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.

***

Dr. Mike Yeadon, former vice president of Pfizer, expressed his uncertainty about the safety of mRNA vaccine technology in an interview with Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., on the “RFK Jr The Defender Podcast.”

COVID vaccines are “a completely novel technology” that should not be called vaccines, according to Dr. Mike Yeadon, former vice president and chief scientist for allergy and respiratory at Pfizer.

In an interview with Children’s Health Defense, Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., on the

RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast,”  (click below to access podcast)

Yeadon said he was surprised to learn COVID vaccines used mRNA technology.

When he left his position at Pfizer 10 years ago, Yeadon said scientists were “miles away” from creating a product using mRNA technology that could be safely administered to everyone.

Yeadon, who has 32 years of experience leading new medicine research in the pharmaceutical industry, said:

“I was intrigued as to what they’ve done to fix the difficulties, which are safe delivery, really safe delivery of a message into a cell that will allow it to then copy that message and do something useful without in any way being harmful. I don’t really understand how they’ve succeeded because those were always the problems in the lab. Can’t get it into cells without hurting them to do what you want. Of course, I’m not sure they have succeeded.”

Because COVID vaccines use experimental technology that may pose serious side effects such as blood clots, Yeadon said, “we should absolutely not be offering them to young, healthy people who are not at risk from the virus.”

He said:

“I have two healthy adult girls, 25 and 29 years-old, and I would be really upset if they ended up being coerced into taking these products because they’re healthy and young, and there are not any measurable risks from COVID-19.”

Listen to the full interview to hear Yeadon and RFK, Jr. discuss the totalitarian nature of vaccine passports and why the push for COVID vaccine booster shots is clouded in deception.

*

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 Former Pfizer VP Tells RFK, Jr.: Young, Healthy People Shouldn’t be Coerced into Taking ‘Experimental’ Vaccines
  • 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.

***

Most people are unaware that many newly licensed vaccines are in phase 4 clinical trials when they become publicly available. In the case of the new COVID vaccines, which have not yet been licensed, consumers are unknowing subjects in a massive clinical trial.

The complete safety profile of a vaccine is unknown at the time of widespread use. The safety profile becomes more clear only after injuries and deaths related to the vaccine are reported. The safety profile of COVID vaccines, for instance, is still evolving as injuries and deaths accumulate.

It is thus crucially important that consumers and medical professionals report adverse events related to vaccines. According to studies, however, they report only about 1%.

Since 1990, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has tracked reports of vaccine injuries and deaths. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) co-manage the system, and subcontract work to General Dynamics, a global private aerospace and defense company.

VAERS is a passive reporting system. While the CDC website states healthcare workers are “required by law” to report certain adverse events and “strongly encouraged” to report others, there is no penalty if they fail to report, and no real incentive to do so.

Still, the CDC  acknowledges VAERS is the frontline of defense in vaccine safety surveillance because initial safety assessments trigger further investigation and determination of causality.

When VAERS receives a report, its first step is to decide whether the event is “serious” or “non-serious” based on criteria in the Code of Federal Regulations. VAERS reviewers then categorize the report according to specific symptoms from the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) and record them.

If reviewers incorrectly rate an event as “non-serious,” they cease further investigation. If serious adverse events with severe symptoms happen frequently, then reviewers undertake a more rigorous inquiry.

Serious reactions to Gardasil HPV vaccine underreported, study shows

How accurately do the reviewers of VAERS reports distinguish “serious” from “non-serious” adverse events?

When it comes to Merck’s Gardasil HPV vaccine, the answer is “not very,” according to the authors of an article published in the peer-reviewed journal, Science, Public Health Policy, and The Law.

Based on an FDA/CDC post-licensure safety surveillance report for Gardasil, VAERS reviewers determined a 6.2% rate of serious adverse events. Because VAERS reports are publicly available, the authors randomly selected 2,000 reports from those referenced in the FDA/CDC study for independent review. They discovered an alarming pattern of mislabeling “serious” cases as “non-serious.”

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 314.80, which defines “serious adverse event,” includes within that definition “a persistent or significant disability or incapacity.” Yet according to the authors of the study, VAERS reviewers for Gardasil’s HPV vaccine, despite being required by law to include that specific adverse event, excluded it from both in their reports and on the VAERS reporting form.

In fact, many reports of adverse events following Gardasil vaccination involve persistent or significant disability or incapacity.

A panel of independent, licensed physicians rated VAERS cases as to whether they were “serious” based on the FDA/CDC and also based on the CFR definitions.

Using the FDA/CDC definition, physicians rated 12% of the cases “serious.” However, when they applied the CFR definition, they rated more than 24% “serious” — nearly four times the FDA/CDC metric.

The FDA/CDC study states: “The VAERS reporting rate for qHPV is triple the rate for all other vaccines combined.”

This injury rate should have alarmed agency officials. Yet no alarm went off. According to the FDA/CDC report, Merck supplied almost 70% of the adverse event reports for Gardasil injuries. This was odd, as the number of adverse events submitted by Merck for other vaccines it manufactures was much lower.

The 70% figure was even more peculiar because almost every Gardasil adverse event report Merck filed failed to provide enough information for authentication or follow-up.

Were Merck’s reports real? Or were they fake? Could Merck have been submitting spurious “non-serious” reports to bring down the proportion of “serious” adverse events? Could Merck have been gaming the safety surveillance system? Could other vaccine manufacturers do the same thing?

If one removes the Merck VAERS reports with unverifiable information, the VAERS rate for “serious” adverse events from Gardasil is 15.7% of the total reports. Would a nearly 16% “serious” adverse event rate have made CDC and FDA rethink their endorsement of Gardasil?

We don’t know the answers to these important safety questions — but we should.

While FDA and CDC acknowledge some shortcomings in VAERS, they imply that other safety surveillance systems, like the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Network (CISA), offset any deficits.

However, neither of those systems come into play unless VAERS first signals a safety concern, and neither will detect a problem if VAERS fails to sound an early warning.

Despite VAERS’ well recognized inadequacy, nothing has changed for nearly 30 years.

Should the same agencies that approve, recommend and profit from a vaccine also monitor its safety? Should VAERS remain so woefully inadequate, poorly scrutinized and riddled with conflicts of interest?

Accurate reporting of adverse events following any newly licensed vaccine is critical especially now with the massive administration of the experimental COVID vaccines. Yet the FDA and CDC continue to circumvent true safety surveillance.

Few studies are available that focus on the nitty gritty of VAERS’ failure. Indeed, this study, too, almost remained unpublished. Medical journals rejected the article after year-long review periods. In 2018, the Indiana Health Law Review accepted the article, but within hours of online, preprint publication, editors removed the article from its website and reneged on its publication offer.

Through the Freedom of Information Act, the authors learned that Dorit Reiss, prominent vaccine enthusiast, interceded with the journal faculty adviser, apparently to pressure the journal to censor the article.

The authors then anticipated publication in 2019, in a peer reviewed medical ethics journal, but that journal too withdrew its offer at the eleventh hour.

It is striking that after the Indiana journal episode, the CDC in 2019 revised its VAERS form. The revision quietly changed the category formerly labeled “Resulted in permanent disability” to “Disability or permanent damages.”

The new tweaked language still obfuscated the necessary legal criteria, and only this year, in 2021, has the CDC finally applied the CFR definition for “serious adverse event” on its website as the law requires.

However, if one does a data query in VAERS even now, the categories still list only “permanent disability” and not  “a persistent or significant disability or incapacity,” as the CFR requires.

After this roller coaster ride, the authors are grateful to the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge and its founder James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D. for seeing the article through to publication. The authors hope this study will stimulate further inquiry and the creation of a vastly superior surveillance system.

*

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.

Emily Tarsell is a Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor in private practice in Baltimore, MD.

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.

***

News of a cease fire halting the onslaught in the Gaza Strip is a welcome respite from the horrors we witnessed since May 10. But short of bold action, this cease fire will collapse like all the ones that preceded it.

On May 2, the Israeli Jerusalem District Court ruled in favor of the forced displacement of 13 Palestinian families, consisting of 58 people including 17 children, by Jewish settlers in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of Jerusalem. These families have been protesting what one of them describes as “forced ethnic displacement” for decades.

During the week that followed, Jewish Israeli settlers, protected by soldiers, continued to harass these families and raid their homes, which caused a global outcry to “Save Sheikh Jarrah,” all amidst continuous Israeli violations at the nearby Al-Aqsa Mosque that reached their peak on May 10.

It was then that Hamas in the Gaza Strip warned the Israeli government of the danger of its actions, prompting the resistance movement, designated as a terrorist organization in the U.S., to later retaliate as Palestinian Jerusalemites pleaded for action to protect them and deter Israeli violations. On the same day, Israel launched its “Operation Guardian of the Walls,” against the Gaza Strip, and a day later, Hamas announced its “Operation Sword of Jerusalem.”

Meanwhile, the protests of Palestinians across the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea were met with violent dispersal methods by Israeli police, special forces, and settlers alike. These methods included the use of rubber-coated bullets, live ammunition, a chemically engineered sewage water known as “skunk,” damage of Palestinian-owned property, and among others, arrests.

As of May 25, at least 275 Palestinians have been killed, (248 in the Gaza Strip, 26 in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and one Palestinian inside Israel), including 66 children in the Gaza Strip alone, and more than 6,200 others injured. Thirteen deaths in Israel were reported.

Homes, businesses, media centers, and medical facilities were not spared. All in all, more than 91 thousand Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are now displaced because of the destruction of some 1,800 housing units, including six high-rise buildings. One of those buildings housed the Associated Press and Aljazeera offices, and another housed the only COVID-19 testing facility.

At face value, this brief account appears to have nothing to do with an identification card issued by the U.S.

However, to make sure the horrific carnage we witnessed does not happen again, we must not lose sight of what lies behind Israel’s unbridled use of force: American support.

American support does not begin and end with providing diplomatic cover and $3.8 billion of military support for Israel every year.

Since 2014, a total of 219 federal and state bills (50 currently in effect), have been introduced to shield Israel from criticism by stifling the First Amendment rights of Americans who support Palestinian rights. Meanwhile, numerous American businesses across a wide range of industries, both private and public, charitable and for-profit, support Israel’s ongoing settler colonialism with cash contributions.

It is, thus, both painful and unsurprising to me, as someone born in Palestine in 1989, that my place of birth on my U.S.-issued Employment Authorization Document reads “Palestine (Born Before 1948),” as if Palestine ceased to exist since then. I know of other brazen place of birth designations for Palestinians in the U.S., which include “Israel,” “Jordan,” and “Stateless.”

This ID, like all forms of American support for Israel, is an extension of Israeli policies, including the segregated ID system for Palestinians, and points to the active role the U.S. plays in erasing Palestinians, not only in Palestine, but also here in the U.S.

Equally important, we must remember that as the dust settles following the latest round of confrontations, Palestinians will continue to live under “an overarching Israeli government policy to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis,” as a recent Human Rights Watch report put it. Indeed, one the very first day of the so-called cease fire in the Gaza Strip, Israeli soldiers injured at least 20 Palestinian worshippers at Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, and a day later proceeded with a massive arrests campaign targeting Palestinians protesters in cities across historic Palestine.

Talks of an international conference to rebuild Gaza and revive negotiations with Israel are as predictable as they are likely to fail.

Moving forward requires bold action toward a more equitable reality. Action that goes beyond another round of negotiations and aims at overcoming the domination of Jewish Israelis and the meticulously documented suffering it has caused over the past 73 years.

It begins with America’s recognition of my right to exist, and that of all Palestinians. It begins with the U.S. “acknowledging its role in the injustice and human rights violations of Palestinians,” as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez put it. It begins with understanding that cease fires are not solutions. It begins with recognizing that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination,” as determined by the 1975 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, which Israel demanded it be revoked as a precondition for joining the now failed peace process in 1991. It begins with sanctioning Zionism and the apartheid regime it has produced.

Anything less will only delay the inevitable: more war.

*

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

Dorgham Abusalim recently graduated with a Master in International Affairs from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland. You can follow him on Twitter @dabusalim.

Featured image is from Truthrevolt

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 article is based on an International Forum hosted by the Chongyang Institute and the China Public Diplomacy Association of the Renmin University, Beijing. The actual forum took place in Guli’s House, Kashgar, Xinjiang, on 20 May 2021.

The conference was introduced by four keynote speakers, followed by 18 participants, who all expressed their views on the western bashing of China, falsely accusing China, in this particular case, of human rights abuses against the Muslim Uyghur population of the Xinjiang Autonomous Region in the far-west of China. The following summarizes my Zoom-presentation as one of the 18 guest speakers.

Other than the constant barrage of lies against China, much of the lie-propaganda focusing on Xinjiang has to do with the pivotal role this Autonomous Province plays for the Belt and Road Initiative – BRI.

The so-called Uyghur conflict was largely created by the west, led by the United States. It is symptomatic for western smearing their perceived and falsely accused enemies around the world, thereby hoping to bring about worldwide hatred against their perceived enemies, in this case China. The Uyghur Autonomous Region of Xinjiang fits perfectly into this agenda of the United States, as Xinjiang is a key hub for connecting China – i.e., the Belt and Road – with the west, through Pakistan, India, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Russia and to some lesser extent through Mongolia.

Xinjiang, in northwestern China, is a vast mostly highland region of deserts and mountains. It’s home to many ethnic minority groups, including the Turkic Uyghur people.

Xinjiang Province was a vital passage for the Ancient Silk Road – of some 2100 years back, a trade route linking China with the Middle East and Southern Europe, through Central Asia.

Signs of this Ancient Silk Road passage are still visible by the traditional open-air bazaars of the once-upon-a time oasis cities of Kashgar and Hotan.

President Xi Jinping’s new Silk Road, alias the Belt and Road Initiative, is patterned according to the same trading principles of the Ancient Silk Road, but with 21st Century technology and cultural knowledge.

For westerners to better understand the crucial importance of Xinjiang province for the Belt and Road connection of China with the west, here are some facts.  Xinjiang province covers an area of approximately 1.7 million square kilometers (km2), about equivalent to the combined landmass of France, Turkey and Poland. The province has about 25 million inhabitants – of which an estimated 12 million – almost half – are Uyghur Muslims.

The Uyghurs, an ethnic group of western and central Asia, are recognized as native to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in Northwest China. But they also reside in neighboring countries, like Turkey, Russia, Uzbekistan and even in Australia and Canada.

Xinjiang Province is surrounded by the rugged Karakoram, Kunlun and Tian Shan Mountain ranges, making up much of Xinjiang’s borders.

Kashgar, (pop. about 720,000 [2019]), the host city of this International Forum, is an ancient oasis city in the desertic Tarim Basin region of Western Xinjiang. It is one of the western most cities of China, close to the borders with Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, India and a tiny border with Afghanistan. Kashgar has served as a strategically important trading post over 2000 years ago for the Ancient Silk Road between China, Central Asia, the Middle East and Europe. Kashgar has the distinguished reputation of being one of the oldest, continuously inhabited cities in the world.

It is well known, the west, led by the US, including her European NATO allies, wants to destabilize China by whatever means they can find. At present China is surrounded by about 400 US military bases; of which the world’s largest which is located in Guam.

The Belt and Road project has been and remains a thorn in the eyes of the US / West since its initiation in 2013. However, until about 2019, the BRI had practically been non-existent, literally “banned” from reporting by western media. When countries like Italy and Greece officially recognized and connected to the BRI – the western mainstream media woke up, so to speak, and began criticizing and accusing China and all the countries that were connecting to BRI – of interfering in western politics.

This is a total lie. China never forces a country to participate in the Belt and Road, or any other Chinese initiative, for that matter. To the contrary, China offers the connection to the Belt and Road, as President Xi did in 2013, when he presented to Germany the opportunity to become at that time the western most point of the BRI.

Madame Merkel – in the orbit of Washington – refused; and President Xi went home and continued the Chinese Project of the Century, working with and connecting other countries.

Why is the Belt and Road a thorn in the eye of the west?

Because the Belt and Road, counting already more than 150 member countries and international organization, is the largest global economic development scheme in current history, connecting countries, the world, PEACEFULLY through infrastructure, industry, science, trade, education and cultural exchange – aiming at a multi-polar world. This is precisely the contrary of the western objectives – a globalized world under US / NATO leadership.

Therefore, the New Silk Road is seen as a competitor, or rather an enemy, for western imperial forces. Attacking China in Xinjiang is a clear effort to destabilize a crucially important area of the Belt and Road. Of course, we know, there are other areas of atrocious aggressions on the PRC by the west: Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong – to name just a few.

These are the abject lie-accusations:

China is accused of “ethnic cleansing” – against the minority Muslim Uyghurs, wanting a “clean” Han Dynasty-type Xinjiang Province. Despite western interference, Xinjiang Province has been for the past three to four years among the most peaceful areas of China. Some 55 ethnic groups are living peacefully on her territory. Why would Beijing discriminate against the Uyghurs?

The west claims that Beijing holds over a million Uyghurs in concentration camps, using them for slave-labor, and committing untold human rights abuses.

That’s an outright lie.

Here is what really happens:

Western secret services infiltrate Xinjiang Province, mainly through the small border with Afghanistan (which is occupied for 20 years by US / NATO forces), to train and radicalize Muslim Uyghurs against China and to recruit them to fight in US’s proxy wars in the Middle East. Especially, to fight a Jihad war in Syria, but also in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, the west – US / NATO – wants to destabilize and control.

When the Uyghur militants return home to China and the Xinjiang Province, they were trained and are supposed to terrorize and destabilize China, especially in the Xinjiang Province, home to this pivotal Belt and Road area.

However, instead of putting them in concentration torture camps – as the US does with their war prisoners, sending them to the world’s most infamous torture prison, Guantanamo, a US-held enclave in Cuba.

Chinese authorities re-educate the returning, radicalized Uyghurs, so as to re-integrate them again into  Chinese society. They have been very successful at that. Hence, the peaceful, colorful and often festive ambiance throughout Xinjiang and especially the city of Kashgar. Xinjiang is increasingly becoming a tourist destination, for Chinese, as well as foreign visitors.

This is what really happens. No Chinese concentration camps. No forced labor.

But the truth doesn’t fit the western narrative of “evil China”, discriminating against and torturing a Muslim minority.

This is the true face of the coin that the world ought to know, but is constantly denied by biased and outright “bought” western media.

*

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, and a non-resident Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

For the first time, North Macedonian Prime Minister Zoran Zaev spoke publicly about the reality before them – a “Greater Albania” at the expense of North Macedonian territory. According to former North Macedonian diplomat, Risto Nikovski, Skopje has become aware of the danger that looms over the region. However, this is a warning that Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria have been giving for decades, but one that North Macedonia ignored as they instead prioritized NATO and European Union membership processes, as well as building a national identity and histography after the collapse of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s.

Zaev stated that a Greater Albania bears the risk for everyone as the Balkans is a small region. He condemned the propaganda of the project, adding that such ideas lead to wars.

“It is good that the Macedonian Prime Minister has become aware of that danger. In any case, all these ‘non-papers’ that appeared as if by chance, aim to feel the pulse of the region and what the reactions will be. It is clear that various intelligence services are doing ‘well’ in the Balkans and will continue to do so,” Nikovski said.

According to him, the Balkans is closely connected and everything that is happening in North Macedonia can affect Serbia and other regional countries.

“When there is no security in one of the countries, there is no security in the others, and that is the reality. In that context, the Greater Albania project is the biggest problem. This project is being seriously worked on and it can be said that about 70% has already been realized through the illegal separation of Kosovo from Serbia. Everything else is already part of the tactics because ‘Greater Albania’ will not mean the stabilization of the Balkans, but will lead to new conflicts and Albanian politicians having new ambitions,” he further warned.

Zaev’s warnings that Serbia as a state “is not safe” is true.

Serbia is the centre of the Balkans and the largest former Yugoslav country. Because of this, it is the main communication and security pillar for the region, and is positioning itself as an economic and transportation hub. If Serbia becomes unstable, then the repercussions of it will be felt across the entire Balkans.

With this in mind, Nikovski also warned that Serbia’s destabilization will inevitably lead to problems in North Macedonia, and “if Skopje is exposed to various influences and Bulgaria’s policy towards us continues, it will not lead to a positive direction.”

Officially, North Macedonia never identified a Greater Albanian project against their country. According to Nikovski, that reality is being realized everyday now. This makes it all the more interesting as it appears that North Macedonians are only coming to this realization after joining NATO in 2020 when their security was supposed to be more guaranteed as a result.

As Zaev highlighted, the fact that North Macedonia is in NATO does not mean that the Greater Albania idea is ended or abandoned. NATO of course is not a security guarantor, especially if we consider the decades long hostilities and near war scenarios between Greece and Turkey, including most recently (three times) in the summer of 2020, according to Greek Defense Minister Nikos Panagiotopoulos. 

On the other hand, the U.S. and NATO are aware that if a serious conflict arises, Russia would surely be involved. For the West, they want to restrict Russian influence in the Balkans. A war situation may present Russia the opportunity to assert its influence more strongly in the region, just as it did in the South Caucasus following the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. It is for this reason that although Albanians may have the goal of a Greater Albania, it is unlikely to find strong Western support if it is against countries already friendly to Atlanticist ambitions, such as Montenegro and North Macedonia.

Zaev also believes that the Greater Albania project will endanger Greece, and he believes that Athens does not see this danger and that it is only a matter of time before the problem will reach them. The North Macedonian Prime Minister however omits that neighboring countries were warning about this reality since the early 1990-s, but Skopje prioritized appropriating Greek and Bulgarian history as part of their nation building. Although North Macedonia abandoned their efforts to claim Greek history, including the legacy of Alexander the Great, with the signing of the Prespa Agreement in 2018, thus opening the country’s path towards NATO membership, its EU efforts are now being blocked by Bulgaria. Bulgaria highlights that the language of North Macedonia is a Western Bulgarian dialect, and the Slavic population of the country are indeed Bulgarians whose identities were changed during Marshall Tito’s Yugoslavia to prevent Bulgarian claims over the region.

The North Macedonian Prime Minister also believes that as soon as the EU slows down the integration process, some non-papers and other radical ideas, such as the Greater Albania one, will appear in the Balkans. He explained that when it comes to solving the Kosovo problem, everything that is acceptable for Belgrade and Pristina is good for Skopje – a solution that guarantees peace in the Balkans, European integration, security and the future of all ethnic communities living in that territory. But peace in the Balkans is still a distant prospect as Kosovo issue remains unresolved and the Greater Albania idea continues to be overwhelmingly popular among Albanians.

*

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

Dear Readers,

These are important articles. Please send them to your family, friends and colleagues.

Forward this selection by email, post on social media, spread the word.

***

The Battle to Suppress Hydroxychloroquine as a Cheap and Effective Drug for the Treatment of Covid-19

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 27, 2021

There is an ongoing battle to suppress Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a cheap and effective drug for the treatment of Covid-19. The campaign against HCQ is carried out through slanderous political statements, media smears, not to mention an authoritative peer reviewed “evaluation”  published on May 22nd by The Lancet, which was based on fake figures and test trials.

“Health Security”: This Biden Proposal Could Make the US a “Digital Dictatorship”

By Whitney Webb, May 27, 2021

A “new” proposal by the Biden administration to create a health-focused federal agency modeled after DARPA is not what it appears to be. Promoted as a way to “end cancer,” this resuscitated “health DARPA” conceals a dangerous agenda.

Mass Vaccination Triggers Spike in Cases, Deaths

By Mike Whitney, May 27, 2021

Mass vaccination was supposed to reduce the threat of COVID but — in the short term — it appears to make it much worse. Why? And why is COVID now “surging in 4 of 5 the most vaccinated countries?”

“We are Human Guinea Pigs”: Alarming Casualty Rates for mRNA Vaccines Warrant Urgent Action

By F. William Engdahl, May 27, 2021

As official government data is emerging in Europe and the USA on the alarming numbers of deaths and permanent paralysis as well as other severe side effects from the experimental mRNA vaccines, it is becoming clear that we are being asked to be human guinea pigs in an experiment that could alter the human gene structure and far worse.

Covid-19 Vaccines Lead to New Infections and Mortality: The Evidence is Overwhelming

By Gérard Delépine, May 27, 2021

Two months ago, we tried to alert people to the paradoxical results of the covid19 vaccines by publishing the pre- and post-vaccination mortality curves for Israel and Great Britain which already showed that these vaccinations were followed by ‘a considerable increase in contamination and mortality lasting 6 to 8 weeks after the start of vaccination.

18 Connecticut Teens Hospitalized for Heart Problems After COVID Vaccines, White House Says Young People Should Still Get the Shots

By Megan Redshaw, May 27, 2021

One week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced it was investigating heart inflammation in recently vaccinated young adults, Connecticut reported 18 new cases of heart problems among teens who had received a COVID vaccine.

American Arms Makers Are Making a Killing Out of Israel’s Slaughter in Gaza

By Jessica Buxbaum, May 27, 2021

Major arms and aircraft manufacturers — Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon — are reaping massive profits from Israel’s assault on Gaza, and all are expected to see their earnings boom with the quarter-billion-dollar arms deal the Biden administration is trying to push through.

The Strategic Significance of the Syrian Elections

By Andrew Korybko, May 27, 2021

The Hybrid War of Terror on Syria isn’t yet fully over, but the country’s presidential elections nevertheless signify its victory. The entire purpose of that campaign was to forcefully remove President Assad from office, after which Syria would surrender its sovereignty to its neighbors, first and foremost “Israel” and Turkey.

Wuhan Lab Caught Deleting Files Proving Fauci Funding

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 27, 2021

As reported in several previous articles, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — a division of the National Institute of Health (NIH) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci since 1984 — has, for years, provided grants to the EcoHealth Alliance and others to conduct gain-of-function (GoF) research on coronaviruses.

Chloroquine Is a Potent Inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus Infection and Spread

By Martin J Vincent, Eric Bergeron, and et al., May 27, 2021

Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Battle to Suppress Hydroxychloroquine as a Cheap and Effective Drug for the Treatment of COVID-19

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 shows the global push to develop a vaccine for COVID-19 has spawned nine new “vaccine billionaires” who have amassed a combined net wealth of $19.3 billion.

The author of the report, People’s Vaccine Alliance, said the pharmaceutical industry’s monopoly on COVID vaccines has generated a massive increase in wealth for a handful of people.

In addition to the nine new “vaccine billionaires,” the coalition of health and humanitarian organizations, world leaders and economists said “eight existing billionaires — who have extensive portfolios in the COVID-19 vaccine pharma corporations — have seen their combined wealth increase by $32.2 billion.”

Anna Marriott, health policy manager at Oxfam, a member of the People’s Vaccine Alliance, said:

“These billionaires are the human face of the huge profits many pharmaceutical corporations are making from the monopoly they hold on these vaccines. These vaccines were funded by public money and should be first and foremost a global public good, not a private profit opportunity.”

The coalition’s list of new vaccine billionaires includes four tycoons who profited off U.S. vaccine maker Moderna, the CEO of BioNTech and three co-founders of the Chinese vaccine company, CanSino Biologics.

The nine billionaires, in order of their net worth are:

  1. Stéphane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, now worth $4.3 billion.
  2. Ugur Sahin, CEO and co-founder of BioNTech, now worth $4 billion.
  3. Timothy Springer, immunologist and founding investor of Moderna, now worth $2.2 billion.
  4. Noubar Afeyan, Moderna’s chairman, now worth $1.9 billion.
  5. Juan Lopez-Belmonte, chairman of spanish drugmaker Rovi, which struck a deal to make ingredients for Moderna’s vaccine, now worth $1.8 billion.
  6. Robert Langer, scientist and founding investor in Moderna, worth $1.6 billion.
  7. Zhu Tao, co-founder and chief scientific officer at CanSino Biologics, worth $1.3 billion.
  8. Qiu Dongxu, co-founder and senior vice president at CanSino Biologics, now worth $1.2 billion.
  9. Mao Huihua, co-founder and senior vice president at CanSino Biologics, now worth $1 billion.

The eight existing billionaires whose wealth soared during the pandemic include investors with stock in pharma companies that hold a monopoly on COVID vaccines.

The list includes Indian billionaire Pankaj Patel, chairman of Cadila Healthcare, a pharma company that makes drugs such as Remdesivir to treat COVID and has a vaccine undergoing clinical trials.

Also on the list is Patrick Soon-Shiong, a medical doctor whose COVID vaccine, ImmunityBio, was selected by the U.S. government’s “Operation Warp Speed,” a program to accelerate the rollout of COVID vaccines.

The new vaccine billionaires join the ranks of other ultra-rich elite, who also profited off the pandemic. They include Tesla’s Elon Musk, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin — all of whom made Forbes’ top 10 Big Billionaire Gains list, adding a “collective $488 billion to their fortunes since the beginning of 2020.”

*

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.

***

President Bashar Assad won the presidential election race with a whopping 95.1% of the total voters, contender Mr. Mahmoud Ahmad Mar’ai came second with 3.3%, and Mr. Abdullah Salloum Abdullah came 3rd with 1.5%.

The Speaker of the Syrian Parliament announced the results which he received in turn from the Constitutional Court shortly before midnight, Damascus local time, in a televised broadcast, and he detailed:

  • The total number of eligible voters in the country and in the diaspora reached 18,107,109 voters.
  • The total number of voters who cast their votes: 14,239,140 voters, an overwhelming outcome of 78.64%.
  • The total number of votes incumbent President Bashar Assad received: 13,540,860, that’s 95.1%.
  • Total number Mr. Mahmoud Ahmad Mar’ai received: 470,276 votes, that’s 3.3%.
  • Total number Mr. Abdullah Salloum Abdullah received: 213,968 votes, that’s 1.5%.

There were massive rallies all over the country flooding the streets of every city in support of President Assad starting from the 16th of the month when the campaign started, the Syrians packed all the cities waiting for the results while in joy as they consider this the main milestone in their victory over the US-waged war of terror and war of attrition over a whole decade.

President Assad’s reelection was anticipated, the Syrian people are people of pride and they honor their heroes who fight for them and despise those who have betrayed them. A high outcome of the voters for the elections was also expected but not at the levels we’ve followed in all the cities across the country, save the Al-Qaeda stronghold in Idlib which is run by the Turkey-sponsored Nusra Front (aka Al Qaeda Levant) and parts of northeastern Syria under the control of the US-sponsored Kurdish SDF separatist terrorists.

The enemies of Syria in the USA, EU, Gulfies, Israel, Al Qaeda and the Kurdish SDF terrorists have declared their intentions not to recognize the Syrian Presidential election citing different reasons and that was before the elections took place, their recognition is not required by the Syrian constitution.

One of the main masterminds behind the terrorist war against Syria wrote in an article after watching the Syrians yesterday interacting with the election all over the country, President Assad and the first lady voting in Duma, which followed the Syrians abroad flocking in large numbers to the Syrian diplomatic and consular missions abroad showing their support to President Assad, the former US ambassador to Syria and head of terrorist groups Robert S. Ford wrote: ‘The US policy in Syria failed.’ Let’s hope the White House junta of Joe Biden will realize the lesson and fix its policies, the sooner the better for them.

President Bashar Assad is now the Syrian president for the coming 7 years, the US officials and their Western European stooges, the Gulfies, and other enemies of humanity can howl to the moon now, they can also start with their u-turn from their evil and criminal policies that led to hundreds of thousands of Syrians killed, maimed, displaced, and impoverished. The NATO and stooges officials can also start rebuilding proper bridges back to Syria and come humble filled with the humiliation of the defeated in one of the worst global wars of terror waged by the world’s superpowers and super-rich countries against a single small country.

Congratulations to the victors of the war, the Syrian people now under the leadership of Bashar Assad will write a better chapter of history, a brighter one, and a chapter full of pride and honor.

*

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 Syria 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.

***

A “new” proposal by the Biden administration to create a health-focused federal agency modeled after DARPA is not what it appears to be. Promoted as a way to “end cancer,” this resuscitated “health DARPA” conceals a dangerous agenda.

Last Wednesday, President Biden was widely praised in mainstream and health-care–focused media for his call to create a “new biomedical research agency” modeled after the US military’s “high-risk, high-reward” Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA. As touted by the president, the agency would seek to develop “innovative” and “breakthrough” treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and diabetes, with a call to “end cancer as we know it.”

Far from “ending cancer” in the way most Americans might envision it, the proposed agency would merge “national security” with “health security” in such as way as to use both physical and mental health “warning signs” to prevent outbreaks of disease or violence before they occur. Such a system is a recipe for a technocratic “pre-crime” organization with the potential to criminalize both mental and physical illness as well as “wrongthink.”

The Biden administration has asked Congress for $6.5 billion to fund the agency, which would be largely guided by Biden’s recently confirmed top science adviser, Eric Lander. Lander, formerly the head of the Silicon Valley–dominated Broad Institute, has been controversial for his ties to eugenicist and child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and his relatively recent praise for James Watson, an overtly racist eugenicist. Despite that, Lander is set to be confirmed by the Senate and Congress and is reportedly significantly enthusiastic about the proposed new “health DARPA.”

This new agency, set to be called ARPA-H or HARPA, would be housed within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and would raise the NIH budget to over $51 billion. Unlike other agencies at NIH, ARPA-H would differ in that the projects it funds would not be peer reviewed prior to approval; instead hand-picked program managers would make all funding decisions. Funding would also take the form of milestone-driven payments instead of the more traditional multiyear grants.

ARPA-H will likely heavily fund and promote mRNA vaccines as one of the “breakthroughs” that will cure cancer. Some of the mRNA vaccine manufacturers that have produced some of the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines, such as the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, stated just last month that “cancer is the next problem to tackle with mRNA tech” post-COVID.

BioNTech has been developing mRNA gene therapies for cancer for years and is collaborating with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to create mRNA-based treatments for tuberculosis and HIV.

Other “innovative” technologies that will be a focus of this agency are less well known to the public and arguably more concerning.

The Long Road to ARPA-H

ARPA-H is not a new and exclusive Biden administration idea; there was a previous attempt to create a “Health DARPA” during the Trump administration in late 2019. Biden began to promote the idea during his presidential campaign as early as June 2019, albeit using a very different justification for the agency than what had been pitched by its advocates to Trump. In 2019, the same foundation and individuals currently backing Biden’s ARPA-H had urged then president Trump to create “HARPA,” not for the main purpose of researching treatments for cancer and Alzheimer’s, but to stop mass shootings before they happen through the monitoring of Americans for “neuropsychiatric” warning signs.

Still from HARPA’s video “The Patients Are Waiting: How HARPA Will Change Lives Now”, Source: http://harpa.org

For the last few years, one man has been the driving force behind HARPA—former vice chair of General Electric and former president of NBCUniversal, Robert Wright. Through the Suzanne Wright Foundation (named for his late wife), Wright has spent years lobbying for an agency that “would develop biomedical capabilities—detection tools, treatments, medical devices, cures, etc.—for the millions of Americans who are not benefitting from the current system.” While he, like Biden, has cloaked the agency’s actual purpose by claiming it will be mainly focused on treating cancer, Wright’s 2019 proposal to his personal friend Donald Trump revealed its underlying ambitions.

As first proposed by Wright in 2019, the flagship program of HARPA would be SAFE HOME, short for Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes. SAFE HOME would suck up masses of private data from “Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo, and Google Home” and other consumer electronic devices, as well as information from health-care providers to determine if an individual might be likely to commit a crime. The data would be analyzed by artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms “for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence.”

The Department of Justice’s pre-crime approach known as DEEP was activated just months before Trump left office; it was also justified as a way to “stop mass shootings before they happen.” Soon after Biden’s inauguration, the new administration began using information from social media to make pre-crime arrests as part of its approach toward combatting “domestic terror.” Given the history of Silicon Valley companies collaborating with the government on matters of warrantless surveillance, it appears that aspects of SAFE HOME may already be covertly active under Biden, only waiting for the formalization of ARPA-H/HARPA to be legitimized as public policy.

The national-security applications of Robert Wright’s HARPA are also illustrated by the man who was its lead scientific adviser—former head of DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office Geoffrey Ling. Not only is Ling the main scientific adviser of HARPA, but the original proposal by Wright would have Ling both personally design HARPA and lead it once it was established. Ling’s work at DARPA can be summarized by BTO’s stated mission, which is to work toward merging “biology, engineering, and computer science to harness the power of natural systems for national security.” BTO-favored technologies are also poised to be the mainstays of HARPA, which plans to specifically use “advancements in biotechnology, supercomputing, big data, and artificial intelligence” to accomplish its goals.

The direct DARPA connection to HARPA underscores that the agenda behind this coming agency dates back to the failed Bio-Surveillance project of DARPA’s Total Information Awareness program, which was launched after the events of September 11, 2001. TIA’s Bio-Surveillance project sought to develop the “necessary information technologies and resulting prototype capable of detecting the covert release of a biological pathogen automatically, and significantly earlier than traditional approaches,” accomplishing this “by monitoring non-traditional data sources” including “pre-diagnostic medical data” and “behavioral indicators.”

While nominally focused on “bioterrorist attacks,” TIA’s Bio-Surveillance project also sought to acquire early detection capabilities for “normal” disease outbreaks. Bio-Surveillance and related DARPA projects at the time, such as LifeLog, sought to harvest data through the mass use of some sort of wearable or handheld technology. These DARPA programs were ultimately shut down due to the controversy over claims they would be used to profile domestic dissidents and eliminate privacy for all Americans in the US.

That DARPA’s past total surveillance dragnet is coming back to life under a supposedly separate health-focused agency, and one that emulates its organizational model no less, confirms that many TIA-related programs were merely distanced from the Department of Defense when officially shut down. By separating the military from the public image of such technologies and programs, it made them more palatable to the masses, despite the military remaining heavily involved behind the scenes. As Unlimited Hangout has recently reported, major aspects of TIA were merely privatized, giving rise to companies such as Facebook and Palantir, which resulted in such DARPA projects being widely used and accepted. Now, under the guise of the proposed ARPA-H, DARPA’s original TIA would essentially be making a comeback for all intents and purposes as its own spin-off.

Silicon Valley, the Military and the Wearable “Revolution” 

This most recent effort to create ARPA-H/HARPA combines well with the coordinated push of Silicon Valley companies into the field of health care, specifically Silicon Valley companies that double as contractors to US intelligence and/or the military (e.g., Microsoft, Google, and Amazon). During the COVID-19 crisis, this trend toward Silicon Valley dominance of the health-care sector has accelerated considerably due to a top-down push toward digitalization with telemedicine, remote monitoring, and the like.

One interesting example is Amazon, which launched a wearable last year that purports to not only use biometrics to monitor people’s physical health and fitness but to track their emotional state as well. The previous year, Amazon acquired the online pharmacy PillPack, and it is not hard to imagine a scenario in which data from Amazon’s Halo wellness band is used to offer treatment recommendations that are then supplied by Amazon-owned PillPack.

Companies such as Amazon, Palantir, and Google are set to be intimately involved in ARPA-H’s activities. In particular, Google, which launched numerous health-tech initiatives in 2020, is set to have a major role in this new agency due to its long-standing ties to the Obama administration when Biden was vice president and to President Biden’s top science adviser, Eric Lander.

As mentioned, Lander is poised to play a major role in ARPA-H/HARPA if and when it materializes. Before becoming the top scientist in the country, Lander was president and founding director of the Broad Institute. While advertised as a partnership between MIT and Harvard, the Broad Institute is heavily influenced by Silicon Valley, with two former Google executives on its board, a partner of Silicon Valley venture capital firm Greylock Partners, and the former CEO of IBM, as well as some of its top endowments coming from prominent tech executives.

The Broad Institute, Source: https://www.broadinstitute.org

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who was intimately involved with Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign and who is close to the Democratic Party in general, chairs the Broad Institute as of this April. In March, Schmidt gave the institute $150 million to “connect biology and machine learning for understanding programs of life.” During his time on the Broad Institute board, Schmidt also chaired the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, a group of mostly Silicon Valley, intelligence, and military operatives who have now charted the direction of the US government’s policies on emerging tech and AI. Schmidt was also pitched as potential head of a tech-industry task force by the Biden administration.

Earlier, in January, the Broad Institute announced that its health-research platform, Terra, which was built with Google subsidiary Verily, would partner with Microsoft. As a result, Terra now allows Google and Microsoft to access a vast trove of genomic data that is poured into the platform by academics and research institutions from around the world.

In addition, last September, Google teamed up with the Department of Defense as part of a new AI-driven “predictive health” program that also has links to the US intelligence community. While initially focused on predicting cancer cases, this initiative clearly plans to expand to predicting the onset of other diseases before symptoms appear, including COVID-19. As noted by Unlimited Hangout at the time, one of the ulterior motives for the program, from Google’s perspective, was for Google to gain access to “the largest repository of disease- and cancer-related medical data in the world,” which is held by the Defense Health Agency. Having exclusive access to this data is a huge boon for Google in its effort to develop and expand its growing suite of AI health-care products.

The military is currently being used to pilot COVID-19–related biometric wearables for “returning to work safely.” Last December, it was announced that Hill Air Force Base in Utah would make biometric wearables a mandatory part of the uniform for some squadrons. For example, the airmen of the Air Force’s 649th Munitions Squadron must now wear a smart watch made by Garmin and a smart ring made by Oura as part of their uniform.

According to the Air Force, these devices detect biometric indicators that are then analyzed for 165 different biomarkers by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency/Philips Healthcare AI algorithm that “attempts to recognize an infection or virus around 48 hours before the onset of symptoms.” The development of that algorithm began well before the COVID-19 crisis and is a recent iteration of a series of military research projects that appear to have begun under the 2007 DARPA Predicting Health and Disease (PHD) project.

While of interest to the military, these wearables are primarily intended for mass use—a big step toward the infrastructure needed for the resurrection of a bio-surveillance program to be run by the national-security state. Starting first with the military makes sense from the national-security apparatus’s perspective, as the ability to monitor biometric data, including emotions, has obvious appeal for those managing the recently expanded “insider threat” programs in the military and the Department of Homeland Security.

One indicator of the push for mass use is that the same Oura smart ring being used by the Air Force was also recently utilized by the NBA to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks among basketball players. Prior to COVID-19, it was promoted for consumer use by members of the British Royal family and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey for improving sleep. As recently as last Monday, Oura’s CEO, Harpeet Rai, said that the entire future of wearable health tech will soon be “proactive rather than reactive” because it will focus on predicting disease based on biometric data obtained from wearables in real time.

Another wearable tied to the military that is creeping into mass use is the BioButton and its predecessor the BioSticker. Produced by the company BioIntelliSense, the sleek new BioButton is advertised as a wearable system that is “a scalable and cost-effective solution for COVID-19 symptom monitoring at school, home and work.” BioIntelliSense received $2.8 million from the Pentagon last December to develop the BioButton and BioSticker wearables for COVID-19.

Image on the right: BioIntelliSense CEO James Mault poses with the company’s BioSticker wearable. Source: https://biointellisense.com

BioIntelliSense, cofounded and led by former Microsoft HealthVault developer James Mault, now has its wearable sensors being rolled out for widespread use on some college campuses and at some US hospitals. In some of those instances, the company’s wearables are being used to specifically monitor the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine as opposed to symptoms of COVID-19 itself. BioIntelliSense is currently running a study, partnered with Philips Healthcare and the University of Colorado, on the use of its wearables for early COVID-19 detection, which is entirely funded by the US military.

While the use of these wearables is currently “encouraged but optional” at these pilot locations, could there come a time when they are mandated in a workplace or by a government? It would not be unheard of, as several countries have already required foreign arrivals to be monitored through use of a wearable during a mandatory quarantine period. Saint Lucia is currently using BioButton for this purpose. Singapore, which seeks to be among the first “smart nations” in the world, has given every single one of its residents a wearable called a “TraceTogether token” for its contact-tracing program. Either the wearable token or the TraceTogether smartphone app is mandatory for all workplaces, shopping malls, hotels, schools, health-care facilities, grocery stores, and hair salons. Those without access to a smartphone are expected to use the “free” government-issued wearable token.

The Era of Digital Dictatorships Is Nearly Here

Making mandatory wearables the new normal not just for COVID-19 prevention but for monitoring health in general would institutionalize quarantining people who have no symptoms of an illness but only an opaque algorithm’s determination that vital signs indicate “abnormal” activity.

Given that no AI is 100 percent accurate and that AI is only as good as the data it is trained on, such a system would be guaranteed to make regular errors: the question is how many. One AI algorithm being used to “predict COVID-19 outbreaks” in Israel and some US states is marketed by Diagnostic Robotics; the (likely inflated) accuracy rate the company provides for its product is only 73 percent. That means, by the company’s own admission, their AI is wrong 27 percent of the time. Probably, it is even less accurate, as the 73 percent figure has never been independently verified.

Adoption of these technologies has benefitted from the COVID-19 crisis, as supporters are seizing the opportunity to accelerate their introduction. As a result, their use will soon become ubiquitous if this advancing agenda continues unimpeded.

Though this push for wearables is obvious now, signs of this agenda were visible several years ago. In 2018, for instance, insurer John Hancock announced that it would replace its life insurance offerings with “interactive policies” that involve individuals having their health monitored by commercial health wearables. Prior to that announcement, John Hancock and other insurers such as Aetna, Cigna, and UnitedHealthcare offered various rewards for policyholders who wore a fitness wearable and shared that data with their insurance company.

In another pre-COVID example, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article in August 2019 that claimed that wearables “encourage healthy behaviors and empower individuals to participate in their health.” The authors of the article, who are affiliated with Harvard, further claimed that “incentivizing use of these devices [wearables] by integrating them in insurance policies” may be an “attractive” policy approach. The use of wearables for policyholders has since been heavily promoted by the insurance industry, both prior to and after COVID-19, and some speculate that health insurers could soon mandate their use in certain cases or as a broader policy.

These biometric “fitness” devices—such as Amazon’s Halo—can monitor more than your physical vital signs, however, as they can also monitor your emotional state. ARPA-H/HARPA’s flagship SAFE HOME program reveals that the ability to monitor thoughts and feelings is an already existing goal of those seeking to establish this new agency.

According to World Economic Forum luminary and historian Yuval Noah Harari, the transition to “digital dictatorships” will have a “big watershed” moment once governments “start monitoring and surveying what is happening inside your body and inside your brain.” He says that the mass adoption of such technology would make human beings “hackable animals,” while those who abstain from having this technology on or in their bodies would become part of a new “useless” class. Harari has also asserted that biometric wearables will someday be used by governments to target individuals who have the “wrong” emotional reactions to government leaders.

Unsurprisingly, one of Harari’s biggest fans, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, has recently led his company into the development of a comprehensive biometric and “neural” wearable based on technology from a “neural interface” start-up that Facebook acquired in 2019. Per Facebook, the wearable “will integrate with AR [augmented reality], VR [virtual reality], and human neural signals” and is set to become commercially available soon. Facebook also notably owns the VR company Oculus Rift, whose founder, Palmer Luckey, now runs the US military AI contractor Anduril.

As recently reported, Facebook was shaped in its early days to be a private-sector replacement for DARPA’s controversial LifeLog program, which sought to both “humanize” AI and build profiles on domestic dissidents and terror suspects. LifeLog was also promoted by DARPA as “supporting medical research and the early detection of an emerging pandemic.”

It appears that current trends and events show that DARPA’s decades-long effort to merge “health security” and “national security” have now advanced further than ever before. This may partially be because Bill Gates, who has wielded significant influence over health policy globally in the last year, is a long-time advocate of fusing health security and national security to thwart both pandemics and “bioterrorists” before they can strike, as can be heard in his 2017 speech delivered at that year’s Munich Security Conference. That same year, Gates also publicly urged the US military to “focus more training on preparing to fight a global pandemic or bioterror attack.”

In the merging of “national security” and “health security,” any decision or mandate promulgated as a public health measure could be justified as necessary for “national security,” much in the same way that the mass abuses and war crimes that occurred during the post-9/11 “war on terror” were similarly justified by “national security” with little to no oversight. Yet, in this case, instead of only losing our civil liberties and control over our external lives, we stand to lose sovereignty over our individual bodies.

The NIH, which would house this new ARPA-H/HARPA, has spent hundreds of millions of dollars experimenting with the use of wearables since 2015, not only for detecting disease symptoms but also for monitoring individuals’ diets and illegal drug consumption. Biden played a key part in that project, known as the Precision Medicine initiative, and separately highlighted the use of wearables in cancer patients as part of the Obama administration’s related Cancer Moonshot program. The third Obama-era health-research project was the NIH’s BRAIN initiative, which was launched, among other things, to “develop tools to record, mark, and manipulate precisely defined neurons in the living brain” that are determined to be linked to an “abnormal” function or a neurological disease. These initiatives took place at a time when Eric Lander was the cochair of Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology while still leading the Broad Institute. It is hardly a coincidence that Eric Lander is now Biden’s top science adviser, elevated to a new cabinet-level position and set to guide the course of ARPA-H/HARPA.

Thus, Biden’s newly announced agency, if approved by Congress, would integrate those past Obama-era initiatives with Orwellian applications under one roof, but with even less oversight than before. It would also seek to expand and mainstream the uses of these technologies and potentially move toward developing policies that would mandate their use.

If ARPA-H/HARPA is approved by Congress and ultimately established, it will be used to resurrect dangerous and long-standing agendas of the national-security state and its Silicon Valley contractors, creating a “digital dictatorship” that threatens human freedom, human society, and potentially the very definition of what it means to be human.

*

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.

Whitney Webb has been a professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016. She has written for several websites and, from 2017 to 2020, was a staff writer and senior investigative reporter for Mint Press News. She currently writes for The Last American Vagabond.

Featured image: Oura Ring biometric tracker. Source: https://ouraring.com/

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

You would think that during the worst Pandemic since the 1918 Spanish Flu life insurance companies would be hedging their bets to avoid major losses from Covid-19. I haven’t written a life policy for several years so I was wondering what was going on? I called one of the brokers I deal with that interacts with hundreds of big life insurers to get an inside look into how the Covid crisis has changed their business.

Imagine my surprise when she said it was pretty much business as usual! Last year when the hysteria was just getting ramped up she did say the companies temporarily tightened up underwriting and reduced the amount of coverage they would offer. But as time went by and the hard data came rolling in those same companies went back to business as usual.

I asked her specifically if life insurers wanted a Covid test as part of the underwriting process and she said none that she was aware of. Hmm, that’s pretty interesting isn’t it? The most lethal pandemic in decades descends on the globe with deadly mutations taking millions of innocent lives and the life insurance companies couldn’t care less.

I also asked if the cost per thousand of coverage had increased due to Covid and again she said no. Rates were pretty much the same as they were before the Covid Pandemic ravaged the earth. Life Insurance companies are very risk adverse. They don’t like losing money to unnecessary claims. The fact they’re treating Covid as a nonevent should be an indicator that something is very wrong with the whole narrative.

*

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 dreamstime

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.

***

Michael Capuzzo, a New York Times best-selling author , has just published an article titled “The Drug That Cracked Covid”. The 15-page article chronicles the gargantuan struggle being waged by frontline doctors on all continents to get ivermectin approved as a Covid-19 treatment, as well as the tireless efforts by reporters, media outlets and social media companies to thwart them.

Because of ivermectin, Capuzzo says, there are “hundreds of thousands, actually millions, of people around the world, from Uttar Pradesh in India to Peru to Brazil, who are living and not dying.” Yet media outlets have done all they can to “debunk” the notion that ivermectin may serve as an effective, easily accessible and affordable treatment for Covid-19. They have parroted the arguments laid out by health regulators around the world that there just isn’t enough evidence to justify its use.

For his part, Capuzzo, as a reporter, “saw with [his] own eyes the other side [of the story]” that has gone unreported, of the many patients in the US whose lives have been saved by ivermectin and of five of the doctors that have led the battle to save lives around the world, Paul Marik, Umberto Meduri, José Iglesias, Pierre Kory and Joe Varon. These are all highly decorated doctors. Through their leadership of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, they have already enhanced our treatment of Covid-19 by discovering and promoting the use of Corticoid steroids against the virus. But their calls for ivermectin to also be used have met with a wall of resistance from healthcare regulators and a wall of silence from media outlets.

“I really wish the world could see both sides,” Capuzzo laments. But unfortunately most reporters are not interested in telling the other side of the story. Even if they were, their publishers would probably refuse to publish it.

That may explain why Capuzzo, a six-time Pulitzer-nominated journalist best known for his New York Times-bestselling nonfiction books Close to Shore and Murder Room, ended up publishing his article on ivermectin in Mountain Home, a monthly local magazine for the of the Pennsylvania mountains and New York Finger Lakes region, of which Capuzzo’s wife is the editor. It’s also the reason why I decided to dedicate today’s post to Capuzzo’s article. Put simply, as many people as possible –particularly journalists — need to read his story.

As Capuzzo himself says, “I don’t know of a bigger story in the world.”

Total News Blackout

On December 8 2020, FLCCC member Dr Pierre Kory gave nine minutes of impassioned testimony to the US Homeland Security Committee Meeting on the potent anti-viral, anti-inflammatory benefits of ivermectin. A total of 9 million people (myself included) saw the video on YouTube before it was taken down by YouTube’s owner, Google. As Capuzzo exhaustively lays out, both traditional and social media have gone to extraordinary lengths to keep people in the dark about ivermectin. So effective has this been that even in some of the countries that have benefited most from its use (such as Mexico and Argentina) many people are completely unaware of its existence. And this is no surprise given how little information is actually seeping out into the public arena.

A news blackout by the world’s leading media came down on Ivermectin like an iron curtain. Reporters who trumpeted the COVID-19 terror in India and Brazil didn’t report that Ivermectin was crushing the P-1 variant in the Brazilian rain forest and killing COVID-19 and all variants in India. That Ivermectin was saving tens of thousands of lives in South America wasn’t news, but mocking the continent’s peasants for taking horse paste was. Journalists denied the world knowledge of the most effective life-saving therapies in the pandemic, Kory said, especially among the elderly, people of color, and the poor, while wringing their hands at the tragedy of their disparate rates of death.

Three days after Kory’s testimony, an Associated Press “fact-check reporter” interviewed Kory “for twenty minutes in which I recounted all of the existing trials evidence (over fifteen randomized and multiple observational trials) all showing dramatic benefits of Ivermectin,” he said. Then she wrote: “AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. There’s no evidence Ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19.” Like many critics, she didn’t explore the Ivermectin data or evidence in any detail, but merely dismissed its “insufficient evidence,” quoting instead the lack of a recommendation by the NIH or WHO. To describe the real evidence in any detail would put the AP and public health agencies in the difficult position of explaining how the lives of thousands of poor people in developing countries don’t count in these matters.

Not just in media but in social media, Ivermectin has inspired a strange new form of Western and pharmaceutical imperialism. On January 12, 2021, the Brazilian Ministry of Health tweeted to its 1.2 million followers not to wait with COVID-19 until it’s too late but “go to a Health Unit and request early treatment,” only to have Twitter take down the official public health pronouncement of the sovereign fifth largest nation in the world for “spreading misleading and potentially harmful information.” (Early treatment is code for Ivermectin.) On January 31, the Slovak Ministry of Health announced its decision on Facebook to allow use of Ivermectin, causing Facebook to take down that post and removed the entire page it was on, the Ivermectin for MDs Team, with 10,200 members from more than 100 countries.

In Argentina, Professor and doctor Hector Carvallo, whose prophylactic studies are renowned by other researchers, says all his scientific documentation for Ivermectin is quickly scrubbed from the Internet. “I am afraid,” he wrote to Marik and his colleagues, “we have affected the most sensitive organ on humans: the wallet…” As Kory’s testimony was climbing toward nine million views, YouTube, owned by Google, erased his official Senate testimony, saying it endangered the community. Kory’s biggest voice was silenced.

“The Most Powerful Entity on Earth”

Malcom X once called the media “the most powerful entity on the earth.” They have, he said, “the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of masses”. Today, that power is now infused with the power of the world’s biggest tech and social media companies. Together social and traditional media have the power to make a medicine that has saved possibly millions of lives during the current pandemic disappear from the conversation. When it is covered, it’s almost always in a negative light. Some media organizations, including the NY Times, have even prefaced mention of the word “ivermectin” — a medicine that has done so much good over its 40-year lifespan that its creators were awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2015 — with the word “controversial.”

Undeterred, many front-line doctors have tried to persuade their respective health regulators of the unparalleled efficacy and safety of ivermectin as a covid treatment. They include Dr. Tess Lawrie, a prominent independent medical researcher who, as Capuzzo reports, evaluates the safety and efficacy of drugs for the WHO and the National Health Service to set international clinical practice guidelines:

“[She] read all twenty-seven of the Ivermectin studies Kory cited. The resulting evidence is consistent and unequivocal,” she announced, and sent a rapid meta-analysis, an epidemiolocal statistical multi-study review considered the highest form of medical evidence, to the director of the NHS, members of parliament, and a video to Prime Minister Boris Johnson with “the good news… that we now have solid evidence of an effective treatment for COVID-19…” and Ivermectin should immediately “be adopted globally and systematically for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19.”

Ignored by British leaders and media, Lawrie convened the day-long streaming BIRD conference—British Ivermectin Recommendation Development—with more than sixty researchers and doctors from the U.S., Canada, Mexico, England, Ireland, Belgium, Argentina, South Africa, Botswana, Nigeria, Australia, and Japan. They evaluated the drug using the full “evidence-to-decision framework” that is “the gold standard tool for developing clinical practice guidelines” used by the WHO, and reached the conclusion that Ivermectin should blanket the world.

“Most of all you can trust me because I am also a medical doctor, first and foremost,” Lawrie told the prime minster, “with a moral duty to help people, to do no harm, and to save lives. Please may we start saving lives now.” She heard nothing back.

Ivermectin’s benefits were also corroborated by Dr. Andrew Hill, a renowned University of Liverpool pharmacologist and independent medical researcher, and the senior World Health Organization/UNITAID investigator of potential treatments for COVID-19. Hill’s team of twenty-three researchers in twenty-three countries had reported that, after nine months of looking for a COVID-19 treatment and finding nothing but failures like Remdesivir— “we kissed a lot of frogs”— Ivermectin was the only thing that worked against COVID-19, and its safety and efficacy were astonishing—“blindingly positive,” Hill said, and “transformative.” Ivermectin, the WHO researcher concluded, reduced COVID-19 mortality by 81 percent.

Why All the Foot Dragging?

Yet most health regulators and governments continue to drag their feet. More evidence is needed, they say. All the while, doctors in most countries around the world have no early outpatient medicines to draw upon in their struggle against the worst pandemic in century. Drawing on his own experience, Capuzzo describes the absence of treatments for COVID-19 as a global crisis:

When my daughter Grace, a vice president at a New York advertising agency, came down with COVID-19 recently, she was quarantined in a “COVID hotel” in Times Square with homeless people and quarantining travelers. The locks on her room door were removed. Nurses prowled the halls to keep her in her room and wake her up every night to check her vitals—not to treat her, because there is no approved treatment for COVID-19; only, if her oxygen plummeted, to move her to the hospital, where there is only a single elective approved treatment for COVID-19, steroids that may keep the lungs from failing.

There are three possible explanations for health regulators’ refusal to allow the use of a highly promising, well-tolerated off-label medicine such as ivermectin:

  • As a generic, ivermectin is cheap and widely available, which means there would be a lot less money to be made by Big Pharma if it became the go-to early-stage treatment against covid.
  • Other pharmaceutical companies are developing their own novel treatments for Covid-19 which would have to compete directly with ivermectin. They include ivermectin’s original manufacturer, Merck, which has an antiviral compound, molnupiravir, in Phase 3 clinical trials for COVID-19. That might explain the company’s recent statement claiming that there is “no scientific basis whatsoever for a potential therapeutic effect of ivermectin against COVID-19.
  • If approved as a covid-19 treatment, ivermectin could even threaten the emergency use authorisation granted to covid-19 vaccines. One of the basic conditions for the emergency use authorisation granted to the vaccines currently being used against covid is that there are no alternative treatments available for the disease. As such, if ivermectin or some other promising medicine such as fluvoxamine were approved as an effective early treatment for Covid-19, the vaccines could be stripped of authorisation.

This may explain why affordable, readily available and minimally toxic drugs are not repurposed for use against Covid despite the growing mountains of evidence supporting their efficacy.

Ivermectin has already been approved as a covid-19 treatment in more than 20 countries. They include Mexico where the mayor of Mexico City, Claudia Scheinbaum, recently said that the medicine had reduced hospitalisations by as much as 76%. As of last week, 135,000 of the city’s residents had been treated with the medicine. The government of India — the world’s second most populous country and one of the world’s biggest manufacturers of medicines — has also recommended the use of ivermectin as an early outpatient treatment against covid-19, in direct contravention of WHO’s own advice.

Dr Vikas P. Sukhatme, the dean of Emory School of Medicine, recently wrote in a column for the Times of India that deploying drugs such as ivermectin and fluvoxamine in India is likely to “rapidly reduce the number of COVID-19 patients, reduce the number requiring hospitalization, supplemental oxygen and intensive care and improve outcomes in hospitalized patients.”

Four weeks after the government included ivermectin and budesonide among its early treatment guidelines, the country has recorded its lowest case count in 40 days.

Imagen

In many of India’s regions the case numbers are plunging in almost vertical fashion. In the capital Delhi, as in Mexico City, hospitalisations have plummeted. In the space of 10 days ICU occupancy fell from 99% to 70%. Deaths are also falling. The test positivity ratio slumped from 35% to 5% in just one month.

One of the outliers of this trend is the state of Tamil Nadu, where cases are still rising steeply. This may have something to do with the fact that the state’s newly elected governor, MK Stalin, decided to exclude ivermectin from the region’s treatment protocol in favor of Remdesivir. The result? Soaring cases. Late last week, Stalin reversed course once again and readopted ivermectin.

For the moment deaths in India remain extremely high. And there are concerns that the numbers are being under-reported. Yet they may also begin to fall in the coming days. In all of the countries that have used ivermectin widely, fatalities are the last thing to fall, after case numbers and hospitalizations. Of course, there’s no way of definitively proving that these rapid falloffs are due to the use of ivermectin. Correlation, even as consistent as this, is not causation. Other factors such as strict lockdowns and travel restrictions no doubt also play a part.

But a clear pattern across nations and territories has formed that strongly supports ivermectin’s purported efficacy. And that efficacy has been amply demonstrated in three meta-analyses.

India’s decision to adopt ivermectin, including as a prophylaxis in some states, is already a potential game-changer. As I wrote three weeks ago, if case numbers, hospitalizations and fatalities fall in India as precipitously as they have in other countries that have adopted ivermectin, it could even become a watershed moment. But for that to happen, the news must reach enough eyes and ears. And for that to happen, reporters must, as Capuzzo says, begin to do their job and report both sides of this vital story.

*

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  Inga – stock.adobe.com

Mass Vaccination Triggers Spike in Cases, Deaths

May 27th, 2021 by Mike Whitney

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

COVID cases have risen sharply in nearly every country that has launched a mass vaccination campaign

Cambodia began its vaccination campaign in early February after having compiled zero fatalities; after it started its vaccination program, the deaths started piling up

It could be that something in the vaccine itself is killing people

Salk researchers confirmed that the main damage from COVID is caused by the spike protein not the virus; if that’s the case, then why are we injecting people with vaccines that teach their cells to make spike proteins

118 million Americans have now been injected with a clot-generating spike protein; no one knows how long these potentially lethal proteins remain trapped in the lining of the blood vessels or what damage they might eventually do

Now that cases have dropped sharply across the U.S., why not ease up on the vaccinations until there is a better grasp of the long-term risks

*

COVID cases have risen sharply in nearly every country that has launched a mass vaccination campaign. (Please watch this short video before You Tube removes it.1) Why is this happening?

Mass vaccination was supposed to reduce the threat of COVID but — in the short term — it appears to make it much worse.

Why? And why is COVID now “surging in 4 of 5 the most vaccinated countries?” According to Forbes magazine:2

“Countries with the world’s highest vaccination rates — including four of the top five most vaccinated — are fighting to contain coronavirus outbreaks that are, on a per-capita basis, higher than the surge devastating India, a trend that has experts questioning the efficacy of some vaccines … and the wisdom of easing restrictions even with most of the population vaccinated.”

Worse than India? How can that be? And why have eight “fully vaccinated” members of the New York Yankees tested positive for COVID? Here’s the story from the Associated Press:3

“New York Yankees shortstop Gleyber Torres tested positive for Covid-19 despite being fully vaccinated and having previously contracted the coronavirus during the offseason. Torres is among eight so-called breakthrough positives among the Yankees — people who tested positive despite being fully vaccinated.”

And if that’s not confusing enough, check out what’s going on in Cambodia. Cambodia began its vaccination campaign in early February after having compiled zero fatalities. That’s right: The country had no COVID deaths until March 2021, a few weeks after it started its vaccination program. And that’s when the deaths started piling up as you can see in the eye-popping chart below.

COVID-19 vaccinations and deaths Cambodia

Chart from Joel Smalley Twitter4

Zero COVID Fatalities, Until After Vaccination Campaign

So, let’s see if we can figure this out. There were zero fatalities before the launching of the vaccination campaign, but soon after the injections began, the fatalities started to mount. Do you think there might be a connection here? Do you think that, perhaps, the deaths are linked to the vaccines?

Of course, they are. And, that’s why the media is trying to sweep this story under the rug. It doesn’t fit with the “official narrative” about the vaccines, so they’ve decided to “vanish” the story altogether. “Poof” and it’s gone! And, actually, it’s worse than a cover-up because shortly after Biden took office the CDC changed its testing methodology, making it harder to test positive.

In other words, they rigged the system so it would look like fewer “fully vaccinated” people had contracted COVID after inoculation. Dr. Joseph Mercola explains what’s going on behind the scenes:

“Now, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has lowered the CT even further, in what appears to be a clear effort to hide COVID-19 breakthrough cases, meaning cases in which fully vaccinated individuals are being diagnosed with COVID-19.”

It’s all a big shell game. They’re gaming the system to make it look like the vaccines are stopping infection when the evidence proves the opposite. And notice the deliberately misleading moniker the media invented for the people who get COVID after being vaccinated. They call them “breakthrough cases.” “Breakthrough”? Really?

If cases surge in nearly every country that launches a mass vaccination campaign, then there’s nothing “breakthrough” about it. It’s the predictable result of a failed experiment. Here’s more from an article titled: “COVID rates post-vaccination around the world”:5

“… the government assumed that if ‘you vaccinate lots of people and the problem goes away’, but the questioners among us did not assume that. Especially having read the FDA Briefing Document for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine for example, many of us had questions after reading it; on Page 42, it states:

Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccination group vs 287 in the placebo group. It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19 cases occurring in the 7 days post-vaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms that overlap with those of COVID-19.

Overall though, these data do not raise a concern that protocol-specified reporting of suspected, but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases could have masked clinically significant adverse events that would not have otherwise been detected.”

FDA Knew Vaccinated People More Likely to Contract COVID

WTF!?! So, the FDA KNEW that vaccinated people were more likely to contract COVID than those in the placebo group, but they approved the vaccines anyway?!? Is that criminal negligence or just plain old stupidity?

Please. Read the above paragraph again and decide whether you would have given these sketchy injections the “green light” or not? Here’s more from the same article:6

“The following show data from around the world from some selected locations. It is, of course, vital to stress that correlation is not causation. And that there are countries where vaccine rollout does not precede or coincide with increased infections. However, I have been unable to find any nation where covid rates have begun to drop after vaccination started, or where a drop coincided with vaccination starting.

In Indonesia, for example, the covid rate was falling when vaccination started and seems to have been unaffected in its trajectory by the vaccine being rolled out. The reader can look up these charts for him/herself on the website. Have a look at these and see what you make of them.”

OK, so the author is trying to put the most charitable spin on vaccine performance as possible. He says, “correlation is not causation,” which means, “Don’t trust your eyes when you look at the charts because — if you do — you’ll draw the obvious conclusion that the vaccines greatly increase your chances of getting COVID in the few weeks afterward.”

The charts will also convince you that Fauci, Biden and the media have been lying through their teeth about the effectiveness of the vaccines. (Please, check out the charts in the article and judge for yourself.) Here’s more:7

“What is very clear looking at data worldwide, is that vaccinations are certainly not associated with a reliable fall in covid cases in any predictable timeframe. This, alongside the observations in the trial, surely must be addressed. What is happening here?

Is it just that vaccinations are coincidentally being rolled out at the same time as outbreaks are due? In very many places? Or is the vaccine not working immediately? If not, why not? … Or is the vaccine making people more susceptible to infection? If this is the case … is this a temporary effect? What causes it? …

How long does it take for any increased susceptibility to diminish? … We are told that everyone must be vaccinated (but) How can free informed consent be given under these conditions?”

These are all good questions. Unfortunately, Dr. Fauci and Co. don’t plan to answer any of them. Instead, their allies in the media are doing everything they can to disappear the story and deflect attention to the elusive “variants,” which is the diversion du jour. Am I being too harsh? Maybe, but maybe not harsh enough.

Reason to Doubt Vaccine Makers’ Reassurances

Take a look at this clip from a piece at Conservative Woman titled, “Every reason to doubt the vaccine makers’ reassurances”:8

“I have reported previously on an astonishing spike in deaths that occurred alongside an intensive vaccination campaign in Gibraltar, where the small community consequently developed the highest Covid death rate in the world. We also know that thousands of deaths have been seen in the US, EU and UK in the wake of Covid vaccinations, often immediately after the jab has been administered.

The manufacturers, leading medical journals and most governments insist these deaths are unrelated to the vaccine. In many instances, the deaths and serious illness have been attributed to coincidental infection with the virus. But evidence is mounting that for some, especially the weak and elderly, the vaccine itself is creating or worsening the very illness against which it is supposed to be protective …

… a worrying phenomenon which appears consistently in Covid vaccine studies is a spike in purported ‘infections’ which occurs precisely during that three-week period, and usually immediately following the jab … The researchers raise the possibility that the jab may trigger ‘symptoms likened to Covid-19 symptoms including fever’ in those recently exposed to the virus …

He suggests the mechanism may be a depression in immunity caused by a loss of white blood cells post-jab, observed in both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca trials, making the vaccinees more vulnerable to the virus in the short term.”

OK, so the author arrives at the same conclusion as the previous author; maybe the vaccine makes people more susceptible to the virus by lowering their defenses and, thus, inviting infection. That’s certainly one possibility, but there are other possibilities that could be infinitely more serious. Take a look:9

“It has not been generally acknowledged that the jab is designed to protect us by provoking our cells into producing the very toxin that makes the virus more dangerous than its predecessors in the coronavirus family. This toxin, known as the spike protein, can damage not just the lungs but may also affect organs such the brain, heart and kidneys.

The reasoning behind administering the jab is that temporary exposure to the toxin may provide long-term protection against becoming ill from the virus. Early indications are that this strategy is working, although it is not at all certain yet to what extent the fall-off in infection rates seen in intensely vaccinated populations is seasonal and related to the waves of infection, or if it is a lasting benefit.

But there is also a very real possibility, supported by animal experiments as well as by the studies cited above, that the vaccine itself may produce symptoms in vulnerable people which are then attributed to Covid-19. The damage to health may be especially severe in an individual who has been recently or is concurrently infected with the actual virus.

There is therefore every reason to doubt the manufacturers’ assurances that the deaths and injuries seen to be accompanying vaccination, and that in some instances look like and are being attributed to Covid-19, are unrelated to the jabs. The situation is serious enough for some doctors and scientists to be calling for a moratorium on further Covid vaccinations until it has been properly investigated.”

So, it could be, that something in the vaccine itself is killing people. That is one distinct possibility. Sure, the drug companies and public health officials dismiss the idea with a wave of the hand, but medical professionals and scientists think the danger is significant enough to demand that the mass-vaccination program be temporarily terminated.

Main Damage From COVID Caused by Spike Protein

Some readers will recall that the Salk Institute recently released a study which showed that SARS-CoV-2’s “distinctive ‘spike’ protein” … “damages cells, confirming COVID-19 as a primarily vascular disease.” Here’s an excerpt from the article dated April 30, 2021:10

“In the new study, the researchers created a “pseudovirus” that was surrounded by SARS-CoV-2 classic crown of spike proteins, but did not contain any actual virus. Exposure to this pseudovirus resulted in damage to the lungs and arteries of an animal model — proving that the spike protein alone was enough to cause disease.

Tissue samples showed inflammation in endothelial cells lining the pulmonary artery walls. (Note — “Vascular endothelial cells line the entire circulatory system, from the heart to the smallest capillaries.”)

The team then replicated this process in the lab, exposing healthy endothelial cells (which line arteries) to the spike protein. They showed that the spike protein damaged the cells by binding ACE2. This binding disrupted ACE2’s molecular signaling to mitochondria (organelles that generate energy for cells), causing the mitochondria to become damaged and fragmented.

Previous studies have shown a similar effect when cells were exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but this is the first study to show that the damage occurs when cells are exposed to the spike protein on its own.”

The significance of this report cannot be overstated. The Salk researchers are confirming that the main damage from COVID is caused by the spike protein not the virus. And, if that’s the case, then why are we injecting people with vaccines that teach their cells to make spike proteins?

It makes no sense at all. And how does this effect our understanding of the phenomenon that we’ve seen in countries around the world, that is, the sharp rise in cases following mass vaccination? Allow me to offer a plausible, but as-yet unproven, explanation:

The sharp rise in cases and deaths following mass vaccination is NOT related to COVID “the respiratory illness,” but COVID “the vascular disease.” The vascular component is mainly the result of spike proteins produced by cells in the lining of the blood vessels (endothelium) that are activating platelets that cause blood clots and bleeding.

The other main factor is autoimmune reaction in which the killer lymphocytes attack one’s own body triggering widespread inflammation (and potential organ failure.). In short, the post-injection fatalities are caused by the spike proteins produced by the vaccines and not by COVID. Once again, look at the chart of Cambodia. There were no deaths prior to vaccination. All the deaths came afterwards. That suggests that the fatalities are attributable to the vaccines.

One final thought: 118 million Americans have now been injected with a clot-generating spike protein. At present, no one seems to know how long these potentially lethal proteins remain trapped in the lining of the blood vessels or what damage they might eventually do.

Keeping that in mind, wouldn’t this be a good time to exercise a bit of caution? Now that cases have dropped sharply across the country, why not ease up on the vaccinations until we have a better grasp of the long-term risks? That would be the sensible approach, right? Just postpone further injections until product safety can be assured. If there was ever a time for caution, this is 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.

Michael Whitney, renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism and World peace. 

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

Notes

1 YouTube May 13, 2021

2 Forbes May 11, 2021

3 NBC News May 14, 2021

4 Twitter, Joel Smalley

5, 6, 7 Inform Scotland April 6, 2021

8, 9 The Conservative Woman May 3, 2021

10 Salk News April 30, 2021

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.

***

One week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced it was investigating heart inflammation in recently vaccinated young adults, Connecticut reported 18 new cases of heart problems among teens who had received a COVID vaccine.

All 18 cases resulted in hospitalization — the vast majority for a couple of days, reported NBC Connecticut. The cases were reported to the Connecticut Department of Public Health by vaccine providers, said Deirdre Gifford, acting health commissioner.

“One individual that we’re aware of is still hospitalized,” Guifford said Monday. “The other 17 have been sent home and they’re doing fine.”

The first case at Connecticut Children’s was Rachel Hatton’s 17-year-old son, Gregory.

“It’s terrifying,” said Hatton. Her son started complaining of severe chest pain three days after his second vaccine dose. It worsened on the fourth day, causing back pain.

After blood work and an x-ray, doctors diagnosed Gregory with pericarditis, an inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart that can cause sharp chest pain and other symptoms.

“They hooked him up to a heart monitor, did more EKGs, echocardiograms. Infectious disease actually came and ran their own set of blood work to try to figure out if it could have been caused by something else, some sort of infection, something else, like Lyme disease. They tested him for all sorts of things and one by one those tests came back negative,” said Hatton.

Doctors couldn’t confirm Gregory’s condition was caused by the COVID vaccine, but two more recently vaccinated patients presented to the hospital with similar symptoms. A spokesperson from Connecticut Children’s said patients have presented with both pericarditis and myocarditis

Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle that can lead to cardiac arrhythmia and death. According to the National Organization for Rare Disorders, myocarditis can result from infections, but “more commonly the myocarditis is a result of the body’s immune reaction to the initial heart damage.”

Mayo Clinic doctors say treatment focuses on the cause of the condition and symptoms, such as heart failure and shortness of breath.

Hatton said her son is now out of work, on medication and hooked up to a heart monitor. He will have another MRI in June to see if his condition has improved.

“I don’t sleep because … if I hear my son sneeze or if he sounds like he’s out of breath when I call him on my break at work, I get nervous because I just don’t know what else could happen. He basically has a heart condition now and it’s terrifying,” she said.

NBC Connecticut spoke with other parents of teens who received their first dose of COVID vaccine and are scheduled to get their second.

“I can’t believe the government would really put out a shot that would really negatively impact the health of my child so I’m behind the vaccine 100%,” said Heather Salgado.

“I’m just trusting the science and the recommendation is to get the vaccine,” said Theresa Galizia.

Other parents, like Siobhan Cefarelli, had reservations. “It’s one thing for me to get the vaccine, but for my child to get the vaccine, it’s kind of scary not knowing what’s going to happen and not having a lot of research having been done on it.”

Hatton said she shared her son’s story because she wanted parents to be aware. Despite doctors saying the condition is rare, Hatton explained it doesn’t feel rare when it’s affecting your own child.

The CDC has not determined if vaccines were the cause of the reported heart condition in the Connecticut cases. But the CDC safety committee released an advisory May 17 alerting doctors to reports of myocarditis, which seemed to occur predominantly in adolescents and young adults, more often in males than females, more often following the second dose and typically within four days after vaccination with Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said during a press briefing Monday the Biden administration will continue to advise young people to get vaccinated, despite reported cases of myocarditis.

“Our health and medical experts still continue to convey that it is the right step for 12- to 15-year-olds to get vaccinated, that these are limited cases, and that, obviously, the risks of contracting COVID are certainly significant even for people of that age,” Psaki said.

According to CDC data, the death rate among adolescents ages 0 to 17 who get COVID and are subsequently hospitalized is 0.7%, with many experiencing either mild or no symptoms at all. The COVID death rate in all adolescent age categories is less than 0.1%.

While the CDC numbers appear to contradict Psaki’s assessment of young people’s risk of getting COVID, new research suggests that even the CDC’s numbers are too high.

As The Defender reported, two papers published May 19 in the journal of Hospital Pediatrics found pediatric hospitalizations for COVID were overcounted by at least 40%, carrying potential implications for nationwide figures used to justify vaccinating 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.

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from America’s Frontline Doctors

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

7. маја 2021 године сам добио у археолошком парку „Виминацијум“, који је познат и као „Помпеја Србије“, заједно са Његовом светошћу, српским патријархом, и са познатим српским професорима и личностима признање „Kапетан Миша Анастасијевић“ . Добио сам га за мој дугогодишњи финансијски и идејни ангажман за српски народ и за мој допринос стварању бољег имиџа Србије. Чак сам препознат као Рудолф Арчибалд Рајс, велики пријатељ Србије.

Ово престижно признање у оквиру пројекта „Пут ка врху“ се додељује сваке године под покровитељством привредне коморе Србије у организацији „Медиа Инвента“ и РТВ Војводине и носи име чувеног бизнисмена и филантропа у чијој задужбини – Kапетан Мишином здању –  смештен је Ректорат Београдског универзитета.

Пошто из протоколарних разлога нисам могао да одржим говор који сам припремио као захвалницу, а због претеће обавезе вакцинисања у Србији, овим путем га објављујем као лични коментар и надам се да ће ме добијено признање сачувати да ме влада земље- госта Србије не прогласи за „Персону нот грата“ и не ускрати ми даљи боравак у њој.

Припремљени а неодржани говор (захвалница)

Веома цењени господине председниче,

Захваљујем се веома срдачно свима одговорнима за ову награду.

На згради Филозофског факултета Универзитета у Београду дуго времена је висила изрека: НИЈЕ ФИЛОЗОФСKИ ЋУТАТИ

Ову мудрост сам и ја усвојио, као и велики пријатељ Србије, швајцарски криминолог и универзитетски професор Рудолф Арчибалд Рајс.

Он је не само информисао свет о ратним злочинима на српским цивилима за време Првог светског рата, већ је 1. јуна 1928 оставио Србима политички тестамент упозоравајућег карактера „Ecoutez, Serbes!“ Чујте ме, Срби!

Рајс је после завршетка Првог светског рата радио у југословенској државној служби, али је убрзо ,горко разочаран, напустио јавни живот, јер је стекао утисак да је српска и југословенска политика дубоко корумпирана. У свом апелу Рајс је оштро критиковао како политику тако и југословенско друштво.

Али он је преклињао српски народ:

„Не дозволите да нацију (…) тлачи шака злочиначких профитера и гуликожа. (…).

Сетите се ваше славне прошлости, „праве“ демократије сељачке заједнице, морала, гостопримства и патриотизма.“

Веома цењени господине председниче, цењени присутни…

Још прошле године писао сам више отворених писама српском председнику и
српском народу, која су, међутим, објављена само у малим онлине-часописима.

У марту 2020: Господине Председниче, као гост Србије ја имам много питања у вези са корона-пандемијом, какве планове имате у вези са обавезним коришћењем маски, обавезном вакцинацијом, правом грађана на дијалог?

У децембру 2020: Чујте, Срби! Ја вас усрдно молим да због огромних људских и економских штета које су последица политичких мера у вези са пандемијом употребите свој разум (Kант) уместо слепе послушности!

У априлу 2021: Владајућим политичарима свих земаља: Политичарке и политичари свих земаља, апелујем на Вас да престанете и да размислите чије дело Ви распиривањем ирационалних страхова, ускраћивањем слободе, захтевањем социјалног дистанцирања и обавезне вакцинације остварујете: Дело Бога или пре дело ђавола?

На основу сопствених проучавања и размишљања као научник и психолог, на основу историјских паралела и на основу распитивања код европских и америчких научника и медицинских експерата, којима се не дозвољава да се огласе у масовним средствима информисања, лично сам стекао следеће уверење: Актуелне политичке мере за борбу против коронавируса на светском нивоу, као што је ограничавање слободе, обавеза ношења маски као и директна или индиректна обавеза вакцинисања, захтев за социјално дистанцирање итд, наредила је властољубива и неодговорна новчана елита, подржавају их подобни познати медицински експерти и саветници И политичари свих боја без обзира на губитке. Ове мере здравствене, психичке, социјалне и економске имају по цивилно становништво несагледиве разарајуће последице.

Најтеже су погођена деца и омладина, који све више пате од депресије, имају страхове од живота и суицидне мисли и не добијају никакво образовање.

Мале продавнице и средња предузећа су гурана и даље се гурају у пропаст тиме се повецава незапосленост.

„Вакцинисање“ са мРНА-вакцинама, које мењају наш ДНK као и вектор-вакцине нису вакцине у стандарном смислу, већ су, супротно Нирнбершком кодексу из 1947, генско-технички експерименти на човеку (ускоро и на деци). Они имају тешке здравствене последице све до смртних последица и служе тоталној контроли људи као и смањењу броја становника (депопулацији). Осим тога вакцинисани су преносиоци вируса (Пфјазер) и имунитет крда се не може остварити!

Досадашње демократске структуре у многим земљама су се претвориле у тоталитарне структуре.

Ја сам мишљења, да ове политичке мере не служе заштити нашег здравља, већ искључиво успостављању Новог светског поретка и тоталној контроли нас грађана.

Због тога оне морају одмах бити обустављење и подвргнуте преиспитивању!

Независни научници и медицински експерти, који до сада нису дошли до речи, морају бити укључени. Видети апел еминентне америчке научнице, др. Janci Chunn Lindsay:Обуставити одмах вакцинисање против короне! (UNCUT-NEWS, 4.05.2021):

„Постоје упозорења да вакцине производе смртоносније мутанте и погоршавају пандемију! Ако то не зауставимо створићемо праву пандемију, коју више нећемо моћи савладати!

Српски народ мора о свему томе бити у потпуности информисан, да би могао да на стварној научној основи донесе исправну одлуку!

Захваљујем Вам на пажњи.

Др. Рудолф Хензел је доктор педагогије и дипломирани психолог.

*

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, Srpski
  • Comments Off on Др Рудолф Хензел: Није филозофски ћутати
  • 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.

***

Unter dieser Zwischenüberschrift zitierte RT DE den israelischen Verteidigungsminister Benny Gantz mit den Worten:

„Mein aufrichtiger Dank geht an die US-Regierung und insbesondere an Verteidigungsminister Lloyd Austin, mit dem ich diese Woche gesprochen habe, dafür, dass sie die ungerechte Erklärung des UN-Sicherheitsrates, die Israels Schritte in Gaza kritisiert, zu Recht verhindert haben.“

Er fügte hinzu, dass diese Kritik an Israel „heuchlerisch“ sei und der „Sache des globalen Kampfes gegen den Terror abträglich“. Israels Ziel bestünde einzig und allein darin, „die Infrastruktur des Terrors zu zerschlagen“ und das israelische Volk zu schützen (4).

Israel Shahak — Holocaustopfer, Überlebender, Verteidiger der Menschenrechte

Im Vorwort zur zweiten englischsprachigen Auflage von Shahaks Buch schreibt Edward Said bereits in den 1990er-Jahren über den Autor:

„Ein Großteil von dem, was er schreibt, hat die Aufgabe gehabt, Propaganda und Lügen als das hinzustellen, was sie sind. Israel ist für die Entschuldigungen, die zu seinen Gunsten gemacht werden, einzigartig in der Welt: Aus Furcht, auf die schwarze Liste gesetzt zu werden oder aus Angst vor Vergeltung, sehen Journalisten weder die Wahrheit noch schreiben sie, was sie als Wahrheit kennen.

Politische, kulturelle und intellektuelle Persönlichkeiten, besonders in Europa und in den Vereinigten Staaten, scheuen keine Mühe, Israel zu preisen und es mit der größten Freigebigkeit, die je irgendeiner Nation auf Erden zuteilwurde, zu überschütten, obgleich sich viele von ihnen der Ungerechtigkeiten dieses Landes bewusst sind. Hierüber erwähnen sie jedoch nichts.

Das Ergebnis ist ein ideologischer Nebelschleier, den Shahak sich mehr als irgendeine andere Persönlichkeit bemüht hat, verschwinden zu lassen. Als Holocaustopfer und Überlebender kennt er selbst die Bedeutung des Antisemitismus. Doch ungleich den meisten anderen lässt er nicht zu, dass mit den Schrecken des Holocaust die Wahrheit darüber manipuliert wird, was Israel den Palästinensern im Namen des jüdischen Volkes angetan hat. Für ihn ist das Leiden nicht der ausschließliche Besitz von nur einer Gruppe von Opfern …“ (5).

Petition „In Solidarität mit Gaza“

Am 17. Mai veröffentlichte die NRhZ die Petition „In Solidarität mit Gaza“. Initiiert wurde sie von Evelyn Hecht-Galinski, einer deutschen Publizistin und Gründerin der deutschen Abteilung der Organisation „Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden in Nahost“:

„Wir sind eine breite Koalition von Menschen mit Gewissen in Deutschland, die die israelischen Angriffe auf Gaza scharf verurteilen. Wir wollen das Tabu brechen, über Israels Verbrechen Schweigen zu bewahren, und bestehen auf Meinungsfreiheit und Demonstrationsrecht, auch wenn es um Israelkritik geht. Wir wenden uns gegen die Gleichsetzung von Tätern und Opfern. Wir denken, es ist an der Zeit, dass Deutschland, seine Regierungen, Parteien und Intellektuellen endlich damit aufhören, das palästinensische Volk für die Verbrechen Deutschlands an den europäischen Juden bezahlen zu lassen. Die Palästinenser als inzwischen letzte Opfer des Holocaust sind es leid, für ein schlechtes Gewissen und ein deutsches Trauma zu bezahlen“ (6).

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Rubikon.

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Diplom-Psychologe und Erziehungswissenschaftler.

Quellen und Anmerkungen

(1) https://de.rt.com/der-nahe-osten/117651-tel-aviv-dankt-usa-fur-drittes-veto-sicherheitsrat-erklarung-waffenstillstand-bombt-weiter/

(2) Shahak, Israel: Jüdische Geschichte, Jüdische Religion. Der Einfluss von 3.000 Jahren, Süderbrarup 1998.

(3) http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=27435&css

(4) https://de.rt.com/der-nahe-osten/117651-tel-aviv-dankt-usa-fur-drittes-veto-sicherheitsrat-erklarung-waffenstillstand-bombt-weiter/

(5) Shahak, Israel: 1998Jüdische Geschichte, Jüdische Religion. Der Einfluss von 3000 Jahren. Süderbrarup (1998), Seite 15 folgende.

(6) http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=27435&css

Foto: FatihYavuz/Shutterstock.com

Shell Just Got Wrecked in Dutch Court

May 27th, 2021 by Brian Kahn

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 court in the Netherlands just handed down a landmark ruling, ordering Shell to slash its carbon pollution 45% by 2030. It’s hard to overstate how radical the ruling is and the far-ranging impacts it could have not just for the Dutch oil giant but oil companies around the world.

Milieudefensie, the Dutch chapter of Friends of the Earth, sued Shell in the name of what eventually rose to 17,000 co-plaintiffs in May 2018. The case was finally heard in December with the ruling coming down on Wednesday.

The suit had a fairly straightforward ask: If Shell could please stop destroying the planet and bring its emissions in line with the Paris Agreement, that’d be swell. While Shell has talked a big game about reaching net zero emissions by 2050, that far-off timeline and assumptions about relying on unproven carbon capture technology mean the company will continue to pollute in the interim. An analysis of its climate plan by Oil Change International found that on eight out of 10 facets, the plan was “grossly insufficient.” The other two were merely “insufficient.” The Dutch court ruling will now require the oil giant to actually reduce its emissions rather than making vague promises.

“The Shell decision is a watershed for the oil and gas industry,” Carroll Muffett, the CEO and president of the Center for International Environmental law, said in an emailed statement. “The court recognized the growing international consensus that the world must strive to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius [2.7 degrees Fahrenheit]. … The court has made clear that Shell and similarly situated actors must take responsibility for reducing not only the direct emissions that arise from its own operations.”

While Shell could challenge the ruling, its enforceable in the interim. It’s the second monster climate ruling in less than two years from courts in the Netherlands. In late 2019, courts ruled in favor of environmental group Urgenda, which sued the government for failing to address climate change and set much more expedient climate targets for the country.

“Like Urgenda, it’s absolutely historic,” Harro van Asselt, a law professor at the University of East Finland, said in an email, referring to the Shell case.

Just as that case had ripple effects in courtrooms in other countries, so could the Shell ruling. Roger Cox, one of the lawyers on the case, told Dutch news site NU that “a Dutch judge can impose a judgment that should be enforced in the eighty countries where Shell is active.” He also noted that it could follow in the footsteps of the Urgenda, setting a precedent that could lead to more suits like it around the world. “These kinds of cases can create momentum of their own,” he said.

It’s an interesting development to see two path-setting climate cases decided in Dutch courtrooms in such a short period.

“Perhaps one unique aspect is the Dutch duty of care obligation, which can and has been interpreted in unexpected ways, first in the initial Urgenda ruling and now in the Shell case,” van Asselt said. “In addition, Dutch courts have commonly applied international human rights law at the national level, which helped in the more recent Urgenda rulings. The difference in the Shell case, however, is that human rights law creating obligations for enterprises—rather than governments—is much less established. The fact that also this body of law was of direct influence in the Shell case is, again, groundbreaking.”

If ever there was a need for climate momentum that centers human rights, now is the time. The world has a narrowing window of opportunity to reduce carbon emissions, and that starts with ending fossil fuel production. Just last week, the International Energy Agency released a major report showing that the world must stop new fossil fuel development next year to have a decent shot of meeting the Paris Agreement target of limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). van Asselt noted that the case IEA report coming in quick succession “reinforces the message that companies and governments need to wind down fossil fuel production to achieve climate goals.”

Shell’s CEO also recently claimed the world would need oil companies despite this growing preponderance of evidence to the contrary. The company is hardly alone as an oil company trying to preserve itself with platitudes and half-baked climate plans. But the Dutch ruling means that other companies from Exxon to Chevron could soon see legal challenges to clean up their acts, too.

*

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

Brian Kahn is managing editor at Earther, writing about climate change, environmental justice, and, occasionally, my cat.

Featured image is licensed under creative commons

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.

***

Today, the Biden administration committed more than $5 million to rebuilding Gaza after Israeli bombing left swathes of the territory in ruins, with medical facilities, homes, and roads destroyed or damaged by the aerial attack that killed at least 248 people this month.

But even as the administration takes steps to aid Gaza, its State Department has approved a $735-million sale of bombs to Israel, bypassing congressional opposition. On May 21st, according to a congressional staffer, the department granted Boeing an export license for the sale of Joint Direct Attack Munitions and Small Diameter Bombs—two kinds of laser-guided munitions that were reportedly used by Israel in the 11-day attack on the Gaza Strip that ended on Friday with a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

Together, these two developments—the commitment of humanitarian aid and the ongoing sale of weapons—suggest that the Biden administration’s policy on Israel/Palestine will depart little from that of previous Democratic administrations. For decades, the US has delivered millions of dollars in humanitarian relief for Palestinians in a bid to stave off Palestinian uprisings that could shake the Middle East. At the same time, the US has sent Israel billions of dollars in military aid that helps fund human rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza. Despite increasing criticism from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party for this aid paradigm—both sides of which serve, in different ways, to support Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories—the Biden administration’s recent moves are consistent with its predecessors’ approach to the region.

Against the backdrop of new weapons sales, humanitarian aid “is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, and the US is paying for the Band-Aid, the bullet, and the gun,” Raed Jarrar, advocacy director for the human rights group Democracy for the Arab World Now, said in an interview. “Humanitarian aid is important, but the US government should stop its support for Israel’s blockade and attacks on Gaza rather than subsidizing the status quo.”

The approval of the export license for the arms sale, which progressive legislators had tried to block at an earlier stage, immediately spurred opposition from Senator Bernie Sanders. On Friday, Sanders was notified that the sale had gone through and responded by placing a hold on all State Department nominees, blocking Congress from considering them for diplomatic posts, the Sanders office told Jewish Currents. After the administration committed to humanitarian aid for the rebuilding of Gaza, Sanders lifted the hold.

While Sanders strongly supports Biden’s steps to aid Gaza, according to his office, he also conveyed to the administration that “simply returning to the pre-war status quo was insufficient, that the deeper causes of the conflict, such as the Gaza blockade and evictions in Jerusalem, needed to be addressed,” read a statement sent to Jewish Currents from Sanders’s office. “He also made clear that he and his colleagues would continue to push for greater debate to make sure that US arms sales do not support human rights abuses.” Sanders’s office added that Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman had “committed to a continuing dialogue on these issues.”

Sanders’s move was only the latest attempt to bring congressional oversight to the arms sale. Last week, Sanders and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, working with Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Mark Pocan, introduced resolutions into the legislature to block the sale of Joint Direct Attack Munitions and Small Diameter Bombs to Israel. The resolutions marked a historic break with the Democratic Party’s consensus position on Israel: It has long been taboo for members of Congress to question the $3.8 billion in military aid that the US sends to Israel every year. Ocasio-Cortez’s resolution, which garnered the support of 14 other members of Congress, was sent to the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC), where it is unlikely to receive a vote. Under Senate rules, however, Sanders has the option to force a vote on the weapons sale. Though Sanders did not attract any co-sponsors upon introduction and would have struggled to amass even a few votes in support of his resolution, forcing a vote would have pushed Democrats to go on the record in support of the weapons sale, perhaps angering a segment of the Democratic Party base that has grown more critical of Israel.

Members of congress and human rights advocates argue that State Department staff should have waited for Congressional debate to take place, even if the department had the power to go ahead with the sale. Under the Arms Export Control Act, the State Department is required to give Congress notification of a pending arms sale to Israel 15 days before moving ahead with a sale. Though the 15-day period elapsed on May 20th, the State Department was aware that members of Congress had raised objections to the sale in the resolutions that were reported by The Washington Post and Jewish Currents.

“Support or oppose the sale, everyone should be concerned about the complete lack of congressional oversight involved here,” Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib told Jewish Currents. “The State Department should immediately revoke approval for this arms sale to, at minimum, allow for proper debate in Congress. Remember that these are weapons of war and destruction that will be used to kill children, bomb hospitals, homes, and schools—lives literally hang in the balance.”

“The State Department’s decision to ignore congressional concerns and approve the sale of Joint Direct Attack Munitions kits to Israel is remarkably tone-deaf and callous,” Congresswoman Betty McCollum told Jewish Currents. “Only days ago, the world was watching Israel’s precision-guided ordnance kill more than 100 Palestinian children and women. This decision is a setback to the cause of peace.”

Asked for comment last Friday on whether the State Department planned to grant the export license to Boeing, a State Department spokesperson told Jewish Currents: “We are restricted under federal law and regulation from publicly commenting on or confirming details of licensing activity related to direct commercial sales of export-controlled defense articles or services.” On Sunday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the Biden administration planned to go through with the weapons sale “in consultation with Congress,” though he did not say the State Department had already granted the export license. The State Department has not returned a request for comment sent on Monday about the granting of the license.

It’s unclear what the State Department’s granting of the export license to sell the bombs means for the future of congressional efforts to debate and vote on the sale. Under the Foreign Assistance Act, Sanders can introduce a new resolution at any time, requesting that the Secretary of State formally investigate Israel’s human rights record—a process that could enable Congress to impose new conditions on US military aid to Israel. That resolution would be “privileged” under Senate rules, meaning that Sanders could force a vote on it—though he would be unlikely to receive the 51 votes needed to move forward. It remains unclear whether Sanders would take such a step.

In recent years progressive Democrats such as Reps. Betty McCollum, Rashida Tlaib, Mark Pocan and others have attempted to prevent US military aid to Israel from being used to further abuses of Palestinian rights. The Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez resolutions, while unlikely to pass, mark a new phase in the progressive break from the Democratic establishment on Israel: Whereas McCollum’s bill would not cut US aid to Israel—instead restricting Israel from using it to demolish Palestinian homes and arrest Palestinian children—the Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez efforts were an attempt to block the delivery of bombs to Israel, an unprecedented step.

For now, human rights advocates are continuing to work to stop the $735 million Boeing sale of bombs to Israel by turning to a long-shot demand: asking the State Department to revoke a license it already granted.

“The State Department should revoke this Boeing export license and wait until Congress has had the chance to debate and vote on the shameful arms sale to Israel,” said Jarrar. “There is no reason to approve additional weapons to Israel—let alone through a process wrought with errors and missteps.”

*

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.

Alex Kane is a Jewish Currents contributing writer and a journalist who writes on the politics of Israel/Palestine in the US.

Featured image: Blinken meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem on June 16, 2016 (Public Domain)

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.

***

Major arms and aircraft manufacturers — Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon — are reaping massive profits from Israel’s assault on Gaza, and all are expected to see their earnings boom with the quarter-billion-dollar arms deal the Biden administration is trying to push through.

As diplomatic powers and regional players meet behind closed doors for ceasefire talks, Israel continues showering Gaza with missile fire. Israeli airstrikes have so far killed at least 230 Palestinians, including 65 children, and injured 1,710 others. The heavy bombardment has also wiped out entire residential buildings and houses, leaving 72,000 people homeless, and has destroyed media offices, schools, libraries and charities.

According to the Israeli Air Force (IAF), on Wednesday night Israel fired 120 missiles in the span of 25 minutes. The most recent attack hit the city of Khan Yunis in Gaza, killing one and injuring eight. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) could not provide an exact number of how many bombs are being dropped on Gaza per hour. The IAF did not respond to press inquiries. The Times of Gaza, however, reported that more than 100 airstrikes occurred in a 30 minute period on May 14.

Amid the rubble, Palestinians in Gaza have found unexploded missiles with writing indicating these bombs were manufactured in the United States. The use of American-made weaponry in Israel’s latest assault on Gaza is renewing discussions on U.S. foreign assistance to Israel and U.S. complicity in Israeli state violence.

Corporate complicity

On his Twitter page, Muhammad Shehada, Gazan writer and analyst manager at Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, wrote Israel struck the Al-Jalaa Tower, which housed the Associated Press bureau and Al Jazeera offices, with a GBU-31 bomb on Saturday. Israel has also used GBU-39 Small Diameter and Mark 84 bombs in its current onslaught. The GBU-31 and GBU-39 bombs are made by Boeing and the Mark 84 bombs are produced by General Dynamics. Both missiles are manufactured in the U.S.

Boeing makes the F-15 fighter jets and Lockheed Martin manufactures F-16 and F-35 warplanes. But these are not the only American corporations involved in the production of Israel’s military aircraft.

General Electric produces the engines for F-15 and F-16 jets. Raytheon Technologies creates the missiles used to arm F-15 and F-35 planes. According to the American Friends Service Committee’s Investigate Database, Northrop Grumman manufactures “approximately 35% of the Lockheed Martin F-35 aircraft, including its center fuselage, radar, avionics, electro-optics, navigation, communications and identification subsystems, and mission systems and mission-planning software.” The arms manufacturer has also partnered with the Israeli military industry to build the LITENING targeting pod, a weapons laser navigation system used on F-16 warplanes.

Military sales to Israel generate massive profits for these American corporations. Boeing secured a $2.4 billion sale to Israel from the U.S. State Department last year. In February, the aerospace behemoth scored a whopping $9 billion deal with Israel’s Ministry of Defense. In the last decade, Raytheon’s contracts to Israel have totaled more than $4 billion. Lockheed Martin’smost recent sale to Israel is estimated at more than $2 billion. In 2016, General Electric obtained part of a $300 million sale to Israel. Northrop Grumman is less transparent about its international sales. Out of Northrop Grumman’s reported $36.8 billion in sales in 2020, 14 percent were international.

These companies did not respond to requests for comment from MintPress News.

A coordinated military alliance between the U.S. and Israel

Despite calling for de-escalation, President Joe Biden’s administration is going ahead with a $735 million weapons deal with Israel.

The major arms and aircraft manufacturers — Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon Technologies — are all expected to see their earnings boom with the pending sale. Boeing is the predicted primary beneficiary of the deal, given the sale is of its Joint Direct Attack Munitions.

Israel receives $3.8 billion in foreign military assistance annually from the U.S., of which Israel must spend 75% on American-made weaponry under an agreement between the two governments. The recent $735 million sale came out of that yearly aid, according to Danaka Katovich, Middle East and Peace Collective coordinator at the women-led, anti-war organization CODEPINK.

Katovich pointed out that these arms deals are not the only way the U.S. and Israel work together in a defense capacity: “The U.S. and Israel have had a strong military Alliance since the Nakba,” Katovich said, referring to Israel’s ethnic cleansing campaign of Palestine in 1947 and 1948 known as the Nakba, or “catastrophe” in Arabic. “Israel and the U.S. do joint military exercises together, and the countries often work together to develop systems and weapons as well.”

Katovich also alluded to reports addressing how the U.S. National Security Agency provides Israel with unfiltered intelligence, including data of American citizens.

Biden facing growing Democratic opposition

Congressional pushback against the Biden administration’s arms deal has been quick and sharp. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) drafted a resolution blocking the quarter-billion-dollar deal, writing in a tweet on Wednesday that the U.S. should not be “rubber-stamping” weapons to Israel.

Rep. Betty McCollum also condemned the arms sale. “Selling American-made weapons to Israel while Members of Congress are asking for a ceasefire is completely tone deaf,” the Minnesota Democrat told MintPress News.

Israel needs to end the bombing of Palestinian families in Gaza and the Biden administration must do more to bring a conclusion to this terrible crisis as swiftly as possible.”

McCollum is a prominent advocate for Palestinian rights in Congress. In April, she introduced a bill “[ensuring] that United States taxpayer funds are not used by the Government of Israel to support” military detention of Palestinian children and further annexation of Palestinian land. She said support is growing for H.R. 2590 every day, emphasizing how four congressional politicians have signed on to the bill since May 12 — around when Israel began its bombing campaign against Gaza.

As the Democratic Party appears to be shifting in its stance on Palestine-Israel, CODEPINK’s Katovich confirmed change is coming, albeit slowly:

With a lot of Democrats who have been in Congress for a long time, there hasn’t been a lot of movement on their thoughts and actions on this issue. But I think there is some hope with the braver people in Congress like Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. So, we are moving in the right direction.

Countering AIPAC’s relentless pressure

Amid growing calls from progressive politicians and activist groups in the U.S. to end Israel’s bombardment of the Palestinian enclave, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby group, is reviving pressure on the U.S. government to “unequivocally stand with…Israel.”

Katovich said forces in the U.S.’s pro-Israel lobby are tremendously influential in fostering the continued military alliance between the two governments, adding:

The Israel lobby says its main goal is to promote Israel’s interests. And what is Israel’s greatest interest rather than sustaining a military occupation over Palestinians? So, Israel needs U.S. backing to continue that occupation.”

For Katovich, understanding what our taxpayer dollars and financial investments contribute to can help dismantle the U.S.’s imperialist endeavors:

It’s something we can have community control over in some ways, because a lot of our city, retirement, and public funds are invested in these companies and fund the greater war machine in the United States. So, if people know this and they can research it and can look into it, they can mobilize their cities to divest from war.”

*

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

Jessica Buxbaum is a Jerusalem-based journalist for MintPress News covering Palestine, Israel, and Syria. Her work has been featured in Middle East Eye, The New Arab and Gulf News.

Featured image: 6 members of the same family assassinated at this bombing in Beit Lahia (Source: The Saker)

Wuhan Lab Caught Deleting Files Proving Fauci Funding

May 27th, 2021 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — a division of the National Institute of Health (NIH) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci since 1984 — has, for years, provided grants to the EcoHealth Alliance and others to conduct gain-of-function (GoF) research on coronaviruses

In a May 11, 2021, Senate hearing, Fauci denied ever having funded GoF research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). This despite clear documentation proving otherwise

In March 2021 the WIV deleted mentions of its collaboration with the NIAID/NIH and other American research partners from its website. It also deleted descriptions of GoF on the SARS virus

The NIH/NIAID has funded GoF research to the tune of at least $41.7 million. Up until 2014, this research was conducted by Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina (UNC). After 2014, when federal funding of GoF was banned, such research was funneled to the WIV via the EcoHealth Alliance

In August 2020, the NIAID announced a five-year, $82-million investment in a new global network of Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases that will conduct GoF experiments to “determine what genetic or other changes make [animal] pathogens capable of infecting humans”

*

As reported in several previous articles, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — a division of the National Institute of Health (NIH) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci since 1984 — has, for years, provided grants to the EcoHealth Alliance and others to conduct gain-of-function (GoF) research on coronaviruses.

EcoHealth Alliance, in turn, farmed out some of this research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), from whence SARS-CoV-2 appears to have emerged. In a May 11, 2021, Senate hearing, Sen. Rand Paul questioned Fauci on the NIAID’s funding of GoF research on bat coronaviruses, some of which was conducted at the WIV.

Fauci denied the charge, saying “The NIH has not ever, and does not now, fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute.”1 It’s a curious denial, considering the NIH’s funding of such research has been thoroughly documented and can be easily double-checked.

When Paul asks Fauci if the NIAID funded Dr. Ralph Baric’s GoF research, Fauci claims Baric “does not do gain-of-function research, and if it is, it is according to the guidelines and is being conducted in North Carolina.” Paul shoots back, saying:

“You don’t think him turning a bat virus spike protein, that he got from the Wuhan Institute into the SARS virus, is gain-of-function? You’d be in a minority, because at least 200 scientists have signed a statement from the Cambridge Working Group that it is gain-of-function.”

In the video above, Jimmy Dore reviews the apparent lies dished out by Fauci during the Senate hearing. In the Truth in Media report below, investigative journalist Ben Swann lays out some of the proof, showing Fauci’s dishonesty.

“What’s insane about this exchange is that Fauci is clearly and provably lying … to Congress, which is a crime … and he’s lying to the American public,” Swann says.

NIH/NIAID Has Funded Gain-of-Function Research

As reported by Swann, the NIH/NIAID has funded GoF research to the tune of at least $41.7 million. Up until 2014, this research was conducted by Baric at the University of North Carolina (UNC). In 2014, the U.S. government issued a moratorium on federal gain-of-function research funding due to safety, ethical and moral concerns raised within the scientific community.

It was at this point, in 2014, that funding for GoF research started being funneled through the EcoHealth Alliance to the WIV. Swann reviews documents proving Fauci lied to Congress, including a paper2 titled “SARS-Like WIV1-CoV Poised for Human Emergence,” submitted to PNAS in 2015 and subsequently published in 2016. In this paper, the authors state that:

“Overall, the results from these studies highlight the utility of a platform that leverages metagenomics findings and reverse genetics to identify prepandemic threats.

For SARS-like WIV1-CoV, the data can inform surveillance programs, improve diagnostic reagents, and facilitate effective treatments to mitigate future emergence events. However, building new and chimeric reagents must be carefully weighed against potential gain-of-function (GoF) concerns.”

At the end of that paper, the authors thank “Dr. Zhengli-Li Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology for access to bat CoV sequences and plasmid of WIV1-CoV spike protein.” They also specify that the research was supported by the NIAID under the grant awards U19AI109761 and U19AI107810, which together total $41.7 million.

As noted by Swann, this paper clearly spells out that the NIAID spent $41.7 million on GoF research, with the aim of determining how bat coronaviruses can be made more pathogenic to humans, and that this research continued after the 2014 moratorium on such funding was implemented.

NIAID Viewed Baric’s Research as GoF

What’s more, a letter3,4 from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to the director of proposals at UNC Chapel Hill, discussing grant U19AI107810, also spells this out in black and white. The October 21, 2014, letter states, in part:

“NIAID has determined that the above referenced grant may include Gain of Function (GoF) research that is subject to the recently-announced U.S. Government funding pause … The following specific aims appear to involve research covered under the pause: Project 1: Role of Uncharacterized Genes in High Pathogenic Human Coronavirus Infect — Ralph S. Baric, PhD — Project Leader.

Specific Aim 1. Novel Functions in virus replication in vitro. Specific Aim 3. Novel functions in virus pathogenesis in vivo … As your grant is currently funded, this pause is voluntary.”

In other words, the NIAID authorized the continuation of what it admitted was gain-of-function research — simply because the grant had already been funded — and it did so after the ban on such funding was put into place.

NIAID Authorized GoF Research, Bypassing Review Board

But that’s not all. After the moratorium was lifted in 2017, a special review board, the Potential Pandemic Pathogens Control and Oversight (the P3CO Review Framework), was created within the DHHS to evaluate whether grants involving dangerous pathogens are worth the risks. The review board is also responsible for ensuring proper safeguards are in place for approved research.5

According to Rutgers University professor Richard Ebright, an NIH grant for research involving the modification of bat coronaviruses at the WIV was sneaked through because the NIAID didn’t flag it for review.6 In other words, the WIV received federal funding from the NIAID without the research first receiving a green-light from the HHS review board.

The NIAID apparently used a convenient loophole in the review framework. As it turns out, it’s the funding agency’s responsibility to flag potential gain-of-function research for review. If it doesn’t, the review board has no knowledge of it.

According to Ebright, the NIAID and NIH have “systemically thwarted — indeed systematically nullified — the HHS P3CO Framework by declining to flag and forward proposals for review.”7

NIAID Is Also Committed to Continued GoF Research

Lastly, Fauci is also clearly committed to continuing GoF research, seeing how the NIAID, back in August 2020, announced a five-year, $82-million investment in a new global network of Centers for Research in Emerging Infectious Diseases.8

Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance will receive $7.5 million9 from this grant, and planned research will include GoF-type experiments that the NIAID says10 will “determine what genetic or other changes make [animal] pathogens capable of infecting humans.”

Wuhan Lab Deleted Documents Showing Fauci’s NIAID Funding

All of that basically serves as backstory to the latest development. It’s now been discovered that the WIV quietly deleted all mentions of its collaboration with Fauci’s NIAID, the NIH and other American research partners from its website shortly after Fauci testified in a Senate hearing in March 2021,11 when he went head to head with Sen. Rand Paul on mask-wearing. As reported May 15, 2021, by The National Pulse:12

“March 21st, 2021, the lab’s website listed six U.S.-based research partners: University of Alabama, University of North Texas, EcoHealth Alliance, Harvard University, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States, and the National Wildlife Federation.13

One day later, the page was revised to contain just two research partners — EcoHealth Alliance and the University of Alabama.14 By March 23rd, EcoHealth Alliance was the sole partner remaining.15

EcoHealth Alliance is run by long-standing Chinese Communist Party-partner Dr. Peter Daszak, who National Pulse Editor-in-Chief Raheem Kassam has repeatedly claimed will be the first ‘fall guy’ of the Wuhan lab debacle …

Beyond establishing a working relationship between the NIH and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, now-deleted posts16 from the site also detail studies bearing the hallmarks of gain-of-function research conducted with the Wuhan-based lab.”

Altered WIV Page Admits GoF Research With American Partners

Indeed, a now-deleted WIV web page titled “Will SARS Come Back?” stated that:17

“Prof. Zhengli Shi and Xingyi Ge from WIV, in cooperation with researchers from University of North Carolina, Harvard Medical School, Bellinzona Institute of Microbiology … examine the disease potential of a SARS-like virus, SHC014-CoV, which is currently circulating in Chinese horseshoe bat populations.

Using the SARS-CoV reverse genetics system, the scientists generated and characterized a chimeric virus expressing the spike of bat coronavirus SHC014 in a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV backbone.

The results indicate that group 2b viruses encoding the SHC014 spike in a wild-type backbone can efficiently use multiple orthologs of the SARS receptor human angiotensin converting enzyme II (ACE2), replicate efficiently in primary human airway cells and achieve in vitro titers equivalent to epidemic strains of SARS-CoV.

Evaluation of available SARS-based immune-therapeutic and prophylactic modalities revealed poor efficacy; both monoclonal antibody and vaccine approaches failed to neutralize and protect from infection with CoVs using the novel spike protein.

On the basis of these findings, they synthetically re-derived an infectious full-length SHC014 recombinant virus and demonstrate robust viral replication both in vitro and in vivo …”

Again, while Fauci insists Baric is “not doing any kind of GoF research,” and “if he is,” then he’s doing it at UNC and not in China, the WIV’s web page clearly refutes this. GoF research was done at the WIV, in partnership with UNC researchers, of which Baric is a leading one.

The WIV’s deletions of American research partners from its website (with the exception of EcoHealth Alliance), and its deletion of the article discussing genetic research on the SARS virus raise a host of questions and appears to be yet another attempt at a cover-up. The surprising thing is that they’re now covering up American involvement and not just their own.

Chinese-American GoF Research Example

The WIV and the Wuhan University School of Public Health are both listed as subcontractors for EcoHealth Alliance under a $3.7-million NIH grant titled, “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence.”18

The two institutions also worked as collaborators under another $2.6-million grant to research the “Risk of Viral Emergence from Bats,”19 and under EcoHealth Alliance’s largest single source of funding, a $44.2 million sub-grant from the University of California at Davis for the PREDICT project (2015-2020).20

Part of the PREDICT grant went to funding GoF experiments by WIV scientist Zhengli and Baric with the UNC.21,22,23 In this experiment, Zhengli and Baric used genetic engineering and synthetic biology to create a “new bat SARS-like virus … that can jump directly from its bat hosts to humans.” A request by Zhengli and Baric to continue their research during the moratorium on GoF was approved by the NIH. Daszak described Zhengli and Baric’s work in a 2019 interview:24

“You can manipulate them [coronaviruses] in the lab pretty easily. Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus, zoonotic risk. So, you can get the sequence, you can build the protein, and we work with Ralph Baric at UNC to do this. Insert it into a backbone of another virus, and do some work in the lab.”

The research was published in the journal Nature in 2015.25,26 As a condition of publication, Nature, like most scientific journals, requires27 authors to submit novel DNA and RNA sequences to GenBank, the U.S. National Center for Biotechnology Information Database. Curiously, the new SARS-like virus Zhengli and Baric published in 2015 wasn’t deposited in GenBank until May 2020.28

Fauci Has Accomplished Great Deal of Harm

It remains to be seen whether Daszak is in fact being groomed as the fall guy in this saga. Clearly, he’s innocent in the lab origin cover-up. He somehow ended up on two separate commissions charged with investigating the origin of SARS-CoV-2 — one by the WHO29 and one by The Lancet30 — having already played a central role in the plot to obscure the lab origin of SARS-CoV-2 by crafting a scientific statement condemning such inquiries as “conspiracy theory.”31,32

Letting Fauci off the hook is not an option, however. Like Daszak, Fauci has spent the last year denouncing the possibility that COVID-19 could be the result of a lab leak,33 all while knowing the kinds of research his agency funded there.34

He’s been a longtime defender and promoter of GoF research on animal viruses in general, saying while he was working on GoF with bird-flu viruses such research is worth the risk because it allows scientists to prepare for pandemics.35 However, this kind of research clearly has not improved governments’ pandemic responses one whit.

Fauci has also flip-flopped endlessly when it comes to mask recommendations, and helped suppress one of the most effective, safest and least expensive COVID-19 remedies, hydroxychloroquine, despite his knowledge of a 2005 study showing it’s an effective remedy against SARS coronavirus.36,37

The study was published in Virology Journal, which is the official publication of the NIH, so it’s hard to believe he was unaware of it. But rather than protect public health and save lives using hydroxychloroquine, Fauci promoted the ineffective, dangerous and expensive drug remdesivir and COVID-19 gene therapies instead.

Fauci also knew (and has admitted) that using a PCR test with a cycle threshold (CT) above 35 renders it useless because at that point, you’re just detecting dead nucleotides. No live virus can be detected at CTs that high.38 As early as March 2020, he knew up to 90% of positive PCR tests were false positives and that these people really weren’t sick,39 yet he said and did nothing.

Now, as COVID-19 vaccines are taking their toll, with vaccine injury reports that show they are possibly disabling and killing tens of thousands around the world, Fauci is defending the universal use of the shots and downplaying their lethality.

According to Fauci, deaths from the vaccines have to be “put into context with the population they occurred in.”40 What he’s referring to are cases where old people died shortly after receiving their COVID shots. Old people die, so therefore you shouldn’t blame it on the vaccine.

This is hypocrisy at its finest. When seniors die before vaccination, it’s due to COVID-19 and something must be done to prevent it, but when they die after vaccination, they die of natural causes and no preventive action is necessary. Fauci’s dismissal of vaccine deaths also overlooks the fact that many young, healthy people have reported serious adverse reactions or even died within hours or days of their vaccinations.41

Gain-of-Function Research Is the Real Threat

I believe GoF research cooperation and sharing between nations is such that blame will ultimately be shared by multiple parties. The key issue, really, if SARS-CoV-2 did in fact come from a lab, is how do we prevent another lab escape? And, if it turns out to have been a genetically manipulated virus, do we allow gain-of-function research to continue?

I believe the answer is to ban research that involves making pathogens more lethal to humans. As it stands, the same establishment that is drumming up panic by warning of the emergence of new, more infectious and dangerous variants is also busy creating them. They just never tell you about that part.

Already, scientists have figured out a way to mutate SARS-CoV-2 such that it evades human antibodies. Were this mutated virus to ever get out, we’d be in serious trouble. While mankind has created several outbreaks, nature seems to have a way of NOT mutating animal viruses into global killers. So, the hypocrisy needs to end.

World leaders need to realize that funding and defending gain-of-function research is the real threat here. I believe Fauci’s lies are a pathetic attempt to hide his agency’s involvement with GoF research that may have resulted in a global 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.

Notes

1 Daily Mail May 11, 2021

2 PNAS March 15, 2016; 113(11): 3048-3053

3 Nicholasblanton.com, Don’t Trust the Experts

4 Gateway Pundit April 2020, DHHS letter dated October 21, 2014

5, 6, 7 Daily Caller April 4, 2021

8, 10 NIAID August 27, 2020

9 EcoHealth Alliance August 27, 2020

11 MSNBC March 19, 2021

12 National Pulse May 15, 2021

13 Web Archive WIV research partners March 21, 2021

14 Web Archive WIV research partners March 22, 2021

15 Web Archive WIV research partners March 23, 2021

16, 17 Web Archive WIV Will SARS Come Back? December 4, 2015

18 USASpending.gov, Grant Summary

19 Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools, Project Number 1R01AI079231-01

20 GovTribe Cooperative Agreement AIDOAAA1400102

21, 25 Nature Medicine November 9, 2015; 21: 1508-1513

22, 26 Nature Medicine April 6, 2016

23 Organic Consumers Association August 26, 2020

24 YouTube May 18, 2020

27 Nature Research Reporting Standards

28 Nature Medicine 2020 volume 26, page1146

29 WHO.int Origins of the SARS-CoV-2 Virus

30 The Lancet October 10, 2020; 396(10257: 1102-1124

31 USRTK November 18, 2020

32 GM Watch November 19, 2020

33, 35 Newsweek April 28, 2020

34 Dr. Fauci’s COVID-19 Treachery October 19, 2020 (PDF)

36 Virology Journal 2005; 2: 69

37 Tradition in Action Fauci Knew About HCQ in 2005

38 Jon Rappoport’s Blog November 6, 2020

39 The Colorado Herald March 5, 2021

40 CNN January 19, 2021

41 Science, Public Health Policy and the Law Vol. 2:59-80 May 2021

Global Research Strives for Peace and Independent Thought

May 27th, 2021 by The Global Research Team

Dear Readers,

The world is changing – but whose voice is telling you how?

Global Research strives for peace. We act as a global platform for much needed debate and dialogue within the context of a very complex crisis. We need to stand together to find our way amid misled politicians and the suppression of independent thought.

We publish the writings of a wide variety of expert authors from all over the world. In turn, Global Research needs support from its readership to unravel the web of deceit and media disinformation being fed to the general public. With your help we can grow our readership and contribute to an awakening of the people in these divisive times.

The Global Research fundraiser is underway. Thank you for your continued support during this critical period. Help us reach our goal of  $25,000 so we can continue to cover our running costs, please click here to donate or become a member.

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation


Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans


Thank you for supporting independent media.

The Global Research Team

The Strategic Significance of the Syrian Elections

May 27th, 2021 by Andrew Korybko

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 Hybrid War of Terror on Syria isn’t yet fully over, but the country’s presidential elections nevertheless signify its victory. The entire purpose of that campaign was to forcefully remove President Assad from office, after which Syria would surrender its sovereignty to its neighbors, first and foremost “Israel” and Turkey.

The country’s infrastructure and economy have been devastated by the humanitarian crisis that this conflict provoked, yet the Syrian people still stand strong. Although there exist some among them who despise their leader, the vast majority of the Syrian people still proudly support him, in some cases even more now after ten years of war than they did at its onset. That’s because many of them eventually realized that this is about much more than him personally, but the future of their civilization-state.

As it stands, Syria is presently divided into three “spheres of influence” – the liberated majority of the country, the American-controlled eastern portion beyond the Euphrates River, and the sliver of Turkish-controlled territory along the northern border that also importantly includes Idlib. Syrians in the last two regions didn’t have the chance to exercise their democratic rights since the occupying authorities naturally prevented them from doing so. In fact, they’ve made it all but impossible to reunify the country since the military situation is such that the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) doesn’t want to risk a much larger war by attacking NATO forces there despite having the international legal right to expel the invaders. Resolving this dilemma will be among the top tasks facing President Assad during his next term seeing as how few doubt that he’ll win the elections.

I proposed some solutions in the analyses that I published back in February about how “Syria Should Talk With The US Since Its Iranian & Russian Allies Are Already Doing So” and “Balancing Regional Interests In Syria Is The Only Way To Reach A Compromise Solution”. In short, some form of decentralization granting broader political rights to the occupied regions might be a pragmatic means of resolving this dilemma, though of course, the devil is in the details so to speak. Iran’s military presence in the country, despite being legal and premised on fighting international terrorism there, is a major problem for the US. It’s unlikely that America will agree to any compromise solution so long as Iranian forces remain in Syria, but it’s also equally unlikely that Syria will ask them to leave, even through a phased but dignified withdrawal. Damascus depends on Tehran’s anti-terrorist support, and the Iranian presence also prevents Syria from falling under disproportionate Russian influence.

On the topic of Russian-Syrian relations, ties remain excellent and continue to diversify into other fields beyond the military one, but there hasn’t been as much progress on courting Russian businesses as Syria had hoped. The unilateral US sanctions regime acts as a powerful deterrent to reconstruction efforts, though these are unlikely to be lifted so long as Iranian military forces remain in the country. America seems to have realized that President Assad isn’t going anywhere since he genuinely enjoys tremendous grassroots support among the vast majority of his people so regime change no longer remains a viable policy option. Instead, the US will predictably seek to transition towards “regime tweaking”, or pressuring Syria to make certain political changes that accommodate American interests such as decentralization.

It’s unclear whether such a policy will succeed, especially remembering that Iran probably won’t be asked to withdraw from Syria, so observers can expect for this issue to remain unresolved for the indefinite future. That being the case, President Assad’s other top priority is to more comprehensively rebuild the liberated majority of the country. This will be difficult so long as the US’ unilateral sanctions regime and secondary sanctions threats remain in place, but progress could prospectively be achieved through a combination of Russian, Iranian, Chinese, and Emirati efforts. So long as their companies have the will to face possible American sanctions, which is admittedly questionable, they’ll be able to help rebuild Syria. As an incentive, Damascus could offer them preferential partnerships, but this still might not be enough for some of them to take that risk.

It’s indeed possible for there to be no political or economic breakthroughs in Syria anytime soon, in which case the country will continue to struggle but nevertheless continue making gradual progress in a positive direction. The only real security threats that remain come from ISIS sleeper cells, mostly outside the most populated areas judging by recent reports about their attacks. This will always be a problem and probably won’t ever be fully resolved considering the nature of the threat itself. Even so, the Syrian intelligence agencies and their allies will continue to infiltrate and dismantle such groups, but some will always evade detection until it’s too late. That, however, shouldn’t represent any considerable obstacle to Syria’s gradual reconstruction, but highly publicized attacks might dissuade all but the bravest international investors.

Another priority of President Assad’s next term in office will be encouraging his compatriots who fled over the past decade to return home and help rebuild their country. Some will decide not to if they retain political grievances or committed war crimes of course, but it’s expected that more Syrians will eventually move back over the coming years. The state will therefore have to continue supporting this special category of citizens, made all the more difficult by the never-ending economic crises caused by the US’ unilateral sanctions regime, but it also has a lot to gain in the sphere of soft power so it’ll probably do its best in this respect in order to show the world that the situation is normalizing. With time, and combined with possible investment incentives amid continually improving security, Syria might be able to turn the tide on its economic crisis.

Returning back to the lead-in topic of this analysis, the strategic significance of the Syrian elections, it can be said that they represent a new phase of normalization there. The last ones in 2014 took place during the worsening war, but this time everything is comparatively much better. The Western Mainstream Media will continue to delegitimize the Syrians’ exercise of their democratic rights, but policymakers will pragmatically realize that it’s a dead-end for them to continue agitating for regime change. Syria might even eventually repair some of its political relations with certain Western countries, not right away of course, but with time. Its political and economic challenges will likely remain unresolved for a while, but even so, the world should realize that Syria emerged victorious in the decade-long Hybrid War of Terror and that better days are surely ahead.

*

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 SANA

Gaza: The Epicentre of Resistance

May 27th, 2021 by Michael Jansen

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.

***

Once again the international community is faced with the problem of rebuilding Gaza after an 11-day bout of bombings and rocket exchanges which have left 248 Palestinians dead,1,900 wounded, and reduced to rubble the strip’s infrastructure and commercial and residential buildings.  The UN is calling for billions of dollars to pay for reconstruction. Following the devastating 59-day 2014 Israeli assault on Gaza, the UN appealed for $5.4 billion but received only about half, leaving large areas of the strip partially reconstructed.

The Biden administration has promised aid but has been tight-fisted when reverting to Donald Trump’s cancelled funding for UNRWA, the agency providing for 5 million Palestinian refugees, and projects in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. Josip Borrell, the high representative of the European Union, the largest donor to Palestinian relief, has expressed exasperation over the failure of world leaders to address the causes of the conflict which produces round after round of violence and destruction in Gaza.  However, as Israel’s main trading partner, the EU would be in a strong position to sanction Israel over its disproportionately devasting assaults on Gaza.

The UN estimates that at least 77,000 Palestinians have been rendered homeless by Israeli air strikes that collapsed scores of apartment blocks, damaged others, and destroyed roads.  Half a dozen hospitals, the COVID-19 testing centre, and 11 clinics were damaged, electricity lines were brought down, and nearly half of Gaza’s two million inhabitants lack potable water because desalination plants cannot function without power. Gaza’s aquifers have long been polluted by sea water,sewage and agricultural run-off.

Fabrizio Cabroni, regional director for the International Committee of the Red Cross, predicted that the damage inflicted in the 11 days of Israeli bombing and shelling “will take years if not decades to rebuild”.

This is the case because Israel is unlikely to lift its siege and blockade of Gaza to allow cement and other construction materials into the strip.  Following the devastation wreaked by Israel in 2008-09 and 2014, Israel, which controls the sole goods crossing into Gaza, permitted only UN and a few other humanitarian agencies to import essential reconstruction material into the strip and imposed bureaucratic procedures which complicated and delayed shipments.  The pretext Israel gives for this policy is that it does not want to provide Hamas with material to renew its arsenal of rockets.

Reconstruction after the 2008-09 Israeli onslaught proceeded more quickly than in the 2012 and 2014 attacks because Gazans were able to import cement, fuel and other essentials as well as consumer goods through the 1,500 smuggling tunnels between Rafah, in the south of the strip and Egypt.  However, Egypt destroyed the tunnels between 2011-13, after the Arab Spring uprisings. This harmed both the people of Gaza and the North Sinai bedouin who depended on the smuggling business and may have contributed to their protracted armed revolt against Cairo.

The tunnels gave Gaza partial normalcy. I visited a tunnel for goods and another bringing fuel.  Since they were destroyed, Gazans have been totally dependent on Israel, which operates the sole goods crossing, for imports and intermittently reliant on Egypt for an Arab exit from the besieged and blockaded strip. For a decade, Gazans have been trapped and subjected to the whims and political calculations of Israel’s increasingly right-wing leaders and an Egyptian government determined to prevent or bring to an end to explosions in Gaza.

Although the “two state solution” involving the emergence of a Palestinian state alongside Israel remains, theoretically, on the international agenda, Israel has done its utmost to prevent this from becoming reality by planting colonies throughout the West Bank and East Jerusalem and cultivating division between Hamas-ruled Gaza and the Fateh-administered West Bank. This division dissolved temporarily during the May onslaught on Gaza as did the separation between Palestinian citizens of Israel and stateless Palestinians in the 1967 occupied territories. Since Palestinian unity was the last thing Israel thought would emerge during this bout of violence, Palestinians must do their utmost to sustain it.

In the absence of the “two-state solution”, there must be new thinking on how to achieve a modicum of development and comfort for all Palestinians living in the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River and Gaza, in particular.

UNRWA head Philippe Lazzarini said reconstruction in Gaza has to proceed along with efforts to create “a different sort of political environment” focusing on proper access to education, jobs and livelihoods.  This is essential but cannot be achieved unless Israel lifts the siege and blockade of the strip and its 2 million inhabitants.  This should be the first and foremost objective of the powers who have influence with Israel, notably the US and Western European countries.

Although Israel argues that isolating Gaza prevents Hamas from importing weaponry and the means to mount attacks on Israel, all the eruptions of violence since 2008 have shown that Hamas is able to obtain the material to manufacture crude rockets as well as secure other weapons while Gaza has been under Israeli control from land, sea and air.  Therefore, the siege and blockade are pointless from this perspective and only punish the population — which is what Israel aims to do because, since Israel’s creation in 1948, Gaza has been the epicentre of resistance. It is all too clear that this policy has been counterproductive and should be abandoned.

*

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 housing the offices of Associated Press and other media collapses after Israeli airstrike, Gaza City, May 15, 2021. (Source: Indian Punchline)

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Although the West has waged 10 years of war on Syria, and there is much destruction, the entire country isn’t in ruins and the pulse of life continues, albeit strangled by brutal Western sanctions.

After Eastern Ghouta’s liberation in 2018, the Western media predictably went silent on the return of internally displaced Syrians and the rebuilding that had occurred. Today, in towns in the region outside the capital Damascus, behind dusty, battered metal shop shutters, I saw glossy new windows and even more rebuilding than I had when I was here in 2018.

In Douma, I saw lovely, smiling children, excited to practise their English with me. Given that they were born during the war and lived under the horrifically savage rule of the rebel groups Jaysh al-Islam and Faylaq al-Rahman, and their co-terrorists, their exuberance was remarkable. The traumas they endured they have either deeply buried within or miraculously healed from.

Since both the media and leaders in the West made such a big deal over the Douma chemical hoax, it was particularly rewarding to see life in the streets again.

Syrians in Eastern Ghouta were put through a hell that most of us, living safely far from war, cannot begin to fathom. I had seen their tortured faces shortly after their liberation in 2018. That made seeing them smiling, dancing, and celebrating the presidential elections today incredibly moving. The difference between then and now was like night and day.

Some were surprised when I posted videos on social media of a Syrian singer and orchestra performing at the Damascus Opera House two nights ago. Many assume the country has been completely destroyed, others are just unaware that it has a rich culture that hasn’t died, in spite of a decade-long war waged by the West.

Until the liberation, however, Syrians in Damascus risked being maimed or killed every time they went to work, to school, to the market, or even while they remained at home, when terrorist mortars and missiles rained down from Eastern Ghouta.

Back in 2014, leaving behind the hospitality of the small hotel I was staying in near the gate of Bab Sharqi, the Old City’s East Gate, I drifted over to a cluster of tables across from the beautiful Zaitoun Greek Orthodox cathedral and beside a closed restaurant. But instead of working on my laptop, as I’d intended, I ended up getting into a conversation with the owner of that restaurant, now called the Abu Zolouf bar.

As Abu Shadi and I spoke, terrorist-fired mortars fell in nearby districts. I wrote at the time:

As it happened, I got two of four mortars on audio. The first occurred around 7:05 pm, which Abu Shadi estimated to be 200 metres away. His friend corrected him saying it was only 50 metres away (also about 20 metres from my hotel). Roughly 10 minutes later, the second mortar. There were two other mortars within half an hour. SANA news reported the injury of 17 civilians.”

Our conversation became about the incessant shelling, where the latest mortar had fallen, and his near-death experience with one.

Two times mortars landed outside my restaurant. One would have killed me, but I went inside just before,” he said, pointing to a spot on the ground next to the door. He lamented the loss of business as much as the threat posed by the mortars.

The other night, I visited the restaurant with a friend. Seeing Abu Shadi, we sat down with him and chatted about those days. Now, his hostelry is open and well frequented, guests sitting under light-strung olive trees enjoying the early summer evenings.

RT

© Eva Bartlett

Also in 2014, one afternoon, wishing to escape the blazing sun, I leaned against the wall encircling the Old City, looking towards Jobar, then occupied by terrorist factions, roughly a kilometer away. As I wrote at the time, while I chatted with a friend, “bullets whizzed past me, half a meter to my right, to my left. Everyone in the vicinity jumped up and ran, most looking panicked. We ran for about 50 meters, to a point which was apparently out of the terrorists’ range. One woman, hyperventilating and unable to stand, took a good 10 minutes to calm down, repeatedly making the sign of the cross as she wheezed. Later, I chatted with a man selling spinach patties, mentioning that I was surprised the bullets had reached the point where I’d been sitting. ‘They reach as far as here,’ he said, from his hole-in-the-wall bakery another 200 metres from where I’d been sitting.

My encounters with mortars and their victims were many over the years, including seeing numerous children maimed and with critical injuries from the terrorists’ shelling, many ancient Damascene houses partially destroyed by it.

RT

Douma, Syria, April 2018 © Eva Bartlett

In 2018, I interviewed the supremely talented violinist and composer, Raad Khalaf, who is also a founder of the all-women Mari Orchestra. Afterwards, we chatted and he mentioned that the shelling had reached the Higher Institute of Dramatic Arts where he taught, near the Opera House.

He told me that the year prior, terrorists had attacked the area with some 37 bombs in one day.

The students had to stay inside for eight hours – you couldn’t go outside because we didn’t know when or where the next bomb would fall. One student went outside and was killed. Here we lived five difficult years.

On Monday this week, I went to the Opera House to hear Syrian singer Carmen Tockmaji and the orchestra accompanying her perform. The auditorium was only half-full but lively, everyone evidently enjoying the singer’s talents.

I was surprised to learn later that a front-row ticket cost just 2,000 Syrian pounds (80 US cents), a second-class ticket 1,500 (60 US cents), and a third class ticket 1,000 (40 US cents). Nonetheless, despite the low price, Syria’s poorest can’t afford this, largely because of the brutal sanctions on the country that decisively affected the currency, causing hyperinflation – an intended consequence of the cruel and immoral sanctions leveled against the Syrian people.

I wrote last year (and before) about how these sanctions directly affect civilians:

On June 17, the US implemented the Caesar Act, America’s latest round of draconian sanctions against the Syrian people, to ‘protect’ them, it claims. This, after years of bombing civilians and providing support to anti-government militants, leading to the proliferation of terrorists who kidnap, imprison, torture, maim, and murder the same civilians. Sanctions have impacted Syria’s ability to import medicines or the raw materials needed to manufacture them, medical equipment, and the machines and materials needed to manufacture prosthetic limbs, among other things.”

But sanctions have yet another brutal effect: they wreak havoc on the economy. A May 3, 2021 opinion piece by Abbey Makoe on the website of the South African Broadcasting Corporation noted:

Electricity rationing in Syria has reached its highest levels due to the government’s inability to secure the fuel needed to generate electricity. This is mainly due to the damaging international economic sanctions led by the Western powers, including the IIT [Investigation and Identification Team of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] protagonists France, UK and the US. The value of the Syrian pound has crumbled to almost nothing. The Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2019 … is credited with bringing about starvation, darkness, plague, misery, robbery, kidnappings, increased mortality rate and the certain destruction of a nation that was once a beacon of hope across the Middle East.”

The misery is real, and Syrians are indeed suffering, many unable even to feed their families properly.

Speaking of Opera House performances may seem trite in light of the economic suffering, but the fact that productions such as this do still occur in Syria is another indication that the West’s change-of-government project has failed, despite its10 years of waging war in Syria.

Seeing this concert just before the presidential elections was moving and poignant. As Carlos Tebecherani Haddad, a Syrian-Brazilian friend I met in 2014 when mortars were raining down around us, wrote: “Celebrating life, victory over foreign aggression, rebuilding, the strength of Syrian roots, presidential elections and the bright future of the Syrian nation.

That indeed is what I’ve seen in Syria, including today in Douma, where Syrians amassed to vote. Yet there is much to be done, particularly when it comes to rebuilding the infrastructure – especially as oh-so-benevolent America and its allies, in sanctioning the Syrian people, are directly preventing this.

So, if you’re still pointing a finger at the president and the army, turn that finger back at your governments, ye in the West. They are the cause of the destruction and death in Syria, and they hinder an otherwise achievable return to peace and normality.

*

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

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

Featured image: Celebrations for the Syrian presidential elections in Douma, eastern Ghouta, Syria, May 26, 2021 © Eva Bartlett

US Maritime Bullying Targets “Ally” India

May 27th, 2021 by Joseph Thomas

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Maritime Bullying Targets “Ally” India
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New Zealand Refuses to Accuse China of “Genocide”

Tulsa Commemorates Centenary of 1921 Race Massacre

By Abayomi Azikiwe, May 27, 2021

Previously coined as the “Tulsa Riot”, was in actuality a full-scale assault on the rights of African Americans to live in peace and stability in the United States. During the course of a two-day rampage by gangs of armed white men accompanied by the police and National Guard, it is estimated that 300 African Americans were killed.

Chloroquine Is a Potent Inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus Infection and Spread

By Martin J Vincent, Eric Bergeron, and et al., May 27, 2021

We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.

The ‘Great Reset’: A Technocratic Agenda that Waited Years for a Global Crisis to Exploit

By Tim Hinchliffe, May 27, 2021

In the face of a global pandemic, an un-elected body of global bureaucrats based in Davos, Switzerland has asked the world to trust its vision of a technocratic “great reset,” knowing full well the public would never go for such a request had it not been for the golden opportunity they’d all been waiting for.

China: Towards Capitalist Restoration. Michel Chossudovsky

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 26, 2021

I started reviewing Chinese economic history including the structures of the factory system prior to 1949, the development of the treaty ports established in the wake of the Opium wars (1842) and came to the realization that what was being reinstated in terms of the special economic zones, the open door policy had been influenced by the history of the treaty ports, which granted extraterritorial rights to Britain, France, Germany, the US, Russia and Japan.

Why the EU Sides Against China

By Manlio Dinucci, May 26, 2021

On May 20 the European Parliament froze the ratification of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment. The agreement was signed by the European Commission after seven years of negotiations last December. The resolution was approved by an overwhelming majority:  599 votes in favor, 30 against and 58 abstentions.

The FDA Cover-up that Led to the Approval of the Pfizer Vaccine

By Jon Rappoport, May 26, 2021

The document, posted on the FDA website, is titled, “Vaccines and Related Biological Products; Advisory Committee Meeting; FDA Briefing Document Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.” It is dated December 10, 2020. The date tells us that all the information in the document is taken from the Pfizer clinical trial, based on which the FDA authorized the vaccine for public use.

Bombshell Video, Leaked Documents Detail How Facebook Censors Vaccine Facts When They Don’t Fit CDC, Big Pharma Narrative

By Megan Redshaw, May 26, 2021

Investigative journalist James O’Keefe from Project Veritas on Monday released a bombshell video of two Facebook insiders blowing the whistle on the tech giant’s effort to secretly censor — on a global scale — COVID vaccine questions and concerns. The Facebook whistleblowers alleged the company is pushing an initiative to censor vaccine hesitancy on its platform.

India: Vaccine Drive in Uttar Pradesh Goes Awry, Villagers Jump into River to Evade Jab

By ummid.com, May 26, 2021

Despite a sustained campaign and widespread publicity, vaccine hesitancy continues to prevail in the rural hinterlands of Uttar Pradesh where the pandemic is spreading its tentacles. In Sisoda village in Barabanki — where a group of residents jumped into the Saryu river to evade vaccination on Sunday — the residents remain firm in their decision of not getting the jab.

The Accelerating Destruction of Earth’s Biodiversity: When Will We Act?

By Robert J. Burrowes, May 26, 2021

In their report compiled in 2017, Professors Gerardo Ceballos, Paul R. Ehrlich & Rodolfo Dirzo recorded that Earth continues to experience ‘a huge episode of population declines and extirpations, which will have negative cascading consequences on ecosystem functioning and services vital to sustaining civilization.

America Dominant Again (in Arms Sales)

By William Hartung, May 26, 2021

n April of this year, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) published its annual analysis of trends in global arms sales and the winner — as always — was the U.S. of A. Between 2016 and 2020, this country accounted for 37% of total international weapons deliveries, nearly twice the level of its closest rival, Russia, and more than six times that of Washington’s threat du jour, China.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The ‘Great Reset’: A Technocratic Agenda that Waited Years for a Global Crisis to Exploit

Tulsa Commemorates Centenary of 1921 Race Massacre

May 27th, 2021 by Abayomi Azikiwe

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.

***

May 31-June 1 represents the 100th anniversary of the attack by white mobs against an entire African American community in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

This somber centenary is being marked with numerous press reports and television segments about a racist massacre which has been largely hidden since the 1920s.

Previously coined as the “Tulsa Riot”, was in actuality a full-scale assault on the rights of African Americans to live in peace and stability in the United States. During the course of a two-day rampage by gangs of armed white men accompanied by the police and National Guard, it is estimated that 300 African Americans were killed.

In addition to the murders, hundreds of families had their homes, churches, fraternal organizations and small businesses destroyed. The belongings of the victims were stolen by the white mobs and authorities while several hundreds Black people were unlawfully detained for several days in the aftermath of the massacre.

The Greenwood Business District in Tulsa was largely owned and operated by African Americans. The educator and founder of Tuskegee Institute, Booker T. Washington, had labelled Greenwood Street and adjacent areas in Tulsa as “Black Wall Street” due to the proliferation of African American owned businesses. Washington in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was a proponent of Black business development as a means to overcome national oppression.

Of course, Washington’s views were challenged on a political and ideological level by African American leaders such as Dr. W.E.B. DuBois, Monroe Trotter, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, among others. Nonetheless, the targeting of an entire community based on false allegations of an assault against a Caucasian woman in a department store elevator, prompted shock and outrage within the Black community during the early 1920s.

Tulsa African American church burned in race massacre of 1921 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

The Tulsa massacre occurred within an historical context where lynching, false imprisonment and capital punishment were directed towards containing the African American people. Any efforts aimed at creating a semi-independent existence away from the total domination by the racist system were often attacked through mob violence.

Although “separate but equal” and Jim Crow were enshrined within the legal framework of the U.S. by the close of the 19th century, Blacks were not allowed to build any institutions which would threaten the total domination of the nationally oppressive system of racism and super-exploitation.

Tulsa Finally Recognizes Race Massacre

Within Tulsa and surrounding areas, the centenary is being promoted even within the corporate media. There are reports that President Joe Biden will visit Tulsa in order to participate in the events surrounding the commemoration.

An article reprinted in USA Today from the Oklahoman newspaper says of the anniversary events that:

“President Joe Biden will visit Tulsa on June 1 to mark the centennial of the Tulsa Race Massacre, according to the White House.  Biden’s visit will cap off a long weekend full of events, speakers and concerts to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the tragedy that marks one of the lowest points in Oklahoma history. Last week, voting rights activist and Georgia politician Stacey Abrams was announced as the keynote speaker at the ‘Remember & Rise’ Tulsa Race Massacre Centennial commemoration event.”

This presence by the president of the U.S. represents a departure from the official denial that the incident never took place within Oklahoman history. The events of 1921 were not recognized by the educational institutions in the state and therefore were never taught for many decades in schools or universities.

There have also been other attempts to minimize and trivialize the magnitude of the massacre and the destruction of property. Reports of the use of airplanes to drop incendiary devices on homes, churches and businesses were denied officially up until recently.

Two Known Survivors Speak on the Events of 1921

The broader knowledge and understanding of the race massacre in Tulsa during May-June 1921 has provided a platform for survivors to discuss their recollections of events. One survivor, who is said to be the oldest at 107, Ms. Viola Fletcher, testified before a panel in the U.S. Congress during May.

Fletcher said that she was seven years old at the time of the massacre. She noted that the memories are still quite vivid. She said that this had been her first time visiting the capital of the U.S. and that justice for the victims and their descendants was imperative.

A quote from Fletcher in her speech before Congress said:

“I will never forget the violence of the white mob when we left our home. I still see Black men being shot, Black bodies lying in the street. I still smell smoke and see fire. I still see Black businesses being burned. I still hear airplanes flying overhead. I hear the screams. I have lived through the massacre every day.”

Archaeologists and forensic scientists have been examining an area in Tulsa where mass burials of victims took place. Over the last year more information on the location and the examination of the burial site has been published in various press agencies.

The existence of mass graves has been denied as well by Oklahoman authorities. Fortunately, the oral history of the survivors provided a guide to finding the location of the massacre victims.

During her testimony before Congress, Fletcher also emphasized:

“Our country may forget this history, but I cannot. I will not and other survivors do not, and our descendants do not. When my family was forced to leave Tulsa, I lost my chance of an education. I never finished school past the fourth grade. I have never made much money. My country, state and city took a lot from me. Despite this, I spent time supporting the war effort in the shipyards of California. But most of my life, I was a domestic worker serving white families. I never made much money. To this day, I can barely afford my everyday needs. All the while the city of Tulsa has unjustly used the names and stories of victims like me to enrich itself and its white allies through the $30m raised by the Tulsa Centennial Commission while I continue to live in poverty.”

Another survivor, Lessie Evelyn Benningfield Randle, 106, spoke to Congress noting:

“It means a lot to me to finally be able to look at you all in the eye and ask you to do the right thing. I have waited so long for justice.”

The survivors were given a standing ovation by members of Congress present in the room. Yet the demand for reparations over the last two decades has not been met by the State of Oklahoma or the U.S. government which today is profiting from the broad interest in the massacre of a century ago.

Tulsa African Americans taken into custody after their community was destroyed in 1921 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Oklahoma Governor Removed from Tulsa Centennial Commission

There is a struggle unfolding again within the U.S. over how to teach or ignore the legacies of racism and national oppression. Several states such as Oklahoma have passed legislation banning what they describe as “critical race theory” from being taught in K-12 educational institutions. Other states such as Louisiana and Georgia are developing legislation in order to ban the teaching of the actual history and social development of the U.S.

This is not a new development since the advent of African American, Black and Pan-African Studies in K-12 and higher education resulted from a political struggle waged by people since at least the 1960s. The notion of “critical race theory” can be defined by the capitalist class and right-wing politicians as anything they deemed to be undesirable. Documented scholarship on the origins, character and social impact of African enslavement along with racist violence, such as the Tulsa massacre, could be prohibited from discussion in these states.

When Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, a ceremonial member of the Tulsa Centennial Commission, signed into law the bill that outlaws the teaching of social studies which does not glorify white supremacist mythology about the U.S., other members of the body voted to have him removed. The ultimate logic of these laws would in essence prohibit an honest evaluation of the events of 1921 in Tulsa.

The history of African and other oppressed peoples in the U.S. has been one of exploitation and state-sanctioned violence designed to suppress the struggle for equality, self-determination and liberation. Although the Tulsa race massacre been exposed for the world to see, the ultimate objective is to remove the system that continues to oppress and exploit the people of color communities in the U.S.

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Tulsa fires burn during race massacre of May-June 1921 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Video: War-torn Syria Takes to the Voting Polls

May 27th, 2021 by South Front

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

In Iraq, attacks on various US positions are becoming the norm, rather than incidents that seldom take place.

IED attacks on American convoys are simply an everyday occurrence now.

On May 24th, rockets were fired at Ain Al Asad Air Base in western Iraq’s Anbar province.

According to the spokesman for Operation Inherent Resolve, one rocket was fired. Some other sources reported their number was at least 5.

No casualties or damages were reported.

The attack took place two days after the Iraqi Resistance coordination room had issued a statement threatening the US forces of resuming attacks.

May 23rd, just one day before the attack, 6 US logistical convoys were reportedly targeted with roadside bombs in various regions of Iraq.

The explosions were reported in Babylon, Aldewanea, Alsmewa, Alnasrea and Basrah regions.

The attacks on US supply convoys and facilities in Iraq are a response to the assassination of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, Deputy-Commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Units, and Commander of Iran’s Quds Force, Qassim Soleimani.

In neighboring Syria, the situation appears calm, as citizens take to the voting polls in the presidential election.

On May 26, 12,102 election centers opened in all provinces for Syrian citizens, as the number of eligible voters registered inside and abroad Syria has reached more than 18 million.

There are three candidates: Abdullah Abdullah, Bashar al-Assad and Mahmoud Mar’ai.

The US, UK, France, Germany and Italy released a statement claiming Syria’s elections are “neither free nor fair.”

Their foreign ministers said the elections should be put under UN supervision “to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability.”

Their joint statement reads that all Syrians should be able to participate in the voting process, including Syrian refugees living abroad.

The al-Qaeda-affiliated “moderate opposition” slammed the elections as “illegitimate”. The Istanbul-based “Syrian National Council” said that the only acceptable elections were those in which Bashar al-Assad didn’t take part.

Still, the ability to hold elections in most of the country and establish some sort of normalcy is a result of the efforts of the Syrian Arab Army and its Russian support. Including measures for containing ISIS, and the “moderate opposition” in Greater Idlib and the northern parts of the country.

Despite efforts to rebrand terrorists such as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, the situation is slowly but steadily normalizing in Syria. Some refugees are returning to their homeland, and certain parts of the country have already been rebuilt. A lot of problems remain, of course, but the overall trajectory is a positive one.

*

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.

***

This article was originally published on Virology Journal in 2005.

Abstract

Background

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.

Results

We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.

Conclusion

Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.

Read the full article here.

*

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

Full authors

Martin J VincentEric BergeronSuzanne BenjannetBobbie R EricksonPierre E RollinThomas G KsiazekNabil G SeidahStuart T Nichol

Featured image is from InfoBrics

First published in November 2020

In the face of a global pandemic, an un-elected body of global bureaucrats based in Davos, Switzerland has asked the world to trust its vision of a technocratic “great reset,” knowing full well the public would never go for such a request had it not been for the golden opportunity they’d all been waiting for.

When the head of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Klaus Schwab, announced in June that “Now is the time for a great reset,” it wasn’t the first time he called for it.

In fact, he called on the WEF to start the great reset over five years ago (see video below), but this year he’s saying that COVID-19 is the most urgent reason to restructure all of society and the global economy.

The great reset agenda was already in place long before the coronavirus pandemic, and the WEF was just waiting for a crisis to exploit it.

Prior to this year, implementing worldwide lockdowns that destroy businesses, wreck the economy, and leave people destitute and stripped of their constitutional rights while trying to enact invasive contact tracing, immunity passports, and otherwise massive bio-electronic surveillance apparatuses would never have been accepted by the citizens of a free society

The so-called great reset is an old ideology touted for decades by globalists like Henry Kissinger, who opined in 2014, “Never before has a new world order had to be assembled from so many different perceptions, or on so global a scale.”

The great reset is the proposed mechanism for setting in motion a new global order, but it wouldn’t be possible to bring forth such a bold plan without a global crisis, be it manufactured or of unfortunate happenstance, that shocks society to its core.

“The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future” — Klaus Schwab, WEF

In this story, I will attempt to dissect:

  • What types of invasive surveillance technologies will be required by the great reset
  • Why the great reset is being re-branded and pushed in 2020
  • How the Davos crowd is trying to sell the great reset Utopia
  • Who will be asked to give up their privacy for the common good
  • When humans become hackable
  • Where you have the power to choose

With the arrival of the coronavirus pandemic, the WEF has the perfect excuse to quickly enact its vision for steering society towards a more invasive and intrusive, technocratic future in the name of serving the common good.

The un-elected architects of the great reset envision a Utopian world of inclusivity, equality, and sustainability that will require trust in emerging technologies like AI, 5G, Blockchain, and robotics, in order to usher in their golden dawn.

WEF Great Reset Agenda

Great Reset Will Require Trust in Invasive Surveillance Tech: WEF Promotes Health Passports & Contact Tracing

In order to bring about the great reset, it will require trust in the technology, and to be more specific, the WEF would like to have greater trust in “crisis-relevant tech,” which includes developing digital health passports and contact tracing, under a new form of internet governance.

“The use of digital technology during the COVID-19 crisis offers clear lessons […] Target mistrust broadly to enable specific crisis-relevant tech” — Daniel Dobrygowski, WEF

“The Great Reset will require new institutions and business models, and new digital technologies to build them,” wrote the WEF Head of Corporate Governance and Trust, Daniel Dobrygowski, in a blog post. “The necessary collaboration, however, is only possible if we solve the digital trust problem,” he added.

According to the Dobrygowski, “The use of digital technology during the COVID-19 crisis offers clear lessons,” one of those being, “Target mistrust broadly to enable specific crisis-relevant tech.”

The WEF openly supports the development of so-called “crisis-relevant tech” as evidenced by its backing the development of health passports, which act as digital records of your health status to determine whether or not you are free to travel or even go outside.

Earlier this year the WEF announced it was supporting the development and launch of CommonPass— a platform whose mission is “to develop and launch a standard global model to enable people to securely document and present their COVID-19 status (either as test results or an eventual vaccination status) to facilitate international travel and border crossing while keeping their health information private.”

“Contact tracing apps can be powerful weapons against the virus – but they can also be tools for state surveillance” — WEF report

The WEF also lent its support to another health passport initiative called CovidPass, which was built by one of the WEF’s own “Young Global Leaders,” Mustapha Mokass, who used to be an advisor at the World Bank.

CovidPass “uses blockchain technology to store encrypted data from individual blood tests, allowing users to prove that they have tested negative for COVID-19.”

In supporting both CommonPass and CovidPass, the Davos elite have made it clear they want “crisis-relevant tech” like health passports to be part of the great reset solution.

Ask yourself, would the idea of being forced to electronically prove your current health status in order to travel or even leave your own home have been acceptable 10 months ago?

Why is this happening now?

The die was cast years ago, but only now do the Davos elite see a shrinking, yet golden opportunity, to create a new world order out of the coronavirus chaos.

COVID Presents a ‘Shrinking, Golden Opportunity’, Great Reset Is Not a Response to the Coronavirus

In June Prince Charles praised the great reset agenda for its potential to “make people more receptive to big visions of change” after having suffered through “unprecedented schockwaves.”

“We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis — its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change,” the prince told the WEF.

Would the idea of being forced to electronically prove your current health status in order to travel or even leave your own home have been acceptable 10 months ago?

Prince Charles may have let on more than he cared to share, or thought you would notice. Again, he’s telling you that the great reset was always the plan. COVID-19 is the excuse.

In other words, the coronavirus crisis presents a golden opportunity for the global establishment to further its agenda upon a frightful and angry population that has been so beaten down by the pandemic and subsequent lockdowns that they will have become more susceptible to giving over their freedoms to the idea of greater centralized power and control.

Prince Charles went on, “As we move from rescue to recovery, we have a unique but rapidly shrinking window of opportunity to learn lessons and reset ourselves on a more sustainable path. It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again.”

“We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis — its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change” — Prince Charles

The British royal’s words echo those of WEF Director Schwab, who said, “The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future.”

Again, why is the window of opportunity so narrow? Could the seeds of their grand strategy only flower while the world was distracted and divided amidst the chaos?

The Lure of Utopia Has Many Hooks: Giving Up Privacy & Freedom for the Common Good

Prior to this year, implementing worldwide lockdowns that destroy businesses, wreck the economy, and leave people destitute and stripped of their constitutional rights while trying to enact invasive contact tracing, immunity passports, and otherwise massive bio-electronic surveillance apparatuses would never have been accepted by the citizens of a free society.

But the coronavirus pandemic has opened a “narrow window” for a “golden opportunity,” and once this crisis is over, the Davos club fears that the window may be shut forever.

The WEF admits in its own contact tracing governance framework that “Contact tracing apps can be powerful weapons against the virus – but they can also be tools for state surveillance.”

Yet, the WEF believes that people should balance certain freedoms to serve the common good. It is a global vision without a clear end, and it is one that flies in the face of constitutional republics that protect certain unalienable rights.

“This new mindset would balance concerns over privacy and other issues with the potential to create value and improve lives” — WEF report

According to the WEF framework, enacting contact tracing technology would “not be easy and will require a new social consensus that embraces the use of technology to resolve problems for the good of all.”

Additionally, “This new mindset would balance concerns over privacy and other issues with the potential to create value and improve lives.”

In order to enact invasive technologies upon the population, citizens of the world will have to realize that it’s for the greater good and that they should change their mindsets to be less concerned about “privacy and other issues” and more excited about “the potential to create value and improve lives.”

The great reset “will require stronger and more effective governments […] and it will demand private-sector engagement every step of the way” — Klaus Schwab, WEF

Just about every proponent of contact tracing and health passports, including the WEF, all declare that technology should be used and governed ethically, but you hardly see any mention of winning the consent of the people.

Instead, they lobby stakeholders and policymakers to carry the torch in imparting the global vision from the top of the capstone and on-down.

“As we move from rescue to recovery, we have a unique but rapidly shrinking window of opportunity to learn lessons and reset ourselves on a more sustainable path. It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again” — Prince Charles

If the coronavirus were to disappear from the earth today, would the WEF have to wait for a new global crisis, or would it push-on with the same reset agenda, regardless?

According to the WEF director, the great reset “will require stronger and more effective governments […] and it will demand private-sector engagement every step of the way.”

“The world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions,” he added. “We must build entirely new foundations for our economic and social systems.”

In creating order out of the coronavirus chaos, the great reset promises to bring about “a more secure, more equal, and more stable world.”

Is that how they plan to win our trust? By promising us a Utopia if we just go along with it?

Bio-Electronic Surveillance and Hackable Humans

We haven’t even gotten into how the great reset would affect the world’s money system and the role of blockchain and digital payments, but when you look at digital health passports and contact tracing apps, you are looking at sophisticated form of bio-electronic surveillance that the world has never been seen before.

“We are no longer mysterious souls; we are now hackable animals” — Yuval Harari, WEF

When you combine biological data with advanced computing power, what you get is the ability to hack humans.

Speaking in Davos over the past few years, historian Yuval Harari has stated that “organisms are algorithms” and that “new technologies will soon give some corporations and governments the ability to hack human beings.”

“The power to hack human beings can of course be used for good purposes like provided much better healthcare,” said Harari, adding, “but if this power falls into the hands of a 21st Century Stalin, the result will be the worst totalitarian regime in human history, and we already have a number of applicants for the job of 21st Century Stalin.”

“In Stalin’s USSR the State monitored members of the Communist elite more than anyone else. The same will be true of future total surveillance regimes.”

The great reset calls to restructure every aspect of society, and it can only do so if people trust the increasingly invasive, bio-electronic surveillance technology they wish to deploy.

“In Stalin’s USSR the State monitored members of the Communist elite more than anyone else. The same will be true of future total surveillance regimes” — Yuval Harari, WEF

The more people know that someone is watching them, the more they will change their behavior. Just being aware that someone is monitoring your every digital transaction, will cause you to conform to certain norms.

As a population grows-up under massive surveillance, it will adapt its behavior to appear normal to society but compliant to authority. Over time, the citizens will police themselves out of fear.

Take a look at Communist China’s surveillance state, and you will see what I mean.

The WEF Wants to Win Your Trust, You Have a Choice

Tyranny arrives in subtle stages. It’s slow at first, but before you realize it even exists, it has already won.

That is what I see happening with the unholy merger of “the great reset” with “the new normal.”

Those who pull the strings have been begging for a global crisis to unleash their worldwide restructuring of society and the economy.

This year, in the face of a global pandemic, an un-elected body of global lobbyists based in Davos, Switzerland has asked you to have faith in their vision of a technocratic Utopia, knowing full well they could never issue such a request had it not been for the golden opportunity they had all been waiting for.

And that is where your power lies, dear reader. It’s your choice.

You can believe the WEF vision shared by some of the world’s most influential bureaucrats, or you can be skeptical of the whole establishment agenda that asks you to just trust the plan.

*

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.

Tim Hinchliffe is the editor of The Sociable. His passions include writing about how technology impacts society and the parallels between Artificial Intelligence and Mythology. Previously, he was a reporter for the Ghanaian Chronicle in West Africa and an editor at Colombia Reports in South America. [email protected]

Why the EU Sides Against China

May 26th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

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 May 20 the European Parliament froze the ratification of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment. The agreement was signed by the European Commission after seven years of negotiations last December. The resolution was approved by an overwhelming majority:  599 votes in favor, 30 against and 58 abstentions. It is formally motivated as a response to Chinese sanctions against members of the European Parliament.  Beijing decided the sanctions after its officials were subjected to sanctions on the accusation, rejected by China, of violating human rights in particular the Uighurs’ rights. EU lawmakers argued that while Chinese sanctions are illegal because they violate international law, European sanctions are legal because they are based on the human rights defense sanctioned by the United Nations.

What is the real reason behind the “defense of human rights in China” screen? The strategy, launched and led by Washington, to recruit European countries in the coalition against Russia and China. The fundamental lever of this operation is the fact that 21 of 27 countries of the European Union are NATO members under US command. In the front row against China, as well as against Russia, there are the Eastern countries. They are  NATO and  EU members at the same time. They more linked to Washington than to Brussels, so they increase the US influence on EU foreign politics. The EU politics  basically follows the US policy, especially through NATO. However, not all US allies are on the same level: Germany and France negotiate under the table with the United States on the basis of their mutual convenience, Italy instead obeys and keeps silent to the detriment of its own interests. NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg can thus declare at the end of the meeting with French President Macron on May 21: “We will uphold the international rules-based order against the authoritarian push-back from countries like Russia and China”.

NATO has until now overshadowed the “threat” of China by focusing its strategy against Russia, but is now placing China on the same level. This decision comes in the wake of what they are doing in Washington. Here the strategy against China is about to become law. The draft law S.1169 on Strategic Competition with China was presented to the United States Senate on April 15, on the bipartisan initiative of the Democrat Menendez and the Republican Risch. The motivation for this law leaves no doubt that  it is an all-out confrontation:

 The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is leveraging its political, diplomatic, economic, military, technological, and ideological power to become a strategic, near-peer, global competitor of the United States. The policies increasingly pursued by the PRC in these domains are contrary to the interests and values of the United States, its partners, and much of the rest of the world”.

On this basis, the US Senate Strategic Competition Act will establish political, economic, technological, media, military, and other measures against China, aimed at targeting and isolating this country. It is a real declaration of war, and not figuratively. Admiral Davidson, who heads the US Indo-Pacific Command, asked the Congress for $ 27 billion to build a curtain of missile bases and satellite systems around China, including a constellation of space-platform radars. Meanwhile, US military pressure on China is increasing: missile launching warships of the Seventh Fleet cross in the South China Sea, US Air Force strategic bombers have been deployed on the island of Guam in the West Pacific, while the US Navy Triton drones have been approached to China by transferring them from Guam to Japan. 

In the footsteps of the United States, NATO is also extending its strategy to East Asia and the Pacific where – Stoltenberg announced – “We need to militarily strengthen together with close partners such as Australia and Japan“. The European Parliament has therefore not simply taken another step in the “sanctions war” against China. The EU Parliament took another step to bring Europe to war.

*

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

This article was originally published on Il Manifesto, translated to English from Italian.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

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.

***

As I’ve been documenting for the past year, the COVID experts have been contradicting themselves six ways from Sunday. As charlatans, they’re abject failures. They can’t keep their own story straight.

Thanks to an alert reader, I’ve come across a new blockbuster.

BY THEIR OWN STANDARDS, the FDA should never have allowed the Pfizer COVID vaccine to be shot into a single arm. The Agency’s Emergency Use Authorization was a crime—according to their own data.

Here we go.

The document, posted on the FDA website, is titled, “Vaccines and Related Biological Products; Advisory Committee Meeting; FDA Briefing Document Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.” [1]

It is dated December 10, 2020. The date tells us that all the information in the document is taken from the Pfizer clinical trial, based on which the FDA authorized the vaccine for public use.

A key quote is buried on page 42: “Among 3410 total cases of suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group [who received a saltwater shot].”

Those shocking numbers have never seen the light of day in news media.

The comparative numbers reveal that the vaccine was not effective at preventing COVID-19. It was certainly not 50% more effective than no vaccine at all—the standard for FDA Emergency Use Authorization.

To make all this clear, I need to back up and explain the theory of the vaccine clinical trial.

The researchers assumed the SARS-CoV-2 virus was spreading everywhere in the world, and during the clinical trial, it would descend on some volunteers.

The billion-dollar question was: how many people receiving the vaccine would become infected, vs. how many people in the placebo group?

If it turned out that FAR FEWER people getting the vaccine became infected with SARS-CoV-2, the vaccine would be hailed as a success. It protected people against the virus.

But as you can see from the numbers above, that wasn’t the case at all.

So now we come to the vital weasel-phrase in the FDA document I just quoted: “suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 [cases].”

“Well, you see, we can’t say these were ACTUAL COVID-19 cases. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. They’re in limbo. We want to keep them in limbo. Otherwise, our clinical trial is dead in the water, and we’ll never get approval for the vaccine.”

What does “suspected cases” mean? It can only mean these people all displayed symptoms consistent with the definition of COVID-19, but they’re unconfirmed cases because…their PCR tests were negative, not positive.

However, if their tests were negative, why would they be called “suspected cases” instead of “NOT CASES”?

Something is wrong here. The FDA is hedging its bets, muddying the waters, obscuring facts.

By FDA/CDC rules, a case of COVID-19 means: a person has tested positive, period.

That’s the way cases are counted.

These several thousand volunteers in the Pfizer clinical trial were either COVID-19 cases or they weren’t. Which is it?

The official response to that question is obvious: the FDA decided to throw the data from all those suspected cases in the garbage and ignore them. Poof. Gone.

Why do I say that?

Because if the FDA had paid serious attention to the several thousand “suspected cases,” they never would have authorized the vaccine for public use. They would have stopped the clinical trial and undertaken a very deep and extensive investigation.

Which they didn’t.

This is called a crime.

“But…but it’s not that simple. This is a complex situation. It’s a gray area.”

“No. It isn’t. If you were running a clinical trial of a new drug, and a few thousand people in the trial, who were given the drug, nevertheless came down with the disease symptoms the drug was supposed to cure, wouldn’t you cancel the trial and go back to the drawing board?”

“You mean if we were being honest? That’s a joke, right? We’re not honest. Don’t you get it?”

Yes. I get it. You’re criminals. Killers.

But wait. There’s more. The FDA document also states: “Suspected COVID-19 cases that occurred within 7 days after any vaccination were 409 in the vaccine group vs. 287 in the placebo group.”

That’s explosive. Right after vaccination, 409 people who received the shots became “suspected COVID cases.” This alone should have been enough to stop the clinical trial altogether. But it wasn’t.

In fact, the FDA document tries to excuse those 409 cases with a slippery comment: “It is possible that the imbalance in suspected COVID-19 cases occurring in the 7 days post vaccination represents vaccine reactogenicity with symptoms that overlap with those of COVID-19.”

Translation: You see, a number of clinical symptoms of COVID-19 and adverse effects from the vaccine are the same. Therefore, we have no idea whether the vaccinated people developed COVID or were just reacting to the vaccine. So we’re going to ignore this whole mess and pretend it’s of no importance.

Back in April of 2020, I predicted the vaccine manufacturers would use this strategy to explain away COVID cases occurring in the vaccine groups of their clinical trials.

It’s called cooking the data. It’s a way of writing off and ignoring COVID symptoms in the vaccine group—and instead saying, “The vaccine is safe and effective.”

And the FDA document, as I stated above, just puts an impenetrable cloud over all the volunteers in the Pfizer clinical trial by inventing a category called “suspected but unconfirmed COVID-19 cases,” and throwing those crucial data away, never to be spoken of again.

I’m speaking about them now. Any sensible person, looking at them, would conclude that the vaccine should never have been authorized.

Unless fraud, deception, profits, and destruction of human life via the vaccine were and are the true goals.

Finally: When you have “suspected cases,” and their ultimate status depends on doing a test, you do the test. You do it as many times as you need to, until it registers positive or negative. Then each “suspected case” becomes an actual case or no case at all.

Perhaps these “suspected cases” in the clinical trial were tested, and many of them came up positive, revealing they were actual COVID cases—but the researchers lied and covered up the fact that they were tested.

Or if you really don’t want to know whether “suspected cases” are actual cases, you don’t test them. You leave them in a convenient limbo and park them, never to be seen again.

Either way, the situation is patently absurd. By official standards, the PCR test decides whether a person is a case or not a case. Just do the test. Saying “we don’t know” is nothing more than a con and a hustle.

I’d love to hear the researchers try to talk their way out of this one. Here is how the conversation might go:

“So you’re saying these several thousand suspected COVID cases couldn’t be adjudicated one way or another?”

“That’s right. Their PCR tests were ‘indeterminate’.”

“That says something devastating about the test itself.”

“Well, sometimes you just can’t tell whether it’s positive or negative.”

“I see. And this ‘indeterminate’ result occurred in SEVERAL THOUSAND suspected cases.”

“I guess so, yes.”

“You know, you could have done something else with these suspected cases. A different test. You could have taken tissue samples and looked for the virus itself in a more direct way.”

“No. That wouldn’t work.”

“Why not?”

“Because…the actual virus…”

“Because no one has been able to come up with a specimen of the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

“Right.”

“So tell me—what does that indicate? I’ll tell you what it indicates. You can’t prove the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists.

“I have to go. I’m late for a meeting.”

“You’re late for more than just a meeting. Is it true a person becomes a virologist by cutting out a coupon from the back of a comic book and mailing it to a PO Box in Maryland?’

“Absolutely not. That’s outrageous.”

“What then?”

“The PO Box is in Virginia.”

*

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

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Notes

[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download

Featured image is from FiercePharma

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.

***

Investigative journalist James O’Keefe from Project Veritas on Monday released a bombshell video of two Facebook insiders blowing the whistle on the tech giant’s effort to secretly censor — on a global scale — COVID vaccine questions and concerns.

The Facebook whistleblowers alleged the company is pushing an initiative to censor vaccine hesitancy on its platform.

According to new leaked documents, the social media giant uses algorithms to target users who disseminate messaging that runs counter to the company’s political ideology and vaccine narrative — even if the comments are factually accurate.

An internal memo obtained by Project Veritas explained “Vaccine Hesitancy Comment Demotion.” O’Keefe told Sean Hannity on Monday that Facebook initiated a “beta” test for the algorithm that classifies some users under two incremental tiers of what they dub “vaccine hesitancy” or a “VH Score,” and does so without the user’s knowledge.

The stated goal of the new feature is to “drastically reduce user exposure” to “VH” comments, O’Keefe’s team reported, and decrease “other engagement of VH comments including create, likes, reports [and] replies.”

“Based on that VH score, we will demote or leave the comment alone depending on the content within the comment,” an anonymous whistleblower said.

The insider, who is described by O’Keefe as a “data center technician” for Facebook, revealed the tech giant was running the “test” on 1.5% of its 3.8 billion users with the focus on the comments sections on “authoritative health pages.”

“They’re trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page, before you even see it,” the insider told O’Keefe.

Another leaked document addressed “Borderline Vaccine Framework,” which classifies content with another expressed “goal” to “identify and tier the categories of non-violating content that could discourage vaccination in certain contexts, thereby contributing to vaccine hesitancy or refusal.” The framework states: “We have tiered these by potential harm and how much context is required in order to evaluate harm.”

The ratings are divided into two tiers: “Alarmism & Criticism” and “Indirect Vaccine Discouragement,” which includes celebrating vaccine refusal and “shocking stories” that may deter others from getting vaccinated even if events or facts are potentially or actually true.

The algorithm flags key terms in comments to determine whether or not it can remain in place, but allows human “raters” to make a ruling if the algorithm cannot do so itself.

“What’s remarkable about these private documents that Facebook has not wanted you to see until tonight is that ‘Tier 2’ [violation] says even if the facts are true that you will be targeted and demoted — your comments will be targeted and demoted,” O’Keefe said.

The first whistleblower told O’Keefe that Facebook, led by CEO Mark Zuckerberg, wants to “build a community where everyone complies — not where people can have an open discourse and dialogue about the most personal and private and intimate decisions.”

“The narrative [is] get the vaccine, the vaccine is good for you, everyone should get it. If you don’t, you will be singled out as an enemy of society.”

In response to the leaked documents, Facebook told Project Veritas, “We proactively announced this policy on our company blog and also updated our help center with this information.”

O’Keefe, however, said the change in policy has largely been private while Facebook holds itself out as being a free speech town square.

Facebook working with CDC to censor reports of vaccine injury from its own VAERS system

Facebook insiders and leaked internal documents allege the company coordinates with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to censor vaccine content, including reports submitted to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

“So the VAERS is a Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System. It looks like [Facebook] is measuring the comments where they’re mentioning where, you know, that the patient died,” said the Facebook whistleblower. “Really they [the CDC] support all of this because you know they release the standards, the CDC themselves. And that’s really one of, one of the primary things that Facebook is basing their policy off of.”

Under Facebook’s Borderline Vaccine Framework, content pointing to VAERS data is censored because it suggests “extreme risk without providing context.”

The insider said Facebook is open about the fact they’re coordinating with the CDC.

Ultimately, any facts that don’t fit a particular narrative are omitted, demoted, deboosted, banned or considered dangerous to society, said O’Keefe.

Children’s Health Defense sues Facebook over censorship

In August 2020, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed a lawsuit charging Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and several fact-checking organizations with censoring truthful public health posts and for fraudulently misrepresenting and defaming the children’s health organization.

The complaint alleges Facebook has “insidious conflicts” with the pharmaceutical industry and health agencies, and details factual allegations regarding the CDC, CDC Foundation and the World Health Organization’s extensive relationships and collaborations with Facebook and Zuckerberg, calling into question Facebook’s collaboration  with the government in a censorship campaign.

Facebook censors CHD’s page, targeting factual information about vaccines, 5G and public health agencies. Facebook-owned Instagram deplatformed CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Feb. 10 without notice or explanation.

Lawyers for Children’s Health Defense are awaiting the ruling of Judge Susan Illston after defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss in the CHD lawsuit alleging government-sponsored censorship, false disparagement and wire fraud.

*

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

Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

The Internet does not have a Soul or a Spirit

May 26th, 2021 by Katie Singer

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 I acknowledge the land on which I live and write—as Indigenous People have taught me to do—I feel grateful to that ecosystem. I feel included in it. And so, I say thanks to the land called Northern New Mexico, which has sustained me for thirty years. I thank my parents and grandparents for giving me life, and the land called New York City, where I was born.

Today, I write from the Internet; and so, I thank it for allowing me to share my observations.

The Internet does not have a soul or a spirit. It is not a living creature, not a home or a neighborhood or a country. It is not water, land, metal, air or fire—and yet we use each of these things to manufacture and operate and discard the Internet’s parts. These parts do not absorb carbon dioxide, like a tree, or biodegrade (like living creatures do) when they die.

The Internet provides machine-to-machine communication. It is the largest thing that humanity has built. Its electricity use, fossil fuels, extracted and smelted ores, greenhouse gas emissions, use of chemicals, its toxic waste, worker hazards, fire hazards, degradation of wildlife habitats, impacts to social structures and local authority over environmental and public health policies (its impacts to democracy) are proportionate to its size—and yet most of us users do not see these impacts.

Could we make the Internet’s workings and impacts visible?

Behind the screen, every computer has transistors that process and store data, provide memory and apps. A smartphone uses transistors for GPS, low power microprocessors, sensors, transmitters and receivers (for cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth signals) and noise filtering microphones. Transistors are made from silicon, an element not found in nature in pure form. Manufacturing silicon typically requires pure quartz gravel; a carbon (such as petroleum coke, a byproduct of the Tar Sands, or Blue Gem coal, like that mined in Columbia); and hard, dense, moist wood (like that found in the Amazon rainforest). These three things are transported to a smelter that operates at 3000 degrees Fahrenheit (1649 degrees Celsius) for six or seven years at a time. [1] Because interrupting delivery of electricity to a smelter can blow it up. it cannot be powered by solar or industrial wind facilities, which provide intermittent power. Smelters are powered by coal, nuclear and/or hydro power.

Young people, typically from rural areas, often aiming to send money home to their families, swipe circuit boards in Chinese factories with solvents like n-hexane. N-hexane causes leukemia and neuro-muscular diseases. [4] Copper, which serves as conductors for the circuit board’s signals, is usually mined in Chile. For every kilogram of copper mined, at least 210 kilograms of waste are generated. [5]

Coltan and cobalt, for mobile devices’ batteries, are mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo. More people have been murdered over coltan than any other single event since World War II. [6] Lithium, also for batteries, takes water from communities and farmers. [7] Discarded lithium batteries can contaminate water supplies. [8]

Computers’ raw materials and manufactured parts get transported between continents on container ships powered by dirty bunker fuel that pollutes the oceans. [9] They’re transported on airplanes and trucks and trains (think of the energy and extractions embodied in each of these great vehicles) that need airports, highways and railroads. This is big business. One smartphone has more than 1000 substances, each with its own energy-intensive, toxic waste-emitting supply chain. [10] Looking at a laptop’s cradle-to-grave energy use, 81% will be consumed during design, mining, smelting, shipping of raw materials, manufacturing of chemicals and assembly—before the end-user turns the laptop on for the first time. [11]

The Internet is not sustainable. It depends on ores and fuels that took billions of years to form. Devices become obsolete within a few years. New software that’s incompatible with “old” hardware and can lead consumers to buy new computers. Most electronic parts are not replaceable or recycled. At the end of their usable life, computers and batteries should be treated as hazardous waste.

Here’s another issue: our world is now nearly saturated in man-made electromagnetic radiation (EMR) used by mobile devices and access networks to transmit and receive information, called data. This EMR is not contained in wires. No agency monitors or limits EMR-exposure’s impacts on sperm, pregnant women, babies, children, wildlife habitats or trees. No agency monitors or limits any living creature’s combined or cumulative EMR-exposure. [12, 13]

The biosphere and the techno-sphere  

I’m a writer, nourished by nearness to other living creatures, by nutrient-dense food and clean water, by a home that keeps cool in the summer and warm in the winter, by cycles of work and rest. My computer and the Internet are tools that help me research, write and publish. They do not need rest.

I live on Earth, a physical place, a web of life, a biosphere that provides water, nutrient-dense soil and food.

I write from the Internet, a techno-sphere, created by a corporate, global super-factory that makes and connects and discards machines that generate toxic waste. The Internet is everywhere. It’s in our electronics, cellular antennas and routers and data servers. Its cables are buried around our homes and schools and businesses and hung on utility poles. The air surrounding us holds its data. The Internet operates now past the Earth’s atmosphere and the heliosphere (a shield that protects planets from interstellar radiation). The Internet has no boundaries, and it grows.

Limits to electronic growth

Aware of (some of) the environmental consequences of using this computer, I struggle for peace between my ears. I want to reduce my impacts. I think: to strengthen the biosphere that sustains us, to reduce the extractions, toxic waste, greenhouse gas emissions and worker hazards that ravage our planet, we Internet users will need to make dramatic changes. [14]

Will we limit deployment of new access networks like 5G (fifth generation of mobile access networks) to private networks? [15] Will we create standards that require manufacturers to verify worker and environmental protections from every product’s cradle to its grave? Could we require modular electronics with replaceable parts? Could we enforce policies that require professional engineers to certify the safety of telecom infrastructure before it goes live?

Will we limit the number of hours anyone can stream videos? Should we block every person’s Internet access until they can describe the supply chain of at least one of its substances? Do we teach children to forage or grow at least three kinds of food—and to compost—before they use an electronic device? Do we teach them to read, write and do math on paper before they use electronics? [16]

Do we provide all people on Earth sufficient nutrient-dense food, clean water and toilets before we expand the Internet?

How can we respect the Earth and continue to use the Internet?

*

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.

Katie Singer writes about the energy, extractions, toxic waste and greenhouse gases involved in manufacturing computers, telecom infrastructure, electric vehicles and other electronic technologies. She believes that if she’s not aware that she’s part of the problem, then she can’t be part of the solution. She dreams that every smartphone user learns about the supply chain of one substance (of 1000+) in a smartphone. Her most recent book is An Electronic Silent Spring. She currently writes about nature, democracy and technology for Wall Street International Magazine. Visit www.OurWeb.tech and www.ElectronicSilentSpring.com.

Notes

  1. www.OurWeb.tech/letter-12/
  2. Schwarzburger, Heiko, “The trouble with silicon,” PV Magazine, 9.15.10.
  3. https://mineralsusgs.gov.minerals/pubs/commodity/copper/
  4. Heather White and Lynn Zhang, “Complicit,” 2019.
  5. Goonan, Thomas G., “Flows of selected materials associated with world copper melting,” U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report, 2004-1395.
  6. Eichstaedt, Peter, Consuming the Congo: War and Conflict Minerals in the World’s Deadliest Place, Lawrence Hill Books, 2011.
  7. Katwala, Amit, “The spiraling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction,” 8.5.18; https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact.
  8. Choi, Hye-Bin, et al., “The impact of anthropogenic inputs on lithium content in river and tap water,” Nature Communications, 2019.
  9. Allan Sekula and Noel Burch, “The Forgotten Space,” 2012.
  10. Needhidasan, S., et al., “Electronic waste–an emerging threat to the environment of urban India,” J. Environ Health Sci. Eng., Jan. 20, 2014; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3908467.
  11. https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/your-phone-costs-energyeven-before-you-turn-it-on
  12. Singer, Katie, An Electronic Silent Spring, SteinerBooks, 2014.
  13. www.saferemr.com
  14. In 1989, when the USSR broke up and Cuba lost its oil supply, overnight, Cubans traded their cars for bicycles; turned parking lots into farms, and shared their available electronics with neighbors so that the country could survive. Could this serve as an example of a possible response to the techno-sphere’s damaging, unsustainable growth? Faith Morgan, “The Power of Community,” 2006.
  15. www.OurWeb.tech/letter-4/
  16. See Criss Rowan’s work at www.zonein.ca.

Featured image is from Wall Street International Magazine

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.

***

Belarus’ fighter jet-assisted diversion of a Ryanair flight to Minsk in response to an ostensible bomb threat onboard and subsequent arrest of an extremist member of the country’s Color Revolution movement upon landing might open Pandora’s Box by setting the precedent whereby Western countries might eventually follow in its footsteps for purely political reasons against unilaterally sanctioned individuals from Russia or elsewhere.

Belarus ordered a fighter jet to escort a Ryanair flight to Minsk that was transiting through its airspace en route to Vilnius on Sunday in response to an ostensible bomb threat onboard. Upon landing, an extremist member of the country’s Color Revolution movement, Roman Protasevich, was arrested by the authorities. The flight was then allowed to continue to Vilnius after no bomb was ever found on board. The Western reaction was swift and a growing number of countries lined up to condemn Belarus for what they claimed was an intelligence operation aimed at arresting Protasevich but which allegedly might have put innocent lives at risk. Minsk shrugged off the allegations while Moscow called the West out for its double standards.

There are several angles through which to analyze this development. The first is to take the Belarusian authorities’ word about what happened, that it was merely a coincidence that someone informed them of a bomb onboard the same flight that Protasevich was taking over Belarusian airspace. The second is to applaud President Lukashenko for a clever operation whereby his government was able to bring an extremist member of the country’s Color Revolution movement to justice. The third, however, is to condemn him for allegedly putting lives at risk and possibly violating international aviation regulations by purportedly faking a bomb threat in order to arrest that political extremist.

Either way, the move might have been a game-changer since it could open Pandora’s Box by setting the precedent whereby other countries might eventually follow in its footsteps for political reasons. For instance, there are Russian individuals that are sanctioned by the US, and America might stage a similar intelligence operation regarding a supposedly fake bomb threat in order to arrest them in the same way that Protasevich was arrested. The US is known for its belief in so-called “extra-territorial jurisdiction” so it could at least in theory have its agents waiting at a European airport to arrest whoever it is that they’d be targeting provided that they have the host country’s permission. They might also do it without informing them in advance, too.

Technically, it was the US itself which first opened this Pandora’s Box during its earlier efforts to capture Edward Snowden in what seems like a lifetime ago to many. Former Bolivian President Evo Morales’ plane was diverted and forced to land in Austria amid suspicions that the American whisteblower was on board. It turned out that he wasn’t, but the incident showed just how far the US will go if it has the political will to stage such operations. With this in mind, Lukashenko was in a sense just giving the US a taste of its own medicine by staging Sunday’s operation to arrest one of its regime change proxies. Nevertheless, everyone knows that the US regularly implements double standards, hence why its EU ally just banned Belarusian airlines from the bloc.

Unlike during the Snowden-Morales incident, the world is nowadays unquestionably in the midst of a New Cold War. This means that there might be more of a political will for the US and its allies to repeat what Lukashenko just did, which to remind the reader was basically him just doing what America was the first to pioneer. Any unilaterally sanctioned individual flying over the airspace of an American-friendly country could therefore be at risk of having the same thing happen to them too. This will greatly reduce their freedom of movement across the world and perhaps in some cases basically trap them in their homeland for the rest of their lives if they don’t feel safe traveling anymore.

Of course, nothing of the sort might also happen, but it’s highly unlikely that the US won’t exploit Sunday’s incident. It has a clear pattern of accusing others of doing exactly what it’s done before, or pretending that their application of whatever tactic or strategy was the first time it’s ever been employed, and hence justify the US doing the same from then on out. To facilitate the public’s possible acceptance of this scenario, an intensified information warfare campaign might soon be forthcoming, perhaps even accusing Russia of somehow being involved in Sunday’s incident. It obviously wasn’t, but the facts never got in the way of any of the US’ other conspiracy theories about the Eurasian Great Power, so they probably won’t be an obstacle to this one either.

*

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

Greetings from “New Normal” Germany!

May 26th, 2021 by CJ Hopkins

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 1, 1933, shortly after Hitler was appointed chancellor, the Nazis staged a boycott of Jewish businesses in Germany. Members of the Storm Troopers (“die Sturmabteilung,” or the “Storm Department,” as I like to think of them) stood around outside of Jewish-owned stores with Gothic-lettered placards reading “Germans! Defend yourselves! Do not buy from Jews!” The boycott itself was a total disaster — most Germans ignored it and just went on with their lives — but it was the beginning of the official persecution of the Jews and totalitarianism in Nazi Germany.

Last week, here in “New Normal” Germany, the government (which, it goes without saying, bears no resemblance to the Nazi regime, or any other totalitarian regime) implemented a social-segregation system that bans anyone who refuses to publicly conform to the official “New Normal” ideology from participating in German society. From now on, only those who have an official “vaccination pass” or proof of a negative PCR test are allowed to sit down and eat at restaurants, shop at a “non-essential” stores, or go to bars, or the cinema, or wherever.

Here’s a notice from the website of Prater, a popular beer garden in Berlin:

Of course, there is absolutely no valid comparison to be made between these two events, or between Nazi Germany and “New Normal” Germany, nor would I ever imply that there was. That would be illegal in “New Normal” Germany, as it would be considered “relativizing the Holocaust,” not to mention being “anti-democratic and/or delegitimizing the state in a way that endangers security,” or whatever.

Plus, it’s not like there are SA goons standing outside shops and restaurants with signs reading “Germans! Defend yourselves! Don’t sell to the Unvaccinated and Untested!” It’s just that it’s now illegal to do that, i.e., sell anything to those of us whom the media and the government have systematically stigmatized as “Covid deniers” because we haven’t converted to the new official ideology and submitted to being “vaccinated” or “tested.”

Protesting the new official ideology is also illegal in “New Normal” Germany. OK, I think I should probably rephrase that. I certainly don’t want to misinform anyone. Protesting the “New Normal” isn’t outlawed per se. You’re totally allowed to apply for a permit to protest against the “Covid restrictions” on the condition that everyone taking part in your protest wears a medical-looking N95 mask and maintains a distance of 1.5 meters from every other medical-masked protester … which is kind of like permitting anti-racism protests as long as the protesters all wear Ku Klux Klan robes and perform a choreographed karaoke of Lynyrd Skynyrd’s Sweet Home Alabama.

Who says the Germans don’t have a sense of humor?

I don’t mean to single out the Germans. There is nothing inherently totalitarian, or fascist, or robotically authoritarian and hyper-conformist about the Germans, as a people. The fact that the vast majority of Germans clicked their heels and started mindlessly following orders, like they did in Nazi Germany, the moment the “New Normal” was introduced last year doesn’t mean that all Germans are fascists by nature.

Most Americans did the same thing. So did the British, the Australians, the Spanish, the French, the Canadians, and a long list of others. It’s just that, well, I happen to live here, so I’ve watched as Germany has been transformed into “New Normal Germany” up close and personal, and it has definitely made an impression on me.

The ease with which the German authorities implemented the new official ideology, and how fanatically it has been embraced by the majority of Germans, came as something of a shock. I had naively believed that, in light of their history, the Germans would be among the first to recognize a nascent totalitarian movement predicated on textbook Goebbelsian Big Lies (i.e., manipulated Covid “case” and “death” statistics), and would resist it en masse, or at least take a moment to question the lies their leaders were hysterically barking at them.

I couldn’t have been more wrong.

Here we are, over a year later, and waiters and shop clerks are “checking papers” to enforce compliance with the new official ideology. (And, yes, the “New Normal” is an official ideology. When you strip away the illusion of an apocalyptic plague, there isn’t any other description for it).

Perfectly healthy, medical-masked people are lining up in the streets to be experimentally “vaccinated.” Lockdown-bankrupted shops and restaurants have been converted into walk-in “PCR-test stations.” The government is debating mandatory “vaccination” of children in kindergarten. Goon squads are arresting octogenarians for picnicking on the sidewalk without permission. And so on. At this point, I’m just sitting here waiting for the news that mass “disinfection camps” are being set up to solve the “Unvaccinated Question.”

Whoops … there I go again, “relativizing the Holocaust.” I really need to stop doing that. The Germans take this stuff very seriously, especially with Israel under relentless attack by the desperately impoverished people it has locked inside an enormous walled ghetto, and is self-defensively ethnically cleansing.

But, seriously, there is no similarity whatsoever between Nazi Germany and “New Normal” Germany. Sure, both systems suspended the constitution, declared a national “state of emergency” enabling the government to rule by decree, inundated the masses with insane propaganda and manipulated “scientific facts,” outlawed protests, criminalized dissent, implemented a variety of public rituals, and symbols, and a social segregation system, to enforce compliance with their official ideologies, and demonized anyone who refused to comply … but, other than that, there’s no similarity, and anyone who suggests there is is a dangerous social-deviant extremist who probably needs to be quarantined somewhere, or perhaps dealt with in some other “special” way.

Plus, the two ideologies are completely different. One was a fanatical totalitarian ideology based on imaginary racial superiority and the other is a fanatical totalitarian ideology based on an imaginary “apocalyptic plague” … so what the hell am I even talking about? On top of which, no swastikas, right? No swastikas, no totalitarianism! And nobody’s mass murdering the Jews, that I know of, and that’s the critical thing, after all!

So, never mind. Just ignore all that crazy stuff I just told you about “New Normal” Germany. Don’t worry about “New Normal” America, either. Or “New Normal” Great Britain. Or “New Normal” wherever. Get experimentally “vaccinated.” Experimentally “vaccinate” your kids. Prove your loyalty to the Reich … sorry, I meant to global capitalism. Ignore those reports of people dying and suffering horrible adverse effects. Wear your mask. Wear it forever. God knows what other viruses are out there, just waiting to defile your bodily fluids and cause you to experience a flu-like illness, or cut you down in the prime of your seventies or eighties … and, Jesus, I almost forgot “long Covid.” That in itself is certainly enough to justify radically restructuring society so that it resembles an upscale hospital theme park staffed by paranoid, smiley-faced fascists in fanciful designer Hazmat suits.

Oh, and keep your “vaccination papers” in order. You never know when you’re going to have to show them to some official at the airport, or a shop, or restaurant, or to your boss, or your landlord, or the police, or your bank, or your ISP, or your Tinder date … or some other “New Normal” authority figure. I mean, you don’t want to be mistaken for a “Covid denier,” or an “anti-vaxxer,” or a “conspiracy theorist,” or some other type of ideological deviant, and be banished from society, do you?

*

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

Featured image: Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-14468, Georg Pahl, CC-BY-SA 3.0

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

Belarus has been regularly in and out of the spotlight in recent months, with protests, chaos and alleged assassination schemes against President Alexander Lukashenko.

On May 23rd, Ryanair flight FR4978 from Athens to Vilnius in Lithuania made an emergency landing at the Minsk international airport, following a false bomb threat.

The incident resulted in the arrest of opposition activist Roman Protasevich, who was on board.

He is best known as one of the main people behind the Belarus’ opposition Nexta Live network.

It is operated out of Poland and is the main platform for coordination of the mass protests since 2020.

At the moment, there are two main versions regarding the incident with the RyanAir aircraft:
Either this was a high-profile operation of the special forces of Belarus aimed at detaining a young activist.

Or, conversely, it was an operation played out by the Belarus opposition forces supported by their Western allies, who seek to discredit President Lukashenko.

To shed light on the incident, a recording of a pilot’s call with the dispatcher was released, proving they were not forced to land in Minsk and it was their own decision made in accordance with international rules.

Belarus officially claimed that they had received a message from the Palestinian group Hamas threatening to blow up a Lithuania-bound flight over Belarusian airspace unless the European Union condemned Israel over the conflict in the Gaza Strip.

Subsequently, a video showing that Protasevich was in good health and remained in a pre-trial facility was published online.

He also acknowledged his participation in organizing mass protests in Minsk in 2020.

Belarus’ foreign ministry insisted the country’s authorities acted “in full conformity with international rules” and accused Europe of politicizing the incident.

However, it did not prevent the EU from proclaiming more restrictions against Belarus.

In addition to blocking the use of the EU’s airspace and airports, the EU is expected to hit individual officials and companies linked to the incident with sanctions.

The incident coincided with the European Summit, where a strategic debate on Russia is to be held.

The new international scandal may influence the final decision of European leaders.

The Russian Foreign Ministry criticized the West’s response with spokeswoman Maria Zakharova.

She reminded everyone of similar incidents happening in recent years.

In 2013 US special forces, looking for Edward Snowden, forced the plane of the Bolivian President to make an emergency landing in Vienna.

The White House declined to compare the two incidents, but US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said Washington “strongly condemns” the Belarusian regime’s “brazen and shocking act to divert a commercial flight to arrest a journalist”.

It is still not clear who exactly was behind the emergency landing of the RyanAir flight in Minsk.

Regardless of all versions and speculations, it is evident that the incident will lead to a greater rift between Russia, Belarus and the so-called collective West.

*

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

Nicaragua’s Inspiring Response to COVID-19

May 26th, 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.

***

Little attention has been paid internationally to how the Central American country has managed to keep COVID-19 cases and fatalities low even under a devastating campaign of US sanctions

In a recent study conducted by the University of Oxford and the World Health Organization, socialist Nicaragua was placed number nine on a list of the ten safest countries to visit during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nicaragua is the only country within Latin America to appear on that list. As of Sunday May 22, the country had 7,193 confirmed cases and only 185 deaths.

Nicaragua’s unorthodox but highly effective management of COVID-19 has so far been a great success. In an informative article written by John Perry for FAIR, Perry demonstrates how the country has approached the COVID-19 pandemic swiftly and thoroughly. After consultations with South Korea and Taiwan—countries that overcame a separate coronavirus epidemic in 2002—Nicaragua implemented a careful plan of action that differed from most other governments around the world:

“Nicaragua announced its strategy much earlier (in late January, when most Western countries were still dismissing the likelihood of a pandemic); it prepared wards in 18 hospitals to receive COVID patients, and reserved one hospital solely for this purpose; it put health checks in place at points of entry to the country with mandatory quarantines, and it began a program to combat misinformation being purveyed via social media (several rounds of house-to-house visits, a free phone line, streetside clinics and more).”

What’s most impressive about Nicaragua’s response is it has had just one COVID peak and has subsequently ‘flattened the curve’ of cases and deaths. Half of its cases and deaths took place between mid-May and mid-July 2020, and since then Nicaragua has kept the virus at very low levels. Strict controls at the border and active door-to-door “health brigades’” have been essential in this and help explain how Nicaragua has avoided repeated lockdowns.

These successes have gone entirely unrecognized by Western international media who have instead embarked on a political disinformation crusade against the government led by the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN). The BBC claimed Nicaragua hadn’t implemented any measures to combat COVID-19 at all. While The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Washington Post all spread stories that Nicaragua’s president, Daniel Ortega, had “vanished”, that he was denying the existence of Covid-19, and was anti-lockdown. The sources for these vexatious rumors were all linked with the US-backed government opposition in Nicaragua, such as the local Nicaraguan newspaper, La Prensa.

Nicaraguan-based doctors and journalists, such as Perry himself, have offered rebuttals to these pieces but were largely ignored by the same international press. This includes the statistics for cases and deaths being circulated by non-governmental agencies, which are grossly exaggerated:

“official figures report 6,629 cases in total, whereas the unofficial Citizens’ Observatory reports double this number, 13,278. The higher figure is based on “suspected” (not tested) cases, and according to the observatory website includes “rumors” as one source of information. But even the higher figure is dramatically lower than those for adjoining countries, as this chart shows.” [below]

This graph additionally shows just how much more effective Nicaragua’s pandemic model has been than its geographic neighbors, all of whom are run by neoliberal governments that have put profit before people. As if tackling a pandemic while under sanctions wasn’t difficult enough, the Nicaraguan government has had to implement this successful public health campaign while mitigating against the impact of category four and category five hurricanes (Eta and Iota) in 2020. We also mustn’t forget this is a country that is still recovering from the US-coup attempt in 2018 that crippled its economy.

Despite all this, Nicaragua’s attempt to eradicate COVID-19 victoriously continues apace. The vaccination programme is now well underway. To date, the country has received approximately 1.9 million doses of vaccine, mostly comprised of donations from Russia, as well as some from India and the COVAX program.

You can read John Perry’s complete analysis for FAIR here.

*

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

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 at:https://rohanjrice.wordpress.com/

Featured image: Vaccination against COVID-19 is underway in Nicaragua largely thanks to vaccine donations from Russia. Photo: CCC Jairo Cajina

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As grievous as was the blow, as terrible as is the suffering, as overwhelming and demoralizing as has been the ensuing chaos, and as discouraging as has been the spread of falsehoods, and the seduction of the educated, it is no surprise to the historian that a mighty nation like the United States could rapidly decline into moral depravity.

It is no mystery to the scholars of Babylon and Rome, of Byzantium and Athens, that great governments are brought to their knees, not by an external enemy, but rather by the substitution of superficial rituals for moral action, by a spiritual blindness that strikes down the best and the brightest.

This moral virus has infected the minds of those who should have known better, and the door was left ajar for the crafty and the cunning to surreptitiously sneak in and slip a collar around the eagle’s neck, rendering justice a pet for their idle amusement.

We have no time now for laments, standing here on the battlefield. The cruel powers have unleashed their dogs of war and they are ripping our institutions to shreds, tearing the living heart out of our government and our schools, and leaving behind our values and beliefs as rotted carcasses for the jackals to feed upon. These stealthy forces keep shifting their forms to confuse us, now conservative, now progressive, now black, now white.

What we know with certainty is that the current lull in the battle is the bait they have laid out for us. They are planning a final assault, as we stand here, dazed and confused. They want us to be absorbed in our selfish needs, stewed in the narcissism of the smartphone, lost in the cult of the self, and incapable of organizing our thoughts, or of mustering bravery, or of rising to the occasion.

Source: Emanuel Pastreich

 

Their weapons are different. Rather than a tank, they use a vaccine syringe for their first melee. They use AI and commercial media to reprogram our brains, rendering us docile beasts that chase after food, pornography and glittering images. We did not even notice how they made us dependent on them for food, for energy, for information, and now even for our very identity.

Not a single column still stands in the temple of government that our founding fathers erected.

The beasts have carved the executive branch up into private fiefdoms, and leased them out to foreign banks. These days, those involved in governance are patted on the head and rewarded for tearing apart the edifice, for doing the bidding of the hidden masters.

The members of the Congress, regardless of their color or flavor, thrust their snouts deep in the public trough, where they devour the slop shoveled their way by the high priests of Mammon.

There are only two parties: the pimps and the whores.

The gangrene flowing through the veins of the judiciary is foul. It corrupts everything it touches, rendering judges and prosecutors unfeeling, incapable of, and unwilling to, uphold the Constitution, or to do anything that might displease their true masters.

Newspapers, magazines, universities and research institutes, corporations and foundations, are spigots that spew forth lies.

An evil spirit has possessed the public sector, rendering it a monstrosity. It slouches towards your neighborhood with a syringe in hand.

Declaration of an Acting Government for The United States of America

In light of the collapse of all branches of the Federal government, and the slip of civil society into the dark abyss of decadence and narcissism, we citizens declare that an Acting Government of the United States of America is established hereby that will serve as a midwife in the painful, but promising, rebirth of this nation.

The words of this declaration will limn the direction forward for our nation and suggest the contours of our future.

The acting government of the United States will distinguish itself from the wreckage now occupied by jackals and hyenas, by its strict adherence to our sacred Constitution and to the spirit of the law.

The acting government will administer as much of the United States as it can, granted the tremendous challenges that we face.

The roots of our government are planted firmly in hearts of patriots, of citizens committed to liberty, justice and freedom. The acting government will lay the foundations for an accountable government capable of addressing common concerns about the economy, society and security, hand in hand with those patriots.

The United States has a noble tradition of democratic governance. The inspiration for our nation, however, must be traced back to the American Revolution of 1776, and to the revolution against slavery of 1860. Our political philosophy is revolutionary, and this is a moment when that tradition must be revived.

The Declaration of Independence was the first step, a break with the British Empire. This declaration of independence is a break with the insidious empire of finance and speculation run by billionaires and their servants.

We hereby declare our independence from that empire of corruption and pillage, that empire of foreign wars and manipulative media, that empire of processed foods and needless medications forced on us for profit.

Our founding fathers declared,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

We do not need any more media-savvy swiveling between the fraudulent flavors of “progressive” and “conservative,” the Pepsi and Coke of debased politics.

Before we recognize anyone as president, we must first take these six actions:

1) We will list the billionaires, investment banks, private equity funds and the other parasitic financial institutions that have taken control of our nation’s government and detail how they govern us illegally.

We will make all information public regarding their criminal takeover, and their criminal administration, of our country. We will bring criminal charges against the leaders, and seize their assets, regardless of how many politicians they own, or how many billions of dollars they claim to possess.

2) We will take control of the economy, starting with money and finance (especially the Federal Reserve), and create an economy of the people, by the people and for the people.

The speculative economy will end and all fiscal policy will be drafted in close coordination with citizens using scientific data concerning the true short-term and long-term challenges facing our nation. For-profit organizations will play no role in the formulation of economic policy, nor will foreign economic concerns. Corporations whose stock is owned by foreign interests, that have their headquarters outside of the United States, will not be considered American.

3) We will establish true journalism, starting with journalism produced by networks of patriotic citizens, that is dedicated to the pursuit of truth, and does not shy away from taboo subjects. This journalism will have no corporate sponsors and will be accompanied by social media networks and search engines that are run as regional and national cooperatives responsible to the people, that have pursuit of truth, not profit, as their paramount goal.

4) We will establish an international committee of ethical citizens to oversee an investigation of the criminal actions by those pretending to be the United States government for the last twenty years. Base on the findings of those public investigations, we will make proposals for a revolutionary restructuring of the government so as to make the citizen again sovereign.

Only then will we be able to hold transparent and accountable elections for the President and the Congress that allow the citizens to vote on the basis of accurate information, elections from which corporate money and private wealth will be banned.

Criminal syndicates like the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, not described in the Constitution, will play no role in these open and fair elections.

5) We will set down national security priorities related to the threats facing our citizens. The process of assessing those security concerns will be immune from the lobbying of weapons manufactures and investment banks. We will consider crucial issues such as the collapse of biodiversity, the destruction of our climate, the concentration of wealth and the misuse of technology to destroy the minds of our citizens. We will also stop the use of automation and communications technology by corporations to destroy our livelihoods. We see the war of the rich against the citizens of the Earth as the primary security threat of our age.

6) We will reform the United Nations so that it will become a space for true “Earth” governance that takes an internationalist perspective, and is not a tool for globalism. We will banish from the United Nations the money chargers and the plutocracy who have shredded the United Nations Charter and made its employees into their lapdogs.

The demands are simple, but achieving them will require vision, inspiration, tenacity and sacrifice. The rebuilding of the United States, in accord with its sacred Constitution, will be both a national and an international project.

We call out to all Americans, to all patriots who can hear our voices, and especially to those who were lucky enough to receive outstanding educations, privileged enough to obtain specialized training in the sciences, in international relations, in economics and in medicine. It must be you! Lawyers, doctors, professors, technicians, government officials, corporate executives and business owners! This is your moment of truth.

This is the moment when you must choose to stand with the downtrodden, choose to help citizens, who have not been so fortunate as you have, to distinguish truth from falsehood.

Those who possess extreme riches are not your friends. They care no more for you than they do for the homeless.

We declare today that in our streets, in our neighborhoods, in our states and in our nation, the United States of America, the super-rich and their minions shall have no dominion. The government titles or institutional trappings that they have stolen, or bought, grant them no authority over us.

If truth slips from our grasp, the powerful can easily twist our sentiments. The evil that they stir up shifts patterns, so as to blend into any scene, like a moth, like a chameleon.

Our acting government will adhere to the constitution, to the sacred truth and to our moral indignation. We know no other masters.

*

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.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.


I Shall Fear No Evil

Why we need a truly independent candidate for president

Author: Emanuel Pastreich

Paperback ISBN: 9781649994509

Pages: 162

Click here to order.

.

.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Declaration of The Establishment of a Provisional Government for the United States of America
  • 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 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 May 22, 2021 lists 12,184 deaths and 1,196,190 injuries following injections of four experimental COVID-19 shots:

 

From the total of injuries recorded, there are 604,744 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 May 22, 2021.

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccineTozinameran (code BNT162b2,Comirnaty) from BioNTechPfizer: 5,961 deathand 452,779 injuries to 22/05/2021

  • 13,531   Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 59 deaths
  • 9,828     Cardiac disorders incl. 735 deaths
  • 71           Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 4 deaths
  • 5,468     Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 183        Endocrine disorders
  • 6,266     Eye disorders incl. 14 deaths
  • 41,214   Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 216 deaths
  • 128,031 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 1,909 deaths
  • 327        Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 27 deaths
  • 4,802     Immune system disorders incl. 31 deaths
  • 13,948   Infections and infestations incl. 648 deaths
  • 4,821     Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 81 deaths
  • 10,374   Investigations incl. 221 deaths
  • 3,354     Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 120 deaths
  • 65,326   Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 71 deaths
  • 250        Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 15 deaths
  • 81,748   Nervous system disorders incl. 616 deaths
  • 279        Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 7 deaths
  • 88           Product issues
  • 7,978     Psychiatric disorders incl. 94 deaths
  • 1,342     Renal and urinary disorders incl. 93 deaths
  • 1,570     Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 18,597   Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 697 deaths
  • 21,101   Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 53 deaths
  • 663        Social circumstances incl. 9 deaths
  • 160        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 10 deaths
  • 11,459   Vascular disorders incl. 225 deaths

Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine mRNA-1273(CX-024414) from Moderna: 3,365 deathand 72,596 injuries to 22/05/2021

  • 1,335     Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 22 deaths
  • 2,045     Cardiac disorders incl. 370 deaths
  • 12           Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 718        Ear and labyrinth disorders
  • 37           Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death
  • 997        Eye disorders incl. 4 deaths
  • 6,305     Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 108 deaths
  • 20,774   General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 1,480 deaths
  • 129        Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 8 deaths
  • 691        Immune system disorders incl. 4 deaths
  • 2,392     Infections and infestations incl. 183 deaths
  • 1,292     Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 63 deaths
  • 1,743     Investigations incl. 77 deaths
  • 816        Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 64 deaths
  • 9,149     Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 62 deaths
  • 77           Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 11 deaths
  • 12,314   Nervous system disorders incl. 339 deaths
  • 83           Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions
  • 11           Product issues
  • 1,375     Psychiatric disorders incl. 51 deaths
  • 468        Renal and urinary disorders incl. 40 deaths
  • 175        Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 1 death
  • 3,513     Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 306 deaths
  • 3,726     Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 23 deaths
  • 259        Social circumstances incl. 9 deaths
  • 235        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 26 deaths
  • 1,925     Vascular disorders

Total reactions for the experimental vaccine AZD1222/VAXZEVRIA (CHADOX1 NCOV-19) from Oxford/ AstraZeneca2,489 deathand 655,534 injuries to 22/05/2021

  • 7,200     Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 100 deaths
  • 9,748     Cardiac disorders incl. 311 deaths
  • 103        Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 6,740     Ear and labyrinth disorders
  • 217        Endocrine disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 10,591   Eye disorders incl. 8 deaths
  • 69,826   Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 116 deaths
  • 178,037 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 685 deaths
  • 396        Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 20 deaths
  • 2,409     Immune system disorders incl. 9 deaths
  • 13,832   Infections and infestations incl. 163 deaths
  • 5,870     Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 46 deaths
  • 13,474   Investigations incl. 50 deaths
  • 8,405     Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 35 deaths
  • 104,075 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 25 deaths
  • 222        Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 6 deaths
  • 141,437 Nervous system disorders incl. 388 deaths
  • 156        Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 3 deaths
  • 76           Product issues
  • 12,272   Psychiatric disorders incl. 21 deaths
  • 2,264     Renal and urinary disorders incl. 20 deaths
  • 3,327     Reproductive system and breast disorders
  • 21,237   Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 278 deaths
  • 29,750   Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 14 deaths
  • 582        Social circumstances incl. 4 deaths
  • 498        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 15 deaths
  • 12,790   Vascular disorders incl. 168 deaths

Total reactions for the experimental COVID-19 vaccine JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S) from Johnson & Johnson369 deaths and 15,281 injuries to 22/05/2021

  • 145        Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 10 deaths
  • 264        Cardiac disorders incl. 34 deaths
  • 8             Congenital, familial and genetic disorders
  • 77           Ear and labyrinth disorders
  • 5             Endocrine disorders incl. 1 death
  • 191        Eye disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 1,302     Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 11 deaths
  • 3,619     General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 97 deaths
  • 38           Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 2 deaths
  • 51           Immune system disorders
  • 245        Infections and infestations incl. 8 deaths
  • 209        Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 6 deaths
  • 1,134     Investigations incl. 23 deaths
  • 104        Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 10 deaths
  • 2,368     Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 12 deaths
  • 12           Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
  • 3,051     Nervous system disorders incl. 48 death
  • 7             Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions
  • 8             Product issues
  • 181        Psychiatric disorders incl. 3 deaths
  • 69           Renal and urinary disorders incl. 4 deaths
  • 62           Reproductive system and breast disorders
  • 637        Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 29 deaths
  • 324        Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 1 death
  • 39           Social circumstances incl. 2 deaths
  • 214        Surgical and medical procedures incl. 20 deaths
  • 917        Vascular disorders incl. 46 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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on India: Vaccine Drive in Uttar Pradesh Goes Awry, Villagers Jump into River to Evade Jab

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.

***

Israeli forces and settlers stormed Al-Aqsa Mosque for the third day in a row on Tuesday morning, as arrests of Palestinian activists took place across the occupied West Bank.

According to Palestinian sources in occupied East Jerusalem, Israeli settlers stormed the courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque, with the protection of Israeli police.

Israeli forces guards were filmed harassing teenage boys in the neighbourhood of Silwan, apparently carrying out random ID checks.

Silwan is a neighbourhood south of Al-Aqsa Mosque and is one of the East Jerusalem suburbs that are at risk of the displacement of Palestinian residents.

In Hebron, settlers attacked the houses of two separate families and uprooted 35 olive trees and a yield of summer crops, according to local reports.

Israeli forces also arrested Palestinian resident of Hebron, Asaid Zuhair Eskafi, 21, after they raided the Khalat Hadour area and searched his family’s home.

They also arrested Yasser Badersawi, an alleged Hamas leader in Nablus, after raiding his home.

This comes hours after a 23-year-old Palestinian refugee was shot and left for dead by undercover Israeli agents in Al-Bireh.

Plain-clothed Israeli forces, known as Mista’arvim, snuck into the Umm Al Sharayet neighbourhood, where they shot and killed a man identified as Ahmad Jamil Fahd.

Director of the Palestine Medical Complex, Ahmad Al-Bitawi, told Voice of Palestine radio that Fahd was rushed to a medical facility but died.

He was a resident of Am’ari refugee camp, east of Ramallah city.

Weeks of escalated violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank erupted following the Israeli decision to restrict movement at Al-Aqsa Mosque during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and settler attacks on the holy site.

Tensions further escalated following the forced dispossession of Palestinian families from their homes in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah and the 11-day Israeli bombardment of the besieged Gaza Strip, which killed some 250 Palestinians, including 66 children, and wounded over 1,910 others.

Health authorities in the West Bank also confirmed 31 were killed in the occupied region, totalling 279 across all Palestinian territories.

*

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 Andrew Shiva / Wikimedia Commons

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As those individuals aware of it will have observed, presumably with deep regret, the latest ‘International Day for Biological Diversity’ passed on 22 May with the bulk of the human population continuing to act in ways that destroy Earth’s biosphere at an ever-accelerating rate.

Unaware that many authors continue to report the ongoing destruction of Earth’s biodiversity, which is under siege on a range of fronts by unchecked human destruction of Earth’s biosphere as well as particular assaults on Earth’s living creatures, responses to this ‘hidden’ path to human extinction continue to waver between non-existent and token.

Consequently, in such circumstances, the destruction of biodiversity might yet become the means by which Homo sapiens is consigned to the fossil record ‘beating’ nuclear war, the climate catastrophe and electromagnetic radiation as the fundamental driver of extinction.

Of course, these drivers are intimately related. Ongoing preparations for nuclear war (requiring the extraction of vast resources from the biosphere), the accelerating climate catastrophe and the ever-expanding electromagnetic contamination of the biosphere are all heavily implicated in driving the destruction of life on Earth and seriously addressing these issues is something only discussed in narrow, genuinely aware circles while official ‘concern’ and that of the human population generally continue to exhibit negligible engagement, perhaps ‘tut-tutting’ the latest news in the corporate media of the extinction of an iconic species. See ‘For Whom the Bell Tolls: A Report on the State of Planet Earth at Year’s End 2020’.

But given that 150-200 species of life on Earth (plants, birds, animals, fish, amphibians, insects, reptiles and microbes) become extinct daily, as noted in 2010 by Ahmed Djoghlaf, the secretary-general of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity who stated that ‘We are losing biodiversity at an unprecedented rate’, and with many biologists having noted that the species extinction rate is nearly 1,000 times the ‘natural’ or ‘background’ rate and ‘is greater than anything the world has experienced since the vanishing of the dinosaurs nearly 65m years ago’ – see ‘Protect nature for world economic security, warns UN biodiversity chief’ – only a delusional individual would argue that this issue is drawing the attention and profound action that is needed to halt this existential crisis.

And given that, back in 2010, the UN was arguing that the ‘economic case for global action to stop the destruction of the natural world is even more powerful than the argument for tackling climate change’ – see ‘UN says case for saving species “more powerful than climate change”’ – there is obviously no doubt that, officially and otherwise, the destruction of biodiversity has been neglected compared to the (admittedly also inadequate) attention given to the climate catastrophe.

So Homo sapiens moves quickly and efficiently to its own extinction, an inevitable consequence of the destruction of the web of life.

An important aspect of the destruction of biodiversity is what precedes the extinction of a species.

In their report compiled in 2017, Professors Gerardo Ceballos, Paul R. Ehrlich & Rodolfo Dirzo recorded that Earth continues to experience ‘a huge episode of population declines and extirpations, which will have negative cascading consequences on ecosystem functioning and services vital to sustaining civilization. We describe this as a “biological annihilation” to highlight the current magnitude of Earth’s ongoing sixth major extinction event.’ Moreover, local population extinctions ‘are orders of magnitude more frequent than species extinctions. Population extinctions, however, are a prelude to species extinctions, so Earth’s sixth mass extinction episode has proceeded further than most assume.’ See ‘Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines’ and ‘Our Vanishing World: Wildlife’.

But, tragically, many additional species are now trapped in a feedback loop which will inevitably precipitate their extinction as well because of the way in which ‘co-extinctions’, ‘localized extinctions’ and ‘extinction cascades’ work once initiated and as has already occurred in almost all ecosystem contexts. See the (so far) six-part series ‘Our Vanishing World’. Have you seen a flock of birds of any size recently? A butterfly?

Why is this Happening?

The accelerating destruction of Earth’s biosphere is driven by one fundamental cause. Over-consumption by humans in industrialized countries. With nearly a billion people living in poverty and about 500 million indigenous peoples living or attempting to live subsistence lifestyles around the world, it is those populations in industrialized countries who are determined to consume more than they actually need and generally live unaware of their ecological impact who are destroying Earth’s biosphere.

Because whether consuming water, energy for household use, fossil fuels for vehicle or airline travel, paper, plastic, metals or meat, only a rare human is keeping track of, and consciously minimizing use of, these ‘end product’ resources which are extracted directly from, or manufactured with resources extracted from, Earth’s biosphere, with a byproduct of this production being a massive amount of waste material, much of it not able to be disposed of in any way that is remotely ecologically benign.

And because the extraction of resources from the biosphere to satisfy consumer demand fundamentally depends on state or private corporations making a profit from the extraction, corporations will exploit anywhere with negligible concern for the local environments destroyed.

To highlight the cost of our endlessly-expanding consumption, one only has to consider a few of the near ‘endless’ list of biosphere assaults adversely impacting the Earth and the species dependent on impacted ecosystems.

Did you know about the planned oil drilling in the staggeringly beautiful and, until now, pristine Okavango Delta in south-west Africa, and what this might mean for the region’s 18,000 elephants and other wildlife (not to mention the human population)? See ‘A Big Oil project in Africa threatens fragile Okavango region’.

Did you know about the ‘massive volumes of fracking waste’ being illegally dumped at Vaca Muerta in northern Patagonia in Argentina? Good for the biosphere and local wildlife do you think? See ‘Argentina’s Illegal Oil and Gas Waste Dumps Show “Dark Side” of Vaca Muerta Drilling, Says Criminal Complaint’.

And while there is a huge number of mines around the world inflicting massive damage on their immediate location – see ‘Environmental Nightmares Created by Open Pit Mines’ – mining is just one way to destroy the biosphere.

Rainforest destruction is another key driver of biosphere degradation in all parts of the world where rainforests are located, notably including the Amazon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia and West Papua, and the range of assaults is breathtaking with logging, burning, land clearance to create cattle farms, palm oil and soybean plantations, dam building as well as mining and oil drilling just among the most damaging causes. See ‘Our Vanishing World: Rainforests’.

But, as hinted at above, the emission of ‘greenhouse gases’, notably carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide is destroying the delicate composition of Earth’s atmosphere, to the detriment of the biosphere generally and with catastrophic implications for life on Earth. Despite largely successful efforts by the elite-controlled IPCC to delude people into believing that the global mean temperature has increased by only 1°C, in fact, since the pre-industrial era (prior to 1750) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have already caused the global temperature to rise by more than 2°C above this baseline (in February 2020). This occurred despite the Paris climate agreement in 2015 when politicians pledged to hold the global temperature rise to well below 2°C above the pre-industrial level and pledged to try to limit the temperature rise to 1.5°C above this level. See ‘2°C crossed’ and ‘Human Extinction by 2026? A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival’.

And electromagnetic radiation is inflicting rapidly increasing damage to all forms of life with the deployment of 5G now in full swing. See ‘Deadly Rainbow: Will 5G Precipitate the Extinction of All Life on Earth?’

Of course, all forms of military violence – invariably done to gain control over biosphere resources – as well as the preparation for it, destroys vast areas of the natural environment (including the creatures that live in it) either deliberately or as ‘collateral damage’. See ‘Ten Reasons Why Militarism is Bad for the Environment’.

As can be readily observed, the destruction of biodiversity is a primary subset of the destruction of the biosphere. Every living organism needs habitat to survive. Every time we destroy part of the biosphere, we destroy the habitat of the organisms that live in it. But we also destroy life and biodiversity directly too. How much longer can the wolf, for example, hold on against the onslaught? See ‘Bill Allowing 90 Percent of Idaho’s Wolves to Be Killed Passes House and Senate’.

Humanity generally is so unconcerned about destruction of the biosphere and the biodiversity cost that goes with it, that we studiously ignore this cost, even when it impacts our closest relatives, human and otherwise. See West Africa’s chimpanzees are on the brink of extinction! and ‘Western Chimpanzee’.

And even the most iconic of species, such as the elephant, are not safe from the human onslaught. From 26 million elephants in 1800, the elephant population of Africa is down to 415,000, thanks to poaching for ivory, ‘trophy hunting’, destruction of habitat and other human causes. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has now listed the African forest elephant as ‘critically endangered’ and the African savanna elephant as ‘endangered’. See ‘Disappearing Elephants’ and ‘Africa’s elephants now endangered by poaching, habitat loss’.

Of course, destruction of habitat takes an almost infinite variety of forms when it comes to Homo sapiens. The latest farming venture to threaten elephant habitat is just now being created. See ‘From poaching to avocados, Kenya’s elephants face new threat’.

Besides this, assaults on particular species are pushing many endangered species to the brink of extinction. Wildlife trafficking, for example, is worth up to $20 billion each year. Illegal wildlife products include jewelry, traditional medicine, clothing, furniture, and souvenirs, as well as some exotic pets, most of which are sold to unaware/unconcerned consumers in the West although China is heavily implicated too. And to mention elephants again in this context: every 15 minutes an elephant is killed for its tusks. See Stop Wildlife Trafficking.

But if we are not concerned about the iconic species, can you imagine the collective concern for those millions of creatures of which we have never even heard, let alone given a name? And yet, as the work of Professor Gerardo Ceballos and his colleagues cited above clearly suggests, there are many unknown or obscure species that are part of the ‘co-extinctions’, ‘localized extinctions’ and ‘extinction cascades’ that are driving the ‘biological annihilation’ that they have documented.

So What Can We Do?

Well, in theory, we can participate in official responses to this crisis. See ‘Previewing the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration’.

But, as history demonstrates, we would be unwise to rely on responses generated by the elite and promulgated through its agents. Such efforts are inevitably designed to subvert effective outcomes, which they do with unrelenting monotony to which the record of uninterrupted destruction readily testifies.

Nevertheless, there is a great deal that we can do, personally, that will make a difference.

As is always the case with threats to biodiversity, the fundamental response to this crisis involves producing and consuming less. A lot less. ‘A difficult ask’ you might say. And more difficult than you probably realize, given the fundamentally dysfunctional emotional state that drives human over-consumption in materialist societies in the first place. See ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’.

But for those emotionally equipped for the challenge, you are welcome to join those who recognize the critical importance of reduced consumption and greater self-reliance by participating in The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth which outlines a ‘step by step’ strategy for achieving these ends. In addition, you are welcome to consider signing the online pledge of The Peoples Charter to Create a Nonviolent World.

Of course, you can also campaign to do other things as well. Halting war and all military activity of any kind would save the biosphere enormous resources so effort put into that is worthwhile. If you would like to campaign, strategically, to halt war there is a list of strategic goals for doing so in Campaign Strategic Aims.

In fact, if you wish to focus on strategically resisting any of the four primary threats to human existence – nuclear war, the deployment of 5G, the collapse of biodiversity and/or the climate catastrophe – you can read about nonviolent strategy, including strategic goals to focus your campaigns, on that website too.

Equally fundamentally, if you would like to nurture children to become powerful individuals capable of acting strategically to prevent and respond to violence while able to critique society and elite propaganda, see ‘My Promise to Children’. A child who is emotionally whole does not need to use consumption as a substitute for giving up their unique identity as a survival strategy during childhood, as the ‘Love Denied’ article also explains.

As an aside, if you want a better fundamental understanding of how we reached this point, see Why Violence?, Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice and ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.

Conclusion

Halting the human rush to extinction through the destruction of biodiversity will require monumental effort. Raising awareness of this rapidly unfolding but still largely-hidden tragedy is, therefore, a high priority. But that is only the start. Enormous effort is required as well.

Of course, for those too terrified to contemplate the reality of ongoing destruction of Earth’s biodiversity and its implications for our own behaviour, denial or delusion are easy ‘psychological retreats’, particularly when our childhood survival largely depended on such tactics.

So it is going to take those who are powerful enough to deal with reality to make a stand.

We are on the cliff-edge of extinction. What will you do?

*

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.

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of Why Violence? His email address is [email protected] and his website is here.

He is a frequent contributor to ‘Global Research’.

Featured image is from Pixabay


Annex

The Earth Pledge

Out of love for the Earth and all of its creatures, and my respect for their needs, from this day onwards I pledge that:

  1. I will listen deeply to children. See ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’.
  2. I will not travel by plane
  3. I will not travel by car
  4. I will not eat meat and fish
  5. I will only eat organically/biodynamically grown food
  6. I will minimize the amount of fresh water I use, including by minimizing my ownership and use of electronic devices
  7. I will not own or use a mobile (cell) phone
  8. I will not buy rainforest timber
  9. I will not buy or use single-use plastic, such as bags, bottles, containers, cups and straws
  10. I will not use banks, superannuation (pension) funds or insurance companies that provide any service to corporations involved in fossil fuels, nuclear power and/or weapons
  11. I will not accept employment from, or invest in, any organization that supports or participates in the exploitation of fellow human beings or profits from killing and/or destruction of the biosphere
  12. I will not get news from the corporate media (mainstream newspapers, television, radio, Google, Facebook, Twitter…)
  13. I will make the effort to learn a skill, such as food gardening or sewing, that makes me more self-reliant
  14. I will gently encourage my family and friends to consider signing this pledge.
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Accelerating Destruction of Earth’s Biodiversity: When Will We Act?
  • 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 last ten years of my career were spent running Jewish communities as an executive in the Jewish Federation movement across North America—it was a career quite literally bookended by conflict in Israel-Palestine. As the most recent round of violence exploded, Jewish communal organizations sprang into action, issuing statements blaming Palestinians for their own suffering and lack of sovereignty, ahistorically casting Israel as a wholly innocent victim.

During the time I spent at Federations in Boston, Los Angeles, Columbus, and London, Ontario, 3,590 Palestinians lost their lives at the hands of Israel’s security forces. I feel a level of complicity in each of their deaths. It is a sin I must bear. While I never personally picked up a weapon or wore the uniform of the Israel Defence Forces, a portion of every dollar I raised for Jewish Federations helped to create the material conditions that brutalize and subjugate Palestinians.

In Judaism, the concept of sin is not a state of permanence. In fact, when translated, the Hebrew word for sin literally means “to go astray.” That means that in the eyes of the almighty, we have the opportunity to find our path back to righteousness through t’shuvah, or repentance. To truly be repentant, we must first confess our transgressions, show true regret, and finally vow never to repeat our misdeeds.

For me, the path to repentance means that the words written here will likely alienate me from a community of friends and colleagues built over the course of a decade. That is a price I am willing to pay.

I am not alone in my position. In an EKOS poll of Canadian Jews, 37 percent say that they have a negative opinion of the Israeli government. That’s hardly the monolithic support for Israel that Jewish communal organizations claim to represent and it certainly doesn’t make one in four of us “anti-Israel” or “self-hating.” To the contrary, it makes us more concerned with Israel living up to its purported values than succumbing to nationalist violence to achieve its goals.

For my peers, younger Jews who have only ever known Israel as an occupier and military power, the split is even more pronounced. In the 2018 Survey of Jews in Canada, nearly half of Canadian Jews under 30 report being criticized for expressing concern about the policies of Israel. It’s not surprising. Jewish communal organizations work hard to stifle dissent, shaming those who would question the morality of Israel and driving out anyone with a differing viewpoint.

For organizations like the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) and Jewish Federations, there is only one acceptable view: blanket support of Israel’s policies that have led to the dehumanization of Palestinians. Far from democratic or representative of Canadian Jews, the boards of directors of Federations and communal organizations are mostly packed with obtuse and reactionary voices in Jewish communities and those with the most money to put behind their words. Rather than being the mainstream of Jewish communal life, those voices are the extreme.

Jewish communal and advocacy organizations know full well they often represent only the most hardline voices in our communities but would rather support the morally bankrupt leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu, pedaling an ideology that ends in the bombing of civilians in Gaza or the theft of Palestinian land in the West Bank, than to be truly representative of the opinions of Canadian Jews. The 54-year occupation, tacitly supported by CIJA, Jewish Federations, and other communal institutions, has led to what Human Rights Watch and B’Tselem, Israel’s largest human rights organization, call apartheid and is directly responsible for this moment of devastation.

In our tradition, we seek t’shuvah not only for ourselves, but also for the entirety of the Jewish people. It’s time. It’s time to admit the sins done against the Palestinian people and begin the long path of repentance. It’s time to listen to the voices demanding an end to violence and occupation that has been ever present throughout the entirety of our lives. It’s time to end this and vow: never again.

*

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.

Joe Roberts is a veteran political strategist in both the US and Canada, Executive Director of the Centre for Canadian Progress, Co-Host of the political podcast New Left Radio, and Managing Director at Jewish Currents Magazine. Follow him on Twitter @Joe_Roberts01.

Featured image: Separation wall between Israel and the West Bank near Jerusalem. Photo by Mazur Travel/Shutterstock.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on I’m a Former Jewish Federation CEO—and I Oppose Israel’s Actions Against Palestinians
  • Tags: , ,

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

As Oman’s UK-trained police confront popular protests against unemployment and corruption in the dictatorial Gulf state, the British military prepares to deploy an aircraft carrier to a new UK naval base in Oman, and the head of the Royal Air Force praises his Omani counterpart.

Britain’s closest ally in the Gulf has been rocked by three days of protests in the largest show of dissent against its unelected Sultan since the Arab Spring in 2011.

Police have fired tear gas, deployed armoured vehicles and mass arrested protesters, raising concern over the British government’s extensive support for Oman’s monarchy.

It comes as Britain’s new aircraft carrier set sail on Saturday on a voyage that will see her stop off at the UK’s growing naval base in Duqm, Oman, and with the head of Britain’s Royal Air Force currently meeting his Omani counterpart.

Thousands of Omanis are protesting against high levels of unemployment and corruption, as well as police crackdowns on their initial attempts to demonstrate.

All political parties are banned in Oman where it is a criminal offence to insult the Sultan, who rules with absolute power. The only independent newspaper, Al Zaman, has been shut down for attempting to cover corruption.

Declassified recently showed that until at least last year, Oman’s ruler was secretly advised by a British-dominated privy council that held midnight meetings at his lavish palace. Its members have included General Nick Carter, the current head of the British military and Richard Moore, the chief of intelligence agency MI6.

Other high-level advisers to the Sultan have been Mervyn King, the former governor of the Bank of England, and Lord Geidt, an ex-private secretary to the Queen who is now responsible for stopping corruption among British government ministers.

British advisers dominate the Sultan’s privy council. (Photo: In the Thick of It)

It is not known whether the Sultan followed all the economic and strategic advice provided by his privy council, but Oman spends more on its military per person than almost any other country in the world and has a vast national debt.

Much of the regime’s military equipment has been bought from British arms companies, which have received billions of pounds from Oman since the Arab Spring in 2011.

Those protesters were partly placated when Oman’s then Sultan, Qaboos bin Said, created 10,000 new jobs in the police force. However such short-term tactics to reduce unemployment have saddled his successor, his nephew Haitham bin Tarik, with more national debt, a problem compounded as revenue from oil reserves fell 35% at the start of 2021.

Anonymous opposition sources inside Oman told Declassified last week that discontent about the economy was at an all-time high and had risen since our privy council revelations. People were afraid to speak out openly for fear of reprisals and some worry that Oman’s newly expanded cyber security apparatus could intercept their messages.

GCHQ, Britain’s electronic surveillance force, has three listening stations based at secret locations in Oman. In addition, Crossword – a cyber security company chaired by Richard Dearlove, a former head of MI6 who sat on the Sultan’s privy council – announced last week that it was setting up its Middle East headquarters in Oman.

Despite concern at being monitored, on Sunday morning people gathered outside the labour ministry in Sohar, an industrial city in northern Oman. They were almost immediately arrested by large numbers of riot police, but a handful of photos from the protest went viral and trended in Oman on Twitter.

Another group of around 30 men attempted to protest in Sohar on Monday morning, but were surrounded by a similar number of riot police vehicles and taken away in a police coach. Almost identical scenes were repeated in Salalah, a city 850 km southwest of Sohar.

A larger group then gathered near the labour ministry in Sohar where they were chased away by riot police. Some protesters resorted to throwing stones against well-protected police units, who responded with tear gas.

The British government approved the export of £16.6-million worth of tear gas to Oman in August 2015, and has allowed smaller quantities to be shipped there in the last 12 months, according to research by Campaign Against Arms Trade.

Oman’s police have also had extensive training from the UK, including at the College of Policing in Britain as well as public order sessions with officers from Northern Ireland and its state-owned company, NI-CO.

The training is currently being delivered through the Foreign Office’s Gulf Strategy Fund.

The Police Service of Northern Ireland trained Oman’s riot police in 2017. (Photo: Declassified UK)

As smaller groups of protesters continued to march around the streets of Sohar on Monday morning, armoured vehicles belonging to Oman’s army were seen approaching the city and police set up roadblocks.

Almost 100 serving British troops are on loan to Oman’s military and UK army officers serve in Omani armoured units and military intelligence. Their rules of engagement are classified, but early versions show they were permitted to assist with internal security.

By midday on Monday, riot police were seen snatching individuals from the streets of Sohar and officials warned people not to film the security forces or discuss them on social media platforms such as WhatsApp.

Local media were also censored by the information ministry while state TV initially ignored the protests, belatedly publishing some photos from the protest only once they were being reported by international media.

Later on Monday fresh protests broke out in Salalah, in support of the activists in Sohar. Many of the protesters in Salalah appear to come from the mountainous Dhofar region, which has a long history of resistance to the Omani Sultans and fought against British special forces in the 1970s.

Their protests continued late into the night and were met with a markedly smaller police presence. By the end of Monday, the police released many of the protesters who had been arrested.

However, this concession did not stop an even larger wave of protests starting on Tuesday morning, as youths in Salalah returned to the streets at first light.

Protests also took place in at least eight other cities: Sur, Nizwa, Ibri, Ibra, Rustaq, Suwayq, Al-Khaburah and again in Sohar.

Nabhan al-Hanashi, a political exile and chairman of the Omani Centre for Human Rights, told Declassified that the protests should not come as a surprise.

“The people in Oman, especially the unemployed, were waiting for reforms to take place a long time ago,” he commented. “During the last days of Qaboos they were silenced. When Haitham took over, he promised the people he would do lots of reforms and hold corrupt officials to account. But nothing happened.”

An activist in Oman, who asked to remain anonymous for safety reasons, told Declassified:

“As an Omani citizen I feel upset that we carry the Omani government’s mistakes. We as people don’t have a real opinion on the laws. We cannot oppose the government and there’s no freedom of expression to demand our rights, so we protest with our brothers and sisters for justice and fighting the corruption that is covered up by powerful figures in the government. We demand freedom of media, more power to the people, jobs and economic reforms.”

The head of Britain’s Royal Air Force (RAF), Sir Mike Wigston, met his Omani counterpart amid the protests on Tuesday morning and described him as a “great” friend. Around 24 RAF personnel are on loan to Oman, including pilots and engineers. Historically, Oman’s rulers have used aircraft to attack opposition groups.

Police tactics on Tuesday varied from place to place, with some protesters being given water bottles while others were pursued by riot police. A water cannon and armoured police trucks were seen inside Sohar, where protesters staged a sit-in at the site of the old Globe Roundabout, which was a centre of demonstrations during the Arab Spring.

Experts told Declassified the water cannon may have been produced by a South Korean arms company.

Andrew Smith from Campaign Against Arms Trade told Declassified his group was particularly concerned by videos showing Omani police firing tear gas.

“The regime in Oman avoids a lot of the international scrutiny it deserves, but these images show the repression that it uses to entrench its authoritarian rule,” he said.

“For decades now, the UK has armed and supported the Omani dictatorship, helping to secure its position regardless of the threats and abuses that are inflicted on opponents.

“As long as the UK and other arms-dealing governments are arming human rights abusers, there will always be a risk that those weapons are used in this way.

“The arms sales are also a sign of political support and often go hand-in-hand with an intense political and military collaboration – such as in the case of Oman where the UK has military bases and a long history of military training.

“There must be a full investigation into whether UK-made tear gas or other weapons have been used in the attacks, and an end to the shameful policy that allowed for them to be sold in the first place.”

Last month, Oman’s former foreign minister Yusuf bin Alawi predicted another Arab Spring could soon sweep the region “because nothing changed” since 2011.

The UK Foreign Office would not tell Declassified when Britain last provided public order training to Oman’s police. Instead, a spokeswoman said:

“The UK urges all countries to uphold the rule of law. We are aware of demonstrations in Oman are monitoring the situation closely.”

Under Oman’s Basic Law, any “associations whose activities are inimical to social order” are illegal. The UK Ministry of Defence did not respond to Declassified’s questions about whether British troops were assisting Oman’s response to the protests or whether General Carter still sat on the Sultan’s privy council.

Last night, Omani state television announced that the Sultan had ordered 2,000 full-time government jobs be temporarily opened, but protests look set to continue for a fourth day.

*

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.

Phil Miller is a staff reporter at Declassified UK, an investigative journalism organisation that covers the UK’s role in the world. 

Featured image: Protests in Oman started on Sunday in Sohar. (Photo: Declassified UK) 

Pakistan, China, India and the Afghan Chessboard

May 26th, 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.

***

Apocalyptic scenario is unwarranted 

The Pakistani foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said on May 13, “We will not allow boots on the ground or military bases on our territory.” He was referring to the future US security operations in the region. The Pentagon’s stated position is also not about establishing any new bases in the region but merely that “we (Pentagon) are working all the different options that we have in concert with our State Department intelligence community colleagues to establish the types of arrangements that give us the access basic and over flight necessary to — address the terrorism threats.” 

Within these parameters, Qureshi’s recent visit to the US assumed significance. Qureshi undertook the visit ostensibly to take part in the UN discussions on Palestine, but it coincided with an extraordinary hearing at the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs in Washington on May 18 — titled The U.S.-Afghanistan Relationship Following the Military Withdrawal. 

The hearing took place at the initiative of  Zalmay Khalilzad, US Special Representative on Afghanistan Reconciliation. And this also happened to be Khalilzad’s first-ever congressional hearing in his capacity as special representative! 

Listening closely to the three and a half hour long congressional hearing is an absolute must for anyone seriously interested in tracking the diplomatic peregrinations over the Afghan question. The salience lies in the renewed acceptance today by the US political elite that Pakistan’s role will remain crucial for a peaceful mainstreaming of the Taliban and for ensuring peace and stability in Afghanistan as well as for preventing terrorist threats. 

Khalilzad did not share the apocalyptic predictions of an imminent Afghan civil war and chaos. Khalilzad insisted that the “story of abandonment of Afghanistan” is unwarranted and what is happening is only that the “form of engagement will shift” post-September. In his words, “The combat forces will not be part of future engagement but substantial amount of assistance will be provided.”  

What takes the breath away is Khalilzad’s estimation that it is possible to “incentivise” the Taliban as well as to “confront them with costs” if they do not keep their word. Khalilzad was not explicit but clearly, the massive US aid to Afghanistan gives it much leverage and creates “soft power” — not only over the Taliban but across the political spectrum and governmental and non-governmental institutions. 

Crucially, Khalilzad disclosed that the Taliban admitted to him that they didn’t “rule well” as they rode to power “unexpectedly” in 1996, and have since “learned lessons” from past mistakes. He added that the Taliban are conscious of the heavy “costs” they incurred on account of the 9/11 attacks, especially, Guantanamo Bay detention camp, UN blacklisting, sanctions, and the nineteen years of war. 

The three things that emerged out of the House hearings are: first, Khalilzad sounded reasonably confident of navigating the post-September phase; two, he got lawmakers on board the Biden administration’s policy trajectory to remain engaged in Afghanistan without undertaking combat operations; and, three, he sensitised the lawmakers about the imperative need to work closely with Pakistan. 

Pakistan’s image on the Hill had taken a heavy beating in the recent years. Therefore, the general acceptance in the Beltway today on the importance of partnership with Pakistan will be the key to the door opening into the pathway for peace in Afghanistan. This has profound implications for regional security.   

Qureshi has lost no time to build on the favourable outcome of Khalilzad’s initiative to arrange a special congressional hearing that creates a level playing field for future cooperation with Pakistan. Qureshi has a challenging mission, nonetheless — to realise Pakistan’s desire for “a broad-based and comprehensive” partnership with the US which should go beyond cooperation on Afghanistan, as he conveyed to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in a recent phone call just before embarking on the visit to the US. 

Kabul will probably see these trends with a sense of deja vu. Some bitterness will remain that the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is continuing scepticism about the US intentions. Having said that, any pooling of the US-Pakistan efforts may ultimately prove overpowering in the present regional environment where there is general acceptance of the mainstreaming of the Taliban as part of a broad-based power sharing arrangement. 

The current proposal to create in Kabul a so-called Supreme State Council (a format that will work for building a consensus around peace and on other peace-related affairs at higher level), which Khalilzad supported, hopes to bring the warlords and other stakeholders on board and to create the platform to settle differences without recourse to force. Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and it remains to be seen whether the proposed council would have decision-making authority.

Equally, a compromise on the Durand Line question will help matters a great deal. However, when asked about it in an interview with Spiegel, former president Hamid Karzai responded cautiously: 

“If we could have a relationship with Pakistan similar to the model of the European Union, perhaps a solution could be found. The Durand Line would then be a zone rather than a fixed border, and would formally continue to exist. We want an open exchange between people on both sides, without border controls, and with freedom of movement, similar to what Europeans have achieved today between Germany and France.”

Read the full transcript of Karzai’s interview with Spiegel titled We Afghans Are Just Being Used  Against Each Other. The point is, there is deep anguish among the Afghan elite that once again a “settlement” is being imposed on their nation by outside powers.  

Nonetheless, Qureshi has made a good beginning to rebuild bridges in the Beltway. A Voice of America commentary says,

“US efforts to solidify plans for what comes next appear to have taken on renewed urgency in recent days, leaning on outreach from the White House and the Pentagon to overcome a decade of strained ties and start to win over Pakistani officials.

“Already, US officials have voiced some optimism that an initial meeting between US national security adviser Jake Sullivan and his Pakistani counterpart, Moeed Yusuf, on Sunday in Geneva, went well

“The Pentagon, likewise, expressed confidence following a call early Monday between US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, General Qamar Javed Bajwa. The Pentagon readout said,“The secretary reiterated his appreciation for Pakistan’s support for the Afghanistan peace negotiations and expressed his desire to continue to build on the United States-Pakistan bilateral relationship.”

But then, just as Qureshi concluded his visit, External Affairs Minister J. Jaishankar landed in the US. And, India-Pakistan diplomatic ties continue to deteriorate. New Delhi is deeply sceptical about the growing consensus internationally that Pakistani policy in Afghanistan shows signs of strategic shift — that Islamabad no longer wants a Taliban-dominated future Afghanistan as its next-door neighbour. Indians insist that it is all smoke and mirrors. 

However, India is hardly in a position to assert on the Afghan chessboard. The government is entrapped in a pandemic with no end in sight. Jaishankar’s agenda is heavily dominated by discussions with the American side relating to vaccines. Again, India has a tense border situation with China and the Sino-Indian relations are in a state of free fall, as New Delhi selectively intensifies its engagement with those world capitals that share its concerns over China’s rise and are willing to push back — the US, the UK, EU, QUAD, etc. — at the centerstage of its foreign policy. 

The bottom line is that New Delhi is highly unlikely to do anything that may undermine the US strategy in Afghanistan, which, incidentally, also has an “Indo-Pacific” dimension to it. Incidentally, with a twinkle in his eye, Khalilzad expressed total confidence during the House hearing last week that the US has the capacity to return to the Bagram base “very quickly”, when lawmakers reminded him that Bagram is the “only base the US has on the borders of China”. He advised the lawmakers to consult the Pentagon.  

*

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: Afghan children walk past a Taliban Red Unit, an elite force, Alingar district, Laghman province in eastern Afghanistan (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.

***

“History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books—books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe. As Napoleon once said, ‘What is history, but a fable agreed upon? ‘”—Professor Robert Langdon

The Decline of an Empire

Why did World War One happen?  The conventional fable agreed upon begins on June 28, 1914 with the assassination of Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo.  The aftermath of the assassination spiraled out of control.  It was like an unstoppable train speeding down the tracks.  Suddenly all of the Western powers were at war.  When the armistice was signed on November 11, 1918 forty million people lay dead.  Exactly five years to the day after the assassination of the Archduke, the Treaty of Versailles was signed.  Germany alone accepts all the guilt for the war.  The end.

Well, it was not “The End”.  The outcome of The First World War led to World War Two.  The outcome of WW2 led to the Cold War.  “Winning” the Cold War created the mujahideen; rebranded as Al Qaeda it led to the Global War On Terror, and never-ending wars.  

In the 21st century the U.S. and its allies squandered their blood and treasure on never-ending criminal wars.  Millions of people the U.S. slaughtered in West Asia are dismissed as “collateral damage”.  Meanwhile, China has been using its resources for development, and lifting millions of people out of poverty.

The U.S. Empire has been in a long decline for decades.  More Americans are falling into poverty, and the U.S. has been steadily falling in the United Nations Index of Human Development.  It currently ranks number 28th among developed countries.  The index is a measure of infant mortality, healthcare, life expectancy, education, and per capita income.  The U.S. infrastructure, such as road, rail and airports, public utilities, and the internet are behind other developed countries, too.  

China’s economy is expected to surpass the U.S. in 2028.  Russia has also revitalized its economy in the last 20 years.  Every advance that China and Russia make is propagandized by the U.S. as “aggression”.  

Instead of competing peacefully with China and Russia, the U.S. has engaged in a New Cold War.  Each passing year the world grows closer to a Hot War.  The Doomsday Clock of nuclear annihilations was at 14 minutes to midnight at the end of the Cold War.  It is now at 100 seconds to Armageddon.  That is the closest it has ever been.  There is no effort in the U.S. to turn back the clock.  

August 2014 was the centennial of The First World War.  The year was a grim reminder, which momentarily gave people pause, and a slew of articles resulted.  For instance, Graham Allison wrote an article that appeared in The Atlantic:  Just How Likely Is Another World War? . Allison assessed the similarities and differences between 1914 and 2014.  His conclusion was:

”For the ‘complacent’ who live in what Gore Vidal labeled the ‘United States of Amnesia’, the similarities should serve as a vivid reminder that many of the reasons currently given for discounting threats of war did not prevent World War I.” 

Then Allison optimistically concluded that another world war is, “unlikely if statesmen in both the U.S. and China reflect on what happened a century ago.”  Does anybody see “wise statesmen” reflecting, or see much concern in the United States of Amnesia?  [The blindness, entrenched mediocrity and exceptionalist values of the US ruling cliques constitute also a central point of alarm in Russian geostrategic analyst  Andrei Martyanov’s indispensable book trilogy on US decline.—Ed)

There is no viable anti-war liberal class in the U.S. demanding dialogue, diplomacy and compromise among nations.  The U.S. has exited treaties, which were designed to prevent catastrophic wars.  The U.S. has criminally abandoned international law and the United Nations Charter.  Instead the U.S. has come up with its own “rules-based international order”. International law is based on treaties among nations.  The “rules” are diktats made in Washington and Brussels, imposed on the rest of the world by U.S. militarism.

In the unipolar world after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. did as it pleased.  It ruled the air, land and seas.  With the rise of China and Russia the U.S. does not compete peacefully, nor does it show any desire to.  Diplomacy, negotiation and compromise are dirty words to U,S. warmongers, of which there are many.  

International capitalism is not based on peaceful competition.  Instead it is based on military power, financial blockades, blackmail, and might makes right.  International capitalism is a system of imperialism, monopoly, and war.  When an empire is challenged, it lashes out.  Empires try to destroy their competitors.  Empires project their own lust for power and world domination onto all competitors.

In the early 20th century the sun never set on the British Empire.  Metaphorically, the sun started to set with the rise of Germany.  The British saw a rising Germany as a threat to its goal of world domination.  

The following essay summarizes how the British Empire set out to destroy Germany in 1902.  It led to The Great War.  The similarities of that era are frighteningly similar to the U.S. paranoia and hostility to a rising China and Russia today.            

Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner and The Society of the Elect

The authors of The Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War claim that it was Great Britain that started World War One, and not Germany.  It is a convincing story.  The authors George Docherty and James MacGregor call their book a conspiracy fact.

The story begins in the late 1800s.  The British Empire (aware that control of world trade was essential for supremacy) ruled the seas.  In 1870 a young Cecil John Rhodes migrated to a British colony in southern Africa.  After failing at farming he set out in pursuit of diamonds, which had been discovered in a region, which was later named Rhodesia.  With the financial backing of Nathan Mayer Rothschild, the young Rhodes monopolized the diamond trade.  He became fantastically wealthy and founded the De Beers diamond company.  

In 1895 gold was discovered in the Transvaal Republic controlled by Dutch settlers, known as Boers.  Rhodes teamed up with Sir Alfred Milner, who was the British commissioner for Southern Africa.  Together with a small group of wealthy Britons they instigated the Boer War in order to grab the gold for themselves.   

Rhodes and Milner went on to form a secret society.  As Rhodes had written earlier:

”Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire, and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for the making of the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.”

Rhodes’ ambition was to control all of the world’s wealth, for the benefit of the British Empire.  He believed in the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon race, and he believed that the British Empire should rule the world. After Rhodes’ early death in 1902, Alfred Milner became the leader of the secret society.  Milner was so admired by Rhodes that he is quoted as having said:

“If Milner says peace, I say peace.  If Milner says war, I say war.  Whatever Milner says, I say ditto.”   

Conspiracy Facts

The authors of the “Hidden History” uncovered many World War 1 documents, which lay the blame for WW1 on Rhodes’s secret society.  Authors George Docherty and James MacGregor built on the work of Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley’s book The Anglo-American Establishment.  Quigley wrote:

“One wintery afternoon in February 1891, three men were engaged in an earnest conversation in London.  From that conversation were to flow consequences of the greatest import to the British Empire and the world as a whole.  For these men were organizing a secret society that was, for more than fifty years, to be one of the most important forces in the formulation of British imperialism and foreign policy.”

“The three men thus engaged were already well known in England.  The leader was Cecil Rhodes, fabulously wealth empire builder and the most important person in South Africa.  The second was William T. Stead, the most famous, and probably the most sensational , journalist of the day.  The third was Reginald Baliol Brett, later known as Lord Esher, friend and confidant to Queen Victoria, and later to be the most influential advisor to King Edward Vll, and King George V.”

The Boer War was a long and costly war for Britain.  It marked the beginning of the decline of the British Empire.  Rhodes established his secret society of elites to reverse the decline.  He named it The Society of the Elect.  

By the turn of the 20th century, Germany was a rising power.  It was outpacing Great Britain in industry, finance, science, technology, commerce and culture.  Germany was acquiring colonies and expanding its navy.  The Society of the Elect viewed every German advancement as an act of aggression.  They conspired to start a war that would crush Germany, so that the British Empire would remain supreme.

Circles Within Circles

The Society of the Elect was organized with circles within circles.  The inner circle was Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner, W. T. Stead, The Viscount Esher, the Marquess Salsbury, Lord Rosebery, and Nathaniel “Natty” Rothschild.  King Edward VII was a central member, and after his death in 2010, King George V was too.  According to “Hidden History”:

“Stead was there to influence public opinion, and Esher acted as the voice of the King.  Salisbury and Rosebery provided the political networks, while Rothschild represented the international money power.  Milner was the master manipulator, the iron-willed, assertive intellectual who offered that one essential factor:  strong leadership.”

The Society of the Elect had an outer circle, which they named the “Association of Helpers”.  The Helpers were like-minded elites from the ruling class.  They were royalty, imperialists, financiers, greedy profiteers, war mongers, and egotistical and corrupt politicians.  The Helpers were willingly manipulated, often unknowingly, by the inner circle.

Some recruits to the Helpers were Jan Christian Smuts, Arthur Balfour, Edward Grey, Richard Haldane, H. H. Asquith, Lord Roberts, David Lloyd George, Sir Edward Carson, Frederick Sleigh Roberts, Alfred Harmsworth, and Winston Churchill.    

During WW1 Churchill was among the most ruthless imperialists and warmongers.  He is quoted as having said:

“I think a curse should rest on me, because I love this war. I know it’s smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment – and yet I can’t help it – I enjoy every second of it.”

The Propaganda Machine

The Boer War was an important prelude to World War 1.  It started off badly in 1899.  It was unpopular at home, and a drain on the British Empire.  In 1902 it ended badly too, with the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Boers.  

Tens-of-thousands of men, women and children died of disease and starvation in British concentration camps.  This would prove to be an important event in the early development of propaganda.

It was the British who began perfecting propaganda to promote the Boer War and to cover up its ugly aftermath.  Newspapers had become an affordable mass medium of influence.  The Society of the Elect had Helpers who owned the newspapers and published war propaganda eagerly.  Rhodes had written of his planned secret society that it “should inspire and even own portions of the press for the press rules the mind of the people”.

Winston Churchill was a self-promoting war correspondent sent to South Africa during the Boer War.  He returned home as a self-aggrandizing hero.  His wild story of being captured by the Boers, and his harrowing escape made him a national celebrity.  In 1900 he was elected to Parliament, and remained there until his death in 1964.  

Even as a declining empire, the British navy was supreme in the early 20th century.  The British naval policy was to keep its navy as large as the next two naval powers combined.  When Kaiser Wilhelm II started expanding Germany’s navy the British propaganda called it “German aggression” and interfering with “freedom of the seas”.  Haven’t we heard similar cries of alarm in recent times?

Like many contemporary cartoons and posters, the plucky Boers were depicted as the underdogs taking on the overwhelming might of the British Empire, the undisputed superpower of the era. Here the cartoon depicts them as the diminutive Lilliputians from Gulliver’s Travels. As in the classic book, they have subdued and tied up the giant Gulliver. (Boer War Archive)

Yet, Kaiser Wilhelm’s policy was to keep his navy at less than two-thirds the size of the British navy. The German threat to the British Empire was invented propaganda, and the hype of a German invasion was ludicrous propaganda to frighten the public.

 The Triple Entente       

The Society of the Elect made ententes with France and Russia for a war on Germany.  The alliances were secret, unknown to the public, Parliament and most of the Cabinet.  

The British had secret military “non-binding military staff conversations” with Belgium going back to 1906.  In 1911 Belgium collaborated with France and Great Britain on how to defend Belgium’s “neutrality” from a German invasion.  Both offensive and defensive alliances are a violation of neutrality.  

Belgium had instituted military conscription in 1913, and began making plans for a war with Germany.  As “Hidden History” reports:

“Documents found in the Department of Foreign Affairs in Brussels shortly after the war began proved Anglo-Belgian collusion at the highest levels, including the direct involvement of the Belgian foreign secretary, had been going on for years.”  

The Society of the Elect needed ententes with France and Russia because of their large land armies and strategic locations.  The Society secretly promised Russia the prize of Constantinople and the Dardanelles, after the planned breakup of the Ottoman Empire.  Russia had long-coveted a warm-water port.  The Society promised France the return of Alsace-Lorraine, which the French had lost to Germany in 1871.  The secret triple entente planned to divvy up German overseas colonies among themselves.   

Germany knew that it had two hostile empires on its borders.  The German army was confident that it could defend against either one.  But a simultaneous invasion by both Russia and France could be fatal.  A large and speedy German army was maintained for defense.  Military thinking at the time was that the best defense is a speedy offense.

In 1905 General Count van Schlieffen presented a defensive plan.  It became known as the Schlieffen Plan.  If both Russia and France attacked, then the German army would go through Belgium to attack the French from behind their lines.  After the German army quickly defeated France, the plan was to rush to the eastern front to defend against the slower moving Russians.  Time was of the essence.  One day’s delay could result in disaster.

From military intelligence and leaked information, the Society of the Elect learned of the Schlieffen plan.  In 1904 a spy in the German army known only as Le vengeur (The Avenger) sold the entire Schlieffen plan to the French.  Also a general on the German staff was the brother-in-law of the King of Belgium, and could have revealed the Schlieffen Plan.  The Society of the Elect used the Schlieffen Plan to set a trap.  They had to make it appear that Germany was the aggressor.  Otherwise, the British Parliament and the public would not support a war in Europe.  

Again, according to “Hidden History”, Belgian neutrality was a sham:

“Belgium was involved in secret military plans for a possible war of aggression against an unsuspecting Germany but almost a decade later would be presented as the innocent victim of German aggression.”  

The Kaiser knew that the Schlieffen plan would likely fail if the British declared war too.  The British could send its army across the English Channel to slow the German army in France, while Russia invaded from the east.  The British navy could attack and blockade Germany from the North Sea, and it could protect France’s coast.  The French navy could then be dispersed to the Mediterranean to deal with the German navy based in Pula, Austria on the Adriatic Sea.

Mobilization is an Act of War

It was understood in 1914 that the mobilization of an army was a de facto declaration of war.  If Russia and France mobilized their armies, then Germany was confronted with a fatal disaster, unless they moved quickly.  When Germany invaded Belgium, the Society of the Elect got their excuse to go to war.  The trap was sprung.  

Here is what the “Hidden History” says about mobilization:

“The Franco-Russian Military Convention [of 1892] was very specific in declaring that the first to mobilise must be held the aggressor, and that general mobilization ‘is war’”.

The “Hidden History” documents the sequence of events that occurred after the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand.  

The Balkans had been a hotbed of conflict for years.  Serbia was aggressively seeking a “Greater Serbia” of Slavic people.  Nationalism was running high, and there was deep hostility towards Austria, because of its 1908 annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina from the Ottoman Empire.

Serbia reacted with jubilation at the assassination of the Archduke in Sarajevo.  Austria was outraged at the assassination of their future king.  According to “Hidden History”, Austria had solid evidence that Serbia was behind the assassination.  Austria then spent three weeks contemplating a response.  On July 23rd Austria sent Serbia a list of 10 demands, and gave them 48 hours to reply.  

On July 25th Serbia’s answer was to mobilize its army, which was a de facto act of war.  Later the same day Austria began mobilizing.  On July 28th Austria declared war on Serbia, and on July 29th Austria bombarded Belgrade.  On July 30th Kaiser Wilhelm still hoped to placate Austria and Serbia.

According to “Hidden History”, the Kaiser did not give Austria a “blank cheque” of military support, as stated in so many history books:  

“It is claimed that, in a deliberate attempt to force a war on Europe, the Kaiser gave an unconditional assurance to Austria by a so-called blank cheque.  In fact, Austria-Hungary’s need to respond to Serbian aggression was endorsed by others including Britain and the British press.  The Kaiser and his advisors supported a local solution to a local problem and made absolutely no special preparation for war.”   

As “Hidden History” says, Germany showed no intention of attacking Russia.  Nor did Russia have any obligation to defend Serbia militarily.  So, the fable that the assassination of the Archduke triggered a chain reaction of opposing alliances is just that, a fable.

The only “blank cheque” to go to war was the secret entente between Britain, France and Russia.  On July 24th the Russians and the French secretly agreed to mobilize their armies.  The British soon followed.

German trench, 1916. Some get a rest while others stand guard.

Winston Churchill was the First Lord of the Admiralty, and on July 29th he ordered the British navy to its war station in the North Sea.  This put the British navy in position to attack and blockade Germany.  Society of the Elect member Richard Haldane gave the order to mobilize the British army.  The Society of the Elect took Great Britain to war even before the parliament authorized it.

On July 26th Russia began mobilizing.  Russia was mobilized by July 30th.  The Kaiser sent a telegram to his cousin Czar Nicholas asking him to halt mobilization.  The Kaiser waited in vain for 24 hours for an answer.  Then Kaiser Wilhelm had his ambassador in St. Petersburg ask Russia’s minister of foreign affairs to halt Russia’s mobilization.  On August 1st the Russian minister said that the Russian mobilization would continue.  Later that day Germany declared war on Russia.

Kaiser Wilhelm II Tried to Avoid War 

According to “Hidden History”, Kaiser Wilhelm II did everything he could to avoid war.  The Kaiser did not threaten to attack or declare war on France.  He repeatedly asked his British cousin King George V if he could guarantee French neutrality.  He pledged that if France would remain neutral, then Germany would not attack it.    

King George V never gave a straight answer.  Instead he deceived his cousin, telling him that Britain would stay out of a “ruinous” war.  It was a stall for time that Germany did not have.  Belgium began mobilizing on July 31st.  When the Kaiser could wait no longer he mobilized the German army on August 1, 1914.  Germany was the last country to mobilize.

On August 1st the German ambassador to London, Prince Karl Max Lichnowsky, met with Sir Edward Grey.  While speaking with Lichnowsky, Grey allegedly offered that if Germany pledged not to attack France, then England would remain neutral and guarantee France’s “passivity”.  Kaiser Wilhelm II accepted immediately; only to be told later by King George that “there must be some misunderstanding”.  Lichnowsky then advised that if Great Britain would remain neutral, Germany would respect Belgium neutrality.  Sir Edward Grey replied that he could not give this assurance since “England must have its hands free”.  It had all been a stall for time, which Germany did not have.

Babies On Bayonets

On August 2nd the Kaiser asked Belgium for “permission“ to pass his army through.  On August 3rd Belgium declined, and Germany declared war on France.  On August 4th Germany invaded Belgium.  The Germans were met with stiff resistance from Belgium’s 234,000-man army.

The British propaganda machine went to work.  They feigned outrage at the violation of Belgium neutrality.  There were horrifying stories in the press about German atrocities, executions, rapes, and “babies on bayonets”.  The British propaganda machine called it “The Rape of Belgium”.  

The British dredged up the 1839 Treaty of London.  It supposedly obligated the British to defend Belgium’s neutrality.  To “protect” Belgium, the British sent an expeditionary force to France on August 9th, as was secretly planned since 1906 and 1911 with French and Belgium military planners.     

The public was told that defending Belgium was a matter of honor for the British.  The propaganda was that there would be a domino effect if the British Empire failed to act.  Supposedly, Germany would conquer all of Europe; even the world.  None of it was true, and Belgium neutrality was a sham.  

On August 4th King George declared war on Germany.  The British parliament did not vote on the war until August 6th, and then it was to fund the war.  The Society of the Elect got their war.  Instead of reversing the decline of the British Empire though, the Great War accelerated it.  The British came out of the war exhausted and deeply in debt to the U.S.  They would have to cut spending, and reduce the size of their navy.  The British Empire would never rule the seas again.

The U.S. is Now Facing its “World War 1” Moment

So, why did the First World War happen?  The authors of The Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War say that based on documentary evidence, a small group of wealthy British elites took the world to war to preserve the supremacy of the British Empire.  It was a war the Society of the Elect chose.  

As Edward Bernays said:

“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”

Bernays was the “father of propaganda”, a dishonor usually reserved for Joseph Goebbels.  During the First World War Bernays was developing war propaganda for the Allies.  It was the British and the U.S. that began perfecting war propaganda.

It takes war propaganda to stampede the public to war.  Propaganda is how the British got the public to support the Boer War in 1899.  Having used propaganda successfully for that war, they began using propaganda in the early 1900s to prime the British people for a war with Germany.  Fear is the most effective weapon of war propaganda.

As Henry Kissinger infamously said in 2002:  

“The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being.”

And as H. L. Mencken said of democracy:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

The U.S. is now facing its “World War 1” moment.  For several decades the public has been feed constant fear mongering towards Iran, Russia and China.  The public is easily frightened into giving up their liberties for the promise of protection from “hobgoblins”.  Those who profit from war are not the ones who fight and die in them.  With every new hobgoblin the war profiteers invent they line their pockets with money and feed their insatiable ego with power.  

Another world war could come at any time.  The weapons of mass destruction are locked, loaded and ready to go in a matter of seconds.  The next world war will be The Last World War.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Greanville Post.

David William Pear is a journalist, columnist, editor, and commentator.  His articles, essays and interviews have an emphasis on U.S. foreign policy, history, and economic and social issues. He is an advocate for peace, ending US wars of aggression, and promoting economic, political and social justice. An Associate Edityor with The Greanville Post, he has been writing also for The Real News Network, OpEdNews, American Herald Tribune, and other publications since 2009. He is a member of Veterans for Peace, Saint Pete (Florida) for Peace, CodePink and the Palestinian-led non-violent organization International Solidarity Movement. 

All images in this article are taken from The Greanville Post

America Dominant Again (in Arms Sales)

May 26th, 2021 by William D. Hartung

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 it comes to trade in the tools of death and destruction, no one tops the United States of America.

In April of this year, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) published its annual analysis of trends in global arms sales and the winner — as always — was the U.S. of A. Between 2016 and 2020, this country accounted for 37% of total international weapons deliveries, nearly twice the level of its closest rival, Russia, and more than six times that of Washington’s threat du jour, China. 

Sadly, this was no surprise to arms-trade analysts.  The U.S. has held that top spot for 28 of the past 30 years, posting massive sales numbers regardless of which party held power in the White House or Congress.  This is, of course, the definition of good news for weapons contractors like Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin, even if it’s bad news for so many of the rest of us, especially those who suffer from the use of those arms by militaries in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, the Philippines, and the United Arab Emirates.  The recent bombing and leveling of Gaza by the U.S.-financed and supplied Israeli military is just the latest example of the devastating toll exacted by American weapons transfers in these years.

While it is well known that the United States provides substantial aid to Israel, the degree to which the Israeli military relies on U.S. planes, bombs, and missiles is not fully appreciated. According to statistics compiled by the Center for International Policy’s Security Assistance Monitor, the United States has provided Israel with $63 billion in security assistance over the past two decades, more than 90% of it through the State Department’s Foreign Military Financing, which provides funds to buy U.S. weaponry.  But Washington’s support for the Israeli state goes back much further. Total U.S. military and economic aid to Israel exceeds $236 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2018 dollars) since its founding — nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars.

King of the Arms Dealers

Donald Trump, sometimes referred to by President Joe Biden as “the other guy,” warmly embraced the role of arms-dealer-in-chief and not just by sustaining massive U.S. arms aid for Israel, but throughout the Middle East and beyond.  In a May 2017 visit to Saudi Arabia — his first foreign trip — Trump would tout a mammoth (if, as it turned out, highly exaggerated) $110-billion arms deal with that kingdom.

On one level, the Saudi deal was a publicity stunt meant to show that President Trump could, in his own words, negotiate agreements that would benefit the U.S. economy. His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a pal of Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS), the architect of Saudi Arabia’s devastating intervention in Yemen, even put in a call to then-Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson. His desire: to get a better deal for the Saudi regime on a multibillion-dollar missile defense system that Lockheed was planning to sell it.  The point of the call was to put together the biggest arms package imaginable in advance of his father-in-law’s trip to Riyadh.

When Trump arrived in Saudi Arabia to immense local fanfare, he milked the deal for all it was worth. Calling the future Saudi sales “tremendous,” he assured the world that they would create “jobs, jobs, jobs” in the United States.

That arms package, however, did far more than burnish Trump’s reputation as a deal maker and jobs creator.  It represented an endorsement of the Saudi-led coalition’s brutal war in Yemen, which has now resulted in the deaths of nearly a quarter of a million people and put millions of others on the brink of famine.

And don’t for a second think that Trump was alone in enabling that intervention. The kingdom had received a record $115 billion in arms offers — notifications to Congress that don’t always result in final sales — over the eight years of the Obama administration, including for combat aircraft, bombs, missiles, tanks, and attack helicopters, many of which have since been used in Yemen.  After repeated Saudi air strikes on civilian targets, the Obama foreign-policy team finally decided to slow Washington’s support for that war effort, moving in December 2016 to stop a multibillion-dollar bomb sale. Upon taking office, however, Trump reversed course and pushed that deal forward, despite Saudi actions that Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA) said “look like war crimes to me.”

Trump made it abundantly clear, in fact, that his reasons for arming Saudi Arabia were anything but strategic.  In an infamous March 2018 White House meeting with Mohammed bin Salman, he even brandished a map of the United States to show which places were likely to benefit most from those Saudi arms deals, including election swing states Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  He doubled down on that economic argument after the October 2018 murder and dismemberment of Saudi journalist and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi at that country’s consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, even as calls to cut off sales to the regime mounted in Congress.  The president made it clear then that jobs and profits, not human rights, were paramount to him, stating:

“$110 billion will be spent on the purchase of military equipment from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and many other great U.S. defense contractors. If we foolishly cancel these contracts, Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries — and very happy to acquire all of this newfound business. It would be a wonderful gift to them directly from the United States!”

And so it went.  In the summer of 2019 Trump vetoed an effort by Congress to block an $8.1-billion arms package that included bombs and support for the Royal Saudi Air Force and he continued to back the kingdom even in his final weeks in office. In December 2020, he offered more than $500 million worth of bombs to that regime on the heels of a $23-billion package to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), its partner-in-crime in the Yemen war.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE weren’t the only beneficiaries of Trump’s penchant for selling weapons.  According to a report by the Security Assistance Monitor at the Center for International Policy, his administration made arms sales offers of more than $110 billion to customers all over the world in 2020, a 75% increase over the yearly averages reached during the Obama administration, as well as in the first three years of his tenure.

Will Biden Be Different?

Advocates of reining in U.S. weapons trafficking took note of Joe Biden’s campaign-trail pledge that, if elected, he would not “check our values at the door” in deciding whether to continue arming the Saudi regime.  Hopes were further raised when, in his first foreign policy speech as president, he announced that his administration would end “support for offensive operations in Yemen” along with “relevant arms sales.”

That statement, of course, left a potentially giant loophole on the question of which weapons would be considered in support of “offensive operations,” but it did at least appear to mark a sharp departure from the Trump era.  In the wake of Biden’s statement, arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE were indeed put on hold, pending a review of their potential consequences.

Three months into Biden’s term, however, the president’s early pledge to rein in damaging arms deals are already eroding. The first blow was the news that the administration would indeed move forward with a $23-billion arms package to the UAE, including F-35 combat aircraft, armed drones, and a staggering $10 billion worth of bombs and missiles. The decision was ill-advised on several fronts, most notably because of that country’s role in Yemen’s brutal civil war. There, despite scaling back its troops on the ground, it continues to arm, train, and finance 90,000 militia members, including extremist groups with links to the Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.  The UAE has also backed armed opposition forces in Libya in violation of a United Nations embargo, launched drone strikes there that killed scores of civilians, and cracked down on dissidents at home and abroad. It regularly makes arbitrary arrests and uses torture.  If arming the UAE isn’t a case of “checking our values at the door,” it’s not clear what is.

To its credit, the Biden administration committed to suspending two Trump bomb deals with Saudi Arabia.  Otherwise, it’s not clear what (if any) other pending Saudi sales will be deemed “offensive” and blocked. Certainly, the new administration has allowed U.S. government personnel and contractors to help maintain the effectiveness of the Saudi Air Force and so has continued to enable ongoing air strikes in Yemen that are notorious for killing civilians.  The Biden team has also failed to forcefully pressure the Saudis to end their blockade of that country, which United Nations agencies have determined could put 400,000 Yemeni children at risk of death by starvation in the next year.

In addition, the Biden administration has cleared a sale of anti-ship missiles to the Egyptian regime of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, the most repressive government in that nation’s history, helmed by the man Donald Trump referred to as “my favorite dictator.”  The missiles themselves are in no way useful for either internal repression or that country’s scorched-earth anti-terror campaign against rebels in its part of the Sinai peninsula — where civilians have been tortured and killed, and tens of thousands displaced from their homes — but the sale does represent a tacit endorsement of the regime’s repressive activities.

Guns, Anyone?

While Biden’s early actions have undermined promises to take a different approach to arms sales, the story isn’t over.  Key members of Congress are planning to closely monitor the UAE sale and perhaps intervene to prevent the delivery of the weapons.  Questions have been raised about what arms should go to Saudi Arabia and reforms that would strengthen Congress’s role in blocking objectionable arms transfers are being pressed by at least some members of the House and the Senate.

One area where President Biden could readily begin to fulfill his campaign pledge to reduce the harm to civilians from U.S. arms sales would be firearms exports.  The Trump administration significantly loosened restrictions and regulations on the export of a wide range of guns, including semi-automatic firearms and sniper rifles. As a result, such exports surged in 2020, with record sales of more than 175,000 military rifles and shotguns.

In a distinctly deregulatory mood, Trump’s team moved sales of deadly firearms from the jurisdiction of the State Department, which had a mandate to vet any such deals for possible human-rights abuses, to the Commerce Department, whose main mission was simply to promote the export of just about anything.  Trump’s “reforms” also eliminated the need to pre-notify Congress on any major firearms sales, making it far harder to stop deals with repressive regimes.

As he pledged to do during his presidential campaign, President Biden could reverse Trump’s approach without even seeking Congressional approval. The time to do so is now, given the damage such gun exports cause in places like the Philippines and Mexico, where U.S.-supplied firearms have been used to kill thousands of civilians, while repressing democratic movements and human-rights defenders.

Who Benefits?

Beyond the slightest doubt, a major — or perhaps even the major — obstacle to reforming arms sales policies and practices is the weapons industry itself. That includes major contractors like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, and General Dynamics that produce fighter planes, bombs, armored vehicles, and other major weapons systems, as well as firearms makers like Sig Sauer.

Raytheon stands out in this crowd because of its determined efforts to push through bomb sales to Saudi Arabia and the deep involvement of its former (or future) employees with the U.S. government.  A former Raytheon lobbyist, Charles Faulkner, worked in the Trump State Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and was involved in deciding that Saudi Arabia was not — it was! — intentionally bombing civilians in Yemen. He then supported declaring a bogus “emergency” to ram through the sale of bombs and of aircraft support to Saudi Arabia.

Raytheon has indeed insinuated itself in the halls of government in a fashion that should be deeply troubling even by the minimalist standards of the twenty-first-century military-industrial complex. Former Trump defense secretary Mark Esper was Raytheon’s chief in-house lobbyist before joining the administration, while current Biden defense secretary Lloyd Austin served on Raytheon’s board of directors.  While Austin has pledged to recuse himself from decisions involving the company, it’s a pledge that will prove difficult to verify.

Arms sales are Big Business — the caps are a must! — for the top weapons makers.  Lockheed Martin gets roughly one-quarter of its sales from foreign governments and Raytheon five percent of its revenue from Saudi sales.  American jobs allegedly tied to weapons exports are always the selling point for such dealings, but in reality, they’ve been greatly exaggerated.

At most, arms sales account for just more than one-tenth of one percent of U.S. employment. Many such sales, in fact, involve outsourcing production, in whole or in part, to recipient nations, reducing the jobs impact here significantly. Though it’s seldom noted, virtually any other form of spending creates more jobs than weapons production. In addition, exporting green-technology products would create far larger global markets for U.S. goods, should the government ever decide to support them in anything like the way it supports the arms industry.

Given what’s at stake for them economically, Raytheon and its cohorts spend vast sums attempting to influence both parties in Congress and any administration.  In the past two decades, defense companies, led by the major arms exporting firms, spent $285 million in campaign contributions alone and $2.5 billion on lobbying, according to statistics gathered by the Center for Responsive Politics.  Any changes in arms export policy will mean forcefully taking on the arms lobby and generating enough citizen pressure to overcome its considerable influence in Washington.

Given the political will to do so, there are many steps the Biden administration and Congress could take to rein in runaway arms exports, especially since such deals are uniquely unpopular with the public.  A September 2019 poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, for example, found that 70% of Americans think arms sales make the country less safe.

The question is: Can such public sentiment be mobilized in favor of actions to stop at least the most egregious cases of U.S. weapons trafficking, even as the global arms trade rolls on?  Selling death should be no joy for any country, so halting it is a goal well worth fighting for. Still, it remains to be seen whether the Biden administration will ever limit weapons sales or if it will simply continue to promote this country as the world’s top arms exporter of all time.

*

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.

Corporate Courts Threat to Insects

May 26th, 2021 by Phil Carter

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.

***

Countries around the world have been slow to ban insecticides such as neonicotinoids despite the ongoing loss of insects, including key pollinators, globally.

One reason may be the threat of litigation in a system of secret corporate courts that exists to adjudicate Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses in international trade agreements.

The ISDS system allows companies to sue national governments for damages and lost profits if they pass laws banning hazardous chemicals.

Banned

Jean Blaylock, of Global Justice Now, an NGO campaigning on trade agreements, told The Ecologist: “ISDS has often been used by big business, including pesticide and chemical companies, as a tool to bully and pressure governments to make the decisions that the corporations want.”

History shows that bans on dangerous chemicals work.

In Japan, the Minamata disaster of the mid-20th century involved serious birth defects due to methyl mercury effluent that contaminated fish that people then ate.

It was ended with strict environmental regulations in the early 1970s that banned mercury in industrial effluent at detectable levels.

However, it is likely that Japan would have difficulty passing such laws in the present situation with trade agreements.

Trade

Blaylock gave two examples from Canada. In the first, when Quebec in Canada banned the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes – meaning to tidy lawns and gardens – Canada was sued by pesticide maker Dow Agroscience, forcing the government to settle out of court.

In another case with ominous implications for emerging disasters like Minamata, she said “when Canada banned the chemical MMT in petrol, which is suspected of causing nerve damage, they were sued by the manufacturer, Ethyl.”

Canada was forced to remove the ban in 1998, paying $13 million in lost profits to Ethyl under the terms of a settlement. Subsequently, a 2001 study published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine stated there were “major concerns with regard to public health effects” from exposure to MMT.

Scott Sinclair of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives explained by email about pressure against Mexico, which passed a decree banning glyphosate which is used in the herbicide Roundup manufactured by German chemical giant Bayer.

“The reaction from US agribusiness was swift. In March, a coalition of agribusiness groups including CropLife America demanded the US government take trade action against Mexico for violating the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA).”

Laws

Sinclair said that the USMCA retains ISDS provisions with regard to Mexico, although they were removed between Canada and the US. In addition, the old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which it replaced allows legal action to be taken by companies for another three years.

Thus Bayer, which is a member of Croplife America, still has the possibility to sue the Mexican government.

In the Asia-Pacific region, two competing trade agreements that have recently been agreed are starkly different regarding corporate courts. One, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) includes provisions for companies to sue governments.

However, in an indication that corporate courts may be starting to fall out of favor, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) that is to come into force in late 2021 is reported to not include ISDS.

Sinclair said the decision is definitely a step in the right direction, and a huge improvement over the CPTPP. He added that in North America the majority of ISDS claims have been related to environmental protection, causing a huge problem for governments that want to pass laws contrary to corporate interests.

Catastrophic

However, Japan has signed both the CPTPP and the RCEP, one with corporate courts and one without, and Sinclair said that private investors tend to be aggressive in using the dispute settlement mechanism.

In light of this, it seems likely that chemical companies will not hesitate to sue for damages under the agreement that allows them to do so, and the threat of this continues to exist if Japan passes necessary laws banning harmful pesticides.

The landmark ban on methyl mercury, the chemical responsible for the Minamata disaster, ended one of the worst human tragedies of the last century, and stands as an example for the present.

Against the background of the ongoing worldwide insect extinction event, rice-field insects such as dragonflies that were common only 30 years ago have one by one become endangered, with broad-spectrum insecticides playing a devastating role.

As insect species after insect species ends up on Japan’s Red List, the failure to heed this lesson of a previous generation is likely to have catastrophic consequences.

*

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.

Phil Carter is a freelance environmental journalist based in Japan.

Featured image: Village rice fields, Hida Shirakawa-go, Gifu-ken, Japan, July 2010. Photo: Joel Abroad via Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA).

This incisive article first published by Global Research in June 2020 addresses the issue of Annexation

***

Israeli soldier executing the kidnapping of several Nahalin villagers southeast of Bethlehem in the West Bank, including Mohammad Afif Fannoun, on June 12, 2020.

When you visualize it, as I try to, what does Israel’s forthcoming annexation of parts of the West Bank look like to you? I mean, what images do you expect to see when Israel makes its declaration, as is expected, in July? Do you perhaps imagine scenes of violence, terror and incitement to play out on social media and on the few seconds of mainstream TV that will be devoted to the announcement?

If you are expecting “an event” as Israel announces its third grand robbery of Palestinian land, you should know that Israel’s annexation is an ongoing process that has been in the making for several decades now.

The statements of condemnation by various international bodies already emerging (more to be expected, of course) sound “mundane” and “normal”, echoing as they do, words addressed to Israel many times since Israel forcibly altered the facts of dominion, demography and land ownership in Jerusalem, beginning June 1967, and the West Bank.

Words, never meaningful action.

These statements continue to be utterly devoid of the consternation and helpless fury engendered in Palestinians by Israel’s continuing obliteration of the Palestinian Muslim and Christian character of the land of Palestine. By Judaizing Jerusalem, and now large swatches of the West Bank, Israel has succeeded in its project of drawing a curtain over Palestine’s history since 70 A.D., and claiming that our history only began with the advent of Theodor Herzl and the Zionist movement. Herzl is known to have said, “If whole branches of Jews must be destroyed, it is worth it, as long as a Jewish state in Palestine is created.”

The obliteration of Palestinian history has driven hundreds of Palestinians to record their personal histories by sharing images like this family picture of my own great grandfather Ismail, which I re-posted recently on Facebook with the following caption:

My great grandfather Ismail ibn (son of) Mahmoud ibn Khalil Al Najjar of #Lifta, in Lifta, Jerusalem, Palestine, circa 1945

“This country will either be Eretz [the land of] Israel with an absolute Jewish majority and a small Arab minority, or Eretz Ishmael [Ismail], and Jewish emigration will begin again if we do not expel the Arabs one way or another.”

– Spoken at a closed discussion in the summer of 1967, a conversation published in 1968 in the Israeli journal De’ot (‘Opinions’), by Israel Eldad (Sheib)

For a long time now, we have been witnessing on social media the incremental (“crawling”) process of Israel’s annexation unfold in the form of video clips and images. Some show outrageous scenes of Jewish “settlers” burning down ancient olive trees or, for that matter, a Palestinian family! Mainstream media carefully labels them “far right” — a few bad apples, and the band plays on.

Some clips manage to show the construction of Jewish colonies going up (with Palestinian labor!), but mostly we only see what Palestinians see and experience behind their walled off property that has already been confiscated by Israel. They are mostly scenes of Israeli harassment and containment, because the process of annexation does not end with the actual confiscation of Palestinian land and property (and, if need be, eviction and displacement); the next step is securing the robbery through a vicious well-orchestrated campaign of terror and detention.

Take, for example, the following embedded video clip posted live on Facebook by Yousef Shakarnah on 12 June 2020 and titled in Arabic, “Storming the village of Nahalin, stirring up terror — a campaign of arrests, including the arrest of Mohammad Afif Fannoun, gas fire and sound bombs, as part of the project of control and annexation.”

‘Storming the village of Nahalin, stirring up terror — a campaign of arrests, including the arrest of Muhammad Afif Fannoun, gas fire and sound bombs, as part of the project of control and annexation’.

Nahalin (also spelled Nahaleen), southwest of Bethlehem in the West Bank, is ringed by the vast Jewish “settlement bloc” of Gush Etzion. The lands of the village have already been subjected to a narrative that obliterates their Palestinian Muslim character, making way for the heist facilitated by the state for its “settler” Jews: The Jerusalem Post in 2015, for example, published a fake-news or hasbara piece claiming that 4,000 years ago “Tens of thousands of Jews, if not more, had lived in the area before even one Palestinian ever set foot in Gush Etzion … Thus, any claim that the current Jewish residents of Gush Etzion have seized lands here is false, even defamatory.”

When you view the video clip, what do you see? An annexation or a routine “security” operation? I asked two Jewish Israeli friends to take a look at the video to help me understand the Hebrew. The language and cultural divide that exists in such videos present an obstacle, not just for American viewers, but also for Palestinian and Jewish Israeli viewers, neither one of whom understands, literally, what the other is saying.

The video clip did not convey “annexation” to them. One of them wrote, in good faith, to say:

Not sure what you’re trying to write… but, unless I’m missing something, I don’t think this recording of what looks like a routine and uneventful visit is terribly meaningful. There may be thousands of such visits every year, and that is very significant, but I don’t see this one visit as remarkable. Again, unless there’s something I’m missing, or perhaps important context that I’m unaware of. Finally, I’m not sure I’d title it Annexation in Progress… Given current discussions about the expected annexation — of something, whether it is much of the Jordan Valley or less than that — this title could be misleading. When I see something like this, I think Occupation As Usual is a good title — which I’ve used over the years.

Technically, my friend is correct. He is in line with all the “technical” claims Israel makes to spit in the face of Palestinian reality— as in, for example, “there is no occupation.”

However, the process of ongoing Israeli robbery of Palestinian land, for that’s what “annexation” means, is inextricable from Israel’s acts of containment of Palestinian individuals, like the “routine” and “uneventful” act shown in the video clip above. There are thousands other similar incidents of Israeli soldiers coming to kidnap a young Palestinian man (or round up a group of them, as in this case), to subsequently torture and interrogate him and then subject him to a kangaroo Israeli military court that puts him away in prison for months or years.

Every single such act is a rape, an outrage, an annexation. We are not numbers.

Annexation is the deliberate taunting and bullying you see in the video clip, implying, as another friend put it, Israel “will do what it wants, when it wants, and there’s nothing we can do about it.”

For all the analogies made between Jerusalem and Minneapolis, for Palestinians, the path of demonstrations, legislation and finally reconciliation is simply not an option.

I’ll leave you now with an expressive description of some of what is on view in the video clip of the Israeli soldiers coming for Mohammad Afif Hannoun of Nahalin, written by the writer and activist Diane Langford, who took a look at it, at my request:

I see performative enjoyment of the ‘task’ as when the tooled up soldier blows a kiss. Can’t see anyone threatening them yet they are dressed in full battle kit that kind of reminds me of astronauts on the moon walk, something other worldly and dehumanising of the wearer, creating an atmosphere that something awful is going to happen, something violent. Their monstrous garb and over-protection of themselves by means of massive guns and full body armour reminds me that health workers around the world are facing Covid 19 without proper personal protective clothing. Is there a human being inside that shell? Constant radio chattering. What are they talking about? Trigger fingers twitching menacingly, and yet they act in a casual way and when a shot is fired it is taken as lightly as swatting a fly. The soldier bowls a grenade down the street as if he’s in a game of cricket.

The filmmaker coughs and struggles to breathe, we hear him gasping and fear for his well-being. We hear a woman’s distressed voice. What are they doing to her? A soldier suddenly appears on the roof of the big white house we’ve been looking at. A shot is fired. A woman comes toward the camera in distress. Watching this makes me feel tense and fearful. It is watching fascism up close in a time when many countries seem to be hurtling towards fascism based on this very model.

And, as another friend commented, Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil” comes to mind.

*

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.

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated

Selected Articles: The Zionists on the Defensive

May 26th, 2021 by Global Research News

The Zionists on the Defensive

By Philip Giraldi, May 25, 2021

Yes folks, there is an international conspiracy and it is all about “protecting” Israel. It operates through front and lobbying groups that uniquely promote the interests of a foreign country, Israel, even when those interests do serious damage to the host country where the lobbyists actually live.

The Emperor’s New Rules

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, May 25, 2021

The world is reeling in horror at the latest Israeli massacre of hundreds of men, women and children in Gaza. Much of the world is also shocked by the role of the United States in this crisis, as it keeps providing Israel with weapons to kill Palestinian civilians, in violation of U.S. and international law, and has repeatedly blocked action by the UN Security Council to impose a ceasefire or hold Israel accountable for its war crimes.

Israel-Gaza: Pilots Bombed Palestinian Buildings to ‘Vent Frustration’, Says Report

By Middle East Eye, May 25, 2021

Israeli air force pilots’ bombing and flattening of Palestinian residential towers in the besieged Gaza Strip in its military offensive earlier this month was a way to vent their frustration for failing to stop Palestinian armed factions from firing rockets into Israeli towns, according to an Israeli TV report.

How American Journalism Became a Mouthpiece of the Deep State

By Peter Van Buren, May 25, 2021

Reporters joke that the easiest job in Washington is CIA spokesman. You need only listen carefully to questions, say, “No comment,” and head to happy hour. The joke, however, is on us. The reporters pretend to see only one side of the CIA, the passive hiding of information. They meanwhile profit from the other side of the equation, active information operations designed to influence events in America. It is 2021 and the CIA is running an op against the American people.

Spike Protein Damages Vascular Cells

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, May 25, 2021

During 2020, many people learned more about coronaviruses, and specifically the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19. Pictures of the spiked virus have been plastered across the news media. The image is reminiscent of a chain mace, or flail. This was a medieval weapon with a spiked steel ball at the end of a chain or leather strap. The image may be frightening. It turns out researchers believe the spikes are responsible for significant vascular damage leading to severe disease.

UK Health Secretary Suggests Critics of Vaccine Passports Are “Crazies”

By Paul Joseph Watson, May 25, 2021

UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock suggested critics of the vaccine passport policy were “crazies” after he retweeted a post which disparaged those who have security and privacy concerns about the program. Mail on Sunday commentator Dan Hodges urged people to “ignore the crazies” as he effusively praised the NHS tracking app for being a centralized surveillance hub.

CDC Investigating Reports of ‘Mild’ Heart Problems in Teens, Adolescents After COVID Vaccine

By Megan Redshaw, May 25, 2021

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in a May 17 statement said, reports of myocarditis to date seemed to occur predominantly in adolescents and young adults, more often in males than females, more often following the second dose and typically within four days after vaccination. Most cases appeared to be “mild” and follow-up is ongoing.

FDA Ethically Obligated to Pull COVID Injections Off the Market, or Risk Becoming Complicit in Crimes Against Humanity

By Lance Johnson, May 25, 2021

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was under intense political pressure to give emergency use authorization (EUA) to three experimental injections manufactured by Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson. Now that these experiments have been carried out on roughly one third of the US population, serious issues have emerged.

Outrage Over Israel’s Human Rights Violations Is Fueling the Global BDS Movement

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, May 25, 2021

Israeli police are now threatening to carry out mass arrests against Palestinian citizens of Israel — arrests intended to punish those who took part in sit-ins and other protests in solidarity with Palestinians living in East Jerusalem and Gaza. This latest attack on Palestinian rights comes just days after Israeli police once again attacked Palestinians at Al Aqsa Mosque, and after the Israeli military viciously bombed Gaza for 11 days, killing 248 Palestinians and wounding more than 1,900, destroying 16,800 Palestinian homes and displacing tens of thousands of Palestinians.

Drivers Beware: The Deadly Perils of Blank Check Traffic Stops

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, May 24, 2021

For better or worse, from the moment you’re pulled over, you’re at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.” This is what I call “blank check policing,” in which the police get to call all of the shots.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Zionists on the Defensive
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Will Pakistan Give US Post-Afghanistan Military Bases?

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.

***

Just days after senior PBOC officials spoke up about moving to stabilize the yuan as it continued to strengthen against the dollar, Chinese banks have reportedly stepped in to buy dollars and sell the yuan in the open market, the latest in a series of interventions that are seemingly stretching the limits of Beijing’s authoritarian capability to control markets

Over the past month, reports about another crackdown on crypto trading and mining by Beijing sent prices of digital currencies reeling, while senior CCP officials have stepped in to forcibly cool speculation driving up commodity prices.

On top of all this, the weakening greenback has driven the yuan to its strongest level in nearly three years, hurting China’s competitiveness at a time when an ongoing state-ordered deleveraging has sent China’s all-important credit impulse into negative territory, limiting the outlook for growth just as the outlook for China’s economy is becoming increasingly important to the global narrative.

As for the interventions, a handful of traders told Bloomberg that large Chinese state-owned banks were selling yuan in the open market Tuesday. Despite this, and a weaker-than-expected yuan fixing, USD/CNY fell 0.3% to 6.4030, the yuan’s strongest level since June 2018.

Reports noted possible intervention in both USD/CNY and USD/CNH pairs at around the 6.4000 level in order to stem the yuan’s appreciation.

With month-end pressures building, driving the yuan higher, the intervention comes as the Chinese currency arrives at an important technical level that highlights just how much the yuan has strengthened during the dollar’s recent bear run.

The dollar is also at a critical level…

…and looking ahead, a renewed currency war pitting China against the US and the dollar against the yuan could represent a fresh threat to market stability, as any reversal of the greenback’s recent weakness (which has, much to Beijing’s delight, sparked renewed talk of the greenback shedding its global reserve status) could upset several consensus trades  (sell-side analysts have been writing about how “short dollar” is perhaps the biggest global ‘consensus trade’ for almost a year).

All this is happening as the impact of the credit tsunami unleashed in 2020 by Beijing to combat the COVID pandemic is fading fast as China’s credit impulse officially turned negative, threatening to send a deflationary shockwave across the globe.

The direct intervention comes just days after the PBOC signaled that it wouldn’t allow the yuan to strengthen too much, too quickly.

In a statement released Sunday, the deputy governor of the PBOC said the yuan would remain “basically stable,” while another central bank official wrote that the yuan should appreciate to offset the higher costs of commodity imports. However, that second essay, published in a state-backed magazine on Friday, has since been deleted, according to Bloomberg.

That Beijing is having trouble reconciling this is hardly a surprise. China’s economic nabobs now once again find themselves in the unenviable task of trying to control everything – fighting commodity speculation, a currency at a nearly three-year high, a crypto market that serves as a backdoor for wealth fleeing the country – and even the dominance of Chinese tech firms that have become so economically powerful, they have made President Xi and the rest of the senior leadership uncomfortable. And ultimately, Beijing is doing all this as it tries to pull a literal rabbit out of a hat: trying to spur economic growth while continuing to deleverage, while hampering the international competitiveness of its biggest tech companies.

*

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 Chinese Banks Buy Dollars to Weaken Yuan in Latest Intervention
  • 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 massive and continuous demonstrations in solidarity with Palestinians around the world including in Israel certainly was a major factor for the imperialist powers and the Arab States to convince the U.S./Israel governments that after 11 days the time for a ceasefire had arrived.

Yet despite this political defeat for the Zionist State of Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s own future depends on inciting the fascist settlers and Israeli police to provoke new unrest in intensifying tensions against Palestinians. This reality makes the ceasefire fragile.

On May 19 (a day before the ceasefire) Netanyahu invited more than 70 foreign ambassadors and diplomatic representatives to a meeting in an attempt to justify brutal bombing of Gaza by a completely fabricated and illusory narrative.

Toward the end of his deceitful and unconvincing presentation, he warned that “If the perception is that they [Palestinians] gained a victory that is a defeat for all of us.”

Of course Netanyahu by saying “all of us”, meant “all” of those dictatorial regimes in the region which are considered as friends of Israel.

However, the next day even the friendliest countries to Israel saw a ceasefire would serve them better. They feared that if Israel continues killing more children in Gaza, more people would unite to demonstrate against the Zionist State of Israel to the point of an uprising against their own fragile undemocratic regimes.

Millions of working people and youth around the world, (by the power of their massive demonstrations) showed that the false notion of Israel being the “victim” and its “right” to bring death and destruction to their “enemies” with impunity is no longer acceptable. People around the globe didn’t need BBC or CNN to be “informed” about the recent “conflict” since they were independently able to see the massacre live on social media.

They saw how the fourth powerful military in the world was inflicting death and destruction on the defenseless families in Gaza. This realization was beyond a specific religious group, certain ethnicity, or limited to people of a defined geopolitical area. Before the eyes of the world, Israel looked like merciless savages armed with the latest lethal military arsenals. The world opinion with the ongoing COVID pandemic disaster did NOT approve any military operation that destroyed the only COVID testing clinic in Gaza, much-needed hospitals, schools, and also a prominent building that housed foreign media outlets and reporters.

Huge demonstrations in support of Palestinians in the major cities in the U.S., the U.K., and other countries just days after the ceasefire speak volumes on how Israel has been discredited after decades of their brutal conduct as an oppressive occupier and how the “anti-Semite” labeling of their opponents is no longer effective to cover up their apartheid regime and their systematic ethnic cleansing.

There is no doubt the “anti-Semite” sentiments still exist and in some countries is very strong; however, those who propagate hate against Jews or attack the Synagogues are extreme right-wing and fascist groups like some of Trump’s supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6th, 2021.

Once again, millions of people around the world demonstrated that – first and foremost they are against wars and military destructive operations in general and in particular they are disgusted to see the defenseless Palestinian families and children face horrible death under the rubble caused by the Israeli precision and smart bombs.

By some estimates, on Saturday, May 22nd, about 200,000 people marched in London and gathered in Hyde Park, which undeniably was one of the largest demonstrations in support of Palestine in British history; demanded “Free Palestine” and “stop the war”.

One of the speakers who address this historical rally was Julian Assange’s partner Stella Moris. In her written statement, in part, she said that Julian Assange

“is paying with his freedom, and maybe his life… over publications that exposed war crimes in Iraq, torture in Guantanamo Bay and Israeli government’s policies in Palestine.” … “Julian published the words spoken by the Israeli government’s official behind closed doors, words that Israeli military materializes in the form of airstrikes that kill innocent men, women and children.”… “Public perception shapes our understanding of what is true and what is possible.” …

This is why the U.S. and U.K. have imprisoned Assange “to hamper our understanding and to prevent us from acting on that knowledge.”

Similar demonstrations have taken place before and after the ceasefire both inside and outside of Israel/Palestine, – from Sana’a to Berlin, from Chicago to Tel Aviv. These demonstrations not only condemned the savagery of the Zionist State of Israel but also raised the question of what steps should be taken to prevent more bloodshed by Israel.

In our time, all crises have a global character and cannot be solved on a local level. Any abstract solution (like Two-State Solution) would not end the occupation of Palestine. Certainly, this is not possible through the current “leadership” who have imposed themselves on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. The end of the occupation will not be possible via military operations by the weak army of Hamas or the corrupted and undemocratic clique of Mahmoud Abbas, who for many years have compromised the rights of Palestinians in lieu to be accepted and paid by the U.S./Israeli governments.

ONLY a united working people in Israel/Palestine with international support from the workers around the world (especially the imperialist countries) can create their own state which ends the capitalists’ rules and their divisive and discriminatory economical, political and social policies.

U.S. imperialism is the root cause of problems for the occupied Palestinians.

The hypocrisy of the Biden Administration toward the Palestinians and the State of Israel – like the past Administrations is nothing new but certainly, the deceptive narrative of “caring” for Palestinians by President Biden is disgusting. Like the old Imperial and colonial powers, the U.S. sees the Palestinians as their subjects.

They decide for Palestinians what is right or wrong and who is a good or bad leader for them. While Biden backed Israel in bombing Gaza as “Israel’s right to defend itself” and even praised Netanyahu for “degrading the capabilities” of the Palestinian “terrorists”, now he promises “to provide rapid humanitarian assistance and to marshal international support for the people in Gaza and in the Gaza reconstruction efforts.”

However this empty promise comes with an unworkable condition and that is the aid to Gaza will be through Mahmoud Abbas only, a corrupt politician who has no support or influence in Gaza!

President Biden’s insane position against Palestinians already has rattled his own Party. The average Democratic Party membership doesn’t approve the unconditional U.S. financial and military aid to Israel. Time has changed. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is growing among democratic-minded people and the American Jewish youth.

For the Zionists – who have to maintain more than seven decades of illegal occupation of Palestine and while they continue to steal Palestinians’ homes and lands under cover of “settlers” with the protection of their brutal police and unjust laws – constant tensions and wars are a necessity. For the Zionists, a peaceful time in the region means an end to their power and an end to their occupation. Without wars and confrontations, the Zionist State of Israel will fall apart.

*

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.

Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Porque é que a UE se destaca contra a China

May 25th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

O Parlamento Europeu, em  20 de Maio, congelou a ratificação do Acordo UE-China sobre investimentos, assinada em Dezembro pela Comissão Europeia após sete anos de negociações.  A resolução foi aprovada por uma esmagadora maioria com 599 votos a favor, 30 contra e 58 abstenções. É formalmente motivada como sendo a resposta às sanções chinesas contra membros do Parlamento Europeu, decididas por Pequim depois dos seus funcionários terem sido sujeitos a sanções, rejeitadas pela China, por violação dos direitos humanos, particularmente os do Uighur. Os legisladores da UE argumentam que, se bem que as sanções chinesas sejam ilegais porque violam o Direito Internacional, as sanções europeias são legais porque se baseiam na defesa dos direitos humanos aprovados pelas Nações Unidas.

Qual é o verdadeiro motivo que se esconde por trás da capa de “defesa dos direitos humanos na China”? A estratégia, lançada e liderada por Washington, de recrutar países europeus para a coligação contra a Rússia e a China. A alavanca fundamental desta operação é o facto de 21 dos 27 países da UE serem membros da NATO sob comando USA. Na primeira fila contra a China, tal como contra a Rússia, estão ao mesmo tempo os países de Leste, membros da NATO e da UE, que, estando mais ligados a Washington do que a Bruxelas, aumentam a influência dos EUA na política externa da UE. Uma política que segue substancialmente a dos Estados Unidos, sobretudo através da NATO. Mas nem todos os aliados estão ao mesmo nível: a Alemanha e a França fazem acordos com os Estados Unidos com base na conveniência recíproca, enquanto a Itália obedece, mantendo-se em silêncio em detrimento dos seus próprios interesses. O Secretário-Geral da NATO, Stoltenberg, pode assim declarar, no final da sua reunião com o Presidente francês Macron, em 21 de Maio: “Apoiaremos a ordem internacional com base em regras contra o impulso autoritário de países como a Rússia e a China”.

A China, que até agora a  NATO colocava em segundo plano como “ameaça” ao concentrar a sua estratégia contra a Rússia, está agora a ser posicionada ao mesmo nível. Isto vem na trilha do que estão a fazer em Washington. Aqui a estratégia contra a China está prestes a tornar-se lei. No Senado dos EUA, o projecto de lei S.1169 sobre a Competição Estratégica com a China, foi apresentado a 15 de Abril por iniciativa bipartidária do democrata Menendez e do republicano Risch. A exposição dos motivos do projecto de lei não deixa dúvidas de que o confronto é abrangente: “A República Popular da China está a incentivar o seu poder político, diplomático, económico, militar, tecnológico e ideológico para se tornar um concorrente estratégico global quase igual aos Estados Unidos. As políticas cada vez mais seguidas pela RPC nestas áreas, são contrárias aos interesses e valores dos Estados Unidos, dos seus parceiros e de grande parte do resto do mundo”. Nesta base, a lei estabelece medidas políticas, económicas, tecnológicas, mediáticas, militares e outras contra a China, com o objectivo de atacá-la e isolá-la. Uma verdadeira declaração de guerra, não no sentido figurativo. O Almirante Davidson, que dirige o Comando Indo-Pacífico dos Estados Unidos, pediu ao Congresso 27 biliões de dólares para construir uma cortina de bases de mísseis e sistemas de satélites em torno da China, incluindo uma constelação de radares em plataformas espaciais. Entretanto, a pressão militar dos EUA sobre a China está a aumentar: lançadores de mísseis da Sétima Frota estão a navegar no Mar do Sul da China, bombardeiros estratégicos da Força Aérea dos EUA foram estacionados na ilha de Guam, no Pacífico Ocidental, enquanto os drones Triton da Marinha dos EUA foram trazidos para mais perto da China, transferindo-os de Guam para o Japão. Na peugada dos Estados Unidos, a NATO está também a alargar a sua estratégia à Ásia Oriental e ao Pacífico onde – Stoltenberg anunciou – “precisamos de nos fortalecer militarmente juntamente com parceiros próximos como a Austrália e o Japão”. O Parlamento Europeu não deu, portanto, simplesmente mais um passo na “guerra de sanções” contra a China. Deu mais um passo no sentido de motivar a Europa para a guerra.

 Manlio Dinucci

 

 

 

Artigo original em italiano :

Perché la Ue si schiera contro la Cina

il manifesto, 25 de Maio de 2021

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos (NO WAR NO NATO)

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Porque é que a UE se destaca contra a China

Perché la Ue si schiera contro la Cina

May 25th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

Il Parlamento europeo ha congelato il 20 maggio la ratifica dell’Accordo Ue-Cina sugli investimenti, siglato in dicembre dalla Commissione europea dopo sette anni di trattative. La risoluzione è stata approvata a schiacciante maggioranza con 599 voti favorevoli, 30 contrari e 58 astenuti. Essa viene formalmente motivata quale risposta alle sanzioni cinesi contro membri del Parlamento europeo, decise da Pechino dopo che suoi funzionari erano stati sottoposti a sanzioni con l’accusa, respinta dalla Cina, di violazione dei diritti umani in particolare degli Uighur. I legislatori Ue sostengono che, mentre le sanzioni cinesi sono illegali poiché violano il diritto internazionale, quelle europee sono legali poiché si basano sulla difesa dei diritti umani sancita dalle Nazioni Unite.

Qual è il vero motivo che si nasconde dietro il paravento della «difesa dei diritti umani in Cina»? La strategia, lanciata e guidata da Washington, per reclutare i paesi europei nella coalizione contro la Russia e la Cina. Leva fondamentale di tale operazione è il fatto che 21 dei 27 paesi dell’Unione europea sono membri della Nato sotto comando Usa. In prima fila contro la Cina, come contro la Russia, ci sono i paesi dell’Est allo stesso tempo membri della Nato e della Ue, i quali, essendo più legati a Washington che a Bruxelles, accrescono l’influenza statunitense sulla politica estera della Ue. Politica che segue sostanzialmente quella statunitense soprattutto tramite la Nato. Non tutti gli alleati sono però sullo stesso piano: Germania e Francia si accordano sottobanco con gli Stati uniti in base a reciproche convenienze, l’Italia invece ubbidisce tacendo a scapito dei suoi stessi interessi. Il segretario generale della Nato Stoltenberg può così dichiarare, al termine dell’incontro col presidente francese Macron il 21 maggio: «Sosterremo l’ordine internazionale basato sulle regole contro la spinta autoritaria di paesi come la Russia e la Cina».

La Cina, che finora la Nato metteva in secondo piano quale «minaccia» focalizzando la sua strategia contro la Russia, viene ora messa sullo stesso piano. Ciò avviene sulla scia di quanto stanno facendo a Washington. Qui la strategia contro la Cina sta per diventare legge. Al Senato degli Stati uniti è stato presentato il 15 aprile, su iniziativa bipartisan dal democratico Menendez e dal repubblicano Risch, il progetto di legge S.1169 sulla Competizione Strategica con la Cina. La motivazione della legge non lascia dubbi sul fatto che il confronto è a tutto campo: «La Repubblica Popolare Cinese sta facendo leva sul suo potere politico, diplomatico, economico, militare, tecnologico e ideologico per diventare un concorrente globale strategico, quasi alla pari, degli Stati Uniti. Le politiche perseguite sempre più dalla RPC in questi ambiti sono contrarie agli interessi e ai valori degli Stati Uniti, dei suoi partner e di gran parte del resto del mondo». Su tale base, la legge stabilisce misure politiche, economiche, tecnologiche, mediatiche, militari ed altre contro la Cina, miranti a colpirla e isolarla. Una vera e propria dichiarazione di guerra, non in senso figurato. L’ammiraglio Davidson, che è a capo del Comando Indo-Pacifico degli Stati uniti, ha richiesto al Congresso 27 miliardi di dollari per costruire attorno alla Cina una cortina di basi missilistiche e sistemi satellitari, compresa una costellazione di radar su piattaforme spaziali.

Intanto aumenta la pressione militare Usa sulla Cina: unità lanciamissili della Settima Flotta incrociano nel Mar Cinese Meridionale, bombardieri strategici della US Air Force sono stati dislocati sull’isola di Guam nel Pacifico Occidente, mentre droni Triton della US Navy sono stati avvicinati alla Cina trasferendoli da Guam al Giappone. Sulla scia degli Stati uniti, anche la Nato estende la sua strategia all’Asia Orientale e al Pacifico dove – annuncia Stoltenberg – «abbiamo bisogno di rafforzarci militarmente insieme a stretti partner come Australia e Giappone». Il Parlamento europeo non ha dunque semplicemente compiuto un ulteriore passo nella «guerra delle sanzioni» contro la Cina. Ha compiuto un ulteriore passo per portare l’Europa in guerra.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Perché la Ue si schiera contro la Cina

The Zionists on the Defensive

May 25th, 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.

***

Yes folks, there is an international conspiracy and it is all about “protecting” Israel. It operates through front and lobbying groups that uniquely promote the interests of a foreign country, Israel, even when those interests do serious damage to the host country where the lobbyists actually live. In Britain, for example, there are a Conservative Friends of Israel and a Labour Friends of Israel, comprising together 216 members of parliament and party officials. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been silent about Gaza apart from expressing “deep concern” and blaming both sides while Labour leader Keir Starmer, who has also been under pressure to say something, has focused on how four car loads of alleged Palestinian supporters in London may or may not have driven around shouting out “anti-Semitic” comments. Starmer, one recalls, ran on a leadership campaign pledging to root out “anti-Semitism” in the party as a response to previous leader Jeremy Corbyn’s apparently ill-advised public recognition that Palestinians are human beings. Also in Britain, contesting details of the standard narrative of the so-called holocaust can result in a large fine and even some jailtime.

In 2017, Al-Jazeera ran an undercover operation directed against various Israeli front groups in Britain and in the US which determined that officers from the respective Israeli Embassies, presumably intelligence linked, were meeting regularly with members of the alleged non-government organizations that had been set up to provide support for the Jewish state. In Britain, the interaction included explicit discussions on how to destroy the careers of politicians who were deemed to be insufficiently pro-Israeli. In the US the objective has been to disrupt the activities of pro-Palestinian groups, most particularly the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement. The pro-Israeli and anti-Arab initiatives were coordinated with and sometimes initiated by the Israeli Embassy officers, suggesting that they were actually intelligence operations.

That many American Jewish groups are collaborating directly with the Israeli Embassy raises two concerns. First, it is ipso facto a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which should require registration and complete transparency regarding one’s sources of income and interactions with the foreign embassy. And second, as many of the groups are in tax exempt status with the IRS as either charitable or educational foundations, that status should be rescinded given their foreign affiliation. Of course, the reality is that the Treasury Department has known all that and more for many years and has never taken any action relating to deceptive behavior by pro-Israel groups.

Elsewhere in Europe, “Holocaust denial” even if it only consists of challenging clearly fabricated “factual” details of the event can also land you in jail in Germany and France while criticizing the state of Israel is construed as anti-Semitism, a hate crime. Jewish groups have, in fact, promoted an official “International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance” (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, which includes any criticism of Israel as a defining characteristic. The United States Department of State has accepted that definition and language.

Yes, the United States has an office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism and it is always headed by a Jew, as has been also the office in the Justice Department that continues to be dedicated to rooting out 90 year old Nazis. Meanwhile, the Republican Party, most particularly in its Trump version, is so close to Israel that it might reasonably be regarded as part of the Israel Lobby. And the Democrats are not much better, though there has been some dissent from progressives, which has led to the creation of a Zionist pressure group within the party called the Democratic Majority for Israel. It exists to defend Israel against any and all criticism while also protecting the billions of dollars and other benefits that the Jewish state receives from the US Treasury and government annually.

One might speculate that there is a whole federal government infrastructure devoted to Jewish and Israeli issues. How did that develop? Well, of course, money is what has made it happen. American politicians have notoriously always been easily corruptible, all it takes is a little cash. But no one is allowed to point out that obvious truth as linking Jews to money is regarded, by Jews and their captive media of course, as some kind of “anti-Semitic trope.”

Now it appears that a ceasefire is more-or-less in place but Israel’s ethnic cleansing that preceded its high-tech slaughter of Palestinian civilians who were being deliberately targeted has been perceived by the world, including many Americans, as particularly brutal. Which means the Zionist propaganda plus coercion machine has been working full time. Capitol Hill offices and the White House have no doubt been inundated with calls, emails and visits from constituents all singing the same song that was also being repeated by the President and Congress. It goes like this: “Israel is being attacked by Hamas terrorists and has a right to defend itself!” Sometimes there is a second verse which includes “The only democracy in the Middle East and America’s best friend and ally.”

Too bad that none of it is true, but the media also did its best to support the narrative by reporting how Hamas was launching “swarms” of rockets against Israel, making it appear as if a beleaguered Israel was valiantly defending itself against terrorist hordes. But the actual numbers told a different tale with only 12 Israelis killed after the violence erupted versus 232 Palestinians, including 65 children. Considerable infrastructure was also deliberately targeted and destroyed in Gaza versus limited damage in Israel while the calculated destruction of the building housing Associated Press (AP) and al-Jazeera should be seen as an attempt to eliminate any independent media observers on the ground in Gaza, even though AP predictably has hardly been critical of the Jewish state.

The Israel Lobby is, to be sure, expert at promoting and marketing its product. It is currently engaged in attacking celebrities and others who expressed any sympathy with the Palestinians while they were being slaughtered by the Israelis as anti-Semites. The larger and more openly combative Lobby groups like the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) have supporters in virtually every congressional district in the United States who can be called upon to get on the phone and start pouring out emails as needed. So every congress critter hears the call and knows what it means. And no one wants to have a hostile Israel Lobby on one’s back if there is any thought of being re-elected. In some cases, approaches include suggestions that significant donations to support one’s political campaign will either increase or be denied depending on what the legislator chooses to do or say.

And then there are the personal visits on Capitol Hill from the Israel lobbyists. The door is always open for the man or woman from AIPAC. Sometimes the Congressman is actually urged to sign a statement on his or her view of the conflict, a document carefully prepared in advance by The Lobby, of course. And the work by the Israel Firsters is almost always effective. Witness for example what took place concerning the assault on Gaza, where Congress and the White House tried to outdo each other in declaring how much they love Israel even though they don’t necessarily have to say or do anything as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did what he wanted anyway. Biden reportedly spoke with Netanyahu six times urging teethlessly “de-escalation” of the fighting but the Israeli each time insisted that he would continue the operation “mowing the grass” in Gaza until “its aim is met.”

The Israeli grip on the US government is and should be astonishing and one has to ask why the American people put up with it. They likely endure because they are unaware of the extent of it. If anyone still doubts the degree to which Jewish power is a major force in the United States it is only necessary as a test case to look at the Congressional and White House comments on Gaza, which served absolutely no American interest and which will only make the world even more anti-US due to the Administration’s enablement of the slaughter of the Palestinians. Washington’s UN Ambassador vetoed three Security Council resolutions calling for a cease fire, as is often the case, the only country to vote “no.”

Several aspects of the US role in the fighting particularly demonstrate the ability of Israel and its domestic lobby to get what they want from Washington even when it seems counterintuitive for the Administration and Congress to be falling in line. To be sure, 138 Congressmen and 29 Senators eventually signed onto letters urging a cease fire, but the texts tended to be generic, lacking any context, which means the recommendations were basically useless and not intended to go anywhere.

A highly partisan approach, in line with many of the comments by other government spokesmen, was reflected in a letter from Kevin McCarthy, the “leading Republican” (sic) in Congress, who released a statement confirming his allegiance to Israel. Part of it read:

“The ongoing rocket attacks against Israeli civilians show why America must act immediately to support Israel, condemn Hamas, and sanction those who fund terrorism. Instead of pressuring Israel to compromise with this terrorist group, Democrats should join Republicans in voting to cut off international funding for terrorists.

“That is why today, Rep. Brian Mast, a U.S. Army combat veteran who served alongside the Israel Defense Force (IDF), will push for a vote on the Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act of 2021.

“This bipartisan bill, which passed the House last Congress, would sanction foreign governments and individuals who fund Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, such as Iran.”

For starters, how exactly is it that a US Army combat veteran served alongside the Israeli Army? And now this great admirer of Israel is in Congress? Once upon a time one would lose US citizenship for serving in a foreign army. Mast must have missed something about swearing an oath to uphold the US Constitution, not Benjamin Netanyahu and his band of thugs and war criminals. And why are McCarthy and Mast including Iran in their indictment? Possibly because Tehran support of the Palestinian cause would be a pretext for another war? And what are McCarthy and Mast doing pledging anything at all to a foreign country which at the time was engaged in genocide?

Bad enough, but what is really appalling is the role of Joe Biden “the peacemaker” in hurriedly pushing through approval to provide the Israelis with $735 million dollars-worth of precision guided missiles, exactly the kind of weapon being used by Israel currently to kill Gazans. One might reasonably ask “What was Joe thinking?” but that raises the second question of “Was he thinking at all, apart from exercising knee jerk loyalty to Israel and its psychotic leader?” He did not have to provide more weapons to the Jewish state, which apparently was not running out of weapons of its own, but he did it anyway.

The United States already pays one fifth of Israel’s so-called “defense” budget and this extra contribution, as well as the funds provided annually to pay for Iron Dome defense, is on top of that. If there was any question whether the US was enabling the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians the question was surely answered by the decision made by the president, who knowingly provided US made weapons to be used by Israel to commit war crimes in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the US Arms Control Export Act and the existing Arms Supply Agreement between the US and Israel. He also was providing advanced tactical weapons to a country which is in violation of the Leahy Law due to its uninspected nuclear arsenal and is therefore ineligible for US government military assistance of any kind.

To be sure, some in Congress introduced a resolution to stop the weapons “sale” (a euphemism as Israel never pays for anything). Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib have proposed blocking the presidential authorization based on its one-sidedness and unsuitability when fighting is actually going on, but it was a futile gesture as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will surely let the bill die in committee. It will never reach the House floor for a vote. Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced a similar resolution in the Senate which will likely suffer the same fate.

Tlaib has argued that “The US cannot continue to give the right-wing Netanyahu government billions each year to commit crimes against Palestinians. Atrocities like bombing schools cannot be tolerated, much less conducted with US-supplied weapons. To read the statements [from the Biden Administration] you’d hardly know Palestinians existed at all. No child, Palestinian or Israeli, whoever they are, should ever have to worry that death will fall from the sky. How many of my colleagues are willing to say the same, to stand for Palestinian human rights as they do for Israel? How many Palestinians have to die for their lives to matter?”

So it is all same old, same old. Biden, who boasts that American ties to Israel are “unbreakable,” has welcomed the cease fire in Gaza but it is at best a pause in what has become generational intercommunal warfare based on Israeli intentions to eliminate the Palestinians. And Biden will even be seen as having provided the weapons to further that process. Americans, who have no compelling interest in being involved at all apart from their domination by a ruthless Israel Lobby on foreign policy issues relating to the Middle East, will pay the piper as they rearm the Israelis and enable the next round of killing. Some believe that the tide of public opinion is turning against Israel due to its brutality, but I have my doubts as the Lobby has been in control for so long and knows exactly which buttons to push to get what it wants. That, the subversion and corruption of American democracy, is the real tragedy.

*

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]

Featured image is from The Unz Review

The Emperor’s New Rules

May 25th, 2021 by Medea Benjamin

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 is reeling in horror at the latest Israeli massacre of hundreds of men, women and children in Gaza. Much of the world is also shocked by the role of the United States in this crisis, as it keeps providing Israel with weapons to kill Palestinian civilians, in violation of U.S. and international law, and has repeatedly blocked action by the UN Security Council to impose a ceasefire or hold Israel accountable for its war crimes. 

In contrast to U.S. actions, in nearly every speech or interview, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken keeps promising to uphold and defend the “rules-based order.” But he has never clarified whether he means the universal rules of the United Nations Charter and international law, or some other set of rules he has yet to define. What rules could possibly legitimize the kind of destruction we just witnessed in Gaza, and who would want to live in a world ruled by them?

We have both spent many years protesting the violence and chaos the United States and its allies inflict on millions of people around the world by violating the UN Charter’s prohibition against the threat or use of military force, and we have always insisted that the U.S. government should comply with the rules-based order of international law.

But even as the United States’ illegal wars and support for allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia have reduced cities to rubble and left country after country mired in intractable violence and chaos, U.S. leaders have refused to even acknowledge that aggressive and destructive U.S. and allied military operations violate the rules-based order of the United Nations Charter and international law.

President Trump was clear that he was not interested in following any “global rules,” only supporting U.S. national interests. His National Security Advisor John Bolton explicitly prohibited National Security Council staff attending the 2018 G20 Summit in Argentina from even uttering the words“rules-based order.”

So you might expect us to welcome Blinken’s stated commitment to the “rules-based order” as a long-overdue reversal in U.S. policy. But when it comes to a vital principle like this, it is actions that count, and the Biden administration has yet to take any decisive action to bring U.S. foreign policy into compliance with the UN Charter or international law.

For Secretary Blinken, the concept of a “rules-based order” seems to serve mainly as a cudgel with which to attack China and Russia. At a May 7 UN Security Council meeting, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov suggested that instead of accepting the already existing rules of international law, the United States and its allies are trying to come up with “other rules developed in closed, non-inclusive formats, and then imposed on everyone else.”

The UN Charter and the rules of international law were developed in the 20th century precisely to codify the unwritten and endlessly contested rules of customary international law with explicit, written rules that would be binding on all nations.

The United States played a leading role in this legalist movement in international relations, from the Hague Peace Conferences at the turn of the 20th century to the signing of the United Nations Charter in San Francisco in 1945 and the revised Geneva Conventions in 1949, including the new Fourth Geneva Convention to protect civilians, like the countless numbers killed by American weapons in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Gaza.

As President Franklin Roosevelt described the plan for the United Nations to a joint session of Congress on his return from Yalta in 1945:

“It ought to spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balances of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries – and have always failed. We propose to substitute for all these a universal organization in which all peace-loving nations will finally have a chance to join. I am confident that the Congress and the American people will accept the results of this conference as the beginning of a permanent structure of peace.”

But America’s post-Cold War triumphalism eroded U.S. leaders’ already half-hearted commitment to those rules. The neocons argued that they were no longer relevant and that the United States must be ready to impose order on the world by the unilateral threat and use of military force, exactly what the UN Charter prohibits. Madeleine Albright and other Democratic leaders embraced new doctrines of “humanitarian intervention” and a “responsibility to protect” to try to carve out politically persuasive exceptions to the explicit rules of the UN Charter.

America’s “endless wars,” its revived Cold War on Russia and China, its blank check for the Israeli occupation and the political obstacles to crafting a more peaceful and sustainable future are some of the fruits of these bipartisan efforts to challenge and weaken the rules-based order.

Today, far from being a leader of the international rules-based system, the United States is an outlier. It has failed to sign or ratify about fifty important and widely accepted multilateral treaties on everything from children’s rights to arms control. Its unilateral sanctions against Cuba, Iran, Venezuela and other countries are themselves violations of international law, and the new Biden administration has shamefully failed to lift these illegal sanctions, ignoring UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ request to suspend such unilateral coercive measures during the pandemic.

So is Blinken’s “rules-based order” a recommitment to President Roosevelt’s “permanent structure of peace,” or is it in fact a renunciation of the United Nations Charter and its purpose, which is peace and security for all of humanity?

In the light of Biden’s first few months in power, it appears to be the latter. Instead of designing a foreign policy based on the principles and rules of the UN Charter and the goal of a peaceful world, Biden’s policy seems to start from the premises of a $753 billion U.S. military budget, 800 overseas military bases, endless U.S. and allied wars and massacres, and massive weapons sales to repressive regimes. Then it works backward to formulate a policy framework to somehow justify all that.

Once a “war on terror” that only fuels terrorism, violence and chaos was no longer politically viable, hawkish U.S. leaders—both Republicans and Democrats—seem to have concluded that a return to the Cold War was the only plausible way to perpetuate America’s militarist foreign policy and multi-trillion-dollar war machine.

But that raised a new set of contradictions. For 40 years, the Cold War was justified by the ideological struggle between the capitalist and communist economic systems. But the U.S.S.R. disintegrated and Russia is now a capitalist country. China is still governed by its Communist Party, but has a managed, mixed economy similar to that of Western Europe in the years after the Second World War – an efficient and dynamic economic system that has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in both cases.

So how can these U.S. leaders justify their renewed Cold War? They have floated the notion of a struggle between “democracy and authoritarianism.” But the United States supports too many horrific dictatorships around the world, especially in the Middle East, to make that a convincing pretext for a Cold War against Russia and China.

A U.S. “global war on authoritarianism” would require confronting repressive U.S. allies like Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, not arming them to the teeth and shielding them from international accountability as the United States is doing.

So, just as American and British leaders settled on non-existent “WMD”s as the pretext they could all agree on to justify their war on Iraq, the U.S. and its allies have settled on defending a vague, undefined “rules-based order” as the justification for their revived Cold War on Russia and China.

But like the emperor’s new clothes in the fable and the WMDs in Iraq, the United States’ new rules don’t really exist. They are just its latest smokescreen for a foreign policy based on illegal threats and uses of force and a doctrine of “might makes right.”

We challenge President Biden and Secretary Blinken to prove us wrong by actually joining the rules-based order of the UN Charter and international law. That would require a genuine commitment to a very different and more peaceful future, with appropriate contrition and accountability for the United States’ and its allies’ systematic violations of the UN Charter and international law, and the countless violent deaths, ruined societies and widespread chaos they have caused.

*

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 is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Featured image is from Pinterest

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

***

I lived in Gaza from 2011, through the attack of 2014, and for one year after. I am not Palestinian, but some of the things I remember will be relevant in the coming months.

The bombardment was shattering. There followed a winter of soul-destroying neglect by donor states. Tens of thousands of Gazans remained in UNRWA shelter-schools.  Many more families shivered in remnant housing, on tilting slabs of concrete, in rooms with three walls and a blanket hung in lieu of a fourth, persistently cold and wet.

Recovery? America sold Israel $1.9 billion in replacement arms. The World Bank assessed Israel’s bomb damage to Gaza at $4.4 billion.  Of the $5.4 billion that donors pledged to reconstruct Gaza, in that critical first year the International Crisis Group calculated that the donor states actually came up with a paltry $340 million.

Aid is an insufficient place-holding response, but it is needed now.  This time, it cannot happen the same way.

In the workaday business of delivering the material needed to rebuild, the blockade allows Israel to choose the chokepoints of reconstruction.  Having bombed, Israel is allowed to carry on the assault by slow strangulation.

In 2014 they were allowed to impose a farcical compliance regime for the cement that was needed to rebuild the 18,000 homes they had damaged or destroyed.  UNRWA engineers were required to waste their days sitting next to concrete mixers.  International staff spent hours of each day driving between them to count – no shit, count – sacks of cement.  100,000 people were homeless and cement was permitted to reach them like grains of sand through an eye-dropper.  Not a single home was built through the remainder of 2014.

Perhaps this time Israel will choke off the supplies needed to re-pave the tens of thousands of square meters of road they have blown up; it will be something.  We have watched an attack on the veins and arteries of modern civilian infrastructure.  If the crossings regime is allowed to remain in place, we will be leaving the Israeli government to decide unilaterally whether Gazans will be permitted to live in the modern world.

This time, it simply cannot go the same way.

I was as frightened by the way the bombs changed us.  1200 hours of incessant terror and violence had re-wired our brains. The lassitude, the thousand-yard-stares, the woman from Rafah who clutched her midsection as if she could hold her twelve lost relatives in place.  I and my team of Gazan over-achievers struggled to finish any task on time.  Eight months later I found research on the anterior midcingulate cortex to help us understand how bombardment can alter the finishing brain. Every step seemed to be so steeply uphill.

Even more un-Gazan, we often struggled alone.  The very essence of Gaza is its density.  In its urban streets you know the passersby with smalltown frequency.  Gaza coheres with the intentional social glue of resistance.  After the bombardment, people seemed to float alone with their memories. The human heart returns to the scene of unresolved trauma, and our hearts were stuck in many different rooms.

The good people who listened and cared as professionals or as neighbours, were themselves suffering.  Parents compared notes through those months: how many of their children still slept beneath their beds in case the planes came back?  Over everyone’s heads hung the knowledge that there had been no substantial agreement beyond a cessation of firing.

I felt I was watching people reach for each other, and for meaning. Young Gazan men stood for hours, waving Palestinian flags over the rubble of Shuja’iyya while residents crawled over the rubble landscape in search of something familiar. Bright pennants sprouted across the bombed-out windows of apartments.

Not everyone found meaning. Suicide and predatory behaviour also rose. Hamas cracked down on dissent violently, while more-radical groups made inroads among young people who may have felt they had no other agency.

The aftermath was all these things at once. When I left Gaza in late 2015, it felt poised between resuming and despairing. Since then, it has gone on for another six years.  This bombardment picked up where the last one left off: in 2014 the destruction of apartment blocks was Israel’s final act and this time, it was their opening salvo.

This time, we cannot let it go the same way.

I had to learn to harness my sadness and outrage.  If we are to make it different this time, we need to do that.

In the first weeks after the 2014 bombing, I could only rage at the blockade wall but the wall stood, undented. I didn’t know how to look further, and as a Jew I was afraid to look further. I began to read books on military accountability. Those principles helped to focus my gaze beyond the wall.

Now as then, we have witnessed a barbaric action, comprised of choices.  Individuals are accountable for each of those choices.  It is neither partisan nor, must I say it, antisemitic to call them to account ceaselessly.  Accountability takes the side of civilian protection.  If one belligerent causes the overwhelming share of the wrongful death and damage, then that party has duly earned the overwhelming share of our attention.  Call them out.

Loathe the wall but rage wisely at its structural supports: expedient politics, the arms trade that profits by field-testing its weapons on Gazan Palestinians, any denial of the simple equality of our lives, the hand-wringing or indifference of the bystander.  Those hold the wall up.

Prior to this violence, Donald Trump had been busily normalising Israel’s diplomatic relations – good-bye to all that.  Normalise BDS, not the occupation of Palestine.  Apply sustained, peaceful, external pressure as you would to any other wound.  BDS firmly rejects an apartheid arrangement of power, until all people enjoy equality and self-determination.

See and reject the single system that classifies life ethnically between the river and the sea.  When you recognise a single systemic wrong, you have recognised Palestinians as a single nation.

A statement by scholars of genocide, mass violence and human rights last week described the danger: “[T]he violence now has intensified systemic racism and exclusionary and violent nationalism in Israel—a well-known pattern in many cases of state violence—posing a serious risk for continued persecution and violence against Palestinians, exacerbated by the political instability in Israel in the last few months.”

In other words, this isn’t over and we will not let it go the same way.

The risk to Gaza now is the risk of our disengagement before we have brought down the walls.  That is the task; nothing less.  This time, Gaza must go free.

*

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.

Marilyn Garson, Alternative Jewish Voices

Featured image: Photo Marilyn Garson, from a reclaimed rubble sea wall, Gaza City

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.

***

Israeli air force pilots’ bombing and flattening of Palestinian residential towers in the besieged Gaza Strip in its military offensive earlier this month was a way to vent their frustration for failing to stop Palestinian armed factions from firing rockets into Israeli towns, according to an Israeli TV report.

A number of Israeli pilots spoke anonymously to Israel’s Channel 12 last week about their experience flying warplanes over the Palestinian enclave during an 11-day military campaign that ended with a ceasefire on Thursday evening.

In total, Israeli air strikes killed 248 Palestinians in Gaza, including 66 children, between 10 and 21 May, and wounded 1,948 others, the Gaza health ministry has reported.

Nine high-rise buildings were flattened to the ground by Israeli air strikes, including al-Jalaa tower, which housed the offices of numerous media production companies and news agencies, including the Associated Press, Al-Jazeera and Middle East Eye, drawing condemnation from media and human rights organisations.

“I went on a mission to carry out air strikes with a feeling that destroying the towers is a way to vent frustration over what is happening to us and over the success of the groups in Gaza,” one Israeli pilot told Channel 12.

The pilot, identified as Major D in the report, added:

“We failed to stop the rocket fire and to harm the leadership of these groups, so we destroyed the towers.”

Israel has said that Palestinian armed factions in the Gaza Strip had launched almost 4,000 rockets, which killed 12 people and injured hundreds in Israel, before a ceasefire was reached at 2am local time on Friday.

The Egyptian-brokered ceasefire was declared between Israel and Palestinian factions in the Gaza Strip, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

*

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 housing the offices of Associated Press and other media collapses after Israeli airstrike, Gaza City, May 15, 2021. (Source: Indian Punchline)