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 the six decades of Cuban medical collaboration abroad, its health personnel have assisted 1.988 billion people in the world, almost a third of mankind, said Dr. Jorge Delgado Bustillo, director of the Central Unit for Medical Cooperation (UCCM).

Delgado Bustillo also assured that Cuban doctors have performed more than 14,500,000 surgical operations, 4,470,000 deliveries and have saved 8,700,000 lives, results that increase the prestige of Cuban medicine in the international arena.

Currently, when the COVID-19 pandemic causes the death of thousands of people every day, more than 30,407 Cuban health professionals are in 66 nations, distributed in permanent medical brigades and the Henry Reeve Contingent.

He pointed out that at the request of governments, this force arrived for the first time in Europe, in the Italian region of Lombardy and the city of Turin; it was also in the Principality of Andorra and in dozens of countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

He also mentioned that out of the 56 brigades that were created to fight SARS-CoV-2, 25 are active, with around 2,500 collaborators.

The UCCM director affirmed that this is not the first time Cuba has taken the lead in this health emergency, and recalled its presence after the earthquake in Pakistan in 2005, and in 2010 during another earthquake in Haiti and the cholera epidemic, when Cuban doctors were the first to attend to the victims and identify the disease in that country.

There were also 265 of our professionals in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea Conakry, during the Ebola epidemic in 2014, while from Cuba another 12,000 volunteers were ready to fulfill that mission, the official stressed.

Delgado Bustillo remarked that the island has thousands of health professionals who voluntarily go to the most distant nations and under the most difficult conditions, without any pressure, since it is a spontaneous decision of each one of them.

The fraternal history with other nations dates back to 1960, when an emergency brigade went to Chile to help the victims of an earthquake of 9.5 on the Richter scale in the southern city of Valdivia, the largest earthquake ever registered in history.

Three years later, Cuban medical collaboration officially began with the sending of permanent brigades to the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, a nation that had achieved its independence after the end of an anti-colonial war with France.
Since then, Cuba has been present in more than 150 countries with more than 420,000 health professionals.

*

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 Cuban News Agency

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Cuba Has Assisted Almost One Third of the World’s Population in Health Care
  • Tags: ,

The Covid Outbreak: “Biggest Health Scam of the 21st Century.” Report by 1500 Health Professionals

By United Health Professionals, February 25 2021

We are health professionals of the international collective : United Health Professionals, composed of more than 1,500 members (including professors of medicine, intensive care physicians and infectious disease specialists) from different countries of Europe, Africa, America, Asia and Oceania.

The Pine-eyed Boy Escapes from the Belly of the Dark Night in the Fish’s Tale

By Edward Curtin, February 25 2021

We are now living in a world where freedom’s flashing lightning bolts have been replaced by dim grim grimaces of widespread depression and resignation as the shroud of solicitous neofascism descends on much of the world.

Scientists Show COVID Tests Are ‘Useless’, Are Based on ‘Flawed Science’

By Michael Haynes, February 25 2021

The original scientific paper establishing RT-PCR tests as the way to identify COVID-19 in individuals, thus fueling the lockdowns across the globe, has been thoroughly debunked by scientists, who call the tests “useless” and “completely unsuitable” to find COVID-19.

Lets Us Put an End to the Corona Pandemic Hoax: We Are Victims and Perpetrators at the Same Time

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, February 25 2021

“There exists an unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It is outrageous, this is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting society.” This is what top Canadian pathologist and virologist Dr Roger Hodkinson told Canadian government officials about Corona back in late November 2020.

Democrats Ask Biden to Surrender Keys on Nuclear Weapons Launches

By Jordan Lancaster, February 25 2021

House Democrats have asked President Joe Biden to give other officials the authority to launch nuclear weapons, an action which he currently has sole authority to do.

Is the Virus “Variant” Being Used to Scare People into Getting Vaccinated?

By Mike Whitney, February 25 2021

Is this new mutation, called the “variant”, really as deadly as it’s cracked up to be or is the media conjuring up another Covid hobgoblin to scare the public into getting vaccinated?

Nearly 800 Organizations and Individuals in the U.S. Demand the Biden Administration End Its Support for the Brutal Moïse Regime in Haiti

By Margaret Flowers, February 25 2021

Today, February 24, 72 organizations and 700 individuals published an open letter calling for the Biden administration to end its illegal and destructive intervention in Haiti.

Synthetic mRNA COVID Vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis

By Dr. Sadaf Gilani, February 25 2021

With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?

US Destroys Anti-fascist Forces, Stalin’s Failed Efforts to Align with West

By Shane Quinn, February 25 2021

On 18 March 1938 Stalin proposed that Britain and France join the USSR in a conference to enforce collective security. This offer, a potential forerunner to a Franco-British-Russo alliance aimed at Hitler, was rejected.

Unrelenting, Omnipresent Covid Fear “Short Circuits the Human Brain”

By Jeff Harris, February 25 2021

As we rapidly approach the one year anniversary of Covid madness I’ll freely admit I’ve been shocked by the millions upon millions of American’s who appear so traumatized they are unable to think clearly.

Mexico to Ban Glyphosate, GM Corn Presidential Decree Comes Despite Intense Pressure from Industry, U.S. Authorities

By Timothy A. Wise, February 25 2021

Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador quietly rocked the agribusiness world with his New Year’s Eve decree to phase out use of the herbicide glyphosate and the cultivation of genetically modified corn.

The Empty Promise of Western-Style “Equality” and “Democracy”

By Brian Berletic, February 25 2021

Let’s take a look at a US-backed opposition party in Thailand – Future Forward (now renamed as the Move Forward and Progressive Movement parties). These are parties that vow to create “equality” in Thailand. I explain how this is pure propaganda.
  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Covid Outbreak: “Biggest Health Scam of the 21st Century.”

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 Menlo Park to Dublin, Johannesburg to Tel Aviv-Yaffo, activists in 17 cities across the globe delivered petitions with over 54,000 signatures to Facebook corporate offices today. The petitions call on the social media giant to not include “Zionist” in its hate speech policy, as Facebook is currently considering. The COVID-safe petition delivery in New York City was live-streamed on Facebook, during a virtual petition delivery event

Signed by leading human rights activists, academics and artists, the petition calls on Facebook to ensure that any amendments to its hate speech policy keep all people safe – and connected.

The global campaign “Facebook, we need to talk,” co-sponsored by 55 organizations, began in response to an inquiry by Facebook to assess if critical conversations that use the term “Zionist” fall within the rubric of hate speech as per Facebook’s Community Standards. Zionism is a political ideology and movement that emerged in the 19th century and led to the founding of the state of Israel on Palestinian land; It has been deeply contested since its conception, including within the Jewish community.

The petitions were delivered in-person to Facebook’s US headquarters in the San Francisco Bay Area, and to their European HQ in Dublin, Ireland. Petitions were also delivered in-person to Facebook offices in: Amsterdam, Berlin, Boston, Brussels, Denver, Johannesburg, London, Los Lunas, New York City, Paris, Seattle, Sydney, Tel Aviv,  Toronto, and Vancouver. In Dublin, the petition delivery also included a letter of support signed by over fifty Members of the Irish Parliament, delivered by MP Gino Kenny TD, Vice-Chair of Parliamentary Friends of Palestine.

The virtual petition delivery included live-streamed deliveries, phone and fax actions, and speeches and performances by Noura Erekat, Judith Butler, Remi Kanazi, Le Trio Joubran and Gabrielle Spears.

Judith Butler said: “As Jews, we have the choice to not be Zionist, which is the only possible just position… We refuse the argument that only Zionists are Jews – and Facebook should not claim that our criticism of Zionism is antisemitic.”

Noura Erakat said: “As Palestinians, we cannot under-estimate the impact of social media in enabling us to be seen and to actually tell our story. But when I tried to share the story of how my cousin was killed by Israeli soldiers, Facebook took it down. This is why we have to fight.”

Voices from petition deliveries around the world:

BRUSSELS, Dr. Anya Topolski, Another Jewish Voice: “We’re here today at five Facebook offices across Europe saying loud and clear: Facebook should refuse to cooperate with those who are destroying solidarity between Jews and Palestinians. Instead, Facebook should help us to connect across differences so that, together, we can dismantle all forms of racism, which includes both antisemitism and Islamophobia, as well as all forms of bigotry used to keep us apart.”

DUBLIN, Fatin Al Tamimi, Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign: “We must stand together against antisemitism! But instead, Facebook may end up preventing Palestinians from naming the ideology of the state that has colonized and oppressed us for more than seventy years. Here in Dublin, at Facebook’s European headquarters, human rights campaigners are demanding that Facebook ensure that we, indigenous Palestinians and our global allies, will not be prevented from holding the Israeli government accountable for its human rights violations.”

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, Eve Hershcopf, JVP-Bay Area: “As the home of the Free Speech movement and of Facebook’s international headquarters, Bay Area organizations have a particular responsibility to speak up against Facebook’s efforts to suppress speech critical of Zionist ideology and Israel’s actions against Palestinians.” 

SYDNEY, Vivienne Porzsolt, Jews against the Occupation:Here in Sydney, we join the global action to oppose Facebook’s support of the efforts of the Israeli government to silence opposition to the actions of the state of Israel. Labeling it ‘antisemitic’ is fundamentally dishonest. Facebook certainly shouldn’t undertake political censorship at the request of the Israeli government.” 

TEL AVIV-YAFFO, Michal Sapir, human rights activist: “Today, along with a group of Israeli activists in Tel Aviv, I’m asking Facebook to help us hold all governments, including the Israeli government, accountable. I’m asking Facebook not to censor Palestinian and other voices from telling our stories and criticizing the state.”

Notable human rights activists and cultural figures such as Hanan Ashrawi, Norita Cortiñas, Wallace Shawn, Alia Shawkat and Peter Gabriel have signed the petition, which garnered over 50,000 signatures in a month. The open letter notes that if Facebook restricts the usage of the word “Zionist,” it would prevent Palestinians from talking about their daily lives, shield the Israeli government from accountability for human rights violations, and do nothing to make Jewish people safer from antisemitism.

This attempt to stifle conversations about Zionist political ideology and Zionist policies — both of which have real implications for Palestinian and Israeli people, as well as Jewish and Palestinian people around the world — is part of an emerging pattern of political censorship by the Israeli government and some of its supporters. The most prominent example of these efforts to shield the Israeli government from accountability is the current campaign to impose the controversial IHRA working definition of antisemitism on campuses and civil society, and to codify it in government legislation. The IHRA definition conflates antisemitism with holding the Israeli government accountable for rights violations, stifling protected political speech that is necessary for healthy, open discussions about foreign policy and human rights.

The campaign was launched by 7amleh – The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media, Palestine Legal, MPower Change, Jewish Voice for Peace, Independent Jewish Voices Canada, Eyewitness Palestine, BDS National Committee, American Muslims for Palestine and Adalah Justice Project. (See below for a complete list of 55 co-sponsors.)

Rabbi Alissa Wise, Deputy Director of Jewish Voice for Peace: “Across five continents, Facebook users brought a simple and urgent message to Facebook: A move to equate “Zionist” and “Jew” in your hate speech policies would harm Palestinians and Jews. In 17 cities, we brought the over 50,000 names of those across the globe who are urging Facebook to not accede to the Israeli government’s demand to shield them from accountability, and undermine our shared commitment to dismantle antisemitism.”

Linda Sarsour, Executive Director, MPower Change: “Over 52,000 people from varying faith and cultural backgrounds across the globe have come together to urge Facebook: don’t make a special exception limiting the speech of Palestinians and their allies. Facebook won’t crackdown on white supremacist groups using their platform to push antisemitic, anti-Black, and Islamophobic rhetoric — so they are targeting a marginalized people living under apartheid instead. I wish this pattern weren’t all too familiar to me as a Palestinian-American woman and committed activist. Let’s make sure they don’t set this dangerous precedent.”

Nadim Nashif, Executive Director of 7amleh – The Arab Center for the Advancement of Social Media: “Having 50,000 signatures delivered to Facebook offices in more than a dozen cities around the world shows that there is public support for the freedom of expression of Palestinians online. ‘Zionist’ should not be part of Facebook’s hate-speech policy – and the Israeli government does not get to dictate what we can and cannot say.”

To read the full text of the open letter, list of signatories, and background about the campaign, visit facebookweneedtotalk.org. For interviews with the campaign organizers and activists who delivered the petitions, contact Sonya E. Meyerson-Knox at [email protected] or 929-290-0317. Footage of the petition deliveries is available upon request.

Campaign background

We all want to connect. And social media can be a powerful tool to help us get past walls and share our stories, grow our networks and stand up for one another. But some politicians and governments are trying to turn these necessary guardrails into walls that keep us apart, generating fear and keeping us divided so they can avoid being held accountable for their actions.

Right now, Facebook is reaching out to stakeholders to ask if critical conversations that use the term “Zionist” fall within the rubric of hate speech as per Facebook’s Community Standards. Basically, Facebook is assessing if “Zionist” is being used as a proxy for “Jewish people or Israelis” in attacks on its platform.

Launched just a month ago, an open letter calling on Facebook to not include “Zionist” in its hate speech policy already has over 50,000 signatures. The petition reads: “We are deeply concerned about Facebook’s proposed revision of its hate speech policy to consider “Zionist” as a proxy for ‘Jew’ or ‘Jewish’.” “The proposed policy would too easily mischaracterize conversations about Zionists — and by extension, Zionism — as inherently antisemitic, harming Facebook users and undermining efforts to dismantle real antisemitism and all forms of racism, extremism and oppression.”

After 12 hours the petition already had thousands of signers, including: Alia Shawkat, Atilio Boron, Judith Butler, Michael Chabon, Noam Chomsky, Julie Christie, Richard Falk, Amos Goldberg, Marc Lamont Hill, Adnan Jubran, Ronnie Kasrils, Elias Khoury, Karol Cariola, Ken Loach, Miriam Margloyses, Ilan Pappe, Vijay Prashad, Prabir Purkayastha, Rima Berns-McGown, Jessica Tauane, Einat Weizman and Cornel West. (See facebookweneedtotalk.org/petition-text/english for a complete list of initial signatories.)

This move is part of a concerning pattern of the Israeli government and its supporters pressuring Facebook and other social media platforms to expand their hate speech policies to include speech critical of Israel and Zionism – and falsely claiming this would help fight antisemitism. They are hoping that by mischaracterizing critical use of the term “Zionists” as anti-Jewish, they can avoid accountability for its policies and actions that violate Palestinian human rights.  Such a move would do nothing to address antisemitism, especially the violent antisemitism of right-wing movements and states — which, as recent events have shown, is the source of the most tangible threats to Jewish lives.

Attempts to stifle conversations about Zionist political ideology and Zionist policies carried out by state actors — both of which have real implications for Palestinian and Israeli people, as well as Jewish and Palestinian people around the world — are part of an emerging pattern of political censorship by the Israeli government and some of its supporters.

The most prominent example of these efforts to shield the Israeli government from accountability is the current campaign to impose the controversial IHRA working definition of antisemitism on campuses and civil society, and to codify it in government legislation.

If Facebook does move to restrict use of the word Zionist, this would block important conversations on the world’s largest social media platform, harm Facebook users attempting to connect across space and difference, and deprive Palestinians of a critical venue for expressing their political viewpoints to the world. Palestinians need to be able to talk about Zionism and Zionists in order to share their family stories and daily lived experience with the world. That language is essential to clearly distinguishing between Judaism and Jewish people, on the one hand, and the State actors responsible for human rights violations against Palestinians, on the other.

*

Facebook, we need to talk campaign co-sponsors:

  • 7amleh: The Arab Center for Advancement of Social Media
  • Action Center on Race & the Economy (ACRE)
  • Adalah Justice Project
  • American Friends Service Committee
  • American Muslims for Palestine
  • Association France-Palestine Solidarité
  • BDS Berlin
  • BDS France
  • BDS México
  • BDS Movement, International
  • AROC (Arab Resource & Organizing Center)
  • CAIR
  • California Scholars for Academic Freedom
  • Center for Constitutional Rights
  • Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME)
  • Codepink
  • Color of Change
  • Defending Rights and Dissent
  • Disciples Palestine Israel Network
  • docP Netherlands
  • European Legal Support Center
  • EyeWitness Palestine
  • Falistiniyat
  • Fight for the Future
  • Foundational for Middle East Peace
  • France-Palestine Solidarité Association
  • Free Press
  • Free Speech on Israel
  • Friends of Sabeel North America (FOSNA)
  • Independent Jewish Voices Canada
  • If Not Now
  • Jewish Voice for Labour
  • Jewish Voice for Peace
  • Jews Against the Occupation Sydney
  • Kairos
  • Los Otros Judíos
  • Massachusetts Peace Action
  • MediaJustice
  • Mijente
  • Movement Alliance Project
  • MPower Change
  • National Lawyers Guild
  • National Students for Justice in Palestine
  • Palestine Legal
  • Palestine Solidarity Campaign (UK)
  • Palestinian Youth Movement
  • Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism (QUIT!)
  • Rabet
  • Rethinking Foreign Policy
  • Sada Social
  • South African BDS Coalition
  • Therapists for Peace and Justice
  • Tree of Life Educational Fund
  • US Campaign for Palestinian Rights
  • US Palestinian Community Network

*

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 Jewish Voice for Peace

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 we rapidly approach the one year anniversary of Covid madness I’ll freely admit I’ve been shocked by the millions upon millions of American’s who appear so traumatized they are unable to think clearly. They clamor for an unproven, untested, hastily cobbled together DNA altering gene therapy mislabeled as a “vaccine”.

They stand in long lines for hours to have this experimental cocktail injected into their bodies with the very real possibility of death as has already happened to hundreds of Covid Vaccine victims. At least 271 deaths, 9,845 adverse events after COVID vaccination so far: CDC data | News | LifeSite (lifesitenews.com) Who in their right mind would agree to risk their life by taking this concoction to hopefully protect themselves from a virus that according to the CDC is survivable by 99.74% of those exposed?

It doesn’t make any sense does it?

In addition there are thousands of highly credentialed medical experts who totally disagree with the official narrative that Covid is a “novel” deadly health threat. Great Barrington Declaration (gbdeclaration.org).

And while the public health “experts” loudly proclaim (maybe too loudly) that an experimental “vaccine” is our only hope, tens of thousands of doctors around the globe are having great success treating virus patients with simple, inexpensive, proven therapies. America’s Frontline Doctors – Empowering patients and physicians with independent, evidence-based medicine.

Yes, it’s certainly true that you won’t see this information on CNN or MSNBC or any other main stream media outlet. But the information is out there for any “thinking” person to discover if they can tear themselves away from thrilling episodes of “Keeping up with the Kardashian’s!” To me it seems like I’m living in a real life version of “The Twilight Zone” where the general population has been hypnotized.

And to a degree I think that’s what’s happened and here’s why. I came across an article from way back in 2013 titled, “Science Reveals the Impact of Fear on the Human Brain”. Science Reveals the Impact of Fear on the Human Brain – Learning Mind (learning-mind.com) Here are a few interesting quotes from the article:

‘The impact of fear on the human brain is very powerful: it completely changes the way we process information.

‘When people are frightened, the parts of the brain that are responsible for rational thinking cease to dominate’, Dr. Bruce Perry explains, quoted in an article published on the Time magazine website.

‘When faced with a threat, the cortex, which is responsible for risk assessment and actions, ceases to function. In other words, logical thinking is replaced by overwhelming emotions, thus favoring short-term solutions and sudden reactions.”

It might be helpful to ponder on this for a moment because I believe it explains an awful lot of what’s been going on. Fear literally changes the way our brains work, or in this case don’t work. Intense fear short circuits our brains ability to think rationally. The constant fear porn spewing out of the mainstream media 24/7 has terrorized people the world over.

Here’s another interesting quote from the article:

A traumatic event has long-term consequences. Anything that reminds us about the threat triggers an involuntary state of fear. Events of this type lead to chain reactions in the human brain: people become more anxious . . .

Think about the constant reminders we see all around us to be afraid, VERY afraid. Last March we were told by the U. S. Surgeon General, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) that healthy people should not wear face masks. US health officials say Americans shouldn’t wear face masks to prevent coronavirus — here are 3 other reasons not to wear them – MarketWatch

Then suddenly they all changed their minds (with NO hard science backing them up) and decreed that indeed everyone should wear a face mask to be SAFE.

The ubiquitous face mask is a constant reminder to be afraid. The message is there is a deadly virus that could take your life if you don’t follow the rules. It’s a great tool to ramp up the fear and indoctrinate millions into blind submission, obedience and above all else to follow the dictates of the “experts”. It’s also a great tool to “expose” the unbelievers guilty of “wrong think.”

So what’s the antidote to all this fear? It’s the truth for those able to receive it. And that’s why those of us still capable of critical thinking need to share the truth with others through whatever means we have. Of course we know most people are so frightened they’re incapable of escaping their fear cocoon and will refuse to listen to anything that doesn’t align with the main stream narrative.

We can also go about our daily lives demonstrating our fearlessness by not wearing a face mask. Please don’t delude yourself by thinking you’re showing respect to others by doing so. All you’re really doing is perpetuating a crippling lie. Yes, you’ll have to put up with being shunned, glared at and possibly being publicly ridiculed by a fear crazed mask Nazi!

But the time for bold action is right now! We don’t have the luxury of waiting for the madness to end because if we don’t stand up to the tyrants they will continue to stomp all over our hard won liberty. I will not comply!

*

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

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

William Burns, Biden’s pick for CIA chief, had tough words for China during his Senate confirmation hearing and identified countering Beijing as a top priority.

“Adversarial, predatory Chinese leadership poses our biggest geopolitical test,” Burns told the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday. He described China as “a formidable, authoritarian adversary.”

“Out-competing China will be key to our national security in the days ahead,” Burns said. For the CIA, he said this means “intensified focus and urgency, continually strengthening its already impressive cadre of China specialists, expanding its language skills, aligning personnel and resource allocation for the long haul and employing a whole of agency approach.”

Although he focused on China, Burns also mentioned Russia, urging the US not to underestimate what he described as a “declining power.”

Burns’ tirade against Beijing seemed to please the Senate, and he is expected to be easily confirmed. Throughout the confirmation process, Biden nominees have been grilled on Beijing, and all had harsh words for China.

Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said the US should take an “aggressive stance” against Beijing. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said President Trump “was right in taking a tougher approach to China.” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin identified China as the “most significant threat” to the US military.

Besides the rhetoric, the Biden administration has reshuffled the National Security Council to focus on Asia, reducing the staff that works on Middle East issues. The Pentagon is currently conducting a review of the US military’s posture in Asia and its overall China policy. The review is being led by Ely Ratner, a China hawk who co-authored an op-ed last year titled “Trump Has Been Weak on China, and Americans Have Paid the Price.”

*

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.

Dave DeCamp is the assistant news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image is from 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).

***

In a surprise twist on the Alexei Navalny saga, and on the very day that it’s being widely reported Biden is preparing sanctions on Russia as punishment for his alleged poisoning by nerve agent last August, the human rights organization Amnesty International has withdrawn its formal designation of Navalny as a “prisoner of conscience”

US state-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reports the following on Tuesday:

Amnesty International has reportedly withdrawn its recent designation of Russian opposition politician Aleksei Navalny’s as a “prisoner of conscience” over his alleged advocacy of violence and discrimination and comments that included hate speech.

Aleksandr Artemyev, the rights watchdog’s media manager for Russia and Eurasia, confirmed the decision to Mediazona on February 23 after the news was first reported by U.S. journalist Aaron Mate.

And just like that it appears the narrative which cast Navalny and his supporters as some kind of ‘anti-Putin freedom fighters’ has been deflated.

The early February street protests following Navalny’s arrest after he arrived from Berlin where he’d been recovering from an alleged poisoning were widely supported by officials in the West, including by the US and some European embassies in Moscow.

This created tensions leading to the Kremlin expelling a handful of European diplomats, citing their stoking unrest related to ‘illegal’ protests. US mainstream media also gave the large pro-Navalny protests close coverage.

Here’s how Amnesty International previously described Navalny and his plight in a January press release:

“He has previously been tried and convicted in two separate, politically-motivated criminal cases. On 29 December, the Russian Investigative Committee levelled new charges against Navalny, accusing him of embezzling 356 million rubles (£3.6m) in donations to the Anti-Corruption Foundation and affiliated non-profit organisations. Amnesty believes these charges are trumped-up.

Navalny has been deprived of his liberty for his peaceful political activism and for exercising free speech. Amnesty considers him a prisoner of conscience and is calling for his immediate and unconditional release.”

This “prisoner of conscience” designation is what Amnesty has now walked back in a clearly humiliating and devastating blow to his cause and his supporters.

In the wake of the initial reports, an Amnesty official confirmed to independent Russian news outlet Meduza: “Yes, we will no longer use the phrase ‘prisoner of conscience’ when referring to [Navalny], insofar as our legal and political department studied Navalny’s statements from the mid-2000s and determined that they qualify as hate speech.”

As an example of Navalny’s “newly uncovered” hate speech (though long well-known inside Russia), see this…

He was recently sentenced by a Moscow court to serve over 2.5 years in prison for probation violation stemming from a prior embezzlement case.

Amnesty’s dramatic change in designation is related to the “jailed Russian opposition politician’s past statements about migrants from Central Asia and the North Caucasus [which] constitute hate speech,” Meduza writes. But the question now remains how quickly he’ll be dropped as a darling of Western media coverage which has included a recent flurry of ‘romanticized’ reports on the anti-Kremlin activist, if at all.

*

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 Flickr

Tensions Between US and Saudi Arabia on the Rise

February 25th, 2021 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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).

***

Joe Biden’s ideological commitment to Western liberal values promised to recover old US alliances, which were threatened by Trump’s nationalism – as in the European case. However, the rigid defense of these same values can apparently also hinder important points of American foreign policy, destroying other historic alliances, mainly in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia, a historical representative of Western interests in the Middle East, remains uncertain about the future of its relations with the US, considering the rise of Biden. So far, Saudi officials have received no contact from the new American president. Not only that: Washington has already stated that it will not make a call to Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman and that any matter needing dialogue will be dealt directly with King Salman.

For the Saudis, Biden’s attitude is a real affront and threatens the future of a historic friendship between these two countries. For the ideological wing of the American government, however, Biden’s attitude is fair and necessary, considering that America, as a “protector of democracy”, cannot maintain close ties with “human rights violating” nations.

Further deepening the rupture of its ties with the Kingdom, Washington completely changed its attitude towards one of the main enemies of the Saudis, the Houthis. The American government recently revised its stance on Houthis and stopped considering them a terrorist organization. The case surprised everyone, including the Houthis and other enemies of the US, who did not expect such a u-turn from the US. However, far from representing a possible solution to the conflict in Yemen, the American decision only tends to cause more problems.

But not all members of the American political elite are satisfied with this situation. The defense and intelligence sectors are concerned about Biden’s attitude and are trying to convince the president of the strategic importance of maintaining friendly relations with the Saudi kingdom in order to guarantee American positions in the Middle East. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin spoke on the phone with the Saudi prince, trying to ease tensions and establish diplomacy in order to ensure the mutual interests of the two countries. Obviously, the ideological wing of the government did not like the attitude, and this may generate internal strain in Washington.

It is important to emphasize how, with Donald Trump, Saudi Arabia was safer, despite a much less interventionist policy than the one planned and promised by Biden. The new president has an aggressive rhetoric towards the Middle East and promises to increase the number of military personnel in the region, but he is not concerned with the preservation of the old alliances and does not hesitate to create new enemies. Biden disrupted almost all of the deals Trump had previously had with Riyadh, which mainly included the sale of advanced military technology to the security forces. For example, the US government recently announced the cancellation of the sale of 7,500 guided bombs to Saudi Arabia, ending an estimated 500 million dollars deal.

Faced with the possibility of becoming a new target of American sanctions and losing the military protection guaranteed by Washington in recent decades, what remains for the Saudis is to seek new allies. In terms of arms supply and military trade, alternative options to the US abound. Russia and China, for example, will certainly be willing to negotiate fair prices as long as elementary conditions of diplomacy are preserved. Another option is to strengthen ties within the Middle East itself: considering the recent rapprochement between Arabs and Israelis, the Kingdom may tighten negotiations with Israel and seek the supply of military equipment as a condition for maintaining a peace agreement between both countries – and then opposition to Iran and the Houthis would be strengthened, with Saudis and Israelis as allies.

Still, it is necessary to consider that there is an old Gulf Cooperation Council’s project for the countries of the bloc to create a local military alliance, focused on the objective of protecting themselves from possible attacks by their regional enemies. The project is currently delayed, but American attitudes can lead to a recovery of this idea. If this happens, we will have a curious scenario, where the Arabian Gulf will assume a role of increasing autonomy in relation to Washington and will assert itself on the international stage as an independent economic and military bloc. Biden will certainly try to prevent this with sanctions and blockades, but at the same time, by sanctioning these nations, Washington will be encouraging them to do even more negotiations with other powers and become less and less dependent on the West.

As we can see, Biden’s ideological commitment is causing a series of structural changes in American politics, and that can cause different problems. The reason Biden is revising his position in relation to the Saudis is the endless list of denunciations and accusations of human rights violations in the Arab country. Certainly, a considerable part of these accusations is true, but breaking historical ties in the name of humanitarian causes seems to be an irresponsible step. After all, what will Biden do with the structural violation of human rights within the American legal system, which each year incarcerates suspected terrorists without the right to defense? If the new president really wants to be such a strong advocate for these agendas, he will have to submit his own country to international trial.

In any case, this shows how the president’s own ideological crusade, in practice, drives a process of multipolarisation by breaking historical ties and forging new alliances.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

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 French Navy days ago announced that the Tonnerre amphibious assault ship and the Surcouf frigate departed from the port of Toulon on February 18 and would travel to the Pacific for a three-month mission. According to Naval News, the French warships will pass through the South China Sea twice and in May participate in joint military exercises with the U.S., Australia, India and Japan. China has strongly criticized this French move.

The fact that the French Navy sent the Surcouf and the multi-purpose landing craft Tonnere to patrol the South China Sea, which is over 10,000 kilometers away from France, proves that the disputed sea region is one of the most important geopolitical hotspots in the world. The French claim that attention is focused on ensuring navigational security as the South China Sea is a particularly important bridge between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, and has influence on geopolitics and geoeconomics, not only within Asia-Pacific and the Indo-Pacific region, but for the entire world.

By sending modern warships to Asia-Pacific, France proved that they have a new approach to Vietnam, a former French colony. The recent moves by Paris marks the return of the French to Southeast Asia, not as an invader like in the previous century, but as a country willing to challenge and provoke China in its own backyard. This is something that would also appeal to Vietnam as it has centuries long enmity with China that continues to this day and is far deeper compared to the relatively short-lived French colonial era of Indochina. Another point to note is that the French energy company Total is one of the most important partners for Vietnam in the oil and gas sector. The French company is currently cooperating with Vietnam and some other countries in the region to exploit resources.

Since 2018, France has built an Indo-Pacific strategy. France is the first European country to make this move. In addition, in 2015 and 2017, French warships also passed through the South China Sea. It is likely that France will now step up its position against Beijing’s claims in the South China Sea by increasing the frequency of its activities in the region, including military exercises.

Four permanent members of the United Nations Security Council send their fleets on irregular or periodic patrols in the South China Sea, proving how important this region is for the global economy and the world’s superpowers. It should be emphasized that having a major power from outside the region deploy its modern weapons in the South China Sea is a major provocation. France, whose closest territory to the South China Sea is New Caledonia over 6,500 kilometers away, has no business in being involved in the region’s problems. But none-the-less, the French are most likely motivated to be interested in South China Sea affairs to support Total’s business plans in the area.

In the words of French Defense Minister Florence Parly, the patrol of French warships in the South China Sea is “evidence of the French navy’s ability to deploy operations in remote areas in the long run with strategic partners,” making reference to the U.S., Japan and Australia. It can be seen that France is ready to strengthen cooperation with QUAD, a coalition consisting of the U.S., India, Japan and Australia whose aim is to challenge China in the Indo-Pacific region.

France is not a member of QUAD; however, the European country can strengthen its ties with the alliance on the basis of bilateral military agreements signed with the U.S. and the other three countries. On the other hand, France is an ally of the U.S. through NATO, in which Japan and Australia are also considered Major non-NATO allies. The dispatch of two important warships to the South China Sea shows that France is ready to stand alongside the U.S., Japan, India and Australia in Indo-Pacific geostrategic, political and military issues with a focus against China.

For the U.S., the introduction of French warships to the South China Sea is an important step towards establishing an anti-China alliance on a global scale, not just at a regional level. Although China has denounced these recent provocations emanating from non-regional powers, it has not yet revealed how they may respond.

Although the French Colonial Empire is long gone, Paris is still attempting to maintain its global influence through its former colonies, not only in Southeast Asia through countries like Vietnam, but also in Africa, the South Pacific, South America and the Caribbean. However, despite France’s antagonizations, Paris does not have the capabilities to be able to challenge China unilaterally in the South China Sea, hence why it is relying on former colonial possessions like Vietnam and partners like the U.S., Australia and India. For now, there is no indication that France will successfully deter China from pursuing its interests in the South China Sea.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from 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).

***

The original scientific paper establishing RT-PCR tests as the way to identify COVID-19 in individuals, thus fueling the lockdowns across the globe, has been thoroughly debunked by scientists, who call the tests “useless” and “completely unsuitable” to find COVID-19, given they were developed without even having access to the virus itself.

The recently published report examined the original Corman-Drosten paper, in which Real Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR/PCR) tests were proposed as a validated means to detect COVID-19. The protocol proposed is used in around 70% of tests globally and by over one hundred governments. These tests promptly became the motivating factor behind the international phenomenon of nation-wide lockdowns, as cases of the virus were reported to rise.

But a group of 22 independent scientists, termed the International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences (ICSLS), have studied and reviewed the Corman-Drosten (CD) paper, finding “numerous technical and scientific errors,” noting that neither the “test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication.” They dubbed the CD paper as “flawed science” and called its authors “intellectually dishonest.”

The group presents “ten fatal problems” with the Corman-Drosten paper, and concludes that there is no other choice “but to retract the publication.” Each of the problems is described as being sufficient on its own to render the PCR test “useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.” The ICSLS report highlights the “worldwide misdiagnosis of infections” stemming from the CD protocols, resulting in “stringent lockdowns which have destroyed many people’s lives and livelihoods.”

Lead author of the ICSLS report is Dr. Pieter Borger, an expert on the molecular biology of gene expression, and among the co-authors is Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Vice President of vaccine company Pfizer.

Dr. Paul Sacré offers a brief explanation of how the PCR test works, as an aid to understand the ICSLS’s criticisms of the CD paper. The nasal or throat swab is “processed to isolate genetic material,” then primers — “engineered genetic material” — are added and bound to the viral genetic material, which begins “amplification.” During amplification, fluorescent markers “bound to the copies during PCR” are released, and if enough of these are detected, the test is termed positive.

Breakdown of scientific problems

The first “major” issue identified in the ICSLS review is that the CD paper and the trial PCR tests were written and conducted “without having virus material available,” in the words of the CD paper itself. Instead, the PCR test method was based on “silico sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China.” The CD paper’s aims of development and deployment of a test “are not achievable without having any actual virus material available,” according to the ICSLS.

On the day the CD paper was submitted to medical journal Eurosurveillance, Google data records only 6 deaths from the virus. This leads the ICSLS to question why the CD report predicted “a challenge for public health laboratories while there was no substantial evidence at that time to indicate that the outbreak was more widespread than initially thought?”

Many errors are presented by the ICSLS. The concentration of primers used in the development of the PCR tests are “far too high” for “optimal specific amplifications of target genes.” The variations of primer pairs used in the CD paper mean, “The design variations will inevitably lead to results that are not even SARS CoV-2 related.” Thus, various laboratories could assume they have detected a positive COVID case, using a formula that does not actually detect COVID.

In order for a PCR test to be reliable, “amplification from 3 different genes (primers) of the virus under investigation is required.” Yet the ICSLS found in the CD paper that “in nearly all test procedures worldwide, merely 2 primer matches were used instead of all three. This oversight renders the entire test-protocol useless with regards to delivering accurate test-results of real significance in an ongoing pandemic.”

Continuing, the ICSLS notes that the proposed PCR test contains “severe design errors,” and since the test is unable to distinguish between “the whole virus and viral fragments” it “cannot be used as a diagnostic for SARS-viruses.” A positive test, as mentioned in the CD paper, cannot determine if one is infected with the virus, but “merely indicates the presence of viral RNA molecules.”

The review then deals with the amplification cycles of the tests. The CD paper does not even define what a positive or negative test result is, but does suggest that “45 PCR cycles” are to be performed. While a PCR test can have up to 60 cycles of amplification, both Dr. Sacré and the ICSLS point out that PCR test data from a cycle value of 35 or more is “completely unreliable.” “Only non-infectious (dead) viruses are detected with [cycle] values of 35,” the group adds, as even above 30 cycles there is “a grey area”, where a positive result cannot be trusted.

After the amplification process is complete, “biomolecular validation” is “essential” to determine the presence of COVID-19, since “amplified PCR products can be anything.” But the CD paper’s protocol does not do so, and the ICSLS consequently calls any PCR test developed on such a basis “useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

The proposed PCR tests also ignore the “essential scientific gold standard” which is to have a positive control and a negative control, by which to identify COVID-19 from other coronaviruses. Furthermore, the CD paper itself notes the gene used in the tests is not specific to COVID-19, and thus detects “a broad spectrum of other SARS viruses.”

Based on all these errors, and even drawn from text in the CD paper itself, the ICSLS warns that it is “inevitable” that “the PCR test described in the Corman-Drosten paper generates false positives.” This is echoed by Dr. Sacré, who wrote that the chief limitation of PCR tests is the “extreme sensitivity (false positive) if a suitable threshold of positivity (Ct) is not chosen.”

Swiss Policy Research has found that a positive PCR test run at 35 cycles or more, as is common in Europe and the U.S., has a 97% chance of being a false positive.

No peer review, but conflict of interest authorship

The Corman-Drosten paper appears to have received no peer review. It was received to Eurosurveillance on January 21, 2020, accepted for publication the next day, and posted online on January 23. In fact, ICSLS reports that a version of the CD paper was published on the WHO website on January 13, 2020. Evidence thus suggests no peer review has occurred, and the ICSLS writes, “Any molecular biologist familiar with RT-PCR design would have easily observed the grave errors present in the Corman-Drosten paper before the actual review process.”

The group contacted Eurosurveillance for a copy of a peer review, but was eventually told that “disclosure would undermine the purpose of scientific investigations.”

Two authors of the CD paper, Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken, were found to be part of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance, prompting the ICSLS to say that “there is a severe conflict of interest which strengthens suspicions that the paper was not peer-reviewed.” Such an action is seen as “compromising scientific integrity.”

In addition to that, ICSLS found “severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors,” with two of the authors being the CEO and scientific advisor at PCR test producing company TIB-Molbiol.

Author’s comments on the ICSLS report

Speaking to UncoverDC.com about the Corman-Drosten paper, Dr. Kevin Corbett from the ICSLS report said, “Public Health England is a co-author on it. All the public health authorities across the EU have co-authored this paper. But here is the bottom line: There was no viral isolate to validate what they were doing. The PCR products of the amplification didn’t correspond to any viral isolate at that time. I call it ‘donut ring science.’ There is nothing at the center of it. It’s all about code, genetics, nothing to do with reality, or the actual person, the patient.”

Responding to the point that advocates of the PCR test claim the virus has, as a matter of fact, been isolated, Corbett said, “Yes, there have since been papers saying they’ve produced viral isolates. But there are no controls for them. The CDC produced a paper in July, I think it was, where they said: ‘Here’s the viral isolate.’ Do you know what they did? They swabbed one person. One person, who’d been to China and had cold symptoms. One person. And they assumed he had it to begin with. So it’s all full of holes, the whole thing.”

The ICSLS paper concludes, “In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.”

*

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 Shutterstock

Urge PM Trudeau to End Hassan Diab’s Nightmare of Injustice!

February 25th, 2021 by Hassan Diab Support Committee

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).

***

Thank you for your outpouring of support following the shockingly unjust decision on 27 January 2021 by a French Court of Appeal to refer Dr. Hassan Diab to trial.

According to the French newspaper Le Monde, the decision of the Court of Appeal is “exceptional, because never before, in terrorist matters, had they opposed the investigating judges: in 2018 the latter had decided to dismiss the case.”

This is further evidence of the political nature of the decision which flies in the face of evidence and the findings of the investigating judges. Instead of sacrificing Hassan as an innocent scapegoat, French authorities would better serve the victims and their families by trying to find the true perpetrators of the awful 1980 crime.

Join Us in Writing to PM Trudeau and Major Newspapers 

Following the French Court of Appeal decision, numerous organizations and individuals have spoken out in support of Hassan (see links below).

We urge you to add your voice by writing to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau urging the Canadian government to refuse a potential second request for Hassan’s extradition, and to put an immediate end to this continuing miscarriage of justice.

Your letter can be brief and from the heart. Please address your letter to:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, [email protected]

and copy the following politicians:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Also, please share your correspondence with us at [email protected]

Donate to Hassan Diab’s Legal Defence in France 

Please consider making a donation to help cover the cost of Hassan’s ongoing legal defence in France. Your support is vital to protect Hassan’s rights and prevent his wrongful conviction. A donation of any amount is much appreciated and can make a difference!

To donate, please visit this link.

Many thanks to those who have already contributed. We greatly appreciate your kind support!

Statements by Organisations Supporting Hassan Diab

You can find statements of support by Amnesty Canada, BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG), Independent Jewish Voices (IJV), and other organisations 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.

Featured image is from The Canadian Press

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).

***

After years of working hard to stop the voice of independent media being heard on social media channels like Twitter and Facebook, the turn has now come to strangling their funding. The financial company Patreon is the latest to join the establishment drive to marginalize and criminalize all dissenting opinions.

Over the years, many independent media outlets have relied on Patreon, which offers the ability «let your fans become active participants in the work they love by offering them a monthly membership»,  thereby building a financial base for people-funded news and analysis, as opposed to being dependent on handouts from very rich people or government cutouts. Given that Patreon’s business model relies heavily on independent content creators, the ones they are now evicting, the pressure applied for it to shoot itself in the foot must have been significant.

Intelligence-linked think-tanks are working to implement a financial blockade.

Right-wing activists as the thin edge of the wedge

The company has banned people before, most noticeably activist Milo Yiannopoulos in 2018. But Patreon’s most recent policy change started in October 2020, when Patreon announced that it would be taking action against accounts that use its platform to actively spread QAnon’s beliefs, «a growing threat». Patreon announced “QAnon-dedicated creators that are identified by our Policy and Trust & Safety teams will have their accounts removed from Patreon.”. However, customers «who have spread some QAnon ideas but “are not dedicated to spreading QAnon content” would be given the opportunity to recant and «bring their accounts into compliance, according to the company.» Regardless of what one might think of the authenticity of QAnon, this soon turned out to be just the thin edge of the wedge.

The European Union censors via cutout think tanks

Věra Jourová, European Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, told the Financial Times in June 2020 that:

To fight disinformation, we need to mobilise all relevant players from online platforms to public authorities, and support independent fact checkers and media. While online platforms have taken positive steps during the pandemic, they need to step up their efforts.

She finished with a bizarre example of official doublespeak:

“Our actions are strongly embedded in fundamental rights, in particular freedom of expression and information.”

This has just handed another big argument for opponents of EU membership, where an undemocratic super-bureaucracy beholden to big corporations (like big pharmaceutical companies) are censoring opponents of the policies these corporations want implemented. On a smaller national level there is at least a chance that popular pressure can lead to some change.

In line with Jourová’s statement, on 18 December 2020, The European Union-funded but nominally independent EU DisinfoLab released a study questioning «whether Patreon’s efforts to tackle disinformation prioritized English-language content over that of other languages. Besides Patreon’s «failure to remove all accounts that directly reference QAnon», the study pointed to «a number of other accounts that monetize other conspiracies like COVID-19 denialism…»

The report concluded «these examples illustrate that the measures implemented by Patreon are not fully enforced», also stating that «the problem of disinformation goes far beyond QAnon and argues that «more action is needed against the spread and monetization of dangerous conspiracy theories on Patreon».

Medical misinformation

Just from my small bookmarked list of news outlets, three have so far reported of being banned by Patreon the last few days. All bans are for «medical misinformation», which means dissenting from the one and only allowed story, no matter how well sourced the information is or how mendacious the official narrative.

Removing the largest German left-wing channel KenFM

On February 19th, 2021, Patreon closed the account of KenFM the largest independent left wing media outlet in Germany, which has heavily dissented from the official Covid-19 propaganda campaign. This followed the closing of its Youtube account, a heavily blow for a channel that had over half a million followers, and of course similar restrictions from Facebook and others the last half decade.

In a sign that this is a well coordinated campaign, the outlet in February found itself in the government’s cross-hairs. Using coordinated German state government legislation as a a loophole instead of federal regulation, the local media authorities suddenly have vast powers over all online output. They can act on their own and do not have to react to complaints before removing “disinformation”. The media supervisors can order «the severest sanctions» to remove contents from the network.

If actions are coordinated, someone is coordinating them.

According to reports, the media agencies have so far sent 13  notice letters to online media that are not members of the press council, including  to KenFM .

As media analyst Tobias Riegel points out “In abstract terms, it all sounds very nice: Who wanted to shut themselves off from journalistic due diligence? If this concern were to apply equally to all media, it would even be very welcome, this should be emphasized here.. The big problem with the new State Treaty arises, among other things, from the massive unequal treatment that in practice will likely occur between alternative media and the established: Should the division into good and bad media already practiced on the propaganda level now also be an «official» blessing, with the corresponding consequences?

Removing geopolitics and empire

In the same month, February 2021, Patreon declared it is going to deplatform Geopolitics & Empire, independent news and analysis radio show, unless it removed certain videos not just from Patreon, but from the entire internet. Simultaneously, YouTube gave it a “strike’ the first step before an inevitable ban, formally for having interviewed Mark Sircus, who described how the health responses to COVID-19 by authorities such as the CDC, WHO, Big Pharma, and national governments have amounted to «medical terrorism». He  also presciently touched on the link between military-industrial-financial interests and the think tanks they use as fronts.

The removal from Patreon followed just after a report on conspiracy theory «superspreaders»  from a department of the most crooked think tank of all, the Atlantic Council. The report, from the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, which also was a collaborator with the British covert propaganda program Integrity Initiative,  mentioned an interview with professor Francis Boyle on Geopolitics & Empire – and presto, less than a week later Geopolitics & Empire was gone.

The Atlantic Council is the embodiment of the  US/NATO deep state. The think tank began as an offshoot of NATO itself and maintains extremely close connections to the military alliance. It  receives major funding from Western governments and weapons contractors, and its board of directors is filled to the brim with senior American war criminals, such as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Henry Kissinger. Also appearing on the board are no fewer than seven former CIA directors and a number of top military generals, such as Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis, Wesley Clark, and David Petraeus.

Atlantic Council already has a firm grip on social media. In 2018, it announced it had partnered with Facebook to aid in the curation of Facebook news feeds for Facebook’s 2.2 billion users worldwide.

Removing last American vagabond

In February 2021, Patreon stated they would imminently close The Last American Vagabond, one of the best sites for well researched Covid-19 news and analysis – but distinctly different than the official narrative – unless all «Covid-19 medical misinformation» was removed at once.

The Last American Vagabond scoffed at the threat and declared it would “not stop reporting objectively on COVID-19 or any other topic».

Conclusion

It is not unlikely the other large payment companies many are using will start freezing funds or close accounts. Judging from the examples of Facebook, Youtube and Twitter, readers and journalists will leave in droves for other platforms. Geopolitics & Empire went for the payment service SubscribeStar, and others options will likely be thought out as old ones buckle. But because the censorship hit men are always scheming for new ways to sabotage, one must expect the financial blockade to intensify.

The effort to silence dissent comes at the same time as the immensely sinister program to give everyone in the world a shot in the arm for a relatively ordinary disease, leading to the thought that it is either is a billion dollar racket from pharma companies or a plan with unknown geopolitical implications (anyone remember when Trump said he could kill 10 million Afghans literally in 10 days – without using nukes?).

When Paypal, banks and credit cards stopped servicing Wikileaks in 2011, in an attempted US government blockade, it destroyed 95% of their revenue. Wikileaks was resourceful enough to find workaround solutions. This will be harder and harder in the future, especially for smaller media outlets. Other measures are probably being considered, like blocking or sabotage of domain names, or physical detentions. And the planned future abolition of «unhygienic» cash, combined with a ban on cryptocurrencies, will give the Atlantic Council and the oligarch interests they represent the ultimate blockade tool.

*

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 Midt i fleisen.

Terje Maloy is a Norwegian/Australian blogger and translator. The article is Creative Commons 4.0.

Featured image: Věra_Jourová (CC-BY-4.0: © European Union 2019 – Source: EP)

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).

***

Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador quietly rocked the agribusiness world with his New Year’s Eve decree to phase out use of the herbicide glyphosate and the cultivation of genetically modified corn. His administration sent an even stronger aftershock two weeks later, clarifying that the government would also phase out GM corn imports in three years and the ban would include not just corn for human consumption but yellow corn destined primarily for livestock. Under NAFTA, the United States has seen a 400% increase in corn exports to Mexico, the vast majority genetically modified yellow dent corn.

The bold policy moves fulfill a campaign promise by Mexico’s populist president, whose agricultural policies have begun to favor Mexican producers, particularly small-scale farmers, and protect consumers alarmed by the rise of obesity and chronic diseases associated with high-fat, high-sugar processed foods.

In banning glyphosate, the decree cites the precautionary principle and the growing body of scientific research showing the dangers of the chemical, the active ingredient in Bayer/Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The government had stopped imports of glyphosate since late 2019, citing the World Health Organization’s warning that the chemical is a “probable carcinogen.”

The prohibitions on genetically modified corn, which appear toward the end of the decree, have more profound implications. The immediate ban on permits for cultivation of GM corn formalizes current restrictions, ordered by Mexican courts in 2013 when a citizen lawsuit challenged government permitting of experimental GM corn planting by Monsanto and other multinational seed companies on the grounds of the contamination threat they posed to Mexico’s rich store of native corn varieties. The import ban cites the same environmental threats but goes further, advancing the López Obrador administration’s goals of promoting greater food self-sufficiency in key crops. As the decree states:

“[W]ith the objective of achieving self-sufficiency and food sovereignty, our country must be oriented towards establishing sustainable and culturally adequate agricultural production, through the use of agroecological practices and inputs that are safe for human health, the country’s biocultural diversity and the environment, as well as congruent with the agricultural traditions of Mexico.”

Chronicle of a decree foretold

Such policies should come as no surprise. In his campaign, López Obrador committed to such measures. Unprecedented support from rural voters were critical to his landslide 2018 electoral victory, with his new Movement for National Renewal (Morena) claiming majorities in both houses of Congress.

Still, industry and U.S. government officials seemed shocked that their lobbying had failed to stop López Obrador from acting. The pressure campaign was intense, as Carey Gillam explained in a February 16 Guardian expose on efforts by Bayer/Monsanto, industry lobbyist CropLife, and U.S. government officials to deter the glyphosate ban. According to email correspondence obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity through Freedom of Information Act requests, officials in the Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture and office of the U.S. Trade Representative were in touch with Bayer representatives and warned Mexican officials that restrictions could be in violation of the revised North American Free Trade Agreement, now rebranded by the Trump Administration as the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA).

According to the emails, CropLife president Chris Novak last March sent a letter to Robert Lighthizer, USTR’s ambassador, arguing that Mexico’s actions would be “incompatible with Mexico’s obligations under USMCA.” In May, Lighthizer followed through, writing to Graciela Márquez Colín, Mexico’s minister of economy, warning that GMO crop and glyphosate matters threatened to undermine “the strength of our bilateral relationship.” An earlier communication argued that Mexico’s actions on glyphosate, which Mexico had ceased importing, were “without a clear scientific justification.”

Nothing could be further from the truth, according to Victor Suárez, Mexico’s Undersecretary of Agriculture for Food and Competitiveness. “There is rigorous scientific evidence of the toxicity of this herbicide,” he told me, citing the WHO findings and an extensive literature review carried out by Mexico’s biosafety commission Cibiogem.

And even though most imported U.S. corn is used for animal feed, not direct human consumption, a study carried out by María Elena Álvarez-Buylla, now head of CONACYT, the government’s leading scientific body, documented the presence of GM corn sequences in many of Mexico’s most common foods. Some 90% of tortillas and 82% of other common corn-based foods contained GM corn. Mexico needs to be especially cautious, according to Suárez, because corn is so widely consumed, with Mexicans on average eating one pound of corn a day, one of the highest consumption levels in the world.

While the glyphosate restrictions are based on concerns about human health and the environment, the phaseout of GM corn is justified additionally on the basis of the threat of contamination of Mexico’s native corn varieties and the traditional intercropped milpa. The final article in the decree states the purpose is to contribute “to food security and sovereignty” and to offer “a special measure of protection to native corn.”

The ban on GM corn cultivation has been a longstanding demand ever since the previous administration of Enrique Peña Nieto granted permission to Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and a host of other multinational seed companies to begin experimental planting in northern Mexico. Such permits were halted in 2013 by a Mexico court injunction based on a claim from 53 farmer, consumer and environmental organizations – the self-denominated Demanda Colectiva – that GM corn cultivation threatened to contaminate native varieties of corn through inadvertent cross-pollination.

“It is difficult to imagine a worse place to grow GM corn than Mexico,” said Adelita San Vicente, the lead spokesperson for the plaintiffs who is now working in López Obrador’s environment ministry, when I interviewed her in 2014 for my book, Eating Tomorrow (which includes a chapter on the GM corn issue). Such contamination was well-documented and the courts issued the injunction citing the potential for permanent damage to the environment.

As Judge Walter Arrellano Hobelsberger wrote in a 2014 decision, “The use and enjoyment of biodiversity is the right of present and future generations.”

Mexico’s self-sufficiency campaign

Mexico’s farmer and environmental organizations were quick to praise the decree, though many warned that it is only a first step and implementation will be key. “These are important steps in moving toward ecological production that preserves biodiversity and agrobiodiversity forged by small-scale farmers over millennia,” wrote Greenpeace Mexico and the coalition “Without Corn There is No Country.”

Malin Jonsson of Semillas de Vida (Seeds of Life), one of the plaintiffs in the court case, told me, “This is a first step toward eliminating glyphosate, withdrawing permits for GM maize cultivation and eliminating the consumption of GM maize. To end consumption we have to stop importing GM maize from the United States by increasing Mexico’s maize production.”

Mexico imports about 30% of its corn each year, overwhelmingly from the United States. Almost all of that is yellow corn for animal feed and industrial uses. López Obrador’s commitment to reducing and, by 2024, eliminating such imports reflects his administration’s plan to ramp up Mexican production as part of the campaign to increase self-sufficiency in corn and other key food crops – wheat, rice, beans, and dairy. Mexican farmers have long complained that since NAFTA was enacted in 1994 ultra-cheap U.S. corn has driven down prices for Mexican farmers. The proposed import restrictions would help López Obrador’s “Mexico First” agricultural policies while bringing needed development to rural areas.

Will Biden Administration block action?

Industry organizations on both sides of the border have complained bitterly about the proposed bans. “The import of genetically modified grain from the U.S. is essential for many products in the agrifood chain,” said Laura Tamayo, spokeswoman for Mexico’s National Farm Council (CNA), who is also a regional corporate director for Bayer. Bayer’s agrochemical unit Monsanto makes weedkiller Roundup and the GMO corn designed to be used with the pesticide.

“This decree is completely divorced from reality,” said José Cacho, president of Mexico’s corn industry chamber CANAMI, the 25-company group that includes top corn millers like Gruma, cereal maker Kellogg, and commodity trader Cargill.

Juan Cortina, president of CNA, said his members might sue the government over the bans. “I think there will need to be legal challenges brought by all the people who use glyphosate and genetically-modified corn,” he told Reuters, adding that he also expects U.S. exporters to appeal to provisions of the USMCA trade pact to have the measures declared illegal.

Industry sources also warned that Mexico would never be able to meet its corn needs without U.S. exports and that U.S. farmers would be harmed by the presumed loss of the Mexican export market. Others quickly pointed out that Mexico was not banning U.S. exports, just GM corn exports. U.S. farmers are perfectly capable of producing non-GM corn at comparable prices, according to seed industry sources, so the ruling could encourage the development of a premium market in the United States for non-GMO corn, something U.S. consumers have been demanding for years.

Such pressures may present an early test for President Joe Biden and his nominee for U.S. Trade Representative, Katherine Tai, whose confirmation hearing is scheduled for February 25. Tai won high marks for helping get stricter labor and environmental provisions into the agreement that replaced NAFTA. Will she and the Biden administration respect Mexico’s sovereign right to enact policies designed to protect the Mexican public and the environment while promoting Mexican rural development?

Victor Suárez certainly hopes so.

“Our rationale is based on the precautionary principle in the face of environmental risks as well as the right of the Mexican government to take action in favor of the public good, in important areas such as public health and the environment,” he told me.

“We are a sovereign nation with a democratic government,” he continued, “which came to power with the support of the majority of citizens, one that places compliance with our constitution and respect for human rights above all private 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.

Timothy A. Wise is a senior advisor with the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the author of Eating Tomorrow: Agribusiness, Family Farmers, and the Battle for the Future of Food.

Featured image: Tractor caravan to Mexico City farmer protest demands “Mexico Free of Transgenics”. Credit: Enrique Perez S./ANEC

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mexico to Ban Glyphosate, GM Corn Presidential Decree Comes Despite Intense Pressure from Industry, U.S. Authorities
  • Tags: , , ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

Within the control system’s Davos engineered programme called Agenda 2030/The Great Reset, are some striking cohabitating toxic agendas. The one I wish to highlight in this article is the Zero Carbon ‘stop climate change’ goal – and the Zero Covid ‘stop the world pandemic’ goal.

The supposed aim of both the above programmes is to wipe out something that can’t be wiped out, namely CO2 since it forms an integral part of our living world and biosphere and therefore cannot be eradicated without the eradication of life itself.

Believe it or not, the Davos agenda which seeks to replace sentient, social humanity with a robotic computer controlled cyborgian army, does indeed come very close to eradicating life ‘as we know it’.

As we recall, government commissioned climatologists, working to a formula devised by the Club of Rome and Bilderbergers, have – for at least the past three decades – set about trying to convince all and sundry that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a dangerous pollutant. One they falsely associate with the mining and combustion of fossil fuels choking the upper atmosphere; with the consequential overheating of the planet being labelled ‘the greenhouse effect’.

But as I have pointed-out in previous articles, in reality scientists have found that the amount of CO2 in the upper atmosphere amounts to a negligible 0.04%, coming around seventh in the list of elements associated with having an adverse effect on climate.

Similarly, the great majority of pollutants emanating out of factories and transport systems consist of toxins and particulates – e.g. nitrous oxides and carbon monoxide – that have little or nothing to do with CO2, but have been deliberately relabelled as such to sell the notion that the smoke seen rising out of factory and domestic chimneys is that ‘evil brew’ called ‘CO2’.

The entire Davos Fourth Industrial Revolution, Green New Deal and ‘Re-Set’ plan, designed as it supposedly is ‘to save the world’ through achieving ‘Zero Carbon’ by 2050, is thus an audacious and carefully planned lie. Carbon, far from being a killer that must be eradicated, is actually a primary building block of life without which we would have no plant kingdom and therefore no oxygen to breathe. No life on Earth.

Now the scene shifts to ‘Covid’ and a parallel ‘eradication scheme’ – made famous by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Here the plan is to eradicate what has been painted as a vicious and barely controllable ‘virus’. A plan that can only be described as pure scientific fraud.

Yes, viruses just happen to play a critical role in maintaining the health and welfare of living creatures, not least human beings; and their ‘eradication’ – or the eradication of just ‘one’  (if it could be isolated)  would completely destabilise the health and equilibrium of anyone unlucky enough to fall foul of the perpetrators. In Covid’s case, the perpetrators’ intentions are publicly made manifest via the WHO’s Corona blitzkrieg and subsequently enforced by governments all over the world.

At this very moment, the lives of around seven billion people have been turned upside down based entirely upon the globally adopted statement of WHO chief Tedros Adhanon – supported by a posse of hand-picked ‘scientists’ –  that this ‘virus’ is a deadly pathogen having the potential to lay humanity low and render normal life completely unmanageable.

But in reality, the Corona Virus from which Covid-19 is extrapolated is – according to the definition of The American Encyclopedia of Medicine – similar to ‘the common flu’; which while killing a significant number of people each year, comes well down the list of diseases commonly known to be the cause of high death rates around the globe.

Just as ‘carbon’ comes way down the list of supposedly deadly components in the upper atmosphere – and yet – due to the need of the central cabal to have an excuse to exert absolute control over humanity – is held responsible for driving the planet towards Armagedon.

Covid-19 isn’t ‘a deadly virus’ at all.  And neither is Carbon a  pollutant. Labelling them as such is a cunning slight-of-hand in order to hold humanity to ransom.

A huge distortion has been created by subjecting biologically essential elements to biased, quasi-scientific discrimination and political spin. A distortion that just happens to pave the way for massive profiteering by both vaccination hungry pharmaceutical companies and the political exponents of swinging carbon taxes.

As a basic rule of thumb, when a biological imbalance is believed to be occurring, the solution lies in rebalancing the offending organism/body. It never lies in trying to eradicate it.

Yet according to the political and scientific rhetoric emanating out of the WHO, UN, World Economic Forum and others, we have to ‘eradicate’ both carbon and the virus; and in order to do so, every aspect of life as we know it must be brutally re-engineered and billions of people lined-up for a premature death. This constitutes a major plank in the depopulation agenda long held as vital by the 0.1%. 

It is no coincidence that Corona flu and atmospheric CO2 are both targets of gross manipulation which together form the grand alibi for the enslavement, digitalisation and murder of a large segment of humanity. In both cases, an essential component of life has been calculatedly reversed into an evil harbinger of death, using the Nazi technique of mass indoctrination and repetition to ensure every receptive brain cell is addled with fear.

The Schwab ‘Reset’ and the Gates ‘Vaxit’ are part of an overall diabolical mission to wrest the planet away from its natural evolutionary trajectory. Social, spiritual and sentient human aspiration is pushed aside in order to move rapidly into a cold and technocratic ‘New World Order’ – the original term for ‘The Great Reset.’

A world order in which non sentient, parasitic cyborg-beings seek to possess and re-engineer the fundamental genome of life, and indeed, the very soul of humanity itself.  Thus completing ‘the reversal of all values’ that form the indivisible connection with the divine origins of mankind.

The totally deluded push, by a small cabal to present Zero Carbon and Zero Covid as ‘the saviours of humanity’, has reduced a large part of humanity to mind controlled zombies moving in lock-step with the commands of totalitarian regimes – disguised as governments – and supported by a bought-out slavish media.

We have now exposed the lie and thus created an opening for the liberation of those fixated by the utterings of lunatics. Only where a combination of fear and hypnotism have completely paralysed the human mind, is there no hope of freedom. The rest of us can – and must – move rapidly forward with the task of ridding our planet of the perpetrators of this despotic and deeply criminal agenda.

Let us use whatever tools we have at our disposal. Rise-up humanity! Let us resolve to overcome all hurdles erected to deceive us, for they are but phantoms when put under the spotlight of Truth.

*

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.

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and holistic teacher. His latest book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is particularly recommended reading for this time: see www.julianrose.info

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).

***

Venezuela has blasted the imposition of additional European Union (EU) sanctions against nineteen politicians, state officials and security chiefs.

According to an EU statement released Monday, the individuals are penalised for their alleged role in “acts and decisions undermining democracy and the rule of law” or “as a result of serious human rights violations.”

Similarly, the EU accused some of the targeted figures of “undermining the oppositions’ electoral rights and the democratic functioning of the National Assembly” in reference to Venezuela’s parliamentary elections on December 6, 2020.

The elections, in which over 100 parties and 14,400 candidates took part, were overwhelmingly won by the ruling United Socialist Party (PSUV) and an on-the-ground international observer team deemed the contest free and fair. The EU chose not to send an observer mission and later followed Washington in claiming the results to be invalid.

Among those sanctioned this week by the EU were Zulia Governor Omar Prieto (PSUV); Vice Interior Minister Manuel Perez; National Electoral Council President Indira Alfonzo and Rectors Tania D’Amelio and Leonardo Morales; and Supreme Court Judges Luis Damiani, Calixto Ortega, Lourdes Suarez, Rene Degraves, Arcadio Delgado and Carmen Zuleta.

Equally targeted were a number of police and military chiefs, including Remigio Ceballos (Armed Forces), Jose Miguel Dominguez (FAES Special Forces), Jesus Vasquez (Military Police), Carlos Carballo and Carlos Teran (Military Counterintelligence) and Douglas Rico (CICPC investigative police).

Finally, two opposition lawmakers — Jose Brito (Justice First party) and Bernabe Gutierrez (Democratic Action party) — were also sanctioned. Both rose to lead their respective parties after the Supreme Court ruled on internal party power struggles.

Those sanctioned will have all European-based assets frozen and travel bans applied. Most had been previously sanctioned by Washington.

The EU first imposed sanctions against Venezuela in 2017, and has 55 individuals blacklisted following the latest round. Its Caracas ambassador was briefly expelled from Venezuela in 2020 after a wave of measures against the country.

While many of its member states have opted to follow the US sanctions regime to differing degrees, the EU has not copied Washington’s sweeping embargoes which have devastated Venezuela’s economy and oil industry, rather favouring arms embargoes and individual measures. Many European firms, however, have withdrawn from Venezuela in fear of secondary sanctions from Washington, including British online payment operators Skrill and Neteller over the weekend.

Nonetheless, EU sanctions, as well as those of the US and others, have been described as “collective punishment” and “human rights violations” by independent analysts and UN agencies, respectively. The Venezuelan government has filed a lawsuit at the International Criminal Court arguing that the US-led blockade amounts to a “crime against humanity.”

Maduro hits back

As the latest sanctions were announced, President Nicolas Maduro spoke at the 46th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva.

During his intervention, the president denounced an “inquisition and intervention” into Venezuela’s internal affairs, as well as over 450 unilateral coercive measures against the country.

He also highlighted a recent report from the UN Special Rapporteur on the Impact of Sanctions Alena Douhan, which specified the “devastating” impact and called for them to be “revised and lifted.”

“[Sanctions regimes have] demonstrated great cruelty, even during the pandemic, as well as contravening calls from the international community,” Maduro told the Council. He went on to refer to EU and US sanctions as “ideologised provocations from a group of governments.”

Venezuela has developed a respectful working relationship with the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in recent months, heeding to demands to pardon imprisoned opposition activists and even opening a local office for the institution in Caracas. Despite being elected to the body in 2019, the Latin American nation has, however, had a more rocky relationship with the Human Rights Council, which has emitted reports on Venezuela which independent analysts described as “unbalanced.”

Venezuela demands respect for Vienna Convention

Diplomatic tensions also ran high over the weekend as Caracas denounced a wave of xenophobia against its emigrant communities and violations of the Vienna Convention in Peru.

Angry protestors attacked Venezuela’s embassy building in Lima on Saturday, causing structural damage and chanting xenophobic slogans against the populous Venezuelan community, in the wake of reports that a Venezuelan assassinated a Peruvian man in Colombia last week.

The aggression is the latest in a wave of xenophobic episodes against Venezuelans in Peru, which has seen at least one migrant killed in reprisal attacks in recent days. Venezuelan communities elsewhere have also seen widespread discrimination in recent years, especially in Colombia, Brazil and Peru.

Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry called on Peruvian authorities to safeguard the embassy on Sunday, as well as protecting its diplomatic team and Venezuelan migrants who are subject to “unacceptable discrimination and xenophobic campaigns [being used] to obtain electoral advantage.”

It likewise called on the Colombian government to launch a full investigation and arrest those responsible for the murder which sparked the protests, “regardless of origin or nationality.”

Update:  On Wednesday, the Maduro government declared the EU ambassador to Caracas Isabel Brilhante Pedroso “persona non grata” and ordered her to leave the country within 72 hours. Diplomatic protests were also formally launched with the French, Spanish, Dutch and German governments over the latest sanctions.

*

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: EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell. (EU)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on EU Imposes Further Sanctions on Venezuela as Maduro Visits UN Human Rights Council
  • Tags: ,
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Empty Promise of Western-Style “Equality” and “Democracy”

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).

***

Despite Franco-British declarations of war on Germany during 3 September 1939, the British and French governments hoped that their armies would not actually have to engage in combat against German forces. The writing was on the wall early on, as neither Britain or France did anything meaningful to come to the aid of their nominal ally, Poland.

This was not altogether surprising, for the year before the Western powers participated in the carving up of Czechoslovakia, described by British prime minister Neville Chamberlain as “a far away country” not worth fighting over. Chamberlain had similar feelings regarding Poland, which after all shared a southern frontier with Czechoslovakia.

Attempting once more to placate the insatiable Hitler, the Anglo-French governments did their best to squeeze concessions out of Poland, as they had previously done with the Czechs (1). Warsaw refused. Only then did Britain and France reluctantly declare their willingness to fight on 25 August 1939, which in any case was a ceremonial gesture, as Poland would soon discover. The outspoken Conservative MP Robert Boothby said in an interview, “We’d gone to war for the defence of Poland. In the event, we did nothing to help Poland at all. We never lifted a finger”. (2)

For historical reasons it may be important to recognise that the Soviet autocrat, Joseph Stalin, made firm overtures to Britain and France in the 18 months prior to the start of World War II. Less than a week after Hitler’s forcible annexation of Austria, which disturbed the Kremlin but had the acquiescence of the West, on 18 March 1938 Stalin proposed that Britain and France join the USSR in a conference to enforce collective security (3). This offer, a potential forerunner to a Franco-British-Russo alliance aimed at Hitler, was rejected. Chamberlain wanted to push on with his appeasement strategy, while France was lurching from one political crisis to another.

Six months later on 30 September 1938, the Russians were notably scorned when they received no invitation to attend the Munich Conference; through which the Anglo-French governments collaborated with the fascist dictatorships, of Germany and Italy, in betraying Czechoslovakia. The Czechs lost 11,000 square miles of territory, including the country’s well-fortified districts along its western boundaries. Nor had Czech diplomats been invited to the Munich Conference, as Hitler was granted everything that he wished.

group portrait Edward Chamberlain, Édouard Daladier, Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, and Count Ciano, as they prepared to sign the Munich Agreement

From left to right: Chamberlain, Daladier, Hitler, Mussolini, and Italian Foreign Minister Count Ciano, as they prepare to sign the Munich Agreement (CC BY-SA 3.0 de)

A few weeks after the Wehrmacht’s March 1939 occupation of all Czechoslovakia, and despite increasing doubts about Western intentions, Stalin again approached the Franco-British powers. On 16 April 1939, he submitted a formal proposition: a three-power military pact with the obvious goal of deterring Nazi aggression (4). Stalin’s diplomatic proposal mirrored the agreement in place prior to the First World War, in which Britain, France and Russia were bound together in an alliance directed against the German and Austro-Hungarian empires. Had Stalin’s approach been accepted, it can only have changed the course of history – as such a union would have ensured, right from the beginning in the event of conflict, that Hitler faced a nightmare war on two fronts.

This final Soviet offer of alliance with the West was snubbed, however, with the British in particular treating Moscow with disregard. Strong anti-Bolshevik feelings were widespread amongst the conservatives in the British government, and with Chamberlain himself. Three weeks before Stalin’s proposition, Chamberlain wrote to his sister Ida on 26 March 1939, stating that:

“I must confess to the most profound distrust of Russia. I have no belief whatever in her ability to maintain an effective offensive, even if she wanted to. And I distrust her motives, which seem to me to have little connection with our ideas of liberty, and to be concerned only with getting everyone else by the ears”. (5)

Russian suspicions looked to be confirmed – the western democracies would be glad to see the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany at war with each other. Chamberlain assented to dispatching a diplomatic mission to the Kremlin, on 27 May 1939, to negotiate a modest mutual assistance treaty with Russia. Instead of having the British mission headed by a figure of authority, like Lord Halifax or Anthony Eden, Chamberlain chose an unknown Foreign Office official named William Strang. Strang was, moreover, a fervent anti-Bolshevik and a secret member of the pro-Nazi Anglo-German Fellowship.

The Soviets took Strang’s arrival as a calculated insult, which was intended. The British did agree to enter into military conversations with Moscow on 20 July 1939, but it proved a light-hearted gesture that went nowhere. Rather than flying directly from London to the Russian capital, which would have taken a few hours, the British mission travelled on a slow cargo boat which eventually arrived after six days. (6)

The above evidence, which is indisputable and has previously been documented by historians, shows that Stalin preferred to align with Britain and France, rather than Nazi Germany. Having been brushed aside, he was compelled to turn decisively towards Hitler, and on 23 August 1939 the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact was concluded. Eighty years after the start of hostilities, the EU in September 2019 passed a resolution in the European Parliament – through which they placed all of the culpability on the Soviets and Nazis for having “paved the way for the outbreak of the Second World War” and ironically refers to “distortion of historical facts” (7). There is not a mention in the EU resolution of Stalin’s repeated attempts to form a new triple entente with the West, and which would have encircled Hitler.

The Western powers, in reality, should share substantial blame for the outbreak of war. In addition, the Nazi dictatorship could have been destroyed at any time by France and Britain between 1933 to 1938, when Hitler was vulnerable and his military forces meagre. As late as September 1938, the German General Staff bluntly told Hitler that the Wehrmacht was still not strong enough to fight a European war. Yet the West did not particularly want to topple Hitler, with Britain having deep-seated financial ties to the Nazi regime, as by the late 1930s the Third Reich was London’s principal trading client. (8)

The British and French were largely responsible for the “Phoney War” that ensued from September 1939; during which the over-riding desire remained the same: that with Poland’s defeat, Hitler’s next move would again be to the east with an attack on the USSR, leaving western Europe untouched. Conservative MP Boothby recalled in the months after the German invasion of Poland, “We confined our war efforts to dropping leaflets on the German people, telling them that it was a bad idea to go to war and a pity that they’d done it. And perhaps that we might make peace”.

In the Phoney War period US business executives like James D. Mooney – in charge of General Motors’ overseas operations including in Nazi Germany – had attempted to persuade the British and Germans to resolve their conflict, in the hope of pushing Hitler towards invading Soviet Russia. Mooney, who had met senior Nazis in the past and received a decoration from Hitler, saw the dictator again in March 1940.

Mooney made a plea with him to preserve the peace in western Europe. He further informed Hitler that, “Americans had understanding for Germany’s standpoint with respect to the question of living space” (9). It meant that Washington had no problem should Germany decide to expand to the east. Joseph Kennedy, the US Ambassador to Britain and father of John F. Kennedy, likewise tried hard to persuade Berlin and London to resolve their differences. These attempts failed, as the Germans attacked westwards in the early summer of 1940, securing a series of routine military victories.

As America entered the war in December 1941 in opposition to the Axis states, mixed feelings were prevalent in Washington (10). There was little indecision at fighting the hated Japanese, but there was discomfort in the US capital at their union with the USSR, an ideological foe. This unease grew as the war dragged on. The Allied leadership would also be disconcerted at the power gained across much of the world by the anti-fascist Resistance, which often contained labour friendly and radical democratic attitudes. US-led efforts to dismantle the Resistance and other leftist factions, while reinstituting the capitalist business hierarchy, would become a global operation, picking up in intensity from the mid-1940s. It included employing notorious Nazis and fascist sympathisers.

Already in late 1942 – as the Allies captured their first chunk of territory from German control in north Africa – the Franklin Roosevelt administration, with Churchill’s backing, appointed a prominent fascist collaborator, Admiral Francois Darlan, to take over command of that expansive region (11). This decision enraged both the French Resistance and General Charles de Gaulle, who denounced Darlan by saying “You can buy traitors, but not the honour of France”.

The Big Three: Stalin, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the Tehran Conference, November 1943 (Public Domain)

From July 1943, with Allied forces landing in the far south of Italy, the US State Department and Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, sought to bring to power Dino Grandi, the far-right Italian politician. Grandi, a former high official in the Mussolini dictatorship, was described as a “moderate” by the State Department, someone who had been pushed towards fascism “by the excesses of the communists”. US support for the Italian fascists was taking up where it left off in the 1920s and 1930s, when Mussolini had enjoyed unbroken friendship, only ending as the Duce allied himself with Hitler in 1940.

Churchill wrote to president Roosevelt on 31 July 1943 that the main consideration when liberating Italy was to prevent “chaos, Bolshevisation or civil war”. Churchill warned that nothing stood in the way “between the King and the patriots who have rallied around him” and that of “rampant Bolshevism”. The Allies supported the Italian king, who had collaborated fully with Mussolini during his rule (12). Washington and London installed the right-wing dictatorship of Field Marshal Pietro Badoglio, a fascist war hero. As US and British tensions with Moscow increased, the Churchill government saw Badoglio as a bulwark against the communist threat in Italy.

A major problem from the US-British standpoint was indeed the emergence of the anti-fascist Resistance, which had won legitimacy and influence with ordinary people. The Resistance was trying to address the problems of the working class, destitute and other victims of war. These policies were viewed with misgiving by the Anglo-Saxon governments, and the big business, anti-labour interests they so often represent.

As the Allied armies continued to slowly advance northwards through Italy in 1944, they set about dispersing the anti-fascist elements, and to undermine the popular forces on which they were based (13). The Allied leadership was appalled to discover that the Italian Resistance had formed a social system, whereby the workers themselves ran their own factories, with no bosses in the capitalist method overseeing them.

Italy’s partisans, who had also fought bravely against six German divisions, were unable to prevent the US from restoring the essential structure of Mussolini’s former regime. Fascists and collaborators were returned to power and prominence. The aim was to preserve the traditional conservative world order, now under American domination. It furthermore involved the subordination of the working-class and poor to business rule, ensuring they would bear the cost relating to reconstruction and recovery. In mainstream scholarship, these actions are usually regarded as US efforts to re-establish “democracy” and “freedom” in Europe and beyond.

The American Army’s counterinsurgency literature begins with an overview of the Wehrmacht’s experience in Europe; and was written with the co-operation of Nazi officers. Large parts of these manuals were taken from the German angle, regarding which strategies worked best versus the Resistance. With little alteration, the tactics employed by the Wehrmacht and SS were absorbed into US military counterinsurgency.

There was an operation involving the Vatican, the US State Department and British intelligence, which gathered together Nazi war criminals, such as Klaus Barbie and Reinhard Gehlen; along with past associates of Adolf Eichmann, a leading perpetrator in the Holocaust, and also many other former SS, Wehrmacht and Gestapo officers (14). After organising them into cohesive units, the Americans returned them to work against the Resistance, at first in Europe; and later in the US-backed police states of Latin America.

Barbie, an ex-Gestapo chief dubbed “the butcher of Lyon”, was especially a wanted man due to the severity of his crimes in Nazi-occupied France. When his American paymasters began to take criticism on having employed Barbie in 1947, they struggled to comprehend what the problem was. The US Army had taken over from the Germans, and they needed someone who was a specialist in attacking the anti-fascist forces. Eugene Kolb, a retired colonel in the US Army’s Counterintelligence Corps, said that Barbie’s “skills were badly needed” because “His activities had been directed against the underground French Communist party and the Resistance”. Kolb continued, “We did not have any great pangs of conscience”. (15)

When Barbie could no longer be protected by his US employers, he was moved on to the Vatican ratlines in the early 1950s, where fascist priests assured him safe passage to Bolivia. An array of Nazis eluded capture to reach South America and elsewhere through the Vatican ratlines, such as psychopathic killers like Eichmann, Josef Mengele, Gustav Wagner and Walter Rauff. The latter figure, SS Colonel Rauff, created the first gas chambers used in the Holocaust.

Rauff at separate times worked for the intelligence service of West Germany (under US auspices) and, rather strangely, Israel’s Mossad agency. He had been personally responsible for at least 97,000 deaths during the war. Rauff was assisted in his escape to South America by the US authorities. (16)

Other Nazis were granted refuge in fascist Spain, where Mussolini was close to securing refuge in, before he had been caught by Italian partisans at the eleventh hour. Mussolini’s former saviour from 1943, SS commando Otto Skorzeny, ended up in Spain, having been allowed to “escape” captivity it seems by the Americans in 1948. Skorzeny, who unlike the above Nazis was not a sadist, would among other things be employed as a military adviser by governments in Egypt and Argentina; he also worked for the Mossad agency, despite his fascist beliefs. In a mysterious post-1945 existence Skorzeny – who had enjoyed a close relationship with Hitler – was seen in the most unlikely of places, from smoking casually in a Parisien cafe on the Champs-Élysées, to acquiring a farmhouse in rural Ireland where he tended his land.

In France from mid-1944, following the Vichy regime’s fall, the public’s hardship was exploited by US forces so as to harm French labour. Supported by Washington, the American Federation of Labour (AFL) dismantled dock strikes by sending over Italian scab labour funded by US corporate money. Badly needed food supplies were withheld from French civilians, in order to enforce obedience. Gangsters were organised to form goon squads and strike breakers, the results of which were later described with some pride in quasi-official US labour histories; which commend the AFL for its efforts in destabilising Europe’s labour movement. (17)

Mainly from the AFL, US labour leaders persuaded workers to accept austerity measures while employers raked in profits. The US State Department compelled the AFL’s leadership to direct some of their energies towards union-busting in Italy, which they did with gusto. The business classes, having fallen into disrepute among the public for having worked closely with the fascists, were reassured at the support bestowed to them by Washington.

With their confidence restored, business sectors pursued a rigorous class war, the final result being the reinstallment of the conservative power structure. While weakening Europe’s labour movements, the AFL further safeguarded the shipment of weaponry to French Indochina, so as to ensure that region remained under imperial control; another chief aim of the US labour bureaucracy. The CIA reorganised the Mafia to assist with arms deals, in return for the heroin trade’s recommencement. US government links to the drug industry continued for decades after. (18)

The Harry Truman administration’s Marshall Plan – which consisted of large-scale efforts to reinforce capitalist business supremacy in Europe – was based strictly on the exclusion of communists and other leftists from power, including extensive segments of the anti-fascist Resistance and labour (19). Economic programs, like the Marshall Plan, assured Washington significant leverage in directing Europe’s affairs. That was its intent from the outset, as the Marshall Plan furthermore served as important subsidies to US exporters of natural resources and manufactured products.

On 12 May 1947 Jefferson Caffery, the US Ambassador to France, informed Secretary of State George Marshall that there would be serious repercussions, should the communists win elections in France. Caffery felt in that scenario, “Soviet penetration of Western Europe, Africa, the Mediterranean and the Middle East would be greatly facilitated”. Also during May 1947, the Truman administration was applying pressure on political leaders in France and Italy to form coalition governments, in order to freeze out the communists (20). Secretary of State Marshall warned publicly that if communist politicians were voted into power, American aid would be terminated, a considerable threat under the circumstances.

Widespread US propaganda in Italy designated the Communist Party as “extremist” and “undemocratic”, while the purported Soviet threat was carefully crafted to frighten Italians. The Christian Democratic Party of Italy, under US pressure, reneged on wartime promises pertaining to workplace democracy. The Italian police, sometimes under the control of ex-fascists, was encouraged to repress labour activities.

The Vatican, which had allied itself to Mussolini for two decades, announced that anyone who voted for the communists in the 1948 election would be denied sacraments. The Vatican was supporting the conservative Christian Democrats, under the title “Either with Christ or against Christ”. The following year, 1949, Pope Pius XII excommunicated all Italian communists. CIA intervention through propaganda, violence and manipulation of aid effectively bought the critical 1948 Italian elections; in which the Christian Democratic Party, led by ex-Vatican librarian Alcide de Gasperi, won a sweeping victory as the communists were excluded from office. De Gasperi, a “founding father” of the EU, had defended the German church in 1937 by saying that it was right to favour Nazism over Bolshevism. (21)

The CIA effort to control Italy’s elections was the intelligence agency’s first major clandestine operation. CIA activities in Italy would continue through to the 1970s, as the country’s democracy was heavily eroded. This information has been in the public domain since 1976, thanks to the leaking of the congressional Pike Report, which detailed CIA interference in Italian affairs.

In Greece, as the Wehrmacht finally pulled out in the autumn of 1944, British soldiers replaced them by simply invading the country, rather than daring to leave it to the Greek Resistance. With the Germans nowhere in sight, in December 1944 Churchill ordered his men to treat Athens as a “conquered city”, and to put down the anti-fascist forces with “bloodshed” if needed (22). The British found a strong anti-fascist presence in Greece, consisting of peasants and workers led by communists.

Britain’s forces were initially able to thwart the Greek Resistance by violence, while restoring royalist factions and Nazi collaborators to power. Renewed armed opposition then surfaced which London was unable to control. In early 1947, they handed the job of pacifying Greece over to the Americans, who pursued it with a degree of fanaticism. This was the basis for the Truman Doctrine, a core tenet of which was to wipe out the resistance in Greece and elsewhere, on the pretext of containing the USSR. Another Western concern regarding Greece and Italy, which are Mediterranean states, was relating to the shipment of raw materials from the Middle East destined for the West.

US diplomat Adlai Stevenson explained later that Washington had to protect Greece from “the aggressors” who “had gained control of most of the country” (23). The aggressors comprising of those that stoically led the fight against Hitler’s troops.

The Americans were committed to state violence, torture and repression, which included the imprisonment without trial of tens of thousands of Greeks in concentration camps. London, to be fair, opposed some of these actions with a British official saying, very early on, that it was “unwise” in one incidence to round up 14,000 people, and intern them without trial in island concentration camps (24). The US Ambassador Lincoln MacVeagh said that the Greek government “had to throw their net wide to catch the right people” whom he calculated at around “a dozen key men”.

Once imprisoned, the detainees were subjected to “reindoctrination” if they “were found to have affiliations which cast grave doubt upon their loyalty to the state”, in the words of the American Mission for Aid to Greece. Elsewhere, Allied “re-education camps” were established, where hundreds of thousands of German and Italian prisoners of war were detained from 1945 to 1948. They were exposed to propaganda, forced labour and severe maltreatment, including mass executions.

The US chargé d’affaires Karl Rankin stressed in May 1948 that there should be “no leniency toward the confirmed agents of an alien and subversive influence”. Rankin went on that executions were legitimate, because even though when arrested the political prisoners may not have been “hardened communists, it is unlikely that they have been able to resist the influence of communist indoctrination organisations existing within most prisons” (25). Much of this has been forgotten, receiving scant mention when Western institutions condemn Beijing’s policies in Xinjiang province which, one might add, is within China’s internationally recognised borders.

US backing for state terror in Greece continued for many years, culminating in their support for the 1967 fascist military coup in Athens. Later on, president Bill Clinton indirectly acknowledged US interference in Greek affairs, while at the same time claiming that Washington’s “obligation” was “to support democracy” throughout the Cold War (26). The far-right putsch was praised at the time for bringing ample opportunities for US business investment.

In Korea during the late 1940s, American forces dispersed the local popular government there and instituted a harsh suppression, making use of Japanese police and other collaborators. Prior to what is known as the Korean War, through 1948 and 1949 an estimated 100,000 people were killed in South Korea by security forces installed and backed by Washington (27). The struggle on the Korean peninsula was between an anti-colonial nationalist movement, and a conservative order tied to the status quo, the latter of which the US was supporting.

The Truman administration initiated a series of military coups in Thailand from the mid-1940s, a country which the Americans would pay particular attention to. US subversion in Thailand enabled the returning to power in early 1948 of Field Marshal Phibun Songkhram, a formerly pro-Japanese, far-right dictator who admired Hitler and Mussolini and copied some of their policies, such as the fascist salute. Washington agreed to the isolation of Pridi Banomyong, leader of the Free Thai Movement who had co-operated with the Allies during the war. Pridi was the most prominent liberal democratic figure in Thailand, but his political beliefs were now eyed suspiciously in the West, and with the Japanese beaten he was no longer of any use.

The CIA’s Thailand specialist Frank Darling noted that Field Marshal Songkhram was “the first pro-Axis dictator to gain power after the war”. In 1954 the US National Security Council, under president Dwight D. Eisenhower, outlined that Thailand should be established as “the focal point of US covert and psychological operations in south-east Asia”; with the stated aim of “making more difficult the control by the Viet Minh of North Vietnam” (28). Eisenhower, an experienced general who had publicly criticised the waging of war, would not agree to outright military attacks; but, unlike Roosevelt, Eisenhower could not continue as president indefinitely and, after he left office in 1961, Thailand served as a central base of planning for the US invasions of Vietnam and later Cambodia and Laos.

*

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.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1 Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 Apr. 1985) p. 326

2 Paul Beston, “The Great Documentary, The World at War, a 1973 series”, City Journal, Spring 2016

3 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 315

4 Ibid., p. 323

5 John Simkin, “Nazi-Soviet Pact”, Spartacus International, September 1997 (Updated January 2020)

6 Goodspeed, The German Wars, p. 324

7 European Parliament, “Importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe”, 19 September 2019

8 Guido Giacomo Preparata, Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America Made the Third Reich (Pluto Press; Illustrated edition, 20 May 2005) p. 224

9 Jacques R. Pauwels, “Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler”, Global Research, 7 June 2019

10 Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance (Penguin, 1 Jan. 2004) p. 69

11 Noam Chomsky, Deterring Democracy (Vintage, New edition, 3 Jan. 2006) p. 42

12 Ibid.

13 Noam Chomsky, Optimism over Despair (Penguin; 1st edition, 27 July 2017) p. 141

14 Jewish Virtual Library, “U.S. policy during World War II: The CIA & Nazi War Criminals”, (Updated February 2005)

15 Noam Chomsky, How The World Works (Hamish Hamilton; Reprint edition, 3 May 2012) The Main Goals of US Foreign Policy

16 Ibid., Historical Background, How the Nazis won the war

17 Chomsky, Optimism over Despair, p. 141

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid., p. 140

20 Ibid., p. 141

21 Paul Ginsborg, A History of Contemporary Italy: 1943-80 (Penguin; Reprint edition, 27 Sep. 1990) Chapter 2, Resistance and Liberation

22 Fraser J. Harbutt, Yalta 1945: Europe and America at the Crossroads (Cambridge University Press; 1st edition, 1 May 2014) p. 199

23 The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 3, pp. 715-716, “U.S. Calls for Frontier Patrol to Help Prevent Border Incidents Between Cambodia and Vietnam”, Statement by Adlai Stevenson to Security Council, 21 May 1964

24 Noam Chomsky, The Chomsky Reader (edited by James Peck, Serpent’s Tail; Main edition, 1 June 1988) p. 213

25 Ibid.

26 James Gerstenzang and Richard Boudreaux, “Clinton Says U.S. Regrets Aid to Junta in Cold War”, Los Angeles Times, 21 November 1999

27 Chomsky, Optimism over Despair, p. 138

28 Douglas Allen, Ngo Vinh Long, Coming to Terms: Indochina, the United States, and the War (First published 1991 by Westview Press, published 2018 by Routledge) Chapter 4, Far from an Aberration

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 move formalizes regular military exercises among the US, Israel and Arab states, which is “crucial for developing effective theater missile defenses, as well as boosting readiness and interoperability in cyber, counterterrorism, special operations, and maritime security.”

Though the move will take some time to go into effect, the Pentagon’s recent decision to relocate Israel to the area of responsibility (AOR) of the US military’s Central Command (CENTCOM, which operates in the Middle East) is a direct operational reflection of the Abraham Accords, in which Israel normalized relations with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, with Saudi support.

The head of CENTCOM, General Kenneth F. McKenzie, recently told the Middle East Institute,

“We do a lot of business with Israel now just as a practical matter of fact because their threats generally emanate from the east. In a certain way, this is just a natural recognition of that at the operational level.”

In comments reported by Defense News, McKenzie said bringing Israel into CENTCOM will enable the United States to place an “operational perspective” on the Abraham Accords, setting up “further corridors and opportunities to open up between Israel and Arab countries in the region” on a military-to-military level. This, in turn, will pave the way toward a collective regional approach to common Middle Eastern threats.

McKenzie stated that the move also lines up with a US vision in which “our friends in the region do more for themselves” and in which neighbors work closely together, adding that the CENTCOM move is “a step in that direction.”

Prior to the Pentagon’s decision, a detailed report released by the pro-Israel Washington-based Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), which includes a number of former high-ranking American military officials as members, made the case for bringing Israel into CENTCOM’s area of responsibility.

According to JINSA’s director of foreign policy, Jonathan Ruhe, the idea initially received mixed responses from both defense establishments, but the feedback has grown consistently more positive over the past three years.

JINSA argued that such a network could lead to the creation of a region-wide missile defense network with shared early warning alerts. The cooperation could include steps to disrupt the Iranian proliferation of advanced weapons to its proxies, which target Israel and US forces, and pragmatic Sunni states alike.

A central member of the regional anti-Iranian alliance

In the face of these threats, CENTCOM can also initiate joint exercises and contingency plans for Iran-specific threats, thereby boosting cooperation, while Israel can find a new framework within which to share critical information from its “war between the wars” to disrupt Iranian force build-up in the region.

The report explained that each US military geographic combatant command (COCOM) is in charge of implementing US defense policy in its area of responsibility (AOR) while exercising unified command over all forces in its jurisdiction. Each COCOM works with and coordinates with partner militaries in its region, making them a “primary mechanism for US-led regional cooperation on strategic planning, training, doctrine, logistics, intelligence, technology, procurement, operations and other critical military activities.”

In this context, moving Israel to CENTCOM formalizes regular military exercises among the United States, Israel and Arab states. “Such training would be crucial for developing effective theater missile defenses, as well as boosting readiness and interoperability in cyber, counter-terrorism, special operations, and maritime security,” said the report.

Israel is no longer excluded by the Arab states in CENTCOM’s region; in fact, it is becoming a central member of the regional anti-Iranian alliance. The move to CENTCOM is a reflection of this historic shift.

As JINSA’s report states, the move will ultimately facilitate collective regional action to roll back Iran’s footprint in CENTCOM’s AOR while also preparing for a looming potential war and smoothing over day-to-day operational cooperation.

Israel has been under European Command’s (EUCOM) AOR since the latter’s creation in 1952, an arrangement that proved beneficial to both sides for decades.

That arrangement enabled the United States and other NATO members to partner closely with Israel, particularly post-9/11, as well as to develop close missile-defense cooperation, which saw EUCOM forces arrive in Israel for Juniper Cobra missile-defense drills every two years.

Both EUCOM and CENTCOM are undergoing changes, as JINSA’s report outlines. Preparations reflecting such changes could be found as far back as March 2018, when CENTCOM released a posture statement that for the first time listed Israel in its area as a partner for theater security cooperation and partnership in light of rising threats from Iran and the Islamic State.

That same month, CENTCOM forces took part in the Juniper Cobra exercise held between the Israel Defense Forces and EUCOM, and Gen. Joseph Votel became the first CENTCOM commander to officially visit Israel.

At CENTCOM, there is now an acute need to create a regional cooperation network that connects the US military, the IDF and the Gulf States to one another to face common threats from Iran, as well as from Islamic State.

Meanwhile, EUCOM is keen to return its primary focus to great-power competition with Russia.

An open question raised by the move is whether the United States will now be encouraged to position precision munitions on Israeli soil, which could serve both the IDF and CENTCOM in the event of a potential conflict with Iran. JINSA noted that EUCOM has no interest in replenishing this stockpile, as it wants munitions in Europe in case of conflict with Russia. CENTCOM might take a different view.

Aside from anything else, Israel’s move into CENTCOM could boost deterrence against Iran by signaling a major step in the crystallization of a regional collective military partnership that recognizes the Israeli-Sunni alliance in the face of the radical Shiite axis.

*

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: General Kenneth F. McKenzie, Jr, USMC 14th commander of U.S. Central Command (Public Domain)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Brings Israel into CENTCOM, The US Military’s Command in the Middle East
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

It’s hard to say where things begin, but they do, as do we, and we are somehow in them and they in us, and a story begins.

Then the story gets silently disclosed as we live it, even though most of us don’t tell it until later, if we can find our tongues.  But when we tell it we are in another story, often nostalgic for the future but finding the creative past pulling us back down and deep to illuminate the present.

Life is dangerous; we can end at any time.  We can also be swallowed by the inarticulate, find ourselves tongue-tied in the face of simple truth, especially the personal kind and how our small-world stories are intertwined with the larger social ones. How there is no escaping that.

There are many, of course, for whom the bell tolls before they end. As Bob Dylan sings it so beautifully in Chimes of Freedom, a song about being caught in a thunder and lightning rain storm:

In the wild cathedral evening the rain unraveled tales
For the disrobed faceless forms of no position
Tolling for the tongues with no place to bring their thoughts
All down in taken-for granted situations
Tolling for the deaf an’ blind, tolling for the mute
For the mistreated, mateless mother, the mistitled prostitute
For the misdemeanor outlaw, chased an’ cheated by pursuit
An’ we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.

We are now living in a world where freedom’s flashing lightning bolts have been replaced by dim grim grimaces of widespread depression and resignation as the shroud of solicitous neofascism descends on much of the world.

Human freedom is under widespread assault. Free speech is being attacked. Censorship is widespread and growing. Flesh and blood life is being sucked into a whirlpool of what John Steppling calls “a universe of disembodied data.”  Mediated reality is replacing physical reality as the world’s elites attempt to sell their packaged and commodified stories to publics ensnared and enamored by the technology that is entrapping them.  All tradition, the good and the bad, is gutted out by elites determined to create chaos and digital dementia as they coordinate their power under the banner of the “reasonable center” as distinct from the left and the right.  It’s an old story that many can’t hear because they can no longer listen.

But lightning never dies since it is only in flashing that it exists, like us, and here and there you can still see and hear its messages of freedom and revolt. It comes unexpectedly.  Out of the blue.  It lurks in the shadowy clouds as an invisible force, always ready to strike.  You have to be alert and know where to look. Listen. You have to want to see it, to catch its energy.

A year ago, right before the world was locked-down into a devastating hell, my then eleven-year-old granddaughter Sophie, who is a writer, starred in the lead role of a big production of Matilda, the play based on the book of the same name by the mischievous writer Roald Dahl, who wrote so many books extolling freedom for children – aka adults.  Matilda is about a girl who refuses to be bullied by the headmistress of her school or her parents.  When Sophie stepped forward boldly and defiantly looked at the audience and sang her first solo, Naughty, a shiver went down my spine, what Coomaraswamy called “the aesthetic shock.”  Bold and fearless, she sang these words that flashed like Dylan’s chimes of freedom to a rapt audience wondering who this Matilda might be:

Like Romeo and Juliet
T’was written in the stars before they even met
That love and fate, and a touch of stupidity
Would rob them of their hope of living happily
The endings are often a little bit gory
I wonder why they didn’t just change their story?
We’re told we have to do what we’re told but surely
Sometimes you have to be a little bit naughty

As the historian Howard Zinn has said: Our greatest problem is civil obedience.  Zinn tried to change the story but few have heeded his advice.  The American story is the embrace of endless war and violence, often justified under the alibi of “the lesser of two evils,” as if lesser evil were not evil. Such evil is always presented as reasonable, the center between two extremes.

A hundred years ago, D. H. Lawrence wrote of Americans that “All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted.” 

In their wish to obey, so many, unlike Matilda, accede to endings that are very gory, echoing Melville’s Captain Ahab in Moby Dick: “Fool! I am the Fates’ lieutenant; I act under orders,” sometimes not knowing that they are doing so but finding comfort in their obeisance since the leaders and experts and authority figures know what’s best – just do what you’re told, as a current sage recently said.  Obey orders.

Yes, these experts are the light-bringers, like Prometheus and his brother Lucifer, they bring the fire.  Under orders from Lucifer whom he embodies, Ahab insanely hunts Moby Dick for three days until the great white whale rises from the depths and drags him down to hell, “and the great shroud of the sea rolled on as it rolled five thousand years ago.”  So it goes.  It’s an old story worth remembering, whether the whale be huge or invisible.  To resist, you have to be a little bit naughty, and brave, for we are on a journey without maps and are now in a very dark place.

Our stories enclose one another, the largest being the story of the social world we always live within, a big story that usually eludes our understanding or focus until one day we realize it has always been the womb we have been swimming in all our lives.  We are always inside one whale or another, but the biggest whale is the social story about external “realities” told by those who control the media that encloses all our smaller tales.  It is crucial to understand this story through discernment and not to let the media monsters convince us of their versions, for they are not our friends. They lie for their masters.

Referring specifically to novelists, but by extension to everyone since we are the novelists of our own lives, George Orwell, in his essay “Inside the Whale,” whose primary focus was the writing of Henry Miller, wrote:

Get inside the whale – or rather, admit that you are inside the whale (for you are, of course.)

By which he meant the feeling that external forces are out of control and that as society disintegrates and the autonomous individual is stamped out of existence, “the increasing helplessness of all decent people” becomes a widespread feeling.  He was not endorsing such quietism and resignation, but was describing it.

Such a feeling is clearly far more widespread today, long after Orwell penned those words.  He was praising Miller for saying what regular people (his phrase was “ordinary man,” a phrase he held was accurate but “denied by some people” who believe all generalizations are piffle) thought and felt despite it being taboo to say it.  It is why Miller’s books were banned; they were too truthful.  He dragged “the real-politik of the inner mind into the open.”

The establishment always prefers refined bullshit to the secret thoughts of regular people, those who are fed up with the endless lies that that pour forth from the official narrators’ mouths.

My entire life has been framed by the story of America’s constant wars, their glorification and justification.  From the first detonation of the nuclear device in the New Mexican desert, blasphemously called “Trinity” by Robert Oppenheimer, until this very day in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Libya, Yemen, etc., I could not understand my story without situating it within the belly of this beast called the U.S.A.  This is true for most people alive today.  Stories within stories.

Peel the American onion and at its heart you’ll find a bomb. “Fat Man” or “Little Boy” or whatever sick name you choose to give it.

Our smaller tales nestled in the private recesses of our minds are seemingly sometimes boring to many but illuminating to those telling them.  They can and often do appear when one is bored by the repetitive nature of the screaming, fear-mongering political headlines meant to reduce people to quivering victims of false narratives“Boredom,” wrote Walter Benjamin in The Storyteller, “is the dream bird that hatches the egg of experience.  A rustling in the leaves drives him away.” 

Far more than a rustling, we are living in a digital media world of cacophonous lies that drown out the silence necessary for independent thinking or dreaming.

So here I sit in the silence and try to conjure up the Pine-eyed Boy.

The boy was five or six, he can’t remember which, when his father took him to the movie theater to see Walt Disney’s Pinocchio. Just the two of them, a father with his only son, the boy’s five sisters left at home.  By the time two more sisters had arrived, this intimate dream experience had penetrated deep into him. His father followed up the movie by entertaining the boy and lulling him to sleep many nights by telling him improvised Pinocchio tales, none of which the boy could remember but could never forget. These stories became the penumbra of his life.

He always remembered Thoreau saying that “it is so hard to forget what it is worse than useless to remember.”  But while nodding assent to that truth, he always felt Pinocchio was different.  Pinocchio must be remembered, not so much the Disney version, but the stories his father told on the theme; but more importantly, why he told them. He knew that it is so easy to forget what is important to remember, and that we often use our forgetteres to do just that.

Like most small children or adults, the complexity of this Disney film eluded him.  He remembered being mesmerized and frightened and delighted in turn.  The cricket, the whale, the puppet maker, his pine-eyed creation, and the Blue Fairy – all of these seemed so real to him, images that would drift through his unknowing mind unattached to words, like images in an inner mirror.  Fleeting and fascinating.  Moving.

When the kidnapped boys were taken with Pinocchio on the dark sea journey to Pleasure Island, he was frightened.  He had no words for it, but the Coachman Barker, the kidnapper, seemed to ooze menace.  But his father’s large protective presence in the aisle seat to his left seemed to enclose his fear and tell him all would be fine. He felt contained in his protective love. His father felt like a counterweight to the satanic looking Barker with the pedophile’s red laugh and demeanor.  His father was his protector.

The man the boy became spent decades meditating on the meaning of his youthful encounter with Pinocchio’s story.  Or was it his relationship with his father, or perhaps his relationship with his father’s encounter with Pinocchio, or maybe his father’s relationship with his father without Pinocchio but with the feeling the boy must save his father after the father wishes the boy to life and his mother dies and leaves the father all alone, trapped in the belly of a dark life.

My father’s father, my grandfather, was the Deputy Chief of the New York Fire Department, which was the highest rank for a uniformed firefighter.  He had battled many dangerous fires to save people’s lives. Defeating the fire “devil” was his calling. But when my father was eighteen years old, his mother died, and my grandfather was left alone.  I never asked him, but I am wondering now if my father, then aged 18, felt it was his duty to save his father from the monster of loneliness, the feeling of being shipwrecked, abandoned by God. And if that sense of obligation was connected to Pinocchio’s story, where the puppet boy is first nearly killed by putting his finger into a candle flame but is saved by his father, Geppetto, the wife-less toy maker, who puts out the fire with water, and then at the end, in a role reversal, when Pinocchio saves his father from the belly of Monstro the whale by using fire to make the whale sneeze them up to the shore.

Such an ending evokes the terrible heavy  burden felt by any child whose “cricket” tells them that they must save a parent.  Such role reversal exacts a heavy price.

In the Biblical story, Jonah surely felt obligated that way after he was spit up on the shore by the great fish whose belly had saved him.  He did not want to do his father Yahweh’s will and tell the people of Nineveh that they must repent their ways. So he fled, only to find himself thrown overboard but saved by the God he didn’t obey.

I once asked my father to tell me about his father, whom I knew as a young child, but my memories were few and scattered and he died when I was ten-years-old.  This was after my father had sent me many letters describing in detail his father’s and mother’s relatives, what some might call genealogy but which were actually mini-short stories. To my father and to me, it was the stories that counted, not the bloodline; exquisite writer that he was, my father knew that it was the gift of stories that would allow me to shape my own, and that he was, to use Benjamin’s words, starting a “web which all stories form in the end.”

Despite these detailed epistles about our family history, my father seemed hesitant to describe his father.  I kept pressing him.  He finally wrote that he would get the bio sketch of Pop in the works for me.  “I’m afraid,” he wrote, “it will be like the closing words of St. John’s Gospel though: ‘And many other things did Dennis of Woodlawn do that are not written in this book; but these are written so that reading you may believe that Dennis was quite a man.”

My father knew his Bible, for these are the closing words of John’s Gospel: “There were many other things that Jesus did; if all were written down, the world itself, I suppose, would not hold all the books that would have to be written.”

He never said another word about his father. I knew the comparison to Jesus was farfetched, but beside that, I was left in the lurch, except to realize that my father idolized his father, and I had learned from experience that idolization was not good, for it leads to blind obedience. I had idolized my own father, but it was only until I knew his human weaknesses and faults that I came to love him even more and idolization turned to deeper gratitude.

Ever since my father’s death and up until recently, I have felt that this missing piece of his story was a result of my father’s fear to convey the full truth about his father, despite my repeated requests to him to do so. I have changed my literal mind. I now see it as a brilliant extension of the improvised Pinocchio stories he told me as a child. Just as they always left me wondering why they never had a clear ending as I fell sleeping into the belly of the night,  I see this absence of his father’s story as a present, a gift like a fairy tale. “The fairy tale tells us,” wrote Benjamin, “of the earliest arrangements that mankind made to shake off the nightmare which the myth had placed upon its chest.”

One such myth, the one that I have long felt true and that has informed much of my life is that I could save others.  It is sheer arrogance. It is violence.  It is a mythic nightmare that I have carried on my chest.  Fr. Walter Brown, S.J., who was a guiding light in my life, once told my parents when they were visiting my high school for parents’ night: “Eddie will be fine once he gets the world off his shoulders.”  And Fr. Brown didn’t know the half of it, but, being an artist of deep intuition, knew enough.

All my efforts to “save” others in the personal realm have failed, as I should have expected.  No one really wants advice or counsel; to be saved; they want to be free to create or destroy their own stories.

I have also written and published many things trying to convince people through logic and facts that this is true and that isn’t; that they need to change their beliefs.  I have tried to light a fire in the belly of Monstro the whale to save others from the descending shroud of solicitous neofascism that is upon us. To alert others to the overarching American story of violence that is consuming us.

In all of this, I was missing the story in the story.  The absence that is the present.  The transformative gift that keeps circulating because it is freely given to us by the spirit to pass on in the telling.

“It is half the art of storytelling to keep a story free from explanation as one reproduces it,” said Benjamin.  I have tried.

Or as Nietzsche said of the chorus in Greek tragedy:

With this chorus, the profound Hellene, uniquely susceptible to the tenderest and deepest suffering, comforts himself, having looked boldly right into the terrible destructiveness of so-called world history as well as the cruelty of nature, and being in danger of longing for a Buddhistic negation of the will.  Art saves him, and through art – life.

It’s still the same old story, especially when you know what’s missing.

*

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, Behind the Curtain.

Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He is the author of the new book: https://www.claritypress.com/product/seeking-truth-in-a-country-of-lies/

Featured image is from Pixabay

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Pine-eyed Boy Escapes from the Belly of the Dark Night in the Fish’s Tale

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

House Democrats have asked President Joe Biden to give other officials the authority to launch nuclear weapons, an action which he currently has sole authority to do.

California Rep. Jimmy Panetta spearheaded the Monday letter, which was signed by nearly three dozen House Democrats, Politico reported.

“Vesting one person with this authority entails real risks,” the letter reads. “Past presidents have threatened to attack other countries with nuclear weapons or exhibited behavior that caused other officials to express concern about the president’s judgment.”

“While any president would presumably consult with advisors before ordering a nuclear attack, there is no requirement to do so,” the letter says according to the report. “The military is obligated to carry out the order if they assess it is legal under the laws of war. Under the current posture of U.S. nuclear forces, that attack would happen in minutes.”

The letter suggests alternative plans, such as requiring the president to get approval for a launch order from other officials in the line of succession. This includes the vice president and the Speaker of the House, “neither of whom can be removed by the president if they disagree.”

Some officials pushed for former President Donald Trump’s nuclear launch code access to be revoked following the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi considered asking the military to prevent Trump from accessing the nuclear codes in order to prevent “an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike,” a statement sent from Pelosi to House Democrats 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.

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).

***

“There exists an unfounded public hysteria driven by the media and politicians. It is outrageous, this is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting society.”

This is what top Canadian pathologist and virologist Dr Roger Hodkinson told Canadian government officials about Corona back in late November 2020 during a Zoom conference call (1). And he is right! We can only stop this pandemic hoax and give our children a future worth living if we realise that we are both victims and perpetrators.

Don’t hand over power to anyone!

Every few years we elect corrupt politicians to high government offices and regard them as respectable authorities. Politicians immediately associate this ascription with claims to power, create a relationship of superiority and subordination and enforce the will or instructions of the global power elite on the citizens. These mendacious politicians can neither be trusted today nor in the future, wrote Leo Tolstoy as early as 1905 (2).

For more than a year they have been stirring up irrational fears and a public hysteria and panic of a terrible choking death with their loyal mass media without any reason. Yet the deliberate stirring up of irrational fears has been an instrument of discipline and domination by unscrupulous despots for centuries. They are doing the work of the devil, not the work of God. We do not have a medical problem worldwide, but a political one! We are all to be panicked into obeying so they can do what they want with us.

But despots not only stir up unfounded fears, they also use religion for their satanic plans. The state and the church have been allies and henchmen, respectively, since time immemorial! Both want us to believe in the so-called authorities and show absolute spiritual obedience – a so-called cadaver obedience! Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit Order, demanded this as early as the middle of the 16th century: According to divine providence, we should let ourselves be led and guided by the superiors as if we were a dead body or the staff of an old man with which one can do what one wants.

We are victims…

And that’s how most of us behave too! Many adults react to these politicians like children or like primitive man reacted: In the form of a “magical belief in authority” – uncritical, and clouded by moods, feelings and promises of happiness. And this has consequences: Belief in authority inevitably leads to allegiance to authority, which usually triggers the reflex of absolute spiritual obedience and paralysis of the mind. Full-headed adults can then no longer think for themselves and judge rationally, and hand over decision-making power to immoral politicians or to a supernatural being who is supposed to guide us as a “deity” until the end of days and protect us.

That is why priests receive massive financial and ideological support from the secular authorities. And this obedience is drilled into us humans from childhood! All this leads, among other things, to the fact that citizens worldwide:

  • be locked up at home or in segregation camps,
  • distancing themselves from relatives, friends and neighbours,
  • wearing health-threatening mouth guards day in, day out,
  • get vaccinated with an unproven and therefore lethal vaccine.
  • and denounce fellow citizens who rebel against this madness to the authorities.

…and perpetrators at the same time

Due to the unfounded fear reaction, the religiously conditioned belief in authority and the absolute spiritual obedience reflex, we show no compassion for our fellow human beings in distress and suffering and abandon them. This goes so far that we even fail to protect our own brood, our children, who have fallen into great distress as a result of the criminal swindle and some of whom no longer want to live. In doing so, we are blocking our entire future. Yet it is compassion for all creatures, that makes human beings truly human, said Albert Schweitzer.

Dear fellow citizens, I implore you to think about what I have said and to get out of the belief in authority

  • from the belief in authority,
  • from the spiral of fear and
  • from the obedience reflex.

Please wake up and have the courage to use your common sense – 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.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, NRhZ-ONLINE.

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

(1) ORBIS(nju:S), Contra Mainstream Blog, 22 November 2020

(2) Hänsel, R. (2020). Handing over power to no one! A psychological manifesto of common sense. Gornji Milanovac. ISBN 978-86-7432-119-5. The “Neue Rheinische Zeitung NRhZ” published the entire text in three installments. An abridged version was also published in the NRhZ and additionally in “Rubikon” as well as in English in “Global Research” (www.globalresearch.ca).

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 a recent front-page article, the New York Times reported that the new mutated version of the Coronavirus was likely to be more contagious or lethal than the original infection. According to the Times, this new iteration of the infection could resist conventional treatments and force lockdown nations to extend the timeline for lifting restrictions. But given that “daily Covid infections have declined by 77 percent since January” and the virus appears to be ‘on its way out’, the report in the Times seems particularly suspicious. Is this new mutation, called the “variant”, really as deadly as it’s cracked up to be or is the media conjuring up another Covid hobgoblin to scare the public into getting vaccinated? Check out this excerpt from the article:

“British government scientists are increasingly finding the coronavirus variant first detected in Britain to be linked to a higher risk of death than other versions of the virus, a devastating trend that highlights the serious risks and considerable uncertainties of this new phase of the pandemic.

The scientists said last month that there was a “realistic possibility” that the variant was not only more contagious than others, but also more lethal. Now, they say in a new document that it is “likely” that the variant is linked to an increased risk of hospitalization and death….

The reasons for an elevated death rate are not entirely clear. Some evidence suggests that people infected with the variant may have higher viral loads, a feature that could not only make the virus more contagious but also potentially undermine the effectiveness of certain treatments.

But scientists are also trying to understand how much of the increased risk of death may stem from the propensity of the variant to spread very easily through settings like nursing homes, where people are already vulnerable.

No matter the explanation, scientific advisers to the British government said on Saturday, the new findings laid bare the dangers of countries easing restrictions as the variant takes hold.” (“Covid-19: U.K.-Based Variant Is Probably More Lethal, Scientists Say”, New York Times)

We are not going to waste alot of time on this short blurb, but we will ask people to mull over the hyperbolic phraseology that’s used with the clear intention of terrifying readers. The author makes no effort to point out that there is little or no evidence that the so-called ‘variant’ has triggered a spike in cases or that it has caused more deaths. Instead, he devotes the entire 5-paragraph segment to spreading terror about an issue of which the public knows next to nothing. Why would the author do this?

We see three possible reasons:

  1. The author believes he is performing a public service by informing the American people on a matter of grave importance.
  2. The author is laying the groundwork for extending the onerous lockdown restrictions.
  3. The author wants to scare more people into getting vaccinated.

We think the most likely answer is Number 3, that this article and the thousands others like it are part of a well-funded terror campaign directed at vaccine skeptics who have no intention of getting inoculated for an infection that affects a mere sliver of the population and that appears to be dying out by the day. Why would any reasonable person do that?

But there’s no denying that the variant is now being used to fuel the Covid hysteria and perpetuate the repressive conditions that have been imposed arbitrarily by Democrat governors acting on behalf of powerful oligarchs and climate fabulists. So, the best way to address this situation is to shed a little light on the topic itself. What we want to do, is present the views of a few respected professionals who have no ax to grind and who have a good grasp of the science. That way, readers can decide for themselves whether the Times article has any merit or is just more of the same hyperventilating drivel they regurgitate every day. First, check out this video interview with Sunetra Gupta, who is Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology in the Department of Zoology at the University of Oxford, and a Royal Society Wolfson Research Fellow. Here’s what she said:

“It may well be that some of these variants are more transmissible, but the truth is, that within a system where you have alot of immunity shared, …what you tend to get is competitive exclusion so that the infection with the highest Reproductive rate wins. What that means is that even with a marginal increase in transmissibility, that could see a new variant sweep through. But that does not have much of a material effect or difference in how we deal with the virus. In other words, the surge of the virus cannot be ascribed to a new variant….

The other question is are these variants more virulent, and the truth is we don’t know, but it is unlikely because the data don’t seem to say so despite the scary headlines…Pathogens tend to evolve towards lower virulence….because that maximizes their transmissibility...It is much more probable that these strains will not be materially so different that we would have to alter our policies.” (Sunetra Gupta: Are these new variants more transmissible?” You Tube)

Repeat: “Pathogens tend to evolve towards lower virulence

What Gupta means is that– as the number of susceptible hosts dwindles– the strain that best adapts to that new situation, is the one that will dominate. That does not mean that it will become more contagious or lethal; quite the contrary, as Gupta points out, these infections tend to weaken over time, not get stronger or more deadly. But, why?

Because the number of people who are capable of contracting Covid is shrinking all the time. Remember, the virus has already ripped through the population twice, which means the pool of potential hosts has shrunk dramatically. So, whether the new variants are modesty different or not, the number of cases, hospitalizations and fatalities will continue to fall. Infections do not have an infinite life span nor is the variant a new or novel virus. It is a slight variation of the original pathogen which means the virus is on its way out.

Notice how this analysis conflicts with the fearmongering of the article in the Times. We are trying to explain what a variant is, while the Times is trying to use the fear of a sinister and invisible pathogen to coerce a certain behavior, in this case, getting vaccinated. Our explanation is an appeal to one’s sense of reason and judgement, while the other is a manipulation of one’s darkest emotions and fear of death. Which do you prefer?

Here’s more on the topic from Diagnostic pathologist, Dr Claire Craig who provides a more technical explanation:

“SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequence has ~30,000 letters. Alterations in a handful of letters will not change it’s shape much – if it did it wouldn’t function properly anyway. Fear mongering about immune escape is not needed and is irresponsible esp when no evidence to support the claims.” (Claire Craig)

In essence, Craig is saying the same thing we said earlier, that the slight mutations to the infection will not impact the immune reaction of people who already had the virus. Thus, the current crop of “variants” should not be a cause for alarm. If you have already had Covid or if you already have prior-immunity due to previous exposure to similar infections, (SARS, for example) the new strain should not be a problem.

Here’s a longer explanation that some readers might find overly technical and perhaps tedious, but it’s worth wading through in order to see that the media is deliberately misstating the science to terrify the public. This excerpt is from an article by Michael Yeadon, ex-Pfizer Vice President of allergy and respiratory research. Here’s what he said:

“The idea is planted in people’s mind that this virus is mutating in such a way as to evade prior immunity. This is completely unfounded, certainly as regards immunity..(that is) gained naturally, after repelling the virus ….

It’s important to appreciate that upon infection, the human immune system cuts up an infectious agent into short pieces. Each of these short pieces of protein are presented to other cells in the immune system, like an identity parade. Our cells have a truly astonishing range of abilities to recognize different protein structures, and there will be some which recognize each of the pieces of the invader. The cells which recognize a piece are instructed to multiply selectively so that, after a few days to a couple of weeks, our bodies contain large numbers of virus piece specific cells. These have a range of functions. Some make antibodies & others are programmed to kill cells infected by the virus, recognized by displaying on their surface signals that tell the body that they’ve been invaded.

In almost all cases,… this smart adaptive system overcomes the infection. Crucially… this event leaves you with many different kinds of long-lived ‘memory’ cells which, if you’re infected again, rapidly wipe out any attempt at reinfection.So, you won’t again be made ill by the same virus, and because the virus is simply not permitted to replicate, you are also no longer able to participate in transmission.

To mutations & variants.

Many viruses are error-prone when they replicate in your cells. They make “typos” so the virus which results is slightly different from the parent virus. Sometimes that small changes make no difference to the behavior of the virus. Other times, the change renders the virus incapable of something important to its survival. It’s possible a change makes it slightly better at surviving and so over time, it becomes a higher proportion of viruses sequenced from clinical samples. The general ‘direction of travel’ is to become less injurious but easier to transmit, eventually joining the other 40 or so viruses which cause what we collectively term ‘the common cold”.

What generally doesn’t happen is for mutants to become more lethal to the hosts (us). But the key point I wanted to get across is just how large SARS-COV-2 is. I recall it’s of the order of 30,000 letters of genetic code which, when translated, make around 10,000 amino acids in several viral proteins. Now you can see that the kinds of numbers of changes in the letters of the genetic code are truly tiny in comparison with the whole. 30 letter changes might be roughly 0.1% of the virus’s code. In other words, 99.9% of that code is not different from the so-called Wuhan strain.Similarly, the changes in the protein translated from those letter code alterations are overwhelmed by the vast majority of the unchanged protein sequences. So your immune system, recognizing as it does perhaps dozens of short pieces…. will not be fooled by a couple of small changes to a tiny fraction of these. No: your immune system knows immediately that this is an invader it’s seen before, and has no difficulty whatsoever in dealing with it swiftly & without symptoms. So, it’s a scientifically invalid…

… even if mutations did change a couple of these, the majority of the pieces…. of the mutated virus will still be unchanged & recognized by the vaccine-immune system or the virus-infected immune system & a prompt, vigorous response will still protect you. ..

I do have to urge you to do is do a little research of your own to test whether what…the Govt is telling you marries up with the pre-2020 scientific literature & official guidance…. or whether it doesn’t. If you find one occasion where what you’re being told runs directly contrary to pre-2020 science & guidance, congratulations! You’ve discovered that you’re being misled & lied to.”(“Variants, Covid”, Michael Yeadon, My Thread Reader)

While Yeadon’s explanation is much longer than Dr Craig’s, their views on the variant appear to be identical. Finally, there’s this, from an article by Rosemary Frei at the Off Guardian:

“It turns out that the case for the variants’ contagiousness and dangerousness centers largely on the theoretical effects of just one change said to stem from a mutation in the virus’s genes. And, as I’ll show in this article, that case is very shaky….

Public-health officials, politicians and the mainstream media around the world turned their collective headlights on the variants right after the publication of three theoretical-modeling papers on B.1.1.7, a variant originating in the U.K. The first was a Technical Briefing by Public Health England published Dec. 21 …, the second a paper published Dec. 23 by a mathematical-modeling group at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the third a theoretical-modeling manuscript posted Dec. 31 by a large group of UK scientists.

The main evidence that the top three theoretical-models cite as proof of stronger bonding between the N501Y form of the novel coronavirus and the RBD is from just three scientific manuscripts, and these describe experiments with the virus in mice or petri dishes, not observation of whether in fact the variants are truly more contagious or more deadly… None of the three papers was checked over for accuracy by objective observers – a process called ‘peer review.’ Nonetheless, all three were portrayed as solid science by many scientists, politicians, public-health officials and the press.

The authors of that paper themselves conclude that:

this result should be interpreted with caution. As a limited number of samples with the S-negative profile [i.e., tests that were positive for two of the three portions of the PCR test but not for the third, S-gene, portion] were sequenced, we could not exclude the presence of other S mutations associated with this profile…. Moreover we could not determine whether the deletion affected the primer or other probe-binding region as their coordinates were not available.

It’s a good bet that similar sleights of hand are behind the new wave of papers and headlines focusing on the amino-acid change dubbed E484K…. That the pronouncements about the dire danger posed by the new variants aren’t based on solid science… They appear to be aimed more at scaring the public into submitting to harsher and longer restrictions than helping to create truly evidence-based policies.

So follow the golden rules. Read the primary scientific-paper sources. Analyze them and think for yourself. Don’t let your reasoning be swept away by the 24-7, fear-filled news cycle.” (“The shaky science behind the “deadly new strains” of Sars-Cov-2“, The Off Guardian)

So the whole “variant” theory is based on 3 or 4 papers that have not been peer reviewed, do not produce solid evidence of their findings, and haven’t even been checked for accuracy. The authors might as well have been writing science fiction and yet, the media and public health experts lap it up and insist that the danger is real. But is it?

No, it’s not. The variant is just the latest in a long list of fear-generating devices that are being used to perpetuate the state of emergency, scare the public into submissive compliance, and coerce the public into injecting themselves with a toxic gene-altering cocktail that could dramatically impact fertility, longevity and survival itself.

Don’t get swept up in the hysteria. The people who are orchestrating this elaborate hoax, do not have your best interests in mind. In fact, they might want to put you in an early grave.

*

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.

Featured image is from 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).

***

Today, February 24, 72 organizations and 700 individuals published an open letter calling for the Biden administration to end its illegal and destructive intervention in Haiti. While Joe Biden and the Democrats condemned the Trump forces for not respecting the results of the U.S. election, they are supporting Jovenel Moïse’s refusal to leave office after his term as president ended on February 7, 2021. Moïse has unleashed violent gangs, the police and the military against protesters who are demanding that he respect the Constitution and step down.

“President Biden claims to care about racial equity but his actions in Haiti show the emptiness of that rhetoric,” said Ajamu Baraka of the Black Alliance for Peace. “For centuries now, the United States has employed force to dominate Haiti, the first Black Republic that was established in 1804 after the defeat of French and Spanish colonizers. President Biden has an opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to democracy and Black self-determination by ending support for the Moïse regime and denouncing the current violence.”

The past two presidents of Haiti, Michel Martelly and Jovenel Moïse, were hand-picked and forced into office by the United States during the Obama administration against the will of the Haitian people. Moïse is currently ruling by decree after dismissing most of the legislators and refusing to hold elections. With the backing of the Core Group, composed of the United States, Canada, Brazil, France, Germany, Spain, the European Union and the United Nations, Moïse is trying to push a new constitution through using a referendum in April. The new constitution being written by members of the Core Group and without any real participation of the Haitian people would grant greater power to the executive office.

Source: Danny Shaw/COHA

Since February 7, the rogue Moïse government has launched a brutal crackdown on all dissent resulting in home invasions, arrests, the firing of Supreme Court judges and a police inspector general, attacks on the media and the use of chemical agents and live ammunition to disperse protests, as documented by the U. S. Human Rights Clinics.

“The current situation in Haiti is critical,” stated Marleine Bastien, the Executive Director of the Family Action Network Movement (FANM) and a leading voice in South Florida’s Haitian community. “The Superior Council of Haiti’s Judiciary, The Haitian Bar Federation, and credible civil society organizations inside Haiti and their diaspora allies agree that President Moise’s term has in fact ended.  It is time for President Biden to keep his promise and respect the democratic rights and  self-determination of the Haitian people.”

*

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 Danny Shaw/COHA

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Nearly 800 Organizations and Individuals in the U.S. Demand the Biden Administration End Its Support for the Brutal Moïse Regime in Haiti
  • Tags: , ,

Selected Articles: What Planet Is NATO Living On?

February 25th, 2021 by Global Research News

Malcolm X from the Grassroots to the African Revolution

By Abayomi Azikiwe, February 24 2021

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.

A People’s History of Struggle: Liberty or Lockdown

By Colin Todhunter, February 24 2021

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.

China’s “Economic Race” with the US is Over? Beijing Set to Focus on Building Domestic Production Networks?

By Tom Clifford, February 24 2021

Still scope for misunderstandings, a naval clash in the South China Sea, an exchange at the border war with India, fighter jets taking matters into their hands. But the economic race with the United States is over. China has new economic goals.

The Vaccine (Dis)Information War

By CJ Hopkins, February 24 2021

It’s an absolutely safe, non-experimental, messenger-RNA vaccine that teaches your cells to produce a protein that triggers an immune response, just like your body’s immune-system response, only better, because it’s made by corporations!

Social Inequities in the USA: How this Country Fails Its Most Vulnerable

By Prof. Rajan Menon, February 24 2021

Economic crises shine a spotlight on a society’s inequities and hierarchies, as well as its commitment to support those who are most vulnerable in such grievous moments.

Is Switzerland Sliding into Dictatorship? Social Coercion, Privileges to Those Who Accept the Covid Vaccine

By Peter Koenig, February 24 2021

A secret paper from the Swiss Federal Council (Swiss Executive) was leaked to the Swiss Newspaper “Der Blick” divulging that the Federal Council is considering granting owners of restaurants, theatres, cinemas, and more, the right to allow access to those people only, who have had their corona virus shots.

By Putting Big Pharma’s Patents before Patients, Doctors Will Further Erode Trust in Experts

By Jonathan Cook, February 24 2021

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.

What’s Not Being Said About the Pfizer Coronavirus Vaccine. “Human Guinea Pigs”?

By F. William Engdahl, February 24 2021

The Pharma giant Pfizer use an experimental technology known as gene editing, specifically mRNA gene-editing, something never before used in vaccines. Before we rush to get jabbed in hopes of some immunity, we should know more about the radical experimental technology and its lack of precision.

Twenty Reasons Mandatory Face Masks are Unsafe, Ineffective and Immoral

By John C. A. Manley, February 24 2021

Masks create an irrational fear of germs and a false sense of protection from disease, leading to antisocial (or even hostile) behaviour towards those not wearing a mask.

What Planet Is NATO Living On?

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, February 24 2021

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.

President Biden Says the Experimental Coronavirus Vaccines Are Safe. The Vaccines’ Fact Sheets Say Something Very Different.

By Adam Dick, February 24 2021

Via a Monday Twitter post, President Joe Biden made an unqualified assertion that the experimental coronavirus vaccines, which are not even vaccines under the normal meaning of vaccines, the United States government is encouraging Americans to take are “safe” for everyone.

Machinery of Death: When the Government Acts as Judge, Jury and Executioner

By John W. Whitehead, February 24 2021

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.

One Third of Freshwater Fish Face Extinction, New Report Warns

By Olivia Rosane, February 24 2021

The latest warning of the Earth’s mounting extinction crisis is coming from its lakes and rivers. A new report from a coalition of 16 conservation groups warns that almost a third of freshwater fish species face extinction because of human activity.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: What Planet Is NATO Living On?

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).

***

Colonel Tormod Heier highlighted that strengthening the U.S. military presence in Norway would have negative consequences for the Scandinavian country. According to Norwegian state-owned media NRK in an article titled “Can Joe Biden become dangerous for Norway?” Colonel Heier, a professor at the Norwegian Defence College, said Norway could turn into a battlefield if tensions broke out between the U.S. and Russia.

“Norway is part of the great power rivalry between the United States and Russia. The probability increases that Norway will become a battlefield in the event of a conflict or a crisis becoming out of control between the Russians and Americans,” he said.

The military expert, who pointed out that the U.S. is afraid of Moscow’s nuclear capabilities, said Washington has recognized Norway’s important strategic role in the Arctic because it is the closest country to Russia in the region. Highlighting that the U.S. is following a strategy of deterring Russia, Heier stated that Norway should balance the two powers in the current situation and said “Norway and the U.S. are in a new Cold War with Russia.”

It was claimed earlier this year that four American B-1B Lancer-type bombers would be based in Norway. Norwegian officials did not confirm the claim. It is worth noting that B-1B Lancers were previously capable of carrying nuclear weapons, but were later reduced to carrying long-range cruise missiles. It is not a far stretch to anticipate that these bombers may once again be able to carry nuclear weapons.

Norwegian Defense Ministry spokesman Hårek Elvenes said that the temporary use of Norwegian airports for the U.S. would be nothing new and that “cooperation with our most important ally is both natural and necessary to have a good overview and control in the High North.” He then emphasized the role of “firmness and predictability” as guidelines for Norway’s security policy.

However, the activation of a U.S. military presence in Norway, including the placement of strategic bombers, does not contribute to stability and could turn the Arctic into a hot zone. In January 2020, U.S. military planes used the runway on Jan Mayen, a Norwegian island isolated in the Atlantic Ocean to the east of Greenland. Using the runway was to assess landing conditions and safety for the U.S. Air Force and its potential use of the island that is located within the Arctic Circle.

Norway has repeatedly cited Russia as one of the main threats to the country while Russia has accused Norway of taking antagonistic actions to try and contain its interests in the Arctic. Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a 15-year-plan for the Arctic, titled: “On the Basics of State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic for the Period Until 2035,” which was authored by the Ministry of the Far East and Arctic. The plan identifies challenges to Russia’s national security and the regions trade potential, and it is for this reason that by 2035 Russia aims to build up to 40 Arctic vessels, new railways and seaports, and upgrade regional airports.

One study found that it is estimated that the Arctic has 90 billion barrels of oil that is yet to be discovered, equal to 5.9% of the world’s known oil reserves – about 110% of Russia’s current oil reserves or 339% of U.S. reserves. The Arctic also has an estimated 1,669 trillion cubic feet of gas, equal to 24.3% of the world’s current known reserves. This equates to 500% of U.S. reserves, 99% of Russia’s reserves, and 2,736% of Canada’s natural gas reserves. There are also large quantities of metals and minerals, including gold, diamonds, copper, iron, zinc, and uranium.

In addition to this vast amount of wealth, ice is melting in the North Sea, meaning a new trade route will emerge that will cut the delivery of commercial cargo from China to Europe by 40%. Russia stands to gain the most when Arctic resources can be exploited and the new trade route linking China with Europe opens.

For these reasons, it is unacceptable for the U.S. to allow Russia to gain such an advantage. Washington is utilising all its Arctic allies, especially Norway and Canada, but also “near-Arctic” partners like the UK, to pressure Russia through provocative military actions to deter the country from exploiting its advantages in the Arctic. However, since Russia’s coastline accounts for 53% of the Arctic Ocean’s entire coastline, it renders the goal to contain Russia in the Arctic region as impossible. Although Norwegian defense experts like Colonel Tormod Heier recognizes this reality, it appears that decision makers in Oslo are yet to accept this and will continue to follow Washington’s policies against Russia in the Arctic.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from US Department of Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Norway May Become Battleground Between U.S. and Russia, Says Expert
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The Czech Republic, Guatemala and Honduras, which have all moved their embassies or diplomatic offices to Jerusalem, will receive coronavirus vaccines from Israel, local media reported. 

Israel’s public broadcaster Kann reported on Tuesday that vaccines from Israel’s stock would be given to the three countries along with the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu‘s office told Kann that after several countries asked for assistance, Israel agreed to donate “a limited amount of vaccines that were not being used”.

“Therefore it was decided to help with a symbolic amount of vaccines for medical staff of the Palestinian Authority and for some countries that asked Israel,” the office said.

According to Gili Cohen, a diplomatic correspondent at Kann, a plane arrived in Israel from Honduras early on Tuesday to receive the vaccines.

The Czech Republic confirmed it had received a small Israeli shipment, Reuters reported.

Israel has the world’s highest number of vaccines administered per capita, with nearly half of its population immunised. But its rollout has been criticised by its government’s refusal to inoculate the Palestinians.

Doctors Without Borders, also known as MSF, criticised Israel on Tuesday for failing to give vaccines to the Palestinians.

“Israel is an occupying power and has millions of vaccines. Palestine is the occupied territory and has barely a few thousand,” said Matthias Kennes, MSF’s medical adviser to Palestine.

Kennes, who works as a nurse for MSF in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, noted the lack of vaccines in the OPTs and how “you are over 60 times more likely to have a vaccination in Israel than in Palestine”.

He also highlighted how the recent delivery of vaccines to Gaza would not be enough to protect health care workers and people most vulnerable to Covid-19.

Last week, the PA criticised Israel for blocking a vaccine delivery to Gaza from the occupied West Bank. Following the backlash, Israel eventually approved the delivery.

The World Bank has warned that the Palestinians’ Covid-19 vaccination plan faces a $30m funding shortfall, and has called on Israel to cooperate with the PA and for wealthier countries to donate to ease the pandemic.

Earlier this week, Israel’s army radio reported that Netanyahu was considering donating vaccines to developing countries. Among these countries is one with which it does not have diplomatic relations, yet it would donate the vaccines in exchange for normalisation.

*

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 Wikimedia Commons

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on COVID-19: Israel Donates Vaccines to Countries that Moved Embassies to Jerusalem
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The latest warning of the Earth’s mounting extinction crisis is coming from its lakes and rivers.

A new report from a coalition of 16 conservation groups warns that almost a third of freshwater fish species face extinction because of human activity.

“Nowhere is the world’s nature crisis more acute than in our rivers, lakes and wetlands, and the clearest indicator of the damage we are doing is the rapid decline in freshwater fish populations. They are the aquatic version of the canary in the coal mine, and we must heed the warning,” Stuart Orr, WWF global freshwater lead, said in a statement Tuesday announcing the report.

WWF is one of the many organizations behind the report, along with the Alliance for Freshwater Life, Conservation International and The Nature Conservancy, to name a few. Together, the groups emphasized the incredible diversity of the world’s freshwater fish and their importance for human wellbeing.

By Freshwaters Illustrated via the WWF report

There are a total of 18,075 freshwater fish species in the world, accounting for 51 percent of all fish species and 25 percent of all vertebrates. They are an important food source for 200 million people and provide work for 60 million. But their numbers are in decline. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species has declared 80 to be extinct, 16 of those in 2020 alone. The numbers of migratory freshwater fish such as salmon have declined 76 percent since 1970, while mega-fish such as beluga sturgeon have fallen by 94 percent in the same time period. In fact, freshwater biodiversity is plummeting at twice the rate of biodiversity in the oceans and forests.

Despite this, freshwater fish get much less attention than their saltwater counterparts, the report authors say. Titled “The World’s Forgotten Fishes,” it argues that policy makers rarely consider river wildlife when making decisions.

The main threats to freshwater fish include building dams, syphoning river water for irrigation, releasing wastewater and draining wetlands. Other factors include overfishing, introducing invasive species and the climate crisis.

“As we look to adapt to climate change and we start to think about all the discussions that governments are going to have on biodiversity, it’s really a time for us to shine a light back on freshwater,” Orr told NBC News.

To protect these forgotten fishes, the report authors outlined a six-point plan:

1. Let rivers flow more naturally;
2. Improve water quality in freshwater ecosystems;
3. Protect and restore critical habitats;
4. End overfishing and unsustainable sand mining in rivers and lakes;
5. Prevent and control invasions by non-native species; and
6. Protect free-flowing rivers and remove obsolete dams.

They also called on world leaders to include freshwater ecosystems in an ambitious biodiversity agreement at the upcoming UN Convention on Biological Diversity conference in Kunming, China.

By Hkun Lat/WWF-Myanmar

But the solution will require more than just government action.

“It’s now more urgent than ever that we find the collective political will and effective collaboration with private sector, governments, NGOs and communities, to implement nature-based solutions that protect freshwater species, while also ensuring human needs are met,” Carmen Revenga of The Nature Conservancy told BBC News.

Read the report 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.

Featured image is from WWF

The Vaccine (Dis)Information War

February 24th, 2021 by CJ Hopkins

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).

***

So, good news, folks! It appears that GloboCap’s Genetic Modification Division has come up with a miracle vaccine for Covid! It’s an absolutely safe, non-experimental, messenger-RNA vaccine that teaches your cells to produce a protein that triggers an immune response, just like your body’s immune-system response, only better, because it’s made by corporations!

OK, technically, it hasn’t been approved for use — that process normally takes several years — so I guess it’s slightly “experimental,” but the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency have issued “Emergency Use Authorizations,” and it has been “tested extensively for safety and effectiveness,” according to Facebook’s anonymous “fact checkers,” so there’s absolutely nothing to worry about.

This non-experimental experimental vaccine is truly a historic development, because apart from saving the world from a virus that causes mild to moderate flu-like symptoms (or, more commonly, no symptoms whatsoever) in roughly 95% of those infected, and that over 99% of those infected survive, the possibilities for future applications of messenger-RNA technology, and the genetic modification of humans, generally, is virtually unlimited at this point.

Imagine all the diseases we can cure, and all the genetic “mistakes” we can fix, now that we can reprogram people’s genes to do whatever we want … cancer, heart disease, dementia, blindness, not to mention the common cold! We could even cure psychiatric disorders, like “antisocial personality disorder,” “oppositional defiant disorder,” and other “conduct disorders” and “personality disorders.” Who knows? In another hundred years, we will probably be able to genetically cleanse the human species of age-old scourges, like racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, transphobia, etcetera, by reprogramming everyone’s defective alleles, or implanting some kind of nanotechnological neurosynaptic chips into our brains. The only thing standing in our way is people’s totally irrational resistance to letting corporations redesign the human organism, which, clearly, was rather poorly designed, and thus is vulnerable to all these horrible diseases, and emotional and behavioral disorders.

But I’m getting a little ahead of myself. The important thing at the moment is to defeat this common-flu-like pestilence that has no significant effect on age-adjusted death rates, and the mortality profile of which is more or less identical to the normal mortality profile, but which has nonetheless left the global corporatocracy no choice but to “lock down” the entire planet, plunge millions into desperate poverty, order everyone to wear medical-looking masks, unleash armed goon squads to raid people’s homes, and otherwise transform society into a pathologized-totalitarian nightmare. And, of course, the only way to do that (i.e., save humanity from a flu-like bug) is to coercively vaccinate every single human being on the planet Earth!

OK, you’re probably thinking that doesn’t make much sense, this crusade to vaccinate the entire species against a relatively standard respiratory virus, but that’s just because you are still thinking critically. You really need to stop thinking like that. As The New York Times just pointed out, “critical thinking isn’t helping.” In fact, it might be symptomatic of one of those “disorders” I just mentioned above. Critical thinking leads to “vaccine hesitancy,” which is why corporations are working with governments to immediately censor any and all content that deviates from the official Covid-19 narrative and deplatform the authors of such content, or discredit them as “anti-vax disinformationists.”

For example, Children’s Health Defense, which has been reporting on so-called “adverse events” and deaths in connection with the Covid vaccines, despite the fact that, according to the authorities, “there are no safety problems with the vaccines” and “there is no link between Covid-19 vaccines and those who die after receiving them.” In fact, according to the “fact-checkers” at Reuters, these purported “reports of adverse events” “may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable!”

Yes, you’re reading between the lines right. The corporate media can’t come right out and say it, but it appears the “anti-vax disinformationists” are fabricating “adverse events” out of whole cloth and hacking them into the VAERS database and other such systems around the world. Worse, they are somehow infiltrating these made-up stories into the mainstream media in order to lure people into “vaccine hesitancy” and stop us from vaccinating every man, woman, and child in the physical universe, repeatedly, on an ongoing basis, for as long as the “medical experts” deem necessary.

Here are just a few examples of their handiwork …

  • In California, a 60-year-old X-ray technologist received a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. A few hours later he had trouble breathing. He was hospitalized and died four days later. His widow says she’s not ready at this point to link her husband’s death to the vaccine. “I’m not putting any blame on Pfizer,” she said, “or on any other pharmaceutical company.” So, probably just another coincidence.
  • A 78-year-old woman in California died immediately after being vaccinated, but her death was not related to the vaccine, health officials assured the public. “(She) received an injection of the Covid-19 vaccine manufactured by Pfizer around noon. While seated in the observation area after the injection, [she] complained of feeling discomfort and while being evaluated by medical personnel she lost consciousness.” Despite the sudden death of his wife, her husband intends to receive a second dose.
  • Also in Michigan, a 90-year-old man died the day after receiving the vaccine, but, again, this was just a tragic coincidence. As Dr. David Gorski explained, “the baseline death rate of 90-year-olds is high because they’re 90 years old,” which makes perfect sense … unless, of course, they died of Covid, in which case their age and underlying conditions make absolutely no difference whatsoever.

And then there are all the people on Facebook sharing their stories of loved ones who have died shortly after receiving the Covid vaccine, who the Facebook “fact checkers” are doing their utmost to discredit with their official-looking “fact-check notices.” For example …

OK, I realize it’s uncomfortable to have to face things like that (i.e., global corporations like Facebook implying that these people are lying or are using the sudden deaths of their loved ones to discourage others from getting vaccinated), especially if you’re just trying to follow orders and parrot official propaganda … even the most fanatical Covidian Cultists probably still have a shred of human empathy buried deep in their cold little hearts. But there’s an information war on, folks! You’re either with the Corporatocracy or against it! This is no time to get squeamish, or, you know, publicly exhibit an ounce of compassion. What would your friends and colleagues think of you?!

No, report these anti-vaxxers to the authorities, shout them down on social media, switch off your critical-thinking faculties, and get in line to get your vaccination! The fate of the human species depends on it! And, if you’re lucky, maybe GloboCap will even give you one of these nifty numerical Covid-vaccine tattoos for free!

 

*

CJ Hopkins
February 23, 2021
Photos: (1) UNICEF; (2) WTKR; (3) Facebook post (with permission); (4) thegrabill/Twitter

Consent Factor disclaimer and note on author CJ Hopkins: The preceding essay is entirely the work of our in-house satirist and self-appointed political pundit, CJ Hopkins, and does not reflect the views and opinions of the Consent Factory, Inc., its staff, or any of its agents, subsidiaries, or assigns. If, for whatever inexplicable reason, you appreciate
Mr. Hopkins’ work and would like to support it, please go to his Patreon page (where you can contribute as little $1 per month), or send your contribution to his PayPal account, so that maybe he’ll stop coming around our offices trying to hit our staff up for money. Alternatively, you could purchase his satirical dystopian sci-fi novel, Zone 23, or Volume I and II of his Consent Factory Essays, or any of his subversive stage plays, which won some awards in Great Britain and Australia. If you do not appreciate Mr. Hopkins’ work and would like to write him an abusive email, feel free to contact him directly.

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 Consent Factory, Inc.

 

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).

***

Economic crises shine a spotlight on a society’s inequities and hierarchies, as well as its commitment to support those who are most vulnerable in such grievous moments. The calamity created by Covid-19 is no exception. The economic fallout from that pandemic has tested the nation’s social safety net as never before.

Between February and May 2020, the number of unemployed workers soared more than threefold — from 6.2 million to 20.5 million. The jobless rate spiked in a similar fashion from 3.8% to 13.0%. In late March, weekly unemployment claims reached 6.9 million, obliterating the previous record of 695,000, set in October 1982. Within three months, the pandemic-produced slump proved far worse than the three-year Great Recession of 2007-2009.

Things have since improved. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) announced in December that unemployment had fallen to 6.7%. Yet, that same month, weekly unemployment filings still reached a staggering 853,000 and though they fell to just under 800,000 last month, even that far surpassed the 1982 number.

And keep in mind that grim statistics like these can actually obscure, rather than illuminate, the depths of our current misery. After all, they exclude the 6.2 millionAmericans whose work hours had been slashed in December or the 7.3 million who had simply stopped looking for jobs because they were demoralized, feared being infected by the virus, had schoolchildren at home, or some of the above and more. The BLS’s rationale for not counting them is that they are no longer part of what it terms the “active labor force.” If they had been included, that jobless rate would have spiraled to nearly 24% in April and 11.6% in December.

Degrees of Pain

To see just how unevenly the economic pain has been distributed in America, however, you have to dig far deeper. A recent analysis by the St. Louis Federal Reserve did just that by dividing workers into five separate quintiles based on their range of incomes and the occupations typically associated with each.

The first and lowest-paid group, including janitors, cooks, and housecleaners, made less than $35,000 annually; the second (construction workers, security guards, and clerks, among others) earned $35,000-$48,000; the third (including primary- and middle-school teachers, as well as retail and postal workers), $48,000-$60,000; the fourth (including nurses, paralegals, and computer technicians), $60,000-$83,000; while employees in the highest-paid quintile like doctors, lawyers, and financial managers earned a minimum of $84,000.

More than 33% of those in the lowest paid group lost their jobs during the pandemic, and a similar proportion were forced to work fewer hours. By contrast, in the top quintile 5.6% were out of work and 5.4% had their hours cut. For the next highest quintile, the corresponding figures were 11.4% and 11.7%.

Workers in the bottom 20% of national income distribution have been especially vulnerable for another reason. Their median liquid savings (readily available cash) averages less than $600 compared to $31,300 for those in the top 20%.

Twelve percent of working Americans can’t even handle a $400 emergency; 27% say they could, but only if they borrowed, used credit cards, or sold their personal possessions.

Under the circumstances, it should scarcely be surprising that the number of hungry people increased from 35 million in 2019 to 50 million in 2020, overwhelming food banks nationwide. Meanwhile, rent and mortgage arrears continued to pile up. By last December, 12 million people already owed nearly $6,000 each on average in past-due rent and utility bills and will be on the hook to their landlords for those sums once federal and statemoratoriums on evictions and foreclosures eventually end.

Meanwhile, low-income workers struggled to arrange child-care as schools closed to curtail coronavirus infections. Women have borne the brunt of the resulting burden. By last summer, 13% of workers, unable to afford childcare, had already quit their jobs or reduced their hours, and most held low-wage jobs to begin with. Forty-six percent of women have jobs with a median hourly wage of $10.93 an hour, or less than $23,000 a year, far below the national average, now just shy of $36,000. In some low-wage professions, like servers in restaurants and bars, women are (or at least were) 70% of the workforce. A disproportionate number of them were also Black or Hispanic.

Before the pandemic, 57% of women in low-wage occupations worked full-time and 15% of them were single parents. Close to one-fifth had children under four years old and contend with full-time care that, on average, costs $9,598 yearly. If that weren’t enough, at least 25% of such low-wage jobs involved shifting or unpredictable schedules.

Much has been made recently of the wonders of “telecommuting” to work. But here again there’s a social divide. People with at least a college degree, who are more likely to possess the skills needed for higher-paying jobs, have been “six times more likely” to telecommute than other workers. Even before the pandemic, 47% of those with college degrees occasionally worked from home, versus 9% of those who had completed high school and a mere 3% of those who hadn’t.

Now, add to the economic inequities highlighted by the pandemic slump those rooted in race. Black and Hispanic low-income workers have been doubly disadvantaged. In 2016, the median household wealth of whites was already 10 times that of Blacks and more than eight times that of Hispanics, a gap that has generally been on the increase since the 1960s. And because those two groups have been overrepresented among low-wage occupations most affected by unemployment in the last year, their jobless rate during the pandemic has been much higher.

Unsurprisingly, an August Pew Research Center survey revealed that significantly more of them than whites were struggling to cover utility bills and rent or mortgage payments. After Covid-19 hammered the economy, a much higher proportion of them were also hungry and had to turn to food pantries, many for the first time.

In these months Americans who are less educated, hold low-income jobs, and are minorities — Asians excepted, since they, like whites, are underrepresented in low-wage professions — have been in an economic Covid-19 hell on Earth. But isn’t the American social safety net supposed to help the vulnerable in times of economic distress?  As it happens, at least compared to those of other wealthy countries, it’s been remarkably ineffective.

Sizing Up the Social Safety Net

In a Democratic presidential debate in October 2015, Bernie Sanders observed that Scandinavian governments protect workers better thanks to their stronger social safety nets. Hillary Clinton promptly shot back, “We are not Denmark. We are the United States of America.”  Indeed we are.

This country certainly does have a panoply of social welfare programs that the federal government spends vast sums on — around 56% of the 2019 budget, or nearly $2.5 trillion. So, you might think that we were ready and able to assist workers hurt most by the Covid-19 recession. Think again.

Social Security consumes about 23% of the federal budget. Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program together claim another 25% (with Medicare taking the lion’s share).

Social Security and Medicare, however, generally only serve those 65 or older, not the jobless.  With them excluded, two critical areas for most workers in such an economic crisis are healthcare and unemployment insurance.

About half of American workers rely on employer-provided health insurance. So, by last June, as Covid-19 caused joblessness to skyrocket, nearly eight million working adults and nearly seven million of their dependents lost their coverage once they became unemployed.

Medicaid, administered by states and funded in partnership with the federal government, does provide healthcare to certain low-income people and the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) also required states to use federal funds to cover all adults whose incomes are no more than 30% above the official poverty line. In 2012, though, the Supreme Court ruled that states couldn’t be compelled to comply and, as of now, 12 states, eight of them southern, don’t. (Two more, Missouri and Oklahoma, have opted to expand Medicaid coverage per the ACA, but haven’t yet implemented the change.)  People residing in non-ACA locales face draconian income requirements to qualify for Medicaid and, in almost all of them, childless individuals aren’t eligible, no matter how meager their earnings.

While Medicaid enrollment does increase with rising unemployment, not all jobless workers qualify, even in states that have expanded coverage. So unemployed workers may find that they earn too much to qualify for subsidies but not enough to purchase private insurance, which averages $456 a month for an individual and $1,152 for a family. Then there are steeply rising out-of-pocket expenses — deductibles, copayments, and extra charges for services provided by out-of-network doctors. Deductibles alone have, on average, gone up by 111% since 2010, far outpacing average wages, which increased by only 27%.

The American health care system remains a far cry from the variants of universal health care that exist in Australia, Canada, most European countries, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea. The barrier to providing such care in the U.S. isn’t affordability, but the formidable political power of a juggernaut healthcare industry (including insurance and drug companies) that opposes it fiercely.

As for unemployment insurance, the American version — funded by state and federal payroll taxes and supplemented by federal money — remains, at best, a bare-bones arrangement. Coverage used to last a uniform 26 weeks, but since 2011, 13 states have reduced it, some more than once, while also paring down benefits (especially as claims soared during the Great Recession).

So if you lose your job, where you live matters a lot. Many states provide benefits for more than half a year, Massachusetts for up to 30 weeks. Michigan, South Carolina, and Missouri, however, set the limit at 20 weeks, Arkansas at 16, Alabama at 14. The weekly payout also varies. Although the pre-pandemic national average was about $387, the maximum can run from $213 to $823, with most states providing an average of between $300 and $500.

Except in unusual times like these, when the federal government provides emergency supplements, unemployment benefits replace only about a third to a half of lost wages. As for the millions of people who work in the gig economy or are self-employed, they are seldom entitled to any help at all.

The proportion of jobless workers receiving unemployment benefits has also been declining since the 1980s. It’s now hit 27% nationally and, in 17 states, 20% or less. There are multiple reasons for this, but arguably the biggest one is that the system has been woefully underfunded. Taxes on wages provide the revenue needed to cover unemployment benefits, but in 16 states, the maximum taxable annual amount is less than $10,000 a year. The federal equivalent has remained $7,000 — not adjusted for inflation — since 1983. That comes to $42 per worker.

The $2-trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act and the subsequent $900-billion Pandemic Relief Bill did provide federal funds to extend unemployment benefits well beyond the number of weeks set by individual states. They also covered gig workers and the self-employed. However, such exceptional and temporary rescue measures — including the one President Joe Biden has proposed,which includes a weekly supplement of $400 to unemployment benefits and seems likely to materialize soon — only highlight the inadequacies of the regular unemployment insurance system.

Other parts of the social safety net include housing subsidies, the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program), Temporary Aid to Needy Families, and childcare subsidies. After surveying them, a recent National Bureau of Economic Research study concluded that they amounted to an ill-funded labyrinthine system rife with arcane eligibility criteria that — the elderly or the disabled aside — actually aids fewer than half of low-income families and only a quarter of those without children.

This isn’t an unfair assessment. The Government Accountability Office reports that, of the 8.5 million children eligible for child-care subsidies, only 1.5 million (just under 18%) actually receive any. Even 40% of the kids from households below the poverty line were left out.

Similarly, fewer than a quarter of qualified low-income renters, those most vulnerable to eviction, receive any Department of Housing and Urban Development subsidies. Because median rent increased 13% between 2001 and 2017 while the median income of renters (adjusted for inflation) didn’t budge, 47% of them were already “rent burdened” in the pre-pandemic moment. In other words, rent ate up 30% or more of their annual income. Twenty-four percent were “severely burdened” (that is, half or more of their income). Little wonder that a typical family whose earnings are in the bottom 20% had only $500 left over after paying the monthly rent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, even before Covid-19 hit.

SNAP does better on food, covering 84% of those eligible, but the average benefit in 2019, as the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities noted, was $217, “about $4.17 a day, $1.39 per meal.” Mind you, in about one-third of recipient households, at least two people were working; in 75%, at least one. Not for nothing has the term “working poor” become part of our political vocabulary.

Is Change in the Air?

During crises like the present one, our moth-eaten safety net has to be patched up with stopgap legislation that invariably produces protracted partisan jousting. The latest episode is, of course, the battle over President Joe Biden’s plan to provide an additional $1.9 trillion in relief to a desperate country.

Can’t we do better? In principle, yes. After all, many countries have far stronger safety nets that were created without fostering indolence or stifling innovation and, in most instances, with a public debt substantially smaller relative to gross domestic product than ours. (So much for the perennial claims from the American political right that attempting anything similar here would have terrible consequences.)

We certainly ought to do better. The United States places second in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s overall poverty index, which includes all 27 European Union countries plus the United Kingdom and Canada, as well as in its child-poverty-rate ranking.

But doing better won’t be easy — or perhaps even possible. American views on the government’s appropriate economic role differ substantially from those of Canadians and Europeans. Moreover, corporate money and that of the truly wealthy already massively influence our politics, a phenomenon intensified by recent Supreme Court decisions. Proposals to fortify the safety net will, therefore, provoke formidable resistance from armies of special interests, lobbyists, and plutocrats with the means to influence politicians. So if you’re impatient for a better safety net, don’t hold your breath.

And yet many landmark changes that created greater equity in the United States (including the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, the 19th Amendment, which guaranteed women voting rights, the New Deal, the creation of Medicaid, and the civil rights legislation of the 1960s) once seemed inconceivable. Perhaps this pandemic’s devastation will promote a debate on the failures of our ragged social safety net.

Here’s hoping.

*

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.

Rajan Menon, a TomDispatch regular, is the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Professor of International Relations at the Powell School, City College of New York, and Senior Research Fellow at Columbia University’s Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies. He is the author, most recently, of The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Social Inequities in the USA: How this Country Fails Its Most Vulnerable

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).

***

Britain’s royal family has met members of autocratic Middle Eastern monarchies nearly once a fortnight since the crackdown on ‘Arab Spring’ protests began 10 years ago this month. Their visits have often coincided with human rights abuses in the Gulf, where pro-democracy activists are punished for criticising the Windsor ties to regimes.

The extent of support given by Britain’s royal family to repressive Middle Eastern monarchies in the decade since pro-democracy uprisings rocked the region is revealed this week in a four-part investigation by Declassified UK.

Ten years since the ‘Arab Spring’ protests threatened autocrats from Morocco to Oman, all of the region’s eight ruling monarchies remain in power, having spent a decade cracking down on dissent and largely backtracking on promises of reform.

Middle Eastern monarchs have routinely banned political parties, severely repressed dissent and shut down independent newspapers. But while killing, torturing or detaining subjects who call for reform or expose corruption, the UK’s royal family was willing to meet the region’s monarchies on 217 occasions since 2011, it can be revealed.

The total figure is likely to be higher as the Court Circular, the royal family’s official diary, is not comprehensive. Available records show that meetings between the House of Windsor and Bahrain’s brutal monarchy were the most frequent, with 44 encounters.

Gulf princes in charge of notorious internal security units, such as Saudi Arabia’s national guard, had repeated meetings with British royals, with visits sometimes coinciding with those countries’ worst abuses of human rights or support to hardline Islamist forces in the wars in Libya and Syria.

Prince Andrew met the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi at his lavish Bateen Palace the same day a court jailed five Emirati activists on charges that included insulting the country’s leadership. Among those convicted was an economics professor from Sorbonne university in Paris.

The King of Bahrain’s son, Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa, who is accused of involvement in the torture of activists during the Arab Spring, has met the UK royal family up to seven times since 2011, including at Windsor Castle.

Declassified has also identified at least six occasions when pro-democracy activists or their relatives were punished in retaliation for speaking out against the House of Windsor’s support for Gulf regimes.

In Oman, a man was tortured for criticising the Sultan’s costly decision to fly 110 horses to Windsor for the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Pageant in 2012. The next year, when the man tried to demonstrate against a visit by Prince Charles, he was abducted by Omani security forces.

In Bahrain, a woman and her baby were detained and interrogated after her exiled husband protested against King Hamad’s visit to London in 2016. The man had already had his Bahraini citizenship revoked for protesting against the king’s presence at the Royal Windsor Horse Show in 2013.

Foreign policy tool

Prince Charles accounted for nearly half of the Windsors’ meetings with Arab royalty, followed by Prince Andrew, who recorded 70 encounters – not including the large number of meetings he held with private businessmen from the Gulf dictatorships.

Four of Prince Andrew’s meetings were with Sheikh Abdullah, the King of Bahrain’s second son, who paid millions of dollars for pop star Michael Jackson to live in Bahrain after the singer’s acquittal on child molestation charges.

Although the UK monarchy is supposedly apolitical, its overseas visits are planned by a Royal Visits Committee in the Cabinet Office and chaired by the head of the Foreign Office.

The committee has input from trade officials, senior palace staff and prime ministerial aides, including his national security advisor. Trips aim to boost British interests in the Middle East – largely arms sales or energy deals worth billions of pounds for companies such as BAE Systems.

As far back as 1974, with Britain becoming more dependent on Gulf oil, the Foreign Office noted:

“There is clearly advantage in encouraging further contacts between members of the Royal Family and the Saudi Royal Family, who occupy most of the positions of power in the country.”

Veteran diplomats, as well as military and intelligence officers – many on temporary leave from Whitehall or the armed forces – routinely travel with British royals on trips to the Middle East as part of their entourage.

These aides have included: Simon Martin, who later became ambassador to Bahrain; Clive Alderton, later envoy to Morocco; the current Cabinet Secretary Simon Chase, a former GCHQ strategy director; and Jamie Bowden, a GCHQ and army veteran who had served as UK ambassador to Oman and Bahrain during the Arab Spring.

Through these visits, UK royals help promote controversial British policy in the region, often appearing to relish the opportunity to demonstrate their support for autocrats – as shown by Prince Charles’ participation in a sword dance in Saudi Arabia at a crucial moment in the negotiation of an arms deal.

Meetings in the UK with Arab royalty often occur back-to-back with trips to Downing Street, or overlap with sessions where government ministers are present at royal palaces.

In 2012, while an Omani protester was being tortured, the Queen held an intimate lunch at Buckingham Palace for the Sultan of Oman, his British adviser Sir Erik Bennett and foreign secretary William Hague.

Far from being a passive player in British foreign policy, the House of Windsor is able to draw on its personal friendships with Middle Eastern monarchs to enhance UK relations, through shared interests such as horse riding and lavish jewellery.

During her reign, the Queen has received millions of pounds worth of jewels from Middle Eastern monarchs including a gold Faberge style egg from Oman, pearls from Qatar and diamonds from the House of Saud.

King Hamad of Bahrain is a regular guest at the annual Royal Windsor Horse Show, where he was photographed laughing with Queen Elizabeth and Prince Andrew, and once reportedly chose to attend the event instead of meeting President Obama.

Queen Elizabeth and the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, 71, have gifted racehorses to each other and regularly appeared together at competitions.

In June 2019 the Queen presented a trophy to Sheikh Mohammed’s racing team at Ascot, despite long-standing rumours that he had abducted two of his adult daughters when they tried to leave the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Queen Elizabeth presents a horse racing award to Dubai’s ruler Sheikh Mohammed (centre) at Ascot in June 2019 (Photo: Dubai Media Office)

A week after the Ascot award, news broke that Sheikh Mohammed’s wife, 46-year-old Jordanian princess Haya, was seeking a divorce and had claimed asylum in Germany.

Haya later won a high court case in London against her husband, who was found to have kidnapped his daughters, prompting the palace to say the Queen would no longer be photographed in public with him.

Last week new video evidence emerged that one of Sheikh Mohammed’s daughters, Princess Latifa, is being held against her will in a secure villa in Dubai. The UAE embassy in London claims she “is being cared for at home”.

The House of Windsor has met Emirati royals at least 28 times since the Arab Spring, including hosting a state visit.

Costs and secrecy

Official overseas trips are funded by the British public, who have spent £1.4-million on royal family tours of Middle East monarchies since 2011, analysis of palace finances by Declassified has found.

The true figure is likely to be far higher, because palace records are incomplete and do not show trips under £10,000.

In one case, Prince Charles spent £210,000 on an overnight trip to Oman, where he mourned the death of Sultan Qaboos, an autocrat who ruled the country for half a century.

A spokesman for Prince Charles told Declassified:

“All decisions relating to travel are made taking into account the time available, costs and the security of the travelling party.”

Other meetings in the UK frequently take place at royal palaces maintained with public funds: the family received a £82.4-million “sovereign grant” from the taxpayer last year.

Many of the meetings are shrouded in secrecy because the royal family is not required to release its documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

The royal family’s official archive is also off-limits to almost all researchers, but is known to contain sensitive material such as video footage of the Queen giving a Nazi salute.

Where central government departments such as the Foreign Office hold records of royal meetings, they do not have to disclose anything to the public that relates to the Queen, Prince Charles or Prince William.

Diplomatic records relating to less senior royals, such as Princes Andrew and Harry, are subject to a public interest test and may or may not be publicly disclosed.

The National Archives, which contains Foreign Office records from more than 20 years ago, has its own censorship board, whose staff in recent years have included Dr Elizabeth Lomas, then an adviser to Prince Charles and a former head of records management for the royal family.

A 40-year-old file about the Royal Visits Committee, the body which plans overseas trips, is being withheld from the National Archives.

WikiLeaks released some US embassy cables from the years leading up to the 2011 Arab Spring, which confirmed the importance of royal visits as a tool of UK foreign policy. One US report noted that a visit to Riyadh by Prince Charles and his wife Camilla in 2006 “played a role in rebuilding Saudi-U.K. ties” after tensions caused by a corruption investigation into arms deals.

A British diplomat said that during the visit, “members of the two royal families spoke at length about their respective family members and traditions allowing the House of Saud and the House of Windsor [to] build upon their royal commonality”.

A US consulate official in Jeddah commented that Prince Charles’ visit was “part of this effort… to improve relations with Saudi Arabia. At stake is the renewal of the al-Yamamah project to which British Aerospace’s fortunes in the Kingdom are largely tied.” The Al-Yamamah project is a multi-billion pound arms deal to supply the Saudi regime with war planes.

A Buckingham Palace spokesperson told Declassified:

“Official engagements with other Heads of State are undertaken on the advice of government. We do not comment on The Queen’s private engagements.”

A Foreign Office spokesperson told Declassified:

“Official royal visits are undertaken by Members of the Royal Family at the request of the Government to support British interests around the globe. The Royal Visits Committee makes the recommendations on where to visit, these recommendations are approved by HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] and Her Majesty The Queen.

“Any private visits, or working visits on behalf of other organisations, are a matter for the Royal Household or the relevant organisation. Travel costs for official visits made at the request of HMG are met by the Sovereign Grant – details of which are published by the Palace.”

*

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.

Phil Miller is staff reporter at Declassified UK, an investigative journalism organisation that covers the UK’s role in the world. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Revealed: British Royals Met Tyrannical Middle East Monarchies over 200 Times Since Arab Spring Erupted 10 Years Ago
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

It’s over. The China threat. No Thucydides trap of rising power threatening established power. Still scope for misunderstandings, a naval clash in the South China Sea, an exchange at the border war with India, fighter jets taking matters into their hands.

But the economic race with the United States is over. China has new economic goals.

Actually, China has new priorities and the economy is now second fiddle to politics.

Gone are the visions of a new world order. Covid has played a part but it also provides useful cover for Beijing to chart a new course. Ever since Xi Jinping took office in 2012, China’s growth rate has been dropping, even according to official figures. Beijing has indicated a willingness to accept a post-coronavirus growth target of 5 percent or less. In the BC era (Before Covid) this would have set alarm bells ringing as it was assumed that nothing less than growth of 6 or so percent could guarantee the stability required for the party to stay in power.

An October meeting of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, supported Xi’s agenda for the 14th five-year plan. No surprise there. But the communiqué, set to be endorsed in March when the rubberstamp National People’s Congress, or parliament, meets , included an item that almost shyly stated a new departure: it said that China would “basically achieve socialist modernization” by 2035 in order to finally “reach the level of moderately developed countries’’. The rampant growth model that had astounded, frightened and helped the financial-crisis hit West, has encountered a reality too often ignored; the party is over because of the party.

China’s economy will reach a “new level”. Yes but so will the government’s capacity to monitor and control it. And that’s the change.  Xi needs growth, as his predecessors did, but he cares primarily about political control. For four decades after opening to the world in 1978, China pursued economic growth at all costs, even loosening the party’s grip. Not anymore. 

Between the death of Mao Zedong in 1976 and the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, the economy dipped only in 1989 and 1990. This was the time of the Tiananmen massacre and a crackdown on dissent. The China brand was damaged. It never fully recovered but its breakneck turbo-charged economic performance could not be ignored. China made headlines because of growth. Now it makes headlines for politics, threats, trade disputes, border skirmishes.  

Belligerency rather than diplomacy has been the trend.  Hong Kong’s freewheeling economy has been jolted to a stop by a draconian security law. Party committees in private companies, long dormant, have been reactivated. More than a million Uighurs are in labor camps.  Beijing announced it was investigating the Alibaba Group, the flagship online retail giant founded by Jack Ma. This more than any other company was the very symbol of China’s emergence.

China is paying for Xi’s “wolf warrior” diplomacy (their version of Rambo diplomacy). India is a prime example Chinese technology giants such as Huawei, Alibaba, and TikTok were set for market dominance in the world’s second-most populous market. Then Chinese border troops killed 20 Indian soldiers in brutal hand-to-hand fighting in Ladakh in June. Consequently, Chinese tech has been almost driven from the Indian market.

China has heated disputes, regarding territory or trade, with Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia and Japan and the artillery from the US-Chinese trade war is rumbling in the distance.

The swashbuckling approach to international trade is over. Chinese entrepreneurs were once told to go out and multiply their profits. China will still have a global presence but the main thrust of its commercial  strategy now is to build domestic production networks, free from the threat or imposition of sanctions, that fall under party control.  

*

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).

***

Israeli authorities have closed down miles of beaches as the county is in the midst of its “most serious ecological disaster in recent years” after an oil spill from an unknown origin occurred some dozens of miles off the coast into the Mediterranean Sea.

The Ministry of Environmental Protection indicated that tar was “washing up and contaminating the beaches” starting last Wednesday. A major clean-up and conservation effort is underway that has included the Israeli Army.

It’s believed the oil spill may have happened a week or more ago, or possibly even weeks prior, but recent stormy weather washed it up to shore.

Currently an estimated 106 miles of coastline have been impacted, stretching from Israel through the Gaza Strip. It’s also been widely reported as impacting southern Lebanon’s coastline.

A statement from the Israel Nature and Parks Authority predicted that clean-up efforts could take years after the dozens of tons of tar washed up in various places. “The disaster we are witnessing in recent days on the beaches of Israel is the most serious ecological disaster in recent years, and its consequences we will see more years ahead,” the Parks Authority wrote Saturday.

Israeli as well as various international bodies are investigating the source of the Mediterranean spillage, which has included reviewing satellite tracking data of tankers that have traversed the area in recent weeks. Interestingly and suspiciously, the investigations findings are being kept under tight wrap, as Fox News describes:

In an unusual move, an Israeli judge has issued a gag order on the investigations and any detail relating to it, including the suspects’ name or identities, the vessels involved, and destination and port of departure.

Maya Jacobs, CEO of Zalul, an Israel NGO that protects the country’s seas and streams, called to remove the gag order, and conduct a transparent investigation.

“The companies who cause the environmental risks like the petroleum and shipping companies have a great influence on the Israeli government,” she said.

Sea turtles, other marine life, and birds have been found dead in the hundreds as a result of the disaster, which has further included thousands of volunteers rushing to save injured wildlife from the large tar globs.

Minister of Environmental Protection Gila Gamliel had this to say of painstakingly slow improvements to the situation: “I know that everyone wants to help, but tar is a dangerous substance! It is imperative to act carefully and responsibly,” she 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.

Featured image is from AP

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israel Imposes Gag Order on Probe into Oil Spill Dubbed “Most Serious Ecological Disaster” in Years
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

A secret paper from the Swiss Federal Council (Swiss Executive) was leaked to the Swiss Newspaper “Der Blick” divulging that the Federal Council is considering granting owners of restaurants, theatres, cinemas, and more, as well as private event organizers, the right to allow access to those people only, who have had their corona virus shots. 

In addition to the Blick, Swiss Radio and Television (SRG) repeated this news item in the morning of 23 February. SRG, the Swiss fear-inducing propaganda broadcasting system, also linked so-called “corona deniers” to alleged “anti-Semitism”, referring to an article in Swissinfo, “Covid Pandemic Fans Flames of anti-Semitism in Switzerland”. Anti-Semitism has often been used to intimidate free opinions that run counter the official narrative.

If this dictatorial and discriminatory idea is passed as a law, Switzerland would be one of the first countries to grant special privileges to those who have accepted being vaccinated against a virus that DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY VACCINATION to be defeated, as there are many excellent cheap and decades-old remedies that, for example, have helped China to master the corona virus – without a vaccine.

Such coercion runs totally against an individual’s universal right to decide on his / her own, over his or her body and on how to manage his or her health.

Nobody has the right to infringe on an individual’s choice and even less so, to link societal privileges to such bodily intrusions. 

Mind you, this “secret document” may have been “leaked” on purpose, as a trial balloon to test the people’s reactions. Unfortunately, the Swiss are so tremendously indoctrinated by 24 x 7 of fear-invoking covid-propaganda that the majority may say – YES, let’s go for the vaccination privilege. In other words, another break in societal solidarity – divide to conquer.

It would be coercion, indirectly forcing the population to accept a “vaccine” that is not really a vaccine, but an inoculation, also called “gene therapy”. Switzerland offers so far only the Moderna and Pfizer-Pfizer-BioNTech injections, and AstraZeneca is under consideration.

These are mRNA-type remedies that may affect the human genome. Any distortion of human DNA may be passed on to future generations. The effects of such DNA distortions may be life-hindrances and cannot be “healed” or corrected.

Long-term effects of these mRNA-type injections may only be known in one to several years. Short term “side-effects” have already shown death rates, way above those considered “normal” with traditional vaccines.

Strangely, none of the traditional vaccines from Russia – Sputnik V – and China – Sinopharm – are available in Switzerland, or in most European countries. – Why?

The traditional vaccines are simply based on the injection of a weakened virus that will trigger the human immune system and create antibodies as soon as the individual comes in contact with the virus, in this case, the covid-virus. This method has been known and experienced for decades and it is successful.

More important, a vaccine is really not needed to combat the corona virus. There are several traditional medications that have worked wonders in patients. For some obscure reasons they are outlawed, ordered by higher authorities way above us, the common humanity, those self-declared “authorities” – call them the Deep Dark State, or the Globalist Cabal. These “authorities” have placed themselves, at once, above the governments of the 193 UN member countries, who all were brought under the spell of this SARS-CoV-2, alias Covid-19 man-invented virus.

For more details and a full spectrum of references, see this.

There are, of course, hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars involved in the worldwide vaccination programs. But that cannot be the only reason for this worldwide plandemic tyranny.

What could be other reasons why everybody, i. e. the entire world population, about 7 billion people, according to Bill Gates, has to be vaccinated, “before the world can go back to normal” – Vaccinated against a virus that is not more harmful than the common flu – see Covid-19 – Navigating the Uncharted – Anthony S. Fauci, NIAID / NIH 28Febr2020 in NEJM?

Could this vaccination-drive be linked to the objectives of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Great Reset? – Linked to the Great Reset’s objectives that run in parallel with the UN Agenda 2030 – a ten-year period in which humanity should be totally reformed, with a new ultra-neoliberal economic model, where only a few mega-wealthy elitist oligarchs, including those that control the all-powerful media domineering social platforms, have control over a vastly reduced world population?

Could it be the beginning of an all-digitized Brave New World (Aldous Huxley, 1932), under a One World Order (OWO) which would be fully in control of each individual, including control of each human’s resources, incomes, whether he or she behaves according to the OWO’s rules, deciding whether he or she eats? – Even electromagnetic brain control – making “transhumans” out of humans – which may be the purpose of installing hurriedly, by night and fog, 5G antennas?

Back to the Swiss Federal Council’s weighing in on giving preference treatment for vaccinated people – this would not only be a discriminatory decision; it would clearly be a coercion for “vaccination”. Such acts are against Human Rights and against the Swiss Constitution.

The Blick newspaper referred to the “leaked” document as a “confidential debate paper” from the Federal Department of Home Affairs (Ministry of Interior), under which falls the Department of Health – created “to give the population an incentive to be vaccinated”.

Incentive or coercion?

“The government has decided to allow special treatment according to vaccination status, without any additional legal basis”, Blick said.

The document reportedly states that while public institutions such as public transportation and hospitals wouldn’t be able to treat those who have been vaccinated differently from people who haven’t had their shots, private establishments “should be able to give preferential treatment to vaccinated people”, according to Blick.

If proof of vaccination is shown, immunized people can eat in restaurants, attend concerts and other events that would be closed to others. Vaccinated people would still need to wear masks in shops and on public transport, the Blick reports.

For more details on this horrendous step towards tyranny, see this.

Swiss President, Guy Parmelin already said that “in the future, anyone who wishes to travel will need to be vaccinated”. 

In order for the Swiss Federal Council to take such drastic decisions, the Parliament has to be deactivated – which is only the case in a state of emergency, akin to Martial Law. This would be health-induced Martial Law.

And mind you, it would likely be just a first step to more – much more – oppressive, coercive and dictatorial actions.

Think about it! What is behind such radical actions – for a virus that has a mortality rate of between 0.03 and 0.08%, very similar to the annually appearing common flu? See this. (Anthony Fauci et al)

However, the “leaked” document states that a system of privileges would not be implemented immediately, and “can only be applied if the majority of the adult population has the opportunity to be vaccinated. This should be the case from May or June [2021] at the latest”.

At which point there is hope that the (i) Swiss population has attained herd immunity, (ii) Swiss Parliament revokes its “deactivation” – and stands up for the old values of democracy that gave Switzerland for many decades a stellar reputation, and / or (iii) a majority of Swiss rejects this tyranny, protests and resists by any means they find – peacefully. As aggression inspires aggression and Peace inspires Peace.

*

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

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

Peter Koenig is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

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].

Refriended in Defeat: Australia Strikes a Deal with Facebook

February 24th, 2021 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Refriended in Defeat: Australia Strikes a Deal with Facebook
  • Tags: ,

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

‘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.

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.

Malcolm X from the Grassroots to the African Revolution

February 24th, 2021 by 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).

***

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)

What Planet Is NATO Living On?

February 24th, 2021 by Medea Benjamin

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)

A People’s History of Struggle: Liberty or Lockdown

February 24th, 2021 by Colin Todhunter

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.

Selected Articles: Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade

February 23rd, 2021 by Global Research News

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.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Heroin Trade

Non c’è crisi per l’Italia militare nella Nato

February 23rd, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

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

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Non c’è crisi per l’Italia militare nella 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).

***

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

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Die Twilight Zone: Covid, das Weltwirtschaftsforum (WEF) und Eugenik

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Post-Pandemic Social Landscapes: Surveillance Capitalism, Behaviour Modification as the New Consensus Reality

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).

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Ascendency and Mainstay of Participatory Economic and Social Development

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.

antarctica territorial claims

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.

hypothetical Antarctica frontage territories claims

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Slices of the Pie: Mapping Territorial Claims in Antarctica
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

The simple solution to “winning the competition of the future” with China is for the US to stop perceiving relations in a zero-sum manner and instead embrace the paradigm shift of regarding them in a win-win cooperative manner.

US President Joe Biden revealed earlier this month during his speech at the Pentagon that the Defense Department has assembled a new task force on China. According to the American leader, recommendations will be made within the next few months “on key priorities and decision points so that we can chart a strong path forward on China-related matters.” He then added, “That’s how we’ll meet the China challenge and ensure the American people win the competition of the future.” In order for this task to succeed, however, it must arrive at a very important conclusion that’ll influence all of its forthcoming policy decisions.

The simple solution to “winning the competition of the future” with China is for the US to stop perceiving relations in a zero-sum manner and instead embrace the paradigm shift of regarding them in a win-win cooperative manner.

China and the US aren’t destined to compete. Their current tensions are the result of self-interested unilateral actions undertaken by former President Trump in order to distract from domestic problems and out of desperation to cling to America’s fading unipolar hegemony. The past four years have proven that the competitive mindset is destined to fail and that a paradigm change in thought is urgently needed for everyone’s best interests.

This isn’t rhetoric either but could take tangible form in the following manner. Upon reconsidering the wisdom of the unquestionably failed paradigm of competition, the Defense Department might be inspired to realize that America’s national interests are best served through cooperation. The first example of this in practice would be respecting China’s red lines by declining to interfere in its internal affairs in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Xinjiang. China doesn’t carry out any analogous actions against America so the US’ existing policy is purely one-sided and therefore aggressive. It’s time to reverse this negative trend in order to get relations back on track, which can only happen if the US corrects its false perception of China as a competitor and sees it as a partner.

Extrapolating on this thought exercise with the well-intended purpose of showing the way forward, the US could build upon the proposed policy by eschewing its former divide-and-rule strategy in Asia. America failed to turn India against China as proven by the recent synchronized disengagement agreement along the vast Line of Actual Control (LAC) between their two countries. So too has America failed to turn Southeast Asian nations against China through its meddling in the South China Sea. If the US still wants to “compete” with China, it can do so through economic means but only so long as this is on a fair playing field without sanctions, tariffs, and other restrictive measures. That form of competition would be to everyone’s benefit.

Along that line of thought, the US should de-securitize its understanding of technology. It’s counterproductive to perceive of technological developments in a paranoid fashion by imagining that China’s cutting-edge advances are part of a secret plot to steal information and destabilize the world. This makes its restrictions on Huawei and other Chinese tech companies ridiculous. While some nefarious actors could indeed abuse technology just like they can abuse anything else as long as they have the negative intent to do so, China as a state has no such motivations. American companies should freely compete with their Chinese counterparts in order to encourage one another to continue making rapid technological developments in humanity’s interests.

With an eye on technological and trade cooperation instead of military competition and fearmongering, the US might then decide to redeploy some of its troops from the Asia-Pacific back to the American homeland, perhaps to help with their new government’s campaign against domestic extremism. They could also be put to better use contributing to UN peacekeeping operations instead of raising regional tensions in the South China Sea. The American military might also decide to focus more on training for disaster responses, including those that are worsened by climate change, as well as responding to COVID-19 and future pandemics. With the proper paradigm change of thought, a whole new range of opportunities emerges for US and its military.

Of course, this analysis is admittedly optimistic and it’s taken for granted that not all of the proposals will be implemented, if any, but now’s the time to think outside of the box as the US officially reviews the whole gamut of its China strategy. The world of 2021 isn’t anything like it was 12 months ago, let alone four years ago when former President Trump first entered office. Everything has changed so drastically, so it follows that the US’ military strategy towards China should aso change accordingly with the circumstances. Now’s the perfect moment for the US to correct its prior mistakes and make up for lost time. The onus is entirely on President Biden, and history will judge him just like it did his predecessor depending on the fateful choices that he makes.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-China Win-Win Cooperation? The Competitive Mindset is Destined to Fail

The ZeroCovid Movement: Cult Dressed as Science

February 23rd, 2021 by Jenin Younes

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)

Yaneer Bar-Yam preparing for his talk on Day 2 of Wikimania 2014.jpg

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The ZeroCovid Movement: Cult Dressed as Science
  • Tags:

Biden to Escalate War on Russia by Other Means?

February 23rd, 2021 by Stephen Lendman

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Biden to Escalate War on Russia by Other Means?
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

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. 2Fundamental 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.

(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.

(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)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mandatory mRNA Vaccination and PCR Testing Potentially Illegal
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Snowstorms, the Breach of the Arctic Vortex and the Effects of Ice Meltwater on the Oceans

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.

The latest moral outrage is the failure to ensure equity in vaccination efforts. Just 10 countries have administered more than 75% of all Covid-19 vaccines. Meanwhile, more than 130 countries have not received a single dose.

If the virus is allowed to spread like wildfire in parts of the global south, it will mutate again and again. New variants could become more transmissible, more deadly and potentially threaten the effectiveness of current vaccines and diagnostics. This could prolong the pandemic significantly, enabling the virus to come back to plague the global north – and delay the world’s economic recovery.

The virus is also infecting political and civil rights, and further shrinking civic space. Using the pandemic as a pretext, authorities in some countries have deployed heavy-handed security responses and emergency measures to crush dissent, criminalise basic freedoms, silence independent reporting and restrict the activities of nongovernmental organisations.

Human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, political activists – even medical professionals – have been detained, prosecuted and subjected to intimidation and surveillance for criticising government responses to the pandemic. Pandemic-related restrictions have been used to subvert electoral processes and weaken opposition voices.

At times, access to life-saving Covid-19 information has been concealed while deadly misinformation has been amplified – even by those in power.

Extremists – including white supremacists and neo-Nazis – have exploited the pandemic to boost their ranks through social polarisation and political and cultural manipulation.

The pandemic has also made peace efforts more difficult, constraining the ability to conduct negotiations, exacerbating humanitarian needs and undermining progress on other conflict-related human rights challenges.

Covid-19 has reinforced two fundamental truths about human rights. First, human rights violations harm us all. Second, human rights are universal and protect us all.

An effective response to the pandemic must be based on solidarity and cooperation. Divisive approaches, authoritarianism and nationalism make no sense against a global threat. With the pandemic shining a spotlight on human rights, recovery provides an opportunity to generate momentum for transformation. To succeed, our approaches must have a human rights lens.

The sustainable development goals – which are underpinned by human rights – provide the framework for more inclusive and sustainable economies and societies, including the imperative of healthcare for everyone.

The recovery must also respect the rights of future generations, enhancing climate action to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 and protecting biodiversity. My Call to Action for Human Rights spells out the central role of human rights in crisis response, gender equality, public participation, climate justice and sustainable development.

This is not a time to neglect human rights; it is a time when, more than ever, human rights are needed to navigate this crisis in a way that will allow us to zero in on achieving inclusive and sustainable development and lasting peace.

We are all in this together. The virus threatens everyone. Human rights uplift everyone. By respecting human rights in this time of crisis, we will build more effective and equitable solutions for the emergency of today and the recovery for tomorrow.

I am convinced it is possible – if we are determined and work together.

*

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.

António Guterres is secretary general of the United Nations

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

The Art of Being a Spectacularly Misguided Oracle

February 23rd, 2021 by Pepe Escobar

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.

What to Do About Israel?

February 23rd, 2021 by Philip Giraldi

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Unintended Consequences and the Texas ‘Big Freeze’ Energy Disaster
  • Tags:

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

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