Mexico: President AMLO Meets Vice President Kamala Harris

June 9th, 2021 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Since the beginning of the American electoral process, the Mexican government has bet on Joe Biden’s project as an alternative to the migration crisis and as a way to guarantee financial resources for Latin America. However, the US president’s delay in fulfilling his promises has led to growing instability in relations with Mexico. This week, analysts around the world announced the beginning of a “new era” in bilateral relations between Americans and Mexicans with the first official meeting between Kamala Harris and Andrés Manuel López Obrador, where several topics of mutual interest were discussed. However, it seems too early to believe that such a meeting will have a real positive impact on relations between the two countries.

Earlier this week, US Vice President Kamala Harris personally met with Lopez Obrador in Mexico. Harris saw it as an extremely profitable opportunity and ensured a prosperous future in bilateral relations, guaranteeing the beginning of a “new era” in US-Mexico ties. “I strongly believe that we are embarking on a new era that makes clear the interdependence and interconnection between nations,” she said. This optimism was shared by several analysts who published articles in media outlets around the world announcing the success of the meeting and affirming that this is the starting point for a future of cooperation and mutual prosperity.

Despite the apparent success of the meeting, any optimism regarding this topic should be carefully considered. The US and Mexico have always had tense, unstable relations. In general, the interests of any Latin developing nation collide with Washington’s plans in its international projections. With Mexico, it is no different. The Latin country tries to assert itself as a protective state for the developing nations of Central America. As a Latin country in North America and with an economy considerably stronger than most other Latin nations, Mexico plays a of regional political power and mediator in conflicts between Washington and the Latin world – which obviously does not interest the US.

Currently, one of the most relevant points in the clash of interests between the US and Latin nations is the migration issue. Biden, whose electoral base was the Hispanic population on American soil, promised a comprehensive and efficient migration reform that would legalize the situation of thousands of Latinos in the US. It would be unfair to say that Biden has not made efforts to legalize immigrants – much progress has been made, but the long-awaited reform has not yet happened and may not occur anytime soon. The current migration rates have already been severely criticized by American society, in addition to having generated a diplomatic crisis with Canada due to the allocation of illegal immigrants on the northern border. The Biden Administration will, of course, maintain moderate efforts to disguise the problem, but it will not take any radical steps to legalize all immigrants. Mexico, as a mediator of interests between Latin States and the North, is impatiently awaiting a definitive response from the Biden Administration regarding the migration issue – and the longer Washington takes to resolve the problem, the more this harms Mexican interests.

It is not by chance that the meeting between Obrador and Harris did not make any progress regarding migration. On the other hand, some extremely important topics were addressed – mostly due to pressure from the Mexican leader. This is the case, for example, with American financial support for Latin nations. Economic instability in Latin America – especially in Central America – is an extremely sensitive topic, as it affects not only the interests of Latin countries but also the American interests, because the more poverty in these countries, the more there will be immigrants in the US. Central American nations pressure Mexico to demand from Biden a financial assistance to the countries of the North Central American Triangle – Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala -, which has been promised for months and remains without any real effect. At the meeting, both leaders signed a memorandum of understanding promising to mutually collaborate for the economic development of southern Mexico and northern Central America. But, in practice, this will depend on the US government’s investment priorities.

Another point also discussed at the meeting and of central importance is the issue of combating the pandemic. Washington recently shipped 2.7 million doses of AstraZeneca and promised to ship one million single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccines. The gesture was a great diplomatic “kindness” with the neighboring country, considering that the US still prohibits the export of the vaccine – similar actions were taken with Canada, India and South Korea (all important geopolitical allies of Washington). This indicates that Washington really intends to make Mexico a closer nation with friendlier relations, but the problem is what that would imply for Latin countries. Mexico wants the US to help poor Central American nations fight the pandemic. The US is not interested in operating such assistance, which will also lead to more crises and migration flows, given the social impacts of the pandemic.

As a result, we have a vicious cycle where relations between the US and Mexico are getting better and better on points that concern only these two countries, but they do not advance in the agenda of aid to Central America. At the heart of this problem is the migration issue: the more crisis in Central America, the more immigrants in the US. Washington wants to curb migration but is currently unwilling to invest in mechanisms to avoid migration flows due to other “priorities” of the US government.

It is undeniable that Biden is willing to maintain good relations with Obrador, but for that he will demand that the Mexican president abandon his role as representative of the interests of the Latin nations and mediator in the dialogue between Central America and Washington – which Obrador will not do. The Mexican leader is not willing to give up his role as a mediator, not because he cares a lot about Central America, but because this role is of central importance for Mexican geopolitics: it is Mexico’s international projection as a regional political power. Washington wants Mexico close as a subordinate, not an allied power, so conflicts of interest will continue.

So, the meeting between Harris and Obrador was undoubtedly very important, but it was not a great advance. The topics discussed at the meeting were absolutely superfluous and only served the interests of these both countries, ignoring the most important issues (concerning Central America). Therefore, this may indeed be the beginning of fruitful bilateral relations, but it is far from being a “new era”.

*

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

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

We all knew this was coming. In order to justify the forced vaccination of children, the powers that be would somehow have to overturn 15 months of observations that COVID is less a threat to children than the flu and that unvaccinated children are less at risk than vaccinated adults (100 times less at risk than seniors), even if we are to believe Pfizer’s efficacy data.

“CDC director reports spike in teen hospitalizations, urges parents to vaccinate kids over 12,” was the headline at the Hill on Friday, reporting on the CDC’s new study of hospitalizations. Naturally, it caught my attention because we all know that hospitalizations among all age groups have been plummeting to record lows across the country in recent weeks. It turns out that along with its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the CDC published a “study” purporting to show an increase in hospitalizations among 12- to 17-year-olds, with one-third of them being in the ICU and 5% of them being placed on ventilators.

CDC Director Rochelle Walensky was ready to pounce. “I am deeply concerned by the numbers of hospitalized adolescents and saddened to see the number of adolescents who required treatment in intensive care units or mechanical ventilation,” said Walensky in a statement.

Of course, the solution is the great experimental gene therapy. “Until they are fully vaccinated, adolescents should continue to wear masks and take precautions when around other [sic] who are not vaccinated to protect themselves, and their family, friends, and community,” Walensky stated.

CNN dutifully echoed the false data and the premise it engenders without investigating it.

But there’s one problem. The CDC’s own data show that hospitalizations among all groups have plummeted over the past six weeks. It turns out they picked arbitrary start and end points – an old trick they’ve used with mask studies – which coincides with a period of increased hospitalizations among all age groups, including those with high vaccination rates.

The study period of the CDC’s report was from March 1, 2020, to April 24, 2021. It just so happens that April 24 was roughly the peak period for ALL age groups!

Most of that mini increase (after the major winter spread) was due to the final spring spread in the northeast and upper Midwest. Based on the CDC’s headlines, one would think that childhood hospitalizations are spreading now and that they are rising relative to other age groups. In reality, they have plummeted and only rose slightly from a near-zero baseline earlier this year along with other groups.

If anything, the April 24 “peak” hospitalization rate among teens was lower than the peak during the winter, yet nobody ever felt there was an emergent situation with teen COVID hospitalizations during the worst months of the winter.

This is the same thing the CDC and others did when they picked arbitrary start and end points last year showing a decline in cases after mask mandates were instituted, while ignoring the massive subsequent increase over the winter in these same places.

But here’s the kicker: Hospital rates among children actually increased more slowly during the early spring spread than among those over 65, which is the most vaccinated demographic.

So, there is no way to chalk up that superficial increase with an arbitrary start and end point to lack of vaccination. It’s merely a reflection of a time when cases went up mildly in a minority of the country (while plummeting in the South and West). Whatever tiny baseline of hospitalizations there are among children went up commensurately with the baseline increase during any other period of spread. Of course, today, hospitalizations are lower than ever. There is zero evidence that vaccination rates played any role in that trend.

Finally, numerous studies, including the CDC’s own data, show that there is a much higher rate of fake COVID hospitalizations among children than adults, aka when there is no proof they were hospitalized because of COVID. According to this very report from Friday, 46% of those reputed teen hospitalizations were “not clearly COVID-19 related.”

What’s worse, almost half of those teens in the observational study where the cause was unclear appear to have been admitted for psychiatric reasons!

In other words, it’s likely the depression induced by the very panic the CDC is trying to exacerbate among kids that has engendered a decline in mental health leading to hospitalization, not the virus itself.

According to the U.K. Daily Mail, a recent U.K. survey of humanitarian organizations found that “more than a quarter of 75 charities surveyed said some children had expressed suicidal thoughts, while 41 per cent said some had been abused at home in lockdown.” In the U.S., the CDC reports 1,139 deaths from COVID under the age of 25, but concedes that 30% of those deaths included could not plausibly be linked to the virus. At the same time, there were over 2,500 non-COVID excess deaths for that age cohort, meaning that the panic, hysteria, drug overdoses, and suicides likely killed 3.5 times as many teens and young adults as the virus.

It doesn’t take a forensic investigator to realize that there has been a plethora of teenagers in the hospital due to the lies overstating the threat of the virus to them. Naturally, at a time when COVID is increasing in all age groups, a certain percentage of those youngsters will test positive for the virus. Accordingly, any subsequent death of any teen who tested positive – whether he or she died from drugs or suicide – will be recorded as a COVID death.

In May, New York magazine published a story highlighting new studies showing that the pediatric hospitalization numbers for COVID have likely been dramatically inflated throughout the country. The first study, published in the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, was conducted by Stanford researchers and examined 117 reputed COVID hospitalizations among those under 18 at a children’s hospital in Northern California. They found that just 7.7% exhibited severe illness and 12.8% critical illness. Overall, 45% were classified as “unlikely to be caused by SARSCoV2,” and it appears that most of the others weren’t suffering life-threatening illness.

The second study, published in the same journal, found in America’s fifth-largest hospital that, among patients younger than 22, 40% had “incidental infection,” only 47% were “potentially symptomatic,” and just 14% were “significantly symptomatic.” They further found that “Fifty-five percent of incidental and 47% of potentially symptomatic patients had at least one identified comorbidity, while 90% of significantly symptomatic patients had at least one.”

The twisted irony is that the CDC is lying about COVID hospitalization trends in order to get children to vaccinate when, in fact, vaccine-related hospitalization are really on the rise today. Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease specialist at UCSF, tallied the data from just one reported serious side effect listed in the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), myocarditis, and found that hospitalization for myocarditis post-vaccination among 12-17-year-olds is currently 12 times greater than hospitalization for COVID. Why do our “public health experts” not find that current trend alarming?

It’s quite evident that the pandemic in America is over with and it never affected children, even during its peak. However, the pandemic of lies, fear, panic, and emotional abuse is continuing indefinitely until Pfizer and Moderna satiate their rapacious appetite for children’s blood. Who will defend our children?

*

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

Featured image: The Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. (Raed Mansour/Flickr)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

A Norwegian public health professional received a massive official backlash after he suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic was “nearly over” judging by the country’s plummeting case numbers.

Norwegian Institute of Public Health chief physician Preben Aavistland tweeted a graph showing rapidly declining hospital admissions along with the words, “Well, there goes the pandemic.”

Aavistland then made the fatal error of being upbeat about the end of the pandemic when speaking to a newspaper, saying things “are going very well” and that Norway is “in the final sprint” against the pandemic.

“Here in Norway, the pandemic is almost over. We can start preparing for an everyday life where the corona has very little place in our lives,” Aavitsland told Verdens Gang.

The physician also compared the situation to a forest fire where very few pockets of flames were left to be extinguished.

“Very few are hospitalised and only several thousand cases of infection are discovered every week,” he said. “The numbers are declining rapidly at the same time as more and more people are being vaccinated. We will see some small outbreaks here and there, but we know how to stop them within three to four weeks.”

For the sin of being optimistic, Aavistland was verbally crucified by the government and the medical establishment.

Mads Gilbert, the head of the emergency medicine department at the University Hospital of North Norway, accused Aavistland of “sabotaging” the fight against the pandemic.

“High-level role conflicts are very destructive. It sparks uncertainty, ambiguity and confusion. It must be extremely frustrating for the hard-working local health teams to get this type of double communication from the national top management,” Gilbert told NRK.

Espen Rostrup Nakstad, Deputy Director of Health at the Norwegian Directorate for Health and Social Affairs, said there was “no reason to rejoice” because of the existence of variants and the fact that not everyone has been vaccinated yet.

Prime Minister Erna Solberg also asserted that people should keep complying with what they are ordered to do by authorities.

“It is important not to revel in joy in advance. People may start thinking that they don’t need to be vaccinated, or that we stop doing as the authorities do,” she said.

Frode Forland, director of infection control at the National Institute of Public Health, said Norwegians couldn’t begin to think about life returning to normal until after the end of the summer.

The backlash Aavistland received yet again emphasizes how scientific and government elites literally never want the pandemic to end because it has enriched them with so much power.

Now that the precedent has been set in terms of the public’s cowering response, expect authorities to re-impose rolling lockdowns at the drop of a hat by merely pointing to new variants of COVID-19 or new viruses entirely.

*

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

We are part of a group of clinicians, scientists, and patient advocates who have lodged a formal “Citizen Petition” with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), asking the agency to delay any consideration of a “full approval” of a covid-19 vaccine. The message of our petition is “slow down and get the science right—there is no legitimate reason to hurry to grant a license to a coronavirus vaccine.” We believe the existing evidence base—both pre- and post-authorization—is simply not mature enough at this point to adequately judge whether clinical benefits outweigh the risks in all populations.

The covid-19 vaccines in widespread use have emergency authorizations (EUA), not actual approvals, a crucial regulatory distinction that reflects major differences in the level of regulatory scrutiny and certainty about the risk-benefit balance.

Our petition doesn’t argue that risks outweigh benefits—or that benefits outweigh risks. Rather, we focus on methods and processes, outlining the many remaining unknowns about safety and effectiveness—and suggest the kinds of studies needed to address the open questions.

If the FDA listens to us, they won’t give serious consideration to approving a covid-19 vaccine until 2022. Our first request is that the FDA require manufacturers to submit data from completed Phase III trials—not interim results. Trials by vaccine manufacturers were designed to follow participants for two years, and should be completed before they are evaluated for full approval, even if they are now unblinded and lack placebo groups. These Phase III trials are not simply efficacy studies; they also are necessary and important safety studies (as the study titles say), and all collected data remain invaluable.

We also call on FDA to require a more thorough assessment of spike proteins produced in-situ by the body following vaccination—including studies on their full biodistribution, pharmacokinetics, and tissue-specific toxicities. We ask the FDA to demand manufacturers complete proper biodistribution studies that would be expected of any new drug and request additional studies to better understand the implications of mRNA translation in distant tissues. We call on data demonstrating a thorough investigation of all serious adverse events reported to pharmacovigilance systems, carried out by independent, impartial individuals, and for safety data from individuals receiving more than two vaccine doses, in consideration of plans for future booster shots. We ask the FDA to request necessary studies in specific populations, including those previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, pediatric subjects, and those with immunological or other underlying medical complexities. Given the nature of the novel vaccine platforms, our petition asks for experts in gene therapy to be included among the external committee advising the FDA.

These are several of our major requests. The petition has been signed by a group of 27 clinicians, researchers, and consumer advocates with diverse experiences and thoughts about the pandemic. We all agree that there remain many open, unanswered questions surrounding the efficacy and safety of covid-19 vaccines that must be answered before the FDA gives serious consideration to granting full approval.

These are the reasons why we lodged our petition. There is no need to rush approval to help stop the pandemic because the vaccines already have Emergency Use Authorization. Yet a rushed process is the very possibility that now confronts us. In the past month, Pfizer and Moderna submitted formal applications for “full approval.”

Covid-19 vaccines are already fully accessible to all Americans who want one. EUAs have enabled their widespread use, and can remain in place even after the expiry of the SARS-CoV-2 public health emergency declaration, as is the case for various Zika products. Even without full approval, covid-19 vaccines will remain available for all who want them under EUA.

Some surveys suggest that vaccine hesitancy in the United States is due, in part, to lack of full FDA approval. While approval might lead to increased public confidence in covid-19 vaccines, as well as provide legal support for employer-instituted vaccine mandates, to approve a medical product for these reasons is outside FDA’s regulatory purview. Approval decisions must be driven by the safety and efficacy data. The potential unintended consequences of a rushed approval may contribute to growing mistrust of the US public health and regulatory institutions.

Finally, regarding the elephant in the room: publicly raising any element of hesitation about covid-19 vaccines will be seen by some as irresponsible, stoking unfounded fears in the public’s mind and contributing to the “vaccine hesitancy” problem trumpeted every day. But the alternatives—privately raising concerns or simply remaining silent—are arguably more detrimental to public trust in the long run. Staying silent is not the responsible option.  And the implications of only privately raising concerns to regulatory bodies are murky—most would probably not be acted upon, and if they were, it would promulgate the baggage of insufficient accountability and transparency in decision making.

To us, the Citizen Petition seemed the most responsible approach: voice our concerns in our own words, in a professional and transparent manner, through a formal mechanism that can promote accountability in regulatory decision making.

Approving a covid-19 vaccine now risks setting a precedent of lowered standards for future vaccine approvals. The “FDA approved” seal must represent a high bar—and premature licensure of a covid-19 vaccine could seriously damage public confidence in regulatory authorities, particularly if long-term safety issues were to emerge following licensure. Keeping covid-19 vaccines under EUA regulations would also encourage vaccine manufacturers to continue investing resources in completing the necessary safety and efficacy studies for a potential FDA consideration of full licensure in the future.

For each covid-19 vaccine, the benefits may ultimately outweigh the harms. Or not. Or we may end up in a more nuanced position, finding that benefits outweigh harms for some populations, but not others.  Only time—and better evidence—will tell.  And so it is vital we allow the scientific process the time required to gather and assess the evidence to be confident in the decisions we ultimately have to make.

Our citizen petition and supporting documents are filed under Docket ID FDA-2021-P-0521 on regulations.gov. Anybody can comment on the petition, or read others’ comments, including the FDA’s official reply once it arrives.

*

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

Linda Wastila is Professor and Parke-Davis Endowed Chair of Geriatric Pharmacotherapy at the University of Maryland Baltimore School of Pharmacy. She has conducted policy and epidemiological research focusing on intended and unintended outcomes of clinical and policy interventions involving medications and their safety over the past 30 years.

Peter Doshi is an associate professor of pharmaceutical health services research at University of Maryland Baltimore School of Pharmacy and senior editor at The BMJ.  He has been calling for greater independence and transparency in covid-19 vaccine related decision making.

Hamid Merchant is a subject lead in pharmacy at The University of Huddersfield and has experience in pharmaceutical research and development both from industry and academia. His clinical knowledge and expertise in pharmaceutical formulation helps in understanding the clinical and therapeutic principles underpinning drug delivery and the science of dosage-form design.

Kim Witczak is a global drug safety advocate with over 25 years of advertising and marketing experience. She co-founded Woodymatters, an organization started after the death of her husband due to undisclosed side effects of antidepressants. Kim is currently Consumer Representative on the FDA Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee. 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why We Petitioned the FDA to Refrain from Fully Approving Any COVID-19 Vaccine this Year
  • Tags: , ,

Quick Facts on Israel’s New Prime Minister Naftali Bennett

June 9th, 2021 by Institute for Middle East Understanding

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Born to American parents who immigrated from San Francisco to Israel in 1967, Bennett is a far-right ultranationalist who staunchly opposes Palestinian statehood or self-determination of any kind in Palestine/Israel. 

Although not a settler himself, from 2010 to 2012 he was head of the main political body (Yesha Council) that represents Israeli settlers living on occupied Palestinian land in violation of international law and is a staunch supporter of Israel’s settlement enterprise.

A former member of the Likud party, he was Netanyahu’s chief of staff from 2006-2008. As the leader of the Jewish Home party (2012-2018), he was a key partner in Netanyahu’s coalition government, serving as minister of education and minister of diaspora affairs. During the previous government, he was minister of economy and minister of religious services. He was also minister of education (2015-2019) and minister of defense (2019-2020) under Netanyahu. In 2018, he left Jewish Home to form the New Right party.

Bennett has repeatedly stated his categorical opposition to a Palestinian state being created in the occupied territories. Instead, he proposes Israel unilaterally annex the approximately 60% of the Palestinian West Bank that fell under full Israeli control under the supposedly temporary Oslo Accords, where most Israeli settlements are located. In 2014, Bennett told journalists Israel “will be gradually attempting to apply Israeli law [annexing] on Israeli controlled areas of Judea and Samaria [the occupied West Bank].” In 2013, he declared: “I favor implementation of Israeli sovereignty over the zone where 400,000 (settlers) live and only 70,000 Arabs.” Bennett also ridiculed then-ongoing US-led negotiations under the Obama administration, declaring it’s “all a joke.”

In 2014, Bennett wrote an op-ed for The New York Times, “For Israel, Two-State Is No Solution,” repeating once again his opposition to Palestinian self-determination and his plan to annex 60% of the West Bank. In 2013, he told the New Yorker magazine: “I will do everything in my power, forever, to fight against a Palestinian state being founded in the Land of Israel.” A few months later, in June, he declared: “The most important thing in the Land of Israel is to build, build, build [settlements]. It’s important that there will be an Israeli presence everywhere. Our principal problem is still Israel’s leaders’ unwillingness to say in a simple manner that the Land of Israel belongs to the People of Israel.”

In 2014, then-Minister of the Economy and Religious Services Bennett released a letter addressed to Palestinian citizens of Israel, who make up about 20% of the population, warning them against becoming a “fifth column.” According to press reports, the letter, written in Arabic, was riddled with errors.

Bennett also advocates increased Jewish control over the revered Noble Sanctuary mosque complex in occupied East Jerusalem, known as the Temple Mount to Jews, which is the third holiest site in Islam. Extremist messianic Jews want to build a temple in the Noble Sanctuary, which would spark a major religious conflagration in the region and beyond. In February 2014, Bennett told a meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations that Israel was attempting to exercise greater control over the Noble Sanctuary, stating that he had already taken measures that would “ultimately influence the eastern side of Jerusalem, and that will include the Temple Mount.”

In October 2018, Bennett said that if he were defense minister he would order a shoot to kill policy against Palestinians attempting to walk across the boundary between Israel and Gaza, where nearly 2 million people have been trapped under an illegal Israeli siege and naval blockade for 15 years. When asked if he would instruct soldiers to kill Palestinian children, Bennett said, “They are not children — they are terrorists. We are fooling ourselves. I see the photos.” At that point, at least 140 demonstrators had been killed by Israeli soldiers, including at least 29 children according to the UN, as well as medical workers and journalists, and more than 29,000 others injured, as part of the Great March of Return.

In 2013, Bennett sparked controversy when it was reported that during a cabinet meeting on releasing Palestinian prisoners he declared: “If we capture terrorists, we need to just kill them… I’ve already killed a lot of Arabs in my life – and there is no problem with that.” Asked for clarification by journalists, a spokesperson said Bennett meant Israeli soldiers should be ordered to kill Palestinians instead of capturing and imprisoning them.

*

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

What to Expect When Biden, Erdogan Meet

June 9th, 2021 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Expectations are soaring in Ankara over the forthcoming meeting between US President Joe Biden and his Turkish counterpart Recep Erdogan on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Brussels on June 14. Erdogan said recently, “I believe that our meeting with Mr. Biden at the NATO summit will be the harbinger of a new era.” 

Without doubt, the US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan’s remarks at a White House briefing on Monday on Biden’s first presidential tour abroad carried positive vibes — that Biden is looking forward to reviewing the “full breadth” of Ankara-Washington ties and discuss Eastern Mediterranean, Syria, Afghanistan and other regional issues as part of an “expansive agenda” next week, while acknowledging that the two leaders will also look at the “significant differences” between the two NATO allies. 

Most important, Sullivan transmitted a “presidential message” to Erdogan personally:

“President Biden knows Erdogan very well. The two men have spent a good amount of time together and they’re both, I think, looking forward to the opportunity to really have a business-like opportunity to review the full breadth of the relationship.” 

The conventional wisdom amongst analysts is that the US and Turkey are hopelessly entangled in a messy relationship. But then, the two countries also have a long history of sequestering their alliance from deep differences. At the present moment, what lends enchantment to the Turkish American alliance is that Washington consistently regarded Turkey as a “swing” state which can tilt the West’s relations with Russia.

Add to that now a further dimension, with an eye on Turkey’s unique geography, as regards the US’ prioritisation of China’s exclusion from the western world. There’s no gainsaying that the upcoming meeting in Brussels will be a high-stakes affair.  

With a touch of exaggeration, perhaps, one can even say that Biden’s meetings with Erdogan (June 14) and Putin (June 16) are joined at the hips. In almost all the “talking points” that Sullivan singled out — Eastern Mediterranean, Syria and Afghanistan — Russia is a sleeping partner. 

And more so, if we recognise that an “expansive agenda” cannot but include the entire swathe of the region where Europe and Eurasia overlap, which is turning into a theatre of contestation between the US (NATO) and Russia  — from Central Asia to the Caspian and Caucasus; and, from the Black Sea northward across Ukraine. 

To be sure, the Biden administration is preparing well for the upcoming meeting with Erdogan. To borrow an expression that Sullivan used to graphically thumb sketch Vladimir Putin, Erdogan too is a “a singular kind of personalised leader, and having the opportunity to come together in a summit will allow us to manage this relationship and stand up and defend American values most effectively.” 

Much preparatory work has been undertaken. Two top US diplomats travelled to Ankara in recent weeks for consultations —  Deputy Secretary of State, Wendy Sherman and the US ambassador to the United Nations (who carries cabinet rank), Linda Thomas-Greenfield. The State Department announced that Sherman would “underscore the importance of the US-Turkey relationship as we work together with our NATO ally to confront mutual challenges, and discuss areas of concern.” 

The US Mission to the UN at New York said in an announcement last week that Thomas-Greenfield would discuss “opportunities to strengthen the US- Turkey relationship, work with our NATO ally to address global challenges (and) improve cooperation on Syria.”  A senior US diplomat at the New York mission called this “a moment of intense engagement” with senior Turkish officials ahead of the Biden-Erdogan meeting. 

The US diplomat added that Turkey is “a critical NATO ally, and we have a strategic relationship that spans an enormous breadth of issues and concerns, including global and regional security issues, obviously, economic issues related to democracy and human rights.”  

The Turkish side too began preparing for the Biden-Erdogan meeting through past several weeks since Biden pronounced on April 24 the taboo “Armenian genocide” — after the 1915 wartime massacres under the Ottoman Rule. It was a red line for Turkey and Ankara should have reacted harshly — ranging from a closure of the İncirlik are base to the US or even stoping the operations of the ABM radar base in Malatya-Kurecik in eastern Turkey, a strategic asset of the western alliance system in encircling Russia. 

But Biden’s profound experience in international diplomacy was on display when he put a call through to Erdogan prior to making the announcement on the Armenian genocide and offered to meet in Brussels in June.

Interestingly, prior to that phone conversation, Sullivan made a call (April 23) with Erdogan’s top aide İbrahim Kalın where they reached a “consensus” on the exact wording that Biden would use in his announcement the next day whereby the blame for the Armenian genocide would be placed at the doorsteps of the dying Ottoman Empire and ensure Ankara wouldn’t be wrestling with compensation lawsuits in American courts by the heirs of Armenians who fled to the US in 1915 or after.  

Sullivan’s tactful diplomacy and Biden’s gracious gesture had a magical effect on Erdogan. By the way, a third call also came from Washington to Ankara to follow up on Biden’s conversation with Erdogan: this time around, State Secretary Antony Blinken called his Turkish counterpart Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu.

Indeed, three top-level calls from Washington to Ankara within two hours on April 23! They ensured that Biden’s announcement on April 24 all but became a non-event. Suffice to say, Biden’s highly inflammatory announcement has since become a damp squib. The highly excitable Turks have since moved on. 

The episode testifies to the inherent strength and resilience of Turkish-American alliance. This is the touchstone to apply to reassess Turkey’s current “Islamist” ruling elite. The point is, amidst the cacophony over “Neo-Ottomanism”, Turkey’s apparent obsession with “strategic autonomy” or Erdogan’s mercurial personality traits, the Turkish elite cannot afford a rupture in the umbilical chord that ties them to the western world. 

Turkey’s Islamist elite are as much the inheritors of Ataturk’s legacy that their country’s destiny lies with the West. The Americans — Biden, in particular — would know that home truth. Therefore, the leitmotif of the Biden-Erdogan summit is going to be the tango at a personal level between the two presidents whose genius for dealmaking is a legion.  

Having said that, the differences, concerns and interests that keep Washington and Ankara apart are not to be underestimated. That needs a separate analysis. But make no mistake, a process of reconciliation is due to commence. 

*

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

Featured image: US Vice President Joe Biden (L) and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan at their last meeting at Yildiz Mabeyn Palace, Istanbul, Jan. 23, 2016 (File photo)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The way that people view the world is greatly shaped by the “news” that they see on television and read on the Internet.  Unfortunately, much of that “news” is produced by just five enormous corporations.  In fact, although the numbers vary from month to month, more than 90 percent of the “news” that Americans watch on television is controlled by those five corporations.  Smaller outlets such as Newsmax are trying to make a dent, but it is an uphill battle.  Internet news is more diversified, but in conjunction with the 15 billionaires that own and control America’s newspaper industry, the same five corporations have come to dominate online as well.  The tech giants have certainly helped their cause by designating them as “trusted sources” and by adjusting algorithms to ensure that we get a steady diet of the “news” that the media giants are constantly putting out.  The entire system is designed to direct us to certain voices, and those voices are constantly working very hard to alter what we think about things.

According to one survey, the average American spends 238 minutes a day watching television.  If you allow anyone to pump that much propaganda into your mind day after day, it is inevitable that the way that you view the world is going to change.

Sadly, a lot of people out there still believe that the big corporate-owned news networks are the “guardians of democracy” and are just looking out for their best interests.

Needless to say, that is not even close to reality.  In our day and time, everyone has agendas to push, and the big corporate-owned news networks are not any exception.  The “journalists” at those networks are going to shape the news to push the messages that their corporate masters want them to push, and anybody that believes otherwise is simply being naive.

So exactly who are these five giant corporations that own and control almost all of the news that we see on television?

Well, the first is AT&T’s WarnerMedia which owns CNN

The Cable News Network (CNN) is a multinational news-based pay television channel headquartered in Atlanta.[3][4][5] It is owned by CNN Worldwide, a unit of the WarnerMedia News & Sports division of AT&T‘s WarnerMedia.[6] It was founded in 1980 by American media proprietor Ted Turner and Reese Schonfeld as a 24-hour cable news channel.[7][8][9] Upon its launch in 1980, CNN was the first television channel to provide 24-hour news coverage,[10] and was the first all-news television channel in the United States.[11]

The second is Comcast which owns NBC News

NBCUniversal Media, LLC is an American mass media and entertainment conglomerate owned by Comcast and headquartered at 30 Rockefeller Plaza in Midtown ManhattanNew York City.[5]

NBCUniversal is primarily involved in the media and entertainment industry. The company is named for its two most significant divisions, the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) – one of the United States’ Big Three television networks – and the major Hollywood film studio Universal Pictures. It also has a significant presence in broadcasting through a portfolio of domestic and international properties, including USA NetworkSyfyBravoTelemundoUniversal Kids, and the streaming service Peacock. Via its Universal Parks & Resorts division, NBCUniversal is also the third-largest operator of amusement parks in the world.[6]

Of course Comcast also owns cable news outlet MSNBC

MSNBC is an American news-based pay television cable channel based in New York City. It is owned by the NBCUniversal News Group division of NBCUniversal (a subsidiary of Comcast). It provides NBC News coverage as well as its own reporting and political commentary on current events.

Disney has now become the largest media company in the entire world, and they are the proud owners of ABC News

The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) is an American multinational commercial broadcasttelevision network that is a flagship property of Walt Disney Television, a division of Disney General Entertainment Content of The Walt Disney Company. The network is headquartered in Burbank, California, on Riverside Drive, directly across the street from Walt Disney Studios and adjacent to the Roy E. Disney Animation Building. The network’s secondary offices, and headquarters of its news division, are in New York City, at its broadcast center at 77 West 66th Street on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

ViacomCBS may not be as big as the other corporations on this list, but their control of CBS News gives them a tremendous amount of influence…

CBS (originally an abbreviation for Columbia Broadcasting System, its former legal name that was used from 1928 to 1974) is an American commercial broadcast television and radio network. It serves as the flagship property of the CBS Entertainment Group division of ViacomCBS. The network is headquartered at the CBS Building in New York City, with major production facilities and operations at the CBS Broadcast Center in New York City, and CBS Television City and the CBS Studio Center in Los Angeles.

Last, but certainly not least, Fox Corporation (which is controlled by the Murdoch family) owns and controls Fox News…

Fox Corporation is an American mass media company headquartered in New York City. The company was formed in 2019 as a result of the acquisition of 21st Century Fox by The Walt Disney Company; the assets that were not acquired by Disney were spun off from 21st Century Fox as the new Fox Corp., and its stock began trading on January 1, 2019.[6][7][8] The company is incorporated in Delaware.

It is owned by the Murdoch family via a family trust with 39.6% interest;[9] Rupert Murdoch is chairman, while his son Lachlan Murdoch is executive chairman and CEO. Fox Corp. deals primarily in the television broadcast, news, and sports broadcasting industries. They include the Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox Television Stations, Fox News, Fox Business, the national operations of Fox Sports, and others. Its sister company under Murdoch’s control, the present-day News Corp, holds his print interests and other media assets.

Many consider Fox News to be the “conservative alternative” to the other major news networks, but the truth is that the “news” that Fox News produces is not really that much different from the “news” that the other networks produce.

Every day, millions upon millions of Americans have conversations that center around the “news” that they just saw on television.  So those that decide what the “news” is going to be have an extraordinary amount of power.

Just look at what happened when the Fauci emails were revealed.  They showed that Dr. Fauci had been lying to us over and over again, and they also showed that he was involved in a massive conspiracy to cover up the true origin of the pandemic.

But CNN, MSNBC, NBC News, ABC News and CBS News all decided that it wasn’t going to be a scandal, and so most Americans don’t believe that it is one.

On Monday, a British news source published a bombshell story about text messages in which Hunter Biden used some of the most racist language imaginable, and that should be front page news all over the country.

But the big news networks are being silent about Hunter Biden’s text messages.  In fact, I couldn’t even find a single reference to the story on the homepage of Fox News.

So Hunter Biden’s racist language is not going to be a scandal because they don’t want it to be a scandal.

Meanwhile, Chris Harrison is being permanently canceled for simply suggesting that a contestant on his former show should be given “a little grace” for a mistake that she made in her past…

“We all need to have a little grace… Because I’ve seen some stuff online, again this judge-jury-executioner thing, where people are just tearing this girl’s life apart,” Harrison said during the interview. “I’m not defending Rachael. I just know that, I don’t know, 50 million people did that in 2018. That was a type of party that a lot of people went to.”

He continued: “The woke police is out there. And this poor girl Rachael, who has just been thrown to the lions. I don’t know how you are equipped when you have never done this before, to be woke enough, to be eloquent enough, to be ready to handle this.”

When are we finally going to get fed up with all the hypocrisy?

If Chris Harrison is going to get canceled simply for wanting to show a little bit of grace to someone, how much more does Hunter Biden deserve to get canceled for the horrific language that he used?

But Hunter Biden is not going to get canceled because he is off limits.

He can literally do anything that he wants because his father is in the White House, and the mainstream media is going to protect Joe Biden at all costs.

It is at this point in the article that I should encourage everyone to turn off the mainstream news networks and never look back.

But we all know that the vast majority of Americans are going to continue to watch their favorite news networks no matter how corrupt they become, and that is extremely unfortunate.

*

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

Michael Snyder‘s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com. He has written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters.

Featured image is from End of the American Dream

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Over 90% of the News You See on Television Is Owned and Controlled by Just 5 Giant Corporations
  • Tags: , ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In Iran, the beginning of June has been marked by a “pandemic” of fires in various locations.

On June 6th and 7th, two separate fires took place in the Islamic republic, with one happening near Tehran and the second in the central Kerman province.

The first fire took place in the city of Zarand in Kerman, at a steel factory.

The accident reportedly occurred due to the spillage of molten material.

In spite of ample evidence in videos and eyewitness reports to the contrary, authorities said that there had been no explosion.

According to local sources the explosion was so strong that people in villages and surrounding regions of Zarand were jolted.

There is also some speculation that it was somehow expected with personnel being evacuated hours earlier.

Less than a day later, a massive fire broke out at the Behnoush soft drink factory which is located to the west of Tehran.

The fire had started in an open-air storage area where flammable materials were stored.

No casualties were reported as a result of the fire.

Both fires were ruled as accidents, and it is a likely scenario as temperatures in Iran are quite high at the moment.

On June 2nd, a massive fire had broken out at the Shahid Tondgooyan refinery in Shahr-e-Rey, south of the capital Tehran, state media reported.

Hours before the incident in Shahr-e-Rey, the largest ship in the Iranian navy caught fire and later sank in the Gulf of Oman under unclear circumstances.

There is room to speculate, however, over the last few months, fires erupted in several military and industrial facilities across Iran.

Despite being dubbed as accidents, and keeping in mind the climate, the frequency of these fires could potentially suggest some were not accidental.

Separately, hopes are high in Iran, as months of negotiations on the Nuclear Deal have come to a close as representatives of all signatories have returned to their respective capitals to discuss further steps.

Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian top nuclear negotiator, said that good progress has been made in this round of talks, but there are still disagreements on key issues.

Additionally, Iran’s foreign minister Javad Zarif said that full compliance by the US to the deal needs to be resumed so that actual progress can be made.

However, US secretary of state Antony Blinken has one more time admitted that he was unsure whether or not Tehran was interested in rejoining the deal.

Negotiators have produced at least 20 pages of text with various options on how to solve the remaining hurdles.

Many points were made in regard to the lifting of sanctions, the limited use of centrifuges and more and it is expected that negotiations will continue in the following months.

*

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

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

PayPal: [email protected], http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Fires and Explosions in Iran. Hopes for Nuclear Deal Rescue Flicker
  • Tags: ,

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.

***

Those of you drawing sustenance and stimulation from the traditional acronym UFO best brace yourselves.  The less exciting and dull term accepted by the defence clerks – unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) – is renewing its march into the extra-terrestrial hinterland.   

On June 25, the Pentagon’s UAP Task Force will release a declassified report to Congress that will do little to shift ground or alter debate on the nature of such phenomena.  For those exercised about green creatures, ancient aliens and that roguish charlatan Erich von Däniken, nothing would have changed. For sceptics, it will be a case of tired yawn before returning to work.  There will be many “I told you so” moments and no one will be any wiser.

Since 2017, various eyewitness accounts and videos have been circulating in such measure as to worry members of Congress.  This came a decade after Senate majority leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) first began tooting the horn on the subject, a measure that led to the creation of the $22 million Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.  That program, along with the even lesser known Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program, saw the involvement of such proponents of extra-terrestrial life as billionaire Robert Bigelow.

Such programs were hardly the first.  From 1966 to 1968, the University of Colorado’s UFO Project, which lead to the publication of the tome heavy Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, was funded by the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research.  Led by physicist Edward U. Condon, the report, totalling almost a thousand pages, covered 56 “cases” (UFO sightings), of which 33 were suitably explained as “normal phenomena”. 

The unexplained cases were not sufficient for Condon and his co-authors to encourage further government study or scientific investigation of UFO sightings.  The words of the report are unequivocally damning: “nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record … leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.”

Decades after, with interest rekindled, the Pentagon was duly pressed by US lawmakers into compiling a report examining UAP sightings.  Legislation passed in December stipulated that the resulting work should contain “detailed analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena data and intelligence” gathered by the FBI, the Office of Naval Intelligence and the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force.  The latter was created in August 2020 on the direction of Deputy Secretary of Defense David L. Norquist.  It was done so with a view to improving “understanding of” and to “gain insight into the nature and origins of UAPs.  The mission of the task force is to detect, analyze and catalogue UAPs that could potentially pose a threat to US national security.”

The focus of the report is bound to be workmanlike, given the DOD’s concern about “the safety of our personnel and the security of our operations”.  Emphasis is placed on the potential risks posed by “any incursions by unauthorized aircraft into our training ranges or designated airspace”.  “This includes examinations of incursions that are initially reported as UAP when the observer cannot immediately identify what he or she is observing.”

So far, news outlets have veered between panting anticipation and bemused interest.  The BBC suggested that, “The review of 120 incidents is expected to conclude that US technology was not involved in most cases.”  The Hill, not quite grasping the meaning of secrecy, concluded that this fact “effectively rules out any secret government operations conducted by the American government”.

Both the New York Times and Washington Post went for common ground.  The Times reported that senior administration officials briefed about the report found no evidence that the sighted objects seen over the past decade by Navy pilots were not of this planet.  But these same officials “still cannot explain the unusual movements that have mystified scientists and the military.”  US technology, it was confirmed, was not involved in the sightings.  The report, according to the Post, “finds no proof of extraterrestrial activity, but cannot provide a definitive explanation for scores of incidents in which strange objects have been spotted in the sky”.    

The Post goes on to make some broad claims, detecting a shift from “fringe conspiracy theory” to the “mainstream”.  To justify the assertion, they cite such figures as Luis Elizondo, a former military intelligence official who told reporters on an April roundtable call that many objects recorded in the videos under review had “baffled pilots, military and intelligence officials for their apparent defiance of known laws of flight and gravity”. 

Fox News, for its part, can call upon the observations of former director of national intelligence John Ratcliffe. Those interested in the report would read of “objects that have been seen by Navy or Air Force pilots or have been picked up by satellite imagery that frankly engage in actions that are difficult to explain.”

The minds of former presidents are also being tickled with interest. “[W]hat is true, and I’m actually being serious here,” Barack Obama claimed in May on the Late Late Show With James Corden, “is that there are, there’s footage and records of objects in the skies, that we don’t know exactly what they are.  We can’t explain how they moved, their trajectory.”

A good number in the scientific and sceptical fraternity have been much cooler to this excitement.  “Recently,” a reproachful Andrew Franknoi, astronomer at the Fromm Institute for Lifelong Learning at the University of San Francisco observes, “there has been a flurry of misleading publicity about UFOs [based on military reports].  A sober examination of these claims reveals there is a lot less to them than first meets the eye.”

Science writer Mick West, who has viewed much UAP footage released by the US military, affords a good perspective for debunkers.  Most sightings can be put down to distortions in the image or problems in the instruments themselves.  For all that, he admitted that unidentified objects appearing “in restricted airspace” presents “a real problem that needs solving.” 

UFO sceptic Robert Sheaffer sees no reason for a Damascene conversion.  “There are no aliens here on Earth, and so the government cannot ‘disclose’ what it does not have.”  With a measure of unflagging confidence, he suggested that government sources knew “less on the subject than our best civilian UFO investigators, not more.”

Another good reason for dampening any excitement around the UAP Report is the motivation of the Pentagon.  Instances of costly bungles are many, from the vast expenditure in such failed conflicts as Afghanistan to the $1.6 trillion debacle over the F-35.  Perhaps, writes Matt Stieb, the DOD “simply wants a flashy reason to demand more money.”

Reid, for his part, expects little but urges continued interest in funding ventures in UAP investigations.  “I don’t think the report is going to tell us too much.  I think they need to study it more and not just have one shot at it.”  Condon and his research team might have set him straight.

*

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

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

Featured image: In an undated handout image taken from a video released by the Defense Department’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, a 2004 encounter near San Diego between two Navy F/A-18F fighter jets and an unknown object. UFOs have been repeatedly investigated over the decades in the United States, including by the American military. (U.S. Department of Defense via The New York Times)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Extra-Terrestrials (ET), Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) and the Pentagon
  • 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 fact that the very department that trains high state officials and agents of secretive three letter agencies is also the place that produces many of the journalists we rely on to stand up to those officials and keep them in check is seriously problematic.

In a previous investigation, MintPress News explored how one university department, the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, functions as a school for spooks. Its teaching posts are filled with current or former NATO officials, army officers and intelligence operatives to churn out the next generation of spies and intelligence officers. However, we can now reveal an even more troubling product the department produces: journalists. An inordinate number of the world’s most influential reporters, producers and presenters, representing many of the most well-known and respected outlets — including The New York Times, CNN and the BBC — learned their craft in the classrooms of this London department, raising serious questions about the links between the fourth estate and the national security state.

National security school

Increasingly, it appears, intelligence agencies the world over are beginning to appreciate agents with a strong academic background. A 2009 study published by the CIA described how beneficial it is to “use universities as a means of intelligence training,” writing that, “exposure to an academic environment, such as the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, can add several elements that may be harder to provide within the government system.”

The paper, written by two King’s College staffers, boasted that the department’s faculty has “extensive and well-rounded intelligence experience.” This was no exaggeration. Current Department of War Studies educators include the former Secretary General of NATO, former U.K. Minister of Defense, and military officers from the U.K, U.S. and other NATO countries. “I deeply appreciate the work that you do to train and to educate our future national security leaders, many of whom are in this audience,” said then-U.S. Secretary of Defense (and former CIA Director) Leon Panetta in a speech at the department in 2013.

King’s College London also admits to having a number of ongoing contracts with the British state, including with the Ministry of Defence (MoD), but refuses to divulge the details of those agreements.

American connections

Although a British university, King’s College markets itself heavily to American students. There are currently 1,265 Americans enrolled, making up about 4% of the student body. Many graduates of the Department of War Studies go on to attain powerful positions in major American media outlets. Andrew Carey, CNN’s Bureau Chief in Jerusalem, for example, completed a master’s there in 2012. Carey’s coverage of the latest Israeli attack on Gaza has presented the apartheid state as “responding” to Hamas rocket attacks, rather than being the instigator of violence. A leaked internal memo Carey sent to his staff last month at the height of the bombardment instructed them to always include the fact that the Gazan Ministry of Health is overseen by Hamas, lest readers begin to believe the well-documented Palestinian casualty figures brought on by days of bombing. “We need to be transparent about the fact that the Ministry of Health in Gaza is run by Hamas. Consequently, when we cite latest casualty numbers and attribute to the health ministry in Gaza, we need to include the fact that it is Hamas run,” read his instructions.

Carey leaked memo

King’s College alumnus turned CNN Jerusalem bureau chief Andrew Carey instructed reporters on how to cover Israel’s latest assault on Gaza

Once publicized, his comments elicited considerable pushback. “This is a page straight out of Israel’s playbook. It serves to justify the attack on civilians and medical facilities,” commented Al-Jazeera Senior Presenter and Producer Dena Takruri.

The New York Times, the United States’ most influential newspaper, has also employed Department of War Studies alumni. Christiaan Triebert (M.A., 2016), for example, is a journalist on their visual investigations team. He even won a Pulitzer Prize for “Revelations about Russia and Vladimir Putin’s aggressive actions in countries including Syria and Europe.” Hiring students from the school for spooks to bash Russia appears to be a common Times tactic, as it also employed Lincoln Pigman between 2016 and 2018 at its Moscow bureau.

Josh Smith, senior correspondent for influential news agency Reuters and formerly its correspondent in Afghanistan, also graduated from the department in question, as did The Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Ford.

Arguably the most influential media figure from the university, however, is Ruaridh Arrow. Arrow was a producer at many of the U.K.’s largest news channels, including Channel 4, Sky News and the BBC, where he was world duty editor and senior producer on Newsnight, the network’s flagship political show. In 2019, Arrow left the BBC to become an executive producer at NBC News.

The British invasion

Unsurprisingly for a university based in London, the primary journalistic destination for Department of War Studies graduates is the United Kingdom. Indeed, the BBC, the country’s powerful state broadcaster, is full of War Studies alumni. Arif Ansari, head of news at the BBC Asian Network, completed a masters analyzing the Syrian Civil War in 2017 and was soon selected for a leadership development scheme, placing him in charge of a team of 25 journalists who curate news primarily geared toward the substantial Middle Eastern and South Asian communities in Great Britain.

Many BBC employees begin studying at King’s years after their careers have already taken off, and balance their professional lives with pursuing new qualifications. Ahmed Zaki, Senior Broadcast Journalist at BBC Global News, began his master’s six years after he started at the BBC. Meanwhile, Ian MacWilliam — who spent ten years at BBC World Service, the country’s official news broadcast worldwide, specializing in sensitive regions like Russia, Afghanistan and Central Asia — decided to study at King’s more than 30 years after completing his first degree.

Another influential War Studies alumnus at the World Service is Aliaume Leroy, producer for its Africa Eye program. Well-known BBC News presenter Sophie Long also graduated from the department, working for Reuters and ITN before joining the state broadcaster.

“It’s an open secret that King’s College London Department of War Studies operates as the finishing school for Anglo-American securocrats. So it’s maybe not a surprise that graduates of its various military and intelligence courses also enter into a world of corporate journalism that exists to launder the messaging of these same ‘security’ agencies,” Matt Kennard — an investigative journalist for Declassified U.K. who has previously exposed the university’s connections to the British state — told MintPress. “It is, however, a real and present danger to democracy. The university imprimatur gives the department’s research the patina of independence while it works, in reality, as the unofficial research arm of the U.K. Ministry of Defence,” he added.

Neri Zilber

Israeli writer and King’s College alumnus Neri Zilber has bylines in many of the media’s most important outlets

The Department of War Studies also trains many international journalists and commentators, including Nicholas Stuart of the Canberra Times (Australia); Pakistani writer Ayesha Siddiqa, whose work can be found in The New York Times, Al-Jazeera, The Hindu and many other outlets; and Israeli writer Neri Zilber, a contributor to The Daily Beast, The Guardian, Foreign Policy and Politico.

What’s it all about?

Why are so many influential figures in our media being hothoused in a department well known for its connections to state power, for its faculty being active or former military or government officials, and for producing spies and operatives for various three-letter agencies? The point of this is not to allege that these journalists are all secretly card-carrying spooks: they are not. Rather, it is to highlight the alarmingly close links between the national security state and the fourth estate we rely on to be a check on their power and to hold them accountable.

Journalists trained in this sort of environment are far more likely to see the world in the same manner as their professors do. And perhaps they would be less likely to challenge state power when the officials they are scrutinizing were their classmates or teachers.

These sorts of questions abound when such a phenomenon exists: Why are so many journalists choosing to study at this particular department, and why do so many go on to be so influential? Are they being vetted by security agencies, with or without their knowledge? How independent are they? Will they just repeat British and American state talking points, as the Department of War Studies’ publications do?

On the question of vetting, the BBC admitted that, at least until the 1990s, it conspired with domestic spying agency MI5 to make sure that people with left-wing and/or anti-war leanings, or views critical of British foreign policy and empire were secretly blocked from being hired. When pressed on whether this policy is still ongoing, the broadcaster refused to comment, citing “security issues” — a response that is unlikely to reassure skeptics.

“While it strikes me as very interesting that a single academic institution could play such a major role in the recruitment of pro-establishment activist intellectuals and delivery of the same to the media, it is not so surprising,” Oliver Boyd-Barrett, Professor Emeritus at Bowling Green State’s School of Media and Communication and an expert in collusion between government and media, told MintPress, adding:

Elite institutions in the past and doubtless still today have been major playgrounds for intelligence services. The history of the modern nation-state generally, not just the USA, seems to suggest that national unity — and therefore elite safety — is regarded by elites as achievable only through careful management and often suppression or diversion of dissent. Far more resources are typically committed to this than many citizens, drilled in the propaganda of democracy, realize or care to concede.

The Bellingcat Boys

While the journalists cataloged above are not spooks, some other Department of War Studies figures working in journalism could possibly be described as such, particularly those around the influential and increasingly notorious investigative website Bellingcat.

Cameron Colquhoun, for instance, spent almost a decade at GCHQ, Britain’s version of the NSA, where he was a senior analyst running cyber and counter-terrorism operations. He holds qualifications from both King’s College London and the State Department. This background is not disclosed in his Bellingcat profile, which merely describes him as the managing director of a private intelligence company that “conduct[s] ethical investigations” for clients around the world.

Bellingcat’s senior investigator Nick Waters spent four years as an officer in the British Army, including a tour in Afghanistan, where he furthered the British state’s objectives in the region. After that, he joined the Department of War Studies and Bellingcat.

For the longest time, Bellingcat’s founder Eliot Higgings dismissed charges that his organization was funded by the U.S. government’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED) — a CIA cutout organization — as a ridiculous “conspiracy.” Yet by 2017, he was admitting that it was true. A year later, Higgins joined the Department of War Studies as a visiting research associate. Between 2016 and 2019 he was also a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the brains behind the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Higgins appears to have used the university department as a recruiting ground, commissioning other War Studies graduates, such as Jacob Beeders and the aforementioned Christiaan Triebert and Aliaume Leroy, to write for his site.

Bellingcat is held in very high regard by the CIA. “I don’t want to be too dramatic, but we love [Bellingcat],” said Marc Polymeropoulos, the agency’s former deputy chief of operations for Europe and Eurasia. Other officers explained that Bellingcat could be used to outsource and legitimize anti-Russia talking points. “The greatest value of Bellingcat is that we can then go to the Russians and say ‘there you go’ [when they ask for evidence],” added former CIA Chief of Station Daniel Hoffman.

Bellingcaught

A recent MintPress investigation explored how Bellingcat acts to launder national security state talking points into the mainstream under the guise of being neutral investigative journalists themselves.

Newly leaked documents show how Bellingcat, Reuters and the BBC were covertly cooperating with the U.K.’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to undermine the Kremlin and promote regime change in Moscow. This included training journalists and promoting explicitly anti-Russian media across Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, the FCO noted, Bellingcat had been “somewhat discredited,” as it constantly spread disinformation and was willing to produce reports for anyone with money.

Nevertheless, a new European Parliament proposal published last month recommends hiring Bellingcat to assist in producing reports that would lay the groundwork for sanctioning Russia, for throwing it out of international bodies, and to “assist Russia’s transformation into a democracy.” In other words, to overthrow the government of Vladimir Putin.

An academic journalistic nexus

The Department of War Studies is also part of this pro-NATO, anti-Russia group. Quite apart from being staffed by soldiers, spooks and government officials, it puts out influential reports advising Western governments on foreign and defense policy. For instance, a study entitled “The future strategic direction of NATO” advises that member states must increase their military budgets and allow American nuclear weapons to be stored in their countries, thereby “shar[ing] the burden.” It also recommended that NATO must redouble its commitment to opposing Russia while warning that it needed urgently to form a “coherent policy” on the Chinese threat.

Other War Studies reports claim that Russia is carrying out “information-psychological warfare” through its state channels RT and Sputnik, and counsel that the West must use its technical means to prevent its citizens from consuming this foreign propaganda.

King’s College London academics have also proven crucial in keeping dissident publisher Julian Assange imprisoned. A psychiatrist who has worked with the War Studies department testified in court that the Australian was suffering only “moderate” depression and that his suicide risk was “manageable,” concluding that extraditing him to the United States “would not be unjust.” As Matt Kennard’s investigation found, the U.K. Ministry of Defence had provided £2.2 million ($3.1 million) in funding to the institute where he worked (although the psychiatrist in question claimed his work was not directly funded by the MoD).

King’s College London markets the War Studies department to both graduates and undergraduates as a stepping stone towards a career in journalism. In its “career prospects” section for its master’s course in war studies, it tells interested students that “graduates go on to work for NGOs, the FCO, the MoD, the Home Office, NATO, the UN or pursue careers in journalism, finance, academia, the diplomatic services, the armed forces and more.”

Likewise, undergraduates are told that:

You will gain an in-depth and sophisticated understanding of war and international relations, both as subjects worthy of study and as intellectual preparation for the widest possible range of career choices, including in government, journalism, research, and humanitarian and international organisations.

Courses such as “New Wars, New Media, New Journalism” fuse together journalism and intelligence and are overseen by War Studies academics.

It is perhaps unsurprising that the department has taught many influential politicians, including foreign heads of state and members of the British parliament. But at least there is considerable overlap between the fields of defense policy and politics. The fact that the very department that trains high state officials and agents of secretive three letter agencies is also the place that produces many of the journalists we rely on to stand up to those officials and keep them in check is seriously problematic.

An unhealthy respect for authority

Unfortunately, rather than challenging power, many modern media outlets amplify its message uncritically. State officials and intelligence officers are among the least trustworthy sources, journalistically speaking. Yet many of the biggest stories in recent years have been based on nothing except the hearsay of officials who would not even put their names to their claims.

The level of credulity modern journalists have for the powerful was summed up by former CNNWhite House Correspondent Michelle Kosinski, who last month stated that:

As an American journalist, you never expect:

  1. Your own govt to lie to you, repeatedly
  2. Your own govt to hide information the public has a right to know
  3. Your own govt to spy on your communications

Unfortunately, credulity stretches into outright collaboration with intelligence in some cases. Leaked emails show that the Los Angeles Times’ national security reporter Ken Dilanian sent his articles directly to the CIA to be edited before they were published. Far from hurting his career, however, Dilanian is now a correspondent covering national security issues for NBC News.

Boyd-Barrett said that governments are dependent on “the assistance of a penetrated, colluding and docile mainstream media which of late — and in the context of massive confusion over Internet disinformation campaigns, real and alleged — appear ever more problematic guardians of the public right to know.”

In recent years, the national security state has increased its influence over social media giants as well. In 2018, Facebook and the Atlantic Council entered a partnership whereby the Silicon Valley giant partially outsourced curation of its 2.8 billion users’ news feeds to the Council’s Digital Forensics Lab, supposedly to help stop the spread of fake news online. The result, however, has been the promotion of “trustworthy” corporate media outlets like Fox News and CNN and the penalization of independent and alternative sources, which have seen their traffic decrease precipitously. Earlier this year, Facebook also hired former NATO press officer and current Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council Ben Nimmo to be its chief of intelligence. Reddit’s Director of Policy is also a former Atlantic Council official.

Meanwhile, in 2019, a senior Twitter executive for the Middle East region was unmasked as an active duty officer in the British Army’s 77th Brigade, its unit dedicated to psychological operations and online warfare. The most notable thing about this event was the almost complete lack of attention it received from the mainstream press. Coming at a time when foreign interference online was perhaps the number one story dominating the news cycle, only one major outlet, Newsweek, even mentioned it. Furthermore, the reporter who covered the story left his job just weeks later, citing stifling top-down censorship and a culture of deference to national security interests.

The purpose of this article is not to accuse any of those mentioned of being intelligence agency plants (although at least one person did actually work as an intel officer). The point is rather to highlight that we now have a media landscape where many of the West’s most influential journalists are being trained by exactly the same people in the same department as the next generation of national security operatives.

It is hardly a good look for a healthy, open democracy that so many spies, government officials, and journalists trusted to hold them accountable on our behalf are all being shot out of the very same cannon. Learning side by side has helped to create a situation where the fourth estate has become overwhelmingly deferential to the so-called deep state, where anonymous official’s words are taken as gospel. The Department of War Studies is just one part of this wider phenomenon.

*

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: The Maughan Library Gate at Kings College London, UK. David JC | Alamy

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Notorious London Spy School Churning Out Many of the World’s Top Journalists
  • Tags:

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

U.S. foreign policy is increasingly promoted by billionaire-funded foundations. The neoliberal era has created individuals with incredible wealth who, through “philanthropy,” flex their influence and feel good at the same time. While these philanthropists can be liberal on some issues, they almost universally support U.S. foreign policy and the “free market.” Because many of these super-rich individuals made their wealth through investments and speculation, most do not like a planned economy, socialized services beyond the private sector, or greater government control.

These mega-wealthy individuals, and the people who run their foundations, are often intimately connected to the U.S. foreign policy establishment. Grants are given to projects, campaigns and organizations which align with their long-term goals. In this direct way, supposedly independent think tanks and NGOs are influenced if not controlled. There is much truth in the old saying, “He who pays the piper, calls the tune.”

Independent Nicaragua

Nicaragua is a good example. For historical and contemporary reasons, Washington is hostile to the Nicaraguan government. The socialist Sandinista Front ousted the U.S.-supported dictator Anastasio Somoza in 1979 and governed until 1990. Then, following a decade of U.S.-sponsored “Contra” war and economic sanctions, the Sandinistas were voted out of office. Next, after 16 years of neoliberal governments, the Nicaraguan people voted to return the Sandinistas to power in 2006. Since then, the Sandinista Front (FSLN) has won two subsequent elections, with more support, 62%, in 2011 and more still, 73%, in 2016.

Nicaragua under the Sandinistas has sustained a capitalist economy, but the government provides many social services, including health care and education, along with community-based policing and an impressive 90% food self-sufficiency. Nicaragua maintains an independent foreign policy which sometimes aligns with Cuba, Venezuela and other independent movements in Latin America.

Nicaragua has made plans for a trans-oceanic canal. Because this would compete with the Panama Canal and be independent of heavy U.S. influence, the United States does not approve. With the financial collapse of the canal’s Chinese investor, the plans have been suspended if not cancelled. Regardless of whether the plan is implemented, the U.S. foreign policy establishment and associated media are hostile to the Nicaraguan government for daring to plan this project.

U.S. Targets Nicaragua

U.S. meddling in Nicaragua is thinly veiled behind the U.S.-funded “civil society,” a “new generation of democratic leaders” and an “ecosystem of independent media.” In September 2016, a high USAID official, Marcela X. Escobari, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that 2,200 youth had received “leadership training.”

U.S. governmental hypocrisy is quite astounding. Imagine if Nicaragua (or Russia or any other country) trained thousands of U.S. activists to “promote democracy” in the USA.

In December 2018, the U.S. ratified the “Nicaragua Human Rights and Anticorruption Act” which imposes sanctions and commits the U.S. to preventing Nicaragua from receiving loans, financial or technical assistance from U.S.-dominated financial institutions.

In August 2020, journalist Ben Norton at The Grayzone reported details of a new USAID “task order” called Responsive Assistance in Nicaragua (RAIN). The document “outlines plans for a U.S. regime-change scheme against Nicaragua’s elected leftist government.” In short, Washington is not just hostile but actively trying to undermine, destabilize and replace the Sandinista administration.

USAID Nicaragua transition coup

[Source: thegrayzone.com]

The Foreign Policy Establishment, Nicaragua and Elliott Abrams

A key institution of the foreign policy establishment is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Its role and importance are analyzed in a two-volume history, “Imperial Brain Trust,”and “Wall Street’s Think Tank,” by Laurence N. Shoup, whose titles convey the main thesis. CFR events and publications, including Foreign Affairs magazine, give a good picture of key foreign policy priorities and debates.

A picture containing text, book Description automatically generated

[Source: amazon.com]

[Source: amazon.com]

Hostility to the Nicaragua government is reflected in CFR reports and publications. One important example is an article by Elliott Abrams, who has been a major foreign policy official for 40 years. He was convicted of lying to Congress, yet he is a Senior Fellow at CFR. In September 2015 he wrote an article published at CFR titled “The Sandinistas Attack the Miskito Indians – Again.” He ends the article with an appeal to environmental and human rights groups:

“The open question is whether anyone – groups defending the environment, or defending Indian rights or human rights more generally, or fighting against Sandinista repression—will help them.”

Elliott Abrams: The War Criminal Running US Policy in Venezuela

Source: therealnews.com

Seemingly in response to Elliott Abrams’s suggestion, several major foundations have financed reporting on Nicaragua that emphasize conflict and tensions in the indigenous Miskito zone.

Melinda Gates - Wikipedia

In March 2017 a Guardian article based on research funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation described “Lush heartlands of Nicaragua’s Miskito people spark deadly land disputes.”

Image on the right: Melinda Gates [Source: wikipedia.org]

In the fall of 2018, the Oakland Institute received a grant of $237,294 for “Land Dispute Project – Nicaragua” from the Howard G. Buffett Foundation. This year the Oakland Institute published “Nicaragua’s Failed Revolution.” The subtitle of the report is “The Indigenous Struggle for Saneamiento,” with “saneamiento” being the final step of the process toward regaining indigenous rights.

The funding for these reports came from foundations where the key players are interconnected with the foreign policy establishment. For example, Howard G. Buffett, the former Executive Director at the Howard G. Buffett Foundation and son of Warren Buffett, the multi-billionaire CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, is a member of CFR. Melinda Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), is a writer for CFR publications and speaker at CFR events.

We do not know if they were influenced by Elliott Abrams’s appeal, but the anti-Sandinista message was likely heard one way or another. Land disputes involving indigenous groups are widespread in the Americas, including North America. Research and reports could be done regarding almost every country. But instead of researching and reporting on indigenous land conflicts in Colombia or Honduras or British Columbia, the billionaire foundations chose to fund reports on Nicaragua.

The Miskito indigenous in Nicaragua are not new to conflict. During the 1980s the CIA manipulated them to advance their proxy Contra army. Many Nicaraguans died as a result. Now, 35 years later, people such as Elliott Abrams are trying to use the Miskito all over again. The Miskito may have legitimate grievances against the Nicaraguan government. But are their supposed champions in the U.S. seeking a solution or are they seeking to use them for their own purposes? There is a big difference.

A picture containing person, military uniform, weapon, group Description automatically generated

Contra fighters in the 1980s included Miskito Indians. [Source: legacyofgena.medium.com]

Economic Warfare and “Conflict Beef”

The United States is increasingly using sanctions and economic warfare to hurt those governments deemed to be “adversaries.” Some right-wing foreign policy advisers would like to amplify the economic damage to Nicaragua. Some would like to prevent the U.S. from importing beef from Nicaragua.

Cattle ranching is a major part of the economy in Nicaragua. Previously Nicaragua exported large amounts of beef to Venezuela. But with the extreme economic hardships, exports have declined. Nicaragua has helped fill the gap by exporting larger quantities of high-quality beef to the U.S.

A picture containing grass, outdoor, tree, cow Description automatically generated

Cattle farm in Indio Maíz Biological Reserve in Nicaragua. [Source: news.mongabay.com]

On the October 20, 2020, broadcast of the PBS Newshour, a nine-minute video about “Conflict Beef” was shown. The documentary said the increase in Nicaraguan exports is “coming at a high cost for indigenous communities that are being run off their land to make way for cattle ranches.” This accusation, and the suggestion that perhaps Nicaraguan beef should not be imported, was a core message of the video which merged journalism with activism.

Subsequent research, including interviews with indigenous leaders from the area, reveal that the PBS Newshour report is fundamentally inaccurate. Journalist John Perry, based in Nicaragua, gives details in the article Progressive Media Promoted a False Story of Conflict Beef from Nicaragua, published by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Some of the reported violence was made up; some was exaggerated. The claims of “genocide” are not credible.

The exaggerated and untrue accusations in the PBS report are based on four sources. Lottie Cunningham is an indigenous attorney who heads the Center for Justice and Human Rights on the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua (CEJUDHCAN). Her organization is a USAID recipient and she is close to the U.S. Ambassador to Nicaragua. The United Nations Human Rights Commission has issued press releases based solely on her accusations. Judging by this “Conflict Beef” report, her accusations are sometimes exaggerated and sometimes untrue.

Another source for this report is Anuradha Mittal, founder and Executive Director of the Oakland Institute. The Institute received a grant of nearly $250,000 for its research on Nicaraguan “land conflict.”

Much of the information came from the Oakland Institute report and the claims of Lottie Cunningham, who in addition to being a USAID grant recipient, received the Lush Spring Prize, sponsored by Lush Cosmetics. Recently published interviews with numerous elected indigenous leaders from Nicaragua’s autonomous zones indicate that Lottie Cunningham is viewed with skepticism if not hostility. The leaders believe that her organization, CEJUDHCAN, does not represent the interests of indigenous communities and is actually promoting violence and publicity for personal gain.

The lead journalist for the PBS report “Conflict Beef,” was Nate Halverson at the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR). CIR is well funded, with a budget around $10M, and has received large grants from dozens of individual foundations: Hearst ($625K), Soros ($325K), Gates ($247K), Ford ($250K), Pierre Omidyar ($900K).

Another journalist, Camilo de Castro Belli, appeared in the video. He is the son of author and Sandinista critic Giacondo Belli and a “Central America Fellow” at the neoliberal Aspen Institute. The Aspen Institute is funded by grants from the Rockefeller, Ford, Gates and other U.S. philanthropic foundations. Its chairman, James S. Crown, is the Lead Director of the General Dynamics Corporation, one of the world’s top arms manufacturers, and was appointed by Barack Obama to the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.[1]

Key allegations in the “Conflict Beef” story are untrue. The beef for export comes from cattle that are NOT from the indigenous zones. The cattle are individually tagged and regulated by the national IPSA (Institute for Agricultural Protection and Health) which is in turn audited by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Nicaraguans are currently in discussion with European regulators in preparation for export there. This video, from one of the Nicaraguan beef producers, gives a sense of their professionalism.

Even the introduction to the PBS report is untrue. They sensationally claim that a young Miskito girl was shot in the face by someone “sending a message” to the community. The girl was accidentally shot while playing with another youth who had his father’s gun. This version is confirmed by the president of the local indigenous community who knows the family of the victim. The girl survived the incident, and the family accepted a bribe to fabricate the story.

Another claim—that “dozens of armed men attacked another Indigenous village in northeast Nicaragua, killing four people in the Mayangna community”—is false. A version of this same story was repeated twice in the Oakland Institute report and sent by Lottie Cunningham (CEJUDHCAN) to the United Nations Human Rights Council which dutifully issued a press release. This despite the fact the claims had been quickly exposed as false by the president of the Mayangna indigenous community. The media quickly jumped on the story, reportedly after two phone calls but no verification.

When a government is targeted by Washington, as the Sandinista government clearly is, the media attitude seems to be “guilty until proven innocent.”

This story about “Conflict Beef” reveals how big foundations influence reports which promote the U.S. foreign policy goals on Nicaragua: to defame and economically punish those who are too independent.

*

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 Sterling is an investigative journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. He is active with the Taskforce on the Americas and other organizations including Syrian Solidarity Movement and  the Mount Diablo Peace and Justice Center.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research

Notes

[1] A leading donor to Obama, Crown was the subject of a criminal probe while chairman of JPMorgan Chase & Company after losing $6.2 billion through high-risk credit derivative trades that were unknown to regulators. See Jeremy Kuzmarov, Obama’s Unending Wars: Fronting the Foreign Policy of the Permanent Warfare State (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2019).

Featured image is from The Grayzone

The War Over Genetic Privacy Is Just Beginning

June 9th, 2021 by John W. Whitehead

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.

***

When you upload your DNA, you’re potentially becoming a genetic informant on the rest of your family.”— Law professor Elizabeth Joh

“Guilt by association” has taken on new connotations in the technological age.

All of those fascinating, genealogical searches that allow you to trace your family tree by way of a DNA sample can now be used against you and those you love.

As of 2019, more than 26 million people had added their DNA to ancestry databases. It’s estimated those databases could top 100 million profiles within the year, thanks to the aggressive marketing of companies such as Ancestry and 23andMe.

It’s a tempting proposition: provide some mega-corporation with a spit sample or a cheek swab, and in return, you get to learn everything about who you are, where you came from, and who is part of your extended your family.

The possibilities are endless.

You could be the fourth cousin once removed of Queen Elizabeth II of England. Or the illegitimate grandchild of an oil tycoon. Or the sibling of a serial killer.

Without even realizing it, by submitting your DNA to an ancestry database, you’re giving the police access to the genetic makeup, relationships and health profiles of every relative—past, present and future—in your family, whether or not they ever agreed to be part of such a database.

After all, a DNA print reveals everything about “who we are, where we come from, and who we will be.”

It’s what police like to refer to a “modern fingerprint.”

Whereas fingerprint technology created a watershed moment for police in their ability to “crack” a case, DNA technology is now being hailed by law enforcement agencies as the magic bullet in crime solving.

Indeed, police have begun using ancestry databases to solve cold cases that have remained unsolved for decades.

For instance, in 2018, former police officer Joseph DeAngelo was flagged as the notorious “Golden State Killer” through the use of genetic genealogy, which allows police to match up an unknown suspect’s crime scene DNA with that of any family members in a genealogy database. Police were able to identify DeAngelo using the DNA of a distant cousin found in a public DNA database. Once police narrowed the suspect list to DeAngelo, they tracked him—snatched up a tissue he had tossed in a trash can—and used his DNA on the tissue to connect him to a rash of rapes and murders from the 1970s and ‘80s.

Although DeAngelo was the first public arrest made using forensic genealogy, police have identified more than 150 suspects since then. Most recently, police relied on genetic genealogy to nab the killer of a 15-year-old girl who was stabbed to death nearly 50 years ago.

Who wouldn’t want to get psychopaths and serial rapists off the streets and safely behind bars, right? At least, that’s the argument being used by law enforcement to support their unrestricted access to these genealogy databases.

“In the interest of public safety, don’t you want to make it easy for people to be caught? Police really want to do their job. They’re not after you. They just want to make you safe,” insists Colleen Fitzpatrick, a co-founder of the DNA Doe Project, which identifies unknown bodies and helps find suspects in old crimes.

Except it’s not just psychopaths and serial rapists who get caught up in the investigative dragnet.

Anyone who comes up as a possible DNA match—including distant family members—suddenly becomes part of a circle of suspects that must be tracked, investigated and ruled out.

Although a number of states had forbidden police from using government databases to track family members of suspects, the genealogy websites provided a loophole that proved irresistible to law enforcement.

Hoping to close that loophole, a few states have started introducing legislation to restrict when and how police use these genealogical databases, with Maryland requiring that they can only be used for serious violent crimes such as murder and rape, only after they exhaust other investigatory methods, and only under the supervision of a judge.

Yet the debate over genetic privacy—and when one’s DNA becomes a public commodity outside the protection of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on warrantless searches and seizures—is really only beginning.

Certainly, it’s just a matter of time before the government gets hold of our DNA, either through mandatory programs carried out in connection with law enforcement and corporate America, by warrantlessly accessing our familial DNA shared with genealogical services such as Ancestry and 23andMe, or through the collection of our “shed” or “touch” DNA.

According to research published in the journal Science, more than 60 percent of Americans who have some European ancestry can be identified using DNA databases, even if they have not submitted their own DNA. According to law professor Natalie Ram, one genealogy profile can lead to as many as 300 other people.

That’s just on the commercial side.

All 50 states now maintain their own DNA databases, although the protocols for collection differ from state to state. Increasingly, many of the data from local databanks are being uploaded to CODIS (Combined DNA Index System), the FBI’s massive DNA database, which has become a de facto way to identify and track the American people from birth to death.

Even hospitals have gotten in on the game by taking and storing newborn babies’ DNA, often without their parents’ knowledge or consent. It’s part of the government’s mandatory genetic screening of newborns. In many states, the DNA is stored indefinitely.

What this means for those being born today is inclusion in a government database that contains intimate information about who they are, their ancestry, and what awaits them in the future, including their inclinations to be followers, leaders or troublemakers.

Get ready, folks, because the government— helped along by Congress (which adopted legislation allowing police to collect and test DNA immediately following arrests), President Trump (who signed the Rapid DNA Act into law), the courts (which have ruled that police can routinely take DNA samples from people who are arrested but not yet convicted of a crime), and local police agencies (which are chomping at the bit to acquire this new crime-fighting gadget)—has embarked on a diabolical campaign to create a nation of suspects predicated on a massive national DNA database.

Referred to as “magic boxes,” Rapid DNA machines—portable, about the size of a desktop printer, highly unregulated, far from fool-proof, and so fast that they can produce DNA profiles in less than two hours—allow police to go on fishing expeditions for any hint of possible misconduct using DNA samples.

Journalist Heather Murphy explains: “As police agencies build out their local DNA databases, they are collecting DNA not only from people who have been charged with major crimes but also, increasingly, from people who are merely deemed suspicious, permanently linking their genetic identities to criminal databases.”

The ramifications of these DNA databases are far-reaching.

At a minimum, they will do away with any semblance of privacy or anonymity. The lucrative possibilities for hackers and commercial entities looking to profit off one’s biological record are endless.

Moreover, while much of the public debate, legislative efforts and legal challenges in recent years have focused on the protocols surrounding when police can legally collect a suspect’s DNA (with or without a search warrant and whether upon arrest or conviction), the question of how to handle “shed” or “touch” DNA has largely slipped through without much debate or opposition.

As scientist Leslie A. Pray notes:

We all shed DNA, leaving traces of our identity practically everywhere we go. Forensic scientists use DNA left behind on cigarette butts, phones, handles, keyboards, cups, and numerous other objects, not to mention the genetic content found in drops of bodily fluid, like blood and semen. In fact, the garbage you leave for curbside pickup is a potential gold mine of this sort of material. All of this shed or so-called abandoned DNA is free for the taking by local police investigators hoping to crack unsolvable cases. Or, if the future scenario depicted at the beginning of this article is any indication, shed DNA is also free for inclusion in a secret universal DNA databank.

What this means is that if you have the misfortune to leave your DNA traces anywhere a crime has been committed, you’ve already got a file somewhere in some state or federal database—albeit it may be a file without a name. As Heather Murphy warns in the New York Times: “The science-fiction future, in which police can swiftly identify robbers and murderers from discarded soda cans and cigarette butts, has arrived…  Genetic fingerprinting is set to become as routine as the old-fashioned kind.

Even old samples taken from crime scenes and “cold” cases are being unearthed and mined for their DNA profiles.

Today, helped along by robotics and automation, DNA processing, analysis and reporting takes far less time and can bring forth all manner of information, right down to a person’s eye color and relatives. Incredibly, one company specializes in creating “mug shots” for police based on DNA samples from unknown “suspects” which are then compared to individuals with similar genetic profiles.

If you haven’t yet connected the dots, let me point the way.

Having already used surveillance technology to render the entire American populace potential suspects, DNA technology in the hands of government will complete our transition to a suspect society in which we are all merely waiting to be matched up with a crime.

No longer can we consider ourselves innocent until proven guilty.

Now we are all suspects in a DNA lineup until circumstances and science say otherwise.

Suspect Society, meet the American police state.

Every dystopian sci-fi film we’ve ever seen is suddenly converging into this present moment in a dangerous trifecta between science, technology and a government that wants to be all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful.

By tapping into your phone lines and cell phone communications, the government knows what you say. By uploading all of your emails, opening your mail, and reading your Facebook posts and text messages, the government knows what you write. By monitoring your movements with the use of license plate readers, surveillance cameras and other tracking devices, the government knows where you go.

By churning through all of the detritus of your life—what you read, where you go, what you say—the government can predict what you will do. By mapping the synapses in your brain, scientists—and in turn, the government—will soon know what you remember.

And by accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc.

Of course, none of these technologies are foolproof.

Nor are they immune from tampering, hacking or user bias.

Nevertheless, they have become a convenient tool in the hands of government agents to render null and void the Constitution’s requirements of privacy and its prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.

What this amounts to is a scenario in which we have little to no defense of against charges of wrongdoing, especially when “convicted” by technology, and even less protection against the government sweeping up our DNA in much the same way it sweeps up our phone calls, emails and text messages.

With the entire governmental system shifting into a pre-crime mode aimed at detecting and pursuing those who “might” commit a crime before they have an inkling, let alone an opportunity, to do so, it’s not so far-fetched to imagine a scenario in which government agents (FBI, local police, etc.) target potential criminals based on their genetic disposition to be a “troublemaker” or their relationship to past dissenters.

Equally disconcerting: if scientists can, using DNA, track salmon across hundreds of square miles of streams and rivers, how easy will it be for government agents to not only know everywhere we’ve been and how long we were at each place but collect our easily shed DNA and add it to the government’s already burgeoning database?

Not to be overlooked, DNA evidence is not infallible: it can be wrong, either through human error, tampering, or even outright fabrication, and it happens more often than we are told. The danger, warns scientist Dan Frumkin, is that crime scenes can be engineered with fabricated DNA.

Now if you happen to be the kind of person who trusts the government implicitly and refuses to believe it would ever do anything illegal or immoral, then the prospect of government officials—police, especially—using fake DNA samples to influence the outcome of a case might seem outlandish.

Yet as history shows, the probability of our government acting in a way that is not only illegal but immoral becomes less a question of “if” and more a question of “when.”

With technology, the courts, the corporations and Congress conspiring to invade our privacy on a cellular level, suddenly the landscape becomes that much more dystopian.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this is the slippery slope toward a dystopian world in which there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

*

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 Rutherford Institute.

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

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

Featured image is from GMWatch

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The War Over Genetic Privacy Is Just Beginning
  • Tags: ,

The US Army’s “African Lion”: Hunting for A New Prey

By Manlio Dinucci, June 08, 2021

The African Lion, the largest military exercise on the African Continent planned and led by the US Army, has begun. It includes land, air, and naval maneuvers in Morocco, Tunisia, Senegal, and adjacent seas – from North Africa to West Africa, from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic.

Israel Wins Big in Washington

By Philip Giraldi, June 08, 2021

Now let me get this straight. A nation bullies and harasses a much smaller neighbor which eventually leads that neighbor to strike back with largely home-made weapons. The larger and more powerful country, armed with state of the art killing machines, attacks its basically unarmed opponent and kills hundreds of civilians, including a large number of children.

Worldwide Genocide Continues: 13,867 Dead and 1,354,336 Injuries in European Database of Adverse Drug Reactions for COVID-19 Shots

By Brian Shilhavy, June 08, 2021

A Health Impact News subscriber in Europe ran the reports for each of the four COVID-19 shots we are including here. This subscriber has volunteered to do this, and it is a lot of work to tabulate each reaction with injuries and fatalities, since there is no place on the EudraVigilance system we have found that tabulates all the results.

The COVID-19 Attack on the Integrity of Knowledge

By Emanuel Pastreich, June 08, 2021

New predators like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Viacom and Amazon roam this vast information wasteland, using unaccountable parties to confirm the “accuracy” of information that is provided to unwitting citizens, parties who have no other compass to guide them but short-term profit.

Mass Protests Can End Vaccine Passports

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, June 08, 2021

March 20, 2021, on the 1-year anniversary of the first COVID-19 lockdown, people in more than 40 countries took to the streets to peacefully demonstrate against COVID-19 lies and tyrannical measures under the banner of “Worldwide Freedom Day.” While synchronized around the world that particular day, demonstrations are more or less ongoing in various areas.

Targeting Iran, Strengthening NATO: U.S., British, Israeli, Italian F-35s in Unprecedented Air Combat Exercise

By Rick Rozoff, June 08, 2021

The twelve-day Falcon Strike 21 aerial war games commenced in earnest today out of the Amendola Air Base in Italy. The exercise is led by the Italian Air Force and is described by U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces Africa as designed for the integration of 4th and 5th generation fighter capabilities; all four participating countries – Britain, Israeli, Italy and the U.S. – have provided variants of the fifth-generation F-35 fighter jet for the drills.

The Supply Chain Linking Beef to Amazon Deforestation, with Banks’ Backing

By Global Witness, June 08, 2021

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.

The Coronavirus Vaccine: The Real Danger is “Agenda ID2020”. Vaccination as a Platform for “Digital Identity”

By Peter Koenig, June 08, 2021

It seems, the more there is written about the causes of the Coronavirus – the more the written analyses are overshadowed by a propaganda and fear-mongering hype. Questions for the truth and arguments for where to look for the origins and how the virus may have spread and how to combat it, are lost in the noise of wanton chaos.

COVID Hospitalizations, Deaths for the Vaccinated More Than Triple in One Month, CDC Reports

By Celeste McGovern, June 08, 2021

A total of 10,262 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine “breakthrough infections” – defined as coronavirus infections in fully vaccinated people – were reported to the CDC from 46 U.S. states and territories between January 1 and April 30, 2021, according to a report released by the CDC May 28.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The US Army’s “African Lion”: Hunting for A New Prey

Este artigo tem o propósito de divulgar e popularizar o debate sobre temas marxistas; trata-se de uma versão reduzida do ensaio teórico “No sentido do fascismo”, capítulo do livro “Brasil e América Latina na Segunda Guerra Mundial” (Editora CRV, 2017).

****

A implantação do fascismo, se de um lado representa a garantia da estabilidade social, pelo menos para um futuro imediato, traz doutro inconvenientes consideráveis para as próprias classes interessadas na conservação social. Aceitando a ditadura fascista, elas abdicam de boa parte de seus direitos e sua liberdade de ação. 

(Caio Prado, “1937”, ensaio de seus “Diários Políticos”)

Vivemos uma época de valorização da ignorância e de resgate das políticas fascistas, tratadas pela mídia corporativa e outras instituições sólidas (que deveriam ser também sérias) como se fossem uma autêntica “teoria conservadora”, digna de espaço, e não um mero disparate irracional e desumano. Por toda parte, em todos os aspectos da sociedade, o que se vê é a ascensão de crendices  anticientíficas – absurdas e perigosas. 

Tempos parecidos com os de agora – de grave crise econômica, seguida de desvalorização da razão em nome da conservação da ordem capitalista e das altas taxas de lucro – foram experimentados no século passado em diversas ocasiões, sobretudo no período do entreguerras (dos anos 1920 aos 1940). 

Este período foi vivido com intensidade pelo então jovem pensador marxista, Caio Prado Júnior, historiador e filósofo que nos deixou há três décadas, e que se tornaria ainda em vida um dos maiores nomes da história do nosso marxismo. 

Para melhor tentar compreender a desgraça do capitalismo-fascista, que eternamente se repete (enquanto dure), vejamos algumas reflexões de Caio acerca do fascismo que viveu na pele. 

Preâmbulo: “o golpe de 2016” (como a própria Folha aprendeu a grafar!)

A consolidação de nosso caótico presente tem como marco os idos de 2004/2005, quando a imprensa conservadora brasileira estabeleceu como sendo uma “verdade absoluta” (ainda que sem provas) o fenômeno do “mensalão”, em meados do primeiro governo Lula. 

A partir deste fato – que já é bastante conhecido desde nossa atual perspectiva histórica (que passa dos 15 anos) –, a oposição da grande mídia conservadora operaria sistematicamente a construção do discurso de que o PT teria “modernizado” e até “inventado” a corrupção nacional, o que, ao lado da crise econômica internacional e dos interesses e participação de outras frentes golpistas (Congresso, Judiciário, Exército, financistas, interesses estrangeiros), afundariam a nação no golpe de estado de 2016, que somente agora dá mostras de poder ser superado.

Contudo, se à época o “golpe” de 2016 foi tratado como um legal “impeachment” pelos manuais de redação da palavra-do-mercado – a tríade Folha, Estadão, O Globo –, o que se nota agora é que estes (e outros) jornais corporativos de visão neoliberal começaram recentemente a abrir espaço para artigos que nomeiam corretamente o golpe de 2016 como: “golpe de 2016”! 

Na avaliação da presidenta Dilma, em entrevista concedida à imprensa independente no último 31 de março (quando o golpe militar de 1964 completou 57 anos): “estamos vendo hoje pessoas tentando recontar seus próprios atos diante de toda a conspiração golpista; a começar pelos nossos ‘companheiros’ da imprensa; principalmente quando se vê a [dita jornalista] Miriam Leitão, como pessoa, e a Folha de S. Paulo, como instituição, tentando refazer a história para seu lado, como fez o senador Agripino Maia” (que no Senado tentou “recontar” a história, colocando os torturadores como vítimas). “Eles sistematicamente tentam acusar as vítimas; [mas] esse momento nós não podemos esquecer: não podemos deixar que a imprensa manipule os fatos, manipule a história”, completou a ex-mandatária deposta por um Congresso então liderado pelo bandido comum Eduardo Cunha.

Como se sabe, esses grandes e influentes jornais, vozes e cúmplices do mercado, apoiaram o golpe contra Dilma e as mínimas reformas sociais petistas, sempre em prol dos “ajustes estruturais” neoliberais – que é como a oligarquia chama suas contrarreformas de desmonte das políticas sociais (teto de gastos pra educação e saúde, precarização de direitos trabalhistas e aposentadoria, etc). Na sua ingenuidade – ou aposta temerária –, esses grupos corporativos, que moldam o discurso mediano das classes médias e abastadas, acreditavam poder, mais tarde, domesticar figuras bestiais como Temer e seus comparsas do MDB, e depois a milícia familiar de Bolsonaro. 

Curiosa aposta? Ou seria antes a própria lógica dos que jogam com a vida dos outros?

Efetivamente, a história mostra que em muitos casos, algumas bestas não podem ou não querem ser domesticadas, nem mesmo quando sua falta de “racionalidade” afeta os seus próprios negócios e os de seus aliados.

Dessa maneira, com a economia declinando perigosamente – com famílias inteiras dormindo nas ruas das metrópoles no inverno que chega, com a Amazônia pegando fogo e os investidores fugindo qual gazelas, com a prática do genocídio sendo usada como campanha eleitoral –, não surpreende que meios do nível parcial de uma Folha S.P. venha permitir em suas manchetes falas que não só permitem o termo “golpe de 2016”, como sugerem a “derrota” desta tramoia; ou que um Estadão, voz da Fiesp, venha colocar em pauta e mesmo questionar a “destruição” (maior do que desejavam) dos direitos sociais.

A ascensão do fascismo segundo Caio Prado

Autor de obra interdisciplinar e abrangente, a partir dos anos 1930 Caio Prado se consolida como um dos expoentes do pensamento marxista brasileiro e latino-americano. Seu marxismo se caracteriza por uma análise crítica e radical da sociedade: atento à realidade nacional concreta e avesso às “teorias” eurocêntricas, muitas vezes copiadas artificialmente de contextos distintos do nosso (como se fossem “cartilhas”). 

 Por tal “pecado dialético”, Caio entraria em diversos embates e polêmicas, chocando-se com a corrente que então predominava na Internacional Comunista e em seu partido, o PCB, segundo a qual a Revolução Brasileira deveria seguir etapas semelhantes àquelas das nações europeias.

***

Desde o entreguerras até o início da segunda metade do século XX, o pensador brasileiro analisou diversos aspectos relativos à ascensão fascista, buscando entender as particularidades históricas, geopolíticas e filosóficas deste fenômeno anti-humano que foi – e é – um problema internacional. 

Esses ensaios podem ser lidos em manuscritos pertencentes ao Arquivo do Instituto de Estudos Brasileiros da USP; são compostos de cadernos de estudos e de diários políticos (que incluem  resenhas, artigos, análises, apontamentos e recortes de periódicos com anotações pessoais), além de correspondências diversas. São textos em grande parte ainda inéditos em português, embora alguns tenham sido publicados em recente edição argentina dedicada ao marxista brasileiro, intitulada “Caio Prado: Historia y Filosofía” (Edit. Último Recurso/Rosário, em parceria com o Núcleo Práxis da USP), que traz tradução castelhana inédita de uma seleção dos principais escritos do autor ao longo de décadas – publicação que em breve será tema de evento e ciclo de debates em São Paulo.

Caio Prado, nestes estudos, dedica-se a interpretar vários acontecimentos da história do país: desde a formação de um movimento reacionário extremista (o integralismo, versão do fascismo no Brasil), até a tendência “fascistizante” que a partir do meio dos anos 1930 acomete o governo de Getúlio Vargas (desembocando na ditadura do Estado Novo, que perseguiu os comunistas). 

Mais tarde, nos anos 1960 e 1970 (e portanto desde uma distância histórica já razoável), o pensador comunista irá tratar das consequências socioeconômicas e políticas que a Segunda Guerra legou ao “sentido” de nossa história – ou seja, à direção, aos rumos tomados por nossa nação em seu processo histórico. Veja-se sobre o tema o capítulo tardio “A crise em marcha” (de 1962, atualizado em 1970) e o posfácio “Post scriptum” (de 1976), incluídos em edições mais recentes de seu livro “História Econômica do Brasil”.

Contexto de crise: o anúncio do fascismo no entreguerras

Em meados dos anos 1930, no período de crise social e econômica chamado “entreguerras” – que culminaria com a Segunda Guerra – Caio Prado escreve em suas crônicas políticas de viagem “URSS: um novo mundo” que a Europa Ocidental não rumava para uma forma social superior, mas sua sociedade estava sim regredindo. Para ele, o “projeto social-democrata”que havia predominado em nações mais industrializadas (Inglaterra, Alemanha) – não tinha trazido um progresso social, mas pelo contrário, atrasara os planos de construção de uma sociedade menos desigual, “socialista”. 

Por estes tempos, diz Caio, somente os “bolcheviques” – referência ao partido que liderou a revolução na Rússia e fundou a União Soviética – mantiveram em guarda a luta pela “igualdade entre os homens”, este lema sobre o qual as “democracias burguesas” muito falaram, mas que na realidade nunca lhes foi mais do que um vazio discurso “pomposo”. 

Partindo de tais reflexões, o marxista brasileiro conclui que é preciso recusar a teoria do “evolucionismo social” ou “etapismo”: dogma que acreditava que a evolução histórica seria um processo rígido com etapas fixas, passando do feudalismo necessariamente ao capitalismo, antes de poder atingir o socialismo. Como mencionado, esta teoria buscava transplantar forçadamente a países periféricos, como o Brasil, os modelos revolucionários europeus (países com realidades tão diferentes das nossas). 

Por conseguinte, ao recusar a ideia do “etapismo”, Caio Prado recusa também a ideia do “aliancismo”, segundo a qual a Revolução Brasileira deveria se pautar em uma estratégia política de aliança entre classes sociais supostamente “nacionalistas” (trabalhadores e uma facção dos patrões/burgueses). Tal tese política acreditava que haveria, dentre as elites brasileiras, uma parcela que seria progressista: a suposta “burguesia nacional”. 

Contudo, dada a correlação de forças – demasiado adversa às classes baixas –, a tese aliancista colocava os trabalhadores, ainda que temporariamente, como aliados submissos dos “burgueses nacionais” (a quem os proletários deveriam submeter-se, enquanto não se completasse a idealizada “revolução burguesa”). 

O fenômeno das burguesias nacionais (burguesias que se aliaram com seu povo diante da ameaça estrangeira) tinha de fato existido em certas nações europeias e asiáticas. Porém, na nossa realidade brasileira isso era – e ainda é – um engodo –, como bem observa Caio Prado: a burguesia do Brasil se acredita branca, venera os valores do estrangeiro e não se identifica com seu povo, não tem projeto de país, é sócia-menor do imperialismo.

Segundo Caio, é crucial que cada nação construa sua própria – e cuidadosa – leitura do marxismo, conforme as peculiaridades de sua história. E neste caminho, ele passa a se dedicar a entender o fascismo – um fenômeno que percebe como tendo sido gerado na longa crise europeia que vai da Primeira à Segunda Guerra, passando pela quebra da bolsa de 1929. 

Na concepção caiopradiana, o fascismo é uma nova roupagem da extrema-direita, um desvio não-liberal do capitalismo – fruto da situação socialmente instável do período entreguerras. 

***

Neste ponto, é interessante citar a semelhança de suas ideias com as de um importante historiador marxista europeu, um pouco mais jovem que Caio, cujas conclusões sobre o fenômeno fascista são próximas. Para Eric Hobsbawm (quem escreve décadas depois, já com um mais amplo panorama histórico), a extrema-direita fascista deriva do “colapso” das “velhas classes dominantes”: onde as antigas elites se mantiveram organizadas, não houve “necessidade de fascismo”, afirma. 

Além disso, para o marxista inglês – como para o brasileiro –, o regime fascista se funda nos interesses econômicos das classes dominantes, caracterizando-se por uma gestão da economia de modelo “capitalista não-liberal”, e ainda, tendo a particularidade de ser um movimento de massas, um populismo de direita que se usa da alienação social para, mediante espetáculos populistas, mobilizar a população.

Este aspecto do fascismo como uma “escolha” das elites é algo que deve ser sempre reiterado e detalhado historicamente, pois vem sendo sub-repticiamente questionado por vozes pseudo-imparciais (de acadêmicos que comercializam suas ideias sob medida para a amplificação da imprensa corporativa).

Yuri Martins-Fontes

 

Um marxista da América ao mundo: Mariátegui vivo a 90 anos de sua morte (II)

 

Caio Prado e o fascismo como estratégia do capitalismo em crise (Parte III)

 

Caio Prado e o fascismo como estratégia do capitalismo em crise (Parte IV)

 

 

Yuri Martins-Fontes : Filósofo e escritor, com doutorado em história; pesquisa o socialismo, os saberes originários e a literatura contemporânea. Coordena projetos de educação popular do Núcleo Práxis-USP e colabora com a imprensa independente. Autor dos livros “Marx na América” e “Cantos dos Infernos”, entre outras obras.

 

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Caio Prado e o fascismo como estratégia do capitalismo em crise (Parte I)

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 African Lion, the largest military exercise on the African Continent planned and led by the US Army, has begun. It includes land, air, and naval maneuvers in Morocco, Tunisia, Senegal, and adjacent seas – from North Africa to West Africa, from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic. 8,000 soldiers are taking part in it, half of them are American, with about 200 tanks, self-propelled guns, planes, and warships. African Lion 21 is expected to cost $ 24 million, and has implications that make it particularly important.

This political move was fundamentally decided in Washington: the African exercise is taking place this year for the first time in Western Sahara, i.e. in the territory of the Sahrawi Republic, recognized by over 80 UN States, whose existence Morocco denied and fought by any means. Rabat declared that in this way “Washington recognizes Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara” and invites Algeria and Spain to abandon “their hostility towards the territorial integrity of Morocco“. Spain, who was  accused by Morocco of supporting the Polisario (Western Sahara Liberation Front), is not participating in the African Lion this year. Washington reaffirmed its full support to Morocco, calling it “major non-NATO ally and partner of the United States”.

The African exercise takes place this year for the first time within the framework of a new US Command structure. Last November, the US Army Europe and the US Army Africa were consolidated into a single command: the US Army Europe and Africa. General Chris Cavoli, who heads it, explained the reason for this decision:

The regional security issues of Europe and Africa are inextricably linked and can quickly spread from one area to another if left unchecked.”

Hence the decision of the US Army to consolidate the European Command and the African Command, so as to “dynamically move forces from one theater to another, from one continent to another, improving our regional contingency response times”.

In this context, African Lion 21 was consolidated with Defender-Europe 21, which employs 28,000 soldiers and over 2,000 heavy vehicles. It basically is a single series of coordinated military maneuvers that are taking place from Northern Europe to West Africa, planned and commanded by the US Army Europe and Africa. The official purpose is to counter an unspecified “malign activity in North Africa and Southern Europe and to defend the theater from adversary military aggression“, with clear reference to Russia and China.

Italy participates in African Lion 21, as well as in Defender-Europe 21, not only with its own forces but as a strategic base. The exercise in Africa is directed from Vicenza by the US Army Southern Europe Task Force and the participating forces are supplied through the Port of Livorno with war materials  coming from Camp Darby, the neighboring US Army logistics base. The participation in African Lion 21 is part of the growing Italian military commitment in Africa.

The mission in Niger is emblematic, formally “as part of a joint European and US effort to stabilize the area and to combat illegal trafficking and threats to security“, actually for the control of one of the richest areas in strategic raw materials (oil, uranium, coltan, and others) exploited by US and European multinationals, whose oligopoly is endangered by the Chinese economic presence and other factors.

Hence the recourse to the traditional colonial strategy: guaranteeing one’s interests by military means, including support for local elites who base their power on their armed forces, behind the  contrasting jihadist militias smokescreen. In reality, military interventions aggravate the living conditions of populations, reinforcing the mechanisms of exploitation and subjugation, with the result that forced migrations and consequent human tragedies increase.

*

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.

Manlio Dinucci is an award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Article in Italian:

Leone Africano a caccia di nuove prede

 

Leone Africano a caccia di nuove prede

June 8th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

È iniziata ieri la African Lion (Leone Africano), la più grande esercitazione militare nel continente, pianificata e guidata dallo US Army. Essa comprende manovre terrestri, aeree e navali in Marocco, Tunisia, Senegal e nei mari adiacenti – dal Nord Africa all’Africa Occidentale, dal Mediterraneo all’Atlantico. Vi partecipano 8.000 militari, per la metà statunitensi, con circa 200 carrarmati, cannoni semoventi, aerei e navi da guerra. La African Lion 21, il cui costo è previsto in 24 milioni di dollari, ha implicazioni che la rendono particolarmente importante.

Con una mossa politica decisa fondamentalmente a Washington, l’esercitazione si svolge quest’anno per la prima volta nel Sahara Occidentale, ossia nel territorio della Repubblica Sahrawi, riconosciuta da oltre 80 Stati dell’Onu, la cui esistenza è negata e combattuta con ogni mezzo dal Marocco. Rabat dichiara che in tal modo «Washington riconosce la sovranità marocchina sul Sahara Occidentale» e invita Algeria e Spagna ad abbandonare «la loro ostilità nei confronti dell’integrità territoriale del Marocco». La Spagna, accusata dal Marocco di sostenere il Polisario (fronte di liberazione del Sahara Occidentale), non partecipa quest’anno alla African Lion. Washington ribadisce il suo pieno appoggio al Marocco, definendolo «maggiore alleato non-Nato e partner degli Stati uniti».

L’esercitazione si svolge quest’anno, per la prima volta, nel quadro di una nuova struttura Usa di comando. Lo scorso novembre, lo US Army Europe e lo US Army Africa sono stati accorpati in un unico comando: lo US Army Europe and Africa. Il generale Chris Cavoli, che ne è a capo, spiega il motivo di tale decisione: «I problemi di sicurezza regionale di Europa e Africa sono inestricabilmente collegati e, se lasciati incontrollati, possono rapidamente diffondersi da una zona all’altra». Da qui la decisione dell’Esercito Usa di accorpare il Comando dell’Europa e il Comando dell’Africa, così da «muovere dinamicamente le forze da un teatro all’altro, da un continente all’altro, migliorando i nostri tempi di risposta alle emergenze regionali». In tale quadro, la African Lion 21 è accorpata alla Defender-Europe 21, in cui sono impegnati 28 mila militari e oltre 2 mila mezzi pesanti. Praticamente è un’unica serie di manovre militari coordinate che si sta svolgendo dal Nord Europa all’Africa Occidentale, pianificata e comandata dallo US Army Europe and Africa. Scopo ufficiale: contrastare una non precisata «malefica attività in Nord Africa ed Europa Meridionale e aggressione militare avversaria», con evidente riferimento a Russia e Cina.

L’Italia partecipa alla African Lion 21, come alla Defender-Europe 21, non solo con proprie forze ma quale base strategica. L’esercitazione in Africa è diretta da Vicenza, dalla Task Force dell’Europa Meridionale dello US Army, e le forze partecipanti sono rifornite, attraverso il porto di Livorno, con materiali bellici provenienti da Camp Darby, la limitrofa base logistica dello US Army. La partecipazione alla African Lion 21 rientra nel crescente impegno militare italiano in Africa.

Emblematica la missione in Niger, formalmente «nell’ambito di uno sforzo congiunto europeo e statunitense per la stabilizzazione dell’area e per il contrasto ai traffici illegali e alle minacce alla sicurezza», in realtà per il controllo di una delle aree più ricche di materie prime strategiche (petrolio, uranio, coltan e altre) sfruttate da multinazionali statunitensi ed europee, il cui oligopolio è messo a rischio dalla presenza economica cinese e da altri fattori.

Da qui il ricorso alla tradizionale strategia coloniale: garantire i propri interessi con mezzi militari, compreso il sostegno a élite locali che basano il loro potere sulle forze armate, dietro la cortina fumogena del contrasto alle milizie jihadiste. In realtà gli interventi militari aggravano le condizioni di vita delle popolazioni, rafforzando i meccanismi di sfruttamento e assoggettamento, col risultato che aumentano le migrazioni forzate e le conseguenti tragedie umane.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Leone Africano a caccia di nuove prede

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 his wide-brimmed peasant hat and oversized teacher’s pencil held high, Peru’s Pedro Castillo has been traveling the country exhorting voters to get behind a call that has been particularly urgent during this devastating pandemic: “No más pobres en un país rico” – No more poor people in a rich country. In a cliffhanger of an election with a huge urban-rural and class divide, it appears that the rural teacher, farmer and union leader is about to make history by defeating–by less than one percent–powerful far-right candidate Keiko Fujimori, scion of the country’s political “Fujimori dynasty.”

Fujimori is challenging the election’s results, alleging widespread fraud. Her campaign has only presented evidence of isolated irregularities, and so far there is nothing to suggest a tainted vote. However, she can challenge some of the votes to delay the final results, and much like in the U.S., even an allegation of fraud by the losing candidate will cause uncertainty and raise tensions in the country.

Castillo’s victory will be remarkable not only because he is a leftist teacher who is the son of illiterate peasants and his campaign was grossly outspent by Fujimori, but there was a relentless propaganda attack against him that touched on historical fears of Peru’s middle class and elites.

It was similar to what happened recently to progressive candidate Andrés Arauz who narrowly lost Ecuador’s elections, but even more intense. Grupo El Comercio, a media conglomerate that controls 80% of Peru’s newspapers, led the charge against Castillo.

They accused him of being a terrorist with links to the Shining Path, a guerrilla group whose conflict with the state between 1980 and 2002 led to tens of thousands of deaths and left the population traumatized. Castillo’s link to the Shining Path link is flimsy: While a leader with Sutep, an education worker’s union, Castillo is said to have been friendly with Movadef, the Movement for Amnesty and Fundamental Rights, a group alleged to have been the political wing of the Shining Path. In reality, Castillo himself was a rondero when the insurgency was most active. Ronderos were peasant self-defense groups that protected their communities from the guerrillas and continue to provide security against crime and violence.

Two weeks before the elections, on May 23, 18 people were massacred in the rural Peruvian town of San Miguel del Ene. The government immediately attributed the attack to the remnants of the Shining Path involved in drug trafficking, although no group has taken responsibility yet. The media linked the attack to Castillo and his campaign, whipping up fear of more violence should he win the presidency. Castillo denounced the attack and reminded Peruvians that similar massacres had occurred in the run-up to the 2011 and 2016 elections. For her part, Fujimori suggested Castillo was linked to the killing.

Peruvian newspapers spreading fear about Castillo. Photos by Marco Teruggi, @Marco_Teruggi

On the economic front, Castillo has been accused of being a communist who wants to nationalize key industries, and would turn Peru into a “cruel dictatorship” like Venezuela. Billboards along Lima’s main highway asked the population: “Would you like to live in Cuba or Venezuela?” referring to a Castillo win. As seen in the photos above, newspapers linked Castillo’s campaign to the devaluation of the Peruvian currency and warned that a Castillo victory would hurt low-income Peruvians the most because businesses would shutter or move overseas. Time and time again, the Castillo campaign has clarified that he is not a communist and that his aim is not to nationalize industries but to renegotiate contracts with multinationals so that more of the profits stay with the local communities.

Meanwhile, Fujimori was treated with kid gloves by the media during the campaign, with one of the newspapers in the above pictures claiming that “Keiko guarantees work, food, health and an immediate reactivation of the economy.” Her past as a first lady during her father Alberto Fujimori’s brutal rule is largely ignored by corporate media. She is able to claim that “fujimorismo defeated terrorism” without being challenged on the horrors that fujimorismo inflicted on the country, including the forced sterilization of over 270,000 women and 22,000 men for which her father is on trial. He is currently in jail over other human rights abuses and corruption, though Keiko promised to free him if she won. Also ignored was the fact that Keiko herself is out on bail as of last year, pending a money-laundering investigation, and without presidential immunity, she will probably end up in prison.

The international media was no different in its unbalanced coverage of Castillo and Fujimori, with Bloomberg warning that “elites tremble” at the thought of Castillo as president and The Financial Times headline screaming “Peru’s elite in panic at prospect of hard-left victory in presidential election.”

Peru’s economy has grown impressively over the past 20 years, but that growth did not raise all boats.  Millions of Peruvians in the countryside have been left abandoned by the state. On top of that, like many of its neighbors (including Colombia, Chile and Ecuador), Peru has underinvested in health care, education and other social programs. Such choices so decimated the health care system that Peru now has the shameful distinction of leading the entire world in per capita Covid-19 deaths.

In addition to the public health disaster, Peruvians have been living through political turmoil marked by an extraordinary number of high-profile cases of corruption and four presidents in three years. Five of its last seven presidents faced corruption accusations. In 2020, President Martín Vizcarra (himself accused of corruption) was impeached, unseated and replaced by Manuel Merino. The maneuver was denounced as a parliamentary coup, leading to several days of massive street protests. Just five days into his tenure, Merino resigned and was replaced by current President Francisco Sagasti.

One of Castillo’s key campaign platforms is to convoke a constitutional referendum to let the people decide whether they want a new constitution or wish to keep the current one written in 1993 under the regime of Alberto Fujimori, which entrenched neoliberalism into its framework.

“The current constitution prioritizes private interests over public interests, profit over life and dignity,” reads his plan of government. Castillo proposes that a new constitution include the following: recognition and guarantees for the rights to health, education, food, housing and internet access; recognition for indigenous peoples and Peru’s cultural diversity; recognition of the rights of nature; redesign of the State to focus on transparency and citizens’ participation; and a key role for the state in strategic planning to ensure that the public interest takes precedence.

On the foreign policy front, Castillo’s victory will represent a huge blow to U.S. interests in the region and an important step towards reactivating Latin American integration. He has promised to withdraw Peru from the Lima Group, an ad hoc committee of countries dedicated to regime change in Venezuela.

In addition, the Peru Libre party has called for expelling USAID and for the closure of U.S. military bases in the country. Castillo has also expressed support for countering the OAS and strengthening both the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). The victory is also a good omen for the left in Chile, Colombia and Brazil, each of which will have presidential elections over the next year and a half.

Castillo will face a daunting task, with a hostile congress, a hostile business class, a hostile press and most likely, a hostile Biden administration. The support of millions of angry and mobilized Peruvians demanding change, along with international solidarity, will be key to fulfilling his campaign promise of addressing the needs of the most poor and abandoned sectors of Peruvian society.

*

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.

Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace group CODEPINK and author of books on the Middle East and Latin America, is in Peru with an election observer delegation organized by Progressive International.

Leonardo Flores is a Latin American policy expert and campaigner with CODEPINK.

Featured image: Ballot paper for the second round between Castillo and Fujimori. (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Israel Wins Big in Washington

June 8th, 2021 by Philip Giraldi

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.

***

Now let me get this straight. A nation bullies and harasses a much smaller neighbor which eventually leads that neighbor to strike back with largely home-made weapons. The larger and more powerful country, armed with state of the art killing machines, attacks its basically unarmed opponent and kills hundreds of civilians, including a large number of children. It also destroys billions of dollars of infrastructure in the poorer and weaker neighbor. Almost immediately after the fighting stops, senior legislators from a third nation that had nothing to do with the war apart from supplying the larger nation with weapons appeared on the scene and promoted the lie that the larger nation had actually been the victim of an unprovoked attack by the “terrorists” running the small nation. They did so publicly while meeting with and endorsing the actions of the government officials from the large nation, which, it would seem, is about to be investigated by an international body for war crimes. They were joined by an ex-officio former foreign minister of the third nation who likewise echoed the propaganda being put out by the large nation. Several of them also promised to provide military assistance worth $1 billion so the large nation could rearm itself.

Of course, I am writing about how Republican Senators Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and Bill Hagerty traveled to Israel over the Memorial Day weekend and bowed and scraped before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and company. During his meeting with Bibi, Graham even held up a sign reading “More for Israel.” They were joined in Jerusalem by former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who was in town visiting with his old friend Yossi Cohen, head of the Israeli Intelligence service Mossad, who is retiring soon.

I sometimes wonder what the Founding Fathers would think about senior legislators ignoring their constituent duties so they could instead travel overseas to pander to the corrupt rulers of a foreign nation that exhibits none of the civic virtues that the Constitution of the United States once embraced in establishing a new republic? Cruz, for example, is a particularly ambitious slimeball who clearly sees his future in the tight embrace of the Israel Lobby. He was recently on the receiving end of some bad press when he abandoned his home in Houston, at the time suffering from a prolonged electricity crisis due to storm damage, to take his family to Cancun. Cruz is a senator whose main job is promoting himself.

Cruz used the opportunity provided by his presence besides the exalted Netanyahu to denounce President Joe Biden for his Administration’s failure to help Israel while it was under attack by the terrorist hordes. Before he left for Israel he stated that he intended “to hear and see firsthand what our Israeli allies need to defend themselves, and to show the international community that we stand unequivocally with Israel. Far too many Democrats morally equivocated between Israel and the terrorists attacking them, and fringe progressive Democrats went even further with wild accusations and conspiracy theories.”

After a day spent touring Israel’s Iron Dome rocket-defense system before viewing damage in Ashkelon in Israel from the Gazan rockets, which he commemorated with a weepy self-video demonstrating his empathy for the Israeli dead, he said that Biden’s calls for Israel to seek a cease fire had “emboldened” the “Hamas terrorists.” He elaborated that “The longer Joe Biden shows weakness to Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran, the more you’re going to see terrorist attacks escalating.”

But it was Lindsey Graham who has to be awarded the prize for being completely oleaginous in the presence of Netanyahu, holding up a sign reading “More for Israel” while practically swooning in the presence of the great leader. He said, with a grin, “The eyes and ears of America is Israel. Nobody does more to protect America from radical Islam than our friends in Israel.”

Flattery will apparently get you everywhere you want to be as Graham is surely aware that Israel is a strategic liability for the United States and its brutality is in fact a recruiting tool for radical groups. Holding up his sign, Graham then asked, “So what can you expect, my friends in Israel, in the next coming days and weeks from Washington? More.” For the home audience he then elaborated on a tweet what “More” would mean. “Great meeting this morning in Jerusalem with Israeli PM Netanyahu. ‘More for Israel’ to help protect and defend from Hamas rocket attacks.” Graham later reported to Fox News that Israel would be sending Defense Minister Benny Gantz to Washington to negotiate the request for the $1 billion increase in military aid to restore its “deterrent” after the savage bottle rocket attack by Hamas. He elaborated “It will be a good investment for the American people. I will make sure in the Senate that they get the money.”

Since the Senate Committee is packed full of Democratic Party Zionists, Graham knows for sure that his support for giving Israel the money will be approved in committee to go to the House for a final vote where it will be also be approved. And the White House is actually signaling that the Treasury check will be somewhat bigger, to the tune of $1.2 billion. A smiling Netanyahu demonstrated that he knows how to say thanks for the freebee, telling Graham “No one has done more for Israel than you, Senator Lindsey Graham, stalwart champion of our alliance and we have no better friend. You’ve been a tremendous friend and a tremendous ally.”

The third Republican Senator Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, a former Trump Ambassador to Japan, is a bit of a non-entity compared to his superstar traveling companions, though he, like Cruz, is unfortunately on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and has taken the lead on authorizing immediate resupply of Israel’s weapons. And he too got into the game of kissing Israel’s posterior, posting a media release on his Senate website saying “Cruz and Hagerty Land in Israel to Assess Damage from Hamas War: Americans watched in horror when Hamas and other Iran-backed terrorists in Gaza recently launched thousands of rockets at innocent men, women, and children in Israel. I’m joining Senator Cruz, my colleague on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to visit Israel and stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our allies after they endured the worst terrorist attacks in recent years because I want to see firsthand what more the U.S. can do to strengthen our vital alliance with Israel at a time when terrorists like Hamas and Hezbollah and terror-sponsoring regimes in Iran and Syria are making the Middle East more dangerous…”

Pompeo also did his bit, enthusing over his attendance at the retirement party for Cohen. He tweeted how it was “Great to be with good friends in Tel Aviv!” He clearly has acquired the presidential pretensions disease and knows which button has to be pressed first.

One notices immediately the complete lack of any expression of sympathy for the hundreds of Palestinians who were killed by Israel in what was a war that was provoked by the home seizures, armed mobs of settlers in remaining Arab neighborhoods and attacks by soldiers and police on the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. After that, one notes that these clowns pretending to be senators are people who were elected and generously paid by American citizens, not by Israel, yet they seem to believe it is completely appropriate to be spend time in that country meddling in someone else’s war on behalf of a rogue state. If anyone is worthy of impeachment, it is they, but never mind, neither the Zionist dominated US national media nor the Establishment will make any such demand, quite the contrary. Be that as it may, their behavior is despicable and is symptomatic of type of corruption that is preceding the decline and fall of what was once a great nation.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

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 European database of suspected drug reaction reports is EudraVigilance, which also tracks reports of injuries and deaths following the experimental COVID-19 “vaccines.”

Here is what EudraVigilance states about their database:

This website was launched by the European Medicines Agency in 2012 to provide public access to reports of suspected side effects (also known as suspected adverse drug reactions). These reports are submitted electronically to EudraVigilance by national medicines regulatory authorities and by pharmaceutical companies that hold marketing authorisations (licences) for the medicines.

EudraVigilance is a system designed for collecting reports of suspected side effects. These reports are used for evaluating the benefits and risks of medicines during their development and monitoring their safety following their authorisation in the European Economic Area (EEA). EudraVigilance has been in use since December 2001.

This website was launched to comply with the EudraVigilance Access Policy, which was developed to improve public health by supporting the monitoring of the safety of medicines and to increase transparency for stakeholders, including the general public.

The Management Board of the European Medicines Agency first approved the EudraVigilance Access Policy in December 2010. A revision was adopted by the Board in December 2015 based on the 2010 pharmacovigilance legislation. The policy aims to provide stakeholders such as national medicines regulatory authorities in the EEA, the European Commission, healthcare professionals, patients and consumers, as well as the pharmaceutical industry and research organisations, with access to reports on suspected side effects.

Transparency is a key guiding principle of the Agency, and is pivotal to building trust and confidence in the regulatory process. By increasing transparency, the Agency is better able to address the growing need among stakeholders, including the general public, for access to information. (Source.)

Their report through June 5, 2021 lists 13,867 deaths and 1,354,336 injuries following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:

From the total of injuries recorded, there are 683,688 serious injuries which equals over 50%.

Seriousness provides information on the suspected undesirable effect; it can be classified as ‘serious’ if it corresponds to a medical occurrence that results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalisation, results in another medically important condition, or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, results in persistent or significant disability or incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect.”

Health Impact News subscriber in Europe ran the reports for each of the four COVID-19 shots we are including here. This subscriber has volunteered to do this, and it is a lot of work to tabulate each reaction with injuries and fatalities, since there is no place on the EudraVigilance system we have found that tabulates all the results.

Since we have started publishing this, others from Europe have also calculated the numbers and confirmed the totals.[1]

Here is the summary data through June 5, 2021.

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2,Comirnaty) from BioNTechPfizer: 6,732 deathand 502,162 injuries to 05/06/2021

  • 14,819   Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 74 deaths
  • 11,018   Cardiac disorders incl. 843 deaths
  • 90           Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 5 deaths
  • 6,146     Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 216        Endocrine disorders
  • 7,119     Eye disorders incl. 17 deaths
  • 45,616   Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 332 deaths
  • 140,516 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 2,079 deaths
  • 387        Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 28  deaths
  • 5,436     Immune system disorders incl. 32 deaths
  • 15,632   Infections and infestations incl. 711 deaths
  • 5,552     Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 94   deaths
  • 11,782   Investigations incl. 260   deaths
  • 3,730     Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 129 deaths
  • 71,816   Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 84 deaths
  • 295        Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 21 deaths
  • 90,427   Nervous system disorders incl. 692 deaths
  • 330        Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 11 deaths
  • 100        Product issues
  • 8,902     Psychiatric disorders incl. 99 deaths
  • 1,547     Renal and urinary disorders incl. 103 deaths
  • 2,052     Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 21,055   Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 777 deaths
  • 23,678   Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 60  deaths
  • 750        Social circumstances incl. 9 deaths
  • 222        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 15 deaths
  • 12,929   Vascular disorders incl. 251 deaths

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine mRNA-1273(CX-024414) from Moderna: 3,821 deathand 101,767 injuries to 05/06/2021

  • 1,826     Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 27 deaths
  • 2,822     Cardiac disorders incl. 409 deaths
  • 31           Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 1,171     Ear and labyrinth disorders
  • 64           Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death
  • 1,575     Eye disorders incl. 5 deaths
  • 8,770     Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 124 deaths
  • 28,047   General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 1,646 deaths
  • 180        Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 10  deaths
  • 936        Immune system disorders incl. 5 deaths
  • 3,333     Infections and infestations incl. 219 deaths
  • 2,013     Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 71   deaths
  • 2,292     Investigations incl. 85 deaths
  • 1,137     Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 77 deaths
  • 12,483   Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 69 deaths
  • 113        Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 14 deaths
  • 17,861   Nervous system disorders incl. 382 deaths
  • 171        Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 1 death
  • 18           Product issues
  • 2,071     Psychiatric disorders incl. 61 deaths
  • 670        Renal and urinary disorders incl. 46 deaths
  • 352        Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 1 death
  • 4,831     Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 365 deaths
  • 5,412     Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 25  deaths
  • 427        Social circumstances incl. 12 deaths
  • 311        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 33 deaths
  • 2,850     Vascular disorders incl. 131 deaths

Total reactions for the experimental vaccine AZD1222/VAXZEVRIA (CHADOX1 NCOV-19) from Oxford/ AstraZeneca2,848 deathand 724,457 injuries to 05/06/2021

  • 8,125     Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 117  deaths
  • 10,935   Cardiac disorders incl. 351 deaths
  • 97           Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 7,746     Ear and labyrinth disorders
  • 263        Endocrine disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 11,998   Eye disorders incl. 10 deaths
  • 75,897   Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 129 deaths
  • 195,671 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 769 deaths
  • 450        Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 24 deaths
  • 2,765     Immune system disorders incl. 11 deaths
  • 15,657   Infections and infestations incl. 188 deaths
  • 6,783     Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 57 deaths
  • 15,030   Investigations incl. 62 deaths
  • 9,083     Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 42 deaths
  • 113,983 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 30 deaths
  • 275        Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 8 deaths
  • 155,571 Nervous system disorders incl. 438 deaths
  • 190        Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 3 deaths
  • 88           Product issues
  • 13,563   Psychiatric disorders incl. 25 deaths
  • 2,518     Renal and urinary disorders incl. 23 deaths
  • 4,578     Reproductive system and breast disorders
  • 23,942   Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 322 deaths
  • 33,090   Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 18 deaths
  • 678        Social circumstances incl. 4 deaths
  • 571        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 16 deaths
  • 14,910   Vascular disorders incl. 197 deaths

Total reactions for the experimental COVID-19 vaccine JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S) from Johnson & Johnson466 deaths and 25,950 injuries to 05/06/2021

  • 240        Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 13 deaths
  • 392        Cardiac disorders incl. 48 deaths
  • 12           Congenital, familial and genetic disorders
  • 125        Ear and labyrinth disorders
  • 6             Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death
  • 305        Eye disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 2,389     Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 18 deaths
  • 6,643     General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 120 deaths
  • 44           Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 66           Immune system disorders
  • 322        Infections and infestations incl. 11 deaths
  • 267        Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 7 deaths
  • 1,683     Investigations incl. 32 deaths
  • 140        Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 10 deaths
  • 4,429     Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 14 deaths
  • 14           Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
  • 5,457     Nervous system disorders incl. 57 deaths
  • 9             Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 1 death
  • 8             Product issues
  • 275        Psychiatric disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 102        Renal and urinary disorders incl. 7 deaths
  • 85           Reproductive system and breast disorders
  • 907        Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 37 deaths
  • 556        Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 1 death
  • 62           Social circumstances incl. 3 deaths
  • 293        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 23 deaths
  • 1,119     Vascular disorders incl. 54 deaths

*

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] These totals are estimates based on reports submitted to EudraVigilance. Totals may be much higher based on percentage of adverse reactions that are reported. Some of these reports may also be reported to the individual country’s adverse reaction databases, such as the U.S. VAERS database, and the UK Yellow Card system. The fatalities are grouped by symptoms, and some fatalities may have resulted from multiple symptoms.

Featured image is from Health Impact News

The COVID-19 Attack on the Integrity of Knowledge

June 8th, 2021 by Emanuel Pastreich

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 promotion by the most famous newpapers, universities and public intellectuals of false and misleading information concerning a COVID19 “pandemic” which does not make sense when subject to even the simplest investigations is not the result of any particular politician or businessman, but rather the final deluge resulting from the gradual decay of intellectual integrity and the degradation of all information available to citizens around the world that has resulted because of multiple causes such as the exponential development of information technology that has degraded the value of the information circulated and the spread of a culture of commodification and commercialization that demands that information be interpreted as a source of wealth, and not as a means to pursue truth, to investigate the proper moral path for humanity going forward.

We are subject to so many fake news stories, that circulate through for-profit social media at a dizzying speed, that the political process for determining what is true and what is relevant has broken down in all nations and the standards for transparency and accountability that we took for granted have collapsed, even at famous institutions like Harvard and Stanford. All information is for sale. A pernicious Gresham’s Law of information has taken effect so that the super-rich hoard accurate information and the vast majority of citizens are drowned in specious information meant to deceive.

New predators like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Viacom and Amazon roam this vast information wasteland, using unaccountable parties to confirm the “accuracy” of information that is provided to unwitting citizens, parties who have no other compass to guide them but short-term profit.

The truth is dead and buried. And now as universities are dismantled, and intelligence agencies are hacked apart and sold at auction to Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon, the decay of information in the United States will hit a new low in the years ahead, going far beyond anything we have experienced, a new dark age on the scale of the loss of science and philosophy, governance and ethics, experienced during the fall of the Roman Empire.

The inevitable development of new technologies for reproduction and alteration of texts, images and videos has converged with the concentration of wealth around the world to create a new space in which a handful of ruthless players distribute false information, in increasingly realistic formats, to as to disrupt existing systems and create unprecedented chaos.

It is not clear to us, caught in the midst of massive transformation, what the relationship between technological evolution and moral decay may be, but we can take concrete steps to formulate long-term responses to both crises.

Let us start with the concrete and the scientific: how we will establish global systems to assure the accuracy of information and take the power to arbitrate truth away from the super-rich and multinational corporations like Facebook, Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft and Oracle.

The exponential increase in our capability to gather, store, share, alter and fabricate information of every form, coupled with a sharp drop in the cost of doing so, has given these criminal institutions the tools for absolute domination, and the citizens of the world, dumbed down by years of commercial media, are incapable of responding to this frontal attack.

We need a platform, and ultimately and international charter or constitution, concerning how we determine what is true and what is real, who controls institutions and organizations, and what the priorities for intellectual and spiritual significance for the citizens of the Earth should be.

The emerging challenge in the United States cannot be solved simply by updating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 to meet the demands of the present day.

We must rethink our society and culture and create new, unprecedented, institutions. A change in human life and priorities is demanded to respond to the threats of this information age.The International Data Corporation (IDC) estimates that digital data will rise to an astounding 175 zettabytes of data by 2025, up from 4.4 zettabytes (4.4 trillion gigabytes) in 2013.The explosion in the amount of information circulating in the world, and the increase in the ease with which that information can be obtained or altered, will change every aspect of human experience.

We need a comprehensive response to the information revolution that not only proposes innovative ways to employ new technologies in a positive manner, but that also addresses the risks concretely in an international manner free of the influence of corporations searching out profit. The ease with which information of every form can now be reproduced and altered is an epistemological, ontological and institutional challenge for us.

Let us start with the problem of governance, the core crisis that has emerged under the COVID19 regime. The manipulability of information is increasing in all aspects of life, but the constitutions — whether in the US or elsewhere — on which we base our laws and our government has little to say about information, and nothing to say about the transformative wave sweeping through society as a result. No wonder that the hijacking of commercial media, medical research institutions and global collaborative organizations by a handful of the superrich allowed them to push through dangerous and ridiculous policies around the world with so little opposition.

We have trouble grasping the seriousness of the information crisis because it alters the very lens through which we perceive the world. If we rely on the Internet to tell us how the world changes, for example, we are blind to how the Internet itself is evolving and how that evolution impacts human relations. For that matter, given that our very thought patterns are molded over time by the manner in which we receive information, we may come to see information that is presented online as more reliable than our direct perceptions of the physical world.

The information revolution has the potential to dramatically change human awareness of the world and inhibit our ability to make decisions if we are surrounded with convincing data whose reliability we cannot confirm. These challenges call out for a direct and systematic response. There are a range of piecemeal solutions to the crisis being undertaken around the world. The changes, however, are so fundamental that they call out for a systematic response.

We need to hold an international constitutional convention through which we can draft a legally binding global “constitution of information” that will address the fundamental problems created by the information revolution and set down clear guidelines for how we can control the terrible cultural and institutional fluidity created by this information revolution. The process of identifying the problems born of the massive shift in the nature of information, and suggesting workable solutions will be complex, but the issue calls out for an entirely new universe of administration and jurisprudence regarding the control, use and abuse of information.

As the American writer and novelist James Baldwin once wrote, “Not everything that is faced can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

An information constitution

The changes cannot be dealt with through mere extensions of the US Constitution or the existing legal code, nor can it be left to intelligence agencies, communications companies, congressional committees or international organizations that were not designed to handle the convergence of issues related to increased computational power, but end up formulating information policy by default. We must bravely set out to build a consensus in the US, and around the world, about the basic definition of information, how information should be controlled and maintained, and what the long-term implications of the shifting nature of information will be for humanity.

We should then launch a constitutional convention and draft a document that sets forth a new set of laws and responsible agencies for assessing the accuracy of information and addressing its misuse. Those who may object to such a constitution of information as a dangerous form of centralized authority likely to encourage further abuse are not fully aware of the difficulty of the problems we face. The abuse of information has already reached epic proportions, and we are just at the beginning of an exponential increase. There should be no misunderstanding: I am not suggesting a totalitarian Ministry of Truth that undermines a world of free exchange between individuals.

Rather, I am proposing a system that will bring accountability, institutional order and transparency to the institutions and companies that already engage in the control, collection, and alteration of information. Failure to establish a constitution of information will not assure preservation of an Arcadian utopia, but rather encourage the emergence of even greater fields of information collection and manipulation entirely beyond the purview of any institution.

The result will be increasing manipulation of human society by dark and invisible forces for which no set of regulations has been established — that is already largely the case. The constitution of information, in whatever form it may take, is the only way to start addressing the hidden forces in our society that tug at our institutional chains. Drafting a constitution is not merely a matter of putting pen to paper. The process requires the animation of that document in the form of living institutions with budgets and mandates.

It is not my intention to spell out the full parameters of such a constitution of information and the institutions that it would support, because a constitution of information can only be successful if it engages living institutions and corporations in a complex and painful process of deal-making and compromises that, like the American Constitutional Convention of 1787, is guided at a higher level by certain idealistic principles. The ultimate form of such a constitution cannot be predicted or determined in advance, and to present a version in advance here would be counterproductive.

We can, however, identify some of the key challenges and the issues that would be involved in drafting such a constitution of information. Threats posed by the Information Revolution The ineluctable increase of computational power in recent years has simplified the transmission, modification, creation and destruction of massive amounts of information, rendering all information fluid, mutable and potentially unreliable. The rate at which information can be rapidly and effectively manipulated is enhanced by an exponential rise in the capacity of computers.

Following Moore’s Law, which suggests that the number of microprocessors that can be placed on a chip will double every 18 months, the capacity of computers continues to increase dramatically, whereas human institutions change only very slowly. That gap between technological change and the evolution of human civilization has reached an extreme, all the more dangerous because so many people have trouble grasping the nature of the challenge and blame the abuse of information on the dishonesty of individuals or groups rather than on the technological change itself.

The cost for surveillance of electronic communications, for keeping track of the whereabouts of people and for documenting every aspect of human and non-human interaction, is dropping so rapidly that what was the exclusive domain of supercomputers at the National Security Agency a decade ago is now entirely possible for developing countries, and will soon be in the hands of individuals. In the near future, advanced computational power will mean that a modified laptop computer can track billions of people with considerable resolution, and that capability is combined with autonomous drones, we will need a new legal framework to respond in a systematic manner to the use and abuse of information at all levels of society.

If we start to plan the institutions that we will need, we can avoid the greatest threat: the invisible manipulation of information without accountability. As the cost of collecting information becomes inexpensive, it is becoming easier to collect and sort massive amounts of data about individuals and groups and to extract from that information relevant detail about their lives and activities. Seemingly insignificant data taken from garbage, e-mails and photographs can now be easily combined and systematically analyzed to essentially give as much information about individuals as a government might obtain from wiretapping — although emerging technology makes the process easier to implement and harder to detect.

Increasingly smaller devices can take photographs of people and places over time with great ease, and that data can be combined and sorted so as to obtain extremely accurate descriptions of the daily lives of individuals — who they are and what they do. Such information can be combined with other information to provide complete profiles of people that go beyond what the individuals know about themselves. As cameras are combined with mini-drones in the years to come, the range of possible surveillance will increase dramatically. Global regulations will be an absolute must for the simple reason that it will be impossible to stop the gathering of this form of big data.

In the not-too-distant future, it will be possible to fabricate cheaply not only texts and data, but all forms of photographs, recordings and videos with such a level of verisimilitude that fictional artifacts indistinguishable from their historically accurate counterparts will compete for our attention. Currently, existing processing power can be combined with intermediate user-level computer skills to effectively alter information, whether still-frame images using programs like Photoshop or videos using Final Cut Pro. Digital information platforms for photographs and videos are extremely susceptible to alteration and the problem will get far worse.

It will be possible for individuals to create convincing documentation, photos or videos, in which any event involving any individual is vividly portrayed in an authentic manner. It will be increasingly easy for any number of factions and interest groups to make up materials that document their perspectives, creating political and systemic chaos. Rules stipulating what is true, and what is not, will no longer be an option when we reach that point. Of course, the authority of an organization to make a call as to what information is true brings with it incredible risks of abuse.

Nevertheless, although there will be great risk in enabling a group to make binding determinations concerning what is authentic (and there will clearly be a political element to truth as long as humans rule society), the danger posed by inaction is far worse. What is reality? When fabricated images and movies can no longer be distinguished from reality by the observer and computers can easily create new content, it will be possible to continue these fabrications over time, thereby creating convincing alternative realities with considerable mimetic depth. At that point, the ability to create convincing images and videos will merge with the next generation of virtual reality technologies to further confuse the issue of what is real.

We will see the emergence of virtual worlds that appear at least as real as the one that we inhabit. If some event becomes a consistent reality in those virtual worlds, it may be difficult, if not impossible, for people to comprehend that the event never actually “happened,” thereby opening the door for massive manipulation of politics and ultimately of history. Once we have complex virtual realities that present a physical landscape with almost as much depth as the real world, and the characters have elaborate histories and memories of events over decades and form populations of millions of anatomically distinct virtual people, the potential for confusion will be tremendous.

It will no longer be clear what reality has authority, and many political and legal issues will be irresolvable. But that is only half of the problem. These virtual worlds are already extending into social networks. An increasing number of people on Facebook are not actual people at all, but characters and avatars created by third parties. As computers grow more powerful, it will be possible to create thousands, then hundreds of thousands, of individuals on social networks who have complex personal histories and personalities. These virtual people will be able to engage human partners in compelling conversations that pass the Turing Test — the inability of humans to distinguish answers to the same question given to them by machines and people. And, because these virtual people can write messages and Skype 24 hours a day, and customize their messages to what the individual finds interesting, they can be more attractive than human “friends” and have the potential to seriously distort our very concept of society and reality.

There will be a concrete and practical need for a set of codes and laws to regulate such an environment. Long-term exposure to “fake truth” will make virtual reality seem much more real and more convincing to people who are accustomed to it than actual reality. That issue is particularly relevant when it comes to the next generation, who are being exposed to virtual reality from infancy.

Yet, virtual reality is fundamentally different from the real world. For example, virtual reality is not subject to the same laws of causality. The relations between events can be altered with ease in virtual reality, and epistemological assumptions from the concrete world do not hold. Virtual reality can muddle such basic concepts as responsibility and guilt, or the relationship of self and society. It will be possible in the not-too-distant future to convince people of something using faulty or irrational logic whose only basis is in virtual reality. This fact has profound implications for every aspect of law and institutional functionality. And if falsehoods are continued in virtual reality — which seems to represent reality accurately — over time in a systematic way, interpretations of even common-sense assumptions about life and society will diverge, bringing everything into question.

As virtual reality expands its influence, we will have to make sure that certain principles are upheld even in virtual space, to assure that it does not create chaos in our very conception of the public sphere. That process, I hold, cannot be governed in the legal system that we have at present. New institutions will have to be developed. The dangers of increasingly unverifiable information are perhaps a greater threat than even terrorism.

While the idea of individuals or groups setting off “dirty bombs” is certainly frightening, imagine a world in which the polity can never be sure whether anything they see/read/hear is true or not. This threat is at least as significant as surveillance operations, but has received far less attention. The time has come for us to formulate the institutional foundation that will define and maintain firm parameters for the use, alteration and retention of information on a global scale.

We live in a money-based economy, but the information revolution is altering the nature of money itself right before our eyes. Money has gone from an analog system that was once restricted to the amount of gold a government possessed to a digital system in which the only limitation on the amount of money represented in computers is the tolerance for risk on the part of the players involved and the ability of national and international institutions to monitor the system. In any case, the mechanisms are now in place to alter the amount of currency, or for that matter many other items such as commodities or stocks, without any effective global oversight.

The value of money and the quantity in circulation can be altered with increasing ease, and current safeguards are clearly insufficient. The problem will grow worse as computational power, and the number of players who can engage in complex manipulations of money, increases.

Then there is the explosion in the field of drones and robots, devices of increasingly small size that can conduct detailed surveillance and that increasingly are capable of military action and other forms of interference in human society. The US had no armed drones and no robots when it entered Afghanistan, but it has now more than 8,000 drones in the air and more than 12,000 robots on the ground. The number of drones and robots will continue to increase rapidly and they are increasingly being used in the US and around the world without regard for borders.

As the technology becomes cheaper, we will see more tiny drones and robots that can operate outside of any legal framework. They will be used to collect information, but they can also be hacked and serve as portals for the distortion and manipulation of information at every level. Moreover, drones and robots have the potential to carry out acts of destruction and other criminal activities whose source can be hidden because of ambiguities over control and agency. For this reason, the rapidly emerging world of drones and robots deserves to be treated at great length within the constitution of information.

Drafting the Constitution of Information

The constitution of information will be an internationally recognized, legally binding document that lays down rules for maintaining the accuracy of information and protecting it from abuse. It could also set down the parameters for institutions charged with maintaining long-term records of accurate information against which other data can be checked, thereby serving as the equivalent of an atomic clock for exact reference in an age of considerable confusion. The ability to certify the integrity of information is an issue that is of an order of magnitude more serious than the intellectual property issues on which most international lawyers focus today, and deserves to be identified as a field entirely in itself — with a constitution of its own that serves as the basis for all future debate and argument.

This challenge of drafting a constitution of information requires a new approach and a bottom-up design in order to sufficiently address the gamut of complex, interconnected issues found in transnational spaces like that in which digital information exists. The governance systems for information are simply not sufficient, and overhauling them to meet the standards necessary would be much more work and much less effective than designing and implementing an entirely new, functional system, which the constitution of information represents.

Moreover, the rate of technological change will require a system that can be updated and made relevant while at the same time safeguarding against it being captured by vested interests or made irrelevant. A possible model for the constitution of information can be found in the “Freedom of Information” section of the new Icelandic constitution drafted in 2011. The Constitutional Council engaged in a broad debate with citizens and organizations throughout the country about the content of the new constitution, which described in detail mechanisms required for government transparency and public accessibility that are far more aligned with the demands of today than other similar documents.

It would be meaningless, however, to merely put forth a model, international constitution of information without the process of drafting it because without the buy-in of institutions and individuals in its formulation, the constitution would not have the authority necessary for it to be accepted and to function. The process of debate and compromise that would determine the contours of that constitution would endow it with social and political significance, and, like the US Constitution of 1787, it would become the core for governance.

For that matter, the degree to which the content of the constitution of information would be legally enforceable would have to be part of the discussion held at the convention. Constitutional convention To respond to this global challenge, we should call a constitutional convention in which a series of basic principles and enforceable regulations would be put forward that are agreed upon by major institutions responsible for policy — including national governments and supranational organizations and multinational corporations, research institutions, intelligence agencies, NGOs, and a variety of representatives from other organizations.

Deciding who to invite and how will be difficult, but it should not be a stumbling block. The US Constitution has proven quite effective over the last few centuries even though it was drafted by a group that was not representative of the population of North America at the time. Although democratic process is essential to good government, there are moments in history in which we confront deeper ontological and epistemological questions that cannot be addressed by elections or referendums and require a select group of individuals like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.

At the same time, the constitutional convention cannot be merely a gathering of wise individuals, but will have to involve those directly engaged in the information economy and information policy. That process of drafting a constitution will involve the definition of key concepts, the establishment of the legal and social limits of the constitution’s authority, the formulation of a system for evaluating the use and misuse of information and policy suggestions that respond to abuses of information on a global scale.

The text of this constitution of information should be carefully drafted with a literary sense of language so that it will outlive the specifics of the moment and with a clear historic vision and unmistakable idealism that will inspire future generations, just as the US Constitution continues to inspire Americans. This constitution cannot be a flat bureaucratic rehashing of existing policies on privacy and security. We must be aware of the dangers involved in trying to determine what is and is not reliable information as we draft the constitution of information.

It is essential to set up a workable system for assuring the integrity of information, but multiple safeguards, and checks and balances will be necessary. There should be no assumptions as to what the constitution of information would ultimately be, but only the requirement that it should be binding and that the process of drafting it should be cautious but honest.

Private versus public

Following David Brin’s argument in his book The Transparent Society, one essential assumption should be that privacy will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to protect in the current environment. We must accept, paradoxically, that much information must be made “public” in some sense in order to preserve its integrity and its privacy. That is to say that the process of rigorously protecting privacy is not sufficient, granted the overwhelming changes that will take place in the years to come. Brin draws heavily on Steve Mann’s concept of sousveillance, a process through which ordinary people could observe the actions of the rich and powerful so as to counter the power of the state or the corporation to observe the individual.

The basic assumption behind sousveillance is that there is no means of arresting the development of technologies for surveillance and that those with wealth and power will be able to deploy such technologies more effectively than ordinary citizens. Therefore, the only possible response to increased surveillance is to create a system of mutual monitoring to assure symmetry, if not privacy. Although the constitution of information does not assume that a system that allows the ordinary citizen to monitor the actions of those in power is necessary, the importance of creating information systems that monitor all information in a 360-degree manner should be seriously considered as part of a constitution of information.

The one motive for a constitution of information is to undo the destructive process of designating information as classified and blocking off reciprocity and accountability on a massive scale. We must assure that multiple parties are involved in that process of controlling information so as to assure its accuracy and limit its abuse. In order to achieve the goal of assuring accuracy, transparency and accountability on a global scale, but avoiding massive institutional abuse of the power over information that is granted, we must create a system for monitoring information with a balance of powers at the center. Brin suggests a rather primitive system in which the ruled balance out the power of rulers through an equivalent system for observing and monitoring that works from below.

I am skeptical that such a system will work unless we create large and powerful institutions within government (or the private sector) itself that have a functional need to check the power of other institutions. Perhaps it is possible to establish a complex balance of powers wherein information is monitored and abuses can be controlled, or punished, according to a meticulous, painfully negotiated agreement between stakeholders. It could be that ultimately information would be governed by three branches of government, something like the legislative, executive and judicial systems that has served well for many constitution-based governments.

Accuracy assurance

The COVID19 assault is the first massive attack using information warfare. Information about how many people are sick, how much money is worth, the value of the stock market, the counting of votes and an increasingly broad range of information critical to daily life is now altered and manipulated by the super-rich using unaccountable private consultants and IT firms that mascarade as “government.”

The need to assure accuracy may ultimately be more essential than the need to protect privacy. The general acceptance of inaccurate descriptions of a state of affairs, or of individuals, is profoundly damaging and cannot be easily rectified. For this reason, I suggest as part of the three branches of government, that a “three keys” system for the management of information be adopted. That is to say that sensitive information will be accessible — otherwise we cannot assure that information will be accurate — but that information can only be accessed when three keys representing the three branches of government are presented. That process would assure that accountability can be maintained, because three institutions whose interests are not necessarily aligned must be present to access that information. Systems for the gathering, analysis and control of information on a massive scale have already reached a high level of sophistication.

What is sadly lacking is a larger vision of how information should be treated for the sake of our society. Most responses to the information revolution have been extremely myopic, dwelling on the abuse of information by corporations or intelligence agencies without considering the structural and technological background of those abuses. To merely attribute the misuse of information to a lack of human virtue is to miss the profound shifts sweeping through society today.

The constitution of information will be fundamentally different than most constitutions in that it must contain both rigidity, in terms of holding all parties to the same standards, and also considerable flexibility, in that it can readily adapt to new situations resulting from rapid technological change. The rate at which information can be stored and manipulated will continue to increase and new horizons and issues will emerge, perhaps more quickly than expected. For this reason, the constitution of information cannot be overly static and must derive much of its power from its vision.

The representative system  

We can imagine a legislative body to represent all the elements of the information community engaged in the regulation of the traffic and the quality of information as well as individuals and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). It would be a mistake to assume that the organizations represented in that “legislature” would necessarily be nation states according to the United Nations formulation of global governance. The limits of the nation state concept with regards to information policy are increasingly obvious, and this constitutional convention could serve as an opportunity to address the massive institutional changes that have taken place over the past 50 years.

It would be more meaningful, in my opinion, to make the members companies, organizations, networks, local governments — a broad range of organizations that make the actual decisions concerning the creation, distribution and reception of information. That part of the information security system would only be “legislative” in a conceptual sense. It would not necessarily have meetings or be composed of elected or appointed representatives. In fact, if we consider the fact that the actual physical meetings of government legislatures around the world are mostly rituals, we can sense that the whole concept of the legislative process requires much modification.

The executive branch of the new information accuracy system would be charged with administering the policies based on the legislative branch’s policies. It would implement rules concerning information to preserve its integrity and prevent its misuse. The details of how information policy is carried out would be determined at the constitutional convention. The executive would be checked not only by the legislative branch but also by a judicial branch. The judicial branch would be responsible for formulating interpretations of the constitution with regards to an ever-changing environment for information, and for assessing the appropriateness of actions taken by the executive and legislative branches.

The terms “executive,” “legislative” and “judicial” are meant more as placeholders in this initial discussion, not actual concrete descriptions of the institutions to be established. The functioning of these units would be profoundly different from branches of current local and national governments, or even international organizations like the United Nations. If anything, the constitution of information will be a step forward towards a new approach to governance in general. Vision needed It would be irresponsible and rash to draft an “off the shelf” constitution of information that could be readily applied around the world to respond to the complex situation of information today.

Although I accept that initial proposals for a constitution of information may be dismissed as irrelevant and wrong-headed, I assert that as we enter an unprecedented age of information and most of the assumptions that undergirded our previous governance systems based on physical geography and discrete domestic economies will be overturned, there will be a critical demand for new systems to address this crisis. This initial foray can help to formulate the problems to be addressed and the format in which to do so in advance.

In order to effectively govern a new space that exists outside of our current governance systems (or in the interstices between systems), we must make new rules that can effectively govern that space and work to defend transparency and accuracy in the perfect storm born of the circulation and alteration of information. If information exists in a transnational or global space and affects people at that scale, then the governing institutions responsible for its regulation need to be transnational or global. If unprecedented changes are required, then so be it.

If all records for hundreds of years exist online, then it will be entirely possible, as suggested in Margaret Atwood’s 1985 novel The Handmaid’s Tale, 7 to alter all information in a single moment if there is not a constitution of information. But the solution must involve designing the institutions that will be used to govern information, thus bringing an inspiring vision to what we are doing. We must give a philosophical foundation for the regulation of information and open up new horizons for human society while appealing to our better angels.

Oddly, many assume that the world of policy must consist of turgid and mind-numbing documents in the specialized terminology of economists. But history also has moments such as the drafting of the US Constitution during which a small group of visionary individuals managed create an inspiring new vision of what is possible. That is what we need today with regard to information. To propose such an approach is not a misguided modern version of Neo-Platonism, but a chance to seize the initiative and put forth a vision in the face of ineluctable change, rather than just a response.

*

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

Featured image is from OffGuardian

Mass Protests Can End Vaccine Passports

June 8th, 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.

***

Peaceful protests work. In the U.K., following massive protests against vaccine passports, government may now scrap its plan for vaccine passports as a legal requirement for large events

In the U.S., 14 states have enacted laws that ban vaccine passport requirements in order to prevent the creation of a two-tier society. Only two have implemented vaccine passport requirements for certain activities

Vaccine passports or any other type of certification are part of a much larger plan to implement a global social credit system, which would rely on the interconnectivity of thousands of databases, which Oracle offered to do for the U.S. government in 2002, for free

Oracle manages databases for COVID-19 cases, vaccine data and clinical trial data, the U.S. national security database and databases for the CIA, Navy Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence and the National Security Agency, plus banking, and a host of commercial databases. Oracle Labs is also partnered with DARPA to create an interconnected supercomputer

Ultimately, the vaccine passport will expand to include not just vaccination status but also other medical data, basic identification records, financial data and just about anything else that can be digitized and tracked. The end goal is to end freedom as we know it, using a social credit system based on 24/7 electronic surveillance to ensure compliance

*

Watch the video here.

March 20, 2021, on the 1-year anniversary of the first COVID-19 lockdown, people in more than 40 countries took to the streets to peacefully demonstrate against COVID-19 lies and tyrannical measures under the banner of “Worldwide Freedom Day.” While synchronized around the world that particular day, demonstrations are more or less ongoing in various areas.

Peaceful Protests Are Ending Vaccine Passport Requirements

In the U.K., Britons held a “Unite for Freedom” rally in London, Saturday May 29, 2021, as seen in the short video clip above. According to ITV.com,1 hundreds of no-vaccine-passport protesters surged into the Westfield shopping mall in London, while another large crowd gathered in Parliament Square.

They were reportedly cleared from the mall after about 20 minutes by police, but no one was injured or arrested in this particular instance.

As reported by Reuters2 May 30, 2021, it now looks like the U.K. will be scrapping its plan for vaccine passports as a legal requirement for large events, although a government spokesman told Reuters that a final decision has yet to be made and that the COVID-19 vaccine certification review is still ongoing. Why the sudden change? Undoubtedly, it’s because Britons have repeatedly taken to the streets in protest of the medical apartheid these passports create.

14 US States Have Banned Vaccine Passport Requirements

In the U.S., there’s also good news. A number of states have enacted laws that ban vaccine passport requirements in order to prevent the creation of a two-tier society of those with the freedom to live as they please, and others whose lives would be restricted based on vaccination status alone.

As of May 28, 2021, the following 14 states have banned vaccine passports from being required:3Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Wyoming.

Utah has issued a partial ban that applies to state government only. Only two states so far — Hawaii and New York — have actually implemented vaccine certification requirements for certain activities.

In Hawaii, only those with proof of vaccination are allowed to travel between counties without pretravel testing and quarantine restrictions, while New York requires you to be vaccinated or have a recent negative COVID-19 test to enter certain sports arenas and large performance venues.

Florida Fights to Make Cruise Lines Adhere to Law

In my home state of Florida, one of the best pro-freedom governors in the U.S., Ron DeSantis, is now fighting the cruise industry over its proposed vaccination passport requirement.4 The bill he signed into law May 3, 2021,5 prohibits state government from issuing vaccine passports and private businesses from requiring proof of vaccination status to enter or obtain services.

As such, cruise lines that do business in Florida and want to restrict travel to vaccinated-only are in violation of this new anti-medical apartheid law. As reported by NBC News:6

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gave the go-ahead Wednesday to begin work toward restarting cruises for the first time in over a year after the massive ships became some of the first superspreader locations for the coronavirus …

To comply with CDC guidance … several cruise liners want to require nearly everyone onboard to be fully vaccinated. But that could now be illegal in Florida, the center of the American cruise industry, under a law DeSantis signed … that prohibits businesses from discriminating against unvaccinated customers.

‘In Florida, your personal choice regarding vaccinations will be protected, and no business or government entity will be able to deny you services based on your decision,’ DeSantis said of the law, which codified executive orders he had already issued.

The dispute may end up in court, as the cruise industry argues that the state law doesn’t apply to it thanks to federal rules. In the meantime, companies may decide to move ahead with plans to require vaccinations, even if it means racking up violations in Florida.”

A Social Credit System Is the End Goal of Vaccine Passports

It’s important to realize that vaccine passports or any other type of certification in and of themselves are not the end goal here. They’re merely a part of a much larger plan to implement a social credit system, such as that already implemented in China. First, they’d be expanded to cover other required vaccinations.

Booster shots against COVID-19 variants would logically come first, followed by any number of other vaccinations. The sky’s the limit as far as that’s concerned, and many are likely to be gene-based and therefore dangerous in the extreme. Already, vaccine makers have announced they’re working on a combination COVID-flu/mRNA vaccine,7 a pneumococcal-COVID/mRNA booster shot for adults over 65,8 and mRNA/seasonal influenza vaccines.9

Ultimately, the vaccine passport will expand to include not just vaccination status but also other medical data, basic identification records, financial data and just about anything else that can be digitized and tracked. It may even extend to include real-time biological data.

The end goal is to end freedom as we know it, using a social credit system to ensure compliance. If you disobey or act “out of line” with a prevailing dictate, your freedom to travel, bank, shop, get a loan or even leave your home could be vastly restricted.

We can see how such a system could work by looking at the Chinese social credit system10 where behavior is electronically monitored to assess “trustworthiness” in real-time. Aside from failing to pay taxes on time, score-lowering actions can include such minutia as cheating in an online video game, jaywalking, not visiting your parents on a frequent-enough basis, smoking in a nonsmoking zone or walking your dog without a leash.

Momentary thoughtlessness can also land you on any one of hundreds of blacklists controlled by a variety of state agencies with their own jurisdictions, and if you end up on one, you’re typically subject to blacklisting across all of them, at which point you won’t be allowed to do much of anything except work to improve your score. On average, it takes two to five years to get off a blacklist, and that’s assuming you comply with all the recommendations put forth.11

While the Chinese social credit score is still in its infancy, eventually, the plan is to use it to “search for signs of potentially harmful behavior before it occurs”12 — in other words, a real-world pre-crime type of situation as illustrated in the movie “Minority Report.” This is what vaccine passports can lead to, and there’s every reason to believe that is the plan.

As noted by Naomi Wolf, a former adviser to the Clinton administration, in an interview with Fox News’ Steve Hilton:13,14

“I’m [the] CEO of a tech company, I understand what these platforms can do. It is not about the vaccine, it’s not about the virus, it’s about your data … What people have to understand is that any other functionality can be loaded onto that platform with no problem at all. It can be merged with your Paypal account, with your digital currency.

Microsoft is already talking about merging it with payment plans. Your network can be sucked up. It geolocates you everywhere you go. Your credit history can be included. All of your medical and health history can be included …

It is absolutely so much more than a vaccine pass … I cannot stress enough that it has the power to turn off your life, or to turn on your life, to let you engage in society or be marginalized.”

It’s All Been Building to This Point

Indeed, recreating China’s social credit system here in the U.S. is likely easier at this point than anyone would like to think, and probably wouldn’t take long to implement. Silicon Valley titan Oracle nabbed the contract to be the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s central data repository for all COVID-19 vaccine data in the U.S. early on in the pandemic.

Oracle also manages the database for COVID-19 cases and the National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) database for clinical research into COVID-19 vaccines and drugs, a program overseen by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Now consider this: Oracle has for many years also managed the U.S. national security database, as well as databases for the CIA, Navy Intelligence, Air Force Intelligence and the National Security Agency, plus banking, and a host of commercial databases. As reported by The Defender:15

“’The information about your banks, your checking balances, your saving balance is stored in an Oracle database,’ Ellison was quoted in the 2004 book, ‘The Naked Crowd.’ ‘Your airline reservation is stored in an Oracle database. What books you bought on Amazon is stored in an Oracle database. Your profile on Yahoo! is stored in an Oracle database.’”

And, as Ellison admitted in 2002, thousands of databases can easily be integrated into a single national file — something he offered to do for free for the U.S. government all the way back then.

The Defender also recounts an old Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) program called Total Information Awareness (TIA), which sought to collect the medical records, drug prescriptions, DNA, financial information, travel data and media consumption habits of all Americans.16

The justification for this vast data collection, according to DARPA, was that “the whole population needed surveillance to prevent not only future terrorist attacks, but bioterrorism and even naturally occurring disease outbreaks.” The program was defunded in 2003 after intense public backlash, “but TIA never really went away,” The Defender writes.17 “Various of its programs ended up divvied into a web of military and intelligence programs.”

Here are a few more connections to consider when trying to decide whether a social credit system is really in the works, and why a vaccine passport could serve a central function.

Oracle Labs, the research arm of Oracle, is partnered with DARPA to create an “optically interconnected supercomputer” — something that would come in handy if putting together a massive social credit system that demands interconnectivity between thousands of databases.

DARPA is also working on advanced pandemic surveillance and biological threat detection.18 In fact, it has an entire division specializing in biological technologies — the Biological Technologies Office (BTO) — which developed hydrogel, an implantable type of nanotechnology that transmits light-based digital signals through wireless networks.19

It’s basically a gel-like biosensor that can both record and share biological data. The hydrogel is manufactured by Profusa, which is partnered with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation20 and backed by Google, the largest data mining company in the world.

In 2020, there were rumors that this hydrogel would be part of Moderna’s mRNA delivery system.21DARPA, by the way, actually funded Moderna too.22 However, it is unclear whether hydrogel actually ended up being used in Moderna’s or any other COVID-19 vaccine. At any rate, it could be used, if not now, then in the future.

Now, ask yourself, considering all of these various data points that I’ve covered — which by no means includes everything — just how likely is it that a national social credit system based on digital surveillance, including medical and biological surveillance, is NOT in the works?

Vaccine Passports Spell the End of Freedom

I recently interviewed Wolf about her book “The End of America.” The book, published in 2007, was a prescient warning about the very time we now find ourselves in. In it, she laid out the 10 steps toward tyranny that have been followed by virtually every modern-day would-be tyrant.

“They all took the same 10 steps, and they always work. I warned people that when you start to see these 10 steps, you have to take action, because there is no way to recover once things go too far without a bloody revolution or a civil war. We are [now] at Step 10 … and once Step 10 locks in, there is no going back,” Wolf says.

The 10 steps toward tyranny start with the invocation of a terrifying internal and/or external threat. It may be a real threat or an imagined one, but in all cases, it’s a hyped-up threat. From 2001 onward, that threat was terrorism, which was used as the justification for stripping us of our liberties.

The last and final step in the implementation of tyranny, Step 10, involves the creation of a surveillance state where citizens are under constant surveillance and critique of the government is reclassified as dissent and subversive activity. Vaccine passports are clearly an integral part of that surveillance apparatus, and a precursor to a social credit system.

There simply can be no doubt of that, and if we don’t put a stop to it now, we’ll be locked into not just a national dictatorship but a global one, run by unelected, largely unknown individuals and Big Tech oligarchs. There will be no one to help anyone else, because all nations will be in the same boat.

Peaceful Protest and Legislative Action Are the Remedy

To avoid the fate that comes next, everyone everywhere needs to recognize the danger and take action. Such action includes peaceful protest and civil disobedience — simply not complying with mask mandates, social distancing, lockdowns, vaccination or anything else.

We must also fight through legislation. As mentioned earlier, 14 U.S. states have already passed laws banning requirements for vaccine passports, which protects the freedoms of everyone within those states. While that’s a good start, there are dozens more to go, and other countries need to enact such laws as well. As noted by Wolf in my interview with her:

“Once [vaccine passports] are launched … people like you and I, Dr. Mercola, will be switched off of society. ‘Oops, my vaccine passport is positive. I guess I can’t go food shopping for my family.’ ‘I said something critical of biofascism on Dr. Mercola’s show, so now my child can’t get into school.’

Just as in Israel, where people who are critics are being surveilled [and] marginalized from society, it has turned into a two-tier society. If you choose not to get vaccinated, then you’re really in a marginalized minority in an apartheid state.

The more we know about these vaccines, the scarier it is to have coercion that is social. It’s also illegal. In America, we have the Americans with Disabilities Act. It means it’s illegal to even ask me anything about my medical status. You can’t ask me if I’m pregnant. You can’t ask me if I’m disabled. You can’t ask me if I have diabetes or HIV. You cannot ask me anything. By definition, these intrusive measures are unlawful.

We have to use the law to save the law, basically … We have to fight before we are living in fascist regime where every move is tracked and we’re marginalized from society.”

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

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

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

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

*

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

Notes

1 ITV.com May 30, 2021

2 Reuters May 30, 2021

3 US News May 28, 2021

4, 6 NBC News May 31, 2021

5 Emergency Management Bill, Florida Senate

7 World Pharma News May 10, 2021

8 Reuters May 24, 2021

9 Washington Post April 11, 2021

10, 11, 12 New Horizons, An Introduction to the China Social Credit System

13 Real Clear Politics March 29, 2021

14 The Epoch Times March 29, 2021

15, 16, 17 The Defender January 6, 2021

18 Signal April 14, 2020

19 Rambling in Pen May 31, 2021

20, 21 OOM2.com September 11, 2020

22 Stat News August 28, 2020

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.

***

Deaths and hospitalizations for COVID-19 infection have tripled among the fully vaccinated in the U.S. in the past month. 

Deaths from COVID in those who have been fully vaccinated against the disease increased from 160 as of April 30 to 535 as of June 1, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

A total of 10,262 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine “breakthrough infections” – defined as coronavirus infections in fully vaccinated people – were reported to the CDC from 46 U.S. states and territories between January 1 and April 30, 2021, according to a report released by the CDC May 28.

About 10% (995) of the patients who became ill after vaccination before April 30 were hospitalized and the agency said it had received reports of 160 fully vaccinated patients dying from the infection.

Just days later the CDC website reported that 3,016 patients fully vaccinated with a COVID-19 vaccine had developed a “breakthrough infection” and had been hospitalized or died. “Breakthrough” deaths climbed to 535 as of June 1 compared to 160 reported deaths a month earlier.

Increasing cases of people testing positive for COVID-19 have been reported in the media. Software developer Joel Kallman, 54, died May 25, after reportedly losing a battle against the virus that causes COVID-19, though he had been vaccinated against the disease on March 26.

Last month Comedian Bill Maher tested positive for COVID-19 despite having received two doses of a coronavirus vaccine weeks earlier, as did at least nine New York Yankees players.

CDC no longer counting post-vaccine cases

“Despite the high level of vaccine efficacy, a small percentage of fully vaccinated persons (i.e. received all recommended doses of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 vaccine) will develop symptomatic or asymptomatic infections with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19,” the CDC said in May.

The health oversight agency added that it would only be counting COVID-19 cases and infections after vaccination that resulted in patients being hospitalized or dying from May 1 onward – discounting almost 90% of cases of vaccine failure.

The policy leaves a gaping hole in data collection on vaccine effectiveness. What’s more, since only 27% of the reported cases were asymptomatic, it also leaves a bulk of vaccinated people who are symptomatic – more than 60% of reported cases are actually ill with COVID symptoms – who are perhaps unwittingly spreading the disease because they do not suspect themselves of having a COVID infection because they have received their shots. But the CDC is no longer counting them.

The CDC did not respond to questions about how discounting the majority COVID breakthrough infections might affect analysis of data efficacy.

Given that the CDC definition of “breakthrough infection” is in “fully vaccinated” individuals, the agency is also discounting cases of COVID infection among those who have only received one dose of vaccine in its statistics.

Antibody-dependent enhancement?

It is not clear from the CDC data if the people who have become seriously ill, including those who have died of COVID infection following vaccination, are not experiencing a known side-effect of coronavirus vaccination that was warned about before the rollout began: antibody dependent enhancement, or ADE.

ADE is a response to the wild virus in which vaccinated people (or animals) experience a hyper-immune response which sets off dangerous inflammatory processes of disease – basically, and ironically, creating the worst outcome for the disease among those who have been vaccinated. At least 130 children died in the Philippines in 2017 when an experimental vaccine against Dengue fever resulted in an explosive immune ADE reaction killing the children when they were exposed to wild Dengue virus after vaccination, for example. The fiasco led to government health officers being indicted and the pharmaceutical giant, Sanofi, yanking its vaccine – but not before more than 800,000 children had already been given the shots and left in danger of an ADE response to the circulating virus.

Multiple studies had warned of the repeated failures and dangers of a coronavirus vaccine that created an ADE response when vaccinated individuals encountered a wild virus. Yet there is no evidence that the deaths from COVID-19 in the fully vaccinated have been investigated to determine if they suffered from an ADE response to a wild coronavirus.

Previous COVID infection?

Pennsylvania immunologist Hooman Noorchashm has been warning the CDC and the public for months about another possibility: the danger of being vaccinated while having a COVID infection or having been recently infected.  Having the vaccine react to lurking virus particles from infection could explain the illnesses and deaths of people from COVID post-vaccination.

“[C]ritically, in persons who have had recent infections, vaccination could re-ignite a critical inflammatory disease or blood clotting complications that have proven deadly to some patients,” Dr. Noorchashm warned in a May 30 blogpost.

The immunologist, who has been interviewed on the Tucker Carlson’s show on FOX News and has warned people to undergo antibody testing to make sure they have not been already infected by the virus that causes COVID-19 before they are vaccinated, slammed a recent announcement by the CDC discouraging testing for COVID antibodies.

“The presence of COVID-19 antibodies in unvaccinated persons considering vaccination indicates that they were previously or recently naturally infected. It is almost a certainty that many such persons are already well immune and either do not benefit, or only marginally benefit, from vaccination,” Dr. Noorchashm said. “In the absence of benefit, ANY medical procedure, including vaccines, can only impose harm.”

FDA’s ‘do not test’ policy

In the same month that the CDC announced it would no longer count most vaccine failures, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it is discouraging people from getting tested, before or after vaccination, for immunity.

“[A]ntibody tests should not be used at this time to determine immunity or protection against COVID-19 at any time, and especially after a person has received a COVID-19 vaccination,” the agency said, offering no explanation why it is opposed to testing. The agency has not warned the vaccinated that they may be especially vulnerable to a serious vaccine reaction if they have already had an infection with the virus or that their vaccine may not work.

Immunologist Noorchashm called the FDA announcement “shocking.”

“Why shouldn’t Americans check their blood after vaccination to make sure they’ve mounted a response? It’s shocking!” he wrote about the announcement.  “The COVID-19 vaccines, like any medical product are not perfect — and especially the mRNA vaccines, which we know are more unstable than traditional protein vaccines.”

 “As such, out of the millions of doses of these vaccines being administered daily across the world, a fraction, perhaps thousands, can reasonably be expected to be ineffective,” Dr. Noorchashm wrote.

“So, it is entirely conceivable that some individuals who think they are getting vaccinated, are in fact NOT getting an adequate dose of the vaccine and do not become immune. Performing an antibody test post-vaccination could reassure vaccinated Americans that they, in fact, have developed antibody immunity,” he said.

*

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

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.

***

Denmark’s secret service helped the US spy on European politicians including German Chancellor Angela Merkel from 2012 to 2014, Danish media say.

The Defence Intelligence Service (FE) collaborated with the US National Security Agency (NSA) to gather information, according to Danish public service broadcaster DR.

Intelligence was allegedly collected on other officials from Germany, France, Sweden and Norway.

Similar allegations emerged in 2013.

Then, secrets leaked by US whistleblower Edward Snowden alleged tapping of the German chancellor’s phone by the NSA.

When those allegations were made, the White House gave no outright denial but said Mrs Merkel’s phone was not being bugged at the time and would not be in future.

Germany is a close ally of the US.

German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier and a spokesperson for Angela Merkel have said they were not aware of Danish involvement until the DR report, which was shared with other European media over the weekend.

The NSA is said to have accessed text messages and the phone conversations of a number of prominent individuals by tapping into Danish internet cables in co-operation with the FE.

The alleged set-up, said in the report to have been codenamed “Operation Dunhammer”, allowed the NSA to obtain data using the telephone numbers of politicians as search parameters, according to DR.

Read the full article on BBC.

*

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.

***

Earlier this week, Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet called for a “gag order” on Bill C-10, which would limit debate on the bill using a process known as time allocation.

The irony of calling for a gag order on debate over a bill with profound implications for freedom of expression is likely not lost on many Canadians. But worse than a regional, separatist party with 32 MPs calling for a gag order is the Minister of Canadian Heritage doing so. That is precisely what happened last night, as Steven Guilbeault announced that the government would be introducing a motion to cut off debate on Bill C-10.

Guilbeault’s statement in support of the gag order is riddled with inaccuracies and omissions:

  • He claims that lengthy bill study has been the product of “systematic obstruction”, but anyone following committee debate will fairly note the genuine questions and concerns about the proposed legislation, which Guilbeault himself has failed to coherently address in repeated media interviews.
  • He argues that there has been many witnesses, yet does not acknowledge that digital-first Canadian creatorswere never asked to appear before committee.
  • He makes no mention of the fact that the hearings over the past month have been focused on the implications of changes that the government itself made by moving to regulate user generated content, thereby opening the door to concerns about speech regulation and violations of net neutrality.
  • He does not acknowledge the remarkable uncertainty in the bill with core terms not defined, thresholds not identified, and massive power delegated to the CRTC, which has proven itself unsuitable for such responsibility.
  • He suggests that the bill means lost support of $70 million per month, when the reality is that foreign services are among the largest supporters of film production in Canada and any new revenues from the bill will ultimately be paid by Canadian consumers.
  • His $70 million per month claim is particularly absurd given that the bill envisions months of hearings before the CRTC before anything is finalized. To suggest that debating dozens of amendments – many raised by the government or Liberal MPs – is delaying any payments is plainly false.
  • He speaks of the opposition supporting web giants when Guilbeault’s own department has advised that the bill could regulate everything from podcast apps to home workout videos to audiobook platforms.

For the Minister of Canadian Heritage to respond to legitimate, widely held concerns about the freedom of expression impact of legislation by seeking to cut off debate makes a mockery of our Canadian heritage.

The appropriate response is for the creator lobby groups who claimed to be ardent supporters of free speech to speak out against a legislative gag order, for opposition parties to say no to a process unworthy of a government that proclaimed that better is always possible, and for the government to live up to those ideals by withdrawing the bill and hitting the reset button.

*

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 CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

New survey data released Wednesday shows that Americans prioritize getting out of Middle Eastern wars over confronting Middle Eastern adversaries.

The Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, surveyed two thousand registered voters in late March on a range of issues. The poll showed that issues like jobs, immigration and climate change dominated voters’ foreign policy thinking, while establishment concerns like confronting enemies and spreading democracy were a low priority.

Asked what their top three priorities for foreign policy are, the largest number of respondents overall  — 47 percent — chose “protecting jobs for American workers,” followed by 42 percent of respondents who chose “reducing illegal immigration,” 28 percent who chose “combating global climate change,” and 28 percent who said “improving relationships with allies” was a top priority.

Respondents were split along party lines on a variety of issues. The top priority for Republican respondents was reducing illegal immigration, while the top priority for Democratic respondents was combatting global climate change.

But voters appear to be united on the need to stop intervening in Middle Eastern wars. A quarter of respondents — including a similar proportion of Democrats, Republicans, independents — chose “ending U.S. involvement in wars in the Middle East” as one of their top priorities.

Meanwhile, less than a quarter of respondents prioritized “protecting against terrorist threats from groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda,” “taking on China’s military and economic aggression,” “dealing with nuclear threats in Iran and North Korea” or “stopping Russian interference in U.S. government and politics.”

More Republicans than Democrats or independents prioritized confronting each of these enemies, except for Russia. In that case, the partisan split was reversed, with nearly a third of Democratic respondents, but only 11 percent of Republican respondents, choosing the fight against Russian interference as a top priority.

The result was consistent with a Pew poll released several months ago, which found that protecting American jobs was the single most popular foreign policy priority for Americans, while less than half of Americans prioritized limiting the influence of China, Russia, North Korea or Iran.

“The most striking finding on this measure is the decline of terrorism as a top foreign policy concern,” the authors of the Center for American Progress survey wrote, noting that terrorist threats had been the top concern of voters during a similar 2019 survey.

The least popular option with all groups of voters was “promoting democratic rights and freedoms abroad.” Only 9 percent of respondents — including 11 percent of Democrats and 7 percent of Republicans and independents — chose it.

Other surveys over the past few decades have found that the American public overall puts a low priority on promoting democracy, even though it continues to be a staple of foreign policy discussions by elites.

More than a quarter of Democratic respondents chose “fighting global poverty and promoting human rights” as one of their top priorities, but it was an unpopular option with Republicans and independents.

Respondents cared about events in other countries but did not necessarily want U.S. involvement in those countries’ domestic affairs.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents agreed that “[t]hings that happen in other parts of the world have a big impact on America’s economy, and we should do more to make sure our domestic and foreign policies work together to create more U.S. jobs and protect U.S. interests.”

However, 55 percent agreed that “America is stronger when we focus on our own problems instead of inserting ourselves into other countries’ problems,” as opposed to only 41 percent who wanted the United States to “take a leading role in the world to protect our national interests and advance common goals with other countries.”

The foreign policy results mirrored the domestic policy results. Respondents’ top domestic priorities were controlling the coronavirus pandemic, creating jobs, and raising wages.

“Americans are overwhelmingly united in their desire for government to pay more attention to the needs of voters and less attention to campaign donors, corporations, and the wealthiest few,” the authors wrote.

*

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 Savvapanf Photo/Shutterstock

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The twelve-day Falcon Strike 21 aerial war games commenced in earnest today out of the Amendola Air Base in Italy. The exercise is led by the Italian Air Force and is described by U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces Africa as designed for the integration of 4th and 5th generation fighter capabilities; all four participating countries – Britain, Israeli, Italy and the U.S. – have provided variants of the fifth-generation F-35 fighter jet for the drills.

Israel has deployed six F-35I Adir fighter jets in what the Israeli Air Force says is “part of its [the Adir F-35I Division’s] first-ever overseas deployment.”

The participants have supplied the following combat aircraft:

  • U.S. – Air Force F-35A Lightning IIs, Marine Corps F-35B Lightning IIs and F-16C Fighting Falcons
  • Britain – Royal Air Force F-35B Lightning IIs
  • Israel: Air Force F-35I Adirs and Gulfstream G550 specialized surveillance aircraft
  • Italy – Air Force F-35A and F-35B Lightning IIs, F-2000 Eurofighter Typhoons, Panavia Tornados, Alenia Aermacchi T-346s, AMX International ground attack aircraft, MQ-1 Predators and Gulfstream G550s

The newly-launched HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier, flagship of the British Royal Navy, and its strike group will also participate, ahead of its deploying two guided-missile ships to the Black Sea to confront Russia.

A Times of Israel report with the title In first, Israeli F-35s train in Italy — with Iran in their sights, described the participation of Israeli F-35s as the largest and farthest drill they have participated in to date. The newspaper further revealed that, “Though the explicit goal of the exercise is to improve the overall capabilities of the F-35 jet…a senior Israeli Air Force officer acknowledged that in part, this drill…was meant to prepare Israeli pilots for using the fighter aircraft against Iranian forces.”

The above comment was ascribed to an unidentified senior Israeli military official, who also told reporters, “Iran is in our focus.”

The current exercise is the first one in which Israeli F-35s have engaged in joint maneuvers with F-35s from other nations.

Late last month a comparable exercise was held at the Amendola Air Base and Aviano Air Base in Italy. The latter was used extensively for the U.S.’s and NATO’s wars against the Bosnian Serb Republic, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and would likely be used against Iran should that nation become a U.S.-NATO-Israeli target.

Two Italian F-35 Lightning IIs, assigned to the 32nd Wing at the Amendola base, landed at the Aviano Air Base on May 20-21 in support of Astral Knight 2021, an air combat exercise that occurred at Aviano and in other locations in Albania, Croatia, Greece and Slovenia.

Described as an integrated air and missile defense exercise, military aircraft involved were U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles, F-16 Fighting Falcons, HH-60 Pave Hawks and C-130J Super Hercules aircraft; Italian Air Force F-35 Lightning IIs, Hellenic Air Force F-16s Fighting Falcons and Emb-145 Erieye aircraft, and Croatian MiG-21 BisD/UMDs.

A liaison with the Headquarters U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa 5th-generation integration team maintenance and logistics was quoted in a release as saying:

“The current program of record shows European nations’ F-35 inventories outnumbering US F-35s based in Europe by almost 10 to one. European nations would have 10 times as many F-35s as the U.S. does in Europe. That’s why we’re taking great steps now to learn how to interoperate with partners. That’s what this is all about.”

He was further cited disclosing the intended mission of qualitatively increasing European NATO member states’ arsenals of the fifth-generation warplane:

“The more exercises like [Astral Knight 2021] that are in place, the more partnerships will strengthen and the more we become a unified force ready to carry out the assigned tasks for the protection of NATO airspace.”

The integration of NATO air combat capabilities and a potential war against Iran are intricately related developments; as was the first with air wars and bombing campaigns in Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, with Syria narrowly avoiding the same fate.

*

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: Astral Knight 2021 (Source: Anti-bellum)


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Northern Syria is in a state of renewed chaos, as both civilians are in the streets, and the Kurdish groups are clashing with Turkey and the factions it backs.

Late on June 5, fighters of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) attacked positions of the Turkish-backed militants near the town of Ras al-Ain in northeastern Syria.

SDF fighters passed the defenses in the area of al-Arish and engaged in heavy clashes with the militants.

The Syrian National Army (SNA) lost 4 militants, while the SDF lost 2 fighters, and at least a dozen more were injured.

Just days earlier, militants from the SNA clashed with each other in Ras al-Ain.

As a result, at least three militants were killed and seven others were injured.

Stray fire also wounded four civilians, including a woman.

The local civilians are also angered by the SDF’s recent actions and the bloody quelling of weeks of protests.

The Manbij Civil Council of the so-called Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria issued a decision to end the curfew ban imposed on the city of Manbij in the province of Aleppo.

The curfew was imposed a day after massive civil protests erupted in the city against the “forced conscription” campaign carried out by the SDF’s Manbij Military Council and the arrest of dozens of young men, in order to force them to fight in the ranks of the SDF.

At least 7 protesters were killed.

The SDF is evidently struggling and it needs fresh fighters to both fight against Ankara’s forces, the factions it backs and to carry out various other operations in the area.

The destabilization in the region is being taken advantage of by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), as its units move to reactivate an air defense base in northern Aleppo.

The base is located in the town of Taanah near the frontline with Turkish forces who currently occupy the town of al-Bab to the east.

The base, which used to host a Soviet-made S-75 Dvina air-defense system, was captured by the rebels in 2012.

It was recaptured back in 2016, but it hasn’t been used since then.

Such an undertaking could prove invaluable in fighting against the Turkish occupation in Syria’s north.

Meanwhile, on the other front in central Syrian regions, ISIS continually bites back, despite the the SAA’s and Russia’s best efforts to contain the terrorists.

On June 3rd and 4th, at least 23 pro-government fighters were killed in Syria’s central region, while Russia rained hell on terrorist positions in response.

One of the victims of improvised explosive devices planted by the terrorists was an Iranian military advisor identified as Hassan Abdullahzadeh, killed on the Homs-Deir Ezzor highway on June 4th, alongside his guard.

In response to this ramped up activity, the Russian Aerospace Forces struck ISIS positions in Hama, Raqqa, Homs and Deir Ezzor.

*

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

Was the Whole Pandemic About the Vaccine?

June 8th, 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.

***

From all the crazy incentives and the air of desperation to get the job done, the COVID-19 pandemic appears to have been nothing but a thinly-disguised campaign to get a vaccine jab into every arm.

  • Could it be that the whole COVID-19 pandemic was about the vaccine and getting a global mass vaccination campaign underway for population control purposes?
  • Recent weeks have seen a significant rise in vaccination incentives in the U.S., from free doughnuts, cake, french fries, hot dogs and pizza, to arcade tokens, 10-cent beer, free state park season passes, free Uber and Lyft rides, free marijuana and Cincinnati Reds baseball tickets, a chance to win a full scholarship and even $1 million and $5 million giveaways
  • Meanwhile, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System has logged more deaths following COVID-19 vaccination than all available vaccines combined over a 15.5-year period
  • Former COVID-19 patients are even pushed to get the jab, even though they already have superior immunity and studies show they have a far higher risk of severe side effects from the vaccine, and North Carolina has passed legislation that allows children as young as 12 to get the COVID vaccine without parental consent
  • COVID-19 vaccines might perform as a “depopulation weapon” by triggering antibody-dependent immune enhancement, making you more susceptible to severe COVID-19 if exposed to the virus. Antibodies against the spike proteins may also attack syncytin-homologous proteins essential for the formation of placenta, which could result in infertility. Overall, the shots may destroy your innate immunity and set you up for rapid onset of debilitating illness and premature death

*

In my opinion Dr. Peter McCullough is one of the most courageous well credentialed academic physicians out there and I hope to interview him soon. He is vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center and despite his impeccable credentials, he has been vilified for stating during the very beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, that it was all about the vaccine and getting a global mass vaccination campaign underway.

“All roads lead to the vaccine,” McCullough said in a recent interview (video above1 2), with stakeholders banking on countries mandating the vaccine worldwide. The first video above is a 16-minute outtake from a much longer interview, which is the second video.3

McCullough points out that a number of countries are already talking about making the as-yet unlicensed COVID-19 vaccine compulsory, meaning anyone and everyone can be forced to take it against their will. “That’s how bad stakeholders want vaccination,” McCullough says. “They do want a needle in every arm. But why?” That’s the million-dollar question right there.

Unbelievable Incentives Offered

Recent weeks have seen a significant rise in all sorts of vaccination incentives in the U.S., from free doughnuts, cake,4 french fries, hot dogs and pizza,5 to arcade tokens,6 10-cent beer,7 free state park season passes,8 free Uber and Lyft rides,9 free marijuana10 and Cincinnati Reds baseball tickets,11 a chance to win a full scholarship12 and even $1 million13 and $5 million14 giveaways. Below is a more complete list of incentives, posted on vaccines.gov.15

To say the vaccine push has an air of desperation about it would be a profoundly serious understatement.

Considering the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has logged more deaths following COVID-19 vaccination than all available vaccines combined from mid-1997 until the end of 201316 — a period of 15 1/2 years — one has to wonder why our leaders are so insistent on everyone getting these experimental gene therapies.

They’re even pushing for former COVID-19 patients to get the jab, even though they already have superior permanent immunity17 and studies show they have a far higher risk of severe side effects from the COVID jab.18

If it’s really about protecting the public against COVID-19, why aren’t recovered COVID patients — whose protection is far superior to vaccine-induced immunity — offered some sort of immunity passport or granted access to sporting events or education that is now only granted to those with vaccine certificates?

What’s more, North Carolina has now passed legislation that allows children as young as 12 to get the COVID vaccine without parental consent.19 Think about that. As of May 21, 2021, 4,406 Americans had died after the COVID vaccine,20 including three teenagers,21 22 23 24 and 12-year-olds are now being encouraged to make a life and death decision without their parents?

As noted by McCullough, historically, the threshold at which an experimental vaccine program is shut down is 25 to 50 deaths, yet here we are, with over 4,000 deaths being reported in the U.S. and many thousands more in Europe.25 26

In a recent report, the Israeli People Committee, a civilian body of health experts, similarly concluded that “there has never been a vaccine that has harmed as many people.”27

After vaccinating 45 million with the pandemic swine flu vaccine in 1976, the U.S. stopped the program after only 25 deaths.28 (The number of deaths reported after the 1976 inoculation program varies from three to 53, depending on the source.29 30 31 32) And let’s remember this too: If something goes wrong, the vaccine manufacturers are completely indemnified against lawsuits. You’re on your own.

Mass Vaccination Is a Beyond Terrible Strategy

As a physician, McCullough is no longer recommending this vaccine, and other prominent virologists and physicians are calling for a stop to the program. Sadly, many are complying simply because they’re desperate to get back to the “normal” they knew before, of sending their children to school, keeping their job and leading the life they had before the pandemic.

Don’t do it, McCullough says — don’t fall for this trap because it’s only going to make things worse. By vaccinating everyone against a very narrow spectrum of immunity — the original SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, which has since mutated in any number of ways and no longer exists — “we are setting ourselves up for a superbug that’s going to wipe out populations,” he says.

As such, the COVID-19 vaccine is a bioweapon, McCullough warns, and the side effect concerns are “far beyond anything we have ever seen … Americans should be extraordinarily alarmed.”

What’s This Vaccine Program Really About?

Why is the vaccine pushed in this way? McCollough believes it’s a global goal to “mark” people, to get you into their vaccine database, which will eventually be turned into a tool for population control, courtesy of vaccine passports.

When we’re talking about population control, there are two distinct forms, and both may apply in this case. One form of population control is about controlling people through the ideology of utilitarianism, vaccine passports and a social credit system, all of which are tied together. Another form is actual depopulation.

Population Control Through Utilitarianism and Vaccination

Utilitarianism is based on a mathematical equation that some individuals can be sacrificed for the greater good of the majority. In other words, if some people are harmed by vaccines, it’s an acceptable loss because society as a whole may or will reap gains.

This discredited pseudo-ethic has repeatedly been used to justify horrific human rights abuses. The Third Reich, for example, employed the utilitarian rationale as an excuse to demonize and eliminate minorities judged to be a threat to the health, security and well-being of the State.33 Now, utilitarianism is being called upon yet again, under the false narrative that mankind as a whole is in peril unless everyone rolls the dice and gets vaccinated.

In the end, the idea is that vaccine refusers won’t be allowed to freely participate in society any longer. This is the disincentive or negative incentive, which is added on top of the positive incentives previously mentioned.

While U.S. government officials realize they cannot mandate vaccination on a national level, as it would be a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, they are pushing for it nonetheless by encouraging private companies to mandate vaccination as a condition of employment or access to services. They’re also spending billions of dollars on advertising in conventional media, paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

In short, vaccine passports are a way to force compliance. But the vaccine database can also form the foundation for a much larger control structure, a social credit system, where you lose points any time you behave in a way that is deemed undesirable.

This quite literally could be anything, judging by the Chinese social credit system. People with low social credit scores can’t travel on certain kinds of public transportation, can’t travel overseas, hold certain jobs, go to school or even get a loan.

The point is, once you’re in this system, you’re under someone else’s control. If they say you have to get a booster shot, you have to comply — again and again — or risk losing basic human rights, such as the ability to buy and sell, travel or get an education.

The Depopulation Agenda

The other form of population control refers to actual depopulation. A primary problem the global elite have been trying to solve for a long time is that there are too many people consuming too much of the world’s perceived limited resources and polluting everything in the process. The answer, in their mind, is to reduce the global population.

While birth control and abortions are promoted to help with this, these strategies aren’t effective, or rapid, enough. They need a less fertile population and they need people to die sooner.

“I believe [COVID-19 booster shots] are going to be used to damage your health and possibly kill you. I can see no sensible interpretation other than a serious attempt at mass depopulation.” ~ Michael Yeadon Ph.D.

While many may not want to believe this could possibly be true, you have to remember that the intention is not to cause suffering per se. It’s a form of self-preservation, as their end goal is to concentrate all the world’s wealth into their own hands. Ultimately, that’s what the Great Reset is all about.

In the interview above, which is part of the full-length documentary “Planet Lockdown,”34 Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a life science researcher and former vice-president and chief scientist of allergy and respiratory research at Pfizer, shares his views on the COVID-19 pandemic and his fears about the COVID-19 vaccines.

“Basically, everything your government has told you about this virus, everything you need to do to stay safe, is a lie,” Yeadon says. “And if they’re not telling the truth, that means there’s something else. And I’m here to tell you that there is something very, very bad happening. If you don’t pay attention, you will soon lose any chance to do anything about it.”

Will Booster Shots Be the Death Knell?

Of all the lies we’ve been told over the past year, the ones that worry and frighten Yeadon the most are the lies about virus variants and booster shots. In fact, he believes not buying into these lies may be key to your very survival.

“When your government scientists tell you that a variant that’s 0.3% different from SARS-CoV-2 could masquerade as a new virus and be a threat to your health, you should know, and I’m telling you, they are lying,” Yeadon says.

“If they’re lying — and they are — why is the pharmaceutical industry making top-up [booster] vaccines? … There’s absolutely no possible justification for their manufacture. And the world’s medicines regulators have said, ‘Because they are quite similar to the original vaccines … we won’t be asking them to do any clinical safety studies’ …

There’s no possible benign interpretation of this. I believe they’re going to be used to damage your health and possibly kill you. Seriously. I can see no sensible interpretation other than a serious attempt at mass depopulation.

This will provide the tools to do it, and plausible deniability. They’ll create another story about some sort of biological threat and you’ll line up and get your top-up vaccines [booster shots], and a few months or a year or so later, you’ll die of some peculiar inexplicable syndrome. And they won’t be able to associate it with the vaccines …

Given that this virus represents, at worst, a slightly bigger risk to the old and ill than influenza, and a smaller risk [than influenza] to almost everyone else … we didn’t need to do anything. [We didn’t need] lockdowns, masks, mass testing, vaccines.

There are multiple therapeutic drugs that are at least as effective as the vaccines are. They’re already available and cheap … An off-patent drug called ivermectin, one of the most widely-used drugs in the world, is able to reduce symptoms at any stage of the disease, including lethality by about 90%. So, you don’t need vaccines and you don’t need any of the measures that have been introduced at all.”

Why Have Effective Treatments Been Suppressed?

Like Yeadon, McCullough has raised serious questions about the need for a vaccine. Evidence clearly shows there are highly effective treatments,35 36 yet they’ve been near-universally suppressed in favor of these experimental shots. Why? If it’s about protecting public health and saving lives, why would effective treatments be vilified?

As noted by McCullough during a roundtable discussion in the first of several U.S.-based tribunals on COVID-19,37 something very unusual happened in 2020. For the first time, doctors around the world were actively discouraged and prevented from saving their patients. There was “an enormous, complete, pervasive, steadfast suppression of any attempts to help patients with COVID-19,” he said, adding:

“We seem to somehow have developed a uniform game plan … to passively allow as much suffering hospitalization and death as possible, create enormous amounts of fear in our society, and then be prepared for mass vaccination.”

Disturbingly, there’s evidence suggesting the COVID-19 vaccines might indeed perform as a “depopulation weapon” of sorts. For example, there’s the potential for formation of non-neutralizing antibodies that can trigger an exaggerated immune reaction (referred to as paradoxical immune enhancement or antibody-dependent immune enhancement or ADE) when the individual is exposed to the wild virus post-vaccination.38 39 40

I’ve detailed this issue in several articles, including “How COVID-19 Vaccine Can Destroy Your Immune System” and “Will Vaccinated People Be More Vulnerable to Variants?

Put plainly, the vaccine may increase susceptibility to the virus and make people more likely to die from the infection, and data41 now show COVID-19 deaths are spiking around the world right along with rising vaccination rates, even though countries were trending toward herd immunity and deaths were at an all-time low right before the vaccines were released.

The mRNA vaccines also trigger your body to produce antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and the spike proteins in turn contain syncytin-homologous proteins that are essential for the formation of placenta.42 If a woman’s immune system starts reacting against syncytin-1, then there is the possibility she will miscarry if pregnant and ultimately become infertile.

Mass vaccinating children and women of childbearing age against COVID-19 is a profoundly bad idea that could cause mass infertility if the COVID jab triggers an immune reaction against syncytin-1.

We also now know that the worst symptoms of COVID-19 are created by the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, and that is the very thing these gene-based vaccines are instructing your body to make. What’s worse, the spike protein your body creates is a genetically modified version that appears far more toxic than the spike protein found in the actual virus.

This was discussed in great detail in my interview with Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., and Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., featured in “The Many Ways in Which COVID Vaccines May Harm Your Health.”

Like McCullough and Yeadon, Mikovits believes the COVID-19 vaccine is a bioweapon designed to destroy your innate immunity and set you up for rapid onset of debilitating illness and premature death. She too suspects many will die rather rapidly. “It’s not going to be ‘live and suffer forever.’ It’s going to be suffer five years and die,” she says.

While the death toll from COVID-19 vaccines is already at a historical level, I fear it may shoot far higher as we move through fall and winter. The reason for this is ADE.

Fall and winter are the seasons in which most coronavirus infections occur, be it SARS-CoV2 or other coronaviruses responsible for the common cold, and if ADE does turn out to be a common problem, then vaccinated individuals may in fact turn out to be at significantly higher risk of severe COVID-19 and a potentially lethal immune reaction due to pathogenic priming.

Will You Gamble Your Life?

In my view, there are still so many potential avenues of harm and so many uncertainties, I would encourage everyone to do your homework, keep reading and learning, weigh the potential pros and cons, ignore all pressure tactics and take your time when deciding whether to get any of these COVID-19 gene therapies.

And, if you or someone you love has already received a COVID-19 vaccine and are experiencing side effects, be sure to report it, preferably to all three of these locations.43 While adverse effects and deaths have thus far been ignored, we need as much data as possible if we’re to have any chance of stopping this mass vaccination campaign and push toward population control.

  1. If you live in the U.S., file a report on VAERS
  2. Report the injury on VaxxTracker.com, which is a nongovernmental adverse event tracker (you can file anonymously if you like)
  3. Report the injury on the Children’s Health Defense website

*

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

Featured image is from America’s Frontline Doctors

Nicaragua’s Green Revolution

June 8th, 2021 by Rohan Rice

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.

***

While large polluting countries have refused to take necessary measures to slow the climate crisis, Nicaragua, one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change, has taken impressive steps to shift to more sustainable energy

In a report published by the International Energy Agency in April this year, it was predicted that global energy emissions will see a significant increase in 2021. It will mark the second biggest annual rise in global emissions in history, predominantly caused by increased use and investment in coal by the USA and China. Countries like Nicaragua are set to suffer the most from the climate disaster that this will exacerbate. Nicaragua is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to climate change, despite only contributing 0.3% of global carbon emissions.

While international superpowers belatedly recognize the climate threat and simultaneously continue their reliance on dirty fossil fuels, Nicaragua is championing renewable energies. After the Sandinista government was elected to office in 2007, they pledged to switch the country from fossil fuels to renewable energies like wind, solar, and biomass. In 2007, only 25% of the energy produced and consumed in Nicaragua was renewable, but as of March 2021, this figure is now at 77.3%. This ‘green revolution’ has even been praised by the Inter-American Development Bank.

The green revolution has touched every part of the country. Solentiname, an environmentally fragile archipelago located among a lake in the south of Nicaragua, has been provided with solar energy for the first time. This means the locals can enjoy stable electricity while minimizing harm to the precious flora and fauna in their ecosystem. This project came as part of Nicaragua signing up to the International Solar Alliance, which pledges to maximize the use and access to solar energy, including improving on current technologies.

Solentiname is just one example of the many parts of Nicaragua that are benefiting from increased, renewable electrical infrastructure. With recent investments from the likes of the Central-American Bank of Economic Integration, Nicaragua is set to expand its electrical grid and achieve 99.9% electrical coverage across the country by 2025. Named the ‘Electric Transmission System Expansion Program’, it will create clean, more efficient, and reliable electricity for 10,842 user families, while bringing regular electricity to 2,542 new users.  This will allow remote communities to better integrate into society, as well as provide hundreds of new jobs.

But solar is in reality just a small part of Nicaragua’s energy matrix. The government has instead innovatively responded to the country’s prominent geographic characteristics. The energy grid makes efficient use of the country’s windy coastlines (wind energy is 14% of the matrix), but even more impressively has harnessed the power of its volcanoes. The geothermal energy from Nicaragua’s dozen volcanoes provide more than 15% of the country’s renewable energy.

Meanwhile, the biomass sector sets an example for how biofuel energy should function globally. As highlighted by the likes of Dr. Arianne Shavishi, many countries that are transitioning to biofuels as an energy source are actually importing the biomass from abroad, invalidating its low-carbon footprint. Even worse, some historic forests are being intentionally cleared to create biomass, releasing tons of carbon with it. Professor Okbazghi Yohannes of the University of Louisville suggests this is a trend driven by the global grain-trading corporations. This was never supposed to be the point of biofuels. The point was to utilise the already-abundant waste products from agriculture and forestry management. Nicaragua’s biomass is a perfect example as it’s predominantly sourced locally and much of it comes from the leftover husks of sugar cane production.

As is evident from the above, the Central American country isn’t completely eco-friendly. Recently, the government signed a $700 million deal with US-based company New Fortress Energy, who will build an off-shore natural gas plant that will be connected to the national grid. This is the first of its kind in Central America and shows Nicaragua is not quite ready to commit to an entirely renewable energy matrix in the near future. However, the FSLN government’s rapid progress since the days of neoliberalism are still incredibly laudable and show a clear commitment to the planet.

Ahead of 2021’s COP26 conference, the world’s largest polluters are sending contradictory messages about the transition to renewable energy. While on one hand the G7 countries speak about keeping below 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming—almost impossible at this point anyway—some of its major players like the UK are still proposing new coal mines. Conversely, Nicaragua’s transition to green energy has been well under way for over a decade. Despite being one the most impoverished countries in the Western Hemisphere, Nicaragua is an excellent illustration for the world of what can be achieved when a government actually commits to renewable energies. Sandinismo is truly a green 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.

This article was written in collaboration with the Nicaragua Solidarity Campaign UK. In November 2021, Nicaraguans will vote in their national elections. The USA has already begun a campaign to try to oust the incumbent socialist FLSN government at the voting booth. This article is part of a year-long series that seeks to present the truth of Nicaragua under the Sandinista government.

Rohan Rice is a writer, photographer, and translator from London. You can find his work here.

Featured image is from ENATREL

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.

***

Last week right-wing Colombian President Ivan Duque deployed the military to Cali. The city of 2.3 million has been the epicenter of a month-long nationwide protest that forced the government to withdraw a regressive tax proposal that unleashed a general strike.

During the past month security forces have killed at least 50 and probably dozens more. Over 300 individuals are missing, according to Colombia’s National Movement of Victims of State Crimes, in a country with a history of political disappearances.

In a sign the politics of the protesters are radicalizing, ten days ago protesters burned massive US and Israeli flags. In response Dan Cohen tweeted, “This isn’t just a strike against austerity measures. It’s a full-on uprising against imperialism.”

Perhaps one could add, against Canadian policies.

Clearly, Canada has promoted the policies Colombians are rebelling against. Over the past three-decades Ottawa has been close diplomatically to Latin America’s most repressive state and has promoted capitalist policies that have contributed to Colombia’s extreme inequality.

The Justin Trudeau Liberals has promoted President Iván Duque who Le Soleil labeled “le champion du retour de la droite dure en Colombie” (champion of the return of the hard right in Colombia). After Duque won a close election marred by fraud allegations, foreign minister Chrystia Freeland “congratulated” him and said, “Canada and Colombia share a commitment to democracy and human rights.” In August 2018 Trudeau tweeted, “today, Colombia’s new President, Ivan Duque, took office and joins … others with a gender-equal cabinet. Iván, I look forward to working with you and your entire team.” A month later he added, “thanks to President Ivan Duque for a great first meeting at UNGA this afternoon, focused on growing our economies, addressing the crisis in Venezuela, and strengthening the friendship between Canada & Colombia.”

As Trudeau got chummy with Duque, the Colombian president undercut the peace accord the previous (right, but not far right) government signed with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) to end Colombia’s 50-year civil war, which left over 200,000 dead. Duque’s policies increased violence towards the ex-rebels and social activists. More than 253 former FARC members have been killed in the past three years. Even more human rights defenders have been murdered.

Trudeau has yet to say anything about the massive repression of protesters in the past month. After numerous Canadian rallies were held in solidarity with protesters in Colombia Foreign Minister Marc Garneau released a statement ten days into the strike. But Garneau criticized the security forces’ deadly violence in equal measure to protestors’ purported vandalism. It also praised the Duque government, which had made all kinds of menacing statements.

This Canadian support for repressive Colombian governments is longstanding.

Stephen Harper had even closer diplomatic ties with Duque’s patron Alvaro Uribe. In 2009 the former PM referred to the far-right president as a valuable “ally” in a hemisphere full of “serious enemies and opponents.” A 2007 visit to Colombia by the Canadian PM was described by the Economist as giving Uribe “a vote of confidence at a time when he [was] being assailed both in Washington and at home.” At the time, Uribe’s government was plagued by a scandal tying numerous top officials to Colombia’s brutal paramilitaries. Dozens of Uribe-aligned congresspeople were implicatedand the president’s cousin was among those who had been jailed.

Uribe’s terrible human rights record did not stop Harper from signing a free-trade agreement with Colombia. Harper devoted a great deal of energy to backing the most repressive and right-wing government in Latin America. According to an April 2009 cable from the US embassy in Ottawa, in private the PM conceded that the Colombia trade accord was unpopular with Canadians. Released by Wikileaks the cable noted: “It was a painful but deliberate choice for the Prime Minister” to support president Alvaro Uribe in the face of stiff resistance to the free trade agreement, particularly from Canada’s labour movement. The Canada-Colombia trade agreement was also opposed by most of that country’s organized peasantry and labour.

The trade deal was part of a long-standing push to liberalize Colombia’s economy. In the late 1990s Canada’s aid agency supported petroleum legislation reform, which benefited Canadian firms. More significantly, Ottawa began an $11 million project to re-write Colombia’s mining code in 1997. The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) worked on the project with a Colombian law firm, Martinez Córdoba and Associates, that represents multinational companies, and the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI), an industry think-tank based at the University of Calgary.

They spent a couple years canvassing mining companies to find out what the industry wanted from new mining regulations. A representative from Greystar Corp., which was involved in the effort for nearly two years, explained how they provided “input that reflected the mining industry’s point of view as to what was important in such legislation to encourage mining.”

Once completed the CERI/CIDA proposal was submitted to Colombia’s Department of Mines and Energy and became law in August 2001. “The new code flexibilised environmental regulations, diminished labour guarantees for workers and opened the property of afro-Colombian and indigenous people to exploitation,” explained Francisco Ramirez, president of SINTRAMINERCOL, Colombia’s State Mine Workers Union. “The CIDA-backed code also contains some articles that are simply unheard of in other countries,” added Ramirez. “If a mining company has to cut down trees before digging, they can now export that timber for 30 years with a total exemption on taxation.” The new code also reduced the royalty rate companies pay the government to 0.4 percent from 10 percent for mineral exports above 3 million tonnes per year and from 5 percent for exports below 3 million tonnes. In addition, the new code increased the length of mining concessions from 25 years to 30 years, with the possibility that concessions can be tripled to 90 years.

Canadian officials were happy with the results. According to CIDA’s summary of the project, “Canadian energy and mining sector companies with an interest in Colombia will benefit from the development of a stable, consistent and familiar operating environment in this resource-rich developing economy.”

Ottawa has continued to plow ‘aid’ dollars into supporting the mining sector in Colombia. The Skills for Employment in the Extractives Sector of the Pacific Alliance, Andean Regional Initiative and Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy for the Canadian International Extractive Sector have channeled millions of dollars into assisting mining interests there.

Canadian assistance was used to reform the country’s non-resource sector as well. In 1995 CIDA provided $4 million to “contribute to the liberalization process of the telecommunications sector in Colombia.” Ottawa-based Destrier Management Consultants used the money for training seminars, workshops and advisors. Within a few years Canadian companies operated Colombia’s leading cellular phone provider and installed a large proportion of the country’s phone lines. In 2003 Canada’s “Nortel Networks”, explained Asad Ismi, “helped bring about the liquidation of TELECOM, Colombia’s biggest telecommunications company, and the likely privatization of its successor. … With the privatization, however, 10,000 unionized telecommunications workers lost their jobs that year, and over 70 trade unionists were murdered by paramilitaries for demonstrating against the privatization.”

In the late 1990s and 2000s Crown corporation EDC was heavily invested in Colombia despite widespread state-sponsored human rights violations. They provided investment insurance to Canadian companies, which had significant investments in Colombia. Canadian companies, for instance, ran Colombia’s most important oil pipeline and its two largest natural gas pipelines.

Canadian investment in Colombia, especially in the resource sector, was intimately tied to human rights abuses. A study on “The Presence of Canadian Petroleum Companies in Colombia,” found that “an avalanche of new contracts and new Canadian companies” entered Colombia in 2000 “at a moment when the internal conflict has intensified particularly in traditional, indigenous-occupied areas, and where resistance to their projects is significant.”

In the late 1990s Calgary-based Enbridge operated the OCENSA pipeline jointly with Toronto-based TransCanada Pipelines. Both companies owned a 17.5 percent share of the pipeline along with shares held by British Petroleum, Total and The Strategic Transaction Company. Until 1997 the OCENSA consortium contracted Defence Systems Colombia (a British firm) for security purposes. According to Amnesty International:

What is disturbing is that OCENSA/DSC’s security strategy reportedly relies heavily on paid informants whose purpose is to covertly gather intelligence information’ on the activities of the local population in the communities through which the pipeline passes and to identify possible ‘subversives’ within those communities. What is even more disturbing is that this intelligence information is then reportedly passed by OCENSA to the Colombian military who, together with their paramilitary allies, have frequently targeted those considered subversive for extrajudicial execution and disappearance. …The passing of intelligence information to the Colombian military may have contributed to subsequent human rights violations.”

Amnesty added that OCENSA and DSC purchased military equipment for the notoriously violent 14th Brigade of the Colombian army.

While Canadian investors contributed to Colombia’s dirty war, so did Canadian arms manufacturers. In the late 1990s DND sold 33 Huey helicopters to the US State Department, which added machine guns and sent them to the Colombian police and military as part of “Plan Colombia”. The Huey sale followed Bell Helicopter Textron Canada’s export of 12 helicopters directly to the Colombian air force and police. The helicopter was a type “widely used by the U.S. military in the 1970s in counter-insurgency operations in Vietnam.” Not only did Ottawa allow helicopter sales to Colombia’s military, the Canadian embassy in Bogota promoted them.

In 2013 the Harper government added Colombia to Canada’s Automatic Firearms Country Control List to facilitate the export of assault weapons. Since then, weapons sales to Colombia have usually totaled only a few hundred thousand dollars a year but in 2014 that number reached $45 million. The Crown-owned Canadian Commercial Corporation helped sell 24 light armoured vehicles to the Colombian army and four armoured personnel carriers to its police. Since 2011 Colombian military personnel have participated in Canada’s Military Training and Cooperation Program. Colombia’s police have also been instructed, reports Abram Lutes, “through exchanges with the RCMP and the ongoing Anti-Crime Capacity Building Program (ACCBP), which nominally trains the Colombian national police in combating drug trafficking. The ACCBP is Canada’s contribution to Colombia’s long drug war, which provides pretext for security forces and paramilitaries to target leftist guerillas and peasants who produce cocoa.”

As part of its “role in the fight against drug traffickers” Canada supplied intelligence gathering equipment to Colombia in the early 1990s. In 1990 Canada began a $2 million program to provide intelligence equipment and bomb detectors to the Colombian Departamento Adminitrativo De Securidad. At that time Colombia’s leading news magazine, Semana, suggested that Canada was working with the US in a hegemonic project in the region.

According to former JTF2 soldier Claude Morisset, Canada also sent soldiers to Colombia in the late 1990s. In We Were Invincible Morisset describes his mission to the Colombian jungle to rescue NGO and church workers “because FARC guerillas threatened the peace in the region.” The Canadian soldiers were unaware that they were transporting the son of a Colombian leader, which prompted the FARC to give chase for a couple days. On two different occasions the Canadian forces came under fire from FARC guerrillas. Ultimately the Canadians were saved by US helicopters, as the JTF2 mission was part of a US initiative.

While Colombian protesters didn’t burn the Canadian flag, maybe they should have. Canada has long promoted corporate and imperial interests in Colombia and continues to do so.

*

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 Yves Engler

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.

***

Police in the Canadian province of Ontario said a man driving a pick-up truck slammed into a Muslim family in a “premeditated” attack, killing four and seriously injuring a nine-year-old boy.

Local news outlets said the victims were waiting to cross a street in the city of London, Ontario, about 200km southwest of Toronto, on Sunday evening, when the car mounted the curb.

The victims were two women aged 77 and 44, a 46-year-old man and a 15-year-old girl. The nine-year-old boy was seriously injured and is recovering in hospital. The authorities did not release the names of the victims.

“There is evidence that this was a planned, premeditated act, motivated by hate,” London Detective Superintendent Paul Waight told reporters on Monday.

“It is believed that these victims were targeted because they were Muslim.”

Canadian media reported that a 20-year-old man was arrested at a mall in London, near where it happened, and was charged with four counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.

CBC reported that the attacker was found wearing a vest that was similar to body armour in appearance.

“We grieve for the family, three generations of whom are now deceased,” London’s Mayor Ed Holder told reporters at Monday’s press conference.

“This was an act of mass murder, perpetrated against Muslims, against Londoners, and rooted in unspeakable hatred.”

‘This hate is insidious and despicable’

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he was “horrified” by what he described as an “act of hatred”, and said his thoughts were with the victims’ loved ones, including the young boy who survived.

“To the Muslim community in London and to Muslims across the country, know that we stand with you. Islamophobia has no place in any of our communities. This hate is insidious and despicable – and it must stop,” Trudeau tweeted.

Muslim communities in Canada are still reeling from a January 2017 mass shooting at a mosque in Quebec City that killed six Muslim men and injured several others.

The National Council of Canadian Muslims, a national advocacy group, said it was “beyond horrified” by the deadly attack.

“This is a terrorist attack on Canadian soil, and should be treated as such. We call on the government to prosecute the attacker to the fullest extent of the law, including considering terrorist charges,” the group’s CEO, Mustafa Farooq, said in a statement.

“Muslims in Canada have become all too familiar with the violence of Islamophobia, with attacks on Muslim women in Alberta, the IMO mosque killing, and the Quebec City mosque massacre.

“But this loss of a family, the loss of a child in our community because of Islamophobia – this is a sorrow that will run deep for a long time. But let that sorrow be the ground where we stand for justice, and stand for change.”

Jagmeet Singh, leader of the opposition New Democratic Party (NDP), also condemned what he described as “an act of Islamophobia & terror”.

“They were murdered because of their faith,” Singh wrote on Twitter. “More than ever we must stand w/ our Muslim family, friends & neighbours against such vile hate.”

*

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

US Sanctions Cost Iran Its Vote in UN Assembly

June 8th, 2021 by James Reinl

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 UN said on Friday it was in talks with Iran over $16.3 million in overdue fees, which Tehran says have become impossible to pay due to US sanctions.

Iran and the Central African Republic have lost their voting rights in the 193-member UN General Assembly because they are in arrears on contributions to the world body’s operating budget.

“It’s not from lack of willingness of the Iranians to pay or no lack of willingness for us to engage with them in finding a solution to this issue,” UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters on Friday.

“Iran is a subject of bilateral sanctions, which impacts its ability for banking, and the UN’s accounts are in the United States, in New York.

“And so we have to find a way around the problem.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif used social media to condemn his country’s loss of voting rights, which came into effect in January.

Iran has been unable to pay the UN due to US sanctions that were imposed after former president Donald Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal in 2018, said Mr Zarif.

“Iran’s inability to fulfil its financial obligation towards the United Nations is directly caused by unlawful unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States,” Mr Zarif wrote in a letter to the UN, which he posted on Twitter.

US President Joe Biden has said he is willing to lift sanctions on Iran if it comes into compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal, but talks that began in early April in Vienna have yet to result in an agreement.

Three other African countries – Comoros, Sao Tome and Principe, and Somalia – also owe the UN money. But they can still vote in the current session, which ends in September, thanks to an assembly resolution.

UN members whose arrears equal or exceed the sum of their contributions for the preceding two full years lose their voting rights, according to the UN Charter.

Allowances can be made for situations beyond a UN member’s control.

According to a letter from UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, the minimum payments needed to restore voting rights are $16,251,298 for Iran and $29,395 for the Central African Republic.

*

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.

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: