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)

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 documented^16,17 158,000 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 boosters^20,21 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.”

---

---

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:

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.”

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.

A 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. 

 

 

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.

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

The WHO has confirmed the transition towards a digitalized totalitarian State at the World level. 

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.

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.

Articles reviewed:

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).

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.”

 

***

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

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

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 15^th 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.

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)

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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. 

Zelensky visited the US in person, made a speech at the UN, and came home with an amount of ammo so small the Pentagon won't give numbers and a handful of the worst air defense systems currently in use by a major power.

In the Army we called this "getting thrown under the bus." pic.twitter.com/f8hFVstDud

— Armchair Warlord (@ArmchairW) September 22, 2023

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.

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

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:

Shameful words by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

What do you mean with "once again"?

Treacherous words used on her speech delivered at the 2023 Atlantic Council Awards to suggest that Russia used nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,… pic.twitter.com/nJFd8acJbq

— Alexandre Guerreiro (@ATGuerreiro) September 22, 2023

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.”

Empire of lies and its lords

Nuclear weapons were used only twice in history. But at the Atlantic Council Awards, EU's Von der Leyen, without mentioning that both times US did it, falsely claimed that "Russia threatens to use nuclear weapons once again". Shame. pic.twitter.com/wRY2sntxl0

— Russian Embassy in Kenya/Посольство России в Кении (@russembkenya) September 23, 2023

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

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

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 leadership – moral 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”.

• 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

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

---

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.

***

The sides involved in the Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh conflict have fortunately reached a temporary ceasefire agreement. But the crisis seems far from over. Being governed by a pro-NATO junta, Armenia will have many problems in the near future, both in Artsakh and in its own territory, since evidently the West’s intention is to increase chaos in the region as much as possible.

There is no doubt that Nikol Pashinyan‘s irresponsible and unpopular government is to blame for the recent escalations in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Having come to power through a pro-Western color revolution, Pashinyan has strived since 2018 to make Yerevan a NATO proxy state in the Caucasus, exponentially increasing ties between Armenia and countries such as the US and France while creating frictions with Russia.

Unable to achieve any real guarantee of security from his Western partners and adopting a hostile behavior towards Russia, Pashinyan led Armenia to absolute strategic weakness at a time of new high tensions with Azerbaijan, culminating in the attacks that occurred between 19 and 20 September during Baku’s so-called “anti-terrorist operation”. Cowardly, Pashinyan made it clear that he would not participate in the conflict, almost forcing the Armenians of Artsakh to surrender in order to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe.

More than 120,000 Armenians are now fearing their future in the face of Azerbaijani aggression, without being able to count on their partners in Yerevan to help in the crisis. In practice, Pashinyan “handed over” the lives of his compatriots to an enemy country, putting his own people at risk and showing a lack of concern for the safety of ethnic Armenians. All this to continue following the government’s number one goal, which is to please Western “allies”.

It must be remembered that Pashinyan’s Western “friends” made a real trap for Armenia by mediating the so-called “Prague agreements“. At the time, Yerevan recognized Azerbaijani sovereignty, which was mistakenly seen by the mainstream media as a “step towards peace”. The problem is that the agreement did not establish any real conditions to resolve the dispute over Artsakh, therefore serving to further legitimize Baku’s interest in the region. With Armenia recognizing Azerbaijani territorial integrity, the country was left without any justification to prevent further Azerbaijani aggressions against the ethnic Armenians of Artsakh.

In practice, Pashinyan legitimized Turkish-Azerbaijani expansionism in Nagorno-Karabakh and “authorized” the beginning of ethnic cleansing, abandoning more than 120,000 Armenians. This was the Western intention when promoting such an “agreement”, whose terms, instead of achieving peace, legitimized even more conflicts. This obviously serves Western interests, since in the face of new hostilities, Yerevan, unable to intervene, tends to request help from NATO – exactly as the Armenian Ambassador in Washington did – thus allowing Western troops to arrive in the region. In this scenario, Baku would certainly also request international help, calling the Turks. In the end, the Caucasus would become a NATO zone of influence and the Russian presence in the region would be minimized or even terminated.

Of course, all of this became clear recently, leading to a wave of mass protests and criticism against Pashinyan. In addition, the “Civil Contract” party received the lowest number of votes in five years in the last Council of Elders elections, being supported by only 32% of voters. There is evidently a crisis of legitimacy, and it is possible that the end of the Pashinyan era is a matter of time.

The main problem, however, is that Pashinyan is not an isolated agent. He is just one of the members of the pro-NATO junta that rules today’s Armenia. In addition to him, there are other politicians similarly willing to make Yerevan subordinate to Western plans. For example, the Secretary of the Security Council, Armen Grigoryan, who many analysts see as someone with the possibility of growing politically and becoming the new prime minister, is an even more pro-Western politician than Pashinyan.

Linked to the Soros Foundations, Grigoryan openly says that he will promote Armenia’s integration into NATO, advancing the policies started by Pashinyan. Furthermore, Grigoryan is already notorious for his pro-Western militancy, having even been accused of leaking confidential documents from the CSTO to NATO, which shows his high level of subservience to foreign interests.

So, unfortunately, there is no good expectation about the future of Armenia. The country would need to undergo a radical political change to reverse the catastrophic effects of the 2018 coup. If this does not happen, Yerevan will continue to be governed by pro-Western politicians, and the only point of divergence between them will be on how to be even more obedient to NATO.

Pashinyan increasingly seems to understand that he will be replaced by someone more “competent.” Not surprisingly, there are rumors that his wife recently started looking for estate in Switzerland and his son is already living in Canada. Unlike the Armenian people of Artsakh, Pashinyan will be able to leave the country with his family, not seeing firsthand the catastrophe he created for his own people.

*

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.

Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

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.

***

[This was aired on GTRV in May 2017.]

From political and social chaos to economic instability and global warfare, the crises created by the privatisation of politics are increasingly spinning out of control.

Today on the GRTV Feature Interview, Michel Chossudovsky examines how all of these crises are converging on one point: the systematic destruction of the reproduction of real life.

*

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.

China’s Huawei A.I. Chips Technology Signals Collapse of US Strategy. China’s Era of “Big AI”?

By Karsten Riise, September 24, 2023

Huawei announces that the era of big AI has also come for China. Huawei speaks of developing and implementing both software and hardware for LLM (Large Language Models), which is the main type of models for implementing AI. 

Ukraine’s “Neo-Nazi Summer Camp”. Military Training for Young Children, Para-military Recruits

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 25, 2023

Unknown to most Americans and Canadians, the US government is channeling financial support, weapons and training to a Neo-Nazi entity –which is part of The Ukraine National Guard– The Azov Battalion (Батальйон Азов). Canada and Britain have confirmed that they also are providing support to the National Guard.

The COVID-19 Crisis and the “Lethal Jab”: Is It Ignorance and Corporate Greed? Or Is It the Globalists’ “Depopulation” Agenda? The Emerging “Hindsight Narrative”…

By Dr. Emanuel Garcia, September 24, 2023

I acknowledge that we need all the help we can get and I am grateful for their assistance, but I am often mindful that the explanations offered by some of them, in their hindsight, only go so far. In fact, they fall far short of an appreciation that the whole phoney covid pandemic was an ‘operation’ perpetrated upon the globe by a powerful faction that sought not only to enrich their already rich selves but to enslave us and, with their bioweapons, to kill and maim.

The Angertainer Steps Down: Rupert Murdoch’s Non-Retirement

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, September 24, 2023

One particularly bad habit the news is afflicted by is a tendency to fall into discussions about itself. Its members, some of them at least, used to call it the “Fourth Estate,” an unelected chamber of scribblers supposedly meant to keep an eye on the other three, yet finding itself at times distracted, gossip-driven, and rumour filled by its own exploits.

A Natural Alternative to “Puberty Blockers” that May Make Your Kids Taller Than You

By John C. A. Manley, September 24, 2023

While giving kids dangerous and untested puberty blocking chemicals should probably be as illegal as paedophilia, we can’t ignore the fact that children, especially in Western nations, are hitting puberty earlier than is natural.

Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenians Fall Victim to the EU’s Dependence on Hydrocarbons and Pashinyan’s Betrayal

By Steven Sahiounie, September 24, 2023

On September 19, following the death of four soldiers and two civilians, Azerbaijan pushed aggressively to control Nogorno-Karabakh, and the next day the Armenian forces agreed to lay down their arms in the Armenian majority enclave. 

The East Baltic States: Language and Identity in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, September 24, 2023

A common historical feature of the “Three Baltic sister-states” (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) is that for most of the modern time instead of state independence there were decades of foreign administrations imposed by several European powers.

Kiev Desperate in Search for New Energy Sources: Using Prison Inmates to Generate Electricity with “Bicycle Generators”

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, September 24, 2023

The evidence of Ukrainian despair is becoming increasingly clear. In an attempt to obtain new sources of energy, the possibility of using prisoners to generate electricity is being discussed in the Ukrainian Parliament. In practice, this would be an extreme human effort to make a small amount of energy, which shows how desperate Kiev is to reduce the effects of its energy crisis.

Seymour Hersh: “It’s All Lies. The War Is Over. Russia Has Won.”

By Richard Abelson and Seymour M. Hersh, September 24, 2023

As the anniversary of the purported Biden Regime sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline approaches Sept. 26,  veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh blamed a ”secret disinformation operation“ by CIA and MI-6 for misleading the public about the disastrous state of the US-led war effort.

President of the UN General Assembly Approves Pandemic Declaration — Privacy Experts Warn of ‘Digital Gulag’

By Michael Nevradakis, September 23, 2023

The United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly (UNGA) president today approved the non-binding U.N declaration on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response (PPPR), without a full assembly vote and over the objections of 11 nations.

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 listen attentively when doctors and other health professionals who once shilled for the covidian tactics of ‘sheltering in place’ (what a quaint euphemism for imprisonment!), masks (how much more evidence do we need to show that they are and always have been useless for viral respiratory pathogens?), and, of course, the innovative mRNA-based jab, all the while never caring to spare a breath for natural immunity or early treatment, have a change of heart.

Well, after a bit of travelling down their personal roads to Damascus and seeing a light strong enough to make them revise their former gospels, they have had their conversion, have joined our side and are now front and centre on the resistance pulpit.

I acknowledge that we need all the help we can get and I am grateful for their assistance, but I am often mindful that the explanations offered by some of them, in their hindsight, only go so far. In fact, they fall far short of an appreciation that the whole phoney covid pandemic was an ‘operation’ perpetrated upon the globe by a powerful faction that sought not only to enrich their already rich selves but to enslave us and, with their bioweapons, to kill and maim.

It wasn’t just a matter of Pfizer, Moderna and Astrazeneca licking their chops at the opportunity to make wild profits by pushing an inadequately tested agent while nervous health officials erred on the side of ‘vaccinating’ everyone who breathed as a precautionary measure based on fearful and ignorant worry … No. It was more, it was more profound, it was more devilishly destructive and centrally planned.

Yes, there was — there is — a conspiracy, not just organic goosestepping and Sierpinski triangles. It was a bunch of high-placed people who set about controlling and literally destroying a large swath of the world’s population, deliberately, and relentlessly.

They are still going at it and with more than just the lethal Jab.

The ‘reset’ they planned includes widespread censorship, the destruction of foundational principles of medicine, digital identification, social credit permissions, total surveillance, a fraudulent climate ‘emergency’ leading to further restrictions upon human autonomy, and, naturally, more and more inoculations. The scale of their operation is immense and its fruits should be visible by now to anyone who dares to think.

Ignorance and corporate greed are not the prime movers. Not to finger the Globalist Cabal for the murderers they are is to let them off the hook and to dissipate the energies of our resistance. Not to connect the dots is to be left with a picture so incomplete that responsibilities are diffused and the most significant guilty parties are at leisure to continue their machinations unscathed.

I chanced to have a conversation with a health practitioner the other night, a person who had been coerced into the Jab to preserve his job, a person who joined us at Parliament here in Wellington as we protested the mandates, a person who has worked behind the scenes to assist others in the health care system who opposed the regimen of masks, quarantine and jabs. When I asked him point-blank whether he thought there was indeed a ‘depopulation agenda’, he shook his head. It was the proverbial bridge too far, but it gave me an idea.

Those celebrated doctors and nurses, familiar to MSM audiences as mouthpieces for the Programme at the outset, who influenced countless people to toe the line — what if they, in their new shining garb within the freedom community, painted the full picture?

I still can’t explain how any self-respecting health professional could have lost his or her wits so completely in 2020 so as to have discarded the principles of their discipline. Could they really have forgotten about natural immunity and early treatment and the need for a genuine vaccine to be tested over years for safety and efficacy?

But never mind. If our new apostles of good sense can now use their heft and influence to enlighten the many who waver in the middle about the true extent and depravity and the planned coordination informing the covidian psyops, they will have atoned for their earlier lapses and complicity. But unless they have the courage to go that far, I, for one, will regard their intentions with grave suspicion.

Unless they have the guts to serve up the whole enchilada, they can take their morsels elsewhere.

*

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. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand. Visit his substack at https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Activist Post

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.

*** 

One particularly bad habit the news is afflicted by is a tendency to fall into discussions about itself. Its members, some of them at least, used to call it the “Fourth Estate,” an unelected chamber of scribblers supposedly meant to keep an eye on the other three, yet finding itself at times distracted, gossip-driven, and rumour filled by its own exploits.

The greatest distraction that weathered province falls is coverage of its own moguls and pop-representatives. When it came to covering, for instance, the wiles and frauds of Robert Maxwell, little could be trusted about the brow-beating bruiser’s exploits.  You certainly could not trust what the likes of his own Mirror Group Newspapers or the New York Daily News, printed about his affairs. Editors and journalists were terrified; his inner circle, subservient. When a colossal £460 million gap was unearthed in the pension funds of his empire, feigned surprise was registered.

On September 21, a press release from News Corp announced that Rupert Murdoch was “stepping down as chairman of each board effective as of the upcoming Annual General Meeting of Shareholders of each company [Fox Corporation and News Corporation] in mid-November.”

But stepping down in the post-modernist slushy argot of Fox Corp and News Corp never means retirement in any conventional sense. One continues to read, for instance, that Murdoch “will be appointed Chairman Emeritus of each company.”

This announcement should have simply caused a wave of sniggering and guffawing. The most savage and imperialist press mogul of them all had always insisted that he would not release the reins of power, stating in 1998, at the age of 67, that he was “enjoying” being in charge, admitting it was “a selfish choice. To walk away and retire, it’s a pretty dismal prospect – I don’t want to do that.” Were he to do so, he would “die pretty quickly.” One of his sons, Lachlan, seemingly the perennial successor in waiting, had to concede in 2015 that his father was “never retiring”.

One of the reasons Murdoch has cited for refusing to step down has been those heel nipping, unprepared progeny of his. “I don’t think my children are ready yet. They may not agree with that, but I’m certainly planning [to] wait several more years.” That was 1998. But in 2023, now aged 92 years, he has reached a point where he would not so much step down as shuffle slightly to the side. This left Lachlan holding the chairmanship of both Fox Corp and News Corp.

Media outlets dutifully covered the announcement. Politicians were careful, respectful, even servile. Australia’s Labor government seemed terrified to say anything contrarian about the man’s horrific, degrading legacy. “Whether he’s chairman or not, it appears he will play a very big role at Fox and at News,” education minister Jason Clare observed on Channel Seven’s Sunrise. Treasurer Jim Chalmers told ABC’s News Breakfast that Murdoch had “been an incredibly influential figure on the global media landscape”.

Murdoch’s open letter to employees was defiant and characteristically arrogant. “Our companies are in robust health, as am I,” went the sinister note. “Our opportunities far exceed our commercial challenges. We have every reason to be optimistic about the coming years – I certainly am, and plan to be here to participate in them.” Threateningly, he promised that an entire professional life dedicated to an engagement with “daily news and ideas” would “not change.” Editors and hacks, remain on your guard.

The letter does not deviate from a formula Murdoch embraced from the moment he became a newspaper proprietor in 1952. This did not involve news as accuracy so much as news for purpose, one armed for the fight. “My father firmly believed in freedom, and Lachlan is absolutely committed to the cause.” As he so often does, Murdoch tries the populist tone for size, attacking the grey suits, the “[s]elf-serving bureaucracies” that seek “to silence those who would question their provenance and purpose.” He persists in having a fanciful idea of elites who continue showing “open contempt for those who are not members of their rarefied class.” He follows with the predictable observation that, “Most of the media is in cahoots with those elites, peddling political narratives rather than pursuing the truth.”

Murdoch is right about the establishment collusion but ignores his own role in the venture. He was the man who, after all, entered the sacred temple and acquired such establishment relics as The Times of London and the Wall Street Journal, showing that establishments are not always monoliths. At times, they can even be protean, shifting and vulnerable.

The era of Donald Trump and his presidency signalled the arrival of Fox as its own establishment and king maker, the hailer and railing force against the pointy heads, the experts, the technocrats. Foetid swamps were drained of establishment types, only to be replaced by Trumpist types.

In doing so, Murdoch’s corporate attack dogs engendered what former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull disparaged as an “anger-tainment ecosystem”. Turnbull has every reason to be bitter; his political career was scalped largely because of the urgings of the News Corp hounds. (His own Liberal Party cheerfully took heed and did the deed.) Looking to the United States, Turnbull also saw the Fox ecosystem and its devastating effects: the enragement and division of the citizenry, while “knowingly” sowing lies “most consequentially the one … where Donald Trump claimed to have won the 2020 election.” This, as Turnbull should know, is only part of the story.

There will, or at least should be, a good number wishing for the implosion of this insidious empire. Under Lachlan and Rupert’s oppressively cast shadow, everything will be done to prevent that from happening. But the imperium’s burgeoning legal liabilities may tickle interest in a sale, though this remains a hypothetical musing by Fox watchers. The $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems, reached after Fox’s false claims of fraud perpetrated during the 2020 presidential election, has emboldened a number of lawsuits, including another worth $2.7 billion by Smartmatic Corp.

Whatever the changes, A.J. Bauer is surely right in quashing any assumptions that Fox News “would suddenly become a bastion of journalistic integrity”. The rot, its dank and enervating properties, has well and truly set in, blighting journalism in toto and subordinating political classes too afraid to admit otherwise.

*

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]

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 US mainstream media chose to ignore a meeting that took place at the recent United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) gathering of world leaders between Iran’s President, Ebrahim Raisi and an Ultra-Orthodox organization of anti-Zionist Jews called Neturei Karta.

The meeting was obviously not in any way newsworthy for any of the mainstream media networks based in the United States, but several Israeli media networks covered the story including

The Jerusalem Post who published what Raisi had said in the meeting and that was that Iran has no issues with the Jewish people or its faith “I have heard that there are anti-Zionist Jews here and this is a great thing,” said Raisi.

“We always reiterate the fact that we have no issue whatsoever with the Jewish faith, with the Torah, and in Iran, the Jews have freedom of religion. Our only issue is with the Zionists.” 

Raisi applies the same standards to Zionists and as he did with the US-backed terrorists known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) throughout the Middle East as he “stressed that he is against “oppression,” regardless of whether it comes from Jews, Christians, or Muslims.

“That’s why we never recognized the members of ISIS as Muslims” he continued “Today the Zionists wish to discredit the Jewish faith but we draw a clear distinction between Zionism and the Jewish faith and your work in which you announce that ‘we are Jewish, yet we are against Zionists’ that is something to be commended.”

Raisi and the Iranian government had always known that the creation of the Islamic State (ISIS) was funded, armed, and trained by the US and its allies in the Middle East including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel and to an extent, Turkey for some time.  Professor Tim Anderson, a senior lecturer in Political Economy at the University of Sydney explained how the Islamic State was created and why Syria was a target of the US and Israeli political establishment in his book ‘The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance’ said that it all began with “Proxy armies of Islamists, armed by US regional allies (mainly Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey), infiltrate a political reform movement and snipe at police and civilians. They blame this on the government and spark an insurrection, seeking the overthrow of the Syrian government and its secular-pluralist state.”

Anderson also said that this was part of a long-term agenda to recreate the Middle East. We must also add that this agenda can also help Israel expand its territory in the process as Arab countries become chaotic in the midst of these US sponsored wars led by the Islamic State, “This follows the openly declared ambition of the US to create a ‘New Middle East’, subordinating every country of the region, by reform, unilateral disarmament, or direct overthrow. Syria was next in line, after Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.”  Many terrorists came from warzones such as Iraq and Libya, and in some cases, many were recruited from countries who are close allies with Washington such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar.  “In Syria, the proxy armies would come from the combined forces of the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi fanatics. Despite occasional power struggles between these groups and their sponsors, they share much the same Salafist ideology, opposing secular or nationalist regimes and seeking the establishment of a religious state.” 

The Jewish Community in Iran

The unnamed members of Neturei Karta also told Raisi that “we found that throughout the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran, they respected and protected the Jewish community till today and you’re only distinguishing that Zionism has nothing to do with the religion and the occupation is unacceptable.” The Jews of Iran say that they feel safe and respected, “the Iranian government allows thousands of Jews to worship in peace and continue their association with the country founded more than 2,500 years ago.” 

Nejat Golshirazi, a rabbi of a local synagogue said that “we have all the facilities we need for our rituals, and we can say our prayers very freely. We never have any problems. I can even tell you that, in many cases, we are more respected than Muslims.” Currently there are various estimates range from 9,000 to 15,000 or more Jews living in Iran.  There was a larger population of Jews living in Iran before the Islamic revolution in 1979, however many left due to fear of reprisal for being Jewish. 

The Foundation for the Advancement of Sephardic Studies and Culture claimed that

“Before the revolution, Jews were well-represented among Iran’s business elite, holding key posts in the oil industry, banking, and law, as well as in the traditional bazaar. The wave of anti-Israeli sentiment that swept Iran during the revolution, as well as large-scale confiscations of private wealth, sent thousands of the more affluent Jews fleeing to the United States or Israel. Those remaining lived in fear of pogroms, or massacres.” 

So, the new atmosphere was propelled by fear for many Jews who decided to move to Israel or the United States

“But Khomeini met with the Jewish community upon his return from exile in Paris and issued a ”fatwa” decreeing that the Jews were to be protected. Similar edicts also protect Iran’s tiny Christian minority”.

In today’s Iran, Persian Jews still live in Iran and that angers Israel’s leadership and its pro-Zionist supporters.  In fact, it was reported that in 2007, “Iran’s Jews have given the country a loyalty pledge in the face of cash offers aimed at encouraging them to move to Israel, the archenemy of its Islamic rulers.”  But that backfired:

The incentives — ranging from £5,000 a person to £30,000 for families — were offered from a special fund established by wealthy expatriate Jews in an effort to prompt a mass migration to Israel from among Iran’s 25,000-strong Jewish community. The offers were made with Israel’s official blessing and were additional to the usual state packages it provides to Jews emigrating from the diaspora.  However, the Society of Iranian Jews dismissed them as “immature political enticements” and said their national identity was not for sale. 

“The identity of Iranian Jews is not tradeable for any amount of money,” the society said in a statement. “Iranian Jews are among the most ancient Iranians. Iran’s Jews love their Iranian identity and their culture, so threats and this immature political enticement will not achieve their aim of wiping out the identity of Iranian Jews.”

It is obvious that the US political establishment, the mainstream media, AIPAC and the Christian-Zionists from the bible belt in the Southern part of the US never want the truth to be told about Jews living in Iran, because Iran is on the list with Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Yemen, and Syria for regime change and destruction because the US and European establishment and their closest ally, Israel want to turn Iran into another Iraq. 

However, the situation for Israel’s leadership becomes a little complicated because it is most likely that they do not want Iranian Jews to be killed or injured if they decide to move forward with a foolish military strike that can be armed with a nuclear warhead inside of Iran, which will mean not only having Persian blood on their hands, but also the blood of their Jewish brethren.    

*

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.

Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his own blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SCN

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 an interview with Sarnia News Today, Diversity Ed founder Crystal Fach said protesters advocating for parental consent regarding the use of puberty blockers are “taking away kids’ right to exist as who they are.”

This is baffling double-speak, since the very point of puberty blockers is to prevent the child from experiencing a natural, healthy and essential part of their development as a human being. At the same time, there is a little truth behind what this trans activist is proposing, particularly when she says, “…the only thing that we’re doing is giving trans kids the ability to have a pause.”

While giving kids dangerous and untested puberty blocking chemicals should probably be as illegal as paedophilia, we can’t ignore the fact that children, especially in Western nations, are hitting puberty earlier than is natural.

An article in the journal Nature states: “Trends for northern Europe show an average age of menarche [first menstruation] of 16 years in the early 1850s; by the early twentieth century, it had dropped below 15; now it is 12-and-a-half.”

Early onset of puberty is possibly just as dangerous as puberty-blocking drugs.

A lead article in the journal Nutrition Review states, “Early onset of puberty is considered an intermediary factor on the life-course path to a number of diseases in adulthood, including hormone-related cancers, a higher risk of all-cause mortality, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease.”

In other words, early pubic hair increases the child’s risk of getting fat and developing type-2 diabetes (know any fat kids?), developing cancer (one of the leading causes of death among teenagers) and having a heart attack (presumably when they are older, unless they’ve had their mRNA booster). And, it’s fair to assume, having a period at eight could also cause a degree of gender dysphoria.

So what causes early onset of puberty?

“The most consistent link between diet and premature puberty has been animal protein consumption,” states Dr. Micheal Gregor, author of How Not to Die, in his presentation, Protein, Puberty and Pollutants. “For example, every gram of daily animal protein intake — that’s the weight of a paperclip — has been associated with about a 17% increase in the risk of girls starting their periods earlier than age 12.”

Put another way, studies are finding that if a girl consumes 40g of animal protein a day, their chances of hitting puberty before age 12 goes up 680%.

“Why this link between animal protein and premature puberty?” asks Dr. Gregor.

“Well, we know meat increases the levels of the growth hormone IGF-1, and that alone is associated with early-onset puberty. But, maybe animal protein is just a proxy for the endocrine-disrupting chemicals that build up the food chain in animal products.”

So the next question is: Is meat and dairy in itself responsible for early puberty, or is it due to chemicals that the animals ingest and inhale? For example, a study in the journal Environmental Research found that early periods are associated with higher levels of flame retardant chemicals in girls’ bloodstreams. Both chicken and fish have been shown to contain these chemicals. And, of course, children often sleep on flame retardant mattresses, in poorly ventilated rooms, wearing flame retardant pyjamas (and maybe even a flame retardant face mask).

So while drugs are obviously an unwise route to prevent early onset of puberty, would not a healthier diet and a less toxic environment be something both sides could agree on?

My son is now 16. He’s still not shaving. Since he was nine has been on a strict diet absent of any meat, diary or eggs. Prior to that he followed a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet. He is now taller than me. One of the factors which convinced me that a plant-based diet (I rather dislike the word “vegan”) was truly “safe and effective” was seeing that children who had been raised on plant-based diets were taller than their parents. This appears to be a result of the child not being rushed into puberty too early, allowing more time to grow.

In contrast, I grew up eating eggs and butter for breakfast, luncheon meat and mayo at noon, and fish and chips for dinner. Plus, I was a big milk drinker. I had to start shaving at age 12.

As Dr. McDougall, author of The Starch Solution, points out in his talk on Precocious Puberty, “Let me give you some of the statistics. Little girls and boys are supposed to mature when they are 16, 17 or 18 years of age. That’s the time to start thinking about having babies, not before then. But because of the rich Western diet — the dairy, the meat, the high-protein, high-oil foods — what happens is we encourage the production of sex hormones. As a consequence, our children are maturing earlier.”

Those of us opposing the sexualization of children have been focusing on countering indoctrination from the school system and media. Maybe we should also be giving attention to the food we are feeding our kids?

“It’s a disaster for the family, for the [child] and for our society to have children mature and start thinking about sexual thoughts five [or] ten years before they are intended to,” continued Dr. McDougall. “We can change all that… by nourishing our children properly. A child who lives on a starch-based diet, with a minimal amount of animal foods and extra oils in their diet — will mature when it’s time to mature…. You have disruption going on in your home? It’s not too late, you can change it now. Change the kid’s diets.”

*

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 C. A. Manley is the author of the full-length novel, Much Ado About Corona: Dystopian Love Story. He is currently working on the sequel, Brave New Normal. John lives in Stratford, Ontario, with his son Jonah, and the ever-present spirit of his late wife, Nicole. You can subscribe to his email newsletter, read his full bio or find out more about his novel.

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.

*** 

More than 30 years of conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is drawing to a close, and Armenia is the loser.

On September 19, following the death of four soldiers and two civilians, Azerbaijan pushed aggressively to control Nogorno-Karabakh, and the next day the Armenian forces agreed to lay down their arms in the Armenian majority enclave. 

Azerbaijan previously had waged a war of attrition to cut off supplies to the 120,000 Armenians. Despite Russian peacekeepers being stationed there since December 2022 tasked with keeping the Lachin corridor open, Azerbaijan blockaded the narrow mountain road which links Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh.

On September 18, Red Cross trucks carrying food and medicine finally gained access to Nagorno-Karabakh.

“An agreement has been reached on the withdrawal of the remaining units and servicemen of the Armenian armed forces … and on the dissolution and complete disarmament of the armed formations of the Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Army,” the Armenian authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh said in a statement.

Europe’s insatiable demand for energy is in part supplied by Azerbaijan’s gas and oil resources.

In January, the EU signed a natural gas import agreement with Azerbaijan, as the EU moved away from Russian supplies. Within months, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, announced a new agreement to double gas imports from Azerbaijan while visiting Baku.

In response to the new agreement, about 50 French legislators denounced the move that would place Europeans dependent on a state with war-like aspirations, referring to Azerbaijan’s aggression against the Armenians. 

Energy analysts have pointed to the West’s hypocrisy in the conflict, as they negotiate gas and oil at the expense of the Armenians.

Azerbaijan saw their chance to finish off a decades-long dispute with Armenia as the West turns to Baku for oil, and turns away from Russia.

In the middle of the conflict is Nikol Pashinyan, the Prime Minister of Armenian since 2018.

He faced intense domestic pressure in 2020 after he agreed to a Russian-brokered ceasefire that ended a 44-day war between ethnic Armenian, and Azerbaijani forces who had achieved victory, after taking back a third of the breakaway territory, and an additional seven surrounding districts.

Pashinyan had faced calls to resign in 2020, as angry crowds protested in the capital Yerevan after the defeat then, and he faced thousands of protesters in Yerevan on Wednesday asking him again to resign, after viewing the surrender of the breakaway region as a final humiliating defeat.

In the past, Pashinyan reversed his position and recognized that Nagorno-Karabakh was part of Azerbaijan and gave up on his previous claim. However, he demanded that Azerbaijan agree to protect the rights and security of the Karabakh Armenians, but Azerbaijan refused.

Pashinyan is pursuing a pro-Western policy, and in early September, Armenia announced humanitarian aid to Ukraine and undertook a joint military exercise with the US, which began on September 11.

Pashinyan’s critics have said he has moved towards the US and NATO, and away from his former alliance with Russia, which is a neighbor and has peacekeeping forces in the area.  The Armenian people look at results, and have seen Pashinyan’s failures mounting up, while they have seen a lack of any American involvement in their conflict, which leaves them wondering what is driving Pashinyan’s decision to go West, when the US has not helped Armenia other than bread crumbs in humanitarian aid, and the EU are depending on Azerbaijan.

Armenia ceded territory in and around Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan after the 2020 defeat, and 2,000 Russian peacekeepers were placed to guarantee the safety of the Armenians as stipulated in the ceasefire, but despite their presence armed skirmishes continued on the border.

Washington provides security assistance to Azerbaijan through a presidential waiver to Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. US ally Israel is Azerbaijan’s principal supplier of weapons. The Azerbaijani army is trained by the Turkish military, another US-NATO ally. Despite having an awful human rights record, Azerbaijan is a strategic partner for the West.   

The US is not allied to Armenia, but has diplomatic relations, although Washington is not legally bound to Yerevan by any bilateral or multilateral security agreements

Experts are left wondering: why is Pashinyan moving away from Moscow, when Washington has never moved towards Yerevan? Are there secret promises from the US only Pashinyan knows about?  Will a coup unfold in Yerevan to remove Pashinyan before he can reveal his motives?

In 1921, Stalin separated the predominantly Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh from Armenia, and attached it to Azerbaijan, and this became a permanent tension between the two.

During the USSR collapse in 1991, the separatist Republic of Artsakh declared independence from Azerbaijan; however, it was not internationally recognized.  In 1994, Armenia won the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, resulting in the de facto independence of the Republic of Artsakh, but Azerbaijan refused to acknowledge it.

The Armenian defeat in Nagorno-Karabakh is a decisive victory for Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, who has made the reunification of his country a priority.

Azerbaijan had taken advantage of the significant revenues from oil and gas to build up their military arsenal from Turkey, and this turned the tide in the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.

In the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020, Azerbaijan’s forces overpowered the Armenian military in the conflict which Baku had launched with the support of Turkey.

On Tuesday, the Turkish Defense Ministry admitted they are supporting Azerbaijan, but denied playing a direct role in the recent victory at Nagorno-Karabakh.

On Wednesday, Hikmet Hajiyev, Azerbaijan’s presidential foreign policy advisor said they aimed to “peacefully reintegrate” Armenians living in the separatist region and that it supports a “normalization process between Armenia and Azerbaijan”.

At the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Wednesday, officials were warning about a possible “ethnic cleansing” of the Armenian population in Nagorno-Karabakh.  Azerbaijan is Muslim as well as their ally Turkey, who has a history of genocide against the Armenians in 1915, as well as the Syrian Christians.

In March 2014, the US sponsored Radical Islamic terrorists crossed from Turkey into the Armenian village of Kessab, Syria.  They raped, killed, and occupied the village for three months during which every home and business was destroyed. In April 2014, Ahmed Jarba, the president of the political wing of the US sponsored Free Syrian Army visited Kessab to congratulate his troops, and then left Syria to sit in the Oval Office with President Obama. After almost a decade, Kessab still sits destroyed and the Armenian residents have almost all gone due to US sanctions preventing any rebuilding, donations, or investment for recovery.  A similar fate may await the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh.

*

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.

*** 

Here is a report on 72 cases of TURBO CANCER in Ages 18-24 in 2023. This is just a small sample of the thousands of tragic stories that are out there: 

Sep. 5, 2023 – Woolwich, ON – 24 year old Spencer Ewen was diagnosed with very rare Desmoplastic Small Round Cell Tumor (Sarcoma).

Sep. 3, 2023 – Biloxi, MS – 21 year old Alesia Lockhard is in the US National Guard Reserve and was diagnosed with Stage 3 Rhabdomyosarcoma (rare and aggressive).

Aug. 30, 2023 – San Clemente, CA – 22 year old Hailey Pressnell was diagnosed with Stage 3B melanoma.

Aug. 29, 2023 – 20 year old UK University student DylanLamb has died. Dylan was told he was in remission from leukemia on July 5, 2022. He had a stem cell transplant Sep. 22, 2022. But his leukemia returned and he was told he had weeks to live.

Aug. 28, 2023 – Meadowbrook, AL – 23 year old Lauren Beck graduated University of Alabama at Birmingham and was diagnosed with AML leukemia and now needs an urgent bone marrow transplant.

Aug. 27, 2023 – Chicago, IL – 19 year old Tyler Fenlon was diagnosed with a very rare Stage 4 Primary Bone DLBCL (with spleen and bone marrow involvement, lytic lesions, extension of soft tissue into spinal canal, etc).

Aug. 26, 2023 – Chattanooga, TN – 22 year old Jada Nowell was diagnosed with a brain tumor (Glioblastoma). After several surgeries and treatment failure (tumor is growing again) she is now in the ICU.

Aug. 22, 2023 – Melville, NY – 19 year old Kenneth Reidenbach, a 2023 high school graduate with plans to go to College was diagnosed with a large brain cancer (he needed two urgent surgeries lasting more than 6 hours each).

Aug. 18, 2023 – Windsor, NC – 19 year old Jameer Bell was accepted to East Carolina University and was diagnosed with a very rare Primary mediastinal Large B-Cell-Lymphoma.

Aug. 15, 2023 – St. Petersburg, FL – 19 year old Javon Rivera had a spinal tumor and was diagnosed with a late Stage Hodgkin Lymphoma.

Aug. 13, 2023 – 21 year old Hannah Crow is a student at St.Lawrence University in upstate NY on scholarship. She was diagnosed with Stage 4 Hodgkin Lymphoma.

Aug. 10, 2023 – Jamesville, NY – 24 year old Mya Maloof was attending Nazareth College in Speech Pathology when she was diagnosed with Stage 4 Melanoma. Her mother also has Stage 4 cancer. Mya has died.

Aug. 8, 2023 – Portland, OR – 21 year old Dani Franek, a College student studying Optometry, was diagnosed with extensive cervical cancer over 4 areas.

Aug. 6, 2023 – Chillicothe, OH – 19 year old Dalton Black is a Huntington High School graduate who is starting his first year at Capital University, who was just diagnosed with Stage 3 Classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Aug. 5, 2023 – Milford, MA – 21 year old Angel Ramirez UConn student who just completed his Junior year majoring in Communication was diagnosed with Stage 4 brain cancer glioblastoma.

July 28, 2023 – Netley, SA – 24 year old Occupational Therapist Noorline Zareh was diagnosed with Stage 4 Gastric signet ring cell adenocarcinoma.

July 27, 2023 – Dover, NH – 22 year old Michael Leger was diagnosed with Lymphoma, he is a University student at UNH in his senior year.

July 25, 2023 – Burt, MI – 18 year old Allison Flint was diagnosed with 10cm lymphoma tumor between her lungs.

July 20, 2023 – Stony Brook, NY – 20 year old Caleb Bowser was diagnosed with Lymphoma, two tennis sized masses in his chest, left thigh. Also has fluid around his heart.

July 19, 2023 – Irish football star 18 year old Pauric Brady died suddenly on July 19, 2023. “after a short battle with cancer” he was diagnosed with in Dec. 2022. Diagnosis to death in 6 months.

July 17, 2023 – 19 year old Aidan Fertig is a 1st year student at Mount Saint Joseph University, was diagnosed with Stage 4 kidney cancer.

July 8, 2023 – England – 21 year old Sophie White was diagnosed with brain cancer Glioblastoma and has been given 1 year to live.

July 7, 2023 – Manassas, VA – 24 year old Christian battled a late stage germ cell cancer (testicular cancer) that invaded his organs within weeks, leading to his death.

July 7, 2023 – Pittsburg, TX – 21 year old Emily Duncan was diagnosed with Stage 4 Colon Cancer. Emily’s family was given the grave news July 3rd that they would need to bring Emily home for end of life care. Emily was discharged on July 4th and is currently under Hospice.

July 7, 2023 – Overland Park, KS – 23 year old Peyton Rowe was diagnosed with Stage 3C Testicular cancer. It has spread to his lymph nodes, spine and lungs.

July 6, 2023 – Manchester, TN – 21 year old Brianna Stacey was diagnosed with Hodgkin Lymphoma.

July 6, 2023 – Potomac, MD, 22 year old Andrei (boyfriend of Gabriela Novoa) is a philosophy student in University, was diagnosed with Stage 3 Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma. PET scan he had at the end of chemo showed he had NEW cancerous tumors created during the treatment process!

July 6, 2023 – Lakeland, FL – 19 year old Ali Cardenas was diagnosed with ALL leukemia.

July 3, 2023 – Jackson, NJ – 24 year old Jillian Cillo was diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer and needed an aggressive treatment plan.

July 3, 2023 – Worcester, MA – 22 year old Josiah Begor goes Clark University in Worcester MA was diagnosed with an unknown cancer that spread faster than oncologists expected.

July 2, 2023 – Osprey, FL – 20 year old Ciara Tomlinson, a junior at Florida State University was diagnosed with a 3.5cm brain tumor Diffuse intrinsic Pontine Glioma and was given 6-9 months to live!

July 1, 2023 – UK – 18 year old Bradley Stout Miller was diagnosed with Hodgkin Lymphoma after he began rapidly losing weight without explanation.

June 28, 2023 – Boca Raton, FL – Jamie Sabeeney is a Lynn University senior, studying Early Childhood Education and will begin graduate school in May 2023. She was just diagnosed with Hodgkin Lymphoma.

June 15, 2023 – Mount Shasta, CA – 22 year old US Navy Sailor Maxwell Haban, is currently serving as a Nuclear Mechanic. He was diagnosed with metastatic cancer (not specified, lump on his chest).

June 14, 2023 – Metairie, LA – 20 year old Bryan Ibanez is a student at Missouri State University, in Sep.2, 2022 he was diagnosed with Stage 2 testicular cancer which turned to Stage 4 with lung metastases by May 1, 2023.

June 10, 2023 – Lancaster, PA – 21 year old Savannah Byers is in her senior year of College. She was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

June 10, 2023 – Fort Lauderdale, FL – 22 year old Rohan Noel is in his final year in Florida State University when he was diagnosed with Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma. Had to withdraw from school.

Click here to read the full article on COVID Intel.

*

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.

---

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.

*** 

 

 

Preface

A common historical feature of the “Three Baltic sister-states” (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) is that for most of the modern time instead of state independence there were decades of foreign administrations imposed by several European powers. Such historical experience exposed the people living in this part of the Baltic region to several foreign political regimes, and different cultural and linguistic influences. A short period of independence between the two world wars was followed again by the loosing of formal political independence.

It was not until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s by the decision of one man – Mikhail Gorbachev, that these three East-Baltic States regained their formal political independent status (the question of real political, economic, and financial “independence” of the post-Soviet Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania is not the subject or/and object of this article).

Now, all three of them had not only to rebuild their national institutional structure but also to create a space for the emergence of a common (national) identity, which stands in contrast to the alleged and massively propagated bad memories attached to the Soviet period. As one of the measures after 1990, they instituted language laws which were to become one of the key features of separation from the Soviet past, but also a key point of controversy and conflicts, which reached international attention (to be clear, many of ex-communist party members continued to occupy the key political positions in their countries after 1990, like the “Lithuanian Patriarch” – Vytautas Landsbergis, or Algirdas Brazauskas – the first President of the post-Soviet “independent” Lithuania). Nevertheless, these laws were partly a continuation of those introduced during the period of M. Gorbachev’s Perestroika but did not realize their full potential until the mid-1990s (Hogan-Brun et al. 2008: 31−35).

State, Language, Nation

A state can be considered to be an institution built by a community of people to secure its territory against external threats. The community of the state as a social construct is characterized by more than the mere rational will to belong to something larger. Consolidating one’s own beliefs and attitudes in common values, historical memory, faith, cultural habits, and language enhances the identification of the individual with the group. Such internalization ties a community together on an emotional basis (Spiering 1996: 110). Strong group identity is a vital asset to ethnolinguistic nations since it enables its members to accept and follow its rules but also to make sure that other citizens do the same.

Due to its fundamental necessity to all communities, the aspect of language in this context will be further elaborated. Regardless of the type of community, the language remains a fundamental asset for at least two crucial reasons:

1. First of all, it is a medium of communication and therefore serves equally as a prerequisite for coordinating communities, and
2. Secondly, language is a very complex and well-ingrained social system; one language, therefore, cannot simply be replaced by another.

The adoption (implementation) of new languages takes many years of effort, and, even if other languages are successfully acquired, the status of the mother tongue remains unique. The special relevance of the mother tongue acts as a strong binding agent within the community as well as an obstacle to the interference or intentional influence of the other languages. Even if we tried, we could not simply “delete” the ability to understand our mother tongue. Our mother tongue remains within us and connects us to all individuals with the same knowledge whether we want it to or not. We usually do not realize the importance of the language to our identity unless we leave the familiar environment of the language community or the “outsiders” enter it.

Unless it comes to confrontation with other languages within the same territory, the linkage with national identity, however, has not always been equally strong. The standardization of language through dictionaries, orthography manuals, and grammar manuals is surely making a stronger ethnolinguistic framework for the nation. Nonetheless, despite the important status and unifying factor that language has for a community, it can easily become a tool of separation and exclusion. As soon as different languages clash within the same territory, the question of status immediately arises (Paulston 1997: 73−74).

The East-Baltic States (1721−1944)

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have been constantly facing exactly such a situation throughout history with an intensity that remains internationally outstanding (Hogan-Brun et. al 2008: 33−34). The Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian languages have been under constant threat of being forced into a minority position in their region due to different political and other reasons. A significant decline in sociolinguistic status was furthered additionally through explicit policies.

In Estonia, for example, the German language remained for a long time the language of the elites (like the Polish in Lithuania), despite intense Russification policies during the Tsarist times and the imposition of the Russian language as an administrative one in 1880 (Tomusk 2002) similarly to the case of France after 1795 when the French language of Paris and the region of Ille de France was imposed to the rest of the country or the case of the USA after 1787 when the English language was practically considered (but never administratively proclaimed) as an administrative one and the language in the public use within the whole country [about Lithuania within Tsarist Russia from 1795 to 1915, see in (Aleksandravičius, Kulakauskas 1996)].

Concerning Estonian and Latvian cases in the Russian Empire, we have to keep in mind that after the Great Nordic War of 1700−1721, which started when the Kingdom of Sweden proclaimed war on Russia and lost it, no kind of Estonia or Latvia became included into the Russian Empire but there were Swedish East Baltic provinces ceded to Russia as the war reparations. Estonia and Latvia as such for the first time, differently from Lithuania, in Europe, and world history appeared only in 1918. Before the first independence in 1918, both the Estonians and the Latvians were unknown in Europe as nations and, therefore, the imposition of the Russian language in the Tsarist time, likewise before the German or the Swedish, have been, in fact, for both of them rather a great step towards both Europeanization and globalization than a kind of civilizational degradation.

The first period of independence between the two world wars (1918−1940) was central to the awakening of the national movements and a lingua-centric self-identity (Kaplan and Baldauf 2007: 57). In the attempt to support a state community on the grounds of the common language and ethnicity, however, similar problems to those we face today arose. Around12% of Estonian passport holders were not ethnically Estonian. In Latvia and Lithuania, this was the case for 27% (Knowles 1989: 146).

The period of the interwar political independence and the linguistic self-determination of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania was, however, abruptly terminated as the preparations for the Second World War led the way to the foreign rule imposed by the Bolshevik internationalists who firstly occupied Russia and Russians between the years of 1917 and 1921 and then started to spread around their ideology and political-economic system based on the West European Judeo-German Marxism by the bayonets (likewise traditionally the Vatican was spreading Roman Catholicism by arms either in Europe or in the New World). The return of Russification tendencies (Kaplan and Baldauf 2008:7) during the first period of the Bolshevik administration (1940−1941) led by the Georgian Joseph Visarionovich Dzugashviili Stalin was followed by the imposition of the German language during the Nazi occupation (1941−1944), led by the Austro-German Adolf Hitler, until the return of Russification together with gasification and industrialization during the integration into the Soviet Union (1944−1991).

In the Soviet Union (1944−1991)

At first glance, maybe it is strange that a linguistic Russification of the East Baltic and the other parts of the ex-Soviet Union (like Central Asia) is committed by non-ethnic Russian Bolsheviks sitting in Moscow (V. I. Lenin, J. V. Dz. Stalin, N. Khrushchev, L. Brezhnev) and running for almost 70 years anti-Russian national politics but we have to keep in mind that such kind of linguistic practices is done for the very practical every-day purposes and reasons taking the West European patterns and experience of the Englishization of Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, the biggest part of Canada and the USA, the Spanishization of the biggest portion of Latin America or the Frenchization of France and Quebec, as for the examples.

The period of the Bolshevik rule over the lands of former Tsarist Russia is marked by a policy to fully integrate the Baltic republics, like other Soviet provinces, into its ideological construct of West European Marxism. The Bolshevik-Soviet policy aimed to create a multi-ethnic society in which the individual should identify himself/herself as “homo Sovieticus” before anything else (likewise today in the European Union to be firstly the “European” and then something else).

Although the Soviet Constitution guaranteed equality of all languages within the Soviet Union, the reality reflected a contrary image. Since there were around 100 other languages throughout its huge territory from Vladivostok to Ryga, the party and army officials were aiming to install the Russian language (Knowles 1989: 149-51) as the “lingua Franca” among its citizens for the same reason as, for instance, the English language is imposed in the USA as practically the only official one like in Australia.

However, in the Bolshevik case, at least nominally all languages have been treated equally on the paper but in the French, or many other cases even such paper-equality is never offered to their citizens. The consequences of such different language policies are very visible today: during the Bolshevik rule over Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania no one ethnolinguistic Estonian, Latvian, or Lithuanian forgot to speak her/his native tongue but today in France, for instance, one can count on the fingers how many Provansals, Normandians, Bretons, etc. can speak their native languages instead of foreign French. In the case of Ireland, for instance, we know today that only around 5% of the citizens of the Republic of Ireland can speak the Irish tongue nevertheless the fact that the Irish language is the Constitution official one in the Republic of Ireland (Ireland was for several centuries under the English/British occupation and severe oppression).

After 1991

Robert L. Cooper (1989) distinguishes three types of language planning policy; 1) Status, 2) Corpus, and 3) Acquisition planning. The next part of the article will analyze these three aspects concerning the post-Soviet language policies in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

These three East-Baltic states, in line with all the other non-Russian Soviet Republics, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union by Mikhail Gorbachev, instituted language laws that aimed to “maintain, protect, and develop” the sociolinguistic status of their titular languages. This policy was to become one of the key features of separation from the communist past and can be seen as a continuation of the language policies during the inter-war independence (Hogan-Brun et al. 2008: 83).

The first step was to re-establish the national language as the sole official one. Language laws have been introduced in Estonia in 1989 and Latvia and Lithuania in 1995. The question of the state language is also regulated by the national Constitutions. Any other language was thus automatically regarded as a “foreign language” except for the recognition of the Liv as the language of the indigenous (autochthonous) population in Latvia (Latvian Language Law, Section 4 and 5). With the official status all three national languages of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania became automatically also and only languages of administration, higher (university) education, and public communication.

It is further settled by the language regulations that all state officials are required to be fluent in the respective language. Furthermore, official events have to be conducted in the national languages unless it is explicitly addressing an international audience in which case professional translation has to be ensured. Finally, it is the state’s responsibility to ensure that all state services are provided in the national languages [see more in (Sanita and Heiko 2019)].

However, for the matter of comparison, in Balkan Serbia after 1945 alongside the language of the ethnic majority (Serbian), there is equal use in the educational and public administration system by both the law and in the practice of an additional 5 languages: the Hungarian, Croatian, Albanian, Ruthenian, Romanian, and Slovak. A university education in the Hungarian and Albanian languages was and is a regular practice in Serbia from 1945 onward. However, neighboring Central European/Mediterranean Croatia during the last 30+ years has been following the language policy of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Nevertheless, we have to conclude that after the Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian national state independence restoration in 1990/1991 and the official proclamation of their national languages as the only official no one ethnic Estonian, Latvian, or Lithuanian needed to start to learn her/his native language but in the case of the establishment of the independent state of Breton nation, for instance, and proclamation of the Breton language as the only administrative one the overwhelming majority of Bretons will need to attend regular language courses for many years to learn their native tongue.

An active way to reinforce the importance of language for group identity is a higher degree of language standardization [(Oakes 2001:51). See more in (Smith, et al. 1998)]. This came to special importance due to the high degree of lexical influence from the Russian language, but also Polish and German, which had to be countered. Since the Soviet regime aimed for a homogeneous society, terms related to the ideology were introduced across the whole country. “Many previously existing words have been re-semanticist to align their denotations (or connotations!) with their Russian ‘benchmarks’” (Knowles 1989: 149) what already began before the reestablishment of independence, continued by the new Governments after 1990/1991. A high degree of attention was given to language norms and form which is reflected, for instance, in the Lithuanian Language Law of 1995:

Article 19: “The state shall enhance the prestige of the correct Lithuanian language, provide conditions for protecting linguistic norms, personal names, place-names, dialects, and written language monuments, ensure the material basis for the state language functioning, provide general assistance to the Lithuanian language, as well as to publishing of books on the Lithuanian language science and practice.”

Similar trends can also be found in the Latvian Language Law in Section 22 which pays particular attention to the use of the Latvian language in specialized educational literature. Besides, particular governmental institutions have been established to supervise the implementation of the language policy in Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. For instance, in Lithuania, the Lithuanian Language Commission, the State Language Inspectorate, and country-wide language service for the local supervision and the inspection of the use of the national language in public were established. The re-infusion of language culture was a major concern of these institutions. Regulations and implementation of norms were furthered through the publication of various grammars, orthographies, and dictionaries. It has to be stressed that syntactic constructions remain the focus of attention as well as the use of neologisms in written and oral use of the Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian languages.

Additionally, the Commissions or similar institutions are involved in the standardization of names and further, in the approving of the standard technical terms (Hogan-Brun et al. 2008: 107−108). For instance, Latvia has introduced several language institutions with such objectives. The State Language Center is responsible for ensuring the working of the language laws. There is also an instrument of language attestation for personnel in public and private employment in contact with the public. However, its advisory roles remained restricted due to its attachment to the Ministry of Justice (ibid.: 109). In 1998, The Commission of the Official Language was established to investigate the possibilities of strengthening the state language. In Estonia, the language policy is conducted by national research programs as well as governmental and non-governmental institutions. The Ministry of Education and Research, for example, has been responsible for language policy related to the preservation of the Estonian language and its dialects. Furthermore, it establishes programs and publications to offer general language support but also supports the Estonian language in higher education. The primary task of the Language Inspectorate is to ensure that the Estonian Language Law and other regulations of the language are respected and to provide advice in all necessary practical cases. Immediate results were the disappearance of the Cyrillic alphabet and inscriptions in public places and the improvement of the teaching of the titular languages.

All three East-Baltic States introduced obligatory language classes of their national languages until the end of secondary-level education. College and university education are with few exceptions held entirely in the titular languages (Hogan-Brun et al. 2008: 122). The necessity to learn an additional language is further encouraged as a continuation of the interwar period of independence language policy. English, German, and French are usually offered as the first additional language, nevertheless, the Russian language is also chosen as the second additional language since its status as lingua franca remains important among the former Soviet Republics (ibid.).

In Estonia and Latvia, the system of language education has been successful as the competence in the national languages increased from an average of 65% to 80% among the Russian population between 1989 to 2000. At the same time, the language competence of the national language in Lithuania increased from 85% to 94% (ibid.). A further marker of the development in this respect has been the attitude of the non-ethnic Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian communities to send their children to mainstream schools but also to the titular language kinder gardens. Especially in Latvia, a gradual increase in mainstream schools is visible (Hogan-Brun 2008: 113).

Final Words

Finally, an increased willingness to learn the titular language has been observed among the adult population although in 1994 some 35% of the native Russian language speakers believed that learning the titular language was important whereas over 50% of them disagreed. Nevertheless, increased competence in the titular languages is very visible in all three East-Baltic States today [see more in (Maarja, et al. 2017)].

*

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. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Sources

Busygina Irina, “Russia, the Baltic states and the European Union”, The Baltic States at historical crossroads, 1998.

Cooper Robert L., Language Planning and Social Change (1989), Cambridge−New York−Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 99−163.

Egidijus Aleksandravičius, Antanas Kulakauskas, Carų valdžioje Lietuva XIX amžiuje, Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1996.

Graham Smith, et al., Nation-Building in the Post-Soviet Borderlands: The Politics of National Identities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Hogan-Brun G., Uldis O., Meileute R., Rannut M., “Language Politics and Practice in the Baltic States”, Europe, Vol. 3 – The Baltic States, Ireland and Italy, edited by Robert Kaplan and Richard Badauf Jr., Clevedon, US, and Canada: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 2008, 31−192.

Maarja Siiner, et al. (eds.), Language Policy Beyond the State, Springer, 2017.

Oakes Leigh, Language and National Identity–Comparing France and Sweden, Amsterdam− Philadelphia: John Benjamins B. V., 2001.

Kaplan Robert, Baldauf Jr., Richard, “Language Policy and Planning in the Baltic States, Ireland and Italy: Some Common Issues” Europe, Vol. 3 – The Baltic States, Ireland and Italy, edited by Robert Kaplan, Richard Badauf Jr., Clevedon, US, and Canada: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 2008, 6−30.

Knowles Francis, “Language Planning in the Baltic Republics”, Language Planning in the Soviet Union, edited by Michael Kirkwood (1989). Houndmills−Basingstoke−Hampshire−London: The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1989, 145−173.

Paulston Christina Bratt, “Language Policies and Language Rights”, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 26, 1997, 73−85.

Sanita Lazdina, Heiko F. Marten (eds.), Multilingualism in the Baltic States: Social Discourses and Contact Phenomena, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.

Spiering M., “National Identity and European Unity”, Culture and Diversity in Europe – Perceptions of Divergence and Unity in Past and Present, edited by Michael Wintle, Aldershot (England): Avebury, 1996.

Smith D. Anthonio, National Identity, University of Nevada Press: London, 1991.

Tomusk Ilmar, “Language Legislation and Ethnolinguistic and Ethnolinguistic Situation in Present-Day Estonia”, Linguistic Studies, Vol. 6, Lectures on Language Situation, Russia, Estonia, Finland, University of Tokyo, July 2002: http://www.keeleinsp.ee/?menu=82&news=177

Lithuanian Law on State Language – 31 January 1995 (official translation). The last amended on 13 June 2002: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter2/dokpaieska.showdoc_e?p_id=21941

Official Language Law of Latvia – 21 December 1999 (Translation © 2000 Tulkošanas un terminoloģijas centrs: http://isec.gov.lv/normdok/oflanglaw.htm

Constitution of the Republic of Estonia − 28 June 1992: http://www.eesti.ee/eng/riik/pohiseadus/

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.

*** 

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky had to face a time in Washington D.C. that may be told as difficult as the political situation in the U.S. Capitol Hill is different than his first visit to the Capitol.

A CNN report (Zelensky faces a more splintered GOP as he returns to Capitol Hill looking for aid, Sept. 21, 2023) said:

Ukraine President Zelensky was on Capitol Hill Thursday for his second visit, as fresh attacks by Russia overnight underscore the urgency facing his country for more US aid.

Only this time, the political landscape has shifted.

A year ago, Zelensky faced a much different reception in Congress. Democrats controlled the House and public support for funding the war effort in Ukraine was higher. As he stood to ask for more money and weapons before a joint meeting of Congress Zelensky was met with a packed House, members adorned in yellow and blue standing in support with Ukraine. Now, the Ukrainian president will return to Congress to a new speaker – facing a rebellion on his right – who has yet to promise future aid to Ukraine and will have to balance his own political future against the future Zelensky is hoping for his country.

‘Is He Our President?’

The report said:

“Was Zelensky elected to Congress? Is he our president? I do not think so. I have questions for where is the accountability on the money we have already spent? What is the plan for victory?” House Speaker Kevin McCarthy asked Tuesday.

Zelensky Arrives Amid Shutdown Fight

The report said:

Zelensky’s visit is coming as House Republicans are engaged in a bitter fight over government funding on the domestic front and as the prospects for more money for Ukraine – while very much alive in the Senate – are far less clear in the House even as the Biden administration has sent over a request for $24 billion in support.

No Money For Ukraine Now

It said:

“The first thing I will tell you is there is no money in the House right now for Ukraine,” Rep. Byron Donalds, a conservative member of the House Freedom Caucus from Florida, told CNN. “It is not a good time for him to be here, quite frankly. That is just the reality.”

Stop Ukraine Game

Texas Rep. Chip Roy, another conservative, told CNN, “When was the last time Zelensky came here? Right before money. You think that is a coincidence? I do not. That is why this Ukraine game needs to stop.”

It added:

Despite a slip in public support, there is still strong bipartisan backing for Ukraine funding on Capitol Hill, but it will be up to McCarthy to decide if legislation will even be put on the floor. The speaker has said he does not want funding attached to a short-term spending bill and he has also said it should be a standalone issue. But time is of the essence, with aides close to the matter telling CNN the expectation is that current U.S. funding accounts for Ukraine could be depleted as soon as by the end of the year.

“This becomes an issue that time and time again, minute to minute, every question is: Is Speaker McCarthy going to do the responsible thing of putting the bill on the floor that we know will pass with broad bipartisan support?” Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia said. “If he lives in this constant fear that one member on his far right is going to take the action of motion to vacate the chair, therefore removing him from the speakership, then we are making day-to-day decisions or not making day-to-day decisions because one guy wants to keep his job. “

‘Our People Cannot Afford Their Food Bills’

The CNN report said:

Inside McCarthy’s conference, the question of helping Ukraine is being framed by isolationists as a choice between helping Americans or helping Ukraine.

“I think every single person in this Congress, Democrat, Republican or in between is appalled, shocked and disagrees with what Russia and Vladimir Putin has done and is doing. That having been said, our borders are wide open. Our people cannot afford their electric bills, their gas bills and their food bills and before we send blank checks to some other country, we need to take care of our own people,” said Rep. Scott Perry, a conservative Republican from Pennsylvania.

Majority of Americans Oppose Funding Ukraine

A CNN poll in August found now a majority of Americans are opposed to authorizing more funding for Ukraine, and among Republicans, the number opposed soars to 71%.

‘Average Congress Member Does Not Understand Happenings In Ukraine’

The CNN report said:

“Do you know who is winning the war in Ukraine right now? I do not think the average member of Congress understands what is going on in Ukraine,” said Rep. Mike Garcia, a Republican from California. “I do not think the executive branch knows what is going on in Ukraine right now. Look, we have invested $100 billion of American taxpayer dollars in Ukraine, we owe it to the American taxpayers to get an accountability of that money, the accountability of the weapons, to get a current status of what’s going on in Ukraine … and what is needed to win and how we are going to be involved in it before we invest.”

Rep. Garret Graves, a Republican from Louisiana, blamed the administration for a slide in support even as he argued it was still essential.

“The fiscally responsible thing to do here is to stop this in Ukraine. This crosses over into NATO countries and you trigger article five, you are not going to be talking about tens of billions of dollars, you are going to be talking about trillions of dollars and you are going to be talking about American service men and women on the front lines. That is not an option,” Graves said. “This administration has both accountability and transparency issues they have got to address before they deserve another penny.”

There is still a strong coalition of GOP support for Ukraine funding on Capitol Hill, such as McConnell, but Republicans have at times been critical of how the president has engaged in the war and how he has sold the U.S. aid. Those GOP lawmakers argue Biden could do more to both sell the importance of the war effort to the public and to ensure members of Congress are kept in the loop on where and what impact the funding they are appropriating is having.

‘More War’

“The consequences of pulling the plug on Ukraine are enormous,” said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. “It will lead to more war, not less. It will destroy a world order that has existed that has benefited the world. So I could not disagree more with my colleagues who say Ukraine does not matter to us. It matters a lot.”

‘We Oppose The Additional Expenditure For War In Ukraine’

A report by The Hill (‘We’ll get it done,’ Mccaul says of Ukraine aid after Zelensky meeting, Sept 21, 2023) said:

The top House Republican overseeing U.S. foreign affairs said Congress will provide more funding for Ukraine to fight off the Russian invasion despite GOP pushback, after a meeting with Ukraine’s President Zelensky in Washington on Thursday.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also proposed legislating that the U.S. provide F-16 fighter jets for Ukraine and long-range missiles that the Biden administration has held back on providing.

It said:

The president has submitted to Congress a request for $24 billion in additional funding that would go towards military, economic and humanitarian assistance for Ukraine. It is opposed by a minority group of Republicans with the power to frustrate efforts to pass additional assistance quickly, given tight margins in the House and Senate rules.

Sen. Rand Paul

The report said:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a staunch critic of foreign assistance for Ukraine, has vowed to hold up any government funding bill that includes Ukrainian assistance.

Paul was also signatory to a letter led by Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) this week laying out specific asks of the Biden administration before greenlighting additional assistance to Ukraine, signed by 28 members of the House and Senate.

“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 lawmakers wrote in the letter.

The letter was published ahead of Zelensky’s arrival on Capitol Hill for meetings Thursday morning.

Chillier Reception

It said:

It is the Ukrainian president’s second visit to the capitol in a year, but he is receiving a chillier reception under the Republican-controlled House. In Dec. 2022, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) invited Zelensky to address a joint session of Congress, an invitation that was not extended by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)

‘Where Is the Accountability on the Money?’

Another report by The Hill (McCarthy on Ukraine funding: ‘I have questions’ for Zelensky, Sept. 20, 2023) said:

When asked about renewed funding for Ukraine in its war against Russia, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Tuesday he has “questions” for Ukrainian President Zelensky.

“Where is the accountability on the money we already spent?” McCarthy said, listing off questions he said he will ask the Ukrainian leader when he meets with him later this week. “What is the plan for victory?”

“Look, what Russia has done — invade — is wrong,” McCarthy said. “It is an atrocity. We want to make sure that ends. I also have always said from the beginning, no matter what the issue is, I want accountability for whatever the hardworking taxpayers spend their money on, and I want a plan for victory.”

McCarthy’s statements come as a government shutdown looms if Congress does not agree on a deal by the end of the month. House Republicans’ proposed stopgap bill does not provide funding for Ukraine, which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) heavily criticized Monday on the Senate floor.

“And with no Ukraine funding, the proposal is an insult to Ukraine and a gift to Putin. I cannot think of a worse welcome for Zelensky, who visits us this week than this House proposal, which ignores Ukraine entirely,” Schumer said.

The U.S. Is Broke

A report by The Telegraph (Ukraine-Russia war latest: ‘We’ve got no money’, Republicans tell Zelensky, Sept 21, 2023) said:

The U.S. is “broke” and cannot provide further support to Ukraine, Republican legislators will tell Zelensky as he visits the Capitol.

The Ukrainian president signalled ahead of his visit to Washington that he wanted to secure more air defenses after a “massive” missile attack by Russia last night.

However, he faces a difficult hearing from Congress, where Joe Biden is struggling to pass a $24bn aid package in the face of Republican skepticism.

‘We Do Not Have Any Money’

The report said:

Tim Burchett, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said: “I appreciate [Zelensky’s] bravado and everything, but we do not have any money.  We are broke, and we are giving our money away.”

Matt Gaetz, a Florida representative, has said all he wants to hear from Zelensky is that “he is sending our money back.”

Retiring Utah senator Mitt Romney has urged his party to unite behind Ukraine, declaring its war effort is an “extraordinarily wise investment”.

*

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 Countercurrents

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 evidence of Ukrainian despair is becoming increasingly clear. In an attempt to obtain new sources of energy, the possibility of using prisoners to generate electricity is being discussed in the Ukrainian Parliament. In practice, this would be an extreme human effort to make a small amount of energy, which shows how desperate Kiev is to reduce the effects of its energy crisis.

The proposal was presented by Ukrainian legislator Sergey Grivko and will be evaluated by other parliamentarians soon. What he plans is to literally “motivate 50,000 inmates to generate electricity with the help of bicycle generators.” Thus, Grivko and his political partners hope to at least alleviate the disastrous effects of the serious energy crisis currently affecting Ukraine.

The measure, called “unconventional” by its own proponent, comes amid a situation of true desperation on the part of the Kiev regime, which is trying to find safe sources of energy as quickly as possible, as the country’s energy infrastructure has been severely affected by the conflict. Recently, the head of Ukraine’s national power company Ukrenergo, Vladimir Kudritsky, had already made it clear that it will be impossible to repair the destroyed facilities before the advent of winter.

In theory, the project is expected to be implemented through a “win-win” relationship between the state and prisoners. They will be able to “work” on generating energy on electric bicycles in exchange for shorter sentences. The more they work, the shorter their time in prison will be. In practice, however, things could be very different and more difficult than that.

It is virtually impossible for the use of electric bicycles to be sufficient to restore a country’s energy stability. The capacity of these bicycles is low compared to conventional energy sources. The bicycle model was designed as an ecological and sustainable alternative for domestic use and to reduce energy costs in small facilities, but it does not seem like a viable alternative to overcome a national energy emergency.

In order to generate a significant amount of energy, prisoners will need to work on the bicycles for many hours. And this can be a problem considering that certainly not all prisoners have the health conditions and physical capacity necessary for this type of bodily effort. In this sense, considering the dictatorial, terrorist and anti-humanitarian nature of the neo-Nazi regime, it is very likely that, in practice, prisoners will be coerced to work until exhaustion to generate as much energy as possible, creating a system analogous to slavery and to corporal punishment.

This type of unconventional and irrational plan only shows how serious the country’s energy crisis is and how local authorities are looking for “solutions” in every possible way. This crisis is due to the massive attacks launched by the Russian armed forces since last year, mainly after the beginning of the command of General Sergey Surovikin. At the time, a wave of high precision strikes was launched against Ukraine’s critical infrastructure, leaving several regions of the country without energy and severely affecting Kiev’s military logistics.

Unlike Ukrainian attacks on Russian civilian regions, Moscow’s intention with this type of operation was never to harm the Ukrainian population and energy supplies in civilian areas. On the contrary, the strategic value of the attacks was precisely to neutralize the energy supply lines that guaranteed both the maintenance of decision-making centers and the operability of the Ukrainian armed forces. Indeed, Ukrainian energy stability was making terrorist incursions against Russian civilians viable, thus Moscow had to damage it.

Unfortunately, in many cases the civilian population is affected by the consequences of the destruction of infrastructure, but this was the only alternative left for Moscow in the face of so many terrorist attacks carried out by the Ukrainian armed forces. In other words, Russia just reacted in order to protect its own citizens.

In fact, with the arrival of winter, Ukraine will certainly face very difficult times, even worse than those seen in 2022. And this will happen amidst the already catastrophic situation of the country’s armed forces, which were unable to launch a “counteroffensive” in the spring-summer season. The damage in winter is expected to be substantial both from a military point of view and in the social sphere, accelerating the inevitable process of defeat in the conflict and collapse of Ukrainian society.

The correct way to prevent the worst from happening is not by forcing prisoners to work on inefficient sources of energy generation, but by making strategic decisions that bring an end to the conflict. Kiev should break with the West, stop being a proxy state and accept Russian peace terms. And then Moscow would certainly help Ukraine to overcome social problems caused during the hostilities. But unfortunately the Kiev Junta does not seem interested in this type of solution.

*

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.

Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

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.

*** 

As the anniversary of the purported Biden Regime sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline approaches Sept. 26,  veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh blamed a ”secret disinformation operation“ by CIA and MI-6 for misleading the public about the disastrous state of the US-led war effort.

“The war is over. Russia has won. There is no Ukrainian offensive anymore, but the White House and the American media have to keep the lie going,“ a senior US intel official told Hersh.

“The truth is if the Ukrainian army is ordered to continue the offensive, the army would mutiny. The soldiers aren’t willing to die any more, but this doesn’t fit the B.S. that is being authored by the Biden White House.”

As the first anniversary of the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline approaches next Tuesday, Hersh promised more revelations after his Feb. 8 scathing exposé of the Biden Regime’s purported plot to commit the greatest act of industrial sabotage since WW II – against an ally, Germany. 

As Volodymyr Zelensky made the rounds at the UN and in Washington, Hersh wrote that his intel source told him “the war continues … because Zelensky insists that it must.”

“There is no discussion in his headquarters or in the Biden White House of a ceasefire and no interest in talks that could lead to an end to the slaughter,” Hersh said.

Speaking of the Ukrainian claims of slow progress in an offensive that has lost an estimated 75,000 casualties, the official told Hersh: “It’s all lies.”

There has been a ”secret disinformation operation“ by the CIA and British intelligence aimed at discrediting Putin, Hersh wrote, which led “major media outlets here and in London to report that the Russian president was suffering from varied illnesses that included blood disorders and a serious cancer.“

During the much-anticipated Ukrainian spring offensive, “there were some early penetrations“ of the Russians‘ heavily fortified ‘Maginot Line’, the source told Hersh, “and the Russians retreated to sucker them in. And they all got killed.”

“After weeks of high casualties and little progress, along with horrific losses to tanks and armored vehicles,” the source said, “major elements of the Ukrainian army, without declaring so, virtually canceled the offensive,” Hersh reports. “The two villages that the Ukrainian army recently claimed as captured “are so tiny that they could fit between two Burma-Shave signs,” the source said.

The Biden-Obama Regime’s “neocon hostility to Russia” had caused “a significant split in the intelligence community,” Hersh writes, citing a “longstanding disagreement between the CIA and other elements of the intelligence community on the prognosis of the current war in the Ukraine.“

The CIA has been “far more skeptical than their counterparts at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) on the prospect for a Ukraine success,“ Hersh notes, which he says the American media has ignored.

Speaking at the UN this week, President Biden had ignored the disastrous failure of the billion-dollar Ukrainian offensive, while Zelensky refused to consider peace negotiations and continued to tubthump for more money and arms.

In an interview with The Economist, Zelensky issued a veiled threat to European countries which had taken in millions of Ukrainian refugees, according to Hersh, saying the refugees had “behaved well . . . and are grateful” but there is “no way of predicting how they would react to their country being abandoned.”

“It was nothing less than a threat of internal insurrection,“ Hersh 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.

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.

*** 

Did you know there are now 10 cases of cancer after COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in the literature? Here they are:

“Turbo Cancer” post mRNA vaccine papers reviewed: 

• Sep. 2023 – Seneff, McCullough – 56M skin cancer after 1st Pfizer mRNA
• May 2023 – Eens et al – Mouse develops lymphoma after 2nd Pfizer mRNA
• April 2023 – Tachita et al – 73M develops lymphoma after 2nd Pfizer mRNA
• Jan 2023 – Cavanna et al – 66M develops lymphoma after 3rd Pfizer mRNA
• Sep 2022 – Revenga-Porcel et al – 76M lymphoma after 3rd Moderna mRNA
• Aug 2022 – Sekizawa et al – 80F lymphoma after 2nd Pfizer mRNA
• June 2022 – Zamfir et al – 58F 2nd Pfizer, 53M 2nd Pfizer both lymphoma
• Apr 2022 – Mitsui et al – 67M 2nd Pfizer, 80F 2nd Pfizer both lymphoma
• Nov. 2021 – Goldman et al – 66M lymphoma progression after 3rd Pfizer mRNA

New paper by Dr. Stefanie Seneff and Dr. Peter McCullough

• 56 year old man had 1st Pfizer mRNA dose
• 4 days later he started having right TMJ pain which worsened over time
• 2 months after Pfizer he was diagnosed with right-sided trigeminal neuralgia and cranial nerve VII palsy
• 4 months after Pfizer he started losing weight, lost 12 kg
• 8 months after Pfizer he had deafness in right ear, couldn’t open right eye, couldn’t open right side of his mouth, total paralysis of right face and a large mass blocking the external auditory canal – diagnosed as basaloid cell carcinoma
• 15 months after Pfizer (1st picture above – extreme cavitation in the preauricular region, extreme necrosis of the skin and extensive infiltrations of vasculature)

May 2023 – Eens et al – Mouse develops lymphoma after 2nd Pfizer mRNA

• I don’t count this as part of the 10 cases but I include it here for completeness
• They injected 14 mice with two Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
• Two days after the 2nd dose and 16 days after 1st dose, one of the mice died suddenly without any warning.
• necropsy showed extensive, systemic infiltration of liver, kidneys, spleen, lungs, and intestines” by a lymphoma

April 2023 – Tachita et al – 73M develops lymphoma after 2nd Pfizer mRNA

• 73 year old Japanese man presented with a lump in left arm where he had his 2nd Pfizer mRNA vaccine three months prior.
• he then developed 6cm and 3cm ulcerated lesions in the left arm
• he was diagnosed with Extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type (ENKL), a natural killer (NK) cell malignancy

Jan 2023 – Cavanna et al – 66M develops Stage 2 NHL lymphoma post 3rd Pfizer mRNA 

• 66 year old Italian man developed swollen right axillary lymph nodes 10 days after 3rd Pfizer mRNA (booster) dose.
• 3 months later he presented to the clinic with a 7cm mass in right axilla and 2cm lesion in right supraclavicular region
• He was diagnosed with a Stage 2 NHL Lymphoma, Ki-67 90%

Sep 2022 – Revenga-Porcel et al – 76M develops lymphoma after 3rd Moderna mRNA

• this paper is behind a paywall
• 76 year old man developed 7cm mass in right arm 10 days after 3rd Moderna mRNA
• diagnosed with PC-ALCL (very aggressive lymphoma – Primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (PCALCL) is a subtype of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), and is a non-Hodgkin lymphoma that arises in the skin

Aug 2022 – Sekizawa et al – 80F lymphoma after 2nd Pfizer mRNA 

• 80 year old Japanese woman developed a right temporal mass the day after 1st Pfizer mRNA
• she was given tylenol and took a 2nd Pfizer mRNA 3 weeks later
• she then presented again 3 weeks after 2nd Pfizer dose and mass was 3cm
• at around 13 weeks the mass grew to 7cm
• right temporal mass was diagnosed as a subtype of MZL (extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of the mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue or nodal marginal zone lymphoma) stage IIE

June 2022 – Zamfir et al – 58F and 53M develop lymphoma post 2nd Pfizer mRNA

• 58 year old Romanian woman developed 4cm left neck mass that appeared one week after 2nd Pfizer dose
• the 4cm mass and two lymph nodes were diagnosed DLBCL lymphoma, Ki-67 80%
• 53 year old Romanian man had 2 Pfizer mRNA vaccines
• On the third day after the first dose, he noticed a painless ulcer on the mucosal surface of the upper lip. He initiated self-treatment with topical vitamin A. The lesion extended and new lesions developed
• These lesions had a progressive character and during the following months were complicated with repetitive episodes of heavy oral bleeding, requiring blood transfusions. Biopsy confirmed the diagnosis of T/NK-cell lymphoma

Apr 2022 – Mitsui et al – 67M and 80F develop lymphoma post Pfizer mRNA

• 67 year old Japanese man presented with a 6 cm subcutaneous mass in the left axilla 2 weeks after 2nd Pfizer mRNA.
• Tenderness and a palpable lymph node in the left axilla were noted 1 day after 1st Pfizer mRNA
• He was diagnosed with DLBCL Lymphoma with Ki-67 > 80%

• 80-year-old Japanese woman presented with a 4cm enlarging nodule in her left axilla 1 day after 2nd Pfizer mRNA
• The nodule appeared 2  days after the first vaccination.
• Two months after the first consultation, the nodule gradually enlarged, and computed tomography revealed a 6.0-cm mass in the left axilla and another 2.8-cm mass in the left mesentery
• she was diagnosed with germinal centre B-cell DLBCL lymphoma, Ki-67 > 90%
• patient complained of diplopia and left eyelid ptosis 8  days after the biopsy. Magnetic resonance imaging detected a small tumour, a suspicious DLBCL lesion, in the left cavernous sinus, which was treated with radiation therapy

Nov. 2021 – Goldman et al – 66M lymphoma progression after Pfizer booster 

• 66 year old man had 2 Pfizer mRNA doses and 5 months after 2nd dose presented with axillary lesions
• He was diagnosed with Angioimmunoblastic T Cell Lymphoma
• He then had a Pfizer mRNA booster shot and a few days later presented with neck swelling.
• A repeat PET/CT scan done 8 days after Pfizer mRNA 3rd dose (booster) showed extensive progression of lymphoma.

My Take…

The goal of this article was to bring together all the cases of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine induced Turbo Cancer in the literature.

There are now 10 published cases. And this is only the beginning.

When the dam finally breaks, there will be 100s, then 1000s of these cases.

Right now it’s mostly lymphomas.

But I am seeing Turbo Cancers with lymphomas, brain cancers, breast, colon and lung cancers as the top 5, with signals in leukemias and hepatobiliary cancers.

I will not cover the possible mechanisms here but I will point out that Ki-67 is extremely important.

Ki-67 is a proliferation index determined with special staining during pathology, and a Ki-67 of 90% means 90 out of 100 cells are dividing.

It indicates how rapidly growing a tumor is. 90% is extreme.

“Tumors with a high Ki-67 index have a larger number of proliferating cells and are therefore likely to grow more quickly”

It also predicts long term survival in a number of cancers.

A high Ki-67 usually carries a very poor prognosis.

*

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 Children’s Health Defense

---

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 the desperate bid for the U.S.-EU-NATO Axis of Domination to hold onto the unipolar world, the war on Africans globally intensifies. This reactionary legacy of Western colonialism is proving itself impenetrable to the fruitless reformist strategies of liberals. As the world is literally and figuratively engulfed by fire or drowning by floods, the most clear headed paths forward come from the radical Black left. The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) is consistent in doing our part.

This month, the Haiti/Americas Team of BAP has been leading a call to action on Haiti to counter the Biden administration’s call for the UN to send a military force to intervene in Haiti with Kenya volunteering to serve as the Black face of white supremacy in a perverse claim to “restore order” in Haiti by invading the island nation in the name of Pan-Africanism. In the face of this imminent imperialist intervention BAP remains vigilant and is exposing these intercontinental contradictions. Kenya is willing to assist white supremacist in Haiti at the expense of the wishes and aspirations of the Haitian people.

While plans for the invasion in Haiti are being finalized, Africans are rising up in Niger to kick France out and regain control of their country and its immense mineral resources. In response the French refuse to leave and, with their U.S. partners in crime, plan to use the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to invade Niger. Once again employing Black faces to carry out white supremasist, imperialist designs. 

Africans (black people) everywhere must be vigilant in defense of our interest. The imperialist, white supremacist empire is struggling with legitimacy and employing the age old tactic of “Divide and Conquer”.  As the repression increases, African resistance must also intensify.

BAP is acutely aware – while helping others become so – that the drive to build Cop City is not just in Atlanta but that there are similar projects in Newark and Baltimore to name a few and that the U.S. settler state is preparing to lash out even more as its empire continues to decline. It insists on sending billions to Ukraine and on the militarization of Africa, while more and more of its citizens join the ranks of the homeless, are denied the human right to healthcare, face obscene price hikes for basic necessities, crumbling infrastructure, and derailing trains. Look at the heavy handed approach to the organizers against Cop City.

The same grand jury and prosecutor who is going after Trump and his associates with RICO charges, have also brought RICO charges against the Stop Cop City protestors. We will not forget that this follows the indictments against the Uhuru Movement earlier this year. Repression abroad and repression within the enclaves of those colonized in Western countries is what the Black working class has to look forward to. 

In the next month of October the Africa Team of BAP, and the organizing arm of our campaign “U.S. Out of Africa, Shut Down AFRICOM, will hold the 4th International Month of Action Against AFRICOM, under the theme “From Niger to Haiti to Cop City, Defeat the War Against African People.”

BAP Coordinating Committee Chairperson, Ajamu Baraka points out:

“The lived experiences of the colonized suggest that the difference between a white supremacist liberal imperialist order and something European activists label as fascism is indistinguishable.”

People are seeking and need an alternative which is why formations like BAP become more and more vital. There is no way out of the current moment we face except through revolutionary struggle and organization. BAP came in to fill a need – to rekindle the Black liberation movement, in particular the Black Radical Tradition; crystallizing the historic anti-war, anti-imperialist position of our people. With wars raging on between Russia and Ukraine raising the threat of a nuclear catastrophe, saber rattling against China over Taiwan that eerily resembles U.S. policy toward the Russia-Ukraine military conflict, and military destabilization across the entire African continent, there has never been a greater need to for the masses of the people to organize. It should be clear now that revolutionary struggle is the only solution.

With your support, BAP will continue to bring clarity to the context and the complexity of the struggle of African People around the 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.

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 their success with the Kirin 9000s smartphone chip, I expected Huawei to make AI chips using that same technology. And that is precisely what Huawei announces now.

And much more.

Huawei will not only make advanced AI chips in contravention of US tech sanctions, Huawei will also build big computers and run AI cloud data centers on a large scale.

Huawei announces that the era of big AI has also come for China. Huawei speaks of developing and implementing both software and hardware for LLM (Large Language Models), which is the main type of models for implementing AI. 

Huawei already makes smartphones, 5G wireless telecom base stations, PCs, and operating systems, key tech fields in which operate big US tech companies like Apple, Microsoft, and INTEL.

Huawei now adds new big business fields including AI-chip design, fields which are the domain of other US tech giants NVIDIA and AMD.

By adding AI cloud computer centers, Huawei enters other large business fields in which operate Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle, and IBM. That is already an enormous palette covered by Huawei. But even more than that. Huawei announces that it will open a new business field where Huawei will work with companies to develop and run big AI models for their specific needs with their specific big data. Having a large toolbox of generally usable AI systems and adapting these to the needs of specific customers is precisely something which IBM is specializing in too.

All US tech sanctions against China are in shambles now.

And it is an extra kick in the face of the US that this complete Chinese contravention of all US tech sanctions is announced by Huawei, which is a hundred-times over sanctioned by the US, and through Meng Wanzhou, Huawei’s CFO who was illegally detained on fake US orders in Canada. See this.

It looks like US tech sanctions are crumbling faster than anybody (including myself) had expected.

Huawei is clearly designated by China as one if not the lead company to achieve China’s ambitious goals in AI and tech.

Instead of being quashed by sanctions like the US wanted to, Huawei has become much stronger by overcoming US sanctions.

Huawei is becoming an unprecedented global IT and tech giant in many ways bigger than IBM, INTEL, and Apple by combining all they do into one mega tech Corporation supported and spearheaded strategically by the Chinese government.

Welcome to Huawei-World.

The strategic consequences are enormous on a global scale. China is already the leading industrial and trade power in the World. China has the World’s biggest economy measured in Purchase Power Parity (PPP), far bigger than the USA.

China in recent years has also become the leading research power in the World, also surpassing the USA with a substantial margin. China also already has the biggest navy in the World. With a continued growth advantage over the USA of 3.5% in yearly GDP, China will overtake US GDP in a decade, by 2033.

And now, with the collapse of US tech sanctions, the US has no hope of keeping China from becoming the World’s leading power in everything – tech, economy, trade, industry, diplomacy, and military.

*

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.

Karsten Riise is a Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has a university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from Copenhagen University. He is the former Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Bullet

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.

*** 

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is meeting Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau in Ottawa today as he scrambles to rally more international support for his troops fighting Russia. 

Mr Zelensky landed in the capital late on Thursday, and will today have talks with Mr Trudeau before addressing the Canadian parliament.   

The Ukrainian leader will hope for a positive outcome after a difficult visit to Washington, where US president Joe Biden offered warm words of support and weapons – but rejected a request for longer range ATACMS missiles.

Mr Zelensky also faced skeptical Republicans who want to cut off aid to his country amid concerns over the slow progress of Ukraine’s counteroffensive.

Some Republicans are threatening to block Mr Biden’s funding requests, with one senator openly declaring that Congress ‘should not be sending another blank check to Zelensky’.

It came just one day after Poland‘s prime minister announced he would no longer arm Ukraine amid a row over grain exports – in a move sure to delight Russian president Vladimir Putin. 

Click here to read the full article on Daily Mail Online.

*

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.

*** 

The United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly (UNGA) president today approved the non-binding U.N declaration on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response (PPPR), without a full assembly vote and over the objections of 11 nations.

Critics called the declaration, which seeks to create a global pandemic authority with the power to enforce lockdowns, universal vaccination and censorship of “misinformation,” “hypocrisy” and “unhinged.”

The approval came as part of a high-level meeting on PPPR. But what does the declaration mean in practice?

For proponents, the declaration is a key step toward global coordination in pandemic prevention and public health.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), it “presents an opportunity … to prevent and prepare for pandemics and their consequences, using an approach that involves all government sectors.”

The WHO also said the PPPR aims to “apply lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic” and “comes as the world faces multiple humanitarian and climate-related crises which are threatening lives and livelihoods around the world.”

In a statement, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said, “If COVID-19 taught us nothing else, it’s that when health is at risk, everything is at risk.” He linked the PPPR to the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), saying world leaders should “show they have learned the painful lessons of the pandemic.”

Attorney Lawrence Gostin, head of Georgetown University’s WHO Collaborating Center — a key figure “playing a key behind-the-scenes role in negotiations” for the proposed “pandemic treaty” and amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR) — said the high-level meeting “is our best chance to gain support and deep engagement of heads of state and government.”

‘Unprecedented’ Agreement Comes at Expense of National Sovereignty

Other experts took a different view. Author and podcaster Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the Center for Security Policy, told The Defender it is “very worrying” that the U.N. and WHO “will further encourage, if not actually authorize, the kind of standing capability or authority on their part to essentially dictate what constitutes emergencies.”

“There’s no getting around the fact that it’s going to come at the expense of the sovereignty of the various nations that will subsequently be told that they have an emergency and told what they have to do about it,” he added. “This is unprecedented.”

Gostin said “Negotiators are at a loss” as to how to balance accountability and sovereignty when implementing instruments like the PPPR, IHR or “pandemic treaty.”

Writing for the Brownstone Institute, Dr. David Bell, a public health physician, biotech consultant and former director of Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund, said “the main aim” of the PPPR “is to back” the “pandemic treaty” and IHR amendments currently under negotiation by WHO member states.

Bell said a “silence procedure” is in place, “meaning that States not responding will be deemed supporters of the text.” He said the text is “clearly contradictory, sometimes fallacious, and often quite meaningless,” and intended to centralize the WHO’s power.

Bell told The Defender, “The declaration was not written with serious intent, but is essentially empty rhetoric promoting a continued centralization of control that the U.N. and WHO are openly seeking, at the expense of democracy, human rights and equality.”

Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., a bioweapons expert and professor of international law at the University of Illinois who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, agreed. “The same people who drafted the pandemic treaty and the IHR amendments drafted the PPPR document,” Bell told The Defender.

“This is a full-court press to have the entirety of the United Nations Organization, its specialized agencies and its affiliated organizations, back up and support their proposed globalist WHO worldwide totalitarian medical and scientific police state,” he said.

Today’s high-level meeting included scheduled speeches from 158 national representatives, including the presidents or prime ministers of 34 countries and, representing the U.S., Secretary of State Anthony Blinken.

Panelists included German Minister of Health Dr. Karl Lauterbach and representatives of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization.

What Does the Declaration Mean for You?

The final text of the PPPR political declaration, dated Sept. 1, includes statements and proposals covering a range of issues, from vaccination to so-called “misinformation.”

Screenshot of the PPPR Political Declaration from the UN

According to the declaration, “pandemics call for timely, urgent and continued leadership, global solidarity, increased international cooperation and multilateral commitment … to implement coherent and robust national, regional and global actions, driven by science … to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

Stating that “health is a precondition for all” and an indicator of “sustainable development,” the declaration calls for:

• Universal vaccination: The declaration expresses “deep concern” about declining global vaccination rates, and includes a commitment supporting “research and development of vaccines and medicines, as well as preventive measures and treatments for communicable and non-communicable diseases.”

“Routine immunization is one of the most efficient and cost-effective public health interventions with the greatest reach and demonstrated health outcomes,” the declaration states, while highlighting the ”important role played by the private sector in research and development of innovative medicines,” including vaccines.

It calls for the improvement of “routine immunization, vaccination and outreach capacities, including by providing evidence-based information on promoting confidence, uptake, demand” and “expand[ing] vaccine coverage to prevent outbreaks as well as the spread and re-emergence of communicable diseases.”

• Makes “temporary” COVID-19 powers permanent: The declaration expresses “concern with the continued emergence and re-emergence of epidemic-prone diseases,” stating “the need … to build on the lessons learned and best practices from the COVID-19 pandemic,” including “turning, where appropriate, temporarily scaled up capacities” developed during the pandemic “into permanent capacities in a sustainable manner.”
• Calls for increased surveillance and digital health documents, such as vaccine passports:The declaration “recognize[s] … the potential of digital health technologies” in “implementing and supporting health measures and bolstering national response efforts” to pandemics and health emergencies.

Digital technologies such as vaccine passports are a key component of the under-negotiation IHR amendments. The declaration, in turn, also states a need for “early warning systems” and “an integrated One Health approach,” for “the earliest and most adequate response” to pandemics and health emergencies.

• Potential social media censorship: The declaration expresses “concern that health-related misinformation and disinformation negatively impacted routine immunization services globally.”

Accordingly, the declaration calls for “measures to counter and address the negative impacts of health-related misinformation, disinformation, hate speech and stigmatization, especially on social media platforms … including countering vaccine hesitancy … and to foster trust in public health systems and authorities.”

• Calls for “pandemic treaty” and IHR amendments to be finalized: The declaration “encourages” the conclusion of negotiations on the IHR amendments and the “pandemic treaty,” suggesting that this will ensure “the sustainable, affordable, fair, equitable, effective, efficient and timely access to medical countermeasures,” including vaccines.
• You will pay for this: The declaration “Welcome[s] the launch of the Pandemic Fund” to “finance critical investments” for pandemic preparedness and response, at a cost of $30 billion per year. This price tag includes an “estimated gap of $10 billion in new external financing per year outside current official development assistance levels” — namely, dues paid by WHO member states.

According to Bell, “The WHO noted in 2019 that pandemics are rare, and insignificant in terms of overall mortality over the last century” but, “The WHO and the entire U.N. system now consider pandemics an existential and imminent threat.”

He said this is important, because “They are asking for far more money than is spent on any other international health program,” which will “deliver great wealth to some people” and great powers for governments, which can be used to “reimpose the very responses that have just caused the largest growth in poverty and disease in our lifetimes.”

“Logically, pandemics will only become more frequent if someone intends to make them so (so we should wonder what is going on),” Bell wrote.

Bell said that while the declaration pays lip service to issues such as women’s rights and education, it contradicts itself by supporting COVID-19-style restrictions, including “closing schools and disproportionately throwing women out of work and into poverty.”

Independent journalist James Roguski told The Defender, “The vast harms that have been caused by approved therapeutics and injections make the hypocrisy” of the declaration’s calls for “greater access” to vaccines “absolutely astonishing.”

“If the WHO was still about improving overall health, they would obviously not be involved in this as it is contrary to good public health policy,” Bell said.

Gostin said misinformation “poses a serious health threat, especially in vaccine distribution,” adding, “Balancing free speech with combating misinformation is challenging” and that the “WHO can lead partnerships between scientific experts and information disseminators to ensure credible information reaches the public.”

Bell, however, disagreed with this view, writing, “The WHO recently publicly characterized people who discuss adverse effects of COVID vaccines and question WHO policies as ‘far-right,’ ‘anti-science aggressors,’ and ‘a killing force,’” adding that “This is unhinged. It is the denigration and hate speech that fascist regimes use.”

Yet, for Gostin, the PPPR declaration isn’t enough. “It is wholly inadequate on concrete action, such as pledges for funding health systems,” he said, adding “There has been too little cooperation between the U.N. and WHO.”

11 Countries Opposed Declaration

Consensus on the PPPR is not universal. In a Sept. 17 letter to Dennis Francis, president of the UNGA, co-signed by the representatives of 11 countries, “legitimate concerns” were raised “of a large number of developing countries have been ignored.”

The 11 countries are Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Eritrea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Nicaragua, the Russian Federation, the Syrian Arab Republic, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

Their letter broke the “silence procedure,” stating, “Our delegations are convinced that this is no way to handle multilateral and intergovernmental negotiations on issues of great relevance for the international community, particularly for developing countries.”

It added that “no consensus has been reached on any of these processes.” However, the letter does not contain specific objections to the content of the PPPR declaration.

According to Boyle, the 11 nations’ objections should “prevent this declaration being adopted by consensus and thus arguably becoming part of customary international law, which is what those behind the declaration intend.”

“They could not get it through the UNGA as a Consensus Resolution because of the 11 objecting states,” Boyle said. “They are trying to spin it and misrepresent it,” he said, by having the UNGA president — not the UNGA — approve the declaration.

Gates-supported Organization Pushed for PPPR Declaration

In addition to national representatives, organizations like Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance — recognized as a stakeholder and “observer” by the WHO — also participated in today’s meeting.

Gavi proclaims a mission to “save lives and protect people’s health,” and states it “helps vaccinate almost half the world’s children against deadly and debilitating infectious diseases.”

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a partner of Gavi and holds a permanent seat on its board— as do the WHO, UNICEF and the World Bank.

Gavi described this year’s UNGA as “a sobering milestone” on the path toward meeting the 2030 target date for the SDGs, and said the high-level meeting is “a one-time and historic opportunity for leaders to adopt a whole-of-government, whole-of-society, global approach to addressing pandemic threats.”

“By taking lessons from the acute phase of the pandemic, the moment is imminent to shape a more responsive and resilient system,” Gavi said, adding that “urgent action is needed to fulfill the SDG3 [health and well-being] targets and reach all children with life-saving vaccines.”

Gavi also assigned itself a role in this process, stating, “There should also be a prominent role for specialised agencies such as Gavi, building on technical expertise and lessons from the response to the COVID-19 pandemic to achieve health equity.”

Bell said Gavi is an example of an organization that was not “negatively impacted” by the COVID-19 catastrophe. “People and corporations who sponsor much of the WHO’s health emergency work, and that of its sister organizations such as CEPI, Gavi, and Unitaid, did very well from the policies they advocated so strongly for,” he wrote.

PPPR Envisions ‘Digital Gulag,’ Negotiated in ‘Secrecy’

Gaffney, who is hosting a webinar today relating to proposals to expand vaccine passports and grant the WHO more power, said PPPR is part of a broader power grab by the WHO and U.N., including proposals expected to be discussed at the U.N. in September 2024, to grant the U.N. secretary-general indefinite emergency powers.

“Both the U.N. and WHO envision this kind of digital gulag as an underpinning mechanism for exercising that kind of authority, and specifically the ability of those entities to dictate what must be done in response to whatever they decide is a crisis, health-related or otherwise,” Gaffney said. “This is the thing that’s very alarming to me.”

Dr. Michel Kazatchkine, a French physician and diplomat and member of the team that drafted the PPPR declaration, said the declaration and the proposal to grant the U.N. secretary-general emergency powers are linked.

According to Roguski, the PPPR declaration is one of “four tracks that are important to pay attention to right now” — along with the IHR amendments adopted in May 2022, which he says “need to be rejected by the end of November,” the new IHR amendments and the “pandemic treaty” (formally named the WHO CA+ Framework Convention).

Roguski told The Defender that the May 2024 target date for adoption of the IHR amendments and “pandemic treaty” at the WHO’s World Health Assembly is in jeopardy due to the objecting nations — a view shared by Gostin, who said the May 2024 deadline is “pushing it” but noting that “the reason for speed is compelling.”

Roguski said the PPPR negotiations were conducted in “secrecy” and noted the PPPR declaration “is silent” regarding efforts to develop a Global Digital Health Certification Network — which would establish a global framework for “vaccine passports” and other types of health certificates to be implemented.

Roguski said that rather than calling for gain-of-function research to end, the PPPR supports funding WHO efforts “to implement a Pathogen Access and Benefits Sharing System.” He said this “increases the risk of the spread of deadly pathogens, by design.”

According to the PPPR declaration, a high-level meeting reviewing progress on PPPR implementation will be held in New York in 2026. Other health-related high-level meetings at the UNGA this week focus on universal health coverage and tuberculosis.

*

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 Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”

Featured image is from CHD

First published by Global Research on May 23, 2015, Colin Todhunter focusses on the socially destructive role of GMO Seeds.

***

If physical violence is to be used only as a final resort, a dominant class must seek to gain people’s consent if it is to govern and control a population. It must attempt to legitimize its position in the eyes of the ruled over by achieving a kind of ‘consented coercion’ that disguises the true fist of power. This can be achieved by many means and over the years commentators from Gramsci to Althusser and Chomsky have described how it may be done.

However, one of the most basic and arguably effective forms of control is eugenics/ depopulation, a philosophy that includes reducing the reproductive capacity of the ‘less desirable’ sections of a population.

There is a growing fear that eugenics is being used to get rid of sections of the world population that are ‘surplus to requirements’. And it is a legitimate fear, not least because there is a sordid history of forced/covert sterilizations carried out on those deemed ‘undesirable’ or ‘surplus to requirements’, which reflects the concerns of eugenicists who have operated at the highest levels of policy making. From early 20^th century ‘philanthropists’ and the Nazis to the nascent genetics movement and rich elites, by one means or another ridding the planet of the great unwanted masses has always been fairly high on the ‘to do’ list (see this informative piece)

Millionaire US media baron Ted Turner believes a global population of two billion would be ideal, and billionaire Bill Gates has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to improve access to contraception in the Global South.

Gates has also purchased shares in Monsanto valued at more than $23 million at the time of purchase. His agenda is to help Monsanto get their genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into Africa on a grand scale. In 2001, Monsanto and Du Pont bought a small biotech company called Epicyte that had created a gene that basically makes the male sperm sterile and the female egg unreceptive.

Bill Gates’ father has long been involved with Planned Parenthood:

“When I was growing up, my parents were always involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that.”

The above quotation comes from a 2003 interview with Bill Gates.

Planned Parenthood was founded on the concept that most human beings are reckless breeders. Gates senior is co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and a guiding light behind the vision and direction of the Gates Foundation, which is heavily focused on promoting GMOs in Africa via its financing of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA).

The Gates Foundation has given at least $264.5 million to AGRA.

According to a report published by La Via Campesina in 2010, 70 percent of AGRA’s grantees in Kenya work directly with Monsanto and nearly 80 percent of the Gates Foundation funding is devoted to biotechnology.

The report also explains that the Gates Foundation has pledged $880 million to create the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), which is a heavy promoter of GMOs.

The issue of genetic engineering cannot be fully understood without looking at the global spread of US power. The oil-rich Rockefeller dynasty helped promote the ‘green revolution’, which allowed the US to colonise indigenous agriculture across large parts of the planet. By projecting power through the WTO, IMF and World Bank, Washington has been able to make food and agriculture central to its geopolitical strategy of securing global dominance.

As with the control of food and agriculture, the US also regards depopulation as a potential geo-strategic tool (see this) in the quest for control of global resources. What better way to achieve this via a (GM) tampered-with food system that US agribusiness has increasingly come to dominate?

What better way to achieve this than with ‘spermicidal corn’ for example? In Mexico, there is concern about biopharmaceutical corn. Some years ago, Silvia Ribeiro, of the ETC organization, stated:

“The potential of spermicidal corn as a biological weapon is outrageous, since it easily interbreeds with other varieties, is capable of going undetected and could lodge itself at the very core of indigenous and farming cultures. We have witnessed the execution of repeated sterilization campaigns performed against indigenous communities. This method is certainly much more difficult to trace.”

While most of the literature on GMOs is concerned with the impacts of crops that have been genetically modified to deal with pests or herbicide spraying, there are very worrying trends regarding plants being genetically modified to contain industrial pharmaceuticals or possess possible contraceptive traits.

The world’s problems are not being caused by overpopulation, as Turner states, but by greed and a system of ownership and global power relations that ensures wealth flows from bottom to top. The issue at hand should not be about stopping population growth in its tracks but about changing a socially divisive global economic system and the unsustainable depletion of natural resources.

Millionaires like Ted Turner believe it should be a case of carry on consuming regardless, as long as the population is cut.

This is the ideology of the rich who regard the rest of humanity as a problem to be ‘dealt with.’ He says there are “too many people using too much stuff.” He couldn’t be more wrong. For instance, developing nations account for more than 80 percent of world population, but consume only about one third of the world’s energy. US citizens constitute 5 percent of the world’s population but consume 24 percent of the world’s energy.

We should be weary of a politically and militarily well-connected biotech sector which has ownership of technology that allows for the genetic engineering of food and a gene that could be used (or already is) for involuntary sterilization. From covert vaccination campaigns to germ warfare and geo-engineering, sections of the population around the world have too often been sprayed on, injected or exposed to harmful processes to induce sterility, infertility or to merely see the outcome of exposures to radiation, bacteria or some virus. It is for good reason some conflate GMOs and bio-terror.

Herbert Marcuse once summed up the problem facing us by saying that the capabilities — both intellectual and technological — of contemporary society are immeasurably greater than before. As a result, the scope of society’s domination over the individual is also immeasurably greater than ever before. That domination comes in increasingly sinister forms.

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.

***

Today, we are witnessing the nudging (manipulation) of the population to accept a ‘new normal’ based on

• a climate emergency narrative,
• restrictions on movement and travel,
• programmable digital money,
• ‘pandemic preparedness’ courtesy of the World Health Organization’s tyrannical pandemic treaty,
• unaccountable AI and synthetic ‘food’.

Whether it involves a ‘food transition’, an ‘energy transition’, 15-minute cities or some other benign-sounding term, all this is to be determined by a supranational ‘stakeholder’ elite with ordinary people sidelined in the process. An undemocratic agenda designed to place restrictions on individual liberty, marking a dramatic shift towards authoritarianism.

In the 1980s, to help legitimise the deregulation-privatisation neoliberal globalisation agenda, government and media instigated an ideological onslaught, driving home the primacy of ‘free enterprise’, individual rights and responsibility and emphasising a shift away from the role of the state, trade unions and the collective in society.

We are currently seeing another ideological shift:

Individual rights and freedoms are said to undermine the wider needs of society and the planet – in a stark turnaround – personal freedom is now said to pose a threat to national security, public health or the climate.

As in the 1980s, this messaging is being driven by an economic impulse. This time, the collapsing neoliberal project.

In the UK, poverty is increasing in two-thirds of communities, food banks are now a necessary part of life for millions of people and living standards are plummeting. Indeed, the poorest families are enduring a ‘frightening’ collapse in living standards, resulting in life-changing and life-limiting poverty).

In the US, around 30 million low-income people are on the edge of a ‘hunger cliff’ as a portion of their federal food assistance is taken away.

In 2021, it was estimated that one in eight children were going hungry in the US. Small businesses are filing for bankruptcy in the US at a record rate.

The Bank of England’s chief economist, Huw Pill, says that people should ‘accept’ being poorer. This is similar to the response of Rob Kapito, co-founder of the world’s biggest asset management firm, BlackRock. In 2022, the unimaginably rich and entitled Kapito said that a “very entitled” generation of (ordinary working) people who have never had to sacrifice would soon have to face shortages for the first time in their lives.

While business as usual prevails in Kapito’s world of privilege and that of major arms, energy, pharmaceuticals and food companies, whose megarich owners continue to rake in massive profits, Kapito and Pill tell ordinary people to get used to poverty and the ‘new normal’ as if we are ‘all in it together’ – billionaires and working class alike. They conveniently use COVID and the situation in Ukraine as cover for the collapsing neoliberalism.

But this is part of the hegemonic agenda that seeks to ensure that the establishment’s world view is the accepted cultural norm. And anyone who challenges this world view – whether it involves, for instance, questioning climate alarmism, the ‘new normal’, the nature of the economic crisis, the mainstream COVID narrative or the official stance on Ukraine and Russia – is regarded as a spreader of misinformation and the ‘enemy within’.

Although the term ‘enemy within’ was popularised by Margaret Thatcher during the miners’ strike in 1984-85 to describe the striking miners, it is a notion with which Britain’s rulers have regarded protest movements and uprisings down the centuries. From the Peasants’ Revolt in 1381 to the Levellers and Diggers in the 17^th century, it is a concept associated with anyone or any group that challenges the existing social order and the interests of the ruling class.

John Ball, a radical priest, addressed the Peasants’ Revolt rebels with the following words:

“Good friends, matters cannot go well in England until all things be held in common; when there shall be neither vassals nor lords; when the lords shall be no more masters than ourselves.”

The revolt was suppressed. John Ball was captured and hung, drawn and quartered. Part of the blood-soaked history of the British ruling class.

Later on, the 17^th-century Diggers movement wanted to create small, egalitarian rural communities and farm on common land that had been privatised by enclosures.

The 1975 song ‘The world Turned Upside Down’ by Leon Rosselson commemorates the Diggers. His lyrics describe the aims and plight of the movement. In Rosselson’s words, the Diggers were dispossessed via theft and murder but reclaimed what was theirs only to be violently put down.

Little surprise then that, in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher used the state machinery to defeat the country’s most powerful and trade union and the shock troops of the labour movement, the National Union of Mineworkers – ‘the enemy within’. She needed to do this to open the gates for capital to profit from the subsequent deindustrialisation of much of the UK and the dismantling of large parts of the welfare state.

And the result?

A hollowed-out, debt-bloated economy, the destruction of the social fabric of entire communities and the great financial Ponzi scheme – the ‘miracle’ of deregulated finance – that now teeters on the brink of collapse, leading the likes of Kapito and Pill to tell the public to get ready to become poor.

And now, in 2023, the latest version of the ‘enemy within’ disseminates ‘misinformation’ – anything that challenges the official state-corporate narrative. So, this time, one goal is to have a fully controlled (censored) internet.

For instance, US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) recently awarded Accrete a contract for Argus to detect disinformation threats from social media. Argus is AI software that analyses social media data to predict emergent narratives and generate intelligence reports at a speed and scale to help neutralise viral disinformation threats.

Image copyright guirong hao | Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

Accrete AI is a leading dual-use enterprise AI company. It deployed its AI Argus software for open-source threat detection with the US Department of Defense in 2022.

In a recent press release, Prashant Bhuyan, founder and CEO of Accrete, boasts:

“Social media is widely recognised as an unregulated environment where adversaries routinely exploit reasoning vulnerabilities and manipulate behaviour through the intentional spread of disinformation. USSOCOM is at the tip of the spear in recognising the critical need to identify and analytically predict social media narratives at an embryonic stage before those narratives evolve and gain traction. Accrete is proud to support USSOCOM’s mission.”

‍This is about predicting wrong think on social media. But control over the internet is just part of a wider programme of establishment domination, surveillance and dealing with protest and dissent.

The recent online article ‘How the Government Weaponizes Surveillance to Silence Its Critics‘ notes that, on any given day, the average person in the US is monitored, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways.

The authors of the article ask us to consider some of the ways the US government is weaponizing its surveillance technologies to flag citizens as a threat to national security, whether or not they have done anything wrong – from flagging citizens as a danger based on their feelings, phone and movements to their spending activities, social media activities, political views and correspondence.

The elite has determined that the existential threat is you. The article ‘Costs of War: Peterloo’, written by UK Veterans for Peace member Aly Renwick, details the history of the brutal suppression of protesters by Britain’s rulers. He also strips away any notion that some may have of a benign, present-day ruling elite with democratic leanings. The leopard has not changed its spots.

As we saw during COVID, the thinking is that hard-won rights must be curtailed, freedom of association is reckless, free thinking is dangerous, dissent is to be stamped on, impartial science is a threat and free speech is deadly. Government is ‘the truth’, Fauci (or some similar figure) is ‘the science’ and censorship is for your own good.

None of this was justified. It only begins to make sense if we regard the COVID restrictions in terms of trying to deal with an economic crisis by closing down the global economy under cover of a public health crisis (see the online articles ‘What Was Covid Really About? Triggering a Multi-Trillion Dollar Global Debt Crisis’ and ‘Italy 2020: Inside Covid’s Ground Zero’ which outline how COVID policies can be explained by economic factors not health concerns).

The economic crisis is making many people poorer, so they must be controlled, monitored and subjugated.

The transitions mentioned at the start of this article along with the surveillance agenda (together known as the ‘Great Reset’) are being accelerated at this time of economic crisis when countless millions across the West are being impoverished. The collapsing financial system is resulting in an interrelated global debt, inflation and ‘austerity’ crisis and the biggest transfer of wealth to the rich in history.

As a result, the powers that be fear that the masses might once again pick up their pitchforks and revolt. They are adamant that the peasants must know their place.

But the flame of protest and dissent from centuries past still inspires and burns bright. So, with that in mind, let’s finish with Leon Rosselson’s lyrics in reference to the Diggers movement (Billy Bragg’s version of the song can be found on YouTube):

In sixteen forty-nine
To St. George’s Hill
A ragged band they called the Diggers
Came to show the people’s will
They defied the landlords
They defied the laws
They were the dispossessed reclaiming what was theirs

We come in peace they said
To dig and sow
We come to work the lands in common
And to make the waste grounds grow
This earth divided
We will makе whole
So it will be
A common treasury for all

Thе sin of property
We do disdain
No man has any right to buy and sell
The earth for private gain
By theft and murder
They took the land
Now everywhere the walls
Spring up at their command

They make the laws
To chain us well
The clergy dazzle us with heaven
Or they damn us into hell
We will not worship
The God they serve
The God of greed who feed the rich
While poor man starve

We work we eat together
We need no swords
We will not bow to masters
Or pay rent to the lords
We are free men
Though we are poor
You Diggers all stand up for glory
Stand up now

From the men of property
The orders came
They sent the hired men and troopers
To wipe out the Diggers’ claim
Tear down their cottages
Destroy their corn
They were dispersed
Only the vision lingers on

You poor take courage
You rich take care
The earth was made a common treasury
For everyone to share
All things in common
All people one
We come in peace
The order came to cut them down
We come in peace
The order came to cut them down

*

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.

Renowned author Colin Todhunter specialises in development, food and agriculture. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

---

Read Colin Todhunter’s e-Book entitled

Food, Dispossession and Dependency. Resisting the New World Order

We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The high-tech/big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is also involved (documented in ‘Gates to a Global Empire‘ by Navdanya International), whether through buying up huge tracts of farmland, promoting a much-heralded (but failed) ‘green revolution’ for Africa, pushing biosynthetic food and genetic engineering technologies or more generally facilitating the aims of the mega agri-food corporations.

Click here to read.

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 have to have the courage to face our enemies. I think most readers of this article will already know that the psychotic element of the human race which has succeeded in establishing itself at the top of the end of the control pyramid, will stop at nothing to get its way. 

That ‘way’ is to destroy the soul of humanity and bulldoze all but the most elementary expressions of nature.

What I have to report today escaped my attention until very recently, but unfortunately fits the above description all too well. 

On 13 May 2021 the Defence and Armed Forces Ministry (MOD) of the UK government published a document entitled ‘Human Augmentation – the Dawn of a New Paradigm’. That title alone sent a shiver down my spine; but that shiver extended upon reading the first paragraph. 

“The Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre worked in partnership with the German Bundeswehr Office for Defence Planning to understand the future implications of human augmentation, setting the foundation for more detailed Defence research and development”.

Screenshot from MOD 

Screenshot from MOD 

Why is it that a link-up between the German Bundeswehr and the British Ministry of Defence sent an extended shiver through my body? 

Next we learn that

“The project incorporates research from German, Swedish, Finnish and UK Defence specialists to understand how human augmentation emerging technologies could affect the future of society, security and Defence.” 

Well, well, are we supposed to believe that these ‘defence specialists’ are coming together to make a detached survey of the state of the art developments of human beings re-engineered to become instant battlefield weapons? 

Not likely! This is a description of a collaboration designed to work-out the optimum potential of such cyborgian kamikaze bipedals, to be at the cutting edge of offensive military hardware in the very near future. 

We read on

“Human augmentation technologies provide a broad sense of opportunities for today and in the future. These are mature technologies that could be integrated today with manageable policy considerations, such as personalised nutrition, wearables and exoskeletons.“

What in God’s name are they talking about?

Are readers of this UK government document supposed to know what ‘personal nutrition’, ‘wearables’ and ‘exoskeletons’ actually are?

Bear in mind that this was written in the middle of the great Covid hoax. Doesn’t it ring of something equally diabolical?

But wait, it gets worse

“There are other technologies in the future with promises of bigger potential such as genetic engineering and brain computer interfaces.”

OK, thanks. Now you have let us into an uncloaked description of what’s to come in a language most can understand. The weaponised corporals in the front line of the war with…China?..Russia? will be computer programmed Transhumans – the jewel in the crown of Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset, Fourth Industrial Revolution. We might have guessed. 

But hey, just take a look at the next revelation

“The ethical, moral and legal implications of human augmentation are complex and hard to foresee and regular engagement with these issues must be thoroughly considered.”

Hard to foresee? Only if you are a deeply psychotic, mind-blind and insentient demon disguised as a human being. 

The document ends with the following statement

“Human augmentation could signal the coming of a new era of strategic advantage with possible implications across the force development spectrum.” 

“A new era of strategic advantage with ‘possible implications’ across the force development spectrum”. Now the shiver has reached my heart, but I’m not letting it dwell there for more than a couple of seconds. In fact I’m outraged by the utter obscenity of all these statements. 

What kind of ‘strategic advantage’ are these technocrats talking about? What kind of ‘possible implications’ for the ‘force development spectrum’? Possible implications?

“Hi Sam, this is Houston Automated Army Digital Defence Centre, here’s your instructions: plug-in corporal Jones and line him up with target 371. Make sure his wearables are set on invisible mode and that he is equipped with ‘insecto-synth-nutrit’ augmentation capsules. We’ll be steering him from here. But you guys need to be alert to any retaliation within the war theater.” 

It is highly instructive that in the ‘related content’ section at the end of the MOD document are the following links: 

• Financing the 2030 Agenda through Covid-19 and beyond 
• Agenda 2030: delivering the global goals 
• The Fourth Industrial Revolution 
• Investing in a Better World: Results of UK Survey on Financing SDG’s (Sustainable Development Goals). 

This is an in-your-face head’s-up for anyone still failing to understand ‘the programme’ being driven forward by the darkly possessed globalist cabal. A programme designed to exterminate warm hearted, living breathing human beings like you and me and replace us with a mix of mind controlled/hypnotised slaves and digitally programmed robotic devices that ape elementary human behaviour patterns. 

The authors of this report should already be in the dock for advancing the implementation of such egregious crimes against humanity. This is ice cold techno-military gamesmanship portrayed as a shared and even ‘ethical’ scientific overview of the latest developments in high-tech sub human battlefield deployments – and its all part of Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development and the Great Reset. 

One must not underestimate the lengths this evil cohort will go to achieve its ambitions. It will ‘voluntarily’ stop at nothing. So it must be stopped by us. 

 If we want the light of day to shine on future generations – we must resolutely commit to putting our best energies into making sure we win this war; empowering our light to vanquish the darkness. 

Warriors of the Golden Dawn – step forward! 

*

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.

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, a writer, broadcaster and international activist. He is author of ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind’ ‘In Defence of Life’ and ‘Creative Solutions to a World in Crisis’. For more information see his website www.julianrose.info

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Frame Stock Footage/Shutterstock

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.

*** 

“Dissident Voice”

In an explosive and extraordinary analysis, Dr. Anita Baxas, MD, explains the multiple causes for injuries and deaths from covid injections worldwide. An estimated 20 million people died and another 2 billion have been injured (adverse events) worldwide. And this after only 2 ½ years of the coerced fake and deadly covid vaxxes.

Dr. Baxas reasons that spike protein, like any protein foreign to the body, may cause the immune system to build antibodies against it.

This may explain the damage to cells and ultimately the tissues they form, such as the inner lining of blood vessels, heart muscle, kidneys, ovaries, testes and basically any organ that displays the spike protein.

It may also explain inflammation, myocarditis, vascular complications such as heart attacks, strokes, brain fog, pulmonary embolism, sudden loss of vision, hearing, limb amputations to erectile dysfunction – and many more diseases, not immediately linked to the covid injections, but to immune deficiencies caused by the injections.

Ultimately, it may explain auto-immune disease symptoms and a heightened immune response, eventually depleting the immune system, leading to immune deficiency.

See Dr. Baxas’s full report below.

*

The NYT Covid Tracker estimated in March 2023 that over 5.55 billion people, 72.3% of the world population, have been injected at least twice by the vaxx poison. See this.  

According to Michael Yeadon, former Pfizer VP and Chief of Research, the real death toll will manifest itself three to ten years after the covid injections and “boosters”. In addition to the direct vaxx effect, each mRNA spike-protein “follow-up” injection will also disturb and diminish people’s immune system and consequently lead to many deaths from various causes.

On several occasions, Dr. Yeadon expressed his concern that people should at all cost abstain from covid injections, or at least avoid “booster” shots. See this and this and this.

Become Aware 

It is never too late to become aware and proactive against a killer-system that wants to drastically reduce humanity, convert survivors to robotized transhumans subjected to artificial intelligence (AI) – and full digitization to the world’s locked-in matrix.

We MUST under no circumstances allow the WEF, WHO, and the United Nations to push through the planned 94-point revision of the International Health Regulations (IHR) which includes the Pandemic Treaty, giving the UN and WHO the authority to decide on health regulations over and above national sovereignty of the more than 190 member countries.

This would also involve worldwide recognized and recognizable digital vaxx certificates and IDs.

It would transform WHO and the UN into an international health tyranny.

These measures are currently being debated behind closed doors at the UN General Assembly, 19 to 26 September 2023.

Update: Just in: UN General Assembly President Approves Pandemic Declaration — Privacy Experts Warn of ‘Digital Gulag’ (20 September 2023), see this.

What Causes Death and

Disability in the COVID Shots?

Is there something hidden inside to cause the illusion of the “next pandemic”?

By

Dr. Anita Baxas

Experts estimate that 20 million are dead and 2 billion have been injured by the Covid injections¹. The spectrum of symptoms people suffer from after getting the Covid shots is very large.  This is an indication that there are several undisclosed ingredients in the shots that alone or in combination with each other can cause this wide variety of health problems.

Researchers on five continents have been examining the vials and blood of the injected. So far the following culprits of death and disability have been discovered, though not all their effects are completely known yet.² At the bottom of the article you will find a table listing the affected organ systems and the symptoms/diseases that affect them as well as the ingredient(s) most likely causing the problems.

mRNA (modified RNA, NOT messenger RNA)

Not all the examined vials contained mRNA, but we must assume that the majority do. It’s transported through the cell membranes into the cell and as researchers in Sweden³ found also into the nucleus where it can be inserted into the DNA via an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. It’s supposedly coded to force the cell to make spike proteins which are then expressed on the outside of the cell’s membrane. There it attracts antibodies that ultimately destroy not only the spike protein but also the cell presenting it.

Spike protein is said to be the outer shell of the virus. As there is no proof that viruses exist, the question arises as to what the mRNA is coded for. mRNA and DNA basically are blueprints for cells to produce amino acid chains. Two or more short amino acid chains make up peptides and several peptides make up proteins. Any protein foreign to the body will cause the immune system to build antibodies against it. What protein the mRNA in the shots code for remains an open question.

This can explain the damage to cells and ultimately the tissues/organs they form such as the inner lining of blood vessels, heart muscle, kidneys, ovaries, testes and basically any organ that displays the spike protein. It can explain inflammation, myocarditis, vascular complications such as heart attacks, strokes, brain fog, pulmonary embolism, sudden loss of vision, hearing, limb amputations to erectile dysfunction. It can also explain auto-immune disease symptoms and a heightened immune response ultimately depleting the immune system leading to immune deficiency.

Lipid Nano Particle LNP aka Hydrogel ^4-9

This is supposedly only a harmless transport vehicle to get the mRNA into the cell. Patents discovered by Karen Kingston though show that they are much more than that. They can build “things” and be directed by outside stimuli like temperature, electric and magnetic fields, possibly by signals sent via 5G (?). They can serve as sensor platforms and transmitters. They could be the origin of fibrous clots pulled out by coroners and embalmers. Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea MD, PhD as well as Dr. Shelton in Australia, Dr. Nixon in New Zealand, La Quinta Columna researchers in Spain, Shimon Yanowitz in Israel and others have photographed structures that look like computer chips that are assembled under the influence of EMF.

These hydrogels could be responsible for clotting symptoms as they are suspected of forming fibrous clots (not blood clots). These include the same as symptoms as caused by spike proteins. They may be responsible for the spiritual decline and personality changes as well as neurological symptoms like seizures.

Fetal Tissue

Admittedly human fetal tissue was used to create the shots. Dr. Robert Young said that this is used to drive or direct the LNP with the mRNA to particular tissues in the body. From my medical background doing fetal cell therapy (using animal fetal cell tissue –NEVER human) to treat a variety of so-called incurable diseases I have seen studies done in the early 50s to 70s proving that fetal cells will migrate to the tissue of their origin. Thus, when we injected fetal calf liver cells intramuscularly, these cells would migrate to the liver to heal the organ in the patient. Consequently the “vaccine” manufacturers are using fetal tissue as a driver to direct the LNPs loaded with mRNA and probably Graphene to particular tissues. The shot was never going to stay only in the Deltoid muscle where the injection was placed. They purposely targeted certain organ systems such as ovaries, testes, brain. Fertility of the human race was purposefully targeted as a means of depopulation. A recent analysis by Professor Konstantin Beck at the University of Lucerne, Switzerland of June 6, 2023 clearly shows a reduction of birth rates in Germany and Switzerland by about 10%. This was due to the increase of still births mainly within 9 months of the first “vaccination” campaign. A report from the UK just confirmed an increase in stillbirths as well.

As it’s possible that Graphene is also enclosed in the hydrogel, it could be a co-factor in fertility issues. The fetal tissue is the cab driver, the hydrogel is the cab and the mRNA and very possibly Graphene are the passengers.

Graphene Oxide

I have already written about the effects of Graphene in the human body in my first Substack. Here is a short summary of Graphene effects in the body:

Physical Destruction of Cell Membranes: Acts like razor blades, cutting through the cell membranes.

Free Radical Damage: breakdown of cell membrane lipids,  DNA breakage & mutation, Chromosomal fragmentation, Protein denaturation, Deformation of Chromosomal end base pairs.
Mitochondrial dysfunction, aging, mutagenesis, carcinogenesis. Reduces antioxidants Glutathione and SOD, increases free radical malonaldehyde.

Inflammation: Elevation of pro inflammatory cytokines IL-6, 12, Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha, Nuclear factor Kappa beta. Activates Immune response with Monocytes, Macrophages, T Helper cells 1+2 and destroys them.

Apoptosis: Triggers mechanisms in the cell to induce cell death, necrosis

Alters Gene expression: Epigenetic effects through DNA hypermethylation or hypomethylation

• Forms large aggregates blocking blood vessels
• Platelet aggregation forming thrombi (blood clots)
• Retards brain tissue development in fetus by decreasing RNA and DNA synthesis
• Retards blood vessel formation in the heart of the fetus, leading to hypoxia
• Leads to abortion and death of the mother in pregnant mice
• Hemolysis (destroyed red blood cells)
• Cytotoxic to T Lymphocytes (toxic to the immune cells called T Lymphocytes)
• Decreases Cell adhesion, changes cell morphology leading to cell degradation
• Decreases gene expression responsible for structure and function of cell membranes, regulation of cytoskeleton, endocytosis and focal adhesion. Cell function becomes dysregulated.
• Colon Cancer cell viability improves with Graphene Oxide!
• Affects locomotor activity, balance, neuromuscular coordination
• Electrostatic interactions with Red blood cells (Rouleau formation, aggregation)

Researchers in China¹⁰ studied the effects of Graphene in the body. Basically it can go everywhere, pass the Blood Brain barrier, Placental barrier, Lung and Testis barriers. Depending on the method of administration (oral, intravenous, subcutaneous, intratracheal (into the windpipe), intraperitoneal- into the abdomen), it can be found in lung, liver, spleen, bone marrow, blood vessels. It penetrates cell membranes, the nucleus and mitochondria. Larger particles can get stuck in blood vessels. It breaks down cell membranes, breaks DNA strands, mutates DNA, fragments chromosomes and destroys proteins. It causes mitochondria to malfunction curbing cellular energy production. It causes aging and cancer. It causes massive inflammation and increases the inflammatory cytokines Interleukin 6, 12, Tumor Necrosis Factor and Nuclear Factor Kappa Beta. It activates immune cells and destroys them.  It triggers cell necrosis and cell death leading to organ failure.

Graphene can be responsible for a collapsing immune system, inflammation, multi organ damage including blood vessels leading to blood clots and thrombocytopenia (lack of blood platelets due to excessive bleeding using up the platelets faster than they can be made leading to more excessive bleeding). Many neurological symptoms can be caused not only by reduced blood flow to the central nervous system due to spike proteins and hydrogels but also by direct damage to nervous tissue by Graphene. These include paralysis (including Bell’s palsy), Parkinson’s symptoms, MS, Guillain Barré symptoms, uncontrollable limb movements and other neurological symptoms. Graphene will also be responsible for fetal malformation and still births as well as infertility. The collapsing immune system as well as damage to DNA could explain the massive increase in cancers seen in the injected population. Mitochondrial damage explains chronic fatigue and brain fog.

Graphene used to carry payloads which can be released by remote activation via mobile phones- is this the next “pandemic”?

A new article was just published in Science Direct¹¹ explaining how Graphene Oxide can be used to transport payloads such as a pharmaceutical (and maybe a potent toxin, bio weapon, warfare chemical?) and then triggered to release the payload remotely via a mobile phone.  Graphene was not only injected with the fake vaccine but was also found on masks and nasal swabs. The implications of this are frightening. Suspicion is circulating that the next “pandemic” will be Marburg or Ebola virus. Since there is no proof that viruses exist (see my last Substack article), let’s look at what toxins could elicit symptoms that could be attributed to these two viruses. The most prominent symptoms of Marburg “infection” are fever, myalgia (muscle aches), headaches, nausea, vomiting, pain, diarrhea, cough, chest pain, sore throat, jaundice, swollen lymph glands, delirium, stupor, coma, bleeding, rash, multiple organ failure. Most of these symptoms correlate with the body trying to detox something.

Snake venom from crotalid and viparid snakes can cause diffuse bleeding of skin and internal organs¹².  Blood thinners such as Warfarin which is also used in rat poison cause disseminated bleeding.  Endotoxins from gram negative bacteria such as E. Coli, Pseudomonas, Klebsiella, Salmonella and others can cause generalized intravascular coagulation (blood clotting inside of blood vessels) leading to a rapid decline of blood clotting factors and platelets which then causes generalized bleeding.  There may exist poisons that are not known about except in top secret labs that could cause Marburg and Ebola symptoms.

Then there are electromagnetic frequencies that can inhibit blood coagulation leading to increased bleeding. This has been studied in 2001 in Poland¹³ and in 2022 in the country of Georgia¹⁴. We also know that EMFs can elicit flu like symptoms which mostly are a detox reaction as detailed in the last Substack article.

It’s important not to take any information by government as truth in case the next plandemic is rolled out with symptoms attributed to viruses such as Ebola and Marburg.

Toxic Metals

These are found in most vaccines. Many are neurotoxins causing neurological issues, but they also interfere with normal cellular metabolism. Besides causing neurological issues they can also interfere with the heart’s electrical system causing palpitations.

Aluminum, Antimony, Barium, Titanium, Cesium and Thulium have been found in vials so far.

A Parasite Here and There

Dr. Robert Young found a parasite in one of the vials called Trypanosoma Cruzi.

Dr. Robert Young found Trypanosoma Cruzi in a Pfizer vial under his microscope. Trypansosoma Brucei was also found which causes sleeping sickness. T. Brucei is one of the few pathogens known to cross the blood-brain barrier. 

Trypanosoma Cruzi is the cause of Chagas Disease:

Acute infection is followed by a latent period which may remain asymptomatic or progress to chronic disease. Infection during pregnancy results in stillbirth or abortion or chronic neonatal disease. Acute Chagas disease is fatal. Death results from acute myocarditis with heart failure or meningo-encephalitis. Chronic disease has cardiac and GI effects with chronic cardiomyopathy with heart failure, syncope, sudden death, thromboembolism. In the GI tract it can cause enlargement of the esophagus causing dysphagia and mega colon with difficulty passing stool.

Trypanosoma Brucei causes African Sleeping Sickness:

Causes intermittent fever, headaches, rigors, circular red rash, swollen lymph nodes. Inability to concentrate personality changes (lassitude, indifference), daytime somnolence, tremor, ataxia, over eating, terminal coma.

Entries in the VAERS system corroborate Dr. Young’s findings. One of them tells of a woman who donates blood regularly and whose blood tested positive for the Trypanosoma cruzi parasite after her second vaccination.

So far these are the only reports and findings on parasites. More research is needed.

An Italian Research Team examined 1006 blood samples. 12 Samples were taken from patients before and after vaccination. 94.23 % had abnormal blood!¹⁵

Below is a table showing the organ systems affected, the known symptoms/illnesses and the probable cause of these.

I personally suspect there are other as of yet undiscovered ingredients in the shots as mRNA and Graphene can’t completely explain the skin conditions found in the injected patients. They are also not a complete explanation for some of the spiritual problems encountered by many energy healers such as torn up, thin aura, dark energies surrounding their clients and many more issues (see the post about Spiritual Implications of the Fake Covid Vaccines)

Natural Treatment Possibilities

There are natural treatments that can alleviate, even heal many of the issues caused by the shots. The main problem is that integrative/alternative physicians, nurse practitioners and physician assistants are usually in small private practice and don’t have the resources to do studies.  They are all scrambling to find the best treatment options for their patients and many are afraid to share them publicly for fear of losing their license to practice. I had a conversation with an integrative physician about his experience. You can read it here.

I will be speaking with more colleagues and posting their treatment approaches and experiences in future articles.

To get a short overview of possible treatments, see www.vaccineinjuryrecoveryproject.com.

 

Notes

1. https://expose-news.com/2023/09/15/20m-dead-2b-injured-covid-vaccination/?cmid=a18ca5fb-e862-4aed-8e59-ae3343383f1e 

2. What is in the so-called COVID-19 «Vaccines»? Part 1: Evidence of a Global Crime Against Humanity. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research 2(2), September 3, 2022 Page 586

3. Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, 20502 Malmö, Sweden
Infection Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, 22362 Lund, Sweden
Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2022, 44(3), 1115-1126; https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb44030073

4. Hydrogel-Induced Cell Membrane Disruptions Enable Direct Cytosolic Delivery of Membrane-Impermeable       Cargo. Advanced Materials/ Volume33, Issue 30/ 2008054 June 09, 2021 Jelter Van Hoeck et al.

5. A new class of biological materials: Cell membrane-derived hydrogel scaffolds. Biomaterials Vol. 197, March 2019, pages 244-254. Zhiyuan Fan et al.

6. Principles for optimization and validation of mRNA lipid nanoparticle vaccines against COVID-19 using 3D bioprinting. Nano Today, Vol. 43, April 2022, 101403 Massimiliano Papi et al.

7. mRNA Vaccines Against SARS-CoV-2 Variants Delivered by Lipid Nanoparticles Based on Novel Ionizable Lipids. Advanced Functional Materials/Early view/ 2204692, 19 July 2022, Kepan Chen et al.

8. Smart Hydrogels in Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, Materials 2019,12,3323 doi:10.3390/      ma12203323, Somasundar Mantha et al.

9. USPTO Utility application Ser.No. 12/399,906. Dynamic Bio-Nanoparticle Elements filed March 6, 2009.

10. Toxicity of graphene-family nanoparticles: a general review of the origins and mechanisms. Particle and Fibre Toxicology (216) 13:57 DOI 10.1186/s12989-016-0168-y Lingling Ou et al.

11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468519422002166

12. Hemorrhagic Toxins from Snake Venoms, Jon Bragi Bjarnason & Jay William Fox, Pages 121-209 | Published online: 28 Sep 2008 https://doi.org/10.3109/15569548809059729

13. The effect of electromagnetic fields on blood coagulation and fibrinolysis in humans], E Kazimierska, Pol Merkur Lekarski  2001 Jan;10(55):9-11. PMID: 11320559

14. Electromagnetism, Blood Flow and Coagulation Merab Beraia, Guram Beraia MRI Department, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Tbilisi, Georgia.Tbilisi State Medical University, Tbilisi, Georgia. DOI: 10.4236/jbise.2022.157017 

15. Dark-Field Microscopic Analysis on the Blood of 1006 Symptomatic Persons After Anti-COVID mRNA Injections from Pfizer/BioNtech or Moderna. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. Franco Giovannini, MD, Riccardo Benzi Cipelli MD,DDS     and Gianpaolo Pisano MD, OHNS 2(2), August 12, 2022 Page 385

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 June 9, 2023

*** 

United Nations recently published three new Policy Briefs “to provide more detail on certain proposals contained in Our Common Agenda” – The UN Secretary-General’s vision for the future of global cooperation that will be decided at “The Summit of the Future” in September 2024.

These briefings; A Global Digital Compact, Reforms to the International Financial Architecture and The Future of Outer Space Governance sets out a chilling course for our future.

Among the proposals are a new “apex body” in charge of the entire financial system that will “enhance its coherence and align its priorities with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” This could, according to Secretary-General António Guterres, be done through a “Biennial Summit between the Group of 20, Economic and Social Council, the Secretary-General, and heads of international financial institutions.”

This will further integrate the G20 with the United Nations into a body that can be described as an economic Security Council. It also seems like a perfect nest for the “apex predators” that runs the international banking system.

A vital part of the agenda is also digital connectivity and the establishment of a Global Digital Compact. This can be described as a cybernetic organ, consisting of a digitally connected network of people, entities, devices, and things, that easily can be directed by those who run the system. In the Policy Brief it is for example explained how digitisation will help to achieve the global goals. The suggestions happens to be very similar to what World Economic Forum and PwC prescribed in their report Unlocking Technologies for the Global Goals in 2020. A Digital ID is a cornerstone in this work and is among other things seen as a way to reduce poverty.

This may, however, come at a cost. In the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperations report Age of Digital Interdependence from 2019, it is stated that:

A digital ID can help unlock new opportunities but can also introduce new risks and challenges. They can be used to undermine human rights – for example, by enabling civil society to be targeted, or selected groups to be excluded from social benefits.

Will you get your social protection coverage if you don’t comply with vaccinations or other measures introduced to achieve the SDGs? Probably not. This can later be fused with a social credit system and Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) – which is now being introduced and tested in many countries across the world. To receive your daily bread you have to obey and accept the instructions from the Masters that run the show. If the UN declares a “Planetary Emergency” this will have severe consequences for our freedoms (as we experienced during the pandemic).

In the Policy Brief – A Global Digital Compact the authors truthfully are mentioning the rising inequality after the pandemic.

Digital technologies are accelerating the concentration of economic power in an ever smaller group of elites and companies: the combined wealth of technology billionaires, $2.1 trillion in 2022, is greater than the annual gross domestic product of more than half of the Group of 20 economies.

But it seems that United Nations has a somewhat peculiar way of solving this problem. Not only do they strive towards digitising everything – they have also partnered with Big Tech in order to achieve this.

The UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation was led by Melinda Gates from Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (according to the bio, Melinda “helped develop many of the company’s multimedia products” during her time at Microsoft) and tech billionaire Jack Ma from the Chinese Ali Baba Group.

This comes with assistance from Young Global Leaders like Mohammed Al Gergawi(chairman of the high-tech Mecca gathering – World Government Summit in Dubai), and Marina Kolesnik (Russia/Ukraine) as well as a “generous” contribution from the World Economic Forums Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Ali Baba developed Chinas Social Credit System through their subsidiary Ant Group whereas Microsoft promotes Digital ID in the ID2020 Alliance together with GAVI – The Vacccine Alliance and the ever so present Rockefeller Foundation.

United Nations seems to have hired a gang of robbers to manage the bank. These are the “trustees of the material universe for future generations” as stated in the global business elites’ Davos Manifesto from 1973.

And now our “generous” tech billionaires are heading for Outer Space. The last Policy Brief (The Future of Outer Space Governance) formulates the grand vision to reestablish a presence on the moon with a way station (Lunar Gateway) and the development of a base at the south pole of the Moon as well as conducting a manned mission to the red planet (Elon Musk’s SpaceX).

These are old fantasies from the late 1940s that never seem to materialise. But their “space-based opportunities” also highlight the “important link between outer space and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” with the importance of satellite surveillance to “track deforestation, monitor protected areas for illegal poaching and fishing and assess biodiversity changes” as well as track our every move through the global navigation satellite systems.

As WEF-trustee and Climate Prophet/Profiteer Al Gore proclaimed with a giggle in the commercial for his satellite surveillance project Climate Trace: “And most importantly… NO MORE HIDING”.

Are these people insane? How can the construction of a digital world brain really contribute to a greener and healthier planet?

*

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.

As partes envolvidas no conflito Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh alcançaram felizmente um acordo de cessar-fogo temporário. Mas a crise parece longe de terminar. Sendo governada por uma junta pró-OTAN, a Armênia terá muitos problemas num futuro próximo, tanto em Artsakh como no seu próprio território, uma vez que evidentemente a intenção do Ocidente é aumentar tanto quanto possível o caos na região.

Não há dúvida de que o governo irresponsável e impopular de Nikol Pashinyan é o culpado pela recente escalada no conflito entre a Arménia e o Azerbaijão. Tendo chegado ao poder através de uma revolução colorida pró-Ocidente, Pashinyan tem-se esforçado desde 2018 para fazer de Yerevan um estado proxy da OTAN no Cáucaso, aumentando exponencialmente os laços entre a Arménia e países como os EUA e a França, ao mesmo tempo que cria fricções com a Rússia.

Incapaz de obter qualquer garantia real de segurança por parte dos seus parceiros ocidentais e adoptando um comportamento hostil para com a Rússia, Pashinyan levou a Armênia a uma fraqueza estratégica absoluta num momento de novas tensões elevadas com o Azerbaijão, culminando nos ataques ocorridos entre 19 e 20 de Setembro na qual o Azerbaijão chama de “operação antiterrorista”. Covardemente, Pashinyan deixou claro que não participaria do conflito, quase forçando os armênios de Artsakh a se renderem para evitar uma catástrofe humanitária.

Mais de 120 mil armênios temem agora o seu futuro face à agressão do Azerbaijão, sem poder contar com a ajuda dos seus parceiros em Yerevan na crise. Na prática, Pashinyan “entregou” as vidas dos seus compatriotas a um país inimigo, colocando o seu próprio povo em risco e mostrando falta de preocupação com a segurança dos armênios étnicos. Tudo isto para continuar a cumprir o objetivo número um do governo, que é agradar aos “aliados” ocidentais.

Deve ser lembrado que os “amigos” ocidentais de Pashinyan criaram uma verdadeira armadilha para a Armênia ao mediarem os chamados “acordos de Praga”. Na altura, Yerevan reconheceu a soberania do Azerbaijão, o que foi erroneamente visto pelos grandes meios de comunicação como um “passo em direção à paz”. O problema é que o acordo não estabeleceu quaisquer condições reais para resolver a disputa sobre Artsakh, servindo assim para legitimar ainda mais o interesse de Baku na região. Com a Arménia a reconhecer a integridade territorial do Azerbaijão, o país ficou sem qualquer justificação para evitar novas agressões do Azerbaijão contra a etnia armênia de Artsakh.

Na prática, Pashinyan legitimou o expansionismo turco-azerbaijano em Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh e “autorizou” o início da limpeza étnica, abandonando mais de 120 mil armênios. Esta foi a intenção ocidental ao promover tal “acordo”, cujos termos, em vez de alcançarem a paz, legitimaram ainda mais conflitos. Isto serve obviamente os interesses ocidentais, uma vez que face a novas hostilidades, Yerevan, incapaz de intervir, tende a solicitar ajuda à OTAN- exatamente como fez o embaixador armênio em Washington – permitindo assim a chegada de tropas ocidentais à região. Neste cenário, Baku certamente também solicitaria ajuda internacional, apelando aos turcos. No final, o Cáucaso tornar-se-ia uma zona de influência da OTAN e a presença russa na região seria minimizada ou mesmo eliminada.

É claro que tudo isto ficou claro recentemente, levando a uma onda de protestos e críticas em massa contra Pashinyan. Além disso, o partido “Civil Contract” recebeu o menor número de votos em cinco anos nas últimas eleições para o council of elders, sendo apoiado por apenas 32% dos eleitores. Existe evidentemente uma crise de legitimidade e é possível que o fim da era Pashinyan seja uma questão de tempo.

O principal problema, porém, é que Pashinyan não é um agente isolado. Ele é apenas um dos membros da junta pró-OTAN que governa a Arménia de hoje. Além dele, há outros políticos igualmente dispostos a subordinar Yerevan aos planos ocidentais. Por exemplo, o secretário do conselho de segurança, Armen Grigoryan, que muitos analistas veem como alguém com possibilidade de crescer politicamente e tornar-se o novo primeiro-ministro, é um político ainda mais pró-Ocidente do que Pashinyan.

Ligado às Fundações Soros, Grigoryan diz abertamente que promoverá a integração da Arménia na OTAN, avançando as políticas iniciadas por Pashinyan. Além disso, Grigoryan já é notório pela sua militância pró-Ocidente, tendo mesmo sido acusado de vazar documentos confidenciais da CSTO para a NATO, o que mostra o seu elevado nível de subserviência aos interesses estrangeiros.

Assim, infelizmente, não há boas expectativas quanto ao futuro da Armênia. O país precisaria de passar por uma mudança política radical para reverter os efeitos catastróficos do golpe de 2018. Se isso não acontecer, Yerevan continuará a ser governada por políticos pró-Ocidente, e o único ponto de divergência entre eles será sobre como ser ainda mais obediente à OTAN.

Pashinyan parece cada vez mais entender que será substituído por alguém mais “competente”. Não é de surpreender que haja rumores de que sua esposa começou recentemente a procurar imóveis na Suíça e que seu filho já mora no Canadá. Ao contrário do povo armênio de Artsakh, Pashinyan poderá deixar o país com a sua família, sem ver em primeira mão a catástrofe que criou para o seu próprio povo.

Lucas Leiroz

 

Artigo em inglês : http://infobrics.org/post/3942

Lucas Leiroz, jornalista, pesquisador do Centro de Estudos Geoestratégicos, 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.

***

The number of public school book bans across the country increased by 33 percent in the 2022-23 school year compared to the 2021-22 school year, according to a new PEN America report. “Banned in the USA: The Mounting Pressure to Censor” highlights the disproportionate number of bans occurring in Florida — where over 40 percent of all book bans took place in the 2022-23 school year — and shows how state legislation and coordinated pressure campaigns from local groups and individuals have driven mass restrictions on access to literature.

Since PEN America started tracking public school book bans in July 2021, the organization has recorded nearly 6,000 instances of banned books. This includes 3,362 book bans affecting 1,557 unique titles during the 2022-23 school year, impacting the work of 1,480 authors, illustrators, and translators.

There are multiple drivers of these trends. Over the past school year, vaguely-worded state legislation and local and national advocacy groups have converged, pressuring districts to remove more books from student access. Fear of penalties, legal liabilities, and criminal punishments are escalating book bans to new heights.

“The toll of the book banning movement is getting worse. More kids are losing access to books, more libraries are taking authors off the shelves, and opponents of free expression are pushing harder than ever to exert their power over students as a whole,” said Suzanne Nossel, Chief Executive Officer of PEN America. “Those who are bent on the suppression of stories and ideas are turning our schools into battlegrounds, compounding post-pandemic learning loss, driving teachers out of the classroom and denying the joy of reading to our kids. By depriving a rising generation of the freedom to read, these bans are eating away at the foundations of our democracy.”

This year Florida surpassed Texas as having the most books pulled from shelves. Laws and tactics that emerged in the Sunshine State are also being replicated elsewhere. The language of the so-called ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law that originated in Florida has been mimicked in Iowa, where vagueness and lack of state guidance similarly led school districts to ban books. Book Looks, a website created by a Moms for Liberty member from Florida to encourage book censorship, has been used widely to ban books, from Pennsylvania to Virginia.

The range of efforts to restrict teaching or intimidate educators also continues to expand. The escalation of book bans — combined with the proliferation of legislative efforts to restrict teaching about topics like race, gender, American history, and LGBTQ+ identities, as well as the rise in ‘educational intimidation’ mandates that require intrusive monitoring of teachers and librarians — pose a grave threat to the freedom to read and learn in schools across the country. 

PEN America argues these efforts are part of an ongoing nationwide “Ed Scare” — a campaign to foment anxiety and anger with the ultimate goal of suppressing free expression in public education.

Other major findings include:

• PEN America recorded 1,406 book ban cases in Florida, followed by 625 bans in Texas, 333 bans in Missouri, 281 bans in Utah, and 186 book bans in Pennsylvania. These cases are instances where books were banned from classrooms or libraries, or both, or were banned pending investigation, as per PEN America’s definitions.
• Over 75 percent of the books banned are young adult books, middle grade books, chapter books, or picture books — in other words, books specifically written and selected for younger audiences.
• Of the 3,362 books banned this year, 1,263 were banned from classrooms and school libraries, compared to only 333 books in this category last year. This represents an increase of nearly 400 percent compared to last school year.
• Nearly half of all book bans (48 percent) during the 2022-23 school year deal with violence or physical abuse, including books that include sexual assault; 30 percent include characters of color and themes of race and racism; 30 percent represent LGBTQ+ identities; and six percent include a transgender character.
• In the 153 school districts across the country that banned a book during the 2022-23 school year, 124(81 percent) have a chapter or local affiliate nearby of one or more of the three most prominent national groups pushing for book bans — Moms for Liberty, Citizens Defending Freedom, and Parents’ Rights in Education. These districts are where 87percent (2,912) of book bans have occurred.

According to Kasey Meehan, PEN America’s Freedom to Read program director and lead author of the report, “Hyperbolic and misleading rhetoric continues to ignite fear over the types of books in schools. And yet, 75 percent of all banned books are specifically written and selected for young audiences. Florida isn’t an anomaly – it’s providing a playbook for other states to follow suit. Students have been using their voices for months in resisting coordinated efforts to suppress teaching and learning about certain stories, identities, and histories; it’s time we follow their lead.”  

One positive trend highlighted in the report is the continued growth in student pushback against book bans across the country. Youth resistance to book bans in numerous school districts has included protests, speaking out at school board meetings, and the establishment of national organizations dedicated to defending access to literature in schools.

This report expands on PEN America’s work documenting the spread of educational censorship in America’s schools, showing the rapid evolution and intensification of book-banning across the country since the April 2023 Banned in the USA report, which documented 1,477 instances of book bans in the first half of the 2022-23 school year.

Author John Green, whose book, Looking for Alaska, was the third most banned in U.S. schools according to the report, said

“While I’m encouraged by PEN America’s work to protect free expression and intellectual freedom, it’s disappointing to see such a steep rise in the banning and restriction of books. We should trust our teachers and librarians to do their jobs. If you have a worldview that can be undone by a book, I would submit that the problem is not with the book.”

PEN America defines a school book ban as any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials, that leads to a previously accessible book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished.

Join PEN America in defending the freedom to read by taking action to #FreeTheBooks and making your voice heard.

*

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 Zero Hedge

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 on July 24, 2023

***

The US has created a permanent new pandemic agency called the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy in anticipation of future pandemics and the Decade of Vaccines. President Joe Biden has appointed a retired Air Force general to take charge of spearheading the project.

Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy

On Friday, the White House made an official announcement regarding the establishment of the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy (OPPR). This newly formed agency will have the important responsibility of formulating strategies to address public health crises, coordinating scientific research and medical initiatives to combat pandemics, and ensuring regular reporting to Congress on its activities.

According to a press release from the White House: 

“This will be a permanent office in the Executive Office of the President charged with leading, coordinating, and implementing actions related to preparedness for, and response to, known and unknown biological threats or pathogens.”

Major General Paul Friedrichs

The newly established office will be led by Retired Air Force Major General Paul Friedrichs, who currently holds the position of special assistant to President Joe Biden and serves as the Senior Director for Global Health Security and Biodefense at the White House National Security Council.

Before this role, Friedrichs served as the joint staff surgeon at the Pentagon, where he provided guidance to the military’s Covid-19 task force.

During a speech in February, Dr. Friedrichs, who had retired from the military in June, took the opportunity to look back on his impressive 37-year career in the Air Force and offered some personal insights. He shared that his family background was deeply connected to military service and resilience.

His father had served in the Navy towards the conclusion of World War II, while his mother had a remarkable history as a Hungarian freedom fighter, whose own parents tragically lost their lives at the hands of the Russians.

Next-Generation Vaccines

According to the New York Times, the Official Pandemic Preparedness and Response (OPPR) is set to be officially established on August 7. Following its establishment, Friedrichs will initiate the process of forming a dedicated team. His primary tasks will involve ensuring that the Strategic National Stockpile is adequately stocked with essential medical supplies and collaborating with Congress to secure funding for bolstering US preparedness initiatives.

In his new position, Dr. Friedrichs holds the authority to supervise and manage domestic biosecurity preparedness. A significant aspect of his role will involve spearheading the development of next-generation vaccines for future pandemics.

Additionally, Dr. Friedrichs will prioritize enhancing surveillance systems to diligently monitor and detect new biological threats as they arise.

Pandemic 2025

The year 2025 seems to have a special importance for global health institutions predicting future pandemics. Multiple pandemic scenarios like Event 201 before COVID-19, are being played out targeting the year 2025.

Catastrophic Contagion

SEERS, a fictional virus, was specifically designed for a simulated pandemic preparedness exercise known as Catastrophic Contagion. This exercise took place in October 2022 and was held in Brussels. The primary objective was to engage public health and government officials in a realistic scenario where they could explore and discuss effective responses to the invented illness.

During the simulated exercise, participants engaged in a series of World Health Organization meetings to strategize and analyze the best course of action to combat the fictional virus, SEERS. The description of the virus in the summary of the event indicated that it had a higher fatality rate than COVID-19 and had a particular impact on children and young people.

The Catastrophic Contagion exercise was conducted in collaboration between Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security, the World Health Organization, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

As part of the exercise, a highlight reel was assembled, featuring various components, including a fictional television news segment dedicated to reporting on the developments and impacts of the SEERS virus. This simulated media coverage aimed to mimic real-world situations and enable participants to assess how information dissemination and public communication would be vital during a potential pandemic situation.

SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028

According to Johns Hopkins University, the SPARS Pandemic Scenario 2025-2028 is a fictional training exercise designed for public health and government officials. Its purpose is to serve as a teaching and training resource, enabling participants to practice responses and improve public health protection measures.

In the simulated scenario, the narrative revolves around Americans returning from Asia with an unknown, influenza-like illness. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) later identifies the illness as a novel coronavirus named SPARS-CoV, with little to no information available about it. The virus is transmitted through respiratory droplets, and quarantine measures are recommended for infected or exposed individuals. Eventually, the outbreak escalates into a global pandemic. 

Although the similarities between the fictional SPARS scenario and the real-world COVID-19 pandemic are indeed striking, Johns Hopkins University was forced to release a statement on December 16, 2021, emphasizing that the scenario is not a prediction.

“The scenario is not a prediction: It is a teaching and training resource for public health officials, to help users envision problems that could plausibly emerge in the future, so that they can practice responses and better protect the public’s health. Any resemblances between the fictional scenario storyline and the COVID-19 pandemic are coincidental. The scenario was developed by experts in the clinical, epidemiological, sociocultural, and communication aspects of epidemic management, to assure the narrative’s scientific plausibility.”

COVID 2025

The video series “COVID 2025: Our World in the Next 5 Years” features prominent scholars from the University of Chicago engaging in discussions about the lasting impacts of COVID-19 on various aspects of our lives. These experts delve into how the pandemic will bring about significant changes in health care, international relations, education, urban life, and several other crucial areas.

The series offers insights and predictions on the potential transformations that will shape our world over the next five years. By examining the mainstream consequences of the pandemic, the discussions brainwash individuals and communities to prepare for future pandemics and adapt to the evolving circumstances.

Through these discussions, viewers are normalized to the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead, providing a foundation for proactive decision-making and strategic planning in a post-COVID-19 world.

Decade of Vaccines (DoV)

As highlighted above, the role of the new pandemic agency OPPR is to develop next-generation vaccines for future pandemics. This is what is dubbed as the Decade of Vaccines (DoV) Collaboration by British Vaccine Cartel GAVI.

In 2010, a significant announcement was made by the Vaccine Cartel, declaring the upcoming decade as the “Decade of Vaccines.” This initiative aimed to create a world where everyone, regardless of their background and skepticism, would be vaccinated. 

Under the Decade of Vaccines (DoV) Collaboration, a diverse group of stakeholders joined to establish the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP). The primary goal of GVAP was to promote the research, development, and distribution of vaccines, working to fulfill the future pandemics scenarios.

GAVI – the British Vaccine Cartel

Playing a crucial role in the DoV Collaboration was GAVI, an organization that holds a prominent position on the Leadership Council. GAVI is largely led by the British government and Bill Gates. While the UK is GAVI’s largest funder, its implementation follows what is known as the” Gates approach”. Known as the Vaccine Cartel or Pharma Cartel by critics, its vaccines have been accused of causing atleast 38 million premature deaths worldwide.

The UK has funded GAVI since its inception in 2000 and is its largest donor, with a pledge of £1.65 billion for the next five years.

However, GAVI has been criticized for giving private donors more unilateral power to decide on global health goals, prioritizing new, expensive vaccines while putting less money and effort into expanding coverage of old, cheap ones, harming local healthcare systems, spending too much on subsidies to large, profitable pharmaceutical companies without reducing the prices of some vaccines, and its conflicts of interest in having vaccine manufacturers on its governance board.

British Eugenics Movement

GAVI is also associated with the British Eugenics Movement as well as other Eugenics-linked institutions like the Wellcome Trust and other manufacturers of the COVID-19 vaccine like AstraZeneca and Oxford University.

Andrew Pollard, director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, is enmeshed with the Gates Foundation. His employer, the University of Oxford, has received $11 million for vaccine development research from the foundation over the past three years and $208 million in grants over the past decade.

In 2016, the Gates Foundation gave $36 million to a team of researchers that was headed by Pollard for vaccine development. In addition, Pollard’s private laboratory is funded by the Gates Foundation.

Given this, it should come as no surprise that the Global Alliance for Vaccine Initiative (GAVI), a public-private partnership founded and currently funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, plans to distribute the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine to low-income, predominantly African and Asian, countries once it’s approved.

The developers of the COVID-19 vaccine share a close relationship with the most infamous eugenics society in Europe, the British Eugenics Society. The Eugenics Society was renamed the Galton Institute in 1989, a name that pays homage to Sir Francis Galton, the so-called father of eugenics, a field that he often described as the “science of improving racial stock.”

This new “wider definition of eugenics,” Galton has said, “would cover methods of regulating population numbers as well as improving genome quality by selective artificial insemination by donor, gene therapy or gene manipulation of germ-line cells.” In expanding on this new definition, Galton is neutral as to “whether some methods should be made compulsory by the state, or left entirely to the personal choice of the individual.”

*

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 their website, GreatGameIndia.

Featured image is from GGI

---