All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Join us for an exclusive Expert Witness Testimony from Dr. William Makis, a distinguished Nuclear Medicine Radiologist and Oncologist.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.

Featured image:  A hand holding an mRNA vaccine vial. (Spencer Davis / Unsplash)


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

Pilot Incapacitations And Deaths in August-September 2023

September 28th, 2023 by Dr. William Makis

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

PILOT Incident: Austrian A320 near Vienna on Sep 24th 2023, captain temporarily incapacitated

By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Sep 26th 2023 08:06Z

An Austrian Airlines Airbus A320-200, registration OE-LZA performing flight OS-188 from Stuttgart (Germany) to Vienna (Austria), was enroute at 310 nearing the top of descent towards Vienna when the captain started to feel unwell.

While descending towards Vienna the captain became incapacitated, the first officer took control of the aircraft, continued the descent towards Vienna and intercepted the localizer for runway 34. Upon intercepting the glidepath the captain recovered and was able to resume his duties. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on runway 34.

Pilot Incapacitations and Deaths in Aug-Sep 2023 

Sep. 23, 2023 – Alaska Airlines Pilot – 37 year old Captain Eric McRae died suddenly in his hotel room during layover, was to fly that morning

Aug. 27, 2023 – Air Canada Flight AC348 (YVR-YOW) Vancouver to Ottawa, one of the pilots felt ill and became incapacitated 50 min before landing in Ottawa.

Aug. 17, 2023 – IndiGo Flight (NAG-PNQ) Nagpur to Pune, India, pilot 40 year old Manoj Subramanium died after collapsing at the boarding gate, about to board.

Aug. 16, 2023 – Qatar Airways Flight QR579 (DEL-DOH) Delhi to Doha, Qatar, 51 year old pilot collapsed as a passenger inflight and died, plane diverted to Dubai.

Aug. 14, 2023 – LATAM Flight LA505 (MIA-SCL) Miami to Santiago, Chile – 2 hours into 8hr flight, 56 year old Captain Ivan Andaur collapsed and died in the lavatory – plane diverted to Panama City!

Aug. 9, 2023 – United Airlines UAL1309 (SRQ-EWR) Sarasota to Newark, pilot had a heart attack and lost consciousness in flight

Aug. 7, 2023 – TigerAIR Flight IT237 (CTS-TPE) Sapporo to Taipei, copilot had a medical emergency after landing plane in Taipei

Pilot Incapacitations and Deaths Jan-July 2023

July 19, 2023 – Eurowings Discover Flight 4Y-1205 (HER-FRA) Heraklion to Frankfurt, pilot incapacitated, first officer took control, landed safely

June 7, 2023 – Air Canada Flight ACA692 (YYZ-YYT) Toronto to St.John’s, First Officer became incapacitated, deadheading Captain assumed duties

June 4, 2023 – Cessna Citation N611VG flying Tennessee to Long Island, fighter jets spotted pilot slumped over in cockpit unconscious, plane crashed and all onboard died

May 11, 2023 – HiSKy Flight H4474 (DUB-KIV) Dublin to Chisinau (Moldova), 20 min after liftoff pilot became “unable to act”, plane diverted to Manchester

May 4, 2023 – British Charter TUI Airways Flight BY-1424 (NCL-LPA) Newcastle to Las Palmas Spain pilot became ill, plane diverted back to NCL.

April 21, 2023 – Easyjet Flight U2-6469 (LGW-AGA) London Gatwick to Agadir, Morocco, first offer became incapacitated, diverted to Faro, Portugal.

April 4, 2023 – United Airlines Flight 2102 (BOI-SFO) – captain was incapacitated, first officer was only one in control of the aircraft.

March 25, 2023 – TAROM Flight RO-7673 TSR-HRG diverted to Bucharest as 30 yo pilot had chest pain, then collapsed

March 22, 2023 – Southwest Flight WN6013 LAS-CMH diverted as pilot collapsed shortly after take-off, replaced by non-Southwest pilot

March 18, 2023 – Air Transat Flight TS739 FDF-YUL first officer was incapacitated about 200NM south of Montreal

March 13, 2023 – Emirates Flight EK205 MXP-JFK diverted due to pilot illness hour and a half after take-off

March 11, 2023 – United Airlines Flight UA2007 GUA-ORD diverted due to “incapacitated pilot” who had chest pains

March 3, 2023 – Virgin Australia Flight VA-717 ADL-PER Adelaide to Perth flight was forced to make an emergency landing after First Officer suffered heart attack 30 min after departure.

Military Pilot Incapacitations 

Aug. 18, 2023 – US Army Aviation Center (Alabama) student pilot went into cardiac arrest behind the controls midflight (Aug.18, 2023), Instructor landed plane – pilot was dead for 18 minutes!

Recent Pilot Deaths

Pilot death July 16, 2023 – 2006 Piper Meridian, flying from Westchester NY, crashed at Martha’s Vineyard Airport after pilot had medical emergency upon final approach and passenger took control of the plane and attempted a landing. Pilot, 79 year old Randolph Bonnist, died later in hospital.

Pilot death – May 2023 – 4 Singapore Airlines pilots died suddenly in May 2023

Pilot death – May 9, 2023 – United Airlines and US Air Force Pilot Lt. Col. Michael Fugett, age 46, died unexpectedly at his home

Pilot death – May 3, 2023 – Air Transat and Air Canada Pilot Eddy Vorperian, age 48, died suddenly during layover in Croatia

Pilot death – April 13, 2023 – Phil Thomas, graduate of Flight Training Pilot academy in Cadiz, Spain (FTEJerez) died suddenly.

Pilot death – March 17, 2023 – 39 year old Westjet Pilot Benjamin Paul Vige died suddenly in Calgary

Pilot death – March 11, 2023 – British Airways (CAI-LHR) pilot died of heart attack in crew hotel in Cairo before a Cairo to London flight (name & age not released)

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

A Vote for Kennedy Is a Vote for Peace with China

September 28th, 2023 by Jeremy Kuzmarov

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In January, four-star Air Force General, Mike Minihan, sent a memo to the officers he commands predicting that the U.S. and China would be at war within two years. Minihan said, “I hope I am wrong [but] my gut tells me we will fight in 2025.”

If either President Joe Biden or former President Donald Trump is re-elected in 2024, then Minihan’s prognosticating gut may prove right. But if Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is the victor, then he will have been wrong.

Kennedy is intent on avoiding a war with China that would be suicidal for the U.S. and China. In July, Kennedy tweeted: “the indications are that the Chinese leadership does not want a military confrontation with us, and we shouldn’t want that either.” A few weeks earlier, the Boston Herald quoted Kennedy criticizing U.S. provocations directed against China and saying that he thought the U.S. putting military bases in the South China Sea was a mistake.

These statements represent a refreshing divergence from the saber-rattling rhetoric coming from the Biden White House and Republican Party leadership that alarms even seasoned Air Force Generals. 

Kennedy is absolutely correct to emphasize that China does not want a military confrontation, as Chinese Premier Xi Jinping has publicly advocated for a “win-win” cooperative strategy, in which the U.S. and China work together and collectively try to advance their national interests. 

On September 17, the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff acknowledged that the Chinese spy balloon hysteria earlier in the year, which contributed greatly to the deterioration of U.S.-China relations, was entirely baseless. Many other accusations directed against China appear to be either false or inflated for political reasons, including the claim, according to The Grayzone, that China has committed genocide against the Uyghur. 

The U.S. allegation of Chinese aggression centers on China’s attempt to control the Senkaku, Spratley, and Paracels Islands in the South China Sea. Their claims to these islands, however, are disputed, with the Senkakus having been taken from China by Japan in the 1894-1895 Sino-Japanese War. 

The Biden administration has antagonized China by sending Navy warships into the South China Sea and flying spy planes over the Taiwan Strait, over which China has jurisdiction under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. 

CIA Director William F. Burns, the first career diplomat to head the agency, and recently named to Biden’s cabinet, has carried out an expansive covert influence operation focusing on China, according to the New York Times. Two years ago, Burns created the China Mission Center and has since hired more China experts, increased spending on China-related intelligence gathering and counter espionage efforts that include flying spy planes off China’s coast.

The Biden administration has further signaled a possible break with the traditional “One China Policy” that recognizes Taiwan as part of China, by ratcheting up arms sales and covertly supporting separatist movements within Taiwan, according to Global Times

A U.S. government official described the U.S. strategy as being designed to turn Taiwan—the recipient of $3 billion in U.S. military aid in 2023—into a “porcupine,” a territory bristling with armaments and other forms of U.S.-led support that makes it “appear too painful to attack.”

Kennedy stands opposed to this policy, stating that the U.S. should “back off militarily” and “take the pressure off China and Taiwan and let them figure it out for themselves.” Additionally, Kennedy has called for diplomatic talks between the U.S. and China to “see if there are ways that we can work with each other peacefully and keep the world at ease.”

This progressive approach does not correlate with the interests of the military industrial complex that has corrupted the Democratic and Republican parties and, as Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in his farewell address over 60 years ago, hijacked U.S. foreign policy. It was the most controversial speech of Eisenhower’s life, yet, he edited and thereby diminished what his speechwriters, Malcolm Roos and Ralph E. Williams, originally termed the “Military-Industrial Congressional Complex.”

During the 2020 election, Northrop Grumman of Falls Church Virginia, which received a $180 million Pentagon contract for Volcano anti-tank munitions to Taiwan, gave Joe Biden $419,156 and another $492,003 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for Congressional races.

General Dynamics contributed $237,278 to Joe Biden and another $224,809 to the DNC for Congressional races in 2020, while benefiting from the sale of 66 F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan

Raytheon’s support for Joe Biden took the form of $506,424 for his 2020 presidential campaign. $2 billion in contracts were awarded to Raytheon by the Pentagon in just the first three months of Biden’s presidency. Raytheon has since sold Sidewinder and HARM missiles to Taiwan and agreed to a $100 million deal for the maintenance of Taiwan’s missile defense system, which led China to impose sanctions on the company.

Biden’s $842 billion defense budget for FY 2024 includes $9.1 billion for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, whose purpose is to upgrade U.S. military infrastructure and readiness and to “bolster the capacity and capabilities of U.S. allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific region.” These allies/partners include the Philippines, South Korea, India and Okinawa, Japan, which has been transformed into a military garrison directed against China

By far, the biggest winners of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative have been the arms companies listed above and Wall Street investment firms that own them, and make large donations to the DNC. 

Among them is Veritas Capital, which has owned sub-divisions of Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin and gave $97,479 to Democratic Party candidates in 2020.

Another is Renaissance Capital, which at the time of the 2020 election owned 1.2 million shares of RTX (parent company of Raytheon) worth over $75 million, and 130,000 shares in Lockheed Martin worth $50 million. Renaissance’s founder, Jim Simons, a former MIT mathematics professor who resigned from a military-connected think tank in the 1960s because he opposed the Vietnam War, gave over $7 million to Biden’s campaign in 2020, and $21.8 million to the DNC in 2018

Perhaps the most infamous on that short list of big winners, Blackrock, which owns 6.9% of Raytheon, 5% of General Dynamics, 6.8 percent of Lockheed Martin, and 6.3% of Northrop Grumman, is another Wall Street investment firm profiting massively from the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. During the 2022 midterm elections, Black Rock gave $410,675 to Republican and $606,366 to Democratic Party candidates, including $113,950 to Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, a longtime Sinophobe and China hawk.

And just to circle back for a sense of how tightly dominated this industry is by a handful of corporations, the federal IT and mission support of Northrop Grumman was bought by Veritas Capital in 2021. 

Kennedy has called the billion dollar U.S. weapons supplies to Ukraine “a money-laundering scheme,” taking wealth out of the pockets of tax-payers and putting it into the coffers of Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed-Martin, which, he notes, are owned by the investors of “BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard.”

These comments are equally true of the U.S. military buildup in Southeast Asia, which a President Kennedy would put an end to. Kennedy has said that he supports and encourages America competing with China on an economic plane. But he has emphasized that “meeting the needs of the American people”—whether in the realm of health-care, education, housing or fighting homelessness—is “more important than funding wars, it’s more important than funding overseas adventures.”

This is not the message that Wall Street plutocrats and weapons manufacturers who manage and pull the levers of the DNC want to hear. It is, however, one that resonates with millions of American voters from all political parties who understand that a war with China, as with Russia, is not in the best interests of the country.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from TKB

Global Leaders Plead for Peace in Ukraine at UN

September 28th, 2023 by Medea Benjamin

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

As it did last year, the 2023 United Nations General Assembly has been debating what role the United Nations and its members should play in the crisis in Ukraine. The United States and its allies still insist that the UN Charter requires countries to take Ukraine’s side in the conflict, “for as long as it takes” to restore Ukraine’s pre-2014 internationally recognized borders.

They claim to be enforcing Article 2:4 of the UN Charter that states

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

By their reasoning, Russia violated Article 2:4 by invading Ukraine, and that makes any compromise or negotiated settlement unconscionable, regardless of the consequences of prolonging the war.

Other countries have called for a peaceful diplomatic resolution of the conflict in Ukraine, based on the preceding article of the UN Charter, Article 2:3:

“All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”

They also refer to the purposes of the UN, defined in Article 1:1, which include the “settlement of international disputes” by “peaceful means,” and they point to the dangers of escalation and nuclear war as an imperative for diplomacy to quickly end this war.

As the Amir of Qatar told the Assembly,

“A long-term truce has become the most looked-for aspiration by people in Europe and all over the world. We call on all parties to comply with the UN Charter and international law and resort to a radical peaceful solution based on these principles.”

This year, the General Assembly has also been focused on other facets of a world in crisis: the failure to tackle the climate catastrophe; the lack of progress on the Sustainable Development Goals that countries agreed to in 2000; a neocolonial economic system that still divides the world into rich and poor; and the desperate need for structural reform of a UN Security Council that has failed in its basic responsibility to keep the peace and prevent war.

One speaker after another highlighted the persistent problems related to U.S. and Western abuses of power: the occupation of Palestine; cruel, illegal U.S. sanctions against Cuba and many other countries; Western exploitation of Africa that has evolved from slavery to debt servitude and neocolonialism; and a global financial system that exacerbates extreme inequalities of wealth and power across the world.

Brazil, by tradition, gives the first speech at the General Assembly, and President Lula da Silva spoke eloquently about the crises facing the UN and the world. On Ukraine, he said,

“The war in Ukraine exposes our collective inability to enforce the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. We do not underestimate the difficulties in achieving peace. But no solution will be lasting if it is not based on dialogue. I have reiterated that work needs to be done to create space for negotiations… The UN was born to be the home of understanding and dialogue. The international community must choose. On one hand, there is the expansion of conflicts, the furthering of inequalities and the erosion of the rule of law. On the other, the renewing of multilateral institutions dedicated to promoting peace.”

After a bumbling, incoherent speech by President Biden, Latin America again took the stage in the person of President Gustavo Petro of Colombia:

“While the minutes that define life or death on our planet are ticking on,” Petro declared, “rather than halting this march of time and talking about how to defend life for the future, thanks to deepening knowledge, expand it to the universe, we decided to waste time killing each other. We are not thinking about how to expand life to the stars, but rather how to end life on our own planet. We have devoted ourselves to war. We have been called to war. Latin America has been called upon to produce war machines, men, to go to the killing fields.

They’re forgetting that our countries have been invaded several times by the very same people who are now talking about combatting invasions. They’re forgetting that they invaded Iraq, Syria and Libya for oil. They’re forgetting that the same reasons they use to defend Zelenskyy are the very reasons that should be used to defend Palestine. They forget that to meet the Sustainable Development Goals, we must end all wars.

But they’re helping to wage one war in particular, because world powers see this suiting themselves in their game of thrones, in their hunger games.and they’re forgetting to bring an end to the other war because, for these powers, this did not suit them. What is the difference between Ukraine and Palestine, I ask? Is it not time to bring an end to both wars, and other wars too, and make the most of the short time we have to build paths to save life on the planet?

…I propose that the United Nations, as soon as possible, should hold two peace conferences, one on Ukraine, the other on Palestine, not because there are no other wars in the world – there are in my country – but because this would guide the way to making peace in all regions of the planet, because both of these, by themselves, could bring an end to hypocrisy as a political practice, because we could be sincere, a virtue without which we cannot be warriors for life itself.”

Petro was not the only leader who upheld the value of sincerity and assailed the hypocrisy of Western diplomacy. Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves of St. Vincent and the Grenadines cut to the chase:

“Let us clear certain ideational cobwebs from our brains. It is, for example, wholly unhelpful to frame the central contradictions of our troubled times as revolving around a struggle between democracies and autocracies. St. Vincent and the Grenadines, a strong liberal democracy, rejects this wrong-headed thesis. It is evident to all right-thinking persons, devoid of self-serving hypocrisy, that the struggle today between the dominant powers is centered upon the control, ownership, and distribution of the world’s resources.”

On the war in Ukraine, Gonsalves was equally blunt.

“…War and conflict rage senselessly across the globe; in at least one case, Ukraine, the principal adversaries — the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and Russia — may unwittingly open the gates to a nuclear Armageddon… Russia, NATO, and Ukraine should embrace peace, not war and conflict, even if peace has to rest upon a mutually agreed, settled condition of dissatisfaction.”

The Western position on Ukraine was also on full display. However, at least three NATO members (Bulgaria, Hungary and Spain) coupled their denunciations of Russian aggression with pleas for peace. Katalin Novak, the President of Hungary, said,

“…We want peace, in our country, in Ukraine, in Europe, in the world. Peace and the security that comes with it. There is no alternative to peace. The killing, the terrible destruction, must stop as soon as possible. War is never the solution. We know that peace is only realistically attainable when at least one side sees the time for negotiations as having come. We cannot decide for Ukrainians about how much they are prepared to sacrifice, but we have a duty to represent our own nation’s desire for peace. And we must do all we can to avoid an escalation of the war.”

Even with wars, drought, debt and poverty afflicting their own continent, at least 17 African leaders took time during their General Assembly speeches to call  for peace in Ukraine. Some voiced their support for the African Peace Initiative, while others contrasted the West’s commitments and expenditures for the war in Ukraine with its endemic neglect of Africa’s problems. President Joao Lourenço of Angola clearly explained why, as Africa rises up to reject neocolonialism and build its own future, peace in Ukraine remains a vital interest for Africa and people everywhere:

“In Europe, the war between Russia and Ukraine deserves our full attention to the urgent need to put an immediate end to it, given the levels of human and material destruction there, the risk of an escalation into a major conflict on a global scale and the impact of its harmful effects on energy and food security. All the evidence tells us that it is unlikely that there will be winners and losers on the battlefield, which is why the parties involved should be encouraged to prioritize dialogue and diplomacy as soon as possible, to establish a ceasefire and to negotiate a lasting peace not only for the warring countries, but which will guarantee Europe’s security and contribute to world peace and security.”

Altogether, leaders from at least 50 countries spoke up for peace in Ukraine at the 2023 UN General Assembly. In his closing statement, Dennis Francis, the Trinidadian president of this year’s UN General Assembly, noted,

“Of the topics raised during the High-Level Week, few were as frequent, consistent, or as charged as that of the Ukraine War. The international community is clear that political independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity must be respected, and violence must end.”

You can find all 50 statements at this link on the CODEPINK website: https://www.codepink.org/unurkaine23.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the 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 for CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

They are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, published by OR Books in November 2022. They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image: President Gustavo Petro Urrego of Colombia addresses the UN General Assembly (Photo credit: UN)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Abstract

The association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and vaginal bleeding among nonmenstruating women is not well studied. The Norwegian Institute of Public Health followed several cohorts throughout the pandemic and early performed a systematic data collection of self-reported unexpected vaginal bleeding in nonmenstruating women. Among 7725 postmenopausal women, 7148 perimenopausal women, and 7052 premenopausal women, 3.3, 14.1, and 13.1% experienced unexpected vaginal bleeding during a period of 8 to 9 months, respectively. In postmenopausal women, the risk of unexpected vaginal bleeding (i.e., postmenopausal bleeding) in the 4 weeks after COVID-19 vaccination was increased two- to threefold, compared to a prevaccination period. The corresponding risk of unexpected vaginal bleeding after vaccination was increased three- to fivefold in both nonmenstruating peri- and premenopausal women. In the premenopausal women, Spikevax was associated with at 32% increased risk as compared to Comirnaty. Our results must be confirmed in future studies.

Introduction

After the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination rollout in December 2020, spontaneous reporting systems received reports of menstrual disturbances at frequencies not seen in previous vaccination campaigns (1, 2). Such events were not addressed in the preceding clinical vaccine trials (3, 4). The European Medicines Agency recently decided that the product information of the mRNA vaccines (i.e., Spikevax and Comirnaty) should be updated to include heavy menstrual bleeding as a potential side effect (5).Spontaneous reporting systems have also received reports of vaginal bleeding after menopause [i.e., postmenopausal bleeding (PMB)] following COVID-19 vaccination (6, 7). PMB can be a symptom of endometrial carcinoma and precancerous lesions (8) and is considered an important medical event (9). According to clinical guidelines, women with PMB should be referred for specialized gynecological examination (10). A slightly increased risk of being diagnosed with PMB after COVID-19 vaccination has been described in a large U.S. cohort of women aged ≥55 years (11) and in a Swedish registry study (12). However, vaginal bleeding might be transient and experienced as nonsevere, and medical care is not always sought. Therefore, the excess risk of unexpected vaginal bleeding after vaccination may not be well described by diagnosis trends alone.A substantial proportion of the female population does not menstruate because they use long-term hormonal contraception. While an altered bleeding pattern after COVID-19 vaccination has been frequently addressed among menstruating women (1316), few studies have investigated such experiences in women who do not menstruate due to hormonal contraception (12, 17).

In the early fall of 2021, questions about bleeding disturbances and unexpected vaginal bleeding were included in questionnaires to several running Norwegian cohorts to explore free-text field comments from the participants shortly after introduction of the vaccine (18).

By use of questionnaire data from nearly 22,000 participants of the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Study (MoBa) (19) and the Senior cohort (20), we have investigated the association between COVID-19 vaccines and unexpected vaginal bleeding, i.e., (i) vaginal bleeding in postmenopausal women (e.g., PMB), (ii) unexpected vaginal bleeding in perimenopausal women, and (iii) breakthrough bleeding in nonmenstruating premenopausal women.

Results

The results are based on self-reported data from questionnaires issued in August and September 2021.

All female Senior cohort participants (ages 66 to 81 years) were considered nonmenstruating. Women who reported having had a hysterectomy were ineligible. After exclusion, the remaining eligible women (n = 2015) were allocated to the postmenopausal category (Fig. 1).

All female MoBa participants (ages 32 to 64 years) were asked “Do you still menstruate” (Yes/No/Do not know). Women who stated that they were still menstruating (“Yes”) were not eligible for inclusion. Women who reported having had a hysterectomy or were pregnant in 2021 were also ineligible. Women who denied (“No”) or were uncertain (“Do not know”) whether they were still menstruating were included and were all considered nonmenstruating.

The nonmenstruating MoBa participants were further categorized as post-, peri-, or premenopausal based on the response to three questions. They were defined as postmenopausal if they stated to have entered the menopausal transition, confirmed that their menstruations had stopped completely, and reported that their last menstruation occurred in 2019 or before (i.e., at least 1 year and 8 months prior) (n = 5710). Women were defined as perimenopausal if they stated to have entered the menopausal transition, confirmed that their menstruations had stopped completely, and reported that their last menstruation occurred in 2020 or 2021. Other combinations, including if they confirmed having entered the menopausal transition but denied or were uncertain whether their menstruations had stopped completely, also qualified for perimenopause (n = 7148). All nonmenstruating women who denied having entered the menopausal transition were defined as premenopausal (n = 7052). Age and reported hormone use was not applied in the categorization. See Materials and Methods for the complete description. A total of 21,925 participants from both cohorts were included (Fig. 1).

The median age of post-, peri-, and premenopausal women was 56, 52, and 45 years, respectively (Table 1). The vast majority received their first (98.0 to 98.4%) and second (91.5 to 95.0%) vaccine doses during the period covered by the questionnaire (1 January 2021 to the date of filling in the questionnaire). In post-, peri-, and premenopausal women, any hormone/contraception use was reported among 26.5, 57.2, and 85.5%, respectively. Among postmenopausal women, 13.7 and 7.4% reported using hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in MoBa and the Senior cohort, respectively (table S1). Most women in the premenopausal category reported having a hormonal intrauterine device (IUD) (74%). A medical history of any gynecological condition was reported among 14.5 to 19.3%. Further details of hormone use and gynecological conditions are shown in table S1.

Click here to expand for more data.

All nonmenstruating women were asked whether they had experienced unexpected vaginal bleeding in 2021 (i.e., the year the COVID-19 vaccination campaign was initiated) and whether this happened before or after COVID-19 vaccination. There were 252 (3.3%) postmenopausal women, 1008 (14.1%) perimenopausal women, and 924 (13.1%) premenopausal women who reported of unexpected vaginal bleeding during 2021. Of those who reported unexpected vaginal bleeding, 45, 51, and 55% of the post-, peri-, and premenopausal women, respectively, reported that the bleeding occurred within 4 weeks after the first and/or second vaccine dose. Perimenopausal women more often characterized the bleeding as heavy (27.9%) as compared to post- and premenopausal women (18.3 and 18.0%, respectively) (Table 2). In all three groups, bleeding after vaccination was more often characterized as heavy as compared to before vaccination. Perimenopausal women reported the longest bleeding duration, and in all groups, bleeding episodes were generally reported with slightly longer duration after vaccination compared to before vaccination. Similarly, the proportion of women who experienced only one bleeding episode was higher after vaccination in all three groups. The overall proportion who sought health care was higher among postmenopausal women compared to the peri- and premenopausal (30.6% versus 13.8% and 9.3%, respectively). Women more rarely sought health care when bleeding was reported to have occurred during the first 4 weeks after vaccination, as compared to before vaccination, in all three groups.

Click here to expand for more data.

Prevaccination rates of unexpected vaginal bleeding in post-, peri-, and premenopausal women were 4.0, 13.4, and 11.5 per 100 person years, respectively (Table 3). Compared to before vaccination, age-adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) after the first and second dose in postmenopausal women were 3.0 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.0 to 4.4] and 2.2 (95% CI, 1.4 to 3.5), respectively. In perimenopausal women, the corresponding aHRs were 4.2 (95% CI, 3.5 to 5.2) and 3.7 (95% CI, 2.9 to 4.7), and 4.7 (95% CI, 3.8 to 5.7) and 4.2 (95% CI, 3.3 to 5.2) in premenopausal women. In all groups, the rates observed more than 4 weeks after the first dose were consistently lower than the prevaccination rates. The risk estimates were virtually unchanged by additional adjustment (table S2). Direct comparison of the four postvaccination weeks after any dose of Spikevax against Comirnaty (reference), showed a 32% increased risk after Spikevax in premenopausal women [aHR, 1.32 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.65)] (Table 4). Stratified analyses according to history of gynecological condition(s) consistently showed higher rates in women with any gynecological condition, whereas HRs were slightly higher for those without any such condition (table S3). In postmenopausal women, the proportions who reported unexpected vaginal bleeding declined rapidly according to the year of last menstruation both before and after vaccination (Table 5). In all groups of women, rates were higher in HRT users and women with hormonal IUD as compared to women not using hormones (Table 6). In postmenopausal women, the HRs were similar in nonhormone users and users of HRT; HRs were 2.9 (95% CI, 1.7 to 4.9) and 2.8 (95% CI, 1.5 to 5.2), respectively. In perimenopausal women, the HR was higher in nonhormone users [4.9 (95% CI, 3.6 to 6.6)] as compared to women using HRT [2.9 (95% CI, 1.7 to 5.0)] or hormonal IUD [3.8 (95% CI, 2.9 to 5.1)]. In premenopausal women, where hormonal IUD was the most common, the HRs were similar across categories of hormone use. When postmenopausal women were stratified according to early and late menopause (here, defined as ≤5 years and ≥6 years since last menstrual bleeding), the HR of PMB was slightly higher in nonhormone users in the early menopause [3.3 (95% CI, 1.7 to 6.4)] as compared to nonhormone users in late menopause [2.2 (95% CI, 0.9 to 5.6)] (Table 7).

Click here to expand for more data.

Click here to expand for more data.

Discussion

By use of data from two large population-based cohorts, we have observed an increased risk of unexpected vaginal bleeding after COVID-19 vaccination in nonmenstruating women across different stages of reproductive aging. Among post-, peri-, and premenopausal women, 3.3, 14.1, and 13.1% reported having one or several unexpected vaginal bleeding episodes during the last 8 to 9 months, of which approximately 50% were reported to have happened within 28 days of vaccination. In postmenopausal women, the risk of vaginal bleeding was increased two to threefold in the 4 weeks after vaccination, as compared to the prevaccination period. The association with vaccination was slightly stronger in peri- and premenopausal women where the risk was increased three to fivefold. In premenopausal women, the first 4 weeks after a dose of Spikevax was associated with a 32% increased risk as compared to Comirnaty.

Incidence rates of PMB in the population vary in previous publications, ranging from 0.2 to 1.5 per 100 person years (age dependent) based on hospital diagnoses (12, 21) to 13 per 100 person years in a 1-year daily diary study (22). Although not directly comparable, it is reassuring that our baseline estimate of PMB (i.e., 4.0 per 100 person years) lies between the estimates from these two approaches. Few studies have investigated the association between COVID-19 vaccination and unexpected vaginal bleeding in nonmenstruating women (11, 12, 17, 23), and PMB after COVID-19 vaccination has rarely been addressed (11, 12, 17, 23, 24).

Cross-sectional studies have reported higher frequencies of unexpected bleeding after COVID-19 vaccination compared to our study (17, 24). A small survey of pre- and postmenopausal women found that 11 and 38% of the postmenopausal women reported “menstrual symptoms” after the first and second dose, respectively (24). In a large sample recruited from social media, unexpected bleeding after vaccination was reported among 70% of women aged 18 to 45 years using long-acting reversible contraceptives and among 66% of postmenopausal women aged ≥55 years (17). In comparison, in the present study of previously enrolled cohort participants, the proportions of women with unexpected vaginal bleeding within 4 weeks of vaccination were 7.4% for premenopausal women and 1.5% for postmenopausal women. As acknowledged by Lee et al. (17), having experienced any of these outcomes probably increased the likelihood of participation in their study. Of note, a small survey in Japanese health care workers reported that among 103 postmenopausal women, none had reported irregular bleeding after vaccination (25).

In agreement with our findings, two large studies from the United States (11) and Sweden (12) using health record systems found positive associations between COVID-19 vaccination and PMB. The risk of a PMB diagnosis was increased by 21 and 14% respectively, when compared to prevaccination periods. In our cohort, only 31% of women who reported a PMB sought medical care, and the proportion was even lower if the bleeding occurred after vaccination. Thus, lower risk estimates are expected from a diagnosis-based approach. Furthermore, the defined risk windows were longer than the 28 days in our study (i.e., 82 to 112 days) (11, 12).

Two of the abovementioned studies saw no clear difference in bleeding reports according to vaccine type (12, 17). However, the Spikevax vaccine used in primary vaccination (first and second doses) contains a higher dose of mRNA (100 μg) as compared to the Comirnaty vaccine (30 μg) and has been associated with higher rates of adverse events, in particular at younger age (2629). In line with this, we observed a higher risk of vaginal bleeding after Spikevax as compared to Comirnaty in premenopausal women. Also, a study analyzing the free-text fields of unsolicited reactions after COVID-19 vaccination in the CDC v-safe surveillance system found that a larger proportion of respondents with PMB had received the Spikevax vaccine than expected if vaccine type were independent (23).

After the menopause, the endometrium normally undergoes a gradual atrophy, starting with an inactive phase in which neither proliferation nor secretion is present and ending in a thin layer, often with cystic cavities (30). HRT, most commonly a combination of estrogen and progestogen, may interfere with the physiological atrophy (30, 31), and vaginal bleeding is a common side effect (32). Ljung et al. (12) observed a slightly stronger association between vaccination and PMB after the third dose in a subsample analysis of nonhormone users as compared to the analysis on the complete sample. In our study, the strength of the association between vaccination and PMB was similar in HRT users and nonhormone users. However, we observed a slightly stronger association between vaccination and vaginal bleeding in nonhormone users who more recently entered menopause, but the CIs were wide. In HRT users, the strength of the association was similar irrespective of time elapsed since the last menstrual bleeding. Given that HRT stimulates the endometrium and may delay the endometrial atrophy, this finding seems reasonable. However, care should be taken in the interpretation due to small groups and the nonrandom distribution of hormone use (i.e., the hormone use per se cannot be distinguished from the indication).

An irregular bleeding pattern is the clinical hallmark of perimenopause. According to the Stages of Reproductive Aging Workshop (STRAW) criteria for staging reproductive aging (33), perimenopause begins at stage −2 (early menopausal transition), characterized by increased variability in menstrual cycle length, and ends 12 months after the final menstrual period. It is therefore reassuring that perimenopausal women had the highest prevaccination bleeding rates in the study. However, despite the high baseline rates (reference), the association with vaccination was not weaker in this group. In perimenopause, the strongest association between vaccination and bleeding was observed among nonhormone users, but the CIs were wide.

Most nonmenstruating premenopausal women in our study had a hormonal IUD (74%). Thus, the overall estimates for the premenopausal group reflect women with such device. Common endometrial changes in these women are glandular atrophy and stromal decidualization, in addition to a foreign body reaction characterized by an increase in inflammatory cells. Breakthrough bleeding is common, in particular during the initial period after insertion (34). However, despite the physiological changes, we did not detect clear differences in the relative risk of bleeding across hormone use in premenopausal women.

In all three groups, the association between vaccination and bleeding tended to be slightly stronger in women without gynecological conditions as compared to women with such history. Yet, as the rates were generally higher among women with any gynecological condition, the absolute excess risk posed by vaccination was greater among women with these conditions.

Our findings indicate that the COVID-19 vaccines, or the host response to them, can lead to vaginal bleeding in a wide range of women. Unexpected vaginal bleeding in post-, peri-, and premenopausal women generally have different underlying causes. However, our findings of an increased risk across the reproductive stages raise the possibility that the mechanisms linking COVID-19 vaccination to unexpected vaginal bleeding may be similar across the stages. Although our data are not fit to explore biological mechanisms, the increased risk after vaccination across different stages of reproductive aging (i.e., in post-, peri-, and premenopausal women) and exogenous hormone use may suggest that the mechanism is not through disruptions of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis. Increased risk after both Comirnaty and Spikevax suggest a mechanism related to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein and not to other vaccine components. This is also supported by a higher risk observed after Spikevax in premenopausal women. An increased risk of PMB diagnosis after SARS-CoV-2 infection has also been described (12), further supporting a role of the viral agent. Pathways related to local changes in the endometrium, possibly resulting from a spike related immune response or related to the endometrial expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors (i.e., the receptor for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein) may be involved (17, 3537). However, a general bleeding tendency after vaccination cannot be ruled out.

Major strengths of this study are the large sample, high response rates, and the reduced risk of selection bias as participants were already enrolled at the time of vaccination. Being self-reported, outcome frequencies are more complete than if limited to medical diagnoses. Although it can be argued that participants who had experienced any kind of adverse event would be more motivated to return their questionnaire, the questionnaires covered a wide spectrum of other health- and pandemic-related topics, not specifically targeting adverse events after vaccination. Also, the response rates were similar in preceding and subsequent questionnaires, and the sensitivity analysis for the subpopulation complete for all covariates showed almost identical results. The study collected data on the time elapsed from vaccination to the bleeding event. Unlike diagnosis-based studies, which must investigate a longer time-period due to diagnosis delay (11, 12), we could calculate rates within a biologically plausible time interval of 4 weeks postvaccination. The study was conducted early in the pandemic, before the Omicron surge, and therefore, only to a minimal degree influenced by unrecognized SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also had information on important characteristics such as hormone treatment, hysterectomy, and gynecological conditions, as well as body mass index (BMI) and educational level for a large subsample (80%), allowing for relevant categorizations and sensitivity analysis with correction for potential confounders. We had information on menopausal status and did not have to use an arbitrary age limit with inevitable misclassification (38).

Our study has some important limitations. Outcomes were retrospectively collected and vulnerable to recall bias. More complete reporting postvaccination compared to the prevaccination period may have existed, and differential misclassification in the sense of a higher proportion of true cases classified as noncases in the reference period could have influenced the results. Participants were asked to state if their change in bleeding occurred after vaccination, and further time precision was defined from time elapsed from the vaccination date. The risk more than 4 weeks after the first dose was lower than that of the reference period. This is most likely the result of a timing-related misclassification. This tendency disappeared after the second dose, which may suggest that more recent events were more accurately allocated. However, as a COVID-19 vaccine potentially could have triggered an endometrial breakdown/bleeding (which otherwise would have happened within weeks/months), the lower risk could also be a true observation. Media attention could have introduced further bias in the reporting. However, in contrast to menstrual changes, which in a sense are subjective and can be influenced by awareness, we believe that unexpected bleeding in nonmenstruating women represents a more robust event that most women are likely to remember and be able to report quite accurately. Presumably, this is especially true for postmenopausal women. It is also possible that the media attention was helpful, as women would be more likely to remember when their own bleeding occurred, in relation to their vaccines (i.e., before or after). Supporting our hypothesis of reliable reporting, our data show clear expected trends of bleeding rates across menopausal status and year since last menstruation (22). Furthermore, the observed increased risk after Spikevax compared to Comirnaty, which is not unreasonable due to the higher mRNA dose, is unlikely to have been influenced by differential recall bias or awareness. Last, some misclassification of the reproductive stages is necessarily present. The classification was based on self-reported information and partly required that respondents were familiar with the term “menopausal transition.” While nearly 85% of the women assigned to the premenopausal category reported use of hormonal contraception, thus providing a reasonable explanation as to why they did not menstruate, we know less about the remaining 15%. Probably, this subgroup contains women misclassified to the category as well as women with amenorrhea due to other cause (hysterectomized and pregnant women were not eligible). The menopausal transition may be difficult for women to clinically recognize and the perimenopausal category was therefore also broadly defined in our study. Furthermore, because information about the participants’ last menstrual bleeding was available in years only, and a cutoff of 2019 was used to ensure true postmenopausal status (i.e., 12 months or more since their last menstrual bleeding), some women in the early postmenopause have been assigned perimenopausal status. Women in the early menopausal transition have not been fully addressed in this study. As this period is defined by increased variability in menstrual cycle length, and not amenorrhea, we expect that women in this stage, who were not amenorrheic due to exogenous hormones, reported to still be menstruating and therefore not eligible.

Some aspects might influence the generalizability of our results. First, the cohort participants are not completely representative of the general population. Participants have a higher educational level (20, 39) and are probably more health conscious as compared to the general Norwegian population. Reassuringly, investigation of self-selection in MoBa has suggested that while prevalence estimates of exposures and outcomes may be biased, estimates of exposure-outcome associations are not (40). We do not expect that the selection into the cohorts introduces substantial bias to our estimates in this study. Secondly, MoBa, representing 91% of our study sample, is a pregnancy-based cohort, and thus, most women in our study have been pregnant at least once. However, although pregnancies cause some structural and functional changes to the uterus (41, 42), we do not suspect that the association between COVID-19 vaccination and vaginal bleeding would be markedly different in nulliparous women. Of note, menstrual disturbances after vaccination have been reported in nulliparous women from the age of 12 years (18, 43).

PMB represents an important medical event that cannot be explained by circumstantial factors such as pandemic-related stress. Thus, the finding of increased risk of PMB is a strong advocate for a true biological effect of vaccination on female bleeding patterns overall. Since PMB also has clinical implications in the sense of elaborated diagnostics and severe patient concerns, clarification of an association is imperative.

We believe that this study, which focuses on major groups of women rarely included in related studies, offers an important contribution to the current body of evidence within this field. In our sample of health-conscious women, only 31, 14, and 9% of the post-, peri-, and premenopausal women with reported bleeding also reported that they sought medical care, respectively. This health-seeking behavior also differed by vaccination status. This illustrates the role of self-reported data in the investigation of certain end points. While bias may partly explain the association in this retrospective analysis, we do not believe that it accounts for all the increased risk we observed. Together with current knowledge, it seems probable that both pre- and postmenopausal women are at increased risk of unexpected vaginal bleeding after COVID-19 vaccination. Our findings must be confirmed by well-designed prospective studies and such events should be addressed in clinical trials of future vaccines.

Materials and Methods

We used data from two cohorts administered by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, namely, the MoBa and the Senior cohort. The MoBa is an ongoing, nationwide population-based pregnancy cohort with recruitment from 1999 to 2008 (19). Mothers consented to participate in 41% of the pregnancies. Since March 2020, adult participants have been invited to answer electronic questionnaires with questions related to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic every 14 days. Questions about bleeding disturbances and unexpected vaginal bleeding were included in two consecutive questionnaires, distributed to 103,904 and 103,791 participants on 20 August and 1 September 2021 [Q(Aug,21) and Q(Sep,21)]. The response rates were high (71 and 72%, respectively), and most of the respondents returned the questionnaire on the date of distribution (61 and 62%, respectively).

The Senior cohort was established in December 2020 to cover older age groups during the pandemic. About 13,000 randomly selected citizens of Oslo aged 65 to 80 years were invited, and 36% consented to participation. To date, eight electronic questionnaires have been distributed. Gynecological history and unexpected vaginal bleeding were covered in the questionnaire distributed to 4814 subjects on 23 September 2021 [Q(Sep,21)]. The response rate was 95 and 54% returned the questionnaire on the distribution date.

In MoBa, we used information from Q(Sep,21) (n = 46,356), and if not available, we added responses from Q(Aug,21) (n = 5445) (Fig. 1). The number of female respondents to Q(Sep,21) in the Senior cohort was 2387. All Senior cohort participants were considered nonmenstruating. In MoBa, all women were asked “Do you still menstruate?” (Yes/No/Do not know). Women who answered “Yes” were ineligible for inclusion in the present study (n = 27,478). In both cohorts, women with reported hysterectomy (n = 2383) or pregnancy in 2021 (n = 28) were also ineligible. The eligible study population of nonmenstruating women consisted of 24,299 subjects.

The study was approved by The Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics, Southeast Norway. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Exposure

Vaccination dates and the type of vaccine against COVID-19 was obtained through linkage with the Norwegian Immunization Registry by use of each participant’s unique national identity number. Notification to the registry is mandatory and performed by the personnel providing the vaccines at the time of vaccination. A time-dependent exposure variable was created by use of vaccination dates [i.e., unvaccinated/prevaccination; first 4 weeks after dose 1; more than 4 weeks after dose 1 (but before dose 2); first 4 weeks after dose 2; more than 4 weeks after dose 2].

Outcome

The main outcome was based on retrospective reporting of vaginal bleeding events in 2021. Because of the different age distributions, the questions on vaginal bleedings and menopausal status were slightly different in the two cohorts. MoBa participants were asked if they had experienced the following “Unexpected bleeding(s) during 2021 although I no longer menstruate (postmenopause, menopausal transition, or hormonal contraception)” (Yes/No/Do not know). Women in the Senior cohort were asked if they experienced “Unexpected bleeding(s) during 2021 although I no longer menstruate” (Yes/No/Do not know). Women who answered “Yes” were defined as cases, whereas “Do not know” (3.0%) were considered noncases. Those who answered “Yes” were then asked if the change occurred after vaccination, if it occurred after the first or second/last dose, and how soon after vaccination it occurred (“Less than 1 day”, “1–2 days,” “3–5 days,” “6–7 days,” “1–2 weeks,” “3–4 weeks,” or “More than 4 weeks”). We estimated the bleeding date by sampling randomly among the candidate dates, which were defined according to the women’s response and vaccination date. Events that did not occur after COVID-19 vaccination were assigned a random date between 1 January 2021 and the date of the first vaccine dose or the fill in date, whichever occurred first.

Covariates and categorization

Year of birth and educational level for MoBa participants were retrieved from the existing MoBa and Senior cohort databases. Height and weight, for calculation of BMI, were retrieved from recent MoBa and Senior cohort questionnaires (January and June 2021, respectively). Educational level in the Senior cohort was retrieved from a questionnaire from February 2022. Information about previous SARS-CoV-2 diagnoses was obtained through linkage with the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases (MSIS). Laboratory-confirmed [polymerase chain reaction (PCR)] infections are reported to MSIS without need for consent.Senior cohort participants were all considered postmenopausal. Eligible MoBa participants (nonmenstruators) were categorized as pre-, peri-, or postmenopausal based on three questions; “Have you entered the menopausal transition?” (Yes/No/Do not know), “Have your menstruations stopped completely (Yes/No/Don’t know) and “In what year did you have your last menstruation?”Postmenopausal women includes women who confirmed having entered the menopausal transition (“Yes”), confirmed that their menstruations had stopped completely (“Yes”), and provided a year of last menstruation of 2019 or earlier (i.e., at least 12 months earlier). Women in the Senior cohort (ages 66 to 81 years) were automatically assigned to this category.

Perimenopausal women includes women who confirmed having entered the menopausal transition (“Yes”) and confirmed that their menstruations had stopped completely (“Yes”) but provided a year of last menstruation of 2020 or 2021. Women were also allocated to this category if they (i) confirmed having entered the menopausal transition (“Yes”) and denied that their menstruations had stopped completely (“No”), (ii) confirmed having entered the menopausal transition (“Yes”) and were uncertain whether their menstruations had stopped completely (“Do not know”), (iii) were uncertain whether they had entered the menopausal transition (“Do not know”) and were uncertain whether their menstruations had stopped completely (Do not know), and (iv) were uncertain whether they had entered the menopausal transition (“Do not know”) and denied that their menstruations had stopped completely (“No”).

Premenopausal women includes women who denied having entered the menopausal transition (“No”), irrespective of their response to whether their menstruations had stopped completely (i.e., “Yes,” “No,” or “Do not know”).

Study sample

Women who were registered with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR-test (n = 548) were excluded (Fig. 1). Since subjects were asked about bleeding events in relation to their first and/or second/last vaccine dose, subjects with three vaccine doses before the fill in date were also excluded (n = 24). Women with missing or unclear information on menopausal status (n = 1690) and/or hormone use status (n = 32) were also excluded. Last, we excluded women who reported a bleeding event but did not report if the change occurred before or after vaccination or failed to report how soon after vaccination the event occurred (n = 80). A total of 21,925 nonmenstruating women were included in the analyses.

Design and statistical analyses

Since women were asked about bleeding events during 2021, all the women were followed from 1 January 2021. End of follow-up was the fill in date of the questionnaire or the estimated date of bleeding, whichever occurred first. We used Cox regression to estimate the association between vaccination and risk of unexpected bleeding. The model was adjusted for age as a continuous variable. In addition, a multivariate model (adjusted for age, hormone use, BMI category, educational level, and any gynecological condition), and crude and age-adjusted analyses were performed for a subset of participants with complete information on all covariates. In a separate analysis, the first 4 weeks after a dose of Spikevax was compared to the first 4 weeks after Comirnaty. The main analyses were stratified according to any gynecological conditions and certain categories of hormone use. Postmenopausal women were also stratified according to the number of years since last menstrual bleeding. Because of power limitations, in the stratified analyses, the first and second doses were combined. Statistical analyses were performed in STATA version 17.0.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Click here to see the references.

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

Sanciones, guerras no declaradas

September 28th, 2023 by Fabrizio Casari

Slouching Towards “Beelzebub”. The White House, NIH, CDC, Were Fully Aware that the “Miraculous” Pfizer mRNA COVID Vaccine Resulted in Myocarditis and Blood Clotting

By James Howard Kunstler, September 27, 2023

All these officials proceeded to craft a campaign to tell the public that this myocarditis was mild… Rochelle Walensky kept pushing the vaccines as “safe and effective” until she resigned in June, 2023.

Latest Poll Shows Trump Up 10 Points Over Biden for 2024 Election

By Ahmed Adel, September 28, 2023

The Biden administration has called on the US Congress to approve an additional $24 billion package for Ukraine as only a few weeks’ worth of funds are currently available. The Democrat push to ensure the war continues comes as Donald Trump promised to end it if he was re-elected in 2024 and is now leading in the polls over Joe Biden.

Ukraine: Has PM Trudeau Succumbed to Nazi Ideology?

By Hindustan Times, Sky News, and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 27, 2023

The issue of “the Ukrainian hero of the 14th Division Waffen SS Yaroslav Hunka” has opened up a can of worms, a Pandora’s box. In a bitter irony, President Zelensky who is of Jewish Russian descent has embraced Neo-Nazism. He fully endorsed (together with Trudeau and Freeland) the standing ovation in support of Yaroslav Hunka.

56-year-old Australian Dr. Richard Scolyer Was Diagnosed with Worst Possible Brain Turbo Cancer. He’s Now Receiving World’s First mRNA Cancer Vaccine to Treat mRNA Turbo Cancer

By Dr. William Makis, September 27, 2023

Internationally renowned Australian Pathologist Dr. Richard Scolyer was diagnosed with the worst possible Brain Turbo Cancer with months to live. He is now first in the World to receive an mRNA Cancer Vaccine to treat a cancer that was likely caused by COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines. 

Israel-Saudi Arabia: Netanyahu Promotes Normalisation with New Map Erasing Palestine

By Middle East Eye, September 27, 2023

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented a new map erasing Palestine during his speech at the United Nations General Assembly’s (UNGA) 78th session on Friday. The illustration showed a “new Middle East” wherein the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip appeared to be part of Israel.

Australia’s Aboriginal Peoples Are Entitled to a “Special Voice” to Its Parliament

By Irwin Jerome, September 27, 2023

In March 2023, Stan Grant, a First Nation Widjuri journalist, writer and ABC radio and television presenter, gave an iconic talk “Racism is Destroying the Australian Dream”. Grant’s talk was as moving and inspiring as it was furiously-angry about what continues to happen every day to humanity’s aboriginal peoples, not only in Australia but throughout the world.

Russia-Ukraine Crisis: Can Multipolar BRICS-11 Ensure Global Peace and Stability?

By Kester Kenn Klomegah, September 27, 2023

At the United Nations General Assembly high-level meetings held in New York, a number of global leaders including those from Africa vehemently called for global peace and sustainable development.

France Recalls Diplomats from Niger Ahead of Troop Withdrawal

By Abayomi Azikiwe, September 27, 2023

President Emmanuel Macron for several weeks has falsely claimed that the French ambassador in Niamey was being held hostage by the newly installed government established by the National Council for the Safeguarding of Our Homeland (CNSP) after the July 26 military-led revolt.

Unexpected Vaginal Bleeding Rises After COVID Vaccination. Study

By Jay Croft, September 27, 2023

Non-menstruating women were more likely to experience unexpected vaginal bleeding after receiving COVID-19 vaccinations, according to a new study. Researchers suggested it could have been connected to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the vaccines. The study was published in Science Advances.

China-Syria Strategic Partnership Faces the US-imposed Stalemate

By Steven Sahiounie, September 27, 2023

On September 22, during a diplomatic meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, he told Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that China would help Syria to rebuild its ruined economy by upgrading ties to a “strategic partnership“, which means close coordination on regional and international affairs, including in the military sphere, and is just one grade below what Beijing calls a “comprehensive strategic partnership”.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Biden administration has called on the US Congress to approve an additional $24 billion package for Ukraine as only a few weeks’ worth of funds are currently available. The Democrat push to ensure the war continues comes as Donald Trump promised to end it if he was re-elected in 2024 and is now leading in the polls over Joe Biden.

John Kirby, the strategic communications coordinator at the White House National Security Council, said in an interview with CNN that the US has enough funding to “last another few weeks or so” but that not having the additional funding requested would have a huge “impact” on their ability to support Ukraine in the autumn and winter. Kirby also urged members of Congress to hurry to approve the additional $24 billion requested by the White House for Kiev.

He added that a possible shutdown of Congress due to a lack of agreement on the budget, whether for the 2024 fiscal year or a short-term emergency budget, could negatively impact the supply of weapons to Ukraine, with effects starting as early as October.

However, there is major pushback on the Democratic hope to continue pumping resources into the financial blackhole that Ukraine has become. Leading Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump continually slams the Biden administration’s policy, and nearly 30 congressional Republicans sent a letter to the Office of Management and Budget director saying they reject the request for an additional $24 billion for Ukraine.

“The American people deserve to know what their money has gone to. How is the counteroffensive going? Are the Ukrainians any closer to victory than they were six months ago? What is our strategy, and what is the president’s exit plan? What does the administration define as victory in Ukraine?” the letter says.

The lawmakers highlighted that it would be “an absurd abdication of congressional responsibility” to grant additional aid for Ukraine without answers to the inquiries.

“For these reasons—and certainly until we receive answers to the questions above and others forthcoming—we oppose the additional expenditure for war in Ukraine included in your request,” the letter adds.

In late August, the White House requested additional funds from Congress to cover the federal government’s needs while agreeing to a full budget for fiscal year 2024. The short-term budget was designed to avoid a government shutdown due to the exhaustion of resources. The stoppage, known as “shutdown,” could occur as early as October 1, when the new fiscal year begins in the US. The provisional budget must be adopted by September 30, which marks less than 14 months until the next presidential election.

Another point of the Republican pushback against the Biden administration’s reckless funding plan for Ukraine is the consistently made promise by Trump to quickly find a resolution to end the conflict if he is elected for another term, with the latest made on September 25 at a rally in South Carolina. Furthermore, the former president declared that he would strive to avoid a Third World War, stressing that the current situation is very close to a global conflict.

A new Washington Post-ABC poll shows Joe Biden trailing Trump by ten percentage points. This is inconvenient news for the establishment media, who responded aggressively to the poll, saying it was flawed. For his part, Larry Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, called the decision to release the poll results “ridiculous.”

“Ignore the Washington Post–ABC poll,” Sabato wrote on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. “How could you even publish a poll so absurd on its face? Will be a lingering embarrassment for you. Just plain embarrassing – for them.”

Despite the criticisms, Sunday’s ABC This Week host, Martha Raddatz, stood by the poll and said: “Whatever caveats, whether that is an outlier, that’s a tough one to spin.”

Even after mocking the Washington Post–ABC poll in an article, The Guardian had to concede that “Trump does hold commanding leads in national and key state polls regarding the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.”

This is hardly surprising since Americans can see how their quality of life has drastically declined in the few short years that Biden has been president. Americans want issues like the cost of living to improve. Instead, the president makes excuses for why this cannot be achieved despite pumping well over $100 billion into the financial blackhole that Ukraine has become, and this is why Trump will likely continue leading in the polls unless there is a major change in the current political dynamic.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.  

Featured image is from CBS/InfoBrics

Ukraine: Has P.M. Trudeau Succumbed to Nazi Ideology?

September 27th, 2023 by Hindustan Times

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This report consists  of three Parts:

1. Canada’s House of Commons gives standing ovation to a man introduced as a Ukrainian “war hero”, later to discover that he served in the Nazi 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS. Hindustan Times

2. Trudeau urged to Resign, Sky News 

3. Is Trudeau Supportive of Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Party Svoboda? Global Research

Part I

Zelensky Addresses Canada’s House of Commons

“Oversight. Major Embarrassment”

 

In a major embarrassment for Ottawa, the Canadian lawmakers gave a standing ovation to a man who was introduced as a war hero after Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s address in the House of Commons only to later realise that he had served in a Nazi unit during World War II.” (Hindustan Times)

 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recognize Yaroslav Hunka, who was in attendance in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Friday, Sept. 22, 2023.(AP)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recognize Yaroslav Hunka, who was in attendance in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Friday, Sept. 22, 2023.(AP)

The Speaker of Canada’s House of Commons apologized Sunday for recognizing 98-year-old Yaroslav Hunka as a “Ukrainian hero” before the Canadian Parliament.

Hunka served in World War II as a member of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS, according to a Jewish human rights group that demanded an apology.

“In my remarks following the address of the President of Ukraine, I recognized an individual in the gallery. I have subsequently become aware of more information which causes me to regret my decision to do so,” Anthony Rota said in a statement.

Rota took responsibility for what was characterized as an oversight, calling the initiative “entirely my own.”

“The initiative was entirely my own, the individual in question being from my riding and having been brought to my attention,” he added, adding his “deepest apologies” to Jewish communities.

Yaroslav Hunka, right, waits for the arrival of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the House of Commons in Ottawa, Onatario on Friday, Sept. 22, 2023.(AP)

Yaroslav Hunka, right, waits for the arrival of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the House of Commons in Ottawa, Ontario on Friday, Sept. 22, 2023.(AP)

Following Zelenskiy’s address in the House of Commons, Rota acknowledged Hunka, who was seated in the gallery, praising him for fighting for Ukrainian independence against the Russians. Hunka received two standing ovations from those gathered.

“At a time of rising antisemitism and Holocaust distortion, it is incredibly disturbing to see Canada’s Parliament rise to applaud an individual who was a member of a unit in the Waffen-SS, a Nazi military branch responsible for the murder of Jews and others,” the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center said in a statement while demanding an apology earlier Sunday.

“An explanation must be provided as to how this individual entered the hallowed halls of Canadian Parliament and received recognition from the Speaker of the House and a standing ovation,” the group added.

Hindustan Times, September 25, 2023

*

Part II

Sky News: “Trudeau Urged to Resign”

 

What this Sky News (com.au) report conveys is that PM Trudeau was fully aware of the fact that Yaroslav Hunka was a member of the Waffen SS in the course of World War II.

This was not an oversight. Trudeau met Hunka personally prior the event.

Visibly Anthony Rota did not know who Yaroslav Hunka was. And as Speaker of the House he was requested by the Liberal government to call for a standing ovation.

This was carefully planned in advance. 

Who should have apologized to the Jewish community: Anthony Rota or Prime Minister Trudeau? 

But there is more than meets the eye: 

“Mr Hunka was applauded for fighting against the Soviet Red Army with the “first Ukrainian division”as the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (“Galicia”), a largely Ukrainian Nazi collaborator unit, was renamed in March 1945 as Germany was on the point of losing the war.

Following the incorporation of openly Neo-nazi units like the Azov and Aidar battalions into the Ukrainian military, the incident underlines the way the war is being used to rewrite history and rehabilitate fascist collaborators while depicting the Soviet Union as the aggressor in World War II.” (Morningstar Online)

Neither Canada’s Liberal government, nor the Opposition have addressed this issue. Why? (Above Comments by Michel Chossudovsky)

Sky News Report

*

Part III

Is Trudeau Supportive of Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Party Svoboda?

.

The issue of “the Ukrainian hero of the 14th Division Waffen SS Yaroslav Hunka” has opened up a Can of Worms, a Pandora’s box.

In a bitter irony, President Zelensky who is of Jewish Russian descent has embraced Neo-Nazism. He fully endorsed (together with Trudeau and Freeland) the standing ovation in support of Yaroslav Hunka. (See image in Part I above)

According to the Leader of the Opposition: 

“Trudeau  personally met and honoured the veteran of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (A Nazi Division).

Liberals then arranged for this Nazi veteran to be recognized on the Floor of the House of Commons” (Pierre Poilievre, Leader the Opposition) 

 

The leader of the Opposition Pierre Poilievre begs the question. Has P.M. Trudeau succumbed to Nazi ideology? 

From the outset in early 2016, Trudeau’s Liberal government has been supportive of Neo-Nazi elements within the Kiev regime, including the Azov Battalion and the Svoboda Neo-Nazi Party. 

Amply documented, Svoboda together with the “Right Sector” (Pravy Sektor) were actively involved in the 2014 EuroMaidan massacre.

The founders of Ukraine’s Svoboda Party are Oleh Tyahnybok and Andrij Parubiy. Both individuals have played a key role in shaping the Kiev regime on behalf of their US-NATO sponsors. 

Deputy Speaker and Speaker Andriy Parubiy of the Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament, 2016-2019) was first received by Trudeau at the House of Commons in February 2016.

Parubiy also met up with members of Trudeau’s Cabinet including Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, who describes Ukraine as a “vibrant democracy”.  

February 23, 2016, Parubiy, second from Left meet PM Trudeau 

Chrystia Freeland’s Facebook, May 2019

 

Is Parubiy a “Good Guy”? Ask PM Trudeau

Parubiy describes Adolf Hitler as a true proponent of democracy:

“The speaker [Parubiy] told chat show Freedom of Speech on Ukraine’s ICTV channel (video, click to view, Ukrainian) that he had “scientifically studied” democracy and cautioned his audience “not to forget the contributions of the Fuehrer [Hitler] to the development of democracy.

“The greatest man who practised direct democracy was Adolf Hitler in the 1930s,” he said.

The founder of the Social National Party, now known as Svoboda, added that it was “necessary to introduce direct democracy to Ukraine, with Hitler as its torchbearer.” (ICTV Channel quoted in Britain’s Morningstar September 5, 2018 report, emphasis added)

 

With some exceptions, this controversial statement was not picked up by the Western press. Lies by omission.

Why? Because the Kiev regime (including its Armed Forces and National Guard) is integrated by Nazi elements which have been supported in bilateral agreements with both Canada and the US.  

 

Parubiy has been given red carpet treatment by Western governments. He is casually portrayed as a right wing politician rather than an avowed neo-Nazi. 

Embarrassment or Denial? The US Congress, Canada’s Parliament, the British Parliament, European Parliament,  have invited and praised Andriy Parubiy.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 27, 2023

 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

 

So, here’s what you might have learned over the weekend if you ventured into the thickets of alt news:


In April and May of 2021, the president (“Joe Biden”), the whole White House Covid Response Team (Andy Slavitt & Co), and everyone in the White House communications office, the US Surgeon General (Vivek Murthy), senior officials of the CDC including director Rochelle Walensky, Francis Collins, head of NIH, and Dr. Anthony Fauci of NIAID were all freaking out, holding crisis meetings, and sending blizzards of emails among each other after being informed by a Pfizer safety report that the miraculous new mRNA Covid vaccines produced significant cases of myocarditis and blood-clotting abnormalities.

All these officials proceeded to craft a campaign to tell the public that this myocarditis was mild, extremely rare, and self-resolving (it wasn’t), and urged all Americans over twelve to keep taking the vaxx shots. Later, they expanded the vaccine program to include children down to six months old.

By 2022, all of US public health officialdom had to know that the vaxxes were also ineffective at preventing infection and transmission of Covid.

Her replacement, Mandy K. Cohen, is still pushing the latest mRNA booster shots in the face of reports (mainly from the UK and other foreign countries) of a shocking rise in all-causes deaths and disabilities from heart and blood disease, neurological injury, and cancers. The CDC refused this month to release updated information on case numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis in the USA.

The record of those frantic 2021 doings in the White House and the CDC came from a document dump prompted by a FOIA request by Edward Berkovich, a lawyer associated with Naomi Wolf’s Daily Clout news organization.

He requested emails between February and June, 2021, that included the term “myocarditis.” CDC sent 472 pages, followed by an additional 46 pages, (believed to be sent by a whistleblower) that included emails between White House officials up to the president. Of the 47, 37 were entirely redacted (whited-out, not blacked-out, that is, blank pages).

Only two pages of the 46 contained no redactions. The redactions were made, the CDC said, pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 6 under code 5 U.S.C. §552, which protects documents received by the president.

That was a lot to wade through. Apologies. What’s the upshot?

From early on, our government lied about the safety of the vaccines, at the same time that they lied and confabulated about the origins of the Covid-19 virus.

They continue lying about all of this to this day even as they appear to prepare for a replay of a pandemic. Now that the weekend is over, you will not read about any of this in The New York Times.

Why is that? I will offer my theory: that newspaper’s business model, based on pages and pages of print advertising, is completely broken and it is on financial life-support from the CIA and / or DARPA, probably facilitated by private sector cut-outs laundering the money. That’s how dishonorable the flagship of the US news media is.

And, of course, there is the added layer of government-directed censorship, also through private sector cut-outs, that is aimed at suppressing the truth about Covid from every angle, especially the vaccines.

Doesn’t all of this look rather sinister? Choose one of two possible explanations:

1) the Covid-19 episode from the beginning was a fantastic fiasco of blundering incompetence by hundreds of officials from many agencies plus elected leaders, and at every stage was made worse by additional incompetent actions aimed at concealing massive chains of prior misdeeds producing more misdeeds resulting in the wholesale collapse of authority in our country. 

Or

2) The entire Covid episode is a chain of crimes committed deliberately with malicious intent to kill and injure large numbers of people while contriving to deprive the survivors of their basic liberties and their property.


Because identical events are seen in all the other nations of Western Civ, it would be reasonable to infer some kind of coordination managed by a supervisory force or entity. What we see is a globalist coalition formed of the World Economic Forum (WEF), the World Health Organization (WHO),

The European Union (EU), the United Nations (UN), the pharmaceutical industry, the “Five Eyes” intel alliance, the global banking establishment, The Democratic Party, and scores of well-endowed non-governmental agencies such as the George Soros constellation of councils and foundations. What else is unseen?

One conspicuously strange element of the whole picture is the phantom leadership of the supposed world hegemon USA in the figurehead, “Joe Biden.”

Never in history has such a move into tyranny been fronted by such an embarrassingly un-charismatic empty vessel. Never in our country’s history have our affairs whirled in such a mystifying flux of bewildering forces.

Even our Civil War was a more straightforward clash of interests. Events are moving quickly now. They’re setting up the steam-table for that banquet of consequences.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

Internationally renowned Australian Pathologist Dr. Richard Scolyer was diagnosed with the worst possible Brain Turbo Cancer with months to live. He is now first in the World to receive an mRNA Cancer Vaccine to treat a cancer that was likely caused by COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines. 

If this was science fiction, it would be deemed too unbelievable to be published.

Who Is Professor Richard Scolyer? 

  • Australian pathologist and Senior Staff specialist in tissue pathology and diagnostic oncology at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia
  • Co-Medical Director at Melanoma Institute Australia
  • Professor at University of Sydney
  • Received the New South Wales Premier’s Award for Outstanding Cancer Research in 2009, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2020
  • He was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia for “distinguished service to medicine, particularly in the field of melanoma and skin cancer, and to national and international professional organisations” in the 2021 Queen’s Birthday Honours
  • In February 2019, he was ranked the world’s 10th leading publisher on the topic of melanoma and the world’s leading publisher in melanoma pathology
  • has co-authored more than 700 publications and book-chapters on the subject
  • was an editor of the 4th Edition of the WHO Classification of Tumours
  • h-index 130

Diagnosis of Turbo Brain Cancer (Glioblastoma)

  • As a practicing Australian doctor, Dr.Richard Scolyer is COVID-19 vaccinated
  • In June 2023 he was diagnosed with the worst type of brain cancer: Glioblastoma IDH wild-type (poorest prognosis subgroup) & “has many extra poor prognosis molecular features”
  • No one saw it coming, least of all me. I was fit, having represented Australia at the world aquathon championships in Ibiza in early May,” he said.
  • In June, he travelled to Poland with his wife Katie Nicoll, and the day before had gone hiking in the mountains. “I woke the next morning not feeling quite right”
  • He was rushed to hospital and after a number of tests, Professor Scolyer was diagnosed with glioblastoma IDH wild-type, a cancer that’s considered incurable and usually fatal within six to nine months.
  • The disease, he told Saturday Morning, was “the worst of the worst, as far as brain cancers go“.
  • It’s incurable and the standard treatment hasn’t changed in 18 years.

Searching for a Cure for Turbo Cancer Caused by mRNA… 

  • There is a high probability that Dr. Richard Scolyer has a COVID-19 Vaccine Induced Turbo Cancer of the brain with poor features and extremely poor prognosis.
  • However, he has made no mention of this possibility.
  • He is now trying to find a cure for his brain cancer with an approach that is being celebrated by Big Pharma and Australian healthcare leaders

Melanoma Researcher Experimenting on His Own Brain Tumor

  • delivering immunotherapy prior to tumor resection is an interesting idea that is worth exploring.
  • “In addition…Scolyer received a personalized brain cancer vaccine based on the RNA and DNA of his tumor”
  • This is an mRNA Cancer Vaccine

National Press Conference Sep. 21, 2023

Moderna Announces mRNA Cancer Vaccine Trial 

  • On July 26, 2023 Moderna (MRNA.O) and its partner Merck (MRK.N) said on Wednesday that they had “begun enrolling patients in a late-stage study testing their personalized mRNA-based skin cancer vaccine in combination with the immunotherapy Keytruda.”
  • Data from a mid-stage study in 157 patients had shown that the vaccine combination cut the risk of recurrence or death by 44% in patients with melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer, when compared with Keytruda alone.
  • The vaccine is tailored for each patient to generate T-cells, a key part of the body’s immune response, based on the specific mutational signature of a tumor.
  • BioNTech SE (22UAy.DE) and Gritstone Bio (GRTS.O) are also working on competing cancer vaccines based on the mRNA technology.
  • Scientists have been chasing the dream of vaccines to treat cancer for decades with few successes. According to industry experts, mRNA vaccines, which can be produced in as little as eight weeks, paired with drugs that rev up the immune system may lead to a new generation of cancer therapies.
  • In October 2022, Merck exercised an option to jointly develop and commercialize the treatment, known as mRNA-4157/V940, sharing costs and any profits equally.
  • Merck and Moderna plan to discuss the results with regulatory authorities and start a large Phase III study in melanoma patients in 2023.
  • The Merck/Moderna collaboration is one of several combining powerful drugs that unleash the immune system to target cancers with mRNA vaccine technology. They are designed to target highly mutated tumors.

This is exactly the “revolutionary” treatment regimen that Dr.Richard Scolyer has been put on. He has received 2 doses of the personalized mRNA Cancer Vaccine.

Image

My Take… 

I sympathize with Dr. Richard Scolyer’s terminal brain cancer diagnosis and I wish him every success with the experimental treatment combination of immunotherapy and personalized mRNA Cancer Vaccine. I hope it works for him.

It is highly probable that Dr.Scolyer’s hyper aggressive brain cancer was caused by COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines and that it is a Turbo Cancer.

Thousands of Australians are dying from Turbo Cancer. Millions around the world will ultimately die from COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Induced Turbo Cancer. This is the grim reality that I’m already seeing all around me.

Dr.Scolyer complied with COVID-19 Vaccine mandates in Australia. He kept his prestigious job and University positions, while others who didn’t comply lost everything. It was a choice every doctor faced.

If Dr.Scolyer were to speak up and raise concerns about COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines and Turbo Cancer, he would be denounced by the media that currently adore him, he would be denounced by the politicians and the entire Australian medical establishment that is currently giving him the red carpet treatment.

His doctor colleagues would turn their back on him and they would almost certainly leave him to die. That includes his surgeon colleagues, his oncology colleagues and his long time cancer research collaborators.

The ONLY REASON Dr.Scolyer is being treated well by the medical establishment is because he is helping them advance a multi billion dollar pharmaceutical fraud – failed mRNA Vaccines. In this case, Moderna’s mRNA Cancer Vaccines.

Merck sabotaged its own drug, Ivermectin, and now has a multi billion dollar partnership with Moderna to produce mRNA Cancer Vaccines (the identical Treatment Regimen that Dr.Scolyer was coincidentally put on) where Merck and Moderna will share profits equally. A deal that was paid for by the deaths of millions who were denied early treatment for COVID-19.

I’m not here to judge Dr.Scolyer. At this point, it’s comply or die.

But I can openly say that which he can’t.

You can’t build on a foundation of fraud and the mRNA platform is a fraud. It’s not only the Oncologists who are corrupt and who sold out to Big Pharma. The rot in the medical establishment is systemic.

Also, you also cannot treat or cure that which you don’t understand.

The Medical establishment doesn’t understand (or want to understand) the phenomenon of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Induced Turbo Cancer.

There is no indication that COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Induced Turbo Cancers will respond to either Immunotherapy or experimental personalized mRNA Cancer Vaccines, or a combination of both. 

But that won’t stop Moderna and Merck from making billions of dollars selling fraud to desperate cancer patients as thousands and eventually millions die of “unexplained” aggressive cancers.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented a new map erasing Palestine during his speech at the United Nations General Assembly’s (UNGA) 78th session on Friday. 

The illustration showed a “new Middle East” wherein the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip appeared to be part of Israel.

An earlier erroneous map shown by Netanyahu also included the Palestinian territories as part of Israel in 1948. 

Israel did not control the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, or the Gaza Strip following its violent creation in 1948 on 80 percent of historic Palestine. It illegally occupied them in 1967, and continues to do so in what is known as the longest occupation in modern history. 

The inclusion of Palestinian lands (and sometimes land belonging to Syria and Lebanon) in Israeli maps is common among believers of the concept of Eretz Yisrael – Greater Israel – a key part of ultra-nationalist Zionism that claims all of these lands belong to a Zionist state.

Earlier this year, Netanyahu’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, spoke from a podium adorned with a map that also included Palestine, Lebanon and Syria as part of Greater Israel. In the same event, he said there was “no such thing as Palestinians”. 

The use of such maps by Israeli officials comes at a time when Netanyahu’s ultra-nationalist government has taken steps that experts say amount to the “de jure annexation” of the occupied West Bank. De jure is a legal term that describes a practice as it is recognised in law.

During the presentation of the map on Friday, Netanyahu enthusiastically promoted the reshaping of the region based on establishing ties with Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia

“There’s no question: the Abraham Accords heralded the dawn of a new age of peace,” he claimed. “I believe we’re on the cusp of a more dramatic breakthrough: a historic peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia.”

His remarks come amid US-sponsored talks between Israel and Saudi Arabia to establish formal relations.

This week, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman suggested that they are edging closer to such an agreement “every day”.

During an interview with Fox News, the crown prince said the “Palestinian issue is very important” in these talks, but did not elaborate further. 

When asked what concessions he would expect Israel to give to the Palestinians, he said that was “part of the negotiation”.  

Netanyahu stressed on Friday that “we must not give the Palestinians a veto over new peace treaties with Arab states”. 

His speech comes a day after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas addressed the UNGA, saying that Middle East peace is not achievable until Palestinians are granted full rights with statehood.

“Those who think that peace can prevail in the Middle East without the Palestinian people enjoying their full legitimate and national rights would be mistaken,” Abbas said.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds up a map showing the occupied West Bank and Gaza as part of Israel during his speech at the UN General Assembly, 22 September 2023 (Reuters)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

A new group formed to rally GOP support for Ukraine released an ad this weekend that said US spending on the war in Ukraine is good for the US because it “weakens” Russia.

The ad was made by Republicans for Ukraine, a campaign launched by Defending Democracy Together, an organization led by neoconservative Bill Kristol. The effort comes as support for arming Ukraine is waning among GOP voters, with a recent CNN poll finding 71% of Republicans were against Congress authorizing more Ukraine aid.

“When America arms Ukraine, we get a lot for a little. Putin is an enemy of America. We’ve used 5% of our defense budget to arm Ukraine, and with it, they’ve destroyed 50% of Putin’s Army,” the ad says.

The ad is blunt and does not attempt to frame US support for Ukraine as a fight for democracy as the Biden administration does, and claims hurting Russia will also hurt China.

“The more Ukraine weakens Russia, the more it also weakens Russia’s closest ally China. America needs to stand strong against our enemies, that’s why Republicans in Congress must continue to support Ukraine,” the ad says.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin used similar language in the early days of the war, saying one of the US goals in Ukraine was to “weaken Russia,” leaving no doubt the conflict is a proxy war.

Hawks in Congress have adopted similar talking points to justify more spending on the Ukraine war. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) recently said the US was getting its “money’s worth” in Ukraine because Russia is taking losses and no Americans are dying. The argument shows a lack of concern for Ukrainian lives.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

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

Featured image is from Euronews

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In March 2023, Stan Grant, a First Nation Widjuri journalist, writer and ABC radio and television presenter, gave an iconic talk “Racism is Destroying the Australian Dream”. Grant’s talk was as moving and inspiring as it was furiously-angry about what continues to happen every day to humanity’s aboriginal peoples, not only in Australia but throughout the world.

His talk became a finalist in the United Nation’s Media Peace Awards for its role in stimulating a greater public awareness and understanding of the common plight of Australia’s native’s. Grant’s words speak to the upcoming October 14th Yes or No Referendum Vote to decide whether or not it is important enough to grant its First Nation peoples a special ‘Voice’ to Australia’s Parliament. Listen to his heart-felt talk in this preface.

Stan Grant: Racism and the Australian dream – The Ethics Centre

Stan Grant’s intensely-personal testimony at once struck a chord in this writer’s own heart and soul; being as he is one of Irish descent, whose ancestors, long ago, were themselves dispossessed of their once sacred aboriginal homelands in the Old World, which still is the source of so much existential angst among himself and those of his kind, no matter how much time has since passed. The memory of indigenous peoples and the earth everywhere is simply an exceedingly long one not easily erased.

This writer’s Celtic grandfathers, grandmothers and kinfolk also once were forcibly-evicted from their own ancestral lands and forced to flee to wherever some safe harbour could be found in the New or Old World; forever after snubbed instead of honored and paid tribute to for their sacred lands that once were. Yet their memories in the minds of their descendants still possesses a vital, living resonance.

Especially each time they read again the cargo manifests of the ships that described them as “Vagrants”, instead of ‘Dispossessed Indigenous,’ as they were spirited away from that Green Emerald Isle of their ancient ancestry to parts unknown. A sad epitaph, to which many others in the world still can so readily attest.

While his Great, Great, Great Grandmother Bridget, before she could ever be forcibly evicted, suffering from extreme malnutrition due to a lack of food, other than the common grasses that lay underfoot, seeking some basic warmth, fell into her hearth and was nearly burnt alive before her kin outside, themselves seeking some meagre comfort in the healing warmth of the sun, noticed the smell of her burning flesh.

This writer many times has simply wished that someone like himself, in some long, long ago distant time and place, would have also attempted to say ‘Yes’ to a vote that would have given them their own strong. independent native voice in a now woefully disconnected world that day by day, month by month, year by year, continues to drift that much farther away from the basic human relationships with Mother Earth, Country and one another. It’s to their spirit and honor, as well, that these words also are forever offered. But how will the epitaph of the aboriginal peoples of Australia also one day read if the Yes Vote on Oct 14th isn’t so honored?

All those non-aboriginal peoples in the world, who still possess even a modicum of memory, however faint, of their own aboriginal past, and who care about the desperate plight of aboriginal peoples everywhere on our Mother Earth, and how their survival is intimately inter-twined to the fate of all of life on this beautiful. lush green and watery blue planet of ours, should be aware of the critically-important decision with which Australia’s voters now must face.

This vote symbolically represents a long-time coming reconciliation, not only between Australia’s Aboriginal peoples, Torres Strait Islanders and descendants of its non-aboriginal ‘Settler–Colonial’ forbears, but it represents a possible major turning point in the complicated, obfuscated, contentious ‘can of worms’ debate underway in the world between everything from climate change, the preservation of the planet’s endangered natural world and species of life, to the constant threat of nuclear war. A ‘Yes’ vote majority will mean the non-aboriginal world finally is prepared to either listen or not listen to its own aboriginal past and the many lessons that still awaits their conscious awareness.

Until now, on the eve of Australia’s October 14th Vote, these big world issues have never before been couched, in such plain talk terms, to both aboriginal and non=aboriginal voters alike, about what all is involved in Australia simply granting its aboriginal peoples their own SPECIAL VOICE TO PARLIAMENT. This thought scares the living Be-Jesus out of all those in Australia and the world who have strayed too far away from any living memory of their aboriginal past and its higher awareness of the meaning of life.

Instead of clarity as to what the actual question of whether or not aboriginal peoples should have a special voice to the Australian government’s daily conduct and future life of all Australians, the reality of the vote only continues to threaten the racists and ideologues in Australia and the world’s public and private sector, especially among their reactionary counterparts in the business, financial and mass media sectors. So heated and contentious has this debate on the vote become, that the vote’s critics, in a desperate attempt to scare Australia’s voters from voting ‘Yes’, attempt to characterize the ultimate outcome of the vote as Australia’s Brexit Moment.

But the long and the short of it all simply asks Australian voters to add to Australia’s Commonwealth Constitution, Australia’s ultimate law, the words:

“In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, in the capacity of an advisory body, may make representations to the Parliament and Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.”

This is it, pure and simple. But, of course, it isn’t pure and simple because the corporate interests in the world, who continue to run everything just the way they like it, know that, in the long run, a ‘Yes’ Vote will negatively impact upon every aspect of their total corporate hegemony upon the planet.

EPILOGUE

Stan Grant, the First Nation Widjuri  journalist, writer and Australian Broadcasting (ABC) radio and television presenter, noted in the preface (Stan Grant: Racism and the Australian dream – The Ethics Centre), how: Australia was beginning to tear itself apart because of racism; much in the same way England essentially has done and continues to do to its own nation over its viscous and divisive class-based Brexit Debate, or; how the U.S. continues to do the same in its warmongering desire for world war in Ukraine. Stan Grant’s observations of what is happening in Australia are spot on!

According to an ABC Investigation report Australia’s White Supremacists are dividing the Yes and No Voters on different given long-standing political, cultural and racial issues surrounding the vote. Its report tracked down how the nation’s related, decades-old, contentious ‘land rights’ movement divisions have now been repurposed with the debate over the current Yes/No Vote. Red Over Black, a book and documentary, released in the early 1980’s, claimed the aboriginal land rights movement was a communist plot to erode Australia’s sovereignty.

The ABC report reveals how Australia’s white supremacist activists now are playing a major role in the anti-Yes movement by circulating the ‘Red Over Black’ book and documentary in rallies opposed to the Yes Vote all around Australia.

The report quotes Kaz Ross, a leading far-right and conspiracy theorist analyst, who has examined dozens of Telegram, Facebook and Wiki groups who continue to denigrate the Yes Vote campaign, as being a deliberate infiltration strategy by one Geoff Macdonald, a former Australian Communist Party member, turned right-wing activist, who initially, at the outset of the Yes/No Vote debate, was mum on this aspect of the Yes/No debate. Until, that is, the anti-Semitic website XYZ, founded by white supremacist David Hiscox, linked Macdonald’s efforts to the proposed ‘Voice’, describing it as communism by the back door”.

The scare and smear tactics of tireless, never-ending ideological “pro-Capitalism/anti-communist” propagandic news campaigns throughout the world, many owned by enormously-rich and powerful private family’s, like North America’s Shaw and Balboni Family’s, and the giant, octopus-like reach of their Corus Entertainment and Global Television Network’s, and other similar world news networks, have, for over a century since the Russian Revolution in 1917, continued to denigrate anything in the world, and especially now in Australia, that smacks of “left-wing socio-political-cultural communalistic” land rights, pro-indigenous issues.

Especially since the emergence of a new Telegram Channel, Aboriginal Voice Exposed (AVE), entered into the ‘Voice’ debate and now is one of the most shared anti-indigenous, anti-land rights, anti-Yes voices in Australia. It’s now virtually impossible to know the real truth today about any given world issue, so cooked, managed and manipulated are whatever the news source.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

At the United Nations General Assembly high-level meetings held in New York, a number of global leaders including those from Africa vehemently called for global peace and sustainable development. Russia and South Africa, both members of BRICS association attended the September meetings, and as it was during previous summits and conferences have renewed their commitment for ensuring peace within the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

“As we gather here, much of humanity is confronted by war and conflict. Solidarity and trust between states is being eroded. At the moment when every human effort should be directed towards the realisation of Agenda 2030, our attention and our energies have once again been diverted by the scourge of war,” South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said during his speech delivered there in New York.

Ramaphosa added that South Africa has consistently advocated for dialogue, negotiation and diplomacy to prevent and end conflict and achieve lasting peace. From the experience of his country’s own journey from apartheid to democracy, South Africa highly values the importance of engaging all parties to conflicts to achieve peaceful, just and enduring resolutions. 

It is these principles that inform South Africa’s participation in the African Peace Initiative, which seeks a peaceful resolution of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. In this conflict, as in all conflicts, and that the UN Charter’s principle of respect for the territorial integrity of every country should be upheld.

South Africa supports the urgent call by the UN Secretary-General in the New Agenda for Peace for Member States to provide more sustainable and predictable financing to peacebuilding efforts. It is South Africa’s desire to see an end to the suffering of those most directly affected by the conflict in Ukraine.

Ahead of the Johannesburg summit that was August 20, Ramaphosa in a speech to the nation indicated that South Africa participated in the African initiative to seek peace in the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

Through this African Peace Initiative, he said emphatically:

“We firmly believe that dialogue, mediation and diplomacy is the only viable path to end the current conflict and achieve a durable peace. We support the principle of respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states and peoples.”

South Africa’s foreign policy has been based on what forebears inscribed in the Freedom Charter in 1955 that “South Africa shall be a fully independent state which respects the rights and the sovereignty of all nations; South Africa shall strive to maintain world peace and the settlement of all international disputes by negotiation – not war.”

Brazilian Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s return to the presidency in January 2023 has paved the way for a revival of an ambitious and assertive foreign policy set out by the leader during his first term in office between 2003 and 2010. He has been voicing for global peace as well as practical development with geopolitical partners, especially in the Global South.

China insisted on dialogue for conflict resolution. It has also presented its Ukrainian peace plan which Russia keeps on hold. Despite criticisms that it has lured Africa into debts, China is tremendously contributing to Africa’s infrastructure development. China appreciably brings “new opportunities” for diverse cooperation, and has unveiled five new development plans for Africa at the last BRICS summit in Johannesburg.

Even at the end of the 15th BRICS summit, the document adopted encapsulates significant viewpoints on matters of global significance including peace and development. In this document, the BRICS leaders expressed their highest and sentimental concern “to enhance its strategic partnership for the benefit of its people through the promotion of peace.”

It further states…

“We reiterate the need for all countries to cooperate in promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms under the principles of equality and mutual respect. We agree to continue to treat all human rights.”

“We agree to strengthen cooperation on issues of common interests both within BRICS and in multilateral fora including the United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights Council. We call for the respect of democracy and human rights,” the BRICS declaration (slightly shortened for space) says. 

For BRICS-11 (Brazil, India, China and South Africa+ new members) to remain unconcerned and show continous blatant indifference could be interpreted, first and foremost, as an integral failure on its commitments. Arguably it is a turning and critical point to show to the world its primary effectiveness on conflict resolution sealed in its summit documents.  

Records show that Kenya is not a member of BRICS. But in a similar direction together with a few African leaders at UNGA, Kenyan President William Ruto also made reference to the proactive commitment to peace, which is not limited to the continent; African Union was inspired to dispatch the African Peace Delegation, consisting of six African heads of states to Moscow and Kiev with a ten-point peace plan, beginning with efforts to initiate a mediation process to resolve the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Although the delegation encountered significant challenges in their mission, Kenya and for the matter the entire Africa remain very proud that the peace delegation showed up. The African Peace Initiative group headed by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, made serious efforts for recognition as peace brokers. 

The delegation included the current Chairperson of the African Union and Comoros president, Azali Assoumani; President of Senegal, Macky Sall; President of Zambia, Hakainde Hichilema and Prime Minister of Egypt, Mostafa Madbouly. In addition, the delegation included representatives of Uganda and Congo.

The group put forward a 10-point proposal was presented in Kyiv and St. Petersburg. The key aim of the African peace mission primarily to propose “confidence-building measures” in order to facilitate peace between the two countries. It was to seek a peaceful settlement of the conflict which began late February 2022. 

At the United Nations, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov afresh offered the signal that

“Russia can’t give up goals of special military operation in Ukraine.” From several official documents, Russia underlined the reason as – “to de-militarize and de-nazify” Ukraine.

Quoting President Vladimir Putin, Lavrov said the West was “truly an empire of lies” which even during the battle against Nazism in World War Two, had plotted an offensive against their Soviet allies.

Soviet and then Russian leaders “were given concrete political assurances regarding the non-expansion of the NATO military alliance to the east”, which turned out to be pure deception.

Washington and Brussels have ceaselessly sought to expand their interests and alliances to subordinate the Global South and East, rejecting Russia’s desire for mutual security guarantees, he stated, and closed his case with an appeal for compromise, saying “humanity is at a crossroads…It is in our shared interest to prevent a downward spiral into large scale war.”

He invoked the Secretary-General’s call for world leaders to meet and negotiate in the spirit of compromise at this year’s UN General Assembly, “when designing our common future for our common good” and concluded that it was an excellent response to those who divide the world up into democracies and autocracies and dictate their neocolonial rules to others.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres at the Security Council session spoke assertively in reference to children who have gone missing, been abducted, are being concealed and starved. Lavrov called them allegations, issues without substantiation.

Lavrov, later at the media conference, attributed the conflict in his country’s backyard to  the West’s years-long efforts to transform Ukraine into anti-Russia, while stressing Russia’s policy in a multipolar architecture and, in principle, that strictly seeks adherence for global peace and respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty. 

Putin Decrees ‘Special Military Operation’ in Ukraine

On 24 February 2022, Russian President declared the ‘Special Military Operation’ in Ukraine. In his nation-wide address, Putin emphasized that over the past 30 years have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe.

In the middle of the long speech that February 24, Putin indicated that one could say, with good reason and confidence, that the whole so-called Western bloc formed by the United States in its own image and likeness, in its entirety, the very same “empire of lies.”

“Despite all that, in December 2021, we made yet another attempt to reach agreement with the United States and its allies on the principles of European security and NATO’s non-expansion. The United States has not changed its position. It does not believe it necessary to agree with Russia on a matter that is critical for us. The United States is pursuing its own objectives, while neglecting our interests,” Putin stressed.

He further pointed:

“As for military affairs, even after the dissolution of the USSR and losing a considerable part of its capabilities, today’s Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states. Moreover, it has a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack on Russia.”

For the United States and its allies, it is a policy of containing Russia, with obvious geopolitical dividends. For Russia, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of historical future as a nation. This is not an exaggeration; this is a fact. It is not only a very real threat to Russia’s interests but to the very existence of the state and to its sovereignty. It is the red line. They have crossed it.

In this context, in accordance with Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter, with permission of Russia’s Federation Council, and in execution of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, ratified by the Federal Assembly on February 22, I made a decision to carry out a special military operation, Putin declared ‘Special Military Operation’ on Ukriane.

The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime. To this end, Russia would seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation. The officers of Russia’s Armed Forces would perform their duty with professionalism and courage. It is not Russia’s plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory.

Cost of Russia’s ‘Special Military Operation’ in Ukraine

Forbes media has reported that Russia already spent over US$167 billion on war against Ukraine.

“In a year and a half since the start of its full-scale invasion, Russia spent about US$167.3 billion on the war against Ukraine, of which US$34 billion worth of equipment were destroyed by Ukraine’s Armed Forces alone,” it reported.

Source: Forbes calculations based on data from the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Details: According to Forbes, Russia spends about US$300 million a day on its war against Ukraine.

Direct military spending and the cost of Russia’s lost equipment over 18 months of the war (from 24 February 2022 to 24 August 2023) is about US$167.3 billion. This estimate does not include constant defence spending not related to military operations, as well as economic losses of the aggressor country.

The largest items of expenditure: ensuring military operations (US$51.3 billion), salaries of the servicemen (US$35.1 billion), compensation to the families of the dead (US$25.6 billion) and wounded (US$21 billion) and the cost of destroyed equipment (US$34 billion).

After the rapid fall of the ruble, the “cost” of the Russian soldier for the budget of the Russian Federation decreased significantly. If for 2022 the total payments per one serviceman were about US$200 per day, now it is about US$120 per day.

The level of Russian losses in recent months has remained at a significantly higher level than last year, according to the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Accordingly, Russia is forced to spend more on compensation to the families. The cost of compensation to the family of the deceased in the Russian Federation was about US$110,000, now it is only about US$65,000. The amount of compensation to the wounded, respectively, decreased from US$45,000 to US$27,000.

The main item of expenditure of the Russian Federation on the war in Ukraine is ammunition and military support of the army. The total cost of this is US$51.34 billion. At the same time, the Russians spent over US$9 billion on providing for Russian artillery in a year and a half of the great war. The total cost of missiles fired on the territory of Ukraine has already reached a hefty sum of more than US$21.1 billion.

In September 2022, the State Duma (lower house of Russia’s parliament) and the Federation Council (upper house) approved legislation on ratifying treaties, as well as federal constitutional laws on the accession of the four regions to Russia.

On February 24, Russian President Putin said in a televised address that in response to a request by the heads of the Donbass republics he had decided to carry out a special military operation to protect people “who have been suffering from abuse and genocide by the Kiev regime for eight years” and Putin explained – “demilitarization and denazification” in Ukraine, approved by the State Duma and Federation Council of the Russian Federation.

* 

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), Weekly Blitz and InDepthNews, is now a regular contributor to Global Research. He researches Eurasia, Russia, Africa and BRICS. His focused interest areas include geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development questions relating to Africa. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.

On July 24th, Doctors Without Borders announced it had “reached the difficult decision to withdraw” from the main hospital in Las Anod, a war-torn city in the Horn of Africa claimed by both Somalia and Somaliland.

The charity said “the level of extreme violence in Las Anod” and “recurrent attacks on medical facilities” had forced its healthcare workers to pull out.

Earlier that month, the hospital had been hit for the fifth time this year, injuring staff, damaging an ambulance and shuttering the maternity ward.

Amnesty International has blamed such attacks on Somaliland’s army, which is said to have “indiscriminately shelled” the city.

And yet these apparent violations of humanitarian law did not deter a British MP from flying to Somaliland a week later on an all-expenses-paid trip in support of their government.

The politician in question, Sir Gavin Williamson, represents South Staffordshire – a rural constituency 4,000 miles away on the outskirts of Birmingham.

Since being kicked out of Cabinet for leaking intelligence, he has become a regular guest of Somaliland and holds honorary citizenship.

Last month their Chamber of Commerce spent £3,100 on his flights, food and accommodation for a week-long “trade and political visit to discuss environmental issues and deepening relations between educational institutions”.

SSC-Khaatumo, the pro-Somalia group that wrested control of Las Anod from Somaliland’s authorities, has condemned Williamson’s trip.

Their spokesman, Mohamed Kaffi, told Declassified: “It is morally reprehensible for a British MP to campaign for a murderous Somaliland regime while it was committing atrocities in Las Anod, causing the displacement of hundreds of thousands, killing hundreds, and the destruction of civilian infrastructure, including water treatment facilities, power plants, schools, hospitals, and mosques—all of which are tantamount to crimes against humanity.”

It is not the first time Williamson has visited Somaliland. Their chamber of commerce paid £4,600 for him to make a similar trip in 2022, according to the MP’s register of interests. Somaliland has even held a “Gavin Williamson Appreciation Day”.

Williamson first went there in 2019 when he was defence secretary and met Somaliland’s top army general. He was accompanied by Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, the then head of the British army and former commander of UK special forces.

That trip won praise from Nimco Ali, a British Somaliland activist who is godmother of Boris Johnson’s son Wilfred. She said Williamson’s 2019 visit made her “weep with joy”.

‘Care passionately’

Like the rest of the world, Britain does not officially recognise Somaliland, which unilaterally declared independence from Somalia in 1991. But it has provided training and equipment for their security forces – including some units implicated in killing civilians in Las Anod.

That city is populated by the Dhulbahante clan which rose up against Somaliland authorities in December. The rebel movement, known as SSC-Khaatumo, wants to re-join Somalia.

What began as peaceful protests quickly escalated into all out conflict after demonstrators were shot dead. Somaliland forces then shelled the city from the surrounding hills, while the SSC controlled urban areas including the hospital.

This conflict was potentially awkward for Williamson, who is vice-chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Somaliland and has tabled a motion and debate in the House of Commons calling for its recognition.

“This conflict was potentially awkward for Williamson, who is vice-chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Somaliland”

He told parliament: “Somaliland has been an amazing, shining beacon of everything we want to see flourish in Africa.” Williamson described it as a “welcoming and a safe place for people to visit”, in contrast to Somalia which is dogged by terrorism from Al-Shabab.

And like many others, he made a moral argument for Somaliland’s independence, citing the genocide committed against its largest clan, the Isaaq, in the late 1980s by Somalia’s then dictator Siad Barre.

The uprising in Las Anod complicates these narratives. Somaliland troops now seemed to be killing their own people, many of whom belonged to minority clans that resented living under an Isaaq-dominated polity.

Williamson has responded by ignoring the conflict and doubling down on his support for authorities in its capital Hargeisa, who label the SSC as terrorists.

In a rousing speech last month, he told politicians there: “I accept that I may not have been born in this country but I care passionately about this country… And while ever there is a breath in my body and blood flows through my veins, I will always be a champion.

“I will always fight for what is right for this country, because actually recognition is not just right for this country, it is also right for the world.”

Oil and water

Williamson’s interest in the issue might not be purely political. He also met with Somaliland’s energy minister, who praised his “continuous support for Somaliland’s international recognition.”

This meeting is significant because a British company, Genel Energy, is actively prospecting for over two billion barrels of oil in Somaliland, which Somalia says is in violation of its sovereignty. Drilling is planned to begin in 2024 and Genel has a 51% working interest in the block.

Genel Energy is well connected to the Conservative Party, with ex-energy and defence minister Michael Fallon as its deputy chairman. Former shareholders include disgraced chancellor Nadhim Zahawi.

The company does not appear put off by recent fighting, despite its exploration block running partly into the Sool region, of which Las Anod is the administrative capital. (The rebel group, SSC-Khaatumo, takes its name from the Sool, Sanang and Cayn regions which it seeks to control).

Instead corporate documents describe an “exciting period for Genel” in Somaliland where it will “ramp up” its activities, both commercially and socially.

Oil drilling notoriously uses large quantities of water, and Genel is aware that “throughout 2022 areas of Somaliland were subject to drought conditions which were subsequently identified as at risk of famine”.

The company claims it spent half a million dollars on drought relief, distributing water in 99 villages and delivering food to thousands of households.

Paul Weir, Genel’s chief executive, has said: “The Somaliland opportunity is frontier exploration, with all of the challenges that entails, but rare in terms of scale and potential.

“In a success case, there is a clear route to market through existing port facilities and this opens up the tantalising prospect of creating shareholder value in a region where our activities can also have a hugely positive impact on the surrounding society.”

The port he is referring to is Berbera, which received up to £232m of UK investment when Liz Truss was foreign secretary in 2021. Williamson has visited the port, which is operated by DP World – a company in Dubai with close links to the Conservative Party.

SSC advance

Despite the prospects of oil wealth and a thriving port, the conflict in Las Anod does present a real challenge. Last month, the SSC drove Somaliland forces away from the city, capturing military bases and even a general.

The scale of the SSC’s advance became clear when the International Red Cross said it had visited 300 combatants detained in Las Anod. As a result, a sizable chunk of territory within the borders Somaliland wants recognised now lies beyond its effective control.

Those borders come from its days as a British colony, which some Somaliland activists romanticise in the hope of attracting Conservatives to their cause. In the last five years, two other Conservative MPs went on trips to Somaliland paid-for by its agencies.

Support in Westminster is not confined to the Tories. In 2018, Labour’s Liz McInnes made a visit that was paid for by Somaliland. And her colleague Rushanara Ali visited this summer in a trip that partly overlapped with Williamson. (Ali’s travel was funded by the HALO Trust, a demining charity, and also included time in Ethiopia).

The UK Somaliland Alliance, a lobby group which held an event in Westminster for MPs this June, told Declassified that political engagement was necessary to prevent a repeat of the Isaaq genocide.

Their spokeswoman, Zainab Ibrahim, commented: “The conflict in Las Anod is a result of the international community’s intransigence, and its wish to maintain the status quo. Even though the status quo is clearly, evidently, unequivocally, broken and non-recognition of Somaliland is prolonging mass suffering of millions of people through deliberate underdevelopment, inability to trade with the world, inability to travel or have relations with the world.

“This creates an unhealthy competition for scarce resources in an unrecognised country. The war in Las Anod is therefore one of the produces [sic] of non-recognition of Somaliland. Unless there is a clear resolution, which can only mean recognition of Somaliland, there is a heightened risk of conflict. Recognising Somaliland would bring certainty, rule of law and stability.”

Sir Gavin Williamson did not respond to a request for comment.

France Recalls Diplomats from Niger Ahead of Troop Withdrawal

September 27th, 2023 by Abayomi Azikiwe

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

President Emmanuel Macron for several weeks has falsely claimed that the French ambassador in Niamey was being held hostage by the newly installed government established by the National Council for the Safeguarding of Our Homeland (CNSP) after the July 26 military-led revolt.

Ousted leader of Niger Mohamed Bazoum was overthrown, ushering in a different direction regarding domestic and foreign policy in this uranium-rich Sahel state which had become an outpost for the French and United States troops.

Macron refused to recognize the CNSP administration after the seizure of power by the new government. In retaliation, Niger ordered the French ambassador and some 1,500 troops out of the country. Macron continued to make allegations about the ambassador being held against his will by the Niger authorities.

These inflammatory statements by Macron coincided with French efforts to encourage the assemblage of a regional military force under the rubric of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). President Bola Tinubu of the Federal Republic of Nigeria was the most vociferous in threatening a military intervention under the guise of reimposing Bazoum.

However, broad segments of Nigerian society spoke out definitively against an invasion. Other organizations, media personalities and political parties in Nigeria, Ghana, Mauritania and Algeria joined the chorus in denouncing Tinubu and his counterparts in Senegal and Ghana. As the threats of a full-blown intervention faded, France maintained its view that the CNSP government had no authority to cancel diplomatic recognition of its ambassador. The same position was held regarding the military presence of Paris in this vast West African state.

LeMonde, the French newspaper said of the announcement by Macron:

“It took only a few words on Sunday, September 24, for French President Emmanuel Macron to announce during an interview devoted to purchasing power on French television that he had decided to repatriate the French ambassador in Niamey, Sylvain Itté, to Paris and to withdraw 1,500 French troops deployed in Niger to fight terrorism. The decision came two months after a military coup in the Sahelian country, ending weeks of tensions with the junta and a situation that had become untenable for Paris.” 

The attitude of France towards its former colonies on the African continent has been one of paternalism. Since the independence of many states in West Africa, France has maintained substantial economic and military domination.

In Niger, a French-owned mining firm controls the largest stake in the country’s uranium deposits and their extraction. These resources are utilized to power French cities while huge swaths of territory within Niger remain without adequate electricity.

Sanctions imposed at the aegis of France by Nigeria against its northern neighbor of Niger, has resulted in power outages impacting the functioning of the country’s infrastructure. Industrial equipment, consumer goods and foodstuffs have been held up at the borders with Nigeria and Benin as part of the draconian sanctions against the CNSP.

In the same above-mentioned report from Le Monde, it quotes the French president as saying:

“’France has decided to withdraw its ambassador. In the next hours, our ambassador and many diplomats will return to France. And we are ending our military cooperation with the de facto authorities in Niger because they no longer want to fight terrorism,’ Macron told TF1 and France 2. French soldiers in Niger ‘will return in an orderly fashion over the coming weeks and months,’ Macron added, specifying that their return was to take place before ‘the end of the year.’ His words were immediately greeted with joy in Niamey. Thousands spontaneously rallied at a traffic circle on a road leading to the main military base housing French soldiers.”

Nigerien youth and workers have maintained a sit-in outside the French embassy and military base in the capital. The masses of people want the former colonizer out of their country saying that the presence of French troops, ostensibly there to fight “Islamic terrorism” are in fact responsible for the further weakening of the state.

Regional Implications of the French Withdrawal

Troops from Paris have been asked to leave Mali, Burkina Faso along with Niger. Consequently, France will have to reposition its forces in other less hostile African states.

French military bases in Senegal, Ivory Coast and Gabon remain intact. Nonetheless, a military seizure of power in Gabon on August 30 in the aftermath of the announcement of election results placed France once again in a precarious situation diplomatically. Macron took a completely different posture in comparison to their hostility towards Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali.

The new leadership in Gabon emerged from the presidential guard military units working under the control of the former President Ali Bongo. This new administration in Libreville has refrained from attacking France since taking power in late August. Gabonese military leaders have appointed a civilian prime minister who represented the oil-rich state at the United Nations General Assembly 78th session in New York City.

The new Gabon administration explained that the Bongo family had been in power in the country since 1967. Despite its oil wealth and relative strength of the national economy, the Bongo regime had been investigated and charged for widespread corruption in France. Several elections in recent years were marked by systematic suppression of the opposition and vote rigging. During this time period spanning 56 years, France has continued to defend the Bongo presidencies, with Omar and later his son Ali.

Since the August 30 military takeover, most of the focus of the new Gabonese administration has been directed toward ending corruption and nepotism inside the country. Nonetheless, things could rapidly shift if events in other African states provide indications of the changing political situation in the Sahel and other regions of the continent.

In relations to Burkina Faso, Mali and Guinea-Conakry, the statements of their governmental representatives at the UN General Assembly revealed a renewed emphasis on anti-imperialism and Pan-Africanism. These speakers evoked the names of Capt. Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana along with Malcolm X from the U.S.

The Link Between the Struggle Against Neo-Colonialism and the Working Class Movement

The current security crisis in the Sahel and other regions is a reflection of the crisis of neo-colonialism, where despite independence which was won over six decades ago, the economy of these states remains dependent upon the world capitalist system. This world capitalist system is facing its own crisis due in part to the liberatory efforts of the peoples of the Global South, most of whom are the former colonial and semi-colonial states dominated by imperialism.

In addition, the internal contradictions with the capitalist and imperialist systems are creating sharp class divisions and struggles. In Europe, Britain and the U.S., workers are striking demanding substantial increases in wages, benefits and better conditions of employment.

Moreover, the struggle of the working class combined with the upsurge in consciousness, mass actions and urban rebellions of the oppressed nations and minorities of African Americans, Latin Americans along with the African, Arab and Muslim communities in France, provides a glimpse into the potential for building of international alliance committed to total liberation and social emancipation.

France has been the scene of protracted struggles against pension theft and police repression. The government of Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne and President Emmanuel Macron have responded to the demands of the workers and oppressed with brutality, mass arrests and accusations of criminality and delinquency.

Obviously, France, Britain and the U.S. have no solutions to the immense problems of imperialist war, political repression, national oppression and economic exploitation. These important questions of the 21st century must be resolved through the organization and empowerment of the majority of people within the world community.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

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

Featured image is from the author

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

[This article was first published on October 14, 2022.]

Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Justice for all records in the possession of FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten regarding an August 6, 2020, briefing provided to members of the U.S. Senate. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) raised concerns that the briefing was intended to undermine the senators’ investigation of Hunter Biden (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:22-cv-02821)) 

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the DOJ failed to reply to an August 2, 2022, FOIA request for:

  • All unclassified records including emails, email chains, email attachments, notes (digital and / or hand-written), briefings, data, documents, letters, evidence, assessments, in the possession of FBI
  • Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten concerning an August 6, 2020, briefing provided to members of the U.S. Senate, specifically, Senator’s Johnson and Grassley.

In a July 25, 2022, letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray, Senator Grassley, ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, wrote:

On May 31, 2022, I wrote to you regarding likely violations of Federal laws, regulations and Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) guidelines by Assistant Special Agent in Charge (“ASAC”) Timothy Thibault of the Washington Field Office (“WFO”) based on a pattern of active public partisanship in his then public social media content…. My letter … invited individuals, including current and former government employees, to contact me and my office to confidentially report allegations of fraud, waste, abuse and gross mismanagement by FBI and Justice Department (“Department”) officials including, but not limited to, ASAC Thibault. In response, my office has received a significant number of protected communications from highly credible whistleblowers.

The information provided to my office involves concerns about the FBI’s receipt and use of derogatory information relating to Hunter Biden, and the FBI’s false portrayal of acquired evidence as disinformation. The volume and consistency of these allegations substantiate their credibility and necessitate this letter.

First, it’s been alleged that the FBI developed information in 2020 about Hunter Biden’s criminal financial and related activity. It is further alleged that in August 2020, FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten opened an assessment which was used by a FBI Headquarters (‘FBI HQ’) team to improperly discredit negative Hunter Biden information as disinformation and caused investigative activity to cease. Based on allegations, verified and verifiable derogatory information on Hunter Biden was falsely labeled as disinformation.

The basis for how the FBI HQ team selected the specific information for inclusion in Auten’s assessment is unknown, but in more than one instance the focus of the FBI HQ team’s attention involved derogatory information about Hunter Biden. Accordingly, the allegations provided to my office appear to indicate that there was a scheme in place among certain FBI officials to undermine derogatory information connected to Hunter Biden by falsely suggesting it was disinformation.

Importantly, it’s been alleged to my office that Auten’s assessment was opened in August 2020, which is the same month that Senator Johnson and I received an unsolicited and unnecessary briefing from the FBI that purportedly related to our Biden investigation and a briefing for which the contents were later leaked in order to paint the investigation in a false light.

On July 26, 2022, Senator Johnson, the ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security, wrote a letter to Garland, Wray, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, and DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz:

Yesterday, Senator Grassley sent a letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) revealing information that may confirm what I have suspected for years: “[T]here was a scheme in place among certain FBI officials to undermine derogatory information connected to Hunter Biden by falsely suggesting it was disinformation.”

***

[O]n August 6, 2020, Senator Grassley and I received a briefing from the FBI which we always assumed was a set up to intentionally discredit our ongoing work into Hunter Biden’s extensive foreign financial entanglements. Indeed, months after that briefing—which was not specific and unconnected to our investigation—it was leaked to the Washington Post who reported on it and tied it to “an extensive effort by the [FBI] to alert members of Congress . . . that they faced a risk of being used to further Russia’s attempt to influence the election’s outcome[.]”

If these recent whistleblower revelations are true, it would strongly suggest that the FBI’s August 6, 2020 briefing was indeed a targeted effort to intentionally undermine a Congressional investigation. The FBI being weaponized against two sitting chairmen of U.S. Senate committees with constitutional oversight responsibilities would be one of the greatest episodes of Executive Branch corruption in American history.

Auten is reportedly under investigation for his role in the FBI Crossfire Hurricane investigation targeting Trump and just testified in the Durham Special Counsel trial of Igor Danchenko, who was paid by both the Clinton campaign and the FBI to dig up dirt on President Trump.

“It is no coincidence the FBI operatives implicated in improperly protecting Hunter and Joe Biden were also abusing President Trump,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Justice Department and the FBI have been irredeemably compromised and their refusal to follow federal transparency law further confirms their corruption.”

Through FOIA, Judicial Watch has uncovered significant information about Hunter Biden, who served on the board of directors for Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings despite having no previous experience in the energy industry.

Judicial Watch recently sued the Department of Homeland Security for Secret Service records related to the investigation of Hunter Biden’s gun, reportedly disposed of in a dumpster in Delaware.

In December 2020, Judicial Watch received records from the State Department tying Hunter Biden’s Burisma Holdings’ lobbying operation to an influence-peddling operation involving the Clinton campaign during the 2016 election. Also uncovered were State Department records showing that former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch had specifically warned in 2017 about corruption allegations against Burisma Holdings.

In October 2020, State Department records that included a briefing checklist of a February 22, 2019, meeting in Kyiv between then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and Sally Painter, co-founder and chief operating officer of Blue Star Strategies, a Democratic lobbying firm which was hired by Burisma Holdings to combat corruption allegations. The briefing checklist notes that Painter also planned to meet with Foreign Commercial Service (FCS) Officer Martin Claessens “regarding the Burisma Group energy company.” (Painter was implicated in the Clinton-era fundraisingscandal exposed by Judicial Watch that involved the alleged sale of seats on Commerce Department trade missions to Democratic National Committee donors.)

In September 2020, State Department records  include a January 17, 2017, email from George Kent, the Obama administration’s deputy assistant secretary of state in charge of Ukraine policy, which was copied to then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, highlighting Russia-linked media “trolling” Joe Biden over “his son’s business.” An email was sent four days prior to the inauguration of President Donald Trump to a redacted recipient and CCd to Yovanovitch with the subject line “medvedchuk-linked vesti trolls Biden.” Kent writes: “Burisma – gift that keeps on giving. (With medvedchuk affiliated Vesti pushing the troll like storyline on visit day)”

In June 2020, U.S. Secret Service records showed that, for the first five and a half years of the Obama administration, Hunter Biden traveled extensively while receiving a Secret Service protective detail. During the time period of the records provided, Hunter Biden took 411 separate domestic and international flights, including to 29 different foreign countries. He visited China five times.

Judicial Watch is also suing the DHS for Secret Service records on Hunter Biden’s travel and security costs, and suing the State Department for messages sent through the SMART (State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolkit) system that mention Hunter Biden.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from JW

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Non-menstruating women were more likely to experience unexpected vaginal bleeding after receiving COVID-19 vaccinations, according to a new study.

Researchers suggested it could have been connected to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in the vaccines. The study was published in Science Advances.

After vaccinations became widely available, many women reported heavier menstrual bleeding than normal. Researchers at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health in Oslo examined the data, particularly among women who do not have periods, such as those who have been through menopause or are taking contraceptives.

The researchers used an ongoing population health survey called the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study, Nature reported. They examined more than 21,000 responses from postmenopausal, perimenopausal and non-menstruating premenopausal women. Some were on long-term hormonal contraceptives.

They learned that 252 postmenopausal women, 1,008 perimenopausal women and 924 premenopausal women reported having unexpected vaginal bleeding.

About half said the bleeding occurred within four weeks of the first or second shot or both. The risk of bleeding was up 3 to 5 times for premenopausal and perimenopausal women, and 2 to 3 times for postmenopausal women, the researchers found.

Postmenopausal bleeding is usually serious and can be a sign of cancer, Nature wrote.

“Knowing a patient’s vaccination status could put their bleeding incidence into context,” said Kate Clancy, a biological anthropologist at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Writer Jay Croft brings three decades of professional communications experience to his WebMD coverage. Jay contributes articles on consumer health and recreation topics, chiefly those around exercise and fitness.

Sources

Science Advances: “Unexpected vaginal bleeding and COVID-19 vaccination in nonmenstruating women”

Nature: “COVID vaccines linked to unexpected vaginal bleeding”

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

China-Syria Strategic Partnership Faces the US-imposed Stalemate

September 27th, 2023 by Steven Sahiounie

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

On September 22, during a diplomatic meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, he told Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that China would help Syria to rebuild its ruined economy by upgrading ties to a “strategic partnership“, which means close coordination on regional and international affairs, including in the military sphere, and is just one grade below what Beijing calls a “comprehensive strategic partnership”. After the talks, the two heads of state witnessed the signing of bilateral cooperation documents in the areas of the Belt and Road cooperation, economic, and technological cooperation.

On September 21, Assad and his wife touched down in Hangzhou, China, accompanied by a high-ranking Syrian delegation, where they will attend the opening of the 19th Asian Games on September 23.  Syria has sent Majid Aldeen Ghazal (track and field), Ahmad Hamsho and his brother Omar Hamsho (equestrian), Maen Assad (weightlifting) and Omar Sarem and Enal Braze (boxing) to the sporting event representing Syria.

“China supports Syria’s opposition to foreign interference, unilateral bullying … and will support Syria’s reconstruction,” Xi said.

Syria fell victim to a US-NATO attack for regime change in 2011, which failed to produce results, but was successful in cutting the country into pieces, aided by the US military occupation, and the US-EU sanctions on Syria have prevented reconstruction or investments.

“China is willing to strengthen cooperation with Syria through the Belt and Road Initiative … to make positive contributions to regional and world peace and development,” said the leader of the world’s second-largest economy, who offers an alternative to the global US-domination. Xi called on the US and EU to lift the sanctions on Syria, for the benefit of the suffering Syrian people, who are facing poverty and food insecurity.

Under the 2020 Caesar Act in the US Congress, any company who has any business dealing with any private or public business entity in Syria can have their financial assets frozen by the US Department of Treasury. Elizabeth Hoff, former WHO director in Damascus, said medical machines in hospitals across Syria often sat idle because the firms who made the replacement parts were not willing to risk sanctions.

Syria’s location offers a huge leverage for China, or any international player. Turkey, Iraq, Jordan are all neighbors of Syria and important for China.  Russia and Iran are inside Syria, so it’s in geo-economic interest for China to increase its’ presence in Syria.

China and Russia are united on the global stage, and that’s clear in Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East. 

The central government in Damascus controls most of the territory, with the exception of the Al Qaeda controlled province of Idlib in the northwest, and the US occupation’s partner in the northeast. Syria and China share intelligence because of China’s fears of the 3,500 radicalized Muslim Uyghurs from China fighting in Idlib, where they have been supported by President Erdogan of Turkey.

In March, Beijing helped broker a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran to end a seven-year-long diplomatic rift, which has furthered peace and stability in the region, much to the surprise of Washington, who has depended on creating problems among neighbors in the Middle East to further US interests.

After 67 years of diplomacy, Syria joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2022, in which China has been investing in and building infrastructure on several continents to establish land and sea trade routes linking Asia to the rest of the world, harkening back to the ancient Silk Road which stretched from China to Syria. 17 countries in the Middle East and North Africa have joined the BRI.

China is will strengthen Belt and Road cooperation with Syria, increase the import of high-quality agricultural products from Syria, and perhaps gain additional energy sources.

On 20 June, China’s state-owned energy and chemical giant Sinopec named a new manager for Syria. Sinopec’s entrance into Syria’s oil sector dates back to 2009 when the corporation acquired Canada’s Tanganyika Oil Company. Sinopec’s holdings encompass the Oudeh, Tishreen, and Sheikh Mansour oilfields are today all occupied by the US military, who confiscates the oil production to deprive the Syrian people of electricity and gasoline.  Trump ordered the US military in 2019 to steal the Syrian oil, not because the US needs oil, but only to make Syria suffer more, and it has.

In 2008-09, China had invested around $3 billion in petroleum extraction and other energy ventures in Syria, but the projects were shut down in 2014 amid US-EU sanctions.

China become a net importer of energy in 1993, and by 2017, it became the largest crude oil importer globally, and 48%, comes from the Middle East, which is why the Middle East will continue to gain significance in the next decade for China. 

In 1998, Richard N. Haas wrote a paper “Economic sanctions: too much of a bad thing”. In that policy briefing, he proves that economic sanctions to not work on big projects, like regime change, and only hurt the innocent people living under sanctions, while having no effect on administrations. After 25 years you would think someone in the US Congress would have learned the lesson, but they doggedly follow political strategies which have no merit, and yield no results.

While the US government is spending billions on weapons for Ukraine, they sent absolutely nothing to the people of Syria in Aleppo and Latakia, who were the hardest hit areas in Syria from the February 6 earthquake of 7.8 magnitude, which took 10,000 lives in Syria. Latakia sits on three fault lines, one of which is directly connected to the Turkish epicenter. The US sent tons of aid to Idlib, which is occupied by Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria, and controlled by Mohammad al-Julani, formerly of ISIS.

The Obama-Trump-Biden war on Syria for regime change utilized foot soldiers following Radical Islam, the same terrorist ideology that some of the Uyghur community follow in western China, where they have carried out horrific terrorist attacks on Chinese civilians.  Russia and Iran have also been the victims of numerous attacks by terrorists following Radical Islam. The UN charter calls for all members to fight terrorists where they are, and in the case of Russia, Iran and China they do their part; but, in the case of the US and EU it is a selective process.  If there is a terrorist attack in New York or Paris, then it is condemned. But, if the same brand of terrorists’ attack Aleppo, they are idolized and called ‘freedom fighters’, and if they manage to occupy Idlib, they are supported by UN humanitarian aid, US aid, and international charities.

The US and EU have prolonged the suffering of the Syrian people by the sanctions, and the protection of the terrorists in Idlib, which has turned the Syria conflict into a status quo. The Syrian war is over, the battlefields are silent since 2017, and people want to rebuild and start their life anew, but the western governments refuse to give them a break.  Without an influx of foreign investments, Syria cannot be rebuilt. All eyes are on China now, to see if they can break free of the status quo.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MD

Ukraine: A Complex War and “The Neo-Nazi Element”: Holes in the Mainstream Account of “Justice in Ukraine”

By Michael Welch, Eva Bartlett, and Richard Sanders, September 26, 2023

It needs to be acknowledged quickly that the invasion of Ukraine (which Global Research does NOT support) is not as simple as the mainstream media makes it out to be. As has been documented in past episodes of the program, there has been a rise in the incidence of Nazis in Ukraine since the undemocratic coup against president Yanukovych in 2014.

Amnesty International Pushes Regime Change in Eritrea with Dubious, Unverifiable Report

By Ann Garrison, September 27, 2023

Amnesty’s new report accusing Eritrea’s government of gruesome war crimes relies heavily on anonymous testimony, grainy satellite images, and zero field investigation. It is the latest salvo in the West’s campaign to topple the country’s independent government.

A Year of Lying About Nord Stream. Seymour Hersh

By Seymour M. Hersh, September 27, 2023

The American men and women who moved, under cover, in and out of Norway in the months it took to plan and carry out the destruction of three of the four Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea a year ago left no traces—not a hint of the team’s existence—other than the success of their mission. 

Post-COVID Vaccination Heart Inflammation: CDC Refuses to Release Updated Information

By Zachary Stieber, September 27, 2023

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is refusing to release updated information on reported cases of myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination. COVID-19 vaccines can cause the inflammatory conditions, the CDC previously confirmed.

The US-Egypt Weapons to Ukraine Dispute. Menendez Indictment

By Steven Sahiounie, September 27, 2023

US Senator Robert Menendez, (D. NJ.) temporarily stepped down from his powerful role as chairman of the Senate Relations Committee, according to Senate Minority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer, following accusations of political corruption and breach of US national security.

Canadian Parliament Honours Man Who Fought for Nazis. Speaker Regrets Decision

By Hindustan Times, September 27, 2023

The speaker of Canada’s House of Commons apologized Sunday for recognizing 98-year-old Yaroslav Hunka as a “Ukrainian hero” before the Canadian Parliament. Hunka served in World War II as a member of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS, according to a Jewish human rights group that demanded an apology.

The Subversion of Democracies and “The Global Surveillance State”. Don’t Forget About Cambridge Analytica

By Megan Sherman, September 26, 2023

In a masterpiece of investigative reporting by Carole Cadwallr on the aggressive infiltration and subversion of democracies worldwide by Cambridge Analytica, a troubling story emerged.

Video: “Permanent Pandemics and Vaccines”. Michel Chossudovsky

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Caroline Mailloux, September 26, 2023

Dennis Francis, president of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) has arbitrarily approved the UN declaration on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response without submitting it to a full assembly vote. The WHO has confirmed the transition towards a digitalized totalitarian State at the World level. 

mRNA Vaccines in Farm Animals: Pork, Beef, Shrimp. Self-amplifying mRNA Vaccines for Livestock

By Dr. William Makis, September 26, 2023

The scientists are already lying about safety of mRNA vaccinating livestock. They lie about the duration of pseudouridine mRNA lasting only a few days (it can last 4 weeks), they lie that it can’t “alter genes” or integrate into our genome (it can), they lie about strict quality control (no mention of risks of DNA plasmid contamination), they lie about safety of lipid nanoparticles, they lie about mRNA’d meat being safe to consume, they lie about no shedding, they lie about mRNA not ending up in meat or milk.

Understanding the American Civil War. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts and Mike Whitney, September 26, 2023

Before I answer the questions it needs to be clearly stated that my answers are not merely my opinion, but hard facts supported in the historical record. Like John Maynard Keynes, I like to keep my views in accordance with the facts. In the case of what is called “the Civil War,” the facts are clear enough.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Amnesty’s new report accusing Eritrea’s government of gruesome war crimes relies heavily on anonymous testimony, grainy satellite images, and zero field investigation. It is the latest salvo in the West’s campaign to topple the country’s independent government.

Eritrea is a small country with a geostrategically significant coast on the Red Sea. Fiercely independent, it is one of only two African nations that refuse to collaborate with AFRICOM, the US Africa Command. Committed to an incremental, self-reliant development strategy, it has chosen not to saddle itself with IMF or World Bank debt. It was also the only African nation to vote against  the March 2, 2022 UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and demanding that it withdraw unconditionally.  

Not surprisingly, Eritrea is constantly under attack by the Western human rights industrial complex that serves the interests of NATO states. On September 4, one of the organizations at the forefront of this soft power network, Amnesty International, published a report claiming that Eritrean troops were guilty of rape, sexual slavery, and extrajudicial execution in Ethiopia’s northern Tigray Region near the end of the two-year Tigray War and thereafter. 

That war began on November 3, 2020, when the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), a longtime US ally, attacked an Ethiopian national army base in the Tigray Region, then fired on Eritrea, which responded by entering the war on the side of Ethiopia. Together Ethiopia and Eritrea had effectively defeated the TPLF by November 2022.

However, Mike Hammer, US Special Envoy to the Horn of Africa, swept into Tigray’s capital on a US Air Force jet and flew TPLF leadership off to peace talks in Pretoria, South Africa. There, Hammer made sure that the TPLF would be allowed to survive as the regional authority in Tigray, placing them firmly in control at the time Amnesty researched its report.

The report’s headline threatens, “Today or tomorrow, they [Eritrea’s leadership] should be brought before justice.” While exempting the US-backed TPLF leadership from scrutiny, Amnesty demands that Eritreans be tried before an international tribunal. Indictments in international courts lead to international warrants and arrests, or set the stage for regime change war, as was seen with the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who was murdered by jihadist bandits armed by the West during the height of NATO’s bombing campaign in 2011.

Back in 1990, Amnesty International published a lengthy report based on the claims of a Kuwaiti girl named Nayirah, who told US Congress that Iraqi troops had stormed into hospitals in her hometown, yanked babies from their incubators, thrown the babies on the floor, then stolen the incubators. Amnesty was forced to retract its report when Nayirah was revealed to be the niece of Kuwait’s ambassador to the US, who had hired an army of public relations firms to craft her testimony, which turned out to be a complete fabrication. But by then, the damage had been done: Then President George H.W. Bush cited Amnesty’s report repeatedly during a nationally televised address to justify his initiation of the first Gulf War.

Because Amnesty’s new report on Eritrea, a target of US empire, is based entirely on the testimonies of anonymous people and satellite images taken from Google Earth, it is impossible to assess their credibility. What is clear is that Amnesty relies on tabloid-style techniques to paper over the organization’s failure to conduct any field investigation at a time when travel to the region was unhindered.

Telephone Calls to Anonymous Witnesses

The Amnesty report was based on 49 telephone interviews with anonymous witnesses and some grainy satellite photos generated by Google Earth. Though Ethiopian Airlines flights from Addis Ababa to Mekelle, the capital of Tigray, had resumed more than five months earlier, on December 28, 2022, Amnesty declined to send a single field researcher to the area.

The report’s executive summary leads with a large font, boldfaced quote attributed to “37-year-old Bezawit, woman who was held captive by the EDF in her house for three months:”

“They told me, ‘Whether you shout or not, no one is going to come and rescue you.’ And then they raped me for around three months since then. They were taking turns on me, just like a doorkeeper.”

A large boldface, all-caps section titled “RAPE AGAINST WOMEN IN KOKOB TSIBAH” is followed by another boldface section called, “SEXUAL SLAVERY INSIDE EDF’S MILITARY CAMP.” Once again, Amnesty relies on a boldfaced, large font, indented quote from “a mother of three who was kept in EDF camp for nearly three months.” She declared, “They [EDF soldiers] took turns on me, for the entire three months”. 

This claim is followed by many more such testimonies of gang rape, all boldfaced for effect and indented to draw the reader’s eye.

Ensuing, subheaded sections on “SEXUAL SLAVERY AND RAPE IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSES,” “GANG RAPE,” “IMPACTS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE,” contain more boldfaced, indented quotations, all footnoted with attribution to anonymous witnesses and the dates they were interviewed by phone. 

Ensuing sections introduced with the largest, all caps boldface type are “EXTRAJUDICIAL EXECUTIONS OF CIVILIANS” and “PILLAGE OF CIVILIAN PROPERTIES.” Like the others they include one shocking boldfaced, indented quote after another, all footnoted, again, with attribution to anonymous sources identified as survivors, victims, witnesses, residents, social workers, health workers, medical experts, government officials.

Multiple satellite photos are also offered as evidence of Eritrea’s monstrous treatment of Tigrayans. The photos arrive with the reassurance that they have been examined by Amnesty’s “Evidence Lab,” yet they consist of nothing more than grainy, vaguely geographic images marked up with dots, circles, squares, rectangles, and arrows to indicate locations that further the report’s narrative. 

None of the photos or testimonies contained in Amnesty’s report on Eritrea are independently verifiable. Readers are therefore expected to accept their veracity based upon the moral authority of the human rights industry’s leading light.

Unverifiable Amnesty satellite images intended to reinforce the charge that Eritrea committed extrajudicial executions

Amnesty Ignores Critical Questions

Why did Amnesty investigators neglect to fly its staff to Tigray to speak to witnesses in person? The organization said it conducted telephone interviews between May 13 and July 15, five to seven months after flight service had been resumed.

Amnesty staff might not have been welcomed by customs in Addis Ababa if they identified as such, but it is hard to believe that investigators could not have entered Tigray one way or another during the past eight months. When I flew into Addis at the end of March 2022, I simply identified as a journalist and no one stopped or even questioned me. When I traveled from one airport to another inside the country, no one asked for anything but my identification card. 

Most serious investigators would be intrepid enough to risk a denial of visa, and Ethiopia would have nothing to gain by jailing anyone flashing Amnesty credentials.

It is even harder to believe that Amnesty investigators researching crimes allegedly committed by the Eritrean Defense Forces would not have been welcomed with open arms by the TPLF, who were firmly back in power in Tigray Region thanks to the US diplomatic intervention. Throughout the war, the TPLF had cried “Tigray genocide!” and demanded help from the “international community,” and they still have not given up their grievances, most of all their grievances against Eritrea. 

Stranger still, Amnesty had, on August 18, published a demand that independent investigators and media be admitted to Ethiopia’s Amhara Region, where the national government declared a state of emergency because government troops are engaged in a conflict with the ethnic Amhara Fano militia. Why make telephone calls to a region you could fly into and then demand access to a region where you could not?

Why did all of Amnesty’s interviews have to be conducted anonymously? It’s understandable that rape victims might not want to provide their identities, even if they are now safe within TPLF-controlled territory, but more difficult to comprehend why witnesses to extrajudicial execution would fear being identified.

Doctors and social and humanitarian workers were also quoted anonymously. Why would they too be afraid to go on record from within TPLF-controlled territory?

Should Amnesty not have noted the possibility that any or all of these anonymous witnesses could have been coached by the TPLF? Shouldn’t they have noted that a report based on all but wholly anonymous telephone testimony might beggar belief? Finally, what were Amnesty’s satellite images supposed to prove? They were no more than dots, circles, squares, rectangles and arrows pointing to this and that spot on a blurry, vaguely geographic background.

On September 10, I submitted these questions to the Amnesty e-address for inquiries on the report. I then called the UK telephone number on the report three times, leaving detailed messages requesting an answer.

At the time of publication, I have yet to receive any reply. 

Distinct Bias Toward TPLF Narratives

Amnesty’s report demonstrates a distinct deference towards TPLF narratives, just as Western press and officialdom did throughout the war. On the historic significance of the city of Axum in Tigray Region, Amnesty cites the highly partisan, Tigrayan publication Omna Tigray, which reads:

“Since November 2020—and following the invasion, occupation, destruction, and siege of Tigray—the city that was once a symbol for Ethiopia’s independence has become victim to the violence of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s genocidal war.”

With regard to the two-year civil war, Amnesty falsely declares that it began not with the TPLF’s attack on the Northern Command of the Ethiopian National Defense Force, but with Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s response:

“The armed conflict in Ethiopia’s Tigray region, which later extended into neighbouring Amhara and Afar regions, began on 4 November 2020 when Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed launched a ‘law enforcement operation’ against TPLF-led security forces in the Tigray region, following an attack on the Ethiopian National Defense Force’s Northern Command based there.”

Was the Prime Minister supposed to avert a war by responding passively to an armed attack on a national army base? By that logic, he should have held his troops back when the TPLF marched on Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa.

“Getting Ethiopia Dead Wrong”

Danish journalist Rasmus Sonderris first traveled to Ethiopia in 2004 and has since spent seven of the last 18 years living there. This September, Sonderris published “Getting Ethiopia Dead Wrong,” a free e-book, in which he painstakingly recounts every unverified allegation of genocide, rape, extrajudicial execution, and starvation that Western press, officialdom, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International launched at Ethiopia and Eritrea throughout the two-year Tigray War. The veteran reporter pointed to the collaborative effort of legacy Western press and Western governments as the source of a massive disinformation campaign that has shaken his liberal worldview to its foundation. 

Sonderris questions Amnesty’s evidence-gathering methods on what came to be known as the Axum Massacre, for which Ethiopian and Eritrean forces were blamed: 

“So how did Amnesty gather this information? With the war still raging, there was no question of traveling to Axum. Instead, eleven days were spent talking to “41 witnesses and survivors of the massacre,” who could not be named “given security concerns.” Testimonies were either delivered face-to-face in a refugee camp of Tigrayans in Sudan, or by means of “numerous phone interviews with witnesses in Axum.” Crucially, it says nothing about how these 41 persons were identified or by whom, which obviously raises suspicion that they were selected and coached by the TPLF.”

Sonderris says that while he does not know for certain what happened in Axum, determining the truth “calls for hard-nosed investigators on the ground.” 

While Amnesty might not have been able to travel to Axum while the war was still raging, there is no such justification for its latest report, which was published eight months after flights to Mekelle had resumed and the TPLF regained political and military control of the Tigray Region.  

With regard to the charge of mass rape, Sonderris writes:

“Rape is even more taxing on the human heart than murder. We feel both empathy with the horrified victim and revulsion that a mind could be so sick as to obtain sexual gratification, or whatever it is, from such a misdeed. So when a woman accuses a man of rape, we do not jump to the defense of the accused, but listen to the accuser. This is how it should always be. 

. . . 

“When it comes to sexual violence in a war scenario, however, lying does not require a crazy or vindictive woman, but merely a cold political calculation. And rather than one person shouldering the burden of deceit, a propaganda department can be at hand to reward and organize it.”

The inflammatory, dubiously-sourced allegations contained in Amnesty’s report on Eritrea bring to mind former US ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice’s tales of Viagra use by Libyan troops accused of every international crime during the run-up to NATO’s destruction of Libya in the name of stopping genocide. Rice’s accusations were eventually revealed as pure fiction: a fabricated story spun out by the Libyan opposition, and fed to the West through the Al Jazeera Network of the Qatari monarchy, which was funding the Islamist rebels. But by the time the lie was exposed, it was too late, as NATO bombing was well underway.

Though the West did not attack Eritrea and Ethiopia directly, it relied on the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front as a proxy force as it attempted to dislodge their independent governments. And it helped this sectarian army launch a global propaganda campaign, painting it disingenuously as the target of a genocide, even after it initiated the conflict.

The Manufacturing of #TigrayGenocide

Within 24 hours of the TPLF’s November 3, 2020 attack on Ethiopia’s Northern Command base, the hashtag #TigrayGenocide appeared on Twitter, and Tigrayans quickly attained favored victim status from the West.

Throughout the war, Western press and officialdom focused almost exclusively on Tigrayan suffering while Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch branded their plight as ethnic cleansing. 

When the Associated Press reported on Samantha Power’s trip to the region, it nudged readers with the headline, “US genocide expert to press Ethiopia on Tigray aid blockade.” The Washington Post joined in with an opinion piece entitled, “Why the U.S. should call the famine and violence in Tigray a genocide.” A parade of articles echoed the inflammatory narrative, including from the putatively left-wing Nation Magazine. Democracy Now produced a series of similarly slanted reports alleging genocide, ethnic cleansing, and the use of rape as a weapon in Tigray, relying heavily on CNN reporter Nima Elbagir.

(The Sudanese-born Elbagir relentlessly pushed the narrative of genocide perpetrated by Ethiopian and Eritrean forces, and in September 2022 won an Emmy Award for her documentary “Ethiopia: Hallmarks of a Genocide.” She is reportedly married to the current British ambassador to Iraq, Mark Bryson-Richardson).

When the TPLF invaded Ethiopia’s Amhara and Afar Regions, Western press generally looked the other way, giving Amhara and Afari victims only occasional mention. 

From April to June 2022, I traveled through Ethiopia’s Amhara and Afar Regions and saw immense suffering in many overcrowded IDP camps, where deeply traumatized Amharas and Afaris told me that the TPLF had murdered their family members and taken all they had until they fled. The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre estimated that there were over 5.1 million IDPs in Ethiopia in 2021, the highest annual figure ever recorded for a single country at that time.

While ignoring the TPLF’s crimes, including its initiation of the conflict and attempt to seize power by force in Addis Ababa, Amnesty’s report portrays Eritrea’s military as a collection of bestial, irrational monsters. 

The report therefore reads like a companion to President Joe Biden’s September 9 renewal of Executive Order 14046, the Declaration of a National Emergency with Respect to Ethiopia, which alleges massive human rights abuses by Ethiopia and Eritrea, and provides justification for ongoing US sanctions on both countries. 

Of these, the harshest sanctions, such as exclusion from the SWIFT system for conducting international financial transactions, are reserved for Eritrea. These unilateral measures not only violate international law; they punish the entire Eritrean population, whose annual per capita income is $650. Oddly, Amnesty International has nothing to say about these human rights violations.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Ann Garrison is a Black Agenda Report Contributing Editor based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize for promoting peace through her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes Region. She can be reached on Twitter @AnnGarrison and at ann(at)anngarrison(dot)com.

Blinken’s ‘Variable Geometry’ for a New Cold War

September 27th, 2023 by Alastair Crooke

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Last week, Secretary of State Blinken, in a speech at Johns Hopkins University, said bluntly:

“What we’re [facing], is no test of the post-Cold War order.  It’s the end of it … a hinge moment in history … Countries and citizens are losing faith in the international economic order – their confidence rattled by systemic flaws … The longer these disparities persist, the more distrust and disillusionment they fuel in people, who feel the system is not giving them a fair shake”.

So far, so good — but he continued:

“the US is leading in this pivotal period from a position of strength … One era is ending, a new one is beginning … We must act, and act decisively … We must live history forward. We must put our hand on the rudder of history, because …”

“No nation on Earth has a greater capacity to mobilize others in common cause. Because our ongoing endeavour … allows us to fix our flaws and renew our democracy from within.  And because our vision for the future – a world that is open, free, prosperous, and secure – is not America’s alone, but the enduring aspiration of people in every nation on every continent” (emphasis added).

The ‘new era’, then, resembles the familiar ‘old one’: Our Western ‘liberal vision’ and its economic doctrine is that of everyone, everywhere in the world – claims Blinken.

But the ‘new era’ challenge is that,

“‘our’ competitors [Russia and China] have a fundamentally different vision … The contrast between these two visions could not be clearer. And the stakes of the competition we face could not be higher – for the world, and for the American people”.

So we — Team America — are working “to align our friends in new ways so that we can meet the three defining tests of this emerging era: a fierce and lasting strategic competition; existential threats to lives and livelihoods everywhere –  and the urgent need to rebalance our technological future and our economic future, so that interdependence is a source of strength – not vulnerability”.  (Interdependence? … hmm)

“We’re doing this through what I like to call diplomatic variable geometry. We’ve aligned scores of countries in imposing an unprecedented set of sanctions, export controls, and other economic costs on Russia”.

Ahh — so the old Cold War is over? And what is to replace it? Well, a new Cold War of ‘variable geometry’. Plainly, the message emanating out from the BRICS and the G20 summits has not ‘sunk in’.

The message ringing out in a clear peal of bells from these summits was that the collective Non-West has coalesced around the urgent demand for radical reform of the global system. They want change in the global economic architecture; they contest its structures (i.e. the voting systems that lie behind those institutional structures such as the WTO, the World Bank and the IMF) — and above all they object to the weaponised dollar hegemony.

The demand — put plainly — is for a seat at Top Table. Period.

To that demand, Blinken’s response is that of outright challenge — Variable Geometry:

“We’re assembling a fit‑for‑purpose coalition. We’re transforming the G7 into the steering committee for the world’s most advanced democracies; combining our political and economic muscle … We’re taking critical bilateral relationships, [especially] with the European Union to a new level. We’re using that power to shape our technological and economic future…” .

Plainly put, the Variable Geometry to the new Cold War on China and Russia amounts to continued weaponised financial war:

“We’ve aligned scores of countries in imposing an unprecedented set of sanctions, export controls, and other economic costs on Russia. We coordinated the G7, the European Union, and dozens more countries to support Ukraine’s economy, to build back its energy grid. That’s what variable geometry looks like”.

The new Cold War tools — as defined in Blinken’s speech – are firstly, ‘Narrative’ (our vision is the world’s vision); a weaponised economy; new lending capacity for the US-controlled IMF; and a protective ‘belt’ that constrains the commanding heights of western tech from finding an exit to China.

What is clear is that the ruling strata in Washington are settled on the primacy of containing China. Debate over.

There are, however, two principal paradoxes contained within this blueprint: The first is that financial war on Russia has resulted in an economically stronger Russia, and a weaker, poorer US ally: Europe. Similarly, as one Chinese official highlighting the breakthrough represented by the Huawei Mate 60 Pro noted: “Sanctions are not such a bad thing. They only strengthen the ‘de-westernization movement”’, as it is informally termed in China. In other words, ultimately they strengthen China, and weaken the US.

The second paradox is that in framing the ‘New Cold War’ in such explicitly Manichean ‘with or against us’ terms that foreclose on any ‘middle ground’, BRICS waverers such as India will have little room in which to play ‘both ends’. Geography alone, finally, will impel India to mesh unreservedly into the Heartland sphere.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Alastair Crooke is the Director of Conflicts Forum; Former Senior British Diplomat; Author.

Featured image is from AME

Authoritarian control freaks out to micromanage our lives have become the new normal or, to be more accurate, the new abnormal when it comes to how the government relates to the citizenry.

This overbearing despotism, which pre-dates the COVID-19 hysteria, is the very definition of a Nanny State, where government representatives (those elected and appointed to work for us) adopt the authoritarian notion that the government knows best and therefore must control, regulate and dictate almost everything about the citizenry’s public, private and professional lives.

Indeed, it’s a dangerous time for anyone who still clings to the idea that freedom means the right to think for yourself and act responsibly according to your best judgment.

This tug-of-war for control and sovereignty over our selves impacts almost every aspect of our lives, whether you’re talking about decisions relating to our health, our homes, how we raise our children, what we consume, what we drive, what we wear, how we spend our money, how we protect ourselves and our loved ones, and even who we associate with and what we think.

As Liz Wolfe writes for Reason, “Little things that make people’s lives better, tastier, and less tedious are being cracked down on by big government types in federal and state governments.”

You can’t even buy a stove, a dishwasher, a showerhead, a leaf blower, or a light bulb anymore without running afoul of the Nanny State.

In this way, under the guise of pseudo-benevolence, the government has meted out this bureaucratic tyranny in such a way as to nullify the inalienable rights of the individual and limit our choices to those few that the government deems safe enough.

Yet limited choice is no choice at all. Likewise, regulated freedom is no freedom at all.

Indeed, as a study by the Cato Institute concludes, for the average American, freedom has declined generally over the past 20 years. As researchers William Ruger and Jason Sorens explain, “We ground our conception of freedom on an individual rights framework. In our view, individuals should be allowed to dispose of their lives, liberties, and property as they see fit, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.”

The overt signs of the despotism exercised by the increasingly authoritarian regime that passes itself off as the United States government (and its corporate partners in crime) are all around us: censorship, criminalizing, shadow banning and de-platforming of individuals who express ideas that are politically incorrect or unpopular; warrantless surveillance of Americans’ movements and communications; SWAT team raids of Americans’ homes; shootings of unarmed citizens by police; harsh punishments meted out to schoolchildren in the name of zero tolerance; community-wide lockdowns and health mandates that strip Americans of their freedom of movement and bodily integrity; armed drones taking to the skies domestically; endless wars; out-of-control spending; militarized police; roadside strip searches; privatized prisons with a profit incentive for jailing Americans; fusion centers that spy on, collect and disseminate data on Americans’ private transactions; and militarized agencies with stockpiles of ammunition, to name some of the most appalling.

Yet as egregious as these incursions on our rights may be, it’s the endless, petty tyrannies—the heavy-handed, punitive-laden dictates inflicted by a self-righteous, Big-Brother-Knows-Best bureaucracy on an overtaxed, overregulated, and underrepresented populace—that illustrate so clearly the degree to which “we the people” are viewed as incapable of common sense, moral judgment, fairness, and intelligence, not to mention lacking a basic understanding of how to stay alive, raise a family, or be part of a functioning community.

When the dictates of petty bureaucrats carry greater weight than the individual rights of the citizenry, we’re in trouble, folks.

Federal and state governments have used the law as a bludgeon to litigate, legislate and micromanage our lives through overregulation and overcriminalization.

This is what happens when bureaucrats run the show, and the rule of law becomes little more than a cattle prod for forcing the citizenry to march in lockstep with the government.

Overregulation is just the other side of the coin to overcriminalization, that phenomenon in which everything is rendered illegal, and everyone becomes a lawbreaker.

You don’t have to look far to find abundant examples of Nanny State laws that infantilize individuals and strip them of their ability to decide things for themselves. Back in 2012, then-New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg infamously proposed a ban on the sale of sodas and large sugary drinks in order to guard against obesity. Other localities enacted bans on texting while jaywalking, wearing saggy pants, having too much mud on your car, smoking outdoors, storing trash in your car, improperly sorting your trash, cursing within earshot of others, or screeching your tires.

Yet while there are endless ways for the Nanny State to micromanage our lives, things become truly ominous when the government adopts mechanisms enabling it to monitor us for violations in order to enforce its many laws.

Nanny State, meet the all-seeing, all-knowing Surveillance State and its sidekick, the muscle-flexing Police State.

You see, in an age of overcriminalization—when the law is wielded like a hammer to force compliance to the government’s dictates whatever they might be—you don’t have to do anything “wrong” to be fined, arrested or subjected to raids and seizures and surveillance.

You just have to refuse to march in lockstep with the government.

As policy analyst Michael Van Beek warns, the problem with overcriminalization is that there are so many laws at the federal, state and local levels—that we can’t possibly know them all.

“It’s also impossible to enforce all these laws. Instead, law enforcement officials must choose which ones are important and which are not. The result is that they pick the laws Americans really must follow, because they’re the ones deciding which laws really matter,” concludes Van Beek. “Federal, state and local regulations — rules created by unelected government bureaucrats — carry the same force of law and can turn you into a criminal if you violate any one of them… if we violate these rules, we could be prosecuted as criminals. No matter how antiquated or ridiculous, they still carry the full force of the law. By letting so many of these sit around, just waiting to be used against us, we increase the power of law enforcement, which has lots of options to charge people with legal and regulatory violations.”

This is the police state’s superpower: empowered by the Nanny State, it has been vested with the authority to make our lives a bureaucratic hell.

Indeed, if you were unnerved by the rapid deterioration of privacy under the Surveillance State, prepare to be terrified by the surveillance matrix that will be ushered in by the Nanny State working in tandem with the Police State.

The government’s response to COVID-19 saddled us with a Nanny State inclined to use its draconian pandemic powers to protect us from ourselves.

The groundwork laid with COVID-19 is a prologue to what will become the police state’s conquest of a new, relatively uncharted, frontier: inner space, specifically, the inner workings (genetic, biological, biometric, mental, emotional) of the human race.

Consider how many more ways the government could “protect us” from ourselves under the guise of public health and safety.

For instance, under the guise of public health and safety, the government could use mental health care as a pretext for targeting and locking up dissidents, activists and anyone unfortunate enough to be placed on a government watch list.

When combined with advances in mass surveillance technologies, artificial intelligence-powered programs that can track people by their biometrics and behavior, mental health sensor data (tracked by wearable data and monitored by government agencies such as HARPA), threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, precrime initiatives, red flag gun laws, and mental health first-aid programs aimed at training gatekeepers to identify who might pose a threat to public safety, these preemptive mental health programs could well signal a tipping point in the government’s efforts to penalize those engaging in so-called “thought crimes.”

This is how it begins.

On a daily basis, Americans are already relinquishing (in many cases, voluntarily) the most intimate details of who we are—their biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to navigate an increasingly technologically-enabled world.

Having conditioned the population to the idea that being part of society is a privilege and not a right, such access could easily be predicated on social credit scores, the worthiness of one’s political views, or the extent to which one is willing to comply with the government’s dictates, no matter what they might be.

COVID-19 with its talk of mass testing, screening checkpoints, contact tracing, immunity passports, and snitch tip lines for reporting “rule breakers” to the authorities was a preview of what’s to come.

We should all be leery and afraid.

At a time when the government has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state, it won’t take much for any of us to be considered outlaws or terrorists.

After all, the government likes to use the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably. The Department of Homeland Security broadly defines extremists as individuals “that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.”

At some point, being an individualist will be considered as dangerous as being a terrorist.

When anything goes when it’s done in the name of national security, crime fighting and terrorism, “we the people” have little to no protection against SWAT team raids, domestic surveillance, police shootings of unarmed citizens, indefinite detentions, and the like, whether or not you’ve done anything wrong.

In an age of overcriminalization, you’re already a criminal.

All the government needs is proof of your law-breaking. They’ll get it, too.

Whether it’s through the use of surveillance software such as ShadowDragon that allows police to watch people’s social media activity, or technology that uses a home’s WiFi router and smart appliances to allow those on the outside to “see” throughout your home, it’s just a matter of time.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it’s no longer a question of whether the government will lock up Americans for defying one of its numerous mandates but when.

A Year of Lying About Nord Stream. Seymour Hersh

September 27th, 2023 by Seymour M. Hersh

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

I do not know much about covert CIA operations—no outsider can—but I do understand that the essential component of all successful missions is total deniability. The American men and women who moved, under cover, in and out of Norway in the months it took to plan and carry out the destruction of three of the four Nord Stream pipelines in the Baltic Sea a year ago left no traces—not a hint of the team’s existence—other than the success of their mission. 

Deniability, as an option for President Joe Biden and his foreign policy advisers, was paramount.

No significant information about the mission was put on a computer, but instead typed on a Royal or perhaps a Smith Corona typewriter with a carbon copy or two, as if the Internet and the rest of the online world had yet to be invented. The White House was isolated from the goings-on near Oslo; various reports and updates from the field were directly provided to CIA Director Bill Burns, who was the only link between the planners and the president who authorized the mission to take place on September 26, 2022. Once the mission was completed, the typed papers and carbons were destroyed, thus leaving no physical trace—no evidence to be dug up later by a special prosecutor or a presidential historian. You could call it the perfect crime.

There was a flaw—a gap in understanding between those who carried out the mission and President Biden, as to why he ordered the destruction of the pipelines when he did. My initial 5,200-word report, published in early February, ended cryptically by quoting an official with knowledge of the mission telling me: “It was a beautiful cover story.” The official added: “The only flaw was the decision to do it.” 

This is the first account of that flaw, on the one-year anniversary of the explosions, and it is one President Biden and his national security team will not like.

Inevitably, my initial story caused a sensation, but the major media emphasized the White House denials and relied on an old canard—my reliance on an unnamed source—to join the administration in debunking the notion that Joe Biden could have had anything to do with such an attack. I must note here that I’ve won literally scores of prizes in my career for stories in the New York Times and the New Yorker that relied on not a single named source. In the past year we’ve seen a series of contrary newspaper stories, with no named first-hand sources, claiming that a dissident Ukrainian group carried out the technical diving operation attack in the Baltic Sea via a 49-foot rented yacht called the Andromeda

I am now able to write about the unexplained flaw cited by the unnamed official. It goes once again to the classic issue of what the Central Intelligence Agency is all about: an issue raised by Richard Helms, who headed the agency during the tumultuous years of the Vietnam War and the CIA’s secret spying on Americans, as ordered by President Lyndon Johnson and sustained by Richard Nixon. I published an exposé in the Times about that spying in December 1974 that led to unprecedented hearings by the Senate into the role of the agency in its unsuccessful attempts, authorized by President John F. Kennedy, to assassinate Cuba’s Fidel Castro. Helms told the senators that the issue was whether he, as CIA director, worked for the Constitution or for the Crown, in the person of presidents Johnson and Nixon. The Church Committee left the issue unresolved, but Helms made it clear he and his agency worked for the top man in the White House. 

Back to the Nord Stream pipelines: It is important to understand that no Russian gas was flowing to Germany through the Nord Stream pipelines when Joe Biden ordered them blown up last September 26. Nord Stream 1 had been supplying vast amounts of low-cost natural gas to Germany since 2011 and helped bolster Germany’s status as a manufacturing and industrial colossus. But it was shut down by Putin by the end of August 2022, as the Ukraine war was, at best, in a stalemate. Nord Stream 2 was completed in September 2021 but was blocked from delivering gas by the German government headed by Chancellor Olaf Scholz two days prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Given Russia’s vast stores of natural gas and oil, American presidents since John F. Kennedy have been alert to the potential weaponization of these natural resources for political purposes. That view remains dominant among Biden and his hawkish foreign policy advisers, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, and Victoria Nuland, now the acting deputy to Blinken.

Sullivan convened a series of high-level national security meetings late in 2021, as Russia was building up its forces along the border of Ukraine, with an invasion seen as almost inevitable. The group, which included representatives from the CIA, was urged to come up with a proposal for action that could serve as a deterrent to Putin. The mission to destroy the pipelines was motivated by the White House’s determination to support Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. Sullivan’s goal seemed clear. “The White House’s policy was to deter Russia from an attack,” the official told me. “The challenge it gave to the intelligence community was to come up with a way that was powerful enough to do that, and to make a strong statement of American capability.”

Major_russian_gas_pipelines_to_europe.png (771×807)

The major gas pipelines from Russia to Europe. / Map by Samuel Bailey / Wikimedia Commons.

I now know what I did not know then: the real reason why the Biden administration “brought up taking out the Nord Stream pipeline.” The official recently explained to me that at the time Russia was supplying gas and oil throughout the world via more than a dozen pipelines, but Nord Stream 1 and 2 ran directly from Russia through the Baltic Sea to Germany. “The administration put Nord Stream on the table because it was the only one we could access and it would be totally deniable,” the official said. “We solved the problem within a few weeks—by early January—and told the White House. Our assumption was that the president would use the threat against Nord Stream as a deterrent to avoid the war.”

It was no surprise to the agency’s secret planning group when on January 27, 2022, the assured and confident Nuland, then undersecretary of state for political affairs, stridently warned Putin that if he invaded Ukraine, as he clearly was planning to, that “one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.” The line attracted enormous attention, but the words preceding the threat did not. The official State Department transcript shows that she preceded her threat by saying that with regard to the pipeline: “We continue to have very strong and clear conversations with our German allies.”

Asked by a reporter how she could say with certainty that the Germans would go along “because what the Germans have said publicly doesn’t match what you’re saying,” Nuland responded with an astonishing bit of doubletalk: “I would say go back and read the document that we signed in July [of 2021] that made very clear about the consequences for the pipeline if there is further aggression on Ukraine by Russia.” But that agreement, which was briefed to journalists, did not specify threats or consequences, according to reports in the Times, the Washington Post, and Reuters. At the time of the agreement, on July 21, 2021, Biden told the press corps that since the pipeline was 99 percent finished, “the idea that anything was going to be said or done was going to stop it was not possible.” At the time, Republicans, led by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, depicted Biden’s decision to permit the Russian gas to flow as a “generational geopolitical win” for Putin and “a catastrophe” for the United States and its allies. 

But two weeks after Nuland’s statement, on February 7, 2022, at a joint White House press conference with the visiting Scholz, Biden signaled that he had changed his mind and was joining Nuland and other equally hawkish foreign policy aides in talking about stopping the pipeline. “If Russia invades—that means tanks and troops crossing . . . the border of Ukraine again,” he said, “there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” Asked how he could do so since the pipeline was under Germany’s control, he said: “We will, I promise you, we’ll be able to do it.”

Scholz, asked the same question, said: “We are acting together. We are absolutely united, and we will not be taking different steps. We will do the same steps, and they will be very very hard to Russia, and they should understand.” The German leader was considered then—and now—by some members of the CIA team to be fully aware of the secret planning underway to destroy the pipelines. 

By this point, the CIA team had made the necessary contacts in Norway, whose navy and special forces commands have a long history of sharing covert-operation duties with the agency. Norwegian sailors and Nasty-class patrol boats helped smuggle American sabotage operatives into North Vietnam in the early 1960s when America, in both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, was running an undeclared American war there. With Norway’s help, the CIA did its job and found a way to do what the Biden White House wanted done to the pipelines. 

At the time, the challenge to the intelligence community was to come up with a plan that would be forceful enough to deter Putin from the attack on Ukraine. The official told me: “We did it. We found an extraordinary deterrent because of its economic impact on Russia. And Putin did it despite the threat.” It took months of research and practice in the churning waters of the Baltic Sea by the two expert US Navy deep sea divers recruited for the mission before it was deemed a go. Norway’s superb seamenfound the right spot for planting the bombs that would blow up the pipelines. Senior officials in Sweden and Denmark, who still insist they had no idea what was going on in their shared territorial waters, turned a blind eye to the activities of the American and Norwegian operatives. The American team of divers and support staff on the mission’s mother ship—a Norwegian minesweeper—would be hard to hide while the divers were doing their work. The team would not learn until after the bombing that Nord Stream 2 had been shut down with 750 miles of natural gas in it.

What I did not know then, but was told recently, was that after Biden’s extraordinary public threat to blow up Nord Stream 2, with Scholz standing next to him, the CIA planning group was told by the White House that there would be no immediate attack on the two pipelines, but the group should arrange to plant the necessary bombs and be ready to trigger them “on demand”—after the war began. “It was then that we”—the small planning group that was working in Oslo with the Royal Norwegian Navy and special services on the project—“understood that the attack on the pipelines was not a deterrent because as the war went on we never got the command.”

After Biden’s order to trigger the explosives planted on the pipelines, it took only a short flight with a Norwegian fighter and the dropping of an altered off-the-shelf sonar device at the right spot in the Baltic Sea to get it done. By then the CIA group had long disbanded. By then, too, the official told me: “We realized that the destruction of the two Russian pipelines was not related to the Ukrainian war”—Putin was in the process of annexing the four Ukrainian oblasts he wanted—“but was part of a neocon political agenda to keep Scholz and Germany, with winter coming up and the pipelines shut down, from getting cold feet and opening up” the shuttered Nord Stream 2. “The White House fear was that Putin would get Germany under his thumb and then he was going to get Poland.”

The White House said nothing as the world wondered who committed the sabotage. “So the president struck a blow against the economy of Germany and Western Europe,” the official told me. “He could have done it in June and told Putin: We told you what we would do.” The White House’s silence and denials were, he said, “a betrayal of what we were doing. If you are going to do it, do it when it would have made a difference.”

The leadership of the CIA team viewed Biden’s misleading guidance for its order to destroy the pipelines, the official told me, “as taking a strategic step toward World War III. What if Russia had responded by saying: You blew up our pipelines and I’m going to blow up your pipelines and your communication cables. Nord Stream was not a strategic issue for Putin—it was an economic issue. He wanted to sell gas. He’d already lost his pipelines” when the Nord Stream I and 2 were shut down before the Ukraine war began. 

Within days of the bombing, officials in Denmark and Sweden announced they would conduct an investigation. They reported two months later that there had indeed been an explosion and said there would be further inquiries. None has emerged. The German government conducted an inquiry but announced that major parts of its findings would be classified. Last winter German authorities allocated $286 billion in subsidies to major corporations and homeowners who faced higher energy bills to run their business and warm their homes. The impact is still being felt today, with a colder winter expected in Europe.

President Biden waited four days before calling the pipeline bombing “a deliberate act of sabotage.” He said: “now the Russians are pumping out disinformation about it.” Sullivan, who chaired the meetings that led to the proposal to covertly destroy the pipelines, was asked at a later press conference whether the Biden administration “now believes that Russia was likely responsible for the act of sabotage?” 

Sullivan’s answer, undoubtedly practiced, was: “Well, first, Russia has done what it frequently does when it is responsible for something, which is make accusations that it was really someone else who did it. We’ve seen this repeatedly over time.

“But the president was also clear today that there is more work to do on the investigation before the United States government is prepared to make an attribution in this case.” He continued: “We will continue to work with our allies and partners to gather all of the facts, and then we will make a determination about where we go from there.”

I could find no instances when Sullivan was subsequently asked by someone in the American press about the results of his “determination.” Nor could I find any evidence that Sullivan, or the president, has been queried since then about the results of the “determination” about where to go. 

There is also no evidence that President Biden has required the American intelligence community to conduct a major all-source inquiry into the pipeline bombing. Such requests are known as “Taskings” and are taken seriously inside the government.

All of this explains why a routine question I posed a month or so after the bombings to someone with many years in the American intelligence community led me to a truth that no one in America or Germany seems to want to pursue. My question was simple: “Who did it?” 

The Biden administration blew up the pipelines but the action had little to do with winning or stopping the war in Ukraine. It resulted from fears in the White House that Germany would waver and turn on the flow of Russia gas—and that Germany and then NATO, for economic reasons, would fall under the sway of Russia and its extensive and inexpensive natural resources. And thus followed the ultimate fear: that America would lose its long-standing primacy in Western Europe.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Half a million tons of methane rise from the sabotaged Nord Stream pipeline. Photo: Swedish Coast Guard

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Every so often, the UK Labour prime minister James Callaghan once remarked, there is a sea change in politics. This happened in 1979, when British voters lost faith in Callaghan’s Labour party and put their trust in Margaret Thatcher. It happened again in 1997, when Tony Blair swept aside John Major.

And it is happening today.

Over the last few weeks, the authority of British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has weakened considerably. The latest shambolic U-turn over net zero targets is the most recent example.

Sunak was heralded as a return to competence after the chaos of prime ministers Liz Truss and Boris Johnson. That narrative has exploded. Today, Sunak is an increasingly disliked leader stuck in the exit chamber of politics. 

As Sunak’s status has fallen, Labour leader Keir Starmer‘s ratings have soared. Starmer suddenly occupies the position of prime minister in waiting. Abroad, he is treated more seriously than Sunak – hence last week’s visit to see President Emmanuel Macron in France.

And, crucially, at home, the mood has changed. Fawning profiles of Starmer are starting to appear. British political journalism has never been about holding politicians to account. It’s about picking the winner and the worship of power. 

In this article, however, we won’t join the rush to praise the Labour leader.

Our objective is to raise the alarm.

Ruthless Authoritarianism

The Labour leader’s methods are authoritarian, anti-democratic and above all illiberal. We are in a position to state this with confidence because we have the evidence.

This month marks the first anniversary of Al Jazeera’s The Labour Files, an investigation into factionalism and dubious practices within the British Labour party which drew on a vast leak of internal party documents. 

Both of us worked on this series, which was entirely ignored by the British media. Today, with the Labour party on the brink of power, its revelations have assumed ever greater significance.

The series exposed a culture of brutal factionalism and ruthless authoritarianism on the right of the party, which controlled Labour’s bureaucracy even during the first two-and-a-half years of former leader Jeremy Corbyns leadership. 

It revealed a party apparatus profoundly uncomfortable with the huge surge in membership that Corbyn unleashed. 

Frequently, the response of local officials was not to debate and challenge the ideas of those entering the party, but to make allegations of misconduct. 

Al Jazeera’s The Labour Files showed that, in a number of instances, these allegations were outright fabrications. Nevertheless, the fiercely factional disciplinary unit at party headquarters was happy to nod through suspensions and push for expulsions.

Stories of homophobia, antisemitism and bullying were eagerly swallowed by the media, which portrayed the Corbynite base as a curious combination of working-class thugs and hyper-woke, out-of-touch metropolitans. 

Al Jazeera did what the British media failed to do – it went and spoke to those accused.

Questionable Legality

It found elderly Jewish ladies accused of antisemitism, the parents of bisexual children accused of homophobia, and a host of perfectly respectable, responsible trade unionists, community workers and ordinary party members bewildered by the allegations levelled against them and distraught at their utter powerlessness to refute them.

The complicity, complacency and sheer incompetence of much of the media was shocking, and it’s scarcely surprising it opted not to report on an investigation that exposed it. 

With the election of Starmer as party leader, this toxic and undemocratic culture returned – with a vengeance. 

Under Starmer, the party has proscribed a number of left-wing groups. Members can be expelled for expressing support for these organisations, even if they did so before they were proscribed.

If this seems patently unjust, the party has been careful to guard itself against any legal challenge.

A new clause in the party’s rulebook reads: “Neither the principles of natural justice nor the provisions of fairness… shall apply to the termination of party membership” – an astonishing assertion for a democratic party and one that is surely of questionable legality. 

Members have a right of appeal against expulsion. But so far not a single appeal has been successful.

However, such is the wave of suspensions and expulsions, and so crude has the interference of the party HQ in the selection of candidates become, that concern is beginning to creep beyond the radical left.

Even the Guardian – effectively the in-house journal of anti-Corbyn Labour before 2020 – is becoming queasy. In July, the paper opined in an editorial that Labour’s “crackdown on free thinkers” was “bad for the party and politics”.

This was prompted by the start of disciplinary procedures against Neal Lawson, director of the think tank Compass, whose crime was to support tactical voting and whose prosecution signalled that the purges now extended beyond the radical left.

Michael Crick, former political correspondent for both Channel 4 and the BBC, recently wrote an article entitled “Starmer Will Regret Purging the Left”.

Under current criteria for selection of parliamentary candidates, Crick wrote: “It’s unthinkable that Neil Kinnock, John Prescott, Clare Short and Robin Cook, all of whom were rebels in their early careers, would be selected.”

He added: “It’s a mistake to confine one’s government to a narrow band of loyal yes-men and women.”

Jamie Driscoll, the popular Labour mayor for the North of Tyne, interviewed recently by Unherd, identified a division within the leadership.

“There are those who are absolutely focussed on the polls and say whatever we need to win an election… But then there are those who are just factional warriors, wanting to settle scores. And I think it was that side that did it,” he said, referring to his own deselection as a candidate for forthcoming elections. 

This purge of the left – even Diane Abbott, Britain’s first black woman MP, has had the whip withdrawn by the parliamentary party – goes far deeper than under Blair. 

Middle East Eye understands that, internally, senior officials tend to dismiss critics of the party’s growing authoritarianism as “cranks”, or as having allied themselves with “cranks” – a term that seems to have replaced “Trot” as the go-to insult for those the party’s bureaucracy deems dangerously left wing. 

The Labour party did not respond to a request from Middle East Eye for comment.

Brutally Pummelling the Left

To the dismay of many of his initial backers, Starmer is revealing himself as a profoundly illiberal politician – something, his critics would say, that was already clear to anyone who studied his period as director of public prosecutions between 2008 and 2013.

Starmer’s (unsympathetic and hostile) biographer Oliver Eagleton tells the chilling tale of how Starmer flew to Washington to apologise after Theresa May intervened to block the US extradition request of a young autistic man, Gary McKinnon, who had hacked into the CIA’s database in search of information about UFOs. 

Labour remains 20 percent ahead in the polls, and Labour’s internal politics matter little to most voters. But progressive parties work best when there is at least some sort of balance – the left providing the energy and passion, the right cold realism.

In the US Democratic party, the right tends to be in the ascendant. But its leaders rarely define themselves against the left, and President Joe Biden has incorporated many radical elements into his presidency.

In the Labour party, not only is the right in control, it is brutally pummelling the left into the dirt, determined that it will never again wield so much as a shred of meaningful influence within the Labour movement. 

At the start of the first programme in The Labour Files, a Merseyside activist, Paul Davies, posed a question: 

“If a small group of secretive people manipulate and control one of the two great parties in Great Britain, what will they do when they have control of MI5? When they have control of all the levers of the state? Are they suddenly going to believe in justice and proper investigations and fairness? Or are they going to be the same as they are now? Or even worse?”

In Britain, a prime minister with a large majority possesses immense power. 

Today, it is not just the Corbynite left who have a gnawing fear that the way Starmer runs his party may provide disturbing clues as to the way he will run the country. 

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Peter Oborne won best commentary/blogging in both 2022 and 2017, and was also named freelancer of the year in 2016 at the Drum Online Media Awards for articles he wrote for Middle East Eye. He was also named as British Press Awards Columnist of the Year in 2013. He resigned as chief political columnist of the Daily Telegraph in 2015. His latest book is The Fate of Abraham: Why the West is Wrong about Islam, published in May by Simon & Schuster. His previous books include The Triumph of the Political Class, The Rise of Political Lying, Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran and The Assault on Truth: Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and the Emergence of a New Moral Barbarism.

Richard Sanders is an award winning TV producer specialising in history and news and current affairs. He has made more than 50 films, mostly for Channel 4. He has written for a number of publications including The Daily Telegraph and the Boston Globe and is also the author of two history books.

Featured image is licensed under CC BY 2.0

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is refusing to release updated information on reported cases of myocarditis and pericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination.

COVID-19 vaccines can cause the inflammatory conditions, the CDC previously confirmed.

The agency has regularly conveyed the number of post-vaccination myocarditis and pericarditis cases reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which it helps manage, as it has consulted with its advisers on updates to the vaccines.

But during a meeting on Sept. 12, the CDC didn’t mention VAERS data.

Asked for the information, a CDC spokesman pointed to a CDC study that covers data only through Oct. 23, 2022.

That study identified nine reports of myocarditis or pericarditis following vaccination with one of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccines, which were introduced in September 2022. Seven of the reports were verified by medical review.

Asked for more current data, the spokesman acknowledged that the agency has it but isn’t making it public.

“When appropriate, the updated safety data will be published,” the spokesman told The Epoch Times in an email.

“The CDC has acknowledged that heart inflammation is a complication of mRNA COVID-19 shots and, yet, the only published data released by CDC officials about that complication is a seven-week study that ended on Oct. 23, 2022,” Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center, said in an email to The Epoch Times.

“Where is more specific myocarditis/pericarditis data related to bivalent COVID shots for the past 10 months?”

The mRNA shots are made by Pfizer and Moderna. Novavax’s updated shot, which uses different technology, hasn’t yet been authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“I am tired of the CDC and FDA deciding what information the public needs and doesn’t need. This is precisely the information that parents need to have especially when there are still schools and activities mandating these shots. This is evil playing out right before our eyes,” Kim Witczak, a drug safety advocate who runs the nonprofit Woodymatters, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“The CDC’s response of ‘when appropriate, the updated safety data will be published’ is unacceptable and they wonder why there is vaccine hesitancy and lack of trust in public health officials.”

Presentation

During the recent meeting, CDC officials and their partners presented data on the bivalent shots to their advisory panel, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The advisers were considering which groups they should recommend get one of the new COVID-19 vaccines, which were cleared by regulators with scant clinical trial data.

 

Dr. Nicola Klein, a Kaiser Permanente doctor who works closely with the CDC, gave a presentation (pdf) on COVID-19 vaccine safety. She presented data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a monitoring system that covers a much smaller population than VAERS.

Dr. Klein said that two cases of myocarditis after bivalent vaccination were detected in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) through March 11. The cases didn’t trigger a safety signal among adults, Dr. Klein said. It isn’t clear why more current data weren’t presented.

Dr. Klein didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The presented data were widely cited by doctors quoted in news outlets, including Dr. Andrew Pavia, who said at a briefing that there didn’t appear to be a “detectable risk” of myocarditis caused by the bivalent shots.

“What I was conveying is that in the era of the bivalent vaccine, the number of cases has fallen to where it no longer is giving a signal that is detectable,” Dr. Pavia, chief of the University of Utah’s Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, told The Epoch Times in an email.

Regarding how the missing VAERS data affect the strength of that claim, he said, “The strongest data are from the controlled studies like the VSD where you have built-in controls.”

Through Sept. 8, 98 cases of myocarditis, pericarditis, or myopericarditis were reported to VAERS following bivalent vaccination, according to a search of the system by The Epoch Times.

Although anybody can submit reports to VAERS, research has shown that most reports are entered by health care providers. People who submit false information can face prosecution.

Five reports were for people aged 6 to 17 years, and another 13 were for people aged 18 to 29.

When presenting to the panel, CDC official Megan Wallace said, “There are limited data to inform the myocarditis risk following an updated mRNA dose.”

She didn’t mention the cases reported to VAERS but alleged that the benefits of the vaccines outweigh the risks, even for young, healthy males. The Vaccine Safety Datalink, she acknowledged, did have a “relatively lower sample size” of recipients.

Dr. Oliver Brooks said after the presentation, “Feel good about the fact that in the bivalent we saw no signal from myocarditis.” Dr. Brooks, chief medical officer at Watts Healthcare Corp., didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Dr. Pablo Sanchez was the lone member who was against a widespread recommendation, citing the risk of myocarditis.

“I think we really need to level with our patients and say what is known and unknown, rather than make a complete recommendation,” he said, “especially for some groups that there are limited data.”

The labels for the new vaccines say they can cause myocarditis.

“Postmarketing data with authorized or approved mRNA COVID-19 vaccines demonstrate increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly within the first week following vaccination,” the labels state. While some people have recovered, others have not. The labels also say, “Information is not yet available about potential long-term sequelae.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Zachary Stieber is a senior reporter for The Epoch Times based in Maryland. He covers U.S. and world news.

Featured image: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headquarters in Atlanta on Aug. 25, 2023. (Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times)


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

The US-Egypt Weapons to Ukraine Dispute. Menendez Indictment

September 27th, 2023 by Steven Sahiounie

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

US Senator Robert Menendez, (D. NJ.) temporarily stepped down from his powerful role as chairman of the Senate Relations Committee, according to Senate Minority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer, following accusations of political corruption and breach of US national security.

On September 22, Menendez was indicted by federal prosecutors in New York, along with four others, including his wife Nadine Arslanian Menendez, on one count of conspiracy to commit bribery, one count of conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit extortion. 

New Jersey businessmen Wael Hana, Jose Uribe, and Fred Daibes were each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit bribery and one count of conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, also included in the indictment are unnamed Egyptian government officials Menendez dealt with between 2018 and 2022, from which he received bribes.

Menendez opened the US Senate for business with Egypt, and is facing serious corruption charges, which have US national security implications, as he passing along confidential US government information to Egyptian officials.

Instead of fighting for the safety and prosperity of his New Jersey constituents, Menendez was working for the benefit of the Egyptian government, which represses their own people, including foreign journalists in jail without charges or trial, as is the case of journalists from Al Jazeera media.

Fellow Senators, and New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, called on Menendez to resign, and Murphy said the allegations “implicate national security”. Menendez held a seat in the House of Representatives from 1993 to 2006 and has been in the Senate since 2006.

Menendez was working on behalf of the Egyptian government to release pending US military aid to Egypt, that the State Department had held up due to Egyptian human rights violations. The indictment says Menendez, and his wife, met with Egyptian officials in July 2018 and promised to lobby for “Egyptian foreign policy goals and positions and setting forth Egypt’s requests for the approval of foreign military financing and foreign military sales to Egypt.”

At first glance, the Menendez story looks like a classic case of US political corruption, but it coincides with a US pressure campaign on Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi because he refused to cave-in to pressure from US President Joe Biden to send weapons to Ukraine. Is the exposure of Menendez corruption with Sisi, a pay-back from Biden?

Egypt had tried to remain neutral in the Ukraine conflict, while maintaining good relations with both Russia and the US. Egypt relies on Russian wheat imports, and increased sales are in Russia’s interest.

In March, US Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, asked Sisi to send artillery shells, anti-tank missiles, air defense systems and small arms to Ukraine, but Washington did not receive the answer they expected.

In subsequent talks between the US and members of the Sisi administration, it was confirmed that there were no plans to supply weapons to Kiev.

The Egyptian request came after US President Joe Biden admitted previously that the stocks of weapons that the US could send to Ukraine, especially artillery shells, were depleting.

In early April, US intel leaks indicated that Cairo sought to export 40,000 missiles, and other equipment to Russia, after Sisi instructed a minister to provide the arms. Under pressure, Egypt agreed it wouldn’t send weapons to Russia.

In early August, the US asked Egypt to supply artillery, antitank missiles, air defense systems and small arms for Ukraine, but Egypt refused to back down to pressure from Washington according to Egyptian media. 

Egypt’s failure to deliver requested weapons has concerned members of the US Congress. Pressure is mounting on the Biden administration not to release $320 million in military aid to Egypt over human rights violations. The US currently provides Egypt with $1.3 billion in annual military aid, with a portion depending on Egypt’s human rights improvement.

The new indictment features photographs of the $480,000 in cash, close-ups of the two one-kilogram gold bars worth over $100,000 and a photo of the brand new Mercedes Benz C-300 found in the garage of the Menendez home. Further bribes included payments on a home mortgage, home furnishings, and exercise equipment. Equally surprising, was compensation for the senator’s wife, Nadine Arslanian Menendez, for a job dubbed as ‘low-or-no-show’.

US Attorney Damian Williams said a grand jury charged Menendez for using his power and influence to protect and enrich those businessmen and to benefit the government of Egypt.

In 2015, Menendez was indicted on bribery and fraud charges involving requests that the State Department pressure a foreign government which would benefit a Florida businessman, who gave Menendez money, and paid for his lavish vacation trips on a private jet.

In 2017, Menendez escaped conviction when a judge in New Jersey declared a mistrial, and by January 2018, the Department of Justice announced that it was dropping all charges.

On January 25, Biden approved a whopping $2.5bn in arms sales to Egypt. Typically, the State Department will honor requests to delay grants and weapons sales from the chair or the ranking member of the Senate committee. Menendez, who has served as the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee since 2018, has publicly criticized Sisi over human rights violations, while privately acting as his ‘man on Capitol Hill’.

Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA), co-founder of the Egypt Human Rights Caucus, urged Menendez to resign. The indictment alleges that a person who acted between Sisi and Menendez bribed the Senator to use his position as a leader of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to weaken America’s response to human rights violations in Egypt. 

The Justice Department accuses Egypt’s intelligence and military of a scheme that saw payments of bribes to ensure US military assistance and arms sales continued despite congressional objections to Egypt’s abysmal record of repression.

Beyer recently urged the Biden administration to significantly withhold military assistance to Egypt in response to ongoing human rights violations by the Sisi government.

For years, Egypt was the second-largest recipient of US aid, behind Israel. During the three-decade rule of Hosni Mubarak, the US-Egypt relationship was stable with Egypt stepping up to provide valuable security in conflicts in the region.

In 2011, the US-NATO project called Arab Spring, engineered by President Obama and VP Biden, forced Mubarak from power, and through a rigged election executed by Hillary Clinton operatives, the Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Mursi was put in power.  But, in less than a year, after killing thousands of protesters, Mursi was overthrown and Sisi came to power in 2013.

If Sisi continues to refuse Biden’s request for weapons to Ukraine, we may see further attacks on his government.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MD

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

In a major embarrassment for Ottawa, the Canadian lawmakers gave a standing ovation to a man who was introduced as a war hero after Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s address in the House of Commons only to later realise that he had served in a Nazi unit during World War II.

The speaker of Canada’s House of Commons apologized Sunday for recognizing 98-year-old Yaroslav Hunka as a “Ukrainian hero” before the Canadian Parliament. Hunka served in World War II as a member of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS, according to a Jewish human rights group that demanded an apology.

“In my remarks following the address of the President of Ukraine, I recognized an individual in the gallery. I have subsequently become aware of more information which causes me to regret my decision to do so,” Rota said in a statement.

Rota took responsibility for what was characterized as an oversight, calling the initiative “entirely my own.”

“I wish to make clear that no one, including fellow parliamentarians and the Ukraine delegation, was aware of my intention or of my remarks before I delivered them.”

“The initiative was entirely my own, the individual in question being from my riding and having been brought to my attention,” he added, adding his “deepest apologies” to Jewish communities.

Following Zelenskiy’s address in the House of Commons, Rota acknowledged Hunka, who was seated in the gallery, praising him for fighting for Ukrainian independence against the Russians. Hunka received two standing ovations from those gathered.

“At a time of rising antisemitism and Holocaust distortion, it is incredibly disturbing to see Canada’s Parliament rise to applaud an individual who was a member of a unit in the Waffen-SS, a Nazi military branch responsible for the murder of Jews and others,” the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center said in a statement while demanding an apology earlier Sunday.

“An explanation must be provided as to how this individual entered the hallowed halls of Canadian Parliament and received recognition from the Speaker of the House and a standing ovation,” the group added.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: A photograph of SS Galizien soldier Yaroslav Hunka, taken between 1943 and 1945. (Licensed under the Public Domain)

Chiapas, del paraíso zapatista al choque entre cárteles narco

September 27th, 2023 by Gerardo Villagrán del Corral

Primavera caqui, la caída del franco africano

September 27th, 2023 by Alejandro Marcó del Pont

Michel Chossudovsky: Archive of Video Interviews and Presentations. Rumble

September 27th, 2023 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Ten Mice Used to Test the Newest Pfizer COVID Jab

September 26th, 2023 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

Story at-a-glance

September 11, 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced1 it had approved reformulated monovalent COVID shots by Pfizer and Moderna for the fall for use in individuals 12 years of age and older. But don’t be fooled. The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act liability shield for the COVID-19 vaccines will remain in place through Dec. 31, 2024.2

So, “approved” or not, the manufacturers, distributors and providers that administer the shots still won’t be liable for injuries. The agency has also issued emergency use authorization (EUA) for use of the reformulated jabs in children aged 6 months to 11 years.3

Reformulated Shots Are Obsolete Out of the Gate

The updated mRNA injections contain a single modified RNA said to correspond to the Omicron variant XBB.1.5., which was the dominant variant in the U.S. for most of 2023, but which has since been replaced by other variants.

According to cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, XBB.1.5 accounted for just 3.1% of the circulating strains as of September 2, 2023, and is “expected to be extinct by the time any American is injected.”4

The dominant strains right now are EG.5 and FL.1.5.1, and “There are no randomized clinical trials demonstrating either Pfizer or Moderna XBB.1.5 boosters would work” against these newer strains, McCullough told The Defender.5

Physician and biochemist Dr. Robert Malone agrees, adding that the newer variants appear to “have evolved even further to escape the antibody pressure elicited by the globally deployed leaky ‘vaccines.’”6,7

Linda Wastila, Ph.D., a professor of geriatric pharmacotherapy at the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy and director of research for the Peter Lamy Center for Drug Therapy and Aging, also criticized the decision to roll out yet another obsolete booster:8

“I do not understand why public health and political leaders are advocating for a booster that is already obsolete. The approved and authorized boosters are like dogs chasing their tails — the mild variants they are supposed to help mitigate serious disease are already waning, already being overtaken by the next generation of mild, mutated viruses.”

Shot Recast as ‘Annual Vaccine’ to Counter ‘Booster Fatigue’

According to authorities, however, this strain is different enough from the strains in any of the previous shots to recommend everyone take it, regardless of your previous COVID jab history.9 Within days of the FDA’s announcement, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul warned New Yorkers that previous shots “will not help you” against the coming COVID wave.10,11

“It doesn’t matter if you’ve already been vaccinated. Take no comfort in that. Thank you for getting vaccinated in the past, but that is not protecting you today. Tell everybody: don’t rely on the fact that you had a vaccine in the past, it will not help you this time around,” she said during a September 13, 2023, press briefing.

What she left out, of course, is that the new shots probably won’t help you either, and even if they do, the protection you get will wane within a handful of months and leave you even more vulnerable to infection,12 hospitalization and death than you were before.13

Remarkably, they’re using the same bogus narratives as the first time, even though the facts are now on the table for everyone to see. We’re not speculating anymore when we say the shots are ineffective and cause more harm than good. We’re not speculating when we say they’re causing heart problems and injure immune function — and that these effects are far from rare.

It’s all documented in the scientific literature. Yet government leaders pretend as if those data don’t exist, and run through the same old arguments that have been debunked many times over. Time will tell whether Americans are foolish enough to fall for the same lies a second time.

As reported by The New York Times, Americans are, by and large, fed up with the COVID boosters, which is why federal officials “have been retreating from labeling the new formulation as boosters to previous shots, preferring to recast them as an annual immunization effort akin to the flu vaccine.”14

Chances are, this tactic will fail because the FDA has already announced that this new shot will require multiple doses for certain age groups, and you’d have to be really naïve to think that more boosters won’t follow after that.

Previously jabbed children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years, for example, are slated to get two doses (depending on the brand), and unjabbed children in this age group would get up to three doses.15 So, they’re just restarting the whole injection series all over again, but in much younger age groups.

COVID Jab Testing Has Been Far From Rigorous

Perhaps one of the most egregious lies is that the shots have undergone rigorous human testing. What they’re referring to here are the human trials conducted in 2020 which, notably, did not have a control group. They destroyed the control group by offering everyone the real shot mere months into the trial.

Even so, data released through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests show Pfizer documented16,17 158,000 different “side effects of special interest” in its trials, all while claiming there were no safety concerns.

Documents also reveal Pfizer received 42,086 adverse event reports, including 1,223 deaths, in the first three months of the rollout of the shot (December 2020 through the end of February 2021).18,19 The 1976 swine flu vaccine was pulled after only 25 deaths.

The bivalent boosters20,21 that came next were only tested on mice, which tells you nothing about their safety. Moreover, their effectiveness was gauged based on antibody titers alone, which doesn’t tell you anything about effectiveness in the real world. This was true both for Pfizer and Moderna.

Pfizer’s New Shot Has Only Been Tested on Mice

As for the brand-new reformulated monovalent shot against XBB.1.5., Pfizer’s testing has again only involved mice — 10 mice, to be exact — while Moderna’s version has been tested on 50 adults.22

Some have reported the trial had 100 participants,23 but only 50 received the monovalent XBB.1.5 shot now being rolled out. Another 51 received a bivalent shot containing a mix of BA.4/5+XBB.1.5. So there was no control group.

One person in the XBB.1.5 treatment group reportedly experienced a serious adverse event, giving us a potential serious adverse event rate of 1 in 50. What’s more, they only reported side effects that occurred within 14 days of injection,24 so we have no idea how bad it might be in the longer term. As reported by the New York Post, September 14, 2023:25

“What if I told you one in 50 people who took a new medication had a ‘medically attended adverse event’ and the manufacturer refused to disclose what exactly the complication was — would you take it? And what if the theoretical benefit was only transient, lasting about three months, after which your susceptibility goes back to baseline?

And what if we told you the Food and Drug Administration cleared it without any human-outcomes data and European regulators are not universally recommending it as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is? That’s what we know about the new COVID vaccine the Biden administration is firmly recommending for every American 6 months old and up.

The push is so hard that former White House COVID coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha and CDC head Mandy Cohen are making unsupported claims the new vaccine reduces hospitalizations. long COVID and the likelihood you will spread COVID. None of those claims has a shred of scientific support …

The questions surrounding Moderna’s new COVID vaccine approved this week are still looming. Pfizer’s version, approved this week as well, also has zero efficacy data and has not been tested on humans at all. We only have data about antibody production from 10 mice.

The FDA, or Moderna (frankly, it’s hard to tell the difference sometimes), should disclose what happened to the patient who took the new vaccine and had a complication that required medical attention. The public has a right to know.”


page10image15359296

Copyright Large + JIPÉM, permission to use

This caricature by Large + JIPÉM explains our predicament:

Mouse No. 1: “Are You Going to Get Vaccinated”

Mouse No. 2: “Are You Crazy, They Haven’t Finished the Tests on Humans”


What Does the Science Show?

The New York Post article, written by Dr. Marty Makary, a surgeon and public policy researcher at Johns Hopkins University, and Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, an epidemiology and public health researcher at the University of California, goes on to review several of the studies and systematic meta-analyses published over the past couple of years, showing the shots:

• Don’t protect against COVID for more than a few months and make you more prone to infection, hospitalization and death once protection wanes26,27,28,29,30

• Don’t outperform natural immunity (in fact, natural immunity appears to offer better protection)31

• Have a horrendous safety profile — The German Paul-Ehrlich-Institute concluded the shots have a serious adverse event rate of 1 in 5,000 doses.32 Another study estimated the rate of serious adverse events may be as high as 1 in 556 recipients.33

A risk-benefit analysis by Makary and his team published last year also concluded that the college booster mandates resulted in net public harm, injuring at least 18.5 people for every COVID-related hospitalization prevented, plus 1,430 to 4,626 cases of side effects that are problematic enough to interfere with daily activities34

Annual COVID Jab Recommendation Is Insane

Commenting on the U.S. government’s inexplicably lackadaisical attitude toward safety, Makary and Hoeg write:35

“If public health officials get their way, a healthy 5-year-old boy will get 72 COVID vaccine shots over the course of his lifetime, if he has an average lifespan, with a risk of myocarditis after each one. Inexplicably and defying science, the CDC is saying even if a child had COVID three weeks ago, he or she should still get the new COVID shot.

Two of the FDA’s best vaccine experts are gone. Dr. Marion Gruber, who was director of the FDA’s vaccine office, and her deputy director, Dr. Philip Krause, both quit the agency in 2021 in protest over political pressure to authorize vaccine boosters for young people.

Ever since the loss of these two vaccine experts, the agency’s vaccine authorizations have been consistent with an overly cozy relationship between pharma and the White House.

Pushing a new COVID vaccine without human-outcomes data makes a mockery of the scientific method and our regulatory process. In fact, why have an FDA if White House doctors can simply declare a drug to be safe after discussing secret data in private meetings with pharma?

If public health officials don’t want a repeat disappointing turnout of Americans who get the COVID booster shot, they should require a proper clinical trial to show the American people the benefit. Public health leaders cannot afford to squander any more credibility and money on interventions with no scientific support.”

Unethical and Indefensible Decisions

Fortunately, the pushback against the FDA’s decision to approve and authorize (under EUA) the reformulated COVID shot without scientific support is widespread and growing. Wastila, for example, commented on the agency’s decision:36

“It is unethical to continue to approve and authorize mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 when the pandemic has disappeared. It is unethical to promote these boosters as safe and effective when it is clear they are not, and the government is ignoring evidence that the vaccines can provide considerable harm.

The fact that these vaccines were authorized for children when a public health emergency no longer exists is unconscionable …

Both Moderna and Pfizer have failed to deliver on promised post-marketing studies [from prior COVID-19 vaccines]. We have yet to see the results from the bivalent vaccine safety studies in pregnant women; the myocarditis studies in young people also have not been completed nor have most results been shared.”

Dr. Pierre Kory, president and chief medical officer of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), issued a similar statement:37

“It is unconscionable that the government can recommend this booster for 6-month-olds when the FDA has no data on how children might be affected. There is no need to vaccinate healthy children for COVID-19. To give them an untested booster goes against everything we are trained to do as physicians.”

Canadian physician Dr. William Makis agreed, stating:38

“There is no ‘COVID-19 emergency’ for children, therefore there is no legitimate scientific basis for an ‘emergency authorization’ of a new COVID-19 booster in this age group. Any doctor still administering COVID-19 mRNA vaccines to children of any age is engaging in medical malpractice.”

DNA Contamination Confirmed

In April 2023, microbiologist Kevin McKernan reported his team had found simian virus 40 (SV40) promoters in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s bivalent mRNA COVID shots.39,40,41,42 SV40 has for decades been suspected of causing cancer in humans,43 so finding SV40 promoters in the shots was rather shocking.

But that’s not all. They also found DNA contaminants in the vials, which have the ability to alter the human genome. It’s been assumed that the COVID shots contained only RNA, but using genomic sequencing, McKernan discovered they contain DNA fragments as well, and there really should not be any. The RNA is basically copied, or “Xeroxed” off the DNA, and only the RNA should be in the final product. Several other labs have since confirmed McKernan’s findings.

September 13, 2023, University of South Carolina professor Phillip Buckhaults testified44 before the South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Ad-Hoc Committee on the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC).

His testimony is featured in the video at the top of this article. Buckhaults is a molecular biologist and cancer geneticist with extensive experience in DNA sequencing, and he too has found foreign DNA plasmids in the COVID shots.

In his testimony, he explains why and how these DNA contaminants can integrate into your genome and disrupt the function of other genes, either long term or permanently. This risk has been known for decades,45 and one potential result is the induction of cancer.

He stresses that it’s important to collect and analyze DNA from various tissues of those who have received the COVID jabs — at least a few hundred people — to determine whether genomic integration is taking place, and what changes are occurring.

Buckhaults also explains how the DNA contamination occurred in the first place, and reviews the bait and switch that allowed this to happen. In summary, the products used during the clinical trials and the commercial product were not made in the identical way. The commercial product grew modified RNA using DNA plasmid and E. coli, and the DNA were not properly filtered out — a clear sign of poor manufacturing processes.

Got the Jab? Take Action to Safeguard Your Health

If you already got one or more jabs and now have concerns about your health, what can you do? Well, first and foremost, never take another COVID booster, another mRNA gene therapy shot or regular vaccine. You need to end the assault on your system.

If you developed symptoms you didn’t have before your shot, I would encourage you to seek out expert help. At present, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) seems to have one of the best treatment protocols for post-jab injuries. It’s called I-RECOVER and can be downloaded from covid19criticalcare.com.46

Dr. Pierre Kory, who cofounded the FLCCC, has transitioned to treating the vaccine injured more or less exclusively. For more information, see DrPierreKory.com. Dr. Peter McCullough is also investigating post-jab treatments, which you can find on PeterMcCulloughMD.com.

The World Health Council has also published lists of remedies that can help inhibit, neutralize and eliminate spike protein, which most experts agree is the primary culprit. I covered these in my 2021 article, “World Council for Health Reveals Spike Protein Detox.”

U.S. Claims to Central Pacific Ocean Flout International Law

September 26th, 2023 by Dr. Edward Hunt

In defiance of international norms and rules, U.S. officials are laying claim to the large oceanic area in the central Pacific Ocean that is home to the compact states.

Now that they are renewing the economic provisions of the compacts of free association with Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia, U.S. officials are insisting that the compacts provide the United States with exclusive control over an area of the central Pacific Ocean that is comparable in size to the United States.

“We control essentially the northern half of the Pacific between Hawaii and Philippines,” U.S. special envoy Joseph Yun told Congress in July.

For decades, the United States has overseen compacts of free association with Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. Under the compacts, the United States provides the three countries with economic assistance while it maintains powerful military controls over the islands and their waters.

 

One of these military controls, “the defense veto,” enables the United States to prevent the compact states from forging international agreements that could impede U.S. military priorities. Consequently, the compact states have never joined the Treaty of Rarotonga, which established a nuclear free zone in the region.

Another U.S. military control is “the right of strategic denial” by which U.S. officials assert that they can prevent other countries from accessing the compact states’ lands, waters, and airspace.

“The compacts do give us full defense authority and responsibility in those countries and provide our ability to strategically deny third country military access,” U.S. diplomat Jane Bocklage told Congress earlier this year.

Although the compacts include language that permits the United States to foreclose access to the islands by third-party military forces, U.S. officials have broadly interpreted this language to mean that they can exclude third parties from the compact states’ exclusive economic zones (EEZs), which extend up to 200 miles around each island’s coastlines.

At a congressional hearing in July, Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) asserted that strategic denial authority “allows us to deny access to any potential adversary in an area of the Pacific comparable in size to the continental United States.” An associate presented a map that portrayed the EEZs as one contiguous area under U.S. control. “It’s nearly as large as the continental United States,” Barrasso remarked.

Defense Department official Siddharth Mohandas agreed with the senator’s interpretation. He claimed that the United States maintains unfettered and exclusive access to the area. “We have the ability to deny foreign militaries access and the ability to operate in the exclusive economic zones of the Freely Associated States,” Mohandas said, referring to the compact states.

This interpretation of strategic denial is inconsistent with international law. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, all countries have the rights of navigation and overflight in the exclusive economic zones of other countries, as stipulated by Articles 58 and 87.

Most countries, including the compact states, are parties to the convention. The United States has never ratified the convention, but high-level U.S. officials have expressed their support for it.

“Although not yet a party to the treaty, the U.S. nevertheless observes the UN LOSC as reflective of customary international law and practice,” the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration explains, referring to the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

When U.S. officials say that they have a right to exclude third-party actors from the compact states’ exclusive economic zones, they are making claims that are inconsistent with the UN Convention. There is no legal basis for the United States to prevent ships from other countries from peacefully traversing the compact states’ exclusive economic zones.

More than two decades ago, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) acknowledged in a major report that strategic denial does not extend to the compact states’ exclusive economic zones. According to the GAO report, strategic denial is limited to the 12-mile territorial waters that surround each island. Even within these smaller zones, the GAO noted, military vessels from other countries maintain the right of “innocent passage.”

“Statements by policymakers that indicate the United States has a right to deny military access to the islands and a vast area of the Pacific Ocean—a widely cited U.S. interest—overstate the breadth of this right, which only covers the individual islands and their 12-mile territorial waters,” the GAO explained.

map included in the GAO report shows that strategic denial applies to small isolated areas rather than the much larger expanse of the Pacific Ocean that is often claimed by U.S. officials. A key implication of the GAO’s map is that the United States cannot legally exclude third parties from the vast oceanic area that surrounds the compact states.

In fact, U.S. officials have long taken the position that exclusive economic zones must remain open to navigation. Across the world, they have promoted “freedom of navigation,” which they have presented as the freedom of ships to sail the world’s oceans and waterways wherever the law allows, including in the exclusive economic zones of other countries.

When U.S. officials have sent warships through some of the world’s most contested waterways, such as the South and East China Seas, they have said that they are defending “freedom of navigation.” The presence of U.S. military forces has often created tensions, possibly even violating Article 88 of the U.N. Convention, which requires ships to have peaceful purposes, but U.S. officials have always insisted that these operations are consistent with international law.

“We’re committed to ensuring that every country can fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said in a speech in June. “Every country, large and small, must remain free to conduct lawful maritime activities.”

The U.S. mass media has often sided with the U.S. government’s position on freedom of navigation, especially as it concerns U.S. military operations in the exclusive economic zones of rival countries. In a July 2023 report about North Korean criticisms of U.S. military activities in North Korea’s exclusive economic zone, The New York Times indicated that North Korea has no legal basis for excluding U.S. military forces from the area.

“A country can claim the right to exploit marine resources in its so-called exclusive economic zone, which extends 200 nautical miles from its 12 nautical-mile territorial waters,” The New York Times reported. “But it does not hold sovereignty over the zone’s surface and the airspace above it.”

When countries such as China and North Korea claim that they have the right to regulate foreign military activities in their exclusive economic zones, U.S. officials always disagree, insisting that these areas must remain open to freedom of navigation, particularly for U.S. warships.

Regarding coastal states such as China and North Korea, the U.S. position is that they “do not have the right to regulate foreign military activities in their EEZs,” according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. “The United States will continue to operate its military ships in the EEZs of other countries.”

By claiming to have a right of strategic denial over the compact states’ exclusive economic zones, however, U.S. officials are taking a position that is inconsistent with international law and their own practices in many parts of the world, including the Indo-Pacific. If they were to use force to prevent a third party from accessing the vast expanse of waters around the compact states, then they would be violating the law and the very principles that they apply to other countries.

In short, U.S. officials have no legal basis for their claims to control the vast oceanic area that is home to the compact states, just as the GAO confirmed in its landmark report more than two decades ago. 

 

 

Joe Manchin Leads Senate Energy Committee Hearing On Compact Of Free Association Amendments Act
 
 
 

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has vowed to prevent the Senate from passing any stopgap government spending bill if it includes funding for additional weapons for Ukraine. Paul’s opposition to additional foreign aid to Ukraine comes as Congressional leaders are working to reach an agreement to pass a continuing resolution to keep the federal government funded past the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30. (Related: CNN poll: MAJORITY of Americans do not want taxpayer dollars to fund Ukraine’s war effort.)

“Today I’m putting congressional leadership and [President Joe Biden] on notice that I will oppose any effort to hold the federal government hostage for Ukraine funding,” wrote Paul on Twitter. “I will not consent to expedited passage of any spending measure that provides any more U.S. aid to Ukraine.”

Biden has requested that the spending bill include a provision giving Ukraine an additional $24 billion for security and humanitarian aid. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York has even criticized the Republican-controlled House of Representatives for reaching a deal on a continuing resolution that didn’t include funding for Ukraine.

In an opinion piece written for The American Conservative and in a speech on the Senate floor, the Kentucky junior senator reiterated his desire to not provide additional taxpayer dollars to continue the conflict in Ukraine.

In his op-ed, he noted that the United States has already provided over $113 billion in aid to Ukraine, averaging around “$6.8 billion per month – or $223 million per day.” He noted that providing additional taxpayer-funded aid to Ukraine would be sending hard-earned American dollars to “another endless quagmire.” He further called attempts to include Ukraine aid in the continuing resolution a “clear dereliction of duty.”

The opinion piece also derided both Democrat and Republican Senate leaders for “trying to hold the federal government hostage” by demanding the insertion of Biden’s demand for $24 billion in additional taxpayer funding for Ukraine aid.

“Either we fund an endless war in Ukraine or the uniparty will shut down the federal government and make the American people suffer,” he wrote. “This is a clear dereliction of duty, and I will not stand for it.”

On the Senate floor, Paul pointed out how the U.S. deficit is expected to exceed $1.5 trillion, and to provide more funding for Ukraine the government would have to borrow even more money, possibly from adversarial nations like China.

“It’s as if no one has noticed that we have no extra money to send to Ukraine,” he said. “There’s a lot of things that we need to fix in our country before we borrow money to try to perpetuate a war in another country.”

“When will the aid requests, and when will the war end? Can someone explain what victory in Ukraine looks like? President Biden certainly can’t. His administration has failed to articulate a clear strategy or objective in this war, and Ukraine’s long-awaited counteroffensive has failed to make meaningful gains in the east,” Paul added.

Learn more about the ongoing conflict in Ukraine at UkraineWitness.com.

Watch this clip from Fox Business with Sen. Rand Paul explaining why he will stop any spending bill that also provides additional funding for Ukraine. (click screen) 

 

The above video is from the Galactic Storm channel on Brighteon.com.

Video: “Permanent Pandemics and Vaccines”. Michel Chossudovsky

September 26th, 2023 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

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

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization.

**

Dennis Francis, president of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) has arbitrarily approved the UN declaration on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response without submitting it to a full assembly vote.

The WHO has confirmed the transition towards a digitalized totalitarian State at the World level. 

“This declaration aims to form a global pandemic authority that has a range of disturbing powers, such as the ability to enforce lockdowns, push for universal vaccination and censor what it deems “misinformation.””

Video: Michel Chossudovsky Lux Media interview with Caroline Mailloux

 

 

Click lower right hand corner of screen to leave a comment or access Rumble

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In a masterpiece of investigative reporting by Carole Cadwallr on the aggressive infiltration and subversion of democracies worldwide by Cambridge Analytica, a troubling story emerged.

Having extensively researched their operations, assisted by internal whistleblowers, she exposed how a small but powerful political consultancy, cut adrift from democratic oversight and shielded by opaque corporate governance, essentially rigged elections. Whilst I believe Cadwallr is ill-informed and mistaken on Russiagate and Julian Assange, her work bringing the scandal of Cambridge Analytica to public attention is nothing other than heroic and I, albeit begrudgingly, as a supporter of Assange, admire her for that.

The work earned her an Orwell Prize and forms the basis of a new model of understanding ostensibly democratic elections, a democratic theory reconfigured for the data age. Internet society at once liberates the best instincts of humanity, whilst simultaneously empowering its worst pathologies. In its infancy a vibrant, lively community characterized by unfettered peer to peer interaction, a data commons as such, the web, as of late with the triumph of social media, has seen a regression in dynamics. The surface internet, monopolized by Silicon Valley corporations, operates in a way akin to empire. It is in this context that Cambridge Analytica was able to operate with a toxic culture of impunity.

One aspect of the mechanics of democracy in the Information Age salient to the Cambridge Analytica scandal is that citizens are treated as data sets. They are no longer a vibrant pastiche of individuated opinions and pluralistic interests but dehumanised items, alienated from basic humanity by a rigged system which views us as tasty numbers.

Rather than given the mental freedom to come to conclusions as independent, free thinking agencies, we are subtly handled and manipulated by a plutocratic apparatus with perverse motives. The pragmatics of this political regime are orders of magnitude at odds with the pragmatics of sensible, ethical policy.

Oligarchs and plutocrats consider an informed populace as an existential threat. They see a situation where citizens use the bargaining power of their vote and allegiance as a nightmare. Cambridge Analytica was one of the most insidious conduits for repressing the tendency to vote rationally and in the collective interest.

They did this by using psychological hacks–insights of behavioural psychology maliciously applied–to program citizens to vote for the candidates they were paid by.  These candidates had absolutely no intention to rule in the public interest.

The terrifying reality is that political campaigns did not employ Cambridge Analytica, but were instead subsidiaries of Cambridge Analytica, aggregating personal data in bulk to be crunched in the big data matrix. This matrix chewed up conscientious citizens and spit them out as passive supporters of tyrants and captive, compliant consumers, both of commodities and erroneous political narratives.

One of the establishment critiques of socialism is the idea that social collectivism is undesirable and a product of brainwashing by the state. They say the expression of a group ego, coerced into falsely identifying its interest as the continuity of socialism, is a devolved state of human civilization to which capitalism is superior.

In truth it is the neoliberal transnational surveillance super state and its ideology of capitalist realism that operates as an unimpeachable authority, under which whole populaces are subsumed, often brutally. The supposed ontological validity of liberalism is in fact a false positivism, in which the biased beliefs of imperialists are presented as inherently true and articles of supremacy.

For better or worse our society is totally immersed in web technology. Knowledge and understanding of how to use it for political purposes is unfortunately amassed in the hands of corrupt elites. There is vast asymmetry of power between citizens and the ruling class, although the cypherpunk community grafts for a reversal of this trend, with a genuine grasp of the philosophical aspects of the computer empire.

Sheldon Wolin, a peerless critic of empire, wrote of “democracy incorporated,” a deeply considered explanation of how a cartel power structure emerged in the US. This structure sets political dynamics domestically through information control and augmentation of the corporate state, and internationally, through reckless military adventurism. Setting a disgusting precedent, the Iraq war was the first major historical war in which contractors outnumbered soldiers on the ground.

Cultivating baseline support for this regime of global hegemony within the tax bases of the West is a large part of the long term strategic plan of organisations like Cambridge Analytica. Tax payer money is being wrongfully invested in the creeping effort to institute a US caliphate in the resource rich Middle East. This money is being diverted from schools, libraries and hospitals, into manufacturing bombs. A reasoning citizen would oppose this. A passive citizen absorbing propaganda on TV and online would not think about this at all. Assange, perspicacious as ever, said the goal is not to win the war but to perpetuate it forever.

The Trump administration, despite stating its opposition to the democrats as war ideologues, proved that as policymakers they were more of the same. Trump failed to close Guantanamo Bay, maintained the U.S. military presence in the occupied Middle East and appointed troglodyte John Bolton to an influential foreign policy position.

Trump gained support by appealing to base instincts and emotions, like fear, and Cambridge Analytica was a key part of this strategy. The administration targeted tailored messages subtly encoded with political biases on Facebook to susceptible people. This triggered knee jerk responses, an apoplectic mentality, which made easy the assimilation of those targeted, into the political machine.

Data on the psychological profiles of citizens is not in the hundreds, or thousands, but in the millions, entire nations calculatedly studied and manipulated. The Cambridge Analytica algorithm was explicitly designed to extract as much data as possible, infecting the Facebook ecosystem by not only extracting data from singular profiles but also every one of their friends.

This constitutes a feedback loop where the output of purposeful disinformation galvanizes the input of attention and data entry from consumers of web technologies, wherein the behemoth breeds.

The digital realm has long been a source of useful information for political campaigners. In the UK, before Cambridge Analytica, a piece of software called Mosaic was developed to help categorize types of voters, distinguished by their socio-economic status and cultural values.

This software enabled political parties to identify the most persuadable subsections of society and thus optimize their messaging and branding. Perhaps its worst effect was to erase the notion of a working class unified in solidarity in aspirations for justice and peace.

This means that digital technologies can be considered weapons. Although not immediately injurious or lethal they exert a tremendously negative long term effect on societies and individual minds, killing off civic society and hijacking personal and public consciousness.

The days of truthful, meaningful policy and earnest manifestos from honest politicians, approved or declined at the ballot box, are long gone. The institutions of power today are so vast, convoluted, opaque and duplicitous as to be too complex to be comprehended by immediate perception. A finely attuned instinct however is suffice to gain a sense of the evil at work.

The objective of Cambridge Analytica, aligned to the wider agenda of the neoliberal global surveillance state, is to hijack the organs of perception in order to create a docile, neutralized citizenry that doesn’t even know that it doesn’t know.

Animosity toward globalization is not always rooted in antisemitic falsehoods but often in a deep sense of cultural displacement engendered by the emergence of transnational power structures adrift from democratic oversight and controlled by unelected bureaucrats.

The antidote to the kind of world that Cambridge Analytica aspires to create is a resurgent activist public rooted in deep moral character and ethical conviction. The Thatcherites say such a thing does not exist so as to erase it from our imaginations. The awakening of the peasants of the new serfdom of globalization is a viable possibility and something to aspire to.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Megan Sherman is a regular contributor to Global Research.

NATO Keeps Saying Things NATO Doesn’t Let You Say

September 26th, 2023 by Ted Snider

There are two things that go off script and are not allowed to be said. Every official statement or mainstream media article that mentions the war in Ukraine must call it an unprovoked war. You are not allowed to say that NATO expansion east, potentially to Ukraine and right up to Russia’s borders, was a provocation, even if you add that it does not justify the war. And you are not allowed to say that it is time for Ukraine to negotiate with Russia and that conceding territory must be on the table. In the past couple of weeks, top NATO officials have said them both.

In his opening remarks to the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs on September 7, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made the stunning admission that Russian President Vladimir Putin made the decision to invade Ukraine, not entirely unprovoked, but – as Putin has always said – to push an encroaching NATO out of Ukraine.

Stoltenberg said that in 2021, prior to the war, Putin “sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.” Stoltenberg then went on, “He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. . .. We rejected that. So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.” The Secretary General of NATO then closed his remarks with the conclusion that “when President Putin invaded a European country to prevent more NATO, he’s getting the exact opposite.”

Stoltenberg was referring to the proposal on mutual security guarantees that Putin sent to both the US and NATO in December 2021 just months before the war. A key demand was that “The United States of America shall take measures to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and deny accession to the Alliance to the former USSR republics.”

He clearly sets out both that Russia was willing to forgo invading Ukraine for a written guarantee that NATO would not expand to Ukraine and that Putin made the decision to go to war when that demand was rejected in order “to prevent NATO . . . close to his borders.” “Putin invaded a European country,” Stoltenberg says, “to prevent more NATO.”

That is what Putin has always said. He has always said, as have his predecessors, that Ukraine is the red line for NATO expansion. In 2008, Putin called NATO expansion to Ukraine “a direct threat” to Russian security. His foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, warned the political West that Russia would do “everything possible” to prevent Ukraine from becoming a member of NATO. In the months before the war, Putin wrote that Ukraine had become a “springboard against Russia.” He said that NATO infrastructure was being staged on the territory of Ukraine, on the edge of Russia, that Ukraine was being transformed into an “anti-Russia” and that Russia “will never accept” that.

The US and NATO have always presented NATO as a defensive alliance that poses no threat to Russia. When asked about Stoltenberg’s statement that Russia went to war to prevent NATO expansion into Ukraine, US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said that NATO is not “in any way a threat to Russia. NATO was a – is, was then and is now – a defensive Alliance.”

That line has long been hard for Russia to believe. How else can they interpret that, at the end of the Cold War, the line across Europe, instead of being erased, moved further and further east to engulf every country but Russia who was specifically excluded? How could the preservation and expansion of the military alliance to Russia’s borders with the accompanying exclusion of Russia be interpreted as anything other than a threat? How would the US interpret the expansion of a Russian led military alliance to its borders if it was the sole country denied membership? The line finally became impossible to believe in March of 1999. On March 12, 1999, NATO admitted its first former Warsaw Pact countries: Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Less than two weeks later, without UN authorization, NATO began the bombing of Russia’s traditional ally, Serbia.

Stoltenberg was not the only NATO official to say something that NATO does not allow to be said. The official script says that you do not say when Ukraine has to negotiate – “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” Biden likes to say – and you do not say that Ukraine has to allow Russia to keep Crimea, the Donbass or any Ukrainian territory.

Unless you’re a top NATO official. On August 15, Stian Jenssen, the chief of staff for Jens Stoltenberg, surprisingly said, “I think that a solution could be for Ukraine to give up territory, and get NATO membership in return.”

Ukraine responded angrily. “Statements that Ukraine can become a member of NATO in exchange for giving up some of Ukraine’s territories are totally unacceptable,” said the foreign ministry spokesman. Jenssen apologized: “My statement about this was part of a larger discussion about possible future scenarios in Ukraine, and I shouldn’t have said it that way. It was a mistake.”

Speaking on September 10 to The Economist, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky worried that “I have this intuition, reading, hearing and seeing their eyes [when they say] ‘we’ll be always with you. But I see that he or she is not here, not with us.”

Jenssen’s statement was surprising; Stoltenberg’s was stunning. One suggested Ukraine negotiate its territory; the other suggested the war was not unprovoked and could, perhaps, have been avoided with a NATO promise not to expand to Ukraine. Both were statements made by officials at the highest level of NATO that NATO says should not be said.

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

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization.

.

Articles reviewed:

  • Sep.5, 2023 – Oral mRNA vaccines to be used in shrimp
  • July 12, 2023 – CBC – We need to talk about mRNA vaccines in meats
  • June 16, 2023 – TriState Livestock News – mRNA vaccines in meat animals
  • June 8, 2023 – Scientific American – mRNA vaccines (by David Verhoeven)
  • June 7, 2023 – Canadian Cattlemen – mRNA vaccines in cattle
  • May 2, 2023 – Australia funds 5 year project for emergency cattle mRNA jabs
  • April 19, 2023 – Pork Magazine – mRNA vaccine misinformation
  • Aug 9, 2022 – Genvax Tech News on self-amplifying mRNA vaccines for swine
  • Merck’s SEQUIVITY RNA Vaccine in swine

Sep.5, 2023 – Oral mRNA Vaccines to be used in shrimp

  • Israeli company raised $8.25 million venture capital to mRNA vaccinate shrimp
  • Oral delivery is the holy grail of aquaculture health development due to the impossibility of vaccinating individual shrimp”
  • Shrimp, one of the most widely consumed seafood products globally, in particular, are very susceptible to disease due to their lack of adaptive immune systems, and there are currently no products available that address shrimp disease today
  • company’s first mRNA product is a feed supplement to enhance resistance to viral infections in shrimp, with the initial application targeting White Spot Virus (WSSV), which causes an annual loss of around $3 billion and a 15 percent reduction in global shrimp production
  • “Aquaculture is critical for the sustainable supply of marine protein”
  • “ViAqua’s platform technology will enable the company to move beyond WSSV to address numerous other diseases in aquaculture
  • “ViAqua produces its capsule products using commercial, industrial processes and is scaling production to take its first product to market. With plans to begin production in India at the beginning of 2024

July 12, 2023 – CBC

  • There haven’t been studies on the side effects of humans eating animals that have been vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine, but there’s no evidence to show that there would be any.” – Shayan Sharif, Ontario Veterinary College, Guelph
  • Mike McMorris, the chief executive officer with Livestock Research Innovation Corporation explained that a world without vaccines for livestock would threaten our food security: it’d mean more livestock deaths, resulting in lower supply and higher prices at the grocery store. 

June 16, 2023 – Tri-State Livestock News

  • United States has not approved mRNA injections in cattle, but they are in use on a limited basis in swine.
  • the dilemma for beef is that the U.S. is importing more and more beef from many different countries, some of which either already are or plan to begin using mRNA in cattle for such cattle diseases as foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease.  
  • US Cattlemen’s Association News Release: “Currently, there are no mRNA  vaccines licensed for beef cattle in the U.S. Since little is known about the technology, our organization will be forming a task force to develop a fact- and science-based assessment of the issue.”
  • USDA states, “Withdrawal times are intended to ensure meat, milk, or other products for human consumption from the vaccinated animal are free from adjuvant or vaccine organism contamination.”  This means tests are done to determine the length of time after the vaccine is given when no trace of the vaccine can be identified in any part of the animal
  • Natural mRNA is degraded in minutes to hours
  • Risks of mRNA vaccines in animals:
    • Altered mRNA engineered for vaccines: “The estimate is that half of the mRNA from a vaccine is gone in about 20 hours, and completely destroyed within a few days.
    • “cooking of meat and pasteurization of milk make it highly unlikelythat we would be exposed to any small remnant of mRNA livestock vaccine.”
    • “Add to that our digestive system is also designed to defend us against pathogens and the possibility further declines.”

June 8, 2023 – Scientific American (by David Verhoeven)

  • Idaho introduced a bill that would make it a misdemeanor to administer any type of mRNA vaccine to any person or mammal, including COVID-19 vaccines
  • Missouri bill would have required the labeling of animal products derived from animals administered mRNA vaccines but failed to get out of committee in April
  • Arizona and Tennessee have also proposed labeling bills
  • Traditional vaccines:
    • inactivated vaccines contain a killed version of a pathogen (often don’t produce strong enough immune response)
    • live attenuated vaccines contain a weakened version of a pathogen (can revert back to full pathogenic form or mix with other pathogens and become new vaccine resistant ones)
    • subunit vaccines that contain one part of a pathogen (often don’t produce strong enough immune response)
  • animal vaccines take three or more years from development to licensure by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • Claimed advantages of mRNA: can be produced quickly
    • Merck’s Sequivity is currently the only RNA vaccine licensed for use in animals, and it is available by prescription to protect against swine flu in pigs (doesn’t use modified nucleotides or lipid nanoparticles).
  • Claim about ingesting mRNA:
    • animal vaccine manufacturers must determine the withdrawal period in order to obtain USDA approval. This means any component of a vaccine cannot be found in the animal prior to milking or slaughter
    • Between the mandatory vaccine withdrawal period, flash pasteurization for milk, degradation on the shelf and the cooking process for food products, there could not be any residual vaccine left for humans to consume

June 7, 2023 – Canadian Cattlemen – mRNA vaccines in cattle

  • No mRNA vaccines are approved for use in beef cattle in North America today
  • However, mRNA vaccines are being tested for viral diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease
  • main benefit of mRNA vaccines is that they can be developed quickly
  • apparent speed of development led many people to question their safety, mRNA vaccine delivery systems, as well as their safety and effectiveness, have been studied for over 30 years.
  • In Canada, veterinary biologics (which include vaccines) are regulated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The veterinary biologics regulatory program is administered by the Canadian Centre for Veterinary Biologics, which oversees the manufacturing, testing, labelling, import, export, distribution and use of vaccines for domestic livestock.
  • Although there are no mRNA vaccines approved for use in beef cattle, an RNA-based vaccine technology (SEQUIVITY®) is now available in the U.S. for use in swine.
  • Like all vaccines for beef cattle, mRNA vaccines will have a required withdrawal period prior to processing. As mRNA has a short life, it will not remain in the body for long or produce long-term effects. An mRNA vaccine does not genetically modify the animal, nor pass from one animal to another. The mRNA vaccine is not passed into meat or any other animal product.

May 2, 2023 – Australia funds 5 year project for mRNA emergency animal jabs

  • Meat & Livestock Australia has funded a project to produce mRNA vaccines that can be rapidly mass produced in Australia in the event of a lumpy skin disease (LSD) or other exotic disease outbreak in cattle
  • “This will enable capacity for rapid mass production of a vaccine for LSD in the event of an outbreak.”
  • “The LSD vaccine construct is now being tested for efficacy in animals. By the end of this year, we will know if this vaccine will work in ruminants”
  • The establishment of the capacity to produce a vaccine for LSD is the priority that will provide the Australian cattle and other ruminant industries with insurance against an imminent biosecurity threat
  • “The establishment of an mRNA production capability and development of an LSD vaccine will be the initial flagship, stand-alone project within a larger program: Adoption of RNA technology to rapidly produce vaccines for emergency animal disease.”
  • “The proposed over-arching five-year program will secure licensed mRNA vaccine technology and activate an independent livestock vaccine development and production pathway based on newly established scientific capacity and infrastructure. This will ultimately result in the stored vaccine constructs produced from this project to respond quickly to incursion of multiple diseases through rapid production of vaccines.”

April 19, 2023 – Pork Magazine – mRNA vaccine misinformation

  • According to USDA spokesperson, Marissa Perry says, “There is no requirement or mandate that producers vaccinate their livestock for any disease. It is a personal and business decision left up to the producer and will remain that way
  • “mRNA vaccines does not alter the animal’s genes in any way.” – Dr.Kevin Folta, molecular biologist at University of Florida
  • Benefits of mRNA vaccines: more flexibility and faster response to new disease
    • “Traditional vaccines require large amounts of a virus to be raised and purified before being injected to elicit an immune response”
    • In pork production specifically, researchers are working with mRNA vaccines that will work this way against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), which is a viral disease that causes economic loss totals around $664 million per year in the US.
    • use of mRNA technology adds another tool to the toolbox, which may be helpful in combating diseases, such as African swine fever (ASF), avian influenza and other food-animal diseases.
  • Risks of mRNA vaccines: “As seen with the COVID-19 vaccines, in rare cases, people experienced side effects from the vaccine. However, Folta is encouraged by the initial results in livestock.”
  • If you look in animals where these vaccines have been used, there have been no unusual effects noted. Everything potentially has risk, but it’s monitored, and especially in large animal populations, we can look very carefully at that for surveillance,” Folta explains.

Aug 9, 2022 – Genvax Tech News

  • GenVax Tech secured $6.5 mil to produce self-amplifying mRNA (saRNA) vaccine in swine
  • “This funding moves the company a step forward to USDA and international regulatory approval of its vaccines in anticipation of any foreign animal disease outbreak” Genvax said in a release.
  •  Genvax’s technology involves inserting a specific transgene or “gene of interest” matched to the variant strain into the platform. The saRNA then generates an antibody response without requiring the whole pathogen to be matched to the circulating strain.
  • In April 2022, Genvax received more than $145,000 in grant funding from the USDA-Agricultural Research Services Plum Island Animal Disease Center and the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR) to develop a saRNA vaccine for African Swine Fever (ASF) virus
  • ASF is a deadly virus of pigs that can cause up to 100% mortality in pigs and could decimate the income of U.S. pork producers and force layoffs, significantly reducing rural employment.
  • Economic models estimate the worst case scenario of an ASF outbreak in the U.S. would result in a $50 billion loss to the domestic pig industry. 

Merck’s SEQUIVITY RNA vaccine in pork

  • SEQUIVITY uses electronic gene sequencing to generate RNA particles that, when injected into an animal, provide instructions to immune cells to translate the sequence into proteins that act as antigens
  • The RNA is transported inside of a disabled virus, which acts like a capsule. This combination of RNA inside of this viral capsule is called the RNA Particle and it is injected into the pig. These particles are taken up by specific cells of the pig’s immune system known as dendritic cells. The dendritic cells translate the swine flu RNA into a swine flu protein, which they then display at their surface
  • According to Merck, their RNA participle technology allows for the development of a “safe and flexible” custom swine flu vaccine in only 8 to 12 weeks
  • Vaccines available: PCV2, PCV3, Rotavirus, Sapovirus, Influenza A, Porcine epidemic diarrhea (PED)
   

SUMMARY…

There are currently no mRNA vaccines being used in livestock in North America.

Shrimp – An Israeli company is developing an oral mRNA feed supplementto vaccinate shrimp and will begin production in India in 2024.

Cattle – There are no mRNA vaccines approved in US or Canada.

  • Australia has launched a 5-year project to build capacity to rapidly mRNA vaccinate all cattle for Lumpy skin disease virus (LSDV) or “other exotic disease outbreak”
  • launched in March 2022 and a govt press release is here
   
  • Saudi Arabia is researching an mRNA vaccine for cattle LSDV

Pigs – one approved RNA product in Canada and USA – Merck’s SEQUIVITY – uses RNA transported inside a disabled virus capsule (no pseudouridine modifications, no lipid nanoparticles)

  • A US company Genvax Tech raised $6.5 mil to develop a “self-amplifying mRNA vaccine” for swine flu
  • Genvax anticipates a “foreign animal disease outbreak” that could result in $50 billion loss to domestic pig industry” (oddly specific).

SELF-AMPLIFYING mRNA (June 14, 2023, Comes et al)

  • “The next step in mRNA vaccine design is the application of viral-based self-amplifying mRNAs (replicons) that provide long-lasting humoral and cellular immune responses upon single, low-dose immunization.”
  • Replicons encode their own replication machinery to boost their copy numbers directly after administration in target cells, which dramatically lowers the required initial mRNA dose and may consequently reduce adverse effects in individuals.”
   

MY TAKE…

There are five very disturbing aspects of the current state of mRNA vaccination of livestock:

  1. The scientists are already lying about safety of mRNA vaccinating livestock. They lie about the duration of pseudouridine mRNA lasting only a few days (it can last 4 weeks), they lie that it can’t “alter genes” or integrate into our genome (it can), they lie about strict quality control (no mention of risks of DNA plasmid contamination), they lie about safety of lipid nanoparticles, they lie about mRNA’d meat being safe to consume, they lie about no shedding, they lie about mRNA not ending up in meat or milk. They seem to be lying about everything.
  2. Australian government has a most disturbing project – building capacity to mRNA vaccinate all cattle in the event of an “outbreak”, which they are probably planning to create themselves. This is a 5 year project and there is clearly some kind of a plan to eliminate all beef consumption in Australia.
  3. Replicon RNA (self-amplifying mRNA) vaccines for swine, is the stuff of nightmares – with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines we had uncontrolled spike protein production, but with self-amplifying RNA you get both uncontrolled mRNA replication AND uncontrolled spike protein production, and much more of it.
  4. Genvax anticipates a “foreign animal disease outbreak” that could result in $50 billion loss to domestic pig industry” while the Australian government anticipates a cattle “(LSDV) or other exotic disease outbreak”. I find this particularly odd and disturbing, that there would be such fervent “anticipation” of such an outbreak.
  5. Oral mRNA vaccinating our seafood through an artificial “mRNA feed supplement” for shrimp and other seafood is a very bad sign of things to come.

These nightmarish developments must be stopped before they’re unleashed on the population with unknown consequences.

Zelensky: The Man Who Sold Ukraine

September 26th, 2023 by Mike Whitney

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

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization.

First published on March 7, 2022

In recent developments, Zelensky is on on official visit to the US and Canada. The nature of the Kiev regime and its links to Nazism are casually denied. At the House of Commons, Zelensky is given a standing ovation.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recognize Yaroslav Hunka, who was in attendance in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Friday, Sept. 22, 2023.(AP)

The speaker of Canada’s House of Commons apologized Sunday for recognizing 98-year-old Yaroslav Hunka as a “Ukrainian hero” before the Canadian Parliament. Hunka served in World War II as a member of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS, according to a Jewish human rights group that demanded an apology.

“In my remarks following the address of the President of Ukraine, I recognized an individual in the gallery. I have subsequently become aware of more information which causes me to regret my decision to do so,” Rota said in a statement.

Rota took responsibility for what was characterized as an oversight, calling the initiative “entirely my own.”

“I wish to make clear that no one, including fellow parliamentarians and the Ukraine delegation, was aware of my intention or of my remarks before I delivered them.”

 

***

Volodymyr Zelensky is the current President of Ukraine. He was elected in a landslide victory in 2019 on the promise of easing tensions with Russia and resolving the crisis in the breakaway republics in east Ukraine. He has made no attempt to keep his word on either issue. Instead, he has greatly exacerbated Ukraine’s internal crisis while relentlessly provoking Russia.

Zelensky has had numerous opportunities to smooth things over​ with Moscow and prevent the outbreak of hostilities. Instead, he has consistently made matters worse by blindly following Washington’s directives.

Zelensky has been lionized in the west and praised for his personal bravery. But—as a practical matter—he has failed to restore national unity or implement the crucial peace accord that is the only path to reconciliation. The Ukrainian president doesn’t like the so-called Minsk Protocol and has refused to meet its basic requirements. As a result, the ethnically-charged, fratricidal war that has engulfed Ukraine for the last 8 years, continues to this day with no end in sight. President Vladimir Putin referred to Zelensky’s obstinance in a recent speech delivered at the Kremlin. He said:

“At yesterday’s event… the Ukrainian leadership publicly declared that they were not going to abide by these agreements. Not going to abide by them. Well, what else can you say about that?” (Vladimir Putin)

Most Americans fail to realize that Zelensky’s rejection of Minsk was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Russian officials had worked for 8 years on Minsk hammering out terms that would be agreeable to all parties. Then—at the eleventh hour—Zelensky put the kibosh on the deal with a wave of the hand. Why? Who told Zelensky to scrap the agreement? Washington?

Of course.

And why did Zelensky deploy 60,000 combat troops to the area just beyond the Line of Contact (in east Ukraine) where they could lob mortal shells into the towns and villages of the ethnic Russians who lived there? Clearly, the message this sent to the people was that an invasion was imminent and that they should either flee their homes immediately or take shelter in their cellars. What objective did Zelensky hope to achieve by forcing these people to huddle in their homes in fear for their lives? And what message did he intend to send to Moscow whose leaders looked on at these developments in absolute horror?

Did he know his actions would set off alarms in Russia forcing Putin to call up his military and prepare them for a possible invasion to protect his people from– what looked to be– a massive ethnic cleansing operation?

He did.

So, how are these actions consistent with Zelensky’s campaign promises to restore national unity and peacefully resolve Ukraine’s issues with Russia?

They’re not consistent at all, they are polar opposites. In fact, Zelenskyy appears to be operating off a different script altogether. Take, for example, his complete unwillingness to address Russia’s minimal security concerns. Did Zelensky know that Putin had repeatedly said that Ukraine’s membership in NATO was a “red line” for Russia? Did he know that Putin has been saying the same thing over-and-over again since 2014? Did he know that Putin warned that if Ukraine took steps to join NATO, Russia would be forced to take “military-technical” measures to ensure their own security? Does Zelensky know that NATO is Washington-controlled Alliance that has engaged in numerous acts of aggression against other sovereign states. Here’s a short list of NATO’s accomplishments:

  1. The destruction of Yugoslavia
  2. The destruction of Afghanistan
  3. The destruction of Libya
  4. The destruction of Iraq
  5. The destruction of Syria

Does Zelensky know that NATO is openly hostile to Russia and regards Russia a serious threat to its expansionist ambitions?

Yes, he knows all these things. Still, he publicly expressed his interest in developing nuclear weapons. What is that all about? Imagine the problem that would pose for Russia. Imagine if a US-backed puppet, like Zelensky, had nuclear missiles at his fingertips. How do you think that might impact Russia’s security? Do you think Putin could ignore a development like that and still fulfill his duty to protect the Russian people?

And why did Zelenskyy agree to allow shipment after shipment of lethal weaponry to be delivered to Ukraine if he sincerely sought peace with Russia? Did he think that Putin was too stupid to see what was going on right beneath his nose? Did he think he was normalizing relations by expanding his arsenal, threatening his own people, and jumping through whatever hoops Washington set out for him?

Or did he think that Putin’s requests for security assurances were unreasonable? Is that it? Did he think– that if the shoe was on the other foot– the US would allow Mexico to put military bases, artillery pieces and missile sites along America’s southern border? Is there any president in American history who wouldn’t have done the same thing that Putin did? Is there any president in American history who wouldn’t have launched a preemptive strike on those Mexican weapons and vaporized every living thing for a 20-mile radius?

No, Putin’s demands were entirely reasonable, but Zelenskyy shrugged them off anyway. Why?

Does Zelenskyy know that there are Right Sektor, neo-Nazis in the government, military and Security Services. Does he know that, while their numbers are small, they are a force to be reckoned with and factor heavily in the hatred and persecution of ethnic Russians? Does he know that these far-right elements participate in torchlight parades, imprint swastikas or SS tattoos on their arms, and revere the racialist ideology of Adolf Hitler? Does he realize that many these Nazis have engaged in criminal acts of brutality including the incinerating of 40 civilians at the Trade Union Building in Odessa in 2014? Does he think that the CIA’s covert programs to arm and train these right-wing militants builds confidence or does he think it reminds Moscow of a catastrophic war in which 27 million Russians were exterminated by Germany’s Wehrmacht?

Can you see how everything Zelensky has done, was done with the intention of provoking Russia?

All the talk of joining NATO, all the talk about building nukes, the steady buildup of lethal weaponry, the movement of troops to the east, the refusal to implement the Minsk Treaty and the rejection of Putin’s security demands. All of these were deliberate provocations. But, why? Why “bait the bear”; that’s the question?

Because Washington wants to lure Russia into a war so it can further demonize Putin, isolate Russia, launch a counterinsurgency operation against the Russian army, and impose harsh economic sanctions that will inflict maximum damage on the Russian economy. That’s Washington’s strategy in a nutshell, and Zelenskyy is helping Washington achieve its objectives. He’s allowing himself to be Washington’s tool. He is sacrificing his own country to advance the interests of the United States.

All this helps to underscore a point that is never considered by the media and never discussed by the pundits on cable news, that is, that Ukraine is going to lose the war, and Zelenskyy knows it. He knows the Ukrainian Armed Forces are no match for the Russian army. It is like a Giant swatting a fly. Ukraine is the fly. The public needs to hear this, but they’re not hearing it. Instead, they’re hearing blabber about heroic Ukrainians fighting the Russian invader. But this is nonsense, dangerous nonsense that is emboldening people to sacrifice their lives for a lost cause. The outcome of this conflict has never been in doubt: Ukraine is going to lose. That is certain. And, if you read between the lines, you’ll see that Russia is winning the war quite handily; they are crushing the Ukrainian army at every turn, and they will continue to crush them until Ukraine surrenders. Check out this brief interview with Colonel Douglas MacGregor on Tucker Carlson and you’ll understand what’s really going on:

Tucker: “Where is the war as of tonight”? (March 1)

Colonel McGregor: “Well, the first 5 days, we saw a very slow methodical movement of Russian forces entering Ukraine…. They moved slowly and cautiously and tried to reduce casualties among the civilian population, trying to give the Ukrainian forces the opportunity to surrender. That is over. And the phase in which we find ourselves now, Russian forces have maneuvered to encircle and surround the remaining Ukrainian forces and destroy them through a series of massive rocket artillery strikes, air strikes with Russian armor slowly-but-surely closing the distance and annihilating what’s left. So, this is the beginning of the end of the Ukrainian resistance.

Tucker: What is Putin’s goal here?”

Colonel McGregor: “Putin set out to honor his word from 2007 at the Munich Security Conference where he said ‘We will not allow the expansion of NATO to a point where NATO is touching our border, specifically, Ukraine and Georgia. We see these as Trojan Horses for NATO’s military power and US influence... He repeated that (warning) over and over and over again, in the hopes that he could avoid taking action to effectively clean-out eastern Ukraine of any opposition forces whatever, and to put his forces in a position vis-a-vis NATO to deter us from any further attempts to influence or change Ukraine into a platform for the projection of US and western power into Russia.

Now his goal–as of today– is to seize this whole area of eastern Ukraine (east of the Dneiper River) and he has has crossed the river where he is preparing to go in and capture that city (of Kiev) entirely.

At that point, Putin has to decide what else he wants to do. I don’t think he wants to go any further west. But he would like to know that whatever emerges from this as Ukraine… is “neutral” not-aligned and, preferably, friendly to Moscow. That he will accept. Anything short of that, and his war has been a waste of time.”(“Colonel Douglas MacGregor with Tucker Carlson”, Rumble)

Video Link

What can we deduce from this short interview:

  1. Russia will prevail and Ukraine will lose.
  2. Ukraine is going to be partitioned. Putin is going to create the buffer he needs to assure his country’s security.
  3. Whoever governs the western part of Ukraine will be required to declare their “neutrality” (in writing) and reject any offers for NATO membership. If they violate that promise, they will be removed by force.

But here’s the important thing: All of the main actors in this fiasco knew from the very beginning that Ukraine had no chance of defeating the Russian army. That was a foregone conclusion. So–what we want to know– is why Zelenskyy didn’t take steps to avoid the tragedy before it unfolded?

The answer to this question helps to reveal ‘who Zelenskyy really is’.

Ask yourself this: Why didn’t Zelenskyy negotiate with Putin when he had the chance? Why didn’t he pull back his 60,000 troops from the east? Why didn’t he stop Washington’s weapons shipments? Why didn’t he implement the Minsk Treaty? Why didn’t he reject NATO’s offer for membership?

Finally, why was he so intent on doing the things that he knew would anger Moscow and increase the likelihood of a war?

These questions are not hard to answer.

Zelenskyy has been acting on orders from Washington from the get-go. We know that. He’s also been implementing Washington’s agenda not his own and certainly not Ukraine’s. We know that, too. But that does not absolve him from responsibility. After all, he is a full-grown adult capable of distinguishing between right from wrong. He knows what he’s doing, and he knows that it’s wrong; worse than wrong, it’s inexcusable. He’s sending men to die in a war he knows they can’t win; he’s inflicting incalculable suffering and injury on his own people for no reason at all; and –worst of all– he’s cleared the way for the dissolution of Ukraine itself, the country he was sworn to defend. That country is going to be broken into bits as part of a final settlement with Russia, and Zelenskyy will share a good part of the blame.

How does a man like this live with himself?

*

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

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

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

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

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization.

 

First published on March 4, 2022,

This report focusses on The March 2022 visit of President Zelensky to Canada. 

 


“Although I consider Moscow, which in fact held Ukraine in captivity, and not Jewry, to be the main and decisive enemy, I nonetheless fully appreciate the undeniably harmful and hostile role of the Jews, who are helping Moscow to enslave Ukraine. I therefore support the destruction of the Jews and the expedience of bringing German methods of exterminating Jewry to Ukraine, barring their assimilation and the like.” – Yaroslav Stetsko, Former Prime Minister of Ukraine under Nazi Occupation (June 30~July 5, 1941), and deputy to Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists faction led by Stepan Bandera. [1]

“Volodymyr, in the years I’ve known you, I’ve always thought of you as a champion for democracy. And now democracies around the world have you as our champion.” – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau [2]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

In a packed House of Commons in Canada, members of parliament, senators, and invited guests gave a hero’s welcome to the Ukrainian president turned war-time folk hero Volodymyr Zelensky. His speech had focused on the plight of the peaceful, innocent and democratic Ukrainian people beset by an ugly invasion from the despotic madman Vladmir Putin. [3]

For that matter, everywhere you look in the mainstream press, there is no denying that Russia deserves all the blame, Ukraine deserves all the sympathy, and that NATO’s only sin is that it will not face the Russians old-fashioned style, selecting tighter and tighter sanctions instead.

According to a recent poll conducted by Leger, 47 percent of Canadians support imposing a no-fly zone over Ukraine, even if such an action would escalate the situation. Pressure is growing on American congressmen to move in this direction even though Senator Marco Rubio has said “it means World War III.” [4]

It needs to be acknowledged quickly that the invasion of Ukraine (which Global Research does NOT support) is not as simple as the mainstream media makes it out to be. As has been documented in past episodes of the program, there has been a rise in the incidence of Nazis in Ukraine since the undemocratic coup against president Yanukovych in 2014. NATO has been moving closer to Russia since the Soviet Union fell in 1991. It now is documented as seeking to “overextend” and “unbalance” Russia as documented in a Rand report. And Since 2014, the Ukrainian government has authorized attacks on the Ukrainian population of the Donbas region resulting in over 14,000 deaths. [5]

In this week’s Global Research News Hour, we will take a closer look at what is happening that is censored by the press, and hopefully try to balance out an incredibly complex and dangerous situation.

In our first half hour, our guest Richard Sanders references his own research at Press for Conversion into the relationship between the Ultra-nationalists in Ukraine and Canada, and the rise of fascist neo-Nazis. He also makes note of a petition put out last year and signed by hundreds of people intended to end Canadian government funding of groups glorifying Nazi collaborators.

In our second half hour, independent journalist Eva Bartlett joins us. She is now based in Moscow. She will spend time talking about the myths and realities around Moscow’s “crackdown of dissent,” her travels two and a half years ago through Crimea and the Donbas, and her appraisal of war crimes that based on similar situations in Syria may be perpetrated by the other side. She also draws attention to an article recently written by Christopher Black entitled The Legality of War.

Richard Sanders is the coordinator of the Coalition Opposed to the Arms Trade, and has a history of involvement in anti-war activism that spans three decades. He is also a researcher and the publisher and editor of Press For Conversion Magazine. In the spring of 2021, he released issue #70, Defunding the Myths and Cults of Cold War Canada: Ongoing state support for East European émigré groups with deep fascist roots.

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and occupied Palestine. She is a recipient of the 2017 International Journalism Award for International Reporting, granted by the Mexican Journalists’ Press Club, was the first recipient of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism, and was short-listed in 2017 for the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 348)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)


The Global Research Nurews Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

  1. Samostiyna Ukraina, July 10, 1941, p.1, cited in John Armstrong, Ukrainian Nationalism, 1963, pp. 79-80.; https://training.ehri-project.eu/sites/training.ehri-project.eu/files/EHRI_UKRAINE_A_7_translation.pdf
  2. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/zelensky-ukraine-russia-putin-trudeau-canada-1.6385945
  3. ibid
  4. https://news.yahoo.com/sen-marco-rubio-says-imposing-164640953.html
  5. https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-start-of-world-war-iii-things-you-dont-know-about-russia-and-ukraine/5772954

Understanding the American Civil War. Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

September 26th, 2023 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Paul Craig Roberts: Before I answer the questions it needs to be clearly stated that my answers are not merely my opinion, but hard facts supported in the historical record. Like John Maynard Keynes, I like to keep my views in accordance with the facts. In the case of what is called “the Civil War,” the facts are clear enough.

Lincoln and the Republicans understood that the 2 March 1861 Morrill Tariff would result in secession of Southern states from the Union. On the same day in an effort to prevent secession, the Republicans passed and President Abraham Lincoln endorsed the Corwin Amendment. The Corwin Amendment would have made it impossible for slavery to be abolished.

“On 2 March 1861, in a futile attempt to prevent the secession of the slaveholding states, Congress proposed, and sent to the states for ratification, a constitutional amendment designed to protect slavery in the states where it existed.”

If the Republicans invaded the South to overthrow slavery, why did they pass a constitutional amendment that would have preserved slavery forever? If the South went to war in defense of slavery, why did the South not ratify the Corwin Amendment and remain in the Union?

Image: Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts

These questions have been evaded by dishonest historians ever since the end of the war.

The war was a bloody business. The Union generals William Tecumseh Sherman and Philip Sheridan targeted not only Southern armies but civilians and their shelter and food supplies. As the war came to an end, the devastated condition of the South was creating northern sympathy, something the extreme Republicans pushing more punishment and humiliation under their Reconstruction policy, did not want. The Republicans saw the need to turn the explanation of the war into a moral project to free the slaves from the iniquity of white Southerners. Reconstruction went beyond the South’s defeat and inflicted brutal humiliation. This required creation of an immoral image of the South fighting to keep people in slavery.

As the victors write the histories, the reconstructed account prevailed.

Mike Whitney: Help me understand the origins of the Civil War. I was taught that the Union went to war to end slavery and that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War? Is that true?

Paul Craig Roberts: As all historical documentation shows, slavery had little to do with the so-called Civil War. Let’s get this straight at the beginning. IT WAS NOT A CIVIL WAR. A civil war is when two sides fight over the control of the government. The South made no fight to take over the government. The South merely used its Constitutional right to secede from the US.

Secession resulted in war because Lincoln was determined to “preserve the Union.” He proclaimed repeatedly that he invaded the South to “preserve the Union,” not to free the slaves. He said that he had no power to free the slaves because the US Constitution made slavery a states’ rights issue.

In his inaugural address Lincoln said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

The North had no intention of going to war over slavery. The same day that the Republican Congress passed the tariff, the Republican Congress passed the Corwin Amendment that added more constitutional protection to slavery.

Lincoln said that the South could have all the slavery that it wanted as long as the Southern states paid the tariff. The North would not go to war over slavery, but it would to collect the tariff. Lincoln said that “there needs to be no bloodshed or violence” over collecting the tariff, but that he will use the government’s power “to collect the duties and imposts.”

The South did not invade the North. The North invaded the South.

President Lincoln made the reason clear time after time. The War of Northern Aggression was to preserve the Union and to make the Southern states pay the tariff to finance Northern industrialization. The South fought because the South was invaded.

Until modern times serious historians, such as Charles Beard, who were not fighting ideological battles explained the conflict between the Northern and Southern states as being economic. The North wanted a tariff against British imports that would raise the cost of British imports above what the same goods could be produced for in northern factories.

The Southern states objected to being forced to pay in order to subsidize higher priced Northern manufactures. The Southern states were also concerned that the British in retaliation would impose tariffs on the Southern export of cotton and tobacco.

As territories were taken from native Americans and became incorporated as states, the difference between North and South, resulting, for example, in the Missouri Compromise, was not over the expansion of slavery, but over keeping the balance in Congress between North and South equal so that the North could not impose tariffs on the South.

President Lincoln said repeatedly that slavery was a state’s rights issue for which there was no federal authority to abolish, and that he did not intend to exceed his powers by abolishing slavery. In the North only the abolitionists who did not have much of Lincoln’s ear saw the war as a campaign to end slavery.

As Southern states were seceding because of the tariff that had passed, the Northern Republicans on the eve of Lincoln’s inauguration as president passed the Corwin Amendment which made it impossible for the United States to ever abolish slavery. Lincoln endorsed the Corwin Amendment. Today historians have to obscure this fact in order to protect their explanation of the war. They say that Lincoln neither opposed nor supported the Corwin Amendment, but here are Lincoln’s direct words accepting the Amendment in his inaugural address: “I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

President Lincoln made the deal clear to the South: Stay in the Union and slavery is guaranteed by the government of the United States of America for ever.

If the war was over slavery, why did the South not avoid the war by accepting Lincoln’ guarantee? Indeed, why was the guarantee even necessary as Lincoln admitted that slavery was a state’s right issue, not a federal one. So here is the South with two guarantees against the abolishment of slavery and the South still wants to fight for slavery?!

If the Union invaded the South to free the slaves, why did the Union pass the Corwin Amendment guaranteeing the permanent existence of slavery?

Clearly, slavery was not the issue.

The war was caused by the passage of the tariff and by the South’s refusal to pay the tariff by seceding. When the South could not be bribed by the Corwin Amendment to remain in the Union, Lincoln invaded.

Historians of the slavery explanation of the war find their support in Southern arguments for secession. The South in order to avoid war wanted to leave the Union on Constitutional grounds, thinking naively that the North would respect the Constitution.

In the US Constitution tariffs are a FEDERAL issue, not a STATES RIGHTS ISSUE. The South could not make a Constitutional case for secession on the basis of opposition to the Tariff. But the South could make a case for secession on slavery grounds, because the Constitution required northern states to return runaway slaves, and some northern states, in defiance of the US Constitution, refused to return the runaway property. Thus northern states were violating the US Constitution. This gave constitutional grounds to the Southern states for secession. They argued that Northern states had broken the Constitutional pact by violating it.

In order to show that they were acting in accordance with the Constitution and not committing treason or an act of rebellion by seceding, some of the states’ secession documents made the argument that Northern states that did not return slaves had voided the constitutional pact. This is the basis for the historians’ claim that the war was fought over slavery. I have written at length about this. See, (here) and (here).

Mike Whitney: On January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which declared “that all persons held as slaves” …”henceforward shall be free.” What do Americans need to know about the Emancipation Proclamation that they weren’t taught in school? Was Lincoln really the “great American hero” he’s made-out to be?

Paul Craig Roberts: The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure. Not a freedom of the slaves measure.

As President Lincoln’s own Secretary of State said, “We have just freed slaves in territories that we do not control and left them in slavery in territories we do control.”

During the first two years of war Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson with far fewer soldiers had consistently inflicted defeats on Lincoln’s large armies. Lincoln ran through general after general, all defeated by the small Army of Northern Virginia.

Lincoln and his advisors decided that a Union proclamation freeing slaves in Southern territories would produce a slave rebellion and that Lee’s invincible army would run home to protect their wives and children.

But no such slave rebellion occurred. 

The misrepresentation of the War of Northern Aggression as Lincoln’s war to free slaves is impossible to reconcile with Lincoln’s view of blacks. Here is “the Great Emancipator” in his own words:

“I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation [of the white and black races] . . . Such separation . . . must be affected by colonization” [sending blacks to Liberia or Central America]. (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln vol. II, p. 409).

“Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime.” (Collected Works, vol. II, p. 409).

(Lincoln) “I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people” (Collected Works, vol. III, pp. 145-146).

How was the real Lincoln turned into “the Great Emancipator”?

Mike Whitney: In your book “Empire Of Lies” you refer to the Civil War as The War of Northern Aggression. I admit, I had never heard that term before, but it really helped me to realize that one’s interpretation of what took place depends largely on where one was born and raised. What are the most glaring errors that Northerners make about the Civil War?

Paul Craig Roberts: It was the North that invaded the South. The South fought only because it was invaded. Lincoln rejected the South’s constitutional argument for secession, declared the South to be in rebellion and invaded to preserve the Union.

The Union Armies under Sherman and Sheridan committed war crimes. They attacked civilians and left them starving with slaughtered livestock and burned down homes. In contrast, when Lee took the Army of Northern Virginia into Union territory in an effort to conclude the conflict, he admonished his soldiers prior to Gettysburg to remember that their purpose is to defeat the enemy’s army, not to take revenge on Union civilians for what Union armies did to the South’s civilians.

The misrepresentation that the Union Army was fighting for black freedom becomes obviously absurd when we realize that at war’s end this same Union army and its generals Sherman and Sheridan were unleashed on the Plains Indians to exterminate the buffalo, the Indians’ food supply, and to massacre their women and children. Books have been written and movies have been made about this. The question always in my mind is: if saving blacks on Southern plantations is a great moral cause, what happened to the moral cause when the same army was unleashed against the Plains Indians? Why save one “people of color” and destroy another?

Mike Whitney– Here’s a quote from your book that I found particularly interesting:

“Before history became politicized, historians understood that the North intended for the South to bear costs of the North’s development of industry and manufacturing. The agricultural South preferred the lower priced goods from England. The South understood that a tariff on British goods would push import prices above the high northern prices and lower the South’s living standards in the interest of raising living standards in the North. The conflict was entirely economic and had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery, which also had existed in the North….”

This is a remarkable statement that suggests that our fundamental understanding of the Civil War is wrong.

The official version of events implies that the war was launched for humanitarian reasons (ending slavery) by a benevolent leader (Lincoln) whose actions were guided by his unflinching commitment to principle. Your comment suggests that this version of history is wrong, and that the conflict had more to do with tariffs, industry and living standards than with slavery.

Can you expand on your statement and comment on whether –in your opinion– the US would have been better-off had Lincoln allowed the South to secede from the Union splitting the country into two separate parts forever?

Paul Craig Roberts– The “official version” is not official. It is a revisionist version entirely devoid of any support in historical documents. The purposes of the “official version” are to cover up Northern war crimes and justify Reconstruction.

If the South had prevailed, today the US would be a smaller country. In order to protect itself from the North, the South would have competed for expansion into western territories. Mexico might have been able to hold on to parts stolen from itself.

As a smaller entity, the US would be unable to claim hegemony over the world. We would not face the prospect of nuclear destruction from an aggressive foreign policy.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). 

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from TUR

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published by Global Research on September 19, 2023

*** 

During the 15th BRICS Summit, 22-24 August 2023, in Johannesburg, South Africa, chaired by South Africa’s President, Cyril Ramaphosa, six new countries were admitted to the bloc. The BRICS are now called the BRICS-11 and include the five original nations, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. The new members invited to join the bloc as of 1 January 2024 are Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

The summit took place with big fanfare and expectations. Some 40 countries were invited, all wanted to become members of the BRICS, but just six new ones made it. Another group will probably be included in the bloc during next year’s BRICS summit, hosted by Russia. 

For them, mostly the Global South, BRICS is the golden heaven to escape to, from the predatory fangs of the west, mostly from the US-dollar economy that can punish and sanction right and left, all those who do not behave according to the “mandates” of the west, also called the “rules-based order”.

Because international laws have been abolished by western rulers, and replaced de facto, by their rules-based orders. As a result, no judge will go against the elite, and the western rulers… no matter how many war crimes, criminal offenses against human rights, child abuse, child- and women trafficking, they commit – “they”, include the highest ranks of government, of international institutions, are safe.

Even before the by-now obvious was playing out – have you ever seen the International Criminal Court (ICC) legally pursuing a western elite-criminal? One of those multi-multi- billionaires who make their own rules? For example, for pedophilia? Was the United States ever accused of war crimes, of human rights abuses? Despite the tens of millions killed alone since the War on Terror started with 9/11? Never.

The ICC can easily be scrapped as a representative of international law, and even as an international organization. Every judge knows that his life or the lives of his loved ones would be in danger, if he or she were to legally try one of the high-flying western criminals. The real criminals.

Most of the BRICS contenders want to get out from under the iron fist of the dollarized west. They seek rescue in the East. BRICS for them is the proximity to the East – as the bloc was created and is led by China and Russia, two countries which rightly earned the reputation of coexisting with the west, but in economic and monetary independence. To some extent.

One of the BRICS propaganda slogans is “De-Dollarization” — come hell or high water, get out from under the dollar-based sanctions grid.

Have they been fooled? Are they aware of reality?

Image: Basel: Bank for International Settlements (Licensed under Free Art License / Wikimedia Commons)

File:Basel - Bank für internationalen Zahlungsausgleich1.jpg

The idea, or rather the illusion is that this powerful bloc, the new BRICS-11, will take down the US dollar and the private central banking cartel, controlled by the Rothschild clan, in the form of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) headquartered in Basel, Switzerland.

The BIS is also called the Central Bank of all Central Banks. It controls in monetary volume well over 90% of the world’s central banks. The Bank of China – the C of the BRICS – has recently become a member of the BIS. The Wall Street Journal comments, “China’s membership in the BIS Club, is a real Revolution”. See this

The BIS members are central banks of 63 jurisdictions: 34 in Europe, 16 in Asia, 5 in South America, 3 in North America, 3 in Africa, and 2 in Oceania. The United States is represented by two members, the United States Federal Reserve System and Federal Reserve Bank of New York. See this.

Even the Russian Central Bank is a member of the BIS but its engagement with the BIS has been suspended since early March 2022 – since the onslaught of western sanctions due to Ukraine.

All BRICS Central Banks are members of the BIS. 

In other words, the two founders of the BRICS are closely linked to the totally dollarized BIS. 

This dollar-based western monetary system – the Euro is the small and younger brother of the dollar – is backed by nothing, other than thin air, and its revered institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, are drowning the world, especially the Global South, in unsustainable debt under false pretenses; debt which most these countries will be unable to pay back.

Instead, they will become increasingly enslaved to the west, politically as well as in terms of resources exploitation. They receive money (debt) they really do not need, so they belong to the glamorous organizations that exploit them, but also give them the doubtful reputation and international credit rating of “belonging” – being worthy of the IMF and the WB – and some regional development banks that pursue the same goal.

Because if they do not belong to these predatory organizations, they have a hard time surviving in the western monetary and banking system. It is all an agreed and well-orchestrated game plan.

Of course, it takes corruption on both sides. Corrupted politicians in so-called developing countries having been put in place by fake elections, making sure the wheels keep spinning.

Take the current President of Brazil, Lula da Silva, in his two previous terms as President (2003 to 2011), his Central Bank President was Henrique Meirelles, a Wall Street Banker. Meirelles was president of FleetBoston Financials’ Global Banking. Lula was literally praised by Wall Street as a “good boy”. The IMF gave him the attribute of a good scholar. And that was before he became a scholar of Klaus Schwab’s (CEO of WEF) Academy for Young Global Leaders (YGL). Lula is also a favored at the WEF’s Davos meetings.

Today, the Central Bank of Brazil is a full and key member of the BIS.

One of the 6 new countries is Argentina. The front-runner to win Argentina’s October 22, 2023 presidential elections is the arch-neoliberal Javier Milei, a leader of the Libertarian party. Campaigning for the primaries he promised, if he becomes President, he would scrap the Argentinian Central Bank and adopt the US-dollar as the country’s currency. And that after having witnessed one of the worst economic collapses in Latin America’s history, in 2001 / 2022, when the dollarized Argentinian Peso imploded.

Argentina was then salvaged largely by the Kirchners’ Presidencies and by loans from Venezuela, just to bring that grand, rich, and recovered country again to her knees by the US / IMF imposed Mauricio Macri Government (2015 to 2019).  

How would Javier Milei’s idea of dollarizing Argentina fare for the New BRICS dream of de-dollarizing, in case Milei becomes President?

A high-level City of London insider and whistleblower apparently warned not to be distracted by this ‘deceptive initiative’ [called BRICS] of making believe, it will find ways of breaking free from the usury-based and criminal central banking cartel. When, in fact, the BRICS bloc was set up some 14 years ago (BRICS creation in 2009) to simply foment the necessary arguments, chaos and division needed to pursue and fast-track a single global digital currency, what in today’s parlance is called Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).

In his book,  “A History of Central Banking – and the Enslavement of Mankind, the late Stephen Mitford Goodson, himself a Non-Executive Director of the South African Reserve Bank from 2003 until 2012, and who witnessed at first hand the private central banking system from the inside, wrote:

For any nation/state/society/community to have full sovereignty and independence in its affairs, absolute control over the means it employs to exchange goods and services must reside with the organs which represent the people, and must not be delegated to private individuals.

Throughout recorded history periods of state control of the money supply have been synonymous with eras of prosperity, peace, cultural enrichment, full employment and zero inflation. However, when private bankers usurp control of the money creation process, the inevitable results are recurring cycles of prosperity and poverty, unemployment, embedded inflation and an enormous and ever-increasing transfer of wealth and political power to this tiny clique who control this exploitative monetary system. Whenever these private and central bankers have been opposed in the past by nations seeking restoration of an honest money system, these parasitic bankers have invariably invoked a “patriotic” war in order to defeat the much maligned “enemy”. This has been a feature of almost all wars during the past 300 plus years.

This says it all in a nutshell.

For the full report by Justin Walker “BRICS – Please Do Not Allow Yourselves to Be Deceived”, see this.

The lengthy “BRICS Johannesburg Declaration with its 94 points, divulge the truth: It is just business as usual; a push by the globalists towards establishing a global totalitarian technocracy.

The original five BRICS all commit themselves to the UN’s highly deceptive ‘17 Sustainable Development Goals’ (SDG) and the bogus ‘science’ of manmade CO2-based global warming, alias climate change. Nothing in the BRICS Declaration gives the new burgeoning Truth, Peace and Freedom Movement any hope that some sort of change for the common good will come out of their pronouncements.

Author David Skripac neatly summarized the vitally important key points of the BRICS Declaration as follows:

1.     They promise that the BRICS would pursue the WEF’s and the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),

2.     They urgently stressed the “need to address Climate Change.”

3.     They reemphasized the importance of implementing the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),

4.      They reaffirmed the vital importance of the World Trade Center (WTO),

5.      They emphasized the “vital importance of the World Health Organization (WHO)”,

6.      They remained committed to strengthening the “vital importance of Pandemic Preparedness,”

7.      They stressed “the vital importance of digital transformation”, and

8.      They emphasized the “vital importance of carbon credits” and the green economy.

So, what is there to be expected from the original BRICS, from the New BRICS-11 – and from the coming BRICS-plus?

Again, We the People, let us wake up and take life in our own minds and hands. Let us not be fooled, confused, and divided by the deceptive strategies of the self-nominated rulers.

They will not let go. We must get out from their ever-enslaving methods to digitize, transhumanize and control us.

We can do it.

We MUST do it.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

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

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Featured image is from The Economic Collapse

A Armênia entrou numa profunda crise social. Como consequência do início de outro conflito militar em Artsakh, o governo armênio ficou completamente desacreditado pela população local, tendo muitos protestos em massa contra Nikol Pashinyan. A crise deverá agravar-se nos próximos dias, tendo em conta o processo de limpeza étnica promovido pelos azerbaijanos e que está a causar fúria entre a população armênia.

As manifestações em Yerevan continuam a aumentar. Dezenas de pessoas já foram detidas pelas autoridades. Forças policiais especiais foram mobilizadas para tentar resolver a crise, mas os seus esforços não tiveram sucesso. Os manifestantes incluem diferentes grupos e ideologias políticas, sendo alguns deles pró-OTAN e outros pró-Rússia. A única agenda partilhada por todos eles é a remoção de Pashinyan, que é visto como um traidor e responsável pelas hostilidades em Artsakh.

Os manifestantes pró-Rússia criticam o governo por ter piorado as relações com Moscou, contribuindo assim para o aumento da instabilidade em Artsakh, uma vez que a Rússia é o país mais interessado na segurança regional e dispõe dos meios necessários para garantir a paz. Por outro lado, milhares de ultranacionalistas armênios pró-OTAN culpam as forças de manutenção de paz russas pelo avanço do Azerbaijão e criticam o governo, exigindo ainda mais hostilidade anti-russa e cooperação com o Ocidente. Desde a revolução colorida de 2018, muitos militantes extremistas armênios sofreram uma lavagem cerebral para odiarem a Rússia e servirem os planos de guerra da OTAN- agora estes grupos viraram-se contra Pashinyan e exigem um primeiro-ministro ainda mais pró-Ocidente.

Na verdade, esta crise já era esperada, tendo em conta o elevado nível de danos gerados pela chamada “operação antiterrorista” de Baku. De acordo com o ministério dos negócios estrangeiros da Armênia, mais de 200 pessoas morreram nos bombardeamentos azeris. Além disso, há relatos que mostram que outras 400 pessoas ficaram feridas e mais de dez mil foram forçadas a abandonar as suas casas. Há muitas mulheres, crianças e idosos entre as vítimas, o que constitui uma verdadeira catástrofe humanitária. A intensidade dos ataques gerou indignação entre a população armênia, mobilizando os cidadãos para protestarem contra Pashinyan.

Para piorar a situação, as expectativas são de piora no curto prazo. As partes chegaram com sucesso a um acordo de cessar-fogo temporário, mas os termos não puseram fim ao conflito e não aliviaram as tensões étnicas e territoriais. Além disso, Pashinyan deixou claro que não mobilizará tropas para proteger Artsakh, pedindo às potências ocidentais que o façam. Obviamente, sem o apoio de Yerevan, os armênios ficam ainda mais vulneráveis ​​em relação a Baku, com um risco real de limpeza étnica total na região.

Há um ciclo vicioso nestas tensões, uma vez que quanto mais o governo falha na defesa de Artsakh, mais violência é praticada por Baku – e consequentemente, mais a população armênia protesta contra o governo. No final, a própria existência do estado soberano armênio está ameaçada neste processo, tendo em conta os elevados riscos de tensão e instabilidade constantes. Com isto, o Ocidente cumpre um dos seus maiores objetivos para o Cáucaso: tornar a Armênia num estado zumbi ineficiente e fraco, subordinado aos interesses das potências da OTAN.

Na verdade, Pashinyan foi colocado no poder pelos ocidentais em 2018 precisamente para cumprir este objetivo. As políticas irresponsáveis ​​do primeiro-ministro armênio tiveram sucesso na diminuição da influência russa, no aumento da instabilidade no Cáucaso e na desestabilização da Armênia como parceiro soberano da Rússia. Agora, a imagem pública de Pashinyan está seriamente afetada, razão pela qual muitos grupos querem destituí-lo, mas o resto da junta pró-OTAN que participa no processo de tomada de decisão armênio está plenamente de acordo com a mentalidade anti-russa do atual ministro, que é por isso que é improvável que ocorram mudanças significativas, mesmo que Pashinyan seja substituído.

Como podemos ver, a OTAN é a única parte que beneficia desta crise. Os EUA e a França, que são os maiores “aliados” de Pashinyan, têm agora “legitimidade” para aumentar ainda mais a sua influência na Armênia, enquanto, por outro lado, o Azerbaijão, que é um proxy turco, expande-se para Artsakh. Os EUA, a França e a Turquia são países que, apesar de algumas divergências, convergem num grande objectivo estratégico de neutralizar a Rússia. Portanto, a aliança atlântica terá mais força para atuar em todo o Cáucaso, inclusive sendo capaz de aumentar a pressão sobre a Geórgia para que adote políticas de guerra contra a Rússia.

Contudo, como dizem os especialistas, é ingênuo acreditar que estas medidas signifiquem uma vitória absoluta para a OTAN e uma derrota russa. A situação ainda está longe de terminar e muitos fatores podem mudar. Embora tenha perdido parte da sua influência regional, Moscou continua a ser um ator relevante na geopolítica do Cáucaso e poderá “mudar o jogo” em algum momento. Embora a Rússia não seja atualmente capaz de utilizar as suas tropas para pacificar a região, tem força militar suficiente para lançar esforços de combate no futuro.

Isto será ainda mais viável depois de a Rússia concluir a sua operação especial na Ucrânia, na qual se espera que Moscou assuma o controlo de toda a costa ucraniana do Mar Negro, o que reforçará a presença naval russa perto da Turquia, dando aos russos uma vantagem na pressão sobre a Turquia.

Na verdade, o jogo entre a Rússia e a OTAN levará muito tempo para terminar. Moscou tem força para contra-atacar qualquer ameaça externa a qualquer momento. Infelizmente, o mesmo não pode ser dito da Armênia, atualmente enfraquecida e desmoralizada, cujo estado parece absolutamente incapaz de defender a sua soberania.

Lucas Leiroz De Almeida

 

 

 

Artigo em inglês : Crisis will aggravate in Armenia after Azerbaijan’s “anti-terrorist operation”Lucas Leiroz, jornalista, pesquisador do Center for Geostrategic Studies, consultor geopolítico.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://twitter.com/leiroz_lucas

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

At least a majority of African leaders are calling for complete overhaul of multinational financial system to enable them to pursue their development goals across Africa. Their scathing remarks on negative impacts inflicted by imperialism, neocolonialism and western hegemony struck a serious chord during their invaluable speeches delivered at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

But in critical assessment and careful analysis of developments for the past decades, Africa’s poor development could be attributed to several reasons which African leaders have realized but grossly failed to address in the continent. African leaders provided diverse perspectives on the state of politics, economic development and socio-cultural issues that are unique and thought provoking. Paradoxically, Africa has huge resources both natural and human, but the larger size of its population lives in abject poverty. As it is now, the African continent is wrapped with its own distinctive complexities and contradictions.

Conflicts, Democracy and Good Governance

The nature of politics in Africa includes monarchy, autocracy, military dictatorship and democracy. The intellectual and middle-class apathy to politics is also formed alongside down the years. Throughout its history, civil society has been mounting peaceful demonstrations to demand transparency and accountability primarily due to weak institutions and ineffective organs of the state especially the parliaments. Opposition groups are stifled putting democracy at risk across Africa.

A number of African leaders have different views about the fundamentals of democracy. Guinea’s military leader Mamady Doumbouya told the U.N. General Assembly that the Western model of democracy does not work for Africa, as evidenced by a recent wave of coups. Doumbouya took power by overthrowing Alpha Conde, Guinea’s then 84-year-old president who had changed the constitution to run for a third term, sparking widespread protests. Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad and Gabon are also run by military officers.

The United Nations and Western powers such as the United States and France have urged democracy to be restored as soon as possible in those French-speaking West African states. But Doumbouya vehemently argues during his speech at the UN that Africans are mature enough to design their own models of governance.

“Africa is suffering from a governance model that has been imposed on it… a model that is good and effective for the West but is difficult to adapt to our realities, our customs and environment,” he told world leaders gathered in New York.

Image: President Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa addresses the general debate of the General Assembly’s 78th session. (Source: UN Photo/Cia Pak)

We have a duty to leave no one behind, South African President tells world leaders | UN News

At the United Nations General Assembly, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa told the gathering there that through the United Nations Charter nations accepted a shared mandate to foster peace and to promote fundamental human rights, social progress and a better standard of life for all.

“And yet, as we gather here, much of humanity is confronted by war and conflict, by want and hunger, by disease and environmental disaster. Solidarity and trust between states is being eroded. Inequality, poverty and unemployment are deepening. In these conditions and in the wake of a devastating global pandemic, the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals seem increasingly remote,” according to Ramaphosa.

The global community needs to work alongside the African Union to support peace efforts in the eastern DRC, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Mali, Central African Republic, South Sudan, northern Mozambique, the Great Lakes Region, the Sahel, Niger and the Horn of Africa. (UNGA, September 19, 2023). The UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of the United Nations Office for West Africa and the Sahel (UNOWAS), Mohamed Ibn Chambas, suggested to the UN Security Council’s meeting as far back in 2020 that conflicts raging through Africa have to be dealt with through multilateral mechanisms. Academic research studies have shown that radical Islamic groups have set foot in Libya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Somalia, Kenya, Sudan and South Sudan, and are spreading further throughout Africa.

The military leaders of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger signed a mutual defense pact, establishing the so-called Alliance of Sahel States. It was explained that the objective was establishing an architecture of collective defense and mutual assistance for the benefit of the population and the three participating states in the Sahel region. A similar multilateral defense mechanism already exists in Southern Africa. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) with support from the Addis Ababa-based African Union Commission (AUC) has set up the deployment of a joint regional military force in Mozambique. According to the statement released by SADC (Southern African Review, July 2012), the mission has as its objective, to support the Republic of Mozambique in the fight against acts of terrorism and extremist violence, in addition to supporting the country in restoring the rule of law in the affected areas of Cabo Delgado province.

Moussa Faki Mahamat, the Chairperson of the African Union Commission (AUC), highly commended and described it “as a strong and concrete act of African solidarity” on the part of the Rwandan Government and the Southern African Development Community (SADC). The forces are still based in Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique. That region has suffered from what is, always referred to as acts of terrorism. Beginning in October 2017, armed extremists linked to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) launched an insurgency in the Cabo Delgado region of Mozambique.

Reviewing the gravity of these conflicts and Islamic militant treats, it is therefore necessary to ensure a continental security. A set of measures needs to be taken along with preventive action to combat possible threats. The biggest vulnerabilities include proliferation of weapons, weak border control and unprotected industrial facilities.

Creating effective armed forces is just one factor in ensuring national security. Preventive measures are necessary in order to eliminate the root causes of conflicts, and review and plan for sustainable development. And it is necessary to resolve acute socioeconomic problems and strengthen public institutions in Africa.

In spite of the suggestions mentioned above, African leaders expressed support for the UN Secretary-General in the New Agenda for Peace for Member States to provide more sustainable and predictable financing for peace-building efforts. But on the opposite side, there have been so many unconstitutional changes of government in some parts of Africa.

Bema D. Yeo, a doctoral student in Global Security at the American Military University and a U.S army veteran, however argues in a report that “[Given] the emergence of the new wave of politicians in West African countries alongside the resurgence of coup d’états [it] has become evident that Africa is at a critical juncture in its political evolution.”

In assessing the political evolutionary processes in the continent, it is convincing to say that Africa is experiencing transformative changes especially through military coups. The path ahead may be fraught with obstacles, but with determination and strategic foresight it may lead to a better future political stability. “The success of the new leaders in this political landscape may require a commitment to inclusive governance, transparency, and accountability. Learning from the successes and failures of past political transitions will be instrumental in steering these nations towards a future characterized by stable, prosperous, and democratic societies,” the expert concluded.

Mismanagement and Deep-Seated Corruption

The 12th Regional Conference of Heads of Anti-Corruption Agencies in Commonwealth Africa convened in Kigali, Rwanda, from May 2022 under the theme: ‘Combating Corruption for Good Governance and Sustainable Development in Africa’ shared and exchanged reports. It finally discussed the impacts of corruption on sustainable development in Africa and innovative approaches in the fight against corruption, to fast-track implementation of the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). This action or decision pointed explicitly to the common fundamental fact that was in line with Africa’s Agenda 2063, “The Africa We Want” – aspiration number 3, which provides for an Africa of good governance, democracy, respect for human rights, justice and the rule of law.

Most African countries have ratified the African Union Convention on preventing and combating corruption and other international legal instruments on corruption. As required by international obligations, African countries have enacted national anti-corruption laws and established anti-corruption institutions. Almost every African country has a specialized anti-corruption agency to address specific crimes and malpractices including illicit flow, money laundering, embezzlement, and conflict of interest among others.

Prime Minister Ngirente, for instance, pointed out to the conference several reports indicating that global corruption is now costing around $1 trillion annually.  There are common causes of Africa’s corruption, and this is adversely impacting the lives of African people. Corruption creates economic distortions and hampers investments. There are so many corruption-linked adverse effects. Corruption is a serious threat to sustainable and equitable development.

Corruption in South Africa

Under the presidency of Jacob Zuma, who ruled South Africa from 2009 to 2018, corruption was at its highest. Zuma participated in anti-apartheid struggle until South Africa finally attained its independence in 27 April 1994. He held various positions in the ruling African National Congress (ANC) until he was elected president of South Africa. Before that, he was deputy to President Thabo Mbeki, but was dismissed due to corruption over arm deals. There were multiple graft scandals and he was forced to step down in February 2018, and currently spends time in prison, and faces corruption allegations in court.

In January 2018, as elected president of the African National Congress, Cyril Ramaphosa has raised hopes that he will stamp out corruption.

“Corruption must be fought with the same intensity and purpose that we fight poverty, unemployment and inequality. We must also act fearlessly against alleged corruption and abuse of office within our ranks,” Ramaphosa declared in his maiden speech after his election. “We must investigate without fear or favour the so-called ‘accounting irregularities’ that caused turmoil in the markets and wiped billions off the investments of ordinary South Africans,” he added.

In May 2021, Ramaphosa acknowledged to the South African commission investigating corruption and graft, that the ruling ANC party did little to prevent corruption, including by his predecessor Jacob Zuma.

“State capture and corruption have taken a great toll on our society and indeed on our economy as well,” Ramaphosa said. “They have eroded the values of our constitution and undermined the rule of law. If allowed to continue they would threaten the achievement of growth, development and transformation of our country.”

Since Ramaphosa made his promise in 2018, there are still fresh demonstrations and allegations of persistent corruption in Ramaphosa’s administration and inside the government.

Africa Needs Strong Institutions

The Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer, in its 2021 report indicated that “Corruption is hindering Africa’s economic, political and social development… More than this, it affects the well-being of individuals, families and large communities.” The report attributed the deterioration of rule of law and weak democratic institutions, as well as a rapidly shrinking space for civil society and independent media to corruption in Africa.

In July 2009, Barack Obama was right when he told political tyrants and autocratic African leaders who have enriched themselves through opaque deals, that Africa’s future (including efforts to uproot all kinds of crimes and engage in sustainable development) is up to Africans.

“Development depends upon good governance. That is the ingredient which has been missing in far too many places, for far too long. That is the change that can unlock Africa’s potential. And that is a responsibility that can only be met by Africans,” Obama said during his first landmark presidential trip to Africa.

Obama, in addition, declared that “Africa doesn’t need strongmen, it needs strong institutions.” Some leaders of external countries have a policy to interfere in the internal politics of African states, and as a result end up supporting long-time corrupt autocratic leaders. Here it must not be analysed that the United States is imposing its model of democracy.

It is a normal political culture to show tenets of good governance by public accountability and that business deals at the highest levels are conducted with transparency. For instance, large-scale deals involving natural resources must be thoroughly discussed at the legislative assembly, and approved by the executive cabinet. Unilateral decisions taken by a leader without consulting with legislative bodies or parliament and the cabinet, are prone to be criticized by  civil society.

Simultaneously, there should be initiatives to boost transparency. It is worth keeping in mind the suggestion made by the Republic of Ghana’s Vice President, Mahamudu Bawumia, who stated in May 2022 :

“Building strong institutions means putting in place the right systems and practices that ensure transparency and bring about efficiency. As the saying goes, the biggest disease is corruption and the vaccine is transparency. The fact is that corrupt people hate transparency.”

Economic Policies and Strategies

The African Union expresses hope that through a series of actions and strategic mechanisms, African countries will be able to overcome development difficulties and deficiencies. The opening of the world’s largest free trade area, popularly referred to as the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), in Africa on January 2021, is also seen as one great leap towards attaining economic independence.

It aims at making Africa the largest common market in the world and accelerating continental integration. It is expected to reinforce the measures taken in terms of free movement of persons and goods and services across borders. But much depends on the collective determination and solidarity demonstrated, to face the challenges in a united and resolute manner, by the African leaders. It depends on the strong mobilization of African leaders and the effective coordination provided by the African Union.

For this to successful, Africa has to engage in modernising agriculture, strengthening agri-food systems by working towards its own food security rather than simply accept food packages as ‘gifts’ from the so-called external friends. The next stage is to industrialize, add value to the agricultural products by processing them, and finally distributing locally and for exports, hence the establishment of the AfCFTA. From this concrete perspective will emerge a new Africa, “the Africa we want”, which has understandably become the resounding guiding slogan.

Modernising Food Production

What is Africa doing with its huge agricultural lands? In fact, taking adequate measures toward shedding import dependency should be part of the African leaders’ challenge, as should improving food production for the entire population which stands at an estimated 1.4 billion. Africans should not be presented as beggars at the global stage. The most popular rhetoric is that Africa has abundant natural resources, and yet Africa remains the world’s poorest and least-developed continent, resulting from various causes including deep-seated political corruption. According to the United Nations Human Development Report in 2023, the bottom ranked (151st to 175th) are all African states.

At the Paris summit, AfDB President Akinwumi Adesina, insisted that “it is necessary to unlock Africa’s potential in agriculture. Africa must feed itself.” He emphasized that adopting measures for establishing food security is crucial to sustainable development. Addressing food security, therefore, is one of the keys for Africa in this 21st century. In this context, it is important to say here that the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the African Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank) have gained increasing prominence for their work with the private sectors within Africa. These two banks support the agricultural sectors, but more is needed to meet the highest targets.

Faustin-Archange Touadera  and William Ruto

Taking the podium at the United Nations General Assembly, the president of the Central African Republic, Faustin-Archange Touadera, spoke about the appalling consequences of the plundering of natural resources. He was not alone in saying this. Alongside the widespread attacks on unipolar system, many African leaders who spoke in New York hold the perception that Westerners and Europeans have plundered the continent’s natural resources through slavery and colonization.

Western governments and aid organizations have poured billions of dollars into Africa suffering from hunger, armed conflict and other crises over the years, but critics say delivery of the aid is often hampered by corruption from local governments and militants. Corruption has been a characteristic feature of African politics, from the Maghreb down to the Southern African Development Community, from the East African Community and the Horn of Africa across the Sahel to the Atlantic coastal West African States.

Addressing the General Assembly later, Kenyan President William Ruto said investments in technology, infrastructure, green initiatives and agriculture in Africa will “enable our young people to find the livelihoods they desire at home, and reverse the tide of migration in the opposite direction.”

Progress Slow But SDGs Still Vital

As the world continues to evolve with key players pursuing their special interests, Africa has to discern between the truths and untruths. Speeches at the September UNGA in New York reviewed the achievements, the challenges and the highlighted pathways into the future. Some of the African leaders offered resonating development strategies, future visions worthy of appreciation that need to be unreservedly supported. Those suggestions are consistent with the ideals of African Union’s Agenda 2063 and that of the UN SDGs 2030.

Seemingly there are three main directions: democracy and good governance, food security and industrialization, and economy and trade. These could lead to social inclusion, and broadening employment for the youth and the next generation. They could also lead to economic growth, stability and better life conditions across Africa. All aspects of Africa’s development are incorporated into the joint report published at the African Economic Conference 2022.

In a nutshell, Africa is lagging behind on the UN’s sustainable development goals. However, the report further argued that formulating policies to promote the SDGs should include transforming agricultural productivity through modernization and promoting equitable and affordable access to energy. Achieving the SDGs in their entirety may now be beyond many African nations, but much good could still come out of conscious efforts to pursue them. That ought to concentrate minds as global policymakers meet in New York for the UN General Assembly.

The African Union and African leaders have to realign the foreign policies, back away from geopolitical insinuations, rather with eagle eyes take advantage of the complexities and confrontations to look for substantive opportunities to support their efforts in pursuit of building back better. Attaining sustainable development requires allies, transforming relations and refining strategies with external players. It is also advisable to improve deteriorating relations in order to avoid regret in the foreseeable future. Above all, what is necessary, during this changing era, is the ability to prioritize negotiations instead of engaging in geopolitical games and confrontations. We cannot install steel borders, segregate and put partitions in this emerging multipolar world.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), Weekly Blitz and InDepthNews, is now a regular contributor to Global Research. He researches Eurasia, Russia, Africa and BRICS. His focused interest areas include geopolitical changes, foreign relations and economic development questions relating to Africa. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports. 

Featured image is from the UN/Mark Garten

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Geopolitics of the South Caucasus were already extremely complicated in the years before the political West staged yet another coup in the post-Soviet space and brought the infamous Sorosite Nikol Pashinyan to power.

What Western powers were hoping to achieve is to drag Russia into a new conflict, this time right on the border of the ever-volatile (albeit mostly peaceful in recent years) Northern Caucasus, a region that has the potential to unleash a geopolitical firestorm that could reach even Russia’s “soft underbelly” (regions northwest and north of Kazakhstan). And yet, for now, the only thing they’ve accomplished is the very possible opening of yet another geopolitical Pandora’s box that could deeply destabilize not only the Middle East and Caucasus, but also Central Asia.

With his suicidal foreign policy pivot toward the West, Pashinyan is about to turn Armenia’s only two allies in the region (Russia and Iran) into enemies, while acquiring no allies whatsoever.

His hopes of having Georgia change its stance are absolutely futile, as Tbilisi will not risk possible bad relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan. And the reason is pure realpolitik, since Georgia’s relations with Russia are limited to tense neutrality at best, primarily due to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both of which it sees as its own breakaway provinces. This leaves only Baku and Ankara as two primary regional partners, both in geopolitical and economic terms, although economic ties with Russia are substantial and growing (but you’ll never hear Tbilisi brag about it, since it’s “bad for democracy”).

As Armenia is simply not important enough for Georgia to risk anything, Yerevan’s strategic position has worsened considerably. This only shows the level of Pashinyan’s geopolitical skill (or better said, the complete lack thereof). However, as Artsakh (the native Armenian name for Nagorno-Karabakh) is now lost, pressure on Armenia is bound to reach a boiling point. With its mortal enemies Azerbaijan and Turkey to the east and west, respectively, Yerevan’s only possible ally that borders it is Iran (or at least it was before 2018). But Tehran is one of the US-led political West’s primary targets and Pashinyan’s suicidal subservience to the belligerent power pole has effectively destroyed any chances for an alliance with Iran, as it will simply never have more than superficially cordial relations with a NATO vassal.

Worse yet, as we all know now, Pashinyan also effectively destroyed Armenia’s alliance with Russia, the only power that could protect Yerevan from any external threat.

In fact, Moscow’s troops are the sole reason Armenia is an independent country (or at least it was before Pashinyan). So, once again, he somehow managed to not just lose two of Yerevan’s only allies, but is now in the process of turning them into enemies, while acquiring zero new friends. The best he has is the same Armenia had before – a formally neutral Georgia that actively works with Turkey and Azerbaijan, allowing the transfer of all Turkish weapons to Baku, the same ones that have been used in Artsakh for the last several years. In other words, if you ever feel stupid, just type in “Nikol Pashinyan” in your browser and hit “images”.

On the other hand, this isn’t where the South Caucasus Pandora’s box bad omens end. Far worse, the geopolitical firestorm unleashed by Sorosites can set the entire region (and beyond) on fire.

Namely, as Turkey’s Neo-Ottoman ambitions are hitting wall after wall across the Middle East, be it in Libya, Egypt or Syria, Armenia is left as the only option for expansion.

Its complete destruction is not merely an emotional desire based on a burning historical hatred, but an actual geopolitical possibility that opens the gates of Central Asia for Ankara, the ultimate prize and dream of every pan-Turkist. The fact that Armenia needs to be eliminated to achieve that is only seen as a bonus. This is also highly beneficial to NATO, as it’s bound to push Russia and Turkey into direct rivalry in Central Asia.

Thus, Yerevan only serves as a cheap pawn for the political West. Even in the extremely unlikely case that Georgia is pressured into changing its stance toward Armenia, the latter could never become a NATO member, a belligerent military alliance in which Turkey has been one of the most prominent members since 1952. In addition, if Ankara has been giving Sweden so much trouble when it comes to NATO membership, what does Yerevan hope to achieve? It might as well launch a space program, since its chances of becoming the first nation to reach Mars are far higher than joining NATO anytime soon (or ever). In addition, despite the current crawling hostility between Washington DC and Ankara, the United States will never push Turkey out of NATO, especially not for the sake of Armenia.

Yerevan’s best bet is to urgently get rid of NATO puppets installed in 2018 and save whatever’s left of its alliance with Russia. It should also turn to Iran and try to build closer ties with it, as Tehran is not very keen to see a giant pan-Turkic bloc emerge on its northwestern borders, especially not one dominated by prominent NATO members and close Israeli allies. Not to mention its possible extension into Central Asia, particularly the potential inclusion of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. This could also partially explain the recent surge in military contacts between Russia and Iran, as both need to coordinate their efforts in the South Caucasus and elsewhere.

It would be wise for Armenia to capitalize on this, but it requires an independent leadership and capable diplomatic establishment, both of which were lost in 2018. There’s still time, although it’s running out fast. Sorosite Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan recently called for UN peacekeepers to be sent to Artsakh, but that’s effectively impossible, as Azerbaijan controls all corridors that connect Artsakh and Armenia, Lachin included. There’s not a single reason why Baku would allow such deployments. Once again, no matter how this geopolitical equation is set up, this leaves only one option for Yerevan – Russia.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If you do get the vaccine and get injured because of it as a result, they will fire you for being too injured to work. If you don’t get it, they won’t allow you to work anyway.

Whether you’re vaccinated or not, the government is planning to make everyone lose their jobs to destroy the economy and kill off the masses for the Great Reset.

The idea for this video came from me making a comment on a bitchute channel known as covid vax injuries, where I saw a video about a woman who is not allowed to work anymore because of her vaccine injury.

However, her job required the vaccine to begin with. Do you see how this makes no sense?

They won’t allow you to work for being unvaccinated but then they’d also fire you for being vaccinated when the side effects start to kick in.

The government wants you to be jobless. They want you to have nothing, not even your own life. They will try to forcibly starve you to death, all for the new world order.

This is what the World Economic Forum with Klaus Schwab are trying to do to all of us.

They want a smaller population because a smaller population will always be easier to control than a bigger one.

Also, I heard about the vaccine mandate for the American military being rescinded but who’s to say that they won’t just reinstate it later?

And the damage has already been done, millions of military members will be crippled or killed by the vaccine if they aren’t already.

Even at the beginning of this year, they were still firing service men and women for being unvaccinated.

They will do this again.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

As we all know, Covid “vaccines” have been a major tactic by the enemies of freedom to establish totalitarian control. These vaccines kill people and force us to inject dangerous substances into our bodies that we don’t want. Dr. Ron Paul has been a foremost champion of freedom in this area, as he has been in so many others. He is a medical doctor and especially well qualified to assess what is at stake.

Dr. Paul knew what was happening right from the start of the so-called “pandemic.” In a column of March 17, 2020, he said:

“Governments love crises because when the people are fearful they are more willing to give up freedoms for promises that the government will take care of them. After 9/11, for example, Americans accepted the near-total destruction of their civil liberties in the PATRIOT Act’s hollow promises of security.

It is ironic to see the same Democrats who tried to impeach President Trump last month for abuse of power demanding that the Administration grab more power and authority in the name of fighting a virus that thus far has killed less than 100 Americans.

Declaring a pandemic emergency on Friday, President Trump now claims the power to quarantine individuals suspected of being infected by the virus and, as Politico writes, “stop and seize any plane, train or automobile to stymie the spread of contagious disease.” He can even call out the military to cordon off a US city or state.

State and local authoritarians love panic as well. The mayor of Champaign, Illinois, signed an executive order declaring the power to ban the sale of guns and alcohol and cut off gas, water, or electricity to any citizen. The governor of Ohio just essentially closed his entire state.

The chief fearmonger of the Trump Administration is without a doubt Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health. Fauci is all over the media, serving up outright falsehoods to stir up even more panic. He testified to Congress that the death rate for the coronavirus is ten times that of the seasonal flu, a claim without any scientific basis.

On Face the Nation, Fauci did his best to further damage an already tanking economy by stating, “Right now, personally, myself, I wouldn’t go to a restaurant.” He has pushed for closing the entire country down for 14 days.

Over what? A virus that has thus far killed just over 5,000 worldwide and less than 100 in the United States? By contrast, tuberculosis, an old disease not much discussed these days, killed nearly 1.6 million people in 2017. Where’s the panic over this?

If anything, what people like Fauci and the other fearmongers are demanding will likely make the disease worse. The martial law they dream about will leave people hunkered down inside their homes instead of going outdoors or to the beach where the sunshine and fresh air would help boost immunity. The panic produced by these fearmongers is likely helping spread the disease, as massive crowds rush into Walmart and Costco for that last roll of toilet paper.

The madness over the coronavirus is not limited to politicians and the medical community. The head of the neoconservative Atlantic Council wrote an editorial this week urging NATO to pass an Article 5 declaration of war against the COVID-19 virus! Are they going to send in tanks and drones to wipe out these microscopic enemies?

People should ask themselves whether this coronavirus “pandemic” could be a big hoax, with the actual danger of the disease massively exaggerated by those who seek to profit – financially or politically – from the ensuing panic.

That is not to say the disease is harmless. Without question people will die from coronavirus. Those in vulnerable categories should take precautions to limit their risk of exposure. But we have seen this movie before. Government over-hypes a threat as an excuse to grab more of our freedoms. When the “threat” is over, however, they never give us our freedoms back.”

Dr. Paul wrote that before the “vaccines” were unveiled. Then the main problem we faced was lockdowns. But as soon as the vaccine issue arose, he warned us. In an article on April 28, 2020, he said:

“In my first week in the House of Representatives in 1976, I cast one of the two votes against legislation appropriating funds for a swine flu vaccination program. A swine flu outbreak was then dominating headlines, so most in DC were frantic to “do something” about the virus.

Unfortunately, the hastily developed and rushed-into-production swine flu vaccine was not only ineffective, it was dangerous. Approximately 50 people who received the vaccine subsequently contracted Guillain-Barré syndrome, a potentially fatal form of paralysis. According to an expert with the Centers for Disease Control, the incidence of Guillain-Barré was four times higher among those who received the swine flu vaccine than in the general population.

That sad history may soon repeat itself. Right now, governments and private industries are working to rapidly develop and deploy a coronavirus vaccine. Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who is a major funder of these efforts, has suggested everyone who receives a vaccine be issued a “digital certificate” proving he has been vaccinated. Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose record of wrong predictions makes him the Bill Kristol of epidemiology, also wants individuals to carry some proof they have been vaccinated.

Another authoritarian proposal floated to deal with coronavirus is to force everyone to download a phone app that will track their movements. This would allow government officials to identify those who may have been near anyone who may have had coronavirus. Such mandatory “contact tracing” is an assault on our privacy and liberty.

Vaccines can improve health. For example, vaccines helped reduce the incidence of diseases like polio. But not all vaccines are safe and effective for all people. Furthermore, certain modern practices, such as giving infants multiple vaccines at one time, may cause health problems. The fact that vaccines may benefit some people, or even most people, does not justify government forcing individuals to be vaccinated. It also does not justify vaccinating children against their parents’ wishes. And it certainly does not justify keeping individuals and families in involuntary quarantine because they do not have “digital certificates” proving they have had their shots.

If government can force individuals to receive medical treatment against their will, then there is no reason why government cannot force individuals to buy medical insurance, prohibit them from owning firearms, dictate their terms of employment, and prevent them from taking arguably harmful actions like smoking marijuana or drinking raw milk. Similarly, if government can override parents’ wishes regarding medical treatment for their children, then there is no reason why government cannot usurp parental authority in other areas, such as education.

Proponents of mandatory vaccines and enhanced surveillance are trying to blackmail the American people by arguing that the lockdown cannot end unless we create a healthcare surveillance state and make vaccination mandatory. The growing number of Americans who are tired of not being able to go to work, school, or church, or even to take their children to a park because of government mandates should reject this “deal.” Instead, they should demand an immediate end to the lockdowns and the restoration of individual responsibility for deciding how best to protect their health.”

Dr. Paul continued the struggle the next month, calling from a separation between medicine and state:

“It seems like only yesterday. Americans were denied the right to go to their churches. They were denied the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital. They were denied the right to open their businesses and go to work to provide for themselves and their families. They were denied the right to go to restaurants, to bars, to hair salons.

No laws were passed denying these rights. Even that would be illegal and immoral. But what happened was worse. They were denied these basic rights by governors, county judges, and even local mayors who used the coronavirus outbreak as an excuse to rule by decree. They stole power that was not theirs to take and wielded it at all levels to force America into three months of house arrest.

Then, in the midst of stay-at-home orders across the country, the same governors and local officials who locked Americans in their homes suddenly came around with their keys and threw open the doors. Suddenly not only was it OK to go out into the street, it was required to go out into the street!

What happened? A cure? A miraculous vaccine? No. The officials who locked Americans up found a cause they felt required Americans in the streets to protest. Police had killed a black man, George Floyd, in their custody in Minneapolis and suddenly the need to protest trumped the need to “stay home, save lives.”

Suddenly the same health “experts” who told us we must not gather in crowds or there will be death in the millions from coronavirus issued statements supporting gathering in crowds. An open letter on the George Floyd protests signed by more than 1,200 doctors and other health professionals clarified that they “do not condemn these gatherings as risky for Covid-19 transmission.” However, they wrote, “this should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-at-home orders.”

Did the coronavirus develop some kind of superior intelligence enabling it to distinguish between those who were congregating for a “good cause” and those who were congregating for a “bad cause”? Of course not. What has happened from the beginning of this shameful coronavirus episode is the politicization of public health at the hands of authoritarians.

Two prestigious medical journals, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, were forced to retract studies they had published concluding that Hydroxychloroquine was harmful to Covid patients. The rush to print the studies looks very much like a political move rather than one based on scientific principles. Once President Trump revealed that he was taking hydroxychloroquine the mainstream media and even “expert” journals began attacking the drug.

This is what happens when medicine merges with the state. We get the worst of both. We get career bureaucrat Dr. Fauci telling us we can never shake hands again and that we must stay home until a vaccine is found. Meanwhile, doctors across the globe are reporting that this variation of the coronavirus is disappearing on its own.

We have a tradition of separation of church and state in the United States for good reason. The merger of state and church invites oppression and corruption. We need to adopt this same approach to medicine and the state. We now see how this merger has produced the same kind of widespread tyranny and corruption.”

Dr. Paul pointed out in an article of November 3, 2020 the dangers of monitoring people for vaccine compliance:

“The World Health Organization (WHO) recently admitted that lockdowns cause more harm than good. Following this announcement, one would have expected American politicians to immediately end the lockdowns. After all, the WHO ‘s pronouncements are considered infallible, so much so that social media sites silence anyone who dares challenge the great and powerful WHO. Yet, governors, mayors, and other government officials across the country are ignoring the WHO’s anti-lockdown position.

Instead of admitting that the lockdowns were a mistake, many in the political class, which includes a disturbing number of medical professionals whose positions and prestige depend on government, claim that we cannot return to normalcy until a coronavirus vaccine is in wide use. This suggests that people among the majority of Americans who do not wish to be vaccinated will remain under lockdown or be forced to be vaccinated against their will.

The assault on our liberty will not end with deployment and use of a vaccine. Moncef Slaoui, the chief adviser of the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed, a “public-private partnership” in charge of producing and delivering a coronavirus vaccine, has said that those who receive a vaccine will be monitored by “incredibly precise … tracking systems.” Slaoui has also indicated that tech giants Google and Oracle will help the government keep tabs on the vaccinated individuals. So, the vaccine program will lead to an increase in government surveillance!

Slaoui is just the latest “expert” to endorse forcing the American people to relinquish their few remaining scraps of privacy to stop coronavirus. Dr. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates have urged development of a digital certificate for those vaccinated for coronavirus. People without the certificate would find their liberty severely restricted.

Those who think that the new surveillance system will be limited to coronavirus should remember that Social Security numbers were only supposed to be used to administer the Social Security program. They should also consider that the PATRIOT Act’s expansion of warrantless wiretapping was supposed to be limited to stopping terrorists. However, these powers have been used for a wide variety of purposes. Whenever government is given power to abuse our rights for one reason it will inevitably use that power to abuse our rights for other reasons as well.

Fauci and Gates’ digital certificate could, and likely will, be expanded to include proof individuals have received a variety of other vaccines and medical treatments. The digital certificate could even extend to monitoring a person’s lifestyle choices on the grounds that unhealthy habits make one more susceptible to diseases.

The digital certificate could also be tied to the REAL ID program to deny individuals who have not been vaccinated the right to travel. It could also be combined with a future mandatory E-Verify system to deny unvaccinated individuals the right to hold a job. Those who consider this “paranoia” should consider Britain is already developing a covid passport.

Liberty lost in the “war on covid” will not be voluntarily returned when the coronavirus threat ends — assuming the government ever stop moving the goal posts and declares the coronavirus threat is over. Instead, the people must be prepared to take back their liberty from the politicians. Fortunately, we still have the ability to do so by the peaceful means of educating our fellow citizens and pressuring our elected officials to reverse course. We must all do what we can to use these peaceful tools before we are in a “dark winter” of authoritarianism.”

Dr. Paul continues to battle vaccine tyranny today. In a column of August 23, 2023, he warns us of a plan to impose new “vaccines”:

“Just four and a half months since President Biden declared an end to the Covid “emergency,” the media is suddenly full of stories about the return of Covid. This time a new “variant” is being rolled out and the media, in collusion with big Pharma and the fear-industrial complex, are churning out stories about how forced masking is making a comeback.

Also, the “unvaccinated” are again to be denied basic human rights in the name of fighting a virus that the vaccine demonstrably does not protect against.

In short, they are desperately trying to revive the tyranny, insanity, and utter irrationality of the two-year Covid scare. And they are pretending none of us remembers how they destroyed society with their lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates. They are hoping that none of us will remember the suicides, lost jobs, broken marriages, increased alcoholism and drug abuse, and the rest of what went along with the world’s experiment with global lockdown.

Even Fauci himself is back – like a moth drawn to the light of publicity. Despite all the scientific evidence that the lockdowns were a disaster, that they did far more harm than good, Fauci has re-emerged with his trademark arrogance and claimed that they were the right thing to do and should be done again if that’s what it takes to force people to take the vaccine. A vaccine that does not work.

They won’t even allow us to mention the spike in all-around mortality or the millions who may have been vaccine-injured the first time around. They want us to think that 20-year-old world-class athletes have always just dropped dead of heart attacks out of the blue. It’s all normal! Don’t question it! What are you, some kind of conspiracy theorist? Are you a science-denier?

Yes, look for a renewal of all those old hollow phrases used to attack those of us who can see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears. Their slogans are meant to silence any debate. The same “experts” like Fauci who claimed “I am the science” are back and they shamelessly demand to silence us again.

The big question is…why? Why are they doing this and how do they think they can get away with it a second time? One reason they believe they can get away with it again is that no one has ever been punished for what they did the first time. The Federal Government made sure that the pharmaceutical companies would not be liable for vaccine damages.

The public figures who openly became monsters, demanding the unvaccinated be drummed out of society and maybe even off the face of the earth have not been shamed or shunned. Politicians who displayed cowardice and worse have not been voted out of office for their treachery.

Why are they coming back around for another round of Covid tyranny? Fear is a weapon to gain control. Last time around they generated fear to radically change how America voted. Suddenly everyone was mailed ballots. How closely were they checked? No one knew and no one dared ask. The people who did ask about the election are now facing jail terms.

They want us to shut up while they do it again. Will we?”

Dr. Ron Paul, our greatest living American, is a crusader against medical tyranny. Let’s do everything we can to support him!

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

We rarely hear anything thoughtful or coherent from Jagmeet Singh, the NDP Leader who is presently exploiting his control over the federal balance of power in Canada. The Trudeau Liberals cannot continue to rule Canada without the backing of the NDP parliamentarians under Singh’s command. Instead of trying to use his political influence to improve the lives of average Canadians, Singh is investing his considerable political capital into advancing the cause of Sikh separatism in India.

In the FirstReport Indian news clip below, Singh is described as a “self-declared Khalistani.” A minority element of the Sikh population in India and Canada supports an independent Khalistan in India’s largely-Sikh Punjab region. Trudeau has played along in very dangerous ways with Singh’s preoccupation with the Sikh independence movement.

Under Justin Trudeau’s watch, Canada is reported to have become a very active military training ground for the militia of the Sikh independence movement. The details of this history are outlined below by the news reader at News 18 in India. The top person in overseeing these menacing development has been the late Nardeep Singh Nijjar. Trudeau has formally attributed Nijjar’s murder in Canada to the government of India. By announcing this allegation in Parliament, Trudeau chose the most inflammatory way possible to present his government’s position.

CTV News has reported that before his murder, Nijjar was meeting every week with members of Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canada’s extension of the CIA. See this.

Trudeau’s position may have some roots in the designs of the US intelligence agencies. The neocon war hawks that dominate these agencies might welcome a clash between Canada, a NATO member, and the Indian government of Narendra Modi. To the great advantage of the Indian economy, Modi has been cozying up to Russia and China in taking a leadership role in the fast-expanding BRICS movement. The war already effectively underway in the Ukraine region between NATO and Russia is already transforming Canada’s arctic region into the potential site of heavily weaponized conflict. Canada and Russia are arctic neighbours.

Whatever political mileage Singh, Trudeau and the NATO war hawks may think they are deriving from the India-Canada split, this antagonism is not good for average people. It is not good for the people of India and it is certainly not good for the people of Canada.

As a result of this clash, Canadians are now prohibited from getting visas to visit India. If Canada was to repeat this prohibition on Indian visitations to Canada, it would have major consequences across a number of fronts. One of these consequences would fall on the large number of Indian university students that study in Canada creating a major source of income for post-secondary institutions.

Canada is not in the same league as India in terms of global interactions. India is a major world power whose quick-growing economy overwhelms that of drug-ridden, gang-ridden Canada, a country that, under the Trudeau-Singh alliance, is leading the world in government-assisted suicides.

As the Indian journalist Palki Sharma points out, when Justin Trudeau’s father, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, flirted with supporting the separatist politics of an independent Khalistan, it ended up in the bombing in 1985 of Air India Flight 182 over the waters adjacent to Ireland.

Young Trudeau is once again following in the footsteps of his father. Trudeau Jr. presently is following his dad’s lead in going to war with the oil and gas economy of Alberta. In this autumn of 2023, the current PM is once again following in his father’s wake. Junior is allowing Canada to be held ransom to the necessary opposition of the Indian government towards the minority of Sikhs backing the Khalistani independence movement. How deeply are Trudeau and Singh involved in the alleged use of Canada as a training ground for what might be described as Khalistani terrorism?

Jagmeet Singh owes Canadians a clear explanation of why he is putting his personal agenda for India ahead of the best interests of Canada and his fellow Canadians. Singh should start by distancing himself from Trudeau and pulling the plug on his Faustian bargain with the devil.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Looking out at the World from Canada.

Dr. Anthony Hall is editor in chief of the American Herald Tribune. He is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

By all accounts, Zelensky came away from his Washington visit with nothing new. Biden did announce a fresh $325 million aid package for Ukraine from already committed funds, but the hoped-for long range missile approval never came (however, more cluster bombs are being sent). And as we detailed Thursday, House Republican leadership once again failed to move forward on a mere procedural vote for the Pentagon funding bill, due in large part to GOP members rejecting Biden’s proposed $24 billion more in Ukraine aid.

Thursday’s package announced by Biden, as Zelensky visited the White House and Capitol Hill, was run-of-the-mill and entirely to be expected. “Today I approved the next tranche of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine including more artillery, more ammunition, more anti-tank weapons and next week, the first U.S. Abrams tanks will be delivered to Ukraine,” Biden said.

As for the earlier in the day (Thurs.) meeting with Congressional leaders, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy explained when asked why the Ukrainian leader’s request to address Congress was denied, “Zelensky asked for a joint session, we just didn’t have time. He’s already given a joint session.”

Instead in a closed-door meeting, Zelensky later acknowledged he discussed with lawmakers “the battlefield situation and priority defense needs.”

But if there is any level of consolation for Kiev, it’s seen in the Pentagon announcement which came late in the day Thursday. Facing potential US government shutdown on Oct.1st, given at this point Congress is not expected to pass the 12 appropriations bills needed to fund government operations before next fiscal year, the Pentagon has said it will exempt its operations supporting Ukraine from a shutdown. 

The military typically suspends any activities not deemed vital to national security during government shutdowns, thus the DoD is in effect saying Ukraine aid remains “vital to national security”. 

“Operation Atlantic Resolve is an excepted activity under a government lapse in appropriations,” Pentagon spokesman Chris Sherwood told Politico, in reference to the operational name still used for actions supporting Kiev.

But Politico points out a potential shutdown would still negatively impact US support to Ukraine:

Sherwood noted that while DOD’s activities related to Ukraine will continue, furloughs and other activities halted under the shutdown could still have a negative impact.

“Training would happen, but depending on whether or not there were certain personnel that were not able to report for duty, for example, that could have an impact,” said Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder on Thursday.

This Pentagon exemption to keep Ukraine-related support active during a government shutdown seems to be the only significant thing Zelensky came away with. 

It appears to have been the main object of discussion when Zelensky met with Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in Washington during the trip. The Pentagon said this was “to reaffirm the steadfast US support for Ukraine.”

Meanwhile, Bloomberg takes note of Zelensky “showing the strain” amid increasing divisions among allies:

The Ukrainian president allowed a dispute with one of his biggest allies to spin out of control at the United Nations General Assembly this week, and that’s just a hint of the tensions building behind the scenes.

Zelenskiy has been leading his country through Russia’s brutal assault for 19 months, all the time fighting on another front to wring the weapons and finance he needs from his US and European supporters. Now he suspects that President Joe Biden’s commitment is wavering and other leaders may be taking their cue from the US, according to a person who met with him recently.

He grew very emotional at times during that discussion, the person said, and was scathing in his criticism of nations that he said weren’t delivering weapons quickly enough.

Washington’s lackluster greeting of Zelensky this week (compared to how he was received in December 2022) came simultaneous to Poland declaring it will no longer arm Ukraine, amid a fierce diplomatic spat over blockage of Ukraine grain imports by Warsaw, to protect Polish farmers.

The Economist is also taking note of the significant mood shift among Western allies…

A “long war” indeed… given a G7 leader from a European country has told reporters this week that the West is prepared for a years-long war, something likely to last some six or seven years, according to the quote.

“A senior official from one European G-7 country said the war may last as much as six or seven more years and that allies need to plan financially to continue support for Kyiv for such a long conflict,” Bloomberg wrote.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from The Libertarian Institute

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Almost nine out of every ten Ukrainian draftees who enlisted in the army a year ago have either been killed or injured in combat, Ukrainian media reported on Friday citing a senior conscription officer in the Poltava Region.

Lt. Colonel Vitaly Berezhny, who is currently serving as the acting head of the territorial center for recruitment and social support, made this admission during a Poltava City Council meeting.

Sounding the alarm, Berezhny told meeting participants that “out of the 100 individuals who joined the units last fall, only 10-20 of them remain, the rest are dead, wounded or disabled.” Going from this statistic, he declared that the military was in urgent need of reinforcements.

He acknowledged that local authorities are facing significant challenges in their conscription efforts, having only achieved 13 percent of the mobilization plan. This places the Poltava at the bottom of the region’s rankings.

To address the shortage of manpower, the officer proposed the “establish the presence of conscripts.” He further stated that the region had intentions to establish a substantial mechanized brigade and appealed to local deputies to actively support this endeavor.

Following the start of the war with Russia in February 2022, Kiev implemented a general mobilization, barring most men between the ages of 18 and 60 from leaving the country. This measure was initially thought to suffice in meeting the country’s military manpower needs.

Former Ukrainian Defense Minister Alexei Reznikov revealed last month that Kiev had not yet fully executed its existing mobilization plan, indicating that there was no necessity for another conscription effort.

Nevertheless, at the beginning of this month, a significant policy shift occurred when the Ukrainian Defense Ministry issued a decree allowing the conscription of individuals with severe medical conditions, including hepatitis, asymptomatic HIV, and clinically managed tuberculosis.

This unexpected change in approach signaled a transformation in Kiev’s strategy for bolstering its military capabilities.

Simultaneously, the country’s authorities initiated a comprehensive anti-corruption campaign within the nation’s conscription framework. In recent developments, President Volodymyr Zelensky took resolute measures by terminating the appointments of all regional military conscription officials.

Berezhny’s recognition coincides with Ukraine’s ongoing counteroffensive, which has extended for over three months but has encountered difficulty in achieving substantial territorial gains despite full Western backing.

In recent days, Russian President Vladimir Putin estimated Ukraine’s military casualties to exceed 71,000 personnel. Additionally, he proposed that Kiev might consider engaging in negotiations with Moscow once its resources for confronting Russian defenses become critically depleted. Putin’s assessment emphasized that Ukraine would primarily seek talks to rehabilitate its weakened military capabilities.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. 

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Urban light pollution is notorious for blocking out city dwellers’ views of the stars at night, but new findings reveal that the bright lights of big cities may also be sparking an evolutionary change in birds — giving them smaller eyes!

Scientists at Washington State University have discovered that two common songbirds (the Northern Cardinal and Carolina Wren), who live year-round in the urban core of San Antonio, Texas, had eyes that were roughly five percent smaller than members of the same species living farther from the city in communities with less artificial light.

Meanwhile, the research team found no eye-size differences among two species of migratory birds (the Painted Bunting and White-eyed Vireo), regardless of which area of the city the birds dwelled in for most of the year. Study authors stress these findings hold far more than local implications, adding that conservation efforts need to improve across the country as numerous bird populations continue to see rapid declines.

“This study shows that residential birds may adapt over time to urban areas, but migratory birds are not adapting, probably because where they spend the winter–they are less likely to have the same human-caused light and noise pressures. It may make it more difficult for them to adjust to city life during the breeding season,” says Jennifer Phillips, a WSU wildlife ecologist and senior study author, in a university release

Together, the United States and Canada have lost an astounding 29 percent of their bird populations (three billion birds) since 1970. Most scientists currently subscribe to the belief that habitat fragmentation has been the main driver of this observed decline in bird populations, but this latest work indicates sensory pollutants such as human-made light may also be influencing birds’ ability to cope with city life and subsequent evolutionary patterns.

Aerial view of Manhattan buildings during nighttime

Manhattan at night (Photo by Andre Benz on Unsplash)

In collaboration with post-doctoral fellow Todd Jones and graduate student Alfredo Llamas of Texas A&M University, Phillips analyzed over 500 birds from the central and edge areas of San Antonio. They compared birds’ bodies and eye sizes while recording and analyzing noise and light measurements during the day and night in each area.

Researchers did not note a difference in the body sizes of birds living in different areas. However, there was one exception: the Painted Bunting.

Despite that, an additional analysis eventually revealed that this size difference was mostly due to age. Study authors explain that younger, smaller male buntings, who aren’t as capable of competing for mates as their more colorful elders, tended to be seen in the brighter, noisier central locations, which are largely considered less desirable living locations.

Prior studies have looked into how urban light affects the timing of birds’ “dawn song” and circadian rhythms, but this project is the first ever to suggest a connection to eye size.

Smaller eyes may help birds cope with the brighter, constant lights of city environments, explains Jones, the study’s first author who is now a post-doctoral fellow at the Smithsonian’s Migratory Bird Center. Birds with larger eyes are more prone to being blinded by the glare of city lights or experiencing sleep issues.

“Humans may have some unintended consequences on birds that we don’t realize,” Jones explains. “We don’t know if these adaptations could have good or bad consequences for the birds down the road, considering that urban environments aren’t going away anytime soon. It is also important to understand how to manage such environments for the birds that maybe aren’t urban adapted.”

Phillips is now leading a new team focused on investigating the effect of both light and noise pollution across numerous bird species with the support from a recent $2.1 million grant provided by the National Science Foundation. Researchers plan to set up controlled experiments aimed at determining how light and noise affect birds’ stress levels, sleep hormones, song structure, and aggression levels – as well as if such traits correlate to overall fitness.

“We want to know whether patterns at molecular and behavioral scales affect fitness or not. Essentially, we’re trying to understand what are the benefits and costs to these animals living in a sensory polluted world,” the study author concludes.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

John considers himself a pretty nice guy, and an even better writer. He is admittedly biased, though.

Featured image: Photo by Joshua J. Cotten from Unsplash

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The people of the USA don’t want this. The people of Russia don’t want this. The people of the entire world don’t want this. Nevertheless, USA and Russia have been moving closer to the possibility of a direct conflict.

This most dangerous trend not desired by people anywhere has been happening due to the manipulations, extremely narrow vision, inflated aggression and shocking irrationality of a small number of persons in whose hands absurd level of power has been concentrated in the USA (and some of its close allies) and who are closely tied to the military industrial complex.

To understand the more recent escalation of the chances of a direct confrontation between Russia and USA/NATO, four factors may be considered.

Firstly, the USA and its close allies have been steadily increasing the supply of more and more destructive weapons to Ukraine and now they are willing to supply long-range weapons which can strike deeper into Russia.

Secondly, earlier there was a clear disapproval by the USA and its close allies of the use of highly destructive weapons supplied by them to Ukraine for striking the Russian mainland. Now this disapproval is being withdrawn, and the new attitude is—we have given these weapons to Ukraine to help their defense; how exactly they use these is their own decision.

Thirdly, as some of these weapons need expert handling and need satellite and sophisticated intelligence for precise targeting, it is inevitable that western expertise for this too will become available and is already becoming available.

Last but not the least, as the current Ukrainian counter-offensive has failed in its objectives and manpower for any further such ground offensive is scarce, future tactics of Ukraine in this proxy war will depend more and more on those long-range weapons which can harm and are increasing allowed (by the suppliers of these weapons) to harm mainland Russia and Crimea, within the range of these weapon-systems.

So as long-range weapons start endangering and disrupting the life of Russian people they are likely to ask—Whose weapons are these? Who is guiding and directing these weapons to our targets? The answer to both questions would be—the USA and its allies.

This may prompt them to ask some more questions. Who engineered a coup that would bring in a Ukraine government hostile to them?

Who is determined to ensure that the ruling regime of Ukraine (as well as some other neighboring countries) will always be against Russia? Which is the country that broke the promise of not expanding hostile NATO towards Russia, not even one inch? After the break-up of the Soviet Union which country was most responsible for the plunder of Russia to the extent that its life-expectancy declined to an unprecedented extent?

Which country has most consistently followed the policy of bleeding Russia in as many ways as possible? The answer to these questions would also be—the USA assisted by close allies.

This is the stage—when the people of Russia see repeated evidence that they are being killed on daily basis by weapons supplied by the USA and its allies, and they see this against a background of slow bleeding for several earlier years—when the possibilities of a direct confrontation between Russia and the USA start increasing in ways that are significant enough to cause very serious concern.

This can lead to several brinkmanship situations which can even unintentionally and accidentally escalate into a direct war. Then there is the possibility that anticipating even higher hostility by the USA ad its willing or reluctant allies, Russia and China can also enter into a defense pact on the lines that any war against one will be regarded as a war against the other too. There are some other countries which too may join the Russia-China alliance depending on circumstances. Hence there can also be a war of one military alliance against the other, or The Third World War.

All wars are planned by an aggressive country on the assumption that the march towards victory will bring benefits. In the Ukraine proxy war however a (highly unlikely) march towards victory by Ukraine can result in a use of nuclear weapons by Russia, resulting either in collapse of Ukraine military effort, or retaliatory nuclear weapon use by the west , again leading to a short third world war, also a nuclear war. This may be an unlikely scenario but this establishes the fact that the proxy war which the USA is fighting in which neither defeat nor victory is acceptable is essentially an irrational war.

This is in line with growing evidence that the USA foreign policy makers have been increasingly acting in highly irrational ways even when seen from the limited objective of advancing the enlightened interests of the USA, while from the point of view of world peace recent US foreign policy has been a complete disaster.

Hence the only hope for world peace as well for an enlightened pursuit of rationally conceptualized national interests of the USA rests now in a strengthening of peace movement which can bring to the forefront those diplomats and leaders who have been pleading for more peace-based and rational solutions. In the context of resolving the existing crisis situation, as this writer has repeatedly emphasized, this must start with an unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine to be followed by prolonged peace negotiations in conditions of goodwill, created by the people as well as by the international community, while at the same time a huge, community-based rehabilitation and reconstruction effort in Ukraine is launched with resources raised at world level.

Russia and the USA are the two biggest nuclear weapon powers in the world, having about 90% of the total stock of nuclear weapons in the world, and the exchange of just one-tenth of their nuclear weapons is enough to destroy the world.

While the entire world recognizes that there should never be a direct war between Russia and the USA, several red lines have been breached in recent times in the context of the Ukraine conflict. This should not be allowed to continue as prolonged periods of tensions and brinkmanship can lead to even unintentional rapid escalation and direct confrontation.

This is a very dangerous situation and must be checked from further escalation by the collective efforts of all forces of peace.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children, A Day in 2071 and Earth without Borders.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

Mission to Free Assange: Australian Parliamentarians in Washington

September 25th, 2023 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

It was a short stint, involving a six-member delegation of Australian parliamentarians lobbying members of the US Congress and various relevant officials on one issue: the release of Julian Assange. If extradited to the US from the United Kingdom to face 18 charges, 17 framed with reference to the oppressive, extinguishing Espionage Act of 1917, the Australian founder of WikiLeaks risks a 175-year prison term.

Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce, Labor MP Tony Zappia, Greens Senators David Shoebridge and Peter Whish-Wilson, Liberal Senator Alex Antic and the independent member for Kooyong, Dr. Monique Ryan, are to be viewed with respect, their pluckiness admired. They came cresting on the wave of a letter published on page 9 of the Washington Post, expressing the views of over 60 Australian parliamentarians. 

“As Australian Parliamentarians, we are resolutely of the view that the prosecution and incarceration of the Australian citizen Julian Assange must end.”

This is a good if presumptuous start. Australia remains the prized forward base of US ambitions in the Indo-Pacific, the spear pointed against China and any other rival who dares challenge its stubborn hegemony. The AUKUS pact, featuring the futile, decorative nuclear submarines that will be rich scrapping for the Royal Australian Navy whenever they arrive, also makes that point all too clear. For the US strategist, Australia is fiefdom, property, real estate, terrain, its citizenry best treated as docile subjects represented by even more docile governments. Assange, and his publishing agenda, act as savage critiques of such assumptions.

The following views in Washington DC have been expressed by the delegates in what might be described as a mission to educate. From Senator Shoebridge, the continued detention of Assange proved to be “an ongoing irritant in the bilateral relationship” between Canberra and Washington. “If this matter is not resolved and Julian is not brought home, it will be damaging to the bilateral relationship”.

Senator Whish-Wilson focused on the activities of Assange himself. “The extradition of Julian Assange as a foreign journalist conducting activities on foreign soil is unprecedented.” To create such a “dangerous precedent” laid “a very slippery slope for any democracy to go down.”

Liberal Senator Alex Antic emphasised the spike in concern in the Australian population about wishing for Assange’s return to Australia (some nine out of 10 wishing for such an outcome). “We’ve seen 67 members of the Australian parliament share that message in a joint letter, which we’ve delivered across the spectrum”. An impressed Antic remarked that this had “never happened before.  I think we’re seeing an incredible groundswell, and we want to see Julian at home as soon as possible.”

On September 20, in front of the Department of Justice, Zappia told reporters that, “we’ve had several meetings and we’re not going to go into details of those meetings. But I can say that they’ve all been useful meetings.” Not much to go on, though the Labor MP went on to state that the delegation, as representatives of the Australian people had “put our case very clearly about the fact that Julian Assange pursuit and detention and charges should be dropped and should come to an end.”

A point where the delegates feel that a rich quarry can be mined and trundled away for political consumption is the value of the US-Australian alliance. As Ryan reasoned, “This side of the AUKUS partnership feels really strongly about this and so what we expect the prime minister [Anthony Albanese] to do is that he will carry the same message to President Biden when he comes to Washington.”

The publisher’s brother, Gabriel Shipton, also suggests that the indictment is “a wedge in the Australia-US relationship, which is a very important relationship at the moment, particularly with everything that’s going on with the US and China and the sort of strategic pivot that is happening.” Assange, for his part, is bound to find this excruciatingly ironic, given his lengthy battles against the US imperium and the numbing servility of its client states.

Various members of Congress have granted an audience to the six parliamentarians. Enthusiasm was in abundance from two Kentucky Congressmen: Republican Senator Rand Paul and Republican House Representative Thomas Massie. After meeting the Australian delegation, Massie declared that it was his “strong belief [Assange] should be free to return home.”

Georgian Republican House member Marjorie Taylor Greene expressed her sense of honour at having met the delegates “to discuss the inhumane detention” of Assange “for the crime of committing journalism,” insisting that the charges be dropped and a pardon granted. “America should be a beacon of free speech and shouldn’t be following in an authoritarian regime’s footsteps.”  Greene has shown herself to be a conspiracy devotee of the most pungent type, but there was little to fault her regarding these sentiments.

Minnesota Democrat Congresswoman Ilhan Omar also met the parliamentarians, discussing, according to a press release from her office, “the Assange prosecution and its significance as an issue in the bilateral relationship between the United States and Australia, as well as the implications for freedom of the press both at home and abroad.” She also reiterated her view, one expressed in an April 2023 letter to the Department of Justice co-signed with six other members of Congress, that the charges against Assange be dropped.

These opinions, consistent and venerably solid, have rarely swayed the mad hatters at the Justice Department who continue to operate within the same church consensus regarding Assange as an aberration and threat to US security. And they can rely, ultimately, on the calculus of attrition that assumes allies of Washington will eventually belt up, even if they grumble. There will always be those who pretend to question, such as the passive, meek Australian Foreign Minister, Penny Wong. “We have raised this many times,” Wong responded to a query while in New York to attend the United Nations General Assembly. “Secretary [of State Antony] Blinken and I both spoke about the fact that we had a discussion about the views that the United States has and the views that Australia has.”

Not that this mattered a jot. In July, Blinken stomped on Wong’s views in a disingenuous, libellous assessment about Assange, reminding his counterpart that the publisher had been “charged with very serious criminal conduct in the United States in connection with his alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of our country.” The libel duly followed, with the claim that Assange “risked very serious harm to our national security, to the benefit of our adversaries, and put named sources at grave risk – grave risk – of physical harm, and grave risk of detention”. That gross falsification of history went unaddressed by Wong.

Thus far, Blinken has waived away the concerns of the Albanese government on Assange’s fate as passing irritants at a spring garden party. However small their purchase, six Australian parliamentarians have chosen to press the issue further. At the very least, they have gone to the centre of the imperium to add a bit of ballast to the effort.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected] 

Featured image is from Silent Crow News

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Von der Leyen just said what?…

This past Wednesday, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen delivered a speech before the 2023 Atlantic Council Awards in New York, where she sounded the alarm over the specter of nuclear war centered on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. But while invoking remembrance of the some 78,000 civilians killed instantly by the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima at the end of WWII, she said her warning comes “especially at a time when Russia threatens to use nuclear weapons once again. She  actually framed the atomic atrocity in a way that made it sound like the Russians did it. Watch:

There was not one single acknowledgement in Von der Leyen’s speech that it was in fact the United States which incinerated and maimed hundreds of thousands when it dropped no less that two atomic bombs on Japanese cities.

Here were her precise words, according to an Atlantic Council transcript

You, dear Prime Minister, showed me the meaning of this proverb during the G7 summit in Japan last year. You brought us to your hometown of Hiroshima, the place where you have your roots and which has deeply shaped your life and leadership. Many of your relatives lost their life when the atomic bomb razed Hiroshima to the ground. You have grown up with the stories of the survivors. And you wanted us to listen to the same stories, to face the past, and learn something about the future.

It was a sobering start to the G7, and one that I will not forget, especially at a time when Russia threatens to use nuclear weapons once again. It is heinous. It is dangerous. And in the shadow of Hiroshima, it is unforgivable

The above video of that segment of the speech gives a better idea of the subtle way she closely associated in her rhetoric the words “once again” with the phrase “shadow of Hiroshima” while focusing on what Russia is doing, to make it sound like it was Moscow behind the past atrocities.

Russian media not only picked up on the woefully misleading comments, but the Kremlin issued a formal rebuke of Von der Leyen’s speech as well:

In response to von der Leynen’s remarks, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused the European Commission president of making “no mention whatsoever of the US and its executioners who dropped the bombs on populated Japanese cities.”

Zakharova responded on social media, arguing that von der Leyen’s assertions on Moscow’s supposed intentions to employ nuclear weapons “is despicable and dangerous” and “lies.”

Some Russian embassies in various parts of the globe also highlighted the speech on social media, denouncing the “empire of lies” and those Western leaders issuing ‘shameful’ propaganda and historical revisionism.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from dpa/Zero Hedge

China and Syria Announce ‘Strategic Partnership’

September 25th, 2023 by Middle East Eye

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Syrian counterpart, Bashar al-Assad, announced on Friday that they would upgrade relations to a “strategic partnership”.

The announcement was made following Assad’s first official visit to China in almost two decades, in what was a rare trip abroad for the Syrian president, who until recently was an international pariah. 

“Today, we will jointly announce the establishment of the China-Syria strategic partnership, which will become an important milestone in the history of bilateral relations,” Xi told Assad, according to a readout from state broadcaster CCTV.

The announcement was made by the Chinese president in the southern city of Hangzhou, which is hosting the Asian games over the next two weeks. 

“Faced with an international situation full of instability and uncertainty, China is willing to continue to work together with Syria, firmly support each other, promote friendly cooperation, and jointly defend international fairness and justice,” said Xi.

Relations between the two nations “have withstood the test of international changes”, Xi said, adding that the “friendship between the two countries has been strengthened over time”.
 
The strategic partnership between China and Syria is one rung below what Beijing calls a “comprehensive strategic partnership”.

In a swipe at the West, Xi went on to say that “China supports Syria’s opposition to foreign interference, unilateral bullying… and will support Syria’s reconstruction”.

By offering Assad a financial lifeline, the Chinese president is also hoping to further extend Beijing’s recent diplomatic success in the region.

“China is willing to strengthen cooperation with Syria through the Belt and Road Initiative, to make positive contributions to regional and world peace and development,” Xi said, referring to China’s wide-ranging expansion of infrastructure and other links across Asia and beyond.

Earlier this year, China brokered a surprise diplomatic breakthrough between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which resulted in the two sides agreeing to re-establish relations.

Syria has slowly emerged from international isolation after the Arab League agreed in May to readmit the country after it was suspended more than decade ago. 

Since 2011, Syria has faced crippling western sanctions after it cracked down on peaceful demonstrators, resulting in hundreds of thousands dying. 

Many of Syria’s neighbours initially backed rebels seeking to topple Assad. 

Since then, Assad, with the help of Iran and Russia, has gradually retaken control over much of the country. 

More recently, normalisation efforts propelled by the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have sped up dramatically, with both countries looking to bring Damascus back into regional affairs.

One of the central issues of concern for Arab League countries is Syria’s highly problematic drugs trade, in particular the notorious amphetamine Captagon, which in recent years has been exported on a large scale to neighbouring countries.

Saudi Arabia  has a strong desire to end Captagon inflows. Riyadh has reportedly offered Syria $4bn to compensate for the loss of earnings from the trade, though it denies this.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Map indicating locations of China and Syria (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

After the brazen killing of a high-profile Canadian Sikh activist in June, FBI agents visited several Sikh activists in California this summer with an alarming message: Their lives were also at risk.

The warnings have taken on a new urgency after Canada’s bombshell revelation on Monday that it has credible intelligence pointing to Indian government involvement in the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian citizen and advocate for an independent Sikh state, who was shot dead outside a Sikh temple in British Columbia.

Pritpal Singh, a political activist and U.S. citizen who is a coordinator for the American Sikh Caucus Committee, told The Intercept that he and two other Sikh Americans involved in political organizing in California received calls and visits from the FBI after Nijjar was killed.

“I was visited by two FBI special agents in late June who told me that they had received information that there was a threat against my life,” said Singh. “They did not tell us specifically where the threat was coming from, but they said that I should be careful.”

The two other Sikh activists, who asked to remain anonymous for security reasons, told The Intercept that they were also visited by the FBI around the same time as Singh. The FBI did not respond to a request for comment.

Sikhs throughout the U.S. have received police warnings about potential threats, said Sukhman Dhami, co-director of Ensaaf, a California-based nonprofit group that focuses on human rights in India, particularly in the Sikh-majority state of Punjab.

“We have also received messages that certain community leaders associated with politics of Sikh self-determination have recently been visited by law enforcement and warned that they may be targets,” Dhami told The Intercept.

On Thursday, a report from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation revealed that Canada determined India’s culpability in the Nijjar killing based on signals and human intelligence, including the communications of Indian diplomats in Canada and information from an unnamed partner in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance comprising the U.S., Canada, the U.K., New Zealand, and Australia. Earlier this week, Canada expelled a top Indian diplomat who was the head of the Indian intelligence agency in the country.

India has been on the offensive, furiously rejecting the allegations as “absurd” and accusing Canada of patronizing Sikh militant and extremist groups. India’s counterterror agency on Thursday issued a call for information about protesters who allegedly tried to start a fire at the Indian consulate in San Francisco earlier this year.

The U.S. has expressed concern over the allegations, and Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Friday that the U.S. is cooperating with Canada in its investigation. In a statement this week, U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan said that India does not have “special exemption” to carry out actions like extrajudicial killings, for which the U.S. criticizes rival countries like Russia and China.

The U.S. is India’s largest trading partner — a relationship worth orders of magnitude more than Canada-India trade ties. Any targeted action by India on U.S. soil against Sikh dissidents could open a rift between the two countries as they build a coalition to confront China.

Sikh Americans who have received threats say they are not intimidated but want the U.S. government to take steps to protect them and stand up against what they characterize as an increasingly aggressive and authoritarian Indian government led by right-wing Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

“If India can target Canadians, Americans will be next,” Singh said. “This undermines our democratic institutions, curtails individual rights and freedoms, and challenges the national security and sovereignty of the United States.”

“From the Biden administration, we expect immediate support,” he added. “We do not want thoughts and prayers later.”

Prior Warnings

Before Nijjar was killed in June, Canadian intelligence officials warned him and five other Sikh community leaders that their lives were in danger, said Moninder Singh, a spokesperson for the British Columbia Gurdwaras Council who was among those issued warnings.

“They told us that we were at imminent risk of assassination, but they would never say specifically that the threat was from Indian intelligence or give us enough information to tell us where it was coming from,” said Singh.

Singh said that, in their meetings, agents from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police singled out Nijjar as particularly at risk. He had become a prominent figure in a diaspora campaign advocating for Sikh independence from India; in 2020, the Indian National Investigation Agency described his political work as “trying to incite Sikhs to vote for secession, agitate against the government of India, and carry out violent activities.”

“I would debrief with him before and after every meeting,” said Singh, a longtime friend of Nijjar. “We were supposed to meet with them again the Monday morning after Father’s Day, but he was killed the night before.”

While Nijjar is seen as a leader in parts of the Canadian Sikh community, the Indian government has characterized him as a terrorist who was involved in a range of criminal activities in India from his home in British Columbia. He had been charged under the controversial counterterrorism law known as Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, which has been used by the Modi government to detain dissidents indefinitely without trial.

“It seems that there is a clear connection between the individual who was targeted and killed and his political opinions, namely his stance in favor of an independent Sikh state and his belief that he has a right to advocate for that position,” said Ensaaf’s Dhami about the circumstances around Nijjar’s killing.

Canada is home to a large, politically active Sikh diaspora with a small yet influential representation in the federal government.

Some Canadian Sikhs support a movement to establish an independent homeland called Khalistan in the Indian state of Punjab. In the 1980s and 1990s, the Indian government brutally suppressed a nationalist insurgency there; thousands of Sikhs were extrajudicially killed, tortured, or disappeared, and many who supported the movement fled to the U.S., Canada, and the U.K., where they became part of sizable diasporas. In 1985, during a period of heightened violence, Sikh separatists living in the West bombed an Air India flight en route from Montreal to London in what was the deadliest act of aviation terrorism at the time.

Though the Khalistan movement lost steam in recent years, separatists in the diaspora continue to fight for the cause, bringing them in frequent conflict with the Indian government.

Sikh activists have held referendums and protests at Indian consulates in Western countries, sometimes making provocative denunciations of the Indian government and vandalizing Indian government property. The U.S. State Department condemned vandalism by some protesters in San Francisco who attempted to set fire to part of the Indian consulate in July. The incident did not result in major damage or injuries.

India has accused Sikh separatists in the West, many of whom are Western citizens, of fomenting terrorism in India, threatening its diplomats, and endangering its consulates and foreign offices. In Canada, Indian calls on the Canadian government to crack down on Sikh political activism, including support for secessionism in India, have been largely rebuffed.

“The Khalistan movement today enjoys very little support in Punjab,” said Arjun Sethi, a human rights lawyer and law professor at Georgetown University. “Yet the Indian government continues to inflate its significance in order to galvanize their voter base, distract from their domestic failings, and further their national security agenda.”

Suspicious Deaths

Moninder Singh disputes how Nijjar has been characterized as a terrorist in the Indian press and on social media, stating that Nijjar had been committed to defending the rights of the Sikh minority in India and fighting for their political self-determination.

“In Hardeep’s case, they had been characterizing him in the press for some time as a terrorist and militant. After all that demonization, they have reacted to his death with celebration,” he said. “They’re taking it from the perspective that they’ve won and they’re doing a victory lap. But the way we see it, this issue is not over.”

In recent years, several members of the Sikh diaspora connected to the Khalistan movement have died in circumstances some have deemed suspicious. Among them is Avtar Singh Khanda, a high-profile Sikh activist in the U.K. whose family members allege was the victim of poisoning earlier this year. In 2022, a 75-year-old Sikh Canadian man named Ripudaman Singh Malik, who had been acquitted of involvement in the Air India bombing, was shot to death in front of his family business in British Columbia.

Popular media personalities linked to the Indian security establishment have also issued indirect threats in recent days against other people living in Canada, posting their personal information and addresses online.

There has been no confirmation of allegations that the Indian government was involved in recent deaths of activists in the Sikh diaspora or the threats against them, but Canada’s investigation into Nijjar’s killing could shed light on a larger pattern.

“Members of the Sikh diaspora have died under suspicious circumstances in the past,” said Sethi. “What makes this case so unique is that Canada is alleging that the Indian government was connected to the targeting, and that this conclusion was based on intelligence gathered by countries that are part of the Five Eyes alliance.”

Moninder Singh said Canada’s charge of Indian involvement in Nijjar’s death is evidence enough of what many members of the Sikh diaspora have long claimed: that the Indian government is targeting them on Western soil.

“The feeling in the Sikh community is that this is also a piece of validation for what we’ve been saying for many years, which is that this foreign interference exists here,” he said. “His death confirmed that in a very significant way.”

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image: Houston Sikh Community at the 2016 Martin Luther King Day parade in Midtown Houston (Licensed under CC0)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Revelations about what Victoria Nuland ever so euphemistically called “biological research facilities” in Ukraine are usually tied to the start of Russia’s strategic counteroffensive against NATO aggression in Europe (SMO). However, the truth is that the United States has had a massive bioweapons program for well over half a century and that it has become unprecedentedly globalized in recent decades. The belligerent thalassocracy carefully disguises it under the pretense of “battling epidemics” and “improving health services” of host countries, but the very fact that the Pentagon is directly involved in these projects is a major red flag that indicates such claims are at the very least highly questionable.

Expectedly, the US-led political West is adamant that Russia is “engaged in disinformation” and that these “biological research facilities” are not only “harmless”, but also “benevolent”, as Washington DC is “simply trying to help”. And yet, as soon as the Russian military came into possession of materials housed in these biolabs, Nuland complained before the US Congress that the “benevolent research” could become “dangerous in Russian hands”. It’s important to note that independent investigators have been researching this topic for years before the SMO started, including the respected Bulgarian investigative journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva, who has also experienced numerous unpleasantries because of it.

For instance, in 2018, Gaytandzhieva was expelled from the EU Parliament for confronting the US Assistant Secretary of Health over Pentagon-funded biolabs in 25 countries around the world. Her fascinating and groundbreaking work was smeared by the mainstream propaganda machine as “fake news”, although the high-ranking US official could’ve simply given a short explanation about the “benevolence” that’s taking place in these “biological research facilities”. Gaytandzhieva also broke the story about similar biolabs in Georgia, where she interviewed numerous locals who contracted “mysterious” diseases just because they were living in the vicinity of the “benevolent” facilities.

As if that isn’t frightening enough, there are at least 336 Pentagon-run “biological research facilities” spread across the world, although the actual number could be several times higher. Africa is particularly exposed to such “benevolent research”, especially populous countries such as Nigeria. Russian military intelligence has identified at least four US biolabs in the African nation. Major General Igor Kirillov, the commander of Russian Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Defense Troops, pointed out the “strange coincidences” of epidemic outbreaks in the vicinity of these facilities. The involvement of the Pentagon is further reinforced by the participation of the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA).

Namely, the DTRA has been involved in “modernizing and reconstructing” the National Veterinary Research Institute in Vom, central Nigeria. Why would a US Department of Defense (DoD) agency take part in supposedly “non-military” activities that could’ve easily been conducted by public health services? And yet, the involvement of DoD doesn’t stop there, as the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research (WRAIR) has been conducting similar activities at the facilities of the Nigerian Defense Ministry, where they’ve been testing particularly dangerous pathogens without notifying local authorities, thereby exposing thousands of regular Nigerians (and possibly millions in the long term) to serious biohazard.

American military virologists in Nigeria are engaged in classified research that involves pathogens that cause tuberculosis, malaria, monkeypox and even COVID-19 and AIDS. Local sources indicate that tens of thousands of samples and genetic materials are being covertly transferred to other US-run biolabs, not only in Nigeria, but also abroad. Needless to say, the risk of causing yet another pandemic of global proportions because of such activities is substantial, even if the research conducted there is as “benevolent” as the Pentagon claims. The complete lack of transparency on the part of the US State Department, even toward the host country, only further reinforces this notion.

Frequent rotation of military personnel involved in the controversial “research” can only be described as an attempt to better conceal the nature of the Pentagon’s bioweapons program in Nigeria. What’s more, the recommendations of specialists from other US agencies, such as the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), actually lead to a worsening of the epidemiological situation in Nigeria, including an increase in cases of Ebola, Lassa, Crimean-Congo and similar types of hemorrhagic fever, as well as other dangerous diseases. Nigerian military personnel are probably the most vulnerable category, as the Pentagon exerts substantial control over Nigeria’s military and medical system.

Apart from DTRA, other US agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and USAID (US Agency for International Development) have varying degrees of involvement. Under the pretext of “improving the sanitary and epidemiological situation” in Nigeria, the US government is exerting a tremendous amount of control over the country’s bioscientific infrastructure. The European Union is also cooperating with its US counterparts, although the troubled bloc disguises the involvement of its agencies by presenting it as a “humanitarian” effort. Unfortunately, Nigerian authorities are either unaware or are turning a blind eye to the fact that their citizens are effectively being used as guinea pigs.

These activities only serve to create conditions for conducting more effective dual-use “biological research”, the purposes of which are beneficial not only to the interests of the Pentagon, but also the so-called Big Pharma. All of the aforementioned pathogens (in addition to numerous others) are a deadly biohazard that endangers the lives of not only millions of Nigerians, but billions of people in Africa and around the world. The question is – cui bono? Well, it’s certainly not the Nigerian people (or any other for that matter). However, taking into account the astronomical profit margins of American and other Western pharmaceutical corporations, we get the idea of who does.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

The Big Business of War. A Clandestine Arms Market in Ukraine

September 25th, 2023 by Manlio Dinucci

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

After his show at the United Nations, where he declared that “Russian aggression could expand beyond Ukraine,” Zelensky asked for more than a billion dollars from the US Congress.

The Congress has so far allocated 43 billion in “assistance to the security of Ukraine”, i.e. for direct military purposes. Together with other funding, officially given for humanitarian purposes, which in reality serves the war, the actual amount provided by Washington to Kyiv well exceeds 70 billion dollars. Now the White House has requested an additional $24 billion from Congress for Ukraine. Added to these are over 30 billion given to Kyiv by the European Union, plus tens of billions provided by Great Britain, Germany, Japan, Canada, Poland, Holland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, France, and Italy.

This enormous flow of public money, coming from citizens’ pockets, fuels what the New York Times calls a clandestine arms market” in Ukraine. Billions of dollars ended up in the pockets of high-ranking officials in Kyiv, so much so that the government had to fire the Minister of Defence and all six deputy Defence Ministers for corruption. These corrupt people are actually the scapegoats of a much larger crime. President Zelensky himself has substantial shares (formally transferred to one of his partners) in three companies established in tax havens and has purchased luxury villas in various parts of the world (most recently in Egypt) for the sum of tens of millions of dollars.

The enormous military supplies that Ukraine receives from the United States and European powers are not a gift but given on credit. Ukraine has thus accumulated such a foreign debt that it would take centuries to repay it. This debt will grow further with the “reconstruction” that Zelensky has placed in the hands of the American BlackRock, the largest investment company in the world.

The investment in Ukraine is paying off a lot for us –US Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said – We have united NATO. We have helped restore faith and trust in American leadershipmoral and military. All without a single American soldier being injured or killed.” “The fundamental reason for continuing to help Ukraine – declares Mitch McConnell, leader of the Republican Group in the US Senate – is cold, hard, and concrete American interests”.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

This article was originally published in Italian on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from Qatar News Agency

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

New Sep. 20, 2023 British Medical Journal Paper “Long Covid: the doctors’ lives destroyed by an illness they caught while doing their jobs”.

Image

  • Long COVID is an umbrella term for a diverse range of more than 200 symptoms—that last longer than four weeks after an acute Covid-19 infection.
  • ONS data estimates 4.4% of healthcare workers have acquired Long COVID
  • poor access to respiratory protective equipment is being blamed.
  • Survey of 603 doctors with “Long COVID” shows 20% no longer able to work, 50% have lost income
  • “The BMJ is aware of scores of doctors with long COVID
  • Charities that provide financial support to doctors in need have seen a sudden rise in demand. The Cameron Fund, which supports GPs and their dependents, says 2022 was “an exceptionally busy year” with an increase in applications from GPs off sick with long covid. During the first half of 2023, it has seen a 67% increase in enquiries for assistance compared with the same period last year.
  • British Medical Association and Long Covid Doctors For Action have set out 5 demands:
    • financial support for doctors and healthcare staff with Long COVID
    • Long COVID to be recognized as an occupational disease with a definitionthat covers all debilitating symptoms that Long COVID experience
    • improved access to physical and mental health services
    • greater workplace protection for healthcare staff
    • better support for Long COVID sufferers to return to work safely
  • UK Dept of Health and Social Care is investing 50 million pounds to “better understand long COVID”
  • NHS has committed 314 million pounds to “support people with ongoing symptoms of Long COVID”
  • Article was “commissioned, not externally peer reviewed”

Sep. 21, 2023 – Quebec, Canada – Long COVID, thousands of healthcare workers affected

  • This survey was carried out following a mandate from the Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services (MSSS).
  • A total of 23,000 healthcare workers participated in the survey electronically or by telephone from May to July.
  • 10% reported persistent symptoms for more than three months, referred to as long COVID.
  • 29% have severe symptoms on a daily basis, 43% have moderate, 28% mild
  • 71% report Long COVID has an impact on their ability to work, 16% regularly experience difficulty working

Mar. 6, 2023 WebMD – Long COVID Takes toll on Healthcare Workforce

  • The US healthcare system has lost 20% of its workforce
  • In New York, 20% of long COVID patients are still out of work after a year
  • 2% of nurses have not returned to work after developing COVID-19
  • 25% of those filing COVID-related workers compensation claims for lost time at work are healthcare workers, more than any other industry.

Feb. 2023 – Nursing Times – Survey of 1000 UK nurses

  • 1000 nurses surveyed
  • 9.5% report Long COVID

Dec. 31, 2022 – Pandey et al – Nepal Healthcare workers

  • 12.8% of healthcare workers report Long COVID with moderate or severe symptoms
  • 2.4% report severe symptoms.

Sep. 20, 2023 – US government awards $45 million for Long COVID Clinics

  • U.S. government is awarding $45 million in grants to help clinics treating long COVID develop new models of care and expand access, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said
  • The condition affects nearly 7% of all U.S. adults and 2.3% of the overall population and has cost an estimated $386 billion in lost wages, savings and medical bills, according to an analysis in April by the Solve Long Covid Initiative, a non-profit research and advocacy group.
  • More than 200 symptoms have been linked to the syndrome – including extreme fatigue, difficulty thinking, headaches, dizziness when standing, sleep problems, chest pain, blood clots, immune dysregulation, and even diabetes.

April 2023 – Australian Govt commits $50 million to “studying Long COVID”

CDC Estimates 20% of US adults have Long COVID

This figure is a graphic describing various health conditions after COVID-19 infection.

March 2023 – Government of Canada on Long COVID

  • 15% of adults who got COVID-19 still experience long term symptoms
  • 20% report their symptoms limit their daily activities

Oct 2022 – Perlis et al – Prevalence of Long COVID among US Adults

  • A study of 16,000 individuals
  • 15% of US adults with prior positive test have long COVID

My Take

  • 10% of healthcare workers are COVID-19 vaccine injured (and believe they have Long COVID)
  • 7% are seriously injured and 2% of healthcare workers have been disabled and are unable to work
  • Long COVID will be blamed for COVID-19 vaccine injuries to doctors & nurses.
  • UK groups are demanding that “Long COVID” is recognized as an “occupational disease” for healthcare workers
  • Recently, US, Canadian and Australian governments are starting to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into “Long COVID research” and financial support for those suffering from Long COVID
  • We will soon start to see a shift towards accepting a figure of 15% Long COVID in the adult population. Maybe even higher.

I believe that the governments will ultimately try to buy the silence of all COVID-19 vaccine injured doctors, nurses, and healthcare workers through various “support programs” that will be well funded in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications.

Featured image is from Pandemic.news


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

Reviews

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized. —Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

In fifteen concise science-based chapters, Michel traces the false covid pandemic, explaining how a PCR test, producing up to 97% proven false positives, combined with a relentless 24/7 fear campaign, was able to create a worldwide panic-laden “plandemic”; that this plandemic would never have been possible without the infamous DNA-modifying Polymerase Chain Reaction test – which to this day is being pushed on a majority of innocent people who have no clue. His conclusions are evidenced by renown scientists. —Peter Koenig 

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. –David Skripac

A reading of  Chossudovsky’s book provides a comprehensive lesson in how there is a global coup d’état under way called “The Great Reset” that if not resisted and defeated by freedom loving people everywhere will result in a dystopian future not yet imagined. Pass on this free gift from Professor Chossudovsky before it’s too late.  You will not find so much valuable information and analysis in one place. –Edward Curtin

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

We encourage you to support the eBook project by making a donation through Global Research’s DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page