Global Research

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

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

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

***

In the middle of an intensifying controversy over whether western countries should supply cluster bombs to Ukraine for use in the ongoing conflict, another issue that deserves serious attention is that if cluster bombs are to be used for ‘liberating’ its own territory by Ukraine, which is the stated aim for obtaining the supply of these deadly weapons by Ukraine from western countries, then the use of  these weapons necessarily involves self-harm in the context of longer-term impacts of cluster bombs.

This would be true for any weapons with serious longer-term adverse impacts, including depleted uranium weapons, which too are being supplied by western countries to Ukraine.

When a country in the course of a war loses some territory and then announces its determination to liberate this territory, this implies that the people of this territory are considered to be the equal citizens of this country whose welfare has to be protected.

However cluster weapons, which involve bombs exploding mid-air to disperse hundreds of small but very painful and destructive bomblets, are inherently more likely to hit civilian and unintended targets as well. What is even more important is that many of them remain unexploded for a very long time and hence can cause a lot of civilian harms for several years after the conflict is over, particularly to civilians. In particular these have proved very devastating for innocent and unsuspecting children, despite many attempts having been made to warn them regarding the need to stay away from suspicious objects. These high risks have been widely documented for several countries like Laos where cluster bombs were used widely and where these have continued to kill and disable people several years later. It is in fact due to this that a very large number of countries, about 100 including several NATO members, have signed the convention against cluster bombs.

Now, if Ukraine uses these cluster bombs to ‘liberate’ its lost territories, this implies that whether the liberation effort is successful or not, the cluster weapons will continue to inflict serious harm for many, many years on people it considers to be its own, on land it considers to be its own. Hence there is a serious contradiction and a serious question of self-harm involved in any plans to use cluster weapons as a means of liberating own territories (as distinct from attacking enemy lands).

As deadly weapons like cluster bombs are given by western countries to Ukraine mainly for liberating territory and often clearly specifications are mentioned that these are not to be used for attacking Russia mainland, there is clearly a serious element of implied self-harm in the use of cluster bombs by Ukraine. Both the Ukraine authorities and their western suppliers should seriously consider the self-harm part of the issue.

This is also applicable in the supply of depleted uranium ammunitions and in fact any weapons and ammunition that have a serious long term adverse impact (on people, health and environment). In the case of depleted uranium weapons there is a lot of documented evidence regarding the longer-term serious impacts from places like Iraq and elsewhere where these were widely used. There are some very painful reports. At the same time some have stated that the harms may not be so serious. The balance of evidence tells us that the impacts can be very harmful and painful and where such high risks exists, even if not established at hundred per cent level, the manufacture, use and export of such terrible weapons should be avoided. There are possibilities of soldiers using such weapons to attack others also suffering long-term adverse health impacts.

The case of not using any weapons of longer term adverse impacts would be very strong in the context of liberating territory and the implied longer-term harm to own people.

This aspect of self-harm of course is only one part of the wider debate on the supply of cluster bombs and other deadly weapons to Ukraine by western countries. There are several other reasons to question supply of these and in fact all weapons and instead concentrate all attention and efforts on bringing peace and on bringing peace only—starting with unconditional ceasefire ( so as to stop further fighting immediately) followed by peace negotiations which can be quite prolonged as long as the fighting stops.

*

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

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children and A Day in 2071. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Military Watch Magazine

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

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

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

***

What do transgenderism, pedophilia, and Covid-19 have in common?

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich is here to talk about the mental terrorism inflicted on the world during the Covid pandemic.

According to Dr. Fuellmich’s findings, Covid was all fake. It was an act of psychological terrorism acting as a pilot program for mass mind-control. In effect, the purpose of all of it was to dumb down the population, making them more reliant on powerful institutions and more suggestible to extreme ideas.

One of the ultimate goals is also depopulation.

For some strange reason the global elites responsible for this mind control also want humanity to consent. They want us to choose to put things in our body that are harmful and ultimately lead to death.

This mind control is more effective in the western world than in Africa.

The excess mortality rates from the bioweapon injections are high in developed countries. The masses bought into the fear tactics and brainwashing and voluntarily injected themselves with deadly poison.

Most of our leaders and those in positions of power are actually psychopaths. However, these leaders couldn’t have risen to power if the masses didn’t play along. This is because the general public has been dumbed down due to the collapse of our education system. We have been taught to follow orders and not think for ourselves. There are a lot of people who are highly educated but also very stupid. Cowardice fuels the stupidity of the general public.

Those who have perpetuated these crimes against humanity must be held accountable at Nuremberg 2.0.

*

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

---

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

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

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

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

***

In Canada, pro-NATO shills and fake ‘disinformation experts’ have used threats of violence and outright fabrications to censor a national speaking tour on the pursuit of peace in Ukraine.

In April of this year, I travelled to Russia and Crimea to engage in citizen diplomacy. I undertook that journey on my own initiative and at my own expense. I did so because I’m convinced that the Ukraine war is an existentially dangerous conflict for all humanity, and that Western leaders have abdicated their duty to protect us from the ultimate catastrophe.

Upon my return to Canada, peace groups from across the country asked me to embark about a trans-Canada speaking tour to advocate for the peaceful resolution of the Ukraine war. I accepted their invitation. In so doing, I declined to be paid speaking fees and I assumed full responsibility for paying my own travel expenses.

After I accepted that invitation, all hell broke loose.

The campaign to de-platform the speaking tour

In early June, following consultation with members of the Canada-wide Peace and Justice Network, I agreed to speak in eleven Canadian cities commencing on June 19. Those cities are London, Hamilton, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina, Vancouver, Victoria, Montreal, Halifax, Fredericton and Ottawa. The last of these events took place in Toronto on July 8.

As a result of pressure and intimidation tacts targeting our venues, five of our venues cancelled our scheduled events in the days or hours leading up to the event. Those cancellations occurred in Toronto, Winnipeg, Montreal and Halifax.

Toronto cancellation

I was scheduled to speak in Toronto on June 20 at the head office of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU). OPSEU’s President, JP Hornick,  cancelled our event approximately four hours prior to our scheduled start time. Unfortunately, this did not leave the local organizers with sufficient time to secure an alternate venue.

At the time of the cancellation, OPSEU officials advised us that, because of hostile communications received by OPSEU, Hornick had become concerned about the security of the participants and the facility.

Following Hornick’s last-minute cancellation, I issued the following statement:

Despite OPSEU’s 11th-hour cancellation, I met that evening with about twenty local peace activists. We gathered at a pub next to OPSEU’s offices.

At that impromptu gathering, we agreed that we would not give up, so days later, local organizers in Toronto secured a space at the Toronto Public Library on July 8. This was a bridge too far for Toronto City Councillor Brad Bradford, who finished in eighth place with 1.3% of the votes in Toronto’s recent mayoral election. Bradford tweeted that he was “appalled” that the library would “give a platform to an apologist for Russia’s war crimes”. In comments on Bradford’s tweet, over twenty-five persons criticized him for attempting to suppress free speech.

To its credit, the Toronto Public Library stood its ground and allowed the event to go forward. In the end, we had a vibrant discussion about the realities of this proxy war and the necessity of ending it by negotiation.

Winnipeg cancellations

I was scheduled to speak in Winnipeg on June 21. In Winnipeg, not one but two venues cancelled on us in the twenty-four hours leading up to the event.

Prior to cancelling our event, the Filipino Seniors Group (FSG) in Winnipeg received messages that flatly misrepresented what I had said in prior speaking events. For example, one message sent to FSG by someone claiming to be a Canadian of Russian origin claimed that, in our first speaking event in London, Ontario on June 19, I had referred to Ukraine as “the so-called Ukraine”, “proceeded to deny Russia’s responsibility for any war crimes”, and “unjustly labelled all Ukrainians defending against aggression as Nazis”.

These are outright fabrications. I’ve never referred to Ukraine as “the so-called Ukraine” and I’ve never denied Russia’s responsibility for any war crimes.

On the contrary, I have stated repeatedly that I believe that both Russian and Ukrainian forces have committed war crimes, and that all those who have committed war crimes should be held accountable and prosecuted in accordance with due process of law.

Finally, I have never said that all Ukrainians defending against aggression are Neo-Nazis. Rather, I have argued, and continue to maintain, that Ukraine has a serious problem with Neo-Nazism, but that most Ukrainians are not Neo-Nazis.

Unfortunately, I first learned that these fabrications had been communicated to the FSG after it cancelled our event. The FSG gave me no opportunity to respond to those allegations before cancelling our event.

Despite the cancellations by FSG and a second Winnipeg venue (the Canadian Mennonite University), local organizers in Winnipeg managed to secure a third venue at the last moment. At that venue, we drew a large and engaged audience. No one disrupted my presentation or the Q&A which followed it.

Montreal cancellation

I was scheduled to speak in Montreal on June 29.

For the Montreal event, we reserved a lounge owned and operated by a private business. I have known the managers of that venue for years and have always been on friendly terms with them. Out of consideration for the security of their business, we did not publicize the name or address of the venue. Rather, we communicated the venue’s name and address to attendees privately.

By the morning of June 29, the Montreal event was sold out. The organizers expected that we would have to turn people away at the door.

I have lived in Montreal for years and am personally acquainted with many local activists. On the day of the event, I examined the list of registrants and recognized most of the names on the list as activists with whom I had worked in the past.

Nonetheless, on the day when I was scheduled to speak, our opponents somehow managed to identify the venue. At that point, chaos ensued.

First, on the day of the event, an irate woman appeared at the venue and threatened that the business would be targeted that evening with a loud and hostile protest.

The owners and managers of the venue were then inundated with hostile electronic messages, the majority of which came from persons whose names appeared to be Ukrainian.

As acrimonious messages poured in, a CTV reporter called the managers of the venue and indicated that a camera crew would come to the venue that evening to videotape the persons who entered the facility for purposes of attending our event.

As all of this was going on, a raft of complainants besieged the business with low ratings on its Google profile. Here are some examples:

As can be seen from the above screenshots, many of the persons who gave rock-bottom Google ratings to the business on that day bore names that appeared to be Ukrainian, and indicated that their country of residence was Ukraine.

These Google shenanigans were the last straw for the owners of our venue in Montreal.

The manager of the business called me less than three hours before our start time and, while apologizing profusely for having to cancel the event, he explained to me that the business had built up an excellent reputation over many years, and that these online attacks constituted a significant reputational threat to the business.

The manager then tried to limit the damage from the low Google ratings by informing people online that the event had been cancelled.

At that point, our local organizers in Montreal decided to take our audience members to a nearby park in old Montreal. Nearly all of the persons who had registered for our event were redirected to and showed up at that park.

As we gathered in the park for my presentation, a group of angry protesters waving Ukrainian flags appeared. Several Montreal police officers placed themselves between us and the protesters.

The flag-waving protesters began by shouting “stop killing Ukrainians!” At that point, I explained to our audience that I too wanted the killing of Ukrainians to stop, and that that is why I had embarked on this tour. I then asked our audience to join me in chanting “stop killing Ukrainians!” A video of that moment can be watched here.

Throughout my presentation in the park, the pro-Ukrainian protesters chanted that I was a “fascist”, a “liar” and a “fraud”. The police allowed the protesters to get close enough to us that I had to shout in order to be heard by our audience. One audience member who is active in the Palestinian solidarity movement remarked that Montreal police tend to be much less accommodating toward pro-Palestinian protesters.

Halifax cancellation

Initially, our organizers in Halifax reserved a space at St. Mary’s University for our June 30 event. The organizer who had reserved the space at St. Mary’s University was Larry Haiven, a Professor Emeritus of St. Mary’s University.

Within hours of Professor Haiven making the reservation, the University’s President, Dr. Robert Summerby-Murray, advised Professor Haiven that the President had personally decided to cancel the reservation. Professor Haiven attempted in vain to explain to the President that this was a matter of free speech, and that Canadian universities should strive to foster discussion and debate about difficult and controversial subjects.

Professor Haiven and his partner Judy Haiven, also a Professor Emeritus of St. Mary’s University, then secured an alternate venue.

Ultimately, the Halifax event was held without disruption at that second venue.

Following the Halifax event, Professor Haiven issued a statement about the decision of the St. Mary’s University President to cancel our event. In his statement, he explained why he was “ashamed” of the President’s decision to de-platform our event.

Who participated in the campaign to de-platform our tour?

Virtually every venue we reserved for this speaking tour came under intense pressure to cancel our event. The primary means by which our venues were subjected to pressure were emails containing false and inflammatory allegations about me and the speaking tour. Pressure tactics also included physical protests, threats of violence and negative reviews on Google.

Many of the hostile communications received by our venues contained warnings – some subtle and some not-so-subtle – that the venue would suffer a loss of business or be exposed to other adverse consequences if the event was allowed to go forward.

Although we have not seen many of the hostile communications that our venues received, we have seen enough of them to identify key persons involved in the campaign to de-platform our tour. What is striking is that most of those persons work in think-tanks and academic positions that are closely tied to the U.S. and Canadian militaries.

In a recent, must-see interview by Robert Scheer of former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, McGovern explained that we in the West have been systematically lied to about the causes of the Ukraine war and the state of the Ukrainian battlefield. In the course of ennumerating the litany of lies with which we’ve been bombarded, McGovern stated:

You know, I’ve got a new acronym and actually it’s in some dictionaries now. Eisenhower talked about the ‘military industrial complex’. Well it’s more complicated now. Now it’s not the ‘MIC’, but the ‘MICIMATT’: Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-MEDIA-Academia-Think-Tank complex. Why do I say ‘MEDIA’, as if in all caps? Because the media is the fulcrum, is the basis, you can’t make this MICIMATT work without the media. And who controls the media? The same corporations that control Raytheon, Lockheed and the rest of them.

Marcus Kolga

Marcus Kolga is a senior fellow of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI), a right-wing, neoconservative think-tank based in Ottawa.

Kolga is also the founder of MLI’s DisinfoWatch project. He claims to be a ‘disinformation expert’, and is treated as such by Canada’s mainstream media.

The website of Disinfowatch discloses no information regarding its donors or board members. It discloses, however, a list of “research partners”. They include the U.S. Department of State and the NATO StratCom Center Of Excellence (Riga).

Kolga is also a “senior fellow” at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute (CDAI), which describes itself as “an umbrella organization for 36 member associations who represent over 400,000 active and retired members of the Canadian Armed Forces. We are a connector in the defence & security community in Canada that provides influence and visibility for member associations towards national engagement…” The CDAI website describes Kolga as “a leading Canadian expert on Russian and Central and Eastern European issues.”

The only postsecondary degree listed on Kolga’s LinkedIn profile is a Bachelor of Arts in political science, which he obtained from the University of Illinois in 1994. Based on his published profile, it does not appear that Kolga has any graduate degree, or that he has pursued any postsecondary studies focused specifically on disinformation or on Russia.

As I explained in a recent article on ‘disinformation studies’ in Canada, describing Kolga as a ‘disinformation expert’ is like calling an arsonist ‘the fireman’. Quite apart from his unrelenting pro-war advocacy, Kolga is notorious for his whitewashing of the Estonian far right.

During the past five weeks, Kolga has tweeted and retweeted over thirty derogatory tweets about me. In those tweets, he describes me (among other smears) as a “conspiracy theorist”, “far left”, a “fraud”, a “tankie” and “pro-authoritarian”. Kolga’s tweets and retweets also accuse me of the “whitewashing of Russian atrocities”, of “arguing for ‘peace’ that would result in genocide”, and of making “pro-Putin conspiracy rants” that propagate “anti-Ukrainian views that align with Russian extremist nationalists” and that “justify colonial repression”.

Kolga’s Twitter activity leaves no doubt that he pressured numerous of our venues (including Toronto, Winnipeg and Regina) to de-platform our tour, and that he encouraged his followers to do the same.

On May 11, 2023, Kolga gave testimony on Canada’s sanctions regime to the Canadian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. In that five-minute statement (which starts at 11:57:00 of this video), Kolga described me as a “Canadian far-left pro-Kremlin extremist” and strongly insinuated that I had violated Canadian sanctions laws by travelling to Crimea. That is a bald-faced lie.

There are many differences between Marcus Kolga and me. One of them is that Kolga is a paid shill of the military industrial complex. I, on the other hand, have been paid nothing to write or speak about NATO’s depraved proxy war in Ukraine, or about the West’s relations with Russia.

When it comes to discerning the truth about this war, you are, of course, free to believe the pro-NATO shill who profits from advocating for war, or you can believe the anti-war activist who is paid nothing for his advocacy.

The choice is yours.

Kyle Matthews

Kyle Matthews is the Executive Director of the Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies (MIGS), a think-tank which describes itself as “Canada’s leading institute working at the intersection of human rights, conflict prevention and emerging technologies.”

According to MIGS’ Activity Report for 2020/2021, MIGS’ “partners” include Canada’s Department of National Defence, Global Affairs Canada, the U.S. Embassy to Canada, the Netherlands Embassy to Canada, DisinfoWatch (founded and run by Markus Kolga) and the National Endowment for Democracy, or NED.

The NED is funded by the U.S. Government and is a notorious CIA cutout. It reportedly spent over US$22 million on ‘democracy promotion’ in Ukraine following the U.S.-backed coup that ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014.

Since the beginning of June, Matthews has gone hog-wild on tweet-smearing me. In that period, he has tweeted and retweeted about me more than fifty times, using such rhetorical flourishes as “clueless dimwit”, “deranged” and a “conspiracy theorist”. In one tweet, Matthews denied that I am a journalist, while in another, he wrote that “as lawyer [sic], Lascaris ain’t that bright.”

Matthews routinely misspells my first name, sometimes writing it as “Dmitri” and other times as “Dimitry”. He continued to misspell my name after I recently corrected him on Twitter.

Maybe it’s just me, but I would have thought that no Canadian university would appoint a petulant child to be the executive director of “Canada’s leading institute working at the intersection of human rights, conflict prevention and emerging technologies.”

During the past six weeks, Matthews has tweeted dozens and dozens of condemnations of the Russian and Chinese governments, but not a word about human rights violations by Western governments or their allies. Thus far, Matthews has tweeted no criticism of the widely condemned decision of the U.S. government to send cluster munitions to Ukraine, nor has he uttered a peep about Israel’s brutal assault on the Jenin refugee camp.

Matthews, it seems, has never recovered emotionally from my and Yves Engler’s disruption in June 2019 of an Irwin Cotler love-fest, hosted by the petulant child himself. As is well known by those who regard Palestinians as human beings, Cotler is an apologist for Israel’s apartheid regime. That’s why Yves and I thought it unseemly for Matthews to fawn all over Cotler on the campus of Concordia University. So traumatized was Matthews by our intervention that, years later, he constantly whines about our raining on his Cotler parade.

Matthews evidently believes that there’s an equivalency between our 2019 disruption of Cotler and the de-platforming of our speaking tour on the Ukraine war.

Matthews conveniently omits to mention that Yves and I never de-platformed Cotler. On the contrary, on that day in June 2019, the Cotler love-fest resumed after Yves and I completed our brief intervention. Cotler was given ample opportunity to express himself at Concordia University.

Moreover, the primary reason that I and activists like Yves Engler engage in such disruptions is that Canada’s mainstream media have all but banished left-wing, anti-imperialist criticism of Canadian foreign policy. If Canadians holding such views such were given reasonable opportunities to express those views in the mainstream media, there would be no need for us to resort to the disruption of the political elite. Cotler, by contrast, is routinely feted by Canada’s mainstream media. So too are other architects of Canada’s morally bankrupt and hypocritical foreign policy. Simply stated, Canada’s mainstream media discourse is grotesquely imbalanced in the elite’s favour. Activists’ interventions are a means whereby some measure of balance can be introduced into the public discourse.

Matthews’ tweets over the past six weeks leave no doubt that he participated in the campaign to de-platform our tour. He retweeted, for example, a Marcus Kolga tweet in which Kolga called on OPSEU to cancel our event in Toronto:

On Twitter, Matthews also joined with Kolga in pressuring the Regina Public Library to cancel our event:

Matthews also publicly accused the Toronto Public Library of “hosting” a “conspiracy theorist and Russian war crimes apologist”:

Dominic Cardy

Dominic Cardy is a senior fellow of MIGS. He is also a member of the New Brunswick legislature.

In 2011, Cardy became leader of the New Brunswick NDP. He won by acclamation. While leader of the NB NDP, Cardy ran three times for election to the New Brunswick legislature. He lost each time, finishing third place on two occasions and second place on the third.

In 2015, Yvon Godin, an NDP member of Parliament for a New Brunswick federal riding, criticized Cardy’s leadership of the provincial NDP, stating:

The problem, I think, with the provincial party, with Dominic, was that I think he was too much to the right to even be in the centre, and I think people read into that. I think it did hurt the party. People were looking for the NDP, they were doing really well, and [voters] wanted change from the existing parties that we have now, who are serving the big corporations and forgetting about the people.”

In 2016, Cardy expressed support for the doomed Energy East pipeline while opposing the Leap Manifesto.

On January 1, 2017, Cardy announced his resignation as leader of the NB NDP. He complained at the time that forces in the NDP, in collusion with the province’s largest public sector union, had waged “endless internal battles.”

Less than one month after his resignation, the New Brunswick Progressive Conservative Party revealed it had appointed Cardy as its strategic issues director. At the time, Cardy said it was “not my intention” to run as a candidate for the Tories. The following year, after endorsing Maxime Bernier for the leadership of the federal Conservative Party, Cardy ran as a candidate for the New Brunswick Tories. He finally won a seat.

The Tories, however, would come to regret Cardy’s belated electoral success. In October 2022, after Cardy had been elevated by New Brunswick Premier Blair Higgs to the post of Education Minister, Cardy resigned from Higgs’ cabinet, citing flaws in Higgs’ leadership style. At the time, Higgs stated that Cardy resigned only after Higgs had told Cardy that he intended to shuffle Cardy out of cabinet. The day after Cardy’s resignation from cabinet, Higgs expelled Cardy from the Progressive Conservative caucus. 

According to MIGS’ website, Cardy holds a B.A. in Political Science and, after working for the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, joined the Washington-based National Democratic Institute (NDI) “in increasingly senior managerial roles.”

NDI is funded in part by the U.S. Government, including by the CIA cutout, the NED. Although the NDI claims to be “non-partisan” and “non-governmental”, the current Board of this U.S. government-funded organization is a veritable who’s who of Democratic Party heavyweights. The NDI Board is chaired by former Democratic Senator Tom Daschle and includes (among numerous other establishment Democrats) Michael McFaul, who served as Obama’s ambassador to Ukraine at the time of the 2014, U.S.-orchestrated coup.

Judging from Cardy’s Twitter feed, he just might be auditioning for a return to a “senior managerial role” at NDI.

Although Cardy is a member of a provincial legislature and has no responsibility whatsoever for Canadian foreign policy (which is a matter of federal jurisdiction), Cardy seems to be obsessed with Russia and China. His Twitter profile prominently features the Ukrainian, Canadian and Taiwanese flags and describes Cardy as an “honorary NAFO fellow”:

“NAFO” stands for “North Atlantic Fellas Organization”. Since its creation in early 2022, NAFO functions as an army of low-brow, relentlessly pro-NATO Twitter trolls. NAFO’s co-founder, Kamil Dyszewski, is a Polish video game reviewer who operates under the Twitter pseudonym “Kama Kamilia.” In a July 2022 interview, Dyszewski professed that he is fuelled by an “absolute hatred and vitriol I have towards the Russians.” As reported in October of last year by Alexander Rubinstein and Moss Robeson, Dyszewski “has also tweeted multiple antisemitic memes, including images which appeared to glorify Adolph Hilter and mock Jewish victims of the Holocaust.”

Despite these sordid facts, Cardy brags about his relationship to NAFO. On Twitter, he has pinned to his profile a tweet in which he thanks the “NAFO team” for making him an “honorary fella” of NAFO:

Cardy is extremely active on Twitter. From June 1 to July 9, 2023, he tweeted or retweeted 402 times, or 10.3 times per day, on average. Those 402 tweets and retweets do not include the gigantic dung-heap of hostile replies that Cardy posted to tweets issued by his ideological adversaries. On Twitter, Cardy routinely engages in endless mud-slinging with leftists and anti-imperialists. One wonders how Cardy finds any time to address the needs of his constituents – or whether he even tries to do so.

During the June 1 to July 9 period, Cardy tweeted or retweeted 215 posts about Russia. This constituted 53.5% of his tweets and retweets during that period. During that same period, he also tweeted or retweeted 58 times about China, which constituted 14.4% of his tweets and retweets during that period. Together, Cardy’s tweets and retweets about Russia and China constituted 67.9% of his total tweets and retweets for that period. Predictably, every one of those tweets reflected negatively on Russia or China (or both).

By contrast, from June 1 to July 9, Cardy tweeted or retweeted a mere 62 posts that explicitly related to New Brunswick. This constituted a lowly 15.4% of his total tweets and retweets during that period. In other words, Cardy tweeted and retweeted about Russia and China approximately three times more often than he tweeted or retweeted about New Brunswick.

Tellingly, from June 1 to July 9, Cardy did not post a single tweet or retweet that criticized the human rights abuses or international law violations of any Western government or Western ally. Cardy tweeted nothing, for example, about the U.S. military’s ongoing crimes against humanity at Guantanamo, the nearly $4 billion in annual military aid that the U.S. gifts to apartheid Israel, or Canada’s weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, which has committed war crimes in Yemen. Meanwhile, Cardy expressed support for the U.S. government’s widely condemned decision to send cluster munitions to Ukraine.

What ought we to make of Cardy’s extensive Twitter activity? Well, for one thing, Cardy appears to think that New Brunswick’s taxpayers are compensating him to act as a mouthpiece for Washington’s neocon cabal. For another, Cardy evidently applies a far lower standard to Western governments than he applies to the West’s official enemies.

From June 1 to July 9, Cardy tweeted or retweeted derogatory comments about me more than 50 times. While acknowledging my ‘claim’ that I have received no compensation for my commentary about the Ukraine war, Cardy tweeted that I have “multiple links to those who profit from the Putin regime.”  He has also written that I am “easily manipulated” by my “friends in Moscow” and am a “Kremlin shill“.

Cardy retweeted Matthews’ criticism of the Toronto Public library for allowing us to use its facilities.

Despite his unbridled hostility to advocates for a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine war, Cardy came to our event in Fredericton, accompanied by his spouse, Julie Smith.

According to New Brunswick’s Telegraph-Journal, when Cardy and Smith were married recently, they “used the special occasion to pay tribute to Ukraine, a country they visited together last fall.”

On July 2, when Cardy entered our venue in Fredericton, a local organizer of our event offered to shake Cardy’s hand. Cardy refused, declaring “I never shake hands with Kremlin scum”. Cardy also refused to shake my hand when I extended it to him minutes before my presentation in Fredericton began.

At our Fredericton event, Cardy live-tweeted various insults, using the hashtag “#LiveLascarisLies”. In one of the tweets that he posted while attending our event, he asserted that we had started the event “with the Soviet anthem”:

What in fact happened is that, as audience members entered the Fredericton venue and seated themselves, the local organizers played a collection of left-wing music, including “The Internationale”. As Wikipedia explains:

“The Internationale” is an international anthem that has been adopted as the anthem of various anarchist, communist, socialist, democratic socialist, and social democraticmovements. It has been a standard of the socialist movement since the late nineteenth century…  It is one of the most universally translated anthems in history.

Shortly prior to our event in New Brunswick, I challenged Cardy to debate me about the Ukraine war at the Fredericton event. Cardy accepted the challenge, but only on condition that we allow him to publicize the name and location of our venue in Fredericton. I was unwilling to accept that condition because, based on everything that had happened on our tour up to that point int time, I expected that our venue would be pressured into cancelling the event if its name and location were widely publicized.

I therefore proposed to Cardy an alternative: that we debate each other online at a later date. Initially, rather than accept my alternative proposal, Cardy falsely and repeatedly claimed on Twitter that I had backed out of my own debate challenge. Accordingly, during the Q&A at our event in Fredericton, I asked Cardy several times whether he would debate me online after the Fredericton event. At first, Cardy tried to sidestep my question, but he eventually agreed.

Since the Fredericton event, Cardy and I have concurred that our debate will occur, online, on October 3, 2023 at 7 pm. The question we’ve agreed to debate is: what is the best way to resolve the Ukraine war?

Jean-Christophe Boucher

Jean-Christophe Boucher is an Associate Professor at the School of Public Policy and at the Department of Political Science at the University of Calgary. He currently holds grants from Canada’s Department of National Defence to study “information operations”, and from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) “to understand civil-military relations in Canada”. The SSHRC is funded by Canada’s federal government.

Boucher is an “expert” of the Network for Strategic Analysis (NSA). The NSA was launched as part of the Mobilizing Insights in Defence and Security programme of the Department of National Defence of Canada. Its primary mission is to “mobilize Canadian and global expertise on three strategic challenges for Canada”, including “the intensification of competition between great powers under the threshold of armed conflict and its pandomain implications”, and “capacity building, defense diplomacy and partnership development within regional, minilateral and international organizations.

In 2022, Boucher produced a “study” on Russian disinformation in Canada. Boucher’s “study” was a pile of bunk, which I debunked here. After I criticized his “study”, Boucher blocked me on Twitter:

From June 1 to July 9, 2023, Boucher tweeted or retweeted about me on eight occasions. He shared tweets by Kolga, Cardy and Matthews in which they made derogatory remarks about me. Boucher aided the campaign to de-platform our tour by sharing content designed to pressure our venues to cancel our events. For example:

In essence, Kolga, Cardy, Boucher and Matthews are Canada’s internet frat-boys of pro-war propaganda.

Tamara Krawchenko

Tamarą Krawchenko is an Assistant Professor in Public Administration at the University of Victoria. Krawchenko is of Ukrainian origin. She has family in Ukraine.

In the month of June, after the speaking tour was publicly announced, Krawchenko began attacking me on Twitter. From the time that we announced the tour in early June to the end of the month, Krawchenko posted over fifteen tweets and replies about me on her Twitter account. All of them were derogatory.

Krawchenko urged her followers to pressure OPSEU into cancelling our event. She repeatedly tagged OPSEU in her tweets and replies about me.

On Twitter, Krawchenko alleged that, while in Crimea, I had visited a Russian “filtration camp” at which Russian forces had committed war crimes.

While in Crimea, I wrote a lengthy article about this camp and published it on this website in April of this year.

The camp that I visited lies to the south of the Crimea-Kherson border, in Russian-controlled territory. It was small and consisted of several pitched tents. Workers at the camp gave me a tour of the facility. They invited me to inspect each tent, which I did. I saw no persons being detained at the camp and I saw no evidence of violence, coercion or other mistreatment.

I spoke with all camp workers who were present at the time of my visit. They assured me that they were volunteers from all over Russia and that they were not employed by the Russian military. As far as I could see, none of the workers carried weapons.

At the time that I visited the camp, there were only three refugees there (a family of two young adults and their ten-year old daughter), and the family was being fed by camp workers. After eating their meal, they roamed around the camp freely. With the help of my Russian-speaking guide and translator (whom I hired and compensated out of my own pocket), I spoke with the father of this family. He explained that he intended to take his family to Poland and that he had decided to transit to Poland through Crimea because he feared that, if he tried to enter Poland from Ukrainian-held territory, Ukrainian security services would apprehend him at the Poland-Ukraine border and force him into military service.

In reply to Krawchenko’s tweet about this alleged “filtration camp”, an account bearing the name of “Carl Gravel” asserted on her Twitter account (in French) that there was a plan to assassinate me during my visit to Victoria, B.C.:

The English translation of Gravel’s reply to Krawchenko’s tweet is as follows:

Gravel posted his reply to Krawchenko’s tweet on June 11. I first learned of Gravel’s assassination warning on June 27, when I arrived in Victoria, B.C. I was alerted to it by the organizers of the Victoria event.

As of the writing of this article, Gravel’s assassination warning continued to appear on Krawchenko’s Twitter account. As far as I know, Krawchenko made no effort to alert me or our local organizers to the alleged assassination plot.

I do not know who controls the Twitter account that posted the assassination warning on Krawchenko’s Twitter account. Of course, the person behind that Twitter account could be an individual whose real name isn’t “Carl Gravel”.

That being said, an individual bearing the name “Carl Gravel” has a profile on Facebook that features a Ukrainian flag.

This is the Twitter profile of the “Carl Gravel” who posted the assassination warning in reply to Krawchenko’s tweet about me:

The Carl Gravel Facebook profile states that Gravel studied at the Canadian Forces School of Communications and Electronics and currently works at Maestria Solutions. A LinkedIn profile for Carl Gravel shows that, before working at Maestria Solutions, Gravel served in the Canadian military for twenty-seven years (from 1990 to 2017).

Thus, there is reason to believe that the person who posted the assassination warning on Krawchenko’s Twitter account may be a former, longstanding member of the Canadian military.

Ukrainian-Canadian Organizations

On June 20, 2023, Orest Zakydalsky, Senior Policy Advisor of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, sent an email to OPSEU’s President, J.P. Hornick. Zakydalsky urged Hornick to cancel our event because I have appeared on RT and because I had done “interviews” of “people like Scott Ritter — a convicted sex offender”.

I first learned of Zakydalsky’s letter to Hornick after Hornick cancelled our event. Hornick afforded me no opportunity to respond to Zakydalsky’s criticisms before Hornick decided to cancel.

For the record, I first appeared on RT in 2019, when I was in Venezuela to report for the U.S.-based Real News Network on efforts by Western governments to overthrow the government of Venezuelan President, Nicolas Maduro. At that time, RT wanted to interview me about what I had learned from speaking to ordinary Venezuelans in the streets of Caracas.

Since then, I have appeared on RT on several occasions to discuss a variety of subjects, including the truckers’ convoy in Ottawa, Canadian foreign policy, the Ukraine war and my trip to Russia in April. RT has never offered or paid to me a dime of compensation. Moreover, RT has never restricted my freedom to express my views on its programs.

Does RT disseminate pro-Russian propaganda? Of course it does, but propaganda is not unique to RT. Canadian, U.S. and other Western corporate media routinely disseminate government and corporate propaganda, yet no one has ever condemned me for the numerous interviews I have done on the CBC, CTV or Global News. Moreover, RT’s coverage of international affairs is generally more honest than Western media coverage of international affairs. On RT, it is permissible to utter truths that are taboo on Western mainstream media, such as: the capitalist system is fuelling wars; NATO is an aggressive military alliance that should be disbanded; U.S. military spending is out of control; and Western foreign policy with respect to non-Western countries is hypocritical, racist and exploitative.

Moreover, I reject the suggestion that, if you choose to give an interview to a media organization, then you necessarily agree with everything that that organization disseminates to the public. A media organization is simply a platform with an audience. If I accept an interview request from a media organization, I do so simply because I want to communicate my views to that organization’s audience. As long as I am permitted to express my honest views to that audience, there’s no good reason for me to reject the opportunity to reach that audience.

As for Scott Ritter, I have interviewed him once, for The Real News Network. I was not compensated for that interview, and neither was Ritter. The video of that interview, which concerned the Ukraine war, has over 2.5 million views. Ritter is a former U.S. Marine intelligence officer in the Soviet Union and Middle East. He was also a United Nations weapons inspector. His expertise in military matters is undeniable. Moreover, he famously opposed the invasion of Iraq on the basis that the Bush administration’s claims about WMD in Iraq were baseless. Had the U.S. Government heeded Ritter’s warnings about flawed ‘intelligence’ relating to WMD in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved.

The UCC’s successful campaign to pressure OPSEU into cancelling our event was not the first time the UCC has sought to de-platform critics of NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine. It also attempted to pressure the Toronto Public Library into cancelling a June 4, 2023 event titled “The war in Ukraine and how to stop it“.

The UCC’s smear campaign against me was aided and abetted by a prominent Ukrainian-Canadian lawyer, Peter Kryworuk. Kryworuk, who is based in London, Ontario, wrote multiple messages to our London venue in which he falsely accused me of “spewing lies, misinformation, hatred and Russian propaganda”, and of making arguments that “will not benefit world peace but will continue Russia’s genocide of Ukrainians”. He warned our London venue that there would be negative repercussions as a result of its refusal to cancel our event. According to Kryworuk, the venue’s decision is “one that many in our community will watch carefully”.

After I delivered my speech in London on June 19, Kryworuk wrote another irate message to the venue. In that message, he demanded that the venue publish on its website an apology for allowing our event to go forward and a condemnation of what I had said during the event. He warned that “choices have consequences” and that, failing such an immediate and full statement of condemnation and apology, the venue “will lose support from the community which it depends on.” According to Kryworuk, “word will spread” of our venue’s “role in allowing a platform for such extremist views”.

Kyrworuk, it appears, is a supporter and significant donor to the UCC:

Another Ukrainian-Canadian organization that pressured a venue to cancel our event is the Ukrainian Association of Fredericton. On July 4, its President sent an email to the Unitarian Fellowship of Fredericton (the venue for our July 2 event in New Brunswick) in which she falsely accused me of supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and of violating Canadian sanctions laws by visiting Crimea.

I have committed no violation of Canadian sanctions laws. I ended my trip to Russia on April 30 – over two months ago. No Canadian law enforcement agency has accused me of violating Canadian sanctions law or has even questioned me about my trip to Russia and Crimea. Furthermore, I have consistently stated that I consider Russia’s invasion to be a violation of the U.N. Charter. Indeed, I took that position in my very first article on the Ukraine war, which I published on this website two days after the invasion began. That article has remained on my website throughout that time, including during my trip to Russia.

Finally, an organization calling itself “Ensemble pour l’Ukraine / Together for Ukraine” wrote a long message to our Montreal venue in which it falsely accused me of violating Canadian sanctions law and of being “one of the top pro-Russian propagandists in Canada” and a “consistent supporter of the Russian invasion”.

The struggle for peace is a struggle for free speech

If this tour has taught us anything, it’s that, in times of war, the struggle for peace is also a struggle for freedom of expression.

A core premise of democracy is that a government chosen by an informed citizenry is the best form of governance. The surest way to ensure that the citizenry remains informed is by fostering vigorous and open debate.

The war in Ukraine has created an unprecedented danger of nuclear armageddon. It is happening against the backdrop of a climate crisis that is spinning out of control, and that cannot be managed responsibly without an unprecedented degree of international cooperation. The Ukraine war is not uniting the world. Rather, it is dividing it. In this perilous moment, deepening divisions are the last thing humanity needs.

The stakes could not be higher. The need for the citizenry to be informed could not be greater.

If our opponents truly believe that we are everything they claim us to be, then they should back up their claims with logic and evidence. The fact that they resort to silencing and smearing us proves only that they cannot win the debate that our fellow citizens so urgently need to hear.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

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

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

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

***

With a sobering number of college students grappling with the burden of student loans, the recent Supreme Court decision blocking the proposed student loan debt forgiveness program has made the need for a solution more urgent than ever. 

Enter Graduate Debt Free: Escaping the Student Loan Matrix by attorney and entrepreneur David F. Shutler—which makes an important contribution to unraveling the student debt dilemma.

With a foreword by nationally-recognized authority on student financial aid, scholarships and student loans Mark Kantrowitz, Graduate Debt Free challenges 12 flawed assumptions about the college experience that often shape the decision-making processes of students and their parents. By dissecting and debunking these assumptions, Graduate Debt Free empowers readers to escape the traps they create and explore alternative paths to financing a college education while avoiding excessive debt.

The assumptions addressed in the book include:

• The notion that one must attend college;
• That a college degree is essential for success; and
• That qualifying for grants or scholarships is out of reach. 

It also dispels the myths that:

• It’s easy to obtain an athletic scholarship; and 
• A job in one’s field will adequately cover student debt; and
• College debt can be discharged through bankruptcy.

Through a systematic approach backed with meticulous research, Graduate Debt Free also provides readers with an actionable roadmap for making alternative choices. The book offers strategies for: identifying alternative ways to pay for college; understanding and reducing the various costs associated with obtaining a degree; and acquiring crucial skills that go beyond formal education but are necessary for financial stability.  And much more…

Moreover, Graduate Debt Free offers guidance to readers for finding scholarships, emphasizing that contrary to popular belief, scholarships are accessible to everyone. The book also prompts individuals to reconsider whether attending college is the best path for them, presenting alternative options to achieve their goals without taking on excessive debt.

Points Shutler can speak to include:

• 4 loan-free ways to pay for college.
• Why reducing college debt starts with spending your time in college wisely—in classes and beyond.
• The absolutely crucial career skill you’ll never learn in college, and why it matters for paying off debt.
• Don’t buy the myth that you don’t qualify for scholarships. Here’s what to do instead.
• What’s your chance of getting an athletic scholarship? The sobering numbers.
• Why your best networking opportunities don’t come from peers in college.

Advance Praise for Graduate Debt Free

“Graduate Debt Free: Escaping the Student Loan Matrix shines a bright light on the mental assumptions that students and their families operate from, and it shows how those assumptions can lead them astray. It does this in a most disarming manner. It is, at the same time, a breezy read for high school students, a sobering guide for their parents, and a well-researched brief for education professionals.” —Mark Kantrowitz, director, MIT Research Science Institute; nationally-recognized authority on student financial aid, scholarships and student loans.

“Graduate Debt Free should be read by all high school students and their parents before their first college visit. Shutler debunks the myth that everyone needs a college education in order to be financially secure. Read this book as your defense against the groupthink that encourages people to blindly follow like lemmings into the crippling abyss of debt.” —Brian M. Ursu, CFP, President, Intentional Wealth Advisors, LLC, and author of Now What? A Practical Guide to Figuring Out Your Financial Future

“Graduate Debt Free is essential reading for parents and high school students who plan to attend college, particularly Hispanic students. Shutler’s book is a nuts-and-bolts guide to help them navigate the entire journey of deciding where to go and what to do after high school. For families trying to make wise decisions about colleges and careers, this book offers data-backed tools to help them tackle the decision process. Get this book and open up a healthy family discussion about avoiding student debt.” —Estela Rodriguez, MA Ed., former professor and author of Youth and Professional Counseling, Aubrey, TX

About Dave Shutler

David F. Shutler served as a lawyer in the U.S. Air Force before retiring as a Colonel in 1999. After retiring, he worked as a business developer for a large corporation, ran a private law practice, and founded a construction company focused on saving energy. In the last five years, he launched a data analytics company, a candy manufacturing company, and a commercial real estate venture.    He holds a Bachelor’s degree in English from Duke, a Juris Doctor from Penn State Dickinson Law, and a Master’s in Business Administration from University of Nebraska.  Compelled to solve the college debt puzzle by his experience as a parent of three college graduates who struggled with debt, he spent many years researching the student debt debacle before writing his book, Graduate Debt Free: Escaping the Student Loan Matrix.  He lives in Dallas with his wife Katie.

*

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

---

Graduate Debt Free: Escaping the Student Loan Matrix

By David F. Shutler

Publisher: ‎Greenleaf Book Group Press (August 15, 2023)

ISBN-13: ‎979-8886450705

In his new book, Dave Shutler analyzes twelve faulty assumptions about obtaining a higher education and shows how they can lead to debilitating college debt. Analogizing to the two realities in the Matrix movies, he reveals underlying facts about the assumptions to high schoolers and their parents.

These assumptions range from deciding whether to attend college in the first place, to the importance of selecting a major, to how to minimize college living costs. This book is a systematic guide to the many misconceptions that students hold in the college application process. Shutler analyzes each misconception, showing how it can lead to debt, and then provides strategies to escape that debt.

Dave Shutler sheds light on scholarships and other significant funding sources that are available for the enterprising student and explores the federal laws that govern student debt. He identifies underlying policy decisions that have contributed to the $1.7 trillion federal debt burden and offers several strategies to help individuals navigate student debt without succumbing to it.

Through planning, students can take charge of their education and escape the matrix of ever-increasing college costs.

Click here to purchase.

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

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

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

***

About a week ago, the UN Human Rights Czar in Geneva issued a stern warning – “Up to 80 million people will be plunged into hunger if climate targets are not met”.

These are the words of Volker Turk, the head of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland. He spoke at a Human Rights event, and highlighted as principal cause for this coming calamity – what else – “climate change”. He said,

“extreme weather events were having a significant negative impact on crops, herds and ecosystems, prompting further concerns about global food availability.”

This is immediately proven by never-before-in-history extreme floods in Vermont, USA, by extreme droughts in Europe and Central – Western USA and by enormous, never-before experienced – forest fires in Canada. More is already announced – extreme Monsoon rains in India, and possibly Bangladesh. What a coincidence. Except, there are no coincidences. Droughts and gigantic flashfloods, in calculated interchange. No coincidences.

Most people of this globe just simply cannot believe how evil some non-people are. The Covid crime and the vaccination genocide was not enough to open their eyes, that their governments cannot be trusted, that they are sold, either by money or by threats, to an extreme evil power, a Depopulation, a Eugenics Cult which is behind it all.

Mr. Turk went on claiming,

“More than 828 million people faced hunger in 2021, and climate change is projected to place up to 80 million more people at risk of hunger by the middle of this century.”

Further contributing to the drama, he added, “Our environment is burning. It’s melting. It’s depleting. It’s drying. It’s dying”; and that these factors will combine to lead humanity towards a “dystopian future” unless urgent and immediate action is taken by environmental policymakers.

And then came the MUST reference to the 2015 (COP) Paris Agreement often referred to as the Paris Climate Accords, which were adopted by 196 parties at the time. COP means “Conference of the Parties”. Adding to the confusion of UN jargons, it refers to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), whose signatories agreed to cap global warming below 2 degrees celsius above the 1850-1900 levels – or to 1.5 degrees celsius if possible. Does anyone understand the language to carry out this easy task?

Such an arrogant statement – humans making the weather with their sheer lifestyles – should already ring a strong bell in a clear-thinking mind of normal humans, but it doesn’t, because our pineal gland for logical thinking and perception of emotions has been gradually dumbed, reduced, even killed in some people with chemicals we eat regularly und imperceptibly in our daily food, chemicals sprayed from the air via chemtrails, “disinfectant” chemicals in the water, the uncountable PCR tests, with absolutely scientifically proven unnecessary sticks up the nose, to the thin separation between nose and brain – and pineal gland — and more.

To dull our sentiments and perception is a long-term goal that “our Masters” have been working on for the last at least hundred years – or longer.

Dulled minds are easier to manipulate. Add to this DARPA’s MK-Ultra and Monarch mind-manipulation program and we know why we are where we are.

Our mental desensitization is the product of a long-term plan, namely precisely the plan that is currently being implemented by the WEF’s Great Reset and the UN Agenda 2030. That just shows that the UN is totally compromised by a “deep state” system, or Diabolical Cult that is way stronger than all our international agencies together.

Incidentally, Bill Gates said once in an interview that even should he “disappear”, the system goes on; it had been prepared for a century or more. You won’t find this reference anymore anywhere on internet. But this is the level of well-planned evil that we are facing NOW – The Great Reset, the UN Agenda 2030, and the all-digitizing 4^th Industrial Revolution. All executed by the World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations, and the World Health Organization (WHO).

They are the willing forefront of an enormously powerful financial behemoth which wants to stay in the dark, both literally and figuratively. Those who work the buttons for the Monster, have been promised “paradise”, or being part of the elite. Enough to buy their soul.

This financial elite system is controlling every sector of production, of food supply, of energy availability, and, indeed, of “climate change”. Yes, man-made climate change, but not the type that is supposedly carbon-based and depending on the human carbon footprint.

We are talking about highly sophisticated Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD), that are and have been causing extreme monsoons in Pakistan last year, this year already announced in India and possibly Bangladesh, and wherever an unruly population needs to be reined in, and where basic infrastructure and housing, as well as food crops must be destroyed, in order to create human misery, famine and death – and as a byproduct human obedience.

Would anybody like to pretend that Mr. Human Rights, Mr. Turk, when he speaks at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, does not know the facts? He is betraying the very people he has been mandated to defend and protect.

Massive depopulation, meaning, worldwide genocide, never seen before in human history – currently ongoing – it is Number One of the REAL 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), i.e. UN Agenda 2030. What the 17 SDGs say on the surface is but a smoke screen. The real meaning is reflected in this depiction – in Spanish – from Thereal2030.org – see this.

What Mr. Turk, Human Rights advocate, is saying goes exactly in the opposite direction of Human Rights. Mr. Turk, as the UN defender of Human Rights, the world’s highest Human Rights Officer, instead of protecting humans, he is sending them to death with the “climate change” narrative, with the false pretense that climate change will create and increase massive famine and death, if humanity and their leaders will not adhere to the 2015 Paris Climate Agreements.

This narrative is correct when applied to the since the 1940’s scientifically developed, today highly sophisticated ENMOD technologies. But people do not know, they are on purpose being indoctrinated that the “climate change” which they live is the result of humanities excessive carbon footprint. That is an absolute lie.

Mr. Turk, like all those who order him to help reduce humanity rather than protect humanity, knows very well that humans cannot change the climate by reducing the carbon footprint, because the human carbon footprint has an absolute minimal impact on what is called “global warming” or “climate change”.

Even if humanity would reach a “net zero carbon emission”, the climate would keep changing as it did for the about 4 billion years Mother Earth exists. The earth, like all the planets in the universe are dynamic beings, lives, if you will.

The climate is not influenced by humans, but to more than 97% by the sun, by sun movements. This is attested by any serious scientist – and more and more of those come to the fore to confront the ever-growing climate crime. And these sun-influenced dynamic changes are slow processes, over thousands of years, not noticeable within the extremely short time span of a human life.

Today, the world’s total energy use is still based to about 85% on hydrocarbons, and unless the world economy is made to completely collapse by the infamous slogan of “net zero carbon use”, or there is a sudden breakthrough in converting the endless sun energy by photo synthesis to energy, what the plants do, humanity’s survival depends on hydrocarbons for many more years to come.

Dear Mr. Turk, Defender of Huma Rights – you must know this, in the high position you are honored to hold, don’t you?

Where is your conscience, Mr. Turk, when you ring the alarm bell on innocent, already deprived people with famine, with a rapid increase of famine, and consequently with a rapid increase of death resulting from famine, when YOU know that the only man-made climate change is the one nobody talks about, the one emanating from the man-made ENMOD technologies.

The science of ENMOD, including HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) is being weaponized, has been gradually weaponized for years. The science is known since the 1940’s and has been perfected to sophistication since then. It can even trigger earthquakes – has done so already on several occasions – killing thousands of people, leaving the masses under the impression that they became victims of a “natural event”.

ENMOD is weaponizing the climate.

The technologies of environmental modification can be and are applied clandestinely, most people have no clue what happens, when for example western summers are hot and dry like never before, when forests burn – put aflame by paid arsonists – and pollute the air for weeks and over thousands of square kilometers, when sudden, mighty thunderstorms bring flash-floods to overheated and dried out soil to slam down the final stroke to food crop destruction.

The media tells them: Claim it on “climate change” and help reduce your carbon foot print, do not eat meat, do not drive cars, do not fly, stay home, adapt to a modern lockdown. The new 15-minute cities are ideal for you, the commons.

Have you noticed how commercial flying is gradually becoming unaffordable for the common people, while of course, the rich and famous, the all-commanding elite couldn’t care less and keep using all the more their private jets to roam around the globe. Their carbon footprint is immaterial.

They laugh at the commons whose brains, and especially pineal glands, have been dulled by 5G ultra-microwaves, chemtrail-chemicals, water disinfectants – and more – so that the majority still falls for their governments lies that they better follow the rules, the “rules-based order” that replaced constitutional laws, or else.

Has anybody noticed? Nations’ constitutional laws are being ignored. No judge in the world would uphold them against the elite-led order.

Mr. Turk, in your recent Human Rights advocacy speech in Geneva, you did not address the latest craziness and ultimate crime on humanity, the Washington and EU idea to block out the sunlight to cool down the earth. For the sake of saving humanity from “climate change”.

See this and this.

Scientists have warned of devastating effects of climate “geoengineering”. Yet, the Human Rights Council has not brought it up. It is an unspeakable crime on Human Rights – as such weather and climate manipulation would abridge every Human Right.

Can you imagine what that would mean? Of course, instead of having a cooling effect to preserve the earth’s temperature within the 2015 Paris Accord – an absurdity in the first place — it would have a disastrous killer effect. Every life form needs the sun and dies without it.

Blocking out the sunlight would be the ultimate killing machine to reach the Number One SDG drastically reduce the world population. You missed that one, Mr. Human Rights.

How can you sleep at night, Mr. Turk, scaring already desperately poor and undernourished people with more famine, because they and their governments do not follow the 2015 Paris climate rules, so they may face death?

Maybe your pineal gland, Mr. Turk, has also been killed and you have no longer any feelings for Human Rights, reason enough for having been placed into the position of the Human Rights czar.

The UN Human Rights Council’s 53rd session ends on July 14. Thus, there are still a couple of days left to right your wrongs, Mr. Turk and your HR Council colleagues.

If not, We, the People, will do everything in our peaceful and spiritual minds to stop this climate crime, including divulging the real agenda behind the 17 SDGs and behind the illegal UN Agenda 2030, the WEF’s Great Reset. We will be a critical mass to bring back decency and harmony to human life.

*

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

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

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing. 

Featured image: Volker Turk (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)

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

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

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

***

Western analysts are encouraging NATO’s direct participation in the conflict. On July 8, foreign affairs commentator Simon Tisdall published an article in The Guardian called “Defeat for Ukraine would be a global disaster. Nato must finally step in to stop Russia“. He argues that Ukraine’s entry into NATO should be accelerated, with a process similar to the one that guaranteed Finland’s accession. According to him, this is the proper way to avoid Kiev’s defeat and the failure of the “counteroffensive”, since the direct support of the alliance supposedly would make a Ukrainian victory possible.

Source: The Guardian

“There’s a risk, if the current counteroffensive produces no breakthrough, weapons supplies run short, a new winter energy crisis strikes and western public support drops further, that Zelenskiy will be forced into negotiations – even into trading territory for peace. Secret, informal US-Russia talks are already under way. If Ukraine were already a Nato member, as promised 15 years ago, all this would not be happening”, he said.

The author believes in the possibility of accepting Ukraine even during the situation of the conflict. One of Tisdall’s arguments is that there are “historical precedents” for the Ukrainian case. Then, he reminds West Germany’s accession to NATO, which took place in the 1950s, still during the absence of German national unity.

“But there are precedents. West Germany gained Nato protection in 1955 even though, like Ukraine, it was in dispute over occupied sovereign territory – held by East Germany, a Soviet puppet. In similar fashion, Nato’s defensive umbrella could reasonably be extended to cover the roughly 85% of Ukrainian territory Kyiv currently controls”, he added.

Tisdall criticizes the posture of American and Western European leaders, who have been cautious, avoiding hasty decisions. The author does not see any validity in the existence of concerns about the possible impacts of Ukraine joining the bloc, stating that the actions of Western politicians are “rooted in American and west European fears that Putin, provoked, might attack the west”.

On the other hand, the analyst praises the posture of the NATO’s Eastern European countries. According to him, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia – the so called “Bucharest Nine” – have a “thankfully more robust” stance than Westerners. With this, Tisdall endorses the fanatical anti-Russian state ideology that currently prevails in that region.

In addition, Tisdall mentions in a positive way the opinion of former NATO Secretary General Anders Rasmussen. In June, Rasmussen stated that, if the NATO summit in Vilnius does not manage to change the Ukrainian situation, the eastern countries will certainly start to take individual actions to support Ukraine with troops on the ground.

“If NATO cannot agree on a clear path forward for Ukraine, there is a clear possibility that some countries individually might take action. We know that Poland is very engaged in providing concrete assistance to Ukraine. And I wouldn’t exclude the possibility that Poland would engage even stronger in this context on a national basis and be followed by the Baltic states, maybe including the possibility of troops on the ground … I think the Poles would seriously consider going in and assemble a coalition of the willing if Ukraine doesn’t get anything in Vilnius”, Rasmussen said on the occasion.

Indeed, considering all these factors, what appears to be happening in this case is an attempt by the pro-war western media to pressure NATO’s decision makers to advance the direct intervention agenda during the summit in Vilnius. From a strategic point of view, the pressure is meaningless and does not seem to have any effect, as NATO obviously does not plan to sacrifice its regular forces in favor of a proxy state. However, Tisdall and other pro-war international “experts” have no military experience, being just fanatical defenders of the so-called [Western] “rules-based order”, supporting any military measure necessary to prevent relevant geopolitical changes.

There is a clear absence of a realistic perspective in Tisdall’s words, with several mistakes in his analysis. For example, he tries to show a similarity of cases between present-day Ukraine and Germany in the 1950s, which does not exist. Although divided, Germany at the time was not in a situation of open conflict, which invalidates his narrative.

However, it must be admitted that in fact the direct involvement of Poland and the Baltics seems to be close to reality, as warned by Rasmussen. While analysts like Tisdall approve this anti-Russian disposition of some Eastern European countries, in reality it only tends to do them harm. Some post-communist states went through a process of extreme anti-Russian collective indoctrination, resulting in phenomena such as the rehabilitation of Nazism and the real desire for war against Moscow.

The problem is that NATO does not seem interested in helping them in such a work. For the alliance, what matters is keeping aggression against Russia restricted to non-member countries, which is why the bloc arms Ukraine and incites violence in Georgia and Moldova to open new flanks. The involvement of Western regular troops would be negative, as a direct war against Russia does not seem to be winnable.

Polish and Baltic authorities, however, seem willing to take irrational and anti-strategic actions to defend the Kiev regime. They believe that if it escalates, NATO will defend them from Russian responses, but this does not seem so sure to happen, as the alliance wants to avoid involving its troops in direct war. It remains to be seen how the other NATO countries would react to seeing the alliance disrespecting the collective defense pact.

Indeed, supporting NATO’s direct intervention is supporting the start of WW3. And, in the same vein, by supporting Poland and the Baltics individually going to war with Russia, Western analysts are unwittingly defending the path that could lead to the end of the alliance. The most rational and logical alternative is simply for NATO to accept the defeat in Ukraine and agree to negotiate with the emerging powers a new geopolitical reality.

*

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

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Alle Artikel von Global Research können in 51 Sprachen gelesen werden, indem Sie die Schaltfläche Website übersetzen unterhalb des Namens des Autors aktivieren.

Um den täglichen Newsletter von Global Research (ausgewählte Artikel) zu erhalten, klicken Sie hier.

Klicken Sie auf die Schaltfläche “Teilen”, um diesen Artikel per E-Mail an Ihre Freunde und Kollegen weiterzuleiten. Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Sie können die Artikel von Global Research gerne weiterveröffentlichen und mit anderen teilen.

***

Das Vorbild unserer Generation nach zwei Weltkriegen

Die Zeit ist wieder „aus den Fugen“ (Shakespeare) wie vor dem Ersten und Zweiten Weltkrieg. Doch es scheint so, als ob wir Bürger wiederum nicht wissen, was in dieser brandgefährlichen Situation zu tun ist. Vor allem die Intellektuellen unter uns haben eine viel größere Verantwortung, als man gemeinhin wahrhaben möchte, denn es wäre ihre Pflicht, für die anderen Menschen zu denken und mit der Freiheit des Denkens die Freiheit überhaupt zu proklamieren.

Kleinmut und Unentschlossenheit gut informierter Erwachsener sowie die Uneinigkeit bezüglich geltender Werte in der Kultur wirken sich vor allem auf die heimatlose Jugend extrem negativ aus. Sie findet dadurch bei Eltern, Lehrern und Ausbildnern keine Orientierung und keinen emotionalen Halt.

In einem SPIEGEL-Artikel vom 08.07.2023 heißt es:

„Bei uns haben sich die Kinder von der Zukunft verabschiedet“ (1)

Der Artikel beschreibt das veränderte Land Frankreich nach dem tödlichen Polizeischuss auf Nahel M. Es geht um Wut und Zerstörung der jungen Generation, für die das Wort „Égalité“ wie Hohn klingt und die sich fragt, was zur Hölle hier eigentlich passiert. 

Doch diese verzweifelte Stimmung lässt sich auch auf die Jugend anderer Länder übertragen.

Anstatt dass wir Erwachsenen dafür sorgen, dass dieser verheerende Krieg in der Ukraine gestoppt und kein neuer Weltkrieg ausgelöst wird, halten wir als Eltern und Erzieher an einem strengen bis autoritäre Erziehungsstil fest, der bei den Heranwachsenden Ängste vor den Mitmenschen auslöst und sie daran hindert, sich mit ihnen zu assoziieren. In der Schule wird keine psychologische Bildung vermittelt, die die Heranwachsenden lehrt, wie sie leben sollen und können.

Hinzu kommen Irritationen, die Bürgerinnen und Bürger sprachlos machen. Zum Beispiel wird die Freigabe psychodelischer Drogen diskutiert, die das Bewusstsein der Menschen verändern. Empfohlen wird auch die Einrichtung abgeschotteter „Körper-Erkundungsräume“ für Dreijährige und die Masturbation und Homosexualität bei kleinen Kindern (WHO) (2).

Dass sich diese abartigen Empfehlungen auf die spätere Einstellung des Erwachsenen zum anderen Geschlecht auswirken, ist keine Frage: Starke Verunsicherung, Perversionen aller Art, Neurosen oder gänzliche Zurückgezogenheit vom anderen Geschlecht einschließlich Einzelgängertum können die Folge sein.

Aber nicht nur die Jugend ist von der offensichtlichen Hilflosigkeit der Erwachsenen-Welt betroffen, auch viele ältere Zeitgenossen selbst können die salbungsvollen und beschwichtigenden Kommentare in den regierungsnahen Medien nicht mehr hören und sehen.

Es kann doch nicht allen Ernstes behauptet werden, dass dieser Stellvertreter-Krieg der US-NATO gegen Russland in der Ukraine, der Hektakomben von Menschenleben fordert, nicht sofort beendet und damit ein Dritter – höchstwahrscheinlich atomarer – Weltkrieg verhindert werden kann. Vielleicht gibt es noch die eine oder andere Großmutter, die glaubt, dass das anstehende Problem eines Tages vom amerikanischen, russischen oder chinesischen Präsidenten – oder von jemanden „ganz oben“ – gelöst und das eigene Land dabei verschont wird.

Eine friedliche Welt entsteht einzig und allein durch menschliche Entschlüsse 

Die wissenschaftlichen Ergebnisse der historischen, soziologischen und psychologischen Forschungen, die im Anschluss an die vergangenen Weltkriege in die Wege geleitet wurden, dürften doch inzwischen in allen guten Stuben angekommen sein – nicht nur bei den Intellektuellen. Dadurch wissen wir, dass Kriege alleine von machtbesessenen Herrschern aller Couleur angezettelt und geführt werden, weil sie ein gutes Geschäft sind.

Eine Welt ohne Gewalt, ohne Waffen und Kriege kann einzig und allein durch den Entschluss der Menschen realisiert werden, durch ein Denken und Handeln, das sich am Ideal des Friedens und der Gerechtigkeit orientiert. Und diese Reduzierung der Gewalt muss noch heute erfolgen. Die Geschichte strebt durch ihr Eigengesetzlichkeit nicht selbst zum Frieden – quasi über unsere Köpfe hinweg.

Wenn das Volk, das sich nichts sehnlicher wünscht, als in Frieden und Freiheit zu leben, aus nachvollziehbaren Gründen nicht gefragt wird, dann müssen sich die verantwortungsvollen Bürger dieses Volkes mutig und möglichst mit einer Stimme selbst zu Wort melden. Noch immer wählen wir Jahr für Jahr Politiker, die im Namen ihrer Auftraggeber gegen souveräne Staaten Krieg führen (3). Dabei ist uns bekannt, dass in der Regel die gewalttätigsten, sittenlosesten und vor allem die größten Lügner unter ihnen gewählt werden (Tolstoi).

Also – wie wollen wir es halten? Wollen wir warten, bis das Undenkbare eintrifft und große Teile der Menschheit ausgelöscht werden? Oder wollen wir bereits heute dem aufkommenden Faschismus entschieden und mit vereinten Kräften entgegentreten?

Dass der Mensch unbewusste Gefühle hat und Verhaltensweise zeigt, die ihm selbst und der gesamten Gesellschaft Schaden zufügen können, wissen wir seit Siegmund Freud. Dieser Umstand darf jedoch nicht als Entschuldigung dienen, dass wir nicht entschieden „NEIN!“ sagen zu jeglichem Wahnsinn wie dem Krieg.

Unsere unbewussten Gefühle können jederzeit durch eine Psychotherapie bewusst gemacht werden, damit wir einen realistischen Blick auf uns selbst, auf unsere Mitmenschen und auf die gesamte Gesellschaftsordnung bekommen (4).

*

Hinweis an die Leser: Bitte klicken Sie auf die obigen Schaltflächen zum Teilen. Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Fühlen Sie sich frei, Artikel von Global Research erneut zu veröffentlichen und zu teilen. 

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel ist Schul-Rektor, Erziehungswissenschaftler und Diplom-Psychologe. Nach seinen Universitätsstudien wurde er wissenschaftlicher Lehrer in der Erwachsenenbildung. Als Pensionär arbeitete er als Psychotherapeut in eigener Praxis. In seinen Büchern und Fachartikeln fordert er eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung sowie eine Erziehung zu Gemeinsinn und Frieden. Für seine Verdienste um Serbien bekam er 2021 von den Universitäten Belgrad und Novi Sad den Republik-Preis „Kapitän Misa Anastasijevic“ verliehen.

Er schreibt regelmäßig für Global Research.

Noten 

1. https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/frankreich-das-land-nach-dem-toedlichen-polizeischuss-auf-nahel-m-a-baefOedfq-1203-4f2a-bd75-bd1cc56Oe6c4

2. https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/brasiliens-praesident-bolsona…nd-homosexualitaet-bei-kleinen-kindern_id-11944595.html?

3. https://www.manova.news/artikel/der-selbstgewahlte-untergang

4. https://www.manova.news/artikel/das-seelenstethoskop

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

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

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

***

The Role Model of Our Generation After Two World Wars

Time is again “out of joint” (Shakespeare) as it was before the First and Second World Wars. Yet it seems that we citizens again do not know what to do in this incendiary situation. Above all, the intellectuals among us have a much greater responsibility than one would generally like to admit, because it would be their duty to think for the other people and to proclaim freedom in general with the freedom of thought.

Pusillanimity and indecisiveness of well-informed adults as well as disagreement about valid values in the culture have an extremely negative effect especially on homeless youth. As a result, they find no orientation and no emotional support from parents, teachers and educators.

A SPIEGEL article from 08.07.2023 states:

“In our country, children have said goodbye to the future” (1).

The article describes the changed country of France after the fatal police shooting of Nahel M. It is about the anger and destruction of the young generation, for whom the word “Égalité” sounds like a mockery and who ask themselves what the hell is actually happening here.

But this desperate mood can also be transferred to the youth of other countries.

Instead of us adults ensuring that this devastating war in Ukraine is stopped and that a new world war is not triggered, we as parents and educators cling to a strict to authoritarian style of upbringing that triggers fears in adolescents about their fellow human beings and prevents them from associating with them. School does not provide a psychological education that teaches adolescents how they should and can live.

In addition, there are irritations that leave citizens speechless. For example, the release of psychedelic drugs that change people’s consciousness is being discussed. The establishment of secluded “body exploration rooms” for three-year-olds and masturbation and homosexuality in young children are also recommended (WHO) (2).

There is no question that these deviant recommendations have an impact on the adult’s later attitude towards the opposite sex: severe insecurity, perversions of all kinds, neuroses or complete withdrawal from the opposite sex, including lonerism, can be the result.

But not only young people are affected by the obvious helplessness of the adult world; many older contemporaries themselves can no longer hear or see the unctuous and appeasing comments in the pro-government media.

It cannot be seriously claimed that this proxy war of the US-NATO against Russia in Ukraine, which is claiming hectacombs of human lives, cannot be ended immediately and thus a third – most likely nuclear – world war prevented. Perhaps there are still one or two grandmothers who believe that the problem at hand will one day be solved by the American, Russian or Chinese president – or by someone “at the top” – and that their own country will be spared in the process.

A Peaceful World Is Created Solely by Human Decisions

The scientific results of the historical, sociological and psychological research that was initiated in the wake of the past world wars should have reached all good rooms by now – not only among intellectuals. Thus we know that wars are instigated and waged solely by power-obsessed rulers of all stripes because they are good business.

A world without violence, without weapons and wars can only be realised by the decision of the people, by thinking and acting in accordance with the ideal of peace and justice. And this reduction of violence must still take place today. History, by its very law, does not strive for peace itself – over our heads, as it were.

If the people, who want nothing more than to live in peace and freedom, are not asked for understandable reasons, then the responsible citizens of this people must speak out courageously and, if possible, with one voice themselves. Year after year we still elect politicians who wage war against sovereign states in the name of their patrons (3). Yet we know that as a rule the most violent, the most immoral and, above all, the biggest liars are elected among them (Tolstoy).

So – how do we want to hold it? Do we want to wait until the unthinkable happens and large parts of humanity are wiped out? Or do we want to oppose the rising fascism decisively and with united forces already today?

We have known since Siegmund Freud that human beings have unconscious feelings and show behaviour that can harm themselves and society as a whole. However, this fact must not be used as an excuse for not saying a firm “NO!” to any madness like war.

Our unconscious feelings can always be made conscious through psychotherapy so that we can get a realistic view of ourselves, of our fellow human beings and of the entire social order (4).

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel is a school rector, educational scientist and qualified psychologist. After his university studies, he became an academic teacher in adult education. As a retiree he worked as a psychotherapist in his own practice. In his books and professional articles, he calls for a conscious ethical-moral education in values as well as an education for public spirit and peace. For his services to Serbia, he was awarded the Republic Prize “Captain Misa Anastasijevic” by the Universities of Belgrade and Novi Sad in 2021.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

(1) https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/frankreich-das-land-nach-dem-toedlichen-polizeischuss-auf-nahel-m-a-baefOedfq-1203-4f2a-bd75-bd1cc56Oe6c4

(2) https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/brasiliens-praesident-bolsona…nd-homosexualitaet-bei-kleinen-kindern_id-11944595.html?

(3) https://www.manova.news/artikel/der-selbstgewahlte-untergang

(4) https://www.manova.news/artikel/das-seelenstethoskop

Featured image is from Andrew Korybko

 

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

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

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

***

I have over 50 quotes from globalist leaders, both past and present, that clearly state their disdain for the average person and their desire to exterminate as many as possible. If you would like more exposure to this ideology, you may simple use the search engine on this site and research depopulation.

The CSS has over 50 pages devoted to depopulation. This tremendous volume on this topic, in which the American people have little knowledge, serves as the testament to the notion that you can lead people to knowledge, but you can’t make them think. The following few quotes, both from very influential globalists and/or their organizations, set the tone for the direction that humanity is being taken under the so-called covid crisis: THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION HAS ANNOUNCED PLANS TO IMPLEMENT A GLOBAL DIGITAL VACCINE PASSPORT WHICH IS ENDORSED BY THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION. QUIETLY 

No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation.” David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations

The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary.” Initiative for the United Nations ECO-92 EARTH CHARTER

“One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline would be ideal.”Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major United Nations contributor

“Cannibalism is a radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation”  Prince Philip

“Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries”  Henry Kissinger

How Will the People be Exterminated?

From 1988 to the present we have dealt with the potential of FEMA Camps. FM 39.4, which emerged in 2008 documentation as these documents demonstrated that the powers that be will have no compunction to lock any dissidents away. In fact, we are witnessing the rollout of of so-called covid isolation camps across English-speaking nations. The final disposition for most of humanity will be brutal and inhumane as America will soon contend with gassing and guillotines. You say you don’t believe in guillotines? Consider the following:

In a previous radio interview with Steve Quayle, he said two very disturbing things. The first was how very close the Deep State is to totally taking over and the second, was that his research, from years ago, discovered that FEMA camps would become beheading facilities.

I have since been told and have been able to confirm FEMA’s Billing Code for Death by Guillotine is ICD9-E978. This would be the FEMA billing code as in the FEMA camp.

The life insurance companies are going broke paying claims for premature deaths caused by the spin-off effects of the jab. Since the advent of covid, US life expectancy has decreased by two years. Privately, the life insurance companies are greatly distressed, but they will not publicly complain because their overt behaviors are controlled by Blackrock’s ESG ratings! And let’s not forget Fauci’s gain of function research. This is all planned depopulation along with radical post-term abortion and the celebration of any lifestyle that does not end procreation!  If one really wants to get an accurate glimpse of what the funders of Fauci’s Gain of Function research want to do to you, please look at this:

Previously, I published the fact that FEMA had previously imported Hydrogen Cyanide from Brazil beginning in 2011. Because FEMA feared discovery, they began to label the containers as anything but other than what they really were. Many people chose to not believe the report. However, I have discovered OSHA documentation which completely validates the claim. Further, based upon my claim, two readers of

The Common Sense Show sent me similar documents which validate the claim that FEMA is stockpiling deadly gas which has been used in warfare and to execute prisoners in Nazi concentration camps.  FEMA does not engage in warfare against foreign countries, therefore, this gas could only have one purpose, to kill FEMA camps detainees! Here is the smoking gun document followed by a contextual background analysis blended with contemporary events. There can be no question that the Deep State is anticipating victory, through a  coup against the Constitution and their subsequent pandemic exceptions to our civil liberties. This is a reward for resistance against their illegitimate authority. A special thanks to Pam, Maria, and Jim for sending this to me in their collective and previous communications.

Further, didn’t a World Health Organization official state that it was time to go door-to-door and begin collecting symptomatic people and taking them to the camps, and isn’t that happening in Canada, New Zealand, and Australia?  

And please let me remind the readers that I wrote about the ruse that is a FEMA Medical Camp in which no medical treatments are made available, they are death camps, plain and simple and the CSS has previously stated the same on many occasions. The following became public, if one knew where to look, during the Obama years.

Documentation Proving FEMA Is Importing Hydrogen Cyanide

NON-FLAMMABLE GAS MIXTURE MSDS – 50024 EFFECTIVE DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2011 PAGE 1 OF 5 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Prepared to U.S. OSHA, CMA, ANSI and Canadian WHMIS Standards 1. PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION CHEMICAL NAME; CLASS: NON-FLAMMABLE GAS MIXTURE Containing the Following Component in a Nitrogen Balance Gas: Hydrogen Cyanide: 0.0001- 0.02% SYNONYMS: Not Applicable CHEMICAL FAMILY NAME: Not Applicable FORMULA: Not Applicable Document Number: 50024 Note: The Material Safety Data Sheet is for this gas mixture supplied in cylinders with 33 cubic feet (935 liters) or less gas capacity (DOT – 39 cylinders). This MSDS has been developed for various gas mixtures with the composition of components within the ranges listed in Section 2 (Composition and Information on Ingredients). Refer to the product label for information on the actual composition of the product. PRODUCT USE: Calibration of Monitoring and Research Equipment U.S. SUPPLIER/MANUFACTURER’S NAME: CALGAZ ADDRESS: 821 Chesapeake Drive Cambridge, MD 21613 BUSINESS PHONE: 1-410-228-6400 (8 a.m. to 5 p.m. U.S. EST) General MSDS Information: 1-713-868-0440 Fax on Demand: 1-800-231-1366 EMERGENCY PHONE: Chemtrec: United States/Canada/Puerto Rico: 1-800-424-9300 [24-hours] Chemtrec International: 1-703-527-3887 [24-hours]

2. COMPOSITION and INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS

CHEMICAL NAME CAS # mole % EXPOSURE LIMITS IN AIRACGIH-TLV OSHA NIOSH OTHER TWA STEL PEL STEL IDLH ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm

Hydrogen Cyanide 74-90-8 0.0001- 0.020%

NE 4.7(ceiling) [skin]10 (skin)4.7 (skin)50 NIOSH REL:STEL = 4.7 (skin) DFG MAKs: TWA = 11.9 (skin) PEAK = 5•MAK 30 min., averagevalue Nitrogen 7727-37-9 Balance There are no specific exposure limits for Nitrogen. Nitrogen is a simple asphyxiant (SA).Oxygen levels should be maintained above 19.5%.NE = Not Established. See Section 16 for Definitions of Terms Used. NOTE (1): ALL WHMIS required information is included in appropriate sections based on the ANSI Z400.1-1998 format. This gas mixture has been classified inaccordance with the hazard criteria of the CPR and the MSDS contains all the information required by the CPR.

3. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

EMERGENCY OVERVIEW: This gas mixture is a colorless gas which is odorless. Hydrogen Cyanide (a component of this gas mixture) is an extremely toxic gas; even brief over-exposures to relatively low doses may have significant health consequences. Acute low-level exposure can cause symptoms such as cyanosis, headache, dizziness, unsteadiness of gait, a feeling of suffocation and nausea. Additionally, releases of this gas mixture may produce oxygen-deficient atmospheres (especially in confined spaces or other poorly-ventilated environments); individuals in such atmospheres may be asphyxiated. SYMPTOMS OF OVER-EXPOSURE BY ROUTE OF EXPOSURE: The most significant route of over-exposure for this gas mixture is by inhalation, as well as eye and skin absorption. INHALATION: Due to the small size of an individual cylinder of this gas mixture, no unusual health effects from over-exposure to the product are anticipated under routine circumstances of use. The health hazards associated with this gas mixture are the potential for over-exposure to Hydrogen Cyanide (a component of this gas mixture) and oxygen displacement if this gas mixture is released in small, poorly-ventilated areas (i.e. enclosed or confined spaces). Hydrogen Cyanide is an extremely toxic gas. It is anticipated that, due to the low concentration (1-200 ppm) of Hydrogen Cyanide and the fact this gas mixture is quickly dissipated, employees will not be exposed to levels above those listed in Section 2 (Composition and Information on Ingredients). However, because Hydrogen Cyanide can produce significant health effects at relatively low levels, individuals using this gas mixture must be aware of the symptoms of over- exposure. Hydrogen Cyanide is a protoplasmic poison, combining in tissues with the enzymes associated with oxidation, thereby rendering oxygen unavailable to these tissues, and causing death by chemical asphyxiation. Exposure to low concentrations of this gas can cause headache, vertigo, irritation of the throat, difficulty breathing, reddening of eyes, salivation, nausea and vomiting. Chronic, low level exposure to Hydrogen Cyanide over long periods of time may lead to fatigue and weakness. Exposures to high concentrations of Hydrogen Cyanide gas produces symptoms including tachypnea (causing increased intake of cyanide), then dyspnea, weakness of arms and legs, paralysis, unconsciousness, convulsions and respiratory arrest. Exposure to 150 ppm for one-half to one hour may endanger life. In cases where the victim recovers, there is rarely any residual injury or disability. The action of Hydrogen Cyanide in cases of high concentration exposure is extremely rapid. Specific effects, based on the concentration of Hydrogen Cyanide, are presented below: CONCENTRATION OF HYDROGEN CYANIDE OBSERVED EFFECT 2-5 ppm Detectable odor threshold. 18-36 ppm Slight symptoms after several hours. 45-54 ppm Tolerated for 0.5-1 hour without immediate or delayed effects. 110-135 ppm Dangerous to life or fatal after 0.5-1 hour. 133 ppm Fatal after 30 minutes. 180 ppm Fatal after 10 minutes. 270 ppm Immediately fatal. NOTE: This gas mixture contains 1-200 ppm Hydrogen Cyanide. Data pertinent to higher concentrations of Hydrogen Cyanide are provided to give complete information on effects observed in humans after over-exposures have occurred. Additionally, under some circumstances, an oxygen-deficient environment may occur. Individuals breathing such an atmosphere may experience symptoms which include headaches, ringing in ears, dizziness, drowsiness, unconsciousness, nausea, vomiting, and depression of all the senses. The effects associated with various levels of oxygen are listed on the following page.

This is only a glimpse of what the super-spreaders of tyranny have planned for you and your family!

Revelations 18:1-24

After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was made bright with his glory. And he called out with a mighty voice, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast. For all nations have drunk the wine of the passion of her sexual immorality, and the kings of the earth have committed immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth have grown rich from the power of her luxurious living.” Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. …

Revelations 18:2

And he called out with a mighty voice, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast.

Among other things, murdering 70 million babies has an eternal price to pay, not to mention God’s wrath in just punishment for our demonic and deadly practices!

*

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

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

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

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

***

The Vilnius communiqué reveals that NATO is fizzling. See this.

The accession of Sweden into NATO was Biden’s last bid to avoid a complete embarrassment. Sweden is important not for Ukraine, but for the European security order after NATO’s loss of Ukraine.

Russia is NATO’s main enemy, and China is already next – words and bluster.

No promises to Ukraine. Zelensky is angry. See this.

Instant NATO-membership and intervention from the collective NATO was Zelensky’s last hope of survival.

As Ukraine goes down fast, all that NATO offers to Ukraine are crumbs.

12. The security of Ukraine is of great importance to Allies and the Alliance.  To support Ukraine’s further integration with NATO, today we have agreed a substantial package of expanded political and practical support.  We have decided to establish the NATO-Ukraine Council

Note the word “substantial”. Not an “unprecedented” package. Not even a “big” one.

To make sure everybody is clear that Ukraine will only get left-overs, Biden reiterates the NATO communiqué to give ”substantial” aid package to Ukraine. See this.

NATO is not only running out of stuff to give Ukraine. NATO is also running out of appetite to go on.

NATO Failures in Nice Packaging

Several words are put into the communiqué which reveal significant weaknesses in NATO. Reiteration of the “2% of GDP” for defense spending – revealing that spending is a serious issue, especially in Germany. Words about air defense – which NATO doesn’t have. Words about “energy” and “critical infrastructure” which NATO has a problem with. Words about “readiness” which NATO doesn’t have. Big plans for improving NATO, US, and EU defense industries, which have failed miserably. Big plans overall.

In spite of losing in Ukraine and not getting its act together in Europe, NATO does indeed want to rule the World.

Every region is becoming “strategic” for NATO. Including Africa, the Middle East, the Indian Ocean, the Pacific, and China.

NATO Bets on Technology

Special attention is worth putting on the paragraphs about TECHNOLOGY:

63. Emerging and disruptive technologies (EDTs) bring both opportunities and risks. They are altering the character of conflict, acquiring greater strategic importance and becoming key arenas of global competition. The operational importance of EDTs as well as of access to and adaptation of commercial technologies in current operations have been highlighted in the context of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. NATO’s strategic competitors and potential adversaries are investing heavily in technologies that can be highly effective, particularly in malign hybrid activities, and decisive in conflict.

We are accelerating our own efforts to ensure that the Alliance maintains its technological edge in emerging and disruptive technologies to retain our interoperability and military edge, including through dual-use solutions. We are working together to adopt and integrate new technologies, cooperate with the private sector, protect our innovation ecosystems, shape standards, and commit to principles of responsible use that reflect our democratic values and human rights. We will ensure that we act in accordance with international law and seek to build public trust. NATO’s Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA) has now launched its first challenges to start-ups in NATO countries.

To further develop our transatlantic innovation ecosystem, the NATO Innovation Fund, the world’s first multi-sovereign venture capital fund, will begin to invest in deep-tech in the coming months. Complementing the recently agreed strategies on Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy, NATO will develop further strategies for key emerging and disruptive technologies, including on Quantum Technologies and on Biotechnology and Human Enhancement to address the opportunities and risks they present.

There you have it.

AI.

Autonomous weapons.

Quantum.

Biotechnology! (Yes, biochemical weapons, genetic engineering.)

Human enhancement. (What is that? Genetic re-engineering of soldiers?)

These are big and some of them horrifying perspectives.

Russia and China are left behind… because they are barred access to modern chip technology. As I have mentioned before, their chips are down.

67. Space plays a critical role for the security and prosperity of our nations. Space is also an increasingly contested domain, marked by irresponsible behaviour, malicious activities, and the growth of counterspace capabilities by NATO’s potential adversaries and strategic competitors. Maintaining secure use and unfettered access to space is key to effective deterrence and defence. As part of our work on space as an operational domain, we are accelerating the integration of space into planning, exercising and executing joint and multi-domain operations in peacetime, crisis, and conflict in order to ensure space effects are coordinated across all domains.

As I have written, the US is achieving Space dominance while Russia and China sleep.

This is the situation.

NATO is fizzling. Ukraine is lost for NATO. And NATO knows it. China has the upper hand around Taiwan. And NATO knows that too. But technology is NATO’s ace.

As long as China is not capable of producing modern chips, China and Russia will sink back into the stone-age in technology. Lack of IT was one of the main reasons why the Soviet Union fell.

*

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

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: US General Bets On Technology – Karsten Riise

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

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

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

***

“There is now the capacity to make tyranny total in America.”― James Bamford, journalist

We’re all being targeted now.

We’re all guilty until proven innocent now.

And thanks to the 24/7 surveillance being carried out by the government’s spy network of fusion centers, we are all now sitting ducks, just waiting to be tagged, flagged, targeted, monitored, manipulated, investigated, interrogated, heckled and generally harassed by agents of the American police state.

Although these precrime programs are popping up all across the country, in small towns and big cities, they are not making us any safer but they are endangering individual freedoms.

Nationwide, there are upwards of 123 real-time crime centers (a.k.a. fusion centers), which allow local police agencies to upload and share massive amounts of surveillance data and intelligence with state and federal agencies culled from surveillance cameras, facial recognition technology, gunshot sensors, social media monitoring, drones and body cameras, and artificial intelligence-driven predictive policing algorithms.

These data fusion centers, which effectively create an electronic prison—a digital police state—from which there is no escape, are being built in partnership with big tech companies such as Microsoft, Google and Amazon, which helped to fuel the rise of police militarization and domestic surveillance.

While these latest expansions of the surveillance state are part of the Biden Administration’s efforts to combat domestic extremism through the creation of a “precrime” crime prevention agency, they have long been a pivotal part of the government’s plans for total control and dominion.

Yet this crime prevention campaign is not so much about making America safer as it is about ensuring that the government has the wherewithal to muzzle anti-government discontent, penalize anyone expressing anti-government sentiments, and preemptively nip in the bud any attempts by the populace to challenge the government’s authority or question its propaganda.

As J.D. Tuccille writes for Reason, “[A]t a time when government officials rage against ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ that is often just disagreement with whatever opinions are currently popular among the political class, fusion centers frequently scrutinize peaceful dissenting speech.”

Indeed, while the Biden Administration was recently dealt a legal blow over its attempts to urge social media companies to do more to combat so-called dis- and mis-information, these fusion centers are the unacknowledged powerhouses behind the government’s campaign to censors and retaliate against those who vocalize their disagreement and discontent with government policies.

Already, the powers-that-be are mobilizing to ensure that fusion centers have the ability to monitor and lockdown sectors of a community at a moment’s notice.

For instance, a 42,000-square-foot behemoth of a fusion center in downtown Washington is reportedly designed to “better prepare law enforcement for the next public health emergency or Jan. 6-style attack.” According to an agency spokeswoman, “Screens covering the walls of the new facility will show surveillance cameras around the city as well as social media accounts that may be monitored for threatening speech.”

It’s like a scene straight out of Steven Spielberg’s dystopian film Minority Report, set in 2054, where police agencies harvest intelligence from widespread surveillance, behavior prediction technologies, data mining, precognitive technology, and neighborhood and family snitch programs in order to capture would-be criminals before they can do any damage.

Incredibly, as the various nascent technologies employed and shared by the government and corporations alike—facial recognition, iris scanners, massive databases, behavior prediction software, and so on—are incorporated into a complex, interwoven cyber network aimed at tracking our movements, predicting our thoughts and controlling our behavior, the dystopian visions of past writers is fast becoming our reality.

Our world is now characterized by widespread surveillance, behavior prediction technologies, data mining, fusion centers, driverless cars, voice-controlled homes, facial recognition systems, cybugs and drones, and predictive policing (pre-crime) aimed at capturing would-be criminals before they can do any damage.

What once seemed futuristic no longer occupies the realm of science fiction.

The American police state’s take on the dystopian terrors foreshadowed by George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and Phillip K. Dick have all been rolled up into one oppressive pre-crime and pre-thought crime package.

In this way, the novel 1984 has become an operation manual for an omnipresent, modern-day surveillance state in which ordinary Americans find themselves labeled domestic extremists for engaging in lawful behavior that triggers the government’s precrime sensors.

The technocrats who run the surveillance state don’t even have to break a sweat while monitoring what you say, what you read, what you write, where you go, how much you spend, whom you support, and with whom you communicate and then classifying you as a danger.

Computers now do the tedious work of trolling social media, the internet, text messages and phone calls for potentially anti-government remarks, all of which is carefully recorded, documented, and stored to be used against you someday at a time and place of the government’s choosing.

In this way, with the help of automated eyes and ears, a growing arsenal of high-tech software, hardware and techniques, government propaganda urging Americans to turn into spies and snitches, as well as social media and behavior sensing software, government agents are spinning a sticky spider-web of threat assessments, behavioral sensing warnings, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports aimed at snaring potential enemies of the state.

It’s also a setup ripe for abuse.

For instance, an investigative report by the Brennan Center found that “Over the last two decades, leaked materials have shown fusion centers tracking protestors and casting peaceful activities as potential threats. Their targets have included racial justice and environmental advocates, right-wing activists, and third-party political candidates.”

One fusion center in Maine was found to have been “illegally collecting and sharing information about Maine residents who weren’t suspected of criminal activity. They included gun purchasers, people protesting the construction of a new power transmission line, the employees of a peacebuilding summer camp for teenagers, and even people who travelled to New York City frequently.”

In one Florida county, police have been using their precrime program to generate “lists of people it considers likely to break the law, based on arrest histories, unspecified intelligence and arbitrary decisions by police analysts.” Then, according to the Tampa Bay Times, deputies are deployed “to find and interrogate anyone whose name appears, often without probable cause, a search warrant or evidence of a specific crime. They swarm homes in the middle of the night, waking families and embarrassing people in front of their neighbors. They write tickets for missing mailbox numbers and overgrown grass, saddling residents with court dates and fines. They come again and again, making arrests for any reason they can.”

The goal? “Make their lives miserable until they move or sue.”

This is how the government is turning a nation of citizens into suspects and would-be criminals.

This transformation is being driven by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the agency notoriousfor militarizing the police and SWAT teams; spying on activists, dissidents and veterans; stockpiling ammunition; distributing license plate readers; contracting to build detention camps; tracking cell-phones with Stingray devices; carrying out military drills and lockdowns in American cities; using the TSA as an advance guard; conducting virtual strip searches with full-body scanners; carrying out soft target checkpoints; directing government workers to spy on Americans; conducting widespread spying networks using fusion centers; carrying out Constitution-free border control searches; funding city-wide surveillance cameras; and utilizing drones and other spybots.

Twenty years after being formed in the wake of 9/11, the DHS is a massive, costly, power-hungry bureaucracy working hard to ensure that the government is all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful.

Yet here’s the thing: you don’t have to do anything illegal or challenge the government’s authority in order to be flagged as a suspicious character, labeled an enemy of the state and locked up like a dangerous criminal.

In fact, all you need to do is use certain trigger words, surf the internet, communicate using a cell phone, drive a car, stay at a hotel, purchase materials at a hardware store, take flying or boating lessons, appear suspicious to a neighbor, question government authority, or generally live in the United States.

The following activities are guaranteed to get you censored, surveilled, eventually placed on a government watch list, possibly detained and potentially killed.

Use harmless trigger words like cloud, pork and pirates. Use a cell phone. Drive a car. Attend a political rally. Express yourself on social media. Serve in the military. Disagree with a law enforcement official. Call in sick to work. Limp or stutter. Appear confused or nervous, fidget, whistle or smell bad. Allow yourself to 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, for instance. Stare at a police officer. Appear to be pro-gun, pro-freedom or anti-government. Attend a public school. Speak truth to power.

It’s just a matter of time before you find yourself wrongly accused, investigated and confronted by police based on a data-driven algorithm or risk assessment culled together by a computer program run by artificial intelligence.

Before long, every household in America will be flagged as a threat and assigned a threat score.

Without having ever knowingly committed a crime or been convicted of one, you and your fellow citizens have likely been assessed for behaviors the government might consider devious, dangerous or concerning; assigned a threat score based on your associations, activities and viewpoints; and catalogued in a government database according to how you should be approached by police and other government agencies based on your particular threat level.

Combine predictive policing with surveillance, overcriminalization and precrime programs, then add in militarized police trained to shoot first and ask questions later, and as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, you’ll be lucky to escape with your life.

If you’re not scared yet, you should be.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

In early October last year, Kiev regime frontman Volodymyr Zelensky called on NATO to launch a “preemptive nuclear strike” on Russia in order to “rule out the possibility of using nuclear weapons”. At the time, the mainstream propaganda machine tried everything in its power to present his words as allegedly “misinterpreted”, but since there is actual footage of it, we’ll let you decide if he genuinely said so:

“What should NATO do? Eliminate the possibility of Russia using nuclear weapons. But what is important, I once again appeal to the international community, as it was before February 24: pre-emptive strikes, so that they know what will happen to them if used. And not vice versa – wait for Russia’s nuclear strikes, then to say: ‘Oh, you are so, well, keep it from us!’ Reconsider the application of their pressure, the procedure for applying,” Zelensky said during a video conference with the Australian Lowy Institute.

While the aforementioned propaganda narrative tried to whitewash (a standard practice for virtually anything the Neo-Nazi junta does) his statement about these “preemptive strikes” by claiming these supposedly “wouldn’t be nuclear”, this is openly implied in the comment itself. How else would it be possible to launch strikes against a nuclear power, much less the one with the world’s most powerful thermonuclear arsenal?

Why is this relevant now, approximately ten months later? Zelensky’s unhinged commentary is deeply dividing for virtually all NATO members, as none of them wants to be destroyed in minutes for the sake of a corrupt Neo-Nazi regime. The ongoing NATO summit in Vilnius makes Zelensky look no less delusional, as he threw yet another tantrum, complaining that the political West is “not doing enough” because it doesn’t want to make a firm promise to let the Kiev regime into NATO. Apparently, he is “deeply frustrated” with the regular pattern of the belligerent alliance making “pledges”, giving billions in so-called aid (over $170 billion, to be exact), promising to deliver F-16 fighter jets, while also expanding its military infrastructure in Eastern Europe.

Although NATO promised it will remove the Membership Action Plan (MAP) requirement for the Neo-Nazi junta, an unprecedented move by the aggressive alliance, Zelensky was still “furious at the alliance’s soft language on full membership”. He threw a fit at NATO, particularly at the United States, for refusing to lay out “a clear path” for the Kiev regime’s membership. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg previously promised to push for a fast-tracked process that would be implemented at some point in the future, when the belligerent alliance decides “it’s ready to seriously consider” the Neo-Nazi junta’s membership application. This explains why the MAP requirement was dropped.

What makes the move unprecedented is the fact that the MAP was a virtually mandatory agreement that all other NATO candidates had to implement since 1999. However, once again, this was “not enough” for Zelensky. Just before arriving in Vilnius and meeting there with Biden, Zelensky grumbled at all those “not ready” to make the membership happen as soon as possible (which is “now” according to his “logic”):

“This looks like there’s neither readiness to invite Ukraine to NATO nor make it a member of the alliance.”

He stated that “such an unprecedented and absurd outcome leaves an opportunity to make Ukraine’s NATO membership bid a trading chip in potential negotiations with Russia”, adding that “certain wording is being discussed without Ukraine” and that “all of this only plays into Russia’s hands”. He effectively accused his geopolitical masters of “opening the door for Russia to continue its terror”, saying:

“While at the same time vague wording about ‘conditions’ is added even for inviting Ukraine. It seems there is no readiness neither to invite Ukraine to NATO nor to make it a member of the Alliance. This means that a window of opportunity is being left to bargain Ukraine’s membership in NATO in negotiations with Russia. And for Russia, this means motivation to continue its terror. Uncertainty is weakness. And I will openly discuss this at the summit.”

Amid the embarrassingly disastrous performance of NATO weapons in the failed counteroffensive by the Kiev regime forces, the summit serves to present the belligerent alliance as “united”, although it’s more than clear that there are no battlefield successes the political West was desperate for its favorite puppet regime to achieve. Thus, yet another bureaucratic “success” was presented as “crucial” for the Neo-Nazi junta’s “eventual membership”, after “all conditions are met”. And the condition is – Kiev must defeat Moscow. This means that the much-touted NATO membership will certainly not happen at the Vilnius summit or anytime soon, as the belligerent alliance simply cannot give the Neo-Nazi junta any sort of security guarantee.

President Biden himself stated that the membership plan cannot be seriously considered until after the conflict is over, clearly implying that NATO’s Article 5 would be the main obstacle in the Kiev regime’s bid for membership.

“I don’t think there is unanimity in NATO about whether or not to bring Ukraine into the NATO family now, at this moment, in the middle of a war,” Biden told CNN just before going to Vilnius, adding: “For example, if you did that, then, you know – and I mean what I say – we’re determined to commit every inch of territory that is NATO territory. It’s a commitment that we’ve all made no matter what. If the war is going on, then we’re all in war. We’re at war with Russia, if that were the case.”

Rationality and Joe Biden are certainly not words one would expect to see in the same sentence, but in this case, at least some credit should be given to the US president, as this stance is the only rational one a leader of a global power can be expected to have. However, precisely this is what Zelensky is criticizing as a supposed “weakness”. For him, the “only rational” thing NATO should do is go into a full-scale war with Russia.

*

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

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

As a former intelligence officer, I’ve been wondering why has no one done an investigation about Volodymyr Zelensky, the President of Ukraine.

His rise to power, in my opinion, represents an incredible manipulation of world opinion that will go down in history as a classic case study in social psychological engineering: an ordinary comedian who came to power because he promised a long-awaited peace, who then dragged his fellow citizens into a bloody war that can only be described as a massacre.

With the help of colleagues and experts with first-hand insights into Zelensky, I have poured over documents and video to produce a film that captures this investigation. This story has so many twists and turns that I had to break it into two parts.

In the first episode, presented here, I will answer the question about Zelensky’s improbable rise to power, and how the Ukrainian President accumulated his vast wealth, a sum that has only become larger since the war with Russia began. And, perhaps most importantly, why I decided to call this film “Agent Zelensky.”

*

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

Featured image source

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

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

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

***

Following the Western sanctions that froze Russian assets abroad because of the special military operation in Ukraine, sovereign investors now prefer to hoard physical gold over derivatives or equity indexes (ETFs). According to a survey of central banks published on July 9, many countries want to bring their physical gold reserves back home to avoid Russian-style sanctions on their foreign assets.

In 2022 alone, central banks worldwide made record purchases of gold, a trend that was repeated in the first quarter of this year, according to research by asset manager Invesco. China and Turkey together accounted for nearly a fifth of these purchases.

The warning launched by the US and other Western countries, which decided to freeze Russian assets and are still looking for legal means to justify their thievery, led financial institutions to buy physical gold instead of derivatives or funds.

The Invesco survey found that 68% of central banks held part of their gold reserves domestically, up from 50% in 2020. The survey showed that that figure is expected to rise to 74% in five years.

Shortly after Moscow’s special military operation started, the European Union, the US and other G7 countries announced that they would impose sanctions on Russia’s central bank and prevent it from accessing around $300 billion in reserves held abroad.

Against this backdrop, global demand for gold reached an 11-year high of 4,741 tonnes in 2022, up from 3,678 tonnes in 2020. According to the World Gold Council, this drove central bank purchases and heightened retail investor interest. But while physical gold has been in strong demand, gold ETFs have seen combined outflows of nearly 300 tonnes in 2021 and 2022.

This is particularly important for countries attempting to decouple from Washington’s financial blackmail, especially in view of hundreds of billions of dollars in Russian assets becoming unreachable abroad in 2022 after the Ukraine crisis became a proxy war between NATO and Russia.

For his part, the Belgian prime minister announced on June 30 plans to collect €3 billion a year in windfall revenues from Russian assets frozen in the country’s coffers to give them to Ukraine for “reconstruction” purposes.

“We are working on a windfall tax,” Alexander de Croo told reporters after meeting with other EU leaders at the bloc’s summit in Brussels.

A day before the summit, De Croo explained that Belgium was “very involved” in the issue because more than 90% of Russian assets frozen in EU jurisdiction are in Belgian banks.

The European Commission estimated in May that the bloc froze more than €200 billion in assets belonging to the Central Bank of Russia, in addition to €24.1 billion belonging to companies, tycoons and other Russian individuals.

If the plan were to go ahead, it would constitute a double theft – firstly, by seizing the money, and secondly, by preventing Russia from collecting its due interest. The theft becomes aggravated with insult since the money will be given to financing Kiev’s war against Russia, and if the money is thus transferred by order of the EU member state, it will be an act of war since a country that provides financial support to another may be considered under international law as a party involved in the war.

Such theft would constitute a flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, and for EU member states, it would undermine the rule of law in Europe because if they can do it to Russia, they can do it to the assets of any citizen. The scheme shows that, in effect, no one is protected and that contracts between customers and banks in Western jurisdiction effectively mean nothing because they can be broken at will and for any reason. 

That, in turn, obviously threatens to undermine the credibility of Western banks among foreign depositors. As Invesco reported, the repercussions of such a policy are now being felt as countries put their trust in holding onto their own reserves of gold.

“We’ve now transferred our gold reserves back to our own country to keep it safe — its role now is to be a safe-haven asset,” an unnamed central bank in the West told Invesco, adding that they increased its gold holdings eight to 10 years ago and used to hold it in London.

These were the long-term repercussions of sanctioning Russia and freezing its assets that many experts warned about. However, it was expected that it would only be non-Western countries and institutions that would grow suspicious of Washington, London, and Brussels, thus demonstrating the short-sightedness of their policy as even institutions in the West have become suspicious. 

*

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

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

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

Since mRNA shots contain several novel technologies, they should be subject to more controls than conventional vaccines. Yet they aren’t. In fact, they’re not covered by any specific regulations

mRNA COVID shots are gene therapy, but not regulated as such. By slapping a fraudulent “vaccine” label on gene therapies, they are being developed outside of the regulatory framework that governs them

An alternative framework that could regulate mRNA shots would be Type1A pro-drug regulations, but they’re not being regulated as such either

Per the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s definition, gene therapy covers two modes of operation. It either alters the biological properties of living cells, and/or modifies your genes. This means that even if the product does not modify your genes, it’s still a gene therapy if it modifies the properties of cells, which is what the COVID shots do

Data show 1 in 3 Pfizer COVID shots administered in Denmark were placebo — and regulators must have known about it

*

While the COVID-19 shots are referred to as “vaccines,” they do not meet the classical definition of a vaccine. Health authorities needed to change the definition¹ to accommodate the COVID shots and shut down the argument that, as experimental gene therapies, they may be riskier than traditional vaccines.

Meanwhile, based on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s definition^2,3 of “gene therapy” they’re clearly gene therapies, and both Moderna⁴ and BioNTech⁵ acknowledge this in their Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registration statements.

In a 2014 paper,⁶ BioNTech founder Ugur Sahin also stated that “One would expect the classification of an mRNA drug to be a biologic, gene therapy or somatic cell therapy.”

Publicly, however, drug makers, regulators and, of course, the media, have been going to great lengths to make sure people don’t think of them that way. Now, a peer-reviewed paper^7,8 has weighed in on the controversy, stressing that mRNA COVID shots “should be labeled as gene therapy.”

mRNA Shots Are Gene Therapy, but Not Regulated as Such

As noted in this paper, published in the International Journal of Molecular Science, June 22, 2023:

“COVID-19 vaccines were developed and approved rapidly in response to the urgency created by the pandemic. No specific regulations existed at the time they were marketed. The regulatory agencies therefore adapted them as a matter of urgency.

Some of the tests they have undergone as vaccines have produced non-compliant results in terms of purity, quality and batch homogeneity. The wide and persistent biodistribution of mRNAs and their protein products, incompletely studied due to their classification as vaccines, raises safety issues.

Post-marketing studies have shown that mRNA passes into breast milk and could have adverse effects on breast-fed babies. Long-term expression, integration into the genome, transmission to the germline, passage into sperm, embryo/fetal and perinatal toxicity, genotoxicity and tumorigenicity should be studied in light of the adverse events reported in pharmacovigilance databases.

The potential horizontal transmission (i.e., shedding) should also have been assessed. In-depth vaccinovigilance should be carried out. We would expect these controls to be required for future mRNA vaccines developed outside the context of a pandemic.”

mRNA Shots Do Not Qualify as Vaccines

Banoun goes on to review the definitions of vaccine and gene therapy as listed by the FDA, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the World Health Organization and the French Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament (ANSM). Of these, the ANSM and EMA specify that a vaccine must contain one or more antigens.

Based on that definition, mRNA shots do not qualify as vaccines in France and Europe, because they don’t contain antigens. The active substance that elicits a downstream immune response is mRNA. The mRNA instructs your cells to produce the antigen. The mRNA is not an antigen in and of itself. In the case of COVID-19, the antigen being produced downstream is a modified SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s updated definition,¹⁰ a vaccine is a preparation that stimulates an immune response against disease. The classical definition specified that a vaccine would result in immunity against the disease in question, but this specificity was removed to accommodate the COVID shots.¹¹

Still, the mRNA injections clearly fall under the FDA’s definition of a gene therapy, because gene therapy:¹²

“… seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use. Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease …”

Note that gene therapy covers two different modes of operation. A gene therapy is something that either alters the biological properties of living cells, and/or modifies your genes. This means that even if the product does not modify your genes, it’s still a gene therapy if it modifies the properties of cells, which is precisely what the COVID shots do.

mRNA Jabs Remain Outside of Regulatory Definitions

The author of that International Journal of Molecular Science paper, independent researcher Helene Banoun, compares the controls required by regulations for gene therapy products to those applied to the COVID shots, and the potential safety issues that arise due to the absence of these controls.

Importantly, Banoun points out that since mRNA COVID shots contain several novel technologies, they “should be subject to more controls than conventional vaccines.” Yet they aren’t. They’re not even covered by any specific regulations.

As noted in a May 2022 paper in Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews,¹³ “The current guidelines either do not apply, do not mention RNA therapeutics, or do not have widely accepted definition.” This, even though there are several highly relevant differences between conventional vaccines and mRNA therapeutics.

In other words, the mRNA shots are in a sort of limbo, from a regulatory point of view, still to this day. Health authorities are using them, promoting them and authorizing updated shots even though there’s no regulatory framework to ensure their safety.

mRNA Shots Being Rolled Out Without Regulatory Guidelines

Clearly, this cannot be allowed to continue, seeing how vaccine manufacturers are now replacing a long list of classic vaccines with mRNA-based ones. They’re also developing and testing so-called mRNA “vaccines” against noninfectious diseases such as cancer, and as noted by Banoun:¹⁴

“We must be very vigilant about the term vaccine associated with therapeutic drugs, particularly with regard to the regulations that apply to them. These therapeutics are not vaccines against infectious diseases and must therefore continue to comply with GTP [gene therapy product] regulations.”

In other words, by slapping a fraudulent “vaccine” label on gene therapies for noninfectious diseases, they can and are being developed outside of the regulatory framework that governs them. An alternative framework that could regulate mRNA shots would be Type1A pro-drug regulations, but they’re not being regulated as such either. As noted by Banoun:¹⁵

“According to the FDA, mRNA vaccines correspond to the TypeIA of pro-drugs,¹⁶ which are substances that are converted by cells into active drugs. This pro-drug property could imply additional controls to those applied to vaccines. However, neither the FDA nor the EMA make any reference to these qualifications for mRNA anti-COVID-19 vaccines.”

So, these shots are not being regulated as gene therapies, nor as pro-drugs, even though these are the only two definitions that correctly describe them. As research scientist Dr. David Wiseman explained in an interview with The Epoch Times:¹⁷

“With a conventional vaccine, you have the antigen, and you inject it into a person, and that is the thing that your immune system looks at and says, ‘ah ha,’ we need to make antibodies, T-cells, and other immune system components to what’s being injected.

The prime reaction of an mRNA vaccine is that it instructs the body how to make the antigen of interest. So, it’s similar to a pro-drug, which is converted inside the body via metabolism and enzymes into the desired drug effect.

The substance you’re injecting isn’t doing the final action; it leads to the thing that does the final action. With a pro-drug, the molecule you inject does not get changed into the final molecule of the antigen, it simply provides instructions because it’s gene therapy.”

Wiseman also noted that while the FDA can “change or exclude whatever they want from regulatory guidance … it doesn’t change the biologic definition of the product.” And, “since Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines meet the definition of gene therapy, they should be handled according to gene therapy guidelines.”

COVID Jabs Bypassed Essential Studies

Because the COVID jabs were not classified as gene therapy, tests required for this drug class were not performed, including tests to assess:

On top of that, the mRNA COVID shots also failed to meet basic standards required for vaccines, such as product purity standards. Investigations have revealed massive contamination issues, as well as wild variations in strength and purity of batches.

Commenting on the lack of testing performed on the COVID shots, Wiseman told The Epoch Times:¹⁸

“Several studies should have been done but weren’t done because they fell under the auspices of vaccines. But if you read the guidelines, it doesn’t say these studies are unnecessary, just that circumstances may deem them unnecessary.

We need laws for products that say you can’t just exclude them from regulations because you feel like it — because they are still gene therapies. We are hijacking the machines of our bodies to produce spike proteins in an uncontrolled, undefined way — there are too many things we don’t know about.”

Unregulated mRNA Shots Are a Pandora’s Box

Banoun writes:¹⁹

“The long-term safety monitoring of GTPs [gene therapy products] is required over several years whereas, for vaccines, it is generally only carried out over a few weeks. This should not be acceptable, given the persistence of the drug product and the expressed protein.

The known results of anti-cancer therapies and mRNA vaccines could lead us to anticipate problems of safety and efficacy. In the case of anti-cancer mRNAs, the vast majority of open-label clinical trials have been carried out on very small numbers of patients, with either unpublished or negative results.

Randomized studies also showed negative results, reporting more frequent adverse events in the treatment group. Concerning infectious diseases, two trials of mRNA vaccines encapsulated in LNPs [lipid nanoparticles] showed notable adverse effects.

A trial of an mRNA vaccine against rabies showed numerous adverse effects superior to those of the classic vaccine, which is already very reactogenic, notably lymphopenia (this effect was also found for anti-COVID-19 mRNA vaccines).

An influenza vaccine trial showed severe adverse effects in humans (31 subjects were observed over only 43 days and at least 4 serious adverse effects were found) … According to another HIV trial of 15 participants against a placebo, immune responses were unsatisfactory and of limited duration.

The founder of BioNTech himself, Ugur Sahin, warned²⁰ against the use of codon optimization, which can alter translation speed and lead to misfolding. He also underlined the potential toxicity of unnatural nucleotides. He also mentioned the wide biodistribution of mRNA injected intramuscularly. He reminded us that we should fear the appearance of anti-self mRNA antibodies in patients suffering from autoimmune diseases …

The WHO declared an end to the emergency phase of the COVID-19 pandemic at the beginning of May 2023 but will continue to authorize the use of the Emergency Use Listed (EUL) procedure.

The emergency authorization of vaccines should be transformed into prequalification via a smooth transition. However, a wide-ranging public discussion should be opened on this transition to the routine use of mRNA vaccines, without them being subject to the controls required for GTPs.”

One-Third of Pfizer Shots Were Placebo

In related news, Kim Iversen recently broke the bombshell story that 1 in 3 Pfizer COVID shots administered in Denmark were placebo — and regulators must have known about it. The data for this claim comes from a Letter to the Editor published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation at the end of March 2023.²¹

The three authors decided to investigate the potential for batch-dependent variations in side effects. To do that, they examined the rates of suspected adverse effects (SAEs) between different BNT162b2 batches administered in Denmark, which has a population of 5.8 million people, between December 27, 2020, and January 11, 2022. What they discovered was shocking. As explained by the authors:

“SAEs were counted on a batch level by linking individual SAEs to the batch label(s) of BNT162b dose(s) that the subject had received. The total number of SAEs associated with each batch was divided by the number of doses in the batch to obtain the rate of SAEs per 1,000 doses …

[H]eterogeneity in the relationship between the numbers of SAEs and doses per vaccine batch was assessed by log-transformation followed by non-hierarchical cluster analysis and general linear model (GLM) test for differences in SAE rates between batches …

A total of 10,793,766 doses were administered to 4,026,575 persons with the use of 52 different BNT162b2 vaccine batches (2340–814,320 doses per batch) and 43,496 SAEs were registered in 13,635 persons, equaling 3.19 ± 0.03 (mean ± SEM) SAEs per person …

Batch labels were incompletely registered or missing for 7.11% of SAEs, leaving 61,847 batch-identifiable SAEs for further analysis of which 14,509 (23.5%) were classified as severe SAEs and 579 (0.9%) were SAE-related deaths.

Unexpectedly, rates of SAEs per 1,000 doses varied considerably between vaccine batches with 2.32 (0.09–3.59) (median [interquartile range]) SAEs per 1,000 doses, and significant heterogeneity was observed in the relationship between numbers of SAEs per 1,000 doses and numbers of doses in the individual batches.

Three predominant trendlines were discerned, with noticeable lower SAE rates in larger vaccine batches and additional batch-dependent heterogeneity in the distribution of SAE seriousness between the batches representing the three trendlines.

Compared to the rates of all SAEs, serious SAEs and SAE-related deaths per 1,000 doses were much less frequent and numbers of these SAEs per 1,000 doses displayed considerably greater variability between batches, with lesser separation between the three trendlines.”

In the video above, Iversen shows the linear graphs referred to here, which makes it easier to comprehend the implications of these data. To summarize, the data showed that in the most hazardous batches (marked in blue), the side effect ratio was between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6. In moderately-hazardous batches (green), the side effect rate was about 1 in 400.

Strangely, some batches (yellow) had no side effects associated with them whatsoever. These batches accounted for about 30% of the total doses given that year. How could that be? The only time this happens is when you have a control group that is given as an inert placebo.

Regulator Didn’t Test Placebo Shots

The plot thickens from there, because data also reveal that Danish regulators must have known that certain batches were placebo. How? As explained by Iversen, regulators must perform routine testing of batches at various times, and when another group of researchers compared the findings above with the batches tested, they discovered that:²²

• All of the most toxic batches underwent sample testing by regulators
• All but two of the moderately toxic batches were tested
• Only one of the placebo batches were tested

As noted by Iversen on her show:

“What are the chances that the group that had no side effects whatsoever, that looks like placebo, that looks like saline solution … that none of them were tested except one, when all of the others were tested? The regulators knew they didn’t need to test the saline solution. It would have been a waste of their time, so they didn’t … That’s what [it] looks like.”

Hazardous Batches Contained Fewer Doses

Another factor that suggests the public was being experimented on is the fact that the most hazardous batches had far fewer doses per batch compared to the moderately-hazardous batches and the placebo batches.

“They were experimenting on people. There’s no other way to slice it,” Iversen says. “The only other thing that’s possible is that they were covering up for the massive number of side effects … and the only way to mitigate it, to keep the public calm and to keep taking [the] injection, is to give a chunk of them a placebo … This is criminal.”

Early on, I and many others warned that everyone was in fact participating in an experimental study, not just those who signed up for the clinical trials. This evidence suggests that’s exactly what happened. Some got a placebo and others got the real McCoy, but not the same formulation.

And, while this investigation only included people in Denmark, it’s quite possible the same kind of multidose or multiformulation testing was taking place in other countries as well. HowBad.info,²³ for example has also shown that some batches are associated with far higher rates of serious and lethal side effects than others, and that some batches appear completely harmless.

‘Inexorable Rise in Excess Mortality’

In closing, The Daily Sceptic²⁴ recently reviewed data showing excess mortality is continuing to rise, post-rollout of the COVID jabs, with no sign of stopping:

“… core non-respiratory mortality (NRM) trends, which have been very stable over the last 10 years or so, can provide a useful yardstick to measure any kind of extraordinary change that might occur.

Since the vaccine rollout there have indeed been radical changes to this metric … Unfortunately there is still no evidence of any real slowdown of this alarming development.

Here is a chart which shows what has been happening with raw non-respiratory mortality data during the four COVID years. The years are each displayed with 13 data-points of four-weekly (monthly) aggregated figures.

Each year appears to be worse than the previous one, and but for the still unexplained spike in non-respiratory deaths at the very beginning of the pandemic, 2020 would have been broadly similar to the 2015-2019 average. Something therefore happened in 2021 that changed the picture radically.

As all four COVID years are showing some excess non-respiratory deaths relative to the 2015-2019 average, the cumulative excess NRM can be displayed like this.”

Resources for Those Injured by the COVID Jab

If you got one or more jabs and suffered an injury, first and foremost, never ever take another COVID booster, another mRNA gene therapy shot or regular vaccine. You need to end the assault on your body.

The same goes for anyone who has taken one or more COVID jabs and had the good fortune of not experiencing debilitating side effects. Your health may still be impacted long-term, so don’t take any more shots. If you’re lucky, perhaps you got saline, but I wouldn’t count on it. Besides, if you play Russian Roulette long enough, you’re bound to encounter a real bullet.

When it comes to treatment, it seems like many of the treatments that worked against severe COVID-19 infection also help ameliorate adverse effects from the jab. This makes sense, as the toxic, most damaging part of the virus is the spike protein, and that’s what your whole body is producing if you got the jab.

So, eliminating the spike protein your body is continuously producing is a primary task to prevent and/or address post-jab injuries. The two preferred remedies for this are hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Both of these drugs bind and thereby facilitate the removal of spike protein. Time-restricted eating (TRE) and/or sauna therapy can also help eliminate toxic proteins by stimulating autophagy.

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has developed a post-vaccine treatment protocol called I-RECOVER. Since the protocol is continuously updated as more data become available, your best bet is to download the latest version straight from the FLCCC website at covid19criticalcare.com²⁵ (hyperlink to the correct page provided above). Additional detox remedies can be found in “World Council for Health Reveals Spike Protein Detox.”

*

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

Notes

^1, 11 Pulse Substack November 9, 2021

^2, 12 FDA Gene Therapy Definition

³ FDA Guidance for Industry January 2020

⁴ Moderna’s SEC Form S-1 Registration Statement

⁵ US SEC BioNTech 2019, Page 21

⁶ Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2014; 13: 759-780

^{7, 14, 15, 19} International Journal of Molecular Science 2023; 24(13): 10514

^8, 17, 18 The Epoch Times June 30, 2023

⁹ Frontiers in Medicine October 17, 2022; 9

¹⁰ CDC Immunizations: The Basics, Definition of Terms

¹³ Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews May 2022; 184: 114236

¹⁶ Pharmaceuticals October 14, 2009; 2(3): 77-81

²⁰ Moderna. Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the Quarterly Period […]. 6 August 2020

²¹ European Journal of Clinical Investigation Letter to the Editor March 30, 2023

²² Twitter Jessica Rose July 2, 2023

²³ How Bad Is My Batch?

²⁴ Daily Sceptic July 2, 2023

²⁵ Covid19criticalcare.com

Featured image is from Vaccines.news

---

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

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

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

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

***

There are several important perspectives for understanding history and learning from it for the future. One of the more useful of these ways may be to seek an understanding in terms of four crucial relationships—relationships among human beings at several levels, relationship between human beings and nature, relationship between human beings and other forms of life, relationship among the present generation of humanity and the future generations of humanity as well as other forms of life. The last mentioned relationship has become particularly important at a time when a very serious survival crisis threatens our planet’s life in terms of the basic life-nurturing conditions being gravely threatened.

Relationships Among Human Beings

It has been a very widespread and enduring practice of human beings to try to dominate others, to get personal benefit at the cost of others, to try to get ahead of others, to impose their own viewpoint. This tendency may be rooted in greed (the urge to get more than others, regardless of one’s needs) or in ego (the urge to impose one’s own thinking and viewpoints, without giving a patient and fair hearing to the other viewpoint), but its impact is always harmful. This tendency can be seen in the relationships of individuals, groups and entire nations. These relationships of dominance invariably lead to distress and must be replaced by relationships based on cooperation for common welfare.

At a wider level these relationships of dominance are also responsible for the most exploitative economic systems and extremely cruel wars which at their worst have claimed millions of lives.

The relationships of dominance and exploitation of course seriously harm or even destroy the dominated and exploited people. But in addition, and this should be emphasized, they also slowly but surely destroy the perpetrators of exploitation and domination. As this writer stated in a small book on this theme titled ‘Burning on Both Ends’, “The persons who fill their coffers by inflicting injustice and cruelty on others have to live with a guilt complex that can destroy their peace. To get rid of this guilt they have to lower themselves to such a level of insensitivity that deprives them of simple yet precious joys of life.”

“The suppressing of spiritual values (that is required to be able to commit injustice) creates distortions in the persons (or the communities) due to which they are denied even that happiness which many poor people can experience freely and in plenty.”

In other words a person (or a group or a nation) who inflicts injustice and injury on others, will either live with a guilt complex (if he wants to retain some sensitivity) or else he’ll have to reduce himself to a level of insensitivity that will prevent him from experiencing small but precious joys of everyday life and this in turn is bound to adversely affect his closest relationships including those with his family members. Thus relationships of dominance are not only destructive, these are also self-destructive.

This is revealed clearly in the life of Columbus. The endless greed and cruelties of Columbus are by now quite well known, chopping the hands of someone who could not deliver gold to him was commonplace for him. What is not quite so well- known is the range of psychiatric complications from which Columbus suffered. Sigmundo Feliz, a reputed doctor who attended on him during his last days, has left a detailed note on Columbus. Extracts from this note (made available due to the efforts of historian Kirkpatrick Sale):

“To be without roots, without a sense of home and place, is one of the most serious, though one of the least emphasized, psychological disorders. This patient suffered from this to an unusual degree. From what I have been able to discover, he had so little of that feeling we Spaniards call querencia – a love of home and a sense of inner well-being – that he could truly be called a man who never lived anywhere, who simply never had a home.

“…Bending truth to suit unusual circumstances is a normal enough trait, but a persistent habit of equivocation and misrepresentation, while not necessarily pathological, is certainly dysfunctional – in some cases indicative of full-fledged disorders. This patient appears from all my evidence to be someone who found it difficult, even in non-threatening circumstances, to tell the truth, a habit of delusion that at times developed into self-delusion.

“…Finally, I must draw attention to a psychotic trait that can only be described as phrenitis – repeated delusions that occur with such intensity that they raise serious questions about how we are to regard his general sanity in the rest of his life.”

It is true that efforts have been made to use high technology in such ways as to create a distance between the perpetrator of injury and the effects of his actions in such a way as to remove the feeling of guilt. Ravi Sundaram writes,

“The emergence of a complex division of labor under modern capitalism has meant that functional specialization generates a necessary remoteness of human agents from the end-product of their social action. In this context, the bureaucrat’s own action becomes an end in itself. Once so isolated from the consequences of action, the bureaucrat, untroubled by moral dilemmas, can pursue his allocated tasks. The architects of the holocaust, the bombers of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the technocrats who designed the Vietnam War, could continue doing so without moral qualms precisely because of the social production of distance in modernity. This aspect is crucial in understanding the technological evolution of the holocaust. In the early history of the holocaust, the victims were rounded up and machine-gunned at point-blank range. The administrator soon found this both primitive and inefficient – and damaging to soldiers’ morale. Other techniques were sought which would preserve the optical distance between murderers and murdered. The result – the gas chamber, the perfect murdering machine. This reduced the role of the killer to that of the ‘sanitation officer’ who simply pressed the button which released the gas into the chamber filled with the hapless victims.”

However technological solutions to remove guilt and related afflictions have not always worked. Reader’s Digest has described the suffering of a child, Kim Phuc at the time of bombing of Trang Bang (Vietnam) by US planes (R.D. November 1997),

“The bombs, canisters filled with napalm, had smashed into the ground behind Kim and instantly ignited. The jellified gasoline, designed to stick to and incinerate anything it touches, splashed onto Kim’s back. Her flowered cotton shirt and pants–even her sandal–combusted. She was engulfed in a cloud of smoke and fire as napalm peeled away the skin from her back and left arm. Terrified, Kim kept running. At first she could feel nothing. Then she felt as if she had been thrown onto an open fire. In horror she saw the skin drop off her arm like clothes off a doll. As she ran naked down the road that led out of the village, she began screaming, “Too hot! Too hot! Please help!”

This magazine also noted the impact of this suffering on the sensitive mind of the pilot who caused this suffering:

“Now he stared at the picture of Kim Phuc, her agony caught for eternity. His own son Louis was about the same age. He could almost smell the child’s burning flesh.

…Later he kept his role in the bombing of Trang Bang secret, locked deep within his soul. It surfaced in the form of a nightmare. First Plummer would see a picture of Kim, with arms outstretched and mouth frozen in a silent scream. Then the image would widen to include Kim’s brother and cousins running alongside her. Finally, he would hear their screams, louder and louder until he felt surrounded by the accusing children. To drown his guilt, Plummer began drinking heavily. In July 1973 he married for the second time, but he still kept his secret. No one can understand, he thought. John Plummer’s drinking cost him his marriage in 1979. It was a vicious circle; he drank to put the bombing out of his mind, but the drinking made him more obsessed.”

Very high levels of family abuse have been reported more generally among the soldiers of armies known to have been involved in very cruel actions against weaker forces and even unarmed people. Some cases of such violence are so gory that not many people will be able to stand any detailed descriptions.

If A exploits B, then B suffers more obviously but directly or indirectly, A also suffers. Another frequently seen aspect of relationships of dominance is that instead of confronting A, B in turn tends to exploit C (being someone over whom he can easily exercise his control or vent his frustration). In many traditional societies, gender based oppression by a man (A) against his wife (B) may result in the latter (B) not retaliating against him (A) but instead venting her suppressed fury on other, even more vulnerable women members of the wider family (C). So what may be more visible may be the fights among women B and C, even though the cycle of violence may start at the level of a man (A). At a wider level, gender based violence and repression, rooted in the strong desire for unquestioned dominance, is one of the biggest causes of human distress.

Relations of dominance increase distress all the time in daily life. A man may experience some distress ten times a day on account of them, a woman or child may experience more. School, home, workplace—no place is free from this baneful impact. This accumulated baggage of millions of persons guided by the impulse and desire for dominance, contributes much to strife and violence at wider levels, ultimately to wars and weapons race. This found expression in colonization and imperialism, slave-trafficking and genocides which destroyed entire nations and killed or ruined tens of millions of people. Earlier persons, groups, nations pursued their dominance instincts with swords, now they have atomic weapons. Some of the most powerful persons of world, who may even take decisions relating to nuclear weapons, act although no one ever told them in their entire life, in their entire education that there is anything wrong with seeking all-round dominance as the ultimate objective in life.

Hence improvement of human relationships at several levels is one of the most essential and significant tasks ahead for reducing human distress, also one of the most neglected so far. It is not easy getting rid of deeply embedded instincts of dominance, rooted in years of living in conditions where these dominance instincts were deepened, or at the very least an impression was created that there was nothing wrong with them. We need to create situations in which people gain wide consciousness of the need for getting rid of relations of dominance and replacing these with relations based on cooperation for realizing common welfare.

Relations Between Humanity and Nature

Relations of dominance are seen not only among human beings but also between humanity and nature. The tendency of looking upon nature as something to be dominated and conquered has been responsible to a great extent for massive ecological ruin. Of course human beings have to meet their various needs, obtain food, clothing and shelter, and in the process they have to make certain demands on nature, they have to obtain water from rivers and food from land. It is certainly possible to do so while maintaining an attitude of respect and co-existence towards nature, preserving the clean and beautiful flow of rivers and protecting the natural fertility of soil and land. There is evidence that in some ancient cultures there was an attitude of reverence towards nature, an attitude which survived till much later times among many indigenous groups. For example, according to one summary of Mayan ethics in New Internationalist Journal,

“According to the Guatemalan Mayan vision of the cosmos, every form of life emerges from the same origin or seed. Some seeds become trees, others flowers, others water, others human beings. Thus each creature is inextricably linked to all others and what one does to a tree affects not only the tree but oneself and other creatures. This inter-relatedness calls for profound respect between people and their Creator, between people and nature, and among people themselves. The aim of the Maya is to keep their relationships with the world around them, and also the inner life of each person, in perfect balance according to the rhythms of the cosmos.”

This journal goes on to say that Mayan ideas have much in common with those of other indigenous cultures of the Americas, especially in their holism and respect for the environment.

In 1855, the Indian Chief of Seattle responding to pressures from the United States President to sell the land of what in now Washington State, had this to say,

“How can we buy or sell the sky or the warmth of the land? Such thoughts to us are inconceivable. We are not in possession of the freshness of the air, or the water-bubbles. Every corner of this land is holy to my people – They remain holy in the memory of my people – from the sparkling pine leaves, the sandy beaches and the mist of dark brooding forests, to the songs of insects… We know that white men do not understand our way of life. Land to him is not a brother but an enemy. After conquering a piece he proceeds to the next… Our God is the same God that you worship. His compassion extends equally to white men and Indians. This land is precious to Him and harming it, therefore, would be an insult to our Creator.”

However these views of nature increasingly came in conflict with the tendency which existed even in ancient times, of making excessive demands on nature, inflicting grave damage on land and water sources, and thereby sooner or late also bringing disaster on human beings. As John Bellamy Foster writes, “The history of pre-capitalist and preindustrial societies is full of examples of social collapse brought on by environmental depredations.” Thus while attitude of reverence towards nature certainly existed in ancient and indigenous traditions, they should not be romanticized too much as the conflict with other viewpoints based on excessive expansion and exploitation appeared sooner or later in most places.

In the conflict of these views—one emphasizing  conquest of nature and the other emphasizing harmonious co-existence with nature – the former attitude started asserting itself more and more with the passage of time. Technological advancement should have opened our eyes to the dangers of making excessive demands on nature but in reality something entirely different happened. The unraveling of the mysteries of nature appears to have decreased the awe of it, and encouraged the view that as we know its secrets we can conquer and dominate it. Philosopher of science and one-time Lord-Chancellor of England Sir Francis Bacon observed that the conquest of nature constitutes, “the real business and fortune of the human race.” He said nature must be “bound into service” and made a “slave.”

Such a viewpoint cleared the way for and provided the justification for very large-scale disruption of environment in the next few centuries. However as rivers were turned into sewer-lines, the rain became acidic, and even the life-giving sunshine was made hazardous by the depletion of the ozone layer, during the last few decades there has been growing realization of the need for harmonious co-existence with nature instead of striving to dominate it. Domination brings destruction while a protective attitude towards nature also protects the life and livelihood of people.

Engels wrote,

“The people who, in Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor, and elsewhere destroyed the forests to obtain cultivable land, never dreamed that they were laying the basis for the present devastated condition of these countries, by removing along with the forest the collecting centers and reservoirs of moisture. When on the southern slopes of the mountains, the Italians of the Alps used up the pine forests so carefully cherished on the northern slopes, they had no inkling that by doing so they were cutting at the roots of the dairy industry in their region; they had still less inkling that they were thereby depriving their mountain springs of water for the greater part of the year, with the effect that these would be able to pour still more furious flood torrents on the plains during the rainy season… Thus at every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature – but that we, with flesh, blood, and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage over all other beings of being able to know and correctly apply its laws.”

Relationship of Humanity and Other Forms of Life

Unfortunately as this oft repeated lesson of history has been ignored even more frequently, one of its most unjust manifestation has been to usurp more to more of the resources of the planet for human beings leaving less and less for other forms of life. According to J.B. Foster writing in ‘The Vulnerable Planet’ “Human beings now use (take or transform) an estimated 25 percent of the net photosynthetic product (NPP)-i.e., the plant mass fixed by photosynthesis – over the entire earth (land and sea), and 40 per cent on land.” As human beings take more of the primary productivity of the earth for themselves, less is left over for other species. According to Meadows and Randers, the authors of a path breaking study titled ‘Beyond the Limits’ : “Somewhere along the path of NPP usurpation, there lie limits. Long before the ultimate limits are reached, the human race becomes economically, scientifically, aesthetically, and morally impoverished.

Whether we look at mammals or birds or aquatic life or reptiles or insects, the statistics relating to extinct, near-extinct and threatened animals are alarming. Whether via deforestation or hunting or overfishing, increasingly devastating technologies have been used by humanity for decimating their co-habitants of planet. At the level of industrially organized farms, those birds or animals that are supposed to feed humanity are kept in the most painful conditions till their life comes to a hasty end.

Such a one-sided attitude of dominance cannot be compensated by merely showering affection on pets (with this too sometimes taken to other extremes), and a more basic change towards harmonious co-existence is needed.

Relation of This and Future Generations

Last but not the least, the relationship between the present generation of humanity and future generations of humanity as well as other forms of life is of course very important, particularly in view of the fast emerging reality that the world is already moving rapidly towards a very serious survival or existential crisis. In such a situation it would be much more ethically and morally objectionable and in fact unacceptable for the present generation to go ahead with present patterns of economy and daily life without bothering about the extreme risks this will bring for future generations of humanity as well as other forms of life.  Nevertheless due to self-centered and short-term thinking, and domination of present-day comfort over future safety, what is observed is not just the continuation of harmful patterns but often even shifting to more harmful life patterns or more luxurious, resource –exhausting life-styles than before.

Clearly, in terms of taking the most urgent steps towards resolving the survival crisis and in other ways, humanity today should be much, much more considerate of the concerns of future generations of humanity as well as other life-forms.

A big lesson of history has been that when these relationships move from dominance towards co-operation, distress is reduced and welfare is enhanced. This would be true of future too, and in addition changing these relations from dominance to cooperation will also be of the greatest help to humanity in terms of resolving the survival crisis before it is too late.

*

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

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children, Earth without Borders and Man over Machine—A Path to Peace. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Herald Malaysia Online

The Occupation and Jewish Values

By Prof. Alon Ben-Meir, July 11, 2023

The intensifying violent encounters between the two sides since the beginning of the year have claimed the lives of 147 Palestinians and 23 Israelis. The vicious cycle of violence which has been escalating, as we have seen in recent days in Jenin in the West Bank, will continue to fester, especially because of the sense of entitlement which the current Israeli government in particular and the settlers have in spades.

White House Deploys Troops to Bolster Right-wing Coup Regime in Peru

By Abayomi Azikiwe, July 12, 2023

In early December of 2022, the socialist president of Peru, Pedro Castillo, was overthrown in a political coup engineered by the conservative-dominated Congress and immediately thrown into prison. Vice-President Dina Boluarte was installed as the new leader having received the endorsement of the military and the police.

“Email from the Future”: “Agenda 2063, The Africa We Want”

By Ezra Nnko, July 12, 2023

On 26 May 2013, at the African Union (A.U.) ordinary meeting, a letter from the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, Mrs. Dr. Nkosazana Dlaminin Zuma was presented via email, the letter later became famous known as “email from the future“. Its content was the vision of 50 years later for Africa in economics, technology, peace and security, democracy, environment, infrastructure, gender equality, employment, agriculture, and health sector. This vision was named Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want.

The Criminal Hunter Biden

By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., July 12, 2023

Hunter Biden is a dangerous criminal, just like his father brain-dead Joe Biden. The “sweetheart deal” he got from the Justice Department and the hands-off attitude the FBI has shown him contrast with the political persecution of former President Trump. But so much is coming out about him that there is a chance he will go down and take his criminal father with him.

The Political Theatre of the U.K. Sanctions Regime. Targeting Nicaragua

By Erik Mar and John Perry, July 12, 2023

Britain and its partners such as the US are imposing economic sanctions on dozens of governments they don’t like, but some individuals in Nicaragua are being targeted on the basis of little or no evidence.

Pressured by NATO, Turkey Violates the “Azovstal Deal”(Prisoners’ Exchange). Ankara-Moscow Alliance in Jeopardy?

By Andrew Korybko, July 12, 2023

The optics don’t favor Russia since it looks like it was hoodwinked yet again without doing anything to deter future violations of other deals by Turkiye or other supposedly trusted partners. If the political will is present, which is impossible to know due to the traditional opacity of Russia’s decision-making processes, then the most that it could realistically do is seriously consider replacing Turkiye’s prior mediating role with another country or collection thereof.

The Uncertainty Principle of Power Politics: “Arrogance, Hubris, Stupidity, …”

By Dr. Emanuel Garcia, July 11, 2023

As I have written many times before, we are in the biggest and most fateful fight of and for our lives, despite the insufferably obtuse zombie indifference of so many around us who either cannot or will not accept the irrefutable. Will the zombies be revived in time? Will the transnational Deep State Cabal implode? Will the citizenry stand strong? Who can be sure?

US Treasury Janet Yellen’s Visit to China: Seeking Fake Harmony or Dishing Out Threats?

By Peter Koenig and Press TV, July 11, 2023

The US Treasury Secretary has wrapped up her visit to China, which was dominated by talks over trade and tech disputes. Janet Yellen says Washington and Beijing have made some progress and will have more frequent contact in the future. She vowed that any curbs on US outbound investments would be “transparent” and “very narrowly targeted.” In an earlier address in Beijing, Yellen warned against the decoupling of the two economic powers.

Video: Shadow World. “The World’s Largest and Most Corrupt Arms Deals”

By Real World Order, July 11, 2023

The film reveals how the international trade in weapons – with the complicity of governments and intelligence agencies, investigative and prosecutorial bodies, weapons manufacturers, dealers and agents – fosters corruption, determines economic and foreign policies, undermines democracy and creates widespread suffering.

Can Washington be Saved from Itself at the NATO Summit?

By Ted Galen Carpenter, July 11, 2023

Several crucial decisions likely will be made at this week’s NATO summit meeting. The most important of all involves Ukraine’s application to join the Alliance. Zealotry for Ukraine in some NATO capitals is so strong that that a path to membership for that country is being considered even in the midst of an ongoing war and unresolved territorial disputes.

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

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

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

***

What is happening with “mass casualty events” at concerts?

This has now happened several times since COVID-19 vaccines have rolled out.

Simultaneous cardiac arrests. Dozens hospitalized or dead.

July 8, 2023 – Ed Sheeran concert in Pittsburgh – 2 people went into cardiac arrest, 17 people were taken to the hospital (click here)

Ed Sheeran took to the stage at the city’s Acrisure Stadium on Saturday, July 8, to entertain the biggest Pittsburgh crowd he’s ever played in front of, with an estimated 51,000 fans piling in to see the Englishman.

Things took a turn among some gig-goers, though, who fell ill during the performance. Emergency services were called to more than 37 incidents, and 17 people were taken to hospital, including a stadium worker and a medic.

Two people went into cardiac arrest, including a venue worker as well as a paramedic.

Oct. 29, 2022 – Seoul, South Korea – Halloween party results in 159 deaths from simultaneous cardiac arrests (click here)(click here)(click here).

Oct. 30, 2022 – Kinshasa, Congo – Stampede at Fally Ipupa concert kills 11 people including two police officers (click here)(click here).

Sep. 15, 2022 – Guatemala concert to celebrate Independence Day had a stampede that left at least 9 dead and 20 injured (click here).

Nov. 6, 2021 – Houston, TX – Astroworld Festival, Travis Scott Concert – 11 people suffered cardiac arrests simultaneously, 10 people died (ages 14 to 26), 300 were injured, 25 transported to the hospital (click here)(click here).

Concerts with smaller numbers of casualties:

July 4, 2023 – International Musical Eisteddfod concert goer had a cardiac arrest and was saved by a paramedic who got a defibrillator from a nearby rugby club (click here)

March 2023 – Carnegie Hall concert goer suffered a cardiac arrest and was saved by a doctor who was sitting next to him (click here).

My Take…

Why are some concerts now turning into “mass casualty events”?

The Ed Sheeran concert having two cardiac arrests is unusual enough, but 17 people had to be hospitalized and that is very strange. 37 incidents requiring “emergency services”.

The 159 deaths during the 2022 South Korea Halloween party is the most striking example of this phenomenon, as it was reported that dozens of people were having cardiac arrests simultaneously.

The Travis Scott concert is legendary for simultaneous sudden cardiac arrests and 10 deaths.

In my opinion, this phenomenon is similar to what has happened at some marathons, like the May 21, 2022 Brooklyn Half Marathon where 1 runner died and 15 had to be hospitalized.

With concerts you have a venue of mostly COVID-19 vaccinated individuals (in some of the cases above, only the vaccinated were allowed to attend the concert).

Most of these concert goers are in an excited state, with increased heart rate and surging adrenaline.

That surging adrenaline is the catalyst that turns a COVID-19 vaccine induced myocarditis injured heart into having a sudden cardiac arrhythmia that leads to collapse and sudden death.

Sadly, COVID-19 vaccinated concert goers are probably not aware of this risk.

*

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

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

Featured image: A memorial located outside the NRG Park for Astroworld deaths. (Licensed under CC0)

---

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

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

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

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

***

Transcript of the interview can be read below.

Introduction

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:00:00) It’s not our business to change the Russian government. And anybody who thinks it’s a good idea to do regime change in Russia, which has more nuclear weapons than we do, is I think irresponsible. And Vladimir Putin himself has had… We will not live in a world without Russia and it was clear when he said that, that he was talking about himself and he has his hand on a button that could bring Armageddon to the entire planet. So why are we messing with this? It’s not our job to change that regime, and we should be making friends with the Russians. We shouldn’t be treating him as an enemy. Now we’ve pushed him into the camp with China. That’s not a good thing for our country. And by the way, what we’re doing now does not appear to be weakening Putin at all.

Lex Fridman (00:00:56) The following is a conversation with Robert F. Kennedy Jr, candidate for the President of the United States, running as a Democrat. Robert is an activist, lawyer and author who has challenged some of the world’s most powerful corporations seeking to hold them accountable for the harm they may cause. I love science and engineering. These two pursuits are, to me the most beautiful and powerful in the history of human civilization. Science is our journey, our fight for uncovering the laws of nature and leveraging them to understand the universe and to lessen the amount of suffering in the world. Some of the greatest human beings I’ve ever met, including most of my good friends, are scientists and engineers. Again, I love science, but science cannot flourish without epistemic humility, without debate, both in the pages of academic journals and in the public square, in good faith, long form conversations.

(00:01:56) Agree or disagree, I believe Robert’s voice should be part of the debate. To call him a conspiracy theorist and arrogantly dismiss everything he says without addressing it diminishes the public’s trust in the scientific process. At the same time, dogmatic skepticism of all scientific output on controversial topics like the pandemic is equally, if not more dishonest and destructive. I recommend that people read and listen to Robert F. Kennedy Jr, his arguments and his ideas. But I also recommend, as I say in this conversation, that people read and listen to Vincent Racaniello from This Week in Virology, Dan Wilson from Debunk The Funk, and the Twitter and books of Paul Offit, Eric Topol, and others who are outspoken in their disagreement with Robert.

(00:02:50) It is disagreement, not conformity that bends the long arc of humanity toward truth and wisdom. In this process of disagreement, everybody has a lesson to teach you, but we must have the humility to hear it and to learn from it. This is The Lex Fridman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description. And now, dear friends, here’s Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

US History

(00:03:18) It’s the 4th of July, Independence Day. So simple question, simple, big question. What do you love about this country, the United States of America?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:03:27) I would say there’s so many things that I love about the country, the landscapes and the waterways and the people, et cetera. But on the higher level, people argue about whether we’re an exemplary nation, and that term has been given a bad name, particularly by the neocons, the actions, the neocons in recent decades who have turned that phrase into a justification for forcing people to adopt American systems or values at the barrel of a gun. But my father and uncle used it in a very different way, and they were very proud of it. I grew up very proud of this country because we were the exemplary nation in the sense that we were an example of democracy all over the world. When we first launched our democracy in 1780, we were the only democracy on earth. And there was Civil war, by 1865, there were six democracies.

(00:04:35) Today there’s probably 190, and all of them in one way or another are modeled on the American experience. And it’s extraordinary because our first serious and sustained contact with the European culture and continent was in 1608 when John Winthrop came over with his Puritans in the sloop Arbella and Winthrop gave this famous speech where he said, “This is going to be a city on a hill. This is going to be an example for all the other nations in the world.” And he warned his fellow Puritans. They were sitting at this great expanse of land and he said, “We can’t be seduced by the lure of real estate or by the carnal opportunities of this land. We have to take this country as a gift from God and then turn it into an example for the rest of the world of God’s love, of God’s will and wisdom.” And 200 years later, 250 years later, a different generation, they’re mainly [inaudible 00:05:59], are people who had a belief in God, but not so much a love of particularly religious cosmologies.

(00:06:13) The Framers of the Constitution believe that we were creating something that would be replicated around the world, and that it was an example in democracy. There would be this kind of wisdom from the collective that… And the word wisdom means a knowledge of God’s will, and that somehow God would speak through the collective in a way that he or she could not speak through totalitarian regimes. And I think that that’s something that even though Winthrop was a white man and a Protestant, that every immigrant group who came after them adopted that belief. And I know my family, when my family came over, all of my grandparents came over in 1848 during the potato famine, and they saw this country as unique in history is something that was part of a broader spiritual mission. And so I’d say that from a 30,000-foot level, I grew up so proud of this country and believing that it was the greatest country in the world, and for those reasons.

Freedom

Lex Fridman (00:07:34) Well, I immigrated to this country. And one of the things that really embodies America to me is the ideal of freedom. Hunter S. Thompson said, “Freedom is something that dies unless it’s used.” What does freedom mean to you?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:07:47) To me, freedom does not mean chaos, and it does not mean anarchy. It means that it has to be accompanied by restraint if it’s going to live up to its promise in self-restraint. What it means is the capacity for human beings to exercise and to fulfill their creative energies unrestrained as much as possible by government.

Lex Fridman (00:08:20) So this point that Hunter S. Thompson has made is, “Dies unless it’s used.” Do you agree with that?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:08:28) Yeah, I do agree with that, and he was not unique in saying that. Thomas Jefferson said that the Tree of Liberty had to be watered with the blood of each generation. And what he meant by that is that we can’t live off the laurels of the American Revolution. That we had a group, we had a generation where between 25,000 and 70,000 Americans died. They gave their lives, they gave their livelihoods, they gave their status, they gave their property, and they put it all on the line to give us our Bill of Rights and that, but those Bill of Rights, the moment that we signed them, there were forces within our society that began trying to chip away at them, and that happens in every generation. And it is the obligation of every generation to safeguard and protect those freedoms.

Camus

Lex Fridman (00:09:26) The blood of each generation. You mentioned your interest, your admiration of Al Albert Camus, of Stoicism, perhaps your interest in existentialism. Camus said, I believe in Myth of Sisyphus, “The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.” What do you think he means by that?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:09:49) I suppose the way that Camus viewed the world and the way that the Stoics did and a lot of the existentialists, it was that it was so absurd and that the problems and the tasks that were given just to live a life are so insurmountable that the only way that we can get back the gods for giving us this impossible task of living life was to embrace it and to enjoy it and to do our best at it. To me, I read Camus, and particularly in The Myth of Sisyphus as a parable that… And it’s the same lesson that I think he writes about in The Plague, where we’re all given these insurmountable tasks in our lives, but that by doing our duty, by being of service to others, we can bring meaning to a meaningless chaos and we can bring order to the universe.

(00:11:01) And Sisyphus was the iconic hero of the Stoics, and he was a man because he did something good. He delivered a gift to humanity. He angered the gods and they condemned him to push a rock up the hill every day, and then it would roll down. When he got to the top, it would roll down and he’d spend the night going back down the hill to collect it and then rolling it back up the hill again. And the task was absurd, it was insurmountable. He could never win, but the last line of that book is one of the great lines, which is something to the extent that I can picture as of his smiling, because Camus’ belief was that even though his task was insurmountable, that he was a happy man and he was a happy man because he put his shoulder to the stone.

(00:11:59) He took his duty, he embraced the task and the absurdity of life, and he pushed the stone up the hill. And that if we do that, and if we find ways of being service to others, that is the ultimate, that’s the key to the lock, that’s the solution to the puzzle.

Lex Fridman (00:12:21) Each individual person in that way can rebel against absurdity by discovering meaning to this whole messy thing.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:12:28) And we can bring meaning not only to our own lives, but we can bring meaning to the universe as well. We can bring some kind of order to life and the embrace of those tasks and the commitment to service resonates out from us to the rest of humanity in some way.

Hitler and WW2

Lex Fridman (00:12:51) So you mentioned The Plague by Camus. There’s a lot of different ways to read that book, but one of them, especially given how it was written, is that The Plague symbolizes Nazi Germany and the Hitler regime. What do you learn about human nature from a figure like Adolf Hitler, that he’s able to captivate the minds of millions, rise to power and take on, pull in the whole world into a global war?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:13:24) I was born nine years after the end of World War II, and I grew up in a generation with my parents who were fixated on that, on what happened, and my father. At that time, the resolution in the minds of most Americans, and I think people around the world, is that there had been something wrong with the German people, that the Germans had been particularly susceptible to this kind of demagoguery and to following a powerful leader and just industrializing cruelty and murder. And my father always differed with that. My father said, “This is not a German problem. This could happen to all of us. We’re all just inches away from barbarity.” And the thing that keeps us safe in this country are the institutions of our democracy, our constitution. It’s not our nature. Our nature has to be restrained, and that comes through self-restraint.

(00:14:38) But also, the beauty of our country is that we devise these institutions that are designed to allow us to flourish, but at the same time, not to give us enough freedom to flourish, but also create enough order to keep us from collapsing into barbarity. So one of the other things that my father talked about from when I was little, he would ask us this question, “If you were the family and Anne Frank came to your door and asked you to hide her, would you be one of the people who hid her, risk your own life, or would you be one of the people who turned her in?”

(00:15:24) And of course, we would all say, “Well, of course we would hide Anne Frank and take the risk,” but that’s been something kind of a lesson, a challenge that has always been near the forefront of my mind, that if a totalitarian system ever a occurs in the United States, which my father thought was quite possible, he was conscious about how fragile democracy actually is, that would I be one of the ones who would resist the totalitarianism or would I be one of the people who went along with it? Would I be one of the people who was at the train station in crack hour, or even Berlin and saw people being shipped off to camps and just put my head down and pretend I didn’t say it because talking about it would be destructive to my career and maybe my freedom and even my life? So that has been a challenge that my father gave to me and all of my brothers and sisters, and it’s something that I’ve never forgotten.

Lex Fridman (00:16:39) A lot of us would like to believe we would resist in that situation, but the reality is most of us wouldn’t, and that’s a good thing to think about, that human nature is such that we’re selfish even when there’s an atrocity going on all around us.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:16:57) And we also have the capacity to deceive ourselves, and all of us tend to judge ourselves by our intentions and our actions.

Lex Fridman (00:17:08) What have you learned about life from your father, Robert F. Kennedy?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:17:12) First of all, I’ll say this about my uncle because I’m going to apply that question to my uncle and my father. My uncle was asked when he first met Jackie Bouvier, who later became Jackie Kennedy. She was a reporter for a newspaper and she had a column where she’d do these pithy interviews with both famous people and man in the street interviews. And she was interviewing him and she asked him what he believed his best quality was, his strongest virtue? And she thought that he would say courage because he had been a war hero. He was the only president who… And this is when he was Senator, by the way, who received the Purple Heart. And he had a very famous story of him as a hero in World War II. And then he had come home and he had written a book on moral courage among American politicians and won the Pulitzer Prize, that book Profiles and Courage, which was a series of incidents where American political leaders made decisions to embrace principle even though their careers were at stake, and in most cases were destroyed by their choice.

(00:18:37) She thought he was going to say courage, but he didn’t. He said curiosity, and I think looking back at his life that the best, it was true, and that was the quality that allowed him to put himself in the shoes of his adversaries. And he always said that if the only way that we’re going to have peace is if we’re able to put ourselves in the shoes of our adversaries, understand their behavior and their contact, not context. And that’s why he was able to resist the intelligence apparatus and the military during the Bay of Pigs when they said, “You’ve got to send in the Essex, the aircraft carrier.” And he said, “No.” Even though he’d only been two months in office, he was able to stand up to them because he was able to put himself in the shoes of both Castro and Khrushchev and understand there’s got to be another solution to this.

(00:19:40) And then during the Cuban Missile Crisis, he was able to endure it when the narrative was okay, Khrushchev acted in a way as an aggressor to put missiles in our hemisphere. How dare he do that? And Jack and my father were able to say, “Well, wait a minute. He’s doing that because we put missiles in Turkey and Italy, and the Turkish ones right on the Russian border.” And they then made a secret deal with Do Brennan, with Ambassador Do Brennan and with Khrushchev to remove the missiles in Turkey if he moved the Jupiter missiles from Turkey, so long as Khrushchev removed them from Cuba. There were 13 men on what they called the [inaudible 00:20:36] Committee, which was the group of people who were deciding what the action was, what they were going to do to end the Cuban Missile Crisis.

(00:20:45) And virtually, and of those men, 11 of them wanted to invade and wanted to bomb and invade, and it was Jack. And then later on, my father and Bob McNamara, who were the only people who were with him, because he was able to see the world from Khrushchev’s point of view of view, he believed that there was another solution. And then he also had the moral courage. So my father, to get back to your question, famously said that, “Moral courage is the most important quality and it’s more rare,” and courage on the football field or courage in battle than physical courage. It’s much more difficult to come by, but it’s the most important quality in a human being.

Lex Fridman (00:21:33) And you think that kind of empathy that you referred to, that requires moral courage?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:21:37) It certainly requires moral courage to act on it, and particularly in any time that a nation is at war, there’s a momentum or an inertia that says, “Okay, let’s not look at this from the other person’s point of view.” And that’s the time we really need to do that.

War in Ukraine

Lex Fridman (00:22:03) Well, if we’re can apply that style of empathy, style of curiosity to the current war in Ukraine, what is your understanding of why Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:22:16) Vladimir Putin could have avoided the war in the Ukraine. His invasion was illegal. It was unnecessary, and it was brutal, but I think it’s important for us to move beyond these kind of comic book depictions of this insane, avaricious Russian leader who wants to restore the Soviet Empire, and who made unprovoked invasion of the Ukraine. He was provoked and we were provoking him and we were provoking him since 1997. And it’s not just me that’s saying that. And before Putin never came in, we were provoking Russia, the Russians in this way unnecessarily. And to go back that time in 1992 when the Russians moved out of… When the Soviet Union was collapsing, the Russians moved out of East Germany and they did that, which was a huge concession to them.

(00:23:27) They had 400,000 troops in East Germany at that time, and they were facing NATO troops on the other side of the wall. Gorbachev made this huge concession where he said to George Bush, “I’m going to move all of our troops out, and you can then reunify Germany under NATO,” which was a hostile army to the Soviet… It was created with hostile intent toward the Soviet Union. And he said, “You can take Germany, but I want your promise that you will not move NATO to the east.” And James Baker, who was his Secretary of State famously said, “I will not move NATO. We will not move NATO one inch to the east.”

(00:24:07) So then five years later in 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was the “father of the neocons,” who was a Democrat at that time, served in the Carter administration, he published a paper, a blueprint for moving NATO right up to the Russian border, a 1,000 miles to the east and taking over 14 nations. And at that time, George Kennan, who was the deity of American diplomats, he was arguably the most important diplomat in American history. He was the architect of the containment policy during World War II. And he said, “This is insane and it’s unnecessary. And if you do this, it’s going to provoke the Russians to a violent response. And we should be making friends with the Russians. They lost the Cold War. We should be treating them the way that we treated our adversaries after World War II, with a Marshall Plan to try to help them incorporate into Europe and to be part of the brotherhood of man and of western nations. We shouldn’t continue to be treating them as an enemy and particularly surrounding them at their borders.”

(00:25:26) William Perry, who was then the Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton, threatened to resign. He was so upset by this plan to move NATO to the east. And William Burns, who was then the US Ambassador to the Soviet Union, who is now at this moment, the Head of the CIA, said at the time, the same thing. “If you do this, it is going to provoke the Russians toward a military response.” And we moved all around Russia. We moved to 14 nations, a 1,000 miles to the east, and we put ageist missile systems in two nations, in Romania and Poland. So we did what the Russians had done to us in 1962 that would’ve provoked an invasion of Cuba. We put those missile systems back there, and then we’d walk away, unilaterally, walk away from the two nuclear missile treaties, the intermediate nuclear missile treaties that we had with the Soviet, with Russia, and neither of us would put those missile systems on the borders.

(00:26:31) We walk away from that and we put ageist missile systems, which are nuclear capable. They can carry the Tomahawk missiles, which have nuclear warheads. So the last country that they didn’t take was the Ukraine. And the Russians said, and in fact, Bill Perry said this, or William Burns said it, now the Head of the CIA, “It is a red line. If we bring NATO into Ukraine, that is a red line for the Russians. They cannot live with it. They cannot live with it. Russia has been invaded three times through the Ukraine. The last time it was invaded, we killed, or the Germans killed one out of every seven Russians.”

(00:27:11) My uncle described what happened to Russia in his famous American university speech in 1963, 60 years ago this month, or or last month, 60 years ago in June, June 10th, 1963. That speech was telling the American people, “Put yourself in the shoes of the Russians. We need to do that if we’re going to make peace.” And he said, “All of us have been taught that we won the war, but we didn’t win the war. If anybody won the war against Hitler, it was the Russians. Their country was destroyed, all of their cities.” And he said, “Imagine if all of the cities from the East Coast to Chicago were reduced to rubble and all of the fields burns, all of the forests burns. That’s what happened to Russia. That’s what they gave so that we could get rid of Adolf Hitler.”

(00:28:08) And he had them put themselves in their position, and today there’s none of that happening. We have refused repeatedly to talk to the Russians. We’ve broken up, there’s two treaties, the Minsk Agreements, which the Russians were willing to sign, and they said, “We will stay out.” The Russians didn’t want the Ukraine. They showed that when the Donbas region voted 90 to 10 to leave and go to Russia. Putin said, “No, we want Ukraine to stay intact, but we want you to sign Minsk Accords.” The Russians were very worried because of the US involvement and the coup in Ukraine in 2014, and then the oppression and the killing of 14,000 ethnic Russians, and Russia hasn’t had the same way that if Mexico would ageist missile systems from China or Russia on our border and then killed 14,000 expats American, we would go in there.

(00:29:13) Oh, he does have a national security interest in the Ukraine. He has an interest in protecting the Russian-speaking people of the Ukraine, the ethnic Russians, and the Minsk Accords did that. It left Ukraine as part of Russia. It left them as a semi-autonomous region that continued to use their own language, which is essentially banned by the coup, by the government we put in 2014, and we sabotaged that agreement. And we now know in April of 2022, Zelenskyy and Putin had inked a deal already to another peace agreement, and that the United States and Boris Johnson, the neocons in the White House and Boris Johnson over to the Ukraine to sabotage that agreement.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:30:03) … Boris Johnson over to the Ukraine to sabotage that agreement. What do I think? I think this is a proxy war. I think this is a war that the neocons and the White House wanted. They’ve said for two decades they wanted this war and that they wanted to use Ukraine as a pawn in a proxy war between United States and Russia, the same as we used Afghanistan.

(00:30:26) And in fact, they say it, “This is the model. Let’s use the Afghanistan model.” That was said again and again. And to get the Russians to overextend their troops and then fight them using local fighters and US weapons.

(00:30:40) And when President Biden was asked, “Why are we in the Ukraine?” He was honest. He says, “To depose Vladimir Putin. Regime change for Vladimir Putin.” And when his defense secretary Lloyd Austin in April 2022 was asked, “Why are we there?” He said, “To degrade the Russians’ capacity to fight anywhere… To exhaust the Russian army and degrade its capacity to fight elsewhere in the world.”

(00:31:05) That’s not a humanitarian mission. That’s not what we were told. We were told this was an unprovoked invasion and that we’re there to bring humanitarian relief to the Ukrainians. But that is the opposite. That is a war of attrition that is designed to chew up and turn this little nation into an abattoir of death for the flower of Ukrainian youth in order to advance a geopolitical ambition of certain people within the White House. And I think that’s wrong.

(00:31:39) We should be talking to the Russians the way that Nixon talked to Brezhnev, the way that Bush talked to Gorbachev, the way that my uncle talked to Khrushchev. We need to be talking with the Russians, we should, and negotiating. And we need to be looking about how do we end this and preserve peace in Europe.

Lex Fridman (00:31:58) Would you as president sit down and have a conversation with Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy separately and together to negotiate peace?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:32:07) Absolutely. Absolutely.

Lex Fridman (00:32:09) What about Vladimir Putin? He’s been in power since 2000. So as the old adage goes, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Do you think he has been corrupted by being in power for so long, if you think of the man, if you look at his mind?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:32:27) Listen, I don’t know exactly. I can’t say because I don’t know enough about him or about… The evidence that I’ve seen is that he is homicidal. He kills his enemies or poisons them. And the reaction I’ve seen to that, to hit those accusations from him have not been to deny that but to kind of laugh it off.

(00:32:58) Oh, I think he’s a dangerous man and that, of course, there’s probably corruption in his regime. But having said that, it’s not our business to change the Russian government. And anybody who thinks it’s a good idea to do a regime change in Russia, which has more nuclear weapons than we do, is I think irresponsible.

(00:33:22) And Vladimir Putin himself has said, “We will not live in a world without Russia.” And it was clear when he said that he was talking about himself. And he has his hand on a button that could bring Armageddon to the entire planet.

(00:33:40) So why are we messing with this? It’s not our job to change that regime. We should be making friends with the Russians. We shouldn’t be treating him as an enemy. Now we’ve pushed him into the camp with China. That’s not a good thing for our country.

(00:33:55) And by the way, what we’re doing now does not appear to be weakening Putin at all. Putin now, if you believe the polls that are coming out of Russia, they show him… the most recent polls that I’ve seen show him with an 89% popularity that people in Russia support the war in Ukraine, and they support him as an individual.

(00:34:25) And I understand there’s problems with polling and you don’t know what to believe, but the polls consistently show that. And it’s not America’s business to be the policemen of the world and to be changing regimes in the world. That’s illegal.

(00:34:41) We shouldn’t be breaking international laws. We should actually be looking for ways to improve relationships with Russia, not to destroy Russia, not to destroy, and not to choose its leadership for them. That’s up to the Russian people, not us.

Lex Fridman (00:35:00) Step one is to sit down and empathize with the leaders of both nations to understand their history, their concerns, their hopes, just to open the door for conversation so they’re not back to the corner.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:35:12) Yeah. And I think the US can play a really important role, and a US president can play a really important role by reassuring the Russians that we’re not going to consider them an enemy anymore, that we want to be friends.

(00:35:26) And it doesn’t mean that you have to let down your guard completely. The way that you do it, which was the way President Kennedy did it, is you do it one step at a time. You take baby steps. We do a unilateral move, reduce our hostility and aggression, and see if the Russians reciprocate. And that’s the way that we should be doing it.

(00:35:50) And we should be easing our way into a positive relationship with Russia. We have a lot in common with Russia, and we should be friends with Russia and with the Russian people. Apparently, there’s been 350,000 Ukrainians who have died, at least, in this war. And there’s probably been 60,000 or 80,000 Russians. And that should not give us any joy. It should not give us any…

(00:36:21) I saw Lindsey Graham on TV saying something to the extent of, “Anything we can do to kill Russians is a good use of our money.” It is not. Those are somebody’s children. We should have compassion for them. This war is an unnecessary war. We should settle it through negotiation, through diplomacy, through state graft, and not through weapons.

Lex Fridman (00:36:50) Do you think this war can come to an end purely through military operations?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:36:55) No. I mean, I don’t think there’s any way in the world that the Ukrainians can beat the Russians. I don’t think there’s any appetite in Europe… I think Europe is now having severe problems. In Germany, Italy, France, you’re seeing these riots. There’s internal problems in those countries.

(00:37:12) There is no appetite in Europe for sending men to die in Ukraine. And the Ukrainians do not have anybody left. The Ukrainians are using press gangs to fill the ranks of their armies. Military-age men are trying as hard as they can to get out of the Ukraine right now to avoid going to the front.

(00:37:35) The Russians apparently have been killing Ukrainians in a 7:1 ratio. My son fought over there, and he told me… He had firefights with the Russians mainly at night, but he said most of the battles were artillery wars during the day. And the Russians now outgun the NATO forces 10:1 in artillery. They’re killing at a horrendous rate.

(00:38:06) Now, my interpretation of what’s happened so far is that Putin actually went in early on with a small force because he expected to meet somebody on the other end of a negotiating table once he went in. And when that didn’t happen, they did not have a large enough force to be able to mount an offensive.

(00:38:32) And so they’ve been building up that force up till now, and they now have that force. And even against the small original force, the Ukrainians have been helpless. All of their offenses have died. They’ve now killed the head of the Ukrainian special forces, which was probably, arguably, by many accounts, the best elite military unit in all of Europe.

(00:39:01) The commandant, the commander of that special forces group gave a speech about four months ago saying that 86% of his men are dead or wounded and cannot return to the front. He cannot rebuild that force. And the troops that are now filling the gaps of all those 350,000 men who’ve been lost are scantily trained, and they’re arriving green at the front.

(00:39:36) Many of them do not want to be there. Many of them are giving up and going over to the Russian side. We’ve seen this again and again and again, including platoon-sized groups that are defecting to the Russians.

(00:39:48) And I don’t think it’s possible to win. Of course, I’ve studied World War II history exhaustively, but I saw… There’s a new… I think it’s a Netflix series of documentaries that I highly recommend to people there. They’re colorized versions of the black-and-white films from the battles of World War II, but it’s all the battles of World War II.

(00:40:15) So I watched Stalingrad the other night. And the willingness of the Russians to fight on against any kind of odds and to make huge sacrifices of Russians, the Russians themselves who are making the sacrifice with their lives, the willingness of them to do that for their motherland is almost inexhaustible.

(00:40:40) It is incomprehensible to think that Ukraine can beat Russia in a war. It would be like Mexico beating the United States. It’s impossible to think that it can happen. And Russia has deployed a tiny, tiny fraction of its military so far. And now it has China with its mass production capacity supporting its war effort. It’s a hopeless situation.

(00:41:11) And we’ve been lied to. The press in our country and our government are just promoting this lie that the Ukrainians are about to win and that everything’s going great and that Putin’s on the run. And there’s all this wishful thinking because of the Wagner Group-

Lex Fridman (00:41:30) Prigozhin.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:41:30) … Prigozhin and the Wagner Group, that this was an internal coup, and it showed dissent and weakness of Putin. And none of that is true. That insurgency, which wasn’t even an insurgency…

(00:41:44) He only got 4,000 of his men to follow him out of 20,000. And they were quickly stopped. And nobody in the Russian military, the oligarchy, the political system, nobody supported it. But we’re being told, “Oh yeah, it’s the beginning of the end for Putin. He’s weakened. He’s wounded. He’s on his way out.” And all of these things are just lies that we are being fed.

Lex Fridman (00:42:07) To push back on a small aspect of this that you kind of implied, so I’ve traveled to Ukraine, and one thing that I should say, similar to the Battle of Stalingrad, it is not only the Russians that fight to the end. I think Ukrainians are very lucky to fight to the end.

(00:42:24) And the morale there is quite high. I’ve talked to nobody… This was a year ago in August with Kherson. Everybody was proud to fight and die for their country. And there’s some aspect where this war unified the people, gave them a reason and an understanding that this is what it means to be Ukrainian and, “I will fight to the death to defend this land.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:42:48) I would agree with that, and I should have said that myself at the beginning. That’s one of the reasons my son went over there to fight because he was inspired by the valor of the Ukrainian people and this extraordinary willingness of them.

(00:43:02) And I think Putin thought it would be much easier to sweep into Ukraine, and he found a stone wall of Ukrainians ready to put their lives and their bodies on the line. But that, to me, makes the whole episode even more tragic, is that I don’t believe… I think that the US’s role in this has been… There were many opportunities to settle this war, and the Ukrainians wanted to settle it.

(00:43:34) Volodymyr Zelenskyy, when he ran in 2019, here’s a guy who’s a comedian, he’s an actor. He had no political experience, and yet he won this election with 70% of the vote. Why? He won on a peace platform, and he won promising to sign the Minsk accords. And yet something happened when he got in there that made him suddenly pivot. And I think it’s a good guess what happened.

(00:44:02) I think he came under threat by ultra-nationalists within his own administration and the insistence of neocons like Victoria Nuland and the White House, that we don’t want peace with Putin. We want a war.

Lex Fridman (00:44:20) Do you worry about nuclear war?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:44:22) Yeah, I worry about it.

Lex Fridman (00:44:25) It seems like a silly question, but it’s not. It’s a serious question.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr (00:44:29) Well, the reason it’s not is just because people seem to be in this kind of dream state that it’ll never happen, and yet it can happen very easily and it can happen at any time.

(00:44:48) And if we push the Russians too far, I don’t doubt that Putin, if he felt like his regime or his nation was in danger, that the United States was going to be able to place a quisling into the Kremlin, that he would use nuclear torpedoes and these strategic weapons that they have. And that could be it. Once you do that, nobody controls the trajectory.

Click here to read the full transcript.

*

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

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

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

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

***

In early December of 2022, the socialist president of Peru, Pedro Castillo, was overthrown in a political coup engineered by the conservative-dominated Congress and immediately thrown into prison.

Vice-President Dina Boluarte was installed as the new leader having received the endorsement of the military and the police.

Simultaneously, the United States administration of President Joe Biden recognized the new political order making it appear as if the coup had the full support of the oval office in Washington, D.C. Since December, the people of Peru have engaged in mass demonstrations, strikes and blockades of the mining areas aimed at forcing the resignation of Boluarte and the holding of new elections.

In recent weeks the announcement that the Pentagon would deploy approximately 1,100 troops to Peru in what is described as Resolute Sentinel 2023, has been met with opposition inside the country and throughout the regions of South America, Central America and the Caribbean. The official explanation from the White House regarding the sending of troops to Peru is that they will carry out training exercises among the military and police.

This decision by the Biden administration provides further proof that the U.S. capitalist class views Peru as being significant in their efforts to maintain economic hegemony of the mineral-rich state. Over the course of the last seven months since the right-wing coup, at least 66 people have been killed as a result of military and police actions against demonstrations and strikes.

On a legal basis, the ongoing harassment by the Boluarte regime of opposition figures in Peru obviously indicates that the U.S. has given authorization for the blatant violations of fundamental civil and human rights in the country. Numerous organizations involved in monitoring repressive governance in Latin America have cited the coup regime in Lima with gross abuses of union organizers, political activists, former elected officials and rank-and-file workers and farmers.

Although the former President Castillo has been denied a proper hearing involving the charges of rebellion against him, on July 6, the Peruvian State Attorney General Daniel Soria requested that the Supreme Court of Justice seize the assets of the socialist leader. Castillo is a former rural school teacher and union leader. Castillo’s assets were three properties in a rural area of Chota and a home in the Tacabamba district. See this.

What’s at Stake for the U.S. in Peru?

The former President Castillo’s rise to power in 2021 represented the aspirations of the workers and peasants who have been exploited for centuries by the landed oligarchy allied with multinational extractive corporations which reap enormous profits from the resources and labor of the people. Historically, colonial and semi-colonial territories and nations are designed to extend the profit-making capacity of the capitalist class based in the western industrialized states.

Peru supporters of ousted President Pedro Castillo who remains in prison (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Peru has vast reservoirs of mineral deposits which are essential in the global capitalist system of production and distribution. The country is the second largest producer of copper, silver and zinc. It is the third leading producer of lead and the fourth supplier of tin and molybdenum. In addition, Peru is the eighth largest producer of gold internationally, and the number one source in Latin America.

According to one source on the known mineral resources existing in the country and its relationship to the pre-colonial period says:

“Peru’s mining industry has always played a vital role in the nation’s economy. Mining dated back to pre-Inca times and thrived through the Inca, colonial, and republican periods, contributing to much of the country’s development. As a critical component of its economic development, mining accounts for 10% of Peru’s GDP and 60% of its exports, making minerals its leading export sector…. In addition, Peru has a wealth of non-metallic resources, such as phosphates, manganese, and uranium. In the last ten years, high production rates have attracted USD $60 billion in inbound investment into Peru’s mining sector. However, future mining projects set to move into development within the next few years are worth an estimated of over US$55 billion.” (See this)

Peru is dependent upon Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) as the principal engine of economic growth domestically. The leading players in FDI in the country are the U.S., the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Spain, Brazil and Chile. Since the 1990s under the presidency of Alberto Fujimori, laws were drafted to facilitate external control over large sectors of the national economy.

The utilization of mining as a major source of wealth generation has increased the GDP of Peru and the profitability of the corporations which control the extractive industry. Nonetheless, there have been negative outcomes related to the environmental damage done by mining.

Labor unions and peasant organizations representing the Indigenous communities have resisted the encroachment by the multinational corporations and their super-exploitation of the land and labor of the majority within society. Since the coup in December, people living in the southern mining and tourist areas have used direct action aimed at emphasizing their demands for a democratic government based upon the interests of the workers and farmers. (See this)

The same news website quoted above highlights the corporate-friendly character of the Peruvian state:

“Peru’s strength as a secure investment destination is also reflected in its international integration. It has signed over 30 Agreements for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments and Agreements to Avoid Double Taxation And Prevent Tax Evasion with Mexico, Canada, Brazil, and Japan, among other major economies. Peru is also a member of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TP), and the EU Multi Party Trade Agreement. Furthermore, Peru is constantly improving its business climate to strengthen its economy. In collaboration with other public and private entities, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through the Directorate-General of Economic Promotion and its network of 137 diplomatic and consular missions, works tirelessly to promote investment in mining projects, focusing on social profitability and respect for the environment and surrounding communities.”

However, the reference to social profitability and environmental concerns are obviously thrown in for international public consumption. The response of the Peruvian conservative-dominated Congress and administration to the workers and farmers indicate that it is the U.S. and the western-controlled mining firms which have the primary consideration inside the country.

Strengthening the Repressive Neo-Colonial Apparatus

Consequently, the deployment of Pentagon special forces and security trainers to Peru illustrates the role of the U.S. in perpetuating the existing exploitative system prevailing in the country. Such a move being initiated to bolster an administration responsible for the staging of an imperialist-engineered coup, carrying out widespread false arrests, legal framings and the injuring and killing of its citizens should have been vigorously challenged within the U.S. Congress and media.

The only real attempt to prevent the deployment of U.S. troops to Peru was a challenge mounted by New York City Democratic Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez when she submitted an addendum to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which prohibits the funding and joint military cooperation with governments where human rights violations have occurred. Unfortunately, the effort failed to garner adequate support within the House of Representatives which is dominated by the Republican Party. (See this)

Even the minority Democratic members of the House and the majority within the Senate have not challenged the rising Pentagon budget. Moreover, both parties have not objected to the stated $115 billion commitment to continuing the NATO proxy war in Ukraine against the Russian Federation.

Biden’s coordination of a military-directed coup regime in Peru maintains the long existing foreign policy of the U.S. in Latin America. Washington does not want the consolidation of the leftward trend in national and international politics in the region.

Peru police repress democratic movement (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

Cuba, Venezuela, Honduras, Bolivia, Brazil, Nicaragua, among other states and mass movements are setting examples of what can be achieved through pursuing an independent domestic and foreign policy. The Republic of Mexico has expressed an interest in joining the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) Summit scheduled to meet from August 22-24 in the Republic of South Africa, the annual host. President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa has extended an invitation to all other 54 African Union (AU) member-states to attend the BRICS gathering. Many within the U.S. ruling class and Congress are bitterly opposed to the Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) and the Morena Party which has built its political base upon the notions of genuine independence and sovereignty from the U.S.

Threats of military intervention by the Pentagon against Mexico, under whatever pretext, should be categorically condemned by all progressive forces in the U.S. These military deployments are acts of desperation, as also holds true in regard to Peru.

It will not benefit the ruling class of the U.S. to expand the violent and unwarranted intervention in the internal affairs of states within Latin America. These efforts will result in a worsening social situation in the U.S., quickening the demise of the unjust and exploitative capitalist system.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Abayomi Azikiwe

From our knowledge of country level mortality as well as from carefully documented studies and sample surveys, the global implications of the “killer vaccine” on humanity are beyond description. 

What has been imposed on 184 countries is a Depopulation Agenda, a criminal undertaking (accepted by corrupt national governments) which is unprecedented in the history of humanity. 

In early 2021, Pfizer was fully aware that the mRNA Pfizer-BionTech vaccine –which in the meantime has been marketed Worldwide– had resulted in an unprecedented wave of mortality and morbidity.

In July 2023, 13,5 billion doses of the Covid-19 vaccine have been administered for a World population of 8 billion people. 

This is tantamount to a crime against humanity on the part of Big Pharma at the level of the entire planet.

It is also a  Mea Culpa and Treason on the part of corrupt national governments which have obfuscated what is best described as a criminal process of depopulation, namely genocide. 

 

Video: Michel Chossudovsky Interviewed by Caroline Mailloux

click lower right corner to leave a comment

 

Killer Vaccine: The Global Picture has to be Revealed

We Call for the Reinstatement of  “Responsible Government”. Those responsible for imposing the vaccine are “criminals”.

Scientists, Medical Doctors, Social Scientists, Statisticians must  Address the Global Picture 

Imagine what it is at the level of 8 billion people.

We must also acknowledge the unthinkable:

There is A Worldwide “Tide of Depopulation”.  Can This Tendency be Reversed?

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

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

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

***

On 26 May 2013, at the African Union (A.U.) ordinary meeting, a letter from the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, Mrs. Dr. Nkosazana Dlaminin Zuma was presented via email, the letter later became famous known as “email from the future“. Its content was the vision of 50 years later for Africa in economics, technology, peace and security, democracy, environment, infrastructure, gender equality, employment, agriculture, and health sector. This vision was named Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want.

In implementing and monitoring this vision, AU prepared a self-evaluation review that would take place every 10 years and carry out under the African Union Commission (AUC) together with the African Union Development Agency (AUDA-NEPAD). The first review was done in 2020 and the second was done through 38 out of 55 African countries. In that, A.U set 7 priority areas as “Aspirational Level” which are Integrated Economic Development, Continental Partnerships under the auspices of Pan Africanism, democracy and the Rule of Law, Peace, Culture, People driven development, and Africa as strong and influential global partner.

In the first 10 years review, East Africa passed with 53%, Southern Africa with 50%, West Africa scored 45%, Central Africa with 42%, and North Africa with 39%.

Report Analysis: How far are we?

This analysis will go through two (2) goals out of twenty (20) and gives its assessment, especially in the areas (within those goals) that either the report has not explained or has explained to an insufficient level.

Goal No. 3 concerning Health, the report stated that Africa had reached 77% of its Health program target for its people while explaining that the remaining few percentages were caused by the presence of COVID-19. Maternal health services along with controlling infant mortality have been stated as the main reasons for the high percentage of success in this goal. Let’s begin here; Africa has been importing more than 70% of all medical equipment and drugs used by its people from foreign countries, this situation has led to the importation of few drugs to the needs due to the high importation cost. Research from the Center for Global Development explains in detail that low-income countries pay 20 to 30 times more in drug costs compared to high-income countries.

In 2019 AU established an institution called African Medicines Agency (AMA) whose aim is to manage health services in Africa. One of the tasks assigned to the AMA is the improvement and development of medical research and laboratories for the production of drugs and vaccines, although only 22 countries in Africa ratified this agreement. Since the AMA depends on the contributions of AU member states to whom they have been less contributing, this situation has led to the unsatisfactory performance of the agency. In 2022 the agency fundraised a donation of 100 million Euros from the Bill and Melinda Gate Foundation and the European Union so that it can carry out its initiatives.

Let it be known that the success in the health sector through reproductive health services mentioned in the report is still aid from foreign countries, especially the United States through its “program” of AMPLIFY-PF and PEPFAR in Africa.

The 13th goal in this plan of Agenda 2063, aimed to preserve African peace and stability. The report analyzed only one area of deaths resulting from terrorist attacks, especially in the countries of Burkina Faso and Chad.

 Many Africans expect that the analysis would go further, especially to look at issues such as the endless war in the country of Libya, which the AU has largely abandoned and left to the countries of Turkey, the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the European Union to mediate and end the war. Africa has been a mere spectator in the war on its land.

This war has continued to fuel another security crisis in Africa of “Trafficking humans in containers” carried out in the coastal area of Libya. It is estimated that every year approximately 150,000 people try to cross the Mediterranean Sea to Europe. As of 2019, an estimated 19,000 people were drowned trying to cross, and this report is only deaths within 6 years. While these abuses continue for Africans, the country of Rwanda has taken this as an economic opportunity and needs to be paid money by the British Government to “help” European countries to take care of the many poor Africans mostly from Nigeria, Ghana, Gambia, and Eritrea who were trying to cross to those European countries.

It is not surprising to find that other countries in Africa are jealous of Rwanda for having that “deal”.

Africans still face the issue of hunger and food insecurity, especially in countries like Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Kenya. Drought has continued to threaten human existence in those areas, let alone the endless wars in Sudan, Mali, DR Congo, Mozambique, etc.

It is clear in the evaluation of this AU report that there are still many serious efforts to be taken. The continuation of the plans and the facilitation of the plans has still been a big stain for the African Union and its members. Several times it has been reported that the African Union Reserve Force (AU Standby Force Brigade) failed to carry out its activities due to the small number of financial contributions from partner countries. This situation leads to the existence of endless wars that lead the affected countries to seek help from foreign groups and nations, a move that threatens the freedom and liberty of those African nations.

In 2022, the AU adopted a resolution to establish the African Pharmaceutical Technology Foundation (APTF) as a plan to ensure Africa can produce vaccines, medicines, and medical equipment. This implementation plan is not different from AMA, although APTF is being financed by the African Development Bank (AfDB). If this plan succeeded, Africa would have made a big step in the health sector and the independence of its nations and people. We shall wait for this magic but as many Africans believe, then “let’s not stop praying” until this one thing succeeds.

*

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

Ezra Nnko is an expert in Geopolitics and International Policy based in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. He currently works for Liberty Sparks, an independent think-tank that operates in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Malawi.

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

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

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

***

 

Hunter Biden is a dangerous criminal, just like his father brain-dead Joe Biden. The “sweetheart deal” he got from the Justice Department and the hands-off attitude the FBI has shown him contrast with the political persecution of former President Trump. But so much is coming out about him that there is a chance he will go down and take his criminal father with him.

According to a story in May of last year on NBC News by Tom Winter, Sarah Fitzpatrick, Chloe Atkins, and Laura Strickler,

“From 2013 through 2018 Hunter Biden and his company brought in about $11 million via his roles as an attorney and a board member with a Ukrainian firm accused of bribery and his work with a Chinese businessman now accused of fraud, according to an NBC News analysis of a copy of Biden’s hard drive and iCloud account and documents released by Republicans on two Senate committees.”

The documents and the analysis, which don’t show what he did to earn millions from his Chinese partners, raise questions about national security, business ethics and potential legal exposure. In December 2020, Biden acknowledged in a statement that he was the subject of a federal investigation into his taxes. NBC News was first to report that an ex-business partner had warned Biden he should amend his tax returns to disclose $400,000 in income from the Ukrainian firm, Burisma. GOP congressional sources also say that if Republicans take back the House this fall, they’ll demand more documents and probe whether any of Biden’s income went to his father, President Joe Biden.

‘No government ethics rules apply to him,’ said Walter Shaub, a former director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics who is now an ethics expert with the Project on Government Oversight. Shaub added, however, that ‘it’s imperative that no one at DOJ and no one at the White House interfere with the criminal investigation in Delaware.’ Shaub had previously raised questions about Hunter Biden’s new line of work, selling his own paintings, which created the potential to purchase a painting to buy perceived influence, and also because the White House became involved in the transactions, arranging that none of the buyers’ names be known to Biden, the White House or the public.

Frank Figliuzzi, the FBI’s former assistant director for counterintelligence, said there is a national security risk when foreign powers like China see an opportunity to get close to someone like Biden. ‘It’s all about access and influence, and if you can compromise someone with both access and influence, that’s even better,’ said Figliuzzi, now an NBC News contributor. ‘Better still if that target has already compromised himself.’

The documents and the analysis indicate that few of Biden’s deals ever came to fruition and shed light on how fast he was spending his money. Expenditures compiled on his hard drive show he spent more than $200,000 per month from October 2017 through February 2018 on luxury hotel rooms, Porsche payments, dental work and cash withdrawals.

Biden has admitted to burning through cash to pay for drugs and partying with strangers who routinely stole from him, and he struggled to pay multiple mortgages or keep up with alimony and child support payments to his ex-wife. In his autobiography, ‘Beautiful Things,’ he says the money from Burisma ‘turned into a major enabler during my steepest skid into addiction’ and ‘hounded me to spend recklessly, dangerously, destructively. Humiliatingly. So I did.’

In a February 2017 divorce filing, an attorney for Biden’s ex-wife said the couple’s outstanding debts were ‘shocking and overwhelming’ and that they owed $313,000 in back taxes. According to the filing, they had bounced checks to their housekeeper and owed money to doctors and therapists. The filing alleged that Hunter Biden had spent copiously on drugs, strip clubs, prostitutes and girlfriends ‘while leaving the family with no money to pay legitimate bills.’

A representative for Biden says all of his tax responsibilities to the IRS are now satisfied. Two sources familiar with the matter have confirmed to NBC News that Hollywood attorney Kevin Morris began advising Biden in 2020 and arranged to pay off the approximately $2 million Biden owed the IRS.

Legal experts say, however, that paying the bill won’t relieve Biden of criminal liability or necessarily erase his debts.

NBC News analyst Chuck Rosenberg, a former Justice Department official, said that Biden’s paying what he owes could even be seen as an admission of criminal violations. Not paying taxes for many years, rather than one or two, Rosenberg said, helps establish intent, which can otherwise be a struggle for prosecutors in white-collar cases.

Paying the bill, Rosenberg said, might help Biden if he faced sentencing and ‘mitigate some of the damage, but it doesn’t undo the crime. That would be like returning money to a bank that you robbed. You still robbed the bank.’

Biden is represented by former federal prosecutor Christopher Clark in the ongoing criminal investigation in Delaware. Clark declined to comment on the record. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware declined to comment.

NBC News obtained a copy of Biden’s laptop hard drive from a representative of Rudy Giuliani and examined Biden’s business dealings from 2013 to 2018 based on the information available on the hard drive and the scope of the documents released by the Senate.

Biden made $5.8 million, more than half his total earnings from 2013 to 2018, from two deals with Chinese business interests.

Biden’s most lucrative business relationship was acting as a consultant in a project with a company that belongs to a once-powerful Chinese businessman who is now thought to be detained in his homeland.

According to business records referred to in the Senate report, Hudson West III, a venture funded by the Chinese oil and natural gas company CEFC and its chairman, Ye Jianming, paid $4,790,375.25 to Owasco P.C. over about one year.

Filings with the Washington, D.C., government show Owasco P.C. is controlled by Hunter Biden.

A review of the personal and corporate emails on Biden’s hard drive yield little information about any business he conducted on behalf of Hudson West III, and his autobiography doesn’t discuss his Chinese business dealings in any detail.

One of the few potential business opportunities discussed appears in a series of email exchanges among Biden, several U.S. partners and Chinese individuals associated with Hudson West III.

They talked about a potential gas deal on Monkey Island in Louisiana in 2017, but it appears no deal was made, and no publicly available documents indicate any sort of purchase, sale or agreement.

Britt Singletary, the attorney who conducted due diligence for the Monkey Island deal and another deal, told NBC News that ultimately the deals didn’t come together because they just didn’t make sense.

‘Financially, it wasn’t going to work,’ said Singletary, because the deals were too big and too risky for Hunter Biden, his uncle Jim Biden and their Chinese partners.

Citing attorney-client privilege, Singletary said he couldn’t discuss his advice on the deals to Hunter Biden, his uncle Jim or two Chinese employees of Hudson West III, Mervyn Yan and JiaQi Bao. He described Yan and Bao as ‘very smart’ and said two meetings occurred, one in Atlanta and one in New Orleans. Hunter Biden attended the meeting in New Orleans.

Singletary was counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 1970s, where he met then-Sen. Joe Biden. Singletary says he believes he was chosen because Joe Biden and ultimately Hunter Biden knew he wouldn’t get the Chinese businesspeople or the Bidens into bad business deals.

In 2018, Chinese prosecutors accused Ye Jianming of ‘economic crimes,’ including alleged fraud and bribery, and detained him for questioning. He hasn’t been seen in public since.

A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington told NBC News, ‘We are not familiar with the case you mentioned, and I’m afraid we can’t offer information on this.’

According to the Republican Senate report, Hudson West III, CEFC and another firm were involved in certain transactions that were ‘among those identified as potential efforts to layer funds.’

The U.S. Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network describes the layering of funds as ‘separating the illegally obtained money from its criminal source by layering it through a series of financial transactions, which makes it difficult to trace the money back to its original source.’

Biden also appears to have done work for one of Ye’s business associates. Patrick Ho was convicted in U.S. federal court of bribing top officials in Chad and Uganda in pursuit of oil deals in those countries starting in September 2014. A jury found that Ho, while working for CEFC, bribed or attempted to bribe officials as much as $2 million. He was sentenced to three years in prison in March 2019 and then expelled from the U.S. at the end of his prison term.

Federal court filings and emails on Biden’s hard drive indicate Ho was employed by CEFC and was an associate of Ye. Ho worked on the failed Monkey Island project.

Hudson West wired Biden’s company, Owasco, $1 million from Hudson West III in March 2018 with a memo line for ‘Dr Patrick Ho Chi Ping Representation,’ according to the Senate report and emails on the Biden hard drive.

Now it has come out that the Burisma matter is much more serious. It appears that  Joe Biden and Hunter Biden got bribes from Burisma: “President Joe Biden was allegedly paid $5 million by an executive of the Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings, where his son Hunter Biden sat on the board, a confidential human source told the FBI during a June 2020 interview, sources familiar told Fox News Digital.

The sources briefed Fox News Digital on the contents of the FBI-generated FD-1023 form alleging a criminal bribery scheme between then-Vice President Joe Biden and a foreign national that involved influence over U.S. policy decisions.

The FD-1023 form, dated June 30, 2020, is the FBI’s interview with a ‘highly credible’ confidential source who detailed multiple meetings and conversations he or she had with a top Burisma executive over the course of several years, starting in 2015. Fox News Digital has not seen the form, but it was described by several sources who are aware of its contents.

An FD-1023 form is used by FBI agents to record unverified reporting from confidential human sources. The form is used to document information as told to an FBI agent, but recording that information does not validate or weigh it against other information known by the FBI.

The Burisma executive sought the advice of the confidential source, a business professional, on gaining U.S. oil rights and getting involved with a U.S. oil company, the sources familiar with the document said. The Burisma executive was speaking with the confidential source to ‘get advice on the best way to go forward’ in 2015 and 2016.

According to the FD-1023 form, the confidential human source said the Burisma executive discussed Hunter’s role on the board. The confidential human source questioned why the Burisma executive needed his or her advice in acquiring access to U.S. oil if he had Hunter Biden on the board. The Burisma executive answered by referring to Hunter Biden as ‘dumb.’

The Burisma executive explained to the confidential source that Burisma had to ‘pay the Bidens’ because Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin was investigating Burisma, and explained how difficult it would be to enter the U.S. market in the midst of that investigation.

The confidential source further detailed that conversation, suggesting to the Burisma executive that he ‘pay the Bidens $50,000 each,’ to which the Burisma executive replied, it is ‘not $50,000,’ it is ‘$5 million.’

‘$5 million for one Biden, $5 million for the other Biden,’ the Burisma executive told the confidential human source, according to a source familiar with the document.

A source familiar said according to the document, the $5 million payments appeared to reference a kind of ‘retainer” Burisma intended to pay the Bidens to deal with a number of issues, including the investigation led by Shokin. Another source referred to the arrangement as a ‘pay-to-play’ scheme.

Sources familiar told Fox News Digital that the confidential human source believes that the $5 million payment to Joe Biden and the $5 million payment to Hunter Biden occurred, based on his or her conversations with the Burisma executive.

The confidential source said the Burisma executive told him he ‘paid’ the Bidens in such a manner ‘through so many different bank accounts’ that investigators would not be able to ‘unravel this for at least 10 years.’ The document then makes reference to ‘the Big Guy,’ which, has been said to be a reference to Joe Biden.

The Burisma executive told the confidential source that he ‘didn’t pay the Big Guy directly.’

Fox News Digital has learned that the confidential human source has been used by the FBI as a regular, reliable source of information since 2010 and has been paid approximately $200,000 by the bureau.

Sources said the Burisma executive appears to be at a ‘very, very high level’ of the company. One source familiar suggested the confidential source could be referring to the head of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, but said the name of the Burisma executive is redacted in the document.

Biden has acknowledged that when he was vice president, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin. At the time, Shokin was investigating Burisma Holdings, and at the time, Hunter had a highly-lucrative role on the board receiving thousands of dollars per month. The then-vice president threatened to withhold $1 billion of critical U.S. aid if Shokin was not fired.”

David R. wrote to me:

Lew:

Tucker Carlson has already alluded to it, but this is how they will probably prevent Joe Biden from running in 2024. 

Those classified documents in and of themselves are not enough to disqualify Biden from running. 

But one or two classified documents tied directly to Hunter Biden’s activities with overseas clients involving either Ukraine or China should do the trick to disqualify ole Joe. 

Especially when they find large sums of money involved in those transactions. 

The beauty of it is neither the son nor the father because of their limited mental capacities would have had exact memories on the locations or import of those many classified documents floating around town.  

They could have easily been planted by anyone.”

Let’s hope he is right. We must do everything we can to get the criminal Bidens out of our lives.

*

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

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. He is the author of Against the State and Against the Left. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

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

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

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

***

Britain and its partners such as the US are imposing economic sanctions on dozens of governments they don’t like, but some individuals in Nicaragua are being targeted on the basis of little or no evidence.

The UK, along with the US and Canadian governments and the European Union, has created a sanctions regime targeting around 40 countries across the globe.

While economic sanctions against states are best-known, they also include thousands of individuals whose assets have been frozen or confiscated, their travel restricted and their ability to do business constrained.

Typically, names are added to a government’s sanctions lists with no prior warning or “due process”. The individuals affected are in practice unable to challenge their inclusion, since it would require expensive legal action in different countries with an uncertain chance of success.

There is a growing body of opinion, reflected in the work of those such as the Sanctions Kill campaign, that these “unilateral coercive measures” are illegal in international law if they affect the enjoyment of human rights, such as freedom from hunger or access to health care, in the countries targeted.

Neither the UK nor US governments seem deterred either by this or by the adverse effects of their sanctions on the human rights of poor communities.

Targeting Nicaragua

One example is Nicaragua, which was initially targeted during the first Sandinista government in the 1980s, and, more recently, following nationwide protests beginning in April 2018.

Those protests quickly escalated into open and often violent confrontations between groups of protestors and groups of government supporters with the national police.

The UK government has sanctioned 16 public officials ranging from vice-president Rosario Murillo to various ministers or former ministers, judges and police officers.

A year after he was sanctioned by Washington, last December the UK sanctioned the mayor of the city of Matagalpa, Sadrach Zelodón Rocha, one of the best known mayors of the ruling Sandinista party in the country.

Strangely, his vice mayor, Yohaira Hernández Chirino, was also added to the UK list, although she has never been sanctioned by the US, Canada, or the EU.

Zelodón Rocha and Hernández Chirino are the only Nicaraguan mayors or deputy mayors on the UK list. The sanctions, subjecting both to “an asset freeze and travel ban”, also extend to members of their immediate families.

Freedom of information

As one of us has known Zeledón Rocha and the rest of his immediate family for more than 30 years, we submitted a formal Freedom of Information request to the UK government asking for clarification of the sanctions decisions that affect both him and Hernández Chirino.

It took several months to get a reply, and it only came on the day on which the UK government’s Information Commissioner had threatened to start legal proceedings against the Foreign Office because of its failure to respond.

The most important question, of course, was on what basis the decisions had been made. The Foreign Office declined to provide specific evidence. 

It stated only:

“Zeledón and Hernandez were designated for their involvement in violations of the right to life and right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, by promoting and inciting serious human rights violations against protesters.”

It added:

“Before the sanctions were imposed against Zeledón and Hernandez, evidence was collected from a variety of open sources, including civil society reports and media reports.”

Elsewhere in the response, the Foreign Office clarified that its actions relate solely to events in 2018, almost five years before the UK imposed its sanctions.

Nicaragua’s three months of protests in 2018 affected Matagalpa less than some other cities. But they involved, in addition to relatively peaceful marches, an attempted assault on its town hall and police headquarters, the looting and burning of the municipal depot, and attacks on individual homes by various opposition groups.

Those groups also set up a roadblock controlling all traffic on the only road directly connecting the city to the Pacific half of the country, restricting the flow of food and other goods to and from the city.

Human rights reports

We researched the human rights reports that may have been used by the Foreign Office, seeking to uncover hard evidence for the two classes of human rights violations which empowered the UK government to impose sanctions.

Perhaps the most detailed, and certainly one of the most internationally cited reports, is the one by the Grupo Interdisciplinario de Expertos Independientes. The GIEI was set up by the Organization of American States in May 2018, with the agreement of the Nicaraguan government, and reported the following December.

Of the 500 pages in its report, around 12 are dedicated to the May 2018 events in Matagalpa, which are at the core of the accusations against Zeledón Rocha.

The GIEI report lists three deaths in Matagalpa from the relevant time period, two of whom were Sandinistas and members of the governing party and none of whom were likely targets of the mayor or deputy mayor.

The report does not attempt to link Zeledón Rocha directly to any of the three deaths. A subsequent petition by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights makes no mention of him either.

It therefore appears that the Foreign Office’s evidence for Zeledón Rocha’s “violations of the right to life” is flimsy at best. The sanctions against him cannot therefore be due to the “right to life” class of human rights violations.

It is important to note that it is typical of many human rights reports of this period that deaths among Sandinistas, government officials or police, are either unrecorded or wrongly added to the tally of deaths caused by the government. For example, six other Sandinistas or government officials were killed in Matagalpa in 2018.

Evidence?

What then of the evidence for Zeledón Rocha’s violations of the “right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, by promoting and inciting serious human rights violations against protesters”, the second class of human rights violations that can serve as reasons for sanctions under UK law?

The sole piece of visual evidence linking him to any violations is a single photograph in the GIEI report that allegedly shows him with “shock groups” prior to May 11. Interestingly, none of those visible in the photo are armed, and none are wearing any sort of military gear or face coverings.

In an adjacent photo purportedly showing the same “shock groups”, a woman is wearing shorts and sandals – hardly the sort of gear appropriate for paramilitary action. The report then goes on to cite an interview in which Zeledón Rocha was accused of “that day leading the [paramilitaries]”.

That apparently sufficed as evidence, in spite of the multiple questions that might be raised. For example, why appoint Zeledón Rocha, when he was never in the military, much less in any command position?

During the 1980s, as a licenced civil engineer, he held positions in the ministries of housing and commerce, in the International Red Cross and in the Electoral Commission for the 1990 elections.

In 2001-2005 and since 2008, Zeledón Rocha has served as mayor of Matagalpa, winning national acclaim – including among opposition media outlets – for the extensive development of the city’s housing, health, transportation, educational and recreational infrastructure.

His administrative, technical, and managerial skillset seems conspicuously inappropriate for leading paramilitaries, especially given the plethora of other Sandinistas who have extensive military experience gained during the Contra war of the 1980s.

The wounded

The GIEI report states that 40 people were wounded during the May 15 confrontations between protesters and counter-protesters over a blockade which cut the entire city off from the Pacific side of the country, starving Matagalpinos of supplies and food.

Although there are several photographs of wounded protesters, Zeledón Rocha’s name is unmentioned. Instead, blame for the wounded is laid at the feet of the national police, who allegedly fired with military grade weaponry.

Turning to Hernández Chirino, she does not appear at all in the GIEI report, nor in any others we have been able to find. Her appearance in the sanctions list is therefore puzzling and appears to be a case of guilt by association.

She most certainly does not appear to be directly implicated in any way to any human rights violations and was purportedly surprised, if not bewildered, by her inclusion in the sanctions list.

The case for “promoting and supporting grievous violations of human rights” against Hernández Chirino, at least according to the GIEI report, is literally non-existent, and the case against Zeledón Rocha verges on non-existent.

The stated rationale behind the sanctions therefore cannot possibly be the real rationale behind them.

Symbolic importance

It’s hard to believe that those in the US or UK governments charged with deciding who to sanction are aware of the subtleties of Nicaraguan politics at the municipal level. The most straightforward and most probable explanation for the inclusion of Zeledón Rocha and Hernández Chirino in the sanctions list is their symbolic political importance.

Zeledón Rocha in particular is widely known for his achievements, including in opposition media outlets, in developing the region’s infrastructure, for the competency of his administration, and for his willingness to work with all sectors of Nicaraguan society, regardless of their political persuasion.

He has therefore earned ever increasing responsibilities, making him an obvious target for those aiming to discredit the government and its policies.

We should also ask why sanctions are used at all. It is widely acknowledged, even by conservative think tanks such as the Cato Institute, that they’re utterly ineffective.

Neither Zeledón Rocha nor Hernández Chirino have any assets or interests in assets in any of the countries that have sanctioned them. Neither of them take holidays or travel professionally to any of those countries.

Both the US and the UK governments could easily have discovered that the net effects would be close to zero, and both had the means and the reach to research all that we have covered in this article before imposing their sanctions.

They did not consider it necessary or important to do so, raising the question of what exactly they aimed to achieve, or what behaviour they aimed to change in imposing the sanctions.

Political theatre

Given the lack of compelling evidence coupled with the predictable ineffectiveness of the sanctions, the inescapable conclusion is that the sanctions are simply a piece of political theatre, for domestic consumption in the imposing countries.

Both the US and the UK governments would apparently like to be seen as promoting “free and open societies around the world”, in the parlance of the UK foreign secretary. Unilateral sanctions are an approved means towards that end.

Underlying all of this, however, is the uncomfortable truth that this symbolic political posturing has real, material effects, perhaps not directly on those sanctioned, but on the overall climate of international aid, loans, and cooperation with a poor country still trying to recover from the violence of 2018 and the economic damage of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The actions against individuals may be ineffective, but the wider economic sanctions are not. Nicaragua has not been as badly hit in this respect as neighbouring Cuba or Venezuela, but has seen the blocking of loans from the World Bank, several trade sanctions and only minimal medical aid from western countries during the Covid crisis.

According to Nicaragua’s finance and housing minister, development loans have fallen from an average of over $800 million before 2018 to under $300 million since then, mainly because of US influence over or blocking of finance from international institutions.

Just as in the cases of Zelodón Rocha and Hernández Chirino, there is neither due process nor any accessible appeal mechanism where Nicaragua can contest these wider actions of foreign governments.

*

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

Erik Mar lived in Matagalpa, Nicaragua for several years and now lives in the United States.

John Perry writes from and lives in Masaya, Nicaragua, where he has lived for 20 years.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

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

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

***

Is there a link between COVID-19 vaccines and Multiple Sclerosis?

2021 April – 35 year old UK nurse Rachel McKinney developed Multiple Sclerosis a few weeks after getting her first 2 Pfizer mRNA jabs in Dec. 2020 and Jan. 2021, and was dead by April 2021 (click here).

Rachel was among the first recipients of Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in England, receiving 1st dose in late Dec 2020 and 2nd dose in Jan. 2021.

Weeks after her 2nd dose in February 2021, Rachel started having slurred speech and feeling confused. She was hospitalized and soon became paralyzed and lost her ability to speak.

She was diagnosed with Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis and after multiple seizures she was placed in a medically induced coma.

Rachel died on April 3, 2021, after 46 days in the hospital. Doctors said Rachel developed a rare form of Multiple Sclerosis after her COVID-19 vaccines.

VAERS 970658 – 62 year old Florida man was diagnosed with “Exacerbation of multiple sclerosis” 4 days after 1st Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccine.

This is one of the first documented cases of “Multiple Sclerosis exacerbation” that were being published in the VAERS database as early as January 2021.

Published Research 

March 2023 – Alluqmani studied 32 people who developed MS after COVID-19 vaccines. He found:

• mean age 30 years old (range 21 to 45)
• 21 had vertigo and imbalance, 7 had visual symptoms, 3 had motor symptoms
• 20/32 had Pfizer, 3/32 had Moderna, 9/32 had AstraZeneca
• 25 had MS symptoms after 1st dose, 7 after 2nd dose

• 14 had brainstem demyelinating lesions, 12 had cerebral lesions, 6 had cervical spinal cord lesions, 2 had dorsal spinal cord lesions

• risk factors for developing MS: low Vitamin D, antibodies for Epstein-Barr Nuclear Antigen, family history of MS

March 2023 – Jeon et al. reported a 19 year old soldier who died suddenly

• 19 year old Korean soldier was found dead in barracks on March 22, 2022
• had 2nd mRNA vaccine 6 months before death
• 3 months before death he started getting seizures
• 17 days before death he had COVID-19, self-limited course at home
• several days before death he complained of recurrent seizures at night

Jan.2022 – Toljan et al. reported 5 new diagnoses of MS post mRNA vaccine

• 29 yo woman had acute left leg weakness 1 day after Pfizer
• 37 yo man had left hand paresthesia 3 days after 1st Pfizer
• 41 yo man had bilateral foot numbness 1 month after 2nd Moderna
• 46 yo woman had bilateral arm pain and left foot drop 3 days after 2nd Moderna
• 43 yo woman had right arm weakness 5 weeks after 2nd dose of Pfizer
• all 5 cases had brain or brain stem lesions on MRI.

Pfizer and Moderna’s involvement in Multiple Sclerosis 

Pfizer/BioNTech is making an mRNA vaccine for Multiple Sclerosis (click here)

Interestingly, just as Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines were being rolled out and first cases of Multiple Sclerosis after COVID-19 vaccination were being reported, the founders of Pfizer’s mRNA partner BioNTech published a paper in January 2021 on a newly invented mRNA vaccine for Multiple Sclerosis they “successfully” tested on mice.

On Jan.13, 2022, world famous journal “Science” published a paper claiming that Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) caused most cases of Multiple Sclerosis (click here).

“We tested the hypothesis that MS is caused by Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) in a cohort comprising more than 10 million young adults on active duty in the US military, 955 of whom were diagnosed with MS during their period of service.”

“Risk of MS increased 32-fold after infection with EBV but was not increased after infection with other viruses…suggest EBV as the leading cause of MS.”

Jan. 14, 2022 – Forbes Magazine announced Moderna started human trials for EBV mRNA vaccine (click here) 

Just one day after Science published a paper claiming EBV causes Multiple Sclerosis, Forbes announced that Moderna just started human trials of “an mRNA vaccine for a virus (EBV) that likely causes Multiple Sclerosis.

My Take…

WHO’s VigiAccess Database (click here) has 2180 cases of Multiple Sclerosis reported linked to COVID-19 vaccines. Here is a comparison to other neurological injuries:

• 21,786 Seizures
• 11,723 Bell’s Palsy
• 7,693 Guillain-Barre syndrome
• 5,650 brain fog
• 5,413 paralysis
• 2,180 multiple sclerosis
• 1,300 transverse myelitis

The extent of coordination between the biggest journals like Science, and big pharma, is very visible in the case of Multiple Sclerosis.

Just as the first COVID-19 vaccines were being rolled out and first cases of post-vaccine Multiple Sclerosis were being reported in VAERS, Pfizer/BioNTech announced to the world they had successfully tested their new mRNA vaccine for Multiple Sclerosis on mice.

A year later, one of world’s biggest journals “Science” published a paper claiming most cases of Multiple Sclerosis are caused by Epstein-Barr Virus. The next day, Forbes announced that Moderna had just begun human trials of its EBV mRNA vaccine that can treat Multiple Sclerosis.

There is no nice way to say it:

Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna knew they would cause COVID-19 mRNA vaccine injuries and both were already positioned and fully prepared to profit from the very injuries they caused. 

This is the new big pharma business model in the 2020s. 

The implication is that Pfizer & Moderna knew exactly the types of injuries their COVID-19 mRNA vaccines would cause, before they released them on the public in December 2020.

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author

---

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

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

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

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

***

On the side of an apartment high-rise block dominantly visible between buildings surrounding Brussel’s Gare du Midi railway station, the finishing touches are being made to an extraordinary piece of art. One can just perceive the figure in the cage extended out on the hydraulic arm of the vehicle which provides the platform from which the artist can apply his paints to this vast canvas.

The work depicts, as I grasp it, a shining techno-industrial mobile phone tower pinnacling out of the summit of a vast concrete temple flanked by two grand curving stairways, at the bottom of which is a platform covered with a great crowd of people. Above the tower wispy chemtrails have formed an X in the sky, while the bottom quarter of the artwork is dominated by a voluminous sea of red dotted with flecks of black.

The symbolism is powerful. The work might be titled “So here we are”. For yes, this is where we are – if by ‘we’ one understands the current materialistically imprisoned post industrial world – driven on by the relentless force of globalisation.

Brussels, still a remarkably human city by today’s standards, has the misfortune of housing the European Union HQ, which is not a very human conglomerate. And what goes on in it is equally devoid of humanity. For it is about being ‘big, central and dominating’.

Big, central and dominating is the future of the planet if you subscribe to the techno-industrial mind’s two dimensional determinism.

In the soothing words of Klaus Schwab and Yuval Noah Harari, it is to be an Information Technology/Artificial Intelligence future, in which Schwab tells us “we will have nothing and will be happy”.

The mobile phone tower and mast which tops the temple of techno-industrial prowess, is an ugly, spindly piece of steel which is an expression of dominance in its own right. The vast global infrastructure formed by these Saturnian steel structures carry with them a penetrating EMF amplified soup of toxicity.

It is this ‘network’ which acts as the gateway to the virtual reality world of those who depend on it for their ‘signals’. Signals that have an abstracted kind of dominance and pronounced tendency to thin the blood and blur the brain.

The majority of messages that come through this gateway concern how to get on in ‘the system’.

How to get from A to B faster; news faster; financial reports faster; connections with family and friends faster; everything faster.

Being permanently plugged-in to this hyper electromagnetic crossroads of life is said to be the only way to ‘stay in touch’, to be a participant in the mental matrix; to be part of ‘the programme’.

But already twenty years ago I decided to cut my ties with this programme. Dispensing with the mobile phone turned out to be an act of liberation, soon to be followed by the ousting of the TV.

Big Brother was consigned to the back seat and I saw that a life that belonged to myself still existed, all be it with the proviso that one prioritised one’s values with a solid dose of determination to be true to that which is ‘real’ in life.

Perhaps this is why I can see so clearly how those who continue to participate in the ‘programme’ are running blindly towards an uncompromisingly sheer cliff-face, and how their voracious demands on the natural environment are increasingly undermining her natural resilience.

I can see something particularly shocking – that this frenetic rush to the cliff face and the great consumption of finite resources it involves – has no other purpose than playing-out a quasi demonic fascination with ever more refined toys of distraction. Distraction from the real pulse of life.

Yet this techno-industrial suicide machine is staffed by humans who appear not to recognise that their joint mission is programmed to end in collapse.

On the contrary, they seem to think that by increasing the efficiency and speed of the means of travel, it will somehow consummate its own need to arrive at where it is headed for. Where or what that is – simply never gets asked.

However, the psychotic gods of insentient ‘progress’ who designed the programme have built into it a series of ‘events’ which reach a certain conclusion in something they call the Transhuman. A robotic state of computer connected and controlled brain power for those able to pay for it.

To pay for the right to be dehumanised and rendered devoid of the need – and indeed ability – to think. Freed from emotion and freed from a soul based link to one’s Creator.

Stations on the way to this dark point of human annulment are laid-out under the WEF creed known as ‘The Great Reset’. A ‘Reset’ from human to non human.

Here are some of stations along the Great Reset route to the Transhuman:

The cessation of food grown in soil and the manufacturing of synthetic food produced in laboratories (at least six of which are already in production).

The end of farming the land as we know it and the removal of redundant farmers and country dwellers into 5 and 6G controlled total surveillance ‘smart cities’.

Countryside and farm landscapes redesigned to accommodate ‘rewilding’ projects and gated access to designated ‘leisure sites’ for those who can afford access. 

The end of bank notes and coinage, replaced by a centrally controlled digital currency whose availability will depend upon one’s ‘social credit’ a la China.

The confiscation of one’s assets and private property with the option to ‘rent’ aspects of them back from the corporate state that is to become the new owner.

‘Self-autonomous’ 5G guided transportation systems operating between major cities.

100% surveillance via satellite and ‘the internet of everything’ and the profligate use of algorithms to pick-up any signs of resistance in communications.

The repression of true spirituality in favour of a ‘one world religion’.

Deliberate blurring of sexual delineation ‘man/woman’ and the decline of normal sexual reproduction.

Sperm-counts further reduced due to de-vitaminised synthetic GMO foods, vaccinations and polluted air and water –  population control.

Enforced ‘15 minute cities’ as centres of local authority control.

Designer gene-altered babies via laboratory cloning of DNA sequences and cell tissues.

The removal of certain words from the common language, particularly poetic and spiritual ones.

Real art reduced to pseudo art as an expression of the will of the state, including dark-side ritual.

‘Medical health’ seen as the sole domain of Big Pharma with natural medicine outlawed.

Further media/government control over the passing of public information.

There is more, much more.

But this is enough to show the basic composition of the stations on the way to ‘Transhumanism’. The arrival point of which is said to be circa 2035.

Behind this in-your-face destruction of hard won human liberties is a vast global propaganda/indoctrination exercise already in existence for more than two decades and built around the now infamous ‘Zero carbon by 2045’ or ‘Net Zero’ in news-speak (Orwell).

When challenged by those still able to question the need for these deadly impositions, the answer is always the same “To save the world from Global Warming.”

This piece of acute brainwashing, initially devised at the Club of Rome in 1972, is key to the whole ‘programme’.

As long as enough people buy into it for long enough, the slavery exercise will be irreversible.

Based on the current rate of awakening, the discovery that anthropogenic Global Warming is a mega lie will likely be neutralised by the impositions already in place to prevent an uprising.

The techno-industrial god will then have served its purpose. Like the rocket booster that gets the capsule into orbit, it will have taken the majority of mankind over the brink into abject slavery to its hypnotic convenience culture, before imploding in on itself and taking much of humanity and nature’s life sustaining diversity with it.

BUT, all this can be avoided. It doesn’t have to happen.  It won’t happen. Our lives do not depend upon adopting the smart technology of tomorrow, today. We won’t any longer be seduced by ‘convenience’ once we recognise it is leading to our self destruction, will we?

We will retain sufficient will-power to get shot of this addiction to the IT/AI life inhibiting distractions that make up the mind controlled road to Armageddon.

The only way to recognise just how diabolical is the trap that has been set for us – and that we have set for ourselves – is to get a grip on our sense of deeper purpose in this life. To make an unbreakable commitment to listen and respond to the call of our souls. The true self. And then pull this true self out of any association with the metaverse mincing machine.

Let no one in possession of a soul ever allow himself/herself to become processed into a sub human product of the techno-industrial behemoth. Stick with what’s solid, what’s real – and ditch the counterfeit virtual world that snares the unweary and turns once healthy minds into casualties of a blind rush to a dystopian digital nowhere land.

*

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

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, a writer and international activist. His recent book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind’ is a powerful call to resist the Transhuman agenda. Visit Julian’s website at www.julianrose.info

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Study.com

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

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

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

***

The optics don’t favor Russia since it looks like it was hoodwinked yet again without doing anything to deter future violations of other deals by Turkiye or other supposedly trusted partners. If the political will is present, which is impossible to know due to the traditional opacity of Russia’s decision-making processes, then the most that it could realistically do is seriously consider replacing Turkiye’s prior mediating role with another country or collection thereof.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov condemned Turkiye’s violation of the deal that it helped broker between Moscow and Kiev last year over the release of Azovstal fighters as part of a larger prisoner exchange between the two sides. They were supposed to remain in that West Asian state until the end of the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine but were just sent home on Zelensky’s plane following his latest trip there, after which they then pledged to return to the frontlines.

Peskov noted that Turkiye was under immense pressure from NATO ahead of its upcoming summit next week, but he still said that “a breach of an agreement flatters no one.” Nevertheless, nobody should be surprised by this development since it should have been assumed that those fighters would inevitably be released before the conflict’s end the moment that they were sent to that country. This cynical assessment is premised on three points.

First, NATO’s pressure upon Turkiye was predictable, especially in the run-up to its upcoming summit. Second, President Erdogan calculated that it would be better to release those fighters during Zelensky’s latest trip ahead of that event than to keep them in his country since this could counteract the false claims pushed by the Mainstream Media alleging that he’s “pro-Russian”. And finally, he expected that Russia’s response would be contained to rhetoric and that no meaningful consequences would follow.

About the last-mentioned point, these two countries’ strategic partnership has remained rock-solid in the sixteen months since the start of Russia’s special operation despite immense pressure from NATO upon Turkiye to completely cut off ties with Moscow. It’s a testament to how important President Putin considers these relations to be that he didn’t order his side to curtail bilateral ties one bit in spite of Ankara arming Kiev with lethal drones for use against his own country’s servicemen.

It would thus be inconsistent with precedent for him to overreact to Turkiye’s violation of the Azovstal deal by using it as the pretext for unilaterally weakening their strategic partnership that he’s so patiently kept intact despite comparatively much worse provocations as explained above. That said, there’s also no denying that the optics don’t favor Russia since it looks like it was hoodwinked yet again without doing anything to deter future violations of other deals by Turkiye or other supposedly trusted partners.

If the political will is present, which is impossible to know due to the traditional opacity of Russia’s decision-making processes, then the most that it could realistically do is seriously consider replacing Turkiye’s prior mediating role with another country or collection thereof. In practice, this could take the form of India, the UAE, and/or the African Union taking on associated responsibilities per their previously expressed interest in doing so if they were requested by both sides to play this role.

Therein lies the challenge, however, since Zelensky and/or his Western patrons might insist on Turkiye continuing to play this role for whatever reason. In that case, even the strongest political will by Russia to have another country or group thereof mediating between it and Kiev could be doomed to fail, though the counterpoint is that no mediation can take place at all if those two don’t agree on who should facilitate their talks. It’s with this in mind that everything could possibly get a lot more interesting.

As was argued in this analysis here, several developments last week strongly suggest that Russian-Ukraine talks will recommence in some form by the end of the year, though it was thought that Turkiye would once again host them due to Zelensky’s recent visit and President Putin’s upcoming one. That can no longer be taken for granted after it violated the Azovstal deal in the event that Russia has the political will to deter future violations of other deals by that country or other supposedly trusted partners.

In that case, if it adamantly insists behind the scenes on someone else playing this role instead, then Kiev and its Western patrons could be forced to begrudgingly agree to explore other options if they’re serious about resuming these talks. Of course, it could very well be that President Putin prefers for his Turkish counterpart to continue mediating between his country and Ukraine, but that can’t be known for sure until such a signal is unambiguously sent.

Until then, there are grounds to believe that another country or collection thereof could replace Turkiye’s role, or at the very least be discretely approached by Russia about this. Objectively speaking, India, the UAE, and/or the African Union might be more reliable in this respect since they’re not NATO members like Turkiye is and therefore can’t be pressured in the same way. India is also truly neutral towards the Ukrainian Conflict since it’s consistently abstained from anti–Russian UNGA Resolutions.

Turkiye, the UAE, and a little over half of the African Union’s members all voted in support of at least some of them, with the first-mentioned backing all four since the latest phase of the conflict began. Coupled with its sale of lethal drones to Kiev and violation of the Azovstal deal, the case can be made that it’s long overdue for Russia to finally consider another country or collection thereof as mediators instead of letting Turkiye retain this role and think that its unfriendly actions won’t have consequences.

*

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

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

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.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

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

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

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

***

In the aftermath of the chaotic US and UK withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021, Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir warned in the Washington Post of the dangers of “ignoring one important consequence of the Taliban takeover: the coming boom in Afghanistan’s narcotics trade.” 

Mir then boldly predicted that, “in the next few years, a flood of drugs from Afghanistan may become a bigger threat than terrorism.”

This projection of an international drug trade boom seemed plausible, considering the longstanding accusations that the Taliban funded their two-decade insurgency against the occupying forces by controlling opium production. In fact, it was believed that 95 percent of heroin used in Britain originated from Afghan opium.

It comes as a surprise then, that a June 2023 report published by Alcis, a British-based geographic information services firm, revealed that the Taliban government had all but eliminated opium cultivation in the country, wiping out the base ingredient needed to produce heroin. This outcome mirrored a similar move by the Taliban in 2000 when they were in power for the first time.

Ironically, instead of praising Kabul’s new leaders for quashing the source of illicit drugs, the international community responded to this development with criticism. Even the US Institute for Peace (USIP), which is funded by the US government, argued that “The Taliban’s successful opium ban is bad for Afghans and the world.”

Such western displeasure towards the Taliban’s efforts to dismantle the global heroin trade may seem perplexing at first glance.

However, a closer examination of events in Afghanistan reveals a different perspective. Under the guise of the “War on Terror,” the 2001 US and UK invasion was driven in part by the desire to restore the heroin trade, which the Taliban had abruptly terminated just a year earlier. 

The western powers sought to reestablish the lucrative flow of billions of dollars that the heroin trade provided to their financial systems. In fact, “For 20 years, America essentially ran a narco-state in Afghanistan.”

‘Dollar for Dollar’

To understand the origins of the Afghan heroin trade, a review of US involvement in the central Asian nation is necessary, beginning in 1979 when the CIA embarked on a covert program to undermine the pro-Soviet Afghan government in Kabul. 

The US covertly supported an umbrella of Muslim guerrilla fighters known as mujahideen, with the hope that provoking an insurgency would entice the Soviet Army to intervene. This calculated move would force the Soviets into occupying Afghanistan and engaging in a protracted and costly counter-insurgency campaign, thereby weakening the Soviet Union over time.

To accomplish this, the CIA turned to its close allies, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, for help. Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan facilitated a meeting between CIA Director William Casey and Saudi King Fahd, in which the Saudis committed to matching “America dollar for dollar supporting the mujahedeen.”

The US and Saudi Arabia, with help from Pakistani’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), set up training camps for the mujahideen in Pakistan, and supplied them with advisors, weapons, and cash to fight the Soviets. 

Gulbaddin Hekmatyar, the founder of the Hizb-i-Islami militia, was among the most prominent mujahideen leaders, receiving some $600 million in aid from the CIA and its allies.

Journalist Steve Coll writes in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Ghost Wars that Hekymatyar recruited from the most radical, anti-western, transnational Islamist networks to fight with him, including Osama bin Laden and other Arab volunteers. CIA officers “embraced Hekmatyar as their most dependable and effective ally,” and “the most efficient at killing Soviets.”

Caravans of Opium

Aid to Hekymatyar and other mujahideen leaders was not limited to cash and weapons. According to renowned historian Alfred McCoy:

“1979 and 1980, just as the CIA effort was beginning to ramp up, a network of heroin laboratories opened along the Afghan-Pakistan frontier. That region soon became the world’s largest heroin producer.”

The process involved smuggling raw opium gum to Pakistan, where it was processed into heroin in laboratories run by the ISI. The finished product was then discreetly transported via Pakistani airports, ports, or overland routes. 

Image: U.S. troops guarding an opium poppy field in Afghanistan.

By 1984, Afghan heroin supplied a staggering 60 percent of the US market and 80 percent of the European market, while devastatingly creating 1.3 million heroin addicts in Pakistan, a country previously untouched by the highly-addictive drug.

McCoy states further that, “caravans carrying CIA arms into that region for the resistance often returned to Pakistan loaded down with opium.” Reports from 2001 cited by the New York Times confirmed that this occurred “with the assent of Pakistani or American intelligence officers who supported the resistance.”

In May 1990, the Washington Post reported that the US government had for several years received, but declined to investigate, reports of heroin trafficking by its allies, including “firsthand accounts of heroin smuggling by commanders under Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.”

Rise of the Taliban

When the Soviets did finally withdraw in 1989, the country fell into civil war as the major CIA-backed factions began fighting among themselves for control of the country. Mujahideen leaders became warlords and committed terrible atrocities against the local population while fighting amongst themselves. 

It was during this anarchy that religious students from the madrassas (seminary schools), the Taliban, emerged with the help of Pakistani intelligence to take control of the country in 1996, subsequently inheriting the opium trade, which continued unhindered for several years. 

Portrait photograph of Mullah Omar in 1993, just before he founded the Taliban (Licensed under Fair Use)

In July 2000, however, Taliban leader Mullah Omar ordered a ban on all opium cultivation. Remarkably, the Taliban successfully slashed the opium harvest by 94 percent, reducing yearly production to only 185 metric tons.

Five months later, in December 2000, the US and Russia used the UN Security Council to impose harsh new sanctions on Afghanistan, citing the Taliban’s refusal to hand over Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden following the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, in which 17 US sailors were killed. Bin Laden had taken refuge in the Islamic Emirate in 1996 after he was expelled from Sudan.

The New York Times reported that US officials sought to impose the new sanctions, despite warnings from the UN that “a million Afghans could face starvation in coming months because of a drought and continued civil war.”

Following the attacks on 11 September, 2001, Bush administration officials demanded the Taliban hand over Bin Laden once again. Mullah Omar insisted the US first provide evidence of Bin Laden’s guilt, but President Bush refused this request and ordered the US air force to begin bombing Afghanistan on 7 October.

In the wake of the bombing, Mullah Omar dropped the demand for evidence, and offered to hand over Bin Laden to US ally Pakistan for trial. Bush administration officials once again refused.

Journalist and author Scott Horton highlights in his book Fool’s Errand a peculiar aspect of the US campaign: the lack of a clear focus on capturing or eliminating Bin Laden. In fact, President Bush had already stated on 25 September that success or failure should not be defined solely by capturing Bin Laden. 

Horton notes further that US planners made no initial effort to hunt down Bin Laden and the foreign Arab fighters supporting him. Instead, head of US Central Command, General Tommy Franks prioritized partnering with Afghan warlord Rashid Dostum to take control of the north of the country, and establish a “land link” to Uzbekistan.

Turning to the Warlords

To also capture the capital, Kabul, and other key cities in the south, Alfred McCoy notes the CIA:

“Turned to a group of rising Pashtun warlords along the Pakistan border who had been active as drug smugglers in the south-eastern part of the country. As a result, when the Taliban collapsed, the groundwork had already been laid for the resumption of opium cultivation and the drug trade on a major scale.”

Though US forces were too late to prevent Bin Laden’s escape to Pakistan, the US bombing campaign came just in time for the beginning of poppy planting season. Poppies are planted in the autumn so that the juice from the plant, from which opium is extracted, can be harvested in spring. 

McCoy clarified further that, “the Agency (CIA) and its local allies created ideal conditions for reversing the Taliban’s opium ban and reviving the drug traffic. Only weeks after the collapse of the Taliban, officials were reporting an outburst of poppy planting in the heroin-heartlands of Helmand and Nangarhar.”

In December, one of these rising Pashtun warlords, Hamid Karzai, was appointed Chairman of the Afghan Interim Administration and later president.

By the spring of 2002, large amounts of Afghan heroin were once again being transported to Britain via daily flights from Pakistani airports. The Guardian observed the case of a 13-year-old girl who was stopped after she stepped off a Pakistan International Airlines flight from Islamabad to London carrying 13kgs of heroin with a street value of £910,000.

Industrial Scale

Thanks to the “land link” established by General Franks, heroin also immediately began flowing north from Mazar-e-Sharif, under CIA ally Rashid Dostum’s control, to Uzbekistan and then to to Russia and Europe.

The flow of heroin was witnessed by Craig Murray, the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, who explained that Dostum, an ethnic Uzbek, facilitated the smuggling of heroin from Afghanistan to Uzbekistan, where it was then shipped up the railway line, in bales of cotton, to Moscow and then Riga. As Murray noted:

“Opium is converted into heroin on an industrial scale, not in kitchens but in factories. Millions of gallons of the chemicals needed for this process are shipped into Afghanistan by tanker…The four largest players in the heroin business are all senior members of the Afghan government – the government that our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect.”

‘A Hands Off Approach’

In addition to Dostum, Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s younger brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, quickly secured a prominent role in the Afghan heroin trade.

Image: Ahmad Wali Karzai (U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Mark O’Donald/Released)

Credible reports emerged that Wali Karzai was deeply involved in the heroin trade, however, according to the New York Times, the incidents were never investigated, “even though allegations that he has benefited from narcotics trafficking have circulated widely in Afghanistan.”

Senior officials at the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) complained that the Bush “White House favored a hands-off approach toward Ahmed Wali Karzai because of the political delicacy of the matter.”

The Times later reported that according to a top former Afghan Interior Ministry official, a major source of Wali Karzai’s influence was his control over key bridges crossing the Helmand River on the route between the opium-growing regions of Helmand Province and Kandahar. This allowed Karzai to charge huge fees to drug traffickers to allow their drug-laden trucks to cross the bridges.

Like Dostum and Hekmaytar, Wali Karzai built his heroin empire while on the CIA payroll. The agency began paying Karzai in 2001 to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operated at the agency’s direction in and around Kandahar and to rent a large compound for use as the base of the Kandahar Strike Force. The CIA also appreciated Karzai’s help in communicating and sometimes meeting with Afghans loyal to the Taliban.

Karzai also served as the head of Kandahar’s elected provincial council. According to a senior US military officer in Kabul quoted by the Times, “Hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money are flowing through the southern region, and nothing happens in southern Afghanistan without the regional leadership knowing about it.”

The Blame Game 

In late 2004, as reports of Karzai’s involvement in the heroin trade were emerging, Alfred McCoy writes that “the White House was suddenly confronted with troubling CIA intelligence suggesting that the escalating drug trade was fueling a revival of the Taliban.” 

A proposal from Secretary of State Colin Powell to fight the heroin trade was resisted by US ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, and then-Afghan finance minister Ashraf Ghani. As a compromise, the Bush administration used private contractors for poppy eradication, an effort that New York Times journalist Carlotta Gall later described as “something of a joke.”

Additionally, reports of a 2005 cable sent by the US embassy in Kabul to Powell’s successor, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, viewed Britain as being “substantially responsible” for the failure to eradicate poppy cultivation. British personnel chose where the eradication teams worked, but those areas were often not the main growing areas, and “the British had been unwilling to revise targets.”

The cable also faulted President Karzai, who “has been unwilling to assert strong leadership.” The State Department nevertheless defended him, saying, “President Karzai is a strong partner, and we have confidence in him,” despite reports of his brother’s key role in the heroin trade.

But the problem went beyond Wali Karzai. A UN report for the World Bank published in February 2006 concluded the Afghan heroin trade was operating with the assistance of many top Afghan government officials and under the protection of the Afghan Ministry of Interior.

As evidence of CIA and Afghan government involvement in the heroin trade grew, the focus of the western media shifted towards blaming the Taliban for using drug profits to fund their insurgency against foreign forces.

However, historian Peter Dale Scott challenged this narrative, citing UN estimates that the Taliban’s share of the Afghan opium economy was a fraction compared to that of supporters of the Karzai government. Scott emphasized that the largest share of the drug trade was controlled by those aligned with the Afghan government.

The Surge

In early 2010, the Obama administration announced a “surge” of 33,000 US troops to help pacify the country, with a particular focus on key districts known for poppy cultivation. One such district was Marja in Helmand province, which McCoy referred to as “the world’s heroin capital.” 

Despite the surge’s mission, US commanders seemed unaware of Marja’s significance as a hub for heroin production, fueled by the surrounding opium fields that accounted for 40 percent of the world’s illicit opium supply.

In September 2010, eight months after the start of the surge, “unsubstantiated” reports emerged that British soldiers were involved in trafficking heroin out of Afghanistan using military aircraft at airports in Camp Bastion and Kandahar.

Camp Bastion, jointly operated by the UK and the US, was located near Lashkar Gah, another major center of poppy cultivation. In 2012, it was alleged that poppy cultivation was taking place just outside the base’s perimeter, with British soldiers providing protection to farmers against Afghan security forces.

By late 2014, British and US forces withdrew from Camp Bastion, handing it over to Afghan forces, who renamed it Camp Shorabak. However, according to a UN report, “the opium-growing area around Britain’s main base in Afghanistan nearly quadrupled between 2011 and 2013.” 

Despite the withdrawal, opium exports from Camp Shorabak apparently continued, and a small number of British military personnel returned in 2015 in what was described by the Ministry of Defense as an advisory role.

In 2016, Obaidullah Barakzai, a member of the National Assembly of Afghanistan, claimed, “It’s impossible for a few local drug smugglers to transfer opium in thousands of kilos. This is the work of the Americans and British. They transport it by air from Camp Shorabak.”

After US forces chaotically withdrew from Afghanistan in August 2021, the Taliban once again succeeded in eliminating poppy cultivation, showing it was far from a “dedicated drug cartel” after all.

Follow the Money

In November 2021, an opium merchant claimed that “All the profits go to the foreign countries. Afghans are just supplying the labor.”

Peter Dale Scott noted that according to the UN, some $352 billion in drug profits had been absorbed into the western financial system, including through the US’ largest banks in 2009. As a result, Scott said the “United States involvement in the international drug traffic links the CIA, major financial interests, and criminal interests in this country and abroad.”

In 2012, the Daily Mail reported that HSBC, Britain’s biggest bank, faced up to £640million in penalties for allowing “rogue states and drugs cartels to launder billions of pounds through its branches,” and for becoming “a conduit for criminal enterprises.”

The billions in profits flowing from the Afghan heroin trade into western banks have now been eliminated by the Taliban not once, but twice in the past two decades. 

Taliban leader Mullah Omar’s pronouncement in July 2000 that poppy cultivation was “un-Islamic” was, therefore, a more likely cause of the US sanctions imposed in December of the same year, and of the US invasion of Afghanistan a year later, than was any US desire to apprehend Bin Laden and dismantle Al-Qaeda.  

In March 2002, just six months after the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan, a journalist asked President Bush, “Where’s Osama bin Laden?” Bush replied, ‘I don’t know. I don’t really think about him very much. I’m not that concerned.”

The Afghan drug trade serves as a stark reminder of the intricate connections between geopolitics, illicit economies, and global finance, and the need for greater transparency and accountability in addressing these complex issues.

The historical evidence also challenges the simplistic narrative that the Taliban largely controlled the Afghan drug trade, highlighting the dominant role played by the US-backed Afghan government and its allies in the CIA.

*

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

Featured image is from The Cradle

---

America’s “War on Terrorism”

Author: Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 0-9737147-1-9

Year: 2005

Pages: 365 with complete index

Product Type: PDF File

Price: $9.50

In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”.  Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.

The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.

According to Chossudovsky, the  “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.

Click here to purchase.

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

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

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

***

“All wars are fought twice, the first time on the battlefield, the second time in memory.” Thus begins Việt Thanh Nguyễn’s book of essays, Nothing Ever Dies: Vietnam and the Memory of War.¹

In fact, war is much more than a memory for Việt people who continue to navigate a landscape of unexploded ordnance (UXO) and chemical contamination. All wars are fought endlessly in the bodies, minds, and lands of those who are invaded as well as those who fight.

From 1964 to 1973, the United States released 6,162,000 tons of bombs and other ordnance in Indochina, far greater than the combined amount during the Second World War and the Korean War.

Việt people, in particular, were up against an unprecedented arsenal. Even after combat ended in 1975, an estimated 800,000 tons of UXO were left behind in Vietnam, including massive amounts of bombs, mines, and shells that frequently failed to detonate as planned (namely, “duds”), but remained active and unpredictable.² UXO has subsequently killed 40,000 and maimed 60,000 Việt people, while causing severe environmental damage that impedes agriculture and other forms of development.³

The extensive wartime use of cluster bombs remains an ongoing threat to civilians, as these baseball-sized weapons explode in the air and disperse small bomblets over a great distance. In fields and forests all over Southeast Asia, cluster bombs lurk as deadly hazards lying in wait for farmers’ plows or children attracted by their bright colors. The United States, having used these weapons most recently in Yemen in 2009, has still not signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions endorsed by 123 other countries.⁴ Not only did the United States fail to provide war reparations to Vietnam,⁵ but a trade embargo placed on Vietnam was in force until 1994.

Recent US contributions to Agent Orange clean-up efforts and disability services through the Department of State and the Department of Defense have stemmed from a combination of forces:

• civil society activities in Vietnam,
• persistent lobbying by solidarity activists in the United States,
• a few stalwart Congressional advocates,
• the wish to project a benevolent US image, and,
• critically, the current desire for a political and military alliance with Vietnam to serve US strategic interests in the region.

Throughout the war and since its conclusion, the involvement of international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and global citizens has been key to building antiwar consciousness and activism, as well as sustaining support for humanitarian efforts.

In 2001, the Việt government collaborated with international NGOs to initiate Project RENEW, which became a highly successful integrated model of explosives survey and clearance, mine risk education, victim assistance and rehabilitation, and income generation in Quảng Trị province—the most heavily bombed place on Earth.

More than eighty percent of the land in Quảng Trị is still contaminated by mines and explosives; accidental detonations have killed more than seven thousand residents since the end of the war.⁶

Equally devastating, Quảng Trị was among the ten provinces most targeted by chemical weapons.⁷ The province was sprayed with 613,000 gallons of Agent Orange and other toxic herbicides, leaving another ongoing legacy of disease, severe disability, death, poverty, fear, and anxiety for prospective pregnancies.⁸ Thus, RENEW’s mission also includes support for Agent Orange victims and their families.

When he was interviewed for this article in September 2022, Ngô Xuân Hiền (NH) was visiting  Washington, D.C. for a fundraising event organized by Friends of Project RENEW—a US-based NGO formed to support RENEW’s mission.

The goal of this event was to finance the adaptation of RENEW’s model in nearby Quảng Ngãi, at the request of provincial leadership. Trịnh Thị Hồng Thắm (TT), Leader of Project RENEW’s All-Women’s Emergency Response Team, was in Vietnam at the time. While Hiền graciously served as translator, it was not possible to interview Thắm at the same depth for this article. The shorter excerpts from Thắm in no way diminish the importance of her leadership and her team’s impact on the communities served by Project RENEW.

SftP: Can you tell me your background coming into Project RENEW?

NH: I am forty-six years old and the father of three. I have been with Project RENEW for almost fifteen years. Before that, I taught English at a high school in Khe Sanh—the former combat base of US Marines—for two years. In 2000, I was transferred to work for a Swedish-funded project on public administration reform at the provincial Department of Home Affairs. The project phased out in 2006, and I continued working in the public sector. In May 2008, I saw a recruitment announcement from Project RENEW on local TV, and I immediately applied. On June 5, 2008, I was accepted into Project RENEW after I was interviewed by its co-founders, Hoàng Nam and Chuck Searcy.⁹

In my first six months at Project RENEW, I worked as an interpreter and operations officer for the Demining Research and Development Program in partnership with Golden West Humanitarian Foundation. In early 2009, Chuck and Nam agreed that I should be in charge of communications and development for Project RENEW. I have been working in this position until now.

TT: I am thirty-two years old, and I have been working with Project RENEW for seven years. After spending three years in a technical survey team, I joined the all-women’s clearance team as a deputy team leader until 2021. In December 2021, I was assigned to lead the all-women’s emergency response team, funded by Friends of Project RENEW.

I spent my childhood on land heavily impacted by unexploded bombs left from the war. I once witnessed the passing of a neighbor. He died when part of a cluster bomb exploded while he was hoeing his land. He left behind his elderly mother, wife, and two very young children. The tragedy was a grim reminder of the deadly legacy of the war and also a motivation for me to work for Project RENEW.

Team leader Trinh Thi Hong Tham briefs her team members when responding to a UXO emergency call (photo by Hien Ngo).

SftP: Why do you think it’s important to have an all-women’s team, and how have you been received in the community?

TT: As we work together in an all-women’s team responding to UXO sightings reported by local residents to the hotline number, we have affirmed that women are capable of doing the job safely and efficiently. Every time we approach local people who report their UXO sightings, everyone is amazed, but they like our work. They say the work we are doing is for men. Sometimes we hear them talking about our team—for example, “Why do women have to undertake this dangerous and heavy work?” or “Oh, they drive pickup trucks to where bombs are found like men do.” Or “What brave ladies!”

NH: Having an all-women’s team to take over the job which many say only men can do has changed public opinion. Recent years have seen a greater recognition of the role of women, not only in mine action but also in other aspects of life.

SftP: Do you think women have special advantages or unique challenges in this kind of work?

TT: Dealing with UXO is a dangerous and challenging job not only for men but also for women. The job needs healthy and resilient persons who can work under scorching heat or torrential rain. You have to walk a long distance carrying heavy tools. You have to be prepared for dealing with land leeches, snakes, and stinging caterpillars. Above all, you have to be disciplined to do the job safely.

SftP: What is the most satisfying aspect of your work with Project RENEW?

NH: In the early 1980s, as a primary school pupil, I witnessed a schoolmate four years older than me being carried home on a stretcher from a hilltop where he had tampered with a cluster bomb while collecting firewood. The explosion killed him on the spot.

Another tragic incident that shook our village occurred when three adults were trying to dismantle an artillery shell to extract explosives for fishing. Two died and one was seriously injured as a result of the blast.

I am proud to be part of Project RENEW. Through partnerships with other international NGOs, we have made impressive progress in clearing UXO, and contributed to reducing the number of deaths and injuries in Quảng Trị. From sixty accidents annually for two decades, this number has been reduced to almost zero from 2018 to 2022. Quảng Trị has become a humanitarian mine action model that can be adopted in other provinces in Vietnam still plagued by bombs and mines.

TT: For me, being accepted to work at Project RENEW was my good luck. I am so proud of this job. Prior to field deployment, I had undergone training that provided me with basic knowledge and skills needed to deal with UXO. Working alongside experienced, dedicated, and helpful colleagues has enabled me to enrich my knowledge and accomplish my tasks. I am satisfied and proud of my work.

SftP: What are the greatest challenges of your work?

NH: Support to families of severely disabled persons related to Agent Orange/dioxin remains a challenge. Quảng Trị, one of the most heavily sprayed areas with such defoliants, has a high prevalence of such families. We need funding to bring interventions right to the homes of these families—including home modification, health care, and income generation—so that life with disabilities can be made more bearable for these families.

Another challenge is that while survey and clearance of UXO are taking place, a substantial amount of resources needs to be allocated for risk education and victim assistance. Children born many years after the war must be educated on how to keep themselves from accidents and injuries, and those who were affected need to receive support to overcome their tragic accidents and rebuild their lives.

SftP: Are memories of the war still alive among younger generations in Quảng Trị? In what ways?

NH: It’s been almost fifty years since the fighting came to an end in Quảng Trị province. For younger generations who live in far-off and rural areas, memories of the war may only be occasional sightings of leftover explosives of war by their parents and even themselves. The three Rs: “Refrain from tampering, Retreat, and Report,” help protect them. Two recent incidents so far in 2022, four years after having zero accidents, are grim reminders that explosive leftovers are still capable of killing even five decades later.

SftP: How was your own family affected by the war?

NH: My mother’s father was a Việt Minh guerrilla platoon commander, and he made his ultimate sacrifice in 1950 when his daughter was three. My mother grew up and got involved in the anti-war movement led by Buddhist monks in the early 1960s. She was arrested and imprisoned for three years in Huế. When released, she joined the National Liberation Front (NLF) and fought from 1967 to 1969—the period that saw the bloodiest fighting between American GIs and the NVA (North Vietnamese Army) in Quảng Trị province.¹⁰ She was wounded three times.

Back in 2008, when I told my mom that I would resign from the public sector to join Project RENEW, she was totally supportive. I contemplated introducing her to Chuck Searcy and other American veterans who returned to help Vietnam. However, my mother died of a stroke in 2009 when she was sixty-two.

SftP: Are there any stories you would like to share about people who have been helped by Project RENEW?

NH: In the summer of 2000, fifth grader Hồ Văn Lai and two other boys in his village went to play on a sand dune near their home. They encountered several rusty cluster munitions, locally known as bombies, lying scattered on the ground. Too curious to stay away, Lai wanted to tamper with them. As he was hitting those bombs with a stone, an explosion occurred. The other two boys died on the spot. Lai lost two legs and one eye. His right hand was torn apart.

Now Lai is a full-time member of Project RENEW’s Risk Education program, providing life-saving UXO safety messages to children in Quảng Trị province. Working with the RENEW team helps Lai assert himself and help his community. Lai has left behind negative feelings that a disabled person would understandably have.

TT: The following story has impressed me, and it is also a motivation for me to try harder. A local resident was preparing concrete for the foundation of his new home when suddenly his workers encountered an artillery shell. They had to stop their work, and they made an emergency call to the Quảng Trị Mine Action Center (QTMAC). After receiving information from QTMAC, I called the informant asking for his address. He sounded frightened and urged our team to deal with the ordnance so that he could start the home’s foundation as planned. Our team arrived shortly afterward and safely dealt with the shell. I saw his smiling face when he thanked our team over and over. We felt happy, too. At that moment, I felt proud of the work we were doing because it helped remove a danger and bring back peace of mind to the community.

SftP: Do women in Quảng Trị have special needs due to war legacies and their family and work responsibilities? For example, are women fearful about the effects of Agent Orange on their pregnancies?

TT: Being born and growing up on a land impacted by bombs, mines, and toxic chemicals left from the war is worrisome for everyone. One of my nieces was born with severe disabilities related to Agent Orange. She is now eighteen years old but must be looked after like a child. That is difficult for her family and troubling for many.

We women, when working in an environment affected by war toxins, often feel anxious, particularly during our pregnancies. Notwithstanding, the organization improves conditions for us, and we receive assistance from our colleagues while we are pregnant. We have monthly prenatal medical checkups. One month prior to taking maternity leave, we switch to office work.

SftP: How do you see the impact of Project RENEW on the community?

NH: The comprehensive model that RENEW has introduced and developed over the past two decades assures the community that the lingering impact of the war is being solved. The community feels that they are part of today’s solution to the problem. Without support and cooperation from the community, we would have never advanced this far.

Project RENEW illustrates the long-lasting and devastating harms of war, and the importance of local leadership in devising the most appropriate and effective strategies for remediation.

Chuck Searcy pointed out that “Project RENEW, unlike many other foreign organizations, was led by the Vietnamese from the beginning…with Vietnamese responsible for policy and management decisions in a working partnership with international organizations (for example, Norwegian People’s Aid) that could bring in technical expertise and years of experience from the outside.” Since UXO is not uniformly distributed throughout the province, Project RENEW’s goal shifted from surveying the entire land mass to focusing on the areas where people are most vulnerable, keeping people safe and confident to live normal lives.

The planned implementation of Project RENEW’s model in Quảng Ngãi province will serve, among others, survivors of the US massacre of up to five hundred unarmed civilians in the village of Mỹ Lai in 1968. This atrocity committed in Quảng Ngãi was not an isolated event.¹¹ So-called rules of war cannot banish the horrors unleashed by imperialist aggression and overwhelming force.

Ultimately, NGOs can neither compensate for the lack of full and prompt reparations by aggressor nations, nor substitute for governmental policy and action that can only be achieved at a certain level of development—which are hindered by colonialism and war.¹²

The United States committed crimes against humanity in Vietnam, and in other countries before and since. Perhaps for this very reason, on a basis of imperial arrogance, the United States has to this date refused to be a member state of the International Criminal Court (which, in any case, can only prosecute individuals and has no power of enforcement).

Universal justice seems tragically remote at this moment, but there are experiments—some of them in the NGO sector—that may be instructive for grassroots organizing in the future. Among the many lessons we might learn are those embodied in Project RENEW: the ingenuity of survivors, the devastating and long-lasting effects of war trauma on civilians as well as combatants; the need for adequate, prompt, and globally enforced war reparations; the importance of direct participation by frontline communities in crafting solutions; and the healing of wounds of war via compassion, solidarity, and justice as we work to end the systems built upon militarism.

*

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

Notes

1. Viet Thanh Nguyen, Nothing Ever Dies: Vietnam and the Memory of War (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016), 4. Unlike in the main text, we do not add diacritics to the footnoted references so that readers wishing to conduct further research will be more easily able to locate the cited works, which usually do not contain diacritics. 
2. Michael Clodfelter, Vietnam in Military Statistics: A History of the Indochina Wars, 1772-1991 (Jefferson, NC: McFarland Books, 1995).
3. Jonathon Guthrie and Portia Stratton, “The Quang Tri Integrated Survey and Clearance Project,” The Journal of ERW and Mine Action 81, no. 1 (April 2015): 16–18; ​​Minh Vu, “War Explosive Remnants Kill 40,000 People in Vietnam since 1975,” Hanoi Times, December 16, 2022, https://hanoitimes.vn/war-explosive-remnants-kill-40000-people-in-vietnam-since-1975-320434.html.
4. Olivia Riggio, “Action Alert: NBC Off by 18 Years on US’s Last Use of Cluster Bombs,” FAIR, March 3, 2022, https://fair.org/home/action-alert-nbc-off-by-18-years-on-uss-last-use-of-cluster-bombs/. 
5. Article 21 of the January 23, 1973 Paris Peace Accords stated that “…the United States will contribute to healing the wounds of war and to postwar reconstruction of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam [sic] and throughout Indochina.” In 1977, the US State Department declassified a letter addressed to North Vietnam’s Prime Minister Phạm Văn Đồng and signed by President Richard Nixon four days after the Paris Peace Accords, detailing $3.25 billion worth of payments to be given to Vietnam over five years, in addition to “$1 billion to $1.5 billion in other forms to aid.” However, U.S. officials later declared that any commitments to reparations were not binding. See Marvin E. Gettleman et al., eds., Vietnam and America: The Most Comprehensive Documented History of the Vietnam War, 2nd ed. (New York: Grove Press, 1995), 479, 487.
6. Guthrie and Stratton, “Quang Tri Integrated Survey.”
7. Riggio, “Action Alert.”
8. Riggio, “Action Alert”; Tine M. Gammeltoft, Haunting Images: A Cultural Account of Selective Reproduction in Vietnam (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014).
9. Chuck Searcy is a US Army veteran who served in military intelligence in Sài Gòn (now Hồ Chí Minh City) and later co-founded Project RENEW while employed by Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. He was also a founding member of Chapter 160 of Veterans for Peace in Vietnam. He accompanied Hiền to Washington, D.C. in September 2022.
10. Coalition established in 1960 to conduct guerrilla warfare in South Vietnam in support of national elections and a unified country that “represented all social classes and religions.” NLF forces were derisively called “Việt Cong” by their opponents.
11. Nick Turse, Shoot Everything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2013).
12. Gettleman, et al., Vietnam and America, 479, 487.

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

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

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

***

As most of us know, Werner Heisenberg formulated his ‘uncertainty principle’ for quantum mechanics, a subject I know as much about as I know about the intricacies of general relativity – both being domains of science to be admired for their ability to account for profound phenomena of the natural world. But these domains, intellectually fetching as they may be, don’t enhance my experience of a casual walk or an apprehension of a beautiful piece of music. I seem to know that they underpin much of the foundation of humankind’s technical abilities, and for this I am hazily grateful.

I understand too that this famous principle of uncertainty has been taken up by philosophers and laypeople of all stripes and applied metaphorically to support a relativistic notion of truth, admonishing us that we can never be really certain about anything, and that, in essence, virtually everything is ‘relative’.

I trust that the Nobel-laureate Heisenberg will forgive this layman an inaccurate rendering of his mathematical achievement, but I will use the general notion of uncertainty and apply it to our political landscape in general, and the Corona Operation in particular.

When wealthy and high-flying movers and shakers meet to execute their programs for the underlings (us), they, being human, are subject to the usual human frailties and foibles: arrogance, hubris, stupidity, emotionality, misunderstandings, propensity to conflict, and egoism. Even a well-oiled phalanx of the Elite will be riven by disagreements and confusion, and breaches in unity are enough to give a keen-eyed conspiracy detector headaches. The best laid plans of mice and men, not to mention psychopathic reptiles, ‘gang aft agley’ – which is not to say that their plans are unsuccessful or not cogent, but that uncertainties inevitably creep into their execution.

• Yes, the world was effectively and astonishingly shut down in 2020,
• and yes, the imposition of a permanent control and surveillance world government has been relentlessly plied and,
• yes again, most unwitting and unthinking people believe that weather is climate and that climate change is disastrously upon us and that carbon credits are necessary to prevent man-made catastrophe,
• and that global vaccination of virtually every living mammal is an ideal to aspire towards – but then again, there must be dissension in the ranks of the Overlords as well as opposition from their subjects,

thanks to the cantankerous few who stand their ground against the onslaught of State-sponsored propaganda.

But just as there really was no magic single bullet that made phenomenal and sudden changes in course as it ripped through JFK and Texas Governor John Connally on that fateful day in Dallas, despite the strenuous efforts of Arlen Specter to convince the Warren Commission and thence the public that a lone gunman and only a lone gunman killed the President, there is not now, for us, any single and complete theory to explain the everything about the covid operation.

We have questions about not only the origin of the pathogen that set off the supposed pandemic, but also the whereabouts of the origin, the appearance of the virus, the sequences of the virus, the problems in isolating the virus, its infectiousness and fatality rate and the highly variable responses to the pathogen around the globe.

We have questions about the very nature and existence of viruses in fact, and their role in illness and disease, just as we have even more questions about how many people really died of covid – whatever it was – or the flu or the plethora of other maladies that generally account for normal death.

We have questions about the nature of an operation designed to cull the overweening numbers of human souls because it wasn’t so immediately apparent or devastating – even as the second punch of the combination (I am referring to the Jab) may yet produce deleterious effects long into the future.

There is the very human tendency to seek for a single cause of any event, something nice and neat and devastatingly clean. Even in psychoanalytic treatment there is a particular tendency to ascribe the root cause of a person’s malady to a particular memory or fantasy or mental ‘structure’ responsible for pathologic reverberations.

Causality, however, in anything outside highly controlled experimental conditions where single variables may be isolated, is inevitably very complex. The mapping of the human genome gave rise to cheerful expectations of precision in the diagnosis and management of human illness, but this has not panned out because the presence of a gene does not necessarily imply a clear and simple consequence. In fact, genes and the enveloping cellular environment make for an increasingly baffling series of challenges for biomedical researchers.

Despite the condensation and concentration of enormous technical – and financial – power into the hands of a relatively few, the inevitable divisions among these few and the inevitable interpolations of chance, create an inevitable uncertainty. We must be prepared to accept that we can and will never know the complete and inviolable tale of this Corona War.

But this does not mean that our humility in accepting the complexity and unpredictability of human relations blinds us to broad and definitive truths.

There is no question that we ‘little’ people have been under siege, that governments and corporations and other entities have sought to diminish our freedoms, to censor us, and to monitor and control our every moves. There is no question that the organized media outlets that have been the repositories of trust for so many decades have betrayed our trust. There is no question that once-revered authoritative bodies in Medicine have destroyed their credibility by promulgating falsehoods and undermining the very principles of what they purport to espouse as authorities.

As I have written many times before, we are in the biggest and most fateful fight of and for our lives, despite the insufferably obtuse zombie indifference of so many around us who either cannot or will not accept the irrefutable.

Will the zombies be revived in time? Will the transnational Deep State Cabal implode? Will the citizenry stand strong? Who can be sure?

I’ll end this excursion with a brief observation about the recent film that swept Disney aside during the blockbuster 4th of July weekend: Sound of Freedom. I watched with great interest this dramatic exposition of an episode in the battle against human trafficking, an industry reputed to generate 150 billion dollars annually.

A courageous agent attempting to rescue enslaved children is pitted against a ruthless gang of cut-throats, pedophilic abusers and violent criminals who inhabit a secluded jungle retreat. The agent masquerades as a doctor, a doctor on a mission to help the rural population, a doctor who brings vaccines …

I smiled wryly during this scene. Even the most hardened, cynical, suspicious and street-smart low-life bowed down to the Church of Vaccinology and let the agent into their lair. Their belief – nay, their certainty – in the utility and benevolence of vaccines led to their downfall.

*

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

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Health.mil

---

Price: $11.50 Get yours for FREE! Click here to download.

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

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

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

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

***

In February 2021, Pfizer launched a randomized, placebo-controlled, observer-blind study to evaluate the safety of its COVID-19 shot — BNT162b2 — in healthy pregnant women

The injections were set to take place between 24 and 34 weeks’ gestation, with participants randomized 1-to-1 to receive a COVID-19 shot or placebo

The study was initially set to enroll 4,000 women, but Pfizer only signed up 349, then stopped enrollment entirely

The CDC’s widespread endorsement of COVID-19 shots for pregnant women before the study was completed may have negated the need for the trial

Pfizer stated that because so many pregnant women had already gone ahead and gotten the shot, due to the government’s endorsement, enrollment dropped and there was no reason to move ahead with the study

*

No randomized trial data are available for use of the COVID-19 shot in pregnant women, and Pfizer cut its pregnancy trial short.¹ But this doesn’t stop the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from recommending COVID-19 injections for everyone 6 months and older, including “people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, trying to get pregnant now, or those who might become pregnant in the future.”²

“Not having any good data didn’t seem to bother the CDC,” Dr. Martin Makary, a professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, wrote in Tablet.³ He and a team of scientists petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to add a disclaimer to the shot’s label about the lack of trial data on its safety in pregnant women. The FDA declined, stating that this information wouldn’t be relevant.

Pregnant women, however, do need to know about the shot’s lack of testing during pregnancy — it’s the foundation of informed consent. They’d also likely be interested to know why Pfizer stopped its pregnancy trial early and has yet to make the results it did find public.

Pfizer Stopped COVID Jab Pregnancy Trial, Withholds Data

In February 2021, Pfizer launched a randomized, placebo-controlled, observer-blind study to evaluate the safety of its COVID-19 shot — BNT162b2 — in healthy pregnant women. The injections were set to take place between 24 and 34 weeks’ gestation, with participants randomized 1-to-1 to receive a COVID-19 shot or placebo.⁴ But while the study was initially set to enroll 4,000 women,⁵ Pfizer only signed up 349, then stopped enrollment entirely.⁶

“Most concerning,” Makary explained, “the pregnancy outcomes of those who participated in the trial, and their babies, are still not public today, nearly two years later.”⁷ Pregnant and breastfeeding women were excluded from Pfizer’s and Moderna’s phase III clinical trials,⁸ but in April 2021, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky announced, “CDC recommends that pregnant people receive the COVID-19 vaccine.”⁹

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) soon echoed this statement, recommending pregnant women get injected, as did the UK’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.¹⁰

So, as the months passed, hundreds of thousands of pregnant women globally rolled up their sleeves to receive the vaccine, despite the absence of any clinical trials. “The message from authorities was clear — the harm from COVID-19 infection outweighed any harms from the mRNA vaccine — but in truth, they couldn’t possibly have known,” noted Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., a former medical scientist with the University of Adelaide and former reporter for ABC News in Australia.¹¹

Animal Studies Show Fetal Loss, Skeletal Variations

Pfizer’s product labeling suggested, “No vaccine-related adverse effects on female fertility, fetal development or postnatal development were reported.” But, Demasi reported, a freedom of information request from 2021 showed this was based on an animal study of just 44 rats, which showed concerning findings about fetal loss:¹²

“The study found the vaccine led to a statistically significant doubling in fetal loss (9.77% mRNA vs 4.09% saline), but Pfizer concluded that the difference between the two groups was “not biologically meaningful.”

The label also states that Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine was not tested for its potential to cause carcinogenicity (ability to cause cancer), genotoxicity (ability to damage genetic information), or impairment of male fertility.”

An animal study conducted by Moderna also showed a significant number of rats were born with skeletal variations after their mothers were injected with the COVID-19 shot while pregnant. But, according to Demasi, “Moderna concluded that the “Skeletal variations are structural changes that do not impact development or function of a developing embryo” and therefore “not considered adverse.””

Trial Stopped Because Many Pregnant Women Already Injected

Pfizer hasn’t publicly explained why its trial on pregnant women was stopped short, nor why the resulting data hasn’t been published. It’s possible they ended the trial because of unfavorable results. It wouldn’t be the first time.

However, in this case it appears the CDC’s widespread endorsement of COVID-19 shots for pregnant women — before the study was completed — may have negated the need for the trial altogether, at least from Pfizer’s perspective. As Makary put it:¹³

“In the case of the COVID vaccine trial in pregnant women, the trial may have been terminated not because the results were unfavorable, but because no data was needed. The medical and public health establishments had already made up their minds, declaring it safe and effective regardless of what the data was going to show. Why evaluate a product if the CDC and ACOG are already sold on the product?”

Demasi agreed. In fact, she published an email from Pfizer, in which the company admitted that enrollment for their trial significantly declined in the end of 2021, because health officials had already given the shot their seal of approval. Because so many pregnant women had already gone ahead and gotten the shot, due to the government’s endorsement, there was no reason to move ahead with the study. Demasi published Pfizer’s email response, which reads:¹⁴

“In the fourth quarter of 2021, enrollment was stopped in C4591015 Study (a Phase 2/3 placebo controlled randomized observer-blind study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of BNT162b2 against COVID-19 in healthy pregnant women 18 years of age and older). This study was developed prior to availability or recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination in pregnant women.

The environment changed during 2021 and by September 2021, COVID-19 vaccines were recommended by applicable recommending bodies (e.g., ACIP in the U.S.) for pregnant women in all participating/planned countries, and as a result the enrollment rate declined significantly.

With the declining enrollment, the study had insufficient sample size to assess the primary immunogenicity objective and continuation of this placebo controlled study could no longer be justified due to global recommendations. This proposal was shared with and agreed to by FDA and EMA.”

As for the lack of published data, Pfizer stated it doesn’t have it:¹⁵

“Pfizer does not yet have a complete data set from the maternal immunization study, C4591015. Pfizer and BioNTech plan to complete the analysis of the clinical trial C4591015 and share it with global public health regulators and seek publication or presentation as is our standard practice.

It is important to note that relevant real-world evidence on the use of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women has been presented and published numerous times by various parties in multiple journals and forums.”

Natural Immunity Is Still Being Ignored

Not only does ACOG “strongly recommend” that pregnant women get a COVID-19 shot, but they also recommend a booster dose.¹⁶ “Vaccination may occur in any trimester, and emphasis should be on vaccine receipt as soon as possible to maximize maternal and fetal health. This recommendation applies to both primary series and booster vaccination,” ACOG states.¹⁷

But missing from their information is data about natural immunity. Research by Makary and colleagues, published in JAMA,¹⁸ showed that natural immunity to COVID-19 — achieved by prior infection, not an injection — was durable for about two years, suggesting it’s longer lasting than any protection gained from a COVID-19 shot.¹⁹

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in The Lancet²⁰ also revealed natural immunity to be at least as effective as, and likely superior to, COVID-19 injections.²¹ Health officials don’t have the data from Pfizer’s randomized trial of the shots in pregnant women. But rather than erring on the side of caution — especially for those with natural immunity — they’re still recommending everyone get the shots.

Scientists Warn Pregnant Women Not to Receive COVID Shots

Not everyone’s onboard with health agencies’ push for pregnant women to get injected. “The pushing of these experimental COVID-19 vaccines globally is the greatest violation of medical ethics in the history of medicine, maybe humanity,” Dr. James Thorp, a maternal fetal medicine expert, told Tucker Carlson.²²

Thorp and colleagues published a preprint study that found striking risks to pregnant women who received the shots, along with their unborn babies.²³ The outcomes were so dire that the researchers concluded pregnant women should not receive COVID-19 shots until further research is completed.

“A worldwide moratorium on the use of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy is advised until randomized prospective trials document safety in pregnancy and long-term follow-up in offspring,” they explained.²⁴ Compared to the flu vaccine, COVID-19 shots were associated with a significant increase in adverse events (AE), including:²⁵

The data also revealed a 27-fold higher risk of miscarriage and a more than twofold increased risk of adverse fetal outcomes across six different categories, according to board-certified internist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough.²⁶

NIH Study Confirms Menstrual Changes Post-Jabs

Delayed menstruation has also been confirmed following COVID-19 shots, according to a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology — funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Research on Women’s Health.²⁷

The study involved 3,959 individuals between the ages of 18 and 45 years. Those who had not received a COVID-19 shot noted no significant changes in cycle four during the study compared to their first three cycles. But those who received COVID-19 shots had longer menstrual cycles, typically by less than one day, when they received the shots.

The European Union, meanwhile, has recommended that “heavy menstrual bleeding” be added as a side effect to mRNA COVID-19 shots.²⁸ Makary noted:²⁹

“Here in the U.S. there’s been no such update to product labeling. This lack of humility was also evident when healthy young women were told with incredible absolutism that the COVID vaccine cannot affect fertility. The right answer should have been: We don’t think it will affect fertility but we don’t have any good data on the question.”

Officials Choose ‘Stern Paternalism’ Over Informed Consent

In the absence of data for a vulnerable population — pregnant and breastfeeding women — health officials should have urged caution. As the effectiveness of natural immunity became clear, people should have been informed of this and warned of potential risks from COVID-19 shots. This way, they could make an informed decision before consenting to an injection that could have serious reproductive effects.

The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK) felt the data were compelling enough in 2021 to withdraw the shots for vulnerable populations like pregnant women,^30,31 but health officials chose, instead, to make them guinea pigs for an untested, experimental shot.

“In the absence of good data, organized medicine chose the path of stern paternalism. But in my experience as a physician, it’s far better to properly inform a patient rather than steamroll their questions,” said.³² If and when Pfizer does release the data, it’s possible that health agencies will have some explaining to do if the data aren’t favorable. Makary continued:³³

“It may be that Pfizer’s pregnancy trial would have been favorable to the vaccine, showing that the benefits outweigh harms, but Pfizer has not released the data. Perhaps the data was not favorable, or perhaps Pfizer realized they had convinced the medical establishment without data, so why run the risk of sharing what a placebo-controlled trial shows?”

*

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

Notes

^{1, 5, 6, 7, 21, 29, 32, 33} Tablet June 21, 2023

^2, 3, 13 U.S. CDC, COVID-19 Vaccines While Pregnant or Breastfeeding October 20, 2022

⁴ ClinicalTrials.gov, To Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, and Immunogenicity of BNT162b2 Against COVID-19 in Healthy Pregnant Women 18 Years […]

^8, 10, 11 Substack, Maryanne Demasi reports February 23, 2023

⁹ CBS News April 27, 2021

^12, 14, 15 Substack, Alexander COVID News February 25, 2023

^16, 17 ACOG, COVID-19 Vaccines and Pregnancy: Conversation Guide

¹⁸ JAMA. 2022;327(11):1085-1087. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.1393

¹⁹ Twitter, Marty Makary February 3, 2022

²⁰ The Lancet March 11, 2023

²² Rumble February 27, 2023, 1:00

^23, 24, 25 Preprints 2022, 2022090430

²⁶ Substack, Courageous Discourse March 2, 2023

²⁷ Obstetrics & Gynecology: January 5, 2022 – Volume – Issue – 10.1097

²⁸ European Medicines Agency October 28, 2022

^30, 31 Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law Volume 4:130-143 November 2021

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

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

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

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

***

It seems that China has finally had enough of foreign attempts to slow down or effectively stop its technological advances. The Asian giant is now making very concrete moves against the United States and its numerous vassals and satellite states, targeting their own high-tech industries, including their massive Military Industrial Complex (MIC). The troubled Biden administration (but also the previous one) has started an essentially suicidal economic confrontation with Beijing, particularly against its high-tech sector, by far the fastest growing in the world. This includes a US attack on Chinese semiconductor advances.

In response, last week Beijing decided to impose export restrictions on two rare-earth elements it produces in abundance (up to 95% of global production, depending on the source) – gallium and germanium. The two metals are heavily imported by the countries of the political West and its satellites, particularly for semiconductor production. It also seems that China’s timing for this was perfect, as it greatly strengthened its negotiating position, particularly as it came mere days before US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen visited China last week. In other words, Beijing is finally capitalizing on its absolute dominance in rare-earth mining and refining.

As such capacities are sorely lacking in the political West, China believes that this move would finally open up talks and “help convince” the US that any future restrictions on microchip and semiconductor development in China will be equally (if not more) painful for the political West. On July 7, The Wall Street Journal reported that Yellen and the Chinese Premier Li Qiang discussed economic competition that “would benefit both countries” and precisely this was almost certainly one of the hotly debated topics during closed doors talks. The US has a very clear and easy choice in this regard. Unfortunately, it’s extremely likely to choose confrontation once again.

China’s pushback is already yielding results, as the global prices of the aforementioned rare-earth elements have already spiked and continue to grow. Gallium soared 27% last week, traders who spoke with Bloomberg complained, adding that the gallium market, although well-supplied for the time being, will eventually be hit by export controls starting next month, causing a flurry of panic buying as traders are scrambling to purchase the metal in greater quantities than ever. On July 7, Fastmarkets data showed Gallium prices soared $43 on the week to $326 a kilogram. As of this writing, it has soared to at least $368 and is projected to grow further in August and beyond.

Starting on August 1, exporters must apply for special licenses with the Chinese Ministry of Commerce to ship gallium and germanium abroad. This will greatly impact Washington DC, as data from the US Geological Survey shows that the belligerent thalassocracy imported an estimated 14,000 kilograms of germanium in 2022 while consuming approximately 30,000. In that same year, imports of gallium were around 12,000 kilograms, while consumption was an estimated 18,000 kilograms. It can only be expected that the US will try to stockpile these metals and try to diversify imports, while there are some indications that the troubled Biden administration might move to increase domestic mining and refining of rare-earth elements.

However, this will require time and effort that will not prevent price spikes that are already affecting entire industries across the political West. According to Bernard Dahdah, an analyst at Natixis, the move by China is far from being the “nuclear option that it could have chosen”, but it’s the first “warning shot”, emphasizing that “China does control other metals through which it can inflict more severe consequences”. And this is certainly true. China’s dominance in rare-earth elements extraction and production is well known and while Beijing never intended to “weaponize” this, it is now being forced to do as the US and its vassals and satellite states are targeting China’s economic growth and technological innovations.

In the meantime, the Pentagon seems to be in quiet panic. On July 7, it announced that it’s invoking the Defense Production Act to boost the domestic mining and processing capacity of the two metals. This is because gallium is one of the key elements used in the production of advanced AESA (active electronically scanned array) radars used in modern fighter jets, air defense systems, ground and sea-based ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) equipment, etc. These radars heavily depend on the foundational materials of gallium arsenide (GaAs) and gallium nitride (GaN), with US MIC giants such as RTX (formerly Raytheon) and Northrop Grumman on the brink of launching new systems that primarily rely on GaN.

Such systems were supposed to provide superior performance over the older GaAs-based AESA radars and this advanced technology has already started being implemented into the radars for F/A-18E/F “Super Hornet” carrier-based fighters, as well as the deeply troubled F-35 stealth fighter jets. This will affect not only Washington DC, but also its vassals and satellite states that are taking part in US aggression in the Asia-Pacific, where they aim to “contain” China and curb its growth and development. The US (and now also the EU) routinely sends its fighter jets, strategic bombers and warships to the South and East China Seas, deliberately provoking the Asian giant.

*

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

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

 

Background

The US Treasury Secretary has wrapped up her visit to China, which was dominated by talks over trade and tech disputes.

Janet Yellen says Washington and Beijing have made some progress and will have more frequent contact in the future. She vowed that any curbs on US outbound investments would be “transparent” and “very narrowly targeted.” In an earlier address in Beijing, Yellen warned against the decoupling of the two economic powers.

The Treasury Secretary said the US and its allies will fight back against what she called China’s unfair economic practices. Beijing has in turn called on Washington to stop weaponizing and politicizing trade and tech. Those are just two of the host of sticking points between China and the US. Last month, Secretary of State Antony Blinken also visited Beijing. China says the U-S should take concrete actions to improve trade ties.

PressTV: What precisely did Ms. Yellen mean by her warning against the decoupling of the two economic powers?

Peter Koenig (PK): Most of the substantive talks on the topics of trade and monetary issues between the US and China were held behind closed doors. Therefore, assessments may be more indicative than precise.

Let me say this, though, Ms. Yellen’s warning against decoupling of the two world’s largest economies, was like a plea for discouraging de-dollarization. And this refers to more than just China’s economy, foremost the economy of the Global South.

The US Treasurer, Janet Yellen, may hope that if China leading the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – 9 full members and 4 observer status “members” with Iran the latest full member joining SCO on 1 July 2023 — would work along the lines of joint world currencies, the US dollar and the Chinese Yuan, international trade could be guaranteed and would flourish.

Because these are the two currencies in which most trade is taking place today.

It is a fully globalist idea – aiming at maintaining US-dollar hegemony, because currently close to 60% of all so-called “convertible currencies” floating around the world are US-dollar denominated papers. Compare this to only about 5% of the Chinese Yuan, with China’s economy of about equal strength.

And if one looks at China’s economy’s composition, her GDP components – most of it is hard manufacturing and production output, whereas the US GDP is composed mostly of services and the output of the US Military Industrial Complex.Mmost of consumer  production has been outsourced.

Madame Yellen may know the reason for rapid dedollarization, not just by China and Russia, but especially by the Global South, including the BRICS-plus countries, is largely the US sanctions policy. It drives once upon a time US allies to the east, where they feel their economic autonomy is better preserved.

US-dollar domination is best reflected by the US sanctions policy. Without it, the US dollar hegemony is a tiger without teeth.

Countries even within the European Union (EU) are sick and tired of the constant “ambiance of threat” which many believe, is responsible for the extreme submissiveness of the vassalic EU.

In summary, the US Secretary of Treasury may have come to China to seek more monetary and trade harmony for their, the US’s globalist interests.

PressTV: What does Ms. Yellen mean by “China’s unfair economic practices”?

PK: Does the US Treasurer maybe refer to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)? BRI, this year celebrates its 10th anniversary. BRI has made enormous inroads throughout the world, not in war-type destruction, as practiced by the west, but by connecting countries and continents with infrastructure, trade, cultural exchange – and not least, as the world may have noticed over the past 12 months, with peace-bringing diplomacy. See BRI map below.

China in Red, the members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in orange. The proposed corridors (see this and this) in black (Land Silk Road), and blue (Maritime Silk Road). (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

The BRI is a thorn in they eyes of the west, as is known for years, because it uses a harmonious approach in connecting people. The BRI is an international economic development scheme. So far more than 150 nations and international organizations have joined BRI – and growing.

This could indeed be considered a threat to the west – a counteract to western influence peddling, and, therefore, be called “unfair economic practices.”

The term may also refer to China’s largest Asean-plus-4 Trade Agreement – the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). It entered into force on 1 January 2022, meaning that businesses in Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Japan, Laos, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam will now benefit from tariff elimination on about 92% of goods over time.

It is estimated that within 5 years RCEP trade will surpass in absolute terms any other trade agreement worldwide. RCEP is a China initiative. It has been negotiated during ten years. (See RCEP map below).

Source: MPG

Would Washington call it “unfair trade”?

If anything is unfair in international commerce, it is the US “sanctions” policy, that – by the way – includes outright theft of countries’ reserve deposits in western banking institutions.

*

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

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

Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.

Featured image is from the Public Domain

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

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

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

***

This article was originally published in October 2021.

See our latest coverage on this issue.

The Weaponization of Mosquitos: WHO and Gates Inc Announce Plans to Flood Africa with Ultra Dangerous Malaria “Vaccines”

By Jordan Schachtel, July 10, 2023

Researchers Use GMO Mosquitoes to Vaccinate Humans in NIH-Funded Malaria Study

By Michael Nevradakis, October 04, 2022

Why Did Gates and the Pentagon Release “Gene Edited” (GMO) Mosquitoes in Florida Keys?

By F. William Engdahl, July 10, 2023

***

It has been a good year for vaccines. Remarkably effective inoculations were engineered, tested, and rolled out to rein in the COVID-19 pandemic which has killed over 4.8 million people, and on October 6 the World Health Organization (WHO) officially recommended a “groundbreaking malaria vaccine for children at risk.” It’s hard to wrap our heads around the numbers that make up the fabric of mass infectious illnesses like malaria. In 2019, the number of cases of malaria all over the world wasestimated at 229 million. That’s a little over the total population of Pakistan, the fifth most populous country on Earth. For that same year, deaths from malaria added up to 409,000. Two-thirds of those deaths were in children under the age of five.

The announcement by the WHO that a vaccine against malaria, more than thirty years in the making, could finally be recommended was greeted with joy in the media. But our vaccine efficacy expectations, raised aloft by the COVID-19 vaccines’ stunning results, need to be tampered down in this case. And while anti-vaccination activists claim, wrongly, that the approved RNA vaccines are “experimental” and are administered to people without their informed consent, the way in which the malaria vaccine’s implementation was pilot-tested in three African countries has raised the ethical questions of what constitutes research and whether or not proper consent was indeed secured in those children.

A protean adversary

If the crash course the public received in 2020 about how a respiratory virus infects the body was a beginner’s class in infectious diseases, malaria is the advanced lesson.

A coronavirus spitting out its genetic guts inside our cells so that their replication machinery will make more copies of it is plain sailing compared to the complex, shape-shifting life cycle of malaria, a disease that wrangles at least three different organisms. First, there’s the infected human. Then, there’s the female mosquito, which could be any one of 41 species under the larger umbrella known as Anopheles. Finally, and most interesting of all, there’s the vector, the go-between, the shapeshifter itself. It’s a microscopic, single-celled parasite called Plasmodium whose adaptable existence has forced exotic nomenclature from the pens of scientists, words to describe its life stages like “merozoites” and “schizont.”

Put simply, the mosquito bites you and its saliva delivers the Plasmodium parasite inside your body. For the first week or two, the malaria parasite enters the liver stage of its existence: it replicates itself asexually inside the human liver. Its numbers grow. Eventually, it infects new red blood cells, and thus begins the blood stage and with it the symptoms of malaria.

For the uncomplicated form of the disease, these include the non-specific symptoms we associate with the flu, like fever, headache, chills, and body aches. For the severe form of malaria, this tiny parasite can cause acute injury of the lungs and kidneys, coma, and birth complications with long-term consequences. The parasite continues to make copies of itself asexually inside the red blood cells until the cells burst and the parasites look for new cells to infect. Some of the Plasmodium parasites turn into the equivalent of immature sperm and eggs, sexual cells known scientifically as gametes. When you get bitten by another mosquito, these immature gametes get scooped up and the parasite’s life cycle continues inside its new mosquito host. The “sperm” and “egg” mature, meet-cute, and lead to new infectious versions of the parasite ready to travel from the mosquito’s long proboscis and into a fresh human host.

To complicate matters, Plasmodium is not just one thing. It includes six species of parasites that are known to give humans malaria, the most famous of which is Plasmodium falciparum, responsible for the vast majority of malaria deaths. But other species—specifically P. vivax and P. ovale—have the superpower to lay dormant in the form of hypnozoites, which can awaken and cause a relapse of the infection months or years later.

This ability the malaria parasite has to change over the course of its life cycle—a good word for that being “protean,” after the mythological Greek god Proteus who would assume different shapes—has really vexed researchers.

Developing a vaccine against a coronavirus is relatively easy, but against this? Which form of the parasite should even be displayed as the crown jewel of a vaccine?

The asexual form that couch-surfs in our liver?

The one that spreads in the blood?

The immature gametes? The mosquito stage?

Should we use the full parasite or a simple protein from it? Given that different forms of the parasite can express different proteins, selecting one such protein for the vaccine also spoils us for choice, unless we should choose two or three proteins together to cover more bases. Different strategies were used by scientists over decades, and while a small number of vaccines managed to make it to a phase II trial in humans, their efficacy was judged “modest” and the immunity they granted was not sustained.

Finally, a large clinical trial in thousands of children and infants yielded encouraging results in 2015 for a specific malaria vaccine that targeted the liver stage of the parasite’s life cycle. The vaccine is commonly called RTS,S (an initialism for a shockingly long descriptor), with Mosquirix as its trade name. Whether or not it will be a safe and effective “game-changer” requires a closer look at the results of its testing and how the testing itself was conducted.

“A serious breach of international ethics standards”

Mosquirix prevents 4 in 10 cases of malaria. In terms of efficacy, we have certainly seen better, with two doses of the MMR vaccine being 97% effective against measles and 88% effective against mumps. Even the COVID-19 vaccines had higher efficacies in their clinical trials. When compared to the WHO’s goal of having licensed malaria vaccines with efficacies of at least 75% by the year 2030, Mosquirix clearly doesn’t check the box.

But given the enormity of the problem, preventing 4 in 10 cases of malaria is still an impressive achievement, especially given that Mosquirix is the only vaccine of a crop of 25 to successfully make it through all three phases of human testing.

This vaccine could save the lives of tens of thousands of children each year. However, as the results of the Mosquirix clinical trials came to light, a number of key questions lingered. Would a four-dose regimen of the vaccine be feasible in the real world of sub-Saharan Africa, where most people are affected by malaria?

Would vaccine recipients assume they were fully protected and dismiss other protective measures, like insecticide-treated bed nets?

Given the complexities of malaria, the potential for reinfection, and the relatively short length of the phase III trial, would the vaccine really prevent deaths in the long run?

A seven-year follow-up in children who participated in the phase II trial of Mosquirix revealed that the efficacy of the vaccine had gone down over time. There was a rebound effect later on in areas particularly prone to malaria. And more disturbingly, in the biggest trial of the vaccine, three safety signals were picked up: there was a ten times higher rate of meningitis, a higher chance of cerebral malaria, and a doubling of deaths from all causes in girls who had received the vaccine and not the placebo. Were these effects real or chance artefacts?

To answer these questions, the WHO launched a pilot evaluation of the vaccine roll-out in Malawi, Ghana, and Kenya, and this is where we find what has been described as “a serious breach of international ethics standards.”

This pilot was registered withClinicalTrials.gov. Its master protocol clearly calls it a “study” and it contains many sections dedicated to “research questions” and “research methods.” Indeed, areas within these countries were randomized to either receive the vaccine or not. This is why there was outrage in the scientific community when it was revealed that the WHO had not used informed consent during this pilot study.

Informed consent is when a patient is properly informed about the potential risks, benefits, and alternatives of an intervention and, being of sound mind, can decide to go forward with it or not. Ever since the Nazis’ sickening experiments, informed consent has become enshrined in medical ethics.

But in the case of the Mosquirix pilot study, the WHO denied that it was a research activity and stated it had used “implied consent,” meaning that the children who received the vaccine and their parents or guardians were not informed that they were taking part in a study.

What emerged out of an investigation by the British Medical Journal is that the WHO said it had sent training material to country partners about the potential risks, although the association with an increased risk of deaths among girls seen in the clinical trial was not mentioned in the training material. The vaccine deployment was handled by the countries as part of routine vaccinations. It is this protean roll-out—appearing clearly as a risk assessment research project to some people and as a routine vaccination campaign to others—that the WHO used to recently endorse the wider use of Mosquirix, to much media acclaim.

When interviewed by German radio station Deutschlandfunk, Professor Charles Weijer, who co-wrote the ethical rules on the kind of randomized design the WHO used for their pilot study and which were adapted in collaboration with the WHO, declared that the WHO was violating the very rules it had co-authored. This waiver of informed consent looks to Weijer like there is one standard for research in wealthier countries and a different standard for research done in poorer countries. “It looks like colonial science to me,” he told the interviewer.

But what about the potential risks of the Mosquirix vaccine detected in the clinical trial?

Were they seen in the pilot roll-out?

According to the WHO, it is now clear that there is no link between the vaccine and these original concerns, but the lack of follow-up at an individual level, the low vaccine coverage, and the short duration of this pilot study (which, to be fair, is still on-going) mean that the actual effect of the vaccine on female mortality, real or not, may have been missed, according to a 2020 analysis by Dr. Christine Benn of the University of Southern Denmark and colleagues. These safety signals, for meningitis, cerebral malaria, and deaths from all causes in girls, have to be sufficiently addressed. A petition, which now has close to 35,000 signatures, is calling for the WHO to be more transparent about its pilot evaluation and to answer the ethical questions that have been raised.

Trust

What a mess. The fight against malaria has been plagued by difficulties. Plasmodium is a slippery beast to successfully sketch out for the “Wanted” poster that is a vaccine. It owns many fake moustaches. Mosquirix began testing in 1987, the year that saw the release of Good Morning, Vietnam and the first Lethal Weaponmovie. It has reportedly cost over USD 750 million, a substantial bill that was mostly settled by GlaxoSmithKline and the Gates Foundation. Its efficacy is not great but it can’t be dismissed, especially considering the magnitude of the problem. Other interventions exist to prevent or treat malaria, but none are perfect. Bed nets are affordable, but in 2016, only a little over half of people at risk for malaria in sub-Saharan Africa were sleeping under one. Not everyone wants to spend the whole night under a net and, as a WHO spokesperson explained, the nets don’t stop mosquitos by day. Treatment with the drug artemisinin, which led to the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, has saved millions of lives, but the emergence of drug resistance in Southeast Asia is sounding the alarm. A vaccine, even if it does not prevent every case of malaria, would be a useful part of the armamentarium.

But doubts remain, in my mind, about Mosquirix’s safety. It is worth pointing out that travellers to Africa will, by and large, not be eligible for Mosquirix, as the WHO has recommended its use only in children at the moment. This vaccine is meant for the children who live in countries where malaria is widespread. There are, of course, other vaccines in the works, like R21/MM which was recently tested in a phase II clinical trial with 450 children and found to have an efficacy of up to 77%. We will have to see if it and others can clear the hurdle of making it through a phase III trial.

It is high time Africa got a safe and effective vaccine against malaria, but ethical standards and transparency cannot be sacrificed. A vaccine’s protection does not simply come from its building blocks. It also comes from trust.

Note: To any reader genuinely curious as to what Mosquirix’s generic name, RTS,S/AS01E, stands for, this article unfurls it as “the central repeat region (R) and T-cell epitopes (T) of P. falciparum circumsporozoite protein carried by the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg, S), and co-expressed within Saccharomyces cerevisiae with unfused copies of HBsAg(S)/adjuvant system 01E.” Worth infinite points in Scrabble.

*

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

Featured image is from McGill University

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

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

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

 

***

Since 1967, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has largely been seen and discussed from the prism of the various conflicting issues over territory, security, Jerusalem, the Palestinian refugees, the settlements, and historic rights.

On each of these issues, Israel’s actions have blatantly violated the Palestinians’ basic human rights, creating humanitarian crises on every level. Israel’s actions and their devastating impacts are completely inconsistent with Jewish values. Had these values been followed in every encounter and sincere efforts were made by both sides to reach a peace agreement, the conflict might have been resolved decades ago and the humanitarian disasters inflicted on the Palestinians could have been averted.

The intensifying violent encounters between the two sides since the beginning of the year have claimed the lives of 147 Palestinians and 23 Israelis. The vicious cycle of violence which has been escalating, as we have seen in recent days in Jenin in the West Bank, will continue to fester, especially because of the sense of entitlement which the current Israeli government in particular and the settlers have in spades.

The recent killing of four innocent Israeli settlers by a Palestinian terrorist cannot be justified under any circumstances. But for the perpetrators, this was an act of revenge that was taken as vengeance for the killing of several Palestinians in the days prior. The Palestinian attackers felt that they had no choice left but to fight for their freedom – for their dreams and aspirations – preferring to die as martyrs with honor rather than live in servitude for the rest of their lives.

Defying Jewish Values

Although the pogroms committed by the settlers that followed were condemned by Netanyahu and the leaders of the opposition, the settlers have been listening all along to the likes of ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, to whom the life of any Palestinian is dispensable and have said as much publicly time and again. In February, following the killing of two Israeli brothers and the settler-led pogrom that ensued against the village of Huwara, Israeli Minister of Finance Bezalel Smotrich stated, “I think the village of Huwara needs to be wiped out. I think the state of Israel should do it.”

Image: Bezalel Smotrich, an extremist Israeli Jewish MK [File photo]

Thus, dispossessing the Palestinians of everything they have, setting fire to scores of houses and cars, and wanton destruction of properties while Israeli soldiers watch with equanimity makes a mockery of these Jewish values that Israeli officials pretend to uphold so high.

The irony here is that while some officials condemned the pogroms because such horrendous acts defy Jewish values, they have conveniently forgotten that for decades Israel has regularly been violating these values by acting inhumanely against the Palestinians in the name of national security. Successive Israeli governments ignored the historical account of the Jews’ survival throughout the centuries, which was attributed to their collective adherence to these values and their commitment to never forsake them, as they constituted the religious and ethical foundation of the Jews’ continuing survival.

These Jewish values include caring for and being compassionate toward other human beings, not turning away from people in need, loving one’s neighbors, forgiving and having mercy, clothing the naked, upholding the right to justice and ownership of property, freeing the oppressed, sharing your bread with the hungry, sheltering the homeless, and respecting the right of every person to life. Finally, there is Tikkun Olam, which translates to ‘repairing the world,’ to restore it to how its creator made it, or make it better for all.

How do Israeli governments square these values to the uprooting of olive trees that deprive the owners of their main source of income and force them to live on handouts with humiliation; to the horrifying practice of incarcerating mostly young men often for months without being charged with any crimes; to the frequent night raids that terrify the young and kidnap fathers and eldest sons, not to be seen again sometimes for months?

And how do you square Jewish values to the routine forcible eviction of Palestinians from their homes and cruel acts of demolishing houses under the pretext of being built without a permit, or because the government decided to rezone the area for some obscure reason, leaving them homeless and despairing; or annexing more land for military training, leaving many families without the land which was the source of their livelihood?

Do these horrifying acts of cruelty that happen routinely and are hardly criticized pass the litmus test of Jewish values? Indeed, successive Israeli governments led by Netanyahu in particular have egregiously and shamelessly violated every single value the Jews have held for centuries. But then, leave it to the avid right-wing Israelis and officials to justify these punitive measures on the grounds of national security. In fact, these inhumane measures are designed not only to force Palestinians out of their land but to deliberately instigate Palestinian violent resistance, which in turn the government uses as a pretext to take retaliatory measures against the Palestinians and justify the continuing occupation.

Inviting Violence

The Netanyahu government has continued its sinister scheme to make the Palestinians’ lives unbearable so that they leave their homes and communities out of despair and hopelessness—an effort to clear the land of all Palestinians for Israelis to move in. These officials and millions of staunch right-wing Israelis quietly condone these pogroms and gross violations of the Palestinians’ human rights simply because they serve their long-term goal of controlling all the land from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.

Conversely, had Israeli successive governments truly applied Jewish values, they would have ended the ruthless measures they take that precipitate massive humanitarian crises. Every Palestinian, wherever they may live, feels each tragic event as if they have experienced it themselves, which only strengthens their resolve to counter the Israelis’ brutality and ruthlessness by taking revenge through acts of terror.

More than any previous government, this current shameless government particularly makes a mockery of Jewish values. But then Netanyahu and his charlatan ministers try to toe the line between what’s right and wrong by paying less than lip service to these violent pogroms. It is incomprehensible that we Jews, who have suffered from countless pogroms throughout the centuries, allow settlers who are living on land usurped from the Palestinians to commit such reprehensible acts with impunity.

The Harshness of the Occupation

Let me illustrate how deeply this Netanyahu government has degraded and tarnished Jewish values, which smacks in the face of those who speak of such values with pride but happily ignore them when it suits their needs.

In December, the son of a Palestinian mother and father was arrested and imprisoned after being accused of carrying out two bus attacks on settlers, killing two. Within days, Israeli security officials came to the family home, where he no longer lived, to map out the home for destruction. This is the standing Israeli policy, to demolish the home of a Palestinian terrorist who kills an Israeli to deter others from committing a similar crime.

The house was slated to be demolished in February; after failed appeals, and despite the fact that the son was still imprisoned with no sign of impending release, the Israeli army came to the home last month and leveled it to the ground. The suspect’s parents and four sisters, none of whom have been suspected or accused of any wrongdoing, now find themselves staring at a pile of rubble, which was only the day before a warm home that shielded them from all outside elements. While this inhumane practice continues with the current Netanyahu government and the vicious National Security Minister Ben-Gvir, the plight of the Palestinians is only worsening with no end in sight.

For the parents, their son was not a terrorist; he was a young man with dreams and aspirations, to make something of himself. I asked those Israelis who talk about Jewish values with pride, does the destruction of the home of a family and four children conform with Jewish values when the core of these values is rooted in compassion, in caring, in loving and healing another human being?

Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who are proud of being devout Jews, maybe should take another look at what the Hebrew Bible teaches about crime and punishment. The book of Ezekiel (18:19 NIV) states: “The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.” Why then does a government that claims to be guided by Jewish values and religious ethics commit such naked crimes that make a mockery of these values enshrined in the Tanakh? To be sure, every day of occupation diminishes and tarnishes Jewish values.

But leave it to the wicked Smotrich who shamelessly stated that “The attempt to create an equivalency between murderous Arab terror and [Israeli] civilian counteractions, however serious they may be, is morally wrong and dangerous on a practical level.” On a practical level? Let me tell you, Mr. Smotrich, what the practical level is.

The way the Israeli government is treating the Palestinians is doing nothing but sowing the seeds for the next terrorist attack against innocent Israelis, for the next pogrom against innocent Palestinians, for the coming massive conflagration between Israelis and Palestinians that will claim the lives of hundreds if not thousands of innocent men, women, and children on both sides. That is the practical level.

Israel is now on a collision course with history. The Israelis must make up their minds. Do they want to live in an occupying country, an apartheid state that routinely oppresses other people, stamps on their dignity, and denies them their basic human rights while provoking violence and spreading fear and uncertainty, not knowing what tomorrow might bring? Or do they want to live in the country for which they were yearning for centuries, where justice is pursued with vigor, where every Jew, regardless of their religious affiliation, color, or country of origin can find a home, a refuge, be free, independent, and safe while fully adhering to the values that the Jews have proudly espoused?

Successive Netanyahu governments have betrayed what the Jews stood and suffered for throughout the centuries. Now he is determined to subordinate the Supreme Court and the appointment of judges to the whims of politicians, which will destroy Israel’s democracy and render it a de facto dictatorship that will rain havoc on the Palestinians without any accountability. Sadly, and unconsolably, Israel will become, if it hasn’t already, a liability rather than a source of pride and security for all Jews, especially to diaspora Jewry which constitutes the majority of the global Jewish population.

As long as the occupation continues, no Israeli can tell with any certainty where Israel will be in 10-15 years. The Israeli extremists who believe that they can indefinitely sustain the occupation, confiscate more territories, build new and expand current settlements, force despairing Palestinians to leave, and uproot others are ominously misguided and render a horrifying disservice to the country and to world Jewry. Can they really be so oblivious to the continuing rise of Palestinian militancy which Israel is nurturing and will only intensify and exact heavy blood and treasure from Israel? Palestinian youth whose futures have been usurped are happily sacrificing themselves to be free rather than live hopelessly in bondage.

As long as Israel continues to be an occupying power, it cannot and will not ever be in a position to claim the moral high ground rooted in Jewish values. It is now up to the Israeli public to demand an end to the 56 years of occupation and live up to the premise behind Israel’s creation: to be free, secure, inventive, and a light onto other nations.

The next article will argue that Palestinian leaders have missed many opportunities to make peace with Israel. Their resistance and unrealistic demands have played directly into Israel’s hand and severely sabotaged their national cause. They must come to terms with Israel’s existence in peace and security if they ever want to establish a state of their own. The third article will offer a way out of this continuing tragic conflict.

*

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

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Palestinians look at the rubble of a store following demolished their sheds by Israeli bulldozers, in Ras al-Amud in Jerusalem on June 02, 2014. Israel destroyed more than 500 Palestinian properties in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in 2013, displacing over 850 people, according to UN figures. Photo by Saeed Qaq

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

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

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

***

This video was first published in December 2018.

The film reveals how the international trade in weapons – with the complicity of governments and intelligence agencies, investigative and prosecutorial bodies, weapons manufacturers, dealers and agents – fosters corruption, determines economic and foreign policies, undermines democracy and creates widespread suffering.

The film unravels a number of the world’s largest and most corrupt arms deals. It illustrates why this trade accounts for almost 40% of all corruption in global trade, and how it operates in a parallel legal universe, in which the national security elite who drive it are seldom prosecuted for their often illegal actions.

*

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

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

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

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

***

“Farmland lost is farmland lost forever.” That catchy phrase is a popular slogan distributed by the Virginia-based land trust called the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC). While it’s an accurate statement, apparently, the PEC and its like-minded Green brethren are only concerned about losing vital farmland to housing developers. Meanwhile, thousands of farmers and ranchers are losing their industries to radical environmental policies supported and promoted by such groups. Obviously, hypocrisy runs deep in the leftist Green movement.

However, farmland is under attack across the nation, mainly under the guise of climate change and environmental protection. Let’s review some of the main threats America’s farmers are facing.

The central unifying issue driving the attack on America’s farming industry is “climate change.” SUSTAINABLE! That’s the trigger word driving the attack on farming. Green activists say we face an impending apocalypse and so society, they warn, must pursue a stated goal of achieving “sustainable development” or all will be lost. “Sustainable development” determines how food will be grown, processed, packaged, and marketed. Very specific rules determined what kind of crops may be grown, and how much land may be used for that purpose, while much of a farm’s private property is forced into open space for habitat, wetlands, and “supposedly endangered species.

Meanwhile, Biden’s Energy Czar, John Kerry, has accused small farms of being significant emitters of nitrogen. Of course, this is the primary attack on cattle for their burps, flatulence, and manure. The current term is “Climate Smart.” As sustainable development forces higher costs on the farmers, Biden’s massive inflation makes it nearly impossible for farmers to stay afloat.

While the Biden cabal is pushing to maneuver it all into place, the real driving force is being driven by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its Great Reset agenda. The WEF has actually launched something called its New Vision for Agriculture (NVA) initiative, which it defines as a “roadmap for Stakeholders.” Stakeholders are not farmers, property owners, or others in the agriculture industry. They are Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) many of whom have been working directly with the United Nations for decades to direct climate change policy.

“The World Economics Forum’s New Vision for Agriculture initiative is led by 17 global companies that are Industry Partners of the Forum,” according to the WEF/McKinsey report. It continues, “the 17 global companies that championed the initiative are Archer Daniels Midland, BASF, Bunge, Cargill, The Coca-Cola Company, Dupont, General Mills, Kraft Foods, Metro, Monsanto company, Nestle, PepsiCo, SABMiller, Syngenta, Unileve4r, Wal-Mart Stores, and Yara International.”

Now add the funds of private foundations such as the Rockefellers, Blackrock, and Gates Foundation, then the true road map of those stakeholders and their funders begins to emerge. These forces are NOT protectors of the environment; they are destroyers of it and 0ur current living standards.

Now comes the implementation of the plan. How do they intend to ultimately change the entire food production system of the nation and make it sustainable? Answer: target the land.

Wind and Solar

Reports from the solar industry as far back as 2017, indicate that the Midwestern states are the “growing hotspot for solar and wind power” to replace traditional coal and gas power plants – meaning thousands of acres of valuable farm land would be required to replace current energy sources that now use only a few acres. A World Bank study published in 2017 admitted that “clean energy” technology is “significantly more material intensive” than hydrocarbon energy sources, and that estimate didn’t even consider farmland destruction.

The solar panels are made of plastic – which takes oil to produce. Underneath those solar panels that run end to end, row by row, for thousands of acres, is cement for infrastructure wires. Little can grow underneath them – no grass, no animals. That’s how farmland is being destroyed.

In addition to solar, the Midwest states are also targeted for wind power. Wind power needs enormous amounts of oil for the turbines to turn. And those blades are not degradable when they no longer work. Again, they also need the massive infrastructure under the planned forests of turbines. How much raw material, including limestone, steel, aluminum, cobalt, and nickel will it take to produce a single wind turbine? And what about the transmission lines needed to get the electricity onto the power grid?

Picture thousands of acres of these turbines – the death of scenic views, of peaceful land, and in the air, nothing will be flying. Millions of birds, rapture, and endangered species destroyed – in the name of environmental protection. Ask the Interior Department how many birds are killed yearly. Such information, they will tell you, is classified. Why?

Wind and solar are a joke. Remember when we used to call environmentalists “Tree Huggers?” Well, where are they now? Why are they not standing up to stop wind and solar from destroying the environment? For example, the Wind industry has cleared over 17,283 acres in Scotland for wind farms. To do it they have wiped out 14,000,000 trees – to save the planet!

Wind and solar processes produce next to nothing for the power grid. If all other sources of fuels were banned and all power was to come from wind and solar, estimates are that it would only provide between 4% and 12% of the energy we need to run the country. Yet millions of acres of vital farmland – private property needed to produce our food supply — are targeted to be buried under this insanity.

Carbon Capture Pipelines

Those pushing for more solar and wind energy also champion carbon capture pipelines. They insist that manmade CO2 is driving climate change and therefore pipelines are needed to be used to safely bury this threat from fossil fuel plants into the ground. Here’s the scheme.

Private corporations have targeted thousands of acres of privately-owned, food-producing Midwest Corn Belt farmland to build several interconnecting pipelines. A letter being sent to targeted property owners from Navigator Heartland Greenway LLC says, “Navigator is proposing to build a large-scale carbon capture pipeline system spanning 1300 miles across five states in the Midwest…” The letter goes on to explain that “the pipeline will materially reduce the participant’s carbon footprint and further the global goal of carbon neutrality… The pipeline system… will capture carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from local facilities before these emissions reach the atmosphere and transport the CO2 safely via pipeline to a permanent and secure underground sequestration site in Illinois.”

There is no sound scientific reason for such a project. Trees and plants need CO2 to live. Here are some actual scientific facts that prove CO2 is not a pollutant but is necessary for a sound environment:

• More CO2 enhances plant growth.
• More CO2 boosts crop yields which helps feed more people worldwide.
• Nearly all plants increase photosynthesis in response to increasing CO2 (CO2
  fertilization). More plant growth means less topsoil erosion.
• More CO2 makes plants grow faster, with less stress and water. Moister soil.
• More CO2 helps plants to create natural repellants to fight insect predators.

The Carbon Capture Pipelines are unnecessary and dangerous to all of human society. Many scientists warn of a growing CO2 shortage that will lead to famine.

The U.S. Navy has produced a chart entitled “CO2 Starvation. The chart reports that average CO2 needs for plant life is 1,600 Parts Per Million(PPM). However, according to the Navy. we are currently at 400 PPM. These figures have been verified by other scientists, including Climate expert Dr. Willy Soon and Dr. Lee Merritt. Dr. Merritt also predicts a “dust bowl” phenomena as a result of plants starving from CO2. Millions of acres covered by solar panels and wind turbines will lead to the destruction of the environment.

Today, in targeted states, including Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, and Minnesota, there is growing opposition to the pipelines. Farmers are beginning to understand the threat to their property rights. In response, the corporations behind the scheme resort to ruthless intimidation tactics to scare the farmers into compliance as they boldly trespass on private farmland with armed guards and heavy equipment, damaging crops. With this tactic employed, will local and state governments stand with the farmers who feed us or the powerful corporations?

Attack on the Cattle Industry – Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef

“Meat consumption is devastating some of the world’s most valuable and vulnerable regions, due to the vast amount of land needed to produce animal feed.” The quote is from a report issued by one of the most powerful environmental NGOs, the World Wildlife Fund. They have made it their mission to stop beef consumption. How can they do that, you may ask?

First, the WWF was influential in creating the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef. Quick to join were the four min packing companies that control access to the beef market, including Tysons, Cargil, JBS and National Beef. Next to join was the National Cattleman’s Beef Association (NCBA), the largest association representing the beef industry.

Working together, these organizations began to create new rules that coerced cattlemen to be “certified” to attain what is called “Beef Quality Assurance” recognition from the federal Department of Agriculture. This would grant them the label of being “sustainable,” of course. In the name of environmental protection, these new rules placed restrictions on water grazing, reduced productive uses of the ranchland to make way for wildlife habitat, and forced cattle growers to have smaller herds. All this served to make the ranching process more expensive.

Worst of all is the removal of “Nation of Origin” labeling, so consumers don’t know where their beef is coming from. This allows the packers to use foreign beef which is exempt from the strict Roundtable rules, making it much cheaper than American beef.

The WWF’s Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef is nothing short of a monopoly controlling the industry. There is no free market per se. A few years ago, an independent company called Northern Beef Packers was created at an investment cost of approximately $50 million to create an independent packing company not tied to the Roundtable. The four major packers simply lowered their costs to block the competition by making the price of beef so low that it drove the independent company out of business.

Many suspect the goal is to stop beef consumption and replace it with the fake meat now being offered by Bill Gates and others. Of course, the packers will still have something to market without contending with the animal rights lobby. These corporations will continue to stuff their pockets while gaining the power to set what products will be offered to consumers.

It’s important to once again emphasize that one of the main packing companies, Cargill, is one of the 17 global companies that are Industry Partners of the World Economic Forum’s New Vision for Agriculture, which, as already reported, is dedicated to transforming the U.S. food industry. Another piece of the puzzle put in its place.

*

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

Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.

Featured image is from APC

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

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

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

***

Israeli forces removed a Palestinian family from their home in occupied East Jerusalem early on Tuesday morning to make way for settler groups to take it over.

Around 20 heavily armed officers stormed the house in the Old City at dawn, forcing the current residents, the Sub Laban family, out of the building they have lived in for 70 years.

Mustafa Sub Laban, 72, was inside the house when officers arrived, while his wife, Nora Sub Laban, 68, was outside. 

The house is located in Aqabat al-Khalidiya neighbourhood, near al-Aqsa Mosque. 

“They [Israeli forces] don’t know democracy… They are a government of criminals, thieves who have stolen everything from us,” Nora told local media after returning to her home to find it seized by police. 

According to local media, eyewitnesses reported that Israeli forces, who were reinforced with special units, set up military checkpoints around the neighbourhood and surrounded the family home before storming it.  

Videos shared online showed members of the family pushed out into the streets, shouting and crying in distress.

“They have stolen homes, land, youth, children, women, they have stolen everything. The whole world witnessed what they did in Huwwara, Jenin, Nablus, Silwan and in Sheikh Jarrah as well as the Old City of Jerusalem and the al-Aqsa Mosque,” Nora said, sitting outside her home.

“I am surrounded by Israeli settlers, we are the only Arabs left here in this home. They hate us, you can see one of the settlers dancing around here, happy that they are taking our home from us.”

"Jerusalem remains Arab"… Jerusalemite Nora Sub Laban in front of her house in the Old City of occupied Jerusalem, after the occupation forces and settlers seized it pic.twitter.com/wBwX5zhaKm

— AlQastal News (@QastalNewsEn) July 11, 2023

Activists had came out to support the family and denounce the Israeli forces’ use of violence to seize the home. They were quickly dispersed along with journalists at the scene. 

Police arrested at least five people, according to media reports.

The removal of the family comes after the Israeli Supreme Court previously ruled in favour of a settler group, the Galicia Settlement Association, which claimed the house was owned by Jews before 1948.  

The Sub Laban family had been renting the house from the Jordanian government since 1953, with Nora living there since she was born.  

The family had been fighting the expulsion attempts in Israeli courts since 2010. 

“Imagine a family where the parents are all the time going to the Israeli court, where they’re putting all their money to a lawyer just to protect their property,” Ahmad Sub Laban, Mustafa and Nora’s son, previously told MEE. 

“I remember when I was young, my parents would always be going to the court. It was awful, all the time.” 

Nearly 700,000 Israeli settlers live in more than 250 settlements and outposts across the West Bank and East Jerusalem in violation of international law. 

*

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

Featured image: Nora Sub Laban is seen outside of her home after being forcibly removed by Israeli forces (MEE/Oren Ziv)

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

Several crucial decisions likely will be made at this week’s NATO summit meeting. The most important of all involves Ukraine’s application to join the Alliance. Zealotry for Ukraine in some NATO capitals is so strong that that a path to membership for that country is being considered even in the midst of an ongoing war and unresolved territorial disputes. The most likely move would be to approve a Membership Action Plan (MAP) for Kyiv, which normally is the final substantive measure that an applicant country must fulfill before being admitted to the Alliance. The usual pro-NATO, pro-Ukraine lobbyists in the West are pushing very hard for that step.

It is a sad comment on the judgment and prudence of NATO leaders that they are even considering such a move. The Kremlin has made it clear on multiple occasions since President George W. Bush first proposed NATO membership for Ukraine in 2008 that such a step would cross a bright red line as far as Russia’s vital security interests are concerned. Yet policymakers in the Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations remained stunningly tone-deaf to Moscow’s repeated, ever-more-emphatic, warnings.

Bush’s initial diplomatic foray, which was supported by most East European members of the Alliance, was blunted by opposition from some of NATO’s older members, especially France and Germany. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was especially reluctant to add Kyiv, citing both Ukraine’s endemic corruption and the danger of antagonizing Russia. Unfortunately, French-German resistance could only produce a compromise that delayed Ukraine’s ambitions to join NATO. No explicit membership invitation was extended in the final declaration from the 2008 Bucharest summit, but a commitment was made that Ukraine could join at some point in the future.

Moscow viewed even that move as a suspicious provocation. Subsequent U.S. and NATO actions deepened the level of suspicion and hostility. Western meddling in Ukraine to help nationalists overthrow the country’s elected, pro-Russia president, Viktor Yanukovich, in 2014 produced the first significant hostile response by the Kremlin, seizing Ukraine’s Crimea Peninsula, the home of Russia’s Black Sea fleet. Matters grew steadily worse after those events.

Indeed, the United States, the United Kingdom, and some other NATO countries worked to make Ukraine a member of the Alliance in all but name. Arms shipments flowed to Kyiv, Washington trained Ukrainian troops and built ties with Kyiv’s intelligence apparatus, and joint military exercises between NATO and Ukrainian forces took place. Russia’s 2021 demands for the withdrawal of Alliance troops and military hardware from its borders and insistence on Ukraine’s neutral status made it clear that President Vladimir Putin and his colleagues were not concerned merely about a NATO membership card for Kyiv. The West’s increasingly unsubtle attempt to make Ukraine an informal NATO military asset was considered equally unacceptable.

The failure of Washington and its alliance partners to heed the escalating warnings coming from Moscow was the principal contributor to the ongoing tragedy of the Russia-Ukraine war. Instead of backing away, however, the Biden administration and other NATO hardliners seem determined to make matters even worse. Not only have several countries provided Kyiv with ever more potent weaponry (as though it is an Alliance member warranting aid under Article 5), but the issue of formal membership is back on the table.

Offering to let Ukraine join NATO (now or in the future) would be the final insult and provocation to Russia. France and Germany should have stuck to their positions in 2008 and made it clear that the Alliance would never include Ukraine. A great deal of needless tragedy might have been avoided if they had done so. Instead of firmly closing the door, they accepted the eventual goal of NATO membership for Kyiv.

The key question now is whether France, Turkey, Hungary, and other more prudent NATO countries will stand firm and prevent an even greater folly. Germany, under the leadership of Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his odious, pro-war foreign minister Annalena Barbock, cannot be counted upon to act sensibly. However, because Alliance decisions supposedly must be made by consensus, opposition to Washington’s latest reckless initiative by those three countries should be more than sufficient. All of those governments, though, are under tremendous pressure from the United States and other members to go along with the latest reckless course.

Instead of caving to such bullying, they need to push Washington, London, Warsaw, and other centers of pro-Ukraine dogmatism in the opposite direction. The only hope for a peaceful Eastern Europe going forward is a fully neutral Ukraine. That country must have the same status as Austria. Anything else will remain an intolerable provocation to Moscow, generating fears that NATO will continue to use Kyiv in proxy wars against Russia. The current summit gives more prudent members of the Alliance an opportunity (perhaps the final opportunity) to save Europe from the consequences of the policies that Ukraine’s pro-war patrons are pushing.

*

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

Ted Galen Carpenter is a senior fellow at the Randolph Bourne Institute and a senior fellow at the Libertarian Institute, following a 37-year career at the Cato Institute. He is the author of 13 books and more than 1,200 articles on international affairs. His books include NATO: The Dangerous Dinosaur (2019).

Featured image: NATO soldiers during a parade to mark Independence Day in Kiev © Sputnik / Mykhailo Markiv

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

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

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

***

While Americans were enjoying hot dogs and fireworks this Fourth of July, federal Judge Terry A. Doughty commemorated Independence Day by striking a blow for the separation of big tech and state. Specifically, he issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting a number of government officials and agencies from communicating with social media companies to request they censor certain posts.

Judge Doughty wrote that, “If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” This may seem like hyperbole until one considers that the list of those affected by this injunction includes White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the State and Health and Human Services Departments, as well as the Justice Department and the FBI.

Among the plaintiffs are Harvard Professor Martin Kulldorff and Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya. Professors Kulldorff and Bhattacharya were among the health experts who big tech censored at the behest of government because they dared question the government’s message regarding covid. People questioning government supported claims of the benefits of lockdowns, the efficacy and safety of covid vaccines, the use of masks to protect against infection, and vaccine immunity being superior to natural immunity was silenced.

Eventually the establishment was forced to admit that many of the arguments of those like Kulldorff and Bhattacharya were correct. However, by that point many of those courageous enough to speak out had already suffered irreparable damage to their reputations and careers. Contrary to the covid authoritarians and other users of science claims to promote statist policies like the anti-“climate change” movement, science is in fact never settled.

While much of the lawsuit concerns covid censorship, some of the components revolve around efforts to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story. The effort to suppress and discredit the story may have influenced the election. Some Biden voters would have voted differently had they had full access to the information.

The suppression of the truth about covid and the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story were both justified as serving a “higher good.” With regard to covid, the online censorship was justified as necessary to protect public health. In the case of the laptop story, it was justified as necessary to prevent Donald Trump from winning a second term. The now more widely known revelations regarding Hunter Biden’s business dealings and the possibility that his father not just profited from them but used his position in government to be an active participant may help Donald Trump regain the Oval Office in 2024.

Reading the emails between government officials and employees of big tech companies shows that government officials clearly believed they had every right to tell these private companies how to run their businesses. The government officials even “reminded” them that the companies were in danger of having increased regulations imposed on them by the White House and Congress. This shows the folly of those who think that increasing government involvement with big tech will somehow reduce big tech censorship. The only way to make the internet a free speech zone is to build on Judge Doughty’s decision: separate big tech and state.

*

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

Featured image: A US government propaganda poster from the 1940s (Source: Multipolarista)

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

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

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

***

Journalist Celia Farber is the author of “Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS.” In it, she highlights the work of virologist and retrobiologist Peter Duesberg, who since 1987 has insisted that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS

According to Duesberg, retroviruses such as HIV are harmless and do not cause disease. And, up until Dr. Robert Gallo claimed he’d discovered HIV in his laboratory in 1984, and determined that it caused AIDS, this was the scientific consensus

Duesberg was vehemently attacked by AIDS researchers and activists, and internationally discredited by media for not going along with the AIDS narrative promoted by the medical establishment, led by Dr. Anthony Fauci

As with COVID-19, one of the key tools used to promote the “HIV causes AIDS” narrative was the use of the PCR test. There are also other similarities to what happened with COVID, including the vilification and discrediting of scientists and therapies that could effectively address the disease

Bactrim was an inexpensive generic drug that effectively treated AIDS-related pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, which was frequently fatal. This drug, like ivermectin, was withheld. Instead, Fauci insisted AIDS patients be treated with AZT, a horrendously toxic and expensive cancer drug that was never proven to work, and which killed an estimated 300,000 AIDS patients, most of them gay men

*

In this video, I interview journalist Celia Farber about her recently republished book, “Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS.” As a young reporter working for SPIN magazine, Farber started questioning the official narrative around AIDS, and this book is the outgrowth of her decades-long investigation into and writing about this “hot potato” topic.

Long before censorship went mainstream, Farber was put through the wringer. In 2006, she published an article in Harper’s Magazine titled “Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science.” In it, she highlighted the work of virologist and retrobiologist Peter Duesberg, who insisted that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.

In my view, Duesberg was brilliant, but like so many other brilliant scientists, he was widely discredited for not going along with the narrative promoted by the conventional medical establishment.

As a result of her reporting, Farber was vehemently attacked by leading AIDS researchers and activists,¹ so much so, she ended up suing three of the attackers for defamation. The New York County Supreme Court dismissed² her claim in 2011 and upheld the verdict in 2013. Still, she did not quit or back down, and kept searching for the truth.

‘The Passion of Duesberg’

As explained by Farber, Duesberg worked at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, one of the most well-respected scientific institutions in the world. After moving to the United States, he became a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

In 1987, he published a paper in Cancer Research, proposing that retroviruses are not the cause of cancer, nor the cause of AIDS. According to his scientific biographer, this was the paper that “sealed his scientific doom forever after.” Farber notes:

“Duesberg mapped the genetic structure of retroviruses. So to him, yes, they were entities, but no, they didn’t do anything. They didn’t infect or kill cells. They were harmless. And he had phrases like, ‘HIV, that’s a pussycat. It’s not going to do anything. Saying that HIV is going to cause AIDS is like saying you’re going to conquer China by killing three soldiers a day.’

In other words, there’s no ‘there’ there. There was no cell death. And fascinatingly, or disturbingly, the HIV orthodoxy never contested that. So, I would say they had a supernatural belief in HIV. They would say, ‘We just know HIV causes AIDS,’ and anybody who doesn’t know that is dangerous, homophobic, murderous and so forth.”

Mid-Air Flip in the ‘Scientific Consensus’

As explained by Farber, up until Dr. Robert Gallo claimed he’d discovered HIV in his laboratory in 1984, and determined that it caused AIDS, the scientific consensus had been that retroviruses, as a class, were not pathogenic.

“So, there’s this very strange midair complete flip where everything changes overnight,”Farber says. “It’s like a revolutionary change, and the classical scientists of integrity were so thrown by this. They didn’t even attend the press conference.

They didn’t think there was any chance, as they said, that this would fly, this press conference where Robert Gallo announces that a so-called retrovirus is the cause of AIDS.

Back to Peter. What he does that’s so monumental in the history of American science, post 1980s, is that he, first of all, dissents. And he has no idea that he’s doing anything dangerous, never mind career annihilating. And he’s conducting himself as a scientist should. He’s innocent in what he’s doing, and it’s like a building just falls on him.

Next thing you know, his name becomes synonymous with ‘wrong, dangerous, homophobic, murderous.’ And then this culture kicks in where it becomes a sport and a career advancement to trash Duesberg if you have anything to do with AIDS research.

It was gladiatorial. They went out of their way to come up with lurid and hideous things to say about him. And it went all over the international press. So, he became this scapegoat for the errors and crimes of [Dr. Anthony] Fauci’s AIDS apparatus.

Meanwhile, over in AIDS land, everything they were predicting and terrorizing people with was not coming true at all, was not panning out, whereas Duesberg’s predictions and critiques were panning out exactly. And the more he was right and they were wrong, the more trashed he got.

So, in a sense, what I’ve covered is not just about the nitty-gritty of the science and who’s correct. It’s about this moment of where science becomes, under Tony Fauci, ‘woke.’ It wasn’t called woke then. It was then called political correctness.

So, in other words, ‘AIDS spreads like this or like that and is going to affect everybody,’ because that’s what we’re supposed to say politically, not because that’s true biologically or epidemiologically. So, we’re all stuck now in this brand new era where you get flogged for observing 2+2 = 4 …

The question fascinated me because I just couldn’t square the circle. How come these guys over here are all saying this, and then this top scientist is saying this, and then others rallied around him? Kary Mullis, who invented PCR, and was a staunch defender and friend of Duesberg, always said, ‘He’s absolutely right.’

So, the dissent movement was saying, ‘There must be proof in science.’ Gallo provided no proof that HIV was the cause of AIDS or a coherent pathogen. So, it just kept growing and growing, and with a few exceptions, I had the field to myself. Nobody wanted to interview these people because it was absolutely radioactive to your career, and I can certainly attest to that.

I actually didn’t realize it was dangerous. I was naïve. And I was already way too far out at sea when the bludgeoning began and I realized how dangerous it, in fact, was, and that the people we were up against were of a much more dangerous variety than I had realized.”

Fauci’s Legacy: A Lifelong Suppression of Science

Farber’s experience is proof positive that even four decades before Fauci sold us on his destructive COVID protocols, he had the power to destroy people and convince the entire country to support a fake narrative.

“Let me speak a little bit how he did that, having lived through it. Let’s say that an editor at a major magazine or newspaper became interested in a story and thought to get a reporter on it. Somehow, he had, I guess it was a surveillance network. He knew and went in there, and somehow the story dies. The reporter gets taken off it. The show gets canceled.

I had one friend who had a major local ABC show. It was a new talk show, and he had Duesberg on and myself. The next thing you know, the whole show is canceled, and he never worked again. It was GDR [German Democratic Republic] stuff and it was across the board. It was 100% consistent that anybody who touched it [was warned they’d be destroyed] … That was their word, ‘destroy.’

One top level AIDS researcher named John P. Moore sent out an open declaration of war [against AIDS] ‘denialists’ that said, ‘We will crush you. We crush all of you.’ So that was the climate of it. Now, after all these years, I’m realizing they were part of something much larger.

They were part of this new revolutionary, post-modern, 2+2 does not equal 4 science. ‘It is whatever we tell you it is.’ They created that empire of terror during AIDS, for sure.

It’s just that not that many people knew about it because it was still within the corridors of certain risk groups and some unfortunate journalists or scientists who got caught up in it. Then with COVID, they threw a much bigger net because … it was a little more difficult to get people into the trap.”

The PCR Scam and Suppression of Useful Drugs

As with COVID-19, one of the key tools used to promote the “HIV causes AIDS” narrative was the use of the PCR test, which the inventor, Mullis, was vehemently against.

The PCR was used to measure “viral load,” which was supposed to give you a sense of how sick or well you could expect to be. This kept HIV-positive patients going back to the doctor to get tested repeatedly. But it was nothing more than a numbers game, just as it was during COVID.

There are other similarities to what happened with COVID, including the vilification and discrediting of scientists and therapies that could effectively address the disease. Just like they vilified ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, even going out of their way to fund fraudulent studies to discredit these drugs, they did the same during the AIDS epidemic.

For example, bactrim was an inexpensive drug that effectively treated AIDS-related pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, which was frequently fatal. This drug, like ivermectin, was withheld. Instead, Fauci insisted AIDS patients be treated with AZT, a horrendously toxic and expensive cancer drug that was never proven to work, and which killed hundreds of thousands of AIDS patients.

“AZT is one of the darkest, most shocking chapters. AZT was a chemotherapy compound that was shelved in the early ’60s for being too toxic for human use. For reasons that cannot be fathomed, they pulled that compound out of the drawer, put it in capsule form and made it the first drug to treat AIDS, a condition of immune devastation …

The estimate I’ve heard is that upward of 300,000, mostly gay men, died from high-dose AZT in the early years. That’s 1,200 to 1,800 milligrams. All of a sudden, Fauci drops the dose to 500 mg and people start dying less, which incredibly he spun into that he was saving lives because they lowered the dose of what was killing people.

So, a lot of these dark tricks are exactly the same as COVID. AZT was a black swan event, I would say, in medicine. But what it achieved, that we’re still suffering from, was this demolition of the formerly conservative FDA drug approval process, which was turned into something bad, evil. ‘You only support [the FDA drug approval process] if you hate people and you want them to die. You want it to take 10 years to test a drug? That’s cruel’ …

So, a lot of what we’re in today, like these insane ways of medicating and treating people without any regard for safety or possibility of death, a lot of these concepts were put into place during the AIDS epidemic.”

AIDS Activists Played Into Fauci’s Hands

Farber also reviews how AIDS activists empowered Fauci to circumvent historical safety protocols to get experimental drugs to patients as quickly as possible. AIDS activists also acted as Fauci’s foot soldiers or henchmen in that they helped him quash the opposition. In many ways we saw this during COVID as well. People brainwashed into believing masks could block viruses, for example, acted as civilian enforcers of Fauci’s clearly unscientific recommendations.

“It’s a good question ‘Who was Fauci in the beginning there?’ How did he transform into somebody so ruthless, so unaccountable? And I’m being nice right now. As an historian of all of this, I place a lot of credence in the symbiosis between Fauci and the AIDS activists, because the AIDS activists were revolutionary, and they did have a revolutionary creed, which was, ‘By any means necessary, we demand what we demand.’

And [Fauci] was a bureaucrat. A trained Jesuit … I think he’s a perfect general in a much bigger war that seeks to destroy many things outside of science. That’s my take on it. I think this is the big international war that seeks domination over human beings, period. Full stop. And these spectral virus diseases are a good revolutionary tool to get us there.

We made the mistake of seeing them as genuine outbreaks of something … I don’t believe any of that anymore. I think this is all part and parcel of the great leap forward.”

Fauci Spent a Lifetime Undermining Health Wisdom

Farber continues:

“One thing Fauci really honed over so many years is that nothing [but drugs or vaccines] makes a difference. There’s no terrain. Nutrition doesn’t matter. No research went to that, and it was absolutely scorned, again, both by Fauci and by the AIDS activists and so forth.

So, it was a culture of ‘You’re a machine, you’ve got this bad bug in you.’ It’s the machine model of biology. The bad bug is eating up your T-cells on an algorithm that’s inevitable and unstoppable, and nothing will influence that. Getting out in the sun, swimming in the ocean, eating well, what you think, whether you meditate or pray, none of that’s going to affect it.

So, in that sense, he’s advocating for a complete inversion of everything we all know to be true about health. And that’s really his legacy. He spent 40, 50 years getting Americans to think about everything else but how to stay healthy.”

How We Can Undermine the Public Health Tyranny

In addition to that, Fauci has also played a central role in furthering the ideology of technocracy and transhumanism, which aims to implement a One World Government under the veil of global biodefense. What we’re facing now is public health tyranny, in the sense that food and medicine are being turned into tools to control and manipulate entire populations.

“With AIDS, there was still choice,” Farber says. “You were heavily brainwashed. But if you got tested and you tested HIV positive, you still had a choice to take the drugs or not. What they are going to do next is, of course, what we’re all worried about.

I think people are largely woken up, very much so. But does it matter how awake you are if they have seized control of the whole apparatus of functional life? That’s what we have to stop, and I want to talk about how. How is that done? I think, by and large, it’s done by keeping your body healthy, keeping your mind clear, keeping your soul clear, and then you can go from there.

We can’t necessarily control whatever they’re going to try to do. But the good news is, to my mind, how stupid they are, how sloppy they are, how many mistakes they’ve made, and how much people hate them right now.”

*

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

Notes

¹ Courthouse News February 27, 2013

² Supreme Court Decision November 2, 2011

---

Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS

By Celia Farber

Publisher: ‎ Chelsea Green Publishing (March 23, 2023)

ISBN-10: ‎ 1645022072

ISBN-13: ‎ 978-1645022077

On April 23, 1984, in a packed press conference room in Washington, DC, the secretary of health and human services declared, “The probable cause of AIDS has been found.” By the next day, “probable” had fallen away, and the novel retrovirus later named HIV became forever lodged in global consciousness as “the AIDS virus.”

Celia Farber, then an intrepid young reporter for SPIN magazine, was the only journalist to question the official narrative and dig into the science of AIDS. She reported on the “evidence” that was being continually cited and repeated by health officials and the press, the deadliness of AZT, and Dr. Fauci’s trials on children, infants, and pregnant mothers. Throughout, Faber’s reportage was largely ignored. She was maligned, maliciously attacked, and ultimately canceled.

Now, forty years after her original reporting, Farber’s Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS is reissued with a new foreword by Mark Crispin Miller, shining much-needed light on her groundbreaking work once again. More relevant than ever, this book serves as an essential foundation to understanding its catastrophic sequel: COVID-19. Serious Adverse Events makes clear that the tactics employed at the height of HIV/AIDS―the fearmongering, cancel culture, and “woke” takeover of science, medicine, and journalism―persist today. The response to COVID-19 isn’t new: it is a well-trod and dangerous path in the social landscape.

Click here to purchase.

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

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

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

***

A major scandal is unfolding internationally which is shaking the global medical establishment.

Click here to view the video

Our landmark paper with autopsy evidence (largest ever) showing 74% of sudden deaths post COVID-19 vaccination were caused by the vaccines, was censored within 24 hours by a top medical journal!

Click here to view the video

Latest update (I am a co-author and adjudicator): 

The paper is currently on the Zenodo server (Swiss server operated by CERN – European Organization for Nuclear Research)

It currently has over 41,000 downloads and 52,000 views.

Summary of Findings 

This landmark paper reviewed the largest number of autopsy reports published to date relating to COVID-19 vaccination, injury and sudden death.

We identified 44 papers with 325 autopsy cases and three physicians (including myself) independently reviewed all deaths and found:

• 74% of all deaths were either caused or contributed to by COVID vaccines
• 53% of these deaths involved the cardiovascular system
• 17% of these deaths involved the hematological system
• 8% of these deaths involved the respiratory system
• 7% of these deaths involved multiple organ systems
• The mean number of days from vaccination to death was 14.3 days.

My Take… 

This is one of the most important papers of the entire COVID-19 era.

Even though it was censored by Lancet (parent company Elsevier) within 24 hours, when they saw that it was being downloaded hundreds of times per MINUTE, it is currently submitted for peer review and will get published.

This paper will lay the foundation upon which other papers will build as we collectively expose the toxicity of the COVID-19 vaccines.

I want to thank Dr.Peter McCullough for his leadership and his tireless efforts, and my colleagues at the Wellness Company for their support and hard work in helping bring this important paper forward.

The “died suddenly” phenomenon post COVID-19 vaccination is very real and devastating.

COVID-19 vaccines should be immediately taken off the market and the entire LNP/mRNA platform should be suspended and thoroughly investigated.

*

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

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

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

---

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

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

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

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

***

This country will still have to make major reforms, despite having already brought its military up to the bloc’s average standards after serving as its anti-Russian proxy since February 2022, so the latest development is just symbolic. Even NATO itself doesn’t expect Ukraine to join anytime soon, which that’s why it’s being extended an “Israel-style umbrella” instead.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba tweeted on Monday that “NATO allies have reached consensus on removing MAP from Ukraine’s path to membership” ahead of this week’s summit. This isn’t as important as it seems, however, since his country has arguably fulfilled the typical military obligations of those who participate in Membership Action Plans (MAPs). The Ukrainian Armed Forces are trained and equipped by NATO for waging its proxy war against Russia, thus making it a de facto member of the bloc.

Following intensive talks, NATO allies have reached consensus on removing MAP from Ukraine's path to membership. I welcome this long-awaited decision that shortens our path to NATO. It is also the best moment to offer clarity on the invitation to Ukraine to become member.

— Dmytro Kuleba (@DmytroKuleba) July 10, 2023

Even so, Biden told reporters last month that “we’re not going to make it easy” for Ukraine to join NATO. He then said over the weekend prior to setting off for Europe that “I don’t think there is unanimity in NATO about whether or not to bring Ukraine into the NATO family now, at this moment, in the middle of a war.” National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan also informed reporters en route to the UK that Ukraine still needs to undertake far-reaching “democratic, security sector, and economic reforms” before joining.

The policy statements shared above discredit what Kuleba also wrote in his tweet about how removing Ukraine’s MAP requirement “shortens our path to NATO.” While it’s true that this former Soviet Republic is already a de facto member by dint of waging the bloc’s proxy war against Russia using their training, equipment, intelligence, logistics, and other forms of support, it can’t formalize this status with the guarantees that Article 5 is commonly thought to entail without completing other major reforms.

That being the case, while the military aspect of Ukraine’s MAP is arguably redundant as was explained, the other dimensions have yet to be fulfilled and might not be for quite some time until long after the hot phase of its conflict with Russia ends. In other words, Kuleba’s announcement mostly only serves to manipulate popular perceptions about Ukraine’s path towards formally joining NATO when the reality is that it’s still far very away from doing so.

This observation is also based on the other part of Sullivan’s press gaggle en route to the UK where he explained a bit more about what the US envisages regarding “Israel-style security assurances” to Ukraine. According to him, this will involve a series of bilateral commitments “to provide various forms of military assistance, intelligence and information sharing, cyber support and other forms of material support” for a presently undetermined period of time.

His team is obviously only considering this scenario as an alternative to formal NATO membership otherwise they’d be investing their time in discussing the details of Article 5 if they truly expected Ukraine to join the bloc anytime soon. Foreign Affairs recently wrote that there are some who believe that “the sort of weapons, training, and diplomatic support already being given to Kyiv are sufficient to meet NATO’s Article 5 mandate, meaning it is not necessary to also promise or deploy military forces.”

They have a valid point too since Article 5 doesn’t mandate the use of armed force but only “such action as [a member state] deems necessary” to assist those under attack, which does indeed mean that the bloc’s existing support to Ukraine satisfies this in principle. The US’ “Israel-style security assurances” would therefore formalize the support that’s already being provided, which importantly remains below the level of directly engaging Russian forces like many wrongly assume that Article 5 mandates.

From an American soft power perspective, it’s better for the public not to have any false expectations regarding their country’s security commitments to Ukraine such as those that they’d imagine that its formal membership in NATO would entail. That’s not to say that the US won’t resort to armed force in defense of existing members like the those along its eastern flank, which it would feel compelled to do in order to retain Western unity in that event, but just that the case of Ukraine is qualitatively different.

Not only does it remain in a state of hot conflict with Russia, which disqualifies it from membership until the conflict ends, but it also has to resolve all border disputes too. The first is much easier to do than the second, so Ukraine’s formal membership will either be indefinitely postponed or NATO would have to agree to grant it an exemption from this requirement. Since the latter is unlikely due to the risk that this could embroil them in war with Russia, they therefore settled on the “Israel-style” workaround instead.

Politico reported on Sunday that the US is working with the UK, France, and Germany to create a so-called “umbrella” under which they can multilaterally manage their military aid to Ukraine, with this potentially being the most significant outcome to emerge from this week’s summit. In essence, it would formalize the support that they’re already providing to Kiev without likely committing to employing armed force against Russia on its behalf in order to temper expectations.

It’s important not only to avoid getting Ukrainians’ and average Westerners’ hopes unrealistically high, which could completely discredit NATO if it fails to fulfill what’s popularly expected of it, but also to manage the bloc’s very dangerous security dilemma with Russia. If Moscow was convinced that its enemies will employ armed force against it on Kiev’s behalf, then it could be tempted to preempt this by carrying out a first-strike against NATO, hence why all efforts must be made for it not to think so.  

For that reason, it would be highly irresponsible from the US’ soft power and strategic perspectives to signal that it might directly engage Russian forces on behalf of Ukraine as part of the “Israel-like umbrella” that it’s planning as an alternative to that country’s formal NATO membership. No such commitments are therefore expected to be made, but on the off chance that they are, then it would signify that warmongers regained policymaking influence from their rapidly ascending pragmatic rivals.

The earlier cited statements from Biden and Sullivan don’t give any indication to think that the US will promise to employ armed force against Russia on Ukraine’s behalf, nor did NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenbeg’s press conference from Friday either. To the contrary, every signal that’s been sent from top officials until this point is that Ukraine won’t join NATO and thus shouldn’t expect armed force being employed in its support in accordance with the popular interpretation of Article 5.

Circling back to the lede, one can now better understand why removing Ukraine’s MAP requirement for joining NATO isn’t as important as it seems. This country will still have to make major reforms, despite having already brought its military up to the bloc’s average standards after serving as its anti-Russian proxy since February 2022, so the latest development is just symbolic. Even NATO itself doesn’t expect Ukraine to join anytime soon, which that’s why it’s being extended an “Israel-style umbrella” instead.

*

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

This article was originally published on Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

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.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

“A riddle wrapped up in an enigma” is a shortened form of a quotation made in October 1939, just one month after the Second World War had begun, by Sir Winston Churchill in a radio broadcast to the British people. At the time, Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty. The full comment was “I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma…” Somehow that statement popped up into my head as I tried to decipher the meaning of the Yevgeny Prigozhin alleged coup attempt in Russia on Saturday June 24^th, an unanticipated development that has energized the imaginations of pundits and government officials worldwide, generating a torrent of written articles as well as many hours’ worth of spoken commentary.

Predictably, the blather coming out of US Government officials like Secretary of State Antony Blinken is worthless propaganda-speak, replaying the standard line about evil Russia and the autocrat Vladimir Putin, who, per Blinken, is in serious trouble in a Russia that is in chaos over the continuing Ukraine war, which, he claims, the Kremlin is losing.

President Joe Biden also played his part in distancing the US from the Prigozhin affair by declaring emphatically that the US government was not behind the alleged coup attempt, though he also ladled it on thick last Wednesday by declaring, like Blinken, that Russia was losing the war in Ukraine and Putin has become “a bit of a pariah around the world.” Both those assertions could easily be challenged.

There was almost no bloodshed in the initial move by Wagner Group mercenary units to Rostov on Don, which houses the Army’s Southern Command. Afterwards, while on the road to Moscow, there was no resistance from regular army troops along the way, though there are reports that several Russian army helicopters and a surveillance aircraft shadowing the column were shot down. But surely beyond that something potentially game changing vis-à-vis Russia-Ukraine came close to happening even if we do not yet know with any certitude why or even how it all occurred. The central problem is that there are many explanations of what took place that are plausible but which cannot be confirmed based on the fact that no one directly involved in the event’s genesis or execution is likely to provide any honest answers to questions that might logically be raised.

Consider for a moment some of the elements in the drama. As it was occurring, Putin initially went on television to denounce the apparent march on Moscow by the Wagner group soldiers as an attempted coup d’etat which made participants traitors to the Russian government. Prigozhin, however, quickly rejected that characterization, claiming that he was making his move to confront the generals in Moscow who were failing in their duty to win the war against Kiev as expeditiously as possible, i.e. possibly because they were dragging their heels by avoiding any risk and making a war that could have been concluded seem interminable and possibly even unwinnable.

The march on Moscow should thus be seen as an “demonstration of dissent” according to Prigozhin. And to thicken the plot even further, two senior generals Valery Gerasimov and Sergei Surovikin have not been seen in public since Saturday and there are unconfirmed reports that one of them, Surovikin, a former commander of Russian forces in Ukraine, has been arrested. Gerasimov is Army chief of staff and the current commander of forces in Ukraine while Surovikin is now serving as his deputy. The handing over of Gerasimov was one of the demands allegedly made by Prigozhin.

US intelligence sources are also now claiming that Surovikin knew about the rebellion in advance, which suggests that CIA and the Pentagon also knew about it. And there is also a comment made by Ukraine’s head of defense intelligence, Major General Kyrylo Budanov, who said Kyiv knew both about Prigozhin’s plans and a separate plot by Russia’s intelligence agency the FSB to assassinate him. If any or all of that is true, that rather suggests that there might have been a real foreign intelligence agency driven plot against Putin or at least that the Kremlin is proceeding with caution to include the generals’ accounts of their activities being verified to make sure they were not complicit in any way with either the CIA or the Ukrainian government or Prigozhin himself.

So one has to ask whether Putin’s advisers and his intelligence resources were accurately portraying what Prigozhin was up to or was the speech about “treason” a cover story designed to hide a more complicated sequence of events. Did, for example, Putin’s intel chiefs really know in advance that the “coup” or what is possibly better described as an “armed protest” would be taking place? If that is so, did they let it start, assuming that it could not succeed, to attempt to rally the Russian people behind the government and the war? And an even deeper, darker possibility is that the entire episode was contrived by Prigozhin and Putin in support of some still undetermined agenda.

Prigozhin’s subsequent exile to Belarus in exchange for his ending the insurrection and the dropping of any-and-all charges against the alleged Wagner Group insurgents rather suggests that the business of what it was all about was not as straightforward as it seemed on day one. Whilst denouncing the “mutiny plotters” Putin carefully distinguished between those individuals and “the majority of Wagner Group soldiers and commanders” who “are also Russian patriots, loyal to their people and their state.” Indeed, Prigozhin’s role aside, the Wagner Group was founded and commanded by former military intelligence (GRU) officers and funded and provisioned by the Ministry of Defense. Beyond that, Wagner’s soldiers were heroes, the legendary victors of the “battle of Bakhmut.”

And then there is the possible US role denied by Biden. The Washington Post has confirmed that the claim that the CIA knew about what it referred to as the “rebellion,” i.e. the plan to march on Moscow, at least several days in advance. The Agency briefed the so-called Gang of Eight in Congress regarding what was expected to occur but it has not shared what it knew with the public. That might suggest to some that the United States and quite likely Britain were behind an actual coup attempt and may have even initiated it, possibly as some kind of false flag operation, a scenario suggested by Putin in his television address where he hinted darkly that

“They [the West and Ukraine] wanted Russian soldiers to kill each other, so that soldiers and civilians would die, so that in the end Russia would lose, and our society would break apart and choke on bloody civil strife (…) They rubbed their hands, dreaming of getting revenge for their failures at the front and during the so-called counter-offensive, but they miscalculated.”

That is a pretty direct accusation of presumed guilt and it has been suggested that Prigozhin may have met secretly with Ukrainian and NATO intelligence officers in Africa where Wagner has also been operating. If that is true, he might have been recruited by CIA or MI-6, or possibly even was allowed to cooperate with them after consulting with Putin, again in support of an as-of-yet undetermined objective, though seriously embarrassing the US and NATO might have been envisioned.

And it is important to remember that Prigozhin might have had what would be best described as a personal grievance against the generals in Moscow and also against Putin. Many of the commentators on his “rebellion” ignore the important fact that he is a businessman, not a soldier.

He is an oligarch who made his billions largely by catering to the military and government and he has sometimes been referred to as “Putin’s chef.” Given that, his primary interests center on protecting his investments and assets, of which the Wagner mercenary group is one. He has been dismayed at how his manpower has been getting exploited in desultory fighting that seems to go nowhere and has been loudly complaining for months about various issues relating to the progress of the war.

Concerning Wagner, Prigozhin was about to get demoted on July 1^st when Wagner was supposed to sign a contract that would place it under the de facto control of the Russian Ministry of Defense, with at least a third of its active strength being transferred to Belarus for garrison duty against Polish threats, though subsequent reports indicate that the soldiers have not begun to move from their existing bases in Russia and Ukraine.

Interestingly, Prigozhin, who strongly opposed and actually refused to sign the contract, was reportedly in his exile in Belarus and was not seen for many days immediately after the coup attempt, though the Kremlin has now revealed that he actually met with Putin five days after the alleged mutiny during a three hour meeting to pledge his loyalty also attended by both Wagner and regular army officers.

There have, however, been subsequent reports of a possible brief trip by Prigozhin to his hometown St. Petersburg in Russia early last week. The visit had an intriguing angle to it as Prigozhin reportedly visited the Federal Security Service (FSB) office to pick up his small arsenal of personal weapons and a large quantity of cash and gold bars, which had been confiscated when his lavish principal residence and offices in and near the city were searched after he was detained. Multiple passports and a large number of theatrical type costumes were also obtained in the mansion together with a few sledgehammers – a tool the Wagner group allegedly used to murder defectors, numerous pictures of Prigozhin in various disguises as well as a stuffed alligator and “a framed photo which is purported to show the severed heads of [Prigozhin’s] enemies.”

In an impromptu interview last Thursday Belarus President Aleksandr Lukashenko told surprised reporters that Prigozhin has apparently remained in St. Petersburg in spite of brokered peace deal granting him exile status in Belarus that was guaranteed by Lukashenko himself, who opined that for all he knows Prigozhin might well be back in Moscow. There has also been some speculation that Prigozhin is back in Russia to somehow cooperate in the breakup of his business empire. If all of that is true, something very strange is going on.

Indeed, it is to be presumed that many of Prigozhin’s business interests and the Wagner Group are now being taken over by the Russian state. Indeed, one Russian Member of Parliament Andrey Kartapolov has suggested that the disputed contract was the initial principal reason for Prigozhin’s “mutiny.” There are also claims that the amnesty and changes in ownership of Prigozhin’s assets notwithstanding, there will be investigations of Wagner’s internal operations, to include its corrupt spending of Ministry of Defense money, which apparently benefited Prigozhin directly and possibly immensely. The personal grievance issue also opens the door to the possibility that Prigozhin was cleverly playing his own game in an attempt to maintain his status and benefits as director and head of the group, possibly making him in intelligence jargon a double or even a triple agent depending on how many levels and varieties of his numerous potential contacts he has been manipulating.

One point that Prigozhin made that most sources concede to have resonance is his claim that the Ukraine war should be pushed to a conclusion, with the implication that the Russian people are getting tired of it.

In effect, he was challenging why Russia went to war in the first place as well as the execution of it since that time. Colonel Douglas Macgregor opines that Putin will have to think hard over whether he can continue the relatively slow methodical destruction of the Ukrainian Army or speed things up, with a corresponding increase in deaths, to bring an end to the process and avoid unrest among the Russian public and also among the many grumbling rank-and-file soldiers over the issue of how the war is being fought. There are reports from Moscow that the Putin regime is indeed responding to possible unrest, with the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) monitoring social media posts and internet inquiries by ordinary Russians to determine levels of public support. Ukrainian sources, admittedly unreliable, are claiming that 17 out of Russia’s 46 regions might have supported Prigozhin.

So what do I think? I believe that CIA has come to the conclusion that the “coup” as it played out was a “deception operation” carried out by Prigozhin and Putin inter alia to embarrass the western intelligence agencies which may have been able to contact Prigozhin and induce him somehow to march on Moscow.

Beyond that, whether Prigozhin as this played out may have changed his mind on how to perform due to exposure of the plan to Russian intelligence or because he never intended to comply with any agreement in the first place is unknowable at this point.

So, was there a real insurrection or coup? I honestly don’t know but rather suspect that Prigozhin seriously wanted to challenge the generals in Moscow over how the war was being fought.

Was there a western and NATO hand in what developed? Almost certainly, though exactly how that developed is unclear and may never be known. Ditto how the Russian side was playing the cards it was dealt though the dropping of charges against Prigozhin rather suggests that there was considerable maneuvering behind the scenes to produce an outcome that would not heighten the admittedly low-level threat of the march on Moscow turning into a removal of Putin’s government. The coup story still has considerable legs in the US and western media, which predictably are out to fry Vladimir Putin, and there is even considerable reporting and commentary coming from Russian sources. It will be very interesting to see what might surface in the next several weeks.

*

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

This article was originally published on The 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 councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

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

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

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

***

The U.S. seeks to transform India into a center for resupplying and maintenance of naval vessels in the South Asia region, where it has been stretched thin with such capabilities.

U.S. President Joe Biden and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to comprehensive defense and economic partnerships when Modi visited the White House in late June for a summit with Biden.

“The U.S.-India Major Defense Partnership has emerged as a pillar of global peace and security,” the joint statement from the summit reads.

The U.S. will provide India with support to develop infrastructure that will be used to resupply, repair and maintain ships and aircraft.

“We’ll have much more to follow in the near future, but the aim here is to make India a logistics hub for the United States and other partners in the Indo-Pacific region,” said Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary, to reporters in late June.

As part of this effort, the U.S. Navy will sign ship repair agreements with Indian shipyards.

The navy has concluded a Master Ship Repair Agreement with the Larsen & Toubro shipyard near the Indian city of Chennai, according to the White House. The navy is close to finalizing separate deals with two other shipbuilders, based in Mumbai and Goa.

The U.S. military looks to build readiness for quickly handling resupply activities and repairs in the Indo-Pacific region. If the navy has access to more hubs in the region, then vessels and aircraft will waste less time pausing operations for both. The time savings can be allocated to joint exercises with other countries.

“There’s a big gap between the bases the United States sustains in the bilateral hub agreements they have in the Middle East and then the Western Pacific,” said Jeffrey Payne, assistant professor at the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies. “So, India fulfills this.”

At present, Japan and Singapore serve as key naval hubs for the U.S. in Asia.

Harry Harris, former commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, hailed the initiative.

“Currently, we operate from Diego Garcia and Western Australia in the Indian Ocean,” he told Nikkei via email. “Securing a maintenance, repair, and logistics hub on the Subcontinent is significant as this would give us much-needed flexibility in the vast Indian Ocean region.”

The Chinese navy has about 355 ships and submarines, making it the world’s largest numerically, according to the 2021 edition of the Pentagon’s annual report on China. If American vessels cannot spend more time at sea, then the U.S. will risk falling behind China in terms of naval capabilities, weakening deterrence.

Because the Indo-Pacific is defined by large stretches of water, many believe that conducting supply activities in the region during emergencies will prove more difficult than similar activities in Europe, with its land routes.

“Are we ready today? Yes, we are,” Rear Adm. Mark Melson, commander of the U.S. Navy’s logistics group stationed in Singapore, told Nikkei in an interview in early June. “But I will never claim to be ready enough.”

“We are certainly trying to improve the amount of access into a number of places where we can conduct expeditionary resupply, expeditionary refuel [and] if required, expeditionary rearm,” Melson said.

The Biden administration plans to deepen the partnership with India beyond the Indian Ocean in the maritime space. Daniel Kritenbrink, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, attended an event hosted by a U.S. think tank at the end of June and touched on strengthening the collaboration with India in the South China Sea.

Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar met with Philippine Foreign Secretary Enrique Manalo in New Delhi at the end of June. The two ministers released a joint statement that backed a 2016 arbitration ruling at The Hague rejecting Chinese claims to nearly all of the South China Sea.

This marked the first time that India expressed support for the Hague ruling, which is based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, according to Gregory Poling, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. It put India in line with Japan and major Western countries on the issue.

India, as a representative of the so-called Global South emerging and developing countries, is gaining a stronger role and voice in the international community.

On the security front, India appears to have shifted focus on relations to the West. Modi’s visit to Washington in June is evidence of this. India on Tuesday hosted the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, which was held in a virtual format out of consideration for the U.S.

But the basic theme of India’s diplomacy remains “strategic autonomy,” which entails working with other countries according to its own interests.

In recent years, the U.S. apparently threatened to impose sanctions on India when it sought to acquire air defense systems from Russia. In 1971, the U.S. sent an aircraft carrier to threaten India during the third Indo-Pakistani War. Whether today’s partnership between the U.S. and India will completely dispel the latent distrust of Washington remains to be seen.

*

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

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

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

***

In yet another major escalation, on July 9, the Kiev regime fired several missiles at Bryansk and Rostov oblasts (regions) and at least one cruise missile at Russia’s strategically important Crimean Bridge. According to the governor of Crimea Sergey Aksyonov, the Russian military, specifically its 37th Air Defense Division, shot down the missile, preventing any possible damage to the bridge. There’s speculation that the missile could have been either a Soviet-era S-200 SAM (surface-to-air missile) system modified for ground attacks or the Anglo-French “Storm Shadow”, a relatively long-range, “stealthy”, subsonic, air-launched cruise missile. The intercept took place over the city of Kerch on the Crimean peninsula.

The Crimean Bridge has been a prized propaganda target for the Neo-Nazi junta forces for over a year and a half now. Drones have become a regular feature of attacks on key Russian regions, including Crimea. However, this marks the first time long-range missiles have been used in such strikes. And if the missile intercepted over Kerch was indeed “Storm Shadow”, it also marks the first time a NATO-sourced long-range missile was used in such attacks. According to local reports, the incident resulted in a temporary halt to all traffic over the immense bridge, although it was restored soon after Russian air defense systems and units made sure there were no any additional threats.

Elsewhere, the Rostov oblast authorities reported that another missile was also intercepted over this area in southern Russia. Governor Vasily Golubev reported that there were no casualties and that the debris only partially damaged the roofs of several buildings. In addition, Alexander Bogomaz, governor of the Bryansk oblast, stated that two missiles fired by the Kiev regime forces have been shot down in the area. There were no casualties, although a small sawmill had been destroyed in the village of Bitosh. Meanwhile, several Telegram channels posted footage of what appears to be a 5V28 missile of the S-200 SAM system hitting the rooftop of a civilian building in the village of Dyatkovo, marking the first filmed usage of this missile for ground attack purposes.

This sort of attacks have escalated significantly in recent months, although Russia’s second-to-none air defenses have prevented casualties in virtually all targeted Russian regions. Still, the Kremlin cannot ignore the immediate danger to its citizens and has accused the United States and its NATO vassals and satellite states of directly assisting in these attacks, as the Neo-Nazi junta is incapable of conducting long-range attacks without the support of Western ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) platforms. Russia has repeatedly warned that it could target the Kiev regime’s decision-making centers in response to these attacks and has actually done so in recent days, reportedly striking residences of General Valeriy Zaluzhny and GUR chief Kirill Budanov.

It should be noted that these attacks once again prove that Russian President Vladimir Putin was right in his assessments that NATO-sourced long-range weapons in the hands of the Neo-Nazi junta would be an existential threat to Russia and that Moscow would never allow any mass deployment of such missiles along its western borders. Putin has been warning about this prospect for years, at least since mid-2000s and has stated that Russia would develop advanced, next-generation long-range weapons to ensure its security. And indeed, Russia has developed a plethora of new weapons, particularly hypersonic platforms with virtually no analogues anywhere in the world in terms of capabilities and particularly not in terms of operational deployment.

Still, Moscow cannot ignore the danger of mass usage of long-range missiles against targets all across Russia, as it’s virtually impossible to defend the entire territory of the country. The simple reason is that it’s just too immense for such defenses to even be viable. For this reason, Moscow has revised its strategic posturing and military doctrine in a way to ensure the staging areas for such attacks are destroyed while air defenses would be tasked to intercept the initial wave of strikes, giving Russia the opportunity to respond accordingly. Unfortunately, the Kremlin is perfectly aware that it cannot count on any sort of agreement with the political West (much less with the Kiev regime), as the latter has so far unilaterally broken virtually every single one signed by the two sides.

In addition, the Neo-Nazi junta is getting desperate, as it’s now under extreme pressure to show results before the upcoming NATO summit in Vilnius, scheduled to start this week. As its suicidal attacks against Russian forces have been a catastrophic failure, with horrendous losses in both manpower and equipment, these long-range attacks serve as the only propaganda tool that could be used to present the funds and resources sent by the political West as supposedly “worthwhile”. NATO itself is effectively taking part in such strikes, both by providing the necessary weapons, as well as by providing ISR information on the targets within Russia. For its part, Moscow has exercised extreme restraint by not targeting NATO assets directly for such blatant belligerence, but its patience is not endless.

*

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

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

A 17-year-old teenager was killed by a police officer during a traffic stop, sparking strong emotions in French society.

1. At 8 a.m. on June 27, 2023, in Nanterre, near Paris, two police officers stopped a car occupied by three people, all minors, following a refusal to stop. The driver was a 17-year-old teenager called Nahel. When the car started up again, one of the police officers fired at point-blank range, killing the youngster, the only child of a single-parent family. The video available on social networks clearly shows that the car posed no danger to the two police officers.

2. Unaware of the existence of the video, the two police officers stated that the car ran into them and that they had been obliged to use their firearms to protect their lives. This was clearly a lie. Alain Bauer, Professor of Criminology at the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers and a recognized specialist in training police officers and gendarmes, insisted: “The false version, totally contradicted by the images, ruins the whole edifice. It’s a lie. The car didn’t run him over. The car didn’t run into him.” He also denounced “the few rotten, corrupt police officers and black sheep of the profession […] who cast opprobrium on all those who respect law and order and are defenders of freedoms”. Without the video, the police officers’ false version would have prevailed, and the person responsible for the teenager’s death would never have been brought to justice.

3. Relaying the false police version, the media were quick to portray the teenager as a dangerous, multi-recidivist delinquent. In reality, young Nahel had no criminal record. The Nanterre public prosecutor’s office even opened an investigation against the driver for “refusal to obey orders and attempted voluntary manslaughter of a public official”. This decision was greeted with general incomprehension, as the images formally refute the police version. What’s more, the death of the driver automatically puts an end to all legal proceedings. The public prosecutor’s office also opened an investigation against the police officer for “voluntary manslaughter by a public official”. He was brought before a judge and remanded in custody at the Santé prison.

4. The officer’s lawyer, Maître Laurent-Franck Liénard, emphasized the exceptional nature of the detention: “In my 31-year career of defending cases involving the use of weapons, I have never had a client taken into custody after being brought before a judge”. This statement illustrates the reality of police impunity, and reinforces the widespread feeling in French society that justice protects police officers who commit crimes. Maitre Jean-Pierre Mignard, a lawyer representing victims of police violence, is categorical on this point: “All professions have a genetic code: that of the police is impunity”.

5. Camille Chaize, spokeswoman for the French Ministry of the Interior, dismissed the controversy surrounding the victim’s alleged criminal record, which the police and the media put forward to justify the officer’s action. Asked about this, she replied: “That’s not the point of the debate, it doesn’t make sense to think that way, regardless of whether or not he was known to the police. […] But it’s true that some police sources […] put forward criminal records, or even entries in the handrail, which is infra-judicial, which is not the criminal record, but all that doesn’t make sense, doesn’t matter”.

6. The victim’s family lawyer, Maître Yassine Bouzrou, announced that he had filed a complaint against the two police officers, one for voluntary manslaughter and the other for complicity in voluntary manslaughter. He explained in the following terms: “There is no doubt about his intention to cause death, since it is clear from the soundtrack of the video that he announced before firing: ‘I’m going to put a bullet in your head’. The complaint will also target his colleague for complicity in voluntary manslaughter, who appears to be ordering his colleague to fire by saying ‘shoot him’ just before the shot is fired”.

7. The testimony of the passenger sitting next to Nahel is incriminatory. He recounted the facts in detail: “The first policeman asked Nahel to roll down his window, which Nahel did. He told him: ‘Turn off the engine or I’ll shoot you’. He gave him the first blow with his rifle butt. Then the second policeman came along and also hit him with the rifle butt, and positioned himself at windshield level opposite Nahel. From there, the first policeman, who was at window level, pointed a gun at him and said: ‘Don’t move or I’ll put a bullet in your head’. The second policeman said, ‘Shoot him’. The first policeman gives him another shot, with the butt of his gun. The car has an automatic gearbox. The car wasn’t in ‘park’. When he received the third rifle butt, his foot left the brake pedal and the car moved forward. And the second policeman, who was at windshield level, fired. Then his foot hit the gas pedal. I saw him in agony, shaking. We hit a barrier. I got scared and got out of the car. I ran away. I thought they might even shoot me. So, I ran”.

8. The rear passenger, aged 14, also gave evidence. He was on his way to college to pass the brevet middle-school exam and came across Nahel, who offered him a lift. “The police officers pointed their guns at Nahel” who took “about three” blows, tried to “protect his head”. One policeman claimed “he was going to put one in his head”. Nahel then “let go of the brake probably out of panic, trying to protect himself. The car drove off on its own. It was an automatic. And the policeman told his colleague to shoot. And the gun went off”.

9. French President Emmanuel Macron condemned the police officer’s action in a public statement: “I want to express the emotion of the entire nation, and tell his family of the nation’s affection […]. We have a teenager who has been killed, it’s inexplicable, inexcusable”. For his part, Gérarld Darmanin, Minister of the Interior, pointed to “extremely shocking images”.

10. February 2017, François Hollande’s Socialist government pushed through the Public Security Law authorizing police to use their firearms in cases of refusal to obey. Paragraph 4 stipulates that officers may use their weapons “when they are unable to immobilize, other than by the use of weapons, vehicles, boats or other means of transport, whose drivers do not obey the order to stop and whose occupants are likely to perpetrate, in their flight, harm to their lives or physical integrity or those of others”. The Human Rights League and numerous members of parliament denounced the law as a “license to kill”, calling for its repeal. Maître Liénard himself publicly opposed the law: “If we start telling police officers they can shoot at a fleeing car, we’ll have more shootings, more injuries and more police convictions”.

11. Since 2017, the number of people who have lost their lives as a result of refusal to yield has risen sharply. From 17 people between 2002 and 2017, an average of 0.88 people per year, it has risen to 13 people for the year 2022, some of whom were mere passengers. The victims have two main characteristics: they are mostly young, even very young, and racialized. By way of comparison, in Germany, there has been only one death as a result of a refusal to stop in ten years.

12. On June 30, 2023, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights denounced the structural racism present within France’s police and gendarmerie forces. Its spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani appealed to the authorities: “Now is the time for the country to seriously address the deep-rooted problems of racism and racial discrimination among law enforcement officers”. A few days later, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination denounced “the murder of Nahel M., 17, of North African origin, by a police officer in France” and expressed its “deep concern at the persistent practice of racial profiling, combined with the excessive use of force in law enforcement, in particular by the police, against members of minority groups, notably of African and Arab origin, which frequently results in recurrent killings, disproportionately, with virtual impunity”.

13. Questioned on this subject, Laurent Nuñez, Prefect of the Paris police, denied the reality of the situation: “There is no racism in the police”. Yet even the President of the Republic has acknowledged the existence of persistent discriminatory practices: “Today, when you have a skin color that is not white, you are much more controlled […]. You’re identified as a problem factor, and that’s unbearable”.

14. According to various studies, the majority of police and military personnel vote for the far right. For example, according to the Centre de recherches politiques de Sciences-Po (Cevipof), the Ipsos polling institute and the Fondation Jean Jaurès, 60% of police and military personnel voted for Marine Le Pen in 2022. In 2017, 67% of active police officers voted for the far-right candidate.

15. A study carried out in 2017 by Jacques Toubon, Defender of Rights and former Minister of Justice under Jacques Chirac, illustrates the racist prejudices present within the police force and the police mistreatment of young people from working-class neighborhoods. Individuals perceived as Black or Arab are “20 times more likely than others to be stopped” by the police. The Defender of Rights points out that 40% of these people claim to have been on a first-name basis, 21% insulted and 20% brutalized during their last stop. Another study by the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) points out that “the behavior of the French police […] can be likened to racial profiling”. Christian Vigouroux, deontologist at the French Ministry of the Interior, even submitted a 160-page report in 2021 on “combating discrimination within the security forces”, formulating 54 proposals that have gone unheeded.

16. According to international law, “racial discrimination is a particularly odious form of discrimination and, in view of its dangerous consequences, requires special vigilance and a vigorous reaction on the part of the authorities”. Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulates that “all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”.

17. According to Amnesty International (AI), “in France, the practice of identity checks is widespread, deeply embedded in police action, to the extent that it fosters systemic discrimination”. According to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, systemic discrimination “can be understood as a set of predominant legal rules, policies, practices or cultural attitudes in the public or private sector that create relative disadvantages for some groups, and privileges for others”. AI adds that “the practice of discriminatory identity checks is known and amply documented”, denounces its “scale” and stresses “its devastating effects on victims, including children sometimes as young as twelve”.

18. The French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation), the highest court in the French legal system, recognized the existence of this practice in a 2016 ruling, and stressed that “facial” identity checks constituted a serious misconduct for which the State is liable.

19. Jean Hossam Botros Messiha, far-right activist, born in Egypt and naturalized in France at the age of 20, still considered an immigrant by INSEE, spokesman for Éric Zemmour during the 2022 presidential campaign, proponent of the racist “grand remplacement” theory, who declares that immigration – from which he benefited at the age of 8 – today constitutes a “historic existential threat to France”, has opened an online kitty in support of the police officer under investigation for voluntary manslaughter. In the space of a few days, the “kitty of shame”, as it was dubbed by many observers, raised 1.6 million euros with more than 76,000 donors, making a millionaire of a man responsible for the death of a teenager, arousing the legitimate anger of the family and the indignation of public opinion. 

20. Nahel’s death triggered an explosion of anger across France, the political dimension of which was downplayed by the authorities, who preferred to see these urban revolts as nothing more than a destructive impulse. On the side of the rioters, the feeling reigns that only violence can make their voices heard. Numerous businesses and public buildings, mainly in working-class neighborhoods, were ransacked by young people, some as young as twelve. Nearly 12,000 cars were burned and 2,500 public buildings damaged, including over 250 police stations and more than 150 schools. The personal home of the mayor of La Häy-les-Roses was even attacked with a ram car while his family was inside.

21. The state’s response to social protest has been uniquely authoritarian and repressive, with the mobilization of 45,000 law enforcement officers, including elite corps such as the GIGN, RAID and BRI. In Marseille, a 27-year-old father lost his life following a “probable” flash-ball shot, according to the public prosecutor’s office. In Meurthe-et-Moselle, a young man in his twenties is in a coma after being shot in the head by police. According to the judicial authorities, there is no evidence to suggest that these two people were involved in the riots. Both are of North African origin. Nearly 3,500 people were arrested, and nearly 60% of them had no criminal record, according to Gérald Darmanin. According to the Minister of the Interior, 90% of those arrested were French. At his Senate hearing, Gérald Darmanin dismissed the identity-related explanation: “I looked around the police stations. Yes, there are people who apparently could be from an immigrant background. But there were a lot of Kevin’s and Mattéo’s”.

22. Justice, for its part, was swift and merciless. For example, a 28-year-old man was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment with a committal order for stealing a can of Red Bull worth 1.15 euros. His lawyer, Camille Bal, commented: “The main actors in the violence are the ones who were largely absent from yesterday’s hearings. Those who were picked up by the police were the ones who appeared after the crime, after the store had been targeted by the thugs. My client came into the Monoprix in the dark, took a can of Redbull, went out and was plucked like a rose”. For Maître Camille Vannier, who took part in the collective defense system, “justice is completely instrumentalized” by political power. She points out that the judges blindly follow the requisitions: “It’s very worrying from the point of view of the independence of the judiciary. Warrant of committal, warrant of committal, warrant of committal… for minor offences”. Maître Elsa Marcel also expresses her astonishment: “The sentences are extremely harsh, the procedures sloppy, there are many scenarios where people are not recognized, the arrest reports are extremely vague, it’s political justice”.

23. On June 30, 2023, the two main police unions, Alliance Police Nationale and UNSA Police, published a communiqué of rare violence, confirming all the accusations of racism levelled at the police force. Protesters from working-class neighborhoods are animalized and described as “savage hordes” and “pests” who must be fought, calling for “all means” to be used to this end. The press release also directly threatens the government with sedition in barely veiled terms, something unprecedented for a republican police force whose mission is to obey the executive and uphold the law: “For these reasons, Alliance Police Nationale and UNSA Police will assume their responsibilities and warn the government right now that, in the end, we will be in action, and without concrete measures for the legal protection of police officers, an appropriate penal response and the provision of substantial resources, police officers will judge the level of consideration shown. Today, police officers are in combat because we are at war. Tomorrow, we will be in resistance, and the government will have to realize this”. In another unprecedented move, UNSA Education publicly condemned the communiqué, denouncing the words as “disturbing and unbearable”. As for the government, it has taken no action against the authors of this statement.

24. Young Nahel’s death was the spark that ignited a social powder keg in neighborhoods abandoned by the Republic. In addition to the systemic racism suffered mainly by people of immigrant origin (47% of people from sub-Saharan Africa and 30% of people from the Maghreb are victims), disadvantaged populations are neglected by the public authorities. The figures speak for themselves: 7.5% of the French population (5.5 million inhabitants) live in the suburbs. Unemployment in these areas is twice the national average. Half of young people are unemployed. Nearly 40% of residents have no qualifications, compared with a national average of 20%. There are almost half as many libraries and three times fewer sports facilities in working-class neighborhoods as in the rest of the country. The poverty rate is three times higher than in the rest of the country (42% vs. 14.9%). As a reminder, there are 9 million poor people in France, including 3 million children. While the national average is 400 doctors per 100,000 inhabitants, there are only 250 in working-class neighborhoods. 40% of working-class neighborhoods have no crèches, while single-parent families are twice as numerous as in the rest of the country (20%). Contrary to popular belief, social transfers are lower in these areas: 6,100 euros per inhabitant per year, compared with the national average of 6,800 euros. What’s more, far from being on life support, these neighborhoods contribute more to the national effort than the rest of the country. For example, Seine-Saint-Denis is the third-poorest department in France (and the first in France) out of a total of 101 departments, and the one that receives the least social protection per inhabitant, despite being the eighth-largest contributor to the country’s public finances. For example, Seine-Saint-Denis has 1,100 hospital civil servants per 100,000 inhabitants, compared with an average of 1,800 for the rest of the country. Governments pay little heed to the plight of these impoverished populations, as they wield very little political or electoral power. In fact, 48% of people living in working-class neighborhoods either did not vote or abstained from voting in the last presidential elections.

25. Urgent action is needed by politicians in general and the government in particular:

• The 2017 Public Safety Act must be suspended pending its repeal. This will protect both citizens and police officers by returning to the status quo ante, which sets a strict framework for the use of firearms.
• It is imperative that the denial within the police force, government authorities and political leaders about the structural racism present in the police force cease.
• It is essential that impunity for police officers guilty of crimes and misdemeanors be brought to an end, and that they be punished in an exemplary fashion, commensurate with the crime committed. Racist police officers, and more generally those who do not respect the ethics and code of conduct of the profession, must be excluded from the corps of peacekeepers.
• Cases of police violence must be systematically dismissed to guarantee the serenity of the debates – a demand made by the Magistrate’s Union (Syndicat de la Magistrature) – given the close links between the public prosecutor’s office and the forces of law and order.
• A “Justice and Truth” commission, made up of independent members, must be set up to analyze all cases of police violence and provide a response to victims and their families.
• The General Inspectorate of the National Police (IGPN), which has lost all credibility due to the scarcity of sanctions against officers responsible for crimes and offenses, needs to be reformed and staffed by independent individuals unconnected with the forces of law and order.
• Police officers and gendarmes must be equipped with pedestrian cameras, which will provide guarantees for both officers and the public, and improve the quality of checks.
• Peacekeepers should issue a receipt for each check to reduce discrimination.
• The State must review its doctrine, practices and methods, with a return to a policy based on prevention rather than repression. For example, community policing, praised by all social players for its effectiveness and ability to forge links with young people, must be re-established, particularly in working-class neighborhoods.
• It is essential to improve the salaries of police officers and offer them better working conditions, in order to facilitate their work and make the profession more attractive.
• Candidates for the peacekeeper competitive examination must undergo a more rigorous selection process, to weed out those who are not suited to the profession. In the same way, the police must ensure the integration of immigrants into their ranks by offering them dignified working conditions, free from any form of discrimination.
• The training process must also be thoroughly revised, improved and extended over a much longer period, as the profession has long been demanding (psychological tests, stress tolerance test, respect for the values of the republic, etc.).
• The government must provide a political, economic and social response to the issue of poverty, social exclusion and discrimination, by implementing ambitious affirmative action in favor of people from working-class neighborhoods, whose suffering has been ignored by public authorities for far too long.

*

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

Salim Lamrani holds a doctorate in Iberian and Latin American Studies from Sorbonne University, and is a lecturer at the Université de La Réunion, specializing in relations between Cuba and the United States.

Featured image: Cars burn in the aftermath of clashes between protesters and police following the death of Nahel, a 17-year-old teenager killed by a French police in Nanterre during a traffic stop, in Toulouse, France, June 28, 2023. (Source: TIMOTHEE FORGET/VIA REUTERS)

 

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

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

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

***

On Monday, a group of lawyers from ten countries released a statement voicing their opposition to the World Health Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) proposed Pandemic Treaty, officially known as WHO CA+, and the amendments to the International Health Regulations (“IHRs”). 

Over the weekend of 30 June to 2 July, the first international lawyers’ congress of Anwälte für Aufklärung e.V. (English translation Lawyers for Enlightenment e.V.) was held in Cologne, Germany. The congress focused on the IHRs and the Pandemic Treaty.

A strong alliance of lawyers from all over Europe, supported by lawyers worldwide, is forming against the WHO Pandemic Treaty. “We, the lawyers say: No to totalitarianism. Clear statements by the lawyers about the plans to make the WHO a kind of ‘health world government’: We say NO!,” tweeted Dr. Alexander Christ on Sunday.

Below is their press statement both the images tweeted as tweeted by Markus Haintz and the text as extracted from the images.

Further reading from Anwälte für Aufklärung e.V. (“AfA”):

• Loss of sovereignty or system failure?
• WHO

Press release of the Lawyers for Enlightenment e.V. Cologne, July 3, 2023

Lawyers from ten countries addressed the issues of the WHO pandemic treaty and the planned amendment of the International Health Regulations at an international lawyers’ congress this weekend in Cologne. As hosts of the congress, we, the Anwalte fur Aufklarung e.V. (Lawyers for Enlightenment) from Germany invited to a press conference today, in which lawyers from Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, France, Spain, Italy, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Israel and Germany, among others, took part.

The main results of the meeting: We lawyers reject the plan to draft a pandemic treaty of the World Health Organization WHO and to amend the health regulations IHR. In particular, we call on the states of Europe not to participate in the plans to give the WHO far-reaching rights in the future to declare future pandemics as well as to establish regulations to combat such pandemics, which the member states would then have to comply with mandatorily and without any further possibility of national intervention or review.

In order to be able to react more effectively and more clearly in the future to violations of fundamental human rights and to restrictions of freedom and basic rights against populations by democratic states, the lawyers gathered in Cologne have joined together to form an International Lawyers Association, the International Association of Lawyers for Human Rights (IAL). 27 signatures of the first signatories are on the founding document of the lawyers’ association, which will grow decisively in the coming weeks. Behind the foundation are, among others, the Lawyers for Fundamental Rights/Attorneys for Enlightenment Austria, the Lawyers for Enlightenment e.V. Germany, members of the Lawyers Committee from Switzerland, lawyers from the Spanish association Units per la Veritat, to name just a few as examples.

The conference serves to expand the international cooperation of lawyers who have already critically addressed the illegality of state measures and the fragility of national rule of law during the Corona period. These undesirable developments are being raised to the level of supranational organisations such as, in particular, the World Health Organisation (WHO), which, with the help of the so-called Pandemic Treaty, is to be enabled to circumvent national as well as European sovereignty rights in the event of a future pandemic.

This is opposed by the lawyers gathered in Cologne, who, on the other hand, are committed to strict compliance with human rights, fundamental rights and freedoms. The core principle here is: human dignity is inviolable. The UN Charter, from which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights derives, the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic and Social Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights all claim indispensable validity. Under no circumstances may these be actually or de facto invalidated by a WHO pandemic treaty, not even and especially not in times of pandemics or other health crises.

We lawyers stand for: the protection of fundamental principles of democratic rule of law, for a strict separation of powers in the sense of the principle of “checks and balances”, for the principle of legality, for the right of self-determination of peoples, for the principle according to which all power must emanate from the people, for freedom of information and above all for a comprehensive ban on censorship in all states.

All these principles are contradicted by the contents of the so-called “WHO Pandemic Treaty”, which is currently being drafted, and the expected changes to the “International Health Regulations” (IHR), which are to be submitted for decision at the WHO General Assembly in 2024. According to the current state of knowledge, which can be found on the European Council’s website, among others, the pandemic treaty and amendments to the IHR are aimed at bringing the World Health Organisation into the role of a de facto “world health government” as a supranational and global super organisation. In the future, the WHO is to be charged with the following tasks, among others:

• Early detection and prevention of pandemics, which required the establishment of a cause-free global early warning and surveillance system,
• Establishment and strengthening of the WHO as the coordinating authority for global health issues, which would effectively disempower national and local health authorities and thus fundamentally contradict the principle of subsidiarity,
• Strengthening international cooperation in areas such as surveillance, alerts, and response, which would be tantamount to establishing a global surveillance system of citizens by states, enforced by WHO; and
• combating “misinformation” worldwide, which would be equivalent to the introduction of censorship.

From the point of view of us lawyers, all four goals would lead to a global surveillance and paternalism system of the WHO in an intolerable way that fundamentally contradicts the principles of the rule of law. Among the principles claiming unbreakable validity, the first to be mentioned is individual self-determination, which, especially in a crisis such as a real pandemic, must always be given priority over state or even supranational paternalism. Secondly, there is the principle of subsidiarity, according to which a higher state or social unit may only intervene to help and take over functions if the forces of the subordinate unit are not sufficient to perform the necessary function. Especially in a pandemic, priority must always be given to local decision-making on necessary measures.

In the past Corona pandemic, for example, the WHO showed through a global failure that it was at no time able to assess the situation correctly. The transfer of power to an anonymous, not democratically legitimated organisation with mafia-like structures, which is supplied from dubious sources of money and is close to the pharmaceutical lobby – to put it mildly – and which in the future is to be able to determine uncontrollably when a pandemic has broken out, when it is over and how people worldwide are then to behave, is to be decisively rejected.

We lawyers say: No to the WHO pandemic treaty and No to the amendment of the International Health Regulations!

Dr. Alexander Christ, Spokesman AnwSite fur Aufldarung e.V., Hohenzollerndamm 112, 14199 Berlin, kontaktaafaev.de vrww.afaev.de 

*

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

Featured image is from The Expose