hamas, Israel tension far from over”

On Thursday, the Hamas-run Ministry of Agriculture in Gaza announced that it has stopped importing Israeli fruits after the Jewish state banned the export of vegetables from the besieged enclave to the West Bank and abroad.

“Israel banned the export of 15 different kinds of agricultural products, mainly tomatoes and cucumbers from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank and abroad,” the Ministry said in a statement on Thursday.

Israel had closed the Kerem Shalom crossing with Gaza for four weeks, allowing only medical equipment and humanitarian aid to the Palestinian enclave, Xinhua news agency reported.

*

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

Featured image: A Palestinian child, Omar Alhadeede, the sole survivor of his family, looks at a photo of his brothers, killed by the recent Israeli bombing on Gaza. (Image tweeted by Aya Isleem)

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.

***

Late Tuesday night, 500 unaccompanied children in immigration custody were brought to Fort Bliss, a highly contaminated and potentially hazardous military base in El Paso, TX. Fort Bliss was among several military sites under consideration by the Biden administration to process and house unaccompanied children who have migrated to the United States, some of whom had been forcibly separated from their families under the previous administration. Fort Bliss has the capacity to hold up to 7,500 children, with up to another 4,000 beds for people in custody at a family residential center.

Many military bases in the United States are known to be riddled with toxic hazards from past military operations, spills, storage of toxic chemicals, unexploded ordnances, and firing ranges. Currently, 130 military bases and installations are considered priority Superfund sites by the Environmental Protection Agency. There are currently 651 Department of Defense and National Guard sites potentially contaminated by toxic chemicals known as PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. PFAS don’t easily break down, and they can persist in your body and in the environment for decades.

“We are extremely concerned to hear of plans to detain immigrant children in Fort Bliss. Military bases filled with contaminated sites are no place for the healthy development of any child,” said Melissa Legge, an attorney at Earthjustice. “We recognize that the humanitarian situation at the border needs to be addressed in humanity, compassion, and expediency. Part of that requires keeping children away from toxic military sites. While we are hopeful that the Biden administration will keep children safe, we remain vigilant and ready to continue protecting detained minors in toxic facilities. Immigrant children under the care of the federal government should not be in cages, let alone toxic sites in military bases.”

Several of the military sites under consideration are contaminated with potentially hazardous pollutants and some are even located on or near Superfund sites. Superfund sites under consideration for housing children in immigration custody include the Homestead Detention Facility in Homestead, FL, Moffett Field in Mountain View, CA, and Joint Base San Antonio in Texas. Many of the sites remain inadequately remediated and still contaminated. Without proper environmental reviews, there is no way to guarantee these sites are safe for children, potentially exposing them to toxic chemicals that could have lifelong health impacts.

Fort Bliss is no exception. Earthjustice, along with partners including Alianza Nacional de Campesinas and the National Hispanic Medical Association, released hundreds of searchable documents and an expert analysis of previous plans for construction of a temporary detention center for children and families at Fort Bliss. These records document several problems with the project, including that the Army did not adequately investigate to determine what types of waste had been disposed of at the site, that the methods used for testing the soil samples were inadequate or never completed, and that samples taken after the supposed clean-up still had concerning levels of pollution. Additionally, illegal dumping on the site may continue to this day. As a result, there is now even greater uncertainty about the environmental hazards at the site and a greater need for thorough testing, analysis, and cleanup.

“We are deeply concerned about the decision to open temporary detention facilities for minors at Fort Bliss and the potential health risks to the minors detained in tents there,” said Elena Rios, MD, President & CEO of the National Hispanic Medical Association, a client in Earthjustice’s 2018 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit regarding the base. “Based on what we found in our Fort Bliss investigation in 2018, there are still present toxins from past landfills, which means children could be forcibly exposed to toxicity linked to cancer and development defects.”

The Biden administration has the opportunity to change course after decades of failed immigration policies. The United States government has shown flagrant disregard for the health of those in custody, most recently including forced sterilization, the use of industrial chemical disinfectants at other migrant detention facilities, and uncontrolled outbreaks of COVID-19. These ongoing failures have created conditions that make it impossible to keep those in custody safe, and we are therefore calling for the immediate halt of any plans to place children in such unsafe facilities, the securing of safe and suitable housing for children while they are required to remain in the care of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the development of solutions that do not involve placing children on or near toxic sites, military sites, or in detention-like settings.

*

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: Building 500 area of Fort Bliss, 2007 (Source: CC BY-SA 3.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on First 500 Unaccompanied Minors Sent to Toxic Military Base Fort Bliss
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The FDA will meet on June 10 to discuss the possible licensure of the Pfizer COVID vaccine for children, despite the fact that COVID poses a statistically insignificant risk to children while the vaccines could cause injury and death.

In light of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s emails released Wednesday, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) calls for health agencies to immediately halt the administration of COVID-19 vaccines to minors, whether in clinical trials or under Emergency Use Authorization.

With a recovery rate of 99.997%, children are not at great risk of serious health consequences from COVID-19 infections — but they are at significant risk of adverse events from the vaccine.

On May 19, Pfizer released a 37-page “fact sheet” of clinical trial data on its COVID-19 vaccine tested on children 12 and older. The date showed four out of five children in the trials suffered from mild to severe adverse events.

Regardless of the severity of these adverse events, long-term effects on children’s health from this experimental vaccine are unknown.

Emails released Wednesday prove Fauci knew the virus and pandemic would fade away without a vaccine, that masks do not work and that those who have recovered from infection have substantial immunity.

Despite having this knowledge, Fauci insisted people, including children, wear masks and that those who had already had COVID be vaccinated.

CHD demands federal and state agencies err on the side of caution, especially when it comes to our future: the world’s children. Immediate suspension of decisions regarding COVID vaccines for children is crucial.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced a meeting on June 10 to discuss the possible licensure of the Pfizer vaccine for pediatric populations.

CHD Board Chair Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Children’s Health Defense have been advocating for years for improvements in the nation’s vaccine safety program which is in shambles.

In a March 15 letter to President Biden, Kennedy outlined the long list of problems in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS):

  • Adverse events are rarely reported by the public or doctors.
  • Clinical trial data is often biased, unavailable or nonexistent.
  • Conflicts of interest between the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) vaccine advisory. committees and pharmaceutical companies are rampant.

According to a study funded by the U.S. Health and Human Services and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s, the VAERS system captures only 1% of vaccine adverse events.

Yet as of May 21, VAERS data showed 262,521 adverse events including 4,406 deaths following COVID-19 vaccines since Dec. 14, 2020. Vaccine injuries among 12- to 17-year-olds more than tripled in the last week of reporting.

In 1976, approximately 50 deaths shut down the Swine Flu campaign under President Gerald Ford. Despite the underreporting to VAERS, the U.S. now has nearly 100 times that number of deaths following COVID vaccination.

The 1986 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act has stymied legal action as has the 2005 PREP Act, both of which give vaccine makers virtually zero liability for their products.

Instead, claimants — including children — must file claims for injuries which are rarely paid. Parents of children injured and killed by vaccines are aware of this system. Now people injured by COVID-19 vaccines, or whose loved ones die, also are finding out they’re on their own.

Kennedy’s new book, “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health”, can be pre-order now from Barnes & Noble and Amazon. It will be published on July 20.

While most media has been silent, CHD commends Tucker Carlson and other journalists who are covering Fauci’s emails. CHD is in the process of filing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit demanding access to the unredacted emails.

CHD urges people around the world to comment on its FDA petition asking that the Emergency Use Authorizations for COVID vaccines be revoked immediately.

The organization also asks people to add their names on a letter to Congress supporting the Prepare Act which would establish a National Commission on the COVID-19 pandemic to examine and report upon the facts and causes behind the worldwide crisis.

*

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

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.

***

The Vietnam War ended in 1975, but Vietnamese people today continue to suffer the effects of Agent Orange, the deadly dioxin-containing chemical weapon that the U.S. sprayed over 12 percent of South Vietnam from 1961-1971, poisoning both the people and the land.

Descendants of the approximately 2 to 4 million Vietnamese people, hundreds of thousands of U.S. Vietnam veterans, and Vietnamese-Americans who were exposed to the toxin continue to record disproportionate rates of congenital disabilities and higher rates of many diseases.

U.S. veterans receive some compensation from the U.S. government, but very little assistance has been given to the Vietnamese people, the intended victims of the defoliant Agent Orange.

Thus, on May 25, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California) introduced H.R. 3518, the Victims of Agent Orange Relief Act of 2021, in the House of Representatives. The Vietnam Agent Orange Relief & Responsibility Campaign, for which I serve as co-coordinator, assisted Lee in drafting the bill.

“The United States has a moral responsibility to compensate the victims of the Agent Orange campaign,” Lee told Truthout. “In the same way we are focused on beginning to repair the damage of systemic racism in the form of reparations, and the war on drugs with restorative justice, it is also our responsibility to try and atone for this disgraceful campaign during the Vietnam War.”

Lee noted,

“The United States has contributed more than $125 million over the last 30 years in assistance through USAID for persons with significant disabilities, regardless of cause, in areas heavily sprayed with Agent Orange. This project is part of the U.S. government’s efforts to address legacies from U.S.-Vietnam War.”

The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) recognizes 15 diseases and illnesses as associated with the spraying and use of Agent Orange by the U.S. Armed Forces during the Vietnam era. These maladies are AL amyloidosis, chronic B-cell leukemias, chloracne, diabetes mellitus type 2, Hodgkin’s disease, ischemic heart disease, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Parkinson’s disease, acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy, porphyria cutanea tarda, prostate cancer, respiratory cancers and soft-tissue sarcomas.

Although the DVA provides some (albeit insufficient) compensation for 20 severe congenital disabilities in children of female U.S. veterans who served in Vietnam, the only congenital condition recognized for children of male U.S. veterans is spina bifida.

But no assistance has been provided to the children of Vietnamese or Vietnamese Americans associated with their exposure, or their parents’ or grandparents’ exposure, to Agent Orange.

Lee said H.R. 3518 “would expand benefits to children of veterans exposed to Agent Orange; expand research on Agent Orange and its effects on the health of exposed individuals; and provide medical, housing and poverty reduction assistance to Vietnamese individuals affected by exposure as well as their children,” adding, “It would also provide environmental remediation for areas in Vietnam exposed to Agent Orange and conduct a needs assessment on the Vietnamese American community.”

In addition, Lee observed, the bill would “provide grants that fund a broad health assessment for Vietnamese Americans who may have been exposed to Agent Orange as well as their children and descendants.” H.R. 3518 requires the establishment of “centers that provide ‘assessment, counseling, and treatment for conditions related to exposure to Agent Orange’ in areas with large Vietnamese-American populations,” Lee said.

In the current moment, advocates for Lee’s bill are urging those who support it to contact their congressional representatives and ask them to sign on to H.R. 3518 as a co-sponsor.

French Court Dismisses Agent Orange Lawsuit

Two weeks before the introduction of Lee’s bill, a French court dismissed a lawsuit that Tran To Nga, a French-Vietnamese victim of Agent Orange, filed in 2015 against 14 chemical companies, including Dow and Monsanto, that produced and sold Agent Orange. The court in Evry, France, ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the companies acted “on the orders” of the U.S. government which was involved in a “sovereign act.”

Working in Vietnam as a war correspondent in 1966, Tran and others with her were enveloped by the U.S. government’s spraying of the chemicals. “I saw a plane pass with a cloud behind it. And then my whole body was drenched in a sticky powder, and I started coughing and coughing. I didn’t know that this powder that had just covered me was a poison,” Tran says in the new documentary, The People vs. Agent Orange, directed by Alan Adelson and Kate Taverna and scheduled to air on PBS on June 28.

Tran’s first daughter weighed 6.6 pounds at the age of three months. Shortly after birth, her daughter’s skin began shedding. The baby could not bear to have any skin contact or simple demonstrations of affection, Tran testified in 2009 before the International People’s Tribunal of Conscience in Support of the Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange. The child still weighed 6.6 pounds when she died at 17 months. Tran’s second daughter still suffers from alpha thalassemia, a genetic blood disease. Tran herself has type 2 diabetes, tuberculosis and cancer.

“For forty years, I carried within me this guilt of being a bad mother who did not know how to protect her children, or worse, who sowed misfortune to her offspring,” Tran told Truthout in an email. It wasn’t until 2008 when Tran visited Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange that she made the connection between her toxic exposure and the illnesses she and her daughters have endured.

Tran decided to sue the U.S. companies “because all the other victims no longer have the opportunity to do so. If I don’t,” she added, “the [Agent Orange] drama would be unknown for a long time to come and the crime of the greatest chemical war against humanity still goes unpunished. Above all, millions of dioxin victims would never have any assistance to be able to live with dignity during their already too miserable and painful lives.”

Tran’s lawyer, William Bourdon, who is appealing the judge’s ruling, said the court applied an obsolete definition of sovereign immunity that did not comply with international and French law. “I am disappointed, I am angry, but I am not sad,” Tran said at a news conference. “We are going to carry on because our cause is just. Truth is on our side.”

U.S. Chemical Companies Committed “Ecocide”

Tran’s lawsuit alleges that the U.S. chemical companies committed “ecocide” because Agent Orange destroyed the environment of Vietnam. The 2009 Paris tribunal, which heard testimony from 27 victims, witnesses and scientific experts, made a finding of “ecocide.” The seven judges from three continents, including me, concluded, “The damages caused to the land and forests, water supply, and communities and the ecosystems can be legitimately be called an ecocide, as the forests and jungles in large parts of southern Vietnam have been devastated and denuded, and may either never grow back or take 50 to 200 years to regenerate.”

Today, dozens of environmental hotspots continue to contaminate the soil, food, sediment, wildlife and livestock in Vietnam with dioxin. In 2017, the United States assisted in cleaning up the Agent Orange contamination at the largest hotspot at the Da Nang Airport. In addition, the United States has pledged $30 million a year for 10 years toward the cleanup of the hotspot at Bien Hoa, but the total cost may exceed $1 billion. And there are several other smaller hotspots throughout Vietnam that must also be cleaned up as they continue to expose the people there to dioxin and arsenic.

Lee told Truthout she is “proud that, at the request of the Vietnam government, the U.S. cleaned up Danang Airport and reduced the risk of dioxin exposure to the surrounding community. Now, we are working together on dioxin remediation at Bien Hoa Airbase, which is the largest remaining dioxin hotspot in Vietnam.” Lee noted, “USAID has agreed to provide an initial five-year, $183 million contribution to this project. The bill provides for additional cleanup in areas that were heavily sprayed, such as areas that served as military bases and sites of aircraft crashes, and I will continue to ensure that U.S. assistance is provided for the Bien Hoa Airbase clean up.”

But the Chemical Companies Get Off Scot-Free

In 1979, U.S. veterans of the Vietnam War sued the U.S. government and the chemical companies, including Dow and Monsanto, for compensation resulting from their exposure to Agent Orange. The case settled out of court in 1984 for $180 million which gave a few of the plaintiffs a few thousand dollars each. Later, U.S. veterans won a legislative victory for compensation and they receive several billion dollars per year in benefits.

Vietnamese victims filed a lawsuit in 2004 against the chemical companies that manufactured Agent Orange. In 2008, U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein, who had also presided over the U.S. veterans’ lawsuit, dismissed the case brought by the Vietnamese people, concluding that Agent Orange did not constitute a poison weapon prohibited by the Hague Convention of 1907. Weinstein had reportedly told the chemical companies when they settled the U.S. veterans’ suit that their liability was over and he apparently made good on his promise. His 2008 dismissal was affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. In the film The People vs. Agent Orange, Weinstein says that the veterans’ case “was not settled on any scientific basis. It was settled on a political basis … The moment it was settled, [the chemical companies’] stock went up.”

U.S. veterans who continue to suffer Agent Orange related diseases were exposed to, but were not the intended victims of, the deadly chemicals. Nonetheless, the U.S. government is paying for their compensation when private companies that manufactured the chemicals, which they knew to contain deadly dioxin, have not paid the price for allowing the United States to use those chemicals in the first place. Moreover, those companies profited from their sales of Agent Orange to the government.

*

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

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A must see movie for all Americans is ”Inherit the Wind” (1960, Stanley Kramer, Director). To those who never saw this film, it accurately portrays the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tennessee. The trial of substitute high school teacher John Scopes was for breaking Tennessee’s Butler Act, which forbade the teaching of evolution in state funded schools.

The film had many levels to it in addition to the story line of questioning the legality of such a law. What really frightened this writer, and yes, frightened is the proper word to use, is how 96 years later America has not ( to use the apropos word) evolved at all!

In the film we are made to look at Dayton, Tennessee (renamed Hillsboro for the film) and its inhabitants. This was deep in the Bible Belt and most of the townspeople reflected it, excepting the very few who did not subscribe exactly to fundamentalist Christianity.

That minority was looked upon as heathens and godless outcasts. Satan was deemed to be alive and well in the hearts and minds, and yes, the very souls of anyone anywhere who refused to go along with this Old Time Religion. We could see and hear the townspeople marching and singing that song as they first welcomed Mathew Harrison Brady; and later when they burned school teacher Bertram Cates in effigy.

This fanaticism was furthermore reflected in the person of Mathew Harrison Brady (portraying William Jennings Bryan, and played brilliantly by Frederic March) as their ‘spiritual savior‘ and lead prosecutor in the trial.

He was transformed through the townspeople’s childlike adoration of him into almost a godlike and all knowing savior. Brady had come and he would damn the sinner and transgressor Cates  for all his blasphemous garbage about Darwin and evolution.

Brady’s adversary in this quest for God’s glory was Henry Drummond, Chicago activist attorney, self proclaimed agnostic and Brady’s long time friend and political supporter (played by Academy Award nominee Spencer Tracy). They did battle in the courtroom for more than just John Scopes or evolution itself. They were battling for what was really on trial in Dayton, Tennessee: The right of someone to think and reason for oneself! Keep in mind that the Inherit the Wind novel was written a mere seven years after that disgraceful era called McCarthyism, a time all of us should revisit and study.

Today’s Realities

Look how far we have actually fallen as a nation, as a culture for that matter. We had a president who used Muslim and Mexican bashing to help him recruit supporters. His VP was a far right wing evangelical fanatic, worse even than Trump when it comes to advocating pre-emptive war against the Muslims.

Millions of Americans either belong to or agree with this phony Tea Party adoration that mirrors the ‘America First‘ and fascist leaning movements of the 1930s. These people have learned ZERO from our disgraceful and illegal pre-emptive invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, or our destructive carpet bombing of Libya.

Just as the crazy Islamic fanatics think that God is theirs and theirs alone, so do the right wing Christians (and Zionists) think the same about the God they have decided to worship. Utter insanity!

Where does hypocrisy fit into all this? Well, we know that the far right wing, which is the Republican Party, is full of hypocrites. The Chicken hawks  are most evident, made up of A) All those men who supported and trumpeted the Vietnam War, yet refused to go and serve there and B) All those men, and yes now women too, who were of age to join up for Iraq War 1 and Iraq War 2 and chose to stay home, but were full of ” USA USA ” bluster. They spend their time , especially those in elected office, railing against what they call ‘entitlements‘ and keep voting to increase this obscene military spending (now over 50% of our taxes).

They have the nerve to complain about Obama Care as socialism, when it really was a complete sellout to private health insurers; yet they have their own top grade and free socialist health coverage that our taxes pay for… even after they leave office!

The other side of this hypocrisy is of course the center/right wing of the Two Party system, the Neo Con Democrats. This group likes to tell us how they ‘Feel your pain etc‘ and then go along with the Military Industrial Complex. 

Under their ‘savior’, Mr. Obama, military spending topped 56% of our taxes in 2011. The Democrats supported Obama’s 10X increase in drone missile attacks, his NATO led destruction of Libya and continuation of our over 1000 permanent military bases in over 100 countries! Just as the Bush/Cheney gang was responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths through bombing and missile attacks, Obama and the Democrats signed off, and continue to sign off on such horror. The Democrats agreed with Obama’s decision to continue the Bush/Cheney bailout of the crooked Wall Street crowd, which we taxpayers will be paying off for generations!

Watching Inherit The Wind should allow you to see how rigid and foolish many of our fellow citizens still are.

A few years ago Trump had a rally in Melbourne, Florida. The first plan in his agenda was for his wife to lead the mob in prayer. No, they did not sing ”Old Time Religion” but could easily have. Then, Mr. Trump had this ‘ramped up‘ supporter of his, another ‘Joe the Plumber’ type, Gene Huber, recite his love and adoration for his president, wearing (I kid you not) a black tee shirt (Hitler’s SS color of choice) with the words ‘President Donald Trump‘. Melbourne was transformed into Hillsboro, Tennessee for the afternoon.

Thus a warning to those of us who ‘know better‘: If we do not stand up and protest this fanaticism… “He that troubleth his own house will inherit the wind…”

*

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.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, It’s the Empire, Stupid.

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, Countercurrents.org, and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 400 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Inherit the Hypocrisy? ”Inherit the Wind”(1960) of the McCarthy Era
  • 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.

***

On June 1 the Irish Times disclosed that Ireland’s Department of Foreign Affairs recently recommended to the nation’s Commission on Defence that Ireland expand military integration with NATO and the European Union. In the first case with the military bloc’s Partnership for Peace program which the country joined in 1999.

At the moment Ireland is one of only six European Union members that are not also members of NATO. The others are Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Malta and Sweden. All of those but Cyprus are members of one or more NATO military partnerships: Austria, Finland, Malta and Sweden are members of the Partnership for Peace, and Finland and Sweden are also Enhanced Opportunities Partners; the latter two are de facto NATO members in most substantive ways. European nations not in the European Union are also in the Partnership for Peace: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Georgia, Moldova, Serbia and Ukraine. NATO members not (or not yet) in the EU are Albania, Britain, Macedonia, North Macedonia, Norway and Turkey. Of the eleven nations that have joined both the EU and NATO since 1999, all joined NATO first.

According to the Irish daily, the foreign ministry asserted that more extensive cooperation with NATO “can ensure that the Defence Forces has the relevant capability and the necessary force protection elements to participate in increasingly demanding overseas missions.”

In also advocating the deployment of military attachés abroad “in regions where Ireland is seeking to expand its global footprint,” the ministry stated:

“The engagement of the Defence Forces with the EU, Nato, through Partnership for Peace and the OSCE will become increasingly important as regional organisations continue to take on more responsibilities.” Such subordination of Irish military forces to multinational organizations, including the thirty-nation, U.S.-dominated military bloc, will represent “a significant foreign policy development.” It will enhance “the capacities, expertise and international networks of the defence organisation” in furtherance of a rules-based international order (a quote).

As all of Europe is being recruited into the U.S.’s escalating confrontation with Russia, with the Pentagon, NATO and the EU working in unison on all fronts, nations like Ireland which had long prided themselves on their neutrality will not be allowed that status much longer. Neutral it was in World War II and at least formally during the Cold War, but no more.

As the Irish Times paraphrased it, Ireland’s “growing strategic engagement” with international (as the required verbal anodyne) peace and security operations will necessitate “ongoing support through progressive, forward-looking co-ordination between Foreign Affairs, the Department of Defence and the Defence Forces.”

As though appearing providentially (though in fact by less-than-divine design), the same publication three days later ran an editorial piece titled What price Irish neutrality in today’s world? The opening paragraph reads:

“The cyberattack on the Irish health service [blamed by the writer on Russia, needless to say] and the forced landing of a Ryanair flight in Belarus should prompt a fundamental reassessment about the relevance of neutrality to the challenges of today’s world. The role and under funding of the Defence Forces over many years has to be part of that assessment.”

The choice of Belarus as a precipitating cause for enticing Ireland into NATO’s deadly embrace is not fortuitous. Since last August, and especially since the aforementioned Ryanair incident, the West – U.S., European Union and NATO; always united, virtually inseparable – has devised a common strategy of fostering regime change in that nation, with possible-to-probable military intervention as the fifth act, and through striking Belarus aiming a major blow at Russia as well. It’s not a matter of Irish and other erstwhile neutral European nations needing to protect themselves from the menacing actions of Belarus (…); it’s one of NATO requiring that all of Europe be enrolled in the campaign against Belarus and Russia.

The editorial’s second paragraph is a masterstroke of speciousness and sophism in the service of militarism and intervention abroad:

“Irish neutrality, as commonly understood, is a long-outdated concept which suggests that this State not only doesn’t take part in military alliance but has no particular view on the course of international relations. It dates from the second World War when Ireland was neutral as between the fascist powers and the Allies.”

To expose the negative to light: neutrality is not properly understood; it is passé, retrograde and unenlightened in any case. That by not joining a military alliance that consists of thirty members and forty partners on six continents which has waged unprovoked war on three of those six is to just not care about the world. In fact for Ireland to maintain a posture of neutrality now in the face of Belarusian and Russian transgressions is the moral (and practical) equivalent of appeasing and accommodating Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy. There appears no other way of interpreting the above comments.

After discussing NATO’s role in training Irish military personnel for “noble and humanitarian” missions abroad, the author reiterates the preceding moral-political indictment of neutrality in stating, “Leaving aside purely operational factors there is the deeper question of being clear which side this country is on and how it can best protect itself in the future.”

Are you with the democratic, tolerant, clear-seeing West or are you a compromised asset of dictatorial and fascistic regimes like those of Belarus and Russia? The way that (inevitably) implied query is posed in and by the West, there are only two responses permitted. And the vicious and voracious ambitions of Minsk and Moscow may well extend to the green fields and hills of Eire itself, is also used as a bugbear to frighten the Irish into submission.

The Irish Times columnist also engaged in this agile display of legerdemain: new EU nations in Central and Eastern Europe supported Ireland “during the protracted negotiations over Brexit,” and as they are to a one threatened by imminent invasion by Russia’s barbarian hordes (as is implied: “Those countries feel threatened by incessant Russian pressure on their borders and meddling in their internal affairs.”), then Ireland must prove its gratitude and loyalty by…going to war with Russia?

This is the manner, crude, but lacking counterinformation all too effective, in which nations are seduced by militarism and driven to war.

There is a history for NATO to build on, unfortunately. Ireland provided the bloc with troops for its post-conflict military operations in Bosnia and Kosovo; joined the Partnership for Peace program in 1999, which was employed to enlist the fourteen Eastern European countries that have joined NATO since 1999; and was later granted an Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme. In addition:

  • It participates in the Partnership for Peace Planning and Review Process
  • It participates in the Interoperability Platform, which “brings Allies together with 24 selected partners that are active contributors to NATO’s operations”
  • It provides support for NATO-led operations and missions
  • It deployed troops to Afghanistan for NATO’s International Security Assistance force from 2002-2016 and its successor, Resolute Support Mission afterward

Should the West, with Ireland’s assistance to the extent it supplies it, succeed in deposing the government of Belarus and supplanting it with a pro-NATO client regime, there will not be a single wholly European nation not under NATO’s jackboot.

*

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.

Featured image is from http://nousnatobases.org

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Europe Without Neutrals: NATO Lures Ireland into Global Military Network
  • Tags: ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The COVID-19 vaccine made by Pfizer and BioNTech appears to put young men at elevated risk of developing a heart muscle inflammation called myocarditis, researchers in Israel say. In a report submitted today to the Israeli Ministry of Health, they conclude that between one in 3000 and one in 6000 men ages 16 to 24 who received the vaccine developed the rare condition. But most cases were mild and resolved within a few weeks, which is typical for myocarditis. “I can’t imagine it’s going to be anything that would cause medical people to say we shouldn’t vaccinate kids,” says Douglas Diekema, a pediatrician and bioethicist at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

Israeli health officials first flagged the issue in April, when they reported more than 60 cases, mostly in young men who had received their second dose of vaccine a few days earlier. Around the same time, the U.S. Department of Defense began to track 14 such cases. In mid-May, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it, too, was reviewing myocarditis cases. Officials at the European Medicines Agency said on 28 May they had received 107 reports of myocarditis following the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, or about one in 175,000 doses administered. But relatively few people under age 30 have been vaccinated in Europe.

The Israeli panel’s findings come as Israel and many European countries are debating whether younger adolescents should be vaccinated against COVID-19. Israel has been vaccinating teenagers 16 and older since late​ January, and the Ministry of Health is scheduled to announce tomorrow whether vaccinations will be opened to children 12 and older. Other countries, including the United States and Canada, began vaccinating children 12 and older in mid-May.

“From a parent’s perspective, this really comes down to risk perception, assessment of the data,” says Diekema, who has studied risk-benefit trade-offs. Even if a link between myocarditis and the vaccine holds up, the condition is usually mild, requiring treatment only with anti-inflammatory drugs, whereas COVID-19 infection can also cause serious disease and long-term side effects, even in young people. As suspicion has percolated about a possible connection, “I don’t know many physicians who are changing their minds about vaccinating their kids,” Diekema says.

In Israel, which relied almost exclusively on the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in its early and fast vaccination drive, the Ministry of Health in January assembled a panel led by Dror Mevorach, head of internal medicine at the Hadassah University Medical Center, to investigate the issue. Mevorach tells Science he and his colleagues identified 110 myocarditis cases among 5 million people in Israel who had received two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in the month before their diagnosis. That translates to about one in 50,000 vaccine recipients, a number that isn’t concerning given the background rate of myocarditis in the general population, where it is typically triggered by viral or bacterial infections, including COVID-19.

But the rate of myocarditis following vaccination among young men was higher. Ninety percent of the cases picked up in Israel appeared in men, and although myocarditis is normally more common among young men, the rate among those vaccinated was somewhere between five and 25 times the background rate, the report says. (Two cases of fatal myocarditis have also been reported in Israel, but the panel says investigations of those deaths were inconclusive; one patient may have had a more generalized inflammatory syndrome, and the other diagnosis was “not verified,” the report says.)

The new analysis “is very suggestive of a causal nature,” between the vaccine and myocarditis, Mevorach says. “I am convinced there is a relationship.”

“It does suggest that this is, at least statistically, a real phenomenon,” says Peter Liu, a cardiologist and chief scientific officer of the University of Ottawa Heart Institute. Diekema says it’s important to investigate “even a hint of a signal,” but cautions that “while this report is suggestive … it requires validation in other populations by other investigators before we can be certain the link exists.” Other factors may be in play, Diekema says. Now that children are back to socializing and playing sports, his hospital’s emergency room is “seeing more viral diseases than we’ve seen in a year,” and as a result, “I would expect to see a little bump in myocarditis versus a year ago.” Ideally, scientists should compare cohorts of vaccinated and unvaccinated youngsters at the same time, Diekema says, and he’s heartened that such studies are now gearing up.

Myocarditis cases following the Moderna vaccine, which isn’t in use in Israel, are also being investigated in the United States. It’s not clear why the two vaccines, which both rely on messenger RNA (mRNA), might heighten the risk. One possibility is that the very high antibody levels that both generate in young people may also, in rare cases, lead to a sort of immune overreaction that inflames the heart. “There’s no question these [vaccines] are extremely immune-generating,” Liu says. Mevorach says he suspects the mRNA itself might be playing a role. The innate immune system recognizes RNA as part of the body’s defense against microbes—including RNA viruses like SARS-CoV-2, he notes. “I think that actually the mRNA is a kind of natural adjuvant,” which ramps up the immune response, he says.

Diekema says the medical community is now on alert for youngsters with chest pain and other symptoms soon after vaccination—allowing them to be quickly identified, treated, and reported to health departments. Mevorach agrees that awareness among vaccinees, their parents, and their doctors is important for prompt and effective treatment. He says he and his colleagues treated about 40 cases. Only a few needed corticosteroids, he said, and most have recovered fully.

One important question is whether delaying the second vaccine dose might reduce any potential risk. There may be an opportunity to find out: Several countries have stretched the interval between the two doses from the 3 weeks tested and recommended by Pfizer to 12 or even 16 weeks, because they want to give as many people as possible at least one shot. A drop in myocarditis cases among those whose second dose was delayed might show up in data in the months ahead. Lowering the dose in young people may also be worth considering, Liu says. Pfizer’s and Moderna’s vaccines are now being tested at lower doses in children under 12, with results expected in the coming months.

Even if the link between the shots and myocarditis firms up, Liu says the vaccine’s benefit—being well-protected from COVID-19—outweighs the risks, even for young people, who are generally at lower risk of severe disease. But Mevorach says the trade-offs may be different in Israel, given its extremely low numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infections—just 15 new cases were diagnosed yesterday. He hopes the Ministry of Health will leave the decision on whether to vaccinate younger teens to their parents and doctors. “At the moment, we no longer have an emergency,” he says.

Update, 1 June 2021, 4.55 PM: Text has been added to this story about two reported fatal cases of myocarditis; the expert panel said investigations of those cases were inconclusive.

*

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.

Gretchen Vogel is a contributing correspondent for Science Magazine based in Berlin, Germany.

Jennifer Couzin-Frankel is a Staff Writer.

US Actively Prepares for War with Russia

June 6th, 2021 by Valery Kulikov

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 is quite apparent to everyone that, at present, the socio-economic and political situation in the United States is far from stable and society increasingly polarized. In fact, even members of the current US military and political elite admit this in their public speeches. Hence, President Joe Biden and his team have been trying hard to unite the nation and guide it in a less divisive direction.

Since the relationship between the United States and Russia has taken a turn for the worse in recent years, it is quite clear to the author that, nowadays, the US administration has been seeking confrontation with the Russian Federation, be it over politics, trade or even the construction of Nord Stream 2 (which is of no concern to the US) for the European Union (EU). And President Joe Biden is seemingly trying to achieve this aim by using fairly aggressive and ideologically divisive rhetoric as a tool.

Based on a number of reports published by American and Western media outlets, aside from anti-Russia propaganda, the US government has begun its preparations for a possible invasion of Russia via the Baltic countries, the Black Sea, the Arctic Ocean and regions bordering the Russian Federation to the East.

According to a May 17 report in Business Insider,

the “US Special Operations Europe (SOCEUR) conducted its largest annual exercise in conjunction with a smaller one” with troops from several NATO member and partner countries. Both drills were staged “at the same time to simulate a full-blown conflict with Russia ranging from the Baltic states and Scandinavia south to Ukraine and the Black Sea region”. The realistic exercises were called Trojan Footprint 21 and Black Swan 21 and “took place in Romania and across Eastern Europe”.

The article also stated that Crimea “would be an ideal environment for Naval Special Warfare operations”. In fact, US SEAL teams are already capable of conducting “over-the-beach raids and ambushes, maritime and land special reconnaissance, and underwater special operations, such as placing sensors on the ocean or limpet mines on enemy vessels”.

The author of the article also opined that Russian radar installations and A2/AD (anti-access/ area denial) “batteries and command-and-control systems would be a logical target for SEAL platoons”. The two exercises essentially showed “how conventional and special-operations units would work together in a major conflict with Russia”.

According to Business Insider, the Russian military bolstered its presence in Crimea since its annexation, “making it a seemingly impenetrable fortress guarding Moscow’s southern flank both from land and air”, and making invading it quite a challenge.

At this point, it is worth reminding revenge-seekers in the United States that Crimea has been viewed as Russia’s stronghold for quite some time. In fact, a number of burial grounds for foreign fighters on the peninsula serve as a reminder of this land’s bloody history. And in the past, there were no openly gay servicemen unlike nowadays in the US and its allies’ armies.

A May 17 article in The National Interest reported that the United States had a plan to attack Kaliningrad, which was described as “a single symphony of violence to break down advanced defenses”. General Jeffrey L. Harrigian, Commander of US Air Forces in Europe, said that the city and its garrison “could be prime targets for” multi-domain operations. Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., the Deputy Editor for Breaking Defense, clarified that there would be simultaneous attacks on Kaliningrad from the air, land, sea and cyberspace, i.e. “a single symphony of violence to break down advanced defenses”. Hackers could first “disrupt communications networks while jamming planes confuse radars”. In the meantime, “bombers, ships and submarines could lob long-range cruise missiles” and ground forces “fire rockets”. Stealth fighters and bombers would then be able to “penetrate surviving defenses to drop GPS-guided” weapons.

Still, individuals behind the aforementioned plans appear to have forgotten about the possibility of a massive counter missile strike against the United States and its European allies, as well as the potential damage Russian hypersonic weapons could cause to those who beat the drums of war and anyone else dragged into the conflict… For it was in fact Russia’s Katyusha rocket systems that turned the tide of World War II.

Preparations for an armed invasion of Russia are no longer kept under wraps in the European Union.

During the May 6 meeting of EU’s Foreign Affairs Council involving EU Defense Ministers, a decision was made to grant the requests of Canada, Norway and the US to participate in the PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation, a part of European Union’s security and defense policy) project Military Mobility.

The three countries would be the first states to be invited to participate in the initiative. But the very project Military Mobility is not so much centered around defense, as this initiative coming to fruition would give the West an opportunity to relocate roughly 50,000 personnel to the Baltic states. One issue at present is the poor infrastructure in the EU, especially in Eastern Europe. Hence, in the nearest future, the plan is to upgrade it so that roads, bridges, railroads etc. are able to cope with large quantities of heavy military transport.

Germany’s Minister of Defense Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer welcomed the move to invite the three aforementioned nations to take part in project Military Mobility, and described it as “another big step in the transatlantic alliance and in the cooperation between the European Union and NATO”. Her support for the initiative could stem from the memory of successful military campaigns of the past, for instance, during the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871). However, Kramp-Karrenbauer is apparently unaware of the failed attempts to conquer the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union in the 19th and 20th centuries.

As part of the anti-Russia propaganda drive, some truly impressive photographs were published by Western media recently showing maritime drills, dubbed Exercise Ragnar Viking, that involved vessels of the British Royal Navy, US Navy, the French Navy and the Royal Norwegian Navy. The Drive reported that, according to the US Navy, the drills were intended to “showcase high-end NATO cohesion, solidarity, and credibility in the Norwegian, North, and Baltic Seas”. The article also said that specific elements of the exercise “included a demonstration of long-range strike capabilities from the North Atlantic into Lithuania, amphibious landings in Norway, plus anti-submarine warfare and surface action group operations in the North Atlantic”.

Unfortunately, the aforementioned examples are not the only ones indicative of a vengeful policy toward Russia adopted recently by the United States and its NATO allies, which is in direct contrast to statements made by President Joe Biden and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken expressing willingness to have a more stable and predictable relationship with the Russian leadership.

*

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.

Valery Kulikov is a political expert, writing for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

Shocking Case of Academic Censorship

June 6th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Propaganda is an organized attempt to get large numbers of people to think or do something — or not think or do something. It’s not like classical rhetoric, which is about persuasion through argument, but rather a means of sub-rational manipulation

For the past two decades, professor Mark Crispin Miller has taught a course on propaganda at New York University, in the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development

In September 2020 after urging his students to look into the scientific rationale for the mask mandates, to assess the truthfulness of the propaganda drive promoting them, he was subject to an administrative “review” for that and other alleged crimes

Miller is suing 19 of his department colleagues for libel after they signed a letter to the school dean demanding that “review” of Miller’s conduct, falsely accusing him of “explicit” hate speech, mounting “attacks on students” “advocating for an unsafe learning environment” and discouraging his class from wearing masks

Miller’s case shows that the infringement of academic freedom is inimical to independent thinking and free inquiry. Without such freedom, higher education is more than likely to teach students only to believe what they are told by state and corporate powers, which means not educating them at all — a failure damaging to them and catastrophic for democracy

*

Watch the video here.

In this interview, professor Mark Crispin Miller, Ph.D., provides us with a startling example of a crackdown on academic freedom, with dire implications for free speech in America today. Ironically, it was his teaching students how to question propaganda, and to resist it, that brought on the curtailment of his academic freedom, after over 20 years of teaching that important subject at New York University.

His experience at NYU in the fall of 2020 culminated in his suing 19 of his department colleagues for libel — a case that has become a major flashpoint in the larger struggle to defend free speech and academic freedom, not just in the United States, but throughout the West today. Miller explained how he had come to teach the study of the media, and propaganda in particular:

“I had learned, as an English major, how to read literary texts closely and carefully to discover their hidden depths … and I discovered to my delight that you could do that with great movies as well. The more closely you watch them, and the more times you watch them, the more you see in them.

I then began to notice that TV commercials were also extremely subtle. As propaganda messages, they were really very carefully done so that they would appeal to you on both a conscious and an unconscious level. So, I started writing about those, and then about political rhetoric.

I started writing more and more about the media, and I was favoring magazines for [a] public readership … I wanted to reach more than just an academic audience from the beginning. And I quickly felt the urgency of alerting people to what the media was doing

By the ’90s, it had become a crisis, as a handful of transnational corporations were controlling most of the content that everybody was absorbing, news and entertainment alike, and it was getting worse and worse. So, I started to become an activist for media reform. I wrote a great deal on this and lectured about it very widely.

This is through the ’90s — and you can see how successful I was. The Telecom[munications] bill of 1996, signed by Bill Clinton, set the seal on the creation of a media monolith, The Media Trust, which had already started in earnest under Reagan. Now, it was really getting serious.

Fast forward to 2001 … I shifted my interest from media concentration to the urgent need for voting reform, because it was becoming ever clearer that the outcome of our elections does not necessarily reflect the will of the electorate … As you can see, my interests were becoming more and more taboo.”

The Rise of State-Corrupted Corporate Media

Signs of trouble emerged in 2005, when Miller published the book “Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform.” Miller and his publisher had hoped the book would open the door to nationwide discussion of the need for radical reform of the election system, but to their surprise, the book was instantly “blacklisted” by the corporate media. No one would review it.

“I even hired my own publicist,” Miller says. “This is the woman who is the publicist for Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert. She came in full of piss and vinegar, [saying] ‘We’re going to really make this [book] famous.’ And she’d never encountered such resistance. She couldn’t get anywhere.”

Oddly, it was the LEFT press — for which he had often written — that now labeled Miller a “conspiracy theorist” — a stigma that’s stuck with him ever since. The slander drove him to investigate more deeply. “I asked myself, when did this become a thing?” he says. “When did ‘conspiracy theory’ come to spring from everybody’s lips?”

Miller went to the archives of The New York Times, The Washington Post and Time magazine, searching for the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist.” Up until 1967, “conspiracy theory” was used only from time to time in various ways, while the term “conspiracy theorist” was never used.

From 1967 onward, however, “conspiracy theory” was used with increasing frequency. Why? Because, in early 1967, the CIA sent a memo — No. 1035-96 — to all its station chiefs worldwide, instructing them to use their media assets to attack the works of Mark Lane, Edward Jay Epstein and other investigators who were questioning the Warren Report for its ludicrous assertion that “lone gunman” Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy.

The memo advised the use of certain lines of attack — what we today call “talking points” — to help discredit those dissenting voices. One was that “If there was a conspiracy that big, somebody would have talked by now” — a dismissive claim that’s still in use today, especially concerning 9/11. Another tactic the agency advised was to associate the “conspiracy theories” with communist subversion, thereby casting wholly reasonable inquiry as a threat to the “free world.”

“This raises a profoundly important issue about democracy in general,” Miller says, “as to whether it’s possible when you have the media, the press, covertly manipulated by the state. And, it is part of this hidden history of America that … we all need to understand if we want to get a clear sense of what’s happening now.”

As Miller started advocating for media reform, he was hired by the late Neil Postman to teach at the NYU.

“He hired me in part because he wanted another public intellectual on the faculty … who was critical of the media. He shared my view that the whole purpose of media study should be to help inform people generally about the urgent need for a properly functioning democratic media system,” Miller says.

“I used to feel that media literacy should be taught in every high school and college. I still believe that, but I now realize that a key component of that curriculum has to be propaganda study. It’s crucial.”

Over the years, NYU’s media studies department ballooned and shifted direction, becoming more diffuse, more theoretically inclined and more fixated on the pieties of “social justice” — a phrase that Miller points out has been appropriated to mean something other than what it used to mean. Indeed, the “social justice” issue has a great deal to do with the censorship — the “canceling” — of professor Miller.

COVID Propaganda

While it acquaints his students with the history of modern propaganda — its birth in World War I, its use by the Bolsheviks and by the Nazis — Miller’s course on propaganda is primarily concerned with teaching students to perceive and analyze propaganda in real time, or to look back at very recent propaganda drives.

This is not an easy thing to do, he warns his students, since, while it’s easy to spot propaganda that you disagree with, it can be very difficult to recognize it as propaganda when it tells you something that you want to hear, and want to think is true.

“That’s the most effective propaganda,” Miller says. “It works best when you don’t see it for what it is. You think it’s news. You think it’s entertainment. You think it’s information. You think it’s expertise. So, you will agree with it. Someone else out there is spewing disinformation, but you’re getting the real thing.

So, it’s hard to study propaganda, because you must make an effort to pull back and be as impartial as possible. Read comprehensively, do all the research you can [on] all sides of that issue. See what the propaganda has blacked out. See what the propaganda has stigmatized as fake, as hoax, as junk science, and look at it objectively.

What’s hard is that you have to move out of your comfort zone. Sometimes you discover that a thing you’d fervently believed for years was false, or half true. I’ve had this experience myself many, many times.”

Miller made these points at the first “meeting” (via Zoom) of his propaganda course in September 2020, noting that such a thorough and impartial propaganda study can be difficult, not just because it makes you question your own views. Such a study can also pose a social challenge, as your discoveries may come as a shock to those around you — friends, roommates, family, even other of your teachers, who’ve never looked into the matter for themselves.

“The COVID crisis has been driven by a number of propaganda themes,” Miller says. However, the word “propaganda” does not automatically mean that the information is false or malign. Propaganda can be true and used for benevolent ends. Public service ads encouraging you not to smoke, for example, are a form of propaganda.

The problem with propaganda is that it’s inherently biased and one-sided, which can become outright dangerous if the other side is censored. This is particularly so when it comes to medicine and health, and the censoring of COVID-19 treatment information and the potential hazards of the COVID vaccines is a perfect example of this.

“Propaganda is an organized attempt to get large numbers of people to think or do something — or not think or do something. That’s really all it is. That’s an informal definition but it’s a good one,” Miller says.

“It’s not like classical rhetoric, which is about persuasion through argument. [Propaganda] is a kind of sub-rational manipulation. It’s been with us for a long time, but the rise of the digital world, our absorption into the digital universe, has radically intensified this kind of effort and made it successful beyond the wildest dreams of [Nazi minister of propaganda] Dr. [Joseph] Goebbels or [profession public relations pioneer] Edward Bernays.

This incredible technological sophistication enables them, first of all, to move people at the deepest level. It also enables them to suppress dissidents with remarkable efficiency, spotting the word ‘vaccine’ in a post and then blocking it.

At the same time, it gives them an astonishing advantage when it comes to surveillance of every single one of us … It is going to require a tremendous amount of skill and sophistication on our part, to organize under that watchful eye.”

Academic Censorship

One topic Miller suggested studying in that first meeting of his propaganda course last fall, was the mask mandates. Miller made it clear that he was NOT telling the students not to wear masks, but that this would be a purely intellectual exercise.

Such study (which was not an assignment, but only a suggestion) would consist of reading through the scientific literature on masking: specifically, all the randomized, controlled studies of masking and the use of respirators in hospital settings — studies finding that those face coverings do NOT prevent transmission of respiratory viruses; and, as well, the several recent studies finding otherwise.

He also offered tips on how non-scientists can assess new scientific studies: by looking at reviews by other scientists, and by noting the university where a given study was conducted, and to see if it has any financial ties to Big Pharma and/or the Gates Foundation, as such a partnership may have influenced the researchers there.

The following week, a student who missed that introductory talk (she had joined the class late) was present when the subject of masks came up again, and she was so enraged by Miller’s emphasis on the importance of those prior studies (whose consensus had been echoed by the CDC until early April 2020, and by the WHO until early June 2020), that she took to Twitter, accusing him of endangering the students’ health, and of posting on his website (News from Underground) material “from far-right and conspiracy sites” — and demanding that NYU fire him.

“I was kind of floored by this,” Miller says. “This has never happened to me before. It was unpleasant, but it was her First Amendment right to express herself on Twitter, so that per se was not such a big deal. However, what happened immediately after that is not acceptable.”

The department chair, without consulting with Miller, responded to the student’s tweet with his thanks, adding: “We as a department have made this a priority, and discussing next steps.” The next day, Carlo Ciotoli, the doctor who advises the NYU on its stringent COVID rules, and Jack Knott, the dean of Steinhardt, emailed Miller’s students, without putting him on copy, hinting that he’d given them “dangerous misinformation.”

They also provided them with “authoritative public health guidance” — i.e., links to studies recommended by the CDC, finding that masks are effective against transmission of COVID-19. Thus, they told the students to believe those newer studies that Miller had already recommended, whereas he encouraged them to make up their own minds.

Shortly after that, the department chair asked Miller to cancel next semester’s propaganda course, “for the good of the department,” on the pretext that Miller’s film course would attract more students, so that he should teach TWO sections of that course. (Both courses admit 24 students.) Miller agreed, as the chair has that prerogative, but he did so under protest; and, he couldn’t let the matter go.

“I mean, I’m teaching a propaganda course, and look what happened,” Miller says. “So, with the help of some friends, including Mickey Huff, who runs Project Censored, I wrote a petition1 that people can find at Change.org. The only ‘ask’ in that petition is that NYU respect my academic freedom and set a good example for other schools.

But I did it in the name of all those professors, doctors, scientists, activists, journalists and whistleblowers who have been gagged or persecuted for their dissidence, not just over this last year, when it’s reached a kind of crisis point, but really for decades. It’s been going on for far too long, initially on the fringes, but now it’s happening all over the place.”

‘Slanderous Lunacy’

A month after the student attacked Miller on Twitter, he received an email from the dean, informing him that he was ordering a review of Miller’s conduct at the request of 25 of his department colleagues, whose letter to him was attached.

“I thought I’d seen everything,” Miller says. “[The letter] starts by saying, ‘We believe in academic freedom.’ The email from the dean and doctor also started saying ‘We believe in academic freedom,’ so I’ve learned that when somebody comes up and says, ‘I believe in academic freedom,’ you need to brace yourself because there’s a big buck coming. And that’s what happened with this letter from my colleagues.

‘We believe in academic freedom, BUT, as the faculty handbook points out, if a colleague’s behavior is sufficiently heinous, it can obviate his or her academic freedom. And we believe that’s the case with Professor Miller,’ it read.

Now, I think what the faculty handbook is referring to is if a professor tries to rape a student or uses lynch mob language against minority students or something like that. They put me in that category. Why? First of all, they said I discouraged students from wearing masks, and even intimidated those who were wearing masks, which is false to the point of insanity.

It was a Zoom class. I’ve never heard of a student wearing a mask on Zoom, although maybe that will be mandatory at some point. But my mask heresy was the least of it. They went on to charge me with ‘explicit hate speech,’ launching ‘attacks on students and others in our community,’ assailing my students with ‘non-evidence-based’ arguments or theories, ‘advocating for an unsafe learning environment,’ [and] ‘micro-aggressions and aggressions.’

I read this with increasing wonderment. If they had decided to craft a description of a professor completely antithetical to the way I teach, they couldn’t have done a better job. This was slanderous lunacy. They basically picked up where that student left off.”

Libel Suit Underway

In a Zoom “meeting,” Knott informed Miller that he had ordered the review at the behest of NYU’s lawyers, who told him that he must — a revelation that Miller finds significant, there being, in fact, no legal grounds for that review.

Soon afterward, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonprofit dedicated to protecting academic freedom, sent Andrew Hamilton, NYU’s president, a detailed letter going through the case law, demonstrating clearly that the dean’s review is illegitimate, and that the president should intervene, and quash. He did not reply.

Knott told Miller that the “review” would end with the semester — i.e., by mid-December 2020. Yet, seven months after it was ordered, Miller still has not heard anything about that putative “review” — which may have been put on hold, or quietly called off, because of what Miller did about his colleagues’ letter.

“After I talked to the dean, I went through the letter they wrote with a fine-tooth comb and crafted a cordial point-by-point rebuttal. I asked for a retraction and an apology, and they ignored it. A week later, I sent it again. I said, ‘Please, by November 20th I’d like you to retract this and apologize.’ Nothing.

So, I decided I had no choice. I certainly wasn’t going to let this go. It was outrageous, and represents, inside the academy, the kind of persecution and suppression that we see going on worldwide, throughout so-called democracies. So, I decided I had to sue them for libel.”

Support Free Speech Rights and Academic Freedom

At the time of this interview, Miller was waiting for the judge to rule on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. All of the documents relating to this case can be found on Miller’s website, MarkCrispinMiller.com.2 If you want to make a donation to help fund Miller’s legal case, you can do so on his GoFundMe page.3

“I’m trying to raise $100,000,” he says, “because I expect this to be a protracted and costly fight with depositions. The money goes directly into an escrow account that my lawyer manages, so I’m not profiting off this personally. Nor am I only doing it on my own behalf, as with the petition.

They have hurt me greatly. Not only professionally, within the institution and beyond, because word of this has traveled, but also physically, because the stress of that ordeal has really slowed my recovery from Lyme disease, which I’ve been battling for 10 years.

I became so ill from this that I ended up in the ER at NYU, in January. So, I am on medical leave this semester. I’ve just been working on my health and telling my story, so that I can prevail in the court of public opinion. But it isn’t just about me, my health, my career. It really is about all of us.

It’s about you, it’s about Bobby Kennedy, Sucharit Bhakdi and John Ioannidis. It’s about the Frontline Doctors and the signers of the Great Barrington Declaration. It’s about what appears to be a majority of expert opinion on some level, while the medical establishment, like the academy and the media, is utterly corrupt.

There are a lot of people of conscience, doctors who observe their Hippocratic oath, professors who believe in trying to teach the truth, journalists who have no place to publish because they’re actually trying to report the other side of a narrative that is increasingly preposterous and lethal. It’s for all of us because, as many have observed, once free speech goes, and with it, academic freedom, that’s the whole ballgame. That’s the end.

If we can’t even talk about what’s happening, if we end up being accused of conspiracy theory — which is now openly equated with domestic terrorism — if we’re accused of hate speech (which is out of the social justice playbook), and if we’re accused of dangerous misinformation about the virus, which has been happening all year, if we encounter any of those three responses to our attempts to tell the truth, then we are vilified and marginalized.

And my colleagues managed to hit me with all three in that letter. They accuse me of conspiracy theory, they accuse me of hate speech and they accuse me of doing the students harm by discouraging them from wearing masks.

All false. All I did was urge my class to read through all the literature on masks and make up their own minds as an example of the kind of thing they should do with all these narratives.”

Beyond infringing on freedom of speech, Miller’s case shows how censorship ultimately ends up chilling independent thinking and curbing your freedom of inquiry — the freedom to ask questions and ponder an issue or problem from multiple angles.

And, without the ability to think freely and express one’s thoughts, life itself becomes more or less meaningless as well as dangerous, while higher education becomes nothing more than training for compliance, as students are each trained to “do what you’re told,” as Dr. Anthony Fauci put it so gleefully November 12, 2020.

Big Lies Are Protected by Public Incredulity

To learn more about Miller’s case, visit markcrispinmiller.com. Miller also publishes a daily newsletter of banned news that you can sign up for. In closing, Miller notes:

“I believe that what’s happening now is the culmination of a quiet history of eugenics in the West that starts at the beginning of the 20th century — a movement that was forced underground by the Holocaust, because that was a big embarrassment, and [that] reemerged in the early ’50s as a movement for population control.

People don’t want to understand this. They want to see Bill Gates as a benign figure, as a kind of Father Teresa bringing happiness and health … They don’t want to know that his father was an intimate of the Rockefellers and sat on the Board of Planned Parenthood, not because he was a feminist, but because he really did believe … that abortion is one tool for getting rid of the unfit.

There is a eugenic discourse now being floated on the op-ed page in The New York Times where Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel writes that we shouldn’t expect to live past 75.

He treats it kind of half-jokingly, but if you then look at the toll that this crisis has taken on the elderly — in particular what’s happened in the nursing homes in California, New York, Michigan, Washington and North Carolina, as well as in Canada, Britain and Sweden.

They housed COVID patients in nursing homes. This has the look of what Dr. Vernon Coleman has called eldercide, but nobody wants to think that’s what’s going on. Marshall McLuhan said, ‘Little lies don’t need to be protected. But the big lies are protected by public incredulity.’ That is to say, ‘Come on, you’re crazy, they wouldn’t do that.’

It’s easier to call people ‘conspiracy theorists’ than it is to face the likelihood, or even the remote possibility, that what we’re saying is true. There are many ‘conspiracy theories’ that over the decades have turned out to be completely true. So, we have to make sure people know it through every means available. And now it’s quite urgent.”

*

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 Change.org, Academic Freedom Petition

2 MarkCrispinMiller.com MCM’s Libel Lawsuit

3 Gofundme.com Help Mark Crispin Miller Sue for Libel

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

Unthinkable Thoughts. The Spike Protein

June 6th, 2021 by Josh Mitteldorf

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

This essay is inspired by Dr Mercola’s announcement last week that [May] (reading between the lines) his life and his family’s have been threatened if he doesn’t remove from his web site a peer-reviewed study demonstrating the benefits of vitamin D and zinc in prevention of the worst COVID outcomes. In the present Orwellian era, where propaganda and deception are ubiquitous, one of the signposts of truth that I have learned to respect is that the most important truths are the most heavily censored.

*

This is not what I enjoy writing about, but as I find dark thoughts creeping into my consciousness, perhaps it is better to put them on paper with supporting logic and invite my readers to help me clarify the reasoning and, perhaps, to point a way out of the darkness.

Already in January, 2020, two ideas about COVID were emerging. One is that there were people and institutions who seemed to have anticipated the event, and were planning for it for a long time. Gates, Fauci, the World Economic Forum, and Johns Hopkins School of Medicine were among the prescient. (I credit the (now deleted) videos of Spiro Skouras.) Second was the genetic evidence suggesting that COVID had a laboratory origin. Funders of the scientific establishment have lost their bid to ridicule this idea, and it has now leaked into the mainstream, where it is fused with the classical yellow peril propaganda: “China did it!”. I have cited evidence that America is likely equally culpable.

The confluence of these two themes suggests the dark logic that I take for my topic today: Those who knew in advance, not only that there would be a pandemic but that it would be a Coronavirus, were actually responsible for engineering this pandemic.

Immediately, I think: How could people capable of such sociopathic enormities be occupying the most powerful circles of the world’s elite? And what would be their motivation? I don’t have answers to these questions, and I will leave speculation to others. But there’s one attractive answer that I find less compelling: that it’s a money-maker for the large and criminal pharmaceutical industry. The new mRNA vaccines are already the most profitable drugs in history, but I think that shutdown of world economies, assassinations of world leaders, deep corruption of science, and full-spectrum control of the mainstream narrative imply a larger power base than can plausibly be commanded by the pharma industry.

Instead, I’ll try to follow the scientific and medical implications of the hypothesis that COVID is a bioweapon.

The Spike Protein

The spike protein is the part of the virus structure that interfaces with the host cell. SARS 1 and SARS 2 viruses both have spike proteins that bind to a human cell receptor called ACE-2, common in lung cells but also present in other parts of the body. Binding to the cell’s ACE-2 receptor is like the wolf knocking at the door of Little Red Riding Hood’s grandmother. “Hello, grandmama. I’m your granddaughter. Please let me in.” The virus is a wolf wearing a red cape and hood, pretends to be an ACE-2 enzyme molecule seeking entrance to the cell.

In order to enter the cell, the virus must break off from the spike protein and leave it at the doorstep, so to speak. This is an important and difficult step, as it turns out. Unique to the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a trick for making the separation. Just at the edge of the protein is a furin cleavage site. Furin is an enzyme that snips protein molecules, and it is common in our bodies, with legitimate metabolic uses. A furin cleavage site is a string of 4 particular amino acids that calls to furin, “hey — come over here. I’m a protein that needs snipping.”

The most compelling evidence for a laboratory origin of COVID is that coronaviruses don’t have furin cleavage sites, and until last year, this trick has never evolved naturally.

How we think about natural disease

The classical understanding of a viral or bacterial disease is this: A parasite is an organism that uses the host’s resources for its own reproduction. It is evolved to reproduce efficiently. If it has co-evolved with the host, it may be evolved to spare the host’s health, or even to promote it, because this is the optimal long-term strategy for any predator or parasite. But newly-emerged parasites can do well for awhile even if they disable or kill their hosts, and this is the kind of disease that is most damaging to us. The damage is done because the (young) virus’s strategy is to reproduce rapidly and disperse itself into the environment where it can find new hosts. The virus has no interest in harming the host, and was not evolved to this end, but this is a side-effect of commandeering the body’s resources for its own reproduction.

How engineered diseases can be different

A bioweapon virus is designed to cause a certain kind of harm.

  • What kind of harm? It depends on the projected use for the weapon.
  • Doesn’t the virus have to reproduce? Probably, for most weapon applications; but a bioweapon is not necessarily designed for rapid reproduction. A bioweapon can be designed as a “sleeper” to remain dormant for months or years, or to cause incremental disability over a long period.

If COVID had evolved naturally, we would expect that its spike protein would be adapted to mate well with the human ACE-2 receptor. There’s no reason to suspect it being otherwise biologically active. But if COVID is engineered, it may be that the spike protein itself has been designed to make us sick.

One reason this is significant is that the vaccines have all been designed around the spike protein, assuming that the spike protein were metabolically neutral. If the virus had been naturally evolved, this is a reasonable assumption. But if it came from a laboratory (whether it leaked or was deliberately released) the spike protein might be actually be the agent of damage. There are several reasons to suspect that this is the case.

The Spike Protein as an Active Pathogen

Back in February, 2020, this article noted that the spike protein was not perfectly optimized to bind to human ACE-2 and put this forward as an proof that “SARS-CoV-2 is not a purposefully manipulated virus.” But if someone were designing the virus to cause harm, the spike protein would be a convenient locus for the damage vector, so the spike might have been designed with twin purposes in mind, binding and toxicity. The spike protein appears in many copies around the “crown” of the coronavirus. Since each copy has a furin cleavage site at its base, many spike proteins will break off into the bloodstream. We now have several reports and hypotheses concerning the spike protein as an active agent of damage. The spike protein is suspected of causing blood clots, of inducing long-lasting neurological damage, and of causing infertility. Many anecdotes describe injuries to un-vaccinated people who have been in close proximity to vaccinated, prompting speculation about “shedding” the spike protein.

“Individuals with COVID-19 experience a vast number of neurological symptoms, such as headaches, ataxia, impaired consciousness, hallucinations, stroke and cerebral hemorrhage. But autopsy studies have yet to find clear evidence of destructive viral invasion into patients’ brains, pushing researchers to consider alternative explanations of how SARS-CoV-2 causes neurological symptoms….

If not viral infection, what else could be causing injury to distant organs associated with COVID-19? The most likely culprit that has been identified is the COVID-19 spike protein released from the outer shell of the virus into circulation. Research cited below* has documented that the viral spike protein is able to initiate a cascade of events that triggers damage to distant organs in COVID-19 patients.

Worryingly, several studies have found that the spike proteins alone have the capacity to cause widespread injury throughout the body, without any evidence of virus.

What makes this finding so disturbing is that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines manufactured by Moderna and Pfizer and currently being administered throughout the U.S. program our cells to manufacture this same coronavirus spike protein as a way to trigger our bodies to produce antibodies to the virus.” [Global Research article, Feb 2021]

Note: the Astra-Zeneca and J&J vaccines are also based on the spike protein, and cause the spike protein to be created in the vaccinated person.

“Research cited below” refers to this study in Nature which reports that the spike protein, injected into mice, crosses into the brain, where it causes neurological damage.

Bigger news came just this week from a study in which researchers from California’s Salk Institute collaborated with Chinese virologists. They have found that the bare spike protein without the virus (injected in mice) can cause damaged arteries of the kind that lead to heart disease and strokes in humans. The original paper was published in Circulation Research, and the Salk Institute issued a news report describing the research.

One of the most credible dangers of the spike protein involves fertility. None of the vaccines were tested in pregnant women, and yet many government and other authorities are recommending it as safe for pregnant women. VAERS has reported 174 miscarriages to date after COVID vaccination. VAERS is notoriously underreported. I find the anecdotes less concerning than the fact that no one is taking this seriously, and research is being actively discouraged in the best-respected science journals.

There is a credible mechanism, in that the spike protein is partially homologous to syncytin. Syncytin, in fact, was originally a retroviral protein, inserted into the mammalian genome many aeons ago, and evolved over the ages to play an essential role in reproduction, binding the placenta to the fetus. An immune response that attacks syncytin might be expected to be impose a danger of spontaneous abortion. In any ordinary times, this would be a subject that medical researchers would jump on, with animal tests and field surveys to assess the danger. But these are no ordinary times, and the risk is being dismissed on theoretical grounds without investigation. This is especially suspicious in the context of history: a Gates Foundation vaccination program in 1995 was allegedly promoted to young women, causing infertility. (Yes, I know there are many fact-checkers eager to “debunk” this story, but I don’t find them convincing, and some of these fact-checkers are compromised by Gates funding.)

Even doing what the spike protein is supposed to do — tying up ACE2 — can be a problem for our lungs and arteries, which are routinely protected by ACE2.

The most dangerous possibility, suspected but not verified, is that the spike protein causes a prion cascade. Prions are paradoxical pathogens, in that they are misfolded proteins that cause misfolded proteins. Their evolutionary etiology is utterly mysterious, so much so that it took Stanley Prusiner a decade after describing the biology of prions before the scientific community would take prion biochemistry seriously. But prions make potent bioweapons, which laboratories can design outside of natural evolutionary dynamics. The possibility of prion-like structures in the spike protein was noted very early in the pandemic based on a computational study. This recent review combines theoretical, laboratory, and observational evidence to make a case for caution. Once again, I find it disturbing that this possibility is being dismissed on theoretical grounds rather than investigated in the lab and the field.

Where did the idea come from that all vaccines are automatically safe? Why do so many journalists dismiss the suggestion that vaccines should be placebo-tested individually, like all other drugs? Why has it become routine to ridicule and denigrate scientists who ask questions about vaccine safety as politically-motivated luddites, or “anti-vaxxers”? How did we get to a situation where the “precautionary principle” means pressuring young people who are at almost no risk for serious COVID to accept a vaccine which has not been fully tested or approved? I don’t have answers, but I do know who benefits from this culture.

Putting together all the evidence

  • Knowledge beforehand
  • Suppression of treatments and cures
  • Toxicity of the spike protein which, if it had been made by nature, should have been benign
  • Inclusion of the spike protein
  • Heavy promotion of scantily-tested vaccines and
  • Censorship of scientists and doctors who question the vaccines’ safety

… putting together all this evidence, it is difficult to escape the inference that powerful people and organizations have engineered this pandemic with deadly intent.

*

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, Josh Mitteldorf.

Pfizer “Largest Health Care Fraud” 2009

Déjà Vu: Flash Forward to 2020-2021

How on earth could you trust a Big Pharma vaccine conglomerate which pleaded guilty to criminal charges by the US Department of Justice including “fraudulent marketing” and “felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act”?

The 2020-2021 mRNA vaccine violations far surpass the health care fraud committed by Pfizer Inc in 2009.

“Fraudulent marketing” is an understatement: The mRNA vaccine announced by Pfizer – BioNTech is based on an experimental gene editing mRNA technology which has a bearing on the human genome. 

The standard animal lab tests using mice or ferrets were not conducted.  Pfizer “went straight to human “guinea pigs.”

M. Ch,   Global Research Editor, May 15, 2021

***

VIDEO. US Department of Justice (DOJ) Statement

$2.3 Billion  Medical Fraud settlement with Pfizer

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 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a database managed by the CDC that collects reports of health problems experienced after taking a vaccine.

It aims to identify potential side effects that premarket safety testing may have missed. According to the CDC, VAERS is supposed to be “the nation’s frontline system for monitoring vaccine safety.” This is especially critical for the COVID-19 shots, since they were the first to go on the market without the long-term safety testing required for FDA approval. See Part 1 of this series.

You would hope that if a new vaccine wound up getting more death reports in five months than all the others combined over the entire previous 28 years, that might warrant some attention.

Think again.

An army of journalists and self-proclaimed fact-checkers stand ready to besiege anyone who dares to report on this astonishing data. Not only is there nothing to see, suggesting otherwise makes you a conspiracy theorist or a far-right extremist, according to our betters in the fake news media.

But empty vilification hasn’t been the only scurrilous technique employed by the powers-that-be.

Real Number of Deaths Unknown

VAERS relies entirely on voluntary reporting, but hardly anyone knows it exists, so it is bound to capture a mere fraction of actual side effects.

When Tucker Carlson drew attention to the reports piling up in VAERS, the Washington Post, Forbes, and most other disparagers failed to mention his explicit reference to a group of Harvard researchers who conclusively demonstrated that the VAERS detection rate is abysmal. Again, see Part 1 of this series.

Carlson’s conclusion that nobody actually knows the true number of people who’ve died after Covid vaccination was flippantly assailed by the odious propagandists at Media Matters. They made an irrelevant rebuttal which involved a blatant lie:

But, that data does exist. While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention oversees VAERS, it also runs the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). [Media Matters]

But of course the data exists somewhere. Carlson’s point was that no one has collected and analyzed it to determine the true number of post-COVID-vaccine deaths.

Moreover, it doesn’t exist at VSD, which contains information from only nine healthcare facilities scattered across the US — not the entire country. And its purpose is to “conduct studies based on questions or concerns already raised by the medical literature and reports to VAERS,” not to be a frontline detection system in its own right.

So, someone would have to actively sift through the VSD data to know the number of post-vaccination deaths experienced at just those nine facilities. And there’s zero indication anyone has done even that.

Not only does nobody know the real number of Americans who’ve died after taking a Covid vaccine, no one in charge seems to even care.

The media outlets providing our vaccine overlords cover have also kept despicably silent about how few reports were coming in prior to the COVID-19 vaccines. The media excoriated people for mentioning a “mere” 4,000 death reports in five months, without mentioning that before the Covid vaccines came along, VAERS had only exceeded 200 death reports in an entire year once in its three-decade history.

Again, the VAERS tally shows 1,000 more deaths than the number of people who perished on 9/11.

But the point is that, from beginning to end, Carlson made it clear his main point wasn’t even about VAERS.

His subject was the bullying and censorship that’s getting heaped on “anyone who dares to question vaccines,” and he spent more time chronicling disturbing cases than he did on VAERS.

Nothing could have proven Carlson’s point better than the dishonest responses twisting both his words and the facts.

As Carlson noted, the data piling up in VAERS doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about the Covid vaccines. Maybe, the relentless publicity has massively increased the likelihood that potential side effects will get reported.

But without looking into the matter, it’s just as likely that reporting has been suppressed by the vilification of anyone who so much as raises the possibility that getting jabbed is anything less than perfectly harmless.

Who knows? The fact is we won’t until someone looks.

Whatever the case may be, the volume of death reports flooding VAERS is extraordinary. The effort to destroy anyone saying otherwise makes a full investigation much less likely and could portend something very dark indeed.

We’ve barely plumbed the depths of the VAERS cover-up.

Preposterous lies

The narrative gatekeepers are also hiding a significant source of undercounting that’s likely occurring precisely because of the unprecedented volume of reports coming in.

Moreover, they’ve frequently done so by saying something both false and preposterous.

Jack Brewster of Forbes, for example, both revealed and justified the utter contempt he has for his readers’ intelligence with this risible nonsense:

 VAERS is designed to allow anyone to report an event, meaning the data is unverified… [Forbes]

But, in case you’re as dopey as the people who read Forbes evidently are, the fact that anyone can submit a report obviously doesn’t mean that they’re being entered into the database without any verification.

The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake showed a little less disdain for his audience by at least taking the trouble to provide a bogus source for his claim that the “data in the VAERS system is unverified.” He linked to another attempt to squash discussion from his fellow charlatans at PolitiFact which, though it does indeed assert that VAERS reports “are not verified before they’re entered into the database,” gives no indication where they’re getting the idea from.

The regime’s vast army of internet trolls would be having a field day if PolitiFact’s unverified claim were true. The CDC’s “frontline system for monitoring vaccine safety” — apart from massively undercounting potential side effects due to a lack of awareness of VAERS among medical personnel (See part 1) — would also be stuffed with reports of people dying of unrelated causes.

You know, like the COVID-19 fatality count.

We’ve known from the beginning that the virus’s official death toll deliberately conflates dying with Covid and dying from Covid. In fact, a number of factors guarantee an unknown but enormous number of bogus entries in the official death toll. The media is suggesting without evidence that the same holds for the post-Covid vaccine fatality reports flooding VAERS, thus proving the old adage that “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

An AP effort to nip any public discussion in the bud contained this flagrantly deceptive remark by Dr. Sean O’Leary, “vice-chair of the committee on infectious diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics and professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado”:

For example, if you get a vaccine and then you get struck by lightning, you can report that to VAERS. [AP]

Indeed, you can. But Dr. O’Leary’s implied suggestion that not only are such reports routinely entered, but that the reports of post-COVID-jab fatalities include so many they can safely be ignored, is such a low-down piece of deception that he ought to be stripped of his medical license.

The regime media use this damning claim not to discredit the CDC, whose word they nonetheless insist we take as gospel, but to malign and bully those who assume that a publicly accessible database isn’t going to be full of garbage data.

If the CDC really isn’t lifting a finger to weed out pranksters and saboteurs, then they’ve got to be deliberately fomenting the supposed irrational “anti-vaccine” sentiment we’re supposed to think is so dangerous.

But, on at least this occasion, the agency appears to be innocent of anything sleazy since they explicitly advise anyone submitting a report that:

You will be contacted by VAERS if follow-up information (i.e., medical records or other medical documentation) is needed. [Dept. of Health and Human Services]

That sentence would clearly seem to indicate that there’s some kind of verification.

But it’s also the 11th response on a page listing 17 questions, each of which has to be clicked to view its answer. And the question itself doesn’t mention verification.

Moreover, after spending a couple hours trying to find out about verification, that one not-easy-to-find nor terribly informative sentence is the only thing that turned up.

So it appears that those in charge at the CDC must be so irredeemably corrupt as to actually want a reporting system in place that barely counts a fraction of potential vaccine side effects. It also looks like they’re not too keen on anyone knowing what happens to VAERS reports between submission and publication. Nor does the CDC appear to provide any information on the related question of lag time, leading most people to assume that what they’re seeing at any given time represents all there currently is.

But you know what they say about assuming.

How many additional reports haven’t been logged in?

There are a lot of reasons to think that side effects are at least so far wildly underreported.

For example, there are as many reports of life-threatening illnesses as there are deaths.

In fact, the COVID-19 vaccines have caused an unprecedented number of reports of any kind.

And, as Alex Berenson noted, it’s likely that any system that’s suddenly showing more reports in a single week than it used to record in an entire year is being overwhelmed enough to have a sizeable backlog.

Berenson also reported on one woman who submitted a VAERS report in January but only received a request for more information in late April. In the interim, a jaw-dropping quarter million reports were added, suggesting that the backlog might be enormous.

But there are also other reasons to think that the CDC must be in possession of an extraordinarily large volume of reports that they’re not telling us about.

Here’s a screenshot from May 12 of the number of COVID-vaccine reports recorded in VAERS, sorted by month of vaccination.

Here’s the same data request on May 28.

As you can see, over 16 days in May, the reports continued to climb for people vaccinated in every month since December. Here’s that May-increase for each vaccination month.

As of May 28, 88% of adverse symptoms reported after Covid vaccination occurred within 15 days and 91% within 30. So, unless a lot of people are waiting several months to file a report, the CDC must have a significant backlog of reports that are getting entered months after they were received.

But also notice that on May 12, the most adverse events were reported for people who’d been vaccinated in January. Adverse event reports then steadily declined for those jabbed in February through April.

And though the May 28 data also shows the most reports for January vaccinations, the reports that were added make the decline less significant and interrupt it, creating second peak for those vaccinated in March.

That makes perfect sense if there’s a backlog getting retroactively filled in since, as you can see below, the total number of doses administered peaked in April and the number of first doses in March.

Absent a backlog, that would mean adverse events were dropping off considerably even as the number of people getting jabbed kept increasing.

Again, not impossible. But a substantial backlog perfectly explains both the early peak in adverse event reports relative to doses administered in the May 12 VAERS data, and why that peak became less pronounced when more adverse events were entered into the system, making the May 28 data better align with the dosage charts.

The upshot of all of this is that, though the CDC is allowing everyone to think that the VAERS data is up-to-date without actually saying so, there’s a lot of interconnecting evidence that a lot more reports must have come in than those we’re currently being allowed to see.

All of this would be bad enough by itself. But when placed in the larger context of the other deliberate deceptions about COVID-19, it becomes orders of magnitude worse.

When you step back to look at the whole picture, the obfuscation and contempt for evidence surrounding VAERS fits into the same pattern of deliberate deception that has been the norm since Covid first emerged a year and a half ago.

*

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

Michael Thau is a columnist at RedState. He has a PhD in philosophy from Princeton and has been writing extensively on COVID-19 since this nightmare began.

Featured image is from Revolver

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How the Media Hides the Record of Vaccine Deaths. Deceives Americans
  • Tags: , ,

When doctors treat patients early who are over age 50 with medical problems, with a sequence multi-drug approach, the available drugs, 4 to 6 drugs that are available to them now that monoclonal antibodies are better, there’s an 85% reduction in hospitalizations and death! 85%!” – Peter McCollough M.D. appearing before the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services in April. [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

After more than a year, the COVID pandemic has caused significant damage to societies around the globe. [2]

Whether or not you consider the virus be considered real, the world has seen a crushing blow to our liberties, our economies and even our way of life due to the lockdown and restrictions initiated in March of last year. Witness the shops, bars, and restaurants going bankrupt. Witness the museums, operas, concert halls and symphonies denied audiences. And free speech has been challenged as infestations of  media disinformation, online censorship, social engineering and the fear campaign bombards us from all angles in favour of the cherished narrative of V the Virus. [3]

Now almost halfway into 2021, with the vaccine against our collective pet-peeve at our disposal now for 6 months, we are still hearing word of people continuing to die of COVID. [4]

People who got their shot are wondering why the lockdowns continue and for how long. Perhaps the sooner those nasty vaccine hesitant individuals get the shot, perhaps the sooner we vaccinate our children, the horror will all be over and we can return to our pre-plaque lives once again.

So this is the point we come to now. Getting our kids vaccinated, even against the wishes of their parents. And forcing – I mean, persuading our corona colleague friends among the unvaccinated to screw their courage to the sticking place and take the shot as one of our most patriotic duties!

One notable character thrown into the mix that allegedly confuses the public with ‘disinformation’ and ‘conspiracy theories’ are the number of dissident thinkers questioning the rules of medicine and science that disrupt the army of COVID colonels to the rescue. And one set of non-conformists in particular.

We call them doctors.

While the media (present company excluded) has avoided all conversations with these men and women speaking out of turn, they are forming groups and their message still makes it into the minds of people in the U.S., Canada and around the world.

This week on the Global Research News Hour we will have nothing but guests who are doctors weighing in on what the facts tell them about the errors in the official COVID narrative, and what that says about those attacking their position.

In our first half hour, we will have a conversation with Stephen Malthouse MD, a Canadian family physician active with a group of doctors openly questioning measures taken in response to COVID-19. He addresses reasons why Canadians should not bring the risks associated with the vaccine to children as well as the concerns coming from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia and other medical health authorities about punishing those medical practitioners looking to publicly counter official COVID 19 doctrine.

In our second half hour we speak to Peter McCullough MD, leading figure in the U.S., on the dangers the wrongful, he says, treatment of drug therapies for early COVID 19 relief, the dangers of the COVID vaccine and the wrongful measures imposed on the population by health authorities in the U.S.

We also hear clips from the experts among the Pro-COVID vaccine crowd including Anand Kumar MD and Allison McGeer MD.

Stephen Malthouse MD is a Canadian physician who has been in family medical practice for more than 40 years and a member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia since 1978. He is currently involved with the Declaration of Canadian Physicians for Science and Truth, challenging the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and other medical outlets for what they consider an unethical statement to the country’s physicians.

Anand Kumar, MD is both a doctor and a professor of Medicine, Medical Microbiology, and the department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics. He has trained in internal medicine, critical care medicine and infectious diseases. He also co-signed an open letter to the Premier of Manitoba asking for a lock-down in the interests of limiting the exploding cases of Covid-19 hitting the urgent care centres hard.

Allison McGeer MD is a specialist in internal medicine and is a Canadian infectious disease specialist in the Sinai Health System, She has led investigations into the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in Toronto and worked alongside Donald Low. During the COVID-19 pandemic, McGeer has studied how SARS-CoV-2 survives in the air.

Peter McCullough, MD is an internist, cardiologist and editor of two major journals and is one of the most published doctors in the domain of heart and kidney in the world.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 319)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Transcript – Interview with Peter McCullough, June 1, 2021

Global Research: I first asked Dr. McCullough to explain the rise and fall of hydroxychloroquine and similar treatments rather than vaccines.

Peter McCullough: Well, we’ve learned a lot over the last year, and with respect to medical therapy, the first comment I make is that we’ve really learned that the viral infection is very treatable, and it can be treated with many different drug programs. The principles are that a single drug doesn’t work. That drugs need to be given in combination, and no single drug is effective.

You mentioned hydroxychloroquine. We’ve learned that actually you can treat this illness without using any hydroxychloroquine. We’ve interviewed and worked with doctors all over the world. But in general, the Cadillac program would be like what President Trump received. Where he receives a monoclonal antibody infusion up front. And so did Rudy Giuliani. And then the other drugs are sequenced in. We can sequence in hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin plus erythromycin or doxycycline. We can use inhaled steroids now, which are very effective. Pulmicort budesonide, oral corticosteroids, prednisone is perfectly fine. There’s an anti-inflammatory medicine called colchicine very effective.

And then on the back end, we use full-dose aspirin 325 mg, and then we use forms of blood thinners like heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin or oral anticoagulants. In total it’s about 4 to 6 drugs, it’s really only in high-risk patients who need it, aged over 50 with medical problems, and the medications work in synergy with one another. A mild case, maybe only needs five days of treatment, the average person our age, about 10 days, and then some patients, seniors in nursing homes, those individuals over age 80, my experience is it takes about 30 days to treatment. But I’ve successfully managed many patients even up to age 90 years old. I’ve gotten them through the illness, they don’t need to be hospitalized or go on the ventilator. This is really good news for Americans in that this overall approach results in about an 85% reduction in hospitalization and death.

But the interesting thing is what you mentioned, is some of these drugs become so politicized. I did a seminar with Dr Chetty in South Africa, and he said that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin become so politicized he gave up on them. And he just treats the back end of the illness. So he uses a combination of inhaled steroids, oral cortical steroids, uses Singulair or Montelukast and then aspirin and heparin on the back end.

And he’s able to prevent nearly all the hospitalizations in thousands of patients. So what patients in America need to know is they need early treatment. Get a hold of their doctor or quickly get to the telemedicine services. Don’t waste time. We don’t…the only way someone gets admitted to the hospital nowadays is they get no treatment. They sit at home for two weeks, they get progressively sicker, and they end up in the hospital. Doesn’t have to happen.

GR: Someone with COVID goes through three phases: viral replication, inflammation, and abnormal blood clotting. I had the doctor go through the stages.

PM: You picked up on an important development, is that we understand the illness has three dimensions.

First, the very first stage is viral replication. So that’s where drugs that impair the virus, like the monoclonal antibodies, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin…if we could we’d give Remdesivir in the first day. That’s where the drug really works.

But after the first few days of viral replication, what happens is the dangerous Spike Protein on the outside of the virus, that’s the spicules structure that you see on the ball, that triggers blood vessel damage and inflammation. You’re at very high levels, this virus has a cytokine signature we’ve never seen before. Very high levels of interleukin 6, it just knocks your socks when we see it. And that level of association is associated with high fever, patients don’t feel good, muscle aches, sometimes GI disturbances, the microbiome gets disturbed.

And then, what is triggered is abnormal blood clotting. We’ve never seen a virus that causes blood clotting like this one does. And the blood clotting is unusual because it’s the Spike Protein impales red blood cells and actually causes red blood cells to stick together. It’s called haemagglutination, and it injures the platelets with a drop in platelet count and cause blood clotting at the same time

So we have a situation where we have viral replication, cytokine storm or inflammation, and abnormal blood coagulation. That’s the reason why a single drug doesn’t work. So I knew that right away. When people declared hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work, or ivermectin doesn’t work, we’ve heard that for every drug. Remdesivir doesn’t work. Convalescent plasma doesn’t work. Well of course, no single drug works because there’s three complicated elements in the infection. And so, what doctors quickly learned, the leading doctors learned, is that we look for a signal of benefit in these drugs, acceptable safety, put them into multi-drug regimens, and that’s how we save patients.

GR: Doctors who recommend this kind of treatment face punishment by the major health departments. Dr. McCullough provides me with some background.

PM: You know, it’s amazing you bring that up, Michael. Millionaire Steve Kirsch has put out a challenge, and it’s a two-million-dollar challenge. He’s done this in the last month. And he says, I challenge anybody to show that the National Institutes of Health or the CDC has done anything right with respect to its treatment recommendations. He challenged that. Not a single person in the world has come forward claiming that the CDC or NIH was right about anything on treatment. That is a stunning revelation, that the entire world understands, that our regulatory bodies have been completely wrong.

So when they state, when they gave, the National Institute of Health put out its first set of guidelines in the fall, it says don’t treat the patient. That is completely wrong. Let the patient get progressively sick. Completely wrong. Let the patient get forced into the hospital. Completely wrong. Once they get into the hospital, still don’t treat them, wait until they require oxygen. Completely wrong. By the time they require oxygen, there are actually micro blood clots in the lungs. So that they recommended that stage to give Remdesivir. Completely wrong.

Remdesivir is actually for a viral replication two weeks earlier. So it is a colossal blunder. Our public health agencies right now, their houses are on fire. We have an absolute disaster at the public health regulatory level, at all stations right now. And America right now is bypassing them.

America is going right to practising doctors, my phone is ringing off the hook, I’ve basically told them, listen, the doctor’s judgment supersedes what our Regulatory Agencies right now. If your doctors tell you, you know, giving the best advice on COVID, we’ve got to go with it. So when a doctor prescribes a medicine for a patient with COVID, that decision reigns supreme. And so this idea that there can be a backlash, or there can be penalties or what have you to doctors, listen we take care of patients with all these different problems across the board all day long.

Am I suddenly going to get penalized if I prescribe a cholesterol medicine? Or if I prescribed a blood thinner for a person with atrial fibrillation? So I certainly can prescribe these medicines for patients with COVID.

GR: Do any of your colleagues listen anyway? People who, well I hear it, but I don’t want to get punished?

PM: Well, you know, people have labelled me as being courageous. Well, I have to tell you, it’s not courage. It’s moral and ethical and fiduciary integrity. And I find it absolutely that anyone would threaten me with actions as I’m trying to take care of a patient using my best judgment with FDA-approved drugs that are prescribed appropriately off-label supported with the best evidence we’ve had. In fact, I published the most widely cited papers on how to do this in the world, and so, this idea is absolutely untenable. All of those who have sought to threaten doctors and intentionally hurt patients… one by one, justice will be served.

– intermission-

GR: In case you just joined us, our guest is Dr. Peter McCullough. He is an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and Professor of Medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine in Dallas. Also a major voice attacking the established agencies involved in fighting COVID.

I next put a question to him about the COVID vaccines.

In a clear-cut manner, based on concrete evidence, can you explain why this vaccine is not safe and effective even though Pfizer and Moderna provided evidence demonstrating 90% efficiency, and that while it’s not fool proof, the risks due to COVID vaccine outweigh the risks to dying of COVID?

PM: I think everyone should understand that we’re all participating in medical history. And so, what we know now is not the same as what we know last year or even six months ago. So we have an evolving knowledge. This is what we know.

It became known in May that the dangerous part of the virus is called the Spike Protein, the spicule on the surface. It’s now known that the Spike Protein was the target of gain-of-function research. It was research done in a Chinese lab partially funded by the United States National Institutes of Health.

This gain-of-function research made the Spike Protein, instead of it being naturally cleaved by an enzyme, a human enzyme called a furin, the gain-of-function research made the Spike Protein impenetrable. It made it super strong. And because now, this virus which was easily handled before by the human body, now the Spike Protein is super strong and it can’t be broken down, it goes right into cells so it’s far more contagious, and when the Spike Protein goes in cells, it’s almost like a shard of glass. It goes through the blood vessels ripping the blood vessels, causing blood clots, causing organ injuries. It’s all about the Spike Protein.

Well, the discovery was that the Spike Protein itself could be utilized to stimulate the body to make antibodies. So the great gamble of the vaccine development program was to trick the body, the human body, our bodies, into making this dangerous Spike Protein, this dangerous gain-of-function research Spike Protein. And that’s what the vaccines are doing. So the messenger RNA vaccines which our Pfizer, Moderna, the adenoviral vaccines which are J&J and AstraZeneca, they all work to cause the human body to produce the Spike Protein.

Now, when the vaccines came out of the clinical trials, our understanding was, and what was in the FDA regulatory binders, is that the vaccination stayed in the arm, it locally stayed in the arm, it didn’t circulate around in the body, that the messenger RNA or the adenoviral genetic material stayed in the muscle in the arm, and the Spike Protein was produced locally. That’s what our understanding was and we formed our reaction to it.

The clinical trials were done in very low-risk people and instead of the standard 24 months of safety, it was truncated to two months, and they recruited very well populations of individuals. In fact, J&J, their clinical trials program recruited 60% of people who had no medical problems, and that’s actually hard to find in research. And they found that whether the patient received placebo or the vaccine, the rate of getting COVID was less than 1%.

So it’s important for Americans and people in the world to understand that the vaccines were developed even in the heat of the pandemic back in the fall, with a chance of coming in contact in less than 1%. And we believe this is true today, that people who get the vaccine they have less than a 1% chance of ever coming in contact with COVID.

So we know that the vaccines as applied today will have no impact on the epidemic curves. They can’t because they have less than a 1% public health impact. The only thing that influences the curves is actually treating the virus and reducing hospitalization and death. Vaccines will never solve the problem because it’s a less than a 1% public health impact.

Well having said that they still looked okay coming out of the gate, and as an internist and cardiologist as a medical doctor, researcher, I see patients everyday, like all other doctors, I recommended the COVID-19 vaccine. In my practice today, 70% of my patients have received the COVID-19 vaccine. I am very pro-vaccine, and I’ve received all the standard vaccines myself.

But what happened over time, Michael, is we started to see cases of patients dying after the vaccine. Seeing patients hospitalized after the vaccine, and in large numbers. And as we sit here today, we’ve had over 4,400 patients die after the COVID-19 vaccine. 40% of them die on Days 1 2 and 3–

GR: Did you say 44,000?

PM: I’m sorry, 4400 patients die after the COVID-19 vaccine. On days 1, 2, and 3, thanks for correcting me, 4400, and we’ve had 14,000 hospitalizations. In Europe, there’s been over 10,000 patients die over the COVID-19 vaccine.

Now people have asked, well how does it stack up compared to other vaccines? Well, I can tell you, that the typical number for all the vaccines, all 70 vaccines in the United States applied to many hundreds of millions of dose administrations, the numbers of deaths or hospitalizations or severe reactions that would ever be reported on a scoreboard would be less than 200 a year.

So the COVID-19 vaccine program in five months has exceeded all the safety parameters and all the safety events of all vaccines administered to all patients in medical history. So people have already claimed that the COVID-19 vaccine program is the most dangerous vaccine program ever carried out in US history.

GR: Yeah. And when it does come up that this is violating protocols, they say well what it’s an emergency use or something like that, that allows it to go ahead?

PM: There’s several aspects of this that are working, I think, against safety. So the first thing is this is an investigational program. So when people take the vaccine, they are required to sign consent that says this is an investigation. That means it’s research, so there should be an unbiased separate clinical event adjudication committee, they should be a data safety monitoring board, there should be an investigational review board or ethics board.

When we do research, there’s always oversight committees that are separate from the sponsors or stakeholders, and here the stakeholders are Pfizer, Moderna, J & J, and AstraZeneca. We know that the World Health Organization, Gavi, Gates Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control, the FDA, and the NIH are all stakeholders. In fact, the National Institutes of Health holds patent positions on the Moderna patent.

So they’re all stakeholders. So we can’t have those people reviewing the deaths and the hospitalizations. America has to have separate panels reviewing these.

Astonishingly, as we sit here today, there are no review panels. There’s no safety checks. There is no safety mechanisms on this program. And because the vaccines are not fully FDA approved, the manufacturers don’t have to present important safety information to patients.

Normally when you get prescribed the drug and you pick it up, a folded sheet of paper that outlines all the safety information, so the patients can be thoroughly informed on safety. Normally when something is advertised on TV, they’ll get the benefits of the drug or agent but they’ll also tell you what the side effects are. Here, because it’s emergency use optimization, there’s no fair balance requirements in place, so the stakeholders are promoting vaccination wildly on TV but they’re not fairly presenting Americans with safety. The only view of safety is to go to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System VAERS And then see the data as they accumulate.

And that’s the reason why these numbers are so shocking. I think they really snuck up on doctors. Doctors have largely been in a trance recommending patients get the vaccines, and when I talk to my colleagues and say, do you realize there’s some 4400 deaths that have occurred? 14000 hospitalizations? It’s really a shock. They’re like where are you getting this information from?

I said these are the events reported to the CDC. I have reported some of these events myself, Michael, it takes about half an hour to do a report. I have to go through many screens, I have to put my doctor’s information, my license, they’re only capturing one of two of the Pfizer Moderna shots, so they have to back-calculate, we have to have the vaccine card and the lot number to do it, they are not keeping track if someone’s already had COVID and they don’t need the vaccine, they’re already immune, they’re not keeping track of that, and so what we know, and there’s serious warnings that say that it’s punishable by imprisonment or federal fines if we falsify the reports. I can tell you all those over 4,400 deaths and over 14,000 hospitalizations, they’ve really occurred, I think they’ve really occurred, and they may be the tip of the iceberg.

GR: There’s also the long-term risks like Bells Palsy or transverse myelitis, other factors, it takes a year or so to reveal. And I don’t think there’s been any significant testing. Do you expect that death could be an even higher priority a year or two from now than it is today?

PM: Well, each week we see more deaths coming in, so we have some states now that are getting to zero COVID deaths per day, in Texas, we’ve had a few of those, so we know on those days there is more vaccine deaths than there are COVID deaths.

I hope Americans understand this. There’s a tremendous price that’s being paid with American lives for this COVID vaccine. The long-term effects, there have been, I think over a thousand cases of Bells Palsy or paralysed of the face on one side reported in the safety database, we know the Spike Protein goes to the brain, the dangerous Spike Protein. It can damage astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, cells inside the brain, and there may be there certainly reports of headaches, blood clots forming in the brain, in fact, the FDA paused the program for blood clots in the brain of women.

In 18 countries in Europe, AstraZeneca was removed from the market for a period of time because of blood clots. Yet the vaccine program goes on and so one of the great concerns is that the vaccine program is offered as being elective by the CDC, it’s simply an elective investigational program, you don’t have to do it.

What’s happened is now it’s been weaponized from a sociological perspective of people feel forced to take this vaccine which they know has serious side effects, they know there are fatalities occurring and hospitalizations occurring during, and so the tension in America is rising every day. I’ve never felt such a tense time where in a sense there’s this vaccine but it’s been weaponized against the people.

GR: Wow. Maybe one more question. I know that there have been very high-profile people like Zelenko and Risch and Didier Raoult. They’ve all been attacked, and I’m wondering with, you’re being very outspoken, and you have the unmitigated gall to be credible, I mean, what kind of threats have you encountered through all of this?

PM: Well I can tell you I’m an internist and cardiologist, I stepped out of my usual role to face the crisis because I did not see infectious disease doctors, allergists, immunologists, pulmonologists, I didn’t see others addressing the millions of Americans who are developing COVID-19 at home. Everyone was focussing in the inpatient realm where we still have ICU mortality rates at 28 days of 38%. The in-hospital outcomes are not good. The opportunity was to treat patients as outpatients, and now there’s such an overwhelming positive response from Americans, we have four national telemedicine services, 15 regional telemedicine services, 250 treating doctors. We have treating doctors in every state.

America has basically just bypassed the Ivory Tower large medical centres, and they’re getting treatment. We had two Senate testimonies on this in the fall, huge breakthrough to America, the treating doctors, in a sense have become American heroes, and as our agency staffers get on TV, and basically bumble on about masks and vaccines, what America… They don’t care about masks and vaccines. They want to know how to get treatment to avoid hospitalization and death.

So what I told to my detractors is that any of my detractors who’ve attempted to personally go after me from an academic or professional perspective, I have over 600 publications in the National Library of Medicine. I have over 40 papers in a year on COVID-19. I have chaired or participated in 24 data safety monitoring boards for the FDA and for the pharmaceutical and device companies, and I’ve also seen and examined and treated patients with COVID-19. To my knowledge, in a single person, in a single person, I am the most experienced and qualified person in the world to opine on COVID-19, and if anybody wants to challenge me on that, bring it on!

GR: Dr. McCullough, it’s been a pleasure and an honour speaking to you today. Thank you so much for your dedicated work and for sharing your analysis with my listeners.

PM: Thank you

GR: I first asked Dr. McCullough to explain the rise and fall of hydroxychloroquine and similar treatments rather than vaccines.

PM: Well, we’ve learned a lot over the last year, and with respect to medical therapy, the first comment I make is that we’ve really learned that the viral infection is very treatable, and it can be treated with many different drug programs. The principles are that a single drug doesn’t work. That drugs need to be given in combination, and no single drug is effective.

You mentioned hydroxychloroquine. We’ve learned that actually you can treat this illness without using any hydroxychloroquine. We’ve interviewed and worked with doctors all over the world. But in general, the Cadillac program would be like what President Trump received. Where he receives a monoclonal antibody infusion up front. And so did Rudy Giuliani. And then the other drugs are sequenced in. We can sequence in hydroxychloroquine or Ivermectin plus erythromycin or doxycycline. We can use inhaled steroids now, which are very effective. Pulmicort budesonide, oral corticosteroids, prednisone is perfectly fine. There’s an anti-inflammatory medicine called colchicine very effective.

And then on the back end, we use full-dose aspirin 325 mg, and then we use forms of blood thinners like heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin or oral anticoagulants. In total it’s about 4 to 6 drugs, it’s really only in high-risk patients who need it, aged over 50 with medical problems, and the medications work in synergy with one another. A mild case, maybe only needs five days of treatment, the average person our age, about 10 days, and then some patients, seniors in nursing homes, those individuals over age 80, my experience is it takes about 30 days to treatment. But I’ve successfully managed many patients even up to age 90 years old. I’ve gotten them through the illness, they don’t need to be hospitalized or go on the ventilator. This is really good news for Americans in that this overall approach results in about an 85% reduction in hospitalization and death.

But the interesting thing is what you mentioned, is some of these drugs become so politicized. I did a seminar with Dr Chetty in South Africa, and he said that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin become so politicized he gave up on them. And he just treats the back end of the illness. So he uses a combination of inhaled steroids, oral cortical steroids, uses Singulair or Montelukast and then aspirin and heparin on the back end.

And he’s able to prevent nearly all the hospitalizations in thousands of patients. So what patients in America need to know is they need early treatment. Get a hold of their doctor or quickly get to the telemedicine services. Don’t waste time. We don’t…the only way someone gets admitted to the hospital nowadays is they get no treatment. They sit at home for two weeks, they get progressively sicker, and they end up in the hospital. Doesn’t have to happen.

GR: Someone with COVID goes through three phases: viral replication, inflammation, and abnormal blood clotting. I had the doctor go through the stages.

PM: You picked up on an important development, is that we understand the illness has three dimensions.

First, the very first stage is viral replication. So that’s where drugs that impair the virus, like the monoclonal antibodies, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin…if we could we’d give Remdesivir in the first day. That’s where the drug really works.

But after the first few days of viral replication, what happens is the dangerous Spike Protein on the outside of the virus, that’s the spicules structure that you see on the ball, that triggers blood vessel damage and inflammation. You’re at very high levels, this virus has a cytokine signature we’ve never seen before. Very high levels of interleukin 6, it just knocks your socks when we see it. And that level of association is associated with high fever, patients don’t feel good, muscle aches, sometimes GI disturbances, the microbiome gets disturbed.

And then, what is triggered is abnormal blood clotting. We’ve never seen a virus that causes blood clotting like this one does. And the blood clotting is unusual because it’s the Spike Protein impales red blood cells and actually causes red blood cells to stick together. It’s called haemagglutination, and it injures the platelets with a drop in platelet count and cause blood clotting at the same time

So we have a situation where we have viral replication, cytokine storm or inflammation, and abnormal blood coagulation. That’s the reason why a single drug doesn’t work. So I knew that right away. When people declared hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work, or ivermectin doesn’t work, we’ve heard that for every drug. Remdesivir doesn’t work. Convalescent plasma doesn’t work. Well of course, no single drug works because there’s three complicated elements in the infection. And so, what doctors quickly learned, the leading doctors learned, is that we look for a signal of benefit in these drugs, acceptable safety, put them into multi-drug regimens, and that’s how we save patients.

GR: Doctors who recommend this kind of treatment face punishment by the major health departments. Dr. McCullough provides me with some background.

PM: You know, it’s amazing you bring that up, Michael. Millionaire Steve Kirsch has put out a challenge, and it’s a two-million-dollar challenge. He’s done this in the last month. And he says, I challenge anybody to show that the National Institutes of Health or the CDC has done anything right with respect to its treatment recommendations. He challenged that. Not a single person in the world has come forward claiming that the CDC or NIH was right about anything on treatment. That is a stunning revelation, that the entire world understands, that our regulatory bodies have been completely wrong.

So when they state, when they gave, the National Institute of Health put out its first set of guidelines in the fall, it says don’t treat the patient. That is completely wrong. Let the patient get progressively sick. Completely wrong. Let the patient get forced into the hospital. Completely wrong. Once they get into the hospital, still don’t treat them, wait until they require oxygen. Completely wrong. By the time they require oxygen, there are actually micro blood clots in the lungs. So that they recommended that stage to give Remdesivir. Completely wrong.

Remdesivir is actually for a viral replication two weeks earlier. So it is a colossal blunder. Our public health agencies right now, their houses are on fire. We have an absolute disaster at the public health regulatory level, at all stations right now. And America right now is bypassing them.

America is going right to practising doctors, my phone is ringing off the hook, I’ve basically told them, listen, the doctor’s judgment supersedes what our Regulatory Agencies right now. If your doctors tell you, you know, giving the best advice on COVID, we’ve got to go with it. So when a doctor prescribes a medicine for a patient with COVID, that decision reigns supreme. And so this idea that there can be a backlash, or there can be penalties or what have you to doctors, listen we take care of patients with all these different problems across the board all day long.

Am I suddenly going to get penalized if I prescribe a cholesterol medicine? Or if I prescribed a blood thinner for a person with atrial fibrillation? So I certainly can prescribe these medicines for patients with COVID.

GR: Do any of your colleagues listen anyway? People who, well I hear it, but I don’t want to get punished?

PM: Well, you know, people have labelled me as being courageous. Well, I have to tell you, it’s not courage. It’s moral and ethical and fiduciary integrity. And I find it absolutely that anyone would threaten me with actions as I’m trying to take care of a patient using my best judgment with FDA-approved drugs that are prescribed appropriately off-label supported with the best evidence we’ve had. In fact, I published the most widely cited papers on how to do this in the world, and so, this idea is absolutely untenable. All of those who have sought to threaten doctors and intentionally hurt patients… one by one, justice will be served.

– intermission-

GR: In case you just joined us, our guest is Dr. Peter McCullough. He is an internist, cardiologist, epidemiologist, and Professor of Medicine at Texas A&M College of Medicine in Dallas. Also a major voice attacking the established agencies involved in fighting COVID.

I next put a question to him about the COVID vaccines.

In a clear-cut manner, based on concrete evidence, can you explain why this vaccine is not safe and effective even though Pfizer and Moderna provided evidence demonstrating 90% efficiency, and that while it’s not fool proof, the risks due to COVID vaccine outweigh the risks to dying of COVID?

PM: I think everyone should understand that we’re all participating in medical history. And so, what we know now is not the same as what we know last year or even six months ago. So we have an evolving knowledge. This is what we know.

It became known in May that the dangerous part of the virus is called the Spike Protein, the spicule on the surface. It’s now known that the Spike Protein was the target of gain-of-function research. It was research done in a Chinese lab partially funded by the United States National Institutes of Health.

This gain-of-function research made the Spike Protein, instead of it being naturally cleaved by an enzyme, a human enzyme called a furin, the gain-of-function research made the Spike Protein impenetrable. It made it super strong. And because now, this virus which was easily handled before by the human body, now the Spike Protein is super strong and it can’t be broken down, it goes right into cells so it’s far more contagious, and when the Spike Protein goes in cells, it’s almost like a shard of glass. It goes through the blood vessels ripping the blood vessels, causing blood clots, causing organ injuries. It’s all about the Spike Protein.

Well, the discovery was that the Spike Protein itself could be utilized to stimulate the body to make antibodies. So the great gamble of the vaccine development program was to trick the body, the human body, our bodies, into making this dangerous Spike Protein, this dangerous gain-of-function research Spike Protein. And that’s what the vaccines are doing. So the messenger RNA vaccines which our Pfizer, Moderna, the adenoviral vaccines which are J&J and AstraZeneca, they all work to cause the human body to produce the Spike Protein.

Now, when the vaccines came out of the clinical trials, our understanding was, and what was in the FDA regulatory binders, is that the vaccination stayed in the arm, it locally stayed in the arm, it didn’t circulate around in the body, that the messenger RNA or the adenoviral genetic material stayed in the muscle in the arm, and the Spike Protein was produced locally. That’s what our understanding was and we formed our reaction to it.

The clinical trials were done in very low-risk people and instead of the standard 24 months of safety, it was truncated to two months, and they recruited very well populations of individuals. In fact, J&J, their clinical trials program recruited 60% of people who had no medical problems, and that’s actually hard to find in research. And they found that whether the patient received placebo or the vaccine, the rate of getting COVID was less than 1%.

So it’s important for Americans and people in the world to understand that the vaccines were developed even in the heat of the pandemic back in the fall, with a chance of coming in contact in less than 1%. And we believe this is true today, that people who get the vaccine they have less than a 1% chance of ever coming in contact with COVID.

So we know that the vaccines as applied today will have no impact on the epidemic curves. They can’t because they have less than a 1% public health impact. The only thing that influences the curves is actually treating the virus and reducing hospitalization and death. Vaccines will never solve the problem because it’s a less than a 1% public health impact.

Well having said that they still looked okay coming out of the gate, and as an internist and cardiologist as a medical doctor, researcher, I see patients everyday, like all other doctors, I recommended the COVID-19 vaccine. In my practice today, 70% of my patients have received the COVID-19 vaccine. I am very pro-vaccine, and I’ve received all the standard vaccines myself.

But what happened over time, Michael, is we started to see cases of patients dying after the vaccine. Seeing patients hospitalized after the vaccine, and in large numbers. And as we sit here today, we’ve had over 4,400 patients die after the COVID-19 vaccine. 40% of them die on Days 1 2 and 3–

GR: Did you say 44,000?

PM: I’m sorry, 4400 patients die after the COVID-19 vaccine. On days 1, 2, and 3, thanks for correcting me, 4400, and we’ve had 14,000 hospitalizations. In Europe, there’s been over 10,000 patients die over the COVID-19 vaccine.

Now people have asked, well how does it stack up compared to other vaccines? Well, I can tell you, that the typical number for all the vaccines, all 70 vaccines in the United States applied to many hundreds of millions of dose administrations, the numbers of deaths or hospitalizations or severe reactions that would ever be reported on a scoreboard would be less than 200 a year.

So the COVID-19 vaccine program in five months has exceeded all the safety parameters and all the safety events of all vaccines administered to all patients in medical history. So people have already claimed that the COVID-19 vaccine program is the most dangerous vaccine program ever carried out in US history.

GR: Yeah. And when it does come up that this is violating protocols, they say well what it’s an emergency use or something like that, that allows it to go ahead?

PM: There’s several aspects of this that are working, I think, against safety. So the first thing is this is an investigational program. So when people take the vaccine, they are required to sign consent that says this is an investigation. That means it’s research, so there should be an unbiased separate clinical event adjudication committee, they should be a data safety monitoring board, there should be an investigational review board or ethics board.

When we do research, there’s always oversight committees that are separate from the sponsors or stakeholders, and here the stakeholders are Pfizer, Moderna, J & J, and AstraZeneca. We know that the World Health Organization, Gavi, Gates Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control, the FDA, and the NIH are all stakeholders. In fact, the National Institutes of Health holds patent positions on the Moderna patent.

So they’re all stakeholders. So we can’t have those people reviewing the deaths and the hospitalizations. America has to have separate panels reviewing these.

Astonishingly, as we sit here today, there are no review panels. There’s no safety checks. There is no safety mechanisms on this program. And because the vaccines are not fully FDA approved, the manufacturers don’t have to present important safety information to patients.

Normally when you get prescribed the drug and you pick it up, a folded sheet of paper that outlines all the safety information, so the patients can be thoroughly informed on safety. Normally when something is advertised on TV, they’ll get the benefits of the drug or agent but they’ll also tell you what the side effects are. Here, because it’s emergency use optimization, there’s no fair balance requirements in place, so the stakeholders are promoting vaccination wildly on TV but they’re not fairly presenting Americans with safety. The only view of safety is to go to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System VAERS And then see the data as they accumulate.

And that’s the reason why these numbers are so shocking. I think they really snuck up on doctors. Doctors have largely been in a trance recommending patients get the vaccines, and when I talk to my colleagues and say, do you realize there’s some 4400 deaths that have occurred? 14000 hospitalizations? It’s really a shock. They’re like where are you getting this information from?

I said these are the events reported to the CDC. I have reported some of these events myself, Michael, it takes about half an hour to do a report. I have to go through many screens, I have to put my doctor’s information, my license, they’re only capturing one of two of the Pfizer Moderna shots, so they have to back-calculate, we have to have the vaccine card and the lot number to do it, they are not keeping track if someone’s already had COVID and they don’t need the vaccine, they’re already immune, they’re not keeping track of that, and so what we know, and there’s serious warnings that say that it’s punishable by imprisonment or federal fines if we falsify the reports. I can tell you all those over 4,400 deaths and over 14,000 hospitalizations, they’ve really occurred, I think they’ve really occurred, and they may be the tip of the iceberg.

GR: There’s also the long-term risks like Bells Palsy or transverse myelitis, other factors, it takes a year or so to reveal. And I don’t think there’s been any significant testing. Do you expect that death could be an even higher priority a year or two from now than it is today?

PM: Well, each week we see more deaths coming in, so we have some states now that are getting to zero COVID deaths per day, in Texas, we’ve had a few of those, so we know on those days there is more vaccine deaths than there are COVID deaths.

I hope Americans understand this. There’s a tremendous price that’s being paid with American lives for this COVID vaccine. The long-term effects, there have been, I think over a thousand cases of Bells Palsy or paralysed of the face on one side reported in the safety database, we know the Spike Protein goes to the brain, the dangerous Spike Protein. It can damage astrocytes, oligodendrocytes, cells inside the brain, and there may be there certainly reports of headaches, blood clots forming in the brain, in fact, the FDA paused the program for blood clots in the brain of women.

In 18 countries in Europe, AstraZeneca was removed from the market for a period of time because of blood clots. Yet the vaccine program goes on and so one of the great concerns is that the vaccine program is offered as being elective by the CDC, it’s simply an elective investigational program, you don’t have to do it.

What’s happened is now it’s been weaponized from a sociological perspective of people feel forced to take this vaccine which they know has serious side effects, they know there are fatalities occurring and hospitalizations occurring during, and so the tension in America is rising every day. I’ve never felt such a tense time where in a sense there’s this vaccine but it’s been weaponized against the people.

GR: Wow. Maybe one more question. I know that there have been very high-profile people like Zelenko and Risch and Didier Raoult. They’ve all been attacked, and I’m wondering with, you’re being very outspoken, and you have the unmitigated gall to be credible, I mean, what kind of threats have you encountered through all of this?

PM: Well I can tell you I’m an internist and cardiologist, I stepped out of my usual role to face the crisis because I did not see infectious disease doctors, allergists, immunologists, pulmonologists, I didn’t see others addressing the millions of Americans who are developing COVID-19 at home. Everyone was focussing in the inpatient realm where we still have ICU mortality rates at 28 days of 38%. The in-hospital outcomes are not good. The opportunity was to treat patients as outpatients, and now there’s such an overwhelming positive response from Americans, we have four national telemedicine services, 15 regional telemedicine services, 250 treating doctors. We have treating doctors in every state.

America has basically just bypassed the Ivory Tower large medical centres, and they’re getting treatment. We had two Senate testimonies on this in the fall, huge breakthrough to America, the treating doctors, in a sense have become American heroes, and as our agency staffers get on TV, and basically bumble on about masks and vaccines, what America… They don’t care about masks and vaccines. They want to know how to get treatment to avoid hospitalization and death.

So what I told to my detractors is that any of my detractors who’ve attempted to personally go after me from an academic or professional perspective, I have over 600 publications in the National Library of Medicine. I have over 40 papers in a year on COVID-19. I have chaired or participated in 24 data safety monitoring boards for the FDA and for the pharmaceutical and device companies, and I’ve also seen and examined and treated patients with COVID-19. To my knowledge, in a single person, in a single person, I am the most experienced and qualified person in the world to opine on COVID-19, and if anybody wants to challenge me on that, bring it on!

GR: Dr. McCullough, it’s been a pleasure and an honour speaking to you today. Thank you so much for your dedicated work and for sharing your analysis with my listeners.

PM: Thank you

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. www.globalresearch.ca/video-dr-peter-mccullough-warp-speed-went-full-tilt-vaccine-development-silencing-any-information-treatment/5743078
  2. Ceyla Pazarbasioglu and M. Ayhan Kose (July 10, 2020)’Unprecedented damage by COVID-19 requires an unprecedented policy response’, Brookings blog; www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2020/07/10/unprecedented-damage-by-covid-19-requires-an-unprecedented-policy-response/
  3. www.globalresearch.ca/the-2020-worldwide-corona-crisis-destroying-civil-society-engineered-economic-depression-global-coup-detat-and-the-great-reset/5730652
  4. covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#new-hospital-admissions

This week’s number of reported deaths among all age groups following COVID vaccines passed the 5,000 mark, up 759 from last week, according to data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The data comes directly from reports submitted to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed.

Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date, usually about a week prior to the release date. Today’s data show that between Dec. 14, 2020 and May 28, a total of 294,801 total adverse events were reported to VAERS, including 5,165 deaths — an increase of 759 over the previous week. There were 25,359 serious injuries reported, up 3,822 compared with last week.

Among 12- to 17-year-olds, there were 40 reports of heart inflammation and 16 cases of blood clotting disorders.

From the 5/28/21 release of VAERS data.

In the U.S., 292.1 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of May 28. This includes 123 million doses of Moderna’s vaccine, 158 million doses of Pfizer and 11 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID vaccine.

Of the 5,165 deaths reported as of May 28, 24% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination, 16% occurred within 24 hours and 38% occurred in people who became ill within 48 hours of being vaccinated.

This week’s data for 12- to 17-year-olds show:

This week’s total VAERS data, from Dec. 14, 2020, to May 28, 2021, for all age groups show:

Seven cases of heart inflammation reported in teen boys, new study shows

On June 4, The Defender reported seven boys between the ages of 14 and 19 in the U.S. reportedly developed chest pain and heart inflammation within four days of receiving a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine, according to a study published today in Pediatrics.

Heart imaging tests detected a rare type of heart muscle inflammation called myocarditis and pericarditis. 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. It is possible myocarditis or pericarditis may be an additional rare adverse event related to systemic reactogenicity, but currently no causal association has been established between this vaccine and myopericarditis, the authors concluded.

A search in VAERS revealed 628 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis, among all age groups reported in the U.S following COVID vaccination between Dec.14, 2020 and May 28. Of the 628 cases reported, 392 cases were attributed to Pfizer, 206 cases to Moderna and 27 cases to J&J’s COVID vaccine.

Of the 628 total cases of heart inflammation, 40 cases occurred in children ages 12 to 17, all attributed to Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.

Israeli health officials find probable link between Pfizer vaccine and heart inflammation

As The Defender reported 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.

A study by Israeli health officials identified 275 cases of myocarditis in Israel between December 2020 and May 2021, including 148 cases that occurred within a month after vaccination. Of those 148 cases, 27 occurred after the first dose and 121 after the second dose. About half of the cases involved people with previous medical conditions.

Many of the cases were reported among men 16 to 30 years old, and most often in 16- to 19-year-olds. Most of the patients were discharged from the hospital in less than four days, and 95% of the cases were considered mild.

New research shows COVID vaccine spike protein travels from injection site

On June 3, The Defender reported on research obtained by a group of scientists showing the COVID vaccine spike protein can travel from the injection site and accumulate in organs and tissues including the spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands and in “quite high concentrations” in the ovaries.

COVID vaccine researchers had previously assumed mRNA COVID vaccines would behave like traditional vaccines. The vaccine’s spike protein — responsible for infection and its most severe symptoms — would remain mostly in the injection site at the shoulder muscle or local lymph nodes.

The new research for the first time provided scientists the opportunity to see  where messenger RNA [mRNA] vaccines go after vaccination.”

Woman who almost died after J&J vaccine stuck with $1 million in medical bills

As The Defender reported June 2, a 38-year-old woman who suffered multiple organ failure from J&J’s COVID vaccine said victims should be compensated by the government for taking the risk.

Kendra Lippy was diagnosed with severe blood clots resulting in 33 days of hospitalization. She suffered organ failure, and was left without most of her small intestine — and with crippling medical bills.

Lippy’s case was one of the six that led federal agencies to temporarily pause the J&J shot in mid-April.

Because the government shielded vaccine makers from liability, Lippy can’t sue J&J. She also doesn’t have a legitimate legal route to sue the government. The only current option for people who have suffered COVID vaccine injuries is the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program(CICP), which turns down most applicants. Fewer than one in 10 people receive compensation after applying.

According to data from CICP, more than 701 claim filings since 2010 have been received from individuals requesting compensation for injuries. Of the 701 claims, only 29 claims were compensated totaling $6 million. Another 452 claims were deemed ineligible. There are 210 cases pending. As of May 26, CICP had received 152 claims involving COVID vaccines, and 293 involving other treatments.

Moderna applies for full FDA approval of its COVID vaccine

On June 1, CNBC reported Moderna asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for full U.S. approval of its COVID vaccine — the second drugmaker in the U.S. to seek a biologics license that will allow it to market the shots directly to consumers. The mRNA vaccine is currently only approved under an Emergency Use Authorization, which was granted by the FDA in December. The FDA approval process is likely to take months.

On May 10, the FDA amended the Emergency Use Authorization for Pfizer’s COVID vaccine to include 12- to 15-year-olds. On May 7, the vaccine maker also applied for full approval of its vaccine. Currently, only Pfizer’s vaccine is approved for emergency use in the 12 to 15 age group.

88 days and counting, CDC ignores The Defender’s inquiries

According to the CDC website, “the CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information and learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or unrelated.”

On March 8, The Defender contacted the CDC with a written list of questions about reported deaths and injuries related to COVID vaccines. After repeated attempts, by phone and email, to obtain a response to our questions, a health communications specialist from the CDC’s Vaccine Task Force contacted us on March 29 — three weeks after our initial inquiry.

The individual received our request for information from VAERS, but said she had never received our list of questions, even though employees we talked to several times said CDC press officers were working through the questions and confirmed the representative had received them. We provided the list of questions again along with a new deadline, but never received a response.

On May 19, a CDC employee said our questions had been reviewed and our inquiry was pending in their system, but would not provide us with a copy of the response. We were told we would be contacted by phone or email with the response.

On June 4, the CDC employee we contacted said our request was pending in the system, but nobody had responded to our inquiries. We were advised to submit our questions again, which we have done numerous times.

It has been 88 days since we sent our first email inquiring into VAERS data and reports.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on More than 5,000 Covid Vaccine Deaths in America, 25,359 “Serious Injuries” and Almost 300,000 Reported “Adverse Events”

Epidemiologists Say CDC Exaggerated Outdoor COVID Risks

June 4th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The CDC released a misleading and inaccurate statistic about the rate of outdoor COVID-19 transmission, placing it at a “hugely exaggerated” 10%

A study from Ireland analyzed 232,164 cases of COVID-19; only 262 resulted from outdoor transmission — a transmission rate of just 0.1%

In a Chinese study, researchers analyzed 318 outbreaks with three or more cases, comprising 1,245 confirmed cases; all of them occurred indoors

Separate research revealed that even if 10% of the population is infected, it would take an average of 31.5 days of continuous outdoor exposure for a person to inhale enough virus to get infected — and even then the dose would only cause infection in 63% of those exposed

Even though transmission risk is extremely low outdoors, the CDC still advises unvaccinated people, including children and those with natural COVID-19 immunity from prior infection, to continue to wear masks outdoors in many cases

*

Only about 52% of the U.S. public says they have trust in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, according to a recent Robert Wood Johnson Foundation/Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health poll.1

After the year we’ve just had, I’m surprised it’s that many. The latest CDC blunder came when it released a misleading and inaccurate statistic about the rate of outdoor COVID-19 transmission, placing it at a “hugely exaggerated” 10%.2

The error was egregious enough that it prompted The New York Times to release what it described as “a special edition of the newsletter on a misleading CDC statistic,” featuring a number of epidemiologists who say the CDC’s reports on outdoor transmission risk for COVID-19 vastly overestimate the risk.3

Initially, the CDC stated that unvaccinated people should wear masks in most outdoor settings and vaccinated people should continue to wear them at “large public venues.”

The CDC updated their guidelines May 13, 2021, to state that vaccinated individuals no longer need to wear a mask outdoors and in most spaces indoors,4 but implies that unvaccinated people, including children and those with natural COVID-19 immunity from previous infection, must continue to do so in many cases, even outdoors.

Vaccinated or not, and with a mask or without, however, the rate of outdoor transmission of COVID-19 is typically extremely low — and it’s time the CDC’s guidance acknowledged this.

Outdoor COVID Transmission Makes Up Less Than 1% of Cases

In a White House press briefing held April 27, 2021, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, CDC director, stated, “There’s increasing data that suggests that most of transmission is happening indoors rather than outdoors; less than 10 percent of documented transmission, in many studies, have occurred outdoors.”5 But as noted by David Leonhardt in his article for The New York Times:6

“Saying that less than 10 percent of Covid transmission occurs outdoors is akin to saying that sharks attack fewer than 20,000 swimmers a year. (The actual worldwide number is around 150.) It’s both true and deceiving. This isn’t just a gotcha math issue. It is an example of how the C.D.C. is struggling to communicate effectively, and leaving many people confused about what’s truly risky.”

Going outdoors mask-free is not an example of a risky activity, regardless of vaccination status, because the transmission rate in most outdoor settings is extremely low — far lower than the 10% rate the CDC reported.

Nonetheless, the CDC still recommends that children at summer camps wear masks virtually “at all times” except when eating, drinking or swimming, as should all camp operators and staff, even if they’re vaccinated7 — and despite research showing masks are ineffective.

There’s also the growing realization that nanoplastics and other pollutants, such as lead, antimony and copper, in disposable face masks are poised to be an environmental health crisis and likely pose a health risk to those who inhale them for long periods of time, such as children being forced to wear them during school and summer camp.8

What’s more, Dr. Muge Cevik, a virologist at the University of St. Andrews, told The New York Times that the CDC’s 10% benchmark is “a huge exaggeration.” “In truth, the share of transmission that has occurred outdoors seems to be below 1 percent and may be below 0.1 percent, multiple epidemiologists told me,” Leonhardt said.9

Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious diseases and HIV doctor at UCSF, tweeted several examples of studies showing the low rate of outdoor COVID transmission.10,11

Research Supports Negligible Rates of Outdoor Transmission

One study cited by Gandhi took place in China, with researchers analyzing 318 outbreaks with three or more cases, comprising 1,245 confirmed cases.12 All of them occurred indoors. Even when the criteria were widened to include 7,324 cases, only one outdoor “outbreak” could be found, and it only involved two people:

“Our study does not rule out outdoor transmission of the virus. However, among our 7324 identified cases in China with sufficient descriptions, only one outdoor outbreak involving two cases occurred in a village in Shangqiu, Henan. A 27-year-old man had a conversation outdoors with an individual who had returned from Wuhan on January 25 and had symptom onset on February 1. This outbreak involved only two cases.”

Another extensive review from the Canterbury Christ Church University’s Centre for Sport, Physical Education & Activity Research stated, “There are very few examples of outdoor transmission of COVID-19 in everyday life, suggesting a very low risk.”13 They added:

“The science of transmission of COVID-19 concludes the risk of COVID-19 infection is low outdoors … if normal conventions of personal space and natural social distancing are not breached.”

Leonhardt also cited cases in Singapore14 that were classified as outdoor transmission, but it turned out that very broad definitions were used to define “outdoors.”

For some studies, an indoor case referred only to transmissions that occurred in mass accommodation, such as nursing homes, and residential facilities, while all other settings were deemed to be outdoors, which included “workplace, health care, education, social events, travel, catering, leisure and shopping.”15 “I understand why the researchers preferred a broad definition,” Leonhardt wrote:16

“They wanted to avoid missing instances of outdoor transmission and mistakenly suggesting that the outdoors was safer than it really was. But the approach had a big downside. It meant that the researchers counted many instances of indoors transmission as outdoors. And yet even with this approach, they found a minuscule share of total transmission to have occurred outdoors.”

Perhaps most revealing of all is a study Gandhi shared from Ireland, which analyzed 232,164 cases of COVID-19. Only 262 resulted from outdoor transmission, which is just 0.1% of the total.17 The Irish Times also spoke with Mike Weed, a professor at the University of Canterbury, who evaluated 27,000 COVID-19 cases, finding that those associated with outdoor transmission were “so small to be insignificant.”18

‘Outdoor Masks Should Not Have Been Mandated at All’

Cevik, the University of St. Andrews virologist, told The New York Times in April 2021, “I think it’s a bit too much to ask people to put the mask on when they go out for a walk or jogging or cycling … I think outdoor masks should not have been mandated at all. It’s not where the infection and transmission occurs.”19

In February 2021, a group of Italian researchers used mathematical models to calculate the concentration of SARS-CoV-2 in outdoor air along with the risk of outdoor airborne transmission.20They found very low average outdoor concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 in public areas (<1 RNA copy/m3) “excluding crowded zones, even in the worst-case scenario and assuming a number of infects up to 25% of population.”

Further, even if 10% of the population is infected, they found it would take an average of 31.5 days of continuous outdoor exposure for a person to inhale enough virus to get infected — and even then the dose would only cause infection in 63% of those exposed.21,22

Despite the science showing the miniscule risk of catching COVID-19 outdoors, the CDC only recently stated that vaccinated individuals could shed their masks in outdoor settings — raising questions about their faith in the vaccines’ effectiveness — and is still advising everyone else to wear them in many cases. But as Leonhardt stated about the CDC’s initial guidelines:23

“These recommendations would be more grounded in science if anywhere close to 10 percent of Covid transmission were occurring outdoors. But it is not. There is not a single documented Covid infection anywhere in the world from casual outdoor interactions, such as walking past someone on a street or eating at a nearby table.”

Where’s the Guidance for Those With Natural COVID Immunity?

In their latest guidance, the CDC makes it clear that their expectation is for everyone to get vaccinated. “If you are fully vaccinated, find new guidelines for fully vaccinated people,” they advise, linking to their recent update, and “If you are not vaccinated, find a vaccine,” linking to ways to find a COVID-19 vaccine near you.24

A sizeable percentage of the population, however, has made it clear that they have no intention of getting vaccinated with an experimental gene therapy. Everyone has their own reasons for this decision, including an unknown risk of side effects and death, but for some, their reasoning is that they’ve already had COVID-19 and therefore have natural immunity.

If you’ve had COVID-19, you have some level of immunity against the virus. It’s unknown how long it lasts, just as it’s unknown how long protection from the vaccine lasts.

Even the CDC admits that it’s rare to get sick again if you’ve already had COVID-19, yet they say those who have recovered from COVID-19 should still get vaccinated.25 If they don’t, they should still mask up in virtually every setting, according to CDC’s logic, even though they have immunity that’s likely superior to that provided by the vaccine.

Robust natural immunity has been demonstrated for at least eight months after infection in more than 95% of people who have recovered from COVID-19.26,27 A Nature study also demonstrated robust natural immunity in people who recovered from SARS and SARS-CoV-2.28

What’s more, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a cardiac surgeon and patient advocate, has repeatedly warned the FDA that prescreening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins may reduce the risk of injuries and deaths following vaccination, as the vaccine may trigger an adverse immune response in those who have already been infected with the virus.29

Without such screening, he wrote in one letter to the FDA, “this indiscriminate vaccination is a clear and present danger to a subset of the already infected.”30

Unfortunately, the CDC’s guidance gives the impression of only two options if you want to get back to “normal” pre-COVID life: Get vaccinated … or get vaccinated. In so doing, they’ve — literally overnight — pushed us into a world in which only the “impure” unvaccinated individuals must be masked, creating a new form of segregation and second-class citizens.

*

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

Notes

1 Robert Wood Johnson Foundation May 13, 2021

2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, 23 The New York Times May 11, 2021

4 U.S. CDC May 13, 2021

5 The White House April 27, 2021

7 U.S. CDC April 24, 2021

8 Scienmag May 4, 2021

10 Twitter, Monica Gandhi MD, MPH May 5, 2021

12 International Journal of Indoor Environment and Health October 31, 2020

13 Canterbury Christ Church University, spear, Evidence of Outdoor Transmission of COVID-19

15 Journal of Infection and Public Health 14 (2021) 461-467

17, 18 Irish Times April 5, 2021

19, 22 The New York Times April 22, 2021

20, 21 Environ Res. 2021 Feb; 193: 110603

24 CDC, COVID-19, Guidance for Unvaccinated People

25 U.S. CDC, COVID-19 Vaccination FAQs April 30, 2021

26 Science. 2021 Feb 5;371(6529):eabf4063. doi: 10.1126/science.abf4063. Epub 2021 Jan 6

27 The Defender April 5, 2021

28 Nature July 15, 2020

29 Medium February 15, 2021

30 The Defender March 24, 2021

Featured image is from Mercola

Biden to Confront Putin with Human Rights Issue

June 4th, 2021 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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 American media with a straight face reports that Biden intends to confront Putin at their meeting with “the human rights issue.”  One can only marval at the audacity of this intention.  The US government is the leading abuser of human rights.  Think Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the overthrown Latin American democratic governments, and Washington’s protection of Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians. 

On an individual basis think Julian Assange who Washington has managed to keep imprisoned for a decade without charges presented in court and conviction.  Even Stalin gave his victims performa due process.

Washington gets away with accusing others of its own crimes because the Western presstitutes cover up for Washington and only the Chinese point out Washington’s hypocrisy.

What human rights issue is Biden planning to lay on Putin?  Most likely it is Navalny’s imprisonment that Navalny himself brought about.  He had been released on condition that he keep his parole agreement, which he refused to do.  His Washington masters wanted him in prison where Washington could turn him into a propaganda weapon against Putin.  Ask yourself, would you rather be in Assange’s shoes or Navalny’s?

Or perhaps the issue will be Putin’s support of Assad who Washington and its whore media continue to call a dictator despite having won reelection in a free democratic vote with a 95% majority.  In contrast Biden stole his “election.” Assad and Russia’s support of him are in the way of Israel and Washington’s plans for the Middle East.  Thus Assad’s demonization.

One wonders what Putin is going to do when presented with Biden’s human rights accusation. Is Putin going to sit there politely and take the abuse or is he going to point out that unlike Navalny who was convicted of violating the law, Washington has kept Assange imprisoned for a decade without even giving him a show trial? 

Will Putin follow up with mentioning the millions of people murdered and dispossessed by Washington’s war crimes against Muslim countries?  Why hasn’t there been a resolution introduced in the UN by Russia to condemn the US for its unambigious war crimes?

At some point Putin will have to stand up for himself and his country or lose credibility with the Russian people and his friends abroad.

*

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 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.

***

Emails show Mark Zuckerberg reaching out to the doctor to provide social-media messaging and financial assistance, including ‘authoritative information from reliable sources,’ and the ‘very exciting’ redacted offer.

Recently published emails revealed that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg collaborated directly with Dr. Anthony Fauci, offering “resources” for COVID-19 vaccine development and a redacted offer Fauci described as “very exciting.”

The emails, released earlier this week, were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by media organizations.

In one message from February 2020, Zuckerberg wrote to Dr. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and then to the top White House COVID-19 adviser, offering help to facilitate development of coronavirus vaccines.

“I was glad to hear your statement that the covid-19 vaccine will be ready for human trials in six weeks. Are there any resources our foundation can help provide to potentially accelerate this or at least make sure it stays on track?” the Facebook CEO asked.

“If we start in April (~6-7 weeks from now) with a phase 1 trial of 45 subjects, it will take another 3-4 months to determine safety and some immunogenicity,” Fauci responded. “We may need help with resources for the phase 2 trial if we do not get our requested budget supplement. If this goes off track, I will contact you. Many thanks for the offer.”

On March 15, Zuckerberg again wrote to Fauci, this time with a proposal to highlight a video with Fauci on Facebook’s centralized COVID-19 “hub.” He noted another unknown offer as well that federal officials appear to have been even more interested in.

“I wanted to send a note of thanks for your leadership and everything you’re doing to make our country’s response to this outbreak as effective as possible. I also wanted to share a few ideas of ways we could help you get your message out,” Zuckerberg said.

“This isn’t public yet, but we’re building a Coronavirus Information Hub that we’re going to put at the top of Facebook for everyone (200+ million Americans, 2.5 billion people worldwide) with two goals: (1) make sure people can get authoritative information from reliable sources and (2) encourage people to practice social distance and give people ideas for doing this using internet tools,” he told Fauci. “As a central part of this hub, I think it would be useful to include a video from you,” Zuckerberg added.

“Your idea and proposal sound terrific. I would be happy to do a video for your hub. We need to reach as many people as possible and convince them to take mitigation strategies seriously or things will get much, much worse,” Fauci wrote back, despite having downplayed effectiveness of mitigation methods in other emails.

 

Zuckerberg also made another offer to Fauci, though it remains redacted as a FOIA b(4) exemption, that pertains to “trade secrets” or other confidential “commercial or financial information.”

Fauci called it “very exciting.” An NIAID official likewise described the redacted proposal as “an even bigger deal” than the video.

“The sooner we get that offer up the food-chain the better. I gave Bill Hall a heads-up about this opportunity and he is standing by to discuss this with HHS and WH comms, but I didn’t want him to do anything without being aware of the offer,” the official, Courtney Billet, told Fauci.

“Is it OK if I hand this aspect off to Bill to determine who the best point of contact would be so the Administration can take advantage of this offer, soonest?” she asked. Within days of Billet’s email, reports emerged that Facebook was working with the White House to provide the federal government with location data of social media users.

Facebook admittedly has been in close communication with the U.S. government throughout the COVID-19 crisis, consulting the Biden White House on alleged coronavirus misinformation, for example.

Besides offering resources for COVID-19 vaccines, Zuckerberg notably poured around $400 million of private money into election processes across the country last year ahead of the 2020 election. Many of the details of the unprecedented funding remain unclear, though experts who obtained documents from entities sponsored by Zuckerberg have estimated it gave Democrat-leaning counties massive spending advantages in battleground states.

Wisconsin lawmakers announced last week that they will be expanding an investigation into Zuckerberg’s funding after revelations that employees of a group backed by the tech founder may have violated election law and had access to ballots.

*

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 LifeSiteNews

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 very early 2020 there was a lot of chatter about where the virus, later named SARS-CoV-2, actually came from.  In an excellent, detailed article for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, former NY Times science writer Nicholas Wade describes how two short pieces published in The Lancet and Nature Medicine in Feb-March 2020 determined how this chatter would be channeled.

These two extraordinarily influential pieces, each simply titled as a “Correspondence,” were parroted by the mainstream media for a year. Each was plainly intended to shut down any discussion of a possible lab origin.

I happened to read both Correspondences in March 2020 and it was immediately apparent to me that each was designed as a propaganda tool. Neither had anything to do with science.  In fact, the Andersen Correspondence butchered the science. Each had an unusual concatenation of authors.

I was so intrigued by these articles that I kept searching the net to understand them, and discovered that Francis Collins, the NIH Director, had blogged on March 26 about the Nature Medicine Correspondence, suggesting it should put an end to conspiracy theories about lab origin.

I further found the letter from the 3 heads of the US National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine, which had been referred to by the Lancet Correspondence authors.  But it had not yet been published when the Lancet correspondence was written, suggesting again some hidden connection (or mutual effort) involving the author(s) of the National Academies letter and the Lancet Correspondence author(s).

I wondered why 5 otherwise credible scientists would sign their names to the Nature Medicine Correspondence, when the arguments made in the paper were nonsensical.  I concluded that they had been put up to it by a ‘hidden hand,’ and when I was interviewed for the film that became Plandemic 2: Indoctornation I said so.  (The film has been banned and shadowbanned, as have many of my writings, so it is impossible to find using google or a standard search engine.  Here it is on Bitchute, using the Ecosia search engine.)

Months ago, in another email drop obtained by US Right to Know, we learned that Peter Daszac, CEO of the nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, was the primary but hidden author of the Lancet Correspondence. He was also the primary beneficiary, since his organization had been used as the pass through to send money from the NIAID to the Wuhan coronavirus lab. (Some might consider this method of giving out grants as a fancy way of money laundering.) Daszac, like Fauci, earned over $400,000/year. He was also a member of the WHO Covid origins investigative team, and had been selected as the head of the Lancet Covid origins investigative team.  But the Lancet-sponsored investigation looks like it is now dead in the water. The WHO and the Lancet thus seem to be co-conspirators, choosing the fox (Daszac) to guard the henhouse (the natural origin theory of Covid).

Today, I was sent a link to a specific one of Fauci’s emails, and the mystery of why 5 well known scientists coauthored drivel, which the venerable Nature Medicine journal published, and which was then used as the foundation supporting the claim of Covid’s natural origin, was solved. Here’s the email.

The first author of the Nature Medicine paper thanks 3 incredibly important people for their “advice and leadership” regarding the paper. All 3 are MD researchers, and they dole out more money for medical research than anyone else in the world, perhaps excepting Bill Gates.  Fauci runs the NIAID; Collins is the NIH Director (nominally Fauci’s boss) and Sir Jeremy Farrar is the director of the Wellcome Trust.  Jeremy also signed the Lancet letter.

And he is the Chair of the World Health Organization R&D Blueprint Scientific Advisory Group, which put him in the driver’s seat of the WHO’s Solidarity trial, in which 1000 unwitting subjects were overdosed with hydroxychloroquine in order to sink the use of the drug for Covid. Jeremy had worked in Vietnam, where there was lots of malaria, and he had also been involved with SARS-1 there. He additionally was central in setting up the UK Recovery trial, where 1600 subjects were overdosed with hydroxychloroquine. I think he had some idea of the proper dose of the chloroquine drugs from his experience in Vietnam.  But even if he didn’t, Farrar, Fauci and Collins would have learned about such overdoses after Brazil told the world about how they mistakenly overdosed patients in a trial of chloroquine for Covid, published in the JAMA in mid April 2020.  Thirty-nine percent of the subjects in Brazil who were given high doses of chloroquine died, average age 50.

Yet the Solidarity and Recovery hydroxychloroquine trials continued into June, stopping only after their extreme doses were exposed.

Fauci made sure to control the treatment guidelines for Covid that came out of the NIAID, advising against both chloroquine drugs and ivermectin. Fauci’s NIAID also cancelled the first large-scale trial of hydroxychlorquine treatment in early disease, after only 20 of the expected 2,000 subjects were enrolled.

What does all this mean?

1.  There was a conspiracy between the five authors of the Nature Medicine paper and the heads of the NIH, NIAID and Wellcome Trust to cover up the lab origin of Covid.

2.  There was a conspiracy involving Peter Daszac, Tony Fauci and others to push the natural origin theory.

(See other emails in the recent drop.)

3.  There was a conspiracy involving Daszac to write the Lancet letter and hide its provenance, to push the natural origin theory and paint any other ideas as conspiracy theory. Collin’s blog post is another piece of this story.

4.  Farrar was intimately involved in both large HCQ overdose trials (in which about 500 subjects total died).

5.  Farrar, Fauci and Collins withheld research funds that could have supported quality trials of the use of chloroquines and ivermectin and other repurposed drugs that might have turned around the pandemic.

6.  Are the 4 individuals named here intimately involved in the creation of the pandemic, as well as the prolongation and improper treatments used during the pandemic?

Below are my two early posts on this subject from March and April 2020, and a snippet from the Lancet Correspondence, with a list of signatories.

I don’t want to take credit improperly.  Dan Sirotkin noticed the Nature Medicine article before I did, and wrote lucidly about it.  I did not see his writing until much 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.

Featured image is from Mercola

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Real Conspirators Who Lied About COVID’s Origin, Funded Fraudulent Trials of Therapeutics, and Controlled the COVID Pandemic Are the Top Public Health Leaders
  • Tags: , ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In this crisply written, well-researched book, Lesley Blume, a journalist and biographer, tells the fascinating story of the background to John Hersey’s pathbreaking article “Hiroshima,” and of its extraordinary impact upon the world.

In 1945, although only 30 years of age, Hersey was a very prominent war correspondent for Time magazine – a key part of publisher Henry Luce’s magazine empire – and living in the fast lane. That year, he won the Pulitzer Prize for his novel, A Bell for Adano, which had already been adapted into a movie and a Broadway play. Born the son of missionaries in China, Hersey had been educated at upper class, elite institutions, including the Hotchkiss School, Yale, and Cambridge. During the war, Hersey’s wife, Frances Ann, a former lover of young Lieutenant John F. Kennedy, arranged for the three of them to get together over dinner. Kennedy impressed Hersey with the story of how he saved his surviving crew members after a Japanese destroyer rammed his boat, PT-109. This led to a dramatic article by Hersey on the subject – one rejected by the Luce publications but published by the New Yorker. The article launched Kennedy on his political career and, as it turned out, provided Hersey with the bridge to a new employer – the one that sent him on his historic mission to Japan.

Blume reveals that, at the time of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Hersey felt a sense of despair – not for the bombing’s victims, but for the future of the world. He was even more disturbed by the atomic bombing of Nagasaki only three days later, which he considered a “totally criminal” action that led to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

Most Americans at the time did not share Hersey’s misgivings about the atomic bombings. A Gallup poll taken on August 8, 1945 found that 85 percent of American respondents expressed their support for “using the new atomic bomb on Japanese cities.”

Blume shows very well how this approval of the atomic bombing was enhanced by US government officials and the very compliant mass communications media. Working together, they celebrated the power of the new American weapon that, supposedly, had brought the war to an end, producing articles lauding the bombing mission and pictures of destroyed buildings. What was omitted was the human devastation, the horror of what the atomic bombing had done physically and psychologically to an almost entirely civilian population – the flesh roasted off bodies, the eyeballs melting, the terrible desperation of mothers digging with their hands through the charred rubble for their dying children.

The strange new radiation sickness produced by the bombing was either denied or explained away as of no consequence. “Japanese reports of death from radioactive effects of atomic bombing are pure propaganda,” General Leslie Groves, the head of the Manhattan Project, told the New York Times. Later, when, it was no longer possible to deny the existence of radiation sickness, Groves told a Congressional committee that it was actually “a very pleasant way to die.”

When it came to handling the communications media, US government officials had some powerful tools at their disposal. In Japan, General Douglas MacArthur, the supreme commander of the US occupation regime, saw to it that strict US military censorship was imposed on the Japanese press and other forms of publication, which were banned from discussing the atomic bombing. As for foreign newspaper correspondents (including Americans), they needed permission from the occupation authorities to enter Japan, to travel within Japan, to remain in Japan, and even to obtain food in Japan. American journalists were taken on carefully controlled junkets to Hiroshima, after which they were told to downplay any unpleasant details of what they had seen there.

In September 1945, US newspaper and magazine editors received a letter from the US War Department, on behalf of President Harry Truman, asking them to restrict information in their publications about the atomic bomb. If they planned to do any publishing in this area of concern, they were to submit the articles to the War Department for review.

Among the recipients of this warning were Harold Ross, the founder and editor of the New Yorker, and William Shawn, the deputy editor of that publication. The New Yorker, originally founded as a humor magazine, was designed by Ross to cater to urban sophisticates and covered the world of nightclubs and chorus girls. But, with the advent of the Second World War, Ross decided to scrap the hijinks flavor of the magazine and begin to publish some serious journalism.

As a result, Hersey began to gravitate into the New Yorker’s orbit. Hersey was frustrated with his job at Time magazine, which either rarely printed his articles or rewrote them atrociously. At one point, he angrily told publisher Henry Luce that there was as much truthful reporting in Time magazine as in Pravda. In July 1945, Hersey finally quit his job with Time. Then, late that fall, he sat down with William Shawn of the New Yorker to discuss some ideas he had for articles, one of them about Hiroshima.

Hersey had concluded that the mass media had missed the real story of the Hiroshima bombing. And the result was that the American people were becoming accustomed to the idea of a nuclear future, with the atomic bomb as an acceptable weapon of war. Appalled by what he had seen in the Second World War – from the firebombing of cities to the Nazi concentration camps – Hersey was horrified by what he called “the depravity of man,” which, he felt, rested upon the dehumanization of others. Against this backdrop, Hersey and Shawn concluded that he should try to enter Japan and report on what had really happened there.

Getting into Japan would not be easy. The US Occupation authorities exercised near-total control over who could enter the stricken nation, keeping close tabs on all journalists who applied to do so, including records on their whereabouts, their political views, and their attitudes toward the occupation. Nearly every day, General MacArthur received briefings about the current press corps, with summaries of their articles. Furthermore, once admitted, journalists needed permission to travel anywhere within the country, and were allotted only limited time for these forays.

Even so, Hersey had a number of things going for him. During the war, he was a very patriotic reporter. He had written glowing profiles about rank-and-file US soldiers, as well as a book (Men on Bataan) that provided a flattering portrait of General MacArthur. This fact certainly served Hersey well, for the general was a consummate egotist. Apparently as a consequence, Hersey received authorization to visit Japan.

En route there in the spring of 1946, Hersey spent some time in China, where, on board a US warship, he came down with the flu. While convalescing, he read Thornton Wilder’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, The Bridge of San Luis Rey, which tracked the different lives of five people in Peru who were killed when a bridge upon which they stood collapsed. Hersey and Shawn had already decided that he should tell the story of the Hiroshima bombing from the victims’ point of view. But Hersey now realized that Wilder’s book had given him a particularly poignant, engrossing way of telling a complicated story. Practically everyone could identify with a group of regular people going about their daily routines as catastrophe suddenly struck them.

Hersey arrived in Tokyo on May 24, 1946, and two days later, received permission to travel to Hiroshima, with his time in that city limited to 14 days.

Entering Hiroshima, Hersey was stunned by the damage he saw. In Blume’s words, there were “miles of jagged misery and three-dimensional evidence that humans – after centuries of contriving increasingly efficient ways to exterminate masses of other humans – had finally invented the means with which to decimate their entire civilization.” Now there existed what one reporter called “teeming jungles of dwelling places . . . in a welter of ashes and rubble.” As residents attempted to clear the ground to build new homes, they uncovered masses of bodies and severed limbs. A cleanup campaign in one district of the city alone at about that time unearthed a thousand corpses. Meanwhile, the city’s surviving population was starving, with constant new deaths from burns, other dreadful wounds, and radiation poisoning.

Given the time limitations of his permit, Hersey had to work fast. And he did, interviewing dozens of survivors, although he eventually narrowed down his cast of characters to six of them.

Departing from Hiroshima’s nightmare of destruction, Hersey returned to the United States to prepare the story that was to run in the New Yorker to commemorate the atomic bombing. He decided that the article would have to read like a novel. “Journalism allows its readers to witness history,” he later remarked. “Fiction gives readers the opportunity to live it.” His goal was “to have the reader enter into the characters, become the characters, and suffer with them.”

When Hersey produced a sprawling 30,000 word draft, the New Yorker’s editors at first planned to publish it in serialized form. But Shawn decided that running it this way wouldn’t do, for the story would lose its pace and impact. Rather than have Hersey reduce the article to a short report, Shawn had a daring idea. Why not run the entire article in one issue of the magazine, with everything else – the “Talk of the Town” pieces, the fiction, the other articles and profiles, and the urbane cartoons – banished from the issue?

Ross, Shawn, and Hersey now sequestered themselves in a small room at the New Yorker’s headquarters, furiously editing Hersey’s massive article. Ross and Shawn decided to keep the explosive forthcoming issue a top secret from the magazine’s staff. Indeed, the staff were kept busy working on a “dummy” issue that they thought would be going to press. Contributors to that issue were baffled when they didn’t receive proofs for their articles and accompanying artwork. Nor were the New Yorker’s advertisers told what was about to happen. As Blume remarks: “The makers of Chesterfield cigarettes, Perma-Lift brassieres, Lux toilet soap, and Old Overholt rye whiskey would just have to find out along with everyone else in the world that their ads would be run alongside Hersey’s grisly story of nuclear apocalypse.”

However, things don’t always proceed as smoothly as planned. On August 1, 1946, President Truman signed into law the Atomic Energy Act, which established a “restricted” standard for “all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons.” Anyone who disseminated that data “with any reason to believe that such data” could be used to harm the United States could face substantial fines and imprisonment. Furthermore, if it could be proved that the individual was attempting to “injure the United States,” he or she could “be punished by death or imprisonment for life.”

In these new circumstances, what should Ross, Shawn, and Hersey do? They could kill the story, water it down, or run it and risk severe legal action against them. After agonizing over their options, they decided to submit Hersey’s article to the War Department – and, specifically, to General Groves – for clearance.

Why did they take that approach? Blume speculates that the New Yorker team thought that Groves might insist upon removing any technical information from the article while leaving the account of the sufferings of the Japanese intact. After all, Groves believed that the Japanese deserved what had happened to them, and could not imagine that other Americans might disagree. Furthermore, the article, by underscoring the effectiveness of the atomic bombing of Japan, bolstered his case that the war had come to an end because of his weapon. Finally, Groves was keenly committed to maintaining US nuclear supremacy in the world, and he believed that an article that led Americans to fear nuclear attacks by other nations would foster support for a US nuclear buildup.

The gamble paid off. Although Groves did demand changes, these were minor and did not affect the accounts by the survivors.

On August 29, 1946, copies of the “Hiroshima” edition of the New Yorker arrived on newsstands and in mailboxes across the United States, and it quickly created an enormous sensation, particularly in the mass media. Editors from more than thirty states applied to excerpt portions of the article, and newspapers from across the nation ran front-page banner stories and urgent editorials about its revelations. Correspondence from every region of the United States poured into the New Yorker’s office. A large number of readers expressed pity for the victims of the bombing. But an even greater number expressed deep fear about what the advent of nuclear war meant for the survival of the human race.

Of course, not all readers approved of Hersey’s report on the atomic bombing. Some reacted by canceling their subscriptions to the New Yorker. Others assailed the article as antipatriotic, Communist propaganda, designed to undermine the United States. Still others dismissed it as pro-Japanese propaganda or, as one reader remarked, written “in very bad taste.”

Some newspapers denounced it. The New York Daily News derided it as a stunt and “propaganda aimed at persuading us to stop making atom bombs . . . and to give our technical bomb secrets away . . . to Russia.” Not surprisingly, Henry Luce was infuriated that his former star journalist had achieved such an enormous success writing for a rival publication, and had Hersey’s portrait removed from Time Inc.’s gallery of honor.

Despite the criticism, “Hiroshima” continued to attract enormous attention in the mass media. The ABC Radio Network did a reading of the lengthy article over four nights, with no acting, no music, no special effects, and no commercials. “This chronicle of suffering and destruction,” it announced, was being “broadcast as a warning that what happened to the people of Hiroshima could next happen anywhere.” After the broadcasts, the network’s telephone switchboards were swamped by callers, and the program was judged to have received the highest rating of any public interest broadcast that had ever occurred. The BBC also broadcast an adaptation of “Hiroshima,” while some 500 US radio stations reported on the article in the days following its release.

In the United States, the Alfred Knopf publishing house came out with the article in book form, which was quickly promoted by the Book-of-the-Month Club as “destined to be the most widely read book of our generation.” Ultimately, Hiroshima sold millions of copies in nations around the world. By the late fall of 1946, the rather modest and retiring Hersey, who had gone into hiding after the article’s publication to avoid interviews, was rated as one of the “Ten Outstanding Celebrities of 1946,” along with General Dwight Eisenhower and singer Bing Crosby.

For US government officials, reasonably content with past public support for the atomic bombing and a nuclear-armed future, Hersey’s success in reaching the public with his disturbing account of nuclear war confronted them with a genuine challenge. For the most part, US officials recognized that they had what Blume calls “a serious post-`Hiroshima’ image problem.”

Behind the scenes, James B. Conant, the top scientist in the Manhattan Project, joined President Truman in badgering Henry Stimson, the former US Secretary of War, to produce a defense of the atomic bombing. Provided with an advance copy of the article, to be published in Harper’s, Conant told Stimson that it was just what was needed, for they could not have allowed “the propaganda against the use of the atomic bomb . . . to go unchecked.”

Although the New Yorker’s editors sought to arrange for publication of the book version of “Hiroshima” in the Soviet Union, this proved impossible. Instead, Soviet authorities banned the book in their nation. Pravda fiercely assailed Hersey, claiming that “Hiroshima” was nothing more than an American scare tactic, a fiction that “relishes the torments of six people after the explosion of the atomic bomb.” Another Soviet publication called Hersey an American spy who embodied his country’s militarism and had helped to inflict upon the world a “propaganda of aggression, strongly reminiscent of similar manifestations in Nazi Germany.”

Ironically, the Soviet attack upon Hersey didn’t make him any more acceptable to the US government. In 1950, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover assigned FBI field agents to research, monitor, and interview Hersey, on whom the Bureau had already opened a file. During the FBI interview with Hersey, agents questioned him closely about his trip to Hiroshima.

Not surprisingly, US occupation authorities did their best to ban the appearance of “Hiroshima” in Japan. Hersey’s six protagonists had to wait months before they could finally read the article, which was smuggled to them. In fact, some of Hersey’s characters were not aware that they had been included in the story or that the article had even been written until they received the contraband copies. MacArthur managed to block publication of the book in Japan for years until, after intervention by the Authors’ League of America, he finally relented. It appeared in April 1949, and immediately became a bestseller.

Hersey, still a young man at the time, lived on for decades thereafter, writing numerous books, mostly works of fiction, and teaching at Yale. He continued to be deeply concerned about the fate of a nuclear-armed world – proud of his part in stirring up resistance to nuclear war and, thereby, helping to prevent it.

The conclusion drawn by Blume in this book is much like Hersey’s. As she writes, “Graphically showing what nuclear warfare does to humans, ‘Hiroshima’ has played a major role in preventing nuclear war since the end of World War II.”

A secondary theme in the book is the role of a free press. Blume observes that “Hersey and his New Yorker editors created `Hiroshima’ in the belief that journalists must hold accountable those in power. They saw a free press as essential to the survival of democracy.” She does, too.

Overall, Blume’s book would provide the basis for a very inspiring movie, for at its core is something many Americans admire: action taken by a few people who triumph against all odds.

But the actual history is somewhat more complicated. Even before the publication of “Hiroshima,” a significant number of people were deeply disturbed by the atomic bombing of Japan. For some, especially pacifists, the bombing was a moral atrocity. An even larger group feared that the advent of nuclear weapons portended the destruction of the world. Traditional pacifist organizations, newly-formed atomic scientist groups, and a rapidly-growing world government movement launched a dramatic antinuclear campaign in the late 1940s around the slogan, “One World or None.” Curiously, this uprising against nuclear weapons is almost entirely absent from Blume’s book.

Even so, Blume has written a very illuminating, interesting, and important work – one that reminds us that daring, committed individuals can help to create a better 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.

Lawrence S. Wittner (lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).

Women’s Rights and Debt Oppression in Central Asia

June 4th, 2021 by Dr Elmira Satybaldieva

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

On 15 April 2021 about 15 women seized a local state administration building in Kyrgyzstan to demand a debt relief and a stop to housing repossessions. Barricading themselves inside the building, the women in black mournful headscarves, threatened to pour gasoline over their bodies and set themselves alight if the country’s Prime Minister did not arrive to negotiate with them. Gas cylinders were placed along the office windows and gasoline on floors set the scene for a large explosion. Struggling to breathe in the room full of toxic fumes, the women announced: ‘We’re sick of financial slavery! Eradicate the usury!’ These were at the end of their tether after years of struggling against financial oppression.

‘My Gotovy szhech sebya!’ translated ‘We are ready to set ourselves alight.’ (Source:  Kaktus Media)

In 2019, Kyrgyzstan had the fifth highest real lending interest rate in the world. Many rural women have been protesting against debt, housing repossessions and exorbitant interest rates for the past 13 years. In 2016, their anti-debt struggles culminated in protests in front of the US Embassy in Bishkek, where they blamed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC) for creating and funding exploitative microcredit companies in the country. In neighbouring Kazakhstan, urban residents of Nur-Sultan and Almaty held numerous anti-debt protests in front of the central bank, blaming it for predatory lending arising from Western credit flows.

Photo by an anti-debt movement member. Protests outside the US embassy in Kyrgyzstan held on 26 May 2016

The Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated the debt oppression in the region by causing job losses. In Kyrgyzstan, thousands of migrants returned home, causing unprecedented decrease in remittances. The Kyrgyzstani state could not offer income support to its work force, of which 75% is self-employed. The pandemic pushed an additional 700,000 people into poverty, worsening the existing situation where 38% of the population is classified as poor. In oil rich Kazakhstan, 42% of the population lost income, and applied for income support of 42,500 tenge (US$99). The government made a one-off payment in full in the first month, and a partial payment in the second month. In order to provide some relief, the central banks in the region recommended loan payments to be deferred up to three months. But commercial banks and microfinance institutions (MFIs) continued to charge interest on outstanding loans and commission fees for changing loan terms. Despite rising default rates, they refused to write off debt or suspend the accrual of interest, deepening indebtedness.

How did the debt problem begin?

When the Central Asian countries gained their independence in 1991, much of the population did not have personal or commercial debt. The Soviet economic system prohibited lending at interest, viewing it as speculative gains. In the Soviet economy, ‘non-labour’ (or unearned) income was condemned and strictly regulated. But after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Central Asian countries experienced a severe shortage of capital, and they borrowed from US and other Western financial institutions at high interest rates. The near monopoly on credit coerced Central Asian citizens, especially low-income groups, into high risk and exploitative credit relations.

Starting in the mid-1990s, international donors and investors developed the microcredit industry in Kyrgyzstan by funding four MFIs. The International Finance Corporation and other international donors mandated these MFIs to become fully commercialized to achieve high returns on equity. The average interest rate was 44%. By 2010, these MFIs served 77% of the microcredit borrowers, and controlled 52% of the microcredit portfolio. By 2016, three of them became fully-fledged banks, and continued to have a significant portfolio of microlending.

In Kazakhstan, the oil boom in early 2000s fueled a rapid expansion of credit in the banking sector. By 2007, Kazakhstani banks amassed external debt of US$46 billion, or 44% of gross domestic product (GDP). About 70% of loans were linked to the real estate sector that skyrocketed house prices. Housing costs in Nur-Sultan and Almaty became more unaffordable than in exclusive cities such as San Francisco and Vancouver. Today, over 80% of Kazakhstanis are in debt with mortgage and consumer loans.

In both countries, the governments deregulated the financial system by allowing banks and MFIs to determine themselves their own size of loans, interest rates, penalties and commission fees, and to operate with very minimum capital and licensing requirements. Bolstered by the neoliberal legal framework, some lenders charged interest rates as high as 180%. Penalties sometimes doubled the principal loan, and some lenders had up to 25 different commission fees. In addition, financial regulations in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan minimized legal protections for borrowers. Individual bankruptcy laws were blocked by the financial industry. In cases of default, the courts viewed credit as lenders’ property and assets, and justified its return on the basis of the rule of law and the sanctity of the contract.

Indebting women

In Central Asia, women constitute a large share of debtors. Like in many parts of the Global South, international donors and investors targeted vulnerable women for microcredit lending. This reflected a global neoliberal strategy for debt-based growth, which recasted marginalized groups as a high-yielding investment opportunity. High interest loans were sold as an effective way to combat poverty, empower women, and stimulate entrepreneurial activity. Yet when pressed to explain the obvious tension between the social framing and for-profit lending, one of the managers at the International Finance Corporation in Bishkek defensively responded, ‘We are not a charity but an investment bank! So of course, we need to make a profit.’ Perversely, by indebting poor women, international investors gained both a handsome profit and a public image of do-gooders.

For many women loans were not a matter of choice, but a necessity as a result of cuts to state expenditure on social and economic programs. The cumulative impact of market ‘reforms’ in the region facilitated poor women’s dependence on high interest credit. First, the privatization of state enterprises significantly reduced pay and job opportunities for women. If in 1988 the Soviet Union had the highest female labour force participation rate of any industrialized society (with 90% of working-age women engaged in full-time work or study), by 2017 Kyrgyzstan’s female participation rate fell to 48 %. For instance, in 1995, fewer than 10,000 people worked in Kyrgyzstan’s light industry sector, which used to employ over 100,000 mostly female workforce during the Soviet period. Moreover, the privatization of agriculture and rural land made women asset poor. Most assets, including 80% of land and 61% of real estate were transferred to a small minority of owners, mostly men. Many women, who were previously employed as factory and agricultural workers, and as teachers and healthcare specialists, were forced into petty trading through Western sponsored microcredit schemes. The commodification of labor and poor income fueled the expansion of debt.

Second, many women borrowed money to pay for services, such as health care and education, which were previously available for free. Key social services saw significant cuts in state spending, which not only reduced public sector pay but privatized and commodified basic necessities, enabling affluent groups to access better quality services while low-income groups were deprived of them. In Kyrgyzstan, the commodified provision of reproductive care led to the highest maternal mortality rate in the post-Soviet space, with 90% of death found to be preventable. A 2021 survey of online microcredit borrowers in Kazakhstan showed that 29% of respondents took out loans to pay for emergency expenses, 21% to make ends meet, and 16% to pay off debt on bank loans. The rest used the loans to pay for medical treatment, utilities, educational fees. Only a small minority of loans was linked to buying consumer goods.

Third, the withdrawal of state provision of free housing, and the adoption of mortgage-based housing schemes resulted in fewer new affordable housing units, and an inflation of real estate prices. High cost of mortgages has failed to meet most people’s social needs and has been a key driver of economic disparity. Currently over 6 million out of 8.4 million economically active population in Kazakhstan cannot afford to buy a house. Many households took out US dollar-denominated mortgage loans at 15-20% interest rates as their only means of obtaining housing.

In Central Asia credit/debt rather than social rights has enabled people to access basic goods. Responsibilities for well-being have shifted from the welfare state to individuals through private lenders. Debt has become foundational, a way of life. Women, in particular, have been forced into debt to cope with the increasing costs of a commodified society and as a way of staying afloat or getting ahead in life.

Debt, dispossession and death

Almost three decades of debt expansion has produced immense misery and violence in the lives of many ordinary people in the region. After the 2008 financial crisis, over 70,000 Kazakhstanis defaulted on their mortgage loans and 62,889 new apartment owners were left stranded with their housing complexes partly built. In Kyrgyzstan, over 30% of all borrowers were over-indebted. A director of a microfinance association in Kyrgyzstan admitted that the majority of borrowers paid back ‘at the cost of sacrificing their food security, education and health, which obviously caused them immense misery.’ There has been a very little take-up of small and medium-sized enterprises by women in Kyrgyzstan.

Faced with an increase in non-payments, the financial sector pursued an aggressive strategy of foreclosures by undertaking extra-judicial seizure of borrowers’ properties. Until recently, a delay in payment of over a 60-day period allowed lenders to seize the collateral without a court order. In Kyrgyzstan, many borrowers lost their homes over microcredit loans of around US$ 1,000 or so. Unlike in other countries, MFIs in Central Asia secured their small loans with collaterals. Many borrowers did not anticipate being made homeless over small loans.

The rise in evictions caused many borrowers to commit suicides because of overwhelming shame and loss of control. In Kyrgyzstan, during 2011-2012 there were 17 suicides of women, who were facing repossessions. In Kazakhstan, it was common to read news headlines of debt-related tragedies. In 2011, Marat Nurkenov, aged 39, jumped off from a 9-storey building in Pavlodar, when law enforcement agents were evicting his parents from the apartment. The same year Kezhegul Alinkulova, a mother of five children, set herself alight during a forced eviction in Almaty. In 2014, 27 indebted military personnel had taken their own lives. In 2015, Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Defense started a registry of heavily indebted personnel as a suicide prevention strategy in the army, officially acknowledging that debt-related suicides had become a major problem.

The death of a borrower does not dissolve their debt. Existing banking and microfinance laws make family members responsible for loans that are secured against property registered under their names. In such cases, banks and MFIs collect the remaining balance on the debt from surviving family members. In Kyrgyzstan, a borrower recounted how collectors would show up at funerals, pulling aside the crying family members, and saying, ‘Make sure to give us the money that people have brought for the funeral.’ It is a custom for visitors to donate money to the family of the dead person to help pay for expenses. The dead collectors’ lack of sympathy for the grieving family members, and the blatant disrespect for social customs shocked and infuriated many. Local activists tried to incriminate banks and MFIs for driving borrowers to their death but found it difficult to prove. Financial institutions were not held responsible even when death notes were left behind.

Debt, gendered violence and fraud

The daily lives of the indebted are filled with intense feelings of shame, fear and anxiety because shame and other aggressive debt collection methods are employed to maximize the rate of repayment. In Central Asia, it is common for debt collectors to publicly humiliate borrowers and threaten them with legal action or bodily harm. One of the female borrowers, who worked as a schoolteacher, described how debt collectors came to her school and shamed her in front of her students and the school director. The intense level of public humiliation and intimidation was a novel experience for many borrowers. They recounted feelings of tremor, heart palpitations and panic attacks every time someone knocked on their doors or the phone rang.

Local debt recovery tactics employed gendered violence. The financial industry often exploited cultural norms to shame and dis-honour women. In Kyrgyzstan, some lenders and debt collectors involved regional governors and the courts of male elders (aksakals) to shame women for missing loan repayments. In some cases, the damage to women’s social reputation and honour led to them being condemned by family members and being social marginalized. The mechanism of shaming proved to be very effective, explaining the paradox of a high repayment rate by vulnerable women.

To ensure repayments, MFIs promoted group-based loans on female borrowers. Group loans intensified social scrutiny in comparison to individual market transactions between lenders and borrowers. When members of the family or social network turned into quasi-debt collectors, it personalized debt and discipline, exacerbating the feeling of shame. Group loans produced tensions and conflicts within close-knit communities when someone defaulted. In one case, a group of women borrowers were greatly distressed by ‘the pain they inflicted on each other’ when one of them had to use her meager pension to meet the liability for the group debt.

Since 2006, in Kazakhstan, illegal private debt collection agencies have grown. Although there are only 193 officially registered private debt collection agencies, at least a thousand operate illegally in the country. In 2019, Kazakhstani banks sold problem loans worth 611.6 billion tenge to collection agencies. These agencies commit gendered violence on the basis of enforcing the law and defending the sanctity of contracts.

For instance, the Kazakhstani social media have many video and voice recordings that expose agencies’ abuse and physical assaults. In 2019, one video attracted a lot of attention and criticisms. It showed a young male collector from an unregistered agency Almaty Collection Group, intimidating a young female debtor to repay the loan, and calling her ‘dirt-eating trash’ and ‘a mistake to be born.’ When the young woman filed a legal complaint against the debt collector with the help of a law company, he and two other assailants attacked a senior law partner, breaking his nose and ribs. In 2019, the Kazakhstani courts reviewed 353 complaints against debt collectors. The maximum punishment for debt collectors, who are guilty of violating rules and regulations that govern their practices, is 180 hours of correctional labor. The judiciary has largely sanctioned gendered violence in defense of the interests of lenders. The private debt collectors can act with impunity, using threats and physical force to extract debt.

Recently, private debt collection firms were able to open in parallel private law enforcement agencies to increase their coercive powers. This development was preceded by contracting out law enforcement services to private enforcement agencies. Private debt collection firms gained more powers by doubling up as private law enforcement agencies. Now debt collectors can access state and commercial databases on debtors, and can use extensive legal powers, such as seizure of property, sale at auction, access to bank accounts, and imposition of travel restrictions. Agencies’ access to records on debtors has been responsible for the development of sophisticated fraudulent tactics to ‘recover’ debt. For instance, in a recent case, a debtor, a mother of five children, was on a waiting list for state subsidized rental housing. One day, she received a telephone call informing that her application had been approved, but the paperwork was on hold because of her outstanding loan. She was urged to borrow money to pay off the bank loan in order to complete the process. After paying off the debt, she learnt that she was scammed by the debt collectors.

Doom or hope?

The debt oppression in Central Asia echoes debt problems in other parts of the world. But the difference is that Central Asian financial industry has employed extreme coercive tactics to make money with little regard to human dignity and well-being. Women have been the biggest victims of the financial cartel. The shaming tactics and intimidation by male debt collectors is a form of gendered violence sanctioned by state and judicial authorities in support of the financial industry.

We do not know the extent of social dispossession caused by the debt peonage. The economic inequality in the region is among the highest in the world. Debt has transferred income from the poor to the rich. Michael Hudson aptly calls interest a regressive form of income distribution. Between 1995-2012, microcredit was responsible for transferring up to US$125 billion from poor communities in the Global South to financial centers in the Global North. This regressive distribution of global wealth was partly achieved at the expense of poor rural women.

The women in Central Asia have tried to resist ‘financial slavery.’ But their anti-debt protests did not achieve meaningful changes to predatory lending practices in Central Asia. The political regimes have suppressed protests. The indebted women are often demonized and stigmatized by the media as unscrupulous and irresponsible borrowers, who lack financial literacy and discipline.

There is a huge power imbalance between lenders and borrowers. The indebted women alone cannot take on the global power of financial institutions. People’s passivity and resignation over the regulation of finance reflect the degree to which the neoliberal moral order came to be accepted as just and natural. To overcome the economic and moral stranglehold of finance over society, progressive supranational institutions and global anti-debt movements are required to regulate financial capital in service of people’s well-being rather than lenders’ economic interests.

For further reading and a detailed account of the anti-debt mobilizations, see her forthcoming book, Rentier Capitalism and Its Discontents (Palgrave Macmillan).

*

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 Elmira Satybaldieva is a Senior Research Fellow at Conflict Analysis Research Centre, University of Kent. Her main area of research interest is politics in the post-Soviet space, with a particular focus on grassroots activism and international development in Central Asia. She is currently researching Chinese, Russian and western investment strategies in Central Asia and their varied implications for the region. She has been researching the region for over 15 years, and published widely on social movements, development and political economy in the region.


coverRentier Capitalism and its Discontents

Power, Morality and Resistance in Central Asia

Authors: Sanghera, Balihar & Satybaldieva, Elmira

Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan

eBook ISBN: 978-3-030-76303-9

Hardcover ISBN: 978-3-030-76302-2

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.

***

Photos circulating on social media show Colombian government forces using Israeli weapons against protestors and Israeli-made Sand Cat armored vehicles patrolling the streets of Colombian cities. Alan Macleod investigates the growing ties between the unlikely allies.

For exactly one month now, a nationwide strike has crippled Colombia and has been met with deadly repression by the far-right government of Ivan Duque. As trade unions have shut down major cities, halting mass transit and bringing economic gridlock to the country, government forces have responded with violence. According to government figures, at least 44 people have been killed in protests that began on April 28. A further 500 people have been “disappeared,” more than 100 shot with live fire, and at least 28 have been wounded in the eye by police, the notorious ESMAD riot squad, or by paramilitary organizations linked to the state.

The crackdown on dissent is being abetted by the Israeli government, which itself is dealing with widespread economic, military and social revolt from its captive Palestinian population. Outside of the United States, Israel is the Colombian military and paramilitaries’ chief weapons supplier, and the Colombian police and army have been putting their Israeli training and weapons to use against their own domestic revolt.

The state has essentially declared war on the citizenry, turning streets and neighborhoods into battlefields in an attempt to push through President Duque’s highly controversial neoliberal policies that would eliminate public healthcare, privatize pensions, reduce the minimum wage and levy a 19% tax on staple foods, moves which critics deem an all-out attack on Colombia’s working-class majority. The president is showing no sign of backing down, despite his approval rating slumping to 18%— an all-time low for Colombian heads of state.

Military connections

Pictures circulating on social media show government forces using Israeli weapons against protestors, while Israeli-made Sand Cat armored vehicles are on the streets of Colombia’s major cities. The standard issue rifles for all branches of the military and the police are Israeli; the Army uses the IMI Galil, Special Forces use the IWI Tavor, while the Air Force, Navy, and police favor the IWI Ace.

Embedded below is an image of Colombian police using the Israeli-made Tavor TAR-21 assault rifle on the streets.

Duque has sent the army into many of Colombia’s largest cities to deal with the national strike, a decision condemned by human rights groups. These forces have been trained in “counterterrorism and combat techniques” by Israeli Defense Force (IDF) attachés to share their expertise in crushing domestic resistance. Thus, any Palestinians who dropped into Colombia right now might feel an eerie sense of familiarity with what is going on.

“Private Israeli military contractors are heavily involved with the Colombian military in terms of military training, the conduct of counter-insurgency operations, intelligence gathering, targeted assassinations, cross-border military interventions into states like Venezuela, alongside hybrid warfare in general, and more. As the second most important military partner after the U.S.A., Israel can be characterized as a key supporter of Colombia’s proven record of state terrorism,” Oliver Dodd told MintPress by phone from Bogota. Dodd is a Ph.D. researcher at the University of Nottingham covering the Colombian Civil War.

Israeli drones have also been spotted in the skies over Colombia, as the government uses them for surveillance and military intelligence. AMnetpro SAS, a company started by two Israeli businessmen, also provides facial recognition and other security technology to Colombian forces.

Perhaps most worryingly, Israel has also directly trained far-right paramilitary groups responsible for much of the worst terror inside the country over the past half-century. Carlos Castaño, commander of the AUC, perhaps the most notorious and remorseless of them all, traveled to Israel to study and was trained by infamous Israeli mercenary and former IDF Lieutenant Colonel Yair Klein, who claims that he was invited to Colombia to train the national police. Dodd explained the attraction of using Israeli knowhow for the Colombian government:

IDF veterans are also heavily involved in Colombia’s conflict. The Colombian state relies on these Israeli mercenaries — called ‘private military contractors’ by apologists — a lot in the sense that they are recruited to import their vast counter-insurgency expertise developed in the fight against Palestinians. The fact that these mercenaries are not technically members of Colombia’s Armed Forces and do not wear the official uniforms of the military, allows them to lend the state plausible deniability for crimes of aggression against the revolutionary movement and other progressive forces.”

So normalized have Israeli mercenaries become in Colombian society that, while president Juan Manuel Santos appeared in an advertisement for Israeli mercenary firm Global CST. “They are people with a lot of experience. They have been helping us to work better,” he states.

Political ties

Palestine also has connections to Latin America, and the Palestinian community there has done well for itself. In recent times, a number of Palestinians have risen to high office across the region, including Carlos Roberto Flores, President of Honduras from 1998 to 2002, Antonio Saca, President of El Salvador from 2004 to 2009 and Yehude Simon, Prime Minister of Peru from 2008 to 2009.

As the continent moved leftwards in the 2000s, almost the entire region began to recognize Palestine as an independent state. For years, Colombia was the sole South American holdout, only doing so in 2018.

Yet, at the same time, President Duque was making it clear where he stood. Last year he spoke at AIPAC, America’s most powerful pro-Israel lobby group, where he announced that Colombia would open an “innovation office” in occupied Jerusalem, one step away from defying international law by moving the Colombian embassy there. He has also denounced a supposed Hezbollah presence in neighboring Venezuela, designating the Lebanese group and Israeli military foe a terrorist organization — a move likely more to do with garnering friends than genuine security fears.

Throughout this latest bombardment of Gaza, an action which has left around 250 in the strip dead, nearly 2,000 wounded and tens of thousands displaced, the Colombian government has stood side-by-side with its ally, condemning the firing of rockets into Israel. “Colombia expresses its deep concern over the terrorist acts and attacks against Israel and expresses its solidarity with the victims of these actions,” it wrote. There was no rebuke of the far more deadly Israeli missiles hitting Gaza.

A cycle of dependency

The burgeoning political alliance has brought with it deepening economic ties. In 2013, the two nations signed a free trade agreement.

“This is a historic moment in the relationship between the State of Israel and the Republic of Colombia,” announced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “These decisions create a platform of cooperation between us that will bring our partnership, our friendship, our brotherhood…to new political and economic levels.”

For the most part, trade between the two states consists of Israeli weaponry and know-how going to Colombia in exchange for the South American nation’s mineral reserves. In 2011, military-grade arms comprised 49.6% of all Israeli exports to Colombia. Coal makes up around 89% of what goes back the other way. The rest is primarily agricultural produce (coffee, fruit, sugar, etc.).

Colombia’s mineral wealth is only exploitable after a decades-long push by the military and associated paramilitaries to clear black and indigenous people off their valuable land, making way for transnational agribusiness and energy corporations to set up shop. Israeli weaponry and technical advice have been crucial in achieving this. As a result, Israel is able to reap some of the benefits, keeping the lights on at home thanks to cheap Colombian coal in a deal that benefits them and big business but hurts the people and contributes to ethnic cleansing on both sides of the world.

“Key outposts of U.S. power”

Colombia and Israel are the U.S.’ most favored allies in their respective regions. Israel receives billions of dollars in military aid yearly, weapons which it often tests on civilian Palestinian populations and can thereafter be sold at arms fairs worldwide as “battle tested.”

Likewise, Colombia receives enormous sums of free American weapons (over $461 million worth in 2021) mainly under the guise of the discredited War on Drugs. Plan Colombia — the militarization of the drug war in Latin America — is most associated with the Bush administration. However, the brains of the operation was actually Joe Biden. “I’m the guy who put together Plan Colombia…straighten[ing] that government out for a long while,” he bragged last year. While in office, Biden plans to expand his policy from Colombia to Central America.

Neither Israel nor Colombia’s most recent repression has drawn censure from the Biden administration, with the president immediately announcing that “Israel has a right to defend itself,” as it was pummelling civilian targets in Gaza. Likewise, there has been no official word from Washington on the Colombian government’s deadly crackdown on protesters. Indeed, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin met with his Colombian counterpart Diego Molano earlier this week, where he “expressed his commitment to strengthening our defense relationship” in his own words.

“Israel and Colombia are key outposts of U.S. empire and as such are permitted to terrorize civilian populations in the name of fighting terror,” said Belén Fernández, a journalist who covers Middle East-Latin America relations closely. “The two states are firmly bound to the U.S. and each other in what amounts to a military-economic ménage à trois predicated on the perpetuation of insecurity, forced displacement, and right-wing tyranny,” she added.

MintPress also spoke with Manuel Rozental, a physician and longtime activist living in Cauca, where the recent repression has been most extreme. Rozental saw a number of parallels between Israel and Colombia.

“At the moment there is an uprising in Colombia from people fed up with a regime that only exploits and resorts to violence and force. The same is happening in Gaza,” he said.

In both cases, the U.S. either says nothing or it presents both sides as part of a process of polarization to cover up the fact there is one illegitimate regime suppressing and oppressing people. None of this violence in Colombia would be taking place if not for the support of the U.S. and its corporate interests. And such is the case as well in Israel.”

Colombia’s role in the system is distinctly similar to that of Israel’s, being the United States’ chief lieutenant in the region, attacking Venezuela, Bolivia, or any of its other progressive neighbors. It is also the chief location for American military bases in the area. For Rozental, the parallels between Colombia and the Israel-Palestine situation are “obvious”:

Israel spearheads U.S. interests in the Middle East in exchange for massive funding for the government for support for an increasingly fascist regime under the control of Benjamin Netanyahu as a strongman, like [former] President Uribe is in Colombia. This model generates enormous amounts of money for the U.S. military industry and transformed Israel into both a military superpower and a producer and exporter of security of war throughout the Middle East and the world.”

Protestors in both countries are being hit with tear gas that comes from the same Pennsylvania-based arms maker supplying both regimes. Both nations are also willing to do the dirty work that the United States would rather not get caught doing. Israel, for instance, became the main supplier of weapons to the Chilean fascist dictatorship under General Pinochet after public pressure forced the U.S. government to suspend military aid. It also supplied an estimated 95% of all arms to the pro-U.S. Argentinian military junta while it was in power (1976-1983).

Meanwhile, increased scrutiny of American training of tens of thousands of Latin American police and military officers in the tactics of repression has made the U.S. less keen to continue the practice, especially as many of the graduates of the infamous School of the Americas in Fort Benning, GA, have now been found guilty of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Evan King, Colombia Program Director for the Witness for Peace Solidarity Collective in Bogota, told MintPress:

Colombia is the Israel of South America because they have started to export these tactics throughout the region. The U.S. loves this, the offshoring of indoctrinating military forces abroad. They don’t have to do it because the Colombians now do it. So you see Colombian forces training Honduran, Salvadoran or Mexican police. Most recently, you saw Colombian special forces going to Haiti to train Haitian security forces, who are now also gunning down protestors in the streets.”

Settler colonial states

The phrase “the Israel of Latin America” was originally an epithet against Colombia by former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, highlighting how Colombia is a tool of American imperialism. However, former Colombian President Santos appropriated it as a compliment, declaring his people honorary Israelites, noting their similarities.

The two states are indeed far more similar than many realize. They are both highly militarized governments conducting seemingly endless wars against their indigenous populations, all the while using the rhetoric of pursuing a “peace process” which never seems to bring peace.

Likewise, both governments smear their opponents as “terrorists.” In Colombia, it is trade unions, leftist guerilla groups and indigenous and social leaders; in Israel, it is doctors, journalists and the Palestinian population more generally. Thus, essentially anyone standing in their way can be designated a terrorist and therefore, becomes a legitimate target.

Protesters block the entry of an Israeli Sand Cat, the same variety sold to Colombia, to a UK arms fair. Mark Kerrison | Alamy

“The kind of peace that the Israeli government would like is one where they could do whatever they wanted with the land and never give it back. And there is a similar approach to the conflict that continues here [in Colombia]. The government is in favor of the peace process, but mainly as a tool to open the country up to foreign investment,” King said, adding:

That’s where I think Colombia and Israel are very similar; counterinsurgency is no longer a tactic or a strategy to deal with a threat, but it is a way of governing and a reason for the state. The state is no longer to provide social services or guarantee people’s rights, but to protect against an internal enemy at all times and at all costs.”

The Colombian government under Duque’s mentor Alvaro Uribe oversaw a longstanding series of extrajudicial murders and massacres that resulted in as many as 10,000 deaths. Dubbed the “False Positives Scandal,” government forces would murder anyone they wished, later claiming their victims were members of narcoterrorist organizations. This allowed the government to eliminate opposition to it and intimidate other would-be foes into silence. This is why it was particularly notable when, last year, Prime Minister Netanyahu applauded Duque, stating: “Ivan, your leadership in the fight against terrorism sets an example for the rest of Latin America.” One week after the current protests were launched, Colombian Defense Minister Diego Molano stated that the country “faces the terrorist threat of criminal organizations.”

Both governments are also carrying out what amounts to settler colonial projects. In Colombia, it is a decidedly white elite attempting to clear the land of indigenous and Afro-Colombian farmers to make way for multinational corporations, while in Israel, it is the construction of a Jewish supremacist state on top of an already existing Palestinian one. Almost unknown in the West is the scale of the violence in Colombia; the United Nations estimates that there are currently 7.4 million displaced Colombians, a figure larger than even the highest estimates of Palestinian refugees.

“The treatment of indigenous and Afro-Colombians by the central government is as second-class citizens. They don’t really give them rights. It is not a formal thing, but if you go to black majority cities like port city Buenaventura, the difference is stark,” King said. “The way people are living there is, I assume, closer to the conditions in Gaza than in the rest of Colombia. There is no formal apartheid regime but it is clear that the whole point is for them to leave the land and create such extreme economic and humanitarian hardship that they will just depopulate the land themselves, without the need of force.”

Israel across Latin America

Throughout Latin America, Israel is a partisan issue. While leftist movements the continent over have offered their support to the Palestinians, seeing their struggle against imperialism as intertwined with theirs, the right have taken up Israel as their cause.

In 2010, President Chavez offered his full support towards Palestinian independence. “From the bottom of my soul, damn you, state of Israel! Terrorists and assassins! Long live the Palestinian people” he said. Four years later, in the wake of another Israeli attack on Gaza, Bolivian President Evo Morales formally declared Israel a “terrorist state.”

Almost as soon as Morales was overthrown in a U.S.-backed coup in 2019, the new, far-right government re-established ties with the Middle Eastern state and immediately invited IDF officials to the country to help deal with the nationwide protests against the coup. “We’ve invited them to help us. They’re used to dealing with terrorists. They know how to handle them,” new Interior Minister Arturo Murillo said of his guests. Foreign Minister Israel Katz expressed his satisfaction that a new “friendly government” had taken charge in Bolivia. In Venezuela, one of the first things Juan Guaidó did after he announced himself president of the country was to reveal he is working on renormalizing relations with Israel.

In Brazil, far-right president Jair Bolsonaro seems almost obsessed with Israel, so much so that he is rarely to be seen at a rally without multiple Israeli flags nearby. The 66-year-old former army officer also opened a trade office in Jerusalem and hinted that the embassy would soon follow. Other right-wing states such as Honduras have promised to do the same. Bolsonaro’s children also allowed themselves to be photographed wearing IDF and Mossad shirts. Netanyahu expressed his appreciation, stating that his government had “no better friends than the people and government of Brazil.”

Israel Latin America

Jair Bolsonaro’s sons pictured wearing shirts glorifying the Israeli military. Photo | Twitter

The reason for the preoccupation with Israel across much of the region comes from the rise and power of the conservative Evangelical church. As journalist and ordained minister Chris Hedges explained to MintPress last week, many right-wing Christian prophecies about the end times include the Jews returning to the Holy Land and the destruction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Only then will the righteous ascend to heaven and the damned (including the Jews and other non-believers) be cast into hell. Bolsonaro and other new right leaders draw their most loyal support from these groups.

Israel is also helping to prop up Chile’s beleaguered president Sebastian Piñera amid nationwide protests and widespread contempt, like it did with Pinochet 40 years ago. As Fernández noted, Israel has sold weapons and anti-riot gear to Chile, as well as training their army and police force, know-how that no doubt came in useful while dealing with a national revolt.

A better future?

While violence in Colombia and Palestine has captured headlines, there is some hope on the horizon for those suffering in both countries. Polls show that Duque’s government looks weakened as a political force and that former leftist guerilla Gustavo Petro is leagues ahead of his competitors for next year’s presidential election.

Petro lost in 2018, amid threats on his life, widespread vote buying, and rigging, and a generalized threat from far-right paramilitaries promising to kill anyone who dared vote for him. However, Duque’s disastrous handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and his all-out push for economic shock therapy has alienated much of his base. If Petro can stay alive until next year — not an easy task for progressive Colombian politicians — victory could be his.

On Palestine too, the mood appears to be shifting. Where once only unquestioning support for Israel was the norm, senior politicians, cable news presenters and columnists have unequivocally denounced Israeli aggression, with many echoing human rights organizations in labeling it an apartheid state. The Black Lives Matter movement has offered its support to Palestine, with many elected officials openly linking the violence against Palestinians with the violence against people of color in the United States.

“I rise today in solidarity with the Palestinian people,” began Rep. Cori Bush’s (D-MO) speech in Congress earlier this month, a statement unthinkable just a few years ago. “The equipment that they used to brutalize us [at Ferguson] is the same equipment that we send to the Israeli military and police to terrorize Palestinians,” she added.

“The ethnic cleansing continues now,”said Michigan Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib at a protest outside the State Department. “What they are doing to the Palestinian people is what they continue to do to our black brothers and sisters here; …it is all interconnected.”

With their myriad of links, we should also see the violence against Colombians and Palestinians as interconnected. Perhaps their liberation will be, too.

*

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

Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.orgThe GuardianSalonThe GrayzoneJacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams.

Featured image is by Antonio Cabrera

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 well-reputed online magazine Nature.com published on May 24, 2021, a research-report finding that people who had a corona infection have also developed antibodies and will most likely be immune against the disease for the rest of their lives. See this. Let’s hope it will not be “fact-checked” out.

Censuring the truth. What a pity! What can now be called “Covid Deep State” – the same “superior and super-rich elite” buys practically all the mainstream media – television, radio and print – in basically all the 193 UN member countries. Looks like there is no escape. That’s what they would like. That’s why the entire world had to be locked down for the virus at once on or around the 15th of March 2020.

It is an epidemiological impossibility that the entire world at once is affected by a virus, let alone by what WHO then dared to call a “pandemic”. However, the truth always seeps through, sooner or later. Just think of Leonard Cohen’s extraordinary anthem There is a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in”. The truth will always sooner or later penetrate the darkness.

Right now, it looks like the time is coming when the huge heavy vessel that carries this somber elite’s lies and deceits straight ahead, ignoring all objections and arguments, and as if there was no obstacle to hold it back – as money buys everything – this vessel is slowly but gradually and it seems unstoppably turning. People are awaking around the globe.

Independent scientists, virologists, medical doctors with integrity and the warmth of true humanity have abandoned the matrix and taken the Red Pill. This is in reference to the 1999 movie, “The Matrix” – where taking the red pill means the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth, or remaining in contented dark ignorance with the blue pill. Amazingly, the movie has not yet been banned and “fact-checked” off the screens and internet.

And so, the study referred to by Nature.com of acquired immunity – probably for life – makes vaccination not only redundant, but outright dangerous. The text is also available in German, see here. The study has revealed that after 11 months of infection antibodies are still present.

Dr, Mike Yeadon, former Vice President Pfizer and Chief of Science at Pfizer, a top virologist, has studied SARS cases in 2019 from the SARS outbreak in China of 2002 / 2003. He found still antibodies in all of his examined former SARS-infected people. He concludes that SARS, alias covid antibodies are therefore, effective for at least 17 years and following his experience he assumes for life. See here.

This actually means that all those who have had the covid infection have developed various degrees of antibodies which make vaccination not only unnecessary, but dangerous, as the vaccine, especially the mRNA-type “emergency gene therapy” – never approved by CDC / DFA as a vaccine – could affect and destroy a person’s naturally acquired immune system, not only against covid, but against a wide range of diseases. Therefore, coercing people with natural antibodies into taking the jab is a crime. So-called mRNA “scientists” know exactly what they are doing.

Dr. Mike Yeadon goes a step further, claiming that the mRNA-jab contains a spike protein, called syncytin-1, vital for the formation of human placenta in women. If the “vaccine” – or rather the CDC-called emergency gene therapy – works, Yeadon says, “we form an immune response against the spike protein, then we are also training the female body to attack syncytin-1 which could lead to infertility of women of an unspecified duration.” In other words, likely for the rest of their child-bearing life.

On 1 December 2020, Dr. Yeadon and German Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg wrote to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), urging them to carry out vaccine trials, including for their effect on women’s infertility. They never received an answer.

In an article published by Global Research on 22 April, here, Nathaniel Linderman referred to a study by Dr. Bart Classen, claiming that mRNA Pfizer jabs – allow me to repeat: Not vaccines but emergency gene-therapies – caused different kinds of neurodegenerative diseases, including the risk of Prion disease, see this.

Dr. Bart Classen’s research indicates that the Pfizer untested mRNA vaccine, creates new proteins that can actually integrate into the human genome, as reported by the National Library of Medicine. In other words, degenerative brain conditions may appear at any time in your life after receiving the vaccine.

The Pfizer vaccine is, however, not the only type of untested inoculation that causes neurodegenerative defects, many of them deadly and most of them unreversible or only partially curable. There are Moderna, J&J, AstraZeneca and more.

Founder Robert Kennedy Jr. of Children’s Health Defense – The Defender – reports on 2 June 2021 about a 38-year-old woman, who nearly died after a J&J covid-vaccine. She suffered various organ failures. The woman was healthy until she received the J&J untested covid “vaccine”. Within a week, she started experiencing headaches, abdominal pain and nausea and was eventually diagnosed with severe blood clots that caused most of her vital organs to fail. Only intense medical treatment, 33 days of hospitalization, of which 22 days of intensive care, saved her life – and left her with a medical bill of over a US$ 1 million – for which nobody admits responsibility. See this.

God only knows how many unreported cases there are – some very likely even worse and many deaths. And more injuries and death may be expected by vaccinated people as time goes on – see Dr. Yeadon’s suspicion that we may be set up for mass depopulation.

The young lady, who received the untested J&J covid “vaccine”, is now in occupational and physical therapy. She has to learn basic motor skills, including writing and using a fork, and she had to relearn how to walk. However, she will never again be the same as before the disastrous jab.

And there is as of yet no relief for her one-million-dollar medical bills.

Since the government shields vaccine makers from law suits under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 which effectively granted vaccine manufacturers freedom from civil tort liability. Instead, several years later, the US government established the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICO), which turns down most of the applicants, i.e., fewer than one in ten injured people receive compensation. And this is in the US. In other countries such compensation does not exist, unless the government assumes the risks – which is not (yet) formalized in most countries, if in any.

For example, in Europe, no EU country has declared assuming the covid-vaxx injury compensation risk. When not too long ago a journalist asked the Swiss Health Minister, what about compensation for vaccination injuries? – He was taken aback by the question and stuttered something to the effect, “We haven’t thought of it yet, but there are unlikely going to be injuries.”

In the meantime, by the end of May 2021, the EU recorded more than 12,000 deaths related to covid vaccines and more than 100,000 serious injuries – and these figures may be vastly underreported. Yet, no official compensation scheme has been established. And governments who follow the Covid Deep State orders on fulfilling quotas of vaccinated people, are quiet and ignore the topic.

No wonder, the “Covid Cabal”, those ultra-rich who claim to call the shots on covid and its eugenist agenda are getting nervous. With such messages of immediate vaxx-injuries and predictions of mass depopulation within the next 3 to 4 years, people may wake up – and start resisting. See this by Dr. Joseph Mercola and Dr. Mike Yeadon, this and this.

In the heat of the vaxx-haste and people becoming increasingly alert, representatives of the Deep Dark Covid State, the instigators of the crime of recent human history, have to take recourse to threats. The Editor in Chief of the reputed Natur.com online research paper claimed having recently received two anonymous calls from people who pretended to work for the US government – is it true? – saying that they are themselves not taking the vaccination, but there was a quota that on average 70% of the world population had to be vaccinated by 2022.

See this testimonial video (28 May 2021) from Natural News: the Vaccine Deep State issues a DIRECT THREAT to Natural News – “you follow our orders or else…”.

Something to think about – but always with the premise – they will not win. Our human spirit and will power to resist is much stronger than their Luciferian plan.  We must wake up in solidarity – and we will, that’s why they are so desperate to “vaccinate” as many people as possible – 70% of the world population is their target – as fast as possible, before we wake up. Once you are vaccinated its too late to change. The effects maybe irreversible.

But we are already awake – right?

As of 2 June 2021, according to WHO, a worldwide total of 1 581 509 628 have been vaccinated. See this. Out of an estimated 7.8 billion (2020), that’s about 20%. There is a long way to go to 70%, notwithstanding the hundreds of millions, if not in the billions, who outright refuse the jab. And if 70% is really their target, then coercion might have just begun.

But not to worry.

People are just about to wake up, as they start realizing that there is a much more sinister agenda behind the forced and coerced vaccination – and especially as their injury and death rates increasingly surface and are becoming known. Our human mind and collective will-power is much stronger than their diabolical darkness – no matter the money they put behind their sinister objective.

*

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

Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

June 4th, 2021 by Global Research News

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

Video: “These People Killed Millions”: Dr. Andrea Stramezzi on Preventable COVID Deaths and Culprits

By Dr. Andrea Stramezzi and Kristina Borjesson, June 03, 2021

Italian physician Dr. Andrea Stramezzi defied his government by continuing to use hydroxychloroquine on his patients even after it was banned based on the World Health Organization’s recommendation which was based on a fraudulent study published in the Lancet medical journal.

“America Jobs Plan”? Biden’s Disastrous “Infrastructure” Bill

By F. William Engdahl, June 03, 2021

The Biden Administration has proposed what it calls a $2.3 trillion “infrastructure” legislation which it calls the “American Jobs Plan.” Far from addressing the huge deficit in America’s highway, bridges, railway, electric grid, water supply and such economically vital infrastructure that would address critical problems in the functioning of the economy, the Biden planners have cynically taken a politically popular word, “infrastructure,” and packed hundreds of billions of dollars into economically wasteful, destructive initiatives having more to do with the Green Agenda than rebuilding a healthy economy.

Philanthropist Bill Gates Invests in “Advanced” Reactor Nuclear Technology

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 03, 2021

Let us be under no illusion, the so-called civilian use of nuclear technology does not contribute to “clean energy”.  Moreover the development of “advanced” reactors (for civilian uses) is related (indirectly) to the Biden administration’s  nuclear weapons program.

Pentagon to Use War Games to Smuggle Weapons to Ukrainian Army, Extremist Formations for War in Donbass: Russian Defense Ministry

By Rick Rozoff, June 03, 2021

Today’s TASS cites Major General Igor Konashenkov, spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry, warning that the U.S. and NATO will exploit this year’s Sea Breeze military exercise in Ukraine to smuggle advanced weaponry and munitions to the nation’s armed forces and fascistic paramilitaries and mercenaries of the infamous Azov Battalion and similar units. The arms will be used for the ongoing war in the Donbass region.

The Etymological Animal Must Slip Out of the Cage of Habit to Grasp Truth

By Edward Curtin, June 03, 2021

Words slip out of our mouths to surprise us.  Thoughts slip into our minds to shock us.  Dreams slip into our nights to sometimes slip into our waking thoughts to startle us.  And, as the wonderful singer/songwriter Paul Simon, sings, we are always “slip sliding away,” a reminder that can be a spur to courage and freedom or an inducement to fear and shut-upness.

Israel’s New Mossad Chief Threatens More Assassinations and Attacks Inside Iran

By Dave DeCamp, June 03, 2021

On Tuesday, the new head of Israel’s Mossad spy agency suggested more Israeli covert attacks and assassinations inside Iran should be expected even as the US and other world powers are negotiating a revival of the nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA.

The War of Corporations on Our Children

By Emanuel Pastreich, June 03, 2021

The older generation takes a strange pleasure in reiterating comments about the absence of responsibility, the lack of focus and the indulgence of young people, using these arguments as a means of excusing the bleak future that their children and grandchildren face. Those arguments are rarely original, but rather they are force-fed to baby boomers by the media as a means of relieving them of all responsibility and of distracting them from the true causes of the tragic shifts that they observe obliquely.

The Campaign against Ivermectin: WHO’s Chief Scientist Served with Legal Notice for Disinformation and Suppression of Evidence

By Colin Todhunter, June 03, 2021

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 “her act of spreading disinformation and misguiding the people of India, in order to fulfil her agenda.”

57 Top Scientists and Doctors Release Shocking Study on COVID Vaccines and Demand Immediate Stop to All Vaccinations

By Dr. Roxana Bruno, Dr. Peter McCullough, and et al., June 03, 2021

There are two certainties regarding the global distribution of Covid-19 vaccines. The first is that governments and the vast majority of the mainstream media are pushing with all their might to get these experimental drugs into as many people as possible. The second is that those who are willing to face the scorn that comes with asking serious questions about vaccines are critical players in our ongoing effort to spread the truth.

US Government Safety and Health Authority (OSHA) Suspends Requirement that Employers Report Vaccine-Related Injuries

By Matthew Vadum, June 03, 2021

In order to encourage American workers to get vaccinated, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has suspended the legal requirement for employers to report work-related injuries resulting from vaccinations aimed at combating the CCP virus, which causes the disease COVID-19.

‘Self-Spreading’ Vaccines Pose Multiple Risks to Society — Including the End of Informed Consent

By Children’s Health Defense, June 03, 2021

Proponents argue self-disseminating vaccines could mean they no longer have to run complex mass vaccination programs. Critics say the vaccines pose many health risks and would also spell the end of informed consent. In October 2019, the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security co-sponsored the “pandemic exercise,” Event 201.

Video: Nasrallah Pronounced Dead by MSM Amid Deepest Crisis in Lebanese History

By South Front, June 03, 2021

Lebanon is in crisis, both political and economic, and this promises to deteriorate further. According to the World Bank, the country’s economic collapse is likely to rank among the world’s worst financial crises since the mid-19th century. The complete meltdown of Lebanon’s economy during the past 18 months is widely blamed on corruption and mismanagement by the country’s hereditary political elite.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Video: “These People Killed Millions”: Dr. Andrea Stramezzi on Preventable COVID Deaths and Culprits
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on India: 9,346 Children Abandoned, Orphaned, Lost a Parent to COVID-19: NCPCR Informs SC

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.

***

I don’t often restate my twitter posts here on the blog, but today’s development by Biden is so historic a betrayal and reversal to satisfy corporate friends and Republicans it deserves a repost. It’s a ‘double reversal’ and so typical a Democrat party betrayal.

Today Biden announced he was CUTTING corporate taxes to 15%. Trump had cut corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. Biden ran for office pledging to raise that back to 28%. He then reneged and said it would be only 25%. He then agreed with European Union finance ministers to cut taxes on US multinationals to only 15%. Now he announces he’ll CUT US corporate taxes to 15%–instead of raising to even 25%. This comes after talks with Republicans.

Not to outdo himself, Biden next CUTS his proposed infrastructure bill further as well. Starting out at $2.25T, he last week reduced that to $1.7T. Now, however, he offers to CUT that to $1T!

In the past two weeks it was apparent that Biden and Republicans were engaging in a ‘smoke and mirrors’ negotiations on the so called American Jobs Act, aka Infrastructure bill: Biden had agreed to break out negotiations on a separate track on $400B in the bill that was actually a subsidy to US auto and tech corporations, to pay for their R&D on electric car investments. It included as well $50B subsidy to US auto corps for semiconductor chip production.

Auto companies had cut production (i.e. gone on strike) claiming a chip shortage and began laying off workers. All this just as Congress was taking up proposals on chip subsidy of $50B. Once it appeared the $50B would pass, however, somehow auto companies–despite their claimed chip shortage–now miraculously boosted production once again. The alleged chip shortage was clearly a lobbying pressure ploy by the companies. They’ll now get the $50B chip subsidy, plus another $173B in the infrastructure bill to subsidize their electric car development and charging stations build out. The rest of the $400B corp subsidy in the Infrastructure bill will benefit tech corps’ R&D and manufacturers.

The $400B subsidy has nothing to do with infrastructure. But will now fast track in passage while the rest of the human investments in the infrastructure bill of $2.25T, then $1.7T, and now $1T will lag.

Biden’s cut of his infrastructure proposals to $1T brings it in line with Republican counter proposals of roughly $928B. However, McConnell & Co. $928B includes moving $350B in spending allocated in the already passed Covid Relief Act (aka American Rescue Plan) in March. It also includes $308B also already allocated to be spent in transportation funding.

So the Republican bill is just agreeing to spend what has already been spent!

It’s almost certain Biden will include the $308B already allocated for transport spending in his reduced $1T infrastructure offer. That’s West Virginia blue dog Democrat Senator, Manchin’s, proposal. So Biden’s only proposing $700B–a long way from his original $2.25T.

Biden’s dual move to CUT corp taxes even more than Trump had and to cut his proposed infrastructure spending by more than $1.5T, represent unilateral moves by him without any real concessions by the Republicans. It all looks like a well orchestrated ‘deal’ from the beginning, overlaid with a public appearance that there are ‘negotiations’ under way

One is reminded of last summer, when Shumer-Pelosi reduced their proposed spending by $1T on their ‘Heroes Act’, which McConnell and Republicans simply refused to counter. Democrats have a history of capitulation, poor negotiating strategy and ability, and a general capitulation to Republicans on fiscal policy.

Further back, one is also reminded of Obama’s policy. In 2009 his fiscal stimulus was a mere $787B (of which $300B were tax cuts for businesses). He then CUT social program spending in August 2011 by twice that amount, $1.5T.

Biden’s lastest moves are deja vu Democrat party perfidy. Biden reveals he–like Trump, Obama, Bush and Clinton before him–is intent on continuing the Neoliberal fiscal policy of cut, cut, cut corporate and investor taxes + promise social program spending, cut that back, and then take even more back in subsequent austerity proposals once the immediate crisis has passed.

In the interim, Neoliberalism means the Fed giving trillions of dollars in free money to banks, investors and corporations. In one year the Fed has pumped $4T of virtually free money into these folks, matching in one year the amount Obama gave them in four years, 2009-13!

By these recent moves Biden and Democrats are on board, in other words, with the decades long policy of continual further corporate tax cutting, temporary fiscal program spending during a crisis, followed by eventual austerity take-backs.

Biden’s just announced CUTS to corporate taxes and proposals for infrastructure spending are clearly Republican-McConnell demands. Biden and Dems once again clearly capitulate. Then again, maybe the capitulation was all planned out months ago!

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Jack Rasmus.

Dr. Jack Rasmus is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Newsmax.com

US FinCen About to Control Global Financial Data

June 4th, 2021 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Washington is about to control the data of all financial transactions in the world. With the objective of combating financial crimes, the American government is about to pass a law that greatly expands the inspection power of financial regulatory agencies, which will have the freedom to use new technologies that allow them to supervise operations outside American territory. In practice, this could create a scenario of global data enforcement, in which all individuals and organizations would be subject to US agencies.

In early 2021, the US Congress overturned the presidential veto on a last year’s bill that called for new measures to combat money laundering. This law provides new technologies and financial resources to FinCen (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network), an agency under the US Department of the Treasury, which regulates and monitors suspicious financial transactions globally. The project has corporate transparency at its core, which requires all companies to reveal their owners and beneficiaries in the new FinCEN registry, creating a comprehensive data control system.

If this project is put into practice, events such as massive data leaks, as happened last year, could become more and more common. In 2020, FinCen unveiled more than 2,000 money laundering financial transaction documents across multiple countries. In all, illegal transactions amounted to 2 trillion dollars. While the benefit of uncovering illicit schemes is positive, the invasive US policy to monitor transactions in other countries can be a major problem and a real attack on the sovereignty of countries where there are supposedly happening illegal transactions. Last year, FinCen managed to reveal illegal transactions in more than 3,000 financial organizations in the UK, as well as banks in the UAE and Germany, among others. The practice of violating jurisdictions to incriminate bank users and impose new sanctions can be truly dangerous and cause great legal uncertainty in countries monitored by Washington. Still, with these new measures, the American agency will receive much more resources and it is speculated that it will acquire practically unlimited power, “invading” any country to “regulate” financial transactions.

However, it should be noted that currently the focus of American policy to combat money laundering is the control of the cryptocurrency market. The reasons for this are obvious. Cryptocurrencies are an extremely difficult financial mechanism to control and allow virtually any transaction to be carried out by anyone anywhere in the world, from simple individual applications to massive funding of terrorist organizations. Gaining control over the electronic currency market is a challenge for any sovereign national state today, but this obviously does not justify measures that violate the jurisdiction of other states. The cryptocurrency market is currently valued at 1.5 trillion dollars, which motivates Washington to try to impose a strict framework for these assets, considering that the absence of adequate supervision over the circulation of electronic currencies allows the creation of new and more complex forms of money laundering, increasing financial crimes and threatening the financial well-being of businesses and individuals. Recently, the first US government interdepartmental meeting on cryptocurrencies took place. Officials from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation discussed joint strategies regarding cryptocurrencies, elevating the topic to a national security issue under strict control of the US state.

Late last year, FinCen tried to impose strict measures on cryptocurrencies, proposing to force cryptocurrency traders and digital wallets to collect personal information from users. Given the impact that such a measure could have on various financial sectors, Biden interrupted the procedures for implementing the proposal in his first days in power, but the topic remained extremely strong and forced the White House to resume the discussion. Now, the matter is being addressed from the perspective of combating financial crimes and money laundering, which will likely motivate the Biden government to authorize the measures previously proposed.

In short, the US is developing a strategy to combat financial crimes that consists of granting FinCen unlimited powers and a large number of resources for investments in new technologies, which will allow the agency to comprehensively oversee financial transactions carried out across the planet, without any respect for the sovereignty and jurisdiction of States. In addition, FinCen’s new focus will be the control of transactions in cryptocurrencies, which raises even more concerns about how the method of investigation and inspection will take place, considering that the virtual and dynamic flow of these assets will certainly demand even more invasive measures on the part of the American agency for data collection.

Although there is great concern regarding the sovereignty of countries that will be harmed by US inspections, the new measures to combat financial crimes will certainly have a profound impact on the global economy itself. In order to identify some criminal transactions, US authorities will collect data from millions of people and companies, breaking privacy principles and harming lawful businesses. As far as financial crime is concerned, the result will be the development of more complex and confidential forms of money laundering and illegal transactions, while lawful operations will be the most affected.

*

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

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US FinCen About to Control Global Financial Data
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

With the participation of the U.S., Canada, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Latvia and other partner countries of NATO, Ukraine’s Defense Ministry and the U.S.’ European Command will hold massive joint drills from June 28 to July 10. These exercises are so huge in fact that it involves about 4,000 military personnel, 40 combat ships, vessels and auxiliary craft, 30 aircraft and over 100 armored vehicles.

Although the joint Ukraine-NATO military training, dubbed Sea Breeze 2021, is undoubtedly aimed at improving the inter-operability between participants in a hypothetical war against Russia, the most alarming fact is that the Ukrainian military and the Far-Right militias will be supplied with advanced weapons and munitions over the course of the exercises – this was supposed to be hidden from Russia.

The Sea Breeze 2021 exercise comes as Russia condemns NATO activities which have become frequent in recent years near its western border. NATO, for its part, says it wants to contain so-called Russian aggression by sending reconnaissance ships, planes and drones to the Black Sea region.

On March 19, NATO launched the Sea Shield-21 exercises in the Black Sea. The exercises had more than 2,400 soldiers, 18 warships and 10 planes. On March 17, the Spanish frigate Méndez Núñez entered the area showing its support for Ukraine and Georgia after NATO had already strengthened its presence there for a few weeks. On February 25, the Spanish and Greek mine hunters Tajo and Evropi also entered the Black Sea. In early February, two American destroyers, the USS Donald Cook and the USS Porter, left the Black Sea after participating in military maneuvers. These are only but a few examples of NATO activity in the Black Sea aimed at pressuring and containing Russia.

After a mostly respected ceasefire during the second half of 2020, clashes have been increasing since early 2021 between NATO-backed Ukrainian military/Far-Right militias and the local defense forces of Donbass. At the same time, tensions increased with Moscow, which deployed tens of thousands of soldiers near the Ukrainian border, raising fears of a large-scale military operation. Ukraine accuses Russia of looking for a pretext to invade it, while Moscow continually assures that it is not “threatening anyone” but is prepared to respond to any provocation.

Emboldened by this Western support, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky announced last month his plans to build two entire naval bases in the south of the country “to protect the Black Sea region.”

Following the Joint Effort 2020 military exercise in the Mykolaiv region in southern Ukraine, which had the participation of 450 British paratroopers, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said that he would like the British to stay there. He emphasised that Britain has always supported Ukraine’s struggle for independence and helped to resist “Russian aggression.”

So far, London has not responded to Kiev’s call, but does continue to work actively in this region against Russia, especially as British Navy vessels regularly visit the Black Sea. Military technical cooperation between the two countries is expanding though.

Earlier this year, Zelensky signed an agreement with a British credit agency. Under its terms, the British will build NATO-compliant missile boats for the Ukrainian Navy. Before Kuleba, no one had the idea of a British base in the Mykolaiv region. The deployment of foreign military infrastructure is prohibited by Article 17 of the Ukrainian Constitution, although a special agreement was reached for Russia to have a base in Sevastopol when Crimea was still under Ukrainian sovereignty. Theoretically, the Ukrainians can make an exception for the British if they wanted.

Although it is unlikely for the British to have a permanent base in Ukraine’s Black Sea territory, they will certainly not shy away from militarizing the country. It is for this reason that under the guise of needing specific equipment for the Sea Breeze 2021 exercises that NATO, particularly the U.S. and UK, will arm Ukraine.

Earlier this year, when it appeared that simultaneous operations by the Ukrainian and Azerbaijani military in their respective conflict zones would occur, Russia’s rapid mobilization to respond to any aggression against Russian passport holders in Donbass deterred such ideas.

NATO quickly realized that Ukraine had little chance of success and delayed military operations against Donbass until better preparations could be made. It now appears that NATO is working towards this goal by endlessly conducting military exercises with Ukraine. Now they are using Sea Breeze 2021 exercises to covertly deliver high-tech equipment to Ukraine. Russia’s mobilization earlier this year revealed the short-comings of Ukraine’s military and NATO is now attempting to compensate for these shortcomings, suggesting that a new conflict in Donbass has only been delayed, not deterred.

*

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.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In order to encourage American workers to get vaccinated, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has suspended the legal requirement for employers to report work-related injuries resulting from vaccinations aimed at combating the CCP virus, which causes the disease COVID-19.

OSHA enforces the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

The statute covers “most private sector employers and their workers, in addition to some public sector employers and workers in the 50 states and certain territories and jurisdictions under federal authority. Those jurisdictions include the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Wake Island, Johnston Island, and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands.”

This suspension of the law by OSHA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), doesn’t change the liability faced by employers under workers’ compensation laws or under civil personal injury laws, according to the nonprofit group Liberty Counsel.

Earlier in May, the OSHA website stated that employers could be held liable if they required employees to receive COVID-19-related injections as a condition of employment and said employees then experienced adverse reactions.

According to Liberty Counsel, a “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQ) section of OSHA’s website stated: “If you require your employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment (i.e., for work-related reasons), then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under 29 CFR 1904.6 and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7.”

But visitors to the same website’s FAQ section now see a different message, which reads:

“DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.”

Liberty Counsel apparently inferred from the changed guidance that the White House influenced the decision to drop enforcement of the reporting requirement from a year.

“No doubt receiving pressure from the Biden administration, OSHA suspended the enforcement requirement to record adverse injuries or death from COVID shots until May 2022 in order to push the COVID shots. This politically motivated change by OSHA is unprecedented,” the group stated in a release.

Liberty Counsel founder and Chairman Mat Staver criticized the decision to change the OSHA guidance.

“Employers that require employees to take a COVID shot may be held liable for adverse injuries and death. The fact that OSHA will not enforce recording requirements does not alter the legal liability of employers who require, coerce, or incentivize employees to take COVID shots,” he said in a statement.

“OSHA’s suspension of the recording requirement so as not to discourage experimental COVID shots reveals that the Biden administration could care less about the collateral damage being caused by the COVID shots. The people can see this biased agenda. They are not stupid.”

OSHA confirmed in a statement to The Epoch Times why it suspended the reporting requirement.

“OSHA reconsidered its policy in recognition of federal agencies’ ongoing work to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations,” a Department of Labor spokesperson said.

“The agency does not want to give any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination or disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts.”

None of the available COVID-19 shots are approved or licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Liberty Counsel noted. They have instead been classified as an emergency use authorization (EUA), which means their use can’t be required.

The FDA acknowledges on its website that it “must ensure that recipients of the vaccine under an EUA are informed, to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances … that they have the option to accept or refuse the vaccine, and of any available alternatives to the product.”

EUA authority under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, permits the FDA to take steps to protect public health against “chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats including infectious diseases, by facilitating the availability and use of medical countermeasures needed during public health emergencies.”

When the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declares that an EUA is needed, as it did on March 27, 2020, regarding the ongoing pandemic, the FDA may authorize otherwise unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used “in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.”

*

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

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

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.

***

Joe Biden’s extensive interest in Ukraine during his tenure as Obama’s vice president meant that US attention towards the country would instantly be elevated once the new administration came into power. The Burisma scandal which implicated Hunter Biden and which became a problem for Joe Biden on the campaign trail, combined with Biden’s own apparent frailty and avoidance of extensive public engagements, have meant that Biden himself is in fact yet to have a telephone conversation with Zelensky.

However, whether he deliberately chose to outsource Ukraine policy to his trusted advisors or they are taking initiative in order to fill the vacuum of power left by their boss’ incapacity, US Ukraine policy has taken a number of new twists and turns in the less than two months of the Biden Administration.

The Biden Administration’s actions so far indicate a certain degree of impatience with the goings-on in Kiev which is behaving in an all too independent fashion on many issues. Kiev’s decision to nationalize Motor Sich, an aircraft engine manufacturer whose purchase was sought by Chinese investors thus robbing Ukraine of a significant influx of badly needed hard currency, took place after Washington had expressed displeasure at Chinese companies’ foothold in Ukraine which moreover brings with it access to Soviet-era technologies attractive to China’s aerospace industries.

This action was taken in spite of the considerable risk of Chinese retaliation, which indeed occurred in the form of China’s Foreign Ministry informing its Ukrainian counterpart that it would no longer respect their wishes concerning economic activities in the Crimea, something that Chinese firms have thus far shied away from. The US Embassy in Kiev’s instant endorsement of Zelensky’s shutdown of three opposition TV stations and the placement of sanctions, in violation of Ukraine’s own laws, on one of Ukraine’s opposition leaders Medvedchuk on the grounds that these were involved in spreading so-called “Russian disinformation” suggests that Washington was at the very least aware of the move and may even have prompted it. US sanctioning of Igor Kolomoysky on the basis of his corrupting Ukraine’s politics indicates that Zelensky had not gone far enough in fulfilling Washington’s wishes. In doing this Washington demonstrated it is willing to publicly humiliate Zelensky should he fail to display appropriate deference to their wishes. The question at this point becomes, in which direction will Washington push Zelensky? How far, what means will Washington use to get its way, and to what extent will Zelensky resist?

The greatest service that Ukraine could render Biden’s administration is to launch an all-out assault on Novorossia. A pitched battle between Ukrainian and DPR/LPR forces would instantly create the appropriate headlines and provide the necessary additional pretexts to condemn Russia and introduce more economic sanctions. It would then deliver the outcome that no amount of phony poisonings of Navalny could, namely the suspension or even shut-down of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which has become such a thorn in the side of the Anglo-Saxon powers.

A major military campaign involving several brigades supported by airpower and the now-operational Bayraktar TB-2 drones in an effort to replicate Azerbaijan’s success against Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh would place Moscow before the unenviable choice of abandoning the Donbass to its fate or committing its regular military forces to battle in Novorossia’s defense.

Whether Ukraine’s political leadership is willing to undertake such a desperate measure, in a country whose president suffers from a 20% approval rating and which has seen extensive protests against the recent sharp increase in utility costs, is another question. On the one hand, Ukrainian troop movements near the Donbass have generated considerable attention, and exchanges of fire between Ukrainian and Novorossian forces appear to have continued at an elevated pace over the past several weeks. At the same time, no extraordinary measures such as the recall of reservists or closure of borders in order to prevent military-age males from leaving the country have been observed. While Ukraine’s Rada is considering laws making draft evasion more harshly punishable, these laws will not have an immediate impact, and appear to be a reaction to the failure to build up a professional army of volunteers or even to give the draftees a positive reason to serve. It has even been pointed out that the Ukrainian troop movements have been so ostentatious and lacking in even elementary efforts to preserve concealment and surprise that they represent a “war of nerves”, an exercise in brinksmanship, and possibly an effort to simulate action for the benefit of Washington, rather than genuine preparations for an offensive. A train carrying a reinforced tank company that had been spotted slowly passing three different railroad crossings in eastern Ukraine over the course of several days looks much like an operation staged for the benefit of ubiquitous smart phone cameras.

Therefore the likelihood of the Ukrainian military opting for a large-scale offensive remains low due to the fear of heavy and pointless losses which might cause Ukraine’s military morale to collapse, with unpredictable consequences. Small-scale raids to capture select positions, shelling of Novorossia’s towns and cities, even a staged atrocity, remain more plausible and attractive from the political point of view. Ukraine’s most dangerous military capability is represented by Bayraktar drones, cruise missiles like the Neptun, and short-range ballistic missiles currently in service and being developed, because their use would not entail the danger of major Ukrainian personnel losses. Moreover, Novorossia’s forces would be hard pressed to retaliate in kind against such strikes and Russian efforts to do so would be highly provocative internationally and would carry the risk of causing Ukrainian civilian casualties. Fortunately for Novorossia, the drone park remains fairly small and the drones themselves are vulnerable to Novorossia’s air defenses, while the cruise and ballistic missiles are still years from large-scale operational deployment. The sort of missile bombardment that would represent a genuine threat to Novorossia’s unrecognized republics is still years away. By the time such a serious threat could materialize, Novorossia’s forces would likely have their own means of retaliation in the form of barrage munitions, also referred to as “suicide drones” that could be produced on the spot in Donetsk and Lugansk. However, Ukraine’s current capabilities are sufficient to launch provocations, including the bombardment of civilian targets as was the case in Mariupol in 2014.

That Ukraine’s military is unwilling to risk another misadventure against Novorossia is evident enough, as is Zelensky’s reluctance to go down in history as the president who destroyed Ukraine. These considerations are unlikely to be salient for decisionmakers in Washington, who need Ukraine to advance US interests and are rather less concerned about the US advancing Ukraine’s interests. But the lengths to which Washington is willing to go to pressure Zelensky are still unclear, though the possibility of outright blackmail raised its head when a prominent Maidan propagandist Dmitry Gordon announced that on March 15, the “Ides of March” immortalized by the assassination of Julius Caesar, Ukraine would face a trial of historic proportions once a certain bombshell news story was revealed. While March 15 came and went with no bombshells or even duds, Gordon did reveal that the event consisted of a Bellingcat “investigation” into the SBU plot to lure Wagner PMC contractors into Ukraine in order to have them put on trial. The “bombshell” aspect of the Bellingcat effort is that the plot failed because of a highly placed source in Zelensky’s own presidential cabinet, who leaked it to Russian intelligence services. Considering Bellingcat’s reputation as a firm which does info-warfare “hits” on designated targets and Gordon’s hyping of the potential impact of the film once it becomes public, one has to consider the possibility that Bellingcat is part of a campaign to blackmail or even oust Zelensky from office should he fail to satisfy Washington’s demands.

As noted previously, Zelensky has taken a dim view of Washington’s meddling in Ukraine’s affairs, though it remains to be seen whether he is able to stand up to even his own national security officials who ostensibly are subordinate to him but in reality take orders from Washington. Lacking the independent power base that allowed Poroshenko to resist Washington’s initiatives for “reforming” Ukraine’s economy, Zelensky may yet prove the ideal president from Washington’s perspective, if not Ukraine’s.

*

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

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.

***

Italian physician Dr. Andrea Stramezzi defied his government by continuing to use hydroxychloroquine on his patients even after it was banned based on the World Health Organization’s recommendation which was based on a fraudulent study published in the Lancet medical journal.

Stramezzi gives a detailed explanation of covid as a disease, it’s progression, and how to treat it while naming the culprits responsible, he says, for killing millions by ignoring and suppressing proper treatment of covid (which he says could have been brought under complete control by now), while promoting dangerous, unnecessary vaccines instead.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The Biden Administration has proposed what it calls a $2.3 trillion “infrastructure” legislation which it calls the “American Jobs Plan.” Far from addressing the huge deficit in America’s highway, bridges, railway, electric grid, water supply and such economically vital infrastructure that would address critical problems in the functioning of the economy, the Biden planners have cynically taken a politically popular word, “infrastructure,” and packed hundreds of billions of dollars into economically wasteful, destructive initiatives having more to do with the Green Agenda than rebuilding a healthy economy. If passed, it will have negative consequences for the world’s once-leading economy with serious geopolitical implications.

In March Biden signed another huge extra-budget bill, the $1.9 trillion “American Rescue Plan.” That one was allegedly to aim at dealing with the impact of COVID. The bill dealt in fact with almost everything but COVID. The act is a grab bag of partisan pet projects. Among other things the act provided $12 billion for foreign aid; $15 billion for health care for illegal immigrants; $112 billion for welfare benefits and a generous $350 billion for Democrat-run states. Less than 10% was directed at COVID relief measuresIn politics how you frame or package a bill is more important than the true content. Critics claim these huge spending bills are aimed at buying a future Democratic voter base with government handouts.

Everything is Infrastructure’

No surprise then that now the Biden team has rushed another multi-trillion bill to Congress. The $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan is a bill where way less than half of the measures have to do with conventional infrastructure investment in roads, rails, electric grids, water supplies, ports or airports—all the areas essential to the efficient functioning of the economy. A total of $750 billion or only 32% of the total actually goes for infrastructure such as highway or bridge repairs. Yet even that total includes only $115 billion of real infrastructure for highways, bridges, and surface streets. But the $750 transportation infrastructure section proposes $174 billion for more government subsidies for Green Agenda electric vehicles in what might be called a “make Elon Musk richer” subsidy. The White House fact sheet says that this will help make the US more competitive with China’s electric cars. But the best selling E-car in China today is Musk’s Tesla. That $174 billion is far more than the total $115 billion earmarked for real highway, bridge and transportation infrastructure spendingYet the White House promotes the bill by referring to the need to address America’s crumbling highways and bridges as though this was what the bill is focused on.

The Biden bill defines pretty much everything as “infrastructure.” His American Jobs Plan calls among other items for spending on what it terms “care infrastructure.” They define this as $25 billion to upgrade child care facilities and $400 billion expenditure on care for the elderly and disabled, spending which might be justifiable, but not as “infrastructure.”

Buried in the text of the bill’s $100 billion to go to electric grid modernization and another $27 billion for something called a “clean energy and sustainability accelerator,” is a proposal that would extend generous tax credits to promote solar and wind energy alternatives to reach “zero carbon” electricity by 2035, a ruinous idea. It has been estimated that to make US electricity 100% carbon free, it would require a staggering 25% to 50% of all land in the United States. Today’s coal, gas and nuclear grid requires 0.5 percent of land in the United States. Clearly Biden’s Green jobs plan is hiding a far more sinister agenda.

What the Administration also hides is the fact that it would be a huge boon to China which has a global near-monopoly on production of solar panels, and Denmark or Germany which make most windmill turbines today. Those do not create American jobs as Biden Climate Czar John Kerry once claimed. Ironically, the Biden Administration sees Germany as the model, the place where the Merkel green energy program has created the highest electric costs in all Europe.

Then the Biden bill proposes $10 billion to create something called a “Civilian Climate Corps,” something that deliberately sounds like Roosevelt’s Depression era Civilian Conservation Corps, but with Green New Deal politically correct “woke”update. The White House says that it will “put a new, diverse generation of Americans to work conserving our public lands and waters, bolstering community resilience (?), and advancing environmental justice (whatever that means-w.e.) through a new Civilian Climate Corps.” No doubt in Biden-Harris America that has something to do with race and gender, but not with infrastructure.

Another $20 Billion should go “to Advance Racial Equity and Environmental Justice.” Apparently that means destroying existing highway infrastructure in cities where it is claimed to divide neighborhoods racially. Further an impressive $213 Billion will go to build or retrofit 2 Million Houses and Buildings. Then it adds another $40 billion for public housing, arguing this will “disproportionately benefit women, people of color, and people with disabilities.” For anyone familiar with America’s inner-city public housing ghettoes, this is hardly positive for the people who should live in the places.

In one of the most curious “infrastructure” proposals, Biden would spend $100 billion for New Public Schools and Making School Lunches “Greener.” This comes just after the COVID bill in March gave an unprecedented $128 billion for public schools. The American system gives control over education to local municipal governments and not the Federal government, leading some to suggest the agenda of the Biden crew is imposing a stealth Federal government takeover of public school education. What the Biden people mean by “green lunches” includes “reducing or eliminating the use of paper plates and other disposable materials.” Presumably that includes eliminating plastic knives and forks, leaving the children perhaps to eat with their fingers?

And, for good “infrastructure” measure, more billions will go to “Eliminate ‘Racial and Gender Inequities’ in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) research and development.” How that helps America’s crumbling basic infrastructure is not made clear.

All this $2.3 billion grab bag of mainly Green Agenda projects will be financed by the largest tax increases since the 1990’s as well as a wider Federal deficit.

The Real Infrastructure Deficit

The entire Green New Deal and UN Agenda 2030 is a fraudulent cover to deliberately deindustrialize not only the United States, but also Europe and the entire industrialized world. No economy in history outside of damages of war or depression has deliberately gone from a more energy efficient infrastructure to a lower one. Notably China, while pledging agreement, also says it will comply with Net Zero Carbon, but only ten years after the US and EU, by 2060. Right now they are adding new coal plants at a rapid pace.

The real infrastructure deficit in the US economy is in hundreds of thousands of miles of national Interstate highways. As well, a deteriorating electric grid is made more vulnerable by forced purchase of high-cost unreliable solar or wind energy.

In March the American Society of Civil Engineers released its analysis of US infrastructure, before the Biden $2.3 billion proposal. The report evaluates the state of bridges, roadways, public transit, ports, airports, inland waterways, water supplies. It does so every four years. They estimate that a total of at least $6 trillion is needed to repair or fix America’s deteriorated infrastructure. This is basic infrastructure, not Green Agenda. The report notes that infrastructure that brings clean water to major cities, as well as thousands of miles of wastewater pipelines, sewer systems built decades ago, are badly in need of renewal. The report adds that the drinking water infrastructure system, some 2.2 million miles of underground pipes, is ageing and badly in need of renewal. Local water utilities are replacing some 1% to 5% a year, far too little, due to lack of funding.

The ASCE report notes that of the 617,000 bridges across the United States, “42% are at least 50 years old, and 46,154, or 7.5% of the nation’s bridges, are considered structurally deficient, meaning they are in “poor” condition.” Alone the backlog of urgently needed bridge repair would require $125 billion. And they estimate that over 40% of the nation’s roads and highways are in poor or mediocre condition.

This is just a partial indication of the huge deficit in real economic infrastructure needed to maintain and improve the economic performance of the US economy. The fact that the Green Agenda of the pro-global warming Biden Administration is misusing popular calls for maintaining this basic necessary infrastructure in favor of inefficient and destructive Green and other schemes will mean that the economic foundation of the United States will weaken at an accelerated pace. Some influential circles such as BlackRock apparently want this. Biden’s two senior economic advisers are from BlackRock. Brian Deese, head of green or sustainable investment (ESG) at BlackRock, is director of the National Economic Council, and Adewale “Wally” Adeyemo, former chief of staff to BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink, is Deputy Treasury Secretary under former Fed head Janet Yellen. BlackRock, the world’s largest investment firm with more than $9 trillion under management, is a lead player in the Davos World Economic Forum Great Reset agenda and clearly, in the Biden “infrastructure” agenda.

*

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

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

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

Featured image is from NEO


seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Proponents argue self-disseminating vaccines could mean they no longer have to run complex mass vaccination programs. Critics say the vaccines pose many health risks and would also spell the end of informed consent.

In October 2019, the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security co-sponsored the “pandemic exercise,” Event 201.

A little more than a year later, when the Event 201 scenario morphed from “hypothetical” to concrete, it became clear that sponsors of the event intended to see the majority of the world vaccinated against COVID-19.

Accomplishing this goal is a “monumental challenge,” however. In the U.S., more than one-third (38% to 45%) of adults continue to decline the unlicensed, Emergency Use Authorization injections, despite a marketing blitz that has included both carrots (ranging from the chance to win cash payments to a free order of fries) and sticks (such as nasty calls to “get personal” and “shun” the unvaccinated).

Although some of the uninjected tell pollsters they plan to eventually get the vaccine, a solid minority remains committed to never doing so. The same pattern appears to hold true globally: Roughly one-third of adults worldwide said they will not take a COVID shot.

While social and behavioral science researchers apply “soft science” techniques in an attempt to maneuver vaccine confidence into more acquiescent territory, bench scientists have a different option potentially waiting in the wings — genetically engineered vaccines that “move through populations in the same way as communicable diseases,” spreading on their own “from host to host.”

Not mainstream (yet)

In theory, self-spreading vaccines (also referred to as self-disseminating or autonomous) can be designed to be either transferable (“restricted to a single round of transmission”) or transmissible (“capable of indefinite transmission).”

Vaccine scientists concede transmissible vaccines “are still not mainstream, but the revolution in genome engineering poises them to become so.”

The makers of self-disseminating vaccines use recombinant vector technology to build genetic material from a target pathogen onto the “chassis” of a viral vector deemed “benign,” “innocuous” or “avirulent.” This is similar to the viral vector approach used to produce the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca COVID vaccines.

For Johns Hopkins, the appeal of vaccines that are intentionally engineered to be self-disseminating seems obvious. The university’s Center for Health Security made its case explicit in a 2018 report, “Technologies to Address Global Catastrophic Biological Risks.” The report stated, “These vaccines could dramatically increase vaccine coverage in human …  populations without requiring each individual to be inoculated.”

Further spelling out the utilitarian implications of self-disseminating vaccines, the report’s authors stated, “only a small number of vaccinated individuals would be required to confer protection to a larger susceptible population, thus eliminating the need for mass vaccination operations.”

From a programmatic standpoint, this strategy would have the advantage of being “cheaper than vaccinating everyone by hand.” Perhaps even more significantly, however, it would override one of the “thorny ethical questions” that mass vaccination programs routinely wrestle with: informed consent.

As the university’s Center for Health Security briefly acknowledged in its report, self-disseminating vaccines would essentially make it impossible for “those to whom the vaccine subsequently spreads” to provide informed consent at all.

Blame the animals

Writing in 2020 in Nature Ecology & Evolution, researchers observed that viral zoonoses (diseases theorized to jump from animals to humans) have become an entrenched part of the “global mindset” and a central element of the pandemic-obsessed global health zeitgeist.

Despite SARS-CoV-2’s unproven zoonotic origins (cast into doubt by figures such as Robert Redfield, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), the past year’s coronavirus hype has helped reinforce the popular perception that wildlife populations represent a menacing cauldron of latent viral threats — requiring only the right set of circumstances to spring into humanity-endangering action.

Parlaying the COVID moment into a convenient scientific opportunity, researchers suggest that the purported “failure to contain the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic” furnishes a rationale for accelerating the rollout of self-disseminating vaccines. As some journalists have phrased the question du jour, “Wouldn’t it be great if wild animals could be inoculated against the various diseases they host so that those microbes never get a chance to spread to humans?”

Transmissible-vaccine research also has ascended the list of funding priorities for government agencies like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and, reportedly, donors such as the Gates Foundation.

At least officially, the primary focus of self-spreading vaccine research has thus far been on wildlife populations. Although the practice of direct wildlife vaccination (for example, against rabies) has been around since the 1960s, it is the longstanding efforts to develop sterilizing vaccines in wildlife (euphemistically called “immunocontraception”), as well as recent advances in genetic engineering, that “have provided a foundation for transmissible-vaccine research.”

Researchers explain how the targeting of wildlife reservoirs is intended to work:

“The idea, essentially, is to vaccinate a small proportion of a [wildlife] population through direct inoculation. These so-called founders will then passively spread the vaccine to other animals they encounter either by touch, sex, nursing, or breathing the same air. Gradually, these interactions could build up population-level immunity.”

When put to the test by Spanish researchers in a limited field trial in rabbits, about 50% of the unvaccinated rabbits developed antibodies after being housed with vaccinated rabbits who had received a transmissible vaccine either via injection or orally. When the researchers assessed second-generation transmission (that is, development of antibodies in another batch of rabbits moved in with the first batch of unvaccinated rabbits), the transmission rate was much lower (two of 24 rabbits).

What could possibly go wrong?

As the Johns Hopkins report made clear in 2018, there is no technical reason why the self-spreading approach could not be applied to humans. The authors admitted to “several big challenges,” however, including the fact that autonomous vaccines (as mentioned above) would render informed consent a moot point and would make it impossible to screen individuals for contraindications such as allergies.

According to Johns Hopkins and others, another major challenge is the “not insignificant risk of the vaccine virus reverting to wild-type virulence,” creating an opportunity for the vaccines to propagate disease rather than prevent it.

In fact, the world is already familiar with this phenomenon in the form of oral polio vaccines. Though not “intentionally designed that way,” oral polio vaccines are considered “a little bit transmissible” and are acknowledged to cause polio.

Hopkins’ researchers pointedly characterized the reversion challenge as “both a medical risk and a public perception risk.” Another Catch-22 articulated in the university’s report is that while reversion risks could perhaps be lessened by engineering the vaccines to be more “weakly transmissible,” this could defeat the purpose of getting vaccines to “go” on their own.

On the other hand, the two scientists who are most strongly promoting transmissible vaccines argue that “even … where reversion is frequent, [their] performance will often substantially exceed that of conventional, directly administered vaccines.”

These same authors have also developed models suggesting that starting the transmissible ball rolling with direct vaccination of newborns could be particularly impactful.

In September 2020, two researchers writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists agreed that self-spreading vaccines may have significant downsides and could “entail serious risks,” particularly given that scientists lose control of their creation once released. They noted, “While it may turn out to be technically feasible to fight emerging infectious diseases … with self-spreading viruses, and while the benefits may be significant, how does one weigh those benefits against what may be even greater risks?” They outlined several additional questions:

  • Who makes the decisions about the “where and when” of the vaccines’ release?
  • What happens when there are “unexpected outcomes” and “unintended consequences” such as mutation, species-jumping or border-crossing? About unintended consequences, the two authors added, “There always are.”
  • What about bioweapons and “dual use” risks — that is, using the technology to “deliberately cause harm” rather than prevent disease? Advances in pharmacogenomics, drug development and personalized medicine, the two noted, could enable “ultra-targeted biological warfare.”

On the latter point, the Bulletin authors drew readers’ attention to immunocontraception efforts in animals as well as an infamous example of “weaponized biology” against humans in apartheid-era South Africa, called Project Coast, which sought — reportedly unsuccessfully — to develop an “infertility ‘vaccine’ to be used on black women without their knowledge.”

Other scientists have made an even more direct case against transmissible vaccines, arguing the risks of autonomously spreading vaccines do, in fact, “far outweigh potential benefits.” Risks, in their view, include “the unpredictability of mutations of the virus, the inability to safely test at a large scale and the grave potential threat to biosecurity.”

Vaccine science: many unknowns

When measles, rather than COVID, was dominating the headlines a couple years ago, the unvaccinated were heavily scapegoated for apparent outbreaks. This non-evidence-based finger-pointing (used to usher in draconian new vaccine mandates), ignored the well-documented “phenomenon of measles infection spread by MMR (live measles-mumps-rubella vaccine), which has been known about for decades” and has resulted in “detectable measles infection in the vast majority of those who receive it.”

The experimental Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines use new messenger RNA (mRNA) technology rather than the traditional live-virus technology featured in vaccines like the MMR, and thus, we are told, they cannot produce the same type of “shedding.”

However, many unvaccinated individuals are reporting unusual symptoms or illness after spending time in proximity to COVID-vaccinated individuals. Pointing to Pfizer’s protocol acknowledging the possibility of exposure via inhalation or skin contact with vaccinated individuals, concerned health professionals have raised the question of whether some novel form of shedding is occurring.

Some of the people raising these questions have pointed to the September 2020 article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, subtitled, “What could possibly go wrong?” By May 2021, the Bulletin’s editors, apparently uncomfortable with the attention the September article had attracted, were trying to distance themselves by stating the Bulletin’s content was being misused to further conspiracy theories about “highly effective and safe COVID-19 vaccines.”

Whether the COVID injections are “self-spreading” in any sense of the word is a question that cannot currently be answered. However, there is at least one plausible molecular mechanism that could explain the observed vaccinated-to-unvaccinated “shedding” effects.

GreenMedInfo’s Sayer Ji explains that “horizontal information transfer within biological systems [is] mediated by extracellular vesicles, which include a virus-like phenomenon known as microvesicle shedding and/or exosome-mediated transfer of nucleic acids.” Citing a 2017 peer-reviewed study on the “biology and biogenesis of shed microvesicles,” Ji states:

“[I]t is possible that [mRNA vaccines] do, in fact, contribute to microvesicle shedding, which represents an even greater, more persistent threat than live-cell vaccine shedding when it comes to the persistent biological impact the vaccinated can have on the unvaccinated.”

What is even more certain is that scientists themselves do not have all the answers. Some may wish to believe in the possibility of simply genetically engineering a vaccine “in ways that thwart its ability to evolve into something nasty.” But others note “the inevitability of evolutionary change resulting from [transmissible vaccines’] ability to self-replicate and generate extended chains of transmission.”

Techno-thriller author Michael Crichton predicted in 2002 that with the advent of nanotechnology and other technological innovations, the pace of evolutionary change was likely to be “extremely rapid.” Crichton cautioned, “human beings have a poor record of addressing the hazards of new technologies as they arrive.”

*

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 Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘Self-Spreading’ Vaccines Pose Multiple Risks to Society — Including the End of Informed Consent
  • Tags: ,

Russia to Ditch US Dollar?

June 3rd, 2021 by The Moscow Times

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.

***

Russia’s sovereign wealth fund will ditch its holdings in dollars from its $185 Billion Reserve Fund, dramatically increase its holdings of Chinese yuan and invest in gold for the first ever time, Russia’s Finance Ministry said Thursday.

Finance Minister Anton Siluanov told the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) that Russia’s $186-billion national welfare fund (NWF) would completely divest its $41 billion worth of holdings in dollars within a month.

“Today we have about 35% of NWF investments in dollars,” Siluanov said. “We’ve decided to get out of dollar assets completely, replacing investments in dollars with an increase in euros and gold.”

The share of euros in the fund will be increased to 40%, the Chinese yuan will account for 30% and another 20% will be stored in gold.

The move will affect the liquid part of the NWF, which currently stands at around $120 billion. Despite the vast sums involved, the shift is unlikely to affect markets, since the NWF represents just a slice of Russia’s overall $600 billion worth of international reserves. The transaction will not involve the actual sale of dollars, as it will be carried out through internal transfers and an accounting shift within the Central Bank, Bloomberg reported.

First Deputy Prime Minister Andrey Belousov, one of the country’s most influential economic policymakers, said Thursday the decision would not affect the ruble’s exchange rate. The Russian currency was flat against the U.S. dollar at 73.2 on Tuesday afternoon in Moscow trading.

Russia’s Central Bank has also been reducing the share of U.S. dollars within its overall reserves over recent years, a policy which is set to continue, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said, as Russia seeks to reduce its dependence on the greenback under the specter of possible new sanctions.

Renaissance Capital’s Sofya Donets said the move was largely technical, and dubbed the decision “a political declaration, rather than a necessary step.”

“Although sanction risks are present, I assume that risks for the Central Bank’s reserves kept in U.S. dollars are basically non-existent,” she told The Moscow Times.

The U.S. levelling sanctions against Russia’s Central Bank would “be in conflict with the current international monetary settings — like a third world war.”

To Read Complete article click here

 

*

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

Featured image is from Peter Kovalev / TASS

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia to Ditch US Dollar?
  • 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.

***

Cuba, the first Latin America country to develop its own COVID-19 vaccines, presently is short of syringes for immunizing its population against the virus. It’s not feasible for Cuba to make its own syringes. The U.S. blockade prevents Cuba from importing them from abroad.

The lack of syringes is a global problem. The New York Times estimates an overall need of between “eight billion and 10 billion syringes for Covid-19 vaccinations alone.” Manufacturing capabilities are increasing, but that’s of no use to Cuba.

According to Global Health Partners, “Cuba needs roughly 30 million syringes for their mass Covid vaccination campaign and they’re short 20 million.” Solidarity organizations are seeking donated funds to buy syringes and ship them to Cuba. (Readers may donate by contacting Global Health Partners or visiting here.)

The shortage of syringes poses great hardship for the Cuban people. That’s not new. Calling for economic blockade in 1960, State Department official Lester Mallory was confident that making Cubans suffer would push them toward overthrowing their government.

The U.S. blockade causes shortages of basic materials. Buses lack fuel and spare parts; bus routes have been dropped. Food supplies are precarious. Cuban laboratories and production facilities have developed five kinds of COVID-19 vaccines despite short supplies of reagents and laboratory materials.

Cuba can’t buy ventilators needed for critically ill COVID-19 patients. Two Swiss manufacturers stopped selling ventilators to Cuba after a U.S. company purchased them. But Cuban technicians devised their own ventilator model which is in production now.

The impact of the blockade is by no means haphazard. Institutionalized processes aimed at asserting U.S. domination involve laws, administrative decrees, regulations, officials’ interpretations of regulations, and caution on the part of third-country traders and financiers.

Authority for the ban on U.S. sales of goods to Cuba stems from legislation accumulating over many years. Then the Cuba Democracy Act of 1992 ensnared foreign companies into the blockade system. That law authorized the Treasury Department to license the foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations to export goods to Cuba. It actually created an opening for almost all applications for licensure to be denied.

Since then, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), enforcer of the blockade, has found leeway to regulate the foreign corporations themselves. Foreign corporations contemplating sales to Cuba contend with U.S. sanctions if they have branches in the United States, partner with U.S. corporations, or handle U.S. dollars.

Most of the world’s syringes are manufactured by three U.S. companies and five companies elsewhere. Each of the latter has ties with a U.S. entity and is prohibited from exporting syringes to Cuba.

For example, Germany’s B. Braun Melsungen Corporation partners with Concordance Healthcare Solutions, “one of the largest independent, healthcare distributors in the U.S.” Tokyo-based Terumo Corporation has a headquarters in New Jersey. Osaka-based Nipro Corporation recently “announce[d] the creation of a Vascular Division in the U.S.” “Healthcare heavyweight Cardinal Health” is headquartered in both Ireland and the United States.

Hindustan Syringes and Medical Devices, in India, came under OFAC purview in January 2021 by virtue of associating with Envigo Global Products as its “digital marketing partner.” Envigo is headquartered in Indianapolis.

Officers of foreign companies presumably seek legal advice. One lawyers’ group maintains that, “OFAC has long held that if a non-U.S. company engages in business transactions in U.S. dollars, the foreign party is availing itself of the U.S. financial system and hence becomes subject to the U.S. sanctions laws.”

Another indicates sanctions are likely if “the foreign party has a requisite level of contacts with the U.S., such as engaging [with] U.S. products, software or technology.” The National Law Review recommends that, “Foreign companies…need to be aware of board members, directors, or employees who hold U.S. citizenship or U.S. green cards.”

President Barack Obama eased many blockade regulations and re-established U.S. diplomatic relations with Cuba. He never pushed to end the blockade. The Biden Administration has choosen not to prioritize improved relations with Cuba. Biden recently upheld the Trump Administration’s reassignment of Cuba to the U.S. list of terrorist-sponsoring nations.

The Helms-Burton Law of 1996 required, for the first time, that Congress determine the fate of the blockade. Except for legislation in 2000 allowing U.S. food products to be exported to Cuba, Congress has protected that policy.

In February Oregon Senator Ron Wyden introduced his “United States-Cuba Trade Act of 2021,” which would end the blockade. The bill has four co-sponsors. Senators Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Jerry Moran of Kansas, and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who reintroduced the “Freedom to Export to Cuba Act” on May 20th. That bill would facilitate U.S. exports to Cuba, especially agricultural products; allow some Cuban goods to enter the United States; and would retain sanctions imposed because of alleged human rights violations.

In March 2021, 80 congresspersons sent a letter to President Biden urging him to use executive action to reverse restrictions imposed by President Trump.

The U.S. economic blockade of Cuba is calculated, systematic, all-encompassing, and savage. Opponents offer varying pleas. For some, the blockade is cruel and illegal. Others call for defending Cuba, because it’s a model both of human solidarity and of how to provide health care and education. Many insist on respect for Cuba’s sovereignty.

These arguments are disconnected, one from the other. Blockade critics appear to lack a central focus on root causes. Having such would be essential, it seems, for fashioning a cohesive strategy. Were that in place, new possibilities might exist for recruitment and unity. Anti-racism struggle in the United States displays similar dynamics, and maybe offers lessons.

Reacting to various symptoms of oppression, defenders of racial equality have gone from pillar to post opposing police killings, an unjust criminal justice system, and Black people’s high poverty and death rates. Now, increasingly, analysts link manifestations of racial oppression with durable systems of repression involving capitalism. Writing about a notorious slave-trading firm, historian Joshua Rothman captures that association in the title of his new book, The Ledger and the Chain.

Similarly, if the campaign against the blockade paid more attention to the long history of U.S. ambition to dominate Cuba, it might gain strength by going to the heart of the matter. The premise would be that the European powers and the United States have long sought to draw Cuba and other dependent Latin American territories into their capitalist orbit.

The syringe story reflects U.S schemes in the 19th century to absorb Cuba, U.S. control of Cuba after Spain’s departure in 1902, and U.S. determination after 1959 to restore hegemony lost to the Revolution.

*

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

Featured image is from MR Online

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.

***

Investing in nuclear technology is presented by philanthropist billionaire Bill Gates as a means to combatting global warming and CO2 emissions. What nonsense.

The Bill Gates project is generously funded by the US Department of Energy.

Let us be under no illusion, the so-called civilian use of nuclear technology does not contribute to “clean energy”.  Moreover the development of “advanced” reactors (for civilian uses) is related (indirectly) to the Biden administration’s  nuclear weapons program.

Bill Gates is investing in so-called advanced nuclear reactors. His company TerraPower LLC’s most recent project is in Wyoming:

TerraPower, founded by Gates about 15 years ago, and power company PacifiCorp, owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, said the exact site of the Natrium reactor demonstration plant is expected to be announced by the end of the year. Small advanced reactors, which run on different fuels than traditional reactors, are regarded by some as a critical carbon-free technology than can supplement intermittent power sources like wind and solar as states strive to cut emissions that cause climate change.

“This is our fastest and clearest course to becoming carbon negative,” Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon said. “Nuclear power is clearly a part of my all-of-the-above strategy for energy” in Wyoming, the country’s top coal-producing state.

The project features a 345 megawatt sodium-cooled fast reactor with molten salt-based energy storage that could boost the system’s power output to 500 MW during peak power demand. TerraPower said last year that the plants would cost about $1 billion.

Late last year the U.S. Department of Energy awarded TerraPower $80 million in initial funding to demonstrate Natrium technology, and the department has committed additional funding in coming years subject to congressional appropriations. (Business Today)

Gates calls these “advanced nuclear reactors”. They are tagged as “Carbon free technology”.

Scientific evidence confirms that the Bill Gates advanced reactors are more dangerous than conventional nuclear reactors. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists

… newly built reactors must be demonstrably safer and more secure than current generation reactors. Unfortunately, most “advanced” nuclear reactors are anything but.

The Union of Concerned Scientists undertook a comprehensive analysis of the most prominent and well-funded non-light-water reactor (NLWR) designs. …Based on the available evidence, we found that the NLWR designs we analyzed are not likely to be significantly safer than today’s nuclear plants. In fact, certain alternative reactor designs pose even more safety, proliferation, and environmental risks than the current fleet.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Philanthropist Bill Gates Invests in “Advanced” Reactor Nuclear Technology
  • 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.

***

Thanks to a rapidly changing political context the new UN Human Rights Council commission announced on May 27th may be different from those in the past — this one may actually help hold Israel accountable.

The May 27th vote of the UN Human Rights Council to establish an ongoing commission of inquiry to report on rights violations in Israel, the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip is very similar to the many commissions that have come before. Established with a majority vote in favor of Resolution A/HRC/S-30/L.1, this commission reaffirms state responsibilities to protect human rights and international humanitarian law as the bases for peace.

The UN and other international coalitions have launched dozens of previous similar commissions. Many have been prompted by an uptick in spectacular violence in the Gaza Strip. This latest commission comes in response to eleven days of  Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip, which began on May 10, killed at least 253 Palestinians, including 66 children, and wounded more than 1,900 people, with 13 people killed in Israel. Among other recent UN investigations was one in 2014 and another in 2009, known as the Goldstone Mission, which investigated the 2008–

Unique to this most recent commission, however, is the context in which it has emerged, marked by a resurgence of international legal and activist efforts to challenge Israel’s systematic abuse and dispossession of Palestinians across the occupied Palestinian territories, Israel, and the diaspora—including efforts among Jews. Although a UN commission on its own can do little to change Israel’s actions, within today’s shifting social and political dynamics, it can play a role in coalescing attention and mobilizing meaningful action to stop and reverse Israel’s settler-colonial project.

In specifying that this investigation should collect evidence of violations “to maximize the possibility of its admissibility in legal proceedings,” the text of this latest UN resolution points to one important new contextual factor. Namely, that the International Criminal Court (ICC) decided on February 5, 2021 that it has jurisdiction over the occupied Palestinian territory, allowing the Prosecutor to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity that have taken place in the occupied Palestinian territory.

In opening last week’s special session in Geneva, Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, referred to Israel’s attacks on Gaza this month as possibly constituting war crimes. Attention to possible war crimes also was central in the Goldstone Mission findings and the report of that commission focused on ending impunity. Although, as I note in my book, A History of False Hope: Investigative Commissions in Palestine, this marked a turning point in the international legal language used to analyze the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it did not lead to actions to end Israel’s impunity. Residents of the Gaza Strip continue to suffer life under restrictions and siege imposed since the 1990s and intensified in 2007, maintaining this sliver of land as an open air prison for the 1.8 million Palestinians who live there. If this latest commissions of inquiry does “identify, where possible, those responsible, with a view to ensuring that perpetrators of violations are held accountable,” the ICC may be able to make use of that evidence.

The groundswell of analysis identifying Israel as an apartheid state is a second crucial distinguishing element of the world into which this commission is being born. Issued in April 2021, the report by the international human rights NGO, Human Rights Watch (HRW), condemned Israel for committing the crimes of apartheid and persecution. It is just the latest in a string of similar reports. In 2017, ESCWA, a UN body, issued a report on Israel’s apartheid practices against Palestinians. Many Palestinian organizations have been part of this chorus, too. In 2019, eight Palestinian, regional, and international organizations, including Al-Haq, BADIL, and Addameer submitted a report to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, detailing Israel’s practices that constitute the crime of apartheid under international law. Like that of Human Rights Watch, the report in January 2021 by Israeli NGO B’Tselem suggests that international recognition of Israel as an apartheid state is going mainstream. Given that the new permanent Commission of Inquiry aims to investigate “all underlying root causes of recurrent tensions, instability and protraction of conflict” including “discrimination and repression based on national, ethnic, racial or religious identity,” we may be seeing more authoritative evidence of Israel’s crimes of apartheid leading to pressure on states to stop it.

Like what happened in response to South Africa’s apartheid regime, an international boycott movement has galvanized academics, activists, and artists in speaking out for freedom, justice and equality for Palestinians. BDS, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, is a third distinctive feature of today’s context. BDS promotes public education about Palestinians’ conditions while pressuring Israeli institutions to end their complicity with state oppression of Palestinians, and demanding that Israeli government comply with international law.

Beyond BDS, new solidarity actions have been notable, especially in response to the violence in May, including the International Dockworkers Council-IDC support of the Palestinian General Strike, actions by Israeli and Palestinian workers refusing enmity, and protest marches around the globe. More persistent dynamics suggesting an upsurge of diverse support for Palestinians include a revival of Black internationalism, Black Lives Matter, and other Black progressive groups re-energizing Black-Palestinian solidarity, statements supporting Palestinian rights by influential Jewish figures, and young liberal Jews’ alienation from Zionism and sympathy with Palestinian causes.

What is not new is Israel’s ongoing refusal to engage with international legal processes such as the commission of inquiry and the ICC— and US efforts to shield Israel from scrutiny. The US often justifies its rejection of international legal investigation of Israel with the claim that it would threaten progress in resolving the conflict. There has been no progress on this front for a very long time. If people of conscience take up the opportunity afforded by the latest UN effort to grow public awareness of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, this might be that rarest of commissions that helps dislodge Israel-Palestine from the quagmire in which it has been stuck for so long.

*

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

Featured image: THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND ALLIANCE OF CIVILIZATIONS ROOM IN THE UNITED NATIONS OFFICE IN GENEVA, SWITZERLAND WHERE THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL FREQUENTLY MEETS. (PHOTO: UN PHOTO/JEAN-MARC FERRÉ)