Masks and respirators do not work. There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.

Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work.

It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective-dose is smaller than one aerosol particle.

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.

Conclusion regarding masks that do not work

No RCT study with verified outcome shows a benefit for HCW or community members in households to wearing a mask or respirator. There is no such study. There are no exceptions. Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public (more on this below).

Furthermore, if there were any benefit to wearing a mask, because of the blocking power against droplets and aerosol particles, then there should be more benefit from wearing a respirator (N95) compared to a surgical mask, yet several large meta-analyses, and all the RCT, prove that there is no such relative benefit. Masks and respirators do not work.

Precautionary Principle turned on its head with masks

In light of the medical research, therefore, it is difficult to understand why public-health authorities are not consistently adamant about this established scientific result, since the distributed psychological, economic and environmental harm from a broad recommendation to wear masks is significant, not to mention the unknown potential harm from concentration and distribution of pathogens on and from used masks.

In this case, public authorities would be turning the precautionary principle on its head (see below).

Physics and Biology of Viral Respiratory Disease, and why masks do not work

In order to understand why masks cannot possibly work, we must review established knowledge about viral respiratory diseases, the mechanism of seasonal variation of excess deaths from pneumonia and influenza, the aerosol mechanism of infectious disease transmission, the physics and chemistry of aerosols, and the mechanism of the so-called minimum-infective-dose.

In addition to pandemics that can occur anytime, in the temperate latitudes there is an extra burden of respiratory-disease mortality that is seasonal, and which is caused by viruses. For example, see the review of influenza by Paules and Subbarao (2017). This has been known for a long time, and the seasonal pattern is exceedingly regular.

For example, see Figure 1 of Viboud (2010), which has “Weekly time series of the ratio of deaths from pneumonia and influenza to all deaths, based on the 122 cities surveillance in the US (blue line). The red line represents the expected baseline ratio in the absence of influenza activity,” here:

mortality rate chart

The seasonality of the phenomenon was largely not understood until a decade ago. Until recently, it was debated whether the pattern arose primarily because of seasonal change in virulence of the pathogens, or because of seasonal change in susceptibility of the host (such as from dry air causing tissue irritation, or diminished daylight causing vitamin deficiency or hormonal stress). For example, see Dowell (2001).

In a landmark study, Shaman et al. (2010) showed that the seasonal pattern of extra respiratory-disease mortality can be explained quantitatively on the sole basis of absolute humidity, and its direct controlling impact on transmission of airborne pathogens.

Lowen et al. (2007) demonstrated the phenomenon of humidity-dependent airborne-virus virulence in actual disease transmission between guinea pigs, and discussed potential underlying mechanisms for the measured controlling effect of humidity.

The underlying mechanism is that the pathogen-laden aerosol particles or droplets are neutralized within a half-life that monotonically and significantly decreases with increasing ambient humidity. This is based on the seminal work of Harper (1961). Harper experimentally showed that viral-pathogen-carrying droplets were inactivated within shorter and shorter times, as ambient humidity was increased.

Harper argued that the viruses themselves were made inoperative by the humidity (“viable decay”), however, he admitted that the effect could be from humidity-enhanced physical removal or sedimentation of the droplets (“physical loss”): “Aerosol viabilities reported in this paper are based on the ratio of virus titre to radioactive count in suspension and cloud samples, and can be criticized on the ground that test and tracer materials were not physically identical.”

The latter (“physical loss”) seems more plausible to me, since humidity would have a universal physical effect of causing particle / droplet growth and sedimentation, and all tested viral pathogens have essentially the same humidity-driven “decay”. Furthermore, it is difficult to understand how a virion (of all virus types) in a droplet would be molecularly or structurally attacked or damaged by an increase in ambient humidity. A “virion” is the complete, infective form of a virus outside a host cell, with a core of RNA or DNA and a capsid. The actual mechanism of such humidity-driven intra-droplet “viable decay” of a virion has not been explained or studied.

In any case, the explanation and model of Shaman et al. (2010) is not dependant on the particular mechanism of the humidity-driven decay of virions in aerosol / droplets. Shaman’s quantitatively demonstrated model of seasonal regional viral epidemiology is valid for either mechanism (or combination of mechanisms), whether “viable decay” or “physical loss”.

The breakthrough achieved by Shaman et al. is not merely some academic point. Rather, it has profound health-policy implications, which have been entirely ignored or overlooked in the current coronavirus pandemic.

In particular, Shaman’s work necessarily implies that, rather than being a fixed number (dependent solely on the spatial-temporal structure of social interactions in a completely susceptible population, and on the viral strain), the epidemic’s basic reproduction number (R0) is highly or predominantly dependent on ambient absolute humidity.

For a definition of R0, see HealthKnowlege-UK (2020): R0 is “the average number of secondary infections produced by a typical case of an infection in a population where everyone is susceptible.” The average R0 for influenza is said to be 1.28 (1.19-1.37); see the comprehensive review by Biggerstaff et al. (2014).

In fact, Shaman et al. showed that R0 must be understood to seasonally vary between humid-summer values of just larger than “1” and dry-winter values typically as large as “4” (for example, see their Table 2). In other words, the seasonal infectious viral respiratory diseases that plague temperate latitudes every year go from being intrinsically mildly contagious to virulently contagious, due simply to the bio-physical mode of transmission controlled by atmospheric humidity, irrespective of any other consideration.

Therefore, all the epidemiological mathematical modelling of the benefits of mediating policies (such as social distancing), which assumes humidity-independent R0 values, has a large likelihood of being of little value, on this basis alone. For studies about modelling and regarding mediation effects on the effective reproduction number, see Coburn (2009) and Tracht (2010).

To put it simply, the “second wave” of an epidemic is not a consequence of human sin regarding mask wearing and hand shaking. Rather, the “second wave” is an inescapable consequence of an air-dryness-driven many-fold increase in disease contagiousness, in a population that has not yet attained immunity.

If my view of the mechanism is correct (i.e., “physical loss”), then Shaman’s work further necessarily implies that the dryness-driven high transmissibility (large R0) arises from small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in the air; as opposed to large droplets that are quickly gravitationally removed from the air.

Such small aerosol particles fluidly suspended in air, of biological origin, are of every variety and are everywhere, including down to virion-sizes (Despres, 2012). It is not entirely unlikely that viruses can thereby be physically transported over inter-continental distances (e.g., Hammond, 1989).

More to the point, indoor airborne virus concentrations have been shown to exist (in day-care facilities, health centres, and onboard airplanes) primarily as aerosol particles of diameters smaller than 2.5 μm, such as in the work of Yang et al. (2011):Such small particles (< 2.5 μm) are part of air fluidity, are not subject to gravitational sedimentation, and would not be stopped by long-range inertial impact. This means that the slightest (even momentary) facial misfit of a mask or respirator renders the design filtration norm of the mask or respirator entirely irrelevant. In any case, the filtration material itself of N95 (average pore size ~0.3−0.5 μm) does not block virion penetration, not to mention surgical masks. For example, see Balazy et al. (2006).

Mask stoppage efficiency and host inhalation are only half of the equation, however, because the minimal infective dose (MID) must also be considered. For example, if a large number of pathogen-laden particles must be delivered to the lung within a certain time for the illness to take hold, then partial blocking by any mask or cloth can be enough to make a significant difference.

On the other hand, if the MID is amply surpassed by the virions carried in a single aerosol particle able to evade mask-capture, then the mask is of no practical utility, which is the case.

Yezli and Otter (2011), in their review of the MID, point out relevant features:

  • most respiratory viruses are as infective in humans as in tissue culture having optimal laboratory susceptibility
  • it is believed that a single virion can be enough to induce illness in the host
  • the 50%-probability MID (“TCID50”) has variably been found to be in the range 100−1000 virions
  • there are typically 103−107 virions per aerolized influenza droplet with diameter 1 μm − 10 μm
  • the 50%-probability MID easily fits into a single (one) aerolized droplet

For further background:

  • A classic description of dose-response assessment is provided by Haas (1993).
  • Zwart et al. (2009) provided the first laboratory proof, in a virus-insect system, that the action of a single virion can be sufficient to cause disease.
  • Baccam et al. (2006) calculated from empirical data that, with influenza A in humans, “we estimate that after a delay of ~6 h, infected cells begin producing influenza virus and continue to do so for ~5 h. The average lifetime of infected cells is ~11 h, and the half-life of free infectious virus is ~3 h. We calculated the [in-body] basic reproductive number, R0, which indicated that a single infected cell could produce ~22 new productive infections.”
  • Brooke et al. (2013) showed that, contrary to prior modeling assumptions, although not all influenza-A-infected cells in the human body produce infectious progeny (virions), nonetheless, 90% of infected cell are significantly impacted, rather than simply surviving unharmed.

All of this to say that: if anything gets through (and it always does, irrespective of the mask), then you are going to be infected. Masks cannot possibly work. It is not surprising, therefore, that no bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application.

Therefore, the studies that show partial stopping power of masks, or that show that masks can capture many large droplets produced by a sneezing or coughing mask-wearer, in light of the above-described features of the problem, are irrelevant. For example, see such studies as these: Leung (2020), Davies (2013), Lai (2012), and Sande (2008).

Why there can never be an empirical test of a nationwide mask-wearing policy

As mentioned above, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public. There is good reason for this. It would be impossible to obtain unambiguous and bias-free results:

  • Any benefit from mask-wearing would have to be a small effect, since undetected in controlled experiments, which would be swamped by the larger effects, notably the large effect from changing atmospheric humidity.
  • Mask compliance and mask adjustment habits would be unknown.
  • Mask-wearing is associated (correlated) with several other health behaviours; see Wada (2012).
  • The results would not be transferable, because of differing cultural habits.
  • Compliance is achieved by fear, and individuals can habituate to fear-based propaganda, and can have disparate basic responses.
  • Monitoring and compliance measurement are near-impossible, and subject to large errors.
  • Self-reporting (such as in surveys) is notoriously biased, because individuals have the self-interested belief that their efforts are useful.
  • Progression of the epidemic is not verified with reliable tests on large population samples, and generally relies on non-representative hospital visits or admissions.
  • Several different pathogens (viruses and strains of viruses) causing respiratory illness generally act together, in the same population and/or in individuals, and are not resolved, while having different epidemiological characteristics.

Unknown aspects of mask-wearing

Many potential harms may arise from broad public policies to wear masks, and the following unanswered questions arise:

  • Do used and loaded masks become sources of enhanced transmission, for the wearer and others?
  • Do masks become collectors and retainers of pathogens that the mask wearer would otherwise avoid when breathing without a mask?
  • Are large droplets captured by a mask atomized or aerolized into breathable components? Can virions escape an evaporating droplet stuck to a mask fiber?
  • What are the dangers of bacterial growth on a used and loaded mask?
  • How do pathogen-laden droplets interact with environmental dust and aerosols captured on the mask?
  • What are long-term health effects on HCW, such as headaches, arising from impeded breathing?
  • Are there negative social consequences to a masked society?
  • Are there negative psychological consequences to wearing a mask, as a fear-based behavioural modification?
  • What are the environmental consequences of mask manufacturing and disposal?
  • Do the masks shed fibres or substances that are harmful when inhaled?


By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle.

In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm. The government has an onus barrier before it instigates a broad social-engineering intervention, or allows corporations to exploit fear-based sentiments.

Furthermore, individuals should know that there is no known benefit arising from wearing a mask in a viral respiratory illness epidemic, and that scientific studies have shown that any benefit must be residually small, compared to other and determinative factors.

Otherwise, what is the point of publicly-funded science?

The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history.


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

Dr. Dennis Rancourt is Ph.D from University of Toronto (1984), and is a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa.


  • Baccam, P. et al. (2006) “Kinetics of Influenza A Virus Infection in Humans”, Journal of Virology Jul 2006, 80 (15) 7590-7599; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01623-05
  • Balazy et al. (2006) “Do N95 respirators provide 95% protection level against airborne viruses, and how adequate are surgical masks?”, American Journal of Infection Control, Volume 34, Issue 2, March 2006, Pages 51-57. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2005.08.018
  • Biggerstaff, M. et al. (2014) “Estimates of the reproduction number for seasonal, pandemic, and zoonotic influenza: a systematic review of the literature”, BMC Infect Dis 14, 480 (2014).
  • Brooke, C. B. et al. (2013) “Most Influenza A Virions Fail To Express at Least One Essential Viral Protein”, Journal of Virology Feb 2013, 87 (6) 3155-3162; DOI: 10.1128/JVI.02284-12
  • Coburn, B. J. et al. (2009) “Modeling influenza epidemics and pandemics: insights into the future of swine flu (H1N1)”, BMC Med 7, 30.
  • Davies, A. et al. (2013) “Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an Influenza Pandemic?”, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, Available on CJO 2013 doi:10.1017/dmp.2013.43
  • Despres, V. R. et al. (2012) “Primary biological aerosol particles in the atmosphere: a review”, Tellus B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology, 64:1, 15598, DOI: 10.3402/tellusb.v64i0.15598
  • Dowell, S. F. (2001) “Seasonal variation in host susceptibility and cycles of certain infectious diseases”, Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(3):369-374. doi:10.3201/eid0703.010301
  • Hammond, G. W. et al. (1989) “Impact of Atmospheric Dispersion and Transport of Viral Aerosols on the Epidemiology of Influenza”, Reviews of Infectious Diseases, Volume 11, Issue 3, May 1989, Pages 494-497,
  • Haas, C.N. et al. (1993) “Risk Assessment of Virus in Drinking Water”, Risk Analysis, 13: 545-552. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00013.x
  • HealthKnowlege-UK (2020) “Charter 1a – Epidemiology: Epidemic theory (effective & basic reproduction numbers, epidemic thresholds) & techniques for analysis of infectious disease data (construction & use of epidemic curves, generation numbers, exceptional reporting & identification of significant clusters)”, HealthKnowledge.org.uk, accessed on 2020-04-10.
  • Lai, A. C. K. et al. (2012) “Effectiveness of facemasks to reduce exposure hazards for airborne infections among general populations”, J. R. Soc. Interface. 9938-948
  • Leung, N.H.L. et al. (2020) “Respiratory virus shedding in exhaled breath and efficacy of face masks”, Nature Medicine (2020).
  • Lowen, A. C. et al. (2007) “Influenza Virus Transmission Is Dependent on Relative Humidity and Temperature”, PLoS Pathog 3(10): e151.
  • Paules, C. and Subbarao, S. (2017) “Influenza”, Lancet, Seminar| Volume 390, ISSUE 10095, P697-708, August 12, 2017.
  • Sande, van der, M. et al. (2008) “Professional and Home-Made Face Masks Reduce Exposure to Respiratory Infections among the General Population”, PLoS ONE 3(7): e2618. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002618 Shaman, J. et al. (2010) “Absolute Humidity and the Seasonal Onset of Influenza in the Continental United States”, PLoS Biol 8(2): e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000316
  • Tracht, S. M. et al. (2010) “Mathematical Modeling of the Effectiveness of Facemasks in Reducing the Spread of Novel Influenza A (H1N1)”, PLoS ONE 5(2): e9018. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009018
  • Viboud C. et al. (2010) “Preliminary Estimates of Mortality and Years of Life Lost Associated with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic in the US and Comparison with Past Influenza Seasons”, PLoS Curr. 2010; 2:RRN1153. Published 2010 Mar 20. doi:10.1371/currents.rrn1153
  • Wada, K. et al. (2012) “Wearing face masks in public during the influenza season may reflect other positive hygiene practices in Japan”, BMC Public Health 12, 1065 (2012).
  • Yang, W. et al. (2011) “Concentrations and size distributions of airborne influenza A viruses measured indoors at a health centre, a day-care centre and on aeroplanes”, Journal of the Royal Society, Interface. 2011 Aug;8(61):1176-1184. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2010.0686.
  • Yezli, S., Otter, J.A. (2011) “Minimum Infective Dose of the Major Human Respiratory and Enteric Viruses Transmitted Through Food and the Environment”, Food Environ Virol 3, 1-30.
  • Zwart, M. P. et al. (2009) “An experimental test of the independent action hypothesis in virus-insect pathosystems”, Proc. R. Soc. B.2762233-2242

Same Procedure as Every Year: The Story of “Dinner for One”

January 3rd, 2021 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Memories are thick of this: the respectful, even reverential German introduction of a comedy sketch; the scratchy string orchestral music that adds a layering of anticipation.  Black-and-white film.  Dining room, white tablecloth, silver chandeliers.  The names Freddy Frinton and May Warden.  An English show broadcast on German public TV networks without subtitles.  Family members, perched, sprawled, slumped, comfortable, lightly sozzled, eyes glued to an 18-minute sketch with only two actors: the attentive butler by the name of James, played by the roguish Frinton; the spinster lady of the birthday moment, Miss Sophie, played by Warden.

This 90th birthday is characterised by notable absences. After nine decades, mortality has done its bit of gathering.  The venerable lady has been left the sole survivor of a circle of beloved friends.  The bawdy subtext here is that they are all males and must have been a rather naughty crew at that.  She misses them, and longs for their company.

The task for James seems, at least initially, innocuous. The table, with Miss Sophie at the head, is set for the spectral guests: Admiral von Schneider, Mr Pomeroy, Sir Toby and Mr Winterbottom.  James assumes the role of each of the departed, standing before each empty seat for each course that will be served.  “They are all here, Miss Sophie,” begins James.  But his task is not merely to mimic them and assume their persona with conviction; he is also required to drink their share.  The task is formidable, challenging both sobriety and liver.  A different set of drinks must accompany the servings for the phantom guests: sherry with the mulligatawny soup; white wine with the fish; champagne with the bird; port with the fruit.

Through the course of the sketch, there are the tireless favourites for the audience.  James trips over the head of a tiger skin rug with stubborn, unfailing regularity.  Drinks are poured and drunk with gusto. Drinks are spilled.  There is slurring.  Before each course, the butler always inquires with increasing desperation: “The same procedure as last year, Miss Sophie?”  The insistent reply follows: “The same procedure as every year, James.”

Dinner for One, or the 90th Birthday, was recorded in 1963 and found a ceremonial home across Germany’s regional public TV channels.  Scribbled by Lauri Wylie in the 1920s, it had its London premier in 1948, making its way to Broadway in 1953.  Frinton secured the rights in the 1950s.  Both he and May had been performing it as a routine seaside resort gig, very much a music hall staple destined for modest obscurity.  In 1963, German TV presenter Peter Frankenfeld, on a mission of cultural reconnaissance, was in one of those audiences in Blackpool.  He fell in love.  Frinton and May were invited to perform on his program Guten Abend before a live Hamburg audience at the Theater am Besenbinderhof, where it was recorded by NDR (Norddeutscher Rundfunk).  In 1972, the ritual of showing the program as a New Year’s Eve special was established.

The date, Dinner for One retains the Guinness World Record for the most repeated program in history.  It has created a commemorative industry in Germany. It spurs drinking competitions and inspires cookery.  It has even inspired productions in various dialects: Hessian and Kölsch.

In 2017, more than 12 million Germans saw the show.  But it remains unknown, for the most part, to audiences in the US and UK.  Of the Anglophone states, Australia has had a decent, smattering acquaintance. Northern European states in Scandinavia and the Baltic are also familiar.  It took till December 31, 2018 for the production to be shown in Britain.

Dinner for One has managed to emerge from its subcultural cocoon in music hall entertainment and heavy German consumption.  Netflix took interest in it in 2016, if only to promote its own programs with a parody.  The imaginary guests, on that occasion, were Saul Goodman (Michael Pan in Better Call Saul); Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey in House of Cards), Pablo Escobar (Wagner Moura in Nacros) and Crazy Eyes (Uzo Aduba in Orange in the New Black).

As with all rituals, viewing Dinner for One comes with its presumptive historical and cultural baggage.  For German audiences, this is a British museum piece with perennial relevance.  There is more than a tang of hierarchy to it.  Frinton and May converse in a setting of nostalgia and the whiff of a departed empire.  Stefanie Bolzen, the UK and Ireland correspondent for Die Welt, was not wrong to wonder if the sketch had re-enforced such assumptions celebrated by the staunchest Brexiteers.  The UK is leaving the European Union, but this little jewel of British slapstick remains the emotional preserve of German audiences, so much so it has become indigenous.


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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is tagged under Fair Use

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Same Procedure as Every Year: The Story of “Dinner for One”

The recent amendments to the Russian Constitution confirm that domestic document’s precedence over international law, and while Russia still respects the latter, it won’t ever let it be exploited for “lawfare” like in the Yukos case.

The Russian people overwhelmingly voted over the summer for a series of amendments to their constitution, one of the most important of which confirmed that domestic document’s precedence over international law. These changes were signed into law by President Putin in early December, much to the chagrin of the so-called “international community”, which is essentially a euphemism used by the Mainstream Media to refer to the West. They fearmongered that this makes Russia even more of a “rogue regime” than ever before despite the US itself and a growing number of countries across the world recently realizing the wisdom of not submitting their sovereignty to the will of unelected bureaucrats across the world.

International law is obviously imperfect, but its noble intent is to regulate international competition in order to reduce the risk of kinetic conflicts between UN member states. Russia has always supported this principle because it aspires to make International Relations as predictable as possible, which in turn makes disputes more manageable. It never supported international law being exploited for “lawfare” — the weaponization of legal means to achieve political and strategic ends — which is why it was compelled to codify this into the Russian Constitution with the full support of the vast majority of the population via their democratic referendum on this and other related issues.

Shortly after President Putin signed those amendments into law, Foreign Minister Lavrov confidently declared that

“Russia will always put its national interests first, and it will honestly and equally settle those national interests with any other country on the basis of international law, but they won’t be overshadowed.”

In other words, he was basically saying “Russia First”, and there’s nothing wrong with that for the earlier explained reasons. This is especially relevant nowadays as Russia seeks to defend itself from a vicious onslaught of “lawfare” over the years-old $50 billion Yukos case after a prior decision to annul the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s (PCA) decision was overturned by a Dutch appeals court in February 2020.

In early December, coincidentally right before President Putin signed the discussed amendments into law, the Dutch Supreme Court rejected Russia’s request to suspend enforcement of that record-breaking case. This opens up the door for a heated legal battle in early 2021, which Russia’s Minister of Justice predicted will make it “a challenging year”. Nevertheless, Russia will do its utmost to “fight off any attempts to seize our property in any country of the world” as part of this Hybrid War “lawfare” operation. Moscow, while acknowledging the importance of the PCA for regulating international disputes, insists that the entire process has been politicized and has thus lost its legitimacy.

This stance is in alignment with Russia’s domestic and international interests, which finally converged in the legal sense following the promulgation of the constitutional amendment placing the constitution above international law. While it might seem controversial to some, it’s a very sensible position for any country to hold since it aims to preserve the purest principles of international law. These, for however imperfect they are as was previously acknowledged in this analysis, refer to the intent to be as objective as possible when managing disputes of whatever nature they may be, which regrettably isn’t the case when it comes to Yukos. Had the entire process been impartial, then Russia would have likely accepted the PCA’s ruling.

Russia therefore has every right to defend not only its own interests in both the domestic and international domains, but also those related to international law since this principle has been exploited for strategic purposes by its adversaries. Almost counterintuitively, by putting its own interests first in this sense, Russia is actually putting the entire international community’s first as well. Without taking a strong stand in support of the purest principle of international law, this concept will continue to be weaponized for “lawfare” purposes. Trump’s supporters claimed that he had similar intentions, which was true to an extent, but he in practice sought to simply rework the rules in America’s favor to facilitate its further “lawfare” operations against others.

Russia, on the other hand, doesn’t wage “lawfare” against anyone. Instead, it regards the use of international legal instruments as means to solely defend oneself, not carry out acts of aggression. Even so, it’s expected that Moscow’s defense of its sovereign interests as well as the international community’s legal ones will continue to be misportrayed as so-called “rogue behavior” that’s supposedly “in violation of international norms”. This false perception will in turn be exploited as the pretext for escalating the ongoing Hybrid War on Russia by perhaps pushing for the seizure of some of its foreign assets in the name of “enforcing its compliance” with the politicized Yukos ruling. Should that come to pass, then Russia’s relations with the West will get even worse.


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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

Selling Weapons: The Military-Industrial Complex

January 3rd, 2021 by Rod Driver

This is the second of a 2-part beginners’ guide to the weapons industry. The first part is called ‘Selling Weapons – The Most Corrupt Industry in the World’


“We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportion…we must not fail to comprehend its grave implication…in councils of government we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex”. (US President Eisenhower 1961(1))

A military-industrial complex exists when the connection between politicians, industry and the military becomes so strong that governments end up taking political and military decisions partly because it is in the interests of companies that can make profit from war and weapons sales. Despite President Eisenhower’s warning in 1961, this is actually the system that exists in the US today. Over a quarter of US senators and congressmen have investments in weapons corporations.(2)

Senior government officials and advisors come from the weapons industry, and can find ready employment within the industry when their government careers end. One study found that 84% of retiring US generals go into senior positions in weapons companies. In earlier administrations, Caspar Weinberger, George Schultz, William Perry and James Baker were just a few of the people who had senior jobs with weapons companies before or after having a top job in the US government. The connections between the US government and weapons companies became even stronger under former President George W. Bush. Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld made big profits due to the shares that they continued to hold in weapons companies whilst in office.(3) Some individuals now work simultaneously in the weapons industry and in government. As one expert pointed out:

“it’s impossible to tell where the government ends and Lockheed begins”.(4)

The same is true in Britain, with senior personnel moving between weapons companies and government jobs. During his time as Prime Minister, Tony Blair effectively became a salesman for Britain’s biggest weapons company, British Aerospace, when he personally tried to promote weapons deals with India, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe.(5)

In her book, The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein points out that the military-industrial complex has now become ‘disaster capitalism.’ Weapons companies buy subsidiaries so they now profit from both destruction and reconstruction. They own private healthcare companies that profit by treating the wounded, they own construction companies so they profit from re-building after a war, and they own security companies so they profit from our fear of terrorism.(6) A significant part of the US economy is now based on the premise that the US will be fighting multiple wars well into the future. Without these wars, parts of the US economy would collapse.

The production of ever more expensive and sophisticated weapons systems becomes an end in itself. These weapons may not serve any particularly useful purpose. The scientists within the corporations just come up with better weapons and these get made. This was highlighted at the height of the cold war (discussed in an earlier post) when there was a discussion about whether to replace existing nuclear missiles with a bigger, more powerful design called MX. One commentator pointed out that there was “no good reason to justify the existence of the MX missile” as the existing system was perfectly adequate. A group of scientists had worked out how to build it, so they tried to persuade the US government to buy it.(7) The missile was deployed, but only in small numbers. The Seawolf submarine and the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor assault aircraft are just two examples of US weapons systems that nobody wants, yet they have cost the taxpayer billions of dollars.(8) Most recently, the F35 jet has an estimated cost of $1.5 trillion, but repeatedly fails its test flights. The US government regularly overpays contractors by absurd amounts. Most famously, they paid $2,043 for a nut that would normally cost a few cents. The ten biggest weapons companies in the US all repeatedly defraud the US government. 

Profits from conflict – no ethics in the weapons industry

Weapons sales abroad are presented in the media in the same way as other financial news. British Aerospace or Boeing wins a contract to supply the government of ‘insert repressive regime here’ with ground attack planes. The companies that make these weapons and the shareholders who profit from them talk about sales, prices, earnings and dividends. The government ministers who proudly assist with these sales at arms fairs think mostly about the relationships they build with foreign leaders. The consequences of these sales – death, disability, repression and destruction on a huge scale – are mostly ignored.

There are many examples of weapons being supplied to both sides in a conflict.(9) India and Pakistan have had almost continuous disputes over Kashmir, yet British and US companies supply weapons to both sides.(10) This is an example of corporations profiting by fuelling conflict. It is possible that some conflicts would end much faster, some would stop immediately, and some might never start if the participants were not supplied with weapons by advanced nations. The current war in Yemen is a good example of weapons keeping a conflict going. Saudi Arabia receives almost all of its weapons from the US, Britain and France. If those three countries stopped supplying weapons, and stopped providing the expertise to operate and maintain those weapons, the war would almost certainly end quickly.(11)

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) gave $11 billion of weapons to terrorists in Afghanistan during the 1990s. These have since been used by terrorists in wars throughout central Asia and the Middle East. Weapons that had been sold to Libya were stored in warehouses. When the US and Britain destroyed Libya in 2011, the warehouses were looted and the weapons became widely available to anyone who wanted one. Weapons sales make the world less safe.

The insanity of the current system becomes obvious when weapons sold by rich countries are used against their own armies. Peacekeepers in Somalia, Bosnia and Rwanda all found themselves facing weapons supplied by their own governments.(12) British weapons were used against British troops in Iraq.(13) During the Falklands War between Britain and Argentina in 1982 (a dispute that has been likened to two bald men fighting over a comb(14)), Argentina was using warships built in Britain, and other weapons purchased from other advanced nations.(15) The Argentinians sank a British warship using an Exocet anti-ship missile, supplied by France, launched from a warplane, also supplied by France.(16) At the time, Argentina was being run by the military, who had overthrown the civilian government. The invasion of the Falklands would have been much less likely to happen if advanced nations had not provided Argentina’s military leaders with weapons. Perhaps just as important, the military government would have been much less likely to come to power in the first place if they had not been supplied with weapons and supported by other nations.

There are no good arguments supporting huge weapons expenditure

One sometimes hears arguments suggesting that we should be able to sell weapons to countries that are peaceful and democratic. But it is impossible to know if a country will remain peaceful in the future, and it is democracies such as the US and Britain that have been responsible for many recent war crimes. Politicians sometimes try to defend weapons exports on economic grounds, but many of those exports are actually paid for by US and British taxpayers. The subsidies to weapons companies are greater than the money raised through weapons sales. We could provide far more jobs by spending the money in other industries.

It is perfectly reasonable to argue that if Britain or the US is going to have a military for defensive purposes, then they should have the best equipment available. But when was the last time that any weapons were really used by the British or US military for defence? For Britain the answer is probably 1940. For the US the answer is ‘not in living memory’. There is no evidence that any country will attack Britain or the US in the near future. The corruption involved in the weapons trade is so profitable for everyone involved that military spending is not about ‘security’ at all.

It’s all about offence – not defence 

The weapons industry is usually referred to as the defence industry. This is a glaring example of how language is used as propaganda. In 1947, the US had a government labeled the ‘war department’. This was changed to the ‘Defence Department’.(17) In the UK, the War Office (together with other departments) became the Ministry of Defence. If it were labeled ‘the Minstry of Invasion and Occupation’, people might be more critical of what they do. Similarly, if the ‘defence’ industry were labeled the ‘mass murder and maiming industry’, people would realise how destructive it is. By hiding the criminal nature of these activities behind the word ‘defence’, people are misled into believing that it is fairly harmless. Weapons are used for invading other countries, or to control people who do not agree with their government.  


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

This article was first posted at medium.com/elephantsintheroom

Rod Driver is a part-time academic who is particularly interested in de-bunking modern-day US and British propaganda. This is the eighth in a series entitled Elephants In The Room, which attempts to provide a beginners guide to understanding what’s really going on in relation to war, terrorism, economics and poverty, without the nonsense in the mainstream media.


1) Jim Garrison and Pyare Shivpuri, The Russian Threat, 1983, p.260.

The original draft of the speech used the term “military-industrial-congressional complex” to indicate that the assistance of congress plays an important part in maintaining the power and influence of weapons companies within the US economy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex

2) Ralph Forbes, ‘151 congressmen derive profit from war’, 5 May 2008, at http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/151_congressmen_derive_financi.html

3) Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine, 2007, p.311.

Donald Rumsfeld held shares in Gilead and Dick Cheney held shares in Halliburton. 

4) Danielle Brian, cited in Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine, 2007, p.319

5) Saferworld, ‘The good, the bad and the ugly – a decade of Labour’s arms exports’, May 2007, at https://www.saferworld.org.uk/resources/publications/264-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly—a-decade-of-labours-arms-exports 

6) Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine, 2007, p.381

7) Jim Garrison and Pyare Shivpuri, The Russian Threat, 1983, pp.147-156. One officer said of the MX, “there is no earthly strategic doctrine to justify their existence” (p.156)

8) Mark Zepezauer, Take The Rich Off Welfare, 2005, pp.54-75

9) Human Rights Watch, ‘Money Talks: Arms Dealing With Human Rights Abusers’, April 1999, at www.hrw.org/reports/1999/bulgaria 

10) Mark Curtis, Web of Deceit, 2003, p.189

11) Arron Merat, ‘The Saudis couldn’t do it without us’: the UK’s true role in Yemen’s deadly war’, The Guardian, 18 June 2019, at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/18/the-saudis-couldnt-do-it-without-us-the-uks-true-role-in-yemens-deadly-war 

12) Mark Curtis, Web of Deceit, 2003, p.186

13) Jennifer Erickson, Dangerous Trade: Arms Exports, Human Rights and International Reputation, 2015, P.115

14) Jorge Luis Borges, cited in Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine, 2007, p.137

15) Martin Middlebrook, The Argentine Fight For The Falklands, 2003

16) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet

17) Noam Chomsky, ‘Creating the horror chambers’, interview with Dan Falcone, Jacobin, July 2015, at https://chomsky.info/072015-2/

Featured image is from Fort Russ News

Although the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Africa does not  in any way rival the existing public health situation in Western Europe and the United States, the presence of a new variant in South Africa and other regions of the continent emphasizes the necessity of independent efforts on the part of the African Union (AU) member-states to advance a policy of self-reliance.

To the extent that the newly formulated African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) can move the 1.3 billion people towards a better standard of living along with greater control over the means of production within the society, it should be supported by progressive and peace-loving forces throughout the world.

The AfCFTA aspirations are by no means new to the post-colonial era. Leaders such as Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, founder of the Republic of Ghana, advocated the revolutionary unification of Africa under a scientific socialist system. In the interim during 1963 at the founding of the AU predecessor, the Organization of African Unity (OAU), Nkrumah issued numerous appeals for unification including the book entitled “Africa Must Unite”, which was published to coincide with the maiden summit of the continental body.

Even after the May 25, 1963 first summit of the OAU in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Nkrumah and others continued to promote the notions of continental integration and unification. The 1964 summit in Cairo, Egypt took up the question of the national oppression of Africans in the United States with the intervention of Malcolm X. These developments in 1964, were utilized by the AU and the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to raise once again in 2020 the institutional racism and brutality carried out by the state in the world’s leading capitalist country. The brutal murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis further enraged the international community after reports of the brutal killings of Ahmaud Arbery in Brunswick, Georgia and Breonna Taylor in Louisville.

The enhancement of Africa’s status within the broader international community would inspire and encourage those within the Diaspora who are struggling for self-determination, national liberation, social justice and equality. As Nkrumah noted during the 1960s and early 1970s, the liberation of Africa would be a tremendous inspiration to all Black and oppressed peoples throughout the planet.

With specific reference to the potential role of AfCFTA, the mission of the project says:

“The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is a free trade area, outlined in the African Continental Free Trade Agreement among 54 of the 55 African Union nations.  AfCFTA is the largest in the world in terms of participating countries since the formation of the World Trade Organization. The agreement was brokered by the African Union (AU) and was signed on by 44 of its 55 member states in Kigali, Rwanda on March 21, 2018. The agreement initially requires members to remove tariffs from 90% of goods, allowing free access to commodities, goods, and services across the continent. The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) estimates that the agreement will boost intra-African trade by 52 percent by 2022.”

Problems prevalent within the AU member-states in 2020 are by-product of the legacies of slavery, colonialism, neo-colonialism and all aspects of imperialism. The decline in commodity prices within the agricultural and mining sectors has been a major impediment to the export-driven African economies for several years. These vulnerabilities on the continent have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic impact within the imperialist states.

Impediments to Implementations of the AfCFTA Project

In the leading economy of East Africa, the Republic of Kenya, there has been a recent diplomatic row which has erupted with neighboring Somalia. There is both a maritime and inland dispute over borders in the Indian Ocean offshore along with the areas of Jubaland in southern Somalia. Kenya has also aggravated tensions by hosting the leader of the breakaway northern region known as Somaliland. The area has not been recognized as independent by either the United Nations or the AU. (See this)

Kenya has deployed its troops to Somalia as part of the U.S.-engineered efforts to control the political situation inside that country since the late 2000s. Aerial strikes have been carried out by the Pentagon now under the banner of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). Kenyan soldiers have functioned within the United Nations-mandated African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM) which is ostensibly designed to stabilize the government in Mogadishu and to defeat the al-Shabaab group that has waged war against the federal regime for a decade. These developments have surely complicated the potential for normalized relations necessary for the facilitation of trade and economic integration.

A report published on December 24 says of the situation that:

“There is growing concern the tensions between Kenya and Somalia may erupt into fighting, due to a military buildup along the two countries’ borders. The Somalia federal government has sent troops to the border town of Beled-Hawo, while forces from Somalia’s Jubaland region, which enjoys a good relationship with Kenya, are stationed in the nearby Kenyan town of Madera…. Hundreds of fighters allied to Jubaland Interior Minister Abdirashid Janan have been stationed in Madera for months. Last March, these forces launched a cross-border attack in Beled Hawo, killing dozens. On Tuesday (December 22), Madera residents took to the streets to demand the Jubaland forces to leave and stop endangering their lives. The protest took place after the Somali government sent hundreds of soldiers to secure the Beled-Hawo area…. Last week, Somalia cut diplomatic ties with Kenya. The federal government accuses Kenya of interfering with its internal affairs — an accusation that Kenyan officials deny. George Musamali is the head of the Center for Risk Management in Africa. He says any conflict between Kenya and Somalia would be felt beyond the border area.”

Meanwhile in the Economic Community of West Africa (ECOWAS) region a military coup in Mali on August 20 posed a major challenge to this body which represents 15 member-states. ECOWAS immediately deployed a delegation to Mali headed by former Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan to demand in no uncertain terms that the mutinous soldiers relinquish control to the previously elected administration. The leaders of the coup were trained by the Pentagon at military colleges in the U.S. This same phenomenon was true in regard to the putsch of 2012 where the lower-ranking officers involved in overthrowing an elected government were products of the pro-imperialist education given to soldiers by the Pentagon.

After much discussion, it was decided that an interim administration would be established which included both opposition political forces and the coup makers. ECOWAS threatened the suspension of Mali from the organization prohibiting trade and normal diplomatic relations with the landlocked country if the mutinous troops did not return to the barracks. Since August, problems are continuing with the military further threatening the stability of the country.

Mali has been inflicted for decades by an internal dispute inherited from French colonialism with the Tuareg population in the north. After the escalation in fighting in 2012-2013, France intervened militarily with the assistance of AFRICOM already operating in the country. Nonetheless, the northern insurgency has been heavily infiltrated by jihadist groups whose origins and backing tend to coincide with the aims of imperialism in Africa and West Asia.

ECOWAS during 2019 introduced a single monetary unit in the effort to promote cross border trade and travel. By the latter months of 2020, this launch of the “Eco” regional currency was suspended under the guise that the initiative was premature. Even with these apparent good intentions, the existence of armed opposition groups in several other states notwithstanding Mali, including Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso and Cameroon, only serves to provide a rationale for the continued presence of AFRICOM as well as the French-led Operation Barkhane, which inevitably prevents the realization of Pan-African unity.

These conflicts internally and over colonial-drawn territorial boundaries are not conducive to the implementation of the AfCFTA program of unity and cooperation. There is the necessity of resolving these issues as an imperative towards genuine independence and sovereignty for Africa and its people.

Political Stability as a Prerequisite for Pan-Africanism

An equitable distribution of resources in AU member-states could create the atmosphere for peace and security. Even short of civil war and border conflicts, there is unrest periodically over the legitimacy of governments and the character of governance. For example, in Ivory Coast and Guinea-Conakry, widespread outbreaks of violence were the direct result of dissent over whether the administrations in these states had the right to continue their tenure in office.

Nigeria #EndSARS protest movement

In Nigeria, the most populous state within the AU which is said to have the largest economy on the continent, was the scene of a national youth-led rebellion in October prompted by police misconduct carried out by the notorious Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS). Dozens of people were killed in further repression against the #EndSARS Campaign demonstrations at the hands of the police and military. In response there were violent retaliations targeting the Supreme Court, a prison, a leading television station and the home of the Lagos state governor, among other symbols of the state and national economy.

Within the context of the AU there is the Peace and Security Council (PSC) whose charge is to ameliorate conflict throughout the continent. According to its mission statement:

“The African Union leads policy making and implementation of decisions aimed at ensuring that Africa achieves Aspiration 4 of Agenda 2063 which aspires for ‘A peaceful and secure Africa’ through the use of mechanisms that promote a dialogue-centered approach to conflict prevention and resolution of conflicts and establishing of a culture of peace and tolerance nurtured in Africa’s children and youth through peace education. The Agenda 2063 flagship initiative of Silencing the Guns by 2020 is at the core of activities being put in place to ensure Africa is a more peaceful and stable continent.

The key AU Organ for promoting peace and security on the continent is the Peace & Security Council (PSC) which is the standing decision-making organ of the AU for the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts. It is a collective security and early warning arrangement intended to facilitate timely and efficient responses to conflict and crisis situations in Africa. It is also the key pillar of the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA), which is the framework for promoting peace, security and stability in Africa.”

In order for this division of the AU to function effectively there must be the resolution of the class, national and micro-nationality conflicts which are stifling qualitative development. The settling of these disputes is necessary for the AfCFTA project to reach its minimal goals leading to the decisive years ahead.


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

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

All images in this article are from the author

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Africa in Review 2020: The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and the Imperatives of the 21st Century
  • Tags:

In cities and states across our nation, politicians mandate that their fellow citizens wear masks. There is a lot of good evidence and reason to believe that this policy is a key causal factor, in a huge nationwide increase in violent crime and murders.

Those who have not studied violence may not fully understand how harmful it can be to not see someone’s face. Masks give a powerful sense of anonymity to the killer, and dehumanize the victim. Thus preventing empathy, and empowering aggression, violence, and murder. In city after city, across America, there have been more murders so far this year, than all of last year. And masks are one of the major reasons why this is happening.

I wrote the book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. With over half-a-million copies sold, in seven languages, On Killing is a “perennial bestseller” and Google Scholar says it has been cited over 2,900 times in academic research. It has established itself as one of the major scholarly works of our time.

I wrote the book, and created a new field of scholarly endeavor known as “killology” because I want to help keep people safe, and reduce violence in our society.  Psychology is not about teaching people to be psychos, criminology is not about teaching people to be criminals, and killology is not about teaching people to kill. It is about understanding the factors that empower and restrain killing in our society.

People often point to some horrible crime and declare that, “This proves humans are naturally killers!”

My response to them is, “No. That is an outlier. It is literally, one-in-a-million. You explain to me the 99.9% of our citizens who will go a lifetime, and never even seriously attempt to take a human life. Explain that!”

Poverty, divorce, infidelity, layoffs, and traffic accidents occur by the millions every day in our society. And yet, in a lifetime of provocation, less than 00.1% of our citizens will attempt to take a human life. That is the hard thing to explain!

America is roughly a third-of-a-billion people. Every person who interacts with another person represents a friction point, adding up to billions of friction points every single day. An amazing array of social, physical, psychological and physiological factors provide a “lubricant” for each of these friction points, in order to prevent physical violence and murder.

Masks are like a handful of sand in an automobile engine, greatly increasing the “friction” at… Every. Single. One. Of these countless billions of daily contact points.

We all understand that people will say things online that they would never say face-to-face. And masks create a similar sense of anonymity for the aggressor, empowering face-to-face violence and hostility across our nation.

Israeli research tells us that if you are kidnapped, and you are blindfolded or you have a hood over your head, you are far more likely to be murdered by your captors. You would think, since I cannot identify my captors, then I am less of a threat to them. But your potential long-term threat to your captors is not what is keeping you alive. It is looking into the face of another human being — thus creating a powerful biological sense of empathy — which is the most important factor keeping that captive alive.

The face is the window to the soul, and covering the face with a mask destroys empathy and empowers interpersonal aggression.

That is why individuals being executed by hanging or firing squad, are traditionally blindfolded or hooded. Mass murders committed by criminals, terrorists, or totalitarian states, very often involve shooting victims in the back of the head, or cutting their heads off from behind. Once again, covering or hiding the face negates empathy, and empowers some of the most ghastly forms of mass murder.

Masks also muffle your voice. So, many people shout in order to be heard and understood while wearing a mask. But shouting signals aggression! When someone shouts at you, you immediately become defensive and hostile. And the situation can spiral downward from there, into aggressive confrontations, violence, and even murder

At a basic, intuitive, almost “biological” level, we understand this. We inherently distrust and fear anyone wearing a mask and the muffled shouts that come from that individual. This is buried deep in our genes, and in our culture. And it cannot be eliminated by declarations from politicians. Thus, seeing everyone around you in masks, creates anxiety and social isolation that can be profoundly harmful, and potentially create ever more violence.

This daily dehumanization, desensitization, alienation, and social isolation created by masks, can contribute to two different types of violence. Erich Fromm, tells us that “destructive aggression occurs … in conjunction with a momentary or chronic emotional withdrawal.”

First, is that “momentary emotional withdrawal” resulting in a spontaneous act of violence created by a specific circumstance. Often resulting in a single homicide, committed in a fit of rage.

In addition to this spontaneous violence, there is the “chronic withdrawal” caused by a long-term build-up of alienation and isolation, that can result in mass murders and massacres. I hope I am wrong, but I believe in the coming year we will see many more horrific mass-murders and massacres.

Again, I pray that I am wrong. But I think it is very likely that we will see day-care massacres, school bus massacres, and vehicles used as weapons of mass murder, plowing into our children at 100 miles-per-hour. These crimes have happened around the world, and it may be only a matter of time, until they come to our nation. (And there are many things we can and must do, right now, to mitigate the possible loss of life from such attacks.)

What else is left to shock us? What else is there, that will create media coverage, and provide the fame, that the alienated enraged killer desires?

We are on a heartbreaking, gut-wrenching descent into ever greater acts of evil. It started with school massacres committed by children, who grew up to give us college massacres, who then came back to our elementary schools as adults to express their rage in the mass murder of our children. 

More information about this can be found in my book, Assassination Generation. In the aftermath of the Parkland, Florida, school massacre, I was invited to the White House as part of the President’s round table on violent video games. I had the honor of giving a copy of Assassination Generation to the President. Last year I was invited to the White House again, and had the honor of briefing the Vice President and giving him a copy of my book.

Doctors tell us that masks contribute to acne, anxiety, depression and heart disease. Dentists tell us that masks are causing gum disease and other dental problems. I cannot speak to these medical pros-and-cons of masks. But I can state, without hesitation, that having our entire population wearing masks, is one of the most physically and psychologically harmful things we can do. There can be no doubt that it will lead our nation into even deeper depths of violence, death, despair, and heartache.

There is one other important dynamic that we must consider. A monstrous mass murder, by a single individual, can create more psychosocial trauma than countless deaths by disease. In its section on PTSD, the DSM (the “bible” of psychology and psychiatry) tells us that, whenever the cause of trauma is “human in nature” (such as assault, torture or rape) the degree of trauma is “more severe and long lasting.” Millions die from disease every day, and it has little impact on our behavior, but one serial killer or serial rapist can paralyze a city.

Thus, from one major and critical perspective, the over-all societal harm of fear, isolation, distrust, and violence created by masks, is far greater than the harm caused by disease. This downward spiral into alienation and distrust, is the opposite of “de-escalation” and “empathy”. These are buzz-words we hear a lot, but they do communicate powerful tools that are needed to reduce violence. Tools that are badly diminished by wearing a mask.

Finally, the field of killology can tell us something that the field of criminology refuses to confront. The number of murdered people completely under-represents the level of violence, because medical technology is saving ever more lives.

In 2002, Anthony Harris and a team of scholars from the University of Massachusetts and Harvard, published their landmark research, in the journal Homicide Studies. They concluded that advances in medical technology, between 1960 and 1999, cut the murder rate to a third, or a quarter, of what it would otherwise be. And the leaps and bounds of life-saving technology in the two decades since then — with lessons learned in almost 20 years of war — has saved the lives of even more victims of violence. Thus preventing many more murders.

When we compare money over any period of time, we speak in terms of “inflation-adjusted dollars.” If we fail to do so, we intentionally and willfully misrepresent the amount of money involved.

When we look at murder over any period of time, we must talk in terms of “medically-adjusted murders.” And we willfully and deliberately misrepresenting the situation, every time we fail to do so.

When we finally start reporting “medically-adjusted murders” then we will begin to understand just how desperately, tragically bad the situation has become. For every murder we report, there are ever increasing numbers of our citizens physically maimed and scarred, and emotionally crippled and traumatized by violence.

And how much more so, when we create vastly more “friction” by throwing that “handful of sand” into the engine-block of our civilization, by making everyone wear masks?

For a politician sitting in his basement, or a movie star holed up in his mansion, it is easy to call for a universal mask mandate. But they have servants who do their shopping and yard work. For those living on the edge of physical and emotional well-being, for individuals who have to interact every day with potentially hostile employees or customers, for those who are already on the edge of committing violence, for all the “real people” out there, mandating masks can be profoundly harmful. 

This policy has already resulted in an erosion of emotional wellbeing, and an explosion of violent crime. And it is something that we can stop, right now, in order to save lives.

Masks truly can be murder.


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

Lt. Col. Dave Grossman is an award winning author, and nationally recognized as a powerful, dynamic speaker and trainer. He has had over a dozen books published, to include his “perennial bestsellers” On Killing and On Combat, and a New York Times best-selling book co-authored with Glenn Beck. His books are “required” or “recommended” reading in all four branches of the US Armed Forces, and in federal and regional law enforcement academies nationwide.

Featured image is from EFE

First published on January 27, 2020, this article is of relevance to an understanding of recent developments including the so-called Second Wave. The similarity of the symptoms of Covid-19 and seasonal influenza was known and documented from the very outset, reported in numerous peer reviewed articles.

The politicians are liars.  The media are liars. 

According to The British Medical Journal in a November 2020 report:

“Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to accelerate availability of diagnostics and treatments.  … Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed a state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.[1] Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.

The liars confirm their own lies: The studies of Dr. Anthony Fauci et al in the New England Journal of Medicine as well as the WHO acknowledge that Covid-19 has similar features to seasonal influenza (Viruses A and B).  What these scientific statements convey is that SARS-2 (which causes Covid-19) is not a killer virus. In fact quite the opposite.

But neither the governments nor the media have reassured public opinion. The fear campaign not only prevails, it is gaining momentum.

At this juncture of the Covid-19 crisis, governments have launched extreme lockdown measures in response to a so-called “Second Wave”, which starting in October-November coincides in the Northern Hemisphere with the annual surge of seasonal influenza.

These totalitarian measures adopted by corrupt governments are based on “science being suppressed for political and financial gain”. 

Below is the incisive analysis of  Tom Clifford reporting from Beijing in late January 2020 at the very outset of the corona crisis. 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, January 2, 2021


Figures quoted for the coronavirus pertain to late January 2020

The common flu virus will infect millions across the globe. It can be easily spread and will especially strike the young and the elderly. But this is not what has been described as the Wuhan virus. The common flu is far deadlier. This is not to downplay the Wuhan coronavirus flu, or to give it its medical name, 2019-nCoV.

The common flu causes up to 5 million cases of severe illness worldwide and kills up to 650,000 people every year, according to the World Health Organization 

In the US:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that so far this season, there have been at least 15 million flu illnesses for the 2019-2020 season, 140,000 hospitalizations and 8,200 deaths in the U.S. The CDC reports there have been 54 reported flu-related pediatric deaths this season from Influenza B viruses. (The Hill)

China’s Coronavirus

Keeping track of Wuhan virus figures is difficult, not least because of the two-week incubation period. The coronavirus outbreak, which is concentrated in Wuhan, a major transport hub in central eastern China, has so far killed 56 and infected almost 2,000.

The initial symptoms of coronavirus are typically similar to those of a cold or flu, which means it is hard for people to know if they are infected, especially given that the outbreak has coincided with flu season. The mayor of Wuhan said on Sunday evening that he expected another 1,000 or so new cases. But the National Health Commission in Beijing said the number of people currently under medical observation for the virus is 30,453. This raises immediate questions about how and where they are being observed.

The response to the outbreak has been criticized with people complaining that announcing restrictions hours before they could be properly implemented allowed people to evade quarantine. The strict restrictions also risk causing resentment and distrust of authorities and the health messages they deliver.

A massive construction effort is being undertaken in Wuhan to build a 1,000-bed hospital for the virus patients.

In the past week [mid January], the number of confirmed infections has more than tripled and cases have been found in 13 provinces in China, as well as the municipalities Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing and Tianjin. The virus has also been confirmed in Hong Kong, Macau, Japan, Nepal, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, the United States, and Vietnam.

The virus seems to have a 3 percent mortality rate. However, this could be an overestimate since there may be a far larger pool of people who have been infected by the virus but who have not suffered severe enough symptoms to attend hospital and so have not been counted in the data.

Consequently, it is difficult to gauge just how contagious it is. A crucial difference is that unlike flu, there is no vaccine for the new coronavirus, which means it is more difficult for vulnerable members of the population – elderly people or those with existing respiratory or immune problems – to protect themselves.

The common flu does not grab the headlines. But attach a foreign name to a virus – such as Ebola, Zika and Wuhan – and then the headlines flow.

Apart from the obvious health concerns, there is a political dimension. Some countries, including the US, France, Australia and Japan have suggested that they want to evacuate their citizens from Wuhan and nearby areas. Just how this would take place is unclear.

Images of foreigners being airlifted or bussed out of Wuhan, while Chinese citizens remain, could see passions rise. At the very least, it will appear that there is special treatment for foreigners.

The streets of Beijing this morning are eerily quiet. Residents of the capital would normally be celebrating Chinese new year, the year of the rat, that started on Saturday, by attending temple fairs.

All such fairs have been cancelled. Apart from the family fun on offer at the fairs, they provide a setting where families can pay homage to deceased relatives. Fake money and food would be burnt to appease the spirits of the deceased and ensure good health prosperity for the year ahead.

There is no anger on the streets but a sense of confusion and apprehension. This coming week should see hundreds of millions of people return from the hometowns where the celebrated the new year to their cities of work.

A clearer picture will then emerge of the scale of the problems facing the authorities.


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

Featured image is from EWAO

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 5 Million Cases Worldwide, 650,000 Deaths Annually: The Seasonal Flu Virus is a “Serious Concern”, But the Wuhan Coronavirus Grabs the Headlines
  • Tags: ,

The Seeds Of Suicide: How Monsanto Destroys Farming

January 2nd, 2021 by Dr. Vandana Shiva

This article was originally published in April 2013

In recent developments, Monsanto and Bayer have merged into a powerful cartel which controls not only what we eat but also politicians, scientists and journalists.


Monsanto’s talk of ‘technology’ tries to hide its real objectives of control over seed where genetic engineering is a means to control seed,

“Monsanto is an agricultural company.

We apply innovation and technology to help farmers around the world produce more while conserving more.”

“Producing more, Conserving more, Improving farmers lives.”

These are the promises Monsanto India’s website makes, alongside pictures of smiling, prosperous farmers from the state of Maharashtra. This is a desperate attempt by Monsanto and its PR machinery to delink the epidemic of farmers’ suicides in India from the company’s growing control over cotton seed supply — 95 per cent of India’s cotton seed is now controlled by Monsanto.

Control over seed is the first link in the food chain because seed is the source of life. When a corporation controls seed, it controls life, especially the life of farmers.

Monsanto’s concentrated control over the seed sector in India as well as across the world is very worrying. This is what connects farmers’ suicides in India to Monsanto vs Percy Schmeiser in Canada, to Monsanto vs Bowman in the US, and to farmers in Brazil suing Monsanto for $2.2 billion for unfair collection of royalty.

Through patents on seed, Monsanto has become the “Life Lord” of our planet, collecting rents for life’s renewal from farmers, the original breeders.

Patents on seed are illegitimate because putting a toxic gene into a plant cell is not “creating” or “inventing” a plant. These are seeds of deception — the deception that Monsanto is the creator of seeds and life; the deception that while Monsanto sues farmers and traps them in debt, it pretends to be working for farmers’ welfare, and the deception that GMOs feed the world. GMOs are failing to control pests and weeds, and have instead led to the emergence of superpests and superweeds.

The entry of Monsanto in the Indian seed sector was made possible with a 1988 Seed Policy imposed by the World Bank, requiring the Government of India to deregulate the seed sector. Five things changed with Monsanto’s entry: First, Indian companies were locked into joint-ventures and licensing arrangements, and concentration over the seed sector increased. Second, seed which had been the farmers’ common resource became the “intellectual property” of Monsanto, for which it started collecting royalties, thus raising the costs of seed. Third, open pollinated cotton seeds were displaced by hybrids, including GMO hybrids. A renewable resource became a non-renewable, patented commodity. Fourth, cotton which had earlier been grown as a mixture with food crops now had to be grown as a monoculture, with higher vulnerability to pests, disease, drought and crop failure. Fifth, Monsanto started to subvert India’s regulatory processes and, in fact, started to use public resources to push its non-renewable hybrids and GMOs through so-called public-private partnerships (PPP).

In 1995, Monsanto introduced its Bt technology in India through a joint-venture with the Indian company Mahyco. In 1997-98, Monsanto started open field trials of its GMO Bt cotton illegally and announced that it would be selling the seeds commercially the following year. India has rules for regulating GMOs since 1989, under the Environment Protection Act. It is mandatory to get approval from the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee under the ministry of environment for GMO trials. The Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology sued Monsanto in the Supreme Court of India and Monsanto could not start the commercial sales of its Bt cotton seeds until 2002.
And, after the damning report of India’s parliamentary committee on Bt crops in August 2012, the panel of technical experts appointed by the Supreme Court recommended a 10-year moratorium on field trials of all GM food and termination of all ongoing trials of transgenic crops.

But it had changed Indian agriculture already.

Monsanto’s seed monopolies, the destruction of alternatives, the collection of superprofits in the form of royalties, and the increasing vulnerability of monocultures has created a context for debt, suicides and agrarian distress which is driving the farmers’ suicide epidemic in India. This systemic control has been intensified with Bt cotton. That is why most suicides are in the cotton belt.

An internal advisory by the agricultural ministry of India in January 2012 had this to say to the cotton-growing states in India — “Cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to Bt cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in 2011-12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers.”

The highest acreage of Bt cotton is in Maharashtra and this is also where the highest farmer suicides are. Suicides increased after Bt cotton was introduced — Monsanto’s royalty extraction, and the high costs of seed and chemicals have created a debt trap. According to Government of India data, nearly 75 per cent rural debt is due to purchase inputs. As Monsanto’s profits grow, farmers’ debt grows. It is in this systemic sense that Monsanto’s seeds are seeds of suicide.

The ultimate seeds of suicide is Monsanto’s patented technology to create sterile seeds. (Called “Terminator technology” by the media, sterile seed technology is a type of Gene Use Restriction Technology, GRUT, in which seed produced by a crop will not grow — crops will not produce viable offspring seeds or will produce viable seeds with specific genes switched off.) The Convention on Biological Diversity has banned its use, otherwise Monsanto would be collecting even higher profits from seed.

Monsanto’s talk of “technology” tries to hide its real objectives of ownership and control over seed where genetic engineering is just a means to control seed and the food system through patents and intellectual property rights.

A Monsanto representative admitted that they were “the patient’s diagnostician, and physician all in one” in writing the patents on life-forms, from micro-organisms to plants, in the TRIPS’ agreement of WTO. Stopping farmers from saving seeds and exercising their seed sovereignty was the main objective. Monsanto is now extending its patents to conventionally bred seed, as in the case of broccoli and capsicum, or the low gluten wheat it had pirated from India which we challenged as a biopiracy case in the European Patent office.

That is why we have started Fibres of Freedom in the heart of Monsanto’s Bt cotton/suicide belt in Vidharba. We have created community seed banks with indigenous seeds and helped farmers go organic. No GMO seeds, no debt, no suicides.

Vandana Shiva is a philosopher, environmental activist, and eco feminist.Shiva, currently based in Delhi, has authored more than 20 books and over 500 papers in leading scientific and technical journals. She was trained as a physicist and received her Ph.D. in physics from the University of Western Ontario, Canada. She was awarded the Right Livelihood Award in 1993. She is the founder of Navdanya http://www.navdanya.org/ 

She is a frequent contributor to Global Research


Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

China’s Message to Donald: What Do You Want from Us?

January 2nd, 2021 by Lin Liangduo

Among Global Research’s most popular 2020 articles

Translated from Chinese for Global Research; first published in January 2020.

Enough is enough. Enough hypocrisy for this one world.

What do you want from us, anyway? What Do You Really Want from Us?

When we were the sick man of Asia, we were called “the yellow peril”.

When we are billed to be the next superpower, we are called “the threat”.

When we were poor, you invaded our cities and erected signs reading, “No dogs or Chinamen Allowed”.

When we’re rich and loan you cash, you blame us for your national debts.

When we closed our doors, you smuggled drugs to open our markets.

When we embrace free trade, you blame us for taking away your jobs.

When we tried communism, you hated us for being communist.

When we embrace capitalism, you hate us for being capitalist.

When we were falling apart, you marched in your troops and wanted your “fair share”. When we tried to put the broken pieces back together again, “Free Tibet”, you screamed,

It was an invasion! When, because of you, Xinjiang and Tibet were lost in chaos and rampage, you demanded rules of law.

When we uphold law and order against violence, you call it violating human rights.

When we had a billion people, you said we were destroying the planet. When we tried limiting our numbers, you said we abused human rights.

When we build our industries, you call us polluters.

When we sell you goods, you blame us for global warming.

When we buy oil, you call it exploitation and genocide.

When you invade countries for oil, you call it liberation.

When we were silent, you said you wanted us to have free speech. When we are silent no more, you say we are brainwashed xenophobes.

“Do you understand us, we asked”? “Of course we do”, you said, “We have Fox News and CNN and The Economist.”

And today in 2020, we are doing our best to cope with an unknown virus epidemic, but nothing we do is good enough to please you.

We quarantined the infected area but your CNN publishes a dirty article telling us that’s “too aggressive”, and that we are “violating human rights” and making “a blueprint for racial segregation”. But if we didn’t do that, you would condemn us for not taking stronger measures.(1)

So what do you really want from us?

Enough is enough. Enough hypocrisy for this one world.

China’s leaders don’t need to be directed by the USA, and Americans are not entitled to teach China about “peace” or “human rights” or anything else.

And why isn’t this earth big enough for all of us?


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


(1) https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/26/health/quarantine-china-coronavirus/index.html

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on China’s Message to Donald: What Do You Want from Us?

This article was first crossposted in August.

Denmark boasts one of the lowest COVID-19 death rates in the world. As of August 4, the Danes have suffered 616 COVID-19 deaths, according to figures from Johns Hopkins University.

That’s less than one-third of the number of Danes who die from pneumonia or influenza in a given year.

Despite this success, Danish leaders recently found themselves on the defensive. The reason is that Danes aren’t wearing face masks, and local authorities for the most part aren’t even recommending them.

This prompted Berlingske, the country’s oldest newspaper, to complain that Danes had positioned themselves “to the right of Trump.”

“The whole world is wearing face masks, even Donald Trump,” Berlingske pointed out.

This apparently did not sit well with Danish health officials. They responded by noting there is little conclusive evidence that face masks are an effective way to limit the spread of respiratory viruses.

“All these countries recommending face masks haven’t made their decisions based on new studies,” said Henning Bundgaard, chief physician at Denmark’s Rigshospitale, according to Bloomberg News. (Denmark has since updated its guidelines to encourage, but not require, the use of masks on public transit where social distancing may not be possible.)

Denmark is not alone.

Despite a global stampede of mask-wearing, data show that 80-90 percent of people in Finland and Holland say they “never” wear masks when they go out, a sharp contrast to the 80-90 percent of people in Spain and Italy who say they “always” wear masks when they go out.

Dutch public health officials recently explained why they’re not recommending masks.

“From a medical point of view, there is no evidence of a medical effect of wearing face masks, so we decided not to impose a national obligation,” said Medical Care Minister Tamara van Ark.

Others, echoing statements similar to the US Surgeon General from early March, said masks could make individuals sicker and exacerbate the spread of the virus.

“Face masks in public places are not necessary, based on all the current evidence,” said Coen Berends, spokesman for the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. “There is no benefit and there may even be negative impact.”

In Sweden, where COVID-19 deaths have slowed to a crawl, public health officials say they see “no point” in requiring individuals to wear masks.

“With numbers diminishing very quickly in Sweden, we see no point in wearing a face mask in Sweden, not even on public transport,” said Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s top infectious disease expert.

The top immunologists and epidemiologists in the world can’t decide if masks are helpful in reducing the spread of COVID-19. Indeed, we’ve seen organizations like the World Health Organization and the CDC go back and forth in their recommendations.

For the average person, it’s confusing and frustrating. It’s also a bit frightening, considering that we’ve seen people denounced in public for not wearing a mask while picking up a bag of groceries.

The truth is masks have become the new wedge issue, the latest phase of the culture war. Mask opponents tend to see mask wearers as “fraidy cats” or virtue-signalling “sheeple” who willfully ignore basic science. Mask supporters, on the other hand, often see people who refuse to wear masks as selfish Trumpkins … who willfully ignore basic science.

There’s not a lot of middle ground to be found and there’s no easy way to sit this one out. We all have to go outside, so at some point we all are required to don the mask or not.

It’s clear from the data that despite the impression of Americans as selfish rebel cowboys who won’t wear a mask to protect others, Americans are wearing masks far more than many people in European countries.

Polls show Americans are wearing masks at record levels, though a political divide remains: 98 percent of Democrats report wearing masks in public compared to 66 percent of Republicans and 85 percent of Independents. (These numbers, no doubt, are to some extent the product of mask requirements in cities and states.)

Whether one is pro-mask or anti-mask, the fact of the matter is that face coverings have become politicized to an unhealthy degree, which stands to only further pollute the science.

Last month, for example, researchers at Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy responded to demands they remove an article that found mask requirements were “not based on sound data.”

The school, to its credit, did not remove the article, but instead opted to address the objections critics of their research had raised.

First, Do No Harm

The ethics of medicine go back millennia.

The Hippocratic Oath famously calls on medical practitioners to “first, do no harm.” (Those words didn’t actually appear in the original oath; they developed as a form of shorthand.)

There is a similar principle in the realm of public health: the Principle of Effectiveness.

Public health officials say the idea makes it clear that public health organizations have a responsibility to not harm the people they are assigned to protect.

“If a community is at risk, the government may have a duty to recommend interventions, as long as those interventions will cause no harm, or are the least harmful option,” wrote Claire J. Horwell Professor of Geohealth at Durham University and Fiona McDonald, Co-Director of the Australian Centre for Health Law Research at Queensland University of Technology. “If an agency follows the principle of effectiveness, it will only recommend an intervention that they know to be effective.”

The problem with mask mandates is that public health officials are not merely recommending a precaution that may or may not be effective.

They are using force to make people submit to a state order that could ultimately make individuals or entire populations sicker, according to world-leading public health officials.

That is not just a violation of the Effectiveness Principle. It’s a violation of a basic personal freedom.

Mask advocates might mean well, but they overlook a basic reality: humans spontaneously alter behavior during pandemics. Scientific evidence shows that American workplaces and consumers changed the patterns of their travel before lockdown orders were issued.

As I’ve previously noted, this should come as no surprise: Humans are intelligent, instinctive, and self-preserving mammals who generally seek to avoid high-risk behavior. The natural law of spontaneous order shows that people naturally take actions of self-protection by constantly analyzing risk.

Instead of ordering people to “mask-up” under penalty of fines or jail time, scientists and public health officials should get back to playing their most important role: developing sound research on which people can freely make informed decisions.


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

Featured image: From left to right: Professor Henning Bundgaard, Tamara van Ark, Anders Tegnell | Composite image by FEE (Rigshospitalet, Wikimedia Commons)

First published on July 28, 2020

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has just made a grandiose discovery and declared (21 July 2020) under the alarming title “This is now the world’s greatest threat – and it’s not coronavirus”. The superb discovery is listed as “Affluence is the biggest threat to our world, according to a new scientific report.” (See this).

This “shocking and revealing news” is the “main conclusions of a team of scientists from Australia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, who have warned that tackling overconsumption has to become a priority. Their report, titled Scientists’ Warning on Affluence, explains that “affluence is the driver of environmental and social impacts, and therefore, true sustainability calls for significant lifestyle changes, rather than hoping that more efficient use of resources will be enough.”

So as to better understand the context of the WEF statement, lets backtrack a bit. On June 3, 2020, WEF founder and executive chairman, Klaus Schwab, presented what the WEF and all the elites and oligarchs behind it call The Great Reset:

“The world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions… Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”

According to author Matthew Ehret-Kump, the gathering included elites from “the IMF, World Bank, UK, USA, corporate and banking sector” all looking “to take advantage of COVID-19 to shut down and “reset” the world economy under a new operating system entitled the Green New Deal.”

Gary Barnett writes on July 16, 2020

“…This is the most dangerous time in the history of man. The seriousness of this plot cannot be underestimated. It is not due to any threat of conventional war or nuclear decimation, it is based on the fact that this is a psychological war waged by psychopaths against all mankind, and it is being advanced by a small group of monsters that have taken control of the minds of the masses through long-term indoctrination and policies meant to breed dependency.”


“Fear is the new weapon of mass destruction, not because it is legitimate, but because the people have lost all will to be free, have lost all ability to think, and seek shelter and comfort as a collective herd only capable of existence in a society that is based on totalitarian rule.”

And finally,

Longing for freedom without the courage to claim it, is a meaningless endeavor, as any real demand by the masses would leave the governing elite naked and afraid. All that is necessary to achieve liberty is to want it, and this alone can defeat tyranny.”

Gary Barnett also quotes from “The Politics of Obedience” by Étienne de la Boétie:

“He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you.”

Well, the WEF finally got it right. Affluence and all that creates affluence and ever bigger affluence, widens the gap, rich-poor – and creates abject poverty, misery, famine and death.

According to the World Food Program (WFP), without covid, every year some 9 million people die from famine or hunger-related diseases. The WFP projects the number of people facing acute food insecurity (IPC/CH 3 or worse) stands to rise to 265 million in 2020, up by 130 million from the 135 million in 2019, as a result of the economic impact of COVID-19 (see this). Many – too many – of these people may die.

Death by famine is murder, according to Jean Ziegler, Swiss activist and former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.

The WEF calls for a Great Reset.

Yes, a Reset is needed, but not WEF-style.

A Reset people-style is more what can save Mother Earth and all her sentient beings, including humanity. A Reset could start with a global Debt Jubilee (debt forgiveness), so that people who can no longer pay their rent, their mortgages because due to a Deep Dark State elite-made covid-crisis they have lost their jobs, their income, their entire livelihood – debt forgiveness, so that this ever-growing segment of people will be able to keep their shelter and hopefully their sanity.

The WEF calls for “lifestyle changes”, but fails to explain what it means, and who has to change their lifestyle – the rich or the poor? While the WEF preaches for the Great Global Reset, more justice, more environmental protection, capitalism for “stakeholders”, rather than just for shareholders – RT reports that due to the covid-depression, unemployment and poverty, in the US alone, 28 million home evictions loom. And that’s probably just the beginning. Compare this with the 10 million of the 2008 / 2009 also man-made crisis.

There are currently about half a million people homeless in the US. The European Union (EU) doesn’t publish these figures, but they may be at least as high and likely higher. At the same time there are 1.5 million apartments empty in the US – about three times as many as there are homeless. Add to this the 28 million homes that may become empty in the coming months.

The 2008 crisis may be an indication. It took the banks many years to sell the 10 million “vacated” homes – and many are still not sold and rot on the rotten free market. In the bottomless depression of this covid-disaster it is even unlikelier that the banks will sell their brutally confiscated loot.

How does that fit Mr. Schwab’s, the WEF’s narrative? If the WEF was serious with the grandiose Reset for more justice, they would put the money where their mouth is – and generate the funds necessary to help the jobless to keep their homes, bail them out, or ask for a government supported debt and rent forgiveness, for all who are unemployed, with a temporary basic income of, say US$ 2,000 / month, for as long as it takes to put the economy back to work. “Temporary” – because a permanent basic income creates dependence, enslaves, and discourages the capitalist system even further from creating jobs, and use instead Artificial Intelligence (AI). This would cost a fraction from what the FED has already spent to bail out banks and financial institutions – according to the WaPo of 15 April 2020 (see this), more than 6 trillion.

In the meantime, and since mid-April, with the looming increase in corporate and banking failures, this figure may have doubled or tripled. But so what. It’s just fiat money, new debt, never to be paid back. Under this wicket principle of bailing out the rich, the FED could easily throw in another, say, 5 trillion and bail out the poor, take away a big portion of their misery, with, say a US$ 2,000 monthly minimum income for several years. Now more than ever, QE (Quantitative Easing) is of the order. Until the economy can walk again. This, in the medium to long term, would pay back by a multiple in terms of benefits to the US macro-economy. People without anxiety, without fear, would be productive and could help in reshaping the covid-destroyed economy.

By the way, this principle of bailing out the poor applies to every capitalist country, where the first to suffer are the poor, the job-dependent people. It might also apply in developing countries, where often up to 70% of the economy is made up of the informal sector, paying the unemployed a minimum wage, regardless whether they had a contractual work arrangement or not.

Though, it doesn’t look like Mr. Schwab, alias the WEF, has this kind of justice is mind.

The amassing of extreme affluence is only possible because the west is living in a turbo-capitalist system, or in a neoliberalist scheme which is slowly but surely turning into a form of economic neo-fascism with the political consequences that will likely follow. As an example, in the two months from mid-March to mid-May 2020 – so far the worst corona crisis months, when the world was basically shut down, when unemployment and accompanying misery and famine soared to proportions never known in mankind’s history – the billionaires in the US have added another 434 billion dollars to their wealth.

Again, yes, the WEF has got it right – even saying that this has to change; the world needs a better-balanced socioeconomic system and needs to do more to protect the environment and Mother Earth altogether. Of course. Nice words. But what’s the WEF’s agenda behind the words?

A legitimate question: What is the WEF and who is behind the WEF? – What makes the WEF so omni-powerful?

The WEF was created in 1971 by Klaus Schwab, a German engineer and economist. As of this day, he is at the helm of this powerful club of the rich. The WEF was created and is as of this day an NGO. It was founded as a European Management Forum, with Headquarters in Cologny, a lush suburb of Geneva, Switzerland. Its legal status is a foundation, a mere NGO (see this).

The WEF has absolutely no legal international status or role – for example, as the United Nations does – that would allow the WEF to issue edicts and rules to the world on how it should be run and behave, let alone exert control over the world’s population and decide over the fate of some 7.8 billion people (UN est. 2020 population).

Yet, that’s precisely what the WEF pretends to do – and that already for at least two or three decades. And most of the western leaders – and many non-westerners of the 193 UN members – accept the WEF as a World Authority on economic policy and political thinking. They put the WEF’s authority above that of the United Nations.

Why? – Does anybody ever ask how an NGO, the WEF, assumes for itself the power to stand above the UN, above every nation in the world and dictates as a proxy for its corporate-finance-military complex membership, basically who is to live and who is to die, by imposing a globalized economic system that has brought only abject misery to the majority of people? – And will continue to do so, if we don’t stop it.

Similar statements could be made about the G7 and the G20 – they are not even NGOs, but merely clubs of the self-declared richest and most powerful nations in the world. They too, not unlike the WEF which works hand-in-hand with the Great “Gs”, have taken over the role of the UN – to make world economic and political policy. They pretend to call the shots over war and peace. In their elitist capitalist interest, of course. Not in the interest of the people.

This is totally illegitimate and extremely dangerous.

Now, who is behind the WEF? Who are the members and players of the WEF?

They are the cream of the crop of the elite, they are the very Affluent the WEF claims are the problem, they are those who they pretend have to ‘adjust’ so that the world can continue functioning – in a “sustainable” way. – “Sustainable”, the omni-present term everywhere, overused and abused, exactly by those who chastise the world of living in unsustainable ways. They are corporate and financial magnates, former and present politicians, Hollywood personalities – and more. They are the front window of the Deep Dark State.

They are the ones, attempting to introduce the “New Green Deal”, a deviation from the current consumption based economy, to an economy based on “green” capitalism; electric cars (largely based on hydrocarbon-produced electricity), and GMO-based bio (sic) agriculture, “clean” Artificial Intelligence (AI), “green cities”, where workers (not yet wiped out by AI) cannot afford to live – and more of that sort of thing. A Green Agenda is good propaganda. It sells easily to the populace, who doesn’t ask any questions.

Do we all grasp it? – The WEF – a little NGO of a suburb of Geneva, Switzerland – acts above the UN – and has been doing so for a while. And We, The People, let it happen. We protest a bit every January when the WEF clan meets in the luxurious resort of Davos, Switzerland, to tell us what’s up their sleeves for the future of mankind and for the world. But that’s all.

Then they go “home” and disappear behind the curtain again for a year, or so we believe, and then appear again with new ideas and rules and ways to impose behavior for the 99.999% of the people of the world. And, again, this little rich NGO, without any international legal status, keeps acting like God, way above and beyond the United Nations, which, in turn, was created by nations of the world to arbitrate over conflicts for peace. Doing nothing against the WEF, letting it be and taking ever more power, means as much as accepting heir rule – it means approving of its illegitimate status as a supreme world authority.

It seems that’s what we have been doing, lately – to the detriment of the world economy, harming the social fabric of our multicultural world, as imperfect as it may be – but it has a legitimate existence. Now that existence has been shred to pieces – yes, largely by the WEF and its cohorts and cronies, WHO, the Johns Hopkins University School of Health, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. They are behind the corona disaster. Event 201 is the last testimony to this effect.

They are supported by a myriad of other world scene actors, and extended arms of the affluent oligarchs and institutions, who pretend to rule the world, the IMF, World Bank, FED, the globe’s pharma imperia, private banking and financial institutions, i.e. Wall Street and its international affiliates, and not to forget the world’s war industrial complex.

The Global Destruction that the WEF now wants to fix by a Global Reset, WEF style, has been – and is being caused – by an invisible enemy, a virus, a corona virus, the same that is at the base of most flue outbreaks. The western media trumpet messages of corona fear 24 x 7 into our brains, so it must be true. But, it ain’t true at all.

The corona pandemic, what is now called COVID-19, had been carefully planned, probably for decades, at least since the 2010 Rockefeller Report, which outlines the first phase of this global destruction that we are experiencing now “The Lockstep Scenario” (p. 18 of the 2010 Rockefeller Report).

The Event 201 was the last and final important exercise, a corona pandemic simulation and its consequences – 65 million deaths in 18 months and a devastated stock market, bankruptcies no end – was the “dry run” before the outbreak, first in China, and a few weeks later throughout the world. This event was co-sponsored by the WEF, the Bill Gates Foundation and the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health.

A number of today’s key actors in maintaining the momentum afloat – also called the Fear Indoctrination – were also present at Event 201, such as WHO, UNICEF, the IMF, the World Bank – and representatives from various UN agencies. The UN is fully complicit in this criminal and genocidal endeavor.

It shows that the UN has no teeth; a world body created after WWII, …. “The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights” (see this).

This just shows that that the WEF, a little NGO, has more power than the UN, and has in fact coopeted the UN and many of its agencies to follow the dictate of the elitist oligarchs, or the Dark Deep State – that stand behind the WEF.

Why do we allow it?

This Great Global Reset that the WEF predicts and plans, is of course driven by another agenda than the “Good of The World”. These self-nominated masters of the universe, some of the very same affluent people the WEF claims are the biggest risk for humanity, are now turning around and giving away their riches so that there will be a better equilibrium in the distribution of Mother Earth’s wealth, more justice, more respect for human rights, less consumerism and – an absolute protection of the environment and of unrenewable resources? – Not likely.

To the contrary, as has already been proven. The planned collapse of the world economy has created unfathomable misery by bankruptcies mostly of small and medium enterprises, to be gobbled up by large corporations – and by syphoning off what was left of the social safety nets in the Global North as well as the Global South. Another enormous shift of resources from the bottom to the top – as testified by the 434 billion dollars additional riches of US billionaires (see above) – and this does not include the sum of additional billionaire-wealth around the globe.

Having said that affluence is the biggest threat to the world, without going into any details, the WEF argues that true sustainability will only be achieved through drastic lifestyle changes” and calls “for a great reset of capitalism in the wake of the pandemic.”

An excerpt from “In the Stranglehold of the Untruth”, by Gerd Reuther, Rubikon News – (translated from German) – may put the WEF’s agenda in yet another perspective:

“A “pandemic“ of overwhelming false-positive test results, mask obligation without an increase of infection risk, Covid “mass-outbreaks” without sick people, gigantic money transfers without compensation. Corona made possible what no counter reformation or counter information was able to achieve. How many Covid-deaths did you know personally? Probably not many. In the meantime, however, almost everyone knows someone who went crazy. Societies have bypassed the planet on the way to the abyss.”

We can only speculate what the Great Reset could mean for the world’s citizens. Let’s give it a try. This is what the affluent oligarchs through their corporate, finance, pharma and military affiliation, may intend to impose on the “big masses below them”.

  • To achieve the WEF’s Great Global Reset, number one is maintaining or increasing the cadence of the ongoing false fear propaganda and lies, as described above by Gerd Reuther in Rubikon.News. This has to be a relentless effort and should not be a problem, as all western Anglo-American propaganda and news outlets and their other-languages affiliates are fully coopted.
  • Another one or more lockdowns with masks and social distancing, confinement, to further diminishing human contact through isolation; a “masked society” loses self-esteem, the fear and anxiety lower people’s immune system, making them vulnerable to all kinds of diseases, especially the mask obligation which has people breathe their own highly toxic CO2 –anything exceeding the level of 1,000 ppm CO2 is above tolerance – wearing a mask may increase inhaling CO2 to a rate of 10,000 ppm, or higher (see this).
  • Less consumerism, through extreme austerity, low-wage work, gigantic unemployment to continue, causing insecurity, anxieties and fear for survival, thus, preparing the populace’s mindset for more manipulation, more enslavement – and desperately waiting for THE VACCINE.
  • Replacing the fruit of work, namely wages for proud labor, by a universal basic income (UBI), creating a dependence on the system and demolishing human work and what’s left of self-esteem.
  • The WEF also calls for “stakeholder capitalism”. Anybody knows what it means? Google describes it as follows: Stakeholder capitalism is a system in which corporations are oriented to serve the interests of all their stakeholders. … Under this system, a company’s purpose is to create long-term value and not to maximize profits and enhance shareholder value at the cost of other stakeholder groups.”

In other words, this would be a drastic and welcome change from the neoliberal corporate shareholder capitalism, if by “other stakeholder groups” the common consumer is meant. Highly unlikely. – More likely is that long-term benefits (profits) should accumulate more equally to shareholders, as every shareholder is also a stakeholder. But not every stakeholder is a shareholder. Consumers, common people, are left behind.

  • And finally, there is a strong drive to reduce the world population; Bill Gates is one of the key drivers and has said so openly on various occasions. One of his most flagrant admissions is his TED Talk in 2010, “Innovating to Zero”, in California, where he says nonchalantly, “if we are doing a real good job, we may be able to reduce “the world population by 10% to 15% – see this. This eugenics agenda fits the WEF agenda perfectly. Less people, fewer resources. Those that remain, can be more abundantly shared among the beautiful and powerful.

To close this essay on the WEF’s Great Global Reset, let me repeat the quote from “The Politics of Obedience” by Étienne de la Boétie: “He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you.”


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

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; New Eastern Outlook (NEO); RT; Countercurrents, Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; Greanville Post; Defend Democracy Press; The Saker Blog, the and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from Strategic Culture Foundation

As I write on January 1, 2021, the new year is not starting very auspiciously.  Ominous pronouncements are coming from the usual high places and their media mouthpieces, announcing “highly contagious virus variants” of so-called Covid-19. 

Joseph Biden has warned of “A Very Dark Winter” to come. 

His use of that term “Dark Winter” has been echoed by officials everywhere adept at reading the talking points handed to them. The echo chamber is resounding with dark warnings.

Anthony Fauci and the CDC are predicting hundreds of thousands of deaths this month alone. 

These officials are now saying the vaccines they are rolling out will take time; will not eliminate the virus, etc.  Hedging their bets as they announce utter disaster to come, rather like a fire and brimstone warning from Jonathan Edwards for the sins of celebrating festive times.

Guess who will be blamed? 

Grim projections are following the holidays like buzzards to a dead carcass.  Just follow the mainstream corporate media headline news to confirm this.

You don’t need any linked directions from me.

I prefer to be brief so you can read about the incredibly important 2014 book by Graeme MacQueen, The 2007 Anthrax Deception. 

Then read his book. (click front cover to order from Clarity Press)

His analysis of the anthrax attacks tied to 9/11 sheds important light on the current corona virus crisis.

Then listen to this new video – before it is disappeared – with Heiko Schöning speaking about the 2001 anthrax deceptions and those being perpetrated today. 

Schöning is a German doctor and one of the world-wide leaders fighting to expose the truth about COVID-19 and the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Covid “Dark Winter”: Political Announcements of “Highly Contagious Virus Variants”

First published on January 1, 2019, minor edits

Today, Cubans are commemorating the 62nd  anniversary of their independence. On this day in 1959, the Cuban Revolution was successfully conducted by Fidel Castro’s 26th of July Movement[i] and became an enduring symbol of resistance to neo-colonialism, capitalism, and hegemony. As a result, Cuba’s corrupt and brutal dictator, Fulgencio Batista (1901-1973), who had the full backing of the US government, left the island and escaped to the Dominican Republic, along with some of his loyal supporters. The victory of the Cuban Revolution meant that January 1, 1959 marked the first time in 467 years that Cubans were not subject to serfdom and exploitation by a foreign power.

Spain was the first country to exercise dominion over Cuba, beginning in 1510. However, Spain’s defeat at the hands of the Americans in the Spanish-American War of 1898 did not bring about the emancipation that Cubans were expecting, as the island was subsequently transformed into a US neo-colony.

In the period between the conclusion of the Spanish-American War in 1898 and the victory of the Cuban Revolution in 1959, the US exercised imperial power over Cuba, exploiting its natural and human resources, and dictating its domestic and foreign policies. When Batista, who was supported by Washington since 1933, came to power via coup d’état on March 10, 1952, he and his corrupt associates immediately collaborated with Washington and the American mafia to facilitate the continued exploitation Cuba’s resources.

In particular, he permitted the American mafia to take control of all the casinos on the island in exchange for millions of dollars being deposited into his Swiss bank account (Díaz-Briquets and Pérez-López 2006, 77). Meanwhile, throughout the entire period when Americans exercised imperial power over Cuba, Washington used its authority to advance the interests of American corporations, which ended up controlling all of the economic sectors on the island, in addition to gaining ownership of the best agriculture land, mines and natural resources. In fact, ‘[b]y the 1950s, the U.S. controlled 80 percent of Cuban utilities, 90 percent of Cuban mines, close to 100 percent of the country’s oil refineries, 90 percent of its cattle ranches, and 40 percent of the sugar industry’[ii]. The domination of Cuba at the hands of the Americans was best explained by Fidel Castro (October 10, 1968 in Manzanillo) when he stated:

the Yankees took over our economy. In 1898, US holdings in Cuba amounted to 50 million pesos; in 1906 they amounted to some 160 million; and in 1927, to 1.45 billion…I don’t believe there is another country in which economic penetration has taken place so incredibly quickly, allowing the imperialists to take over our best lands, all our mines, our natural sources. They controlled the public services, the greater part of the sugar industry, the most efficient industries, the electricity industry, the telephone service, the railroads, the most important businesses and the banks.

The island was essentially a playground for Americans, featuring gambling, drug trafficking, the mafia, gangsters, and prostitution, with Batista serving as their loyal puppet. Although Batista’s dictatorial and corrupt regime oppressed the Cuban population, violated human rights and committed countless crimes against democratic principles (equality and freedom), it was never criticized nor condemned by Washington. Batista’s dictatorial rule was accompanied by extreme rural poverty, misery, illiteracy, an increase in the number of sex workers, exploitation, and high unemployment rates. Almost half of Cuba’s adults and 37.5% of the total population were illiterate, and as much as 70% of all children did not have access to a teacher during the period of US dominance. Furthermore, most Cubans could not obtain housing or access decent healthcare services, and electricity and water infrastructure were very limited. These conditions, exacerbated by American domination in all segments of the economy, led to most Cubans experiencing exploitation, racism, police brutality, starvation and humiliation. Women were particularly vulnerable to exploitation, as many girls from urban areas elected to serve as prostitutes for American tourists and businessmen. It did not take very long for the American mafia operating on the island to realize that they could profit from this situation, which eventually led to them operating almost 300 brothels in Havana to supplement the money they earned from selling illegal drugs.

These appalling conditions inspired Fidel Castro and approximately 165 of his compatriots to make an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the Batista dictatorship on July 26, 1953. Following their failed attack against the Moncada military barracks near Santiago de Cuba, Castro was sentenced 15 years in prison, of which he served only two years on account of a strong amnesty campaign that was organized by relatives and colleagues of the prisoners, as well as opponents of the Batista regime. After his release, Castro relocated to Mexico because of threats made against his life by the Batista government. There he organized, trained and armed a new group of revolutionaries that came to be known as ‘the 26th of July Movement’, commemorating the date of his first attempt to overthrow the Batista regime.

Fidel Castro and Camilo Cienfuegos, January 1959

By the time the 26th of July Movement was ready to attempt its overthrow of the Batista regime, it counted a total of 82 revolutionaries within its ranks, including Fidel, as the main organizer, Camilo Cienfuegos (1932-1959), Raúl Castro, Ernesto Ché Guevara (1928-1967), and Juan Almeida Bosque (1927-2009). In November 1956, all 82 of these revolutionaries left Mexico for Cuba on a 10-day voyage aboard a yacht called Granma, which only had the capacity to carry 12 passengers. Upon arriving in Cuba, they advanced to the Sierra Maestra mountain range in order to meet up with other supporters of the revolutionary movement against the Batista dictatorship. However, they were met by many attacks from the Cuban Army, and only 12 of the 82 revolutionaries survived to reach Sierra Maestra. Nonetheless, the survivors of the Granma yacht and supporters of the revolutionary movement on the island continued the guerrilla war by organizing resistance groups in towns and cities across the island. The Batista government responded by arresting and torturing large numbers of civilians in an effort to weaken and eventually defeat the revolutionaries. It was unsuccessful, as the guerrilla war prevailed in 1959, overthrowing one of the most brutal and repressive dictators in Latin American history, who managed to murder more than 20,000 Cubans and transform the country into a police state during his seven years in power, all with the full backing of his supporters in the United States.

Sierra Maestra, 1957, Fidel castro (fourt from left)

After the revolution, Fidel Castro governed Cuba, first as Prime Minister from 1959 to 1976, then as President from 1976 until 2008. From the outset, his government consistently defended and promoted anti-imperialism and instituted measures aimed at ending the colonization, humiliation and exploitation of Cuba at the hands of the United States, which included shutting down all casinos and brothels on the island, marginalizing the mafia, and curtailing international tourism. One of the first acts of the new government was to nationalize foreign enterprises and utilities, including banks and telephone companies, most of which belonged to American companies. Additionally, refineries that were controlled by American corporations such as Shell and Esso were nationalized and Cuba signed a trade agreement to purchase oil from the Soviet Union. The Castro government also instituted a number of land and agrarian reforms, including measures aimed at limiting land ownership and forbidding foreigners from purchasing or possessing land in the country. In an effort to improve Cuban living standards, education and health care were made universally accessible to all citizens without exception. The Castro socialist regime also made large investments in housing construction and infrastructure improvements, which included building 600 miles of roads in six months. Through such actions, Cuba earned the reputation of being ‘the first territory free from imperialist domination in Latin America and the Caribbean’ (Fidel Castro, May 1, 2003 Havana).

American officials were unanimously opposed to the Cuban Revolution and the socialist reforms being implemented by the Castro government, viewing them as direct attacks against US interests in Cuba. President Dwight Eisenhower became furious with Castro’s nationalization process and anti-imperialist policies and retaliated decisively, eventually breaking off diplomatic relations with the island on January 3, 1961. Eisenhower also responded by collaborating with the mafia and approving efforts on the part of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to overthrow Cuba’s socialist government, which came to be known as the ‘Program of Covert Action Against Castro’. These efforts culminated in the invasion at the Bay of Pigs on April 17, 1961, where approximately 1,400 Cuban exiles that were trained, armed and funded by the CIA attacked Cuba in an attempt to topple Fidel Castro’s socialist regime. Although this failed invasion was executed when John F. Kennedy was President, the CIA began planning this operation in March 1959, when the Eisenhower administration was still in power.

Subsequently, in 1962, the Kennedy government imposed a full commercial, economic and financial embargo on Cuba, which blocked virtually all trade between the two countries and banned U.S. citizens from travelling to the island. Since being instituted, the trade embargo has been accepted as the best mechanism to reverse the socialist revolution by all of the subsequent US administrations. The rationale behind the imposition of the embargo was best explained by Lester D. Mallory, former deputy assistant Secretary of State, on April 6, 1960:

The majority of the Cuban people support Castro. There is no effective political opposition… The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection and hardship… every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba… a line of action which… makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.

The US embargo is widely accepted as the primary obstacle to the development of the Cuban economy since 1962, with the Cuban Foreign Ministry estimating total damages at more than $1.1 trillion as of 2014. Regardless, Washington does not consider the economic embargo to be a violation of human rights and insists that regime change is a prerequisite for lifting it, which runs counter to world opinion.

In addition to the commercial, economic and financial blockade, the Americans also employed a wide variety of other tactics aimed at destabilising and destroying Cuba’s socialist regime, which included funding Cuban exiles to organize terrorist attacks and sabotage the island’s economy, engaging in chemical and biological warfare, imposing economic and political sanctions that inhibited Cuba’s ability to access credit and loans from international banks and prevented free trade, and supporting CIA efforts to assassinate Fidel Castro. Although some estimates put the total number of CIA assassination attempts against Fidel Castro at 638, he has managed to become one of the world’s longest serving leaders of a nation. Interestingly, against the backdrop of all these attacks and efforts to reverse the Revolution, Fidel Castro consistently expressed his willingness to enter into negotiations to normalize relations with the US; however, he made it explicitly clear that while economic problems could be discussed, communism was not on the table. Specifically, Castro (May 1, 1961 in Havana) stated that:

Cuban people are capable of establishing their own government. We have never considered the possibility of discussing this. We will discuss only matters that do not affect our sovereignty.

In 1991, Cuba formally requested UN assistance in ending the blockade. Since then, the UN General Assembly has voted on a non-binding resolution criticizing the ongoing impact of the embargo every year, which has passed with overwhelming support on each occasion. In the most recent vote held in October 2018, 189 of the 193 member states comprising the General Assembly voted for the non-binding resolution, with only the U.S. and Israel voting against it and Moldova and the Ukraine abstaining. In fact, no more than four countries have ever voted against this resolution over its 27-year history, with the U.S and Israel being the only two countries that have opposed it every time. Support for the resolution has grown steadily, as evidenced by the declining number of abstentions since the initial vote, as members of the General Assembly, including many U.S. allies, cannot justify the devastating economic impacts of the embargo on the daily lives of the Cuban people.

The trade embargo targets all Cuban people indiscriminately, which directly violates articles 2[iii], 13[iv], and 25[v]of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). In fact, a thorough investigation conducted by the American Association for World Health[vi]in 1997 declared that ‘the U.S. embargo of Cuba has dramatically harmed the health and nutrition of large numbers of ordinary Cuban citizens…the U.S. embargo has caused a significant rise in suffering-and even deaths-in Cuba. For several decades the U.S. embargo has imposed significant financial burdens on the Cuban health care system…since 1992 the number of unmet medical needs-patients going without essential drugs or doctors performing medical procedures without adequate equipment-has sharply accelerated. This trend is directly linked to the fact that in 1992 the U.S. trade embargo—one of the most stringent embargoes of its kind, prohibiting the sale of food and sharply restricting the sale of medicines and medical equipment-was further tightened by the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act.’[vii]Furthermore, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights also confirmed ‘the impact of such sanctions on the human rights of the Cuban people and, therefore, insists that the embargo be lifted.’[viii]

After enduring significant hardships from repeated attempts to destroy Fidel Castro’s socialist regime on the part of Americans, Cubans were hit particularly hard by the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which produced what came to be known as the ‘special period’ from 1989 to 1995. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba lost its most important trade partner and the large subsidies emanating from the socialist block. Approximately, 80% of Cuban exports were destined for the Soviet Union, while a similar magnitude of imports originated there. As a result, the Cuban economy collapsed, contracting by more than 40% in 1992 alone. This led to severe shortages of basic needs, including food and medication, which resulted in malnutrition and a significant increase serious health problems during the special period. Of course, the US could never pass up such a grandiose opportunity to tighten the screws further by enacting measures to strengthen its embargo against Cuba with the passage of the Cuban Democracy Act in 1992 and the Helms-Burton Act in 1996.

In response to the hardships associated with the special period, Fidel Castro’s government initiated a number of quasi-free market economic reforms and sought foreign investment to reinvigorate the economy, which included permitting small-scale private enterprises, reopening the island to foreign tourism in 1993-94, and investing in biotechnology. In fact, the reforms implemented during the special period are the reason why many of the hotel and resort chains currently operating on the island are actually joint ventures between the Cuban government and foreign companies, primarily from Spain and Canada. That would suggest that Cuba has been trying to rejuvenate its socialist system since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, as opposed to abandoning its ideals in favour of capitalism.

Despite the disastrous economic consequences of the special period and the strengthening of the American embargo that accompanied it, Cuban socialism continued to produce many impressive achievements, including the attainment of full employment, universal access to free education and health care services, and improving social justice. As a result, the island was able to achieve higher literacy rates and life expectancy, and lower child mortality, child malnutrition, and poverty rates compared to any other Latin American country (Navarro, 2014, Vandepitte, 2011). In fact, the World Bank acknowledged that Cuba’s international ‘success in the fields of education and health, with social services that exceeds those of most developing countries and, in certain sectors, are comparable to those of the developed nations.’ Furthermore, according to estimates from the United Nations Development Program, Cuba ranks third in Latin America on the Human Development Index (HDI). More precisely, according to the United Nations Human Development Report 2017, ‘Cuba ’s 2017 HDI of 0.777 is above the average of 0.757 for countries in the high human development group and above the average of 0.758 for countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.’

In addition to its success in areas of human development, Cuba has also been active in providing practical foreign aid in the form of sending highly-trained specialists, such as teachers, doctors, and engineers, to developing countries where they are urgently needed. Since 1959, Cuba has sent more than 300,000 healthcare professionals to various countries in Latin American and Africa that were otherwise unable to meet the health care needs of their citizens on their own. This is a practice for which Cuba is particularly well-regarded.

Currently, around 50,000 Cuban health workers are operating in 66 countries. To put that figure into perspective, in 2014, ‘Cuban medical staff were caring for more than 70 million people in the world, more than the whole G8 plus the World Health Organisation and Médicins Sans Frontières put together.’[ix]Cuba also helps combat doctor shortages by providing free medical school for students from various developing countries. In fact, Havana’s Latin American Medical School is ‘the largest medical school in the world’, producing approximately 29,000 doctors from 90 countries since 2005. The quality of the Cuban health care system has been acknowledged by former US president Jimmy Carter, who stated that: ‘Of all the so-called developing nations, Cuba has by far the best health system. And their outreach program to other countries is unequalled anywhere.’

Castro’s government was also well-known for its commitment to the environment, as demonstrated by the country’s sustainable use of natural resources and its efforts to combat over-consumption and global warming. Since 2006, Cuba was the only country in the world that managed to attain sustainable development, as defined by the United Nations Development Programme. In 2014, Cuba registered a low ecological footprint[x]of less than 1.8 hectares per capita, well below the 2.8 world average.

Outside of the western mainstream press, Cuba is actually widely-renowned for its commitment to peace, social justice, equality, and humanitarian aid since its socialist Revolution in 1959. Nowhere else in the world did the ‘spirit of international solidarity become so deeply rooted’ than in Cuban (Fidel Castro 2003). In 1963, Fidel Castro’s government organized the ‘Committee in Solidarity with Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia’, which sought to provide these countries with assistance during the Vietnam War by sending Cuban medical professionals, engineers and technological advice. Castro’s government was also an enduring supporter of Palestinian liberation, as evidenced by Cuba becoming the first country to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964. In addition to consistently expressing solidarity with the Palestinian cause, Castro permitted numerous Palestinian students to study in Cuba, sent 4,000 Cuban soldiers to defend Syrian territory from invasion by the Israelis during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, and condemned Israel’s sealing off of the Gaza strip in 2012 as a ‘Palestinian Holocaust’. Fidel Castro also condemned the disastrous NATO-led military intervention of Libya that commenced in March 2011. Such actions and strong positions have made Fidel Castro highly-respected throughout the Arab world since the early years of the Cuban Revolution.

Cuba also played a prominent role in liberation movements on the African continent. For example, in 1961, Cuba supported the National Liberation Front in its fight against French colonialism in Algeria. Subsequently, in October 1963, after Algeria had been liberated from France, Cuba sent troops to help safeguard Algeria’s recently acquired independence against Moroccan expansionism during the Sand War (Fidel Castro, May 1, 2003 Havana). Cuba also sent material and military assistance in support of the Marxist Movement for the Liberation of Angola in the late 1960s. After Angola gained independence from Portugal in November 1975, Cuba supported the leftist People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) by sending 25,000 troops to help repel interventions on the part of South Africa and Zaire, which were supported by Washington. After Zaire and South Africa withdrew their forces, Cuban troops remained to support the MPLA government during much of the Angolan Civil War (1975-2002), eventually leaving in 1991.

The impact of the Cuban Revolution was not limited to freeing Cubans from subservience to American domination; it was also viewed as a model for national liberation movements opposing imperialism and colonialism throughout Asia, Africa, and South and Central America. ‘The case of Cuba is not an isolated one. It would be an error to think of it only as the case of Cuba. The case of Cuba is that of all underdeveloped nations. It is the case of the Congo, it is the case of Egypt, it is the case of Algeria, it is the case of Iran, and finally, it is the case of Panama, which wants its canal back. It is the case of Puerto Rico, whose national spirit they are destroying. It is the case of Honduras, a portion of whose territory has been seized. In short, without specifically referring to other countries, the case of Cuba is the case of all underdeveloped and colonized countries…The problems of Latin America are like the problems of the rest of the underdeveloped world, in Africa and Asia. The world is divided up among the monopolies, and those same monopolies that we find in Latin America are also found in the Middle East. Oil in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and in every corner of the earth is in the hands of monopolistic companies that are controlled by the financial interests of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France…The monopolistic interests are not concerned with the development of the peoples. What they want is to exploit the natural resources of our countries and exploit the peoples.’[xi]

The Cuban people have been struggling against the ‘most formidable imperial power ever known to humankind’ for 60 years. It could be said that, ‘never has the world witnessed such an unequal fight’ when considering the relative sizes, populations, and military strengths of the two countries (Fidel Castro, May 1, 2003 Havana). However, despite these disparities in favour of the US, ‘Cuba crushed the Bay of Pigs mercenary invasion organized by a US administration, thereby preventing a direct military intervention…In 1962, Cuba confronted with honor, and without a single concession, the risk of being attacked with dozens of nuclear weapons…It stoically endured thousands acts of sabotage and terrorist attacks organized by the US government. It thwarted hundreds of assassination plots against the leaders of the revolution’ (Fidel Castro, May 1, 2003 Havana). Cuba was able to achieve these victories because ‘there is something more powerful than weapons, [no matter how sophisticated and powerful those weapons may be]: ideas, reason and the morality of cause’ (Fidel Castro, May 1, 2003 Havana). These are things that are not ‘born of human beings’ nor do ‘they perish with an individual’ (Fidel Castro, June 23, 2007).

‘Long live free Cuba! Long live the Victorious Revolution!’ (Fidel Castro)


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

Global Research contributor Dr. Birsen Filip holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Ottawa.


[i]The 26th of July Movement became Cuba’s Communist Party in October 1965.


[iii]‘Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.’ (http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/)

[iv]‘(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state’ and ‘(2) everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.’ (http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/).

[v]‘(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control’ (http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/).

[vi]‘The American Association for World Health (AAWH) was founded in 1953 as a private, non-profit charitable and educational organization, and serves as the U.S. Committee for the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Its purposes are to inform the American public about major health challenges that affect people both here and abroad, and to promote cooperative solutions that emphasize grassroots involvement.’ (http://archives.usaengage.org/archives/studies/cuba.html)




[x]An ecological footprint refers to the biologically productive area that is necessary to provide for everything that a person uses including fruits and vegetables, the consumption of energy, fibers, space for buildings and roads, etc.

[xi]Fidel Castro speaking at the United Nations General Assembly in 1960.

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The 62nd Anniversary of the Cuban Revolution: An Unprecedented Chapter in World History

Canada: The 2009 Killer H1N1 Vaccine

January 1st, 2021 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Of relevance to the current debate on the Covid19 vaccine, this article on the H1N1 vaccine was first published on November 20, 2009.

In 2009, the Canadian media provided us with detailed coverage on the adverse health impacts of the vaccine including two recorded deaths, one in Quebec and the other in Manitoba. What is the situation today with regard to media coverage? With some exceptions, the mainstream media is not informing the public. And reports on the adverse impacts of the covid-19 vaccine published by social media and the online independent media are the object of various forms of censorship.


“It is a serious thing [vaccine] that has the potential to kill” according to Dr. Neil Rau, an infectious disease expert, in a CTV interview, but do not worry: “leading experts insist, the benefits of the H1N1 vaccine vastly outweigh the risks” (Swine Flu Support Center, emphasis added)

A new development in the H1N1 Vaccine Saga is unfolding in Canada.

Whereas health officials are pushing for an acceleration of the vaccination program,  there is evidence of  so-called “unusual adverse reactions” including three recently recorded deaths directly resulting from the vaccine.

In the meantime, health authorities have called for the withdrawal of 170,000 (higher risk) doses of the vaccine produced by GlaxoSmithKline. The initiative, of which the importance is being downplayed, is said to have come from the manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline, which expressed concern on higher than normal adverse reactions to the vaccine.

“Canada’s H1N1 flu vaccine manufacturer has asked the provinces to temporarily discontinue vaccinating Canadians from a lot of vaccine shipped in October due to a higher risk of adverse reactions, says a Manitoba health official.

Dr. Joel Kettner, Manitoba’s chief public health officer, said Thursday that GlaxoSmithKline has asked that the October batch be taken out of circulation because it produced serious and immediate anaphylactic reactions in one out of 20,000 vaccinations, compared with one out of 100,000 in other shipments.

“We’ve been asked by the manufacturer GSK to not use this vaccine at this time pending further investigation,” he said. (Winnipeg Free Press, 20 November 2009)

The government is involved in a cover-up. The initial headlines stated “more than 100,000 doses”, but then read on, the number is 170,000 doses.

The CTV report admits that “it is a serious thing, it has the potential to kill”.

Too Late to Withdraw the 170,000 Defective Doses

The question is whether the doses can be withdrawn or whether they have already been used. The first news reports from Manitoba indicate that:

Of the 63,000 doses shipped [to Manitoba], only 630 remained unused by the four regional health authorities in Manitoba that received them. (Ibid)

This report would suggest that the risky GSK vaccine doses have already been used.

A subsequent report confirms that out of the 63,000 doses, 900 unused doses of the H1N1 vaccine were withdrawn by health authorities “after health authorities received word other vaccines from the same batch have been causing higher rates of allergic reactions than expected.” (Flu vaccine batch pulled in Manitoba, Winnipeg Sun, 20 November 2009).

The question is what happened to the remaining 62,100 doses of the higher risk vaccine batch, which were used to vaccinate people in Manitoba?

Has there been a followup regarding those people in Manitoba who received the higher risk H1N1 vaccine injection? What is the situation in other provinces in which the higher risk vaccine does were distributed?

Manitoba Health authorities casually confirm, in this regard, that “most of the vaccine Manitoba received from the suspect lot had already been used by the time the province received the alert on Wednesday” [November 18, 2009]. (Winnipeg Free Press, 20 November 2009, emphasis added)

Manitoba and Quebec : Three deaths resulting from the H1N1 Vaccine

The news reports have highlighted deaths resulting from the H1N1 flu (often unconfirmed), while obfuscating several recorded deaths resulting directly from the vaccine. These vaccine related deaths are occurring at the very outset of the vaccination program,

According to CTV News, 20 November 2009) “The province is currently investigating two deaths — both adults who died within seven days of getting the H1N1 shot” (Family questions if H1N1 shot caused Manitoba woman’s death, November 20, 2009, emphasis added).

Manitoba officials acknowledge  69 “adverse events” after people received the swine flu shot, including the two deaths. (CBC.ca report, 17 November 2009)

However, unless the families speak out, the authorities will not provide details. CTV interviewed the family of one of the victims. No details on the other death in Manitoba are available:

“The family of a 38-year-old Manitoba woman who died five days after receiving the H1N1 vaccine are looking for answers as to why it happened.

Soo Lee Wong and her daughter, Angela Truong, both got the H1N1 shot on November 5th.

The family says Wong, who had diabetes, started getting sick a day after getting vaccinated and died a few days later.

Doctors told the family Wong died of a blood infection. More tests will be done to see if the vaccine played any role.

Wong’s husband, Thoon Truong, is also caring for his seven-year-old daughter Angela, who has been in the hospital with a fever and swollen, painful legs.

He wants to know whether the two cases related to the vaccine or to something else.

The province is currently investigating two deaths — both adults who died within seven days of getting the H1N1 shot.

Although it’s still early, Manitoba’s chief medical officer of health Dr. Joel Kettner says immunizations were not likely the cause of the deaths. CTV News | Family questions if H1N1 shot caused Manitoba woman’s death, November 20, 2009)

It should be noted that these two deaths in Manitoba may have been associated with the injection of the higher risk H1N1 vaccine doses, which health authorities had called for withdrawal.

Quebec: One Death

An 80-year-old Quebec man was reported dead after taking the H1N1 Swine Flu vaccination. Health officials have dismissed the case, “stating that it’s too soon to link the death and vaccine.”  Quebec man dies after taking H1N1 vaccine, Digital Journal, 18 November 2009).

The Quebec health authorities have refused to provide details:

“Quebec’s Director of Public Health Protection, Dr. Horacio Arruda, did not know why the man took the vaccine and that final test results, which are expected to come in December, will determine whether or not the man died from the vaccine.

Canada.com reports the man died in the last three weeks but provincial officials declined to reveal details, citing confidentiality concerns. Arruda has said that most allergic reactions occur right away, which is the reason why many patients are asked to stay in the centers, “We can’t say there is a causal association between the death and the flu shot.”

Nevertheless, Arruda is confident that the death will not discourage people from taking the vaccine but urged that serious reactions to the H1N1 shot are rare, “I understand that everyone is worried.”” (Quebec man dies after taking H1N1 vaccine, Digital Journal, 18 November 2009)

The statements by senior health officials are notoriously ambiguous: while they concur that: “there is no evidence the vaccine is dangerous.”, they nonetheless acknowledge the deaths resulting from the vaccine (Statement of Quebec’s Director of Public Health Protection, Dr. Horacio Arruda, (The Canadian Press: Quebec health officials investigating possible death from H1N1 vaccine. November 18, 2009).


Of relevance to the ongoing debate on the Covid vaccine, this incisive article by Dr. Gary Kohls was first published by Global Research on May 3, 2017.


The full extent of the Gardasil scandal needs to be assessed: everyone knew when this vaccine was released on the American market that it would prove to be worthless…I predict that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time because at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill, serve no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers. Gardasil is useless and costs a fortune and decision-makers at all levels are aware of it! Cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, paralysis of the lower limbs, vaccine-induced MS and vaccine-induced encephalitis can be found, whatever the vaccine.” Dr Bernard Dalbergue (former Merck employee)

“No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable…for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death.” – President Ronald Reagan, as he signed The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986, absolving drug companies from all medico-legal liability when children die, are injured or are disabled from vaccine injuries, thus reversing many of the intentions of the original legislation establishing the FDA

“The human immune system is divided into two major classes: 

1) Cellular Immunity,(for which injected vaccines do absolutely nothing, except to weaken it) located in the mucous membranes of the gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts and their respective lymph nodes and

2) Humoral Immunity, with production of antigen-specific antibodies by plasma cells in the bone marrow. For eons of time the mucous membranes of the gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts have been the primary sites of infectious microbe entry into the body so that, of necessity, mucosal/cellular immunity has evolved as the primary defense system, with humoral immunity serving a secondary or backup role…Vaccines are reversing these roles, attempting to substitute vaccine-induced humoral immunity for the far more efficient mucosal immunity, the latter in turn undergoing a process of “atrophy of disuse” as a result of this role-switching.”Harold Buttram, MD 

“In the field of chemical toxicology it is universally recognized that combinations of toxins may bring exponential increases of toxicity; ie, a combination of two chemicals may bring a 10-fold increase in toxicity, three chemicals 100-fold increases. This same principle almost certainly applies to the immunosuppressive effects of viral vaccines when administered in combination, as with the MMR vaccine, among which the measles vaccine is (known to be)exceptionally immunosuppresive.” – Harold Buttram, MD

“…the NIH (National Institutes of Health) is incapable of conducting conflict-free research. …it is clear that the system managing our vaccine program is corrupt beyond repair and needs a complete overhaul.”   Lori Mellwain, National Autism Association board chair

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” –Upton Sinclair, whose 1903 novel “Jungle” led to President Theodore Roosevelt’s pushing through the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.


Image result for POTS syndrome

Last year there was an article published in my local newspaper describing an outbreak of a syndrome afflicting a group of young women. The syndrome was eventually labeled by the Mayo Clinic as Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS). As with most of the many iatrogenic illnesses (whose known causes are drug-induced or are caused by physician-prescribed “treatments” such as vaccine administration), the medical establishment regards POTS as having “no known cause”.

The young women involved were students that had, according to the article, been ill for an unspecified number of months. The young women were underclass women in a local high school, where they had found each other and started a support group. At least two of them had had symptoms since age the early teens, the typical age at which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) mandate (for pre-sexually active girls) a series of three intramuscular, aluminum-containing inoculations using one of the two FDA-approved, so-called “anti-cervical cancer” vaccines (the Human Papilloma Virus [HPV] vaccines Gardisil and Cervarix).

The Big Pharma giant Merck (of Vioxx and MMR/mumps infamy) makes and markets Gardisil and the equally large Big Pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline (of Paxil and Wellbutrin infamy) makes and markets Cervarix. Gardisil contains 4 genetically-engineered human papilloma virus-like antigens in it and Cervarix contains 2. The two vaccines have been approved by the heavily conflicted FDA (corrupted by industry shills) for safety and efficacy and have been pushed by the equally heavily conflicted CDC and AAP. The vaccines are described in more detail in previous Duty to Warn columns (see the links below).

The young women had been sickened for months with symptoms that included (according to the newspaper article) dizziness, light-headedness, fainting, headaches, stomach pains, cramps, nausea, “brain fog”, flushing, purplish legs, reddened hands and numbing fatigue. The most frustrating symptom mentioned in the article was that of chronic fatigue.

Because I had been doing a lot of research on the American epidemic of vaccine-induced (and therefore iatrogenic) illnesses, I wondered if some of the women had received their series of aluminum-containing HPV shots – or perhaps may have received other vaccinations known to cause vaccine-injuries. Unfortunately I was unable to find out more specific clinical details, but the information given made me want to search the literature.

Eventually, I found out that some of the young women had eventually gone to the Mayo Clinic where they received a diagnosis of Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (“of unknown etiology”) – and therefore the girls were offered no cure or suggestions about prevention. And one can assume that they weren’t given any advice about avoiding receiving any toxic substance that could have triggered the illness. Read on.

Even though the FDA approved the vaccine to (theoretically) prevent HPV-associated cancer of the uterine cervix, no one will ever be certain if any cancers will actually be prevented until 20 – 30 years from now, because that is how long cancer of the cervix takes to develop after exposure to the carcinogenic virus. And the clinical trial results presented to the FDA only lasted a few years! Nevertheless, the FDA approved the inoculants, and the CDC and AAP immediately started recommending the very expensive shots (up to $130 per shot, not including office visit charges!) for girls of middle school age before there is any sexual activity).

Image result for HPV vaccineMerck’s safety review group acknowledged a number of adverse events observed in the clinical trials of Gardisil, which physicians are supposed to inform patients or parents about before obtaining permission to inject the hazardous substance into the bodies of children.

Gardisil’s product insert states:

 “local injection site reactions, syncope (fainting), dizziness, nausea, headaches, hypersensitivity reactions (such as rashes, hives, itching and anaphylaxis), Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), transverse myelitis, motor neuron disease, venous thromboembolic events (blood clots), pancreatitis, autoimmune disorders, pregnancy, and death.” 

The website of the prestigious Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, just like the websites of most other major clinics that benefit financially from aggressive over-vaccination agendas, mentions the following list of innocuous-sounding adverse effects from HPV inoculations:

“may cause soreness at the injection site (the arm), headaches and low-grade fever. Sometimes dizziness or fainting occurs after the injection. Remaining seated for 15 minutes after the injection can reduce the risk of fainting. In addition, Cervarix might also cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or abdominal pain.”   

Note that the Mayo Clinic cleverly fails to mention any of the serious life-threatening adverse effects that were listed by the manufacturers, specifically not mentioning death or autoimmune disorders. The principle of informed consent is obviously being side-stepped – even by the Mayo Clinic.

Soon after Gardisil was introduced into the CDC’s recommended pediatric vaccination schedule, the independent Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) started reporting numerous adverse events related to the HPV injections, including fainting, pain at the injection site, headaches, nausea, fever, tonic-clonic (jerking) muscular movements and seizure-like activity. Fainting was particularly common after injections. The fainting spells sometimes caused serious injuries, such as head injuries.

Just two years after Gardisil’s introduction into the US market, VAERS reported 32 deaths, more or less equally distributed after the first, second or third inoculation. The median interval from vaccination to death was 14.5 days.

Other less-frequent illnesses reported by VAERS included:

“autoimmune hemolytic anemia, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, lymphadenopathy, pulmonary embolus, nausea, pancreatitis, vomiting, asthenia (weakness), chills, death, fatigue, malaise, autoimmune diseases, hypersensitivity reactions (including anaphylactic/anaphylactoid reactions, bronchospasm, and urticaria), arthralgia, myalgia, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, dizziness, Guillain-Barré syndrome, headache, motor neuron disease, paralysis, seizures, syncope (sometimes resulting in falling with injury), transverse myelitis, and deep venous thrombosis.” 

According to the VAERS website, as of January 2015 there have been 220 HPV vaccine-related deaths, 1,283 chronically disabled patients, 3,945 hospital admissions, 12,305 admissions to emergency rooms, 595 abnormal Pap smears (including 262 cases of cervical dysplasia and 100 cases of cervical cancer!). Note that the FDA has previously admitted that as few as 1% of adverse reactions to drugs or vaccines are ever reported by patients or physicians so these numbers are likely to be falsely low. The real number of adverse events related to HPV could be as high as 100 times more that the reported statistics above!

Vaccine-related illnesses or deaths, just like many chronic illnesses from toxic exposures, can be delayed by months. Therefore it is likely that adverse reactions to any vaccine (or prescription drug, for that matter) may not be recognized by the patient or her doctor as being caused by the toxic substance, particularly the occurrence of a vaccine-induced chronic fatigue syndrome, autoimmune disorders or POTS.

It is also likely, since physicians are widely and thoroughly indoctrinated into the belief system that all vaccines are totally safe and totally effective, they would tend to be unwilling to admit to any vaccine-related adverse event.

I end this article with some more quotes from vaccinology and immunology experts about the serious problems of America’s vaccine industry (and the studied lack of media attention to the truth about vaccines and iatrogenic illnesses) and then end with a few excerpts from some of the multitude of medical journal articles that support the assertions and warnings above.

Knowledgeable and informed observers of Big Pharma’s tendency to habitually lie about the value of their newest blockbuster products are shocked at how the medical establishment has accepted these new and dangerous vaccines without much skepticism. Just claiming that Gardisil will prevent future cancers of the cervix is almost laughable – if it weren’t so serious.

My column on the absurdity of the medical profession mandating a series of routine HPV vaccinations to all adolescents on the untested and unproven theory that they will prevent cancer 20 – 30 years in the future, can be accessed at:


My column about vaccine-induced injuries, including vaccine-induced chronic childhood illnesses, vaccine-induced autoimmune disorders, aluminum adjuvant toxicity and vaccine-induced mitochondrial toxicity can be accessed at:


And my column about the vaccine compensation program that is designed to compensate victims of vaccine-induced injury or death is at:


Below are some useful quotes and also abstracts from peer-reviewed medical journal articles that pertain to and support this discussion.


“The autism epidemic is real, and excessive vaccinations are the cause.” – Dr Bernard Rimland

“Completely unvaccinated children have less chronic disease and a lower risk of autism than

vaccinated children.” — J. B. Handley, Jr – founder of Operation Rescue

“The soaring incidence of physical and mental illnesses among today’s children (may be) causally related to current childhood vaccine programs. Primary among these is the large-scale contamination of the measles, mumps, and influenza vaccines with retroviruses capable of engrafting their genetics into the DNA of childhood recipients. This is rendered more likely because of the cavalier disregard with which combinations of viral vaccines are now being administered, primarily involving the MMR vaccines…in spite of the toxicology principle that combinations of toxins may bring exponential (10-fold or 100-fold) increases in toxicity.” – Harold Buttram, MD

“The really sad thing is the amount of doctors I’ve spoken to who say to me, ‘Del, I know that vaccines are causing autism, but I won’t say it on camera because the pharmaceutical industry will destroy my career just like they did to Andy Wakefield.'”  — Del Bigtree, Producer of “Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe”

“…our current results are consistent with the existing evidence on the toxicology and pharmacokinetics of Aluminum adjuvants which altogether strongly implicate these compounds as contributors to the rising prevalence of neurobehavioral disorders in children. Given that autism has devastating consequences in a life of a child, and that currently in the developed world over 1% of children suffer from some form of Autism Spectrum Disorder, it would seem wise to make efforts towards reducing infant exposure to aluminum from vaccines.“ — C A Shaw, PhD

“There is a serious problem with vaccine safety. Vaccine aluminum adjuvant has adverse neurological effects, at dosages that are recommended by the US CDC. Vaccine critics are supported by the science. Parents refusing to vaccinate according to the recommended CDC schedule are supported by the science. Use aluminum-containing vaccines with great caution, or not at all.” – C. A. Shaw, PhD http://vaccinepapers.org/category/aluminum/

“Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvantresearch clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.” — From Tomljenovic and Shaw’s journal article “Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are They Safe?”


Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia (POTS) with Chronic Fatigue After HPV Vaccination as Part of the “ASIA Syndrome”

Tomljenovic L, Colafrancesco S, Perricone C, and Shoenfeld Y


We report the case of a 14-year-old girl who developed postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) with chronic fatigue 2 months following Gardasil vaccination. The patient suffered from persistent headaches, dizziness, recurrent syncope, poor motor coordination, weakness, fatigue, myalgias, numbness, tachycardia, dyspnea, visual disturbances, phonophobia, cognitive impairment, insomnia, gastrointestinal disturbances, and a weight loss of 20 pounds.

The psychiatric evaluation ruled out the possibility that her symptoms were psychogenic or related to anxiety disorders. Furthermore, the patient tested positive for ANA (1:1280), lupus anticoagulant, and antiphospholipid.

On clinical examination she presented livedo reticularis and was diagnosed with Raynaud’s syndrome. This case fulfills the criteria for the autoimmune/auto-inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA).

Because human papillomavirus vaccination is universally recommended to teenagers and because POTS frequently results in long-term disabilities (as was the case in our patient), a thorough follow-up of patients who present with relevant complaints after vaccination is strongly recommended.


Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (Shoenfeld’s syndrome): clinical and immunological spectrum

Shoenfeld, Y. et al


An adjuvant is a substance that enhances the antigen-specific immune response, induces the release of inflammatory cytokines…The immunological consequence of these actions is to stimulate the innate and adaptive immune response. The activation of the immune system by adjuvants, a desirable effect, could trigger manifestations of autoimmunity or autoimmune disease. Recently, a new syndrome was introduced, autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA), that includes postvaccination phenomena, macrophagic myofasciitis, Gulf War syndrome and siliconosis. This syndrome is characterized by nonspecific and specific manifestations of autoimmune disease. The main substances associated with ASIA are squalene (Gulf War syndrome), aluminum hydroxide (postvaccination phenomena, macrophagic myofasciitis) and silicone with siliconosis.


Long-term persistence of vaccine-derived aluminum hydroxide is associated with chronic cognitive dysfunction,

Gherardi RK, et al


Macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF) is an emerging condition, characterized by specific muscle lesions assessing long-term persistence of aluminum hydroxide within macrophages at the site of previous immunization. Affected patients mainly complain of arthromyalgias, chronic fatigue, and cognitive difficulties. We designed a comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests to prospectively delineate MMF-associated cognitive dysfunction (MACD).

Compared to control patients with arthritis and chronic pain, MMF patients had pronounced and specific cognitive impairment. MACD mainly affected (i) both visual and verbal memory; (ii) executive functions, including attention, working memory, and planning; and (iii) left ear extinction at dichotic listening test. Cognitive deficits did not correlate with pain, fatigue, depression, or disease duration. Pathophysiological mechanisms underlying MACD remain to be determined.

In conclusion, long-term persistence of vaccine-derived aluminum hydroxide within the body assessed by MMF is associated with cognitive dysfunction, not solely due to chronic pain, fatigue and depression.


A role for the body burden of aluminium in vaccine-associated macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF) and chronic fatigue syndrome

Exley C, Gherardi RK, et al


Macrophagic myofasciitis and chronic fatigue syndrome are severely disabling conditions which may be caused by adverse reactions to aluminium-containing adjuvants in vaccines. While a little is known of disease aetiology both conditions are characterised by an aberrant immune response, have a number of prominent symptoms in common and are coincident in many individuals. Herein, we have described a case of vaccine-associated chronic fatigue syndrome and macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF) in an individual demonstrating aluminium overload. This is the first report linking the latter with either of these two conditions and the possibility is considered that the coincident aluminium overload contributed significantly to the severity of these conditions in this individual. This case has highlighted potential dangers associated with aluminium-containing adjuvants and we have elucidated a possible mechanism whereby vaccination involving aluminium-containing adjuvants could trigger the cascade of immunological events which are associated with autoimmune conditions including chronic fatigue syndrome and macrophagic myofasciitis.


Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. In the decade prior to his retirement, he practiced what could best be described as “holistic (non-drug) and preventive mental health care”. Since his retirement, he has written a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, an alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns mostly deal with the dangers of American imperialism, friendly fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, and the dangers of Big Pharma, psychiatric drugging, the over-vaccinating of children and other movements that threaten American democracy, civility, health and longevity and the future of the planet. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Chronic Fatigue Syndromes and the Gardasil Scandal: POTS and the Dangers of Aluminum-Adjuvanted Vaccines

Alleged Mutation of the H1N1 virus, then in 2009 and now in 2020-2021 with the SARS-2-CoV virus. 

This article was first published on September 29, 2009.


The World Health Organization, the UN agency (ir-)responsible for declaring a Phase 6 “PANDEMIC” global alert over what it calls H1N1 Influenza A or Swine Flu, whose chief Dr Margaret Chan has repeatedly warned that while Swine Flu to date had been rather mild, that the emergency declaration was necessary because it “could mutate” aggressively into a deadly pandemic killing millions, now admits well into the flu season in the Northern Hemisphere that H1N1 has apparently not mutated. 

Margaret Chan, the head of the World Health Organization, at a meeting with health officials in her native Hong Kong, has just stated that the swine flu virus has not yet mutated into a more deadly strain. WHO Director of the Initiative for Vaccine Research, Dr Marie-Paule Kieny, reinforced that statement in a press conference September 24 in Geneva when she stated, “we are lucky that the pandemic is moderate in severity that most people experience a mild illness and recover spontaneously.”  That means recovery with no vaccination, no Tamiflu or other dangerous ”antiviral” drugs. Just with letting nature take its course.

Last summer, when the WHO decided to declare a global “pandemic emergency” over what it called the H1N1 Influenza A global spread, it also announced in a notice buried among its press releases that most countries had stopped testing ill populations for H1N1, and that the WHO therefore simply arbitrarily “assumed” all patients with a stated set of symptoms were automatically H1N1 victims. So the H1N1 pandemic case counts, to quote the WHO, “no longer reflect actual disease activity.”

The symptoms the WHO listed as indication that a patient has H1N1? A fever, cough, sore throat, headache… in short, all the symptoms of a common cold. The pandemic declaration by the agency entrusted by the UN with monitoring and guarding the world’s health came anyway, on recommendation of the WHO’s “experts,” the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts, or SAGE.

However, even though the WHO admits it is not testing patients for H1N1 around the world, they also state that the H1N1 “pandemic virus” is becoming more common than the common seasonal flu virus. A simple question in the interest of accuracy: How in hell’s blazes do they know that if they stopped testing around the world? Gut feeling? WHO’s “intuition” that everyone who has a fever, cough, headache and or sore throat around the world automatically must have H1N1?  The alarming aspect of this entire charade is that it will likely have severe health consequences for millions or tens of millions of some three billion people around the world targeted to get injections of largely untested so-called H1N1 Swine Flu vaccines.

Vaccines for South nations?

Equally bizarre is the fact that in her latest comments, the WHO’s Chan seemed preoccupied with how to get vaccines to poorer countries mainly in the Southern Hemisphere. Yet the same WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts, SAGE, states on the WHO official website that H1N1 does not pose a major risk to the Southern Hemisphere.

The number of swine flu cases is now expected to rise as the Northern Hemisphere moves into winter, WHO Director-General Margaret Chan says. But she claims that the biggest challenge in combatting the pandemic would be ensuring enough vaccines got to the world’s poorest countries. Three billion doses could be produced worldwide annually, enough to cover almost half the world’s population, Chan said.

The WHO is working to raise a billion dollars to help buy vaccines for developing countries that cannot produce them themselves. The United States and several other countries have stated they plan to make 10 percent of their vaccine supply available to others in need. The vehicle to raise funds for the apparently not-threatened countries of the south is a public-private partnership of the WHO established in 2000, called GAVI.

Tricks with WHO death data

Another little known fact about the WHO pandemic operation which gives their dire warnings about H1N1 the necessary gravitas to scare the dickens out of pregnant women, parents and just about anybody, are the death statistics constantly cited when data on purported H1N1 cases are mentioned. As of the last report at end September 2009 the WHO claimed 3917 deaths due to H1N1 Influenza A or Swine Flu.

In most cases, even the WHO and the Atlanta US Government’s CDC has been forced to admit, deaths were in patients who already had some severe respiratory disorder or grave illness when they contracted what was named H1N1 Influenza A. They never to date have offered the slightest proof that it was not those grave prior illnesses which caused death and that the flu symptoms were merely a coincident event, what epidemiologists term an “opportunistic infection.”

But it gets even more interesting. The WHO, it turns out, lumps its statistics for flu deaths together with those from pneumonia, a completely separate and far more common illness and a far larger cause of death, in a disease classification it calls “Influenza and Pneumonia (J09-J18).”

So in 2007 the WHO recorded 21883 deaths attributed to “flu and pneumonia” without dividing each as to direct cause. But of those WHO classifications, flu itself only goes for symptoms in categories J09-J11. The entire rest of the categories deal with pneumonia and related lung infectious manifestations. Yet far and away the largest group of deaths from infectious diseases comes from pneumonia, not from influenza. The number of certified deaths from “influenza virus”, with or without pneumonia complications was a far less alarming 14 persons in 2007. This clever trick allows pharmaceutical manufacturers like GlaxoSmithKline or Baxter Labs to promote their “flu” vaccines.

If we are dealing with an illness whose symptoms in the vast majority of cases are mild and disappear from itself with no medication after five or more days, and whose mortality rate is at worst infinitesimally small, there would be no need for panic, no need to line up in queues to get jabbed with untested vaccines whose contents including various adjuvants like aluminum hydroxide and nanoparticles are potentially nerve crippling or even death-causing. But then that would not be “good” for Bill Gates, David Rockefeller and other members of the Good Club, would it?

F. William Engdahl, author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order.

F. William Engdahl is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization

In a December 9, 2020, Twitter thread,1 Michael P. Senger, an attorney and author of the September 2020 article,2 “China’s Global Lockdown Propaganda Campaign,” reviewed the largely hidden impacts of global lockdowns. Ivor Cummins’ video also reviews data showing just how “hugely ineffective” lockdowns have been.

As one would expect, shutting down businesses for extended periods of time leads to businesses going under for impaired cash flow from lack of revenue. Back in August 2020, Bloomberg reported3 that more than half of all small business owners feared their businesses wouldn’t survive. They were right.

According to a September 2020 economic impact report4 by Yelp, 163,735 U.S. businesses had closed their doors as of August 31, 2020, and of those, 60% — a total of 97,966 businesses — were permanent closures.5 As noted by Senger:6

“That ’leaders’ across the world transformed into tyrants, believing they had a right to bankrupt their subjects, is the core evil of lockdown.”

The Greatest Wealth Transfer in History

How does shutting small businesses but allowing big box stores to stay open protect public health? There’s really no rhyme or reason for such a decision, other than to shift wealth away from small, private business owners to multinational corporations.

While working-class Americans have been forced to file for unemployment by the tens of millions, the top five richest people in the U.S. increased their wealth by 26% between March 18 and June 17, 2020.7 Since the beginning of the pandemic, the collective wealth of 651 billionaires in the U.S. rose by more than 36% ($1 trillion).8 The assets of these 651 billionaires is now nearly double that of the combined wealth of the least wealthy 165 million Americans.

As noted by Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness, “Never before has America seen such an accumulation of wealth in so few hands.”9

Far from being the great equalizer, COVID-19 is the greatest wealth transfer scheme in the history of the world. Indeed, you may as well call it what it is: grand-scale asset theft from the poor and middle class. A December 14, 2020, article10 in The Defender reviews who has benefited from pandemic measures the most, from the finance and tech industries to the pharmaceutical and military-intelligence sectors.

Minority-Owned Businesses Have Taken Biggest Hit

According to an August 10, 2020, article11 by Forbes, pandemic measures had eliminated nearly half of all Black-owned small businesses in the U.S. by the end of April 2020. It cites data from a New York Fed report,12 which found that “Black-owned businesses were more than twice as likely to shutter as their white counterparts.”

While nationally representative data on small businesses showed active business ownership dropped 22% between February and April 2020, the number of businesses owned by Blacks dropped by 41%. The decline in Latin-owned businesses was 32%; Asian-owned 26%; and White-owned 17%. According to Forbes:13

“At the same time, Black-owned firms, already smarting from a Great Recession that hurt them badly, already entered the crisis with ‘weaker cash positions, weaker bank relationships, and preexisting funding gaps.’ ‘Even the healthiest Black firms were financially disadvantaged at the onset of COVID-19,’ said the report.”

Food Insecurity at Staggering Levels

Mere weeks into the pandemic, Americans were lining up at food banks. An April 12, 2020, article14in The New York Times showed miles-long lines in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Miami, Florida and elsewhere:

“In many cities, lines outside food pantries have become glaring symbols of financial precarity, showing how quickly the pandemic has devastated working people’s finances.

In San Antonio, 10,000 families began arriving before dawn on Thursday at a now-shuttered swap meet hall to receive boxes of food. Normally, 200 to 400 families might show up during a normal food distribution.

‘It’s a wave of need,’ said Eric Cooper, president of the San Antonio Food Bank. ‘They were all let go. There’s no savings. There’s no slack in their household budget. The money’s run out. It just shows how desperate people are.’”

The situation is much the same in other countries. An April 10, 2020, report15 by the Financial Times cited survey results showing an estimated 3 million Britons had gone without food at some point in the previous three weeks. An estimated 1 million people had by then already lost all sources of income.

Anna Taylor, executive director for the Food Foundation in the U.K., told the Financial Times there’s a “food poverty problem that has not been dealt with” that is now becoming glaringly apparent — and that was mere weeks into the pandemic. We’re now nine months down the line, and governments around the world are again calling for lockdowns over the winter holidays.

Mental Health Slides as Despair Grows

That forcing people into poverty will have a detrimental effect on their mental health is also not surprising. A Canadian survey16 in early October 2020 found 22% of Canadians experienced high anxiety levels — four times higher than the prepandemic rate — and 13% reported severe depression.

In the U.S., an August 2020 survey17,18 by the American Psychological Association found Gen-Z’ers are among the hardest hit in this regard, with young adults aged 18 to 23 reporting the highest levels of stress and depression.

More than 7 out of 10 in this age group reported symptoms of depression in the two weeks before the survey. Among teens aged 13 to 17, 51% said the pandemic makes it impossible to plan for the future. Sixty-seven percent of college-aged respondents echoed this concern.

With despair comes drug-related problems, and according to the American Medical Association, the drug overdose epidemic has significantly worsened and become more complicated this year. “More than 40 states have reported increases in opioid-related mortality as well as ongoing concerns for those with a mental illness or substance use disorder,” the AMA reported in an Issue Brief19 updated December 9, 2020.

A list of national news included in the AMA’s brief20 include reports of increases in overdose-related cardiac arrests, surges in street fentanyl leading to deaths in the thousands and a “dramatic increase” in illicit opioid fatalities. Spikes and record numbers of overdose deaths have been reported in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Florida and many other states.

Young Adults Dying in Greater Than Normal Numbers

That pandemic measures are doing more harm than good can also be seen in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data21,22 showing that, compared to previous years, excess deaths among 25- to 44-year-olds has increased by a remarkable 26.5%, even though this age group accounts for fewer than 3% of COVID-19-related deaths.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data

To put it bluntly, in our misguided efforts to prevent the elderly and immune compromised from dying from COVID-19, we’re sacrificing people who are in the prime of their lives. As noted by Senger:23

“Per CDC, despite mass PCR testing and disproportionate false positives, at least 100,947 excess deaths in 2020 were not even linked to COVID-19 AT ALL. In other words, over 100,000 Americans were murdered this year by their OWN GOVERNMENT.”

Lockdowns Dramatically Increase Domestic Abuse

Rising despair is also reflected in statistics showing dramatic increases in domestic abuse, rape, child sex abuse and suicides. By July 2020, Ireland reported a 98% increase in people seeking counseling for rape and child sex abuse.24

Data from the British group Women’s Aid showed 61% of domestic abuse victims reported abuse had worsened during the lockdown.25 The number of women killed by their domestic partners also doubled during the first three weeks of lockdowns in the U.K.26

In the U.S., data27 from a Massachusetts hospital revealed a dramatic jump in patients seeking emergency care after being battered by their domestic partner in the nine weeks between March 11 and May 3, 2020, when the state had ordered schools closed.

During this time, 26 patients were treated for domestic abuse injuries that included strangulation, stabbing, burns and gunshot wounds. That’s just one shy of the number of cases seen in the same time period during 2018 and 2019 combined. In other words, domestic abuse cases were nearly double the annual norm for that hospital.

In early April 2020, United Nations secretary-general Antonio Guterres warned28 of a “horrifying” surge in global domestic abuse linked to pandemic lockdowns as calls to helplines in some countries had by then already doubled.29 The number of people looking into divorce in the U.S. was also 34% higher in March through June 2020 compared to the same time frame in 2019.30

Children Brought to Suffer in Countless Ways

Child abuse, meanwhile, is less likely to be detected and reported thanks to virtual schooling. As noted by Human Rights Watch:31

“More than 1.5 billion students are out of school. Widespread job and income loss and economic insecurity among families are likely to increase rates of child labor, sexual exploitation, teenage pregnancy, and child marriage.

Stresses on families, particularly those living under quarantines and lockdowns, are increasing the incidence of domestic violence … ‘The risks posed by the COVID-19 crisis to children are enormous,’ said Jo Becker, children’s rights advocacy director at Human Rights Watch …

Child abuse is less likely to be detected during the COVID-19 crisis, as child protection agencies have reduced monitoring to avoid spreading the virus, and teachers are less able to detect signs of ill treatment with schools closed.”

There are signs of rising child abuse though, including a British study32 that found a shocking 1,493% rise in the incidence of abusive head trauma among children during the first month of the lockdown, compared to the same time period in the previous three years.

Children are also in danger of falling behind socially and developmentally, even if they’re not exposed to direct abuse. In November 2020, The Guardian reported that many children are regressing mentally and physically as a result of the lockdowns.33

The Washington Post reported34 scholastic achievement gaps have widened in the U.S. and early literacy among kindergarteners has seen a sharp decline this year.

According to The Economist,35 American children over the age of 10 cut physical activity by half during the lockdown, spending most of their time playing video games and eating junk food. Indeed, closing parks and beaches right along with small businesses and schools was undoubtedly among the most ignorant and destructive pandemic measures of all.

Suicide Epidemic

Preventing healthy people from working and upending everyone’s lives has also (as expected) resulted in a massive rise in suicide, and abnormal spikes became apparent within weeks of the initial lockdowns.

As noted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in “How the Government Uses Fear to Control,” research from the 1980s found that for every 1-point rise in unemployment there were 37,000 excess deaths, 4,000 excess imprisonments and 3,300 excess admissions into mental institutions. Kennedy also cites recent data from a hospital in San Francisco that stated they saw one year’s-worth of suicides in a single month, a 1,200% increase.

In September 2020, Cook Children’s Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas, admitted a record number of 37 pediatric patients who had tried to commit suicide. Dr. Kia Carter, medical director of Psychiatry at Cook Children’s told CBS:36

“September of 2020 has been the highest month ever that we’ve seen suicidal patients admitted to our medical center … Suicide has become the second leading cause of death for kids and adolescents in the last year, versus two years ago when it was the third leading cause of death.”

In Japan — which didn’t even implement lockdowns — government statistics reveal more people died from suicide in the month of October than have died from COVID-19 all year.37 While only 2,087 Japanese had died from COVID-19 as of November 27, 2020, the suicide toll in October alone was 2,153. Women make up the lion’s share of suicides, and hotlines are also reporting that women are confessing thoughts of killing their children out of sheer desperation.

Developing World Fares Even Worse

As horrible as all of these statistics are, they don’t even begin to compare to the tragedies taking place in developing nations. In India, millions of migrant workers were stranded early on in the pandemic without a way to make a living and unable to leave the cities due to lockdown orders.38

Food lines stretched for miles in South Africa at the end of April 202039 and in Saudi Arabia, “hundreds if not thousands” of African migrants — mostly Ethiopian men — have been left to die from lack of food and water in COVID-19 detention centers after a moratorium on deportation was issued in April, according to an August 30, 2020, report by The Telegraph.40

The United Nations estimates pandemic responses have “pushed an additional 150 million children into multidimensional poverty — deprived of education, health, housing, nutrition, sanitation or water,”41 and at the end of April 2020 warned the world was facing “famine of biblical proportions, with only a limited amount of time to act before starvation claims hundreds of millions of lives.”42

“All this for a virus that caused no above-average mortality in countries without lockdowns — and which WHO estimates already infected 10% of people worldwide by October. In other words, all for absolutely nothing,” Senger writes.43

Pandemics Highlight Pre-Existing Health Inequalities

Indeed, an ever-growing number of doctors, academics and scientists are now questioning the validity of using PCR tests to diagnose “cases,” the usefulness of face masks, the questionable classification of COVID-19 deaths, and the suppression of scientifically verified methods of prevention and treatment, as well as the safety and usefulness of COVID-19 vaccines.

There are clear problems in all of these areas, yet questions and logical thinking have been, and continue to be, met with harsh resistance and denial. Those leading the charge in terms of pandemic responses have not been shy about their censoring of counter-narratives, almost without exception.

When it comes to the disease itself, we now know certain comorbidities significantly raise your risk of complications and deaths. Among the top ones are obesity, insulin resistance and vitamin D deficiency.

While these conditions are exceptionally common overall, they’re particularly prevalent in Black and indigenous communities, and when combined with inadequate access to health care, these groups also end up being disproportionally affected by COVID-19.44

COVID-19 Is a Class War

While the media and political and economic institutions claim the pandemic narrative is based on scientific consensus, this clearly isn’t the case. There’s no evidence supporting universal mask use, for example, and there’s even less scientific support for lockdowns — a strategy based on a high school project that won third place.45

James Corbett of the Corbett Report discusses this shocking revelation in the video above. Now, as many small businesses are failing thanks to months-long shutdowns and employment opportunities look bleak, world leaders are suddenly joining the World Economic Forum in calling for a Great Reset of the economy.46

This is hardly a random coincidence. This plan, which has been in the works for decades, will further empower and enrich wealthy, unelected powerbrokers while enslaving and impoverishing everyone else. The fact that the pandemic has been used to shift wealth from the poor and middle class to the ultra-wealthy is clear for anyone to see at this point. As noted by IPS News:47

“The COVID pandemic has not been the ‘Great Equalizer’ as suggested by the likes of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and members of the World Economic Forum. Rather, it has exacerbated existing inequalities along gender, race and economic class divides across the world.48

The Global Restructuring

At this point, it should be obvious for anyone paying attention that the pandemic is being prolonged and exaggerated for a reason, and it’s not because there’s concern for life. Quite the contrary.

It’s a ploy to quite literally enslave the global population within a digital surveillance system49 — a system so unnatural and inhumane that no rational population would ever voluntarily go down that road.

“The ‘Great Reset’ seeks to … expand corporate control of natural resources and state surveillance of individuals,” IPS News writes.50 “In the post-pandemic ‘Great Reset,’ there would not be much life left outside the technological-corporate nexus dominated by monolithic agribusiness, pharmaceutical, communication, defense and other inter-connected corporations, and the governments and media serving them.

The proponents of the ‘Great Reset’51 envisage a Brave New World where, ‘You will own nothing. And you will be happy. Whatever you want, you will rent, and it will be delivered by drones.’

But it is more likely that this elite-led revolution will make the vast majority of humanity a powerless appendage of technology with little consciousness and meaning in their lives.”

It should also be clear that most if not all pandemic restrictions to freedom are meant to become permanent. In other words, these past nine months have been a preview of the world the technocratic elite wants to implement as part of the new social and economic order.

If this is the first time you’re hearing any of this, be sure to review “Who Pressed the Great Reset Button?” “The Pressing Dangers of Technocracy,” “The Global Takeover Is Underway” and “Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun.”

Now’s the Time to Fight Back

It’s important to understand that now’s the time to fight back: to resist any and all unconstitutional edicts. Once the “new world order” is in place, you will no longer be able to do a thing about it.

Your life — your health, educational and work opportunities, your finances and your very identity — will be so meshed with the automated technological infrastructure that any attempt to break free will result in you being locked out or erased from the system, leaving you with no ability to learn, work, travel or engage in commerce.

It sounds far-fetched, I know, but when you follow the technocratic plan to its inevitable end, that’s basically what you end up with. The warning signs are all around us, if we’re willing to see them for what they actually are. The only question now is whether enough people are willing to resist it to make a difference.

Most important of all is the need to release the fear. It’s a fearful public that allows the technocratic elite to dictate the future and rip away our personal freedoms. It’s fear that allows tyranny to flourish. Really look at the data, so you can see for yourself that panic is unwarranted, and that the so-called “solutions” to the pandemic are in fact a path of total destruction.

This destruction — both moral and economic — is necessary for the Great Reset to occur. The technocratic elite need everything and everyone to fall apart in order to justify the implementation of their new system. Without this desperation, no one would agree to what they have planned.

For practical strategies on how you can respond in light of all the tyrannical interventions that have been imposed on us, check out James Corbett’s interview with Howard Lichtman below. I also recommend reading “Constitutional Sheriffs Are the Difference Between Freedom and Tyranny.”

Last but not least, now is also the time to take control of your own health. Make it a point to really take care of yourself. Remember, insulin resistance, obesity and vitamin D deficiency top the list of comorbidities that significantly raise your risk complications and death from COVID-19.

These are also underlying factors in a host of other chronic diseases, including mental health problems, so by addressing them, you’ll improve your chances of getting through this challenging time with your health and sanity intact. You can find tons of information about how to reverse all of these issues by searching my article archives.


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


1, 6, 23, 43 Twitter Michael P. Senger December 9, 2020

2 Tablet Mag September 15, 2020

3 Bloomberg August 11, 2020

4, 5 CNBC September 16, 2020

7 Institute for Policy Studies June 18, 2020

8, 9 Childrens Health Defense December 14, 2020

10 The Defender December 14, 202

11, 13 Forbes August 10, 2020

12 New York Fed August 2020

14 New York Times April 12, 2020 (Archived)

15 Financial Times April 10, 2020

16 Global News Canada October 10, 2020

17 APA Stress in America 2020

18 CNBC October 21, 2020

19, 20 AMA Issue Brief Updated December 9, 2020

21 MMWR October 23, 2020; 69(42);1522–1527

22 Daily Wire October 22, 2020

24 Irish Times July 20, 2020

25, 30 CNBC October 30, 2020

26 ITV.com April 27, 2020

27 WebMD August 18, 2020

28 UN April 6, 2020

29 STV.tv July 1, 2020

31 HRW.org April 9, 2020

32 Archives of Disease in Childhood Published Online First: 02 July 2020. doi:10.1136/archdischild-2020-319872

33 The Guardian November 9, 2020

34 The Washington Post October 30, 2020

35 The Economist July 19, 2020

36 CBS October 27, 2020

37 CNN November 30, 2020

38 Wall Street Journal March 29, 2020 (Archived)

39 Youtube April 30, 2020

40 The Telegraph August 30, 2020

41 UN News September 17, 2020

42 The Guardian April 21, 2020

44, 47, 50 IPS News December 1, 2020

45 Townhall May 20, 2020

46 Weforum.com June 24, 2020

48 Psychology Today August 3, 2020

49 World Economic Forum Digital Transformation July 2020 (PDF)

51 Global Research November 9, 2020

Featured image: Public domain image from Wiki’s COVID-Protest page.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Lockdowns Don’t Work and Hurt the Most Vulnerable. Bankruptcies, Poverty, Despair

Spain Plans a “Registry” for Those Who Refuse COVID Vaccine

By Zero Hedge, December 30, 2020

As Europe begins vaccinating the first wave of high-priority patients, a “glitch” has already emerged: many health-care workers and others have refused to take the vaccine, as skepticism and suspicion remain elevated.

Why Senators Must Reject Avril Haines Director of National Intelligence

By Medea Benjamin and Marcy Winograd, December 30, 2020

She is the affable assassin who, according to Newsweek, would be summoned in the middle of the night to decide if a citizen of any country, including our own, should be incinerated in a U.S. drone strike in a distant land in the greater Middle East.

The Peace Discourse that Disappeared: Go on with Passion and Detachment

By Jan Oberg, December 30, 2020

Look at and listen in to three spheres of contemporary Western society – politics, research and media: The word” peace” and related words, such as the UN Charter norm of” making peace by peaceful means”, nonviolence, negotiations – have disappeared.

Syrian Refugees Flee as Their Tents Are Torched in Lebanon

By Steven Sahiounie, December 30, 2020

On December 26, hundreds of Syrian refugees fled their refugee camp in the Miniyeh region near the coastal city of Tripoli in north Lebanon after their tents were burned when fighting broke out between local youths and camp residents.

Selling Weapons – The Most Corrupt Industry in the World

By Rod Driver, December 30, 2020

The US government has the highest military spending in the world, with approximately one-third of the world’s military expenditure. Britain consistently figures in the top 10.

The New Film “Seven”. Scientific Study of WTC Building 7

By Kevin Ryan, December 30, 2020

The study was led by structural engineering professor J. Leroy Hulsey and took nearly five years to complete. It evaluated the possibilities for destruction of WTC 7 using two versions of high-tech computer software that simulated the structural components of the building and the forces that acted upon it on September 11th.

The Julian Assange Pardon Drive

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, December 30, 2020

The odds are stacked against Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks publisher who faces the grimmest of prospects come January 4.  On that day, the unsympathetic judicial head of District Judge Vanessa Baraitser will reveal her decision on the Old Bailey proceedings that took place between September and October this year.

Economic Matters in Ukraine Are at Standstill

By Paul Antonopoulos, December 30, 2020

An exception to this “quiet” year was Kiev’s attempt to manufacture a humanitarian crisis by cutting off water supplies from the North Crimean Canal to the peninsula. This human rights violation was to the disinterest of the UN Human Rights Commission.

As World Sours on Coal, Top Producer Indonesia Tries to Sweeten It at Home

By , December 30, 2020

With consumption, travel and commuting all suppressed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers from the Global Carbon Project calculate carbon dioxide emissions fell a record 7% in 2020.

Hearts Full of Scepticism, Farmers Agree for Talks with Centre on Dec 30

By , December 30, 2020

Addressing local protests, the organisation hailed nearly 10,000 farmers who assembled in Patna on Tuesday in solidarity the farmers’ struggle. They decried the lathi-charge that took place. Similarly, they thanked the massive turnout witnessed at Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu.

Visit our Asia Pacific Research website at asia-pacificresearch.com

Providing coverage of the Asia-Pacific Region


Notre site Web en français, mondialisation.ca


Nuestro sitio web en español, globalizacion.ca

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Why Senators Must Reject Avril Haines Director of National Intelligence

A New War in the New Year? Trump Again Takes Aim at Iran

December 31st, 2020 by Philip Giraldi

 One of the most perplexing narratives presented during the waning days of the administration of President Donald J. Trump is his apparent disengagement from dealing seriously or providing leadership regarding the surging Coronavirus while at the same time continuing an activist foreign policy that in no way benefits any American. Ironically, the new administration of Joe Biden will, undoubtedly, establish its own priorities after January 20th, presuming the result of the election holds, and could easily reverse any government actions initiated overseas by Trump.

So it is all perhaps much ado about nothing, but meddling in the politics of others, creating enemies where enemies do not actually exist, and starting “little wars” to make a point about one’s virility create an unfortunate legacy in that they do not exactly win friends and influence people around the world.

There have been interactions in a number of contexts, perhaps most dangerously in the continued promotion of the “threat” coming from China. The U.S. continues to emphasize the growth of Chinese foreign investments, the creation of its new Silk Road across Asia and into Europe, and Beijing’s growing military might. The mainstream U.S. media regularly fearmongers that the Chinese economy will surpass that of the U.S. inside a decade if it has not done so already.

The Administration, sometimes subtly and sometimes not so subtly, links China directly to the emergence of the Coronavirus and has implied that its propagation is part of a global plan to destroy western democracy and replace it with communism. The new defense budget includes a shift in spending to dramatically increase expansion of the navy to confront the Chinese in their own coastal waters. To be sure, China’s armed forces are being reshaped commensurate with its world role, but it does not realistically challenge that of the United States and will not do so even if it chooses to continue its expansion. Nevertheless, what began as a trade war is now being recast as an Armageddon-like conflict for global dominance, with the White House, Democrats, Republicans and the media all on board.

Russia too, the perpetual enemy, has fortunately escaped direct assault from the White House, leading to renewed claims that Trump is Putin’s puppet. The latest assertion is that a wave of hacking of government and other internet sites in the United States was done by Russia, though there has been precious little evidence provided to support that claim. Joe Biden has picked up the slack by asserting that he will be responding to the attack “in kind,” hello cyberwar, while several Democratic Senators have asked rhetorically whether the hack is an “act of war.” It is even being suggested that Russia will be interfering in the upcoming runoff election for the two Senate seats in Georgia, which will possibly decide who controls the upper chamber of the U.S. Congress for the next two years.

But the biggest winner in the “hated by America” sweepstakes is the usual favorite, Iran. On December 20th several rockets landed inside the fortified U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, which in turn sits inside the heavily guarded and protected Green Zone along the Euphrates River where most embassies and government offices are located. Insofar as has been reported, the missiles did little damage and killed one Iraqi civilian. It should be observed that the weapons were not very sophisticated and are of a type that is readily available in the Middle East. Similar attacks on the Green Zone using the same kind of unguided and crude rockets have become a regular feature of diplomatic and government life in Iraq’s capital.

Donald Trump responded three days later with a characteristically truculent series of tweets:

“Our embassy in Baghdad got hit Sunday by several rockets. Three rockets failed to launch. Guess where they were from: IRAN. Now we hear chatter of additional attacks against Americans in Iraq… Some friendly health advice to Iran: If one American is killed, I will hold Iran responsible. Think it over.”

There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran either carried out or sponsored the attack on the Embassy and the photographs of the unexploded rockets, of a standard 107mm caliber widely available and used worldwide, have markings written in English, not Farsi. As is often the case, Trump chose to interpret the actual story and seeks both to demonstrate Iranian involvement and to define it as a provocation that would merit a military response that could start a war. He and his Pentagon wordsmiths would choose to call it “establishing deterrence” or “self-defense.”

A spokesman for Central Command described the attack as “…almost certainly conducted by an Iranian-backed rogue militia group,” adding also that the 21-rocket barrage was “clearly NOT intended to avoid casualties.” “Almost certainly” in government speak means “we don’t know”: while a judgment of “clearly NOT intended” would be, under the circimstances, impossible to make definitively.

So unhinged is the hatred for Iran and all its friends that the Trump Administration has, in its last days in office, gone so far as to sanction Asma, the wife of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, as well as all her highly respectable family living in England, where she was born and raised. The reality is that the United States and Israel will stop at nothing to denigrate what they conveniently describe as “rogue regimes” when the only real rogues are in Washington and Jerusalem. Trump and Netanyahu have been wanting to start a war with Iran for the past four years and have been seeking to provoke the Iranians into a response that could be used to justify a massive counter-attack.

Why all the tip-toeing around is taking place is because Americans and Israelis are seeking to establish a fig leaf to hide behind while they commit a war crime, i.e. initiating a war of aggression where there is no threat coming from the other side. Instead, they are engaging in what they refer to as “maximum pressure” using economic sanctions and assassinations, hoping to have Iran strike back hard against them so they can plausibly claim that they are the victims and are engaging in “deterrence” or “defense.”

That is what was behind the U.S. assassination of Iranian General Qassim Soleimani eleven months ago and the Israeli killing of top Iranian scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in November. Ironically, if there is considerable tension in the Middle East, to include the rocketing of the U.S. Embassy, it is due to actions undertaken by Israel and the U.S. themselves. Israel has kept the pot boiling by regularly attacking “targets” in Syria, many of which are described as “Iranian-linked.”

On Christmas Day Israel violated Lebanese airspace before hitting the city of Masyaf in Syria, which has a large Christian minority, reportedly killing five and destroying a research facility. The relatively low intensity warfare by the Jewish state is a practice that is fully supported by the United States, which continues to maintain forces in Syria to “guard the oil fields” while also supporting the efforts to bring about regime change in Damascus.

The possibility that there will be a war in the Middle East instigated by the Trump White House as a final gift to Israel must be taken seriously in spite of the short time frame remaining. Trump is also pushing ahead with U.S. taxpayer funded “deals” with various Arab states to get them to establish diplomatic ties with the Jewish state. And there are other signs that something is about to happen.

The Israelis have moved one of their nuclear missile capable and cruise missile armed submarines into the Persian Gulf to provide a better window for attacking Iran and are hinting that military action might be impending. And there are also rumors in Washington that the U.S. might be closing its embassy in Baghdad due to the “threat,” a possible first step in reducing the number of Americans vulnerable to a war zone that would inevitably include heavily Shi’a Iraq. And what might the Congress and American people do to stop it all from happening? Nothing that would actually have any impact.

This article was first published by The Strategic Culture Foundation

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A New War in the New Year? Trump Again Takes Aim at Iran

The Great 2020 Seasonal Flu/Influenza Disappearing Act

December 31st, 2020 by Stephen Lendman


According to the WHO, seasonal flu/influenza practically disappeared this year in the southern hemisphere.

“In tropical South America, there were no influenza detections…”

“Globally… influenza activity remained at lower levels than expected for this time of the year.”

Lower means flu practically didn’t show up this year like always before.

Where have all the flu outbreaks gone? See below.

Separately, the WHO claimed that “various hygiene (including mask wearing) and physical distancing measures…likely played a role in reducing influenza virus transmission.”

Mask-wearing is ineffective and potentially harmful to health.

Masks are porous. They have to be. Otherwise wearers would suffocate.

Aerosol spores are minuscule. Able to penetrate all masks and concentrate beneath them risks greater harm to wearers than avoiding their use.

Everything ordered or recommended this year for protection did infinitely more harm than good — notably from lost jobs and income during lockdowns and quarantines.

The CDC casually said “(s)easonal influenza activity in the United States remains lower than usual for this time of year.”

It practically disappeared — or did it?

Covid is “seasonal influenza” in disguise — in the US and worldwide.

In its latest weekly reporting period pre-yearend, the CDC said:

“The percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive for influenza at clinical laboratories is” one-10th of 1%.

It’s practically nonexistent.

For the three-month period in the US ending in late December, findings were vitually the same.

There’s almost no seasonal influenza showing up this year because their outbreaks are called covid.

Overall worldwide, seasonal influenza is around 98% lower this year than in earlier flu seasons.

WHO spokesperson Dr. Sylvie Briand recently claimed that “literally there was nearly no flu in the Southern Hemisphere” in 2020, adding:

“We hope that the situation will be the same in the Northern Hemisphere” at end of this flu season.

If the current trend continues as is highly likely, the incidence of seasonal influenza will be minuscule compared to previous years in northern and southern hemispheres.

At the same time in the US nationwide and worldwide, high numbers of covid are reported.

If accurately identified, they’d be called influenza that shows up annually in the US and abroad like clockwork.

It’s unaccompanied by fear-mongering mass hysteria, lockdowns, quarantines, mask-wearing, social distancing, and most important:

No economic collapse occurs that caused the Greatest Main Street Depression in US history this year that’s likely to be protracted to maintain social control and continue transferring unprecedented amounts of wealth from ordinary people to the wealthy.

They’re enjoying a bonanza of riches from what’s going on at the expense of most others.

On December 15, Nature.com noted that “(m)easures meant to tame the coronavirus pandemic are quashing influenza and most other respiratory diseases” — calling what’s going on the “influenza fizzle.”

Claiming “lockdowns stopped flu in its tracks, (outbreaks) plummet(ting) by 98% in the United States” ignored that what’s called covid is seasonal influenza.

The great 2020 disappearing flu passes largely under the mass media’s radar.

Media proliferated mass deception and power of repetition get most people to believe that what’s harmful to health and well-being is beneficial.

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

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

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


“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”


Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Great 2020 Seasonal Flu/Influenza Disappearing Act

On the morning of December 30th, warplanes of the Israeli Air Force once again carried out strikes on alleged Iranian targets in the countryside of Damascus. According to reports one person was killed and 3 others injured in the attack.

Earlier, an unidentified, unmanned aerial vehicle struck several oil tanks near the village of al-Hamran, which is located north of the town of Manbij in northern Syria. The village is situated on the contact line between territories controlled by Turkish-backed forces and the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

According to local sources, the oil tankers belonged to SDF-linked oil smugglers, who were selling oil looted from the US-controlled oil fields on the eastern bank of the Euphrates to Turkish-linked entities. This oil smuggling business sheds light on the real face of the Kurdish SDF leadership, which likes to make loud statements about its alleged patriotism and its plans to expel the Turkish Army from northern Syria.

In Idlib, three Russian service members received minor injuries as a result of an ATGM strike on their armoured vehicle, the Russian Defense Ministry reported on December 29. The report said that an armored personnel carrier of the Russian Military Police came under attack from the territory controlled by Turkish-backed militants. Russian forces, in cooperation with the Turkish military and Syrian security forces, are looking for those involved.

These developments came as the Turkish Armed Forces were working to evacuate their observation point near the town of Tell Touqan. This was one of their last remaining points within the territories, which have been liberated by the Syrian Army.

Over the past months, Turkey has withdrawn a group of its posts, which had been besieged by Syrian troops. In light of this, the recent increase in attacks by Turkish proxies along the contact line may be a part of the Turkish game aimed at demonstrating that any decrease of the Turkish military presence in Greater Idlib would lead to the deterioration of the security situation there.


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


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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Russia Suffers Casualties in Greater Idlib. Israeli Air Force Strikes Damascus Countryside

Gunshots, Motorcycle Deaths Count as COVID Casualties

December 30th, 2020 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

Since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, families have been separated, businesses have been shuttered and schools have been closed down. Many people are living their lives shrouded in fear of Sars-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19 — a direct response to media coverage and health officials’ claims of its dire associated risks.

Understanding the real risks, and being able to make choices on how to live your life in response to them, is only possible, however, if you have real facts, like how many have died from the virus and what the death rate actually is. Is it a lethal virus that warrants lockdowns and panic, or is it one more akin to influenza, which can indeed be deadly but, in most cases, is not?

Early on during the pandemic, COVID-19 infection mortality rate claims varied from 2.7% to 7%, with most being in the 4% range. But according to some experts, the actual infection mortality rate may be much lower, ranging from 0.05% to 1%, with a median of about 0.25%.1

The number of COVID-19 deaths may also be skewed, as health officials may count deaths from unrelated causes — even gunshots and motorcycle accidents — as COVID-19 deaths if the person had the virus within the last 30 days.2

Are COVID-19 Deaths Being Inflated?

In Grand County, Colorado, five COVID-19 deaths were reported, but according to coroner Brenda Bock, two of them were actually deaths from gunshot wounds. Speaking to CBS4 News, Bock spoke out against the misleading classifications, as the deaths from gunshot wounds were counted as COVID-19 deaths because the victims had tested positive within 30 days.

The distinction comes down to some tricky working: deaths “among” COVID-19 cases and deaths “due to” COVID-19. Someone who died with COVID-19 may be counted as a death among COVID-19 cases, even if the virus had nothing to do with their death. When a death is said to be “due to” COVID-19, this is intended when COVID-19 caused or significantly contributed to the death.

According to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, even deaths among COVID-19 cases must be reported to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

This information is required by the CDC and is crucial for public health surveillance, as it provides more information about disease transmission and can help identify risk factors among all deaths across populations.”3

But according to Bock, the inflated numbers could hurt the region’s economy, which is largely dependent on tourism:

“It’s absurd that they would even put that on there. Would you want to go to a county that has really high death numbers? Would you want to go visit that county because they are contagious? You know I might get it, and I could die if all of a sudden one county has a high death count. We don’t have it, and we don’t need those numbers inflated.”4

Hundreds of ‘COVID-19 Deaths’ Subtracted in Washington

Washington state was also accused of inflating COVID-19 deaths, by up to 13%. According to the Freedom Foundation, the state’s Department of Health was counting every death in a person who had previously tested positive for COVID-19 as related to the virus.

While the governor denied the inflation, internal emails revealed in May 2020 that the Department of Health (DOH) was, in fact, counting deaths in their official COVID death numbers that weren’t directly due to the virus.5

By December 2020, Washington’s DOH had responded by subtracting more than 200 deaths from its COVID-19 fatality count after “methodological improvements.” However, a Freedom Foundation analysis suggests their fatality counts are still too high. And if this is going on in Washington, it’s likely happening in other states and countries as well.

According to the analysis, some of the questionable examples of the DOH’s “COVID-19 deaths” include the following:6

Motorcycle Death Initially Counted as COVID-19 Death

Another misleading instance occurred in Orlando, Florida, where a man in his 20s who died in a motorcycle accident was initially counted as a COVID-19 death because he had tested positive. In a significant stretch, Orange County health officer Dr. Raul Pino told FOX 35 News, “[Yo]u could actually argue that it could have been the COVID-19 that caused him to crash.”7

That death was reportedly removed from the official count, but how many others weren’t? In April 2020, Dr. Ngozi Ezike, director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, also detailed the loose case definition being used for COVID-19 deaths:

“If you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death. It means technically even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it’s still listed as a COVID death.

So, everyone who’s listed as a COVID death doesn’t mean that that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of the death.”8

Are Total Deaths in 2020 Excessive?

Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a former vice-president and chief scientific adviser of the drug company Pfizer and founder and CEO of the biotech company Ziarco, now owned by Novartis, said in an interview, “You cannot have a lethal pandemic stalking the land and not have excess deaths.” Yet, excess deaths on the level of a lethal pandemic just aren’t occurring.

About 1,700 people die each day in the U.K. in any given year, Yeadon says — but many of these deaths are now falsely attributed to COVID-19. “I’m calling out the statistics, and even the claim that there is an ongoing pandemic, as false,” he said, noting that the definition of a “coronavirus death” in the U.K. is anyone who dies, from any cause, within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test.

In the U.S., it’s a similar story. As of December 22, 2020, the provisional total death count from all causes, according to the CDC, is 2,835,533.9 For comparison, the total number of deaths from all causes in 2018 was 2,839,20510 while in 2019 it was 2,854,838.11

Some estimates suggested that 2020 deaths may top 3.2 million when all the final figures are added up,12 but how many of those deaths are directly attributable to COVID-19?

According to Yeadon, some of the slight uptick in deaths being presorted in the U.K. — primarily people aged 45 to 65, with equal distribution between the sexes — are mainly from heart disease, stroke and cancer, which suggests they are excess deaths caused by inaccessibility of routine medical care as people are either afraid of or discouraged from going to the hospital.

These deaths may be characterized as being COVID related, but that’s only because they have been falsely lumped into that category due to a positive test being recorded within 28 days of death. In the U.S., other deaths have also increased, including, according to Robert Anderson of the CDC, “an unexpected number of deaths from certain types of heart and circulatory diseases, diabetes and dementia.”13

Drug overdose deaths are also at record numbers. According to the AP, in late December 2020, “the CDC reported more than 81,000 drug overdose deaths in the 12 months ending in May, making it the highest number ever recorded in a one-year period.”14

Flu Deaths Disappear

Another curiosity in 2020 is what happened to the flu. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) tracks influenza (flu) and pneumonia deaths weekly through the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Mortality Reporting System. But, “April 4, 2020 was the last week in-season preliminary burden estimates were provided,” the CDC wrote on its 2019-2020 U.S. flu season webpage.15

The reason the estimates stopped in April is because flu cases plummeted so low that they’re hardly worth tracking. In an update posted December 3, 2020, the CDC stated:

“The model used to generate influenza in-season preliminary burden estimates uses current season flu hospitalization data. Reported flu hospitalizations are too low at this time to generate an estimate.”16

They also added, “The number of hospitalizations estimated so far this season is lower than end-of-season total hospitalization estimates for any season since CDC began making these estimates.”17 Meanwhile, the “COVID” deaths the CDC has been reporting are actually a combination of pneumonia, flu and COVID deaths, under a new category listed as “PIC” (Pneumonia, Influenza, COVID).

Their COVIDView webpage, which provides a weekly surveillance summary of U.S. COVID-19 activity, states that levels of SARS-CoV-2 and “associated illnesses” have been increasing since September 2020, while the percentage of deaths due to pneumonia, flu and COVID-19 has been on the rise since October.18

As noted by professor William M. Briggs, a statistical consultant and policy advisor at The Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank, “CDC, up until about July 2020, counted flu and pneumonia deaths separately, been doing this forever, then just mysteriously stopped … It’s become very difficult to tell the difference between these,”19 referring to the combined tracking of deaths from “PIC.”

Selection Bias and Problems With Testing

Dr. Reid Sheftall has also suggested that COVID-19 fatality rates may be inflated, by about 40 times. In an interview with Ivor Cummins, a biochemical engineer with a background in medical device engineering,20 he said selection bias was being used in the counting of cases, and organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and CDC were drastically undercounting the number of people who were infected, which inflated the mortality rate.

Sheftall looked for data in which every case had been counted, ending up with a cruise ship, in which every person had been tested, and a small town in Germany that had also tested all residents. “When I crunched the numbers, the infection fatality rate came out to 0.14%, so I knew … there were some gross errors going on.” Sheftall cited COVID-19 survival rates by age, posted by the CDC September 10, 2020, which are as follows:21

  • Ages 0 to 19: 99.997%
  • Ages 20 to 49: 99.98%
  • Ages 50 to 69: 99.5%
  • Ages 70 and up: 94.6%

This translates into a 0.1% infection fatality rate, using the CDC’s own numbers. More than 224.5 million COVID-19 tests have been conducted in the U.S,22 which includes an unknown number of tests conducted on people with no symptoms.

The costs for such testing could be used for a more productive purpose, according to Sheftall, particularly for asymptomatic people. “The whole basis of medicine,” he says, is to test people with symptoms so you can find out what’s wrong and treat them accordingly:

“In 2017 to 2018 … between 70 and 80 million people in America got the flu … nobody noticed for the most part and no one was tested. I’m a doctor and I vaguely remember that it was a bad flu season. That was it. And yet with COVID we’re testing so many people you wouldn’t believe it.”23

What’s more, positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have proven remarkably unreliable with high false result rates, and a positive test does not mean that an active infection is present.

Fear May Be Causing More Deaths

Taken together, what’s clear about the COVID-19 fatality rates being reported is that there’s a lot of room for error and misinterpretation. Solid analysis of any “excess” deaths being attributed to COVID-19 are needed before policy decisions are made. When this was done in England in October 2020, deaths were only 1% higher than expected, and many of them were due to heart disease, stroke and diabetes.

“Notably” fewer deaths due to respiratory conditions and acute respiratory infections were found, yet deaths occurring in homes due to non-COVID-causes increased. This may be another sad outcome of the fear being propagated in relation to COVID-19. According to the study,

“The data suggest that mortality has shifted from hospital to home, especially for deaths not associated with COVID-19. This ‘displacement’ may be due to the reluctance of individuals to receive treatment in hospital or of clinicians to admit non-covid patients … Deaths in the home remain persistently high, and yet they receive little attention.”24


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


1 Greek Reporter June 27, 2020

2 ZeroHedge December 17, 2020

3 Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment September 28, 2020

4 CBS Local December 14, 2020

5 Freedom Foundation August 18, 2020

6 Freedom Foundation December 16, 2020

7 FOX 35 Orlando July 16, 2020

8 Week April 20, 2020

9 U.S. CDC, Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

10 U.S. CDC, Deaths and Mortality

11, 12, 13, 14 AP December 21, 2020

15, 16, 17 U.S. CDC, 2019-2020 U.S. Flu Season: Preliminary In-Season Burden Estimates

18 COVIDView December 11, 2020

19 YouTube, Discernable November 24, 2020, The Flu Has Disappeared!

20, 21, 23 The Fat Emperor, Podcast, December 11, 2020

22 COVIDTracking.com December 17, 2020

24 The Center for Evidence-Based Medicine October 23, 2020

Featured image is from OffGuardian

US Government Role in Thailand’s “Student Protests”

December 30th, 2020 by Tony Cartalucci

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Government Role in Thailand’s “Student Protests”

For decades US-based Boeing and European aerospace giant, Airbus, have dominated global civilian aviation in what many in the industry describe as a duopoly. But as is the case in so many other industries as of late, China’s economic and technological rise has raised questions about the future of this duopoly.

China’s Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC), founded as recently as 2008 is developing a range of commercial airliners for use domestically and is attempting to promote its products abroad. While the latter is an intermediate to long-term prospect, domestically China already has the largest aviation market in the world with a growing demand for airliners projected well into the future.

COMAC is working to position itself to meet this demand and in the process eventually establishing itself as a reliable aerospace company capable of manufacturing and maintaining civilian airliners around the globe on par with Boeing and Airbus.

Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) is similarly expanding its operations and already enjoys a share of foreign civilian aviation markets, however small in comparison with Boeing and Airbus.

Together, COMAC and UAC through the China-Russia Commercial Aircraft International Corporation  (CRAIC), are developing a long-range wide-body twinjet airliner that would further enhance the competitiveness of both companies.

Designated the CR929, the new aircraft is expected to make its first flight by 2025, before being introduced to the market in following years.

The ability for the CR929 to compete head-to-head with Boeing and Airbus at the moment seems unlikely. What is more likely is that it, along with other offerings from both COMAC and UAC, will prove themselves first in the Russian and Chinese civilian aviation markets, before future developments are more widely accepted by others internationally.

It is a long-term plan that takes into account not only the current geopolitical climate, but one that takes into consideration a future international order that has tilted considerably more toward the multipolar and away from the West’s current unipolar order, and an order that has produced and still jealously protects the Boeing-Airbus duopoly.

In fact, among the growing list of US sanctions against both China and Russia, several are designed specifically to target the civilian aviation industries of both nations.

These include sanctions that will prohibit Western corporations from providing systems and components to either country that would eventually make their way into the CR929 and future aircraft designs.

Such sanctions will  undoubtedly delay the development of CR929 and setback the Chinese and Russian civilian aviation industries, but just as is the case with sanctions aimed at Chinese telecom giant Huawei, these sanctions are unlikely to entirely stop either nation’s civilian aviation industries.

Additionally, such sanctions invite the possibility of retaliatory sanctions which might include the exclusion of companies like Boeing from China’s massive and still growing civilian aviation market.

This would help compensate for the technical setbacks COMAC, its products and those it is jointly developing with Russia’s UAC face from US sanctions and give it the time and space it needs to mature its technology within China’s domestic market, to eventually, directly compete with Boeing and Airbus internationally.

Thus, while the threat by COMAC and UAC to the West’s civilian aviation duopoly is not immediate, it is present and growing. Because of the West’s inability or lack of confidence to compete fairly in open markets with China and Russia, it is creating the conditions COMAC and UAC need to develop their aircraft in a market protected by retaliatory sanctions and in a market more than large enough to sustain both companies.

The saying, “what doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger” appears to be apt here. If COMAC and UAC can continue developing world class airliners despite current pressure from the US, developing the systems domestically that the US seeks to deny the companies from Western suppliers, both companies will come out stronger because of it.

At the same time, it isn’t difficult to imagine China’s partners across Asia, particularly in Southeast Asia adopting COMAC aircraft some time in the near future, with many already having bought UAC’s Sukhoi Superjets.

Constructive competition and a balance between great powers is a key feature of multipolarism. The deconstruction of the West’s civilian aviation duopoly will be a key metric to measure multipolarism’s success in the coming years as COMAC, UAC and their joint venture, the CR929 take shape and hopefully soon, take flight.


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

Gunnar Ulson is a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from NEO

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia-China Civilian Aviation Production Challenges Boeing-Airbus Dominance
  • Tags:

Mass-Vaxxing of US Military Forces for COVID

December 30th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

On December 9, the US war department announced its “distribution plan” for covid mass-vaxxing.

Service members to be vaxxed include active duty personnel — including National Guard troops — their family members, war department civilian personnel and their families.

“Distribution will be conducted in phases,” it was announced.

US forces in South Korea — including military and civilian healthcare personnel — will be vaxxed first with Moderna’s high-risk, inadequately tested, experimental vaccine.

Like Pfizer’s entry into the covid mass-vaxxing sweepstakes, Moderna’s vaccine in NOT approved by the FDA.

Both were given Emergency Authorization Use (EAU) green-lighting for widespread mass-vaxxing — despite the high-risk of what the CDC calls an “health impact event” or an “adverse event.”

Either may require medical treatment for what’s potentially life-threatening like anaphylaxis — or any one or more major illnesses that can cause death like heart disease and cancer.

In five days after US mass-vaxxing began on December 14, over 5,000 “health impact events” were reported.

How many more went unreported is unknown. Nor is there information on the seriousness of health issues experienced.

All vaccines are high-risk. Experimental ones like Pfizer’s and Moderna’s may cause widespread serious health issues only known much later.

During the 1991 Gulf War, around 150,000 US troops were vaxxed for anthrax.

Short-term it caused redness, swelling and fever that’s associated with all vaccines.

Serious health issues weren’t discovered until later called Gulf War syndrome.

Experimental anthrax vaccines contained squalene-based adjuvants that caused severe autoimmune diseases and deaths among Gulf War veterans later on.

They included rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, neuritis risking later paralysis, uveitis risking blindness, neurological harm, congenital disabilities in offspring, cognitive impairment, and systemic lupus erythematosus, among other health issues.

The latter disease can harm joints, skin, brain, lungs, kidneys, and blood vessels.

From 1990 to 2001, over two million doses of anthrax vaccine were administered to US military personnel.

According to Stars and Stripes, the Veterans Affairs Department denied over 80% of benefits claims filed by military vets for health issues related to the Gulf War or later vaxxing for anthrax.

Research showed that squalene-based adjuvants are directly linked to Gulf War syndrome.

US military personnel were used and abused as unwitting lab rats. Many became ill. Thousands died.

One Gulf War vet likely spoke for many others, saying the following:

“Was the character of my valor less intense than those at Lexington?”

“Was the pain of my wounds any less severe than those at Normandy?”

“And was my loneliness any less sorrowful than those at Inchon?”

“Then why am I forgotten amonst those remembered as ‘heros?’ ”

Squalene adjuvants are a key ingredient in many vaccines.

It’s unclear if they’re used in Pfizer and Moderna covid vaccines.

Smith, Kline & French (SKF) expects its covid vaccines that contain squalene adjuvants will be approved and distributed.

It’s preparing to supply adjuvants for 1 billion doses — together with Sanofi, Sanofi, Clover Biopharmaceuticals, Medicago, and Innovax, its covid vaccine development partners.

SKF claims that adjuvant technology can “create a stronger and longer-lasting immunity against infections,” according to a company press release.

Omitted was information on hazards to human health from their use.

Soviet Russia researchers earlier called squalene adjuvants “a biological time bomb.”

Others called compulsory vaxxing (likely containing them) “medical barbarism.”

Pediatrician Robert S. Mendelsohn, author of Confessions of a Medical Heretic, called vaxxing “a medical time bomb,” adding:

The “greatest threat to childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them.”

He urged parents to reject vaxxing for their children. In many states, it’s mandatory.

Not so far for covid but perhaps it’s coming to get medical passports for employment, attending school, air travel, and other public activities.

Will daily lives and routines ahead no longer be possible without proof of covid vaxxing?

Commander of US forces in South Korea General Robert Abrams said the following to USFK troops:

“I want you to make an informed decision for you and your family regarding the vaccine.”

If mass compliance doesn’t follow, will he mandate covid vaxxing for everyone he commands.

Refusal would risk possible bad conduct or dishonorable courts-martial punishment.

If mandated for US military personnel or all Americans, it’ll breach Nuremberg Code principles. It’s 10 points include:

1. Voluntary consent on matters relating to human health.

2. Procedures yielding positive results that benefit individuals and society.

3. Procedures based on positive experimentation results.

4. Physical and mental suffering prohibited.

5. Whatever risks death or disability is forbidden.

6. Risks taken should never exceed sought benefits.

7. Proper preparation in suitable facilities should precede procedures followed.

8. Only scientifically qualified individuals should conduct them.

9. At any time during treatment, individuals may cancel it at their discretion.

10. Scientifically qualified individuals involved must terminate procedures if too high a risk of harm to human health exists.

A brave new world order is unfolding in plain sight — facilitated by covid that’s largely seasonal flu/influenza.

Outbreaks occur around six months annually with no lockdowns, quarantines, mask-wearing, social distancing, fear-mongering-created mass hysteria, and Main Street economic Depression.

What’s happening is a dystopian nightmare that caused enormous harm to millions of ordinary people in the US and elsewhere.

Is a permanent draconian way of life in the US and West the new abnormal — enforced by police state harshness?

Is the old order gone, life as before not coming back?

What was unthinkable not long ago are nations more unsafe and unfit to live in than before seasonal flu/influenza showed up masquerading as covid.

Is the worst yet to come?


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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”


Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from The Freedom Articles

Global Research Editor’s Note

This article first published by Global Research on May 24, 2019 is of utmost relevance to the ongoing debate on the Covid Vaccine.


In October 2014, the conference of Catholic bishops in Kenya released a statement regarding the tetanus vaccine programme implemented under UN auspices. (see the statement below)

The issue was subsequently addressed by Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association. (see article below).

Published below are the following texts:

  • a recent review article pertaining to the 2014 findings of Kenya’s Catholic Doctors Association concerning the tetanus vaccine. No update is provided in this article with regard to Kenya.
  • the original 2014 statement by the Conference of Catholic Bishops.
  • the 2014 response by UNICEF and the WHO with regard to the tetanus vaccine.

May 23, 2019


According to LifeSiteNews, [November 2014] a Catholic publication, the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association is charging UNICEF and WHO with sterilizing millions of girls and women under cover of an anti-tetanus vaccination program sponsored by the Kenyan government.

The Kenyan government denies there is anything wrong with the vaccine, and says it is perfectly safe.

The Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, however, saw evidence to the contrary, and had six different samples of the tetanus vaccine from various locations around Kenya sent to an independent laboratory in South Africa for testing.

The results confirmed their worst fears: all six samples tested positive for the HCG antigen. The HCG antigen is used in anti-fertility vaccines, but was found present in tetanus vaccines targeted to young girls and women of childbearing age. Dr. Ngare, spokesman for the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, stated in a bulletin released November 4:

“This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine. This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third round of immunization but was ignored.” (Source.)

Dr. Ngare brought up several points about the mass tetanus vaccination program in Kenya that caused the Catholic doctors to become suspicious:

Dr. Ngare told LifeSiteNews that several things alerted doctors in the Church’s far-flung medical system of 54 hospitals, 83 health centres, and 17 medical and nursing schools to the possibility the anti-tetanus campaign was secretly an anti-fertility campaign.

Why, they ask does it involve an unprecedented five shots (or “jabs” as they are known, in Kenya) over more than two years and why is it applied only to women of childbearing years, and why is it being conducted without the usual fanfare of government publicity?

“Usually we give a series three shots over two to three years, we give it anyone who comes into the clinic with an open wound, men, women or children.” said Dr. Ngare.

But it is the five vaccination regime that is most alarming. “The only time tetanus vaccine has been given in five doses is when it is used as a carrier in fertility regulating vaccines laced with the pregnancy hormone, Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) developed by WHO in 1992.” (Source.)

UNICEF: A History of Taking Advantage of Disasters to Mass Vaccinate

It should be noted that UNICEF and WHO distribute these vaccines for free, and that there are financial incentives for the Kenyan government to participate in these programs. When funds from the UN are not enough to purchase yearly allotments of vaccines, an organization started and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, GAVI, provides extra funding for many of these vaccination programs in poor countries. (See: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Vaccine Empire on Trial in India.)

Also, there was no outbreak of tetanus in Kenya, only the perceived “threat” of tetanus due to local flood conditions.

These local disasters are a common reason UNICEF goes into poorer countries with free vaccines to begin mass vaccination programs.

Health Impact News reported last year that UNICEF began a similar mass vaccination program with 500,000 doses of live oral polio vaccine in the Philippines after a Super Typhoon devastated Tacloban and surrounding areas. This was in spite of the fact there were no reported cases of polio in the Philippines since 1993, and people who have had the live polio vaccine can “shed” the virus into sewage systems, thereby causing the actual disease it is supposed to be preventing. (See: No Polio in the Philippines Since 1993, But Mass Polio Vaccination Program Targeted for 500,000 Typhoon Victims Under Age 5.)

A very similar mass vaccination with the live oral polio vaccine occurred among Syrian refugees in 2013, when 1.7 million doses of polio vaccine were purchased by UNICEF, in spite of the fact that no cases of polio had been seen since 1999. After the mass vaccination program started, cases of polio began to reappear in Syria. (See: Are UNICEF Live Polio Vaccines Causing Polio Among Syrians? 1.7 Billion Polio Vaccines Purchased by UNICEF.)

It seems quite apparent that UNICEF and WHO use these local disasters to mass vaccinate people, mainly children and young women. Massive education and propaganda efforts are also necessary to convince the local populations that they need these vaccines. Here is a video UNICEF produced for the tetanus vaccine in Kenya. Notice how they use school teachers and local doctors to do the educating, even though the vaccines are produced by western countries.

At least in Kenya, Catholic doctors are acting and taking a stand against what they see as an involuntary mass sterilization campaign designed to control the population of Africans.



Health service delivery forms an integral part of evangelization for the Catholic Church. As such, the role played through the Church’s health Apostolate in Kenya cannot be understated.

The Church has an extensive network of health facilities that include 58 hospitals, 83 health centers, 311 dispensaries and 17 medical training institutions. Our health facilities offer a wide range preventive and curative health services, including vaccination. The Catholic Church coordinates these services through the Catholic Health Commission of Kenya – Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops (KCCB).

The Catholic Health Commission of Kenya, currently meeting at St Patrick’s Pastoral Center Kabula in Bungoma, with health facility managers from 24 Catholic Dioceses are deeply concerned about the following issues regarding the Tetanus vaccination campaign scheduled for of 13th – 19th October 2014:

  • There has not been adequate stakeholder engagement for consultation both in the preparation for the campaign. The Catholic Church has not been engaged as members and participants of the Health Sector Coordinating Committee and in the respective Technical Working Group. This is despite previous promises by the Ministry of Health to be engaged as a key stakeholder.
  • There has been limited public awareness unlike other related campaigns like Polio vaccination.
  • There has been limited public information on the rationale with a background that has informed the initiative since we raised an issue in March 2014.

We are still keen on having the Ministry of Health give Kenyans adequate responses to the following key pertinent questions:

  • Is there a tetanus crisis in Kenya? If this is so, why has it not been declared?
  • Why does the campaign target women of 14 – 49years?
  • Why has the campaign left out young girls, boys and men even if they are all prone to tetanus?
  • In the midst of so many life threatening diseases in Kenya, why has tetanus been prioritized?

We are not convinced that the government has taken adequate responsibility to ensure that Tetanus Toxoid vaccine (TT) laced with Beta human chorionic gonadotropin (b-HCG) sub unit is not being used by the sponsoring development partners. This has previously been used by the same partners in Philippines, Nicaragua and Mexico to vaccinate women against future pregnancy. Beta HCG sub unit is a hormone necessary for pregnancy.

When injected as a vaccine to a non-pregnant woman, this Beta HCG sub unit combined with tetanus toxoid develops antibodies against tetanus and HCG so that if a woman’s egg becomes fertilized, her own natural HCG will be destroyed rendering her permanently infertile. In this situation tetanus vaccination has been used as a birth control method.

We retain that the tetanus vaccination campaign bears the hallmarks of the programmes that were carried out in Philippines, Mexico and Nicaragua. We would want to participate in ensuring that the vaccines to be administered are free of this hormone.

The Catholic Church acknowledges that maternal and neonatal care is imperative in prevention of death; the Church therefore maintains that adequate and clear information is provided to the general public to avoid misinformation and propaganda in regard to the vaccine. The sanctity of Life and the dignity of the human person must always be priorities in health care and the Catholic Church, in the absence of proper and adequate information will not shy away from raising moral questions on matters affecting human life.


Rt. Rev. Paul Kariuki Njiru

Chairman, Catholic Health Commission of Kenya – KCCB


Rt. Rev. Joseph Mbatia

Vice Chairman, Catholic Health Commission of Kenya – KCCB

Statement from WHO and UNICEF on the Tetanus Vaccine in Kenya

The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) express their deep concern about the misinformation circulating in the media on the quality of the Tetanus Toxoid (TT) Vaccine in Kenya.

The allegations are that the tetanus vaccine used by the Government of Kenya and UN agencies is contaminated with a hormone (hCG) that can cause miscarriages and render some women sterile. These grave allegations are not backed up by evidence, and risk negatively impacting national immunization programmes for children and women.

Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is a hormone produced by the placenta, during pregnancy. hCG is also produced in the pituitary glands of males and females of all ages. However, very high levels pose risks to pregnancy.

We have taken note of test results claiming to show levels of hCG in samples submitted to some clinical laboratories. However it is important to note that testing for the content of a medicine, e.g TT Vaccine needs to be done in a suitable laboratory, and from a sample of the actual medicine/vaccine obtained from an unopened pack and not a blood sample. Furthermore the Pharmacy and Poisons Board – the legally mandated National Regulatory Authority has the capacity and mandate to determine the quality, safety and efficacy of medicines and to advise the Government accordingly.

WHO and UNICEF confirm that the vaccines are safe and are procured from a pre-qualified manufacturer. This safety is assured through a three-pronged global testing system and the vaccine has reached more than 130 million women with at least two doses of TT vaccines in 52 countries.

Given most tetanus cases in Kenya are among newborns, the target group of Kenya’s TT vaccination campaigns is girls and women (15-49 years), with a particular emphasis on those in the most marginalized areas. We note with concern that Kenya is one of the 25 countries where tetanus is still a public health problem, killing hundreds of newborns every year.WHO and UNICEF reiterate our readiness to support the Government of Kenya in its efforts to provide safe and quality assured vaccines for the immunization programmes.

Dr. Custodia Mandlhate
WHO Representative Kenya

Dr. Pirkko Heinonen
Acting Representative

For more information kindly contact:

Edita Nsubuga
Chief of Communication, UNICEF Kenya
Tel: +254 (20) 762 2977
Email: [email protected]


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

Featured image is from UNICEF

Most Popular Articles in December 2020

December 30th, 2020 by Global Research News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Most Popular Articles in December 2020

2020 is coming to an end and entering history as one of the most troubled years in recent decades, having caused structural changes in the global geopolitical balance. The “pandemic” of the new coronavirus brought a series of changes in the daily lives of the citizens of large cities worldwide. All over the world, a “new normal” was established – a new unwritten code of coexistence between human beings, which seeks to meet the needs of an era of risk and collective fear.

The new health regulations, focused on establishing a standard of social isolation and infection prevention, forced entire populations to reshape their customs. Obviously, in the event of a proliferation of infectious diseases, stricter health standards must be adopted to manage the risks and prevent deaths, but the consequences of prolonged social isolation have brought serious damage to the social structure of most countries. The productive chain was interrupted as, with fewer people circulating on the streets, the lower the average consumption was, and, consequently, many companies went bankrupt, aggravating social problems such as unemployment and poverty.

In general, the main problem caused by the coronavirus, in economic terms, was the acceleration of the process of extinction of the middle classes at a global level, which further increased the economic power of a small class of billionaires to the detriment of an entire disadvantaged mass. The middle sectors went bankrupt and became closer to the line of misery than to the wealth of the great capitalists. Not even the banking sector escaped the crisis, with the advanced bankruptcy process of some of the largest institutions in this sector, such as Deutsche Bank. The oil sector has experienced its worst days, with drastic declines in global demand for fossil fuels as their use has reached the lowest rates ever with social isolation measures. Financial capitalism itself proved to be on the brink collapse, lacking the resources to manage an unprecedented global crisis.

All of this set a precedent for new narratives and projects. In the face of the bankruptcy of the current system, alternatives appeared to replace it. In the midst of so many speeches, two stood out: a speech in favor of replacing the current global system with a new model, focused on prioritizing major global issues, mainly environmental issues – defending the internationalization of biomes and mass deindustrialization – and a more nationalist and protectionist model, which seeks to regress in the phases of capitalism in favor of a revival of the industrial era. This dispute was visible mainly in the American elections, with Trump representing a populist project of protectionist capitalism and Biden representing the Western Globalists’ agenda, defending the move towards a “green capitalism”.

Still, on the specific topic of the American elections, we can notice many curious facts. For the first time, Washington was the scenario of a possible attempt of colorful revolution. This is what we can think with the violent protests and racial tensions that have spread throughout the country in recent months and have caused immense instability in the Trump administration – a fundamental factor in paving the way towards Biden’s victory. The sharp drop in Trump’s popularity was almost exclusively due to the combined crisis of the rebellions and the pandemic’s health catastrophe, with which his difficulty in dealing was notorious and caused outrage. But even with Biden’s victory, the election results remain uncertain. Although he has already authorized the transition, Trump still does not recognize Biden and rumors are currently circulating about a possible martial law that would allow the American president to establish a state of exception and remain in power. All of this makes the American domestic scenario even more uncertain for 2021.

In parallel with the economic and political effects already mentioned, the pandemic has led to a new era in the arms race of nations, making the pharmaceutical industry acquire a fundamental character in the geopolitical balance. In an era of pandemics, the strongest nation is the one that has the means to immunize its own population. Vaccines and medicines took on a role that was once reserved for nuclear bombs and weapons of mass destruction: guaranteeing the real sovereign power of a state. All the great world powers have invested heavily in the production of vaccines and, so far, no vaccine has reached a preferred status worldwide, which indicates not only that the race will continue, but also that we will possibly have a near future of medical pluralism, with different vaccines being implemented in each country, without a medicine reaching the global level of production and distribution.

Also noteworthy is the recent wave of so-called “peace agreements” between Arabs and Israelis, which reversed the structure of decades of ethnic-religious conflict in the Middle East, bringing the Islamic autocracies and Tel Aviv closer to an alliance against Turkey and Iran, supported mainly by France and US.

With all this troubled and unstable scenario, what to expect in 2021? Nothing more than an exact continuation of this year’s events, without any sudden change in the directions taken by international society in 2020.

Everything indicates that the dispute between a populist speech in favor of closing borders and reindustrialization and a speech in favor of “green globalization” will continue as Trump will remain resistant to accepting Biden’s victory. It is likely that Trump will not break institutional legality and will in fact allow the transition of power, but he and his supporters will start a strong anti-government campaign in search of a viable outcome for their party in 2024. This will make the nationalist discourse continue to grow and compete with globalism. Biden, on the other hand, will recover Washington’s alliance with Western Europe, previously broken by Trump and will increase an interventionist policy in the Middle East – this will happen amid the wave of peace agreements between Arabs and Israelis, which will further isolate Palestine and exclude the possibility of a peaceful coexistence of two States.

In fact, 2020 was a year like few in history. Changes that would have taken decades occurred in months and the effects of this year are unlikely to be reversed in a short time.


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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 2020 Was Year Like Few in History. Social Isolation, Unemployment, Poverty
  • Tags:

As Europe begins vaccinating the first wave of high-priority patients, a “glitch” has already emerged: many health-care workers and others have refused to take the vaccine, as skepticism and suspicion remain elevated.

A similar phenomenon has played out in the US, but to a less intense degree. But the situation, which we discussed last night, is now one of a variety of reasons, from a shortage of supplies and raw materials, to an uncooperative populace, that public-health officials are growing worried about hitting lofty vaccination targets.

And so, in Spain at least, government bureaucrats are fighting back, as Health Minister Salvador Illa warned the country would set up a “registry” for everybody who refuses the vaccine.

“What will be done is a registry, which will be shared with our European partners… of those people who have been offered it and have simply rejected it,” he said.

“It is not a document which will be made public and it will be done with the utmost respect for data protection.”

He added that the registry would not be made public, or delivered to employers, which begs the question: why else would the government keep a database of that information?

An AFP report on the health minister’s remarks wasn’t exactly clear about the motive, which leads us to believe that it’s just another tactic by the Spanish government, which has sworn up and down, like other European governments, that vaccinations wouldn’t be mandatory,.

Polls released over the last couple of months appear to reflect a steep and unexplained drop in the number of respondents who claim to be skeptical, or otherwise indicate that they would like to wait before getting the vaccine, has plunged as the first doses have been doled out and administered.

Spain’s government expects to have between 15MM and 20MM people out of its population of 47MM vaccinated against the virus by June in order to salvage next summer’s tourism season.

“The way to defeat the virus is to vaccinate all of us or the more the better,” Illa said.

Speculation has also been brewing about what might happen to those who refuse to inoculate themselves, and/or their children, even as public officials have talked up the importance of “transparency” and – of course – freedom of individual choice.

To be sure, the Spanish aren’t alone. Many other Europeans share their anxieties, which have been stoked by government table-pounding about vaccine safety (any skepticism is verboten), the rapid pace of development, and the use of the new mRNA technology. For example, independent pollster Alpha Research said its recent survey suggested that fewer than one in five Bulgarians from the first groups to be offered the vaccine – frontline medics, pharmacists, teachers and nursing home staff – planned to volunteer to get a shot. A recent IFOP poll found that roughly 41% of French would take the shot if available, which means nearly 60% would not.

Which is why, looking ahead, we wouldn’t be surprised to see more heavy handed measures employed (immunity passports?) as officials grow increasingly desperate to hit their (largely speculative) herd immunity targets.


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

Featured image is from Viacheslav Lopatin | Credit: scaliger – stock.adobe.com

Even before President-Elect Joe Biden sets foot in the White House, the Senate Intelligence Committee may start hearings on his nomination of Avril Haines as Director of National Intelligence. 

Barack Obama’s top lawyer on the National Security Council from 2010 to 2013 followed by CIA Deputy Director from 2013 to 2015, Haines is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing. She is the affable assassin who, according to Newsweek, would be summoned in the middle of the night to decide if a citizen of any country, including our own, should be incinerated in a U.S. drone strike in a distant land in the greater Middle East. Haines also played a key role in covering up the U.S. torture program, known euphemistically as “enhanced interrogation techniques,” which included repeated water boarding, sexual humiliation, sleep deprivation, dousing naked prisoners with ice cold water, and rectal rehydration.

For these reasons, among others, the activist groups CODEPINK, Progressive Democrats of America, World Beyond War and Roots Action have launched a campaign calling on the Senate to reject her confirmation.

These same groups ran successful campaigns to dissuade Biden from choosing two other warmongering candidates for critical foreign policy positions: China-hawk Michele Flournoy for Secretary of Defense and torture apologist Mike Morell for CIA Director. By hosting calling parties to Senators, launching petitions and publishing Open Letters from DNC delegates, feminists—including Alice Walker, Jane Fonda, and Gloria Steinem—and Guantanamo torture survivors, activists helped derail candidates who were once considered shoo-ins for Biden’s cabinet.

Now activists are challenging Avril Haines.

In 2015, when Haines was CIA Deputy Director, CIA agents illegally hacked the computers of the Senate Intelligence Committee to thwart the Committee’s investigation into the spy agency’s detention and interrogation program. Haines overruled the CIA’s own Inspector General in failing to discipline the CIA agents who violated the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers. According to former CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou, she not only shielded the hackers from accountability but even awarded them the Career Intelligence Medal.

And there’s more. When the exhaustive 6,000-page Senate Intelligence Committee report on torture was finally complete, after five years of investigation and research, Haines took charge of redacting it to deny the public’s right to know its full details, reducing the document to a 500-page, black-ink-smeared summary.

Page 45 of the redacted Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture.

This censorship went beyond merely “protecting sources and methods”; it avoided CIA embarrassment, while ensuring her own career advancement.

Moreover, Haines supported torture apologist Gina Haspel as Trump’s CIA Director. Haspel ran a secret black site prison in Thailand where torture was regularly inflicted. Haspel also drafted the memo ordering the destruction of almost 100 videotapes documenting CIA torture.

As David Segal of Demand Progress told CNN, “Haines has an unfortunate record of repeatedly covering up for torture and torturers. Her push for maximalist redactions of the torture report, her refusal to discipline the CIA personnel who hacked the Senate and her vociferous support for Gina Haspel — which was even touted by the Trump White House as Democrats stood in nearly unanimous opposition to the then-nominee to lead the CIA — should be interrogated during the confirmation process.”

This sentiment was echoed by Mark Udall, a Democratic senator on the intelligence committee when it finished the torture report. “If our country is going to turn the page on the dark chapter of our history that was the CIA’s torture program, we need to stop nominating and confirming individuals who led this terrible program and helped cover it up.”

Another reason Haines’s nomination should be rejected is her support for the proliferation of killer drones. There has been a concerted effort by former Obama colleagues to paint Haines as a voice of restraint that tried to pro­tect­ civil­ians. But according to former CIA whistleblower Kiarikou, Haines regularly approved the drone bombings that killed not only suspected terrorists, but entire families, including children, who died as collateral damage.”It was Avril that decided whether it was legal to incinerate someone from the sky,” said Kiriakou.

When human rights groups denounced Obama’s rash use of extrajudicial killings, including the assumption that all military-age males in the strike zone were “enemy combatants” and therefore legitimate targets, Haines was enlisted to co-author a new “pres­i­den­tial pol­i­cy guid­ance” to tighten the regulations. But this new “guidance,” issued on May 22, 2013, continued to blur the line between civilians and combatants, nor­mal­izing tar­get­ed assas­si­na­tions and effectively repudiating the “presumption of innocence” that has been the bedrock principle of civilian law for over 800 years.

The drone playbook, “PROCEDURES FOR APPROVING DIRECT ACTION AGAINST TERRORIST TARGETS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND AREAS OF ACTIVE HOSTILITIES,” says on page 1 that any “direct action must be conducted lawfully and taken against lawful targets,” yet the guidelines never reference international or domestic laws that define when extrajudicial killings outside of an active war zone are permitted.

On page 4, the guidelines for drone strikes allow for lethal action against those who are not “high value targets,” without explaining the criteria the CIA would use to identify someone as an imminent threat to the security of the United States. On page 12, the co-authors, Haines among them, redacted the minimum profile requirements for an individual “nominated” for lethal action. The very term “nominated” suggests an effort to sugarcoat targeted assassination, as though the bombing target is recomended for a U.S. presidential cabinet position. [NOTE: You might (somewhat sarcastically) want to put “[sic]” after the first use of the word “nominated”]

Page 12 of Haines’s guidelines for extrajudicial killings. Required generic profile entries for individuals “nominated” for lethal action are redacted. 

Moreover, the guidelines themselves were often totally disregarded. The policy states, for example, that the U.S. “prioritizes, as a matter of policy, the capture of terrorist suspects as a preferred option over lethal action” and that lethal action should be taken “only when capture of an individual is not feasible.” But the Obama administration did nothing of the sort. Under George Bush, at least 780 terrorist suspects were captured and thrown into the U.S.-run gulag in Guantanamo. Haines’s guidelines prohibit transfer to Guantanamo so, instead, suspects were simply incinerated.

The guidelines required “near certainty that non-combatants will not be killed or injured,” but this requirement was routinely violated, as documented by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Haines’s policy guidance also states that the U.S. would respect other states’ sovereignty, only undertaking lethal action when other governments “cannot or will not” address a threat to the U.S. This, too, became simply empty words on paper. The U.S. barely even consulted with the governments in whose territory it was dropping bombs and, in the case of Pakistan, openly defied the government. In December 2013, the National Assembly of Pakistan unanimously approved a resolution against U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, calling them a violation of “the charter of the United Nations, international laws and humanitarian norms” and Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif stated: “The use of drones is not only a continual violation of our territorial integrity but also detrimental to our resolve and efforts at eliminating terrorism from our country.” But the U.S. ignored the  pleas of Pakistan’s elected government.

The proliferation of drone killings under Obama, from Yemen to Somalia, also violated U.S. law, which gives Congress the sole authority to authorize military conflict. But Obama’s legal team, which included Haines, circumvented the law by insisting that these military interventions fell under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), the law Congress passed to target Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. This specious argument provided fodder for the out-of-control misuse of that 2001 AUMF which, according to the Congressional Research Service, has been relied on to justify U.S. military action at least 41 times in 19 countries.

In addition, the guidelines don’t even require the CIA and other agencies participating in the drone program to notify the President, the Commander-in-Chief, as to who is to be killed in a drone strike, except when a targeted individual is a U.S. citizen or when the agencies in charge cannot agree on the target.

There are many other reasons to reject Haines. She advocates intensifying crippling economic sanctions on North Korea that undermine a negotiated peace, and “regime change”–hypothetically engineered by a U.S. ally–that could leave a collapsed North Korea vulnerable to terrorist theft of its nuclear material; she was a consultant at WestExec Advisors, a firm that exploits insider government connections to help companies secure plum Pentagon contracts; and she was a consultant with Palantir, a data-mining company that facilitated Trump’s mass deportations of immigrants.

But Haines’s record on torture and drones, alone, should be enough for  Senators to reject her nomination. The unassuming spy—who got her start at the White House as a legal adviser in the Bush State Department in 2003, the year the U.S. invaded Iraq—might look and sound more like your favorite college professor than someone who enabled murder by remote control or wielded a thick black pen to cover up CIA torture, but a clear examination of her past should convince the Senate that Haines is unfit for high office in an administration that promises to restore transparency, integrity, and respect for international law.

Tell your Senator: Vote NO on Haines.


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

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control. In 2013 she directly confronted President Obama about his drone killings.

Marcy Winograd of Progressive Democrats of America served as a 2020 DNC Delegate for Bernie Sanders and co-founded the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party. Coordinator of CODEPINKCONGRESS, Marcy spearheads Capitol Hill calling parties to mobilize co-sponsors and votes for progressive foreign policy legislation.

Featured image is from Columbia World Projects

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Senators Must Reject Avril Haines Director of National Intelligence
  • Tags:

Look at and listen in to three spheres of contemporary Western society – politics, research and media: The word” peace” and related words, such as the UN Charter norm of” making peace by peaceful means”, nonviolence, negotiations – have disappeared. And with the words, the discourse and with the discourse, the interest, the education and expertise, the focus, the awareness and the strategies.

Let us start with the political sphere. In Scandinavia where I happen to live, today’s status is very different from the 1980s. There are no global disarmament policies or disarmament ministers; the UN’s basically non-armed peace-keeping is hardly ever mentioned; while Sweden has integrated with NATO and has soldiers under NATO command, it no longer contributes a single UN peacekeeper.

Ideas such as human security, common security and confidence-building measures with the presumed enemy are never mentioned in the political discourse. The Corona crisis has also shown that there never was any planning for human security.

When Denmark goes to war which, regrettably, it has done more or less constantly since 1999 – a trend toward rogue state status started by the Social Democrats – responsible politicians merely state that it will serve stability, security and peace, promote democracy or take down a dictator. There is no analytical work and no consulting with conflict and peace-making before the F16s take off – usually less than 24 hours after Washington has called.

In the research sphere, Scandinavia used to be a region with quite good critical and, to some extent, solution-oriented peace research institutes. SIPRI now calls itself” the independent resource on global security”. It’s Stockholm conferences that you may watch on various videos are filled with diplomats, security experts and other government representatives who do not focus on theories, concepts or development of them. Its funding includes a series of NATO/EU governments. In 2020 it worked closely with the Münich Conference.

The originally stipulated theory development and focus on making proposals for conflict-resolution has been watered down in the latest version of the statutes.

In Denmark, the well-respected Copenhagen Peace Research Institute (COPRI) directed at the time by Håkan Wiberg was closed down by the same government that made Denmark an occupying power 2003-2007 in Iraq – Denmark’s perhaps biggest foreign policy blunder since 1945. Instead, a series of military-oriented research centres have been established over the years – in addition to military research facilities such as the Defence Academy.

The Danish Institute of International Studies, DIIS, has substantial funding from the Ministry of Defence; its director is experienced from his deputy permanent secretary position at the Ministry of Defence and in the Danish delegation to NATO.

Some of the remaining university-based peace research departments in Scandinavia may study peace concepts or activism, a bit here and there, but the thrust is theories and policies of conflict, violence and war – and no alternatives to world militarism.

Mainstreaming has been on the research agenda for decades. Criticism of militarism, nuclear policies and interventionism is hard to find now, except in tiny local peace movement circles consisting of older age segments. In spite of their knowledge and life experience, they are never invited to give their views in the media. One such group that deserves international recognition is “Fredsvagten” – The Peace Guard – outside the Danish parliament building, Christiansborg. They have been standing there every day since 2001 when the US commenced its Global War on Terror – that is 7000 days now!

Third, the mainstream media does not require much space here. It is abundantly clear to me – having followed the international affairs coverage also in the mainstream press over four decades – that there is no fundamental questioning of Western interventionism, US foreign policies in particular, today. The New York Times is allegedly still the only newspaper that has apologised for its misleading coverage up to the intervention in Iraq – but then continued that type of coverage in the cases of Libya and Syria.

I could write a book about a) all the media work I did between the late 1970s and up to around 2005 after which no requests – and b) the attempts at manipulations I have experienced, including framings.

The last massive Syria media narrative had perhaps even less to do with reality than earlier conflicts.

In December 2016 I was in Eastern Aleppo when it was liberated from terrorist occupation, the only person from Scandinavia and one of only a handful of Westerners. Nevertheless, not one Western mainstream media of about a hundred approached wanted my texts or photos – all published instead on our foundation’s homepage.

Sweden has, since the days of Olof Palme’s murder – moved incrementally in the direction of NATO membership. There is a Host Nation Support Agreement and huge NATO exercises are regularly held on Swedien’s territory. Its mainstream media question neither this trend nor how this has happened over some 20 years with the deliberate strategy to minimise public debate.

Of course, Scandinavia is not the whole West, and some countries may be worse, some better. However, the media homogenisation is so uniform and systematic that it is natural to assume that there is a conductor deciding which tune to play and whose hand movements decide when to start and stop plaing.

For instance, since Aleppo 2016 when this basically Western regime-change policy had failed miserably, how much have the media told us about Syria?

Militarism as the new God

After these scattered observations, let me jump the causes – which I judge to be many and complex – and just say that what I call the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex (MIMAC) is the dominant reason behind the fact that the peace discourse has disappeared.

It is a much wider and deeper notion than when President Eisenhower, in his farewell speech in 1961, talked about the MIC – the Military-Industrial Complex.

While so much bigger and resource consuming as well as globalised today compared with back then, this MIMAC has become the elephant in the centre of the room of Western civilisation which rather small vested elite interests have a common interest in maintaining with as little public debate as possible. It is also in their interest to secure that it should not be seen, interpreted and certainly not disarmed.

Of course, this militates against democracy as well as human welfare.

It may even have become a kind of religion-like mental construction or thought-structure. It can certainly be argued that the militarised governments based on MIMAC dynamics substitute a sense of authority that – earlier – was placed in the hands of God before the whole society secularised ad absurdum and subordinated values and ethics under the market mechanism and blind technological “progress” only at the end to find itself in a deep identity crisis.

It could also be that it satisfies the human need for protection – however, in this case in exchange for obedience and the non-questioning of this God-like MIMAC.

Like other faiths, the MIMAC has its priesthood, it followers – who are not supposed to question any of it – and its punishment of unbelievers.

Leading Buddhist teacher and thinker (and TFF Associate), David Loy, has written about this – about the militarized, corporate state as contemporary Western deity although he has not made use of the MIMAC concept.

Carrying this a bit further, one may add that since the birth of the nuclear weapon, man took over what had up till then been God’s prerogative – namely to decide whether humankind should, or should not, continue to exist. Thus, we did not need God; we took over God’s role. Remember Charlie Chaplin’s Hynkel/Hitler playing with the globus at his desk in “The Great Dictator” (1940)?

The MIMAC deity is, of course, invisible. It has an invisible hand that runs everything (like the invisible hand on the neo-liberal market) and people who believe in it feel they get protection. It no longer has to reason, argue or document any facts about the observable world; it is enough to state a) that there are “infidels” out there who are threatening us and b) that whatever it does serves “stability, security and peace” (NATO).

Philosophically, it rests purely on fear and faith – believe it or not, you may add.

It runs, of course, on constructed, outdated Them/Us paradigms: there is some Evil out there that must be combatted and killed (purification of the world, the extermination of the evil/infidels), carried through with the Sword – or to be brought over to us, become like us, feel like us and see the world like we do (mission with a Bible in hand).

In this perspective, arms trade is much more than the transfer of destructive capacity; it is rather a currency or exchange coins that symbolises and solidifies the MIMAC community among elite believers of the same faith. A bonding, or a pact.

The faith in militarism as the main tool to solve whichever problem – be it that of enemy threats, carrying through defence sector reforms or mould governments and societies to forward the message to yet others is boundless. The military and its bonding elites profess to be able to help bring about democracy in faraway lands and cultures, create the preconditions for (Western) understanding of gender equality and human rights and direct/protect refugees on the run from its own war zones.

And when the world talks about climate change, militarism is responding by making its military bases and exercises “green” and environmentally friendly. Not even Greta Thunberg has had the civil courage to mention the huge role of the global military in the process of environmental destruction – not to speak of the Creation that would be totally destroyed by nuclear war.

While people engage in the environment and climate ‘change’ (a newspeak term preferred over all the others since’ change’ is positive…), they do not seem to care much about nuclear weapons as the by far largest and potentially most destructive threat to humanity’s survival.

One may even ask: What is actually left that the military as part of the MIMAC can not be brought in to do? If given the appropriate resources paid by taxpayers’ money – a kind of collect in the church – virtually any sector of society can benefit from, or be taken over by, the MIMAC. To sell that, all you need is the NATO mantra which states that, no matter what the alliance actually does, it creates” stability, security and peace” – all of which are devoid of evidence from the moment those words come flying out of the mouth of, say, NATO’s S-G.

So, are we saying that militarism moulds civil society into a garrison state and that society operates like under top-down control from an authoritarian leader? No, far from it. You also do not see political leaders in uniforms or huge military parades in the capitals of the West. Why?

Contemporary militarism is something very different from the times of, say, Alfred Vagts who in 1937 published his classical book, A History of Militarism: Civil and Military. Today it is about two mutually bending longterm trends: the military operates more and more in a civilian manner inside society, and society becomes increasingly authoritarian in its structures and modes of operation. But while the military thinking has melted into society, civilian thinking – and means – have not melted into the defence and security sectors, at least not to the same extent. If they did and societies would go for civilian conflict-resolution, defensive defence, nonviolence and negotiations, the military would no longer be able to usurp civil society on which it depends for its survival.

To maintain MIMAC and continuously find new “threats” (like an addict searching all the time for the next heroin shot) – the focus ranges from North Korea, Iran, to the classical Soviet/Russian enemy (with 8% of 30 NATO members’ military expenditures and falling) and since Obama’s” pivot” – to China.

Call it North Koreaphobia, Iranophobia, Russophobia and Sinophobia. As TFF Associate in Beijing, Gordon Dumoulin recently argued, the latest US State Department report, The Elements of the China Challenge, reads quite a lot like the Ten Commandments of what the US/West must and must not do vis-a-vis China. It’s clearly faith- rather than fact-based.

Militarism as the largest single cause of Western decline

In summary, the peace discourse has been marginalised, indeed disappeared. The winner – militarism – has taken it all. For now and some time. But it is self-defeating. With it go hubris, over-extension, a center that will not hold and – most importantly – an inability to grasp (“group think”) that the rest of the world is changing rapidly.

The enemies are invented/imagined and, in reality, rather more projections of one’s own dark features upon ’the others’.

To uphold the MIMAC, the West has increasingly to distort reality and base itself on fake – production of enemies that are not, deceptive media narratives, the silent acceptance of its own politically and morally failed projects in one war zone after the other and the toll these wars take on the interventionist’s and warmaster’s own society – blowback in the larger sense of the term.

It also has to omit every mention of the positive sides of the designated enemy. There is nothing good to say about North Korea, Iran, Russia and China. Period. And only good things to talk about when it comes to ourselves – noble motives, superior civilisation and ”better” values.

Like in the Soviet Union towards the end, fewer and fewer will believe it. Legitimacy in the eyes of others will fade. The truth, to the extent that there is one, is that there is nobody who threatens the West. It is the West that is doing incredible harm to itself and undermines its economy, legitimacy, vision and democracy as well as its moral power.

The latter is, of course, undermined by the deceptive policies embedded in the short sentence uttered with pride by US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo – “We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.”

So the Empire – the glory of the American experiment – is coming to an end. All empires do – and then it will fall. Militarism will be the largest single cause of that demise, Eisenhower’s warnings completely ignored and so too Luther King Jr.’s “America, you are too arrogant.”

Peace people combine passion with detachment

So if you are a peace researcher, peace activist or peace journalist, what do you do in the nearest times when peace is basically out of sight? I would try to suggest:

  1. Look at it in a macro perspective – a few years is nothing in world history although, of course, it may be in one’s own life depending on how far through it you have advanced.
  2. Do not give up or hibernate.
  3. Do for peace what you have always done, light a candle, don’t waste your time cursing the darkness. (It’s not peace to only criticize violence, wars and weapons).
  4. Do something else simultaneously and creatively, that recharges your batteries and gives you joy while we wait for more peaceful times.

And, finally, remember Gandhi’s words in 1946: “A burning passion coupled with absolute detachment is the key to all success.” Gandhi (Harijan, 9-29-1946, p. 336). If you worked for peace to get famous or be awarded prizes (as the fruits, or rewards) then better you stop.

But if you work with the conviction that that is what you must do, can not not do, then you are like the artist who continues to work creatively because it is an inner urge, a passion, rather than in order to become rich and famous. (An they turn out, in hindsight if not while still alive, to be the greatest).

In short, don’t follow the past or the present – which admittedly looks a bit overclouded right now. Do not give in to the wish of those in power who rule more smoothly when you feel powerless and stop researching, criticising, imagining and struggling for the better future(s) to come.

Over the clouds, the sky is blue.

With another piece of Gandhi wisdom, be the change you want to see – that is, do your pro-peace work only with a view to the future, with passion in what you do and total detachment from the immediate fruits of it.

Peace is part of the good society. We do not know that the good society is impossible, so let’s try. If we don’t try, we can be sure that it will never emerge. In the longer perspective – logically – violence is other/self-destructive while non-violence is constructive.


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

Featured image is from The Transnational

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Peace Discourse that Disappeared: Go on with Passion and Detachment
  • Tags: ,

Syrian Refugees Flee as Their Tents Are Torched in Lebanon

December 30th, 2020 by Steven Sahiounie

On December 26, hundreds of Syrian refugees fled their refugee camp in the Miniyeh region near the coastal city of Tripoli in north Lebanon after their tents were burned when fighting broke out between local youths and camp residents.  At least three were injured in the incident said Khaled Kabarra, a UN refugee agency (UNHCR) spokesman, while nearly four hundred residents who fled found temporary shelter in various locations.

Damascus urged Lebanon’s judicial authorities and its security forces to ensure its nationals were protected.

The Lebanese army said it had arrested eight people after the incident, including two Lebanese nationals and six Syrians over a personal dispute. The Lebanese men shot in the air and torched the tents of Syrian refugees.

“I came back to check on belongings inside our small tent only to discover that we no longer own anything,” said Amira Issa, a 45-year-old mother of five who fled Syria eight years ago. “We lost everything in one moment,” she said, sobbing.

November incident

On November 23, around 270 Syrian refugee families evacuated the northern Lebanese town of Bsharre after a Syrian man was accused of killing a Lebanese man, sparking widespread tension and hostility.

The eviction of all Syrians was demanded after the murder, and residents rioted and demanded that the authorities act.

The Syrian, identified by the initials of MK, surrendered to security forces after allegedly killing Joseph Tawk in a personal argument.

Lebanese locals of the Christian mountain resort town of Bcharre torched Syrian homes and attacked Syrians in the streets following the killing. They surrounded the town’s main government building and demanded the authorities to hand the suspect over, while the Lebanese Army deployed troops in the area.

The Mayor of Bcharre, Freddy Keyrouz, echoed local sentiments and demanded that all Syrian citizens should be evicted from the town. “All Syrians who are staying in the town illegally must leave immediately,” he insisted. The mayor also called on security forces to raid Syrian homes in the town and search for weapons after it was reported that MK had allegedly used a gun to shoot Tawk.

Hearing of forced eviction, many Syrians fled the town, and others were forcibly evicted by residents.

Pro-US politicians in Lebanon will not allow the Syrian refugees to return to Syria, even in the face of suffering inside the refugee camps, and elsewhere. The supporters of the pro-US Lebanese parties hate the refugees and continue to torment them, even though their party leaders benefit from the refugees, as well as from supporting the US position which maintains Syria must have ‘regime change’ before a return to normalcy. What the US-NATO war machine failed to achieve in 10 years of war on the Syrian people, they demand to be fulfilled, using the refugees as pawns in the game.

Refugees as political pawns

The UN reports that 90% of Syrian families in Lebanon are living in extreme poverty. Lebanese and Syrian authorities have both called on refugees to return to Syria; however, some international groups claim Syria is not yet safe. Instead of allowing refugees to go home, the US, EU, and UN all demand that a political settlement is in place before repatriation. However, the country is safe and calm in most areas, except Idlib, which is occupied by HTS, the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria. Many refugees would be safer back in Syria rather than in dangerous camps in Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon. Some experts claim the refugees are being used as political pawns.

Lebanese prejudice

Lebanon has over one million Syrian refugees. During the Lebanese civil war, the Syrian Arab Army was requested to enter by the Lebanese government, to stop the war. This was achieved, but the Syrians remained longer than some Lebanese people would accept, which led to hard feelings, ending in the 2005 withdrawal of troops.

Some writers have incorrectly attributed tensions to racism, but this is an incorrect usage of the term, as Lebanese and Syrian belong to the same race. However, you can say some Lebanese have a prejudice against Syrians for various reasons. The Lebanese economy has collapsed in early 2020, and some blame refugees for taking their jobs, such as labor for the construction and agriculture sectors.

Syria calls refugees back home

On December 38, Syrian officials in a joint Syrian-Russian press conference in Damascus reported that the overall situation in Syria is promising for the return of refugees while blaming Western sanctions for hindering their return.

The Syrian government is looking forward to the full return of all Syrians to rebuild the country, which has been destroyed by international and domestic terrorism. Western sanctions hinder the return of refugees to Syria and negatively affect the social and economic situation as well as the health sector in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The deputy head of the Russian Center for Reconciliation, Major General Vyacheslav Sitnik, told reporters that currently there are 50 refugee centers in Syria which are home to more than 100,000 people, and more than 2 million Syrians have returned to their homes.

More than half of Syria’s 23 million people have fled their homes, including 5.5 million who went abroad as they were forced to leave their country by an unjust war waged against them.

UN calls for peace and stability in Syria

On December 16, the United Nations special envoy for Syria, Geir Pedersen, warned that the country could be a powder keg for a major international incident, as five foreign armies are operating there.

The UN calls for an end to hostilities in Syria to protect civilians, keep peace and security, support a political process, and concentrate forces to fight the Covid-19 pandemic. There are hostilities in northeast Syria between the invading Turkish Army, along with Radical Islamic mercenaries they employ, and the Syrian Kurds. The battles in Idlib are between the Al Qaeda terrorist group, HTS, who hold 3 million persons as human shields, and the Russian military and Syrian Arab Army in a war against terrorism.

The UN is working with the Syrian government, opposition, and civil society groups to work towards a political solution under UN resolution 2254.

The United Nations Deputy Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, Mark Lowcock, reported that the number of Covid-19 cases in Syria continues to increase.  Sanctions have prevented Syrian civilians from rebuilding their homes, and businesses because imported supplies and equipment are strictly prohibited by the US and EU sanctions, which have even prevented medical companies from delivering orders of necessary supplies, out of fear of penalties by the US Treasury.


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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

“In his [1996] arms-to-Iraq enquiry, Lord Richard Scott heard evidence that an entire tier of the Thatcher government, from senior civil servants to ministers, had lied and broken the law in selling weapons to Saddam Hussein…Thumb through old copies of the Baghdad Observer, and there are pictures of… cabinet ministers, on the front page sitting with Saddam…around the time [he] was ordering the gassing of 5,000 Kurds”. (John Pilger(1))

The US government has the highest military spending in the world, with approximately one-third of the world’s military expenditure. Britain consistently figures in the top 10.(2) Global annual weapons expenditure is $1.8 trillion,(3) with overseas exports estimated at approximately $100 billion. There are some important political reasons for the enormous size of the weapons trade. Firstly, the belief by our politicians that weapons sales are a good way to stay friendly with decision-makers abroad, to help keep those decision-makers in power, to get them into power in the first place and to cement relations with future rulers in the military.(4) Secondly, it is the most corrupt, secretive and unaccountable industry in the world, with everything hidden behind a fake veil of ‘national security’.(5) Thirdly, the political influence of huge weapons companies (discussed in the next post).

Keeping Repressive Regimes In Power 

Earlier posts have explained that US and British foreign policies revolve around supporting leaders who will run their countries in a way that benefits the US and Britain. Good examples would be Indonesia and Columbia, where both the US and Britain have supplied weapons, despite knowing that the governments of these countries regularly murder their citizens. In return, these leaders allow Western corporations access to resources. The British Foreign Office identified 20 ‘countries of concern’, such as Egypt and Nigeria, which had very poor human rights records. Under British law it should be illegal to sell weapons to these countries, yet Britain was selling weapons to 19 of those countries from 2004-2006. More recent data confirms that this illegal selling is still common practice in Britain.(6) The United States also has a long history of selling weapons to many of the world’s worst human rights abusers throughout Latin America, Africa and Asia.(7)

Every Weapons Sale Is Illegal 

In theory there is a distinction between legal and illegal sales. It is legal to sell some weapons, but not others. It is legal to sell to some countries, but not to others. In practice, the corporations and government officials making these sales ignore these distinctions. The leading expert on the subject, Andrew Feinstein, has explained that he has never come across an arms deal that is not somewhat illegal.

There are many examples of Britain and America supplying weapons to anyone, however illegal, by sending them via another country and trying to obscure the paper trail.(8) Britain has sold weapons to the Cayman Islands and the Channel Islands, yet these countries do not have militaries. Where these weapons actually end up is unknown, but they are clearly destined for other countries. Sellers are well aware that in many cases the final recipients want to slaughter or control people. This was highlighted during the 1990s when the British firm Matrix Churchill was found to have been providing equipment to make a ‘supergun’ to Saddam Hussein with the full backing of the British Government, even while he was committing extreme human rights abuses.

In one of the more notorious examples of US crimes, the US government supplied weapons to Iran during the 1980’s in what became known as the Iran-Contra affair. The money and weapons were channelled through fake corporations, offshore bank accounts and foreign countries so that the sales could not be traced back to the US government.(9) Some of the money was then sent to Nicaragua where it was used to finance a rebel army (the contras) who were trying to overthrow the government, which was trying to create a better life for the poorest people.

Promises that a recipient country makes about the use of their new weapons, such as stating that they will only be used for training or defensive purposes, are of little value. The paperwork for the sale of aeroplanes often contains a description such as ‘trainer’ in order to imply that the planes will not be used for anything other than training. But advanced nations also supply the necessary components to convert that trainer into a ground attack aircraft, which can be used to repress local populations, or attack other countries. Everyone involved in the weapons industry is aware of this. All promises by governments regarding the use of weapons are just for public relations purposes, so they can deny involvement with large-scale slaughter.(10)

The Most Corrupt Industry In The World 

It is estimated that 40% of all corruption is in the weapons trade. This makes it the most corrupt industry in the world, with corruption affecting all countries involved, both buyers and sellers. For example, the extremely repressive rulers of Saudi Arabia regularly purchase advanced weapons, such as military aeroplanes, from Britain. The British Serious Fraud Office (SFO) attempted to investigate corruption during these weapons sales. The biggest deal, known as Al-Yamamah, involved £6 billion in bribes. The British government stepped in and stopped the investigation, clearly demonstrating that good relations with oil-rich countries are more important than their human rights abuses, or corruption.(11) Part of any bribe sometimes comes back to the executives in the company. In the Saudi deal, expensive flats in London were given to the chief executive of British Aerospace.(12)

The early deals by the new African National Congress (ANC) government that took power in South Africa in 1994 provide another excellent case study. The new government had no military enemies, and no need of expensive weapons, yet they spent $10 billion on their first deal, including $300 million in bribes. They bought aeroplanes that were more expensive than the ones the military wanted. Many of those aeroplanes have never flown because there is no money to fuel them, or to train pilots, and they serve no purpose. Decisions were taken by just 6 ministers. The Queen of England invited all 6 ministers aboard her yacht, to help ‘lubricate’ the deals. South African President Zuma faced over 700 prosecutions relating to the deal, but all charges were dropped. The South African state and the ANC Party have been engulfed by corruption ever since. When the SFO was able to investigate this deal, along with 8 others, the main British company involved, British Aerospace, admitted to accounting irregularities and was fined the trivial sum of half a million pounds.(13) Weapons companies are effectively above the law.

The US and Britain are not interested in ending weapons sales 

There are numerous international agreements, known as conventions or treaties, regarding the sale or use of weapons, but these do not work unless everyone agrees to them, and everyone enforces them. Countries are not compelled to sign up to them and the US has failed to sign up to or enforce numerous conventions on biological, incendiary and other weapons.(14) A few years ago there was an international focus on landmines. Thousands of people are still killed by landmines every year, many of them children, and there are millions of unexploded mines lying around the world. In 1996, the US called for the eventual elimination of all anti-personnel mines, but in 2004, President George Bush changed US policy and made it clear that he had no intention of joining the mine ban treaty.(15) More recently, Donald Trump removed US restrictions on the use of landmines.(16) Whilst the UK sometimes signs up to treaties, it uses loopholes to get around them.(17) For example, although it has signed up to the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), it was still supplying them to Saudi Arabia as recently as 2016.


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

This article was first posted at medium.com/elephantsintheroom

Rod Driver is a part-time academic who is particularly interested in de-bunking modern-day US and British propaganda. This is the eighth in a series entitled Elephants In The Room, which attempts to provide a beginners guide to understanding what’s really going on in relation to war, terrorism, economics and poverty, without the nonsense in the mainstream media.


1) John Pilger, ‘Dance on Thatcher’s Grave, but remember there has been a coup in Britain’, 25 April 2013, at http://johnpilger.com/articles/dance-on-thatcher-s-grave-but-remember-there-has-been-a-coup-in-britain

2) SIPRI, ‘Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2017’, SIPRI, March 2018, at https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2018-03/fssipri_at2017_0.pdf

3) ‘SIPRI yearbook 2019: Armaments, Disarmaments and International Security’, at https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/yb19_summary_eng_1.pdf

4) Norman Schwarzkopf, cited in Mark Curtis, The Great Deception, 1998, p.203

5) Andrew Feinstein, The Shadow World: Inside The Global Arms Trade, 2011

6) Saferworld, ‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: A decade of labour’s arms exports’, May 2007, at http://curtisresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Good-the-Bad-and-the-Ugly-rev.pdf

Anna Stavrianakis, ‘The facade of arms control’, Feb 2008, at  https://www.caat.org.uk/resources/publications/government/facade-2008-02.pdf

Rick Kelsey, ‘From Egypt to Saudi Arabia, here’s who the UK is selling arms to’, BBC Newsbeat, 19 Dec 2016, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38365529/from-egypt-to-saudi-arabia-heres-who-the-uk-is-selling-arms-to

7) Thalif Deen, ‘US ramps up arms supplies to repressive regimes’, May 26, 2005, at www.antiwar.com/ips/deen.php?articleid=6080

8) Amnesty International, ‘The Arms Campaign Report’, 7 August 2003, at  https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/100000/act300012003en.pdf

9) Time magazine, ‘Pursuing The Money Connections’, Jan 2007, at  http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582830,00.html

10) Alan Clark, interviewed in John Pilger, Death of A Nation, 1994

Also see Norman Schwarzkopf discussing how control of spare parts can limit the use of weapons after they have been sold, cited in Mark Curtis, The Great Deception, 1998, p.150

11) George Monbiot, ‘Promoting Peace Is For Wimps – Real Governments Sell Weapons’, Aug 24, 2006, at http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,,1856916,00.html

12) Andrew Feinstein, ‘The Shadow World of the Global Arms trade’, talk at Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, 22 Nov 2017, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCjZXCYD_8c

13) Andrew Feinstein, ‘The Shadow World of the Global Arms trade’, talk at Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, 22 Nov 2017, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCjZXCYD_8c

14) Andrew Buncombe, ‘Incendiary Weapons: The Big White Lie’, Nov 17, 2005, at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/incendiary-weapons-the-big-white-lie-515664.html 

Julian Borger, ‘US Weapons Secrets Exposed’, Oct 29, 2002, at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/29/usa.julianborger 

15) Human Rights Watch, ‘The Bush Administration’s Landmine Policy’, 7 Dec, 2004, at  https://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/arms/arms0805/2.htm 

16) Idrees Ali, ‘Trump eases restrictions on land mine use by US military’, 31 Jan 2020, Reuters, at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-war-landmines-idUSKBN1ZU2GA 

17) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selling Weapons – The Most Corrupt Industry in the World
  • Tags:

Economic Matters in Ukraine Are at Standstill

December 30th, 2020 by Paul Antonopoulos

It was a quiet year for Ukraine and its many issues compared to previous years, or at least in the eyes of most Westerners. Other global issues, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and elections in Belarus, took greater precedence and international focus. Most of the international community and media are no longer interested in the situation in Ukraine, with only passing mentions when the European Union or the U.S. renew their sanctions regime against Russia for its unification with Crimea. Although skirmishes in the breakaway Donbass region occur time to time, it is mostly stagnant, along with Kiev’s claims on Crimea – only Poland is taking an interest in Ukrainian events.

An exception to this “quiet” year was Kiev’s attempt to manufacture a humanitarian crisis by cutting off water supplies from the North Crimean Canal to the peninsula. This human rights violation was to the disinterest of the UN Human Rights Commission. Kiev’s provocative actions will ensure that any Crimeans who were sympathetic to Ukraine will be marginalized. In fact, Ukrainian authorities view local residents as enemies of the state, rendering statements by Kiev about the necessity of reintegrating Crimea into Ukraine as absurd.

In Donbass, even less has changed. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky claims he still supports the Minsk Protocols, but is reluctant to start implementing it. The logically and legibly worded protocol, proposed by Germany’s former Minister of Foreign Affairs and current German President, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, was in practice rejected by Kiev as they never enacted many of the points in the protocols. This includes the decentralization of power, improvement to the humanitarian situation in Donbass, and adopting a programme of economic recovery and reconstruction in the war-torn region.

In an October joint declaration between Zelensky and Polish President Andrzej Duda, it was emphasized that Poland was ready to join efforts to “de-occupy” Crimea in the international arena. Similar to the Donbass case, Warsaw continues to use war rhetoric put into circulation by previous Ukrainian President, Petro Poroshenko. Polish involvement in Ukrainian affairs has clearly decreased not only due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but also due to the emergence of another color revolution attempt on Russia’s borders – this time in Belarus. And yet, the foreign affairs minister of Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine prominently announced the creation of an initiative called the “Lublin Triangle”.

Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine created the “Lublin Triangle,” a trilateral platform for these three countries to counter supposed “ongoing Russian aggression” and show their “firm support” for Western institutions. In their joint declaration, the Foreign Affairs Ministers of the three countries condemned Russia’s “ongoing aggression” and its “attempted annexation” of Crimea, while welcoming Ukraine’s “European choice.” Effectively, the trilateral platform is a pillar for the three countries to enact Washington’s main foreign policy priorities in Eastern Europe, that they incorrectly call “Central Europe.” Although it is not very clear what specific actions the triangle is supposed to take, it is understood that one of its main interests is to bring about a change of power in Belarus. Indeed, the efforts of all three countries in recent months have focused on destabilizing the situation in Minsk.

Meanwhile, economic matters in Ukraine are at a standstill. After 2014, Polish entrepreneurs, due to the huge financial risk and a wave of bankruptcies in Ukraine, as well as legal instability and the weakened justice system, are not very interested in cooperation. The exception are state-owned enterprises, which do so for political reasons. Possible investments by Polish state-controlled PGNiG oil and gas company in the Ukrainian market are primarily related to politics and the need to construct a network of recipients for American gas imported by Poland.

In fact, despite Ukraine neighboring Poland and supposedly being close allies, the eastern European country is only Warsaw’s 16th biggest partner in foreign trade. Its decline in importance will likely continue.

Sławomir Nowak, a Polish politician who served as chief of Ukrainian transport agency Ukravtodor, was arrested in Poland at the behest of Ukrainian services on suspicion of corruption, management of an organized criminal group, and money laundering. Following this arrest, that is often described as being made on flimsy evidence, there will be a shortage of people willing to work as advisers to Ukrainian companies and public institutions.

The pandemic crisis partially closed Polish borders to Ukrainians. However, there still large amounts of Ukrainian nationals in Polish cities. This is despite the import of cheap labor decelerating significantly. Ukrainians already started looking for work further afield than Poland as the industries in which they worked were significantly affected by COVID-19 measures.

For years, Ukraine has been the most important center of interest for the Polish political elite. In the sphere of rhetorical declarations, nothing has changed. Behind these bombastic declarations however, there are no real forms of cooperation. Kiev has much more important partners than Warsaw, such as Washington and Ankara. Ukraine also has its problems in dealing with economic catastrophe, something that Poland is unable to solve for its neighbor due to its own limitations. The problems of Ukraine will remain Ukrainian issues, despite rhetoric made by Polish officials.


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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Economic Matters in Ukraine Are at Standstill
  • Tags: ,

The new film Seven (trailer above), directed by Dylan Avery, examines the story of the scientific study of World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) recently published by the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The study was led by structural engineering professor J. Leroy Hulsey and took nearly five years to complete. It evaluated the possibilities for destruction of WTC 7 using two versions of high-tech computer software that simulated the structural components of the building and the forces that acted upon it on September 11th.

After inputting worst case conditions, and painstakingly eliminating what didn’t happen, Hulsey and his team of engineers came to the following conclusions:

The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

These peer-reviewed conclusions directly contradict the findings of the U.S. government’s final investigation into WTC 7 as reported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Seven documents the journey of Professor Hulsey and his team from their introduction to the subject and the related evidence to the final publication of their report in March of this year. It is an interesting story and important for several reasons. First, it shows what an objective group of engineering science professionals will find if they look closely at the destruction of WTC 7. Additionally, it provides a great example of what one concerned citizen can do to make a great difference in shedding light on the truth of the events of September 11, 2001.

The concerned citizen, who was barely mentioned in the film, is John Thiel, a nurse anesthetist from Alaska. In 2010, Thiel began a 3-year process of looking for an engineer to conduct an honest scientific investigation into the destruction of WTC 7. Thiel was not a structural engineer, but he knew that the official reports on the destruction of that building were false and he wanted to do something about it. Ten years later, after contacting 150 engineers, finally finding and gaining Hulsey’s commitment to do it, and persuading Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to get involved, Thiel’s persistence paid off.

Seven also features comments from some brave engineers who have spoken out in the past about WTC 7. This includes fire protection engineer Scott Grainger, structural engineer Kamal Obeid, civil engineer and AE911Truth board director Roland Angle, and mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti.  All these men make powerful statements in the film about NIST’s failures and omission of evidence.

The film reviews much of the evidence and how it was treated by the initial ASCE/FEMA building performance study and by NIST. It discusses circumstantial evidence including the suspicious tenants of WTC 7 (e.g. the CIA, the Secret Service, the DOD, and the SEC) and foreknowledge about the collapse of the building. It reviews the inexplicable “predictions” of WTC 7’s collapse by media giants CNN and BBC, both of which reported the collapse before it actually happened.

However, the strength of the film is in exposing the viewer to scientific facts and evidence as described by credible experts like Hulsey, Angle, Grainger, Obeid, and Szamboti. This includes the samples of steel exhibiting intergranular melting and sulfidation that the New York Times originally called “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation” but that were ignored in the NIST reports.  It includes the fact that no tall building had ever collapse primarily from fire and that the fires in WTC 7 were ordinary and were fed by only 20-minutes of fire load in any given area.  The film also highlights concerns about the lack of scientific integrity in NIST’s manipulation of model parameters like the coefficient of expansion of steel and the omission of shear studs on the WTC 7 floor assemblies.

The film is only 45 minutes long and focuses largely on the evidence related to Hulsey’s study. It does not include some facts and evidence about WTC 7 that have been pointed out in the past. For example, it does not detail NIST’s history of failed hypotheses, like the diesel fuel tank hypothesis or the claim that the design of the building contributed to the collapse. It also doesn’t mention that the new WTC 7 was completed in 2006, when NIST was stating it had no idea what happened to the first one.

In the film, Professor Hulsey comes across as very credible and driven by the desire for an objective approach that gives the public an understanding of what happened to WTC 7. His comments about building his study on a clear palate, using pure science, ring true. Avery tells Hulsey’s story simply, without engulfing the viewer in unanswered questions.

Overall, Seven is an excellent presentation for people with a scientific mindset. As John Thiel wrote to me:

Any engineer or scientist with a basic understanding of physics, who does not suffer from cognitive dissonance, should easily be convinced of the truth after watching this video.

I agree.

If people want to help reveal the truth about WTC 7, and therefore about 9/11, they should share this film with every scientist and engineer they know. It is available on multiple streaming platforms, including Amazon Prime, iTunes, Vudu, Google Play, and Microsoft. As a society, our understanding of the crimes of 9/11 continues to be crucial to our understanding of what is going on today.

Seven is directed by Dylan Avery, released by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and available to rent and buy from various platforms, here.


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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The New Film “Seven”. Scientific Study of WTC Building 7

The Julian Assange Pardon Drive

December 30th, 2020 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The odds are stacked against Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks publisher who faces the grimmest of prospects come January 4.  On that day, the unsympathetic judicial head of District Judge Vanessa Baraitser will reveal her decision on the Old Bailey proceedings that took place between September and October this year.  Despite Assange’s team being able to marshal an impressive, even astonishing array of sources and witnesses demolishing the prosecution’s case for extradition to the United States, power can be blindly vengeful.

Such blindness is much in evidence in a co-authored contribution to The Daily Signal from this month.  The authors are insipidly predictable: national security and technology types with comic strip names (Charles “Cully” Stimson; Klon Kitchen) and rule of law advocates who seemingly campaign against their own brief (John G. Malcolm).  Having not bothered to read the evidence submitted at the extradition trial, the authors are obedient to a fictitious record.  This includes allegations that WikiLeaks harmed US diplomatic relations; the stubborn libel that Assange’s actions, far from exposing US atrocities, led to a loss of life; and the disruption of essential “intelligence sources and methods”.  (Accountability can be expensive.)

The authors fail to appreciate the dangers of the Assange case to the First Amendment, free speech and the publication of national security information.  They merely claim to be free speech defenders, only to neatly hive Assange’s activities off from its protections.  Free speech is a fine thing as long as it is innocuous and inconsequential.  “Suppression of speech, in a free society, is wrong.  But Assange is not a free-speech hero.”

By internationalising the reach of the Espionage Act, the indictment against Assange threatens the global documentation and reporting of classified information in the public interest.  To put it in elementary terms for the legions of ignorant security hacks, granting the request will legitimise the targeting of US citizens.  Bruce D. Brown, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, summarises the implications.  “If the UK grants the request to deliver Assange, UK prosecutors could make similar arguments in an effort to extradite a journalist in the US for violations of its Official Secrets Act, which explicitly criminalizes the publication of leaked military or intelligence information.”

Of central importance in the Assange pardon drive is the cultivation of vanity and, it follows, the appeal to posterity.  “We write to request that you put a defining stamp to your presidential legacy by pardoning Julian Assange or stopping his tradition,” urge the signatories of yet another letter to Trump on the subject.  The heavy artillery is impressive, including five Nobel Prize laureates: Northern Irish peace activist Mairead Maguire, human rights activist Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Iranian political activist and lawyer Shirin Ebadi, feminist campaigner Rigoberta Menchú Tum and Austrian novelist Peter Handke.

Appropriately, the signatories impress upon Trump that the case “threatens the constitutional protections that Americans hold dear” and suggest that history will be kind should he show sound judgment in the case.  “By offering a pardon, to put a stop to the prosecution of Assange, your presidency will be remembered for having saved First Amendment protections for all Americans.”

The approach taken by the UN Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is more expansive and detailed.  In his appeal to Trump on December 22, Nils Melzer outlines the high price Assange has paid “for the courage to publish true information about government misconduct throughout the world.”  The deteriorating health condition of the publisher is noted, including the risks posed to him by the COVID-19 pandemic at Belmarsh prison in London.

The relevant pointers are there: that Assange is not an enemy of the American people; his work and that of WikiLeaks “fights secrecy and corruption throughout the world and, therefore, acts in the public interest of the American people and of humanity as a whole.”  He had not hacked or pilfered the information he published, having “obtained it from authentic documents and sources in the same way as any other serious and independent investigative journalists conduct their work.”

Melzer then seeks to appeal to Trump the man, pleading for Assange’s release as the president had “vowed … to pursue an agenda of fighting government corruption and misconduct; and because allowing the prosecution of Mr Assange to continue would mean that, under your legacy, telling the truth about such corruption and misconduct has become a crime.”

Finally, the personal touch is being fashioned for the president, spearheaded by Assange’s fiancée Stella Moris.  Her appearance on Fox News with host Tucker Carlson was primed for Trump’s hearty consumption, laden with hooks of catchy lingo.  This made perfectly good sense; there is still some time to go before the world’s first Fox News president vacates the White House.  “Once he [Assange] gets to the US,” feared Moris, “he will be in the hands of the Deep State.  That’s why I pleaded with the President to show the mercy the Deep State will not show Julian if he is extradited.”

Carlson was certainly convinced, taking a position at odds with various national security wonks that pullulate the US airwaves.  “Whatever you think of Julian Assange and what he did, he is effectively a journalist.  He took information and he put it in a place the public could read it.”  The Australian was spending time in prison for releasing documents “he did not steal,” merely providing a platform for their dissemination, showing that “the US government was illegally spying on me, and everybody else in this country.”

The seeds for a stinging provocation against the US imperium have been sown.  Whether they take firm root and grow in the self-absorbed mind of the commander-in-chief is another matter.


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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image: Julian Assange court sketch, October 21, 2019, supplied by Julia Quenzler.

First published on April 15, 2020. Among 2020 Most Popular Articles

Senator Scott Jensen represents Minnesota. He’s also a doctor. He appeared on Fox News with Laura Ingraham where he revealed a very disturbing piece of information.

Dr. Scott Jensen says the American Medical Association is now “encouraging” doctors to overcount coronavirus deaths across the country.

Jensen received a  7-page document that showed him how to fill out a death certificate as a “COVID-19 diagnosis” even when there isn’t a lab test confirming the diagnosis.

“Right now Medicare is determining that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital you get $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator you get $39,000, three times as much. Nobody can tell me after 35 years in the world of medicine that sometimes those kinds of things impact on what we do.” (Dr. Sen. Scott Jensen, from Fox Interview)

This is absolutely bone-chilling.

Watch the interview below.


Original Sources: TheSpectator.info Fox News. Thanks to Wayne Dupree for bringing this article to our attention


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

Selected Articles: Masking the COVID-19 Virus in this ‘Pandemic’

December 29th, 2020 by Global Research News

Masking the COVID-19 Virus in this ‘Pandemic’

By Dr. David Halpin, December 29, 2020

There is no logic, nor reason based in medical science, for the wearing of paper or cloth masks in the context of the epidemic of this virus – Covid-19 (C19).  The virus, though likely altered in laboratories, is part of a family of viruses/virions first identified in the 1960’s – the corona viruses.

Turkey Pivots to the Center of the New Great Game

By Pepe Escobar, December 29, 2020

Under the delightfully named Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), the Trump administration duly slapped sanctions on Ankara for daring to buy Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile defence systems.

A Nasty Shot in the Arm – RT-PCR Kits and Vaccines Unlicensed by Britain’s MHRA

By John Goss, December 29, 2020

Aware of the forthcoming vaccine roll-out aimed, it is said, to protect against a disease (COVID-19) that reached its apex almost nine months ago, I emailed the MHRA (Medical and Healthcare Regulatory Authority) on 20 November 2020.

Colonialist Injustice: The Pardoning of the Blackwater Killers

By Richard Becker, December 29, 2020

Along with a motley collection of wealthy swindlers and fraudsters, President Donald Trump on Dec. 22 pardoned four former Blackwater private contractors (mercenaries) convicted in the infamous Sept. 16, 2007, Nisour Square massacre in Baghdad.

The 2020 Nashville Bombing vs. the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, December 29, 2020

Many Americans concluded that the truck bomb was cover for an inside job.  McVeigh and Nichols were regarded as patsies who thought they blew up the building, but their role was to direct attention away from those responsible.

A Pardoning Time of Year. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden?

By Philip Giraldi, December 29, 2020

The process of issuing presidential pardons will undoubtedly continue up until Inauguration Day on January 20th, but sources are uncertain whether Trump will be courageous enough to pardon the two individuals whose freedom would most definitely be sending a powerful message for integrity in government.

2020: The Year the Tree of Liberty Was Torched

By John W. Whitehead, December 29, 2020

The government failed to protect our lives, liberty and happiness. The predators of the police state wreaked havoc on our freedoms, our communities, and our lives.

Video: The Future of Vaccines

By James Corbett, December 29, 2020

If the Gateses and the Faucis and the representatives of the international medical establishment get their way, life will not return to normal until the entire planet is vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.

Asia-Pacific articles:

A Dalit and a Brahmin

By , December 29, 2020

The table was long and elegant and filled every night with rich Brahmins, such as Aashka’s family.  Most of them were reserved old men, who hardly spoke to Aashka save for reprimanding her that if she kept up her unladylike behavior she’d surely be reincarnated as a stick bug.

Tensions Between China and India May Soon Rise as Trump Approves Historic Tibet Act

By , December 29, 2020

The Tibetan Policy and Support Act (TPSA), which supports Tibet in key areas, even includes possible sanctions against Chinese authorities should they try to appoint the next Dalai Lama themselves and calls for building an international coalition to ensure such appointment is only carried out by the Tibetan Buddhist community.

Visit our Asia Pacific Research website at asia-pacificresearch.com

Providing coverage of the Asia-Pacific Region


Notre site Web en français, mondialisation.ca


Nuestro sitio web en español, globalizacion.ca

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Masking the COVID-19 Virus in this ‘Pandemic’

Free citizens who stand up against tyranny have nothing against those in power. They do nothing to them. They fight for a more just order, for their right to life, to freedom, peace and security. When nothing else helps, that is the message of Thomas More’s novel “Utopia”, then it helps to do things radically differently. (1) For the humanist scholar, the small island state was a counter-model to the decaying society of England at the time.

For the author, a liberal social order with free people is the counter-model to the present totalitarian form of rule of unfreedom, violence and exploitation. This vision of the future, for which every full-minded and unblinded citizen should fight, was already held by some mature people like Peter Kropotkin and other liberal socialists more than 100 years ago. However, since they had only anticipated and not yet recognised the emotional reactions of human beings and were also vehemently opposed by authoritarian-minded contemporaries, they were unable to put their progressive ideas into practice. Thus, man is still not free today.

Gottfried Keller: Step outside the front door yourself and see what is available!

Every individual is called upon to make his or her contribution to solving the pressing problems of our time. And of course we are able to do so if we are aware that it depends on each and every one of us. Why not muster the courage to use our own minds and not repress the monstrosities of today, but to see them and stand up against them – intellectually, emotionally, politically.  Overcome the inertia of the heart and act! Against all odds, muster the determination to seek the truth and thereby preserve our dignity as human beings and create a future worth living for ourselves and our children.

The Swiss poet and novelist Gottfried Keller (1819-1890) put it this way:

“No government and no battalions (…) are able to protect law and freedom where the citizen is unable to step outside the front door himself and see what is available.” (Zurich Novellen)

Albert Camus: Every human being has a more or less large sphere of influence

Shortly after the outbreak of the Second World War, the Nobel Prize winner for literature Albert Camus (1913-1960), one of the most important intellectuals of the 20th century, commented in a “Letter to a Desperate Man” on the role of the individual in a situation perceived as hopeless. (2) These are thoughts that document and deeply touch Camus’s relevance to our own day.

The useful task that, in Camus’ view, the person seeking advice still has to fulfil after the outbreak of the Great War is also a task for every individual in our present time, the worldwide war of the ruling clique against us citizens:

“You write to me that this war depresses you, that you would be ready to die, but that you cannot bear this worldwide stupidity, this bloodthirsty cowardice and this criminal naivety that still believes human problems can be solved with blood. I read your lines and I understand you. I understand you, but I can no longer follow you when you make a rule of life out of this despair and want to retreat behind your disgust because everything is useless. For despair is a feeling and not a state. You cannot remain in it. And the feeling must give way to a clear realisation of things.” (3)

“(…) First of all, you must ask yourself whether you have really done everything to prevent this war. (…) But I am sure that you did not do everything that was necessary, any more than any of us. You were not able to prevent it? No, that’s not true. This war was not inevitable, you know that. (…) There is still a useful task to be done.” (4)

“You have a task, do not doubt it. Every person has a more or less large sphere of influence. He owes it to his shortcomings as well as to his advantages. But be that as it may, it is there and it can be used immediately. Do not drive anyone to riot. You have to be sparing with the blood and freedom of others. But you can convince ten, twenty, thirty people that this war was neither inevitable nor is it, that all means have not yet been tried to stop it, that it must be said, written if possible, shouted out if necessary! These ten or thirty people will spread the word to ten others, who will in turn spread it. If inertia holds you back, well then, start all over again with others.”

In conclusion, Camus encourages the advice-seeker not to despair of history, in which the individual is capable of everything:

“Individuals are what send us to our deaths today. Why should other individuals not succeed in giving peace to the world? Only one must begin without thinking of such great goals. Remember that war is waged as much with the enthusiasm of those who want it as with the despair of those who reject it with all the strength of their souls.” (5)

“The International”: To the final battle!

“The Internationale” is the world-famous struggle song of the socialist workers’ movement, whose call to the last stand was issued to the international workers’ movement after the violent suppression of the Paris Commune in May 1871. (6) The German version of the original French text by Emil Luckhard (1910) reads:

“Wake up, damned of this earth, who are still forced to starve! (…) Army of slaves, wake up! (…) Peoples, hear the signals! To the final battle! (…) No higher being, no god, no emperor, no tribune can save us! To deliver us from misery, that we can only do ourselves!”

After the revolt, let the people go free!

Karl Marx (1818-1883) – drawing on Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) – argued that man’s consciousness is shaped by social conditions and thus brought man back to earth. His materialist conception of history was a tremendous intrusion into the emotional world of man. Marx and some liberal socialists began to see man correctly – and this man began to deal with himself. Before that, the tendency prevailed in schools and universities that man’s soul merely undergoes a trial here in this world and that eternal life only begins in heaven.

Since religion is associated with fear and terror, man believes as long as he is afraid. In the materialistic view of history, belief in gods and supernatural beings ceases. When man has more knowledge about nature and more certainty, he becomes calmer and no longer has this emotional reaction. He is a different person: he is not afraid of life, of starvation or of exploitation; he has time to develop, to read, to learn scientific knowledge and to think about the world.

The Russian anarchist, geographer and writer Prince Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) observed both nature and natural beings and related his findings to human beings. In his book “Mutual Aid in the Animal and Human World”, Kropotkin writes that in nature and society there is by no means only a struggle of all against all (social Darwinism), but that the principle of “mutual aid” also prevails. Those living beings that implement this principle would survive more successfully.

Scientific depth psychology is based on these findings. According to this, man is a naturally social being, oriented towards the community of his fellow human beings. He also has a natural inclination towards good, towards the knowledge of truth and towards community life. We do not have to be afraid of this human being. He wants to live in freedom and peace, without violence and war – just like all of us.

Leading man to freedom!

The freedom that is to be (re)given to man, because it is his by nature, is of course not the freedom to exploit the other man and to plunder his hard-earned savings. This is the “freedom” that the ruling clique in capitalism means and that makes man involuntarily corrupt. To give man freedom is to give him the right to a decent life, to justice, security and tranquillity.

This principle of freedom means that every working person knows, should he no longer be able to work for reasons of old age or illness, that he will not then be dismissed, but can continue to live just as before: he will continue to receive his last wage, keep his flat and not have to beg for soup in the communal kitchen or at the church. If he should die unexpectedly because of an accident, his family will continue to be provided for and his children can attend a good school.

In a free society, he not only has security but also peace of mind. No so-called authority will rise to rule over him; there will be no violence, no war, no military service, no hardship, no lunatic asylum, no prisons. External freedom will also lead to internal freedom: Man will have a different consciousness, a different thinking, a different relationship with his fellow man, a different feeling towards the dear God.

How do we set up the new social order?

Will we again establish a dictatorship and force the human being? Or will we believe in man, associate ourselves with him, empathise with him, appeal to him? He wants to live well with his children and have a roof over his head. This human being will cooperate in a free society because this corresponds to his nature. We do not have to be afraid of him. We do not have to see any danger in freedom either. If someone is not willing or able to live in a community, then he will be taken along by the others. The sick will be dealt with in the same way; they will not be a nuisance. On the contrary, in a free society they will get well.

Let us leave man free and demand nothing of him! He will gladly accept this and behave differently because he finds a different social situation. Man can change, Marx said – and depth psychology confirms this. He should also be given the same freedom. The churches will not be closed like the Bolsheviks did in Russia, because that hurts people deep inside, in their faith, in their dependence, in their fear. They then feel attacked in their minds, in their souls, and are called upon to fight against it. One must not take religion away from people, but leave them free to pray. It is not the state that decides, but the individual and the community. In the present principle of violence and authority, man cannot develop.

Some mature people who have had a laid table have guessed that the prevailing capitalist system is not right. How many beneficiaries there are in this system who do not contribute to the maintenance of the community. It was Peter Kropotkin, Mikhail Bakunin and a few more rich people who have had the opportunity to educate and research. But they would not allow the liberal socialists to strive for a community in which free association prevailed, in which each person decided which path to choose, with whom to associate and how to live. That is why they were bitterly opposed.

In a free society, the consciousness of man changes

Karl Marx was right: when man has the security of his life, he thinks differently. He has different thoughts, different feelings and a different relationship to his fellow man.

Man becomes different when he has the table laid. He has different feelings than the one who lives in insecurity, is exploited, is poor, is afraid of hail and lightning that God will send him if he does not pray enough. Afraid that the good Lord will set his house on fire or send hail and smash the grain so that he starves. In his whole emotional life and thinking he is taken up by this.

If we establish a society where man has his right to life, then man has a different consciousness.

Fear in capitalism shapes the human being. Exploiters and exploited are equally poor. The church maintains this system with miracle men who are in relationship with the dear God and order everything. If we give up the capitalist system and form a community where this is not an issue, then there are no exploiters, no capitalists, no wars, no fear. Then a different human being develops.

Then there is no fear of God’s punishment and hell and therefore no religion. The person has a different consciousness, thinks for himself, trusts in his own powers, checks by experience, has different thoughts and feelings.

The sick person becomes healthy through a different social system and has a fear-free relationship with his fellow human being. He can show solidarity with him, join him and put himself on an equal footing with him. Man can develop and changes his behaviour, he no longer becomes corrupt as in the capitalist system. He educates himself and learns to read and write. He no longer waits for paradise in heaven, but wants it on earth; he decides for himself which way he will go.

In Russia, in Cuba and in the former Yugoslavia with a once very high illiteracy rate, the old people have learned to read and write. They did not have paper yet, so they practised the letters in the snow or sand.


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

Dr. paed. Rudolf Hänsel is an educationalist and qualified psychologist.


(1) https://www.globalresearch.ca/die-utopie-als-politisches-mittel-in-…en-nicht-in-passivitat-und-resignation-zu-versinken/5709995; https://www.globalresearch.ca/utopia-political-means-not-sinking-passivity-resignation-social-crisis/5709993; http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26733&css

(2) Marin, L. (ed.) (2013). Albert Camus – Libertarian Writings (1948-1960). Hamburg

(3) op. cit., p. 271

(4) op. cit., p. 272

(5) op. cit., p. 273

(6) https://www.globalresearch.ca/reflections-secret-agenda-elite-roleus-citizens/5709112;



  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Future Vision of Free Citizens: Leading Humanity to Freedom. Towards a New Social Order

Nashville Detonation: Lone Bomber or False Flag?

December 29th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

On Christmas day, a recreational vehicle exploded in downtown Nashville, TN outside an AT&T transmission building — one block from the company’s office building.

What happened knocked out communications and 911 emergency call centers over a wide area, including parts of neighboring Kentucky and Alabama.

Was the motive behind what happened what official reports claimed?

Or was something else responsible for the blast? Was it a false flag?

It’s unclear at this time. What is known is that numerous US false flag attacks occurred before — notably since at least the mid-19th century.

They’re a US tradition at strategically timed moments.

Before the blast, the Tennessean reported that Nashville residents in the affected area were warned before the incident occurred, saying:

A “recorded warning” inside the vehicle said “(e)vacuate now. There is a bomb. A bomb is in this (RV) and will explode.”

An area resident said “(w)hoever did it did give fair warning” 15 minutes before the blast.

Fox News Nashville TV reported that city “police got people to safety before the downtown explosion.”

The following day, FBI agents raided the home of a “person of interest” following “more than 500” leads.

That many in hours after what happened is highly suspicious.

How is it possible to identify a possible suspect hours after the incident, including before an investigation began?

Nashville police called the incident an “intentional act,” a likely suicide bombing.

No mass casualties occurred — just three injuries reported and the remains of an individual identified as Anthony Quinn Warner.

Was he responsible for the incident or a convenient patsy to blame for what he had nothing to do with?

Before ID’d from DNA, his residence was searched by federal agents in a Nashville suburb, as explained above — a disturbing red flag.

Why his home alone and no others? Why before an investigation began?

No motive pointing to him is known.

Did what happened follow pre-planning to name him for the incident before occuring?

As the saying goes, dead men tell no tales so he’s unable to defend himself.

Reportedly, police and FBI agents aren’t looking for other suspects, another disturbing red flag.

Who is Anthony Quinn Warner. Local media called him a loner, an unmarried man with no children.

According to the Tennessean, “acquaintances…described (him) as a self-employed computer guru — and a homebody who tended to his pets and kept to himself.”

A next door neighbor called him “a little odd” but friendly, adding:

“If he…ha(d) any political beliefs…that was something he kept to himself.”

Another neighbor called him a “recluse.”

Local authorities claimed that the RV (or one similar to the detonated vehicle) was seen outside his residence for years.

Nothing known about Warner explained above suggests a motive for what happened, one more red flag.

What happened in Nashville is reminiscent of two earlier incidents.

In April 1995, a truck bombing killed 168 people and caused extensive damage in Oklahoma City.

Within 90 minutes of the incident, Timothy McVeigh was arrested on a firearms charge, spent two days in jail, then was charged with the bombing.

On May 10, Terry Nichols was named his alleged accomplice and arrested.

Experts, including professional demolition contractors, concluded that only high-grade military explosives, detonators, and proper multiple internal placements could have caused such extensive destruction.

Elgin Air Force Base’s Armament Wright Laboratory studied the incident.

It concluded that no single truck bomb was involved.

(Ret.) Brig. General Benton K. Partin, an explosives and ordnance expert, it said a truck bomb couldn’t cause steel-reinforced concrete columns to collapse,” adding:

“The total incompatibility with a single truck bomb lies in the fact that either some of the columns collapsed that should not have collapsed or some of (them) are still standing that should have collapsed and did not.”

“This is a classic cover-up of immense proportions.”

“To cause the damage pattern that occurred to the Murrah building, there would have to have been demolition charges at several supporting column bases, at locations not accessible from the street, to supplement the truck bomb damage.”

“(A) careful examination of photographs showing the collapsed column bases reveal a failure mode produced by demolition charges and not by a blast from the truck bomb.”

More forensic evidence showed other devices were involved, what major media suppressed.

Yet McVeigh was executed for the incident, Nichols sentenced to life imprisonment.

Gen. Partin and others believe they were framed — used as convenient patsies.

So were falsely charged Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother Tamerlan for what’s known as the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing.

Local police lethally shot Tamerlan near Watertown, MA.

Dzhokhar was arrested, falsely charged, convicted and sentenced to death — later reversed to multiple life sentences.

Neither brother was involved with the incident, a state-sponsored false flag.

Like many times before in the US, innocent patsies were wrongfully punished. Innocence wasn’t enough to save them.

Was the Christmas Day Nashville incident the latest example of wrongfully charging a convenient patsy despite no motive or evidence of involvement in what happened?

Perhaps what’s unknown at this time will be revealed later without public attention to set the record straight if the incident was other than what’s reported.

A Final Comment

Accused suspect Anthony Quinn Warner appears to have been used as a convenient patsy.

Deceased and unable to defend himself, discovered evidence spoke for him.

The widely reported official narrative has holes large enough to drive an RV through.

Claiming Warner’s DNA was found on a detonated RV is where the official narrative falls apart.

The vehicle at the crime scene isn’t the RV seen parked outside Warner’s home.

According to a keen-eyed observer,

the crime scene RV has a single horizontal pin stripe along the driver’s side near the vehicle’s roof.

Warner’s RV seen parked outside his residence earlier (now nowhere in sight) has two pin stripes in the same location.

It’s proof that his RV had nothing to do with the incident.

Claiming it refutes the official narrative to falsely blame Warner for what he apparently had nothing to do with.

Based on what’s known, he was set up to be a convenient patsy for a planned in advance false flag — a US specialty since the 19th century.

Clearly not the first time this mass deception stunt was used by US dark forces. It surely won’t be the last.


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

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”


Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image: FBI Photo of Anthony Quinn Warner, the 2020 Nashville bomber (Public Domain)

A Dalit and a Brahmin

December 29th, 2020 by Sophie Michel

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Dalit and a Brahmin

Masking the COVID-19 Virus in this ‘Pandemic’

December 29th, 2020 by Dr. David Halpin

There is no logic, nor reason based in medical science, for the wearing of paper or cloth masks in the context of the epidemic of this virus – Covid_19 (C19) .  The virus, though likely altered in laboratories, is part of a family of viruses/virions first identified in the 1960’s – the corona viruses. Corona = crown, and hence the projected images seen on every BBC ‘news’ for months.  It is often found, along with other classes of viruses, by chance – as in 15% of cases of the ‘common cold’.

I was a medical student at St Mary’s Hospital Paddington from 1958 to 1964.  Amongst all of the subjects in my education there was bacteriology, virology, epidemiology (the study of disease in populations at large eg cholera in Soho – Dr Snow 1854), and immunology.  The latter was taught very well by Professor Porter, who was later awarded a Nobel Prize, and his case deservedly! St Mary’s was the home of penicillin, Alexander Fleming having noted that a mould was killing colonies of bacteria on a culture plate.  The hospital was expert in infection, and its Almoth Wright Institute had been at the centre of this since the early twenties.  We were taught to use antibiotics wisely, and not wastefully nor dangerously.

As doctors, it is essential that we learn as much as possible about pathology in creatures, and especially the human.

This is the study of things that go wrong and sometimes cause disease.  Known in depth, and over time, this gives the doctor ‘X ray eyes’ when facing a sick person.

It was  taught very well at St Mary’s there being a ‘post-mortem’ demonstration at noon on every weekday.  These were presentations of the history, preserved organs and slides of the tissues in the woman or man who had died.  They took place in a lecture theatre and were given by the Professor in Pathology or one of several pathologists.  We also witnessed actual post-mortems/autopsies.  I absorbed all this, and gained a prize as a student in it.  I am very grateful for this teaching and to St Mary’s – a hospital that was a family – for caring.

I am sad, and angry also, to say that pathology has been sidelined, along with much else in OUR NHS.  I read that of all deaths IN hospital only between 1 to 2% are subject to a post-mortem.  It is known that at least 40% of diagnoses made on the ward are found to be wrong when the body and its tissues are studied in and after the post-mortem examination.

My training in this is the reason why I have contributed fact and analysis in the unnatural death of Dr David Kelly MD CMG 17/18th July 2003.

He was the UK’s foremost germ and chemical weapons expert whose death was dealt with superficially, and indeed very inadequately, at the ad hoc Hutton Inquiry as triggered by Anthony Charles Lynton Blair QC within three hours of an unidentified corpse being found in an Oxforshire wood.  The then PM was at the time in a jet travelling from Washington, after an award to him, en route to Tokyo!  The hearing – directed by Lord Falconer to ‘inquire urgently into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr Kelly …’, an oblique instruction, started 3 weeks after the death.  It had no legal force and was hamstrung as against an inquest in four key ways.  Uniquely, this ‘unnatural’ death has never been subject to an inquest as the law of our beautiful islands has required since the 13thC – mostly.  Of the total 21 days of the hearing, only one half of one day were spent in discussing the medical and forensic matters, and these most inadequately.  One of the four key omissions was the absence of any cross examination by others than Lord Hutton.  (He died a few weeks ago.)

This virus has been lethal, especially in the frail elderly and those with impaired immunity, and what are called ‘co-morbidities’ – lung disease, diabetes, heart failure etc.  All are common in a sickly Britain.  The Office of National Statistics has recorded that 95% of those dying with Covid19 had these co-morbidities.

The diagnosis has been ‘encouraged’ in many ways.  As for those dying in care homes, mostly as a result of government negligence, the death certificates have been written after telephone calls and without a doctor having seen the patient in his or her’s usually lonely death.

In the US, hospitals have received a bonus for each death attributed to C19.  Expert doctors and scientists who have sought to inform and plead for logical and scientific management have been ruthlessly censored by governments.

Literally hundreds of ‘videos’ on Youtube etc have been ‘taken down’ within hours.  This confirms that the Covid-19 ‘management plan’ is a lie, and disastrous for humans worldwide.

Great distress is being caused, especially in those with existing mental illness, backlogs in diagnosing often treatable cancers, treating pain and disability in my field of orthopaedic surgery and trauma surgery etc.  The effects on the global, national and personal economies are disastrous and growing daily, and are entirely predictable.  The winter ahead will be dark, and we all must hold to our common sense, and care for each other – as this country did so bravely from 1939.  ‘To care is the most important characteristic of any worthwhile society’ – David Halpin.

The WHO is a ‘dodgy’ organisation.  One defect is its inconsistency – like any committee.  And its members vary greatly in calibre and motivation.  I give these quotes from a posting on the GreenMedInfo website.

According to the World Health Organization’s June 5, 2020, guidance on face mask use, there’s no direct evidence that universal masking of healthy people is an effective intervention against respiratory illnesses

Despite the fact that cloth masks are far less effective for blocking potentially infectious respiratory droplets, the WHO recommends cloth masks should be worn by infected persons in community settings

A policy review paper published in the CDC’s (USA) journal Emerging Infectious Diseases found that masks did not protect against influenza in non-healthcare settings

Harms and risks of mask-wearing include health effects associated with poor air quality and toxic ingredients in the mask, self-contamination caused by manipulation of the mask by contaminated hands, general discomfort, facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne, and a false sense of security that may reduce adherence to other preventive measures such as hand hygiene

I add that oxygen levels fall and carbon dioxide levels rise in the blood as a result of re-breathing expired air.

I finish.  Fascism rose strongly in Germany from 1933 after the ‘false flag’ / ‘put up job’ of the Reichstag Fire – lead by Hitler.  It rose in Italy and other countries.  There was a strong movement here in Britain with many powerful sympathisers.  I quote from Milton Mayer, the son in a German ‘Jewish’ family who fled Berlin and moved to the US in 1936.  He became a journalist and went back to Germany a few years after WW2 to interview many Germans.  These quotes are from the book he wrote on the Home page of my website – google ‘david halpin’ under ‘A Little Food for Thought’.  The book – ‘They Thought They Were Free’ by Milton Mayer, The Germans, 1938-45

“What no one seemed to notice was the ever widening gap between the government and the people. And it became always wider…..the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting, it provided an excuse not to think….for people who did not want to think anyway gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about…..and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated…..by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’  without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us…..

“Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’…..must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing…..Each act is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next.

“You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone…..you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’  But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes.

“That’s the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves, when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed.

“You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father…..could never have imagined.”

Be kind to one another.

Rely on your common sense.  Stand together for reason, justice and our laws.  Speak up for your family and friends.  And NEVER GIVE UP.


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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, David Halpin, where this article was originally published. 

Featured image is by Engin Akyurt from Pixabay

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Masking the COVID-19 Virus in this ‘Pandemic’
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Tensions Between China and India May Soon Rise as Trump Approves Historic Tibet Act

Free speech is the bedrock on which all our other freedoms rest, yet it is currently in greater peril than at any time since the Second World War. The Free Speech Union  is a non-partisan, not-for-profit membership organisation that stands up for people whose right to freedom of expression has been violated.

Not only do we pressure institutions to uphold their own free speech policies through direct challenges and media pressure, but we also litigate when we believe they’ve behaved unlawfully. This work is particularly urgent in the present climate, with people being cancelled every day for daring to challenge the latest ideological dogma.

Freedom of expression is legally protected in Britain, but that’s often forgotten by private companies and public organisations when they come under pressure to get rid of someone who’s said something people don’t want to hear. Faced with an angry mob on social media, the people at the top nearly always cave in, firing the heretic in question or forcing them to resign. Due process is forgotten and people’s careers and reputations are destroyed.

One of the best ways to protect people from mob justice is to let their bosses and the powers that be know that there is an organisation out there that will stand up for people’s speech rights in the courts. That’s where the FSU litigation fund comes in.

When, on 20th April 2020, the broadcast regulator slapped down Eamonn Holmes, an ITV presenter, for arguing in favour of always maintaining an open mind with respect to different theories about the coronavirus crisis and the Government’s response to it, the FSU decided it needed to do something to defend the right of Holmes and other broadcasters to express their views freely without fear of being censured by Ofcom. Given that it is likely that Ofcom will become the regulator of the internet as well in due course, we consider it vitally important that it should pay proper attention to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which protects the right to freedom of expression. Ofcom should encourage – rather than discourage – open debate.

We lodged a complaint with Ofcom in the hope that it would realise the error of its ways. However, it refused to budge on the issue, citing the ‘coronavirus guidance’ it had published on March 23rd, the same day the country was placed under a full lockdown, which cautioned broadcasters to exercise extreme caution when airing the views of people who were critical of the official response to the pandemic. Consequently, we decided to apply for permission to Judicially Review that guidance in the High Court. We hope to be able to persuade the Court that the guidance is unlawful.

When we raised a similar issue with the Isle of Man’s Communications Commission, the IoM equivalent of Ofcom, its response was very different. They were, at the time, investigating a complaint about a chat show host, Stuart Peters, and we were concerned that they would neglect Mr Peters’ Article 10 rights. Mr Peters had challenged the concept of white privilege in the course of a robust exchange of views with a caller to his radio station and we did not think he should be penalised for that.

In the event, the Communications Commission took proper account of the importance of Mr Peters’ right to free speech, finding in his favour and stating in their report that: “The Commission is of the view that open and honest debate about such issues is required as part of the democratic process and encourages this to take place.”

As the FSU has a range of obligations towards its members, it has opened this separate litigation fund so that those who specifically support this and other general litigation can do so, whether or not they wish to join the FSU.

A judge will shortly decide whether to allow us to proceed with a Judicial Review of Ofcom’s guidance. We think we have a strong case, but in the event of losing Ofcom will ask us to pay its costs so we have asked the judge for a ‘Protective Costs Order’ which places a cap on the liability faced by the FSU. We have said that we want the cap to be whatever is in this fund when the case has been decided. If the High Court finds in our favour, the money in this fund will be held over and used to support other litigation to protect free speech.

As George Orwell said, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people things they do not want to hear.”

It’s more important now than ever to stand up for that right.

Organization’s Note: The organiser of this campaign is the FSU’s Company Secretary. All funds raised will go to The Free Speech Union Limited.


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

Featured image is from TFSU

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Coronavirus and Freedom of Expression. “The Right to Tell People Things They Do Not Want to Hear.”
  • Tags:

Turkey Pivots to the Center of the New Great Game

December 29th, 2020 by Pepe Escobar

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

When it comes to sowing – and profiting – from division, Erdogan’s Turkey is quite the superstar.

Under the delightfully named Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), the Trump administration duly slapped sanctions on Ankara for daring to buy Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile defence systems. The sanctions focused on Turkey’s defence procurement agency, the SSB.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu’s response was swift: Ankara won’t back down – and it is in fact mulling how to respond.

The European poodles inevitably had to provide the follow-up. So after the proverbial, interminable debate in Brussels, they settled for “limited” sanctions – adding a further list for a summit in March 2021. Yet these sanctions actually focus on as-yet unidentified individuals involved in offshore drilling in Cyprus and Greece. They have nothing to do with S-400s.

What the EU has come up with is in fact a very ambitious, global human-rights sanctions regime modeled after the US’s Magnitsky Act. That implies travel bans and asset freezes of people unilaterally considered responsible for genocide, torture, extrajudicial killings and crimes against humanity.

Turkey, in this case, is just a guinea pig. The EU always hesitates mightily when it comes to sanctioning a NATO member. What the Eurocrats in Brussels really want is an extra, powerful tool to harass mostly China and Russia.

Our jihadis, sorry, “moderate rebels”

What’s fascinating is that Ankara under Erdogan always seems to be exhibiting a sort of “devil may care” attitude.

Take the seemingly insoluble situation in the Idlib cauldron in northwest Syria. Jabhat al-Nusra – a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria – honchos are now involved in “secret” negotiations with Turkish-backed armed gangs, such as Ahrar al-Sharqiya, right in front of Turkish officials. The objective: to boost the number of jihadis concentrated in certain key areas. The bottom line: a large number of these will come from Jabhat al-Nusra.

So Ankara for all practical purposes remains fully behind hardcore jihadis in northwest Syria – disguised under the “innocent” brand  Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. Ankara has absolutely no interest in letting these people disappear. Moscow, of course, is fully aware of these shenanigans, but wily Kremlin and Defence Ministry strategists prefer to let it roll for the time being, assuming the Astana process shared by Russia, Iran and Turkey can be somewhat fruitful.

Erdogan, at the same time, masterfully plays the impression that he’s totally involved in pivoting towards Moscow. He’s effusive that “his Russian colleague Vladimir Putin” supports the idea – initially tabled by Azerbaijan – of a regional security platform uniting Russia, Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia. Erdogan even said that if Yerevan is part of this mechanism, “a new page may be opened” in so far intractable Turkey-Armenia relations.

It will help, of course, that even under Putin pre-eminence, Erdogan will have a very important seat at the table of this putative security organization.

The Big Picture is even more fascinating – because it lays out various aspects of Putin’s Eurasia balancing strategy, which involves as main players Russia, China, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan.

On the eve of the first anniversary of the assassination of Gen Soleimani, Tehran is far from cowed and “isolated”. For all practical purposes, it is slowly but surely forcing the US out of Iraq. Iran’s diplomatic and military links to Iraq, Syria and Lebanon remain solid.

And with less US troops in Afghanistan, the fact is Iran for the first time since the “axis of evil” era will be less surrounded by the Pentagon. Both Russia and China – the key nodes of Eurasia integration – fully approve it.

Of course the Iranian rial has collapsed against the US dollar, and oil income has fallen from over $100 billion a year to something like $7 billion. But non-oil exports are going well over $30 billion a year.

All is about to change for the better. Iran is building an ultra-strategic pipeline from the eastern part of the Persian Gulf to the port of Jask in the Gulf of Oman – bypassing the Strait of Hormuz, and ready to export up to 1 million barrels of oil a day. China will be the top customer.

President Rouhani said the pipeline will be ready by the summer of 2021, adding that Iran plans to be selling over 2.3 million barrels of oil a day next year – with or without US sanctions alleviated by Biden-Harris. 

Watch the Golden Ring

Iran is well linked to Turkey to the west and Central Asia to the east. An extra important element in the chessboard is the entrance of freight trains directly linking Turkey to China via Central Asia – bypassing Russia.

Earlier this month, the first freight train left Istanbul for a 8,693 km, 12-day trip, crossing below the Bosphorus via the brand new Marmary tunnel, inaugurated a year ago, then along the East-West Middle Corridor via the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars (BTK) railway, across Georgia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.

In Turkey this is known as the Silk Railway. It was the BTK that reduced freight transport from Turkey to China from one month to only 12 days. The whole route from East Asia to Western Europe can now be travelled in only 18 days. BTK is the key node of the so-called Middle Corridor from Beijing to London and the Iron Silk Road from Kazakhstan to Turkey.

All of the above totally fits the EU’s agenda – especially Germany’s: implementing a strategic trade corridor linking the EU to China, bypassing Russia.

This would eventually lead to one of the key alliances to be consolidated in the Raging Twenties: Berlin-Beijing.

To speed up this putative alliance, the talk in Brussels is that Eurocrats would profit from Turkmen nationalism, pan-Turkism and the recent entente cordiale between Erdogan and Xi when it comes to the Uighurs. But there’s a problem: many a turcophone tribe prefers an alliance with Russia.

Moreover, Russia is inescapable when it comes to other corridors. Take, for instance, a flow of Japanese goods going to Vladivostok and then via the Trans-Siberian to Moscow and onwards to the EU.

The bypass-Russia EU strategy was not exactly a hit in Armenia-Azerbaijan: what we had was a relative Turkey retreat and a de facto Russian victory, with Moscow reinforcing its military position in the Caucasus.

Enter an even more interesting gambit: the Azerbaijan-Pakistan strategic partnership, now on overdrive in trade, defence, energy, science and technology, and agriculture. Islamabad, incidentally, supported Baku on Nagorno-Karabakh.

Both Azerbaijan and Pakistan have very good relations with Turkey:  a matter of very complex, interlocking Turk-Persian cultural heritage.

And they may get even closer, with the International North-South Transportation Corridor (INTSC) increasingly connecting not only Islamabad to Baku but also both to Moscow.

Thus the extra dimension of the new security mechanism proposed by Baku uniting Russia, Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia: all the Top Four here want closer ties with Pakistan.

Analyst Andrew Korybko has neatly dubbed it the “Golden Ring” – a new dimension to Central Eurasian integration featuring Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Azerbaijan and the central Asian “stans”. So this all goes way beyond a possible Triple Entente: Berlin-Ankara-Beijing.

What’s certain as it stands is that the all-important Berlin-Moscow relationship is bound to remain as cold as ice. Norwegian analyst Glenn Diesen summed it all up: “The German-Russian partnership for Greater Europe was replaced with the Chinese-Russian partnership for Greater Eurasia”.

What’s also certain is that Erdogan, a master of pivoting, will find ways to simultaneously profit from both Germany and Russia.


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

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Turkey Pivots to the Center of the New Great Game
  • Tags: ,

Aware of the forthcoming vaccine roll-out aimed, it is said, to protect against a disease (COVID-19) that reached its apex almost nine months ago, I emailed the MHRA (Medical and Healthcare Regulatory Authority) on 20 November 2020.

My main concern is that people will unwittingly subject themselves to an experimental vaccine that has not been licensed by the MHRA, the ingredients of which have not been made public. Diagnosis of COVID-19 is made on the basis of a test, the RT-PCR test, the results of which are frequently flawed. I questioned if the MHRA had approved the RT-PCR test and copied in a medical doctor friend of mine.

Since the reliability of the RT-PCR test has been questioned . . . it is important to know that the MHRA has done its duty in protecting the public from potentially harmful health-care products. Please reassure me that procedures have been followed and that this product the (RT-PCR test) has been approved by the authority. Thank you.”

The MHRA response was mind-blowing.

There are literally 100s of CE marked Covid RT-PCR tests available on the EU market.

Such tests require a self-declaration process undertaken by the manufacturer with no review of performance data by any EU Government Body or Notified Body and that MHRA does not approve such products.

However, I can confirm that all PCR kits used by government laboratories or their subcontractors have been subject to rigorous validation by them before use.”

How can anyone possibly confirm that rigorous validation has taken place if these tests are not monitored?

It raised an alarm to think results from all the “100s” of RT-PCR tests which the UK government, and other governments of the world, use in checking for COVID -19 are reached using kits that are self-regulated “by the manufacturer”. It is more than disturbing. There is no authority reviewing the tests and no authority reviewing results from the tests. It was necessary to delve further.

Who is checking how positive tests are arrived at? How many amplifications are being used in tests? Is this consistent across all testing stations?”

The answer, which did not address the questions, raised even more concerns, including the competency of the MHRA.

There is no relation to vaccinating human volunteers and the use of an RT-PCR test.

I can also confirm that trials of the vaccines was approved by the normal rigorous processes.”

Whether intentionally, or through ignorance, both these sentences are blatantly false.

Within the last week the Assets Publishing Service of the UK government issued a document to Healthcare professionals on how to administer the PfizerBioNTech vaccine.

It quite clearly states that there is now, and since trials began always has been, a relationship between “vaccinating human volunteers and the use of an RT-PCR test.” In section 5.1 which discusses results from trials it explains the two criteria which were, and still are, being adopted:

Confirmed cases were determined by Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) and at least 1 symptom consistent with COVID-19 disease*.

*Case definition (at least 1 of): fever, new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath; chills, new or increased muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhoea or vomiting.”

As to confirmation that vaccine trials were “approved by the normal rigorous processes” the whole document disproves any such claim. Approval has been granted on the basis of a measure only normally used in extreme emergencies, for example during the spread of “pathogenic agents, toxins, chemical agents or nuclear radiation.” It is called REG 174 (Regulation 174) a regulation which has recently been updated. Right at the start of the Assets Publishing Service document it states that:

This medicinal product [REG 174] does not have a UK marketing authorisation but has been given authorisation for temporary supply by the UK Department of Health and Social Care and the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for active immunization to prevent COVID-19 disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus in individuals aged16 years of age and over.”

Whatever it is, it is not “normal rigorous” procedure. This vaccine is being rushed through in a process that can normally take up to ten years to complete. Even today no approved vaccine exists for SARS-COV from the 2003 epidemic, and indeed, no approval exists for any of the SARS/MERS family of viruses.

What is happening is a human experiment with a vaccine that has had minimal testing, of which the full recipe of ingredients is being kept secret.

That, in itself, ought to raise alarm – but the only alarms being raised seem to be of the nature whether people are wearing masks, obeying lockdown restrictions, washing their hands and social distancing.

We should be really worried about the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, and other vaccines, which contain ingredients designed to sterilize volunteers or change our DNA in a government-promoted scheme, the adverse results of which may not be known for decades.

Thanks to a GlaxoKlineSmith whistleblower whose evidence was presented on the David Knight Show (taken down by YouTube) we know that GKS was (is?) planning to use an ingredient in its COVID-19 vaccine, an anti-human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) antigen, which causes infertility in women and in men. In men their testicles shrink, testosterone levels fall, the sperm is chemically attacked and dead sperm goes on to make women infertile too. In women. it:

“. . . produces antibodies which combine with HCG to render it biologically inactive . . . Out of 63 women they ][GSK] tested with HCG 61 of them became infertile. . . “

It would seem also that Pfizer BioNTech’s vaccine has life-threatening contents.

The last email I received from the MHRA confirmed my suspicion that this is a sensitive subject which the MHRA chooses to nip in the bud.

I am sorry John but I do not have the time to deal with repeated communications with you as I am dealing with 100s of emails a day. This will be my last email to you.

The trials regarding vaccines have not been rushed through in terms of the MHRA’s involvement and we have applied the same level of scrutiny as it has historically done so for others.

The evidence that the vaccine is working or not depends on how many people contract the virus who have had the vaccine to those who have not been given it.”

His last sentence took me back full circle to my initial question about the reliability of the RT-PCR test which the MHRA has consistently neglected to monitor for accuracy, and which, despite assurance to the contrary, is being used in vaccine tests. The whole process reminded me of the plight of Daniel Doyce from Charles Dickens’ Little Dorrit.

Doyce was an engineer who tried to get his invention patented. For years he went backwards and forwards to the Circumlocution Office being sent from department to department without ever being given any constructive advice. Unable to make progress Doyce eventually took his creation abroad where he and it were a success. The trouble is with today’s regulatory authorities there is nowhere abroad to take our worries since the European Medicine Agency (EMA) is as complicit with Big Pharma’s aims as our own MHRA.

As the employee at MHRA did not have time “to deal with repeated communications” I emailed back to see if there was somebody else who could address my concerns. Previous correspondence had been answered quickly but it is two weeks now since I had a response to my last and I am not expecting another. When members of the public are worried about the safety and accuracy of medical products it is the MHRA’s duty to act.

Attempts to elicit the truth can be frustrating. It is in the interests of our families and friends, and their families and friends, to find out why the MHRA is not doing its job with regard to the RT-PCR test. Without doubt my questions have rattled the authority’s cage. Although it refuses to engage with me further I like to think there are others, concerned enough for their families and friends’ welfare and future on this beautiful planet of ours, who might wish to know why the RT-PCR test has not been given full scrutiny.

Close ties between big pharmaceutical conglomerates and their regulatory authorities raise suspicions as to their impartiality. In its questions and answers section the MHRA attempts to put these suspicions quietly to bed.

8. Why does the MHRA accept money from pharmaceutical industry? Isn’t this a conflict of interest?

Companies have to pay a fee for their marketing authorisation but we don’t seek business from them. Any complex licensing decisions are referred to the Agency’s independent advisory committees. These members must register any interests they have in the industry. They must declare any specific ones and take no part in discussions on that subject.

The agency’s independent advisory committees are another matter altogether and serious concerns have been raised as to how independent they really are. For example, in a June meeting of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the minutes of which are still in draft form, we note that the Medical Advisor is Professor Jonathan Van Tam – a recent spokesman on the BBC promoting the virtues and safety of Pfizer BioNTech’s new vaccine while at the same time attempting to ameliorate public concern that these untested vaccines might indeed be dangerous.

Unlike most of the others on the committee Van Tam provides no conflict of interest details that are specific to COVID-19 vaccines. That does not mean he has none and contravenes a basic tenet of the MHRA’s dos and don’ts. University of Oxford Senior Associate Tutor, Tom Jefferson, exposed in 2017 the revolving door nepotism which saw the promotion of figures like Professor Van Dam and Sir Patrick Vallance to their present positions. Van Tam is one of three Deputy Chief Medical Officers to Professor Christopher Whitty, and it is not unusual for him to play down or choose not to mention his connections with pharmaceutical groups. As Jefferson notes: “Professor Van Tam’s track record as an ex-employee of Roche, Aventis Pasteur MSD and SmithKline Beecham (now GSK) has been excluded from the official DH press release . . .”

The “independent” CEO of the MHRA, Dr. June Raine, issued a statement on 19 November 2019, espousing the virtues of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine trials.

She outlines the two routes available in approving a vaccine for use, namely, the emergency route (REG 174) which is now being made operational and the proper route which normally takes years. In these “new normal” days the MHRA has committed itself to “rigorously assess the data in the shortest time possible, without compromising the thoroughness of our review” regardless of which route is adopted. She fails to mention the RT-PCR test which is being used to determine results.

In the dangerous and untested vaccine experiments the unmonitored RT-PCR test is possibly the MHRA and the government’s weakest link. Interested parties can email the authority in the first instance at: [email protected]


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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, All the Goss.

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

Along with a motley collection of wealthy swindlers and fraudsters, President Donald Trump on Dec. 22 pardoned four former Blackwater private contractors (mercenaries) convicted in the infamous Sept. 16, 2007, Nisour Square massacre in Baghdad.

Seventeen Iraqis were killed and 14 seriously wounded in an unprovoked attack by the four, who indiscriminately fired machine guns, sniper rifles, and rocket-propelled grenades into a crowd of unarmed civilians. Among the dead were two boys, 9 and 11 years of age, and a woman burned alive in her car. The four killers suffered no injuries, and their claims of self-defense were rejected by Iraqi and U.S. investigations. It was one of many atrocities committed by U.S. and allied forces.

Trials and retrials in the U.S. found the four guilty of heinous crimes including first-degree murder and manslaughter.

But why were they never tried in Iraq, site of their monstrous actions? Answering that question unmasks the colonial relationship between the U.S. and Iraq that began with the 2003 “Shock and Awe” invasion.

Now the four will walk free, as do the much higher-ranking war criminals who planned and executed the war against Iraq, a country half-way around the world that did not and could not threaten the United States. Iraq remains decimated, while George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Candoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, who perpetrated the war and occupation that followed, have never had to face justice. Nor have such fervent supporters of the war like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.

The reaction in Iraq to news of the pardons was widespread outrage, from Iraqi government officials to people on the street, and renewed demands that the U.S. finally get out.

Reaction in Iraq

A well-known Iraqi commentator, Muhammad Waeli, tweeted:

“Pardoning the Blackwater killers is renewing the crime committed against the Iraqi people.”

Fares Saadi, an official who led the Iraqi investigation leading to the convictions of the Blackwater, told the AFP news agency, “I knew we’d never get justice.”

“The infamous Blackwater company killed Iraqi citizens at Nisour Square. Today we heard they were released upon personal order by President Trump, as if they don’t care for the spilled Iraqi blood,” said Saleh Abed, a Baghdad resident, interviewed by Al-Jazeera.

Blackwater was notorious for its extreme racist brutality against the Iraqi population. Founded by Erik Prince, billionaire brother of Trump’s Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and a frequent visitor to the Trump White House. Blackwater, which had thousands of high-paid mercenaries supporting 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq from 2003-11, were hated and feared by the population.

“We used to be terrified of them, especially Blackwater, who were the nastiest of them all,” said Ribal Mansour, a witness to the massacre.

Dr Haidar al-Barzanji, an Iraqi researcher and academic, told the Guardian: “Trump has no right to decide on behalf of victims’ families to pardon these criminals. It is at odds with human rights and against the law. In Iraqi law they can only be pardoned if the families of victims pardon them.”

If the Nisour Square killers had been tried in an Iraqi court, there can be little doubt that they would be in prison today. But neither they nor any other occupation personnel were subject to Iraqi law.

Colonial injustice protected Blackwater guards from trial in Iraq

After conquering Iraq in April 2003, Washington dismantled the Iraqi state and government, and set up a new colonial-style dictatorship answerable only to the Pentagon. The “Coalition Provisional Authority” was headed by an American bureaucrat, J. Paul Bremer.

In June 2003, Bremer issued CPA Order 17, which stated: “Multinational forces, international consultants, and U.S. personnel are immune from the Iraqi legal process. … Coalition contractors and their sub-contractors as well as their employees not normally resident in Iraq, shall not be subject to Iraqi laws. … ”

Order 17 remained in place until 2008. What replaced it differed very little in substance. In the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement, Iraq was granted jurisdiction over U.S. military and civilian forces only for the commission of “grave premeditated felonies” and only when the personnel are off-duty. What the definition of “grave premeditated felonies” meant was left to a “Joint U.S-Iraqi Commission.”

In 2011, the Obama administration withdrew U.S. troops from Iraq after a new agreement to grant U.S. forces continued extraterritorial immunity. U.S. forces returned in 2014 when much of Iraq and Syria was conquered by ISIS.

While tens of thousands of Iraqis were arrested, imprisoned and abused by the occupying forces, the search for records of U.S. personnel locked up in Iraqi jails yields nothing.

CPA Order 17 and the 2008 SOFA embodied the old colonial policy of “extraterritoriality,” the racist doctrine that holds the colonizers cannot be judged by the colonized. It means that the occupiers can murder, rape and steal with impunity.

Extraterritoriality and colonialism

When China was divided into “spheres of influence” by several imperialist powers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, violent acts by soldiers and civilians against Chinese nationals and the fact that the perpetrators were immune from prosecution in Chinese courts led to many acts of resistance.

In 1906, Washington established a special U.S. Court for China based in Shanghai, with jurisdiction over all U.S. citizens in its district, which was all of China. It was only disbanded in 1943 in the midst of World War II when the U.S. and China were allies.

And it was not just China. Wherever colonialism has existed so have racist parallel systems of justice/injustice.

What it means to live under colonial rule was expressed by the classmate of a medical student killed in Nisour Square. She spoke anonymously to the Guardian, fearing retaliation:

“The Americans have never approached us Iraqis as equals. As far as they are concerned, our blood is cheaper than water and our demands for justice and accountability are merely a nuisance.”


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

This article was originally published on Liberation News.

Featured image is from commons.wikimedia.org

The 2020 Nashville Bombing vs. the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing

December 29th, 2020 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The Nashville bombing raises questions about the Oklahoma City bombing.  In 1995 the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was blown up.  Allegedly, the building was destroyed by a fertilizer bomb in a Ryder rental truck parked on the street.  The Murrah building had massive reinforced concrete columns, some being  3 feet thick if memory serves. The front third of the building was destroyed with columns turned to dust.

The guilty parties were allegedly Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.  According to reports, the blast killed 168 people, injured 680 others, and destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a 16-block radius along with 86 cars and caused $652 million of damage in 1995 dollars.

At the time US Air Force General Partin, who had high level responsibilities for ordinance and weapons development, distributed an expert report to 75 members of the House and Senate.  The report proved that the Murrah building blew up from the inside out.  Many Americans concluded that the truck bomb was cover for an inside job.  McVeigh and Nichols were regarded as patsies who thought they blew up the building, but their role was to direct attention away from those responsible.

Image on the right: A view of the destroyed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building from across the adjacent parking lot, two days after the bombing. (Public Domain)

A view of the destroyed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building from across the adjacent parking lot, two days after the bombing.

General Partin’s report was quickly tossed into the Memory Hole. To get rid of the evidence the Murrah building was hauled away and buried just as the steel in the World Trade Center buildings in 2001 was sent abroad to be melted down, and an official bogus report was issued like the 9/11 official reports. Instead of a real investigation, we got a controlled explanation.

Twenty-five years after the Oklahoma City Bombing we have another bomb in a vehicle parked in the street in front of a building.  This time the building is an AT&T building. The parked vehicle is a RV which could hold as much explosives as a rental truck.  An interesting difference is that the RV is much closer to the building, seperated only by a sidewalk, whereas if memory serves, the Murrah building was set back from the street.

When the RV bomb went off, 3 people were injured, and building damage seems to be limited to blowing out windows.  Clearly, there is no comparable structural damage to the Oklahoma City bombing.

Why?  Was the RV bomb just an oversized firecracker?  Or was General Partin, clearly an expert, correct when he concluded that the Murrah Federal building was blown up from the inside out?


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

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image:The bombing occurred on this block of the Second Avenue Commercial District. CC BY-SA 3.0

A Pardoning Time of Year. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden?

December 29th, 2020 by Philip Giraldi

The resistance to the apparent election of Joe Biden as President of the United States is continuing to play out. Current President Donald Trump is continuing to fight against the presumed results of the November national election with his final card appearing to be a vote in Congress when it reconvenes on January 6th to throw out the results due to fraud in certain key states. Many have noted how the registration and electoral processes in the United States, varying as they do from state to state, were and are vulnerable to fraud. That, plus some eyewitness testimony and technical analysis, suggests that possibly systematic fraud did take place but it is far from clear whether it was decisive. This is particularly true of the vote by mail option, which was promoted by leading Democrats and which empowered literally millions of new voters with only limited attempts made to validate whether citizens or even real people were voting.

Vote by mail is now one of several options that are appearing to be weaponized by the cash-rich Democrats in the state of Georgia, where two Senate races will be up for grabs in runoff elections on January 5th. If the Democrats obtain both, they will control the Senate through the Vice President’s role in presiding over the upper chamber where she has the tie breaking vote. That will mean that we the voters can expect some dramatic changes as the Democrats respond to their various constituencies with their well enunciated grievances.

In what may be its last weeks in office, the Trump Administration is also exploiting its executive power to pardon to reverse perceived injustices and to protect remaining allies, to include some family members. Trump is already on track to pardon more individuals than any preceding president with 90 pardons issued as of Christmas Eve and many more expected. One of his initial pardons was a notable example of a miscarriage of justice in the case of presidential national security advisor designate Michael Flynn, who was wrongly accused of collaborating with Russia. If anything, he was actually cooperating with a request that came from Israel, which Congress and the media apparently do not regard as wrongdoing.

Trump’s pardon of his daughter Ivanka’s father-in-law Charles Kushner is particularly controversial, as Kushner was a multimillionaire real estate developer and a leading Democratic Party donor when he was convicted in 2005 to two years in federal prison after he pleaded guilty to 18 counts, which included both tax evasion and making illegal campaign contributions. The tale of Charles Kushner is particularly unsavory because he reportedly sought revenge after he learned that his brother-in-law and former business partner was aiding federal authorities. Charles hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law in a New Jersey motel room, making a recording of the encounter using a hidden camera that he then showed to his brother-in-law’s wife, who was, of course, Kushner’s own sister.

Kushner’s prosecution was directed by then-U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, who afterwards became a prominent Trump supporter and head of his transition team before being fired in 2016, apparently per orders originating with Jared Kushner. In a 2019 interview Christie explained “Mr. Kushner pled guilty. He admitted the crimes. And so what am I supposed to do as a prosecutor? I mean, if a guy hires a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, and videotapes it, and then sends the videotape to his sister to attempt to intimidate her from testifying before a grand jury, do I really need any more justification than that? I mean, it’s one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes that I prosecuted. And I was U.S. attorney in New Jersey, so we had some loathsome and disgusting crime going on there.”

Charles Kushner is also a close friend and supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which might also be relevant to his pardon and I will leave any assessment of the ethics of the Kushner clan up to the reader. Nevertheless, the consequence of Jared’s ability to influence the president could be politically damaging as he reportedly has been responsible for many of the pardons that have already taken place and is now the conduit for new petitioners.

Another highly criticized Trump pardon has involved the four Blackwater mercenaries who massacred 19 Iraqis including 2 children firing from a helicopter into a crowded Nisour Square Baghdad in 2007. The president is reportedly very friendly with Blackwater founder and former president Erik Prince, whose sister Betsy DeVos is Education Secretary and also close to the president. But in any event Trump’s pardon record is different only in terms of magnitude from those of some of his predecessors as there have been some highly questionable pardons in the past, to include Marc Rich under Bill Clinton and Elliot Abrams under George W. Bush.

There remains a long list of possible candidates for Trump to sign off on, to include a possible self-pardon, and more pardons for family members Ivanka, Jared and two of his sons as well as his lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Other current and impending pardon recipients have been individuals who were involved in the Trump campaigns, to include Paul Manafort and Roger Stone. Pardons are a particularly attractive pre-emptive option currently as a number of leading Democrats have been calling for “truth commissions” and other forms of punishment of Trump supporters and officials.

The process of issuing presidential pardons will undoubtedly continue up until Inauguration Day on January 20th, but sources are uncertain whether Trump will be courageous enough to pardon the two individuals whose freedom would most definitely be sending a powerful message for integrity in government. They are Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. Both men’s names have been coming up frequently in the alternative media, together with the development of active lobbying groups that are seeking their freedom.

Assange, a journalist and founder of WikiLeaks, is currently languishing in a British prison, where he has been for twenty-one months, awaiting a decision on whether he will be extradited to the United States or not which will reportedly be decided on January 4th. The Department of Justice has claimed that he violated the Espionage Act of 1917 by receiving classified information from Chelsea Manning. Reportedly, Assange’s mental and physical health have deteriorated sharply as he is being held in solitary confinement with only short periods of exercise and without access to reading or writing material to occupy his time. The British judge appears to be completely unsympathetic to Assange and it is generally believed that she will order his extradition if he does not fortuitously die in prison before that could take place.

Snowden, meanwhile, is living in Russia and has been granted citizenship, a country to which he fled by way of Hong Kong in 2013, after revealing to journalists details of a vast and illegal surveillance program run by the National Security Agency (NSA) against American citizens, something he discovered while he was employed as a NSA contractor. He had attempted to raise his concerns with supervisors but was rebuffed and he eventually became a self-declared whistleblower and fled the country. He has repeatedly offered to return to the United States to face trial, but has also insisted that a fair hearing would be impossible under the current circumstances.

It should be observed that Snowden is absolutely correct to assume that he would be convicted both on grounds of espionage and of compromise of classified information. The federal court in Alexandria, where national security cases are usually tried, always finds for the government even if evidence is questionable or even non-existent. A recent conviction involved ex-CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling, who was sent to prison for 42 months even though it could not be demonstrated that he had actually done anything. The court concluded that “it had to be him.”

To be sure, revealing classified information is a serious matter, even though many former government employees would agree that much material that is classified does not actually damage national security if it is revealed. Frequently, classification is used to keep the government from being embarrassed or to shut down any revelation that it has acted illegally. Both Assange and Snowden would argue that they had acted appropriately in revealing war crimes, illegal acts and even violations of the Constitution as consequences of the so-called “global war on terror.” Assange, who regards himself as a journalist, published details of the Blackwater massacre of civilians committed by the crew of a helicopter gunship in Iraq and also was involved in the exposure of the Hillary Clinton emails. Snowden, as noted above, claims to be a whistle-blower and has sought protection under relevant laws in the United States, so far to no avail.

The illegal and otherwise unconscionable acts by various elements in the U.S. government that were exposed by Assange and Snowden include war crimes, so they are not trivial. Trump, having already done a “favor” to Blackwater, might be disinclined to pardon someone who exposed its mercenaries’ crimes. But there is nevertheless, as is often the case, an interesting aspect to the story that is worth paying attention to.

Trump, as is widely conceded even by some Democrats, was targeted by the Deep State even before he was nominated, an effort to destroy his presidency that persisted for years through the completely contrived mechanism of Russiagate. Given that, it would behoove Trump to strike back in his waning days in office. Both Assange and Snowden exposed illegal activities and cover-ups by the Deep State, almost certainly to include the active participation of some of the very people who have sought to bring the president down. And they both may have more to say. If Donald Trump seriously seeks to strike a blow against his enemies, it would be both fitting and just to pardon both men on that basis alone. Let us hope that President Trump has both the wisdom and fortitude to take that step in his last days in office.


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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

Featured image is from Massoud Nayeri

For those who find themselves with excess time this holiday season which they would prefer not to squander with idleness or Netflix binges, then I’d like to offer this serving of Frank Capra films to uplift the soul.

Frank Capra (1897-1991) stands as one of the most brilliant directors/producers of the 20th Century, and sadly also one of the least understood- known at best for the film It’s a Wonderful Life played every year as a Christmas tradition, or Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Unbeknownst to even many film connoisseurs today, Capra was not only a pre-eminent cultural warrior who took every opportunity to expose fascist movements during the 1930’s and 1940’s but also fought to provide a positive principled understanding of the divinity mankind’s higher nature in all his works. When asked to put into words what motivated him to create movies he said:

“My films must let every man, woman, and child know that God loves them, that I love them, and that peace and salvation will become a reality only when they all learn to love each other”

During World War II, Capra’s Why We Fight series was one of the most important educational tools used to shape the hearts and minds of the American population towards the strategic nature and purpose of the war against the fascist machine which had received much of its support from financiers in the Anglo-American establishment. In America, these groups were masquerading as “patriots” under the American Liberty League promoting America’s neutrality in that conflict. It was an open secret that these groups preferred to let Hitler and Mussolini usher in a new order which they saw as a wonderful opportunity to rule the world, and it was to these groups that FDR declared famously “they who seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers call this a new order. It is not new and it is not order”. The President knew of what he spoke as he had declared open war on these American fascists from 1932 onward.

Capra not only struggled to revive Roosevelt’s mission to end poverty, hunger and war after the war ended, but also struggled against the CIA-run Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) which was created in 1949 to shape the new era of art, music and cinema in the post war age as weapons against communism. The CCF had spared no time in purging Hollywood of all “FDR patriots” under the FBI-steered witch hunt known as Mcarthyism on the one hand while promoting a new culture of banality on the other pouring millions of dollars into mind deadening film scripts conducive to an age of white collar consumerism. This CIA/CCF agenda was recognized by only a few leading film directors as a spiritual virus that had to be stopped at all costs.

Other film makers at the time that stood against this corruption included Robert Kennedy’s close friend John Frankenheimer (7 Days in May, The Manchurian Candidate), and Stanley Kramer, whose film Judgement at Nuremberg (1961) still stands alone as one of the most potent artistic exposures of the western support for eugenics and fascism.

Frankenheimer’s 7 Days in May (1964) showcased the real-life planned coup to overthrow JFK which had been arranged by the Military’s Joint Chiefs under the helm of Anglophile General Lyman Lemnitzer in 1962 after Kennedy rejected the General’s plans for Operations Northwoods.

Capra’s approach to combating this virus during the years of Cold War terror took a different path to that chosen by Frankenheimer and Kramer. Rather than exposing the rot directly, Capra focused on uplifting the image of mankind by channeling all his efforts on science documentaries for children which he felt would have the most long term benefit to humanity.

Capra had been a target of the House on Un-American Activities due to his friendship with many blacklisted film makers, and watched as Hollywood was purged of those key individuals who acted as it’s conscience when Hollwood’s role as a tool of patriotism or fascism was still undetermined. Just as the political world was being re-shaped to a new post-moral world order, so too was Hollywood, and as historian Micheal Medved stated,“Capra refused to adjust to the cynicism of the new order.”

Capra’s documentary The Strange Case of Cosmic Rays illustrates his powerful technique that sought to unite science and art through a reverence for God’s creation which is in many ways as cutting edge today as it was 60 years ago.

Capra’s Greatest Films for this Holiday Season

After watching the brilliant It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) which not only exposed the crushing schemes of Wall Street financiers who sought to ruin local productive businesses/commercial banks but also awoke a higher sentiment of transformative love in the hearts of the audience, I would highly recommend watching his lesser known, yet equally powerful pieces You Can’t Take it With You (1938)Meet John Doe (1941) and State of the Union (1949) . Taken alongside Mr Smith Goes to Washington (1939), these films act as incredible Schillerian masterpieces which express the best potential for the moral use of cinema as a tool to both spiritually and politically ennoble a nation’s citizenry.

Capra dedicated himself to John F. Kennedy’s challenge to embark upon a new age of “open-system” collaboration around un-ending discoveries in space, producing his last film “Rendez-vous in Space” in 1964. Spliced with Beethoven’s 9th Symphony which set Schiller’s immortal poem Ode to Joy to music celebrating humanity’s eventual emergence into an age of reason, Capra had his narrator end with the powerful words: “The Sun still lights up and gives life to our planet, but only the mind of man can light up, and give meaning to the light of the universe.”

Even though darkness clouds the path to that better future towards which world citizens like Frank Capra dedicated their lives, the light that they knew was there is getting stronger by the day. So take the time to welcome the year 2022 by adding some spiritual kindling onto your flame and let Capra’s intention come alive again.

Happy Holidays to all.


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

This article was originally published on Rising Tide Foundation.

Matthew J.L. Ehret is a journalist, lecturer and founder of the Canadian Patriot Review. He can be reached at [email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Frank Capra’s Defense of Humanity: Cinema Considered as a Moral Institution
  • Tags:

2020: The Year the Tree of Liberty Was Torched

December 29th, 2020 by John W. Whitehead

“The people are unaware. They’re not educated to realize that they have power. The system is so geared that everyone believes the government will fix everything. We are the government.”—John Lennon

No doubt about it: 2020—a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year for freedom—was the culmination of a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad decade for freedom.

Government corruption, tyranny, and abuse coupled with a Big Brother-knows-best mindset and the COVID-19 pandemic propelled us at warp speed towards a full-blown police state in which nationwide lockdowns, egregious surveillance, roadside strip searches, police shootings of unarmed citizens, censorship, retaliatory arrests, the criminalization of lawful activities, warmongering, indefinite detentions, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, police brutality, profit-driven prisons, and pay-to-play politicians were accepted as the norm.

Here’s just a small sampling of the laundry list of abuses—cruel, brutal, immoral, unconstitutional and unacceptable—that have been heaped upon us by the government over the past two decades and in the past year, in particular.

The government failed to protect our lives, liberty and happiness. The predators of the police state wreaked havoc on our freedoms, our communities, and our lives. The government didn’t listen to the citizenry, refused to abide by the Constitution, and treated the citizenry as a source of funding and little else. Police officers shot unarmed citizens and their household pets. Government agents—including local police—were armed to the teeth and encouraged to act like soldiers on a battlefield. Bloated government agencies were allowed to fleece taxpayers. Government technicians spied on our emails and phone calls. And government contractors made a killing by waging endless wars abroad.

The American President became more imperial. Although the Constitution invests the President with very specific, limited powers, in recent years, American presidents (Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc.) claimed the power to completely and almost unilaterally alter the landscape of this country for good or for ill. The powers that have been amassed by each successive president through the negligence of Congress and the courts—powers which add up to a toolbox of terror for an imperial ruler—empower whoever occupies the Oval Office to act as a dictator, above the law and beyond any real accountability. The presidency itself has become an imperial one with permanent powers.

Militarized police became a power unto themselves, 911 calls turned deadly, and traffic stops took a turn for the worse. Lacking in transparency and accountability, protected by the courts and legislators, and rife with misconduct, America’s police forces continued to be a menace to the citizenry and the rule of law. Despite concerns about the government’s steady transformation of local police into a standing military army, local police agencies acquired even more weaponry, training and equipment suited for the battlefield. Police officers were also given free range to pull anyone over for a variety of reasons and subject them to forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases.

The courts failed to uphold justice. With every ruling handed down, it becomes more apparent that we live in an age of hollow justice, with government courts more concerned with protecting government agents than upholding the rights of “we the people.” This is true at all levels of the judiciary, but especially so in the highest court of the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, which is seemingly more concerned with establishing order and protecting government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution. A review of critical court rulings over the past two decades, including some ominous ones by the U.S. Supreme Court, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting the ruling class and government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

COVID-19 allowed the Emergency State to expand its powers. What started out as an apparent effort to prevent a novel coronavirus from sickening the nation (and the world) became yet another means by which world governments (including our own) could expand their powers, abuse their authority, and further oppress their constituents. While COVID-19 took a significant toll on the nation emotionally, physically, and economically, it also allowed the government to trample our rights in the so-called name of national security, with talk of mass testing for COVID-19 antibodies, screening checkpoints, contact tracing, immunity passports, forced vaccinations, snitch tip lines and onerous lockdowns.

The Surveillance State rendered Americans vulnerable to threats from government spies, police, hackers and power failures. Thanks to the government’s ongoing efforts to build massive databases using emerging surveillance, DNA and biometrics technologies, Americans have become sitting ducks for hackers and government spies alike. Billions of people have been affected by data breaches and cyberattacks. On a daily basis, Americans have been made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to navigate an increasingly technologically-enabled world.

America became a red flag nation. Red flag laws, specifically, and pre-crime laws generally push us that much closer towards a suspect society where everyone is potentially guilty of some crime or another and must be preemptively rendered harmless. Where many Americans go wrong is in naively assuming that you have to be doing something illegal or harmful in order to be flagged and targeted for some form of intervention or detention. In fact, all you need to do these days to end up on a government watch list or be subjected to heightened scrutiny is use certain trigger words (like cloud, pork and pirates), surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, limp or stutter, drive a car, stay at a hotel, attend a political rally, express yourself on social media, appear mentally ill, serve in the military, disagree with a law enforcement official, call in sick to work, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious, appear confused or nervous, fidget or whistle or smell bad, be seen in public waving a toy gun or anything remotely resembling a gun (such as a water nozzle or a remote control or a walking cane), stare at a police officer, question government authority, appear to be pro-gun or pro-freedom, or generally live in the United States. Be warned: once you get on such a government watch list—whether it’s a terrorist watch list, a mental health watch list, a dissident watch list, or a red flag gun watch list—there’s no clear-cut way to get off, whether or not you should actually be on there.

The cost of policing the globe drove the nation deeper into debt. America’s war spending has already bankrupted the nation to the tune of more than $20 trillion dollars. Policing the globe and waging endless wars abroad hasn’t made America—or the rest of the world—any safer, but it has made the military industrial complex rich at taxpayer expense. The U.S. military reportedly has more than 1.3 millionmen and women on active duty, with more than 200,000 of them stationed overseas in nearly every country in the world. Yet America’s military forces aren’t being deployed abroad to protect our freedoms here at home. Rather, they’re being used to guard oil fields, build foreign infrastructure and protect the financial interests of the corporate elite. In fact, the United States military spends about $81 billion a year just to protect oil supplies around the world. This is how a military empire occupies the globe. Meanwhile, America’s infrastructure is falling apart.

Free speech was dealt one knock-out punch after another. Protest laws, free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws, shadow banning on the Internet, and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors (and championed by those who want to suppress speech with which they might disagree) conspired to corrode our core freedoms, purportedly for our own good. On paper—at least according to the U.S. Constitution—we are technically free to speak. In reality, however, we are only as free to speak as a government official—or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube—may allow. The reasons for such censorshipvaried widely from political correctness, so-called safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes but the end result remained the same: the complete eradication of free speech.

The Deep State took over. The American system of representative government has been overthrown by the Deep State—a.k.a. the police state a.k.a. the military/corporate industrial complex—a profit-driven, militaristic corporate state bent on total control and global domination through the imposition of martial law here at home and by fomenting wars abroad. The “government of the people, by the people, for the people” has perished. In its place is a shadow government, a corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country and calling the shots in Washington DC, no matter who sits in the White House. Mind you, by “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats. Rather, I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law. This is the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry. This shadow government, which “operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power,” makes a mockery of elections and the entire concept of a representative government.

The takeaway: Everything the founders of this country feared has come to dominate in modern America. “We the people” have been saddled with a government that is no longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the Constitution underfoot and render the citizenry powerless in the face of the government’s power grabs, corruption and abusive tactics.

So how do you balance the scales of justice at a time when Americans are being tasered, tear-gassed, pepper-sprayed, hit with batons, shot with rubber bullets and real bullets, blasted with sound cannons, detained in cages and kennels, sicced by police dogs, arrested and jailed for challenging the government’s excesses, abuses and power-grabs, and then locked down and stripped of any semblance of personal freedom?

No matter who sits in the White House, politics won’t fix a system that is broken beyond repair.

For that matter, protests and populist movements also haven’t done much to push back against an authoritarian regime that is deaf to our cries, dumb to our troubles, blind to our needs, and accountable to no one.

So how do you not only push back against the government’s bureaucracy, corruption and cruelty but also launch a counterrevolution aimed at reclaiming control over the government using nonviolent means?

You start by changing the rules and engaging in some (nonviolent) guerilla tactics.

Take your cue from the Tenth Amendment and nullify everything the government does that flies in the face of the principles on which this nation was founded. If there is any means left to us for thwarting the government in its relentless march towards outright dictatorship, it may rest with the power of juries and local governments to invalidate governmental laws, tactics and policies that are illegitimate, egregious or blatantly unconstitutional.

In an age in which government officials accused of wrongdoing—police officers, elected officials, etc.—are treated with general leniency, while the average citizen is prosecuted to the full extent of the law, nullification is a powerful reminder that, as the Constitution tells us, “we the people” are the government.

For too long we’ve allowed our so-called “representatives” to call the shots. Now it’s time to restore the citizenry to their rightful place in the republic: as the masters, not the servants.

Nullification is one way of doing so.

America was meant to be primarily a system of local governments, which is a far cry from the colossal federal bureaucracy we have today. Yet if our freedoms are to be restored, understanding what is transpiring practically in your own backyard—in one’s home, neighborhood, school district, town council—and taking action at that local level must be the starting point.

Responding to unmet local needs and reacting to injustices is what grassroots activism is all about. Attend local city council meetings, speak up at town hall meetings, organize protests and letter-writing campaigns, employ “militant nonviolent resistance” and civil disobedience, which Martin Luther King Jr. used to great effect through the use of sit-ins, boycotts and marches.

The power to change things for the better rests with us, not the politicians.

As long as we continue to allow callousness, cruelty, meanness, immorality, ignorance, hatred, intolerance, racism, militarism, materialism, meanness and injustice—magnified by an echo chamber of nasty tweets and government-sanctioned brutality—to trump justice, fairness and equality, there can be no hope of prevailing against the police state.

We could transform this nation if only Americans would work together to harness the power of their discontent and push back against the government’s overreach, excesses and abuse.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the police state is marching forward, more powerful than ever.

If there is to be any hope for freedom in 2021, it rests with “we the people.”


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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  is available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 2020: The Year the Tree of Liberty Was Torched

Video: The Future of Vaccines

December 29th, 2020 by James Corbett

If the Gateses and the Faucis and the representatives of the international medical establishment get their way, life will not return to normal until the entire planet is vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.

What many do not yet understand, however, is that the vaccines that are being developed for SARS-Cov-2 are unlike any vaccines that have ever been used on the human population before.

And, as radically different as these vaccines appear, they represent only the very beginning of a complete transformation of vaccine technology that is currently taking place in research labs across the planet.

This is a study of The Future of Vaccines.

Full transcript below.


Since the dawn of the corona crisis, we have been told over and over that the world has changed forever.

MARIA VAN KERKHOVE: What we’re going to have to figure out, and I think what we’re all going to have to figure out together, is what our new normal looks like. Our new normal includes physical distancing from others. Our new normal includes wearing masks where appropriate. Our new normal includes us knowing where this virus is each and every day, where we live, where we work, where we want to travel.

SOURCE: What the New Normal Looks Like After Covid-19

DUCEY: What we’ve gone through and the challenges that I’m sharing with you really is Arizona’s new normal. And it’s our new normal for the foreseeable future. I really want ask people to get their heads around that.

SOURCE: Arizona Gov. Ducey Holds Coronavirus Briefing

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset. This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change.

SOURCE: Coronavirus: Trudeau tells UN conference that pandemic provided “opportunity for a reset”

This “New Normal” with which we are being threatened brings with it great uncertainty. Uncertainty over work. Uncertainty over travel. Uncertainty over what our lives will look like on the other side of this “Great Reset.”

But there is one thing that we can be certain about: If the Gateses and the Faucis and the representatives of the international medical establishment get their way, life will not return to normal until the entire planet is vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2.

GATES: It is fair to say things won’t go back to truly normal until we have a vaccine that we’ve gotten out to basically the entire world.

SOURCE: Bill Gates on his 2015 ‘virus’ warning, efforts to fight coronavirus pandemic

ZEKE EMANUEL: Realistically, COVID-19 will be here for the next 18 months or more. We will not be able to return to normalcy until we find a vaccine or effective medications.

SOURCE: Dr. Zeke Emanuel On The Return To ‘Normal’

DOUG FORD: The hard fact is, until we find a vaccine, going back to normal means putting lives at risk.

SOURCE: Ontario announces $20 million for COVID-19 vaccine research

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: This will be the new normal until a vaccine is developed.

SOURCE: PM Trudeau on modelling data and federal response to COVID-19 – April 9, 2020

GAVIN NEWSOM: As I said: normal it will not be, at least until we have herd immunity and we have a vaccine.

SOURCE: California Gov. Newsom Holds Coronavirus Briefing

ANTHONY FAUCI: So, if we get the overwhelming majority of people taking the vaccine, and you have, on the one hand, an effective vaccine, on the other hand, a high degree of uptake of the vaccine, we could start getting things back to relative normal as we get into the second and third quarter of the year, where people can start thinking about doing things that were too dangerous just months ago.

SOURCE: Fauci: We’ll Get Back to Normal Gradually After Vaccine; You Don’t Know How Effective Vaccine Is for You

NORMAN SWAN: The only thing that will really allow life as we once knew it to resume is a vaccine.

SOURCE: Life will only return to normal when there’s a coronavirus vaccine, Dr Norman Swan says

This message has been repeated so frequently and so consistently by public health officials, political “leaders” and media commentators that many have begun to believe it. And now, the public is being prepared for an unprecedented global vaccination campaign. Taking the form of a military operation . . .

GENERAL GUSTAVE PERNA: It is this effort that I can look you in the face and say to you, “E.U.A. [Emergency Use Authorization] comes, 24 hours later vaccines will be distributed out to the American people and be ready for administration.”

SOURCE: General Perna says vaccine distribution will begin 24 hours after Emergency Use Authorization

. . .the plan is to rush a new generation of experimental vaccines to market and deliver them at “warp speed” before any long term testing has even been attempted. What many do not yet understand, however, is that the vaccines that are being developed for SARS-Cov-2 are unlike any vaccines that have ever been used on the human population before.

And, as radically different as these vaccines appear, they represent only the very beginning of a complete transformation of vaccine technology that is currently taking place in research labs across the planet.

This is a study of The Future of Vaccines.

You’re tuned in to The Corbett Report.

For almost the entirety of 2020, a traumatized public has been told that nothing resembling our pre-corona lives will return until there is a COVID vaccine.

So it is no surprise that the same media sources that have been promoting this talking point would celebrate the hopeful pronouncements of the Big Pharma manufacturers regarding their COVID vaccine candidates.

BECKY QUICK: Welcome back to Squawk Box everybody. We have some breaking news from Pfizer. Meg Tirrell joins us right now. Meg, good morning.

MEG TIRELL: Good morning, Becky. This is the news that we’ve been waiting to hear.
Pfizer and BioNTech reporting the first results from their phase 3 vaccine trial saying that in this interim look the vaccine showed to be more than 90 percent effective.

SOURCE: Pfizer, BioNTech announce Covid-19 vaccine candidate is 90% effective

JAKE WHITTENBERG: Well, we begin with breaking news this morning. The push to find a coronavirus vaccine. This morning, Moderna says its vaccine is more than 94 percent effective.

SOURCE: BREAKING: Moderna coronavirus vaccine “more than 94% effective”

TIM STENOVEC: Vaccine headlines are rolling in. One of AstraZeneca’s doses stopped an average of 70 percent of patients from falling ill and that even rose to 90 percent with additional regimens now the head of the government’s operation warp speed is saying that quote hopefully vaccinations in the u.s will start in less than three weeks.

SOURCE: AstraZeneca-Oxford Vaccine Found Effective in Preventing Covid

But lost amid the hype of this media-led celebration are some sobering facts.

Firstly, these news stories were not generated on the back of publicly accessible data, but literal corporate press releases. This announcement-by-press-release style of corporate self-reporting was immediately exposed as a sham when AstraZeneca was found to have given an “unintentionally” lower dose to one group of trial participants and then touted the results of that smaller dose group without clarifying the confusion.

FRANCINE LACQUA: I’m not really sure what to make of this AstraZeneca-Oxford trial there’s confusion about whether it’s 60 efficacy whether it’s 90 what exactly happened.

ANDREW PEKOSZ: Well it is a little bit unclear, but let’s start with what we think we know. which is some of the patients that were in their phase three clinical trial ended up getting a half-dose of their of the initial inoculation and it turns out that the group that got that half dose followed by a boost had a much higher rate of protection from covid19 disease than the group that got the dosing schedule that the company wanted to give to everybody

SOURCE: AstraZeneca Vaccine Trial Likely Needs a Restart: Johns Hopkins

Secondly, the “success” of these vaccines is not being measured by their ability to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2, as many in the general public believe, but merely to lessen the severity of the symptoms associated with COVID-19, like coughs and headaches.

ANJALEE KHEMLANI: Do you anticipate that the first sets of vaccines out the door will be more of a less effective blocker of the virus?

FAUCI: Well that’s the primary—that’s a great question, and that’s the primary endpoint of most of the virus, is to prevent clinical disease. To prevent symptomatic disease, not necessarily to prevent infection.

SOURCE: Fauci Happy if Vaccine Permits Infection w/ Fewer Symptoms

Thirdly, the studies are touted as involving tens of thousands of people, but in Pfizer’s trial, only 170 of them were reported as being “diagnosed with COVID-19” during the trial. Of those, 162 were in the placebo group and eight were in the vaccine group. From this, it is inferred that the vaccine prevented 154/162 people from developing the disease, or “95%”. But as even the British Medical Journal points out, “a relative risk reduction is being reported, not absolute risk reduction, which appears to be less than 1%.”

Fourthly, the trials are still ongoing. Although several countries have now issued “emergency use authorization” allowing these companies to begin distributing these vaccines to the public, the stage III trials of the vaccines are ongoing, with several of the planned “endpoints” for the data not being collected for 24 months after injection. As a result, as even the UK’s own “Information for UK Healthcare Professionals” pamphlet regarding Pfizer’s vaccine points out, “Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed,” meaning that, “It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.”

Even more chillingly, it is not healthcare professionals who are leading the charge to deliver this vaccine to the world, but the military

MURRAY BREWSTER: He commanded Canada’s NATO mission in Iraq. Now he’s in charge of making sure Canadians get the COVID vaccine.

TRUDEAU: Major General Dany Fortin will be heading up the logistics and operations within the centre.

SOURCE: Senior military commander to lead Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine distribution

SAMANTHA GALVEZ: Operation Warp Speed is a Department of Defense / CDC operation to distribute 300 million vaccines to the US.

MATTHEW YIENGST: As soon as the FDA authorizes an emergency use, if they chose to do so, we will move vaccine to all jurisdictions within 24 hours.

SOURCE: Adams County native plays vital role in military operation to distribute vaccine

RICHARD PASCOE: You know, we’re about to turn the corner here into 2021 and I think the American public should be very proud of what the army and the Department of Defense and our partners on the science side have done to bring these vaccines to the market.

SOURCE: Operation Warp Speed and US Army Role in Vaccine Distribution

BREWSTER: How much more involved the military will get is unclear. Public Health is still developing its plan. Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan acknowledges it is not beyond the realm of possibility in some parts of Canada troops could be running clinics and administering vaccine.

SOURCE: Senior military commander to lead Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine distribution

And most importantly, as incredible as this headlong rush to push an experimental vaccine on the majority of the world’s population is, it is even more incredible when it is revealed that Moderna and Pfizer’s vaccines are not, in fact, “vaccines” as anyone in the general public understands them. They are mRNA vaccines, a novel method of vaccination that has never before been approved for human use.

RHIJU DAS: So the concept of an RNA vaccine is: Let’s inject the RNA molecule that encodes for the spike protein.

ANGELA RASMUSSEN: It’s making your cell do the work of creating this viral protein that is going to be recognized by your immune system and trigger the development of these antibodies.

DAS: Our bodies won’t make a full-fledged infectious virus. They’ll just make a little piece and then learn to recognize it and then get ready to destroy the virus if it then later comes and invades us.

[. . .]

DAS: It’s a relatively new, unproven technology. And there’s still no example of an RNA vaccine that’s been deployed worldwide in the way that we need for the coronavirus.

RASMUSSEN: There is the possibility for unforeseen, adverse effects.

AKIKO IWASAKI: So this is all new territory. Whether it would elicit protective immune response against this virus is just unknown right now.

SOURCE: Can Scientists Use RNA to Create a Coronavirus Vaccine?

To be sure, the new mRNA vaccines work on an entirely different principle than any other vaccine that has ever been used on the human population. In order to understand that, it is important to understand the history of vaccine technologies.

The concept of “inoculation” has been around for centuries, with one of its earliest instances in China several centuries ago, where dried-out scabs of lightly infected smallpox sufferers were powdered and then blown up the nostrils of healthy people. The procedure aimed to infect the patient with a mild strain of smallpox, thus conferring immunity on them. This practice was brought over to Europe via Turkey and was eventually adopted around the world.

“Vaccination” developed in the late 18th century when Edward Jenner discovered that those who had been exposed to cowpox—a less virulent relative of smallpox—were themselves immune from smallpox. He “vaccinated” a boy with a cowpox vesicle from a milkmaid and then inoculated him with smallpox two months later. The boy did not develop smallpox, and the procedure was hailed as a breakthrough of medical science. The term “vaccination,” derived from the Latin word for cow, eventually came to refer to the general process of introducing immunogens or attenuated infectious agents into the body in order to stimulate the immune system to fight infections.

But this is not how mRNA vaccines function. In contrast to vaccination, which involves introducing an immunogen into the body, mRNA vaccines seek to introduce messenger RNA into the body in order to “trick” that body’s cells into producing immunogens, which then stimulate an immune response.

ELENA GUOBYTE: Two types of genetic vaccines are being investigated for COVID-19: mRNA and DNA. mRNA needs to reach the cytoplasm of host cells, while DNA needs to enter the nucleus. Then this genetic material gets taken up by the cell’s machinery, and the cell expresses the spike protein. These spike proteins are then recognized by the immune system, hopefully stimulating a protective response.

SOURCE: Coronavirus Vaccines – An Introduction

PAUL OFFIT: So the way this is going to work, the mRNA vaccine is—it’s the mRNA that codes for that coronavirus spike protein. You’re inoculated with that small little piece of genetic material. That genetic material then enters your cells and is is translated into a protein—in
this case, the coronavirus spike protein—which is then excreted from the cell. So, in essence, your body makes the spike protein and then your body makes antibodies to the spike protein, all because it’s been instructed to do that. Your cells have been instructed to do that by this little piece of messenger RNA.

SOURCE: How Do mRNA Vaccines Work?

NARRATOR: Protein factories in the cytoplasm, called ribosomes, bind to the messenger RNA. The ribosome reads the code in the messenger RNA to produce a chain made up of amino acids. There are 20 different types of amino acid. Transfer RNA molecules carry the amino acids to the ribosome. The messenger RNA is read three bases at a time. As each triplet is read, a transfer RNA delivers the corresponding amino acid. This is added to a growing chain of amino acids. Once the last amino acid has been added, the chain folds into a complex 3D shape to form the protein.

SOURCE: From DNA to protein – 3D

Any and all questions about this rushed, experimental vaccine technology are being labeled by the pharmaceutical manufacturers and the corporate press that runs on their advertising dollars as “anti-vax misinformation” and being actively censored. But despite the straw man argument that opposition to the vaccine comes solely from ignorant members of the public who are worried about being “injected with mircochips,” there are genuine concerns about the long-term safety of these vaccines coming from within the scientific community, and even from whistleblowers from within the ranks of the Big Pharma manufacturers themselves.

On December 1st, the former chair of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Health Committee, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, joined Dr. Michael Yeadon, a former Vice-President and Chief Scientific Officer at Pfizer Global R&D, to file a petition calling on the European Medicine Agency to halt the Phase III clinical trials of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine until they are restructured to address critical safety concerns associated with this experimental technology.

DEL BIGTREE: There is a petition now to try and stop the vaccine from being released in Europe and stop the trials in their tracks until some serious errors are fixed. The complaints are the potential dangers, if they are not rectified, of this vaccine. Let me very quickly just read through these before I bring on my next guest.

Here are the four major elements that are being pointed out by Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon.

  • The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.
  • The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
  • The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
  • The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless, BioNTech/Pfizer apparently submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020.

We’ve just updated you that that vaccine has been approved for the UK as we speak.

[. . .]

BIGTREE: What is it that people can do what—your fellow scientists and doctors—what do we need to do to make sure we don’t make one of the greatest scientific errors in human history?

WOLFGNG WODARG: Protect yourself and protect all your neighbors and friends so that they don’t get this vaccine. and you have to be—you have to show up, you have to tell the politicians that you will blame them for what they do with this. I think what what’s happening, it’s a great betrayal. We are betrayed. And people who betray normally are punished, and we won’t forget this if they go on doing this with us.

SOURCE: Health Expert: “Stop COVID Vax Experiments”

Before the combined weight of the pharmaceutical manufacturers, global health bodies, governments and the corporate media combined to suppress any questions about this unprecedented rush for a globally-distributed, experimental vaccine, there were widespread calls for caution from within the heart of the scientific community.

Even mainstream publications like Scientific American were compelled to note back in June of this year that there are reasons for concern over the way the COVID-19 vaccines are being rushed to market:

Telescoping testing timelines and approvals may expose all of us to unnecessary dangers related to the vaccine. While preclinical trials to evaluate the potential safety and efficacy of vaccine candidates are likely to include tens of thousands of patients, it is still unclear whether that number will be large enough and a trial will last long enough to evaluate safety for a drug that would be administered to so many. The US alone plans to vaccinate hundreds of millions of people with the first successful candidate. One serious adverse event per thousand of a vaccine given to 100 million people means harm to 100,000 otherwise healthy people.

The potential dangers of these vaccines—not just the mRNA vaccines that hijack your body’s cells to begin producing proteins to stimulate an immune response, but vaccines like AstraZeneca’s that uses a chimpanzee adenovirus to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—are numerous. Not only do these vaccines present the potential for the antibody-dependent enhancementphenomenon that makes people more susceptible to the wild virus after having been vaccinated against it—which is a problem common to previous coronavirus vaccine candidates—but their potential impact on fertility has, even by the UK government’s own admission, not been tested at this point and remains “unknown.”

But even more fundamental than these particular safety concerns about these particular vaccines is the way that this fanatical, reckless and unprecedented headlong rush to push (and potentially even mandate) these vaccines on billions of people worldwide—women and children, young and old, healthy and unhealthy alike—is setting the most dangerous public health precedent in the history of humanity, a precedent that threatens to undermine our most cherished health freedoms in the name of a panic-induced “emergency.”

One of these core freedoms is the ability to refuse an experimental medical procedure, a freedom that was acknowledged in the Nuremberg Code of 1947 and enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”

Despite the fact that the clinical trials surrounding these experimental vaccines are ongoing and that the FDA itself admits that there is “currently insufficient data to make conclusions about the safety of the vaccine in subpopulations such as children less than 16 years of age, pregnant and lactating individuals, and immunocompromised individuals” and “risk of vaccine-enhanced disease over time, potentially associated with waning immunity, remains unknown,” governments around the world are contemplating making these vaccinations mandatory, or compelling people to take them against their will by restricting their access to public life until they subject themselves to this medical experimentation.

ANCHOR: It’s a controversial idea that could end up being the law: “no jab, no job,” with some businesses considering making the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory for employees.

SOURCE: Coronavirus: Businesses considering making vaccine mandatory | 9 News Australia

CHRISTINE ELLIOTT: There may be some restrictions that may be placed on people that don’t have vaccines for travel purposes, to be able to go totheaters and other places. But that will be up to the individual person to decide.

SOURCE: COVID-19 vaccine won’t be mandatory, but those who don’t get it could face restrictions: Elliott

JO LING KENT: So here’s how it works: The app gives you a health pass to show before you go into big stadiums like this to streamline the process to make it safer and faster to get to your seat.

SOURCE: NBC Nightly News Broadcast (Full) – December 7th, 2020 | NBC Nightly News

TRACY GRIMSHAW: Alan, when there is a vaccine are you going to require all of your passengers to be vaccinated before they get on a plane?

ALAN JOYCE: Yeah we are looking at changing our terms and conditions to say for international travellers that we will ask people to have a vaccination before they can get on the aircraft.

SOURCE: Qantas boss says COVID-19 vaccination compulsory for international flights

The threat of forcing or compelling people to become unwilling guinea pigs in an ongoing medical experiment is immoral on its face. But even the prospect of enforcing such mandates would entail the erection of a surveillance and tracking system that further threatens basic rights and liberties. After all, in order to determine who has been vaccinated—and thus who is allowed to board an airplane or access a stadium or enter a store with a vaccine policy—there will need to be a system for identifying and tracking each vaccine recipient.

Whereas in days past, such tracking systems might have worked with identification papers, special badges to identify people’s status or other outwardly identifying marks, in the modern age, such schemes will take the form of digital apps and other technologically advanced methods for tracking, categorizing and identifying billions of people and their movements in real time.

There are already apps like IBM’s Digital Health Pass and CLEAR’s Health Pass that envision a world where our biometric ID will be linked via our smartphones to our health data in order to grant or deny access from public spaces and public events

NARRATOR: Here’s how Jane opens the CLEAR app and verifies her identity with a photo and real-time health insights. CLEAR’s developed touchless technology can take her temperature and confirm Jane is Jane so she can walk in with confidence


NARRATOR: Your COVID-19 status will efficiently display as green, amber or red, dependent on your test results. This allows us to go about our daily activities in a safer way. We can all use health passport ireland in many ways, such as travel, hospitality, education, health care, construction, offices, entertainment, visits and much, much more.

SOURCE: Health Passport Ireland

Once the COVID vaccines are widely distributed, it would simply be a question of linking one’s vaccination record to the health pass app to prevent the unvaccinated from accessing any given space.

And while this future—sold through glossy corporate advertising but rejected by the vast majority of the public—may seem like a science-fiction dystopia, such systems are already being used to control the movements of people in China, where access to certain building or the ability to leave one’s own neighbourhood can be restricted to those whose phone-based apps show a “green” immunity status.

Worse, the COVID vaccine presents governments, intelligence agencies and corporations that have a direct interest in suppressing dissent, monitoring dissidents and controlling their populations with the perfect opportunity to make such systems a permanent fixture of daily life. After the immediate “threat” of the declared public health crisis subsides, the public is already being warned that these apps will be transitioned seamlessly into general monitoring of the population.

ANCHOR 1: Well during the summer spike, Palm Beach County launched something called a Combat COVID app. they spent a huge chunk of CARES Act money to do it. The app can alert you if you come into contact with a COVID positive person.

ANCHOR 2: The problem is it only works if there’s widespread use and there isn’t. So was this just a big waste of money?

[. . .]

DANIELLE WAUGH: Palm Beach County officials would not make anybody available for an interview for this story but I did get a written statement from a county spokesperson, who tells me they will still have use for this app even after the pandemic is over. He says they plan on transitioning its functions to be a more general community app.

SOURCE: Palm Beach County COVID app: Big investment, few users

As chilling as these “immunity passports” opening the door for governments to implement persistent digital tracking of their entire population is, it represents only the most visible privacy invasion that is being enacted on the back of this unprecedented vaccine rollout.

As viewers of the “Who Is Bill Gates?” documentary will know, these smartphone apps and voluntary reporting mechanisms will eventually be replaced by an even more invasive technological means of certifying vaccination. Not the “microchip” strawman that the fact checkers use to attempt to debunk these concerns, but the verifiable existence of a program to develop quantum dot tags to instantly identify who has received a given vaccine.

Late last year, Gates once again turned to Robert Langer and his MIT colleagues to investigate new ways to permanently store and record the vaccination information of each individual. The result of their research was a new vaccine delivery method. They found that by using “dissolvable microneedles that deliver patterns of near-infrared light-emitting microparticles to the skin,” they could create “particle patterns” in the skin of vaccine recipients which are “invisible to the eye but can be imaged using modified smartphones.”

Rice University describes the quantum dot tags left behind by the microneedles as “something like a bar-code tattoo.”

So who was behind this development? As lead researcher Kevin McHugh explains:

“The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation came to us and said, ‘Hey, we have a real problem—knowing who’s vaccinated [. . .] So our idea was to put the record on the person. This way, later on, people can scan over the area to see what vaccines have been administered and give only the ones still needed.”

SOURCE: Who Is Bill Gates?

Experimental vaccine technologies. Rushed testing. Mandates and health apps. And, eventually, quantum dot tags and biometric IDs. The future that is coming into view on the back of this COVID nightmare is truly dystopian.

But as worrying as all of this, the most worrying aspect is the precedent that it sets for a new era of biosecurity. An era in which public health authorities will claim to have the right to force rushed, untested and experimental technologies on the public in the name of public “health.”

At the moment, these new technologies—like mRNA vaccines which reprogram cells to produce antigens or the DNA vaccines that seek to insert foreign genetic material directly into the cells’ nucleus and that even biotech giant Moderna admit “have a risk of permanently changing a person’s DNA”—are still understood by the public as “vaccines.” But they bare as little resemblance to the vaccines that have previously been given to the public as Edward Jenner’s cowpox vaccine bore to the old Chinese art of blowing smallpox scabs up the nose. And the medical technologies that are emerging now will once again utterly transform our understanding of “vaccines.”

One such technology is being actively developed by Profusa, Inc., a company that in 2016 received a $7.5 million grant from DARPA—the research and development agency of the US military—to “develop implantable biosensors that can continuously monitor multiple body chemistries.” Earlier this year, Profusa announced a study that will examine how the company’s technology—including a “wireless reader that adheres to the skin and collects and reports tissue oxygen levels” and a 3mm string of hydrogel, which can be inserted under the skin with a syringe and programmed to send “a fluorescent signal outside of the body when the body begins to fight an infection”—can be used to “develop an early identification system to detect not only disease outbreaks, but biological attacks and pandemics up to three weeks earlier than current methods.” The study is expected to be completed next year.

Hydrogels—networks of crosslinked polymer chains—are increasingly being turned to by proponents of these new technologies as potential delivery devices for drugs, cells, proteins, and bioactive molecules. In 2013, for instance, a team of European researchers announced a novel method for injecting a vaccine-containing hydrogel sphere to a spot beneath the skin, which could be released at a later time by swallowing a “stimulusresponsive biohybrid material.” Touted as a “remote-controlled vaccine delivery system,” the researchers proved their concept by injecting mice with a hydrogel containing human papillomavirus vaccine and later giving them a pill containing fluorescein, which dissolved the hydrogel mesh and released the vaccine. The research on this vaccine delivery method continues, with a Chinese team publishing researchjust this year on a self-adjuvanted hydrogel which “had both adjuvant potential and the ability to sustained release antigen.”

As viewers of the “Who Is Bill Gates?” documentary will know, the idea of implanting remote-controlled vaccines in large populations has been around since at least 2012, when, according to MIT Technology Review, Bill Gates personally asked MIT researcher Robert Langer to create an implantable birth control device that could be turned on or off remotely. The resulting device—a wireless birth control microchip that, as the National Post noted in 2014, “can be turned on and off with a remote control and that is designed to last up to 16 years”—was developed by Microchips Biotech, now part of Daré Bioscience, and has so far received $17.9 million in grant funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

From biolectronics to nanorobotics to synthetic biology, ever more incredible technologies are being pioneered that, whether or not they are marketed to the public under the catch-all term of “vaccine,” will operate in ways that are fundamentally unlike anything before used on the human population.

University of Ottawa researchers are working on creating “edible vaccines.”

Researchers at Harvard Medical School are developing autonomous DNA nanorobots capable of transporting molecular payloads directly into cells.

A team of scientists at Johns Hopkins University are working on shape-changing microdevices called “theragrippers” that can reside in the GI tract to aid in extended drug delivery.

Nanobots. Shape-changing bioelectronic devices. Remote-controlled vaccines. This is not the stuff of science fiction but of science fact, and the precedent that is being set during the COVID era to rush experimental and unproven medical technologies into use on the back of a declared crisis is the same precedent that could be used to foist these injectable technologies on the public in the future.

And, as Catherine Austin Fitts—former United States Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and founder of Solari, Inc.—explains, these injectables are part of an elaborate system of biological, economic, and political control that is being bankrolled into existence by powerful special interests.

CATHERINE AUSTIN FITTS: So let me go through where I think he’s going. I think where they’re going—and they’re they’re prototyping tons of technology, so I don’t think they have it yet—but where they want to go is they want to download a Microsoft Office system into your body, into your brain, and hook it up to the Jedi cloud contract and the Amazon Cloud contract at the CIA. And if they can get seven people seven billion people hooked up directly to their cloud contracts and use viruses—I mean, it’s very clever—use viruses to keep those updates coming. You know, just keep those updates coming.

So you saw my most recent article, “The Injection Fraud.” I think it’s a fraud to call these vaccines they’re not vaccines, they’re not medicine. But I think it’s the exact same model you used in the computers and the ideas. Just like Bill Gates made it possible for the intelligence agencies to get a backdoor into our—you know, our data—and our computers. They want a backdoor into our mind and it’s very hard if you haven’t if you haven’t looked into the creepy technology, the Charles Lieber kind of technology, it’s hard to fathom but we’re beginning to fathom it.

[. . .]

So what we have are people who have unimaginable liabilities for what they’ve done in the health area and what they’ve done in the financial area. And what they’re trying to do is they’re trying to do two things: one is to load an operating system into our bodies—I call it the injection fraud because they’re calling it a vaccine and under law a vaccine is medicine, this is not medicine, so to me what they’re up to is a fraud. And then the second thing they’re trying to do is implement contract tracing so they they can have—before they get the operating system in everybody they can have complete control. You know, kidnap you, put you in prison with no warrants, break into your house, take your kids.
And I keep saying to people: “Do you notice that it’s the people who flew Epstein Air who all want contract tracing? Why is that?” You know, why would you want the people who did Epstein Air to be able to come into your house and kidnap your kids?

Despite the protestations of those like Bill Gates who have a financial interest in these experimental vaccines, and the Big Pharma corporations that are selling these vaccines, and the governments that are being bribed by the international public health cartel to purchase these vaccines and pressure their public to accept them, and the corporate media who relies on these Big Pharma corporations for their advertising dollars, some facts about these novel coronavirus vaccines are indisputable:

  • They are the most rushed vaccines ever developed.
  • The manufacturers have been given total immunity from liability if their experimental vaccines cause injury.
  • The clinical trials testing the safety of these injections are not finished, meaning that every member of the public who takes one is now a human guinea pig in an ongoing medical experiment with the population of the planet.
  • The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines are themselves part of an experimental class of injection that has never before been given to the public;
  • These vaccines have not been tested for their ability to prevent infection or spread of SARS-CoV-2 and are not intended to do so.
  • And there is absolutely no long-term data about these vaccines to determine what their effects may be on fertility, the potential for pathogenic priming, or any other serious adverse reaction.

That this represents the most reckless and brazen experiment in the history of the world is undeniable on its face. Never before have billions of people been pressured to submit to a completely experimental, invasive medical procedure on the basis of a disease with a greater than 99% survival rate.

But large-scale, emergency vaccination campaigns have been tried before with sobering lessons about the danger of such a wide-scale experiment that are being deliberately ignored right now.

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, hundreds of millions of people were injected with polio vaccines that, years later, were discovered to have been contaminated with SV40, a cancer-causing virus found in the rhesus monkey kidney cells that were used to create the vaccine.

In 1976, twelve soldiers at Fort Dix were diagnosed with swine flu. This kicked off a round of public health hysteria that led the US government to mandate that every citizen in the country be vaccinated. In the end, only one soldier at Fort Dix died of the swine flu and no one outside of the base even tested positive for it, but the emergency immunization program went ahead. It was brought to an abrupt end after hundreds who had received the rushed vaccine began to display severe neurological disorders.

MIKE WALLACE: Remember the swine flu scare of 1976? That was the year the U.S. government told us all that swine flu could turn out to be a killer that could spread across the nation, and Washington decided that every man, woman and child in the nation should get a shot to prevent a nation-wide outbreak, a pandemic.

Well 46 million of us obediently took the shot, and now 4,000 Americans are claiming damages from Uncle Sam amounting to three and a half billion dollars because of what happened when they took that shot. By far the greatest number of the claims – two thirds of them are for neurological damage, or even death, allegedly triggered by the flu shot.

SOURCE: 60 Minutes Mike Wallace Exposes the 1976 Swine Flu Pandemic Vaccine Injuries

During the hysteria over swine flu in 2009, GlaxoSmithKline rushed a vaccine called Pandemrix to market in several European countries that was later associated with increased risk of narcolepsy. Years later, it was admitted that the 2009 flu season was no deadlier than any other flu season, but the British Medical Journal revealed that the body that advised the WHO on the declaration of the public health emergency that caused governments to purchase billions of dollars of vaccines was itself populated by advisors with direct financial ties to the Big Pharma vaccine manufacturers.

In each of these cases, the public was told to “follow the science,” and in each of these cases an unknown and perhaps unknowable number of people paid for that blind faith with their health. Now the revolver is once again being put to our heads and, with an assurance that that revolver probably contains a lot of empty chambers, the public is being asked to play Russian Roulette in the name of “trusting the science.”

NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: I think we’re in the middle of a massive experiment worldwide. And that is—

STEPHEN COLBERT: —And we’re the guinea pigs?

TYSON: Maybe. The experiment is: will people listen to scientists?

SOURCE: Neil deGrasse Tyson On Coronavirus: Will People Listen To Science?

Surely those who wish to be the test subjects in this ongoing experiment should be free to make themselves into guinea pigs for the Big Pharma manufacturers. But every mandate or compulsion to force the vaccine on an unwilling recipient sets a dangerous precedent, a precedent that will one day lead to a tracked and surveilled population unable to resist the next generation of injectable bioelectronics.

This is not a game, this is not a test. Billions of people are being asked to participate in a gigantic experiment, not just an experiment in medical technology, but an experiment in compliance and blind trust.

The pressure to say yes and to go along with the crowd in this experiment is enormous. But if we lose the freedom to say “no” to this, then we may lose control over our bodily autonomy—and, ultimately, our humanity—forever.

The choice is ours . . . but for how much longer?


James Corbett is an outstanding analyst of geopolitics and World Affairs. 

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

Featured image is from Health Impact News

The NDAA, Trump and the Military Industrial Complex

December 29th, 2020 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

For decades, the National Defense Authorization Act has been the lifeblood of the US imperium, guaranteeing a flow of money across the military.  A better term for such a bill would use the word offence in it, but lawmakers and industry lobbyists find that granting reserves of cash is better justified when one is constantly threatened and vulnerable.  Be it midget adversaries, deviant non-state actors or an enemy yet to be born, defence will have its share of funding provided the threat is sufficiently inflated.

Mindful of this cardinal principle, Northrop Grumman CEO Kathy Warden told Defense News last month that defence spending was “largely threat-driven and today’s threat environment warrants strong defense.”  It would come as little surprise that Warden sees threats everywhere, “intensifying” in nature.  Peace is distinctly not her business.

The NDAA for 2021 allocates $740 billion for national defence spending.  Congress passed it without much fuss this month, the House favouring it by 335-78-1, and the Senate 84-13.  On December 11, it wound its way to the desk of President Donald Trump.

Trump proved moody.  In another swansong act of defiance, the president stroppily vetoed the bill.

“My administration recognizes the importance of the Act to our national security,” he outlined in a message to Congress.  “Unfortunately, the Act fails to include critical national security measures, includes provisions that fail to respect our veterans and our military’s history, and contradicts efforts by my Administration to put America first in our national security and foreign policy actions.”

The substantive reasons are various, not all of them focused on shrinking the imperium’s waistline.  They are mixed with spite and personal irritation and prove to be, at points, typically erratic.  Consider his objection regarding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, left untouched by the NDAA.  That this provision, providing legal immunity to social media platforms for hosting the content of users, should have ever arisen in a defence bill suggests a mind gone awry. But relations between the president and social media platforms have been icy of late.

Hoping for a blow to be struck, the NDAA would have been Trump’s sock to the jaw of Silicon Valley.

 “Your failure to terminate the very dangerous national security risk of Section 230,” he scolded lawmakers, “will make our intelligence virtually impossible to conduct without everyone knowing what we are doing at every step.”

He also took issue with the section for facilitating “the spread of foreign disinformation online, which is a serious threat to our national security and election integrity.”

On other matters, Trump is already mounting the stump and hollering to voters.  He called the bill “a ‘gift’ to China and Russia.”  The NDAA also included “language that would require the renaming of certain military installations.”  Names from the Confederacy era are set for the scrubbing in a moral fit of historical erasure, because militarism has to keep up with the trends.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was the key figure behind the provision, extolling the fetish of the mystical Union while denigrating the separatists for their dubious moral code.  On the Senate floor, she claimed that it was “time to put the names of those leaders who fought and killed US soldiers in defence of a perverted version of America where they belong, as footnotes in our history books, not plastered on our nation’s most significant military installations.”  Ten military bases are up for the cleansing, among them Fort Bragg in North Carolina, Fort Lee in Virginia, Ford Hood in Texas and Fort Polk in Louisiana.

Trump, for his part, was against “politically motivated efforts like this to wash away history and to dishonour the immense progress our country has fought for in realising our founding principles.”  Up to a point, he is right.  The US imperium, as with other empires, was most principled in devastating indigenous populations while appropriating and buying land along the way.

While reserving the most important reason for vetoing the NDAA for last, Trump at least takes the position of opposing those “endless wars, as does the American public.”  In his reading of the bill, the president’s discretion in reducing garrison numbers across the globe would effectively be stymied by a consultative process.  It was not for Congress to say “many troops to deploy and where”.

While US presidents tend to be the permissible and public face of the military industrial complex, Trump has been unwilling to play the role consistently.  Troop reductions have been promised in Afghanistan, South Korea and Germany.  The Pentagon is both nervous and agitated.  So is Congress, which wishes to keep its oar in when it comes to international military engagements.

Restating the imperial orthodoxy, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.) wished for all his fellow lawmakers to keep the empire running on gas.

“The NDAA has become law every year for 59 years straight because it’s absolutely vital to our national security and our troops.”  He hoped that all his “colleagues in Congress will join me in making sure our troops have the resources and equipment they need to defend this nation.”

The House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) is also keen to keep the machine moving, trumpeting a familiar militarist theme.

“By choosing to veto the NDAA,” claimed Smith in a statement, “President Trump has made it clear that he does not care about the needs of our military personnel and their families.”

Smith has become something of a golden boy for the military industrial complex, raking in donations from such defence contractors as Textron, a leading producer of cluster bombs.

Trump’s reasons for vetoing the bill are not philosophically rigorous or cerebrally hefty. But those opposing greater and deeper funds for the military industrial complex should always find some room to salute a commander-in-chief willing to obstruct the passage of bills that foster aggression and feed a complex that serves to hinder, rather than advance, security.  Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is happy to go along with delaying and blocking the NDAA.

“I very much am opposed to the Afghan war, and I’ve told them [fellow senators] I’ll come back to try to prevent them from easily overriding the president’s veto.”

Congress, in the main, has no such wish.  The bill is in step with the incoming Biden administration’s promise of a more meddlesome brand of US interventionism.  Suitably bribed, the respective chambers have till before noon on January 3, 2021 to override the presidential veto, prior to the 117th Congress being sworn in.  The House is already considering overriding the veto.  Devotees of endless wars will be lobbying with determination and intent that this takes place.


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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from NationofChange

The Chinese-Russian strategic partnership could be leveraged to stabilize the CAR after this Sunday’s elections and might eventually become a model for them to apply towards their other African partners too.

The Central African Republic (CAR) has once again attracted the world’s attention after its planned general elections on Sunday were preceded by fears of an armed coup and a sudden outbreak of violence in the week prior. President Faustin-Archange Touadera, who’s running for another term, accused former President Francois Bozize of plotting a coup after he reportedly allied with a group of opposition politicians and armed rebels that formed the Coalition for Patriots of Change (CPC) last weekend and threatened to take over the capital.

Mr. Bozize denied the claims, but speculation still swirls about his intentions. He was recently barred by the courts from running in the elections, after which he and some others then claimed that the vote should be delayed due to concerns that it wouldn’t be free and fair. In addition, the CPC with which he’s reportedly allied consists of some of the groups which control an estimated two-thirds to four-fifths of the country. Interestingly, Mr. Bozize himself was overthrown by a rebel coalition in 2013, which in turn sparked a vicious civil war.

Source: OneWorld

The resultant conflict quickly threatened to reach genocidal proportions after it descended into a spree of unprovoked killings between members of the Christian majority and Muslim minority. The worst-case scenario was averted after a UN intervention in early 2014, which continues to this day. The CAR then cultivated close military relations with Russia in accordance with international law, which saw the dispatch of several advisors and reportedly also a host of private military contractors to help train and equip the national armed forces.

Western countries like the US and former colonial power France dishonestly misrepresented Russia’s legal support for the CAR in such a way as to imply that Moscow might have malign intentions. Russia’s sudden upsurge of influence there makes them very uncomfortable. Instead of being the result of a conspiracy like they fear, however, it’s simply due to Russia respecting the CAR as an equal partner. The CAR appreciates the fact that Russia doesn’t take advantage of it like the US and France used to.

A CAR government spokesman claimed last week during the height of hostilities around the capital that Russia “sent several hundred soldiers and heavy weapons” together with Rwanda, though Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov denied this. He said that Moscow is complying with all UN Resolutions, but reminded everyone about their bilateral military agreement to train the national armed forces, hence the presence of Russian military experts in the country.

In any case and however it came to happen, the CPC rebel advance on the capital of Bangui was halted. The armed opposition coalition then announced a three-day ceasefire ahead of Sunday’s elections, though they went back on their word on Friday. That same day, three Burundian peacekeepers were killed. It can only be hoped that Sunday’s elections proceed without too many problems, but even if that happens, it’s clear that more must be done afterwards in order to ensure stability in this war-torn and highly impoverished country.

The international community needs to redouble its support for the CAR’s peacekeeping mission. The armed rebels that control the majority of the country must be militarily defeated and/or peacefully co-opted into the political process. Failure to do this as soon as possible will leave a Damocles’ sword dangerously hanging over the capital. In addition, the CAR urgently needs more investment into its infrastructure and jobs for its people. It’s here where Russia and China could cooperate to help the CAR like no other countries are capable of doing.

Moscow is already Bangui’s top military partner whereas Beijing is its leading economic one according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity. Considering these Great Powers’ strategic partnership with one another and head of the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s African Affairs Department Wu Peng’s announcement on Thursday that they agreed to join forces to contribute to Africa’s economic development, the possibility arises of them playing complementary roles in stabilizing the CAR after Sunday’s general elections.

Russia’s continued security assistance to the CAR could help it regain control over its territory, after which China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) investments could redevelop the country.

The CAR is strategically located in the geopolitical heart of Africa, thus imbuing it with unparalleled connectivity potential if properly tapped into. Thus, the Chinese-Russian strategic partnership could be leveraged to stabilize the CAR after this Sunday’s elections and might eventually become a model for them to apply towards their other African partners too.


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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Political Instability in the Central African Republic, The Role of China-Russia Cooperation

A More Honest Perspective of the COVID-19 Pandemic

December 28th, 2020 by Richard Gale

Since the first cases of the new coronavirus strain outside of China, every aspect of the pandemic’s ever-changing amoebic narrative has been carefully controlled by the World Health Organization and major government health agencies.

High officials within a syndicate of institutions, including the CDC, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease and the UK’s National Heath Service, have largely dictated government responses to lessen the pandemic.  The Sars2-Cov19 pandemic is not the first time unelected medical bureaucrats, who the average person assumes to possess an enduring expertise, have guided global policies against pandemics and serous infectious outbreaks.  The most recent example was the 2009-2010 HIN1 Swine Flu pandemic that never truly happened according to plan. Subsequently that effort revealed a surprising incompetence in the international medical hierarchy that can be blamed on the entire system rather than a few inept individuals.

However, during the current pandemic scare, something unusual and remarkably radical has happened. Historically, voices of opposition within institutionalized medicine remain relatively silent. Most often it is only a handful of health professionals who come forward to challenge official statements or to uncover the serious flaws in the scientific literature to support their actions.

Yet for the past year we have witnessed tens of thousands of physicians, medical experts and researchers coming forward publicly with harsh and even damning criticisms of how the ruling medical agencies have mishandled the pandemic.  They easily recognize these agencies’ contradictions, the conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry, the large body of medical literature deconstructing and discrediting their fundamental claims, and the evidence to prove their policies are scientifically baseless.  These are not dissident mavericks. Over 52,000 medical professionals representing some of the world’s leading medical schools and research institutions have already signed the Great Barrington Declaration in protest against the official Covid-19 strategies and these policies’ serious adverse effects on the physical and mental health of children, working class citizens and the poor.  Moreover, they have nothing to gain. No financial interests jeopardize their judgments. And they are fully aware of the pushback and blacklisting that may follow and would injure their reputations.

Around the world, dissident medical voices are warning us that:

  1. The official death counts, particularly in the US and the UK are grossly exaggerated
  2. Polyermase chain reaction (PCR) was never created to be used as a diagnostic tool to determine Covid-19 infection or any other virus. Overreliance upon PCR is a travesty that has created a Case-pandemic rather an actual symptomatic scourge.
  3. The evidence to support the belief that large social lockdowns and social distancing, perhaps even mask wearing, will deter the spread of the virus is overstated and inaccurate.
  4. America’s official narrative, where the number of cases per capita far surpass any other nation, that effective, safe and cheaper drugs such as Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have no value and post serious harm is completely unfounded. Rather, if used wisely it is highly effective and safe as a preventative measure for first stage treatment of mild and moderate infections.

A compilation of 210 studies on HCQ’s effectiveness against Covid-19, 145 peer reviewed, only found 26 showed that the cheap, widely used drug posed some risks or was ineffective. The remainder clearly indicate that HCQ is one of our best and most reliable courses of treatment. For example a study of 585 patients treated with HCQ along with azithromycin and zinc were relieved in under 3 days and none were hospitalized, required ventilation or died. Another study published in the journal Clinical and Translational Science reported 73% reduction in hospitalization with no serious adverse events.

  1. In the meantime, we are told we must await for a vaccine or a new miracle drug and no other medical intervention is warranted other then personal hygienic practices, masks and social distancing.
  2. The New York Times and other major media outlets are misrepresenting new cases of Covid-19 with the actual disease thereby grossly inflating those who may be positive but are otherwise healthy and pose no public threat.

The WHO’s, CDC’s and NHS’ internal confusion and culture of inconsistency is leaving more and more citizens questioning who can be trusted. Even the otherwise conservative British Medical Journal published a rare and brutal condemnation of the corruption and commercialization throughout the official Covid-19 narrative.  BMJ’s executive editor Kamran Abbasi wrote:

“Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.1 Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.”

Sadly mainstream media such as the New York Times, Washington Post and BBC are revealing a lack of journalistic integrity despite the open accessibility of medical studies to the contrary. Instead the media serves as an echo chamber to continue advancing this international debacle created by our leading health officials.

To understand the miscalculation of deaths that can be directly attributed to Covid-19 we can begin with the CDC’s own website:

“Due to the ongoing COvID-19 pandemic, this system will suspend data collection for the 2020-2021 influenza season.”

In other words, the CDC’s monthly mortality reports will no longer be monitoring actual influenza deaths, which are more often than not also comflated with deaths due to pneumonia. William Briggs, a former professor at Cornell University noted that last summer the CDC ceased counting flu and pneumonia deaths “because, we suppose, of the difficulty telling these deaths from doom deaths [Covid-19].” So how will these deaths be entered into mortality reports?

In early December, an assistant director at Johns Hopkins Medical School’s Department of Applied Economics examined death statistics during the Covid pandemic and previous years. Due to the high percentage of non-Covid deaths decreasing during the pandemic, her conclusion was that these deaths were intentionally being labeled as Covid-1 caused. Her colleague Dr. Yanni Gu summarized the problem:

“The CDC classified all deaths that are related to Covid-19 simply as Covid-19 deaths. Even patients dying from other underlying diseases but are infected with Covid-19 count as Covid-19 deaths. This is likely the main explanation as to why Covid-19 deaths drastically increased while deaths by all other diseases experienced a significant decrease.”

This irrational discrepancy in causes of death is not solely an American problem. Globally there has been a 98% percent decrease in diagnosed flu cases compared to 2019. Australia alone has recorded a 96% drop off.

There may be a sensible way to explain the decrease in flu and this in turn helps explain the dramatic increase in Covid-19 cases due to inaccurate testing and an infestation of false positives. Given the enormous impact of lockdowns, closing of businesses and public spaces, social distancing and masks, it is feasible that flu rates would decline noticeably. However, then the rise in Covid-19 cases becomes completely nonsensical unless spurious testing is the culprit.

Recently, even the World Health Organization had to acknowledge PCR’s failures. Despite the mincing of words, the WHO reported,

“The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus so the Ct [cycle threshold] will be low. Conversely when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect the virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain”

Most testing labs are using a cycle threshold of 40 amplifications, consequently the high rate of false positives. This is the reason for cases rising exponentially while actual deaths had leveled in mid summer until more recently. In the UK, Public Health England states, “if a person has both a negative and positive test, then only their positive test will be counted.” The US does likewise.

University of California virologist Dr. Juliet Morrison stated, ‘I’m shocked that people think that 40 [cycles] could represent a positive.” She recommends a reasonable cutoff at 35, and Dr. Michael Mina at Harvard’s School of Public Heath suggests 30 or less. University of North Carolina’s director of clinical microbiology Melissa Miller has called the application PCR for all situations “completely irresponsible.”

The most damning indictment against every governor across the US who continues to rule on lockdowns, school closures and draconian police enforcement and yet has failed to reign in the plague of erroneous PCR testing in his or her state is found in a recent study by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Using as a low a 25 cycle threshold, 70% of positives were not actual cases because the virus was unable to be cultured. In other words, the virus was already dead.

And yet when PCR cycle thresholds are adjusted, the number of cases plummet. This was observed in efforts made in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada where it was discovered that 90% of those testing positive carried “barely any virus.”

Fortunately some countries are waking up to PCR’s unreliability that was originally perpetuated by a very entrepreneurial German doctor Christian Dosten.  Dosten also happens to be an advisor to the Germany’s Federal Ministry of Health.  A Portugal appeals court ruled PRC is unreliable for testing Covid-19 and any enforced quarantine based on a positive PCR test would be illegal. As for Dosten and his paper published in the journal Eurosurveillance, it has served as the rationale for widespread PCR use. But the paper is substantially inaccurate but helped serve as a means for Dosten to gain a patent for coronavirus PCR testing.  Now 22 leading medical professionals from the International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences have filed for the paper’s retraction due to “a tremendous number of very serious design flaws… which make the PCR test completely unsuitable as a diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

The real crime is that none of the above failures were inevitable.

There is no reasonable explanation for miscalculating actual deaths associated with Covid-19 other than shear stupidity or gross intentional neglect.  PCR’s unsuitability to accurately diagnose the presence of active Covid-19, or any other infectious virus, has been well documented for many years. Even PCR’s inventor Dr. Kary Mullis has stated it is unsuited for clinical diagnosis.

Yet despite all of the foreknowledge of these facts, countless people have had their lives devastated by the choices our federal health officials and politicians have made based upon severely flawed science. Unnecessary quarantining, loss of income, lockdowns, and mental stress have adversely effected millions of Americans and people around the world.  Again, we might to turn Abbasi’s article in the BMJ:

“… as the powerful become more successful, richer, and further intoxicated with power, the inconvenient truths of science are suppressed. When good science is suppressed, people die.”


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

With the TurkStream gas pipeline now running through Serbia, the Balkan country will enjoy numerous benefits when exports begin, such as energy stability, the opportunity to get cheaper gas, and additional tax revenue. On December 25, Serbia successfully tested the TurkStream pipeline project that will connect Russian gas to consumers in Europe, especially in the Balkans. Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić revealed that the pipeline will be officially commissioned on December 30.

“The test run was successful. We did not publicize it too much but everything will start on December 30 as I promised. A small ceremony will be organized on that occasion because it is a huge deal for our country,” Vučić said.

The success of the test and Wednesday’s commissioning of the TurkStream brings an end to one of the most important projects in Serbian history. The gas pipeline strengthens the economic and geostrategic position of Serbia in the region as it can now become a hub to distribute Russian gas in the Balkans. The pipeline is 403 kilometers long and stretches from Zaječar on the border with Bulgaria to Horgoš on the border with Hungary.

There are numerous benefits that this gas pipeline will bring to Serbia, but the most important is energy stability. It is a two-way pipeline, meaning that gas can move between Bulgaria and Hungary in both directions. This is important because of energy security and, not only for Serbia, but for the entire Balkans network which can now be expanded.

The entire TurkStream pipeline within Serbian territory has not been built yet, but judging by the pace of the works so far, it will be completed without delay. Another compressor station remains to be completed in Serbia by June 2021.

The gas pressure on the TurkStream route is high enough that gas can pass from Bulgaria to Serbia. In fact, gas from Bulgaria can already be used in Pančevo, to the immediate east of Belgrade, for the needs of the gas power plant, such as generating electricity and heat. The extensive work for the gasification of Serbia, in full capacity, means that the TurkStream will allow Gazprom to export gas to the Republika Srpska, the Serbian-dominated entity that forms a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, thus being able to deliver gas to the entirety of the country and perhaps even onwards to Croatia and Montenegro.

Five more gas power plants are planned to be constructed in Serbia in the near future. They will be built next to the largest industrial centers in Serbia. 4% of the total electricity produced in Serbia will come from Pančevo, in which thermal energy from the refinery and all its plants will be supplied. With the TurkStream at full capacity, it will be possible to build plants near Belgrade, Novi Sad, Niš and Kragujevac. When electricity is produced, thermal energy by-product will be used for large industrial plants, businesses and residential centers.

In addition to energy stability, Serbia will enjoy several other important benefits because of the passage of the TurkStream through its territory. Serbia will have minimum $40 cheaper gas per thousand cubic meters thanks to tax revenues that it will collect due to the transportation of gas through its territory to other countries. The Bulgarians negotiated with Gazprom a 27% lower price because imported gas from Ukraine passes through its territory to other countries. Serbia will be able to strike a similar deal so that Russian gas can reach Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as Hungary, through its territory. It is also a benefit as servicing the gas pipeline and accompanying facilities has created job opportunities, and cheaper gas will inevitably lead to greater industrial output in other sectors.

The benefits of the TurkStream in Serbia will soon be realized as the most difficult part of the job was completed, laying pipes at the bottom of the Black Sea. It is for this reason that Russia prioritized finishing the TurkStream first, even though it has a much smaller capacity compared to Nord Stream 2. Nord Stream 2 has been continuously delayed due to Moscow’s anticipation that Washington would not only oppose the project, but pressure involved countries to withdraw and impose sanctions.

But with TurkStream to begin running in Serbia, it has not only consolidated Belgrade’s relations with Moscow, it gives hope to a country that was devastated by a decade-long NATO destruction in the 1990’s. Serbia has not been able to fully recover from the war, but cheap gas and job creation will transform the Balkan country, not only industrially, but also in terms of regional influence as it becomes a crucial energy hub for the entire region.


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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

There is a major effort underway to convince and coerce African and Asian nations to “normalize” relations with the State of Israel in exchange for promised United States financial, military and diplomatic assistance.

The Kingdom of Morocco is the latest state in the Maghreb and West Asia to recognize Tel Aviv. In the case of Morocco, the administration of President Donald Trump has endorsed the crafting of a new map depicting this country absent of the internationally recognized Western Sahara, whose people are still seeking national independence.

Since the mid-1970s when Spain abandoned its colonial claims on the Western Sahara, the governments of Morocco and the U.S. have thwarted every attempt to win the liberation of the Saharawi people inhabiting the area. For over 40 years, the Polisario Front has waged a protracted struggle on behalf of the provincial Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), which is recognized as the legitimate representatives of this territory by the United Nations and the African Union (AU).

The demands of the Polisario Front and the SADR are centered on the 1991 U.N. Security Council Resolution 690 mandating the holding of an internationally supervised election on whether the Saharawi people want independence. Judging from the support shown to the SADR by residents of the territory and among progressive elements within the international community, a majority of the people would undoubtedly vote for total independence.

An armed campaign was waged by the Polisario Front from 1975-1991, when a U.N.-brokered ceasefire was announced with the understanding that the referendum on independence would be held, resulted in a modicum of hope for a lasting resolution to the crisis. For nearly three decades, Morocco has defied the agreement while maintaining control over the Western Sahara.

Recently in November, the SADR suspended its ceasefire with Rabat. The reissuing of a map which liquidates the SADR question is clearly a provocation to more violence and instability.

The Information Ministry of the Polisario Front said of the decision by Rabat and Washington to deny the legitimacy of their liberation movement that: “Trump’s decision changes nothing in legal terms over the question of Sahrawi because the international community does not recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. It constitutes a flagrant violation of the UN charter… and the founding principles of the African Union and hampers the efforts of the international community in finding a peaceful solution to the conflict between the Sahrawi Republic and the Kingdom of Morocco…. The Polisario and Sahrawi government condemn in the strongest terms the fact that outgoing American President Donald Trump attributes to Morocco something which does not belong.”

On December 21, the United Nations Security Council was briefed on the situation and its implications for the region. No other Western imperialist state has taken a similar position to that of Washington. If U.S. allies in Europe decide to follow its lead on the Western Sahara it would constitute an historical repudiation of the U.N.’s anti-colonial resolutions which have been important to many independence struggles, such as in Africa and Latin America.

After the Security Council briefing conducted by U.N. Assistant Secretary-General for Africa Bintou Keita and Colin Stewart, director of the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Western Sahara, Stephane Dujarric, spokesperson for the U.N., emphasized:

“There are no major operational changes from our part. Our position on the announcements regarding Western Sahara is unchanged and that … we continue to believe that a solution can be found through dialogue based on the relevant Security Council resolutions.” (See this)

It remains to be seen what the position of the incoming Biden-Harris administration will be in regard to the Western Sahara and other anti-colonial resolutions. The AU, which is currently chaired by Republic of South Africa President Cyril Ramaphosa, has recognized the SADR and the Polisario Front for nearly four decades.

South African Ambassador to the U.N. Jerry Matjila stated in the aftermath of the briefing:

“Decisions contrary to multilateral collective decisions must be discouraged and unequivocally disregarded. We believe that any recognition of Western Sahara as part of Morocco is tantamount to recognizing illegality as such recognition is incompatible with international law.”

Recognition of Tel Aviv by Rabat is Part of a Broader Imperialist Strategy

Coinciding with this blatant affront to the Saharawi people, the AU and the U.N., was the decision by Morocco to “partially” recognize Israel. This announcement follows other U.S.-brokered deals involving Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain and the Republic of Sudan.

Morocco has for years maintained close ties with Washington. The most recent announcement on Israel will have negligible influence on the situation in Palestine and other geo-political regions in North Africa and West Asia.

Yet the underlying reasons behind this diplomatic offensive by the Trump White House are designed to enhance Washington and Wall Streets interests within business, military and foreign policy structures in these various countries. A meeting at the White House in September attended by representatives of the UAE, Israel and the U.S. administration unveiled the so-called Abraham Accord. The agreement is related to the procurement of Pentagon and Defense industry weaponry for the UAE which has already engaged in military operations with the U.S. for more than a quarter century.

The signed agreement read in part as follows:

“Recalling the Treaties of Peace between the State of Israel and the Arab Republic of Egypt and between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and committed to working together to realize a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that meets the legitimate needs and aspirations of both peoples, and to advance comprehensive Middle East peace, stability and prosperity; Emphasizing the belief that the normalization of Israeli and Emirati relations is in the interest of both peoples and contributes to the cause of peace in the Middle East and the world; Expressing deep appreciation to the United States for its profound contribution to this historic achievement;….” (See this)

Of course, these accords engineered by the White House have been condemned by the Palestinian national movement and other anti-imperialist states and organizations. Algeria, which has been a staunch supporter of the SADR, rejected the decision by Morocco to partially normalize relations with Israel. Hamas, the Palestinian resistance movement, has strongly objected to the decisions by Morocco, Sudan and the Gulf Monarchies.

With specific reference to the U.S.-induced deal established between Israel and Morocco, the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution reported that:

“According to the agreement, the two states will resume partial diplomatic ties in the near future, establish direct flights, and promote economic and technological cooperation. However, Morocco has not committed to opening an embassy in Israel (rather, it will open liaison offices, as it had prior to 2002) nor will it establish full diplomatic relations. Within a day of Trump’s announcement, his administration sent notice to Congress about a potential $1 billion arms sale to Morocco — a similar move to the one the administration made following the United Arab Emirates’ normalization with Israel.” (See this)

Sudan through the recently passed Sovereign Immunity bill in the U.S. Congress, which was contingent upon normalization with Israel among other issues, is slated to provide financial assistance to the interim Sovereign Council led by Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok and Chair General Abdelfattah al-Burhan. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin was scheduled to visit Sudan, the UAE, Israel, Qatar and Egypt in early January in his last foreign mission for the Trump administration.

The Sudan Tribune reported that in exchange for Khartoum’s shift in foreign policy:

“The U.S. will disburse $111 million to pay off part of Sudan’s bilateral debt, and $120 million to help pay off its debt to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Also, the legislation provides support to Sudan with $700 million until September 2022. The Sudanese government signed a bilateral claims agreement with the United States last month that stipulated removing Sudan from the list of countries that sponsor terrorism and passing the ‘legal peace’ bill in return for paying $335 million to settle with the victims of terror attacks.” (See this)

Therefore, these agreements and accords along with accompanying legislation in Washington, have more to do with the imperialist interests of the U.S. and its allies than the improvement of the living conditions and development prospects in Africa and West Asia. Another offer by the U.S. has been made to Indonesia, the largest-populated Muslim nation in the world. Jakarta has rejected the offer. (See this)

In Africa, the Djibouti President Ismail Omar Guelleh has stated that the conditions “are not ripe” for diplomatic relations with Israel. Nonetheless, Djibouti in the Horn of Africa, is the location of the largest Pentagon military base at Camp Lemonnier. The U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) utilizes the small country to engage in aerial surveillance and military strikes in other African states and West Asia.

These diplomatic and economic machinations by Washington and Tel Aviv will not halt the people of Palestine, Western Sahara and other oppressed nations from waging an unrelenting campaign for their national liberation.


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

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

Featured image is from the author

Health Imperialism and Discriminatory International Laws

December 28th, 2020 by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

“Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promise, for never intending to go beyond promise costs nothing.” – Edmund Burke

Joe Biden’s statements on resuscitating the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has also reignited an old debate inside Iran. With the Rouhani administration clearly siding with those pushing for unconditional return to the ‘deal’ signed with the U.S.  and five other world powers, it is important to discuss what is at stake – specifically as it relates to medical isotopes and Iran’s enrichment needs.

While the United States and its western ‘allies’ demand that Iran stop all enrichment of up to 20% for its research reactor and medical isotopes, the US government has continued its efforts to commercialize nuclear medicine.

In 2011, while the Obama administration was busy talking in secret with the ‘reformist’ groups attempting to influence and undermine Iran’s rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the U.S. Congress passed the “American Medical Isotopes Production Act of 2011” . The Bill calls for providing uranium to private sector companies to make medical isotopes with U.S. government undertaking the task of waste removal: “The lease contracts shall provide for the Secretary to retain responsibility for the final disposition of radioactive waste created by the irradiation, processing, or purification of leased uranium.” It is important to read the entire Bill here: E:\BILLS\S99.IS (govinfo.gov)

Under Section 6 titled ‘DOMESTIC MEDICAL ISOTOPE PRODUCTION, the Bill stipulates:

 “(a) In General.— Chapter 10 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

 “Sec. 112. Domestic Medical Isotope Production.

“a. The Commission may issue a license, or grant an amendment to an existing license, for the use in the United States of highly enriched uranium as a target for medical isotope production in a nuclear reactor, only if, in addition to any other requirement of this Act.”

Clearly not a proliferation concern.  America is the arbitrator of international treaties – it would seem with cooperation from other powers. But Iran’s uranium enriched to 19.75% – considered to be LEU and necessary for research reactors and medicinal purposes – has to be halted.

Through National Nuclear Security Administration, the U.S. is monopolizing and handing control over global medical isotope production to profit-driven companies. Here is the statement published on NNSA’s website:

“As part of its mission to minimize the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU), NNSA’s Office of Material Management and Minimization was tasked to lead the Molybdenum-99 (Mo-99) program. Mo-99 is an isotope that is used in over 40,000 medical procedures in the United States each day, but is 100% supplied by foreign vendors, most of which use HEU in the production process.”

It also identifies four private companies currently working with the U.S. government:

NorthStar Medical Radioisotopes, LLC, located in Beloit, Wisconsin

  • SHINE Medical Technologies, located in Janesville, Wisconsin Northwest
  • Medical Isotopes, located in Corvallis, Oregon
  • Niowave, Inc., located in Lansing, Michigan”

Medical isotopes are a lucrative, growing business and one that is essential to human health.

Radiotherapy can be used to treat some medical conditions, especially cancer, using radiation to weaken or destroy particular targeted cells.

  • Over 40 million nuclear medicine procedures are performed each year, and demand for radioisotopes is increasing at up to 5% annually.
  • Sterilization of medical equipment is also an important use of radioisotopes

The global radioisotope market was valued at $9.6 billion in 2016, with medical radioisotopes accounting for about 80% of the total, and poised to reach about $17 billion by 2021. North America is the dominant market for diagnostic radioisotopes with close to half of the market share, while Europe accounts for about 20%.  Hence, 70% of the global medical radioisotopes goes to a population of 778 million people (US 331 and EU 447 million) while 7 billion (global population 7.8 billion less US and EU) are left with only 30%.

Where there is health imperialism, profit, and discrimination, there is Bill Gates.  According to the Journal of Economics and Sociology (2015), Bill Gates, the single biggest contributor to World Health Organization (WHO):

“Gates calls for discussion “about which parts of the process [WHO] should lead and which ones others (including the World Bank and the G7 countries) should lead in close coordination.” While the article contains perfunctory nods to U.N. authority, as well as brief lip service to the idea of strengthening public health services in poor countries, there can be little doubt that Gates is advocating a new form of international institution, transcending the United Nations, targeting the developing world, and effectively controlled by the wealthy nations of the West”.  

It comes as no surprise therefore that Gates in involved with nuclear medicine.

 “TerraPower, the nuclear research venture founded by Bill Gates, is joining with Isotek Systems and the U.S. Department of Energy in a public-private partnership aimed at turning what otherwise would be nuclear waste into radiation doses for cancer treatment.”

Such benevolence.  But sovereign signatory nations party to the NPT are not permitted to cure their sick.

Furthermore, the more affluent people living in countries with limited access to nuclear medicine, find their way to the US or the EU for treatment, benefiting from their affluence while taking their home country’s wealth to the West.  And the gap is only growing.

In the USA there are over 20 million nuclear medicine procedures conducted per year, and in Europe about 10 million. In Australia there are about 560,000 per year, with 470,000 using reactor isotopes. The use of radiopharmaceuticals in diagnosis is growing at over 10% per year.

But in spite of the dire shortage of medical isotopes as reported by IAEA report – April 2020, JCPOA and the signatories, are demanding that Iran not produce this life-saving nuclear medicine.

The degree of double standards and hypocrisy cannot be emphasized enough. Only 10 nuclear reactors, many of which are nearing 50 years of operation, produce over 95% of the world’s supply. In 2007, Poland used HEU to supply medical isotopes – and continued.   Why and how is it that the IAEA and other members states have no problem with Poland possessing HEU?    “In 2007, during a supply crisis in the molybdenum 99 market (caused by breakdowns at some of the older reactors, particularly the Canadian NRU reactor), Poland’s MARIA reactor increased its HEU-based production of molybdenum 99 to fill the gap. Though the crisis has passed, the Polish reactor does not appear to have reduced its production. It too uses HEU fuel and targets.

One of the main suppliers of medical isotope is the Netherlands using bomb grade/HEU to process.    Obviously not an issue with the IAEA or the U.S. or anyone else.  South Africa has maintained around 80 kilograms of its HEU according to NTI Civilian HEU: South Africa | NTI. Clearly, blessed by America as they are working on producing LEU medical isotopes while the U.S. looks the other way.

It is not clear how anyone can accept so much discrimination in applying science, and to enforce not only lawlessness, but health imperialism.


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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, CommonSense.

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons

China Building Great Wall on Its Soft Southern Underbelly

December 28th, 2020 by Bertil Lintner

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China Building Great Wall on Its Soft Southern Underbelly


The Middle East Eye reports there are no gold mines under Dubai’s sands with artisanal miners or children toiling away trying to strike gold. But there is the Dubai Gold Souk and refineries that vie with the largest global operations as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) strives to expand its position as a major gold hub.

In recent years, the UAE, with Dubai in particular, has established itself as one of the largest and fastest-growing marketplaces for the precious metal, with imports rising by 58 percent per annum to more than $27bn in 2018, according to data collated by the Observatory for Economic Complexity.

With no local gold to tap, unlike neighboring Saudi Arabia, the UAE has to import gold from wherever it can, whether it be legitimately, smuggled with no questions asked, sourced from conflict zones, or linked to organized crime.

Blood Gold

The Sentry’s investigation (Sentry Investigations specialize in private and corporate investigations in the UK) found that 95 percent of gold officially exported from Central and East Africa, much of it mined in Sudan, South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo, ends up in the Emirates.

Gold has become so important to Dubai’s economy that it is the emirate’s highest value external trade item, ahead of mobile phones, jeweler, petroleum products and diamonds, according to Dubai Customs.

And it is the UAE’s largest export after oil, exporting $17.7bn in 2019. Gold’s importance has only increased as Dubai’s oil reserves have dwindled and the UAE has tried to diversify its economy.

The Swiss connection

Dubai is not the only gold player with dirt, and even blood, on its hands.

“It is not just Dubai, it’s also Switzerland. The Swiss get large quantities of gold from Dubai. The Swiss say they are not getting gold from certain countries [connected to conflict gold], but instead from Dubai, yet the gold in Dubai is coming from these countries. Dubai is complicit, but Swiss hands are equally dirty as they can’t cut Dubai from the market,” said Lakshmi Kumar, policy director, at Global Financial Integrity (GFI) in Washington DC.

Switzerland is the world’s largest refiner, while [more than half] of all gold goes through the country at some point, according to anti-corruption group Global Witness. Switzerland’s trade is tied to the UK, which imports around a third of all gold.


PressTV: Gold has become such an important commodity for the UAE, that it is the largest export after oil, exporting $17.7bn in 2019. But there is the other side to this story. A report by the UK’s Home Office and Treasury earlier in December also named the UAE as a jurisdiction vulnerable to money laundering by criminal networks because of the ease with which gold and cash could be moved through the country. Is this the case?

Peter Koenig: First, International Gold Laundering is a gigantic Human Rights abuse, foremost because laundered gold stems from many countries in Africa and South America where massive child labor is practiced. Children not only are put at tremendous risk working in the mines, in narrow rickety underground tunnels that could collapse anytime, and often do – but they are also poisoned on a daily basis by chemicals used in extracting gold ore from the rock, notably cyanide and mercury – and others.

Second, Gold laundering is an international crime, because it illegal and it is mostly run by mafia type organizations – where killing and other type of violence, plus sexual abuse of women – forced prostitution – is a daily occurrence.

There should be an international law – enforceable – issued by the UN – and enforced by the International Criminal Court against anything to do with gold laundering. Infractions should be punished. And countries involved in gold laundering should be held responsible – put on a black list for illegal financial transactions and for facilitating human rights abuses.

The United Arab Emirates — has no gold, so all of the $17.7 billion of their gold exports is being imported and “washed” by re-exporting it mainly through the UK into Switzerland and other gold refining places, like India.

With a worldwide production of about 3,500 tons, there are times when Switzerland imports more gold than the annual world production, most of it coming from the UK, for further refining or re-refining, for “better or double laundering” – erasing the gold’s origins.

From the refinery in Switzerland, it goes mostly into the banking system or is re-exported as “clean” gold coming from Switzerland. And its origins are no longer traceable.

Worldwide about 70% of all gold is refined in Switzerland.

Gold mine production totaled 3,531 tons in 2019, 1% lower than in 2018. About 70% of all gold, worldwide is refined in Switzerland. So, it is very likely that the UK, receiving gold from United Arab Emirates, re-exports the gold to Switzerland, for re-refining, for further export to, for ex. India. – Coming from Switzerland it has the “label” of being clean. How long will this reputation still last?

Metalor is the world’s largest gold refinery – established in Switzerland. And they are absolutely secretive, do not say where they buy their gold from, because the Swiss Government does not require the origin when gold enters Switzerland.

Once it is refined – the origin can no longer be determined, because gold does not have a DNA.

PressTV: The Sentry’s investigation found that 95 percent of gold officially exported from Central and East Africa, much of it mined in Sudan, South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of Congo, ends up in the emirate, through what’s known as blood gold:  gold obtained through brutal mining practices and illicit profits, including the use of children, how do you see this?

PK: Yes, this is absolutely true.

As mentioned already before – much of the gold from Africa / Central Africa, Ghana and South America, notably Peru, is blood gold. Of course, it passes through many hands before it lands in a refinery in the UK, Switzerland or elsewhere, and therefore is almost untraceable.

But, the company that buys the gold, like Metalor, they know exactly where the gold is coming from, but, as mentioned before, since the Swiss government does not require the importing company to divulge the origin of the gold – the human rights abuses will never come to light, or better – to justice.

It is estimated that up to 30% of all gold refined in Switzerland is considered blood gold. Imagine the suffering, disease, and even death – or delayed death through slow reacting chemicals like cyanite and mercury.

However, if there is no international law – a law that is enforced – that puts the criminals to justice – and put countries that facilitate gold laundering on an international list – for the world to see – and hold them accountable, with for example financial sanctions, little will change.


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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Blood Gold. Dubai’s “Gold Hub” and the Swiss Connection
  • Tags: ,