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).

***

In the past few months, Grayzone journalist Aaron Mate has interviewed two former ambassadors to Syria: former UK Ambassador Peter Ford and former U.S. Ambassador Robert S. Ford.

The two ambassadors have a common surname but dramatically different perspectives. This article will compare the statements and viewpoints of the two diplomats.

UK Ambassador Peter Ford (PF)

Peter Ford trained as an Arabist and served in the British foreign service in numerous cities including Beirut, Riyadh, and Cairo. He was Ambassador to Bahrein from 1999 to 2003, then Syria from 2003 to 2006. From 2006 until 2014 he was a senior officer with the UN Relief Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees.

The interview with UK Amb. Peter Ford (PF) shows why he is exceptional former diplomat. He analyzes and criticizes western aggression against Syria.

PF describes the current situation:

“The Syrian government forces control about 70% of the country. There’s that pocket of jihadi fighters controlling Idlib province and a couple of patches of neighboring provinces, and then you’ve got the big – what I call the wild east of Syria – the big triangle of land up all the way along the thousand miles along the Turkish border and then down the Iraqi border, and that is effectively a US protectorate. There are US forces there being helped on the ground by basically Kurdish militia, the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces.”

PF describes the crushing economic sanctions:

“It’s utterly shocking…The policy has been effective in the sense that Syrian people are suffering every day. There are long queues for bread, long queues for gasoline. The policy of sanctions and denial of assistance for reconstruction has been effective, but what kind of policy is it that tries to immiserate a whole country? It’s delusional because it’s not even going to work….

“The experience of 10 years of this conflict is that the Syrian government is amazingly resilient. They’ve been on the ropes many times in this conflict and pulled through largely because they have the support of great swaths of the Syrian populace. Assad is not going to buckle under this new increased economic pressure. It is utterly delusional to believe that this cynical, callous policy could work.”

PF analyzes the US troops in north eastern Syria.

“By their mere presence, they’re preventing the advance of the Syrian government forces. The result is that the Syrian people are denied the great oil and grain wealth of that triangle, the territory. And, so the war over the last year has been more an economic war than a military war…

“The troops are there basically as a tripwire, a deterrent, so that if the Syrian government forces advanced, they would trip over a few American soldiers and that would incur the massive intervention of the US Air Force. This is what it comes down to. They don’t even need big numbers of troops to create the tripwire.

“Even so, it’s interesting that the architects of this policy in the permanent government of the US found it necessary to deceive the head of the executive, the President, keep him in the dark about the numbers…. So, the deceit that has gone on – on every level – is jaw-dropping to me as a former ambassador and an insider in the British system. I find it absolutely incredible.”

PF describes what the war is and is NOT about.

“US policy is NOT about installing in Syria a democratic government, because there is no prospect of that while the US is effectively supporting Islamist fanatics, and while it’s supporting elsewhere in the Middle East regimes like the feudal regime of Saudi Arabia. No, it’s not about democracy. It’s about helping Israel on the one hand and scoring points against Russia on the other. And when it comes down to it, that is what this whole war is really about, from the US standpoint.”

PF analyzes accusations Syrian government used chemical weapons.

“The world has amnesia over Iraq, the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, the Colin Powell dossier proof presented to the UN. It’s like Groundhog Day when you hear the claims made about Assad, the use of chemical weapons.

“In the first place, it would make no practical sense for Assad to use chemical weapons; it could only ever have been an own goal. If he wanted to invite heavy Western intervention, he would not have gone about it any other way. You’d have to be incredibly either twisted or delusional to believe that Assad could have been so stupid as to do the one thing – use chemical weapons – which would bring about, or possibly bring about, his obliteration.

“I’m quite convinced this is an elaborate hoax. A series of hoaxes. It’s very revealing that not one of the alleged instances of use of chemical weapons was investigated on the ground by any UN or other international investigations, with the sole exception of Douma. And why Douma? Because that was a piece of territory that the government forces managed to recover immediately after the alleged incident, so that the US and its allies were unable to keep away the international investigators…. That ultimately is the purpose of the chemical weapon hoaxes – to justify the occupation of northeast Syria and the continuing cruel economic pressure.”

PF comments on the senior staff from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons who say they did NOT find evidence of chemical weapons attackand their findings were changed by management.

“These gentlemen [from OPCW]) drafted a report stating that they found evidence that was consistent with staging of an incident, rather than an authentic incident. And ever since, they have been vilified, condemned, undermined. And the campaign against the truth goes on and on and on….”

PF comments on the role of the “White Helmets”.

“The White Helmets’ role is absolutely crucial, pivotal to the Western effort to undermine Syria through these accusations of use of chemical weapons. I think, basically, what happened is that Western governments realized that after the Iraq debacle, that if they were going to use claims about WMD, chemical weapons, whatever, again, they were going to have to produce some kind of smoking gun.

“And this is the role of the White Helmets. They produced the phony pictures of phony incidents which constitute the smoking gun. And that is absolutely pivotal to the propaganda to justify the bombing and the relentless economic and military pressure on Syria…. Western governments [have] been funding the White Helmets to the tune of about $50 million a year. That’s peanuts compared to what they see as the advantages of bringing Syria to its knees.”

PF predicts what may happen ahead.

“I think things are likely to get worse, rather than better.

“What we’ll probably see is simply a continuation of the status quo. The current policies will simply be extended…. to prolong the conflict, to prevent Assad gaining military victory, the continuation of economic warfare to try to bring Assad to his knees and force him to sign a suicide note, which would be acceptance of elections on US terms. I’m sure these policies will be continued.

“But there’s a question mark over whether policy might not become even more adventurous and interventionist with a beachhead of a few thousand soldiers already occupying part of Syria. I greatly fear that Biden might be tempted to increase those numbers, put some military pressure on the Syrian government forces, create more no-fly zones. Already, there’s effectively a no-fly zone over that big triangle of territory that’s occupied by the US forces and Kurdish allies. An attempt might be made to create the no-fly zone of Idlib, which would be ironic. It would mean that the US Air Force was the air wing of al-Qaeda…

“I’m definitely not optimistic. And I fear things could get even worse.”

US Ambassador Robert S. Ford (RSF)

Robert Stephen Ford - Wikipedia

Robert S. Ford was a US diplomat in numerous cities including Algiers and Cairo. He was Deputy Chief of Mission in Bahrein from 2001 to 2004, then Political Counselor at the US Embassy in Baghdad from 2004 to 2006. As an Arabic speaker, he may have helped Ambassador John Negroponte launch the “El Salvador option” (death squads) in Iraq. Robert S. Ford was Ambassador to Syria from the end of 2010 until 2014 when the US terminated diplomatic relations with Syria. He has continued as an unofficial advisor on Syria policy.

In contrast with the Peter Ford interview, the interview with US Ambassador Robert S. Ford (RSF) is a case study in public relations. Interviewer Aaron Mate asks important questions but RSF deflects the questions, claims ignorance of new revelations, and repeats standard talking points on Syria.

RSF acknowledges there has been “mission creep” for US troops in Syria.

“American troops were sent into Syria originally to fight ISIS. Now that that job is more-or-less finished, we have a sort of mission creep where now the American forces are there not to defeat ISIS – ISIS is already defeated… But now, so what are the Americans doing? Well, now they sort of changed the mission to putting pressure on Damascus, the Assad government, trying to get the Iranians out, trying to limit the Russian influence.”

RSF implies the sanctions on Syria are just.

“Sanctions is a different question, Aaron. I think a lot of it is emotional here in the United States. There’s a desperate desire for justice after all the war crimes committed in Syria. And I think getting rid of the sanctions is going to be a much harder battle to fight in the Congress. So, the sanctions have very strong approval in Congress…”

RSF maintains the initial protests were “almost entirely peaceful”

“In March and April, May into June, the protests were almost entirely peaceful. That’s not to say there was no violence. In the first protest, for example, in Daraa, in which we’re now coming up on the 10-year anniversary, yeah, the protesters did attack the telephone office [Syriatel] that’s owned by Bashar al-Assad’s cousin, Rami Makhlouf. They did attack a court building…”

[Fact check: RSF neglects to mention seven police were killed in the “almost entirely peaceful” Daraa protest.]

RSF acknowledges US allies were sending weapons early but claims the US began sending weapons in 2013.

“Those countries [Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey] did send in weapons before the Americans…

“I supported arming factions of the Free Syrian Army as early as the summer of 2012. And it took the president a year to get to a decision.”

[Fact check: US Central Intelligence Agency was sending weapons from Benghazi Libya to Syria in Oct 2011.]

RSF compares the Free Syrian Army to the anti-Nazi resistance in WW2.

“The United States never gave anti-tank weapons to al-Qaeda…. the number might be half a dozen.

“I want you to think about this in historical context. Do you think when the Americans airdropped weapons into the French resistance against the Nazis in France, do you think the Nazis never got their hands on any of those air drops?…

“The leakage to the al-Qaeda elements, there was a small amount of leakage, but much, much, much more of their weaponry came from the Assad government, either, because the Assad soldiers were corrupt, as we said, we talked at the start about corruption. They sold them, or in some cases, they surrendered, and with that, huge caches of weaponry made their way into al-Nusra hands. The amount of material that al-Nusra got from the United States wouldn’t have lasted them for a day of combat.”

Fact check: This claim is preposterous. As reported by Janes Defense, the US supplied nearly one thousand TONS of weapons in December 2015, much of which ended up in Nusra (Al Qaeda) hands. Nusra obtained weapons when they over-ran Syrian military bases, but otherwise they were amply supplied with weapons by the Gulf monarchies, Israel, Turkey, the US and UK.

RSF claims the Syrian government has primary responsibility for the war and are the “bad guys”.

“What I hope your listeners will take away from this is that it is not an equal combat on both sides; is not an equal responsibility on both sides. One side from the beginning was using torture and shooting at innocent people, thousands of arrests. And one side was trying peacefully, for a very large part, to bring about change. And, unfortunately, in this instance, the bad guys won.”

Fact check: The campaign against Syria has been waged by a coalition of western powers, Turkey, Israel and the Gulf monarchies. About 121 thousand Syrians in the Syrian army and militias have died defending their country.

RSF claims that Syria is responsible for the war refugees and destabilizing its neighbors.

“Even had Turkey, Qatar and the United States, Saudi Arabia, stayed out of it, there still would have been huge refugee flows trying to escape from those same brutal Syrian security forces, and they still would have flooded the borders of Lebanon and Jordan and of Turkey, which is itself destabilizing, particularly in Lebanon, but some places like Jordan, Turkey. Therefore, you can’t just say that all these other countries intervened in sovereign Syrian territory. The Syrian government itself was taking actions which were destabilizing to its neighbors.”

Fact check: Most refugees fled when their neighborhoods were taken over by militants and became battle zones, NOT because they were afraid of Syrian security.

RSF criticizes Turkey but thinks Syrian government bears primary responsibility.

“I’m never going to justify the Turks allowing Salafi jihadists to go into Syria. I think that I’ve already said that that was a bad mistake. And we criticized them at the time of playing with snakes. I’m never going to justify it. But I have to say, Aaron, that in the end, they came in response to what the Assad government was already doing. And so, the principal responsibility … do the Americans have a share of responsibility? Of course, we do. Yeah. It was our antitank missiles blowing up Syrian government tanks, and not just a few; I mean, hundreds of them.

“I think we have to go back to where it started in 2011. And that’s with the Syrian government…”

RSF says he is not aware of the huge scandal at the OPCW but believes Syria has used chemical weapons.

“I’m not familiar with that controversy within the OPCW….

“But I guess I would just say this, Aaron. There’s plenty of documentation by the UN’s joint investigative group with the OPCW that looked at incidents in Syria chemical weapons use, from 2013 onwards. They’ve issued several reports…. So, the 2018 incident, I don’t know about that report, but I have no doubt whatsoever that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons on multiple instances, the same government that bombs hospitals, the same government that bombs bakeries, the same government that kills people in detention routinely. Look at the photos that were brought up by the military defector. You know, why would you think they wouldn’t use chemical weapons? Why would you think they would suddenly have moral scruples against these? It doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

[Fact check: the OPCW scandal has confirmed manipulation of that organization by the US and west. The “military photographer” refers to the ‘Caesar torture photos’ propaganda stunt.]

RSF wants to increase humanitarian aid to Syria refugees.

“Something the Americans could do that would be hugely helpful is to increase humanitarian aid to the Syrian refugees that number some five million, particularly in Lebanon, where their living circumstances are precarious, very precarious, but also in Jordan and Turkey… I’d like to spend less on the military operation and much more on humanitarian aid.

“And then there is the issue of Northwest Syria, Idlib, where the UN is in charge of an operation getting humanitarian aid to some two million displaced Syrian civilians.”

[Fact check and observation: Idlib province is dominated by Nusra (Al Qaeda). Robert Ford seems to want to perpetuate the AQ stronghold and refugee crisis by supplying aid to Idlib and foreign countries while preventing return of refugees and rebuilding war torn Syria.]

Conclusion

Both ambassadors speak Arabic and have intimate knowledge of Syria.

Robert S. Ford criticizes some past decisions and tactics, but not the assumptions or right of the US to violate the UN Charter and commit aggression against Syria.

Meanwhile, Peter Ford is doing his best to expose the reality of the situation, contrary to government and media bias and falsehoods. Like Daniel Ellsberg, Scott Ritter and Katharine Gun, he is using his special knowledge to publicly challenge the claims and assumptions of western policy. With Ellsberg it was about Vietnam. With Ritter and Gun, it was about Iraq. With Peter Ford, it is about Syria.

The full interview with UK Ambassador Peter Ford is well worth watching or reading.

*

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.

Rick Sterling is a journalist base in the SF Bay Area of California. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Featured image is from Syria News


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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Haitians March on Canadian Embassy

March 31st, 2021 by Yves Engler

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

***

People everywhere around the world love and respect Canadians, or so we’re told. So how do you explain what’s going on in Haiti?

On Sunday protesters in Port-au-Prince marched on the Canadian Embassy. “Madame Boukman — Justice 4 Haiti” posted a video to Twitter showing police in front of Canada’s diplomatic representation in Haiti. Madame Boukman quoted two men waving a Russian flag saying, “Long live Russia. Canada go home.” (In an indirect criticism of US/Canadian backing for dictator Jovenel Moïse, Russia’s Foreign Affairs Minister recently said they were concerned about “political instability” and “ready to help Haitians restore political stability, maintain internal security and train personnel.”)

Madame Boukman’s post elicited anger from some offended Canadians. But anyone who follows Haitian politics knows protesters regularly target Ottawa. On October 27, 2019, Molotov cocktails were thrown at the embassy in Port-au-Prince. A tire was also set alight in front of Canada’s diplomatic representation in Haiti. Voice of America reported that protesters “attempted to burn down the Canadian Embassy.”

A few days earlier rocks were thrown at Canada’s diplomatic outpost. An October 2019 Radio Canada story began with the image of a Haitian holding a sign saying: “Fuck USA. Merde la France. Fuck Canada.” Three years earlier a demonstrator at the front of a protest carried a large wooden cross — as if crucified — bearing the US, French and Canadian flags. The caption on a Reuters video from a protest in 2014 noted, “thousands of Haitians take to the streets of Port-au-Prince to protest the government of President Michel Martelly, as well as the government of Canada for supporting Martelly.”

Protesters regularly speechify against Canadian imperialism. The 2019 documentary Haiti Betrayed includes a man yelling in front of the embassy in Port-au-Prince: “We don’t have anything against Canada! Why are you against us?” In a 2013 Journal of Haitian Studies article Jennifer Greenburg describes a “student from the Artibonite” interjecting in an “animated conversation” at a vocational school where she taught. The young man takes a water bottle and places it on the ground. “‘This is Haiti,’ he says, and grabbing another student’s backpack, ‘is the US, Canada — the powerful countries.’ He lifts the backpack just above the water bottle and ‘every time we come up,’ lifting the water bottle from the ground near my feet, ‘they keep us down,’ crushing the water bottle to the ground with the bulky knapsack.”

After Uruguay announced it was withdrawing its 950 troops from the United Nations Mission to Stabilize Haiti in 2013, senator Moise Jean-Charles took aim at the countries he considered most responsible for undermining Haitian sovereignty. The country’s most trusted opposition figure according to a 2019 poll, Jean-Charles said, “Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay are not the real occupiers of Haiti. The real forces behind Haiti’s military occupation — the powers which are putting everybody else up to it — are the U.S., France, and Canada, which colluded in the Feb. 29, 2004 coup d’etat against President [Jean-Bertrand] Aristide. It was then they began trampling Haitian sovereignty.” Jean-Charles added, “we are asking the Americans, French, and Canadians to come and collect their errand boy because he cannot lead the country anymore.”

Days after I poured fake blood on foreign affairs minister Pierre Pettigrew’s hands and yelled “Pettigrew lies, Haitians die” during a June 2005 press conference on Haiti, Aristide was asked about the incident. In an interview from South Africa, he told journalist Naomi Klein the Canadian government had Haitian “blood on its hands.” He stated, “the coup, or the kidnapping, was led by the United States, France and Canada. These three countries were on the front lines by sending their soldiers to Haiti before February 29, by having their soldiers either at the airport or at my residence or around the palace or in the capital to make sure that they succeeded in kidnapping me, leading [to] the coup.”

For their part, left-wing weekly newspapers Haiti Progrès and Haiti Libertédescribed Canada as an “occupying force”, “coup supporter” or “imperialist” over one hundred times. In one instance, the front page of Haiti Liberté showed a picture of President René Préval next to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and two Canadian soldiers. Part of the caption below read, “Préval under the surveillance of the occupying forces.”

Haitian anger towards Canada is wholly understandable. During this century Canada has helped destabilize an elected government, plan a coup and invade to topple a president. It has also trained and financed a highly repressive police force, justifying their politically motivated arrests and killings. Ottawa has also backed the exclusion of Haiti’s most popular political party from participating in elections and helped fix an election. After a terrible earthquake Canada dispatched troops to control the country and later propped up a repressive, corrupt and illegitimate president facing massive protests.

The truth is Canada has repeatedly sided with oppressors of ordinary Haitians. They have many good reasons to hate our government.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is a screenshot from the Twitter video

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

***

Does the oft-repeated refrain that “Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere” explain anything? Is it a poor country or an impoverished country? Or perhaps it is unsuspectedly rich? Are its indifferent friends in the West really not interested in the country? Why then do the United States and European countries seem to be so zealous about the “Haitian thing”? In a series of notes and based on fieldwork carried out in four departments of the country, we will focus on understanding the “poor rich Haiti” and some of the initiatives of what has been called its “reconstruction” since 2010. We will discuss the economic interests of Western powers, expressed through initiatives such as industrial parks, mining operations, enclave tourism ventures, land grabbing and agricultural free zones.

Haiti’s borders are curious. The small country is bordered to the east by the Dominican Republic, dividing in two the territory of the island of Hispaniola. To the west it borders the Caribbean Sea and to the south, a forgotten maritime border with the Republic of Colombia. But what interests us here is a border that is not entirely imaginary: to the north and northeast, although the maps would like to indicate otherwise, Haiti borders the United States.

It is here, in this region, that most US economic interests – and also those of its smaller partners – are concentrated. This is the case of Canada, that peculiar North American colony that in turn colonizes others. But also those of France, Germany and other European nations. In this and the following notes, we will talk about industrial parks, mining and speculation, enclave tourism ventures, land grabbing and agricultural free trade zones. This does not include some unholy initiatives in other parts of the country, such as the seizure of entire islands, drug trafficking or tax havens where the money comes in dirty and goes out free of guilt and sin.

But it is in the northeast region of this “poor rich” country that the power enjoyed by the current de facto president, Jovenel Moïse, has been amassed. He has made this territory his personal fiefdom. His modus operandi has been land grabbing and the true foundation of his power, his economic alliances with transnational capital, both legal and extralegal.

For this, we will travel to the heart of the communities affected by what, after the devastating earthquake of 2010, has become known as the “Reconstruction of Haiti”. In this first note, we will talk – paraphrasing Eduardo Galeano – about the “Banana King” Jovenel Moïse and his numerous agricultural courtiers. But first, let’s take a look at the situation of the rural areas and the local peasantry.

Barefoot 

One out of every two inhabitants of the country lives in the countryside. But an even higher percentage of the population, around 66%, depends on and subsists in relation to rural areas and agricultural production. According to a study by the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), the urban population has only overtaken the rural population in the last five years, and the current difference is only about 100,000 people.

Peasant youth children are the most affected by land grabbing policies. Photo: Lautaro Rivara

Land everywhere is finite and vital. But it is even more so in a territory covered by extensive mountain ranges, and where the agricultural frontier is receding with every meter gained by deforestation and desertification – today the country retains barely 2 percent of its original vegetation cover. It is not surprising, then, that a large part of the peasant population is poor: they are the so-called pyè atè, the “pata en tierra”, the barefoot.

For a long time, however, an unprecedentedly radical measure was at least able to guarantee Haitians a piece of land on which to produce and reproduce life. Since the revolutionary constitution of 1805, land ownership was denied to foreigners on the grounds of sovereignty and national dignity, becoming an obstacle to the full implementation of capitalism on the island. At least until the definitive abolition of this prohibition in 1915, under the mantle of the American occupation.

Today, there are around 600,000 farms in Haiti, organized in small plots – jaden – of between 0.5 and 1.8 hectares. Peasant agriculture is mostly family and traditional, but there are many different forms of land ownership, work and usage: family landowners, tenant farmers, tenant farmers, day laborers, sharecroppers, etc. The tools used are rustic, often no more than the traditional pickaxe and machete, usually without draft animals, without any kind of machinery, without chemical fertilizers, with native seeds, all under a rain-fed agricultural regime. Despite the enormous contribution of peasant agriculture to national wealth – around 25 percent of GDP – the state’s contributions to the sector are practically nonexistent.

On the other side of rural life, a select group of families, usually living abroad, as well as a handful of transnational corporations, still concentrate around half of the available land and in many cases, worse still, keep it unproductive.

A requiem for the free market

Eat what you don’t produce and don’t eat what you produce. This is the secret of the offshoring and financialized export agriculture that has been promoted in the country in recent decades. A fundamental milestone in its implementation was the policy of trade and financial liberalization imposed in the mid-1980s, with the help of the International Monetary Fund, the US State Department and the enthusiastic action of the ineffable Bill Clinton – a self-styled “friend of Haiti” whose friendship, however, nobody here wants to reciprocate.

In the mid-1990s, this policy deepened, with tariffs on rice imports falling from 35 percent to 3 percent under external pressure. In the same year, the US invested 60 billion dollars to subsidize its own rice production. So-called dumping resulted in Haiti’s production falling by over 50% from 130,000 to 60,000 tons. The selling prices of the peasantry, exposed to unfair competition with the hyper-subsidized American farmer, led to the ruin and exodus of thousands and thousands of peasants. A vicious circle of agricultural ruin, unemployment, hunger, foreign food aid, impossibility of competing with the “free” food sent to the country, and again more ruin, unemployment, hunger, etc., was generated.

The Artibonite Valley, the heart of the country’s rice production, has been in terminal crisis since the 1990s. Photo: Lautaro Rivara

As a result, Haiti went from being practically self-sufficient in the production of the staple grain of its national diet to importing it massively. Although the case of rice is the most dramatic, it is far from the only one.  The nation went from importing less than 20 percent of its food in the early 1980s to importing more than 55 percent from abroad today, mainly from the United States and the Dominican Republic.

This cycle resulted in the partial destruction of traditional peasant agriculture. Some may call it “subsistence”, but for the local peasant it was instead an agriculture of “abundance”, if we consider how trade liberalization has generalized the phenomenon of hunger today. On the other hand, the relationship between food assistance and hunger is direct, as was the case with the “Tikè Manje” program and others developed by USAID, through voucher systems that only allow the population to have access to North American products.

Agritrans S.A.: the flagship

In this scorched earth scenario, after the devastating earthquake of January 2010, the project of transnational, deterritorialized and financialized agriculture began to take shape. Transnational, due to the dominant influence of external capital, beyond the resounding publicity of certain local “entrepreneurs”. It is deterritorialized because the local space becomes a kind of non-place for the capitals that mold the territory in their image and likeness: bananas from Haiti or Guadeloupe, soya from Brazil or Paraguay, sugar cane from the Caribbean or European beet sugar, etc., are all the same. And it is financialized because what this agriculture tends to produce is not food, but foreign currency. In short, it is an agriculture that satisfies only the hunger for capital accumulation.

A cautious detour with a good local guide allowed us to enter the lands of Agritrans S.A., the company of de facto president Jovenel Moïse, which became famous for its involvement in one of the largest embezzlements of public funds in the country’s history, amounting to a quarter of the national GDP. This was confirmed by Senate investigations – before its closure in January 2020 – and by the Supreme Audit Court, before its reduction, by presidential decree, to nothing more than a mere consultative body.

The inhabitants of the Limonade and Terrier-Rouge area, in the North-East Department, are in awe of all things related to this fabled expanse of land. And for those who feel neither fear nor respect, there are armed guards to remind them. They told us to stop and threatened to shoot as soon as the motorbike we were traveling on around their perimeter on National Route 6 slowed down. Unable to film or photograph the accesses, we had to clandestinely enter the estate through some twisted wire fences on the side of a canal. Surprisingly, a barren plain then spread out before us. Whether because of the environmental damage resulting from intensive production without crop rotation, or perhaps because the tenure of these lands today serves more the assertion of local power than the process of real accumulation, we saw not even a trace of a cultivated field. Today, Agritrans S.A. is a huge, uncultivated estate, surrounded by crowds of peasants who cannot even get access to a “handkerchief of land”, as the locals eloquently put it.

The “Nourribio” project was set up here in 2013, on the land of the man who would later become the country’s president. The 1,000 hectares in front of us were donated for a project that envisaged the intensive production of bananas, mainly for export to Western countries. It also took the form of a free zone, exempt from taxes and other charges. The land for its establishment was expropriated from 3,000 peasants and granted in concession for a renewable term of 25 years. The aforementioned promises of employment fell far short of expectations: only 200 people were being employed, according to information from 2014. And the people who lost land? The small amount of their compensation was spent on the basic necessities of everyday life. With no land to work or produce, their “beneficiaries” soon found themselves unemployed, expelled to the capital, expelled abroad, or reduced to starvation, if not a combination of all of the above.

According to the specialist Georges Eddy Lucien, in the face of the banana production crisis in the French overseas departments (Guadeloupe and Martinique), “the Northeast – of Haiti – appears in the eyes of investors and international institutions as an ideal alternative territory, where production costs (labor, available land) are much lower…”. The impoverishment of Haitian workers has meant that the wages of an agricultural worker can be 25 times lower – 25 times! Not to mention if we compare it with the average wages of a Frenchman or a North American.

History is a boomerang. The first shipment of Agritrans bananas arrived at the port of Antwerp in Belgium in 2015. The same port that flourished during the slave trade and during the reign of Leopold II. A century ago, thousands of kilos of ivory and rubber, the product of slave exploitation in the Belgian Congo, arrived there. Today, it is bananas from Haiti, produced by one of the most impoverished workforces on the planet.

Operation dispossession

However, at least the construction of Agritrans S.A. involved mechanisms that we will call quasi-legal – although not moral – through the expropriation and compensation of peasant properties, measures taken perhaps because of the international visibility of the project.

But the policy of land grabbing has deepened in recent years, according to the leaders of the main peasant organizations during a recent colloquium on the subject held in the central region. There, for example, the national government ceded by decree no less than 8,600 hectares of fertile land to the Apaid family, one of the richest in the country. Another agricultural free trade zone is supposed to be built there, but this time for the production and export of stevia for the multinational Coca-Cola

Christiane Fonrose and her husband prepare charcoal on reclaimed land in Terrier Rouge. Photo: Lautaro Rivara

But back to the Northeast. After long walks along impassable rural roads, flooded by rain, mud and state neglect, we were able to visit several communities that have suffered and are today facing the dispossession of their lands by local landowners, foreign companies and armed gangs.

In Terrier Rouge, Irené Cinic Antoine of the “Small planters” movement told us that she has owned a large plot of 6,000 hectares of land since 1986. In 1995, under the progressive government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the process to legalize their tenure began. Since then, the common lands have been divided between agriculture, charcoal trees and livestock. Their ownership rights were even published in the official state newspaper, but the documents were later disappeared by anonymous hands.

We also talk to Christiane Fonrose and her husband, as they stoke the fire on the mountain of earth inside which burns the wood that will be turned into charcoal. It is one of the few remaining means of survival in the region, although its ecological costs are well known to all, particularly to the peasantry. From his unshakeable faith, Fonrose tells us: “The land is God’s thing, which God created for us. Before creating his children, God created the earth. (…) But then they took the earth out of our hands. Today we have nowhere to plant, nowhere to graze some small animals, the children cannot go to school (…) We are in a very difficult situation”.

We were also able to visit peasant organizations in Grand Basin who are currently resisting the permanent hostility of invisible actors who are trying to take over land that was ceded to them by the state, again during the Aristide era. After another long trek along the difficult rural roads, our interview had to be conducted in the pouring rain, as even the roofs and doors of the small house on the plot were stolen. Here, on the edge of mineral-rich mountains, 1,500 organized peasants have been able to work 148 kawo of land (about 200 hectares) to produce sugar cane, maize, manioc and even honey and kleren – a peasant sugar cane brandy – in a sovereign and agro-ecological way.

The farmers of MOPAG have been resisting eviction attempts in Grand Bassin for years. Photo: Lautaro Rivara

A little over a year ago, a heavily armed group broke in, disrupting their crops, stealing or killing their animals, destroying fences, buildings and their meager agricultural implements. Evidently these were neither neighbors nor amateurs, as the operation involved the deployment of expensive bulldozers.  Even today, the land that was taken remains unproductive, and the peasants are constantly threatened not to try to recover it. So far, no state body has given them any response. “Without the land, outside the land, we peasants are worthless. We voted for them ourselves, but it seems that they don’t need us anymore,” concludes Antoine.

Today there are barely 350 people left, including only a handful of young people: most of them have been forced to migrate to the capital Port-au-Prince or even abroad. In the long siege they have been suffering since then. The National Institute of Agrarian Reform (INARA) has hardly dared to take sides with them. Coincidentally, according to recent reports, the Moïse government is seeking to eliminate this body in the new constitution it is now preparing. According to Wilson Messidor, leader of MOPAG, the project to dispossess them of their land would be closely linked to the mining resources in the area, and to the construction of the so-called villages, semi-closed residential neighborhoods that USAID is building for the workers in the free trade zones.

USAID appears, in fact, as the de facto civil authority in these territories, and its projects are constantly growing and multiplying, as indicated by the numerous signs on the roadsides. According to an anonymous Cuban engineer, the US mega-cooperation organization operates through loans and projects, indebting the state and the communities, in order to guarantee control of strategic areas for their water and mineral resources.

It matters little, following Eduardo Galeano’s metaphor, whether the monarch is King Banana, Queen Stevia or King Manufacture. Haiti continues to be determined by the blessings of nature and the curses of those who dominate history. We will continue, in the next note, to unravel the mysteries of this “poor rich country” which, in the international division of labor, has been subjected to the task of exporting poverty and importing humanitarian aid. We will talk about the export processing zones and the bizarre project to turn Haiti into the “Taiwan of America”.

*

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.

Lautaro Rivara is a sociologist, researcher and poet. As a trained journalist, he participated as an activist in different spaces of communications work, covering tasks of editing, writing, radio broadcasts, and photography. During his two years in the Jean-Jacques Dessalines Brigade in Haiti he was responsible for communications and carried out political education with Haitian people’s movements in this area. He writes regularly in people’s media projects of Argentina and the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean including Nodal, ALAI, Telesur, Resumen Latinoamericano, Pressenza, la RedH, Notas, Haití Liberte, Alcarajo, and more.

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Poor Rich Haiti”: How Imperialists and Local Oligarchy Have Sought to Destroy Haitian Agriculture
  • 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).

***

Biden was in charge of much of the “Ukraine project” during Obama’s time in office.

In recent weeks President Biden has been saying some rather mean-spirited things about Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. Now Russian state sources are alleging that Washington under the Biden administration is ramping up military aid to Ukraine. This comes after the media observed the Ocean Glory, a US cargo ship, began delivering 350 tonnes of military equipment, including tactical vehicles, at Ukraine’s Odessa port. Ukraine’s Dumskaya news agency said the American vessel carried at least 35 US military humvees for Ukrainian national forces.

Adding Ukraine to NATO and the EU is a long-held dream of neocons like Victoria Nuland and neoliberals like Biden.This is also important to those supporting the World Economic Forum’s desire to expand the EU and encircle Russia.

They feel such an action would disrupt any dreams of Eurasian integration which could resist their strategy to reshape the way the world is governed. Putin’s foreign policy, coupled with efforts to rebuild the Russian military, has been part of an effort by the former KGB officer to boost Russia’s standing on the world stage.

This has helped make him popular with his people even as NATO has slowly been expanding in the direction of Russia, but also makes him a thorn in the side of the NWO gang.

NATO Has Slowly Expanded Towards Russia

Interestingly, this delivery of military equipment occurred near the time Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, was signing Decree No. 117/2021. The decree activates the Ukraine Army to recapture and re-unify with Ukraine, the autonomous region of Crimea, and the city of Sevastopol. The military has been instructed to use “hybrid warfare” to re-conquer these former parts of Ukraine. In short, this means Ukraine declared war on Russia, certainly something it would never consider without major backing. It must be noted, his actions are in total conflict with his promise to end the now nearly seven-year-long war in eastern Ukraine that played a central role in his election in 2019. This indicates, Zelensky has continued to subordinate his government’s policies to the US- and NATO-led war drive against Russia.

One Ukrainian blogger contends the censorship of the three opposition channels in Ukraine and the surprise inspection of Ukrainian army units in Donbas link all this together and signals a resumption of the Donbas conflict. He wrote on his Telegram channel, “Protecting his rear through censorship, Zelensky ordered to start an inspection of the AFU units in Donbas in order to establish their readiness to carry out the orders of the military command.” He then went on to say, “Didn’t we warn you last year that the regime was preparing for a major war? All we had to do was wait for the green light from higher authorities.”

Upping tensions in the area is the fact the Kerch Strait Bridge, also known as the Crimean Bridge, is now a target and we will certainly see Russian moves to protect it. Comprised of a pair of Russian-constructed parallel bridges it spans the Strait of Kerch between the Taman Peninsula and the Kerch Peninsula of Crimea. The bridge complex provides for both road and rail traffic and has a length of 19 km. This makes it the longest bridge Russia has ever built.

It is difficult not to tie this to the controversial Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline project which Viktor Zubkov, chairman of the board of directors of Russia’s gas giant Gazprom, claims, will definitely be completed this year. He said on Friday, Biden’s goal is to stop the pipeline and the U.S. is now targeting anyone helping the project’s completion in any way. So far, around 90-92 percent of the work required for the project is complete. Earlier this year, Gazprom warned investors that the Nord Stream 2 project could be suspended or entirely discontinued due to extraordinary circumstances, including “political pressure.”

War In Ukraine Is About Money, Energy, And Power!

As to what really motivates the desire to turn Ukraine into a giant-killing field, several possibilities exist but money and profit should not be ruled out. Foreign policy has often been used as a tool to advance national interest which is often dictated by economics. When it comes to the economy energy is often considered the blood from which all strength flows and in the case of Europe the Nord Stream 2 (NS2) pipeline which after completion will carry natural gas from Russia to Germany is a bone of contention. Years ago leaders from Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania signed an open letter to the parliaments of the EU warning them against the construction of NS2 and cautioned them of how it is not a commercial project but one designed to increase their energy reliance on Moscow.

At that time, Russia’s Gazprom supplied the European Union and Turkey with a record 162 billion cubic meters of gas. Of that gas, 86 billion cubic meters flowed across Ukraine. Those opposed to the new pipeline make a strong case that “Gazprom” is not only a gas company but a platform for Russian coercion and another tool for Russia to pressure European countries. The U.S. State Department has even threatened European corporations they will likely face penalties if they participate in the construction of Russia’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, on the grounds that “the project undermines energy security in Europe.”

Circling back to the conflict, years ago I wrote a piece that urged America to stay out of a war in Ukraine. It warned of the major advantage Putin held by having a huge well-armed army just across the Ukrainian border and that any army cobbled together to face him would most likely be unenthusiastic and politically troubled at best. At the time President Obama had pulled out all the stops to paint Putin with a brush dipped in all the bad colors. Every Sunday in interview after interview Washington experts were paraded across the screens of the talk shows that tell Americans what is happening in our nation’s capital and every single one of them denounced Putin as a “thug and a bully.”

Ukrainian Soldiers Killed In An Unwinnable War

In that piece were accounts of reports from the front in Ukraine often buried or hidden from public view but they appeared to confirm that Ukrainian troops were being sent into a meat grinderThe drafted include men up to 60 years old with only a month of training before they reluctantly go off to the battlefield in eastern Ukraine. Putting more weapons into the hands of those unmotivated to fight for their corrupt state is merely adding fuel to this fire and doing more harm than good. Again, remember Ukraine is a financially failed state and while we can point to its potential, its massive oil and gas reserves by all rights should belong to the people and for their benefit. The IMF, however, points out that Kyiv needs billion in loans and grants just to stabilize its economy after more than twenty years of massive levels of corruption. This debt and the deep, deep hole Ukrainians have dug themselves into flows from a series of bad governments after Kyiv became independent of the Soviet Union.

Back then, the euro-zone faced a lot of problems without jumping into a proxy war against rebels in Ukraine. I use the term proxy because without the money and backing of outsiders things would most likely go quiet. The failed and bankrupt country of Ukraine would most likely break into two parts with the eastern half and its people who share strong ties with Russia aligning itself with that country and Kyiv, and the western-oriented portion of the country drifting towards stronger ties to the euro-zone. What is the big problem with such a solution? Apparently, a great deal for people like Biden in Washington that are pushing for intervention in Ukraine.

To confuse the issue and muddy the waters great efforts have been made at high levels by those advocating military action to paint Russia as an aggressor. These forces aided by the media continue to link Russias move into the majority ethnic-Russian Crimea region as a violation of Ukraine’s sovereign border. In this case, we should remember, the whole concept of sovereign borders is a little gem promoted by those in power, these borders are a creation of man and not visible to the birds flying above. This is an argument of convenience that masks deeper issues and the difference between “terrorist” and “freedom fighters” often depends on a person’s point of view. In this case, it is clearly the new American-backed government in Kyiv that is pushing to bring the eastern part of Ukraine back into the fold.

What this boils down to is that American companies want to sell and supply Europe with Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) and seem willing to start a war to make it happen. Whether it is for profit or to minimize the threat of natural gas shipments to Europe being cut off and used as a key weapon in Russia’s political arsenal we cannot ignore the idea more is at play here than just doing the “right thing”. Many people in the “Tin Foil Hat” community have gone so far as to indicate they feel that America and elements of the CIA were involved or had a part in the overthrow of the former corrupt Ukraine government and its replacement with another corrupt but more pro Europe regime. At the time even America’s Vice President, Joe Biden, saw his son join the board of a private Ukrainian oil and natural gas company. One thing is clear, not only those involved in selling energy to Europe will profit from this but also the military-industrial complex stands to gain.

The odds of U.S. LNG significantly displacing Russian natural gas shipped by pipeline are slim. Piped gas sells at a large discount to LNG, which must be cooled to liquid form, shipped overseas, and turned back into its gaseous form. Poland recently received its first shipment of U.S. LNG last month from what is currently the only export facility in the lower 48 states. While LNG trade between the United States and Europe would help Trump in his bid to reduce the U.S. trade deficit it also stands to improve energy security among the European countries by giving them an alternative to Russian gas. Everyone must concede it is not a cure-all, Russia can easily cut prices and adjust terms to maintain its dominant position in the European gas market and European countries are likely to continue buying most of their gas from the lowest-cost supplier.

Bottom-line, Russia has traditionally been the major supplier of European gas. But it charges high prices, often in the form of long-term contracts linked to the price of oil. The overwhelming dependence on Russian gas leaves European countries from a national security standpoint vulnerable to a cutoff of crucial natural gas supplies. This would be devastating to their economies at any time but even more so in the depths of winter. For these reasons, it makes sense for Europe to consider alternative supplies and open its doors to U.S. LNG but due to Ukraine’s history of corruption flooding the country with weapons and using the people of Ukraine as pawns in this high stakes game violates all standards of human decency.

Americans should also be aware that our current policy drives Russia towards the East and into the open arms of China. This creates even more problems long-term than it solves short-term and borders on the edge of insanity. The war in Ukraine has not developed organically but appears to be the product of meddling. Mercenaries and money from America appear to be backing and propping up Kyiv with America acting as the “champion” for this failed bankrupt country.  The best way for the West and Kyiv to prove they are on the right path is by letting the eastern part of the country seceded and then making Kyiv a center of economic and democratic success.

I reiterate the stand taken in April 2018, the Ukraine war is about money, energy, and power! Since the latest ceasefire agreement in the war in Donbas was implemented in July 2020, it appears few if anyone is being killed. This indicates rocking the boat is a bad idea. We can only hope those hyping the recent events in Ukraine saying the decree signed by Zelensky will someday be looked back upon at the beginning of World War III are overly pessimistic, after all, when you place two major military powers face to face what could go wrong?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from PravdaReport

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).

*

[T]here are two sides whose composition cuts across national and even community boundaries. The issues … can be described as freedom vs. slavery…. [T]wo powerful leaders of these opposed sides have emerged—the United States of America and the USSR.

We are faced now with a situation similar in some respects to that which confronted our forefathers in early colonial days when they ploughed the land with a rifle slung on the shoulder. If they stuck to the plough and left the rifle at home, they would have been easy victims for any savages lurking in the woods. ”

As Canada’s Minister of External Affairs, Lester Pearson delivered the above statements in his speech entitled “Canadian Foreign Policy in a Two Power World” to a joint meeting of the Empire Club of Canada and Canadian Club of Toronto. (April 10, 1951)

*

For centuries, self-righteous state myths have depicted the imperial Canadian project as a victory for democracy and human rights. Despite Canada’s long record of genocide, land plunder, and war profiteering, official narratives about noble “Canadian values” still reign in this imagined “peaceable kingdom.”

Canada’s ethnonationalist propaganda demonized First Nations as hostile sub-humans to be enslaved, imprisoned on reservations and made Christian in residential schools. This White-Power racism served imperialist containment policies designed to turn “Red Indian” enemies into captive nations.

By the early 1950s, then-external affairs minister Lester Pearson was pioneering a new containment policy. During the transition to the new world order of the Cold War, he rallied his powerful allies in Canada’s racist old-boys’ clubs.

Pearson’s status as a national hero was consolidated when he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 for his role in helping to establish a UN peacekeeping force.

But Pearson was far from a progressive. In 1951, he compared the new Red Menace of communism to what he called “savages lurking in the woods.” These “savages,” he declared, had violently threatened the peaceful lives of innocent white Europeans whom he lovingly called “our forefathers.”

By conjuring unsettling images of a Red-Indian bogeyman, Pearson helped manufacture consent for a new, politically Red enemy to meet the needs of NATO’s capitalist powers.

On the home front, Pearson’s fierce anticommunism justified Canada’s systematic abuses of civil rights. As Ian MacKay and Jamie Swift note in Warrior Nation: “Pearson enthusiastically supported a Cold War against any Canadians suspected of viewing the world outside the newly hegemonic framework of the American imperium.”[1]

Headline in Toronto newspaper pointing to repressive political environment in the early Cold War. [Source: opentext.bc.ca]

Targeted for abuse by Canada’s Cold War elites were “peaceniks,” radical unionists and anyone branded as too leftwing. “Pearson had become an ever-more-aggressive accomplice,” said MacKay and Swift, “in government attacks on dissidents.”[2]

To Pearson and other Cold Warriors, the world was torn. As chief architect of Canada’s postwar anti-Red foreign policy, Pearson demonized the Soviet Union as the epicenter of evil. The USSR was still reeling after 27 million of its citizens had been killed by Hitler’s anti-communist crusade.

This is the cover of the Canadian edition (1947) of a U.S. comic by the Catechetical Guild Educational Society. [Source: coat.ncf.ca]

Anti-communist propaganda which Pearson echoed. [Source: coat.ncf.ca]

After the Red Army liberated Eastern Europe and led Germany’s defeat, the U.S. replaced the Nazis as global leaders in the war on communism. NATO efforts to destroy the USSR used Cold-War “containment” strategies: surrounding the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons, isolating it with political and economic sanctions, and vilifying it with propaganda. Pearson had a central role in this new phase of the West’s war on communism.

Lester Pearson, far right, with Halvard Lange of Norway and Gaetano Martino of Italy. They were known as the “Three Wise Men” who were ardent in supporting NATO. [Source: nato.int]

The Red Scare had been going on for decades. In Pearson’s youth during WWI and the First Red Scare (1914-20), Canada ran slave-labor, concentration camps that interned thousands of single immigrant men, mostly Ukrainians, who had been laid off from rural work camps. Elites feared their growing protests in urban centers might spark a socialist revolution.[3]

Ukrainians interned during World War I and the First Red Scare. [Source: infoukes]

And, in 1919, Canada was among thirteen countries that invaded newborn Soviet Russia with 150,000 troops to intervene in its civil war and reverse its revolution. Canada’s allies in the war, led by Admiral Alexander Vasilevich Kolchak, killed at least 100 civilians for every one killed by the Bolshevik Red Army, according to General William S. Graves, who headed the U.S. contingent.[4]

Members of the Canadian Army’s 67th Battery pose for a photo following the Battle of Tulgas, Russia, on November 11, 1918. [Source: ipolitics.ca]

During the Depression, when Pearson was a bureaucrat working closely with Canada’s prime minister, some 170,000 single, unemployed men were forced into remote work camps to prevent a potential revolution.[5]

One means of dismantling Canada’s prevailing peace mythology is to examine this country’s support for U.S. militarism throughout the Cold War. This study leads to the conclusion that little if anything has changed.

Plaque commemorating Pearson and Truman and signing of original NATO treaty in 1949. [Source: tcdb.com]

Always a stalwart NATO warrior giving solid allegiance to U.S.-led military, political, economic and propaganda warfare, Canada has taken leading roles in a new Cold War being waged by the American empire.

Lester Pearson at West Germany’s accession to NATO in 1955. [Source: nato.int]

Facing Canada’s history of duplicity is especially difficult because it means challenging the villainous hypocrisy of some of this nation’s most-beloved leaders. It also means confronting the powerful, political descendants of Canada’s much-glorified peace cult heroes, and debunking pernicious narratives that are still perpetuated, even by many mainstream progressives.

Pearson As Peace-Cult Hero and Cold-War Hatemonger

While state-sponsored myths have helped to create an institutionalized cult around Pearson, Canada’s beloved Nobel Peace Prize winner was actually a vociferous Cold Warrior. Besides using hateful anti-Red rhetoric to whitewash U.S.-backed wars, Pearson rallied support for various covert actions that squashed anti-colonial struggles in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Canada’s largest political, corporate, religious and media institutions shared with their Western allies a fierce loathing for anyone who could be labelled communist. Their global crusade maligned all individuals, groups, parties, movements and governments that dared to threaten the freewheeling reign of predatory corporations. In Lester Pearson, these fear-mongering elites found a believable voice whose skilful devotion to Cold War tropes served their shared, vested interests.

Pearson was useful to British and American power elites because he leveraged Canada’s well-crafted reputation as a neutral “middle power” to cheerlead their neocolonial adventures. This included lending Canada’s respected voice to the ousting of elected, socialist-friendly governments that tried to limit the exploits of foreign corporations.

As Canada’s most influential confidence man, Pearson exuded faith in America’s supposed devotion to peace. “It is inconceivable to me that the United States would ever initiate an aggressive war,” said Pearson in 1955, and “it is also inconceivable that Canada would ever take part in such a war.”[6]

Captivated by the era’s extreme anti-communism, Pearson ignored Western war crimes. In fact, he artfully glorified these crimes with phobic narratives that painted assaults on democracy as if they were part of a noble, god-inspired plan to wipe communist evil off the face of the earth.

Before examining Pearson’s key role in leading Canada’s support for these American adventures, it is worth examining the cultural influences in his early life that helped create his pious devotion to Cold War causes.

The Early Origins of Pearson’s “Muscular Christianity”

That Pearson slipped so easily into sermonizing about the Red Menace can be explained largely by his ultrareligious upbringing. His father, and both grandfathers, were Methodist ministers. [NOTE: Not sure what a “staunch” Methodist minister is.]

Methodism, which was then Canada’s largest Protestant denomination, was central to the imperial project of spreading “Christian values” at home and abroad.

This religious exercise, to build the moral muscles of a global Anglo-based civilization, fixated on the Social Gospel movement. Its mission was to take up the “white man’s burden” and uplift atheist heathens and inferior races through such genocidal institutions as Indian Residential Schools.[7]

Pearson describes his maternal grandfather, Rev. Thomas Bowles, as “a pillar of the church and the Liberal party.” He had been elected county warden three times, township reeve (mayor) ten times, and was appointed first sheriff of Dufferin County, Ontario. Pearson notes that his paternal grandfather Rev. Marmaduke L. Pearson, one of the Methodist “church’s most distinguished divines,” was a devoted Tory who seemed to spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about and playing baseball, lawn-bowling and cricket.

This obsession was passed on to his sons, including Lester’s father, Rev. Edwin A. Pearson. He was described by historian John English, as “a strong imperialist” whose “three boys shared his enthusiasm for sports and the empire.”[8]

Lester Pearson (bottom left), at home in Hamilton, 1913, with brothers, parents and grandfather. His father and grandfather were both Methodist ministers who zealously supported British imperialism. [Source: coat.ncf.ca]

Pearson’s memoir also reveals the great influence of certain novels he found in his Sunday School library. “From its shelves I learned of life and adventure,” said Pearson, “through Horatio Alger, G.A. Henty and similar heroic books.”[9] Alger, a disgraced Unitarian minister who became one of the most popular novelists of the late 1800s, is best known for perpetuating the American dream’s “rags-to-riches” myth.

George A. Henty though, revealed Pearson, was “the author whom I knew the best among all English writers before I went to college.” [10] As a British war correspondent, Henty’s travels across Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia, were always sure to promote British imperialism. Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, his work epitomized that blatantly jingoistic literary genre known as “imperial adventure fiction.”

Henty’s books embodied the spirit of so-called “Muscular Christianity.” This Victorian movement glorified the pious athleticism and virile masculinity of tough, white saviors who would happily knock heads together (and kill if need be) for the glory of god, king, country and empire.

Always ready to save the brutish, lower-class savages from themselves, Henty’s heroes enthralled impressionable juveniles, like Pearson, who lapped up this macho vision of a missionizing, tough-love fundamentalism that was hopped up on just wars and imperial steroids.[11]  “To be a true hero,” explained Henty when interviewed, “you must be a true Christian.”[12]

Henty’s 122 novels were riddled with white supremacist heroes who spouted the era’s outrageously popular racist, sexist and anti-semitic beliefs. His books also targeted left-wing, cartoon villains from the ruthless labour leaders of striking English coal miners[13] to the eroticized socialist women who ran loose in the 1871 “Paris Commune.”[14]

Considering his class and the strong religious leanings of his family and community, it is not surprising that Pearson would be so captivated by Henty’s writings. While Pearson’s 1972 memoir offers no critique of Henty, it praises the author’s historical fiction for having provided a knowledge of the world that informed and inspired him throughout his political career:

“His exciting stories based on history’s more romantic episodes stirred my imagination mightily and, I suspect, had much to do with my liking for and concentration on history in my educational progress. When years later I traveled extensively abroad as Canada’s Secretary of State for External Affairs, there was hardly a place I visited which I had not known through that prolific but now almost forgotten writer of adventure stories for boys.”[15]

Pearson’s exceedingly sheltered childhood kept him cozy in the warmth of positive feelings for imperialism. “[T]he parish was my world,” he confessed. “As for the rest of the world, I thought about it … largely in terms of the British Empire which was looking after the ‘lesser breeds’ and keeping the French and Germans under control.”[16]

Admitting that his was “an absorbing mind rather than a questioning mind,” Pearson also disclosed that he had “a rather superficial approach to life.” His “limited” world, Pearson says, “did not broaden much” until 1913 when, at age 16, he entered Toronto’s Victoria College.[17]

Named for Queen Victoria, and founded by the Wesleyan Methodist Church in 1836, this was no breeding ground for radical thought; it was a hotbed of imperialist education.

Rather than freeing Pearson’s mind from its fetters, college life further narrowed Pearson’s “limited” worldview. And, it was here that Pearson first made contact with influential men who led him along the political path to power.

Victoria College was where he began what he called his “long and … rewarding association”[18] with Vincent Massey, a history lecturer and dean of the residence building which his family had built and furnished. Massey’s Methodist father, owning one of Toronto’s biggest industrial concerns, had close links to the highest echelons of the Liberal Party. Massey was already a good friend of Mackenzie King, who became Canada’s longest-standing prime minister.

Massey became one of Pearson’s most important Methodist mentors. His deeds included being a leader of Toronto’s Cecil Rhodes-inspired Round Table Society (1911-18); marrying Alice Parkin, daughter of Sir George Parkin, secretary of The Rhodes Trust (1915); being appointed to Prime Minister Mackenzie King’s cabinet war committee (1918) and to the Liberal cabinet (1925); being appointed Canada’s first envoy to the U.S. (1926-30) and its high commissioner to Britain (1930, 1935-46); being president of England and Wales’ National Liberal Federation (1932-35); being made Canada’s delegate to the League of Nations (1936) and being appointed to represent the Queen as Canada’s governor general (1952-59).[19]

Massey, who Pearson notes was “personal friends of the Royal Family, and … seemed to know every duke by his first name,”[20] was able to open doors for Pearson throughout his career. This included funding Pearson’s BA and MA studies at Oxford (1923-25).[21]

Pearson’s subservience to the moneyed interests of empire helped ensure his rise through the Department of External Affairs. He joined that bureaucracy in 1928, during the King government, but when Conservative Prime Minister Richard “Iron Heel” Bennett took power in 1930, “Pearson was a beneficiary.”[22]

Bennett, who was also a devout Methodist, earned his nickname after an inflammatory 1932 speech in which he said:

“What do these so-called groups of Socialists and Communists offer you? They are sowing their seeds everywhere…. [T]hroughout Canada this propaganda is being put forward by organizations from foreign lands that seek to destroy our institutions. And we ask that every man and woman put the iron heel of ruthlessness against a thing of that kind.”[23]

Crushing communism was clearly the order of the day, and Pearson was ambitious and eager to comply.

Talent-spotted by Bennett, Pearson was soon appointed to two royal commissions on economic issues. As journalism professor Andrew Cohen noted: “Pearson liked Bennett who treated him as a protegé.”

In early 1935, Pearson accompanied Bennett to London where they took part in the Jubilee to celebrate King George V’s 25-year reign. During their lavish sea voyage with its sumptuous cuisine, Pearson learned he would receive the Order of the British Empire and asked Bennett for a raise of $25 per week.[24]

This increase boosted Pearson’s salary by an extra $25,000 per year in today’s dollars. This was distasteful considering all those who were hungry for food and justice during the Great Depression.

Unmentioned by Cohen or Pearson is that, between 1932 and 1935, Bennett’s government rounded up 170,000 single, unemployed, urban men and forced them into slavery in army-run “Relief Camps.”

Army-run relief camp during Great Depression, designed to remove “red” agitators from the cities. [Source: sutori.com]

General Andrew McNaughton’s internment plan makes it clear why. “In their ragged platoons,” he explained to the cabinet, “here are the prospective members of what Marx called the ‘industrial reserve army, the storm troopers of the revolution.’”[25]

General McNaughton further told Bennett that “[b]y taking the men out … of the cities” and forcing them into remote work camps, “we were removing the active elements on which the ‘red’ agitators could play.”[26]

In 1935, Bennett approved Pearson’s posting to Canada’s High Commission in London. When Bennett was replaced by King, Pearson’s move was confirmed and he continued his climb, becoming second in command under High Commissioner Vincent Massey (1939-42).

In 1940, Pearson was recruited by Sir William Stephenson to be a “King’s messenger” carrying secret documents to Europe. Nicknamed “the Quiet Canadian,” Stephenson was the Canadian intelligence agent, codenamed “Intrepid,”[27] who inspired Ian Fleming’s fictional, anti-communist superspy, 007.[28]

James Bond was also the violently racist and sexist Cold War equivalent of the Victorian era’s manly, white, imperial adventure heroes, so admired by Pearson.

From London, Pearson was transferred to Washington, D.C., where he was Canada’s ambassador and envoy extraordinaire to the U.S. (1942-46).

After returning to Ottawa, he was appointed foreign minister for the last few months of Prime Minister King’s time in office (1948). When King’s protégé, Louis St. Laurent, took over, he retained Pearson as foreign minister (1948-57).

Pearson’s early decades of pliable innocence were over. Having been moulded and mentored into form by family, church, schools and government, he had thoroughly internalized the deceitful scripts of elite institutions.

But though he became a manager and manipulator in his own right, Pearson’s role on the global stage was still directed by external forces in Washington and London. While just following his social orders, Pearson’s acts of complicity in Cold War coups, wars, invasions and occupations cannot be excused. He was culpable for the criminality in which he willfully engaged. Let’s look at a few examples.

The Korean War and Its Planning, 1947-1953

Pearson was a strong supporter of the Korean War (1950-1953), which devastated the Korean peninsula and left a legacy of conflict and division that persists to this day.

Pearson considered the war part of a moral crusade against communism.

His understanding overlooked the fact that the northern communist regime, led by Kim Il-Sung, had led the fight against Japanese colonialism. By contrast, the southern regime, led by Syngman Rhee and dominated by Japanese colonial collaborators, killed over 100,000 of its own citizens and launched raids into the north, all of which provoked the onset of the war.

Image from Pyongyang museum of American war crimes depicting U.S. soldiers brutalizing North Koreans. [Source: peacehistory-usfp.org]

Pearson’s hawkish position contrasted with Prime Minister Mackenzie King’s, who said that “Canada should not automatically support the United States in all its endeavors.”[29]

Pearson also clashed with Defense Minister Brooke Claxton who opposed sending Canadian troops to Korea presciently because the U.S. was “getting [Canada] into something to which there is really no end.”[30]

When Pearson was dispatched to Washington to meet with President Harry S. Truman in 1948, he conspired behind the scenes with Truman to undermine King’s direct orders regarding the pursuit of an independent Canadian foreign policy, and assisted U.S. State Department officials in crafting a letter that urged King to support the Korean War.[31]

King’s successor, Louis St. Laurent, assisted the war effort by deploying a Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) squadron of transport planes to airlift U.S. troops, weapons and other materiel across the Pacific.

Canadian soldiers playing ice hockey, the national sport, on a rink they built in South Korea. [Source: bardown.com]

Military historian David Bercusson,[32] who continues to spread official narratives promoting this and other wars, wrote:

“Pearson was correct about what the Korean War meant in the global confrontation between Soviet Communism and the Western democratic powers and correct too in believing that Canada could not sit out the war if the Americans insisted that Canadian troops were needed. He was far wiser than Claxton in knowing this. With Pearson leading the way, Claxton came on board.”[33]

Pearson told St. Laurent that he supported troop deployments based on his anti-communist views about “the menace which faces us, … the expression of that menace in Korea, and the necessity of defeating it there by United Nations action.” Pearson’s efforts paid off. “St. Laurent came around,” said Bercusson, because “he and the nation really had little choice.”[34]

The speech St. Laurent gave over the radio announcing Canada’s commitment to the war was probably crafted in part by Pearson. It was deep in Orwellian newspeak:

“The action of the United Nations in Korea,” St. Laurent intoned, “is not war; it is police action intended to prevent war by discouraging aggression.” Since “the war to end all wars” had already come and gone 30 years hence, the Korean War was framed as “important to all of us who want to avoid another world war.” The need to “defeat the Communist aggressors in Korea,” said St. Laurent, was like fighting “fascist aggression” in WWII. He concluded his deceit with “We owe it to to ourselves, to each other, to our children, and each other’s children … to prevent the disasters of a third world war.”[35]

This launched Canada’s four-year collaboration—under the UN’s respectable cover—in a barrage of napalm-saturated bombings that slaughtered some three or four million Koreans.

This supposed non-war, also caused “six to seven million” more to be “rendered refugees,” says historian Jeremy Kuzmarov, who also notes that the onslaught destroyed “8,500 factories, 5,000 schools, 1,000 hospitals, and 600,000 homes.”[36]

Canadian troops marching in North Korea during a brutal 40-day U.S.-UN occupation. [Source: thecanadianencyclopedia.ca]

To aid and abet this mayhem, Canada supplied its good name, plus more than 20,000 troops (516 of whom died), numerous war planes, eight destroyers and a wealth of strategic minerals and military hardware.

Canadian troops after the Battle of Kapyong in April 1951. [Source: veterans.gc.ca]

In return, the St. Laurent government exploited the war as an excuse to vastly expand Canada’s army, navy and air force and to accelerate the production of jet fighters, jet engines, naval vessels, weapons, ammunition, radar and more.

“We are working in the closest co-operation with the United States,” said St. Laurent, so “that our joint resources and facilities are put to the most effective use in the common defence [sic] effort.” The government, he went on, was also “looking forward confidently to an acceleration and an intensification of our joint [military] production efforts” through the “U.S.-Canada industrial mobilization planning committee.”[37]

While devastating Korea itself, the Korean War sparked the blossoming of Canada’s military-industrial complex, which fueled its complicity in Cold War adventures for decades to come.

Similarly, anti-communism was harnessed by Western governments to repress the civil liberties of anti-war activists. Quebec’s “Padlock Law” (1937-57) made it illegal to copy, publish or distribute anything deemed pro-communist. Although the King and St. Laurent governments could have struck down this law, they didn’t. It was used against peace activists opposing the Korean War.

In May 1951, an “anti-subversion squad” raided a Montreal home where about thirty labor and civil rights activists were meeting with James Endicott, president of the Canadian Peace Congress. Literature was seized and male police invasively searched activists, including the women, who lodged a complaint to Pearson’s office, which did nothing.[38]

In January 1952, Endicott denounced the “Padlock Law” at a meeting in London, England. “Under American pressure,” he reported, Canada’s treason act had been amended “so that a cabinet committee can order secret arrests and hold people indefinitely and incommunicado without trial. They are doing that against peace workers.”[39]

Coup in Iran, 1953

Pearson’s foreign ministry supported the coup that installed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as Iran’s dictator in 1953.

This CIA/MI5-led coup ousted Mohammad Mosaddegh’s elected government after it dared to nationalize Iran’s UK-owned oil industry in March 1951. Although not a socialist, Mosaddegh worked with Iran’s communist party, Tudeh, which had played a key role in Iran’s struggle to gain control of its own oil resources.

As revealed by anti-war writer Yves Engler, Pearson “was not happy with the Iranian’s move”:

In May 1951 External Minister Lester Pearson told the House of Commons the “problem can be settled” only if the Iranians keep in mind the “legitimate interests of other people who have ministered to the well-being of Iran in administering the oil industry of that country which they have been instrumental in developing.”[40]

Mossadegh’s duly-elected government also angered Pearson. “In their anxiety to gain full control of their affairs by the elimination of foreign influence,” he told parliament, Iran had exposed itself “to the menace of communist penetration and absorption—absorption into the Soviet sphere.”[41]

As Engler notes, “Pearson did not protest the overthrow of Iran’s first elected prime minister” and three days after the coup, Canada’s ambassador expressed concern with what he called the “disturbing factor” of “the continued strength of the Tudeh party.”[42]

In response, the Shah’s CIA-trained secret police (SAVAK) quickly began arresting thousands of Tudeh members. By 1958, SAVAK torture and assassination campaigns had decimated Tudeh and other popular, democratic forces.[43] This “progress” allowed Canada to begin diplomatic relations with Iran in 1955.

By May 1965, when deposed Prime Minister Mossadegh was still under arrest, Pearson was prime minister and hosted the Shah’s state visit to Canada.

Upon his arrival in Ottawa, aboard a Canadian military plane, the Shah was greeted by Pearson, Foreign Minister Paul Martin, Sr., and Governor General George Vanier, who literally gave him the red-carpet treatment.

Vanier intoned “I greet Your Imperial Majesty as an able and valiant head of state and as a great leader with progressive policies,”[44] while Pearson said the Shah “had given outstanding leadership in bringing his country forward into the modern world.”[45]

During his eight-day visit to five cities, the Shah attended top-government meetings, inspected an honor guard, waved to the public, laid a wreath, spoke at press conferences and elite clubs, was feted at gala luncheons and black-tie dinners, dined privately at Pearson’s home, was honored at a state banquet and reception by Vanier in his palatial mansion, and was regaled by Canada’s mass media. Pahlavi and his Empress were a hit.[46]

Special police precautions were taken for fear of Iranian student protests, which the Shah “dismissed …  as the work of communists.”[47]

Summing up the visit, Pearson said it had “brought our two countries even closer together in our approach to problems of peace and the United Nations.”[48]

Coup in Guatemala, 1954

A CIA-led coup toppled Guatemala’s elected government and ushered in decades of dictatorships that killed about 200,000 people.

Diego Rivera painting, Glorious Victory, which depicts Secretary of State John Foster Dulles shaking hands over a pile of dead corpses with Castillo Armas who deposed Guatemala’s left-leaning president Jacobo Arbenz. CIA Director Allen Dulles stands next to the pair, his satchel full of cash, while Dwight Eisenhower’s face is pictured in a bomb. [Source: wikipedia.org]

As a U.S. State Department official said, Guatemala’s elected President Jacobo Arbenz—the target of the coup—had a “broad social program” to aid “workers and peasants in a victorious struggle against the upper classes and large foreign enterprises.”

This, he admitted, had “strong appeal to the populations of Central America.”[49] Arbenz was not allowed to pose the threat of a good example.

Even before Arbenz’s 1950 election, Ottawa’s trade commissioner in Guatemala had characterized him as “unscrupulous, daring and ruthless, and not one to be allayed in his aims by bloodshed or killing.”[50]

Prior to the coup, Arbenz’s Foreign Minister Guillermo Toriello asked Canada to allow embassies to open in their two countries.

Pearson’s department refused. “At external affairs and in Canadian board rooms,” said reporter Peter McFarlane, “the coup was chalked up as another victory of the Free World against the [Red] Menace.”[51]

Afterwards, U.S.-led counter-insurgency operations directed against left-wing rebels who sought to restore Arbenz’s political program benefited from the use of Canadian military hardware. The key U.S. warplanes used in this CIA operation were P-47 and F-47N fighter planes and C-47 and C-54 cargo planes. Owned and operated by the CIA, they were flown by American pilots.[52]

These aircraft in the CIA’s “Liberation Air Force” were powered by Wasp-series engines built in Montreal, Quebec, by Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC).[53]

Throughout the 1980s, when the Guatemalan air force attacked villages, they employed U.S. Bell 212 and 412 helicopters—made famous in the Vietnam War—that were powered by PWC’s PT6T engines.[54]

PWC has long been one of the highest government-subsidized war industries in Canada. For example, between 1982 and 2006 it was Canada’s top corporate welfare recipient, raking in about $1.5 billion.[55]

Vietnam War, 1952-1974

From the beginning, Pearson was a gung-ho supporter of the Vietnam War. When France initiated the first Indochina War (1946-1954) in an attempt to reclaim its former colony, Pearson led Canadian efforts to supply weapons for use by French forces in Indochina (now Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia).[56]

This was done under the radar through NATO’s Mutual Aid Program. Between 1950 and 1954 alone, about $650 million (in 2021 dollars) worth of Canadian “armaments, ammunition, aircraft, and engines were transferred … to the Indochina war theatre.”[57]

In 1952, Pearson “okayed the deal” to allow Canadian arms, sold to France for use in Europe only, to be diverted to Indochina. This materiel included “antitank and anti-aircraft guns, ammunition, rangefinders and telescopic sights.” Behind the cabinet’s back, Pearson decided that arming France’s Indochina War was lawful because it “help[ed] assure the preservation of peace.”[58]

In one of Pearson’s many 1951 tirades affirming his support for that war, he suggested that if the independence of Indochina were to fail, “all of South-East Asia, including Burma, Malaya and Indonesia, with their important resources of rubber, rice and tin, might well come under communist control.”[59]

Pearson at the same time was claiming in the early 1950s that the “‘Soviet colonial authority in Indochina’ appeared to be stronger than that of France.” Considering that there was “not a Russian anywhere in the neighborhood,” Noam Chomsky wrote, “[o]ne has to search pretty far to find more fervent devotion to imperial crimes than Pearson’s declarations.”[60]

Pearson’s collaboration in the Vietnam War included his backing of Canadian government collaboration in “spying, weapons sales, and complicity in the bombing of the North.”[61]

Many Canadians believe the myth today that Pearson helped keep Canada out of the Vietnam War. However, 40,000 Canadians joined the U.S. armed forces during the war.[62] This was 50% more than the 26,000 Canadian soldiers who had served in Korea.

In 1954, when Pearson was minister of external affairs, he helped gain American backing for Canada’s bid for a seat on the International Control Commission (ICC)—whose purpose was to enforce the 1954 Geneva accords.

Pearson served as the handler of Canada’s ambassador to the U.S., Arnold Heeney, who forged an agreement with U.S. Deputy Undersecretary of State Robert Murphy, that Canada would illegally supply the U.S. with secret intelligence obtained through its involvement in the ICC mission.[63]

Canada’s best-known ICC spy was Blair Seaborn, a long-time friend of America’s ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. In late April 1964, U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk met Prime Minister Pearson and External Affairs Minister Paul Martin, Sr., to discuss the “Seaborn Mission.” A month later Pearson conveyed to Johnson his “willingness to lend Canadian good offices to this endeavour.”

The Pentagon Papers later revealed that Pearson told Johnson at this meeting that, although he “would have great reservations about the use of nuclear weapons,” in Vietnam, America’s “punitive striking” with “iron bomb attacks” (i.e., unguided, air-dropped conventional munitions) was fine.[64]

Seaborn conveyed U.S. threats to the North Vietnamese that, unless they surrendered, the U.S. would unleash massive military attacks.

Seaborn also “gathered intelligence for U.S. authorities” on many strategic issues that aided and abetted America’s war. The Pentagon Papers showed that the U.S. informed Canada, seven months in advance, of closely guarded U.S. plans for a major bombing campaign against the north in December 1964.[65]

Victor Levant’s groundbreaking book, Quiet Complicity: Canadian Involvement in the Vietnam War (1986), reveals that Pearson’s government (he was prime minister from 1963 to 1968) was aiding and abetting domestic war industries to cash in on the bonanza.

This was despite the fact that, as a member of the ICC, one of Canada’s duties was “to restrict the entry of arms into Vietnam from anywhere.”[66] But, said Levant, “[f]ar from trying to curtail U.S. purchases of Canadian military equipment, the government in Ottawa actively encouraged the process” with grants to so-called “defense industries” between 1964 and 1968, that were worth just over $1 billion in 2021 dollars.[67]

This investment of taxpayers’ money paid off, at least for Canadian corporations that received over $2.16 billion (in 2021 dollars) “in 1965 [alone] by making military equipment, ranging from green berets to airplanes, for the U.S. war effort in Vietnam.”[68]

Prime Minister Pearson tried to absolve himself and the government of complicity in this war profiteering by claiming in 1967 that Canada could not determine the whereabouts of military equipment purchased in Canada by the U.S., though he conceded that a “small percentage of Canadian arms could be reaching the battlefield in Vietnam.” [69]

While cheered by virulently anti-communist groups, Pearson became a main target of the anti-war protesters who carried banners that read “End Canadian complicity in Viet Nam War,” “Pearson accomplice in genocide” and “Accomplice in mass murder.” A chant that was familiar in those days,was “Pearson, Martin, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?”[70]

On the nation’s 100th anniversary (July 1, 1967) in Montreal, when thousands marched to protest Canada’s role in the Vietnam War, French chants included “Johnson assassin. Pearson Complice.”[71]  The fact that Pearson was an accomplice to mass murder in Vietnam was then well known to the peace movement. This institutional memory has now been all but erased.

*

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.

Richard Sanders is an anti-war activist and writer in Canada. In 1984, he received an MA in cultural anthropology and began working to expose Canada’s complicity in U.S.-led wars. In 1989, he founded the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT), which led to a 20-year municipal ban on Ottawa’s arms bazaars. Richard can be reached at [email protected]

Notes

[1] Ian MacKay and Jamie Swift, Warrior Nation: Rebranding Canada in an Age of Anxiety, 2012, p. 128.

[2] Ibid., p. 118.

[3] Richard Sanders, “War Mania, Mass Hysteria and Moral Panics,” Captive Canada, Press for Conversion!, March 2016, pp. 5-14. http://bit.ly/RedScare-1

[4] See Jeremy Kuzmarov and John Marciano, The Russians Are Coming, Again: The First Cold War as Tragedy, the Second as Farce (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2018).

[5] Richard Sanders, “Left-Right Camps: A Century of Ukrainian Canadian Internment,” Captive Canada, op. cit., pp. 40-55. https://coat.ncf.ca/P4C/68/68_40-55.htm

[6] Lester Pearson, Statements and Speeches, 55/10, March 24, 1955, cited by Levant, op. cit., pp. 12-13.

[7] Richard Sanders, “The Occupation(al) Psychosis of Empire-Building Missionaries,” Captive Canada, op. cit., pp. 18-19.https://coat.ncf.ca/P4C/68/68_18-19.htm

[8] John English, “Pearson, Lester Bowles,” Dictionary of Canadian Biography, 2003- http://bit.ly/EdwinP

[9] Lester Pearson, Mike: The Memoirs of the Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson, Vol.1, 1972, p. 10.

[10] Ibid.

[11] For more on this genre and its Canadian exemplar, Charles Gordon, see Richard Sanders, “Religious Guardians of the Peaceable Kingdom: Winnipeg’s Key Social-Gospel Gatekeepers of Canada West,” Captive Canada op. cit., pp. 22-29. https://coat.ncf.ca/P4C/68/68_22-29.htm

[12] Ray Van Neste, Review of The Boy’s Guide to the Historical Adventures of G. A. Henty, March 3, 2006. http://rayvanneste.com/?p=686

[13] G.A. Henty, Facing Death: A Tale of the Coal Mines, 1883. https://books.google.ca/books?id=rRcCAAAAQAAJ

[14] Matthew Beaumont, “Anti-Communism and the Cacotopia,” Utopia Ltd.: Ideologies of Social Dreaming in England 1870-1900, 2005, pp. 152-154. https://brill.com/view/book/9789047407096/BP000006.xml

G.A. Henty, Woman of the Commune: A Tale of Two Sieges of Paris, 1895. https://books.google.ca/books?id=9mZWAAAAMAAJ

[15] Pearson 1972, op. cit., p. 10.

[16] Ibid., p. 15

[17] Ibid., pp. 14-15.

[18] Ibid., p. 15.

[19] Claude Bissell, The Young Vincent Massey, 1981, passim.

[20] Pearson 1972, op. cit., p. 105.

[21] Ibid., p. 45.

[22] Andrew Cohen, Lester B. Pearson, 2008.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=JyBrNgMJELIC&pg=PT38

[23] Thomas Green, “Bennett Raps Socialism, Communism,” Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, Nov. 10, 1932, p. 5. https://www.newspapers.com/image/508724453

[24] Cohen 2008, op. cit.

[25] Canada: A People’s History, Vol. 2, http://books.google.ca/books?id=2fcXAAAAYAAJ

[26] In Jean Barman, The West Beyond the West: A History of British Columbia, 1991. http://books.google.ca/books?id=JbYe6fCOSTAC

[27] A Man Called Intrepid: The Incredible True Story of the Master Spy Who Helped Win WWII, 1976, pp. 191, 216.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=Zj-CDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT255

https://books.google.ca/books?id=Zj-CDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT287

[28] Guy F. Burnett, “Ian Fleming’s Coldest Warrior: The Anticommunist Origins of James Bond,” Dissident, Nov. 17, 2015. http://bit.ly/antiRedBond

(The above archived article, from the anti-communist, “Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation” website, celebrates both Fleming and his Bond character as those “who fought to save the world from tyranny and oppression.”

[29] Pearson 1972, p. 139.

[30] David Jay Bercuson, Blood on the Hills: The Canadian Army in the Korean War, 1999, pp. 31-32. https://books.google.ca/books?id=eCizi80V1M0C

[31] Pearson 1972, op. cit., pp. 140-141. https://books.google.ca/books?id=nXM2CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA140

[32] Bercuson is a director of two right-wing, Calgary-based think tanks, the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies (funded by the Canadian war department’s “Security and Defence Forum”), and the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute (which has accepted funding from General Dynamics and publicly promoted the company’s exports of major Canadian-made weapons systems, such as LAVs, to Saudi Arabia.

[33] Ibid., p. 33.

[34] Ibid.

[35] “St. Laurent Text on Resisting Reds,” Windsor Daily Star, August 8, 1950, p. 14.

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/72910987/the-windsor-star/

[36] Jeremy Kuzmarov, “The Korean War: Barbarism Unleashed,” United States Foreign Policy, History and Resource Guide website, 2016. http://peacehistory-usfp.org/korean-war/

[37] Windsor Daily Star, op. cit.

[38] See author’s collection of seven newsclips, May 25-28, 1951.

https://www.newspapers.com/clippings/#query=padlock&user=1155887

[39] “Says working for peace in America hard,” Ottawa Citizen, Jan. 10, 1952, p. 10.

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/73516103/the-ottawa-citizen/

[40] Engler 2012, citing Pearson, Hansard, May 14, 1951, 3002.

[41] Lester Pearson, Hansard, Oct. 22, 1951, p. 253, cited by Engler, op. cit., pp. 75.

[42] Engle, ibid., p. 76.

[43] Ervand Abrahamian, Tortured Confessions: Prisons and Public Recantations in Modern Iran, 1999, pp. 89-101. http://bit.ly/SAVAK-Tudeh

[44] “Shah, Empress in Ottawa,” Ottawa Journal, May 19, 1965, p. 1. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/73543166/the-ottawa-journal/

[45] “Shah starts visit,” Ottawa Citizen, May 19, 1965, p. 1. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/73528451/the-ottawa-citizen/

“Shah in Canada,” Ottawa Citizen, ibid., p. 3. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/73534362/the-ottawa-citizen/

[46] “Shah has busy schedule here,” Ottawa Citizen, May 17, 1965, p. 3. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/73524704/the-ottawa-citizen/

“Shah of Persia in Canada, 1965.” https://www.britishpathe.com/video/shah-of-persia-in-canada

(Note: These film clips from the Shah’s visit include footage of the state dinner with Governor General Vanier at Rideau Hall.)

[47] “Shah in capital,” Ottawa Citizen, May 19, 1965, p. 3. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/73534362/the-ottawa-citizen/

[48] “Royal Visits Top News Events,” Brandon Sun, May 31, 1965, p. 12. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/73525463/the-brandon-sun/

[49] Cited by Noam Chomsky, Deterring Democracy, 1991, p. 419. http://bit.ly/Chomsky1991

[50] James Rochlin, Discovering the Americas: Evolution of Canadian Foreign Policy towards Latin America, 1994, p. 35. http://bit.ly/Roch94

[51] Peter McFarlane, Northern Shadows: Canadians in Central America, 1989, pp. 98, 100, cited by Engler op. cit., p. 79.

[52] Guatemala: Air Force History

http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/waf/americas/guatemala/Guatemala-af-history.htm

[53] Pratt & Whitney Canada ; http://bit.ly/PWC-WASP; Republic P-47 Thunderbolt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_P-47_Thunderbolt; Douglas C-47 Skytrain [Dakota]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_C-47_Skytrain#Postwar_era; Douglas C-54 Skymaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_C-54_Skymaster

[54] Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6T  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_Canada_PT6T

Bell 212 in Fuerza Aerea Guatemalteca (Guatemalan Air Force) 1980 to present https://www.helis.com/database/modelorg/Guatemala-Bell-212/

Bell 412 in Fuerza Aerea Guatemalteca (Guatemalan Air Force) 1982 to present https://www.helis.com/database/modelorg/Guatemala-Bell-412/

[55] Mark Milke, Corporate Welfare: A $144 billion addiction, Nov. 2007. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/corporate-welfare-a-144-billion-addiction.pdf

[56] Levant, op. cit., p. 42

[57] Ibid., p. 43

[58] Levant, op. cit., p. 43 [NOTE: I believe “Idem.” in italics would be appropriate here.]

[59] Chomsky 2012, op. cit., p. 9.

[60] Noam Chomsky, “Imperial Presidency,” Canadian Dimension, Jan/Feb 2005. http://bit.ly/CDchom

[61] Noam Chomsky, Foreword, in Yves Engler, Lester Pearson’s Peacekeeping: The Truth May Hurt, 2012, p. 8.

[62] Ryan Goldsworthy, “The Canadian Way: The Case of Canadian Vietnam War Veterans,”  http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol15/no3/page48-eng.asp

[63] James Eayrs, In Defence of Canada: Indochina – Roots of Complicity, 1983, pp. 242-243, cited in Levant, op. cit., p. 193.

[64] Levant, op. cit., pp. 178-79.

[65] Ibid., p. 178

[66] Harry Trimborn, “Canada-US Tieup? Some Other Time!” Los Angeles Times, Aug. 23, 1966, p. 82.  https://www.newspapers.com/clip/73697853/the-los-angeles-times/

[67] Levant, op. cit., p. 57.

[68] Trimborn, op. cit.

(Note: The article noted a figure of $260 million, which the Bank of Canada, when corrected for inflation, says is worth $2,164,578,313.25 in 2021 dollars.)

[69] Lester Pearson, Statements and Speeches, March 10, 1967, Levant, ibid.

[70] Alex Young, “Heavy guard for PM: ‘Vietniks’ at airport, club,” Province, Mar. 31, 1967, p. 1 https://www.newspapers.com/clip/73069053/the-province

Peter Loudon, “Like French Revolution Some Feast Others Chant,” Times Colonist, Apr. 1, 1967, p. 2. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/73616904/times-colonist/

(Note: This article, covering a protest the next day outside a gala banquet attended by Pearson, notes the same “Pearson, Martin, LBJ…” chant.  The reporter mocked the protesters’ appearance, and said they were “denouncing Canada’s alleged support of the US in Vietnam.” Emphasis added.)

[71] Nick Auf der Maur, “Vietnam Protesters March Through City, Montreal Gazette, July 3, 1967, p. 3. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/73067312/the-gazette/

Featured image: Former Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs (1948-1957), Lester B. Pearson, at his desk in Ottawa. As leader of Canada’s Liberal Party, he served from 1958 to 1968. [Source: journal.forces.gc.ca]

On Land Day, Palestine Will be Free from the River to the Sea

March 31st, 2021 by Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network

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).

***

30 March 2021 marks the 45th Palestinian Land Day, a day of struggle and commitment to resisting colonization, occupation and apartheid, and to achieving victory and liberation for the land and people of Palestine.

Land Day commemorates the anniversary of the mass rising in occupied Palestine ’48 in 1976 in response to Israeli land confiscation targeting 20,000 dunums of Palestinian land in the Galilee. Palestinians inside occupied Palestine ’48, who remained on their land after 80% of their people were expelled in the Nakba, confronted these new Zionist attacks with a general strike and mass popular protests, where six Palestinians were killed by occupation forces — Kheir Mohammad Salim Yasin, Khadija Qasem Shawahneh, Raja Hussein Abu Rayya, Khader Eid Mahmoud Khalayleh, Muhsin Hasan Said Taha and Raafat Ali Al-Zheir — as they defended their land.

“Kul al-turab al-watani” — the entire national land of Palestine, meaning “all of Palestine”

The Day of the Land has become a national commemoration of the entire Palestinian people, inside and outside occupied Palestine. It marks the unity of the Palestinian people in confronting Zionism, colonization and occupation and in celebrating the continuing and unbreakable ties to the land of Palestine that cannot be erased by military might. It is a day for the Palestinian refugees struggling for return and every fighter against colonialism.

In 2018, the Day of the Land once again bore witness to the popular organizing of the people, as thousands upon thousands gathered in Gaza for the Great March of Return, and occupation forces again shot down Palestinians defending their land and upholding their rights. 42 years after the first Land Day massacre, Israeli occupation forces killed 16 martyrs of the land and return, with over 200 more shot down in the marches over the months and days to come.

On Land Day, Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network affirms that this day continues to reflect the commitment of the Palestinian people to liberate their land from the river to the sea and to resist all forms of colonization. We join with the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine for the #AllLandPalestine campaign, raising the Palestinian flag and the map of Palestine around the world.

Just as Palestinians in ’48 face state violence, land confiscation, and the racist policies of Zionism from Umm al-Fahm to al-Naqab, they also confront imprisonment, arrests and repression. Behind bars in Israeli jails, Palestinians continue to confront the occupier on a daily basis. 70 of those political prisoners — of approximately 4,400 in total — are those of occupied Palestine ’48, housed with fellow Palestinians and facing the same restrictions and denial of rights. Karim Younis, one of the longest-imprisoned Palestinian prisoners, is from Occupied Palestine ’48 as is his cousin Maher; indeed, six of the seven Palestinian prisonersimprisoned over 30 years for their role in the Palestinian resistance are from Occupied Palestine ’48: Karim and Maher Younis, Walid Daqqa, Rushdi Abu Mukh, Ibrahim Abu Mukh and Ibrahim Bayadseh.

Kul al-turab al-watani” — the entire national land of Palestine, meaning “all of Palestine”

They have been consistently denied release in both prisoner exchanges with the Palestinian resistance and in Oslo-negotiations-based prisoner releases, as the Israeli state attempts to separate them as “Israeli citizens” from their fellow Palestinian prisoners in releases and labels them a “domestic matter“. At the same time, they are housed with fellow Palestinian prisoners, denied family visits, forced to see family only through glass, and held in solitary confinement while Israeli “criminal” prisoners – and even the rare Israeli Jewish prisoner held as a “security” prisoner for extreme-right violence – are granted temporary releases, their sentences limited and lowered, and allowed lengthy family visits, furloughs, and conjugal visits.

Today, from Umm al-Fahm to al-Naqab to Sheikh Jarrah, Palestinians are fighting to stand steadfast against displacement, defend their land and resist colonization in all forms on Land Day. Palestinian refugees in Gaza, in the West Bank, in the camps and in exile and diaspora around the world are fighting to return home.

On Land Day, we stand with the Palestinian people, we stand with the Palestinian resistance, and we look forward together toward a liberated future for the land and people of Palestine.

Read our statement below — first delivered in Arabic (read the original Arabic here) in Berlin by Samidoun Deutschland at a demonstration — and join in the actions to organize for return and liberation for #AllLandPalestine on the 45th Land Day and beyond.

***

On the immortal occasion of Land Day, from the heart of the capitals of the Palestinian diaspora, from the refugee camps, from across the occupied Arab land of Palestine, our cries resound to the skies and we declare on this occasion: “We will not concede.” We remain, generation after generation, carrying the memory of Palestine from the river to the sea, carrying al-Lyd, Haifa, Ramleh, Yafa and Jerusalem in our hearts.

We, the children of the land, the refugees, we learned Palestine in the squares of the camps, and we realized the idea of Palestine at the checkpoints. We grew up with our dreams under siege, and we greeted our Palestinian people on the other side of the wall as we raised the hammer of promise for future liberation.

From Berlin and Malmö, to Beddawi camp and al-Wihdat, to al-Arroub and Jabalia, and to our Palestinian people everywhere, we are here today, continuing in direct confrontation and struggling for land and liberation in the heart of the states that provide support for the Zionist regime. We affirm that our return is inevitable and our message is clear: We hold fast to return and liberation and emphasize that we will claim our right to life and expose the crimes of the Zionist occupation.

On this Land Day, we honor our immortal martyrs and salute the brave prisoners inside Israeli prisons and those of the reactionary Arab regimes, and particularly salute Georges Ibrahim Abdallah, jailed in the prisons of the French state. We stand with the democratic and revolutionary forces everywhere in the world and by the side of our comrades in the Palestine solidarity movement in France, Germany, Canada and everywhere, those who are today facing persecution, repression and “lawfare” attacks for defending the just cause of the Palestinian people.

Despite the ongoing colonial settlements invading Palestinian land, the series of normalization deals with reactionary regimes, the complicity of the imperialist powers; despite the siege and poverty and our second exile and displacement; despite the betrayal of Palestinian Authority “security coordination” and the policies of submission and concession; and despite the false promises of the so-called “peace process”, we are confident: Palestine and its people will be victorious.

On Land Day, on this immortal commemoration, we call on the Palestinian and Arab communities to participate, defend their rights and intensify participation in all activities for Palestine, especially the campaigns of solidarity with the Palestinian prisoners’ movement, Palestinian women prisoners and the imprisoned students in occupation jails. We must intensify the boycott campaigns against Israel alongside our role in confronting Western imperial racism, the growing right-wing extreme attacks and Islamophobia, together with all targeted communities. This is part and parcel of our quest for liberation and return.

Together, we must work for an alternative revolutionary path and a new movement of organizing, struggle and resistance, in which the Palestinian diaspora will regain its role and its right to defend Palestine, all of Palestine, as an integral part of the project of liberation and return. From Berlin, Amsterdam and Malmö, to Mar Elias, Baqaa and Yarmouk, to all of Palestine.

We win together, and we win only together. From the Naqab to the Galilee, until return and liberation.

***

Take Action on Land Day and Moving Forward:

1. Join the #AllLandPalestine social media campaign of the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine. Raise the Palestinian flag and post with the hashtag #AllLandPalestine.

2. Boycott Israel! Join the movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. Highlight the complicity of corporations like Hewlett-Packard and the continuing involvement of G4S in Israeli policing and prisons. Boycott Teva, the Israeli pharmaceutical corporation that provides millions to the Israeli occupation and its military, and join the campaigns — like those of Palestine Action in the UK — confronting Israeli warmongers like Elbit Systems. Build a campaign to boycott Israeli goods, impose a military embargo on Israel, or organize around the academic and cultural boycott of Israel.

3. Support Palestinian Prisoners: Join the campaign to free Palestinian students and all Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. Adopt a prisoner, write a letter, share their stories and build global solidarity to break down prison walls!

4. Organize for Palestinian freedom! The Alternative Palestinian Path (Masar Badil) is organizing a series of events, actions and Palestinian movement-building activities to break clearly with the false path of Madrid and Oslo and develop the movement for Palestinian liberation and return. The conference will take place in late October-early November in Madrid. Visit the Masar Badil website and get involved.

*

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.

All images in this article are from Samidoun

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on On Land Day, Palestine Will be Free from the River to the Sea
  • Tags:

Biden’s Grand Strategy Is Delusional and Dangerous

March 31st, 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).

***

The Biden Administration continues to push its delusional and dangerous grand strategy, which doesn’t even serve the US’ own interests but just the short-term narrow ones of a certain segment of its economic and political elite.

US President Joe Biden’s grand strategy is a mix of Democrat value signaling and Republican aggression, which represents a delusional and dangerous combination. The first observation is evidenced by his administration’s emphasis on so-called “democracy” and “human rights” ideals as manifested by its information warfare campaigns against China and Russia on these false bases. The second, meanwhile, is proven by its attempts to assemble alliances to contain those two on the aforementioned pretexts using the Quad, NATO, and the US’ new proposal to pioneer a competitor to China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI).

About the last of these three means, Biden told his British counterpart Friday afternoon that “I suggested we should have, essentially, a similar initiative, pulling from the democratic states, helping those communities around the world that, in fact, need help.”

This is the definition of delusional for several reasons.

Firstly, economic development is purely apolitical and shouldn’t discriminate against any state’s sovereign choice to govern themselves however they believe is best. Secondly, for this reason and given its enormous scope and scale, BRI doesn’t have any competitors but only partners. Thirdly, many of these partners are US allies.

For instance, last November’s Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) brought China, ASEAN, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and the Republic of Korea into a single trading bloc, the last four partners of which as well as ASEAN’s Philippines and Thailand are American allies. One month later, the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) between China and the EU saw many NATO members agreeing to expand financial and other related ties with the People’s Republic. Finally, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi‘s visit to West Asia last week strengthened his country’s economic connections with regional US allies like Saudi Arabia.

Despite China’s growing relations with Europe, West Asia, and East and Southeast Asia – which can altogether be simply grouped as Eurasia – the US still thinks that it can turn some of those countries, especially its traditional allies there, against the People’s Republic. It’s here where delusion becomes dangerous because the worst-case scenario of American meddling could result in serious economic damage being inflicted on its so-called “allies”. The US is so delusional, however, that it truly doesn’t care about anyone else’s interests other than its own which explains why it’s willing to sacrifice its “allies’” interests in advance of its zero-sum ones.

Therein lies the primary problem, namely the US’ delusional refusal to accept that the aggressive zero-sum mindset which is responsible for its gradual decline from international prominence is outdated as China’s new model of International Relations has successfully replaced that counterproductive philosophy with the win-win one. The Biden Administration thought that it could make cosmetic changes to American policy such as spewing multilateral rhetoric in an attempt to differentiate it from its predecessor, but the reality is that nothing of significance has changed since former President Trump.

Even the Biden Administration’s much-touted peace proposals in Afghanistan and Yemen are faltering, the first after his warning that American troops might not withdraw from the war-torn country by May as his predecessor previously agreed prompted the Taliban to issue more threats while the second has failed to have any meaningful impact on the military dynamics there. Moreover, the US continues to illegally occupy Iraq and Syria while Libya remains mired in American-provoked instability. All the rhetoric about resuming cooperation with allies is just a smokescreen for convincing them to join the US’ new anti-Chinese and -Russian coalitions.

Thankfully, the world seems to have learned quite a few lessons during Trump’s four tumultuous years in office. America’s allies are no longer as willing to blindly follow its lead as before. They realized that the US is unreliable and doesn’t always have their best interests in mind. This is increasingly obvious as the Biden Administration continues to push its delusional and dangerous grand strategy, which doesn’t even serve the US’ own interests but just the short-term narrow ones of a certain segment of its economic and political elite. The situation will only improve for average Americans if their leadership finally embraces the win-win philosophy.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

***

In calmer times, when there is less talk of trade disputes, tariffs, human rights abuses, it will be noted as one of history’s great ironies that as the economic gap between the United States and China narrowed the ideological chasm widened.  The spiral in relations shows no sign of easing.

Cold war 2? The sequel. Deep voiceover declares….This time it’s more evenly matched. No. There will be no cold war, at least not yet. But a military stand-off, once considered beyond the borders of the imagination, is not difficult to envisage. Harsh verbal exchanges, real and angry disputes over territory and trade, have replaced the optimism of yesteryear. Remember Chimerica? That word that was meant to symbolize unofficial economic union, with China producing and America buying. Who now dares utter it?

Beijing is not blameless but when it complains that its point of view is being ignored it does at least have a case worth listening to. From the perspective of the leadership compound just off Tiananmen square, there is just the slightest odor of McCarthyism. Everything China does, it seems, is suspicious, warranting the greatest skepticism.

The West, unpopular as it is to say it, has reasons to be grateful to China. In 2008, the country’s cabinet, the State Council when it still had influence and power before being neutered by President Xi Jinping, approved a stimulus plan to invest about US$600 billion in infrastructure and social welfare facilities in 2009 and 2010. This was to be funded mainly by bank loans. China’s central bank lifted almost all restrictions on commercial bank lending to support the real economy. In other words it turned the taps on. This provided a Chinese shot in the arm to an exhausted and overleveraged Western economy.

China has emerged economically and is emerging militarily, at least regionally. Under Xi, it has shifted its gaze. Few in the West paid attention or wanted to. In the West, China was considered the big spender. Produce and China will buy seemed to be the mantra. China, not surprisingly sees itself differently. No longer of the Great Wall, constructed to keep foreigners out, China is now of the great wave, with a navy to deter invasion and secure the three seas, the San Hai: the South China, East China and Yellow seas.

The century of humiliation up to 1949, as every Chinese school child learns, emerged from the sea. Infamously, in the final years of the Qing Dynasty, the Empress Dowager diverted funds earmarked for naval modernization to construct a new Summer Palace. This reallocation was blamed for China’s defeat in the 1894-95 war with Japan. The British had already arrived by sea as had the French and Germans. China had learnt one invaluable lesson; the sea is treacherous.

Securing the sea, secures China and, today, the ruling party. Maritime freedom of navigation? To China, it’s cover for a front door that has been kicked in too many times. Militarizing the South China Sea plays well domestically, and is not seriously challenged internationally. It does not make it right. It does make it realpolitik. A large piece of the planet’s maritime real estate has been taken over by China. There is no mistaking the fact that it is a blow to the West. Beijing understood it can act and deal with the relatively insubstantial consequences. The Monroe Doctrine in the East.

War, like politics, is local. Almost overlooked, out of convenience or otherwise, in just over two decades the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has built up one of the strongest navies in the world. What makes it even more formidable is that in its near waters it can rely on shore-based missiles. In sheer numbers, the PLA navy now has the world’s biggest fleet and is expanding and growing faster than any other major navy.

A defense report to the US Congress during the Trump administration did not mince its words.  In a war with China over Taiwan, “Americans could face a decisive military defeat’’.

True, US ships do sail, frequently, through the Taiwan Strait. It has occurred since Joe Biden took the oath of office. But it is important to realize what is not happening rather than what is. Each passage involved destroyers. Enough to send a message. But nowhere near enough to send a warning. That would involve aircraft carriers. No American carrier has navigated the Taiwan Strait since Obama was first sworn in.

Globally, the US remains the undisputed champion of the high seas. China’s fleet has more ships, but the US has more powerful ones.

But that’s not the point. In waters close to China, the PLA navy enjoys at least parity and probable supremacy.

The Chinese mainland can serve as a vast, unsinkable aircraft carrier. China’s warships would be close to logistical support as well as the firepower of land-based missiles and strike aircraft.

But to what end? Is securing the near seas correcting a legacy of history or the prelude to an action, the invasion of Taiwan, that, at the very least, would set back relations between China and the West for generations and raises the real possibility of conflict?

It is of increasingly little comfort to suggest that this, surely, is beyond the borders of the imagination.

*

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.

Tom Clifford is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Global Village Space

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on One of the Great Ironies: As China Grows Richer, It Is Growing Further Apart from the US
  • 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).

***

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization reports that yesterday the military bloc scrambled fighter jets ten times over the North Atlantic (for once adhering to its name), North Sea, Baltic Sea and Black Sea, intercepting a reported six groups of Russian bombers and fighters. That is, across the entire western flank of Russia.

Although the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was actually active in part of the North Atlantic for a change – rather than the Balkans, Afghanistan, Central and South Asia, North and Northeast Africa, the Mediterranean Sea, the Arabian Sea, the Caribbean Sea and its other haunts of the past 25 years – the global military alliance grudgingly conceded, at the end of the article on the topic of course, that “The Russian aircraft intercepted on Monday never entered Alliance airspace.”

Alliance airspace is now in twelve nations, though decidedly in five: the five NATO members that now border Russia – Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland – and seven NATO partners: Finland, Belarus (still a member of the Partnership for Peace), Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Mongolia. During the Cold War the Soviet Union shared only one short border with a NATO member (there were no NATO partners then; there are now forty with more to come), a 120-mile border with Norway.

On Russia’s western, southern and eastern borders. Including the High North (NATO’s term for the Arctic) – “In the High North, Norwegian F-16s scrambled after radars spotted two groups of Russian military aircraft flying near Norway’s coast” – that would establish all four compass points around Russia as NATO airspace and that of its partners.

Not only Norwegian warplanes were dispatched against Russian aircraft which “never entered Alliance airspace,” but fighter jets from no less than six other NATO member states were deployed against them as well: Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, Italy, Romania and Turkey.

Intercepting Russian military aircraft ten times over one ocean and three seas in one day, boasted Brigadier General Andrew Hansen, Deputy Chief of Staff Operations at (NATO) Allied Air Command in Ramstein, Germany, “demonstrate[d] NATO forces’ readiness and capability to guard Allied skies 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year,” thereby proving he stayed awake during elementary school arithmetic classes. (The beginning of this paragraph shows that I did too.)

Italian fighter jets – no doubt defending their national security interests and their nation’s Adriatic and Tyrrhenian coastlines – intercepted a Russian Il 38 maritime patrol aircraft that was “escorted by fighter jets over the Baltic Sea flying into and out of Kaliningrad.” Kaliningrad is Russian territory. A patrol plane would not have been escorted by fighter jets if Kaliningrad were not surrounded by NATO states – Lithuania and Poland – which host NATO fighter jets, NATO battlegroups, a Joint NATO Force Training Centre, U.S. Atlantic Resolve ground troops, a Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile battery and Standard Missile-3 Block IIA anti-ballistic missile (capable of shooting down ICBMs) installations on the way…just those two countries.

Here’s a plot for an enterprising Hollywood scriptwriter, a 21st-century variation of the 1980s’ Red Dawn genre writ large. A chiropractor from Nebraska, raised a Quaker and a fan of Bruce Springsteen, awakes from a thirty-year coma and discovers that every nation in the Western Hemisphere except the U.S. is now either a full member or a partner on its way to membership of the Warsaw Pact. Soviet and Warsaw Pact warships regularly conduct naval exercises off the U.S.’s Atlantic and Pacific coasts, in the Gulf of Mexico, along the entire periphery of Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico and in the Great Lakes; Soviet and Warsaw Pact fighter jets and strategic, nuclear-capable bombers continuously fly over the above locations as well; the Soviets have installed missile radar stations and interceptor missile batteries in Canada, Mexico and Cuba; and American patrol aircraft are intercepted “flying into and out of” Alaska.

Such a film might prove illustrative of what is occurring not on Netflix or at the local movie theater but in the real world. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Though the plot may seem far-fetched to most film critics.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on NATO Warplanes Intercept Russian Aircraft Ten Times in One Day from Arctic to Black Sea
  • Tags: ,

The Vaccine Passport Propaganda Template

March 31st, 2021 by Adam Dick

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).

***

With reports that President Joe Biden’s administration is planning for imposing a vaccine passport mandate in America, expect to see in the media a deluge of vaccine passport propaganda. What will that propaganda look like? A template illustrating several elements you can expect to see in the propaganda push was provided several weeks ago in a CNN interview.

In the first week of March, host Fareed Zakaria and his guest Arthur Caplan provided at CNN a textbook example of how to present vaccine passport propaganda to the American people. Let’s look at some of the major elements of the propaganda template as demonstrated by Zakaria and Caplan.

1) Include some short expression that the idea of vaccine passports can be troubling, but make sure to only bring this up superficially. This is accomplished in the CNN segment by starting with a clip from a short scene from the movie Casablanca. In the clip, a policeman asks to see a man’s “papers,” the man says he does not have them, and the policeman responds, “in that case we’ll have to ask you to come along.” Not shown is the remainder of the scene in which the accosted man, after presenting apparently expired papers, attempts to flee only to be gunned down. Not showing the full scene demonstrates the care demanded in the propaganda to not allow any depiction of potential dire consequences from imposing vaccine passports.

2) Frame the imposing of a vaccine passport mandate as something that is both inevitable and threatens only minimal, if any, harm. Zakaria accomplishes this task with the first sentence he utters to begin the media segment. Zakaria states: “From Casablanca to today, a demand to produce personal documents can be uncomfortable, but, post-pandemic, it’s something we’ll all likely have to get more and more comfortable with.” Masterfully, Zakaria, in addition to minimizing the problems with passports as just causing discomfort, asserts that even that discomfort with time will disappear, suggesting objecting to vaccine passports is just an irrational or silly reaction.

3) Bring on a guest who, despite his description making him sound like someone who would be looking out for the interests of people concerned about vaccine passports, pretty much says that vaccine passports are the best thing since sliced bread. In the CNN interview the guest performing this role is Arthur Caplan, who Zakaria introduces as a “medical ethicist” and “professor at NYU.” A medical ethicist will surely provide some warning about dangers from vaccine passports, right? Yes, in many cases. But, Caplan is not that sort of medical ethicists. He is the one picked to be interviewed in a media segment designed to promote acceptance of vaccine passports.

4) Reiterate that vaccine passports are inevitable, and that people should support them. Zakaria hits the nail on the head with this, presenting this first question to his guest: “So explain why you think, basically, that this is the future and we should be comfortable with it.”

5) Declare that vaccine passports must be imposed on the American people because of coronavirus. Caplan accomplishes this task in his first words in the media segment. He states: “Well, I’m sure that the future holds vaccine passports for us, partly to protect against the spread of Covid.” Of course, as coronavirus has turned out not to be a major danger to most people, imposing a vaccine passport mandate to counter it makes no more sense than doing it to counter any other of many diseases. But, this is not a topic to be brought up when selling people on vaccine passports. Fearmongering, no matter how ridiculously unjustified, is the name of the game. This is the fraudulent message people are encouraged to act on without much critical thought: Coronavirus is gonna kill us all unless we take the shots and show our papers!

6) Say that mandating vaccine passports is really no big deal because of some other supposedly very similar restriction to which some people are already subjected. Caplan states: “And, you know, it’s not a new idea, we have it for yellow fever; there are about more than a dozen countries that say you can’t come in if you haven’t been vaccinated against yellow fever, and many others require you to show proof of vaccination if you transit through those countries.” Are the yellow fever-related requirements justified? Caplan does not say more than that, because these somewhat similar restrictions exist someplace, the mandating of vaccine passports in America is fine. That’s medical ethicist reasoning? Anyway, the yellow fever stuff, because most Americans have no experience with or knowledge of it, is a fine example for the propaganda. Few watchers of the segment will have any basis for questioning the current practice that is used to justify the new desired mandate. One big difference, though, jumps out on further consideration. Caplan explains that the yellow fever requirements apply for just coming to several countries. In contrast, Zakaria early in the interview says the vaccine passports that will, he claims, inevitably be imposed on Americans will be required for people “to get on an airplane, to go to a concert, or to go back to work.” The vaccine passport mandate is, thus, much more troublesome for most Americans than yellow-fever-related requirements for entry into a few countries that most Americans never visit. But, the point is to quickly present the example as if it provides conclusive support no matter how far that representation is from the truth.

7) Dismiss as insignificant people’s concerns about being required, in order to go about their daily activities, to present a vaccine passport and to take a vaccine, or, really, an experimental coronavirus vaccine that is not even a vaccine under the normal meaning of the term. Assert instead that the only danger to freedom could be something theoretical that could be additionally required in the future. Here is how Zakaria puts it in a question to Caplan: “What about the concerns that many people have about privacy, about the privacy of their health data, that, you know, is there a slippery slope here — ‘OK, I’m comfortable telling you whether or not I have Covid, but does that mean it becomes OK to ask about other things?’” Of course, many people are justifiably wary of being pressured to take the shots and then having their mandated vaccine passport used to track them as they go about their daily activities. That is why this media segment and others like it are being presented, after all.

8) Dismiss any concern that vaccine passports can in fact harm freedom. Instead, describe people as benefiting from and gaining freedom by their being mandated to take experimental coronavirus vaccines and present vaccination passports in order to go about their daily activities. Oh yeah, and keep quiet about all the mass surveillance facilitated by a vaccine passport program, the vaccinations-based caste system resulting from the mandate that will make people who do not take the shots suffer, and how the vaccine passport program can be expanded to advance many additional types of control over people. Here is how Caplan puts it: “With a Covid certification, you’re going to gain freedom, you’re going to gain mobility, and I’m going to suggest that you’re probably going to be able to get certain jobs.” Talk about turning things on their head. The mandate really means that people who do not comply will be barred from the mobility they already have and fired from their jobs. Freedom is supported by rejecting the mandate, not by supporting it.

9) Insist that the vaccine passport mandate is fine because it will be applied equally to all people. This is something Zakaria and Caplan spend a long time talking about in the CNN segment. Come on guys, something bad does not become good because it is applied to the maximum number of people, irrespective of their race, sex, or whatever. We are dealing with a mandate here, not giving everyone a serving of his favorite dessert.

10) Declare that a vaccine passport mandate helps encourage people to take the shots. (Unlike the other nine elements of the vaccine passport mandate propaganda template, this one is likely true. Threats can yield compliance. Still, the threats could deter some people from taking the experimental coronavirus vaccine shots. It sure makes you wonder about shots’ supposed safety when an extreme, and unprecedented, act of force is employed to ensure people take the shots.) States Caplan in the interview: “It also gives you an incentive to overcome vaccine hesitancy. Some people are not sure still whether they want to do the vaccine, but if you promise them more mobility, more ability to get a job, more ability to get travel, that’s a very powerful incentive to actually achieve fuller vaccination.” What Caplan is really talking about is coercion. He is saying that people who would otherwise refuse taking the shots will be forced to do so by the vaccine passport mandate severely restricting their activities and even depriving them of the ability to earn an income so long as they do not give in to the demand they take the shots. All this authoritarianism is dressed up in deceptive language. “Vaccine hesitancy” is substituted for “vaccine refusal” to disguise that the vaccine passport mandate is about stopping people from exercising free choice. “Incentive” is substituted for “coercive technique.”

Watch Zakaria and Caplan’s interview here:

Hopefully, many people will see through the deception and be able to prevent the implementation of the vaccine passport mandate Zakaria, Caplan, and others are promoting in the media.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

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).

***

I’ve discussed why COVID-19 vaccines are in fact gene therapies and not vaccines in several previous articles, including “COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines,” “COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Are Gene Therapy” and “How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions.”

However, despite being a recognized form of gene therapy since its inception, vaccine makers are now frantically trying to deny that this mRNA technology is gene therapy. One reason for this, suggested by David Martin, Ph.D.,1 might be because as long as they’re considered “vaccines,” they will be shielded from liability.

Experimental gene therapies do not have financial liability shielding from the government, but pandemic vaccines do, even in the experimental stage, as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect. Another reason might be because they fear people won’t line up for experimental gene therapy. It has a very different connotation in people’s minds (as it should).

A third possibility is that they know full well that you cannot, ethically, mandate gene therapy in the way you can mandate vaccines. Mandatory public health measure directives are typically based on the idea that it’s acceptable for some individuals to be harmed as long as the measure benefits the collective.

Well, the COVID-19 “vaccines” are only designed to lessen symptoms of COVID-19. They do not prevent infection or spread, and since the vaccinated individual is the only one receiving a potential benefit, “the greater good” argument falls apart.

Who knows, there may be other factors at play that we’ve not realized as of yet, but whatever the reason, they really do not want you to think of these injections as gene therapy. They want you to accept them as any other conventional vaccine.

mRNA-Based Medicines Designed to Not Irreversibly Alter DNA

Try as they might, though, they cannot get rid of mRNA’s gene therapy label. For starters, Moderna describes its product as “gene therapy technology” in its SEC filings. On page 70, they also provide the following specifics:2

“Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism.”

In other words, it’s a form of gene therapy, but one that doesn’t enter and permanently alter your actual DNA. Instead, the mRNA stays in the cellular fluid where ribosomes read the code and create the protein per the mRNA’s coding.

The difference between vaccine mRNA and your natural mRNA is that your natural mRNA resides in the nucleus of the cell where your cellular DNA resides — it can be likened to a reverse photocopy of your DNA — and exits the nucleus when a protein needs to be made.

This is in stark contrast to mRNA from vaccines, which is synthetic and enters the cell from the outside and is not designed to enter the nucleus. Additionally, your own mRNA is rapidly degraded by enzymes, but the one from the vaccine is protected in a liposome that will protect it from degradation and keep on producing spike proteins. How long? No one knows because it has never been tested.

Can Vaccine mRNA Reverse-Transcribe Into Genome?

However, some doctors still worry that mRNA injections might be able to reverse-transcribe into your genes and alter your DNA on a permanent basis. One is Dr. Richard Urso, an ophthalmologist, who shared his concerns on a December 2020 episode of The Shepard Ambellas Show.3,4

He claimed the mRNA of retroviruses (which are part of our genome) have been shown to have the ability to transcribe into your DNA, and if it can do that, vaccine mRNA might be able to do this as well. According to Urso, if this turns out to be correct, the result of mRNA vaccination might be lifelong COVID-19.

Another skeptic is Dr. Doug Corrigan, who in a March 16, 2021, blog reviewed the findings of recent research5,6 showing SARS-CoV-2 RNA can reverse-transcribe into the human genome:7

“In my previous blog, ‘Will an RNA Vaccine Permanently Alter My DNA?’8 I laid out several molecular pathways that would potentially enable the RNA in an mRNA vaccine to be copied and permanently integrated into your DNA.

I was absolutely not surprised to find that the majority of people claimed that this prospect was impossible … After all, we’ve been told in no uncertain terms that it would be impossible for the mRNA in a vaccine to become integrated into our DNA, simply because ‘RNA doesn’t work that way.’

Well, this current research which was released not too long after my original article demonstrates that yes, indeed, ‘RNA does work that way’… Specifically, a new study9,10 by MIT and Harvard scientists demonstrates that segments of the RNA from the coronavirus itself are most likely becoming a permanent fixture in human DNA.

This was once thought near impossible, for the same reasons which are presented to assure us that an RNA vaccine could accomplish no such feat. Against the tides of current biological dogma, these researchers found that the genetic segments of this RNA virus are more than likely making their way into our genome.

They also found that the exact pathway that I laid out in in my original article is more than likely the pathway being used (retrotransposon, and in particular a LINE-1 element) for this retro-integration to occur.

And, unlike my previous blog where I hypothesize that such an occurrence would be extremely rare (mainly because I was attempting to temper expectations more conservatively due to the lack of empirical evidence), it appears that this integration of viral RNA segments into our DNA is not as rare as I initially hypothesized …

To be fair, this study didn’t show that the RNA from the current vaccines is being integrated into our DNA. However, they did show, quite convincingly, that there exists a viable cellular pathway whereby snippets of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA could become integrated into our genomic DNA. In my opinion, more research is needed to both corroborate these findings, and to close some gaps.”

A January 2020 Phys.org article,11 “Modified RNA Has a Direct Effect on DNA,” also notes that “it has now been revealed that RNA has a direct effect on DNA stability,” and this too may or may not play a role in mRNA therapy for COVID-19.

Vaccine Makers Fear Negative Perception of Gene Therapy

Getting back to Moderna’s SEC filing, in it, they also admit that public perception of other types of gene therapy may negatively impact perception of mRNA medicines. The problem, they admit, is that irreversible gene therapies have side effects, and knowing this, people might shun mRNA medicines too. The SEC filing goes on to note:12

“Because no product in which mRNA is the primary active ingredient has been approved, the regulatory pathway for approval is uncertain. The number and design of the clinical trials and preclinical studies required for the approval of these types of medicines have not been established, may be different from those required for gene therapy products, or may require safety testing like gene therapy products.”

Well, the pandemic allowed them to sneak mRNA gene therapy under the proverbial radar so that they don’t have to conduct more stringent gene therapy safety testing. Instead, they were handed the global population for the largest testing imaginable, and all without liability when something goes wrong — provided it’s viewed as a “vaccine,” that is.

mRNA Therapies Classified as Gene Therapy in Europe and US

The SEC filing13 for BioNTech (BioNTech’s mRNA technology is used in the Pfizer vaccine) is equally clear, stating on page 21: “Although we expect to submit BLAs for our mRNA-based product candidates in the United States, and in the European Union, mRNA therapies have been classified as gene therapy medicinal products, other jurisdictions may consider our mRNA-based product candidates to be new drugs, not biologics or gene therapy medicinal products, and require different marketing applications.”

So, in the U.S. and Europe, mRNA therapies, as a group, are classified as “gene therapy medicinal products.” The crux here, again, appears to be the idea that mRNA therapy does not cause permanent DNA alterations. On page 35 of the BioNTech SEC filing, they further clarify the alleged difference between other, irreversible, gene therapies and mRNA gene therapy:

“There have been few approvals of gene therapy products in the United States and other jurisdictions, and there have been well-reported significant adverse events associated with their testing and use.

Gene therapy products have the effect of introducing new DNA and potentially irreversibly changing the DNA in a cell. In contrast, mRNA is highly unlikely to localize to the nucleus, integrate into cell DNA, or otherwise make any permanent changes to cell DNA.

Consequently, we expect that our product candidates will have a different potential side effect profile from gene therapies because they lack risks associated with altering cell DNA irreversibly.”

Hacking the Software of Life

Company executives and scientists familiar with mRNA technology have, for years, been referring to this new technology as gene therapy. The video above features a TED Talk by Dr. Tal Zaks, chief medical officer of Moderna, given in 2017, more than two full years before COVID-19.

In it, he points out that they were, at that time, already working on a variety of vaccines, including an mRNA vaccine for influenza and individualized cancer vaccines based on the genetic sequence of the patient’s tumor, stressing that this vaccine would not act like any previous vaccine ever created.

“We’ve been living this phenomenal digital scientific revolution, and I’m here today to tell you that we are actually hacking the software of life, and that it’s changing the way we think about prevention and treatment of disease,” Zaks said.

“In every cell there’s this thing called messenger RNA or mRNA for short, that transmits the critical information from the DNA in our genes to the protein, which is really the stuff we’re all made out of. This is the critical information that determines what the cell will actually do. So, we think of it as an operating system …

So, if you could change that … if you could introduce a line of code, or change a line of code, it turns out that has profound implications for everything, from the flu to cancer …

Imagine if instead of giving [the patient] the protein of a virus, we gave them the instructions on how to make the protein, how the body can make its own vaccine,” he said.

How mRNA Vaccines Work

Zaks further differentiates conventional vaccines and mRNA vaccines by explaining that when using a conventional vaccine, you have viral protein floating around outside the cell, whereas the mRNA approach reprograms the cell to create that viral protein inside of itself.

“What’s more alarming?” he asks. “A stranger prowling the neighborhood, or somebody who just broke into your ground floor and tripped the alarm? That’s what happens with an mRNA vaccine. You’ve tripped the alarm wire and now the cell is dialing 911, it’s calling the police — at the same time that it’s making the protein, saying ‘That’s the bad guy.’ That’s how an mRNA vaccine works.”

Zaks also refers to the company’s mRNA shots as “information therapy,” which is just another way of saying gene therapy because mRNA is a carrier of genetic code. (For clarification, code in your natural mRNA matches your DNA, whereas vaccine mRNA has no equivalence inside your genome since it’s coming from the outside. Vaccine mRNA still carries “genetic code,” though, just not anything found in your body before.) As explained on genome.gov:14

“Messenger RNA (mRNA) is a single-stranded RNA molecule that is complementary to one of the DNA strands of a gene. The mRNA is an RNA version of the gene that leaves the cell nucleus and moves to the cytoplasm where proteins are made.

During protein synthesis, an organelle called a ribosome moves along the mRNA, reads its base sequence, and uses the genetic code to translate each three-base triplet, or codon, into its corresponding amino acid.

mRNA, are one of the types of RNA that are found in the cell. This particular one, like most RNAs, are made in the nucleus and then exported to the cytoplasm where the translation machinery, the machinery that actually makes proteins, binds to these mRNA molecules and reads the code on the mRNA to make a specific protein.

So in general, one gene, the DNA for one gene, can be transcribed into an mRNA molecule that will end up making one specific protein.”

mRNA Technology Ushers in Transhumanism

In true technocratic, transhumanist Fourth Industrial Revolution fashion, Zaks and other mRNA pushers view the body as your hardware, your genetic code as software and these mRNA injections as software updates. As noted by Patrick Wood in a recent Technocracy News article:15

“Pure and simple, this is unvarnished, raw transhumanism … Scientists think they can rewrite the genetic code [his words, not mine, for all you out there who still don’t believe these mRNA vaccines change the genetic code just because some ‘fact checker’ says they don’t], believing they can improve on a person’s God-given genetic makeup is entering dangerous territory …

These scientists truly believe that the human body is nothing more than a machine that can be hacked into and reordered according to some programmer’s instructions … Who’s to say they won’t correct one problem and create something far worse?”

What Is Transhumanism?

What exactly is transhumanism? Technocracy News describes16 it as “a twisted philosophy that believes in the use of high technology to transform humans into immortal beings … Furthermore, they seek to use genetic engineering to create a new master race of sorts, that will shed all of the ‘unseemly’ characteristics of humans.” Britannica defines17 it as a:

“… social and philosophical movement devoted to promoting the research and development of robust human-enhancement technologies. Such technologies would augment or increase human sensory reception, emotive ability, or cognitive capacity as well as radically improve human health and extend human life spans.

Such modifications resulting from the addition of biological or physical technologies would be more or less permanent and integrated into the human body.”

Great Reset Is a Transhumanist Agenda

Miklos Lukacs de Pereny, research professor of science and technology policy at the Peruvian University San Martin de Porres, has given presentations18 and interviews19 in which he warns that transhumanism is part and parcel of the Great Reset and the Fourth Industrial Revolution agendas, which are being rolled out at a furious pace under the auspices of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported by Life Site News, November 10, 2020:20

“The COVID-19 pandemic was manufactured by the world’s elites as part of a plan to globally advance ‘transhumanism’ — literally, the fusion of human beings with technology in an attempt to alter human nature itself and create a superhuman being and an ‘earthly paradise,’ according to a Peruvian academic and expert in technology.

This dystopian nightmare scenario is no longer the stuff of science fiction, but an integral part of the proposed post-pandemic ‘Great Reset,’ Dr. Miklos Lukacs de Pereny said at a recent summit on COVID-19.

Indeed, to the extent that implementing the transhumanist agenda is possible, it requires the concentration of political and economic power in the hands of a global elite and the dependence of people on the state, said Lukacs.

That’s precisely the aim of the Great Reset, promoted by German economist Klaus Schwab, CEO and founder of World Economic Forum, along with billionaire ‘philanthropists’ George Soros and Bill Gates and other owners, managers, and shareholders of Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Finance who meet at the WEF retreats at Davos, Switzerland, contended Lukacs.

Transhumanists … seek to ‘relativize the human being’ and ‘turn it into a putty that can be modified or molded to our taste and our desire and by rejecting those limits nature or God have placed on us’ …

Indeed, WEF’s Schwab has been promoting the Great Reset as a way to ‘harness the Fourth Industrial Revolution’ … which, he declared in January 2016, ‘will affect the very essence of our human experience.’ Schwab described the Fourth Industrial Revolution then as ‘a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines among the physical, digital and biological spheres’ …

Those technologies include genetic engineering such as CRISPR genetic editing, artificial intelligence (A.I.), robotics, the Internet of Things (IoT), 3D printing, and quantum computing. ‘The Fourth Industrial Revolution is nothing other than the implementation of transhumanism on a global level,’ emphasized Lukacs.”

mRNA Technology Is Still Gene Therapy

In “COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Are Gene Therapy” (hyperlinked above), I provide even more background information showing that mRNA “vaccines” are in fact gene therapy, and how this technology has been viewed and presented as gene therapy in the past.

The fact is, everywhere you look, mRNA technology, mRNA therapy and mRNA medicines — anything mRNA — have been, for years, treated as a form of gene therapy. Take the 2015 paper21“mRNA: Fulfilling the Promise of Gene Therapy” in the journal Molecular Therapy. In this paper, the authors point out that in vitro-transcribed mRNA has the potential to play a role in gene therapy previously only envisioned for DNA.

Back in 2009, the paper22 “Current Prospects for mRNA Gene Delivery” in the European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics noted that while “replication-deficient viruses have been used most successfully in the field of gene therapy … mRNA has … emerged as an attractive and promising alternative in the nonviral gene delivery field,” and a 2019 paper23 in Frontiers in Oncology discussed the therapeutic prospects of “mRNA-based gene therapy for glioblastoma.”

If they want to call it “temporary gene therapy,” I’m OK with that — provided they can prove that it is in fact temporary, how long the effects last, and that vaccine mRNA cannot reverse-transcribe into the human genome like SARS-CoV-2 RNA apparently can.

But to deny that it’s gene therapy altogether and insist that it’s simply an updated form of vaccine technology is simply impossible, as it does not perform any of the functions of an actual vaccine (i.e., prevent infection and spread).

Do You Want to Update Your Software?

Now, if our genetic makeup is to be viewed as “the software of life,” as Zaks puts it, then should we not have the sole authority to decide for ourselves whether we actually want a “software update,” be it temporary or permanent?

“If we truly live in a free society, wouldn’t it stand to reason that we would want to have an energetic debate over how to answer that question?Wood asks.24

“Contrary to what some scientists believe, we are not machines. We are human beings with bodies, souls and free wills. Anyone who tries to mandate the acceptance of an experimental gene-altering treatment is going against the international Nuremberg Codes, which require informed consent of any experimental treatment.”

What to Do if You’ve Had a Change of Heart

If you already got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies you’d use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection. I review these strategies at the end of “Why COVID Vaccine Testing Is a Farce.”

Last but not least, if you got the vaccine and are having side effects, please help raise public awareness by reporting it. The Children’s Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do these three things:25

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

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

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

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

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

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

1 Weston Price January 25, 2021

2, 12 US SEC Moderna June 30, 2020

3 SGT Report December 21, 2020

4 iHeart Radio The Shepard Ambellas Show Episode #78, starting 1 hour 26 minutes

5, 9 BioRxiv December 13, 2020 DOI 10.1101/2020.12.12.422516 (PDF full study)

6, 10 BioRxiv December 13, 2020 DOI 10.1101/2020.12.12.422516

7 Science With Dr. Doug February 15, 2021

8 Science With Dr. Doug November 27, 2020

11 Phys.org January 29, 2020

13 US SEC BioNTech 2019

14 Genome.gov mRNA

15, 16, 24 Technocracy News March 23, 2021

17 Britannica.com Transhumanism Definition

18, 20 Life Site News November 10, 2020

19 Life Site News November 25, 2020

21 Molecular Therapy September 1, 2015; 23(9): 1416-1417

22 European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics March 2009; 71(3): 484-489

23 Frontiers in Oncology November 8, 2019; 9: 1208

25 The Defender January 25, 2021

Featured image is from Mercola

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

***

German health officials today suspended use of AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine for people under 60 as a “precautionary measure,” stating that people needed to “treat it carefully and wait for the talks taking place at the federal level.”

Authorities in Munich and Berlin today suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine for those under 60 after Germany’s vaccine regulator reported 31 cases of a rare brain blood clot, nine of which resulted in deaths, ABC News reported.

All but two of the cases involved women 20 to 63 years old, according to the Paul Ehrlich Institute.

The decision was made as a precaution ahead of a meeting scheduled for later today with representatives from all of Germany’s 16 states, said Berlin’s top health official, Dilek Kalayci, who also said further recommendations are expected to be made by national medical regulators.

Kalayci said the suspension of AstraZeneca vaccines for younger people was a precautionary measure and that people needed to “treat it carefully and wait for the talks taking place at the federal level.”

Earlier Tuesday, two state-owned hospitals in Berlin announced they had stopped giving AstraZeneca’s COVID vaccine to female staff 55 years old and under, and heads of five university hospitals in western Germany called for a temporary halt to the vaccine for all younger women, citing the blood clot risk.

According to ABC News, German news agency dpa International quoted a spokesman for Munich who said the suspension of AstraZeneca vaccinations for people younger than 60 would last “until [the] issue of possible vaccine complications for this group of persons has been resolved.”

This is not the first time Germany has suspended AstraZeneca’s vaccine. Several European governments, including Germany and France, initially limited the shot to people under the age of 65 due to neurological problems reported in a UK trial participant.

As reported today, health officials in Canada suspended the AstraZeneca COVID vaccine in people aged 55 and under following concerns the vaccine might be linked to rare blood clots.

Health Canada updated its recommendations amid new data from Europe suggesting the risk of blood clots is now potentially one in 100,000 — much higher than the one-in-1 million risk stated before. The advisory committee recommended the shot be suspended for younger groups pending the outcome of a detailed risk-benefit analysis the agency demanded from AstraZeneca.

Earlier this month, more than 20 countries, including Germany, suspended use of the AstraZeneca vaccine after reports of rare blood clots in the brain, some resulting in death, in healthy people who received the vaccine.

Germany’s federal health minister, Jens Spahn, said seven cases of cerebral vein thrombosis had been reported and that Germany’s vaccine authority, the Paul Ehrlich Institute, considered “further investigation necessary after new reports of cerebral brain thrombosis in connection with vaccination in Germany and Europe.”

Institute officials said the European Medicine Agency (EMA) should decide “whether and how the new findings will affect the approval of the vaccine.”

After a review by medical experts, the EMA concluded the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine “may be associated with very rare cases of blood clots,” but the benefits of the vaccine outweighed the risks and countries should continue to use it. Most European Union (EU) countries, including Germany, resumed use of the vaccine.

That same week, two independent research teams in Norway and Germany announced they had identified antibodies associated with the immune response that caused the type of blood clots experienced by some people who received AstraZeneca’s vaccine. As a result, France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland did not lift their restrictions on the vaccine’s use.

Finland and Sweden have since restricted the AstraZeneca vaccine to people 65 and older, while France resumed vaccination in people over 55. All three counties maintain the suspension for all other age groups, while Norway has delayed a decision on whether to resume using AstraZeneca’s vaccine for another three weeks.

Although AstraZeneca’s vaccine has been authorized for use in the EU, it has not yet received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the U.S. The company plans to apply for EUA in the upcoming weeks. If approved, AstraZeneca would become the fourth available vaccine in the U.S., joining Moderna, Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson.

*

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.

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

***

Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) has joined other nations in recommending that Canadian Provinces halt injections of the experimental AstraZeneca COVID “vaccines” following concerns about blood clots and vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia (VIPIT).

Cbc.ca reports:

Canada’s National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) is recommending provinces pause the use of the AstraZeneca-Oxford COVID-19 vaccine on those under the age of 55 because of safety concerns — guidance most provinces said today that they would follow.

The change comes following reports out of Europe of very rare instances of blood clots in some immunized patients — notably among younger women.

But 300,000 of these shots have been administered in Canada already, with no reports of blood clots here, officials said. The blood clotting problem also has not been reported in people who have received mRNA vaccines like the Pfizer and Moderna products.

Speaking to reporters Monday, Dr. Shelley Deeks, the vice-chair of NACI, said that with “substantial uncertainty” around cases of vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia (VIPIT) in people with low platelets, the committee is recommending the suspension of shots in all people under 55 as a “precautionary measure.”

Dr. Howard Njoo, Canada’s deputy chief public health officer, said people who develop stroke-like medical symptoms after receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine — shortness of breath, chest pain, leg swelling, abdominal pain, sudden onset of headaches or blurred vision — should immediately seek medical attention. There is no risk for people who have not developed such symptoms 20 days post-vaccination.

Asked why the shot is still recommended for people over the age of 55 given the many unknowns, Dr. Caroline Quach-Thanh, the chair of NACI, said the early data indicate that the rare blood clots are most common in younger people.

Read the full article at Cbc.ca.

Earlier today, Germany also announced that they were suspending injections of the experimental AstraZeneca shots due to increasing reports of blood clots and deaths.

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) has reported that as of March 19, 2021 there have been 2,530 individual reports of adverse events following COVID injections, including 24 deaths.

Most of the injections so far have been from batches of the Pfizer and Moderna experimental COVID mRNA injections.

The PHAC admits that these reports are only “estimates” and may not accurately represent all injuries and deaths following the injections.

The data presented in this report are estimates and may not accurately represent national COVID-19 vaccine adverse events for the following reasons:

  1. There may be delays in receiving reporting forms and processing reporting forms which may contribute to variations in the amount of reports presented weekly. These delays may be due to jurisdictions investigating and reviewing each adverse event prior to submitting the information to PHAC. There are also limitations to reporting practices such as underreporting, missing information, and differing adverse event reporting practices across jurisdictions in Canada.
  2. Information is collected on individuals for whom an report was submitted, not on the total number of individuals who experience an adverse event as not every adverse event is reported.
  3. New information contained in this report may not be comprehensive but rather represents preliminary results of data received on a weekly basis.

Read the full report at health-infobase.canada.ca.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Health Impact 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).

***

We’re currently facing enormously powerful technocrats who are hell-bent on ushering in the Great Reset, which will complete the ongoing transfer of wealth and resource ownership from the poor and middle classes to the ultra-rich. Perhaps the most well-known of the individuals pushing for this is Bill Gates who, like John Rockefeller a century before him, rehabilitated his sorely tarnished image by turning to philanthropy.

However, Gates’ brand of philanthropy, so far, has helped few and harmed many. While his PR machine has managed to turn public opinion about him such that many now view him as a global savior who donates his wealth for the good of the planet, nothing could be further from the truth.

 


Gates’ Stranglehold on Global Health

The magnitude of Gates’ role over global health recently dawned on me. I believe the COVID-19 catastrophe would not have been possible had it not been for the World Health Organization, which Gates appears to exert shadow-control over. Remember, it was primarily the WHO that facilitated this global shutdown and adoption of freedom-robbing, economy-destroying measures by virtually every government on the planet.

When then-President Trump halted U.S. funding of the WHO in 2020, Gates became the biggest funder of the WHO. As explained in “WHO Insider Blows Whistle on Gates and GAVI,” the WHO has turned global health security into a dictatorship, where the director general has assumed sole power to make decisions that member states must abide by, but according to a long-term WHO insider, Gates’ vaccine alliance GAVI actually appears to be the directing power behind the WHO.

The two — Gates and the WHO — have been working hand in hand pushing for a global vaccination campaign, and Gates has a great deal of money invested in these vaccines. We’ve also seen extraordinary efforts to censor natural alternatives and inexpensive, readily available and clearly effective drugs, such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, and it appears the reason for this is probably because they’re competitors to the vaccine.

Emergency use authorization for pandemic vaccines are only given when there are no other treatments, so vilifying alternatives has been a key strategy to protect vaccine profits.

The Parallels Between Rockefeller and Gates

As noted by Shiva, the comparisons between Rockefeller and Gates are quite apt. Rockefeller created not just Big Oil but also Big Finance and Big Pharma. He had intimate connections with IG Farben.1 There was a Standard Oil IG Farben company. Without the fossil fuels of Standard Oil, IG Farben couldn’t have made synthetic fertilizers or fuels.

In 1910, Rockefeller and Carnegie produced The Flexner Report,2 which was the beginning of the end for natural medicine in the conventional medical school curriculum. They eliminated it because it saw natural medicine as a hugely competitive threat to the new pharmaceuticals that were primarily derived from the oil industry.

Much of Rockefeller’s history has been captured by Lily Kay,3 who sifted through Molecular Vision of Life’s archives. There, she discovered that the Nazi regime, which was a eugenics regime that thought some people were inferior and needed to be exterminated to keep the superior race pure, didn’t vanish when Germany lost the war.

Eugenics simply migrated to the U.S., and was taken up by Rockefeller under the term of “social psychology as biological determinants.” The word gene did not exist at that time. Instead, they called it “atoms of determinism.” Rockefeller paid for much of the eugenics research, which ultimately resulted in the silencing and suppression of true health.

To be healthy means to be whole, and wholeness refers to the “self-organized brilliance of your integrated body as a complex system,” Shiva says. That’s what Ayurveda is based on, and even this ancient system of medicine has been attacked in recent times. The notion of genetic determination ignores this foundational wholeness, seeking instead to divide the human body into mechanical components controlled by your genes.

“Coming back to the parallels, Rockefeller was behind it because he was driving the chemical industry. When the wars were over, they said, ‘Oh my gosh, we have all these chemicals to sell.’ And they invented the Green Revolution and pushed the Green Revolution on India.

Rockefeller, the World Bank, the USA all worked together, and if the farmers of India are protesting today, it’s a result of Rockefeller’s initiative, the Green Revolution in India. Most people don’t realize what high cost India has borne; what high cost the state of Panjon has born.

Then you have Gates joining up with Rockefeller and creating the Alliance for the Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) … which pretends to be his solution to climate change. I say, ‘My god, what kind of stage has the world reached that absolute nonsense can pass the science?’ I’ll give you just three examples from his chapter on agriculture, in which he talks about how we grow things.

First of all, plants are not things. Plants are sentient beings. Our culture knows it. We have the sacred tulsi. We have the sacred neem. We have the sacred banyan. They are sentient beings. So many people are awake to animal rights. I think we need more people awake to plant rights and really tell Mr. Gates, ‘No, plants are not things.’

He goes on to celebrate Norman Borlaug, who was in the DuPont defense lab, whose job it was to push these four chemicals by adapting the plants [to them]. So, he created the dwarf variety, because the tall varieties are free varieties … [Gates] says we’re eating food because of Borlaug. No, people are starving because of Borlaug. The farmers are dying because of Borlaug.”

Gates Offers Problems as Solutions

Gates hails synthetic fertilizer is the greatest agricultural invention. “Doesn’t he realize synthetic nitrogen fertilizers are creating desertification, dead zones in the ocean, and nitric oxide, which is a greenhouse gas?” Shiva says. In short, he’s offering the problem as the solution. Gates also, apparently, does not understand that nitrogen-fixing plants can fix nitrogen. He incorrectly claims that plants cannot fix nitrogen.

Gates is equally wrong about methane production from livestock. “Have you smelt methane behind nomadic tribes?” Shiva asks. “Have you ever smelt methane behind our sacred cow in India? No, they don’t emit methane.” The reason cows in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) emit methane that stinks to high heaven is because they’re fed an unnatural diet of grains and placed in crowded quarters. It’s not a natural phenomenon. It’s a man-made one.

“You know what Mr. Gates wants to teach us? He says cows make methane because of their poor stomachs,” Shiva says. “They call them containers. I think we should sue him for undoing basic biology 101. You’ve talked about how he controls the WHO. He’s also trying to take control of the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).

[FAO] has recognized ecological agriculture is the way to go and supported [regenerative] agriculture up until last year, when Gates started to take charge. Now he’s moving the food summit to New York. Five hundred organizations have said, ‘This is no longer a food summit, it’s a poison summit. The poison cartel and Bill Gates are running it to push more poisons, now under new names. So, we have a lot of work to do.'”

The answer to the environmental problems we face is not more of the very things that created the problems in the first place, which is what Gates proposes.

The answer is regenerative agriculture and real food.

“When people are eating healthy food, there is no problem,” Shiva says. “[Gates] wants to commit a crime against our gut microbiome, pushing more fake food through Impossible Food. And he wants to create conditions so that real food will disappear. That’s why we all have to organize together and the scientists have to start being protected.

There’s an extinction taking place. They call it the sixth mass extinction. Most people think the sixth mass extinction is about other species. They don’t realize large parts of humanity are being pushed to extinction. Food is health, as Hippocrates said, [and that requires] indigenous systems of learning, ecological agriculture, small farmers.

In Bill Gates’ design, all this that makes life, life, that makes society, society, that makes community, community, that makes healthy beings, he would like to push this to extinction because he’s afraid of independence, freedom, health and our beingness. He wants us to be ‘thingness,’ but we are beings …

The worst crime against the Earth and against humanity is using gene editing technologies for gene drives, which is a collaboration of Gates with DARPA, the defense research system. Gene drives are deliberately driving [us] to extinction. Now he does it in the name of ending malaria. No. It’s about driving to extinction.

Amaranth is a sacred food for us. It’s a very, very important source of nutrition … There’s an application in that DARPA-Gates report of driving the amaranth to extinction through gene rights. And when this was raised at the Convention on Biological Diversity, do you know what he did? He actually hired a public relations agency and bribed government representatives to not say no. Can you imagine?”

Gates’ Long-Term Play

Gates clearly had a long-term vision in mind from the start. His growing control of the WHO began over a decade ago. Over this span of time, he also started transitioning into Big Pharma and the fake food industry, which would allow his influence over the WHO’s global health recommendations to really pay off.

While fake foods have many potential problems, one in particular is elevated levels of the omega-6 fat linoleic acid (LA). If you eat real food, you’re going to get more than enough LA. Our industrial Western diet, however, provides far more than is needed for optimal health already, and engineered meats are particularly loaded with LA, as they’re made with genetically modified soy oil and canola oil.

This massive excess of LA will encourage and promote virtually all degenerative diseases, thereby accelerating the destruction of human health. In addition to that, Gates is also investing in pharmaceuticals, which of course are touted as the answer to degenerative disease. Again, his solutions to ill health are actually the problem. Shiva says:

“Gates … [is] entering every field that has to do with life. Our work in Navdanya, which means nine seeds, is basically work on biodiversity in agriculture. We started to bring together all the work that he’s doing in taking over. I mentioned the Rockefeller Green Revolution, now the Gates-Rockefeller Green Revolution in Africa. The next step he wants to push is … digital agriculture.

He calls it Gates Ag One,4 and the headquarters of this is exactly where the Monsanto headquarters are, in St. Louis, Missouri. Gates Ag One is one [type of] agriculture for the whole world, organized top down. He’s written about it. We have a whole section on it in our new report,5 ‘Gates to a Global Empire.'”

Stolen Farmer Data Is Repackaged and Sold Back to Them

What does digital agriculture entail? For starters, it entails the introduction of a digital surveillance system. So far, Shiva’s organization has managed to prevent Gates from introducing a seed surveillance startup, where farmers would not be allowed to grow seeds unless approved by Gates surveillance system.

The data mining, Shiva says, is needed because they don’t actually know agriculture. This is why Gates finances the policing of farmers. He needs to mine their data to learn how farming is actually done. This knowledge is then repackaged and sold back to the farmers. It’s evil genius at its finest.

Through his funding, Gates now also controls the world’s seed supply, and his financing of gene editing research has undercut biosafety laws across the world. As explained by Shiva, the only country that doesn’t have biosafety laws is the U.S. “The rest of the world does because we have a treaty called the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,” she says.

“While he created the appearance of philanthropy, what he’s doing is giving tiny bits of money to very vital institutions. But with those bits of money, they attract government money, which was running those institutions. Now, because of his clout, he is taking control of the agenda of these institutions. In the meantime, he’s pushing patenting, be it on drugs, vaccines or on seeds.”

Taken together, Gates ends up wielding enormous control over global agriculture and food production, and there’s virtually no evidence to suggest he has good intentions.

The Anatomy of Monopolization

The company that collects patents on gene-edited organisms, both in health and agriculture, is Editas, founded by a main financial investor for the Gates Foundation. Gates is also a big investor in Editas.

“So, here’s a company called Editas to edit the world as if it is a Word program. The two scientists who got the Nobel Prize this year have both been funded in their research by Gates. My mind went back to how Rockefeller financed the research, got the Nobel Prize, and then made the money.

So, you finance the research. Then you finance the public institutions, whether they be national or international. You invest and force them down the path where they can only use what is your patented intellectual property. And, as he has said in an interview, his smartest investment was vaccines, because it is a 1-to-20 return. Put $1 in and make $20. How many billions of dollars have been put in? You can imagine how many trillions will be made.

At the end of it, where does food come from? It comes from seed. He wants to control it. It comes from land. He’s controlling that. He’s became the biggest farmland owner [in the U.S.]. But you need weather [control]. You need a stable climate.

So, what could be a weapon of control of agriculture? Weather modification. He calls it geoengineering. This is engineering of the climate. Again, making it look like he’s going to solve global warming by creating global cooling.”

As explained by Shiva, Gates is also heavily invested in climate modification technologies that not only will destabilize the earth’s climate systems more, but also can be weaponized against the people by controlling rainfall and drought. In India, they’ve been having massive hail during harvest time, which destroys the harvest.

Is the UN Subservient to Gates?

According to Shiva, Gates is also corrupting the United Nations system, just like he’s corrupted world governments and the WHO, and in so doing, he’s destroying the efforts built over the last three decades to protect the global environment.

“Whether it be the climate treaty, the biodiversity treaty or the atmospheric treaties, he is absolutely behaving as if the UN is his subservient institution,” Shiva says. “[He thinks] governments and regulatory bodies should not exist … and that people in democracy have no business to speak. [If they do], they’re conspiracy theorists.”

Taking Down Gates’ Empires

As it stands right now, ordinary people are forced to fight battles that are in actuality rooted in institutional, structural and societal crimes. These crimes really need to be addressed the way Rockefeller’s Standard Oil empire was addressed. In the case of Gates, his empire is actually multiple empires, and they all need to be dismantled. To that end, I will be collaborating with Shiva and Regeneration International, which she co-founded, on a project to boycott Gates’ empires.

“I’ve noticed that no matter what the movement, they’re using the word regeneration now. It could be a health movement, a democracy movement, a peace movement, a women’s movement — everyone has realized that regeneration is what we have to shift to,” Shiva says.

“So, what do we need to be doing in the next decade? For me, the next decade is the determining decade, because these petty minds’ insatiable greed want to go so fast that if, in the next decade, we don’t protect what has to be protected, build resilient alternatives and take away the sainthood from this criminal, they will leave nothing much to be saved.

The poison cartel is also big pharma. People think agriculture is here, medicine is there. No. The same criminal corporations gave us agrichemicals. They gave us bad medicine that creates more disease than it solves. So, Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Poison — it’s all one. And Bill Gates is holding it all together even more, and trying to make them bigger because he has investments in all of them …

I think [seeds] is where we have to begin … I’m hoping that we will be able, together, to launch a global movement soon to take back our seeds from the international seed banks. The strategy is we need to remind the world that these are public institutions [and] that they’re accountable to the farmers whose collections these [seeds] are …

On the food question, I think that’s the big one because food and health go [together]. In Ayurveda, it says food is the best medicine, and if you don’t eat good food, then no medicine can cure whatever disease you have. The best medicine is good eating. And Hippocrates said ‘Let food be thy medicine.’ So, I think this is the time to really grow a very big global campaign for food freedom.

Food freedom means you cannot destroy our right to grow food. Secondly, you cannot destroy our governments’ obligations to us to support regenerative agriculture rather than support degenerative agriculture and subsidize it. And third, I think we should call for a worldwide boycott of lab foods …

Another part of this should be, don’t let big tech enter our bodies. Let big tech not enter life sciences … These guys will make life illegal. Living will be illegal except as a little piece in their machine through their permission.”

Each year, Navdanya holds a two-week campaign on food freedom starting October 2, which is nonviolence day. We now need to take that campaign to the global stage, and I will do my part to aid this effort. So, mark your calendar and prepare to join us in a global boycott of food that makes you sick — processed food, GMO foods, lab-created foods, fake meats, all of it.

More Information

You can learn more about Shiva’s work and her many projects on Navdanya.org. During the first week of April every year, Navdanya gives a five-day course called Annam, Food as Health, via Zoom. In this course, you’ll learn about soil and plant biodiversity and healthy eating for optimal health.

You can also learn more by reading the report “Earth Rising, Women Rising: Regenerating the Earth, Seeding the Future,” written by female farmers. And, again, mark your calendars and plan your participation in the food freedom campaign, starting October 2, 2021.

“When all the spiritual forces, all of nature’s forces and most of people’s forces are aligned together, what can [a few] billionaires, technocrats — who want to be richer than they are, greedier than they are, more violent than they are — do?” Shiva says. “They don’t count in the long run, really. It’s just that we cannot afford to not do the things that we can do.”

*

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.

Notes

1 History of the Pharma Cartel May 10, 2007

2 Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2012; 2012: 647896 December 26, 2012

3 University of Chicago Press Journals Volume 85, No. 1

4 Independent Science News November 16, 2020

5 Navdanya International, Gates to a Global Empire

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).

***

One of the most common occurrences in Iraq in 2021 is a US supply convoy being blown up by an IED bomb.

On March 29th, three separate supply consignments were targeted. The first one took place in the Al Diwaniyah province in central Iraq.

The two other attacks were reported in the provinces of Dhi-Qar and Babil.

No casualties were reported however, only damage. No loss of human life is an important fact, due to the fact that the convoys are largely carried out by Iraqi contractors, since US forces no longer take part in logistics.  The aim of the pro-Iranian groups that target the supplies is to force the US out of Iraq.

It is unlikely that these convoys will stop being targeted anytime soon, but strikes on US positions appear to have subsided in recent weeks.

Meanwhile, in northern Syria and Greater Idlib the chaos is here to stay.

Trying to improve the situation, Russia proposed to Turkey to reopen 3 humanitarian crossings into Greater Idlib, but that failed. Ankara, similarly to how it carries out its ceasefire commitments, put no effort towards attempting to contain any of the factions that it backs.

In northern Syria clashes between the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces and the factions backed by Turkey continue.

On March 29th, a large explosion was reported in the town of Ras al-Ain, which is under the control of Turkish-backed forces.

Nearby, clashes between the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and Turkish-backed militants were reported in the Sher district of Afrin.

According to the reports by the Syrian Observation for Human Rights, on March 28th, SDF forces carried out a successful operation in the Ras al-Ain countryside, killing 5 Turkish-backed militants and wounding 3 others.

It is a back and forth struggle, especially since the SDF stopped giving oil to the Turkish-backed factions to smuggle for Ankara.

In Greater Idlib, the Russian Air Force carried out an airstrike on a militant headquarters.  The attack reportedly took place near the town of Martin in the Western Idlib countryside.

These strikes, as well as shelling from the Syrian Arab Army will continue as long as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham and the other militant groups in Greater Idlib continue to regularly violate the ceasefire agreement.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, in Yemen, Ansar Allah (the Houthis) continue their largely successful operations against the Saudi-led coalition.

In the southern Taiz province, Ansar Allah repelled an attack of Saudi proxies. Reportedly, the Houthis destroyed 3 vehicles and the enemy lost a large number of fighters.

A missile was launched at a Saudi-led forces position in Marib, however no casualties or damage was reported.

At least two drones were used to attack the Khamis Mushait Airport.

Saudi Arabia, on its part, continues its heavy airstrike activity, but it seems to be achieving close to nothing.

*

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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Strikes at US Positions in Iraq, Chaos in Northern Syria
  • Tags:

Who Owns Facebook?

March 31st, 2021 by Emanuel Pastreich

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

***

There has been much chatter in the media about the unbridled power of social media tech giants and how they unfairly decide to censor certain voices, or, on the other hand, they fail to delete or block those spreading information that is judged to be false or misleading.  

Such debates in the media is deeply misleading and destructive because

1) they focus on how to compel these massive consolidated companies to do what is in the public interest rather than asking how these handful of billionaires got the money to monopolize the means that we get information and communicate with each other and how that basic right can be returned to the citizen;

2) they refuse to consider that the very nature of these social media corporations are unconstitutional and that they are compelled by their profit model, and the interests of their wealthy stock holders, to use their platform to dumb down the population and to render all efforts to employ social media for debate and organization ineffective, and in many cases to introduce false, or unreliable information into the debate.

Sadly, most activists, whether concerned about the environment or social justice, turn to Facebook, Twitter or Google as a means of communication without ever considering that these for-profit multinational corporations have an inherent conflict of interest and that the first step if one wants to organize for social change it to create independent social communications systems.

Although marketed as open platforms for the citizens of the world, there is no democratic manner to appeal how Google searches are conducted, or Facebook is administered, let alone for citizens to make proposals and then vote on how they are implemented.

The ignorance of citizens about the nature of social media is far, far more dangerous today as increasingly multinational corporations and investment banks are using smartphones and computers as a means of hypnotizing mass numbers of people by manipulating the interaction of the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala, and stimulating various pleasure centers in the brain as a means to render us passive and to open up the minds of citizens to persuasion by repeating set themes and thereby shutting down the screening function of the right brain.

Anyone who has actually tried to start a serious movement, like Occupy Wall Street, will discover that one is free to post just about anything in social media just as long as one does not start to organized people into an effective movement. It is fine, however, to talk about climate change or social justice as long as one’s activities are directed towards an ineffective leader figure who is pre-approved and broadly publicized in the commercial media.

I will focus on the social media company Facebook here, but most of what I describe applies to all the other for-profit corporations whose stock is owned by investment firms and billionaires around the world, and are intended to manipulate, to distract and to render the citizens of the United States passive and harmless.

The medium of cyberspace, of the Internet, has become a primary means of communication for citizens and its importance has only increased as the COVID19 crisis has been manipulated into a means of limiting our ability to meet with each other. Yet, this format through which we obtain our information about the world, talk to each other and collaborate with each other has been carved up by ruthless corporations whose explicit purpose is to thwart our effort to collaborate and to make us dependent on corporations for everything.

Facebook has set out to sell us the big lie and many of us are happy to accept that lie in part because it is too terrifying to recognize the manner in which our personal lives and our every action has been taken over by ruthless multinational corporations.

Billions of dollars are spent by corporations to buy advertising time, to ghost write articles for newspapers, and to bribe experts so that they describe your relationship with Google, Facebook, Twitter, SnapChat or other search engines and social media, as that of the user, or even as that of the citizen. It is a bald and dangerous lie. You are but a product whom those companies sell to other parties.

It is not so much that they sell you products to buy, or even that they sell off your private information, including detailed profiles about your personal life, your interests and your peculiar habits, and about your friends and associates, to the highest bidder around the world.

They main product that they offer to the corporations robbing you, and the United States, blind, is the production and maintenance of a population of educated people who are prostrate in a semi-state of hypnotic trance.

We are encouraged by massive PR campaigns by these corporations to think that Facebook or Google are run as a benevolent charity for our benefit. But the actions, and the profit model, of these social media corporations is innately unconstitutional and increasingly criminal as they seek to degrade the intellectual capacity of citizens and to undermine the ability of citizens to organize themselves.

The corporations will tolerate our efforts to promote healthy society to some degree, but only in that such efforts do not threaten their profits, or the profits of the corporations that are their clients. They rarely refuse to let you post (although that is increasing). Rather their primary function is to take your demand for real change in our country and divert it toward ineffective, even dishonest, political parties, NGOs and other similar bottom-feeding creatures.

Facebook and its ilk make money by distracting you and your friends, by keeping you from thinking in an organized and effective manner, and by getting you addicted to instant gratification via postings and messages. They saturate us with reports and discussions about minor issues so as to keep us from forming real institutions to confront the current moral and political crisis. Above all, they want us to think that if we share something through the networks that they control with our friends that we have somehow made a difference.

Another service offered up to multinational corporations by Facebook is the creation in the mind of citizens of a deep distrust of all institutions. Citizens are being taught by the media, and by corrupt government officials, and other corrupt experts, that they should distrust all news, distrust all government, distrust the police, distrust universities and research institutions, distrust all authorities.

That distrust is of course justified by the rampant corruption, but it means that ultimately there will be no institutions left that can resist the push for the consolidation of power by the rich and powerful.

If all our interactions with others become their property, if we must pay, directly or indirectly, for the right to communicate with friends and family, to form organizations, and to defend ourselves. If they control our ideas, and our means of communications, then these multinational corporations can slowly reduce us to slavery, so slowly that we hardly notice.

If we cannot meet in person, cannot travel, cannot communicate by letter, email or telephone without going through them, that means not only that they can spy on every part of our efforts, but also that they can completely shut us down whenever they feel like it.

The Republic of Facebook

The only viable solution to the problem is the one that is never mentioned by anyone on the right or the left: take over Facebook and its evil siblings and declare that they belong to us as citizens and that we the people, not the corporation “Facebook” make policy and determine how the profits are employed.

Granted the level of criminal manipulation of the population by Facebook over the last decade, and the illegal manner in which that corporation has set out to block citizens from forming their own networks, we do not need to waste time talking to Facebook Inc. lawyers. They have no role in this case.

Facebook has made its owners and investors many, many billions of dollars by selling the entire world a lie. Facebook is presented as a shared, transparent platform for cooperation that allows anyone to use it for free. But it does not allow its users any rights to determine how Facebook is run, it gives citizens information that is intended to manipulate them, and it sells off the information it collects about them for profit.

Facebook, however, offers access to more people than any independent start up, or cooperative social networking organization could possibly do. That breadth is what forces us to use Facebook for exchanges. But the reason Facebook is able to do so is because its corrupt relations with investment banks, who steal our money, allows it to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars for free that allow it to buy up, or take over, its competitors, and to bribe or intimate possible critics.

Facebook has become a powerful platform for international exchange that allows people around the world to seek out peers with similar interests and to begin exchanges with them.

That platform could be used to share photographs of fat cats and cafe lattes. Such a use is actively encouraged by Facebook because the corporation wants to brainwash and control us, not facilitate our capacity to organize globally.

Facebook could be a platform whose primary purpose is to help the citizens of the Earth work together to build a better world, that allows people to exchange meaningful information for real educational purposes, that permits friends and family to engage in deep and fulfilling communication.

That is not its role now.

You cannot easily seek out other people with common interests (or by region) on Facebook and you cannot systematically store the materials that you send or receive through Facebook for easy reference, or for the editing of books or the creation of works of art. You cannot use Facebook to allow people around the world to cooperate in responding to common problems, or to organize themselves and to govern themselves.

Information posted on Facebook becomes inaccessible to anyone but the corporation Facebook after a few days.

It is also impossible for third parties, or users, to develop original applications to run on Facebook that would allow users to expand its functionality or to customize their pages.

Nevertheless, even in its current format, Facebook offers the potential for a broad conversation between thoughtful and committed individuals around the world. In spite of Facebook Incorporated’s hostility towards those seeking the truth, it is still populated with thoughtful activists, and could be the platform for a new form of true governance if modified in key ways.

Facebook was designed to generate profit, not to facilitate global cooperation. Yet Facebook today offers the possibility for those who are completely locked out of the policy debate to collaborate and make a contribution to their local community or to the Earth as a whole.

If we compare Facebook, a for-profit company, with international organizations for global governance like the United Nations, the World Bank, the OECD or the World Health Organization, the governance structures supposedly engaged in global governance, it is clear that a flawed and twisted Facebook is a far, far more participatory system that allows for much broad discussions.

International organizations like the United Nations carry out internal debate on policy together with multinational corporations, and increasing figures like Bill Gates that are secret. Then the decisions distributed to the world in a one-way manner via arcane technical texts, or broadcasts in the corporate media. There is literally no means for someone like you, let alone a Nigerian street merchant or a Chinese high school student, to have any say at all about the policies that those organizations promote, even though those policies impact the entire world.

The United Nations and other global organizations only recognize nation states as its members, and only recognize those who claim to be the heads of government as representatives.

But today the institutions of governance in nation states are being torn apart by multinational corporations, and by internal class divisions, so that it is questionable that those authority figures serve as a government in any critical sense of the word.

In any case, citizens of the Earth are not permitted to put forth a proposal to the United Nations General Assembly through their government, let alone directly.

But if Facebook was transformed into a global institution that was owned and operated by the citizens of the Earth, it could play a central role in true international governance—which is needed so critically.

Remember that Facebook Incorporated, the corporation, did not build Facebook. The users of Facebook built it, just as we built Twitter or SnapChat or other global institutions that corporations claim that they own. We, the people, did the work of actually populating Facebook with valuable content and of forming effective networks.

We should think of the corporations who claim ownership of Facebook as the equivalent of the robber barons who built the Union Pacific railroad in the 19th century. The robber barons Clark Durant and Mark Hopkins raised money from banks and built the Union Pacific for the shrewdest of profit motivations. Over time, thanks to the activism of citizens, those railroads were turned into regulated organizations. For example, the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 outlawed short-haul discrimination and other predatory practices. The free-wheeling railroads were made to conform to strict codes. By the 1930s, the railways were strictly regulated and even for-profit corporations were compelled by law, and by custom, to consider the greater good.

The postal service similarly was transformed from a hodgepodge of for-profit companies into a non-profit government agency that serves a vital service. The postal service as a public utility that offered stable jobs to many citizens in a constructive manner was so successful that destroying this institution became a primary focus for the rich and powerful. The same holds true for the administration of telecommunications, water and other services as government services, or regulated monopolies. Destroying these institutions, and creating narratives in the media about how evil and criminal they were, was a major drive by investment banks and corporations.

What we need today is the complete opposite. Not only to defend the administration of essential services by regulated monopolies that provide stable long-term jobs, but also to demand that Facebook, Google, Instagram and Amazon must be made regulated monopolies, or user-owned cooperatives.

The citizens of the United States, and of the world, are deeply integrated through systems of production, distribution, logistics and data distribution and collection, but we do not know each other or have a means of cooperating with each other.

We must overcome our ignorance, and indifference, to each other and form an entirely new form of participatory global governance to respond to global threats. We must transform institutions like Facebook to serve that purpose and recognize how multinational corporations have intentionally kept us isolated and narcissistic in our behavior.

Facebook could be a method to bring us together. But we must make forceful demands. First and foremost, we must assert that Facebook belongs to us, and not to the corporation that preys on us. We must make concrete proposals for what Facebook will become in order to push Facebook, and similar companies, in the right direction.

But those proposals must start from the assumption that Facebook belongs to us, the users and the citizens, and that the corporation has no particular rights to tell us what to do without a democratic process. The same logic will be used in our future interactions with Google, Amazon, WeChat and other such self-appointed hidden empires.

Building a true, common, global community online by lobbying Facebook Incorporated for changes in the rules of governance (thereby allowing the users to decide by democratic process the design and structure of Facebook) is impossible now in that such a for-profit organization has no incentive to accept our demands.

There exist now alternative social networks to connect people together, but they are remarkably ineffective, and with a few rare exceptions, no one has ever heard of them. They are often intentionally destroyed by planted corporate spies, and in any case the current corrupt system demands that unless you have access to private capital you cannot build such institutions. Independent social media is intentionally rendered impossible.

We need a concrete plan for how Facebook will be governed internally, how individual users will debate policy for Facebook and then how that policy will be approved, and enacted, at the local and global level through our Facebook community. That is to say, we will not only use Facebook to share information subject to the permission of, and interference by, the corporation Facebook, we will administer the entire system democratically and make its administration transparent.

The governance of Facebook starts with reforms that make it more accessible, more transparent, and more oriented to the needs of individuals and communities. We can start with demands for simple reforms like allowing individuals to design applications on their own within Facebook and have the right to give or sell them to other members.

That process could involve the formation of local elected communities that debate and determine local and global Facebook policy.

Although this process may seem silly to some, perceptions are critical and if we have a substantial number of citizens around the world debating and demanding how Facebook will be run for the benefit of its citizens, perceptions will start to shift, even among the corporate thieves who administer Facebook the corporation, and a new paradigm will become possible.

The question of ownership

The process of making Facebook a collective controlled by us, the users, and making Facebook the corporation a paid contractor, at best, subject to our decisions, will only begin when we forcefully assert that the content of Facebook, and the profits derived by Facebook, belong to us. To put it more succinctly: Facebook belongs to us.

Facebook Incorporated claims the right to all profits generated from our activities, and gives nothing to the users who produce all the content and who create all the networks. This assumption makes no legal sense. Facebook clearly belongs to those who create it, and not those with access to international finance and rows of lawyers. The manner in which Facebook actively worked to undermine its possible competitors among cooperatives, and made it impossible for such democratic approaches to receive finance, makes Facebook’s monopoly essentially criminal.

We need to start an effective and concrete discussion about ownership among users and to develop concrete proposals for what the ownership of this shared space for communication should look like in the future. Those proposals must be backed up with concrete demands, with plans for the implementation of governance of Facebook by organized groups of its users who will share all aspects of ownership of Facebook and also share profits based on the content that they produce.

Making Facebook our own requires us to rethink what our role in society is. We must snap out of the slumber of consumption that we been steeped in for so many years. I believe that the current economic, ecological and ideological crisis may be enough to wake us up.

Part of the process should be a constitutional convention at which we will draft a basic constitution that will establish the means for governing Facebook (and similar social networks and search engines) globally.

The constitution should:

  1. Create a mechanism by which Facebook is made responsive to the needs of its citizens through voting and participatory processes;
  2. Make the administration of Facebook accountable to a set of ethical principles;
  3. Assure complete transparency concerning Facebook’s financial dealings and its administrative structure and assure that all profits generated are shared between the users who create content, in accord to their production of content.
  4. Make sure that access to private capital is never used as a way to control the creation of policy for Facebook.
  5. Make sure that all changes are subject to review by the users of Facebook and that all decisions regarding the content, the format or the administration of Facebook is undertaken in a transparent manner.

A group of experts from fields such as computer programming, design, law, art, philosophy, literature, engineering, and the social, physical, biological, and information sciences should come together at this constitutional convention to set out the basic framework for how Facebook will be governed in an open and transparent manner and to map out a roadmap for its future structure. It is critical that those individuals have a deep ethical commitment to human society and to the potential for the development of constructive intellectual exchange. Such principles are far more critical to the constitutional convention than specialized knowledge.

After the convention, there will be a six-month period of consultation with the entire Facebook community, whereby the proposed constitution is considered by the global community and ratified in a systematic manner. The constitution will contain within is a description of what membership will mean and the process for its future amendation.

The day of ratification will transform Facebook’s entire user base into citizens and they will vote for the creation of a “Republic of Facebook,” complete with a transparent and accountable administrative system.

That Republic of Facebook will include a payment system whereby all the profits generated by its activities are fairly distributed to all its users, its owners, in accord with their efforts. Citizens of Facebook will be allowed to sell or exchange their creations and will be paid at appropriate rates for their posts, designs, memes, video and audio. Moreover, they will be able to make suggestions, and implement, changes in the format and structure of Facebook that makes it more suitable to real cooperation.

We have no need for a Facebook Inc. except, perhaps, as a contractor for specific task, just as Merit Network was served as a contractor that administered the mechanics of the early internet.

An ethically-administered, transparent and accountable Facebook will serve as a space wherein those with similar concerns around the world can meet and engage ideas as part of a next stage of global participatory democracy, forming teams in the process to propose means for collaboration, for creative solutions to common problems.

This platform will serve as a critical counterbalance to the domination of the United Nations and other global institutions by the super rich and the investment banks and corporations that they control.

Facebook could be a means for those who pursue similar goals in every corner of the globe to seek out partners and collaborators for research, policy debate and implementation that does not require cooperation with global finance. Sharing resources around the world offers tremendous potential to us.

If we have the will, and a sense of obligation,  we can transform Facebook into a legitimate form of participatory democratic governance. We will transform the entire internet as well, in that process, into a constitutional democracy that promotes participation by citizens of the Earth through peer-to-peer networks and that is powered 100 percent by renewable energy.

*

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.

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.

All images in this article are from the author

COVID Vaccine Nonsense

March 31st, 2021 by P Jerome

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).

***

The efforts to require every American to be injected with an experimental vaccine for Covid-19 are based on the false notion that vaccination will protect recipients from becoming infected with SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, or protect them from passing along the infection to other people.

The FDA, the CDC, the NIH and the pharmaceutical companies involved have all stated very clearly that there is no evidence to support this idea.

None of the three experimental Covid-19 vaccines now being distributed in the United States have been demonstrated to protect against infection with or transmission of the virus believed to cause Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2), or even prevent symptoms of Covid-19 disease from developing.

This fact is indisputable, yet media, medical providers, and politicians continue to repeat the lie that vaccination provides “immunity to Covid” and even sources like the Mayo Clinic make irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims that vaccination “might prevent you from getting”or “spreading” Covid-19. The same lies are the basis for President Biden’s hard press for mass vaccination to “make this Independence Day truly special.”

On February 27, 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it had “issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the third vaccine for the prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19),” the Janssen (Johnson&Johnson) Covid-19 vaccine.

This announcement is virtually identical to the EUAs previously issued for Covid-19 vaccines produced by Pfizer-Biontech and Moderna.

In each of the EUAs, the FDA has been careful to avoid any claim that the vaccines provide protection against infection or transmission of the virus. Similarly, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have each publicly stated that the vaccines have NOT been shown to prevent infection or transmission.

All of their regulatory documents and commentary addressing the issue state clearly that there is no evidence that the vaccines affect either infection with or transmission of the virus, nor do they prevent symptoms of Covid-19 from appearing.

The US Government Position

The FDA’s Briefing Document analyzing clinical trial data for the Pfizer vaccine, released the day before the FDA’s issuance of an EUA for that vaccine, noted (on page 47):

Data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against asymptomatic infection

And:

Data are limited to assess the effect of the vaccine against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 [virus] from individuals who are infected despite vaccination.

The FDA Briefing Document on the Moderna vaccine stated the same fact, while also describing plans for a future clinical trial to measure infection prevention, but that will not be completed until December 31, 2023 (p.47). The FDA’s review of the Janssen vaccine noted the same “limited” data…

to assess the effect of the vaccine in preventing asymptomatic infection… and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn at this time.”

“Limited data” means there is in fact no evidence to support those conclusions.

The CDC Advisory Committee that recommended emergency use of the Moderna vaccine noted:

“the level of certainty for the benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was… type 4 (very low certainty) for the estimates of prevention of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and all-cause death.”

The CDC guidance to Covid vaccine administrators (January 2, 2021) asks:

Can a person who has received a Covid-19 vaccine still spread COVID-19? At this time, we do not know if COVID-19 vaccination will have any effect on preventing transmission.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) on January 26, 2021 similarly admitted:

We do not know whether the vaccines will prevent infection and protect against onward transmission.”

This is all very confusing due to the language the FDA, NIH and other agencies use to describe the potential effectiveness of the vaccines. For example, in the NIH analysis of the Janssen vaccine data, the authors note the vaccine’s reported effectiveness in “preventing moderate and severe COVID-19 in adults.”

This deliberately blurs the distinction between infection with a virus (SARS-Cov-2) and the illness called Covid-19.

The NIH claims the Janssen vaccine prevents or lessens symptoms of the illness Covid-19, but is silent on whether the vaccine prevents infection or transmission of the virus said to cause Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2). The similar analysis for the Moderna vaccine notes, however:

“[T]here is not yet enough available data to draw conclusions as to whether the [Moderna] vaccine can impact SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”

Unfortunately, we have seen many reports over the last few months of deaths attributed to Covid-19 days and weeks after vaccination (see here and here (video)), confirming that vaccinated people can and do become infected with the virus.

Health officials have avoided blaming these deaths on side effects from the vaccines themselves. Instead, they say these deaths are the result of infections with the virus (SARS-Cov-2) acquired after receiving the vaccines.

Particularly devastating reports from an isolated Kentucky monasterydescribe how two nuns died of Covid-19 after receiving Covid-19 vaccines, despite the complete absence of any cases of infection in the monastery during the ten months prior to vaccination.

Moderna’s chief science officer was quoted in the British Medical Journalabout the clinical trials in 2020 that resulted in the FDA’s decision to grant a EUA to the Moderna shot:

Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission,” Zaks said, “because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable.”

The most important questions about the experimental Covid-19 vaccines were not even asked during the clinical trials: Do these experimental vaccines prevent infection with the virus and do they prevent transmission of that virus? The short answer is No.

The FDA has stated clearly in each of the Covid vaccine Briefing Documents (see Moderna document here, Pfizer here, Janssen here) that the trials were not even designed prove or disprove a hypothesis that the vaccines prevent infection or transmission of the virus, or even prevent symptoms of Covid-19 from developing.

The FDA issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for the Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen vaccines on December 11 and December 18, 2020, and on February 27, 2021, respectively.

The EUAs indicate that the vaccines “prevent severe Covid-19,” that is, they don’t prevent infection or development of symptoms after infection, but they may make the illness less severe.

The EUAs explicitly deny any evidence that the Pfizer, Moderna or Janssen vaccines prevent infection, or prevent hospitalization or even death from Covid-19 after vaccination. The highly publicized “success rates” of the vaccines refer only their potential ability to lessen the severity of those symptoms, but there is “no data” that they prevent the infection that could cause those symptoms.

Mandating Vaccination Under Emergency Use Authorization Is Impermissible

An EUA is not “FDA Approval.”

An EUA indicates that a product has not been fully tested but, despite the obvious risks, distribution is permitted because the government declared a “public health emergency” in January 2020.

As the FDA notes in its Information Sheet for the Moderna shot:

The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine has not undergone the same type of review as an FDA- approved or cleared product.”

The FDA granted EUAs for all three experimental vaccines after less than five months of clinical trials, with most of trial data still to be collected. All three vaccines will be in clinical trial status through January 31, 2023.

According to comments from vaccine scientists in September 2020 (prior to the Covid-19 EUA issuances), no vaccine had ever before been distributed on an EUA basis.

“We don’t do EUAs for vaccines,” [Dr. Peter] Hotez said, “It’s a lesser review, it’s a lower-quality review, and when you’re talking about vaccinating a large chunk of the American population, that’s not acceptable.”

Three months later, the FDA issued EUAs for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, but with explicit guidance that the vaccine “has not undergone the same type of review as an FDA- approved or cleared product.”

Indeed, the highly experimental nature of the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine, in particular, is extraordinary as that vaccine is the first and only product the company has ever been allowed to distribute, and it was allegedly developed in only two days.

Any use of an experimental vaccine under an EUA must be voluntary and recipients must be informed “of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.

This information is repeated in small print on each of the FDA Covid-19 vaccine Fact Sheets, but it is largely ignored.

Dr Amanda Cohn, the executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, was asked in October 22, 2020, if the new Covid-19 vaccines could be legally required. She respondedthat, under a EUA:

Vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandatory.”

Under EUA status, the government is not permitted to require Covid-19 vaccinations because the vaccines are not FDA-approved and recipients are clinical trial participants. This is why states cannot legally require vaccination, despite suggestions by some legislators to do just that.

Indeed, the US military is barred from mandating the vaccines. This ban on government vaccine mandates explains why some private companies are trying to require vaccination of employees, which makes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance on this issue potentially relevant.

The EEOC Guidance on COVID-19 Vaccination Does Not Authorize Vaccine Mandates

The EEOC updated its guidance on the issue of Covid-19 vaccination on December 16, 2020.

This update appeared five days after the FDA issued an EUA for the Pfizer vaccine and two days prior to issuing the Moderna EUA. Based on this timing, we can safely assume that the EEOC was well-aware of the contents of the FDA briefing documents and Fact Sheets, specifically the FDA statements about the lack of proof that the vaccines prevent infection with or transmission of the virus (SARS-CoV-2).

The EEOC guidance evaluates the idea of employer Covid-19 vaccine mandates under the Americans with Disabilities Act’s (ADA) “direct threat” analysis:

The ADA allows an employer to have a qualification standard that includes ‘a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of individuals in the workplace.’“

But the EEOC’s analysis presupposes that vaccines protect against infection, which is false.

The “direct threat” doctrine is an employer’s potential defense to a claim of disability discrimination under the ADA. According to the EEOC, “A conclusion that there is a direct threat would include a determination that an unvaccinated individual will expose others to the virus at the worksite.”

The specific but theoretical “direct threat” described here is one allegedly posed by an unvaccinated person who might become infected with the virus (SARS-CoV-2) and then spread infection to the workplace.

But no “determination” of such a threat is possible. The EEOC was careful to state only that a direct threat defense “would include” such a “determination.” The EEOC took no position on this issue because officials there were likely aware there has been no determination that vaccination prevents infection or transmission, and none is possible with current data.

Aspirational claims that vaccination “might” [be eventually be shown to] prevent infection or that “some data tends to show” such an effect are insufficient bases for a direct threat defense.

The US Supreme Court ruled in Bragdon v Abbott (1988) that the assertion of a direct threat defense must be evaluated “in light of the available medical evidence,” noting that “the views of public health authorities, such as the U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, and the National Institutes of Health, are of special weight and authority.”

Overcoming the long-standing protections of the right to bodily integrity and informed, voluntary consent to medical treatment requires articulation of an actual and imminent, not theoretical, threat presented by an unvaccinated person in the workplace.

The CDC, the National Institutes of Health and numerous other “public health authorities” have all stated that there is no evidence to show that vaccination prevents viral infection or transmission, a fact the EEOC should have presented but did not.

The EEOC guidance does not provide any legal cover for employers to require vaccination. The guidance proposes that employers might be successful in proving a direct threat if they were able to prove facts which, it turns out, cannot be proven.

Even more importantly, according to the CDC, more than 29 million Americans (and likely many, many more) have already contracted the virus (SARS-CoV-2) and recovered from it.

A recent NIH study demonstrates that these millions of “recovered” people have long-lasting, and likely permanent protection from re-infection. They present no threat of infection or transmission of the virus. However, under a blanket employer vaccine requirement, these people who are already immune would still be required to get vaccinated. It makes no sense logically or legally to require the vaccination of people who already have more protection from the virus than people who get vaccinated.

What Is the Threat Prevented by Mandatory Vaccination?

Outside the employment context, companies are demanding proof of vaccination from travelers and even movie- and concert-goers, based on the same debunked idea that vaccination with one of the Covid-19 vaccines will prevent the theoretical spread of the virus in trains, planes, movie theaters and concert halls among low-risk populations. But the relevant government agencies have all stated clearly that that the vaccines do not prevent infection or the spread of infection.

The benefit from any vaccination lies with the recipient of the vaccine. In the case of Covid-19 vaccines, vaccinated people may have fewer symptoms after becoming infected. While this is an important consideration for many people, this benefit has nothing to do with preventing the spread of the virus SARS-Cov-2.

A vaccinated person presents at least the same “risk” of infection and transmission of the virus (if not more risk) as a person who is not vaccinated. At best, vaccination might prevent a more serious case of Covid-19 illness from developing. The vaccines do not prevent infection or the spread of the virus that causes Covid-19. They can have little or no impact on stopping transmission.

Because no one has shown that vaccination prevents infection or transmission of the virus SARS-CoV-2, a fact undisputed by all official sources, this also means that vaccination cannot help to achieve the goal of herd immunity.

“Herd immunity” means that a population can be protected from a virus after enough of the population has become immune to infection, either through exposure to the virus and later recovery, or through vaccination.

But with Covid-19, there is no proof that vaccination makes anyone immune to the virus SARS-CoV-2. Covid-19 vaccination cannot play any meaningful role in the pursuit of herd immunity because the Covid-19 vaccines do not provide immunity from infection.

Oddly, the WHO contradicts itself in arguing that Covid-19 vaccination promotes herd immunity to the virus that causes Covid-19, claiming:

To safely achieve herd immunity against COVID-19, a substantial proportion of a population would need to be vaccinated, lowering the overall amount of virus able to spread in the whole population.”

This statement is simply false. It also contradicts the WHO’s prior admission that “We do not know whether the vaccines will prevent infection and protect against onward transmission.”

If the WHO has already acknowledged that it “does not know if” the Covid-19 vaccines protect people from becoming infected or transmitting the virus, it is a deliberate lie to claim that somehow these vaccines can lead to herd immunity.

A far more useful strategy than forcing people to accept an experimental vaccine that does not even protect them from infection would be to instead protect those most vulnerable to serious illness or death as a result of infection. Tens of thousands of renowned doctors and scientists in the U.S. and around the world proposed such a strategy in October 2020.

Unfortunately, the media and Silicon Valley tech monopolies attacked and effectively censored discussion of this common sense approach as “anti-science” and “right wing” by removing discussion of the proposal from nearly all media platforms.

Yet the fake “scientific” approach to herd immunity touted by the WHO, US government agencies and politicians, and media monopolists is blatantly dishonest, and has nothing to do with “science.” The push by private companies to require vaccination and “immunity passports” is similarly based on private financial interests, not scientific research.

Government scientists admit that the Covid-19 vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of the virus they say causes Covid-19, but many of these same scientists also dishonestly claim the vaccines will somehow prevent the spread of the virus, leading to herd immunity.

Such an approach is not only unscientific and dishonest. It’s nonsense.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on OffGuardian.

P Jerome is civil rights attorney based in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at [email protected]

Featured image is from OffGuardian

#YemenCantWait. Hands Off Yemen!

March 31st, 2021 by Azza Rojbi

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).

***

February 15, 2021, marks one year since the Saudi-led coalition’s horrific air raid on a residential area in Yemen’s northern province of al-Jawf. The bombing killed 35 people, including 25 children, and 18 children were amongst the 23 injured. According to the Yemen Data Project,

“During 2020, air raids in #Yemen averaged 6 per day — double the average daily rate in 2019. Despite the pandemic, strikes hit healthcare facilities, markets, farms, schools, and vital water infrastructure, including water wells. At least one Covid-19 quarantine centre was bombed.”

The brutal U.S.-backed Saudi-led war on Yemen is approaching its sixth year, causing over 230,000 deaths, and plunging the country into the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. The airstrikes and bombing have destroyed homes, schools, hospitals, markets, and many other vital infrastructures. The destruction, combined with the land, sea, and air blockade imposed by Saudi Arabia, pushes Yemen to the brink of collapse. According to the United Nations, 2.3 million children under the age of five will suffer from acute malnutrition in 2021, of which 400,000 could die of starvation.

The humanitarian situation in Yemen is dire. Years of bombing and wars have destroyed over half of the hospitals in the country. The ones that are still functional lack the essential resources and medicine to provide adequate care to those in need. The Covid-19 pandemic threatens to make an already disastrous situation worse.

Since the start of the war in 2015, the United States has provided full backing to the Saudi-led coalition, including technical support, training fighter jet pilots, targeting assistance, selling arms, and supplying military hardware. On February 4, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden announced a new shift in the U.S. support for the Saudi-led war on Yemen. This announcement was welcomed as a positive step, and it seems that it created hope that the Biden administration is ending its support for the war on Yemen. Biden’s remarks were full of doublespeak and deceiving words. We have to be cautious and careful about what his announcement really means.

Biden’s maneuvers and delay tactics

A closer examination of Biden’s speech reveals contradictory and confusing statements.

“This war has to end. And to underscore our commitment, we are ending all American support for offensive operations in the war in Yemen, including relevant arms sales,” Biden said.

One wonders what Biden is referring to by, “offensive operations” and “relevant arms sales”? This ambiguous expression leaves the door open for the United States to continue its support for the war. Saudi Arabia has continuously framed its war on Yemen as defending itself and the region from the threat of Houthi rebels.

In the same address, Biden continues to say, “At the same time, Saudi Arabia faces missile attacks, UAV strikes, and other threats from Iranian-supplied forces in multiple countries. We’re going to continue to support and help Saudi Arabia defend its sovereignty and its territorial integrity and its people.” This language sounds very similar to that used by the Obama administration when it announced the start of Yemen’s war in 2015.

This rhetoric reinforces and validates the suspicion that Biden’s promise to end the war on Yemen is a sheer lie. His promise to end “relevant” arms sales is another example of doublespeak. It allows the United States to deflect criticism about their complicity in fuelling the war on Yemen while finding ways to continue selling weapons to Saudi Arabia.

Absent from Biden’s remarks is any mention of ending U.S. drone strike operations in Yemen or lifting the cruel Saudi-led blockade against the people of Yemen. Overall, Biden’s words are a change of tone from the previous Trump administration, but they are hollow in substance. In response to the speech Saudi Arabia, Foreign Minister Prince Faisal Bin Farhan tweeted,

“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia welcomes the United States’ commitment, expressed in President Biden’s speech today, to cooperate with the Kingdom in defending its security and territory.”

How and why the war on Yemen started

March 26, 2021, marks 6 years of the inhuman and devastating war on Yemen. Backed by the United States, Saudi Arabia led a coalition of allied countries to militarily intervene in Yemen under the guise of restoring ‘legitimacy’ and ‘stability’ to Yemen and the region. Where is that legitimacy or peace today? They destroyed an entire country and caused the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

The Saudi-led coalition never had the future or the well-being of the Yemeni people in mind! Their goal has been to crush any democratic aspirations of the Yemeni people and impose a puppet regime in the country that will serve Saudi Arabia and its Washington masters’ interests. Yemen’s strategic location is vital for the United States and imperialists to expand their military and economic hegemony over the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), as well as the East African region. Yemen’s coast borders the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, a narrow strategic waterway between the Horn of Africa and the Middle East connecting the Mediterranean Sea, Suez Canal, and the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden, Arabian Sea, and the Indian Ocean. The strait is one of the most active and vital maritime shipping routes in the world.

Yemen is a land of rich history and ancient civilization; beautiful and complex culture; and resilient people. The potential of an independent, democratic, and powerful Yemen with its strategic location in the MENA region is a threat to the Saudi kingdom and its imperialist masters. In addition, the U.S., U.K., Canada, France, Germany, Italy and other European states made billions of dollars on arms sales and training contracts with Saudi Arabia and other countries in its military coalition.

As we approach the sixth year of the war, Saudi Arabia and its imperialist backers are stuck in a quagmire in Yemen. They were unsuccessful in restoring the power of widely unpopular puppet Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi and they failed to crush the resistance of the Yemeni people to foreign domination. The atrocities committed by the Saudi-led coalition are condemned internationally, and Saudi Arabia can no longer hide the horrific destruction and humanitarian crisis it caused in Yemen. Biden’s vague pledge to end the war on Yemen is a maneuver and delay tactic for the growing world-wide criticism against the war and Yemen’s dire humanitarian situation.

Building solidarity with Yemen

The overwhelming sentiment of people in Canada, the United States, and around the world are against Yemen’s war. This was evident at the successful Global Day of Action against the war on Yemen that took place on January 25, 2021. Tens of thousands of people in 28 countries joined the online virtual rally and the 30+ protests on the streets around the world. The coming together of anti-war activists and peace-loving people from across the globe to stand against the war in Yemen is inspiring!

We need to build on this momentum and continue educating, organizing, and mobilizing against the war in Yemen. Coordinated and consistent local and international actions and campaigns are vital to keeping the pressure on our respective governments. Here in Canada, we need to raise the issue of Yemen among working and oppressed people, student unions, political groups, labour unions, civil society organizations and mobilize all peace-loving people to demand that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government ends all its arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

There cannot be peace in Yemen without an immediate ending of all arms sales to Saudi Arabia and its coalition. There will be no peace in Yemen without the withdrawal of all foreign troops and mercenaries. To end the humanitarian disaster in Yemen, the Saudi blockade must be ended fully and immediately so that the desperately needed humanitarian aid can freely flow to Yemen. Any real solution needs to include all Yemeni voices without any foreign interventions or coercion. The Yemeni people deserve to determine the future of their country freely. Self-determination is a fundamental right of any sovereign nation.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Fire This Newspaper.

Azza Rojbi is a Tunisian social justice activist, author and researcher in Vancouver, Canada. She is a member of the Executive Committee of Vancouver’s antiwar coalition Mobilization Against War and Occupation (MAWO) and author of the book “U.S. and Saudi Arabia War on the People of Yemen” (Battle of Ideas Press, April 2019).

Featured image is from Medium

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

***

Worldwide, international organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), governments and the corporate media, acting as agents of the global elite, continue their efforts to preoccupy the human population with measures supposedly being taken to address the non-existent virus labeled SARS-CoV-2.

For just two of the most recent of the ever-lengthening list of documents and videos demonstrating non-existence of the virus, see ‘COVID-19: The virus does not exist – it is confirmed!’ and Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI).

Unfortunately, this lie is succeeding in distracting the vast bulk of the human population from the ongoing elite coup to take complete control – politically, economically, socially, spiritually and even physically – of the human population under the guise of the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’. See The Great Reset’ and ‘Now is the time for a “great reset”’.

Hence, the elite coup – which includes implementation of the technological measures necessary to facilitate the fourth industrial revolution as well as the agenda of the transhumanists – now rapidly gathers pace, at enormous cost to the human population and our prospects for survival.

In brief, this coup has many facets notably including the deployment of 5G to enable comprehensive surveillance, digital ID (possibly implanted in your brain: see ‘Beware the Transhumanists: How “Being Human” Is Being Re-Engineered by the Elite’s Coup’) linked to your bank account and health records, a social credit ID that will end up dictating every facet of your life, the digitization of money, robotization of the workforce and the military as well as, in the words of Dr Joseph Mercola, the complete transformation ‘of government, energy and finance to food, medicine, real estate, policing – even how we interact with our fellow human beings. The globalist technocracy is using the COVID-19 pandemic to bypass democratic accountability, override opposition, accelerate their agenda and to impose it on the public against our will.’ See ‘Who Pressed the Great Reset Button?’

But for a more detailed summary of the essential details of this coup, see ‘Corrupt Science and Elite Power: Your Techno-Slavery is Now Imminent’. For a summary of the enormous and increasing costs, see ‘The Elite’s COVID-19 Coup Against a Terrified Humanity: Resisting Powerfully’. And for the evidence of the coup’s adverse impact on human survival prospects, see ‘The Elite’s COVID-19 Coup to Destroy Humanity that is also Fast-Tracking Four Paths to Human Extinction’.

However, while the bulk of the human population remains unaware of what is being planned for us, or naively believes the sanitised version of events presented by elite agents – such as the World Health Organization, governments, official medical spokespeople and the corporate media – enough people are concerned about the serious threats to humanity’s future or, at least, about the very damaging impacts of the lockdowns and other measures such as the ‘gene-altering injectables’ being marketed as ‘vaccinations’, that resistance to this elite coup is also gathering pace. And while this is an encouraging sign, the resistance being conducted so far falls well short of what is necessary given the imminence, multifaceted nature and enormity of the threats.

As a result, Homo sapiens rushes headlong to the cliff-edges of both tyranny and extinction.

So who is resisting, how are they doing so and what else must be done to defeat this coup?

The Resistance So Far: Individual Scholars and Groups

Of course a substantial number of individuals and groups have made the effort to investigate and analyse what is happening ‘beneath the surface’ of this coup and these efforts have resulted in a multitude of documents and videos such as these, for example:

This interview of Catherine Austin Fitts for the film ‘Planet Lockdown’.

This video ‘“The New Normal” New documentary exploring the origin and purpose behind the covid narrative’.

This latest video by Professor Michel Chossudovsky: The 2021 Worldwide Corona Crisis’. Or you can read his article The 2020 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”’.

And this article by Dr Joseph Mercola which explains the network of organizations centrally involved in ‘The Web of Players Trying to Silence Truth’.

The Resistance So Far: Health Professionals

Many health professionals and others have been consistently exposing the lies that underpin the official narrative being promulgated by the (badly misnamed) World Health Organization, the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, national governments and the corporate media. One outcome of this effort to educate people was the formation of the World Freedom Alliance, which you can join.

Another initiative, undertaken by the 1,500 members of United Health Professionals, was to issue an initial ALERT on 26 August 2020, titled ‘STOP to: terror, madness, manipulation, dictatorship, lies and the biggest health scam of the 21th century’. They urged an immediate halt ‘to all crazy and disproportionate measures that have been taken since the beginning to fight SARS-CoV-2 (lockdown, blocking the economy and education, social distancing, wearing of masks for all, etc.) because they are totally unjustified, are not based on any scientific evidence and violate the basic principles of evidence-based medicine.’ Subsequent alerts of a similar nature have followed.

Other initiatives, among many, have included this recent video by 33 doctors warning against getting the experimental vaccines. Watch ‘33 doctors around the world issue dire warning, to not get the covid vaccine’.

Leo Hohmann simply reminds us that Dr. Tal Zaks, the chief medical officer at Moderna, admitted in 2017 that ‘We are actually hacking the software of life’ thus ‘totally debunking the establishment media’s lie that mRNA vaccines don’t alter your genetic code’ when that, of course, is the actual purpose of messenger RNA vaccines. See Moderna’s top scientist: “We are actually hacking the software of life”’.

Other authors make a point of highlighting the high death rate among those vaccinated, even on official sites which clearly understate the extent of the problem. See, for example, ‘460 Dead 243,612 Reported Injuries from COVID19 Vaccines Reported in the U.K.’ and ‘COVID Vaccine Injury Reports Grow in Number, But Trends Remain Consistent’.

An earlier report noted that the US was forced to change official guidelines in response to the enormous vaccine injury rate. See CDC Issues New Guidelines, Launches Probe After 1000s Negatively-Affected Following COVID-19 Vaccination’.

And Denmark, Iceland and Norway have simply halted administration of the vaccine ‘after reports of blood clots among some people who had received the inoculation’. See ‘COVID: Several European countries halt use of AstraZeneca vaccine’.

If the above doesn’t have you questioning the elite-driven narrative, check out this website with its multitude of videos challenging elite dogma in relation to the ‘virus’: ‘Questioning Covid’.

Of course, you will find very little of the above in the corporate media, with its huge advertising revenue from the major pharmaceutical corporations giving them no incentive to risk losing this income by telling the truth.

The Resistance So Far: Legal

Another series of initiatives is the ongoing efforts to challenge the legal basis of the lockdowns and other official policies supposedly in response to the virus. Watch, for example, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich outline the basis of one legal challenge in ‘“Crimes Against Humanity”: The German Corona Investigation. “The PCR Pandemic”’ and see these two documents submitted to governments in Australia by the Concerned Lawyers Network: ‘Re: Notice of Liability & Potential Claims, 6 November 2020’ and Re: Notice of Liability & Potential Claims, 11 December 2020.

One challenge has been posed by scholars and a judge drawing attention to the ways in which forced mask-wearing and forced vaccines violate The Nuremberg Code, 1947. See, for example, Judge Anna Von Reitz’s A Plague of Liars’ and Makia Freeman’s Do Mandatory Masks and Vaccines Break the 10 Points of the Nuremberg Code?’

Two of the legal challenges under way in the United States are those being conducted by New Mexico Attorney Ana Garner against declaration of the public health emergency and mandatory administration of the unapproved experimental injectables. Watch It’s Here: First Court Case Against Mandatory Vaccination – Attorney Interview’.

Of course, there are other legal challenges taking place in various countries but, again, you won’t hear much about them in the corporate media.

The Resistance So Far: Police and Military

Police and military personnel around the world have also taken a stand in defence of human freedoms won long ago but now under siege once again.

For example, police in Spain formed Policías Por La Libertad (‘Police for Freedom’) and this is now spreading around the world, including to Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United States, for example.

The mission of this international movement is to re-humanise our societies, bringing back trust and unity between the security forces and the people. The peaceful marches, events, campaigns and content created by Police For Freedom aim to educate people about their human rights, civil liberties, constitutional rights as well as the ethical code of conduct for the police and security forces.

We are colleagues from different occupations who want to continue to carry out our work based on our personal and professional ethics, without being influenced by fears, deceptive narratives, immoral rules or differences of opinion.

The Association of French Reserve Army Officers issued their extensive and damning report Investigative Report on the Covid-19 Pandemic and its Relationship to SARS-CoV-2 and other Factors’ in May 2020. Its conclusion noted that ‘The management of the health “crisis” seems to be a pretext for a totalitarian global takeover’ and includes the ‘intention to impose a global cryptocurrency, a vaccine with nano-chips and a subcutaneous electronic chip’ with ‘5G installations, both terrestrial and aerial (Elon Musk’s satellites in low-Earth orbit)… clearly part of this “total war” project.’

Of course, plenty of military personnel are simply resisting vaccination personally, given the long history of abuse of service personnel with experimental ‘vaccinations’. At one US base, ‘as little as 30 percent of personnel are accepting the vaccine’. See ‘A THIRD of all military personnel are refusing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine with alarmed commanders aiming to make the shot mandatory “as soon as possible”’.

The Resistance So Far: ‘Ordinary’ People

Resistance to one or other features of the coup by individuals, communities, businesses and religious organizations, despite being largely ignored or denigrated by the corporate media, has been considerable with plenty of demonstrations, street theatre and other nonviolent actions documented all over the world. For just one article outlining some of the resistance in Europe last year, see this summary: ‘Anti-Lockdown Protests All Across Europe’.

But perusal of the progressive media will quickly reveal some of the many initiatives undertaken by activists and others who have no trouble ‘seeing through’ the fog of lies and misinformation with which certain international agencies, governments, tame medical personnel and the corporate media are deluging us. For example, you can watch 10,000 Protesters In Vienna March Against Coronavirus Restrictions’.

More recently, this resistance has gathered pace considerably, including among the small business community. For example, in mid-January restaurant-owners in Italy, other parts of Europe, Mexico and elsewhere opened their doors in defiance of lockdown measures reminding people that collective civil disobedience of any magnitude is extraordinarily difficult to stop. See ‘“I Am Open”: 50,000 Italian Restaurant Owners Plan to Ignore Lockdown’.

And, more broadly, hundreds of Polish businesses reopened in January as well. See ‘Lockdown Rebellion: Highlanders in Poland’s “Winter Capital” to Reopen Hundreds of Businesses’.

Such is the resistance taking place across Europe, that some prominent commentators have been led to ask Is a Revolutionary Movement Developing in Europe? Rejecting the Lockdown and the Mask’.

Are you reading about any of this in the corporate media?

What can we do to halt ‘The Great Reset’ and defend ourselves against the elite coup?

Understanding the many elements of what is taking place and, therefore, what is necessary to address it effectively, is the first step to responding powerfully.

Important points in this understanding include two I have made above: The global elite is driving what is happening and, using the ‘virus’ (for which there is no documented scientific proof in existence) as a ‘cover story’, is conducting a coup to take complete control of our lives.

But there is a third, and deeper, point that it is vital to understand: This coup has only proceeded this far because existing parenting, educational and religious practices indoctrinate and terrorize children into a lifetime of submissive obedience. Hence, the bulk of the human population is too (unconsciously) frightened to even question the elite-driven narrative, let alone seek out and analyze the evidence for themselves and then act powerfully in response. For detailed explanations, see Why Violence? and Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice.

So if we are to succeed in defeating this elite coup, we must be strategically thoughtful in how we approach it.

This is why it is important to point out that entreaties to key international organizations and governments, as well as legal challenges, must ultimately fail. The global elite operates without official constraint, well beyond the ‘rule of law’ and has long controlled all key international organizations as well as governments and legal systems (and the medical and pharmaceutical industries, for that matter) so that they serve elite interests. Therefore, initiatives directed at these elite agents will inevitably come to nought, as history has repeatedly demonstrated. See, for example, ‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’.

So while I acknowledge the sincerity and genuine effort being put into such activities as lobbying politicians and legal challenges, for example, unless sufficient people are willing to take action that fundamentally undermines the power that enables the global elite to implement its agenda, humanity faces a dark future. It is for this reason that, once again, I outline below the measures that are necessary for us to succeed.

Hence, if you would like to be part of the campaign to defeat the elite coup, see the list of strategic goals necessary to achieve this outcome, and other aspects of this campaign, starting here: Coup Strategic Aims.

Anita McKone has presented a simpler version, with explanations and examples of actions you can take, here: We Are Human, We Are Free’. Her song, of the same title, can be heard here: ‘We are Human, We are Free’.

If you wish to focus on resisting the deployment of 5G – the central pillar that will enable so many of the technological measures of the coup to be implemented while causing enormous other harm in the process – scroll down ‘Campaign Strategic Aims’.

To undertake action that is strategically-focused, it will be useful if more people understand the principles and practice of nonviolent action, which can be taught by some nonviolence educators around the world. See, for example, Nonviolent Action/Strategy Workshops in Australia.

If you wish to campaign to avert one or more of the four most immediate paths to human extinction, you can see a list of strategic goals for doing so here: Campaign Strategic Aims.

If you wish to nurture children to be better equipped to understand what is happening and far more able to critique it and act powerfully, see ‘My Promise to Children’.

If you wish to reduce your vulnerability to elite control, consider joining 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. In addition, you are welcome to consider signing the online pledge of The Peoples Charter to Create a Nonviolent World.

Conclusion

Under cover of a non-existent virus and pandemic, the global elite is now implementing a coup that has been carefully planned and prepared over several decades: It is the logical culmination of a millennia-long process of consolidation and expansion of elite control, at the expense of humanity and the biosphere. I have briefly outlined this history in Why Activists Fail’.

If you question the sanity of the global elite for doing this, you are right to do so. See ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.

The fundamental aim of this elite coup, readily discernible by reading their documentation over the past 50 years, is to substantially reduce the human population and keep those still alive, subject to permanent surveillance as well as mind and behavioural control, as ‘techno-slaves’.

If you wish to resist this fate for humanity, you are welcome to join us.

*

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.

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 Inga – stock.adobe.com


Appendix

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.

The Hidden Danger: Digitalisation and Mind Control. “The Prerequisites For Total Dictatorship”

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, March 30 2021

The following commentary draws attention to a wake-up call by the renowned medical doctor and brain researcher Prof. Karl Hecht. The title is: “Thoughts are free – but with global digitalisation it’s over”.

Can We Trust America’s COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Statistics?

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null, March 30 2021

According to the latest figures derived from the European Medicines Agency’s database of Covid-19 vaccine adverse reactions, 162,610 injurious events and 3,964 deaths have now been reported.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: COVID Vaccine Mandate Violates Federal Law

By Children’s Health Defense, March 30 2021

The announcement last week by Rutgers University that it would require all students to get the COVID vaccine prompted CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to remind university officials that federal law prohibits mandating Emergency Use Authorization vaccines.

Australia’s Plan for Manufacturing Missiles to be Accelerated

By Prof. Michelle Grattan, March 30 2021

The government is speeding up the establishment of its planned $1 billion Sovereign Guided Weapons Enterprise, which aims to boost Australia’s own defence production capabilities as it faces a deteriorating security outlook.

By Dr. Mike Yeadon and Mordechai Sones, March 30 2021

America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) spoke to former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Dr. Mike Yeadon about his views on the COVID-19 vaccine, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the regulatory authorities, and more.

WHO Postpones the Delivery of “AstraZeneca” Vaccine to Syria

By Khaled Iskef, March 30 2021

The World Health Organization (WHO) has postponed the delivery of the “AstraZeneca” vaccine against the novel coronavirus to Syria, after it was supposed to arrive during this March.

Iran-China: The 21st Century Silk Road Connection

By Pepe Escobar, March 30 2021

Capping an extraordinary two weeks that turned 21st century geopolitics upside down, Iran and China finally signed their 25-year strategic deal this past Saturday in Tehran.

Deadly Blood Clots Caused by COVID-19 Vaccine

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, March 30 2021

As of March 16, 2021, 19 European countries plus Thailand1 had suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s vaccine, either in full or in part, following reports of deadly blood clots.

Entire City in Shock as Another Italian Professor Is Dead Following the AstraZeneca COVID Injection

By Brian Shilhavy, March 30 2021

As mass vaccination campaigns with experimental COVID injections now move on to the next demographic populations after beginning with senior citizens in assisted care facilities, and the healthcare workers in those facilities, the next targeted groups are educators.

An Old Green Colonial Trick: Israel Masking Land Grabs as Environmental Conservation

By Jessica Buxbaum, March 30 2021

For decades, a Palestinian village on the southern tip of Jerusalem has lived on and cultivated the land. But a series of recent efforts by Israel is not only threatening their way of life but potentially displacing them from their homes.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Can We Trust America’s COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Statistics?

Arriva l’esercito Usa “Difensore” dell’Europa

March 30th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

Non tutto in Europa è paralizzato dai lockdown anti-Covid: si è infatti messa in moto la mastodontica esercitazione annuale dell’Esercito Usa, Defender-Europe, che fino a giugno mobilita sul territorio europeo, e al di là di questo, decine di migliaia di militari con migliaia di carrarmati e altri mezzi. La Defender-Europe 21 non solo riprende il programma di quella del 2020, ridimensionata a causa del Covid, ma lo amplifica.

Perché arriva dall’altra sponda dell’Atlantico il «Difensore dell’Europa»?  Lo hanno spiegato i 30 ministri degli Esteri della Nato (per l’Italia Luigi Di Maio), riuniti fisicamente a Bruxelles il 23-24 marzo: «La Russia, col suo comportamento aggressivo, mina e destabilizza i vicini, e tenta di interferire nella regione balcanica». Scenario costruito con la tecnica del capovolgimento della realtà: ad esempio accusando la Russia di tentare di interferire nella regione balcanica, dove la Nato ha «interferito» nel 1999 sganciando sulla Jugoslavia, con 1.100 aerei, 23.000 bombe e missili. 

Di fronte al grido di aiuto degli alleati, arriva l’Esercito Usa a «difendere l’Europa». La Defender-Europe 21, al comando dell’Esercito Usa in Europa e Africa, mobilita 28.000 militari degli Stati uniti e di 25 alleati e partner della Nato: essi condurranno operazioni in oltre 30 aree di addestramento in 12 paesi, comprese esercitazioni a fuoco e missilistiche. Vi parteciperanno anche l’Aeronautica e la Marina Usa. 

In marzo è cominciato il trasferimento dagli Stati uniti in Europa di migliaia di soldati e di 1.200 mezzi corazzati e altri equipaggiamenti pesanti. Essi stanno arrivando in 13 aeroporti e 4 porti europei, compresi quelli italiani. In aprile, da tre depositi preposizionati dell’Esercito Usa – in Italia (probabilmente Camp Darby), Germania e Olanda – saranno trasferiti in varie aree di addestramento in Europa oltre 1.000 equipaggiamenti pesanti, che saranno trasportati con autocarri, treni e navi. In maggio, in 12 paesi, tra cui l’Italia, si svolgeranno quattro grandi esercitazioni. In una di queste, oltre 5 mila soldati di 11 paesi si spargeranno in tutta Europa per esercitazioni a fuoco. 

Mentre ai cittadini italiani ed europei sarà ancora vietato spostarsi liberamente, per ragioni di «sicurezza», tale divieto non varrà per le migliaia di soldati che si sposteranno liberamente da un paese europeo all’altro. Avranno il «passaporto Covid», fornito non dalla Ue ma dall’Esercito Usa, in cui si garantisce che essi sono sottoposti a «strette misure di prevenzione e mitigazione del Covid».

  Gli Stati uniti non vengono solo a «difendere l’Europa». La grande esercitazione – spiega nel suo comunicato l’Esercito Usa in Europa e Africa – «dimostra la capacità degli Stati uniti di essere partner strategico per la sicurezza nelle regioni dei Balcani e del Mar Nero, mentre sosteniamo le nostre capacità nel Nord Europa, nel Caucaso, in Ucraina e Africa». Per questo la Defender-Europe 21 «utilizza le fondamentali rotte terrestri e marittime che collegano Europa, Asia e Africa». 

Il generoso «Difensore» non dimentica l’Africa. In giugno, sempre nel quadro della Defender-Europe 21, andrà a «difendere» Tunisia, Marocco e Senegal con una vasta operazione militare dal Nord Africa all’Africa Occidentale, dal Mediterraneo all’Atlantico. Essa sarà diretta dall’Esercito Usa attraverso la Task Force dell’Europa Meridionale con quartier generale a Vicenza. Bisogna contrastare – spiega il comunicato ufficiale – «la malefica attività in Nord Africa ed Europa Meridionale e l’aggressione militare avversaria». Non specifica chi siano i «malefici», ma è evidente il riferimento a Russia e Cina. 

Il «Difensore dell’Europa» non è qui di passaggio. Partecipa alla Defender-Europe 21 il V Corpo dello US Army che, dopo essere stato riattivato a Fort Knox nel Kentuky, ha costituito il proprio quartier generale avanzato a Poznan in Polonia, da dove comanderà le operazioni lungo il fianco orientale della Nato. Partecipano all’esercitazione le nuove Brigate di assistenza delle forze di sicurezza, unità speciali dello US Army che addestrano e guidano in operazioni militari le forze di paesi partner della Nato (come sono Ucraina e Georgia).

Anche se non si sa quanto costerà la Defender-Europe 21, si sa che a pagare saremo, con denaro pubblico, noi cittadini dei  paesi partecipanti, mentre scarseggiano le risorse per affrontare la crisi. La spesa militare italiana è salita quest’anno a 27,5 miliardi di euro, ossia a 75 milioni di euro al giorno. L’Italia ha però la soddisfazione di partecipare alla Defender-Europe 21 non solo con le proprie forze armate, ma quale paese ospite. Avrà quindi l’onore, in giugno, di ospitare l’esercitazione conclusiva del Comando Usa, con la partecipazione del V Corpo dello US Army da Fort Knox.

Manlio Dinucci

 

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Arriva l’esercito Usa “Difensore” dell’Europa

Quando circa sei anni fa titolammo su il manifesto (9 giugno 2015) «Ritornano i missili a Comiso?», la nostra ipotesi che gli Usa volessero riportare i loro missili nucleari in Europa fu ignorata dall’intero arco politico-mediatico. Gli avvenimenti successivi hanno dimostrato che l’allarme, purtroppo, era fondato. Ora, per la prima volta, abbiamo la conferma ufficiale. L’ha data pochi giorni fa, l’11 marzo, una delle massime autorità militari Usa, il generale James C. McConville, capo di stato maggiore dell’Esercito degli Stati uniti. Non in un’intervista alla Cnn, ma in un intervento – di cui abbiamo qui la trascrizione ufficiale  – a un meeting di esperti alla George Washington School of Media and Public Affairs. Il generale McConville non solo comunica che lo US Army si sta preparando a installare nuovi missili in Europa, abbastanza evidentemente diretti contro la Russia, ma rivela che saranno missili ipersonici, un nuovo sistema d’arma di estrema pericolosità. Ciò crea una situazione ad altissimo rischio, analoga se non peggiore di quella in cui si trovava l’Europa durante la guerra fredda, quale prima linea del confronto nucleare tra Stati uniti e Unione sovietica.

I MISSILI IPERSONICI – con velocità superiore a 5 volte quella del suono (Mach 5), ossia più di 6.000 km/h – sono un «salto di qualità»; costituiscono infatti un nuovo sistema d’arma con capacità di attacco nucleare superiore a quella dei missili balistici. Mentre questi seguono una traiettoria ad arco per la maggior parte al di sopra dell’atmosfera, i missili ipersonici seguono invece una traiettoria a bassa altitudine nell’atmosfera direttamente verso l’obiettivo, che raggiungono in minor tempo penetrando le difese nemiche (vedi scheda).

Dall’alto in basso le traiettorie dei diversi nuovi missili Usa: balistico, ipersonico con propulsione a razzo, ipersonico a statoreattore © «Difesa online»

Nel suo intervento alla George Washington School of Media and Public Affairs – un vertice di esperti -, il generale McConville rivela che lo US Army sta preparando una «task force» dotata di «capacità di fuoco di precisione a lungo raggio che può arrivare ovunque, composta da missili ipersonici, missili a medio raggio, missili per attacchi di precisione» e che «questi sistemi sono in grado di penetrare lo spazio dello sbarramento anti-aereo». Il generale precisa poi che «prevediamo di schierare una di queste task force in Europa e probabilmente due nel Pacifico» (abbastanza evidentemente dirette contro la Cina). Sottolinea quindi che «le stiamo costruendo in questo momento, mentre stiamo parlando».

Ciò viene confermato dalla Darpa (Agenzia per i progetti di ricerca avanzata della Difesa). In un comunicato ufficiale informa di aver incaricato la Lockheed Martin di fabbricare «un sistema missilistico ipersonico a raggio intermedio con lancio da terra», ossia missili con gittata tra 500 e 5500 km della categoria che era stata proibita dal Trattato sulle forze nucleari intermedie firmato nel 1987 dai presidenti Gorbaciov e Reagan, stracciato dal presidente Trump nel 2019. Secondo le specifiche tecniche fornite dalla Darpa, «il nuovo sistema permette ad armi ipersoniche glide con propulsione a razzo di colpire con rapidità e precisione bersagli di importanza critica e prioritaria, penetrando moderne difese aeree nemiche. L’avanzata propulsione a razzo può trasportare vari carichi bellici a più distanze ed è compatibile con piattaforme terrestri di lancio mobili, che possono essere dispiegate rapidamente».

IL CAPO DI STATO maggiore dell’Esercito e l’Agenzia di ricerca del Pentagono informano dunque che tra non molto gli Stati uniti schiereranno in Europa (si parla di una probabile prima base in Polonia o Romania) missili ipersonici armati di «vari carichi bellici», ossia di testate nucleari e convenzionali. I missili ipersonici nucleari a raggio intermedio installati su «piattaforme terrestri mobili», ossia su speciali veicoli, potranno essere rapidamente dispiegati nei paesi Nato più vicini alla Russia (ad esempio le repubbliche baltiche). Avendo già oggi la capacità di volare a circa 10.000 km/h, i missili ipersonici saranno in grado di raggiungere Mosca in circa 5 minuti. Anche la Russia – ecco l’elemento anch’esso nuovo e pericoloso – sta realizzando missili ipersonici a raggio intermedio ma, lanciandoli dal proprio territorio, non può colpire Washington.

I missili ipersonici russi potranno però raggiungere in pochi minuti le basi Usa, anzitutto quelle nucleari come le basi di Ghedi e Aviano, e altri obiettivi in Europa. La Russia, come gli Stati uniti e altri, sta schierando nuovi missili intercontinentali: l’Avangard è un veicolo ipersonico con raggio di 11.000 km e armato di più testate nucleari che, dopo una traiettoria balistica, plana per oltre 6.000 km alla velocità di quasi 25.000 km/h. Missili ipersonici li sta realizzando anche la Cina. Poiché i missili ipersonici sono guidati dai sistemi satellitari, il confronto-reazione si svolge sempre più nello spazio: a tale scopo è stata creata nel 2019 dall’amministrazione di Donadl Trump il sesto settore militare statunitense, la Forza Spaziale degli Stati uniti.

LE ARMI IPERSONICHE, di cui vengono dotate anche le forze aeree e navali che hanno maggiore mobilità, aprono una nuova fase della corsa agli armamenti nucleari, rendendo in gran parte superato il trattato New Start appena rinnovato da Usa e Russia.

La corsa al riarmo passa sempre più dal piano quantitativo (numero e potenza delle testate nucleari) a quello qualitativo (velocità, capacità penetrante e dislocazione geografica dei vettori nucleari). La risposta, in caso di attacco o presunto tale, viene sempre più affidata all’intelligenza artificiale, che deve decidere il lancio dei missili nucleari in pochi secondi o frazioni di secondo. Aumenta in modo esponenziale la possibilità di una guerra nucleare per errore, rischiata più volte durante la guerra fredda. Il «Dottor Stranamore» non sarà un generale pazzo, ma un supercomputer impazzito. Mancando l’intelligenza umana per fermare questa folle corsa alla catastrofe, dovrebbe almeno scattare l’istinto di sopravvivenza, risvegliatosi finora solo per il Covid-19.

Le tipologie della nuova arma

  • Quelli con propulsione a razzo rilasciano una testata glide (ad aliante) che plana a velocità ipersonica tra 50 e 100 km di altitudine, manovrando per evitare i missili intercettori.
  • Quelli con statoreattore (propulsore a getto) volano a bassa quota, a velocità ipersonica, seguendo il contorno del terreno e manovrando come missili da crociera. Data la curvatura della Terra, essi vengono avvistati dai radar terrestri solo quando sono a 1-2 minuti dall’obiettivo. Il loro avvistamento radar è reso più difficile dal fatto che a velocità ipersonica, si forma attorno alla testata una guaina di plasma ad alta temperatura.

Gli Usa stanno realizzando i seguenti missili ipersonici:

  1. Un missile a raggio intermedio su lanciatore mobile per l’Esercito, sviluppato dalla Darpa e costruito dalla Lockheed Martin nel programma Operational Fires.
  2. Un missile a lungo raggio con propulsione a razzo e testata glide, lanciato da terra, per l’Esercito. Un missile da pronto attacco con propulsione a razzo e testata glide, lanciato da unità di superficie e sottomarini della Marina.
  3. Un missile a statoreattore e uno con propulsione a razzo e testata glide per l’Aeronautica.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on In Europa i missili ipersonici degli Usa . È corsa al riarmo

Australia’s Plan for Manufacturing Missiles to be Accelerated

March 30th, 2021 by Prof. Michelle Grattan

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Australia’s Plan for Manufacturing Missiles to be Accelerated

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).

***

In an unusual turn of events in Syria, militants once backed by the US have seized a shipment of US-made missiles that was heading to fighters currently backed by the US.

The missiles, US-made TOWs, were seized on March 28 by the Syrian Task Force, a joint force of the Turkish Police, Counterterrorism Unit and the National Syrian Army (SNA), near the Turkish-occupied town of Azaz in the northern Aleppo countryside.

According to the Turkish Ministry of Interior, the smugglers confessed that that they had been trying to transfer weapons to the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in the town of Manbij in the northeastern countryside of Aleppo.

Beside two TOW anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs), the weapons shipment included 24 AK-type assault rifles, a designated marksman rifle, two gun tubes and ammunition.

Great Success! US-Backed Fighters Seize US-Made Missiles Heading To Other US-Backed Fighters In Syria

Source: t.me/uom_03

Most SNA factions were once backed by the US, which supplied them with TOW ATGMs until late 2017. The YPG and the PKK, one the other hand, are the core of the Syrian Democratic Forces, which still receive US support.

Between 2012 and 2017, the US shipped loads of weapons and ammunition to rebels in Syria in an attempt to topple the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Pentagon led these efforts to arm the Syrian rebels with a direct support from US allies in the Middle East, first and foremost Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

US efforts didn’t only fail to topple the Damascus government, but also ended up turning Syria into a large black market for advanced weapons. Many of the weapons supplied by the US and its allies found their way to the hands of terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda-linked Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. Some of these weapons were found in Iraq and even Lebanon.

Today, weapons like TOW ATGMs, are being used by militants once supported by the US against Washington’s current proxies in Syria and vice versa.

The US plans to arm Syrian rebels inflamed the war, threatened neighboring countries and even ended up turning Washington’s tools against each other. Some not very tolerant social media users would call these great achievements a brilliant example of “clusterfuck.”

*

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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

Featured image is from South Front


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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “American Style”: US-backed Fighters Seize US-made Missiles Heading to Other US-backed Fighters in Syria
  • 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).

***

First published on July 26, 2012, revised on March 29, 2021.

“The establishment media ignores the scientific evidence linking psychiatric medications and violent behavior because psychiatry is the religion of the mainstream media, and it has chosen to not mention the dangers of psychiatrically prescribed drugs.” — Peter R. Breggin, MD (www.breggin.org)

“In some European nations it is against the law for doctors to prescribe SSRI anti-depressant drugs for children and adolescents because of 1) the lack of long-term safety studies and 2) the known increased incidence of violence and suicide.” — See this

America Is A Gun – by Brian Bilston

England is a cup of tea.
France, a wheel of ripened brie.
Greece, a short, squat olive tree.
America is a gun.

Brazil is football on the sand.
Argentina, Maradona’s hand.
Germany, an oompah band.
America is a gun.

Holland is a wooden shoe.
Hungary, a goulash stew.
Australia, a kangaroo.
America is a gun.

Japan is a thermal spring.
Scotland is a highland fling.
Oh, better to be anything
than America as a gun.”

Domestic mass shootings are a peculiarly American phenomenon at least partly because of the enormous propaganda influence of two of the most powerful industries in America, the US military/industrial/weapons complex and the untouchable multinational pharmaceutical corporations.

If one is totally honest, one must acknowledge also that those same two Corporate Powers have been the major factors behind the pandemics of “legal”, non-domestic, mass shootings in the various foreign countries that have been regularly invaded and destabilized by the American military/industrial/congressional establishment over the past decades.

These condoned, even celebrated mass killings in foreign countries have been occurring with astonishing regularity. These killings have been perpetrated by well-trained, obedient young soldiers, who have all-too-frequently been given prescriptions for brain- and behavior-altering psych drugs by both military psychiatrists and minimally-trained medics.

In the American epidemic of mass shootings – both civilian and military – it needs to be understood that America’s obvious failure to do the right thing and overcome the epidemics is because neither the Republican and Democrat Party politicians can resist taking campaign “bribes” from Big Weapons and Big Pharma Corporate “contributors”.

The mainstream media often uses the phrase “senseless violence” when referring to the domestic mass shootings. Perhaps we could overcome the “senselessness” if we were just given all the inconvenient facts concerning the two taboo subjects of traumatic stress events experienced by the mass shooters and their use of dangerous and addictive psychiatric drugs that can have such disastrous effects on the immature brains of children and adolescents – and adults as well.

If we knew about their past traumas, the amount of violence experienced in videogames, Hollywood movies or on television and the mass shooter’s use of brain-altering prescription or illicit drugs in the now infamous Colorado shootings at Aurora, Colorado Springs, Littleton and now Boulder – there would be far less confusion about the origins of mass shootings in America.

Interestingly, one of the victims of Littleton’s (Columbine High School) shooter Eric Harris (Harris had been first prescribed Pfizer’s so-called “antidepressant” Zoloft and then was switched to Abbott’s so-called “antidepressant” Luvox) seemed to be promoting blind ignorance when he said “don’t waste time trying to figure out what motivated the shooters. “It’s a waste of time, and it gives them exactly what they want.”  And then he complained, “I don’t think I’ll ever understand.” This Columbine School victim had obviously adopted America’s official “approved” narrative: 1] keep everybody unaware of what the real motives may have been; 2] remain silent about painful truths; and 3] don’t expose any of the corporate or governmental powers-that-be for their guilty role in the shootings (or the wars).

In a recent 2012 Duty to Warn column I mentioned the existence of a remarkable database of serious so-called “SSRI-antidepressant” drug adverse effects (SSRI = “Selective” Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor) that contributed to criminal acts that had been reported in the public domain. That website can still be accessed at www.ssristories.com.

Before I knew about that website, I had already come to the realization that the vast majority of media reports on mass shootings usually don’t ask the essential questions about what crazy-making psychiatric drugs the perpetrators might have been taking – unless, of course, the drugs were illicit ones.

So the thousands of examples documented on that website represents just the tip of what surely is an enormous iceberg, since even the FDA estimates that up to 99% of adverse effects from any given drug are never reported to that agency.

The Doctor’s “Drug Bible” (the Physicians’ Desk Reference – PDR) lists the following typical adverse reactions to SSRI “antidepressants”:

  • Manic Reaction (Mania, e.g., Kleptomania, Pyromania, Dipsomania, Nymphomania)
  • Hypomania (e.g., poor judgment, over-spending, impulsivity, etc.)
  • Abnormal Thinking
  • Hallucinations
  • Personality Disorder
  • Amnesia
  • Agitation
  • Psychosis
  • Abnormal Dreams
  • Emotional Lability
  • Alcohol Abuse and/or Craving
  • Hostility
  • Paranoid Reactions
  • Confusion
  • Delusions
  • Sleep Disorders
  • Akathisia (Severe Inner Restlessness)
  • Withdrawal Syndromes
  • Impulsivity

It doesn’t take a genius to recognize that any of the above SSRI drug-induced mental aberrations could pass as a “mental illness”.

It needs to be emphasized that so-called adverse reactions are most likely to occur when starting or discontinuing the drug, increasing or lowering the dose, running out of the medication or switching from one drug to another. Adverse reactions are commonly mis-diagnosed as bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, ADHD, sleep disorder, psychosis, schizophrenia or some other “mental illness of unknown origin” when, in actuality, the symptoms may be entirely iatrogenic (treatment, drug, vaccine or physician-induced).

Withdrawal from any of these addictive psychiatric medications can cause the neuropsychiatric and/or physical signs and symptoms that are listed in the above list. It is important to withdraw extremely slowly from these drugs, preferably under the supervision of a qualified and experienced healthcare practitioner.  Withdrawal syndromes can be more difficult to treat than the disorder for which the drug was prescribed.

SSRI “adverse reactions” should be expected to occur and should not be a surprise to the prescribing physician, the patient or concerned family members.

So, knowing some of the signs and symptoms of the drugs listed above, I present below a partial list of psych drug–associated mass shootings in and around the turn of the last century, perpetrated mostly by children and adolescents. I was able to find, with a lot of sleuthing, the specific psych drugs associated with the shootings.

Suspiciously, in the vast majority of psychiatric drug-related episodes of irrational violence, such drugs are generally not reported in the Big Pharma-controlled mainstream media, where pharmaceutical companies advertise heavily, thereby exerting conflicts of interest influences on how much investigative journalism is allowed. He who pays the piper, after all, calls the tune.

The SSRI Stories website noted above has listed, among the thousands of examples of psychiatric drug-induced violence, scores of American school shootings. That website also lists psych drug-induced suicides and non-lethal acts of violence or irrational behaviors. There has been a measurable explosion of such incidents since the media-assisted popularization of Prozac, which was released by Eli Lilly & Company onto an unsuspecting public in 1989.

Contrary to popular opinion, the FDA never actually does tests on drugs (or vaccines, for that matter). Such tests are done by for-profit entities that only report the results to the FDA. Even those tests usually don’t run tests for long-term safety or efficacy, and commonly these corporate entities don’t run pre-clinical rials on patients below the age of 18. Therefore, we physicians, if we prescribe these untested drugs to that underage group (who are all at various stages of immature brain development), we are doing so “off label”, thus making ourselves medico-legally liable.

*

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.

Dr Gary G. Kohls is a retired American family physician who practiced holistic (non-drug) mental health care during the last decade of his professional career. His patients came to see him asking for help in getting off the psychotropic drugs to which they were addicted and which they knew had sickened them and disabled their brains and bodies. He was successful in helping significant numbers of his patients get off or cut down on their cocktails of drugs using a time-consuming program that was based on psychoeducational psychotherapy, brain nutrient therapy and a program of gradual, closely monitored drug withdrawal.

He warns against the abrupt discontinuation of any psychiatric drug – legal or illicit – because of the common, often serious withdrawal symptoms that can occur in patients who have been taking such drugs. It is important to be treated by an aware, informed physician who is familiar with treating drug withdrawal syndromes and brain nutritional needs. 

Dr. Gary G. Kohls is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from CCHR International

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Guns and Drugs Don’t Mix: Psychiatric Medications and Violent Behavior

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Last week, Australians found themselves delighting in another fit of cancel culture, this time in the art world.  Tasmania’s Dark Mofo art festival prides itself on being gritty but the mood was very much about removing any grit to begin with.  Interest centred on the project of Spanish artist Santiago Sierra, who had proposed soaking a Union Jack Flag “in the blood of its colonised territories”.  The blood would come by way of donations.  First Nation peoples “from countries claimed by the British Empire at some point in history, who reside in Australia” would furnish the liquid. 

Given what followed, festival organisers might have preferred one of Sierra’s other suggestions: a work that would have involved vast amounts of cocaine.  Social media outrage followed.  People purporting to speak for the offended, while also counting themselves as offended, railed and expectorated.  Festival curator Leigh Carmichael tried to be brave against the howling winds of disapproval.  “At this stage we will push on,” he told ABC Radio Hobart on March 23.  “Provided we can logistically make this work happen, we will.”  He acknowledged that, “These were very dangerous topics, they’re hard, they hurt.”  For criticisms that the work was being made by a Spanish artist, Carmichael was initially clear: to make work taboo for people from specific localities could constitute “a form of racism in itself.”  Then inevitable equivocation followed.  “This artist is about their experience and whether a Spanish artist has the right to weigh in, I don’t know.”

Within a matter of hours, Carmichael’s position had collapsed: Sierra’s project was cut and put out to sea.  “We’ve heard the community’s response to Santiago Sierra’s Union Flag.”  Grovelling and capitulation before this all powerful community followed.  “We made a mistake, and take full responsibility.  The project will be cancelled.  We apologise to all First Nations people for any hurt that has been caused.  We are sorry.” 

David Walsh, Tasmanian founder of MONA (Museum of Old and New Art) and responsible for running the festival, was open to self-education and reflection, having not seen “the deeper consequences of this proposition”.  He had thought the work “would appeal to the usual leftie demographic.  I approved it without much thought (as has become obvious).”  A bit of old fashioned, censoring conservatism was called for.

Brian Ritchie, bassist for the Violent Femmes and artistic director of Mona Foma, the museum’s summer festival, felt righteous, firstly, wanting to distance his own outfit as “a completely different and separate organisation” before weighing into rubbishing the cultural sensitivity credentials of the work and the artist.  “Exploiting people while claiming to protest on their behalf is intellectually void.  Stupid programming is aesthetically null.  Controversy outweighing the quality of the work is bad art.”

The cancellation was approved by the bloated entities across the academy, certain ethnic groups and the professionally enraged.    Critique ranged from the identity of the artist (Spanish, foreigner, coloniser) to the merits of the work itself.  “A coloniser artist intending to produce art with the actual blood of colonised people is abusive, colonising and re-traumatising,” came the social worker assessment from novelist Claire G. Coleman.  “The idea is disgusting and terrible and should not have been considered.” 

If every traumatic, disgusting incident (rape, pillage, massacres, wars, the crucifixion) were to be considered a bad idea for representation, the canvasses best be left empty, the art shows barren.  Never depict, for instance, that Tasmania’s lands are blood soaked by European conquest.  Do not, as Australian artist Mike Parr did in June 2018, bury yourself beneath a busy street of the state capital Hobart to get to the hidden truth.  That way lies trauma.

The art content commissars were also keeping close eye over how the depiction might have been properly staged, if it was even possible.  Such a contribution can be found in the journal Overland. “Simply stating or depicting that the beginnings of the Australian colony were brutal and bloody for Indigenous people is a passive act,” moaned the very selective Cass Lynch.  She demands, expects. “The concept on its own isn’t active as an agent of truth-telling, it doesn’t contain an indigenous vice or testimony, it has no nuance.  On its own, it leans into the glorification of the gore and the violence of colonisation.”  Blood, it would seem, is no indicator of truth.

In such convulsions of faux sensitivity to the First Nations, the arts sector (for this is what it has become in Australia, a corporatized, sanitised cobbling of blandness, branding and safe bets) justified not merely the pulling of the piece, but that it should have ever been contemplated to begin with.  In the commentary on Sierra, the Indigenous peoples are spoken of in abstract and universal terms: they were hurt and all have one, monolithic voice; and “white curators” should have thought better in letting the project ever get off the ground.  Thinking in cultural police terms, Paola Balla asked “how this was allowed to be programmed in the first place?  And what structures support white curators to speak of Black traumas?”  Such questions are bound to embolden art vandals across the world keen on emptying every museum for being inappropriately informed about “power structures”.

Ironically enough, in this swell of ranting about voices and representation, the artist in question was deprived of it.  Sierra, in a statement released on March 25, called treatment of his work “superficial and spectacular” and his own treatment as a “public lynching”.  His quotes had been misconstrued; he had been “left without a voice, without the capacity to explain and defend” his project.  He had hoped the blood-soaked Union Jack would inspire reflection “on the material on which states and empires are built” and reveal how “all blood is equally red and has the same consistency, regardless of the race or culture of the person supplying it”. 

Sierra’s shabby treatment did not go unnoticed.  Parr took issue with the festival organisers’ “cowardice and lack of leadership”.  Michael Mansell, Chair of the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania urged Carmichael to push on with the work.  “The artist challenges Tasmanians about whether Aboriginal lands were peacefully or violently taken, and uses the blood-smattered Union Jack to express his view.”  By all means disagree with the artist and even feel offended “but that cannot justify stifling the artist’s freedom of thought.”  A sinister result had followed from the cancellation of the project.  “The unintended consequence of the objectors is that the discussion about truth telling will now be ignored, put aside.”

There are parallels in this fiasco with previous instances of rage over what can and cannot be depicted in the shallow art lands of the Antipodes.  The cultural police also took issue with Australian photographic artist Bill Henson in 2008 for his portrayals of children as sexual beings.  On May 22 that year, twenty Henson photographs featuring “naked children aged 12 and 13” were confiscated by police from Sydney’s Roslyn Oxley9 gallery.  Jason Smith of the Monash Gallery of Art defended Henson, claiming that his work “has consistently explored human conditions of youth, and examined a poignant moment between adolescence and adulthood”. 

Then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was having none of it.  There were simply certain things you could not touch, that art should not enable you to understand.  Henson had erred into vice.  “Kids deserve to have the innocence of their childhood protected,” he spluttered.  Rudd found the photographs “absolutely revolting” despite having not seen them.  “Whatever the artistic view of the merits of that sort of stuff – frankly I don’t think there are any – just allow kids to be kids.”  Jenny Macklin, Minister for Families at the time, moralised before the Nine Network about how children were “just getting bombarded with sexualised images all the time, and it’s that sexualisation of children that I think is wrong.”  Now, just as then, artists have been put on notice.

*

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.

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

Featured image is CC BY-SA 4.0

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Cancelling Art: Australia’s “Dark Mofo” and the Offended Classes
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Israel had no time to enjoy the successful election and Benjamin Netanyahu’s slim victory when Iran reportedly reminded Israel of itself.

On March 25th, while sailing from Tanzania to India, the Israeli-flagged ship “Lori” was allegedly struck by missiles in the Gulf of Oman.

Tehran was immediately accused, and the strike only caused material losses, but no casualties. Photographs of the damaged hull of the ship were shared on Twitter, but little else in the way of evidence.

This alleged incident is the third in a presumed exchange.It began on February 26th, when the Israeli-flagged MV HELIOS RAY suffered a number of explosions, in the Gulf of Oman. It was blamed on Iran.

Then, on March 11th, an explosion struck the Iranian-owned SHAHR E KORD off the coast of Syria. Tehran called it a terrorist attack, but not specifically blaming Tel Aviv.

On Syrian soil, approximately 15 unidentified gunmen attacked posts of the Syrian Arab Army’s 5th Corps and Iranian-backed forces in southern Raqqa, according to the Eye of the Euphrates. They infiltrated the government-controlled area in southern Raqqa with three trucks. The unknown militants abandoned their vehicles and attacked the position near the village of Maksar. At least 9 Syrian and Iranian-backed fighters were killed, and 6 others were captured.

In northern Syria, the situation is becoming increasingly chaotic. Despite a Russian-Turkish agreement to open humanitarian crossings in Idlib, but no such luck.

Ankara immediately denied agreeing to anything of the sort, and even if it didn’t, militants blocked the crossings.

Syrian authorities reopened the Saraqib and Abu Zindain crossings on March 25th. However, both remained blocked by the al-Qaeda-affiliated Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

Turkish Forces in the fashion of how they impose the ceasefire agreement in Greater Idlib undertook no action in assisting the opening of the crossings.

In Iraq, the situation is stacked even more against the U.S. and its allies. On March 25th, five US supply convoys were attacked in different parts of Iraq. Three of the attacks were carried out by pro-Iranian groups, while two are still unclaimed.

These attacks continue to be non-lethal and rather cause only material damage.

These groups, as well as all other Iranian allies are a part of the unofficial Axis of Resistance. Yemen’s Ansar Allah are as well a part of it.

In recent days, the Houthis (as Ansar Allah is more commonly known) were accused by Saudi Arabia of being cowards.

While that accusation was sinking in, Riyadh’s forces targeted al-Hudaydah with heavy artillery.

This is explicitly prohibited under a ceasefire agreement, and still violations take place almost hourly. The Saudi-led coalition continues its heavy airstrike activity, and is being steadily pushed back on the ground by the Houthis.

More retaliatory actions are likely expected by Israel, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in the coming days and weeks, since the Iranian-aligned bloc seems to be making progress.

*

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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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

Stand Up to Tyranny: How to Respond to the Evils of Our Age

March 30th, 2021 by John W. Whitehead

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

***

“The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.”—Martin Luther King Jr. (A Knock at Midnight, June 11, 1967)

In every age, we find ourselves wrestling with the question of how Jesus Christ—the itinerant preacher and revolutionary activist who died challenging the police state of his time, namely, the Roman Empire—would respond to the moral questions of our day.

For instance, would Jesus advocate, as so many evangelical Christian leaders have done in recent years, for congregants to “submit to your leaders and those in authority,” which in the American police state translates to complying, conforming, submitting, obeying orders, deferring to authority and generally doing whatever a government official tells you to do?

What would Jesus do?

Study the life and teachings of Jesus, and you may be surprised at how relevant he is to our modern age.

A radical nonconformist who challenged authority at every turn, Jesus spent his adult life speaking truth to power, challenging the status quo of his day, pushing back against the abuses of the Roman Empire, and providing a blueprint for standing up to tyranny that would be followed by those, religious and otherwise, who came after him.

Those living through this present age of government lockdowns, immunity passports, militarized police, SWAT team raids, police shootings of unarmed citizens, roadside strip searches, invasive surveillance and the like might feel as if these events are unprecedented. However, the characteristics of a police state and its reasons for being are no different today than they were in Jesus’ lifetime: control, power and money.

Much like the American Empire today, the Roman Empire of Jesus’ day was characterized by secrecy, surveillance, a widespread police presence, a citizenry treated like suspects with little recourse against the police state, perpetual wars, a military empire, martial law, and political retribution against those who dared to challenge the power of the state.

A police state extends far beyond the actions of law enforcement.  In fact, a police state “is characterized by bureaucracy, secrecy, perpetual wars, a nation of suspects, militarization, surveillance, widespread police presence, and a citizenry with little recourse against police actions.”

Indeed, the police state in which Jesus lived (and died) and its striking similarities to modern-day America are beyond troubling.

Secrecy, surveillance and rule by the elite. As the chasm between the wealthy and poor grew wider in the Roman Empire, the ruling class and the wealthy class became synonymous, while the lower classes, increasingly deprived of their political freedoms, grew disinterested in the government and easily distracted by “bread and circuses.” Much like America today, with its lack of government transparency, overt domestic surveillance, and rule by the rich, the inner workings of the Roman Empire were shrouded in secrecy, while its leaders were constantly on the watch for any potential threats to its power. The resulting state-wide surveillance was primarily carried out by the military, which acted as investigators, enforcers, torturers, policemen, executioners and jailers. Today that role is fulfilled by the NSA, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the increasingly militarized police forces across the country.

Widespread police presence. The Roman Empire used its military forces to maintain the “peace,” thereby establishing a police state that reached into all aspects of a citizen’s life. In this way, these military officers, used to address a broad range of routine problems and conflicts, enforced the will of the state. Today SWAT teams, comprised of local police and federal agents, are employed to carry out routine search warrants for minor crimes such as marijuana possession and credit card fraud.

Citizenry with little recourse against the police state. As the Roman Empire expanded, personal freedom and independence nearly vanished, as did any real sense of local governance and national consciousness. Similarly, in America today, citizens largely feel powerless, voiceless and unrepresented in the face of a power-hungry federal government. As states and localities are brought under direct control by federal agencies and regulations, a sense of learned helplessness grips the nation.

Perpetual wars and a military empire. Much like America today with its practice of policing the world, war and an over-arching militarist ethos provided the framework for the Roman Empire, which extended from the Italian peninsula to all over Southern, Western, and Eastern Europe, extending into North Africa and Western Asia as well. In addition to significant foreign threats, wars were waged against inchoate, unstructured and socially inferior foes.

Martial law. Eventually, Rome established a permanent military dictatorship that left the citizens at the mercy of an unreachable and oppressive totalitarian regime. In the absence of resources to establish civic police forces, the Romans relied increasingly on the military to intervene in all matters of conflict or upheaval in provinces, from small-scale scuffles to large-scale revolts. Not unlike police forces today, with their martial law training drills on American soil, militarized weapons and “shoot first, ask questions later” mindset, the Roman soldier had “the exercise of lethal force at his fingertips” with the potential of wreaking havoc on normal citizens’ lives.

A nation of suspects. Just as the American Empire looks upon its citizens as suspects to be tracked, surveilled and controlled, the Roman Empire looked upon all potential insubordinates, from the common thief to a full-fledged insurrectionist, as threats to its power. The insurrectionist was seen as directly challenging the Emperor.  A “bandit,” or revolutionist, was seen as capable of overturning the empire, was always considered guilty and deserving of the most savage penalties, including capital punishment. Bandits were usually punished publicly and cruelly as a means of deterring others from challenging the power of the state.  Jesus’ execution was one such public punishment.

Acts of civil disobedience by insurrectionists. Starting with his act of civil disobedience at the Jewish temple, the site of the administrative headquarters of the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish council, Jesus branded himself a political revolutionary. When Jesus “with the help of his disciples, blocks the entrance to the courtyard” and forbids “anyone carrying goods for sale or trade from entering the Temple,” he committed a blatantly criminal and seditious act, an act “that undoubtedly precipitated his arrest and execution.” Because the commercial events were sponsored by the religious hierarchy, which in turn was operated by consent of the Roman government, Jesus’ attack on the money chargers and traders can be seen as an attack on Rome itself, an unmistakable declaration of political and social independence from the Roman oppression.

Military-style arrests in the dead of night. Jesus’ arrest account testifies to the fact that the Romans perceived Him as a revolutionary. Eerily similar to today’s SWAT team raids, Jesus was arrested in the middle of the night, in secret, by a large, heavily armed fleet of soldiers.  Rather than merely asking for Jesus when they came to arrest him, his pursuers collaborated beforehand with Judas. Acting as a government informant, Judas concocted a kiss as a secret identification marker, hinting that a level of deception and trickery must be used to obtain this seemingly “dangerous revolutionist’s” cooperation.

Torture and capital punishment. In Jesus’ day, religious preachers, self-proclaimed prophets and nonviolent protesters were not summarily arrested and executed. Indeed, the high priests and Roman governors normally allowed a protest, particularly a small-scale one, to run its course. However, government authorities were quick to dispose of leaders and movements that appeared to threaten the Roman Empire. The charges leveled against Jesus—that he was a threat to the stability of the nation, opposed paying Roman taxes and claimed to be the rightful King—were purely political, not religious. To the Romans, any one of these charges was enough to merit death by crucifixion, which was usually reserved for slaves, non-Romans, radicals, revolutionaries and the worst criminals.

Jesus was presented to Pontius Pilate “as a disturber of the political peace,” a leader of a rebellion, a political threat, and most gravely—a claimant to kingship, a “king of the revolutionary type.” After Jesus is formally condemned by Pilate, he is sentenced to death by crucifixion, “the Roman means of executing criminals convicted of high treason.”  The purpose of crucifixion was not so much to kill the criminal, as it was an immensely public statement intended to visually warn all those who would challenge the power of the Roman Empire. Hence, it was reserved solely for the most extreme political crimes: treason, rebellion, sedition, and banditry. After being ruthlessly whipped and mocked, Jesus was nailed to a cross.

As Professor Mark Lewis Taylor observed:

The cross within Roman politics and culture was a marker of shame, of being a criminal. If you were put to the cross, you were marked as shameful, as criminal, but especially as subversive. And there were thousands of people put to the cross. The cross was actually positioned at many crossroads, and, as New Testament scholar Paula Fredricksen has reminded us, it served as kind of a public service announcement that said, “Act like this person did, and this is how you will end up.”

Jesus—the revolutionary, the political dissident, and the nonviolent activist—lived and died in a police state. Any reflection on Jesus’ life and death within a police state must take into account several factors: Jesus spoke out strongly against such things as empires, controlling people, state violence and power politics. Jesus challenged the political and religious belief systems of his day. And worldly powers feared Jesus, not because he challenged them for control of thrones or government but because he undercut their claims of supremacy, and he dared to speak truth to power in a time when doing so could—and often did—cost a person his life.

Unfortunately, the radical Jesus, the political dissident who took aim at injustice and oppression, has been largely forgotten today, replaced by a congenial, smiling Jesus trotted out for religious holidays but otherwise rendered mute when it comes to matters of war, power and politics.

Yet for those who truly study the life and teachings of Jesus, the resounding theme is one of outright resistance to war, materialism and empire.

Ultimately, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this is the contradiction that must be resolved if the radical Jesus—the one who stood up to the Roman Empire and was crucified as a warning to others not to challenge the powers-that-be—is to be an example for our modern age.

After all, there is so much suffering and injustice in the world, and so much good that can be done by those who truly aspire to follow Jesus Christ’s example.

We must decide whether we will follow the path of least resistance—willing to turn a blind eye to what Martin Luther King Jr. referred to as the “evils of segregation and the crippling effects of discrimination, to the moral degeneracy of religious bigotry and the corroding effects of narrow sectarianism, to economic conditions that deprive men of work and food, and to the insanities of militarism and the self-defeating effects of physical violence”—or whether we will be transformed nonconformists “dedicated to justice, peace, and brotherhood.”

As King explained in a powerful sermon delivered in 1954, “This command not to conform comes … [from] Jesus Christ, the world’s most dedicated nonconformist, whose ethical nonconformity still challenges the conscience of mankind.”

Furthermore:

We need to recapture the gospel glow of the early Christians, who were nonconformists in the truest sense of the word and refused to shape their witness according to the mundane patterns of the world.  Willingly they sacrificed fame, fortune, and life itself in behalf of a cause they knew to be right.  Quantitatively small, they were qualitatively giants.  Their powerful gospel put an end to such barbaric evils as infanticide and bloody gladiatorial contests.  Finally, they captured the Roman Empire for Jesus Christ… The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists, who are dedicated to justice, peace, and brotherhood.  The trailblazers in human, academic, scientific, and religious freedom have always been nonconformists.  In any cause that concerns the progress of mankind, put your faith in the nonconformist!

…Honesty impels me to admit that transformed nonconformity, which is always costly and never altogether comfortable, may mean walking through the valley of the shadow of suffering, losing a job, or having a six-year-old daughter ask, “Daddy, why do you have to go to jail so much?”  But we are gravely mistaken to think that Christianity protects us from the pain and agony of mortal existence.  Christianity has always insisted that the cross we bear precedes the crown we wear.  To be a Christian, one must take up his cross, with all of its difficulties and agonizing and tragedy-packed content, and carry it until that very cross leaves its marks upon us and redeems us to that more excellent way that comes only through suffering.

In these days of worldwide confusion, there is a dire need for men and women who will courageously do battle for truth.  We must make a choice. Will we continue to march to the drumbeat of conformity and respectability, or will we, listening to the beat of a more distant drum, move to its echoing sounds?  Will we march only to the music of time, or will we, risking criticism and abuse, march to the soul saving music of eternity?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

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

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).

***

The following commentary draws attention to a wake-up call by the renowned medical doctor and brain researcher Prof. Karl Hecht. The title is: “Thoughts are free – but with global digitalisation it’s over”. It was published by “Klagemauer.TV”, or “Kla.TV” for short. The content is about a hitherto concealed operation in the war of the “super-rich” against the vast majority of humanity. The declared goal: the establishment of a New World Order.

Never before, says the 96-year-old expert, have the technical prerequisites for a total dictatorship been as mature as they are today. In the age of digitalisation, he says, mind manipulation and thought control – especially through electromagnetic radio waves – have become ubiquitous reality. Only a conscious turning away from the ideology of digitalisation can save us from degrading into totally monitored robot humans. It is high time to stop this inhumane process and return to divine nature, because otherwise humanity will digitize itself away.

Elon Musk’s brain implant “Neuralink”, electromagnetic radio waves and 5G

Karl Hecht first talks about the beginnings of technical experiments in mind control in the 1950s and 1960s, which would be “old hat” from today’s perspective. He then moves on to talk about today’s digitalisation ideology, which generates great enthusiasm for this technology and promises a lot: prosperity, comfort, better schooling and even health and immortality. But in reality, digitalisation would bring total surveillance, make jobs disappear, make people sick and ultimately make them superfluous. Public opinion would be manipulated and in the end man would lose control over technology.

As an example, Professor Hecht mentions a recent invention by Elon Musk, one of those super-rich philanthropists and do-gooders. It is shocking news for him – and for all of us: Musk has invented a neuralink the size of a euro coin and is in the process of placing it on the skull with an incision through the scalp. This would create a connection or interface between the brain, this neuralink and a computer or mobile phone. According to Musk, this connection between brain and computer is necessary for mankind to keep pace with artificial intelligence (AI). Electromagnetic radio waves and the installation of the 5G mobile phone standard, even in space, are indispensable for this.

Stop the inhumane process!

So we are dealing with a technology that practically dehumanises the human being. The human being is being turned into a controllable machine, into a robot. This scientific truth must also be communicated to the youth and the inhumane process must be stopped!

The following quote by Galileo Galilei (1564 to 16429) is addressed in particular to the ruling gravediggers of nations and their servile and corrupt politicians and corporate media:

“He who does not know the truth is but a fool. But he who knows it, and calls it a lie, is a criminal.”

To the indolent contemporaries, the words of an American scientist who is reported to have said, according to Professor Hecht, that only the little secrets could be kept secret. The big secrets would be kept secret by the incredulity of the people. They would believe the scientific truth less than the lies.

Yet we all have a great responsibility for what we leave to the next generation. But our generation does not care about the future. Actually, we should leave our children something better than we have received. But we don’t seem to care about that.

 

*

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.

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel is an educationalist and graduate psychologist.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Hidden Danger: Digitalisation and Mind Control. “The Prerequisites For Total Dictatorship”
  • 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).

***

According to the latest figures derived from the European Medicines Agency’s database of Covid-19 vaccine adverse reactions, 162,610 injurious events and 3,964 deaths have now been reported.  Among the three major vaccines approved and deployed in Europe, Pfizer-Biontech’s vaccine accounts for over two-thirds of reported injuries and mortalities, or 102,100 and 2,540 events respectively.  Curiously, women disproportionately account for 77% of adverse events; this greater than 1:4 gender ratio is also being observed for Moderna’s and AstraZeneca’s vaccines.  So far there seems to be no scientific explanation to account for this gender disparity.

Recently, we have been alerted that AZ’s adenovirus vaccine is particularly worrisome. It has been less than two months since its administration in the EU commenced; already there have been over 54,000 injuries and 451 deaths registered.  Consequently, many European nations, which are more committed to protecting their citizens than increasing pharmaceutical profits, have placed moratoriums on administering AZ’s Covid vaccine.  In the UK, over 114,000 adverse reactions from AZ’s product or 4.6 reactions per 1,000 recipients has been reported.

However, the EU’s vaccine injury statistics are disturbing for another reason. It seems very apparent in our review of government and institutional figures that the EU has a far more robust and accurate vaccine injury reporting system in place. Given that the US started vaccinating adults against SARS-CoV-2 before the EU, we would expect to observe the number of reported adverse effects higher or at least proportionate. However, this is not the case.  Since December 14, 2020, the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has only reported 44,606 adverse events and 2,050 deaths – a small fraction compared to Europe and where the average European citizen is generally healthier and where far less doses have been administered.

Consider two other anomalies.  According to Oxford University’s global Covid-19 vaccine tracker, as of March 27th, the US has administered over 136 million doses, which accounts for about 25 percent of all Covid-19 vaccines administered worldwide.  On the other hand, the EU nations have only administered 66 million doses — less than a half compared to the US.  In addition, the US vaccination rate is now approximately 41 per 100 Americans. EU nations have individually vaccinated 17 per 100 citizens or less.  Therefore, why is there such an enormous discrepancy of adverse vaccine reactions between the US and EU?  The EU is reporting a 0.2 percent adverse reaction rate whereas the US is claiming only 0.03 percent, almost a ten-fold difference.

Various studies have estimated that only between 1 to 10 percent of vaccine injuries are reported in VAERS.  In the past the CDC has relied upon the conservative 10 percent estimate, which may account for the ten-fold discrepancy in adverse Covid-19 vaccine events in the EU and US.  A 2011 Harvard study in collaboration with the Federal Agency for Health Care Research has estimated actual adverse event reporting may be as low as 1 percent.  The study states,

“Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.”

If we assume the European Medicines Agency’s statistics are relatively accurate, we would therefore expect that the actual number of US adverse reactions should be in the neighborhood of 335,000 injuries and over 8,100 deaths.

Something is very seriously amiss with this scenario.

First we can surely agree that Covid vaccines do not hold a personal vendetta against Europeans. Nor does owning an EU passport make one more susceptible to a serious vaccine reaction.

Although anyone can report an adverse reaction to VAERS, very few Americans know it exists. The CDC notes that reporting vaccine injuries and deaths in the database is completely voluntary.  Consequently, there is no requirement for a vaccine administering physician or health professional to report an injury or death.  In fact, many doctors and healthcare workers are largely ignorant about VAERS’ existence as is the public.

Because VAERS is an extremely flawed passive surveillance system, it provides an extremely inaccurate picture for risks associated with every approved vaccine, let alone those against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.  The CDC’s National Immunization Program has acknowledged VAERS’ glaring limitations for over 25 years, but nothing has fundamentally changed in mandating its use throughout the medical establishment. As millions of Americans are rushing to get their shots, our health officials have been relying upon “a patchwork of existing programs that they acknowledge are inadequate because of small sample size, missing critical data or other problems.”  Anthony Fauci and the heads of our health agencies have known for many months that these vaccines were forthcoming. However they have been utterly negligent, according to a New York Times article, to put in place a robust monitoring system to record adverse vaccine reactions and to undertake appropriate analysis

VAERS has served as a highly successful propaganda tool to mask and hide actual vaccine risks instead of a reliable monitoring system.  Anyone can access the database, and it is the most common resource for those who follow and report adverse vaccine reaction trends.

Yet, the CDC also relies upon other monitoring sources, notably the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), a database controlled in a collaboration between the CDC and nine large managed healthcare organizations. In fact, the CDC states that it relies upon VSD “to evaluate vaccine safety issues.”

The Institute of Medicine ranks VSD as the best resource for conducting necessary analysis on vaccine safety and contains the electronic records of over 9 million Americans.  It is also relied upon for comparing the health status of vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups and for investigating long-term adverse vaccine risks.  However, despite our tax dollars going towards the funding of VSD, the database’s content is inaccessible to the public. Federal agencies have assured that its data remain the proprietary property of the private healthcare organizations to prevent it being used by independent researchers and journalists.

Given the CDC’s and FDA’s long history of secrecy and lack of transparency, and its long public relations arm that infiltrates every mainstream media source, it is not surprising that we never hear public service announcements notifying viewers and readership that the CDC has a system in place to report any adverse effects from Covid-vaccination. Now that the vaccines are being rolled en masse, we would expect our government to enforce due diligence to track vaccine injuries in the public interest. But we will never hear this information coming from the lips of the pharmaceutical media shills such as Sanjay Gupta and George Stephanopoulos. Not even during flu seasons when the media follows its marching orders from federal health agencies to persuade the public to roll up their sleeves.

In the meantime, the medical establishment gives lukewarm condolences towards those unfortunate to have become seriously ill or have died from the virus.  But think of all the others, Fauci and his federal colleagues consistently tell us over the media waves, who have been lucky enough to be vaccinated and can return to a normal life.  Just take these experimental vaccines despite the shoddy evidence to convince any objective reviewer that they prevent transmission or protect anyone from contracting the virus.

Nor were they tested to determine rates of hospitalization or deaths.  Yet the media makes every effort to assure us that we are being given the best information science can provide. And sadly, all this science is preferentially cherry picked to strengthen the false narrative to increase vaccination compliance. And since lockdowns, masks, social distancing and quarantining remain in place, it is near impossible to conduct any vigorous scientific study to determine how much or how little these vaccines are contributing to the rise and fall of infectious rates. Is it vaccination or all of the mandatory social restrictions that is the major contributing factor?

“The greatest enemy of knowledge,” wrote renowned historian Daniel Boorstein, “is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. Today, this illusion of authoritative knowledge pervades the medical establishment and brainwashes the sleeping media. In our opinion, it is becoming a dangerous collective mental disorder.  The good news is that more and more scientists, researchers and doctors within the towering medical citadel are exiting rapidly in order to publicly speak out against the litany of falsehoods, lies and corruption spewed from the orifices of the CDC, the FDA, World Health Organization and Big Pharma.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Can We Trust America’s COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Statistics?
  • 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).

***

In late 2020 Robert J. Burrowes and myself were asked by some Melbourne activists protesting against the lockdowns and Covid vaccinations to help them develop more effective strategy. Many of the protesters were new to activism, and those with an inclination towards following a nonviolent approach wanted education in this area.

In February, Robert and I ran two Introduction to Nonviolent Action workshops, and one Nonviolent Strategy weekend, and with the inspiration and input of this great group of participants, I have now put the basics of a worldwide nonviolent campaign strategy to defeat the Great Reset on a website. We have named this campaign We Are Human, We Are Free.

The website is designed as a resource that activists anywhere in the world can use to develop effective local nonviolent campaigns.

Here are some excerpts from the website:

We Are Human, We Are Free is a worldwide nonviolent resistance movement to free ourselves from Elite control and resist the forces of fear and dehumanisation.

Our aim is to build a mass civil resistance movement to undermine the power of the Global Elite to control us, and to regain the freedoms that make our lives worth living. Because we are human, we are free to make choices. The time has come to choose – are we on the side of love, life and freedom or fear, self-imprisonment and tyranny?…

What is happening in our world?

Do you have a gut feeling that there is something ‘wrong’ with the way this supposed pandemic is being presented, and with planetary wide lockdowns as a response? Are you being negatively impacted by lockdowns, or vaccines, in ways that make you feel the ‘cure’ is worse than the original ‘problem’? If what is going on doesn’t make sense to you, is there another, reasonable way to explain what is happening?…

The supposed pandemic and the planetary lockdown response are key tools in achieving the Global Elite’s aims – psychologically designed to dramatically increase people’s fear of the unknowable, and justify greater and greater loss of freedoms and human rights…

What is The Great Reset?

In brief, the Global Elite is in the process of establishing:

  • A Monopolised Corporate Dictatorship of the economy, including all natural, agricultural, human, technological and financial resources, destroying any attempt of ordinary people to achieve economic self-reliance through independent farming, small and medium sized business, organic food production or local trade. The full digitisation of money (the end of currency altogether), will leave people with no control over currencies they can use to trade in ways they see fit. The advent of the ‘fourth industrial revolution’ is expected to lead to at least one-third of jobs now performed by humans being replaced by software, robots, and smart machines by 2025, leaving at least 30% of people permanently unemployed. In a short video, the WEF predicts that by 2030, ‘You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy’.
  • A Medical Dictatorship by profit-driven pharmaceutical medicine and psychiatry for social control, that denies the true value of natural and holistic physical and mental health, disallows use of non-patented or previously patented medicines, and forces damaging and experimental medical treatments and procedures on people without informed consent. These include vaccines involving genetic engineering and nanotech which have the potential to fundamentally change the way we exist as independent biological entities.
  • National/State Government Dictatorships (intended to become a Global Government Dictatorship) controlled by elite ‘advice’ and interests, that destroy privacy through mass surveillance and restrict freedom of thought, speech, work, finances and movement.
  • A Monopolised Media Dictatorship that uses censorship and propaganda for social control.
  • A Technocratic Dictatorship run by pseudoscientific ‘experts’, involving the fourth industrial revolution (AI, satellites, robotics, drones and the Internet of Things); the surveillance, control and attempted ‘robotisation’ of our biological selves through nanotech implants and connection to AI through 5G technology; the control and destruction of the natural environment through technologies such as 5G and genetically modified crops; and the denigration of genuine scientific methods and principles, which are non-authoritarian by nature…

What can we do? Why choose nonviolent resistance?

We Are Human, We Are Free recognises that to defend our human needs and rights it is necessary to noncooperate with the forces of fear, and this involves many types of courageous and conscientious individual and collective action. While legal and political challenges within the system help raise awareness of the unhealthy nature of tyranny, we need to trust ourselves to make the final decisions about how to meet our own needs when existing political and legal systems are corrupted and fail. When we cannot defend ourselves according to legal or conventional political rules, we must step outside these rules and draw upon the more natural and fundamental powers of human solidarity, conscience and courage.

Some powerful acts of nonviolent noncooperation, such as boycotts, will remain legal and risk free. Increasingly, however, noncooperation will require civil disobedience, as the forces of fear attempt to reign us in ever more tightly. The Global Elite and their agents have already used arrests, fines, imprisonment, psychiatric committal, property seizure and direct violence against pro-freedom activists in different countries to try to intimidate us into giving up. They will continue to use violence against us. In these challenging circumstances, nonviolent processes and interactions provide the greatest degree of physical and psychological/emotional safety possible for activists and will help build the greatest number of participants in our growing movement…

Everyone is Welcome

Everyone is welcome to take action under the We Are Human, We Are Free banner if they agree with the three fundamental points that unify this movement:

  1. That whatever the level of illness occurring in the community, and whatever its causes, there is no genuine evidence of the existence of a contagious pandemic that is killing statistically significant numbers of people, and therefore no justification for any of the measures which are supposedly a response to this ‘crisis’.
  2. That the false pandemic is one tool being used by the Global Elite to achieve The Great Reset, which is designed to gain total control over the world’s natural resources and the entire human population. The various elements of The Great Reset must be collectively resisted if we are to gain back the freedoms that make our lives worth living.
  3. All participants in this movement are willing to abide by the code of nonviolent discipline detailed on We Are Human, We Are Free in their campaigns.

We hope to build an easily recognisable worldwide movement against Elite dictatorship, which will unite us as we enact the many locally organised nonviolent campaigns necessary to win back our freedom.

Many nonviolent actions and campaigns are already occurring – we invite local campaigns to consider adding the We Are Human, We Are Free banner to their existing identities as a worldwide unifying element in their campaign…

What Sort of Actions Will Make a Real Difference to the Situation?

Public protests where we show our discontent and connect with the many others who feel as we do are a first step in addressing the problem. But effectively undermining attempted global dictatorship requires more than this – we need to take actions of strategic significance that transfer power from the hands of the Elite to ordinary people…

Choose messaging that clearly asks ordinary people to noncooperate in specific ways. For example “Choose Natural Health. Say No to Experimental Vaccines”; “Provide No Excuse for Lockdowns. Don’t Get Tested”; “Don’t Buy Censorship. Boycott Facebook”; “Use Your Own Eyes and Ears. Turn off Your TV”; “Don’t Buy 5G Upgrades”; “Don’t Feed the Monsters. Boycott Amazon…

And here are a few examples from the website of 29 ‘Strategic Goals’ which will contribute to achieving our overall purpose of defeating the Global Elite’s attempted takeover:

(1) To cause people and groups all around the world to join the resistance strategy by wearing a global symbol of human solidarity.

Asking people and groups all around the world to wear an orange ribbon, wristband or armband showing their solidarity as part of this worldwide nonviolent movement is a key way to increase people’s courage to take action. Can you think of particular groups of people to whom you might make this suggestion, or ways in which you might spread this message to the general public?…

(8) To cause people and groups all around the world to conscientiously refuse to submit to vaccination, which is likely to include nanotechnology that will subvert your individual identity, freedom, dignity, volition and privacy; including through a ‘digital vaccine passport’ (possibly delivered via a microneedle platform using fluorescent microparticles called ‘quantum dots’, which can deliver vaccines and at the same time invisibly encode vaccination history directly in the skin).

How can we best encourage people not to receive Covid vaccinations (experimental injectables), regardless of whether or not they are made legally mandatory by your national government? Can you organise picketing or boycotts of businesses that are coercing their workers into having vaccinations as a condition of employment?

Can you ask all air traffic controllers, and pilots and drivers of air, land and water transport (including military transport), and construction machinery such as cranes, to refuse to take vaccinations on account of the potentially catastrophic dangers to the community if they have a negative reaction to these experimental injectables while working?

Can you organise nonviolent protests or interventions at any education, healthcare (such as nursing homes) or travel related sites that have been targeted as priority vaccination sites to convince the management not to go ahead?

Can you organise a strike by workers at your workplace or in your industry in support of your right to choose not to be used as part of a medical experiment?

Can you organise a strike or ‘refusal to act on vaccine related punishment’ by public servants if they are ordered to cut off people’s government benefits for not taking a vaccine?

Can you ask GPs to resist performing Covid vaccinations by stating they are already overworked and have no further time for this ‘health’ campaign? Can you ask GPs to take positive responsibility for the health of their patients by presenting those patients who ask to be vaccinated with information regarding the exact contents of the vaccine and data regarding the known negative effects of the vaccine, and the data that is still unavailable because of its experimental nature, so that patients can make a genuinely informed choice?

(9) To cause people and groups all around the world to organize or participate in a collective event that conscientiously resists the Covid lockdowns.

This could be, for example, a cultural, religious or sporting event, a nonviolent action for another cause, a community activity such as working to establish a community garden to increase local self-reliance, a celebration or a return to work.

This is all about showing its okay to live our normal lives. The more people involved in a mass ‘dispersed’ event, the less likely we are to be arrested or receive fines. If you are just organising locally, with a small number of people involved, police liaison is crucial for the best possible outcomes to occur. You must be prepared personally for the risk of arrest, and think about how you can make this process as dignified as possible to show your courage and commitment, and your willingness to engage with the police as individual human beings. Then, they may arrest you today, but decide that they don’t wish to do so tomorrow.

The 50,000 restaurants in Italy that opened in defiance of lockdown restrictions in January 2021 are a great example of a mass, dispersed action of noncompliance. Many religious services have been held in defiance of lockdowns. What cultural events matter most in your local community? Sport? Music? How about a ‘Football for Freedom’ match or a ‘Band Together for Freedom’ music event? You may be arrested before completing your event, but if you go with police with dignity, the absurdity of the police’s actions will be made all the more clear.

(10) To cause people and groups all around the world to organize or participate in events that conscientiously refuse to maintain social distance.

Are you a grandparent? Is it possible to organise ‘Grandparents for Freedom’ days, where grandparents visit their grandchildren against lockdown regulations, and take photos of themselves hugging and kissing their grandchildren to post online, or to print off and letterbox drop around their local community? This would work directly against the Elite narrative of having to ‘protect’ our older people by keeping them in isolation, showing that older people have courage and volition of their own.

To give people non-arrestable and arrestable options for showing their support for the campaign, public nonviolent actions could be organised where some of the group abides by social distancing and mask wearing (the masks could have a question mark drawn on them, or lips that appear to be speaking), and holds banners with clear messages encouraging acts of noncooperation, while others remove masks and hold hands or hug one another, accepting arrest in a dignified manner if the police decide to take that course. These actions will work best if you have done solid police liaison beforehand. To discourage use of water cannons and teargas to clear crowds, many smaller public actions could be organised around a city on a particular day, rather than one mass action in a centralised location.

(15) To cause people all around the world fined for breaking ‘pandemic’-related health laws or regulations (mask wearing, social distancing and lockdown restrictions, including curfews, local and wider travel restrictions, ‘non-essential’ work bans and business closures) to refuse to pay their fines and continue to conscientiously break these laws or regulations, accepting time in jail as a prisoner of conscience if necessary.

The legal system as it exists in any country does not have the resources to put large numbers of people through the court and prison system. If people refuse to pay fines, and do not deliver themselves up to the legal system voluntarily, it will take enormous resources to send police to locate and arrest all those with a warrant, put them in front of a magistrate, and then imprison them for a number of days, weeks or months in lieu of paying the fine. Already, in Victoria, Australia, for example, many unpaid fines have been withdrawn by the government, presumably for this reason, and the 50,000 restaurant owners in Italy who reopened against lockdown restrictions cannot possibly all be imprisoned for their actions.

It will be necessary to morally and practically support anyone who is targeted for prosecution as a ‘public example’ – if these people can be supported well through a prison experience, they can understand their important role in remaining courageous and patient for the benefit of the movement as a whole. The more of us who refuse to pay fines, the less chance there is of anyone being prosecuted, until the point where the authorities simply give up trying to enforce the laws or regulations.

(16) To cause the police to refuse to obey orders from the Global Elite and its agents to arrest, assault, torture and shoot nonviolent activists and the other citizens of your country.

There are already some great nonviolent initiatives happening with the police, which you may like to copy in your local area. Check out Police for Freedom, for example. Talking to police at stations in your area, to get to know them as individuals, and when you are planning actions, is vital to the success of this movement. We need the police, security personnel and military personnel on our side and need to give them every opportunity to see us as people they respect and want to stand with. Obviously when people have had very bad experiences with police and other security forces, this can make it difficult for them to feel confident or willing to do this. Choose people who do have confidence to liaise with security forces, and work out ways to support and provide extra protection for those who have been previously abused.

We hope that the We Are Human, We Are Free website will provide a user friendly resource for developing a worldwide nonviolent campaign against the Global Elite’s Great Reset, encouraging many acts of noncooperation from ordinary, empowered people. We look forward to your participation!

Much love to you all from Victoria, Australia.

*

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.

Anita McKone has been a nonviolent activist, educator and researcher since 1993. She has been arrested and imprisoned on a number of occasions for her activism. She has written many articles on different aspects of nonviolent activism, psychology and philosophy. Her website is at Songs of Nonviolence.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on We Are Human, We Are Free – Building Worldwide Nonviolent Resistance to the Great Reset
  • 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).

***

“More and more open areas in East Jerusalem are being designated as preservation or national parks, and this is clearly in order to prevent Palestinian urban development.” — Sari Kronish, Israeli planning rights organization Bimkom

For decades, a Palestinian village on the southern tip of Jerusalem has lived on and cultivated the land. But a series of recent efforts by Israel is not only threatening their way of life but potentially displacing them from their homes.

On January 25, the Jerusalem District Planning Committee rejected the residents of Palestinian village al-Walaja’s plan to legalize their homes and further develop the community. Instead, the committee declared their land an ancient agricultural area in need of environmental conservation that should be transformed into a national park.

The notion of environmental integrity struck Amy Cohen, director of international relations and advocacy at Israeli non-profit Ir Amim, as contradictory.

“The planning committee and the [Israel] Civil Administration within the West Bank [have] been promoting and advancing plans within the same area for Jewish settlers,” Cohen said. “It shows massive discrimination in how [Israel] treats Palestinian areas in order to suppress the residential development.”

The committee’s decision paves the way for the lifting of the demolition freeze on 38 al-Walaja homes. On April 26, Israel’s Supreme Court will convene for a hearing on al-Walaja’s 2018 petition over its resident-initiated outline plan.

al-Walajeh Map

The portion of al-Walaja (spelled Al Walajeh on this map) facing mass demolitions is shaded in brown within the purple circle between the apartheid wall (red line) and the Jerusalem municipal border/annexation line (blue line). Credit | Ir Amim

Ibrahim A’raj, 37, grew up in al-Walaja. The home he built for his family in 2016 is now under threat of demolition. A’raj expects the court will not rule in al-Walaja’s favor in April and his house will be demolished.

“It’s not logical or legal,” A’raj said, referring to the Planning Committee’s rejection of the development plan for environmental reasons. “The village is surrounded by settlements and the wall, which destroyed the nature and environmental landscape.”

The Planning Committee did not respond to requests for comment.

Zones and no permits

When Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967, it took the northern section of al-Walaja as well. Today, al-Walaja is split between Jerusalem and Areas B and C of the West Bank, so one-third of the land is controlled by the Jerusalem Municipality and the rest by the Bethlehem Governorate.

The Jerusalem area of al-Walaja has been at risk of forced displacement for a decade as a result of the Planning Committee’s refusal to discuss an outline plan. This refusal has made it impossible for the community to obtain building permits, so A’raj had to construct his house without one.

Amid the absence of building permits, demolition orders have increased. More than 20 homes have been razed in al-Walaja since 2016.

An isolated village cut off from its surroundings

Israeli authorities have prevented al-Walaja from developing while expanding Jewish settlements around the village and the apartheid wall (the barrier separating the West Bank and Israel).

Construction of the wall on three sides of al-Walaja cut off the village from nearly 300 acres of its agricultural land and turned that land into Nahal Refaim National Park. Har Gilo settlement lies to the south of al-Walaja. The Israel Civil Administration’s proposed expansion of the Har Gilo settlement to the west of the village will extend the wall, thereby enclosing al-Walaja and fully isolating it from its surroundings. The Civil Administration did not respond to requests for comment.

“The wall and the settlements deprived us from accessing our own land that we worked so hard to cultivate,” A’raj said, mentioning how the villagers are now blocked from the olive trees they harvested before the wall was built.

al-Walaja wall

Ancient agricultural terraces in al-Walaja (left) and Israel’s destruction of ancient terraces to build the wall (right). Photos | B’Tselem

Al-Walaja residents experience harassment daily from Israeli settlers and authorities. A’raj explained:

The Civil Administration confiscates our equipment when we start building a new house. The settlers around us use drones to take pictures when we start building and send them to the Civil Administration. The police put checkpoints at the entrance of the village and sometimes inside the village and the Walaja Bypass Road [connecting Har Gilo settlement to Jerusalem] gets a lot of traffic, so it limits our movement.”

A’raj lamented that if his home is demolished, he will likely leave al-Walaja, the place he’s called home his whole life. “It’s a huge tyranny that I have to leave my own house and my own land,” he said.

Israel doesn’t provide alternative or temporary housing for Palestinians whose homes they demolish. Sari Kronish — East Jerusalem planner for Bimkom, an Israeli planning rights organization — described the government’s lack of consideration in helping displaced families find housing as one of the “dark sides of the Israeli regime at the moment.”

“The very sad reality is that the authorities don’t offer [the uprooted Palestinians] anything. They just treat them as lawbreakers who are receiving their penalty,” Kronish said. “People just become homeless and become displaced.”

Ir Amim’s Cohen emphasizes that what Israel is enacting isn’t just the wide-scale displacement of Palestinians but also an attempt at annexation. She elaborated:

It’s an acute humanitarian toll that’s exacted upon the families, but it is also in service to the Israeli objective of consolidating control, which completely undermines any sort of conditions for a two-state solution based on two capitals. Because if you can completely segment Palestinian contiguity and advance steps toward de facto annexation of these areas, then you’re foiling a prospect of an agreed resolution.”

Not just al-Walaja

In what many Palestinians have described as a continuation of the Nakba (Israel’s 1948 ethnic cleansing campaign in Palestine), Israel is currently in the process of expelling thousands of Palestinians from East Jerusalem under the pretext of preservation.

“More and more open areas in East Jerusalem are being designated as preservation or national parks, and this is clearly in order to prevent Palestinian urban development,” Kronish said.

In the Al-Bustan neighborhood of the East Jerusalem district of Silwan, mass dispossession looms over the residents in order to make room for the touristic venture, Garden of the King. The community of Sheikh Jarrah is experiencing displacement at the hands of settler groups for the Shimon HaTzadik National Park.

Israel has long employed the practice of stealing Palestinian land and claiming it for recreational purposes. Many of Israel’s prized national parks were built on top of Palestinian villages destroyed during the Nakba. In Jerusalem, for instance, the remains of the village of Lifta are now a national park and hotel. Garbage and graffiti adorn what’s left of Lifta’s stone houses. Most of the village’s inhabitants, who were expelled in 1948, and their descendants live in refugee camps around Jerusalem — unable to return to home.

“It’s a form of institutional confiscation and settlement in the guise of green protection,” Kronish said.

Displacing indigenous peoples under the claim of conservation is an inherently settler-colonialist tactic spanning regions and centuries. Most well-known national parks in the United States like Yellowstone and Yosemite were once Native American tribal territories. In order to create an “uninhabited wilderness,” the federal government first had to remove the native peoples living on that land.

Modern environmentalism ignorantly dictates Some environmentalist assumptions suggest humans cannot coexist with wildlife. But that racist assumption idea ignores the history of indigenous communities living with and preserving nature.

Native Americans understood how to sustainably tend to the land. And just as in al-Walaja, maintaining the land is part of their livelihood.

Kronish explained:

This type of agricultural lifestyle is very dependent on people living [on] and working the land harmoniously. Once people are displaced, attempts at preservation become artificial. The residents would argue that by continuing to live there, they are more able to continue to preserve. For them, it’s not a question of preservation. It’s a question of a way of life and connection to the land.”

*

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.

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 is from PressTV

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on An Old Green Colonial Trick: Israel Masking Land Grabs as Environmental Conservation
  • Tags: , ,

Why Is Everyone in Texas Not Dying?

March 30th, 2021 by Jeffrey A. Tucker

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).

***

I’m sitting at a bar in Texas, surrounded by maskless people, looking at folks on the streets walking around like life is normal, talking with nice and friendly faces, feeling like things in the world are more-or-less normal. Cases and deaths attributed to Covid are, like everywhere else, falling dramatically. 

If you pay attention only to the media fear campaigns, you would find this confusing. More than two weeks ago, the governor of Texas completely reversed his devastating lockdown policies and repealed all his emergency powers, along with the egregious attacks on rights and liberties.

There was something very un-Texan about those lockdowns. My hotel room is festooned with pictures of cowboys on horses waving guns in the air, along with other depictions of rugged individualism facing down the elements. It’s a caricature but Texans embrace it. Then a new virus came along – as if that had never happened before in Texas – and the new Zoom class took the opposite path, not freedom but imposition and control.

After nearly a year of nonsense, on March 2, 2021, the governor finally said enough is enough and repealed it all. Towns and cities can still engage in Covid-related mischief but at least they are no longer getting cover from the governor’s office.

At that moment, a friend remarked to me that this would be the test we have been waiting for. A complete repeal of restrictions would lead to mass death, they said. Would it? Did the lockdowns really control the virus? We would soon find out, he theorized.

I knew better. The “test” of whether and to what extent lockdowns control the virus or “suppress outbreaks” (in Anthony Fauci’s words) has been tried all over the world. Every serious empirical examination has shown that the answer is no.

The US has many examples of open states that have generally had better performance in managing the disease than those states that are closed. Georgia already opened on April 24, 2020. South Dakota never shut down. South Carolina opened in May. Florida ended all restrictions in September. In every case, the press howled about the coming slaughter that did not happen. Yes, each open state experienced a seasonality wave in winter but so did the lockdown states.

So it was in Texas. Thanks to this Twitter thread, and some of my own googling, we have a nice archive of predictions about what would happen if Texas opened.

  • California Governor Gavin Newsom said that opening Texas was “absolutely reckless.”
  • Gregg Popovich, head coach of the NBA San Antonio Spurs, said opening was “ridiculous” and “ignorant.”
  • CNN quoted an ICU nurse saying “I’m scared of what this is going to look like.”
  • Vanity Fair went over the top with this headline: “Republican Governors Celebrate COVID Anniversary With Bold Plan to Kill Another 500,000 Americans.”
  • There was the inevitable Dr. Fauci: “It just is inexplicable why you would want to pull back now.”
  • Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke of Texas revealed himself to be a full-blown lockdowner: It’s a “big mistake,” he said. “It’s hard to escape the conclusion that it’s also a cult of death.” He accused the governor of “sacrificing the lives of our fellow Texans … for political gain.”
  • James Hamblin, a doctor and writer for the Atlantic, said in a Tweet liked by 20K people: “Ending precautions now is like entering the last miles of a marathon and taking off your shoes and eating several hot dogs.”
  • Bestselling author Kurt Eichenwald flipped out: “Goddamn. Texas already has FIVE variants that have turned up: Britain, South Africa, Brazil, New York & CA. The NY and CA variants could weaken vaccine effectiveness. And now idiot @GregAbbott_TX throws open the state.” He further called the government “murderous.”
  • Epidemiologist Whitney Robinson wrote: “I feel genuinely sad. There are people who are going to get sick and die bc of avoidable infections they get in the next few weeks. It’s demoralizing.”
  • Pundit Bill Kristol (I had no idea that he was a lockdowner) wrote: “Gov. Abbott is going to be responsible for more avoidable COVID hospitalizations and deaths than all the undocumented immigrants coming across the Texas border put together.”
  • Health pundit Bob Wachter said the decision to open was “unforgivable.”
  • Virus guru Michael Osterholm told CNN: “We’re walking into the mouth of the monster. We simply are.”
  • Joe Biden famously said that the Texas decision to open reflected “Neanderthal thinking.”
  • Nutritionist Eric Feigl-Ding said that the decision makes him want to “vomit so bad.”
  • The chairman of the state’s Democratic Party said: “What Abbott is doing is extraordinarily dangerous. This will kill Texans. Our country’s infectious-disease specialists have warned that we should not put our guard down, even as we make progress towards vaccinations. Abbott doesn’t care.”
  • Other state Democrats said in a letter that the decision was “premature and harmful.”
  • The CDC’s Rochelle Walensky didn’t mince words: “Please hear me clearly: At this level of cases with variants spreading, we stand to completely lose the hard-earned ground we have gained. I am really worried about reports that more states are rolling back the exact public health measures we have recommended to protect people from COVID-19.”

There are probably hundreds more such warnings, predictions, and demands, all stated with absolute certainty that basic social and market functioning is a terrible idea. The lockdown lobby was out in full force. And yet what do we see now more than two weeks out (and arguably the lockdowns died on March 2, when the government announced the decision)?

Here are the data.

The CDC has a very helpful tool that allows anyone to compare open vs closed states. The results are devastating for those who believe that lockdowns are the way to control a virus. In this chart we compare closed states Massachusetts and California with open states Georgia, Florida, Texas, and South Carolina.

What can we conclude from such a visualization? It suggests that the lockdowns have had no statistically observable effect on the virus trajectory and resulting severe outcomes. The open states have generally performed better, perhaps not because they are open but simply for reasons of demographics and seasonality. The closed states seem not to have achieved anything in terms of mitigation.

On the other hand, the lockdowns destroyed industries, schools, churches, liberties and lives, demoralizing the population and robbing people of essential rights. All in the name of safety from a virus that did its work in any case.

As for Texas, the results so far are in.

I’m making no predictions about the future path of the virus in Texas. Indeed for a full year, AIER has been careful about not trying to outguess this virus, which has its own ways, some predictable and some mysterious. The experience has, or should have, humbled everyone. Political arrangements seem to have no power to control it, much less finally suppress it. The belief that it was possible to control people in order to control a virus produced a calamity unprecedented in modern times.

What’s striking about all the above predictions of infections and deaths is not just that they were all wrong. It’s the arrogance and confidence behind each of them. After a full year and directly observing the inability of “nonpharmaceutical interventions” to manage the pathogen, the experts are still wedded to their beloved lockdowns, unable or unwilling to look at the data and learn anything from them.

The concept of lockdowns stemmed from a faulty premise: that you can separate humans, like rats in cages, and therefore control and even eradicate the virus. After a year, we unequivocally know this not to be true, something that the best and wisest epidemiologists knew all along. Essential workers still must work; they must go home to their families, many in crowded living conditions. Lockdowns do not eliminate the virus, they merely shift the burden onto the working class.

Now we can see the failure in black, white, and full color, daily appearing on our screens courtesy of the CDC. Has that shaken the pro-lockdown pundit class? Not that much. What an amazing testament to the stubbornness of elite opinion and its bias against basic freedoms. They might all echo the words of Groucho Marx: “Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?”

*

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.

Jeffrey A. Tucker is Editorial Director for the American Institute for Economic Research. He is the author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and nine books in 5 languages, most recently Liberty or Lockdown. He is also the editor of The Best of Mises. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

Jeffrey is available for speaking and interviews via his emailTw | FB | LinkedIn

Featured image is from The Freedom Articles

Deadly Blood Clots Caused by COVID-19 Vaccine

March 30th, 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).

***

As of March 16, 2021, 19 European countries plus Thailand1 had suspended the use of AstraZeneca’s vaccine, either in full or in part, following reports of deadly blood clots.2,3 March 2, 2021, The Defender reported4 U.K. data showing the AstraZeneca vaccine was responsible for 77% more adverse events and 25% more deaths than the Pfizer vaccine, which in the U.S. has been connected with a majority of death reports in the Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (VAERS).

AstraZeneca’s vaccine has received emergency use authorization in Europe but not in the U.S., where the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are available. Contrary to the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, the AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines use a viral vector to deliver double-stranded DNA for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein into your cells.5

Business Insider has created a comparison chart6 of the four vaccines — Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson — currently available in the U.S. and Europe.

Norway Links Lethal Blood Clots to AstraZeneca Vaccine

While virtually all post-vaccination deaths so far have been shrugged off as coincidence, even when occurring in healthy individuals in their 20s and 30s, doctors at Oslo University Hospital have now announced the blood clotting disorders experienced by some recipients of the AstraZeneca vaccine are in fact caused by the vaccine.7

A March 18, 2021, article in Science Norway reads, in part:8

“’Our theory that this is a powerful immune response most likely triggered by the vaccine, has been confirmed,’ says professor and chief physician Pål Andre Holme. Three Norwegian health workers under the age of 50 have been hospitalized. One is dead …

‘In collaboration with experts in the field from the University Hospital of North Norway HF, we have found specific antibodies against blood platelets that can cause these reactions, and which we know from other fields of medicine, but then with medical drugs as the cause of the reaction,’ the chief physician explains …

When asked to clarify why he says ‘most likely’ in the quote, Holme confidently responds that the reason for these rare cases of blood clots has been found.

‘We have the reason. Nothing but the vaccine can explain why these individuals had this immune response,’ he states. [Norwegian national newspaper] VG also asks how Holme can know that the immune response is not caused by something other than the vaccine.

‘There is nothing in the patient history of these individuals that can give such a powerful immune response. I am confident that the antibodies that we have found are the cause, and I see no other explanation than it being the vaccine which triggers it,’ he responds.”

The three health workers reported acute pain, bleeding, low platelet counts and were found to have blood clots in “unusual places,” such as their stomachs and brains. Later that same day, March 18, 2021, the European Medicines Agency ruled the AstraZeneca vaccine is “safe and effective, despite some concerns over possible side effects,” CNBC reported,9 and that benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.

Meanwhile, March 22, 2021, Norway Today reported the Norwegian Medicines Agency had received two new reports of blood clots with deadly consequences following vaccination with the AstraZeneca vaccine. In a press release, the agency stated that “The Norwegian Medicines Agency cannot rule out that these cases may have a connection with the AstraZeneca vaccine.”10 One of the two victims was a health care worker.

German Experts Weigh In

A March 19, 2021, German Spektrum article11 reviews preliminary findings by German investigators, which add further weight to Holme’s findings in Norway. It reads, in part (translation from German using translate.com):

“The effects of the suspended vaccinations with the AstraZeneca vaccine are believed to have been due to a particular immune response that activates platelets and thus triggers thrombosis. This preliminary conclusion is being made by a working group made up of Andreas Greinacher from the University Hospital Greifswald.

The effect corresponds in many details to a heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) type 2,12 in which antibodies against a protein complex are formed in connection with heparin, which in turn respond to a receptor on the platelets …

The team demonstrated the similarity of thrombosis with HIT in the blood of four patients with sinus vein thrombosis. Antibodies appear to form against a complex of heparin and the signaling molecule PF4, which in turn interact with the receptor CD32 of the platelets and thus activate them.

This triggers the clotting cascade, which leads to the thrombosis. The antibodies produced in the vaccinated individuals were very similar to those found in HIT, Greinacher said at a news conference. So far, however, it is still unclear where these antibodies come from, whether they form against the vaccine virus or the spike antigen or perhaps against a factor only involved in the immune response.”

According to Greinacher, people with a history of thrombosis probably do not have a higher risk of complications from the vaccine due to the mechanism of harm. He also points out that there is treatment against HIT, which the team believes “should also work in the case of the suspected vaccination side effect.”

Spektrum reports that, based on these findings, the Society for Thrombosis and Hemostasis Research suggests vaccinated individuals who experience thrombosis or neurological symptoms such as dizziness, headache or visual impairment on the fifth day post-vaccination and onward should be tested for HIT type 2.

The HIT type 2 test will detect antibodies against the heparin complex and, if positive, the Society recommends administering intravenous immunoglobulin G to prevent the activation of CD32 and interrupt the mechanism that results in thrombosis.

AstraZeneca Efficacy Data Being Questioned

March 22, 2021, AstraZeneca13 announced its Phase 3 U.S.-based trial showed the vaccine was 79% effective at preventing symptomatic cases of COVID-19 and 100% effective against severe or critical disease and hospitalization, with no increased risk for adverse effects compared to placebo.

According to The Associated Press,14 partial results from trials in the U.K, Brazil and South Africa — where a “manufacturing mistake” had led to some participants receiving only half of their first dose — suggested the vaccine was 70% effective.

The AP goes on to cite a number of individuals saying the U.S. results should allay concerns about the AstraZeneca vaccine.

That narrative broke apart the very next day, March 23, 2021, when the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) issued a statement15,16,17 first thing in the morning, saying the Data and Safety Monitoring board (DSMB) had notified them that AstraZeneca’s data may include “outdated information” that cast doubt on its effectiveness. As reported by The Defender:18

“Notably, in its most recent data, AstraZeneca neglected to include key information, such as the number of trial participants who developed ‘severe COVID.’ AstraZeneca President Ruud Dobber, during an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box, said the number was ‘5,’ shortly after the data were released.”

“We urge the company to work with the DSMB to review the efficacy data and ensure the most accurate, up-to-date efficacy data be made public as quickly as possible,” the NIAID said in its statement.19

Dr. Anthony Fauci, who heads the NIAID and was one of the people quoted by the AP as saying the U.S. trial ought to put concerns to rest, went on the defensive, saying “This is really what you call an unforced error because the fact is, this is very likely a very good vaccine. If you look at it the data, they really are quite good, but when they put it into the press release, it wasn’t completely accurate.”20

AstraZeneca responded21 saying the data were based on a “pre-specified interim analysis with a data cut-off” of February 17, 2021, and promised to share more data with the independent review board.

In a Tweet,22 Francois Balloux, professor and director of the UCL Genetics Institute, called the NIAID’s statement “highly unusual,” noting it “comes close to accusing Oxford/AZ of having willfully misrepresented” some of its trial results.

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, called the NIAID’s statement “unprecedented,” as while the DSMB will “sometimes disagree with investigators over vaccine trial results,” they typically do so “in private,” not publicly.23

This isn’t the first time AstraZeneca has been challenged over its data handling, though. As reported by The Defender:24

“‘The way they handled their data early on, AstraZeneca basically shot themselves in the foot,’ Julian Tang, a virologist at the University of Leicester, said even before the latest issue arose.

AstraZeneca has received criticism over its studies since the first data released in the UK, which purported to show the vaccine was 70% effective, yet failed to account for a manufacturing mistake and didn’t include enough participants over 65 to determine efficacy among older patients …”

Full Throttle Forward Despite Risks

Despite concerns about data mishandling and two independent investigations finding a mechanism of harm, the World Health Organization and the European Medicines Agency are saying the AstraZeneca vaccine is good to go and urge countries to keep using it.

March 18, 2021, the EMA issued a press release25 giving the AstraZeneca the green-light, despite admitting it is associated with “very rare cases of blood clots associated with thrombocytopenia, i.e., low levels of blood platelets.” The justification, as usual, is that the benefits outweigh the risks.26,27,28

But do they? What exactly are the benefits? You can still contract the virus. You can still spread the virus. All it promises to do is lessen your symptoms when you get infected. Sure, the idea is that by lessening symptoms, you’ll reduce your risk of hospitalization and death, but lessening symptoms is not what a vaccine is supposed to do. A vaccine is supposed to make you immune to the disease in question, and none of the COVID-19 vaccines does that.

I’ve discussed this in previous articles, including “COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines,” “COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ Are Gene Therapy” and “How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy the Lives of Millions.”

What’s more, COVID-19 is really only a serious risk to the very old and people with two or more comorbidities. For the rest, its lethality is on par with the common flu.29,30,31,32,33 It may be different in terms of symptoms and complications, but the actual lethality is about the same.

Data34 have shown the overall noninstitutionalized infection fatality ratio for all age groups is 0.26%. If you’re under the age of 40, your risk of dying from COVID-19 if you get infected is just 0.01%.

Meanwhile, as reviewed in “COVID-19 Vaccine Tested on Babies Even as Death Toll Mounts,” the lethality rate of COVID-19 vaccines is somewhere between 0.0024% and 0.0028%, and that’s assuming all deaths are being reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is doubtful.

The key difference between being harmed or killed by COVID-19 and being harmed or killed by the vaccine is that the illness kills those who are old, sick and frail, while reports show the vaccine is killing young and healthy people. From my perspective, the argument that the vaccine benefits outweigh the risks simply does not hold water.

Side Effects 3X More Common in Those Previously Infected

In related news, according to researchers at King’s College, people who have already had COVID are three times more likely to experience vaccine side effects than those who have not been exposed to the virus, and this appears true for both mRNA and DNA versions of the vaccine.35

They gleaned this information from the college’s ZOE app, which has logged more than 700,000 vaccinations. According to that data, 35.7% of those given the Pfizer vaccine who had previously been infected reported side effects, compared to just 12.2% of those not previously infected.

Looking at the AstraZeneca vaccine specifically, 52.7% of previously infected had side effects, compared to 31.9% of those who had not been previously infected.

While The Telegraph reports this as being a beneficial thing, saying “More severe side effects are often a sign of better immunity, and emerging research suggests just one dose of vaccine gives a similar protective effect to two doses in people who have had a previous infection,” some experts vehemently disagree.

Proper Timing May Eliminate Some Vaccine Risks

In January 2021, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, a cardiac surgeon and patient advocate, sent a public letter36 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner detailing the risks of vaccinating individuals who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2, or who have an active SARS-CoV-2 infection.

He urged the FDA to require prescreening for SARS-CoV-2 viral proteins to reduce the risk of injuries and deaths following vaccination, as the vaccine may trigger an adverse immune response in those who have already been infected with the virus.

Fox TV host Tucker Carlson recently interviewed him about these risks as well. In that interview, Noorchashm said:37

“I think it’s a dramatic error on part of public health officials to try to put this vaccine into a one-size-fits-all paradigm … We’re going to take this problem we have with the COVID-19 pandemic, where a half-percent of the population is susceptible to dying, and compound it by causing totally avoidable harm by vaccinating people who are already infected …

The signal is deafening, the people who are having complications or adverse events are the people who have recently or are currently or previously infected [with COVID]. I don’t think we can ignore this.”

In an emailed response to The Defender, Noorchashm fleshed out his concerns, saying:38

“Viral antigens persist in the tissues of the naturally infected for months. When the vaccine is used too early after a natural infection, or worse during an active infection, the vaccine force activates a powerful immune response that attacks the tissues where the natural viral antigens are persisting. This, I suggest, is the cause of the high level of adverse events and, likely deaths, we are seeing in the recently infected following vaccination.”

Noorchashm is now pushing for the implementation of a prevaccine screening campaign (#ScreenB4Vaccine), using PCR or rapid antigen testing to determine whether the individual has an active infection, and an IgG antibody test to determine past infection.

If either test is positive, he recommends delaying vaccination for a minimum of three to six months to allow your IgG levels to wane. At that point, he recommends testing your blood IgG level and use that as a guide to decide the timing of your vaccination. As reported by The Defender:39

“Noorchashm told Carlson that he’s been wrongly accused of stoking vaccine hesitancy, when just the opposite is true — if public health officials want people to trust the vaccines, they need to do everything possible to avoid creating situations where the vaccines can actually cause harm.

‘People aren’t stupid,’ Noorchashm said. ‘If you explain how the vaccine works, and give them the information on how to keep themselves safe,’ that is how you build trust.”

What to Do if You Regret Getting the COVID-19 Vaccine

If you already got the vaccine and now regret it, you may be able to address your symptoms using the same strategies you’d use to treat actual SARS-CoV-2 infection. I review these strategies at the end of “Why COVID Vaccine Testing Is a Farce.”

Additionally, if you’re experiencing side effects, please help raise public awareness by reporting it. The Children’s Health Defense is calling on all who have suffered a side effect from a COVID-19 vaccine to do these three things:40

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

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

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

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

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

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Notes

1 The Sun March 15, 2021, Updated March 16, 2021

2 The Defender March 16, 2021 Countries Suspend AstraZeneca Vaccine

3 The Defender March 11, 2021

4 The Defender March 2, 2021

5 New York Times February 3, 2021 (Archived)

6 Business Insider March 1, 2021

7, 8 Science Norway March 18, 2021

9 CNBC March 18, 2021

10 Norway Today March 22, 2021

11 Spektrum March 19, 2021

12 Cleveland Clinic Type 2 Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia

13 AstraZeneca Press Release March 22, 2021

14 AP March 22, 2021

15, 19 NIH NIAID Statement of AstraZeneca Vaccine March 23, 2021

16, 20 The Verge March 23, 2021

17, 18, 23, 24, 37, 38, 39 The Defender March 23, 2021

21 AstraZeneca Press Release March 23, 2021

22 Twitter Prof Francois Balloux March 23, 2021

25 EMA March 18, 2021

26 New York Times March 22, 2021

27 NBC News March 15, 2021

28 World Pharma News March 17, 2021

29 The Mercury News May 20, 2020 (Archived)

30, 34 Annals of Internal Medicine September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352

31 Breitbart May 7, 2020

32 Scott Atlas US Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF)

33 John Ioannidis US Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF)

35 The Telegraph March 5, 2021 (Archived)

36 Medium February 15, 2021

40 The Defender January 25, 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).

***

As mass vaccination campaigns with experimental COVID injections now move on to the next demographic populations after beginning with senior citizens in assisted care facilities, and the healthcare workers in those facilities, the next targeted groups are educators.

We have seen multiple reports, for example, in the U.S. of entire school districts having to close down following a mass COVID injection campaign, as so many people get sick after the injections that there have not been enough employees in some school districts to hold classes right away following these massive injections.

Last week, I was informed of 3 deaths among faculty following COVID injections in one school district in Portland. But with nothing printed in the media and social media accounts silenced, I could not get collaborating evidence to publish those stories.

The Italian press, however, has now reported another death following the AstraZeneca COVID injection, a young professor from Gela, Italy. This follows our report from last week about 31-year-old Ilaria Pappa, a professor from Ischia, Italy, that The COVID Blog reported.

The professor from Gela is 37-year-old Zelia Guzzo. The Italian news publication quotidianodigela.it reports:

Zelia didn’t make it. After 12 days the professor died.

Only a miracle could have saved her, changing a clinical picture that already last week had appeared irreversible. Shortly before eight o’clock last night it was ascertained that for Zelia Guzzo, 37 years old, there was nothing more to do.

The 37-year-old teacher leaves her husband, also a teacher, and a young son. A tragedy that has shocked the family and all the colleagues where Zelia worked and was appreciated.

Twelve days ago the young woman had felt ill and had been forced to hospitalization first in the hospital, then urgently to Sant’Elia of Caltanissetta. Conditions made very serious because her condition was affected by a cerebral hemorrhage.

Three weeks ago she had received the Astrazeneca vaccine as well as all teachers in the province.

She had been breathing artificially for a week.

The prosecutor’s office of Gela has already started the first investigations to determine the possible causality with the vaccine she had received on March 1. A huge tragedy, which left in shock not only those who knew Zelia but the whole city. (Source.)

This is now the second time we have seen a criminal investigation started against the AstraZeneca COVID vaccines in Italy, following a death after injection.

Prosecutors in the northern Italian region of Piedmont also started a criminal investigation after a 57-year-old clarinet teacher passed away less than 24 hours after having the first dose of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. (Story here.)

Newsicilia.it is reporting that the shot that killed Zelia Guzzo in Gela is NOT from the same questionable batch of AstraZeneca COVID doses responsible for the death of Stefano Paternò, a 43-year-old Italian serviceman in Sicily. (Source.)

Meanwhile, the Prosecutor of Gela has ordered the seizure of medical records and documentation relating to the vaccine of the young teacher.

To report that the drug administered was not part of the famous lot ABV2856 seized by Aifa.

In short, the investigation goes on, but the pain remains. The pain of those who have seen break the dream of a 37 year old ready to protect others and herself, ready to fulfill her duty, ready to vaccinate to return to a normalcy still far away. (Source.)

As we reported last week, the adverse reactions from the COVID injections in Europe and recorded in EudraVigilance, show that for the AstraZeneca COVID vaccines, Italy has more deaths and injuries than any other European country reported in EudraVigilance.

All of this information is being censored by the Pharma-controlled corporate media, as well as Big Tech, which is the only reasonable explanation as to why people are continuing to rush out and take one of these experimental injections.

What is it going to take for people to wake up and understand that the intention behind these shots is NOT to provide immunity against a SARS virus, but to control people and serve the goals of the eugenicist Globalists who have publicly stated that they want to reduce the world’s population?

*Italian text translated with help from DeepL. (Just say “no” to Google!)

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Health Impact News

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: COVID Vaccine Mandate Violates Federal Law

March 30th, 2021 by 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).

***

The announcement last week by Rutgers University that it would require all students to get the COVID vaccine prompted CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to remind university officials that federal law prohibits mandating Emergency Use Authorization vaccines.

Rutgers University last week announced it will require all students enrolled for the 2021 fall semester to be vaccinated for COVID-19.

The announcement prompted Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to remind university officials that federal law prohibits mandating products approved under the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

In a letter to Rutgers President Jonathan Holloway, Kennedy, who also serves as chief legal counsel for CHD, wrote:

“Federal law 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) requires that the person to whom an EUA vaccine is administered be advised, ‘of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.’”

The reason for the right of refusal stems from the fact that EUA products are by definition experimental, Kennedy wrote.

“Under the Nuremberg Code, no one may be coerced to participate in a medical experiment. Consent of the individual is ‘absolutely essential,’” Kennedy wrote.

Kennedy said forced participation in a medical experiment could result in injury.

Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, who also spoke out against Rutgers’ policy, agreed. Specifically, he said, students should be pre-screened for COVID infection before vaccination.

In an open letter to Rutgers, Noorchashm, a surgeon and patient safety advocate, wrote:

“While I fully agree with your policy of maximal immunity for all students and faculty attending in-person on the Rutgers campuses, you must also remain 100% cognizant of a potential danger of indiscriminate vaccination to some of your students. This potential danger is not only a safety risk, it would also pose a risk of liability to your university.”

Noorchashm has been an outspoken critic of indiscriminate mass vaccination because he believes people already or currently infected with COVID are at risk of severe injury, including death.

As he told The Defender last week, viral antigens persist in the tissues of the naturally infected for months. According to Noorchashm, when the vaccine is used too early after a natural infection, or worse during an active infection, the vaccine force activates a powerful immune response that attacks the tissues where the natural viral antigens are persisting.

“This, I suggest, is the cause of the high level of adverse events and, likely deaths, we are seeing in the recently infected following vaccination,” Noorchashm said.

Holloway last week told The New York Times the vaccine mandate will apply to Rutgers’ three main campuses and that students will have to show “proof of vaccination” before moving into a dorm or attending in-person classes. Students will be able to file for medical or religious exemptions, and those attending online or off-campus programs will also be exempt.

NBC News last week reached out to several universities and colleges, which said they would encourage students to get the vaccine, but hadn’t yet decided on mandates.

Lynn Pasquerella, president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, told NBC:

“I’m just starting to hear discussion about mandating vaccines, and everyone I’ve talked to has said that they are leaning in the direction of mandating vaccines not just with the students, but with faculty and staff, as well.”

According to CHD President Mary Holland, federal law prohibits employers from mandating EUA vaccines.

In December 2020, CHD published “Vaccine Mandates: An Erosion of Civil Rights?” The downloadable e-book examines the history and consequences of vaccine mandates, and what you can do to protect yourself and your family members as public officials ramp up the pressure for COVID vaccines.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from 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).

***

This Monday, March 29, the third shipment of Russian Sputnik V vaccine arrived in Venezuela on a Conviasa airline flight from Moscow, containing 50,000 vaccines. With this shipment, 250,000 doses have arrived in the country since February 15.

In addition, it is estimated that the flight itinerary will continue to advance Venezuela’s COVID-19 vaccination plan. This batch was received by the Russian Ambassador to Venezuela, Sergey Mélik-Bagdasárov; Venezuelan Minister for Health, Carlos Alvarado; and Foreign Affairs Minister Jorge Arreaza.

New agreements were signed with the Russian Federation to complete an order for ten million doses of its vaccines.

“50,000 Sputnik V vaccines arrived, and 98,000 immunized health workers are going to immunize more health workers and people over 60 years of age or with a comorbidity, for comprehensive protection,” said Alvarado.

Similarly, Alvarado explained that “with these 50,000 vaccines we advanced towards the goal of vaccinating 70% of the population and then anticipating herd immunization.”

Priority for the elderly

In addition, the head of the Health Ministry announced that older adults will be prioritized.

“The goal is high, and we are starting with the most susceptible population. We started with life-saving health personnel and teaching personnel; vaccination of adults over 60 years of age will soon begin.”

The goal is to vaccinate 22 million people.

“We are already making agreements for more vaccines with Russia, China, Cuba and India. Venezuela is not stopping, and we are going to advance towards mass vaccination,” Alvarado announced.

Peace diplomacy

Foreign Affairs Minister Arreaza, for his part, highlighted the twinned alliances between both nations that allowed the acquisition of this drug.

“Thanks to the Russian Federation, today we received more vaccines,” said Arreaza. “In the next few hours further good news will be announced.”

He announced that in April a direct commercial flight route from Moscow to Caracas will be opened to expand binational agreements, trade, and tourism.

“We have the sale of oil under siege and they have blocked more than $100 billion from us, but President Nicolás Maduro does not stop,” added Arreaza.

The head of diplomacy also outlined the titanic efforts of the Government to guarantee the health of the Venezuelan people.

“The vice president met with the director of the WHO for the COVAX initiative for truthful agreements, not falsehoods,” he said, perhaps referring to the social media campaign launched by anti-Chavismo claiming that the Venezuelan government is not allowing some vaccines to enter the country. In reality the Venezuelan government has been blocked by the United States, the European Union and extreme-right Venezuelan anti-Chavismo from buying vaccines, due to the seizure of its assets in international banks.

Arreaza recalled that “we must be very rigorous, and that is why we are approving safe vaccines for people,” a reference to the responsible announcements made by the Venezuelan government in relation to its concern about acquiring AstraZeneca vaccines, singled out by many countries for causing serious side effects.

“We are going step by step, but these are firm steps. The people must recognize that their Government is making every effort and soon we will all be vaccinated,” said Arreaza.

Finally, a humanistic approach to the vaccination process in Venezuela was ensured, and the arrival of more drugs is expected.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: Second shipment of Sputnik V vaccines arriving in Venezuela on Monday, March 29, to continue the mass vaccination plan. Photo courtesy of MPPRE.

Second Amendment in the Firing Line

March 30th, 2021 by Rep. Ron Paul

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).

***

Gun control was already a Biden Administration priority before the recent shootings in Georgia, Colorado, and Virginia. In fact, the House of Representatives passed two gun-control bills weeks before the shootings.

One of the House-passed bills expands background checks to include private sales, including those made at gun shows. Under this bill, someone who is not a licensed federal firearms dealer cannot sell a firearm without first relinquishing it to a federally-licensed dealer. The dealer must then conduct a background check on the prospective purchaser.

The second bill allows the federal government to indefinitely delay a background check, thus indefinitely delaying a gun purchase. Other legislation introduced in Congress would create a national firearms registry, which would only facilitate gun confiscation.

This same legislation would forbid anyone under 21 from owning a gun. The ban does not apply to the military, so it will not stop the majority of gun violence committed by 18-21 year-olds.

The bill requires Americans to obtain a federal license before getting a firearm, but individuals cannot receive a license unless they undergo a psychological evaluation. The psychological evaluation mandate could lead to individuals losing their Second Amendment rights because they once suffered from depression. It could also cause people to lose their Second Amendment rights because someone told the police they may become violent.

Police officers in 20 states and the District of Columbia already have the authority to take away an individual’s Second Amendment rights based on allegations and without giving the individual due process. These “Red Flag” laws are supported by politicians of both parties, including some who claim to be pro-gun rights.

For example, former President Trump supported Red Flag laws. President Trump and Congressional Democrats were on the verge of reaching a “bipartisan” deal to expand Red Flag laws in the fall of 2019. Fortunately, the Democrat attempt to impeach the President ended all efforts at “bipartisan” deals to take away our rights.

A psychological evaluation could also be used to deny an individual Second Amendment rights because they may engage in “domestic terrorism.” Among those likely to be considered as potential “domestic terrorists” are opponents of US foreign policy, mass surveillance, the income tax, the Federal Reserve, and – ironically – gun control.

There is also legislation to reinstate the assault-weapons ban. Like the original ban, which was in effect from 1994-2004, the new legislation bans an arbitrary list of firearms and will do little to reduce gun violence.

Criminals and psychotics are not going to be deterred by background checks and licensing requirements from obtaining a firearm. There will be a black market to service those who cannot obtain firearms by legal means.

By discouraging law-abiding Americans from owning firearms, these laws leave millions of Americans defenseless against gun violence. There is a reason why most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones.

If Congress is serious about protecting Americans from violence, it would repeal all federal gun control laws. A good place to start would be with the Brady background check law and the misnamed “Safe and Gun-Free Schools” law, which leaves children defenseless against mass shooters. Congress ending the unconstitutional and anti-liberty war on drugs would also greatly reduce gun violence. Gun control, like all attempts by government to control our lives, makes us less safe, and less free.

*

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.

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The World Health Organization (WHO) has postponed the delivery of the “AstraZeneca” vaccine against the novel coronavirus to Syria, after it was supposed to arrive during this March.

The WHO representative in Syria, Akjamal Majtimova, stated that the distribution of the vaccine “depends on its availability in the global market, as well as the ability to manufacture, purchase, and invest in delivery.”

Majtimova added:

“It is possible that the distribution of the vaccine will need to be modified in light of the difficulty to anticipate circumstances and the constantly evolving variables. It is expected that Syria will receive the first batch of vaccines when the manufacturer confirms their availability.”

Regarding concerns about receiving the “AstraZeneca” vaccine after / 15 / European countries suspended the vaccination process due to the emergence of serious blood problems such as blood clotting in some of those who received it, the WHO representative stated that the organization “suggests that the AstraZeneca vaccine will continue to receive benefits- positive risks file, that is, its benefits are greater than its risks, with enormous potential for preventing infection and reducing deaths all over the world.”

Regarding the national plan to spread the vaccine, Majtimova said that it will be first by vaccinating 3% of the population, being “health workers who are in daily contact with pandemic patients,” and then 17% of the elderly and those with chronic diseases.

Despite announcing the late arrival of the “AstraZenica” vaccine in Syria, the country is close to the arrival of the Russian “Sputnik V” vaccine against Coronavirus, as batches are scheduled to arrive during the next month, noting that batches of Chinese vaccine have already arrived Syria and they were allocated at the time to vaccinate medical personnel who are in contact with virus patients.

The number of people infected with Coronavirus in Syria is 18201 cases, including 1216 deaths and 12142 recoveries, bearing in mind that the total number of Coronavirus infections worldwide approached 127 million.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from 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).

***

America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) spoke to former Pfizer Vice President and Chief Science Officer Dr. Mike Yeadon about his views on the COVID-19 vaccine, hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, the regulatory authorities, and more.

At the outset, Dr. Yeadon said “I’m well aware of the global crimes against humanity being perpetrated against a large proportion of the worlds population.

“I feel great fear, but I’m not deterred from giving expert testimony to multiple groups of able lawyers like Rocco Galati in Canada and Reiner Fuellmich in Germany.

“I have absolutely no doubt that we are in the presence of evil (not a determination I’ve ever made before in a 40-year research career) and dangerous products.

“In the U.K., it’s abundantly clear that the authorities are bent on a course which will result in administering ‘vaccines’ to as many of the population as they can. This is madness, because even if these agents were legitimate, protection is needed only by those at notably elevated risk of death from the virus. In those people, there might even be an argument that the risks are worth bearing. And there definitely are risks which are what I call ‘mechanistic’: inbuilt in the way they work.

“But all the other people, those in good health and younger than 60 years, perhaps a little older, they don’t perish from the virus. In this large group, it’s wholly unethical to administer something novel and for which the potential for unwanted effects after a few months is completely uncharacterized.

“In no other era would it be wise to do what is stated as the intention.

“Since I know this with certainty, and I know those driving it know this too, we have to enquire: What is their motive?

“While I don’t know, I have strong theoretical answers, only one of which relates to money and that motive doesn’t work, because the same quantum can be arrived at by doubling the unit cost and giving the agent to half as many people. Dilemma solved. So it’s something else.

Appreciating that, by entire population, it is also intended that minor children and eventually babies are to be included in the net, and that’s what I interpret to be an evil act.

“There is no medical rationale for it. Knowing as I do that the design of these ‘vaccines’ results, in the expression in the bodies of recipients, expression of the spike protein, which has adverse biological effects of its own which, in some people, are harmful (initiating blood coagulation and activating the immune ‘complement system’), I’m determined to point out that those not at risk from this virus should not be exposed to the risk of unwanted effects from these agents.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

Iran-China: The 21st Century Silk Road Connection

March 30th, 2021 by Pepe Escobar

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

***

Capping an extraordinary two weeks that turned 21st century geopolitics upside down, Iran and China finally signed their 25-year strategic deal this past Saturday in Tehran.

The timing could not have been more spectacular, following what we examined in three previous columns: the virtual Quad and the 2+2 US-China summit in Alaska; the Lavrov-Wang Yi strategic partnership meeting in Guilin; and the NATO summit of Foreign Ministers in Brussels – key steps unveiling the birth of a new paradigm in international relations.

The officially named Sino-Iranian Comprehensive Strategic Partnership was first announced over five years ago, when President Xi Jinping visited Tehran. The result of plenty of closed-door discussions since 2016, Tehran now describes the agreement as “a complete roadmap with strategic political and economic clauses covering trade, economic and transportation cooperation.”

Once again, this is “win-win” in action: Iran, in close partnership with China, shatters the glass of US sanctions and turbo-charges domestic investment in infrastructure, while China secures long-term, key energy imports that it treats as a matter of national security.

If a loser would have to be identified in the process, it’s certainly the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” drive against all things Iran.

As Prof. Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran described it to me,

“It’s basically a road map. It’s especially important coming at a time when US hostility towards China altogether is increasing. The fact that this trip to Iran [by Foreign Minister Wang Yi] and the signing of the agreement took place literally days after the events in Alaska makes it even more significant, symbolically speaking.”

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh confirmed the deal was indeed a “roadmap” for trade, economic and transportation cooperation, with a “special focus on the private sectors of the two sides.”

Marandi also notes how this is a “comprehensive understanding of what can happen between Iran and China – Iran being rich in oil and gas and the only energy-producing country that can say ‘No’ to the Americans and can take an independent stance on its partnerships with others, especially China.”

China is Iran’s largest oil importer. And crucially, bill settlements bypass the US dollar.

Marandi hits the heart of the matter when he confirms how the strategic deal actually secures, for good, Iran’s very important role in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI):

The Chinese are getting more wary about sea trade. Even the incident in the Suez Canal reinforces that, it increases Iran’s importance to China. Iran would like to use the same Belt and Road network the Chinese want to develop. For Iran, China’s economic progress is quite important, especially in high-tech fields and AI, which is something the Iranians are pursuing as well and leading the region, by far. When it comes to data technology, Iran is third in the world. This is a very appropriate time for West Asia and East Asia to move closer to one another – and since the Iranians have great influence among its allies in the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Hindu Kush, Central Asia and the Persian Gulf, Iran is the ideal partner for China.

In a nutshell, from Beijing’s point of view, the astonishing Evergreen saga in the Suez Canal now more than ever reiterates the crucial importance of the overland, trade/connectivity BRI corridors across Eurasia.

JCPOA? What JCPOA?

It’s fascinating to watch how Wang Yi, as he met Ali Larijani, special adviser to Ayatollah Khamenei, framed it all in a  single sentence:

“Iran decides independently on its relations with other countries and is not like some countries that change their position with one phone call.”

It’s never enough to stress the sealing of the partnership was the culmination of a five-year-long process, including frequent diplomatic and presidential trips, which started even before the Trump “maximum pressure” interregnum.

Wang Yi, who has a very close relationship with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, once again stressed, “relations between the two countries have now reached the level of strategic partnership” and “will not be affected by the current situation, but will be permanent”.

Zarif for his part stressed that Washington should get serious about its return to the Iran nuclear deal; lift all unilateral sanctions; and be back to the JCPOA as it was clinched in Vienna in 2015. In realpolitik terms, Zarif knows that’s not going to happen – considering the prevailing mood in the Beltway. So he was left to praise China as a “reliable partner” on the dossier – as much as Russia.

Beijing is articulating a quite subtle charm offensive in Southwest Asia. Before going to Tehran, Wang Yi went to Saudi Arabia and met with Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. The official spin is that China, as a “pragmatic partner”, supports Riyadh’s steps to diversify its economy and “find a path of development that fits its own conditions”.

What Wang Yi meant is that something called the China-Saudi Arabia High-Level Joint Committee should be working overtime. Yet there have been no leaks on the absolutely crucial issue: the role of oil in the Beijing-Riyadh relationship, and the fateful day when China will decide to buy Saudi oil priced exclusively in yuan. 

On the (Silk) road again

It’s absolutely essential to place the importance of the Iran-China deal in a historical context.

The deal goes a long way to renew the spirit of Eurasia as a geo-historic entity, or as crack French geopolitician Christian Grataloup frames it, “a system of inter-relations from one Eurasian end to another” taking place across the hard node of world history.

Via the BRI concept, China is reconnecting with the vast intermediary region between Asia and Europe through which relations between continents were woven by more or less durable empires with diverse Eurasian dimensions: the Persians, the Greco-Romans, and the Arabs.

Persians, crucially, were the first to develop a creative role in Eurasia.

Northern Iranians, during the first millennium B.C., experts on horseback nomadism, were the prime power in the steppe core of Central Eurasia.

Historically, it’s well established that the Scythians constituted the first pastoral nomadic nation. They took over the Western steppe – as a major power – while other steppe Iranians moved East as far away as China. Scythians were not only fabulous warriors – as the myth goes, but most of all very savvy traders connecting Greece, Persia and the east of Asia: something described, among others, by Herodotus.

So an ultra-dynamic, overland international trade network across Central Eurasia developed as a direct consequence of the drive, among others, by Scythians, Sogdians and the Hsiung-Nu (who were always harassing the Chinese in their northern frontier). Different powers across Central Eurasia, in different epochs, always traded with everyone on their borders – wherever they were, from Europe to East Asia.

Essentially Iranian domination of Central Eurasia may have started as early as 1,600 B.C. – when Indo-Europeans showed up in upper Mesopotamia and the Aegean Sea in Greece while others journeyed as far as India and China.

It’s fully established, among others by an unimpeachable scholarly source, Nicola di Cosmo, in his Ancient China and Its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History(Cambridge University Press):  pastoral nomadic lifestyle on horseback was developed by Iranians of the steppe early in the first millennium B.C.

Jump cut to the end of the first century B.C., when Rome was starting to collect its precious silk from East Asia via multiple intermediaries, in what is described by historians as the first Silk Road.

A fascinating story features a Macedonian, Maes Titianos, who lived in Antioch in Roman Syria, and organized a caravan for his agents to reach beyond Central Asia, all the way to Seres (China) and its imperial capital Chang’an. The trip lasted over a year and was the precursor to Marco Polo’s travels in the 13th century. Marco Polo actually followed roads and tracks that were very well known for centuries, plied by numerous caravans of Eurasian merchants.

Up to the caravan organized by Titianos, Bactria – in today’s Afghanistan– was the limes of the known world for imperial Rome, and the revolving door, in connectivity terms, between China, India and Persia under the Parthians.

And to illustrate the “people to people contacts” very dear to the concept of 21st century BRI, after the 3rd century Manicheism – persecuted by the Roman empire – fully developed in Persia along the Silk Road thanks to Sogdian merchants. From the 8th to the 9th   century it even became the official religion among the Uighurs and even reached China. Marco Polo met Manicheans in the Yuan court in the 13th century.

Ruling the Heartland

The Silk Roads were a fabulous vortex of peoples, religions and cultures – something attested by the exceptional collection of Manichean, Zoroastrian, Buddhist and Christian manuscripts, written in Chinese, Tibetan, Sanskrit, Syriac, Sogdian, Persian and Uighur, discovered in the beginning of the 20th century in the Buddhist grottoes of Dunhuang by European orientalists Aurel Stein and Paul Pelliot, following the steps of Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang. In the Chinese unconscious, this is still very much alive.

By now it’s firmly established that the Silk Roads may have started to slowly disappear from history with the Western maritime push to the East since the late 15th century.  But the death blow came in the late 17th century, when the Russians and the Manchu in China divided Central Asia. The Qing dynasty destroyed the last nomadic pastoral empire, the Junghars, while the Russians colonized most of Central Eurasia. The Silk Road economy – actually the trade-based economy of the Eurasian heartland – collapsed.

Now, the vastly ambitious Chinese BRI project is inverting the expansion and construction of a Eurasian space to East to West.  Since the 15th century – with the end of the Mongol Empire of the Steppes – the process was always from West to East, and maritime, driven by Western colonialism.

The China-Iran partnership may have the capacity to become the emblem of a global phenomenon as far-reaching as the Western colonial enterprises from the 15th to the 20th centuries.  Geoeconomically, China is consolidating a first step to solidify its role as builder and renovator of infrastructure. The next step is to build its role in management.

Mackinder, Mahan, Spykman – the whole conceptual “rule the waves” apparatus is being surpassed. China may have been a – exhausted – Rimland power up to the mid-20th century. Now it’s clearly positioned as a Heartland power. Side by side with “strategic partner” Russia. And side by side with another “strategic partner” that happened to be the first historical Eurasian power: Iran.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

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

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

Selected Articles: The Criminalization of Big Pharma

March 29th, 2021 by Global Research News

Video: Bill Gates and His Empires. Boycott “Fake Food”. Dr. Vandana Shiva

By Dr. Vandana Shiva and Dr. Joseph Mercola, March 29 2021

In this interview, Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., discusses the importance and benefits of regenerative agriculture and a future Regeneration International project that we’ll be collaborating on.

New York’s COVID Vaccine Passport. Show “Your Papers Please” Way of Life

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, March 29 2021

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is establishing a Covid passport that will show vaccination or a recent negative test. It will serve as permission to enter events or venues.

The World’s Richest People: Excessive Wealth Disorder Is Destroying Our Societies

By Rod Driver, March 29 2021

David Rothkopf wrote a book about the world’s richest people called Superclass. In it he noted that 161 people control $23 trillion, and that the incomes of the top 25 hedge fund managers are approximately $800 million per year each.

Genocidal Nation: “What Is It About Us?…Are We Homicidal by Nature?”

By Jim Miles, March 29 2021

While there are no truly easy answers and no easy solutions (while they may be obvious, they will be highly contested – violently so) the quick answer reveals more truth: no, not homicidal, but very much genocidal.

The U.S. Pivot to Asia: Cold War Lessons from Vietnam for Today

By Cynthia Chung, March 29 2021

There were Cold War preparations underway as early as August 1945 and the two regions selected, Korea and Vietnam, were pre-planned years in advance before the actual wars were to take place.

Stop COVID Testing Immediately: PCR and Quick Test Swabs May be Cancer-Causing

By Peter Koenig, March 29 2021

Not only has covid testing become a US$ 100 billion business, it is also potentially a “deadly business”. PCR and Quick Test swabs are sterilized with the carcinogen Ethylene Oxide.

By Eivind Nicolai Lauritsen, March 29 2021

Norwegian health authorities still haven’t reached a conclusion on the AstraZeneca vaccine. The pause in vaccinations will be kept in place for three more weeks. A decision will be made before April 15.

Lockdown One Year On – It Doesn’t Work, It Never Worked & It Wasn’t Supposed to Work

By Kit Knightly, March 29 2021

And so we come to March 23rd, and lockdown’s first birthday. Or, as we call it here, the longest two weeks in history. 1 year. 12 calendar months. 365 increasingly gruelling days.

The Criminalization of Big Pharma, mRNA Vaccine Deaths and Injuries. EU Adopts “Digital Vaccine Passport”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 29 2021

On March 25, 2021, the European Parliament voted 468 to 203 in favour of the Digital Vaccine Passport or “Green Pass” which requires EU citizens to get vaccinated if they want to travel, or even have access to various social and cultural activities within their respective communities.

Will a China Real Estate Collapse Trigger the Global Financial Meltdown?

By F. William Engdahl, March 28 2021

Prevailing financial sector “wisdom” holds that while the bond and stock markets of the US and EU are dangerously inflated following huge COVID borrowings and unprecedented central bank measures, that China is the one example of a market suitable for investment as it has managed to get beyond COVID and restart its economy.

The Ides of March: False Pretexts Galore in the Wars on Yugoslavia and Iraq

By Michael WelchProf Michel ChossudovskyScott RitterŽivadin JovanovićJames Bissett, and Scott Taylor, March 27 2021

Joe Biden recognized that weapons inspections, if allowed to proceed would undermine his effort. This is why he had to discredit the inspections.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Criminalization of Big Pharma

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).

***

The continual improvement of Chinese-EU relations is irreversible since it embodies the driving force of history, particularly as it relates to the inevitable integration of the Eurasian supercontinent as an outcome of the emerging Multipolar World Order.

China and the EU are economically complementary partners and equally rich civilizations that are unprecedentedly expanding their cooperation through last December’s Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI). This deal enables them to more closely connect their economies and pursue mutually beneficial outcomes through their shared win-win philosophy. Nevertheless, America has attempted to aggressively break their bilateral bonds out of hegemonic jealousy, furious at the scenario of its transatlantic partners evolving from patron states to independent players in International Relations.

This is evidenced by US Secretary of State Blinken’s trip to the bloc last week where he sought to turn its 27 member states against the People’s Republic. The relaunching of their previously frozen dialogue under the former Trump Administration isn’t intended to advance anything other than America’s efforts to divide the EU from China. It was preceded by the Brussels imposing its first sanctions against Beijing in over 30 years as a result of Washington’s pressure upon it to tow the propaganda line on debunked allegations of human rights abuses in Xinjiang.

The People’s Republic swiftly responded in a symmetrical manner that’s fully in line with its rights under international law, thereby dealing a principled tit-for-tat intended to show that no provocations will ever remain unanswered but that Beijing also harbors no intention to escalate matters with Brussels. Both moves are mostly symbolic for the most part but they still worryingly show that Washington is trying to regain its hegemonic influence over the EU. The bloc’s 27 members must therefore be extremely wary of their historic transatlantic partner since it doesn’t have their best interests in mind.

The continual improvement of Chinese-EU relations is irreversible since it embodies the driving force of history, particularly as it relates to the inevitable integration of the Eurasian supercontinent as an outcome of the emerging Multipolar World Order. International Relations are changing from their hitherto zero-sum outlook to the new perspective of win-win engagement, which is led by China’s active efforts to popularize this philosophy across the world. A lot of progress has already been achieved, and although external meddling might lead to a few road bumps along the way, the path ahead is still clear and desired by both parties.

The next step to strengthen Chinese-EU ties in the face of US resistance is to expand their existing cooperation into other strategic spheres such as jointly containing the COVID-19 pandemic, combating climate change, and collaborating on 5G technological solutions for facilitating the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Some EU member states are under heavy American pressure to choose between their their traditional transatlantic partner and their newfound East Asian one in these fields, but such a zero-sum choice is a false one that’s only being forced upon them for hegemonic reasons. In reality, they can and should cooperate with both countries.

Unlike the US, China doesn’t pressure its partners, whether it comes to any aspect of their bilateral ties or especially not in terms of their relations with any third party. All that Beijing asks is that their pragmatic cooperation remain free from any external influences and focused solely on pursuing win-win outcomes. This speaks to how sincerely China treasures the principles of multipolarity as articulated in the UN Charter, which contrasts with the American approach of exploiting strategic elements of its relations with certain states for the purpose of advancing zero-sum outcomes vis-a-vis its perceived rivals such as China.

The world is in the midst of full-spectrum paradigm-changing processes which will unleash an exciting future for all. Everyone stands to benefit as International Relations continue becoming more multipolar, which will open up new opportunities for development that will in turn improve people’s living standards. The EU must resist American pressure to revert back to the discredited model of zero-sum thinking and instead proudly embrace the win-win philosophy that defines the new model of International Relations. That is the only means through which the EU can enhance its strategic independence and truly remain a meaningful player in global affairs.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on 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.

Dear Readers,

We are pleased to announce that the first Global Research Webinar will be held this Wednesday, March 31st, at 4:00 pm (EDT), 1:00 pm (PT), 3:00 pm (CT)

The 2020-21 Worldwide Corona Crisis

 

It will be presented by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky on the topic of the 2021 Corona Crisis as discussed in his E-book (Ten Chapters) entitled:

The 2020 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

Another important reference is:

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

Image right: Prof. Michel Chossudovsky


Wednesday, March 31st, 4:00 pm (EDT) Time Zones 

4:00 pm EDT 

1:00 pm PT,

2:00 pm CT

9:00 pm BST (GMT + 1) 

10:00 pm ECT 


We extend this invitation to all Global Research Members and Readers.

The webinar will be able to accommodate up to 120 people on a first come, first served basis.

To become a Member of GlobalResearch.ca, click here 

A message will be sent out to our Newsletter subscribers tomorrow Tuesday March 30th, 2021 providing the Zoom login and password details.

A followup Newsletter reminder with Zoom details will be sent out on Wednesday morning March 31st, 2021.

First published by Global Research on July 21, 2020

Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children (aka SickKids) has released a detailed report on “the harms of school closure on [children’s] physical and mental health.” Harms included: “Increased rates of depression, trauma, drug abuse and addiction and even suicide can be anticipated.”

The SickKids report reassures parents that there is “strong evidence that the majority of children who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 are either asymptomatic or have only mild symptoms…. There have been no paediatric deaths reported in Canada to date.”

Even more heartening is that SickKids Hospital recommends:

“Non-medical and medical face masks are not required or recommended for children returning to school.”

They point out that

“if worn incorrectly, it could lead to increased risk of infection and it is not practical for a child to wear a mask properly for the duration of a school day.”

They also state the oft-ignored fact that:

“There is a lack of evidence that wearing a face mask prevents SARS-CoV-2 transmission in children.”

More like no (direct) evidence. Same goes for adults. Which may be why the report advises teachers to teach without a mask as “facial expression is an important part of communication which children should not be deprived of.”

But what about physical distancing? Should kids all be cubicled like in China and have recess in a six-foot bubble? Here’s what The Hospital for Sick Children says:

…strict physical distancing should not be emphasized to children in the school setting as it is not practical and could cause significant psychological harm. Close interaction, such as playing and socializing, is central to child development and should not be discouraged.”

Instead, to help prevent the spread of COVID they give some reasonable suggestions that have many other health benefits:

“If weather permits, consideration could be given to having classes outside…. Attention should be paid to improving classroom ventilation (e.g. optimizing ventilation system maintenance and increasing the proportion of outside air brought in through these systems).”

Even high-risk children are not advised to be quarantined:

“…there is no convincing evidence to suggest the level of medical risk to [high-risk] children from SARS-CoV-2 is different from that posed by other respiratory viruses, such as influenza. As a result, given the unintended consequences associated with not attending school, attending school is recommended for the majority of these children.”

You can read SickKids Hospital’s refreshingly sensible advice in COVID-19: Recommendations for School Reopening.

Maybe we can avoid turning the schools into corona concentration camps as Italian parliamentarian Sara Cunial has been warning against.

*

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.

John C. A. Manley has spent over a decade ghostwriting for medical doctors, as well as naturopaths, chiropractors and Ayurvedic physicians. He publishes the COVID-19(84) Red Pill Daily Briefs – an email-based newsletter dedicated to preventing the governments of the world from using an exaggerated pandemic as an excuse to violate our freedom, health, privacy, livelihood and humanity. He is also writing a novella, COVID-27: A Dystopian Love Story. Visit his website at: MuchAdoAboutCorona.ca

Featured image is from 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).

***

Dear Department for Education,

This request is in relation to the use of the Innova lateral flow test (the “LFT”) being used across schools in the UK.

We are in receipt of correspondence from Innova confirming that the swab used in the LFTs is sterilised by ethylene oxide. Given the known toxicity and potential carcinogenicity of ethylene oxide, we are concerned by this.

Under the ‘Freedom of Information Act 2000’, we request disclosure of the following:

  • information as to what, if any, independent tests have been carried out to check for any residues of ethylene oxide on a random sample of swabs;
  • information as to what, if any, assessments have been conducted to ensure that the invasive use of these swabs for children is safe?

I understand that, under the Act, I am entitled to a response within 20 working days of your receipt of this request.

Some parts of the request may be easier to answer than others. Should this be the case, I request that you release information as soon as possible as it becomes available. If my request is denied in whole, or in part, I ask that you justify all decisions to deny disclosure by reference to specific exemptions of the Act.

I will expect you to disclose all non-exempt material that is within the scope of this request. I reserve the right to appeal your decision to withhold any information or to charge excessive fees.

I would prefer to receive the information electronically at the email address submitted to you as part of this request.

Yours faithfully

Molly Kingsley,
UsforThem

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Not only has covid testing become a US$ 100 billion business, it is also potentially a “deadly business”. PCR and Quick Test swabs are sterilized with the carcinogen Ethylene Oxide.

According to the Government of Canada, as well as the “What do They Know” the PCR test swabs are sterilized by ethylene oxide which is described by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a carcinogen. In other words, a potentially cancer-causing chemical toxin.

In essence, EPA says the following about the carcinogen Ethylene Oxide:

“EPA classified ethylene oxide as a human carcinogen in December 2016. Studies of workers show that their exposures to ethylene oxide are associated with an increased risk of cancers of the white blood cells (the infection-fighting cells of the immune system). Studies also showed an increased risk of breast cancer in females.”

“Evidence in humans indicates that long-term exposure to ethylene oxide increases the risk of cancers of the white blood cells, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma, and lymphocytic leukemia. Studies also show that long-term exposure to ethylene oxide increases the risk of breast cancer in females.”

“EPA, as well as the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National Toxicology Program, classifies ethylene oxide as carcinogenic to humans. Evidence in humans indicates that exposure to ethylene oxide by inhalation increases the risk of lymphohematopoietic cancers (including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, myeloma, and lymphocytic leukemia) and, for females, breast cancer.

EtO is mutagenic (i.e., it can change the DNA in a cell). Children may be more susceptible to the harmful effects of mutagenic substances.”

For the full EPA text, see this.

RT-PCR Testing, Testing

Governments, especially in Western countries are calling frantically for more and more testing? – Testing-testing-testing. They put people into lockdowns – the so-called Third Wave lockdowns, aka, illegal and totally unjustified house-arrests – a complete lie, so they submit easier to the constant testing, and eventually vaccination, hoping the lockdowns will end sooner.

Is it a coincidence or negligence that school children, the most vulnerable for cancerous toxin Ethylene Oxide (see EPA, above) – are now tested regularly and repeatedly? – In Switzerland for example, the Government has given the Cantons (semi-autonomous Departments) the authority (or a tacit order?) to have school children tested at least once a month, even though they show no symptoms whatsoever? It is not only negligence – it is an outright crime.

See this horrifying video of children testing – how they hurt the children – and why does the swab stick have to go all the way up in the nose to a thin wall separating the sinuses from the brain cavity?

 

Honest medical doctors tell you – even in Switzerland – this is not necessary. A swab could be taken simply from the saliva in the mouth.

Knowing the Big Picture behind Covid – the Great Reset, or Building Back Better – in brief the UN Agenda 2030, see this. This testing-testing-testing with a carcinogen-tainted swab is beyond just negligence. Is it possible (yet to be verified) that many of the health staff in the testing front-line do not know about the danger for their testing subjects.

Are those in senior decision-making government positions throughout the West aware of what they are doing? The Canadian Government Advisory states the following:

If the swab is sterilized using an ethylene oxide (EtO) method, you should demonstrate that EtO and ethylene chlorohydrin (ECH) residuals meet the tolerable contact limits (TCL) specified in ISO 10993-7. Commonly used swab materials, compatible sterilization methods and appropriate biological indicators are described below.

Anything goes. Quietly injecting with multiple-multiple tests with swab sticks contaminated, alias “sterilized”, with carcinogenic agents, deep into your nose, at the entrance of the brain cavity, is just one means of creating potential cancer cases, not to mention brain damage.

Such “secondary effects” may appear much later, years down the road, when nobody can trace them back to the covid-tests, the covid vaccines and whatever else nefarious and diabolical tools are used in the name of combating covid.

Should the matter pertaining to the use of carcinogenic Ethylene Oxide be the object of an investigation. investigation? 

The PCR Tests Are Useless

By now, every government knows – there is no way of ignoring it – that the PCR tests are useless. They do not allow detecting the existence of the SARS-Cov-2 virus. The WHO has admitted that the test as applied since January 2020 in invalid.

However, most of the 193 UN member governments – with a few exceptions – run over this evidence like a steamroller, hoping the masses will not notice.

They may do so probably as long as it takes to get the world population vaccinated — as Bill Gates wants it. Remember, when he said, the world won’t be getting back to somewhat close to normal until the 7 billion world population is vaccinated.

Again, one wonders what ulterior agenda might be behind this ferocious, coercive and human rights abusing effort of most world governments – involving the UN system as a whole.

The entire vaccination hype – everybody is strongarmed or otherwise manipulated into being vaccinated against a virus that does not need a vaccine to cure it. As we know by now, there are plenty of inexpensive but effective viral medicines that work efficiently against covid. China had no vaccines to combat the covid outbreak. Yet, they did it in a record time.

Recently, the EU Commission ratified a Vaccination Passport, or Certificate, without which your “free” movements may be tremendously hampered.

It becomes increasingly clear that there is another agenda in action; a “different agenda” from that of protecting people’s health.

What are injected, especially with these non-vaccines, called mRNA jabs – never tested before – are, among other bio-chemicals, women- and men-sterilizing and fertilization inhibiting agents, as well as special electromagnetic proteins converting your body into an EM field for eventual digitization, to make humans into “trans-humans”.

These modern Frankensteins could then be remotely controlled and become a walking “Agenda ID2020” – so they will eventually carry all their health and other personal data in their bodies. Agenda ID2020 is a Bill Gates creation and has already been approved in several countries, including Germany.

We are not there yet. But that is the plan. Bear in mind, life is not linear, but dynamic.

The Great Reset, UN Agenda 2030, “Building Back Better”, and other slogans to ring in the Big Change, are all based on linear approaches. They may work for a while. But in the long-run, dynamics – the life-inherent defense system, will prevail. See also “The Big Picture” article

The danger of vaccination is multifaceted and, if carried out in the midst of what is called a pandemic, it can cause a global catastrophe a few years on, according to an interview with Dr. G. Vanden Bossche, a renowned virologist, who worked for many years for the pharma industry, notably vaccine manufacturers, including Pfizer, Moderna, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and GAVI – the Vaccine Alliance, in Geneva – physically located – by sheer coincidence – next door to WHO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ZJZxiNxYLpc

Premature death is written all over the place from all sorts of artificially imposed causes, as part of the huge criminal fraud of covid, the mass manipulation by the media driven by government lies – lies indoctrinated by false media propaganda – by the 193 UN member governments. What a coincidence!

Think about it.

And especially ask your governments without hesitating with a loud voice that TESTING BE IMMEDIATELY STOPPED.

*

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.

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.

African Branch of ISIS Plans to Form Islamic Caliphate in Mozambique

March 29th, 2021 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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

***

The security situation on the African continent is close to chaos. Once again, terrorist groups advance in Mozambique and leave innocent victims, drawing the attention of international society to the structural failure in the current mechanisms to combat terrorism in Africa.

Last Wednesday, terrorists invaded the Mozambican city of Palma in a brutal attack on shops, banks, hotels, and a military base. Dozens of people died during the attack. There are hundreds of wounded, many in serious condition. According to reports by survivors, while escaping the shootings, civilians hid on a beach in the region, where a large number of decapitated bodies were spread. Official figures are still being counted.

Palma is a city located in the province of Cabo Delgado, a region with a Muslim majority. The dispute for political control of the region has been operated by several terrorist militias. These militias belong to the terrorist group Al Shabab, which is an African regional branch of ISIS. Al Shabab’s activities are all carried out under strict control, being fully coordinated according to the interests of ISIS, which is in fact the organization that controls terrorism in Mozambique and in most of Africa. With the recent attacks, Mozambique has reached the mark of more than 2,500 dead since the start of the attacks and clashes in 2017. In addition, the number of migrants is already over 70,000, due to collective fear.

However, the reasons why militias representing ISIS want to control the region are quite strategic. Palma is a city close to a large gas exploration field under the control of the French company Total. Right after the attack, Total suspended its activities indefinitely. As a result, the company’s facilities are vulnerable to occupation by terrorists, considering that government forces have been unable to contain the attacks.

Indeed, the most plausible explanation for the focus of the attacks and tensions being Palma and the entire region close to the border with Tanzania, where there are rich reserves of natural gas, is that there is an interest on the part of ISIS to control this natural resource and enjoy its technological and economic benefits. Al Shabab has been conducting attacks with the objective of making it impossible to carry out the exploration and commercialization of the gas.

Total, which has now suspended its activities, can, at any time, give up on its projects in Mozambique if it does not receive support in security policies – something that the Mozambican government does not seem capable of doing and that the French government does not seem interested in. This will lead to the abandonment of the facilities, which could be occupied by Al Shabab in a few days, making official the control of Mozambican gas by terrorists affiliated with ISIS. This situation would be catastrophic, as it would put a large amount of material resources under the control of criminal organizations, making possible several projects that until then would have been unimaginable. After all, having an equipped army, controlling a territory and its population, and exploring and trading natural resources, terrorists will have almost all the necessary requirements to form a true country in Africa, which will serve as the basis for international terrorism.

The formation of an Islamic caliphate in Africa is not a recent project. This has always been part of the dreams of the largest terrorist groups, and many see that such a project would in fact have greater viability in the African continent than in the Middle East, mainly because it is a region with much weaker states, much more deteriorated political structures, poorly equipped armies, with little military action by world powers and with a gigantic list of natural resources far beyond oil. It is no coincidence that ISIS’ activities in Africa have been growing as this group has failed in Syria. The less space it loses in the Middle East, the more ISIS focuses on regions with less international attention.

Historically, France is the nation that is most concerned with the security of the African continent. There are several French military cooperation projects with African nations and the presence of the European country on this continent is immense. However, we can clearly see that the mechanisms used so far have not been sufficient and that Paris is no longer able to deal with the African issue. Still, amid problems with migration and concerns about the forthcoming elections, Macron does not seem willing to change his policy towards Africa. Meanwhile, Mozambique suffers from the advance of the terrorist militias, which already almost completely control Palma. Total is about to leave the country and soon its structures may be commanded by Al Shabab, which will be able to use natural gas to invest in the infrastructure of a new caliphate or to sell resources on the world illegal market. In the end, who will prevent the catastrophe of the formation of a terrorist state in Eastern Africa?

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The U.S. Pivot to Asia: Cold War Lessons from Vietnam for Today

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

I have just watched Michael Moore’s latest Rumble podcast [1] in which he asks the question “What is it about us?” while referencing the Columbine massacre and relating it to the current set of U.S. mass murders.  The subtext to the title “What is so different about Americans?” asks “Are we homicidal by nature?”  

While there are no truly easy answers and no easy solutions (while they may be obvious, they will be highly contested – violently so) the quick answer reveals more truth:  no, not homicidal, but very much genocidal.

Genocidal nation

I use the term genocidal in its application by the U.S. and its empire against both the people of the world and the world itself, comprising all other living things and the environment required to support that life.  It can be narrowed down to two facets for the establishment of the country:  first it was born out of violence; and secondly it was born out of racism.  These two go very well together and have shaped the U.S. into what it is today.

Much of it is the U.S.’ European heritage, a region of the world very familiar with genocide (well before the holocaust) and military violence.  Another aspect of that heritage is the racist Doctrine of Discovery as promulgated by the Papal Bull of 1452 and others following.   The Christian Doctrine of Discovery essentially relegated all non-Europeans to being savages, primitives, who are to be treated as outside of European/Christian culture and at the very base, treated as slaves, with their environments to be used to enrich the homeland.

Britain was very much a part of this, as its empire had all the aspects already mentioned and used them for its own power and enrichment around the world.  Nor is the U.S. unique in being born of a British heritage, but its revolutionary birth, its continuing fight over slavery and its still present racism, combined with its ethnocentric view as being a superior people destined to lead and control the world has morphed into what it is today – a militarized culture of violence.

It’s personal….

The personal level is created by the rhetoric of the media, the politicians, and the banksters,  financiers, and corporate bosses who have ruled throughout the history of the U.S.    The list of personality traits is significant: rugged individualism; exceptionalism; entitlement; revenge.  Another social attribute is the overwhelming rhetoric for freedom, without an associated call for responsibility, only responsible for the self and not the general good of society.  What develops from all this social and psychological rhetoric is a greedy, ignorant, self-centered society.  Those attributes are generalized throughout society.

…and it’s societal….

From the start the U.S. has operated in a militarily violent and racist manner, continuing with and bettering its British heritage.  Today the government of the U.S. is composed of those who embody the violent and racist heritage of its founding and development.  It is an imperial government, endlessly creating fear of the ‘other’ – be it socialists, communists, jihadists, immigrants, Russian, Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Japanese, Nicarauguans and essentially anyone ‘other’ than the old white guys who wish to retain control of the system.  What is created is a militarized society operating for the benefit of corporate, political, and military elites.  There are many aspects of its control – militarized police, financial dominance of the elite, corporate malfeasance towards people and the environment, lack of social structures, a prison-military complex, and the control of the vast majority of media of all kinds.

The lack of social structures has a serious impact on the financial and emotional health of the individual.  Access to health care is expensive, limited, or for many non-existent.  Education is not highly regarded in the sense that many want the public system abolished and replaced with private schools or equally racist/elitist voucher schools.   In general, U.S. citizens tend to be rather ignorant about not only the world, but about their own country and how it operates, and through the education process and its allied media process produces a greedy self-centered society that puts the blame on the individual rather than on the collective for any problems that may occur.

…and it’s the empire.

The U.S. has been since its inception an expanding empire using violent and genocidal techniques in attempts to control the world.  There is a long history of U.S. endeavours towards empire from the Doctrine of Discovery through Manifest Destiny on to today’s hubristic “exceptionalism” and “indispensability”.   All of it is underlain by racism and the use of violence as an initial ‘diplomatic threat’ to be followed by violent war (covert or overt) as the next diplomatic step.  As an empire it is not alone in all this as its companions in violence and racism are either of the same heritage – Canada, Australia, Europe, Israel – or have been co opted into being significant partners through a combination of threats and financial benefits, the latter accruing to the local domestic powers rather than citizens.  But the U.S. stands alone as the greatest purveyor of violence and militarism, and its domestic culture and foreign policy are both born out of the roots of imperial violence and racism.

Solutions

As always, the solutions are really  quite simple as far as ideas are concerned – it is the application of those ideas that will create immense resistance.

From the problems listed above, the solutions should be obvious.

First, create an education system that develops a well informed and critical thinking public.

Secondly, as exposed by the current pandemic, a large change needs to be made to the health system so that greed – profit – is not the dynamic supporting the system, but that care for all should be equally accessible and free.

For the working people and the environment, corporations need to be either banned or severely limited with large responsibilities for ‘externalities – pollution, worker’s health and safety – put into place.

The financial system is near a breaking point, built on debt (largely through the military industrial complex combined with outsourcing and offshoring of employment) and supported now mostly by money created by the stroke of a computer keyboard without any product being produced, the financialization of markets that enriches the elites and impoverishes the rest.  Reform of corporate law and tax law will help create a significantly more equal society and should help finance necessary health, safety, educational, and environmental laws.

“So what is it about us?”

This is not really an easy question to answer.  The attributes of U.S. society discussed above can be found in other countries, but not to the same degree, nor in the same over-riding conglomeration.    A nation founded on exceptionalism, racism, and violence over the land and the people will be hard to reconstruct let alone make amendments for.

Ultimately change will occur.  It may come conclusively and finally from the barrel of a gun and related military hardware.  Or it may occur as the citizens of the U.S., the “Columbine generation”, finally outlive ‘we’ the boomers and create a new kind of society.

*

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.

Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] https://rumble.media/episode/what-is-so-different-about-americans-are-we-homicidal-by-nature-with-tom-mauser-columbine-parent/

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).

***

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is establishing a Covid passport that will show vaccination or a recent negative test. It will serve as permission to enter events or venues. See this. 

Will this passport be efficacious, or is its purpose to get us accustomed to a “your papers please” way of life?

Allegedly, the combination of people with vaccinations and those recovered from infection have, or are, bringing about “herd immunity.”  If so, what is the point of a passport?

There are credible reports that some who have been vaccinated have nevertheless come down with Covid, which raises doubt about the efficacy of the vaccine.  There are other reports that antibodies produced by the vaccines are not long lasting.

How recent must the Covid test be to make the passport valid.  A person could have a negative test and catch Covid on the way home.  If the passport relies on a negative test, the passport will have to expire after some designated period unless the passport is renewed with a new test.

There is also the problem that the widely used PCR test produces false negatives and false positives.  In other words, is the information on which the passport is issued valid information?

We can laugh at the passport as a silly over-reaction to a virus that in most cases is hardly more dangerous than flu, or we can understand it as a control measure over our freedom of movement and association.  We are the safer if we view it as the latter.  

Police already have too much power to invade homes without warrants and to stop and search people on the streets without warrants.  “Probable cause” has been used to curtail civil liberty. 

I am convinced that no health purpose will be served by Covid passports, and that the public should protest the introduction of a Soviet-style internal passport.

Once established, the Covid passport will be a boon for Big Pharma.  A yearly booster shot will be decreed, and without it your passport will expire. 

Keep in mind that Florida avoided lockdowns and mask mandates and has no worse infection and death rate than lockdown states.  

Notice also that many highly qualified experts have criticized the lockdowns, mask mandates, use of untested vaccines, and the prohibition on using safe effective treatments such as HCQ and Ivermectin.  Why were their voices censored and the information kept from the public?  The only explanation I can think of is that Covid is being used for an unstated agenda.  We should not be deceived into cooperating with this unstated agenda.  

A democracy that censors expert testimony and prohibits public debate is well on its way to a police state.  

A public that can be stampeded by orchestrated fear into being jabbed with vaccines that could be more dangerous than Covid is not a public that can expect to remain in freedom.

*

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.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

***

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue is a group that includes the US, Japan, India, and Australia. Formed 14 years ago as a forum to coordinate Indo-Pacific policy, many are dubbing it the Asian NATO, and a possible counterweight to China’s growing influence. But can they contain an increasingly powerful China?

*

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.

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).

***

A Chapel Hill woman who says her mother died of a stroke 48 hours after receiving the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine spoke to WRAL News about her concerns and the questions she has about her mother’s death. The state and a UNC doctor, though, warn about drawing any conclusions yet.

Becca Ingle is understandably devastated after her mother’s sudden death two weeks ago. She says her mother was in good health, but started feeling very ill shortly after getting the vaccine. She wants to know if her mother’s death could be connected to the vaccine. The state is investigating this case and so is WRAL.

As a college professor who worked in person with her students at Appalachian State University and spent lots of time caring for her two grandchildren, 63-year-old Virginia Ellington was counting the days until she could be vaccinated against COVID-19.

“I have texts from her saying how excited she was to get it,” her daughter, Ingle, said.

Ingle said her mother and father got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine on the morning of Monday, March 8, at the Watauga Health Center in Boone.

Ellington started feeling very tired and even asked her husband about possible vaccine side effects, Ingle told WRAL News.

Ellington went to work the next day but was still feeling unwell, according to her family. On Wednesday, March 10, she stayed in bed. A little while later, her husband returned to the bedroom to find her unresponsive.

“He tried giving her CPR, and he called 911, and they said she was gone when they got there,” Ingle said.

Ingle said the local doctor, who did a preliminary examination, told the family that her mother died of a stroke. The local medical examiner, a paramedic and a teacher who signed the death certificate, wrote that the vaccine was one of the “significant conditions contributing to her death.”

“We were all shocked when we saw that was even on there,” Ingle said.

Ingle shared her questions about the vaccine and her mother’s death on TikTok. The post has had more than 4 million views, but it received mixed reviews. TikTok even placed a warning on it.

Virginia Ellington

“It just breaks my heart that this is what happened and this is what it takes to share her story,” Ingle said.

Ingle says her mother was in good health prior to her death.

“It (the vaccine) definitely escalated things,” she said. “Whether she was going to have a stroke in 30 years or whether she was going to have it now, it definitely triggered it.”

Ingle says high blood pressure and strokes run in her family.

Dr. Stephan Moll, a medical professor, researcher and hematologist at UNC Health, believes connecting the vaccine to a stroke is a rush to judgment.

“The vaccine is appropriate for everybody independent of the family history or their personal history,” he said.

He thinks mention of the vaccine should not have been included on the death certificate.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 795,000 people in the United States have strokes every year. North Carolina has one of the highest rates, at 26,000 per year, or 70 per day.

“Some people will develop a stroke and have had the vaccine,” Moll said, “but that’s a coincidental occurrence. Even an association, that’s a rare one. It should not sway away anybody from getting the vaccine.”

The CDC has found no evidence of a connection between the vaccines and strokes. Moll says the only way to know for sure is to do an autopsy.

The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services has referred Ellington’s case to the Office of the State Medical Examiner for an autopsy. Agency officials told WRAL News:

“The death investigation for this case is in the preliminary stage, which is why the death certificate says ‘pending.’ After an autopsy examination by one of our regional autopsy centers, the preliminary results do not show that this death was related to a vaccine or vaccination.”

Susan Hawkins, the local medical examiner who signed the death certificate and made the reference to the vaccine as a factor, declined comment to WRAL News and referred all questions to the state.

The final state medical examiner’s report could take several months to complete, and more answers should be clear at that time.

That portends a painful wait for a daughter seeking answers.

“I’m not here to say you shouldn’t take it,” Ingle said. “I’m just saying raise awareness. You should check on your loved ones if you are getting it.”

Johnson & Johnson provided this statement to WRAL News:

“There is no greater priority than the safety and well-being of the people we serve. We carefully review reports of this nature that involve individuals receiving our medicines, or in this instance, a vaccine.”

Company officials go on to say that these reports are evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other health authorities that are monitoring the overall safety of the vaccine rollout.

Recognizing this story may generate a lot of interest, the family issued a statement saying, “As the family mourns their loss, please respect their need for privacy.”

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Woman Raises Questions after Mom’s Death Certificate References Vaccine. Experts Warn About Drawing Conclusions.
  • 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).

***

British former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption has warned that “social controls” brought about by the coronavirus pandemic may be kept in place by governments for up to a decade.

“It’s politically unrealistic to expect the Government to backtrack now,” commented Sumption, who has been highly critical of the government’s ‘totalitarian’ lockdown policies.

The judge compared the reaction to rationing after the Second World War, which went on for nine years, adding that this time “I think it may be even longer.”

“An interesting parallel is the continuation of wartime food rationing after the last war. People were in favour of that because they were in favour of social control,” he said during a ‘Sketch notes on’ podcast.

“In the 1951 general election, the Labour party lost its majority entirely because people with five years more experience of social control got fed up with it. Sooner or later that will happen in this country,” he added.

Sumption’s warning comes in the wake of Public Health England officials stating that restrictions will remain in place for as long as other countries have not vaccinated everyone, a process likely to take years.

England’s chief medical officer also recently asserted that the pandemic restrictions, which have been in place on and off for a year, have “improved life” for some people.

Despite promising an end to restrictions in June, the UK government yesterday extended emergency COVID laws until October, with Health minister Matt Hancock refusing to say how long they will remain in place after that.

Lord Sumption also noted during the podcast that scientists skeptical of lockdown policies have been “subjected to an extraordinarily unpleasant campaign of personal abuse”.

“I know a lot of people that would prefer not to put their head above the parapet,” He continued, adding “From the very moment I started to make these points I began to get emails from politicians who agreed with what I had to say but that they themselves didn’t dare to speak out. That I think is a very serious state of affairs.”

The judge also argued that governments are using the virus politically, noting

“They have consistently tried to maintain that the virus is indiscriminate when it is perfectly well-established that it primarily affects people with identifiable vulnerabilities, particularly in the elderly.”

Speaking about the draconian crack down on anti-lockdown protesters, Sumption said

“People ought to be entitled to voice their differences (of opinion),” adding “If the only way you can enforce distancing is by beating people over the head with truncheons then it’s not worth it.”

Now that Brits have allowed society to be permanently deformed, with polls routinely showing vehement support for lockdown and other pandemic rules, things are never going to be the same again.

Having allowed the precedent that the government can put the entire population under de facto house arrest on a whim, look for the policy to be repeated over and over again with different justifications that have nothing to do with COVID-19.

As we previously highlighted, one of those justifications will be man-made global warming, with climate lockdowns set to become a regular reality.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from howstuffworks

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Former Supreme Court Judge Lord Sumption Expects People Will be Forced to Wear Masks, Stay Home for Ten Years

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).

***

In this interview, Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., discusses the importance and benefits of regenerative agriculture and a future Regeneration International project that we’ll be collaborating on.

Click here to watch the video

Full transcript below.

***

Boycott Fake Food: The Role of Regenerative Agriculture in Worldwide Health

A Special Interview With Vandana Shiva, Ph.D

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Welcome everyone. This is Dr. Mercola helping you take control of your health, and we are delighted to be able to connect with Dr. Vandana Shiva today about some really exciting topics you’re going to want to definitely listen to. So let me give a little background first. So Vandana Shiva did her doctorate in quantum physics. So she’s definitely got some serious brainpower to contend with.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: But I just found out recently that her name, Vandana Shiva, Shiva was I guess a reaction of her parents to avoid the caste system. And Shiva is actually a Hindu god and is the destroyer. So what the heck is she destroying? She’s destroying the bad things that need to be replaced with the good ones. So she couldn’t have a better name. It’s just so perfectly appropriate. I was so excited to understand what your name finally meant. So that is just great.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: So I want to give a little background because we’re going to have some exciting discussions about regenerative agriculture and our collaboration together, but before we go there, and I want to dialogue about this too, but I want to set the stage. I live in Florida. Not too far from where John Rockefeller spent most of the end of his life, and he actually died here. Just literally blocks away from where I live. So why do I say that? Not to brag, but I’m just saying that it’s because he was at the time the wealthiest person in the world. A century later, Gates replaced him.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: The similarities don’t end there. Rockefeller was despised. He was hated, absolutely despised in the culture. So he had a lot of wealth and he was able to hire some really sophisticated PR people, and they determined that the best way to change that and shift that position around was to turn him into a philanthropist, to donate some of his wealth back so he looked like an angel.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Well, guess what? Gates isn’t stupid. He follows the same darn strategy. Prior to the 2000, he was vilified. His name was dirt. Most everyone hated Gates, absolutely hated him, especially when the Department of Justice came after him.

Vandana Shiva: The antitrust case.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: That’s what it was, yeah. The antitrust.

Vandana Shiva: Exactly the kind of antitrust case against Rockefeller on Standard Oil. So now they say Big Data is the new oil. He’s the new oil.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yes. Yes, indeed. So let me just finish and we’re going to dialogue a little bit. So then Gates came in and he adopted this thing. So the reason I’m saying that is because for the vast majority of the population, he’s viewed as a benevolent saint, literally like an angel. That he’s donating all his wealth and his intention is for the good of the planet. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the absolute diametrical opposite.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: I want to comment on what he’s done, just briefly summarize it and then you’re going to talk about the future. What he’s done, and we’ve all seen the pieces of the puzzle fitting in. But it just hit me recently. There was no way it would ever have been possible to have this catastrophe of COVID literally on a global basis if it wasn’t for one organization. That organization is the World Health Organization. It was primarily they that facilitated this mass hysterical reaction and adoption by virtually every government on the planet.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: So why’s it important to know? Because Gates is integral to the World Health Organization. Absolutely integral. Last year when Trump banned the U.S. funding, he was the biggest funder of the World Health Organization. Pretty much everything has been through by him. And why is this so key? Because two things. One, as we all know, these vaccines. The vaccines are coming out now, and Gates is the biggest promoter of those and probably he’s going to be a significant contributor to his financial wealth. But in addition to that, there was a massive censorship that developed as a result of suppressing every natural alternative that would be effective, safe and just abolish – and even drugs they were suppressing like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin because they were competitors to the vaccine.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: So that is my brief summary to sort of set the stage for this, and then we’re going to go into the next – and you can certainly comment on that now, but what I want to transition to is to what he’s doing now because that was step one or the first phase. The next phase is even worse. At least I perceive it to be.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Well, I didn’t even welcome you yet. So welcome and thank you for joining us with that long monologue.

Vandana Shiva: Hello, Dr. Mercola.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: So what do you think about what I just said? If you can comment on that, and then we’ll transition into what the next step is in our collaboration with Regeneration International.

Vandana Shiva: Well, I think the parallel you draw between Rockefeller as a robber baron around not just oil but created the Big Finance and created Big Pharma.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Vandana Shiva: Yeah. Now Rockefeller had very intimate connections with IG Farben. There was a Standard Oil IG Farben company. Without the fossil fuels of Standard Oil, the IG Farben couldn’t have either made the synthetic fertilizers or the fuels. So in fact, Hitler’s regime required this partnership, and they played it out even though the armies were fighting. They looked like two opposite camps, but when it came to making money, it was the same camp.

Vandana Shiva: A very big part of Rockefeller’s history has been captured by Lily Kay. When she went through the archives in “The Molecular Vision of Life,” how the Nazi regime, as a eugenics regime, thinking some people were inferior and should be exterminated for keeping the superior race pure, that thinking then migrated because Rockefeller was anyway in the States. And they started to call it social psychology as biological determinants. The skin-based determination, we are getting attacked, so let’s go under the skin and look at atoms of determinism. The word gene did not exist at that time. They called it atoms of determinism.

Vandana Shiva: And then Rockefeller paid research. Ninety-nine percent of the research shifted to molecular biology. Nobel Prizes shifted to molecular biology and the genetic determinism and the genetic reductionism, which is part of the silencing of the real true health. To have health means to be whole. To be whole means your self-organized brilliance of your integrative body as a complex system. That that wholeness is true health. That’s what Ayurveda is based on. Even Ayurveda has been attacked in recent times.

Vandana Shiva: But coming back to the parallels, Rockefeller was behind because he was driving the chemical industry. When the wars were over, they said, “Oh my gosh, all these chemicals to sell.” And they invented the Green Revolution and pushed the Green Revolution on India. Rockefeller, the World Bank, the U.S.A all worked together, and if the farmers of India are protesting today, it’s a result of that initiative of Rockefeller. The Green Revolution in India. Most people don’t realize what high cost India has born, what high cost the state of Punjab has born.

Vandana Shiva: Then you have Gates joining up with Rockefeller and creating the alliance for the Green Revolution in Africa. And in his new book, which pretends to be his solution to climate change, I say, “My god, what kind of stage as the world reached that absolute nonsense can pass the science?” I mean, I’ll give you just three examples from his chapter on agriculture, which he talks about how we grow things. So first of all, plants are not things. Plants are sentient beings. Our culture knows it. We have the sacred tulsi. We have the sacred neem. We have the sacred banyan. No, they are sentient beings. There are so many people are awake to animal rights. I think we need more people awake to plant rights and really tell Mr. Gates, “No, plants are not things.”

Vandana Shiva: He goes on to celebrate Norman Borlaug whose job, he was in the DuPont defense lab, whose job was to push these war chemicals by adapting the plants. So he created the dwarf varieties because the tall varieties are free varieties. We just refused. We refuse chemicals. Our plants said, “No.” I call him the first satyagrahis, the fight for truth. The plants said, “Sorry, don’t want chemicals.” They enlarge.

Vandana Shiva: Borlaug’s semi-dwarf varieties are cited by Gates as a big invention, and then he says we’re eating food because of Borlaug. No, people are starving because of Borlaug. The farmers are dying because of Borlaug.

Vandana Shiva: Then he goes on stance in front of a synthetic fertilizer plant and said the biggest invention, and I’m so happy. I’m happier than I even look. Doesn’t he realize synthetic nitrogen fertilizers are creating desertification, dead zones in the ocean and nitrous oxide, which is a greenhouse gas? He’s offering the problem as the solution.

Vandana Shiva: Then he goes on, I mean, talking about bad biology, he doesn’t know that nitrogen-fixing plants can fix nitrogen nonviolently. He says plants can’t fix nitrogen. He needs to come to England and study. He needs to understand and when he’s pushing the fake meat and the Impossible Burger, I said he needs to come and cook dal. Once he learns how to make dal with good nitrogen-fixing plants, he won’t have to speak the rubbish he’s able to get away with.

Vandana Shiva: And finally, no, no, the methane doesn’t come from factory farms. Have you smelt methane behind nomadic tribes? Have you ever smelt methane behind our sacred cow in India? No, they don’t emit methane. Methane is a result of intensive feed of beans to animals and putting them in these concentration camps, which then becomes emitted. That’s why the cave will stink. The concentration animal farm operation have a stink.

Vandana Shiva: You know what Mr. Gates wants to teach us? He says the cows make methane because their poor stomachs. They call them containers. I think we should sue him for undoing basic class one biology. You’ve talked about how to control the WHO. He’s trying to take control of the FAO. The FAO is [the] Food and Agricultural Organization, is based in Rome. It is what has recognized ecological agriculture as the way to go and supported agriculture ‘til last year until Gates started to take charge. And now he’s moving the [World] Food Summit to New York. Five hundred organizations have said, “This is no more a Food Summit. It’s a poison summit.” The poison cartel, and Bill Gates, the billionaires are running it to push more poisons now under new names.

Vandana Shiva: So we have a lot of work to do. 500 have said boycott, but we still need to come together. And we have to come together around truth and nonviolence and regeneration and away from untruth and fakeness and violence and the degeneration of our bodies, our health, the planet, our minds. Look at the people who are sick. How many people have lost work? How many people have lost food? How many people are sick? But in India, the farmers are doing fine. The villages are doing fine. When people are healthy and eating healthy food, there is no problem. The problem is where they’ve already made people suffer, and now they want to make people suffer even more. He wants to commit a crime against our gut microbiome pushing more fake food through Impossible Foods. And he wants to create conditions that real food will disappear. That’s why we all have to organize together and the scientists have to start being protected.

Vandana Shiva: I think our job, Dr. Mercola, is there’s an extinction taking place. They call it the sixth mass extinction. Most people think the sixth mass extinction is about other species. They don’t realize large parts of humanity are being pushed to extinction. Independent science, good healthy knowledge. That food is health, as Hippocrates said. Indigenous systems of learning, ecological agriculture, small farmers. In Bill Gates’ design, all this that makes life, life, that makes society, society, that makes community, community, that makes healthy beings, he would like to push this to extinction because he’s afraid of independence and freedom and health and our “beingness.” He wants us to be thingness, but we are beings.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yes, indeed. Well, thank you for commenting on that and helping to expand that vision connecting the dots with respect to Rockefeller and the pharmaceutical industry, which is an important one. And actually, Rockefeller and Carnegie, at the turn of the century, were responsible for producing what’s known as The Flexner Report in 1910, which largely acknowledges being the beginning of the end for natural medicine in conventional teaching. I mean, they eliminated it from all the medical schools. This largely is a result of seeking to replace those interventions with pharmaceutical that were derived from the oil industry.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: But I wanted to go a bit more into Gates in this transition because he knocked it out of the park. He was very clever in what he did, and it was a long-term play. I mean, he started really digging into his control of the World Health Organization over a decade ago. He had a long-term vision. He was able to pull it off and basically engineer a whole global response. And now he’s transitioning into pharma, and I would like you to elaborate on that.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Here’s one of my concerns, and I didn’t realize this until recently because the book I’m writing next year focuses on one of the most fundamental elements of optimizing human health, and that is the restriction of a very specific omega-6 fat, which is typically considered to be essential. It’s called linoleic acid. But if you eat food, you’re going to get more than enough. So the problem is that industrialized Western cultures, we have massive excesses. Five, six, 1,000-fold, 2,000-fold increases above what is needed for optimal health.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: The reason why that’s important to understand is because one of Gates projects, as you alluded to, was this Impossible meats and these engineered meats. Now it’s really important to understand these are not derived from some Star Trek replicator. They’re made from raw materials. The most important source of calories is fat. So where is the fat coming from this engineered meat? This is so crazy you can’t make it up. It’s coming from genetically modified soy and canola oil. So not only do you have the issues with GMOs, but then you have this massive excessive of omega-6 linoleic acid fat, which is going to absolutely accelerate destruction or movement towards every single chronic degenerative disease. So that’s a huge thing.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: But he’s also buying in some pharma. So I want you to tie those pieces together and tell us what is his plan? What do you see happening from Gates’ next phase?

Vandana Shiva: Well, both my book “Oneness vs. the 1%”-

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yeah, which I did an interview with you on it.

Vandana Shiva: Yes, you did. And then we did the “Gates to a Global Empire” where I realized he was entering every field that has to do with life because our work in Navdanya, which means nine seeds, is basically work on biodiversity in agriculture. We started to bring together all the work that he’s doing in taking over. So let me just run through.

Vandana Shiva: I mentioned the Rockefeller Green Revolution, now the Gates-Rockefeller Green Revolution in Africa. The next step he wants to push is he’s not saying no to chemical farming. He’s celebrating synthetic fertilizers, but he’s now talking about digital agriculture. And he names it Gates Ag One, and the headquarters of this is exactly where the Monsanto headquarters are – St. Louis, Missouri.

Vandana Shiva: Gates Ag One is one agriculture for the whole world organized top down. He’s written about it. We have a whole section on it in our new report “Gates to a Global Empire.”

Vandana Shiva: What does he want to do with digital? First of all, have the entire surveillance system introduced. I think we managed to stop seeds of surveillance startup he was starting where he would’ve liked pharmas to not be allowed to grow seeds unless the surveillance system had approved them. But I have fought in my life and my country to have the freedom of seeds defended. Article 3J of our patent law says plant seeds and seeds are not invention, therefore cannot be patented.

Vandana Shiva: And interestingly while this whole drama is going on in the vaccine question, the rich countries that pretend to be doing Gates’ philanthropy have absolutely refused to do the waiver on intellectual property showing very clearly it’s about moneymaking. It’s all about moneymaking. If you look at every vaccine, Gates has a finger in it.

Vandana Shiva: But coming back to the issue of one agriculture digitalized, and then for this, they have to do data mining because they don’t know agriculture. So Gates’ financing the policing of people in farmers’ homes in order to mine their data. How do they harvest? How do they trench their fields? And everything. And then sell it back to them – and Bayer, with what Monsanto is doing that – putting out data collection like Google does. They put data collection, then they sell back the data to you.

Vandana Shiva: Interestingly as far as the Impossible Burger is concerned, Bayer has said very clearly with the growth of plant-based food – but all food is plant-based, even animal food is plant-based because everything begins with photosynthesis. Everything begins with plants. But you can eat real plants or you can eat the fake food.

Vandana Shiva: The growth of fake food, which is totally engineered first three years ago, I think they created a eat forum and started to talk about this being the solution to all chronic diseases created by industrial agriculture, and who’s onboard on the forum? Who’s on board on Fresh? The poison cartel, the Bayers, the Monsantos and the fertilizer industry. Bayer has said this demand for plant-based, which is another way of talking about fake food made in [a] lab, basically it’ll make an increasing demand on raw crops, as they call them. And larger-scale production. Now no more of food but of raw materials of the carbohydrates, the fats and the proteins.

Vandana Shiva: So food is now being dismembered to become raw material for factories which will be the lab, and he’s driving this. But all this eventually begins in seed. So my work started on seed because Monsanto wanted to patent it. I said, “No, you don’t invent the seed. You will not patent a seed.” And we worked to create community seed banks, reclaim our seed freedom. Now Gates controls all the seed supply.

Vandana Shiva: During the Green Revolution, the Rockefeller Green Revolution I’ll call it, the World Bank financed international research institutions. They collected all the seeds of the farmers, and they’re in these gene banks, which have everything that farmers ever grew. Then the farmers were forced to grow chemical varieties and Green Revolution varieties. Now Gates controls all those CG systems. Gates is controlling the seeds of the world. The research of the world, the knowledge of the world and the fake food.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: How does he control them? How does he control them?

Vandana Shiva: Through funding, of course.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Okay. So he doesn’t own them.

Vandana Shiva: Just like he controls the World Health Organization.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yeah, just like he controls the media, I guess.

Vandana Shiva: Yes, through money. Money. Money control.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Okay. So he doesn’t outright own these seed companies, but he [crosstalk 00:22:56]- Vandana Shiva:

They’re not companies. They’re our public collections. They’re our public research. They’re the public commons of agriculture. He’s taking control, but control in this field means that then he uses – you see, at that time, the patenting was done through genetic engineering by actually introducing genes. Now he does it through genomic mapping. He’s got all the collections. All you need is little bits of seed, just read the genome. Your passport data tells you this is a drought prone seed, a salt tolerance seed. This one has a fragrance or a fragrant rice. You don’t have to know anything. The passport data tells you this is what it is. You do a genomic map, take a patent.

Vandana Shiva: He has Editas. See, he financed the research on gene editing to undercut all the bio safety laws of the world. Where the only country which doesn’t have biosafety laws is the United States, but the rest of the world does because we have a human treaty called the biosafety protocol, Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Okay, wait, wait, wait. Hold on. Hold on. Time out. So how did he finance this thing? I mean, I wasn’t aware of this. It’s really intriguing.

Vandana Shiva: Well, my reading, and this is what I put in the “Oneness vs. the 1%” is when he is creating the appearance of philanthropy, what he’s doing is giving tiny bits of money to very vital institutions. But with those bits of money, they’re attracting all the government money, which was anyway running those institutions. But now because of his clout, he is taking control of the agenda of the institutions. Meantime, pushing patenting, and because he’s pushing patenting, whether it be on drugs or on vaccines or on seeds.

Vandana Shiva: So the gene editing, which is the new GMO technique and the first two applications had to back off because they said, “This is not a GMO.” And then John Fagan found a test which could detect that it is a GMO, and then they realized they could be sued because they wanted to sell it as natural but take a patent. But the company that is collecting the patents on gene-edited organisms, whether in health or in agriculture, is a company called Editas started by the person who was the main financial investor for Gates’ Foundation and Gates is a very, very big investor in Editas.

Vandana Shiva: So here’s a company called Editas to edit the world as if it is a Word program. The two scientists who got the Nobel this year have both been funded in their research by Gates.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Oh, Jennifer Doudna who got it for CRISPR.

Vandana Shiva: Right, and my mind went back to how Rockefeller financed the research, got a Nobel [Prize], and then made the money. So you finance the research. You finance the public institutions whether they be national or international, but you then invest and you force them down the path where they can only use what is your patented intellectual property.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Wow.

Vandana Shiva: And as he has said in an interview, his smartest investment was vaccines because it is 1 to 20 return. One to 20 return. One dollar put in, $20 made. But how many billions of dollars have been put in? So you can imagine how many trillions would be made.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Actually Crypto would’ve been a better investment than that. But yeah, still I saw that interview. I think it was at Davos. It was some cold place, and he was bragging about the 20 to 1 return. But you’re right, when you put in billions, it adds up. It adds up quite rapidly.

Vandana Shiva: Dr. Mercola, I haven’t finished the story.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Okay. I’m sorry. I’m sorry for interrupting.

Vandana Shiva: So at the end of it, where does food come from? It comes from seed. He wants to control it. It comes from land. He’s controlling that. He’s became the biggest land owner.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Vandana Shiva: And that’s all over the place with Forbes, and it doesn’t even have to be an investigative journalist digging this up. It’s now the top financial news. But you need weather. You need a stable climate. So what could be a weapon of control of an agriculture? Weather modification. He calls it geoengineering. This is engineering the climate, again, making it look like he’s going to solve global warming by creating global cooling, by polluting the atmosphere. And in fact, there’s going to be a campaign launched and have been asked to be part of that launch where he’s financing Harvard to do a geoengineering experiment.

Vandana Shiva: But this weather modification and modifying the Earth’s balance is not just a way of destabilizing the Earth’s climate systems more, but then taking into your hands the decisions you’ll make the create rain at harvest time, to create a drought when farms should be getting sowed. And we have had very strange occurrences. This kind of a predictability of weather and we know there’s climate change. But somehow in harvest time in India, you have to have horrible hailstorms and the hail stones are sometimes that big.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Wow.

Vandana Shiva: So weather modification and worst, to me, the worst crime against the Earth and against humanity is using gene editing technologies for gene drives, which is a collaboration of Gates with DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), the defense research system, and the gene drives are deliberate driving to extinction. Now he does it in the name of ending malaria. No. It’s about driving to extinction.

Vandana Shiva: Monsanto created super weeds by using Roundup-resistant soil and Roundup-resistant corn. Amaranth is one of the biggest super weeds. Amaranth is a sacred food for us. Very, very important source of nutrition, both green as well as in gray. There’s an application in that DARPA-Gates report of driving the amaranth to extinction through gene rights. And when this was raised at the Convention on Biological Diversity, you know what he did, he actually hired a public relations agency and bribed government representatives to not say no. Can you imagine?

Vandana Shiva: He is corrupting the UN (United Nations) system. He’s of course corrupted the governments already. We’ve seen that with the whole WHO phenomena. But now he’s destroying the edifice we built over the last 20 to 30 years in protecting the global environment. Whether it be the climate treaty, the biodiversity treaty or the atmospheric treaties, he is absolutely behaving as if the UN is his subservient institution. Governments and regulatory bodies should not exist and do not exist. And of course, people in democracy have no business to speak otherwise they’re conspiracy theorists.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Well, that is pretty amazing compilation of information about Bill Gates. So I’m curious, really curious, as to what your speculations are for his motivations because he’s already one of the wealthiest people in the world. I mean, it’s hard to imagine having a billion dollars and being able to spend it all in your lifetime, but he’s got over $100 billion. So it clearly isn’t money alone. I think you alluded earlier it was power, but is there an endgame for acquiring even more power than he already has in control? Is it related to the fact that his father was a leader in the movement of Planned Parenthood, and some speculate this is a tendency towards eugenics and really depopulation strategy? I mean, what is your best guess as to what’s motivating this unbelievable collection of activities that seems to be dedicated to decimating the population of the Earth?

Vandana Shiva: Well, I think money of course has a role in this otherwise he wouldn’t need to do investment through his philanthropy. He’d do plain philanthropy. Then he’d give, and his money would keep decreasing, right? If I have $100 billion and every year I’m giving away a few billion, I should have less of it.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: No, no, but he-

Vandana Shiva: He gets more of it.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: And you know how he does that? He does it through loopholes in the tax system.

Vandana Shiva: Exactly.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: His foundation is actually able to invest in other companies that directs him – personally should be absolutely illegal and should be in jail, but he’s able to do it.

Vandana Shiva: Yeah, but I think these are the issues that need to be taken up because what’s happened is that ordinary people are having to fight the individual battles when these are about institutional, structural, societal crimes and they need to be taken up the way Rockefeller was taken up and Standard Oil was broken down. So all the empires, and the Gates empire is multiple empires. But at the end of it, it’s one empire. So definitely making more money because those who fall into the trap of making money don’t know when to stop. I call it the economy of the cancer cell. They don’t know when to stop. But it is definitely power. The love for power.

Vandana Shiva: And I feel this kind of love for power, at the end of it comes from deep fear. It comes from a deep fear of small people living joyfully in their freedom. Yeah, I got $100 billion. [inaudible 00:33:03] at that poor peasant who loves to till the soil. I’m going to take that away from them. So it’s fear of freedom, the fear of the small, and the freedom of life without you.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Interesting. Yeah, so that’s a good observation. Appreciate that. In response to these efforts, you’ve committed some serious effort towards projects to counter this strategy that Gates is using and all nefarious efforts that result from it. So I’m wondering in one of them is actually collaborating with us in Regeneration International. So maybe you can discuss a little bit about that collaboration now.

Vandana Shiva: Regeneration International grew out of the fact that the organic was being totally attacked, and we knew that there had been a commodification of organic too. So we got together and Ronnie [Cummins] and André [Leu] and Hans Herren and I, we created the Regeneration International, which is an amazing movement. And definitely in the United States has picked up, and I noticed no matter what the movement, they’re using the word regeneration now. Could be a health movement, could be a democracy movement, it could be a peace movement, be a women’s movement, everyone has realized the regeneration is what we have to shift to.

Vandana Shiva: So what do we need to be doing in the next – I mean, for me, the next decade is the determining decade. So I take my mind back-

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Wait, wait, wait. Let’s stop there. Why is the next decade the determining decade?

Vandana Shiva: Because these petty minds, insatiable greed wants to go so fast that if in the next decade we don’t protect what has to be protected and build resilient alternatives and take away the sainthood from this criminal, they will leave nothing much there to be saved. So when 87 chemical corporations, the poison cartel, which is also the Big Pharma. People think, “Agriculture’s here, medicine is here.” No. The same criminal corporations gave us agri-chemicals. They gave us bad medicine that creates more disease than it solves.

Vandana Shiva: So Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Poison, all one. And Bill Gates is holding it all together even more, and trying to make them bigger because he has investments in all of them. All of them. He’s constantly investing.

Vandana Shiva: So when the chemical companies said, “We own all the seed and no farmer will be allowed to save their seeds. And we’ll have an international law. All seeds will come from us. We’ll be five companies, and all seeds will be GMO and patented.” And I said, “No. You won’t have your way. We save one seed at a time. One seed at a time with all the love we can pour into that saving.” And today’s seed saving is a global movement. It’s totally a global movement, the Seeds Freedom Movement.

Vandana Shiva: So I think that’s the first place we have to begin because Gates wants our seeds. Gates wants our seeds. And I will be sending a letter to you and Regeneration very soon because when Iraq was invaded, one of the things done was an Iraqi Order 81 that made it illegal for Iraqis to use their own seeds. The Iraqis approached me about this Iraqi Order 81, and I’ve been saving seeds. And I said, “Let’s just call for seed freedom.” We started. I’ve been building global movements anyway. So I’m hoping that we will be able together launch a global movement soon to take back our seeds from our international seed banks. These are our public common codes.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Okay.

Vandana Shiva: He cannot enclose them.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: So you referenced earlier that Gates was funding this. [crosstalk 00:37:37] Vandana Shiva:

Funding and controlling now.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Controlling. [crosstalk 00:37:40] So what is your strategy to address that?

Vandana Shiva: The strategy is we need to remind the world that these are public institutions.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Vandana Shiva: That they’re accountable to the farmers whose collections these are.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: But is that reminder going to be sufficient to counter the funding that Gates is supplying?

Vandana Shiva: His funding is meaningless. His funding is meaningless because if the farmers, as the true givers of seed, are served their rights – I want to just remind you one more thing, Dr. Mercola. So you know we drove out golden rice from India. Golden rice is this fake solution to vitamin A deficiency. Hundreds of percent inferior to the greens we can grow in our field. Gates is funding it in the Philippines and pushing it and bypassing every safety law. But there’s a huge stop golden rice campaign in Philippines.

Vandana Shiva: We stopped in 2010. We stopped the Bt eggplant in India through public hearings. Gates is funding it in Bangladesh. He would like to spread it to the world from there.

Vandana Shiva: So all the failed first-generation GMOs and the next-generation GMOs, he’d like to control. So just the other day I did a webinar that these are failed technologies. The Bt cotton failed. The farmers’ suicides were because of its failure and the death we created. So we need to tell that full story.

Vandana Shiva: So on the seed question, you’ve got to continue on our seed freedom. On the food question, I think that’s the big one because food and health go like this as you know better than anyone else. In Ayurveda, it says “Annam Sarvaushadhi” — food is the best medicine. And if you don’t eat good food, then no medicine can cure whatever disease you have. The best medicine is good eating. And Hippocrates said, “Let food be thy medicine.”

Vandana Shiva: So I think this is the time now to really grow a very, very big global campaign on food freedom. Food freedom means you cannot destroy our right to grow food. Two, you cannot destroy our government’s obligations to us to support regenerative agriculture rather than support your degenerative agriculture and subsidize you. And the third, I think we should give a call on boycott of his lab foods. Boycott lab foods, like we said. Ronnie was with me in the U.N. meeting when we launched the GMO-free campaign. Way back October ’95 to ’96.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: That’s an interesting strategy. I like it. I’m up for that one.

Vandana Shiva: So let’s do this.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: A worldwide boycott. A worldwide boycott.

Vandana Shiva: A worldwide boycott. Yeah. Because they need a lot of advertising and a lot of brainwashing in order to get there. But if you already announce the boycott and un-bother all the conscious eaters of the world, all the organic producers and eaters, and all the people working on health through food. I know so many cancer specialists who contact me who’ve given up their practices in medicine and are only doing organic farming. And they [crosstalk 00:41:17] organic farm. Their clinics are the organic farms. Say, “Come here, you want to be treated? Come here.”

Vandana Shiva: So I think we can create – let’s work on this together. Dr. Mercola, I’m onboard with you. Let us create a campaign from now, and we can do it in October. Sixteenth of October is World Food Day.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Okay.

Vandana Shiva: 2nd of October every year we launch a two-week campaign on food freedom. We do it in Navdanya forever and ever. So from 2nd October, nonviolence day, the day of Gandhi’s birth anniversary, two weeks of nonviolent food systems. Boycott food that’s making you sick.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: I love it. I love it. Yeah. Not only does it hurt them financially in the pocketbook, but it also improves the health of the people participating in the boycott. So it’s a win-win-win.

Vandana Shiva: Yes. Yes. Absolutely. We do it together. We do it together.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Great. I love that. Oh, man. So this is a fun journey. I mean, it’s so easy to get despondent and depressed about everything that’s happening. I mean, just listening to your description of what Gates has done. You just want to give up. But if you take it as an inverse paranoid perspective and it’s a problem. It’s great because we can find a solution to make it even better than you could possibly imagine. So I’m excited. It’s going to be some challenges, but there’s definitely many things to do.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Gates is only part of the problem. I mean, it’s much bigger than just Gates.

Vandana Shiva: No, no. They put him in front because they thought he’s a good angel now. If he was his old self, they’d have picked someone else.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yeah, yeah. He’s a spokesperson. Yeah.

Vandana Shiva: He had a makeover, and he’s a spokesperson. And the sad thing is the control of a media, the control of a digital media-

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Oh, yeah, yeah.

Vandana Shiva: The way they can just remove your communication. I’ve lived through this because when I was fighting Monsanto, my personal website is still down. They didn’t ever let it work. Whenever I do a brief for our courts, my systems would crash. I’d have to dictate and write by hand and sit with my secretary, and she’d use her personal email to send to the lawyer. I mean, I don’t know how I fought Monsanto for a decade. But today, Monsanto is gone, and it’s Bayer. So when you think of it, Monsanto was the most powerful evil company then. It’s gone. Let’s envision a world that a decade from now, just like Monsanto disappeared, Gates as a philanthropist will disappear.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yeah, yeah.

Vandana Shiva: The master of the universe idea will go, and he will go and do penance somewhere.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Well, it’s not just Gates, as we discussed. It’s the technocrats. It’s Klaus Schwab. It’s stealth people behind the scenes who are also billionaires, like Eric Schmidt who really directed Google from their ostensibly noble goals when they first started to where they’re at now. Literally probably headed to replace Monsanto as the most evil company on the planet. So we got to avoid those.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: It’s essentially the one word to describe all of them is technocrats.

Vandana Shiva: I did a little book with the leading Ayurveda of India, Dr. Gangadharan because these patents were coming out. The Impossible Burger patents and then the Microsoft patent on us being users of their machines and algorithms. The Google patent on putting nanoparticles in our blood to solve the problem of anemia. That’s when I realized they’ve got into life sciences, Google. So this little book is called “The Two Futures of Food, Health and Humanity.” And my colleagues with whom I worked in Kerala, the people who did the Ayurveda bit, they put it as a Kindle. I think you can download it as a Kindle.

Vandana Shiva: But to your listeners, I’d like to mention that in the first week of April, Annam is food, but food in its wholeness. We do a five-day course — it’ll be on Zoom now — where we connect the issue of soil, biodiversity, healthy eating and good health. So the Annam course will on the Navdanya Earth University website, and people can visit the Earth University website and hopefully join.

Vandana Shiva: And finally, I’ve just on Women’s Day released a new report written with women farmers, “Earth Rising, Women Rising.”

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Well, that’s great. That is awesome. Congratulations. It’s exciting.

Vandana Shiva: If I was clearer, I’d be putting it in a chat box and, but I can do one thing at a time on these gadgets.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Well, we’ll do that on our article. So you don’t have to worry about it. We’ll take care of that because it’s important. It’s part of the communication strategy. So this is a good. Is it sort of extension in that thinking the big picture to achieve your incredible, noble and ambitious goal of having equal success in squashing this movement that Gates is spearheading. As we squash it, what it seemed to be an inevitable control of Monsanto to the point where they were litigated out of existence after they were bought by Bayer.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Part of it’s going to be collaborating with like-minded individuals, and I saw – actually, we posted it as a lead article on our site recently that Russell Brand – you know who Russell is, right?

Vandana Shiva: No. I didn’t know, but a lot of people – now, he got in touch with me now. Yeah.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Oh good because that was so cool to see him. You’re his hero. He like worships you. He loves you.

Vandana Shiva: That video was an interview by France 24 two years ago when my French edition of my book “Oneness vs. the 1%” was being released. They got the wrong title in the back, but the French edition has sold thousands and thousands because you know it was the French scientist who had shown that Roundup is a carcinogen.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yes, absolutely.

Vandana Shiva: And Gilles-Eric Séralini. They hounded him and hounded him and hounded him. The French know very well what the Monsanto mafia is, just that the Monsanto, Bayer, Gates, Google mafia is becoming one big lump of sickness. That’s why this lump of – let’s just call them the cancer on the planet.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yeah, I would agree. That’s a good name for them.

Vandana Shiva: Yes.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Well, that’s good. So I’m so excited spokespeople like Russell recognized the truth when he sees it and can help spread the message. We’ll just collaborate with more and more people because one of the reasons that we’re so confident we’re going to win is we outnumber them tremendously. They don’t stand a chance if we all organize and collaborate, and they understand that. That’s one of the reasons why they’re focusing so darn hard on censorship. The spreading of the truth information to the public because they know if large numbers of people get ahold of this information, it’s death to their ambitions.

Vandana Shiva: Yeah, which is why we need to defend two things very much. Wherever we can, talk people to people. Don’t give that up because that’s what they want to shut down. The people to people conversation. And from my culture, besides the ecology and the Ayurveda and all of that, what I’ve realized is, my god, our civilization was so clever. They attacked organic. We create regeneration. Now they are attacking regeneration. Everyone’s winging a tissy. Here in India, we never created one word for one thing because no one thing is just one thing. It is so many facets.

Vandana Shiva: So the [inaudible 49:52] has a thousand names. The divine, feminine beauty has a thousand names. We always give a thousand names. So they can attack one, we still got 999. We will always [be] against the 1%. We will always have the diversity, multiplicity and freedom of the 99%.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yeah, yeah. Because of the resources, they’re very sophisticated, very clever and they can create some strategies that are hard to circumvent. But we outnumber them, and as long as we cooperate and collaborate, I think – I don’t think. I’m confident we can defeat them. So I’m just so excited to be able to work with you and other like-minded people because we need to work as a team because it really is a David versus Goliath.

Vandana Shiva: Yeah.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: With respect to economic resources and funding, but with respect to the numbers, there’s no comparison.

Vandana Shiva: And David won.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: That’s right. Victory. He did. He did. He has some strong spiritual forces on his side.

Vandana Shiva: Well, we have them all on our side, don’t we? Yeah.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: I know, we sure do. We sure do. It’s going to be fun.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: I think we’ll put your contact information and your website. I think when I was reviewing one of your other articles, I was a little bit surprised to see that you had a Gmail account as a contact information. So maybe we can encourage you to consider stop using the Google nefarious-

Vandana Shiva: No, no. Actually, that’s the only one I give it away publicly. But my son has prepared my own.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Okay, good. Good.

Vandana Shiva: My own server.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: We don’t want anyone-

Vandana Shiva: I have my own server, yeah.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: We don’t want anyone using Google.

Vandana Shiva: I don’t give that out publicly.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: All right. Good. All right. Any last words in closing to sum it all up and give recommendations?

Vandana Shiva: Yeah, no. When all the spiritual forces and all of Nature’s forces and most of people’s forces are aligned together, what can five billionaires, technocrats who want to be richer than they are, greedier than they are, more violent than they are – they don’t count in the long run really. So it’s just that we cannot afford to not do the things we can do.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: All right.

Vandana Shiva: Together.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: I agree. One is a boycott on this thing. So I’m excited about that.

Vandana Shiva: Boycott. Yeah, absolute boycott fake food, and I think another part of this should be don’t – Big Tech is already messed up its surveillance capitalism. Let Big Tech not enter our bodies. Let Big Tech not enter life sciences.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: I couldn’t agree more. Absolutely, totally onboard with that and am fascinated with that concept because there’s a lot of details behind what you just said. I’m really focusing much of my free time and attention on that now because I’m trying to understand the big picture because it’s huge. It really is. It’s a very complex [crosstalk 00:53:14]-

Vandana Shiva: Running very fast on very, very bad ground. I worked on nanoparticle assessments, and we said, “It can’t be assessed. Don’t go down that way.” A technology whose safety you can’t know should not be given permission to go ahead [inaudible 00:53:27].

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Right. Precautionary principle.

Vandana Shiva: Yeah, absolutely the precautionary principle. So I think if you were to start pulling together all the homeopaths, the Ayurvedic physicians, the natural healers, these are people who make choices in their lives to do the right thing. If they don’t get together now, exactly what Carnegie and Rockefeller did to say all natural medicine is illegal. These guys will make life illegal. Living will be illegal except as a little piece in their machine under their permission, through their permission. The rest of you are throwaway people.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: Yeah. It sounds odd, but the technology I’m a big fan of and it’s advancing so rapidly, exponentially actually that that will be practical reality because they’re converting all of us into digital assets. I think that’s their plan and that they can control and manipulate and essentially dictate their ultimate goals. But it doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. We just have to bring awareness to it and we can resist it.

Dr. Joseph Mercola: So happy to connect with you and look forward to working with you in the future.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Bill Gates and His Empires. Boycott “Fake Food”. Dr. Vandana Shiva
  • Tags: ,

The Vaccine Conundrum

March 29th, 2021 by Swiss Policy Research

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

***

Initial data from Israel and Scotland appeared to indicate a very high real-world effectiveness of covid vaccines, even in senior citizens. However, much of this data was heavily adjusted for various factors and was therefore not easy to interpret. Numerous reports of covid outbreaks in care homes even after the second vaccination have raised additional questions about vaccine effectiveness.

To clarify this situation, a German study with 176 participants, published last week as a preprint, measured the age-dependent immune response to the Pfizer vaccine. Somewhat shockingly, the study found that one third of people over the age of 80 developed no neutralizing antibodies at all, and thus were potentially without seroprotection even after the second vaccination (see above).

Some of these elderly people developed non-neutralizing antibodies, but their role in Sars-Cov-2 infection remains unknown: they might help reduce symptoms, but they could also increasesymptoms (so-called antibody-dependent disease enhancement, ADE). The official vaccine trials included hardly any people of the 80+ age group and so didn’t answer this question.

In vaccine science, a reduced immune response in the elderly is known as immunosenescence.

If the reduced protection in the high-risk group gets confirmed, it may explain the somewhat disappointing performance of many covid vaccination pioneers (such as Israel): in most of these countries, covid hospitalizations and deaths have decreased slower than expected, or have even increased, since the beginning of the mass vaccination campaign (see updated figure below).

Meanwhile, documented post-vaccination deaths continue to rise and are now close to 3000 in the US and the EU. Some of these deaths may be unrelated to vaccinations, but in the US, 47% of post-vaccination deaths occurred in people who became ill within 48 hours of being vaccinated, and 31% of deaths occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. The average age was 78, the youngest case was 23.

(Update: The immunological results of the German study have been confirmed by a large-scale Danish study with 30,000 care home residents and 330,000 health care workers. In care home residents, vaccine effectiveness was 0% after the first dose and reached 64% one week after the second dose. In health care workers, vaccine effectiveness was 17% two weeks after the first dose, 46% during the first week after the second dose, and reached 90% one week after the second dose.)

As New York attorney Aaron Siri pointed out in a recent article on StatNews, neither governments nor employers are currently permitted to require covid vaccinations, as covid vaccines have not yet been officially licensed: they only received an “emergency use authorization” in the US and a “conditional marketing authorisation” in the EU. Indeed, the US FDA specifically notes that covid vaccines are “investigational vaccines not licensed for any indication.”

Cumulative covid deaths in global covid vaccination pioneers, excl. the US and UK (OWD)

Neutralizing antibody titers after vaccination, by age group (Source: Mueller et al)

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Viacheslav Lopatin | Credit: scaliger – stock.adobe.com

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

As Mark Zuckerberg tries to sell Congress on Facebook’s preferred method of amending the federal law that serves as a key pillar of the internet, lawmakers must see it for what it really is: a self-serving and cynical effort to cement the company’s dominance.

In prepared testimony submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee before a Thursday hearing, Zuckerberg proposes amending 47 U.S.C. § 230 (“Section 230”), the federal law that generally protects online services and users from liability for hosting user-generated content that others believe is unlawful.

The vague and ill-defined proposal calls for lawmakers to condition Section 230’s legal protections on whether services can show “that they have systems in place for identifying unlawful content and removing it.” According to Zuckerberg, this revised law would not create liability if a particular piece of unlawful content fell through the cracks. Instead, the law would impose a duty of care on platforms to have adequate “systems in place” with respect to how they review, moderate, and remove user-generated content.

Zuckerberg’s proposal calls for the creation of a “third party,” whatever that means, which would establish the best practices for identifying and removing user-generated content. He suggests that this entity could create different standards for smaller platforms. The proposal also asks Congress to require that online services be more transparent about their content moderation policies and more accountable to their users.

An Anti-Competitive Wedge

The proposal is an explicit plea to create a legal regime that only Facebook, and perhaps a few other dominant online services, could meet. Zuckerberg is asking Congress to change the law to ensure that Facebook never faces significant competition, and that its billions of users remain locked into its service for the foreseeable future.

It’s galling that at the same time Zuckerberg praises Section 230 for creating “the conditions for the Internet to thrive, for platforms to empower billions of people to express themselves online,” he simultaneously calls on Congress to change the law to prevent any innovation or competition that could disrupt Facebook’s market position. Zuckerberg is admitting that after Facebook has benefited from Section 230, he doesn’t want any other competitor to do the same. Rather than take up Facebook’s proposal, Congress should instead advance meaningful competition and antitrust reforms to curtail the platform’s dominance.

Moreover, Zuckerberg’s proposal comes just before a congressional hearing that is ostensibly about the problems Facebook has created. These problems exist precisely because of Facebook’s dominance, anti-competitive behavior, and terrible privacy and content moderation practices. So in response to Facebook’s significant failures, Zuckerberg is telling Congress that Facebook is the solution. Congress should respond: Absolutely not.

A Flawed Proposal

On the merits, Zuckerberg’s proposal — though light on specifics — is problematic for several reasons.

First, the proposal overlooks that the vast majority of online services that host user-generated content do not have the technical, legal, or human resources to create systems that could identify and remove unlawful content. As Mike Masnick at TechDirt recently wrote, the internet is made up of far more diverse and less-resourced services than Facebook. Congress must recognize that the legal rules it sets for online services will apply to all of them. Zuckerberg proposes that the required “adequate systems” be “proportionate to platform size;” but size is only one factor that might correlate to an intermediary’s ability to implement such systems. By punishing growth, a size-scaled system would also discourage the development of nonprofit intermediary models that might compete with and replace those that profit greatly off of their users’ data. What would actually be necessary is an assessment of whether each individual intermediary, based on its numerous characteristics, has provided adequate systems. This is essentially a legal negligence standard – asking the question “Has the intermediary acted reasonably?” – and such standards have historically and legally been found to be insufficiently protective of freedom of speech.

Second, Zuckerberg’s proposal seems to require affirmative pre-screening and filtering of content as an “adequate system.” As we have written, filtering requirements are inherently privacy invasive and almost always rely on faulty and nontransparent and unaccountable automation. And of course, they are extremely burdensome, even at a small scale.

Third, the standards under Zuckerberg’s proposal would be unworkable in practice and result in even greater online censorship. Content moderation at scale is impossible to do perfectly and  nearly impossible to do well. Automated tools and human reviewers make scores of mistakes that result in improper removal of users’ content. If services are required by law to have systems that remove users’ content, the result will be a world in which much greater volumes of user speech will be removed, as services would rather censor their users than risk losing their legal protections.

Fourth, the proposal would not even address the problems Facebook is now being called out for. Zuckerberg calls for Section 230 protections to be conditioned on having systems in place to remove “unlawful content”; but most of the examples he addresses elsewhere in his testimony are not illegal. Hate and violence, misinformation, and community standards for groups are largely protected speech. Platforms like Facebook may and should want to actively moderate such content. But the speech is not usually “illegal,” a narrow subset of speech unprotected by the First Amendment.

Fifth, Zuckerberg calls for a “third party” to define the “adequate systems” an intermediary must adopt. We saw a similar proposal recently with the original version of the EARN IT Act. We opposed a standards-setting body there because it was going to be dominated by law enforcement officials who desire to break end-to-end encryption. Although Zuckerberg does not identify the membership or composition of his proposed third party, we worry that any entity created to address online content moderation could similarly be captured by special interests who do not represent internet users.

Transparency, Yes Please

We appreciate that Zuckerberg is calling on online services to be more transparent and responsive to user concerns about content moderation. EFF has been actively involved in an effort to push these services to adopt a human rights framing for content moderation that includes adequate notice to its users and transparency about the platform’s practices. Yet we do not believe that any requirement to adopt these practices should be linked to Section 230’s protections. That’s why we’ve previously opposed legislation like the PACT Act, an initial version of which compelled transparency reporting. It’s also worth noting that Facebook lags behind its peers on issues of transparency and accountability for censoring its users’ speech, a 2019 EFF review found.

Zuckerberg’s proposal to rewrite Section 230 joins a long list of efforts to overhaul the law. As we have said, we analyze every fully formed proposal on its merits. Some of the proposed changes start from a place of good faith in trying to address legitimate harms that occur online. But Zuckerberg’s proposal isn’t made in good faith. Congress should reject it and move on to doing the real, detailed work that it has to do before it can change Section 230.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Electronic Frontier Foundation

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

We live in a war-like society; one that supports, and is in league with, the world’s number one terrorist threat: the United States of America. Corporate media propaganda plays a key role in keeping things that way.

Ten years ago this month, the US, UK and France attacked oil-rich Libya under the fictitious cover of ‘humanitarian intervention’. The bombing was ‘justified’ by Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy by the supposed imminent massacre of civilians in Benghazi by forces under Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. As we have documented previously, the propaganda claims were fraudulent.

Libya, previously a wealthy state with free health care and education, was essentially destroyed. An estimated 600,000 Libyans were killed. Many more were displaced from their homes. In the barbarous conditions of the failed state, black people have been ethnically ‘cleansed’, lynched and auctioned off as slaves, illicit arms transfers and terrorism have become rife, and many Libyans have attempted to flee to better lives across the Mediterranean, thousands of them drowning en route.

As Jeremy Kuzmarov, managing editor of CovertAction Magazine and author of four books on US foreign policy, pointed out recently, the powerful Western perpetrators of this human calamity have never been brought to justice. He added:

‘In hindsight, it is clear that the U.S. was completing a 40-year regime change operation targeting Colonel Qaddafi for which media disinformation was pivotal.

‘It is important today as such to revisit the 2011 war so that U.S. citizens can learn from the history and not be duped again into supporting an intervention of this kind.’

The Stunning Silences Over Syria And Venezuela

But, when it came to Syria several years later, media disinformation was once again pivotal in unleashing Western firepower. As we have described in numerous media alerts, the corporate media declared with instant unanimity and certainty that Syria’s President Bashar Assad was responsible for a chemical weapons attack on the Damascus suburb of Douma on 7 April, 2018. One week later, the US, UK and France attacked Syria in response to the unproven allegations. Since then, there has been a mounting deluge of evidence that the UN’s Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has perpetrated a massive cover-up to preserve the Western narrative that Assad gassed civilians in Douma.

Earlier this month, five former OPCW officials joined a group of prominent signatories to urge the UN chemical weapons watchdog to address the controversy. Aaron Maté, an independent journalist with The Grayzone website, has been following developments closely since the beginning (see his in-depth article, ‘Did Trump Bomb Syria on False Grounds?’).

He noted that:

‘Leaks from inside the OPCW show that key scientific findings that cast doubt on claims of Syrian government guilt were censored, and that the original investigators were removed from the probe. Since the cover-up became public, the OPCW has shunned accountability and publicly attacked the two whistleblowers who challenged it from inside.’

In an interview, Maté pointed out the remarkable silence from the corporate media:

‘the western media, across the spectrum, has buried this story – which is pretty incredible. You have extraordinary allegations of a cover-up, you have whistleblowers; and not only…do you have allegations, you have documents – a trove of documents released by WikiLeaks.’

We have observed a similar shameful silence in the UK, including BBC News; even after initial interest in the ‘important story’ had been expressed by Lyse Doucet, the BBC’s chief international correspondent.

But Western violence against other nations, and the ‘justifications’ trotted out to defend ‘our’ crimes, or simply ignoring them, has become normalised in ‘mainstream’ journalism.

Consider the case of Venezuela, harbouring one of the largest oil reserves on the planet, and which, as a left-leaning democracy, has long been targeted by the US for regime change. This was seen very clearly when the late Hugo Chávez was the Venezuelan president – temporarily deposed in a failed US-supported coup in 2002, and who was often wrongly described by corporate media as a ‘dictator’ – and continues today under Chávez’s successor, Nicolás Maduro.

As John McEvoy observed in a piece for Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, a recent UN rebuke of crippling US and European sanctions on Venezuela has been met with ‘stunning silence’.

McEvoy wrote:

‘The report laid bare how a years-long campaign of economic warfare has asphyxiated Venezuela’s economy, crushing the government’s ability to provide basic services both before and during the Covid-19 pandemic.’

According to Alena Douhan, the UN special rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, the Venezuelan government’s revenue was reported to have shrunk enormously, ‘with the country currently living on 1% of its pre-sanctions income,’ impeding ‘the ability of Venezuela to respond to the Covid-19 emergency.’

Douhan urged US and European governments:

‘to unfreeze assets of the Venezuela Central Bank to purchase medicine, vaccines, food, medical and other equipment.’

The US-led campaign to overthrow the Venezuelan government, Douhan added, ‘violates the principle of sovereign equality of states and constitutes an intervention in domestic affairs of Venezuela that also affects its regional relations’.

Almost exactly two years ago, we noted in a media alert that the US-based Center for Economic and Policy Research, a respected thinktank, had published a study showing that US sanctions imposed on Venezuela in August 2017 had since caused around 40,000 deaths. With the exception of a single piece in the Independent, there was zero coverage in the national UK press, and no BBC News coverage at all, as far as we could ascertain.

McEvoy wrote:

‘By omitting the devastating impact of sanctions, corporate media attribute sole responsibility for economic and humanitarian conditions to the Venezuelan government, thereby using the misery provoked by sanctions to validate the infliction of even more misery.’

He continued:

‘Loath to abandon belief in the fundamentally benign nature of Western foreign policy, corporate scribes have typically presented the devastating effects of sanctions as a mere accusation of Nicolás Maduro’.

This is a pattern of deception seen over and over again. For example, in 2002-2003, the ‘mainstream’ media repeatedly attributed claims that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein. Doing so buried the evidence-backed testimony of senior UN weapons inspectors concluding that Iraq had been ‘fundamentally disarmed’ of 90-95 per cent of its weapons of mass destruction by December 1998. (Scott Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, ‘War On Iraq’, Profile Books, 2002, p.23)

McEvoy noted that the Guardian’s reporting of Venezuela sticks to the Washington script:

‘Often, they fail to mention sanctions at all. In June 2019, for instance, the Guardian’s Tom Phillips reported that “more than 4 million Venezuelans have now fled economic and humanitarian chaos,” citing would-be coup leader Juan Guaidó’s claim that the country’s economic collapse “was caused by the corruption of this regime,” without making any reference to Washington’s campaign of economic warfare.

‘Keeping with tradition, Douhan’s damning report has been met with stunning silence by establishment media outlets. Neither the Guardian, New York Times, Washington Post nor BBC reported on Douhan’s findings’.

Imagine if Russia had been responsible for imposing sanctions on another country, violating that country’s sovereignty, with tens of thousands dead and many more lives at risk in the months to come. Imagine, moreover, that Russia had been condemned in a hard-hitting UN report for engaging in economic warfare, described as ‘a violation of international law’ that was causing a serious ‘growth of malnourishment in the past 6 years with more than 2.5 million people being severely food insecure.’ Imagine that such a report pointed to the ‘devastating effect of unilateral sanctions on the broad scope of human rights, especially the right to food, right to health, right to life, right to education and right to development.’ The headlines and in-depth coverage in the West would be incessant. The Russian ambassador in London would be given a stern dressing-down by the UK Foreign Secretary. MPs would address Parliament, condemning Putin in the strongest possible terms. There would be global demands for the UN to intervene.

The ideological discipline required to ignore such crimes under Western policy is remarkable, but it is standard in the corporate media system. Propaganda by omission, routinely carried out by BBC News and the rest of the ‘mainstream’ news media, is a crucial tool enabling Washington and London to pursue their aims; whether that be ‘regime change’, exploitation of oil and other natural resources, and geopolitical domination.

‘Grand Wizards’ And Client Journalism

Occasionally, the strict enforcement of ideological purity imposed on corporate journalists is laid bare when they step out of line by the merest millimeter. Thus, for example, BBC television presenter Naga Munchetty had to issue an apology on Twitter for ‘liking’ tweets that mocked Tory government minister Robert Jenrick for appearing on a BBC Breakfastinterview with a Union Jack prominently displayed behind him.

She tweeted:

‘I “liked” tweets today that were offensive in nature about the use of the British flag as a backdrop in a government interview this morning. I have since removed these “likes”. This do [sic] not represent the views of me or the BBC. I apologise for any offence taken. Naga’

This read like a statement that had been dictated from lofty levels within the BBC hierarchy. When you are a high-profile BBC figure, you are obliged to tweet out an apology for daring to question the trappings of ‘patriotism’. But when have BBC journalists ever apologised for catastrophically platforming government propaganda on Iraq, Libya, Syria, the NHS, ‘austerity’, militarism, the royal family? The list is endless.

On Twitter, tweets from the broadcaster RT are flagged with the warning, ‘Russia state-affiliated media.’ Rather than apologise for broadcasting Western propaganda, it is far more likely that a senior client journalist working for the UK state-affiliated media known as ‘BBC News’ will send out whitewashing tweets to minimise or deflect any challenges to the government. Take BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg, a prime example of this key propaganda function. On the National Day of Reflection on 23 March, the anniversary of the start of the first UK Covid-19 lockdown, Boris Johnson had boasted during a private meeting of Tory MPs:

‘The reason we have the vaccine success is because of capitalism, because of greed, my friends.’

There was a huge outcry on social media. Rachel Clarke, a palliative care doctor who has been outspoken in her criticism of the government during the pandemic, tweeted in response to Johnson’s crassly insensitive and smug comment:

‘But he’s wrong.

‘Human nature is bigger & better & bursting with more grace & decency than he’ll ever know.’

Wise and compassionate words.

By contrast, Kuenssberg went into full damage-limitation mode, tweeting:

‘More on PM’s “greed” comments – one of those present says Johnson was having a crack at Chief Whip, Mark Spencer, who was gobbling a cheese + pickle sandwich while he was talking about the vaccine, “it was hardly Gordon Gekko”, “it was banter” directed at the Chief, it’s said’

It is a fair point: probably not even Gordon Gekko would have joked about the virtue of capitalism and greed on a day when his very clear responsibility for the deaths of 149,000 people was at the forefront of many people’s minds.

Newspaper cartoonist Dave Brown depicted brilliantly what the day of reflection should have meant: Johnson reflected in the mirror as the Grim Reaper carrying a scythe with the number 149,000 engraved on it.

Kam Sandhu, head of advocacy at the independent thinktank Autonomy, reminded her Twitter followers that, in 2019, Kuenssberg had brushed off the revelation that Brexiteer MPs visiting Chequers, the prime minister’s 16th century manor house, had called themselves ‘the Grand Wizards’. The BBC political editor had tweeted:

‘just catching up on timeline, for avoidance of doubt, couple of insiders told me using the nickname informally, no intended connection to anything else’

Presumably the use of an infamous Ku Klux Klan term of white supremacy was to be considered mere ‘banter’. There are countless other examples of Kuenssberg deflecting criticism of Tories, while echoing and amplifying their propaganda. You may recall that she acted to defend the government when it belatedly went into the first lockdown one year ago. She misled the public, as Richard Horton, editor of the prestigious medical journal The Lancet noted last March:

‘Laura Kuenssberg says (BBC) that, “The science has changed.” This is not true. The science has been the same since January. What has changed is that govt advisors have at last understood what really took place in China and what is now taking place in Italy. It was there to see.’

Her insidious role in endlessly propping up the government narrative on any given topic is a ‘courtesy’ conspicuous by its absence when it came to the ‘impartial’ BBC political editor’s reporting of Jeremy Corbyn and, in particular, the manufactured crisis of supposedly institutional antisemitism in the Labour party.

On 26 November 2019, just prior to the general election on 12 December, Kuenssberg tweeted about Tory-supporting chief rabbi Ephraim Mirvis’ suggestion that Corbyn should be ‘considered unfit for office’, 23 times in 24 hours. This at a time when journalistic impartiality was obviously never more essential.

Kuenssberg is not an exception within BBC News, although given her very high-profile position, it is not always as blatant with other BBC journalists. Take BBC diplomatic correspondent James Landale, for instance: another serial offender. An item that he presented on BBC News at Ten on 16 March added to the ever-rising steaming pile of ‘impartial’ journalism scaremongering about Official Enemies that must be countered by the peace-loving West.

In line with a new UK government report on ‘defence’, Landale depicted China and Russia as threats that required this country to ‘show Britain can project force overseas’. As part of the strategy, the new £6.1 billion aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, will hold joint operations with allies in the Indo-Pacific later this year. ‘But will it be enough?’, intoned Landale, ‘impartially’ cheerleading the UK’s ‘projection of force’ across the globe.

Continuing his virtually government spokesperson role, Landale added:

‘And the cap on Britain’s stockpile of nuclear warheads will be lifted because of what the report says is “the evolving security environment”.’

The likely increase in the UK’s nuclear weapons was just slipped out, almost as an after-thought. There was no mention that nuclear weapons are now prohibited under international law after the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was ratified earlier this year. The Treaty includes:

‘a comprehensive set of prohibitions on participating in any nuclear weapon activities. These include undertakings not to develop, test, produce, acquire, possess, stockpile, use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.’

In July 2017, over 120 countries voted to adopt the Treaty. In October 2020, the 50th country ratified the Treaty which meant it became international law on 22 January, 2021. Where were the BBC News headlines?

As Double Down News observed:

‘Boris Johnson set to expand Nuclear Warheads by 40%

‘No money for Nurses but money for Armageddon’

But all this must have slipped Landale’s mind. Or perhaps there was no time to include information deemed unimportant by him or his editors. There was, however, ample room for a major item on that evening’s BBC News at Ten titled, ‘Duke leaves hospital’. This covered Prince Philip’s return to Buckingham Palace after one month in hospital for heart treatment. And why was this a major ‘news’ headline on the BBC? Because BBC News is staunchly royalist, fervently establishment and an upholder of the unjust UK class system.

All of this just goes to show that BBC News really is the world’s most refined state propaganda service. As BBC founder John Reith confided in his diary during the 1926 General Strike:

‘They [the government] know they can trust us not to be really impartial.’

(‘The Reith Diaries’, edited by Charles Stewart, Collins, 1975; entry for 11 May, 1926)

The same holds true today.

In this era of Permanent War, potential nuclear Armageddon and climate breakdown, the enormous cost to victims of UK and Western state-corporate policy around the world is incalculable.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from Media Lens

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Israel has accused Iran of doing many nefarious things. But the historical record shows that whatever Israel accuses Iran of, it is likely that Israel is already doing it.

For example, Israel has repeatedly accused Iran of destabilizing the region by malignantly spreading across the region and forming alliances and exercising influence in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.

But Israel is spreading across the region by forming alliances and exercising influence across the region. With varying degrees of formality and publicity, Israel has expanded its network and formed alliances with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco. And this Israeli spread has been destabilizing both in terms of increasing weapons in the region and legitimizing and solidifying occupations.

The agreement between Israel and the UAE meant F-35 fighter jets, Reaper drones and EA-18G Growler jets that are capable of jamming enemy air defenses for the UAE and a large weapons package for Israel in compensation, potentially including combat helicopters, advanced communications satellites, bunker buster bombs, F-35s, KC-46A tanker aircrafts that are capable of refueling many aircrafts simultaneously and V-22 aircrafts that can transform from helicopter to airplane.

The agreements have also led to the solidifying of occupations in the region. And it is not only the solidifying of the Palestinian occupation. In order to extract an agreement from Morocco, the price was US recognition of Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara: an occupation that is illegal under international law. Both the UN and the International Court of Justice have ruled in favor of Western Sahara’s right to self governance.

Israel is also reportedly planning to lobby the US not to pressure Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE over human rights issues because of the value Israel places on these alliances in confronting Iran. Israeli officials reportedly want to remind Washington that the agreements they have signed in the region should be prioritized over concerns about human rights.

Spreading its influence across the region sounds a lot like what Israel is accusing Iran of. And Israel’s spread has been destabilizing in terms of the proliferation of arms, the legitimizing of occupations and the acceptance of human rights abuses.

Using Proxies

Israel has long accused Iran of using proxy forces in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon.

But Israel has a distasteful history of using proxy forces going back at least as early as the proxy use of the Phalange militia in Lebanon. Not wanting to be seen sending Israeli soldiers into the Palestinian refugee camps, Israel used its proxy Christian militia. According to Patrick Tyler, in A World of Trouble, the Phalange militia developed “with covert assistance from Israel.” In September 1982, the Israeli proxy Phalange militia slaughtered hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Israel admits to 700 people massacred; the Palestinians claim 2,750. In Balfour’s Shadow, David Cronin places the number at between 800 and 3,500.

More recently, Israel has employed the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) as a proxy in the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reports that a former senior intelligence official told him that the assassinations are “primarily being done by MEK through liaison with the Israelis.” Most recently, Iran has suggested a proxy role for the MEK in the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.

Israel accuses Iran of using proxy forces. But Israeli history demonstrates the well documented use of proxy forces to carry out some of its most illegal work.

Terrorism

Israel has forcefully tried to characterize Iran as a leading state sponsor of terrorism.

But Israel has recently aligned itself with the most barbarous terrorists. Israel has allied itself with the Islamic State and al-Nusra. In September 2013, Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the US said, “We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” Oren told the Jerusalem Post that “This was the case . . . even if the other ‘bad guys’ were affiliated with al-Qaeda.” Nearly a year later, in June 2014, Oren would repeat Israel’s position of preferring the Islamic State and al-Nusra over Assad: “From Israel’s perspective, if there’s got to be an evil that’s got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail.” A year and a half later, Defense Minister Moshe Yalon would essentially reiterate this firm Israeli preference.

And Israel didn’t just root for the Islamic State, it aided it. Israel has repeatedly bombed Syrian targets, and UN observers in the Golan Heights have reported witnessing cooperation between Israel and Syrian rebels. Netanyahu has also revealed that Israel has hit Hezbollah forces fighting against the Islamic State and al-Qaeda in Syria dozens of times. And it has been exposed that Israel also provided funding, food and fuel to Syrian rebels fighting Assad.

In The Management of Savagery, Max Blumenthal says that “ISIS found a defender in Israel.” He reports that the director of “the Likud Party-linked Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies” advocated for pursuing the “weakening of Islamic State, but not its destruction.” They called ISIS a “useful tool.” There are reports of coordination and communication between Israel and al-Nusra, including Israel providing maps.

So, Israel is doing exactly what it accuses Iran of doing.

Nuclear Weapons

Most vociferously, Israel has accused Iran of possessing a nuclear weapons program and of secretly constructing nuclear weapons facilities.

It is well known that Israel has a nuclear weapons program. A leaked email written by Colin Powell suggests that the US estimates Israel’s arsenal at 200 nuclear weapons.

What has received less attention amid the cries that Iran has secretly built nuclear facilities is that Israel is secretly building on to the nuclear facility it secretly built. Satellite images published in February, 2021, show that Israel has been “carrying out a major expansion of its Dimona nuclear facility” for at least the past two years.

So, while Israel accuses Iran of secretly pursuing a nuclear weapons program and secretly constructing nuclear facilities, Israel is secretly pursuing a nuclear weapons program and secretly constructing nuclear facilities.

Attacking Ships

Back in 2019, Iran was blamed for two limpet mine attacks on ships. Israel has also blamed Iran for a recent explosion on the Israeli cargo ship MV Helios Ray. Iran has denied responsibility for the attack.

But it looks like Israel has been very busy blowing up Iranian ships. The Wall Street Journal has shockingly reported that, since late 2019, Israel has attacked at least a dozen ships headed for Syria and carrying Iranian oil. Israel has attacked Iranian vessels or vessels carrying Iranian oil with weapons that included mines. At least some of the Israeli attacks have been carried out with limpet mines: exactly like the attacks Iran is accused of. The Wall Street Journal reports that three of the Israeli strikes took place in 2019 and six more took place in 2020.

As in the case of regional influence, use of proxies, terrorism, and constructing secret nuclear facilities, Israel seems to be guilty of the very thing it is accusing Iran of: blowing up ships. This boomeranging accusation is consistent with a historical pattern of Israel accusing Iran of the very things Israel is doing.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from The Unz Review

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

House Democrats are leading a charge to repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force that President Bush used to invade Iraq in 2003, that Obama used for a host of anti-ISIS air campaigns over eight years, and President Trump cited to justify a 2020 drone strike on Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. 

Dismantling the AUMFs that are used to wage wars that are increasingly attenuated from the original intent of those authorizations is important. But if wars like Afghanistan are not also brought to an end, then they will inevitably be made to fit new and more narrow authorizations making it even harder to end them in the future.

Press secretary Jen Psaki recently indicated that President Biden welcomes an effort by Congress to replace the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs with a “narrow and specific framework that will ensure we can protect Americans from terrorist threats while ending the forever wars.” But he is not the first president to cast doubt on the utility of AUMFs that are now nearly two decades old. In a 2013 speech at the National Defense University, President Obama remarked, “[s]o I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate.” But this inclination did not stop the Obama administration from using the 2001 AUMF to justify attacks on ISIS in Syria by arguing that the group was essentially cut from the same cloth as al-Qaeda. Similarly, President Biden’s appeal for oversight did not stop him from ordering an airstrike in Syria and citing his Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief, nor has it led him to end the war in Afghanistan.

That President Biden continues to deploy U.S. military force abroad while also calling for more restrictive AUMFs is not surprising. He may feel political pressure to continue to use the broad powers authorized to him until Congress hopefully relieves him of this burden and takes more responsibility over America’s wars. This is precisely why narrower AUMFs will not end America’s forever wars without additional steps. Truly ending forever wars will require leaders and the “NatSec”community to prioritize the proven costs of engaging in forever war over the future risks of not taking military action.

Afghanistan is a good place to start. If President Biden refuses to leave Afghanistan, then a war with no achievable end state will likely be grandfathered into any future and purportedly more narrow AUMF. This may not occur explicitly in the authorization’s text but through its application. Much needed repeals of the current AUMFs will be reduced to little more than Congressional virtue signaling. If the U.S. cannot walk away from the war in Afghanistan, then it is difficult to imagine how Washington will prioritize other threats without getting dragged into perpetual conflicts of choice.

Others have also argued that merely replacing or passing a new AUMF does not amount to Congressional oversight. In 2018, Richard Fontaine and Vance Serchuk warned, “[l]awmakers who portray passage of an AUMF as the ultimate fulfillment of their war-powers responsibilities therefore risk elevating constitutional form over national security substance.” Rather than pass an AUMF and let it sit untouched for years, they assert that Congressional oversight should be “continuous” and occur “independent from any AUMF mechanism.” Jack Goldsmith and Samuel Moyn arguethat, “Congress must do more than withdraw old permission slips” and instead “cut off funding for discretionary presidential wars after a short period, absent congressional permission or a defined emergency.”

Thus, genuine oversight must function as a threshold rather than a loophole. This will inherently require America’s leaders to accept manageable degrees of risk to avoid neverending wars. Afghanistan represents the clearest test of this approach. Leaving Afghanistan militarily will force the United States to find new ways to respond to potential terrorism threats on U.S. targets in the region. But these threats no longer present the same risk they once did and the capacity to disrupt attacks within the United States is far greater than on the morning of 9/11. The cost of continuing to wage endless wars long ago surpassed any security benefits.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image: A U.S. Army Soldier from the A Company, 1-503rd Battalion, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, conducts a patrol with a platoon of Afghan national army soldiers to check on conditions in the village of Yawez, Wardak province, Afghanistan, Feb. 17, 2010. Partnership between the U.S. Army and the Afghan national army is proving to be a valuable tool in bringing security to the area. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Russell GilchrestReleased)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF): Repealing AUMF Will Mean Nothing if We Don’t Get Out of Afghanistan First
  • Tags: , ,