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 1972 Stanley K. Sheinbaum, chairman of the Pentagon Papers Fund, wrote with a hot pertinence that remains striking (at this time Julian Assange is facing grave prospects of being extradited to the United States) that both Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo had “struck a blow for us all when they gave the Pentagon Papers to the press and to the Senate: against the war in Vietnam and against new adventures in Cambodia, Laos, or elsewhere”. And more besides, including striking against government secrecy in both domestic and foreign policy and directing a blow “for freedom of the press, freedom of the American people to be informed of what crimes their government might be committing in their name.”
The Nixon administration was mustard keen to bang up Ellsberg for what would have been 115 years, and Russo for 35. The charges, absurd reading then as they are now, were for conspiracy, espionage, and larceny. Central to this particularly vicious effort on the part of President Richard Nixon and his inner circle was the release of the Pentagon Papers, a government document running into 7,000 pages that was much at odds with public statements made by respective presidential administrations on US involvement in the Indo-China War. Both men had been analysts and researchers at the RAND Corporation, with the former tasked with nuclear wargaming scenarios. Russo had aided Ellsberg in the mammoth task of copying the papers.
The treatment dished out by the US national security state was very much the blueprint for what is taking place against the WikiLeaks founder. Initial indictment, followed by further grand jury hearings, followed by another round of indictments. As Sheinbaum remarked, the absurdity of the charges was self-evident. “Conspiracy against whom?” he asked. “The American people to whom the documents belonged in the first place? The press to whom the Pentagon Papers were given – not sold – so that they could better inform the people on how a succession of administrations had deceived them and wasted this country’s lives, resources, and honor?”
The case, thankfully, collapsed. The presiding judge, William M. Byrne Jr., even before the jury’s verdict was in, dismissed the action in May 1973, citing serious government misconduct (the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist had been burgled by the infamous “White House Plumbers”), not to mention illegal wiretapping. As part of that most Nixonian of sagas, the judge also revealed that he had been offered the role of FBI director by John Ehrlichman, the President’s assistant for domestic affairs.
Initially in agreement with policies in the Cold War rollback of communism, Ellsberg came to have trouble with the narrative of one’s country, right and wrong. In a sense, he became something of a model whistleblower: a figure initially besotted, a believer in the role of US power, only to then find evidence at odds with that belief.
While working at RAND, he visited Haverford College in August 1969, where his attendance at a conference of the War Resisters’ International proved turning. He had initially found the participants, as he recalls in his memoir Secrets, unduly simplistic, unnecessarily negative, dogmatic and extremist. It took a demonstration outside the trial of draft resister Bod Eaton to invest him with necessary confidence. “I had become free of the fear of being absurd, of looking foolish, for stepping out of line.”
Then came a moving talk by peace activist Randy Kehler. The impression left by Kehler, far from being banally corny and naff, helped complete the Damascene conversion: the RAND employee would commit to the task of ending a war effort he had been complicit in advancing. His establishment skin would be sloughed.
As Spencer Ackerman observes, the strength of Ellsberg’s whistleblowing was the locus of power; it came from a figure so highly placed in the national security apparatus he had the ear of presidential advisors. In the post-9/11 era, there has been no equivalent, no reputational shedding of skin. The leaks and disclosures have come from such individuals as Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and Daniel Hale, all vitally important, yet all several steps removed from the centre of power. “The people of Ellsberg’s equivalent rank and early-career promise more typically chose to serve the War on Terror, not resist it, going along with atrocities abroad and democratic destabilization at home.”
Ellsberg’s tenacious advocacy for Assange, for whom he acted as witness in the extradition trial in September 2020, was fortifying. “My own actions in relation to the Pentagon Papers and the consequences of their publication have been acknowledged to have performed such a radical change of understanding,” he outlined in his statement to the court. “I view the WikiLeaks publications of 2010 and 2011 to be of comparable importance.”
He also warned about that most odious feature of the Espionage Act of 1917, upon which 17 of the 18 charges against Assange have been framed. Motivation, he recalled in his own 1973 trial, was dismissed by government lawyers as irrelevant: the offences imputed “strict liability”. As he told the Central Criminal Court in London, the Act effectively disallowed genuine whistleblowing to permit “you to say you were informing the polity. So I did not have a fair trial, no one since me had a fair trial on these charges and Julian Assange cannot remotely get a fair trial under those charges if he was tried.”
As he revealed in December 2022, Ellsberg had been the WikiLeaks “backup” for releasing the documents that were eventually published in 2010. Assange, he told the BBC Hardtalk program, “could rely on me to get it [the information] out.”
In any final reflections on what Ellsberg did, the conscientious duty of a figure to disclose evidence of government misconduct, to enlighten the citizenry more broadly as political agents rather than obedient subjects, shines. “From the point of view of a civilization and the survival of eight or nine billion people, when everything is at stake, can it be worth even a small chance of having a small effect?” he reflected in an interview with Politico. “The answer is: Of course.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
Featured image: Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon Papers figure, holds up a copy of a book entitled ?The Senate Watergate Report? as he appears as a panelist at a conference on the Central Intelligence Agency and covert activities on Friday, Sept. 13, 1974 in Washington. (AP Photo/Henry Griffin)
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.
***
Yes, that’s what I call them, those who force-feed us their stupidity from above – the so-called intelligentsia, left, right or center, the ones who hold academic appointments at the most prestigious universities, colleges, academies, ‘think tanks’, global organizations with names that include ‘health’ and ‘democracy’, those who have received high accolades from establishment science, those who have been Rhodes Scholars or Fulbright Fellows – all of the reigning intellectual elite who have foisted upon the global population the Big Covidian Lie.
They are reputed to know a great deal of something in their specialized fields, but absolutely nothing when it comes to actual science and actual medical treatments and actual vaccines and real climate and weather and the oh-so-painstakingly obvious Agenda of the Few to enslave the Many.
I’ll give you two chilling examples.
The renowned Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene and other books on evolutionary biology, and author too of The God Delusion, was recently interviewed by Unherd’s Freddie Sayers, who asked Dawkins whether he thought that the Covid Era represented a moment of scientific glory or ‘something that was a little bit problematic’.
Dawkins responded, citing the development of vaccines with unprecedented speed, that it was ‘magnificent, and is a tribute to science and was a glory of science’. When Sayers, to his credit, countered and pressed him about the vaccines, about how they were overpromised, about how they failed to prevent transmission as they were initially billed, and how they were pushed via mandates and near-mandates, Dawkins replied that ‘it was difficult for people entrusted with authority to give advice’. Sayers is quite clearly surprised to hear this from the man who champions robust debate and the admission of scientific error, and Dawkins goes on to express his sympathy for the people in charge who had to make quick decisions. Sayers continues to press and displays one of Dawkins’ tweets wherein he avers that Covid vaccine-refusal endangers others, and then states unequivocally that those who do not take the measles vaccine are indeed a public peril. About lockdowns Dawkins claims not to have a position, although he admits that in the roil of the Covidian moment mistakes may have been made.
It is well-worth seven minutes of your time to listen to the excerpt, purely as an example of how a distinguished, celebrated and highly-honored scientist can display such an utter ignorance of basic medical concepts and medical treatment and pandemic-preparedness.
Surely he must have known that there was no real science behind the imposition of lockdowns, ‘social’ distancing, masks or a rush to a vaccine that had not and could not have had a test of time while promising treatments were being suppressed or forbidden?
My second example is from a video posted by The Institute of Art and Ideas, which includes a panel consisting of Denis Noble, Nessa Carey and Guy Brown, all renowned biologists. It is entitled ‘The Medicine Myth’ and I watched with great interest as I have come to appreciate Professor Noble’s books on evolutionary biology.
As I watched, however, Professor Carey, who is the International Director of PraxisUnico and a Visiting Professor at Imperial College London, and who sported a jumper with the word ‘GEEK’ across her chest and identified herself as a member of ‘team science’, took less than a minute to praise childhood vaccinations for halting early childhood death, and also statins. She did give credit to soap, however, I am happy to report, but as I followed the rest of her discourse on medicine, aging and societal health, I was left with the same kind of chill I feel when the Gates Foundation announces a new initiative.
My intention is not to detract from either Dawkins’ or Carey’s achievements in the fields of their specialties, but to draw attention to my proposition that such achievements do not translate into authority in other domains, and that scientists, like other people, are human and can be egregiously ignorant, obtuse and even dangerous when empowered.
We have been smothered by references and appeals to ‘science’ and ‘the science’ and the greatness of science in all things Covid, Mr. Fauci being a prime example, and yet here we find ourselves face to face with eminent scientists whose presumed intelligence should at the very least have led them to question the Pharma-driven employment of vaccinations in general and the promulgation of statins, medications which I for one would avoid as I would avoid poison.
The word ‘science’ is derived etymologically from a root meaning to cut, divide, split, separate – and this points to the scientific method of isolating variables so as to divine specific causality. Yet to practice science does not necessarily mean ‘to know’, since knowledge requires a synthesis that transcends the function of individual agents. This is, in fact, why I have been much taken by Denis Noble’s The Music of Life, and am inclined to regard less highly the reductionism of Dawkins’ selfish genes (can genes have personality traits, I ask?).
‘Intelligence’ is derived from the Latin ‘inter’ and ‘legere’, meaning to be able to pick out, choose, read, gather, and the like, implying a capability for discernment and apprehension. Not all highly educated, highly degreed or highly positioned scientific figures are intelligent, as Covid, the greatest litmus test of all, easily demonstrates.
I can tell you of at least half a dozen very highly educated people I personally know who have been jabbed and boostered to the hilt and who, when themselves the victims of a jab-related adverse reaction, or who have known an intimate who has been injured even to death, will dare not ask the simplest causal question. These same people unhesitatingly accepted the imprisonment of the healthy, distancing, useless and unhealthy masks, and went along with the notion that Covid itself was untreatable save by quarantine and vaccination.
There is another word that comes to mind, deriving from a root that means being stunned or struck, beaten into a ‘stupor’ – but I prefer to call these elevated personnel sitting atop the academic pyramid who have made our lives so miserable as ‘know-nothing burgers’. They literally knew nothing when knowing something really counted. These are the very same people who no doubt will push to eliminate cattle in their frenzy to battle ‘climate change’, being happy to deprive real people of real meat and substance.
I say, let them eat their cake and, more important, let them keep their dangerous nothingness to themselves. In fact, I’d advise them to take a leaf out of a real scientist’s book, one Richard Feynman, who said: ‘I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned’.
*
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: Richard Dawkins (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
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 Beginning Was the End.Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. started strongly. He made many dynamic speeches condemning the New World Order of Vaxx, Die, Cover-Up.
He spoke in the United States and in Berlin, Germany. Kennedy denounced the lies of various and sundry governments about the Covid-19 viruses and the regimes’ need to strip people of their freedoms.
His book, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health (Kennedy, Jr., Robert F. New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2021) exposes the untruths used to justify their criminal behavior. To quote Luc Montagnier, Nobel Laureate and noted virologist,
“Dr. Joseph Goebbels wrote that ‘A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand ties becomes the truth.’ Tragically for humanity, there are many, many untruths emanating from Fauci and his minions. RFK, Jr. exposes the decades of lies.”
Another author, Ralph Pezzullo, in writing about Kennedy’s book, said:
“…Your future, your family’s future, and the future of democracy are at stake.”
That’s the issue. Democracy. Kennedy, according to CNN June 1, 2023, spoke to the New Hampshire legislature:
“There’s so many Americans who believe that the system now is rigged, the economic system, but also the political system, that the elections are fixed,” he said in Concord. “And we ought to be, the Democratic Party particularly, ought to be making this election a template for democracy to our country and to the rest of the world.”
[As the British say, Kennedy was “spot on” regarding the rigged electoral system. And the need for reform. His remarks have sparked an all-out assault on him.]
Attack the Attacker. Otherwise, people might believe the truth spoken. On June 1, 2023, The Guardian, the suspect British “newspaper” wrote:
“Robert F Kennedy Jr, the conspiracy theorist and vaccine skeptic challenging Joe Biden for the Democratic presidential nomination, told an interviewer he had ‘conversations with dead people’ every day.”
In an undated Internet listing, the Washington Post, another questionable newspaper, stated:
“A lawyer and environmental activist, Kennedy Jr. is also a prominent anti-vaccine activist, pushing disproven claims that childhood vaccines are linked to autism and spreading misinformation about coronavirus vaccines.”
Continuing, on June 5, 2023, the Post (where Democracy has died in the paper’s Darkness) printed
The End of the Beginning. The Beginning of the End. In a Substack article [(The Silencing of Kennedy’s Most Notable Critic (substack.com)], journalist Sam Husseini noted June 5, 2023 apropos of comments by Jared Beck, Florida lawyer and supporter of politician Bernie Sanders:
Beck: “As to RFK, Jr. – I am afraid he is playing the Bernie Sanders role this time around, to give a ‘voice’ to the disaffected, so that this ‘voice’ may be publicly gaslit and abused in the mainstream media, used as a tool to extract funds from the disaffected for the political party system, and then deployed to sheepdog the disaffected into supporting Joe Biden. That’s how U.S. ‘electoral’ politics rolls and has rolled since at least the time RFK Jr.’s uncle was publicly executed. I can’t imagine RFK Jr. is unaware of the role he is playing. But in order to play any substantial role in the family profession, it’s the only role he would ever be allowed to have. So perhaps understandable, but no less morally despicable.”
Haven’t We Seen this Before? Remember Ross Perot? Remember Ralph Nader?
Image: Ross Perot
Ross Perot dared to question the Establishment. Running for president in 1992 and 1996, he risked starting a new political party outside the existing one. Yes, ONE. (An African journalist once told me that the Great Malodorous American Behind had but two cheeks: Democrat and Republican.) Perot also presumed to interpret himself directly to the American people—not through the Lamestream Media—which then turned on him and repeatedly attacked him as a destabilizing person of questionable sanity.
Ralph Nader tried to work within the traditional Democratic (?) Party but was blocked. He ran for president as a Green Party candidate in 2000 and on a compendium of 3rd party and independent ballot lines in 2004.
The Democrats (Dumbocraps?) claimed Nader cost them the election in 2000 because he pulled ballots away from their candidate, Al Gore. They seemed never to realize it was their message the voter wasn’t buying, not that Nader was a divisive force. As Nader’s former campaign manager Theresa Amato noted “…it is a myth that anyone can run — successfully — for president outside of the two parties.”
So. Will the Dumbocraps permit Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to defeat Discombobulated Joe Biden as the party’s candidate for president? Or will they do a Bernie Sanders on him, permit him to gather delegates within the party and then take them away and give them to the aged idiot now running an illegal and unconstitutional war against the Russian Federation? And rig another election. Or, perhaps not. What nationally appealing candidate can the Rapeuglycans, the other cheek, hope to field?
But What Will Really End Kennedy’s Run? His subservience to the Apartheid Entity that styles itself “Israel”. (The illegitimate, terrorist organization that many believe murdered his uncle, President John F. Kennedy and his father, Robert F. Kennedy, Sr., also once a candidate for president.)
Independent podcast co-host Craig Pasta Jardula asked Kennedy: “A couple tweets were put up in support of Roger Waters and then taken down. You want to give us a little explanation of why they were taken down and also your stance on Israel and Palestine?”
Kennedy responded: “I made the tweet applauding Roger Waters’ courage in opposing the Covid mandates and the Ukraine war. I was unaware of his position on Israel. And when I learned that I immediately took it down.” [N.B. Waters is a fierce critic of the very undemocratic Israel.]
Then discussing his stance on Israel more broadly, Kennedy said: “I support Israel. My family has a long relationship with Israel and supporting its right to exist and its right to protect its security.”
Jardula followed up: “And the Palestinians?”
Kennedy replied: “And a humane outcome and a recognition ultimately of the aspirations of the Palestinian people is important for everybody.”
[Sure, permit the Palestinians to live in a small bit of their country that the Zionists stole from them. That’s really humane.]
Did the Izzies that Robert now supports murder his family?
In a Tehran Times interview, Laurent Guyenot (French author and anthropologist) said:
TT: Your conclusion is that Israel orchestrated the killing of Kennedy. What was Israel’s motive?
LG: I am walking in the footsteps of the late Michael Collins Piper, who was the first to blame Israeli networks for the assassination of John Kennedy, in his book Final Judgment: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy. To understand Israel’s motive, Piper relied on several studies that have revealed that Kennedy was determined to stop Israel from developing nuclear weapons. Global nuclear disarmament was Kennedy’s dearest project. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, he had initiated a promising dialogue with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev on this issue. So, when the CIA informed him of the nuclear program carried out by the Israelis in their Dimona laboratory, he engaged in a standoff with David Ben-Gurion, who was both prime minister and minister of defense of Israel. Ben-Gurion was convinced that by trying to prevent Israel from acquiring the bomb, Kennedy was endangering the very survival of the Jewish state, to which he had devoted his entire life.
Dimona was certainly Israel’s major reason for eliminating Kennedy and replacing him with Johnson. But there were others. The Kennedy brothers were at the origin of a procedure to reduce the influence of the American Zionist Council by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. In October 1963, Attorney General Robert Kennedy gave the AZC a 72-hour notice to register as a “foreign agent.” After John Kennedy’s assassination, the AZC escaped this procedure, and its lobbying division, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (or AIPAC), became the most powerful lobby in the United States, and an indispensable tool for the corruption and intimidation of American elected officials, and for the control of American foreign policy. A third likely motive for the Dallas coup was Kennedy’s support for the Palestinian cause and his sympathy for Egyptian President Abdel Nasser. As late as November 20, 1963, Kennedy’s representative at the United Nations demanded the implementation of Resolution 194 and the return of the 800,000 Palestinian refugees, causing strong protest in Israeli circles. After Kennedy’s death, American foreign policy in West Asia was radically reversed again, without the American public realizing it. Johnson cut economic aid to Egypt and increased military aid to Israel to 92 million in 1966, more than the total of all previous years combined. Israel is behind serial assassinations of Kennedy brothers: Laurent Guyenot – Tehran Times
Former university professor Kevin Barrett, Ph.D. commented in a May 28, 2018 PressTV statement that:
“The assassinations of the Kennedy brothers were largely carried out on behalf of Israel,” Barrett told Press TV on Monday.
“John F. Kennedy was dedicated to shutting down Israel’s nuclear weapons program and was killed because the Israelis, specifically [former Israeli prime minister David] Ben-Gurion believed that this was an issue of survival for Israel” he added.
“Robert Kennedy’s convicted killer Sirhan Sirhan, the patsy who was chosen to be presented to the public as the supposed killer who was actually hypnotized and had no idea what he was doing there…was used for propaganda purposes by the Zionists who murdered both of the Kennedy brothers,” Barrett said.
2. The Establishment and The Established Party(ies?);
3. the Zionists;
4. His own self.
Two percent of the U.S. population are Jews. But they control (and brag about control) of the five or so corporations providing “news” in America. They also manage U.S. domestic and foreign policy and contribute vast sums of money to candidates who do their will. If Kennedy wants to play up to them for campaign contributions and voter support, he will have to follow their dictates. He will have to change his outlook and statements on Fauci, Gates, and Big Pharma (which has many Jews in powerful positions).
He has already begun to change. Note his remarks on Roger Waters and supporting Israel. When I called and emailed Kennedy’s campaign headquarters, I asked for clarification of his statements about Waters and Israel. None has been forthcoming.
Given the foregoing, it’s my belief that the Zionists will only give lip service to Kennedy’s campaign for change, tricking him into a belief that, if he accepts their views, they will back his policies, meanwhile, they will continue to support their age-old home amongst the Democrats. This will leave Kennedy out on a limb which will either break or be cut off by an itinerant woodchopper.
So, I say to him, in advance, السلامة Ma’a salama; auf Wiedersehen; Au revoir; Arrivederci.
*
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.
J. Michael Springmann is an attorney, author, political commentator, and former diplomat, with postings to Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia. He previously authored, Visas for Al Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked the World: An Insider’s View, recounting how the U.S. created and used Islamic Terrorism. Additionally, he penned Goodbye, Europe? Hello, Chaos? Merkel’s Migrant Bomb, an analysis of the alien wave sweeping the Continent. He currently practices law in the Washington D.C. Area. He is a frequent commentator on Arab and Russian news programs.
He is also on the Ukraine’s “Enemies List”, having questioned, inter alia, the country’s refusal to honor the Minsk Accords and for stating that its government is Nazified.
As acknowledged by both the USA and NATO, the aggression against the FRY constituted a precedent for the ensuing armed interventions. The US and NATO incursions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere followed suit in furthering unlawful use of force in international relations, paved the way for an arms race and ushered in a global instability, the repercussions of which have been suffered by Europe and the world to present day.
During the economic crisis in 2008, the United States sought China’s aid. US treasury secretary Hank Paulson conferred with Chinese officials, and China agreed to increase the value of the RMB and to stop selling US T-bills which it had been doing at that time.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has just published a report accusing the Cuban government of the deaths of two Cuban dissidents in 2012. But the report does not stand up to scrutiny. Oswaldo Payá and Harold Cepero were killed in a road accident due to the carelessness of Angel Carromero, the driver.
American political conflicts increasingly resemble the power struggles that are routinely visible in banana republics. The unprecedented indictments of Donald Trump in New York and Florida portend a future marred by lawfare as Democrats seek to use the justice system as a means of ensuring political supremacy and Republicans respond in kind.
Because the brutality and cruelty of the US blockade was wreaking havoc on the economy and millions of the most vulnerable in Venezuela were being deliberately denied their human rights to the most basic necessities of daily life, President Nicolas Maduro tasked Saab with travelling around the world procuring food, medicines and fuel for his country.
To a psychoanalyst memories are a stock in trade, common coin, the currency of every session, and we tend to regard every reported memory never as actual indubitable truth, but as an amalgam of wish, fantasy, fact and emotion, an amalgam that drew across the lifespan to result in the ‘remembered’ event, a phenomenon that could conceal other memories and also lead to new insights. In short, memories are the stuff of a kind of dream.
In all of Dan’s many hours of tutoring, as I understood years later, he understood and empathized with my eagerness—even my need—to learn all that I could about his world of secrets and lies, things said out loud and hidden in top-secret documents. And so he happily became my tutor and taught me where and how to look inside the recessed corners of the American intelligence community.
As Ukraine prepared to launch its much heralded but long delayed counteroffensive, the media published a photograph of a Ukrainian soldier with his finger on his lips, symbolizing the need for secrecy to retain some element of surprise for this widely telegraphed operation.
There have recently been a number of incidents that would be of interest if one has concerns about the sorry state of free speech in Europe and the United States, the so-called “democracies” who tend to boast about their freedoms and the rights of their citizens.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
US Republican Senator Chuck Grassleyrevealed on the Senate floor that, according to a largely unredacted version of the FBI’s FD-1023 confidential human source form, a “foreign national” who “bribed Joe and Hunter Biden” has 17 “audio recordings of his conversations with them.” The “foreign national” is allegedly none less than Mykola Zlochevsky, the Ukrainian oligarch owner of Burisma, one of the largest private natural gas producers in the country.
The company and its owner have long been the target of investigations and the Biden’s family connections to the Eastern European nation also go way back: in April 2014, Viktor Pshonka, then Ukraine’s prosecutor general, launched a probe into Zlochevsky, over accusations pertaining to tax evasion, and money laundering which was said to have taken place between 2010 and 2012. In April 2014, Burisma’s board of directors named Hunter Biden, son of then US Vice President (and today’s President) Joe Biden, to Burisma’s board as a director; he was said to have earned over $80,000 monthly. This is a very interesting timing, just a couple of months after game-changer events in that nation.
In February 2014, during the so-called Maidan Revolution, then Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted and fled the country. This 2014 development is described by some experts as a US backed coup to overthrow a “pro-Russian” president.
Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs sees this as the beginning of the current Ukrainian crisis, even before the March 2014 Crimean referendum and the Donbass civil war, which started in April of the same year.
The roots of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis go even further back and can be traced to post-independence Kiev’s political elite attempt at “nation-building”, which increasingly took the shape of a rejection all things Russian, thus culminating in the 2014 Maidan, a ultranationalist revolution also backed by Washington. In an attempt to pull Ukraine away from “Russian influence”, the US and the Western powers funded and armed the most radical nationalist and russophobic militias in the nation, even neo-Nazi ones, which later came to be part of the country’s National Guard, a problem which haunts Kiev (and the West) to this day.
Currently, any “pro-Russian” stance is marginalized or even banned in Ukraine (and now also in Poland and increasingly so even in Europe). However, in the Eastern Slavic nation, there had always been a political camp which called for closer cooperation and integration with neighboring Russia rather than with the West – which is hardly surprising, considering that this is a strongly bilingual nation, with a high degree of intermarriage, where at least 34% of the population speaks Russian.
Besides these local and regional frictions, there is a larger geopolitical game at play, pertaining to US-led NATO expansion goals and Washington’s policy of “encircling” and “countering Moscow”, a process which has been described as the main cause of the Ukraine’s crisis 9 years ago, as well as today.
Much has been written about this geopolitical angle, but there is also a geoeconomic dimension to the United States role in its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine – one that is less talked about and that goes beyond the notorious profits American weapons manufacturers make.
Regarding Moscow, Washington has a geopolitical rivalry as well as geoeconomic and energy interests, which are often intertwined with private and shady businesses – this could be clearly seen, as I wrote before, in the US campaign to boycott (now gone) Nord Stream 2. Biden’s own special envoy (in 2021), Amos Hochstein, was a former member of Naftogaz’ supervisory board, this being the largest national oil and gas company in Ukraine, also involved in a number of scandals.
Back in August 2021, a member of the Ukrainian Parliament denounced a corruption ring within the aforementioned Naftogaz: his testimony included alleged leaked audio records of then Vice President Biden offering then Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko a billion dollars as part of a secret negotiation to dismiss the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the business activities of his son in the country. These allegations now seem to be confirmed by the recent news about further FBI leaks.
I also wrote on the shady deals involving Ukrainian investment company Dragon Capital and American multinational investment company BlackRock, as well as the evidence implicating the Democrat Party and the Bidens. In many of these episodes, Hunter Biden plays a role: his sexual scandals, the biolabs allegations, and many other accusations have been gaining traction within the US media, and haunting the current American presidency.
Going back to 2014, when Burisma’s board of directors named Hunter Biden, one should keep in mind that during that time, after the deposal of Yanukovych, Washington was happy to work with the new pro-Western government, in whose rise to power it played a role. Other Western institutions such as the European Union, the World Bank, and the IMF were all also willing to work with the new government, although the blatant corruption which plagued the country was a major concern to all of them – and remains so to this day. While his son was acting as a director in Burisma, Joe Biden became Obama’s “point man” in Ukraine and a frequent visitor there, claiming to have flown to the nation at least a dozen times between 2014 and 2016.
Far from being a concern only to the police authorities and prosecutors in both Ukraine and the US (not to mention the tabloids everywhere), the “Ukrainian-American corruption factor” has deep geopolitical and geoeconomic implications. All of the context discussed above indicates that rather than being merely dismissed as “Russian propaganda” or as Republicans trying to “find dirt” on the Democrat rivals, such allegations about Burisma and the Bidens seem to fit a pattern and should be taken seriously.
*
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.
Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.
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.
***
March 24, 2024, will see the 25th anniversary since the beginning of unlawful, criminal and illegitimate aggression that NATO launched against Yugoslavia (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the FRY), thus propelling the first post-WWII war on European soil. In doing so, NATO trampled on the fundamental principles of international law, the United Nations Charter, the OSCE’s Helsinki Final Act (1975) and the UN Security Council’s role as the sole global body competent for making decisions in the matters of peace and security.
As of 2000, the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals has been organizing its annual commemorative and analytical-scientific events, dedicated to the memory of the many lives this aggression took, and to elaborating its geopolitical goals and consequences in the Balkans, Europe, and beyond.
As acknowledged by both the USA and NATO, the aggression against the FRY constituted a precedent for the ensuing armed interventions. The US and NATO incursions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere followed suit in furthering unlawful use of force in international relations, paved the way for an arms race and ushered in a global instability, the repercussions of which have been suffered by Europe and the world to present day.
Kindly be informed that the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, the Club of Generals and Admirals of Serbia, the Union of Associations of National Liberation Wars of Serbia (SUBNOR), the Diaspora Fund for Motherland, the Society of Serbian Hosts, together with many more independent, non-partisan associations, are going to mark the 25th anniversary since the beginning of NATO aggression, that will take place in Belgrade from March 22-24, 2024. The program of this manifestation will be of international character, and attended by our proven friends from abroad.
You will be kept regularly informed about preparations and details of the program.
*
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.
***
During the economic crisis in 2008, the United States sought China’s aid. US treasury secretary Hank Paulson conferred with Chinese officials, and China agreed to increase the value of the RMB and to stop selling US T-bills which it had been doing at that time.
Paulson said, “It is clear that China accepts its responsibility as a major world economy that will work with the United States and other partners to ensure global economic stability.” But the notion that China was acting in a selfless fashion was also dispelled by Paulson who stated China helps when it is in their own interest.
That same attitude was repeated by the US State Department in March 2021 during the first face-to-face meeting with president Joe Biden’s administration in Anchorage, Alaska: “America’s approach will be undergirded by confidence in our dealing with Beijing — which we are doing from a position of strength — even as we have the humility to know that we are a country eternally striving to become a more perfect union.” [emphasis added]
Given the baleful US shenanigans against China, Chinese high-ranking officials were ill-disposed to meet with their American counterparts. Chairman Xi Jinping was not interested in meeting with Biden after the US shot down a Chinese weather balloon. The Pentagon sought a meeting between defense secretary Lloyd Austin and China’s minister of national defense Li Shangfu, but the latter reportedly ghosted Austin in Singapore.
Finally, secretary of state Antony Blinken managed to secure a meeting with his Chinese counterpart Qin Gang in Beijing. The official readouts for each country, however, reveal a monstrous gap between them.
The Chinese readout noted that “China-U.S. relations are at their lowest point since the establishment of diplomatic ties…” Other excerpts read:
China has always maintained continuity and stability in its policies towards the United States, fundamentally adhering to the principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation proposed by President Xi Jinping. These principles should also be the shared spirit, bottom line, and goal that both sides uphold together.
Qin Gang pointed out that the Taiwan question is at the core of China’s core interests, it is the most significant issue in China-U.S. relations, and it is also the most prominent risk. China urges the U.S. side to adhere to the one-China principle and the three China-U.S. Joint Communiqués, and truly implement its commitment not to support “Taiwan independence”.
That the US and China were not on the same page was clear from the oft-heard banality in the American readout:
The Secretary made clear that the United States will always stand up for the interests and values of the American people and work with its allies and partners to advance our vision for a world that is free, open, and upholds the international rules-based order.
That the US side made no comment on China’s core interest was a glaring brush off. Instead the US side pushed its “international rules-based order,” which is about rules defined by the US for others to follow. In other words, China does not decide what rules apply to its province of Taiwan.
The readouts made crystal clear that China and the US view the world through different lenses.
China is about peaceful development and win-win trade relations. The US is about waging war, sanctions, bans on trading, and an immodest belief in its indispensability. Because of this, China and Russia with the Global South are each forging their own way, a way that respects each country’s sovereignty. In future, it will be increasingly difficult for the US to use loans to impoverish other nations and plunder their wealth through the IMF’s financial strictures. Sanctions, freezing assets, and blocking financial transactions through the SWIFT system have pushed countries away and toward de-dollarization, joining BRICS, taking part in the Belt and Road Initiative, and using other financial institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank based in Beijing. Even companies in countries nominally aligned with the US are pulling back from the harms of adhering to US trading bans. The US pressure tactics have resulted in blowback, and there is sure to be growing apprehension within empire.
The US is a warmaker. It flattened Iraq, Libya, and would have done the same to Syria had not Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah intervened at the invitation of the Syrian government. Nevertheless, the US still illegally occupies an enormous chunk of Syria and plunders its oil, revealing its true nature to the world.
China is a peacemaker; for example, the Saudi-Iranian rapprochement, the Syrian-Arab League reunion, a ceasefire between Yemen and Saudi Arabia, a proposal for peace between Russia and Ukraine that was rejected by the US, and currently China is playing an honest broker to try and solve the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, something the US has failed miserably at solving (not that it was ever interested in solving this besides, perhaps, a brief interregnum under Jimmy Carter).
China has stood steadfastly with Russia during its special military operation in Donbass and Ukraine. China knows that if the US-NATO would succeed in their proxy war, the plan is “regime change” and a carve up of Russia to exploit its resource wealth. This would pave the way for further “regime change” in China.
The Anthony Blinken Qin Gang meeting has been an abysmal failure in diplomacy. Communist China is ascendant, and the capitalist US is in economic decline, but it still believes that it can bully and fight its way to the top by keeping the others down.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Kim Petersen is an independent writer and a regular contributor to Global Research. He can be emailed at: kimohp at gmail.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 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has just published a report accusing the Cuban government of the deaths of two Cuban dissidents in 2012. But the report does not stand up to scrutiny. Oswaldo Payá and Harold Cepero were killed in a road accident due to the carelessness of Angel Carromero, the driver.
1. In July 2012, Angel Carromero, a Spanish citizen, deputy secretary general of the Nuevas Generaciones organization, a youth movement of the conservative Spanish Popular Party (PP), and a collaborator of the Community of Madrid, and Swedish citizen Jens Aron Modig, leader of the Christian Democratic Youth League (KDU), linked to the Swedish right, traveled to Cuba on tourist visas.
2. Their mission, entrusted by their respective political parties, was to meet and finance certain members of the internal dissidence and to set up action plans against the Cuban government.
3. This type of activity, which is illegal in Cuba as in most countries of the world, is heavily punished by the penal code.
4. Oswaldo Payá, leader of the Christian Liberation Movement (MCL), received the sum of 4,000 dollars according to Modig.
5. On July 22, Carromero and Modig were in a car with Cuban dissidents Oswaldo Payá and Harold Cepero Escalante of the MCL and were involved in a road accident near the town of Bayamo.
6. The two Cuban dissidents, who were in the back of the car without seatbelts, lost their lives.
7. The foreign nationals, who were in the front of the vehicle and wearing seatbelts, were unharmed.
8. Payá died on impact from head trauma, while Cepero expired some time later in hospital following respiratory failure.
9. During his deposition at the Bayamo hospital where he was being treated, Carromero stated that he had not seen the road sign indicating a work zone and that he had lost control of his vehicle, hitting a tree. The Spanish news agency EFEconfirms this version: “He did not see the slow-down sign and lost control of the vehicle”.
10. The testimonies of three people who were in the area at the time of the accident, José Antonio Duque de Estrada Pérez, Lázaro Miguel Parra Arjona and Wilber Rondón Barreroont, confirmed that the vehicle was speeding and had hit a tree after slipping on the road under construction.
11. The Swedish citizen, who escaped unhurt, returned to his country a few days later, after giving his statement.
12. Oswaldo Payá’s daughter, María Payá, who was in Havana, reported to the press that a car had collided several times with her father’s vehicle from behind, and accused the government of masterminding the assassination.
13. She stated that several people living in Sweden had received telephone text messages from Modig informing them that a vehicle had crashed into them.
14. However, the Payá family’s version of events is contradicted by compelling factual evidence and numerous witness statements. In fact, in addition to the statements made by those present at the scene, photos of the crashed vehicle show no trace of impact to the rear.
15. Modig refuted the Payá family’s version. According to him, no other vehicle was involved in the accident. Miami’s Nuevo Herald, a daily newspaper representing the point of view of the Cuban exile, confirms these statements in an article entitled “Swedish politician denies the presence of other vehicles in the accident that claimed Payá’s life”.
16. Modig also denied María Payá’s statements about the messages. According to him, he had not transmitted any messages to anyone in Sweden.
17. Carromero also denied the family version in an interview reported by Agencias and EFE: “No vehicle hit us from behind”.
18. He also denounced the Payá family’s conspiracy theories: “I ask the international community to focus on my repatriation and not to use a road accident, which could have happened to anyone, for political purposes”.
19. Similarly, the accusations do not stand up to analysis. Indeed, it is difficult to believe that the Cuban government would have taken the risk of attacking the life of a famous dissident when he was with several witnesses, including two foreign nationals, who remained alive and were later released.
20. In a statement to the Stockholm newspaper, Modig’s father, Lennart Myhr, explained that he had spoken to his son after the accident. At no time did he refer to another vehicle, or to persecution by Cuban intelligence services.
21. Dissident leader Elizardo Sánchez told Agence France-Presse that he did not believe in the conspiracy theory and that he thought it was an accident.
22. ElNuevo Herald published an article on the subject with the following headline: “Survivors reject the Payá family’s version”.
23. The Spanish daily El País, although unfavorable to the Cuban government, also cast doubt on the Payá family’s version: “The thesis of a murky conspiracy to kill Payá, which the family and part of the opposition initially suggested, fades away following the statements by Carromero and Modig, who confirm that it was all a fatal accident”.
24. After several days of investigation and questioning, Carromero was charged with manslaughter. Excessive speed was the main cause of the accident, according to the Cuban authorities.
25. According to the Cuban Ministry of the Interior, [Carromero’s] ‘lack of attention to vehicle control, excessive speed and erroneous decision to brake on a slippery surface were the causes of this tragic accident which cost the lives of two human beings”.
26. After braking, the vehicle rolled over a distance of 63 meters, confirming the extreme speed.
27. In reality, this was not Carromero’s first traffic offence. He is a dangerous repeat offender.
28. His driving license had been withdrawn in May 2012 for speeding. He was fined 520 euros and deducted six points, the heaviest penalty under the Spanish Highway Code, which is only applied when a vehicle exceeds the speed limit by more than double.
29. Carromero had therefore been driving illegally in Cuba.
30. Carromero had accumulated 45 fines for traffic offences since March 2011.
31. He had to pay a total of 3,700 euros.
32. After a trial lasting several weeks, the public prosecutor requested a seven-year prison sentence for manslaughter.
33. In October 2012, after deliberation, the Tribunal sentenced Carromero to four years’ imprisonment.
34. In December 2012, after four months in prison, Carromero was authorized to serve the remainder of his sentence in Spain, following an agreement between Madrid and Havana.
35. Due to his status as a political leader, his sentence was adjusted to avoid prison. He wore an electronic bracelet.
36. In March 2013, in an interview with the Washington Post, Carromero went back on his initial statements and claimed that a car belonging to the State had rear-ended them, causing a loss of control of the vehicle and the accident.
37. Nevertheless, photographs of the vehicle show no traces of impact at the rear, contradicting the new Carromero version.
38. Carromero also stresses that he was drugged and forced to sign a statement at the trial.
39. This version is contradicted by the Spanish Consulate General in Cuba, which described the trial as “impeccable from a procedural point of view”.
40. In August 2013, in an interview with the Spanish daily El Mundo, Carromero asserted that “the Cuban secret service murdered Oswaldo Payá”.
41. In the Washington Post interview, Carromero claimed to have lost consciousness during the accident and only woke up in the ambulance: “Neither Oswaldo, Harold nor Aron were there”.
42. On the other hand, in his interview with El Mundo, he states that he remembers that Payá “was still alive after the accident”, contradicting his own statements to the Washington Post.
43. Ofelia Acevedo, Payá’s widow, stated that “Spain has proof that her husband was murdered”.
44. Questioned on this subject, the European Union expressed its reservations, limiting itself to the following statement: “If Mr. Carromero has new evidence on the tragic death of Sakharov Prize winner Oswaldo Payá, he should present it before the competent courts”.
45. For its part, the Spanish government chose to ignore Carromero’s new statements. Questioned on the subject, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dismissed the controversy: “Our point of view on this matter has been over since the day Mr. Carromero returned to Spain”.
46. Embarrassed by Carromero’s statements, the Popular Party chose to remain silent and refused to make any statement, announcing that it would not communicate on the subject.
47. Asturias MP Gaspar Llamazares urged Carromero to take his case to court, while questioning the credibility of these new statements. According to him, “if he had any proof, he would have presented it to the courts immediately or on his return to Spain”.
48. Deputy Teófilo de Luis, a member of the Popular Party, rejected Carromero’s new statements: “My government is limited to what he [Carromero] explained in Havana. It limits itself to applying the extradition agreement, according to what was said at the time”.
49. In March 2013, following the Payá family’s visit to Spain, Mariano Rajoy’s government expressed its reservations and declared “that it will not support an investigation into the death of Oswaldo Payá”, thereby legitimizing the conclusions reached by Havana.
*
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 University de La Réunion, specializing in relations between Cuba and the United States.
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.
***
Once again, the evidence makes it clear that the West wants to involve Belarus in the current conflict. In a report published by The Times it was informed that exiled Belarusian militants are being trained in Polish territory in preparation for a future insurrection in their country.
According to the newspaper, the “Bypol” group, an extremist dissident militia that actively participated in the attempted color revolution in 2020, is based in the Polish city of Poznan, where an intense military training program is being conducted. Journalists went to the field to interview some of the militiamen and reported that the number of recruits is already “in the hundreds”.
The program would have started many months ago, bringing together “common Belarusians” who want to give a response to President Aleksandr Lukashenko’s “Stalinesque campaign of torture and detention [that] has all but silenced dissent” in Minsk. To add credibility to this narrative, the paper interviewed an exiled woman involved in the training nicknamed “Predator”. The 42-year-old dissident explained that she is the mother of a child who is unaware that she is currently in a military program. The option for combat would apparently have been motivated by the need to “fight for Belarus”.
“My daughter doesn’t know I am here. I told her I was going paintballing (…) []However] I came here today (…) to prepare for the fight for Belarus”, “Predator” told journalists during an interview.
This is a well-known media strategy, widely used by western outlets. The objective is to use an emotional rhetoric to show the supported side as a victim of oppression and an example of heroism and resilience. But for those who know what really happened in Belarus in 2020, this narrative is nothing more than a weak and meaningless fallacy.
The 2020 mass protests were the result of a Western plan to overthrow Lukashenko’s legitimate government and replace him with pro-Western opposition candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya. Belarusian security forces were incisive in neutralizing the Western-sponsored threat, and, as in cases of failed regime change operations, the US regarded Lukashenko’s electoral victory as illegitimate and fraudulent, pointing to Lithuania-based Tikhanovskaya as the real winner.
At the time, the Bypol group was created, formed by several dissident former employees of law enforcement agencies. Bypol engaged in active militia work, physically fighting the security forces. The group alleges the supposed “necessity” to face the government’s “state violence”, receiving financial and logistical support from the western powers for this.
As a result of Lukashenko’s victory, most Bypol’s members emigrated to neighboring countries hostile to Minsk, such as Poland, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and the Czech Republic. This did not stop the group from operating sabotage and real combat missions on Belarusian soil, even carrying out a drone attack on a Russian A-50 radar at Machulishchy air base. However, Belarusian security forces closely monitor the militia’s activities and have been effective in preventing further damage from being caused.
In practice, Bypol is an ordinary terrorist organization, which acts like any other extremist group in the world, using terror as a political tool and causing harm to ordinary civilians during its illegal raids. But the West has been openly pro-terror in recent years, being publicly involved in financing and supporting terrorist and neo-Nazi groups such as the Ukraine’s Azov, Right Sector and Aidar, which makes it unsurprising that it gives same support for Bypol. In fact, if the terrorists’ targets are NATO’s geopolitical enemies, then the criminals have “carte blanche” for their maneuvers.
The problem is that amidst the current scenario of tensions, any miscalculated act could lead to a serious escalation. Belarus has been the target of repeated terrorist attacks since the beginning of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine. Minsk is involved in a secondary way in the operation, only allowing Russian troops to use its territory to enter the enemy country, without sending soldiers and weapons directly. The Belarusian attitude is legitimate, considering that Belarus and Russia maintain a collective defense treaty within the Union State, and therefore military actions are absolutely integrated.
This means that western provocations against Russia’s ally are likely to be responded to by Moscow itself. And, in the same sense, considering that these are NATO countries that are training, supporting and infiltrating terrorists in Belarus, the eventual joint response of Minsk and Moscow could even be directed against NATO, which would involve the risk of nuclear escalation.
This only makes it even more legitimate for Minsk to receive Russian nuclear weapons on its territory. Minsk is taking pre-preventive action to dissuade hostile countries from realizing their war plans against the Belarusian people in order to avoid further escalation, as the consequences could be catastrophic.
*
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.
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.
***
Governments around the globe put a huge amount of faith in COVID-19 vaccines as their only intervention to reduce mortality. Yet, no prospective randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial demonstrated a reduction in death with COVID-19 vaccines. On the contrary, every single data system around the globe has reported increased mortality coinciding the the roll-out of the vaccines.
Scherb and Hayashi used Japan and Germany for study of temporal trends in mortality. Both countries have excellent reporting systems.
For Japan (125.7 M) and Germany (83.2 M), the WHO indicates as of 18, June 2023, and 14 May 2023, a total of 392,346,325 and 193,232,623 vaccine doses, respectively have been administered.
This equates to 2-3 doses per person. They found a disturbing jump in mortality coinciding with the start of mass vaccination. At the end of a pandemic, since the frail and elderly have suffered disproportionate casualties, there is usually a culling effect and mortality should go down.
If the vaccines were effective, then certainly they should have dropped the death rate even more. The figures from Japan and Germany tell a different story.
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 Hal Turner Radio Show
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
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 reviewed the reports on the UK High Court judgment against Assange (June 8, 2023). His lawyers are considering an Appeal to “the same court”, “amid growing fears he could spend the rest of his life in prison for publishing thousands of classified military and diplomatic documents” (Guardian, 9 June, 2023).
It would appear that Julian Assange’s Defense lawyers failed to request the Recusal of Judge Jonathan Swift on the grounds of “Conflict of Interest”. Why? The latter are carefully documented in Mark Curtis’ article.
In England and Wales “A judge may recuse himself [herself] when a party applies to him to do so, e.g. Assange’s Defense lawyers. “A judge must step down in circumstances where there appears to be bias or ‘apparent bias’”.
And in this case there is bias: Judge Swift described as Downing Street’s “favourite barrister” is now acting on behalf of the Home Office, which is conducting an indictment against Julian Assange. There is evidence of bias in Judge Swift’s cursory statements.
” The test for determining apparent bias is this: if a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the judge was biased, the judge must recuse himself (see Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at [102]).
According to the “Guide to Judicial Conduct” in England and Wales (2018), Judge Swift should have recused himself.
We recall that in 2019, Judge Emma Arbuthnot, who was also in conflict of interest had refused to recuse herself from the Assange extradition hearings.
Has Assange’s Legal Team raised the issue of Judge Swift’s Recusal??? Nobody asked him to step down.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, June 20,2023
***
Jonathan Swift, the High Court judge who has rejected Julian Assange’s appeal against extradition to the US, has a long history of working for the government departments that are now persecuting the WikiLeaks founder.
Swift, who ruled against Assange on 6 June, was formerly the government’s favourite barrister.
He worked as ‘First Treasury Counsel’ – the government’s top lawyer – from 2006 to 2014, a position in which he advised and represented the government in major litigation.
Swift acted for the Defence and Home Secretaries in at least nine cases, Declassified has found. He also acted for the Cabinet Office, Justice Secretary and the Treasury, during his time as First Treasury Counsel.
Swift also represented the Foreign Office in at least two legal cases, in 2011 and 2015.
While barristers are independent, those who regularly represent the government in the highest profile cases have to be “cleared” to do so, including via security vetting, Declassified understands.
When he stepped down as First Treasury Counsel in March 2014, the attorney general’s office “expressed their appreciation for Jonathan’s valuable support, advice and advocacy during his period as FTC.”
It was reported in 2013 that Swift had been paid nearly a million pounds – £975,075 – over the previous three years for representing the government.
Swift now presides over Assange’s extradition case being fought by the Home Office for whom he previously worked.
As with previous judges who have ruled against Assange, the case raises serious concerns about institutional conflicts of interests at the heart of the UK legal system.
‘Favourite clients’
Swift was appointed a deputy high court judge in 2016 and a full judge in August 2018. A June 2018 interview with Swift in a legal publication noted that his “favourite clients were the security and intelligence agencies” referring to his time as First Treasury Counsel.
“They take preparation and evidence-gathering seriously: a real commitment to getting things right”, he was quoted as saying.
The interview also mentioned Swift was undertaking work for “foreign governments” although Declassified has not been able to establish which governments these were.
Swift took up his current post of judge in charge of the Administrative Court in 2020. A long standing QC with prominent law firm 11KBW, he was in 2018 also a legal adviser to a committee of the City of London Corporation.
In June last year, Swift ruled that a deportation flight to Rwanda could go ahead, refusing to accept arguments to stop the flight by several asylum seekers facing offshoring to Rwanda.
National security cases
Several cases in which Swift acted for the government while First Treasury Counsel concerned national security, on which the judge is now expected to adopt an impartial approach.
Swift represented the Treasury in the first case before the new Supreme Court in 2009, concerning international sanctions against terrorists.
In 2014 he acted for the defence secretary in a case against three former interpreters for UK forces in Afghanistan who won the right to bring their case to the High Court for alleged discrimination. The interpreters argued they were in danger and should be allowed to settle in Britain.
In an earlier case, in 2007, Swift also represented the UK Ministry of Defence in a case against a UK/Iraqi national who had been held by British troops at detention facilities in Iraq. The man argued his detention infringed his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Much of the WikiLeaks disclosures for which the US seeks to prosecute Assange relate to Western military conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Another of Swift’s cases as First Treasury Counsel concerned disclosure of information to the public. He acted for the attorney general in a long-running freedom of information case brought by the Guardian seeking to release the private correspondence between Prince Charles and government ministers.
In February 2014, attorney general Dominic Grieve blocked the publication of the letters, overruling an independent freedom of information tribunal that had ordered their release.
Swift, acting for Grieve, told the court that the minister “was entitled to take a different view on matters of public interest from the tribunal”.
Ruling
In his rejection of the appeal by Assange’s lawyers, Swift curtly dismissed all eight grounds to their arguments as “no more than an attempt to re-run the extensive arguments made to and rejected by the District Judge”, who previously ruled on the case.
Media freedom group Reporters Sans Frontieres said Swift’s ruling brought Assange “dangerously close to extradition”.
It added it was “absurd that a single judge can issue a three-page decision that could land Julian Assange in prison for the rest of his life and permanently impact the climate for journalism around the world.”
The US government seeks to extradite Assange in order to try him in connection with WikiLeaks’ publication of leaked classified documents that informed public interest reporting around the world.
Assange faces a possible 175 years in prison and would be the first publisher prosecuted under the US Espionage Act.
*
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.
Mark Curtis is the editor of Declassified UK, and the author of five books and many articles on UK foreign policy.
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.
***
American political conflicts increasingly resemble the power struggles that are routinely visible in banana republics. The unprecedented indictments of Donald Trump in New York and Florida portend a future marred by lawfare as Democrats seek to use the justice system as a means of ensuring political supremacy and Republicans respond in kind.
The Democrats want to permanently remove Trump from the political scene by locking him behind bars for the rest of his life.
In American politics, involvement in a sexual scandal was typically enough to remove a prominent politician from power, as in the cases of former Senator Al Franken, former members of Congress Blake Farenthold, John Conyers, Tim Murphy, and Anthony Weiner, and New York Governors Elliott Spitzer and Andrew Cuomo, to mention but a few.
Not willing to let an opportunity pass, the Democrats tried to derail Trump’s first presidential campaign by enveloping him in a sex scandal involving lurid stories of relations with Moscow prostitutes gleaned from the discredited Steele dossier. The attempt failed.Trump went on to defeat the miserable warmonger Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, a crime for which he would never be forgiven.
Next, supported uncritically by their friends at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other corporate news outlets, the Democrats and operatives in the National Security Autocracy manufactured the Russiagate scandal to delegitimize the Trump presidency. Results of the Mueller investigation released on April 18, 2019, failed to establish evidence of electoral collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, imposing yet another failure upon the party whose symbol is a jackass. The report of Special Council John Durham, published in May 2023, demolishes the Russiagate fiction categorically.
Undeterred, the Congressional Democrats mounted two attempts at impeachment, the first to remove him from office and the second to ensure he could never become president again.Both Senate trials ended in acquittals.
Now, becoming increasingly desperate, they go to court.A Democratic District Attorney in Manhattan and a Special Counsel appointed by a Democratic U.S. Attorney General have leveled charges of violation of campaign finance (hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels) and unauthorized possession and conspiracy to withhold classified documents (stored at the Mar-a-Lago Palm Beach estate) against Trump. Indictments for election interference in the State of Georgia and incitement to insurrection in Washington, D.C., after the 2020 presidential election are almost sure to follow.
Like self-righteous and narrow-minded Lilliputians, the Democrats hope to ensnare the ever-menacing Trump in so many legal ropes that he will be eliminated as a political opponent, one who is almost certain to defeat them in 2024.
The Democrats are no doubt aware that such strategies have proven wildly successful in the Global South.
Brazil’s left-wing political leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was eliminated as a candidate for president by the country’s right-wing in 2017, one year before a 2018 election where he hoped to win another term in office, having previously served from 2003 through 2010.He was investigated, indicted, tried, and convicted in a corruption scandal.Lula was sentenced to 12 years in prison.He was later exonerated by the Brazilian Supreme Court and released from jail.He serves as Brazil’s current president, having won the election in 2022 against the Trump-supported Jair Bolsonaro, proving once again that history is replete with savage ironies.
Lula’s successor as president in 2011 was Dilma Rousseff, who, not coincidentally, was removed from power through impeachment in 2016 as she sought to continue his policies of fighting poverty and social injustice.The charge against Rousseff was, once again, corruption.Rousseff’s successor, Michel Termer, paved the way for extreme-right President Bolsonaro, who implemented the neoliberal agenda with a vengeance, much to the delight of the Brazilian rich and their American counterparts.
The removal of Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff from power constituted judicial coup d’états of working-class presidents.Both leaders were innocent of the corruption charges leveled against them.Both coups were fully approved in the United States.
Christina Fernandez de Kirchner is another example of a left-wing political leader who, along with her husband Nestor, opposed the rape of their country by the International Monetary Fund by repudiating Argentina’s debt to the parasitical financial institution.President of Argentina from 2007 to 2015, then Vice-President in 2019, Christina Kirchner was convicted of corruption charges in December 2022, sentenced to 6 years in prison, and forbidden to hold public office by what she contended was a parallel state led by a judicial mafia.She was, in effect, removed from power in a judicial coup d’état after having survived an assassination attempt in March 2022.
The right-wing in America is getting a small taste of its own bitter imperial medicine as the political struggle for supremacy is rotting the core of power at the center of empire.It should not be forgotten that the Trump regime tried and failed to engineer a coup d’état in Venezuela by replacing leftist President Nicolas Maduro with a right-wing nonentity, Juan Guaido, in 2018.The chickens, as Malcolm X would say, are coming home to roost.
In prosecuting Trump, the Democrats claim to be supporting democracy and the rule of law, neither of which they have done at home or abroad for over a century, dating back to World War I and the passage of the Espionage Act, the notorious piece of legislation used as a tool of political repression in the cases of Eugene Debts, Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden.
The irony is that if the Democrats actually respected democracy and legality, Bernie Sanders would have been their party’s nominee in 2016 and 2020 and would have beaten Trump twice, as he spoke convincingly of the need to alleviate the economic misery of the American people.But Sanders’ support for a Keynesian New Deal in an era of neoliberal economics was not acceptable to the members of the party establishment, who serve the American ruling class no less so than their Republican counterparts.Hence, Bernie Sanders was reduced to the role of pied piper for the Democratic Party of American imperialism, an ignominious position he occupies today.
Having no substantive policy differences with mainstream Republicans on matters of concern to Wall Street and corporate America, the Democrats want to jail their leading political opponent, a routine practice in banana republics. Leaders of the Republican Party would be delighted to have Trump out of their way but would never say so for fear of alienating the party’s voting base.
The plain fact is that Trump is not being indicted for the illegalities he should be indicted for, namely, his role in perpetrating the crimes of empire.Then again, how could he when his accusers are equally guilty of conspiring to commit the same crimes.
What crimes?
Trump’s support for the aforementioned coup attempt and associated economic sanctions in Venezuela, which have cost the lives of 40,000 of its citizens and driven thousands into exile as impoverished migrants, thereby constituting a form of collective punishment of the population. Biden has eased oil sanctions on Venezuela contingent upon the Maduro government’s acceptance of democracy, meaning, legitimization of the right-wing opposition.
Trump’s missile strikes, bombing campaign, and military occupation of Syria, including the theft of its oil.The military interventions conducted under the pretext of fighting ISIS, which cost thousands of Syrian lives, amount to war crimes.Biden bombed Syria and currently supports the continuation of the military occupation.
Trump’s relocation of the American embassy to Jerusalem and support for the Zionist State’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights and continued occupation and brutalization of Palestine constitute crimes against humanity.Biden has not reversed Trump’s policies toward Israel and vocally supports the apartheid state and its occupation of Palestine.
Trump’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear agreement with Iran, the imposition of draconian sanctions, and the assassination of General Qassem Soleimaniconstitute crimes against peace and war crimes.Biden refuses to remove Trump’s classification of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a “terrorist organization,” lift Trump’s crippling sanctions, or reinstate Obama’s nuclear agreement.
Trump’s delivery of lethal military aid to Ukraine and the expansion of economic sanctions on Russia are crimes against peace. Biden has dramatically escalated Ukrainian aid and Russian sanctions into a full-blown proxy war with Russia.
Trump is an irrepressible con artist who stumbled into the presidency courtesy of a Democratic Party that abandoned its principal voting base: the American working class.Although he serves the ruling class faithfully, as all presidents do, his fake right-wing populist rhetoric and quirky behavior have destabilized plutocratic rule, opened large fissures in consensus politics, and polarized the electorate in a way not seen in modern times.
For example, he violated political etiquette by exposing George W. Bush’s lies that led to the Iraq war in a televised primary debate with the imbecile’s brother, Jeb.He threatened to send Hillary Clinton to jail for the destruction of 33,000 emails held on a private server in her home during a nationally televised presidential debate. He routinely refers to the corporate media, particularly the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN, as fake news.He refused to acknowledge the results of the 2020 presidential election and did not attend Biden’s inauguration, repeating the contention that the election was stolen.Most recently and significantly, Trump has pledged to end the Ukraine proxy war and forge a diplomatic settlement with Russia, thus potentially averting a nuclear war, a prospect the fanatical Biden regime seems determined to provoke.
Of course, what Trump says and what Trump does are two different things, but the salient point is that he says them and he names the names, like that of warmonger Victoria Nuland, and that is not allowed in a permanent war economy run by neoconservatives.
Furthermore, Washington displays a spectacle of venal corruption.Disgust with politicians, compounded by a loss of confidence in U.S. elections and the justice system, has created a tinderbox of smoldering discontent in a nation further divided by the Trump indictments.
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s justification for the federal indictment of Trump, to wit: “Adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle of the Department of Justice, and our nation’s commitment to the rule of law sets an example for the world.We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone,” is a farcical assertion given U.S. imperialism’s lawless conduct around the world, not to mention the unindicted corrupt behavior of Trump contemporaries, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and the “big guy’s” son, Hunter. Smith’s hypocritical proclamation is one that is sure to enrage followers of the orange icon as well as fair-minded citizens who oppose the dual system of justice that prevails in America.
The specter of a violent reaction to a Trump imprisonment involving political assassination or armed revolt is a real possibility in a country that hosts a sizeable and well-armed pro-Trump right-wing militia movement that includes many ex-military and police adherents.
Conversely, a Trump legal victory in the courts does not preclude a violent resolution to the contradictions inherent in a right-wing political movement whose leader uses fake populist rhetoric to ensure his political ascendency in the face of establishment opposition.
The threat of political violence, perpetrated by the state or by an individual, is particularly grave in a country with an infamous history of attempted assassinations of its presidents as well as contenders for the nation’s highest office.Some were successful, some were not.Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, George Wallace, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan come immediately to the studious mind.
By indicting Trump, the Democrats are playing with fire. The result may be incendiary, thereby highlighting the need for progressive opposition to heightening political reaction and two-party plutocratic rule in the American banana republic.
*
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.
Donald Monaco is a writer and political analyst who lives in Brooklyn, New York. He received his Master’s Degree in Education from the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1979 and was radicalized by the Vietnam War. He writes from an anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist perspective. His most recent book is titled, The Politics of Empire, and is available at amazon.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.
***
Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant met with US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on 15 June at the NATO summit in Brussels to discuss Iran and other important aspects of the US-Israel relationship, the Jerusalem Post reported.
Gallant discussed with his Austin claims that “Iran stimulates attacks against Israel using proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, and reiterated Israel’s right to self-defense,” the Israeli paper said.
Before departing for Belgium, Gallant said he would discuss with Austin “the implementation of the joint commitment of both our countries to make sure Iran will never possess nuclear military capabilities.”
Israeli threats against Iran have intensified in recent months amid unconfirmed reports that Washington is close to reaching an interim or partial nuclear deal with Tehran through indirect talks in Oman.
Israel opposes a US nuclear deal with Iran, while Iranian officials have made clear they will only accept a full return to the nuclear deal signed with the Obama administration in 2015. The Trump administration withdrew from the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), unilaterally in 2018. The JCPOA placed limits on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
Despite US negotiations with Iran, the US military has expanded military cooperation with Israel this year and carried out exercises viewed as veiled threats against Iran, such as the Juniper Oak exercise in January.
The exercise involved 7,900 personnel, 142 combat aircraft, twelve warships, and activities across all domains (sea, air, land, space, and cyber). The main goals of the exercise were to improve interoperability and to demonstrate the ability to surge forces into the region in the event of war with Iran.
Reports emerged that the exercise simulated strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, though US officials denied this.
In March, Austin met with Gallant in Israel. At the time, Austin said that although the Biden administration “continues to believe in diplomacy,” it would “not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.”
Despite ongoing political differences between the Biden administration and the Israeli government regarding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proposed legislation to overhaul the Israeli judiciary, the military alliance between the two remains strong.
Austin said he “wanted to be here to make something very clear: America’s commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad, and it’s going to stay that way. As President [Joe] Biden said in his visit to Israel last year, ‘The connection between the Israeli people and the American people is bone deep.’ Israel is a major strategic partner for the US.”
*
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: US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin (L) and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant meet in Brussels on June 15, 2023. (Photo Credit Elad Malcha/Defense Ministry)
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.
Earlier this month, the British Defence Ministry shared a video on social media showcasing military equipment being provided by the IFU account to Ukrainian troops. Launched last summer, the first IFU deliveries — funded by Denmark, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and the U.K. — will begin to arrive in July.
The International Fund for Ukraine is supplying critical capabilities for Ukraine, with deliveries from the first procurement round due next month.
Open-source intelligence analysts were quick to identify what appears to be Malloy T150 quadcopters manufactured by the British company Malloy Aeronautics, the DeltaQuad Pro VTOL drone produced by Dutch firm DeltaQuad, and the Astero ISR system from Denmark’s Nordic Wing. Two other unspecified drone models can be seen in the footage, with one shown taking off vertically and launched via catapult.
The British Defence Ministry declined to comment on specific platforms in the video.
Defense News can, however, confirm that one of the two unidentified drones is the Tekever AR3 Vertical Takeoff and Landing system, manufactured by the Lisbon-based firm Tekever.
“Yes, our Tekever AR3 system is depicted in the video produced by the UK MoD,” a company representative told Defense News. “It includes images of the drone being deployed with support of a catapult — which we can use for extended endurance operations up to 16 hours — and in an optional VTOL configuration. Each operator can easily choose which variant it wants to use for a specific mission.”
Tekever’s CEO and founder, Ricardo Mendes, added that the company is “very proud to support Ukraine and thankful to the UK MoD and IFU for allowing us to contribute to one of the most important causes of our lifetime.”
The AR3 is a small, long-endurance drone designed to provide wide-area surveillance for both land and maritime missions. It has a maximum payload capacity of 4 kilograms (9 pounds), can fly at a cruise speed of 75-90 kph (47-56 mph) and can also be recovered via parachute.
Some of the military operators of the AR3 include Portugal, the UK, and Nigeria. Hence, its label in the footage, NAF 167 (an acronym used for the Nigerian Air Force), raised the question as to where the drones were purchased from.
“I can confirm that Nigeria purchased a number of the Tekever AR3 platforms from Tekever Ltd. of Portugal. However, all the drones acquired are currently operating in Nigeria — none have been donated in any way or form to Ukraine or any other country,” Maj. MS Muhammad, deputy defense adviser to the Nigeria High Commission in the U.K., told Defense News.
He added that the drone shown in the video with the NAF 167 label, which does indeed stand for Nigerian Air Force, “must have been provided by the manufacturer, or the clip used in the said tweet might have come from the company’s promotional videos, as the model with that particular number is presently in use in Nigeria.”
It is important to note that the individual platforms showcased in the video are not necessarily the final ones that Ukraine will receive, but rather were provided by industry partners to display some capabilities provided as part of the first $212 million defense package announced in February.
The second IFU procurement, referred to as Urgent Bidding Round 2, launched on April 11. The first capability package resulting from that second round was announced earlier this week and will include a $188 million air defense package. Capabilities requested include sensors to detect and track cruise missiles, low-flying drones and/or ballistic missiles, air burst rounds for cannon-based air defense systems, and sensor-guided air defense cannons to defeat low-flying drones and cruise missiles.
Johan Hjelmstrand, a press officer for Sweden’s defense minister, noted much of the IFU account is unspent, and that some companies either do not go public with related contracts or that not all contracts are yet signed, but that “more packages are on the way.”
In terms of how the fund operates, Martynas Bendikas, a strategic adviser with the Lithuanian Defence Ministry’s public affairs team, explained that defense ministries contribute only with financial resources. Following this, an international public tender is organized for specific military equipment, and all seven countries’ companies can participate.
“However, so far, Lithuanian drones are being sent to Ukraine in other formats,” she said.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Elisabeth Gosselin-Malo is a Europe correspondent for Defense News. She covers a wide range of topics related to military procurement and international security, and specializes in reporting on the aviation sector. She is based in Milan, Italy.
Featured image: A PT-8 Oceanwatch payload is seen integrated on the Tekever AR5 drone. (Courtesy of Tekever)
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.
***
Earlier this year, the Grocery Gazette reported that the UK was set to be a world-leading developer of lab-grown meat. In the recent past, Guardian climate hysteric George Monbiot claimed lab-grown food “will soon destroy farming – and save the planet”. Alas, such boosterism is being challenged by hard facts. Lab-grown meat is up to 25 times worse for the environment since it needs ‘pharmaceutical-grade’ production to make it fit for human consumption. In particular, there is a need to remove endotoxin from the cultured mix, a substance that in concentrations as low as one billionth of a gram per millilitrie can reduce human IVF pregnancy success rate by up to four fold.
These are the startling conclusions of ground-breaking work recently published by a group of chemists and food scientists from the University of California. It turns out that ‘pharma to food’ production is a significant technological challenge. The major problem with lab meat is that it uses growth organisms that have to be highly purified to help animal cells multiply. Compared with environmental savings on land, water and greenhouses gases, the whole bio-process is noted to be “orders of magnitude” higher than rearing the actual animal.
“Our findings suggest that cultured meat is not inherently better for the environment than conventional beef. It’s not a panacea,” said co-author Edward Spang, an associate professor in the Department of Food Science and Technology. The study found that even across scenarios using lower pharma standards, efficient beef production outperforms cultured meat within a range from four to 25 times. This suggests that investment to advance more ‘climate-friendly’ beef production may yield greater reductions in emissions.
The route to New Zero is littered with improbable technologies that promise much – and give endless opportunities for virtue signalling – but deliver little. While many countries press ahead with plans to destroy conventional animal husbandry, the options for new ways of actually feeding populations look thin on the ground. To be fair to Monbiot, he has picked up on the problems of lab meat, noting in a recent blog post that “the more I’ve read about cultured meat and fish, and the more I’ve come to appreciate the phenomenal complexities involved… the more I doubt this vision will come to pass”. Always the worrier, Monbiot asks, “How can mass starvation best be averted”? Not removing the 337.18 million tonnes of global meat production in favour of flaky factory solutions might be a start.
The California study could throw a major stick into the spokes of the lab-grown meat bandwagon, which to date has had a largely uncritical mainstream media ride. Grocery Gazette’s cheer-leading report noted that the sector was predicted to “rapidly increase its market share within the food industry”. Research was quoted suggesting cell cultured meat was expected to make up almost quarter of global meat consumption by 2035.
The authors in California acknowledge that lab-grown meat ventures have attracted around $2 billion of investment to date. Early reports on feasibility were bullish with some predicting a 60-70% displacement of beef by 2030-2040. But of late, sentiment has waned with more conservative estimates noting a 0.5% share of meat products by 2030. As noted, the huge problem in producing lab meat is the presence of endotoxin which is said have a variety of side effects including harm to in vitro fertilisation. In pharmaceutical labs, animal cell culture is traditional done with endotoxin having been removed. There are many ways to remove the unwanted substance, but the use of these refinement methods “contributes significantly to the economic and environmental costs associated with pharmaceutical products since they are both energy and resource intensive”.
The study also highlights concerns about past scientific consideration of lab-grown meat. There is said to be “high levels of uncertainty in their results and the lack of accounting for endotoxin removal”. It is further noted that despite researchers “clearly reporting high levels of uncertainty”, the results were often cited as clear evidence for the sustainability of lab-grown meat.
So a much-touted green Frankenstein food solution – arguably to a problem only promoted in alarmist circles – looks to be biting the dust, sweeping away a billion or two of credulous capital in the process. As the authors note, investing in scaling this technology “before solving key issues like developing an environmentally friendly method for endotoxin removal… would be counter to the environmental goals which this sector has espoused”.
*
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.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
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.
***
June 12, 2023 was the third anniversary of the illegal kidnapping and imprisonment by the US of Alex Saab.
Because the brutality and cruelty of the US blockade was wreaking havoc on the economy and millions of the most vulnerable in Venezuela were being deliberately denied their human rights to the most basic necessities of daily life, President Nicolas Maduro tasked Saab with travelling around the world procuring food, medicines and fuel for his country.
Breaking every treaty, protocol, law and norm of international diplomacy, the US plotted to have Saab arrested while in transit to Iran to fulfil his diplomatic mission, by pressing the Cape Verde government to illegally arrest him on June 12, 2020.
The plane Saab was travelling on was denied refuelling in Morocco and Senegal thus being forced to land in Cape Verde. In his book, Never Give An Inch (2023), Donald Trump’s secretary of state Mike Pompeo admits as much:
“No other nation has the global reach to interrupt an Iran-Venezuela plot in real time and convince a small island nation to hold a wanted man.”
In March 2019, when Venezuela suffered a national blackout caused by a cybernetic attack on the national grid, Pompeo tweeted:
“No food. No medicine. Now, no power. Next, no Maduro.”
The arrest of Saab was central to the US attempt to block the supply of food, medicine and fuel to Venezuela right in the middle of the Covid pandemic. The charges against Saab are rooted in the US’s regime change policy against the Venezuelan government.
Saab’s detention in Cape Verde was carried out without a warrant and with an Interpol red notice received by Cape Verde only after his unlawful arrest.
Additionally, he was appallingly treated as verified personally by the president of the National Human Rights Commission of Cape Verde Zeida Freitas, who observed that Saab had “bruises, cuts on his wrists and ankles, and loss of teeth.” Worse still, he was denied access to medical care despite being a cancer survivor.
The Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) declared Saab’s detention “arbitrary and unlawful” in March 2021, ordered his immediate release, an end to the extradition process and compensation for damages caused. The UN human rights commission (UNHRC) asked Cape Verde to suspend the extradition of Saab to the US while they looked at his case.
Despite this, and despite the fact there is no extradition policy between Cape Verde and the US, Saab was extradited to the US.
The extradition was carried out before the October 17 Cape Verde elections, in which presidential candidate Jose Maria Nieves had announced that upon becoming president he would act as ordered by the Ecowas ruling. Nieves won the election with a 51.7 per cent majority, but it was too late for Saab.
Under heavy pressure, Cape Verde ignored Ecowas and the UNHRC, and on October 16 a special US military force extracted Saab to Miami, where Judge Robert Scola charged him with eight counts of conspiracy to launder money, later reduced to one, a crime that carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
After a three-year investigation, a prosecutor in Geneva found no evidence of money laundering offences against Saab, therefore declaring his innocence. Furthermore, the alleged crime would have been committed outside US territory, over which Washington has no legal jurisdiction. Yet despite utterly failing to produce any evidence whatsoever, the Florida court (read: the US State Department) continues with the cruel farce of keeping Saab in prison.
Femi Falana, one of Saab’s lawyers, hit the nail on the head when she declared:
“Never before has politically motivated judicial overreach been deployed with such arrogance as in the way the US has treated Alex Saab.”
The Saab affair, being a case of brazen lawfare, is significant in that it gravely jeopardises the international order and the viability of diplomacy. No diplomat, no matter the country, is safe.
In a letter to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Saab’s wife Camilla Fabri wrote:
“The charges against him must be dropped and his diplomatic immunity respected.”
The only legal and moral course of action for the US government to take is to immediately and unconditionally release Venezuela’s special envoy.
*
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: Alex Saab, after his arrest in Florida, October 16 2021 (left) and (right) Venezuelans protest at US sanctions imposed on them during the Covid crisis, May 2021 (Source: Morning Star)
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 June 4, a group referring to itself as the “Polish Volunteer Corps” issued a boastful announcement confirming its participation in a series of cross-border ground offensives into Russia. News of these audacious raids was jarring enough, given the many prior assurances of U.S. and Ukrainian war planners, who insisted no attacks would be carried out inside Russian territory. It was all the more conspicuous that the incursion units were apparently comprised of Polish soldiers.
Poland, of course, is not only a NATO member state, but the NATO member state with which the U.S. has most assiduously aligned itself since Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine (Polish government officials deny any formal connection to the “Polish Volunteer Corps”). So the raids raised an obvious, yet oft-neglected question: Just what the hell is U.S. policy in Ukraine?
If you turn on the TV, you’ll find pundits on every channel loyally reciting from memory the broad parameters of the U.S. mission—at least as it’s being conveyed in daily rhetorical flourishes by Biden Administration officials, assorted Congressional chest-thumpers, and brave think tank warriors. Freedom and autocracy are locked in a great cosmic battle of good versus evil, or so goes the usual storyline—most often narrated with a degree of moral complexity that can be generously compared to a lower-tier Marvel Movie.
But apart from this steady stream of heavily recycled platitudes, was it ever plainly disclosed to Americans—the chief financial sponsors of the Ukraine war effort, after all—that the scope of the war effort they’ve found themselves subsidizing would eventually expand to include platoons of Polish soldiers marching straight into Russia? Did anyone back in Washington, D.C. sign off on this, or was there ever an opportunity granted for public consideration of its potentially foreboding implications?
At least in theory, the U.S. is treaty-bound to come to the defense of Poland in the event of armed attack. And while Poland may nominally disavow the Polish Volunteer Corps, a Polish journalist writing for Poland’s largest digital publication says he was in attendance at a founding organizational meeting in Kyiv this past February, during which the unit was established not as a ragtag group of untested amateurs, but as an elite “sabotage and reconnaissance” force—which from the get-go was “reporting directly to the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine.” Per this account, the unit was to consist of Poland’s “most experienced soldiers,” with notable imprecision as to where specifically those soldiers hailed from.
Then there’s the fact that shortly before the formation of the “Polish Volunteer Corps,” a cross-coalition bill was submitted to the Polish parliament which would make it legal for Polish nationals to fight in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The war against Russia was to be recognized as “a special situation from the point of view of the national security of the Republic of Poland,” the text reads, “requiring non-standard political and legislative actions on the part of the state.”
The “Polish Volunteer Corps” has been conducting joint operations with the “Russian Volunteer Corps,” another fully integrated “special unit within the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine”—euphemistically referred to in “Western” media headlines with plausible-deniability monikers like “Pro-Ukraine group of partisans.” Given how these ostensibly unattached “partisans” have been bragging about taking Russian hostages and otherwise getting themselves involved in increasingly spectacular, provocative attacks, one understands why Ukraine might wish to sustain plausible deniability.
“The ground war has come to Russia,” proclaimed one Polish state-backed media organ at the news that their soldiers had breached the border.
For many, the footage provided an occasion for rapturous joy, awash as they are in the primal euphoria of armed retribution. Meanwhile, these elite soldiers billed as “volunteers” have been razing Russian border settlements with U.S.-provided weaponry, according to the New York Timesand Washington Post. The units “lobbed shells and missiles on residential areas,” the Times reported, and they appeared to be aiming their attacks at “no apparent military target.”
Convoys of armored vehicles called MRAPs, initially produced for U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, were observed barreling into Russia from Ukraine, with still no explanation forthcoming as to how precisely they wound up there. Maybe someone in Kyiv just happened to leave a garage full of U.S. supplied armored vehicles unlocked. Either way, the Ukraine military was conclusively shown to have used U.S. weapons to attack Russia—the very thing President Biden and other administration officials have emphatically maintained they do not support and are not enabling.
Strangely though, this revelation of systematic government deception doesn’t seem to have moved the needle much in terms of the wider debate over U.S. involvement in Ukraine. Donald Trump could misstate the temperature outside by half-a-degree Farenheit and the entire U.S. media would be falling over themselves to piously accuse him of “lying”—but pile up mounds of incontrovertible evidence that Americans have been chronically deceived about a sprawling U.S. military intervention, and you’ll mostly get eye-rolls from the savvy-minded commentariat. That is, if you’re fortunate enough to be spared the standard sneering accusations of “Russian propagandist.”
Speaking of claims that might arguably be considered “propaganda,” almost exactly one year ago, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky embarked on a U.S. media tour promising Americans from the bottom of his heart that “We are not planning to attack Russia.” These claims were echoed simultaneously by President Biden, who insisted that “We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders.”
Yet here we are a year later, and there’s no longer any reasonable doubt that Ukraine is “striking beyond its borders,” and in increasingly aggressive fashion—from the cross-border raids to the drone-strike on the Kremlin to the bombing barrage on a residential Moscow neighborhood. And that’s only a smattering of examples from the past several weeks.
Still, it’s harder than one might expect to rouse much critical interest—especially among a media that has been politically, ideologically, and emotionally invested in Ukraine’s glorious war-fighting cause from the outset. One perfect example of late was a CNN article in which “senior U.S. officials” were reported confiding that while they had “condemned the strikes inside Russia,” they of course privately “believe the cross-border attacks are a smart military strategy.” A state official saying one thing in public but another in private used to be the most surefire sign of official deceit a journalist could hope to uncover. Yet CNN seemed to just let it flow by like a gentle spring breeze, almost as though they were actually impressed with the guile of the “senior U.S. officials” they’d been given the honor of anonymously paraphrasing.
As it stands, the U.S. government continuously pelts the American people with provable untruths in service of maintaining a war policy that bears almost no resemblance to how it was initially presented. And in the sectors of society allegedly tasked with scrutinizing government conduct, this is mostly met with a shrug.
How much more extreme does the deception need to get before sustained pushback is no longer avoidable?
If Polish soldiers launching a self-proclaimed “ground war” in Russia isn’t enough to rattle off the complacency, one shudders to think how severe of a shock would be necessary.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Michael Tracey is an independent reporter with Substack. Follow him on Twitter @mtracey.
Featured image: Polish Volunteer Corps in Ukraine emblem (Licensed under 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.
***
There is a revealing difference between the peace proposals for the Russo-Ukrainian War that come from the Global South and peace proposals that come from the NATO-aligned West. For starters, no peace proposals have come from the West, while several have come from the Global South. But when the West talks of a negotiated settlement, they insist on Russia losing the war, granting the essential concessions first and only then negotiating the enforcement. The Global South just wants the killing to stop: first stop the war, then negotiate the settlement.
The West has made its position clear at every stage: don’t call for a ceasefire or negotiate during the war. First defeat Russia, then hold talks to impose a settlement. In the early days of the war, when Ukraine was willing to negotiate an end to the fighting, then-United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson was quick to scold Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky that Russian President Vladimir Putin “should be pressured, not negotiated with.” He added that, even if Ukraine was ready to sign some agreements with Russia, “the West was not.”
The West refuses to negotiate during the war. “Now we see Moscow suggesting that diplomacy take place at the barrel of a gun or as Moscow’s rockets, mortars, artillery target the Ukrainian people. This is not real diplomacy,” State Department spokesperson Ned Priceexplained.
“Those are not the conditions for real diplomacy.” Don’t stop the war by negotiating peace, first win the war, then negotiate. “If President Putin is serious about diplomacy,” Price said, “he knows what he can do. He should immediately stop the bombing campaign against civilians [and] order the withdrawal of his forces from Ukraine.”
When China put forward a twelve point peace proposal, the United States dismissed points two through twelve and insisted that the proposal should “stop at point one.” Point one said that “[t]he sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries must be effectively upheld.” The American script was clear: first Russia concedes and gives into Western demands, then discuss the peace proposal. “My first reaction to it,” U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivanscoffed, “is that it could stop at point one, which is to respect the sovereignty of all nations.” Reading from the same script, Blinken quipped, “If they were serious about the first one, sovereignty, then this war could end tomorrow.”
It is a novel theory of diplomacy that you don’t negotiate with enemies at times of war. When else do you negotiate? Who else do you negotiate with? Is it diplomacy if it is just imposing the result you won by war?
When point three of the Chinese proposal suggested “ceasing hostilities,” the United States rejected it. The Chinese proposal says that “Conflict and war benefit no one,” and requests that “All parties should support Russia and Ukraine in working in the same direction and resuming direct dialogue as quickly as possible, so as to gradually deescalate the situation and ultimately reach a comprehensive ceasefire.” But the U.S. did not want to resume dialogue “as quickly as possible.” National Security Council spokesperson John Kirbyexplained that “a ceasefire, at this time, while that may sound good, we do not believe would have that effect,” it would not be “a step towards a just and durable peace.” He then clearly stated that “we don’t support calls for a ceasefire right now.” Secretary of State Antony Blinkencalled the peace proposal a “tactical move by Russia” that was “supported by China” and warned that “the world should not be fooled.”
The Global South sees diplomacy differently. Where the West wants to continue the fighting to allow talks, the Global South wants to stop the fighting to allow talks.
On May 16, South African President Cyril Ramaphosaannounced that he had held phone calls with Putin and Zelensky, who both agreed to separately receive a delegation of African heads of state in their capitals to discuss a possible peace plan to end the war. Joining South Africa in the delegation will be Senegal, Uganda, Egypt, the Republic of the Congo, and Zambia. In opposition to Western demands that Russian troops withdraw from Ukrainian territory as a condition for talks to begin, the African heads of state “propose that Ukraine accept opening peace talks with Russia even as Russian troops remain on its soil.” Reversing the order of the West’s agenda, South African Presidency Spokesman Vincent Magwenya said, “First is the cessation of hostilities. Second is a framework for lasting peace.”
Brazil has also “pressed for a truce.” And on June 3, Indonesia offered a peace plan that, like those offered by China, Africa and Brazil, placed the ceasefire first on the agenda to allow for the talks that would follow. Indonesia’s proposal calls for a ceasefire first, then the creation of a de-militarized buffer zone, followed by referendums that would allow the people of the “disputed territories” to democratically determine the post war boundaries.
The West, once again, rejected the order of business on the agenda. “I will try to be polite,” Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov responded, “It sounds like a Russian plan…We don’t need these mediators suggesting such a strange plan.” Josep Borrell, the European Union high representative for foreign policy, asked that there be a “just peace,” not a “peace of surrender.”
But how is the Indonesian proposal “strange” or a “peace of surrender”? A senior Biden administration official toldThe Washington Post, “African leaders have made clear to White House and administration officials that they simply want an end to the war.” The official acknowledged that Africa and the United States “disagree on what tactics to use to get to a settlement…as the Africans oppose the idea of punishing Russia or insisting that Kyiv must agree to any resolution.” Africa stresses diplomacy first; the West stresses victory first. While “The Africans want to see a diplomatic solution to this conflict,” the West wants “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine,” according to the official.
The Global South wants a lasting end to what they see as a European war and the global hardships it causes. They do not seek to punish Russia and defend democracy partly because they do not believe this is a war for the triumph of democracy over autocracy or a Manichean war between good and evil. It is just a devastating war that needs to be stopped. Africa remembers Western colonialism and their sponsored coups. And Indonesia’s Defense Minister, Prabowo Subianto, upon introducing Indonesia’s peace proposal, reminded the West, “We in Asia have our share of conflict and war, maybe more disastrous, more bloody than what has been experienced in Ukraine…Ask Vietnam, ask Cambodia, ask Indonesians how many times we’ve been invaded.” He might have added to ask Indonesia about the half a million to a million Indonesians who were slaughtered with the complicity of the United States.
The Global South has a very different view than the West that gives shape to a very different view on how to end the war. Most obviously, while the West refuses to push the warring parties to negotiate an end to the war and has offered no peace proposals, the Global South is pushing hard for an end to the war and has offered several peace proposals. Unlike the West who favors winning the war before allowing diplomatic talks, the Global South favors a ceasefire that would stop the war as soon as possible in order to allow diplomatic talks.
*
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 Snider is a regular columnist on US foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
In an interview with NBC News, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky attacked former President Donald Trump’s pledge to end the war. He argued that if Kiev does not defeat Moscow, Russia will attack a NATO member state and force the US into a direct conflict.
Zelensky was asked about Trump’s claim he would immediately engage the Kremlin in talks and bring the war to a negotiated settlement.
“Are they ready to start a war to send their children? Are they ready to die?” he said in the interview that was published on Thursday. “If Russia occupies Ukraine, they will move on to the Baltic countries, to Poland, to any NATO country, and in that particular case the U.S. will have to choose between dismantling NATO or fighting.”
Kiev and hawks in Washington have asserted that Ukraine is a bulwark, protecting members of NATO from Moscow’s expansionist ambitions. However, there is no evidence that the Kremlin eyes attacking another country. Russian President Vladimir Putin views Ukraine as a unique security threat to his county and says seizing territory protects Moscow against the expanding NATO alliance.
Ukraine hopes to be added as a member of the alliance once the war is over.
“We need an invitation, and it needs to be clear that after this war, if we are ready, and if the Ukraine army is ready to NATO standards, then after the war we will be invited to join.” Zelensky continued, “It’s very important to hear the truth and not tell us lies.”
In 2008, Ukraine was told it would one day receive full NATO membership. At the time, Moscow denounced the proposal, saying it violated red lines and, from the Russian perspective, would create a significant security threat.
Despite the Russian objections, NATO maintains its doors are open to new members, but Ukraine does not currently meet the requirements. As Kiev is currently at war with Moscow, admitting Ukraine into the alliance will put NATO in direct confrontation with Russia.
At times, Kiev appears to be frustrated with NATO refusing to make a formal commitment to Ukraine. Zelensky is threatening to sit out a coming meeting of the North Atlantic alliance in July because Ukraine will not receive a pledge to become a member at the end of the war.
Zelensky went on to slam Trump, claiming he was unable to end the war in Ukraine while he was in office.
“Why didn’t he do that earlier? He was president when the war was going on here,” he explained. “I think he couldn’t do that. I think there are no people today in the world who could just have a word with Putin and end the war.”
The statement appears to be an admission from Zelensky that the war in Ukraine began before the Russian invasion in 2022. Prior to the Russian invasion, Ukraine was embroiled in an eight-year-long civil war. Washington and NATO justify their support for Kiev by saying the Russian invasion was “unprovoked.”
The Minsk Accords were agreed to by Ukraine, Russia, Germany and France with the intention of ending the civil war. However, Zelensky was unable to get neo-nazi paramilitaries fighting for Ukraine to comply with the agreement. In the days before the Russian invasion, there was a surge in fighting between Ukrainian forces and rebels in the Donbas region.
*
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.
***
Most people agree that we are closer to nuclear war than at any time since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Some would even argue that we are closer now than we were in those fateful days, when Soviet missiles in Cuba almost triggered a nuclear war between the US and the USSR.
In those days we were told that we were in a life-or-death struggle with Communism and thus could not cede a square foot of territory or the dominoes would fall one-by-one until the “Reds” ruled over us.
That crisis was very real to me, as I was drafted into the military in the middle of the US/USSR standoff over Cuba and we could all feel how close we were to annihilation.
Fortunately, we had a president in the White House at the time who understood the dangers of nuclear brinkmanship. Even though he was surrounded by hawks who could never forgive him for aborting the idiotic Bay of Pigs Cuba invasion, President John F. Kennedy picked up the telephone for a discussion with his Soviet counterpart, Nikita Khrushchev, which eventually saved the world.
Historians now tell us that President Kennedy agreed to remove US missiles from Turkey in exchange for the Soviets removing missiles from Cuba. It was a classic case of how diplomacy can work if properly employed.
It is all too clear that we do not have a John F. Kennedy in the White House today. Although we no longer face a Soviet empire and communist ideology as justification for taking a confrontational tone toward Russia, the Biden Administration is still dragging the US toward a nuclear conflict. Why are they putting us all at risk? The same old “domino theory” that was discredited in the Cold War: If we don’t fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian, Putin will soon be marching through Berlin.
This all started with Biden promising to only send uniforms and medical supplies to Ukraine for fear of sparking a Russian retaliation. From there we went to anti-tank missiles, multiple-rocket launchers, Patriot missiles, Bradley fighting vehicles, and millions of rounds of ammunition. The Biden Administration announced last week that it would send depleted uranium ammunition to Ukraine, which poisons the earth for millennia to come. Rumors are that long-range ATACMs missiles are to be delivered soon, which could strike deep into Russia.
Apparently, F-16 fighter jets are also on the way.
The escalation rationale from Washington, we are told, is that since the Russians have not directly retaliated against NATO for NATO’s direct support of Ukraine’s war machine, we can be sure they never will respond.
Is that really a wise bet? It is clear to many that US-built F-16 fighters taking off from NATO bases with NATO pilots attacking Russians in Ukraine – or even Russia itself – would be a declaration of war on Russia.
That means World War III – something we managed to avoid for the whole Cold War.
Congress is silent – or compliant – as we lurch forward toward disaster for no discernable US strategic goal. Biden – or whoever is actually running the show – is forging straight ahead.
As we move into the US presidential election cycle one thing is clear: we desperately need a peace president to do for us what JFK did for the US during the Cuba crisis. Hopefully it won’t be 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.
Featured image: Peace protest at the White House – Photo credit: iacenter.org
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 went to a flower shop to purchase a bouquet – during the time of mandates and masks – and because I was unmasked I was asked to step outside”
To a psychoanalyst memories are a stock in trade, common coin, the currency of every session, and we tend to regard every reported memory never as actual indubitable truth, but as an amalgam of wish, fantasy, fact and emotion, an amalgam that drew across the lifespan to result in the ‘remembered’ event, a phenomenon that could conceal other memories and also lead to new insights. In short, memories are the stuff of a kind of dream.
It is doubtful – though, perhaps, given the mind and brain’s complexities, possible – that we have stored every perception of our earthly experience, somehow, somewhere. But no matter how many times I drive along a certain highway I could never, if pressed, reproduce with complete accuracy a comprehensive picture of what I perceive. Instead I will remember road signs, junctions, turning points, just as, when reviewing my life I remember certain nodal events. In fact I am often surprised when in company a person may remind me of something I did or said years ago about which I have no memory – because it held no importance to me, because it was too threatening, or because nothing really registered? I don’t know.
What I do think I know is that memories require some sort of nourishment over the years, a calling up, a reinvestment and a reliving, in the quietness of thought, to stay alive, and memories may even grow as newer experiences resonate with the old. It’s as if they require care and watering like a plant, and with enough memories tended we may find ourselves within a pastoral glade that demarcates our life lived.
This past week I learned, quite by chance, of the death of a friend, a friend with whom I had lost contact for many years but who had probably been the most influential person of my young manhood.
You see, in these covidian times, whose long shadow stretches into our futures, I wanted to see how he was faring, I wanted to see if perhaps I might visit him when or if I returned to the States. The friendship we shared for a very bright and very intense year abroad as students at a foreign university had a kind of force that never – for me, at least – dissipated, regardless whether we spoke or met during the afteryears, which was hardly at all.
But I remembered him well, I remembered our times together, our competitions, our sports and our work in theatre, our studying, our jokes, I remembered a trip we took to Belfast during the troubles to find the divisive graffiti and barricades and armed British soldiers in that forbidding city, and a visit to a pub where but for the grace of our naivete we escaped without harm. I am, in fact, surprised by the plethora of very specific memories I harbor, which signifies to me the importance of our relationship and its enduring effect upon my life, because this friend was a paragon of very hard work and idealism.
If someone, years from now, asks me about these past three Covidian years, one particular memory comes to mind. I went to a flower shop to purchase a bouquet – during the time of mandates and masks – and because I was unmasked I was asked to step outside. I asked the proprietress why, given that I had an official, if absurd, ‘mask exemption’, and she told me that she needed to protect her daughter, at home, who suffered from an immune problem. When I tried to tell her that the masks did nothing to protect her, or me, or anybody else, she turned, flustered, away, and retreated back into the bowels of her store. I left.
Sure, there are other memories I can conjure during the vax apartheid here in Wellington – some joyful, too, about the new friends I made and the gatherings we had – but for some reason this one serves as the exemplar.
And as for my friend, I learned that he died suddenly near the end of 2021. This is fact, not memory. I cannot and will not ask the question of the loved ones he left behind, I don’t want to know.
It has all hit home.
*
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/
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
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 think it best that I begin with the end. On March 1, I and dozens of Dan’s friends and fellow activists received a two-page notice that he had been diagnosed with incurable pancreatic cancer and was refusing chemotherapy because the prognosis, even with chemo, was dire. He will be ninety-two in April.
Last November, over a Thanksgiving holiday spent with family in Berkeley, I drove a few miles to visit Dan at the home in neighboring Kensington he has shared for decades with his wife Patricia. My intent was to yack with him for a few hours about our mutual obsession, Vietnam. More than fifty years later, he was still pondering the war as a whole, and I was still trying to understand the My Lai massacre. I arrived at 10 am and we spoke without a break—no water, no coffee, no cookies—until my wife came to fetch me, and to say hello and visit with Dan and Patricia. She left, and I stayed a few more minutes with Dan, who wanted to show me his library of documents that could have gotten him a long prison term. Sometime around 6 pm—it was getting dark—Dan walked me to my car, and we continued to chat about the war and what he knew—oh, the things he knew—until I said I had to go and started the car. He then said, as he always did, “You know I love you, Sy.”
So this is a story about a tutelage that began in the summer of 1972, when Dan and I first connected. I have no memory of who called whom, but I was then at the New York Times and Dan had some inside information on White House horrors he wanted me to chase down—stuff that had not been in the Pentagon Papers.
Image: Daniel Ellsberg, co-defendant in the Pentagon Papers case, talks to the media outside the Federal Building in Los Angeles on April 28, 1973. [Source: nbcnews.com]
I was planning to write about my friendship with Dan after he passed away but last weekend my youngest son reminded me that he still had some of the magic trick materials that Dan had delighted him with in the mid-1980s, when Dan was crashing with our family, as he often did when visiting Washington. “Why not write about him now?” he asked. Why not?
I first learned of Dan’s importance in the summer of 1971, when he was outed for delivering the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times a few weeks after the newspaper began a series of shattering stories about the disconnect between what we were told and what really had been going on. Those papers remain today the most vital discussion of a war from the inside. Even after the New York Times exposures, their seven thousand pages would be rarely read in full.
I was then working for the New Yorker on a Vietnam project and had learned that it was Dan who did the leaking a week or so before his name became public. His outing was inevitable, and on June 26, after hiding out in Cambridge, Dan strolled to the U.S Attorney’s office in Boston—there were scores of journalists waiting—and had a brief chat with the reporters before turning himself in for what all expected would be the trial of the decade. He told the crowd that he hoped that “the truth will free us of this war.” And then, as he fought his way to the courthouse steps, a reporter asked him how he felt about going to prison. His response struck me then and still makes me tingle: “Wouldn’t you go to prison to help end this war?”
I had done my bit in exposing the My Lai massacre and publishing a book about it in 1970. I was then in the process of writing a second book on the Army’s cover-up of the slaughter. “Hell, no,” I thought to myself, “No way I would go to jail—especially for telling an unwanted truth.” I followed Ellsberg’s subsequent trial in a Los Angeles federal court and even wrote about the wrongdoing of the White House creeps who broke into the office of Ellsberg’s psychoanalyst—at the request of President Nixon. (The government’s case was thrown out after the extent of the White House-ordered spying on Ellsberg became public.)
It was early in the election year summer of 1972 when Ellsberg and I got in touch with each other. I was banging away on the losing Vietnam war and CIA misdeeds for the Times. Nixon looked like a sure thing, despite continuing the hated war, because of stumble after stumble for the campaign of the Democratic nominee, Senator George McGovern. Dan had two stories that he thought could change the dynamics of the November election.
I liked him right off the bat. He was so earnest, so bright, as handsome as a movie star, and so full of the kind of inside information about the Vietnam War that few others had. And so willing to share them with no worry about the consequences. He understood that as the source of highly secret information and procedures he was taking all the risks and that as a reporter I was going to write stories that would get acclaim and put me at no risk. At some point in our chats, I brought him home for a good meal. His campaign against the Vietnam War was literally consuming him, and he immediately engaged with my wife and our two small children. He did magic tricks, he was marvelous on the piano—Dan could play the Beatles and Beethoven—and he connected with all of us. Our friendship was locked in—forever. I confess that late at night—we were both night owls—he and I would walk the dog and find time to sit on a curb somewhere and smoke a few Thai sticks. How Dan always managed to have a supply of these joints from Southeast Asia I chose not to ask. He would talk about all the sealed and locked secret files of the Vietnam War that he could recall, with his photographic memory, in near perfect detail.
In the early 1980s I was writing a long and very critical book about Henry Kissinger’s sordid days as Nixon’s national security adviser and secretary of State, with a focus on Vietnam. At one point, Dan spent more than a week in our home, rising at 6 am to read the 2,300 pages of typed manuscript. He understood that I did not want his analyses or disagreements with my conclusions, but only factual errors. One morning Dan told me I had misread a mid-1960s Washington Post piece on the war by Joe Kraft, whose column was then a must-read. I argued, and he was adamant. So I drove downtown to my office, dug through boxes of files and found the column. Dan had remembered the details of a two-decade-old column in a daily newspaper. His memory was scary.
There were two White House abuses he wanted me to expose before the presidential election in the fall of 1972. Dan told me that Nixon and Kissinger—for whom Dan had written an important early policy paper after he was appointed national security adviser—had been wiretapping aides and cabinet members. The second tip Dan had for me was that Kissinger had ordered some of his aides to produce a plan for using tactical nuclear weapons in South Vietnam, in case they were needed to end the war on American terms. If I could get one or two sources—by this time there were a number of former Kissinger aides who had quietly resigned over the Vietnam War—on the record, Dan said, it just might get the Democrats into office. It was the longest of long shots, but I tried like hell all summer to find someone who had firsthand information, as Dan did not, and who was willing to confirm Dan’s information, even if on background. Of course, it was understood I would have to tell Abe Rosenthal, executive editor of the Times, who my off-the-record source was.
It was a lousy summer for me, because there were a few former Kissinger aides who easily confirmed Dan’s information, but would not agree to my providing their names to the Times. In one case, with a very decent guy who very much hoped he would get a senior job in a future administration, I came close, aided by the fact that his wife—I always conducted such visits at night—said to her husband, “Oh, for God’s sakes just tell him the truth.” She said it over and over. Talk about a painful experience. Needless to say, their marriage did not last long. The wife’s anger that the truth was not being told helped me understand Dan’s obsession with a war whose worst elements were simply not known to the public. I wasn’t able to get any source on the record in time for the election, but in subsequent years I did get the stories.
There was one story Dan told me in late 1993 that seemed to capture the secret life on the inside of a major war. He had gone back and forth on short missions to South Vietnam while working as a senior State Department official, but he jumped at a chance in mid-1965 to join a team in Saigon committed to pacification—winning hearts and minds—of the villagers in the South. Its leader was Ed Lansdale, a CIA hero of counterinsurgency for his earlier efforts in routing communist insurgents in the Philippines.
I always took good notes in my meetings with Dan, not because I planned to write about him at some point—I knew he would write his own memoirs—but because I was getting a seminar on how things really worked on the inside. Read his words, and you can judge for yourself how complicated life could be at the top.
“In 1965,” Dan began, “I had done a study of the Cuban missile crisis and I had four operational clearances above top secret, including U-2 clearances” and National Security Agency clearances. He had also interviewed Bobby Kennedy two times about his role in the crisis. Ellsberg’s clearances were so sacrosanct that he was supposed to register in a special office upon arrival in Saigon and from then on he would not be allowed to travel outside of Saigon without an armored car or in a two-engine airplane or better. He got around the system by not deigning to register, a rarity in a world of war where top secret clearances were seen by many as evidence of machismo.
And so Ellsberg went off to work in Saigon with Lansdale. “For one and one half years,” Ellsberg said, “I spent nearly every evening listening to Lansdale talk about his covert operations in the Philippines and earlier in North Vietnam in the 1950s. By this time I’d been working with secrets for years and thought I knew what kind of secrets could be kept from whom. I also thought Ed and I had a good working knowledge of each other and our secrets. Every piece of information was cataloged in your mind and you knew to whom you could say and what you could say. In all of this, Jack Kennedy was mentioned and so was Bobby, but there was no mention by Lansdale of Cuba and no mention that Lansdale had ever worked for Jack and Bobby Kennedy.”
A decade later, after both Kennedy brothers had been assassinated, I wrote a series for the New York Times on the CIA’s spying on hundreds of thousands of American anti-Vietnam war protesters, members of Congress and reporters—all in direct violation of the agency’s 1947 charter barring any domestic activity. It led to the establishment of the Senate’s Church Committee in 1975. It was the most extensive Congressional inquiry into the activities of the CIA since the agency’s beginning. The committee exposed the assassination activities of the CIA, operations undertaken on orders that clearly came from Jack and Bobby Kennedy, although no direct link was published in the committee’s final report. But the committee reported extensively on a secret group authorized by Jack Kennedy and run by his brother Bobby to come up with options to terrorize Cuba and assassinate Fidel Castro. The covert operation had the code name Mongoose. And it was led, the committee reported, in 1961 and 1962 by Ed Lansdale.
Ellsberg told me he was flabbergasted. “When I heard about Lansdale and Mongoose,” he said, “it revealed to me an ability to keep secrets on an insider level that went far beyond what I had imagined. It was like discovering your next-door neighbor and your weekend fishing companion”—Ellsberg, it should be noted, never went fishing in his life—“and close, dear friend who, when he died, turned out to have been the secretary of State.
“It was astounding, because Mongoose was exactly the kind of operation I’d expected to hear about from Lansdale. He told about covert operations all the time. I think Ed had been told by President Kennedy to ‘keep his fucking mouth shut.’
“When you’ve been in a system with as high a level as possible of secrecy, you understand that things do get talked about. And you get a sense of what is usually held back. I was hearing all about other covert operations, but somebody—not Landsdale—had put a lid on Mongoose.”
After the assassination of Jack Kennedy, Ellsberg theorized, “any far reaching investigation into his death would have to lead to many covert operations.” His point was that there was no evidence that the Warren Commission set up to investigate the assassination had done so.
In all of Dan’s many hours of tutoring, as I understood years later, he understood and empathized with my eagerness—even my need—to learn all that I could about his world of secrets and lies, things said out loud and hidden in top-secret documents. And so he happily became my tutor and taught me where and how to look inside the recessed corners of the American intelligence community.
In return, I gave him my friendship and welcomed him into my family. He loved long talks with my wife, a doctor, teaching the kids magic tricks, and playing Billy Joel songs and similar stuff on the piano for them. We all sensed early on that there was a need for him to be an innocent kid, too, if only to serve as a brief respite from his constant anxiety and the guilt he carried in his soul about what his America had done to the Vietnamese people.
Dan was showing me an insider’s love, just as he and Patricia radiated love and acceptance to all their many friends and admirers who, like me, will never forget the lessons he taught us and what we learned.
No way I’m going to wait for him to move along without saying what I want to say right now.
To watch Ellsberg speaking to a press conference on New Year’s Eve 1971, click here. To watch the 2009 documentary on Ellsberg, The Most Dangerous Man in America, click here.
*
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: Daniel Ellsberg at a press conference in New York City, 1972.
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 Irish government recently proposed reducing Irish cow herds by 10% over the next three years to meet the European Union’s climate change targets, which includes a 25% reduction in emissions from farming by 2030
Properly raised and grazed livestock have a tremendously beneficial impact on ecological health and local microclimate
When land is left barren, it changes the microclimate on that swath of land. Two-thirds of the landmass on earth are already desertifying, which is why macroclimate is also impacted
While climate activists claim they’re promoting a “green” agenda, everything they propose suggests otherwise. Instead of transitioning factory farming into a regenerative model, which we know works wonders, they’re willfully ignoring the laws of nature upon which organic and sustainable environmentalism are based
The war on climate change, as currently fought, is ultimately a war on humanity itself
*
The war on climate change, as currently fought, is ultimately a war on humanity itself, and the evidence for this is stacking up by the day. It began with nitrogen fertilizer restrictions1 in the summer of 2022, which alone is driving farmers out of business, and has now progressed to the needless culling of livestock — all in the name of combating climate change.
But what difference will climate have if there’s no food production? Without food, humanity dies. End of story. Of course, the unspoken plan is to replace all of these banned natural foods with genetically engineered lab-created fare, but that’s not going to do our health any favors, so humanity will still be facing extinction, just a slower and more excruciating one.
Culling Cows to Meet Climate Change Goals
In Ireland, the government recently proposed reducing Irish cow herds by 10% over the next three years to meet the European Union’s climate change targets,2 which include a 25% reduction in emissions from farming by 2030.3 The same insanity is creeping into the U.S. as well. The EU is just on a faster track. As reported by Cowboy State Daily, June 2, 2023:4
“Climate activists are coming for livestock producers and farmers. European governments have been targeting the agriculture industry for several years … Ireland’s government may need to reduce that country’s cattle herds by 200,000 cows over the next three years to meet climate targets.
In an effort to reduce nitrogen pollution, Reuters reported the European Union last month approved a $1.6 billion Dutch plan to buy out livestock farmers. Now the Biden administration is targeting American agriculture.
Special President Envoy For Climate John Kerry recently warned at a climate summit for the U.S. Department of Agriculture that the human race’s need to produce food to survive creates 33% of the world’s total greenhouse gasses. ‘We can’t get to net-zero. We don’t get this job done unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution,’ Kerry said.”
Cattle Promote Ecological Health and Healthy Climate Cycles
With those words, Kerry shows his ignorance and lack of qualifications for the job as climate czar, as properly raised and grazed livestock have a tremendously beneficial impact on ecological health and local climate. As agricultural advocate Kacy Atkinson told Cowboy State Daily:5
“Groupthink happens a lot around the climate change conversation. We get tunnel visioned on one piece of it without considering the full ramifications of what’s going to happen if we remove cattle from the land. Cattle contribute to drought resistance, soil health and wildfire reduction.
Just before cattle were introduced to North America and the industry began raising them, there were thousands of buffalo roaming the plains. Cows and buffalo are both ruminants, which is a type of animal that brings back food from its stomach and chews it again.
These animals’ digestive systems produce methane emissions. Today’s cattle population is similar in numbers to that of the buffalo herds. So, the methane emissions from ruminant animals aren’t anything new.”
Only Certain Agricultural Practices Promote Climate Change
In the 2013 TED Talk above, ecologist and international consultant Allan Savory explains why and how grazing livestock are the solution to climate change. Erratic climate is in large part caused by desertification (when fertile land dries up and turns to desert), which is what current conventional agricultural practices encourage.
This situation can only be effectively reversed by dramatically increasing the number of grazing livestock, Savory says. In essence, it’s not an excess of livestock that are causing the problem, but that we have far too few, and the livestock we do have, we’ve not managed properly.
To improve soil quality, we must improve its ability to maintain water. Once land has turned to bone-dry desert, any rain simply evaporates and/or runs off. The solution is twofold: The ground must be covered with vegetation, and animals must roam across the land. The animals must be bunched and kept moving to avoid overgrazing, thereby mimicking the movement of large wild herds. The animals serve several crucial functions on the land, as they:
Graze on plants, exposing the plants’ growth points to sunlight, which stimulates growth
Trample the soil, which breaks capped earth allowing for aeration
Press seeds into the soil with their hooves, thereby increasing the chances of germination and diversity of plants
Press down dying and decaying grasses, allowing microorganisms in the soil to go to work to decompose the plant material
Fertilize the soil with their waste
The graphic below, which compares the carbon recycling of cows and fossil fuel emissions, is also instructive. The methane cows burp up eventually breaks down into carbon dioxide and water, both of which are taken up by plants. The carbon is then put back into the soil through the roots of the plants. This is the natural cycle, which benefits all life. Yet none of this ever makes it into the climate conversation.
Lesson Learned: The Unnecessary Massacre of 40,000 Elephants
In the TED Talk, Savory recounts how, as a young biologist, he was involved in setting aside large swaths of African land as national parks. This involved removing native tribes from the land to protect animals. Curiously, as soon as the natives were removed, the land began to deteriorate.
At that point, he became convinced that there were too many elephants, and a team of experts agreed. They then went on to cull some 40,000 elephants to reach a number they thought the land could sustain. Yet the land destruction only got worse. Savory calls the decision “the greatest blunder” of his life. Fortunately, the utter failure cemented his determination to dedicate his life to finding solutions.
Since then, studies have shown that whenever cattle are removed from an area to protect it from desertification, the opposite results. It gets worse. According to Savory, the reason for this is because we’ve completely misunderstood the causes of desertification.
We failed to realize that in seasonal humidity environments, the soil and vegetation developed with very large numbers of grazing animals meandering through. Along with these herds came ferocious pack hunting predators. The primary defense against these predators was the herd size. The larger the herd, the safer the individual animal within the herd.
These large herds deposited dung and urine all over the grasses (their food), and so they would keep moving from one area to the next. This constant movement of large herds naturally prevented overgrazing of plants, while periodic trampling ensured protective covering of the soil.
As explained by Savory, grasses must degrade biologically before the next growing season. This easily occurs if the grass is trampled into the ground. If it does not decay biologically, it shifts into oxidation — a very slow process that results in bare soil, which then ends up releasing carbon rather than trapping and storing it.
We’ve also failed to understand how desertification affects our global climate. He explains that barren earth is much cooler at dawn and much hotter at midday. When land is left barren, it changes the microclimate on that swath of land.
According to Savory, two-thirds of the landmass on earth is already desertifying, and “Once you’ve done that to more than half of the land mass on the planet, you’re changing macroclimate,” he says.
Culling Herds Won’t Benefit Climate
In response to the Cowboy State Daily article, Elon Musk tweeted, “This really needs to stop. Killing some cows doesn’t matter for climate change.”6 Indeed, to think that eliminating cattle will put an end to climate woes is rather ridiculous. Climate cycles have always existed and will continue to exist, even if all human and animal life on earth is removed.
Besides, real-world evidence such as that presented by Savory proves we need grazing livestock to normalize local microclimates. So, the true answer to undesired climate shifts would be to normalize local microclimates around the globe, and we do that by taking animals out of indoor factory conditions and out into the fields.
Lesson Learned: The Unnecessary Massacre of 40,000 Elephants
In the TED Talk, Savory recounts how, as a young biologist, he was involved in setting aside large swaths of African land as national parks. This involved removing native tribes from the land to protect animals. Curiously, as soon as the natives were removed, the land began to deteriorate.
At that point, he became convinced that there were too many elephants, and a team of experts agreed. They then went on to cull some 40,000 elephants to reach a number they thought the land could sustain. Yet the land destruction only got worse. Savory calls the decision “the greatest blunder” of his life. Fortunately, the utter failure cemented his determination to dedicate his life to finding solutions.
Since then, studies have shown that whenever cattle are removed from an area to protect it from desertification, the opposite results. It gets worse. According to Savory, the reason for this is because we’ve completely misunderstood the causes of desertification.
We failed to realize that in seasonal humidity environments, the soil and vegetation developed with very large numbers of grazing animals meandering through. Along with these herds came ferocious pack hunting predators. The primary defense against these predators was the herd size. The larger the herd, the safer the individual animal within the herd.
These large herds deposited dung and urine all over the grasses (their food), and so they would keep moving from one area to the next. This constant movement of large herds naturally prevented overgrazing of plants, while periodic trampling ensured protective covering of the soil.
As explained by Savory, grasses must degrade biologically before the next growing season. This easily occurs if the grass is trampled into the ground. If it does not decay biologically, it shifts into oxidation — a very slow process that results in bare soil, which then ends up releasing carbon rather than trapping and storing it.
We’ve also failed to understand how desertification affects our global climate. He explains that barren earth is much cooler at dawn and much hotter at midday. When land is left barren, it changes the microclimate on that swath of land.
According to Savory, two-thirds of the landmass on earth is already desertifying, and “Once you’ve done that to more than half of the land mass on the planet, you’re changing macroclimate,” he says.
Culling Herds Won’t Benefit Climate
In response to the Cowboy State Daily article, Elon Musk tweeted, “This really needs to stop. Killing some cows doesn’t matter for climate change.”6 Indeed, to think that eliminating cattle will put an end to climate woes is rather ridiculous. Climate cycles have always existed and will continue to exist, even if all human and animal life on earth is removed.
Besides, real-world evidence such as that presented by Savory proves we need grazing livestock to normalize local microclimates. So, the true answer to undesired climate shifts would be to normalize local microclimates around the globe, and we do that by taking animals out of indoor factory conditions and out into the fields.
*
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.
***
In 2004, the US Congress passed an amendment to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act known as Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). This piece of legislature legalized an anti-regulatory pathway to allow experimental medical interventions to be expedited without proper safety evaluation in the event of bioterrorist threats and national health emergencies such as pandemics. At the time, passage of the EUA amendment made sense because it was partially in response to the 2001 anthrax attacks and the US’s entry into an age of international terrorism. However, the amendment raises some serious considerations. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, EUAs had only been authorized on four occasions: the 2005 avian H5N1 and 2009 H1N1 swine flu, the 2014 Ebola and the 2016 Zikra viruses.
Each of these pathogen scares proved to be false alarms that posed no threat of any pandemic proportions to Americans. The fifth time EUAs were invoked was in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic, which seemed far more plausible than previous EUAs.
Before the government can authorize an EUA to deploy an experimental diagnostic product, drug or vaccine, certain requirements must be fulfilled.
First, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must have sufficient proof that the nation is being confronted with a serious life-threatening health emergency.
Second, the drug(s) and/or vaccine(s) under consideration must have sufficient scientific evidence to suggest they will likely be effective against the medical threat. Despite being insufficient, the evidence must at least include preclinical and observational data showing the product—diagnostic test, drug and vaccine—targets the organism, disease or condition.
Third, although the drug or vaccine does not undergo a rigorous evaluation by the FDA, it must at least show that its potential and known benefits outweigh its potential and known risks. In addition, the product must be manufactured in complete accordance with standard quality control and safety assurances.
However, when we look back at the government’s debacles during the Covid-19 pandemic, two other EUA requirements should be spotlighted. On the one hand, an EUA cannot be authorized for any product or intervention if there is an FDA approved alternative product already available, unless the experimental product clearly shows to have a significant advantage. Moreover, and perhaps more important, EUAs demand informed consent. Every individual who receives the drug or vaccine must be thoroughly informed about its experimental status and its potential risks and benefits. Recipients must also be properly informed about the alternatives to the experimental product and nobody should be forced to take it.
One final EUA requirement is that there must be robust safety monitoring and reporting of adverse events, injuries and deaths potentially due to the drug or vaccine. This is the responsibility not only of the private pharmaceutical manufacturers but also the FDA, physicians, hospitals, clinics and other healthcare professionals.
Obviously there are important cautions to be considered after reviewing the EUA requirements and the dangerous implications if they are not properly followed or at worse abused. Foremost are the inherent heath risks of any rapid response of experimental medical interventions, especially novel drugs and vaccines.
As we observed during the FDA approval process and roll out of Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA Covid-19 jabs and J&J’s adenovirus vaccine, no long-term human trials were conducted to even estimate a reliable baseline of their relative efficacy and safety.
But perhaps equally important, the public should only place their trust in these EUA-approved experimental drugs and vaccines if their evaluation by federal health authorities is conducted in a manner that is completely transparent and takes every potential ethical challenge into consideration. However these cautions were categorically ignored and transgressed in every conceivable way. Moreover, conflicts of interests plagued the entire EUA review process.
Most egregious was that Anthony Fauci at the NIAID and other federal officials had full knowledge that other FDA-approved drugs existed that could effectively treat Covid-19 infections. The antiparasitic and antiviral drug Ivermectin best stands out.
Ivermectin was first introduced to the market in the early 1980s as an anti-parasitic drug for veterinary infections. However, its effectiveness was observed to be so remarkable and multifaceted that researchers started to investigate its potential for treating human diseases. In 1987, the FDA approved ivermectin for treating two parasitic diseases, river blindness and stronglyoidiasis, in humans.
Since then an enormous body of medical research has grown showing ivermectin’s effectiveness for treating other diseases. Its broad range antiviral properties has shown efficacy against many RNA viruses such avian influenza, zika, dengue, HIV, West Nile, yellow fever, chikungunya and earlier severe respiratory coronaviruses. It has also been found effective against DNA viruses such as herpes, polyomavirus, circovirus-2 and others. The drug is capable of modulating a host immune response during viral infections and reduces pro-inflammatory cytokines that contribute to viral tissue damage.
Unsurprisingly, its discovers Drs. William Campbell and Satoshi Omura were awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. Ivermectin was not a drug simply hidden away in a back closet; rather it has been prescribed to hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Given its decades’ long record of in vitro efficacy, it should have been self-evident for Fauci, the CDC and the WHO to rapidly conduct in vivo trials to bring ivermectin into becoming a first line of defense for early stage Covid-19 infections and for use as a safe prophylaxis. For example, if funding were devoted for the rapid development of a micro-based pulmonary delivery system, mortality rates would have been miniscule and the pandemic would have been greatly lessened. Repurposing ivermectin could have been achieved very quickly at a minor expense.
However, despite all the medical evidence confirming ivermectin’s strong antiviral properties and its impeccable safety record when administered properly, we instead witnessed a sophisticated government-orchestrated campaign to declare war against ivermectin and another antiviral drug, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), in favor of far more expensive and unproven experimental drugs, such as Remdesivir. Unlike the US, other nations were eager to find older drugs to repurpose against Covid-19 to protect their populations.
A Johns Hopkins University analysis offered the theory that a reason why many African countries had very few to near zero Covid-19 fatalities was because of widespread deployment of ivermectin. In February 2020, the National Health Commission of China, for example, was the first to include hydroxychloroquine in its guidelines for treating mild, moderate and severe SARS-2 cases. Why did the US and most European countries under the spell of the US and the WHO fail to follow suit?
Schematic showing IMPα’s role in nuclear transport of host and viral proteins, and mechanism of inhibition by ivermectin. (a) Host proteins, such as members of the STAT or NF-κB transcription factor families, localize in the nucleus through the action of the IMPα/β1 heterodimer, where the “IBB” (IMPβ-binding) region of IMPα (green curved line) is bound by IMPβ1 to enable cargo recognition by IMPα within the heterodimer; IMPβ1 subsequently mediates transport of the trimeric complex through the nuclear pore (NPC, nuclear pore complex) embedded within the nuclear envelope (NE) into the nucleus. This is followed by release within the nucleus to enable the transcription factors to carry out normal function in transcriptional regulation, including in the antiviral response. IMPα can only mediate nuclear import within the heterodimer with IMPβ1. (b) In viral infection, specific viral proteins (e.g., NS5 in the case of DENV, ZIKV, WNV) able to interact with IMPα utilize the IMPα/β1 heterodimer to access the nucleus and antagonize the antiviral response [14,27,28]. This is critical to enable optimal virus production as shown by mutagenic and inhibitor studies. Which SARS-CoV-2 proteins may access the nucleus in infected cells has not been examined (see Section 3). (c) The IMPα targeting compound ivermectin binds to IMPα (binding site shown as red lozenge) both within the IMPα/β heterodimer to dissociate it, and to free IMPα to prevent it binding to IMPβ1, thereby blocking NS5 nuclear import [11]. GW5074 (see Table 1) has been shown to exhibit a similar mechanism [29].
Early in the pandemic, physicians in other nations where treatment was less restricted, such as Spain and Italy, were sharing data with American physicians about treatments they found were effective against the SARS-2 virus.
In addition, there was a large corpus of medical research indicating that older drugs with antiviral properties could be repurposed. Doctors who started to prescribe drugs such as ivermectin and HCQ, along with Vitamin D and zinc supplementation, observed remarkable results. Unlike the dismal recovery and high mortality rates reported in hospitals and large clinics that relied upon strict isolation, quarantine, and ventilator interventions, this small fringe group of physicians reported very few deaths among their patient loads. Even those deaths reported were more often than not compounded by patients’ comorbidities, poor medical facilities and other anomalies.
Very early into the pandemic, medical papers were showing that ivermectin was a highly effective drug to treat SARS-2 infections. In April 2020, less than a month after the WHO declared Covid-19 as a global pandemic, Australian researchers at the Peter Doherty Institute of Infection and Immunity had published their paper “The FDA- approved drug ivermectin inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 virus in vitro.” Monash University’s Biomedicine Discovery Institute in Australia had also published an early study that ivermectin destroyed SARS-2 infected cell cultures by 99.8 percent within 48 hours. But no government health official paid any attention.
As of June 2023, a database for all reports investigating ivermectin against Covid-19 infections records a total of 209 studies, 161 peer-reviewed, and 98 involving controlled groups reporting an average 67 percent improvement for early infections and an 85 percent average success rate for use as a prophylaxis to prevent Covid-19 symptoms.
Moreover, prescribing ivermectin reduced mortality by 50 percent, compared to Remdesivir’s 12 percent. An Italian study observed a 416 percent increase in hepatocellular injuries among hospitalized Covid-19 patients treated with Remdesivir. Even the WHO released a “conditional recommendation against the use of remdesivir in hospitalized patients, regardless of disease severity, as there is currently no evidence that remdesivir improves survival and other outcomes in these patients.”
Although the science shows that HCQ should not be prescribed for late stage Covid-19 infections, it is highly effective as a very early stage treatment, with a 62 percent improvement rate and 72% reduction in mortality. These rates are far superior to those shown for Remdesivir and other FDA-approved EUA drugs. One study of 585 patients treated with HCQ along with azithromycin and zinc were relieved in under 3 days and none were hospitalized, required ventilation or died. Another study published in the journal Clinical and Translational Science reported 73% reduction in hospitalization with no serious adverse events.
Regarding Pfizer’s novel Covid-19 drug Paxlovid, the verdict remains open; the company does not permit independent random-controlled trials to investigate its drug. Therefore, we only have Pfizer’s own data to rely upon. Nevertheless, The Lancet published a study by a team of Chinese scientists at Shanghai Jiao Tong School of Medicine that managed to look at Paxlovid’s use among critically ill patients hospitalized with Covid-19. The study reported a 27 percent higher risk of the infection progressing, a 67 percent increased risk in requiring ventilation, and 10 percent longer stays in ICU facilities.
Although the EUA amendment provides some protections to authorized drug and vaccine manufacturers, it was the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) in 2005 that expanded liability protections. In addition to protecting private corporations, PREP also shields company executives and employees from claims of personal injury or death resulting from the administration of authorized countermeasures. The only exceptions for liability are if the company or its executive offices are proven to have engaged in intentional and/or criminal misconduct with conscious disregard for the rights and safety of those taking their drugs and vaccines.
During the pandemic, the FDA issued widespread EUAs with liability immunity for the PCR diagnostic kits for SARS-2, the mRNA vaccines and anti-Covid-19 drugs such as Remdesivir, molnupiravir and Paxlovid. Even the PCR test failed to go through a robust evaluation to determine whether it could accurately predict a SARS-2 infection. Curiously, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services invoked the PREP Act on February 4, 2020 giving liability protections; this was over a month before the pandemic was officially announced, which raises serious questions about prior-planning before the viral outbreak in Wuhan, China.
From the pandemic’s outset, Fauci embarked on the media circuit to promise Americans that federal health agencies were doing everything within their means to get a vaccine on the market because there was no available drug to clear SARS-2 virus infections. As we have seen with respect to ivermectin alone, this was patently false. Rather the government placed an overriding emphasis on vaccination with a near total disregard for implementing very simple preventative measures to inhibit infections from progressing. Once mass vaccinations were underway, we were promised that the SARS-2 virus would be defeated and life would return to normal. In retrospect, we can look back and state with a degree of certainty that American health authorities and these products’ corporate manufacturers may have violated almost every EUA requirement. Everything that went wrong with the PCR kits, the experimental mRNA vaccines and novel drugs could have been avoided if the government had diligently repurposed effective and safe measures as pandemic countermeasures. Very likely, hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved.
Shortly after the pandemic was formally announced, and with no promising treatment in sight, the FDA recommended HCQ but then quickly reversed its decision in June after Fauci publicly announced the future arrival of Gilead’s novel drug Remdesivir. The FDA’s approval of Remdesivir baffled many scientists, according to the journal Science, who were keeping a close watch on the drug’s clinical reports about a “disproportionally high number of reports of liver and kidney problems”
Similarly the FDA issued a warning statement against the use of ivermectin. Although Merck was ivermectin’s manufacturer, the company discredited its own product. Shortly after ridiculing its drug, the Alliance for Natural Health reported, “Merck announced positive results from a clinical trial on a new drug called molnupiravir in eliminating the virus in infected patients.” Molnupiravir has a poor efficacy rate across the board including viral clearance, recovery, and hospitalizations/death (68 percent). One trial, funded by Merck, concluded the drug had no clinical benefit. More worrisome, molnupiravir was found to potentially contribute to lethal mutations in RNA viruses. The drug also has life-threatening adverse effects including mutagenic risks to human DNA and mitochondria, carcinogenic activity and embryonic death.
And still the FDA considers these novel patented drugs to be superior to ivermectin. Favoring a vaccine regime and government-controlled surveillance measures to track every American’s movements, American health officials blatantly neglected their own pandemic policies’ severe health consequences. Ineffective lockdowns, masks, social isolation, unsound critical care interventions such as relying upon ventilators, and the sole EUA approvals of the costly and insufficiently effective drugs brought about nightmares for tens of millions of adults and children. Again, the FDA worked in concert with the pharmaceutical industry to increase profit and revenues rather than improve human health and assure patient safety. This was all undertaken under Fauci’s watch and the heads of the US health agencies in direct violation of the EUA requirements to only authorize drugs and medical interventions when no other safe and effective alternative is available. As we have seen, alternatives were available and these were well known throughout the government health agencies. Instead of acting upon them and awarding EUAs to HCQ, ivermectin and other potential off-patent drugs, the government preferred to submit to their pharmaceutical masters’ demands and the financial mills that feed the CDC’s and FDA’s coffers.
The 3-year history of the pandemic highlights a sharp distinction between dependable medical research and pseudoscientific fraud.
We witnessed the CDC adopting a common Soviet era practice to redefine the very definition of a vaccine and the parameters of vaccine efficacy in order to fit their economic and ideological agendas.
This explains Washington’s frequent uninformed decisions and its aggressive public relations endeavors to silence medical opponents. According to cardiologist Dr. Michael Goodkin’s private investigations, several of the most cited studies discrediting ivermectin’s antiviral benefits were funded by the NIH and Bill Gates and intentionally manipulated in order to produce “fake” results. These studies were widely distributed to the AMA, American College of Physicians and across mainstream media to author “hit pieces” to demonize ivermectin. The government’s belligerent and reactive diatribes, brazenly or casually advocating for censorship, were direct violations of scientific and medical integrity and contributed nothing towards developing constructive policies for handling a pandemic with a minimal cost to life. The consequence has been a less informed and grossly naïve public, which was gaslighted into believing lies.
Now that ivermectin, and to a lesser extent HCQ, have been recognized by more and more physicians as part of a first line defense to prevent and treat SARS-2 infections, we can realize that the FDA’s EUAs for the Covid-19 vaccines and novel experimental drugs were in fact an attack on the amendments and PREP directives.
Neither the vaccines nor drugs warranted emergency authorization because effective and safe alternatives were readily available. No doubt a Congressional investigation would uncover criminal misconduct, and this misconduct and conscious fraud have contributed to numerous unnecessary medically-induced injuries and deaths. Moreover, these violations of the PREP Act may have the potential to lead directly into medical crimes against humanity as outlined in the Nuremberg Code.
Nuremberg Trials. 1st row: Hermann Göring, Rudolf Heß, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Wilhelm Keitel. 2nd row: Karl Dönitz, Erich Raeder, Baldur von Schirach, Fritz Sauckel. (Office of the U.S. Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution of Axis Criminality/Still Picture Records LICON, Special Media Archives Services Division (NWCS-S)
Between 1946 and 1947, Nazi medical doctors were tried in Nuremberg, Germany. Known as the “Doctors’ Trial”, the court found 16 of 23 doctors guilty of human experimentation that involved conducting experiments with lethal drugs and substances, sterilization, forced euthanasia and other heinous acts. These medical atrocities were conducted on some of the most vulnerable populations.
Seven Nazi doctors were executed by hanging. What became known as the Nuremberg Code after the tribunal is not a legally binding document, however it has held significant ethical and historical importance for medical research and human experimentation. The Code is regarded as a milestone in the development of international criminal law. It has informed international and domestic guidelines and regulations on human subjects, and many countries have implemented legal and ethical frameworks inspired by the Code to regulate their medical research and protect their citizens from medical abuse.
Despite serving as the baseline for modern medical ethics, it is unfortunate that no binding international treaty or declaration has been specifically initiated that directly abides by all of Nuremberg’s obligations. Nor has the Nuremberg Code been officially adopted in its entirety as law by any nation or major medical association.
On the other hand, other international treaties, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki (which is not legally binding), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research on Human Subjects incorporate some of Nuremberg’s main principles that aim to protect people from unethical and forced medical research.
Although the US signed the ICCPR as an intentional party, the US Senate never ratified it. The ICCPR’s Article 7 clearly states, “No one shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” which can legally be interpreted to include forced medical experimentation implied as cruel, inhuman treatment. Other ICCPR articles, 6 and 17, are also applicable to medical experimentation to ensure ethical conduct, obtaining proper informed consent and the right to life and privacy. For a moment, consider the numerous senior citizens in nursing homes and hospitals who were simply administered experimental Covid-19 vaccines without full knowledge about what they were receiving. And now how many children are being coerced by the pseudoscience of health officials’ lies to be vaccinated without any knowledge of these mRNA products’ risk-benefit ratio?
International organizations, such as the United Nations, have the moral obligation to investigate violations to human rights outlined in the Nuremberg Code. Now that it has been convincingly ascertained that Pfizer and Moderna intentionally concealed their mRNA vaccine trials’ safety and efficacy data and the government repeatedly lied to the American public, it is time to hold these parties to account. Forced and mandated Covid-19 vaccination violates the Code’s demand for “voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” and the ICCPR’s prohibition that “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” Mandates to take dangerous experimental vaccines have ruined families, and livelihoods.
The US is also a signatory to the Helsinki Declaration, which, although not directly aligned with Nuremberg, shares much in common. The Declaration also shares some common features with the EUA amendment and PREP Act. These include voluntary informed consent—which is universally accepted, adequate risk and benefit information about medical interventions, and an emphasis on the principle of medical beneficence (promoting well-being and the Hippocratic rule of doing no harm). It also guarantees protections for vulnerable groups, especially pregnant women and children, which the US government and vaccine makers directly violated by conducting trials on these groups with full knowledge about these vaccines’ adverse events in adults. In addition, weighing the scientific evidence to assess the risk-benefit ratios between prescribing ivermectin and HCQ over Pfizer’s, Merck’s and Gilead’s novel experimental drugs conclusively favors the former. This alone directly violates the ethical medical principles noted above.
However, the failure to repurpose life-saving drugs is less criminal than the motivation behind it to make room for a new generation of genetically engineered vaccines that have never before been adequately researched in human trials for long term safety. This mass experimentation, which continues to threaten the health and well-being of millions of people, is global and can legally be interpreted under the Nuremberg Code as a genocidal attack on humanity. If the emerging data for increasing injuries and deaths due to the Covid-19 vaccines is reliable—and we believe it is—the handling of the pandemic can be regarded as the largest medical crime in human history. In time, and with shifting political allegiances and public demands to hold our leaders in government and private industry accountable, the architects of this medical war against civilization will be brought to justice.
*
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.
Richard Galeis the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.
Dr. Gary Nullis host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including his recent Last Call to Tomorrow
They are regular contributors to Global Research.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
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.
***
Dear future students wishing to come to Australia and study: don’t. The gurgling, decaying system is, on a regular basis, being exposed for what it is. If it is not students being exploited, its academics being manipulated to the point of ruinous ill-health. True, not all universities are equally rotten in the constellation of corporate manipulation, but each one is rotten in a slightly different way.
The nature of the rot starts at the top – a conventional wisdom. And that rot features workloads of an unrealistic nature (too many classes; unrecognised grading efforts; questionable budgets), all padding for the bloated managerial class that guiltlessly loots. It helps, as well, that most Australian universities have Human Resources departments larger than most academic departments. They are the stormtroopers for the managerial gauleiters, ensuring that dissenters are kept quiet, and anyone wishing to challenge the status quo kept in straitjacket and check.
Much has already been made of the enormous casualisation of the academic workforce in Australia. (One figure suggests that 70% of university workers in the sector are on casual or fixed term contracts.) They are the precariat, the equivalent of altar children whose bottoms, bodies and minds are passed around from course to course to be used by the relevant coordinator, program manager and associate dean for a finite duration.
The nature of such sessionalisation has seen an interesting twist of late. The hand-to-mouth precariat are not wanted – at least in certain institutions. Universities suddenly claim to have no money in the kitty to pay modest sums to sessional workers they have sadistically abused for years. This is despite huge financial windfalls that arose even as the global pandemic was raging. In the post-COVID landscape, the assumption is that ongoing academics (tenure is not a concept of any worth down under) will take charge, seize the reins, and teach themselves into the ground.
But as departments, schools and university sections are racketeering enterprises, those wishing to cosy up to obese, overly remunerated managers may be rewarded for their flabby morals. (Arse-crawling really ought to be a degree, but why theorise it, when the praxis is sorted out?) The crawlers can avoid teaching. They can assume administrative posts and discuss administration with others in similar administrative posts. They can dream, fiddle and fondle spreadsheets, conjuring up miracles from the ether. Their minds devoid of cerebration, they are the perfect adjutants and servants for the managerial institution.
As for research, this only matters if it can be pegged to the industrial grant making complex, which is only useful in producing more grants. The cosmos of receiving such awards is only relevant, not from the actual material it produces in terms of what knowledge, but for the process of gaining the award. Money can then go back into undeserving pockets, with recipient academics, to use a popular and atrocious term “buying themselves out” of teaching duties. As one Dean of no stature or relevance insisted with dull conviction, “It does not matter how many papers you write, or how many books you author – your work allocation is the same as the next one.”
A half-wit sloth with one publication authored with several other dunces deserves the same academic praise as the single author of numerous pieces, with a profile that is somewhat larger than the standard 200 metre radius worshipped in insular towers. The die, it would seem, is cast, before you realise an awful reality: the Dean wants you to be on her level, that of the spreadsheeting numbed wonder who draws in a fortnightly salary with minimal cognition – except to justify the dictates of the satanic college she serves.
Amidst this messy state of affairs, Australian universities continue engaging in that practice most heinous: the underpayment of staff, notably those on temporary contracts. The payment rates for casual academics – and, in some cases, ongoing staff – is nothing short of scandalous. In March 2022, the Senate Standing Committee on Economics noted that 21 out of Australia’s 40 universities had been guilty of underpaying staff.
So why express horror or surprise at the latest revelation that gift cards are being used to pay academic staff? An investigation by the Australian publication Crikey, using Freedom of Information, found this to be particularly evident at the University of Technology Sydney.
According to the report, “one faculty debated the use of gift cards as payment for academics as recently as last year.” A Microsoft Teams message from a human resources official also stated in October last year, with some agitation, that the faculty of health wanted “to have another run at the gift card idea.”
The UTS public relations team was immediately stung into action. “Gift cards are used at UTS, as they are at any other organisations, as a token of appreciation for non-employees who volunteer their time at the university, for example, as research participants, or as members of events panels or as one-off guest speakers,” reasoned one spokesperson.
The Senate Standing Committee similarly found that various “casual academic staff have been paid in gift certificates, instead of the wages, loadings, leave and superannuation to which they are entitled.” Dr Hayley Singer, a member of the University of Melbourne Casuals’ Network, told the committee that she had “contested this at the time because I know I can’t pay rent, pay for transport or pay for medical bills with gift cards. This is how casual and insecurely employed academics are treated when we bring our professionalism and our expertise onto campus and into the classroom”.
If only Singer realised that the whole function of the modern managerial university is to eschew and excoriate professionalism of any sort, notably in the areas that give education its greatest worth. To be professional is to be subversive, thereby making that individual dispensable. Best join the spread sheeters.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
As Ukraine prepared to launch its much heralded but long delayed counteroffensive, the media published a photograph of a Ukrainian soldier with his finger on his lips, symbolizing the need for secrecy to retain some element of surprise for this widely telegraphed operation.
Now that the offensive has been under way for two weeks, it is clear that the Ukrainian government and its Western allies are maintaining silence for quite a different reason: to conceal the brutal cost Ukraine’s brave young people are paying to recover small scraps of territory from Russian occupation forces, in what some are already calling a suicide mission.
Western pundits at first described these first two weeks of fighting as “probing operations” to find weak spots in Russia’s defenses, which Russia has been fortifying since 2022 with multiple layers of minefields, “dragon’s teeth,” tank-traps, pre-positioned artillery, and attack helicopters, unopposed in the air, that can fire 12 anti-tank missiles apiece.
On the advice of British military advisers in Kyiv, Ukraine flung Western tanks and armored vehicles manned by NATO-trained troops into these killing fields without air support or de-mining operations. The results have been predictably disastrous, and it is now clear that these are not just “probing” operations as the propaganda at first claimed, but the long-awaited main offensive.
A Western official with intelligence access told the Associated Press on June 14, “Intense fighting is now ongoing in nearly all sectors of the front… This is much more than probing. These are full-scale movements of armor and heavy equipment into the Russian security zone.”
Other glimpses are emerging of the reality behind the propaganda. At a press conference after a summit at NATO Headquarters, U.S. General Milley warned that the offensive will be long, violent and costly in Ukrainian lives.
“This is a very difficult fight. It’s a very violent fight, and it will likely take a considerable amount of time and at high cost,” Milley said.
Russian videos show dozens of Ukrainian tanks and armored vehicles lying smashed in minefields, and NATO military advisers in Ukraine have confirmed that it lost 38 tanks in one night on June 8th, including newly delivered German-built Leopard IIs.
Rob Lee of the Foreign Policy Research Institute explained to the New York Times that the Russians are trying to inflict as many casualties and destroy as many vehicles as possible in the areas in front of their main defensive lines, turning those areas into lethal kill zones. If this strategy works, any Ukrainian forces that reach the main Russian defense lines will be too weakened and depleted to break through and achieve their goal of severing Russia’s land bridge between Donbas and Crimea.
Russia’s Ministry of Defense reported that Ukraine’s forces suffered 7,500 casualties in the first ten days of the offensive. If Ukraine’s real losses are a fraction of that, the long, violent bloodbath that General Milley anticipates will destroy the new armored brigades that NATO has armed and trained, and serve only to escalate the gory war of attrition that has destroyed Mariupol, Sievierodonetsk and Bakhmut, killing and wounding hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainians and Russians.
A senior European military officer in Ukraine provided more details of the carnage to Asia Times, calling Ukraine’s operations on June 8th and 9th a “suicide mission” that violated the basic rules of military tactics.
“We tried to tell them to stop these piecemeal tactics, define a main thrust with infantry support and do what they can,” he said. “They were trained by the British, and they’re playing Light Brigade,” he added, comparing the offensive to a suicidal charge into massive Russian cannon fire that wiped out Britain’s Light Cavalry Brigade in Crimea in 1854.
If Ukraine’s “Spring Offensive” plunges on to the bitter end, it could be more like the British and French Somme Offensive, fought near the French River Somme in 1916. After 19,240 British troops were killed on the first day (including Nicolas’s 20-year-old great-uncle, Robert Masterman), the battle raged on for more than four months of pointless, wanton slaughter, with over a million British, French and German casualties. It was finally called off after advancing only six miles and failing to capture either of the two small French towns that were its initial objectives.
The current offensive was delayed for months as Ukraine and its allies grappled with the likelihood of the outcome we are now witnessing. The fact that it went ahead regardless reflects the moral bankruptcy of U.S. and NATO political leaders, who are sacrificing the flower of Ukraine’s youth in a proxy war they will not send their own children or grandchildren to fight.
As Ukraine launches its offensive, NATO is conducting Air Defender, the largest military exercise in its history, from June 12th to 23rd, with 250 warplanes, including nuclear-capable F-35s, flying from German bases to simulate combat operations in and over Germany, Lithuania, Romania, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. The exercise has led to at least 15 incidents between NATO and Russian aircraft in the skies near Lithuania.
It seems that nobody involved in NATO has ever stumbled over the concept of a “security dilemma,” in which supposedly defensive actions by one party are perceived as offensive threats by another and lead to a spiral of mutual escalation, as has been the case between NATO and Russia since the 1990s. Professor of Russian history Richard Sakwa has written, “NATO exists to manage the risks created by its existence.”
These risks will be evident in the upcoming NATO Summit in Vilnius on July 11-12, where Ukraine and its eastern allies will be pushing for Ukraine membership, while the U.S. and western Europe insist that membership cannot be offered while the war rages on and will instead offer “upgraded” status and a shorter route to membership once the war ends.
The continued insistence that Ukraine will one day be a NATO member only means a prolongation of the conflict, as this is a red line that Russia insists cannot be crossed. That’s why negotiations that lead to a neutral Ukraine are key to ending the war.
But the United States will not agree to that as long as President Biden keeps U.S. Ukraine policy firmly under the thumbs of hawkish neoconservative desk warriors like Anthony Blinken and Victoria Nuland at the State Department and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan at the White House. Pressure to keep escalating U.S. involvement in the war is also coming from Congress, where Republicans accuse Biden of “hemming and hawing” instead of “going all in” to help Ukraine.
Paradoxically, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies are more realistic than their civilian colleagues about the lack of any military solution. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, has called for diplomacy to bring peace to Ukraine, and U.S. intelligence sources have challenged dominant false narratives of the war in leaks to Newsweek and Seymour Hersh, telling Hersh that the neocons are ignoring genuine intelligence and inventing their own, just as they did to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
With the retirement of Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, the State Department is losing the voice of a professional diplomat who was Obama’s chief negotiator for the JCPOA with Iran and urged Biden to rejoin the agreement, and who has taken steps to moderate U.S. brinkmanship toward China. While publicly silent on Ukraine, Sherman was a quiet voice for diplomacy in a war-mad administration.
Many fear that Sherman’s job will now go to Nuland, the leading architect of the ever-mounting catastrophe in Ukraine for the past decade, who already holds the #3 or #4 job at State as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs.
Other departures from the senior ranks at State and the Pentagon are likely to cede more ground to the neocons. Colin Kahl, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, worked with Sherman on the JCPOA, opposed sending F-16s to Ukraine, and has maintained that China will not invade Taiwan in the near future. Kahl is leaving the Pentagon to return to his position as a professor at Stanford, just as China hawkGeneral C.Q. Brown will replace General Milley as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs when Milley retires in September.
Meanwhile, other world leaders continue to push for peace talks. A delegation of African heads of state led by President Ramaphosa of South Africa met with President Zelenskyy in Kyiv, and President Putin in Moscow on June 17th, to discuss the African peace plan for Ukraine.
President Putin showed the African leaders the 18-point Istanbul Agreement that a Ukrainian representative had signed back in March 2022, and told them that Ukraine had thrown it in the “dustbin of history,” after the now disgracedBoris Johnson told Zelenskyy the “collective West” would only support Ukraine to fight, not to negotiate with Russia.
The catastrophic results of the first two weeks of Ukraine’s offensive should focus the world’s attention on the urgent need for a ceasefire to halt the daily slaughter and dismemberment of hundreds of brave young Ukrainians, who are being forced to drive through minefields and kill zones in Western gifts that are proving to be no more than U.S.- and NATO-built death-traps.
*
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.
***
Sudden deaths — athletes, pilots, school bus drivers; what does Dr. Makis see as the correlating event behind them?
And what dangers do these pose for travelers, school children and others in the population?
*
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.
***
There have recently been a number of incidents that would be of interest if one has concerns about the sorry state of free speech in Europe and the United States, the so-called “democracies” who tend to boast about their freedoms and the rights of their citizens. The chosen weapon in the US and elsewhere in the Anglo-sphere has been the designation “hate speech” which also covers “hate writing,” “possessing hate literature or films,” and even “hate thinking.” In Europe, where “hate speech” is often referred to using the English words, the expression is often preceded by the word “illegal” to make sure that the point about consequences is made and the potential penalty is clearly understood. Some Europeans have in fact been convicted and sent to prison when they have falsely believed they were exercising free speech.
Though the “hate” designation was originally coined to discourage racist language and other forms of expression it has increasingly been exploited by Israel and its associated Jewish support groups to criminalize any criticism of Israel or of Jewish group behavior. It has extended its reach by moving into subsets, notably “holocaust denial” and “antisemitism” which are also regarded ipso facto as hate crimes in a context in which Jews are always regarded as victims, never as perpetrators of violence.
Much of what is going on might be described in fairly simple terms: Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and its unprovoked lethal attacks on its neighbors might reasonably be described as “deplorable” or even genocidal in the case of the Palestinians. Beyond that, Israel, which pretends to be a democracy, operates a system of control over the Christian and Muslim minority within its own borders and also in the area it illegally occupies that is describable as “apartheid,” where the minority is compelled to accept limited resources and consistently harsh treatment from the dominant Jewish population. More to the point, the extremist government coalition headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made the situation even worse for those non-Jews that it controls, with talk of introducing mass expulsions and imprisonments. The death toll of Palestinians at the hands of the Israel Defense Forces has also been going up, with more than 150 Palestinians killed this year, including 26 children.
To be sure, Israel has become a home for Jews that can no longer tolerate anyone else. Some ministers in the new government are particularly vile in their views but it is to be assumed that Netanyahu and others in his administration are genuinely supportive of turning Israel into a truly and even exclusively Jewish state, which is in fact how it legally defines itself. The one minister most cited for his cruelty and racism is Itamar Ben-Gvir of the Jewish Power party. Ben-Gvir has been charged with crimes 50 times, and convicted on eight occasions, including once for support of a Jewish terrorist group. He is a former supporter of the now deceased right wing fanatic Meir Kahane, and, like Kahane, envisions an Israel that is as Palestinian free as possible and centered exclusively on Jewish interests. He has called for deporting Arabs who aren’t loyal to a Jewish Israel, annexing all of the West Bank and exercising full Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount, where the Muslim venerated Al-Aqsa mosque is located. He supports legislation defying international agreements to “divide” the Al-Aqsa site to permit regular Jewish worshippers and there have even been suggestions that the Israeli government will seek to rebuild the so-called Biblical Second Temple, destroyed in the First Century by the Romans, in that location.
Ben-Gvir is notorious for his provocations directed against Palestinian Muslims and Christians. He has led marches of armed settlers flaunting Israeli flags through Arab quarters of cities and towns and has even brought settlers and other extremists to the al-Aqsa mosque during Ramadan and to interrupt Friday prayers. To cap the irony, he has been since November 2022 the National Security Minister, which gives him authority over the police, to include the so-called Border Police as well as the police forces located on the illegally occupied West Bank. Indeed, as a practical matter, Ben-Gvir is seeking to have the Knesset pass legislation explicitly conferring legal immunity on all Israeli soldiers for any and all killings of Palestinians. He has also pressed the parliament to institute a formal, judicially administered death penalty for “terrorists”, which would mean any Palestinian who physically resists the Israeli occupation.
Another extremist who has obtained a major ministry in the Netanyahu government is Bezalel Yoel Smotrich who has served as the Minister of Finance since 2022. He has recently completed a controversial trip to the United States where he met with American Zionist leaders. Smotrich is the leader of the Religious Zionist Party, and lives in an illegal settlement in a house within the Israeli occupied West Bank that was also built doubly illegally outside the settlement proper. Smotrich supports expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank, opposes any form of Palestinian statehood, and even denies the existence of the Palestinian people. He demands a state judiciary that relies only on Torah and Jewish traditional law. Accused of inciting hatred against Arab Israelis, he told Arab Israeli lawmakers in October 2021, that “it’s a mistake that David Ben-Gurion didn’t finish the job and didn’t throw all of you out in 1948.”
The increasing brutality of the Israeli government and its security forces have produced a reaction among many observers worldwide, so the supporters of Israel have engaged in their own first strike frequently using the “hate crime” weapon. They have basically turned the hate crime legislation to their advantage by convincing many nations to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of the “hate crime” antisemitism to automatically include criticism of Israel as being equivalent to hatred of Jews. When that doesn’t work the powerful Israel lobby can also resort to much more brutal threats. When Iceland sought to make illegal infant circumcision five years ago, regarding it as genital mutilation performed on an unconsenting child, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) threatened to unleash Jewish power to destroy their economy and international reputation as punishment for making their country “inhospitable to Jews.”
Now that the “hate crime” genie together with the associated links to holocaust denial and antisemitism have been released from the bottle, they are being used regularly to silence anyone who even indirectly criticizes prominent Jews like George Soros. Conservatives including Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk have recently been on the receiving end of the antisemitism label after referring to Soros and his “Globalist” agenda. It is my belief that Tucker was fired at least in part due to Jewish pressure on FOX as he had been very critical of groups like the hysterical ADL and its hideous director Jonathan Greenblatt.
Roger Waters, the former lead singer of Pink Floyd, has emerged as a powerful critic of Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. As a consequence, he has been hounded by authorities in Europe, has had his concerts canceled, and has been threatened with legal action to make him shut up. The Biden Administration’s antisemitism Czar Deborah Lipstadt has also attacked him, saying
“I wholeheartedly concur with [an online] condemnation of Roger Waters and his despicable Holocaust distortion.” She was referring to a tweet stating that “I am sick & disgusted by Roger Waters’ obsession to belittle and trivialize the Shoah & the sarcastic way in which he delights in trampling on the victims, systematically murdered by the Nazis. In Germany. Enough is enough. Holocaust trivialization is criminalized across the EU.”
The State Department, speaking for the White House, then piled on adding that Waters has “a long track record of using antisemitic tropes” and a concert he gave late last month in Germany “contained imagery that is deeply offensive to Jewish people and minimized the Holocaust… The artist in question has a long track record of using antisemitic tropes to denigrate Jewish people.”
One might observe that the depiction of Waters is basically untrue – he is a critic of Israeli crimes against humanity but does not hate Jews. One might also add how the fact that the United States State Department actually has a Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism speaks for itself and tells you exactly who is in charge in Washington. I wonder how much it costs to run Lipstadt’s mouth from a no doubt well-appointed office in Foggy Bottom each year? Maybe someone should do a cost/benefit analysis and give Debbie her walking papers.
Beyond that, several other recent stories show how it all often works in practice to confront and silence critics. Swedish pop star Zara Larsson is facing what is obviously a coordinated backlash on social media after criticizing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. In an Instagram message to her 6.3 million followers, the 23-year-old declared the ongoing cross-border violence, which is killing mostly Arabs, was a “crime” against Palestinians. Her effort to be somewhat even handed was ignored, in the message, which she later deleted, where she wrote “We have to stand up for Jewish people all over the world facing anti-Semitic violence and threats, but we must also call out a state upholding apartheid and KILLING civilians, funded by American dollars.” She ended the message with the hashtag “#freepalestine.”
Larsson was hardly calling for targeting Jews or anything like that, but the reaction to her comment was symptomatic of the typical overkill response engaged in by Israel and its friends whenever anyone challenges the standard narrative of Israeli perpetual victimhood. Two other instances of comments about Israel leading to an overwhelming response to punish the perpetrators took place during the past month in the United States at college commencement ceremonies. The first was on May 12th, at a graduation ceremony for the law school of the City University of New York (CUNY), where Fatima Mousa Mohammed, a Queens native who was selected by the graduating 2023 class to speak during the May 12 ceremony, praised CUNY for supporting student activism, citing in particular the acceptance of student groups protesting against Israel’s brutality towards the Palestinians. She said “Israel continues to indiscriminately rain bullets and bombs on worshippers, murdering the old, the young and even attacking funerals and graveyards, as it encourages lynch mobs to target Palestinians homes and businesses. As it imprisons its children, as it continues its project of settler colonialism, expelling Palestinians from their homes. Silence is no longer acceptable.”
The response to Mohammed was immediate, including a scathing news report in the New York Post, a call by several Jewish groups to cut funding to CUNY and demands that the law school dean be fired. And the controversy again made news when a second student spoke out at a commencement at El Camino community college in Torrance California. Jana Abulaban, 18, strongly criticized Israeli government policies during her speech on June 9th.
Abulaban, who was born in Jordan in a family of Palestinian refugees, reportedly felt “inspired” by the speech of Fatima Mousa Mohammed and she told the audience “I gift my graduation to all Palestinians who have lost their life and those who continue to lose their lives every day due to the oppressive apartheid state of Israel killing and torturing Palestinians as we speak.’’
There was, of course an immediate reaction to the Abulaban speech coming from a variety of West Coast and New York pro-Israel sources. Brooke Goldstein, a claimed human-rights lawyer founder of The Lawfare Project, said, “This is yet one more example of the systemic Jew-hatred we’re seeing on our college campuses. When a student gives a commencement speech targeting Jews, trafficking in modern tropes of antisemitism, it’s clear that there has been a complete failure in that school to promote social justice for the Jewish people. If any other minority group were targeted like this, there would be consequences for the bigot. The Jewish community deserves no less.”
Of course, both women only spoke the truth about what is happening in the Middle East. Neither attacked the Jewish religion or Jews per se and only criticized Israel’s appalling behavior. When I last checked, Israel was a foreign country with both foreign and domestic policies that are considered very questionable by most of the world, so why should it be protected from being challenged in the United States? The two women were brave to speak up as they did, surely knowing that they would be targeted by the Jewish state’s many friends and supporters. Those of us who continue to speak out on Israel’s genocidal policies can likewise expect no less, particularly as both the federal as well as many state governments and also the media are now on a witch hunt directed against those who seek to speak the truth. But we must persevere. As Fatima Mousa Mohammed put it, “Silence is no longer acceptable.”
*
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].
Many of you have probably seen that even the Washington Post is admitting to complete failure for Ukraine, NATO, and the US in their so-called “counteroffensive”. More than a week after the start of Ukraine’s much-hyped counteroffensive, which Kyiv and its Western supporters say will push the Russian invaders back to pre-invasion lines, there are signs that Ukraine is unlikely to achieve lightning gains.
At the beginning, it was referred to, in a decree signed by President Vladimir Putin, as “special military operation” aimed largely at “demilitarization” and “denazification” in neighboring Ukraine. We know from history that both Russia and Ukraine were part of the Soviet Union.
On June 14th, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg repeatedly insisted upon facilitating Ukraine’s becoming a member-nation of that marketing organization for the weapons that are produced by U.S.-and-allied weapons-manufacturers, but America’s President Joe Biden made clear on June 17th that he will not allow softening the existing requirements in order to admit Ukraine into NATO.
On June 17, during a meeting with a number of African leaders and delegates who came to Moscow to offer a solution that would end the Ukrainian conflict, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a shocking revelation and even gave details of a March 2022 peace deal with the Kiev regime. The agreement, titled the “Treaty on the Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees for Ukraine” (negotiated with the mediation of the Turkish government), was actually signed by the Kiev regime.
The post below is from africanagenda.net, reporting on a punchy fifteen minute speech by Kenyan President, William Ruto, to the African Union Parliament on the disrespectful manner African leaders are treated by the developed sector. (See video).
After examining the exchanges, a conclusion is imperative: Russian war media is not staging an offensive even as the collective West attacks Russia 24/7 with its massive NGO/soft power media apparatus. Moscow is not – yet? – fully engaged in the trenches of information warfare; as it stands Russian media is only playing defense.
We see an odds ratio of 5 when comparing autism in vaxxed vs. unvaxxed in MULTIPLE studies. The before:after odds are even more extraordinary. How can we ignore all this evidence?
President Putin surprised his guests from the African peace delegation on Saturday by revealing details about Russia’s now-defunct draft treaty with Ukraine. It would have re-enshrined neutrality in that country’s constitution and also limited its number of military forces. According to him, it had even been signed by the Ukrainian side, which then discarded it in response to pressure from the Anglo-American Axis (AAA) despite Russia pulling its troops back from Kiev as part of an agreed-upon goodwill gesture.
No, the people and the country of Laos had not harmed the far away located, mighty USA in any way at all. Despite this, the people of Laos faced their heaviest destruction from the USA, worse than what they faced even during direct colonial rule, due to two factors.
Because of rising energy prices, writes the Wall Street Journal, “the Eurozone is sliding into recession as inflation hurts consumption, and Europe is stuck with the economic equivalent of a long Covid.” In this Europe began “the largest multinational deployment of air forces in NATO history” with the “Air Defender” exercise taking place in Germany under U.S. command.
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.
***
Yoweri Museveni, infamously, manages his own Twitter account. Uganda’s 78-year-old president knows how to craft a viral tweet, but he does make the occasional mistake.
On 5 June, Museveni met on Zoom with six fellow African presidents.
They were discussing their proposed mission to mediate Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine. Also present, officially, was Jean-Yves Ollivier, a controversial French businessman who is claiming the credit for organising the African peace mission (“I will play Kissinger,” he told the Financial Times, referring to the notorious US diplomat who has been implicated in multiple alleged war crimes).
After the Zoom call, Museveni tweeted a screenshot of the video gathering. There, sharing Ollivier’s screen, was a middle-aged, greying white man, whose involvement had not previously been made public – and for good reason.
The man, whose name is Ivor Ichikowitz, owns one of the largest arms manufacturers on the African continent. Ichikowitz’s Paramount Group sells weaponised drones, infantry combat vehicles, naval patrol ships and fighter jets, among other weapons systems.
Its clients include dictatorial regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan and the Republic of Congo. The group has been implicated in multiple corruption allegations – most notably in Malawi, where a scandal over a $145-million contract to supply patrol boats helped to bring down the government of former president Joyce Banda. Ichikowitz denies any wrongdoing, and says that neither he nor his company has ever been formally charged with corruption.
Ichikowitz’s Paramount Group sells drones, infantry combat vehicles, naval patrol ships and fighter jets, among other weapons systems.
The murky nature of Ichikowitz’s involvement was highlighted when The Continent requested comment from a spokesperson for South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, who is ostensibly leading the African peace mission, and was present on the Zoom call.
“It’s the first time I hear of Ivor’s involvement,” Vincent Magwenya told The Continent. “I’m not certain as to what will be Ivor’s role.”
Ichikowitz is a major donor to the African National Congress, Ramaphosa’s political party.
Ichikowitz and Ollivier’s Brazzavile Foundation did not respond to The Continent’s requests to answer questions for this story. But Ollivier, in private correspondence seen by The Continent, said of the arms dealer’s role in the peace mission: “Mr Ichikowitz is for a long time a friend of the Brazzaville Foundation. In the present initiative, Mr Ichikowitz [has] offered pro bono resources, contacts, access and advice. He was officially [thanked] by the six heads of state during the 5 June Summit meeting for his contribution.”
Kremlin Connections
The stated intention of the African peace mission is to end the war in Ukraine, which escalated when Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. But the mission is not off to an auspicious start.
By the time the delegation disembarked at the Kyiv train station on Friday morning, three presidents had already dropped out (Egypt’s Abdel- Fattah El-Sisi, the Republic of Congo’s Denis Sassou Nguesso and Museveni).
Ramaphosa was travelling with a reduced security detail after the bulk of his security was grounded at the airport in Warsaw. Polish police said they did not have the appropriate authorisations for their weapons. This claim is disputed by the South African government, who said Poland was trying to “sabotage” the mission.
On arrival in Kyiv, the presidents – Ramaphosa, Azali Assoumani of the Comoros, Macky Sall of Senegal and Hakainde Hichilema of Zambia – were greeted by the sound of air-raid sirens and explosions. These were caused by a Russian missile attack, which may lead to awkward questions on Saturday, when the African leaders are due to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in St Petersburg. As their timeline was public, Russian authorities would have been well aware of the presence of four African presidents during the missile strike.
The revelation of Ichikowitz’s role, and his potential commercial interest, is likely to further complicate the negotiations. It is not known whether Paramount Group is selling weapons to either side in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, although at least one piece of military equipment produced by Paramount – a Marauder- type armoured vehicle – has been spotted with Russian forces on the front line, according to news website DefenceWeb.
Ichikowitz is known to be connected to at least one major oligarch who is close to Putin. Both Ichikowitz and the Brazzaville Foundation’s Ollivier spoke at the 2019 edition of the Rhodes Forum, described by some as “Putin’s Davos”.
The Rhodes Forum is organised by Vladimir Yakunin, a former KGB officer who later served as the president of Russian Railways. He has been under United States sanctions since 2014 due to his support for Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
Australian sanctions on Yakunin describe him as “a close personal and financial associate of Vladimir Putin”. Despite this, in 2020, the Brazzaville Foundation – of whom Ichikowitz has been an enthusiastic supporter and funder – announced a formal partnership with Yakunin’s think tank, the Dialogue of Civilizations, saying they “share many of the same objectives”. It has since said that this partnership “was never implemented”. Ollivier’s ties to Russia are even closer, having served as an advisor to the state- owned nuclear energy company, Rosatom. This is the same energy company that was embroiled in a massive corruption scandal in South Africa under Ramaphosa’s predecessor, Jacob Zuma – a scandal that in part paved the way for Ramaphosa to take power.
Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, declined to comment specifically on the role of Ichikowitz and Ollivier. He told The Continent:
“When anyone in the world comes up with initiatives that ‘we will talk to Ukraine and Russia and settle everything’, we politely advise: if you want to actually help, and not pretend to mediate, so as not to take a position, focus on specific 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.
Featured image: Ivor Ichikowitz (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
At the beginning, it was referred to, in a decree signed by President Vladimir Putin, as “special military operation” aimed largely at “demilitarization” and “denazification” in neighboring Ukraine. We know from history that both Russia and Ukraine were part of the Soviet Union. After the Soviet’s collapse in 1991, all the Soviet republics became independent states, and have legal claims to their individual territorial integrity and political sovereignty within the international law recognised by the United Nations.
As time moves the military situation between Russia and Ukraine have been described differently in media reports. We read descriptions such as “crisis” or “conflict” or “war” in reports. Whatever be the standard case, the situation is seen and understood from different perspectives. There are, of course, several undermining factors or reasons for Russia’s action in Ukraine.
While Putin during his first speech announcing the operation, he added explicitly that Russia would not “occupy” the territory of Ukraine. But seemingly, among Russia’s main goals is to take “full control” over the Southern Region as well as the Eastern Donbas region off Ukraine. Some other officials say Russia wanted simply to protect its Russian-language speaking population in Eastern Ukraine, while other cite political factors.
In mid-June, talking to seven African countries in St. Petersburg, Putin interrupted the presentations to explain the the concept and the reasons behind the action in Ukraine.
He reiterated that
“all the problems in Ukraine were conceived after a state non-constitutional armed and bloody coup in Ukraine in 2014. This coup was supported by Western sponsors. As a matter of fact, they even specified the amount they spent on the preparation and execution of the coup. And this coup is the source of power of the current leaders in Kiev. That is the first thing.”
Second, afterwards, part of Ukraine’s population did not support the coup and declared that the population of these areas would not submit to the people who came to power following the event. Russia was forced to support these people, bearing in mind the historic ties with the areas, and the cultural-language bonds with the people living in these areas.
“For a long time, we tried to restore the situation in Ukraine via peaceful means. If you have heard, you must have heard something about this, corresponding agreements were signed between the opposing parties in the capital of Belarus – Minsk. In this way, the so-called Minsk settlement process was launched,” he stressed in his explanation.
As it turned out, the western countries and the Kiev government authorities, then declared practically and publicly that they would not adhere to the peaceful agreements, and actually withdrew from that peaceful process. It was after this, that Russia was forced to recognise the independent states that had been formed in Ukraine, which we had not recognised for eight years: the Lugansk People’s Republic and the Donetsk People’s Republic.
On the international-legal aspect of this case, Putin said that Russia had the right to recognise the independence of these territories. And it did, in full compliance with the UN Charter, because pursuant to the corresponding articles of the UN Charter these areas were entitled to declare their independence.
According to Putin, after signing the Treaty on Friendship and Cooperation, Russia had the right to render assistance to them in full compliance with the UN Charter. Because the Kiev regime made numerous attempts to resolve the issue using arms and, in fact, launched military actions in 2014 using aviation, tanks and artillery against civilians. It was the Kiev regime that sparked this war in 2014. And in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, Russia had the right to render aid to them citing the self-defence clause.
At first, Putin really appreciated the fact that the African leaders have a balanced approach towards the Ukrainian crisis and accepted the proposal to hold talks regarding the situation around Ukraine. That the African leaders have a clear and deep understanding of the situation between Russia and Ukraine.
Under the headline – Kremlin decides that goal to “demilitarise” Ukraine has largely been achieved – the Ukrainskaya Pravda reported that Kremlin’s Press Secretary, Dmitry Peskov, had said that the task of the aggressor country on the so-called “demilitarisation” of Ukraine has largely been fulfilled.
In an interview with RT Arabic mid-June, Peskov said “Indeed, Ukraine was heavily militarised at the time of the beginning of the special military operation, as the Russian Federation calls the war against Ukraine. And, as Russian President Vladimir Putin put it, one of the tasks was to demilitarise Ukraine. In fact, this task is largely completed. Ukraine is using less and less of its weapons. And more and more it uses the weapons systems, that Western countries supply it with.”
“The countries of the West, namely the North Atlantic alliance under the leadership of Washington, are increasingly – directly and indirectly – getting involved in this conflict. They intervene in this conflict and become a party to the conflict. Of course, this leads to the fact that the conflict is delayed in time. This leads to the fact that the situation in Europe becomes more tense and unpredictable. And, of course, this obliges Russia to apply more decisive measures to ensure the safety of people in Donbas and the security of the Russian Federation.”
Peskov, in another interview to Russia Today (RT) this mid-June also stated that the “special military operation” has transformed into “war” between Russia and the West. Russia’s special military operation started to defend the Donbass region and now it has virtually turned into a war with the collective West, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in the interview.
“In fact, the special military operation against Ukraine, against the Kiev regime, was launched to ensure the safety of the people of Donbass. This is correct. Now it is practically a war between Moscow and the collective West,” the Kremlin spokesman said.
Recalling Putin’s statement about establishing a “cordon sanitaire” on the territory of Ukraine if the shelling of Russian regions continues, Peskov said that as the range of weapons delivered to Ukraine expands, so will the buffer zone, “that is, the distance that we will have to move Ukrainians away from our territories.”
During this one and half years inside special military operation (to use the official Russian phrase), Russian officials have given several reasons for its current action in Ukraine. One typical interesting reason came from Maj. Gen. Rustam Minnekaev, who’s the acting commander of Russia’s Central Military District, when in April 2022 he announced that Russia was fighting to establish a land corridor through Ukrainian territory connecting Russia to Crimea, the peninsula it annexed in 2014.
“Since the beginning of the second phase of the special operation, one of the tasks of the Russian Army is to establish full control over Donbas and Southern Ukraine. This will provide a land corridor to Crimea,” he said, according to TASS news agency.
According to him, if Russia could get control over Ukraine’s South, that would give the country’s forces access to Transnistria, a separatist statelet in Moldova, where a contingent of Russian forces has been stationed since the early 1990s. The tension between the neighbours has been bubbling for a while. The protracted conflict first brewed over in 2014 after the widespread Euromaidan protest in Ukraine forced the parliament to remove President Viktor Yanukovych from office.
The removal of Yanukovych, who was regarded as pro-Russia, vexed the leadership in Moscow, and they thought the best way to strike back was to reclaim Ukraine’s region of Crimea, which used to be under Russia’s control from 1783 to 1954. The Kremlin then kicked off operation “Returning Crimea” and it engineered a series of pro-Russia campaigns across several areas in the city. The invasion of Crimea followed as the “little green men” – masked soldiers without insignia but with distinctly Russian weaponry and equipment – took to the city.
Russia then launched a referendum in the city, and in the infamously skewed plebiscite, a staggering 97 percent of the population voted for the integration of Crimea into the Russian Federation. The annexation of Crimea by Russia was a blow to Ukraine. But the onslaught had not reached an end for Ukraine as Russia began to secretly provide weaponry support for separatists in the country’s eastern region.
This violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty helped the rebels claim control of the eastern city of Donbas with over 14,000 lives lost in the region. To end the bloody crisis, an agreement was hammered out in Minsk, Belarus, in February 2015.
The resolution tagged the ‘Minsk agreement’ was monitored by United Nations, and it proposed a cease-fire with all parties signing to power down their machinery of war. Despite a ceasefire agreement, both parties have not been at peace, and the Russia-backed rebels have claimed further swathes of land in the east of Ukraine.
At least between January and June this year, Deputy Russian Security Council Chairman Dmitry Medvedev has interchangeably, that at different times, used the words such as military operation, crisis, conflicts and war in his speeches. The most recent statement, Medvedev said that Russia’s conflict with “Nazi Ukraine” would be permanent and if regime changed occurs in Kiev, new authorities would not ask to join NATO.
“What does this mean from a practical point of view? We don’t need Ukraine in NATO. In any case, until any remnant of this country remains in its present state. Therefore, for Nazi Ukraine the conflict will be permanent. And a new political regime in Kiev (if there is one) will definitely not ask for NATO membership,” Medvedev asserted.
According to Medvedev, negotiations are possible only on the subject of “post-conflict world order” and sees no point in conducting negotiations on the situation in Ukraine and around it at the moment. “This is certainly so. How can you engage in equal talks with a half-decayed neo-Nazi country, which is under external governance? Talks are possible only with its masters, namely with Washington. There is no one else to talk to. However, it is too early to speak about it,” the Russian official added. “That is why there is no need at all for any negotiations,” Medvedev wrote.
Any future Russian political leader that will try to change the discourse on the country’s development that emerged in 2022, will be perceived as a traitor, so there will be no return to the “pre-war” past, Medvedev opined on his Telegram channel commenting on “sweet dreams” of Russians who left the country about the return to previous times.
“As for peace plans being proposed, all of them should be considered,” Medvedev said during his May visit to Vietnam, commenting on peace initiatives put forward by China and other countries. On the eve of the first anniversary of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, the Chinese Foreign Ministry published a document containing proposals for a political settlement of the Ukrainian crisis.
The conflict in Ukraine may continue for decades if the very essence of its neo-Nazi government is not eliminated, Medvedev, told reporters during a visit to Vietnam. “This conflict is for a long time, for decades, maybe. It is a new reality, new living conditions,” he said, and was convinced that if the incumbent Kiev regime remains in power, “there will be, say three years of truce, two years of conflict and then everything will go over again. The very essence of the neo-Nazi rule in Kiev needs to be eliminated,” he added.
The Chinese 12-point plan included calls for a ceasefire, respect for the legitimate security interests and concerns of all countries, settlement of the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, a prisoner swap between Moscow and Kiev, and refusal to impose unilateral sanctions without a relevant decision of the United Nations Security Council.
Details about the African delegation’s proposals were thin, to description given by several media reports. On the other side, Russian officials have also reacted different, some expressed signs of pessimism. For instance, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said after the three-hour meeting that the Africans’ peace plan consisted of ten (10) elements, but “was not formulated on paper.”
“The main conclusion, in my opinion, from today’s conversation is that our partners from the African Union have shown an understanding of the true causes of the crisis that was created by the West, and have shown an understanding that it is necessary to get out of this situation on the basis of addressing the underlying causes,” Lavrov said, but the African delegation had not brought the Russian leader any message from Zelenskyy.
“The peace initiative proposed by African countries is very difficult to implement, difficult to compare positions,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.
“But, President Putin has shown interest in considering it. He spoke concisely about our position. Not all provisions can be correlated with the main elements of our position, but this does not mean that we do not need to continue working.”
On June 17, President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa; the current Chairperson of the African Union and Comoros president, Ghazali Othman; President of Senegal, Macky Sall; President of Zambia, Hakainde Hichilema and Prime Minister of Egypt, Mostafa Madbouly arrived in St. Petersburg to discuss “the African peace initiative” regarding the Russian Federation’s war against Ukraine. In addition, the delegation included representatives of Uganda and Congo.
The key aim of the African peace mission primarily to propose “confidence-building measures” in order to facilitate peace between the two countries. It was to seek a peaceful settlement of the conflict which began February 24, 2022.
Ramaphosa made the proposal hoping to convince Russia and Ukraine to opt for dialogue, find a solution to the conflict.
“We would like to propose that this war must be settled through negotiations and through diplomatic means. The war cannot go on forever. All wars have to be settled and come to an end at some stage. And we are here to communicate this very clear message because the war is having a negative impact on the African continent, and indeed on many other countries around the world,” said Ramaphosa.
The day before, on 16 June, the African delegation visited Kyiv, where it took part in negotiations with President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Reports say Zelenskyy criticised the rhetoric of African leaders who call Russia’s war against Ukraine a “conflict” or a “crisis”. The president was also surprised that representatives of African countries emphasised their own grain and fertiliser crises, while avoiding to comment on the war in Ukraine.
The Ukrainian leader, speaking during a press conference in Kyiv, “I am grateful to the participants of our meeting for their support of the principle of territorial integrity of states and the protection of nations from aggression,” Zelenskyy said.
“Today, I saw the potential of our collaborative efforts on specific aspects of the peace formula. Naturally, I have extended an invitation to African countries to participate in the upcoming Global Peace Summit, for which we are diligently preparing,” Zelenskyy said, and further expressed his determination to attract as many countries as possible to the Global Peace Summit.
During the G20 Summit in November 2022, Zelenskyy presented a comprehensive “peace formula” consisting of ten key points. These points encompass the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, the withdrawal of Russian troops, the release of all detainees, the establishment of a tribunal to hold those responsible for the aggression accountable, as well as guarantees of security for Ukraine. Zelenskyy’s office also emphasized that Ukraine is open to considering all peace formulas proposed by other countries, but only the Ukrainian formula can actually be implemented.
On the other side from St. Petersburg discussions, Putin assured African leaders his logic of war is flawless and consistent with United Nations Charter. But in fact, the United Nations reports categorically indicated that Russia violated international law when it invaded Ukraine’s Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk oblasts in 2014 and followed up with a much larger invasion of the entire country in 2022. Russia has primarily violated Ukraine’s territorial integrity and its political sovereignty which it attained in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS) and InDepthNews, is now a regular contributor to Global Research. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.
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 June 14th, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenbergrepeatedly insisted upon facilitating Ukraine’s becoming a member-nation of that marketing organization for the weapons that are produced by U.S.-and-allied weapons-manufacturers, but America’s President Joe Biden made clear on June 17th that he will not allow softening the existing requirements in order to admit Ukraine into NATO.
The weapons-manufacturers’ sales are booming from the hundreds of billions of dollars of current and future-expected sales that are resulting from the burnup and breakdown of their products in the battlefields of Ukraine, and from the depletion of NATO stockpiles of those weapons in order to donate them to Ukraine so as to kill Russians there.
The manufacturers benefit greatly from this war.
And those weapons-manufacturers might therefore be disappointed that long-term future sales-volumes won’t be what they had been expecting from that war, if Ukraine becomes defeated.
So: there’s intensified effort to assist Ukraine against Russia.
What’s now forcing the issue upon Biden was described by me on June 18th under the headline “U.S. Empire will either lose Ukraine to Russia, or fail to win Taiwan from China — or both”, and I explained there that even the U.S. Government’s own war-planners are now concluding that America is on the losing side in both of those central targets for conquest in WW III (Russia and China); and, so, America will have to either lose Ukraine to Russia, or else will have to give up its (Deep State’s) aim of taking Taiwan from China.
Even America’s own war-planners have now concluded that if push comes to shove over China’s province of Taiwan, then China will force America to shove-off from Taiwan, and the result of a war over Taiwan now would be a destroyed Taiwan, a weakened China, and a humiliated and clearly #3 military power U.S.; so, the new plan by America’s Deep State (which group consists of the controlling owners of U.S.-based international corporations) is for the U.S. Government to instead cut way back on the 47% of U.S. discretionary spending that currently is non-military, and to place the U.S. economy as quickly as possible onto a full-fledged war footing, such as had happened when the Japanese invaded Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941.
Helping Ukraine now against Russia is supposed to be like helping Britain in WW II against Germany. However, though America’s war-planners are advising this de-emphasis on Ukraine, in order to increase emphasis against China, Biden wouldn’t be able to win re-election if the plan to go on a war-footing against China becomes clear to the public before Election Day, 5 November 2024. So: the war in Ukraine needs to be held in abeyance till at least then — if that is even possible.
Consistent with the recommendations of its war-planners, America, which has already seriously depleted its ammunition-supplies in order to enable Ukraine to defeat Russia in Ukraine’s battlefields, will have to instead rebuild its supplies specifically designed for the war against China, and doing this will require several years if it even can be done at all. But NOT doing it would terminate the U.S. Deep State’s objective, ever since it took over on 25 July 1945, for the U.S. Government to become the world’s first all-encompassing global empire, and to win control over the entire planet. That is what America’s billionaires demand.
Stoltenberg, by contrast, represents not only America’s aristocracy, but also the vassal-aristocracies of the other NATO-member countries; and they don’t want to have anything to do with a war against China. They have always been aspiring to conquer Russia, for their (as Hitler called it) “Lebensraum.”
Consequently, perhaps NATO is in the process of breaking up.
The war in Ukraine will have to be put on hold, whether Stoltenberg wants to or not.
What the response of Europe’s aristocracies will be to that, isn’t yet clear, at all. But they (as always since 25 July 1945) will have to abide by it.
In my personal opinion, the likeliest outcome from all of this will be that America will soon become the world’s third-most-powerful country, and the entire pre-Truman (i.e., FDR) plan for what the post-WW-II world-order will become, will be finally placed onto the table, for serious international consideration — which Truman and Eisenhower had blocked from ever happening. If that does happen, then the U.N., IMF, World Bank, and all the rest, will be fundamentally revised. The reputations of Truman and Eisenhower will then plunge, as historians will then be viewing them rapidly receding in their rear-view mirrors. They were the two worst Presidents in U.S. history. They retarded — prevented, for almost a century — progress in the international order. The 297 U.S. military invasions (244 of which happened AFTER the Soviet Union ended in 1991) that they and their successors perpetrated (each of which invasion was aggressive, not defensive) after WW II ended, and the 60 known U.S. coups (all of them after 1947), are more hell than perhaps anyone (other than maybe Hitler) perpetrated in at least modern times. Germany (on account of Hitler) has a lot to live down (and that’s publicly acknowledged because they lost the War), but so too does America after the deaths of FDR and Hitler (and maybe the U.S. Government’s shame will be publicly acknowledged after U.S. dominance ends).
Anyway: Biden, who got placed into power largely by America’s armaments manufacturers, now needs them to be in the back seat for a while. Stoltenberg won’t be happy about that. But Europe’s billionaires won’t hold it against him. They’ll understand. However, they won’t participate in America’s war against China. And this is why America created AUKUS for that. The only European country in that is Britain.
Ukraine will now be just Europe’s problem. It was America’s coup, but — at least for a while — it will be Europe’s mess to deal with (and America, which controls NATO, won’t allow Ukraine into NATO). The plan is that, if Biden wins re-election, America will go onto a war-footing against China.
In Europe, America was allied with UK and Germany against Russia. In Asia, America will be allied with Australia, Japan, and South Korea against China. Already, Russia and China have done their first joint military exercise.
*
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 Duran.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
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.
***
Respecting deals between countries or governments goes back millennia and includes civilizations such as Sumerians and Ancient Egyptians. This was always considered a sort of litmus test of a certain country’s or ruler’s reputation and it stuck for a very long time. In essence, this practice predates the very concept of international law and is in many ways its direct predecessor. However, it would seem certain countries haven’t really got the memo about how important respecting treaties is and what disastrous consequences may follow if one doesn’t.
On June 17, during a meeting with a number of African leaders and delegates who came to Moscow to offer a solution that would end the Ukrainian conflict, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a shocking revelation and even gave details of a March 2022 peace deal with the Kiev regime. The agreement, titled the “Treaty on the Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees for Ukraine” (negotiated with the mediation of the Turkish government), was actually signed by the Kiev regime.
However, the Neo-Nazi junta decided to discontinue its compliance with the treaty as soon as Russia kept its own initial end of the bargain.
Apart from other, more technical details, the deal included a clause that was supposed to be one of the key points of the Ukrainian Constitution and that would guarantee the country’s permanent neutrality. The very fact that Russia was insisting on this makes the claims that Moscow allegedly wanted to “conquer Ukraine” a moot point. In return for neutrality, the Russian military was to pull out and effectively end the special military operation (SMO). To back up his claims, President Putin also presented the relevant documentation of the abortive peace deal to the African delegates.
“I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, with President Erdogan’s assistance, as you know, a string of talks between Russia and Ukraine took place in Turkey so as to work out both the confidence-building measures you mentioned, and to draw up the text of the agreement. We did not discuss with the Ukrainian side that this treaty would be classified, but we have never presented it, nor commented on it. This draft agreement was initiated by the head of the Kiev negotiation team. He put his signature there. Here it is,” Putin stated and then presented the documents. (emphasis added)
The documents also revealed that apart from Russia, other guarantors of the agreement were the United States, the United Kingdom and France. The only non-Western guarantor was China.
The deal also specified the future size of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), as well as what types of weapons and equipment it would be allowed to field. Expectedly, numbers proposed by the two sides were vastly different, as Moscow suggested the AFU shouldn’t have more than 85,000 soldiers, while the National Guard should be limited to 15,000. On the other hand, the Kiev regime insisted that the number should be 250,000.
In terms of weapons and equipment, Russia proposed that the AFU should be capped at 342 MBTs (main battle tanks), 1029 armored vehicles, 96 MLRS (multiple launch rocket systems), 50 combat and 52 support aircraft. However, for its part, the Neo-Nazi junta insisted on having 800 MBTs, 2400 armored vehicles, 600 MLRS, 74 combat and 86 support aircraft. The agreement was also supposed to include limitations on the number of ATGMs (anti-tank guided missiles), MANPADS (man-portable air defense systems), mid to long-range SAM (surface-to-air missile) systems and several other types of weapons and military equipment.
To show that its goal was never to “conquer Ukraine”, as well as to demonstrate its readiness to honor the peace treaty, Moscow even pulled out its troops from northern Ukraine, including from the outskirts of Kiev it reached in mere days. Obviously, the actual aim of the SMO was to conduct an operation similar to that in Georgia in 2008, when Tbilisi was forced to sign a peace deal after it foolishly attacked Russian peacekeepers in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. However, the Kiev regime withdrew from the talks immediately after the Russian military left northern Ukraine, clearly indicating that the Neo-Nazi junta never intended to honor the agreement.
“After we pulled our troops away from Kiev – as we had promised to do – the Kiev authorities … tossed [their commitments] into the dustbin of history. They abandoned everything,” Putin stated, adding: “Where are the guarantees that they will not walk away from agreements in the future? …However, even under such circumstances, we have never refused to conduct negotiations.”
Indeed, how is Russia to ever trust any official agreement signed by the Kiev regime when the latter repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to break any and every deal so far?
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 and a regular contributor to InfoBrics and 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.
***
“I’ve been rereading The Autobiography of Malcolm X”, I volunteered. It was a spontaneous announcement after Jim, my neighbor, and I puzzled over the forthcoming Juneteenth holiday, unsure precisely what it signified. (I eventually offered my more or less accurate explanation without an endorsement from Jim.)
He was driving me home from the clinic where he’d kindly taken me to X-ray my leg for a suspicious pain. Jim was talkative on the way out, recalling a recent weekend with his grown family, the swank restaurants, their spacious rental. His descriptions filled the hour-long drive out. I said little, possibly because of my anxiety and the pain.
More relaxed on the homeward trip, I became engaged in our conversation over LGBTQ+ activism and how it was changing our locality.
Then my enthusiasm about forgotten facts of Malcom X’s youth seeped out. With silence meeting my initial comment, I blithely went on: “The book’s really well written.” Still no comment: no question of why I’d taken it up, or how expertly it was composed. I continued: “Of course, the book is as told to Alex Haley, author of Roots”. Maybe he’ll respond to that, I think. But no.
My urge to share could not be quelled with silence. “I hadn’t realized he taught himself to read in prison, studying the dictionary, page by page!” Finally, Jim responds. “Well, of course he was intelligent, and anyone with such intelligence would do that.”
I know Jim well. A retired teacher, he is skillful in diffusing touchy social situations, smoothly excusing someone’s faults, readily mollifying criticisms, eagerly reminding us of ‘the other side’ of any issue. I could see how, for a teacher, this would be valuable in negotiating conflict or diffusing tension among students. (Maybe he has some sensitive family condition he has learned to dampen.)
Nevertheless, I persist with further observations I’d made about our outstanding historical figure: “Of course, he wrote little himself, a few articles in the New York Black press – early on, I believe.
“But what a brilliant orator! He writes how, after watching other inmates debating at the prison in Massachusetts where, thanks to his sister Ella, he’d been transferred, he joined the program. It was in prison that he learned debating. He talked about how he studied the issues from the opposition’s side.”
Jim, again in his dismissive manner, replies, “Yes, of course intelligent people would study both sides of an argument and know how to contradict.” Is Jim seething underneath, wondering how he can close this subject entirely?
It was hard not to scream; for me, that is. Again, no curiosity, not even a critical comment about the assassinated leader, or Islam; no reference to other Black activists in the sixties when Jim would have been aware of the civil rights movement.
It was as if Jim was refusing to mention Malcolm X by name. Jim’s generalization of ‘intelligence’ was a subtle and effective way to ‘disappear’ Malcolm X’s historical status, his growth, his contributions, his insights, even his mistakes. Jim’s calm generalization was a kind of sly intervention. I would welcome a counter argument; but my remark is diffused by innocuous generality.
Jim and his wife are retired teachers. They lived in Germany when he was stationed there during the Korean war. They pride themselves on their wide experience, traveling annually to different European countries or parts of the U.S., extolling the friendliness of hosts and splendor of restaurants. They are proud of their teaching careers and speak about students they’re in touch with. They would never take sides in a dispute between neighbors in our town, but will offer help to anyone needing assistance.
Jim and others enjoying their retirement will persist with these liberalizing interventions. It’s habit. My regret is that it smothers conversation; it bars healthy argument; and it denies another’s joyous discovery.
I returned home, grateful for my neighbor’s help, but yes, annoyed by his refusal to accept what I was so eager to share. I picked up my book without delay and resumed reading: —learning that when Malcolm X arrived in Saudi Arabia for his first Hajj pilgrimage, he was surprisingly naïve; that, initially suspected as a non-Muslim, his entry was delayed at the airport; that in Mecca, encountering other pilgrims from around the world, he was repeatedly recognized as Cassius Clay, Muhammad Ali, and warmly welcomed and celebrated as the victorious boxer; that he had not yet learned even the basic prayer formulas of Islam; that he candidly shared his fears, his ignorance, his slowly changing views.
What a rich document an autobiography can 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.
A century ago Yogmaya and Durga Devi, two women champions of justice, emerged from a remote corner of rural Nepal to offer solutions to their nation’s social and political ills. Then they were forgotten.
Years after their demise, in 1980 veteran anthropologist Barbara Nimri Aziz first uncovered their suppressed histories in her comprehensive and accessible biographies. Revelations from her decade of research led to the resurrection of these women and their entry into contemporary Nepali consciousness.
This book captures the daring political campaigns of these rebel women; at the same time it asks us to acknowledge their impact on contemporary feminist thinking. Like many revolutionaries who were vilified in their lifetimes, we learn about the true nature of these leaders’ intelligence, sacrifices, and vision during an era of social and economic oppression in this part of Asia.
After Nepal moved from absolute monarchy to a fledgling democracy and history re-evaluated these pioneers, Dr. Aziz explores their legacies in this book.
Psychologically provocative and astonishingly moving, “Yogmaya and Durga Devi” is a seminal contribution to women’s history.
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 post below is from africanagenda.net, reporting on a punchy fifteen minute speech by Kenyan President, William Ruto, to the African Union Parliament on the disrespectful manner African leaders are treated by the developed sector. (See video).
Below that, is a two minute clip of President Ruto discussing the need to conduct trade outside of the dollar denominations.
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.
Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years.
He is a teacher, writer, public speaker, and consultant on Africa. He is also the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton.
Featured image is licensed under 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.
There were among them seriously independent journalists who can be very critical of the way the Kremlin and the Ministry of Defense (MoD) are conducting what can be alternatively defined as a Special Military Operation (SMO); a counter-terror operation (CTO); or an “almost war” (according to some influential business circles in Moscow).
It’s fascinating to see how these patriotic/independent journalists are now playing a role similar to the former political commissars in the USSR, all of them, in their own way, deeply committed to guiding Russian society towards draining the swamp, slowly but surely.
It’s clear Putin not only understands their role but sometimes, “shock to the system-style”, the system he presides actually implements the journalists’ suggestions. As a foreign correspondent working all over the world for nearly 40 years now, I have been quite impressed by the way Russian journalists may enjoy a degree of freedom unimaginable in most latitudes of the collective West.
The Kremlin transcript of the meeting shows Putin definitely not inclined to beat around the bush.
He admitted there are “operetta Generals” in the Army; that there was a shortage of drones, precision munitions and communication equipment, now being addressed.
He discussed the legality of mercenary outfits; the necessity of sooner or later installing a “buffer zone” to protect Russian citizens from systematic Kiev regime shelling; and he stressed that Russia will not answer Bandera-inspired terrorism with terrorism.
After examining the exchanges, a conclusion is imperative: Russian war media is not staging an offensive even as the collective West attacks Russia 24/7 with its massive NGO/soft power media apparatus. Moscow is not – yet? – fully engaged in the trenches of information warfare; as it stands Russian media is only playing defense.
All the way to Kiev?
Arguably the money quote of the whole encounter is Putin’s concise, chilling evaluation of where we now stand in the chessboard:
“We were forced to try to end the war that the West started in 2014 by force of arms. And Russia will end this war by force of arms, freeing the entire territory of the former Ukraine from the United States and Ukrainian Nazis. There are no other options. The Ukrainian army of the US and NATO will be defeated, no matter what new types of weapons it receives from the West. The more weapons there are, the fewer Ukrainians and what used to be Ukraine will remain. Direct intervention by NATO’s European armies will not change the outcome. But in this case, the fire of war will engulf the whole of Europe. It looks like the US is ready for that too.”
In a nutshell: this will only end on Russia’s terms, and only when Moscow evaluates all its objectives have been met. Anything else is wishful thinking.
Back on the frontlines, as pointed out by the indispensable Andrei Martyanov, first-class war correspondent Marat Kalinin has conclusively laid out how the current Ukrainian metal coffin counter-offensive has not been able to reach even the first Russian line of defense (they are a long – highway to hell – 10 km away). Everything NATO’s top proxy army ever assembled was able to accomplish so far was to get mercilessly slaughtered on an industrial scale.
Meet General Armageddon in action.
Surovikin had eight months to place his footprint in Ukraine and from the beginning he understood exactly how to turn it into a whole new ballgame. Arguably the strategy is to completely destroy the Ukrainian forces between the first line of defense – assuming they ever breach it – and the second line, which is quite substantial. The third line will remain off limits.
Collective West MSM is predictably freaking out, finally starting to show horrendous Ukrainian losses and giving evidence of the utter accumulated incompetence of Kiev goons and their NATO military handlers.
And just in case the going gets tough – for now a remote possibility – Putin himself has delivered the road map. Softly, softly. As in, “Do we need a march on Kiev? If yes, we need a new mobilization, if not, we do not need it. There is no need for mobilization right now.”
The crucial operative words are “right now”.
The end of all your elaborate plans
Meanwhile, away from the battlefield, the Russians are very much aware of the frantic geoeconomic activity.
Moscow and Beijing increasingly trade in yuan and rubles. The ASEAN 10 are going all out for regional currencies, bypassing the US dollar. Indonesia and South Korea are turbo-charging trade in rupiah and won. Pakistan is paying for Russian oil in yuan. The UAE and India are increasing non-oil trade in rupees.
Everyone and his neighbor are making a beeline to join BRICS+ – forcing a desperate Hegemon to start deploying an array of Hybrid War techniques.
It’s been a long way since Putin examined the chessboard in the early 2000s and then unleashed a crash missile program for defensive and offensive missiles.
Over the next 23 years Russia developed hypersonic missiles, advanced ICBMs, and the most advanced defensive missiles on the planet. Russia won the missile race. Period. The Hegemon – obsessed by its own manufactured war against Islam – was completely blindsided and made no material missile advances in nearly two and a half decades.
Now the “strategy” is to invent a Taiwan Question out of nothing, which is configuring the chessboard as the ante-chamber of no holds barred Hybrid War against Russia-China.
The proxy attack – via Kiev hyenas – against Russophone Donbass, egged on by the Straussian neocon psychos in charge of US foreign policy, murdered at least 14,000 men, women and children between 2014 to 2022. That was also an attack on China. The ultimate aim of this Divide and Rule gambit was to inflict defeat on China’s ally in the Heartland, so Beijing would be isolated.
According to the neocon wet dream, all of the above would have enabled the Hegemon, once it had taken over Russia again as it did with Yeltsin, to blockade China from Russian natural resources using eleven US aircraft carrier task forces plus numerous submarines.
Obviously military science-impaired neocons are oblivious to the fact that Russia is now the strongest military power on the planet.
In Ukraine, the neocons were hoping that a provocation would cause Moscow to deploy other secret weapons apart from hypersonic missiles, so Washington could better prepare for all-out war.
All those elaborate plans may have miserably floundered. But a corollary remains: the Straussian neocons firmly believe they may instrumentalize a few million Europeans – who’s next? Poles? Estonians? Latvians? Lithuanians? And why not Germans? – as cannon fodder as the US did in WWI and WWII, fought over the bodies of Europeans (including Russians) sacrificed to the same old Mackinder Anglo-Saxon power grab.
Hordes of European 5th columnists make it so much easier to “trust” the US to protect them, while only a few with an IQ over room temperature have understood who really bombed Nord Stream 1 and 2, with the connivance of the Liver Sausage German Chancellor.
The bottom line is that the Hegemon simply cannot accept a sovereign, self-sufficient Europe; only a dependent vassal, hostage to the seas that the US control.
Putin clearly sees how the chessboard has been laid out. And he also sees how “Ukraine” does not even exist anymore.
While no one was paying attention, last month the Kiev gang sold Ukraine to $8.5 trillion-worth BlackRock. Just like that. The deal was sealed between the Government of Ukraine and BlackRock’s VP Philipp Hildebrand.
They are setting up a Ukrainian Development Fund (UDF) for “reconstruction”, focused on energy, infrastructure, agriculture, industry and IT. All remaining valuable assets in what will be a rump Ukraine will be gobbled up by BlackRock: from Metinvest, DTEK (energy) and MJP (agriculture) to Naftogaz, Ukrainian Railways, Ukravtodor and Ukrenergo.
What’s the point in going to Kiev then? High-grade toxic neoliberalism is already partying on the spot.
*
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.
Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok. He is a regular contributor 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.
***
We see an odds ratio of 5 when comparing autism in vaxxed vs. unvaxxed in MULTIPLE studies. The before:after odds are even more extraordinary. How can we ignore all this evidence?
Executive summary
Here’s my favorite short list of evidence that can’t be explained if vaccines don’t cause autism. Does anyone think I’m wrong and can explain the list?
The list (in no particular order)
Here is a list of some of the most compelling evidence I’ve run across.
If there is a hypothesis that is a better fit to this evidence than vaccines cause autism, I’d love to hear it.
Madsen study: Even in this heavily flawed study, the raw data showed a strongly elevated risk of autism. So they never showed the raw data odds ratio (did you know that the rate of autism was 45% higher in the vaccinated group than the unvaccinated group?) and the paper only showed the adjusted numbers! That’s unethical. You can read the flaws in this study that was widely cited to prove that there was no association here. Over 1,000 scientists didn’t see anything wrong with the study! It’s really stunning how easily bad science propagates into the mainstream. Note that this is the single best study that is cited to prove that vaccines don’t cause autism and it is deeply flawed. The authors wouldn’t provide the underlying data and refused to answer any questions. Is that the way science works?
214 papers in the peer-reviewed literature linking vaccines and autism: Autism mom Ginger Taylor compiled a list of 214 studies showing the link between vaccines and autism. Here’s the list as a single download.
Wakefield 1998 paper:Wakefield’s retracted paper reported that “We investigated a consecutive series of children… Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another.” So 66% of the cases were associated with the MMR vaccine.
The 2022 Morocco study: 70% of the 90 parents surveyed affirmed that the first autistic features appeared after vaccination with the MMR vaccine. The rates are nearly identical to the 66% rate in the Wakefield study.
DeStefano paper evidence destruction: CDC scientist William Thompson was ordered by his bosses at the CDC to destroy ONLY the evidence linking vaccines and autism. Furthermore, the race subgroup analysis showing the link was omitted from the paper which is also unethical. When Congressman Bill Posey tried to get Thompson to testify in Congress, they shut him down so there was no testimony. This coverup was what convinced Wakefield that he was right: vaccines cause autism. More about the DeStefano paper in this article.
Simpsonwood meeting: CDC scientist Thomas Verstraeten did a study in 1999 linking thimerosal with autism. They tried to make the autism signal go away. They couldn’t. The original signal was a RR=7.6 which is a huge signal. See my article for details and a link to the original Verstraeten study.
Paul Offit lied to RFK Jr. about thimerosal: RFK Jr told me the story personally, but now, it’s on the Joe Rogan podcast Episode #1999. Start listening at 23:00. The punchline is at 28:33. Basically, the ethylmercury in the thimerosal makes a beeline out of your blood and deposits into your brain (unlike the methylmercury in fish which has a harder time entering your brain so it stays in your blood longer). Offit tried to convince RFK that the mercury gets excreted by referring to a paper. When RFK brought up the Burbacher study, there was dead silence on the line because Offit knew he had been caught in a deception. In short, thimerosal can seriously damage people’s brains. Vaccines are not supposed to cross the BBB. This creates biological plausibility needed for causality.
The CDC study showing how the measles vaccine caused permanent brain damage
Of course, if the authors wrote the vaccines killed these kids, they wouldn’t be able to get their paper published (that’s how “science” works). So you have to read between the lines that severe brain inflammation/damage might cause death. Do you think that might be reasonable?
So the CDC knew in 1998 that the measles vaccine was causing brain damage. But the paper said that the relationship “may exist.” Right. No other way to explain the data if it wasn’t causal.
This gives us more biological plausibility.
Studies of the vaxxed vs. unvaxxed
There are numerous studies of the unvaxxed vs. vaxxed which show a statistically significant higher rate of autism and other chronic diseases in the vaccinated.
More importantly, those who argue that this is not the case cannot produce a single study of the fully unvaxxed vs. fully vaxxed showing that the number of autism cases are comparable in the two groups. In fact, even in the highly acclaimed (but deeply flawed) Madsen study, there was a statistically significant higher incidence of autism in the “got MMR vax group” vs. “didn’t get MMR vax group” (p=.01) in the raw data before they made the signal go in the opposite direction by doing undisclosed adjustments (changing the relative risk from 1.45 to .92. The “adjusted” RR value had a confidence interval of .68 to 1.24 which means that even after applying all their “adjustments” that they can’t rule out the possibility that the MMR vaccine raises the risk of autism. And this is their best study!! Nobody ever tells you about this paper showing the underlying data they used is flawed. And nobody seemed to be bothered by the fact that number of black male children in this study severely underestimates the number of black kids in America. In fact, it doesn’t look at race at all in the study. Whoops! See this article for more about the Madsen study.
Paul Thomas had 0 autism cases in 561 unvaxxed patients total. For patients who followed the CDC vaccination schedule, there were 15 autism cases in 894 patients.
Hooker: 5.03 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated.
Mawson: 4.2 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated (666 in this study)
Control group: 82 odds ratio for autism in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. “For those with zero exposures to post-birth vaccines, pre-birth vaccines, or the K shot, the total rate of autism in the entire CGS is 0% (0 of 1,024)” Doing an OR calculation relative to my survey of 10,000 children: OR=82 CI:5.1197 to 1315 z statistic: 3.114 Significance level. P = 0.0018.
Lyons-Weiler: The study was too small to assess autism risk, but showed better health outcomes among the unvaccinated than the vaccinated in other conditions. See this article which notes that the unvaccinated had better compliance to their wellness checks than the vaccinated which eliminates a common argument that anti-anti-vaxxers use. It says, “the unvaccinated families made their well-child visits with greater frequency than the vaccinated families.”
A new study of 50,000 kids (submitted for publication but not yet published) shows the same odds ratios for chronic diseases as the Hooker and Mawson studies. The author is well respected and the dataset is very large.
The Generation Rescue (GR) study that was done on June 26, 2007 showed that vaccinated kids were significantly worse off in every category they looked at. “For less than $200,000, we were able to complete a study that the CDC, with an $8 billion a year budget, has been unable or unwilling to do.” Where is the CDC survey? Nowhere to be found! They simply don’t want to do it. Read the survey and see this article for more information. GR couldn’t tamper with the study or manipulate the results because it was done by a third party survey firm with no conflicts of interest. If the drug companies didn’t like the result, they could have easily commissioned a different polling company. But they didn’t!!! Or maybe they did and simply chose not to publish the results because they were so bad. In any event, the lack of a poll showing the opposite of the GR poll is very very problematic for the “safe and effective” narrative.
There are large cohorts with a no vaccination policy which have NO autism
The Amish: We couldn’t find an Amish child with autism who wasn’t vaccinated or adopted.
A large clinical pediatric practice I am personally very familiar with has eschewed the use of all vaccines and acetaminophen and achieved a zero autism rate over the past 25 years even though autism rates were skyrocketing in adjacent clinics. Furthermore, despite the lack of vaccination, the kids were also uniformly healthier than the kids in any of the surrounding clinics. This means that we can end the autism epidemic merely by altering individual choices we make. Unfortunately, this clinic cannot “go public” with this information because the medical boards would take away their license to practice medicine because they failed to push the vaccines on their patients like they were told to do by the medical establishment.
There are other pediatric clinics in the US which eschew vaccination. For example, at Homefirst Medical Services, “We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we’ve taken care of over the years, and I don’t think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines.” What makes this believable is that other clinics who didn’t vaccinate reported the same results.
The Homefirst clinic in Chicago run by Mayer Eisenstein had tens of thousands of patients and not a single case of autism over 47 years. He died in 2014.
In the past, public-health officials have said such an approach [surveying the public to look at health outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated] would be impractical due to low numbers of never-vaccinated children, but this column found tens of thousands of such children — beginning with the Amish — in various locations in the United States. In our anecdotal and unscientific reporting, the rate of autism seemed strikingly lower in never-vaccinated children, …
But this column identified several groups that might fit the bill — from the Amish in Pennsylvania Dutch country to homeschooled children to patients of a Chicago family practice.
“I have not seen autism with the Amish,” said Dr. Frank Noonan, a family practitioner in Lancaster County, Pa., who has treated thousands of Amish for a quarter-century.
“You’ll find all the other stuff, but we don’t find the autism. We’re right in the heart of Amish country and seeing none, and that’s just the way it is.”
In Chicago, Homefirst Medical Services treats thousands of never-vaccinated children whose parents received exemptions through Illinois’ relatively permissive immunization policy. Homefirst’s medical director, Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, told us he is not aware of any cases of autism in never-vaccinated children; the national rate is 1 in 175, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “We have a fairly large practice,” Eisenstein told us. “We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we’ve taken care of over the years, and I don’t think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines. “We do have enough of a sample,” Eisenstein said. “The numbers are too large to not see it. We would absolutely know. We’re all family doctors. If I have a child with autism come in, there’s no communication. It’s frightening. You can’t touch them. It’s not something that anyone would miss.”
The before:after odds measures
The before:after odds measures are the most stunning pieces of evidence there is for vaccines causing autism. Many parents notice a sudden, dramatic change in their child shortly after vaccination. But the funny thing is, none of them noticed this right before the appointment with the pediatrician to get the shot. It’s simply nearly impossible to achieve a disparity like this if the shots are safe.
This isn’t observer bias either. If a child suddenly developed autistic behaviors right before the doctor appointment to get vaccinated, you can bet the first thing out of the parent’s mouth would be telling the doctor before the shot of the sudden change. What pediatrician in the world can recall that ever happening?
Yet we are inundated with stories of parents saying their child got a fever right after the shot, the parent may have given the child Tylenol (which makes everything worse), and within hours, the child is never the same.
These clearly aren’t anti-vaxxer parents who believe Wakefield because if they were, they wouldn’t have vaccinated their child!!! So there is no way to ignore these reports.
Pediatrician Doug Hulstedt statistics: He had 150 autism patients, about half where the parents linked the autism to the vaccine. He said there were 44 cases where autism signs developed very quickly. In every single case, the regression happened after a vaccine shot rather than in the days or weeks before a vaccine appointment. That is statistically impossible if the vaccine is a placebo. But even more devastating is that you cannot find a pediatrician in the world where the before/after stats are comparable. Why not? If the vaccines are safe, every pediatrician should have comparable stats and it would be impossible to find a single Doug Hulstedt.
Autism is brain injury. The only things that could cause such an injury is a pathogen that is either injected, ingested, inhaled, or absorbed by the skin. There may also be a genetic cause. This limits our solution space.
There is not a single cause for autism. If you remove the major causes (e.g., vaccination, use of Tylenol, etc.), autism will still happen, but at a much lower rate.
The pathogen must be relatively new because autism rates didn’t “take off” until 1983. In 1983, the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) recommended a total of 10 vaccines for our children up to the age of 5. In 2007, the CDC recommended 36, an increase of 260%, or 3.6x. You can see the slope change at both those dates in the graph below.
This rapid climb was not due to a change in criteria to diagnose ASD. Such a change would create a quick step function and just shift the existing line upwards; the slope wouldn’t change.
Also, this growth isn’t due to a genetic issue because genetic traits don’t replicate exponentially over short time periods like this.
The fact that we can dramatically reduce the rate of autism by withholding all vaccines suggests that the vaccines are the major driver.
Distortion of truth
When people on the other side of the argument have to lie and distort the truth to make their point, you really have to wonder why they have to do that.
For example, For example, Matt Carey when he wrote about William Thompson’s study, he claimed that there was nothing wrong with excluding the RACE subgroup analysis from their published paper or being ordered to destroy ONLY the documents that were related to the RACE subgroup analysis (i.e., to ONLY destroy that data that goes against the CDC narrative).
Carey excels at gaslighting people who don’t know how science works. He wrote another article which deliberately misrepresented the results of the Generation Rescue survey (Matt claimed they showed the opposite of what they actually did). Nobody can read the results of the GR survey and think that the vaccines are bad. But he deliberately didn’t link to the source so you can’t easily check out that he’s lying.
As a result, none of the comments pointed out the huge misdirection.
Finally, the biggest piece of evidence comes from James Lyons-Weiler who got a call from one of the top autism experts in the world. He told James that “We all know vaccines cause autism. We just aren’t allowed to talk about it.” He was referring to his fellow autism experts.
If they admitted this, they would lose their funding, their job, their license to practice medicine, their hospital privileges, their board certifications, etc.
That’s why I can’t get a debate and when I try to reach out to these experts they ghost me.
And that’s why there are never the before:after studies and why all there are so many studies are designed to not find a signal.
Summary
Science is about matching hypotheses to data to which hypothesis is best able to explain all the data.
It’s clear that there have been studies which have been deliberately or inadvertently designed to not find a signal. This doesn’t mean there isn’t a link; it simply means the study was inadequate to find the link or the underlying data was compromised.
The thing is that if there really is not a link, then no matter what you do, you won’t find a link.
But the problem they have is that there have been other studies which show very clearly that vaccines cause autism that cannot be explained away because the signals are too strong.
Furthermore, I was unable to find a single study showing that the fully vaccinated had better health outcomes than the fully unvaccinated. Judy Gerberding, the former head of the CDC, promised to do such a study in 2005.
Twenty years later, that study has still never been done.
So in the meantime, the precautionary principle of medicine is pretty clear on what we should be doing: nobody should be getting any vaccines.
*
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 author
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
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 following is an excerpt from John C. A. Manley’s forthcoming novel, Brave New Normal (the sequel to Much Ado About Corona). The Canadian government has banned those who have not been vaccinated from travelling outside of their county or region. In this scene Vince and Yamamoto are stopped at a roadside checkpoint near North Bay, Ontario…
After an uncomfortable pause, Yamamoto asked loudly in a German accent, “Your papers, please?”
That made the cop jerk and step back.
“Huh?” he said.
“Your papers, please,” repeated Yamamoto. “That’s what you were going to ask me, wasn’t it?”
The cop’s eyes darted to the side.
“You know, from Casablanca,” continued Yamamoto. “One of my favourite movies. You’ve seen it?”
“No, sir,” said the young cop.
“You gotta watch it. 1942 World War II film. Classic. Two cops stop this guy on the streets of Casablanca, and say, ‘May we see your papers?’” Yamamoto turned his head back to me. “You’ve seen it?”
“No,” I shook my head and tried to act calm. Why did he have to do this? Hadn’t I taken enough of a beating from the cops?
But Yamamoto was just getting started: “Yeah, you know the police don’t actually say please in the movie. A lot of people quote them as being that polite but they just ask to see his papers. No please.”
“They were Nazis?” I asked.
“No, French fascists.”
“Oh,” I said, not really sure what the difference between a Nazi and a fascist was. I pulled out my phone and punched in “wikipedia fascist.”
“Yeah,” continued Yamamoto. “A lot of people remember them as Nazis who say please, when really they were fascists who didn’t bother.” He turned back to the cop, keeping his hands on the steering wheel. “Anyway, the gentleman gives them his papers and one of the fascist cops says it’s expired. Then the guy makes a run for it and they shoot him in the back. ”
The police officer stared back at us, unblinking.
After a pause, Yamamoto asked again, “You sure you haven’t seen it?”
“I don’t think so.”
“You really should,” insisted Yamamoto. “I mean it should be required viewing for this patently fascist position you’re executing.”
“I’m not a fascist,” he grumbled back.
“Do you even know what a fascist is?” Yamamoto shot back.
No reply.
I cleared my throat and held up my phone. “Says on Wikipedia that a fascist is an authoritarian, ultra-national political ideology…”
“Check, check, check,” said Yamamoto looking the cop up and down.
“…characterized by a dictatorial leader… “
“Big shout out to our prime minister,” said Yamamoto.
“Militarism…” I continued reading.
“Roger that,” said Yamamoto pointing his index finger out like a gun at the young constable’s utility belt.
“…forcible suppression of opposition… “
“You can vouch for that one, eh, amigo?” he said elbowing me.
“…and subordination of individual interests to the perceived good of the nation and race.”
“Yeah! There you go. I think Canada almost passes inspection. We’re just lacking one thing before we can claim to be a fully fascist state…”
The cop tipped his head to the side and asked, “What’s that?”
“Cops who can say: Your papers, please. And I really want you to say please, even though it wasn’t in the movie. It’s the Canadian thing to do. Especially if you’re going to shoot me after.”
“No one is going to be shot.”
“Are you joking?” said Yamamoto. “Our fascist government wants everyone shot, every three months.”
“I meant with a gun.”
“Both are lethal.”
“Are you an anti-vaxer?”
“No, I’m anti-fascist.”
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
John C. A. Manley’s Brave New Normal will be released in 2024. The preceding book in the series, Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story, was released in 2022. Patrick Corbett, former director/producer for W-5, Beachcombers and Dateline, praises the novel as “a ripping story of courage, awakening and love.” Visit John C. A. Manley’s website for a free preview or to order a copy MuchAdoAboutCorona.com
Much Ado About Corona: A Dystopian Love Story
By John C. A. Manley
Publisher: Blazing Pine Cone Publishing (March 29, 2022)
Paperback: 507 pages
ISBN-10: 1778123104
ISBN-13: 978-1778123108
A Novel About Real Love and a Fake Pandemic
Summer 2020. The first lockdown has ended in the small Canadian town of Moosehead. Twenty-four-year-old Vincent McKnight emerges from three months of stay-at-home orders into a surreal new normal of multi-coloured face masks, acrid hand sanitizers, and germaphobic neighbours standing six feet apart.
The new normal becomes even stranger when Vince’s Indigenous grandfather sends him to buy a loaf of bread from the town’s new baker. Stefanie Müller speaks five languages, has beautiful blue eyes… and is a certified conspiracy theorist. She believes the pandemic is a hoax to justify totalitarian “public health” measures.
But when the local cop pulls out his taser, Stefanie’s dystopian premonitions no longer seem so theoretical. And when the restrictions threaten Granddad’s life, Vince finds himself going face-to-mask with the emerging police state—forced to choose whether to follow senseless rules or to follow his pounding heart.
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.
***
He wanted to reassure Russia’s African partners that it isn’t responsible for the food crisis ahead of the next foreseeable round of information warfare claiming otherwise, which will likely commence once the “grain deal” expires next month in the days leading up to the second Russia-Africa Summit.
President Putin surprised his guests from the African peace delegation on Saturday by revealing details about Russia’s now-defunct draft treaty with Ukraine. It would have re-enshrined neutrality in that country’s constitution and also limited its number of military forces. According to him, it had even been signed by the Ukrainian side, which then discarded it in response to pressure from the Anglo-American Axis (AAA) despite Russia pulling its troops back from Kiev as part of an agreed-upon goodwill gesture.
The special operation could have been over just a month after it started, thus meaning that this development marked the beginning of the NATO-Russianproxywar in hindsight seeing as how that bloc hadn’t yet gone all-out in supporting Ukraine until right after that happened. This suggests that while the AAA was indeed surprised by President Putin preemptively averting Kiev’s planned reconquest of Donbass, they eventually saw an opportunity to weaken their rival by perpetuating this conflict.
They seemingly calculated that it would quickly collapse due to combined proxy war and sanctions pressure, though that obviously didn’t happen. The following fifteen months ended up hurting the Global South a lot more than Russia as proven by the food and fuel crises that ravaged these developing countries as a result of the West’s unilateral restrictions on their target’s financial dealings. The so-called “grain deal” also failed to relieve their suffering since Kiev never shipped its supplies to those states.
It was in the context of those countries’ plight that some of their leaders decided to embark on a peace mission to the two direct combatants in this conflict. They reportedly sought to convince both sides to agree to a ceasefire and other de-escalation measures such as lifting some of the sanctions in order to restore their previously reliable grain imports from those two. President Putin was aware of why they visited him and thus took the chance to prove that Russia wasn’t responsible for their problems.
His country regards Africa as an emerging pole in the ongoing global systemic transition to multipolarity, hence the importance of comprehensivelyexpanding their relations. To that end, the Russian leader must absolutely ensure that his counterparts and their people aren’t misled by the West’s propaganda blaming it for the food crisis, especially since the “grain deal” is unlikely to be renewed due to its terms never having been fulfilled and a renewed round of information warfare will predictably follow.
President Putin therefore chose “the perfect time” to reveal details about Russia’s now-defunct draft treaty with Ukraine in order to show them that it’s Kiev and its AAA patrons who are responsible for disrupting Africa’s previously reliable import of grain from Eastern Europe. The supplementary context of Kiev’sdisastrousNATO–backedcounteroffensive also enabled him to show average Westerners that this catastrophe was entirely avoidable had the AAA not meddled in the Russian-Ukrainian peace process.
About those talks, they might very well resume around wintertime after Kiev’s doomed counteroffensive finally comes to an end, during which time the African peace delegation might be requested by both sides to informally mediate. By informing them of the details contained in the sign agreement that was ultimately discarded by Ukraine under the AAA’s pressure, they’ll be able to pick up where those two left off and thus be able to more effectively facilitate their talks in that scenario.
For these reasons, it makes sense why President Putin waited until now to reveal details about this treaty. He wanted to reassure Russia’s African partners that it isn’t responsible for the food crisis ahead of the next foreseeable round of information warfare claiming otherwise, which will likely commence once the “grain deal” expires next month in the days leading up to the second Russia-Africa Summit. By sharing proof of this with their peace delegation, President Putin ensured that they won’t be misled.
*
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.
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.
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.
***
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia met with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris on June 16. One of the items on their agenda was Lebanon, which has close historical and language ties to France. The tiny Mediterranean country has been in financial collapse for several years, and has been without a president at its helm since October 31, 2022.
Lebanon suffers from financial problems linked to fraud accusations against the Central Bank chief, the military occupation of Shebaa Farms by Israel, and further suffers from a sectarian ruled political system that prevents a solution to the nation’s woe.
Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Maher Al-Dana, a Beirut based journalist who has contributed to multiple news agencies, and has covered the war in Syria. He is now the Information Director for the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP).
***
Steven Sahiounie (SS): The SSNP published a video on their official Facebook page, which showed the SSNP military wing taking positions in the South of Lebanon on the border with Occupied Palestine.
Maher Al-Dana (MA): The video published was the same time as Hezbollah’s training with live ammunition in the South of Lebanon. From what you know, could there be a possible operation in the near future?
First, what happened was the announcement of activating the military and resistance action in the SSNP and announcing that this party, which withdrew from its role of resistance as a result of the wrong previous decisions and calculations of previous leaders, has today reactivated its work in its natural arena, although the nationalist have never backed down from this work. Neither in the Jewish occupation of the south, nor later in the July War, they also had a major, important and pivotal presence in the global war on Damascus.
As for today, in what is said about operation, this matter is determined by the requirements of the battle with the enemy and the requirements of confrontation, and we are present within a unified operations room of the resistance effort, which takes this decision and directs the resistance factions as needed.
SS: Interpol has issued a red notice arrest warrant for Riad Salameh of the Lebanese Central Bank on accusations of fraud, embezzlement and money laundering of the Lebanese people’s money. In your opinion, will the corrupted Lebanese politicians prevent his arrest?
MA: Politicians in Lebanon and no one can protect Riad Salameh after today, but on the issue of Interpol, on the issue of international justice, this is something that needs discussion. No one can cover Riad Salameh, but the most important thing is that the political pressures on the Lebanese judiciary be lifted in order for it to move towards Riad Salameh first, towards all those who participated in wasting and stealing the money of the Lebanese, and towards everyone who smuggled money and deposits abroad, and this is a matter of priority. The battle today in corruption is not a battle against individuals, it is a battle against a system, Riad Salameh is one of its heads.
SS: Lebanon has been without a president for over seven months. The parliament should be meeting soon to elect a president, between Sulaiman Franjieh and Jihad Azour. In your opinion, will the politicians agree on a choice, or will they wait for foreign influence to make their choice?
MA: After the election session that was held on June 14, in the parliament, we can say that we are facing the reality that there are two candidates: a candidate whose team has burned him, and a candidate whose team continues to nominate him. Jihad Azour ended, it ended for several reasons.
First, whoever nominated him is not convinced of him, and he nominated him on the basis of the principle of conspiracy. As for Franjieh, he is a candidate on the basis principle and criteria that this team still believes in, and he will continue to nominate him for an indefinite period now, either by bringing him to the presidency of the republic or by changing circumstances. Therefore, whoever nominated Jihad Azour did not respect him, and he did not respect himself when he accepted that he be nominated by a team to manipulate him, and this matter requires scrutiny by those who nominated him, I mean, there is Minister Gebran Bassil who nominated him to maneuver, to say to the other team, come and talk to me, I am the helmsman’s egg, while the other nominated him to overthrow Franjieh, and because he brings economic policies that this team has always pursued since the year 90, and this matter will not pass, and these people, if we remove Gebran Bassil aside, will not have any influence on the decision in the light of Lebanon’s presence in this environment and in these circumstances, and therefore let us look at who can protect him and who can preserve the role that Lebanon plays within its surroundings.
SS: The SSNP foundation is based on secularism, while Lebanon is being divided and weakened by sectarianism. In your view, will the new agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia have a positive effect on Lebanon, and what is the role of the SSNP in decreasing sectarianism in the region?
MA: The role of the SSNP has always been, and since its establishment, to fight the occupation of Palestine, the project for the establishment of a Jewish state that we consider an entity and it will disappear, as well as the project of sectarianism and fragmentation in our country, which only serves the occupation project.
We are fighting sectarianism with slogans, and indeed, we are always striving for the establishment of a civil state, and our project today at this stage is entitled the state of resistance and citizenship, and therefore it is unacceptable in the year 2023 for the sects to remain the ones that control the fate of the country.
Towards a citizen state, and towards a state of resistance, and these two things are interrelated, and the first factor does not deviate from the second factor completely.
SS: The resistance movements in Gaza and the Occupied West Bank have grown stronger and tensions have been increasing there. In your opinion, are we entering a new phase of resistance to the brutal military occupation of 6 million people?
MA: The resistance has never retreated. Rather, it has always accumulated its strength and accumulated its experiences and performance in order to make a difference and in order to reach the main goal, which is the liberation of the occupied territories. Within the context of the forties until today, we have seen where the resistance has become.
As for what is happening today in the West Bank, and what is happening in the Palestinian interior, it is the biggest blow to the Jewish project, which I believe is that by subjugating some leaders and some regimes, it can go towards subjugating the people, and this is something of course that has not happened and will not happen. Today, the security coordination officers who work with the Palestinian authority and coordinate with the enemy and the Shin Bet and Mossad agencies in order to pressure the resistance fighters, the sons of these people leave their homes to carry out stabbing and run-over operations against settlers and against members of the occupation army, and thus they dropped the idea of volunteering and dropped the idea of security coordination.
Our people are a living people that cannot, under any circumstances, give up their natural right to confront and liberate the 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.
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.
***
Laos is a country in Southeast Asia with a rich development potential based on vast water resources as well as minerals including gold. Its suitably located land trade routes had also contributed to the prosperity of the country in previous centuries. In more recent time its tourism potential has attracted much attention and the country even received the most favored tourist destination status from a leading European tourism organization, partly due to architecture, history and heritage aspects. In numerous villages of this rural-based economy there has been much potential for achieving food reliance in ecologically conducive ways.
Unfortunately all this potential was first harmed by the highly exploitative French colonial rule, then Japanese invaders, and then French colonialists again. The brave people of Laos continued to resist all this to finally achieve independence. Tragically, before they could properly tap the potential of various development opportunities, they were attacked in the most destructive ways by the USA Air Force as well as the CIA.
No, the people and the country of Laos had not harmed the far away located, mighty USA in any way at all. Despite this, the people of Laos faced their heaviest destruction from the USA, worse than what they faced even during direct colonial rule, due to two factors.
First, in the course of their freedom movement, it is the communist force called the Pathet Lao which had emerged as the strongest, probably because it was the closest to protecting the interests of peasants and workers. Hence it could only be expected to be friendly to the communists in their neighboring country of Vietnam, particularly as the Vietnam communists were led by such a great and popular leader as Ho Chi Minh. To start with neither the communists of Vietnam nor of Laos had any quarrel with the USA at all and in fact expected it to help them in their anti-colonial struggles.
However the USA establishment had by then taken a non-rational decision of coming down hard upon any and all communist forces and led by such thinking they got involved in a long and prolonged war first in Vietnam and then in Laos. In the case of Laos a more specific complaint of the USA was that some land routes of Laos were being used to supply provisions to the communists in Vietnam and these had to be cut off.
Anyway, the USA embarked on a twin strategy of very heavy aerial bombing of Laos, including its villages, and at the same time using the CIA to organize an illegal and secret land war on the land. The CIA organized war was largely kept secret from not just the world but even from the people and elected representatives of the USA for a long time. This illegal war initially also used the cover of development aid agencies to make contacts. Then ethnicity based groups which could be used to fight the communists were carefully identified and helped with money and arms to attack the communist forces and their supporters. This created such great divisions in the country that it became very difficult for certain people to live together in the same country again, as some of them were looked upon as traitors, and several of them had to be settled in the USA.
However even worse damage was done by bombing attacks, because of the very destructive weapons used as well as the extremely large scale of the bombings. Between 1964 and 1973, about 2.3 million tons of bombs were dropped in this small country, more than the 2.1 million tons dropped by the USA in Europe as well as in Asia together in the entire course of World War II. In terms of bombing relative to population or per capita bombing, no other country in the world has ever suffered heavier bombing than this. Over a period of about 9 years, one bombing was carried out every 8 minutes (day as well as night).
Nearly 270 million bombs, mostly cluster bombs, were dropped. Cluster bombs are known to be one of the most painful weapons. A single cluster bomb, which in turn can contain as many as 200 bomblets, explodes a little before hitting ground and the bomblets can be very violently dispersed, often getting lodged in critical organs of the person or child who has been hit, or resulting in several festering open wounds whose pain has been compared to acid burning. Completely innocent civilians and villagers were hit more often. It became impossible to live in several villages and these were deserted and people became refugees. In a small country nearly 200,000 persons died, nearly double this number were seriously injured, nearly 7,50,000 became refugees.
This was not all. About 30 per cent of the dropped bombs did not detonate immediately and remained hidden in various places to pose serious danger in future. Nearly 50,000 persons including a very large number of children have been killed, seriously injured and disabled in later years due to these hidden bombs. Many such injuries resulted in amputations. As several bombs resembled balls or toys for children, a large number of children were injured or died when they picked up bombs, despite the fact that a campaign of warning was launched.
This danger of unexploded ordnance (UXO) is likely to continue for long, with 63 such accidents being reported as late as 2021, because the USA has invested so little in removing this danger. According to one estimate, while the USA spent $16 million per DAY on the bombings for 9 years (on the basis of current prices), it has spent only average of $ 5 million per YEAR since it started contributing, that too very late, to the UXO clearing work in the 1990s. This contribution was increased after some time not so much by the USA government acting on its own, but because of the wide awareness generated by some good efforts like the Legacies of War project which increased public awareness of this great injustice and tragedy. A very small percentage of the estimated UXO has been cleared yet, probably less than 5 per cent. It has been estimated in US studies that the UXO risks can continue beyond 100 years.
It is important not only for the USA to contribute much more for UXO clearance but also to pay huge compensation to Laos because the bombings and the CIA land war in Laos were completely illegal.
The USA war against Laos was for the USA just an extension of its war with Vietnam; it had no legal justification and was shockingly unethical in all aspects. The only reason, if it can be called a reason, the USA had was that it was committed to curbing any communist force, and isn’t it an irony that after all that happened, the tiny country of Laos with its 8 million people is today more committed to communism than China is!
*
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.
Featured image: Anti-aircraft troops of the Laotian Peoples Liberation Army. (Licensed under 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.
***
Israel is set to bring 10,000 workers from India to staff jobs in construction and nursing industries, in a sign of deepening economic and political cooperation with New Delhi, according to multiple Hebrew language news sites.
Reports say workers will arrive in stages, with 2,500 filling jobs in both construction and nursing. The final agreement for labour is still being worked out between Israeli and Indian officials.
“We expect the agreements to be approved shortly, and we will soon be able to start setting up the necessary mechanisms to employ skilled labour in a proper and supervised manner,” a spokesman for the Israeli Ministry of Population and Immigration said.
The talks come on the heels of Foreign Minister Eli Cohen’s visit to India in early May where he signed an agreement with his Indian counterpart, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, to bring some 42,000 Indian foreign workers to Israel, with 34,000 earmarked for construction and 8,000 in elder care.
Israeli officials reportedly toured workplace training centres in India in March ahead of the talks. Israel’s Population and Immigration Authority described the Indian workers as diligent, experienced and fluent in English.
Israel and India have been forging closer ties for years. In January, India’s Adani Group acquired a 70 percent stake in the now privatised Haifa Port, for $1.2bn. The two are also part of US efforts to deepen security and economic cooperation with the UAE and Saudi Arabia.
Washington is promoting a plan for a vast infrastructure network that would connect Gulf and Arab countries to India via rail and shipping lanes. President Joe Biden’s top national security advisor met with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and officials from India and the UAE to discuss the plan this month.
But the influx of Indian workers to Israel would be one of the most tangible signs of cooperation with New Delhi filtering down to daily life in Israel.
Roughly 100,000 Palestinians from the occupied West Bank and Gaza work legally in Israel, with the bulk of those jobs in the construction sector. They often face hazardous working conditions and exploitation. Almost half of the West Bank workers are forced to pay around 2,500 shekels ($746) a month to brokers to secure work permits.
Meanwhile, Palestinian citizens of Israel have also faced discrimination for their political actions. In 2021, when Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories were swept by mass protests, hundreds of workers were fired by Israeli employers for participating in a general strike.
Israel also regularly uses the issuing of work permits to exert influence and control over the Palestinian economy, experts say.
Indian officials have pointed to Israel’s policies as a model for their control of Kashmir, where New Delhi has been accused of conducting a mass eviction drive against Muslims to alter the disputed valley’s demographics.
*
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.
***
In 1967 The CIA released a dispatch that coined the label “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorists” to attack anyone who challenged the official narrative from the Warren Commission. It’s interesting to note that the document is labelled “psych”, for psychological operations or disinformation. It’s also marked “CS copy” at the bottom, meaning “Clandestine Services” Unit.
This document was requested and released to The New York Times in 1976 via The Freedom of Information Act. Below is the CIA dispatch. Read it for yourself.
CIA Dispatch: Weaponizing “conspiracy theorist” label Page#1
CIA Dispatch: Weaponizing “conspiracy theorist” label Page#2
After the 1960’s the word “conspiracy theory”, “conspiracy theorist”, and “conspiracy” started having a negative connotation and is enough to silence anyone who questions the official narrative. To this day we still view conspiracy theorists as crazy tinfoil hatters.
*
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.
***
Many of you have probably seen that even the Washington Post is admitting to complete failure for Ukraine, NATO, and the US in their so-called “counteroffensive”.
More than a week after the start of Ukraine’s much-hyped counteroffensive, which Kyiv and its Western supporters say will push the Russian invaders back to pre-invasion lines, there are signs that Ukraine is unlikely to achieve lightning gains.
Russia’s military failures last year created a misperception of weakness. Offensive operations are far more difficult and attacking armies suffer far more casualties than the defending side.
“The Russians are fighting on well-prepared positions and have accumulated a sufficient amount of artillery ammunition, plus they have more drones… ”
“There are so many minefields in front of positions and many kilometers away from them, on the roads, in the fields, and it’s really difficult,”
“And a lot of Ukrainian breaching equipment has been destroyed already, so trying to cut through all these mines is a real challenge. That’s the first line of defense.”
Then come the drones. Pro-war Russian bloggers and reporters have gleefully posted video clips of Lancet drones smashing Western materiel on a near-daily basis over the past two weeks.
Russian forces are also using aviation more actively.
President Vladimir Putin boldly asserted that Ukraine’s combat losses were “ten times higher” than Russia’s casualties.
“I don’t see panic anywhere on the Russian lines.”
Ukrainian army is still facing its main test: breaking through to Russian lines and persevering in large-scale infantry fighting.
Ukraine is being hammered by drones, by air attacks, by artillery, led to their destruction through enormous minefields which they cannot clear – and after two weeks of enormous losses and useless efforts, Ukraine hasn’t even once broken into Russia’s first line of defensive positions. And all this in spite of NATO having given Ukraine everything they could in advanced equipment (Leopard 2, Challengers, Bradleys, M777, Storm Shadow), in NATO training, NATO officers on the ground (several killed in Russian airstrikes), US military AI software like Paladir, and US spy satellites giving Ukraine live-feed of the situation on the ground. And Ukraine hasn’t even “broken through” to Russia’s first line of defense. Ukraine tries to attack without air defense. Ukraine also tries to attack with big inferiority in artillery power. And Ukraine tries to attack through minefields which they don’t know and which they don’t have the equipment to clear. Ukraine is already caught up and destroyed in what Russia calls the “flexible zone” in front of its first defensive lines. All of NATO was for nothing.
There you have it.
No wonder that Western voices in “Ukraine Pravda” talking about “making a pause” in Ukraine’s suicidal “offensive” efforts – it’s just a losing circus. See this.
Everything NATO does is to murder Ukrainian men on the frontlines.
Ukraine is wasted.
*
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.
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 interview was conducted on June 5, 2023.
Chuck Fall: My name is Chuck Fall, an activist at Green Liberty Caucus. We are following up on our recent interview with Emanuel Pastreich concerning his run for president, which he launched in 2020, and truth politics.
We here at Green Liberty Caucus found Emanuel to be a champion for all the things that we value and believe in. Today, we’re going to discuss Emanuel’s manual “How to take down the Billionaires” in eleven chapters.
Emanuel, the topic is incendiary! Let us conduct a rapid-fire summary review of the 11 chapters as an elevator speech and give an opportunity for our guests to pose questions.
Why have you have written this 11-chapter manual and what is society’s predicament relative to the billionaire class? What is going on?
Emanuel Pastreich: To start with, we live in a profoundly controlled society wherein the rapid concentration of wealth over the last 20 years, and especially over the last 5 years, means that a very, very tiny number of wealthy individuals and families have an almost absolute decision-making power over many policies in the United States and around the world.
I wanted to articulate in this book how we can take down the billionaires, in a practical manual of 11 chapters. I discuss what specifically we need to do to rectify the situation and to create a transparent democratic and egalitarian society.
Chuck Fall: Chapter One is titled, “Assessing our position in the middle of the battle.” You describe what we the people confront in this plutocracy.
Emanuel Pastreich: We have to start the battle by first fully comprehending what we’re up against. Who is included in this group, who are the special interests. We need to know who the families like the Waltons, the Kochs, or the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, are.
We have to consider what they’re trying to achieve using their various networks and the banks and funds, the private intelligence firms, the consulting firms and media firms that they employ.
We also need to consider where we are as individuals, and as a group. Although we outnumber the billionaires vastly, we have been fragmented. Also, we have sauteed in this narcissistic, self-centered, culture for the last 50 60 years, that makes it difficult for us to pull ourselves together and make a long-term plan. Many thoughtful intellectuals are more concerned about their family vacation in Italy than about risking their lives to defend the rule of law.
Finally, we’ve tended to outsource advocacy to other people. We think to ourselves that someone else is going to do the hard lifting, not me. The result? Although our numbers are far greater, and we have greater assets, we’re not necessarily winning this battle.
Chuck Fall: In an in a nutshell, why is the billionaire class such a problem?
Emanuel Pastreich: If we read between the lines, we can observe their intention to reduce us to idiocy, by using technology in the form of social media, pornography, games, memes featuring fat cats and cafe lattes to dumb us down and make us passive and reactive.
They then slowly strip away our ability to participate in the decision-making process in our community, make the political parties dictatorial by nature so that there is no way to participate in them, or influence them, and make us dependent on multinational corporations for energy or food, and even for the means we use to communicate with each other such as Facebook, Twitter, or Zoom.
There are declassified reports from RAND, DARPA and elsewhere that explain the concept of mass control. Essentially the plan is to make the United States into an entertaining Disneyland with secret police and torture chambers.
We need to assess, to be honest with ourselves, as to where we stand, what we’re up against. Then we can make concrete plans that can be implemented.
A presidential election is a great way to get attention, but it’s not what we’re ultimately about. If I am elected, but the manner in which the rules of the game have changed is not challenged, it will be a meaningless election.
Chuck Fall: There was a movement back in the nineties to oppose corporate domination. Fighting the billionaire class is not a novel idea. We saw that struggle in the Occupy Wall Street protests. You’ve moved beyond that, homing in on the 0.0001%.
Emanuel Pastreich: Well, that distinction between the 1% (which was the target of the Occupy Wall Street movement and the puppet masters 0.0001% is a subtle one.
Bernie Sanders who ran a pay-to-play “liberal progressive” role in the Democratic Party, used that expression “the 1%” all the time—while he secretly sucked up to the big corporate money and made himself a tool, a cardboard messiah.
Yes, we need to identify concretely the .0001% and go after them.
At the same time, we need to grasp that there are two aspects of the domination of capital, and the control over policy. On the one hand, there are the 0.0001%, Koch, Walton, Rockerfeller and other families in the US, and around the world, who control billions of dollars in assets.
There is also a group of people who see their interests as aligned with those guys. I am taking about investment bankers at Merrill-Lynch, Goldman- Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Vanguard. These players are lawyers, managers, technicians and others who make things work.
You can think of them as a swarm of flies buzzing around the rotting dead pig’s head.
That second group is the 1%, and they are also plenty dangerous.
Ultimately, in this battle, the super-rich will have no hesitation destroying all those people who trusted them, who thought that they were on the same side. This is a war.
Chuck Fall: Chapter two is titled “the weaknesses of the billionaires.” Here you endeavor to demythologize the billionaire class. I wonder though, whether the American people generally kind of like their billionaires. Do we not internalize the possibility that maybe someday, we can rise to that level of accomplishment and achievements. We do not want to deny ourselves that opportunity to rise to that level in the future.
We do not want to diminish their accomplishments. You’re challenging that. And you’re saying that the billionaire class is parasitic, is fundamentally a threat to our culture, to our society.
There is one part in your book that is hard to follow: You argue that the wealth of the billionaire class is a fraud, that they have no money. That sounds paradoxical.
Also, you talk about how the billionaire class uses super computers—how? Finally, you argue that we the people need to change the rules of the game in this struggle.
Emanuel Pastreich: I see the struggle against the billionaire class as the equivalent of war.
That is why I invoke the Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu whose writings I know since my field is Asian studies. I studied classical Chinese, so books like “The Art of War” are very familiar to me. “The Art of War” stresses understanding who your enemy is, what their nature is, what their desires are, and what they’re striving for. At the same time, it demands that you understand yourself, know your own weaknesses, your own misperceptions, your own indulgences.
The implication is that if you can grasp both, who your enemy is, who the person you’re struggling with is, and who you are, then you are on the road to success. But if you don’t get the second part, if you don’t understand who you are, or if you don’t understand who you’re dealing with, then the situation is quite dangerous.
The billionaires have spent, billions of dollars over a long period of time, on research from back in the 1960s on how to make people stupid, over time, using TV, movies, pornography and games. They conducted a lot of research on mass manipulation, as I mentioned regarding the work of DARPA on this subject. Basically, the effort has been quite successful.
It is true that many people look up to the billionaires. Elon Musk or Bill Gates are glorified because they promote themselves, spreading myths about their start as entrepreneurs creating their business in their basement, or in their garage. Supposedly, thanks to their genius and the American way they became billionaires. And so could you if you were only a bit smarter.
This narrative is a clear fraud. These billionaires rise to wealth was fixed. It wasn’t about technology; it was about access finance.
There was some brilliance in people like Mark Zuckerberg. The way in which he played various investors against each other to keep Facebook under his control was smart. But that was not his brilliance in technology or his vision for humanity-just his greed and cunning. Anyone could have built the Facebook if they had access to 50 billion dollars in loans that they did not have to pay back anytime soon. The key was the use of global finance and the leveraging of the use of supercomputers to manipulate people.
These days, money is calculated by supercomputers. Most of those supercomputers handling digital currency are not accessible to third parties. The parasite class can get billions, or trillions, of dollars by just cooking it up, using derivatives and other financial mythical beasts that live in super computers.
Supercomputers are also used to track us, anticipate our actions and manipulate, “nudge” us into making decisions that are not in our interests.
This part of the conspiracy is left out of most alternative media.
Using super computers, multinational corporations get access to extremely detailed descriptions of all of us that allow them to track us as individuals, as groups, or as communities all over the whole world: hundreds of millions of people in real time.
They use this information to anticipate what we will do. And they float all sorts of false news, concepts, ideas, and initiatives—the test runs you get in the Washington Post that is owned by Jeff Bezos—in order to test us, manipulate us, shock us, and to lull us into a state of passivity and mental disorientation that allows, assures, that no effective resistance will be organized. This mass manipulation via profiles of just about everyone and customized information fed to individuals and populations undermines the whole sense of governance.
The bottom line for us is not uncovering the latest fraud. It must be forming meaningful, organized, long-term, planned resistance that will take them down step by step by step.
Chuck Fall: So, leads into Chapter 3, “Formulate a Comprehensive Strategy.”
The Billionaire Class is a problem because in effect they have their tentacles in every aspect of society, especially with the emergence of a national security state that has since morphed into a full-blown surveillance state as a consequence of the 9/11 Patriot Act.
Emanuel Pastreich: One aspect of what is happening today which is not understood is the historical similarity between what was done during the German occupation of Eastern Europe and Russia after 1940 and what is happening now.
At that time, there was a plan to eliminate a large number of people to make room for the German population. The mass killings were headed by a separate command than the war effort—then as now.
If you read what the World Economic Forum says, or what people like Bill Gates or Elon Musk say off the cuff, you can see the traces of such an agenda.
And the Eastern front was not the first time. The same project was undertaken by European settlers moving into South and North America from the seventeenth century on. They systematically destroyed indigenous civilizations and then reduced the survivors to slavery—or killed them.
Their campaign against us is extremely serious. These guys are not playing a game. They have no interest in softball democracy.
Chuck Fall: They’re not playing softball democracy. Everyone on this call agrees with your sentiment. We are all opposed to the emerging globalist, techno- totalitarian program. We are in solidarity with the call for the US to exit the World Health Organization.
Chapter Three is a call to formulate a comprehensive strategy. You invoke Martin Luther King and the movement he was building. But you go further and speak explicitly about seizing assets; locking up criminals. On what grounds do you make such a demand?
Emanuel Pastreich: Regarding the comprehensive. Strategy, I’m not here to lecture you. I think that other people in this group probably know many of the historical details better than I do. My purpose here is to try and bring us all together, and not to tell you what to do.
I welcome your contributions to our long-term strategy. Regarding the strong language I use—it should be obvious.
If you or I made up a plan to kill off millions of people using bogus vaccines, or, if we blew up a major skyscraper and used it to start 20 years of foreign wars, thereby killing millions of people, what would happen to us?
This is pretty simple stuff, right? I can tell you what will happen to you. If you survive, you’ll be in jail, and all your assets will be seized.
That’s what happens. I am not taking a radical position. We’re, we’re basically advocating that these billionaires are citizens of the United States, or citizens of their countries, and they are subject to laws just like everyone.
They do not enjoy a special off-limits that creates a safety zone for billionaires.
At this moment that’s exactly the case, there is a safety zone that has been created for them over last 50 years, a space in which national law doesn’t apply. And this trend has entered hyper drive with the COVID-19 operation from 2020.
The first step is to say, “You guys are going to jail and these are your crimes.” I am not alone in my criticism of the Billionaire class.
Other people are pursuing this goal in parallel, and that’s welcome. I have no interest in dominating others.
My unique role is to declare, “I’m a candidate for president, and billionaire malfeasance is at front and center in my campaign. That alone goes far beyond what Robert Kennedy says, just stating that vaccines are unsafe.
I say that if Blackrock and the multi-billionaire families hiding behind Blackrock funded and planned the Covid event, then all their assets should be seized, just as my assets would be seized if I engaged in massive manslaughter in an effort to make a profit.
Chuck Fall: Green Liberty Caucus supports the calling out of state crimes, and that part of our movement demands that we explicitly identify these crimes. The covering up of these events has given a free pass to the billionaire class. I am reminded of the book “The Devil’s Chessboard” by David Talbot. He relates the story of Allen Dulles who served the Billionaire class when he worked at the firm Sullivan and Cromwell back in the day.
Next is chapter 4: “Stop complaining.” You’re telling people, don’t complain; Instead organize, file legal motions at the local level. Talk about what you mean by “stop complaining” and getting active. What does that mean?
Emanuel Pastreich: I find current politics extremely frustrating. People invite me to discussions, to talk on their online broadcasts, and such. I hear people complain to each other in great detail there about what’s wrong. Much of what they describe is correct. But that discussion ends up being a distraction from taking actual action.
Action would be organizing groups of people who like us who are closely tied together, who are willing to take risk coordinating their efforts in concentrated way for both a long-term goal and a short-term action. That team has to be asking every day, what are we going to achieve in the next battle? If you don’t have that that sort of discussion, nothing will get done. The old phrase comes to mind, “Don’t complain. Organize!”
We need to get away from, complaining and organize. That means breaking out of the narcissistic, self-indulgent “cult of self” in which one just complains when something is wrong.
Instead, make a plan; build a team; get to work. If we throw ourselves into it we will get to the point where Green Liberty Caucus has much more legitimacy than the Federal government.
And that’s where we want to head, to form an institution that is legitimate, that represents the people, and that follows the Constitution. Those other agencies that call themselves Homeland Security, NSA, or whatever, those institutions are not legitimate and ultimately, they are not the government.
To put it simply, we should take the position that if institutions do not follow the Constitution, then have no legitimacy. They are the puppets of this elite class, not the government. We have numbers of people on our side.
Chuck Fall: Chapter four is titled “End government secrecy’”
You open the chapter with an appeal to JFK’s speech of April 1961 to journalists which opens with the line, “The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society.” Green Liberty Caucus. is founded on accountability, transparency, protection for whistleblowers, and the need for an independent media (although I don’t mention the last so much in writings).
Why you why you’re highlighting secrecy as a problem. And why do you appeal to Kennedy?
Emanuel Pastreich: Kennedy was inspiring for me. I was born eleven months after his death. Even as a child, I had a sense of myself as being “post-Kennedy.” I didn’t really understand it, but I felt that JFK had a vision. I felt sympathy later in my career since he, like myself, started from an establishment background, and was pushed to take a more radical position by the forces he encountered in his career.
You learn how things really work when you take a stand.
Secrecy casts a long shadow over our democracy. I am disturbed that much of the alternative media, and even the conspiracy websites, don’t discuss the core issues of secret governance in the United States.
Let me do so here. There are three primary tools, as I describe in book.
The first is the use of classified directives, a practice that has expanded enormously over the last 15 years, but especially over the last 4 years.
These days it is not just the CIA and Department of Defense that serve people with classified directives, but also the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services—and other agencies that have nothing to do with security.
So, you can be served at any time with a classified directive that tells you what to do, even if you do not work for the government, and you are not allowed to tell anyone about it.
This secret governance, often carried out by multinational firms on contract with the government, has gutted the entire political system.
The second tool in the box is secret law. Secret law is passed by the Congress. The existence of secret law is not a secret. What is unique about secret law is that although it has the same legal authority as Federal law, you can’t disclose it. You can be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for violating secret law. Nobody knows that that the strange statements you make as a politician, or lawyer, or journalist, is a result of the secret laws you are subject to.
I am not a lawyer and cannot give great detail about secret law, but I have encountered it and I would say all political figures in the US run into secret law and classified directives on a daily basis.
The third tool of secret governance, and the most prevalent, is non-disclosure agreements.
So nowadays, if you’re subject to some evil act by a corporation or the government, you are forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement that declares that what was done is a secret forever.
Nobody knows what was done to you. For many jobs you must sign some sort of non-disclosure agreement that says that you can never discuss the illegal and unconstitutional actions that you are involved in.
I want to say something about whistleblowers, people like Snowden or Assange, who dominate the corporate media. These guys are not representative of the struggle against secrecy, nor are they central.
Most people in government or corporations who encounter state crimes and put down their foot, speaking the truth, are just eliminated without a trace.
They are not necessarily killed, but they will spend the rest of their lives teaching part-time at community colleges, their careers will be destroyed. This is how government works in the US and it is now about laws but secret law and classified directives.
Chuck Fall: The Department of Commerce is subject to a law that specifies that anybody employed (that covers everyone from air airline pilots to the engineers that wrote the NIST report on WTC Building 7) have no whistleblower protections and they are not provided protection under that law. You’re raising an important element in in our struggle, and that the need for transparency in governance. We are not getting that in our current national security government now hyped-up after the Patriot Act.
Emanuel Pastreich: It all goes back to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 coming out of the Civil War and Reconstruction whereby Congress said the military cannot be used domestically to handle civil disturbances. There have been serious incursions into domestic affairs by the military even after the Federal troops left the South in 1876 as part of the settlement of the Rutherford Hayes / Samuel Tilden electoral count dispute. Today, that separation of powers is in the trash. Homeland Security is setting up fusion centers in Southeast Asia, in Central Asia, in in South America. We have the FBI signing agreements with contractors to information for profit. The military is authorized to infiltrate and to engage citizens. Much of it has privatized so as to serve multinational corporations and billionaires, using classified directives a to shut up, and shut down, people.
Chuck Fall: That is a big and serious problem. You are the only one on the Presidential campaign circuit addressing this issue in such detail.
Robert Kennedy is speaking a truth politics, and I’m proud of him for raising truth issues in his campaign. But you are definitely going further.
Moving on, “Chapter 6. Don’t outsource the movement.” What do you mean? By “don’t outsource the movement” are you suggesting that people need to step up, to take responsibility, to take control of our liberation?
Emanuel Pastreich: We face the moral equivalent, literal equivalent, of war. Of course, it’s not war in the sense that we are used to.
Look at these NGO’s that bombard you with email and letters.
You donate to them on the assumption that if you give the money they will do the hard lifting for you, they will solve the problems for you. That advertising is a fraud.
Most of the money for these NGOs come from a handful of rich people who follow a corporate agenda (even those who pose as anti-corporate).
And then there are the little fish like you who send in $25. They completely ignore you.
These NGOs function as a distraction from the real crisis in our society and they siphon off money from, and draw attention away from, actual change.
The only way to organize real opposition that’s capable of taking back the government and restoring the Constitution is to organize ourselves tightly and to rely on our internal cohesion and collective efforts. We need to rely on people whom we trust in our group and then to expand that group. I think that this group, those in this discussion, about 10 people, is an excellent start. I mean, it’s more than enough to build a movement.
Chuck Fall: In Chapter 7 you call for forming independent communities. I want to point out that at the Green Liberty caucus website we have a section on libertarian municipalism. You and others in the movement, both left and right, are calling for the decentralization of power into communities. Are independent communities realistic? Explain your vision.
Emanuel Pastreich: I am not a romantic who extols the glories of agrarian America. It was great that American agriculture all organic, but there were lots of problems in rural America. Humans are flawed animals from the beginning,
We must recognize that we have lost our self-reliance, especially since the end of the Second World War. We’ve been made dependent on energy in the form of oil gas, coal, and foods, processed, factory farmed and imported.
Before, most farms were able to produce energy using windmills and water mills, human and animal labor. Now we are dependent on corporations for energy just as we are dependent on corporations, and on the Federal Reserve, for money.
In the nineteenth century, even early twentieth century, people were much more independent. Many families didn’t need to use money unless they went to town. You could barter, or use other means, to support yourself from your farm and from the farms of your neighbors.
This loss of independence, the growth of corporate and state dependency, makes us depend on auto makers, distribution and logistics companies, and supermarket chains. City planning it designed to make automakers and oil companies happy. If you are a good parent, care for your neighbors and grow organic food, it means nothing. If corporations build thousands of automobiles that no one wants, it is called “growth.”
By creating communities in which we can grow our own food, make our own furniture and tools, help each other—and most important of all make sure the money stays in the community and is not syphoned off by multinational corporations—that will make us independent.
We cannot do this tomorrow, and not all of us are going to be able to do it.
It is the correct direction. The intention of the other side is clear. The intention of the other side is to dumb us down, to restrict our access to energy, to degrade the quality of food, and set lay out a path into the invisible prison that they have prepared for us. And we will accept that prison ultimately because it seems more comfortable than freezing in the dark.
Chuck Fall: Chapter 8 is titled: “End the cult of the self and stop corporate corporations from inducing narcissism.” Speak briefly about that topic.
Emanuel Pastreich: We face a systematic effort, based upon research conducted back in the fifties, manipulate people by inducing narcissistic, self-centered behavior.
If you notice that youth are more self-centered today than was the case before, that is because they have been brainwashed by the corporate culture around them—it is not a natural change.
That is how we’re controlled. Milton Mayer’s book “They Thought they were Free” describes how under the Third Reich in Germany citizens were convinced that they were entirely free through advanced psychological manipulation in media and entertainment, in music and art. The advances in technology make the assault even more dangerous today. We are not free at all. We are deeply manipulated people.
Chuck Fall: Chapter 9, “Take control of the economy” demands fundamental banking and monetary reform. You suggest that money is created out of thin air, and that the billionaires employ the banks, intelligence agencies, and other institutions with authority to create artificial wealth. What do you mean by, “Take control of the economy?”
Emanuel Pastreich: You probably have a better understanding of economics than I do. I’m proud to say I didn’t take a single economics class as undergraduate, and I believe it’s a false science. I think bloodletting is maybe a little bit more effective than economics as a science and astrology has its charms.
But I take no offense if you studied economics. I would be happy to learn from you.
Money belongs to the people and we need a monetary policy that is determined by the people.
If we are focused and we develop a plan, we can implement it systematically and build out so that citizens slowly take control of our local economies, and then, building up from there take back the national economy.
We need, above all, to build a grass-roots local economies focused around food production.
Chuck Fall: Chapter 10 discusses the role of the intellectual, and how to reestablish meaningful education, build out independent journalism. The title is “The Treason of the intellectuals.” That seems to be a very critical perspective on the intellectual leadership of our country.
Emanuel Pastreich: I’m a card carrying intellectual, and even could be called an establishment intellectual as I studied at Yale and Harvard.
I acknowledge my part in the establishment, and I have profoundly sorry for how we have failed you.
It’s always going to be true that citizens are dependent on a group of highly educated people. It’s a fact that not everybody can gain specialized knowledge in all fields, and be able to judge what information is reliable.
Working people are not going to be able to understand national security issues, economics, semiconductors, energy production, etc. They are going to be dependent on the honesty and the integrity of the intellectual class, on its willingness to speak truth to power.
What went wrong in the United States? I think it has to do with the end of the Cold War—but I am not sure. It is a fact that over the last thirty years increasingly intellectuals saw their interests as aligned with those of the rich, essentially standing on the side of the establishment and against ordinary citizens. They did so often while employing coloration that made them appear “progressive” and “diverse.”
I watched the growing influence of the wealthy on the college environment. I was a professor at University of Illinois, starting teaching in 1997, and I watched the process by which the money increasingly ran the show. The universities, and the professors in them, were no longer interested in society. In the end, when I said, “we should talk to citizens,” people thought I was insane. They told me, “You should be publishing articles that can get you grants and thus secure your tenure at Harvard, or wherever. Play the game.”
So, we lost the intellectual class and it with went education.
Now, education has become a coronation. You receive this degree, a crown, that allows you to get a job working at Goldman Sachs. You don’t actually have to learn anything. You just have to jump through the hoops. We witness education being boiled down.
At my alma mater, Yale University, there has been profound drop in the quality of education for students. The facilities are beautiful; all the ivy league colleges are lovely these days. They’ve been spruced up like resorts; they polished all the wood and there are beautiful rose bushes that are carefully trimmed. But the quality of education has gone down. There are no serious questions being asked and lots of taboo topics.
The students are prepared to follow orders and trained to enjoy an indulgent, self-centered life. The idea that somehow you have an obligation to country and society, or that you have an obligation to know the truth, these quaint ideas have vanished. There is no sense that receiving that education, which others cannot, involves a moral obligation to serve society, or even to know the truth. But I do not think it is okay to be fuzzy about what COVID-19 is.
Journalism is an extension of education, and it’s more important than schools because many people rely on reports in the media who do not get quality educations.
We see now the beginning of a renaissance of journalism. There are people who write independently, who engage in thoughtful, journalistic writing. And I’ve been impressed by this development because such journalism was not there before. I spend so much time just trying to figure out what’s going on in the world.
It’s a puzzle. You have to read all these different sources, and apply your critical reading skills, check for plausibility, and to read between the lines, in order to know what they’re saying, what the vested interests are trying to achieve. As J. P. Morgan said famously, “There are always two reasons behind a political decision: a good reason and a real reason.”
Journalism as a whole has died, has been absorbed into advertising. I noticed this trend when I was teaching at Berkeley in 1995. When the New York Times went from black and white to color, suddenly it because sensationalist and impressionistic.
Of course, the New York Times had problems way back but it had certain sort of standards for reporting and for presenting a diversity of opinions. The New York Times became an advertising medium for selling an an upper West Side lifestyle of café latte at lavish bookstores to the masses, Integrity went out the window.
We are here now trying to talk to a general audience, about real issues. I write speeches, which are articles that inform ordinary people about what’s happening in our country.
Chuck Fall: Chapter 11 is titled “Taking the Billionaires down one step at a time.” You emphasize here that we cannot take them down until the steps described in the prior chapters are attended to, especially secret governance. You envision multiple organizations to push forward these efforts, including, possibly a provisional government. You say we must name names, calling out malfeasance.
Emanuel Pastreich: Chapter 11 is sparse on details because we will have a lot of different people involved with different approaches. I want to say that we cannot take these people down overnight. If Bill Gates is arrested tomorrow, I will not consider that to be a victory. I would think that the powers that be behind the scenes said let’s just scapegoat, Bill Gates so we can go on with the party.
The only way that we can establish a more democratic, more transparent, and more egalitarian society is using a slow, step by step, process—which is what they used against us.
First, we take back the foundations. The foundations would be, above all, spiritual and intellectual independence. That means we establish a society in which the citizen is able to comprehend the world, and to think for herself, for himself. Next, we need independence in terms of community, and an economy over which you have control over. That means stopping the money that is flowing in and out from multinational investment banks behind the scenes. They have taken over local banking for much of the country.
We need to get the word out to the people about how we will take them down. Getting accurate information out is the next step after we have some solid communities.
These efforts are already taking place, and not my brilliant ideas. My manual is based on things that I have heard from others, or that I saw others doing.
My role was to bring it together. Bringing things together at this transitional moment is critical.
I want to make it clear to everyone that power is not my goal. I’m willing to take considerable amount of risk but I have no financial interest in this. No one’s paying me to do this, and, in fact, like Mark, I have taken considerable financial damage for the effort to articulate another view.
Tom Rodman: How do we get these people out of their comfort zones, get them to wake up?
Emanuel Pastreich: Waking people up can be tricky. My language is not always so friendly, and I’m not good at kissing babies as a politician. I ran into enormous problems concerning climate change. There’s now a large number of people who are taking secret kickbacks to say that climate change, the environment crisis, is all a fraud made up by the World Economic Forum. They don’t even touch on biodiversity, on real science. Clearly there is money for people in the alternative media to say that it’s all made up.
But I was there. I saw people in academia, and in government who were dismissed from their jobs, or denied funding because they spoke out about climate change and the collapse of biodiversity. We were not paid, but punished.
But these days if you say that COVID19 was a fraud, and 9.11 was a false flag, everyone expects you to say climate change is also made up. I am not going to bow before that false idol.
Chuck Fall: Thanks for your insights. We will come back to this topic and transhumanism in the future.
Jon Olsen: I think we’re all pretty much congruent with the views that you’ve expressed to your manual. I want to note that I am disturbed by the current conflation by so many of fascism with communism. Fascism is totalitarian systemin which I command and you obey, or else. There is no real ideology or philosophy involved. No intellectual content.
Communism, by contrast, has rich history of ideology and political philosophy. It was committed to the empowerment of the working class. We need to keep that tradition in mind.
Our movement resembles the little boy who says that the emperor has no clothes.
I watch the mainstream media on occasion for reconnaissance purposes, to see what those guys are saying. What we need is for thousands of us to say publicly what we know privately, that we do not believe those lies. We have to take down the media of lies that is part of the foundation of the empire.
Chuck Fall: Judith, what comments or questions do you have?
Judith Osterman: You have studied past rebellions and revolutions. I wonder what lessons you’ve drawn from them. Perhaps you can talk about strategies that you admired, that we might imitate from the past.
Emanuel Pastreich: That’s a fascinating question, and I hope we can have another session to discuss what we can learn from other revolutionary movements, what was successful and unsuccessful in the American Revolution, the Civil war, the Paris Commune, the Russian Revolution, the Mexican revolution, efforts in the Spanish Republic or the New Deal.
The bottom line is getting uncompromising revolutionary change done is always difficult. We will start with a small number of people who are committed intellectually, have the ability to organize and carry out these changes. At the same time, we have to make a broad appeal to everybody.
What worries me is that when the people trauma induced by COVID-19 and 9/11 that there will be such revulsion and anger against the establishment, including those among my classmates who betrayed the people. It is going to be difficult to take the next step in a rational, democratic manner. People will want blood. That’s my greatest concern at this moment.
Perhaps the Russian Revolution is a good parallel. In 1905 there was hope of some sort of democratic process, a progressive politics.
But the scale of the betrayal of the people in the First World War by the ruling class, the pointless slaughter of farmers and workers following secret diplomacy in Russia, that pushed the entire discourse to an extreme. Perhaps the response made sense, but it limited what Russia could do after the revolution.
Judith Osterman: I have heard that the power elites plan to create a severe global economic crash that will force to adopt a digital currency. Clearly that has already started. What do you think?
Emanuel Pastreich: I think the enactment of digital fascism has not gone as fast as they were hoping because people are finally starting to organize. There are people like us even in the Green Party.
I guess people were not as stupid as they postulated in their DARPA scenarios. The billionaires and their advisors underestimated the ability of people to organize resistance under complete ideological assault. Some people were not wasting all their time watching memes on Facebook.
But they got a lot right. The vast majority of people were totally asleep, let them advance this level without resistance. It is sad for me to see my friends, extremely educated and previously political committed people who have bought into this COVID19 fascism out of cowardice or exhaustion.
Most are not thinking about digital payment systems as a form or war. They are unaware of the possibility that another 9/11 would result in all their money just vanishing. We still have a lot of work to do.
Marvin Sandnes: I saw this YouTube video last week of a graduating class that was presented with a twenty-foot screen featuring the face of Zelensky.
The whole graduating class was wildly cheering.
I’m sure that 90% of those kids embrace the vaccination campaign. I’m sure that 90% of those kids accept the story that terrorists, Muslim enemies, were behind 9/11.
We need to work with people first with those who think like us. We need to work with young people who work with their hands, who understand what needs to be done. Most of the kids at universities are lost.
But where to start? There is no organization that helps us to reach that vast group of youth who are far more intelligent than these college graduates.
Your effort to reach out is commendable, but sadly we tend to focus on people who in college, or college graduates.
Chuck Fall: Good point, Mark. How do we reach people? Of course, we have to reach people in college. Be we need to reach more people than that. I think it is valuable to stop at truck stops and talk with truckers while they’re eating or drinking having coffee.
Emanuel Pastreich: I’m there. I’d be happy to do a tour like that.
Chuck Fall: You talk about the importance of education and journalism
We have to rely on the first amendment, on our ability to speak, to protest, to assemble and petition grief.
That needs to happen on multiple levels and we need multiple points of engagement by well-organized grassroots, organizations. That is the core, no, of your proposal?
Emanuel Pastreich: Absolutely. The Constitution is central to this project, to this battle. It’s going to come down to this in the final scene: we will say that we follow the Constitution and since the Constitution defines what the United States of America, and is not, what government is, and what it is not. If we run into some clown who works for a transnational IT firm, a corporate intelligence consultancy, we will say, “You may think that you have a contract with DoD that allows you to call yourself the “government,” but, in fact, you are illegally meddling in governance. Get out of here.”
That is why the Constitution is so critical for us; we need some sort of compass to guide us through this maelstrom.
Mark Goldman: We need to have more of these conversations in order to consolidate our approach and focus on what’s possible. I think there is plenty that possible.
The crisis is so deep today that these problems you have identified are now visible to many for the first time. We now know who the people are behind this and what the problems are. We know the secret history of the elite of which most were previously totally unaware.
A big part of our effort must concern educating our children. Marvin suggested that our children are lost, and I have to agree.
We have lost our way because we failed to teach them, to tell them why have a constitution? What does it mean to have freedom? We will must do if we lose that freedom?
We must start, not with major donors and corporations, but with the truth, with dignity, compassion, courage, and love. That is what will transform the nation, not a series of commercial advertisements. Most of us were never taught these fundamental values.
We need a common foundation, an affirmation of what is important in life.
Truth is our most powerful weapon. We should tell the truth no matter what we are up against.
The commitment and the understanding of how important truth is will make the difference. Emanuel suggests some strategies.
I don’t know what all the strategies must be, but we must start by fundamentally reevaluating what is important in life, and what we are morally obligated to create through our efforts.
Chuck Fall: I say Amen to that. An excellent concluding remark from Mark. I am Chuck Fall of the Green Liberty Block; we support the efforts of Emanuel Pastreich in his run for President, and his efforts to advance a national conversation, and to be a leader in truth politics. We are building a movement for truth politics and invite everyone to join us.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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 Fear No Evil.
Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.
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.
***
“Turbo cancer” is a non-medical term that has arisen to describe very aggressive and rapidly progressive cancers following Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and suppression of the immune system.
I have written 14 substacks about turbo cancers so far:
South African Mayor, 42 year old Marlene Vermaak Van Staden had a lump after COVID-19 booster shot, it was a stage 4 turbo breast cancer, she died 10 months later on June 5, 2023
42 year old Marlene was Mayor of a town in South Africa. She had a COVID-19 booster shot and shortly after, in April 2022 she discovered a lump in her left breast, which was diagnosed as Stage 4 breast cancer in Sep. 2022. She died on June 5, 2023.
Savannah, GA – 35 year old ObGyn doctor Jessica Mullinix died of breast cancer. She “was forced to end her practice in Nov. 2022 after learning her cancer had metastasized” (click here)
Singapore – 37 yo UK (NHS) trained doctor Yee Vonne Liong was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer in Jul/Aug. 2021. It spread to her brain and she died on May 14, 2023.
Ottawa, ON – 41 yo Ontario Provincial Police Constable Colleen Danielle McGrath died on March 21, 2023. She was diagnosed with breast cancer in Nov. 2021 after her employer illegally mandated COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
Endless Twitter reports of breast cancer after Pfizer or Moderna mRNA jabs:
VAERS 2003653 – 36F, 2nd Pfizer, 146 days later Stage 3 Breast cancer
VAERS 2064952 – 40F, 2nd Pfizer, 124 days later two breast cancers
VAERS 2072021 – 50F, 2nd Pfizer, pain under left arm after Pfizer injection, lymph nodes swollen, biopsy showed breast cancer
My Take…
Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are temporally associated with a significantly increased incidence of breast cancers.
turbo breast cancers are skewed towards younger women
turbo breast cancer lesions tend to be bigger in size
they grow faster and have a more rapid course (although this varies widely)
turbo breast cancers sometimes present with multiple tumors
patients who had breast cancer in the past and were in remission, are developing breast cancer recurrences after Pfizer or Moderna, which are much more aggressive and often fatal
a common turbo breast cancer type seems to be “triple negative breast cancer”
many breast cancer patients were forced to have Pfizer or Moderna mRNA jabs because oncologists didn’t realize mRNA could cause or worsen cancer.
Because breast cancer is so common and the presentation is so variable, it may take a very long time for oncologists to recognize.
*
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
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.
“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”
ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0, Year: 2022, PDF Ebook, Pages: 164, 15 Chapters
Comments Off on Turbo Breast Cancer: South African Mayor, 42-Year-Old Marlene Vermaak Van Staden Had a Lump After COVID-19 Booster Shot, It Was Stage 4 Turbo Breast Cancer. She Died 10 Months Later
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.
***
Executive summary
In this article, I’ll present just a few simple examples that demonstrate that vaccines cause autism. If vaccines don’t cause autism, these data points are hard to explain away. And note that “they” never show you their data points measuring the same thing that show an opposite result!
Stop or delay vaccination —> SIDS decreases dramatically
If you stop vaccinating, or simply delay when vaccines are given to kids, the rate of SIDS goes down. See this article.
CDC paper admits that vaccines can cause brain damage and death
It basically says the vaccine led to brain inflammation which then led either to permanent brain injury or death.
Get it?
Thus, we meet the “biological plausibility” condition in the Bradford Hill criteria with this paper.
But we didn’t even need that. The fact that people are hard to kill and that injecting a foreign substance directly into your body (bypassing your normal protection mechanisms) could kill you isn’t much of a stretch for most people.
SIDS is much more likely to happen right after vaccination
SIDS seems to happen more often after vaccination, especially if more vaccines are given such as in the example at the start of the article.
Here are some anecdotes which appear to be credible because they are consistent with the evidence I’ve collected and because the sources appear to be credible as well. You can choose to believe them or not. If you choose not to believe these stories and you have comparable credible evidence that negates these anecdotes, I’d like to see it.
Here are the results. It is most interesting to read the Notes section written by the parents. I have the contact information for all the parents who responded. There was one gamed entry which I deleted.
I wish someone would replicate this survey, but nobody seems to be interested in doing that. They all want to tell me that my survey is bad, but nobody wants to show the CORRECT results. The lack of interest in doing the “correct” survey tells you everything you need to know, doesn’t it?
The results of my survey show the odds of getting SIDS a month before the shot vs. a month after a shot are 2:32 or 1:16.
If the vaccines aren’t elevating the risk of SIDS, how do you explain this HUGE discrepancy?
Probably zero Amish babies have ever died of SIDS
I couldn’t find any SIDS in unvaccinated Amish kids either. Has anyone else?
Summary
The evidence I’m aware of shows unambiguously that vaccines cause SIDS.
Your interpretation may vary.
*
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.
***
On the 19th of May, the Financial Times quoted the British Minister of Defense, Ben Wallace, stating that the West could face the threat of full-scale war with Russia and China by the end of the decade and proclaimed defence preparation a paramount task for Western countries.
One has to wonder what universe Mr. Wallace and his boss, Rishi Sunak, are living in since Britain is engaged in war with Russia right now, has, with every step, every hostile action, set itself up for a full-scale war, a full-scale catastrophe, which they cannot prevent. Why Britain would go to war with China as well as Russia when China has not threatened it and is oceans away, no one can explain in rational terms. Yet, this is the British rhetoric, the fetishistic parroting of the words of their lord and master, the USA.
Many argue that statements, a war is not happening, that it is something that exits only in the future, are desperate attempts to fool the British people, to lie to them about their government’s intentions and what is coming. Others argue that they are signs that the British government has no sense of reality. But, in the end, one has to conclude that they are both at the same time.
Worse, these statements speak of a government, that seems to think it is untouchable, that the war with Russia will be limited in geographic space to Ukraine, that Britain’s participation in the war against Russia will have no direct consequences for Britain and its people, that Russia will not dare to follow military and political logic and conduct military strikes against Britain. Nothing could be further from the truth, yet the British establishment, dreaming of its past, is unable to accept reality, is leading the British people towards disaster, as the gathering storm of war edges ever closer to their shores.
The deluded thinking in Britain is an extension of the same psychosis that grips all the halls of power in the western world, a psychosis that has its roots in the deeply troubled societies which have developed in the west and whose causes will be the subject of study of future social scientists and historians if there are any. In fact, these governments display observable and classical symptoms of paranoia and delusional disorders, leading to the complete break with reality that constitutes psychosis. This is a very dangerous state of affairs because someone who is delusional, who has no grip on reality, who cannot make distinctions between reality and imagination or wishful thinking, will make decisions and take actions that are dangerous to everyone around them, in this case, Russia, and beyond, the whole world.
Just after Russian began its Special Military Operation, Britain declared its support for Ukraine along with the rest of NATO and announced it would supply it with weapons and munitions to fight Russia. Maria Zakharova, the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, in response, stated that NATO states providing weapons to Ukraine could be hit in strikes.
Ms Zakharova said:
“Do we understand correctly that for the sake of disrupting the logistics of military supplies, Russia can strike military targets on the territory of those NATO countries that supply arms to the Kyiv regime?
“After all, this directly leads to deaths and bloodshed on Ukrainian territory. As far as I understand, Britain is one of those countries.”
The Russian defence ministry, after several attacks inside Russia backed by NATO, has repeatedly said:
“We would like to stress that the direct provoking by London of the Kyiv regime into such activities attacking Russian territory, should there be an attempt to realise them, will immediately lead to our proportional response.”
In April, when the UK announced it was sending depleted uranium tank shells to Ukraine, Russia said it would respond and did so, destroying those munitions in Ukraine just after they arrived, and now a radioactive cloud is drifting west towards Europe and the UK. Russian warnings of the danger of this happening were ignored.
On May 11, Ben Wallace announced a further act of aggression against Russia with the decision to send Storm Shadow cruise missiles to Ukraine, which have since been used to attack civilian centres in Russia. Again, Russia stated clearly that there would be a military response to this action.
On May 23, during his visit to Laos, Deputy Head of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev issued another warning, on the day Russian security forces destroyed the Ukrainian raiding force that attacked civilians in the Belgorod region, an openly terrorist action backed by the UK and the other NATO states. From Vientiane, he stated,
“The North Atlantic alliance does not take the threat of nuclear war seriously enough, thus making a big mistake. NATO is not serious about this scenario. Otherwise, NATO would not have supplied such dangerous weapons to the Ukrainian regime. Apparently, they think that a nuclear conflict, or a nuclear apocalypse, is never ever possible. NATO is wrong, and at some point events may take a completely unpredictable turn. The responsibility will be placed squarely on the North Atlantic Alliance.”
Medvedev pointed out that no one knows whether the point of no return has been passed,
“No one knows this. This is the main danger. Because as soon as they provide something, they say: let’s supply this, too. Long-range missiles or planes. Everything will be all right. But nothing will be fine. We will be able to cope with it. But only more and more serious types of weapons will be used. That’s what the current trend is.”
But Russia can strike using its conventional weapons as well, against which the UK has no defence whatsoever.
Still, the British attitude towards these warnings is to call on the magic of “legality” as if they can weave a protective cloak around the island with incantations. Yet, everyone knows that to use incantations to ward off danger, the formula used must have mojo or force; otherwise the words have no effect.
In 2022, for example, then Deputy Prime Minister, Dominic Raab, hit back, after Russia suggested it could target British military installations over its support for Ukraine, by branding the Kremlin’s claim “unlawful.” Wallace, Sunak, and others have repeated this claim multiple times.
Raab, and the rest, can only be right if Britain had maintained its neutrality in the war between Ukraine and Russia. But, as we know, this is really a war by the USA, Britain and their NATO mafia against Russia and has been all along. Ukraine is the present battlefield. So, for Britain to claim that it has maintained neutrality is an absurdity.
A neutral state violates neutrality by breaching its obligation to remain impartial, to not participate in the conflict. It violates neutrality by supplying warships, aircraft, arms, ammunition, military provisions or other war materials, either directly or indirectly, to a belligerent, by engaging its own military forces, or by supplying military advisors to a party to the armed conflict, by allowing belligerent use of neutral territory as a military base, or for the storage of war material or passage of belligerent troops or munitions in neutral territory, by furnishing troops to a belligerent, or providing or transmitting military intelligence on behalf of a belligerent are also examples of violations of neutrality.
A State’s neutrality ends when the State becomes a party to an armed conflict, or, in other words, a belligerent. A State becomes a belligerent under the law of neutrality by either declaring war; or participating in hostilities to a significant extent, or engages in systematic or substantial violations of its duties of impartiality and non-participation.
Britain meets all the requirements of a co-belligerent, that is, of a party to the war with Russia; it not only supplies munitions and weapon systems to Ukraine with the objective of attacking Russia and Russian forces in Ukraine it has a direct role in directing the war against Russia, including sending military officers and soldiers to advise and operate with the Ukrainian forces, by preventing any peace negotiations -we remember the action of Boris Johnson just as Ukraine and Russia were about to conclude a peace settlement-by the training of Ukrainian soldiers in Britain and transporting them to the front, by supplying the Ukrainian forces with reconnaissance and intelligence data, actively sending aircraft close to the war zone for this purpose, by providing communications systems, by providing financial aid to Ukraine at the same imposing economic warfare measure on Russia, euphemistically termed “sanctions. These conditions apply to all the NATO allies, of course, but Britain’s role is an especially egregious one.
In fact, Britain’s aggression against Russia began much earlier than 2022. Britain, as part of NATO, supported the insurgency in the Caucasus region in the mid-1990s. Britain took part in the aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999, part of the strategy to attack Russia, eliminating a potential Russian ally, just as Hitler did in 1941. The Georgian attack on Russian forces in 2008 was also supported by NATO.
All through this period, the UK government and media put out a constant stream of propaganda against Russia, culminating in the wild claims by the British that Russia tried to use novichok nerve poison to kill two Russian citizens, the Skripals, in the UK. That incident had one objective, to prepare the minds of the British people for war with Russia. That no one has seen or heard from the Skripals for several years now, that Britain rejects Russia’s right to meet with them to see if they are all right, is never mentioned in the West. They have disappeared, their fate unknown, two expendable pieces on the chessboard of war.
Lastly, Russia claims, with some evidence to back up their claims, that the UK was involved, with the US and other NATO nations, in the attack on the Nord Stream Pipeline, an act of war against both Russia and Germany, though the Germans, still occupied by US forces, are required to accept this humiliation and keep quiet.
So British claims that Russia has no legal right to retaliate against it are absurd. Britain, as with all the NATO countries, cannot claim to have a neutral status in the war. It has become in law and in fact a party to the war.
It follows that any action taken by Russia against the UK to force the UK to stop its assistance to Ukraine and end its participation in the war against Russia will be legitimate under international law and justified under the ancient military doctrine that a nation cannot suffer the attack of another without retaliating to stop the attack and making sure that another attack will not follow.
The NATO gang’s claim of acting in “collective self defence,” a phrase Ben Wallace likes to use a lot, so that they can claim to maintain a neutral status, is not a valid or logical one and does not apply. It is clear that the USA and NATO have been planning an attack on Russia for a long time, and the Ukraine war is a part of this attack. The conspiracy to commit aggression has been developed over decades. Part of the preparation for the war was the overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine and the installation in its place of a puppet government that was then used to attack the Donbass and Russia itself. They now openly admit that the Minsk Accords were a ruse to stall Russia while they prepared the Ukrainian forces for war against Russia.
Further, they cannot rely on Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, since that clause can only be invoked if there is an unprovoked Russian attack on a NATO country. But when a NATO country attacks Russia, and here we have them all joining in the attack, it is the aggressor and therefore cannot claim to be are acting in self-defence. It is also important to bear in mind Article I of the NATO Treaty, since it requires NATO to act in conformity with the UN Charter. It states
“Article 1″
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”
But the NATO nations have done the exact opposite. They have blocked peace at every turn and push Ukraine to keep the war going. Their forces are directly involved. They have even attempted to expand their military bloc by inviting Finland and Sweden to join the war alliance, in order to increase the forces available to them, with one purpose, to prosecute the war against Russia. They now openly state their objective is to destroy Russia. So, the NATO nations are not only active co-belligerents in the war, they are, in fact, the main protagonists of the enemy camp that Russia faces. They are, therefore, all legitimate targets.
But is an attack likely, and what will its nature be, and what will be the consequences? These are questions only the Russian General Staff can know and foresee. We can only speculate. But speculation can be useful, especially for the British people to realise the danger their criminal government is putting them in.
Medvedev warns again of the dangers of nuclear war, but Russia has no need to resort to that to retaliate against Britain. Conventional stand-off weapons will be more effective, and what can the UK do if a strike on military airfields takes place, on port facilities, to stop the shipment of weapons, on army bases where Ukrainian soldiers are trained, on warehouses storing munitions and weapons marked for shipment to Ukraine, or eliminating the UK Trident nuclear submarine force in Scotland, or any number of other targets they could select? They can do nothing.
The National and Defence Strategies Research Group based in the UK stated in a report on Britain’s air defences in 2016, that,
“Since the withdrawal from service of the Bloodhound missile system in the 1980s, the UK’s Air Defence posture has diminished to mainly a homeland benign airspace policing and point defence posture for deployed forces. The UK no longer has a comprehensive, integrated, or robustly layered short to long-range Air Defence capability, nor a credible or enduring operational capacity.”
Nothing has changed since then, except to get worse. In other words, the UK is defenceless against modern Russian stand-off weapons.
I can remember, as a boy, my mother taking me several times on a bus through London. It must have been 1955 or so and I can remember mile upon mile of burnt-out blackened buildings, as far as the eye could see, especially in east London where entire districts were levelled by German bombs. The country, despite its heroic RAF fighter pilots, could not stop the bombing and then missile attacks which went on for five years.
The British government assured the people before that war, that all would be well, that they would have peace in their time. But they lied to the people then, as they are lying to them now. Britain was never the same after that war. It never really recovered from it. Once again, the British government, ever saluting the masters in Washington, leads the British people into a dangerous war, which they were never asked about, and which they do not want. It lies to them about the causes, it lies to them about the fighting, and it lies to them about the dangers they face, placing them in a distant future, and hides from them the consequences of its actions. The British people must be warned. Britain is at war, and no amount of bluffing and lying can protect them from the consequences their government is provoking. They are predictable and they will be catastrophic.
*
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.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events. He is a regular contributor 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.
***
The agent of chaos is at it again. Boris Johnson, frontman of the Brexit disaster show, prime minister responsible for breaking regulations, rules and laws, and overall self-serving gross figure of indulgence, has decided to throw in the towel. He is leaving the House of Commons. The time had come for him to walk to the cricketing Pavilion, accepting the Umpire’s verdict.
Not that Johnson was exactly thrilled with the decision. The findings of the House of Commons Privileges Committee in what is known as the Partygate Report were damning. Released on June 15, 2023, the 30,000-word document details the numerous instances the then Prime Minister systematically undermined the very same pandemic regulations that his own government had implemented, only to then consistently mislead and deceive, most notably the Commons itself. In “deliberately misleading the House Mr Johnson committed a serious contempt. The contempt was all the more serious because it was committed by the Prime Minister, the most senior member of the government.”
The nature of that misleading conduct centred on Johnson’s refusal to double-check advice given to him by, for instance, Jack Doyle, his former press secretary, over a number of gatherings on whether they were compliant with COVID-19 rules and guidance. Johnson’s Principal Private Secretary, Martin Reynolds, had also pressed Johnson on the issue as to whether the guidance “had been followed at all times”, notably on the December 18, 2020 gathering. He wondered “whether it was realistic to argue that all Guidance had been followed at all times, given the nature of the working environment in No. 10. He agreed to delete the reference to Guidance.”
The report had to be rewritten at short notice to take into account Johnson’s abrupt resignation. Had he remained, the Committee members would have recommended a 90-day suspension for, among other things, the former PM’s deliberate misleading of the House, members of the Committee, and being “complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of” its members. Instead, it concluded that Johnson should be deprived of his Member’s pass.
The Committee took umbrage at Johnson’s attack upon its members, which he condemned as undemocratic, a kangaroo court, and executioners of a witch hunt. “We consider,” states the report, “that these statements are completely unacceptable. In our view this conduct, together with the egregious breach of confidentiality, is a serious further contempt”.
His overall contemptuous attitude to the inquiry was also conveyed by his effort “to re-write the meaning of the [pandemic] rules and guidance to fit his own evidence”. One example was the “assertion that ‘imperfect’ social distancing was perfectly acceptable when there were no mitigations in place rather than cancelling a gathering or holding it online, and his assertion that a leaving gathering or a gathering to boost morale was a lawful reason to hold a gathering.”
Johnson’s base of supporters is a shrinking one; but from pandemonium land some continue to express their support. Nigel Adams, MP for Selby and Ainsty, wished to no longer occupy his position in the Commons. Then came former culture secretary Nadine Dorries, who initially claimed she was going to “immediately” step down, only to then do a bit of fence sitting. Bruised in not getting her promised peerage from Johnson, she is seeking answers from the House of Lords appointment committee. She has also warned that any Tory MP who would side with the findings of the report “will be held to account by members of the public. Deselections may follow. It’s serious.”
Brendan Clarke-Smith, MP for Bassetlaw, was similarly “appalled” by the “spiteful, vindictive and overreaching conclusions of the report.” He promised to “be speaking against them both publicly and in the House”. The comically anachronistic Tory Man of the Nineteenth Century, Jacob Rees-Mogg, found himself in agreement, observing that Parliament, when standing “upon its dignity […] often ends up looking foolish. The Privileges Committee report is a case in point.”
Many of the supporters can be said to be part of the scandalous “Honours List” that Johnson drew up on grounds of gratitude, a veritable Who’s Who of fans and flunkeys that was, for the most part, approved by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. One was the 29-year-old Charlotte Tranter Owen, who has become the youngest life peer in British history. Her less than distinguished journey from York University graduate to a life peer took a mere six unremarkable years.
While some Tories have been desperate to jettison the Johnson link, many were complicit in stacking the compendium of deception. As Peter Oborne explains, the Tory party saw Johnson as an election winner. For three years, they were “thus prepared to put up with his false claims. Ministers and MPs appeared happy to repeat claims on radio and television, in print, and inside the Commons chamber.”
Sunak is, therefore, in more than a spot of bother, not least because Johnson will be holding fort as a newly appointed columnist at the Daily Mail. His plight is made worse given his struggling efforts to keep the party together before potential electoral oblivion. Johnson, with his poison pen tirades, is unlikely to help.
A final note on the whole Boris Bonanza is also worth reiterating. For Oborne, “Johnson will be remembered by history as the most immoral, dishonest and morally squalid of all British premiers.” This is going a bit far; it was a certain Tony Blair who, playing the role of sidekick to US President George W. Bush, embarked upon an illegal war that led to the destruction of Iraq and a good portion of the Middle East. His conduct, both directly or otherwise, in the confection, and intentional misreading of intelligence material elevating Iraq’s Saddam Hussein to the level of globally dangerous despot, must surely be seen as squalid as any. Along the way, he corrupted public life and politicised institutions. And yet he moves and speaks, to this day, with impunity – the one who got away.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The United Nations Policy Brief Information Integrity on Digital Platforms (a part of the Secretary-General’s vision for the future of global cooperation – Our Common Agenda) was released on June 12th. The report prescribes an Orwellian future with tight control of information to tackle the “existential threats” they label as Hate Speech and Disinformation.
Guterres refers to the problem that Internet is flooded with rubbish that is disguised as trustworthy sources.
One tactic, among others, has been to publish content to fake cloned versions of news sites to make articles seem like they are from legitimate sources
It can of course be argued that this is the case. A lot of ridiculous claims and theories are spreading like wildfire all over the Internet. But as it is a common strategy to highlight a problem in order to get public acceptance for the prescribed solution a legitimate question can be asked. Who is really behind all these bogus sites that manufacture outrageous stories?
Behind this rhetoric we find a much deeper agenda than just cleaning up smelly garbage from the information highway. Secretary-General António Guterres states that:
The present policy brief is focused on how threats to information integrity are having an impact on progress on global, national and local issues.
In the end this is a part of a war against the critical voices who dare to question United Nations Agenda 2030 with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Guterres calls for a restoration of trust in the official narrative and the global institutions.
He also mentions the importance and respect for human rights, but it is made clear that “freedom of opinion and expression” only apply as long as you follow the directives from these “high priests” and don’t question their dogma.
…disinformation can negatively impact the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals.
Internet shall thus be more safe from the risk of being exposed for views differing from those expressed by the United Nations. According to the UN, it is a human right to be guarded from dangerous opinions that question their “global scientific consensus”. This especially applies to the two subjects that form the foundation for the UN agenda: health and climate. This is also reflected in their analysis on how mis- and disinformation affects the seventeen SDGs. Below are two examples.
Because the United Nations, according to Under-Secretary-General for Global CommunicationsMelissa Fleming, “own the science” they “know” what is right and can distinguish right from wrong. The wrongdoings of the deniers that don’t take heed of the UN decrees have to be countered. This problem was discussed during the Nobel Prize Summit 2023 in Washington D.C. with Fleming as a speaker.
Fleming presented her opinion about the things she sees as problematic in her speech Healing our troubled information ecosystem. To communicate her message and gain sympathy for the cause, she told the story of when she was diagnosed with breast cancer and started to search the internet for information:
One of the most prominent findings or pages that popped up was a site called Truth About Cancer. And the truth about cancer gave the following advice: don’t treat your cancer with chemotherapy, there are natural remedies instead. If I had taken their advice I would not be standing here with you today.
And the reason I raise this is because that same group is still going strong on Facebook, Twitter and other platforms with the Truth About Vaccines. They are trying to convince people to refuse life saving vaccines and during the COVID-19 pandemic the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that the couple behind both of these pages were part of what they coined the disinformation dozen – just twelve accounts that were responsible for 65 % of the disinformation that were spreading across the world on social media. Affecting the minds of millions.
Why is this relevant to the UN? Well when we finally got the vaccines to other parts of the world, in Africa in particular, which had publics that were very vaccine positive we were finding people refusing to take them. They had been so affected by these conspiracies that they weren’t only refusing the COVID-19 vaccines but also childhood vaccines as well.
She also talked about attacks against climate scientists and activists.
As we have heard by many other speakers social media is also being harnessed to undermine, distort and abuse those who are promoting the science around climate change. The goal to silence the scientists and the activists.
Below is a video from Center for Countering Digital Hate that urges Facebook to act and label “climate misinformation”.
To combat all these “misdeeds” United Nations (with Fleming as a leading information warrior) want to give us “improved critical thinking skills” that “can make users more resilient against digital manipulation.”
In order to safeguard the “critical mind” against the emergence of wrong ideas and conclusions, UN bodies like The United Nations Verified Initiativehas been launched in collaboration with Guterres, Fleming and WEF Young Global Leader Jeremy Heimans (from the social impact agency Purpose) to give warnings “about falsehoods” before the users encounter them.
UNs definition of “critical thinking” thus means that you only are allowed to be critical of topics that has their stamp of approval. Don’t ever think for yourself without the validation from the Digital Political Commissar!
But this brave new world also needs a set of guiding rules or principles. In order to battle the “darker side of the digital ecosystem” Guterres proposes a:
…code of conduct that will help to guide Member States and the digital platforms to make the digital space more inclusive and safe for all, while vigorously defending the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to access information.
The main objective is to create a United Nations Code of Conduct for Information Integrity.
This code does initially look promising with obligations to ensure that member state responses to disinformation and hate speech shall not “block any legitimate expression of views and opinions” as well as upholding a “free, viable and plural media landscape with strong protection for journalists and independent media”.
But this becomes totally shattered in the following Orwellian paragraphs. Suggestions include:
Identify and respond to mis- and disinformation and hate speech.
Report the origins, spread and impact.
Form broad coalitions between local organisations and tech companies.
Ensure that advertising is free from disinformation.
Invest in human and AI content moderation systems in all languages.
To oversee the implementation of the code Guterres writes about the possibility to create an “independent” observatory with “recognized experts” that can review the measures taken.
This opens up for censorship of everything that United Nations and their faithful servants Guterres and Fleming label as disinformation.
Welcome to the Ministry of Truth
Those who run the United Nations have no regard for people who raise concerns about serious side effects (even when reported by Pfizer themselves), restrictions and mask mandates, or those who dare question the climate alarmism. Such people are instead labeled “deniers” and “conspiracy theorists” and are seen as evil people spreading “disinformation” and “hate speech”.
To conclude, it seems that the UN “vigorously defends” primarily the interests of Big Pharma, Big Tech, and the “trustees of the material universe for future generations” at the World Economic Forum, as well as their mega rich owners disguised as “benevolent philanthropists” caring for the wellbeing of humanity and the planet. It is obvious that the main purpose of the United Nations is to protect these powerful groups against all those who are finally waking up from their long fear-induced coma.
But it is ultimately a war the scaremongers cannot win. All they can do is try to buy some more time before the arrival of the inevitable moment when truth exposes their lies and corrupted machinations. Truth is the existential threat they really fear. It is like sunlight to a vampire.
*
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.
***
“A sabotage team used Poland, a European Union neighbor and NATO ally, as an operating base to blow up the Nord Stream pipelines built to transport Russian gas through the Baltic Sea.an official German investigation has found”, reported by The Wall Street Journal.
German investigators reconstructed the route in the Baltic Sea of the yacht Andromeda, from Poland, aboard which they found traces of HMX, a military explosive for demolishing underwater infrastructure. This adds another explosive chapter to U.S. journalist Seymour Hersh’s investigation “How America took down the Nord Stream pipeline.” Everything is now proven.
In December 2021, a task force – composed of CIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff and State Department officials – is convened at the White House to sabotage Nord Stream. In June 2022, during the NATO Baltops exercise, U.S. and Norwegian raiders, operating from the yacht Andromeda sent from Poland, place submarine charges. Three months later, on Sept. 26, 2022, a Norwegian Navy P8 aircraft drops a sonar buoy, whose signal sets off the charges.
The Wall Street Journal calls it “one of the largest acts of sabotage in Europe since World War II.” It is a war action carried out by three NATO members-the United States, Norway and Poland-against NATO member Germany to prevent Europe from importing cheap Russian gas.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken called the Nord Stream blockade “a tremendous opportunity to eliminate Europe’s dependence on Russian energy once and for all, a huge strategic opportunity for years to come,” and pointed out that “the United States has become the leading supplier of liquefied natural gas to Europe.” LNG, of course, much more expensive than Russian gas. Now arriving to conquer the European energy market are Exxon, Chevron and other U.S. companies that “have made record profits thanks to soaring oil prices.”
Because of rising energy prices, writes the Wall Street Journal, “the Eurozone is sliding into recession as inflation hurts consumption, and Europe is stuck with the economic equivalent of a long Covid.” In this Europe began “the largest multinational deployment of air forces in NATO history” with the “Air Defender” exercise taking place in Germany under U.S. command.
*
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 byoblu in Italian.
Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Featured image is from Future of Freedom Foundation
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Last month, global attention was drawn to the southern Irish State’s proposed ‘hate speech’ laws, owing to online commentary on the new bill from high-profile figures such as Elon Musk, Donald Trump Jr. and Jordan B Peterson.
Allowing for someone to be convicted for merely possessing ‘hateful’ material – which could be something as simple as an internet meme – without even distributing it, the new legislation, if passed, will effectively create thought crimes in what is a supposed democratic western state.
Domestic critics of the bill have expressed concern that it will stifle debate on the introduction of gender ideology to the school curriculum, citing the recent case of Enoch Burke as an example. Burke, a teacher at the prestigious Wilson’s Hospital boarding school in County Westmeath, was imprisoned for three months last year over his refusal to not attend the school following his suspension over a dispute relating to the use of ‘they/them’ pronouns on a student.
There have also been concerns expressed that the new legislation will be used to censor critics of the 26-County State’s immigration policy.
Since last November, using emotive coverage of the war in Ukraine as a cover, the southern Irish government has placed hundreds of male migrants into wildly unsuitable locations such as an inner city office block and children’s primary school, leading to protests by local residents over the lack of consultation with community representatives beforehand, the unsuitability of the chosen locations, and the lack of transparency on whether those placed in said locations had been vetted or not.
Protests, that in a similar vein to last year’s Canadian Freedom Convoy, have drawn widespread condemnation from the 26 County political establishment as being ‘organised by the far-right’, with Leo Varadkar, like Justin Trudeau, also being a WEF ‘Young Global leader’.
The spotlight was shone once again on the new legislation this week when Pauline O’Reilly, a Senator and chairwoman of the ruling coalition’s Green Party, announced, in dystopian fashion, that the purpose of the bill was to ‘restrict freedom for the common good’, her comments drawing attention from as far afield as Fox News and acclaimed US journalist Glenn Greenwald.
One facet of the new legislation that has been overlooked by most onlookers however, is the section related to the denial or condoning of ‘war crimes’, which with an increased push amongst the 26 County political establishment for the State to join NATO amidst the ongoing Russian operation in Ukraine, may soon become one of its most relevant.
Since the launch of the Russian intervention last February, the southern Irish State has, in lockstep with the rest of the collective west, condemned what it calls an ‘unprovoked invasion’.
What has been conveniently omitted from this description however, is the almost nine years of western provocations that preceded it, beginning with the November 2013 US and British-instigated Maidan coup, the use of anti-Russian extremist elements such as Right Sector and Azov Battalion to wage a bloody war on the predominantly ethnic Russian Donbass region, and the revelation that the US was producing bioweapons on Russia’s borders.
Key details related to the conflict that, under the new legislation, could soon be made illegal to publicly disclose in the 26 County State.
Indeed, this would tie in with Leinster House’s desire to join NATO, a view not shared by the majority of the Irish public. This has not hindered the 26 Counties anti-Russian policies however, with a number of Russian diplomats expelled in the weeks following Moscow’s intervention; a step noticeably never taken by the southern Irish state towards US Diplomats over Washington’s conflicts in Iraq and Syria, or indeed, British Diplomats over British Intelligence’s role in the 1974 Dublin and Monaghan bombings.
Now, with the strong possibility that a Nord Stream-style false flag attack off the Irish coast is imminent, the criminalisation of facts related to Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, may soon be used to clear the path towards NATO membership for the south of Ireland.
*
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.
Gavin O’Reilly is an activist from Dublin, Ireland, with a strong interest in the effects of British and US Imperialism. Secretary of the Dublin Anti-Internment Committee, a campaign group set up to raise awareness of Irish Republican political prisoners in British and 26 County jails. His work has previously appeared on American Herald Tribune, The Duran, Al-Masdar and MintPress News. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. Support him on Patreon.
The global infoscape is currently abuzz with alarmist predictions over the dangers posed by artificial intelligence (AI). Billionaire entrepreneurs and their hirelings, who had once gushed over the emerging AI “technopia”, have suddenly turned apocalyptic. As the narrative du jour goes, a sentient AI may ultimately turn against its creators.
Dimitri Lascaris will embark upon a Canada-wide speaking tour next week to report back to Canadians about his recent mission of peace to Russia. The title of the tour is “Making Peace With Russia, One Handshake At A Time.”
It is important to note how cleverly the US chip restrictions on China are thought out.The strict US chip rules from 7 October 2022 have three objectives. The US plans to boil China slowly.
Australia’s parliamentarians rarely pass bills and motions at such speed, but the measure to ensure that the Russian embassy would not have a bit of real estate 500 metres from the people’s assembly was odd, at best. On June 15, legislation was whizzed through, effectively extinguishing Russia’s lease.
Hundreds of Syrian men, women and children have drowned early Wednesday in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Greece after the sinking of an Egyptian trawler headed for Italy. It is being called one of the deadliest migrant ship disasters in the Mediterranean Sea.
The hypocrisy gets starker by the day. The same western media that strains to warn of the dangers of disinformation – at least when it comes to rivals on social media – barely bothers to conceal its own role in purveying disinformation in the Ukraine war.
We don’t hear much about this topic so I felt it would be interesting to take a deeper dive into the types of congenital malformations that have been documented with Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
It’s been a bloodbath for the majority of companies that go overtly woke in the new era of American consumer rebellion, and the establishment is not happy. Corporations like Disney, Anheuser-Busch and Target are plunging in profits and losing billions in market cap after pledging fealty to the trans agenda.
China will always remain one of Russia’s top energy partners for economic, geographic, and political reasons, but Moscow doesn’t want to become dependent on exports to the People’s Republic, which is why it’s preemptively diversifying by betting big on South Asia in general and on India in particular.
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.
***
Forty minutes into the meeting between President Cyril Ramaphosa – along with six other African presidents and government leaders – and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the live feed broadcasting the talks was cut.
The African heads of state met with Putin on Saturday after meeting with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky in a delegation participating in the Africa Peace Initiative for peace talks.
The meeting, at the Marble Hall in Konstantinovsky Palace, St Petersburg, began with an address by the presidents, with Putin cutting in before he was set to speak at the end of the address.
Putin interjected after Ramaphosa had spoken, after which the live feed was cut.
News24 assistant editor for investigations Pieter du Toit noted that there were no independent South African journalists with the president, and it was thus impossible to accurately report the remarks by Ramaphosa and Putin of events as they unfolded.
Du Toit remarked:
We are mostly reliant on information from the Presidency, which is not an ideal situation.
Du Toit was part of a contingent of journalists and security personnel left stranded at Warsaw’s Chopin Airport for more than 26 hours, while the president was in Ukraine.
The delegation was not able to get to Russia with the president either.
Along with Ramaphosa, the African peace delegation included Senegalese head of state Macky Sall, Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema and Comorian President Azali Assoumani, as well as leaders from Uganda, Egypt and Congo-Brazzaville.
It is not yet known what happened after the feed cut off, but before it did, Ramaphosa, who was leading the delegation, outlined at least 10 points to help end the war.
These points were also delivered to Zelensky.
These included:
That the African delegation listens to and understands both the Russian and Ukrainian perspectives on the war;
The war must be settled and ended with negotiations;
A de-escalation of conflict on both sides;
That Africa recognises the countries’ sovereignty and believes all parties should work in terms of internationally recognised principles;
There need to be security guarantees;
Call for opening up of movement of grain shipments through the Black Sea and into Africa;
Grant humanitarian aid to all those suffering because of the conflict;
Free all prisoners of war on both sides;
Repatriate all children displaced by the war;
There should be post-war reconstruction, and
Further negotiations to end the war, with Africa contributing.
Ramaphosa said the war was negatively affecting countries in Africa and across the world because the price of commodities had increased.
He specifically mentioned grain, fertiliser and fuel.
After his address, Putin cut into the presentations before the other heads of state could address him.
He said he had some comments to make, including his claims that the crisis in Ukraine began in 2014 because of a coup d’état.
He said the Ukrainian people did not accept this coup and that Russia had to support these people.
Putin blamed the West for many of the issues in Ukraine, and said it was the West and not Russia that caused the sharp increase in food costs.
Lecturing the officials, Putin added that Russia was happy to negotiate with Ukraine, but that it was Ukraine that did not want to negotiate.
What Putin referred to as a “coup” was an uprising against the pro-Russian former president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, after a rigged election. A democratic election followed this, and a new Ukrainian president was elected.
According to a report by the European Union, Ukraine is a leading grain exporter, and the war has resulted in food security concerns for millions of people worldwide.
*
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.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
First published on January 17, 2023
***
As this is a lengthy post, it is divided into the following sections. So, feel free to jump to your area of interest first or navigate around as you wish.
Introduction
1. NATO’s expansion towards Russia’s borders
2. The Maidan Coup & Victoria Nuland’s “Fuck the EU”
3. Joe Biden bragging about how he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired who was investigating an energy firm that had Hunter Biden on its board
4. Biological Weapons Production Facilities
5. Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion
6. Zelenskyy’s hidden fortune
7. Human Rights abuses committed in Ukraine
8. Zelenskyy changing laws to suppress Free Speech
9. Suppression of the Church
10. Ukraine’s Systemic Corruption Problem
Conclusion
Introduction
There is no doubt, war is ugly. Atrocities are committed by all belligerents involved in conflict.
Propaganda is heightened and intensified not only by the major participants, but also by countries, governments, organisations, corporations, and individuals who aren’t directly involved in the conflict. Each has their own motivations, reasons, and self-serving interests for doing so.
Fog of war – a German expression Nebel des Krieges coined by Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz – is often used to describe the uncertainty in situational awareness experienced by participants in military operations.
The expression can also easily be used to describe the fog that occurs between people’s ears when they are bombarded with propaganda pushed by countless parties which most often completely distorts the true realities of the conflict or war in question.
War is emotional. And when emotions are high and people are gaslighted, reason and judgement are often easily thrown out the window.
The absence or omission of truthful information and picking sides also contribute to a lack of balanced reporting on such conflicts.
Journalists and independent or alternative media outlets that provide reporting that is counter to these prevailing narratives are often labelled as conspiracy theorists or other derogatorylabels.
This is done so because those who are attacking them cannot counter the merits of their claims and reporting, and thus must resort to attacking their character instead.
Unfortunately, this is a logical fallacy that most of the general public fall for.
Now for the ugly, inconvenient, truths that the mainstream media refuse to present to their audiences with regards to the Ukraine and the Russia-Ukraine war.
1. NATO’s expansion towards Russia’s borders
For those not entirely familiar with NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, here is a nice summary by Al Jazeera:
“The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was founded in 1949 by 12 member states – Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States – and was established to curb Soviet expansion and encourage political integration in Europe in the aftermath of World War II.
The 30-member alliance is meant to guarantee political and military protections, and allow European and North American nations to discuss security concerns.”
One of the main reasons for its existence was to “curb Soviet expansion”, as stated above. The rationale being that the West viewed the Soviet communist system as a grave threat after World War II.
Moreover, as the Soviet Union and the United States were embroiled in the Cold War from 1947 to 1991, the U.S. sought to expand its sphere of political and military influence, particularly in Europe.
Though many of these states as well as their people have retained close ties with Russia, three of them acceded membership into NATO in 2004; namely, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.
Two of these countries, Estonia and Latvia share a border with Russia.
A CNBC article provides two maps showing the expansion of NATO since 1991 towards Russia. The first map shows Europe in 1990, the year after the Berlin wall fell:
Map of Europe in 1990 showing original NATO countries in blue. Source: Bryn Bache, CNBC.
Their second map, as of 2022, clearly shows the expansion of NATO membership over the past 32 years since the reunification of Germany:
Map of Europe in 2022 showing current NATO countries in blue. Source: Bryn Bache, CNBC.
From this second map above showing 2022 NATO countries in blue, we can also notice Sweden and Finland (in light blue) who are currently vying for NATO membership.
Since the early 1990s, Russia has been worried about NATO expanding closer to its borders.
While various agreements had been made between Russia and Europe not to expand NATO eastward, several of them were broken.
The main worry is that NATO members can have military bases that hold nuclear missiles for which member countries, such as the United States, have an ample supply of.
U.S. and NATO military bases, personnel, and operations are not limited to these three countries, for there are many more in other NATO countries near Russia such as Poland, Hungary, and Bulgaria.
In recent years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought guarantees from NATO and many of its European members that it would halt its eastward expansion and end military cooperation with Ukraine and Georgia, which are not members, observed Al Jazeera.
Both Georgia and the Ukraine share borders with Russia and the latter has a significantly long border with the biggest former member of the Soviet bloc.
It would thus come as no surprise that Russia and its current leader, Vladimir Putin, would consider it more than hostile should either of these two countries were to join NATO.
Many of sound mind would argue that having military bases, some with nuclear arsenals, within only several kilometers from your doorstep poses a significant threat to the safety, protection, and territorial integrity of a nation and its people.
If that was not acceptable to President John F. Kennedy and the U.S. administration, then how is it different for Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia and his administration?
Should they not be granted the same right?
These questions must be considered and contemplated prior to outrightly accusing Putin of “aggression” and invasion against the Ukraine, or any other close neighbor, for that matter.
Also according to the Al Jazeera article, in February [of 2022], Putin said Russia’s “special operation” in Ukraine was a means to stop NATO’s growth, which he perceives as an encroachment.
Only in recent weeks has Putin called the conflict with the Ukraine a war. Perhaps this is so because he had not anticipated the level and extent of Western support Kiev has received over the past year.
While some would argue that the invasion was nevertheless unjustified, ample evidence exists that show that prior promises and agreements to not allow the expansion of NATO eastward were broken by NATO members and NATO itself.
Here are but two of these broken promises which most everyone seems to forget about.
The document was found in the UK National Archives by Joshua Shifrinson, a political science professor at Boston University in the US and shared with Der Spiegel. It had been marked “Secret” but was declassified at some point.
Specifically, here is part of what was it stated:
Screenshot of the 1991 QUADRIPARTITE MEETING OF POLITICAL DIRECTORS, BONN, 6, MARCH: SECURITY IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE. Source: UCLA College of Social Sciences.
As the reader may notice from the image above, the parties stated: “WE HAD MADE IT CLEAR DURING THE 2+4 NEGOTIATIONS THAT WE WOULD NOT EXTEND NATO BYOND THE ELBE (SIC).”
The “2+4 negotiations” simply refers to the reunification of Germany (i.e., East Germany with West Germany) with NATO remaining an integral part of the reunified country.
In July 2014, NATO itself called the eastward expansion a “myth,” as per its published piece titled NATO enlargement and Russia: myths and realities. In that piece, a few questions were raised about the “enlargement conundrum” [emphasis added]:
“Does the absence of a promise not to enlarge NATO mean that the West never had any obligations vis-à-vis Russia? Did the enlargement policy of Western institutions therefore proceed without taking Russian interests into account? Again, the facts tell a different story.”
In black and white, it confirms that a promise, or agreement, by NATO not to expand did take place.
So, this myth, or “conspiracy theory” turned out to be conspiracy fact.
It is no wonder that Moscow and Putin hold a fervent distrust of NATO, the United States, and its other Western allies.
The secret 1991 document also revealed the following:
Verbatim [with emphasis added for the most salient points]:
“WE HAD MADE IT CLEAR TO THE SOVIET UNION, BOTH IN THE 2+4 AND IN OTHER EXCHANGES, THAT WE WOULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SOVIET WITHDRAWAL FROM EASTERN EUROPE. WE MUST NOT PROVIDE A PRETEXT FOR HARDLINERS IN THE SOVIET UNION TO BUILD UP ANTI-WESTERN FEELING. NATO SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED FORMALLY OR INFORMALLY TO THE EAST. THE PRIMARY EASTERN EUROPEAN OBJECTIVE AND FORM OF REASSURANCE WAS THE REMOVAL OF SOVIET TROOPS.”
As you can see, the promise was indeed made. The Soviet withdrawal did occur. Yet NATO expanded anyhow, including in Poland for which they had also explicitly stated they would not.
If NATO has lied about this broken promise, then how many others have they lied about and broken? And, more importantly, should they be trusted?
That is not the only promise NATO has broken with Russia.
The Minsk agreement of 2015
“The Minsk agreement, which the Russian government backed for diplomatic reasons, has served to allow Washington time to train, equip, and mobilize much stronger forces now preparing to resume the attack on Donetsk and Luhansk,” observed Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, former associate editor at The Wall Street Journal, and long time Russia connoisseur, back in 2015.
He was right.
What is the Minsk agreement?
Not to be confused with the 1991 agreement of the same name, the 2015 Minsk agreement was one that aimed to resolve the long-simmering conflict in eastern Ukraine.
The conflict was between pro-Russian separatists mostly from the Donetsk and Luhansk regions who were more ethnically Russian and the Ukrainian government.
The following passage from Reuters describes the 2015 (Minsk II) agreement in a nutshell:
“Representatives of Russia, Ukraine, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the leaders of two pro-Russian separatist regions signed a 13-point agreement in February 2015 in Minsk. The leaders of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine gathered there at the same time and issued a declaration of support for the deal.”
Though NATO stressed that the Minsk agreements remained “the best chance to settle the conflict,” its actions proved otherwise.
Back in 2015, Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s Secretary General since 2014, indicated no less than an increase military support to the Ukraine during this so-called ceasefire period, stating “we have stepped up our support to Ukraine on command and control; logistics; cyber defence.”
And more specifically, in June of 2022, Stoltenberg affirmed NATO’s long-time push into Eastern Europe, stating:
“the reality is that we have also been preparing for this since 2014. Because that’s the reason why we have increased our presence in the eastern part of the Alliance, why NATO Allies have started to invest more in defence, and why we have increased the readiness.”
By “increase in the readiness”, Stoltenberg was referring to Russia. On the matter, Robert Bridge, an American writer and journalist for RT noted:
“What he neglected to mention, though, was the role Western powers played in the outbreak of civil violence in Kiev on February 24, 2014 that led to the Maidan coup and, ultimately, to the current situation. The US and its influence on the ground in Ukraine, channelled through “civil society” groups it bankrolled, was largely responsibility for that mess.”
A month before the Russian invasion in 2022, Ukraine’s own security chief, Oleksiy Danilov, warned the West against enforcing the Minsk II peace deal.
Danilov also denounced the Russian demands for NATO to bar Ukraine from ever joining the alliance.
Former opposition MP Ilya Kiva (who had to flee the Ukraine for his stark opposition to Zelenskyy) blamed the Ukrainian President of supporting pro-NATO policies causing the war, allowing Nazism to permeate in the country, and enslaving his own people in the eastern part of the country.
In a March 2022 interview Kiva slammed the U.S. and NATO for “using Ukraine as bait to provoke Russia into a conflict.” He added that Washington and its allies had tricked Zelenskyy which has led to its current state of devastation.
In concluding this section, the Minsk agreements were practically doomed from the start since powerful forces influencing Kyiv, including NATO and many others mentioned in this exposition, really had no sincere interest in helping to establish peace in eastern Ukraine; but were more concerned with continuing their eastward expansion towards Russia’s borders.
2. The Maidan Coup & Victoria Nuland’s “F**k the EU”
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine became an independent country.
In the years 2013-2014, the Ukraine was at a real crossroads. Geographically-perched between Europe in the west and Russia in the east, alliances were split and there was a lot at stake – economically and geopolitically.
The West was calling for the young country to align itself with European and American interests.
But its President, democratically-elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, was instead leaning towards aligning the country’s interests with Russia and Putin.
This was absolutely unacceptable to Western powers and NATO.
Consequently, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown in a violent coup on Feb. 21, 2014.
Violence during the Maidan coup in Ukraine, 2014. Source: Wikipedia.
A phone call (transcript here) was leaked to the news media on February 4th, 2014 between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt, the then U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.
Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland with Geoffrey Pyatt, February 6, 2014.
During the call, they discussed which puppets could be installed in their new government; keep in mind, this is a few weeks before the Maidan Coup had occurred.
Nuland and Pyatt schemed on how they would form the new government post-coup placing “Yats”, Arseniy Yatseniuk as a key plant for the new government.
Arseniy Yatseniuk became the new Prime Minister of Ukraine on February 27, 2014.
And in June of the same year, NATO- and Western-friendly Ukrainian oligarch Petro Poroshenko replaced Yanukovych as the new President of Ukraine in what was a very questionable election.
This phone call is also memorable for its “Fuck the EU” reference uttered by Victoria Nuland. This was in reference to her frustration about how members of the European Union were somewhat divided on relations with Russia and thus not aggressive enough against their Cold War rival.
3. Joe Biden bragging about how he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired who was investigating an energy firm that had Hunter Biden on its board
Threatening to pull a U.S. billion-dollar aid package to the Ukraine, then Vice-President Joe Biden forced Ukrainian President Poroshenko to fire Shokin.
Screenshot of the Witness Statement (affidavit) from Viktor Shokin, who was investigating corruption at Burisma Holdings, confirming that Poroshenko fired him because of Joe Biden’s threat to pull the USD$1 billion package.
Hunter Biden was paid handsomely, to the tune of $80,000 per month, despite having no experience whatsoever in the energy sector. It was thus presumed that he was on the board mostly because of his name and political ties, particularly with his father who was President Obama’s Vice-President at the time.
The fact that Joe Biden leveraged the power of his V.P. position to avoid having an investigation into the firm for which his son was a board member represents a clear abuse of power and conflict of interest. Who knows what additional facts might have been revealed should the investigation have proceeded. The next section, however and nonetheless, provides damning evidence in this regard.
What’s more, this incident exemplifies the power and influence the U.S. Administration had over the President of Ukraine post the Maidan coup.
4. Biological Weapons Production Facilities
The corporate media has also largely ignored claims alleging the existence of biological weapons laboratories across the Ukraine.
In the month after Russian forces launched their invasion of Ukraine, Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, commander of the Russian radiological, chemical and biological defense force, claimed that as many as 30 biological laboratories had been established in Ukraine that are actively cooperating with the US military; and that the Ukrainian authorities have been urgently destroying pathogens studied at its laboratories linked to the US Department of Defense.
Map showing some biolabs in the Ukraine, image source: Polish Sputnik – Nowe doniesienia o amerykańskich projektach dotyczących broni biologicznej na Ukrainie (google translated: New reports on US bioweapons projects in Ukraine)
On March 8, 2022, American ally Britain also downplayed the story alleging that they were fabricated to justify Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine.
Yet, hours later Victoria Nuland (the same mentioned above), acting as Undersecretary of State admitted that such facilities existed stating:
“Ukraine has biological research facilities which, in fact, we’re now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of, so we are working with the Ukrainians on how we can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach.”
On the subject Glenn Greenwald outlined the extent to which the legacy media were in full damage-control, labelling all those reporting on the matter as crazy conspiracy theorists and peddlers of misinformation. Greenwald began his piece with [original links included]:
“Self-anointed “fact-checkers” in the U.S. corporate press have spent two weeksmocking asdisinformation and a false conspiracy theory the claim that Ukraine has biological weapons labs, either alone or with U.S. support. They never presented any evidence for their ruling — how could they possibly know? and how could they prove the negative? — but nonetheless they invoked their characteristically authoritative, above-it-all tone of self-assurance and self-arrogated right to decree the truth and label such claims false.”
Greenwald reiterated the fact that Nuland had indeed never denied the existence of the labs and, in fact, was quite worried about how their materials could “fall into the hands of Russian forces,” to which he posited some highly relevant questions [emphasis added]:
“What is in those Ukrainian biological labs that make them so worrisome and dangerous? And has Ukraine, not exactly known for being a great power with advanced biological research, had the assistance of any other countries in developing those dangerous substances? Is American assistance confined to what Nuland described at the hearing — “working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces” — or did the U.S. assistance extend to the construction and development of the “biological research facilities” themselves?”
Greenwald also points out how the U.S. State Department downplays its role with the biolabs in the Ukraine, stating that they are merely for research purposes and for reducing biological threats. Yet, fact sheets on their website demonstrate millions in funding and for the specific purpose of building facilities and providing training.
Ukraine Biolab Funding via Hunter Biden’s entities
A bombshell report by the U.K.’s DailyMail provides ample evidence that corporate entities related to Hunter Biden have funded biolabs in the Ukraine. And, in this respect, there is even a connection to the aforementioned Burisma Holdings.
The article begins with a mention of a U.S. Department of Defence (DoD) contractor called Metabiota which specialises in researching pandemic-causing diseases that could be used as bioweapons. Sound familiar?
So, it appears that the previously mentioned claims by the Russian General that biological laboratories had been established in Ukraine and are actively cooperating with the US military certainly appears to be founded in reality, rather than some tall conspiracy tale.
The Russian Commander also claimed that their funding arose from the current U.S. leadership; and, in particular, from the investment fund Rosemont Seneca which is headed by none other than Hunter Biden.
As per a November 14, 2019 ZeroHedge article, Rosemont Seneca is a corporation controlled by Hunter Biden and his business partner Devon Archer. And Rosemont Capital is the parent company of Rosemont Seneca (also sometimes referred to as Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners, or RSTP).
Here is the Burisma link. Through the Biden emails, it was revealed that Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi had sent a thank you email to Hunter for having invited him to [Washington] DC to meet his father, Joe Biden. This corroborates the rationale that Hunter’s presence on Burisma’s board of directors was indeed for his family name and political connections.
Next, the DailyMail leak reveal an email from Vadym Pozharskyi to Devon Archer, Hunter’s business partner at Rosemont Seneca, on the subject of “Ukraine Science.” In the email letter, Pozharskyi expresses his concern about how Metabiota, the DoD subcontractor, seems to have pulled their financing for this “science” project, i.e., biolabs.
At prima facie, an inquiring mind would ponder the reason on why Burisma, a company involved in oil & gas, would be concerned with funding for biolab facilities; for, this would obviously not fall under the scope and nature of the principal activities of an energy company. Unless, of course, this was not the raison d’être for this company in the first place.
Perhaps funding was pulled due to closer scrutiny on these entities, along with the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation.
Also according to the DailyMail leak, Hunter and his colleagues invested $500,000 in Metabiota through their firm Rosemont Seneca Technology Partners and they raised several million dollars of funding for the company from investment giants including Goldman Sachs.
According to a ZeroHedge article about the same Hunter Biden email leaks, Metabiota was working under Black & Veatch – a US defense contractor tied to US intelligence, which built the Ukraine labs that analyzed bioweapons and deadly diseases.
It is also worth noting that, according to the Kharkiv Diagnostic Laboratory factsheet, a special permit for working with pathogens (i.e., potentially dangerous bioweapons) was issued and Kharkiv, where the Kharkiv Diagnostic Laboratory is located, is only 25 kilometers from the Russian border. This would definitely be cause for concern by the Russian forces, for fear of leak – intentional or not – emanating from this particular facility. The same can be said about the Black & Veath facility in Luhanskwhich sits dangerously close to the Russian border.
Also regarding Metabiota, the DailyMail article noted [emphasis added]:
“Metabiota also has close ties to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), suspected to be the source of the COVID-19 outbreak.
WIV was a hotspot for controversial ‘gain of function’ research that can create super-strength viruses.
Chinese scientists performed gain of function research on coronaviruses at the WIV, working alongside a US-backed organization EcoHealth Alliance that has since drawn intense scrutiny over its coronavirus research since the COVID-19 pandemic.
Researchers from the Wuhan institute, Metabiota and EcoHealth Alliance published a study together in 2014 on infectious diseases from bats in China, which notes that tests were performed at the WIV.
Shi Zhengli, the WIV Director of the Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases who became dubbed the ‘bat lady’ for her central role in bat coronavirus research at the lab, was a contributor to the paper.
Metabiota has been an official partner of EcoHealth Alliance since 2014, according to its website.”
As for the last claim from the above quote, a simple search on the matter corroborates linkages between EcoHealth Alliance and Metabiota.
Accordingly, the potential threat of a new pathogen emerging from even one of these facilities in the Ukraine is undoubtedly of paramount concern to the Russians, as it would be with any country.
Finally, it remains unclear as to how the Ukraine benefits from having such biolab facilities, for it inherently poses risks such as accidental leaks as well as possible retaliatory actions by nervous neighbors.
5. Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion
The all-volunteer Azov Battalion is one of Ukraine’s paramilitary groups that was formed in response to the government’s struggle against pro-Russian separatists in the country’s east.
Many of the Azov Battalion members are, even by their own description, socialist ultra-right Ukrainian nationalists.
The battalion has adopted many symbols and slogans that are associated with Neo-Naziism.
The Nazi symbols used by Ukraine’s Azov Battalion. The first two images include the Wolfsangel hate symbol while the first and third the Sonnenrad (Black Sun) hate symbol. Source: Consortium News.
When tensions erupted in April of 2014 in the eastern part of Ukraine – particularly in the Russian-backed regions of Donetsk and Luhansk – the group took on extreme forms of paramilitary tactics and started to receive funding and training from NATO-friendly partners such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada (see sub-section below), amongst others, which continues to this day.
In August of 2014, Tom Parfitt, a correspondent from The Telegraph noted:
“Kiev’s use of volunteer paramilitaries to stamp out the Russian-backed Donetsk and Luhansk ‘people’s republics’ should send a shiver down Europe’s spine.”
“Recently formed battalions such as Donbas, Dnipro and Azov, with several thousand men under their command, are officially under the control of the interior ministry but their financing is murky, their training inadequate and their ideology often alarming. The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf’s Hook) symbol on their banner and members of the battalion are openly white supremacists, or anti-Semites.”
And based on interviews with militia members, the Telegraph also reported that some of the fighters doubted the reality of the Holocaust, expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler, and acknowledged that they are indeed Nazis.
At the time, the commander of Azov Andriy Biletskydeclared: “The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival. A crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen.” The German word Untermenschen means sub-human, a supremacist slur.
Back in September of 2014, The Guardian correspondent Shaun Walker reportedalongside Azov Battalion volunteers in Mariupol, the southeastern region of Ukraine. Walker observed [emphasis added]:
“But there is an increasing worry that while the Azov and other volunteer battalions might be Ukraine’s most potent and reliable force on the battlefield against the separatists, they also pose the most serious threat to the Ukrainian government, and perhaps even the state, when the conflict in the east is over. The Azov causes particular concern due to the far right, even neo-Nazi, leanings of many of its members.”
Dmitry, an Azov volunteer he spoke to, “claimed not to be a Nazi, but waxed lyrical about Adolf Hitler as a military leader, and believes the Holocaust never happened.” But perhaps more surprisingly, it is the distaste for their own government that stood out:
“Not everyone in the Azov battalion thinks like Dmitry, but after speaking with dozens of its fighters and embedding on several missions during the past week in and around the strategic port city of Mariupol, the Guardian found many of them to have disturbing political views, and almost all to be intent on “bringing the fight to Kiev” when the war in the east is over.”
There is perhaps no better or intimate way to get into the mindset of the average Azov volunteer than to be embedded with them in the heat of the battle.
Walker also notes that though the Azov Battalion represents a minority among Ukrainian forces, they are not anti-Russian. One of the reasons being that most of their members lingua franca is Russian and that much of what Azov members say about race and nationalism is strikingly similar to the views of the more radical Russian nationalists fighting with the separatist side. He also notes that Azov intends to bring violence to Kiev when the war in the east is over.
“President Petro Poroshenko will be killed in a matter of months,” Azov volunteer Dimitry stated, continuing “and a dictator will come to power.” “What are the police going to do? They could not do anything against the peaceful protesters on Maidan; they are hardly going to withstand armed fighting units,” he concluded.
Dimitry’s prediction turned out to be partly correct, for though Poroshenko was not assassinated, he did get ousted during the Maidan coup and had to flee the country. It remains to be determined whether Poroshenko’s successor, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is a dictator; but, what features later in this essay may suggest that this has turned out to be the case.
Serving as an internal police force and with the support of the Minister of the Interior, Arsen Avakov, the Azov Battalion played a significant role in the protests amidst the Maidan coup which led to the ousting of President Yanukovych.
Though supposedly a “minor” fringe group amongst paramilitary units in the Ukraine, units such as the Azov Battalion and the Waffen SS organization found widespread support among Ukrainian nationalists, even in Kiev and in the western part of the country.
Many praised Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian far-right leader who was, together with his followers, responsible for the massacres of Polish and Jewish civilians and has the dishonorable label of being a fascist Nazi collaborator during the periods preceding, during, and following World War II.
Torchlight march in honor of the anniversary of the birth of Stepan Bandera, Ukrainian wartime fascist leader, Kyiv, January 1, 2015. Photo source: Wikimedia Commons via Consortium News.
“By a recorded vote of 130 in favour to 2 against (Ukraine, United States), with 49 abstentions, the Assembly then adopted draft resolution I, ‘Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance’”
U.S. Senator John McCain addressing a crowd in Kiev on December 15, 2013. Photo source: Wikimedia Commons / U.S. Senate/Office of Chris Murphy via Consortium news.
Canada’s support for these extreme ultra-nationalist groups
In the following CityNews report from Nov. 10, 2021, extremism researcher Brad Galloway, coordinator from the Centre on Hate Bias & Extremism, expressed concern that far-right Canadians may join the ranks of paramilitary groups such as Azov in the Ukraine.
The report also provides damning evidence about Canada’s diplomatic and military involvement in the training of the Azov Battalion, even though they knew they were a far-right fascist neo-Nazi group.
The report cites an Ottawa Citizen article as well as documents obtained by the news outfit through an Access to Information law which validated the claim, stating [emphasis added]:
“A year before the meeting, Canada’s Joint Task Force Ukraine produced a briefing on the Azov Battalion, acknowledging its links to Nazi ideology. “Multiple members of Azov have described themselves as Nazis,” the Canadian officers warned in their 2017 briefing.””
“Our Canadian partners are constantly assisting to strengthen the institutional capabilities of Ukraine’s Defence Ministry. Modern principles of defence management and democratic civilian control undergo implementation, and leaders of the strategic and operational levels receive their training. Canada provides all opportunities to improve skills and field training of units of the Armed Forces of Ukraine within the Operation UNIFIER. Therefore, Canada’s key role in training of Ukraine’s defence and security forces is unquestionable,”
Photo posted to the Canadian Armed Forces in Ukraine Facebook page which shows then Commanding Officer of Canada’s Operation UNIFIER Lieutenant-Colonel Ryan Stimpson speaking at the 2020 NAA graduation ceremony at the International Peacekeeping and Security Center in Yavoriv, Ukraine. Source: The Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies (IERES) at George Washington University’s ‘Far-Right Group, Made Its Home in Ukraine’s Major Western Military Training Hub’ report.
What is perhaps more troubling with regards to the Canadian military training Ukrainian forces lies with its official response to the mentions of training Ukrainian soldiers from these far-right extremist fascist groups and what their overall approach is [emphasis added]:
“Canadian Forces spokeswoman Lt.-Cmdr. Julie McDonald said it was up to Ukraine to vet its own security forces. But, if Canadian military personnel saw first-hand evidence of extremist views, they could refuse to train those soldiers, she added. The Canadian Forces, however, does not proactively examine the backgrounds of those they train or look for signs of support for far-right causes.”
Notice the word ‘could’ in her statement which would imply that refusing to train the soldiers would be optional and at the discretion of the Canadian military personnel.
This statement was not so different than that from the Canadian Defence Attaché in Ukraine Colonel Robert Foster who stated that when it comes to screening Ukrainian recipients of training for extremist views and ties, Canada trusted the Ukrainian government to select and identify the right candidates; specifically stating: “It is their responsibility.”
Such denialism was brought back to the forefront in April of last year when the Ottawa Citizen reported that Canada failed to properly monitor its own military training program. “Defence sources acknowledged the crest worn by the Ukrainian soldier in Canadian military photos is the insignia of Ukraine’s SS unit which fought for the Nazis,” asserted the report. And yet another Canadian Forces officer, Capt. Véronique Sabourin, affirmed that Ukraine is responsible for vetting its own personnel, shunning responsibility, rather than addressing the highly contentious matter.
The author of this article has contacted the Canadian Armed Forces for comment on the matter. They confirmed that the statement from Capt. Véronique Sabourin from above was accurate, adding “the Canadian Armed Forces are strongly opposed to the glorification of Nazism and all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, intolerance and extremism. In all of its international relationships,” stressing that all members “deployed on Operation UNIFIER were briefed to help them recognize patches and insignia associated with right-wing extremism.” Yet, they appeared consistent with their stance stating: “However, and ultimately, Ukraine is a sovereign country and was thus responsible for recruiting and vetting its own security forces.”
Even amidst the complexity involved in screening members of foreign forces for military training, for the Canadian Armed Forces to maintain such a stance whereby they are seemingly willing to turn a blind eye to such far-right extremist groups should put into question Canada’s role, financial, and military contributions regarding this external conflict.
6. Zelenskyy’s hidden fortune
While numerous reports online vary widely in terms of the actual net worth of Volodymyr Zelenskyy as well as the means by which he amassed his fortune, at least tens of millions of dollars worth are traceable.
Beginning with a report from Headlines & Global News (HNGN), Zelenskyy co-owned the television entertainment firm Kvartal 95 which he co-founded in 2003; and, according to Volodymyr Landa, deputy editor-in-chief of Forbes Ukraine, the company earns between $20 and $30 million per year, with Zelenskyy owning a 25% interest. Roughly speaking, that could amount to a conservative figure of $100 million or more for Zelenskyy’s stake since 2003, of course, depending on the net income of the firm.
“On the campaign trail, Zelenskiy pledged to clean up Ukraine’s oligarch-dominated ruling system. And he railed against politicians such as the wealthy incumbent Petro Poroshenko who hid his assets offshore,” noted an October 3, 2021 article from The Guardian which delved into the President Zelenskyy’s offshore connections.
The article references the Pandora papers which were leaked to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and shared with the Guardian as part of a global investigation which suggests that Zelenskiy is “rather similar to his predecessors.”
It mentions that the files reveal Zelenskyy participated in a sprawling network of offshore companies, co-owned with his long-time friends and TV business partners, including Ivan Bakanov who was general director of the previously mentioned production studio, Kvartal 95.
And though Zelenskyy had declared some of his private assets before becoming President, including Film Heritage, the Pandora papers reveal he had other assets stored offshore.
Film Heritage had a 25% stake in Davegra, a Cyprus holding company which in turn owns Maltex Multicapital Corp, a previously unknown entity registered in the tax haven of the British Virgin Islands (BVI). Zelenskyy held a 25% stake in Maltex.
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) – data from the OFFSHORE LEAKS DATABASE for the entity MALTEX MULTICAPITAL CORP.
“Roughly six weeks later, after Zelenskiy’s landslide victory, a lawyer acting for the Kvartal 95 group signed another document. It stipulated that Maltex would continue to pay dividends to Zelenskiy’s Film Heritage, even though it no longer owned any stake in the company. Its main revenue comes from activity in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, according to a Maltex client profile.”
“Zelenskiy’s wife, Olena, is now the declared beneficial owner of Film Heritage, meaning any payments since 2019 would have flowed to her.”
Notice from the above citation that Zelenskyy, or at least his wife Olena, is still receiving funds from Film Heritage’s operations, including in Russia, their stated bitter enemy.
The OCCRP report also states that offshore companies were used by Shefir and another business partner to buy three expensive London real estate properties, including a three-bedroom flat on Glentworth Street, bought for 1.58 million pounds ($2.28 million), and two-bedroom flat nearby in Baker Street’s Chalfont Court building, which was bought by Shefir for 2.2 million pounds (US$3.5 million).
According to an article from Euromaidan Press, a Ukraine-based English-language independent newspaper, which was largely sourced by a team of a team of independent investigative journalists from Slidstvо.Info, it was revealed that Zelenskyy had strong ties to the Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoiskyi, as per further examination of the Pandora papers. They discovered a network of interlinked offshore entities by Zelenskyy and his partners, specifically:
“Among the persons named in the documents of offshore registrars that became known thanks to Pandora Papers, journalists feature the names of Ukraine’s state leadership, such as Ivan Bakanov, Head of Security Service of Ukraine, Serhii Shefir, First Assistant to the President, and President Zelenskyy.”
Ivan Bakanov who is the Head of Security Service of Ukraine and a close friend to Zelenskyy, used his power to prevent the screening of the film Offshore 95 by Slidstvo.Info which showcased the extent of the corruption of Zelenskyy and his close friends and business partners, including Ihor Kolomoisky, the powerful Ukrainian banking oligarch.
Slidstvо.Info film “OFFSHORE 95” Secrets of the President Zelenskyy’s business, Oct. 3, 2021
The team of investigative journalists had also discovered that around a dozen persons in Zelenskyy’s inner circle have offshore companies, and that the offshore registrar Fidelity and Ukrainian lawyer Yurii Azarov helped create the network. What’s more, they also revealed that [emphasis added]:
“The Pandora Papers disclosed that since 2012, an offshore company affiliated to Kolomoiskyi’s 1+1 group at least once paid more than $1 billion to Zelenskyy’s offshore firm SVT from the British Virgin Islands, for the popular TV show “Make a Comedian Laugh” created by Kvartal 95. And Maltext owns half of SVT.”
Moreover, according to Slidstvo.Info’s data, Zelenskyy’s and Kolomoiskyi’s companies made a transaction worth $40 million in 2012. The team traced the origin of this money which led them to conclude that that the companies that gave these $40 million are suspected of laundering huge sums from Privatbank.
Though not entirely proven or knowingly, Zelenskyy’s company could have been implicated in an operation conducted via the Cyrpus branch of the Kolomoiskyi-owned Privatbank (to which funds were funnelled from Ukraine).
The OCCRP also investigated Kolomoiskyi’s Privatbank in which the oligarch, along with the oligarch co-owner of the bank, Hennadiy Boholiubov, appear to have stolen US$5.5 billion of the bank’s assets.
Quoting from the piece: “The former chairwoman of Ukraine’s central bank dubbed it one of the biggest financial scandals of the 21st century.”
PrivatBank was Ukraine’s largest commercial lender and had a whopping 33% of the population’s deposits. The state, depositors, and other stakeholders had to absorb the loss and the bank had to be nationalized.
The OCCRP investigation also mentions that, Kolomoisky’s 1+1 channel overwhelmingly favored Zelenskyy in its news coverage during the election period. And, though Zelenskyy denied he owed anything to Kolomoisky, he nonetheless affirmed “He is my business partner, not my boss,” in an interview.
The Biden administration has officially barred Ihor Kolomoisky from entering the United States, sanctioned, and accused him of looting the country’s largest bank and funneling the proceeds into investments into the U.S. and elsewhere.
According to yet another exposé by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) titled the FinCen Files, the Ukrainian oligarch has a lot to answer to regarding his shady business dealings, particularly those from his offshore entities in Cyprus and the British Virgin Islands.
Concluding this section, it is fair to say that Volodymyr Zelenskyy has been less than honest – even after he was elected, as per his own testimony in the Atlantic Council, a known mouthpiece for NATO. He has lied about his wealth and the facts provided above show that it can easily range in the hundreds of millions of dollars, if not a billion or more.
7. Human Rights abuses committed in Ukraine
What is controvertible about the broader sanctions imposed on Russia by the United States, Canada, and other “allies and partners” is that none of these partners seem to have reprimanded the Ukraine or its officials for its own illegal actions and human rights abuses.
A report produced by the U.S. State Department titled UKRAINE 2021 HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT has outlined numerous such illegal activities in the form of human rights abuses committed by members of the Ukrainian government, including many towards its own people in the Donbas region of the country which is predominantly of Russian ethnicity.
As per the report these include, but are not limited to the following (verbatim):
unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings by the government or its agents
torture and cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of detainees by law enforcement personnel
harsh and life-threatening prison conditions
arbitrary arrest or detention
serious restrictions on free expression and media, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship
refoulement of refugees to a country where they would face a threat to their life or freedom
serious acts of government corruption
lack of investigation of and accountability for gender-based violence
crimes, violence, or threats of violence motivated by anti-Semitism
crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting persons with disabilities, members of ethnic minority groups, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons
the existence of the worst forms of child labor
Unlike with Russia, Global Affairs Canada has not created a sanction list against individual members of the Ukrainian government, nor its entities, despite such apparent illegal and unjustifiable human rights abuses. The same can be said for the other allies who support Ukraine.
This author has twice requested comment from the Media Relations Office of Global Affairs Canada about these human rights abuses committed by the Ukraine but has yet to receive their input.
8. Zelenskyy changing laws to suppress Free Speech
As per a January 2, 2023 article titled Zelensky Expands Crackdown on Ukrainian Media from the Libertarian Institute, President Volodymyr Zelensky has signed on December 29, 2022, a new bill into law which strengthens government control over public access to news in Ukraine.
The Libertarian Institute’s article also states that Zelenskyy signed a presidential decree which nationalized the country’s media under martial law powers invoked shortly after Russia’s invasion last year.
And though justification for the new law is said to be to fulfill a requirement to eventually gain membership in the European Union, the European Federation of Journalists urged the Ukrainian authorities to withdraw it, stating:
“The coercive regulation envisaged by the bill and in the hands of a regulator totally controlled by the government is worthy of the worst authoritarian regimes.”
Such legislation brings to mind China’s rigid, nearly exclusive, control over media whereby no dissenting voices are allowed.
The National Union of Journalists of Ukraine added that the law “threatens to restrict press freedom in the country and would move it away from European Union standards.”
Furthermore, according to Ukraine’s Institute of Mass Information, under the law, the media regulator is likely to be controlled by the incumbent authorities because its members are appointed by Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian parliament, where his party has an absolute majority.
As Zelenskyy’s political party holds an absolute majority coupled with the fact that his close friend, Ivan Bakanov, is the Head of Security Service of Ukraine, it would come as no surprise how easy it would be for them to crush any dissenting voices. This was the case with the investigative unit Slidstvo.Info which saw their corruption exposé film Offshore 95 about Zelenskyy’s offshore holdings banned and ultimately censored.
9. Suppression of the Church
As per a December 21, 2022, Christianity Today article, the Ukraine, a supposedly bastion of religious freedom, is moving to possibly outlaw a church:
“President Volodymyr Zelensky began the month by endorsing a draft law to “make it impossible” for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), canonically linked to Moscow, to operate. His December 1 decree followed raids on several monasteries under the UOC’s jurisdiction.”
Sounding either at least partially insane or utterly paranoid, Zelenskyy stated the following on the matter:
“We will ensure complete independence for our state. In particular, spiritual independence. We will never allow anyone to build an empire inside the Ukrainian soul.”
Such paranoia has been epitomized and is substantiated by no less than 350 buildings and 850 people being raided or investigated by Zelenskyy’s government.
In a video address, Zelenskyy said “We are doing everything to ensure that no strings are available to be pulled by the aggressor state that could make Ukrainian society suffer.”
Furthermore, under an order issued by Ukraine’s Security Council, Zelenskyy seized assets from Church clergy.
The attacks seem focused on Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) churches. And this, despite Reverend Mykolay Danylevich, who has often served as a spokesperson for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, asserting that the UOC is not Russian.
Though some confusion may exist regarding which specific churches belong to the Russian or Ukrainian branches, these denominations were united at the unification council in Kyiv on December 15, 2018. In other words, they are equally recognised and classified as Eastern Orthodox Churches in the Ukraine and, in general.
Specifically, we find the following rights [emphasis added for clarity and relevance]:
Article 24: Citizens have equal constitutional rights and freedoms and are equal before the law. There shall be no privileges or restrictions based on race, colour of skin, political, religious and other beliefs, sex, ethnic and social origin, property status, place of residence, linguistic or other characteristics.
Article 35: Everyone has the right to freedom of personal philosophy and religion. This right includes the freedom to profess or not to profess any religion, to perform alone or collectively and without constraint religious rites and ceremonial rituals, and to conduct religious activity. The Church and religious organisations in Ukraine are separated from the State.
Accordingly, and with the attacks on numerous UOC churches, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is clearly infringing upon these religious institutions as well as upon rights of roughly two-thirds of his country’s citizens.
Apart from independent and religious news outlets, very few mainstream media outlets have reported on this matter. Equally, apart from the Russian government, very few countries and its leaders have condemned this religious persecution.
10. Ukraine’s Systemic Corruption Problem
“Welcome to Ukraine, the most corrupt nation in Europe,” reads a Guardian long read headline from February 2015, followed by the lede “While the conflict with Russia heats up in the east, life for most Ukrainians is marred by corruption so endemic that even hospitals appear to be infected. Can anyone clean the country up?”
What is also noteworthy about this long article is that it is not presented as an opinion or commentary, but rather as a news article.
While there would be way too many aspects to cover with regards to the systemic corruption that plagues Ukraine, this author will instead highlight but a few.
One such aspect of Ukrainian society that is central to corruption is that of the oligarchy that is running the nation.
Some of these oligarchs and their abuses have been outlined in this post. In this respect, The Guardian also noted:
“Ordinary Ukrainians have seen their living standards stagnate, while a handful of oligarchs have become billionaires.”
Twoother Guardian articles have outlined such corruption with the latter specifically examining the country’s governance problems.
This second article titled IMF warns Ukraine it will halt $40bn bailout unless corruption stops from 2016, highlights how the International Monetary Fund (IMF) would halt its $40 billion bailout program to Ukraine unless the country takes immediate action to tackle corruption.
“I am concerned about Ukraine’s slow progress in improving governance and fighting corruption, and reducing the influence of vested interests in policymaking,” stated Christine Lagarde who was the IMF’s managing director at the time.
By “reducing the influence of vested interests in policymaking,” the IMF chief was obviously referring to the country’s bribery problems in which oligarchs basically dictate policymaking.
Perhaps what was a little bit ironic about this (and other) statements by Christine Lagarde, who is now the current head of the European Central Bank (ECB), is that she, herself, was criminally convicted for corruption in France. It takes a crook to know one.
“For more than 20 years, the EU has been supporting Ukraine in its reform agenda. Tackling corruption, which is a major obstacle to a country’s development and runs counter to EU values, is an integral part of that. Grand corruption and state capture are endemic in Ukraine; as well as hindering competition and growth, they also harm the democratic process. Tens of billions of euros are lost annually as a result of corruption.”
For more than 20 years the EU, and more recently, the international community, has been funnelling billions in cash and weapons into this extremely corrupt country.
According to Ukraine’s own National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP)section on declarations by officials, the criminal, administrative, and disciplinary offenses are too numerous for any human being to fathom. Here is a statistical summary of what their own findings indicate (Google translated):
Statistics showing 13,730 instances of asset declaration-related criminal offenses, 28,690 administrative offenses, and 1,765 disciplinary offences committed by its officials. Source: Ukraine’s National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP)’s Unified State Register database (Google translated).
Where are all these billions going?
Sadly, as evidenced above, much of it has been pilfered by Ukraine’s ruling class, including its president.
This author could write another section solely devoted to examining this question. But suffice it to say that this exposition, at nearly 40 pages in length, has run long enough and has most likely worn the reader’s attention down the pits of desolate despair.
The final point to be made here comes from a Max Blumenthal tweet whereby he points out that Andrew Milburn, a retired U.S. Marine Colonel, who recently provided training for troops in the Ukraine referred to the country itself as a “corrupt, fucked-up society” run by “fucked-up people” (pardon my French).
This comes from one who is all too familiar with the inner-workings of the reality that is taking place on the ground near Russia’s borders. Having trained Ukrainian soldiers and having met many of their commanders, coupled with a deep understanding of the country’s history and culture, Milburn undoubtedly has a firm grasp about the mindset of those carrying out orders from the top.
Conclusion
While this author is no geopolitical expert or authority on the Ukraine, what has been presented above can nonetheless serve as a primer about the ugly realities that surround the country whom many deem as being on the right side of history.
Absolutely, there is no arguing that a tremendous number of Ukrainian citizens have perished, suffered, and been incredibly affected by this war with Russia, as have many Russian souls.
But it remains, nevertheless, necessary to present these inconvenient truths that have been repressed and omitted by the mainstream media, so as to offer a more complete picture of Ukraine’s own role in this conflict, along with those of NATO, the United States, Canada, and all other governments who support the former Soviet republic.
Also let this exposition serve as an exhibit for governments around the world, especially Canada, where this author resides and who believes that countless billions of our tax payer funds are carelessly being siphoned away to this corrupt Ukrainian regime rather than being put to better use for Canadians who are struggling.
Hoping this global collective madness comes to an end in 2023.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons 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: Graffiti “Stop War” on Russia’s war in Ukraine in the Mauerpark in Berlin, Germany. Image taken on March 11, 2022. Source: Wikimedia Commons.
In May 2022, a confused former president accuses Putin of invading Iraq. Slip of the Tongue. This is not an isolated event.
.
.
Slip of the Tongue: Invade Iraq or Invade Ukraine
See G. W. Bush Video Below where in his confusion, he accuses Vladimir Putin of “invasion of Iraq, I mean of Ukraine”.
Former President George W. Bush: “The decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean of Ukraine.” pic.twitter.com/UMwNMwMnmX
This is not a slip of the tongue. In his subconscious mind he must have recalled his own “unjustified and brutal” decision as POTUS to invade Iraq in March 2003.
Below is a carefully researched review of Bush’s blunders by Professor Rodrigue Tremblay first published by Global Research in 2006
The lack of knowledge and understanding by a president of the United States can lead to unthinkable mistakes in regards to US foreign policy.
***
Here is a selection of quotes from President George W. Bush with accompanying dates and sources:
#1: “International law? I better call my lawyer; he didn’t bring that up to me.” George W. Bush, December 12, 2003.
#2: “We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace.“/George W.Bush’s Address to the United Nations General Assembly, September 21, 2004.
#3: “...for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that alliance has come an era of peace in the Pacific.“/Remark made by President George W. Bush to the Diet, Tokyo, Japan. February 18, 2002, even though the U.S. and Japan have been openly at war with each other.
#4: “One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief….My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it….If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it.“/remarks made by Bush to author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz, who met GWB many times in 1999, to write a biography.
#5: “These people are trying to shake the will of the Iraqi citizens, and they want us to leave…I think the world would be better off if we did leave…“/This was said by Bush during the presidential debate of September 20, 2004]
#6: “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.“/Bush’s remarks video clipped in Washington, D.C., as he signed the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, on August 5, 2004.
#7: “Well, I think if you say you’re going to do something and don’t do it, that’s trustworthiness.“ [Bush’s remark during a CNN Online Chat, August 30, 2000]
#8: “I believe God wants me to be president” is a Bush’s statement that came during a meeting with Rev. Richard land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, in 1999.
#9: [I was] “chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment”, is a Bush’s quotation reported by Michael Duffy in Time magazine immediately after 9/11.
#10: “God told me to strike at al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them“ comes from a remark made by Bush to Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath, made to and reported by BBC News on Thursday, October 6 2005.
#11:“I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job” is a Bush’s remark to a group of Amish people he met with privately on July 9, 2004, and as published by the Lancaster New Era, July 16, 2004.
#12: “The problem with the French is that they don’t have a word for ‘entrepreneur'” comes from a remark made by Bush during a discussion of the French economy during the 2002 G8 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, as reported in The Times (London), July 9, 2002,
#13: ‘There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.‘ is taken from a video of Bush’s remarks in Nashville, Tennessee, September 17, 2002.
#14: “Ariel Sharon … is a man of courage and a man of peace” is a quote reported by Glenn Kessler, in the Washington Post of Tuesday, June 3, 2003.
#15: “See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.” comes from remarks Bush made during a Social Security Conversation at the Athena Performing Arts Center in New York on May 24, 2005.
#16: “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace” is taken from a Bush’s speech at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C., June 18, 2002.
#17: “This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table” is a widely known remark that Bush made during a press conference, after a meeting with EU leaders, on February 22, 2005.
#18: “Free nations don’t develop weapons of mass destruction” is taken from Bush’s speech at the Midwest Airlines Center, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on October 3, 2003.
#19: “The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him” was recorded at a Bush’s White House press conference in Washington, D.C., on September 13, 2001.
#20: “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority” was recorded at George W. Bush’s White House press conference in the James S. Brady Briefing Room, Washington, D.C., on March 13, 2002.
#21: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories…for those who say we haven’t found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they’re wrong, we found them” is a statement Bush made in Washington, D.C., on May 29, 2003.
#22: “Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties [in Iraq]” is a statement made by Bush during a discussion in early 2003 about the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson in Nashville, Tennessee, and as quoted by Robertson himself.
#23: “Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you”comes from the transcript of a Bush’s speech made on March 17, 2003, days before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
#24: “Brownie (Michael Brown of FEMA), you’re doing a heck of a job” is still fresh in everybody’s memory; it is a public statement made by Bush about Michael D. Brown, head of Fema, following Hurricane Katrina, at Mobile Regional Airport in Mobile, Alabama. on September 2, 2005.
#25: “I’m also not very analytical. You know I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things” was recorded by journalists aboard Air Force One, on June 4, 2003.
#26: “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator“ is taken from an audio clip of President-elect George W. Bush, at a photo-op with congressional leaders during his first trip to Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000; it was also reported on Online NewsHour, Washington, DC, December 18, 2000.
#27:“I’m the commander — see, I don’t need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being president.” can be found in Bob Woodward’s book “Bush at War”.
#28: “I don’t have the foggiest idea about what I think about international, foreign policy” can be found in Bob Woodward’s book “State of Denial.”
#29:“It’s amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency” is a comment made by George W. Bush, on June 14, 2001, to Göran Persson, unaware he was still on live TV.
#30: “It’s very important for folks to understand that when there’s more trade, there’s more commerce” is a Bush’s remark made during a meeting of leades of the Americas, in Quebec City, Canada, April 21, 2001.
#31: “I would still invade Iraq even if Iraq never existed”
George W. Bush’s remark made to the Press-Telegram, Monday, August 21, 2006.
#32: “Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom.”
George W. Bush’s acceptance speech at the Republic National Convention, on September 2, 2004.
#33: “Americans will speak of the battles like Fallujah. with the same awe and reverence that we now give to Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima.”
George W. Bush, November 10, 2006
#34: “We cannot rule this [an Israeli attack against Iran] out. And if it were to happen, I would understand it.”
George W. Bush, November 2, 2006 (in a conversation with French President Jacques Chirac]
#35: “You can’t distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam[Hussein]when you talk about the war on terror.”
George W. Bush, September 25, 2002
#36: “We’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th attacks.”
George W. Bush, (remarks made after a meeting with members of the Congressional Conference Committee on Energy Legislation, September 17, 2003)
#37: “When he[Saddam Hussein] chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him.”
George W. Bush, March 21, 2005, (N.B.:145 U.N. inspectors were in Iraq in December 2002 and in January 2003, just before the March 20, 2003 American –led invasion of Iraq)
#38: “You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.”
George W. Bush, September 6, 2006 (in an interview with CBS News Anchor Katie Couric)
#39: “I would say the best moment of all [in office] was when I caught a 7.5 pound perch in my lake.“
George W. Bush, May 7, 2006 (while being interview by the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag)
#40: “You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn’t it? I mean, that is fantastic that you’re doing that.”
George W. Bush, February 4, 2005 (comment made to a divorced mother of three, in Omaha, Nebraska)
#41: “We will make sure our troops have all that is necessary to complete their missions. That’s why I went to the Congress last September and proposed fundamental — supplemental funding, which is money for armor and body parts and ammunition and fuel.”
George W. Bush, September 4, 2004, (during a speech in Erie, Pa.)
#42: “It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. — More and more of our imports come from overseas.”
George W. Bush, comment made on September 25, 2000
#43: “I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. … We should approach our nation’s budget as any prudent family would.”
George W. Bush, statement made on February 27, 2001 (N.B.: From 2002 to 2006, the cumulative federal budget deficit has exceeded one and a half trillion (1.5 trillion) dollars)
#44: “Therefore, I, George W. Bush, Governor of Texas, do hereby proclaim June 10, 2000, “Jesus Day” in Texas and urge the appropriate recognition whereof, in official recognition whereof, I hereby affix my signature this 17th day of April 2000.”
George W. Bush, April 17, 2001 (Governor Bush’s “Jesus Day” 2000 Proclamation day of prayer)
#45: “We feel our reliance on the Creator who made us. We place our sorrows and cares before Him, seeking God’s mercy. We ask forgiveness for our failures, seeking the renewal He can bring”.
George W. Bush, March 30, 2002, (in a radio broadcast)
#46: “…But what if God has been holding his peace, waiting for the right man and the right nation and the right moment to act for Him and cleanse history of Evil?
George W. Bush, January 28, 2003, State of the Union address
#47: “The Columbia is lost. —The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth but we can pray they are safely home.”
George W. Bush, on February 1, 2003, (comment made after disaster struck the space shuttle Columbia)
#48: “The best way to fight evil is to do some good. Let me qualify that—the best way to fight evil at home is to do some good. The best way to fight them abroad is to unleash the military.”
George W. Bush, April 8, 2002, (in a speech in Knoxville, Tennessee)
#49: “We are going to correct the imbalances of the previous administration on the MidEast conflict”…”We are going to tilt it back toward Israel.”
George W. Bush, (comment made on January 30, 2001)
#50: “As a leader, you can never admit to a mistake; that is one of the keys to being a leader.”
George W. Bush, (comment to biographer Mickey Herskowitz, in 1999)
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.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
First published on December 1, 2022
***
Over the past weeks a coordinated all-out assault on our agriculture—the ability to produce food for human existence—has begun. The recent G20 governmental meeting in Bali, the UN Agenda 2030 Cop27 meeting in Egypt, the Davos World Economic Forum and Bill Gates are all complicit. Typically, they are using dystopian linguistic framing to give the illusion they are up to good when they are actually advancing an agenda that will lead to famine and death for hundreds of millions not billions if allowed to proceed. It’s driven by a coalition of money.
From G20 to Cop27 to WEF
On November 13 the G20–representatives of the 20 most influential nations including the USA, the UK, the European Union (though it’s no nation), Germany, Italy, France, Japan, South Korea, and several developing countries including China, India, Indonesia and Brazil,– agreed on a final declaration.
The first major item is a “call for an accelerated transformation towards sustainable and resilient agriculture and food systems and supply chains.”
Further, “working together to sustainably produce and distribute food, ensure that food systems better contribute to adaptation and mitigation to climate change, and halting and reversing biodiversity loss, diversify food sources…”
In addition they called for “inclusive, predictable, and non-discriminatory, rules-based agricultural trade based on WTO rules.”
As well, “We are committed to supporting the adoption of innovative practices and technologies, including digital innovation in agriculture and food systems to enhance productivity and sustainability in harmony with nature…”
Then comes the revealing statement: “We reiterate our commitment to achieve global net zero greenhouse gas emissions/carbon neutrality by or around mid-century.” [i](emphasis mine)
“Sustainable agriculture” with “net zero greenhouse gas emissions” is Orwellian doublespeak. For an outsider to UN linguistics, the words sound too good. What in fact is being promoted is the most radical destruction of farming and agriculture globally under the name “sustainable agriculture.”
Following the Bali G20 confab by only days was the United Nations’ COP27 annual Green Agenda Climate Summit meeting in Egypt. There, the participants from most UN countries along with NGOs such as Greenpeace and hundreds of other green NGOs drafted a second call. COP27 launched something they revealingly call FAST– UN’s new Food and Agriculture for Sustainable Transformation (FAST) initiative. Fast, as in “to abstain from food…”
According to Forbes, FAST will promote a “shift towards sustainable, climate-resilient, healthy diets, would help reduce health and climate change costs by up to US$ 1.3 trillion while supporting food security in the face of climate change.” We are talking big numbers. $1.3 trillion by transition to “sustainable, climate-resilient, healthy diets” that would reduce cost of climate change by $1.3 trillion. [ii] What’s really going on behind all these words?
Big Money Behind
According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization speaking to Reuters during COP27, within a year the FAO will launch a “gold standard” blueprint for reduction of so-called Greenhouse gases from agriculture.
The impulse for this war on agriculture comes not surprisingly from big money, FAIRR Initiative, a UK-based coalition of international investment managers which focuses on “material ESG risks and opportunities caused by intensive livestock production.”
Their members include the most influential players in global finance including BlackRock, JP Morgan Asset Management, Allianz AG of Germany, Swiss Re, HSBC Bank, Fidelity Investments, Edmond de Rothschild Asset Management, Credit Suisse, Rockefeller Asset Management, UBS Bank and numerous other banks and pension funds with total assets under management of $25 trillion.[iii] They are now opening the war on agriculture much as they have on energy. The UN FAO Deputy Director for Climate Change policies, Zitouni Ould-Dada said during the COP27 that, “There has never been this much attention to food and agriculture anytime before. This COP is definitely the one.” [iv]
The FAIRR claims, without proof, that
“food production accounts for around a third of global greenhouse gas emissions and is the main threat to 86% of the world’s species at risk of extinction, while cattle ranching is responsible for three quarters of Amazon rainforest loss.” [v]
The FAO plans to propose drastic reduction in global livestock production, especially cattle, which FAIRR claims is responsible for
“nearly a third of the global methane emissions linked to human activity, released in the form of cattle burps, manure and the cultivation of feed crops.”
For them, the best way to stop cow burps and cow manure is to eliminate cattle. [vi]
Unsustainable Sustainable Agriculture
The fact that the UN FAO is about to release a roadmap to drastically reduce so-called greenhouse gases from global agriculture, under the false claim of “sustainable agriculture” that is being driven by the world’s largest wealth managers including BlackRock, JP Morgan, AXA and such, tells volumes about the true agenda. These are some of the most corrupt financial institutions on the planet. They never put a penny where they are not guaranteed huge profits. The war on farming is their next target.
The term “sustainable” was created by David Rockefeller’s Malthusian Club of Rome. In their 1974 report, Mankind at the Turning Point, The Club of Rome argued:
Nations cannot be interdependent without each of them giving up some of, or at least acknowledging limits to, its own independence. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for organic sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all finite resources and a new global economic system. [vii](emphasis mine)
That was the early formulation of the UN Agenda 21, Agenda2030 and the 2020 Davos Great Reset. In 2015 UN member nations adopted what is called the Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs: 17 Goals to Transform our World. Goal 2 is “End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture.”
But if we read in detail into proposals of COP27, G20 and Davos WEF of Klaus Schwab we find what is meant by these nice sounding words. Now we are being inundated with claims, unverified, by numerous government and privately-funded think tank models that our agriculture systems are a major cause of, yes, global warming. Not only CO2 but methane and nitrogen. Yet the entire global greenhouse gas argument that our planet is on the brink of irreversible disaster if we do not radically change our emissions by 2030 is unverifiable nonsense from opaque computer models. Based on these models the UN IPCC insists that if we do not stop a global temperature rise of 1.5 C above the level of 1850, by 2050 the world will essentially end.
The War Is Just Beginning
The UN and Davos WEF teamed up in 2019 to jointly advance the SDG UN Agenda 2030. On the WEF website this is openly admitted to mean getting rid of meat protein sources, introducing promoting unproven fake meat, advocating alternative protein such as salted ants or ground crickets or worms to replace chicken or beef or lamb. At COP27, discussion was about “diets that can remain within planetary boundaries, including lowering meat consumption, developing alternatives, and spurring the shift towards more native plants, crops and grains (thus reducing the current reliance on wheat, maize, rice, potatoes).” [viii]
The WEF is promoting a shift from meat protein diets to vegan arguing it would be more “sustainable”. [ix] They also promote lab-grown or plant-based lab meat alternatives such as the Bill Gates-funded Impossible Burgers, whose own FDA tests indicate it is a likely carcinogen as it is produced with GMO soy and other products saturated with glyphosate. The CEO of Air Protein, another fake meat company, Lisa Lyons, is a special WEF adviser. WEF also promotes insect protein alternatives to meat. Note also Al Gore is a Trustee of WEF. [x]
The war on animal raising for meat is just getting deadly serious. The government of the Netherlands whose Prime Minister Mark Rutte, formerly of Unilever, is a WEF Agenda Contributor, has created a special Minister for the Environment and Nitrogen, Christianne van der Wal. Using a never-invoked and outdated EU Natura 2000 nature protection guidelines designed allegedly to “protect moss and clover,” and based on fraudulent test data, the Government just announced it will forcibly close 2,500 cattle farms across Holland. Their goal is to force fully 30% of cattle farms to close or face expropriation.
In Germany the German Meat Industry Association (VDF), says that within the next four to six months Germany will face a meat shortage, and prices will skyrocket. Hubert Kelliger, a VDF board member said, “In four, five, six months we will have gaps on the shelves.” Pork is expected to experience the worst shortages. The issues in meat supply are due to Berlin insisting on reducing the numbers of livestock by 50% to reduce global warming emissions. [xi] In Canada, the Trudeau government, another Davos WEF product, according to the Financial Post of July 27, plans to cut emissions from fertilizer 30 per cent by 2030 as part of a plan to get to net zero in the next three decades. But growers are saying that to achieve that, they may have to shrink grain output significantly.
When the autocratic President of Sri Lanka banned all import of nitrogen fertilizers in April 2021 in a brutal effort to return to a past of “sustainable” agriculture, harvests collapsed in seven months and famine and farmer ruin and mass protests forced him to flee the country. He ordered that the entire country would immediately switch to organic farming but provided farmers with no such training.
Combine all this with the catastrophic EU political decision to ban Russian natural gas used to make nitrogen-based fertilizers, forcing shutdowns of fertilizer plants across the EU, that will cause a global reduction in crop yields, and as well the fake Bird Flu wave that is falsely ordering farmers across North America and the EU to kill off tens of millions of chickens and turkeys to cite just a few more cases, and it becomes clear that our world faces a food crisis that is unprecedented. All for climate change?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
For almost two years we have been experiencing the onslaughts of a brand new form of warring aggression. For all but a tiny percentage of the global population, we have become the targeted enemy. The we that isbeing attacked extends to most of the global population.
We are being culled in preparation for a new political economy characterized by an A.I. master-slave relation along with massive robotization. It is becoming increasingly clear that the transition to this scheme –which de facto implies depopulation– kicked into gear with the brutal economic and health impacts of the lockdowns and then with the deaths and injuries from the COVID injections.
In May 2009, the Billionaire philanthropists met behind closed doors at the home of the president of The Rockefeller University in Manhattan.
This Secret Gathering was sponsored by Bill Gates. They called themselves “The Good Club”.
The emphasis was not on population growth (i.e Planned Parenthood) but on “Depopulation”, i.e,. the reduction in the absolute size of the World’s population.
The scheme for population reduction is introducing a kind of deregulated free-for-all when it comes to further unrestricted medical experiments on human subjects. These subjects of medical experiments will be in no position to give or withhold informed consent.
“And if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [the world population] by 10 or 15 percent”.
According to Gates’ statement, this would represent an absolute reduction of the World’s population (2010) of the order 680 million to 1.02 billion.
(See quotation on Video starting at 04.21. See also screenshot of Transcript of quotation)
A major aim of those planning and implementing these experiments is the creation of transhumans.
These transhuman beings will see their inherited biology combined with the engineering of digital and genetic modifications. The alterations to the human genome are to be supported by the insertion within transhumans of many forms of nanotechnology. Most of the altered mergers of natural and unnatural life will be placed under the governing control of Artificial Intelligence projects now rapidly coming online.
“We could imagine that we will implant theme [microchips] in our brain or in our skin”.
“And then we can imagine that there is direct communication between the [human] brain and the digital World”.
“What we see is a kind of fusion of the physical, digital and biological World
“And first you have the personalized robots…”
Video: Towards Digital Tyranny with Peter Koenig
The strategic contest to determine the future overlords, designs, and uses of Artificial Intelligence forms a big aspect of the acrimony and negotiation currently taking place in the most covert venues of US-China relations.
It is telling that most citizens are left well outside the loop of the decisions being made about how AI will be deployed to regulate our own lives.
Much secrecy prevails in this strategic AI realm, a realm of huge consequence in establishing future patterns in the lives and deaths of human beings. The precedent is already deeply embedded that we the people are to be kept outside the circle of informed consent when it comes to the subject of how new technologies are to be deployed in creating the conditions of human existence. Those decisions are currently being mostly monopolized by the closed club of multi-billionaires and their agents in the security agencies and media.
In 2022 the objectives of the escalating war on nature is putting special emphasis on the alteration of human nature and the civilizational inheritance that we were born into. The startling scale of the assault on both nature and on the political economy of our current civilization is quickly becoming increasingly apparent to more and more people.
The time has come for all of us to engage in some honest reckoning with the scope and depth of the hybrid war being waged against us. Its goal is to radically reconfigure our consciousness, our genetic attributes, our reproductive capacities and our societal interactions.
We are facing the prospect of unlimited conquest by a new variant of savage conquistadores. We are becoming the modern-day Indians standing in the way of the New World Order. We are reliving some of the experiences of those who once faced the incursions of the Columbian conquests whose protagonists started in 1492 an intergenerational war on Aboriginal America.
We are being subjected to severe assaults that maim our capacity to sustain our civil liberties, our health, our economic viability and even our very lives. Many more of us than usual have been meeting premature and unnecessary deaths. These deaths are coming in ways that can no longer be veiled by the perpetrators of this profoundly invasive operation, one that is altering the conditions of humanity on Planet Earth at Warp Speed.
Evidence of the acute nature of the attacks we are experiencing have been highlighted by many observers. The most keenly attentive among us can readily see that the wheels are coming off the lead bandwagon of the COVID Hoax Parade. Fast coming to light is the plethora of lies and deceptions that have energized the passage of this lewd COVID procession through even the most private and intimate passageways of our lives.
The growing exposure of the lurid tactics deployed by the saboteurs of personal and collective health is making them more frantic. The manufacturers of the engineered panic are starting to panic themselves. The culprits in media, in banking, and in government have much to fear given the number, the scale and the depth of the atrocities they are directing behind the failing veils of deception and fraud.
A Jolt of Truth From the Insurance Industry
In their desperation the culprits are raising the ante with a new round of rabid fear mongering aimed at igniting Omicron hysteria. A surprising revelation has come to light in the midst of the deceivers’ rush to come up with a new variant in order to persist with an otherwise tired and failing script. This revelation is illuminating the expanding numbers of the casualties that have already met their demise in this ongoing undeclared war.
On the first of January Scott Davison, the CEO of the Indiana-based OneAmerica Life Insurance Company, made a stunning announcement. He explained that the death rate among his company’s working-age clients has gone up 40% since pre-pandemic times.
Davison declared, “what we are seeing right now is the highest death rates in the history of this business— not just at OneAmerica.” Davison explained further,
“the data is consistent across every player in that business….. What the data is showing to us is that the deaths that are being reported as COVID deaths greatly understate the actual death losses among working-age people from the pandemic. It may not all be COVID on their death certificate, but deaths are up just huge, huge numbers.”
The high rate of death among working-age people has huge implications for those on both sides of the war aimed at reducing the global population and radically transforming the conditions of human life. Many of those who died were registered by their employers in the Indiana company’s group life insurance policies.
The sudden demise of this cohort of men and women while in their prime, took place during an arc of history when the grim reaper became unusually active. The period was marked by catastrophic lockdowns, suffocating masking, the systemic denial of non-injectable remedies to COVID, as well as the roll out of DNA-altering injections followed by the imposition of injection mandates.
Brian Shilhavy, Editor of Health Impact News, reported on the event. He offered up various forms of confirmation including hospital reports that prove the veracity of Mr. Davison’s account. Generalizing on the larger implications of the development, Shilhavy remarked,
“this is quite obviously a national catastrophe that is going to have significant impacts on the labor force now and well into the future.”
Dr. Robert Malone is another strategically-placed observer who was fast to highlight the news of the high death rate. The heavily censored Dr. Malone is one of the inventors of the mRNA technology integral to the COVID injections produced by Pfizer and Moderna.
Dr. Malone has emerged from within the vaccine industry to become a leading whistleblower. He does not hold back from exposing the incompetence and the high rates of criminal negligence permeating the actions of those responsible for manufacturing the COVID crisis.
In particular Dr. Malone points to the scandalous disregard by COVID Officialdom for even the most rudimentary rules of medical safety in the course of their feigned fight against a supposedly “new” coronavirus. In the view of Dr. Malone, news from the CEO of the truth telling life insurance company exploded like “a nuclear truth bomb.”
Dr. Malone has been prominent among the large and growing group of professionals with ample evidence that injections have been doing much more harm than good. At this stage in the life of the truth bomb, it is becoming increasingly clear that the COVID injections are bioweapons. The kill shots’ main means of invasion is genetic manipulation to stimulate the proliferation of pathogenic spike proteins throughout all organs of the body beginning with human vascular systems.
Second only to the media’s unrelenting 24/7 campaign of psychological warfare to arouse reason-destroying hysteria, the COVID injections are the main weapons being launched against us thus far in this hybrid war.
The objectives of those waging this warfare include eliminating the genetic constitution inherited from generations of natural procreation within the human species. Such an objective threatens the very roots of humanity’s biological basis. This type of experimentation is already changing the human form. A crime far beyond genocide is thus already well advanced. We need a new Raphael Lemkin to describe and implement prohibitions on the crime in progress that may be far more lethal than any crime against life so far.
Dr. Malone sums up the implications of the news from Indiana as follows:
“one has to conclude that if this report holds and is confirmed by others in the dry world of life insurance actuaries, we have both a huge human tragedy and a profound public policy failure of the US Government and US HHS system to serve and protect the citizens that pay for this “service”.
IF this holds true, then the genetic vaccines so aggressively promoted have failed, and the clear federal campaign to prevent early treatment with lifesaving drugs has contributed to a massive, avoidable loss of life.
AT WORST, this report implies that the federal workplace vaccine mandates have driven what appears to be a true crime against humanity. [The result is] massive loss of life in workers that have been forced to accept a toxic vaccine at higher frequency relative to the general population of Indiana.
FURTHERMORE, we have also been living through the most massive, globally coordinated propaganda and censorship campaign in the history of the human race. All major mass media and the social media technology companies have coordinated to stifle and suppress any discussion of the risks of the genetic vaccines AND/OR alternative early treatments.
Of course we can count on the mainstream media presstitutes to try to cover up, censor, deny, or “fact check” the nuclear truth bomb that exploded in the insurance industry. Under current circumstances, how can the insurance industry carry on its business of speculating any more on the timing of lives and deaths of their jabbed clients?
*
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Dr. Hall is editor in chief of the American Herald Tribune. He is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity
#4: “One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief….My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it….If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it.“/remarks made by Bush to author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz, who met GWB many times in 1999, to write a biography.
