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).

***

Globally, there is an ongoing trend of a handful of big companies determining what food is grown, how it is grown, what is in it and who sells it. This model involves highly processed food adulterated with chemical inputs ending up in large near-monopoly supermarket chains or fast-food outlets that rely on industrial-scale farming.

While the brands lining the shelves of giant retail outlets seem vast, a handful of food companies own these brands which in turn rely on a relatively narrow range of produce for ingredients. At the same time, this illusion of choice often comes at the expense of food security in poorer countries that were compelled to restructure their agriculture to facilitate agro-exports courtesy of the World Bank, IMF, the WTO and global agribusiness interests.

In Mexico, transnational food retail and processing companies have taken over food distribution channels, replacing local foods with cheap processed items, often with the direct support of the government. Free trade and investment agreements have been critical to this process and the consequences for public health have been catastrophic.

Mexico’s National Institute for Public Health released the results of a national survey of food security and nutrition in 2012. Between 1988 and 2012, the proportion of overweight women between the ages of 20 and 49 increased from 25 to 35 per cent and the number of obese women in this age group increased from 9 to 37 per cent. Some 29 per cent of Mexican children between the ages of 5 and 11 were found to be overweight, as were 35 per cent of the youngsters between 11 and 19, while one in ten school age children experienced anaemia.

Former Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, concludes that trade policies had favoured a greater reliance on heavily processed and refined foods with a long shelf life rather than on the consumption of fresh and more perishable foods, particularly fruit and vegetables. He added that the overweight and obesity emergency that Mexico faces could have been avoided.

In 2015, the non-profit organisation GRAIN reported that the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) led to the direct investment in food processing and a change in Mexico’s retail structure (towards supermarkets and convenience stores) as well as the emergence of global agribusiness and transnational food companies in the country.

NAFTA eliminated rules preventing foreign investors from owning more than 49 per cent of a company. It also prohibited minimum amounts of domestic content in production and increased rights for foreign investors to retain profits and returns from initial investments. By 1999, US companies had invested 5.3 billion dollars in Mexico’s food processing industry, a 25-fold increase in just 12 years.

US food corporations began to colonise the dominant food distribution networks of small-scale vendors, known as tiendas (corner shops). This helped spread nutritionally poor food as they allowed these corporations to sell and promote their foods to poorer populations in small towns and communities. By 2012, retail chains had displaced tiendas as Mexico’s main source of food sales.

In Mexico, the loss of food sovereignty induced catastrophic changes to the nation’s diet and many small-scale farmers lost their livelihoods, which was accelerated by the dumping of surplus commodities (produced at below the cost of production due to subsidies) from the US. NAFTA rapidly drove millions of Mexican farmers, ranchers and small businesspeople into bankruptcy, leading to the flight of millions of immigrant workers.

Warning for India

What happened in Mexico should serve as a warning as Indian farmers continue their protest against three recent farm bills that are designed to fully corporatize the agrifood sector through contract farming, the massive roll-back of public sector support systems, a reliance on imports (boosted by a future US trade deal) and the acceleration of large-scale (online) retail.

If you want to know the eventual fate of India’s local markets and small retailers, look no further than what US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in 2019. He stated that Amazon had “destroyed the retail industry across the United States.”

And if you want to know the eventual fate of India’s farmers, look no further than the 1990s when the IMF and World Bank advised India to shift hundreds of millions out of agriculture in return for up to more than $120 billion in loans at the time.

India was directed to dismantle its state-owned seed supply system, reduce subsidies, run down public agriculture institutions and offer incentives for the growing of cash crops for export to earn foreign exchange. Part of the strategy would also involve changing land laws so that land could be sold and amalgamated for industrial-scale farming.

The plan was for foreign corporations to capture the sector, with the aforementioned policies having effectively weakened or displaced independent cultivators.

To date, this process has been slow but the recent legislation could finally deliver a knock-out blow to tens of millions of farmers and give what the likes of Amazon, Walmart, Facebook, Cargill, Archer Daniels Midlands, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge and the global agritech, seed and agrochemical corporations have wanted all along. It will also serve the retail/agribusiness/logistics interests of India’s richest man, Mukesh Ambani, and its sixth richest, Gautam Adani.

During their ongoing protests, farmers have been teargassed, smeared and beaten. Journalist Satya Sagar notes that government advisors fear that seeming to appear weak with the agitating farmers would not sit well with foreign agrifood investors and could stop the flow of big money into the sector – and the economy as a whole.

And it is indeed ‘big’ money. Facebook invested 5.5 billion dollars last year in Mukesh Ambani’s Jio Platforms (e-commerce retail). Google has also invested 4.5 billion dollars. Currently, Amazon and Flipkart (Walmart has an 81% stake) together control over 60% of the country’s overall e-commerce market. These and other international investors have a great deal to lose if the recent farm legislation is repealed. So does the Indian government.

Since the 1990s, when India opened up to neoliberal economics, the country has become increasingly dependent on inflows of foreign capital. Policies are being governed by the drive to attract and retain foreign investment and maintain ‘market confidence’ by ceding to the demands of international capital. ‘Foreign direct investment’ has thus become the holy grail of the Modi-led administration.

Little wonder the government needs to be seen as acting ‘tough’ on protesting farmers because now, more than ever, attracting and retaining foreign reserves will be required to purchase food on the international market once India surrenders responsibility for its food policy to private players by eliminating its buffer stocks.

The plan to radically restructure agrifood in the country is being sold to the public under the guise of ‘modernising’ the sector. And this is to be carried out by self-proclaimed ‘wealth creators’ like Zuckerberg, Bezos and Ambani who are highly experienced at creating wealth – for themselves.

According to the recent Oxfam report ‘The Inequality Virus’, Mukesh Ambani doubled his wealth between March and October 2020. The coronavirus-related lockdown in India resulted in the country’s billionaires increasing their wealth by around 35 per cent, while 170,000 people lost their jobs every hour in April 2020 alone.

Prior to the lockdown, Oxfam reported that 73 per cent of the wealth generated in 2017 went to the richest 1 per cent, while 670 million Indians, the poorest half of the population, saw only a 1 per cent increase in their wealth.

Moreover, the fortunes of India’s billionaires increased by almost 10 times over a decade and their total wealth was higher than the entire Union budget of India for the fiscal year 2018-19.

It is clear who these ‘wealth creators’ create wealth for. On the People’s Review site, Tanmoy Ibrahim writes a piece on India’s billionaire class, with a strong focus on Ambani and Adani. By outlining the nature of crony capitalism in India, it is clear that Modi’s ‘wealth creators’ are given carte blanche to plunder the public purse, people and the environment, while real wealth creators – not least the farmers – are fighting for existence.

The current struggle should not be regarded as a battle between the government and farmers. If what happened in Mexico is anything to go by, the outcome will adversely affect the entire nation in terms of the further deterioration of public health and the loss of livelihoods.

Consider that rates of obesity in India have already tripled in the last two decades and the nation is fast becoming the diabetes and heart disease capital of the world. According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), between 2005 and 2015 the number of obese people doubled, even though one in five children in the 5-9 year age group were found to be stunted.

This will be just part of the cost of handing over the sector to billionaire (comprador) capitalists Mukesh Ambani and Gautum Adani and Jeff Bezos (world’s richest person), Mark Zukerberg (world’s fourth richest person), the Cargill business family (14 billionaires) and the Walmart business family (richest in the US).

These individuals are poised to siphon off the wealth of India’s agrifood sector while denying the livelihoods of many millions of small-scale farmers and local mom and pop retailers while undermining the health of the nation.

*

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

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

Presentation to the Korea University Conference, February 7, 2021

Dear Friends,

My thoughts are with the Korean people. With my Korean friends.

I wish to express my solidarity with the Korean people in their long standing struggle waged at different periods of Korean history including the ongoing reunification campaign, which will bring North and South Korea together in a unified nation state.

I recall the movements against the presidency of Mrs Park Guen hye and the Candlelight Movement.

Among my many friends in Korea, I wish to pay tribute to Lee Seok-ki, leader of the Unified Progressive Party (UPP) for his commitment to political and civil rights.

The Korean identity and longstanding culture prevail despite acts of Japanese aggression extending back to the Joseon dynasty in the late 16th Century, and more recently, the annexation of your country by Japan in 1910, followed by the invasion by US forces in 1945, which allegedly “liberated” South Korea from Japan, while imposing a new colonial-style  regime in South Korea.

We must of course also reflect on the crimes committed by US forces against the people of Korea during the Korean War (1950-53).

 

The 1997 Asian Crisis 

My relationship with Korea extends back to 1997 when your country was the object of an outright act of “economic warfare”.

I am referring to the 1997 Asian Crisis. As we recall, the incoming president Kim Dae-jung was obliged by Washington together with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to hand over a large part of the Republic of Korea’s economic assets (including high technology corporations) to “friendly” US investors.

One case in point was the “purchase” of Korea First Bank (KFB) which was acquired by a Texas crony business entity linked to the Bush family. It was sold “at a negative price”. What this means is that the ROK government was ordered to pay subsidies to the US investors which they then used to “buy up” Korea First Bank. It was a financial fraud on behalf of global creditors. 

The Corona Crisis

I mention this because it is relevant to an understanding of the ongoing Covid-19 crisis which on March 11, 2020 was marked by instructions emanating from the global financial establishment to close down the national economies of 193 member states of the United Nations as a means to resolving a Worldwide public health crisis.

This decision was based on lies and deception. What it implied was an engineered bankruptcy program, which has resulted in a Worldwide process of concentration of both financial and real economic wealth, coupled with mass poverty and unemployment.

Under the control of powerful creditors, real economic assets are slated either to be eliminated (as in the case of the small and medium sized enterprises), confiscated, taken over or purchased at a negative price.

The same powerful financial interests which triggered the 1997 Asian crisis, largely through the destabilization (short-selling) of Asian currencies (Korean Won Thai Baht, Indonesian Rupiah) are now involved in overseeing the current covid crisis.

I will proceed by providing a short history of the Corona pandemic, focussing on the lies and deceptions, as well as the fear campaign. I will also provide evidence that this pandemic is a big lie.

Its purpose is to provide a pretext and a justification to the destabilization of national economies worldwide.

Global Economic and Social Crisis 

We are at the crossroads of one of the most serious crises in World history.

Worldwide, people have been misled both by their governments and the media as to the causes and devastating consequences of the Covid-19 “pandemic”.

We are living history, yet our understanding of the sequence of events since January 2020 has been blurred largely as a result of media propaganda.

The unspoken truth is that the novel coronavirus provides a pretext and a justification to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire World into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair.

More than 7 billion people Worldwide are directly or indirectly affected by the diabolical economic and social measures applied Worldwide to combat the alleged spread of the corona epidemic. The media has casually described the dramatic consequences of the lockdown as “collateral damage”.

People’s lives are destroyed. Famines have erupted in more than twenty developing countries.

Does this not constitute an act of war directed against humanity?

The pandemic is a bold face lie.

Timeline

The first stage of this crisis (outside China) was launched by the WHO on January 30th 2020 at a time when there were 5  cases in the US, 3 in Canada, 4 in France, 4 in Germany.

Do these numbers justify the declaration of a Worldwide public health emergency?

The fear campaign was sustained by political statements and media disinformation.

People are frightened. They are encouraged to do the PCR test, which is flawed. A positive PCR test does not mean that you are infected and/or that you can transmit the virus.

The RT-PCR Test is known to produce a high percentage of false positives. Moreover, it does not identify the virus.

From the outset in January 2020, there was no “scientific basis” to justify the launching of a Worldwide public health emergency.

In February, the covid crisis was accompanied by a major crash of financial markets. There is evidence of financial fraud.

February 20-21, 2020

On the day of the WHO director General Dr. Tedros’ historic press conference (February 20, 2020) the recorded number of confirmed cases outside China was 1073 of which 621 were passengers and crew on the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship (stranded in Japanese territorial waters).

From a statistical point of view, the WHO decision pointing to a potential “spread of the virus Worldwide” did not make sense.  Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said that he was

“concerned that the chance to contain the coronavirus outbreak was “closing” …

“I believe the window of opportunity is still there, but that the window is narrowing.”

These shock and awe statements by Dr. Tedros (based on flawed concepts and statistics), had set the stage for  the February financial collapse. There is evidence of financial fraud which was conducive to a massive redistribution of money wealth in favor of a handful of billionaires and financial institutions.

And on March 11, 2020: the WHO officially declared a Worldwide pandemic at a time when there were  44,279 cases and 1440 deaths outside China out of a population of 6.4 billion (Estimates of confirmed cases based on the PCR test)..

Immediately following the March 11, 2020 WHO announcement, confinement and lockdown instructions were transmitted to 193 member states of the United Nations.

Unprecedented in history, applied almost simultaneously in a large of number countries, entire sectors of the World economy have been destabilized. Small and medium sized enterprises have been driven into bankruptcy. Unemployment and poverty are rampant.

The social impacts of these measures are not only devastating, they are ongoing under what is described as “A Second Wave”.  There is no evidence of a “Second Wave”. Amply documented the PCR estimates are flawed.

The health impacts (mortality, morbidity) resulting from the closing down of national economies far surpass those attributed to Covid-19.

Famines have erupted in at least 25 developing countries according to UN sources.

The mental health of millions of people Worldwide has been affected as a result of the lockdown, social distancing, job losses, bankruptcies, mass poverty and despair. The frequency of suicides and drug addiction has increased Worldwide.

“V the Virus” is said to be responsible for the wave of bankruptcies and unemployment. That’s a lie. There is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.

It’s the powerful financiers and billionaires who are behind this project which has contributed to the destabilization (Worldwide) of the real economy.

Since early February 2020, the Super Rich have cashed in on billions of dollars.

Amply documented it’s the largest redistribution of global wealth in World history, accompanied by a process of Worldwide impoverishment. 

Let us put this in historical perspective. The outcome of this pandemic is the destabilization of national economies,  extensive unemployment, mass poverty, bankruptcies and a rupture in the structures of transport and international trade.

The economic landscape has been redesigned. Powerful financial interests acting as global creditors have taken control of the national economies of numerous countries.

People in Korea and Japan have experienced the plight of US led wars. These wars are ongoing in the Middle East, striking one country after another. In recent years, the instruments and modalities of US led wars have evolved: sanctions, acts of political destabilization, the imposition of strong economic medicine, privatisation, market manipulation, etc.

The pandemic coupled with propaganda and the fear campaign is an instrument of warfare. It consists in imposing a Worldwide process of  economic, social and political destabilization.

What has happened is the imposition of so-called guidelines demanding the closure of national economies with a view to resolving a public health crisis. It’s a bold face lie.

The instrument of submission is the creation of the largest global debt in World history.

The creditors ultimately control nation states. They intend to impose a system of “global governance” which will override the sovereignty of nation states. In may regards, what people worldwide are living is the stranglehold of global debt.

The COVID-19 public health “emergency” under WHO auspices was presented to public opinion as a means (“solution”) to containing the “killer virus”.

If the public had been informed and reassured that Covid is “similar to Seasonal Influenza”, the fear campaign would have fallen flat. The lockdown and closure of the national economy would have been rejected outright.

“The Great Reset”

Since the outset of the corona crisis, an unprecedented process of “enrichment of the super rich” has occurred.

The same powerful creditors which triggered the Covid Global Debt Crisis are now intent upon establishing a  “New Normal” which essentially consists in imposing what the World Economic Forum describes as the “Great Reset”:

“Using COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions to push through this transformation, the Great Reset is being rolled out under the guise of a ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ in which older enterprises are to be driven to bankruptcy or absorbed into monopolies” (Colin Todhunter)

What is at stake is the power and extension of the US dollar in the hands of the financial establishment. A wealthy superrich minority is intent upon taking total control of the real economy.

What is at stake is the restructuring of the global economic and landscape.

The scheme is not limited to eliminating Small and Medium Sized enterprises, it consists in acquiring and confiscating bankrupt corporations including airlines, hotel chains, etc. It is marked by a dramatic restructuring of the public sector. The welfare state which was developed in the post World War II period is intent upon be scrapped.

In the US a massive stimulus plan largely funded by public debt is geared towards supporting the privatization of social services and infrastructure. Large amounts of public money will be channeled towards to defense contractors.

In developing countries, what we are witnessing is a process of massive impoverishment.

For more details, see Professor Chossudovsky’s E-Book entitled:

The 2020 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

  • Posted in English, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on The Corona Pandemic: The Most Serious Economic and Social Crisis in Modern History

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).

***

Introduction 

It is noteworthy to mention that at the beginning of the Israeli election campaigns, especially the parliamentary, a process of party formation begins and a process of divisions within the existing Zionist parties also begins. This will be followed by a process of unification of small parliamentary parties to form larger parties. Small parties are also formed by ex-generals of the Israeli army.

The most helpful factor for all these political processes is that there are a number of shared attributes among all Zionist parties. With the exception of Palestinian Arab parties and the Israeli Communist Party, Zionist Jewish parties share Zionist ideology, right-wing politics and ethnicity. In addition, there is almost complete national consensus among most Zionist parties on many political issues such as: rejecting the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state, excluding and ignoring Palestinian Arab issues of the Palestinian indigenous citizens, refusing to stop colonial settlement, and refusing to dismantle existing colonial settlements.

The political environment fosters right-wing ideology in Israel provided by the dominant colonial authority. This ideology is metaphorically known as Zionist ideology. This right-wing ideology becomes more extreme as fear, terror and panic dominate the consciousness of the Jewish Israeli citizen, who feels the weakness of the Zionist state as a result of its external failures, especially during its defeat in two wars in Lebanon, as well as a result of external challenges that may come from the axis of resistance, as a result of the internal challenges produced by the Palestinian resistance in the colonized territories and the degree of disintegration and slackness that began to emerge in the structure of the Zionist colonial entity.

A critical view of The Zionist parties

Nowadays in Israel, there are a number of right-wing parties opposed to the Likud party that are seeking to overthrow the Netanyahu group. There are also new and small parties that are seeking to change the balance of party power. Israeli parties are experiencing political turmoil due to their focus on personalities and their avoidance of discussing social, political and economic issues. There is no pioneering idea or pilot program that distinguishes a party from the other, especially when it comes to Palestinian issues.

All Zionist parties support the Zionist apartheid regime that exists inside the colonized territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Even the “left-wing” Meretz party, whose leader Nitzan Horowitz has shown political readiness to align his party with the most extremist right wing parties in Israel. In a recent declaration, Mr. Horowitz asserted that “…the party does not rule out joining elements with whom it has never thought of working with, such as Bennet’s “right-wing” party, Yisrael Bitayno, of Lieberman.”[1] These two parties are known to be representatives of the extreme Zionist right.

Most Zionist parties suffer from a structural crisis on the level of leadership due to the nature of colonial settlement communities that lack an environment for the formation and growth of political leaders with a new political vision and a realistic and creative strategic dimension. These parties lack leaders with principles, who are willing to discuss humanitarian principles and defend humanitarian causes. The colonial settlement environment produces opportunistic leaders who seek to monopolize power, conspire, and hold a political supermarket. Zionist politicians behave as if they were in a market, they buy loyalties and appoint loyalists to positions they do not deserve. We see these shallow leaders controlling the joints of class political power because of their alliance with the dominant settler capitalist class. In short, they run a colony and do not run a country that seeks to develop and serve the interests of all its inhabitants. A good example of this caliber of politician is the current Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Important Impressions of Benjamin Netanyahu

Those who met or worked with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believe that he is a liar with distinction, and possess a high degree of readiness to commit fraud and deception. In addition, he is narcissistic, opportunistic, and immoral. These qualities were confirmed recently by a press interview conducted by Israeli journalist Yossi Millman with the former director of the CIA Director John Brennan. When asked about his impressions of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, John Brennan replied:

Netanyahu is very cautious and a cunning politician, and has survived several attempts to remove him from office. In my opinion, he has a cunning understanding and manipulative control over Israeli domestic politics. But he is not a man of principles and not a moral person. In meetings with him, alone or as part of a delegation, I found that his description of reality was a distortion of the truth. But in this way he is a typical politician. He will change his mind and positions and will not honour his promises, if it is in his political interest. Did he lie to me personally? My answer is that he interferes with the facts.[2]

According to the assessment of the Israeli journalist Asa-el Amotz, the morality system adopted by Netanyahu regarding his position on the Likud party is evident. “Likud has no longer been a party for promoting politics or even discussing political issues only. In the past, Likud founder Menachem Begin believed in the power of ideas and the leader’s submission to the party, but Netanyahu believes in the idea of power and the party’s submission to the leader.”[3]

Racism, Terror and Incitement in Electoral Propaganda

The media propaganda of right-wing Israeli parties is based on fueling the security concerns of the Jewish public. We see, for example, that the political-ideological discourse of Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu is always based on a number of constants, the most important of which are intimidation and creation of panic among the Israeli-Jewish citizens regarding the “Iranian atomic threat”, the danger of Hezbollah’s precision missiles, and the danger of Palestinian resistance missiles. Netanyahu’s election speeches are full with the repetitive claims that “Iran is trying to acquire an atomic bomb and intends to use it to exterminate the Jewish people in Israel”.

The Removal of Vital Interests

Image on the right is from IMEMC

The focus in Zionist political discourse, especially in electoral propaganda, on intimidation and racial hatred, on the degree of brutality, and on colonial violence against the indigenous Palestinian population, i.e. on the factor of the so-called “security”, produces, in turn, psychological effects that are compressing on the social awareness of the Israeli-Jewish citizens forcing them to sympathize and reconcile in harmony with this situation. The Zionist leaders made this reality appear as if it is epitome of the Israeli-Jewish national consensus.

These stressful psychological effects are aimed at removing the awareness of the Israeli-Jewish citizens away from their real interests and from hot issues affecting their quality of life, such as health, education, economy, housing, standard of living and unemployment. Israeli citizens currently suffer from poor health services especially at hospitals, increasingly expensive education and housing, an increasing degree of administrative and financial corruption, and an increasing degree of social violence, especially among the indigenous Palestinian population.

In addition to the rhetoric of intimidation and panic, the Israeli right, particularly Netanyahu, employed racist attitudes in his political speech by inflaming the racist hatred of Jewish Israelis against the indigenous Palestinians of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and against Palestinian citizens and foreign workers. Through his speech and the behavior of his party in the Zionist parliament, Netanyahu succeeded in promoting the racist nature of the government, its institutions, its military and settlement organizations and its policies on the ground. His party, with the help of a right-wing majority in the Zionist parliament, enacted a number of racist laws. He also succeeded in turning the state of brutality and racism into the backbone of his political discourse.

The Prime Minister’s record is full of racist rhetoric and attitudes, he is responsible for the Kamenitz Law to speed up the demolition of Palestinian homes, and for the demolition of the village of Al-Araqeeb in the Negev for 182 times[4], for the continued construction of the Apartheid Wall, the legislation of the Nationality Law, and the abolition of Arabic as an official language. Netanyahu prides himself on the Nationality Law and does not deny his role in its legislation. When actress Rotem Sela’ criticized his government for its racist policies towards the Palestinian citizens of the Zionist State, Benjamin Netanyahu replied: “First and foremost an important correction: Israel is not a state for all its citizens. According to the Nationality Law that we have adopted, Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people alone.”[5]

Because of his authoritarian positions within the Likud party, he has caused internal divisions that have resulted in the disintegration of part of his party’s leadership, such as Gideon Sa’ar, which led to the founding of a new right-wing party called “The New Hope”. Netanyahu has been threatened by the new party that is strongly rivaling him for the votes of the Zionist right and may prevent Netanyahu from winning enough seats to form the next government. The rest of the right-wing Zionist parties have also expressed their distaste for Netanyahu’s dominance of the Zionist right and are seeking to replace him. These negative developments have prompted Netanyahu to change his electoral strategy.

The Relentless Pursuit of Arab Electoral Potential

In order to adjust Netanyahu’s expected loss in the upcoming elections, the prime minister sought to acquire a portion of the votes of Palestinian citizens. In order to do so, Netanyahu has found it necessary to improve his electoral image among Palestinian citizens. So, he issued false promises in which he promised the Palestinian public to “eliminate crime inside Palestinian society as it was eliminated in the Jewish community.” He spoke of “increasing budgets” for Arab municipal and local councils.” Netanyahu suddenly retreated. Instead of inciting and lying to the Arab public, he adopted a strategy of containment and incubation.”[6]

Despite his previous racist record, we are recently witnessing a different trend by Benjamin Netanyahu. In an effort to attract enough Palestinian votes to win one or two more seats, Benjamin Netanyahu has visited a number of Palestinian cities and towns such as Nazareth, Umm al-Fahm and Tira, with the aim of capturing Palestinian electoral votes. He said he was ready to put an “Arab” candidate on the party’s list of candidates for the Knesset for later appointment to the post of minister.[7], and during his visit to Nazareth, Netanyahu “apologized” for his racist remarks towards Arabs. “Peace be upon you,” he said in Arabic.” I think that The Arabs of Israel should be an integral part of Israeli society.”[8]

The Grooming of the Islamic Movement by Netanyahu

In addition to adopting this different approach, Natanyahu pursued a two-way electoral strategy: attacking and inciting against the “Joint List”[9] and accusing it of “losing the confidence of the Arab masses”, and the second: attempting to create a political rift within the “Joint List” with a view of liquidating it. Netanyahu succeeded in luring the list of the “Southern Islamic Movement” (the Muslim Brotherhood Movement) led by Mansour Abbas, and pushed it to split from the “Joint List”. In preparation for this, Netanyahu’s Likud party showed a desire for rapprochement with the Muslim Brotherhood Movement led by Mansour Abbas. “Mansoor Abbas has revealed his aversion to the Israeli left and his support for the right, and has repeatedly defended the role of the Israeli police in the violence that is rampant in the Arab community in Israel.”[10]

According to the Israeli Minister Tsahi Hanegbi, the real ambition of the Likud party behind the rapprochement with the Muslim Brotherhood is in the disintegration of “the Joint List” and then the “theft” (in his own words) of Arab votes from Mansour Abbas.”[11]

The Muslim Brotherhood and its Opportunistic Positions

The split of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement from the “Joint List” has weakened the “Joint List” and made it vulnerable to active pursuit by Zionist parties, which believe that the dismantling of the “Joint List” is in their interest and that the “Joint List” is only a big store of potential Palestinian votes. Netanyahu’s Likud party is ready to put a Palestinian candidate, or perhaps two, in its election list. Other Zionist parties have begun their frenzied pursuit to capture Palestinian votes and have placed Palestinian candidates in their electoral lists such as the Israelis and Meretz parties.[12]

In a statement by Mansoor Abbas, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, he expressed his reservation from the left by saying that “in religious matters I am a right-winger. I have a lot more in common with Shas and Yehadut Hatorah than I have with Meretz and Kahul Lavan.”[13]

At this juncture, we do not want to ask Abbas to tell us what the Muslim Brotherhood has in common with the Shas and Yahdot Hatorah parties, two racist parties with adherence to a settler colonial ideology. But such statements and political positions cast the Muslim Brotherhood movement in the category of cheap political opportunism. The so-called “Islamic morals” put forward by the Muslim Brotherhood Movement constitute nothing but a cover that hides its political opportunism and gives it false credibility. Apparently, his desire to become a “minister” in the right-wing government headed by the super corrupt Benjamin Netanyahu is overwhelming. Within this government, which runs a colony and oppresses an entire people, Abbas will have the opportunity to get closer to those with whom he has “common denominators.”

Concluding Remark

Right-wing ideology in colonial settlements can be seen as an extreme nationalist ideology, but this is not a fascist ideology as some leftists mischaracterize it. However, it should be stressed here that much of the behavior of the settler colonialists is very similar to that of fascist regimes and fascists. The fascist regime does not believe in multi-party systems, parliaments, trade unions or elections, but rather they adhere to worship of the state, a one-party regime, and they espouse hostility to both democracy and the political left.

*

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] Marzouk, Al-Halabi, “Parental Sin: Between Mr. Shepherd and the Baggage Holder,”https://www.haokets.org/ar, 11-1-2021

[2] Millman, Yossi, “The Life of an Intelligence Man” – Interview with John Brennan, former President of the CIA, Haartz Supplement (in Hebrew), 4-12-2020, p. 24

[3] ASA-EL, AMOTZ, “Inflation of new parties exposes system’s ailments”, https://www.jpost.com, 2-1-2021

[4] Bakri, Qasim, “Demolition of Al-Araqeeb for 182 times”, https://www.arab48.com, 20-1-2021

[5] Spiro, Amy, “Netanyahu to Rotem Sela: Israel is not a country of all its citizens”, https://www.jpost.com, 10-3-2019

[6] Reuters, Monte Carlo International, “Netanyahu changes his attitude towards the Arabs in Israel: They must become an equal part of society”, https://www.mc-doualiya.com, 20-1-2021

[7] Ibid.

[8] Reuters – Monte Carlo/AFB, “Natanyahu changes his tone towards the Arabs in Israel: They should be an integral part of society”, https://www.mc-doualiya.com, 20-1-2021

[9] The “Joint List”, is a coalition of three Palestinian secular parties (ZS)

[10] Abu Kbash, Bilal, “Netanyahu aspires to win even in alliance with the Arabs”, https://24.ae, 9-1-2021

[11] Ibid.

[12] Sama-Occupied Jerusalem, “member of the Arab United List, Abas Mansour Defends Netanyahu”, (in Arabic) ،https://samanews.ps,2-12-2020

[13] Occupied Jerusalem- Sama, “Member of the Joint Arab List Abbas Mansour defends Netanyahu”, https://samanews.ps, 2-12-2020

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israel Elections: Competition Among Right-Wing Zionist Parties for Arab Votes
  • Tags: , ,

First published on December 17, 2021

Life cannot return to normal until there is a vaccine for COVID 19.

At least, that is what governments, corporations, and their mainstream propaganda media outlets have been incessantly arguing. Interestingly, the development of that vaccine was “warp speed,” allegedly at the behest of the Trump administration.

“Warp speed” also took place in other countries like the UK, where shots have been administered. This information has caused some to question whether the vaccine was ready long before the announcement was made or, indeed, before the pandemic ever began.

They tried to warn us about mandated vaccines

Years ago, “conspiracy theorists” were ridiculed for warning of a system in which vaccines would be required to access normal aspects of life. Today, however, government officials and MSM are now openly discussing the very same system.

In case you have been living under a rock for the past several weeks, here are several instances where the “public discussion” has centered around the idea of a “vaccine passport” or “immunity passport” or the general blockade and sanctioning of anyone not willing to take the jab.

Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario Dr. David Williams recently stated that individuals who refuse the COVID-19 vaccination might “face some limits.” Some of the “limits” he suggested included not being able to enter a hospital or nursing home without showing proof of having been vaccinated without personal protective equipment.

Welcome to the new normal: Vaccine Passports and Health Passes

For the moment, vaccine passports are mainly intended for international travel. However, their use can be extended to many other areas of life. Vaccine passports in the form of free mobile apps in which a traveler (or event goer, employee, or shopper) uploads their COVID-19 test results or vaccination status. 

There are currently two existing vaccine passports options, one being operational in the United States right now.

  • Common Pass: Created by Commons Project, this health pass has been in international use since October on United and Cathay Pacific flights between New York, London, Singapore, and Hong Kong. Common Pass operates via Apple’s Health app on iOS and CommonHealth for Android. It connects to 230 US health systems. It functions as a scannable QR code and can store a passenger’s test or vaccine data and travel plans. (It is not yet publicly available for download.)
  • IATA Travel Pass: Expected to launch in early 2021, IATA Travel Pass, is currently under development by the International Transport Association. According to the IATA website, the digital pass for travelers is: A global and standardized solution to validate and authenticate all country regulations regarding COVID-19 passenger travel requirements.

Vaccination tickets: the future of concert and event-goers

Ticketmaster announced that it is exploring the possibility of requiring proof of vaccination for ticket purchases and entrance to events. An article published on Billboard stated: 

Ticketmaster has been working on a framework for post-pandemic fan safety that uses smartphones to verify fans’ vaccination status or whether they’ve tested negative for the coronavirus within a 24 to 72-hour window.

Many details of the plan, still in development, will rely on three separate components: the Ticketmaster digital ticket app, third party health information companies like CLEAR Health Pass or IBM’s Digital Health Pass, and testing and vaccine providers like LabCorp and CVS Minute Clinic.

If the vaccination tickets are approved, how would it work?

The Billboard article gives further details about what people will have to do to attend concerts and other events. 

  • After purchasing tickets, concert fans will have to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination or test negative 24-72 hours before the event
  • Fans must have proof of vaccination or test results delivered to a health pass company, such as CLEAR or IBM
  • Health pass company verifies the attendee’s COVID-19 status to Ticketmaster (Ticketmaster will not be granted access to fan’s medical records)
  • Vaccinated fans or those with negative test results would be issued the credentials needed to access the event by Ticketmaster
  • Fans testing positive or who can not verify their status will not be granted access to any event. 

Different states will have different requirements

The primary role of health pass companies will be to collect data from testing and medical providers and deliver status updates to partner companies. This would be done in a secure, encrypted way that complies with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

For individuals financially privileged enough to afford to buy the ever-more expensive tickets from the Ticketmaster’s monopoly, the world will have taken a giant step forward into the “new normal.”

Airlines are quickly following suit

From CNN:  Australia’s national carrier Qantas will require future international travelers to provide proof of vaccination against Covid-19 before flying.

The airline’s CEO Alan Joyce said in an interview with CNN affiliate Nine News on Monday that the move would be a “necessity” when coronavirus vaccines are readily available.

Joyce said the airline was looking at changing its terms and conditions to “ask people to have a vaccination before they get on the aircraft.”

“Whether you need that domestically, we will have to see what happens with Covid-19 in the market. But certainly, for international visitors coming out and people leaving the country, we think that’s a necessity,” the Qantas chief said.

While Qantas is the first airline to indicate that Covid-19 vaccinations would be a must before travel, others may soon require this as well.

Whatever the “new normal” is for travel will quickly spill over into everyday life

Researchers suspect these new “passports” will quickly be extended to employment, education, and even buying food. 

Judging by the behaviors of those around us, all of those concerns are entirely legitimate. 

What will you do if you can’t attend a favorite event, or fly to see your family? Will you have a choice? If so, what choice will you make? Is this the hill you’re willing to die on or will you go with the flow? Let us know what you think in the comments.

*

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 Organic Prepper

The COVID-19 Pandemic as a Psychological Coup d’Etat

February 6th, 2021 by Richard Gale

We have almost reached a full year since the spread of SARS-Cov2 was proclaimed a pandemic.  If we are to believe the World Health Organization’s and individual governments’ official statistics, the number of confirmed cases is reaching 100 million with over 2 million deaths. Indeed, if these numbers can be relied upon, we can surely acknowledge there is a real pandemic.

It would be common sense, therefore, to expect, in fact demand, international health agencies and governments to make every effort to identify the virus’ origin.  Suspicions that the virus, now responsible for the spectrum of medical symptoms known as Covid-19, may have been bioengineered and escaped from a maximum security BSL-4 lab in Wuhan, China, were already voiced within a month after its identification was first reported.   Several highly respected medical experts, including Dr. David Relman at Stanford University, have suggested there is a strong likelihood that the virus escaped the Wuhan facility. To date, early queries about its origins remain unanswered and new questions are mounting.

Recently, Jamie Metzl, a WHO advisor who earlier served under Biden in the Senate and in Bill Clinton’s National Security Council and State Department, told the Toronto Sun that the hypothesis of the virus’ natural origin in a Wuhan wet market is “a lie.” It is no secret, Metzl noted, that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was heavily engaged in “gain of function” research to “amplify the virility of viruses.”

That there is very reasonable evidence that coronaviruses were being engineered in a laboratory goes back to 2003 and perhaps earlier.  That year, many Russian medical scientists, including Moscow’s head epidemiologist Dr. Nikolai Filatov, shared their opinions that the first SARS outbreak originated from a bioweapons lab.

In January 2020, less than a month since the first reported case in Wuhan, Dr. Igor Nikulin, a former member of the United Nation’s Commission on Biological and Chemical Weapons, stated in an interview that the US has been funding biolaboratories throughout the world, such as Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Taiwan, Philippines, etc, and “wherever there are these American biolaboratories, or near them, there are outbreaks of new diseases, often unknown.”  This was also confirmed by the founding president of EcoHealth Alliance, Dr. Peter Daszak, a fundamental player in the saga of “gain of function” research on coronavirus and other viral pathogens.  During an interview at a scientific conference in Singapore in early December 2019, Daszak, less than a month before the first Covid-19 case in Wuhan, stated,

“You can manipulate them in the lab pretty easily… Spike protein drives a lot of what happens with the coronavirus. Zoonotic risk. So you can get the sequence, you can build the protein — and we work with Ralph Baric at [the University of North Carolina] to do this — and insert the backbone of another virus and do some work in the lab.”

Baric, by the way, told New York Magazine, “Can you rule out a laboratory escape? The answer in this case is probably not.”  Baric has first hand knowledge of this probability. In 2016, one of the researchers in his University of North Carolina biosafety Level 3 lab was bitten by a mouse infected with a bioengineered SARS coronavirus strain.  Worse, according to records obtained by ProPublica, the scientist was permitted to resume her life without quarantine.   Baric’s lab also encountered other incidents that could have potentially released its engineered viruses upon the American public, however the university has refused to provide details.  Back in 2015, Baric had warned that a bat virus could jump species and infect humans.

In a study published in October 2003 for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Baric and his colleagues had “assembled a full-length cDNA of the SARS-CoV Urbani strain, and have rescued molecularly cloned SARS viruses (infectious clone SARS-CoV) that contained the expected marker mutations inserted into their component clones.”  This infectious coronavirus clone was subsequently patented but only after the CDC overruled the US Patent Office’s denial of issuance. That same year, Bill Gates appointed Anthony Fauci to serve on his foundation’s Global Grand Challenges Scientific Advisory Board.  Shortly thereafter efforts commenced to develop a SARS-CoV vaccine, which included Moderna and Johnson and Johnson. To date, Moderna has been granted over 130 federal US patents to develop a vaccine against SARSCoV-2, including a military DARPA grant for mRNA vaccine technology in 2013.

EcoHealth Alliance, according to Alexis Baden-Mayer, lead attorney and director for the Organic Consumers Association, has conducted remarkable investigative research into the “gain of function” studies and the primary individuals behind the overseeing and funding this research. She has discovered that the majority of EcoHealth’s funding derives from the US Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health and Anthony Fauci.  Baden-Mayer’s probing inquiries uncovered a cabal of controversial figures, including Daszak, Baric and his Chinese colleague Dr. Shi Zheng-li at the Wuhan lab, Bill Gate’s Foundation director Scott Dowell, former Human and Health Services’ director Dr. Robert Kadlec and Anthony Fauci.  Together this group – a part of what journalist Brian Berletic has called the Pandemic Industrial Complex – has been engaged in private contracts with military bioweapons projects and virus hunting in the wild for “gain of function” studies for a couple decades.

Curiously, there is another character deeply connected with Daszak and the “gain of function” studies sponsored by EcoHealth: David R Franz.  Franz serves as EcoHealth’s policy health advisor. According to Baden-Mayer, who has investigated Franz’s history and background, he was formally a commander at Ft. Detrick’s bioweapons laboratory that was working on “gain of function” studies on pathogens for developing bioweapons. He was also involved in the anthrax investigations shortly after 911, and was a colleague of Dr. Bruce Ivin who was accused for the release of encapsulated anthrax aerosol mailed to Congressional legislators shortly after his mysterious death.

Recently, Dr. David Martin – founder of the company M-CAM and a fellow at the University of Virginia’s School of Business Management – released his dossier on Anthony Fauci summarizing over two decades of investigations into the very disturbing research and patents filed for “synthetically altering the Coronaviridae (the coronavirus family) for the express purpose of general research, pathogenic enhancement, detection, manipulation and potential therapeutic interventions.” Before the first SARS outbreak in 2003, Baric filed a patent for producing “an infectious, replication defective, coronavirus.” In other words, the University the North Carolina, with federal grants, was amplifying a coronavirus to make it more infectious.

Despite the questionable nature of this patent’s and others’ filing status by the CDC, and because patent law forbids patenting any life form, the government and its laboratories sealed under contract, cornered the coronavirus market. In the event of a coronavirus outbreak, only those corporations or institutions that acquired licensure from the NIH would be permitted to work with these bioengineered viruses for developing therapeutic drugs and vaccines.

Controversy has arisen over the confusion about the actual number of Covid-19 deaths and whether or not many if not most deaths are due to other causes.  Deaths in the presence of SARS2 are not the same as deaths due to the virus.  We heard this narrative repeated before and stated directly by the CDC back in 2003.  During the first SARS outbreak, the CDC in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report dated April 4, 2003 stated that “anyone showing signs of fever or respiratory symptoms who travelled in or near areas affected by the virus would be labeled a SARS patient despite many of these individuals being diagnosed with other respiratory illnesses.”

David Martin has released his “The Fauci/Covid-19 Dossier,” a 205 page document citing specific charges against the CDC, Dr. Anthony Fauci and his National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease, and individuals engaged in coronavirus “gain of function” research for funding and allegedly conspiring to commit acts of terror, lying to Congress, conspiring to engage in criminal commercial activity, illegal clinical trials and market manipulation and allocation. These are serious charges and the data Martin has collated is near conclusive and deeply disturbing. The Dossier has been filed with the US Attorney General, and is essential reading for everyone to understand the details about how the current pandemic may be an orchestrated strategy unraveling over the course of twenty years.

During a recent video appearance, Dr. Martin condensed the background of alleged corruption, illegal patents and preparatory planning for the pandemic long before the outbreak. Speaking at the February 2016 Forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Catastrophic Events, Daszak stated,

“… until an infectious disease crisis is very real, present, and at an emergency threshold, it is often largely ignored. To sustain the funding base beyond the crisis, we need to increase public understanding of the need for MCMs [Medical Counter Measures] such as a pan-influenza or pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of process.”

It is important to observe how Daszak lays out a strategy for a coronavirus or influenza pandemic to be framed as a commercial opportunity for the benefit of corporations and their investors, and the role the media will play in maximizing such profit.  In retrospect, Daszak’s scenario has played out accurately according to plan. Worse, the pandemic is now being manipulated by the World Economic Forum, the IMF, Bill Gates and the transnational class of corporate and banking elites, as well as the Biden administration and the Chinese, British, Canadian and German governments, as an opportunity to completely restructure the global economy. This will necessitate a thorough overall of the entire economic system thereby strengthening the global institutionalization of commercial oversight that will eventually nullify the independence of the modern nation state.

Martin’s Dossier continues to outline a series of purported illegal actions to deal with the pandemic that Fauci has undertaken as head of NIAID. These include

1) acting against the American Medical Association’s April 2020 recommendation that “face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals from acquiring respiratory infections because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill.”

2) acting against existing published studies that show “to date, not a single study has confirmed that social distancing of any population prevented the transmission of, or the infection by SARS CoV-2.” And

3) in violation of FTC Act 15 U.S.C. 41, no product or service can be advertised to “prevent, treat or cure human disease unless you possess competent and reliable evidence… substantiating that the claims are true at the time they are made.”  This third point applies to NIAID’s promotion of face masks as well as Fauci’s aggressive push to make the drug Remdesivir, which Fauci is personally financially invested in, as a first line for treatment.

If these charges of illegal activity against sound scientific evidence, are true, they warrant a thorough investigation in an international criminal court to determine their motivations.  The mishandling of the pandemic has caused enormous suffering and deaths for billions of people. Lives and livelihoods have been completely upended and our leaders are telling us things will never return to the old normal. In the meantime, the dominant forces of capitalism, aside from profiting over this catastrophe, are now framing the pandemic as an opportunity that will further reconfigure all of our social structures, including commerce, education, transportation and monitoring healthcare. It is a coup d’état against civilization’s collective psyche to foment a regime change in behavior that will eventually turn humanity into the slaves of technology as a means for social conditioning. Our only weapon against the likes of Fauci, Gates, and the transnational class of elites is educating ourselves of the damning investigations being conducted by individuals such as Dr. David Martin, Alexis Baden-Mayer, Reiner Fuellmich, Robert Kennedy Jr and others who are making every effort to shed light on the darkness in Washington and governments around the world determined to launch a Brave New World.

*

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.

The numbers reflect the latest data available as of Jan. 29 from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System website. Of the 501 reported deaths, 453 were from the U.S. The average age of those who died was 77, the youngest was 23.

As of Jan. 29, 501 deaths — a subset of 11,249 total adverse events — had been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System(VAERS) following COVID-19 vaccinations. The numbers reflect reports filed between Dec. 14, 2020, and Jan. 29, 2021.

VAERS is the primary mechanism for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before confirmation can be made that an adverse event was linked to a vaccine.

VAERS Data 1/29/21

As of Jan. 29, about 35 million people in the U.S. had received one or both doses of a COVID vaccine. So far, only the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been granted Emergency Use Authorization in the U.S. by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). By the FDA’s own definition, the vaccines are still considered experimental until fully licensed.

According to the latest data, 453 of the 501 reported deaths were in the U.S. Fifty-three percent of those who died were male, 43% were female, the remaining death reports did not include the gender of the deceased. The average age of those who died was 77, the youngest reported death was of a 23-year-old. The Pfizer vaccine was taken by 59% of those who died, while the Moderna vaccine was taken by 41%.

The latest data also included 690 reports of anaphylactic reactions to either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. Of those, the Pfizer vaccine accounted for 76% of the reactions, and the Moderna vaccine for 24%.

As The Defender reported today, a 56-year-old woman in Virginia died Jan. 30, hours after receiving her first dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Doctors told Drene Keyes’ daughter that her mother died of flash pulmonary edema likely caused by anaphylaxis. The death is under investigation by Virginia’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and the CDC.

Last week, the CDC told USA TODAY that based on “early safety data from the first month” of COVID-19 vaccination the vaccines are “as safe as the studies suggested they’d be” and that “everyone who had experienced an allergic response has been treated successfully, and no other serious problems have turned up among the first 22 million people vaccinated.

Other vaccine injury reports updated this week on VAERS include 139 cases of facial asymmetry, or Bell’s palsy type symptoms, and 13 miscarriages.

States reporting the most deaths were: California (45), Florida (22), Ohio (25), New York (22) and KY (22).

The Moderna vaccine lot numbers associated with the highest number of deaths were: 025L20A (20 deaths), 037K20A (21 deaths) and 011J2A (16 deaths), 025J20A (16 deaths) . For Pfizer, the lot numbers associated with the most reports of deaths were: EK5730 (10 deaths), EJ1685 (23 deaths), EL0140 (19 deaths), EK 9231 (17 deaths) and EL1284 (13 deaths). For 135 of the reported deaths, the lot numbers were unknown.

The clinical trials suggested that almost all the benefits of COVID vaccination and the vast majority of injuries were associated with the second dose.

While the VAERS database numbers are sobering, according to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study, the actual number of adverse events is likely significantly higher. VAERS is a passive surveillance system that relies on the willingness of individuals to submit reports voluntarily.

According to the VAERS website, healthcare providers are required by law to report to VAERS:

  • Any adverse event listed in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination that occurs within the specified time period after vaccination
  • An adverse event listed by the vaccine manufacturer as a contraindication to further doses of the vaccine

The CDC says healthcare providers are strongly encouraged to report:

  • Any adverse event that occurs after the administration of a vaccine licensed in the United States, whether or not it is clear that a vaccine caused the adverse event
  • Vaccine administration errors

However, “within the specified time” means that reactions occurring outside that timeframe may not be reported, in addition to reactions suffered hours or days later by people who don’t report those reactions to their healthcare provider.

Vaccine manufacturers are required to report to VAERS “all adverse events that come to their attention.”

Historically, fewer than fewer than 1% of adverse events have ever been reported to VAERS, a system that Children’s Health Defense has previously referred to as an “abject failure,” including in a December 2020 letter to Dr. David Kessler, former FDA director and now co-chair of the COVID-19 Advisory Board and President Biden’s version of Operation Warp Speed.

A critic familiar with VAERS’ shortcomings bluntly condemned VAERS in The BMJ as “nothing more than window dressing, and a part of U.S. authorities’ systematic effort to reassure/deceive us about vaccine safety.”

CHD is calling for complete transparency. The children’s health organization is asking Kessler and the federal government to release all of the data from the clinical trials and suspend COVID-19 vaccine use in any group not adequately represented in the clinical trials, including the elderly, frail and anyone with comorbidities.

CHD is also asking for full transparency in post-marketing data that reports all health outcomes, including new diagnoses of autoimmune disorders, adverse events and deaths from COVID vaccines.

Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an adverse reaction, to any vaccine, to file a report following these three steps.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 501 Deaths + 10,748 Other Injuries Reported Following COVID Vaccine, Latest CDC Data Show

Big Pharma and Big Profits: The Multibillion Dollar Vaccine Market

February 6th, 2021 by Timothy Alexander Guzman

First published on January 27, 2016.

Of relevance to an understanding of the Covid Vaccine Initiative

The business of vaccines is soon to become a major source of profits for the world’s largest pharmaceutical corporations. A press release (Business Wire, January 21st 2016) published by marketwatch.com says that Technavio, one of the leading technology research and advisory companies in the world predicts that pharmaceutical corporations who produce vaccines will reach an estimated $61 billion in profits by 2020.

Today the vaccine market is worth close to $24 billion. The report titled ‘Global Human Vaccines Market 2016-2020’ gives an “in-depth analysis” of the possible revenues and “emerging market trends” globally. According to the Press Release:

The report study indicates that the introduction of new products is fueling the growth of the market. Moreover, the significant expansion of the current product offerings is also expected to boost the market growth. Due to the increasing prevalence rates of various infectious diseases such as diphtheria, influenza, hepatitis, pneumococcal diseases, and meningococcal diseases, there has been a notable increase in the use of vaccines across the globe

What is interesting about the report is that Pharmaceutical corporations are targeting Latin America and the Caribbean with its new vaccines soon to be on the market. Merck & Co, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) are expected to dominate Latin America and the Caribbean (Puerto Rico currently operates as a manufacturing hub for Merck, Pfizer and Abbott Laboratories):

In terms of geography, the Americas dominated the global human vaccines market in 2015, accounting for about 45% of the total revenue. The US was the largest revenue contributor to this region in the same year, capturing a significant portion of the global market. The Americas will continue to dominate the human vaccines market during the forecast period because of the increase in the prevalence of infectious diseases and cancers. In addition, increase in strategic alliances with expected entry of novel vaccines, is also expected to propel the growth of the market in this region

The report also says that there are two types of human vaccines, Therapeutic (cancer, metabolic disorders, chronic illnesses, and infectious diseases) and Preventable human vaccines markets (pediatric vaccinations) that are estimated to reach $55 billion worldwide. The Atlantic magazine published an article in 2015 titled ‘Vaccines Are Profitable, So What?’ Author Bourree Lam says:

While the main fixation of anti-vaccine groups is an old, discredited study linking vaccination to autism, another is a conspiracy theory circulated online that both doctors and pharmaceutical companies stand to profit financially from vaccination—which supposedly leads to perverse incentives in advocating for the public to vaccinate.

But that argument is historically unfounded. Not only do pediatricians and doctors often lose money on vaccine administration, it wasn’t too long ago that the vaccine industry was struggling with slim profit margins and shortages. The Economist wrote that “for decades vaccines were a neglected corner of the drugs business, with old technology, little investment and abysmal profit margins. Many firms sold their vaccine divisions to concentrate on more profitable drugs”

Maybe it was true at some point in time that manufacturing vaccines were unprofitable, but in today’s world, it’s all profits. What motivated pharmaceutical corporations to focus on the vaccine market in the last decade or so according to The Atlantic?

Since 2000, the Gavi Alliance has provided vaccination for 500 million children in poor countries, preventing an estimated 7 million deaths. GlaxoSmithKline reported that 80 percent of the vaccine doses they manufactured in 2013 went to developing countries. Additionally, vaccines that could turn a profit in high-income countries—constituting 82 percent of global vaccine sales in terms of value, according to the World Health Organization—hit the market

Lam also wrote that there were “two “blockbuster” vaccines also hit the market: pneumococcal conjugate for meningitis and other bacteria infections, and a vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV). The industry grew”.

Merck is the only pharmaceutical giant licensed to produce and sell the measles vaccine called Prodquad and theMMR II (also used for the measles, mumps and rubella) and Varivax, a vaccine for the chicken pox. According to Lam, all three vaccines combined amounted to more than $1.4 billion in sales profits for Merck in 2014. The controversialHPV vaccine, Gardasil also brought in $1.7 billion in profits for Merck. “While a spokesperson for Merck told The Atlantic that vaccines remained one of its key areas of focus—it generated $5.3 billion in sales in 2014—she did not comment on the profit margins” Lam wrote. Of course the Merck spokesperson would not comment on the profitability of vaccines because Merck would expose itself to more controversy. Analysts say that the profit margin is“between 10 to over 40 percent.” Lam also says that “while the vaccine industry is likely more profitable now than in the 1970s or 1980s, this is the result of global market forces”. Lam forgot to mention that billionaire couple Bill and Melina Gates pledged at least $10 billion for worldwide vaccination programs supposedly to combat polio and the measles, this is where Merck & Co profit. It is also well known that Bill Gates appointed the former president and CEO of Merck, Raymond Gilmartin to the board of directors of Microsoft which lasted for more than 11 years before he announced his retirement in 2012.

Are pharmaceutical corporations motivated by profits? “Profits from vaccine production aren’t a valid argument against vaccinations—the most important question is whether vaccines are safe and effective, and the answer is unambiguously yes” wrote Lam. In 2015, Former Merck Employee and whistleblower Brandy Vaughan Spoke out against the state of California’s vaccination mandate bill SB277 and said:

The U.S. gives more vaccines than any other country in the world. Our childhood schedule for under the age of one has twice as many vaccines as other developed countries. What else do we have? The highest infant mortality rate of any developed nation. Finland has the lowest. They only give 11 by age six. Mississippi has the highest rate of vaccination in the U.S.–highest infant mortality rate. These numbers do not lie. But you will not hear that on the media, and that is not what Senator Pan will tell you.

What we have with vaccines is the highest profit margin pharmaceutical drug on the market. Drug companies make more money off vaccines than they do any other pharmaceutical drug, in terms of profit margin. There is a lack of rigorous safety studies. And they don’t have the incentive to do them because they have no liability.

Vaccines are the only products in the U.S. that do not have liability. You cannot sue for injuries or death. But that is only in the U.S. Around the world, there are law suits because of serious injuries and deaths because from vaccines. In Spain over Gardasil. In Japan over Gardasil. The flu shot was taken off the market for under five in Australia after deaths and injury. Prevnar was banned in China. Pfizer’s vaccination program was kicked out of the country. France just pulled Rotavirus off their schedule after infant deaths and injuries

With a forecast of $61 billion in projected sales, rest assured new vaccines will be developed for almost anything. Actor and comedian Jim Carrey did say that “150 people die every year from being hit by falling coconuts. Not to worry, drug makers are developing a vaccine”. With 271 vaccines in production, Jim Carrey’s comments, which were criticized by the mainstream media, may not be so farfetched after all.

  • Posted in Archives, English
  • Comments Off on Big Pharma and Big Profits: The Multibillion Dollar Vaccine Market

Vaccination’s Dilemma: Unsafe at Any Dose

February 6th, 2021 by Richard Gale

This incisive article first published in May 2016 analyses the issue of mandatory vaccination.

The CDC and advocates for mandatory vaccination consistently repeat a dangerous mantra that finds no warranted basis in medical science.  This monolithic industry, now a massive network of private and government institutions, state senates, and supported by a compliant media, want us to believe that science has finally settled the debate over vaccine safety and efficacy.  All the data is in, so we are told, and no further research and discussion is necessary because vaccines have been officially ruled to pose no neurological and immunological risk to infants, children, pregnant mothers, adults and the elderly.  This official policy is founded upon flawed premises and a primitive understanding about the complexities of the human body and its multifaceted immunological system.

This argument’s fallacy is actually quite simple. Valid science is never settled.  The myth of “settled science,” which is especially endemic to the biological and medical sciences that rely on private financial interests, is sheer propaganda.  Valid science, on the other hand, constantly seeks new discoveries to acquire further knowledge and greater understanding. The pursuit to fully comprehend the complexity of our biological, immunological and physiological systems, therefore, is in perpetual infinite regress. Today’s justifications for medical intervention, whether by drugs or vaccines, eventually become tomorrow’s barbarities as science further penetrates the hidden functions and operations of the human organism.  Hence valid medical research should elicit new questions and not settle upon incomplete facts that are then proselytized as universal truths.

A medical science that refuses to ask new questions and settles upon disputed beliefs to sustain an industry’s financial portfolio is Scientism, a quasi-faith-based creed now institutionalized to promulgate repressive laws. These laws then advance Scientism’s authority. Unfortunately, today this accurately represents the sad state of vaccine research and vaccination policy. Modern vaccine science, and conventional medicine in general, has morphed into a new fascism, a rigid doctrine that has sacrificed the foundations of scientific integrity on the altar of institutional greed, privilege and profit.

During the past decade we have witnessed outbreaks of infectious disease among the fully vaccinated. We observe new viral strains appearing that escape current immunization. There are rising rates in autism and neurological disorders and increases in autoimmune conditions never before observed in large percentages of children. And there is a growing body of research pointing to vaccination’s adverse effects upon our immune systems. All of these trends, and many more, give sufficient reason to undertake a serious review of official claims over vaccine safety and efficacy. The evidence on the ground for the alarming rates in childhood illnesses parallel to the ever-increasing number of childhood vaccinations and the government’s ridiculous one-size-fits-all policy behind mass indiscriminate vaccination should convince us that vaccine safety is far from a settled matter.

The official CDC position on vaccines is that they are “unavoidably unsafe.”  As New York University’s professor of law Mary Holland has repeatedly stated, the CDC can’t have it both ways. Vaccines cannot be simultaneously safe and unsafe. Yet, by mincing terms, spinning propaganda and misinterpreting and manipulating scientific research to whitewash vaccine’s life-threatening risks, this is what the government pressures parents to believe.[1]

If we can accept the claim that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe,” then the question is how unsafe are they?  And now we possess an enormous body of yet to be challenged research, clinical trials, case examples of severe vaccine injury and court compensations paid out to families with vaccine-injured children to conclude that vaccine development has a very long way to go before a medically proven safe vaccine will ever be created. Unfortunately it is our opinion that this research is being ignored or at best marginalized by the most rabid CDC supporters and proponents of mass vaccination.

If the most compelling and thorough medical research indicates that there is no such thing as a safe vaccine, then what are we to make about those in the growing community opposing vaccination who demand safer vaccines while claiming to be pro-vaccine?

First we must acknowledge that all vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe” and this was a 2011 Supreme Court ruling in the Bruesewitz versus Wyeth case.[2] Therefore all vaccines on the market are categorically unsafe. Perhaps in some distant future a vaccine, which remains only in the imagination of science fiction, will be developed to effectively and safely immunize against an infectious disease. So far, such a vaccine does not exist. Therefore, conscientious efforts to adhere to the precautionary principle and vigilant and consistent evaluation and reevaluation of the risks and benefits of vaccination is both essential and a human right that governments should encourage, protect and uphold.

The majority of vaccine ingredients have been shown repeatedly to have toxic consequences contributing to serious neurological and autoimmune conditions.  These effects can be immediate, such as in the case of a child who undergoes seizures and is left with permanent neurological damage shortly after vaccination. Or effects through repeated vaccination can be accumulative and display symptoms many years later. In fact, there is very little scientific data, and nothing conclusive, about repeated vaccinations’ long term and accumulative immunosuppressive risks.  The vaccine industry continues to rely upon outdated research, industry funded studies, conflicts of interest with federal agencies and even scientifically irrelevant data to make its case that vaccine additives and ingredients pose no medical risks.  What the industry’s arsenal of research sorely lacks is biological and gold standard placebo controlled clinical trials to support this position.  In short, accepted vaccine research is little more than junk science. And junk science can make for the best propaganda to convince a population into the deception of vaccine safety.  Joseph Goebbels understood this all too well when he stated, “A lie told often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.”

For those who demand the removal of vaccines’ toxic ingredients yet remain pro-vaccine in principle, another and perhaps darker equation of vaccine risks is being ignored or seriously misunderstood.  It is not simply the aluminum compounds, ethylmercury or thimerosal, Polysorbate 80, formaldehyde and other vaccine additives that are associated with vaccines’ portfolios of risks and adverse reactions, including those listed in every vaccine manufacturing and product insert and found in the National Institutes of Health Pubmed database of peer-reviewed medical literature.  These compounds’ neurotoxic risks are well known and physicians, pediatricians, and scientists are increasingly being forced to acknowledge them and question  the vaccine paradigm.

For example, any and every vaccine that contains aluminum, in any amount, is categorically unsafe regardless of a person’s age.  This principle should be accepted as a biological and medical fact without question, yet pro-vaccinators deny it outright.  In 2015, autoimmune disease researcher Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld at Tel Aviv University published the definitive textbook on vaccines’ adverse effects that are now contributing to a wide variety of autoimmune diseases, including fibromyalgia, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, narcolepsy, connective tissue disease, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic fatigue syndrome, lupus, type 1 diabetes and a host of others. The majority of the 37 scientific papers in Shoenfeld’s Vaccines and Autoimmunity identify the adjuvant aluminum as a crucial culprit contributing to the epidemic rise in autoimmune disorders both in the US and abroad.[3]

In mid-2014, concerns over aluminum adjuvants in vaccines, and the HPV vaccine in particular, reached the French Parliament for review.  Unlike scientific committee reviews conducted in the US Congress, French politicians publicly weighed in carefully on the data behind the increase in HPV vaccine-injuries in order to rule on the benefits and risks of promoting the Gardasil and other vaccines containing aluminum.[4]  France has now established a precedent for the way other governments’ health officials and legislative bodies should address the growing questions toward vaccine safety.

Pro-vaccine political correctness is fundamentally based upon the faulty assumption that only known neurologically toxic ingredients, such as aluminum and mercury, need to be removed or replaced with safer compounds.  There is no sound argument against the removal of these ingredients that will make vaccines safer.  Federal agencies tell us that these toxic metals are in insufficient amounts to pose a toxicological risk and are readily expelled naturally by a child’s body.  Although no amount of aluminum and mercury in any quantity has been proven absolutely safe, when an infant receives 3, 4 or more vaccinations during a single doctor’s visit, the amount of toxins introduced into its body mounts well above the EPA’s and FDA’s level of safety.

Fifteen years ago, the CDC’s argument may have been sufficient to increase confidence in  today’s dominant vaccine paradigm. But science advances. Knowledge of the human genome, the emergence of the new science of epigenetics, and a deeper understanding of the body’s immunological activity is opening our horizons to a larger panorama of bio-molecular possibilities and the viral and bacterial activities that are forcing a growing number of scientists to conclude that we really don’t know as much about vaccination’s impact and risks upon the human organism as we previously thought.

If it can be ascertained that there are serious health risks from the viral and bacterial components that go into a vaccine and the genetic debris and contamination due to vaccine manufacturing’s primitive technology, then the removal of toxic chemicals is insufficient for safer vaccines. However one wishes to interpret it, vaccines introduce pathogens into the body. These pathogens interact with our body’s cells and DNA in known and unknown ways. Our medical understanding about host-pathogen interactions and viral epigenetics are adolescent.  For example, in 2010, researchers from the National Brain Research Center in India reported that our scientific understanding of viral “mechanisms of epigenetic control of gene expression continues to baffle scholars.”  Even what we know so far, the scientists conclude, “is still complete.”[5]  Evidence suggests that undesirable viral and genetic activity introduced through vaccines is contributing to the every-increasing infectious disease outbreaks among heavily vaccinated populations, such as the April 2016 mumps outbreak at Harvard University infecting over 40 students and the many pertussis outbreaks during the past several years.  That is, infected persons are mostly fully vaccinated.  Consequently, we are witnessing what European scientists warned in 2012, that viral epigenetic mechanisms are steadily evading our immune systems.[6] Therefore, vaccines are increasingly becoming ineffective as new viral strains emerge and the length of immunity provided by vaccines are lessening.

The Human Genome Project ended less than two decades ago.  Genomics’ new subdivision of epigenetics has only gained attention during the past ten to fifteen years. Already epigenetics is turning our earlier beliefs about DNA and genes upon its head.  Barbara Lo Fisher summarizes epigenetics as “stimuli-triggered changes in gene expression that are inheritable and occur independent of changes to the underlying DNA sequence.”[7]  In other areas of epigenetic and toxicological research, other than vaccine science, there is greater acceptance of environmental factors’ affects upon our body’s DNA. It is now accepted that chemicals commonly found in every day products, such as the endocrine disruptive phthalates and bisphenol-A, are altering gene expression and creating havoc with normal hormonal activity.  Food companies are increasingly becoming convinced that pesticides used in huge amounts on genetically modified crops are interfering with our bodies’ genes and are removing GMO ingredients from their products.  High fructose corn syrup, processed sugar, and junk food are also becoming more widely accepted as genetic risks contributing to the dramatic increases in obesity, allergies and weakened immune systems.

Science still has very limited knowledge about how bacterial and viral genes interact with our own DNA, gene regulation, and individual genetic dispositions after being injected into the body.  This remains a dark area of medical science that scientists are only recently beginning to dive deeper into. Therefore, current vaccine science, says Dr. Toni Bark, is “Frankenscience.”[8]  Doctors, physicians, CDC heads and health officials really have very little clear idea about what we are actually injecting into our children nor its long term consequences on our natural immune systems.

Back in 1971, University of Geneva scientists published a remarkable discovery in the journal World Medicine.  According to their study foreign biological materials that enter directly into the blood stream can potentially become part of us and even combine with our own DNA. This activity known as “jumping genes,” and first postulated in the 1930s by Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock, still largely remains a mystery.[9] These were some of the early precursory hypotheses and studies that would later become epigenetics.

Nevertheless, during the last dozen years biomedical and environmental research, which is unfailingly ignored and denied by the vaccine industry, is gradually mapping new terrains in our genetic understanding.  Renowned British epigenetic researcher Dr. Mae-Wan Ho from the Institute of Science in Society has observed that “vaccines themselves can be dangerous, especially live, attenuated viral vaccines or the new recombinant nucleic acid vaccines; they have the potential to generate virulent viruses by recombination and the recombinant nucleic acids could cause autoimmune disease.”[10]  One day it will be conclusively shown that viral and bacterial vaccine components, as well as vaccines’ toxic chemicals, are fundamentally altering the human genome, weakening natural immunity that gives rise to autoimmune diseases, and directly contributing to both short and long term onset of debilitating life-threatening illnesses affecting millions of people throughout the world.

As we have noted, environmental medicine is diligently pursuing epigenetic investigations to better understand how exogenous chemicals and toxins affect the body’s immune system and genetic disposition. Simultaneously epigenetics remains an anathema within the vaccine industry. This is because epigenetics is the vaccine industry’s greatest threat and may well be the harbinger of vaccination’s collapse in the future. For that reason we increasingly observe the pro-vaccine community aggressively associating vaccine-injury illnesses with parental gene inheritance.  Seeming vaccine injuries, the CDC informs us, are all due to inherited genes and are not stimulated by vaccine interference. More recently we are being told that genes associated with autism have always been present in the human genome.[11]  Yet, no one references the other body of research, such as a University of Montreal analysis, that has discovered the majority of these so-called autism genes are de novo.[12] De novo genes are genetic mutations that appear for the first time in a parent’s germ cell or during the development of the fertilized egg itself.  The most likely causal candidates accounting for de novo mutations are epigenetic. Consequently, a woman who is vaccinated during pregnancy will have her unborn child at a higher risk of de novo mutations due to the toxic stew of chemicals, additives and viruses she was injected with. In order to skirt the evidence supporting this scientifically plausible hypothesis, the CDC and its minions in the vaccine industry must continue to rely upon an older, determinist, and regressive view of genetics that denies epigenetic activity. Fortunately this outdated genetic paradigm is rapidly being deconstructed and proven unsound by other scientific disciplines.

Other examples are Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome or EDS (a connective tissue disorder) and Osteogenesis Imperfecta (a disorder characterized by brittle bones). Both conditions are known inherited genetic disorders and associated with a series of identifiable gene mutations. And both illnesses are increasing at an alarming rate among young children and adolescents.

In 2014, Dr. Lloyd Phillips conducted independent research to determine why so many young adolescent and teenage girls were rapidly coming down with more serious expressions of EDS.  His findings concluded that these otherwise healthy girls carried an EDS genetic marker which remained dormant until shortly after receiving the HPV vaccine or Gardasil. [13]

A similar discovery was made by Dr. Robert Kendall Endres in 2009 who noted in 1962 there were approximately 10,000 cases of brittle bone syndrome worldwide. By 1978 there were 836,000 cases and over 4 million in 2000. This increase parallels the rapid increase in the number of vaccinations recommended in the CDC’s vaccine schedule and the WHO’s global vaccination initiatives.  Although both disorders are associated with certain inherited gene mutations, the plausibility of vaccination  as the triggering culprit responsible for their expression and activation cannot be ruled out. [14]

Any one of the many vaccines on the market today can cause enormous genetic and epigenetic disruption in any human being. Epidemiologists are puzzled about why  some people according to plan for any given vaccine and why others don’t. For example, only 10% of people receiving the MMR vaccine generate high levels of measles antibodies following vaccination while another 10% don’t respond at all.  Dr. Gregory Polland at Mayo’s Vaccine Research Group realizes this is undoubtedly due to genetic mutations and an individuals’ genetic code.[15]  The one-size-fits-all vaccination policy now advocated by the CDC and its leading spokespersons such as Paul Offit therefore has no rational and sound basis in science.

Since 1996, the CDC’s vaccine divisions and the World Health Organization (WHO) have known they have a very serious health problem with genetic contamination in every vaccine that relies upon animal cell culturing. This is a very dark side of the vaccine industry’s manufacturing methodology.  The fact that genetic contamination, much which remains unknown and unidentified, is being injected into infants as young as 24 hours after birth receives absolutely no attention and is ignored by those who espouse political correctness on their pro-vaccine posturing.

In the past we have reported on the primitive methodology that vaccine makers still utilize to culture the viruses that go into vaccines.[16]  In 1999, the FDA convened a non-public regulatory meeting to review the health hazards of undesirable viral DNA fragments and protein contamination in all vaccines relying on animal cell culturing. Concerns were particularly focused upon vaccines using fertilized chicken eggs: the influenza, MMR and yellow fever vaccines. Among the most worrisome contaminants were prions (tiny proteins responsible for incurable diseases in both humans and animals), viral oncogenes capable of causing cancer, viral variants that might cause AIDS, and multiple known and unknown viruses present in the viruses’ culture medium.  The executive scientists present acknowledged that recombination activity between viral codes and cells in the tissue culture is common and therefore the same can certainly occur in a child’s body after vaccination.[17] Again, Barbara Lo Fisher warns that “because viruses are constantly mutating and recombining with each other and scientists do not understand how viruses and genes interact, it is clear that what is not known about the effects on human health of widespread use of live virus vaccines is far greater than what is known.”[18]

Current vaccine technology makes it impossible to filter out all genetic contamination and DNA debris from vaccine preparations.  Therefore the FDA has set weight limits on the amount of foreign genetic contamination permitted. Since vaccine manufacturers have been unable to meet these restrictions, the CDC has reduced the requirements to apply only to cancerous cell lines. Other DNA contamination allowances were increased one hundred fold. According to the FDA’s industry guidelines on vaccine production, the removal of foreign DNA and protein contamination from vaccines employing human and animal cell lines is a “non-binding recommendation.”[19] A recent example of a vaccine temporarily removed from the market by the FDA is Glaxo’s rotavirus vaccine Rotarix. In 2010, an independent California laboratory identified a foreign pig virus, porcine circovirus 1 or PCV1, present in Rotarix.  The CDC immediately reported that this contaminant posed no risks, although babies as young 2 months old were being vaccinated with this swine virus contaminant.  The laboratory also found avian leukosis virus in the MMR vaccine and monkey retrovirus fragments in Paul Offit’s RotaTeq vaccine.[20]

There are approximately 100 million allowable segments of DNA contamination permitted in any single vaccine dose.  Much of this unwanted genetic and foreign protein rubbish has never been fully identified and sequenced.  And vaccine makers are not required to identify what all of this genetic debris consists of. If a child follows the CDC’s recommended vaccination schedule from moments after birth until she or he reaches six years of age, 49 doses of 14 vaccines will have been administered.  Isnt it therefore time to pause and review the huge amount of DNA contamination, known and unknown viral genetic fragments children are receiving directly into their bloodstreams and ask whether or not this may be contributing to the enormous rise in childhood autoimmune conditions, including common adult diseases now frequently appearing in children

Dr. Howard Urnovitz is an immunologist trained at the University of Michigan and a leading advocate for informing scientists about vaccine-associated genetic mutations.  He is perhaps best known for his research into genetic alterations among veterans suffering from Gulf War Syndrome. Although GWS has been associated with a wide range of toxic exposures, including chemical weapons, organophosphates, depleted uranium, an experimental anthrax vaccine, pesticides and other causes, Urnovitz’s discovery was singular. He identified genetic sequences in a particular chromosome well known as a “hot spot” for polymorphisms among many veterans. What was unusual was that the sequences were non-human and similar to the enteroviral segments from the oral polio vaccine administered to the veterans.[21] Although this research cannot conclude that veteran’s GWS symptoms are directly related to the vaccine’s polio virus, it confirms the deep concern over viral genes introduced via vaccination jumping and recombining with our body’s DNA.

In light of the above discussions about gene jumping, recombination of pathogenic viral sequences merging with our bodies own DNA, undesirable mutations, and expression and activation of hereditary genetic predispositions leading to serious autoimmune complications and diseases, consider the following.  Merck’s Rotateq vaccine for the protection of infants from rotavirus is a genetically engineered vaccine that includes five combined human and cow strains of rotavirus, first developed by Paul Offit at the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania.  This viral concoction combines bovine rotavirus strains that causes diarrhea in cows with viral strains causing diarrhea in humans. This recombinant, engineered viral strain is then cultured on African Green Monkey kidney tissue.  The seed stock that is later used to manufacture future lots of the vaccine also includes fetal bovine (cow) serum and porcine trypsin (an enzyme derived from a pig’s pancreas).[22]  Are we the only ones who share grave trepidations that an infant will receive a series of 3 rotavirus injections by the age of six months? And we are to believe that it is normal and safe for an infant to be unnaturally exposed to an artificial and abnormal pathogen in this manner?

The genetically engineered rotavirus vaccines, similar to many of the newer vaccines positioned to come on the market in the very near future, contain an attenuated live virus. These vaccines are already raising serious questions about their influential impact upon the vitality of the immune system, our bodies’ gut microbiome and the even environmental ecologies.  In 2012, Norwegian scientists are the University of Tromso concluded that “genetically engineered or modified viruses (GMVs) are being increasingly used as live vaccine vectors and their applications may have environmental implications…. In all cases there may be circumstances that enable GMVs to jump species barriers directly, or following recombination with naturally occurring viruses.”[23]

Finally, the CDC aggressively follows a one-size-fits-all policy in its efforts to keep the entire American population vaccinated.  Today there are over two hundred new vaccines in the pipeline and eventually coming to market.  As new spikes in diseases occur consistently with each new vaccine approved and entered in the CDC’s recommended vaccination schedule, so also will other disease conditions increase as well as new disorders never observed before.  Americans today are less healthy than previous generations. More and more people have compromised immune systems and are rapidly becoming immunodeficient.  Surprisingly no federal agency or official institution tries to track the total number of Americans with serious compromised immune systems other than recipient of organ transplants, cancer or positive HIV diagnoses.  The American Autoimmune Related Diseases Associations estimates that 50 million people have any one of 100 and perhaps over 140 different life-threatening autoimmune diseases. The American Cancer Society reports 1.6 new cancer cases annually and rising. Federal health officials downplay the severity of this epidemic by only counting 24 autoimmune diseases.[24]

In addition, poverty is on the rise and conservative estimates record 22% of all children living below the poverty level.  Forty eight million Americans live in insecure food households and are clinically malnourished.  This too is contributing to the increase in weakened immune systems and diseases.   Other health disorders such as chronic lack of sleep, stress, and anxiety are now be associated with weakened immunity and candidates for immunosuppressive disorders.  All told, anywhere between 30-50 percent of Americans have weakened immune systems that make them far more susceptible to adverse complications due to vaccines. And live attenuated virus vaccines, which include measles, mumps, rubella, influenza, rotavirus, chickenpox, smallpox, and the live polio vaccine in foreign countries have been shown repeatedly to weaken natural immunity and make the recipient more predisposed to other viral infections.

It is essential that we accept that the science and technology to support vaccine safety remains in its infancy.  For those vaccine developers who are looking at vaccination’s epigenetic effects on the human genome, our bodies’ microbiome, and the immune system new and unexpected concerns over safety are coming to light.  Moreover, no one is a greater expert on a child’s reaction to a vaccine than a parent. But most parents don’t have the scientific background to advocate for vaccine-induced injuries. Nor do the physicians, pediatricians, nurses and pharmacists who oversee vaccination have the time and specialized medical training to fully understand each and every vaccine’s immunological and genetic complexities. Consequently, the official doctrine of vaccine safety is completely based upon blind belief and faith. Yet medical interventions imposed and mandated on the public should be based solely on scientific proof of safety, and the pro-vaccine industry and federal authorities have never convincingly made their case based on gold standard scientific principles.  Until the vaccine industry does so, no child’s or adult’s life should ever be put at unnecessary risk.

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries. Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on nutrition and natural health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including Autism: Made in the USA, War on Health: The FDA’s Cult of Tyranny and Silent Epidemic: The Untold Story of Vaccination.

 

Notes

[1]  Habakus L and Holland M, Vaccine Epidemic.  Skyhorse Press, New York 2012

[2]  Bruesewitz et al vs Wyeth LLC. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf

[3]   Shoenfeld Y, Agmon-Levin N. Vaccines and Autoimmunity. San Francisco: Wiley, 2015

[4] “France: Aluminum Adjuvants and HPV Vaccines Up for Debate.” http://sanevax.org/france-aluminum-adjuvants-hpv-vaccines-debate/

[5]  http://www.academia.edu/3661430/Epigenetic_modulation_of_host_new_insights_into_immune_evasion_by_viruses

[6]  Fisher, BL. “Emerging Risks of Live Virus and Virus Vectored Vaccines,”  National Vaccination Information Center, 2014

[7]  Fisher BL. Ibid.

[8]  Null, G.  Silent Epidemic: The Untold Story of Vaccines (documentary film), 2013

[9]  https://vactruth.com/2012/03/13/vaccines-human-animal-dna/

[10] Ho M-W.  “The vaccines are far more deadly than the swine flu,” Institute of Science in Society, July 27, 2009

[11] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160321123650.htm

[12] https://research.chusj.org/en/Communications/Nouvelles/2010/Autisme-et-schizophrenie-Des-chercheurs-evaluent-l

[13] http://www.gardasilsyndrome.com

[14] http://vaccineimpact.com/2015/are-vaccines-altering-our-genes-causing-brittle-bones-in-infants/

[15] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110922134546.htm

[16] Gale R and Null G. “Vaccines Dark Inferno: What is Not on Insert Labels.” September 28, 2009. http://blog.garynull.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/VaccinesDarkInferno2.pdf

[17] Gale R and Null G.  Ibid

[18] Fisher, BL. “Emerging Risks of Live Virus and Virus Vectored Vaccines,”  National Vaccination Information Center, 2014

[19] Gale R and Null G. Ibid

[20] http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/April-2010/Vaccine-Contamination-Pig-Virus-DNA-Found-in-Rota.aspx

[21] Buttram H.  “Vaccines and Genetic Mutation,” October 11, 2002 http://www.whale.to/a/yurko.html

[22] http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/April-2010/Vaccine-Contamination-Pig-Virus-DNA-Found-in-Rota.aspx

[23] http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/25756.pdf

[24] Schall T. “How many Americans are immunocompromised,” Bioethics Bulletin. February 11, 2015

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Vaccination’s Dilemma: Unsafe at Any Dose

Can We Trust the World Health Organization (WHO)?

February 6th, 2021 by Richard Gale

First published on May 6, 2020

Many more questions are being raised than there are answers being discovered concerning the recent strains of coronavirus. Where and how did it originate? Was it the result of human engineering and manipulation or is it a strain that mutated naturally?  What are the best tests to determine exposure and infection? Why are so many infected individuals asymptomatic? Are all elderly people equally susceptible to infection and how much do co-morbidities determine outcomes? These are just several of the important questions that still require definitive answers.

The ultimate international authority for infectious diseases is the World Health Organization (WHO). Because of its acceptance by the world’s national governments, it has been extremely successful in its mission. The WHO is the final word in determining whether the spread of a serious pathogen is ruled as a pandemic or not. For the majority of the medical community, the media and the average person, the WHO is the front line command post for medical prevention (i.e., vaccination) and treatment. Consequently it’s rulings are often regarded as the gold standard by which many nations design their health policies and intervening protocols to protect their citizens.  On matters of global health, the WHO holds dominance.

We are currently being told by the Director General of the WHO that the solutions for curtailing the COVID-19 pandemic are self-isolation, distancing, masks, and, for those in acute stages of infection, ventilation. To date there is no drug that has been found to be universally safe and effective. Therefore, all efforts, with massive funding, are being devoted to rapidly get a coronavirus vaccine on the market.  And in this effort, the WHO is a close ally and advocate in the US’s federal health system, notably the CDC and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Most people assume the WHO acts independently from private commercial and national government interests for the welfare of the world’s population. However, at best this is an assumption. Moreover, the very legitimacy of the WHO as a gold standard of health is questionable. The organization has been accused of conflicts of interests with private pharmaceutical companies and mega-philanthropic organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as being riddled with political alliances, ideologies, and profiteering motives.  An article in the National Review called the WHO “scandal plagued” with “wasteful spending, utter disregard for transparency, pervasive incompetence, and failure to adhere to even basic democratic standards.” We would also add that its level of incompetence has resulted in serious misinformation about the medical risks of vaccines and other health-threatening chemicals.  For example, during the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in China, the organization reported it could not find any evidence of human transmission. Now we know it is perhaps the most transmittable respiratory viral infection encountered in modern medical history.

Given the halls of power within the WHO, we are outlining some of the more salient reasons why the organization’s declarations about infectious diseases, pandemics and vaccination should not entirely be trusted.

Vaccine Promotional Misconduct

Very few will know that for a long time, the WHO’s recommendations for certain vaccines were kept secret.

Writing in a 2006 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. Marc Girard uncovered “scientific incompetence, misconduct or even criminal malfeasance” over the intentional inflation of vaccines’ benefits while undermining toxicity and adverse effects. Dr. Girard was called upon as a medical expert by the French courts in a criminal trial against the WHO after French health officials obliged the organization to launch its universal Hepatitis B vaccine campaign. The campaign resulted in the deaths of French children.  Consequently, Girard gained access to confidential WHO documents. He notes that the WHO’s “French figures about chronic liver diseases were simply extrapolated from the U.S. reports.” He further accused the WHO serving “merely as a screen for commercial promotion, in particular via the Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board (VHPB), which was created, sponsored,and infiltrated by the manufacturers.”

Orchestration of Pandemic Panics

Ab Osterhaus - Wikipedia

Before the current COVID-19 pandemic, there was the H1N1 swine flu scare in 2009 that came and went as a church mouse. However, at the very start the WHO’s fear mongering of a global contagion that could exceed the death counts of the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic was based on false assumptions.  The analysis was undertaken by the WHO’s senior consultant on viral outbreaks Dr. Albert Osterhaus (image on the right) who carries the nickname “Dr. Flu.” Osterhaus is head of the Department of Virology at Erasmus University in the Netherlands. At the time of the H1N1 pandemic, he was the president of the European Scientific Working Group on Influenza (ESWI), an organization funded by the major vaccine manufacturers including Baxter, MedImmune, Glaxo, Sanofi Pasteur and others. It is ESWI’s agenda to vaccinate the entire world against the swine flu. It was also Osterhaus who transformed an otherwise potentially bad flu season into a global pandemic. The WHO has been criticized harshly in the media for changing the definition of a “pandemic” and in doing so has been charged with benefitting the pharmaceutical industry. Moreover, the British Medical Journal reported that the WHO failed to report conflicts of interest in its H1N1 advisory group. The journal’s Editor-in-Chief Fiona Godlee wrote, “WHO must act now to restore its credibility, and Europe should legislate.”

According to a financial forecast published by JP Morgan, the collaboration between the WHO and Osterhaus’s ESWI to orchestrate the pandemic would have profited the pharmaceutical industry up to $10 billion. The popular German magazine Der Spiegel reported:

“The WHO and those in charge of public health, the virologists and the pharmaceutical laboratories….  created a whole system around the imminence of a pandemic. There is a lot of money at stake, as well as networks of influence, careers and whole institutions! And the minute one of the flu viruses mutates we’d see the whole machine roll into action.”

Epidemic of Conflict of Interests

According to former World Bank geopolitical analyst Peter Koenig, about half of the WHO’s budget is derived from private sources — primarily pharmaceutical companies but also other corporate sectors including the telecommunication and agro-chemical industries. It also receives large donations from large philanthropic organizations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It is believed, according to Koenig, that the appointment of the WHO’s current Director General, Dr. Tedro Adhanom, was due to Gates’ influence. Tedros is the former Chairman of Gates funded GAVI Vaccine Alliance. GAVI’s sole mission is to vaccinate every child in the world. The WHO and the US and British governments are the primary partners and the largest funder is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

There is in our opinion little doubt that the WHO is another one of Gates’ bought off entities for furthering his personal agenda to promote vaccines, genetically modified seeds and chemical agriculture in the developing world. Barbara Loe Fisher at the National Vaccine Information Center estimates that

“only about 10 percent of total funding provided by Gavi ($862M) was used to strengthen health systems in developing countries, such as improving sanitation and nutrition, while nearly 80 percent was used to purchase, deliver and promote vaccines.”

The WHO as America’s Poodle

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s fact sheet for the US government and WHO, the US is the largest contributor to the global organization. The CDC also provides its technical support and has liaisons at the WHO’s Geneva headquarters and regional offices. In summary, there is a strong rationale to suggest that the WHO, aside from its global health programs in other countries, is largely doing the bidding of the US government to advance corporate interests and American neoliberal hegemony.

Vaccine Adverse Effects Monitoring System Needs Overhaul

The WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety is the group responsible for administering vaccine programs in poorer, developing countries. It is also responsible for gathering data on incidents of vaccine injuries. Any deaths following vaccination campaigns are ignored and ruled as coincidental. This policy is based on the erroneous assumption that if no one died during a vaccine’s clinical trials, then the vaccine should be regarded as automatically safe and unrelated to any deaths that might occur. Consequently, the WHO’s monitoring system is seriously flawed and requires a major overhaul.

One of the more controversial incidences is the WHO’s collaboration with the Bill Gates funded GAVI Vaccine Alliance campaign to launch the pentavalent vaccine (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, HIP and Hepatitis B)  in Africa and later in South and Southeast Asia. In India, health officials recorded upwards to 8,190 additional infant deaths annually following pentavalent vaccination.  The WHO response was to reclassify its adverse event reporting system to disregard “infant” deaths altogether. Dr. Jacob Puliyel, a member of the Indian government’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization concluded,

“deaths and other serious adverse events following vaccination in the third world, that use WHO-AEFI classification are not recorded in any database for pharmacovigilance. It is as if the deaths of children in low (and middle) income countries are of no consequence.”

WHO’s Depopulation Efforts with Vaccines

Without doubt, the most nefarious activity conducted by the WHO is its alleged support and distribution of vaccines to poorer developing countries that may have been intentionally designed to decrease population rates.  Back in 1989, the WHO sponsored a symposium at its Geneva headquarters on “Antifertility Vaccines and Contraceptive Vaccines.” The symposium presented proposals for vaccines that were later discovered to have been laced with the sterilizing hormones HCG and estradiol; the former prevents pregnancy and triggers spontaneous abortions and miscarriages, and the latter can turn men infertile.

In 2015, the Kenyan Conference of Catholic Bishops reported its discovery of a polio vaccine laced with estradiol that was manufactured in India and distributed by the WHO. A year earlier, Dr. Wahome Ngare from the Kenyan Catholic Doctors Association uncovered a tetanus vaccine specifically being administered to women, also distributed by the WHO, that contained the HCG hormone. All of the polio vaccine samples tested contained HCG, estrogen-related compounds, follicle stimulating and luteinizing hormones, which will damage sperm formation in the testes. Even more disturbing, this vaccine was going to be administered to children under five years of age.

However, this is not the first time the WHO appears to have made efforts to use vaccination campaigns for depopulation.  A decade earlier, in 2004, the WHO, UNICIF and CDC launched a vaccination campaign to immunize 74 million African children during a polio outbreak. The initiative encountered a serious obstacle. In Nigeria, laboratory tests on the WHO’s vaccine samples resulted in the presence of estrogen and other female hormones. And in the mid-1990s, a tetanus vaccine being administered to Nicaraguan and Filipino girls and women in their child-bearing years was discovered to contain HCG, which accounted for a large number of spontaneous abortions that were reported by Catholic health workers.

Illegal Vaccine Experiments

In 2014, The Economic Times of India published a report that provided details of a joint venture between the WHO and the Gates Foundation to test an experimental HPV vaccine on approximately 16,000 tribal girls between the ages of 9 and 15 unwittingly. The experiment was conducted in 2008, and the vaccine is now what we commonly know as Gardasil. Many of the girls, the report states, became ill and some died.

The following year the WHO and Gates Foundation conducted a similar experiment on 14,000 girls with the HPV vaccine Cervarix. Again “scores of teenage girls were hospitalized.” Investigations led by Indian health officials uncovered gross violations in India’s laws regarding medical safety. In numerous cases there was no consent and the children had no idea what they were being vaccinated for. The Indian Supreme Court has taken up a case against the duo for criminal charges.

WHO’s Double Standards of Vaccine Safety

A more recent scandal erupted during the WHO’s Global Vaccine Safety Summit convened in December 2019. Days before the summit, one of the WHO’s medical directors for vaccination, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, appeared in a public advertisement touting the unquestionable safety of vaccines and ridiculing parents who speak out against vaccination. She assured viewers that the WHO was in control of matters and monitored any potential adverse risks carefully. However, during the Summit, the same Dr. Swaminathan acknowledged vaccine health risks and stated, “We really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems.” Another Summit participant, Dr. Heidi Larson stated,

“We have a very wobbly ‘health professional frontline’ that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. When the frontline professionals are starting to question or they don’t feel like they have enough confidence about the safety to stand up to the person asking the questions. I mean most medical school curriculums, even nursing curriculums, I mean in medical school you are lucky if you have half a day on vaccines.”

And more noteworthy were the statements by Dr. Martin Howell Friede, Coordinator of the WHO’s Initiative for Vaccine Research,

“… I give courses every year on how do you develop vaccines, how do you make vaccines. And the first lesson is while you’re making your vaccine if you can avoid using an adjuvant please do so. Lesson two is if you’re going to use an adjuvant use one that has a history of safety. And lesson three is if you’re not going to do that, think very carefully.”

In other words, what the WHO presents to the public contradicts what is discussed behind closed doors, another example of the veil of secrecy the organization operates within.

Suppression of the Dangers of Depleted Uranium

The use of depleted uranium pervades military missiles and bombs. Tons of depleted uranium were deployed during the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.  It is estimated that the US fired over 300,000 rounds of depleted uranium, or 1,000 tons, during the 2003 Iraq war. In both countries, the WHO has been very active in providing health needs to the populations affected.  However, in regions where bombing was most intense, such as in Fallujah Iraq, there has been a high prevalence of congenital birth defects. This was uncovered by an on-the-ground investigation conducted by the Brussels Tribunal. According to a BBC documentary, there is no longer any doubt about depleted uranium’s association with genetic damage and birth defects.  According to an article published in the British Medical Journal in 2013, the WHO intentionally suppressed the scientific evidence. The question remains why? Hans von Sponeck, a former Assistant Secretary General for the United Nations has suggested that “the US government sought to prevent WHO from surveying areas in southern Iraq where DU has been used and caused serious health and environmental dangers.”  Here we find a likely case of the WHO doing the bidding of the US government and its military adventures in regime change.

There are many other questionable activities that the WHO has been involved with over the years. However, the above provide sufficient evidence to argue the case that, at least within the upper echelons of the WHO, global health does not stand in high priority. The organization employs over 7,000 people around the world and most of these have deep concern for improving the lives of populations in poor and developing nations. On the other hand, the WHO’s leaders are there largely because the powers of Washington, London and the pharmaceutical industry benefit by the organization advancing its agendas.

Of course, the WHO is not the only health entity with a legacy of corruption. Corruption appears to be systemic throughout global health and national health agencies. This topic was featured last year in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet. Author Dr. Patricia Garcia writes,

“Corruption is embedded in health systems. Throughout my life—as a researcher, public health worker, and a Minister of Health—I have been able to see entrenched dishonesty and fraud. But despite being one of the most important barriers to implementing universal health coverage around the world, corruption is rarely openly discussed.”

Bear in mind, the WHO, along with Bill Gates and his Foundation, and Anthony Fauci at the National Institutes for Allergy and Infectious Disease, are leading the efforts to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Do you believe we can trust their judgment and the intense public relations effort that will immediately follow after such a vaccine reaches the market?

*

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

Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null co-direct Progressive Radio Network. They are frequent contributor to Global Research.

Lucida analisi politica fatta da Manlio Dinucci – Giornalista ed Esperto di Geopolitica, membro del Comitato No Nato No War – nell’intervista realizzata da Beatrice Silenzi – Giornalista. La situazione economica dell’Italia è sull’orlo di un baratro, quella di governo non è più sostenibile: la politica punta su Mario Draghi, Economista e personaggio internazionale di spicco. Una scelta che qualcuno plaude, mentre da altri è vista coma la logica conseguenza di un rinnovamento mondiale che prende il nome di Grande Reset. Il nostro debito è alle stelle, la svendita del Paese è vicina e così pure una dolorosa Patrimoniale. Cosa succederà d’ora in poi? Quali saranno i nuovi assetti geopolitici e quali i nuovi nemici da combattere nell’ambito della Nato, di cui facciamo parte? A queste domande risponde Dinucci, invitando ciascuno di noi a doverose riflessioni. (4 Febbraio 2021)

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Arriva Mario Draghi. E ora? MANLIO DINUCCI – Giornalista e Esperto di Geopolitica

Bill Gates and Neo-Feudalism: A Closer Look at Farmer Bill

By Robert F. Kennedy Jr, February 05 2021

Bill Gates has quietly made himself the largest owner of farmland in the United States. For a man obsessed with monopoly control, the opportunity to also dominate food production must seem irresistible.

Mandatory Face Masks

By Stephen Lendman, February 05 2021

Last month by executive order, Biden mandated face masks in federal buildings and on its land. His order falsely claimed that he’s “relying on the best available data and science-based public health measures (sic).”

Yemeni Journalist: “Saudi Arabia Failed in Yemen Despite US Support”

By Yousra Abdulmalik and Steven Sahiounie, February 05 2021

Yemen has suffered through a violent war on its population by forces backed by Saudi Arabia for nearly seven years, during which 233,000 people have been killed, and has left the majority of the civilians’ dependent on aid.

F-15 Eagles from the 493rd Fighter Squadron at Royal Air Force Lakenheath, England

Defense Contractors Like Raytheon Aren’t Blameless in Yemen Crisis

By Shayna Lewis, February 05 2021

The villagers of Arhab were in a celebratory mood before the bomb exploded, killing 31 and maiming many more. Among the death and debris, investigators would later find a bomb fragment with a serial code indicating it came from Tucson — home of Raytheon Technologies.

Macron’s Anti-Islamic Crusade Fails

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, February 05 2021

What would, at first, be a bill to officially combat the extremism of Islamic separatists has been converted into a mere document reaffirming French national ideology. Criticized by humanitarians, the bill that would be a “law against Islamic separatism” could only be discussed among parliamentarians under the name “Bill to reinforce republican principles”.

Atlantic Council Calls for Regime Change in China

By Alan MacLeod, February 05 2021

Influential D.C. think tank the Atlantic Council has printed a 26,000-word report laying out its strategy for combating China. Published anonymously, the report states that “the single most important challenge facing the United States” in the twenty-first century is China’s growth to rival their own power.

Bayer Makes New $2 Billion Plan to Head Off Future Roundup Cancer Claims

By Carey Gillam, February 05 2021

Monsanto owner Bayer AG said Wednesday it was attempting again to manage and resolve potential future Roundup cancer claims, laying out a $2 billion deal with a group of plaintiffs’ attorneys that Bayer hopes will win approval from a federal judge who rejected a prior plan last summer.

Hassan Diab’s Long Odyssey of Injustice Continues

By Hassan Diab Support Committee, February 05 2021

We are shocked and outraged by the French Court of Appeal decision on 27 January 2021 to refer Dr. Hassan Diab’s case to trial, three years after a lower court set him free because of overwhelming evidence of his innocence.

Indigenous People and Justice in Nicaragua’s North Caribbean Coast

By Dr. Loyda Martinez Rodriguez and Tortilla Con Sal, February 05 2021

“My name is Loyda del Carmen Martínez Rodríguez, and I am the Single Local Judge for the municipality of Waspam, Rio Coco. We have prosecuted six cases of usurpation of communal domain of indigenous peoples, where people who are not natives of that community have come to misappropriate land of indigenous peoples.”

The Erasing of Human Identity

By S. M. Smyth, February 05 2021

We are being subjected to a concerted campaign of deliberate nullification of any sense of who we are. Can we recognize ourselves when we look in the mirror when most of the face is covered with a mask and a pair of anxious eyes looks back at us? Is this us? Is this you or me? Is anybody home? How can you tell?

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Bill Gates and Neo-Feudalism: A Closer Look at Farmer Bill

Hassan Diab’s Long Odyssey of Injustice Continues

February 5th, 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).

***

We are shocked and outraged by the French Court of Appeal decision on 27 January 2021 to refer Dr. Hassan Diab’s case to trial, three years after a lower court set him free because of overwhelming evidence of his innocence. The decision of the Court of Appeal is the continuation of a long odyssey of injustice that Hassan and his family have endured for more than 12 years. Hassan’s French lawyers plan to appeal the decision to France’s Supreme Court.

In 2018, French investigating judges dismissed the case and released Hassan from prison due to lack of evidence. Since then, the case has only grown weaker in light of further exonerating evidence. Another handwriting analysis commissioned by the French Court of Appeal delivered a scathing critique and rebuke of the “Bisotti report” that was used to extradite Hassan from Canada in 2014. Witnesses and documents prove that Hassan was in Lebanon writing his university exams at the time of the 1980 bombing. Hassan’s fingerprints, palm prints and physical description do not match those of the suspect.

After more than 40 years and since no one was indicted, the French Court of Appeal is clinging onto Hassan Diab to keep the case going. The victims of the 1980 Rue Copernic bombing and their families deserve justice, but this cannot be achieved by subjecting an innocent man to a trial. French authorities would better serve the victims and their families by trying to find the true perpetrators of this awful crime.

We are preparing a letter-writing campaign urging the Canadian government to put an end to Hassan Diab’s long and Kafkaesque ordeal. You will soon receive information about this and other actions we are planning.

Hassan, his wife, and children have suffered enough. As the long odyssey of injustice continues, we must continue the fight!

Please Donate to Hassan’s Legal Defence in France

Please make 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 the following page and choose from one of the various ways to donate.

*

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 Ottawa Citizen

Atlantic Council Calls for Regime Change in China

February 5th, 2021 by Alan MacLeod

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).

***

Influential D.C. think tank the Atlantic Council has printed a 26,000-word report laying out its strategy for combating China. Published anonymously, the report states that “the single most important challenge facing the United States” in the twenty-first century is China’s growth to rival their own power.

To do so, the report states that the U.S. must use “the power of its military,” the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency, and American control over technology and communication to suffocate the nation of 1.4 billion people. It advises President Biden to draw a number of “red lines” past which the U.S. would directly intervene (presumably militarily). These include Chinese attempts to expand into the South China Sea, an attack on the disputed Senkaku Islands, or moves against Taiwan’s independence. A North Korean strike on any of its neighbors would also necessitate an American response against China, the report insists, because “China must fully own responsibility for the behavior of its North Korean ally.” Any backing down from this stance, the council states, would result in national “humiliation” for the United States.

Perhaps most notably, however, the report also envisages what a successful American China policy would look like by 2050: “the United States and its major allies continue to dominate the regional and global balance of power across all the major indices of power;” and that head of state Xi Jinping “has been replaced by a more moderate party leadership; and that the Chinese people themselves have come to question and challenge the Communist Party’s century-long proposition that China’s ancient civilization is forever destined to an authoritarian future.” In other words, that China has been broken and that some sort of regime change has occurred.

Repping the national security state

The Atlantic Council is a NATO-offshoot organization funded by the U.S. and other allied governments, including the Gulf dictatorships. Among its largest corporate sponsors include weapons manufacturers like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing. Its board of directors is full of high statespeople like Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice as well as senior military figures such as retired generals Wesley Clark, David Petraeus, H.R. McMaster, James “Mad Dog” Mattis, Lt. General Brent Scowcroft and Admiral James Stavridis. At least seven former CIA directors are also on the board. Thus, the council could be said to represent the consensus opinion of the national security state.

The organization has been responsible for much of the most hawkish, bellicose rhetoric surrounding Russia and China for some time. For instance, it has put out a number of studies that claim that virtually every European political party outside the establishment beltway — from Labour and UKIP in the U.K. to Syriza and Golden Dawn in Greece and PODEMOS and Vox in Spain — are secretly controlled by Russia, functioning as the “Kremlin’s Trojan Horses.”

“The Longer Telegram”

The council’s new anonymous report, named “the Longer Telegram,” is a direct reference to American diplomat George Kennan’s 1946 “Long Telegram.” Kennan’s report, sent from Moscow, argued that the U.S. should completely abandon its wartime alliance with the Soviet Union and immediately pursue a strategy of hostile “containment,” and is considered one of the founding documents of the Cold War. By consciously associating itself with Kennan, the Atlantic Council is implicitly heralding the arrival of a new global conflict with China.

Kennan is appreciated among historians for being one of the most straightforward talkers in the national security establishment. In 1948 he outlined what the U.S. position and interests were:

We have about 50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population…. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity…We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction…We should cease to talk about vague and… unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”

Biden takes the helm

Throughout 2020, President Biden’s team quietly stated that their entire industrial and foreign policy would revolve around “compet[ing] with China,” with their top priorities being “dealing with authoritarian governments, defending democracy and tackling corruption, as well as understanding how these challenges intersect with new technologies, such as 5G, artificial intelligence, quantum computing and synthetic biology.” The Trump administration had already begun a global campaign to damage Chinese giants like Huawei and TikTok. From his team’s statements, it appears likely that Biden will carry on its anti-Beijing stance.

However, many top officials in Washington see the prospect of a hot war with China as a distant one. “Most of the U.S.-China competition is not going to be fighting World War Three…It’s going to be kicking each other under the table,” one source told the Financial Times in May. Others argue for a worldwide culture war against Beijing, including the Pentagon commissioning “Taiwanese Tom Clancy” novels, intended to demonize China and demoralize its citizens, bombarding its people with stories of the deaths of their (only) children.

Whatever Washington decides to do, it appears that the groundwork has already been laid at home. Just three years ago, Americans had a neutral view of China (and nine years ago it was strongly favorable). Today, the same polls show that 73% of Americans dislike China, with only 22% holding a positive opinion of the country. Thus, it is far from clear that there will be much public pushback at all to a coming second Cold War.

*

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.

Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. After completing his PhD in 2017 he published two books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.orgThe GuardianSalonThe GrayzoneJacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams.

Featured image is from Global Village Space

The Erasing of Human Identity

February 5th, 2021 by S. M. Smyth

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

***

We are being subjected to a concerted campaign of deliberate nullification of any sense of who we are. Can we recognize ourselves when we look in the mirror when most of the face is covered with a mask and a pair of anxious eyes looks back at us? Is this us? Is this you or me? Is anybody home? How can you tell?

The deliberate stripping of individual identity is a technique practiced under certain specialized circumstances. Sometimes this happens in the process of initiation into a particular group, whether religious or secular. Nuns, army recruits, and prisoners of war are shorn, and new clothing provided to cement a new identity. A group identity supersedes former loyalties. The individual is renamed: given a new personal identity within the group. Rituals and ceremonies are performed as the person is inculcated into the ways of the tribe.

Because the new individual identity is within the auspices of the group, this identity is subordinate to the norms and dictates of the group, the tribal taboos, the customs of the new country. Thus, one can be censured for insubordination, and if necessary re-educated, the indoctrination refreshed, ground in deeper, as in degaussing a magnetic tape.

The boundaries of traditional identities are being blurred, even erased. It is becoming politically incorrect to use terms like man and woman, parent and child, brother and sister, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, cousin and any other label of this kind, including personal pronouns. One wonders who is the Miss Manners making these rules?

Within a religious order or army unit, obedience is seen as freedom and a source of pride. The relinquishment of the individual ego frees the acolyte from ordinary concerns to be part of a higher destiny, perhaps to be “bound for glory.” Or maybe glory will bind them. At any rate, the discipline of the order requires strict subordination to the good of the group. Sometimes the ultimate sacrifice.

Love and loyalty demand, if called for, the laying down of one’s life for the greater good. Perhaps like the Carmelite nuns of Poulenc’s opera braving the guillotine, or stout-hearted British soldiers on the eve of battle in Shakespeare’s Henry V. “Cry, God for Harry, England and Saint George!”

Now the people of the entire world are asked to lay down their lives for the good of all. I don’t remember signing up, do you?

Suddenly we awake to find ourselves treated like prisoners of war or raw recruits ready for boot camp basic training. Left, right, left, right, hup two three four. Yes sir, no sir, three bags full, sir!

Conquerors stripped the vanquished, moving them from their land, the source of their strength. They were left in a strange and unfamiliar landscape, disoriented, disorganized and confused. Often with only the clothes they were standing up in, and with no means of sustenance. Isolated, sometimes even forbidden to speak to others in their own language, their spirit was deliberately broken as, in less enlightened times, you would break a wild mustang.

They were captured, corralled, their movements watched and controlled. And they were punished if they strayed off the reservation. Needless to spell out the parallels.

Can the majority, bound by conventional respect for those placed in authority above us, make a break for it? Will they plan in secret, like the French Resistance, to put a spoke in the tank tracks?

Or will they march, out in the open, beckoning the forces of law and order, and will those forces tuck their helmets under their arms and march in solidarity with the people they have sworn to serve and protect?

And is there honey still for tea?

*

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.

S. M. Smyth was a founding member of the 2006 World Peace Forum in Vancouver and organized a debate about TILMA at the Maple Ridge City Council chambers between Ellen Gould and a representative of the Fraser Institute.

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

February 5th, 2021 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on This Week’s Most Popular Articles

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 March 2020, the CDC changed the way COVID-19 deaths are reported on death certificates, resulting in a dramatic — and possibly illegal — inflation of fatalities that drove restrictive public health policies threatening health freedom

Only 6% of COVID-19 deaths include only COVID-19 as the cause on the death certificate, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This means for the other 94%, additional causes are listed, with an average of 2.9 additional conditions or causes of death included.[i]

“This is the most important statistical revelation of this crisis,” according to a study by the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK), as it reveals that many “COVID-19 deaths” may have been due to other causes. In fact, the CDC published new guidelines on March 24, 2020, which alter the way deaths are recorded exclusively in cases of COVID-19.

The guidelines were published without peer-review or opportunity for public comment, and resulted in a dramatic and misleading inflation in “COVID-19” deaths, which would have been deemed due to other causes using the CDC’s longstanding system of data collection and reporting established in 2003. As IPAK’s report questioned:[ii]

“Why would the CDC decide against using a system of data collection & reporting they authored, and which has been in use nationwide for 17 years without incident, in favor of an untested & unproven system exclusively for COVID-19 without discussion and peer-review?”

CDC Changed Death Certificate Recording Rules for COVID-19 Only

IPAK’s report reveals a historical timeline of events showing how a number of incidents conspired to inflate COVID-19 fatality data and, in turn, justify restrictive public health policies like lockdowns, quarantines, business closures and social distancing. One key issue has to do with the way cause of death is recorded in the case of comorbidities.

In 2003, the CDC published the “Medical Examiners’ and Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting” and “Physicians’ Handbook on Medical Certification of Death.” Part I of a death certificate includes the immediate cause of death, listed in order from the official cause of death (a) down to underlying causes that contributed to death (in descending order of importance, as b, c, d).

Part II of the death certificate includes other significant conditions that are not related to the underlying causes in Part I. According to the report:[iii]

“Comorbid conditions have been listed on Part I of death certificates as causes of death per the CDC Handbook since 2003 to ensure accurate reporting can be developed. Comorbidities are seldom placed in Part II. Part II is typically the section where coroners and medical examiners can list recent infections as underlying, initiating factors.

Prior to the CDC’s March 24th decision, any co-morbidities would have been listed in Part I rather than Part II and initiating factors such as infections including the SARS-COV-2 virus, would have been listed on the last line in Part I or more commonly in Part II.”

After the March 2020 guideline change, however, comorbidities were to be listed in Part II, which meant COVID-19 could be listed exclusively in Part I:[iv]

“This has had a significant impact on data collection accuracy and integrity. It has resulted in the potential false inflation of COVID-19 fatality data and is a potential breach of federal laws governing information quality.”

New CDC Guidelines Inflate COVID-19 Deaths by at Least 16.7-Fold

The report examined COVID-19 fatalities through August 23, 2020 and compared them using the CDC’s guidelines that had been in place since 2003 and those put into place in March 2020 for COVID-19. You can see the results in their figure below, which shows, “Had the CDC used the 2003 guidelines, the total COVID-19 [fatalities would] be approximately 16.7 times lower than is currently being reported.”[v]

Image source: IPAK PHPI, COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Perspective October 12, 2020, Figure 9

‘This Leaves Me Speechless’

On Twitter, investigative health journalist Nicolas Pineault wrote, “If this is accurate, this leaves me speechless.”[vi] Indeed, not only did the CDC leave no records as to how it made the decision to change how deaths are reported, but some estimates suggest they may have resulted in an inflation of COVID-19 fatalities of over 90%, while violating U.S. law:[vii]

Previous reports detailed the substantial changes on how causes of death were forcibly modified by the CDC through the NVSS, and how together, both federal agencies inflated the actual number of COVID-19 fatalities by approximately 90.2% through July 12th, 2020.

We believe this deliberate decision by the CDC and NVSS [National Vital Statistics System] to deemphasize pre-existing comorbidities, in favor of emphasizing COVID-19 as a cause of death, is in violation of 44 U.S. Code 3504 (e)(1)(b), which states the activities of the Federal statistical system shall ensure ‘the integrity, objectivity, impartiality, utility, and confidentiality of information collected for statistical purposes.'”

The public health implications of an artificial inflation of COVID-19 deaths are immense, as rates of anxiety, depression[viii] and suicidal thoughts[ix] are on the rise — a direct result of restrictive COVID-19 health policies.

Only with accurate data can individuals and health officials make decisions to truly protect health, and as the report noted, “It is concerning that the CDC may have willfully failed to collect, analyze, and publish accurate data used by elected officials to develop public health policy for a nation in crisis.”[x] It’s also one more reason why now is more important than ever to take a stand for health freedom.

*

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

Notes

[i] U.S. CDC January 27, 2021 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#ExcessDeaths

[ii] IPAK PHPI, COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Perspective October 12, 2020 https://t.co/nRoW2TGdK7?amp=1

[iii] IPAK PHPI, COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Perspective October 12, 2020 https://t.co/nRoW2TGdK7?amp=1

[iv] IPAK PHPI, COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Perspective October 12, 2020 https://t.co/nRoW2TGdK7?amp=1

[v] IPAK PHPI, COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Perspective October 12, 2020 https://t.co/nRoW2TGdK7?amp=1

[vi] Twitter, Nick Pineault October 15, 2020 https://twitter.com/nickpineault1/status/1316744440917250049

[vii] IPAK PHPI, COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Perspective October 12, 2020 https://t.co/nRoW2TGdK7?amp=1

[viii] University of Wisconsin, The Impact of School Closures and Sport Cancellations on the Health of Wisconsin Adolescent Athletes https://cdn1.sportngin.com/attachments/document/33fe-2195426/McGuine_study.pdf#_ga=2.138358896.1736658140.1612045938-245521230.1612045938

[ix] BMJ 2020;371:m4095 https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4095

[x] IPAK PHPI, COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law: A Historical Perspective October 12, 2020 https://t.co/nRoW2TGdK7?amp=1

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on CDC Changed The Way COVID-19 Deaths are Reported: “Inflation” of Fatalities. 16.7 Times Too High
  • Tags: ,

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

***

Israel is becoming increasingly assertive in its strikes and raids, allegedly against Iranian positions, on Syrian soil.

This is more than likely owed to the fact that US activity is at a low-point following Joe Biden’s inauguration.

Israel feels threatened by the slim possibility that the Iran Nuclear Deal will be revived. As such it is left to fend for itself and it appears to be doing so quite ferociously.

In the late hours of February 3rd, the Israeli military launched a large-scale attack on southern Syria. The Syrian Arab Army General Command said that that air-to-ground and ground-to-ground missiles were launched in a heavy barrage.

According to local sources the barrage targeted Damascus International Airport, Mezzeh Military Airport, a Syrian Arab Army base near the district of Kiswah, and a series of military sites in Daraa and al-Quneitra.

The Syrian military says that some of the missiles were intercepted, others caused only material damage.

Israel’s primary targets in the region are Iranian positions, or those of pro-Iranian groups and proxies. This includes Hezbollah targets, to limit the efforts of its Lebanese neighbor.

It is plain to notice what has changed in the most recent attack – it was launched from Israeli soil. In usual practice, the Israeli air force encroaches on Lebanese airspace to carry out its raids.

On February 3rd, however, an Israeli drone was targeted by a Hezbollah anti-aircraft missile. This is a rare occurrence, even if it only targets a drone. It means that the airspace encroachment is becoming more dangerous.

This is a testament to Hezbollah’s increasing capability in limiting Israel’s freedom of action.

The increasing Israeli activity in both frequency and scale, are providing a window of opportunity to ISIS terrorists throughout Syria, and predominantly in Homs and Deir Ezzor.

In the early hours of February 3rd, a surprise attack by an ISIS cell resulted in the deaths of at least 12 pro-Syrian government fighters.

There has been an increased intensity of ISIS attacks in recent weeks. It is quite self-evident that this arose amid Israel’s continued attacks on Syrian Army positions and civilian infrastructure under the pretext that they host Iranian forces.

Even if the Syrian Arab Army is preoccupied with defense, its allies in the form of Russia and Iran are picking up the slack.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is set to establish a tribal force in Deir Ezzor. The main aim of this force will be to support the Iranian and pro-Iranian forces in the region and to serve in a style similar to the “ISIS Hunters”. Despite Israel’s “best efforts” Tehran’s influence in Syria is growing, and this is more evidence of that.

A region that has received less attention in recent weeks, due to the general chaos, is Idlib.

Russian warplanes continue pounding the al-Qaeda-linked “moderate opposition” in the area, attempting to put a stop to its adventurism beyond the demilitarized zone. The ceasefire must hold and Moscow attempts to limit militants’ attempts to compromise it.

Meanwhile, the terrorists in Idlib are being whitewashed, and presented anew as “freedom fighters”. PBS Frontline presented the head of Jabhat al-Nusra (currently Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham) as a reformed hero, working towards peace. For years he had a $10 million bounty on his head for leading the world’s No 1 terrorist organization. That appears to be no more, he is now a hero fighting against suppression.

The chaos in the Middle East is growing, amid increasing Israeli activity and renewed attempts to whitewash known terrorists by MSM. Despite Damascus’, Moscow’s and Tehran’s best efforts, the situation has the potential to get much worse, before it gets any 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.

SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT:

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


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

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).

***

Yemen has suffered through a violent war on its population by forces backed by Saudi Arabia for nearly seven years, during which 233,000 people have been killed, and has left the majority of the civilians’ dependent on aid, according to the UN. The Saudi-led Arab coalition, supported by the US government, is responsible for Yemen’s economic and humanitarian crises.

To understand what might be next for Yemen, Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse reached out to Yousra Abdulmalik who is a Yemeni journalist. She covers the war in Yemen for local Yemeni media.

*

Steven Sahiounie (SS):  The administration of former President Trump supported the Saudi war on Yemen, and participated in it.  What changes would you like to see in the new Biden administration’s Yemen foreign policy?

Yousra Abdulmalik (YA):  Nothing.  The history of the United States of America, which has not exceeded the 235 years since the end of the Independence War is full of huge numbers of wars that no country in the world has ever had before. According to documents and statistics, 93% of the life of the United States is the wars it waged against the world.

We find a clear absence in the strategy of the Americans in ending their wars. Often the wars fueled themselves and drained the Americans until they were forced to return to their countries, as happened in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and others.

For example, the Palestine issue, that nothing happened to it. The American faces inside the White House are changing, but that America’s hostile policy, especially towards the Arabs has not changed and will not change, no matter who the president is.

SS:  President Biden recently stopped selling weapons to the UAE and Saudi Arabia, because of the war on Yemen. Biden said the US participation in the war on Yemen was a mistake. How do you perceive this act by Biden, and do you think it might lead to the end of the war on Yemen?

YA:  The Biden administration has imposed a temporary freeze on U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia and is scrutinizing purchases by the United Arab Emirates as it reviews billions of dollars in weapons transactions approved by former President Trump, according to U.S. officials.

The war is only possible because Western countries — and the United States and Britain in particular – continue to arm Saudi Arabia and provide military, political and logistical support for the war. The Western powers are active participants and have the power to stop the world’s most acute humanitarian crisis.

With the beginning of the twenty-first century, the United States of America continued its bloody wars against the world and focused during this period on launching direct or proxy wars against the Middle East countries, under the pretext of fighting terrorism, especially after the September 11 events.

It has become clear to everyone, after 222 years of American aggression against the world, that this country is ready to violate the sovereignty of states and human rights in all countries that do not follow its orders. Here we are completing the decade and a half since the United States and its allies launched the so-called “War on Terrorism, “Washington has not yet been able to eliminate terrorist groups. On the contrary, its spread has increased and has not been able to achieve any change in Afghanistan. Until now, America has spent two trillion dollars since the 2001 attacks. The US economy is still bleeding because of this war.

On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump won the presidency, after his election campaign in which he promised to put an end to Saudi Arabia, which he said that its war on Yemen comes in light of its ambitions to control Yemen and plunder its wealth. Contrary to what he promised, Trump has given the US-Saudi aggression coalition the green light.

SS:  President Biden recently lifted some sanctions off the Anti-Saudi resistance movement in Yemen, which allows humanitarian aid to flow into Yemen. Will this action have a role in breaking the siege that the Saudi regime enacted upon the Yemeni people?

YA:  Biden just talked about reviewing the relations with Riyadh.  Adding Ansarollah to the terror list will provide a legal justification and cover for the Saudi crimes against Yemen. Once the name is added, it would not be an easy job to remove it.

“As noted by Secretary-designate [Anthony] Blinken, the State Department has initiated a review of Ansarullah’s terrorist designations,” the spokesperson said on Friday.

The US decision to designate the Ansarollah movement, which has been effectively the government of Yemen for the last five years, is aimed at justifying any form of aggression against Yemen. This is the way the US views the world.

America is also playing the terrorism card and trying to demonize everyone who does not accept the American tutelage and consider it a terrorist entity that must be fought and besieged economically and politically, as is the case with the resistance movements that America announced that it was placed on the terrorist regulations.

From another angle, the six-year inhumane siege represents Saudi Arabia’s last hope to bring Ansarollah to its knees.

The U.N. says 13.5 million Yemenis already face acute food insecurity, a figure that could rise to 16 million by June.

The United Nations and aid groups have warned “This designation comes at a time when famine is a very real threat to a country devastated by six years of conflict, and it must be revoked immediately. Any disruption to lifesaving aid operations and commercial imports of food, fuel, medicine, and other essential goods will put millions of lives at risk,” the aid groups said in a statement on Sunday.

Despite all these goals set by the Americans, the blacklisting remains largely symbolic and would not impact the movement’s position and power both on the political and war stages. In the past, Washington blacklisted other resistant movements like Lebanese Hezbollah and some units of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) to undermine them, but what is observable is the bold presence of Hezbollah and the PMF in home and regional developments.

SS:  Do you perceive the recent acts by the Biden administration towards Yemen as being connected to a future Iranian nuclear deal?

YA:  America has also turned now to new means, which is to impose economic sanctions on countries and entities that are not subject to the American will, as is happening with Iran, Syria, and other countries, even Russia and China.

The policy of the new US administration on Iran is very much the same as that of the Trump administration and that the only difference is in the rhetoric used.

The standard for changing the American behavior starts from lifting the embargo to stopping the many interventions they have carried out in Iran in the past and wish to continue.

SS:  How do you see the future of Yemen? Could Yemen be possibly split into North and South states?

YA:  The US terrorist designation appears to be a desperate attempt by the former US administration to step up pressure on Ansarollah, the popular Houthi movement, backed by the Yemeni armed forces and allied popular groups, after the Saudi regime failed to fulfill its objectives in Yemen after years of war, despite all the support it received from the US and other Western states.

The movement now has an upper hand both on the battleground and also the political ground over the aggression and its home and foreign backers, hence powerfully and smartly marring all plots designed by foreign sides. The Yemeni revolutionary forces step up their missile, drone, and sea strikes at Saudi economic arteries.

Unlike areas under the control of Ansarollah, areas under the control of UAE, which is a main part of the coalition, witness an insecurity situation that increased the assassinations of Imams of mosques and security and military leaders, lootings, spread of al-Qaeda and Daesh militias, and clashes between the coalition’s paid fighters for influence as well as rape and murder crimes against women and children.

Buzzfeed website issued a report revealing that UAE hired American ex-soldiers to kill its political enemies in southern Yemen, while the Associated Press reported about secret prisons there to torture and sexually abuse Yemeni detainees on suspicion of belonging to Daesh and al-Qaeda. CNN also said in a report that Saudi and UAE “have used the US-manufactured weapons as a form of currency to buy the loyalties of militias or tribes, bolster chosen armed actors, and influence the complex political landscape,”. Above all, Southern Yemenis themselves, who accepted the coalition in the past, are holding protests, demanding the UAE and the coalition to leave their country.

*

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 Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Indigenous People and Justice in Nicaragua’s North Caribbean Coast

February 5th, 2021 by Dr. Loyda Martinez Rodriguez

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).

***

Tortilla con Sal: Perhaps compañera, you could identify yourself and explain to us about the property remediation process and about cases you have adjudicated.

Dr. Loyda Martínez Rodríguez: Ok. My name is Loyda del Carmen Martínez Rodríguez, and I am the Single Local Judge for the municipality of Waspam, Rio Coco. We have prosecuted six cases of usurpation of communal domain of indigenous peoples, where people who are not natives of that community have come to misappropriate land of indigenous peoples. So, how has this procedure been carried out? In the territories, the owners of the land, who are the presidents of the territorial governments, file a complaint with the National Police. The National Police receives these and does all the investigative work. Then they refer the cases to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the Public Prosecutor’s Office files the accusation before the Single Local Court. We have sentenced these people with the maximum penalty of 3 years, and have thus sent them to the penitentiary in Managua or Matagalpa.

Also, I have participated in dialogue between mestizos and Miskitos in which there are territories that want to resolve the remediation process by means of a leasing agreement with the territory. They make the proposal, then the territory, its president will decide if they are going to lease or not. So, we have carried out these procedures as a judicial authority… by way of accompaniment, then. So you see, we heve participated listening to both parties, the mayor of the municipality has invited me to participate and listen to proposals made by the non-indigenous party.

The State has vindicated the indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples’ right to the land, and the State is also a guarantor in the efforts to secure social peace in our country and in our region. It is a process in which the State has guaranteed and has given those peoples this right, but the political opposition always does not see this. They also say that the cases we have prosecuted are of little importance. But no. The indigenous peoples are being protected and the rights the indigenous peoples are being vindicated. And the State has contributed a great deal to this because no other government had ever recognized the indigenous peoples, giving them a title to what before was only private property, where only the oligarchy and the bourgeoisie had the right to own land.

But now the State has guaranteed, has extended that legal protection by which the people of the Caribbean Coast have received the title to their land. And not only the title. You can go to the community and see how they have advanced significantly. They have their land, their crops and much more. It is the State has guaranteed that these peoples have their land in legal terms, namely the title to their property.

Likewise, we have made progress in this aspect of property remediation, and we are not trying to drag it out, although the opposition always sees it like that. But there has been a lot of progress, because there is a dialogue between mestizos and Miskitos in which the State guarantees as established in Law 445 that those communities, that now have their legal title, can lease their land and that is allowed by law. But this is something that as regards the State and the territories, each territory president is able say whether they want to lease or not.

TcS: What’s the relationship between the justice administered by the State, which you represent, and the justice of the indigenous peoples, which is represented at the community level by their wihsta?

Loyda: You see, the State allows positive law and customary law, for the State there are the local judges, the district judges and iIn the case of customary law there are the wihstas, the original community authorities. Today in the Political Constitution and the reforms to it, the wihstasare recognized as the original community authorities of the indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples, with which the State interacts, as in Article 20 of Nicaragua’s Penal Code, and as is also recognized in the Political Constitution. So, what do we do in that regard? We work together. We constantly train our wihstas in new legislation, and how those laws should be administered in their community.

And the law also establishes that they can mediate, and that mediation can be done via the Single Local Court which registers how citizens choose the form of justice they prefer. They can choose the positive justice that we represent or they can choose customary justice. So the citizen chooses one or other of those two forms of justice. Then, as long as it’s in accordance with the law… they administer justice. So then, what do we do? In those cases that can be resolved amicably without the need to go to court, we write the resulting mediation in the mediation register that we have kept for many years. So that means there is access to justice, and for reasons of cost, or distance, people are able to choose their form of justice in their community, which we recognize and we respect the work of our traditional authorities, namely, the wihstas.

*

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 Tortilla con Sal

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Indigenous People and Justice in Nicaragua’s North Caribbean Coast

Spain’s Galician Health Law Includes Mandatory Vaccination

February 5th, 2021 by Merran Laginestra

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 reform of the Galician health law that the Popular Party has registered in the Galician Parliament includes the possibility for the government to force the population to be vaccinated.

If they refuse to do so, the administration could impose penalties of between 1,000 and 60,000 euros, depending on the seriousness of the consequences that the refusal could have for public health.

The regulation, as promised by Alberto Núñez Feijóo, will be in force in February. A month earlier, the Ministry of Health hopes to have the first vaccines against the coronavirus, although, as Salvador Illa, Spanish Heath Minister recently stated, experts advise that it should not be compulsory.

Under a complete media blackout, a proposal to modify the Public Health Law, 8/2008 of 10 July, is to be approved in Galicia, which will subsequently be imposed on the rest of the autonomous communities.

  • Submission to compulsory vaccination.
  • Submission to anal PCR
  • Submission to hospitalisation by force
  • Detention of civilians in isolation centres that are already being built for this purpose
  • Closure of businesses and seizure of assets
  • Suspension of civilian recreational and cultural activities
  • Tracking and computer monitoring of citizens
  • Detention of individuals or groups suspected of “dangerous” activities
  • Control and management of social centres
  • Control and management of social centres by a government employee
*

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.

Merran Laginestra is an independent researcher and activist.

Note

http://www.parlamentodegalicia.es/…/Bibli…/B110051_3.pdf

Featured image is from Inga – stock.adobe.com

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

***

The villagers of Arhab were in a celebratory mood before the bomb exploded. The small Yemeni town had just struck water on a new well when a precision-guided munition crashed into the site, killing 31 and maiming many more. 

Among the death and debris, investigators would later find a bomb fragment with a serial code indicating it came from Tucson — home of Raytheon Technologies.

The U.S. government is providing the weapons that are destroying a country, and Arizonans are unwittingly involved. We all deserve better.

It’s time to confront the powerful interests of the arms industry, stop arms sales to those who are indiscriminately bombing civilians, and end U.S. complicity in the war in Yemen for good.

Arms sales helped create a disaster

Since 2015, the United States has been militarily backing the authoritarian governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as they intervene in Yemen’s civil war, including by arming them with more than $85 billion worth of bombs, drones and fighter jets.

These sales have proven to be nothing short of a disaster. U.S.-sold weapons are regularly used to commit apparent war crimes, have repeatedly fallen into the hands of violent non-state actors, and have served only to prolong the conflict.

Yemen’s war rages on today, and the country is now the world’s largest humanitarian disaster – and U.S.-made bombs are partly to blame.

But despite the total failure of this strategy to bring peace or security, the sales continue. There’s a simple explanation for that: the weapons industry wants them to.

Raytheon, others aren’t passive actors

While companies like Raytheon, whose missile program is headquartered in Tucson, pretend that they’re merely passive actors meeting their products’ demand, they actually have a large hand in the decision-making process.

Every year, Raytheon and the rest of the weapons industry spend millions of dollars influencing elections and lobbying for more arms sales – fueling horrific wars like Yemen’s for the sake of profits. The blood money from these sales isn’t going to everyday employees either: while Raytheon assembly workers receive about $37,000 per year, its CEO brings home more than 450 times that.

And it looks like the lobbying is paying off. Late last year, the U.S. Senate narrowly rejected legislation to block part of President Trump’s last-minute $23 billion weapons sale to the UAE when Arizona Sens. Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema defected from the Democratic party to vote “no.”

Understandably, Kelly and Sinema, along with other Arizonans, might worry that jobs depend on these sales. But the fact is, the arms industry is a poor job creator. Every government dollar spent on weapons manufacturing creates less jobs than the same spent on teachers, nurses, frontline pandemic responders, or green energy workers. Places like Huntsville, Ala. — former weapons hot spots that are successfully transitioning to green technology — can show us the way.

We’d be better off without these weapons

Arizonans don’t want their hard work to go toward massacring civilians halfway around the world, and they don’t want their senators voting to sell arms to dictators.

I should know. As a born-and-raised Arizonan and proud UofA alum, I care deeply about what’s best for my home state. And as the digital campaign director of one of the country’s leading anti-militarism advocacy organizations, I have seen Raytheon lobbyists in action as they trample the voices of everyday people from across the country, including our thousands of grassroots activists in Arizona.

With President Biden’s recent decision to pause arms sales to the UAE and Saudi Arabia pending review, we’re closer than ever to ending this terrible practice for good. Now is the time to put the pressure on.

From Arhab to Tucson, the Arabian Desert to the Sonoran, everyday people would be better off without Raytheon’s weapons. It’s time for Arizona to say no to these disastrous arms sales and the corporate powers that back them.

*

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.

Shayna Lewis grew up in Pinetop-Lakeside, AZ, and is digital campaigns director at Win Without War, a Washington D.C.-based group advocating progressive national security solutions. Reach her at [email protected].

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

***

Monsanto owner Bayer AG said Wednesday it was attempting again to manage and resolve potential future Roundup cancer claims, laying out a $2 billion deal with a group of plaintiffs’ attorneys that Bayer hopes will win approval from a federal judge who rejected a prior plan last summer.

Notably, the deal calls for Bayer to seek permission from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to add information on the labels of its glyphosate-based products such as Roundup that would provide  links to access to scientific studies and other information about glyphosate safety.

Additionally, according to Bayer, the plan calls for establishment of a fund that would compensate “qualified claimants” over a four-year program; setting up an advisory science panel whose findings could be used as evidence in potential future litigation; and development of research and diagnostic programs for medical and/or scientific research into the diagnosis and treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The plan must be approved by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Chhabria has been overseeing the Roundup multidistrict litigation.

Bayer said qualifying class members over the next four years would be eligible for levels of compensatory awards based on guidelines set forth in the agreement. The “settlement class” refers to people who were exposed to Roundup products but have not yet filed a lawsuit claiming injury from that exposure.

Settlement class members would be eligible for compensation between $10,000 and $200,000, Bayer said.

According to the agreement, the distribution of the settlement fund would break out as follows:

  • Compensation Fund – At least $1.325 billion
  • Diagnostic Accessibility Grant Program – $210 million
  • Research Funding Program – $40 million
  • Settlement Administration Costs, Advisory Science Panel Costs, Settlement Class Notice Costs, Taxes,
    and Escrow Agent Fees and Expenses – Up to $55 million
The proposed settlement plan for future class action litigation is separate from the settlement agreement Bayer made with lawyers for tens of thousands of plaintiffs who have already brought claims alleging exposure to Roundup and other Monsanto glyphosate-based weed killers caused them to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Bayer has been struggling to figure out how to put an end to the Roundup cancer litigation since buying Monsanto in 2018. The company lost all three trials held to date and lost the early rounds of appeals seeking to overturn the trial losses.

Juries in each of the trials found not only that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicides cause cancer but also that Monsanto spent decades hiding the risks.

*

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 Global Justice Now /Flickr/CC BY

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

***

On January 6, 2021, I was contacted by a nurse who works in a hospital on the outskirts of Toronto, Ontario. Toronto is Canada’s most populous city, and the fourth largest city in North America. 

The Ontario government’s website claims that “escalating [COVID-19] case counts have led to increasing hospitalization rates and capacity challenges in many large urban hospitals” which “are reaching critical limits.” As a result, the province has continued to enforce lockdowns, mandatory masking and social distancing.

Yet this whistleblowing nurse, as you can read below, works in a “large urban hospital” and reports a very different story. She has provided sufficient evidence, and links to public records, to satisfy me that she is indeed a nurse working for over a decade in multiple Canadian hospitals. To protect her identity, position and family, details about her and her place of work have been changed or omitted, without altering her message.

Nurses Scared to Speak Out

John Manley: Why do you prefer to use a pseudonym?

Nurse Andrea: I’d really like to avoid losing my job or my licence. It’s important to speak out, but at the same time, there’s no sense in becoming a martyr, because all evidence seems to suggest I’ll be crushed.

JM: Are you sure you are a nurse working in Canada, not communist China?

NA: Yes, we are now officially living in a kind of Soviet Covidestan, where lockdowns, masks, and vaccines are the brutally state-enforced ideology. It does give me a sense of terror and anxiety. Then again, I make my points loud and clear to my colleagues, but I don’t proselytize. I maintain strict professional boundaries with patients and play by the rules. I need to lurk until the time is right to strike.

Empty Emergency Room

JM: Can you describe what the emergency room situation is like in your hospital? I would imagine, since the province is in lockdown and under a declared state of emergency that the situation there must be exhausting.

NA: I’ve been doing overtime in ICU because ER is literally empty at times. Eventually a bunch of ambulances may show up all at once (no COVID) and make it feel busy, but this is the nature of ER. Otherwise, hours and hours may go with only 20-40% occupancy. The overall hospital tracker shows total hospital occupancy approximately 70%.

JM: Does not the staff question this low volume during not only a “pandemic” but also a time of year when hospitals in Ontario are normally so overwhelmed they are resorting to “hallway healthcare”?

NA: The other day a member of the leadership team was saying how our ER volume is about half what it was a year ago (before the “deadly pandemic”). Someone said, “But there’s so many cases… why are volumes lower?” I said, “Maybe the virus is not as deadly as the hype suggests?” Those kinds of comments are usually met with silence.

Mostly Non-COVID Patients

JM: Can you give me an example of the type of non-COVID patients you are caring for?

NA: A man came in with his dad from the nursing home. He was furious because his dad was held in isolation, not fed, and was sinking into decline at the nursing home because no family could come see him. I see this with frequency.

JM: Can you give me another example of the type of cases you are seeing?

NA: Busy day in the fracture room, yesterday. Lots of mangled limbs from slipping on the ice. None of it COVID, though everyone gets COVID swabbed before orthopaedic surgery, even asymptomatic patients with straightforward limb injuries.

This just proves we all need to stay home. You can slip on your front porch and overwhelm the “Icey U.”

ICU Caring for Only Nine Patients

JM: If you are taking shifts in ICU, I would then assume that is where the real COVID crisis is happening?

NA: Yes it’s true that we are at 90% occupancy (with far more ventilators than usual). But let’s put this in perspective: If an ICU has ten beds, then discharging 2 patients brings us down to 70% capacity. Not everyone in ICU absolutely needs to be there. There has always been incentive to keep ICU at near full capacity.

JM: I’m sure ICU care is intense, but nine patients does not sound overwhelming to me.

NA: First off, I do not diminish the hard work and the heroism of my colleagues. But let’s be real, staff still have time to stand around and chat, take their coffee breaks, and check their phones. Sometimes staff needs moral support rather than alleviate any acute life-threatening staff shortage or assist resuscitative acts.

JM: So it’s not a “war zone” like the media says?

NA: The ICU looks exactly like an ICU should look: busy with really sick people.

JM: So the media is exaggerating?

Critical Care Rationing Latest Media Scare Story

NA: The other day, I was reading the National Post in the hospital lobby and the latest media scare story is about critical care rationing. Once again, they are talking about “war zones” and we are being scared to think “doctors may have to choose who lives and who dies.”

So when I got back to the ICU I had a chance to talk about rationing with an illustrious ICU doctor. We were conducting daily rounds on a chronically ventilated patient well past the average life-expectancy with many debilitating conditions demonstrating no hope for any quality of life. However, they are kept alive (physiologically with machines) because the family insists on keeping them going “at all costs.”

JM: So a person well past eighty, with almost zero hope of recovery, is receiving critical care in a time of supposed medical rationing? It doesn’t sound like doctors are having to make hard choices about who should live and who should die.

NA: The general sentiment here is that, contrary to doctors and nurses being forced into a moral quagmire of health care rationing, many would welcome a return of professional autonomy. We would prefer to act on an objective clinical judgement, not the emotional whims of families who cannot accept the reality of death.

The truth is that our government healthcare system has set up an impossible situation. On the one hand, medically illiterate families are given a level of decision making power to keep people alive on ventilators ad infinitum despite all indicators pointing to total, utter, and abject futility. On the other hand, the amount of resources required for this is impossible to sustain. It has always been impossible, bankrupting our healthcare system for decades.

Futile Use of Intensive Care Resources

JM: You’re saying, then, that even many of the doctors do not agree that there is precedent for the use of these intensive care procedures?

NA: Intensive care has saved many lives and is a very important element of hospital care, even during this COVID “crisis.” But at the same time, it’s not magic. Doctors need to feel comfortable saying: “Sorry, we’ve done all we can for your loved one, but there is no hope for return to quality of life, it’s time to say goodbye…”

JM: It sounds like a denial of the reality of death?

NA: That is true and it’s what I’ve been saying since March: ICU and ventilator worship will result in an ocean of futility when applied to every elderly person who is already nearing the end of their life-span with multiple chronic organ dysfunctions. In fact, nurse burnout in the ICU can be attributed to the suffering we cause after sticking tubes into every orifice and forcefully restraining elderly people as they rot away in bed when they are simply trying to die.

JM: In New York, Italy and China there has been much evidence and testimonials from nurses showing that patients were not dying form COVID but from being placed on ventilator prematurely. Have you seen much unwarranted intubation in your hospital?

NA: Thankfully, I haven’t seen this directly, first-hand. However, I called BS on the ventilator-worship back in March and April last year and was vindicated. I’ve worked with intubated patients for a long time. One of the biggest drivers of ventilation was the same as for lockdown: fear. Especially during the early phase of the COVID “crisis,” there was extreme media-induced paranoia among nurses and doctors about a uniquely deadly and unusually transmissible coronavirus. The belief was that intubation would prevent aerosolized spread of the virus to staff. I heard these conversations first hand.

Death by Ventilators and Lockdowns, Not COVID

JM: Was death from ventilation very common during the first wave, or something that only happened occasionally?

NA: We had an epidemic of physician-induced death from ventilators in the first wave, no doubt. That is beyond dispute. Death from ventilators and lockdown, not COVID. This has been well documented in places like New York.

Widespread Government-Caused Horror

JM: How do you feel being made to work in such an oppressive environment?

NA: I’m glad I still get to work, even under this oppression. I feel so terribly for those forced out of work. I see them sometimes come to the hospital, suicidal. But even many of them are not directing their rage at the people in power who did this to them. When I’m not working, I start stewing in my own rage about what is going on with lockdown. Working in a hospital I can play pandemic theatre. I’m busy taking care of sick people — often very few of them actual COVID cases — that it takes my mind away from the widespread government-caused horror from the pandemic response.

JM: Thank you for speaking out.

NA: Sadly, the enemies of rationality and freedom are all around us, including our neighbours, family, and friends. I firmly believe future historians will look back on this time with the same sense of horror we feel today about medical and social engineering atrocities of the past — such as eugenics, forced lobotomies and medical experimentation on “undesirables.”

I thank you very much for this opportunity to mark my word today.

*

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

John C. A. Manley has spent over a decade ghostwriting for medical doctors, naturopaths and chiropractors. Since March 2020, he has been writing articles that question and expose the contradictions in the COVID-19 narrative and control measures. He is also completing a novel, Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story. You can visit his website at MuchAdoAboutCorona.ca.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from CDC

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ICU Nurse Whistleblower: Hospitals Running Below Capacity, Performing “Pandemic Theatre”

Bioweaponized COVID Vaccines

February 5th, 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).

***

Throughout the post-WW II period, both right wings of the US war party used and continue to use chemical, biological, radiological, and other banned weapons on invented enemies.

Earlier, biological warfare was waged on Native Americans by use of smallpox infected blankets.

Throughout US history, dirty wars at home and abroad included use of banned weapons.

Mass-vaxxing for seasonal flu-renamed covid is a form of biowarfare on human health. Today it’s being waged worldwide.

An all-out US/Western state-sponsored/Big Media proliferated mass deception campaign is all about convincing ordinary people to volunteer as guinea pigs for the largest ever human experiment that risks enormous harm to the health and well-being of everyone going along with the scam.

Vaccines don’t protect, as falsely claimed.

They’re an enormous cash cow for Big Pharma, why they’re promoted and pushed by Big Government.

Covid vaccines are the motherlode of them all to let Pharma cash in big on a bonanza of profits if things go as planned.

Children’s Health Defense explained that “(c)hildhood health epidemics have mushroomed along with the childhood vaccine schedule.”

“Vaccines contain many…neurotoxic, carcinogenic…ingredients,” including mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, MSG, aborted human fetal cells, and other substances that risk serious harm to health.

Heavily promoted annual flu shots (vaccines) contain mercury and other toxins linked to development of neurological disorders and other serious diseases.

All of the above are dangerous. When combined, they exponentially increase the threat to health and well-being.

US dark forces in cahoots with Pharma and media press agents are harming generations of infants, youths and adults in pursuit of their diabolical aims.

Pharma claims about vaccine effectiveness and safety are fabricated.

Based on what’s known so far, covid vaccines are far more harmful to health than others developed earlier.

Unapproved by the FDA highlights the hazards they pose.

It’s why no one wanting to protect and preserve health should go near them.

The risk of near-or-later-term harm is overwhelming, especially when combined with use of other drugs.

They all contain ingredients that risk harm to health.

Instead of protecting public health, governments in the US, West and elsewhere support Big Pharma — no matter the hazards posed by toxins in their drugs.

Days earlier, noted spinal surgeon/former Association of American Physicians and Surgeons president Dr. Lee Merritt called covid vaccines “weaponized medicine,” adding:

These experimental vaccines are “biologically manipulated bioweapon(s).”

Whenever “anybody” challenges their safety, they’re “censored.”

“We had a lot of bioweapons over the years and the one I was very worried about was smallpox.”

“But most of these bioweapons were either hard to distribute or there was treatment for them.”

“(T)here is a host of evidence that shows coronavirus is a naturally occurring very benign virus that doesn’t even give most people the cold but at the most it’ll give you a common cold.”

“If we are at biowarfare right now as a part of this multi-dimensional warfare, if you have a treatment in your back pocket they cannot terrorize you with viruses and that’s important because…(the vaccine) doesn’t prevent transmission by their own admission.”

No vaccines are needed for seasonal flu-renamed covid.

Merritt stressed that the “chance of survival” and recovery from “viral flu” exceeds 99.9%

When vaxxed for covid, you’re “not getting a vaccine,” Merritt explained.

What’s injected alters the human genetic code, transforming vaxxed individuals into genetically modified organisms.

The damage is irreversible. It’ll show up incrementally over time that eventually is highly likely to greatly harm millions or potentially billions of people.

Merritt stressed that if a foreign adversary wanted to wage biowarfare on the US, hazardous covid mRNA vaccines would be “perfect binary weapon(s).”

Merritt’s advice: Relief from what’s going on is “easy.”

“Turn off your TV…(T)ake off your mask.” Resume your normal life as before.

Ignore hazardous to health, state-approved, Big Media proliferated pro-mass-vaxxing propaganda.

Merritt isn’t alone. Thousands of doctors and scientists worldwide warned against use of experimental covid vaccines.

They’re unsafe, don’t protect, and risk enormous harm to health when used as directed.

*

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/

Macron’s Anti-Islamic Crusade Fails

February 5th, 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).

***

Recently, French President Emmanuel Macron has been trying to make Islamic radicalism his number one enemy. The isolationism practiced by some of the most radical Islamic immigrant communities began to worry Paris about the risk of possible separatist riots in order to form areas within French territory where French law does not prevail. However, this concern for national security does not seem to be a priority for most French politicians, the mainstream media and religious movements who have been severely criticizing Macron and forcing changes in measures.

What would, at first, be a bill to officially combat the extremism of Islamic separatists has been converted into a mere document reaffirming French national ideology. Criticized by humanitarians, the bill that would be a “law against Islamic separatism” could only be discussed among parliamentarians under the name “Bill to reinforce republican principles”. The criticisms against the text not only eliminated the original title but also were the topic of 2,647 amendments by the deputies of the Assembly. The left considers the project “stigmatizing” for French Muslims; the right and the national populists of Marine Le Pen consider this insufficient to combat the problem; representatives of all religious cults also affirm their disapproval; many of the deputies of the Macron’s party itself, La Republique En Marche (LREM), are divided on the issue.

What Macron wanted to present as one of the last major marks of his mandate – and certainly one of the last laws before next year’s presidential elections – risks being reduced to simple norms totally ineffective to contain the penetration of radical Islam into all popular sections of French society – which tends to create a breeding ground for terrorism and separatism. But it is unlikely that the chaos generated by the project and the scenario of discussions and disagreements will be controlled until the next elections. Definitively, Macron and his strategists were left alone in their crusade attempt.

French religious movements are strongly opposing Macron’s crusade. Among the various measures that have been proposed to combat Islamic radicalism, the mandatory schooling of minors from the age of 3 stands out. This is to avoid indoctrination within the family and to prevent children attending clandestine Islamic schools, which are becoming more and more common in the peripheries. The Catholic Church criticizes this point in particular because it can also harm its interests when fighting religious vigilance on the education of children. Still, representatives of other religions, like Protestants and Jews, recognize the need for a law to curb the spread of extremism, but fear what they call “side effects in all cults” – something like a scenario of religious intolerance on the part of an aggressive secular state. Obviously, those who criticize the presidential initiative most are the representatives of the French Islamist movements, who interpret the control over cultural associations and educational activities as a real attack on civil liberties.

Religious criticisms of the project combine with materialist criticisms, which highlight the value of civil liberties and the liberal principles that built not only France but all contemporary Western European civilization. “Stigmatizing” Muslims as a risk to national security is unimaginable for representatives of the liberal left and less radical political wings – even if such “stigmatized” groups also disrespect such freedoms, as in the case of forced marriages, demands of “virginity certificates” from young women and obligation to wear veils, which are common practices in Islamic communities.

There is even more radical opposition to Islamic sectarianism than that of Macron, which is the position of Marine Le Pen, with whom Macron shares favoritism for the next elections. Macron defeated Le Pen in 2017 precisely by betting on a humanitarian speech, opposing Le Pen’s “radical Europeanism”, which wants to impose even tougher norms on Muslims, such as, for example, the ban on the use of the veil on women. Macron, with a new election process approaching, made a strategic decision by creating his own crusade against Islam. The president’s strategists imagined that in doing so he would be able to co-opt votes from the pro-Le Pen electorate, but they ignored the strength of humanitarians.

With the reforms to the project, humanitarians broke Macron’s strategy, which now can no longer represent a middle ground between Le Pen’s extremist nationalism and the left’s liberal humanitarianism. The French president will only have to choose between adopting a totally liberal speech again or radicalizing his positions even further, making them similar to Le Pen’s – but this would make him lose his current electoral base.

In the end, the episode shows the overwhelming strength of European humanitarianism and generates reflections on what will become of the future of secular societies and their policies to combat terrorism and civil rights violations.

*

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.

Mandatory Face Masks

February 5th, 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).

***

Governments in the US and West are mortal enemies of ordinary people.

Virtually everything playing out today reflects new world order dystopian harshness that’s causing enormous harm to countless millions of people for the benefit of privileged ones.

Last month by executive order, Biden mandated face masks in federal buildings and on its land.

His order falsely claimed that he’s “relying on the best available data and science-based public health measures (sic).”

Effective February 2, the CDC mandated face masks “on public transportation and at transportation hubs.”

In the US, it’s now required “by all travelers into, within, or out of the United States, e.g., on airplanes, ships, ferries, trains, subways, buses, taxis, and ride-shares.”

“The mask requirement also applies to travelers in US transportation hubs such as airports and seaports; train, bus, and subway stations; and any other areas that provide transportation.”

The order applies to everyone “awaiting, boarding, disembarking, or traveling on airplanes, ships, ferries, trains, subways, buses, taxis, and ride-shares as they are traveling into, within, or out of the United States and US territories.”

According to the DHS, Transportation Security Admin. personnel are authorized to enforce the mandate.

Along with other federal authorities, state and local ones are required to do the same thing nationwide.

Failure to comply risks federal civil charges, prosecution, imprisonment and fines.

Ignored is that face masks don’t protect and risk harm to health from extended use.

Porous to permit breathing, minuscule viral spores penetrate them easily, concentrate, and are inhaled.

When masked, normal breathing is impaired and exhaled air can go into eyes and irritate them.

Earlier I quoted noted neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock saying the following about face masks:

“As for the scientific support for the use of face masks, a recent careful examination of the literature, in which 17 of the best studies were analyzed, concluded that:”

“None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask/respirator use and protection against influenza infection.”

“(N)o studies have been done to demonstrate that either a cloth mask or the N95 mask has any effect on transmission of the COVID-19 virus.”

“Any recommendations, therefore, have to be based on studies of influenza virus transmission.”

“The fact is, there is no conclusive evidence of their efficiency in controlling flu virus transmission.”

Other experts stressed that face masks don’t work as claimed.

They’re ineffective and potentially harmful to health.

Dr. Jim Meehan explained that “Viral particles move through face masks with relative ease.”

“Your mask is a petri dish experiment” by permitting viral spores to penetrate, concentrate in nasal passages, “enter the olfactory nerves and travel to the brain.”

What’s going on and likely to worsen ahead with follow-up mandates is a colossal, state-sponsored scam.

Masks should be banned in public, not mandated.

By letter to Wisconsin lawmakers, James Fetzer said “(m)ask mandates (are) killing us slowly.”

Virtually all positive PCR test results are false.

Lockdowns and quarantines caused infinitely more harm to countless millions of people than any combination of the most serious diseases.

Social distancing disrupted normal interactions of everyday life.

The so-called SARS-CoV-2 virus allegedly responsible for causing covid may not exist.

No one found it suggesting its nonexistence.

How can a nonexistent virus cause illness?

Virtually everything reported about covid is fake news.

Unexplained is that so-called covid is renamed seasonal flu — with none of what’s going on today.

We’re being systematically lied to and otherwise deceived by politicians, Pharma, and their media press agents.

Their claims have nothing to do with science, nothing remotely related to truth-telling.

The scam includes mass-vaxxing with unapproved, hazardous covid vaccines that risk serious irreversible harm to health, shortened lifespans, contraction of major diseases, possible death for the nation’s elderly, and no protection.

All of the above and likely much more to come risks unprecedented harm to countless millions of people.

Mass resistance is the only alternative, pushing back against what no just societies would tolerate.

Otherwise based on where things heading if not challenged, free and open societies in the US and West will no longer exist — permanent dystopian harshness replacing them.

*

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 The White House Facebook

Selected Articles: Towards 2030, NATO Is Shaping Our Future

February 4th, 2021 by Global Research News

Is It True that the New Covid Variants Are Very Dangerous?

By Rosemary Frei, February 04 2021

According to what we hear from officials and the mainstream media, the new variants are the most dangerous and unpredictable beings since Osama bin Laden.

The PCR Test does not Identify the Virus: Covid “False Positives” Used to Justify the Lockdown and Closure of the National Economy.

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 04 2021

We are led to believe that the corona epidemic has entered into a Second Wave, and that the virus is spreading relentlessly. That’s a lie. The PCR test used to estimate covid positive cases is flawed. There is no second wave.

“COVID-19 The Great Reset” – “Delete” Humanity

By Peter Koenig, February 04 2021

The Big Picture of the plan is clear. It plays out in front of our eyes. And we do not want to see it. Or we are blinded by the relentless lie- and deceit-propaganda stream flooding us with false news and outright lies about covid – and what’s to come.

Towards 2030, NATO Is Shaping Our Future

By Manlio Dinucci, February 04 2021

The report painted the picture of a world characterized by “authoritarian States seeking to expand their power and influence”, posing to NATO allies “a systemic challenge in all security and economy fields”.

What is In Store for The World. BAKS Recommendation to German Government: “Support Military Strike by the USA and/or Israel Against Iran!”

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, February 04 2021

What is in store for the world? US Secretary of State Antony Blinken claimed on 1.02.2021 that Iran was only a few months or even weeks away from possessing enough fissile material to build a nuclear bomb, which was reason for the USA and Israel to intervene militarily.

Why Israel Is Joining the Pentagon’s ‘Arab NATO’

By Jonathan Cook, February 04 2021

With none of the usual fanfare associated with such a momentous decision, the Pentagon announced last month a major reorganisation to bring Israel – for the first time – inside its military command in the Middle East alongside the Arab states.

World Court to Hear Iran’s Case Against US Sanctions

By Stephen Lendman, February 04 2021

Unilaterally imposed sanctions by one nation on others breaches international law. UN Charter Article II prohibits the practice. It mandates that all member states “settle…disputes” according to the rule of law.

The Decline and Fall of the American Empire

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, February 04 2021

The irony of the Bush administration’s imperial pretensions was that America has been an empire from its very founding, and that a White House staffer’s political use of the term “empire” in 2004 was not emblematic of a new and rising empire as he claimed, but of a decadent, declining empire stumbling blindly into an agonizing death spiral.

“Power Games All Over the Place”

By Barbara Nimri Aziz, February 04 2021

Struggle is a process, a process that doesn’t end in Washington. And it’s a process which too many Democrats who become energized largely by the presidential drama every four years, often relinquish. Republicans meanwhile press ahead in the shadows, like in state capitals.

The Legacy of Cicely Tyson: Pioneer for Representation in Film, Fashion and Television

By Abayomi Azikiwe, February 04 2021

In the January and February issue of Essence magazine excerpts from a newly released autobiography by Cicely Tyson, Just As I Am, provide insights into the nearly one century life’s journey of a legend within the entertainment and cultural milieu in the United States.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Towards 2030, NATO Is Shaping Our Future

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).

***

Was steht der Welt bevor? US-Außenminister Antony Blinken behauptete am 1.02.2021, dass der Iran nur wenige Monate oder gar Wochen davon entfernt sei, genug spaltbares Material für den Bau einer Atombombe zu besitzen, was für die USA und Israel Grund für eine militärische Intervention sei (1). Beweise für seine abenteuerliche Behauptung legte er nicht vor. Zwei Tage zuvor empfahl die Bundesakademie für Sicherheitspolitik (BAKS) der deutschen Regierung in einem Arbeitspapier, “im Extremfall” einen Militärschlag der USA und/oder Israels gegen den Iran zu unterstützen, wenn baldige Verhandlungen über das Atomabkommen mit dem Iran keine Lösung brächten (2). Sollen die Deutschen dafür gewonnen werden, Väter, Söhne und Töchter an der Seite der USA und Israels in einen Angriffskrieg zu schicken mit unabsehbaren Folgen für die gesamte Menschheit? Das widerspricht Artikel 26, Absatz 1 des deutschen Grundgesetzes und den „Nürnberger Prinzipien“.

Wie lautet die Stellungnahme des deutschen Parlaments und der Regierung zu dieser existentiellen Frage? Das deutsche Volk hat das Recht, dies zu erfahren. Bei den Vätern des deutschen Grundgesetzes herrschte in diesem Punkt Einigkeit: Von deutschem Boden soll nie wieder Krieg ausgehen! Seinen Ausdruck fand dieser Konsens in Art. 26, Abs. 1 des Verfassungswerks. Hat er noch Bestand?

Wäre es nicht die historische Verantwortung Deutschlands und seiner Regierung, die befreundeten Regierungen der USA und Israels mit allen Mitteln von einem völkerrechtswidrigen Angriffskrieg abzuhalten und eine Verhandlungslösung anzustreben – anstatt an einem Kriegsverbrechen mitzuwirken?

Im Jahr 2008 legte sich die deutsche Kanzlerin vor der israelischen Knesset fest, dass die Sicherheit Israels „deutsche Staatsräson“ sei und dass dies in der Stunde der Bewährung keine leeren Worte bleiben dürften. Unter „Staatsräson“ versteht man den Grundsatz, dass der Staat einen Anspruch darauf hat, seine Interessen unter Umständen auch unter Verletzung der Rechte des Einzelnen durchzusetzen, wenn dies im Sinne des Staatswohls für unbedingt notwendig erachtet wird.

Die Mehrheit des deutschen Volkes wird einer Kriegsbeteiligung nicht zustimmen. Über diese und jede andere Kriegsbeteiligung sollten allein die deutschen Bürger in einer Volksabstimmung entscheiden. Es wird höchste Zeit, so schwerwiegende Entscheidungen nicht Hasardeuren zu überlassen.

*

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel ist Diplom-Psychologe und Erziehungswissenschaftler.

Quellenangabe

(1) de.rt.com › der-nahe-osten › 112612-us-aussenminister…

(2) de.rt.com › der-nahe-osten › 112472-baks-empfiehlt-b…


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Bundesakademie für Sicherheit (BAKS) empfiehlt deutscher Regierung: „Militärschlag der USA und/oder Israels gegen Iran unterstützen!“

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 coronavirus student, a species brought forth in the world of education by the pandemic.

When universities and schools across the globe were given varying and often contradictory messages on the safety of continuing in class teaching and participation, the seeds of confusion and fear were sown.  The broadest, most acceptable solution, at least in terms of safety, was moving learning to an online format.     

One evident issue, notably in higher education, is the attractions offered by remote or virtual learning.  Finally, those championing cost saving measures by physically exiling the teacher from the classroom in favour of stale, pre-recorded sessions of lifeless content, had a pretext.  In consulting the literature on what is banally called “E-learning,” the following article in Quantity and Quantity suggests what it consists of: “technology-based learning through websites, learning portals, video conferencing, YouTube, mobile apps, and thousand [sic] type of free available websites for blended learning tools.”

All these platforms have undeniable uses.  A multifaceted technological environment contaminated by Google, YouTube and social media has found a way into pedagogical technique and learning.  But the tool so fashioned is never the complete human; true learning must have, on some level, a flesh and blood contact if it involves other humans, a connection by which the cerebral cortex can be stimulated and thrilled.   

Without realising it, those who arrived at terms such as “remote learning” were accurate to a fault: learning in remote fashion is emotionally stripping and estranging, a learning experience forged on the dark side of the moon.  Glacial and discouragingly distant, the impression is one of being left abandoned in a garage without an understanding of the tools at hand and how they might best be used.  The poor abandoned sod is left to seek inspiration from elsewhere, in the process enriching the already obscenely wealthy tech giants of Silicon Valley. 

Student responses to this change of learning circumstances have varied. 

Anxiety and stress remain central, hindering any adaption to online education. 

Nor is this helped by the unevenness of technological access of the global student population, occasioned by the often ridiculous assumption that each member of the human race is plugged into the weirdly wonderful Internet. “Although these inequalities existed earlier,” observe the authors of a study of student responses to online learning in an Indian university, the Netaji Subhas University of Technology, “the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed this digital divide.”

The response to online learning also varies depending on which authority you wish to consult.  But the impressiveness of learning in a physically tangible environment is clear.  The survey study of opinions from 358 students at the Netaji Subhas University of Technology found that 65.9% thought in-class learning more rewarding.  Some 68.1% of students did concede that academics had improved their online teaching abilities since the beginning of the pandemic, while 77.9% found it useful.

A more personal touch is offered by a highly sanitised student account in the University of Queensland’s Contact Magazine.  Such material should always be treated with due care, given the publishing outlet and the manicured, lipstick rich enthusiasm of the student.  But even here, the Bachelor of Engineering honours candidate can admit to “personal challenges around remaining motivated and up to date now that my schedule is more fluid”.  There was also the temptation to spend more time watching Netflix.  “Unfortunately,” she concedes, “many of my courses had a large practical component to them, which are no longer available.” 

While forms of online learning have distinct advantages in, for instance, coping with COVID-19 restrictions and mitigating the risks of transmission, a bigger picture is always at play in the world of organisational management.  Motives are multiple, and rarely do they centre with absolute certainty upon protecting student welfare.   

One driving motivation behind moving educational institutions to the online world is the replication of management even as teaching staff are reduced.  Academics have been made redundant as student enrolments fall, coaxed into making recordings and content that can endlessly be reused.  There are threats of departmental amalgamation and a cancellation of courses.  But there is always more room for the addition of COVID-19 bureaucrats.  As ever, more individuals otherwise unconnected to the actual process of teaching and research will find a way to louse up matters.  These good sorts, with a brief of faux compassion, are charged with not inconsiderable surveillance and direction powers.  Their role is to keep a good wide eye on staff and students to ensure they are observing hygiene practices, undertaking re-education modules on how best to teach and learn in a “COVID-19 safe” way, and root out the deviants. 

There are other, telling implications.  The pandemic crisis has been productive to aspiring razor gangs obsessed with trimming budgetary expenditure across entire entities.  The property paladins have been smacking their lips, keen to snap up more space needlessly occupied by instructors and their students.      

What many institutions are doing is delivering an emaciated model of teaching and learning while keeping the costs of taking the subjects at the same, pre-coronavirus level.  The modern learning institution has become the clearing house for glorified correspondence courses.  By the time the vaccination drive has parked most of the world’s population into appropriate spots of security, the learning environment will have a permanently cold and mechanical sense to it.  Students of the future will be none the wiser. 

*

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 by BAZA Productions, courtesy of 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).

***

According to what we hear from officials and the mainstream media, the new variants are the most dangerous and unpredictable beings since Osama bin Laden.

Everyone needs to stay safe from these invisible but murderously mighty microbes by shunning contact with the unwashed, unmasked and unvaccinated.

But is that drastic approach — which is accompanied by severe curtailment of civil liberties and constitutional rights — warranted?

It turns out that the case for the variants’ contagiousness and dangerousness centres 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. I also have an accompanying nine-minute ‘explainer’ video lower down this article.

That one change is known as N501Y — scientific shorthand for the substitution of one protein building block (amino acid) for another at position 501 in the part of the virus called the spike protein. Specifically, position 501 lies in the portion of the spike protein that’s responsible for the intimate coupling between the virus and cells that lets the virus slip inside and multiply.

[Note that any such amino-acid switcheroo is correctly called a change, not a mutation. Mutations occur only in genes. For some reason many scientists and scribes who ought to know better are mistakenly calling N501Y and other amino-acid changes ‘mutations.’ ]

A very preliminary study published Dec. 22, 2020, suggested that N501Y also is present in the South African variant named 501Y.V2. And another very preliminary study, published January 12, 2021, asserted it was also present in the new strain emerging from the Brazilian jungle, dubbed P.1.

Video is from Rosemary Frei

On top of that, the South African variant is being reported as evading immunity and B.1.1.7 sharing this escape route.

And scientists are depicting new variants with N501Y on board as spreading very fast. Some say they make herd immunity impossible, so every single person on earth has to be vaccinated. The models also suggest B.1.1.7 is up to 91% deadlier than the regular novel coronavirus.

(Yet so far it seems the main basis for officials saying it’s more deadly is shown in the minutes of the Jan. 21, 2021 meeting of an influential UK committee called New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group [NERVTAG]. There, they cite modeling papers which haven’t yet been published – which means that until they’re published there’s no way to check their work.)

Three Non-Peer-Reviewed Theoretical-Modeling Papers Catapulted Variants into the Spotlight

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 (it’s the first of an ongoing series of reports on the variant authored by people working at the agency and at other institutions), 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.

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.

(I reached out for  comment to Public Health England, as well as to the first author of the second paper Nicholas Davies, and to the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The only reply I received was from a media-relations person at Public Health England; she told me no one was available for an interview.)

Neil Ferguson was a co-author of the first and third papers. The UK government has relied on Ferguson’s mathematical modeling for many years. This is despite his work turning out to be highly inaccurate time after time.

He  also supposedly stepped down from his government-advisory role last May after being caught secretly meeting with his married lover during a time when it was illegal to make contact with anyone outside of one’s household, thanks in large part to his modelling. But he was quickly restored to positions of influence. In an article and accompanying video coming out next week, I describe the connections and conflicts of interest surrounding Ferguson and the modeling papers’ other authors.

What Effect Is N501Y Said to Have?

In N501Y, the amino acid that’s swapped out at position 501 in the spike protein is asparagine; by scientific convention it’s represented by the letter ‘N.’ The amino acid that’s swapped in in its place is tyrosine, and it’s represented by the letter ‘Y.’ Hence ‘N501Y.’

Position 501 in the amino-acid sequence sits in the part of the spike protein that protrudes from the surface of the virus. Specifically, it’s said to lie in the region of the spike protein that latches or ‘binds’ to the mechanism that is the gatekeeper for whether the virus can enter the cell. That gate-keeping mechanism is known as the ‘ACE2 receptor.’

This region of the spike protein – known as the ‘receptor binding domain’ (RBD) — binds to the gate keeping mechanism, the ACE2 receptor. When the RBD and the ACE2 receptor bind, the cell membrane, which is the circular barrier between the area outside the cell and the cell contents, opens up and allows the virus to enter.

N501Y is posited to make the spike protein bind tighter to the ACE2 receptor. Influential theoreticians have performed mathematical modeling based on this hypothesis. This modeling suggests that this tighter binding allows the virus to enter more easily, and that therefore this makes the virus more transmissible.

Yet as far as I’ve been able to find, there is still no concrete, direct proof of this. And note that epidemiological data cannot be used to definitively detect the effect of an amino-acid in a virus. Only experiments involving direct observation of the virus’s interaction with the body can determine that.

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. 

Details of the Three Papers That Underpin the Assertion that N501Y Bolsters Contagiousness

One of those three papers was published Sept. 25, 2020, in Science. It describe experiments involving involving six rounds of division of the virus in mice.

The researchers found a large amount of the virus in the mice lungs right from the first round of division. Based on this, they pronounced the virus to have “enhanced infectivity.” However, they didn’t actually test whether the virus is  more transmissible/contagious – that is, whether it moves from mouse to mouse more easily.

They performed ‘deep sequencing’ and reported that they found the N501Y change in the ‘mouse-adapted’ virus. Next they did ‘structural remodeling’ on it and wrote that this analysis “suggested that the N501Y substitution in the RBD of SARS-CoV[-2] S protein increased the binding affinity of the protein to mouse ACE2.” All of this is very different than direct observations of the variant virus’s behaviour in mice or humans.

The second paper was posted on bioRχiv on Dec. 21, 2020. It describes an “engineered decoy receptor for SARS-CoV-2.” The complicated series of molecular-biological manoeuvers in vitro were performed that is hard to follow and understand – there is no ‘Methods’ section laying out  the details and sequence what they did; rather, the researchers’ approach to their experiments is scattered across all sections of the paper including in the accompanying Supplementary Material. This is many steps removed from real-life situations. The authors conclude from their manoeuvers that laboratory-mutated novel coronavirus with the N501Y mutation seems to bind more tightly to their ‘engineered decoy’ form of the RBD receptor than the RBD receptor that normally occurs in nature.  (The idea, it seems, is that this ‘engineered decoy’ could be injected into people with the goal of getting the new variant to bind to it rather than to cells, thereby stopping it from gaining entry into cells and reproducing.)

bioRχiv is an online-only journal. (It’s pronounced ‘bioarchive’; that’s because the Greek letter χ is pronounced ‘kai.’ I presume the letter χ is used in the journal’s title because the χ2 [‘chi-square’] test is a widely used form of statistical analysis in scientific papers.) The journal has tagline ‘The Preprint Server for Biology.’ ‘Preprint’ means non-peer-reviewed. bioRχiv focuses entirely on Covid-19-papers and is sponsored by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. It has a sister publication medRχiv that also focuses on Covid-19,

The Initiative is the creation of Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan. Facebook has been among the very active censors of information including scientific papers that diverge from the official narrative about Covid.

The third paper  was posted on the website of the online journal bioRχiv on June 17, 2020, and then in Cell on Sept. 3, 2020.

Like the other two papers, it is extremely removed from direct observation of the virus’s behaviour in live animals or humans. In fact, the third paper doesn’t even use human or animal cells. It involves a ‘yeast-surface-display platform’ as a basis for performing ‘deep mutational scanning’ of the novel coronavirus’s RBD. That ‘platform’ is an artificial structure the paper’s authors constructed for measuring binding between antibodies and various RBD regions containing an array of mutations.

According to this paper, the N501Y amino-acid change results in stronger binding of the virus to the RBD.

However, the papers’ authors state in the last section of their paper that “It is important to remember that our maps define biochemical phenotypes of the RBD, not how these phenotypes relate to viral fitness. There are many complexities in the relationship between biochemical phenotypes of yeast-displayed RBD and viral fitness.” Translation: “Just because our biochemistry experiments showed that the presence of N501Y or other changes in the RBD seems to make the RBD bind tighter to the ACE2 receptor, we don’t know whether any of these changes make the virus more ‘fit’/transmissible.”

And note also that one of the authors of the third paper, Allison Greaney, is quoted as saying in an August 2020 article from the Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center where she and several of the other authors work, that “The virus already has a ‘good enough’ ability to bind to ACE2. There’s no reason to believe that going beyond that level will make it more pathogenic or transmissible. [And] [b]ut the RBD may be able to tolerate a number of mutations.”

As another note, the third paper was first published in bioRχiv and then published three months later in the peer-reviewed journal Cell. In Cell the paper is labelled ‘Elsevier-Sponsored Documents’ (see image below)(Elsevier is the publishing empire that owns Cell, among hundreds of other journals). I couldn’t find anything online about what ‘Sponsored’ means, nor about what or who sponsored this particular paper; and I couldn’t find any other papers with this designation. So I emailed Cell’s PR manager John Caputo on the evening of Jan. 18 and followed up by leaving him a voicemail message on Jan. 19. I haven’t heard back from him.

A Brief Word About Another Amino-Acid Change in B.1.1.7

I’ll quickly turn to another of the key changes said to be present in B.1.1.7. This change, the deletion of three amino acids was described in a paper published on the website of medRχiv on November 13, 2020. (Earlier in this article I mention that medRχiv is creation of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.)

The mutation purportedly makes B.1.1.7 invisible to one of the three key functions of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. That function is detection of the gene that has the genetic code for one of the two main spike proteins on the outer surface of the novel coronavirus.

However, that conclusion is based on only sequencing of the virus in a mere six people who tested positive for the novel coronavirus. On top of that, the paper was not subjected to scrutiny by other scientists (a process known as ‘peer review’) before it was published.

In addition, the Covid diagnoses of those six people were themselves determined by PCR. And PCR has been shown to have a very high rate of false positives — that is, to very frequently give a positive result in people who in fact do not harbour the novel coronavirus at all.

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.

What’s the lesson from all this?

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.

*

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.

After obtaining an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, Rosemary Frei pivoted and became a freelance writer. That led to 22 years as writer and journalist focusing on medicine. She pivoted again in early 2016 to full-time, independent activism and investigative journalism. Her website is RosemaryFrei.ca.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is It True that the New Covid Variants Are Very Dangerous?
  • Tags:

We are led to believe that the corona epidemic has entered into a Second Wave, and that the virus is spreading relentlessly. That’s a lie. 

The PCR test used to estimate covid positive cases is flawed. There is no second wave.

The test is being used extensively to hike up the numbers with a view to justifying the lockdown with devastating social and economic consequences including the engineered bankruptcy of the urban services economy, tourism and air travel. 

Confirmed by prominent scientists as well as by official public health bodies including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Covid-19 is a public health concern but it is NOT a dangerous virus.

The unspoken truth is that the novel coronavirus provides a pretext and a justification to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire World into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair. 

More than 7 billion people Worldwide are directly or indirectly affected by the corona crisis.

Flawed Estimates

Nothing in the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Test and the resulting “estimates” justifies closing down the national economy with a view to resolving a public health crisis.

Moreover, recent scientific reports including a January 20th, 2021 “Retraction” by the WHO confirm that the PCR test yields invalid estimates. The WHO states explicitly that retesting is required. (see below)

Read carefully: According to Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra , Michael Yeadon , Clare Craig, et al.   

“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a [amplification] threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%  (Review Report of Corman-Drosten et al)


The following text is based on Chapter II of Michel Chossudovsky’s E-Book entitled.

The 2020 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset”

(click here to access full text consisting of 9 chapters)


Identification of the Virus

The RT-PCR test does not identify/ detect the virus. What it detects are fragments of viri. According to renowned Swiss immunologist Dr B. Stadler

So if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left. Even if the infectious viri are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected].

The Question is Positive for What?? The PCR test does not detect the identity of the virus, According to Dr. Pascal Sacré,

these tests detect viral particles, genetic sequences, not the whole virus.

In an attempt to quantify the viral load, these sequences are then amplified several times through numerous complex steps that are subject to errors, sterility errors and contamination.

Positive RT-PCR is not synonymous with COVID-19 disease! PCR specialists make it clear that a test must always be compared with the clinical record of the patient being tested, with the patient’s state of health to confirm its value [reliability]

The media frighten everyone with new positive PCR tests, without any nuance or context, wrongly assimilating this information with a second wave of COVID-19. (emphasis added)

While the RT-PCR test was never intended to identify the virus, it nonetheless constitutes from the very outset of the crisis (January 2020) the cornerstone of the official estimates of Covid-19 “positives”. Moreover, these PCR tests are not routinely accompanied by a medical diagnosis of the patients being tested. 

WHY then was the RT-PCR adopted??

The Controversial Drosten RT-PCR Study

F. William Engdahl in a recent article documents how the RT-PCR Test was instated by the WHO at the outset, despite its obvious shortcomings in identifying the 2019-nCoV. The scandal takes its roots in Germany involving “a professor at the heart of Angela Merkel’s corona advisory group”:

On January 23, 2020, in the scientific journal Eurosurveillance, of the EU Center for Disease Prevention and Control, Dr. Christian Drosten, along with several colleagues from the Berlin Virology Institute at Charité Hospital, [together]  with the head of a small Berlin biotech company, TIB Molbiol Syntheselabor GmbH, published a study entitled, “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” (Eurosurveillance January 23, 2020).

While Drosten et al’s Eurosurveillance article (undertaken in liaison with the WHO) confirmed that “several viral genome sequences had been released”, in the case of 2019-nCoV, however, “virus isolates or samples from infected patients were not available … “(emphasis added):

“The genome sequences suggest presence of a virus closely related to the members of a viral species termed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-related CoV, a species defined by the agent of the 2002/03 outbreak of SARS in humans [3,4].

We report on the the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation [using the RT-PCR test], designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”  (Eurosurveillance, January 23, 2020, emphasis added).

What this (erroneous) statement suggests is that the identity of 2019-nCoV was not required and that “validation” would be enabled by “the close genetic relatedness to the 2003-SARS-CoV.”

The recommendations of the Drosten study (supported by the Gates Foundation) pertaining to the use of the RT-PCR test applied to detecting 2019-nCoV were then transmitted to the WHO. They were subsequently endorsed by the Director General of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom. The identity of the virus was not required.  

The above also explains the subsequent renaming by the WHO of the 2019-nCoV to SARS-CoV-2.

The Drosten et al article pertaining to the use of the RT-PCR test Worldwide (under WHO guidance) was challenged in a November 27, 2020 study by a  group of 23 international virologists, microbiologists et al. “Their careful analysis of the original [Drosten] piece is damning. …They accuse Drosten and cohorts of “fatal” scientific incompetence and flaws in promoting their test” (Engdahl, December, 2020).

According to Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, Clare Craig, Kevin McKernan, et al 

In light of all the consequences resulting from this very publication for societies worldwide, a group of independent researchers performed a point-by-point review of the aforesaid publication [Drosten] in which 1) all components of the presented test design were cross checked, 2) the RT-qPCR protocol-recommendations were assessed w.r.t. good laboratory practice, and 3) parameters examined against relevant scientific literature covering the field. 

The published RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV and the manuscript suffer from numerous technical and scientific errors, including insufficient primer design, a problematic and insufficient RT-qPCR protocol, and the absence of an accurate test validation. Neither the presented test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication. Further, serious conflicts of interest of the authors are not mentioned. Finally, the very short timescale between submission and acceptance of the publication (24 hours) signifies that a systematic peer review process was either not performed here, or of problematic poor quality.  We provide compelling evidence of several scientific inadequacies, errors and flaws. (November 27, 2020 Critique of Drosten article, emphasis added)

The results of the PCR Test applied to SARS-2 are blatantly flawed. Drosten et al had recommended the use of a 45 amplification cycle threshold, which was endorsed by the WHO in January 2020. 

According to Pieter Borger,  et al

The number of amplification cycles [should be] less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles. In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture…(Critique of Drosten Study)

The WHO’s RT-PCR “Retraction” (January 20, 2021)

The RT-PCR test was adopted by the WHO on January 23, 2020, following the recommendations of  the Drosten study quoted above. It had been commissioned and financed by the Gates Foundation.  The Drosten study had recommended a maximum amplification cycle threshold of 45, which was widely applied by national health authorities. 

WHO “Mea Culpa”

One year later on January 20th, 2021, the WHO came out with the admission that the PCR tests will yield biased results if they are conducted above a certain cycle threshold used for amplification.

Below is the text of the WHO’s “retraction” which acknowledges that the test results conducted by national governments are flawed and that a process of “retesting” is required: 

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information. (emphasis added)

What this admission by the WHO confirms is that most of the covid positive estimates currently conducted under the so-called “Second Wave” (with amplification cycles in excess of 35) are invalid.

According to Pieter Borger, et al (quoted above):

“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%  (Critique of Drosten Study

The above quote confirms unequivocally that the tests adopted by the governments to justify the destabilization of their national economy are flawed.  Moreover the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been identified.  SARS-CoV-1 was used as “a proxy” for SARS-CoV-1. 

And if it cannot be identified by the PCR test, this invalidates the test.

If the SARS-2 virus cannot be identified, does this not also haVE a bearing on the development of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine? 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The PCR Test does not Identify the Virus: Covid “False Positives” Used to Justify the Lockdown and Closure of the National Economy.

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).

***

By laying out unrealistic demands to Iran and engaging in fearmongering about its nuclear program, Secretary of State Tony Blinken has underscored America’s real intent about rejoining the controversial agreement.

President Joe Biden has made rejoining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, popularly known as the Iran nuclear deal) one of the top priorities of his administration, reversing course from the direction taken by former President Donald Trump who, in May 2018, withdrew the US from the landmark 2015 agreement.

However, the gap between Biden’s stated desire and the ability of his foreign policy team, headed by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, to bring it to fruition may be insurmountable.

In a recent statement, Blinken warned that if Iran continued to unilaterally lift the various restrictions on its nuclear program mandated under the JCPOA, it would be able to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon within “a matter of weeks.”

But this assertion is fundamentally flawed. In keeping with its policy of ending JCPOA restrictions as a remedial action permitted under Article 36 of the agreement should other parties be in fundamental noncompliance (which the US is, by issuing sanctions), Iran has begun the process to enrich uranium to 20 percent, and convert that uranium to metal. This would be used to produce fuel plates needed to power a research reactor in Tehran used to produce medical isotopes.

As of January 29, Iran had accumulated some 17 kilograms of 20 percent uranium, part of a strategic plan to produce 120 kilograms of the material per year, at a rate of 10 kilograms per month on average.

Iran would need to convert some 250 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium into 25 kilograms of the 90 percent enriched uranium needed for a nuclear weapon. Under Iran’s plans, which have been briefed to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and are being monitored by IAEA inspectors, it would take approximately two years for Iran to accumulate that amount of 20 percent enriched uranium – a fact incompatible with Blinken’s assessment of “a matter of weeks.”

Further undermining Blinken’s contention is the fact that, by converting the 20 percent enriched uranium into metallic fuel plates, Iran has made it impossible to use this material in any “breakout” weapons program, given the complexities associated with reconverting the metal into uranium hexafluoride for subsequent insertion into gas centrifuges for follow-on enrichment to 90 percent. As such, Iran’s actions actually inhibit its ability to pursue a nuclear weapon, something Blinken ignores completely.

But Blinken’s Iran problem goes much further than giving misleading statements about the country’s nuclear capabilities and intent. His prescription for the US rejoining the JCPOA is little more than a poison pill designed to kill the agreement. “Iran is out of compliance on a number of fronts,” Blinken recently said, ignoring the country’s citation of its rights under Article 36 (which means that until the US lifts sanctions, Iran is in fundamental compliance), and the fact that Iran has signaled that all of its measures taken to date are “fully reversible.”

“[I]t would take some time, should it [Iran] make the decision to do so, for it to come back into compliance and time for us then to assess whether it was meeting its obligations,” Blinken said. If Iran were to return to the deal, it would only serve as a precursor to what Blinken called a “longer and stronger agreement” that would address other “deeply problematic”issues.

The biggest hurdle is that Iran has ruled out linking a US return to the JCPOA with any negotiation of a new agreement along the lines that Blinken spoke of. An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Saeed Khatibzadeh, rejected any notion of US-Iranian bilateral negotiations about the JCPOA. “The US needs to return to its commitments,” Khatibzadeh said, “and if that happens, it will be possible to negotiate within the framework of the joint commission of the JCPOA.”

The Iranian position makes sense from a legal standpoint – it is, after all, the US that has left the agreement and, if it seeks to rejoin it, all negotiations must take place within the framework of the agreement itself, and not some new negotiating mechanism that does not conform to the letter of the law.

One of the fundamental flaws in the Iranian position, however, is its failure to recognize that, from the US’ perspective, the JCPOA was never meant to be an agreement which would reach fruition, but rather a stop-gap tool used by the US to contain Iran’s nuclear program in a manner which conformed to US domestic political concerns, and not the reality of Iran’s nuclear ambition. In short, the JCPOA was designed to ensure that Iran would not be able to acquire enough fissile material usable in a nuclear device for at least a year after violating the mechanisms of control envisioned under the agreement.

Some of these mechanisms of control are permanent, such as a ban on any Iranian work on nuclear explosive devices and on the reprocessing of spent reactor fuel, needed for the separation of plutonium. These two bans represent the most effective means of blocking Iran’s path toward a nuclear weapon. So, too, do the enhanced inspection arrangements which enable inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to request access to undeclared sites.

Others, however, expire under the terms of so-called ‘sunset clauses’. Two of the most important ‘sunset clauses’ involve Iran’s ability to increase the number and types of enrichment centrifuges (expiring in 2025) and increase the amount of low enriched uranium it can stockpile (expiring in 2030). The Iranians view these two clauses as the most important achievements of the JCPOA negotiations, as they guarantee that Iran will be able to fulfil its plans for a viable indigenous nuclear energy program, a right guaranteed to it under Article IV of the nonproliferation treaty, to which it is a signatory.

This, however, was never the intent of the US. According to President Barack Obama, whose administration negotiated the JCPOA, the purpose of the ‘sunset clauses’ was to buy time for Iran, once sanctions were reduced, to “start focusing on its economy, on training its people, on reentering the world community, to lessening its provocative activities in the region.”

According to Obama, by entering the JCPOA, the US made it possible to “strengthen the hand of those more moderate forces inside of Iran.” The JCPOA was “not dependent on anticipating those changes. If they don’t change at all, we’re still better off having the deal.”

Obama’s point of view was driven by US intelligence assessments which, in 2015, put Iran’s “breakout times” at two or three months. By entering the JCPOA, the US was “purchasing for 13, 14, 15 years assurances that the breakout is at least a year … that – that if they decided to break the deal, kick out all the inspectors, break the seals and go for a bomb, we’d have over a year to respond. And we have those assurances for at least well over a decade.”

The important takeaway is what Obama said next. “And then in years 13 and 14, it is possible that those breakout times would have been much shorter, but at that point we have much better ideas about what it is that their program involves. We have much more insight into their capabilities. And the option of a future president to take action if in fact they try to obtain a nuclear weapon is undiminished.” In short, if Iran did not use the JCPOA as a vehicle to understand that it did not need a nuclear program, and voluntarily abandon its nuclear activities, then the US would take action that would prevent the ‘sunset clauses’ from ever expiring.

Unfortunately for Obama, Biden, and the proponents of the JCPOA, Trump wasn’t willing to play that game. Recognizing that the underlying logic behind the Obama approach to the JCPOA was predicated on the belief that Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions were only being temporarily delayed by the ‘sunset clauses’, Trump simply withdrew from the agreement, moving the time for presidential action forward by a decade. In many ways, Trump’s approach to Iran, while fundamentally flawed, was at least honest. The same cannot be said about the Obama administration which negotiated the original deal, or the Biden administration which is now compelled to deal with the fallout of Obama’s deceit and Trump’s actions in response to that deceit.

Time is running out for Biden and Blinken if they hope to revive the JCPOA. Iran’s conservative-dominated parliament has set a deadline of February 21 for the US to lift sanctions that had been reimposed when Trump removed the US from the JCPOA. If the US fails to act, then Iran will likely suspend the enhanced inspections of its nuclear sites by the IAEA, and further increase its uranium enrichment capacity.

“We have said time and again that if the US decides to go back to its international commitments and lift all the illegal sanctions against Iran, we will go back to the full implementation of JCPOA, which will benefit all sides,” Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, said recently. But Takht-Ravanchi’s comments assume that the Biden administration can move forward on the JCPOA in good faith, rather than with the intent of the original US negotiation.

The Obama administration, however, never intended the JCPOA to be anything other than a stop-gap measure designed to buy the US time when it came to managing Iran’s nuclear program. Thanks to Trump, the clock has run out. For Biden, Blinken, and the rest of the Obama-era policy makers who are now back in power and who sowed the seed of this, the time has come to reap the whirlwind. Biden may seek to blame Trump for failing to rejoin the JCPOA, but he only has himself to blame.

*

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.

Scott Ritter is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ‘SCORPION KING: America’s Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.’ He served in the Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf’s staff during the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter

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 January and February issue of Essence magazine excerpts from a newly released autobiography by Cicely Tyson, Just As I Am, provide insights into the nearly one century life’s journey of a legend within the entertainment and cultural milieu in the United States.

Essence, which celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2000, is a publication designed to illustrate the role of African women in history and the modern world. Tyson, 96 years old, passed away on January 29 of natural causes.

She was born to immigrant parents from the Caribbean island of Nevis. Tyson came into existence in 1924 during the period that is popularly known as the Harlem Renaissance. Beginning in the first decade of the 20th century, Harlem was rapidly transforming from a European immigrant community to one which became largely occupied by Black and Latin American peoples.

During this period which began many years prior to the 1920s, witnessed a flowering of African American literary, musical and political contributions to the overall struggle for freedom and self-determination. Personalities such as Zora Neale Hurston, Langston Hughes, Bessie Smith, W.E.B. Du Bois, Claude McKay, Josephine Baker, among many others, gained prominence domestically and internationally during this period.

People of African descent from the southern U.S. and the Caribbean flooded into New York City and other urban areas in what later became known as the Great Migration. Although this category of mass geographic movement is associated with the rise of industrial capitalism, the people who participated in this migratory phenomenon were not just seeking economic improvement. Many saw the large and medium-sized cities to which they fled as potential avenues for greater social and political liberation.

Tyson writes in her book that:

“The United States has never been ‘one country under God’ but several nations gazing up at him, dissimilar faces huddled beneath a single flag…. The era I grew up in both deepened my racial wound and soothed it with the healing balm of the arts. My childhood spanned the 1920s and 1930s, two of the most economically memorable and culturally rich decades in American history –a period when Negro literature, music and culture flourished.”

The author mentions some of the hallmarks in Harlem such as the Savoy Ballroom and the Cotton Club along with musicians Duke Ellington, Fletcher Henderson, Cab Calloway, Billie Holiday, Louis Armstrong, Fats Waller and Jelly Roll Morton, whose contributions shaped the consciousness and cultural life of the early decades of the 20th century. Tyson acknowledges the philosophical reflections of Alain Locke, author of The New Negro, published in 1925 and the works of James Weldon Johnson, a songwriter and poet who composed the Black National Anthem, entitled “Lift Every Voice and Sing.” She mentions the classic book, “The Souls of Black Folk,” published at the dawn of the 20th century in 1903 by Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois, which was still being read voraciously by the successive generations of the 1920s and 1930s.

The Economic Crisis and the Struggle for Liberation

Of course, with the stock market crash of October 1929, African Americans and African Caribbean people were disproportionately impacted by the Great Depression which lasted until the beginning of the U.S. intervention in World War II. Tyson reviews the mass mobilizations surrounding the Scottsboro Boys case, which originated on the borders between Alabama and Tennessee in 1931 where nine African American youth were falsely accused of raping two white women on a freight train. In addition, the book reviews other horrors of the 1930s such as the U.S. government’s sponsored Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, where African American men were recruited to participate in a longitudinal study on the impact of the deadly disease. The men were promised free healthcare while in fact being denied treatment for Syphilis long after penicillin was discovered as an effective treatment.

Tyson goes on to point out that the Depression years resulted in a consolidation of legalized segregation and national oppression against Black people:

“The attack on our humanity continued in 1934. That year, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) established redlining, a set of racially discriminatory real estate and bank-lending practices that barred Blacks from purchasing homes in white neighborhoods—and thus set the stage for wealth disparity between Black and white households that remains to this day. Home and land ownership are the primary means by which Americans have historically amassed wealth, and when Blacks were locked out of bank loans and segregated into slums, we were robbed of the potential to build fortunes. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal brought a measure of relief for poor Blacks, but some of its policies, such as redlining, made the New Deal a raw one for us.”

Transcending Barriers and Achieving Recognition

While coming of age in Harlem, Tyson’s mother vehemently opposed her entering the acting business. Her mother felt that it was a profession filled with criminality and debauchery. However, Cecily continued to pursue her dreams.

She came to the attention of Ebony magazine, founded by John Johnson after the conclusion of World War II with a small loan from his family. By the 1950s, Ebony, Jet and other media projects sponsored by Johnson Publications, became a mainstay in the households of African Americans.

Tyson modelled for the fashion ads so prevalent in the magazine. Later she made appearances in a number of television and film productions. In 1963, she became one of the first African American women to wear natural hair over the television series entitled “East Side/West Side.” By 1967, she would appear on the cover of the groundbreaking Miles Davis album entitled “Sorcerer.” Tyson became a partner of the legendary Jazz icon, known for his innovative sound and fashion. The two of them were often photographed while in public setting trends for African Americans and broader segments of the population.

According to an article in Variety magazine the day after her death:

“Tyson broke into movies with the 1959 Harry Belafonte film “Odds Against Tomorrow,” followed by “The Comedians,” “The Last Angry Man,” “A Man Called Adam” and “The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter.” Refusing to participate in the blaxploitation movies that became popular in the late ’60s, she waited until 1972 to return to the screen in the drama ‘Sounder,’ which captured several Oscar nominations including one for Tyson as best actress.”

In 1974, she played the leading role in a television drama entitled “The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman”, based on an actual book released in the early 1960s chronicling the life and times of an African American woman born into slavery and living through Reconstruction, Jim Crow and the early years of the Civil Rights Movement. She also appeared in another television drama mini- series centered upon the novel by Gloria Naylor, known as ”The Women of Brewster Place.” The 1989 series was produced by Oprah Winfrey.

The same Variety review of her career mentioned above says: “She was nominated a total of 16 times in her career, also winning for supporting actress, in 1994 for an adaptation of “Oldest Living Confederate Widow Tells All”; she was nominated five times for guest actress in a drama for “How to Get Away With Murder.”

Cecily Tyson through her own work and interventions in the movements of the African American people has secured a position within history. Her efforts will continue to motivate women and oppressed peoples in the generations to come.

*

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 is from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Legacy of Cicely Tyson: Pioneer for Representation in Film, Fashion and Television
  • Tags:

Dehumanization Through the Dynamics of Racial Discrimination

February 4th, 2021 by Prof. Ruel F. Pepa

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

***

“It is race, is it not, that puts the hundred millions of India under the dominion of a remote island in the north of Europe. Race avails much, if that be true, which is alleged, that all Celts are Catholics, and all Saxons are Protestants; that Celts love unity of power, and Saxons the representative principle. Race is a controlling influence in the Jew, who, for two millenniums, under every climate, has preserved the same character and employments. Race in the negro is of appalling importance. The French in Canada, cut off from all intercourse with the parent people, have held their national traits. I chanced to read Tacitus ‘On the Manners of the Germans,’ not long since, in Missouri, and the heart of Illinois, and I found abundant points of resemblance between the Germans of the Hercynian forest, and our Hoosiers, Suckers, and Badgers of the American woods.”  Ralph Waldo Emerson

“Race must be viewed as a social construction. Human interaction rather than natural differentiation must be seen as the source and the continued basis for racial categorization.” — Prof. Ian F. Haney Lopez, “The Social Construction of Race”

The concept of race from physico-biological to socio-cultural

Race is basically a physico-biological concept and this is obviously attested by the fact that people differ in terms of certain physical features courtesy of the genetic factor. By and large, we automatically distinguish the geographical origins of people though it is true that times are a-changing, so to speak, and many of them were born and are now residents in locations not originally of their ancestors’. Pakistanis and Indians in UK, black Africans in the US . . . Arabs in Spain . . . Chinese in Germany . . . Italians in Argentina . . . Southeast Asians in Italy . . . Filipinos in Arab countries . . . . The list could go on and on as the issue of migration has become commonplace in the modern world. With this development is the emergence of the issue of race that goes beyond the physico-biological. At this point, the concept of race becomes more of a social matter.

In a social context where multiple racial presences is a reality, problems in the area of cultural differences heighten the fundamental discrepancies created by skin-color distinction. However, it is always the dominant racial stock in such a society that assumes the standard-setting prerogative. In this condition, the dominant segment spontaneously claims cultural ascendancy over and above the rest. In the process, a hierarchical ladder–a racial caste system, if you will–is set up on the basis of how far removed the others are from the ascendant standard-setting race. This matter taken seriously could be construed as an undying extension of the ancient master-slave mentality though with all the modifications necessary to toe the superficial line of “decency” that defines what a modern society is supposed to look like.

If a dominant racial group in society enjoys more benefits, privileges, rights and opportunities than the others, the issue of race as a concept becomes social. The general situation presents the superiority of the former over the latter. At this point, thinking people get curious and wonder why the former becomes more superior than the latter. We want to know what inherent genetic qualities does the dominant group possess that make it superior. Is it in terms of physical strength? Is it in the exquisite physical endowments their men and women have? Or perhaps in their unequalled intelligence? While contemplating these, we could go on  and on thinking of other factors generally held by members of a race who consider themselves dominant and superior over the others.

The rise of “racial superiority” in multi-racial societies

In a lot of multi-racial societies that used to be colonies of white-skinned Europeans, racial superiority is reckoned in terms of physical appearance especially the facial features and the skin complexion. This concern is one important area of consideration to better understand what basically colonial mentality is. The closer one’s facial features and skin complexion are to those of the colonizers’ descendants, the more they are treated with special attention, appreciation and affection. An African American (or an African European for that matter) woman is considered pretty if she possesses certain caucasian qualities that make her far different from the typical African. In this context, aesthetic judgment–which is precisely social or socio-cultural, if you will–is thus heavily influenced by the caucasian standard. This matter is much more pronounced in beauty pageants, both local and international so that a southeast Asian contestant should have some caucasian features to qualify. And this is true across the board wherever we find societies that used to be colonies of white empires in bygone eras.

However, in another categorical consideration like when it comes to physical prowess as in sports, those of African descent have proven in various events their excellent talents. In US professional basketball alone as a case in point, African Americans have shown their superiority for several succeeding generations. But this could be mistakenly construed as a unilateral assessment if we are not aware of the fact that white European hoopsters are of equal talents, skills and capabilities and all these have been witnessed in international campaigns like the World Cup. Once realized on a balanced scale, the final analysis yields to us the conclusion that after all, race is a non-factor in matters of physical strength.

The same is true in terms of intelligence as it is an established fact that high-level intelligence is normally  possessed by people in all racial groups everywhere. So long as we don’t make the Nobel Prize in various categories (except the peace prize)–where the majority of the awardees are caucasian–as the standard to judge the superior intelligence of one race over the other, we are on the right track to argue that intelligence transcends the racial divide. In the same vein, we likewise find stupid people everywhere so that nobody can ever lay reasonable claim to the notion that stupidity is one specific characteristic of some particular racial units. Economic backwardness is therefore not proof that a nation is inhabited by people whose stupidity is inherent to their racial roots . In practically all instances, these societies have long been victims of a series of politically generated setbacks that could be traced from the early days of colonization to the most recent mismanagement of governments run by incompetent and corrupt leaders while the more critically thinking intelligentsia are threatened and gagged by all possible means as well as hunted, imprisoned and even assassinated.

Zionist Israel as the most blatant case of unabashed racism in the 21st century

The worst case of racial issue as a social problematization that has hugged world news in the present dispensation is Israeli Zionism. It is based on a religious ideology that is purely mythical, even a blatant lie, that doesn’t have any historical justification. It has laid claim over a geographical portion of the Middle Eastern region which is now called Israel by virtue of the 1948 implementation of the Balfour Declaration. The whole scenario that has developed through time since Israel was first inaugurated is the bitter displacement of the land’s original inhabitants: the Palestinians. The ensuing violence that has resulted to carnage and catastrophic massacres perpetrated by the Zionist Israelis is absolutely aimed to totally annihilate the Palestinians.

Zionism as an ideology using the Jewish religion as a front promotes a brand of racism that puts to shame all previous racisms recorded in world history. The issue of race in Zionism transcends the physico-biological as it claims that the “God” of the Jewish Torah has given Israeli Jews a special recognition as the most important people in the world being “God’s chosen”. However, as far as the physico-biological aspect is concerned, the so-called “Israelis” belong to a racial stock so far different from that of the Palestinians since the latter are Semitic while the former are of ancient Turkic origin.

Israel’s exclusivist formulation grounded on invented socio-cultural presuppositions has promoted the monumental lie that Israelis are of Semitic stock and all attempts to bitterly attack and condemn the bullying perpetrated by Israel over the Palestinians is definitely “anti-Semitic”. In the modern world, nothing matches Zionism as it immorally stands out to notoriously promote the superiority of a race as a social construction based on concocted lies of malevolent personalities who being atheists do not even believe in the “God” whom they claim have chosen them and intended to bring them to the “promised land”.

Conclusion: Racial discrimination as cultural unilateralism 

However, racism as a serious problematique is not monolithic but in most instances, if not all, coincidental with the political or the economic or the social or even a combination of any or all of these factors. This consideration sustains more the notion that racism is more cultural than natural. In the case of Nazi Germany, racism was coincidental to an adversarial positioning against what was then perceived as Jewish dominance in the economic affairs of Germany. In the US, racial discrimination of the European-American populace towards the African-Americans was more of a social-status issue which had grown from an economic condition that spawned the mentality that the raison d’etre of African-Americans in the US was for the sole purpose of being “used as tools of economic production”.

Pockets of racism, big and small, are all over the world. Yet, there is nothing to blame about this hideous problem except the fact that cultural unilateralism initially spawns it to its negative extremes and drives it onwards to its most despicable form.

*

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.

Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. A retired academic (Associate Professor IV), he taught Philosophy and Social Sciences for more than fifteen years at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia Pacific Research. 

“Power Games All Over the Place”

February 4th, 2021 by Barbara Nimri Aziz

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

***

“Stop Mitch McConnell!” screams yet another message to my inbox.

Wait a minute. I understood that the power Mitch McConnell  wielded over the Senate (and the nation), thwarting all attempts at progressive reform and adequate Covid relief, ended two weeks ago.

Where are Georgia’s Democratic victories that leveled the playing field? That 50-50 party share in Congress’ powerful upper house would endow VP Kamala Harris with decisive power; wouldn’t it? The hard campaigning that wrenched away two seats from senate Republicans ended McConnell’s rule; didn’t it?

Democratic senator Charles Schumer, the putative replacement of McConnell as Senate leader, has leapt into prominence in recent weeks. But this Jan 21st article in The Hill affirming Schumer’s status nevertheless suggests that it’s kind of unclear how much control he and 49 Democratic senators will have. Can Schumer hold sway over the Senate? Can he prevail over his predecessor?

The two men have to work together to allocate the powerful senate committee chairmanships, to decide on the filibuster, and how much of Biden’s $1.9 trillion “American Rescue Plan” are acceptable. Then there’s the Senate trial over Trump’s impeachment; McConnell could derail a conviction. Yes, the former majority leader condemned Trump for inciting the January 6th attack on the Capitol, implying his support for a conviction by the Senate. Yet last week, McConnell joined 44 GOP-Republican senators to deny the 60 votes needed for a swift and clear verdict against Trump.

Schumer’s inexperience and his lackluster job as minority head does not offer much encouragement regarding how as majority leader, he might override resistance from McConnell.

Republicans have already begun placing obstacles in the way of some of Biden’s promised policy reversals, e.g., ending deportations. A Texas judge has temporarily delayed that, an example of influence wielded by Republican judges appointed by the Trump administration. 

Call me pessimistic, but pursuing stories behind the political headlines is simple civic responsibility. Struggle is a process, a process that doesn’t end in Washington. And it’s a process which too many Democrats who become energized largely by the presidential drama every four years, often relinquish. Republicans meanwhile press ahead in the shadows, like in state capitals.

That’s where powerful governors and state legislators pursue agendas which are sometimes regressive. Take the recently passed anti-protest laws aimed as much at peaceful protestors like you and me as at right-wing mobs threatening the Capitol. According to a report by the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law examined by The Intercept, some of these laws were drawn up before the January 6th riot. We learn that new bills passed across varying states “contain a dizzying array of provisions that serve to criminalize participation in disruptive protests. The measures range from barring demonstrators from public benefits or government jobs to offering legal protections to those who shoot or run over protesters.” Some proposals, we learn, “…would allow protesters to be held without bail and (they would) criminalize camping… A few bills seek to prevent local governments from defunding police.”

Many of these oppressive laws are passed by state governments where Republicans advanced their strength in last November’s election. Where those gains are is listed in a November 6th article by Forbes Magazine. We learn, for example:

“In 22 states, Republicans will hold unified control over the governor’s office and both houses of the legislature, giving the party wide political latitude — including in states like Florida and Georgia where Democrats hoped to take a legislative majority.

Republicans flipped the governor’s mansion in Montana and both legislative bodies in New Hampshire on Tuesday, granting the party unified control in two new states.

Democrats will only hold both the legislature and governor in 15 states, and while the party did not lose any of those states, its hopes of flipping legislatures and forming unified governments in North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Minnesota went unrealized.

Eleven states will have divided governments in 2021, unchanged from this year: Democratic governors will need to work with Republican legislators in eight states, and Republican governors will contend with Democratic lawmakers in three.”

Note Forbes’ own observation about the quiet headways made by Republicans “State legislative races are usually low-intensity affairs: The issues at play are highly localized, media attention is scant…”  “elections took on special meaning because of redistricting…. Beyond redistricting, state lawmakers also have broad control over policy. Some observers believe conservative state legislatures may try to pass severe abortion restrictions, cueing up legal battles that could end with parts of Roe v. Wade being relitigated by the Supreme Court. Also, the 11 states with divided governments will probably contend with partisan gridlock.”

Check out your state.

*

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.

BN Aziz whose anthropological research has focused on the peoples of the Himalayas is the author of the newly published “Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”, available on Amazon

The Decline and Fall of the American Empire

February 4th, 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).

***

In 2004, journalist Ron Susskind quoted a Bush White House advisor, reportedly Karl Rove, as boasting, “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.” He dismissed Susskind’s assumption that public policy must be rooted in “the reality-based community.” “We’re history’s actors,” the advisor told him, “…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Sixteen years later, the American wars and war crimes launched by the Bush administration have only spread chaos and violence far and wide, and this historic conjunction of criminality and failure has predictably undermined America’s international power and authority. Back in the imperial heartland, the political marketing industry that Rove and his colleagues were part of has had more success dividing and ruling the hearts and minds of Americans than of Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.

The irony of the Bush administration’s imperial pretensions was that America has been an empire from its very founding, and that a White House staffer’s political use of the term “empire” in 2004 was not emblematic of a new and rising empire as he claimed, but of a decadent, declining empire stumbling blindly into an agonizing death spiral.

Americans were not always so ignorant of the imperial nature of their country’s ambitions. George Washington described New York as “the seat of an empire,” and his military campaign against British forces there as the “pathway to empire.” New Yorkers eagerly embraced their state’s identity as the Empire State, which is still enshrined in the Empire State Building and on New York State license plates.

The expansion of America’s territorial sovereignty over Native American lands, the Louisiana Purchase and the annexation of northern Mexico in the Mexican-American War built an empire that far outstripped the one that George Washington built. But that imperial expansion was more controversial than most Americans realize. Fourteen out of fifty-two U.S. senators voted against the 1848 treaty to annex most of Mexico, without which Americans might still be visiting California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada, Utah and most of Colorado as exotic Mexican travel spots.

In the full flowering of the American empire after the Second World War, its leaders understood the skill and subtlety required to exercise imperial power in a post-colonial world. No country fighting for independence from the U.K. or France was going to welcome imperial invaders from America. So America’s leaders developed a system of neocolonialism through which they exercised overarching imperial sovereignty over much of the world, while scrupulously avoiding terms like “empire” or “imperialism” that would undermine their post-colonial credentials.

It was left to critics like President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana to seriously examine the imperial control that wealthy countries still exercised over nominally independent post-colonial countries like his. In his book, Neo-Colonialism: the Last Stage of Imperialism, Nkrumah condemned neocolonialism as “the worst form of imperialism.” “For those who practice it,” he wrote, “it means power without responsibility, and for those who suffer from it, it means exploitation without redress.”

So post-World War Two Americans grew up in carefully crafted ignorance of the very fact of American empire, and the myths woven to disguise it provide fertile soil for today’s political divisions and disintegration. Trump’s “Make America Great Again” and Biden’s promise to “restore American leadership” are both appeals to nostalgia for the fruits of American empire.

Past blame games over who lost China or Vietnam or Cuba have come home to roost in an argument over who lost America and who can somehow restore its mythical former greatness or leadership. Even as America leads the world in allowing a pandemic to ravage its people and economy, neither party’s leaders are ready for a more realistic debate over how to redefine and rebuild America as a post-imperial nation in today’s multipolar world.

Every successful empire has expanded, ruled and exploited its far-flung territories through a combination of economic and military power. Even in the American empire’s neocolonial phase, the role of the U.S. military and the CIA was to kick open doors through which American businessmen could “follow the flag” to set up shop and develop new markets.

But now U.S. militarism and America’s economic interests have diverged. Apart from a few military contractors, American businesses have not followed the flag into the ruins of Iraq or America’s other current war-zones in any lasting way. Eighteen years after the U.S. invasion, Iraq’s largest trading partner is China, while Afghanistan’s is Pakistan, Somalia’s is the UAE (United Arab Emirates), and Libya’s is the European Union (EU).

Instead of opening doors for American big business or supporting America’s diplomatic position in the world, the U.S. war machine has become a bull in the global china shop, wielding purely destructive power to destabilize countries and wreck their economies, closing doors to economic opportunity instead of opening them, diverting resources from real needs at home, and damaging America’s international standing instead of enhancing it.

When President Eisenhower warned against the “unwarranted influence” of America’s military-industrial complex, he was predicting precisely this kind of dangerous dichotomy between the real economic and social needs of the American people and a war machine that costs more than the next ten militaries in the world put together but cannot win a war or vanquish a virus, let alone reconquer a lost empire.

China and the EU have become the major trading partners of most countries in the world. The United States is still a regional economic power, but even in South America, most countries now trade more with China. America’s militarism has accelerated these trends by squandering our resources on weapons and wars, while China and the EU have invested in peaceful economic development and 21st century infrastructure.

For example, China has built the largest high-speed rail network in the world in just 10 years (2008-2018), and Europe has been building and expanding its high-speed network since the 1990s, but high-speed rail is still only on the drawing board in America.

China has lifted 800 million people out of poverty, while America’s poverty rate has barely budged in 50 years and child poverty has increased. America still has the weakest social safety net of any developed country and no universal healthcare system, and the inequalities of wealth and power caused by extreme neoliberalism have left half of Americans with little or no savings to live on in retirement or to weather any disruption in their lives.

Our leaders’ insistence on siphoning off 66% of U.S. federal discretionary spending to preserve and expand a war machine that has long outlived any useful role in America’s declining economic empire is a debilitating waste of resources that jeopardizes our future.

Decades ago Martin Luther King Jr. warned us that “a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”

As our government debates whether we can “afford” COVID relief, a Green New Deal and universal healthcare, we would be wise to recognize that our only hope of transforming this decadent, declining empire into a dynamic and prosperous post-imperial nation is to rapidly and profoundly shift our national priorities from irrelevant, destructive militarism to the programs of social uplift that Dr. King called for.

*

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 is from The Transnational

Winning Votes Through Identity Politics

February 4th, 2021 by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

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).

***

According to official estimates, Donald J. Trump obtained a little more than 74 million votes in the November 2020 presidential election losing to Joseph Biden who secured a little more than 81 million votes. Biden won by a comfortable margin but Trump also performed remarkably well. What explains his performance? Analysis of his performance may reveal the growing influence of a certain combination of forces that may shape elections in not only the United States but also in other parts of the world in the coming years.

Considering that most of the popular media channels, many established business outfits, professional groups, women’s organisations and youth movements were against Trump, how did he succeed in harnessing so much support? Let us not forget that more than the media and various entities, Trump’s failure to handle the coronavirus epidemic which resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and spiralling infections eroded considerably his support base.

While a variety of factors may have been responsible for the votes that Trump garnered— including his incumbency — certain observers have highlighted his appeal to a huge segment of the majority White population and his economic record as decisive.  As he did in his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump successfully projected himself as the defender of the interests of the Whites at a time when demographic changes favouring the Hispanic population on the one hand and Black political empowerment on the other (Obama’s 8 years in the White House as a case in point) were allegedly jeopardising the position of the majority community. Baseless as these allegations were, they were craftily manipulated to the advantage of the fear-mongers.

Fear manipulation by itself would not have worked if Trump had not proven that he could also deliver the goods — even if it was superficial. During his four years as president of the US, it is true that he created jobs for not only the majority but also for the minorities including Blacks, Hispanics and Asians. Businesses at all levels flourished and the economy appeared to be benefitting segments of society.

It is this combination — Trump at the forefront of identity politics and Trump pushing the economy forward that seems to have helped Trump in his electoral campaign. This combination of forces would have ensured his political triumph, some analysts argue, if it had not been for the pandemic.

Within his White constituency, the force that mobilised mass support for Trump came from the Christian Right. The Christian Right comprises diverse elements including Christian Zionists who in recent times have come to view Trump as a divinely chosen leader who will fulfil their ideological mission through Israel. This is why many Christian Zionists blindly endorsed Trump in the November 2020 US Election.

When we turn from the US to India, the world’s largest democracy, the nexus between identity politics and economic achievements becomes even more obvious. In recent elections, the ruling Bharatiyya Janata Party (BJP) which assumed power on its own in 2014 has projected itself as the champion of Hindutva, of Hindu nationalism  — a party sworn to protect Hindus against alleged moves by Muslims and other minorities in India to weaken the link between the religion  and the Indian polity.   In the 2019 General Election, after 5 years in power, its Hindutva credentials even more pronounced, the BJP had a greater grip upon the Hindu vote. Its readiness to erase manifestations of Islam in the public arena from place – names to historical narratives was testimony to its fidelity to the religion.

But the BJP also has a people oriented development agenda. It is committed to not only creating jobs and raising incomes but also to building much needed public facilities. Its claim to have built “a million toilets “ since coming to power in 2014 has had some impact upon popular sentiments. The BJP often talks about its rural transformation programmes and how it has reached out to the urban poor.

The BJP’s identity politics provides psychological support to its development agenda just as its development agenda derives its moral strength from its adherence to identity symbols and forms. However as in the US, the issue is how identity politics tends to encourage exclusive tendencies within the body politic. It strengthens dichotomies and divisions in society. The real challenges facing the people in the economy, in politics and in societal relations are often marginalised as bigotry and prejudice take centre stage. Thus some religious or cultural symbol manipulated by the elite may capture the popular imagination though what requires attention in society may be falling educational standards or universal health care.

Political parties or political leaders who do not want to see the politics of identity expressed through bigotry and communal stances dominate their societies especially if they are multi-ethnic are often in a quandary. How do they defeat such politics while remaining faithful to politics that is inclusive, honest and committed to justice and integrity?  There is one thing that they should not do. They should not play the same game of exploiting religious or communal sentiments to gain electoral support. The entire system will sink deeper into the communal cauldron. Neither should the opponents of bigotry and communalism dismiss the impact of these forces as a temporary phenomenon which will disappear in time.

The sane response is to examine in depth the eternal values and principles embodied in the great religious and humanistic philosophies and present their wisdom as an alternative discourse. In other words, what is universal and inclusive, what is just and compassionate in our traditions should be articulated as the real, authentic message of our belief systems. This should be done with courage and integrity whatever the bigots and communalists may say, and however harsh and aggressive their pronouncements and actions may be.

At the same time, those of us who are fighting bigots and communalists with an exclusive agenda should also put forward development policies and programmes that are just, inclusive and humane. In concrete terms, if the former seeks to build colleges it would be primarily to equip the next generation with the character, knowledge and skills that serve the public good rather than strengthen the elite stratum of society. As articulators of an alternative, promoting peace and harmony through shared values and principles that bind diverse communities together would be our cherished goal, not the propagation of attitudes that create barriers among us and sow the seeds of mutual distrust and suspicion. Likewise, those of us who subscribe to an alternative vision of society, will expose the corrupt and the greedy regardless of whether he or she is on our side or not.

If those of us who are opposed to bigotry and communalism possess and practise the right values and principles, it will not be possible for the manipulators of identity politics to spread their influence in society.

*

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

Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the president of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST). He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi attends the 3rd Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) Summit in Bangkok, Thailand, November 4, 2019. /VCG Photo

After COVID, Davos Moves to The “Great Reset”

February 4th, 2021 by F. William Engdahl

With the USA Biden Presidency, Washington has rejoined the Global Warming agenda of the Paris Accords. With China making loud pledges about meeting strict CO2 emission standards by 2060, now the World Economic Forum is about to unveil what will transform the way we all live in what WEF head Klaus Schwab calls the Great Reset.

Make no mistake. This all fits into an agenda that has been planned for decades by old wealth families such as Rockefeller and Rothschild. Brzezinski called it the end of the sovereign nation state. David Rockefeller called it “one world government.” George H.W. Bush in 1990 called it the New World Order. Now we can better see what they plan to impose if we allow.

The Great Reset of the World Economic Forum is a 21st Century rollout for a new form of global total control.

“We only have one planet and we know that climate change could be the next global disaster with even more dramatic consequences for humankind. We have to decarbonise the economy in the short window still remaining and bring our thinking and behaviour once more into harmony with nature,” declared WEF founder Schwab about the January 2021 agenda.

The last time these actors did something at all similar in scope was in 1939 on the very eve of World War II.

War & Peace Studies

At that time the Rockefeller Foundation financed a top secret strategy group working out of the New York Council on Foreign Relations. It was known as the War and Peace Studies and headed by ‘America’s Haushofer,’ geographer Isaiah Bowman of Johns Hopkins University. Before German Panzer tanks had even rolled into Poland, they were planning a postwar world where the United States would emerge as the sole victor and replace the British as the global hegemonic power.

Formulation of a US-dominated United Nations and Bretton Woods monetary order based on the dollar was part of their project. In 1941 as America formally entered the war, the CFR group sent a memo to the US State Department:

“If war aims are stated which seem to be solely concerned with Anglo-American imperialism, they will offer little to people in the rest of the world. The interests of other peoples should be stressed. This would have a better propaganda effect.”

That successful project has been the framework of what Henry Luce in 1941 called the American Century, and lasted until quite recently.


Now those same families, again including the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rothschilds in the person of Lynn de Rothschild’s “Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican,” are moving to create the next generation in their pursuit of global domination. It’s being called the Great Reset. It requires global government, a plank significantly endorsed by the Jesuit Pope Francis. Its PR man, Klaus Schwab, is a self-admitted protégé of Rockefeller insider Henry Kissinger, from their days 50 years ago at Harvard.

Build Back Better’

In May, 2020 as the coronavirus had caused global panic lockdowns far beyond the initial outbreak in Wuhan, the British Crown Prince Charles, together with the World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab, unveiled what they gleefully named the Great Reset. Increasingly world political and business leaders are using terms such as “the Great Reset,” or “the Fourth Industrial Revolution” and thecall to “Build Back Better” which the Biden Administration prefers. They all are anchored on the same set of dramatic global changes. The US Green New Deal and the EU European Green Deal are all part of it.

The most striking fact about the agenda of the Great Reset is that it is being advanced by the same giga-rich plutocrat families responsible for the flaws of the present world economic model. They, not we, have created ruin of organic fields and nature with their Roundup glyphosate and toxic pesticides. They have ruined the air quality in our cities by the transportation models they force on us. They created the “free market” model of globalization that has ruined the industrial base of the United States and the industrial EU nations. Now, as they blame us for an alleged catastrophic emission of CO2, we’re being conditioned to accept guilt and be punished in order to “save the next generation” for Greta and friends.

The 4th Industrial Revolution

Behind the seductive rhetoric of the Powers That Be on creating a “sustainable” world, lies an agenda of raw eugenics, depopulation on a scale never before tried. It is not human, in fact, some call it “transhuman.”

In 2016 WEF head Schwab wrote a book titled Shaping the Future of The Fourth Industrial Revolution. In it, he describes the technological changes coming with the 4th Industrial Revolution of 5G smart phones, Internet of Things and Artificial Intelligence that link everything to everything to make the most banal decisions for us such as buying more milk or turning down the stove. At the same time data is centralized in private corporations such as Google or Facebook to monitor every breath we take.

Schwab describes how new generation technologies, already being rolled out by Google, Huawei, Facebook and countless others, will allow governments to “intrude into the hitherto private space of our minds, reading our thoughts and influencing our behavior…Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies will not stop at becoming part of the physical world around us — they will become part of us,” said Schwab. “Today’s external devices — from wearable computers to virtual reality headsets — will almost certainly become implantable in our bodies and brains.”

Schwab adds, “What the fourth industrial revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, digital and biological identity.” Among those fusion technologies are, “active implantable microchips that break the skin barrier of our bodies,” Schwab explained. These “implantable devices will likely also help to communicate thoughts normally expressed verbally, through a ‘built-in’ smartphone, and potentially unexpressed thoughts or moods by reading brain waves and other signals.” I don’t know about you but I am not eager to have the state or Google read my brainwaves.

Control Our Food

The confusing aspect for many is the plethora of front groups, NGOs and programs which all lead to the same goal: the drastic control over every member of society in the name of sustainability—UN Agenda 2030. Nowhere is it more ominous than in their plans for the future of our food. After creating the present system of globalized industrial agriculture, agribusiness, a project begun in the 1950s by the Rockefeller Foundation, the same circles now advocate “sustainable” agriculture which will mean a shift to genetically edited fake foods, lab-made synthetic meats and such, even including worms and weeds as new food sources.

The WEF’S Schwab has partnered with something called EAT Forum, which describes itself as a “Davos for food” that plans to “set the political agenda.” EAT was created in Sweden in 2016 with support from the UK Wellcome Trust (established with funds from GlaxoSmithKline), and the German Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Lab-grown synthetic gene-edited meats are being supported among others by Bill Gates, the same one backing Moderna and other genetically edited vaccines. EAT works among others with Impossible Foods and other biotech companies. Impossible Foods was initially co-funded by Google, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates. Recent lab results showed the company’s imitation meat contained toxic glyphosate levels 11 times higher than its closest competitor.

In 2017 EAT launched FReSH (Food Reform for Sustainability and Health) with the backing of Bayer AG, one of the world’s most toxic pesticide and GMO producers that now owns Monsanto; the China-owned GMO and pesticide giant Syngenta, Cargill, Unilever, DuPont and even Google. This is the planned food future under the Great Reset. Forget the traditional family farmer.

In his 2020 book on The Great Reset, Schwab argues that biotechnology and genetically modified food should become a central pillar to global food scarcity issues, issues which COVID has exacerbated. He is pushing GMO and especially the controversial gene-editing. He writes “global food security will only be achieved if regulations on genetically modified foods are adapted to reflect the reality that gene editing offers a precise, efficient and safe method of improving crops.” Gates, a project partner with Schwab since years, has argued the same.

EAT has developed what it refers to as “the planetary health diet,” which the WEF champions as the “sustainable dietary solution of the future.” But according to Federic Leroy, a food science and biotechnology professor at University of Brussels, “The diet aims to cut the meat and dairy intake of the global population by as much as 90% in some cases and replaces it with lab-made foods, cereals and oil.”

Like everything else with the Great Reset, we will not be given a real choice in food. EAT notes it will be forced on us by, “hard policy interventions that include laws, fiscal measures, subsidies and penalties, trade reconfiguration and other economic and structural measures.” We will all be forced to eat the same synthetic diet or starve.

This is just a hint of what is being prepared under the guise of COVID-19 lockdowns and economic collapse, and 2021 will be a decisive year for this anti-human agenda. The introduction of AI, robots, and other digital technologies will enable the Powers That Be to dispose of hundreds of millions of workplaces. Contrary to their propaganda, new jobs will not be sufficient. We will become increasingly “redundant.”

This all seems too surreal until you read from their own descriptions. The fact that the cabal of the world’s most influential corporations and billionaires sit on the board of WEF with Kissinger’s student, Klaus Schwab, along with the head of the UN and of the IMF, with the CEOs of the world’s largest financial giants including Blackrock, BlackStone, Christine Lagarde of the European Central Bank, David Rubenstein of Carlyle group, Jack Ma, richest billionaire in China, is proof enough this Great Reset is not being done with our true interests at heart, despite their silky words. This dystopian agenda is 1984 on steroids. COVID-19 was merely the prelude.

*

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.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. 

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

Featured image is from NEO


seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

World Court to Hear Iran’s Case Against US Sanctions

February 4th, 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).

***

Unilaterally imposed sanctions by one nation on others breaches international law.

UN Charter Article II prohibits the practice.

It mandates that all member states “settle…disputes” according to the rule of law.

It bans the threat or use of force by one nation against another.

Under Article 41, unilaterally imposed sanctions by one nation against others have no legal validity.

No nation or combination thereof may intervene against another without Security Council authorization.

It’s permitted only in self-defense or to enforce the rule of law when breached by a nation-state.

Security Council members alone may legally impose sanctions on nations, entities or individuals.

US sanctions on targeted nations constitute war by other means.

They’re weaponized to pressure, bully, and terrorize targeted nations into bending to its will.

Nations observing them are complicit in law-breaking.

In 1933, years before the UN Charter’s creation, the Montevideo Convention of Rights and Duties prohibited nations from intervening in the internal affairs of others — calling their sovereign territory “inviolable.”

The principle of non-intention is affirmed in other international law.

Notably throughout the post-WW II period, the US and its imperial partners operate by their own rules exclusively.

Their actions repeatedly and flagrantly breach core international law principles.

Nations unwilling to subordinate their sovereign rights to a higher power in Washington are considered enemies of its interests.

In late January at his first news conference, Tony Blinken said US sanctions on Iran will remain in place until its ruling authorities comply with unacceptable US demands.

He falsely accused the Islamic Republic of being “out of compliance on a number of fronts, and it would take some time, should it make a decision to do so, for it to come back into compliance, and (some time) for us then to assess whether it was meeting its obligations (sic).”

Under JCPOA Articles 26 and 36, Iran continues to comply with principles of the landmark nuclear agreement.

Increasing uranium to 20% purity and other actions taken are reversible in short order if the US and E3 countries fulfill their abandoned obligations.

It’s for them to take good will first steps, not Iran.

They breached the agreement, not the Islamic Republic.

Their “credible path back to diplomacy” is all about getting Iran to accept unacceptable demands it rejects.

Claiming Iran is “divert(ing) toward making nuclear weapons in return for sanctions relief from world powers” is a bald-faced Big Lie.

No evidence remotely suggests it. Plenty of indisputable evidence proves otherwise.

Biden/Harris hardliners are pursuing a path of confrontation with Iran, not mutual cooperation.

It’s an ominous sign for what may lie ahead.

Iran is not in violation of “JCPOA curbs.”

The US and E3 countries are in flagrant violation of breaching their JCPOA obligations.

On Wednesday, a 16-judge International Court of Justice (ICJ) panel agreed to hear Iran’s case against illegally imposed US sanctions — supported by its imperial partners.

Submitted to the Court in 2018, Iran accused the Trump regime of breaching the 1955 US-Iran Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights by imposing unlawful sanctions.

Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif applauded the court’s decision, tweeting:

“The @CIJ_ICJ just dismissed all US preliminary objections in the case brought by Iran over unlawful US sanctions.”

“Another legal victory for Iran following 3 Oct. ’18 Order.”

“Iran has always fully respected int’l law.”

“High time for the US to live up to 𝙞𝙩𝙨 int’l obligations.”

In October 2018, Pompeo unilaterally ended the friendship treaty with Iran.

It was in force when Iran submitted its complaint to the Court.

It’ll likely take some time before the ICJ rules on this issue.

If it favors Iran over the Trump regime, it has no power to force US compliance.

In 1986, the IDJ’s ruling for Nicaragua was ignored by the US.

The Court ordered Washington to pay reparations to Nicaragua for contra war mass slaughter, destruction, and related high crimes against a sovereign state.

The pattern is virtually sure to repeat if the Court supports Iran’s legal claim against the Trump regime.

In October 2018, the ICJ ruled for Iran against US sanctions on humanitarian goods, calling Trump regime measures “illegitimate and cruel.”

Pompeo and other regime hardliners ignored the ruling.

A similar response is virtually certain whenever judicial rulings go against US actions and interests.

It’s how the scourge of US imperialism operates.

*

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 Al-Masdar News

Why Israel Is Joining the Pentagon’s ‘Arab NATO’

February 4th, 2021 by Jonathan Cook

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).

***

With none of the usual fanfare associated with such a momentous decision, the Pentagon announced last month a major reorganisation to bring Israel – for the first time – inside its military command in the Middle East alongside the Arab states.

Until now, Israel has belonged to the US military’s European command, or Eucom, rather than the Middle Eastern one, known as Central Command, or Centcom. The decision effectively jettisoned the traditional wisdom that Israel’s inclusion in Centcom would increase friction between the US and Arab states, and would make the latter more reluctant to share intelligence or cooperate with the Pentagon.

Those concerns were felt especially keenly when the US had large numbers of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Back in 2010, David Petraeus, then Centcom’s commander, expressed fears that the price of too-overt military collusion with Israel could be exacted on US forces stationed in the region.

But Israel’s long-standing goal has been to force the Pentagon to restructure Centcom, and pressure had mounted from pro-Israel lobby groups in Washington in the final months of the Trump administration. The decision looked very much like a “parting gift” to Israel from President Donald Trump as he stepped down.

Military ‘normalisation’

Israel’s formal transfer to Centcom has not yet taken place, but the move was cemented last week with the first visit to Israel by General Kenneth McKenzie, the current head of Centcom, since Joe Biden entered the White House. Alongside Israel’s military chief of staff, Aviv Kohavi, McKenzie planted a tree – officially to mark the Jewish holiday of Tu Bishvat but symbolically representing a new era in their strategic partnership.

On Friday, after a meeting with the US general, Benny Gantz, Israel’s defence minister, issued a statement praising the Pentagon’s reorganisation, saying it would “afford Israel opportunity to deepen cooperation with new regional partners and broaden operative horizons”.

The decision to bring Israel inside the US military command in the Middle East is best viewed – from Washington’s perspective – as the culmination of efforts to push the Arab states into public “normalisation” with Israel.

Military normalisation can now be added to the political, diplomatic and economic normalisation that formally began last September when two Gulf states, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, signed the so-called Abraham Accords with Israel. Morocco and Sudan have also announced their own peace deals with Israel, and other Arab states are likely to follow suit once the dust settles with the incoming Biden administration.

Since the signing of the Abraham Accords, the UAE has been forging strong trading ties with Israel and has helped to establish the Abraham Fund, designed to finance the infrastructure of occupation Israel has used to deprive the Palestinians of statehood. When flights to Dubai were launched in November, Israeli tourists poured into the UAE to take advantage of the new friendly relations and escape lockdown restrictions back home.

In fact, it is widely reported that such visits have become one of the main ways Israel has imported new variants of Covid-19. Last week, Israel effectively closed its borders – except to General McKenzie – to keep the virus in check.

Growing confidence

On the face of it, Israel’s desire to move into Centcom – a kind of Middle East Nato covering several Arab states with which Israel still has hostile relations – appears counter-intuitive. But, in fact, Israel will make major strategic gains.

It will align US security interests in the region even more closely with Israel’s, at the expense of its Arab neighbours. It will aid Israel’s continuing efforts to crush the national ambitions of the Palestinians, with many Arab states’ either explicit or implicit cooperation. It will accentuate political tensions within the bloc of Arab states, further weakening it. And it will help to build pressure on recalcitrant Arab states to join the broader consensus against Israel’s one remaining significant regional foe: Iran.

It is significant that Washington’s long-standing concern about Israel’s presence in Centcom damaging US relations with the Arab states has apparently evaporated.

Once, the US was careful to distance itself from Israel whenever the Pentagon got deeply mired in the region, whether it was the US Gulf war of 1990 or the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. Those calculations no longer seem relevant.

The move demonstrates a growing US confidence that the Arab states – at least those that matter to Washington – are unperturbed about being seen to make a military accommodation with Israel, in addition to political and economic engagement. It underscores the fact that the oil-rich Gulf states, alongside Israel, are now the key drivers of US foreign policy in the region and suggests that the most important, Saudi Arabia, is waiting for the right moment to sign its own accord with Israel.

Move out of the shadows

Israel, it is expected, will continue to conduct military exercises in Europe with Nato countries, but will soon be able to build similar direct relations with Arab armies, especially those being rapidly expanded and professionalised in the Gulf using its oil wealth.

It is likely that Israeli officers will soon move out of the shadows and publicly train and advise the UAE and Saudi armies as part of their joint roles in Centcom. Israel’s particular expertise, drawing on decades of surveilling, controlling and oppressing Palestinians, will be highly sought after in Gulf states fearful of internal dissent or uprisings.

As the Israeli scholar Jeff Halper has noted, Israel has shown how effective it is at translating its military and security ties with armies and police forces around the world into diplomatic support in international bodies.

The Middle East is not likely to be different. Once Israel has become the linchpin of more professionalised armies in the region, those states dependent on its help can be expected to further abandon the Palestinian cause.

Regional divide-and-rule

Another dividend for Israel will be complicating Washington’s relations with the Arab region.

Not only does Centcom operate major bases in the Gulf, especially in Bahrain and Qatar, but it leads the proclaimed “war on terror”, with overt or covert operations in several Arab states, including Iraq and Syria.

It will be harder for the US to disentangle itself from Israel’s own openly belligerent operations, including air strikes, in both countries, that are conducted in flagrant violation of international law. Tensions between the US and Baghdad have in the past escalated over Israeli air strikes in Iraq, with threats to limit US access to Iraqi airspace.

With Israel inside Centcom, the US and its most favoured Arab states are also likely to be more directly implicated in Israel’s major military operations against the Palestinians, such as the repeated “wars” on Gaza.

This will pose a significant challenge to the region’s cooperative institutions such as the Arab League. It is almost certain to drive an even deeper wedge between pro-Washington Arab states and those accused of being on the wrong side of the “war on terror”.

The result could be a regional divide-and-rule policy cultivated by Israel that mirrors the decades-long, disabling divisions Israel has generated in the Palestinian leadership, most pronounced in the split between Fatah and Hamas.

Anti-Iran front

The biggest bonus for Israel will be a more formal alliance with Arab states against Iran and shepherding more ambivalent states into Israel’s orbit.

That appears to have been the purpose of the recently well-publicised reconciliation between the UAE and Saudis on one side and Qatar on the other, achieved in the dying days of the Trump administration. One of the chief causes of the lengthy blockade of Qatar related to its insistence on maintaining political and economic ties with Tehran.

Israel’s aim is to force the Biden administration’s hand in continuing Trump’s belligerent anti-Iran policy, which included aggressive sanctions, assassinations and tearing up the 2015 nuclear agreement with Tehran signed by Barack Obama. That deal had given inspectors access to Iran to ensure it did not develop a nuclear bomb that might neutralise the strategic clout Israel gains from its nuclear arsenal.

Inside Centcom, Israel will be able to work more closely with Gulf allies to sabotage any efforts inside Washington to revive the nuclear accord with Tehran. That point was underscored last week when an online security conference, hosted by Tel Aviv University, was attended by two Gulf ministers.

At the conference, Kochavi, Israel’s military chief of staff, issued an unprecedented public rebuke to Biden over recent statements that he wished to revive the nuclear deal. Kochavi called the agreement “bad and wrong strategically and operatively”, claimed that Iran would launch nuclear missiles at Israel once it had them, and declared that a go-it-alone attack by Israel “must be on the table”.

Bahrain’s foreign minister, Abdullatif al-Zayani, observed that Israel and the Gulf states would have a better chance of preventing any US conciliation towards Iran if they spoke in a “unified voice”. He added: “A joint regional position on these issues will exert greater influence on the United States.”

That view was echoed by Anwar Gargash, the UAE’s foreign affairs minister.

Middle East bogeyman

In a sign of how the Biden administration is already fearful of taking on a broad Middle Eastern alliance against Iran, the new president’s pick for secretary of state, Antony Blinken, said last month it was “vitally important” to consult with Israel and the Gulf states before re-entering the deal.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, desperate to bolster his electoral fortunes and deflect attention from his looming corruption trial, has every incentive to prise open that chink.

Ensuring Iran remains the Middle East’s number one bogeyman – the focus of western hostility – is in the joint interests of an Israel that has no intention of ending its decades-old obstruction of Palestinian statehood and of Gulf states that have no intention of ending their own human rights abuses and promotion of Islamic discord.

Mike Pompeo, Trump’s departing secretary of state, planted a landmine last month designed to serve Israeli and Saudi interests by highlighting the fact that a number of al-Qaeda leaders have found shelter in Iran. That echoed the Bush administration’s – in this case, entirely fanciful – claim of ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein as a pretext, along with non-existent WMD, for the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.

With Israel’s arrival in Centcom, the lobbying for a repeat of that catastrophic blunder can only grow – and with it, the prospects for renewed conflagration in the Middle East.

*

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

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

***

The founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, has said that unless “everybody” is vaccinated for COVID-19, then “nobody will be safe,” despite numerous deaths, serious side effects, and unknown consequences on fertility resulting from the vaccines.

Schwab, who holds doctorates in economics and engineering, made the statement as part of a joint discussion on stakeholder capitalism, as part of the World Economic Forum’s recent Davos Agenda meeting. Speaking to CNN Business Emerging Markets Editor John Defterios, Schwab used a question of governmental cooperation with businesses as a means to pronounce his view about vaccine roll-outs across the world.

“One lesson we take out of this crisis is the notion of mutual interdependence. Because even as individuals, we had to take care not to infect someone else and not to be infected. And the same we have to apply now on a global level.”

“As long as not everybody is vaccinated, nobody will be safe,” Schwab declared.

Schwab has long welcomed the arrival of COVID-19, saying that the disruption which has been caused was a “unique window of opportunity,” in which to bring about the Great Reset. We must “build a new social contract…We must change our mindsets” and our “lifestyles,” he has remarked.

In his recent book, COVID-19: The Great Reset, Schwab pointed to regular vaccinations as the only way in which to exit the vicious cycle of lockdown restrictions. “It looks like even a semblance of a return to ‘business as usual’ for most service companies is inconceivable as long as COVID-19 remains a threat to our health. This in turn suggests that a full return to ‘normal’ cannot be envisaged before a vaccine is available.”

He mentioned the “political challenge” of “vaccinating enough people worldwide,” since “we are collectively as strong as the weakest link.” Schwab welcomed the “high enough compliance rate” whilst simultaneously decrying the rise of anti-vaxxers,” who posed a threat to the global vaccine delivery.

“It will be very hard to fight COVID-19 without an effective treatment or a vaccine,” he claimed, “and, until then, the most effective way to curtail or stop transmission of the virus is by widespread testing followed by the isolation of cases, contact tracing and the quarantine of contacts exposed to the people infected.”

Schwab’s plea for the global population to be vaccinated, in order to apparently bring about safety from COVID-19, comes in direct opposition to his own words in his book. He directly stated that “the corona crisis is (so far) one of the least deadly pandemics the world has experience over the last 2000 years. In all likelihood, unless the pandemic evolves in an unforeseen way, the consequences of COVID-19 in terms of health and mortality will be mild compared to previous pandemics.”

Continuing, Schwab wrote that COVID “does not constitute an existential threat, or a shock that will leave its imprint on the world’s population for decades.”

Despite these words, the WEF has been instrumental in developing the “CommonPass” in conjunction with the Commons Project, which would serve as a health passport in the post-COVID world, allowing or denying people the ability to travel, depending on their health and vaccination record. Paul Meyers, CEO of the Commons Project, announced in a WEF video, that the CommonPass would be a “platform that lets people safely and securely collect their health information, whether it is a negative COVID test result, or eventually a record of a COVID vaccination.”

Reporting on the news, LifeSiteNews’ Jeanne Smits wrote:

“The truth of the matter suggested by this new worldwide app is, of course, that global rules with global implementation will allow control of all potential travellers (from country to country, from city to city) with regard to their COVID-19 status.”

However, whilst Schwab calls for universal vaccinations to protect the world from COVID-19, he seems to ignore the advice and warnings from a number of medical health professionals, who have issued grave warnings about the hastily developed experimental injections.

The former vice president of Pfizer Dr. Michael Yeadon has flatly rejected the need for any vaccines for COVID-19, saying “there is absolutely no need for vaccines to extinguish the pandemic. I’ve never heard such nonsense talked about vaccines. You do not vaccinate people who aren’t at risk from a disease. You also don’t set about planning to vaccinate millions of fit and healthy people with a vaccine that hasn’t been extensively tested on human subjects.”

Dr. Theresa Deisher, whose doctorate is in molecular and cellular physiology from Stanford University, has also rejected the need for a vaccine for COVID, explaining that it “has less than a 0.03 percent fatality rate and most of those people, I believe 92 percent or above, have other health problems; we’re making a vaccine at warp speed for a virus that doesn’t look like it’s going to need a vaccine.”

She also added that

“(i)t is possible, but I don’t believe it is desirable, nor do I believe that it’s safe,” with as much as “15 percent of the very healthy young volunteers (experiencing) significant side effects.”

Indeed, recent data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has revealed that by January 22, at least 273 people in the had died after receiving a COVID vaccine. Most of the deaths occurred within 48 hours of receiving the vaccine.

A further 9,854 adverse events had also been reported as potentially linked to the vaccine, although the number could well be much higher, as a 2012 Harvard study found that the system by which such events are reported, VAERS, only isolates about 1% of such injuries.

Not only that, but a warning issued about Pfizer’s vaccine, stipulated that pregnancy should be avoided for two months after the injection, and breastfeeding mothers shouldn’t receive it. The paper also revealed that there was no knowledge about what impact the experimental injection could have upon fertility.

Medical advisers across the world are now suggesting that people will continue to wear masks and practice physical distancing, even after receiving their injection. The vaccines themselves, which are still technically experimental, do not purportto prevent asymptomatic COVID-19 infections or to last longer than one year.

In place of such untested and dangerous vaccines, the long established medications ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have received much support from medics, with doctors saying ivermectin “basically obliterates transmission of this virus,” with “miraculous effectiveness.”

Meanwhile, hydroxychloroquine can reportedly reduce mortality of COVID patients “by 50 percent.” The Association of American Physicians & Surgeons explained that the COVID mortality rate “in countries that allow access to HCQ is only 1/10th the mortality rate in countries where there is interference with this medication, such as the United States.”

*

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

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

***

The United Nations General Assembly, African Union, and International Court of Justice have all found that Great Britain’s forcible deportation of the Chagos Islanders a generation ago to make way for the US military base at Diego Garcia was unlawful and a serious violation of international law.  The islanders, known as Chagossians who are of mainly African heritage are prevented from returning by Apartheid laws which allow them only brief visits under military guard while US and UK military, contractors, yachtsmen and scientists are permitted to remain in and visit the disputed archipelago.

A charging submission was filed last October with the International Criminal Court alleging the London based administration of the British Indian Ocean Territory and its military representative at Diego Garcia, Commander Kay Burbridge RN, were engaged in the crime of Apartheid and should be arrested and brought to The Hague for trial.  The Court initially advised the Petitioners to seek justice in the national courts but to resubmit the petition if new information came to light.

The Chagossians now cite changed circumstances including the swearing in of self-described anti-Apartheid fighter Joseph Biden as US President and the rejection of their legal claims December 8, 2020 by the Trump administration as: “Not in the interests of the US government.” On January 28, 2021 yet another UN court, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) ruled the UK was illegally occupying the Chagos islands and Diego Garcia.  Finally, the Chagossians point to a series of recent public statements made by the Mauritius prime minister, Pravind Jugnauth, threatening the United Kingdom with a state referral for crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court .

According to the Amended Charging Submission the British administration has instituted laws that prevent the Chagossians from living in the Chagos Archipelago and they may visit only under military escort. The Chagossians despite having lived on the disputed islands for up to 8 generations have been stripped of property rights and citizenship.  The all white British Indian Ocean Territory Administration enforces these laws with the help of a Royal Navy contingent in the islands and the US military. In addition to the naval commander the Accused includes the British Indian Ocean Territory Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Administrator, and legal advisors.

The International Criminal Court remains under sanctions instituted by former President Trump and not yet lifted by President Biden.  President Trump found the ICC was a threat to US national security. The Chagossians’ lawyer, Dr. Jonathan Levy, stated the sanctions intimidated and bullied both the Chagossians and their legal team as well as International Criminal Court’s prosecutors who were placed on the specially sanctioned persons list along with narcotics kingpins and terrorists. The International court however has taken up a similar care involving the Rohingya people of Myanmar who were forcibly deported and denied the right to return to their homes.

According to the Chagossians’ lawyer, Dr, Jonathan Levy:

“The United Kingdom and United States are acting like international bullies. They demand adherence to human rights norms by others but then turn about and intimidate courts and commit racist acts in the name of national security.” And Dr. Levy added a message to the US president: “President Biden you say you are against racism, apartheid and support international law. Sir, we need action, not words; show the international community that the US once again will champion human rights, equality and anti-racism.  Remove the sanctions on the International Criminal Court and let them investigate the allegations of apartheid on Diego Garcia island.”

*

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).

***

One of the first documents signed by U.S. President Joe Biden immediately after his inauguration on January 15 was an executive order revoking the permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline. The Keystone project should have been the cornerstone of the Canadian economy. First proposed in 2005, it struggled with many bureaucratic hurdles in Canada and the U.S., and also faced fierce environmental resistance. According to the proposal, the Keystone XL is a 3,500km oil pipeline that is supposed to pump out 800,000 barrels of oil a day from the Canadian province of Alberta to U.S. refineries in the Gulf of Mexico, primarily in Texas. The project has the potential to create or support about 60,000 jobs – 42,000 in the U.S. and 17,000 in Canada.

The importance of the pipeline to the Canadian economy is seen by the country’s major banks and several pension funds having big shares in the venture. The Alberta government has already invested $1.5 billion on top of the $6 billion provided by loan guarantees.

It is no coincidence that in 2013, just before the beginning of Justin Trudeau’s Prime Ministership, he named Keystone “one of the most important infrastructure projects of our generation” at a meeting with oil business representatives. He also promised to fight for its implementation. Criticizing then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper for his vague stance in defense of the project, Trudeau told oil and gas tycoons that Canada “needs a government, not a cheerleader.” One can just imagine how much Biden’s decision would have angered his Canadian neighbors.

From the beginning, the Democrats opposed Keystone as it is in opposition to their Green New Deal. A 2015 decree by former President Barack Obama suspended the construction of an oil pipeline through American territory. One of the main lobbyists for this was Biden, who at the time was Vice President.

Democrats have always justified their position because of environmental concerns. However, the interests of party politics played a major role in Biden’s decision. The fact is that one of the main beneficiaries of the pipeline would have been a business empire created by the billionaire Koch brothers, who are major supporters of the Republican Party. By destroying the project, Obama and Biden deprived their political opponents of significant financial support. This motive is overlooked in U.S. media.

During his election campaign, Biden made no secret of his intention to kill Keystone XL by revoking a building permit signed by previous U.S. President Donald Trump in January 2017. The promise to ban the pipeline has been one of the cornerstones of Biden’s program since last spring. At the same time, Trudeau promised to strongly oppose any American government if the construction of the oil pipeline was terminated. This has certainly created tensions between the two North American countries.

Without much consultation and warning, Biden killed the project only five days after his inauguration. Trudeau, instead of offering the promised fierce resistance, is now forced to make conciliatory statements.

Another important promise by Biden was to improve relations with Washington’s closest allies in the aftermath of the Trump administration. As a presidential candidate, Biden condemned Trump’s approach and promised to restore friendly relations with partners, especially Canada. However, as his silent move to end the Keystone construction shows, the new U.S. president is no more interested in the political and economic interests of Washington’s partners than Trump was, especially since Biden ignored basic courtesy, even with a supposed ally.

That is what the now furious Premier of Alberta, Jason Kenney, is highlighting – Washington’s complete disregard for the interests of its partners. Kenney is calling for the federal government to take tough action and even impose economic sanctions against the U.S. His outrage is also shared by the premiers of other Canadian provinces. Biden has demonstrated to not only Canada, but the whole world, that he has an inability to negotiate or compromise.

If Washington treats its fellow Anglo neighbor and supposed ally so harshly, it gives indications to how Biden’s policies will be towards Russia and China. It is likely that Trump’s war against the Nord Stream-2 project will only intensify under Biden despite being contrary to the interests of Washington’s allies in Europe.

The president’s promise to abandon oil production and ban shale gas fracturing technologies demonstrates to Europe that they should not believe that the U.S. will replace Russian energy resources. This comes despite many assurances from Washington that so-called “freedom gas” will save Europeans from supposed Russian dependence. The example of Keystone XL clearly shows to Europeans that the U.S. is not a reliable partner, especially in issues related to energy.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

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).

***

Venezuelan authorities have reportedly dismantled a terrorist plan.

National Assembly President Jorge Rodriguez held a press conference on Sunday and announced the arrest of Juan Gutierrez Aranguren, who was allegedly plotting to bomb the legislative palace in Caracas during a parliamentary session.

“We shall not rest until all those involved in [terror] attacks are captured,” Rodriguez stated, adding that Gutierrez was detained by security forces on the Venezuelan-Colombian border.

The former communications minister pointed the finger at opposition leaders Leopoldo Lopez and Juan Guaido, accusing them of being “constantly” involved in subversive activities.

“Lopez and Guaido have been behind the training of military deserters, alliances with drug traffickers, recruiting criminals in Colombia for violent attacks in Venezuela,” he said.

Rodriguez went on to demand explanations from Spanish authorities for allegedly allowing Lopez to organize efforts to oust the Maduro government. The far right leader sought refuge in the Spanish embassy in Caracas after escaping house arrest in April 2019, and fled the country 18 months later.

One of the recent high profile coup attempts, in which Gutierrez was also a participant, was the failed paramilitary invasion code named “Operation Gedeon.”

In May 2020, a 60-strong expedition featuring Venezuelan deserting soldiers and two US mercenaries was neutralized by security forces. Two speed boats were intercepted when attempting to disembark, with dozens of arrests in subsequent days. According to Rodriguez, Gutierrez managed to escape arrest and continue his activities before being caught trying to cross back to Colombia.

In video testimony released on public television, the operative corroborated the leading role of the high-profile opposition figures. He added that he deserted from the Venezuelan armed forces heeding the call from self-proclaimed “Interim President” Juan Guaido.

Furthermore, Gutierrez testified that he was involved in training in one of three camps in northern Colombia under retired Venezuelan Major General Cliver Alcala, another key Gedeon figure. The Venezuelan government had publicly denounced the camps before multilateral organizations.

Gutierrez’s revelations came on the heels of testimony from another Operation Gedeon participant. Yacsy Alvarez Mirabal confessed to having worked as an interpreter for former US green beret Jordan Goudreau, the main organizer of the operation.

In a video released on social media, Alvarez stressed that the Colombian government and intelligence services were aware of the coup efforts being organized in Colombian territory. She specifically claimed that current President Ivan Duque and former President Alvaro Uribe were informed of the operation and pledged logistical support including landing strips and free border crossing.

In September, Colombian authorities arrested Alvarez and three other Venezuelan nationals allegedly involved in Operation Gedeon. They are being investigated for arms trafficking after Alcala’s men were arrested with a shipment in April 2020. The Venezuelan government has requested their extradition.

Operation Gedeon had a significant fallout amidst the Venezuelan opposition. Guaido attempted to distance himself from the operation and have his advisers shoulder the blame. However, his signature appears on a contract with Goudreau’s Silvercorp private contractor, which includes a deniability clause should the plot fail.

The Trump administration likewise denied any involvement in the paramilitary invasion attempt. Nevertheless, as part of a breach-of-contract lawsuit filed against Guaido adviser Juan Jose (“JJ”) Rendon, Goudreau claimed to have met White House officials who encouraged the efforts.

The green beret also stated that a meeting with Trump at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago resort was in the works but did not materialize.

*

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: National Assembly President Jorge Rodriguez blasted opposition leaders for coup attempts. (MPPCI)

Towards 2030, NATO Is Shaping Our Future

February 4th, 2021 by Manlio Dinucci

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

***

NATO is looking to the future. For this reason, Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg summoned students and young leaders of the Alliance countries via videoconference on February 4, proposing “new ideas for NATO 2030.” His initiative is part of the growing involvement with universities and schools, also with a competition on the theme: “What will be the greatest threats to peace and security in 2030 and how will NATO adapt to counter them?”

To carry out the theme, young people already have their textbook: “NATO 2030 / United for a New Era.” The report was presented by a group of ten experts appointed by the Secretary-General. Among these experts is Marta Dassù, who, after being a foreign policy advisor to Former Prime Minister D’Alema during the NATO war in Yugoslavia, held important positions in successive governments and was appointed by Former Prime Minister Renzi to the Finmeccanica board of directors (now Leonardo), the largest Italian war industry.

What is the “new era” that the experts group envisages? After defining NATO as “the most successful alliance in history”, that “put an end to two wars” (these wars against Yugoslavia and Libya were instead triggered by NATO), the report painted the picture of a world characterized by «authoritarian States seeking to expand their power and influence», posing to NATO allies «a systemic challenge in all security and economy fields ».

Reversing facts, the report claimed that, while NATO amicably extended its hand to Russia, Russia responded with “aggression in the Euro-Atlantic area” and, in agreements’ violation “brought about the end of the Treaty on Intermediate Nuclear Forces “. Russia, the ten experts pointed out, is “the main threat facing NATO in this decade”.

At the same time – they argued – NATO is facing growing “security challenges posed by China”, whose economic activities and technologies may have “an impact on collective defense and military preparation in the area of Supreme Allied Commander’s responsibility in Europe (The Supreme Commander is always a US general appointed by the President of the United States).

After raising the alarm on these and other “threats”, that would also come from the South of the World, the report of the ten experts recommended “cementing the centrality of the transatlantic link”, that is, Europe’s link with the United States in the alliance under US command.

At the same time, he recommended “strengthening the political role of NATO”, underlining that “the Allies must strengthen the North Atlantic Council”, the main political body of the Alliance that meets at Defense and Foreign Ministers level and State and Government leaders. Since the North Atlantic Council takes its decisions, according to NATO rules, not by majority but always “unanimously and by mutual agreement”, it is basically in agreement with what was decided in Washington, the further strengthening of the North Atlantic Council means a further weakening of the European Parliaments, particularly the Italian Parliament, already deprived of real decision-making powers on foreign and military policy.

In this context, the report proposed to strengthen NATO forces in particular on the Eastern flank, providing them with “adequate nuclear military capabilities”, suitable for the situation created with the end of the Treaty on Intermediate Nuclear Forces (which was torn apart by the US). In other words, the ten experts asked the US to speed up the time to deploy in Europe not only the new B61-12 nuclear bombs, but also new medium-range nuclear missiles similar to the 1980s Euromissiles.

They particularly asked to “continue and revitalize nuclear sharing agreements”, which formally allowed non-nuclear countries, such as Italy, to get ready for the use of nuclear weapons under US command. Finally, the ten experts recalled that it is essential that all allies maintain their commitment, made in 2014, to increase their military spending to at least 2% of GDP by 2024, which means for Italy to increase it from 26 to 36 billion euros per year. This is the price to pay to enjoy what the report called “the benefits of being under the NATO umbrella”.

*

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 in Italian on Il Manifesto.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Towards 2030, NATO Is Shaping Our Future

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).

***

What is in store for the world? US Secretary of State Antony Blinken claimed on 1.02.2021 that Iran was only a few months or even weeks away from possessing enough fissile material to build a nuclear bomb, which was reason for the USA and Israel to intervene militarily (1). He did not provide evidence for his adventurous claim.

Two days earlier, the Federal Academy for Security Policy (BAKS) recommended to the German government in a working paper that “in extreme cases” it would support a military strike by the USA and/or Israel against Iran if early negotiations on the nuclear agreement with Iran did not bring a solution (2).

Are the Germans to be persuaded to send fathers, sons and daughters alongside the USA and Israel into a war of aggression with unforeseeable consequences for the whole of humanity? This contradicts Article 26, paragraph 1 of the German Basic Law and the “Nuremberg Principles”.

What is the position of the German parliament and government on this existential question? The German people have the right to know. The fathers of the German Basic Law were unanimous on this point: War shall never again emanate from German soil! This consensus was expressed in Article 26, Paragraph 1 of the constitution. Does it still hold?

Would it not be the historical responsibility of Germany and its government to use all means to dissuade the friendly governments of the USA and Israel from a war of aggression in violation of international law and to seek a negotiated solution – instead of collaborating in a war crime?

In 2008, the German Chancellor stated before the Israeli Knesset that Israel’s security was “Germany’s reason of state” and that this should not remain empty words in the hour of testing. The term “reason of state” is understood to mean the principle that the state has a right to assert its interests, even in violation of individual rights, if this is deemed absolutely necessary for the good of the state.

The majority of the German people will not consent to war participation. The German citizens alone should decide on this and any other war participation in a referendum. It is high time not to leave such serious decisions to hazards.

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist.

Notes

(1) de.rt.com ‘ the-middle-east ‘ 112612-us-foreign-minister…

(2) de.rt.com ‘ the-middle-east ‘ 112472-baks-recommends-b…


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What is In Store for The World. BAKS Recommendation to German Government: “Support Military Strike by the USA and/or Israel Against Iran!”
  • 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).

***

This article was co-published with the American Prospect.

When expert witnesses appear before congressional committees, they must disclose certain details about their funding, including federal grants or contracts or money they’ve received from foreign governments. That applies to the expert and the institution they’re representing. These Truth in Testimony rules are intended to ensure that committee members and the general public are given a full picture of the financial interests behind witness testimonies. It is a federal crime to withhold information from the committees.

Earlier this month, the House of Representatives Committee on Rules strengthened the Truth in Testimony rule requiring witnesses offering testimony to disclose whether they are the fiduciary of any entity with a financial interest in the subject matter of the hearing, a level of disclosure of potential financial conflicts of interests that was not previously required. Witnesses will also need to disclose if entities they represent received grants or contracts from foreign sources. The new changes will offer greater accountability and insight into the financial interests behind expert witnesses at congressional hearings.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that transparency will win the day. Take, for example, the House Foreign Affairs Committee. An ideologically narrow group of think tanks, many of which refuse to reveal their funding sources, have dominated the witness table, raising uncertainty about how much transparency the new rules will bring about.

The new rules mean that those think tanks may have to further disclose federal grants and foreign funding if it’s related to the subject matter of hearings. But their opaque donor lists pose challenges for actual accountability and enforcement. Since the new rules require witnesses to self-identify potential conflicts of interest without offering a more comprehensive disclosure of their funding sources, members of Congress and the public are largely relying on the witnesses themselves to be the sole adjudicator of what constitutes a conflict of interest requiring disclosure.

“Hearings are opportunities to get answers for the American people—we need to know about foreign influence or any risk of self dealing with the witnesses called before Congress,” Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) said in a press release. “The new rules will also give members of Congress the opportunity to raise questions about special interests in the course of hearings.”

A large number of those witnesses work for or are officers at Washington think tanks, and not enough is known or disclosed about how their financial interests influence testimony. A review of 622 nongovernmental witnesses appearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee over the past two congressional sessions found that think tanks were one of the most common sources of expert testimony, accounting for over one-third, or 237, of the witnesses.

Congress and the general public have surprisingly little insight into who pays the salaries of experts affiliated with nonpartisan and nonprofit policy research institutions or who funds the institutions with which they are affiliated. Instead, we have to rely on the institutions’ voluntary disclosures on their websites or in the limited instances required on Truth in Testimony disclosures.

And these research institutions’ self-disclosures leave much to be desired. Of the 237 think tank–affiliated witnesses who spoke before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, under 30 percent of think tank–affiliated witnesses appeared on behalf of institutions that fully disclose their donors.

A small number of think tanks dominate the witness table, and they happen to be institutions that are particularly opaque about their funders. Four think tanks accounted for about one-third of all expert witnesses at the House Foreign Affairs Committee in the past two Congresses, and each of those institutions demands further scrutiny.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies led the pack, with its staff appearing 29 times before the committee since 2017.

CSIS’s relative transparency about its funding, at least in theory, should make the new Truth in Testimony rules relatively easy to enforce. It provides a comprehensive list of its funders for public review, revealing foreign government, defense contractors, and oil and gas related sources of funding.

But by putting the burden of disclosure on the expert witness, there is still too much wiggle room. For example, if a CSIS-affiliated witness testifies about a region from which CSIS received foreign funding, the witness might be expected to disclose that foreign funding in the Truth in Testimony disclosure. If a CSIS-affiliated witness failed to disclose that potential conflict of interest on their Truth in Testimony form, members of Congress and the general public have the necessary information to cross-reference CSIS’s publicly disclosed donor rolls for any discrepancies with the witness’s Truth in Testimony disclosures. But that level of disclosure is far from the norm for the other think tanks most frequently appearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The other three think tanks most frequently invited to House Foreign Affairs Committee hearings provide incomplete, or no, information about their funding. They also promote narrow and militaristic U.S. foreign policies, including U.S.-led regime change in Iran, defending unconditional U.S. support for Israel, and supporting a hawkish U.S. strategy around the world.

The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing juggernaut that emerged as one of the most doggedly pro-Trump institutions over the past four years, playing a central role in staffing the administration. According to an investigation conducted in 2018, at least 66 Heritage employees and alumni had entered the administration. And they were extremely well represented before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Heritage experts testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee 12 times during the Republican-controlled 115th Congress and five times during the Democratic-controlled 116th Congress.

Heritage publishes a donor list but conceals the identity of certain donors, listing them as “anonymous,” including 20 who in 2019 donated up to a half-million dollars, and 13 other donors in 2018 who gave the organization up to a half-million.

Heritage did not respond to a request for comment about their selective donor disclosure.

All of this poses questions about their impartiality. Consider the group’s ties to foreign interests, with a particular interest in international law around autonomous weapons systems and the international mine ban treaty disclosed last year when it was revealed that between 2007 and 2015, Heritage received at least $5.8 million from the Hanwha Group, a South Korean conglomerate that produced land mines and a controversial autonomous weapons system. Heritage had not disclosed its funding from Hanwha when opposing international efforts to ban anti-personnel land mines, cluster munitions, and “killer robots” like those manufactured by Hanwha.

Experts from the staunchly pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank formed in 1985 with support from the pro-Israel lobbying powerhouse American Israel Public Affairs Committee, testified 16 times before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in recent years.

WINEP reveals no information about the donors who fund its $14.7 million annual budget. This does a disservice to the American public who rely on the Institute’s expertise in front of their representatives in the committee room.

“As an American interest think tank, The Washington Institute maintains a longstanding policy of accepting no donations from foreign governments, individuals, corporations, foundations or institutions,” said WINEP Executive Director Robert Satloff when asked about the group’s lack of transparency. “We rely on Americans to support our work.”

Finally, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies is a hawkish think tank that regularly advocates for U.S.-led military action against Iran, vigorously opposed the Obama administration’s efforts to negotiate limitations on Iran’s nuclear program, and participated in a now-shuttered State Department–funded program to attack American critics of the Trump administration’s foreign policy.

The group, whose original mission statement included “provid[ing] education to enhance Israel’s image in North America and the public’s understanding of issues affecting Israeli-Arab relations,” and whose 2003 website falsely stated, “We know Saddam Hussein is making weapons of mass destruction,” testified 12 times before the House Foreign Affairs Committee during the Republican-controlled 115th Congress and three times during the Democratic-controlled 116th Congress.

In 2017, FDD received funds from Trump fundraiser Elliot Broidy to host a conference on Qatar’s alleged ties to Islamic extremism. Broidy’s funds had originated from the United Arab Emirates, Qatar’s regional rival, a fact FDD officials say was not shared with them and goes against their policies. FDD’s revenue jumped from $12.2 million in 2018 to $32.5 million in 2019, only adding to the questions about its funding sources, since the organization provides no information about those sources.

FDD did not respond to a request for comment about its refusal to disclose sources of funding.

Experts say it will be difficult to diversify the voices that present expert testimony. Committee leaders have grown accustomed to hearing from the slickest and best-funded institutions in Washington.

But the lack of transparency from some of those institutions might be something that a single member of a committee could quickly resolve if they were so inclined.

“If I was a member of Congress,” said Ben Freeman of the Center for International Policy, “my first question to a think tank witness, under oath, might be to provide a list of their funders if their organization doesn’t publicly provide their donor list.”

Such a question, posed to witnesses affiliated with think tanks that choose not to disclose their funding sources, could be a first step in determining whether witnesses are violating federal law by omitting relevant disclosures from their Truth in Testimony disclosures.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dark-money Think Tanks Dominate House Foreign Affairs Witness List

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

***

The US State Department dismissed an idea floated by Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who suggested the EU could help coordinate the actions needed to be taken by the US and Iran to revive the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA.

When asked about Zarif’s offer, State Department spokesman Ned Price said there are “many steps” the US has to take before engaging “directly with Iran” and before the US is willing to “entertain any sort of proposal.”

Price restated the Biden administration’s demand for Iran to return to commitments it agreed to when the JCPOA was negotiated. Iran’s argument against this demand is that since the US violated the deal, it is on Washington to return to compliance.

Price also stressed the need for the administration to consult with US allies, partners, and Congress on Iran before going forward.

A US official speaking to Reuters on the condition of anonymity said Price’s comments should not be taken as a “rejection” of Zarif’s proposal. The official said the US has not “begun negotiating with Iran, or with anyone else, because our priority is to consult” with allies and partners.

The focus on consulting with other countries before even talking to Iran shows the Biden administration is in no hurry to revive the JCPOA and give Iran sanctions relief. Most regional US partners, like Israel and Saudi Arabia, are strongly opposed to the JCPOA.

European signatories to the deal are also signaling opposition to reviving the JCPOA as it was agreed to in 2015. French President Emmanuel Macron called for new, “strict” nuclear negotiations with Iran that include regional countries like Saudi Arabia, something Iran rejected.

Zarif offered the idea to coordinate a return to the JCPOA in an interview with CNN on Monday. He also said that the time for a possible return to the deal is “not unlimited,” a sign of Tehran’s frustration with the Biden administration’s failure to act.

As per a law passed by Iran’s parliament in the wake of the assassination of Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakrizadeh, if sanctions are not lifted by February 21st, IAEA inspections on Iran’s nuclear program will be slightly restricted.

“Iran has the strictest IAEA inspection mechanism anywhere in the world,” Zarif said. “We will be limiting that, but there is a very easy way of addressing it, and that is for the United States to come back into compliance before that date.”

*

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 Jared Rodriguez/Truthout

Political Left Close to Winning Elections in Ecuador

February 4th, 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).

***

A few days before the presidential elections in Ecuador, scheduled for February 7, there are still threats to the candidacy of Andrés Arauz, the favorite to win, and to the democratic electoral process itself. It is a dispute that faces numerous obstacles in the context of a systematic political persecution initiated by the government of Lenin Moreno.

With the greatest chance of victory according to all surveys, Arauz is presented by the “UNES”, a party coalition that represents the defenders of the so-called “Citizen Revolution” – a movement led by the former President Rafael Correa. Arauz has signaled that he will increase government spending in favor of social reforms and prioritize topics such as reducing poverty, increasing popular power, among other topics that marked Correa’s years in power. One of his campaign promises is to distribute a thousand dollars to about a million families as soon as he takes power, aiming to increase the population’s purchasing power and raise the country’s social indexes.

On the other hand, the candidate that appears in second place is Guillermo Lasso, a former banker, presented by the “CREO” party in alliance with the Christian Social Party. Contrary to all Arauz’s promises, Lasso defends liberal reforms and promises a continuation of Lenin Moreno’s legacy, with pro-market policies, being a candidate clearly not concerned with social issues and popular agendas.

In third place is Yaku Pérez, a candidate from the Pachakutik movement, who, despite his position, is a long way from the top two, and his victory is unlikely. His main promises are to ban the current mining policy and impose limits on concessions in oil and gas production.

According to Ecuadorian law, for a candidate to win in the first round, it is necessary to obtain more than 40% and 10 points of difference over the second candidate. Otherwise, the first two candidates will face each other again in a second round. Arauz, who in most polls is close to 40%, appears to be close to winning in the first round – and it is precisely around this that arise threats from his opponents.

Several obstacles have been imposed on Arauz since the beginning of his campaign. Allegations of irregularities and illegalities abound from his opponents, almost always without any reasoning. Indeed, Moreno’s legacy has been one of political persecution against his opponents, albeit always disguised as legalism. Censors have been imposed on the campaigns and it is forbidden to even pronounce the name of Rafael Correa. In addition, several candidacies, mainly for the legislative branch which will also have its elections this year, were vetoed by the simple fact of the candidates supporting Correa, which means that, even if Arauz becomes president of Ecuador, Moreno is managing to form a hostile institutional scenario to force the pro-Correa candidate to capitulate to the interests of the liberal right.

Moreno, who started as an ally of Correa and then helped to overthrow him, not only started a major national dismantling process through neoliberal reforms, but also initiated a major judicialization of Ecuadorian politics, creating a police and judicial apparatus to persecute his opponents and justify any form of oppression with a speech of “defending law”. This form of judicial dictatorship is a recent trend in different parts of the world and works perfectly to guarantee the dictatorial intentions of liberal politicians who still want to maintain the democratic and legalistic discourse publicly – a true democratic and legalistic authoritarianism. With this, attempts are made to extinguish all political opposition through judicial sanctions and reprisals. It was in this way that the Ecuadorian liberal right managed to eliminate its greatest opponents, arresting not only Correa but also several of his allies, such as his former vice president, Jorge Glas. The charges – which generally involve crimes of corruption – are always generic and have little factual basis, with several irregularities in the legal processes.

The registration of Arauz’s candidacy itself was complicated, having gone through several legal bureaucracies that would not normally occur. Furthermore, once the registration was obtained, Arauz suffered threats to have his candidacy canceled due to links with Correa. These threats are unlikely to stop any time soon. Even if he is elected, Arauz will be legally threatened by his opponents and forced to make decisions that he would not like to make.

Amid a scenario of a possible resurgence of the left, Moreno traveled to Washington in the last week of January. There, he met with several American politicians, as well as figures like Kristalina Georgieva, Director of the International Monetary Fund and Luis Almagro, Secretary General of the Organization of American States, among others. The real intentions behind these meetings are still obscure and raise suspicions among Moreno’s opponents in Ecuador about possible articulations involving international agents for a reversal in the electoral process – or agitations for a possible removal of Arauz in the first moments of his office, if elected.

Undoubtedly, electing Arauz will directly damage the American plans, as it will represent a return of the nationalist left, which defends the political and economic integration of the Latin American continent and condemns foreign interference in the region. Washington is interested in continuing Moreno’s legacy, now represented by Lasso, but it may not be strong enough to contain the popular will to elect Arauz. What can come of this is a great horizon of possibilities, including an overthrow of Arauz through some judicial maneuver, an attempt to co-opt him as they managed to do with Moreno, who was Correa’s ally before or even simply invalidate his candidacy before elections are held.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Calling for an “American Ministry of Truth”. The US Media’s Dystopian “2021”

By Stephen Lendman, February 03 2021

Along with Big Brother mass surveillance and newspeak, Orwell’s Ministry of Truth was all about controlling the message, eliminating whatever conflicts with it, memory holes used for this purpose. The Times and other US major media operate this way now — a collective ministry of truth as described above.

Long-term Mask Use May Contribute to Advanced Stage Lung Cancer, Study Finds

By Phillip Schneider, February 03 2021

A recent study in the journal Cancer Discovery found that inhalation of harmful microbes can contribute to advanced stage lung cancer in adults. Long-term use of face masks may help breed these dangerous pathogens.

Implanted “Vaccine Package” ID: Germany’s Parliament Has Ratified GAVI’s Digital “Agenda ID2020”

By Peter Koenig, February 03 2021

Alarming News. In Germany the Parliament (Bundestag) ratified on 29 January 2021, the implementation of Agenda ID2020. This is a centralized general electronic data collection of every citizen to which every government agency, police – and possibly also the private sector would have access.

Sky News Acts Largely as a Platform for the UK Defence and Foreign Ministries, Research Finds

By Mark Curtis, February 03 2021

Declassified UK’s analysis of the written outputs of three of Sky News’ principal foreign affairs journalists has found that the media outlet acts largely to amplify the views of the British Ministry of Defence and Foreign Office, while rarely offering critical, independent analysis.

Examining the Ethics and Implications of Twitter’s Censorship Policy in India

By Andrew Korybko, February 03 2021

Twitter caused a stir by complying with the Indian government’s request to temporarily “withhold” access to dozens of accounts for users within the country in response to claims that they were “inciting violence” during the ongoing farmers’ protests.

JFK vs. Allen Dulles. Battleground Indonesia. A Review of Greg Poulgrain’s Book

By Edward Curtin, February 03 2021

The story he tells is one you will read nowhere else, especially in the way he links the assassination of President Kennedy to former CIA Director Allen Dulles and the engineering by the latter of one of the 20th century’s most terrible mass murders.

Black Alliance for Peace Solidarity Network Demands Biden End War in Afghanistan

By Black Alliance for Peace, February 03 2021

In response to the Biden administration suggesting it will not complete the withdrawal of U.S. forces, per the Doha Agreement of February 2020, the Black Alliance for Peace Solidarity Network demands the U.S. end the war in Afghanistan.

Racial Inequality, Institutional Discrimination: The “Great Awokening” in Global and Class Context

By Prof. Charles McKelvey, February 03 2021

The Woke ideology has the support of the political establishment.  Politicians invoke its rhetoric; the media editorializes in its defense; and corporations promise to reform in accordance with its teachings.  There is a reason for this: The Woke ideology functions to channel popular anger and discontent in a manner that does not threaten elite interests.

Russia’s Demography Crisis

By Kester Kenn Klomegah, February 03 2021

According to official data cited last month, Russia’s population stands at 146.24 million as of Jan. 1, 2021, down from 146.75 million the previous year. Russia’s population could drop by more than 12 million by 2035, the national statistics office said in its annual forecast published on its website.

US Pressure on China; The Thai Connection

By Christopher Black, February 02 2021

The change of guard in the American White House has proved that nothing has changed from the Trump regime with respect to US foreign policy. President Biden and his party continue the American propaganda attacks on Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and other nations that try to march to their own tune.

Glyphosate Endangers Wildlife, Too. Tell the EPA to Ban It.

By Zen Honeycutt, February 03 2021

The EPA wrongfully claims that glyphosate used on crops grown for human and animal food has no impact on endangered species. The public has until March 12 to submit comments asking the agency to ban or restrict the chemical.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Calling for an “American Ministry of Truth”. The US Media’s Dystopian “2021”

“Politicized Science”: Combatting Vaccine Tyranny

February 3rd, 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).

***

America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) are in the vanguard of supporting medicine the way it should be practiced over politicized science.

At a time when Big Government in cahoots with Big Pharma and Big Media are hellbent for mass-vaxxing everyone everywhere with hazardous to health covid vaccines, AFD is actively involved in combatting their diabolical scheme with scientific truth-telling.

It provides “honest healthcare solutions” at a time of state-sponsored mass deception.

AFD: “The doctor-patient relationship is being threatened” today, notably in the West.

“(Q)uality patient care is under fire like never before.”

“Powerful interests are undermining the effective practice of medicine with politicized science and biased information.”

“Now more than ever, patients need access to independent, evidence-based information to make the best decisions for their healthcare.”

“Doctors must have the independence to care for their patients without interference from government, media and the medical establishment.”

AFD and likeminded medical professionals are on the frontlines of practicing medicine as it should be.

They reject politicized (voodoo) economic agendas “at the expense of science and quality healthcare solutions” — prioritizing the following:

Providing science-based facts about seasonal flu-renamed covid.

“Protecting physician independence from government overreach.”

Combatting “covid” with “science-based” practices that don’t compromise constitutional rights.

“Fighting medical cancel culture and media censorship.”

“Advancing healthcare policies that protect the physician-patient relationship.”

Treating “covid” with safe, effective, low-cost drugs known to work when used as directed.

Avoiding experimental, inadequately tested, hazardous to health “covid” vaccines that don’t protect and risk enormous harm.

Everyone is entitled to accurate information on how best to protect and preserve their health and well-being.

Government in cahoots with Pharma and establishment media long ago lost credibility.

Their enemies of ordinary people, exploiting them to benefit privileged interests at their expense.

AFD reject shutdowns, quarantines, and other practices not backed by scientific evidence.

They’re committed to maintain the sanctity of doctor-patient relationships — to benefit health by safe and effective practices that work and do no harm.

Emergency care physician Simone Gold MD founded AFD.

She was fired after appearing with other truth-telling physicians who explain what works in treating seasonal flu-renamed covid and what to avoid — namely toxic vaccines.

Last August, she tweeted the following:

“I was defamed by the media, censored by social media companies, terminated from employment, and viciously attacked, all for advocating for the right of physicians to prescribe what they believe is best for their patients.”

When used as directed, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) combined with either azithromycin or doxycycline and zinc are highly effective in treating and curing “covid” — what government and Pharma in cahoots with establishment media want suppressed.

Doctors using this protocol — or ivermectin — understand their effectiveness and recommend them.

Dr. Stella Immanuel treated hundreds of “covid” infected patients with the above protocol, earlier saying:

“Any study that says hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work is fake science.”

“…I want them to show me how it doesn’t work.”

“How is it going to work for 350 patients for me, and they are all alive, and then somebody says it doesn’t work?”

“These so-called (establishment media promoted) studies (are) fake science.”

She, Gold, and AFD members debunked what they called a “massive disinformation campaign” against safe and effective HCQ in favor of hazardous to human health mass-vaxxing.

Immanuel had 100% success in treating 350 “covid” patients with the HCQ protocol.

She slammed politicians (and media) for trying to prevent doctors from being doctors, free to treat patients with medications known to work.

After going viral, truth-telling AFD video information was suppressed by You Tube, Facebook, Twitter and Google — to support hazardous to health mass-vaxxing.

AFD stressed the following:

People should never be pressured to comply with taking an experimental vaccine.

“This is becoming a very real danger.”

“The coercion can be implemented by government legislation or through policy directives by large private and public corporations, including airlines, employers, schools, and other institutions.”

“This type of assault on your medical privacy is invasive, aggressive, and unethical.”

The group supports a Vaccine Bill of Rights (VBOR), urging its adoption by all 50 US states.

It prohibits mandatory vaxxing for covid, vaccine passports, digital IDs, and other practices that compromise health, well-being, and fundamental rights of everyone.

Its principles state the following:

“No persons will be mandated, coerced, forced or pressured to take a COVID-19 vaccine.”

“No physician or nurse shall be asked by their employer to promote a COVID-19 vaccine.”

“All persons reserve the right, at all times, to determine what is in their own best medical interest without threat to their livelihood or freedom of movement.”

“All persons must be given access to independent information to help them determine what is in their own best medical interest, including the risk of death based upon age/condition from contracting COVID-19 naturally.”

“This information must include information from sources that are independent of a conflict of interest such as a government, political or commercial entity.”

“Such information can be included but cannot be the sole source of information.”

“The elderly are additionally entitled to a knowledgeable, independent advocate with medical training to help them determine their own medical interest.”

“Private businesses operating within the jurisdiction have no legal authority to require or mandate or coerce medication or experimental medication for any persons.”

The survival rate for seasonal flu-renamed covid is “99.7.”

The vast majority of individuals succumbing to the illness are elderly with weakened immune systems.

There’s no science-based justification for anyone anywhere to be vaxxed for “covid” when the HCQ protocol or ivermectin work safely and effectively in treating the illness.

Heavily promoted vaccines DO NOT protect and risk serious harm to health that for some is deadly.

Powerful — media supported — interests prioritize maximum profits over human health.

AFD members and likeminded medical professionals operate in polar opposite fashion — prioritizing health and well-being above all else.

Follow their advice to preserve and protect what’s too precious to lose.

*

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 Shutterstock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Politicized Science”: Combatting Vaccine Tyranny

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 Times never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity for truth-telling as it should be.

It’s a notion long ago abandoned in deference to providing press agent services for powerful interests.

At the same time, the Times finds new ways to disgrace itself.

Calling for a US Ministry of Truth headed by a “reality czar” sounds ominously like what Orwell described in his dystopian “1984” novel that’s no longer fiction, saying:

“The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.”

“These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from from ordinary hypocrisy.”

“They are deliberate exercises in doublethink.”

Along with Big Brother mass surveillance and newspeak, Orwell’s Ministry of Truth was all about controlling the message, eliminating whatever conflicts with it, memory holes used for this purpose.

The Times and other US major media operate this way now — a collective ministry of truth as described above.

Featuring the official narrative exclusively, alternative views are filtered out and suppressed, free and open expression banned in their reports.

In “1984,” unnwanted material went down memory holes to “be whirled away (in) enormous furnaces…devoured by the flames,” said Orwell, adding:

“(T)here were the directing brains who co-ordinated the whole effort and laid down the lines of policy which made it necessary that this fragment of the past should be preserved, that one falsified, and the other rubbed out of existence.”

In the US and West, no Orwell-style memory hole is needed, no furnaces, no ceremonial book-burnings.

Big Media in cahoots with diabolical government officials censor and eliminate truth-telling on what’s vital for everyone to know.

What Times fake news called a US “reality crisis” amounts to urging greater state-sponsored censorship than already.

What it called “the scourge of hoaxes, lies and delusions” are hard truths about US imperial wars, hazardous covid vaccines to be shunned, stolen Election 2020, unelected/cognitively impaired Biden unable to serve in any public capacity, the anti-Trump Jan. 6 Capitol Hill false flag, and other cutting-edge issues.

What the self-styled newspaper of record calls “misguided beliefs” are indisputable facts important for everyone to know.

A real “national reality crisis” exists because of Big Government in cahoots with Big Media – like the Times — serving privileged interests exclusively at the expense of most others.

It’s because of US police state totalitarian rule on a fast track toward full-blown tyranny.

It’s because the US no longer is open, free, and fair.

It’s because hardline government is the mortal enemy of ordinary people — their health, well-being, safety, and fundamental freedoms being eliminated in real time.

It’s because of US war OF terrorism, not on it, rages against ordinary people, wanting them exploited to serve privileged interests.

It’s because America is no longer safe and fit to live in for most of its people.

It’s because of the largely ignored greatest ever US Main Street Great Depression while wealth, power, and privileged interests never had things better.

It’s because media like the Times suppress what’s crucial for everyone to know.

What the Times called “violent extremism” is state-sponsored.

What it calls a “truth commission” reflects shades of “1984.”

What it calls “domestic terrorists” are FBI, CIA, DHS, local police, and other elements of oppression to cow ordinary people into submission to a diabolical higher power in Washington.

Truth-telling as it should be is polar opposite how the Times and other establishment media operate.

As a collective lying machine, truth-telling is their moral enemy, what they’re hellbent for eliminating in whatever form it shows up.

In today’s America, Big Brother mass surveillance, police state control, and ministry of truth Big Lies are part of the national fabric.

That’s the ugly reality suppressed by the Times and other Big Media.

The nation I grew up in long ago no longer exists.

Growing tyranny heading toward becoming full-blown replaced it.

That’s the ugly reality establishment media like the Times suppress — to their disgrace.

*

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

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

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

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

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

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

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

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

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

***

Many of the world’s most polluting companies are being handed a “get out of jail free” card by being invited to shape a scaled-up offsetting market, campaigners claim.

The Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets is due to publish its “roadmap for implementation” on Wednesday, four months after it was launched by former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, who is now a UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance.

Carney’s group wants to hugely scale up the existing market, making it “large, transparent, verifiable and robust”. This, it claims, will help private corporations meet the UK’s net zero target by 2050, in line with Paris Agreement targets to limit the worst impacts of climate change by restricting global warming to 1.5C or “well below” 2C.

But critics have questioned whether the taskforce’s membership – which includes oil majors, banks and airlines – is best placed to shape the future of that market, given their problematic histories of delivering carbon offsetting projects.

Wild West’

The concept of “net zero” poses a significant challenge to private companies, 20 of which have contributed to a third of all global emissions.

Corporations often claim they are using offsets as a last resort, after decarbonisation and carbon capture and storage options have been exhausted. But critics say there is limited evidence that counter-balancing carbon dioxide emissions in this way actually works.

The practice of offsetting is itself controversial. Offsetting involves buying a carbon credit – one tonne of verified carbon dioxide equivalent – which removes, replaces or avoids the equivalent amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere, usually by funding a carbon-saving project in the developing world.

Interest in the voluntary carbon market – which allows buyers to offset some of their greenhouse gas emissions – has correspondingly surged, as businesses look for ways to rapidly slash their overall carbon footprint. Latest figures from non-profit Forest Trends show corporate carbon-neutral pledges led to transactions of carbon credits surging to cover 104 million tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2019.

But the effectiveness of forest offsets traded through the UN’s existing REDD+ programme (the acronym to describe reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries) has plagued the existing voluntary carbon market, along with concerns over lack of regulation.

Carney has cited these concerns as a motivating factor for the taskforce, acknowledging that the current market is “opaque, cumbersome and fragementated”, with a recent Telegraph investigation calling it a “Wild West” of ineffective schemes.

Problematic pasts 

A number of green NGOs are involved in funding and overseeing the taskforce, but this hasn’t stopped it being accused of corporate capture, with companies with mixed records on offsetting, including oil majors such as Shell, BP and Total, to airlines like Easyjet and Etihad, and banking groups Merrill Lynch, BNP Paribas, BlackRock and UBS, having a strong presence in the group.

Shell

The world’s seventh highest historic polluter has long bought credits from accredited REDD+ projects, predominantly from the Katingan Mentaya project in Indonesia, and the Cordillera Azul national park in Peru.

Both projects are designed to conserve carbon stocks in existing forest reserves, but their effectiveness has been highly contested. In 2019, a joint Dutch and Indonesian investigation into the Katingan Mentaya project highlighted an increase in forest fires and land conflict around the project area, concluding that proving the permanent avoidance of carbon emissions was nearly impossible. According to the article, international banking group and taskforce member BNP Paribas also purchased carbon credits from the project.

Another investigation by Danish journalists in December 2020 looked at the Cordillera Azul national park in Peru, quoting experts who also said deforestation had increased directly outside the REDD+ zone, and major forest fires had broken out inside the project area — a common criticism of REDD+ projects.

Shell has also been criticised for projects closer to home, after announcing a number of new offset projects as part of a $300 million investment in “natural climate solutions”. Last year it emerged that Scottish Government officials warned each other that partnering with Shell to fund forests for carbon offsetting could be seen as “greenwashing” – before ultimately accepting £5 million for the million-tree project.

That initiative feeds into Shell’s Drive Carbon Neutral programme, by creating 250,000 credits towards offsetting customer emissions. The scheme – now in the UK, the Netherlands, Canada, Germany and Denmark – has faced ongoing criticism, with experts asking whether it encourages, rather than prevents, a business-as-usual attitude among corporations and individuals.

Shell’s new nature-based unit has been undeterred by external criticism, recently acquiring Select Carbon, which works with landowners to improve the carbon yield of nine million hectares of land in Australia. It has even started selling its own nature-based credits. Last week airline Etihad – also a taskforce member – announced it was expanding its current offset programme to include Shell’s projects in the Katingan Mentaya, as well as the Cordillera Azul in Peru.

Defending its record on carbon offsetting, Shell told DeSmog: “Independent third-party verification companies evaluate and review the projects regularly to assure CO2 reductions are real … Shell only trades credits that have been assessed by independent third-party processes.”

BP

Fellow oil major BP has also been pursuing forest offsets for the past decade. In 2011 it paid $5 million into the World Bank’s Carbon Fund that it helped found, part of the UN’s deforestation prevention carbon trading scheme. At the time, BP said it wanted to “increase our understanding of the evolution of carbon markets and policy, as well as helping to catalyse the development of this important sector”.

However, campaigners accused BP of becoming involved in the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) to greenwash its image, a year after it was found responsible for the 5 million barrel oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. BP was the only energy company involved in the fund, and just the second non-governmental body, after conservation NGO The Nature Conservancy (TNC) joined in 2007. TNC, which has previously worked with Shell on its strategy for nature-based solutions, is also represented on Carney’s taskforce as a Consultation Group member.

FCPF was intended to “jump-start a forest carbon market”, but a report by NGO Fern described the partnership as “smoke and mirrors”, saying it had failed to achieve social and environmental improvements. A letter written by Rainforest Foundation UKand other NGOs to World Bank President Jim Yong Kim in 2017, a decade after the programme first launched, claimed the millions spent on administering the programme had not translated into saving trees.

The FCPF’s perceived lack of success did not stop BP from exploring other offset avenues. In 2019, the company invested $5 million into Finite Carbon, the largest US forest carbon offset developer, before becoming the largest shareholder in the business.

Like Shell, BP has developed its own offset programme, “Target Neutral”, allowing customers to offset emissions through funding forest management in Zambia and more efficient cookstoves in India. The initiative is also used to offset harmful greenhouse gases from Air BP, which claims to be the first aviation fuel provider to have achieved carbon neutral operations globally.

Oil majors have also been burnishing their climate credentials on a global stage. During COP25, the UN’s 2018 climate summit in Madrid, both BP and Shell were introduced as founding members of the new International Emissions Trading Association (IETA)’s advisory panel for its Markets for Natural Climate Solutions. Dozens of environmental and Indigenous activists walked out in protest over the involvement of oil companies and fears the scheme would discourage companies from making substantial emissions cuts.

Just this month, the Scottish Greens accused BP of “classic greenwash” after it paid £2 million to expand Scotland’s native woodlands. Friends of the Earth Scotland said the emissions the scheme would save were “trivial” compared to the company’s contribution to climate change, whilst campaign group Glasgow Calls Out Polluters said the contribution was a “paltry sum” that allowed the company to “pursue their climate-wrecking activities unimpeded”.

A BP spokesman told DeSmog: “We support the use of high quality carbon offsets or credits by companies, countries and society to achieve faster and lower cost pathways to achieving net zero and meeting the Paris goals.”

“We intend to reach our 2030 emissions reduction aims without relying on offsets – but they may help us to go beyond those aims, if we can.”

Easyjet

Airlines have helped fuel the trend for voluntary offsets, as operators respond to the Paris Agreement target of reaching net-zero emissions mid-century. Aviation made up around 2.4 percent of global fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions in 2018 – around the same as Germany – with emissions expected to triple by 2050 under current projections.

Taskforce member Easyjet was recently revealed as one of the 15 biggest polluters in the UK, but has marketed itself as a climate conscious airline which was the first to offset fuel used for all its customers’ flights. Fellow taskforce member Delta Airlines has also pledged to go “carbon neutral” with the help of offsets, and plans to spend $1 billion over a decade to achieve this.

According to a January 2021 Greenpeace report, BA’s operator International Airlines Group has said it will use forests to offset 30 million metric tons of CO2e per year by 2050. This, together with a similar pledge by Italian oil giant Eni, could exhaust up to 12 percent of the total budget that the IPCC says is available for sequestration in new forests.

Easyjet has been one of the many airlines to be hit by COVID-19 travel restrictions, as the sector continues to suffer during the pandemic. Last year, the low-cost airline faced a backlash after asking the UK government for a bailout weeks after paying £171 million in dividends to its shareholders, including £60 million to its billionaire founder Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou. Easyjet later secured a £600 million loan from the Bank of England’s emergency bailout scheme, but in May announced it would still be making 30 percent of its workforce redundant. Easyjet told DeSmog it worked with unions to complete the process, which resulted in 1100 crew taking voluntary reduncies.

Offsets go hand in hand with attempts to move to sustainable fuel, but sustainable aviation is still some way from taking off. Delta Airlines and Easyjet are among a growing number of airlines exploring low-carbon fuels, but Shell has just left the UK’s flagship programme — a joint venture with British Airways and Velocys to build a sustainable jet fuels plant in the UK.

A report by the International Council on Clean Transportation found that meeting Paris Agreement targets primarily through low-carbon fuels would be “beyond difficult”, pointing out that biofuels, often used as an alternative to fossil fuels, tend to be made from food crops associated with high land-use change emissions.

Responding to questions from DeSmog, Easyjet defended its involvement in the taskforce, saying:

“Whilst the voluntary carbon offset market is increasingly recognised as having major potential to contribute towards limiting global warming, it remains relatively small and so the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets is working to create a framework and mechanisms to stimulate greater rigour and investment for carbon offset projects.”

We understand that offsetting can only be an interim solution while the zero-emissions technology we need is developed. We are fully committed to the UK Government and EU targets of net zero emissions by 2050 and believe that European aviation should aim to reach net zero earlier than this.”

BlackRock and others

As with airlines, carbon neutrality has become a growing mantra for banking groups. But the companies haven’t always put their money where their mouths are.

In December 2020, a Bloomberg report cast doubt on the integrity of forest offsets bought by taskforce member and the world’s largest asset manager BlackRock in Albany, New York. The article cites project documents that claimed no harvesting had taken place in Albany for nearly 20 years, seemingly contradicting the claims that large areas of the forests would be logged within a decade. BlackRock has been approached for a comment.

And this month, campaigners Reclaim Finance and Urgewald revealed that BlackRock still held $85 billion of shares in coal companies, despite a pledge to sell most of its fossil fuel shares.

BlackRock last year signalled a dramatic shift in financial strategy. In his annual letter to chief executives, CEO Laurence Fink said the climate crisis had brought the company “on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance”, calling on “every company, not just energy firms, to rethink their carbon footprints”.

But decarbonising its $7 trillion assets will not be easy, and it’s unclear how reliant BlackRock will be on offsets for its own operations and those of its investors. According to its last sustainability report in 2019, the company had offset 100 percent of its employees’ travel-related emissions since 2017, alongside other carbon-cutting strategies. The decarbonisation approach of BlackRock, which acquired another taskforce member Merrill Lynch in 2009, is likely to have a strong ripple effect in the financial sector.

Consultancy McKinsey & Company, which provides “knowledge and advisory support” to the taskforce, likewise has a chequered history on offsetting. A 2011 report by Greenpeace claimed that McKinsey’s REDD+ cost curve and baseline scenarios were being used to justify expansion of high-carbon industrial capacity in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Guyana. McKinsey has been approached for a comment.

Lack of transparency’

Campaigners are concerned that the companies’ problematic past experiences of carbon sequestration and offsetting programmes mean some of the taskforce members are not best placed to make strong recommendations for an effective voluntary carbon market.

Gilles Dufrasne, Policy Officer at NGO Carbon Market Watch, says the key challenge for the taskforce is to “get their priorities straight”.

He told DeSmog:

“The key objective should be to drive more finance towards concrete mitigation projects that deliver emission reductions and benefit local people and the environment.”

The taskforce places a lot of emphasis on increasing the volume of transactions in the market. I think we shouldn’t assume that more transactions necessarily translate into more emissions reductions.”

There are still legitimate concerns about the integrity and transparency of voluntary markets. For example, some projects issue more credits than they actually reduced emissions, and there is a lack of information regarding who buys which credits and at what price. The taskforce should make sure that it is not about to scale up a non-functional system, and therefore needs to put more emphasis on transparency and quality,” he said.

Dufrasne added that he was particularly concerned over the concept of “core carbon contracts” in the consultation document, “which seem to be designed by and for the financial industry”, and could “make it difficult to track what the underlying climate projects really are”.

Responding to questions raised over the taskforce’s integrity, Chris Leeds, operating team member and Executive Director at Standard Chartered, told DeSmog:

Carbon markets alone will not address the problem of climate change, however, for large emitters in hard to abate sectors investing in emissions abatement projects and new clean technology can be a key tool to reaching net-zero by 2050. The Taskforce’s aim is to create a transparent, robust voluntary carbon market to better channel needed investment into carbon reduction, avoidance or removal projects.”

He added:

“We are working to scale the market and demonstrate how carbon credits can be used legitimately and effectively in net-zero strategies, with the priority being for companies to reduce emissions in the first place.”

There are some supporters of big business’ involvement in the taskforce. Dr Jeremy Woods, a Reader in Sustainable Development at Imperial College London, said initiatives such as this were “hugely overdue, urgent and very much needed”.

It needs to have core representation of big business as this is where virtually all the investment capital will come from to drive material change to the global value chains needed, and against the almost impossibly short timelines that are implicit to the climate crisis,” he said.

But Dr Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, said the involvement of some of the companies in the taskforce “raises some huge red flags” and that their involvement could set a  “terrible example” to the rest of the world ahead of the annual UNclimate talks, COP26, which will be held in Glasgow in November.

DeSmog approached the government’s COP26 unit, which is run by the Cabinet Office, to ask how the taskforce’s blueprint is likely to feed into November’s summit. In response, a spokesman said the taskforce was “a private sector-led initiative, supported by Mark Carney, and independent of UK Government efforts as the hosts of COP26”.

Parr told DeSmog:

“The lack of transparency in many of these companies’ plans, and the failure of Carney’s taskforce to impose strict emission reduction requirements on them, suggests they are banking on offsetting as a get out of jail free card in tackling the climate emergency.”

The failure of offset schemes in the past gives no confidence that Mark Carney’s taskforce can introduce robust rules to guarantee emissions cuts, whilst there’s nothing to make sure corporates still do the necessary heavy lifting on their own performance.”

*

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 by Sam Whitham/DeSmog

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Shell, BP, and Easyjet: The Big Polluters Designing the Rules for Voluntary Carbon Offsets
  • 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 Ministry of Public Health announced that the Cuban drug Itolizumab – developed by the Center for Molecular Immunology (CIM) – has shown positive results as an anti-inflammatory treatment in patients with COVID-19.

According to a study published on the Infomed website, patients infected with the SARS-COV2 virus can develop a very severe case of the illness, distinguished by the appearance of what is called “cytokine storm syndrome.”

Itolizumab, as a molecule capable of blocking the proliferation and activation of T-lymphocytes, and also behaves as an immunomodulator, has been shown to reduce the release of cytokines that produce inflammation.

In January, Cuban researchers at the CIM, the Victoria de Girón Institute of Basic and Preclinical Sciences, and the Manuel Piti Fajardo and Arnaldo Milián Castro Hospitals in the city of Santa Clara, presented findings from a study of the effectiveness of the medication in treatment of three patients with COVID-19 in serious or critical condition, in the international medical journal Immunotherapy.

The scientists reported that the administration of Itolizumab succeeded in reducing the concentrations of the cytokine IL-6 in all three cases, and two of the patients exhibited respiratory and radiological improvement allowing them to recover completely.

They concluded that this anti-inflammatory therapy, in addition to antiviral and anticoagulant medication, could reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with severe cases of COVID-19.

*

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 ISDI via Granma

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 EPA wrongfully claims that glyphosate used on crops grown for human and animal food has no impact on endangered species. The public has until March 12 to submit comments asking the agency to ban or restrict the chemical.

Your actions, based on the following information, could alter the future of our planet.

Glyphosate herbicides are among the most widely used agrochemicals in the world. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), more than 300 million pounds are used in the U.S. each year — 280 million pounds of which are used directly on our food.

Crops such as soy, corn, sugar, wheat, beans, peas, alfalfa and oats make up just some of the crops used to feed livestock and humans that are contaminated with high levels of glyphosate.

Glyphosate has been found on thousands of samples of human food such as cereal, orange juice, eggs, and in pet food, tap water, breastmilk, children’s urine, streams, ocean water, and even in vaccines and rain.

A study by Paul J. Mills Ph.D., and his clinical research team at the University of California, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, showed a greater-than-1000% increase in the level of glyphosate in human bodies over the past 23 years.

Studies on glyphosate herbicides have proven either causal or direct connection to increased risks of multiple cancers, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, neurotoxicity, thyroid damage, autism symptoms, nonalcoholic liver disease, the disruption of gut bacteria which weakens the immune system and can lead to chronic illness, hormonal imbalance, depression, aggression and addiction. Glyphosate has also been linked to birth defects, miscarriages and endocrine disruption, which is linked to diabetes, obesity and other illnesses.

The federal EPA is currently accepting comments on whether or not to revoke the license for glyphosate, or restrict its use, based on the agency’s assessment of harm to endangered species.

The EPA’s initial report claims that the 280 million pounds of glyphosate used per year on agriculture have no impact on endangered species, and instead assigns all of the blame to the 20 million pounds used in landscaping. This is false.

The agricultural use of glyphosate also has a huge impact on endangered species. The drift, runoff into waterways and impact on the soil and wildlife surrounding agricultural land, which consists of 913 million acres in the U.S., is the primary source of harm to our environment. For some states, such as Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska, between 85-91% of the state is farmland, used primarily for conventional farming which involves the use of glyphosate. This means that many states have more land being sprayed with glyphosate than not, and the impact is detrimental for those states’ soil, water, air, wildlife, organic farming and human health.

One can only ascertain that if glyphosate is proving to cause harm to 93% of endangered species and 97% of their critical habitats, which are also our habitats, that if we do not act now, we humans and our pets will also soon be endangered species.

Make a direct comment to the EPA by March 12. Ask the agency to ban the use of glyphosate herbicides in the U.S. You may use any of the links to studies found on the Moms Across America data page and any of the following reasons in your comments:

  1. Glyphosate is never used alone, therefore the impact of use, assessment and approval or denial of it’s license must include the full-formulation studies. Independent, long-term studies with blood analysis of the full formulation impact must be included.
  2. Glyphosate herbicides have been found to be endocrine disruptors by many independent studies and studies have shown that the impact carries over to multiple generations.
  3. More than 40 countries and hundreds of cities, school districts and counties have banned or severely restricted the use of glyphosate around the world. Discontinuing the use of glyphosate in farming, particularly as a desiccant, has been shown to improve the quality of the grains and the soil, and reduce contamination of the environment and residues in food consumed by humans and animals.
  4. Glyphosate herbicides have been classified as a “probable” human carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. Cancer is often caused by endocrine disruption. Cancerous, life-threatening tumors have been found in alarming numbers on turtles, deer, fish, and numerous species.
  5. Glyphosate herbicides have been found in streams, ocean water and even the rain, and by the EPA’s own acknowledgment, is highly toxic to aquatic life. Glyphosate herbicides harm 93% of endangered species and 97% of their critical habitats.

Continuing the use of glyphosate for any reason only increases the rate of losing our endangered species. It must be discontinued in the marketplace and in agricultural, landscaping, forestry and utility use.

We encourage you to personalize your message or the EPA will not count it as a unique comment. State in your words why it is important to you or your organization to ban the use of glyphosate in the U.S. for any reason.

*

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.

Zen Honeycutt is the Founding Director of Moms Across America, a non-profit National Coalition of Unstoppable Moms.

Featured image is from EWG

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Glyphosate Endangers Wildlife, Too. Tell the EPA to Ban It.
  • 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).

***

Declassified UK’s analysis of the written outputs of three of Sky News’ principal foreign affairs journalists has found that the media outlet acts largely to amplify the views of the British Ministry of Defence and Foreign Office, while rarely offering critical, independent analysis.

A study by Declassified, covering 203 articles written by Deborah Haynes, Alistair Bunkall and Dominic Waghorn, has found that Sky routinely amplifies the views of the UK government in its military and foreign policies and provides almost no serious attempts to independently scrutinise or criticise them.

The research, which has analysed all articles by the three correspondents that could be found from November 2019 to November 2020, found that the primary focus of Sky’s critical reporting has overwhelmingly been countries presented by British officials as enemies of the UK – Russia, China and Iran – as well as the US under Donald Trump.

Two of the reporters, Haynes and Bunkall, offered no serious critical coverage of UK military or foreign policies or the human rights abuses committed by Britain’s close allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel, which all receive substantial UK military and other support. Waghorn’s articles offered only very occasional critical coverage.

In Sky’s written outputs, British government officials and their claims are routinely quoted favourably, with little or no independent commentary, context, or qualifications provided by the journalists.

Declassified’s analysis does not cover the video outputs of these and other Sky journalists, nor all of its journalists reporting on foreign affairs, and therefore offers a partial picture of Sky’s foreign news reporting.

However, Haynes is Sky’s foreign affairs editor, Alistair Bunkall is its defence and security correspondent and Dominic Waghorn its diplomatic editor.

Deborah Haynes provides the most striking example of reporting favourable to the UK government. Of the 107 of her articles analysed in the research, Declassified found 39 with the words Russia, China, Iran or Belarus in the headline. No headlines could be found that mentioned UK-allied states such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel or Bahrain.

Declassified found 670 mentions of the four UK rival states in Haynes’ articles and 25 for the four UK-allied states.

Haynes’ articles covering UK foreign policies were few in number but routinely tended to reinforce government messaging. Several articles were based on uncritical interviews or press conferences with figures such as the chief of the defence staff, the head of the domestic security service, MI5, the head of signals intelligence agency GCHQ, the head of UK Strategic Command, the head of the Royal Air Force, and the foreign secretary.

Some other articles are based on unidentified “sources” in the Ministry of Defence (MOD) or Whitehall. These pieces typically allow officials to put forward government positions, especially on alleged increasing threats to the UK posed by Russia, unfiltered by independent scrutiny.

Deborah Haynes (centre) speaks at an event on drone warfare in 2013. (Photo: Chatham House / Creative Commons 2.0)

Dr Justin Schlosberg, a media specialist at Birkbeck, University of London, said:

“This research provides yet another example of how, all too often, journalists at the biggest and most respected news brands tend to treat official sources with enormous deference – especially those from within the security state.

He added:

“This fundamental blind spot has had disastrous consequences in recent years – notably in skewing public attention away from inconvenient conflicts and issues, and allowing the UK government to broadly shape Sky’s foreign news agenda.”

Informing the public

Haynes’ articles often simply convey the view of the MOD to the public without distinguishing whether government messaging is correct or false, in effect adding to Whitehall’s public relations machinery.

For example, a series of articles written in April 2020, at the beginning of the coronavirus emergency, highlight the armed forces’ role in aiding the domestic response to the pandemic, which appear largely to be simply passing on information from the MOD, unfiltered by independent commentary.

Many of Haynes’ articles contain approving quotes and articulate positions supportive of the government’s military and foreign policies, especially on threats posed by Russia and China.

“Russian cyber spies are trying to steal research into coronavirus vaccines and treatments from Britain, the US and Canada, the three countries claimed on Thursday”, Haynes wrote in July 2020, in an article sourced to GCHQ.

In December 2019, Haynes wrote:

“Efforts by states such as Russia to break international rules, undermine democratic governments and exploit divisions in societies pose a far more insidious danger to the security that Britain and its allies have enjoyed since the end of the Second World War.”

Haynes made no similar statements that could be found about any threats posed to international security by the US or the UK.

In one of several articles on China, Haynes observed in June 2020:

“China is in the ascendancy while an international system of rules and institutions that underpin UK power and influence is under increased strain”.

Haynes conveys the view promoted by the establishment that NATO is a purely defensive alliance needing to contain an expansionist Russia. She wrote in June 2020, for example:

“NATO was established to defend against the former Soviet Union and is now actively pushing back against Russian activities”.

Russia has violated international law in several areas, notably in its illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, and is believed to be behind attacks in the UK – such as the murder of former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006 and the attempted poisoning of former Russian intelligence officer Sergei Skripal in Salisbury, southern England, in 2018.

However, Russia’s abuse of international rules is typical of all “great powers”, including the US and the UK which are also serial violators of international law and contributors to human rights abuses, unmentioned in any article by Haynes that could be found.

UK policies concerning its occupation of the Chagos Islands, its role in US drone wars, its covert military policies, the detention and torture of Julian Assange, its complicity in the torture of terror suspects in the “war on terror”, and mass surveillance techniques practised by GCHQ, are all instances of policies violating domestic or international law.

Our research could find no mentions of these policies in the articles reviewed. The focus of British journalists on official enemies rather than the UK itself suggests they are keener to contribute to political objectives than to hold their own authorities to account.

A freedom of information response from the MOD to Declassified indicates how much the military values Haynes’ reporting.

When Russian naval ships sailed through the English Channel in March 2020, MOD media officers noted approvingly that a Royal Navy press release had received: “Repeated broadcast on Sky News, featuring analysis from Deborah Haynes and breaking news ‘ticker’”.

An assessment of coverage of the the Russian Navy transits produced by the Royal Navy’s media team in March 2020. (Photo: Ministry of Defence via Declassified UK)

Rivalries

Haynes, who was previously defence editor at The Times and has worked at Sky since 2018, is an honorary member of the Pen & Sword Club, an invitation-only organisation created by Territorial Army press officers.

She is highly supportive of British military policy, her articles describing Britain’s “nuclear deterrent” as “vital to the UK’s national security”, for example.

In February 2020 she argued:

“Sources in Whitehall… said they are sceptical whether Mr Johnson and his top adviser, Dominic Cummings, will achieve the overhaul of spending priorities that is needed to achieve generational change to match the changing nature of war and keep up with rivals like Russia and China.”

Haynes’ adoption of the views of the Foreign Office is noticeable in her articles. In a piece on Afghanistan in March 2020, she claimed:

“The international community bowled in with laudable aims of creating a democratic government in Afghanistan and offering its war-weary … people the chance to enjoy a Western-style democracy and a country no longer reliant on funding from the opium trade.”

The claim paints a rosy view of Anglo-American goals in Afghanistan and ignores how Western countries have consistently allied with repressive regimes in the Middle East and South Asia – from Egypt to Sri Lanka –  before, during and after the invasion of Afghanistan.

Haynes also amplifies the establishment notion that the UK is a supporter of human rights in its foreign policy.

In an article in February 2020 on the subject of British fighters for Islamic State in Syria being required to come back to the UK to face justice, she wrote:

“There will be those who shrug their shoulders at the prospect of such a fate for British citizens accused of involvement in a murderous organisation that terrorised the world. But if Britain starts to compromise its democratic values of human rights and the rule of law because it is just too difficult, then terrorist groups like IS – which seek to undermine those principles – have won.”

Again, Haynes’s generalisation fails to account for how Britain’s Foreign Office routinely allies with repressive regimes, such as Saudi Arabia, to secure oil and arms deals at the expense of human rights or anti-corruption.

Haynes wrote in an article in June 2020 about Sir Simon McDonald, who was retiring as the permanent secretary to the Foreign Office:

“Sir Simon has enjoyed a hugely successful career during 38 years of diplomatic service”. It is not clear what definition of success was being used.

Haynes added in support of her claim:

“He [McDonald] has been posted around the world, including to Germany, Saudi Arabia, the US and Israel. Sir Simon was ambassador to Berlin from 2010 to 2015 and ambassador to Israel from 2003 to 2006.”

Haynes did not mention that throughout McDonald’s tenure at the top of the Foreign Office, Britain continued to, among other policies, arm and support Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, a conflict which turned the country into the world’s worst humanitarian crisis with millions on the brink of famine.

Both Haynes and Alistair Bunkall covered the story emanating from US intelligence sources, which was also widely picked up in other traditional media, that Russia offered “bounties” in Afghanistan to Taliban-linked militias in order to kill British and other NATO forces. However, the veracity of the claim was unclear and was described as “uncorroborated” by a US intelligence official.

Despite a history of official sources providing false information, however, Sky reporters took at face value the word of the UK security establishment.

“Moscow dismissed the claims as ‘fake news’. But British and European security officials say the US intelligence is ‘credible’”, Haynes wrote.

Bunkall similarly assured readers:

“British security officials have confirmed to Sky News that the reports about the plot are true”.

Safe pair of hands

Declassified’s analysis found 64 articles by Sky’s defence correspondent Alistair Bunkall in the review period, many of which focused on Russia and coronavirus in the US. His brief at Sky is to cover “global security issues from conflict to counter-terrorism”.

Similar to Haynes, Bunkall’s articles largely provide a platform for the British military and security services, often uncritically carrying the views of officials such as the chief of the defence staff and reporting information largely from the MOD.

The security establishment appears to regard Bunkall as a safe recipient for its public relations work. In September 2020, for example, Bunkall was given “rare access” to the “army’s elite Pathfinder unit”, many of whose members also work in the Special Air Service (SAS), which was on a joint exercise in Ukraine to “practise covert insertion techniques”.

Such access tends to be given by officials to journalists who can be relied on to report government policies favourably.

Similarly, in November 2019, Bunkall was granted an interview with the head of MI6, Sir Alex Younger, billed as “the first time ever that a serving chief of MI6 has given a recorded interview”.

Bunkell did not provide independent commentary on, or examination of, MI6’s world role in the piece. Nor does he appear to have asked Younger any questions critical of MI6, such as the agency’s role in working alongside Islamist militias in Libya, one of whose members went on to kill 22 people at the Manchester Arena in 2017, or its role in illegal renditions of terror suspects and torture.

Younger was instead allowed to expound the view that the UK faced a “high point” of threats from Russia, China, Iran and terrorism.

Sky’s biography of Bunkall states:

“He has been given unprecedented access to some of the UK’s most secretive establishments: GCHQ, the Trident nuclear deterrent, the country’s highly secure air command bunker and the UK’s covert drone base in the Middle East”.

In an article in October 2020 entitled “Over in minutes: Special Boat Services’s ‘textbook’ raid shows why they have a fearsome reputation”, Bunkall described an operation by the navy’s special forces, the Special Boat Squadron (SBS), to board a supposedly hijacked ship off the coast of the Isle of Wight in southern England.

It was “another faultless operation”, Bunkall wrote. “The brave work of the SBS, for so long unfairly in the shadow of their Hereford cousins, the SAS … are building a fearsome global reputation”.

It was later reported that no hijacking took place and charges were dropped against the stowaways on board for lack of evidence there was any attempt to take control of the ship.

Despite Bunkell’s praise for Britain’s special forces, in 2019 the United Nations launched an investigation into claims that the SBS was fighting alongside child soldiers on covert operations in Yemen.

Bunkall’s commentary, like Haynes’, invariably supports and tends to echo concerns of the UK military, especially on the Russian threat. For example, Bunkall wrote in December 2019, on the 70th anniversary of the founding of NATO, that the organisation “is the longest, largest and most successful military alliance in history”.

He added in a second article on the subject:

“NATO is rightly proud of its 70-year history – it has achieved great things in that time and remains the diplomatic and military union around which our security is still built.”

No mention was made of, for example, the NATO intervention in Libya in 2011 which nearly destroyed the country and contributed to Libya acting as a base for international terrorism.

Bunkall added:

“In recent years Russia has ruthlessly exposed western splits and if NATO members continue to drift in different directions then Moscow will fill the cracks.”

Again echoing British security officials, he also wrote:

“The world is a no less dangerous place today than it was during the Cold War but the threats we face are more complex, more nuanced and more diverse.”

The benevolent US

The third journalist analysed, Sky’s diplomatic editor Dominic Waghorn, is described by Sky as one its most experienced foreign correspondents, and mostly covered coronavirus and US politics in 32 articles found in the period under review. Several of these articles were strongly critical of President Trump.

At the same time, Waghorn’s praise for the US role in the world was often striking. He wrote in November 2020:

“America built the world we live in, it was the architect of the post-war world order, its institutions, and the rules and agreements that have made our lives safer and more prosperous than they would otherwise have been”.

The following month Waghorn was even more effusive in his claim of a benevolent US role in the world, writing:

“America led efforts to build the postwar world order, a system of democratic and international institutions designed to keep the world prosperous and safe.”

He made these claims, contrasting them with Trump’s presidency, despite well-documented US postwar policies to foment coups, overthrow democratic governments and support human rights-abusing regimes, violating many international laws.

Unlike his colleagues, however, Waghorn did mention in a handful of articles countries where UK government policies are highly controversial, especially in supporting dictatorships and human rights abuses.

In November 2019, Waghorn mentioned British support for the military regime of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in Egypt which had come to power after it “carried out a series of massacres, using military snipers to kill hundreds of protesters”, including Sky cameraman Mick Deane.

Waghorn added correctly: “Despite all this it continues to enjoy the support of the British government, both diplomatically and financially.” Such mentions of British support for Sisi have been unusual in the British media.

In a further article on Egypt in February 2020, however, Waghorn failed to mention UK support for the regime and excused British and Western support for the previous dictatorship under Hosni Mubarak. He wrote:

“Outside powers, including Britain, fell for Mubarak’s claim that only he stood in the way of his country collapsing in chaos and propped him up”.

He provided no evidence to support this claim as to why Mubarak received British support. The more likely reason is that Egypt offered favourable terms to British big business interests, such as to oil giant BP.

Waghorn also wrote what was largely a puff piece on the British-backed dictator of Oman, Sultan Qaboos, on his death in January 2020. He claimed Qaboos “used oil money to turn his desperately poor country into a rich stable oasis” and that his “five decades in power have transformed the living standards and welfare of his subjects”.

Waghorn qualified this rosy picture by stating:

“Critics say the stability and prosperity of Oman has come at a cost, the intolerance of dissent that comes with absolute rule.”

But there was no mention of the systematic repression meted out by the Sultan over those five decades or his ban on political parties, independent media and free speech.

Missing policies

When aspects of UK foreign or military policies are criticised in articles by Haynes or Bunkall, the focus is invariably on relatively minor, less controversial issues. For example, Haynes wrote two articles about a submarine commander losing his job after throwing a barbecue under coronavirus lockdown and a piece on whether NATO was too slow in responding to the pandemic.

Haynes lamented in one article “that Britain has fallen short in its role as a leading, influential, serious democracy on the world stage” – a  standard argument used by pro-establishment voices who seek an even greater British role in the world.

Similarly, Bunkall wrote critically on the UK government’s lack of representation at an international security conference in February 2020.

Haynes did mention in passing in one article: “The Ministry of Defence’s procurement practices have come under heavy and repeated criticism for waste, mismanagement and incompetence for decades.” But her strongest criticism of the British military that could be found was a long piece in May 2020 about sexism and harassment in the army.

In an article in September in 2020, Bunkall quoted defence secretary Ben Wallace mentioning Britain’s military presence in Oman and Bahrain, but he did not write about the nature of these regimes or why the British policy might be controversial.

Declassified found scant mention by the three journalists of Britain’s war in Yemen, which has raged for nearly six years. No article by Sky’s foreign affairs editor could be found covering the conflict. One article written by Bunkall came in July 2020 highlighting opposition to the UK’s decision to resume arms exports to Saudi Arabia.

Declassified also found one article by Waghorn on the Yemen war, in September 2020, which mentioned that Britain and the US have supplied the Saudis “with weapons and warplanes and insist they have the right to defend themselves”. It added that the air offensive “has led to enormous numbers of civilian casualties”.

Declassified has seen some reporting by Sky’s Alex Crawford on the impact of UK-backed air strikes in Yemen. It is not clear the extent to which Haynes, Bunkall or Waghorn have covered Yemen in their video reporting.

Opposition and protest

While Haynes has covered sympathetically opposition and protests against the repressive regimes in Belarus and Hong Kong, in line with Whitehall’s positions, no coverage by her could be found of similar crackdowns by UK-supported regimes in Bahrain or Egypt.

Haynes’ only coverage of Bahrain was when she was “given rare access to a patrol with the Bahrain navy” in the Gulf in February 2020. During this visit, a Bahraini naval officer “showed me the ship’s weapons”, Haynes wrote.

The article contained no mention of the nature of the repressive Bahraini regime and its extensive links to the British military and intelligence services. Her report was published at a time of mounting concern over Bahrain’s human rights record, after a court had upheld the death sentences of two political prisoners in January.

Haynes quotes foreign secretary Dominic Raab in at least 10 of her articles, according to our research, but no serious critical mentions or scrutiny of the government’s foreign policy could be found.

Haynes interviewed Raab in an exclusive interview in the Locarno suite of the Foreign Office in June 2020, basing her article on UK policy towards China. She quoted him as saying, “I think Britain still has an incredible role in the world as a force for good,” but did not noticeably ask him about British policy towards any of the Gulf regimes it supports, Egypt, Israel or the war in Yemen, for example.

In an article in December 2019, Haynes noted in passing that “Western powers, including the United States and Britain, supported the uprising against President Assad in 2011. But they are not key players any more.”

Haynes has not apparently mentioned in her reporting in the review period the years-long British covertoperation in Syria to overthrow the Assad regime.

Sky News, previously owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, is now owned by Comcast, a US-based media corporation. Comcast bought Sky plc in 2018 in a £29.7-billion takeover.

Deborah Haynes, Alistair Bunkall and Dominic Waghorn were approached for comment.

*

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

Mark Curtis is the editor of Declassified UK, an investigative journalism organisation that covers the UK’s role in the world. James Broadway contributed to the research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sky News Acts Largely as a Platform for the UK Defence and Foreign Ministries, Research Finds
  • 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).

***

Twitter caused a stir by complying with the Indian government’s request to temporarily “withhold” access to dozens of accounts for users within the country in response to claims that they were “inciting violence” during the ongoing farmers’ protests, which prompts some very important ethical questions that have a few disturbing implications for the freedoms of speech and assembly in Western-style democracies across the world.

Everyone across the world is talking about social media censorship after former US President Trump was deplatformed last month by the world’s largest companies in this sphere following the storming of his country’s Capitol on 6 January, but another recent incident is similarly alarming but hasn’t received the amount of global attention that it deserves.

Twitter caused a stir by complying with the Indian government’s request to temporarily “withhold” access to dozens of accounts for users within the country in response to claims that they were “inciting violence” during the ongoing farmers’ protests. To its credit, Reuters reported on this controversial decision when it happened, and the BBC just followed up to inform its readers that access has been restored to many of the affected accounts. Nevertheless, the ethical questions related to this course of events and the disturbing implications that they pose for the freedoms of speech and assembly in Western-style democracies haven’t been adequately addressed.

Strictly speaking, “India’s information technology laws empower the government to seek to block online content deemed as inciting disruption to public order”, according to Reuters. In this sense, Twitter was just abiding by the legal request of one of the many countries in which it operates. Be that as it may, there are concerns that the affected accounts weren’t objectively “inciting disruption to public order” simply for posting with the hashtag #modiplanningfarmersgenocide. The politics of genocide are very emotive and the issue is oftentimes exploited for ulterior motives. Even so, it’s questionable whether provocative claims such as that one amount to “Genocide incitement (which) is a public offence and a great threat to public order”, according to one of the unnamed Indian officials that spoke to Reuters. Rather, as some observers suspect, India might have exploited its pertinent legislation in order to suppress the largest and most sustained anti-government protests in recent memory.

It’s up to the reader themselves to investigate this issue more thoroughly in order to draw their own conclusions about that particular example, but the takeaway is that governments across the world could at least in theory take advantage of the law in order to censor their political opponents.

At the same time, however, there are plenty of examples that one can think of where it would be necessary for governments to request the immediate “withholding” of access to certain accounts that are genuinely “inciting disruption to public order”, such as during the midst of an ongoing Color Revolution attempt. It’s unclear, though, whether Twitter would dutifully comply in those scenarios since the company is regarded as having a very strict liberal-globalist worldview which is thought to generally align with the goals of Color Revolution participants in Belarus, Venezuela, and elsewhere. One can easily imagine the company denying such requests for political reasons, unlike in India where it fears being shut out of its enormous market if it goes against the government.

These points raise two serioius questions. The first is whether Twitter will follow an apolitical approach of complying with all governments’ relevant requests without discrimination, even if there are grounds like in the Indian case to legitimately wonder whether the law is being exploited for domestic partisan purposes. The second question is whether exceptions will be made on a case-by-case basis due to ideological and/or economic considerations, the first of which is relevant to the Belarusian and Venezuelan scenarios as mentioned and the latter in regards to retaining access to India’s enormous market. The answers to these questions will directly affect the lives of countless people living in Western-style democracies, especially those in the US and Western Europe. As it stands, it’s unclear whether Twitter would temporarily withhold access to accounts within America and France for instance if Washington and Paris claim that some participants in certain rallies (e.g. anti-Biden and Yellow Vests, respectively) are “inciting disruption to public order”.

Of course, it would help those governments’ cases if they could at least point to some law or another that’s officially on the books in order to “justify” what could in reality just be their exploitation of the legal process for the purpose of censoring their political opponents, but even if they can’t, Twitter has both ideological and economic reasons to comply with their requests. It’s for this reason why lawmakers in those countries and others should raise this scenario within their legislatures in order to hold decision makers to account in the event that they attempt to exploit the law to that end. Every Western-style democracy must have a serious discussion about the ethical questions and implications posed by the Indian precedent. Failure to do so will actually put their citizens’ freedoms of speech and assembly at risk of being undermined through potential collusion between corrupt government officials and Big Tech. It also risks empowering Big Tech into thinking that it can carry out its own widespread censorship sprees for ideological reasons with impunity.

To be clear, Twitter itself is a complex entity. It can be used as a tool for good in the hands of responsible decision makers who understand the need to temporarily “withhold” access to accounts that are genuinely “inciting disruption to public order”. Peaceful members of the population also use its free services to organize protests in accordance with the law. On the other hand, Twitter can also be exploited as a weapon by corrupt bureaucrats to censor their political opponents on false “security” pretexts. The company can also “go rogue” and impose its own censorship scheme on targeted populations using the same pretext (albeit arguing that the affected accounts’ posts “violated its terms of service” instead of “the law”) in order to meddle in the domestic political affairs of sovereign states. With these risks in mind, countries should urgently initiate conversations between the state and civil society over the contentious issue of Big Tech’s growing role over nearly every facet of people’s lives, and credible steps should be undertaken to preemptively thwart these dark scenarios.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

***

From 1972 to 2010, at three church-related colleges and one public university, I was among the professors of sociology teaching concepts that provided the foundation for the current racial awakening in the United States.  In courses on Race and Ethnic Relations, I taught the concept of institutional discrimination, describing it as involving common institutional patterns that perpetuate racial inequality, even when the intention is not to do so; exemplified by the use of SAT scores in college admissions.  I told my students that it is racist to say or think that “Everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough,” but classifying the belief as a subtle form of racism by some individuals, rather than as an example of “systemic racism;” and I noted that social inequalities also are rooted in class factors.

I was formed in the early 1970s in the African-American intellectual tradition of black nationalism, which did not focus on white racism; but on the need for black empowerment and black consciousness to confront and transform global colonial and neocolonial structures, which have their particular manifestations in the United States.  In accordance with this teaching, I developed several courses that emphasized the colonial and neocolonial structures of the world-system and the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist movements of the Third World.  Unfortunately, these dimensions are rarely included in today’s racial awakening, even though they relate to the most profound aspects of the meaning of race in the modern world.

The reductionism of the racial awakening

I am saddened to observe that, in today’s racial awakening, the typical concepts of standard academic courses on race relations in the not-so-distant past have evolved to an overly racialized and inaccurate description of U.S. contemporary reality, while the most important dimensions of the meaning of race are not seen.  I have been so deeply disturbed with today’s racialized narrative and its taking of the U.S. left by storm, that I began to look for alternative sources of intellectual nourishment.  I have initiated extensive reading of articles in magazines of traditional conservatism (to be distinguished from neoconservatism), such as Chronicles and The American Conservative.  To my surprise, I have found that many of the articles were informed by extensive reading in history and literature, and they displayed considerable common-sense intelligence as well as a sense of humor.

I also found that one does not have to be formed in black nationalism to see the intellectual and political limitations of today’s racial awakening, which some have called the “Great Awokening,” a disparaging play on words that references the American religious revivals known as the “Great Awakening,” which in its second manifestation from the late eighteenth to the middle of the nineteenth century, was characterized by extreme emotionalism and hellfire-and-damnation preaching.  With respect to what some have called the “Woke Ideology,” I find myself in agreement with Zach Goldberg, doctoral candidate in Political Science at Georgia State University, cited in the pages of Chronicles.  Goldberg describes the ideology as a Manichean conceptualization that divides “a diverse, multiethnic society into oppressed and oppressor categories on the basis of skin color.”  He maintains that it is “a theory of racism that misrepresents facts about the world while stigmatizing any effort to criticize those facts as racist.”

The analytical weakness of the Woke ideology ought to be clear to historians and social scientists.  It downplays consistent societal efforts since the Civil Rights Law of 1964 and the Voting Rights Law of 1965 to eliminate racial discrimination, which have resulted in the removal of previously existing barriers in many institutions and areas of life, and which have created a new reality for the black middle class.  Some articles, for example, jump immediately from slavery or the Jim Crow segregationist era to the killing of George Floyd.  In general, an attempt is not made to place discussion of racism today in the context of a careful analysis of significant changes since the 1960s.

The Woke ideology bypasses the two most important prophetic voices of the African-American movement of the twentieth century, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X, both of whom called for a direction fundamentally different from that implied by the Woke ideology. Malcolm, an advocate of self-help, emphasized the development of the black community through black control of its economic, political, and cultural institutions.  King, following the civil rights gains of 1964 and 1965, turned to the development of a multiracial alliance against poverty in the Poor People’s Campaign.

The limitations of the current racial awakening are illustrated by the 1619 Project of The New York Times Magazine.  The project lacks understanding of the political-economy of slavery, and therefore, it cannot explain how slavery in the Caribbean and the U.S. South contributed to the spectacular economic ascent of the nation, from which all Americans today benefit materially, including blacks and the advocates of the Woke ideology; its moralistic focus on slaveholders and slave traders of that time misses the central historical and economic point.  Moreover, the project does not see that conquest and exploitation are in no sense unique to Western Europeans or whites; and that conquest and exploitation have been a prevailing human tendency since the Agricultural Revolution, providing the foundation for great empires and civilizations.

In addition, the 1619 Project sets aside the anti-imperialist projection of the leftist governments and movements of the Third World, which for the past seventy years have declared the need for humanity to cast aside the historic human pattern of conquest and to forge an alternative to the European-centered capitalist world-economy, an alternative based on cooperation and mutually-beneficial trade.  The 1619 Project, therefore, does not formulate a national plan based on the appropriation of insights emerging from peoples of color beyond U.S. borders.

And the Woke ideology has destructive political consequences. Although it influences white liberals to some extent, it has the opposite effect on white moderates and conservatives.  It thus deepens divisions among the people and stokes racial polarization.

The power elite, defending its interests, promotes the racial awakening

The Woke ideology has the support of the political establishment.  Politicians invoke its rhetoric; the media editorializes in its defense; and corporations promise to reform in accordance with its teachings.  There is a reason for this: The Woke ideology functions to channel popular anger and discontent in a manner that does not threaten elite interests, which is especially important in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2007-2008 and the Occupy movement.

As Jeff Groom writes in Chronicles, “The establishment’s race narrative has redirected the rage of Occupy Wall Street and saved the regime from a reckoning.”  He maintains that the Occupy movement, which “was generally devoid of any mention of race,” and which declared the corporate elite as the enemy of the 99%, has been transformed and redirected by corporations and the media, such that the whole left has been subsumed into the race narrative.

The leftist popular movement today, in the context of the pandemic-induced economic crisis, focuses not on economic injustices but on “racial oppression and injustice.” The central problem is not defined as “rule by the elites” but as “the enduring reign of white supremacy.”  Consistent with Groom’s analysis, Goldberg presents extensive empirical evidence indicating that the media played a central role in stimulating the racial awakening.

The power elite today confronts unprecedented threats to its privileged position.  The European-centered capitalist world-economy is unsustainable, as a result of it having reached and overextended the geographical and ecological limits of the earth.  The elite increasingly turns with desperation to imperialist wars of aggression, financial speculation, and Orwellian ideological manipulation, while Third World governments are increasingly united in their just call for an alternative, more democratic and sustainable world-system.  During the last 75 years, popular movements have been able to take political power in various nations, and some have developed sustainable alternative projects, such as China, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Bolivia, (projects that U.S. intellectuals, of both the left and the right, ought to spend more time studying).

At the present time, the United States is vulnerable to the popular taking of power, inasmuch as it is a declining hegemonic power, experiencing intensified conflicts among its classes and interests.  Therefore, the U.S. power elite must devise strategies to channel popular rebellions, preventing them from becoming a unified project seeking control of the federal government.  Stoking racial and ethnic divisions among the people, through identity politics and the Woke ideology, is a logical course of action.

When we study revolutionary processes throughout the world, we find that the pre-revolutionary situation is characterized by chaotic and undirected rebellion, when a wide variety of idealist and contradictory ideas are in the air.  No leader is present to put forth an accurate interpretation of the nation’s history and its current problems and divisions, and to unify the people in support of a comprehensive set of intelligent proposals.  But then something happens to galvanize the rebellion to revolution, such as a disastrous war, an earthquake, or some other crisis.

In the case of Cuba, the galvanizing event was the attack on the Moncada military barracks by a group of 126 revolutionaries led by Fidel Castro.  The attack failed; but it aroused the nation.  The unfolding of events in the aftermath of the attack provided Fidel the opportunity to present a manifesto and a platform, calling the diverse sectors of the people, each called by name, to a unified struggle to overcome their common and particular problems, each analyzed accurately; as the entire nation watched, listened, and read.

The financial crisis of 2008 had all the ingredients of a galvanizing event.  The indifference of the power elite and the political establishment to the needs of the working and middle classes as well as to the long-term productive needs of the nation had been increasingly evident since 1980.  With the crisis of 2008, the reckless financial speculation of the corporate and financial elite now stood dramatically exposed.   The people rebelled, and the Occupy Movement came into being.  An accurate concept was formulated: the 99% against the 1% corporate elite.  And a few concrete proposals in defense of the people were put forth.

But unlike Moncada, leaders did not emerge to have presence on the national scene.  A manifesto interpreting the nation’s history and a platform with a comprehensive package of realistic and intelligent proposals were not disseminated.  In part, this was due to the lack of preparation for the historic moment by intellectuals and activists.  But perhaps, with more time, prepared leaders would have emerged.  And perhaps this possibility was eclipsed by an elite-supported emphasis on race, exploiting the divisions and confusions among the people.

What should be done?

I like what Goldberg says,

“Working to ensure that Americans of any background aren’t unjustly victimized by the police and have access to quality health care, schools, and affordable housing doesn’t require the promotion of a ‘race-consciousness’ that divides society into ‘oppressed’ and ‘privileged’ color categories. To the contrary, it requires that we de-emphasize these categories and unite in pursuit of common interests.”

In various essays written over the past several years, drawing upon study of victorious popular revolutions in various lands, I have argued that we need to form an alternative political party that would see the taking of political power, through democratic electoral means, as a long-term project, and that would focus in the near-term on the education of the people, through the dissemination of pamphlets and the organization of regular face-to-face discussion and study meetings; including a manifesto that interprets national and human history, and a platform that puts forth a comprehensive and realistic program of specific proposals.

It would form its interpretations and proposals on the basis of consciousness of the experiences of all of the peoples of the nation and the world.  It would call to participation peoples of all colors (including whites) and all workers (including union, non-union, and self-employed workers), intellectuals, professionals, businesspersons, homemakers, and farmers that that pertain to the 99%. It would explain the necessary role of the state in the economy and in the creation of conditions that ensure the protection of the social and economic rights and needs of the people.

And it would explain the need for an anti-imperialist foreign policy that respects the sovereignty of nations, as the only possible foundation for world peace.  It would sponsor extensive and respectful debate and discussion among the people with respect to complex and divisive issues, such as abortion, gender identity, sexuality, gun ownership, family, religion, and patriotism, seeking national consensus in regard to courses of action.

*

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.

Charles McKelvey is Professor Emeritus, Presbyterian College, Clinton, South Carolina.  He has published three books: The Evolution and Significance of the Cuban Revolution: The Light in the Darkness (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018); The African-American Movement:  From Pan-Africanism to the Rainbow Coalition (General Hall, 1994); and Beyond Ethnocentrism:  A Reconstruction of Marx’s Concept of Science (Greenwood Press, 1991).  In addition to contributing to Global Research, he has published articles on Cuba, on the characteristics of socialism, and on current conflicts and issues in the United States in Counterpunch.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Racial Inequality, Institutional Discrimination: The “Great Awokening” in Global and Class Context
  • 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).

***

Before I digress slightly, let me state from the outset that the book by Greg Poulgrain that I am about to review is extraordinary by any measure. The story he tells is one you will read nowhere else, especially in the way he links the assassination of President Kennedy to former CIA Director Allen Dulles and the engineering by the latter of one of the 20th century’s most terrible mass murders.  It will make your hair stand on end and should be read by anyone who cares about historical truth.

About twelve years ago I taught a graduate school course to Massachusetts State Troopers and police officers from various cities and towns.  As part of the course material, I had created a segment on the history of the United States’ foreign policy, with particular emphasis on Indonesia.

No one in this class knew anything about Indonesia, not even where it was. These were intelligent, ambitious adults, eager to learn, all with college degrees. This was in the midst of the “war on terror” – i.e. war on Muslim countries – and the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency.  Almost all the class had voted for Obama and were aware they he had spent some part of his youth in this unknown country somewhere far away.

I mention this as a preface to this review of JFK vs. Dulles, because its subtitle is Battleground Indonesia, and my suspicion is that those students’ lack of knowledge about the intertwined history of Indonesia and the U.S. is as scanty today among the general public as it was for my students a dozen years ago.

This makes Greg Poulgrain’s remarkable book – JFK vs. Allen Dulles: Battleground Indonesia – even more important since it is a powerful antidote to such ignorance, and a reminder for those who have fallen, purposefully or not, into a state of historical amnesia that has erased the fact that the U.S. has committed systematic crimes that have resulted in the deaths of more than a million Indonesians and many more millions throughout the world over innumerable decades.

Such crimes against humanity have been hidden behind what the English playwright Harold Pinter in his 2005 Nobel Prize address called “a tapestry of lies.”  Of such massive crimes, he said:

But you wouldn’t know it.

It never happened. Nothing ever happened.

Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening.

It didn’t matter. It was of no interest.

The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them.

And when one examines the true history of such atrocities, again and again one comes up against familiar names of the guilty who have never been prosecuted.  Criminals in high places whose crimes around the world from Vietnam to Chile to Cuba to Nicaragua to Argentina to Iraq to Libya to Syria, etc. have been – and continue to be – integral to American foreign policy as it serves the interests of its wealthy owners and their media mouthpieces.

In his brilliant new book on U.S./Indonesian history, Dr. Greg Poulgrain unweaves this tapestry of lies and sheds new light on the liars’ sordid deeds. He is an Australian expert on Indonesia whose work stretches back forty years, is a professor at University of the Sunshine Coast in Brisbane and has written four highly-researched book about Indonesia.

In JFK vs. Dulles, he exposes the intrigue behind the ruthless regime-change strategy in Indonesia of the longest-serving CIA director, Allen Dulles, and how it clashed with the policy of President John F. Kennedy, leading to JFK’s assassination, Indonesian regime change, and massive slaughter.

Poulgrain begins with this question:

Would Allen Dulles have resorted to assassinating the President of the United States to ensure that his ‘Indonesian strategy’ rather than Kennedy’s was achieved?

To which he answers: Yes.

But let me not get ahead of myself, for the long, intricate tale he tells is one a reviewer can only summarize, so filled is it with voluminous details.  So I will touch on a few salient points and encourage people to buy and read this important book.

Indonesia’s Strategic Importance

The strategic and economic importance of Indonesia cannot be exaggerated.  It is the world’s 4th most populous country (275+ million), is located in a vital shipping lane adjacent to the South China Sea, has the world’s largest Muslim population, has vast mineral and oil deposits, and is home in West Papua to Grasberg, the world’s largest gold mine and the second largest copper mine, primarily owned by Freeport McMoRan of Phoenix, Arizona, whose past board members have included Henry Kissinger, John Hay Whitney, and Godfrey Rockefeller.

Long a battleground in the Cold War, Indonesia remains vitally important in the New Cold War and the pivot to Asia launched by the Obama administration against China and Russia, the same antagonists Allen Dulles strove to defeat through guile and violence while he engineered coups home and abroad. It is fundamentally important in the Pentagon’s Indo-Pacific strategy for what it euphemistically calls a “free and open Indo-Pacific.” While not front-page news in the U.S., these facts make Indonesia of great importance today and add to the gravity of Poulgrain’s historical account.

JFK

Two days before President John Kennedy was publicly executed by the US national security state led by the CIA on November 22, 1963, he had accepted an invitation from Indonesian President Sukarno to visit that country the following spring.  The aim of the visit was to end the conflict (Konfrontasi) between Indonesia and Malaysia and to continue Kennedy’s efforts to support post-colonial Indonesia with economic and developmental aid, not military.   It was part of his larger strategy of ending conflict throughout Southeast Asia and assisting the growth of democracy in newly liberated post-colonial countries worldwide.

He had forecast his position in a dramatic speech in 1957 when, as a Massachusetts Senator, he told the Senate that he supported the Algerian liberation movement and opposed colonial imperialism worldwide.  The speech caused an international uproar and Kennedy was harshly attacked by Eisenhower, Nixon, John Foster Dulles, and even liberals such as Adlai Stevenson.  But he was praised throughout the third world.

Poulgrain writes:

Kennedy was aiming for a seismic shift of Cold War alignment in Southeast Asia by bringing Indonesia ‘on side.’  As Bradley Simpson stated (in 2008), ‘One would never know from reading the voluminous recent literature on the Kennedy and Johnson administrations and Southeast Asia, for example, that until the mid-1960s most officials [in the US] still considered Indonesia of far greater importance than Vietnam or Laos.

Of course JFK never went to Indonesia in 1964, and his peaceful strategy to bring Indonesia to America’s side and to ease tensions in the Cold War was never realized, thanks to Allen Dulles.  And Kennedy’s proposed withdrawal from Vietnam, which was premised on success in Indonesia, was quickly reversed by Lyndon Johnson after JFK’s murder on November 22, 1963.  Soon both countries would experience mass slaughter engineered by Kennedy’s opponents in the CIA and Pentagon. Millions would die.

While the Indonesian mass slaughter of mainly poor rice farmers (members of the Communist Party – PKI) instigated by Allen Dulles began in October 1965, ten years later, starting in December 1975, the American installed Indonesian dictator Suharto, after meeting with Henry Kissinger and President Ford and receiving their approval, would slaughter hundreds of thousands East-Timorese with American-supplied weapons in a repeat of the slaughter of more than a million Indonesians in 1965 when the CIA engineered the coup d’état that toppled President Sukarno.  The American installed dictator Suharto would rule for thirty years of terror.  The CIA considers this operation one of its finest accomplishments.  It became known as “the Jakarta Method,” a model for future violent coups throughout Latin America and the world.

And in-between these U.S. engineered mass atrocities, came the bloody coup in Chile on September 11, 1973 and the ongoing colossal U.S. war crimes in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.

Dulles’s Secret

What JFK didn’t know was that his plans for a peaceful resolution of the Indonesia situation and an easing of the Cold War were threatening a covert long-standing conspiracy engineered by Allen Dulles to effect regime change in Indonesia through bloody means and to exacerbate the Cold War by concealing from Kennedy the truth that there was a Sino-Soviet split.  Another primary goal behind this plan was to gain unimpeded access to the vast load of natural resources that Dulles had kept secret from Kennedy, who thought Indonesia was lacking in natural resources. But Dulles knew that if Kennedy, who was very popular in Indonesia, visited Sukarno, it would deal a death blow to his plan to oust Sukarno, install a CIA replacement (Suharto), exterminate alleged communists, and secure the archipelago for Rockefeller controlled oil and mining interests, for whom he had fronted  since the 1920s.

Reading Poulgrain’s masterful analysis, one can clearly see how much of modern history is a struggle for control of the underworld where lies the fuel that runs the megamachine – oil, minerals, gold, copper, etc.  Manifest ideological conflicts, while garnering headlines, often bury the secret of this subterranean devil’s game.

The Discovery of Gold

His murder mystery/detective story begins with a discovery that is then kept secret for many decades.  He writes:

In the alpine region of Netherlands New Guinea (so named under Dutch colonial rule – today, West Papua) in 1936, three Dutchmen discovered a mountainous outcrop of ore with high copper content and very high concentrations of gold.  When later analyzed in the Netherlands, the gold (in gram/ton) proved to be twice that of Witwatersrand in South Africa, then the world’s richest gold mine, but this information was not made public.

The geologist among the trio, Jean Jacques Dozy, worked for the Netherlands New Guinea Petroleum Company (NNGPM), ostensibly a Dutch-controlled company based in The Hague, but whose controlling interest actually lay in the hands of the Rockefeller family, as did the mining company, Freeport Sulphur (now Freeport McMoRan, one of whose Directors from 1988-95 was Henry Kissinger, Dulles’ and the Rockefeller’s close associate) that began mining operations there in 1966.

It was Allen Dulles, Paris-based lawyer in the employ of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, who in 1935 arranged the controlling interest in NNGPN for the Rockefellers.  And it was Dulles, among a select few others, who, because of various intervening events, including WW II, that made its exploitation impossible, kept the secret of the gold mine for almost three decades, even from President Kennedy, who had worked to return the island to Indonesian control. JFK “remained uninformed of the El Dorado, and once the remaining political hurdles were overcome, Freeport would have unimpeded access.” Those “political hurdles” – i.e. regime change – would take a while to effect.

The Need to Assassinate President Kennedy

But first JFK would have to be eliminated, for he had brokered Indonesian sovereignty over West Papua/West Irian for Sukarno from the Dutch who had ties to Freeport Sulphur.  Freeport was aghast at the potential loss of “El Dorado,” especially since they had recently had their world’s most advanced nickel refinery expropriated by Fidel Castro, who had named Che Guevara its new manager.  Freeport’s losses in Cuba made access to Indonesia even more important. Cuba and Indonesia thus were joined in the deadly game of chess between Dulles and Kennedy, and someone would have to lose.

While much has been written about Cuba, Kennedy, and Dulles, the Indonesian side of the story has been slighted. Poulgrain remedies this with an exhaustive and deeply researched exploration of these matters. He details the deviousness of the covert operations Dulles ran in Indonesia during the 1950s and 1960s.  He makes it clear that Kennedy was shocked by Dulles’s actions, yet never fully grasped the treacherous genius of it all, for Dulles was always “working two or three stages ahead of the present.”  Having armed and promoted a rebellion against Sukarno’s central government in 1958, Dulles made sure it would fail (shades of the Bay of Pigs to come) since a perceived failure served his long-term strategy.  To this very day, this faux 1958 Rebellion is depicted as a CIA failure by the media.  Yet from Dulles standpoint, it was a successful failure that served his long-term goals.

“This holds true,” Poulgrain has previously written, “only if the stated goal of the CIA was the same as the actual goal.  Even more than five decades later, media analysis of the goal of The Outer Island rebels is still portrayed as a secession, as covert US support for ‘rebels in the Outer Islands that wished to secede from the central government in Jakarta’.  The actual goal of Allen Dulles had more to do with achieving a centralized army command in such a way as to appear that the CIA backing for the rebels failed.”

Left to right: Allen Dulles, Richard Bissell, President Kennedy, John McCone. April 1962. Photo credit: CIA.GOV

Left to right: Allen Dulles, Richard Bissell, President Kennedy, John McCone. April 1962. Photo credit: CIA.GOV

Dulles’ the Devil

Dulles betrayed the rebels he armed and encouraged, just as he betrayed friend and foe alike during his long career.  The rebellion that he instigated and planned to fail was the first stage of a larger intelligence strategy that would come to fruition in 1965-6 with the ouster of Sukarno (after multiple unsuccessful assassination attempts) and the institution of a reign of terror that followed.  It was also when – 1966 – Freeport McMoRan began their massive mining in West Papua at Grasberg at an elevation of 14,000 feet in the Alpine region.  Dulles was nothing if not patient; he had been at this game since WW I.  Even after Kennedy fired him following the Bay of Pigs, his plans were executed, just as those who got in his way were.  Poulgrain makes a powerful case that Dulles was the mastermind of the murders of JFK, U.N. Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold (working with Kennedy for a peaceful solution in Indonesia and other places), and Congolese President Patrice Lumumba, the first president of a newly liberated Congo.

His focus is on why they needed to be assassinated (similar in this regard to James Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable), though with the exception of Kennedy (since the how is well-known and obvious), he also presents compelling evidence as to the how. Hammarskjold, in many ways Kennedy’s spiritual brother, was a particularly powerful obstacle to Dulles’s plans for Indonesia and colonial countries throughout the Third World. Like JFK, he was committed to independence for indigenous and colonial peoples everywhere and was trying to implement his Swedish-style ‘third way,’ proposing a form of ‘muscular pacifism’.

Poulgrain argues correctly that if the UN Secretary General succeeded in bringing even half these colonial countries to independence, he would have transformed the UN into a significant world power and created a body of nations so large as to be a counter-weight to those embroiled in the Cold War.

He draws on documents from the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and Chairman Archbishop Desmond Tutu to show the connection between South Africa’s “Operation Celeste” and Dulles’s involvement in Hammarskjold’s murder in September 1961.  While it was reported at the time as an accidental plane crash, he quotes former President Harry Truman saying, “Dag Hammarskjold was on the point of getting something done when they killed him.  Notice that I said, ‘When they killed him’.”  Hammarskjold, like Kennedy, was intent on returning colonized countries to their indigenous inhabitants and making sure Papua was for Papuans, not Freeport McMoRan and imperial forces.

And Dulles sold his overt Indonesian strategy as being necessary to thwart a communist takeover in Indonesia. Cold War rhetoric, like “the war on terrorism” today, served as his cover.  In this he had the Joint Chiefs of Staff on his side; they considered Kennedy soft on communism, in Indonesia and Cuba and everywhere else. Dulles’s covert agenda was to serve the interests of his power elite patrons.

While contextually different from David Talbot’s portrayal of Dulles in The Devil’s Chessboard, Poulgrain’s portrait of Dulles within the frame of Indonesian history is equally condemnatory and nightmarish.  Both describe an evil genius ready to do anything to advance his agenda.

Dulles and George de Mohrenschildt

Poulgrain adds significantly to our understanding of JFK’s assassination and its aftermath by presenting new information about George de Mohrenschildt, Lee Harvey Oswald’s handler in Dallas.  Dulles had a long association with the de Mohrenschildt family, going back to 1920-21 when in Constantinople he negotiated with Baron Sergius Alexander von Mohrenschildt on behalf of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil.  The Baron’s brother and business partner was George’s father.  Dulles’s law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, was Standard Oil’s primary law firm. These negotiations on behalf of elite capitalist interests, in the shadow of the Russian Revolution, became the template for Dulles’s career: economic exploitation was inseparable from military concerns, the former concealed behind the anti-communist rhetoric of the latter.  An anti-red thread ran through Dulles’s career, except when the red was the blood of all those whom he considered expendable.  And the numbers are legion.  Their blood didn’t matter.

Standard Oil is the link that joins Dulles [who controlled the Warren Commission investigating the assassination of JFK] and de Mohrenschildt. This connection was kept from the Warren Commission despite Dulles’ prominent role and the importance of the testimony of de Mohrenschildt. Poulgrain argues convincingly that de Mohrenschildt worked in “oil intelligence” before his CIA involvement, and that oil intelligence was not only Dulles’s work when he first met George’s father, Sergius, in Baku, but that that “oil intelligence” is a redundancy. The CIA, after all, is a creation of Wall Street and their interests have always been joined. The Agency was not formed to provide intelligence to US Presidents; that was a convenient myth used to cover its real purpose which was to serve the interests of investment bankers and the power elite, or those I call The Umbrella People who control the U.S.

While working in 1941 for Humble Oil  (Prescott Bush was a major shareholder, Dulles was his lawyer, and Standard Oil had secretly bought Humble Oil sixteen years before), de Mohrenschildt was caught up in a scandal that involved Vichy (pro-Nazi) French intelligence in selling oil to Germany.  This was similar to the Dulles’s brothers and Standard Oil’s notorious business dealings with Germany.

It was an intricate web of the high cabal with Allen Dulles at the center.

In the midst of the scandal, de Mohrenschildt, suspected of being a Vichy French intelligence agent, “disappeared” for a while.  He later told the Warren Commission that he decided to take up oil drilling, without mentioning the name of Humble Oil that employed him again, this time as a roustabout.

“Just when George needed to ‘disappear’, Humble Oil was providing an oil exploration team to be subcontracted to NNGPM – the company Allen Dulles had set up five years earlier to work in Netherlands New Guinea.”  Poulgrain makes a powerful circumstantial evidence case (certain documents are still unavailable) that de Mohrenschildt, in order to avoid appearing in court, went incommunicado in Netherlands New Guinea in mid-1941 where he made a record oil discovery and received a $10,000 bonus from Humble Oil.

“Avoiding adverse publicity about his role in selling oil to Vichy France was the main priority; for George, a brief drilling adventure in remote Netherlands New Guinea would have been a timely and strategic exit.”  And who best to help him in this escape than Allen Dulles – indirectly, of course; for Dulles’s modus operandi was to maintain his “distance” from his contacts, often over many decades.

In other words, Dulles and de Mohrenschildt were intimately involved for a long time prior to JFK’s assassination. Poulgrain rightly claims that “the entire focus of the Kennedy investigation would have shifted had the [Warren] Commission become aware of the 40-year link between Allen Dulles and de Mohrenschildt.” Their relationship involved oil, spying, Indonesia, Nazi Germany, the Rockefellers, Cuba, Haiti, etc.  It was an international web of intrigue that involved a cast of characters stranger than fiction, a high cabal of the usual and unusual operatives.

Two unusual ones are worth mentioning: Michael Fomenko and Michael Rockefeller.  The eccentric Fomenko – aka “Tarzan” – is the Russian-Australian nephew of de Mohrenschildt’s wife, Jean Fomenko.  His arrest and deportation from Netherlands New Guinea in 1959, where he had travelled from Australia in a canoe, and his subsequent life, are fascinating and sad. It’s the stuff of a bizarre film. It seems he was one of those victims who had to be silenced because he knew a secret about George’s 1941 oil discovery that was not his to share. “In April 1964, at the same time George de Mohrenschildt was facing the Warren Commission – a time when any publicity regarding Sele 40 [George’s record oil discovery] could have changed history – it was decided that electro-convulsive therapy would be used on Michael Fomenko.” He was then imprisoned at the Ipswich Special Mental Hospital.

Equally interesting is the media myth surrounding the disappearance of Michael Rockefeller, Nelson’s son and heir to the Standard Oil fortune, who was allegedly eaten by cannibals in New Guinea in 1961. His tale became front-page news, “a media event closed off to any other explanation and the political implications of his disappearance became an ongoing tragedy for the Papuan people.”  To this very day, the West Papuan people, whose land was described by Standard Oil official Richard Archbold in 1938 as “Shangri-la,” are fighting for their independence.

The Sino-Soviet Split

While the gold in West Papua was very important to Allen Dulles, his larger goal was to keep the Cold War blazing by concealing the dispute between China and the Soviet Union from Kennedy while instigating the mass slaughter of “communists” that would lead to regime change in Indonesia, with Major-General Suharto, his ally, replacing President Sukarno. In this he was successful. Poulgrain says:

Not only did Dulles fail to brief Kennedy on the Sino-Soviet dispute early in the presidency, but he also remained silent about the rivalry between Moscow and Beijing to wield influence over the PKI or win its support.  In geographical terms, Beijing regarded Indonesia as its own backyard, and winning the support of the PKI would give Beijing an advantage in the Sino-Soviet dispute.  The numerical growth of the PKI was seen by Moscow and Beijing for its obvious political potential.  Dulles was also focused on the PKI, but his peculiar skill in political intelligence turned what seemed inevitable on its head.  The size of the party [the Indonesian Communist Party was the largest outside the Sino-Soviet bloc] became a factor he used to his advantage when formulating his wedge strategy – the greater the rivalry between Moscow and Beijing over the PKI, the more intense would be the recrimination once the PKI was eliminated.

The slaughter of more than a million poor farmers was a trifle to Dulles.

The September 30, 1965 Movement

In the early hours of October 1, 1965, a fake coup d’état was staged by the CIA’s man, Major-General Suharto.  It was announced that seven generals had been arrested and would be taken to President Sukarno “to explain the rumor that they were planning a military coup on October 5.” Suharto declared himself the head of the army. Someone was said to have killed the generals. In the afternoon, a radio announcement was made calling for the Sukarno government to be dismissed.  This became Suharto’s basis for blaming it on the communists and the so-called September 30 Movement, and he gave the order to kill the PKI leaders.  This started the massive bloodshed that would follow.

With one hand, Suharto crushed the Movement, accusing the PKI of being the ultimate instigator of an attempt to oust Sukarno, and with the other hand he feigned to protect the “father of the Indonesian revolution,” while actually stripping Sukarno of every vestige of political support.

When the generals’ bodies were recovered a few days after Oct 1, Suharto falsely claimed the PKI women had tortured and sexually mutilated them as part of some primitive sexual orgy.  This heinous perversion of power was the start of the Suharto era.  In total control of the media, he manipulated popular wrath to call for revenge.

If this confuses you, it should, because the twisted nature of this fabricated coup was actually part of a real coup in slow motion aimed at ousting Sukarno and replacing him with the CIA’s man Suharto.  This occurred in early 1967 after the mass slaughter of communists.  It was a regime change cheered on by the American mass media as a triumph over communist aggression.

New Evidence of U.S. Direct Involvement in the Slaughter

Poulgrain has spent forty years interviewing participants and researching this horrendous history. His detailed research is quite amazing. And it does take concentration to follow it all, as with the machinations of Dulles, Suharto, et al.

Some things, however, are straightforward.  For example, he documents how, during the height of the slaughter, two Americans – one man and one woman – were in Klaten (PKI headquarters in central Java) supervising the Indonesian army as they killed the PKI. These two would travel back and forth by helicopter from a ship of the U.S. 7th Fleet that was off the coast of Java.  The plan was that the more communists killed, the greater would be the dispute between Moscow and Beijing, since they would accuse each other for the tragedy, which is exactly what they did.  This was the wedge that was mentioned in the Rockefeller Brothers Panel Report from the late 1950s in which Dulles and Henry Kissinger both participated.

The hatred drummed up against these poor members of the Communist Party was extraordinary in its depravity.  In addition to Suharto’s lies about communist women mutilating the generals’ bodies, a massive campaign of hatred was directed against these landless peasants who made up the bulk of the PKI.  False Cold War radio broadcasts from Singapore stirred up hostility toward them, declaring them atheists, etc.  Wealthy Muslim landowners – the 1 per cent – made outrageous charges to assist the army’s slaughter.  Poulgrain tells us:

Muhammadiyah preachers were broadcasting from mosques that all who joined the communist party must be killed, saying they are the ‘lowest order of infidel, the shedding of whose blood is comparable to killing a chicken.’

For those Americans especially, who think this history of long ago and far away does not touch them, its compelling analysis of how and why Allen Dulles and his military allies would want JFK dead since he was a threat to national security as they defined in it their paranoid anti-communist ideology might be an added impetus to read this very important book. Indonesia may be far away geographically, but it’s a small world.  Dulles and Kennedy had irreconcilable differences, and when Dulles was once asked in a radio interview what he would do to someone who threatened national security, he matter-of-factually said, “I’d kill him.”  The Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed.

I would be remiss if I didn’t say that the introduction to JFK vs. Dulles by Oliver Stone and the afterward by James DiEugenio are outstanding.  They add excellent context and clarity to a really great and important book.

*

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/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on JFK vs. Allen Dulles. Battleground Indonesia. A Review of Greg Poulgrain’s Book

Russia’s Demography Crisis

February 3rd, 2021 by Kester Kenn Klomegah

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).

***

Russia has demographic crisis. Notwithstanding official efforts to boost birth rates, reverse brain drain, use immigration policy over the past few years, Russia’s population still falls by half a million.

According to official data cited last month, Russia’s population stands at 146.24 million as of Jan. 1, 2021, down from 146.75 million the previous year. Russia’s population could drop by more than 12 million by 2035, the national statistics office said in its annual forecast published on its website.

The State Statistics Service (Rosstat) said that Russia experienced its highest natural population decline in 11 years.

Here are the three population scenarios that Rosstat predicted for the next 15 years. That, however, Russia’s natural population is expected to continue to decline — meaning deaths will continue to outnumber live births.

Optimistic scenario: 150.1 million. Natural population is expected to slow its contraction from nearly 250,000 next year to 21,300 in 2035. Migration is expected to grow from under 340,000 next year to more than 385,000 in 2035.

Baseline scenario: 142.9 million. Natural population is expected to decline by more than 350,000 next year and almost 400,000 in 2035. Migration is expected to drop slightly from almost 265,000 next year to around 264,000 in 2035.

Worst-case scenario: 134.2 million. Natural population is expected to contract by 484,400 next year and near 1 million people by 2035. Migration is expected to drop from almost 191,000 to under 16,000 arrivals in 2035.

All the figures were revised downward from 2018, when Rosstat forecast Russia’s population to grow to 153.2 million under an optimistic scenario, 144 million under a baseline scenario and 138.1 million under the worst-case scenario.

Besides, there are Russian Ministries that show concern and closely involved in discussing ways to implement measures to support population growth. For instance, the Health Ministry and the Economic Development Ministry.

Russia’s Health Ministry

Deputy Health Minister Evgeny Kamkin, back in October 2020 at the Territory of Care forum, said that “By the decree of the President of the Russian Federation on national goals and strategic development objectives for the period up to 2030, we have been given an ambitious but achievable task – increasing the life expectancy of Russians to 78 years by 2030. Increasing the share of older citizens of working age in the structure of the country’s population requires a timely restructuring of the entire health care system, with an emphasis on early detection of age-related diseases and risk factors for their development.”

The Demography National Project for 2019-2024 consists of five federal projects: Financial support for families with newborn children, Support for female employment, Older generation, Public health promotion and Sport as a norm of lifestyle.

The project’s key goals include: increase in life expectancy; decrease in mortality of the population over the working age; increase in birth rate; promotion of a healthy lifestyle. At present, relevant ministries and agencies are adjusting the indicators of the national project. The project was extended until 2030.

Economic Development Ministry

The Economic Development Ministry, as far back in August 2019, expected the population in Russia to grow by almost two million people in five years. This is according to the ministry’s basic macroeconomic forecast for 2019-2024, the outlook on demography took into account “the development of measures to support the birth rate.”

According to the document, the population would increase annually by 0.2-0.5 million people and would grow from 146.8 million people to 148.7 million people by 2024.

According to the forecast, the number of working-age population would also increase – from 82.0 million people to 85.3 million people. At the same time, the number of retired people would decrease from 37.3 million people to 35.6 million people.

Experts on Population Growth

Many Russian experts say population growth in any country can be ensured by either a natural increase (the difference between the number of births and deaths) or migration. That said, migration can become a demographic resource, but for this, Russia’s migration policy needs to be changed, Director of the Higher School of Economics’ Institute of Demography, Anatoly Vishnevsky, suggested.

Russia must have “special programmes focused on receiving migrants, and furnishing mechanisms for them to adapt and integrate, but Russia doesn’t have them,” he stressed. His proposal implies adopting one more measure for boosting the population, and to ensure a growing population as people makes up the wealth of a country. On the contrary, Russia has let the pace of migration slip through its fingers over the past decade. If we had a sound migration policy, then we could be considering migration from other countries,” suggested Anatoly Vishnevsky.

Putin on Population Growth

In his Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly delivered at the Manezh Central Exhibition Hall in January 2020, President Vladimir Putin said “There are nearly 147 million of us now. But we have entered a difficult, a very difficult demographic period. We are alarmed by the negative demographic forecasts. It is our historic duty to respond to this challenge. We must not only get out of this demographic trap, but ensure a sustainable natural population growth by 2025. The aggregate birth rate must be 1.7 in 2024.”

“Demography is a sector where universal or parochial solutions cannot be effective. Each step we take and each new law or government programme we adopt must be scrutinised from the viewpoint of our top national priority – the preservation and increase of Russia’s population,” he told the gathering.

Putin suggested building a long-term policy to support population growth, adding “it is our historic duty to respond to this challenge. We must not only get out of this demographic trap but ensure a sustainable natural population growth by 2025. Demography is a sector where universal or parochial solutions cannot be effective. Each step we take and each new law or government programme we adopt must be scrutinised from the viewpoint of our top national priority – preservation and increase of Russia’s population.”

The federal assembly includes members of the Federation Council, State Duma deputies, members of the Government, the heads of the Constitutional and Supreme courts, regional governors, speakers of regional legislatures, the heads of traditional religious denominations, public activists, the heads of regional civic chambers and the heads of major media outlets.

*

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.

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who previously worked with Inter Press Service (IPS), is a frequent and passionate contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia’s Demography Crisis
  • Tags: