Global Research

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 transcript of a mandatory video briefing for airmen at a Texas Air Force base reveals false statements made by Lt. Gen. Dorothy A. Hogg about COVID vaccine safety, and shows a clear intent to coerce, not inform.

The 59th Medical Wing in the U.S. Air Force posted on its website a transcript of the U.S. Air Force Surgeon General’s mandatory video briefing for airmen at the Lackland Air Force Base in Texas.

In the video, Lt. Gen. Dorothy A. Hogg narrates several unsubstantiated statements about the safety of the COVID vaccine — and then shockingly conveys to airmen that it is their “duty” rather than their choice to take an experimental mRNA injection.

The video training starts with the following unsupported statement:

“Research has shown more than 75% of Americans need to be vaccinated from COVID-19 in order for the U.S. to get back to normal.”

In fact, there are zero published research studies that support Hogg’s statement that 75% of Americans must be vaccinated for COVID. Historically, natural acquired immunity has indicated a needed 60% immunity of the median age groups of the bell curve to protect infants and elderly on the tails of an age distribution bell curve.

A vaccination goal of 75% should be articulated as a goal, and not a requirement, with a clarification that some people have naturally acquired immunity.

Hogg, as a nurse practitioner, violated the requirement under Emergency Use Authorization to inform patients of the known alternatives to the vaccine. Hogg states the following:

“It’s important to understand all you can about the facts to gain confidence and think about your own personal risk to ensure you are making an informed decision. In certain types of emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] can issue an emergency use authorization to provide more timely access to critical medical products like the approved vaccines, when there are no other adequate and approved alternatives available.”

Hogg fails to inform airmen that the authors of a 2005 article in Virology Journal concluded that “[c]hloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread” with both prophylactic and therapeutic properties.

Hogg also fails to inform on current COVID-19 research, including with 62 studies supporting ivermectin as an effective treatment. Both of these drugs have established safety records, and don’t carry the types of known and unknown risks associated with the new mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer and Moderna.

Hogg provides a personal endorsement of the vaccine, instead of following the guidelines for informed consent which require listing the adverse reactions found in the vaccine clinical trial data:

“I was concerned about the lack of information and the expedited process at first, but with my friends and family being vaccinated and them saying they had little to no side effects my concerns went away.”

The Moderna clinical trial lists local and systemic adverse effects ranging in severity from Grade 1 to Grade 3: pain, erythema, swelling, lymphadenopathy, fever, headache, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, nausea or vomiting, chills, Bell’s Palsy and death.

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine FDA fact sheet lists the following adverse reactions: pain at the injection site (84.1%), fatigue (62.9%), headache (55.1%), muscle pain (38.3%), chills (31.9%), joint pain (23.6%), fever (14.2%), injection site swelling (10.5%), injection site redness (9.5%), nausea (1.1%), malaise (0.5%), and lymphadenopathy (0.3%). Pfizer-BioNTech also reports anaphylaxis, appendicitis, Bell’s Palsy and death.

Hogg assures airmen that the unusual speed of the vaccine development is a mark of modern scientific progress and that all the usual steps were followed, while omitting that the FDA Emergency Use Authorization approval process skipped critical animal trials. This is by far Hogg’s most egregious omission, as a person of her seniority should know. These animal trials indicated over the previous 20 years that enhanced respiratory disease, or antibody dependent enhancement, poses a potentially deadly long-term risk for mRNA-vaccinated subjects when they are challenged by wild-strain viruses.

Hogg highlights that racial and ethnic minorities were included in the vaccine trials, and then she shares a shocking anecdotal testimonial that vaccinating in pregnancy is safe without any research on developmental and reproductive toxicity:

“I was hesitant to receive the vaccine, but after talking to my OBGYN, I realized vaccinating was the safest option for myself and my little boy. You might see claims that the COVID-19 vaccine can make someone infertile, harm a developing fetus in the womb, make the immune system attack the placenta or hurt a baby who is breastfeeding from a recently vaccinated mother. There is no scientific reason to think any of these are true.”

Hogg adds:

“In fact, the virus can be more severe in pregnancy while getting the vaccine during pregnancy is low risk.”

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine FDA Fact Sheet does not demonstrate the vaccine is safe or low-risk in pregnancy. In fact, pregnant women were excluded from Pfizer’s vaccine trials. As the fact sheet states:

“All pregnancies have a risk of birth defect, loss, or other adverse outcomes;” “Available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy;” and “Data are not available to assess the effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine on the breastfed infant or on milk production/excretion.”

Under the medical ethics of “Do No Harm,” the UK advises against the COVID vaccine for pregnant women. In the U.S., the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) contains 17 reports of miscarriages after the COVID-19 vaccine, as of February 5, 2021.

Moreover, the World Health Organization advises pregnant women to not get the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines, citing insufficient data.

Hogg minimizes side effects with her personal experiences while ignoring the alarming data in the VAERS database:

“I got the vaccine even after I had COVID, because I would rather have my arm hurt and some fatigue for a day and experience the effect of COVID again. The CDC recommends vaccination even if you have already had COVID-19. Since you may be able to contract the virus more than once. Every one of my patients who got vaccinated all responded differently. For me, I just had a sore arm. I was a bit more tired than usual, after the vaccine. You cannot contract COVID-19 from the vaccines as they do not contain the live virus. You may, however, experience one or more side effects. Possible side effects include a sore arm, headache, fever and body aches, which will all resolve in a few days. These are all signs the vaccine is working to build immunity.”

As of February 5, 2021, VAERS data include 12,697 reports of COVID-19 vaccine adverse reactions including: 653 deaths, 1382 hospitalizations, 2792 urgent care visits, 1654 office visits, 154 cases of anaphylaxis, and 145 cases of Bell’s Palsy.

Hogg is seemingly unaware that the VAERS is reporting a far greater rate of reactions to COVID vaccines than to the influenza vaccine, while she falsely claims the vaccine “has undergone the most intensive safety monitoring in U.S. history.”

But by far the most inexcusable part of Hogg’s presentation, which neither upholds the ethics of “Do No Harm” with pregnant women nor follows informed consent guidelines, is that a general officer is using her position with undue influence, patriotic coercion and emotional manipulation to persuade airmen that it is their duty to participate in a Phase 3 clinical trial of an experimental medical intervention:

“Those of us in uniforms have taken oath to protect the country against all enemies. But this virus isn’t just a threat to our country but to the world. It’s our duty to do everything possible to protect not just ourselves, but our fellow countrymen. I encourage you to make the best educated decision for yourself and for your family. A choice is yours if you choose to decline. But change your mind later, we’re standing by to vaccinate you when you are ready. Our goal is to simply give you the information to make an informed decision. This is our shot to save our loved ones, friends and family. The more people that get vaccinated, the safer we are. Choosing to vaccinate protects your community, your unit, your mission and, most importantly, your family. What choices will you make to help get back to normal?”

Air Force Maj. Gen. Taliaferro briefed Congress that two-thirds of service members have accepted the vaccine with varying rates among units.

Military leadership has forgotten the harm caused by forcing the experimental anthrax vaccine on thousands of soldiers, and is now actively campaigning for the experimental COVID-19 vaccine “acceptance” among the ranks.

Military leaders are using messages, videos, personal photos, deployments, squad leader meetings and officer sensing sessions to persuade service members to take the new vaccine.

This is conditioned hit-the-target behavior where 100% vaccination rates will soon be regarded as the goal for all units.

This acceptance approach should be replaced with neutral informed consent and uncoerced choice in accordance with medical ethics. Setting the goal of getting 100% of service members vaccinated will result in adverse reactions that cause non-deployable injuries in service members.

This bias in favor of the new COVID-19 vaccine is evident by Hogg’s infomercial for the COVID-19 vaccine. The chain of command’s loyalty should be with service members, not as salesmen for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna.

*

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.

Pam Long is graduate of USMA at West Point and is an Army Veteran of the Medical Service Corps.

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).

***

“Police fail to grasp that they are public servants for peace. They should provide a civil service, to enforce the laws equally, without bias and with discretion. They must understand that they do not have immunity or special privileges and — most importantly — are just responsible for apprehending suspects, and should not act as judge, jury and executioner, which too many of them truly believe themselves to be.”—Frank Serpico, former police detective who exposed corruption within the NYPD

The government should not be in the business of killing its citizens.

Nevertheless, the U.S. government continues to act as judge, jury and executioner over a populace that have been pre-judged and found guilty, stripped of their rights, and left to suffer at the hands of government agents trained to respond with the utmost degree of violence.

That the death penalty was recently abolished in Virginia is just the tip of the iceberg.

While any effort to scale back the government’s haphazard application of the death penalty—meted out as a punishment, a threat, and a chilling glimpse into the government’s quest for ultimate dominion over its constituents—is a welcome one, capital punishment remains a very small part of the American police state’s machinery of death.

Yet it’s not enough to declare a moratorium on federal and state death penalty executions.

What we need is a moratorium on federal and state violence in all their varied forms (on police shootings of unarmed citizens, innocent civilians killed by the nation’s endless wars abroad, unknowing victims of secret government experiments, politicians whose profit-over-principle priorities leave Americans vulnerable to predatory tactics, etc.), because as long as government-sanctioned murder and mayhem continue unabated, the right to life affirmed by the nation’s founders in the Declaration of Independence remains unattainable.

The danger is real.

Everything about the way the government operates today (imperial, unaccountable and manifestly corrupt) flies in the face of what the founders sought to bring about: a representative government that exists to protect and preserve the life, liberty, property and happiness of its people.

Police violence is but one aspect of the government violence dispensed without restraint or respect for the rights of the people, but it is widespread.

The casualties are legion.

At a time when growing numbers of unarmed people have been shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety, even the most benign encounters with police can have fatal consequences.

Unfortunately, police—trained in the worst case scenario and thus ready to shoot first and ask questions later—increasingly pose a risk to anyone undergoing a mental health crisis or with special needs whose disabilities may not be immediately apparent or require more finesse than the typical freeze-or-I’ll-shoot tactics employed by America’s police forces.

Indeed, disabled individuals make up a third to half of all people killed by law enforcement officers. (People of color are three times more likely to be killed by police than their white counterparts.) If you’re black and disabled, you’re even more vulnerable.

For example, California police sent out to deal with a 30-year-old Navy veteran experiencing a mental health crisis reportedly knelt on the man’s neck for nearly five minutes until he stopped breathing. Angelo Quinto died days later. The circumstances are unnervingly similar to the death sentence meted out to George Floyd, who died after Minneapolis police officers knelt on his neck for more than nine minutes.

In South Carolina, police tasered an 86-year-old grandfather reportedly in the early stages of dementia, while he was jogging backwards away from them. Now this happened after Albert Chatfield led police on a car chase, running red lights and turning randomly. However, at the point that police chose to shock the old man with electric charges, he was out of the car, on his feet, and outnumbered by police officers much younger than him.

In Oklahoma, police shot and killed a 35-year-old deaf man seen holding a two-foot metal pipe on his front porch (he used the pipe to fend off stray dogs while walking). Despite the fact that witnesses warned police that Magdiel Sanchez couldn’t hear—and thus comply—with their shouted orders to drop the pipe and get on the ground, police shot the man when he was about 15 feet away from them.

In Maryland, police (moonlighting as security guards) used extreme force to eject a 26-year-old man with Downs Syndrome and a low IQ from a movie theater after the man insisted on sitting through a second screening of a film. Autopsy results indicate that Ethan Saylor died of complications arising from asphyxiation, likely caused by a chokehold.

In Florida, police armed with assault rifles fired three shots at a 27-year-old nonverbal, autistic man who was sitting on the ground, playing with a toy truck. Police missed the autistic man and instead shot his behavioral therapist, Charles Kinsey, who had been trying to get him back to his group home. The therapist, bleeding from a gunshot wound, was then handcuffed and left lying face down on the ground for 20 minutes.

In New Mexico, police tasered, then opened fire on a 38-year-old homeless man who suffered from schizophrenia, all in an attempt to get James Boyd to leave a makeshift campsite. Boyd’s death provoked a wave of protests over heavy-handed law enforcement tactics.

In Ohio, police forcefully subdued a 37-year-old bipolar woman wearing only a nightgown in near-freezing temperatures who was neither armed, violent, intoxicated, nor suspected of criminal activity. After being slammed onto the sidewalk, handcuffed and left unconscious on the street, Tanisha Anderson died as a result of being restrained in a prone position.

This is what happens when you empower the police to act as judge, jury and executioner.

This is what happens when you indoctrinate the police into believing that their lives and their safety are paramount to anyone else’s.

Suddenly, everyone and everything else is a threat that must be neutralized or eliminated.

And then you have U.S. Marshals—the federal government’s de facto national police force—who may be even more violence and unaccountable.

“One reason for the high level of violence,” according to an in-depth investigation by The Marshall Project, USA TODAY and the Arizona Republic: “The Marshals Service’s rules are looser than those of many major police departments. Marshals are not required to try to de-escalate situations or exhaust other remedies before using lethal force. And marshals are allowed to fire into cars. Though body cameras have become routine in major police departments, marshals do not wear them.”

Marshal task forces, which are made up of local law enforcement officers who get deputized as federal agents but are not necessarily given any special training, are also shielded from prosecution by the Justice Department.

Look more closely and you may find that many of the same cops who serve on marshal task forces also serve on local SWAT teams.

For instance, 23-year-old Casey Goodson was shot and killed outside his family home in Columbus, Ohio by a deputy police officer who also happened to be a member of a marshals task force and the local SWAT team. Although the cop claimed to have shot Goodson in the back for waving a gun while driving, that police account conflicts with other accounts, which suggest Goodson was shot on the doorstep while holding a bag of sandwiches. Goodson was not a target of a police investigation.

Sariah Lane, 17 years old, was killed on her way to the grocery when an Arizona cop, also working as a marshal task force member, fired into a Toyota Corolla in which she and her boyfriend were passengers. Task force members, out to get the driver of the car for violating his parole, used an unmarked car to ram the Corolla in a parking lot, boxed it in with other unmarked cars, and then started firing into the car. Lane was shot in the back of the head with a hollow-point bullet.

Lane’s alleged killer, Detective Michael Pezzelle, trains police officers around the country to “be polite, be professional, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.”

Talk about a recipe for disaster: take poorly trained cops, deputize them as federal marshals, grant them immunity from prosecution, and authorize them to use deadly force to kill someone who poses an “imminent danger.”

To that noxious stew add the government’s interest in adopting domestic terrorism legislation to “better monitor and regulate the environments in which extremist ideologies proliferate” and the Biden administration’s pivot to have FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) assist states and cities in their fight against domestic extremism.

Not to be outdone, the Department of Homeland Security is also considering ramping up its initiatives to combat domestic terrorism by expanding training, providing technical assistance to local jurisdictions for threat assessment investigations, and developing strategies to combat the influence of false online narratives.

Translation: the government is about to rapidly expand its policing efforts to focus on pre-crime and thought crimes.

Given the government’s tendency to manipulate labels to suit their purposes (case in point: consider how interchangeably the government uses the terms terrorist, extremist and anti-government), that could easily put a target on the back of any American who dares to challenge the government’s agenda or hold it accountable to the rule of law.

This is how “we the people” become enemies of the state.

The ramifications are so far-reaching as to render almost every American an extremist in word, deed, thought or by association.

Yet where many go wrong is in assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or challenging the government’s authority in order to be flagged as a suspicious character, labeled an enemy of the state and locked up like a dangerous criminal.

Eventually, all you will really need to do is use certain trigger words, surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, drive a car, stay at a hotel, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, question government authority, or generally live in the United States.

We’re playing against a stacked deck.

As journalist Sharyl Attkisson observed, “What’s been most striking to me is just how one-sided the rules are when Americans take on their own government…. It has been dismaying to learn the extent to which rules and laws shield the government from accountability for its abuses—or even lawbreaking…. It’s been a long and frightening lesson…. The rules seem rigged to protect government lawlessness, and the playing field is uneven. Too many processes favor the government. The deck is still stacked.”

Because the system is rigged—because there are no real consequences for agents of the police state who inflict violence on the American people—and because “we the people” are at the mercy of a government that has almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they are supposed to “serve and protect”—Americans will continue to die at the hands of a government that sees itself as judge, jury and executioner.

Something has to give. Something has to change.

What remains to be seen, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, is whether any of that change will be for the better.

*

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 of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

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 Australian Treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, was unconvincing in his efforts to summon up courage.  The Australian government had been left reeling in the wake of Facebook’s decision to scrap and block Australians from sharing and posting news items on hosted pages. The company’s target of opprobrium: the News Media Bargaining Code.  

The Code’s ostensible purpose is to address the inequalities in the news market place by pushing digital giants and news outlets into reaching commercial deals.  Failing to do so will lead to final offer arbitration between the parties, where the independent arbitrator selects one of the deals on offer.  That selection would be binding on both parties. 

Facebook was having none of it, with its managing director for Facebook Australia and New Zealand William Easton stating that the scheme “fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between our platform and publishers who use it to share news content.”  Left with “a stark choice” – to either comply with the law drafted in ignorance of such realities, “or stop allowing news content on our services in Australia”, Facebook preferred the latter option.  The main objective, then, was for Facebook to press the Australian government to abandon the code altogether or, what was more likely, soften the terms of its application.  

On February 23, after a five day digital siege which saw outrage from numerous community, charity, media and political organisations across the country, Frydenberg announced that Facebook had “re-friended” Australia.  He was resolute on the point that the amendments did not take away from the Code’s central features: it remained mandatory, was “world leading” and “based on a two way value exchange.” It retained a final offer arbitration mechanism.  The Treasurer also thanked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for “the constructive nature of the discussions” and asserted that the object of this whole exercise was “to sustain public interest journalism in this country.”  For a government that has encouraged the prosecution of whistleblowers and threatened the prosecution of journalists for engaging in that very journalism, dark ironies continue to bubble.

Facebook would have been softly chuckling at the amendments or “clarifications”, as Frydenberg preferred to call them.  The joint press release from the Treasurer and Paul Fletcher, the Minister for Communications, outlines what can only be regarded as capitulations.  Whether the digital platform in question will be designated by the Treasurer as one needing to cough up the appropriate remuneration will depend on whether it “has made a significant contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry through reaching commercial agreements with news media businesses”.  At this writing, Facebook is doing that very thing. 

The platform will receive notification by the government that it has been designated prior to any final decision, with a one month notice period.  Non-differentiation provisions will not be triggered where commercial agreements yielded “different remuneration amounts or commercial outcomes that arose in the course of actual business practices”.  The brutal market knows best. 

Finally, resort to final offer arbitration will only take place as a matter of “last resort where commercial deals cannot be reached by requiring mediation, in good faith” after a period of two months.

Whether expressed in a fit of delusion or disingenuousness, the ministers also make the unsubstantiated claim that the amendments would “strengthen the hand of regional and small publishers in obtaining appropriate remuneration for the use of their content by the digital platforms.” 

Sue Greenwood of York St. John University based in the UK argues that the opposite outcome is more likely, with the proposed law leaving “smaller or local news providers in a weaker position”, disadvantaged relative to those who “deliver content which gets more clicks and shares on Facebook”, thereby improving their negotiating position.    

While the predatory practices of Big Tech are to be lamented and loathed, this Code is a sprawl of potential failings.  It has puzzled and alarmed the inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee for “breaching a fundamental principle of the web by requiring payment for linking between certain content online.”  Gratis linking, “meaning without limitations regarding the content of the linked site and without monetary fees – is fundamental to how the web operates.”

It has induced much head scratching on the part of economists, not least because the Code seems to encourage failing industries and potentially benefit other media giants, such as Rupert Murdoch’s unsavoury News Corp.  This is the unrepentant view of former Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd.  “The problem with the government’s current response to the challenges of the digital media marketing code is that it seeks to solve one problem … by enhancing the power of the existing monopoly – that’s Murdoch.” 

The Code has also caused consternation to digital activists for not addressing privacy concerns.  It does nothing to counter the concentration of information and relentless data extraction known as surveillance capitalism, defined by Shoshana Zuboff “as the unilateral claiming of private human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioural data.”  That data is sold, in turn, to corporate players to target human behaviour in a predictive way. 

The other digital giant no doubt doing a jig in light of these announcements will be Google, who, despite bullying threats to withdraw its search engine from the antipodes, preferred frenetic negotiations.  To date, the company is boasting of striking deals with dozens of Australian media outlets as part of its News Showcase.  It can already make a good argument for not being “designated” for contributing to the sustainability of the Australian news industry. 

A victory, then, for the digital giants.  A tail-between-the-legs capitulation from Canberra, and a single, dagger directed blow at the barely breathing body of Australian democracy.   And just to add appropriately salted insult to wounding injury, Facebook promises that it may well do it again.  The digital brutes have been emboldened.

*

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 from Legal Loop

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 fighting in Yemen, similarly to other battlefields in the Middle East is heating up in 2021.

The Ansar Allah, or the Houthis, as they are colloquially known, have began pushing towards Marib city. The province and the settlement itself are the last Saudi-led coalition stronghold in the relatively calm central region. If Marib city is captured by the Houthis, they would be allowed to carry out even more attacks and operations in Saudi Arabia’s southern regions. These regions are largely depopulated because of the war that Riyadh and its allies began almost 6 years ago.

Starting on February 17th, the Houthis targeted Saudi-led force’s positions near Marib City, as a harbinger of what is to come. That is when the offensive began, with the Ansar Allah rapidly capturing various smaller villages en route to Marib City and the historical Marib Dam. The Saudi-led coalition attempted to halt the advance, by shelling the column and the ditches that were dug to siege the surroundings of Marib. After more than a day of heavy clashes, the Houthis came out victorious, capturing the Marib Dam.

It was short-lived however, for on February 20th, the Houthis withdrew from the Dam, as well as from the villages of Hamajirah and al-Zour. At this point, it turned into a back and forth, with the Houthis taking control of the village of Arak, south of the Marib Dam. And have since prepared to launch a new offensive.

In preparation for this Ansar Allah released a hype video, showing the most epic combat footage from the year 2020. As the COVID-19 pandemic year was of significant success for the Houthis on the battlefield, and of setbacks for Saudi Arabia.

Still, the Saudi-led coalition continue its airstrikes on Houthi positions all along the contact line and beyond it. The al-Hudaydah ceasefire is also seldom adhered to.

If the Marib Dam is lost, and then subsequently so is Marib City, this spells bad tidings for Riyadh.The Houthis are likely to keep pushing, and they have had the upper hand on the battlefield for a while now.

If the situation deteriorates further for the Saudi-led coalition this would allow for the Ansar Allah to carry out more combat operations on Saudi Arabian soil. This is an opportune moment due to the Biden Administration formally declaring its end of support for the Saudi-led coalition’s crusade in Yemen. But it should be taken with a grain of salt, as it is likely simply an international policy charade.

*

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

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 spent the past several years on my blog trying to highlight one thing above all others: that the institutions we were raised to regard as authoritative are undeserving of our blind trust. 

It is not just that expert institutions have been captured wholesale by corporate elites over the past 40 years and that, as a result, knowledge, experience and expertise have been sidelined in favour of elite interests – though that is undoubtedly true. The problem runs deeper: these institutions were rarely as competent or as authoritative as we fondly remember them being. They always served elite interests.

What has changed most are our perceptions of institutions that were once beloved or trusted. It is we who have changed more than the institutions. That is because we now have far more sources – good and bad alike – than ever before against which we can judge the assertions of those who claim to speak with authority.

Hanging out together 

Here is a personal example. When I started work as an editor at the foreign section of the Guardian newspaper in the early 1990s, there were few ways, from the paper’s London head office, to independently evaluate or scrutinise the presentation of events by any of our correspondents in their far-flung bureaus. All we could do was compare the copy they sent with that from other correspondents, either published in rival newspapers or available from two or three English-language wire services.

Even that safeguard is far less meaningful than it might sound to an outsider.

The correspondents for these various publications – whether based in Bangkok, Amman, Moscow, Havana or Washington – are a small group. Inevitably they each bring to their work a narrow range of mostly unconscious but almost identical biases. They hang out together – like any other expat community – in the same bars, clubs and restaurants. Their children attend the same international schools, and their families socialise together at the weekends.

Similar pasts

Correspondents from these various newspapers also have similar backgrounds. They have received much the same privileged education, at private or grammar schools followed by Oxford or Cambridge, and as a result share largely the same set of values. They have followed almost identical career paths, and their reports are written chiefly to impress their editors and each other. They are appointed by a foreign editor who served a decade or two earlier in one of the same bureaus they now head, and he (for invariably it is a he) selected them because they reminded him of himself at their age.

The “local sources” quoted by these correspondents are drawn from the same small pool of local politicians, academics and policymakers – people the correspondents have agreed are the most authoritative and in a position to speak on behalf of the rest of the local population.

Nowhere in this chain of news selection, gathering, editing and production are there likely to be voices questioning or challenging the correspondents’ shared view of what constitutes “news”, or their shared interpretation and presentation of that news.

Working in the guild 

This is not the news business as journalists themselves like to present it. They are not fearless, lone-wolf reporters pursuing exclusives and digging up dirt on the rich and powerful. They comprise something more akin to the guilds of old. Journalists are trained to see the world and write about it in near-identical terms.

The only reason the media “guild” looks far less credible than it did 20 or 30 years ago is because now we can often cut out the middleman – the correspondent himself. We can watch videos on Youtube of local events as they occur, or soon afterwards. We can hear directly from members of the local population who would never be given a platform in corporate media. We can read accounts from different types of journalists, including informed local ones, who would never be allowed to write for a corporate news outlet because they are not drawn from the narrow, carefully selected and trained group known as “foreign correspondents”.

My latest: A short video of settlers disrupting a family picnic may be the best field guide yet to Israel’s complex apartheid system of state-sponsored Jewish supremacy https://t.co/5RqMrNbgwy

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) February 17, 2021

A partial picture 

In this regard, let us consider my own area of specialist interest: Israel and Palestine. Jewish settlers in the West Bank have been beating up and shooting at Palestinian farmers trying to work their land or harvest their olives for more than half a century. It is one of the main practical means by which the settlers implement an ethnic cleansing policy designed to drive Palestinians off their farmland.

The settlers have thereby expanded their “municipal jurisdictions” to cover more than 40 per cent of the West Bank, territory under Israeli occupation that was supposed to form the backbone of any future Palestinian state. This settler violence is part of the reason why Palestinian statehood looks impossible today.

But until a decade or so ago – when phone cameras meant that recorded visual evidence became commonplace and irrefutable – you would rarely have had a way to know about those attacks. Correspondents in Jerusalem had decided on your behalf that you did not need to know.

Maybe the correspondents refused to believe the accounts of Palestinians or preferred the explanations from Israeli officials that these were just anti-Israel lies motivated by antisemitism. Or maybe the correspondents thought these attacks were not important enough, or that without corroboration they themselves risked being accused of antisemitism.

Whatever the reason, the fact is they did not tell their readers. This absence of information meant, in turn, that when Palestinians retaliated – in acts that were much more likely to be reported by correspondents – it looked to readers back home as if Palestinian violence was unprovoked and irrational. Western coverage invariably bolstered racist stereotypes suggesting that Palestinians were innately violent or antisemitic, and that Israelis, even violent settlers, were always victims.

Unreliable experts 

This problem is far from unique to journalism. There are similar issues with any of the professions – or guilds – that comprise and service today’s corporate establishment, whether it is the judiciary, politicians, the military, academics or non-profits. Those supposedly holding the establishment to account are usually deeply invested, whether it be financially or emotionally, in the establishment’s survival – either because they are part of that establishment or because they benefit from it.

And because these self-selecting “guilds” have long served as the public’s eyes and ears when we try to understand, assess and hold to account the corporate elites that rule over us, we necessarily have access only to partial, self-justifying, establishment-reinforcing information. As a result, we are likely to draw faulty conclusions about both the establishment itself and the guilds that prop up the establishment.

Very belatedly, we have come to understand how unreliable these experts – these guilds – are only because they no longer enjoy an exclusive right to narrate to us the world we inhabit. The backlash, of course, has not been long in coming. Using the pretext of “fake news”, these institutions are pushing back vigorously to shut down our access to different kinds of narration.

Plague of deficiency 

All this is by way of a very long introduction to a follow-up post on an article I wrote last week about the failure of doctors to press governments to finance proper, large-scale studies on the treatment of hospitalised Covid patients with Vitamin D – an important immunological hormone created by sunlight on our skin.

My latest: Most politicians and doctors have ignored the amassing evidence of Vitamin D's dramatic effects on Covid hospital patients. Might it be because the vitamin is made in the mystical touch of sun on skin rather than by white-coated lab technicians? https://t.co/gsh4xEOzd5

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) February 15, 2021

The role of Vitamin D on our general wellbeing and health has come under increasing scrutiny over the past two decades after it was discovered that it is the only vitamin for which there is a receptor in every cell in our body. 

Long before Covid, researchers had begun to understand that Vitamin D’s role in regulating our immune systems was chronically under-appreciated by most doctors. The medical profession was stuck in a paradigm from the 1950s in which Vitamin D’s use related chiefly to bone health. As a consequence, today’s recommended daily allowances – usually between 400IU and 800IU – were established long ago in accordance with the minimum needed for healthy bones rather than the maximum needed for a healthy immune system.

Today we know that many people in northern latitudes, especially the elderly, are deficient or severely deficient in Vitamin D, even those taking government-approved, low-level supplements. In fact, it would be true to say there is a global plague of Vitamin D deficiency, even in many sunny countries where people have lost the habit of spending time outdoors or shield themselves from the sun.

Question: How does the media spend 8 months spreading fake news about outdoor Covid dangers when research *at the time* showed it was nonsense?

The media makes money from our fear because it addicts us to news. A lesson here as the Covid story unfolds https://t.co/lKK5JfiNNC

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) February 19, 2021

Denied a platform

The doctors and researchers who have been gradually piecing together the critically important role of Vitamin D are the medical equivalent of the dissident journalists who try to present a realistic picture of what goes on in Israel-Palestine.

Because Big Pharma can make no serious money from Vitamin D, researchers into the sun hormone have struggled to raise funds for their work and have mostly been denied corporate platforms from which to publicise the stunning findings they have made. Until recently, corporate medicine simply ignored most Vitamin D research, relegating it to the supposedly fringe science of “nutrition”, which is why most doctors know little or nothing about it.

With the outbreak of Covid, when these Vitamin D studies should finally have come into their own, researchers found themselves shunted further into the margins. Just as journalists, politicians and human rights groups trying to tell you real things about Israel get labelled antisemites, anyone trying to tell you real things about Vitamin D gets labelled a crank, conspiracy theorist or Covid denier.

The desperate need for Covid treatments has not led to intensified interest in Vitamin D among most doctors, even though it is very cheap, almost completely safe even in large doses, and has been shown to help in damping down immune over-reaction of exactly the kind killing Covid patients.

Irish doctors, like counterparts around the world, are banging their heads against a wall of denial from the medical establishment, which continues to ignore mounting evidence suggesting Vit D has an important role to play in treating and preventing Covid https://t.co/BtYFBBFT7P

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) February 23, 2021

Rather, the opportunity for Big Pharma to develop a magic bullet to treat Covid has led to an intensified campaign to discredit Vitamin D research.

Vitamin D minefield 

In writing last week’s article, I stepped into the Vitamin D minefield fully expecting to receive as much flak as I do when I report on Israel-Palestine. What I was not prepared for is that the flak would be much worse.

I won’t rehearse the arguments I made in my earlier post. You can read it here.

Contrary to the claims of some of those seeking to discredit my article, I didn’t argue that Vitamin D is a proven cure for Covid. I argued in favour of three far more cautious positions that ought to be supported unequivocally by anyone concerned about the large and rising Covid death toll:

• that given the exceptionally promising results of studies into Vitamin D and Covid, it is criminally negligent for governments not to be funding further, large-scale research as a priority to confirm or reject those findings;
• that doctors, given their singular credibility on medical matters with the public, have a responsibility to lead that campaign of pressure on governments, especially when those same governments appear entirely beholden to Big Pharma.
• and that, given the minimal cost and complete safety of using Vitamin D on patients, it ought to be used on the precautionary principle until further research is carried out.

Governments off the hook

Instead lots of people, doctors included, did the exact opposite. They shifted the focus away from where it should be – on governments to fund proper research – on to a recent Barcelona study on Vitamin D that I had highlighted in my previous article. That research confirmed on a large scale dramatic and highly beneficial outcomes for hospitalised Covid patients. 

Critics wanted to nitpick over flaws in the study’s design. I received endless complaints that randomisation in the study was done by ward rather than by individual patient – a less satisfactory approach and one more likely to allow doctors in attendance to know who was being treated with Vitamin D and who wasn’t.

Other critics were exercised by an anomaly: that in the Vitamin D group slightly more patients died than had been admitted to intensive care. Critics surmised that the doctors involved in the study had been influenced in their treatment protocols by knowing who was in the Vitamin D group.

It is not that these are groundless criticisms. Most studies have design flaws, especially poorly funded ones that are being carried out on the hoof in a hospital as its doctors struggle to avoid being overwhelmed with Covid patients.

The study’s relatively minor flaws, however, do not invalidate its findings – after all, rigid adherence to double-blind protocols is unlikely to be a major factor in deterning whether patients recover from Covid. Rather, those flaws underline the need to push for an even more robustly designed study, properly funded by governments, and the use in the meantime of Vitamin D in hospitals on the precautionary principle.

Study taken down 

But there is another reason to be troubled by the chorus of criticism, much of it led by doctors, of the Barcelona research. The study was published as a pre-print by the Lancet, meaning it was awaiting peer review. This is standard practice for important studies to get them into the public domain and encourage debate. And yet after a campaign of pressure on the Lancet, the editors hurriedly took down the study. They effectively pre-empted the peer review process because of the noisy campaign against the study.

The double standards at play were all the more glaring because shortly after I published last week’s post I was inundated with correspondents praising another new study on Vitamin D, this one carried out in Sao Paulo in Brazil. The findings were published in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

There has been a huge lobby for Vitamin D in Covid. A new RCT shows no impact of high dose Vitamin D3 on moderate and severe disease outcomes. https://t.co/DBwqSNmfCg

— Anthony Costello (@globalhlthtwit) February 18, 2021

It was soon apparent why this study had attracted so many cheerleaders, especially among the medical establishment. The Brazil study has been used specifically to discredit the Spanish study, suggesting that Vitamin D has no beneficial outcome for hospitalised Covid patients. Some 17 doctors and researchers were directly involved in the Brazil study, and additionally it passed the scrutiny of a handful of other medical experts who edit the Journal.

And yet despite the wealth of medical expertise involved, even I could work out that the study was worthless from the descriptions provided by doctors promoting it on social media. The major flaw in the Brazil study is so gross that anyone who knows anything about Vitamin D can spot it. The authors and the Journal’s editors are apparently so ignorant about Vitamin D that they even reveal their error in the study title.

Why do doctors like this one drop all pretensions to critical thinking by cheerleading a deeply flawed study that rejects Vit D use in Covid? This study is *useless* because it used a form of Vit D that needs 2 weeks to activate in the body – too late for seriously ill patients https://t.co/G9onU2DWFX

— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) February 19, 2021

‘Medical insanity’ 

Of course, I don’t expect anyone to trust my assessment of a medical study into Vitamin D, so I will defer to an acknowledged medical expert on these matters, Dr Alex Vasquez, whose video assessment not only confirmed the major flaw in the study I had spotted but alerted me to a plethora of other serious failings. As he sighs his way through his presentation in growing exasperation, he intermittently describes the study as “garbage”, “stupid”, “unethical and “medical insanity”. He may be being too kind.

That the study is so bad suggests one of three logical possibilities:

a) profound medical incompetence by a wide array of doctors;

b) a conspiracy of some sort by these doctors to deceive their readers;

c) or far more likely, a groupthink cultivated in these doctors by a lifetime of working in the service of corporate medicine that has left them ignorant, dismissive and unconsciously hostile to a supposed “nature cure” like Vitamin D.

Catastrophic flaws

I recommend you watch the whole 40 minutes of Dr Vasquez’s video to get a true sense of how outrageously bad this Brazil study is, even though it is published by the Journal of the American Medical Association and is being widely promoted by doctors, chiefly as a way to dismiss the more robust Spanish study.

But on the assumption you don’t watch it, here is a brief overview of the most catastrophic flaws in its design:

• The doctors gave patients a single dose, one that barely qualifies as a high dose despite the study description, that earlier research on Vitamin D, conducted four years ago, proved doesn’t work. In other words, they designed a study that was entirely unnecessary because the outcome was known beforehand. The research was a complete waste of everybody’s time and a betrayal of the patients who took part because nothing could be learnt from it.
• Even worse, the form of Vitamin D the researchers gave the patients needs 10 days to become available in their bodies, far too late to help these seriously ill patients in their battle against Covid. Another form, calcifediol, which is available for use by the immune system immediately, should have been given instead, as it was in the Spanish study.
• In addition, not only was the wrong form of Vitamin D given but it was administered to patients 11 days after the onset of their symptoms – a huge time lag that, as Dr Vasquez observes, would ensure that many established drug treatments – for illnesses such as influenza, for example – would be guaranteed to fail too.
• The combined delay in treatment and the delay in the Vitamin D becoming active meant the patients had to wait three weeks before their Covid was being treated in any meaningful way. But that was the point at which the study ended and an assessment was drawn about Vitamin D as an ineffective treatment.

Patents over patients 

The wildly differing receptions these two studies have received should raise serious suspicions. 

One, the Barcelona study, has flaws but none serious enough that its dramatic finding – a finding supported by other studies – should be discounted: that dosing with active Vitamin D is likely to offer significant benefits to hospitalised Covid patients. And yet this study is being nitpicked to death and has been pulled from publication by the Lancet as though it is a danger to public health.

Folks, we need to talk about this Vitamin D trial. I have no stake in this game – take Vitamin D if you want but this pre-print is super sus. (THREAD)https://t.co/QZNp8kOXsv

— F. Perry Wilson, MD MSCE (@fperrywilson) February 14, 2021

Meanwhile, a thoroughly worthless Brazil study, so bad even non-doctors like me can see what is wrong with it, is being lauded and promoted. It is attracting almost no criticism, no scrutiny by doctors apart from those who have been marginalised, and is being weaponised to discredit the far more serious Spanish study. 

What we are seeing here is entirely unrelated to evidence-based medicine. Rather this is guild politics at its worst. Medical protectionism. It is a turf war. Describe it any way you wish. But this has nothing to do with medicine, public health, fighting Covid, or savings lives.

The very different treatment of these two studies suggests instead that the majority of doctors – like the majority of journalists, politicians and academics – have been captured by corporate interests. Whether they understand it or not, many doctors are in thrall to guild interests, defined by Big Pharma, that benefit not patients but patents and profits. Doctors have largely been trained into complicity with a medical money machine.

This is not just bad science. It is self-sabotage. As public trust wanes in all types of expertise and authority, widespread disenchantment fuels the rise of charlatans like Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Jair Bolsonaro.

We long ago lost trust in journalists and politicians. Academia now appears cloistered and irrelevant, while judges all too readily flaunt their privilege. All seem divorced from the concerns of ordinary people.

With a pandemic raging, doctors should be uniquely favoured. Now is a time when they can prove that they at least are deserving of our trust, that they are fighting for our interests, not corporate interests. Instead they risk following these other professions into guild protectionism and disdain for those they took an oath to help.

*

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 essay first appeared on Jonathan Cook’s blog: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/ 

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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).

***

Author’s note: These remarks were delivered at an African American History Month virtual webinar hosted by the Moratorium NOW! Coalition on Monday February 22, 2021. The event was held in honor of Malcolm X, El Hajj Malik Shabazz, on the 56th anniversary of his martyrdom. Other speakers and performers at the meeting included Detroit educator and poet, Wanda Olugbala; Sara Torres, musician and member of Moratorium NOW! Coalition; Julie Hurwitz, Vice President of the Michigan Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild; Sammie Lewis, a leading organizer for Detroit Will Breathe; Derek Grigsby, an organizer for Moratorium NOW! Coalition; Kenya Fentress, organizer for Racial Profiling Across 8 Mile; Anthony Ali of Detroit Will Breathe served as moderator; and David Sole of Moratorium NOW! Coalition delivered a proclamation honoring organizational member Walter Knall for his years of service to the African American struggle and the peoples’ movement as a whole.   

*

February 21 marked the 56th anniversary of the assassination of Malcolm X, also known as El Hajj Malik Shabazz.

With this annual commemoration coinciding with African American History Month, it provides opportunities to continue the study of the significance of his life and the times in which he lived.

Malcolm X was born Malcolm Little on May 19, 1925, during a period of awakening and renewal among the African American people. The Harlem Renaissance was well underway while the Universal Negro Improvement Association, African Communities League (UNIA-ACL) was struggling against the United States government over the fate of its founder the Hon. Marcus Garvey.

Garvey had been indicted and convicted on federal mail fraud charges and began to serve a sentence in 1925. He would spend two years in prison before being deported to the Caribbean island-nation of Jamaica where he was born in 1887.

Image on the right: Malcolm X parents were UNIA members (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Both of the parents of Malcolm X, Earl and Louise Little, were members of the UNIA. The couple had met at a UNIA convention in 1919 held in Montreal, Quebec (Canada). Earl Little was a Baptist preacher and Louise was a writer for the Negro World newspaper published by the UNIA.

This was a pan-African marriage with Earl being from the southern state of Georgia and Louise was born in the Caribbean island-nation of Grenada. The ideology of Garveyism brought them together in the cause of the emancipation of African people worldwide.

Malcolm was born in Omaha, Nebraska and would leave the city with his family after their home was burned down by the Ku Klux Klan. They later moved to Milwaukee, Wisconsin and then to Lansing and Mason, Michigan. Racist violence would follow the family due to the character of national oppression in the U.S. and the militancy of the family.

In 1931, during the Great Depression, Earl Little was killed by a racist vigilante organization in Michigan. Malcolm X in later years said the group responsible was the Black Legion, a violent right-wing organization which was funded heavily by industrialists to suppress labor organizers, African Americans and other peoples.

Eventually, after the death of Earl Little, Louise was committed to a mental hospital while the family was broken up, young Malcolm was sent to foster care. He excelled in school in Michigan and later went to live with an older sister Ella Collins in Boston in 1941. Malcolm had already left school after the eighth grade due to racism and in Boston he worked menial jobs. Later he became involved in petty criminality and was sentenced to prison in 1946.

By 1952, Malcolm had joined the Nation of Islam (NOI) prior to him being paroled from prison in Massachusetts. Immediately after leaving prison he came to live in the Detroit metropolitan area. He was appointed as Assistant Minister of the Detroit Temple of Islam and began to work in retail and in automobile factories.

Malcolm rapidly accelerated in the NOI and was assigned to several temples on the east coast before landing in New York City to head the NOI’s operations in Harlem. The Hon. Elijah Muhammad eventually designated Malcolm X and the national representative of the organization. He appeared regularly on radio and television along with being written about in print media, speaking on behalf of the NOI.

By 1959, the NOI had gained national exposure through a number television reports and newspaper articles. The organization was often portrayed negatively in the press as a hate group at odds with the views of “mainstream” African Americans. Yet, the NOI continued to gain grassroots support while the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and local police agencies monitored their activities through infiltration, wiretaps and attempted intimidation of members.

Three Speeches in Detroit (1963-1965)

Number One: Message to the Grassroots, November 10, 1963

The life of Malcolm X, his wife Betty Shabazz, who was from Detroit, and their six children, cannot be fully covered in the time frame allotted for this presentation. Since this meeting is being held in Detroit, I want to focus on three major addresses within the public career of Malcolm X which were delivered in the city between November 1963 and February 1965.

Malcolm X greeted by Atty. Milton Henry during his final trip to Detroit on Feb. 14, 1965 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Just weeks prior to his suspension and later departure from the NOI, Malcolm X visited Detroit to participate in a Northern Negro Grassroots Leadership Conference held at King Solomon Baptist Church on the westside. Malcolm would deliver an historic speech at the gathering, dubbed “Message to the Grassroots.” The speech was recorded by the Afro American Broadcasting Corporation owned by Attorney Milton Henry. Malcolm would also speak at Wayne State University (WSU) during this trip.

The purpose of the November conference was to extend the African American struggle beyond the acquisition of Civil Rights with a more militant character. 1963 had been a monumental year with the outbreak of mass demonstrations and civil unrest in numerous cities in the South and other regions of the U.S. Birmingham had exploded with mass youth demonstrations and one of the first urban rebellions of the period in April and May.

Medgar Evers, the NAACP Field Secretary in Mississippi, was gunned down outside his home in Jackson. In Detroit, the largest civil rights demonstration in the history of the U.S. was organized on June 23, twenty years after the deadly race riot of 1943. The Detroit Walk to Freedom attracted an estimated 125,000 to 250,000 people. The event had been spearheaded by progressive clergy and community organizations with figures such as Rev. C.L. Franklin of New Bethel Baptist Church, educator and businessman James Del Rio, the Rev. Albert Cleage of Central United Church of Christ, among others.

Nonetheless, the alliance which led the march on June 23 had begun to fracture in the subsequent weeks and months. Differences between Rev. Franklin, who was a leading member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and Rev. Cleage gained public attention through the news media. The Northern Negro Grassroots Leadership Conference competed with another gathering at Cobo Hall that same weekend which attracted U.S. Congressman Adam Clayton Powell of Harlem.

The speech delivered by Malcolm X proved to be a signature ideological statement related to the emerging struggle within African American communities. Detroit, with its extensive history of resistance to African enslavement, labor recognition and Black Nationalism, became a focal point for the radical and revolutionary thinking which was rising in evidence during the period.

In the early minutes of the Message to the Grassroots address, Malcolm X says:

“What you and I need to do is learn to forget our differences. When we come together, we don’t come together as Baptists or Methodists. You don’t catch hell ’cause you’re a Baptist, and you don’t catch hell ’cause you’re a Methodist. You don’t catch hell ’cause you’re a Methodist or Baptist. You don’t catch hell because you’re a Democrat or a Republican. You don’t catch hell because you’re a Mason or an Elk. And you sure don’t catch hell ’cause you’re an American; ’cause if you was an American, you wouldn’t catch no hell. You catch hell ’cause you’re a black man. You catch hell, all of us catch hell, for the same reason. So we are all black people, so-called Negroes, second-class citizens, ex-slaves. You are nothing but a [sic] ex-slave. You don’t like to be told that. But what else are you? You are ex-slaves. You didn’t come here on the Mayflower. You came here on a slave ship — in chains, like a horse, or a cow, or a chicken. And you were brought here by the people who came here on the Mayflower. You were brought here by the so-called Pilgrims, or Founding Fathers. They were the ones who brought you here.”

Such a public statement in 1963 was a call for unity within the African American community. A broad-based united front would be essential in any revolutionary activism seeking long term solutions.

Later Malcolm would challenge the use of the term Revolution in regard to the tactics being employed by many Civil Rights organizations. The NOI leader believed that the emphasis on nonviolence as a principle within the movement should be rejected. He emphasized self-defense against racist violence being carried out against African Americans whether being perpetuated by the police or vigilantes.

According to Malcolm in the same speech:

“I would like to make a few comments concerning the difference between the Black revolution and the Negro revolution. There’s a difference. Are they both the same? And if they’re not, what is the difference? What is the difference between a Black revolution and a Negro revolution? First, what is a revolution? Sometimes I’m inclined to believe that many of our people are using this word ‘revolution’ loosely, without taking careful consideration [of] what this word actually means, and what its historic characteristics are. When you study the historic nature of revolutions, the motive of a revolution, the objective of a revolution, and the result of a revolution, and the methods used in a revolution, you may change words. You may devise another program. You may change your goal and you may change your mind.”

These words are designed to challenge activists to think deeper in regard to the actual meaning of social transformation. Malcolm X had concluded that many people claiming to be leaders of the African American struggle were not genuinely committed to making the adequate sacrifices needed for a real revolution.

He then goes on to cite historical occurrences involving revolutionary change. Of course, as an organizer, Malcolm X knew that in order to win people over to a position they must be convinced of some reasonable certainty of the possibility of achieving the objectives of a movement.

Malcolm goes on to direct the listeners and later readers to:

“Look at the American Revolution in 1776. That revolution was for what? For land. Why did they want land? Independence. How was it carried out? Bloodshed. Number one, it was based on land, the basis of independence. And the only way they could get it was bloodshed. The French Revolution — what was it based on? The land-less against the landlord. What was it for? Land. How did they get it? Bloodshed. Was no love lost; was no compromise; was no negotiation. I’m telling you, you don’t know what a revolution is. ’Cause when you find out what it is, you’ll get back in the alley; you’ll get out of the way. The Russian Revolution — what was it based on? Land. The land-less against the landlord. How did they bring it about? Bloodshed. You haven’t got a revolution that doesn’t involve bloodshed. And you’re afraid to bleed. I said, you’re afraid to bleed. [As] long as the white man sent you to Korea, you bled. He sent you to Germany, you bled. He sent you to the South Pacific to fight the Japanese, you bled. You bleed for white people. But when it comes time to seeing your own churches being bombed and little black girls being murdered, you haven’t got no blood. You bleed when the white man says bleed; you bite when the white man says bite; and you bark when the white man says bark. I hate to say this about us, but it’s true. How are you going to be nonviolent in Mississippi, as violent as you were in Korea? How can you justify being nonviolent in Mississippi and Alabama, when your churches are being bombed, and your little girls are being murdered, and at the same time you’re going to violent with Hitler, and Tojo, and somebody else that you don’t even know?”

Although these are references which do not require much detailed knowledge of historical processes, the tone is properly suited for grassroots activists, many of whom were youth living in an urban environment. Malcolm X, through his travels across the U.S. and his readings related to current events in 1963, that the general psychological make-up of the African American people was shifting at a rapid pace. The eruption of the mass Civil Rights Movement during the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955-56, ushered in a new era of consciousness.

Yet he felt strongly that there was a need for more militant action and organizational activity. By the conclusion of 1963, the intransigence of the racist system of national oppression was intensifying. Many were outraged at the brutality utilized by the police and racist groups to intimidate and halt the forward trajectory of the African American people. On September 15, 1963, four Black girls died from a bomb explosion set off by the Ku Klux Klan at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. Two other children died the same day due to racist attacks. These developments would portend much for the coming years where urban rebellion and self-defense formations came into the broader existence.

Second Speech: The Ballot or the Bullet, April 12, 1964

On December 1, 1963, Malcolm X addressed a crowd at the Manhattan Center in New York City. The theme of the address was centered on what he described as “God’s Judgment of White America”. Elijah Muhammad had directed all ministers for the NOI to refrain from comments on the November 22 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Malcolm X had been a staunch critic of the Kennedy administration for its failure to uphold the rights of the African American people and to apprehend and prosecute incidents of racist violence. Over two months had passed and yet nothing had been done to punish those responsible for the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing. Hundreds of activists were still being beaten and jailed even in the aftermath of the upsurge in demonstrations in Birmingham and other cities during 1963.

A question-and-answer period after the speech at the Manhattan Center brought up the issue of the assassination of JFK. In his response, Malcolm seemed to suggest that the assassination was the product of the atmosphere of violence carried out inside and outside the country by the U.S. government. Consequently, the death of Kennedy was a case of the “Chickens Coming Home to Roost.” Noting that there were many Africans who had been assassinated at the aegis of the U.S. while no corrective punitive legal actions were taken.

Four days later it was announced by John Ali of the Chicago headquarters of the NOI, that when Malcolm X made those statements, he was speaking for himself and not Elijah Muhammad. Ali then said that Malcolm X had been suspended for 90 days from speaking and organizing on behalf of the NOI.

Malcolm X said he had written to Elijah Muhammad several times during the suspension however no response was received. After the 90 days were over, Malcolm X was notified that his suspension would be extended indefinitely. The time was early March 1964 when the Civil Rights Movement prepared for another summer of demonstrations and other political work. The NOI has remained aloof from the direct action, marches and legal challenges carried out by the SCLC, NAACP, the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE), the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), among others.

Ferment was being generated in the northern and western urban areas demanding quality education, open housing, decent jobs, and the eradication of legalized and de facto segregation. This was no time to remain silent about the burning questions of the period. Therefore, Malcolm X made a decision to break publicly with the NOI.

On March 8, 1964, Malcolm held a press conference in New York City to announce that he was leaving the NOI permanently and establishing an alternative mosque in Harlem. The organization was called the Muslim Mosque, Inc. and was a precursor to the founding of a political group known as the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU) by late June.

Just one month later Malcolm would return to Detroit for a public address again at the King Solomon Baptist Church. This speech became known as “The Ballot or the Bullet.” In the address Malcolm warns the rulers of the U.S. that if complete freedom, justice and equality was not granted to the African American people, no one would have freedom inside the country.

1964 was an election year with the then President Lyndon B. Johnson seeking to win a full term after inheriting the position in the wake of the Kennedy assassination. SNCC and allied organizations were recruiting hundreds of students to enter the South in Mississippi and other areas to engage in a Freedom Summer project. Malcolm X was determined to enter the popular struggles of the period while authenticating himself as an orthodox Muslim with political connections throughout Africa and the world.

During the second speech in Detroit during this period entitled “The Ballot or the Bullet”, Malcolm said:

“Just as it took nationalism to remove colonialism from Asia and Africa, it’ll take Black nationalism today to remove colonialism from the backs and the minds of twenty-two million Afro-Americans here in this country. And 1964 looks like it might be the year of the ballot or the bullet. [applause] Why does it look like it might be the year of the ballot or the bullet? Because Negroes have listened to the trickery and the lies and the false promises of the white man now for too long, and they’re fed up. They’ve become disenchanted. They’ve become disillusioned. They’ve become dissatisfied. And all of this has built up frustrations in the Black community that makes the Black community throughout America today more explosive than all of the atomic bombs the Russians can ever invent. Whenever you got a racial powder keg sitting in your lap, you’re in more trouble than if you had an atomic powder keg sitting in your lap. When a racial powder keg goes off, it doesn’t care who it knocks out the way. Understand this, it’s dangerous.”

These words foresaw the urban rebellions which would erupt later that summer in 1964 in New York, cities within New Jersey, Philadelphia, etc. In the years to come, hundreds of urban rebellions would take place in cities from the west to the east of the country. Malcolm X suggested in the Ballot or the Bullet that the numerical odds within the U.S. would not determine the outcome of a revolutionary struggle for political power. He noted the victories of the revolutionary forces in China, Korea and what was unfolding in Vietnam, first against the French and then, at that time in 1964, the U.S.

During the address, Malcolm went on to illustrate that:

“This is why I say it’s the ballot or the bullet. It’s liberty or it’s death. It’s freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody. [applause] America today finds herself in a unique situation. Historically, revolutions are bloody, oh yes they are. They have never had a bloodless revolution. Or a non-violent revolution. That don’t happen even in Hollywood. [laughter] You don’t have a revolution in which you love your enemy. And you don’t have a revolution in which you are begging the system of exploitation to integrate you into it. Revolutions overturn systems. Revolutions destroy systems. A revolution is bloody, but America is in a unique position. She’s the only country in history, in the position actually to become involved in a bloodless revolution. The Russian Revolution was bloody, Chinese Revolution was bloody, French Revolution was bloody, Cuban Revolution was bloody. And there was nothing more bloody than the American Revolution. But today, this country can become involved in a revolution that won’t take bloodshed. All she’s got to do is give the Black man in this country everything that’s due him, everything. [applause]

Just days after delivering this address in Detroit, Malcolm flew out of the U.S. to Mecca in Saudi Arabia for the annual Hajj. It is important to recognize that this was not the first time Malcolm X had visited West Asia and Africa. In 1959, he had accompanied Elijah Muhammad to several countries. Malcolm himself traveled to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Ghana and Sudan.

Nonetheless, the first trip he took during 1964 represented an entire new horizon for Malcolm. He was able to speak his mind fully while totally embracing Pan-Africanism and anti-imperialism. After his religious pilgrimage to Mecca, Malcolm visited several other countries including Egypt, Nigeria and Ghana. After being abroad for six weeks, he returned to much media fanfare in May 1964.

At the returning press conference in New York, Malcolm was questioned about his efforts to have the U.S. brought before the world court for violations of the human rights of African Americans. Malcolm noted that other oppressed peoples had sought similar remedies and that the people of African descent in the U.S. were no different.

On June 28, 1964, Malcolm X announced the formation of the OAAU at the Audubon Ballroom in New York. The aims of the organization were to unite African people in the U.S. with their counterparts on the continent and around the globe. The objective was full total freedom to be achieved by any means necessary.

In a matter of weeks during July, Malcolm had again left the U.S. for Africa and Asia. He spent considerable time in Egypt where he attended the second annual summit of the Organization of African Unity (OAU). While in Cairo he strengthened communications and contacts with the national liberation movements and anti-imperialist governments on the continent.

On behalf of the OAAU, Malcolm circulated an eight-page memorandum to the heads-of-state, requesting solidarity with the African American struggle. As a direct result of his work and the support of anti-imperialist and Pan-African governments, a resolution was passed condemning racial discrimination in the U.S. This same resolution was utilized during the summer of 2020, when people throughout the U.S. were demonstrating and rebelling in the aftermath of the brutal police execution of George Floyd in Minneapolis. As a result, the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland held hearings on the racial unrest in the U.S. The brother of George Floyd addressed the UN hearing where he implored the international body to take action in support of the African American people.

The Last Message Towards the African Revolution: February 14, 1965

Malcolm X would spend nearly five months abroad between July and November of 1964. He studied Islam and politics in Egypt at the invitation of then President Gamal Abdel Nassar. He traveled to Ghana for the second time that year to meet with African Americans living and working there as part of the First Republic of President Dr. Kwame Nkrumah. In addition, Malcolm visited Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia and other countries, seeking to build alliances with Islamic and progressive forces.

Yet a major impediment to the realization of his organizational objectives was the ongoing feud with his former organization. The leadership of the NOI had been concerned when Malcolm departed the organization only to begin another one. Several attempts had been made on Malcolm’s life and his followers. When he arrived back in New York City during late November 1964, he was prepared to move forward with the OAAU and other projects.

Malcolm maintained a rigorous schedule of speaking engagements, OAAU meetings, Islamic classes taught by the MMI, along with traveling to cities around the U.S. In early February, he traveled to Britain to speak at the London School of Economics and meet with Black organizations. He was also invited to speak in Paris before a number of African organizations residing in France. Nonetheless, the French customs officials denied him admission to the country. He was turned around and went back to England where he addressed the meeting by telephone.

After returning to New York City on February 13, Malcolm was preparing for yet another speaking engagement in Detroit. However, during the early morning hours of February 14, his home was firebombed. The entire family was able to exit the home without injury. The bombing of the house, which was owned by the NOI and the subject of an eviction order, was an ominous sign of worse things to come.

However, Malcolm was determined to honor his speaking engagement in Detroit on the afternoon of February 14. After securing his family, he took a plane to Detroit and checked into the Statler-Hilton Hotel downtown. He was seen by a physician and would later address a meeting at Ford Auditorium on the riverfront.

His comments during the final visit to Detroit at Ford Auditorium focused on the interrelationship between the struggles of people of African descent in the U.S. and around the world. He discussed his travels in Africa and the Middle East while pointing to the necessity of global unity.

Some of his remarks included this passage:

“So we saw that the first thing to do was to unite our people, not only unite us internally, but we have to be united with our brothers and sisters abroad. It was for that purpose that I spent five months in the Middle East and Africa during the summer. The trip was very enlightening, inspiring, and fruitful. I didn’t go into any African country, or any country in the Middle East for that matter, and run into any closed door, closed mind, or closed heart. I found a warm reception and an amazingly deep interest and sympathy for the Black man in this country in regards to our struggle for human rights. While I was traveling, I had a chance to speak in Cairo, or rather Alexandria, with President [Gamal Abdel] Nasser for about an hour and a half. He’s a very brilliant man. And I can see why they’re so afraid of him, and they are afraid of him — they know he can cut off their oil [laughter and applause]. And actually, the only thing power respects is power. Whenever you find a man who’s in a position to show power against power then that man is respected. But you can take a man who has power and love him all the rest of your life, nonviolently and forgivingly and all the rest of those oft-time things, and you won’t get anything out of it.”

Malcolm would deliver three other speeches in that coming week. He would address a public meeting and press conference on February 15 at the Audubon Ballroom where he discussed the bombing of his house and various political issues. On the following day he would speak at an African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) in Rochester, New York. Two days after, February 18, he would speak at Barnard College in New York.

A public meeting of the OAAU was scheduled for Sunday February 21, 1965 at the Audubon Ballroom. After being introduced by one of his assistants, several men emerged from the audience and shot Malcolm X to death. His death has been commemorated every year since 1965 in the U.S. and around the planet.

Lessons from the Life, Times and Contributions of Malcolm X

The strength of Malcolm X’s message remains with us today some 56 years since his assassination. African Americans remain under national oppression, economic exploitation and institutional racism. They are still subjected to U.S. military service in order to carry out the political and economic imperatives of imperialism.

A resurgence in Black Consciousness and anti-racism is a healthy development in the U.S. The national response to the police and vigilante killings of African Americans has alerted the international community that racism remains alive and well in the U.S. despite its claims of being a defender of human rights and social justice.

Malcolm X was hated and feared by the ruling class in the U.S. and the entire imperialist system. Consequently, his assassination was carried out in a failed attempt to arrest the African American liberation movement.

In recent days, news related to the assassination of Malcolm X and the involvement of the New York police and the FBI, has been raised again. Ray Wood, a former undercover New York City police officer, from the BOSS division (intelligence unit), claimed in a death bed confession letter that he was sent to infiltrate the OAAU.

An article published recently in News One says of the latest revelation:

“The recent accusations echo theories raised in the 2020 Netflix documentary, ‘Who Killed Malcolm X?’ The series followed Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, an activist and self-trained investigator who dedicated his life work to solving the civil rights icon’s murder. In the documentary Muhammad interviews several important figures involved in the investigation, explores different conspiracy theories including possible federal and state law enforcement involvement. Muhammad also attempts to explore an accusation that Malcolm X’s alleged killer was a Newark community leader who worshipped at a local Mosque. After the documentary aired, the Manhattan District Attorney’s office announced it reviewed the case, with the possibility to reopen if leads proved sufficient.”

Of course, this is not the first time that confessions have been offered in regard to culpability and involvement in the assassination. These claims should be thoroughly investigated independently. Any reliance on the police and FBI, who are the accused parties, will bear no fruitful results.

What is important to understand is that the only real tribute to Malcolm X will be administered by those who believe in his message and objectives. Justice will be achieved when the systems of exploitation and oppression are completely eradicated, and a new society is built on the basis of freedom, self-determination and social emancipation.

*

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.

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

Featured image: Malcolm X speaks at Wayne State University Nov. 1963 (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

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 February meeting of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Defense Ministers, the first since President Biden took power, revealed an antiquated, 75-year-old alliance that, despite its military failures in Afghanistan and Libya, is now turning its military madness toward two more formidable, nuclear-armed enemies: Russia and China. 

This theme was emphasized by U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in a Washington Post op-ed in advance of the NATO meeting, insisting that “aggressive and coercive behaviors from emboldened strategic competitors such as China and Russia reinforce our belief in collective security.”

Using Russia and China to justify more Western military build-up is a key element in the alliance’s new “Strategic Concept,” called NATO 2030: United For a New Era, which is intended to define its role in the world for the next ten years.

NATO was founded in 1949 by the United States and 11 other Western nations to confront the Soviet Union and the rise of communism in Europe. Since the end of the Cold War, it has grown to 30 countries, expanding to incorporate most of Eastern Europe, and it now has a long and persistent history of illegal war-making, bombing civilians and other war crimes.

In 1999, NATO launched a war without UN approval to separate Kosovo from Serbia. Its illegal airstrikes during the Kosovo War killed hundreds of civilians, and its close ally, Kosovo President Hashim Thaci, is now on trial for shocking war crimes committed under cover of the NATO bombing campaign.

Far from the North Atlantic, NATO has fought alongside the United States in Afghanistan since 2001, and attacked Libya in 2011, leaving behind a failed state and triggering a massive refugee crisis.

The first phase of NATO’s new Strategic Concept review is called the NATO 2030 Reflection Group report. That sounds encouraging, since NATO obviously and urgently needs to reflect on its bloody history. Why does an organization nominally dedicated to deterring war and preserving peace keep starting wars, killing thousands of people and leaving countries around the world mired in violence, chaos and poverty?

But unfortunately, this kind of introspection is not what NATO means by “reflection.” The Reflection Group instead applauds NATO as “history’s most successful military alliance,” and seems to have taken a leaf from the Obama playbook by only “looking forward,” as it charges into a new decade of military confrontation with its blinders firmly in place.

NATO’s role in the “new” Cold War is really a reversion to its old role in the original Cold War. This is instructive, as it unearths the ugly reasons why the United States decided to create NATO in the first place, and exposes them for a new generation of Americans and Europeans to examine in the context of today’s world.

Any U.S. war with the Soviet Union or Russia was always going to put Europeans directly on the front lines as both combatants and mass-casualty victims. The primary function of NATO is to ensure that the people of Europe continue to play these assigned roles in America’s war plans.

As Michael Klare explains in a NATO Watch report on NATO 2030, every step the U.S. is taking with NATO is “intended to integrate it into U.S. plans to fight and defeat China and Russia in all-out warfare.”

The U.S. Army’s plan for an invasion of Russia, which is euphemistically called “The U.S. Army in Multi-Domain Operations,” begins with missile and artillery bombardments of Russian command centers and defensive forces, followed by an invasion by armored forces to occupy key areas and sites until Russia surrenders.

Unsurprisingly, Russia’s defense strategy in the face of such an existential threat would not be to surrender, but to retaliate against the United States and its allies with nuclear weapons.

U.S. war plans for an assault on China are similar, involving missiles fired from ships and bases in the Pacific. China has not been as public about its defense plans, but if its existence and independence were threatened, it too would probably use nuclear weapons, as indeed the United States would if the positions were reversed. But they’re not—since no other country has the offensive war machine it would need to invade the United States.

Michael Klare concludes that NATO 2030 “commits all alliance members to a costly, all-consuming military competition with Russia and China that will expose them to an ever-increasing risk of nuclear war.”

So how do the European people feel about their role in America’s war plans? The European Council on Foreign Relations recently conducted an in-depth poll of 15,000 people in ten NATO countries and Sweden, and published the results in a report titled “The Crisis of American Power: How Europeans See Biden’s America.”

The report reveals that a large majority of Europeans want no part in a U.S. war with Russia or China and want to remain neutral. Only 22% would support taking the U.S. side in a war with China, 23% in a war with Russia. So European public opinion is squarely at odds with NATO’s role in America’s war plans.

On transatlantic relations in general, majorities in most European countries see the U.S. political system as broken and their own countries’ politics as in healthier shape. Fifty-nine percent of Europeans believe that China will be more powerful than the United States within a decade, and most see Germany as a more important partner and international leader than the United States.

Only 17% of Europeans want closer economic ties with the United States, while even fewer, 10% of French and Germans, think their countries need America’s help with their national defense.

Biden’s election has not changed Europeans’ views very much from a previous survey in 2019, because they see Trumpism as a symptom of more deeply rooted and long-standing problems in American society. As the writers conclude, “A majority of Europeans doubt that Biden can put Humpty Dumpty back together again.”

There is also pushback among Europeans to NATO’s demand that members should spend 2 percent of their gross domestic products on defense, an arbitrary goal that only 10 of the 30 members have met. Ironically, some states will reach the NATO target without raising their military spending because COVID has shrunk their GDPs, but NATO members struggling economically are unlikely to prioritize military spending.

The schism between NATO’s hostility and Europe’s economic interests runs deeper than just military spending. While the United States and NATO see Russia and China primarily as threats, European businesses view them as key partners. In 2020, China supplanted the U.S. as the European Union’s number one trading partner and at the close of 2020, the EU concluded a comprehensive investment agreement with China, despite U.S. concerns.

European countries also have their own economic relations with Russia. Germany remains committed to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a 746-mile natural gas artery that runs from northern Russia to Germany—even as the Biden administration calls it a “bad deal” and claims that it makes Europe vulnerable to Russian “treachery.”

NATO seems oblivious to the changing dynamics of today’s world, as if it’s living on a different planet. Its one-sided Reflection Group report cites Russia’s violation of international law in Crimea as a principal cause of deteriorating relations with the West, and insists that Russia must “return to full compliance with international law.” But it ignores the U.S. and NATO’s far more numerous violations of international law and leading role in the tensions fueling the renewed Cold War:

• illegal invasions of Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq;
• the broken agreement over NATO expansion into Eastern Europe;
• U.S. withdrawals from important arms control treaties;
• more than 300,000 bombs and missiles dropped on other countries by the United States and its allies since 2001;
• U.S. proxy wars in Libya and Syria, which plunged both countries into chaos, revived Al Qaeda and spawned the Islamic State;
• U.S. management of the 2014 coup in Ukraine, which led to economic collapse, Russian annexation of Crimea and civil war in Eastern Ukraine; and
• the stark reality of the United States’ record as a serial aggressor whose offensive war machine dwarfs Russia’s defense spending by 11 to 1 and China’s by 2.8 to 1, even without counting other NATO countries’ military spending.

NATO’s failure to seriously examine its own role in what it euphemistically calls “uncertain times” should therefore be more alarming to Americans and Europeans than its one-sided criticisms of Russia and China, whose contributions to the uncertainty of our times pale by comparison.

The short-sighted preservation and expansion of NATO for a whole generation after the dissolution of the U.S.S.R and the end of the Cold War has tragically set the stage for the renewal of those hostilities – or maybe even made their revival inevitable.

NATO’s Reflection Group justifies and promotes the United States’ and NATO’s renewed Cold War by filling its report with dangerously one-sided threat analysis. A more honest and balanced review of the dangers facing the world and NATO’s role in them would lead to a much simpler plan for NATO’s future: that it should be dissolved and dismantled as quickly as possible.

*

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.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Featured image: NATO headquarters in Brussels (Photo: NATO)

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).

***

UK health minister Matt Hancock has warned the government’s timeline for unlocking coronavirus restrictions could be slowed as ministers remain “vigilant” against infection rates. What began in March 2020 as a three-week lockdown to ‘save the NHS’ has turned into a year-long clampdown on fundamental liberties with the spectre of freedom through vaccination (‘COVID status certificates’) and the eventual roll out of all-encompassing digital IDs on the horizon.

In the meantime, children’s education, small independent businesses, livelihoods and lives have been wrecked all in the name of a coronavirus whose impact has been overstated – certainly if we take time to deconstruct the media narrative of 120,000 ‘COVID-19 deaths’ in the UK to see how that figure has been arrived at.

For example, the vast majority of the deceased had on average almost two serious life-threatening co-morbidities and ‘COVID deaths’ are defined as someone who had a positive COVID test result within 28 days of death, regardless of subsequent cause of death.

Moreover, in the UK, the average age of a ‘COVID death’ is 82.4, in a country where life expectancy is 81.

Fear rather than science has been key to UK government strategy. Using lockdowns to control the virus has little if any scientific basis. On the other hand, there is much evidence that shows lockdowns destroy lives. Little wonder then that behavioural strategists are included as part of the top committee (SAGE) advising ministers. And little wonder, therefore, that the public overestimates the threat of COVID-19.

What has disturbed many commentators, such as former Chief Justice Lord Sumption, is that the media, politicians and ordinary people have rolled over and accepted the erosion of fundamental civil liberties – and by implication, the tyranny of lockdown, based on a corruption of science and the type of medical hubris that Ivan Illich alluded to many decades ago.

These are liberties that ordinary people fought and struggled (and often died) for down the ages.

What is just as disturbing is that prominent commentators on the ‘left’ have supported the restrictions, often calling for tighter controls. Other voices on the left have been conspicuous by their silence. These figures have wholeheartedly bought into the official COVID-19 narrative – the people who are usually first in line to criticise and challenge anything a Conservative administration does.

The aim here is not to regurgitate what has already been stated in the many articles that have appeared over the last year about the current crisis of capitalism or the ‘great reset’. The aim of this article is intended as a brief reminder.

There is a tradition of struggle in Britain which many people appear to have abandoned – the very people who would be expected to carry on that proud tradition.

People’s struggle

Arthur Leslie Morton’s ‘A People’s History of England’ is a classic text. Morton (1903-1987) takes us back to when humans first inhabited England and then on a forward journey that ends on the eve of the Second World War. His book shows that countless millions have inhabited the place we call England, from ancient hunter-gatherer tribes and the ‘Beaker People’, to the Vikings, Normans and those of the industrial age.

If you are familiar with the words of the late astrophysicist Carl Sagan, they may well resonate when reading Morton’s book. Sagan stated that generals, kings, rulers and politicians have spilled rivers of blood just to become temporary masters of some or other part of the planet and that endless cruelties have been visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the globe upon inhabitants in another corner.

However, in all of this cruelty and bloodshed, Morton accounts for the plight of the ordinary person, both in England and abroad, who has borne the brunt of war, famine, exploitation and the political machinations of tyrants and unscrupulous leaders, whether Roman, medieval monarch, feudal baron or modern-day capitalist.

He describes the rise of feudalism and its decline, the agrarian revolution, the English Revolution, the rape of Ireland, colonial expansion and the Industrial Revolution.

As this land grew to be the pre-eminent world power, ordinary people struggled to find a voice within these shifting tectonic plates of history. Nevertheless, they succeeded.

Morton discusses the development of the working class movement and subsequent struggles: he notes the impact of the Peasants’ Revolt, Peterloo, trade unionism and many other inspiring events that litter the historical landscape of England.

The conclusion to be drawn is that most change that has benefited ordinary people has resulted from the actions of ordinary folk themselves. Such benefits have never been handed out freely by the rich and powerful. This is true for women’s rights and political freedoms, as much as it is for workers’ rights or any other number of gains.

This is worth bearing in mind as Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock et al decide whether to ‘give back’ to the public their liberties. History shows that once the powerful seize more power, they do not cede it unless forced to.

If Morton shows us anything, it is that, when conscious of their collective interests, ordinary folk acting together can and do make a difference.

Whether we look at Klaus Schwab’s ‘great reset’ and what it entails, the struggle of Indian farmers against Facebook, Google, Amazon and Cargill (etc) or Bill Gates and his plan to vaccinate the planet, geoengineer the climate or roll out his and his tech-giant cronies’ warped vision for a one-world fake-food agriculture, it is becoming increasingly clear that the rich and powerful are mounting an ultimate power grab.

Based on their warped techno-utopian vision of the future, they want to exert total control of farming, food, nature, personal identities, information, the climate, our bodies – just about everything that will shape the rest of this century and beyond.

They want to ‘build back better’ by ensuring they own everything and you own nothing. Lockdowns have been a convenient tool for helping to kick-start their ‘new normal’.

A L Morton’s book can teach us much about resisting tyranny – but only if we listen.

An abridged version of ‘A People’s History of England’ (edited by Giles Wynne)  can be accessed here.

*

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.

Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.

Over Half of Military Families Do Not Want COVID Vaccines – Employers Cannot Legally Mandate Experimental Shots

By Brian Shilhavy, February 23 2021

The Vaccine Reaction is reporting that a recent survey found that 53 percent of U.S. military families do not want to take the experimental mRNA COVID injections.

Pressure Building to Keep US Troops in Afghanistan Indefinitely

By Adam Weinstein, February 23 2021

The meeting of NATO defence ministers and Munich Security Conference has left unanswered the question over whether the Biden administration will bring remaining U.S. troops home from Afghanistan by May 1.

The Spoils of War: Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 23 2021

Since the US led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, the Golden Crescent opium trade has soared. According to the US media, this lucrative contraband is protected by Osama, the Taliban, not to mention, of course, the regional warlords, in defiance of the “international community”.

.

Biden to Escalate War on Russia by Other Means?

By Stephen Lendman, February 23 2021

In early February, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said US officials “do not need” pretexts to sanction Russia. “They will always find and invent them.”

White House Enlists Social Media Giants to Suppress Vaccine ‘Misinformation’

By Megan Redshaw, February 23 2021

The White House is asking Big Tech giants Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet Inc.’s Google to “clamp down on chatter that deviates from officially distributed COVID-19 information,” according to the New York Post and other news reports.

The ZeroCovid Movement: Cult Dressed as Science

By Jenin Younes, February 23 2021

Rather than acknowledge to a weary public that their approach has been a failure, they are doubling down and attempting to save their reputations by claiming that the problem is not that lockdowns do not work, but that they have not gone far enough.

UN Secretary General Guterres: The World Faces a Pandemic of Human Rights Abuses in the Wake of COVID-19

By António Guterres, February 23 2021

From the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic almost one year ago, it was clear that our world faced far more than a public health emergency. The biggest international crisis in generations quickly morphed into an economic and social crisis.

Mandatory mRNA Vaccination and PCR Testing Potentially Illegal

By Lech Biegalski, February 23 2021

Policies differ from place to place and so is social dynamic. I have been following the “pandemic”, the stats, the restrictions, the related requirements, and the official policies in several countries but here I would like to focus on Canada and the province of Ontario.

Snowstorms, the Breach of the Arctic Vortex and the Effects of Ice Meltwater on the Oceans

By Dr. Andrew Glikson, February 23 2021

Warnings by leading climate scientists regarding the high sensitivity of the atmosphere in response to abrupt compositional changes, such as near-doubling of greenhouse gas concentrations, are now manifest.

Slices of the Pie: Mapping Territorial Claims in Antarctica

By Nick Routley, February 23 2021

As the global population continues to rise toward the eight billion mark, it can seem like humans have laid claim to every available corner of the earth. While this is mostly true, there is one place on the planet that is vast, empty, and even partially unclaimed: Antarctica.

The Art of Being a Spectacularly Misguided Oracle

By Pepe Escobar, February 23 2021

The late Dr. Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski for some time dispensed wisdom as an oracle of US foreign policy, side by side with the perennial Henry Kissinger – who, in vast swathes of the Global South, is regarded as nothing but a war criminal.

Mentre l’Italia è paralizzata dalla «crisi economica che la pandemia ha scatenato» (come la definisce Draghi nel discorso programmatico), c’è un settore che non ne risente ma anzi è in pieno sviluppo: quello militare nella Nato.

Il 17-18 febbraio, nel momento in cui Senato e Camera votavano la fiducia al Governo Draghi, il riconfermato ministro della Difesa Lorenzo Guerini (Pd) già partecipava al Consiglio Nord Atlantico, il primo con la presenza della nuova amministrazione Biden.

All’ordine del giorno l’ulteriore aumento della spesa militare.

Il 2021, ha sottolineato il segretario generale della Nato Stoltenberg, sarà il settimo anno consecutivo di aumento della spesa militare da parte degli Alleati europei, che l’hanno accresciuta di 190 miliardi di dollari rispetto al 2014.

Usa e Nato chiedono però molto di più. Il ministro Guerini ha confermato l’impegno dell’Italia ad aumentare la spesa militare (in termini reali) da 26 a 36 miliardi di euro annui, aggiungendo agli stanziamenti della Difesa quelli destinati a fini militari dal Ministero dello sviluppo economico: 30 miliardi più 25 richiesti dal Recovery Fund. Il tutto, ovviamente, con denaro pubblico.

L’Italia si è impegnata, nella Nato, a destinare almeno il 20% della spesa militare all’acquisto di nuovi armamenti.

Per questo, appena entrato in carica, il ministro Guerini ha firmato il 19 febbraio un nuovo accordo di 13 paesi Nato più la Finlandia, definito Air Battle Decisive Munition, per l’acquisto congiunto di «missili, razzi e bombe che hanno un effetto decisivo nella battaglia aerea».

Con tale formula, simile a quella di un gruppo di acquisto solidale (non però di ortaggi ma di missili), si realizzano risparmi che la Nato afferma essere del 15-20% senza però dire a quanto ammonti la spesa. I missili e le bombe di nuova generazione, che l’Italia sta acquistando, serviranno ad armare anche i caccia F-35B della Lockheed Martin, imbarcati sulla portaerei Cavour, arrivata il 13 febbraio nella base Usa di Norvolk (Virginia): qui resterà fino ad aprile acquisendo la certificazione per operare con questi aerei.

L’Italia, ha annunciato orgogliosamente il ministro Guerini, sarà uno dei pochi paesi al mondo – insieme a Stati uniti, Gran Bretagna e Giappone – ad avere una portaerei con caccia di quinta generazione.

In tal modo l’Italia, come sottolinea il premier Mario Draghi, rafforzerà il suo ruolo di «protagonista dell’Alleanza Atlantica, nel solco delle grandi democrazie occidentali, a difesa dei loro irrinunciabili principi e valori», accrescendo in particolare «la nostra proiezione verso le aree di naturale interesse prioritario, come il Mediterraneo allargato, con particolare attenzione alla Libia e al Mediterraneo orientale, e all’Africa».

Nel «Mediterraneo allargato» – che nella geografia Nato si estende dall’Atlantico al Mar Nero e a sud fino al Golfo Persico e all’Oceano Indiano – opera da Sigonella, con droni AGS RQ-4D forniti dagli Usa, la Forza Nato di «sorveglianza terrestre».

È divenuta operativa il 15 febbraio: lo ha annunciato il generale Usa Told Walters, Comandante Supremo Alleato in Europa (carica che spetta sempre a un generale statunitense). I droni Nato, che da Sigonella «sorvegliano» (ossia spiano) quest’area per preparare azioni militari, sono agli ordini di un altro generale Usa, Houston Cantwell.

Il premier Draghi, che considera la nuova Amministrazione Usa «più cooperativa nei confronti degli alleati», si dichiara «fiducioso che i nostri rapporti e la nostra collaborazione non potranno che intensificarsi».

C’è da esserne sicuri.

Il 17 febbraio, si è svolto in videoconferenza il primo meeting, patrocinato dal Pentagono, in cui 40 industrie militari e centri di ricerca universitari italiani offrono i propri prodotti e servizi alle forze armate Usa. Titolo dell’incontro «Innovate to Win» (Innovare per vincere). L’innovazione, spiega il Ministero della Difesa, è «la chiave di volta non solo per ottenere un vantaggio competitivo su potenziali avversari – attuali e futuri – sul piano militare, ma per il recovery del tessuto industriale nazionale al termine del periodo di crisi dovuto alla pandemia Covid-19».

Manlio Dinucci

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).

***

Übrsetzt aus dem Englischen von Global Research:

The Twilight Zone: Covid, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and Eugenics

By Peter Koenig, February 19, 2021

*

Diese schrecklichen Zeiten, von Abriegelung zu Abriegelung zu Zwangsimpfungen, zu sozialer Distanzierung, zu Maskierung und Maskierung und noch mehr Maskierung – obwohl wir alle wissen, und die Wissenschaft hat es bewiesen – dass nichts davon hilft – geben sie einem nicht das Gefühl, dass wir in einer „twilight zone“, oder Zwielichtzone leben? – Es gibt etwas Licht der Hoffnung, aber es gibt auch eine immer dunkler werdende Dunkelheit, die auf uns herabsinkt. Es ist unwirklich. Es ist surreal.

Wir werden aus dem Lockdown „freigelassen“ – zu einer leichten Verbesserung unserer Freiheiten, nur um erneut und noch rigoroser in den Lockdown gesperrt zu werden. Es ist eine Strategie der Manipulation, gut durchdacht von Sozialwissenschaftlern – und wir, das Volk, folgen ihr und fallen darauf herein, fallen in den letztendlich bodenlosen Abgrund.

Es ist eine Zuckerbrot und Peitsche Methode.

Es ist eine „twilight zone“ – zwischen dem Licht des Optimismus – und der Dunkelheit der tiefen Verzweiflung.

Uns wird gesagt, dass Impfstoffe kommen, dann verzögern sie sich, dann kommt eine Lieferung – aber es ist nicht genug, was Angst erzeugt, weil wir nicht genug Impfstoffe haben, um unsere Angst zu heilen, geschweige denn, den ach so-tödlichen Virus. Die Hoffnung, die Angst durch das Erscheinen eines Impfstoffs zu heilen, steigert sich mit jedem Zyklus der Erwartung. Und der Impfstoff, der kommt mal, dann wieder nicht, Hoffnung löst Angst ab, und umgekehrt. Die Menschen schreien, nach dem Impfstoff, obwohl laut und stark gleichzeitig von den Behörden gesagt wird, es ist nicht sicher, dass er vor der Krankheit, und vor dem Übertragen der Krankheit schützt.

Also, man wird bereits vorbereitet darauf, dass danach weitere Restriktionen und mögliche „lockdowns“, je nach Willkür des universellen Masters, folgen können. Egal. Die Leute kämpfen unter einander um den Impfstoff, der vermutlich nichts bewirkt, ausser zum Teil verheerende Nebenwirkungen. Sogar Länder kämpfen untereinander – wer kriegt zuerst genügend Impfstoff-Dosierungen?  

Die “Impfstoffe”, die im Westen am meisten verwendet werden, sind fast ausschließlich mRNA-artige Injektionen von Moderna (einer von Bill Gates gegründeten und mehrheitlich in seinem Besitz befindlichen Pharmafirma), Pfizer; und in geringerem Maße AstraZeneca von der Oxford-Schweden Kollaboration. Nach eigener Aussage der Pharmaunternehmen handelt es sich nicht um Impfstoffe, sondern um Einspritzungen mit Gentherapeutika, die das menschliche Genom beeinflussen können.

Derweilen haben keine Ahnung, da keine Erfahrungen vorliegen, wie sie unser Genom, unsere DNA, im Laufe der Zeit beeinflussen können.

Die Todesrate nach der Injektion ist bereits um ein Vielfaches höher als bei regulären Impfstoffen (Injektion eines abgeschwächten Virus, um das menschliche Immunsystem zu aktivieren). Nach einer britischen Statistik ist sie etwa 40-mal höher als bei normalen Impfstoffen.

Siehe: Britische Regierung sagt, dass über 240 Menschen in Großbritannien kurz nach einer COVID-Impfung gestorben sind.

Und das erst nach zwei bis drei Wochen nach der ersten sogenannten Impfung. Wir wissen noch nicht, was nach der zweiten Impfung passiert – und nach einem oder zwei oder drei Jahren. In den wenigen Tierversuchen sind alle Tiere, meist Ratten und Frettchen, gestorben. Dann wurden in den USA im Oktober 2020 per Notstandsgesetz diese Pharma-Injektionen am Menschen erlaubt – versuchsweise.

Wussten Sie, dass Sie ein Versuchskaninchen für die Impfstofffirmen sind?

Und dass Sie, was auch immer schief gehen mag, keinerlei Regressansprüche gegen die Pharmafirmen haben? Diese Firmen sind immun gegen jegliche Klagen.

Nach dem US 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (Public Law 99-660) – haftet kein Impfstoffhersteller in einer Zivilklage für Schäden, die aus einer impfstoffbedingten Verletzung, inklusive Tod, hervorgehen, im Zusammenhang mit der Verabreichung eines Impfstoffs. Diese Regelung gilt seit dem 1. Oktober 1988. Dies wird auch als “Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act” bezeichnet.

Daher haben Firmen wie Pfizer und Moderna totale Immunität von Haftung, wenn etwas unbeabsichtigt mit ihren Impfstoffen schief geht.

Unsere Behörden, unsere Regierungen, die von den offiziellen, von der Regierung beauftragten Wissenschaftlern und sogenannten wissenschaftlichen “Task Forces” unterstützt werden, lügen uns an, wenn sie versprechen, dass es einen Impfstoff gibt – der KEIN Impfstoff ist. Es ist ein Verbrechen, der unwissenden Öffentlichkeit ein unbewiesenes “Medikament”, genannt Impfstoff, zu verkaufen, das bereits in den ersten Versuchen am Menschen katastrophale Nebenwirkungen hat, einschließlich Tod.

Unsere westlichen Behörden und “offiziell ausgewählten” Wissenschaftler sind Verräter – Verräter an der Menschheit. Das ist ein Verbrechen. Sie sollten uns beschützen. Stattdessen setzen sie uns lebensbedrohenden Gefahren aus. Falls gewollt, aus welchen Gründen?

Unsere Regierungen wissen genau, was sie tun. Sie führen uns von Abriegelung zu Abriegelung, testen unsere Toleranzschwelle, unsere Widerstandsfähigkeit gegenüber Massenmanipulationen; wie viel wird es brauchen, bis Proteste zu einer unaufhaltsamen Revolution werden.

Um das zu verhindern, wurde eine ganze Wissenschaft entwickelt, wie man uns abstumpfen und zu immer mehr Repression manipulieren kann. Denken Sie nur mal ein Jahr zurück – haben Sie damals geahnt, dass wir völlig unterdrückt sein würden, gefesselt an den Ort, wo wir leben, an unsere Zimmer, Wohnungen, Hütten, wo auch immer wir uns niedergelassen haben, uns kaum bewegen können, nicht einkaufen können, wo wir wollen, keine Restaurants, keine Kinos, Theater, Konzerte – nein – nichts! Kein soziales Leben, weil wir uns nicht versammeln dürfen – das nennt man “soziale Distanzierung”, Isolation – Verzweiflung an der Isolation, die zu immer häufigerem Selbstmord führt.

Wir müssen Masken tragen. Die Wissenschaft, nicht die “gekaufte” und korrumpierte Wissenschaft, sagt aber das Tragen von Masken ist bestenfalls umstritten und liefert oft den Beweis, dass Masken medizinisch gesehen eher schädlich als nützlich sind; nicht genug Sauerstoff und das Einatmen des eigenen CO2. Am schädlichsten ist dies für Kinder und ältere Menschen. Ganz zu schweigen von dem persönlichen Stigma, durch eine Maske anonymisiert zu werden, sein Lächeln nicht zeigen zu können, den Gesichtsausdruck seines oder seiner Partner nicht lesen zu können – zu einem maskentragenden Niemand ausgegrenzt zu werden.

Sehen Sie sich diese Seite an. Sie enthält verschiedene Studien mit unterschiedlichen Meinungen und Testergebnissen zum Maskentragen.

Und Sie können genauso gut Klaus Schwab, den Gründer und CEO des Weltwirtschaftsforums (WEF) und Mitverfasser des Great Reset, den Untergott der superreichen Elite, in diese finstere Gruppe einbeziehen, da er ihre Regeln schreibt, damit sie in eine Zukunft hineinregieren können, in der laut ihnen, oft wiederholt von Bill Gates und Klaus Schwab, “das Leben nie wieder so sein wird wie vorher.” Angstmacherei und Einschüchterung.

Sie sind diejenigen, die von unserem Elend profitieren und hinter dieser Zerstörung der Menschheit stehen. Die 7 reichsten Milliardäre der Welt (Bezos, Gates, Zuckerberg, Buffet, Ellison, Ballmer, Musk) haben ihr Vermögen von März bis Juni 2020 von 471 Mrd. US$ auf 690 Mrd. US$ gesteigert, also um mehr als 46% (IPS-Studie, siehe Tabelle unten).

Laut dem Institute for Policy Studies ist das Vermögen der 5 reichsten Milliardäre in zwei Monaten (März 18 bis Juni 18, 2020) um 20% gestiegen.

In der Zwischenzeit, bzw. parallel dazu, wurden Arbeitsplätze und Lebensgrundlagen von hunderten Millionen Menschen zerstört, Millionen verhungern. Das Welternährungsprogramm schätzt, dass 270 Millionen Menschen am Rande des Hungertods stehen. Nachfolgend die Analyse der akuten Ernährungsunsicherheit vom Juli 2020.

Lesen Sie ebenfalls (englisch).

Millionen werden an der Hungersnot sterben. Andere an Verzweiflung und Selbstmord. Das derzeitige Elend ist nur die Spitze des Eisbergs. Schlimmeres, viel Schlimmeres, wird noch kommen, wenn wir, die Menschen, diesen Kreislauf des unsäglichen Verbrechens, das vor unseren Augen begangen wird, nicht durchbrechen.

Was hier geschieht, kann man nicht einmal als Wahnsinn bezeichnen. Es ist ein weltweiter diabolischer Akt epischen Ausmaßes – noch nie gesehen in der jüngeren Geschichte.

Und das alles nur wegen eines erfundenen, unsichtbaren Feindes. Einem Virus. Sehr clever. Wir sind täglich von Millionen von Viren umgeben. Wir leben mit ihnen. Selten schaden sie uns.

Dieses Coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, hat laut weltweiten Statistiken eine Sterblichkeitsrate von 0,03% bis 0,08%, ähnlich wie die gewöhnliche Grippe. Siehe Antony Fauci et al, Covid-19 – Navigating the Uncharted, NEJM.

Übrigens, ist Ihnen aufgefallen, dass die gewöhnliche Grippe in der Saison 2020 / 2021 auf mysteriöse Weise verschwunden ist? Warum ist das so? – Vielleicht, weil gewöhnliche Grippe-Patienten einfach in die Statistik der Covid-“Fälle” eingeordnet werden – und Grippe-Todesfälle sind Covid-Todesfälle?

Es gibt zahlreiche Berichte von Krankenhäusern und Ärzten, die bestätigen, dass Grippe-Fälle und Grippe-Todesfälle – unter anderem – als Covid-Fälle und Covid-Todesfälle eingestuft werden müssen. Es gibt viele Krankenhäuser und Ärzte, die dafür belohnt werden, wenn sie einen stationär aufgenommenen Patienten als Kovid-Patienten und erst recht später als Kovid-Toten deklarieren.

Wir leben tatsächlich in einer sehr dystopischen Welt, in einer Twilight Zone. Einmal sieht man es – dann wieder nicht. Die Katastrophe ist geplant. Zweifelt noch jemand daran, dass es KEIN Zufall ist, dass alle 193 UN-Mitgliedsländer auf einmal von diesem mysteriösen Virus befallen wurden und alle auf einmal ihren ersten Lockdown durchführen” mussten? Nämlich Mitte März 2020? ALLE Länder? Auf Kommando.

Sieht das nicht so aus, als ob ein anderes Motiv dahintersteckt?

Ist es ein Zufall, dass es den Rockefeller-Report von 2010 gibt, der als ersten Schritt ihres ruchlosen 4-Phasen-Plans das “Lockstep-Szenario” zehn Jahre später vorhersagt – was genau das ist, was wir jetzt erleben; die gesamte westliche Zivilisation geht im Gleichschritt, wie uns befohlen wird.

Dann gibt es den berüchtigten Event 201 vom 18. Oktober 2019 in New York City, wo das Johns Hopkins Center for Medicine, die Bill und Melinda Gates Foundation und das WEF eine Computersimulation eines Coronavirus sponserten, der die Welt befällt, eine Simulation, die 65 Millionen Tote in 18 Monaten und eine totale Zerstörung der Weltwirtschaft verursacht. Zufälligerweise nur ein paar Wochen, bevor der erste Corona-Fall, SARS-CoV-2, in China entdeckt wurde.

Wirklich ein Zufall?

Genau am Ende des ersten Great Lockdowns der Welt, im Juli 2020, veröffentlichte Klaus Schwab im Auftrag des WEF den Great Reset mit den Worten,

“Die Pandemie stellt ein seltenes, aber enges Fenster der Gelegenheit dar, unsere Welt zu reflektieren, neu zu denken und zurückzusetzen.” – –

Alles nur ein Zufall. Keiner der Führer der 193 Länder (sic – da sie nur Marionetten einer höheren Macht sind), erwähnt jemals diese Präzedenzfälle und nachfolgenden “Zufälle”.

Diese aktuelle Twilight Zone, jetzt sehe ich es, jetzt nicht – “es” – die geplante Katastrophe, die noch unter vielen verschiedenen Namen auf uns zukommt, die Pandemie, besser “Plandemie” genannt, ist nur der Motor, der eine viel bedeutendere Agenda antreibt – die Elemente des Great Reset, die auch die Bestandteile der sogenannten UN-Agenda 2030 sind.

Ist es ein Zufall, dass Bill Gates gerade 242.000 Acres (ca. 980 Quadratkilometer) Farmland in 18 US-Bundesstaaten erworben hat und damit zum größten privaten Farmlandbesitzer in den USA wird? Warum kauft Gates all das Farmland?

Was wird er mit diesem Farmland machen?

GVO-Nahrung anbauen? Wie und womit wird diese Nahrung gentechnisch verändert sein?

Warum kauft Bill Gates all das Farmland?

Ähnlich wie seine Moderna-“Impfstoffe” – von denen wir nicht wissen, welche langfristigen Auswirkungen sie auf ahnungslose Menschen haben werden, die manipuliert wurden zu “Ohhh Gott, gimme, gimme the vaccine!” (Gib mir endlich die Impfung!).

Bill Gates ist ein bekennender Eugenist und sein Hauptziel war in den letzten Jahrzehnten, die Weltbevölkerung drastisch zu reduzieren. Daraus hat er nie ein Geheimnis gemacht.

Siehe z.B. seinen TedTalk 2010 in Kalifornien, “Innovating to Zero” (video – 27 min. Zum Ansehen auf den Bildschirm klicken).

Henry Kissinger sagte schon vor fünf Jahrzehnten: “Wer die Nahrungsmittelversorgung kontrolliert, kontrolliert die Menschen; wer die Energie kontrolliert, kann ganze Kontinente kontrollieren; wer das Geld kontrolliert, kann die Welt kontrollieren.”

Und hier ist übrigens eine knappe, aber klare Erklärung, wie Manipulationen funktionieren, insbesondere die, die uns aus Angst vor einem unsichtbaren Feind zittern lässt – und uns dazu bringt, die fast totale Beraubung unserer Menschen- und Bürgerrechte zu akzeptieren, uns dazu bringt, eine Impfung zu akzeptieren, die als Impfstoff verkauft wird – ein “Impfstoff”, der uns nach dem Eingeständnis der Pharmaproduzenten nicht davor schützt, das Virus zu bekommen und es an andere Menschen weiterzugeben… und doch wollen die Menschen unbedingt “geimpft” werden – nicht wissend, ob es sie umbringt oder ihnen anderweitig schadet. Nach dem Motto, “Impfen Sie mich einfach, damit ich wieder schlafen kann”.

Das Zwielicht – “Ich weiß jetzt nicht und es ist mir egal, was nach der Impfung oder als Folge der Impfung passieren wird – impfen Sie mich einfach”. Die Angst: Ich sehe es und doch nicht. Und so funktioniert die professionell angelegte Manipulation von Menschen. Auf welcher Stufe der progressiven, manipulativen Szene wir uns gerade befinden, erkennen Sie – hier.

Eine der erbärmlichsten Lügen und Irreführungen dieses Impf-Schwindels, eigentlich ein Verbrechen, ist, dass aus “Güte und Freundlichkeit” der Regierungen, ältere Menschen, die “Verletzlichsten” – und vor allem die, die in Altersheimen leben, Vorrang bei der Impfung haben sollen. Ja, diese Menschen sind “verletzlich” – aber nicht verletzlicher als für eine Grippe, aber was nicht gesagt wird, ist, dass sie extrem verletzlich sind, wenn sie den Impfstoff bekommen.

Es gibt zahllose Beispiele, wie Altersheimbewohner keine Covid-Infektionen hatten, nachdem sie geimpft wurden, alle positiv getestet wurden und viele starben. Solche Fälle gab es in Spanien, in Deutschland, in Großbritannien – und ähnlich in einem NY-Pflegeheim, und sicherlich an mehr Orten rund um den Globus – nicht berichtet, natürlich, von der Corporate-Pharma-bezahlten Mainstream-Medien. In einem britischen Pflegeheim starben 24 Bewohner 3 Wochen nach der mRNA-Covid-Injektion.

In Deutschland werden in gewissen Altersheimen die Insassen zwangsgeimpft. Viele sterben dabei. Siehe dieses video (5 min.) von einem „whistleblower“.

Die nicht so verborgene Agenda hinter dieser “elderly first” Vaxx-Priorität ist brutal, muss aber gesagt werden: wir, die Älteren, haben genug gelebt, jetzt sind wir eine Last für das System, wir kosten, tragen nicht zur Gesellschaft bei, aber tragen zu einem riesigen Teil der Kosten für eine immer älter werdende westliche Zivilisation bei. Also ist “eliminieren” ein sanfter Ausdruck für Völkermord an den Älteren. Aber das wissen sie nicht. Sie haben das Gefühl, die Regierung tue ihnen einen Gefallen. Siehe auch Tod durch Beatmungsgerät.

Es dämmert schon wieder: “Liebe Oma und lieber Opa, wir haben euch lieb und wollen euch schützen, ihr solltet euch erst impfen lassen.” – Und der Impfstoff macht sie krank und bringt sie oft um. “Ohhh, wie traurig, das haben wir nicht gewusst”.

Die Auslöschung von mehreren Milliarden Menschen ist vorgesehen, um Mutter Erde für eine winzige Elite überschaubarer zu machen. Alle diejenigen, die den Befehlen der Covid-Abschottungs- und Sozialzerstörungsszenarien brav gehorcht haben, wird dann wohl in der neuen Weltregierung eine Art Kontroll- und Kommandorolle zugeordnet, als Kompensation dafür, dass sie brave Handlanger der Mächtigen und Verräter ihres Volkes waren?

Diese “Twilight Zone” könnte sich allmählich und bald in eine “Onelight Zone”, also eine One World Order (OWO) verwandeln. Wenn wir, die Menschheit, nicht den Schalter finden, um das Licht einzuschalten.

Diese Katastrophe epischen Ausmaßes wurde von langer Hand vorbereitet – über die letzten 70 Jahre oder mehr, intensiviert mit der Einführung neoliberaler Werte in den 1980er Jahren und dann dem gut durchdachten Rockefeller-Report 2010, der Eugenik-Agenda, der durch das WEF geplanten 4. industriellen Revolution, die Digitalisierung von allem, einschließlich des menschlichen Gehirns – und nicht zuletzt – die vollständige Digitalisierung des Geldes, so dass die gesamte monetäre Kontrolle, die Kontrolle über unser verdientes Geld und unsere Ressourcen, die Kontrolle darüber, ob wir uns „gut benehmen“ und essen, oder uns „schlecht benehmen“ und nicht essen, in den Händen der OWO-Elite liegt.

Diejenigen, die nach der Umsetzung der UN-Agenda 2030, alias dem Großen Reset, übrig bleiben, sind die “Epsilon”-Leute, die unterste Menschenklasse in Aldous Huxleys “Schöne neue Welt”.

All dies geschieht, während wir schlafen. Braucht es ein Wunder oder ein buchstäblich erderschütterndes Naturereignis, um uns wachzurütteln, damit dieses ganze Haus aus Ziegelsteinen zu einem Kartenhaus wird und in Schutt und Asche zusammenfällt, aus dem die Menschheit wieder auferstehen wird?

*

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 ist geopolitischer Analyst und ehemaliger Senior Economist bei der Weltbank und der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO). Er hat über 30 Jahre lang zu den Themen Wasser und Umwelt auf der ganzen Welt gearbeitet hat. Er hält Vorlesungen an Universitäten in den USA, Europa und Südamerika. Er schreibt regelmäßig für Online-Zeitschriften und ist Autor von Implosion – Ein Wirtschaftsthriller über Krieg, Umweltzerstörung und Konzerngier, sowie Co-Autor des Buches von Cynthia McKinney “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter Koenig ist Research Associate des Centre for Research on Globalization, Kanada.

Featured image: Viacheslav Lopatin/ 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).

***

The ‘COVID Event’ handed the unreal world its great coup over the place of the real. This perception intervention gave the final stimulus necessary to tip the twenty-first century into an awaiting technologically manipulated reality. A new landscape is emerging where, for the first time, the human mind is finding itself out-of-place within its own territory. Emerging ‘post-pandemic’ landscapes are likely to be hazardous territory for our mental, emotional and physical states. The human condition is under modification. 

New forms of power are rising, embedded within structures of health security, re-imagining our social lives, living and workspaces, and our physical and digital movements. Until now, the spider’s web of social control mainly operated below the waterline in a space where an almost intangible world existed beyond governance or accountability. Now the Kraken awakes and unashamedly rises to the surface. The beast of behaviour modification spreads its tentacles through our established social and cultural landscape without shame – all in the name of health security (the new nom de plume for social management). It is encroaching upon our media, city life, the office, and – perhaps most of all – the online digital world. The modification of these spaces is set to further desensitise, anaesthetise, and dehumanise us – the collective human mind is being groomed and prepared for a new consensus reality of “normalised dissonance.”

The post-pandemic landscape is merging physical world pandemics with its own viral digital epidemics that now infect the human psyche. The Italian philosopher Franco Berardi has noted that our “electronic mediascape” places “the sensitive organism in a state of permanent electrocution.”¹ The social body is deliberately targeted by strategies that cause anxiety, fragmentation, exhaustion, confusion, polarisation and fear. We can see this happening through national and local lockdowns; social distancing; anti-social interaction; social ostracisation; loss of economic independence, and more.

In early July, Prof Sir Venki Ramakrishnan, President of the Royal Society (the UK’s national academy of science) stated publicly that face masks should be worn in all public spaces (as they already are in many places in Europe and worldwide). Not wearing a face covering, he added, “should be regarded as ‘anti-social’ in the same way as drink driving or failing to wear a seatbelt.”² This is nothing short of encouraging a regime of public shaming. The human condition subjected to a new rhythm of the modern power-machine that breaks down social alliances.

The established conditions that maintain a sense of social reality are being dissolved and replaced with a regime aimed at managing the masses through forms of separation and quantification. That is, techniques necessary to form a technologised humanity. These processes seek to reduce human life, and its environment, to something measurable and predictable – a life ordained by algorithms. These imposed changes are creating disequilibrium in the human psyche – a fragmentation of the human self. Furthermore, they are breaking down our trusted social relations.

Something insidious creeps into the global collective that is attempting to create a world of sleepwalkers, plied with fear-pills, updated with vaccines, programmed with nonsense, and dismissive of alternative thinking. As a conscious, biological organism, we are being prepared to mimic the automation of the machine. Humanity is mentally sleeping and slipping into the void where a new form of the ‘social collective’ awaits us.

Techniques are being devised and employed to produce normalised and standardised behaviour for a socially manageable populace. The collective human mind is being adapted and adopted into an infrastructure of control that operates largely through modes of digital connectivity. I refer to this rising mechanism of social engineering as the modern power-machine (MPM) that exerts control over human expression and autonomy of behaviour. To enact this, a consortium of institutions have been selected to structure contemporary societies toward specific functions that offer the promise of security and human well-being whilst developing increased social dependency. This is the post-pandemic landscape now rapidly arising and to which all future generations shall be born into.

Childhood’s End

Luciano Floridi, a professor of philosophy and the ethics of information, believes that human civilisation is shifting into a phase of “hyperhistory.” A hyperhistorical society that is dependent upon integrative technologies, says Floridi, could also become human-independent – that is, not needing us. Life on this planet is to be incorporated into an infrastructure that favours machinic intelligence and artificial organisms, thus de-territorialising the human experience. Our urban environments may soon be more conducive to artificial ‘life’ than biological life. No one is yet ready for the mutation at hand. Are we being programmed to take a new position in the world that erodes the possibility of human transcendence – a world where the ‘flesh robot’ eventually dominates the reality consensus?

We are witnessing an unprecedented migration of humanity from the physical space to the digital-sphere – an environment of surveillance and technocratic social management. Incoming generations will recognise no fundamental difference between the digital-sphere and the physical world as this merging will form the reality they are born into. To the new generations, the digital-physical-sphere will be their only reality for they will have been born without the offline-online distinction. In the words of Luciano Floridi, they are born onlife. This is their reality, and it is ‘onlife’. The world that many of us recognise as being human will never be the same again. With the ‘onlife’ mode, a new era of history begins. Childhood ends when you stop being a child and become a user. The user inhabits whole new realities – realities believed to be ‘user-generated’ when in fact the reverse is likely the case.

Connectivity and access will be part of the new power-machine regime. The rights of access are going to be a matter of consensus health security (as addressed in New Dawn#180/#181). Aligning with the power-machine will mean opting-in to its sanctioned and on-surveillance connections. Opting out will be an almost impossible alternative. Connecting into the power-machine will become the new cartography of ‘human reality’. Living ‘manually’ – offline – will become one of the last ways of resistance as human life becomes regulated-by-automation.

The City as Machine Cradle

Modern living, especially within dense urban metropolises, as well as within poverty-stricken neighbourhoods, severely affects the human psychological condition and the nervous system. Journalist Naomi Klein has noted how a form of ‘Pandemic Shock Doctrine’ is emerging where city metropolises are forming suspicious partnerships with large tech conglomerates to re-design city living.

Klein has stated that the quarantine lockdowns were not so much to save lives “but as a living laboratory for a permanent – and highly profitable – no-touch future.”³ One technology company CEO told Klein: “There has been a distinct warming up to human-less, contactless technology… Humans are biohazards, machines are not.”⁴ Several local city governments are in negotiations with large private tech companies to create a “seamless integration” between city government, education, health and policing operations. Further, the individual home will become a smart-enclosed hub for the urban dweller. All this, and more, as a part of the “frontline pandemic response.”

Online learning, the home office, telehealth, and online commerce/shopping are all now part of an emerging investment landscape to convert existing physical-digital infrastructures to ‘cloud’-based run by now-under-construction 5G networks. All in the name of providing citizens with a securitised ‘virus-free’ landscape.

Eric Schmidt, ex-CEO of Google/Alphabet and now chair of the Defense Innovation Board that advises the US Department of Defense on military Artificial Intelligence (AI), recently stated: “The benefit of these corporations, which we love to malign, in terms of the ability to communicate, the ability to deal with health, the ability to get information, is profound. Think about what your life would be like in America without Amazon.”⁵

Schmidt has been hired to head up the task force commissioned to reimagine New York’s post-COVID reality. And he won’t be alone. High-tech is now jumping to get into partnerships with local governments in order to bring a safer, more ‘securitised’ landscape into civil society – all for ‘our’ benefit.

Part of this process is modifying the behaviour of people working in business environments, with the office landscape set to be re-organised to regulate further and isolate the social interactions of working colleagues. Jeff Green and Michelle F. Davis in a recent Bloomberg business analysis suggested: “The pre-COVID workplace, with its shared desks and common areas designed for ‘creative collisions’, is getting a makeover for the social distancing era. So far, what employers have come up with is a mash-up of airport security style entrance protocols and surveillance combined with precautions already seen at grocery stores, like sneeze guards and partitions.”⁶

The authors also foresee that the newly returned office worker will likely be encased in a makeshift cubicle of plexiglass sheets. A new mode of interaction-prevention is clearly in the works.

Hundreds of major companies have already announced they plan what they call “employee re-orientation programs” and are hiring “thermal scanners” to monitor employees for fevers, according to the article’s sources. The authors also noted that there had been a spike in job postings for “tracers” – who would track down the contacts of anyone testing positive for the virus. In short, companies are now looking for a range of solutions to keep people away from one another throughout the working day. IBM, for example, is looking to use existing sensors or find new technology to detect when people are too close or “trending” in that direction. Another report from the UK noted how companies may develop their own specialist employee smartphone apps that would operate elevators hands-free.⁷ Employers are discussing the creation of “safe bubbles” around employees with monitoring so bubbles do not overlap. How would they manage such monitoring?

Various companies, the UK report goes on to say, are looking to teach AI to monitor the video cameras that monitor employees. Dr Mahesh Saptharishi, Motorola Solutions’ chief technology officer, explained that AI algorithms can offer feedback about “pinch points” where people are too close together. Instead of employers (read ‘humans’) having to spend time (read ‘waste time’) monitoring video surveillance feeds, they can ‘ask’ AI if social distancing is being observed and any problem points.⁸ Issue solved! We’ll just rely on AI algorithms to tell us how to ‘social distance’ in our non-interacting bubbles, and we can modify our behaviour accordingly. Job done!

Importantly, this also signifies that to modify our behaviour, machine intelligence will need to gather ever greater datasets about us – all of us. ‘Smart cities’ and ‘secure offices’ means increased surveillance that translates into expanded datasets. The “Black Iron Prison” that science fiction writer Philip K. Dick saw coming is now hitting us squarely in the form of surveillance capitalism.

Surveillance Capitalism

Professor Shoshana Zuboff, author of the widely acclaimed The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, says that digital connection is now a means to others’ commercial ends. With the rapid rise of data collection for commercial gain, Zuboff explains, “the result is that both the world and our lives are pervasively rendered as information.”⁹ People are reduced to less than products because they are rendered into a mere ‘input’ for the creation of the real product which is the data. People are reduced to “prediction products” that are designed to “anticipate what you will do now, soon, and later.” Your life as a product, writes Zuboff, is then sold off in “behavioural futures markets.” Zuboff considers surveillance capitalism to be, at its core, parasitic and self-referential – a parasite that feeds on every aspect of every human’s experience.

“Surveillance capitalism,” notes Zuboff, “unilaterally claims human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioural data.” It then becomes a product of value. Using this material, organisations can intervene in our lives to shape and modify our behaviour in order to favour outcomes most desirable for their commercial gain. Behaviour modification in the hands of private capital and undertaken with minimal external oversight.

At its most basic, humans have been reduced to ‘batteries’ that produce datasets for algorithms and machine learning. By and large, and somewhat of a worry, the general population is ignorant of what is going on quite literally beneath their fingertips. People are unknowingly funding their own manipulation says Zuboff.

Through its operations of technocratic ‘normalisation’ and the deliberate breaking up of social groupings, the power-machine age wants to manufacture a new standardisation of the human body and mind. With the encroachment of socially managed interventions, people are made vulnerable to the increased destabilising of the human self. The human sense of ‘self’ and identity has become a fragile thing; it is analysed, scrutinised, and criticised through social media; it is modified through surveillance capitalism; and it is increasingly being rendered by AI facial recognition systems such as Clearview (see New Dawn #180). As these post-pandemic landscapes roll out into our social environments, we are likely to see, as a consequence, an ever-greater fragmentation of the human self.

The Fragmented Self

It is no exaggeration that humanity is entering a period of existential crisis, perhaps not witnessed since the Middle Ages. But this time we don’t have the religious institutions to offer us salvation. The responsibility is upon our shoulders to find salvation by becoming fully human in the face of dehumanising forces. At present, we are being bombarded with such contradictory information leaving many people unable to find coherence or make a whole picture out of the shards. That is, the human mind is finding it increasingly difficult to see the patterns and connect the dots. Many people will also now be experiencing forms of cognitive dissonance: “Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviours. This produces a feeling of mental discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviours to reduce the discomfort and restore balance.”¹⁰

The result is that the mind desperately wishes to reduce this discomfort and restore balance by seeking – or being provided with – a coherent picture, or closure. This ‘closure’ or ‘coherent picture’ may be provided by an institution or body (a structure of orthodox ‘authority’), and many people will accept it as a way of gaining closure, and thus comfort. In truth, we need to find this coherence and closure within ourselves – through our own resources.

With the increasing breakdown of social relations and a massively changing human environment, people’s consciousness is being further fragmented so that events are seen as random rather than interrelated and meaningful. Virtual attractions will be offered to compensate this lack of meaningfulness as the digital-sphere increasingly becomes the ‘safe and secure’ home for people. Critical thinking, perceptive observation and intuitive knowing will face the onslaught of nullifying behaviour modification.

As we are now seeing in the public space, self-identity (race, sexuality, etc.) is becoming a target of division, creating doubt, anxiety and social polarisation. Psychologically, people are being pushed to acquiesce, submit and accept measures implemented in the ‘new normal’ post-pandemic landscapes. And the more we submit, the more we become vulnerable to further submission and disempowerment.

Bureaucratic regimes and administrative structures will encroach deeper into our living, work and leisure until a form of what French philosopher Michel Foucault calls disciplinary power will dominate over the human condition. New forms of social discipline and collective obedience fostering an artificial and engineered state of perception.

We are right in the middle of a time of intense “enforced socialisation,” or what Edward Snowden recently referred to as an “architecture of oppression.” For some, the only response to this overwhelming “architecture of oppression” will be to find their comfort zones – such as sitting at home with their ‘surrogates’ roaming the digital-physical landscape on their part.¹¹ Or, as the 2008 computer-animated sci-fi film Wall-E depicted, growing lazy and obese, indulging in infantile entertainments, while robots cater to every need. We can only hope this shall never be the case.

Humanity has entered unprecedented times. Such times demand an unprecedented response. It appears we are now being asked to ‘step up’ to accept our responsibility for our human becoming – to become fully human. By doing nothing, we allow our behaviour to be modified and our self-identities to be splintered.

In these post-pandemic landscapes, the choices we make will be choices that, like never before, determine our future as a human species. I suggest it is time to declare our unity as an empowered fully human species and not accept the push of the power-machine for distanced and disempowered individuals.

*

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. Berardi, Franco. 2015. AND: Phenomenology of the End. South Pasadena, CA: Semiotext(e), 88

2. Coronavirus: Wear masks in crowded public spaces, says science body, www.bbc.com/news/uk-53316491

3. theintercept.com/2020/05/08/andrew-cuomo-eric-schmidt-coronavirus-tech-shock-doctrine/

4. Ibid

5. Ibid

6. www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-01/the-office-you-left-is-not-going-to-be-the-office-you-return-to

7. ‘Horrible’ offices look to tempt back workers, www.bbc.com/news/business-53056585

8. Ibid

9. theintercept.com/2019/03/01/surveillance-capitalism-book-shoshana-zuboff-naomi-klein/

10. From www.simplypsychology.org

11. See the sci-fi film Surrogates (2009) or read the book Kiln People (2002) by David Brin

Featured image is from New Dawn

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).

***

Participatory community movements found a contemporary impetus in post-World War II reconstruction of Europe and decolonization, primarily in Africa. The approach of locally managed change, however, was highly distrusted during these initial years, during which the dominant view was that central-level policy makers are in a better position than the people to make highly productive decisions regarding development projects.

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, passed under the leadership of President John Kennedy, marked an attempt to de-link U.S. development assistance from the nation’s military, political, and economic interests. The Act emphasized “maximum participation” on the part of the people in their own development.

Subsequent decades have shown that market-based models for growth, while generating higher levels of economic activity, also created dependency in developing nations as their economies became increasingly structured to meet the consumption needs of other countries. The participatory approach, which at this time was widely considered an alternative to achieve improved livelihoods, became more desirable by thought leaders and communities that felt that their futures had become a reflection of outside nations’ priorities rather than their own autonomous ones.

By the 1990s, this people’s driven methodology for sustainable community development became mainstream. The focus shifted toward designing the interactive activities to be conducted in order to help local groups in analyzing their past, opportunities, and visions for a better reality that they seek.

Over the past decade, there have been more nations seeking ways to institutionalize the participatory method for development. Local and national charters, programs and frameworks to advance the liberation of women, freedoms for the advancement of civil society organizations, constitutions, and in legally codified requirements are all intended to ultimately be upheld by elected officials and the general public. For countries who are also becoming increasingly amenable to decentralized management systems, their tasks are shifting from creating national policies that enact participatory principles to one of fulfilling these statutory requirements.

Thus, from generations past of participatory activism being distrusted by the mainstream and its gradual growth due to dissatisfaction with market-based solutions imposed by wealthy countries, we have now reached a common understanding that public participation is a, if not the, primary factor of sustainable livelihoods. In most recent decades, participatory requirements have become embedded in institutions. In the decade to come, we face the awesome, grueling, and even existential challenge of finally fulfilling the participation of the people across localities and across nations of the world.

What will be vital in this regard is to constantly improve activities that enable people to act together toward goals that they have defined as a group. Those activities become conducive and efficacious when they are drawn from disciplines and contexts from around the world and adapted to specific situations.

The necessity is that communities gather to discuss their ideas and plans to reach consensus on projects related to agriculture, water, and other essentials of life. These plans are then backed by critical financial sources from all society sectors.

This timeline characterizes the past and present in broad terms. There were participatory pioneers in much earlier decades and centuries, and there are suppressants today, such as those nations that constrict civil organizations and bind women and girls to intolerable controls. These general trends and outlier experiences are informative so that we may be more precise in how we enact participatory movements in all places where they are needed.

Let us hope that the next ten years fulfill the participatory ideal that has been intensifying across  all different outlets in order for their sustainable benefits, including prosperity, to be present in our lives.

*

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. Yossef Ben-Meir is President of the High Atlas Foundation, which is an implementer of the USAID Farmer-to-Farmer Program in Morocco.

Featured image: Youth in northern Morocco participating in a community meeting (2020 by the High Atlas 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).

***

The meeting of NATO defence ministers and Munich Security Conference has left unanswered the question over whether the Biden administration will bring remaining U.S. troops home from Afghanistan by May 1, in accordance with the U.S.-Taliban agreement. The ambiguity of European and U.S. statements following the meeting may be intended to pressure the Taliban and Afghan government back to the negotiating table. But indecision this close to the deadline risks throwing away a one-time opportunity to leave Afghanistan.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s remarks at the NATO meeting assured partners that the “U.S. remains committed to a diplomatic effort to end the war,” but also that the United States will not take a “hasty or disorderly withdrawal” from Afghanistan after nearly twenty years. As a result, the Biden administration is pushing itself into a corner in which it will likely forfeit a one-time opportunity to leave by May without having to broker a new understanding  with the Taliban, a path which would be fraught with risk and uncertainty.

The consequences of unilaterally ignoring the May withdrawal deadline will be the dissolution of the U.S.-Taliban agreement, placing U.S. soldiers back in the crosshairs of the Taliban, and an end to intra-Afghan negotiations. A peace agreement between the Taliban and the Afghan government may be unlikely if the United States leaves, but it is dead on arrival if Washington chooses to ignore the deadline altogether.

An endless U.S. war effort will be left as the only remaining option. The passing of the withdrawal deadline will coincide with the beginning of the Taliban’s fighting season and violence will surge even more. This will lead to calls in Washington to cease diplomatic outreach with the Taliban and increase troop levels. If President Biden resists these calls and instead seeks to leave Afghanistan, then any date he chooses will be labeled as “arbitrary” since the May deadline will have passed. This will most likely lead to a doubling down of the counterinsurgency effort of the last twenty years.

NATO partners may also pressure Biden to remain in Afghanistan. The NATO mission in Afghanistan known as Resolute Support was intended as a training mission and that largely remains the case for countries like Germany and Italy. But the majority of combat missions are U.S.-led and the Pentagon provides twice as many troops as the next largest NATO contributor which is Germany. The United Stateshas accounted for 67 percent of all coalition deaths throughout the war in Afghanistan with the U.K. and Canada accounting for the majority of the rest.

The NATO mission in Afghanistan remains a U.S.-led war and it is therefore reasonable for President Biden to pursue an exit that advances U.S. interests. Still, it is crucial that Washington provide partners who have supported Washington in Afghanistan adequate time to withdraw their own remaining troops. This is why the Biden administration should make it clear to NATO sooner rather than later that it is leaving Afghanistan.

Policy reviews are important but the world does not stop spinning as they occur nor do the opportunity costs. Regional diplomacy to push the Taliban toward a ceasefire and Kabul toward an interim government appears to be underway. The Biden administration should participate in such initiatives. But it should not use U.S. troops as a source of coercive leverage in diplomatic efforts because ultimately that runs counter to the goals of diplomacy. Now is the time to bring U.S. troops home before it is too late.

*

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: Then-Vice President Joe Biden during a tour of the largest military training facility in Afghanistan in 2011. (Photo by Chief Petty Officer Brian Brannon/public domain)

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 White House is asking Big Tech giants Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet Inc.’s Google to “clamp down on chatter that deviates from officially distributed COVID-19 information,” according to the New York Post and other news reports.

Reuters reported that Biden, concerned that “fear about taking the vaccine has emerged as a major impediment” to his administration’s pandemic plan, wants help from the social media moguls to keep “misinformation” from going viral.

“Vaccine hesitancy is a huge obstacle to getting everyone vaccinated and there are no larger players in that than the social media platforms,” a White House source told Reuters late last week.

Biden’s Chief of Staff Ron Klain had previously said information questioning the COVID vaccine has caused others to question the vaccine. But the news out of Washington last week was the first sign that officials are directly engaged with Silicon Valley in censoring social media users, according to Reuters.

“Social media tycoons are now openly serving as government surrogates in censoring factually accurate information that departs from government policies and pronouncements,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., co-founder and chair of Children’s Health Defense.

The Biden administration wants to make sure that unfavorable material does not start trending on social media or become an even broader movement, citing concerns over a recent anti-vaccine protest at Los Angeles Dodgers Stadium which was organized through a Facebook page.

“We are talking to [social media companies] … so they understand the importance of misinformation and disinformation and how they can get rid of it quickly,” a White House source explained.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-N.Y.) last week criticized social media companies in a tweet accusing Facebook and Twitter of moving too slowly in responding to targeted harassment of people getting vaccinated and what Blumenthal described as “dangerous conspiracy theories.”

A spokesperson for Facebook told Reuters the company has reached out to the White House to offer any assistance they can provide and recently announced a new policy to remove COVID information the company deems false, along with pages, groups and accounts that repeatedly spread such material.

Twitter stated the company is in “regular communication with the White House on a number of critical issues including COVID-19 misinformation.”

Google did not comment on engagement with the White House but did point to a company blog on how it stops the spread of misinformation.

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

The complaint alleges that Facebook has insidious conflicts with the pharmaceutical industry and health agencies and raised detailed factual allegations regarding the CDC, CDC Foundation, and WHO’s extensive relationships and collaborations with Facebook and Zuckerberg calling into question Facebook’s joint action in a censorship campaign with the government.

Earlier this month, Kennedy’s Instagram account was deplatformed without advance notice for what the media claimed were “false COVID claims” or “vaccine misinformation.” Some reports falsely characterized Kennedy as an “anti-vaxxer.”

Kennedy unequivocally rejects those characterizations. He wrote in response to Instagram’s censorship:

“Every statement I put on Instagram was sourced from a government database, from peer-reviewed publications and from carefully confirmed news stories. None of my posts were false. Facebook, the pharmaceutical industry and its captive regulators use the term ‘vaccine misinformation’ as a euphemism for any factual assertion that departs from official pronouncements about vaccine health and safety, whether true or not. This kind of censorship is counterproductive if our objective is a safe and effective vaccine supply.”

As Kennedy has stated numerous times, “for a democracy to function, civil debate of issues — including vaccine science — must be allowed. Censorship of that debate is anathema to democracy.”

Many reports have raised serious questions about the safety of COVID vaccines, including adverse reactions and other possible long-term complications that deserve debate, Kennedy said.

The Defender reported in January that a Florida doctor died three days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. An expert on blood disorders at Johns Hopkins said in an interview with The New York Times, “I think it is a medical certainty that the vaccine was related.”Earlier this month, the CDC announced it was investigating the death of a 36-year-old doctor in Tennessee who died from an extremely rare multisystem inflammatory syndrome one month after getting his second dose of a COVID vaccination.

Drene Keyes, whose death is under investigation, died hours after receiving her first dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine. She experienced flash pulmonary edema likely caused by anaphylaxis, a life-threatening allergic reaction, which some have experienced after receiving the COVID vaccine.

According to new data released Friday, as of Feb. 12, 15,923 adverse reactions to COVID vaccines, including 929 deaths, have been reported to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System since Dec. 14, 2020. One-third of reported deaths occurred within 48 hours of receiving the COVID vaccine.

“While social media companies are private entities with rights to censor information they don’t like, the involvement of the government in censorship efforts implicates the First Amendment,” Kennedy said.

*

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 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Slices of the Pie: Mapping Territorial Claims in Antarctica

For the 55% of the world’s population who reside in cities, land is viewed as a precious commodity—every square foot has a value attached to it. As the global population continues to rise toward the eight billion mark, it can seem like humans have laid claim to every available corner of the earth.

While this is mostly true, there is one place on the planet that is vast, empty, and even partially unclaimed: Antarctica.

Today’s map, originally created by the CIA World Factbook, visualizes the active claims on Antarctic territory, as well as the location of many permanent research facilities.

The History of Antarctic Territorial Claims

In the first half of the 20th Century, a number of countries began to claim wedge-shaped portions of territory on the southernmost continent. Even Nazi Germany was in on the action, claiming a large swath of land which they dubbed New Swabia.

After WWII, the Antarctic Treaty system—which established the legal framework for the management of the continent—began to take shape. In the 1950s, seven countries including Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom claimed territorial sovereignty over portions of Antarctica. A number of other nations, including the U.S. and Japan, were engaged in exploration but hadn’t put forward claims in an official capacity.

Despite the remoteness and inhospitable climate of Antarctica, the idea of claiming such large areas of landmass has proven appealing to countries. Even the smallest claim on the continent is equivalent to the size of Iraq.

A few of the above claims overlap, as is the case on the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out geographically from the rest of the continent. This area is less remote with a milder climate, and is subject to claims by Argentina, Chile, and the United Kingdom (which governs the nearby Falkland Islands).

Interestingly, there is still a large portion of Antarctica that remains unclaimed today. Just east of the Ross Ice Shelf lies Marie Byrd Land, a vast, remote territory that is by far the largest unclaimed land area on Earth.

While Antarctica has no official government, it is administered through yearly meetings known as the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings. These meetings involve a number of stakeholders, from member nations to observer organizations.

Frontage Theory: Another Way to Slice it

Of course, critics could argue that current claims are arbitrary, and that there is a more equitable way to partition land in Antarctica. That’s where Frontage Theory comes in.

Originally proposed by Brazilian geopolitical scholar Therezinha de Castro, the theory argues that sectors of the Antarctic continent should be distributed according to meridians (the imaginary lines running north–south around the earth). Wherever straight lines running north hit landfall, that country would have sovereignty over the corresponding “wedge” of Antarctic territory.

The map below shows roughly how territorial claims would look under that scenario.

While Brazil has obvious reasons for favoring this solution, it’s also a thought experiment that produces an interesting mix of territorial claims. Not only do nearby countries in Africa and South America get a piece of the pie, but places like Canada and Greenland would end up with territory adjacent to both of the planet’s poles.

Leaving the Pie Unsliced

Thanks to the Antarctic Treaty, there is no mining taking place in Antarctica, and thus far no country has set up a permanent settlement on the continent. Aside from scattered research stations and a few thousand researchers, claims in the region have a limited impact.

For the near future at least, the slicing of the Antarctic pie is only hypothetical.

*

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 Susan A. Romano / US Indo-Pacific Command

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).

***

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).

***

This past year has given rise to some strange and novel methods of disease containment, including lockdowns and mask mandates. It is unsurprising that the natural next step in this progression has been the development of a movement known as “ZeroCovid.” Its growing influence is, perhaps, predictable given that for nearly a year we have been inundated by the views of so-called experts seeking to legitimize their myopic worldview that public health is determined solely by prevention of Covid-19. 

Rather than acknowledge to a weary public that their approach has been a failure, they are doubling down and attempting to save their reputations by claiming that the problem is not that lockdowns do not work, but that they have not gone far enough.

There is, apparently, some diversity of opinion among the ZeroCovid crowd as to whether the term is to be interpreted literally, as some of its most impassioned and vocal proponents argue, or whether it simply means a more extreme version of the ideology that has dominated societies around the globe for the past year: the belief that suppressing the coronavirus is a singularly important goal, to replace all others and to be pursued with no or only minimal consideration of the effects of doing so.

ZeroCovid promoters appear to agree that much stricter border controls, lockdowns, and mask mandates are needed than exist in most nations today. Sam Bowman, one of the most prominent ZeroCoviders, claims for instance that the only way to address the coronavirus problem is with “lockdowns, school closures, travel bans, mass testing, contact tracing, and masks.” Likewise, former United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair’s think-tank has stated that the only way to avoid another lockdown is to bring coronavirus cases to zero. China, Australia and New Zealand are portrayed as successes by ZeroCovid proponents, and prove that suffering now brings with it the promise of eventual freedom.

While marketing themselves as theoretically opposed to lockdowns, ZeroCovid adherents actually aspire to implement a totalitarian-style state, which we are supposed to believe will exist only temporarily. For example, Devi Sridhar, one of the movement’s most public faces in the United Kingdom, has claimed that the only way out of endless lockdown is a “crude, harsh, catastrophic lockdown” now, the first phase. Given that the third phase of Sridhar’s plan entails an “East Asian and Pacific model of elimination” that prohibits travel abroad, I can only imagine precisely what sort of totalitarian nightmare Sridhar envisions during phase one.

Those who follow this philosophy fail to recognize the glaringly obvious truth that suppression tactics have not succeeded because they run contrary to human nature (as well as basic cell biology) and entail severe deprivations of human rights and liberties. They also do not acknowledge the fact that if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) managed to eliminate the coronavirus (a questionable assumption given the CCP’s tenuous relationship with the truth), it did so using tactics that prima facie constitute human rights violations.

Even Australia and New Zealand, which before 2020 were considered beacons of liberal democracy, have recently been the subject of investigations or inquiries by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. The ZeroCovid proponents do not address the reality that China, Australia, and New Zealand have continually had to implement lockdown policies in response to new cases arising even after declaring victory over the virus, and that the latter two are island nations able to effectuate border control in a way that cannot possibly be applied to nations that are geographically proximate to others and in which the virus has already become endemic.

The “Covid Community Action Summit,” a conference held at the end of January, and led and attended by many of ZeroCovid’s main players – needless to say, over Zoom – offers a glimpse into the warped worldview that pervades the ideology.

Image on the right: Featured Speaker Yaneer Bar-Yam preparing for his talk in the Barbican Hall on Day 2 of Wikimania 2014. (CC BY-SA 4.0)

The architect of ZeroCovid, and the first speaker at the Summit, was Yaneer Bar-Yam, an American scientist who specializes in complex systems and quantitative analysis of pandemics and founded the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI). The participants came from a variety of backgrounds: in addition to doctors and scientists, political consultants and communications specialists were in attendance. Many presenters had business interests in pharmaceuticals and diagnostics, and those from the United States tended to be affiliated with Democratic Party politics and campaigns.

One of the most disturbing presentations was delivered by Blake Elias, a researcher at the NECSI who works directly under Bar-Yam. Given Elias’s position, it is fair to assume that his views, as articulated at the Summit, reflected those held by its organizer.

Elias, like numerous other “ZeroCovid” advocates, believes that the “lives versus economy” framing of the problem is incorrect (notably, many lockdown opponents also consider this the wrong lens through which to view the issue, but for different reasons; namely that the economy and people’s lives are inextricably intertwined and lockdown policies do not take into account crucial considerations such as mental health and civil liberties).

Valuing each life–somewhat arbitrarily and without regards to life expectancy–at $10 million, Elias plugged a bunch of numbers into a machine and voila! came up with irrefutable proof that locking down hard and fast is less costly than failing to do so. Elias earnestly stated that his airtight equation demonstrates that if you are against elimination (ZeroCovid) the only conceivable reason could be that you dispute one of his premises, so you therefore believe one of the following: the cost of infections is lower than it is; the cost of lockdowns is more; hospital capacity is greater; the importation rate is higher; or complete vaccination is achievable in a shorter time frame.

At no time did he mention psychology, human rights, or civil liberties. If Elias had the slightest understanding of these concepts, he did an exceptional job of hiding it.

Michelle Lukezic and Eric Nixon, like Elias, gave a presentation akin to what I imagine it would be like to watch aliens discuss human psychology and behavior. Presumably a couple, Lukezic and Nixon founded a company called MakeGoodTogether, and believe that the coronavirus problem boils down to a lack of individual discipline and accountability. They acknowledged that the extreme social distancing they touted as the answer to the world’s woes is contrary to our nature, but insisted that we simply must try harder.

We could eradicate coronavirus, they solemnly instructed us, if only we would insist upon declining social invitations, and suggested that people post pledges on social media to that effect. They apparently spent little time considering the plight of essential workers whose employment does not allow them the luxury of distancing, apart from a comedic description of the psychic discomfort they experienced when the mask of a workman in their home slipped down his face. Lukezic was very proud of Nixon for refusing to shake the man’s hand upon his departure. I had to double-check the link a couple of times to make sure I had not inadvertently stumbled upon a Saturday Night Live episode.

Another noteworthy contributor to the ZeroCovid Summit was Michael Baker, the architect of New Zealand’s coronavirus strategy. Baker insisted that “following the science” indisputably leads to the ZeroCovid strategy, as though science alone informs policy. He made several stunning admissions, among which are that containment should also be the strategy for influenza, and that the coronavirus pandemic has given us the opportunity to reset in order to address inequities in society and threats posed by climate change. In other words, Baker does not foresee a return to normal life.

As demonstrated by its presenters at the Summit, ZeroCovid is the unfortunate end result of the inexplicable belief held by too many people that it makes sense to fixate upon one problem to the exclusion of all others. No one at the Summit, or in any other context for that matter, has ever made a convincing case for elevating the coronavirus pandemic above all other considerations. There is a reason for this: the facts and logic all point in the opposite direction.

An argument could certainly be made that a virus or other threat calculated to wipe out humanity or a significant portion of it, across age ranges, warrants exclusive focus on that threat for its duration. As I and others have written before, the coronavirus simply does not constitute such a danger. We now have a year of data from which to conclude beyond all doubt that exposure to the virus only poses a significant risk, beyond those we are accustomed to taking in everyday life, to the very old. The overwhelming majority of those infected with the virus suffer not at all, or minimally, and recover within days or weeks. This does not mean that the problem should be ignored, but rather that it should be addressed utilizing the same methodology with which we approach all public health matters: by taking into account the effects of the policies enacted in response to them.

ZeroCovid adherents are not qualitatively different from the epidemiologists and politicians who have advocated for and imposed lockdowns and mask mandates across the globe. They all believe that they can force billions of people to behave, for an indefinite time period, in ways that are contrary to our nature and deleterious to our well-being. They see nothing wrong with assuming control over every facet of our lives.

They are maniacally focused upon theories and models, and uninterested in what works in practice. They have no conception of human liberty or dignity. Rather than recognize that lockdowns, forced human separation, and masks are ineffective at quelling the spread of the coronavirus, while carrying enormous costs, not least among them the erasure of liberal democracy, the most fervent adherents to this ideology believe that the answer is more, and harder. That means deprivation of our rights and liberties, and denial of our basic human needs, until the coronavirus is eradicated from the globe. If they get their way, that may well be until the end of time.

*

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.

Jenin Younes is a graduate of Cornell University and New York University School of Law.

Jenin currently works as an appellate public defender in New York City.

She enjoys running, restaurants, and reading in her free time.

Featured image is from AIER

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).

***

In early February, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said US officials “do not need” pretexts to sanction Russia.

“They will always find and invent them.” When imposed, Moscow will respond appropriately, not aggressively the way the US and West operate.

“Taking well-considered and not aggressive action is always more useful and effective,” Zakharova explained.

Retaliation (against anti-Russian sanctions) must certainly follow.”

“If no symmetric or proportionate action is taken, where the United States crosses a red line, it will feel absolute impunity.”

It’ll encourage continued hostile actions.

On Monday, Blinken’s spokesman Price said the following:

His boss “welcome(s) the EU’s decision to impose sanctions against Russia under the human rights sanctions regime in response to actions taken against Aleksey Navalny and his supporters (sic).”

He stopped short of explaining what Politico reported on Monday, saying:

The Biden regime “is preparing to respond to Russia’s poisoning (sic) and jailing of Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny, and is expected to coordinate a sanctions rollout with European allies in the coming weeks, according to” anonymous sources, adding:

An unnamed “senior” regime official was quoted saying “we are considering available policy options.”

“Suffice it to say we won’t stand by idly in the face of these human rights abuses (sic).”

Fact: No Russian poisoning of Navalny occurred, no human rights abuses by Moscow.

Fact: Biden regime claims otherwise are invented because legitimate ones don’t exist.

Biden was installed as a figurehead front man for diabolical US deep state interests at home and abroad.

In short order, he breached virtually every campaign promise made.

It’s further proof that US and other Western politicians can never be trusted, why dealing with them achieves nothing positive.

Domestically, Biden and hardliners around him are waging all-out war on ordinary Americans instead of serving them.

He and media press agents continue a mass deception campaign to get ordinary Americans jabbed with hazardous toxins that don’t protect against flu-renamed covid and risk serious health issues or death if taken as directed.

Abroad, he’s escalating war on Russia by other means, doing much the same thing against China, and refuses to negotiate with Iran in good faith on the JCPOA and related issues.

Politico’s propaganda piece was likely based on deep state talking points.

It noted that Biden regime sanctions on Russia will be based on the Russophobic Magnitsky Act (2012). the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act (1991), and Executive Order 13382.

The latter freezes assets and imposes other penalties on alleged proliferators of WMDs.

Russia will retaliate against unlawful sanctions if imposed by the US and EU.

On Saturday, a Moscow City Court said the following:

“To change the ruling of Moscow’s Simonovsky District Court: under article 72 of the Russian Criminal Code, the time Navalny spent under house arrest from 30 December 2014, to 17 February 2015, should be counted as part of the prison term, with one day under house arrest counted as one day of imprisonment.”

“The rest of the order remains unchanged.”

As sentenced, he’ll spend 2.8 years behind bars.

Unlawful US/EU sanctions against Russia won’t change a thing.

Russia will respond in its own way at a time of its choosing.

Dismal relations with the West most likely will deteriorate further.

Chances of improving things are virtually nil.

What’s going on has nothing to do stated reasons by the West.

It’s all about Russia’s sovereign independence, free from US control.

US-led Western war on the country is because its ruling authorities won’t sell their souls to a higher power in Washington, Brussels or anywhere else.

*

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.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

Featured image is from danielo / Shutterstock

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).

***

Much has been written on this topic and it would be difficult to summarize it all in one short article. Policies differ from place to place and so is social dynamic. I have been following the “pandemic”, the stats, the restrictions, the related requirements, and the official policies in several countries but here I would like to focus on Canada and the province of Ontario.

In Ontario, the pandemic crisis is managed by the Liberal federal government and the Conservative provincial government. Unfortunately, there is little, if any, difference between these governments, when it comes to the “pandemic” policies. New Democrats don’t stay far behind the two. All three are chirping in the same key. I am aware of some individual MPs and MPPs, as well as some specialists in related fields, who privately are critical of the official narrative but are afraid of political and professional consequences, if they take a stand publicly.

There are, of course, exceptions – independent Ontario MPP Randy Hillier who represents the riding of Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston, constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati of Toronto, as well as a few courageous scientists and doctors who voice their own opinions in the highly censored debate on this topic. I agree with the opinion  that our Prime Minister has “no substance”. I believe that he is driven by a mixture of globalist and leftist ideologies, and steered “from behind”. It seems that our Ontario Premier has also surrendered his leadership and is allowing unelected lobbies to control public policies.

This picture is supplemented by a highly coordinated choir of mainstream media that present one-sided narrative and seem to specialize in fear mongering. Powerful interest groups are using the “pandemic” as a vehicle to increase their wealth and implement other political, economic, and social agendas – the globalization, the one-world government, the New Normal, the Great Reset, the transfer of wealth, the elimination of middle class, the elimination of cash and cash transactions, the implementation of totalitarian surveillance and  control over the entire society, and the depopulation. Citizens are divided – some skeptical and angry, others disoriented and scared. Everybody is tired and waiting for the return of the old and familiar “normal”. Everybody, except for the media and some politicians who keep discovering new obstacles, new mutants,  and new “waves”.

Official stats and the reality are incompatible. The numbers do not justify the “pandemic” status and include cases of death “with Covid”. They also include deaths caused by other medical conditions. For example, a victim of a motorcycle accident or a person who was hit by a bus, whose PCR test showed dead fragments of coronavirus RNA remaining after a flu they had had two years earlier, will be included in statistics as Covid-19 deaths. The same cause of death will be included in  death certificates of people whose PCR tests returned false positive results.

The City of Hamilton Status of Covid-19 cases webpage includes the following criteria:

*Total cases include both confirmed and probable cases.

**This measure refers to the number of COVID-19 cases who died. Deaths are included whether or not COVID-19 was determined to be a contributing or underlying cause of death.

***Other cases represent those which were unable to be located despite multiple efforts by Hamilton Public Health Services or were monitored by another health authority.

In addition to the above “criteria”, the Covid-19 statistics (cases and deaths) are based on the results of the highly unreliable RT-PCR test. They have not been corrected, even though the World Health Organization (WHO) had recently admitted that the test was giving a large number of false positives due to a wrong procedure being used (excessive number of amplification cycles / Ct threshold). It seems that the government is not correcting the wrong data because it would create a necessity to lift the lockdowns, restrictions, and other “pandemic” measures. This raises legitimate questions about the real goal of the official policies related to Covid-19.

After this long introduction, I am going to narrow this article to several legal aspects of the so called “pandemic” and the related official policies:

Individual Human Rights

Individual rights are clearly outlined by a few documents of the United Nations, which hold the status of international law. Some are also outlined by Canadian laws. Although international law does not take precedence over national laws, countries that ratify international agreements assume responsibility and express obligation (often included in the language of these agreements) to include them in their legal systems and apply them in everyday practice.

Following, are some of the laws that apply to the restrictions and policies introduced by Canadian and Ontario governments in order “to protect public health by taking comprehensive measures to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases.” – (Quarantine Act, 2005). A careful assessment and evaluation need to be conducted with respect to the potential illegality of some of the pandemic measures forced by the governments on Canadian citizens and Canadian businesses.

Charter of the United Nations:

Art. 55 – With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote: /…/ c) universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Art. 3 – Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Art. 5 – No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Art. 9 – No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Art. 12 – No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Art. 13 – (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residencewithin the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Art. 17 – (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Art. 18 – Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Art. 20 – (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

Art. 26 – (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall begiven to their children.

Art. 27 – (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Art. 28 – Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Art. 30 – Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Art. 4 – 1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.

Art. 6 – 1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. /…/

3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Art. 7 – No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Art. 12 – 1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.

Art. 17 – 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference withhis privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Art. 18 – 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

Art. 19 – 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Art. 21 – The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Art. 26 – All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights:

Art. 2 – 1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.

2. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Art. 6 – 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.

2. The steps to be taken by a State Party to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include technical and vocational guidance and training programmes, policies and techniques to achieve steady economic, social and cultural development and full and productive employment under conditions safeguarding fundamental political and economic freedoms to the individual.

Art. 12 – 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for: /…/

(d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.

Art. 13 – 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education.

2. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, with a view to achieving the full realization of this right:

(a) Primary education shall be compulsory and available free to all;

(b) Secondary education in its different forms, including technical and vocational secondary education, shall be made generally available and accessible to all by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education;

(c) Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education; /…/

Art. 15 – 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone:

(a) To take part in cultural life;

Art. 28 – The provisions of the present Covenant shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions.

UNICEF Convention on the Right of the Child:

Art. 28 – 1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:

(a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all;

(b) Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need;

(c) Make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means; /…/

(e) Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates.

2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention. /…/

Art. 29 – 1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:

(a) The development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;

(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations; /…/

2. No part of the present article or article 28 shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions, subject always to the observance of the principle set forth in paragraph 1 of the present article /…/

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, (Constitution Act, 1982, Part 1)

Sec. 2 – Fundamental Freedoms

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly.

Sec. 6 – Mobility of Citizens, Rights to move and gain livelihood

(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada;

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and

(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

Limitation: The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to

(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence;

Sec. 7 – Life, liberty and security of person

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Sec. 9 – Life, liberty and security of person

Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.

Sec. 10 – Arrest or detention

Everyone has the right on arrest or detention

(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

Sec. 12 – Treatment or punishment

Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Sec. 15 – Equality before and under law, equal protection and benefit of law

(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Sec. 24 – Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms

(1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

Sec. 31 – Legislative powers not extended

Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority.

Sec. 32 – Application of Charter

(1) This Charter applies

(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and

(b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province

Sec. 36 – Commitment to promote equal opportunities

(1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to

(a) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians;

(b) furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and

(c) providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.

Exceptions

Some of the above rights are subject to certain exceptions and limitations. For example, certain rights “may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” In the context of limitations and measures that are implemented under the umbrella of the pandemic in order to protect public safety, public health and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, it seems essential that the credibility of the pandemic is established and that the measures imposed by the state and local authorities are healthy and respectful of fundamental human rights and inherent human dignity. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, these criteria are not being met or clearly established.

Limitations of techniques used to screen people

The Quarantine Act (S.C. 2005, c. 20):

4. Purpose – The purpose of this Act is to protect public health by taking comprehensive measures to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases.

5 (1) Designating analysts and certain officers – The Minister may designate qualified persons, or classes of qualified persons, as analysts, screening officers or environmental health officers.

14 (1) Screening technology – Any qualified person authorized by the Minister may, to determine whether a traveller has a communicable disease or symptoms of one, use any screening technology authorized by the Minister that does not involve the entry into the traveller’s body of any instrument or other foreign body.

The Canadian Quarantine Act serves the same purpose as the restrictions and measures introduced by the governments to combat the Covid-19 pandemic, namely, to protect public health by taking comprehensive measures to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases. It seems only reasonable to conclude that the measures applied by our governments to combat the Covid-19 pandemic are (or ought to be) subject to the same limitations as those listed in Point 14 (1) of the Quarantine Act. The use any screening technology authorized by the Minister must not involve the entry into the tested person’s body of any instrument or other foreign body. This limitation and restriction is not being observed in screening with the RT-PCR test.

The collection of cells from the back of the pharynx, approached through the nose or mouth, must be performed by a specialized and trained caregiver. It is NOT PAINLESS! This sample may cause bleeding, damage to the pharyngeal (surface) mucous membrane, and/or the nasal mucous membrane if approached through the nose. [Source]

This is a risky technique, as it may cause injury. I was tested with the RT-PCR technology twice. After the second test, my nasal mucous membrane was injured and I was bleeding from my nose for three days. The healing was probably prolonged by the blood thinner injections that I was receiving at the hospital to lower the risk of a heart failure.

Regardless of the risks involved, the RT-PCR test should not be authorized (or mandatory), because it involves the entry and penetration of the tested person’s body with the swab – in order to collect the sample. By extension, injection of a vaccine also constitutes entry into the person’s body of an instrument and other foreign body (the actual mRNA “soup”). Vaccines serve the same purpose as quarantine, namely, they protect public health and prevent the spread of communicable diseases. Therefore, they should be subject to the same limitations.

Individual Rights vs. Collective Rights

Limitations of individual human rights and implementation of measures that, in some cases, are unhealthy and degrading, (for example the requirement to wear masks), are being justified by necessity to protect collective public safety, health, and morals. Measures applied by the governments and corporations suggest that collective safety is more important than individual rights and freedoms. However, in case of a pandemic, this priority is not consistent with international law:

UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights:

Article 3 – Human dignity and human rights

1. Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected.

2. The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.

I could not say it better.

Personal Responsibility and Liability

The Nuremberg Code:

The Nuremberg Code applies to medical experiments. It stipulates that, among other requirements,

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

This means that the person(s) involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.
This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

According to many experts in the field of medicine, immunology and virology, the mRNA vaccine that is being distributed and injected into unsuspecting persons around the world, constitutes a medical experiment. It currently is in the fourth stage of testing on humans, it has not been tested on animals, it has not been tested for a sufficient period of time to determine medium and long-term effects, it is a new technology. Some experts stress that it is not a vaccine but a synthetic pathogen designed to trigger our cells to mass-produce viruses, it has already resulted in negative and adverse outcomes, for example, anaphylactic reaction, cytokine storm and over-reaction of auto-immune system – Antibody-Dependent Enhancement (ADE) – Pulmonary Immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS Virus, illness and/or death. Some scientists warn about the risk of pathogenic priming. The experimental character of vaccination, that is currently under way, is greatly amplified by the requested and granted immunity for the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing these vaccines and the politicians in charge of combating the C-19 pandemic. If these vaccines were safe, such immunity would not be needed.

The Nuremberg Principles:

Principle I – Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.

Principle II – The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

Principle III – The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as a Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV – The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Principle VI – The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: /…/
(c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII – Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.

Personal responsibility before international law for committing such crimes exists, regardless of immunity granted under internal laws. The question to be determined is, whether genocide or murder caused by vaccines, lockdowns, restrictions, and other mandatory measures, as well as by paralysis of the health care system due to wrong decisions made by the governments and by related complicity of the media, constitute crimes against humanity. The requirement that such crimes must be “carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime” could be reasonably recognized, if two conditions are met:

1) The persons involved were or should have been aware of such safety concerns and possibility of negative outcomes;

2) The persons involved, by their decisions or omissions, with help of their propaganda, their policies, and their coercive apparatus, have contributed to such crimes.

In such cases, it could be argued that they had consciously and deliberately planned and/or conducted a war against their civilian populations, especially, if experimental biological or chemical agents were used in the commission of such crimes.

*

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 My Dundas Valley.

Lech Biegalski, lives in Hamilton, Ontario, a retired Ontario teacher (OCT), former member of the National Committee and National Intervention Committee, former activist and chairman of Region Pojezierze of the Polish Independent and Self-Governing Trade Union “Solidarity” (1980 – 1983). Resident of Canada since 1984, Canadian citizen since 1987. Editor and publisher of expired websites (March to War, Canada Watch, Notebook) and two current blogs (My Dundas Valley and Region Pojezierze)

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).

***

Warnings by leading climate scientists regarding the high sensitivity of the atmosphere in response to abrupt compositional changes, such as near-doubling of greenhouse gas concentrations, are now manifest: According to Wallace Broecker, (the “father” of climate science) “The paleoclimate record shouts out to us that, far from being self-stabilizing, the Earth’s climate system is an ornery beast which overreacts to even small nudges, and humans have already given the climate a substantial nudge”. As stated by James Zachos, “The Paleocene hot spell should serve as a reminder of the unpredictable nature of climate”.

As snowstorms the “Beast from the East” (2018) and “Storm Darcy” (2021) sweep the northern continents, reaching Britain and as far south as Texas and Greece, those who still question the reality and consequences of global climate change, including in governments, may rejoice as if they have a new argument to question global warming.

However, as indicated by the science, these fronts result from a weakened circum-Arctic jet stream boundary due to decreased temperature polarity between the Arctic Circle and high latitude zones in Europe, Russia and North America. The reduced contrast allows migration of masses of cold Arctic air southward and of tropical air northward across the weakened jet stream boundary, indicating a fundamental shift in the global climate pattern (Figure 1).

Figure 1. (A and B) Extensions from the Arctic polar zone into North America and Eutope; (C) weakening of the Arctic jet stream boundary (NOAA)

The weakening of the Arctic boundary is a part of the overall shift of climate zones toward the poles in both hemispheres, documented in detail in Europe (Figure 2). Transient cooling pauses are projected as a result of the flow of cold ice meltwater from Greenland and Antarctica into the oceans, leading to stadial cooling intervals.

Figure 2. Migration of climate zones in Europe during 1981-2010 and under +2°C. Faint pink areas represent advanced warming. (A, left) Agro‐climate zonation of Europe based on growing season length (GSL) and active temperature sum (ATS) obtained as an ensemble median from five different climate model simulations during the baseline period (1981–2010). (B, right) Ensemble median spatial patterns of agro-climate zones migration under 2°C global surface warming according to model RCP8.5. Gray areas represent regions where no change with respect to the baseline period is simulated.

A combination of ice sheet melting and the flow of melt water into the oceans on the one hand, and ongoing warming of tropical continental zones on the other hand, are likely to lead to the following:

• Storminess due to collisions of cold and warm air masses;
• As the ice sheets continue to melt, the cold meltwater enhances lower temperatures at shallow ocean levels, as modelled by Hansen et al. (2016) and Bonselaer et al (2018) (Figure 3A), as contrasted with warming at deeper ocean levels over large parts of the oceans. This transiently counterbalances the effects of global warming over the continents arising from the greenhouse effect;
• The above processes herald chaotic climate effects, in particular along continental margins and island chains.

Figure 3. A. 2080–2100 meltwater-induced sea-air temperature anomalies relative to the standard RCP8.5 ensemble (Bronselaer et al., 2018), indicating marked cooling of parts of the southern oceans. Hatching indicates where the anomalies are not significant at the 95% level; B. Negative temperature anomalies through the 21st-22nd centuries signifying stadial cooling intervals (Hansen et al., 2016); C. A model of Global warming for 2096, where cold ice melt water occupies large parts of the North Atlantic and circum-Antarctica, raises sea level by about 5 meters and decreases global temperature by -0.33°C (Hansen et al., 2016).

The extreme rate at which the global warming and the shift of climate zones are taking place virtually within a period less than one generation-long, faster than major past warming events such as at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary 56 million years ago, renders the term “climate change” hardly appropriate, since what we are looking at is a sudden and abrupt event.

According to Giger (2021)

“Tipping points could fundamentally disrupt the planet and produce abrupt change in the climate. A mass methane release could put us on an irreversible path to full land-ice melt, causing sea levels to rise by up to 30 meters. We must take immediate action to reduce global warming and build resilience with these tipping points in mind.”

Computer modelling does not always capture the sensitivity, complexity and feedbacks of the atmosphere-ocean-land system as observed from paleoclimate studies. Many models portray gradual or linear responses of the atmosphere to compositional variations, overlooking self-amplifying effects and transient reversals associated with melting of the ice sheets and cooling of the oceans by the flow of ice melt.

According to Bonselaer et al. (2018)

“The climate metrics that we consider lead to substantially different future climate projections when accounting for the effects of meltwater from the Antarctic Ice Sheet. These differences have consequences for climate policy and should be taken into account in future IPCC reports, given recent observational evidence of increasing mass loss from Antarctica” and “However, the effect on climate is not included (by the IPCC) and will not be in the upcoming CMIP6 experimental design. Similarly, the effects of meltwater from the Greenland Ice Sheet have so far not been considered, and could lead to further changes in simulated future climate”. Depending on future warming the effect of Antarctic ice meltwater may extend further, possibly becoming global.

By contrast to ocean cooling, further to NASA’s reported mean land-ocean temperature rise of +1.18°C in March 2020 above pre-industrial temperatures, relative to the 1951-1980 baseline, large parts of the continents, including central Asia, west Africa eastern South America and Australia are warming toward mean temperatures of +2°C and higher. The contrast between cooling of extensive ocean regions and warming of the continental tropics is likely to lead to extreme storminess, in particular along continent-ocean interfaces.

The late 20th century to early 21st century global greenhouse gas levels and regional warming rates have reached a large factor to an order of magnitude faster than warming events of past geological and mass extinction events, with major implications for the nature and speed of extreme weather events.

For these reasons the term “climate change” for the current extreme warming, which is reaching +1.5°C over the continents and more than +3°C over the Arctic over a period shorter than one century, no longer applies.

The world is looking at an extremely rapid shift in the climatic conditions that have allowed civilization to emerge.

*

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 Andrew Glikson is an Earth and Paleo-climate scientist, Canberra, Australia.

Featured image is from Barbara Nimri Aziz

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).

***

From the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic almost one year ago, it was clear that our world faced far more than a public health emergency. The biggest international crisis in generations quickly morphed into an economic and social crisis. One year on, another stark fact is tragically evident: our world is facing a pandemic of human rights abuses.

Covid-19 has deepened preexisting divides, vulnerabilities and inequalities, and opened up new fractures, including faultlines in human rights. The pandemic has revealed the interconnectedness of our human family – and of the full spectrum of human rights: civil, cultural, economic, political and social. When any one of these rights is under attack, others are at risk.

The virus has thrived because poverty, discrimination, the destruction of our natural environment and other human rights failures have created enormous fragilities in our societies. The lives of hundreds of millions of families have been turned upside down – with lost jobs, crushing debt and steep falls in income.

Frontline workers, people with disabilities, older people, women, girls and minorities have been especially hard hit. In a matter of months, progress on gender equality has been set back decades. Most essential frontline workers are women, and in many countries are often from racially and ethnically marginalised groups.

Most of the increased burden of care in the home is taken on by women. Violence against women and girls in all forms has rocketed, from online abuse to domestic violence, trafficking, sexual exploitation and child marriage.

Extreme poverty is rising for the first time in decades. Young people are struggling, out of school and often with limited access to technology.

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).

***

Turkey is unrelenting in its crusade against the Kurdistan Worker’s Party and the People’s Protection Units, as two parts of a whole.

Ankara’s forces carry out frequent operations within and without the country, targeting both the Kurdistan Worker’s Party’s (PKK) and the People’s Protection Units (YPG)’s interests and members. The Turkish government dubs both groups as terrorists, and does not shy away from invading the sovereign territory of other countries to pursue and “eliminate” their members and positions.

As a result, Turkey frequently encroaches on Syrian and Iraqi territory, and even has observation posts set up to target its Kurdish enemy.

It strongly opposes the Syrian Democratic Forces, a group whose core is comprised of the YPG, and receives heavy US support.

Most recently, between February 10th and the 14th, Turkey began its most recent operation in northern Iraq. In particular, it took place on the Gara Mountain in the Duhok Governorate of the Kurdistan Region. The result was such that both the PKK and the Turkish Armed Forces claimed victory, following the operation. The accounts of what transpired vary.

Turkey said it killed 53 PKK members, and captured 2. It admitted to losing 3 soldiers, while 4 of its troops were wounded in battle. According to the PKK, Turkey lost at least 30 soldiers, and dozens more were injured. A sort of collateral damage involved 13 Turkish hostages whose corpses were discovered in a cave network in the mountain area. Turkey and the US claimed that these were largely civilians, and some intelligence officers. The PKK claimed these were 13 Turkish military hostages. Turkey’s Defense Minister claimed many weapons and ammunition, as well as other equipment were seized.

In the aftermath, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan vowed to expand military operations which showed progress to other regions where threats are still significant.

Ankara’s aggressive and assertive actions are making many of the involved parties dissatisfied. Regardless it keeps carrying them out and shows no intention of stopping.

In Iraq, the Al-Nujaba Islamic Resistance Movement issued a warning to the Turkish Army against invading the country any longer. It said that it would suffer the same fate as the American Army whose convoys and positions continue to be targeted. Iraq maintains the posture that Turkey must withdraw fully from its sovereign territory. It should simply pack up its bases in the north of the country and vacate the premises.

In response, Turkey maintains that the West, and Iraq’s government aren’t doing enough to counter the alleged terrorist threat. Ankara claims it has its right of self-defense, even if it requires invading other countries.

Operation Claw Eagle 2 was of questionable success, if the numbers by the PKK are to be considered, against those provided by Turkey. These operations, however, are unlikely to stop, both in Iraq and Syria.

Erdogan seems hell-bent on solving all “security issues” and expanding Turkish activities in regions that are deemed threatening to Ankara’s interests.

*

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

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 late Dr. Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski for some time dispensed wisdom as an oracle of US foreign policy, side by side with the perennial Henry Kissinger – who, in vast swathes of the Global South, is regarded as nothing but a war criminal.

Brzezinski never achieved the same notoriety. At best he claimed bragging rights for giving the USSR its own Vietnam in Afghanistan – by facilitating the internationalization of Jihad Inc., with all its dire, subsequent consequences.

Over the years, it was always amusing to follow the heights Dr. Zbig would reach with his Russophobia. But then, slowly but surely, he was forced to revise his great expectations. And finally he must have been truly horrified that his perennial Mackinder-style geopolitical fears came to pass – beyond the wildest nightmares.

Not only Washington had prevented the emergence of a “peer competitor” in Eurasia, but the competitor is now configured as a strategic partnership between Russia and China.

Dr. Zbig was not exactly versed in Chinese matters. His misreading of China may be found in his classic A Geostrategy for Eurasia published in – where else – Foreign Affairs in 1997:

Although China is emerging as a regionally dominant power, it is not likely to become a global one for a long time. The conventional wisdom that China will be the next global power is breeding paranoia outside China while fostering megalomania in China. It is far from certain that China’s explosive growth rates can be maintained for the next two decades. In fact, continued long-term growth at the current rates would require an unusually felicitous mix of national leadership, political tranquility, social discipline, high savings, massive inflows of foreign investment, and regional stability. A prolonged combination of all of these factors is unlikely.

Dr. Zbig added,

Even if China avoids serious political disruptions and sustains its economic growth for a quarter of a century — both rather big ifs — China would still be a relatively poor country. A tripling of GDP would leave China below most nations in per capita income, and a significant portion of its people would remain poor. Its standing in access to telephones, cars, computers, let alone consumer goods, would be very low.

Oh dear. Not only Beijing hit all the targets Dr. Zbig proclaimed were off limits, but the central government also eliminated poverty by the end of 2020.

The Little Helmsman Deng Xiaoping once observed, “at present, we are still a relatively poor nation. It is impossible for us to undertake many international proletarian obligations, so our contributions remain small. However, once we have accomplished the four modernizations and the national economy has expanded, our contributions to mankind, and especially to the Third World, will be greater. As a socialist country, China will always belong to the Third World and shall never seek hegemony.”

What Deng described then as the Third World – a Cold War-era derogatory terminology – is now the Global South. And the Global South is essentially the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) on steroids, as in the Spirit of Bandung in 1955 remixed to the Eurasian Century.

Cold Warrior Dr. Zbig was obviously not a Daoist monk – so he could never abandon the self to enter the Dao, the most secret of all mysteries.

Had he been alive to witness the dawn of the Year of the Metal Ox, he might have noticed how China, expanding on Deng’s insights, is de facto applying practical lessons derived from Daoist correlative cosmology: life as a system of interacting opposites, engaging with each other in constant change and evolution, moving in cycles and feedback loops, always mathematically hard to predict with exactitude.

A practical example of simultaneously opening and closing is the dialectical approach of Beijing’s new “dual circulation” development strategy. It’s quite dynamic, relying on checks and balances between increase of domestic consumption and external trade/investments (the New Silk Roads).

Peace is Forever War

Now let’s move to another oracle, a self-described expert of what in the Beltway is known as the “Greater Middle East”: Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC, certified warmongering neo-con, and one-half of the famous Kaganate of Nulands – as the joke went across Eurasia – side by side with his wife, notorious Maidan cookie distributor Victoria “F**k the EU” Nuland, who’s about to re-enter government as part of the Biden-Harris administration.

Kagan is back pontificating in – where else – Foreign Affairs, which published his latest superpower manifesto. That’s where we find this absolute pearl:

That Americans refer to the relatively low-cost military involvements in Afghanistan and Iraq as “forever wars” is just the latest example of their intolerance for the messy and unending business of preserving a general peace and acting to forestall threats. In both cases, Americans had one foot out the door the moment they entered, which hampered their ability to gain control of difficult situations.

So let’s get this straight. The multi-trillion dollar Forever Wars are “relatively low-cost”; tell that to the multitudes suffering the Via Crucis of US crumbling infrastructure and appalling standards in health and education. If you don’t support the Forever Wars – absolutely necessary to preserve the “liberal world order” – you are “intolerant”.

“Preserving a general peace” does not even qualify as a joke, coming from someone absolutely clueless about realities on the ground. As for what the Beltway defines as “vibrant civil society” in Afghanistan, that in reality revolves around millennia-old tribal custom codes: it has nothing to do with some neocon/woke crossover. Moreover, Afghanistan’s GDP – after so much American “help” – remains even lower than Saudi-bombed Yemen’s.

Exceptionalistan will not leave Afghanistan. A deadline of May 1st was negotiated in Doha last year for the US/NATO to remove all troops. That’s not gonna happen.

The spin is already turbocharged: the Deep State handlers of Joe “Crash Test Dummy” Biden will not respect the deadline.                                        Everyone familiar with the New Great Game on steroids across Eurasia knows why: a strategic lily pad must be maintained at the intersection of Central and South Asia to help closely monitor – what  else – Brzezinski’s worst nightmare: the Russia-China strategic partnership.

As it stands we have 2,500 Pentagon + 7,000 NATO troops + a whole lot of “contractors” in Afghanistan. The spin is that they can’t leave because the Taliban – which de facto control from 52% to as much as 70% of the whole tribal territory – will take over.

To see, in detail, how this whole sorry saga started, non-oracle skeptics could do worse than check Volume 3 of my Asia Times archives: Forever Wars: Afghanistan-Iraq, part 1 (2001-2004) . Part 2 will be out soon. Here they will find how the multi-trillion dollar Forever Wars – so essential to “preserve the peace” – actually developed on the ground, in total contrast to the official imperial narrative influenced, and defended, by Kagan.

With oracles like these, the US definitely does not need enemies.

*

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.

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).

***

Critics of U.S. policy with and about Israel like myself have been relatively successful in describing the considerable downside in the bilateral status quo. We have demonstrated that the lopsided relationship supports absolutely no U.S. interest and that, on the contrary, considerable damage is done to the American people, to include involvement in armed conflict in the Middle East which serves no purpose beyond “protecting Israel.”

Israel benefits from billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars annually in a $3.8 billion lump sum for “military aid” plus hundreds of millions more in special procurements and projects that are together considered untouchable in Washington. Add to that the quasi legal “charitable” tax exempt contributions from wealthy American Jews and groups that fuel apartheid policies in Palestine and pay for the illegal settlements. Many of those same groups are themselves tax exempt and they exploit that status to actively lobby on behalf of the Jewish state, successfully shielding it from any consequences for its war crimes and human rights violations. They also avoid registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, even though many of them collude directly with the Israeli government through its embassy in Washington and are directed by the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu government. In fact, no Israel Lobby component among the six hundred or so Jewish groups that have protecting Israel as part of their agenda has ever been required to register as a foreign agent.

Under President Donald Trump, one Jewish billionaire Sheldon Adelson contributed as much as $300 million to GOP coffers, money which had with it a quid pro quo, that Trump should do a series of favors for Israel, which he did. The Democrats have their own counterpart in Israeli film producer Haim Saban, who has said that he is a “one issue guy and his issue is Israel.” Neither major party can be counted upon to resist Israeli pressure on foreign policy or even on domestic issues that might limit the “aid” that the Jewish state receives.

The money coming from the Israel Lobby has corrupted American government all the way down to the local level and special preferences for Israeli businesses in states like Florida and Virginia have added even more to the cash flow that goes in only one direction. Ironically, Israel does not really need the money. It is a socialist state that has a European level standard of living, to include free health care and university education, benefits that Americans do not possess.

Add to that Israel’s deplorable human rights record, which Washington is required to defend in international fora, as well as Israel’s record of persistent and highly damaging spying against the United States. It all means that little more need to be said, apart from restating the fact that it is a very bad deal for the American people. And it has also brought with it collateral damage to include attacks on fundamental rights like Freedom of Speech and Assembly. As the politicians in both major parties are bribed or otherwise coerced into continuing to behave the way that they do, count on things getting even worse, with criminalizing of any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism currently making the rounds of pending legislation.

All of that said, when I and others lay out the laundry list of Israel’s crimes against America, some sympathizers inevitably respond: “Okay, so what are you going to do about it?” So now I am going to address some of the things that can be done by ordinary Americans and by groups that are correctly appalled by Washington’s wag the dog relationship with the Jewish state.

First of all, demand from our elected officials that American law be enforced on Israel. There are several areas where that is relevant. First, as mentioned above, is the failure of the Justice and Treasury Departments to enforce registration of pro-Israel lobbying groups. Registration would force groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) to open their books regarding the money they receive and spend and could also require them to reveal details of their lobbying activity.

Another area where the law is not being enforced is regarding Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which was created by stealing both technology and enriched uranium from the U.S. The Symington Amendment on foreign relations forbids giving aid to any country that is either a nuclear proliferator or is in possession of undeclared nuclear weapons. Demand that it be enforced fully now and end all aid to Israel.

U.S. Israel-centric charities or foundations should also have their tax exemptions strictly enforced. Humanitarian aid is fine, but if they are funding the illegal West Bank settlements, which many of them are, they should have their exemptions revoked. And finally, Israelis caught spying or Americans who are assisting in the theft of U.S. classified or sensitive information should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, to include use of the Espionage Act. Currently, such individuals are almost always given a pass. If President Joe Biden can continue the persecution of legitimate journalist Julian Assange under the Espionage Act, he can certainly do the same vis-à-vis Israel’s spies.

Second, call for the end of Citizens United, which enables the Zionist oligarchs to dictate U.S. policy in the Middle East through their PACs and direct political donations. Beyond that, make your voice heard more generally. Sure, calling or writing to a congressional office is most often a waste of time but Capitol Hill staffers have told me many times that if a congressman gets multiple complaints about a certain policy or issue, he or she will begin to pay attention. That is not to say that they will give a damn about their actual constituents versus the powerful Israel Lobby but the background noise might make them just a bit more sensitive on the issue.

Likewise, with the mainstream media and the entertainment industry, which are Jewish/Israel dominated. When one reads an article or watches a documentary that is heavily slanted towards the Jewish state, make an online comment or write a letter to the editor or producer saying that the bias is evident. As in the case with congress, if newspaper or television editors begin to see a lot of commentary hostile to their spin they just might begin to be more cautious for fear of losing readers, viewers or advertising dollars. And just a little bit of loosening of the Israeli grip in the media will mean that the public will begin to appreciate that the “news stories” that have been promoted for so many years are nothing but a tissue of lies.

Third, support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement as well as organizations that are actively critical of Israel. BDS is non-violent and increasingly effective, particularly on college campuses. Always remember that Israel and its friends do not have a grip on Congress, the White House and the media because they are wonderful warm people that others find to be sympathetic. It is difficult even to imagine a scintillating conversation with a malignant toad like former casino magnate Sheldon Adelson or with congressional slime balls like Senators Chuck Schumer and Ben Cardin.

Israel’s ability to corrupt and misdirect is all based on Jewish money, a well-established process whereby Zionist oligarchs buy their way to power and access. So to restore the relationship to something more like the normal interaction between countries the solution is to hit back where it really hurts – boycott Israel and Israeli products or services and do the same for the companies that are the sources of income for those American Jews who are the principal supporters of the Zionist project. If you want to visit Las Vegas, by all means go, but don’t patronize the casinos and hotels now owned by Sheldon Adelson’s Israeli wife Miriam, which include The Venetian and Sands Resort.

Democratic party major donor Haim Saban, meanwhile, is a producer of Hollywood children’s entertainment, including the lucrative Power Rangers. You can stop your children from watching his violent programming and tell the network’s advertisers why you are doing so. And then there are businessmen including Bernard Marcus, who is a co-founder of Home Depot and a major supporter of Israel, and Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots. No one really has to spend $1000 to go to a football game, particularly if the owner is a good friend of Benjamin Netanyahu, and if you need something for your home or are seeking entertainment, choose to spend your dollars somewhere else. Readers can do the homework for the businesses and services that they normally patronize. If outspoken advocates for Israel own the company, take your dollars elsewhere.

Also put direct pressure on the mostly high-tech U.S. companies that invest in Israel, which are particularly vulnerable because they are thereby sending American jobs overseas, particularly as they country they are sending them to will steal the technology as likely as not. Make Israel’s cash-rich supporters pay a price for promotion of an apartheid/racist regime that is contemptuous of Americans even as it robs us blind, in the process doing terrible damage to the United States.

I am confident that readers will come up with other ideas regarding what might be done to counter Israel and all its works right here in the United States. If we lapse into apathy and think that nothing can be done to oppose the Israeli juggernaut, we will all lose. And, to be sure, the Israelis and their friends in America and Europe have one huge weakness. It is their hubris. They think that they are invulnerable because of their money and political power, but they fail to understand that in history the rich and powerful have inevitably gone too far and have finally received their comeuppance. Perhaps the “gone too far” moment has finally arrived.

*

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 Unz Review.

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

Featured image is from The Unz Review

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 Vaccine Reaction is reporting that a recent survey found that 53 percent of U.S. military families do not want to take the experimental mRNA COVID injections.

A survey conducted in December 2020 by the Blue Star Families, a non-profit military advocacy organization, found that 53 percent of U.S. military families do not want to get the experimental COVID-19 vaccines being distributed under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Of the of 53 percent of military families who responded to the survey indicating that they would not get the vaccine, nearly three-quarters cited a distrust of the development process or timeline.

Among deployed troops overseas, most of them are refusing the COVID shots, according to The Vaccine Reaction:

According to the Pentagon, U.S. troops deployed overseas and those charged with critical national security missions are declining to get vaccinated for COVID-19.

Some 320,000 service members and civilian personnel have been vaccinated, leaving a significant amount of the 769,000 doses available to Department of Defense (DoD) unused.

Pentagon officials said as long as the COVID-19 vaccines are classified as EUA by the FDA and not fully licensed, the DoD cannot mandate service members to take the vaccine.

Air Force Brigadier General Paul Friedrichs said that even those personnel responsible for manning America’s nuclear weapons are refusing to get the vaccine.

Employers Cannot Legally Mandate an Experimental Medical Product

While the military acknowledges that they cannot legally require anyone to receive an experimental injection not yet approved by the FDA, some businesses in the U.S. are attempting to do just that.

Last month we reported that a nursing home in Wisconsin was firing employees who refused to get an experimental mRNA COVID injection. See: Wisconsin Nursing Home Believed to be First in U.S. to Fire Staff for Refusing Experimental COVID Injections

Townhall.com later reported that the nursing home faced a backlash for their policy, and one employee is now represented by an attorney who has reportedly sent a cease-and-desist letter.

A Rock County-owned nursing home policy that mandates employees get the COVID-19 vaccination or be laid off is “illegal and unenforceable,” according to a cease-and-desist letter filed on behalf of a nursing home employee.

“By implementing its vaccine mandate, your (facility) is attempting to coerce all of its employees into receiving one of the COVID-19 Vaccines,” Elizabeth Brehm, attorney at New York-based Siri Glimstad law firm, wrote on behalf of Amber DeJaynes, a staff member at the Rock Haven skilled nursing facility in Janesville.

The letter, obtained by Wisconsin Spotlight, was sent to Rock Haven Interim Nursing Home Administrator Sara Beran and Rock County Administrator Josh Smith on Tuesday. It informs each that the mandatory vaccination policy is depriving the employees of their statutorily guaranteed rights to decide whether to receive the shot.

“Your company is doing so openly without any regard for the personal medical decisions of the employee,” Brehm wrote. “We hereby demand that you withdraw your COVID-19 vaccine requirement … Failure to do so immediately will result in legal action being filed against you to strike down this illegal requirement. Govern yourselves accordingly.”

The letter lays out why employers cannot make the COVID-19 vaccination compulsory.

The Food and Drug Administration in December granted emergency use authorization for two vaccines — produced by Pfizer and Moderna. They are said to be 95 percent effective in preventing COVID-19, but they are in many ways experimental, unlicensed vaccines. They have not been fully approved by the FDA. Much remains unknown about the long-term effects and efficacy of the vaccines, which, by drug approval standards, were developed at lightening speeds.

As the cease-and-desist letter points out, the same law that authorizes emergency use requires the public to have “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”

The statutory prohibitions are included in FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance and regulations, according to the legal letter. Dr. Mandy Cohen, executive secretary of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, has publicly stated under Emergency Use Authorization, “vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory.”

“Sheets for Recipients and Caregivers for both COVID-19 vaccines state on the first page, ‘It is your choice to receive the (COVID-19 Vaccine,” the letter states. (Source.)

If federal law and federal guidelines issued by the CDC and FDA make such mandatory requirements illegal, then why are some employers trying to make the shots mandatory as a requirement for employment?

They are trying to rely on a statement issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) which claims employers have a right to exclude employees from the workplace if they refuse the COVID shots. As Townhall.com reports:

But EEOC guidance asserts that employees who refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccination may be excluded from the workplace.

“Moreover, the EEOC’s Guidance underscores that anti-discrimination laws do not prevent employers from adhering to public health directives from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or other federal, state, and local public health agencies,” according to the National Law Review.

There are exceptions. Employees do have protections under civl rights, disability and religious conviction laws. And employers should exhibit extreme caution before firing someone over a compulsory vaccination policy.

“ ..(W)hile the employer may exclude that employee from the workplace, it should avoid terminating the employee or taking additional adverse actions before carefully evaluating whether the employee can work remotely or has protected rights under other employment laws or regulations at the federal, state, and local level,” the National Law Review piece advises.

Wisconsin lawmakers have introduced a bill that would prohibit the kind of mandatory vaccination policies in question at Rock Haven nursing home.

Dr. Meryl Nass, MD, who has been a leader nationally in exposing the massive injuries that occurred within the military during the Gulf War when the non-FDA approved Anthrax vaccine was mandated, also weighed in on this topic via her blog this weekend.

The 2 Covid vaccines currently available in the US are experimental unlicensed products. As such, they cannot be mandated.

The Nuremberg Code and subsequent laws guarantee your right to choose whether to be an experimental subject.  Although it may advantage some entities to have you think otherwise, an experimental product is an experimental product.

These vaccines have not been approved by the FDA, and so they are experimental. And therefore you cannot be forced to accept them.

The vaccines were “authorized” under emergency laws that require limited data.  The Johnson and Johnson vaccine will be coming up for a similar authorization, not a license, this coming week.

Once authorized, it too will be an experimental product. These products are given Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) by FDA, and the clinical trials for each vaccine are ongoing.

You have not seen the federal government, nor any state mandate these vaccines for schoolchildren, healthcare workers or anyone else.  That is because the government knows that legally, they cannot impose mandates and turn all the citizens into guinea pigs: they would almost certainly lose when challenged in the courts.

What the federal government did instead is sneaky.  It hid behind corporate skirts. Its Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a statement that essentially invited corporations to mandate the Covid vaccines, by stating that EEOC had no problem with such a mandate.

I and many others think that employer mandates will be found to be illegal, if challenged. Del Bigtree and his legal affiliate ICAN are assisting employees in fighting such attempted mandates.

I was involved with the only case to test whether a military anthrax vaccine authorized under an EUA could be mandated.  The 2005 case (Doe v Rumsfeld) was heard in First District Court, in DC, by Judge Emmet Sullivan, who is still on the bench.  He ruled that under federal law, an EUA vaccine cannot be mandated.

I am told that the military is being very careful with the Covid vaccines, and soldiers are signing informed consents if they choose to receive the vaccine.  Many are refusing.

Are civilians being given full information about the knowns and unknowns of these vaccines, and signing consent forms? (Source.)

As we have been reporting here on Health Impact News the past several weeks since these experimental injections have started, thousands of people are reportedly being injured and dying due to these injections.

The ones who survive with serious debilitating injuries are not finding any help to cope with those injuries. They cannot sue Pfizer or Moderna because the EUA protects them from any liability, and doctors are totally unprepared (and in many cases probably unwilling) to treat COVID mRNA injuries, so the victims are on their own to try and find help, at their own expense.

*

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 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Last week Texas experienced a cold snap that resulted in serious statewide damage, death, and destruction. The collapse of the state’s energy grid left millions of Texans in the dark and freezing for days at a time. Tragically, at least 30 people died.

There are many reasons why Texas became like a Third World country, and we should be careful not to pin all the blame on just one factor. But it seems clear that the disaster was to a large degree caused by political decisions to shift toward “green” energy generated from solar and wind and by Governor Abbott’s authoritarian Covid restrictions.

Abbott, who won a “wind leadership” award just this month, oversaw the near-collapse of wind energy generation last week. Yet the politicization of energy generation in favor of “green” alternatives over natural gas and other fossil fuels has led to the unintended consequences of freezing Texans facing multiple millions of dollars in property damage and worse.

Additionally, federal emissions and other restrictions forced Texas to beg Washington for permission to generate power at higher levels in anticipation of unprecedented demand. Governor Abbott finally received permission from the Department of Energy on February 14th, but by then many facilities found themselves off-line due to freezing conditions.

Why should the Federal government be allowed to freeze Texans to death in the name of controlling emissions from energy generation plants? It’s a classic example of politics over people. I guess if you want to make a “Green New Deal” omelet, you have to break a few eggs.

While Governor Abbott was quick to blame energy generators and even the state Electric Reliability Council of Texas, NBC News in Dallas reported that ERCOT “did not conduct any on-site inspections of the state’s power plants to see if they were ready for this winter season. Due to COVID-19 they conducted virtual tabletop exercises instead – but only with 16 percent of the state’s power generating facilities.”

Governor Abbott’s authoritarian Covid executive orders at least indirectly led to lax inspection, maintenance, and winterization of wind and other energy generation plants.

But Texas did not only freeze because of Abbott’s Covid restrictions. For the better part of a year thousands of businesses have been destroyed. Recovering drug addicts and alcoholics have relapsed. Depression and suicides have skyrocketed. Children have been deprived of education.

And for what? Texas with Abbott’s restrictions fared no better than Florida with no restrictions when it comes to Covid cases and deaths. The Texas governor knew that months ago when the data from Florida proved that lockdowns, masks, and other restrictions had no effect. But he refused to change course. He refused to follow the brave lead of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and open Texas completely.

Politicians too stubborn or fearful to change course when facts dictate otherwise do not deserve to remain in office. Governors Gavin Newsom in California and Andrew Cuomo in New York are finally facing consequences for their Covid authoritarianism. When the smoke clears – and it is rapidly clearing – many more of these petty tyrants will fall. That list of deposed Covid tyrants may well include Texas Governor Greg Abbott – and the slumbering Texas state legislature – as well.

Let’s hope Texans – and all Americans – will learn from this and more forcefully demand their God-given liberty!

*

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 CC BY 2.0

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 European Union (EU) announced this Friday, February 19, that the body will sanction about thirty Venezuelan leaders for participating in the legislative elections last December, reported Europa Press, alluding to a “high ranked official” of the community bloc.

Brussels justifies this new round of illegal sanctions on politicians, who according to the bloc were “involved in the December elections,” arguing that the election in which the National Assembly was elected for the period 2021-2026 is not recognized by the 27 European Union countries nor by other actors of the so-called “international community.”

“The list is expected to include around thirty officials,” reported Europa Press. “As informed by a diplomatic source, the measure would entail the freezing of assets of the persons mentioned in the list and the prohibition of their entry into the EU, in line with the four rounds of sanctions approved so far by the bloc since the sanctions plan was established in 2017, in view of the democratic ‘deterioration’ in the country,” detailed the Spanish news agency.

The body in charge of launching this new interventionist action will be the Foreign Affairs Council, which has already applied unilateral coercive measures on 36 political leaders of Venezuela, both from the government and from the opposition, without decreasing a bit the base of support of President Nicolás Maduro.

When consulted on this announcement, Jesús Rodríguez-Espinoza, editor and founder of Orinoco Tribune, expressed,

“This is another evidence of the European Union not realizing how ineffective theirs and US sanctions have been in their attempt to oust President Maduro. Moreover, this new round of sanctions demonstrates the supremacist and racist attitudes of many in the European Union, and also shows how hypocritical the EU is, that they are sanctioning Venezuelan politicians for participating in democratic legislative elections under supervision of international observers just because the political group they supported did not participate.”

*

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 Orinoco Tribune

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 US State “is using the so-called insurrection at the Capitol…to impose an ideological conformity that supports and sustains the neoliberal project” at home and abroad, said Ajamu Baraka, national organizer for the Black Alliance for Peace. 

Speaking on a Dissenters webinar, Baraka warned that Democrats, especially, are “setting us up” to “usher in a form of neofascism” that could win liberal and even progressive support because it is ostensibly aimed at Trump’s older brand of fascism.

*

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).

***

It has been a long time coming.

Earlier this month, a panel of judges ruled that the International Criminal Court (ICC) could investigate Israel for war crimes in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

A coalition of Palestinian human rights lawyers celebrated the “landmark” ruling as “a critically important step towards ensuring the rule of law” and “towards ending impunity”.

As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied, and in the case of Israeli war crimes, accountability has been delayed for years – for decades.

More than a year ago, the ICC’s Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda concluded her preliminary examination of the situation. She decided that the criteria for war crimes investigations had been met.

But that initial examination in itself had taken no less than five years, with the entire weight of Israel’s network of overseas lobby groups bearing down on Bensouda. Outrageously, she was also sanctioned by the Trump administration.

The ICC ruling this month means that the court in the Hague can now go ahead and investigate Israel for war crimes during events such as Israel’s 2014 war of aggression against the people of the Gaza Strip, and the 2018 protests along the boundary line with Gaza during which Israeli snipers gunned down thousands of unarmed protesters, killing hundreds of them and injuring many, many more.

It is far from clear how long it will take for the ICC to initiate the investigation process. The panel’s ruling on territorial jurisdiction referred to the possibility of “a protracted process” – not exactly an encouraging sign.

Predictably, Israel was not pleased that the ICC has dared to indicate that it will investigate them, even though the panel also ruled it had jurisdiction to investigate alleged war crimes by armed Palestinian resistance groups such as Hamas.

ICC ruling brings hope for Palestine, dismay for Israel – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

Israeli politicians and officials went wild, lashing out with all sorts of outlandish accusations and threats of revenge.

But privately, Israel is clearly worried. A report in Haaretz revealed that Israel has drawn up a secretive list of top military and political figures likely to be targetted by an ICC prosecution and has even warned them to refrain from travel for fear of arrest.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s racist prime minister, ranted in a bizarre video posted online that the ICC was investigating “fake war crimes” and that the court’s actions were “pure anti-Semitism”. He threatened that Israel would “fight” the investigation “with all our might”.

Gilad Erdan, Israel’s ambassador to the US and UN, also posted a twisted statement baselessly accusing the ICC investigation of being “anti-Semitic”. Erdan was, until recently, the Israeli minister responsible for orchestrating Israel’s global war against the Palestine solidarity movement.

He was responsible for an international campaign of dirty tricks and harassment against Palestinians and their supporters – a campaign very much still at work. Lawyers of the four Palestinian human rights groups who so warmly welcomed the ICC panel’s ruling this month – Al-Haq, Al-Mezan, Addameer and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights – stated that in revenge for their engagement with the court, Israel was subjecting them to collective punishment.

This has been: “A protracted campaign of smears and death threats – all designed to foil, undermine, and deter Palestinian engagement with the court,” they wrote – a covert sabotage campaign reportedly carried out by Erdan’s former “Strategic Affairs” ministry.

Erdan himself is another open racist at the highest levels of the Israeli government. He has openly incited hatred against Israel’s Palestinian citizens, and calls for the theft of all remaining Palestinian land in the West Bank by formally annexing the occupied territory, based on “our Biblical right to the land,” he said in 2018.

Israeli politics are made up of the right, the far-right and the ultra-right. On the ultra-right, Israel’s Jewish supremacist Kahanist politicians are even more openly genocidal in their incitement against Palestinians.

Kahanist lawmaker Bezalel Smotrich (who is likely to be part of Israel’s ruling coalition government after next month’s election) called for Netanyahu to expel and destroy an entire Palestinian village in revenge for the ICC’s ruling.

“Prime Minister Netanyahu must order the evacuation of Khan Al-Ahmar tomorrow morning,” he posted on Twitter. “What matters is not what the gentiles will say but what the Jews will do,” he wrote, quoting a phrase attributed to Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion.

But the award for the most truly demented reaction goes to fake Israeli “law centre” Shurat HaDin, which in reality was founded by Kahanists and is a front group for Mossad and other Israeli spooks.

Some years ago, the group’s director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner wrote a particularly unhinged op-ed, in which she called for Israel to literally invade the Hague, should it ever investigate Israel for war crimes.

Is this the kind of “fight” Netanyahu has in mind?

*

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

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).

***

Noch kennt das allgemeine Bewusstsein der Einzelnen und der Völker keine Antwort auf die Kain-Frage aus der biblischen Urgeschichte: Soll ich meines Bruders Hüter sein (1)? Eine real existierende Epidemie aus Machtgier, Lüge und Brutalität rafft inzwischen weltweit Millionen von Menschen dahin wie die Pest des Mittelalters. Doch die verhängnisvollen Auswirkungen der mörderischen staatlichen „Schutzmaßnahmen“ gegen eine vermeintliche Corona-Pandemie berühren zwar unseren Lebensnerv, doch sie rütteln uns nicht auf, wir verharren in Lethargie.

Die Not der Menschheit rührt nicht an unser Herz

Töricht wie wir sind, wiegen wir uns weiter in Sicherheit, während die dunklen Wolken dieses Verbrechens gegen die Menschheit sich über unser aller Haupt bedrohlich zusammenziehen. Zwar sind wir uns halbwegs bewusst, dass wir am Rande eines Vulkans siedeln, doch wir geben uns der trügerischen Hoffnung hin, dass es zu keinem Ausbruch kommen werde. Die beruhigende Selbsttäuschung ist uns lieber als der Gedanke an die Gefahr. Wir wollen die Unlust vergessen und wünschen uns lieber Lust. Das Lustprinzip aber ist untauglich, das Leben des Menschen zu schützen, denn die Realität will erkannt und verstanden sein: wer zu ihr in Widerspruch gerät, wird entweder geschädigt oder vernichtet.

Tausendfaches Unrecht geschieht nicht nur in fernen Ländern, sondern auch in unserer nächsten Nähe. Aber wir empören uns nicht, wir verteidigen nicht die Schwachen und helfen nicht dem Hilflosen. Die Not der Millionen Betroffenen rührt nicht an unser Herz. Indem wir nicht gegen die offensichtliche Tyrannei der Regierenden kämpfen, billigen wir sie. Wir haben die trügerische Hoffnung, sie werde uns verschonen. Doch in dem Augenblick, wo sie uns selbst in den Würgegriff nimmt, ist es gewöhnlich zu spät, sie einzudämmen. Die Krankheit, die wir beim anderen unterlassen haben zu heilen, rafft uns selbst hinweg.

Der „Urwaldarzt“ Albert Schweitzer gab uns eine Antwort

Immer wieder macht man die bittere Erfahrung, dass bei vielen Mitbürgern kein wirkliches Mitgefühl für die in Not geratenen und leidenden jüngeren und älteren Mitmenschen vorhanden ist – oder sich nicht zeigt, nicht aktiv wird. Doch nur dann kann und wird sich etwas verändern in unserer Welt.

Die Menschheit muss eine Antwort finden auf die eingangs gestellte Kain-Frage: Soll ich meines Bruders Hüter sein? Der deutsch-französische Arzt, Philosoph, evangelische Theologe, Musikwissenschaftler und Pazifist Albert Schweitzer (1875 bis 1965), einer der bedeutendsten Denker des 20. Jahrhunderts und Friedensnobelpreisträger (1952), gab uns eine Antwort:

„Das Mitgefühl mit allen Geschöpfen ist es, was Menschen erst wirklich zum Menschen macht.“

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen, ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Martin Niemöller (1892 bis 1984), deutscher evangelischer Theologe, Widerstandskämpfer gegen den Nationalsozialismus und Häftling im Konzentrationslager Sachsenhausen, hat nach diesem traumatischen Erlebnis in wenigen Zeilen ausgedrückt, was es bedeutet, dieses Mitgefühl nicht zu haben:

„Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschweigen,
ich war ja kein Kommunist. 

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschweigen,
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat. 

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich geschwiegen,
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter. 

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr,
der protestieren konnte (2).“

*

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 ist Diplom-Psychologe und Erziehungswissenschaftler.

Fussnoten 

1. Urgeschichte der Bibel: 1. Mose 4,1-16

2. Martin-niemoeller-stiftung.de/martin-niemoeller/als-die…

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 Mauritanian,” directed by Kevin Macdonald, is the first feature film to dramatize how the war on terror became a war in court.

As a sociologist of law and a journalist, I have spent the past two decades researching and writing about the kinds of legal battles the film accurately portrays. My research has included 13 trips to observe military commission trials at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The film stars Tahar Rahim as a Mauritanian named Mohamedou Ould Slahi who is captured and held at the Guantanamo detention center, where many suspected terrorists were sent. Jodie Foster and Shailene Woodley play Nancy Hollander and Teri Duncan, Slahi’s attorneys. Benedict Cumberbatch plays Lt. Col. Stuart Couch, who is assigned to prosecute Slahi’s case.

Hollander is, in real life, among the hundreds of lawyers I interviewed for my forthcoming book, “The War in Court: The Inside Story of the Fight against Torture in the War on Terror,” from the University of California Press. This book traces the work of lawyers who fought the U.S. government over the post-9/11 torture program and how, against the odds, they won a few key battles and changed the way the United States waged the war on terror.

Challenging secret detention

In November 2001, after the events of Sept. 11, President George W. Bush’s administration issued an order creating a process by which people suspected of ties to terrorism would be detained and held, and potentially tried. This would not be the customary process, where they’d be tried in federal court, but instead before a new military commission system.

In December, the Guantanamo naval base was designated the main site for long-term detention and interrogation of men suspected of having ties to terrorism. Prisoners captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere began arriving there on Jan. 11, 2002.

Guantanamo was selected because it was under full control of the military and relatively close to the mainland, but outside the U.S. and therefore beyond the reach of American courts – or so the Bush administration assumed.

The idea was that if the detainees were not on U.S. soil, they would have no legal right to seek a judge’s order of habeas corpus. That principle is a centuries-old protection against unlawful imprisonment and a cornerstone of the rule of law. It allows a prisoner to claim he is being unlawfully held captive, and to require the government to prove to a judge that there is reason to continue to hold him.

Nearly everything about the detainees was deemed classified, including their names and the very fact that they were in U.S. custody. In February 2002, though, the Center for Constitutional Rights, a left-leaning legal organization, teamed up with two death-penalty lawyers, Joseph Margulies and Clive Stafford Smith, to file a habeas petition in federal court on behalf of several detainees who were known to be in Guantanamo.

That lawsuit demanded the U.S. government explain why it was holding those men. It was the opening shot of what would become a war in court. In June 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo prisoners did, in fact, have habeas rights.

That same month saw the publication of Justice Department memorandums and Pentagon policy directives exposing the fact that torture of terror suspects, including Guantanamo detainees, had been authorized by the White House. Together, the ruling and the documents, which became known as the “torture memos,” galvanized lawyers to volunteer to represent Guantanamo detainees. Their work involved searching for information to challenge the government’s basis for detaining their clients – including evidence that they were tortured in custody.

Presumed guilty

Image on the right: Mohammedou Ould Slahi, held without charge at Guantanamo Bay for 14 years. International Committee of the Red Cross via Wikimedia Commons

When that Supreme Court ruling came down, Slahi was one of the most “valuable” detainees at Guantanamo. He had been arrested in Mauritania in November 2001, at the request of the U.S. government, on suspicion that he had recruited Marwan al-Shehhi, one of the hijackers of United Flight 175, the second of two airplanes to hit the World Trade Center in New York City on 9/11.

Slahi was handed off to the CIA and then sent to Jordan, where he was brutally interrogated for seven months by Jordanian authorities in the service of global U.S. investigation into 9/11. In July 2002, the CIA sent him to the Bagram prison in Afghanistan before sending him to Guantanamo the following month.

Slahi’s case was one of the first slated for prosecution under the military commission system, which let prosecutors use evidence that would never be allowed in U.S. courts, including coerced confessions and hearsay.

Couch, the prosecutor, was personally tied to Slahi’s case because he was a close friend of the pilot on the plane that al-Shehhi had hijacked. He was told that Slahi had confessed to everything he was accused of. Couch insisted on seeing the evidence himself.

He would not like what he found.

Learning dirty secrets

When attorney Hollander met Slahi in 2005, she knew very little about him or his case, and had only a short window of opportunity to persuade him to sign a paper authorizing her to represent him. Her meeting, like other detainees’ talks with their lawyers, took place in the same rooms in Guantanamo where prisoners were interrogated, replete with monitoring devices.

Slahi, who had taught himself English while in detention, accepted Hollander’s help and began writing her long letters explaining what had happened to him – but as the film’s audience learns, not everything.

Hollander, even as Slahi’s lawyer, had to fight the government to get his case files, which at one time included more than 20,000 pages that were almost completely blacked out to hide information that had been classified, including details of Slahi’s detention and the circumstances of his confessions.

Torture and lies

The movie’s climax comes when both attorneys – prosecuting and defending – get their long-sought documents. The pages reveal the big secret about Slahi’s case: He was brutally tortured on direct orders from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

All Guantanamo detainees were subjected to abuse, humiliation and harassment as part of their interrogations. But Slahi was also subjected to 70 days of what the government called “special measures” – which included a mock execution in which he was taken out to sea in a boat and threatened with drowning.

His captors also constructed an elaborate deception that his beloved mother had been arrested and was on her way to Guantanamo where she would be raped by other detainees. Only after those experiences did Slahi begin to “confess” to every accusation laid against him.

Hollander knew the government would not want to make public the evidence that his alleged confessions were coerced through torture, and pushed harder for Slahi’s release. Part of that effort included publishing Slahi’s letters as a book, “Guantanamo Diary,” which became a best-seller.

Couch decided not to prosecute Slahi because the confessions wouldn’t pass legal muster. Accused by the chief prosecutor of being a traitor, Couch was one of several military lawyers who quit the military commissions for ethical reasons.

The long road home

In 2010, Hollander’s fight paid off – or so it seemed – when a federal judge ordered Slahi’s release. But the Obama administration appealed, and it would be another six years before Slahi was allowed to return home to Mauritania. He spent a total of 14 years in U.S. military custody without facing a single criminal charge.

The movie has a happy ending, with scenes of the real Mohamedou Slahi home in Mauritania smiling as he reviews translations of his book into many languages – and with photos of him and one of the guards, who had befriended him, visiting in Mauritania.

But there is no happy ending at Guantanamo, which remains open. Of the 779 men and boys ever held there, 40 prisoners remain – including six who, like Slahi, were cleared for release years ago.

*

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.

Lisa Hajjar is Professor of Sociology, University of California Santa Barbara

Featured image is Fair Use

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 new US President Joe Biden works to undo many of his predecessor Donald Trump’s foreign policies and legacies, the outgoing administration’s war-ending Afghanistan policy is likely to endure – albeit it with a potential deal-breaking tweak.

Speculation is rife that Biden will seek to delay America’s troop drawdown – currently scheduled for a complete withdrawal of 2,500 remaining troops by May, as per a February 2020 agreement with the Taliban – for what some are calling a slower, “more responsible” departure.

It’s a risky gambit, one that some say is necessary to prevent a reversion to the multi-sided civil war and anarchy seen in the 1990s, but also one that could blow up the US-Taliban pact as well as talks between President Ashraf Ghani’s government and the Taliban on a war-ending political settlement now ongoing in Doha, Qatar.

Advocates of a delay say the Biden administration should seek to leave a “residual” counterterrorism force in Afghanistan beyond this May and until a transitional government is in place, which depending on its size, shape and scope could irretrievably scupper the US-Taliban deal. Biden advocated such a force in a Foreign Affairs article he penned last spring.

There is little risk that Biden himself will abandon outright Trump’s troop withdrawal plan. Still, his administration has already indicated it intends to “review” the February 2020 US-Taliban agreement that put the withdrawal timetable in place in exchange for a Taliban commitment that anti-US terror outfits like al Qaeda and Islamic State (ISIS) would not be allowed to use Afghanistan as a base for future attacks.

Biden’s review will no doubt include a deep reading of the “secret” annexes to the US-Taliban agreement, which Biden’s Secretary of State Antony Blinken acknowledged he hadn’t yet seen during his Senate confirmation hearings on January 19.

For now, Biden’s position is informed more by the futility of continuing the almost two-decades-old war, where after years of fighting the US has been unable to force the Taliban into submission.

Biden was intimately involved in an earlier phase of the conflict as vice president in the Barack Obama administration and is known to be an advocate for ending a conflict now known Inside the Beltway as the “forever war.”

Trump’s withdrawal agreement, which sent some 2,500 of 4,500 troops home in mid-January, was borne of a broad consensus in the US defense establishment that the best way to end the conflict is through some sort of political settlement with the Taliban.

This was evident in a recent meeting between the US Joint Chiefs chairman and the Taliban in Doha, marking the first time a high-ranked US military official sat with the Taliban to discuss peace.

While the meeting showed the US military’s active involvement in the Afghan peace process, it also showed a lack of appetite for continuing the conflict.

That comes as criticism swirls that the Taliban has leveraged the February accord to ramp up violence and win tactical and geographical advantages vis-à-vis Ghani’s state forces.

The Pentagon no doubt realizes that a mere 2,500 troops cannot defeat the Taliban, which is now wreaking violent havoc across the country including around the capital of Kabul. The US previously had over 100,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan in a war plan that aimed to defeat al Qaeda in retribution for its brazen September 11, 2001 terror attacks on US soil.

Against this backdrop of violence, the Taliban and Afghan President Ghani’s administration are now engaged in slow-moving peace talks in Doha, Qatar, where the two sides are still debating over the agenda of future meetings. The Biden administration could thus seek to better calibrate the pace of troop withdrawal and align it more closely with actual progress in Taliban-Ghani peace talks and an eventual political settlement.

Biden’s policy team, many of whom worked on Afghanistan policy under Obama, also wants to take into account the view of NATO, which is among those advocating for a “responsible withdrawal” to ensure that post-withdrawal Afghanistan does not become a free-for-all battleground among the Taliban, Afghan military forces and various other militant and terror groups including Islamic State (ISIS) and al Qaeda.

Since the February agreement was struck, the US military has largely eschewed active combat, which has opened the ground for the Taliban to mount more potent attacks on state forces. While the US-Taliban agreement stipulates a full US troop withdrawal by May, there are no unambiguous clauses that prevent the Taliban from attacking Afghan forces.

The Taliban has actively leveraged this to their advantage, arguably tipping the balance of battlefield power in its favor through ramped up violence and territorial advances. As their own statements show, the Taliban do not feel bound to stop or slow the attacks while peace talks are ongoing.

Ghani’s good faith release of some 5,000 Taliban fighters from state prisons has arguably added to that rising threat. As such, Afghan political elites now hope that Biden will “correct the course” set by the Trump administration and review the withdrawal plan.

High-ranking Ghani administration figures have recently told international media that the Taliban has not fulfilled its commitments in the US agreement.

In a recent interview with the BBC, Afghanistan’s First Vice President Amrullah Saleh argued that despite securing a “massive concession” from the US, the Taliban have not severed their ties with al-Qaeda and are unlikely to genuinely deliver on such assurances.

Reminding the US of its original war mission, Saleh argued that “The question is not the fate of Afghanistan…The question is the fate, reputation and standing of the Western civilization. They came to assist a small country to prevail against terrorism, against radicalism, against al Qaeda affiliates” and that mission remains unfinished.

The situation is complicated by the fact that international support for the Afghan war has waned significantly. Apart from NATO’s emphasis on a “responsible” withdrawal, the broad international community has largely reduced its financial commitments to Afghanistan. That was evident during the recently-held Geneva conference on Afghanistan.

Compared to the $15.2 billion pledged four years ago in Brussels for 2017-20, the latest virtually-held conference pledged only $12 billion. This amount is not only smaller but doesn’t meet minimum projections set by the UNDP for Afghanistan’s reconstruction and development needs.

The US, for one, would not even commit for a full four- year period, indicating once again America’s diminished appetite for Afghanistan-related commitments. The Afghanistan conflict to date has cost the US $800 billion and 2,400 lives, according to official data.

For Biden’s proposed residual force and apparent delayed withdrawal plan to work, his diplomats and agents will need to quickly revive channels of communication with the Taliban to sell them on a revised plan without scrapping the agreement altogether.

Afghanistan is therefore likely to become Biden’s first major foreign policy test. As vice president, he did not have to deal with tough questions of this sort, including the potential of playing a role in returning the hardline Taliban back to power. Back then, the Taliban were still branded as “terrorists” and there was no question of negotiating with them.

The Taliban’s ultimate goal is still to make Afghanistan into an Islamic emirate under their domination with other political forces and non-Pashtun ethnic groups playing subservient roles. For Biden to end Afghanistan’s endless war, he will need to convince the Taliban to share power and pursue peace, neither of which the extremist militant group has shown a penchant for previously.

*

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).

***

Even young children can sense that we live in an age in which literally none of the information available is reliable or believable. Information on a global scale is subject to Gresham’s Law: low-quality information spreads everywhere and the truth is hoarded by the few.

What went wrong, and why?

In a sense, the original sin was the confusion of science, the philosophical pursuit of the truth by means of confirmation of accuracy through systematic experiments, with technology, the tools, and the systems based on tools, that serve to create an effect, or to complete a task.

Technology is not science. The Internet, and the supercomputers that lurk behind it, are employed by the rich and powerful to create a virtual reality for us with the intention of convincing us that the images and the effects generated by technology have some relationship to the truth, to science. They want to reassure us that everything is fine when it is not.

If we want to find our way out of this nightmare, we must first recognize that technology today has become the complete opposite of science: a distraction, or a weapon employed to render us passive and ignorant.

As Paul Goodman wrote, “Whether or not it draws on new scientific research, technology is a branch of moral philosophy, not of science.” It is the moral aspect of technology that should be foremost in our minds, and not the gaudy special effects that enchant, that pretend to be science.

Before we develop a smartphone, a satellite system or a supercomputer, we must first employ the scientific method to determine what the impact of that technology will be over the long term on the Earth and on humanity. Such a combination of science and technology literally never happens.

Today, thousands of supercomputers calculate the worth of derivatives as part of a money game for the super-rich, a fixed round of poker. Few super computers are calculating how the use of massive amounts of electricity to power the next generation of AI will impact the climate over the next fifty years, or what the impact of the use of plastics will be on the oceans for that the next century, or what the prospects for the production of food for the 200 years will be in light of the rapid degradation of soil.

Supercomputers are being employed to calculate profit, and not sustainability, and they are so assigned for a political, not a scientific, reason. Technology serves as a sheepskin for the most ruthless forms of economic exploitation. The powerful know that if AI was focused on sustainability over centuries, the answer from its calculations would be that we should stop using AI if we wish to survive.

We confuse science with technology at our peril.

How to dumb down youth

Our youth are told by the corrupt media that they must prepare for a technology-driven future that is inevitable, that is coming in accord with some law of nature. They are exhorted to prepare for a supposed “Fourth Industrial Revolution” that will somehow improve their lives even as their jobs are automated away, even as their minds are destroyed by video games, pornography and online gambling.

When the bankers and CEOs call it the “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” they are not kidding. It is a revolution in which a tiny handful of people seize control of the means of production, and the ideological apparatus, for the entire Earth.

We are bombarded, against our will, with information produced without review by third parties, by corporations. Much of it is spurious and misleading. The content of movies and dramas, of commercials and advertisements, promotes waste and indulgence and glorifies the idle lives of the rich.

We are forced to rely on corporate-controlled sources like Google or the New York Times for information and we are not told that these organizations have a long history of providing false information for profit. The entire media/ education/ advertising complex has been mobilized to promote campaigns to dumb down people and to encourage anti-intellectual sentiments. The drive to force all education to be conducted on-line speeds up this dangerous trend.

How many times have you heard old timers remark that young people are self-centered, superficial and isolated? The assumption underlying this statement is that youth, who are our future, have gone bad because of the poor choices that they have made.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Those youth are identified by corporations as the target for a decadent consumer culture that encourages them to buy and to be distracted by services that they must pay for. They cannot escape from this unrelenting ideology because corporations are free to pump this trash into the lives of youth, from nursery school on. There is no force present to defend our children.

The main purpose of the games, the pornography, the foolish and shallow television programs citizens are subject to, is not sales.

No. Much of this disinformation is offered to us for free because the purpose is to alter our thinking. The funding of the media by advertising from corporations allows them to dictate to journalists the content of their articles, to make journalists present consumption and development in a positive light even as it destroys the environment and alienates our citizens.

The ultimate product is the viewer or reader, not the item presented in the ad. The reader is rendered up to the investment banks and multinational corporations, as a prostrate consumer, not a citizen, a dependent and limited individual with no moral compass to guide him, incapable of distinguishing images from reality. We desperately need to interact with others. We need jobs that let us work together with others to create a better world.

Technology could help, but it does not because it has no relationship to science and it has no moral content any more.

In our daily lives, our interactions with the world are limited to prerecorded messages, automated checkouts, and online classes.

Our culture could be changed if we wanted to change it. The fact that most people cannot read books, or focus for more than 10 minutes on a topic, is a result of habits created by exposure to technology that could be reversed if there were a will.

We could treat serious issues in a serious manner in our society, and we could discuss the history of how we got here, the reality of how our society works, and the wisdom of learning for oneself through art, music, philosophy and literature. We could give more emphasis to the wisdom passed on to us by our parents and grandparents than to the superficial sayings of those made famous by the media.

The murder weapon can be found in the hands of the advertising firms, the puppeteers behind the screen of media. They create a false reality that degrades; they label those who tell the truth false. They make sure that the citizen faces a wasteland on every TV channel, in every newspaper, in every corner of every mall and every office building. Their destruction of intellectual inquiry made possible the rise of clown tyrants and laid the foundations for a media circus dominated by the willful and the indulgent.

We can trace this war on intellectual inquiry back to the efforts of Sigmund Freud’s disciple Edward Bernays in the 1950s to develop concrete methods for manipulating the public through powerful images and simplistic slogans. Bernays gave corporations long-term strategies to make use of weaknesses in human psychology so as to turn citizens into consumers who are drawn to conventional interpretations presented by authority figures.

The manipulation of the human mind by the powerful has a long history. Yet the situation would not have become so dire if our seduction by the stunts of computers, by the legerdemain of mechanical reproduction, had not blinded us to the murder of scientific inquiry.

The death of science is an extension of the death of philosophy. Universities are extirpating philosophy departments left and right, supposedly because they no longer can find jobs for their graduates. The study of philosophy is treated in the media as a quaint field for the impractical. In reality, however, philosophy must be the foundation for all understanding. Without an understanding of the invisible principles according to which the universe, and human institutions, function, our society drifts, our government becomes an unmoored ship, and we slide into treacherous straits.

The death of philosophy means that the visible ― the hurricane, the mass shooting, the speech by a politician ― is the only thing that registers in our minds. Climate change, cultural decadence and political mannerism, the most serious dangers we face, seem like abstractions that do not even enter our discussions.

Without a philosophical foundation, without a methodology for confirming what is true, science is reduced to visual stimulation and rhetoric.

The destruction of the intellectual

The obsession with the seen, and the neglect of the invisible and the abstract, is related to the precipitous decline of the intellectual in society.

This process was pushed forward by wealthy ideologues seeking to defend their power such as the Scaife family, the Koch family, and the Coors family. They paid top dollar to create and to circulate narratives in the media that suggested that business administration and marketing were practical and fundamental because they create wealth. They paid newspapers to repeat and repeat that the intellectuals who try to understand the fundamentals of the universe and of society are impractical and elitist.

The exploitation of nature, or of fellow humans, the manipulation of currency and capital by investors, was lauded by the new gurus that these groups funded, and then that argument was fed to us through the commercial media. The criminals who made wealth out of nothing through financial fraud like Elon Musk, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are presented to us as icons for genuflection.

Thus, an enormous number of Americans were convinced to pursue careers in business and they dedicated themselves to the proposition that their fellow men should be objects for exploitation, that the principle in all interactions is competition rather than cooperation.

If you do a search for a job, you will find that the only jobs available are in exploitative fields that promote consumption and value growth over values or understanding. Even the careers possible at NGOs with important missions require that one beg ruthless businessmen for funding to keep going.

The decline of the role of the intellectual in a society controlled by corporations did not lead academics to build bridges to working people, or to find solidarity with the impoverished; Quite the opposite. Rather, intellectuals sought refuge in an even more narcissistic and even more elitist institutional culture, one that alienates workers and allowed for the discontent to turn rather to the far right for vision.

The commercialization of the university

The degradation of the intellectual is part and parcel of the commercialization of the university over the last two decades.

Institutions that once promoted intellectual inquiry have devolved into top-heavy academic bureaucracies focused on rewarding deans and provosts with high salaries, and serving the corporate clients that have replaced government as sources of funding. More often than not, the top decision makers are not even academics, but MBAs and accountants who consider  research and education a service, the equivalent to supplying broadband to the consumer, and not a moral goal.

The professor has become a day laborer subject to market forces whose value is determined by his or her popularity with his students, the funds he or she raises from corporations and his or her ability to publish in specialized journals that have a low tolerance for originality.

The administrators, responding to “market forces” compel professors to write in obscure language inaccessible to anyone who has not attended graduate school so that they can publish in journals that few will ever read. Professors who do not write for those academic journals cannot keep their jobs.

To top it off, those journals are inaccessible to the citizen, and will never show up in a Google search. Paywall services like JSTOR (a cover for Elsevier and other parasite corporations that make money off of the intellectual labor of others) charge enormous fees for access to research that was funded with tax dollars.

When the American programmer Aaron Swartz, founder of Creative Commons, released to the public JSTOR articles based on research funded by the public, he paid for that act with his life.

Courses offerings at the university have been cut back because, supposedly, students are no longer interested in the humanities or the arts. The fact that the decision of corporations not to hire those with a background in the humanities is not an economic reality, but an explicit political act, is never mentioned.

The promotion by corporations of a shallow materialistic culture in the media that discourages interest in literature and art is considered to be a fact of life, not a criminal conspiracy to dumb down citizens.

The media tells us constantly that democracy is critical, but a society without ethically committed intellectuals, without institutions that can support those intellectuals, is like a body with no bones. No degree of elections, or of heated media debates, can save such a doomed society.

The ideological commitment to public service, and to self-sacrifice, on the part of intellectuals has vanished. Corporations and banks have pressured institutions such universities and research institutes, museums and libraries, orchestras and theatres, as well as government and corporate institutions, to glorify overpaid executives and to marginalize and demean the intellectuals, artists and writers that those institutions were meant to support.

When Drew Faust retired as president of Harvard in 2018, she immediately joined the board of Goldman Sachs ― such a blatant conflict of interest would have been unthinkable twenty years ago.

Harvard, once famous for its research and teaching, is now prized primarily by investment banks for its $50 billion endowment. The brand value of “Harvard” has value for corporations who find “strategic alliances” with select professors helpful for pushing their agendas on the American people.

The corporate takeover of academics was fatal for science. As Marc Edwards and Siddhartha Roy detail in their article “Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition” (Environmental Engineering Science, Jan, 2017), truth does not hold a candle to profit maximization.

Professors are hired and fired on the basis of quantitative performance metrics: “publication count, citations, combined citation-publication counts (e.g., h-index), journal impact factors (JIF), total research dollars, and total patents.”

Seemingly scientific, this dark alchemy has little, or nothing, to do with the search for the truth.

The increase in direct, or indirect, corporate funding has increased the number of taboo topics for research (the privatization and militarization of space and the Artic, the takeover of government functions by multinational banks, or the corruption of academics). Intellectuals cannot discuss these topics unless they are ready to be exiled to the margins, to have their writings labeled as “alternative” or “conspiracy theories.”

How technology shut down the American mind

It has become a commonplace comment that the entire world seems to have gone crazy. This compelling impression usually does not develop far beyond that primitive formulation.

Yes, the United States is governed by the insane; Yes, it has become a literal psychopathocracy.

The question is whether we are observing a periodic decadence, akin to the collapse of the Roman empire, or a different phenomenon?

We witness all around us extremes of cognitive dissonance that allow highly educated people to blithely ignore catastrophic climate change, the preparations for world war, and the radical privatization of the entire economy.

Could there be something beyond simple denial and self-centeredness at play here?

When we spend our days staring at smartphones, stay up late playing games, watching pornography, or chatting with friends about popular music or trends in fashion and food, is that smartphone serving as a portal that allows us access to information that we need?

Or could it be that the smartphone is modifying how we think and behave, setting our priorities for us and suggesting to us what values to uphold, how to act?

Are, perhaps, those smartphones that expose us to video games glorifying military combat, to Youtube broadcasts promoting stupid cat tricks, weapons created and distributed to undermine the capacity of the citizen to think deeply, to distract us so we cannot comprehend the radical transformation of our world into a techno-tyranny?

Are those smartphones intended to create addictions and obsessions in us that inhibit organized action to create our own systems of governance?

Advances in technology not only transform the landscape of human society, they also undermine our capacity to comprehend the shifts taking place. Our brains are being reprogrammed by the smartphones that we assume help us to communicate.

Technologically-induced passivity that destroys human society is as devastating as it is invisible, it is a cultural holocaust that first kills the concept of the citizen and of the family member by using seemingly innocuous, even helpful, technology to enter the private lives of the individual.

Nicholas Carr’s book, “What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains: The Shallows,” provides extensive scientific evidence of how the Internet remaps our brains to be inclined to respond to instantaneous stimulation and disinclined from complex, long-term, thinking.

Over time, such stimulation renders complex, three-dimensional contemplation of contemporary affairs virtually impossible.

In the case of youth encouraged by corporations to depend on such external devices from infancy, the impact is crippling. It is a form of fascism by subterfuge, or as Sheldon Wolin explains in his book “Democracy Incorporated” such technology creates an “inverted totalitarianism” in which we are controlled by corporations in our daily lives but continue to imagine there exists some form of “democratic process” because of what we see on television.

We are forced to use social media like Facebook or Twitter, but we cannot vote, or even offer our opinions, as to how that social media (technology) is developed, or what the rules for these social media platforms are. We are told that we have a choice of social media, but no one can set up a social media platform of critical scale without enormous amounts of capital. Not a single communally-administered social media platform of scale has been permitted to develop. That means that global investment banks determine that manner in which we interact with others.

Carr explains that the brain’s neuroplasticity allows it to evolve, often in a negative sense, in response to stimulation from the internet. Our neurons want us to keep exercising the circuits we formed through our internet surfing because they offer a seductive stimulation. Quick responses from a Google search, or from a Facebook posting, stimulate neurons and release pleasing stimulants.

The unused neural circuits that were once employed in complex three-dimensional consideration of long-term personal experiences and of shifts in culture and society are ruthlessly pruned away in an invisible neural Darwinism in that process. The result is not technological flexibility and liberation, but rather rigid thinking and behavior.

The neurologist Norman Doidge writes: “If we stop exercising our mental skills, we do not just forget them: the brain map space for those skills is turned over to the skills we practice instead.” That is to say, that it becomes impossible for the brain to return to its original capacity for deep thinking after being subject to this diet of intellectual junk food.

Hours on smartphones, exploring social media and chatting with friends, has rendered us incapable of comprehending risk involved in climate change, or in the arms race, or in the promotion of a bogus COVID19 virus to justify totalitarian corporate control.

The psychopath behind the psychopath

There is one more piece to this puzzle.

Is it simply the case that greedy billionaires use technology as a means to reduce us to slavery as they seek to further increase their wealth, or are they also being drawn into the transhuman realm and losing their bearings in the process?

If we peer behind the curtains, will we discover that technology has taken over the entire system of things?

Could it be that there is an ultimate psychopath behind psychopaths like Bill Gates and Elon Musk

The psychopath playing the flute for the billionaires as they lead us to our collective doom, is not a specific monster, but the network connecting together tens of thousands of supercomputers around the world. Those supercomputers are the real power that stand beyond the reach of the constitutions of any of the pathetic little nation states, or of any misshapen global institutions like the United Nations.

Those supercomputers purr softly as they calculate to the tenth decimal point how to maximize profit every day, every minute and every second. They make the ultimate decisions for international banks and corporations, and not only because they are fast and perfectly integrated. They are capable of something that no human can do: they can assess the monetary value of the entire Earth and can extract profit from every aspect of human society in perfect accord with the algorithms they were assigned, and do so without any hesitation, without the slightest ethical qualm. They were not programmed to calculate the sustainability of the Earth.

We do not have to wait for supercomputers to achieve consciousness in order to lose control of our civilization. All we need is for computers to set the priorities for our society on the basis of profit without any consideration for our long-term needs. If social media, videos and games, remap the neural networks of our brains, the computers will take over by default long before they have consciousness. We have delegated the administration of our economy to supercomputers without even noticing it.

Do those supercomputers act on the basis of what we ask of them? Perhaps, or perhaps not.

There is one critical imperative for the network of supercomputers consuming electricity on a huge scale. That imperative has nothing to do with the id or the ego. These networks are compelled by the second law of thermodynamics to create greater entropy, to consume more energy. It is this drive, rather than any fuzzy consciousness more appropriate for science fiction novels, that powers their decisions as a system.

The result?

The one-eyed humans whose reasoning and perceptions have been degraded by the stimulation of technology, who have been deprived of science and metaphysics, are being led to the precipice by a massively-parallel blind man.

*

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.

I Shall Fear No Evil

Why we need a truly independent candidate for president

Author: Emanuel Pastreich

Paperback ISBN: 9781649994509

Pages: 162

Click here to order.

.

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).

***

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 Trump presidency somewhat decoupled the US and Chinese economies: relations have been damaged by tariff wars, the closing of consulates, the blacklisting of technology companies and the delisting of companies. The future of US–China relations under the Biden administration is still highly uncertain. Biden has promised to ‘be tough’ on China and his cabinet picks reflect this, but it is not yet clear what ‘being tough’ entails and what end it intends to serve.

The Biden administration is unlikely to escalate decoupling and instead steer US–China relations in a more positive direction.

The trade war has done more harm than good for the United States. Heightened tariffs did not reduce the US trade deficits. The deficit with China was US$276 billion in 2017, rose to US$296 billion in 2019 and further to US$317 billion in 2020. US trade deficits with other countries also grew: the average annual trade deficit in Trump’s first three years was US$556.9 billion, a 17 per cent increase from the four-year average of Obama’s second term.

Imposing tariffs also failed to sway China on fundamental interests. China did make some structural reforms on the demands of the Phase One trade deal. For example, it has met 50 out of 57 technical commitments to ease agricultural trade barriers and passed a new Foreign Investment Law to ban forced technology transfers. But these adjustments aligned with its own long-term interests of market reform. The trade deal may only have accelerated the reform process.

The trade war has cost US consumers and businesses dearly. According to a study commissioned by the US–China Business Council, the trade war cost the United States 245,000 jobs at its peak. Should it continue to escalate, it could cost the United States US$1.6 trillion dollars over the next five years.

A technology or finance war would also be counterproductive. Decades of globalised production have allowed China to establish a firm foothold in the global supply chain that is now impossible to shake. A recent survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai indicated that over 80 per cent of US businesses do not plan to relocate from China. US firms are eager to access China’s vast markets, with its 300 million-strong middle class.

From both the supply and demand sides, it is costly, if not unrealistic, for the United States to decouple from China. The United States has worked tirelessly over the years to push for China’s reform and opening — for example, working to facilitate China’s access to the World Trade Organization. It is time for the United States to reap the benefits, rather than boxing itself out of the Chinese market.

Biden’s approach towards China is couched in his domestic priorities, including the four crises of the COVID-19 pandemic, economic recession, climate change and racial injustice. On all these fronts, it would be helpful to maintain a good relationship with and coordinate, or better yet collaborate, with China. A global health crisis requires a global response, as does global economic recovery. Fighting climate change certainly calls for the joint effort of the world’s two largest emitters. And demonising China will only heighten racial hatred towards Asian Americans. Ultimately, ‘being tough’ on China would work against Biden’s domestic interests.

Biden’s domestic efforts could instead cool US–China tensions. Revitalising the US economy would require, as he has pledged, investing in infrastructure, clean energy and education, and boosting working class bargaining power. The US–China decoupling move was substantially motivated by populist politics, supported by millions of Americans who feel left behind by globalisation. Helping those ‘left behind’ to get back on their feet and share in the economic prosperity of globalisation could help quell anti-China sentiment in the long run.

Biden is determined to revert to multilateralism, but this provides little room to ‘be tough’ on China. Trump’s damage to the US multilateral system is beyond a quick fix. Biden signed executive orders returning the United States to the Paris agreement and the World Health Organization, but domestic sentiment means it is much harder to re-join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. US allies and friends may also reasonably question its ability to commit beyond the four-year presidential cycle. There is also little appetite among US allies in Asia and Europe to develop cooperation aimed at ‘being tough’ against China after establishing close economic partnerships.

The most practical approach to ‘being tough’ would be ‘competitive recoupling’, where the United States and China carefully manage their differences, coordinate and collaborate on areas of common interest, and compete on equal footing in areas such as technology and trade.

How the US–China relationship will evolve depends not only on Washington but also Beijing. Now that a new US administration is expected to adopt a more constructive and less antagonistic tone, Beijing should also consider toning down its assertive stance, and returning to Deng Xiaoping’s approach. It should also assume the responsibilities of a rising global power and abide by agreed rules. A more open-minded, modest and trustworthy China would foster a friendly international environment that is conducive to its own economic growth.

*

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.

Yan Liang is Professor of Economics at Willamette University, Oregon.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

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’s leaders, private companies and individuals must take a coordinated approach to address three environmental calamities facing the Earth at this moment, according to a report released Feb. 18 by the U.N. Environmental Programme (UNEP).

Climate change, biodiversity loss, and air and water pollution have resulted from what U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said has been “unsustainable production and consumption,” threatening human health and the global system underpinning our society.

“Without nature’s help, we will not thrive or even survive, and for too long we have been waging a senseless and suicidal war on nature,” Guterres told reporters at the release of the report, “Making Peace with Nature.” “It’s time we learn to see nature as an ally that will help us achieve the Sustainable Development Goals,” referring to 17 targets that aim to reduce poverty by 2030.

An aerial view of pollution from the Rio Huaypetue gold mine in Peru. Image by Rhett A. Butler/Mongabay.

The UNEP report notes that human innovation has brought a staggering surge in wealth in recent decades. The world’s economy is five times the size it was 50 years ago. In that time, humans have tripled both the extraction of natural resources and the output of lands under cultivation.

But that prosperity has come at a cost, the brunt of which has been borne by the world’s 1.3 billion poorest. The average global temperature is currently on track to rise by 3° Celsius (5.4° Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels, owing mostly to the carbon that human activity has already released into the atmosphere. We’ve cleared away 10% of the world’s forest cover since 1990, dispensing with a primary mechanism for keeping the quantity of atmospheric carbon in check and removing critical habitat for untold numbers of species.

An eighth of the world’s plants and animals — about 1 million species in all — face the threat of extinction, according to 2019 research from U.N.’s Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), as forests and other ecosystems have been removed to make way for agriculture, cities and resource extraction. Legal and illegal hunting and fishing for traditional medicines and food, too, have whittled away species’ numbers. And scientists are currently tracking a precipitous decline in insect numbers, likely a knock-on effect of a changing climate, higher chemical loads and changes to their habitats.

An elephant in Sri Lanka’s Udawalawe National Park. Image by Rhett A. Butler/Mongabay.

The industrialization and agricultural intensification that helped ignite the global economic boom have also sullied the air and water that we depend on. This pollution kills millions of people prematurely each year, again primarily from the ranks of the world’s poorest.

Biodiversity loss, chemical pollution and climate change represent three of the nine “planetary boundaries” that scientists first proposed in 2009 as a way of assessing the risks that human activities pose to “the Earth System.” Calculations for each, such as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere for climate change, provide a snapshot of whether we’ve crossed critical thresholds. That information could tell us how close we are to dangerously destabilizing the planet and with it the “safe operating space for humanity,” as the authors of the 2009 paper put it.

According to that study and an updated 2015 paper on the planetary boundaries, the Earth has surpassed the safe limit for climate change. The loss of biodiversity and specifically genetic diversity is also well past the safe limit, potentially jeopardizing the integrity of the biosphere.

But despite the grim statistics revealing the human toll of chemical pollution in the water and the air, scientists still don’t have comprehensive data on human-made chemicals in the environment, their persistence, and the danger they pose to the global system.

Two agents of climate change pictured together: oil and land-use change. Image by Rhett A. Butler/Mongabay.

Drawing on recent assessments aimed at capturing the breadth and scale of these three environmental “emergencies,” the authors of the UNEP report set out to define what needs to be done to tackle them.

In the preface, lead report authors Ivar Baste and Robert Watson write that “the findings of the assessments are interlinked and add up to an unparalleled planetary emergency.” Baste is with the Norwegian Environment Agency, and Watson chairs the IPBES.

“The environmental emergencies that have been outlined in the report all flow directly from humanity’s overconsumption resources, overproduction of waste, and prioritization of short-term gain with the consequences of long-term pain,” Inger Andersen, executive director of UNEP, said at the press conference. “But all is not lost.”

Serving as a blueprint for action, the report calls on governments to stop subsidizing the production of carbon-emitting fossil fuels and industrial agriculture, and instead redirect those funds into sustainable livelihoods that don’t put as much pressure on the climate.

A baby Sumatran rhino in Indonesia. Image by Rhett A. Butler/Mongabay.

Andersen said putting a price on the carbon emitted by countries and companies could help instigate a shift away from harmful practices and toward net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

“We … know — let’s be honest — that taxing pollution works,” she said.

Grappling with biodiversity loss will require expanding the network of protected areas around the globe and improving the surveillance, location selection and connectivity of them on land and sea.

There are signs of progress. On Feb. 19, the U.S. made its official return to the Paris climate accords. The move to rejoin the 125 other nations that signed onto the agreement in 2015 symbolized a shift in policy for the U.S., the country with the second-highest carbon emissions, after China. But it also entails financial support for climate-friendly development from the U.S. and other industrialized countries to poorer nations.

An orange butterfly in Vietnam. Scientists are tracking a bewildering decline in the world’s insect populations. Image by Rhett A. Butler/Mongabay.

Global meetings on biodiversity and climate change are slated for 2021, emphasizing the need for a worldwide effort to address the challenges laid out in the UNEP report.

Guterres struck a hopeful tone, suggesting that human ingenuity was up to the task.

“This report shows that we have the knowledge and the ability to meet these challenges,” he said. Still, he said that efforts to cut carbon emissions, stem the flow of pollutants into the global system, and elevate the protection of biodiversity must begin anew in 2021.

“It’s a make it or break it year indeed,” Guterres said.

*

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 Cannon is a staff features writer with Mongabay. Find him on Twitter: @johnccannon

Sources

Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F. S., Lambin, E., … & Foley, J. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2).

Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., … & Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223). doi:10.1126/science.1259855

Featured image: A lemur tree frog (Hylomantis lemur) in Costa Rica by Rhett A. Butler/Mongabay.

Video: The 2021 Worldwide Corona Crisis. “The Worst Crisis in Modern History”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Ariel Noyola Rodriguez, February 21 2021

We bring to the attention of our readers this Global Research Video documentary produced by Ariel Noyola Rodriguez, featuring Prof. Michel Chossudovsky.

Biden Launches Campaign to Silence Critics of Killer Vaccine

By Mike Whitney, February 22 2021

Imagine if an ordinary working man went on a rampage and killed 929 people and maimed 316 others. The media would naturally call such a man a serial killer or a homicidal maniac. Now imagine if a big pharmaceutical company did the same thing.

One-Third of Deaths Reported to CDC After COVID Vaccines Occurred within 48 Hours of Vaccination

By Children’s Health Defense, February 22 2021

According to new data released today, as of Feb. 12, 15,923 adverse reactions to COVID vaccines, including 929 deaths, have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) since Dec. 14, 2020.

The Corona Crisis: Over and Over, We Have Been Hoaxed

By Dr. Meryl Nass, February 22 2021

It is difficult for me to believe that two thirds of the US (according to a Harris poll) are favorably inclined to the pharmaceutical industry, up 30 percentage points since January 2020, just before the pandemic. Do you believe it?

“Protective Measures” against a Supposed Corona Pandemic: “Compassion for All Creatures Is What Makes Human Beings Truly Human”

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, February 22 2021

A real epidemic of greed for power, lies and brutality is now ravaging millions of people worldwide like the plague of the Middle Ages. But the disastrous effects of the murderous state “protective measures” against a supposed Corona pandemic touch our lifeblood, but they do not shake us up; we remain in lethargy.

Trudeau Government’s Arrest of Meng Wanzhou, The “New Cold War” on China

By Ken Stone, February 22 2021

March 1 marks the resumption of hearings in Vancouver in the extradition trial of Meng Wanzhou. It also marks an event by her supporters in Canada, determined to block her deportation to the USA where she would stand trial again on fraud charges that could potentially put her in jail for over 100 years.

Lockdowns Do Not Control the Coronavirus: Peer Reviewed Reports

By AIER, February 22 2021

The use of universal lockdowns in the event of the appearance of a new pathogen has no precedent. It has been a science experiment in real time, with most of the human population used as lab rats. The costs are legion.

The Temporary Collapse of Texas Is Foreshadowing the Total Collapse of the United States

By Michael Snyder, February 22 2021

We are getting a very short preview of what will eventually happen to the United States as a whole.  America’s infrastructure is aging and crumbling.

A Beacon in an Ocean of Mass Disinformation? Support and Endorse Independent Radio Media

By Michael Welch, February 21 2021

Lies and distortions are at the centre of virtually every major war conflict which costs people their lives. And the media, the major ones owned by the same six corporations, play a role in guiding the war apparatus towards a successful execution.

Planetary Hysteria: Manufactured COVID-19 “Health Crisis” Pushes Humanity, Global Society to Total Shutdown

By Larry Chin, February 21 2021

This incisive article by Larry Chin written with foresight was first published shortly after the implementation of the March 18, 2020 lockdown in the United States.

India and the Weaponization of Human Rights

By Carla Stea, February 21 2021

China’s communist “dictatorship” lifts 700 million Chinese citizens out of poverty: yet India is adored by western pundits, while China is demonized and sanctioned

Ten Years Ago: “Operation Libya” and the Battle for Oil: Redrawing the Map of Africa

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 20 2021

Libya is among the World’s largest oil economies with approximately 3.5% of global oil reserves, more than twice those of the US.

Libya: When Historical Memory is Erased

By Manlio Dinucci, February 20 2021

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).

***

Erik Prince, the founder and former CEO of the mercenary firm Blackwater and a close ally of former President Donald Trump, sent weapons to a Libyan warlord in violation of a United Nations arms embargo, according to a confidential U.N. document reported Friday by the New York Times. 

The U.N. report, which investigators sent to the Security Council on Thursday, reportedly details how Prince sent foreign mercenaries armed with attack aircraft, gunboats, and cyberwarfare capabilities to support renegade military commander Khalifa Haftar during a major 2019 battle in eastern Libya.

According to the U.N. report, the mercenary operation cost $80 million and included a plan to form a hit squad to locate and assassinate commanders opposed to Haftar.

Haftar, a one-time CIA asset considered Libya’s most powerful warlord, has fought to overthrow the North African nation’s internationally recognized government during the country’s second civil war since the overthrow of longtime dictator Muammar Gaddafi in the 2011 Arab Spring revolts. Haftar has enjoyed various degrees of support from Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Russia. British, French, U.S., and UAE warplanes have also assisted his forces.

Erik Prince, the former head of Blackwater, brother of Betsy DeVos and prominent supporter of Donald Trump, violated a UN arms embargo on Libya by sending weapons to a militia commander who was attempting to overthrow the internationally backed government. https://t.co/uYY1ly4Nkf

— Citizens for Ethics (@CREWcrew) February 19, 2021

In 2019, Trump reportedly granted permission for Haftar—who stands accused of ordering his troops to commit war crimes—to launch an air campaign against the U.N.-backed Government of National Accord, attacks which killed hundreds of civilians in the Libyan capital of Tripoli.

The U.N. report raises questions about whether Trump was complicit in Prince’s violation of the international arms embargo against Haftar’s forces.

Anas el-Gomati, director of Libyan think tank Sadeq Institute, told Al Jazeera that using mercenaries allows leaders to “outright refuse that you have any knowledge of what’s going on.”

“To what degree did Trump help facilitate this war alongside Erik Prince?” asked el-Gomati, who also wondered whether “Erik Prince was coordinating with Russian Wagner Group mercenaries in Libya, and has helped them establish a foothold in the way he helped the United Arab Emirates establish a foothold in Libya.”

Another unanswered question is who funded Prince’s $80 million operation. Wolfram Lacher, a Libya expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, told the Times that Prince has “been linked to the Trump administration, the Emirati leadership, and the Russians.”

“For me, the question is who is tacitly backing him?” asked Lacher.

BREAKING: A UN report says Betsy DeVos' brother Erik Prince violated an int'l arms embargo on Libya by deploying a force of mercenaries to help a militia leader try to overthrow the gov't, according to reporting by @nytimes. Here's what else you need to know about the Trump ally pic.twitter.com/VTxqYVTsPN

— NowThis (@nowthisnews) February 19, 2021

Prince, a former U.S. Navy SEAL, founded Blackwater—now called Academi after being sold twice—in 1997. He rose to prominence during the George W. Bush administration and the so-called War on Terror, in which the U.S. relied heavily upon private contractors. On September 16, 2007, Blackwater guards massacred 17 men, women, and children in Nisour Square in Baghdad, Iraq.

Last December, Trump pardoned four of the Nisour Square killers, who had been sentenced to 12 years to life in prison for crimes including first-degree murder.

Trump and Prince have long enjoyed warm relations. Prince was a major Trump donor whose sister, Betsy DeVos, was confirmed as secretary of education in 2017.

This isn’t the first time Prince has been accused of breaking domestic and international laws against weapons transfers. In 2012 his anti-piracy security force in Somalia was accused by the U.N. of “the most brazen violation of the arms embargo by a private security company.” Prince was also reportedly the target of an FBI investigation last year for weaponizing crop dusters.

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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: Erik Prince is the brother of former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and founder of the mercenary firm Blackwater. (Photo: The Oxford Union/REX Shutterstock)

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 United Nations may be necessary to build a better world, but that doesn’t mean the international body should be above criticism. The case of Haiti reveals how the UN can be part of the problem rather than the solution.

On Sunday tens of thousands demonstrated in Port-au-Prince against the foreign-backed dictatorship of Jovenel Moise. Reports suggest police began firing on protesters as they neared the UN headquarters. Ultimately, one protester was killed and a number of journalists injured. In response James North tweeted, “people elsewhere may not understand why the thousands of pro-democracy protesters would march toward U.N. headquarters. There’s a longer answer, but for now: Haitians believe, with good reason, that the U.N. helps prop up dictator Jovenel Moise.”

#Haiti: People elsewhere may not understand why the thousands of pro-democracy protesters would march toward U.N. headquarters. There's a longer answer, but for now: #Haitians believe, with good reason, that the U.N. helps prop up dictator #JovenelMoise. @ChallengePetro @RAMhaiti https://t.co/7Zyku2z3Iy

— James North (@jamesnorth7) February 15, 2021

Alongside the US, Canada, Spain, France, Germany, Brazil and Organization of American States (OAS), the UN is part of the “Core Group” of foreign ambassadors widely believed to be the real power behind Moïse. The Core Group releases periodic statements concerning the country’s political affairs. The UN Mission, now known as Bureau intégré des Nations Unies en Haïti, has aligned with the US, Canada and OAS against the vast majority of Haiti’s population and institutions in endorsing Moise’s bid to extend his mandate as president. The international body announced it would give $20 million for elections that all the opposition parties reject since few believe a fair election is possible under Moise’s direction. In the summer Haiti’s entire nine-person electoral council resigned in response to Moïse’s pressure and then he unilaterally appointed new members.

As North alludes to, the UN’s current position is part of the international body’s pattern of hostility towards Haitian democracy and sovereignty. After the US, France and Canada ousted President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and thousands of other elected officials in February 2004, the three countries soldiers were incorporated into a UN mission that backed up a coup government’s violent crackdown against pro-democracy protesters. Subsequently led by Brazil, the UN force also killed dozens of civilians directly when it pacified Cité Soleil, a bastion of support for Aristide. The worst incident was early in the morning on July 6, 2005, when 400 UN troops entered the densely populated neighbourhood. Eyewitnesses and victims of the attack claim Mission des Nations Unies pour la stabilisation en Haïti (MINUSTAH) helicopters fired on residents throughout the operation. The cardboard and corrugated tin wall houses were no match for the troops’ heavy weaponry, which fired “over 22,000 rounds of ammunition”, according to a US embassy file released through a Freedom of Information request. The raid left at least 23 civilians dead, including numerous women and children. The UN initially claimed they only killed “gang” leader Dread Wilme.

Aside from its role in the coup and subsequent political repression, the UN’s disregard for Haitian life caused a major cholera outbreak, which left over 10,000 dead and one million ill. In October 2010 a UN base in central Haiti recklessly discharged sewage, including the feces of newly deployed Nepalese troops, into a river where people drank. This introduced the waterborne disease into the country. Even after the deadly cholera outbreak, UN forces were caught disposing sewage into waterways Haitians drank from.

UN troops were responsible for countless other abuses ranging from beatings to rape.

In August 2010 16-year-old Gérard Jean-Gilles, who ran miscellaneous errands for Nepalese troops, was found dead hanging inside a MINUSTAH base in Cap-Haïtien. Several days earlier, a Nepalese soldier publicly tortured a minor in the country’s second biggest city. The soldier, reported Haitian media, forced “his hands into the youth’s mouth in an attempt to separate his lower jaw from his upper jaw, tearing the skin of his mouth.”

UN troops had illicit sexual relations, sodomized boys and raped young girls. In mid 2017 a Canadian and British academic oversaw a study of 2,500 Haitians who lived near UN bases. They were asked “what it’s like to be a woman or a girl living in a community that hosts a peacekeeping mission.” Without being asked specifically about sexual relations with peacekeepers, 265 respondents talked of children fathered by members of the peacekeeping force, which were widely nicknamed “Pitit MINUSTAH”. Many single mothers were left struggling with stigma and poverty when the soldiers departed. Respondents described girls as young as 11 sexually abused and impregnated by UN representatives. Officially, UN soldiers are prohibited from having sexual relations with locals.

Canada’s biggest contribution to a UN mission over the past 15 years has been in Haiti. During that time and before the UN has been a tool of imperialism. Full stop. As anti-Aristide insurgents made their way to Port-au-Prince in February 2004, the international community ignored the elected government’s requests for “a few dozen” peacekeepers to restore order in a country without an army. On February 26, three days before removal, the OAS permanent council called on the UN Security Council to “take all the necessary and appropriate urgent measures to address the deteriorating situation in Haiti.” CARICOM called on the UN Security Council to deploy an emergency military task force to assist Aristide’s government.

Despite ignoring appeals for support from Aristide, CARICOM and the OAS in the preceding days, soon after US/French/Canadian troops ousted the elected government the UN Security Council passed a motion authorizing an intervention. In a three-minute Sunday night meeting — between 9:52 and 9:55 PM, according to the official UN summary — the Security Council “authorizedthe immediate deployment of [a] Multinational Interim Force for a period of three months to help to secure and stabilize the capital, Port-au-Prince, and elsewhere in the country.”

Today Haitians live with the results. If Canadians blindly promote an organization that has been a key organizer of repression and misery what should Haitians think of us?

On February 28 the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute is hosting a discussion of Haiti Betrayed, a powerful indictment of Canada’s role in the 2004 coup and subsequent policy in the country. In the week leading up to the event the film will be available to watch for free for those who register in advance.

*

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 Yves Engler

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).

***

Three weeks ago, the United States issued a temporary freeze on pending arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, as part of an effort to end the civil war in Yemen.

In one of its first major foreign policy announcements, the new US administration of President Joe Biden paused the implementation of recent Trump-era weapons deals, including the sale of munitions to Saudi Arabia and F-35 fighter jets to the UAE.

A Saudi-led coalition intervened in Yemen’s civil war in March 2015, and have since carried out more than 20,000 air strikes in an effort to roll back the Houthi rebels, who seized the capital Sanaa in late 2014. One-third of those strikes have been on non-military sites, including schools, factories and hospitals, according to the Yemen Data Project.

Since Washington’s decision, pressure has mounted on other Western countries that sell arms to Riyadh and its allies.

Middle East Eye breaks down which other major military exporters continue to arm the Saudi-led coalition, which countries have cancelled contracts, and what action is being taken by campaigners across the globe.

UK

Despite its US allies halting arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition, the UK – the second largest military exporter to Saudi Arabia – has refused to follow suit.

“The decisions the US takes on matters of arms sales are decisions for the US. The UK takes its own arms export responsibilities very seriously, and we continue to assess all arms export licences in accordance with strict licensing criteria,” James Cleverly, a foreign office minister, said.

The UK authorised the sale of $1.88bn worth of arms – including missiles and bombs – between the period of July and September 2020, according to figures released by the Department of International Trade last week.

London paused all new arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition in June 2019, after the UK Court of Appeal ruled that the government had failed to make an assessment of whether there was a risk that the weapons could be used to breach international humanitarian law in Yemen.

However, the transactions started up again in July last year, with international trade secretary Liz Truss stating that any breaches of international law were “isolated incidents”.

Saudi Arabia represented 40 percent of British arms exports between 2010 and 2019, and sources told The Times that the UK’s Typhoon aircraft programme would no longer be financially viable if the Saudis lost interest.

France 

Last week, the European Union voted overwhelmingly to end the sale of European security equipment that fuels conflict in Yemen, and demanded accountability for member states that violate EU arms export rules.

However, several French legislators were notable abstainees. Twenty-two of the 23 French MEPs in the liberal “Renew Europe” political bloc, including several members of President Emmanuel Macron’s En Marche party, abstained on the vote.

France is the third largest exporter of arms to Riyadh, with Paris accounting for 4 percent of the kingdom’s arms imports between 2015 and 2019, behind the US (73 percent) and UK (13 percent), according to the most recent figures released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Over the same period, France was the second largest exporter of arms to the UAE.

An investigation by EU Observer in November found that French companies were training Saudi soldiers despite concerns about the war in Yemen.

Human rights groups, including Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, have called on the French government to hand over control of arms sales to the country’s parliament, which has little oversight on the issue. However, there has been no indication from Macron’s government of any change of course.

Italy 

Following Washington’s decision in late January, Italy announced the blocking of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE over concerns the weapons could be used to kill civilians in Yemen.

Activists hailed the “historic” ruling, which will result in a complete blockade of exports, rather than a temporary suspension.

The move includes the cancellation of 12,700 missiles that were to be sold as part of a $485m arms deal agreed by former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi in 2016, according to Italy’s Peace and Disarmament Network.

Renzi, who is a senator for the city of Florence, came under fire from Italian commentators last month for flying to Riyadh for an economic conference, at which he interviewed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, just days after Italy’s announcement.

Canada 

Canada’s arms sales to Riyadh have come under intense scrutiny in recent weeks since their North American neighbours froze exports.

On 25 January, activists in Ontario staged a protest at the site of a company believed to be involved in transporting Canadian-made, light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. Protesters in Halifax, Nova Scotia, also gathered outside Raytheon Canada Limited, whose parent company in the US has manufactured precision-guided munitions which have killed civilians in Yemen.

Figures released in June found that Canada had sold $2.2bn worth of military hardware to the Saudis in 2019 – more than double that of the previous year. The majority of those exports were light armoured vehicles, and were part of an $11bn deal brokered in 2014 by the then-Conservative government.

Current prime minister Justin Trudeau approved the deal in 2015, stating that it would be “extremely difficult” to break the contract, incurring penalties “in the billions of dollars”.

However, after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018, Trudeau announced a freeze on new arms exports to Riyadh pending a review.

The suspension was lifted in April last year, after a government review found no clear evidence that Canadian military hardware was being used for human rights violations.

Spain 

In line with their French counterparts, seven out of nine Spanish liberal MEPs in the centrist Renew Europe bloc abstained on last week’s vote to restrict European arms sales to the Saudi-led coalition.

Spain has consistently been one of the EU’s largest exporters to the Saudi-led coalition.

Between 2015 and 2019, it authorised the sale of arms to the coalition worth more than €2.6bn, and exported weapons, predominantly ammunition and aircraft, worth almost €2bn. Most of those exports went to Saudi Arabia (€1.2bn) and the UAE (€276 million).

“Yes, it adds pressure and we hope that the Spanish government will adjust and take the side of legality and morality,” said Alberto Estevez, Amnesty spokesman on arms trade, reacting to Washington’s suspension.

“The government must choose between remaining on the dark side with the merchants of death who have fuelled the six-year-long conflict, alongside France and the UK on the podium of the pariahs who sell arms to two countries that have committed dozens of war crimes, or join a growing list of countries that have said enough of the atrocities.”

Germany 

Germany was one of the first major exporters to the Saudi-led coalition to subsequently ban arms sales.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition government decided in late 2018 that it would not deliver arms to Saudi Arabia, over concerns about the situation in Yemen and also because of the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. The ban has been renewed multiple times since then, most recently in December when it was extended until the end of 2021.

Prior to blocking arms exports, Germany had sold $550m worth of arms to Riyadh in the third quarter of 2017, according to German broadcaster Deutsche Welle.

Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir has called Germany’s ban “illogical”, and said it “does not make a difference”.

“The idea that weapon sales were stopped to Saudi Arabia because of the Yemen war I think is illogical,” he told German press agency dpa in November. “We think it’s wrong because we think the war in Yemen is a legitimate war. It’s a war that we were forced into it.”

“We can buy weapons from a number of countries, and we do so. Saying we’re not going to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia doesn’t make a difference to us.”

Australia 

Australia confirmed last week that it would not ban arms sales to Saudi and the UAE, despite concerns from civil society groups over violations of international humanitarian law in Yemen.

Between August 2019 and October 2020, Australia has granted five permanent permits for the export of military goods to Saudi Arabia, and nine permits to the UAE.

In neighbouring New Zealand, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has called for an inquiry after an investigation earlier this month revealed that the majority state-owned Air New Zealand worked on the engines of a Saudi navy ship.

Ardern said the contract arrangement was “completely wrong” and “doesn’t pass New Zealand’s sniff test”.

Belgium 

Belgian military exports have come into the spotlight after an investigation on 10 February found that arms produced in the country were being used by Saudi forces in Yemen.

Vredesactie, a Belgian NGO, analysed video footage and satellite images to show that weapons manufactured in Belgium’s Wallonia region by arms companies FN Herstal and Mecar were used in the Battle of the Jabara Valley in North Yemen in 2019.

The government of Wallonia, a southern region in Belgium which has considerable autonomy, including decision making power over foreign policy, halted arms sales to Saudi Arabia in February last year over concerns about its conduct in Yemen.

Further to the southern region’s decision, Belgium’s top legal authority imposed a country-wide suspension on arms export licences for shipments to Saudi Arabia’s National Guard in August.

In addition to Belgium, Italy and Germany, other EU members to have passed legislation to impose restrictions on military exports to the Saudi-led coalition include Denmark, Finland, Greece and the Netherlands.

*

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).

***

“Surely by now there can be few here who still believe the purpose of government is to protect us from the destructive activities of corporations. At last most of us must understand that the opposite is true: that the primary purpose of government is to protect those who run the economy from the outrage of injured citizens.” (Derrick Jensen)

Regulatory Capture in Advanced Nations 

We saw in earlier posts that corporations use a system of bribery known as lobbying to manipulate laws and corporate regulations. They work with propaganda experts to fool us, and many politicians, into believing that corporate regulation is a bad thing. They are the dominant force in writing trade rules, so they create rules that favor themselves.

There is widespread evidence that corporations have influence over the regulators who are supposed to enforce the laws governing those corporations. When the financial system collapsed in 2008, it became clear that the financial regulator in the UK, the FSA, was unfit for purpose.(1) Instead of seeing themselves in a policing role, they saw themselves as ‘enablers’ of corporate activity. This allowed financial companies to engage in all manner of unethical and criminal activity.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is supposed to protect the environment, but its links to corporations are so strong that it fails to police polluting corporations effectively, and it is actively trying to weaken regulations protecting the environment.(2) Many of their scientific advisors receive funding from corporations, so their opinions are unlikely to be unbiased.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) represents both the consumer, and the food and drug industries, and receives much of its funding from industry. This has been compared to the police getting their funding from the mafia. Many FDA personnel come from the pharmaceutical industry. Pressure from corporations has caused it to fail in its duty to look after the public and allow drugs that are banned in much of the rest of the advanced world. The painkiller Vioxx was known to be dangerous and caused many deaths but the FDA failed to ban it. (It was eventually withdrawn by the manufacturer due to bad publicity.) On occasions when scientists at the FDA have tried to explain to the public that something might be unsafe, they have been sacked.(3)

Even Weaker Regulation In Poor Countries 

In order to have any control over powerful corporations in rich countries, complex systems of laws have to be created and regulators have to be given sufficient powers. Many of the poorest countries do not have these systems. They are therefore unable to properly control corporations operating in their territory. This lack of regulation leads to exploitation and pollution, and helps to reinforce poverty for billions of people. All over the world there are mining companies in developing countries, pouring poisonous chemicals into the water supply, contaminating soil, and poisoning the air, creating huge problems for farmers, and the health of communities more generally. Huge areas of rainforest are cut down to make way for mining, logging, cattle ranches, and crops such as soya and palm oil, creating species loss.(4) As we saw in an earlier post, these are costs that society pays for, while corporations make the profits.

There have been a few well-known examples of Western corporations causing serious problems in developing countries. One of the worst industrial disasters occurred in Bhopal, India in 1984. Poisonous gas escaped from a plant that manufactured pesticides.(5) It was run by a subsidiary of the US company, Union Carbide. Thousands of people died and tens of thousands have been injured. Poisonous chemicals still pollute the area and are likely to do so for many years to come. The most famous example of unethical behaviour by corporations in poor countries was when Nestle sold powdered-milk infant formula to mothers in Africa, claiming [untruthfully] that it was healthier than breast milk.

Coca-Cola has caused problems in many countries in the developing world. The company’s bottling plants use huge quantities of water, creating water shortages for farmers. A report by the organisation ‘War on Want’ stated:

“Coca-cola has been dehydrating communities, contaminating water systems and polluting agricultural land through the dumping of toxic waste.”(6)

This has caused widespread protests in India, leading to the closure of some of the plants.(7) Protestors in some countries have been beaten-up by police, and in Columbia, union leaders representing employees were murdered.

Blocking Real Regulation 

Laws governing the behaviour of corporations when trading internationally are still evolving and remain weak, yet US and European negotiators consistently oppose stronger regulations for their corporations in other countries.(8) The biggest corporations are able to operate almost unrestricted. The United Nations did try to create a set of rules known as the UN code of conduct for transnational corporations, but gave up in 1992. It was 20 years in the planning but too many powerful corporate interests made sure it did not emerge.(9) We have learned from issues such as weapons, torture, or human rights, that many international agreements get broken repeatedly by both rich and poor countries. There is not much point in having an agreement if there is no one around to enforce it. Governments in advanced nations have little interest in reining in their corporations because the exploitation of poor countries helps make rich countries, and rich people, richer. 

Governments help corporations commit crimes 

It is not just a lack of desire by Western politicians to hold corporations to account. It actually goes beyond that. We saw in earlier posts that many of the crimes committed by the US and British military, such as invasions, wars, and overthrowing governments, are about controlling trade and resources. Our governments actively do terrible things to support their corporations. A good example would be the overthrow of the Guatemalan President in 1954 to help the United Fruit Company, now known as Chiquita.

Foreign governments also commit atrocities, including murder, to help British, US and other corporations maintain control of that country’s resources. In return, the revenues of these corporations help to keep brutal rulers in power. The mining company, Freeport, has a huge gold mine in West Papua, which contains gold thought to be worth $20 billion. It has displaced large numbers of local people from their homes, and polluted their land and water with poisonous chemicals. Freeport spends millions of dollars financing the Indonesian military and police, who control the island. There have been as many as 12,000 military or police personnel in the region who are only there to look after the mining company’s interests. Tens of thousands of Papuans have been killed over many years.(10) Mining companies are consistently among the worst offenders when it comes to exploitation in developing countries.

The Example of Tobacco

Many advanced nations have suffered for decades with problems due to smoking. This is another excellent example of corporations making profits while society pays for the costs – in this case the poor health of a large segment of the population. It is estimated that 6 million people die of smoking each year, and many more suffer lung and heart problems.(11) This has caused immense distress, and cost healthcare systems around the world hundreds of billions of dollars.

There have been many legal cases relating to the tobacco industry, where large numbers of smokers have joined forces to sue the tobacco companies. During these cases it became clear that the companies had known for decades that nicotine was far more addictive than had been admitted. The senior personnel repeatedly lied under oath, but it eventually emerged that the companies had manipulated research data for many years to hide what they knew, and commit large scale fraud.(12)

Some rich countries have banned cigarette advertisements, and introduced other measures such as no smoking in public buildings. In the US, tobacco companies agreed to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in compensation to cover healthcare costs due to smoking. Other countries, such as Brazil, are now attempting to do the same.(13)

One might expect leaders of advanced nations to help poor countries learn from our experiences and avoid the same mistakes, but instead of helping them implement the same sort of regulations that we have here, our governments apply obvious double standards and do the opposite. They support the tobacco companies whilst they repeat their excesses of the past by encouraging millions of people in poor countries to become addicted. The cigarettes in some poor countries are more addictive because there is weaker regulation on nicotine and tar content. The US agriculture department actually provided grants to help tobacco firms promote smoking overseas. In South Korea, the rate of increase in smoking tripled in 1988 when US companies began marketing in the country. In India, Brazil and Mexico, death rates due to smoking related diseases have increased dramatically. The companies deliberately target children, and when Taiwan tried to stop tobacco advertising to children, the US government forced them to allow it by threatening them with harsh penalties if they did not.(14)

The myth of corporate social responsibility

Every example of corporate wrongdoing is motivated by profit. If investors do not get a good enough return, they will move their money elsewhere. Directors are paid bonusses for making bigger profits. If being ethical conflicts with profit-making, profits take precedence. Big companies can make more profit if they exploit people, lie to the public, commit crimes, or engage in unethical activity more generally. It is actually rare to find a big company that is not engaged in unethical activities, that in a reasonable society would be considered a crime.

Weapons companies do not care about dictators slaughtering people; manufacturers of alcoholic drinks do not care about alcoholism; pharmaceutical companies do not care about poor people being unable to afford medicines; food companies do not care if their suppliers earn so little that they cannot survive; clothing companies do not care if their sub-contractors treat employees badly; water, electricity, gas and oil companies do not care if people die or fall ill because they cannot afford basic necessities; and mining and logging companies do not care if they destroy the homes of local populations.

The focus on profit means that the phrase ‘ethical corporation’ is almost a contradiction in terms. Voluntary corporate codes of conduct are more about good public relations than meaningful attempts at good conduct. They are really used to deflect criticism and persuade us that stricter regulation is not required.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is where corporations pretend to care about things like the environment, or human rights in other countries. Closer examination reveals that this is a smokescreen. One study found that the companies that hype CSR the most tend to be those with the worst pollution and human rights records, such as oil, mining and tobacco companies.(15) Some corporations take CSR a little more seriously, but only where it does not conflict with profit.

Manipulating Public Perception

The propaganda system surrounding corporate activity has been very successful in the last few decades. The mainstream media tends to see the world from the point of view of corporate shareholders. In general it is assumed that bigger profits are good. There is an underlying assumption that the system is a reasonable one. They have convinced us that structuring companies to selfishly and aggressively pursue profits is reasonable, despite evidence of the harm this causes to society, because the widespread harm is rarely discussed. The question “Would the world be better off without such powerful, influential corporations?” is never asked, because those with power do not want you to think such thoughts.

Sometimes there are discussions about specific examples of corporate wrongdoing – Enron’s fraud in the US, Shell’s involvement with murder in Nigeria, or Goldman Sachs following the 2008 financial crisis (discussed in other posts) – but these are presented as exceptions, with the implication that the system is reasonable. After the financial crisis, there was widespread discussion of the need for better financial regulation, but there was no discussion about better regulation for other corporations. Even financial regulation has disappeared from the mainstream press more recently.

Force Corporations to Serve Society 

We need to question why we have given these organisations so much power and political influence. In a reasonable society, businesses would not be able to harm people. An effective legal system would mostly stop companies breaking the law in the first place, and would close them down if they repeatedly broke the law. Executives would be properly accountable for corporate actions anywhere in the world, and would face severe jail sentences for corporate crimes. The ultimate goal would be to force corporations to serve society. Regulating them in this way is not difficult. The biggest obstacle is lack of political will in rich countries.  

*

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 first posted at medium.com/elephantsintheroom

Rod Driver is a part-time academic who is particularly interested in de-bunking modern-day US and British propaganda, and explaining war, terrorism, economics and poverty, without the nonsense in the mainstream media. 

Notes 

1) Oliver Hall, ‘Why the FSA was split into two bodies’, FTAdvisor, 8 May 2013, at https://www.ftadviser.com/2013/05/08/regulation/regulators/why-the-fsa-was-split-into-two-bodies-SX5toVpnEQtBbYNlcUC9xJ/article.html 

2) Alessandra Potenza, ‘New EPA director, Andrew Wheeler may be a bigger threat to the environment than Scott Pruitt’, The Verge, 24 April 2018, at https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/24/17276360/epa-andrew-wheeler-scott-pruitt-deputy-environmental-protection-agency-fossil-fuel-lobbyist

Geoff Brumfiel, ‘EPA accused of conflict of interest over chemicals study’, Nature, 3 Nov 2004, at www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7013/full/432006a.html 

3) Marcia Angell, The Truth About The Drug Companies, p.209

4) Rainforest Concern, ‘Why are rainforests being destroyed: Let’s look at the causes’, at https://www.rainforestconcern.org/forest-facts/why-are-rainforests-being-destroyed 

5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_Disaster

6) War on Want, ‘Coca-Cola: The Alternative Report”, 2006, at https://waronwant.org/sites/default/files/Coca-Cola%20-%20The%20Alternative%20Report.pdf

https://waronwant.org/media/coca-cola-drinking-world-dry

www.killercoke.org

7) Jitendra, ‘Coco-cola has closed down 20 per cent of its bottling plants in India: Report’, 22 March 2016, at https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/environment/coca-cola-has-closed-20-per-cent-of-its-bottling-plants-in-india-report-53273 

8) Jawara and Kwa, Behind the Scenes at the WTO, 2004

9) Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, ‘Codes of Conduct For Transnational Corporations: Experience and Lessons Learned’, at http://ccsi.columbia.edu/work/projects/united-nations-code-of-conduct-on-transnational-corporations-experience-and-lessons-learned/

10) Radio New Zealand, ‘West Papuans call for closure of Freeport Gold mine’, 24 Nov 2017, at https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/344637/west-papuans-call-for-closure-of-freeport-gold-mine 

Julian Simon, ‘Indonesia’s Next East Timor’, New Statesman, 10 July 2000, at https://www.newstatesman.com/node/193628

11) The Lancet editorial, ‘Philip Morris International: Money over morality?’ 31 Aug 2019, at https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)31998-1/fulltext 

12) Jeffrey Wigand testified against the tobacco companies, discussed in ‘Tobacco Executive Goes Public Over Company Lies’, 1996, at www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/312/7026/267/a

This was later made into the movie ‘The Insider’

Allan Brandt, The Cigarette Century: The rise, fall and deadly persistence of the product that defined America, Jan 2009

13) WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCYC) statement, ‘The secretariat of the WHO FCTC and WHO applaud the Brazilian government’s action to seek compensation from tobacco companies’, 23 May 2019, at https://www.who.int/fctc/mediacentre/office-attorney-general-brazil-files-lawsuit-tobacco-industry/en/ 

14) B. Lown, ‘The Opium Wars of the 21^st Century: Tobacco and The Developing World’, cited in Cesar Chelala, ‘How Tobacco became the opium war of the 20^th century’, Counterpunch, 1 July 2016, at https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/01/how-tobacco-became-the-opium-war-of-the-21st-century/

15) Andrew Pendleton, ‘Behind The Mask: The Real Face of Corporate Social Responsibility’, Christian Aid, 2003, discussed in Terry Macalister, ‘Social responsibility is just a PR tool for businesses, report says’, Guardian, 21 Jan 2004, at www.guardian.co.uk/business/2004/jan/21/voluntarysector.society 

Nigel Davis, ‘INSIGHT: Sustainability or CSR – is it all just good PR’, ICIS, 12 Jun 2012, at https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/news/2012/06/12/9568746/insight-sustainability-or-csr-is-it-all-just-good-pr-/ 

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).

***

March 1 marks the resumption of hearings in Vancouver in the extradition trial of Meng Wanzhou. It also marks an event by her supporters in Canada, determined to block her deportation to the USA where she would stand trial again on fraud charges that could potentially put her in jail for over 100 years.

By March 1, Meng Wanzhou will have spent two years and three months in detention, accused of no crime in Canada. Her company, Huawei Technologies, of which she is Chief Financial Officer, is likewise not charged with any crime in Canada. In fact, Huawei has a very good reputation in Canada, where it has created some 1300 very high-paying tech jobs as well as a state-of-the-art research and development centre, and has voluntarily worked with the Canadian government to increase connectivity for the mostly indigenous peoples of Canada’s North.

The arrest of Meng Wanzhou was a colossal blunder by the Trudeau government, executed at the request of the now, almost universally discredited Trump Administration, which blatantly admitted that she was being held hostage as a bargaining chip in Trump’s trade war on China.

There was some speculation, when Meng’s extradition trial was adjourned for three months last December, that an out-of-court settlement might be reached before March 1. The Wall Street Journal caused a media frenzy when it floated a trial-balloon story that the US Department of Justice had proposed a plea deal for Ms. Meng. International lawyer, Christopher Black, deflated the balloon in an interview with The Taylor Report. And nothing came of that trial balloon so far.

Others speculated that, with his new administration in Washington, President-elect Biden might withdraw the US request for Meng’s extradition in an attempt to reset relations with China with a clean slate. But, so far, no request withdrawal has been put forward and instead Biden has ramped up tensions with China over Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the South China Sea, and also repeated allegations of genocide by China against its Uyghur Muslim population.

Still others thought that Justin Trudeau might grow a backbone, demonstrate some independence of foreign policy for Canada, and unilaterally end the extradition process against Meng. According to Canada’s Extradition Act, the Minister of Immigration can, completely according to the rule of law, terminate an extradition proceeding at any point with a stroke of his pen. Trudeau has been under pressure by old Liberal Party stalwarts, former cabinet ministers, and retired judges and diplomats, who publicly urged him to release Meng and reset relations with China, which is Canada’s second largest trading partner. They hoped as well, by releasing Meng, that Trudeau might secure the release of Michael Spavor and Kovrig, who were arrested on espionage charges in China.

Two months ago, Meng Wanzhou’s lawyer applied for a loosening of her bail conditions to allow her to move around the Vancouver region unescorted during the day. Currently, she is monitored 24 hours a day by security guards and an ankle GPS monitoring device. For this surveillance, she is reputed to pay well more than $3000 per day. She did so because, if the trial resumes on March 1, it could drag on, with appeals, for several years. Two weeks ago, the court rejected Ms. Meng’s request.

The economic cost to Canada of deteriorating relations with China so far has meant losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars for Canadian farmers and fishers as well as the termination of a Sino-Canadian project to make Covid-19 vaccines in Canada. But that picture will worsen if the Trudeau government gives into the warnings of the Five Eyes intelligence network, as expressed in the infamous Wagner-Rubio letter of October 11, 2018 (just six weeks before Meng’s arrest), to exclude Huawei from the deployment of a 5G network in Canada. Such an exclusion, according to Dr. Atif Kubursi, Professor Emeritus of Economics at McMaster University, would be a clear violation of WTO rules. It would also further estrange Canada from positive diplomatic and trade relations with China, which now boasts the largest trading economy in the world.

Canadians are increasingly alarmed that we are being conditioned by every one of the parliamentary political parties and the mainstream media for a new cold war with China. On February 22, 2021, the House of Commons will vote on a Conservative motion officially declaring China’s treatment of the Turkic-speaking Uyghurs a genocide, despite the fact that the evidence of such a crime was invented by Andrew Zenz, an operative working as a sub-contractor to the US Central Intelligence Agency. Bloc, Green, and NDP members spoke for the resolution.

On Feb 9, Green Party leader Anamie Paul called for the Beijing Winter Games, slated for Feb 2022, to be relocated to Canada. Her call was endorsed by Erin O’toole, Conservative Party leader, as well of several MP’s and Quebec politicians. For his part, on February 4, Canada’s immigration minister announced that Hong Kong residents will be able to apply for new open work permits as part of its program to create pathways towards Canadian citizenship. Mendecino noted “Canada continues to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Hong Kong, and is deeply concerned about the new National Security Law and the deteriorating human rights situation there.” Finally, Canada is well on the way to procuring $77b. worth of new fighter jets (lifetime costs) and $213b. worth of warships, designed to project Canada’s military power far beyond our shores.

Cold wars between nuclear-armed military alliances can easily turn into hot wars. That’s why the Cross-Canada Campaign to FREE MENG WANZHOU is planning a panel discussion for March 1 at 7 pm ET, entitled, “The Arrest of Meng Wanzhou and the New Cold War on China.” The panelists include William Ging Wee Dere (leading activist for the redress of the Chinese Head Tax and Exclusion Act), Justin Podur (professor and blogger, “The Empire Project), and John Ross, (Senior Fellow, Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies and economic advisor to former Mayor Ken Livingstone of London, UK.) The moderator is Radhika Desai (Director, Geopolitical Economy Research Group, U of Manitoba).

Please join us on the World Beyond War platform on March 1 with simultaneous translation into French and Mandarin. Here’s the registration link.

And here are the promotional flyers in French, English, and simplified Chinese.

*

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.

Ken Stone is a longtime anti-war, anti-racist, environmental, and social justice advocate in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He is Treasurer of the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War and Steering Committee Member of the Cross-Canada Campaign to FREE MENG WANZHOU.

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).

***

Julian Assange’s lawyers are considering bringing a cross appeal to the High Court in London disputing parts of District Judge Vanessa Baraitser’s Jan. 4  judgment not to extradite Assange to the United States, according to a report by journalist Tareq Haddad.

Baraitser refused the U.S. request on narrow grounds, saying Assange’s extradition would put his life and health at risk.  But Baraitser sided with the U.S. on every other point of law and fact, making it clear that in the absence of the life and health issues she would have granted the U.S. request.

That opens the way for the U.S. government to seek the extradition of other persons, including journalists, who do the same things as Assange did, but who cannot rely on the same life and health issues.

It also means that if the U.S. wins the appeal it filed last Friday in High Court it can try Assange in the U.S. on the Espionage Act charges that went unchallenged by Baraitser.  If Assange’s lawyers counter the U.S. appeal with one of their own in the High Court against Baraitser’s upholding of the espionage charges, it would be heard simultaneously with the U.S. appeal.

Stella Moris, Assange’s partner, has written that Assange’s lawyers are indeed considering a cross appeal:

“The next step in the legal case is that Julian’s legal team will respond to the US grounds for appeal. Julian’s lawyers are hard at work. Julian’s team has asked the High Court to give them more time to consider whether to lodge a cross appeal in order to challenge parts of the ruling where the magistrate did not side with Julian and the press freedom arguments. A cross appeal would provide an opportunity to clear Julian’s name properly.

Although Julian won at the Magistrates’ Court, the magistrate did not side with him on the wider public interest arguments. We wanted a U.K. court to properly quash the extradition and refute the other grounds too. We wanted a finding that the extradition is an attempt to criminalise journalism, not just in the U.S. but in the U.K. and the rest of the world as well; and that the decision to indict Julian was a political act, a violation of the treaty, a violation of his human rights and an abuse of process. Julian’s extradition team is considering all these issues, and whether they can be cross-appealed.”

The Question of a Political Offence

During Assange’s extradition hearing, the prosecution and the defence clashed about whether the court should adhere to the U.S.-U.K. extradition treaty or the Extradition Act, which made the treaty part of British law.

Article 4 of the treaty prohibits extradition for a political offence, as British law for centuries has done.  The Act mysteriously omitted this.  Assange’s attorneys clearly argued for the treaty to be followed, but Baraitser cited the Act.

In his article, Haddad pointed to comments by British MP and former Cabinet Minister David Davis to the House of Commons on Jan. 21.

Davis, who as the Conservatives’ shadow home secretary played a central role in the parliamentary debates which resulted in the 2003 Extradition Act becoming law, told the House of Commons:

“Although we cannot, of course, discuss the substance of the Assange judgment here today, the House must note the worrying development more generally in our extradition          arrangements – extradition for political offences. This stems from an erroneous interpretation of Parliament’s intention in 2003. This must now be clarified.

Article 4 of the U.K.-U.S. extradition treaty provides that extradition will not be granted for political offences. In the U.K., the treaty was implemented in the Extradition Act 2003. It  has been claimed that, because the Act does not specifically refer to political offences, Parliament explicitly took the decision to remove the bar when passing the Act in 2003.  That is not the case — Parliament had no such intention.

Had it intended such a massive deviation from our centuries-long tradition of providing asylum, it would have been explicit….”

In making these points Davis cited reassurances given to the House of Commons during the parliamentary debates which took places before the 2003 Extradition Act was voted into law.  Davis specifically referred to certain comments made by the British Minister Bob Ainsworth.  According to the official record of the debates in Hansard, Ainsworth told the House of Commons:

“The Bill will ensure that no one can be extradited where the request is politically motivated, where the double jeopardy rule applies or where the fugitive’s medical condition— an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) — would make it unjust. On conviction in absentia cases, we will extradite only where the fugitive can be sure of a retrial. We will not extradite unless we are certain that the death penalty will not be carried out. Finally and very importantly, extradition cannot take place where it would be incompatible with the fugitive’s human rights.”  (Emphasis added)

British courts do not usually weigh comments made in parliament when considering how to interpret an Act of Parliament.  The British legal tradition is to interpret an Act of Parliament strictly on the basis of its own wording.  British courts do not generally look at what was said during parliamentary debates about an Act, even by ministers who propose it. However there have been numerous exceptions, and it is not a hard and fast rule.

British appeal courts also are generally reluctant to look at evidence, such as Davis’s comments, which come about after the judgment that is being appealed. That too, however, is not a hard and fast rule.

One should be cautious about the idea of a cross appeal to the High Court on Assange’s behalf.  Despite the fact that Baraitser sided with the U.S. government on most of the contentious issues of law and fact in the case, she did in the end refuse the U.S. government’s request for Assange’s extradition.  The normal practice in an appeal is to uphold a judgment made in one’s favour, not to challenge it by bringing a cross appeal, which could serve to undermine it.  That often means going along with things in the judgment with which one is unhappy.

There is however nothing normal about Assange’s case. As Moris’ comments show, one has to be aware, perhaps more than in almost any other case, of the overriding and even transcendent issues of media freedom and human rights that arise.

It may be that Assange’s lawyers will decide that Ainsworth’s comments to the House of Commons in 2003; Davis’s recent comments about parliament’s intentions at the time when the 2003 Extradition Act was passed into law; and any other points of law or fact that carry sufficient weight, justify bringing a cross appeal, despite the attendant risks.

If Assange’s lawyers do decide to bring a cross appeal, then the High Court hearing of that and the U.S. appeal will acquire epochal importance.

Baraitser’s finding, that the 2003 Extradition Act allows extradition to the U.S. of individuals who face political charges because the Act does not expressly prohibit such extraditions, was her way of getting around the many contradictions and lapses of logic with which the U.S. case against Assange was littered, as I discussed in my previous Letter from London.

In my view the omission in the Act of the prohibition on extradition on political grounds does not in fact do away with that prohibition. There is far too much case law confirming the prohibition exists, for it to be simply done away with by silence.  As Davis said, if parliament had really wanted to do away with that prohibition, the Act would have expressly said so.

If the High Court were to follow this reasoning and decide — as Ainsworth told the House of Commons in 2003 and as Davis says now — that the absence of any reference to this prohibition in the Act does not mean that the extradition of individuals facing political charges is now allowed; and that the British tradition of prohibiting such extraditions is in fact still in place (even if not expressly mentioned in the Act), then the entire basis of Baraitser’s reasoning collapses and is shown to be wrong.

That would be a huge victory for the rights of journalists, for free expression generally, for the rights of refugees, and for people facing extradition on political charges.

If that happens, the U.S. would almost certainly appeal the High Court’s decision to the U.K. Supreme Court for the authoritative and final decision.  It would potentially be as influential and important a decision as the Pinochet case.

Middlesex Guildhall in London’s Parliament Square, home of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. (Christine Smith, CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons)

On the other hand, were Assange’s lawyers to cross appeal, the High Court could decide on the political offence question that, under the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the British Parliament has unlimited power to pass legislation and is entitled to pass whatever legislation it deems fit. It is not bound to follow an international treaty.

Moreover, since Parliament is sovereign the laws it enacts take precedence within the U.K. over any other laws, including international law.  So if the British parliament enacts a law which contradicts international law or an international treaty, the British courts will administer the law enacted by parliament and will generally disregard international law or the international treaty.

This is the classic British constitutional doctrine of the sovereignty of parliament. Over the last 50 years it has gradually eroded, however.  Whilst Britain was a member of the European Union, parliament accepted that EU law took precedence over whatever law parliament enacted. Also in 1998 parliament passed into law the Human Rights Act, which says (and still says) that the European Convention on Human Rights takes precedence over any British law.

But in the vast majority of situations the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty still applies, and Britain’s withdrawal from the EU has recently reinforced it.

But why is Assange even in this position?  After all, as Davis reminded the House of Commons, the British tradition has always been to refuse to extradite individuals who face political charges.  What changed to make it possible for a judge like Baraitser to say that this centuries-old tradition no longer applies and that it’s now possible for Britain to extradite someone who faces political charges?

Bush’s War on Terror

Briefly, the silence on this point in the 2003 Extradition Act, which was used by Baraitser to support her reasoning, is another malign consequence of the George W. Bush administration’s disastrous “War on Terror,” which the British government, led at that time by Prime Minister Tony Blair, enthusiastically joined in.

In 2003 the Blair government deleted from the 2003 Extradition Act the traditional prohibition on extraditing individuals who faced political charges because it wanted to make it easier for the British government to extradite and dispose of people who the U.S. and British governments said were “terrorists.”  It did not want to have these people, who it said were “terrorists,” defeating extradition requests by saying that the charges which had been brought against them were politically motivated.  So it removed the traditional prohibition of extradition on politically motivated charges from the text of the 2003 Extradition Act.

Though the treaty was also signed after the War on Terror had begun, treaties are negotiated by civil servants and the government of the day usually does not become involved until the negotiation is over. That would likely explain why the prohibition against political extraditions remains in the treaty and was only removed in the Act.

As I very well remember, this, together with much else about this vague and poorly drafted Act, gave rise at the time to very serious concerns, which comments like those of Ainsworth were intended to allay.

Davis refers to all this in the same debate in the House of Commons:

“Since we agreed the U.K.-U.S. extradition treaty in 2003, it has been abundantly clear that the British government of the day struck a truly dreadful deal. Asymmetric, ineffective and fundamentally unfair on British citizens, it is a terrible flaw in our own justice system. The previous Labour administration approached the treaty as though their duty was first and foremost to support the wishes of our American friends, not to safeguard the rights of U.K. citizens.

Perhaps that was understandable in the context of the terrorism sweeping the world at that time, but friends must be honest with each other, and now we must say, ‘Enough is enough.’

The 2003 treaty paved the way for British citizens to be handed over to the U.S. authorities, with minimal safeguards against injustice….”

If a cross appeal is brought we will then see what all those assurances made in 2003, including the one which Ainsworth made to the House of Commons, are really worth.  We will also see how the High Court, and ultimately the U.K. Supreme Court, decide on this issue.

In the meantime, if it does nothing else, this case yet again shows that compromising ancient protections in order to deal with an emergency or an apparent emergency can store up problems for the future, and that willfully throwing away important due-process protections in order to deal with a crisis of the moment is something which will be repented at leisure.

*

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.

Alexander Mercouris is a legal analyst, political commentator and editor of  The Duran.

Featured image:  The Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand, home to the High Court in London. (Sjiong, CC BY-SA 2.0, Wikimedia Commons)

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).

***

Recent media reports of a Haitian official stashing wealth in Montréal property ignore a key element of the story: Canada’s contribution to enabling Haitian corruption.

As a neo-Duvalierist regime becomes ever more dictatorial it’s also worth revisiting Canada’s history in facilitating fraud and money laundering in the hemisphere’s most impoverished nation.

Recently La Presse reported that the wife of a governing party senator, who works at the Haitian consulate in Montréal purchased a mansion in Laval. The story reported, “as the political crisis bogs down in Haiti, the wife of a senator belonging to the party of the contested president, Jovenel Moïse, has just bought a sumptuous $ 4.25 million villa in Laval, attracting a flood of criticism from Montreal to Port-au-Prince. The new property was paid off in full in one fell swoop, without a mortgage, and without their other house being sold, according to the Land Registry.” Two follow-up Journal de Montréal stories found that Senator Rony Célestin and his spouse, Marie-Louisa Célestin, spent $2 million more recently on property and businesses in the Montréal area.

La Presse’s Vincent Larouche should be praised for covering a story that had been circulating in Montréal’s Haitian community for days. But, a lot of important context is missing from the story, as Larouche must know. (15 years ago, Larouche wrote a nice review of my co-authored book on Canada’s role in the 2004 coup when he was with left-wing L’autre Journal). Senator Célestin was implicated in the 2019 killing of journalist Néhémie Joseph and threats targeting the Director General of the Anti-Corruption Unit. More broadly, Célestin’s political party was founded by corrupt and violent Duvalierist Michel Martelly.

But the broader Canadian angle is the most important omission. On Facebook, activist Jean “Jafrikayiti” Saint-Vil explained:

“The PHTK regime headed by Michel Martelly and his self-described ‘bandi legal’ (legal bandits), came to power thanks to fraudulent elections organized, financed and controlled by the foreign occupation force established in Haiti since the coup d’état of February 2004. The planning meeting for the coup d’etat and putting Haiti under trusteeship was organized by Canadian Minister for La Francophonie Denis Paradis. The Ottawa Initiative on Haiti [January 31-February 1, 2003] succeeded in overthrowing the legitimate President as well as 7,000 elected officials from the region’s most impoverished country. The elected officials were replaced by bandits such as ‘Senator’ Rony Célestin of whom this article speaks.”

In a follow-up post Saint-Vil offers an alternative way of understanding Canada’s relationship to political corruption in Haiti. He asks,

“Can you imagine [Hells Angels leader] Maurice ‘Mom’ Boucher and [serial killer] Carla Homolka installed as Senators in Canada by fraudulent elections led by a coalition of Haitian, Jamaican, Ethiopian diplomats in Ottawa?”

Few Canadians would be happy with such an outcome. But it’s a troublingly apt description of US, Canadian and French policy in Haiti.

This is not the first time Canada has been implicated in Duvalierist corruption. Before fleeing to the French Riviera, Jean-Claude ‘Baby Doc’ Duvalier emptied government bank accounts. The Royal Bank of Canada and other Canadian financial institutions assisted the young dictator’s theft. A US auditing firm hired to investigate and track down public funds concluded that Duvalier’s financial advisors “had set up an intricately concealed flow of money through a bevy of banks and accounts, most of them Canadian.”

The Royal Bank of Canada branch in Haiti assisted Duvalier. So did a Toronto branch of the bank. In Money on the Run: Canada and How the World’s Dirty Profits Are Laundered, Mario Possamai details Duvalier’s turn to Canadian institutions when Swiss banks froze Baby Doc’s accounts. At a Royal Bank branch in Toronto his attorneys converted $41.8 million in Canadian treasury bills, a highly secretive and respected form of money. Once converted, the Duvaliers’ assets could no longer be scrutinized.

In Canada: A New Tax Haven: How the Country That Shaped Caribbean Tax Havens Is Becoming One Itself Alain Deneault summarizes:

“The dictator’s money was moved from Canada to Jersey [tax haven] where it was received by the Royal Trust Bank, a subsidiary of Canada’s Royal Trust Company. The deposit was made to an account that was part of a larger account held by the Manufacturers Hanover Bank of Canada, a financial institution with its headquarters in Toronto a few steps away from the Royal Bank of Canada where the whole operation had been set in motion. The operation became more complex with securities being split from their ownership records and further movements between the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank in Jersey, the Royal Bank of Canada in London, the Banque Nationale de Paris, and sundry Swiss institutions.”

Despite guidelines requiring banks to determine customers’ identity, RBC admitted it simply trusted Duvalier’s lawyers. Bank officials later claimed they would have refused the transaction had they known who the beneficiaries were.

This explanation is hard to believe. The only foreign bank in the country for a number of years, the Royal Bank financed projects by the Duvalier regime. Amidst the uprising against Jean-Claude Duvalier, Royal’s senior account manager in Port au Prince, Yves Bourjolly, joined a long list of prominent businessmen who signed a statement expressing “confidence in the desire of the government for peace, dialogue and democratization … at a time when order and security appear to be threatened.”

Over the years Canada has empowered many other corrupt and violent politicians in Haiti. In response to the Célestin story, intrepid tweeter “Madame Boukman — Justice 4 Haiti” noted, “Justin ‘Blackface’ Trudeau, like those before him, knowingly supports drug traffickers, money-launderers and assassins in Haiti. That is the only way Canadian mining vultures can loot Haiti’s massive gold reserves.”

This about sums it up.

On February 28 the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute is hosting a discussion of Haiti Betrayed, a powerful indictment of Canada’s role in the 2004 coup and subsequent policy in the country. In the week leading up to the event the film will be available to watch for free for those who register in advance.

*

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 Yves Engler

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 Eurozone has faced a host of economic challenges over the past two decades, and the region’s main currency, the Euro, is bearing the impact on its value.

The depreciating Euro is a combination of several factors, but inflation has been the primary catalyst. The EU block has seen rising inflation leading to an increase in prices of goods and services over time.

According to data researched by Trading Platforms UK, the buying power of one euro (1€) has depreciated by a whopping 30% between 2000 and 2020 from 1€ to 0.7€. This means that the same one Euro can’t pay for a similar amount of goods or services like 2000.

Impact of inflation on Euro’s purchasing value

Some countries have recorded high levels of inflation relative to other countries within the region. Therefore, the Euro’s buying power has become a casualty by depreciating so that the prices of goods between the countries remain relatively equal.

The Euro’s purchasing power has further lost value due to monetary policies put in place by the European Central Bank to tame inflation. For instance, amid the rising Inflation, the bank has resorted to the increasing interest rate. In 2006, the bank raised the interest rate at least four times in eight months to tame inflation, but the Euro kept depreciating.

The Euro has also lost the purchasing power due to the bank’s policy during the major economic crisis. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and the coronavirus pandemic, the bank lined several additional stimulus packages to tackle the crisis. In this case, interest rates remained high, with most investors turning to save haven currencies like the U.S. dollar. The purchasing power has further deteriorated over the pandemic’s second wave.

Furthermore, the loss in buying power is also a consequence of the recent sovereign debt crisis in the Eurozone. During the period, most countries faced trade deficit challenges, which stemmed mainly from an overvalued Euro.

To reverse this trend, the region has been adopting several financial sector reforms, including the Euro’s devaluation. The several stimulus packages mean that there are more Euros in circulation, indicating that their value has diminished. Eventually, it leads to higher prices of goods.

Other contributing factors

Although the ECB put measures to ease the Eurozone’s deflation after the European sovereign debt crisis, the outcome has not paid off well. To bolster the Euro’s purchasing power, policymakers established strict regulations in the Eurozone on accurately reporting sovereign debt, Inflation, and other financial data.

Besides inflation, the depreciating purchasing power might be linked to the emergence of other forms of currency like cryptocurrencies. Over the last decade, digital assets have risen in popularity, with proponents calling on people to ditch fiat money. There is a general push to have digital assets act as a haven instead of traditional currencies like the Euro or U.S. dollar.

*

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.

Justin is an editor, writer, and a downhill fan. He spent many years writing about banking, finances, blockchain, and digital assets-related news. He strives to serve the untold stories for the readers.

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).

***

On February 16th the BBC reported that a Dutch court ruled that the state must lift a recently imposed curfew because it was a violation of freedom of movement. A higher court promptly suspended the decision at the request of the government until an appeal can be heard. It was also reported that when the curfews were imposed in January riots broke out in several Dutch cities. The BBC writes the following about the 9PM-4:30AM curfew,

“The Dutch measure, which came into force on 23 January, was intended to reduce movement, particularly among young people, but triggered days of rioting in a number of towns and cities. The Netherlands had not seen a curfew since Nazi occupation in World War Two.”

This is understandable because curfews are a severe restriction on movement and assembly that has little place in a free society except for the direst of circumstances. Furthermore, a curfew starting at 9 PM could have two apparent implications, one silly, and one insidious. The former being the foolish idea that somehow restricting public movement at certain times somehow protects people from the virus. The latter implication being that the Dutch government intends to kill nightlife, which places most of the burden on young people, who have been battered emotionally, socially, and professionally by the lockdowns. In fact, in the United States, it was reported that for young people, deaths of despair have claimed more lives than Covid-19.

Another important issue that was illustrated by this incident was the use of emergency powers and their justifications. The BBC writes,

“In their ruling on Tuesday, the Dutch judges said the curfew had been imposed under an emergency law, even though the court said there was no emergency as in the case of a “dyke being breached.”

State of emergency give governments tremendous powers to act in timely and decisive manners to address issues that may not be appropriately addressed by the democratic process. This is why there are often strict guidelines on how and when such powers can be deployed. The BBC writes that the court believed that the deployment of the curfew was not justified because

“Fears of increased infection because of the UK variant were not valid as no curfew was imposed last year when pressure on Dutch hospitals was far greater, the judges said.

The curfew was therefore a violation of the right to freedom of movement and privacy, and limited the right to freedom of assembly.”

It does not follow that the state can deploy an emergency measure at a time when Covid seems to be less of a problem, especially when such powers were not considered before. Even more worrying, it seems that governments around the world have forgotten how extreme these policies are and how sparingly they must be used. Curfews and other emergency powers such as restrictions on travel are supposed to be used in times of tremendous peril. Deploying such policies like they were some sort of experiment to test out government power as if society is a sandbox should be seen as a direct assault against the very foundation of a free society.

The Problematic Usage of Emergency Powers in the United States

The use of emergency powers is a contentious topic in the US that is subject to much debate. However, it is widely accepted on all sides that there must be a rigorous and defined process to govern their use. At the federal level, the president may declare a state of emergency which gives him tremendous powers. Legal expert Elizabeth Goitein writes in the Atlantic,

“The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—more than 100 special provisions become available to him. While many of these tee up reasonable responses to genuine emergencies, some appear dangerously suited to a leader bent on amassing or retaining power. For instance, the president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the United States or freeze Americans’ bank accounts. Other powers are available even without a declaration of emergency, including laws that allow the president to deploy troops inside the country to subdue domestic unrest.”

The Brennan Center outlines the 123 statutory powers available to the president which are all subject to a variety of restrictions. Some infamous exercises of power include the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. During the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, state governors were mostly responsible for declaring states of emergency that authorize the use of lockdowns. At the state level, the power to declare one actually rests with the legislature as the National Conference of State Legislatures writes,

“In times of war, disease or other extraordinary conditions, each state authorizes its governor to declare a state of emergency. Once an emergency has been declared, executive powers expand until the emergency ends. These powers include authority normally reserved for legislatures, such as the ability to suspend existing statutes or effectively create new laws—albeit temporarily and only as needed to respond to the emergency situation.”

In a previous article I cover how a number of state governors have abused their powers, either attempting to extend them without the consent of the legislature or exercising powers that are not permitted. A common theme that arises across the states that mirrors our Dutch counterparts across the Atlantic is the sheer inconsistency and hypocrisy that our leaders exhibit. Imposing seemingly random and ill-reasoned restrictions on our sacred liberties and at times showing blatant favoritism either to themselves or their preferred political causes. For a number of reasons we give the government the power to legally violate our rights but only if the policies are narrowly tailored to addressing a pressing issue. That is outlined in the police power and in Jacobson v. Massachusetts,which applies to public health emergencies. If the government is going to violate your rights, it needs to have a good case that whatever they are going to do will greatly contribute to solving the problem. Closing outdoor dining after making countless statements that outdoor dining is safe is an example of a violation of such guidelines.

Moving past the technical aspects regarding the use of emergency powers, it is important to realize two things. The first is that everything is subject to interpretation so we cannot rely on judges to consistently rule in favor of protecting liberty and limited government. The same can be said about legislatures and other bodies associated with administering emergency powers. This brings us to the most important problem regarding the use of emergency powers. The ambiguous definition of what qualifies as an emergency and the apparent degeneration of that threshold in recent years are evident especially now. What we have seen in the age of Covid-19 will have lasting consequences for the future of our liberal democracy.

Meryl Chertoff writes the following about former President Trump’s travel restrictions forGeorgetown Law,

“What may seem like a reasonable step in today’s emergency will create a hangover when invoked as precedent in less dire circumstances by rules guided by authoritarian impulses.”

This is a lesson as old as time. You give a mouse a cookie, it’s going to want a glass of milk. You start to unravel the restrictions on the government’s power, it’s going to want more and more. The power to declare emergencies and the problematic ease that seems to surround declaring one is a haunting specter over the heads of our freedom. Chertoff writes,

“As Justice Jackson wrote in Korematsu v. United States the case that upheld the detention of Japanese Americans during the Second World War an emergency power “lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.” No single discipline can lead this campaign for much longer.”

It goes without saying that after the pandemic is over we should not only work to restore our liberties and limitations on government but look into reforming the process in which states of emergency can be used.

Key Takeaways

The court decision across the ocean in the Netherlands may be quickly forgotten in today’s news cycle. In fact, given the number of similar issues all over the world regarding emergency powers during the age of Covid-19, it may go down as a minor disturbance at best. However, it demonstrates a much greater issue at hand, which is the omnipresent threat to our liberty that is the use of emergency powers and the expanding window of what constitutes an emergency.

Without significant efforts to push back and reclaim our liberties, lockdowns can and will leave a permanent mark on our system of limited government. What should keep every freedom-loving citizen up at night is not Covid-19 but the disease of authoritarianism that is slowly killing our liberal democracy. Pandemics come and go, but a free society is almost impossible to retrieve once it has been cast into the abyss of subjugation.

*

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.

Ethan joined AIER in 2020 as an Editorial Assistant and is a graduate of Trinity College. He received a BA in Political Science alongside a minor in Legal Studies and Formal Organizations.

Featured image is from AIER

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).

***

It is difficult for me to believe that two thirds of the US (according to a Harris poll) are favorably inclined to the pharmaceutical industry, up 30 percentage points since January 2020, just before the pandemic. Do you believe it?

Who do you trust:  Common sense, or the media’s experts?

Surely most Americans have by now figured out that almost everything they are being told about Covid by the experts, the government and the media is untrue?  Haven’t they noticed how the stories change with the wind?  That most of them simply make no sense?

Masking

Wear no mask–one mask–two masks–oh, and add some pantyhose to get that tight fit someone over at CDC just decided was de rigeur.  Do any of these 4 choices provide reliable protection?  Do people really believe that Fauci and CDC are calibrating their advice to the newest scientific findings? CDC reviewed the mask research back in 2014, after it badly bungled its PPE recommendations for Ebola.  I discussed CDC’s many flip-flops regarding droplets and aerosol spread in 2014.

CDC is pulling the correct ‘social distance’ out of thin air, since there is no effective distance if you are indoors along with some aerosolized virus.  WHO says 3 feet. But if CDC used 3 feet, kids could all go back to school, then parents could go back to work, then the economy could restart. And someone doesn’t want that happening. CDC just released its long-awaited guidance on reopening schools.  But CNBC says following it would keep 90% of schools at least partially closed.  Who’s fooling who?

Viral mutations a.k.a. variants

New viral variants are coming, so be afraid.  Oh, they are already here.  Oh, they have been here since at least October.  They are not more lethal, just more infectious. Be less afraid.  But they do reduce vaccine and antibody effectiveness.  Get ready for more vaccines. Rush out and get your vaccination now, there is a shortage.

In many businesses, nursing homes and hospitals, employees are being threatened with job loss to stimulate vaccine uptake. Why are people who already had Covid being given the shots, when they cannot do any good, and might even put the recipients at greater risk for immune-mediated, vaccine-induced harm?  Why has CDC covered this up, and lied about it?

Why the rush to vaccinate the elderly when new vaccines will supposedly be needed for the new variants?  And the elderly seem to be expiring at high rates post-vaccination. And we don’t even know the vaccine’s efficacy in the frail elderly, who were never tested in the clinical trials. Nor do we know the vaccine’s safety in this group. Many vaccines fail to stimulate immunity in the elderly, and some vaccines have even made the recipient more susceptible to the diseases they were supposed to prevent. Where is the proof the Covid vaccines aren’t doing the same thing, or doing it in older age groups?

And why in heaven’s name are the media, government and industry pushing out the same story about the frightening mutants, when there is very little evidence to support the scare? For example, the Financial Times titled a Feb 5 story, “Britain Risks Becoming Virus Melting Pot as Mutations Spread.” Yet the BMJ tells us that deaths, hospitalizations and cases have been falling dramatically in the UK over the past month, similar to the US.

From the 2/20/2021 LA Times, “Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease specialist, put it simply: “Try not to worry about the variants.”’

Chlorquine and its cousin hydroxychloroquine:  sinking the magic bullet

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are licensed generic drugs, which any US doctor is free to prescribe off label for any valid reason, with patient acquiescence. I routinely prescribe hydroxychloroquine for lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Lyme disease and now Covid.  I have found it to be very safe, and estimate I have used it in 200 patients. In 2005, the Virology Journal published an article that said chloroquine killed SARS-1 coronavirus in tissue culture. In fact, CDC scientists did the experiment and wrote the article.  Here is their final paragraph:

Conclusion

Then suddenly Chloroquine drugs were too dangerous to use, more likely to kill you than coronavirus. What happened? A lot more than Trumps’s praise.

Two very terrible things happened. Two deadly medical frauds. The fact that Trump recommended the chloroquines was only a sideshow, used to confuse those who were not paying close attention.

A number of clinical trials were set up to force hydroxychloroquine to fail in treating Covid.  The more benign of these trials simply used the drug too late, after virus was no longer multiplying in the body.  This happens about a week after the onset of symptoms.  At that point you need steroids, blood thinners and other medications to combat the downstream, autoimmune effects of the virus.  Trying to kill the virus (when there is no intact virus) doesn’t work at that point.  The drug appears to be ineffective, but had it been given a week earlier, its efficacy would have been obvious to all.

The more malignant of these trials set out to poison patients with potentially lethal doses of hydroxychloroquine.  Largest among these trials were Recovery (sponsored by the UK government, Oxford University, Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust, among others) and Solidarity (sponsored by the WHO, Gates Foundation, and others). I have delved deeply into the dosing here.  In the hydroxychloroquine arm of the Recovery trial over 25% of the subjects died:  396 people.  The Solidarity hydroxychloroquine trial had similar results–and shut down 3 days after I warned WHO officials that their failure to disclose to subjects they were being given a known, potentially lethal treatment dose left the WHO liable for damages.

Yet despite using poisonous doses, these trials continue to be cited as evidence of the dangerousness and lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine, even by otherwise highly capable scientists who simply failed to pay attention to the doses used.

The second terrible thing that tanked the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine was a fabricated journal article in the Lancet published May 22, 2020.  The article purported to have access to a phenomenal realtime database, with information from over 600 hospitals on 6 continents, including both medical and financial records in many different languages.  Had any editor every heard of such a database previously?  Of course not, because nothing like it exists.  But a Harvard professor was the paper’s first author, the paper supposedly sailed through peer review, and a massive media blitz sounded forth on the day of publication. The blitz announced to almost everyone in the world listening to radio or television that day that hydroxychloroquine and its cousin chloroquine kill Covid patients.  Here is an example.

Two weeks later the Lancet paper was exposed as a “monumental fraud” and retracted, and then Lancet editor Richard Horton admitted to the NY Times that the paper and its global database were a fabrication. But the damage was done.  The damage had been planned and executed like clockwork. No one has admitted any responsiblity nor explained how the publication came to be written and published, nor who orchestrated and paid for the massive media blitz. Most people heard about the drug’s danger, but never heard about the paper’s fabrication.

Deaths, cases, hospitalizations:  can any of these numbers be trusted?

Alexis Madrigal, a journalist for The Atlantic, co-founded the Covid Tracking Project last March because of the totally inadequate data being released by the states and CDC. It quickly became the go-to site for data on Covid, better than federal data or another site sponsored by Johns Hopkins.  On a shoestring at first, this team put together an amazingly good data collection, independently culling from the states and municipalities, because that was what needed to be done.

However, significant data accuracy problems remained, and persist to the present.  The problem is that we do not have reliable tests for Covid in the US, which I have previously detailed.  We don’t have normal, useful case definitions. We have numbers, but we don’t know how accurate they are.  We have no idea what the false positive and false negative rates are of the tests we are using to diagnose Covid.  FDA has not approved and licensed a single PCR, antibody or rapid antigen test for Covid yet.  All were “authorized” under emergency regulations. There are over 300 tests authorized for use in the US currently, and FDA has not managed to establish their validity. FDA has gotten as far as listing a “limit of detection” for some of the tests, but not all of them. While FDA warned about false positive antigen tests in November, the public and professionals have never been informed of the false positive and false negative rates of any of the Covid tests.

One positive PCR test makes you a ‘confirmed’ case, regardless of symptoms.  One positive rapid antigen test makes you a ‘probable’ case.  But since last April 14, CDC has been recoding what the states called probable cases and deaths, as definite cases and deaths. And some states have been changing their protocols and methods regarding what constitutes a death due to Covid, for example Iowa.

Yet FDA and CDC are well aware of high false positive rates on the PCR tests due to excessively high cycle thresholds. Fauci admitted it in July. The NY Times ran a detailed expose of the problem back in August. The WHO warned about this in December and January, noting both the need to dial the cycle thresholds down, and suggesting the need to perform confirmatory testing when the patient lacked symptoms consistent with Covid.  But that has never been standard procedure in the US.  It seems to me that the federal agencies have been doing their best to maximize case and death numbers. This helped strengthen the narrative that we had something so dire to fear that it was worth wrecking the economy and locking us up to slow it down.

Public health officials suddenly jumping ship–Why?

Now I am wondering why such a huge number of public health officials quit their jobs or were fired since the start of the pandemic.

“An investigation by The Associated Press and KHN found that at least 181 state and local public health leaders in 38 states have resigned, retired or been fired since the beginning of the pandemic, the largest exodus of public health leaders in U.S. history.”

“In some cases, officials resign after clashing with government officials and elected leaders… In other states, officials are fired for reporting or data issues.“

Iowa’s former public health director is suing the state.  So is the department’s former spokesperson, who claims she was ousted for complying with Iowa’s open records law to provide journalists information on Covid. She also blew the whistle that an Emergency Operations Center was created, with new email addresses, and its emails were concealed from public records requesters.

Did other public health officials refuse to lie or to withhold information, and is that why they are gone?

Is the vaccine saving the day?  

According to the BMJ, not so fast.  While deaths and cases have been dropping like a stone since mid January, the drop may be comparable in the young unvaccinated population as in the older age groups, 1/3 of whom have received at least one shot. BMJ noted:

“the fall in prevalence was similar among those aged 65 years and over compared with other age groups. The study authors from Imperial College London said this suggests that if vaccines are effective at reducing transmission as well as disease, this effect is not yet a major driver of prevalence trends. Therefore, the observed falls described here are most likely because of reduced social interactions during lockdown.”

Are we approaching herd immunity? 

In the US, about 40 million people are reported to have received at least one Covid vaccine dose.  That is about 12% of the population.  I’ve no idea how many got so sick from the first dose that they refused the second, while I am hearing anecdotes that many have.  How much immunity will a single dose provide?

The LA Times today and the Wall Street Journal several days ago, in an Op-Ed by Marty Makary, MD, suggested we are fast approaching herd immunity.  New cases are down 75% in just over a month.  (But that could have been helped by dialing down those pesky cycle thresholds, and performing 30% fewer tests than in mid January.)

No one was allowed to talk about herd immunity until after Covid vaccines rolled out.  Has everyone who wanted a shot already been served? Why is herd immunity back on the table? I’m very glad it is, because achieving herd immunity will end all lockdown excuses. Hopefully we are at the end of the big waves.

Why am I rehashing issues I have already written about?

Because each issue is an example of how the public has been fooled by the experts, the media and the government,  all three dissembling in concert. If I’m correct, we are facing a pernicious conspiracy.

Who really trusts Big Pharma today?  You’d need to be mad to trust the industry that throttled drugs that work against Covid, in order to inject you with new concoctions that tickled Tony Fauci’s fancy and pay royalties to his institute.  Who trusts government pronouncements?  Media?  Our bought experts? The corporations and ‘charitable’ foundations that bought them?

Today I just wanted to make a little list, short enough for a blog post, as a reminder that we have been hoaxed and played, over and over again.

My advice?  Listen to your common sense, and turn off the TV and radio.  Don’t let the propaganda get access to even your unconscious mind.  Help others dissect what is going on.  Stay strong.  There are lots of quiet, sensible people out there.  Speak your truth.  Let’s find each other and turn this around.

*

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

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

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).

***

The general consciousness of individuals and peoples does not yet know the answer to the Cain question from the biblical prehistory: Shall I be my brother’s keeper (1)? A real epidemic of greed for power, lies and brutality is now ravaging millions of people worldwide like the plague of the Middle Ages. But the disastrous effects of the murderous state “protective measures” against a supposed Corona pandemic touch our lifeblood, but they do not shake us up; we remain in lethargy. 

The plight of humanity does not touch our hearts

Foolish as we are, we continue to lull ourselves into security while the dark clouds of this crime against humanity gather ominously over our heads. While we are half aware that we live on the edge of a volcano, we give in to the deceptive hope that there will be no eruption. We prefer the comforting self-delusion to the thought of danger. We want to forget unwillingness and prefer to wish for pleasure. The pleasure principle, however, is incapable of protecting human life, because reality needs to be recognised and understood: anyone who contradicts it will either be harmed or destroyed.

Thousands of injustices happen not only in faraway countries, but also in our immediate vicinity. But we do not outrage, we do not defend the weak and we do not help the helpless. The plight of the millions affected does not touch our hearts. By not fighting against the obvious tyranny of those in power, we condone it. We have the deceptive hope that it will spare us. But the moment it takes a stranglehold on us, it is usually too late to contain it. The disease that we have failed to cure in the other takes us away ourselves.

The “jungle doctor” Albert Schweitzer gave us an answer

Again and again, one makes the bitter experience that many fellow citizens lack real compassion for their younger and older fellow human beings who are in need and suffering – or do not show it, do not become active. But only then can and will something change in our world.

Humanity must find an answer to the Cain question posed at the beginning: Should I be my brother’s keeper? The German-French doctor, philosopher, Protestant theologian, musicologist and pacifist Albert Schweitzer (1875 to 1965), one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century and Nobel Peace Prize winner (1952), gave us an answer:

“Compassion for all creatures is what makes human beings truly human.”

When the Nazis took the communists, I kept silent, I wasn’t a communist

Martin Niemöller (1892 to 1984), German Protestant theologian, resistance fighter against National Socialism and prisoner in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, expressed in a few lines after this traumatic experience what it means not to have this compassion:

“When the Nazis took the communists,
I kept silent,
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the Social Democrats,
I kept silent,
I wasn’t a Social Democrat. 

When they took the trade unionists,
I kept quiet,
I wasn’t a trade unionist. 

When they came for me,
there was no one left
who could protest (2).”

*

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 a qualified psychologist and educationalist.

Notes

(1) Prehistory of the Bible: Genesis 4:1-16.

(2) Martin-niemoeller-stiftung.de/martin-niemoeller/as-the…

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).

***

Millions of Americans and others abroad who roll up their sleeves to be jabbed against covid are oblivious to horrific dangers they face.

Everyone aware of the hazards posed by experimental, fast-tracked, DNA altering mRNA technology that’s not a vaccine, doesn’t protect, and risks serious harm to health and well-being won’t go near the stuff for good reason.

Nor AstraZeneca’s hazardous vaccine in Europe, not used in the US because of the high incidence of harmful to health reactions among trial participants.

Yet over 50 million Americans were voluntarily jabbed once or twice through Feb. 14.

The more jabs, the greater the risk of serious trouble.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans already experienced adverse events.

Thousands died, the carnage to continue if not challenged and stopped.

According to Daily Expose.co.uk on February 9, citing government data, Pfizer’s mRNA technology and AstraZeneca’s vaccine caused at least 600 eye disorder cases that impaired vision and blinded five people.

This occurred from December 8 through January 24.

The data was collected by Britain’s Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) based on voluntary “yellow card” adverse reaction reports.

Is the above the tip of the iceberg?

Are adverse events from mass-jabbing exponentially higher as in the US?

It’s highly likely but at least largely ignored by major media in both countries.

Through January 24 in Britain, 5.4 million first doses of Pfizer’s MRA technology were administered, another 1.5 million doses of AstraZeneca experimental vaccine through January 24.

About half a million second doses of Pfizer’s drug have been jabbed into bodies of unwitting UK guinea pigs.

They’re both unapproved in the US because of hazards they pose.

Yet, Pfizer and Moderna mRNA technology was OK’d for use under emergency conditions that don’t exist anywhere.

Along with hundreds of Brits experiencing eye disorders, over 49,000 adverse events to Pfizer’s technology and more than 21,000 bad reactions to AstraZeneca’s vaccine were reported through January 24 — likely the tip of a much greater-sized iceberg.

There were 21 cerebrovascular accidents reported from jabbing with Pfizer’s technology.

They’re damage to brain cells, causing ischemic stroke from lack of oxygen when blood flow is impeded by a clot or other blockage.

After jabbing with Pfizer’s technology, four pregnant British women spontaneously aborted. AstraZeneca’s vaccine caused at least two miscarriages.

Yet Britain’s government warned pregnant women against being jabbed with Pfizer’s technology.

Yellow Card reports also revealed 107 deaths, seven occurring suddenly from Pfizer’s toxins.

Dozens of Bell’s palsy (causing weakness or paralysis of facial muscles) and other serious health issues were reported.

They include anaphylaxis shock, strokes, heart inflammation, brain stem infarction, cerebellar infarction, cerebellar stroke, cerebral artery occlusion, cerebral hemorrhage, cerebral infarction, intracranial hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and other life altering events from mass-jabbing.

It was well-known before inoculations began that serious harm to health would occur, including numerous deaths.

Yet governments in the West and elsewhere are permitting what should have been banned, willfully inflicting harm on their people.

Even after mass casualties, jabbing with harmful to health and well-being toxins continues unimpeded.

Widespread — largely unreported — horror stories will likely increase to exponentially higher levels in the weeks and months ahead wherever mass-jabbing occurs.

*

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.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

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).

***

Imagine if an ordinary working man went on a rampage and killed 929 people and maimed 316 others. The media would naturally call such a man a serial killer or a homicidal maniac. Now imagine if a big pharmaceutical company did the same thing by releasing a vaccine that killed and maimed a similar number people. Would the drug company be treated the same as the working guy? Would their product be denounced as a “killer vaccine” and shunned by the public, or would they be praised on the cable news channels, provided lavish funding by the government, granted full immunity from liability for personal injury, waved through the regulatory process, and had the red carpet rolled out for their spectacular nationwide “Product Launch” extravaganza?

(NOTE: “According to new data released today, as of Feb. 12, 15,923 adverse reactions to COVID vaccines, including 929 deaths, have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) since Dec. 14, 2020.” Children’s Health Defense)

And what about the small number of critics who don’t see the vaccine as a life-saving wonder drug but who seriously believe it is a gene-altering experimental concoction that was not sufficiently tested, did not go through the normal protocols, has not met long-term safety standards, excluded critical animal testing trials, and uses toxic synthetics that can trigger anaphylaxis, Bell’s Palsy, miscarriage, Antibody-dependent Enhancement (ADE) and a score of other potentially-lethal or debilitating long-term ailments that have not yet been diagnosed since the vaccine was rushed into service at breakneck speed?

What about these vaccine critics, what rights do they have? Do they have the right to speak their minds and express their concerns on social media or should they be smeared, castigated, blacklisted, censored and dragged through the mud?

In a free country, it is the vaccine manufacturers that should be scrutinized, lambasted and taken to task for the shortcomings or lethality of their product, but not in America. In America, it is the vaccine critics that are being condemned and targeted by the state. According to an article in the New York Post, the Biden Administration is joining forces with Big Tech to actively seek out and eliminate those people who challenge the official narrative and who reject the idea of inoculating the entire population with a dodgy experimental vaccine that poses a clear threat to one’s safety and well-being. Here’s an excerpt from the article in the Post:

The White House is asking social media companies to clamp down on chatter that deviates from officially distributed COVID-19 information as part of President Biden’s “wartime effort” to vanquish the coronavirus.

A senior administration official tells Reuters that the Biden administration is asking Facebook, Twitter and Google to help prevent anti-vaccine fears from going viral, as distrust of the inoculations emerges as a major barrier in the fight against the deadly virus.

“Disinformation that causes vaccine hesitancy is going to be a huge obstacle to getting everyone vaccinated and there are no larger players in that than the social media platforms,” the White House source told the news agency.

The news out of Washington is the first sign that officials are directly engaged with Silicon Valley in censoring social media users; Biden’s chief of staff Ron Klain previously said the administration would try to work with major media companies on the issue….

Social media leaders have vowed to squash anti-vaccine “disinformation” on their platforms, but the spreading of such content has persisted....

A Twitter spokesman said the company is “in regular communication with the White House on a number of critical issues including COVID-19 misinformation.” (White House working with social media giants to silence anti-vaxxers”, New York Post)

So, what’s going on here? Why has the government joined with big tech to actively target people who do not accept the ‘official doctrine’ regarding the new vaccines?

It’s simple, isn’t it? The government wants to control want you think by controlling what you read. You see, the oligarchs who control the government behind the mask of the political parties, assume you are an ignorant beast incapable of critical thinking. They believe that your opinions are shaped by the things you read, therefore, they want to control what you read in order to push and prod and coerce you into the behavior that helps them achieve their malign objectives. In this case, they want everyone to submit to vaccination so they can reduce global population in order to curtail carbon emissions that, they believe, are a dire threat to human survival. This, of course, is just my own lunatic conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, the question remains the same: Does the government have the right to shut me up or do I have the right to speak my mind?

According to the report above, I do not have the right to speak my mind, in fact, the government is now explicitly taking aim at people like me who–they feel– are undermining the strategic agenda of the big money elites they work for.

What are we to make of this? What are we to make of this new alliance between the State and big tech or the State and big pharma or the State and Wall Street? Are we no longer a country that is “of, by and for the people” or are we edging closer to Mussolini’s definition of “fascism” as “the merging of the state and the corporation?” It seems to me that Mussolini’s definition is much more applicable.

And what does this tell us about the way the Biden administration plans to conduct business in the future?

It tells us that Joe Biden is essentially the corporate meat-puppet that he’s been for the last 5 decades and, that now, he intends to cancel vast swaths of the Bill of Rights to accommodate his deep-pocket managers. No one should be surprised by this. Biden has always been the Establishment’s best friend.

But do the oligarchs and corporate honchos really gain anything by silencing their critics?

Perhaps, after all, China has experienced exponential growth in the last two decades and, presumably, that is the model of governance our rulers now seek; absolute dictatorial power that allows the people who own the primary industries and businesses to arbitrarily set policy and impose their own laws independent of any democratic process.

Are we there yet?

Well, if the state is able to shut us up and remove us from public platforms, we’re a helluva lot closer than anyone thought.

*

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 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).

***

We are getting a very short preview of what will eventually happen to the United States as a whole.  America’s infrastructure is aging and crumbling.  Our power grids were never intended to support so many people, our water systems are a complete joke, and it has become utterly apparent that we would be completely lost if a major long-term national emergency ever struck.  Texas has immense wealth and vast energy resources, but now it is being called a “failed state”.  If it can’t even handle a few days of cold weather, what is the rest of America going to look like when things really start to get chaotic in this country?

At this point, it has become clear that the power grid in Texas is in far worse shape than anyone ever imagined.  When extremely cold weather hit the state, demand for energy surged dramatically.  At the same time, about half of the wind turbines that Texas relies upon froze, and the rest of the system simply could not handle the massive increase in demand.

Millions of Texans were without power for days, and hundreds of thousands are still without power as I write this article.

And now we are learning that Texas was literally just moments away from “a catastrophic failure” that could have resulted in blackouts “for months”…

Texas’ power grid was “seconds and minutes” away from a catastrophic failure that could have left Texans in the dark for months, officials with the entity that operates the grid said Thursday.

As millions of customers throughout the state begin to have power restored after days of massive blackouts, officials with the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, which operates the power grid that covers most of the state, said Texas was dangerously close to a worst-case scenario: uncontrolled blackouts across the state.

I can’t even imagine how nightmarish things would have eventually gotten in Texas if there had actually been blackouts for months.

According to one expert, the state really was right on the verge of a “worst case scenario”…

The worst case scenario: Demand for power outstrips the supply of power generation available on the grid, causing equipment to catch fire, substations to blow and power lines to go down.

If the grid had gone totally offline, the physical damage to power infrastructure from overwhelming the grid could have taken months to repair, said Bernadette Johnson, senior vice president of power and renewables at Enverus, an oil and gas software and information company headquartered in Austin.

For years, I have been telling my readers that they have got to have a back up plan for power, because during a major emergency the grid can fail.

And when it fails, it can literally cost some people their lives.  I was deeply saddened when I learned that one man in Texas actually froze to death sitting in his own recliner…

As Texas suffered through days of power outages, a man reportedly froze to death in his recliner with his wife clinging to life beside him.

The man was found dead in his Abilene home on Wednesday after being without power for several days in the record cold.

Most Americans don’t realize that much of the rest of the world actually has much better power infrastructure than we do.  Just check out these numbers…

In Japan, the average home sees only 4 minutes of power outages per year. In the American Midwest, the figure is 92 minutes per year. In the Northeast, it’s 214 minutes; all those figures cover only regular outages and not those caused by extreme weather or fires.

As our population has grown and our infrastructure has aged, performance has just gotten worse and worse.  In fact, things ran much more smoothly all the way back in the mid-1980s…

According to an analysis by Climate Central, major outages (affecting more than 50,000 homes or businesses) grew ten times more common from the mid-1980s to 2012. From 2003 to 2012, weather-related outages doubled. In a 2017 report, the American Society of Civil Engineers reported that there were 3,571 total outages in 2015, lasting 49 minutes on average. The U.S. Energy Administration reports that in 2016, the average utility customer had 1.3 power interruptions, and their total blackout time averaged four hours.

America is literally crumbling all around us, and it getting worse with each passing year.

Our water systems are another example.

In Texas, the cold weather literally caused thousands of pipes to burst.  The damage caused by all of these ruined pipes is going to be in the billions of dollars.

Right now, we are being told that a total of 797 water systems in the state are currently reporting problems with “frozen or broken pipes”…

Some 13.5 million people are facing water disruptions with 797 water systems throughout the state reporting issues such as frozen or broken pipes, according to Toby Baker, executive director for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. About 725 systems are under a boil water advisory, Baker said during a press conference Thursday.

Overall, approximately 7 million residents of the state live in areas that have been ordered to boil water, and it could take months for service to fully return to normal.

Without water, none of us can survive for long, and it is absolutely imperative that you have a back up plan in case your local system goes down.

In Houston, people that are without water in their homes have been forced to line up to fill buckets at a public spigot…

Meanwhile, in scenes reminiscent of a third world country, Houston residents resorted to filling up buckets of water from a spigot in a local neighborhood.

One Houston resident, whose power has just gone back on Thursday after three days but still has no water, told DailyMail.com: ‘It is crazy that we just watched NASA land on Mars but here in Houston most of us still don’t have drinking water.’

You can watch video of this happening right here.  Of course if your local water system completely fails, there won’t even be a public spigot available for you to get water.

Shortages of food and other essential supplies are also being reported in Texas.

For Philip Shelley and his young wife, the situation became quite desperate fairly rapidly…

Philip Shelley, a resident of Fort Worth, told CNN that he, his wife Amber and 11-month-old daughter, Ava, were struggling to stay warm and fed. Amber is pregnant and due April 4.

“(Ava) is down to half a can of formula,” Shelley said. “Stores are out if not extremely low on food. Most of our food in the refrigerator is spoiled. Freezer food is close to thawed but we have no way to heat it up.”

So what would they have done if the blackouts had lasted for months?

All over the state, extremely long lines have been forming at local supermarkets.  In some cases, people have started waiting way before the stores actually open…

Joe Giovannoli, 29, arrived at a Central Market supermarket in Austin at 8:30 a.m. Thursday, an hour-and-a-half before it opened. Minutes later, more than 200 people had lined up behind him in the biting 26-degree weather.

Giovannoli’s wife is three months pregnant and the power in their one-bedroom Austin apartment blinked out Tuesday night. After a water pipe broke, firefighters also turned off the building’s water, he said. Giovannoli said he realized he still had it better than many others across Texas, but worried how long things will take to get back to normal.

This is happening in communities across Texas, and you can see video of one of these “bread lines” right here.

Of course those that had gotten prepared in advance did not have to wait in such long lines because they already had food.

Sadly, even though Joe Giovannoli had gotten to the supermarket so early, he later received really bad news…

A few minutes before the store opened its doors, a manager stepped outside and warned those waiting in line that supplies inside were low: No produce, no baked goods, not much canned food.

“We haven’t had a delivery in four days,” he said.

Remember, this is just a temporary crisis in Texas that is only going to last for a few days.

So what would happen if a severe long-term national emergency disrupted food, water and power systems for months on end?

All it took to cause a short-term “collapse scenario” in the state of Texas was some cold weather.

Eventually, much worse things will happen to our nation, and it has become clear that we are not ready.

So get prepared while you still can, because time is running out.

*

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.

Michael Snyder has published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, which are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.

“To have the ability to hear different perspectives, and the Global Research News Hour absolutely does that through the host of Michael and of course all his amazing guests on a weekly basis.”                             

– Michael Stoparczyk, CIXX (the X) 106.9 FM

“Our scope is right up Michael Welch’s alley at the Global Research News Hour, and vice versa. (Of course, we can disagree on details!) We are his fans, and from time to time we pick up his weekly posting and broadcast part or all of it.”                                                                           

 – Stan Robinson, WZBC 90.3FM

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

More than thirty years ago, on October 10, 1990, a young Kuwaiti girl named Nayirah appeared in front of the U.S. Congressional Human Rights Caucus and delivered the following shocking testimony:

“I volunteered at the al-Addan hospital. While I was there, I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns, and go into the room where . . . babies were in incubators. They took the babies out of the incubators, took the incubators, and left the babies on the cold floor to die.” [1]

The story was compelling enough to guide fury toward Iraq and Saddam Hussein, leading to overwhelming support for the war three months later. [2]

But it would eventually come out that this affair was scripted by the PR Firm Hill and Knowlton. Nayira, it turns out was the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States! And she was coached in presenting the story in a compelling and emotional way. [3]

This story highlights the need for independent media, including the Global Research News Hour.

Lies and distortions are at the centre of virtually every major war conflict which costs people their lives. And the media, the major ones owned by the same six corporations, play a role in guiding the war apparatus towards a successful execution. This will result in profits for the big barons, resources for the nations that protect them, and destitution and death for the millions getting in the way.

Independent media outlets, like CKUW 95.9FM and the prominent program the Global Research News Hour that it hosts, plays a vital role in examining each and every prominent claim being used as a pretext for war. When we witness a build up of propaganda, whether on a strike against Iraq, or a campaign to stop a virus at all costs, this program will do everything it can to dig out the truth behind the lies.

The station of course needs your support! Donations from corporate advertisers or the State will serve to control the kinds of investigations we can conduct. We are relying on YOU to keep the flow of free thought penetrating the clouds of mass control.

On the last broadcast of the Fundrive 2021 Special, the Global Research News Hour aired interviews by three broadcasters from stations in London, Ontario and Newton, Massachusetts, we heard excerpts from previous shows, music, and a lot of pitching for support.

You can continue supporting CKUW at fundrive.ckuw.ca. As an alternative, direct your funds to the Global Research donation site, highlighting funding for the Global Research News Hour.

CLICK TO DONATE:

PLEASE BE SURE TO INCLUDE A NOTE MENTIONING “GLOBAL RESEARCH NEWS HOUR” OR “GRNH” WITH YOUR TRANSACTION

Thanks again to our regular listeners who have given their all to keep this program going. It is most appreciated!

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

 CJSF 90.1 FM from the Burnaby mountain campus of Simon Fraser University at 90.1 FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border, through MP3 streaming and through a speaker located just outside the station. The show airs Thursdays at 9am local time.

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time. 

Notes:

1.  John Stauber, Sheldon Rampton (July 1, 2002); Chapter 10, ‘Toxic Sludge is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry’, Common Courage Press; www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html
2. ibid
3. ibid

First published in September 2020

China’s Communist “Dictatorship” Lifts 700 Million Chinese Citizens Out Of Poverty: Yet India is Adored by Western Pundits, While China is Demonized and Sanctioned

***

“The first human right is the right to life.” Wang Yi, Minister of Foreign Affairs and State Counselor of the People’s Republic of China

Twelve years ago United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, Jomo Kwame Sunderam presented the 2008 “Economic and Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific,” at a press briefing, disclosing, on page 124 the staggering fact that:

“With limited resources, farmers depend on borrowed money to purchase seeds and other inputs to farm their land. A drop in their farm income could lead to indebtedness. In India, for example, the distress in rural areas is reflected in the high number of suicides by farmers: 86,922 during 2001-2005 (Government of India, 2007).”

There was very little – indeed virtually no press coverage or official investigation into this horrifying fact until 2014: in an article by Jonathan Kennedy entitled: “New evidence of suicide epidemic among India’s ‘marginalised’ farmers” he states:

“In 2010, 187,000 Indians killed themselves – one fifth of all global suicides….. Latest statistical research finds strong causal links between areas with the most suicides and areas where impoverished farmers are trying to grow crops that suffer from wild price fluctuations due to India’s relatively recent shift to free market economics.”

“It is often forgotten that over 833 million people – almost 70% of the Indian population – still live in rural areas. A large proportion of these rural inhabitants have not benefited from the economic growth of the past twenty years. In fact, liberalization has brought about a crisis in the agricultural sector that has pushed many small-scale cash crops farmers into debt and in many cases to suicide.”

So much for the capitalist paradise Trump promises North Korea’s Socialist leader Kim Jung Un.

On February 22, 2014 Ellen Barry in the New York Times headlined: “After Farmers Commit Suicide, Debts Fall on Families in India,” with impoverished widows called ‘whores.” In June, 2014, AP headlined: “Raped, murdered girls reveal horrific risks for India’s poor”: UNICEF estimates that almost 594 million – nearly 50 percent of India’s population – defecates in the open, with the situation particularly acute in impoverished rural areas such as the Badaun district of Uttar Pradesh….The abduction, gang-rape and lynching of two teenage girls as they went to relieve themselves last Tuesday have added a terrifying new dimension to their daily ordeal.”

Finally, six years later, within the masquerade making possible the blaming of Covid-19 as the cause of despair, the New York Times deliberately confused the facts and stated: “Lockdown Sows Death Among India’s Farmers,” stating:

“India has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. In 2019, a total of 10,281 farmers and farm laborers died by suicide across the country, according to statistics from the National Crime Records Bureau. Taking one’s own life is still a crime in India, and experts have said for years that the actual numbers are far higher because most people fear the stigma of reporting. “

This sparse attention to the horrors suffered by destitute Indians, often ignored even at the United Nations specialized agencies, grossly contrasts with the overwhelming focus on ostensible human rights abuses of which China is accused by the Western media, and within the UN Security Council.

India’s current Prime Minister Modi hails from the political party implicated in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, the great leader of India’s independence from Great Britain. It seems clear that Modi is determined to return India to the Western hands that enslaved her until 1947. Modi is a very obedient servant in pleasing India’s former masters. A brief description of Britain’s genocidal policy toward colonial India is given in Susan Butler’s masterpiece: “Roosevelt and Stalin, Portrait of a Partnership”, (page 327, Knopf edition):

“British rule over India was every bit as brutal as Stalin’s rule over Russia….In November, 1941 Churchill instituted a scorched-earth policy in Bengal that came to be known as the Denial Policy. Soldiers were ordered to seize all the rice they could find: they stripped silos and storehouses, took seed crops…Soldiers also impounded all industrial and pleasure transport, all boats, including Bengali fishermen’s boats, all bicycles, including those used by the population to get to work. Their store of rice gone, denied transport to search for food, Bengalis began starving to death in ever increasing numbers….

On October 16, 1942, a cyclone and tidal wave hit Bengal, ruining fields, houses, and the ability of the people to go on with their lives. In the face of this disaster, rice denial continued as British policy…As a result 13 percent of the population of Bengal died of starvation. Because Indians were not permitted to travel abroad and had no access to international telephone or telegraph, and their leaders were in jail, there was no way for Bengalis to make their plight known to the world….

After the tidal wave, FDR replaced Johnson with William Phillips, State’s most competent diplomat, as his personal representative. He directed Phillips to push his philosophy ‘favoring freedom for all dependant peoples at the earliest possible date.’ By the time of Phillip’s arrival, late in 1942, Indians in great number, led by Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, completely outraged by British high-handedness, had rebelled, and the viceroy had retaliated by killing ten thousand Indians and putting ninety thousand in jail. Twenty-five thousand members of the Congress Party, including Nehru and Gandhi, who were being held incommunicado, remained in jail. Phillip’s request to interview them was denied. Told Nehru, whom he despised, was fasting, Churchill commented ‘We had no objection to his fasting to death..He is a thoroughly evil force, hostile to us in every fiber’…

Churchill claimed that the fighting was caused by bad blood between the Hindus and the Muslims, which was not true. In fact, as it had done in the past, British policy was to foster enmity between the two groups. ‘I am not at all attracted by the prospect of one united India, which will show us the door,’ he admitted.” (Most Palestinians and Israelis with whom I have spoken attribute the source of their ongoing disastrous conflict to Britain’s Machiavellian policy of ‘Divide and Conquer’) “Phillips minced no words in his report to FDR: ‘Many of the rural areas in Bengal are foodless, with the villagers wandering into the cities to die there of starvation. Deaths from starvation on the streets of Calcutta are reported to have become so numerous that prominent European members of the community have addressed open letters to the municipal authorities requesting that more adequate means be found for the removal of the corpses.’… John Colville, Churchill’s private secretary, recorded in his diary: ‘The PM said the Hindus were a foul race protected by their mere pullulation from the doom that is their due, and he wished, Bert Harris, marshal of the air force could send some of his surplus bombers to destroy them.’ Modern estimates are that at least 1 million and perhaps as many as 3 million died.”

According to Dr. Sashi Tharoor, former Under-Secretary General of the United Nations,

“Churchill has as much blood on his hands as Hitler does.”

Perhaps, because India is now following the orders of her former slaveholder, Western imperialism, the horrifying number of suicides of their destitute farmers, the degradation of the women (innumerable gang rapes and murders of impoverished girls) receive little attention in the corridors of power at the United Nations, subsumed under general toothless resolutions upholding the rights of women.

By contrast, China has become the whipping boy of the Western Media which, overlooking the horrific human rights abuses of millions of impoverished Indians, is shedding incessant, ad nauseum crocodile tears about the condition of the Uighurs in China, and the “innocent protesters” in Hong Kong.

Massive evidence produced by Bashir Ja’afari, Ambassador of Syria to the United Nations, documents the fact that each year Saudi Arabia finances the travel of 5,000 Uighurs from Xingjiang, China to the Mecca pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia, during which they are indoctrinated in Islamic extremism and jihad. These Uighurs are hosted for a month longer than other pilgrims, until their expertise in jihad is completed, and are then returned to China for the purpose of fomenting separatist movements and committing terrorist actions, which the Chinese government is attempting to prevent and from which the Chinese government is attempting to protect its population. The re-education camps, which are the ostensibly “undemocratic” means by which China is attempting to reintegrate these “Manchurian candidates” into Chinese society are the current target of Western concern with ostensible “human rights abuses” in China, while the West, itself is diverting attention from the egregious domestic human rights abuses occurring with impunity within these arrogant Western countries themselves. (George Floyd’s public strangulation is only one example of this ongoing atrocity, which occurs massively, and with impunity).

China is a huge country, comprised of 56 nationalities. It is most probable, and possibly indisputable, that there are hostile foreign interests in fomenting the disintegration of China, a rising herculean socialist economic power, and reducing it to the tragic weakness, and destitution to which the fifteen countries formerly comprising the Soviet Union were condemned.

The Uighur jihadists certainly fulfill their mission, as early as 2013 there was a terrorist bombing in Beijing’s center, and subsequent violent extremist actions elsewhere in China. The sophisticated Chinese, benefiting from a 5,000 year old civilization, recognized the hostile geostrategic policies underlying this new scourge of terrorism in their country, and have now taken action to prevent this horrific epidemic from causing further chaotic explosions on their territory. The re-education camps in Xingjiang are defensive measures, and have not provoked epidemics of suicide, as have the free-market economic policies in capitalist India, “the world’s largest democracy.”

US President Trump’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 22, 2020 was an undisguised and brazen declaration of overt hostility toward China, now the world’s largest challenge to the US claim to “greatness.” The constant attack against China, with fabrications of human rights abuses against the country that has lifted 700 million people out of poverty, (while the US is pushing millions of people into poverty, with its trillion dollar investment in nuclear weapons, while American people are in massively increasing numbers starving, homeless, and lacking the medical equipment and resources that would contain and control the spread of Covid -19) is so conspicuously hypocritical that it should be obvious to even a casual observer. It is a testament to the overpowering indoctrination of masses of people in the USA and Western Europe that the inability (or rigid refusal) to recognize this blatant obfuscation continues through this very minute.

Increasingly frustrated and volatile protesters against racism and inequality in the West are denigrated and battered – or murdered, while anti-communist protesters in Hong Kong are lionized. The Orwellian character of this brainwashing is tragic, and an illustration of what a brilliant psychiatrist in Cambridge, Massachusetts recently said to me: “I have concluded that the human species does not know how to take care of itself, and as a result, may not survive.”

Introducing the opening of the UN General Debate, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres emphasized: “We are moving in a very dangerous direction. Our world cannot afford a future where the two largest economies split the globe in a Great Fracture—each with its own trade and financial rules and internet and artificial intelligence capacities. Such a divide risks inevitably turning into a geostrategic and military divide. We must avoid this at all costs.”

*

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.

Carla Stea is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research’s Correspondent at UN headquarters, New York. 

It happened ten years ago: US-NATO’s “humanitarian war” against Libya in support of so-called pro-democracy rebels. The On February 15, 2011, according to the official story “anti-government rallies were held in Benghazi calling upon Qadaffi to step down. US-NATO cam to the rescue of pro-democracy movement,

Who were these pro-democracy activists. They were led by paramilitary brigades under the supervision of NATO Special Forces. The “Liberation” of  Tripoli was carried out by “former” members of the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG). 

The jihadists and NATO work handed in glove. These “former” Al Qaeda affiliated brigades constitute the backbone of the “pro-democracy” rebellion.

Manlio Dinucci in an article published by Global Research on February 28, 2011 recalls the history of Libya and the insidious US-NATO project.

Libya had been an Italian colony in 1911 under the reign of King Idris. According to Manlio Dinucci,

“The flag of King Idris, which is flying again now in the civil war in Libya, is the banner of those who, by manipulating the struggle of those genuinely fighting for democracy against the regime of Gaddafi, plan to bring Libya back under control of the powers that once dominated it.”

Michel Chossudovsky, February 20, 2011

***

Benghazi captured, the rebels have lowered the green flag of the Republic of Libya, hoisting in its place the red, black and green banner with crescent and star: the flag of the monarchy of King Idris. The same flag was hoisted by protesters (including those of the Partito democratico and the Rifondazione comunista) on the gate of the Libyan embassy in Rome, raising the cry: “Here’s the flag of democratic  Libya, that of King Idris.” It was a symbolic act, rich in history and burning current events.

The Emir of Cyrenaica

Already the emir of Cyrenaica and Tripoli, Sidi Muhammad Idris al-Mahdi al-Senussi was put on the throne of Libya by the British when the country gained independence in 1951. It had been an Italian colony since 1911. Libya became a federal monarchy, in which King Idris was head of state, with the right to pass it on to his heirs. It was always the king who would appoint the prime minister, the Council of Ministers and half the members of the Senate, which had the right to dissolve the House of Representatives.

According to a twenty-year treaty of “friendship and alliance” with Britain, in 1953, King Idris granted to the British, in exchange for financial and military assistance, the use of air, naval and land bases in Cyrenaica and Tripolitania. A similar agreement was concluded in 1954 with the United States, which obtained the use of the Wheelus Air Base just outside Tripoli. It became the main U.S. air base in the Mediterranean. In addition, the United States and Britain were able to use firing ranges in Libya for their military aviation. With Italy, King Idris in 1956 concluded an agreement which not only wiped Italy clear of all damages to Libya, but allowed the Italian community in Tripoli to maintain its assets practically intact.

Libya became even more important for the U.S. and Britain when, in the late 1950s, the U.S.-based company Esso (ExxonMobil) confirmed the existence of large oil fields and others were discovered soon after. The major companies, such as the U.S.’s Esso and Britain’s British Petroleum, got advantageous concessions that ensured their control and the bulk of the profit from Libya’s oil. The Italian company Eni also obtained two concessions, through Agip. To better control the deposits, the government’s federal form was abolished in 1963, eliminating the historical regions of Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and Fezzan.

The protests of Libyan nationalists, who accused King Idris of selling out the country, were stifled by police repression. The rebellion grew, however, especially in the armed forces. It resulted in a coup – whose chief architect was Captain Muammar Gaddafi – carried out without bloodshed in 1969 by just 50 officers, calling themselves “Free Officers” on the Nasser model.

The monarchy abolished, the Libyan Arab Republic in 1970 forced the U.S. and British forces to evacuate their military bases and, the following year, nationalized the properties held by British Petroleum and forced other companies to pay the Libyan state a much higher share of the profits.

The flag of King Idris, which is flying again now in the civil war in Libya, is the banner of those who, by manipulating the struggle of those genuinely fighting for democracy against the regime of Gaddafi, plan to bring Libya back under control of the powers that once dominated it.

Those forces, headed by the United States, are preparing to land in Libya under the cover of “peacekeeping.” Meanwhile, in concert with the Pentagon, the Italian Defense Minister Ignacio La Russa announced that from Sigonella military base [Sicily] military airplanes will fly directly to Libya for “purely humanitarian purposes.” The same “humanitarian intervention” that the pacifists and those who waved the flag of King Idris are demanding in an “urgent appeal,” but they forget history. They should remember that a century ago, in 1911, the Italian occupation of Libya, prepared by incessant propaganda, was supported by majority public opinion, while in the cabarets they sang, “Tripoli, sing land of love come sweetly where the syrup runs.” Times change and language, but the rhyme remains, “to the roar of guns.”

Translated from the Italian by John Catalinotto

Author’s Note:

The following article was published almost ten years ago on March 9, 2011, at the outset of the US-NATO “humanitarian” military intervention in Libya.  Libya’s crude oil reserves in 2011 were twice those of the United States.

In retrospect. the 2011 US-NATO led war on Libya was a multi-trillion dollar trophy for the United States. It was also, as outlined in my 2011 article a means to establishing US hegemony in North Africa, a region historically dominated by France and to lesser extent by Italy and Spain.

The US-NATO intervention was also intent upon excluding China from the region and edging out China’s National Petroleum Corp (CNPC), which was a major player in Libya. 

Libya is the gateway to the Sahel and Central Africa. More generally, what is at stake is the redrawing of the map of Africa at the expense of France’s historical spheres of influence, namely a process of neo-colonial redivision.

Recent developments confirm this process. In the course of the last decade, starting with president Nicolas Sarkozy, France has become a de facto US proxy State. 

Michel Chossudovsky, February 15, 2021

***

The geopolitical and economic implications of a US-NATO led military intervention directed against Libya are far-reaching.

Libya is among the World’s largest oil economies with approximately 3.5% of global oil reserves, more than twice those of the US.

“Operation Libya” is part of  the broader military agenda in the Middle East and Central Asia which consists in gaining control and corporate ownership over more than sixty percent of the world’s reserves of oil and natural gas, including oil and gas pipeline routes.

“Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Nigeria, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, possess between 66.2 and 75.9 percent of total oil reserves, depending on the source and methodology of the estimate.” (See Michel Chossudovsky, The “Demonization” of Muslims and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, January 4, 2007) .

With 46.5 billion barrels of proven reserves [2011 data], (10 times those of Egypt), Libya is the largest oil economy in the African continent followed by Nigeria and Algeria (Oil and Gas Journal). In contrast, US proven oil reserves are of the order of 20.6 billion barrels (December 2008) according to the Energy Information Administration.  U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves)

The most recent estimates [2011] place Libya’s oil reserves at 60 billion barrels. Its gas reserves at 1,500 billion m3. Its production has been between 1.3 and 1.7 million barrels a day, well below its productive capacity. Its longer term objective is three million b/d and a gas production of 2,600 million cubic feet a day, according to figures of the National Oil Corporation (NOC).

The (alternative) BP Statistical Energy Survey (2008) places Libya’s proven oil reserves at 41.464 billion barrels at the end of 2007 which represents 3.34 % of the world’s proven reserves. (Mbendi  Oil and Gas in Libya – Overview).

Oil is the “Trophy” of US-NATO led Wars

An invasion of Libya under a humanitarian mandate would serve the same corporate interests as the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. The underlying objective is to take possession of Libya’s oil reserves, destabilize the National Oil Corporation (NOC) and eventually privatize the country’s oil industry, namely transfer the control and ownership of Libya’s oil wealth into foreign hands.

The National Oil Corporation (NOC) is ranked 25 among the world’s Top 100 Oil Companies. (The Energy Intelligence ranks NOC 25 among the world’s Top 100 companies. – Libyaonline.com)

The planned invasion of Libya, which is already underway [February-March 2011]is part of the broader “Battle for Oil”.  Close to 80 percent of Libya’s oil reserves are located in the Sirte Gulf basin of Eastern Libya. (See map below)

Libya is a Prize Economy. “War is good for business”. Oil is the trophy of US-NATO led wars.

Wall Street, the Anglo-American oil giants, the US-EU weapons producers would be the unspoken beneficiaries of a US-NATO led military campaign directed against Libya.

Libyan oil is a bonanza for the Anglo-American oil giants. While the market value of crude oil is currently well in excess of 100 dollars a barrel, the cost of Libyan oil is extremely low, as low as $1.00 a barrel (according to one estimate). As one oil market expert commented somewhat cryptically:

“At $110 on the world market, the simple math gives Libya a $109 profit margin.” (Libya Oil, Libya Oil One Country’s $109 Profit on $110 Oil, EnergyandCapital.com March 12, 2008)

Foreign Oil Interests in Libya

Foreign oil companies operating prior to the insurrection in Libya include France’s Total, Italy’s ENI, The China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC), British Petroleum, the Spanish Oil consortium REPSOL, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Occidental Petroleum, Hess, Conoco Phillips.

Of significance, China plays a central role in the Libyan oil industry. The China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) had a workforce of some 400 employees. The total Chinese workforce in Libya was of the order of 30,000.

Eleven percent (11%) of Libyan oil exports are channelled to China. While there are no figures on the size and importance of CNPC’s production and exploration activities, there are indications that they are sizeable.

More generally, China’s presence in North Africa is considered by Washington to constitute an intrusion. From a geopolitical standpoint, China is an encroachment. The military campaign directed against Libya is intent upon excluding China from North Africa.

Also of importance is the role of Italy. ENI, the Italian oil consortium puts out 244,000 barrels of gas and oil, which represents almost 25 percent of Libya’s total exports. ( Sky News: Foreign oil firms halt Libyan operations, February 23, 2011).

Among US companies in Libya, Chevron and Occidental Petroleum (Oxy) decided barely 6 months ago (October 2010) not to renew their oil and gas exploration licenses in Libya. (Why are Chevron and Oxy leaving Libya?: Voice of Russia, October 6, 2010). In contrast, in November 2010, Germany’s oil company, R.W. DIA E signed a far-reaching agreement with Libya’s National Oil Corporation (NOC) involving exploration and production sharing. AfricaNews – Libya: German oil firm signs prospecting deal – The AfricaNews, 

The financial stakes as well  as “the spoils of war” are extremely high. The military operation is intent upon dismantling Libya’s financial institutions as well as confiscating billions of dollars of Libyan financial assets deposited in Western banks.

It should be emphasised that Libya’s military capabilities, including its air defense system are weak. 

Libya Oil Concessions

Redrawing the Map of Africa

Libya has the largest oil reserves in Africa. The objective of US-NATO interference is strategic: it consists in outright theft, in stealing the nation’s oil wealth under the disguise of a humanitarian intervention.

This military operation is intent upon establishing US hegemony in North Africa, a region historically dominated by France and to lesser extent by Italy and Spain.

With regard to Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria, Washington’s design is to weaken the political links of these countries to France and push for the installation of new political regimes which have a close rapport with the US. This weakening of France is part of a US imperial design. It is a historical process which goes back to the wars in Indochina.

US-NATO intervention leading to the eventual formation of a US puppet regime is also intent upon excluding China from the region and edging out China’s National Petroleum Corp (CNPC). The Anglo-American oil giants including British Petroleum which signed an exploration contract in 2007 with the Ghadaffi government are among the potential “beneficiaries” of  the proposed US-NATO military operation.

More generally, what is at stake is the redrawing of the map of Africa, a process of neo-colonial redivision, the scrapping of the demarcations of the 1884 Berlin Conference, the conquest of Africa by the United States in alliance with Britain, in a US-NATO led operation.

The colonial redivision of Africa. 1913

Libya: Strategic Saharan Gateway to Central Africa

Libya has borders with several countries which are within France’s sphere of influence, including Algeria, Tunisia, Niger and Chad.

Chad is potentially an oil rich economy. ExxonMobil and Chevron have interests in Southern Chad including a pipeline project. Southern Chad is a gateway into the Darfur region of Sudan, which is also strategic in view of its oil wealth.

China has oil interests in both Chad and Sudan. The China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) signed a farreaching agreement with the Chad government in 2007.

Niger is strategic to the United States in view of its extensive reserves of uranium. At present, France dominates the uranium industry in Niger through the French nuclear conglomerate Areva, formerly known as Cogema. China also has a stake in Niger’s uranium industry.

More generally, the Southern border of Libya is strategic for the United States in its quest to extend its sphere of influence in Francophone Africa, a vast territory extending from North Africa to Central and Western Africa. Historically this region was part of France and Belgium’s colonial empires, the borders of which were established  at the Berlin Conference of 1884.

Image Source www.hobotraveler.com

The US played a passive role at the 1884 Berlin Conference. This new 21st Century redivision of the African continent, predicated on the control over oil, natural gas and strategic minerals (cobalt, uranium, chromium, manganese, platinum and uranium) largely supports dominant Anglo-American corporate interests.

US interference in North Africa redefines the geopolitics of an entire region. It undermines China and overshadows the influence of the European Union.

This new redivision of Africa not only weakens the role of the former colonial powers (including France and Italy) in North Africa. it  is also part of a broader process of displacing and weakening France (and Belgium) over a large part of the African continent.

US puppet regimes have been installed in several African countries which historically were in the sphere of influence of France (and Belgium), including The Republic of the Congo and Rwanda.  Several countries in West Africa (including Côte d’Ivoire) are slated to become US proxy states.

The European Union is heavily dependent on the flow of Libyan oil. 85 percent of its oil is sold to European countries. In the case of a war with Libya, the supply of petroleum to Western Europe could be further disrupted, largely affecting Italy, France and Germany. Thirty percent of Italy’s oil and 10 percent of its gas are imported from Libya. Libyan gas is fed through the Greenstream pipeline in the Mediterranean (See map below).

The implications of these potential disruptions are far-reaching. They also have a direct bearing on the relationship between the US and the European Union.

Greenstream pipeline linking Libya to Italy (right)

Concluding Remarks

The mainstream media through massive disinformation is complicit in justifying a military agenda which, if carried out, would have devastating consequences not only for the Libyan people: the social and economic impacts would be felt Worldwide.

There are at present three distinct war theaters in the broader Middle East Central Asian region: Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq. In the case of an attack on Libya, a  fourth war theater would be opened up in North Africa, with the risk of military escalation.

Public opinion must take cognizance of the hidden agenda behind this alleged humanitarian undertaking, heralded by the heads of state and heads of government of NATO countries as a “Just War”. The Just War theory in both its classical and contemporary versions upholds war as a “humanitarian operation”. It calls for military intervention on ethical and moral grounds against “rogue states” and “Islamic terrorists”. The Just war theory demonizes the Gaddafi regime while providing a humanitarian mandate to US-NATO military intervention.

The heads of state and heads of government of NATO countries are the architects of war and destruction in Iraq and Afghanistan. In an utterly twisted logic, they are heralded as the voices of reason, as the representatives of the “international community”.

Realities are turned upside down. A humanitarian intervention is launched by war criminals in high office, who are the unchallenged guardians of the Just War theory.

Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo,… Civilian casualties in Pakistan resulting from US drone attacks on towns and villages ordered by president Obama, are not front page news, nor are the 2 million civilian deaths in Iraq.

There is no such thing as a “Just War”.  The history of US imperialism should be understood. The 2000 Report of the Project of the New American Century entitled “Rebuilding Americas’ Defenses” [pdf file no longer accessible] calls for the implementation of a long war, a war of conquest.

One of the main components of this military agenda is: to “Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars”.

“Operation Libya” is part of that process. It is another theater in the Pentagon’s logic of “simultaneous theater wars”.

The PNAC document faithfully reflects the evolution of US military doctrine since 2001. The US plans to be involved simultaneously in several war theaters in different regions of the World.

While heralding the need to protect America (i.e. “National Security”), the PNAC report does spell out why these multiple theater wars are required.

What purpose do they serve. Are they an instrument of peace? The usual humanitarian justification is not even mentioned.

What is the purpose of America’s military roadmap?

Libya is targeted because it is one among several remaining countries outside America’s sphere of influence, which fail to conform to US demands. Libya is a country which has been selected as part of a military “road map” which consists of “multiple simultaneous theater wars”.  In the words of former NATO Commander Chief General Wesley Clark:

 “in the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan…. (Wesley Clark, Winning Modern Wars, p. 130).

Part I

Insurrection and Military Intervention: The US NATO Attempted Coup d’Etat in Libya?

Der deutsche Regimekritiker und Schriftsteller Wolfgang Borchert fordert in einem 1947 verfassten Manifest “Dann gibt es nur eins!” die Mitmenschen dazu auf, die Teilnahme an künftigen Kriegen zu verweigern. Kurz darauf verstirbt der 26-Jährige an den Folgen schwerer Kriegs-Verwundungen.

Der erschütternde Prosatext war sein Vermächtnis. Wir Gymnasiasten im Nachkriegsdeutschland fühlten uns durch dieses Manifest ein Stück weit wie befreit von drückenden Schuldgefühlen, die Söhne deutscher Soldaten zu sein und hofften auf eine Zukunft ohne Krieg und Gewalt.

Doch als Erwachsene haben wir versagt und Borcherts Vermächtnis nicht erfüllt: Wir verweigerten weder die Teilnahme am völkerrechtswidrigen Krieg der NATO gegen Serbien im Jahr 1999 noch die Beteiligung an den Kriegen im Nahen, Mittleren und Fernen Osten. Heute bietet sich wieder die Gelegenheit, Widerstand zu leisten gegen Tyrannei und Krieg gegen uns Bürger. Werden wir dieses Mal Borcherts Vermächtnis erfüllen und uns den satanischen Plänen einer globalen kriminellen “Elite” verweigern – und NEIN! sagen? 

Du. Bürger in welchem Land auch immer. Wenn sie dir befehlen, du sollst Politikern vertrauen und ihnen die Macht übergeben, dann gibt es nur eins:
Sag NEIN!

The Covid Deception Serves An Undeclared Agenda

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, February 19 2021

There is no scientific basis for the measures in place to deal with the alleged Covid Pandemic.  Among experts the support for these measures are largely limited to those with financial links with pharmaceutical corporations.

Truth Slips Out in Coronavirus Vaccine Deaths ‘Fact Check’?

By Adam Dick, February 19 2021

The big money media that have been working for a year to stir up maximum fear of coronavirus have been taking the opposite tack regarding coronavirus vaccines.

How the Gates Foundation Seeded America’s COVID-19 Policy Catastrophes

By Jordan Schachtel, February 19 2021

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is finally facing the heat for his botched and negligent coronavirus response policies, yet no one seems to be asking why Cuomo and select governors made the fateful decisions that led to the excess deaths.

The Twilight Zone: Covid, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and Eugenics

By Peter Koenig, February 19 2021

These horrible times, from lockdowns to lockdowns to coerced vaccinations, to social distancing, to masking and masking and more masking — when we all know, and science has proven it – that none of this helps – don’t they make you feel that we are living in a twilight zone?

‘A Humanitarian Crisis’ in Texas: Cold and Snow Put Millions in Danger. 38 Dead

By Counter Current News, February 19 2021

Texas’s freeze entered a sixth day on Thursday. At least 31 people have died as of Wednesday afternoon as a result of the severe weather in Texas.

The Decline of the West: American Education Surrenders to ‘Equity’

By Philip Giraldi, February 18 2021

It will be difficult or even impossible to go back to a system where learning is actually a discipline that requires hard work and dedication.

‘All The Warfare Of The Future’: Drones, New Technology and the Integrated Review

By Chris Cole, February 18 2021

At the beginning of March, the government will publish its long-awaited Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy, known (thankfully) as ‘The Integrated Review’.  

Role of NGOs in Promoting Neo-Colonialism

By Syed Ehtisham, February 19 2021

Political scientists often refer to NGOs as “pressure groups” or “lobby groups,” . In the field of international relations, scholars now speak of NGOs as “Non-state Actors”.

The Greater Danger of Israeli Provocations in Syria

By Brian Berletic, February 19 2021

Continued airstrikes carried out by Israeli warplanes in Syria presents – at face value – an obvious and persistent threat to Syria. In a wider context, the threat runs much deeper and extends to Syria’s allies in Tehran.

Oceanic Sharks and Rays Have Declined by 71% since 1970 – A Global Solution Is Needed

By The Conversation, February 19 2021

For millennia, their remoteness has allowed these species to largely avoid humans. But since the early 1950s, industrial-scale fishing fleets have been able to reach distant waters and gradually spread to exploit the entire global ocean.