By 1920, America had become by far the world’s richest country, whose strength held sway over much of the Western hemisphere, and was stretching further eastwards. As her influence expanded, the United States was posing a serious problem for the Empire of Japan, a major power with its own territorial ambitions.
Unlike Japan, the US had access to some of the earth’s most resource-rich areas while enjoying unequalled security and scope. To justify US claims, pertaining to the Americas, Washington’s statesmen occasionally invoked long-held principles of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine.
US president Calvin Coolidge (in office 1923-1929) said, in a White House statement of January 1927, that the Monroe Doctrine has a “distinct place” in US foreign policy – allowing American governments to act as they see fit in countries such as Nicaragua, in Central America. President Coolidge informed Congress on 10 January 1927 that,
“The US cannot, therefore, fail to view with deep concern any serious threat to stability and constitutional government in Nicaragua tending towards anarchy and jeopardizing American interests”.
The US marines once more entered Nicaragua to remove any “outside influence”, in a nation whose capital city Managua is almost 2,000 miles from Washington.
The Monroe Doctrine prevailed with little dispute. Yet in the east Asian and Pacific regions, very different attitudes were at large. An “Open Door Policy” existed for decades with regard to China, the world’s fourth largest country, which allowed elite Western power far from home to encroach upon Japanese regional designs. After all, eastern China is situated just a few hundred miles west of Japan. By the late 1920s, there was also more than 5,000 US marines stationed on Chinese soil.
Resource-laden Manchuria, located in the north-east of China, constituted a land area that became an obsession for the Japanese. By 1931 Manchuria was under threat not only from Chinese nationalists, but from the mighty USSR looming on northern horizons.
Come the early 1930s, Manchuria was home to thousands of Japanese, many of whom were making a livelihood by tilling its rich, fertile soil. Manchuria was pivotal to Tokyo’s aspirations. Without control over Manchuria, a territory more than twice the size of France, Japan would be relegated to an inconsequential state, burdened by a steadily growing populace.
As the American author Noam Chomsky explained in one of his earliest books,
“Manchuria remained independent of the Kuomintang, but Chinese nationalist pressures for unification were increasing. At the same time, the Soviet Union had significantly expanded its military power on the Manchurian border, a fact that could not fail to concern the Japanese military. Japan had a substantial investment in the South Manchurian Railway and, rightly or wrongly, regarded Manchuria as an extremely important potential source of desperately needed raw materials”.
Scanning their eyes seaward, the Japanese were surrounded by great foes: Soviet Russia to the north-west, China to the west and south-west, the US to the south. In the late 1890s, America was embarking upon its conquest of the Philippines, an island country lying less than 1,000 miles southward of Japan. America’s capture of the Philippines was an early example of her saltwater imperialist ventures, and it clearly infringed on Japan’s sphere of interest.
Yasaka Takagi, an expert on US history, outlined that,
“the peace machinery of the world is in itself primarily the creation of the dominant races of the earth, of those who are the greatest beneficiaries from the maintenance of the status quo”.
In the early 1940s America, Britain and “free” France held dominion over approximately 70% of the world’s resources, that is 30 million square miles of territory. The Axis powers of Germany, Italy, Japan and Hungary – who were supposedly winning the war while rampaging across the earth – held dominion over 15% of the planet’s mineral riches, and a mere one million square miles of land.
The US political activist, A. J. Muste, envisaged in 1941 “a new American empire” and that the US “shall be the next nation to seek world domination – in other words, to do what we condemn Hitler for trying to do”.
For many years, America had been well positioned for planetary supremacy. Among the flies in the ointment was Japan, a nation comprising an obstacle to US hegemony over the lucrative Pacific and Asian zones.
Agreements hammered out, like the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, were formulated mostly to reduce Japanese power in her own waters, while leaving entirely unharmed American and British capacities. The terms reached here, in the US capital, rendered Japan a second rate imperial power, as intended. However, Tokyo would strictly adhere to the Washington accords through the 1920s.
It was reinforced with the London Naval Treaty of 1930, signed in the English capital, which again compromised Japanese naval freedom in the seas encompassing her shores. With the Great Depression having struck in late 1929, the contingencies of the London treaty were bitterly resented by opposition in Japan; which resulted in Japanese militarists gaining greater control over the country’s civilian hierarchy, which was felt to be endangering national security with its weak-willed strategies.
The capitulation of Tokyo’s political entities in London during 1930 furthermore “was a great stimulus to the fascist movement” in Japan, as the historian Masao Maruyama wrote. Rising fascistic elements within the army, was a pronounced underlying factor behind appalling war crimes later committed by Japanese soldiers.
Image on the right: Osachi Hamaguchi (Source: Britannica.com)
Shortly after the 1930 London treaty, moderate politicians in Japan were assassinated, including the prime ministers Osachi Hamaguchi and Inukai Tsuyoshi; the former killed by a far-right terrorist and the latter shot to death by young navy personnel. These grisly acts deliberately undermined the nation’s civilian infrastructure, and represented another boost for Japan’s diehard military men.
The rise of Japanese militarists, along with its extremist factions, was as an indirect consequence of increased Western pressures.
Analyzing the developments, Chomsky noted,
“it seems clear that the refusal of the United States to grant Japan hegemony in its waters (while of course insisting on maintaining its own hegemony in the Western Atlantic and Eastern Pacific) was a significant contributory cause to the crisis that was soon to erupt”.
On 24 February 1933, Japan caught the world by surprise in withdrawing from the League of Nations, an organization founded in 1920 whose stated primary goal was maintenance of global peace. The League of Nations roundly condemned Japan’s occupation of Manchuria, and later recommended that Tokyo withdraw her troops and “restore the country to Chinese sovereignty”. Not mentioned were Western policies that treated China as a semi-colonial state.
There were no international conferences organized so as to scrutinize US or British claims in the Eastern hemisphere, let alone in the Western half of the planet. Japan’s desire in the early 1930s to absorb Manchuria, and subsequently north-east China, is at least comparable to the US government annexation of about 50% of Mexico’s territory during the mid-1840s.
Tokyo’s foreign actions were often reported in the West as examples of “Japanese aggression”; much as it is recently “Russian aggression” when moves are undertaken by Moscow along her borders which cross US red lines.
Japanese imperialists looked on with growing displeasure as American corporate influence embedded itself within China. In 1931, Japan was overtaken by America as the major exporter of goods to China. Japanese exports destined for America also declined sharply, partly because of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of mid-1930 – signed into law in the US, which ensured protectionist trade initiatives that further stymied Tokyo.
As Japan was an advanced industrial state, hampered by lack of access to natural materials, the decline in world trade was a catastrophe for Tokyo, compounded by the aforementioned Great Depression.
Japan’s future foreign affairs minister, Yosuke Matsuoka (who later met Hitler and Stalin for separate discussions) complained in January 1931 that,
“we feel suffocated as we observe internal and external situations. What we are seeking is that which is minimal for living beings. In other words, we are seeking to live. We are seeking room that will let us breathe”.
On 18 September 1931, the Japanese invaded Manchuria with Tokyo foreseeing the intervention as crucial to her nation’s survival. Manchuria is indeed flowing in riches; from coal, iron ore and steel, to copper, gold, lead, tungsten, etc. Manchuria comprised a windpipe that would allow Japan to breathe somewhat easier.
Matsuoka asked,
“Is it for the United States, which rules over the Western hemisphere and is expanding over the Atlantic and Pacific, to say that these ideals, these ambitions of Japan are wrong?”
In addition, the Japanese viewed Manchuria as a most willing market for her manufactured goods, which by 1931 were largely excluded from Western countries by Depression-era tariffs. As a rapidly growing commercial state, Japan had an insatiable thirst for fossil fuels and other mineral deposits.
Tokyo’s use of “indiscriminate air power” in the early 1930s, such as during the Shanghai Incident of 1932, generated feelings of shock and revulsion in the US and Britain. Just over a decade later, there was little indignation expressed when American and British aircraft were razing dozens of Japanese and German cities to the ground.
In April 1934, Tokyo was expounding on a “Japanese Monroe Doctrine” which “argued for a Japanese mission in East Asia to achieve peace and stability in cooperation with China, and criticized the other powers’ intervention in China”. Japan’s version of the Monroe Doctrine was modest in scope by comparison to its US rival. Still, Tokyo’s aspirations caused a commotion in Washington and London, whose elites felt that their far-reaching aims were threatened.
As late as 1939 Joseph Grew, long-time US Ambassador to Japan, said that Tokyo’s imperial concepts were “depriving Americans of their long-established rights in China” and foisting “a system of closed economy” on the US. Ambassador Grew did not highlight China’s close proximity to Japan and the latter’s understandable concerns, nor did he raise the issue of Chinese independence.
During the autumn of 1939, US Secretary of State Cordell Hull resisted negotiating a new commercial treaty with Tokyo “unless Japan completely changed her attitude and practice towards our rights and interests in China”.
Japanese diplomats were not so bold as to outline Tokyo’s potential “rights and interests” in the Western hemisphere.
On 26 July 1939, Washington gave formal notification to Tokyo that they would terminate the Japanese-American commercial treaty of 1911. This came into effect in January 1940, forcing the Japanese to shift their gaze, such as towards French Indochina and in “gaining independence” for the Philippines.
In July 1940 the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration hit Japan with an embargo on aviation fuel, which the Empire could acquire from no other source – and on 27 September 1940, Washington placed a complete ban on scrap iron against Japan, as Tokyo invaded Northern French Indochina in a bid to bolster her still insufficient resources. Japan’s foreign policy acts were in advance all known in Washington, with the Americans having cracked Tokyo’s diplomatic codes.
On 19 December 1940, Roosevelt sanctioned $25 million in aid to Japan’s neighbour, China, worth over $400 million today; while on 11 March 1941, America’s president introduced the Lend-Lease Act, a program furnishing extensive war materiel to China; and likewise to other states with unfriendly dispositions towards Japan such as the USSR, Britain and the Netherlands.
Even more seriously, on 26 July 1941 Roosevelt froze Japanese assets across America, in response to Tokyo’s move in occupying the southern half of French Indochina.
Roosevelt’s policy amounted to a declaration of economic war on Japan, with Tokyo stripped of a massive nine-tenths of its oil imports, along with three quarters of her foreign trade. Due to American pressures, Japan would run out of oil by January 1943, unless she implemented further invasions of resource-rich states. Washington was in effect stoking the fires of war with Japan, and Tokyo would not need much persuading with her fervent militarists holding key positions of power, such as General Hideki “Razor” Tojo, prime minister for much of World War II.
“The immediate cause of the attack on Pearl Harbor was the recognition, by the Japanese military, that it was ‘now or never’. The Western powers controlled the raw materials on which their existence depended, and these supplies were being choked off in retaliation for expansion on the mainland and association with Germany and Italy in the Tripartite Pact”.
As the 1930s gave way to the early 1940s, there was a widening propaganda campaign to denigrate Japan, stirred up by US government sources and media. Unsurprisingly, there was ongoing public antipathy towards Japan in the West. Paul W. Schroeder, the American historian, noted that the motive for this in part was “selling the anticipated war with Japan to the American people”.
US strategists had long been planning a large-scale conflict with the Japanese. In January 1932 General Billy Mitchell, the “father of the US Air Force”, wrote that
“Japan offers an ideal target for air operations” and that her towns “built largely of wood and paper, form the greatest aerial targets the world has ever seen”.
In November 1940 these opinions were supported by America’s renowned pre-war planner, General Claire Chennault, who revealed how US B-17 Flying Fortresses would destroy “the teeming bamboo ant heaps of Honshu and Kyushu”.
Three weeks before Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, US General George Marshall informed journalists in an “off-the-record briefing” that the “Flying Fortresses will be dispatched immediately to set the paper cities of Japan on fire. There won’t be any hesitation about bombing civilians. It will be all-out”.
Even had Hitler refrained from initiating a European war in 1939, it is likely that a deadly conflict would have erupted before long with America and Japan, possibly sparking a world war regardless. As seen, tensions between Washington and Tokyo were building for years prior to Nazi Germany’s invasion of Poland. The breaking point would surely have been reached.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
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).
Important documentary on the deadly Plandemic and its devastating impacts Worldwide.
Stop the Indoctrination of our Children
Wake Up from The Media’s Mass Hypothesis
Stop the Ideology which is Dividing Us
Video. Trailer of Plandemic 3
As the only independent movie to reach over one billion views, Plandemic 1 is accredited for being first to warn the world of the crimes against humanity that are now visible. Plandemic 2 set a world record during the livestream premier, with over 2 million people tuning in. Plandemic 3 is currently in production, slated for release summer of 2022. The focus of Plandemic 3 is to stop the indoctrination and trafficking of our children.
It was the uniqueness of the distribution model that allowed Plandemic to reach 1/8 of our global populations.
Produced on 100% donations, Plandemic was gifted to the people. In turn, it was the people who carried the series around the world.
The Plandemic team is currently raising donations for the production and marketing cost of Plandemic 3.
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.
The sensibility of an era may be unified – even though it’s never uniform. Those who forge it are essentially visionaries, incurable romantics, prone to melancholy – an inextricable quality of genius, according to Aristotle.
John Winston Lennon, self-styled working-class hero, prodigal son of a lower-middle-class fragmented family, may be qualified as the unifier of the sensibility of an era – that 60s “pandemonium with a big grin on,” as Tom Wolfe coined it.
For the first time in history, a group of pop musicians – led by such a Nijinsky of ambivalence as Lennon – had metastasized into a social phenomenon that simultaneously reverberated and influenced the planet’s collective unconscious.
We are all now re-living a snapshot of those times – and in countless cases being introduced to it – via Peter Jackson’s The Beatles: Get Back, the three-episode film within the film released on Disney +, culled from 57 hours of footage and 150 hours of audio recorded way back in January 1969.
The plot line is quite straightforward. We are watching the pop Valhalla of a work in progress: the Beatles “with our back against the wall” (Paul) trying to write new songs for a full LP and a live concert, in real time, after concocting stunners such as Sgt Pepper’s and The White Album.
It may be idle to deconstruct in writing what is in effect a stream of consciousness developing in a time machine of gorgeous colors at the end of a musical rainbow: the evolving, artistic creative process as a series of non-sequiturs and – Buddhist – illuminations.
Globalized Beatlemania knows seemingly all the details about the slow-motion disintegration already in effect in early 1969 – from George Harrison sitting on a triple album of fabulous songs being constantly sidelined by the Lennon-McCartney Leviathan to the arguably divisive role of that Japanese woman.
In the end, what really matters is the – glorious – music. George building “Something” out of scratch. Paul building “Get Back” out of scratch (with George soon adding some mean funky licks). And the resolution of the cliffhanger, delivered at the Apple rooftop live concert (here it is, in full): an iconic pop performance for the ages.
So allow me to attempt something different. Let’s talk about John.
The dream is not over
Every baby boomer carries a Dylanesque blood-on-the-tracks memory: the day JFK was assassinated. Generations who followed the first boomers carry another memory: the day John Lennon was assassinated, 41 years ago next week, and 10 years after the Beatles dream, as decreed by the same Lennon, was over.
Yet already at 18 Lennon, a pre-boomer born during WWII, in 1940, carried three blood scars: the deaths of his uncle (the father figure); of his (absent) mom; and of his idol (Buddy Holly). Lennon judged that to protect his future emotional balance he had to build up a barrier of irreverence, aggression and sarcasm.
With fame and fortune, he switched from defense to offense. Yet he only attacked those he didn’t respect. He wore his heart – and his art – on his sleeve, for all to see, like a gallant chevalier.
Lennon could have been a politician, like JFK. Kennedy – Ireland and Harvard, money and macho – had an Apollonian vision of power. Lennon – street kid out of decadent, fuliginous Liverpool, outsider even in art school, that classic English receptacle of misfits – preferred to polish the Dionysian vision of relations between art and power.
Politician and poet, hero and bad boy, sweet and arrogant, Lennon was neither the St Sebastian sold to the world by Yoko during his last decade in this valley of tears nor the demented druggie depicted in a sensationalist biography by Albert Goldman.
In the tortuous initiation voyage that took him from leather-jacked rebel rocker to respectable middle-aged man– a dedicated father absolutely faithful to a mature woman – we find not only the dilemmas faced by at least two generations but also the contradictions inherent in the astonishing influence of rock’n roll as a form of art-commerce.
The Beatles – the quintessential incarnation of the ’60s dream of an Eden-like utopia – could never grow old, because childhood magic and an incurable adherence to the pleasure principle were always central to their appeal.
While Bob Dylan burned in anger and the Stones, ever so calculating, invested in theatrical Satanism, everything related to the Beatles denoted exuberance and effervescence – the practical result of the Lennon-McCartney chemistry, so evident in multiple sections of Get Back.
Lennon had literary and poetic ambitions. In the end. he conferred cultural respectability upon a format that until the ’60s was considered minor: pop poetry. Lennon’s lyrics were a sort of counterpoint to the new journalism of Norman Mailer, Truman Capote and Tom Wolfe.
Like them, Lennon noticed how the novel did not die in the’60s; what died was the mystique of the novel, its critical prestige, its adoring audience and its status as the golden path to success in the Palaces of Culture.
Without eschewing the non-stop gaming between individuality and history, between desire and social determination (after all he had escaped the tremendous English class determinism), Lennon in his lyrics tackled problems of personal identity, private moral choices and the extreme ambivalence of our elective affinities.
Even when he improved his fables and allegories – in the 70s post-Beatles era – he was always emphasizing the perennial quality of these moral questions. His influence on pop poetry is incalculable.
Lennon, on paper, always shone when he referred to human beings in flesh and blood. He was not a T S Eliot, of course, or even a Bob Dylan. His lyrics could be so simple that they would read like nonsense childhood verse (which he wrote very well).
The crystals were always uncovered when he went into a semi-confessional mood: lost love, reminiscences about pain, expiation of personal trauma, the search for a Buddhist Third Way. Rubber Soul and Revolver are the Beatles albums where the Lennon mark is most visible. It’s not an accident that these are the ones that pack maximum emotional power. Much like George’s post-Beatles full bloom in All Things Must Pass.
Lennon never settled for the regal ostentation of selling his image as a Leader – be it of the Beatles, of a generation or of an era. In Get Back, he is largely self-effacing, until he bursts into full life in the rooftop.
With an existentialist faith in the perpetual renovation of personality, Lennon used all possible tools to aspire to transcendence: gurus, drugs, primal scream, political psychodrama, pacifist appeals – and even that itinerant show, sort of an uninterrupted performance, with Madame Ono. After his disappearance from the limelight to raise a child, he was back with the same naked honesty, offering to everyone the dream of a mature man.
He was assassinated exactly when he was trying to suggest possibilities of inventing the non-materialist world he had predicated in Imagine. The Western collective unconscious, in shock, intuitively understood it had been deprived of the stimulating dialogue of a consciousness with itself, a human – all too human – dialogue.
John Lennon had the capacity to project his own psychodrama over all his contemporaries. He lives on, again, with that disarming smile captured in Get Back, not as a martyr, but as a flaming idea, contributing to the self-knowledge of all of us living in these times of trouble. We are all getting back to where we once were, John.
*
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.
This article was originally published on Asia Times.
Pepe Escobar,born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. 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 frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: John Lennon in a file photo. Image: Screen shot from Peter Jackson’s Get Back
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.
In a November 9, 2021, interview with Atlantic Council CEO Frederick Kempe, Pfizer chairman and CEO Albert Bourla claimed “a small part of professionals” intentionally circulate “misinformation … so that they will mislead those that have concerns.” Such medical professionals are not just bad people, Bourla said, “they’re criminals, because they have literally cost millions of lives”
The criminals’ playbook includes the dictum to always blame the other side for what they themselves are guilty of
Pfizer has a long history of criminal activity. The company has been sued in multiple venues over unethical drug testing, illegal marketing practices, bribery in multiple countries, environmental violations — including illegal dumping of PCBs and other toxic waste — labor and worker safety violations and more. It’s also been criticized for price gouging that threatens the lives of patients with chronic diseases such as epilepsy
Between 2002 and 2010, Pfizer was fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards, including a $2.3 billion fine in 2009, the then-largest health care fraud fine in American history. In 2011, Pfizer paid $14.5 million to settle charges of illegal marketing, and in 2014 they settled charges relating to unlawful marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million. None of it deterred future bad behavior
According to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, data were falsified, patients were unblinded and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind
*
In a November 9, 2021, interview with Atlantic Council CEO Frederick Kempe,1 Pfizer chairman and CEO Albert Bourla claimed “a small part of professionals” intentionally circulate “misinformation … so that they will mislead those that have concerns.”2
Such medical professionals, Bourla said, are not just bad people, “they’re criminals, because they have literally cost millions of lives.” Bourla is one to talk, being the CEO of a company the name of which is synonymous with corporate crime.
Bourla’s comments were made on the same day Pfizer and its partner BioNTech asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to broaden its authorization for booster shots to everyone over the age of 18.3
Pot Calling the Kettle Black
I guess we can’t be too surprised, though, as the primary defense strategy people like Bourla have is to blame the opposition for their own misdeeds. He even claims the company is being targeted by “dark organizations,” meaning organizations that aren’t transparent about their funding.
This is precisely what the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) is, the fabrications4 of which are being used to prop up the official narrative that those who present evidence showing the COVID shots are dangerous are domestic terrorists5 out to worsen the pandemic death toll.
No one knows who funds this group, but it has plenty of connections to war hawks and Great Reset promoters — including the Atlantic Council, to which Bourla is making these statements.
By way of its board members, the CCDH can be linked to the Trilateral Commission, the Atlantic Council, the European Council of Foreign Relations, Save the Children Fund (funded by the Gates Foundation and a partner of Gates’ GAVI Vaccine Alliance), the British Parliament, CIA and Event 201,6,7 Microsoft,8 and the Center for American Progress9 (another organization funded by dark money10).
And Bourla wants us to believe Pfizer is under attack from dark money groups? Again, the playbook of these wolves includes the dictum to always blame the other side for what they themselves are guilty of.
More on the Atlantic Council
In August 2018, Facebook claimed an “influence campaign” by Russian “bad actors” had been carried out on its platform leading up to the 2018 midterm elections. However, it turned out these pages weren’t identified by Facebook. They came primarily from the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab.
In her article, “Hysteria Over Newly Revealed Facebook ‘Influence Campaign’ Doesn’t Fit the Facts,”11investigative reporter Whitney Webb took a deep-dive into this inane propaganda effort, pointing out that:
“… despite the lawmakers’ claims, Facebook has established no links to the Russian government or even Russian nationals.
The only ‘evidence’ to back up the claim of Russian-involvement is that one of the pages identified ‘had an IRA [Internet Research Agency, a Russian ‘troll farm’ named in a Mueller-probe indictment] account as one of its admins for ‘only seven minutes’ and ‘one of the IRA accounts we disabled in 2017 shared a Facebook Event hosted by’ one of the pages.
Beyond the fact that accusations of Russian involvement are highly politicized given the lack of current evidence, there is hardly any indication that this ‘influence campaign’ was even influential at all.
Indeed, most of the ‘bad actor’ pages and accounts had hardly any followers, with most of them having no followers. For instance, only four of the 32 total social-media pages and accounts had more than 10 followers, with all other pages — i.e., the remaining 28 — having between 10 and zero, according to Facebook’s statements.
All of the Instagram accounts identified had zero followers and, among those seven accounts, only one of them had made a single post on the platform. By Facebook’s own admission, only four of the pages named were even remotely significant in terms of followers and thus ‘influence.’”
Why do I mention this? Because this is the same tactic used to frame a small number of individuals with limited social media reach as domestic terrorists, simply for sharing counter-narratives about the COVID pandemic.
False Allegations Used to Quench Freedom of Speech
According to the CCDH,12 a dozen individuals, including me, were responsible for 65% of all anti-vaccine content on social media and should therefore be banned from all platforms. Most social media companies have since complied, deplatforming most of us. This despite a public denouncement of the CCDH’s accusations by Monika Bickert, vice president of Facebook content policy, who stated that:13
“… these 12 people are responsible for about just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook. This includes all vaccine-related posts they’ve shared, whether true or false, as well as URLs associated with these people.
The report14 upon which the faulty narrative is based analyzed only a narrow set of 483 pieces of content over six weeks from only 30 groups, some of which are as small as 2,500 users.
They are in no way representative of the hundreds of millions of posts that people have shared about COVID-19 vaccines in the past months on Facebook.
Further, there is no explanation for how the organization behind the report identified the content they describe as ‘anti-vax’ or how they chose the 30 groups they included in their analysis. There is no justification for their claim that their data constitute a ‘representative sample’ of the content shared across our apps.”
Information Warfare
Getting back to the Atlantic Council, Webb noted that:15
“Facebook officially partnered with the Atlantic Council this past May in order to tackle so-called ‘fake news,’ adding that the hawkish think-tank would serve as its ‘eyes and ears’ in identifying alleged foreign-influence operations …
The Atlantic Council itself is led by a mix of retired military officers, former politicians, and Western business elites. And the think-tank’s financial sponsors include top U.S. defense contractors; agencies aligned with Washington and the Pentagon; the United Arab Emirates; major transnational corporations; and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
One can think of several reasons why such a group would be interested in fomenting anti-Russian hysteria … The Atlantic Council’s conflicts of interest are certainly worth keeping in mind …”
The same must be said about the CCDH, and Pfizer too. Both are glaringly biased and in no position to judge what is misinformation and what isn’t. But then, this is war, after all. We’re in an information war, and the term “misinformation” is lobbed in lieu of grenades. Discernment and some basic wisdom is required to avoid becoming a victim.
Fact checking organizations are another weapon designed and deployed to control the narrative. They exist as gatekeepers to funnel readers and viewers to the official narrative and away from anything that might raise inconvenient questions. The largest and most influential fact checker is NewsGuard, which hands out “trustworthiness” ratings to websites.
NewsGuard cofounder Louis Crovitz is a member of the Council on Foreign relations — another Great Reset supporter — and primary advisers include Tom Ridge, former secretary of Homeland Security, and Ret. Gen. Michael Hayden, a former director of both the CIA and NSA.16
Knowing that, it makes it easier to understand how everyday people who share information that veers from the official narrative can be labeled and treated as a national security threat.
The COVID pandemic is a militarized operation. We’re at war, and the designated enemy (looking at it from the side that started this war without telling anyone) are the citizens of the world who want to hold on to their freedom and human rights.
Pfizer Has a Long History of Criminal Behavior
Pfizer is on the other side — the side that is seeking to install an unelected technocratic regime based on the idea that we need a global biosecurity, biosurveillance apparatus or we’ll all die.
This is not a new position for them. During the American Civil War, which began in 1862, the need for massive amounts of painkillers and antiseptics allowed Pfizer to flourish and expand during wartime.17 Today, the manufactured “need” for COVID-19 vaccine is allowing Pfizer to make out like a bandit yet again, and as I’ve already stated, we are again at war, albeit an undeclared one.
To achieve that, Pfizer is willing to “blackmail” countries into accepting its COVID shot terms, as reviewed in the Gravitas report above — terms that make sure Pfizer always comes out on top.
A key term is no liability, which is understandable considering the amount of harm Pfizer’s COVID jab is causing. Pfizer went so far as to bully nations into putting up sovereign assets like military bases as collateral to pay for any vaccine injury lawsuits that might result from their COVID jab.
While that might not be illegal, it’s unethical, and so is researching on people without informed consent. Everyone who gets these emergency use authorized injections are part of that research, while simultaneously being prevented from seeing anything but propaganda.
Without truthful and transparent disclosure of both risks and benefits, there is no informed consent. Pfizer is even experimenting on children and pregnant women without informed consent, two categories that historically have been off-limits for drug experimentation.
Whistleblower Claims Data Were Falsified
According to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, data were falsified and patients were unblinded. Follow-up on reported side effects also lagged behind.18 This isn’t the first time such unsavory have been levied against Pfizer.
In 2014, Pfizer was ordered to pay $75 million to settle charges relating to its unlawful testing of a new broad spectrum antibiotic on critically ill Nigerian children. As reported by the Independent19 at the time, Pfizer sent a team of doctors into Nigeria in the midst of a meningitis epidemic.
For two weeks, the team set up right next to a medical station run by Doctors Without Borders and began dispensing the experimental drug, Trovan. Of the 200 children picked, half got the experimental drug and the other half the already licensed antibiotic Rocephin.
Eleven of the children treated by the Pfizer team died, and many others suffered side effects such as brain damage and organ failure. Pfizer denied wrongdoing. According to the company, only five of the children given Trovan died, compared to six who received Rocephin, so their drug was not to blame.
The problem was they never told the parents that their children were being given an experimental drug, let alone ask them if they wanted their child to take part in the trial.
What’s more, while Pfizer produced a permission letter from a Nigerian ethics committee, the letter turned out to have been backdated. The ethics committee itself wasn’t set up until a year after the trial had already taken place.
State Department cables also revealed Pfizer hired spies with a plan to frame a Nigerian attorney general and get him to drop the parents’ lawsuit.20 Pfizer even tried to avoid responsibility by falsely accusing Doctors Without Borders of dispensing the experimental drug.21
An ‘Habitual Offender’
In his 2010 paper,22 “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR,” Robert G. Evans, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor at Vancouver School of Economics, described Pfizer as “a ‘habitual offender,’ persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.”
Pfizer has been sued in multiple venues over unethical drug testing, illegal marketing practices,23bribery in multiple countries,24 environmental violations — including illegal dumping of PCBs and other toxic waste25 — labor and worker safety violations and more.26,27,28 It’s also been criticized for price gouging that threatens the lives of patients with chronic diseases such as epilepsy.29
Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. This included $2.3 billion for the illegal marketing of the arthritis drug, Bextra, levied in 2009.30,31 It was the largest health care fraud settlement in American history.
According to the Global Justice report, “The Horrible History of Big Pharma: Why We Can’t Leave Pharmaceutical Corporations in the Driving Seat of the COVID-19 Response:”32
“A whistleblower claimed that sales staff were incentivized to sell Bextra to doctors for conditions for which the drug wasn’t approved and at doses up to eight times those recommended. ‘At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives. I couldn’t do that,’ he stated.”
In 2011, Pfizer agreed to pay another $14.5 million to settle federal charges of illegal marketing,33and in 2014 they settled federal charges relating to improper marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million.34
None of those legal actions deterred future bad behavior. To Pfizer, paying fines to sweep illegalities under the rug has become part of the cost of doing business, and they can afford it. While the fines may sound extraordinary, they’re tiny when compared to the company’s profits.
Pfizer was among the top 30 most profitable companies in the world in 2020, with profits reaching $16 billion, and its COVID jab alone is predicted to make $13 billion in 2021.35
As noted by the law firm Matthews and Associates, “the history of Pfizer is rife with so much subterfuge and under-the-table dealing that the company will need all the help it can get to promote confidence in its hastily assembled COVID vaccine.”36 The key strategy to boost confidence, unfortunately, is censorship.
What ‘New Way of Life’ Is Pfizer Promising?
The fastest way to get back to normal, Bourla claims in his Atlantic Council interview, is for everyone to get vaccinated.
Considering how little things have changed despite massive vaccination rates, it seems clear the globalists in charge of The Great Reset — and Pfizer is part of that pack — have no intention of allowing anything go back to normal. It won’t matter how many comply, or how many times we comply
Australia is perhaps the clearest illustration of what the whole world will face. Even though a majority are “vaccinated,” their freedoms have not been returned, and now they have to submit to boosters or lose what semblance of freedom the initial round of shots gave them. The Australian government is confiscating and blocking people’s bank accounts, withholding unemployment benefits and more — all in the name of “public health.”
Bourla even indicates that there is no going back to the old normal when he states, “The only thing that stands between the new way of life and the current way of life is … hesitancy to vaccinations.”
New way of life. What does this “new way of life” look like? It looks like Australia. It looks like Israel. It looks like Lithuania,37 where your “right” to frequent restaurants, stores, shopping malls, beauty salons, libraries, banks, insurance agencies and universities, and your “right” to inpatient medical care and travel, all depend on your willingness to participate in a medical experiment that can kill or disable you.
The “new way of life” Bourla is talking about involves repeatedly playing lethal Russian Roulette just to “earn” the right to be part of society. No thank you. Bourla can keep his “new way of life.”
*
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.
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.
On Wednesday, Ursula Van Der Leyen – the chief of the European Union (EU) Commission – told the press that she would like to see the long-standing Nuremberg Code ignored completely in favor of allowing countries to force vaccinate anyone who is refusing to take the experimental jab.
Her alarming comments come just days after Germany followed Austria’s lead, mandating an authoritarian lockdown on only the unvaccinated.
In addition to being in full support of the segregated lockdown, von der Leyen said it was “understandable and appropriate” for EU countries to discuss mandatory COVID vaccinations because of the new Omicron variant, which has already been detected in 12 countries in the EU.
“European Union countries should consider mandatory vaccination to combat Covid and the Omicron variant, the head of its Commission has said.
Ursula von der Leyen said vaccines would be crucial in the fight against the “highly contagious” new variant
How we can encourage and potentially think about mandatory vaccination within the European Union? This needs discussion. This needs a common approach, but it is a discussion that I think has to be led.“
Watch:
Forcing individuals to take this experimental and potentially dangerous vaccine against their will would be in direct violation of the Nuremberg Code which was established in 1947 in the immediate wake of the horrific medical experiments and human rights atrocities by Nazis during the Holocaust.
“the voluntary consent of the human subject is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL,”
meaning that the individual is able to
“exercise free power of choice, WITHOUT the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior forms of constraint or coercion“ – i.e taking away your right to work if you are not vaccinated.
A leading cause for the code’s creation was the Nazi’s sickening performance of medical experiments on subjects without their consent. These procedures, typically performed under the command of high-ranking officials such as Dr. Josef Mengele, were some of the worst and most deranged ever documented. Since then, full and proactive ongoing consent for any medical procedure has been required by law in western nations that recognize the Nuremberg Laws.
The only way countries in the EU would be able to get away with forced vaccinations for this mild virus, which is an extraordinarily unethical and atrocious violation of human rights, is to do away with the Nuremberg laws, or just ignore them completely.
As esteemed professor, Dr. Jordan Peterson sarcastically notes: “Hey, it’s just the Nuremberg code. Only what we learned from the Nazi atrocities, not least those that were medical.”
Hey, it's just the Nuremberg code. Only what we learned from the Nazi atrocities, not least those that were medical. https://t.co/ZR9T07k7pv
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.
All images in this article are from Gateway Pundit
Comments Off on On the Heels of Austria and Germany Locking Down the Unvaccinated, EU Leader Calls for Throwing Out Nuremberg Code in Favor of Forced Vaccinating All Dissenters
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.
Every child asks questions. Questions on the why of things, the when, the who, the where and the how.
Adults do not so often ask such questions. Especially not, when these are of utmost significance and urgency – such as in today’s comprehensive crisis pertaining to nature, society, civilization and life itself.
Why not?
One example of this lack of questioing can be seen in the movie ”Technocratic Dictatorship”. This too seems true when it comes to deep reflection and highly critical analysis, offering, one would hope, more than just scepticism on the current situation, but also outrage.
Those interviewed in this movie, myself among them, describe in various ways the dilemma of our times, which is the undisputable progressive destruction of the environment, nature and life on earth.
Primarily, the interviewees analyse modern natural sciences and technology as the main contributors to this destruction. The mechanistic world view of the modern era and its subsequent technology are seen as the major cause of this destruction, its technology being broadly conceptualized in terms of machine-technology.
They agree: contrary to all predictions and promises, so-called progress has not resulted in the improvement for humankind, for life itself, nature and the environment. Quite the contrary, it has instead led to a situation which threatens to become a technocratic dictatorship, as the movie’s title aptly indicates.
From destruction of nature to the destruction of the human being?
Alongside the destruction of nature, the possible destruction of the human being itself seems to be the agenda.
For the last half of a century, the process of ”depopulation”, i.e. the reduction in numbers of humans living on the Planet, is repeatedly mentioned in corresponding publications, especially among ”techno-fetishists”, as a declared necessity. Is this a ”logical” continuation of the hitherto existing destruction of nature and life itself since the beginning of the modern era?
Is the often discussed project of so-called ”transhumanism” a continuation of the technological progress ”beyond” nature and humans?
Is it part of the agenda to abolish humans as a natural occurance and species? To unhinge and transform them via technological inventions so that man may be adapted and custom-made to fit into the ”mega-machine“?
One has to ask oneself: Is this achievable? Can it be possible anyone desiring such an experiment? Is it even possible anyone could have this as an aim? It seems the technological progress of today has led to an altered perspective on life and even human beings that most people are not yet aware of.
What would such a development toward ”beyond human” look like in reality? The current propaganda advertising of such continued progress promises the improvement and higher development of humankind, to become even ”god-like”- a homo deus (Harari). And in continuation of this sort of thinking, the „merging“ of human beings with the machine (Kurzweil) is considered an advanced development, allegedly leading to a new level of ”evolution”.
How is one to imagine this? Or: what does the logic of invention of a ”post” -human ”machine-being” or a ”human machine”, have to do with the sacrifices demanded for centuries from nature and all other life forms in the name of progress?
Are we not experiencing the creation of the promised ”brave new world”, with an equally ”brave new human being” afterall (Sorgner), but rather an actual human sacrifice, being started under the disguise of technological progress by the big players of our civilization themselves, possibly already on a global scale?
What monstrosity! Where have we got to, if we have to ask such a question?
Our movie shows that so far there is no reaction to the planned politics of implementing these depopulation-fantasies and the intended de-, trans- and posthumanisation of the human being.
Are people willing to put up with this? Do they believe – as it is often the case – the promises made from above and / or do they not (yet) understand what is really approaching them?
The movie asks no further questions. It ends with a prospect of a different, more environmentally friendly civilization and world, without having explained or explored WHY we have arrived at exactly the opposite, with or without science.
Furthermore, the question of if and how we can get out of the current state and arrive at an alternative civilization remains unexplored – and that is, still as human beings in the true sense, i.e. as living, creative and self-empowered creatures.
Given the discrepancy between everyday consciousness of ”regular” people and the completely different dimensions in which the latest projects of technological progress are embedded, such a transition with a desired Happy End is obsolete.
Such a Happy End would somehow have required a discussion between the inventors and the objects, i.e. the victims of such progress, a requisite debate in which a solution would have been reached resulting in the ”rejection” of such kind of progress.
First of all, the existing gap needs to be defined as one between the ”wrong” consciousness of the people who are not the least aware of the existential threat they are subjected to, and the consciousness of those who, according to their own ideas have already begun, with supporting propaganda, to implement this threat.
The fundamental ”why”- question is not posed: Why does hostility towards nature and human beings exist in modern civilization? This question is not asked in the movie, nor in the remaining fields of life. It seems no one is even noticing the abscence of this key question.
The impression is given that it is not necessary to ask such a question: the movie states if natural science is oriented towards the dead instead of towards life, then this obviously becomes the reason why no attention is paid to the fact of life, nor to an (ethically) appropriate appreciation of the living world – the animate life.
However, such an argument is a circular one. It is tautologic.
And why is it like this?
Is natural science too ignorant to comprehend that the living also exists and how central it is to everything? If this were the case, it would be relatively easy to solve the problem.
However, the assumption of ignorance or an error on the part of natural science of course cannot count, even though both frequently occur. Because, the long held knowledge and understanding in times before natural science was developed, did not doubt the existence of the living force of nature and its meaning.
So what has happened that has led to the belief that the living force is, supposedly, no longer relevant, that it can be ”omitted” from any consideration and now, even from reality itself – including the reality of the human being?
The anticipated ”machine-being” of natural science and technological progress is precisely not supposed to be an augmentation of human aliveness in its original sense. What kind of development has taken place that allows for and openly anticipates a state of existence that is a false existence, being claimed as the new ”normal”, which can be described as a general state of non-life?
What kind of a strange self-fulfilling prophesy is at play here, that such untruth is now supposed to become a concrete reality?
Might this be because the alleged science of nature is in fact pursuing other interests, other from the investigation of truth and its effects on earthly conditions, and other from its inherent order, preventing those pursuing these other interests from seeing, respecting and honoring the ”whole” – making money with the dead, which by implication also means making profits with murdering?
Is it capitalism, war and profit-making that have narrowed the field of natural science in this way, luring it onto a false path, which cannot easily be admitted to, nor walked away from? In this case, the question should be: why is natural science still considered a science and in fact the science? And finally, why is it the same under conditions of socialism and communism, i.e. in systems that are not profit-oriented per se? So-called ”scientific and technological progress” in these systems is not on a different path, rather the contrary is the case.
Finally, irrespective of the money involved, why are people putting up with the destruction of their earthly environment – their only existing living sphere, to be finally confronted – in a strange logic – with their own extinction in the end?
The old saying ”don’t do something to others that you do not wish to experience yourself…” holds true. Why did it not do so with respect to prpgress?
Could anthropocentrism, i.e. the well-known perception of man being the ”crown of creation” be responsible, an overall claim to power, giving permission to appropriate and destroy everything? So the idea that the same could happen to man himself does not even occur to him? Besides who would put him in such danger? Were people forced to destroy the non-human world, without being able to successfully raise their voice in opposition to this? Or did they do this voluntarily? If so, why?
Anthropocentrism, in complete contrast, could also have consisted of feeling especially responsible for life and could have resulted in even developing stewardship for life everywhere. Why has this, at least in the modern era, rarely been the case?
The reversal: destruction as a way to creation?
Is it possible that the destruction is not being perceived as such? Or could it be that it appears as its very opposite, i.e. serving as the foundation for an ”improved” creation – including the creation of man himself?
Is the ”why-question” on the destruction not asked because it is assumed not to be the case, but rather – the other way around – it is seen as the path to progress, to assumed abundance and betterment, always associated with progressive change?
The economist Joseph Schumpeter states that in capitalism an economically motivated destruction results in an even greater creation, i.e. the economic growth, which supposedly even exceeds the damage done. Accordingly, progress and specifically in this case, economic progress, cannot be achieved without losses, but progress, in principal, would always surpass the latter.
Karl Marx has called it the ”development of the productive forces”, namely those techniques that would guarantee the steady increase of excess in production. However, he also anticipated that ”the wellspring of riches, the earth and the laborer” would eventually run dry. Since that time science and technology have been striving to eliminate the wellspring of riches – named ”laborer ” – in the future, indeed. However, the ebbing of this well would not be left to occur naturally, it would, rather, be created intentionally – the reasons for and consequences of this ebbing being the subject of this debate.
On the whole, it seems to be about defining the problem of destruction and its subsequent measurement – whether as temporary or long-term, wether as collateral damage or a basic problem of the mode of production and of progress the costs of which have so far been ”externalized”. They have been outsourced, moved to an obscure ”external” fieldbecoming invisible and unaccountable. In this way, these costs appear to be non-existent.
In the end, the debate about the problem of the ”necessary” destruction resulted in taking the destruction as such for granted, but not to be taken seriously as a significant objection to the modern era per se and its mode of production, science and technology.
Goethe wrote about this dilemma in Faust II and was the first to grapple with increasing horror, finding the words to describe the consequences of this decision. Then he fell silent, as his interpretor, the philosopher Michael Jaeger noticed (Jaeger). Goethe proved correct. Since then the destruction of the world has advanced rapidly, never to be reversed, halted or at least slowed down, not to mention any larger attempts of reparations. Instead, a radical nihilism has made its way towards all existence and being in the world (Severino) including the related acceptance of human sacrifice. In ”Faust” it is the pre-modern elders, Philemon and Baucis, who had to yield to progress with their death.
Who will have to yield today?
Progress as the spawning of the ”more” and furthermore, of the ”better” remains largely uncontested. No one has successfully blocked its path. Any possible challenging has been declared a global taboo.
This is the reason why the ”why-question” has not been asked and is still not being asked.
Apparently the question is superfluous, because it is allegedly about the common good and advancement. Progress remains beyond being challenged. The ”why-question” would have merely resulted in the answer: one destroys in order to produce something more and better, according to the motto: you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. Who would have doubted that in this process the more and the better is achieved?
Or: who would have wanted to abstain from progress, whatever it produces? Progress appeared to be completely without any alternative.
This remains so to this very day. Those who question progress became objects of ridicule.They appeared to be backward, even reactionary, uninformed, romantic, naiv or lost in the stone age.
Thus the question, why this path of development was neccessarily destructive and to what degree, was dropped. Practical alternatives to such progress did not succeed in being implemented or sustained. Most notably, these could not effect any change on the apparent unstoppable path of progress.
The question, why there was such an adamantine clinging to this progress – even when it became increasingly obvious what it really meant for the world, initially called ”silent spring” by Rachel Carsen during the 1960’s (Carson), now commonplace – continued to be swept under the carpet.
The why-question was and is not posed, in spite of all the warning signs, such as the observed rapid extinction of animals and plants or the continual ozone-depletion in the atmosphere, because the preconditions for asking this question are simply renounced. There is massive denial of the situation; that it could have been progress itself responsible for the tremendous destruction, which at this point can no longer be ignored, and which in the meantime has begun to even threaten the very living conditions on earth, including the existence of mankind.
Who is to be blamed? The so-called ”man-made” destruction.
In the meantime, the culprits are being searched for elsewhere, as now there is no longer any way around finding the responsible ones. Since the investigations by the Club of Rome during the 1970’s – e.g. on ”the limits of growth”- all of a sudden the defacto comprehensive destruction is allowed for – however, funnily enough, now from above. Furthermore, this is still taking place without the ”why-question” being asked. Were this not so one could not avoid taking progress itself under scrutiny. Instead, a futuristic and much ”improved” form of progress has been outlined and comes with the intention to abolish most of all previous forms across the board. The reasons, therefore, are not to be found in any possible faults with the progress-project itself. The all-of-a-sudden discovered environmental – and nature – crisis is now blamed on ”man” in general.
The crisis is being defined as a ”man-made” crisis.
This applies to today’s so-called climate crisis and equally to the corona-pandemic as an alleged health crisis since 2020: neither the inventors of progress nor its enforcers and profiteers, since centuries, are accused of having done anything wrong. Instead, it is supposedly now ”the people”, who, because of their sheer numbers, their consumer behavior, or their ignorance and carelessness are to be blamed for each particular disaster.
Supposedly there are too many of them, who consume too much, who do not follow the rules and overburden nature. They are defined as too dangerous because they are alive and in contact with one another and thus, generally suspicious. According to the declared agendas of the ruling elites, progress based on the hitherto existing industrial revolution is supposed to be brought to a halt.
Alongside the UN-agendas 2010 and 2030, the policies of the ”Great Reset” of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the ”Green New Deal” of the EU and the US are openly discussed and explain to us how this is to take place. What is being revealed is an agenda for nothing less than a new world order in the form of a dictatorship (Rifkin 2019; Schwab/Malleret 2020)!
In this process, the why-question is still avoided, but nevertheless apparently answered. The answer is already there, before the question itself is posed.
Were it not so, i.e. the answer coming from above, it would have been noticed that something was wrong with this response. The problem with progress and the destruction it causes is not simply ”man-made” as the answer reads to the unposed question.
But the destruction is inherent in the system, i.e. it is system-made. This in particular should not be revealed because obviously those who run the system are interested in holding on to it – until the very end.
Those who have invented this model of progress and who – as a class – over centuries have enforced it by fire and by sword worldwide, even against strongest resistance, are now applying the brake. This full on brake is to indicate the end of the progress orchestration, the one which caused and operated this destruction in the first place, which now all of a sudden is recognized, but not admitted to as being due to its own failure. Rather it is seen as the failure of the ”people”, who are accused of pushing the planet to the limit of what’s possible, and even beyond. Already humanity is in need of two or three earths, only to keep up with consumption and there is a threat that ”peak oil” will be followed by more peaks, e.g. with rare earths, lithium or coltan, if not even the ”peak of everything”.
It is becoming obvious now, raw supplies are running short. Who, however, was it in the first place who pretended that the production of commodities was supposed to be never ending? Who chased the farmers off their land where they produced their own livelihood, and who ended their mass revolts against this expulsion with arms and wars? Who manoevered them into the factories of the industrial revolution and profited endlessly from their labor in the name of progress, and from controlling the consumption market which replaced the subsistence economy?
And who enforced, via inquisition, torture and burning stakes, that women would lose control of their bodies and reproductive capabilities, rendering them as ”house-wives” to produce ever more laborers-to-be, exploited through this progress, from the colonies to the ”motherlands”? Where else were the profits to come from if not from this labor force? (Werlhof et al. 1983)
This history of excessive violence over centuries, its reasons, methods, institutions and wrong-doers is simply being ommitted from the new narrative of a ”man-made” crisis. The perpetrators are obviously not even considered to be like other human beings even though what they did was also ”man-made”.
Consequently, this term today is reserved for ”the people”, that is the ”masses”.
The ”elite” is exempt from it. ”The people” are now accused of the mistakes, which those human beings belonging to the elite have forced them to commit, by employing all possible means for the last 500 years. In conclusion, ”man-made” is an invention from above – the system of the elite itself.
The information war
There is an information war going on, in which those above decide which questions can be asked, what the problem is and how it may be defined, which ”narrative” and associated explanations belong to it and how this is to be handled. In the meantime, almost everyone adheres to this, official media as well as ”science”, and all those who do not ask or do not allow any questioning. For, questions regarding the behavior of the elite are automatically considered ”conspiracy theories”, because they question this very behavior or could pose questions regarding it. Thus it becomes clear where the term ”conspiracy theory” actually comes from. Included in this is the ”why”- question. In fact, it ranks first place. This question is simply forbidden.
At the moment, according to the official discourse – the one from above – there is a threat of climate-collapse because of a steadily increasing heating up of the atmosphere since the beginning of industrialization, which is now leading to a climate catastrophy which threatens all life on earth. The tailor-made reason for this is supposedly – solely – the emmission of alleged greenhouse gas, CO2, of civil industry and civil consumption, in addition to CO2- increasing population growth. As a consequence, the extend of harmful, damaging climate change is ”man-made” in the sense of being allegedly caused by human behavior today.
Here the circle of blame is closed on the narrative of who is responsible for the alleged problems, and the silenceabout the real problems of today.
CO2, however, cannot develop a greenhouse gas effect because the earth is not a greenhouse. CO2 is rather an invisible plant gas and not some dirty emission as commonly portrayed. It develops during the rotting of organic material and is used by plants for growth alongside oxygen, without which we could not even breathe or live life on earth. Thus, CO2 is a very useful and essential gas.
Currently it makes up only 0,04 % of the atmosphere and of which only a fraction develops from human activities. Man-made CO2, all of a sudden, is deemed responsible for the threat of global warming. In this information war, the fact that in previous times CO2 was observed to be the result of a warming, not its cause, is utterly suppressed.
For over twenty years now, the new narrative is being repeatedly preached from above, especially by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC), one of the political organizations closely affiliated with the UN who projects an image of being the purest and most highly developed place in science. The IPCC thereby merely reveals, how much science today – again and again – operates in the service of other interests, different from an alleged pursuit of knowledge and search for the truth (Werlhof 2021).
It is no different in the case of the so-called Corona-pandemic (e.g. Bhakdi 2020; generally globalresearch.ca 2020/2021). This means we have to investigate how the supposedly man-made – instead of system-made – climate and health-crisis is related to progress and its continuation, despite its damaging effects. Or rather, we have to investigate what new forms this progress with its inherent destruction will now take.
Stoppage of the progress to date and the enforcement of a new form of progress – the ”4th industrial revolution”
In the meantime it is deemed to be clarified how the current form of progress is to be brought to a halt, that is through the dismanteling of civil production and its consumption according to the model of the industrial revolution hitherto. Instead, the building-up of a ”CO2-neutral” production and their consumption on the basis of renewable energies,replacing non-renewable, ”dirty” energies is to take place. The old forms, i.e. coal, oil and gas, supposedly lead to too much CO2-production. The new energies are intended to no longer produce much CO2, and should come from sun, wind and water as well as from other sources such a bio-mass.
In this context, it is clear to all participating parties that all forms of power generated in this way will not be available in ample supply. In order for to achieve enough energy-supply, drastic measures for the reduction of global energy demands would be necessary, i.e. of population! As it is the people who, according to the planning strategy, are the ones who would be in need of this energy. Otherwise suitable measures and technologies would need to be also developed and licenced. Instead, the solution seems to be at hand – the path to be taken is the ”depopulation”- project.
The consequence of a corresponding depopulation is openly addressed, e.g. from the group ”Vegans for Future”, a subgroup of Fridays for Future (FFF), which is a youth movement, organized and directed from above (Ripple et al; a critique in pbme 2019).
Depopulation was already recommended when the problem of a ”population bomb ” (Ehrlich) was identified for the first time which, according to the theories of Thomas Malthus, would necessarily lead in the end to human starvation.
Within the controversal debate on vaccination, especially in the context of Covid- 19, depopulation as a possible aim has surfaced again. Last, but not least, through Bill Gates himself (Matters 2021) and his project – via the world health organization (WHO) – to vaccinate, for the first time in history, the entire population of the world. That this is not about a vaccination, but rather about something very different indeed, is becoming increasingly obvious.
Furthermore, the new forms of energy, which are supposed to reduce the alleged climate-damaging effects of production and consumption by the civil population are far from being so ”innocent”, ”clean” and ”green” as propagated. The manufacturing of certain components such as wind turbines and generators require high tech and heavy industry. Their periodic renewal as well as disposal represents an ecological disaster as there is no way to recycle them. Also photo-voltaic installations need to be manufactured industrially and are in need of regular replacement.
The new energy is not really fit for purpose for many reasons, as yet unsolvable problems exist regarding sufficient energy storage and their reliance on weather patterns. Furthermore, from an ecological perspective, water-based power plants are far from being problem-free, and biomass – such as rapeseed and palm-oil – are affecting an alternative land use, such as a possible organic food production.
That is why other countries – except Germany and Austria – continue to use nuclear energy, reasoning that it is also ”green” and ”clean”, i.e. ”CO2-neutral”. This, of course, is not true. One must take into consideration the mining of uranium, not to mention the renewability and the anticipated ”sustainability” issues with this form of energy, depending on a decreasing amount of available uranium. Furthermore, there is the insurmountable and permanent problem of radioactive waste disposal, on a global scale.
Nuclear energy obviously seems indispensable. It was invented by the military and in this context, continues to be in need for various weapon systems and the operation of military ”geo-engineering” installations, such as the ”ionosphere heater”, which is another technological invention of the new form of progress – rarely discussed – as part of the so-called ”4th industrial revolution” (Bertell; Werlhof 2021).
This is already an indication of what the new progress is supposed to look like. Contrary to the previous form of progress, the new one is untruly presented as ”green” and sustainable. After the alleged acknowledgement of the problem of destruction, it is now not at all about introducing non-damaging ways of production. So, the drastic reduction of the consumption amount of resources and nature is indeed intended. Otherwise, the current rate of consumption would soon reach its absolute limits, leaving nothing for later times and the elites.
At the same time there is a new progress announced. For this to take place, however, the new technologies would need a gigantically increased energy supply. Thus, the new progress far exceeds the questionable CO2-reduction and the currently available energy sources as well as dubious renewable energy sources.
This progress is the one of the so-called ”4th industrial revolution” and is intended to reach an even more esteemed reputation than its predecessor.
This way, the successor model of progress vastly surpasses the previous model, not only in energy consumption but also regarding the required machinery.
The 4th industrial revolution is designed to overcome, first and foremost, the hitherto industrial revolutions by dispensing them from the necessity to use a huge amount of human beings as a living labor force. However, this does not mean that human beings will now be liberated from work.
Rather, at the core, this new model of industrial revolution is based on the intention to integrate the still required labor force directly into the machinery. The aim is to transform them in such ways that they become parts of the machine, also by way of feeding their organic, biological force as ”renewable, green” energy into the machine. Apart from that, the idea is to transform them into controllable robots.
This is to take place via a ”convergence-technological” combination of biotechnology (genetic engineering and synthetic biology), articifical intelligence, AI, and nano-technology which also allow for ”mind-control” (Werlhof 2020), i.e. the control of thinking, feeling and behavior of „transhumans“ who would be directly connected to a global AI-cloud.
All this is to be complemented via geo-engineering technologies by the military (Werlhof 2021).
Furthermore, all these technologies can serve and make sure that narratives such as climate change and multiple pandemics can be confirmed time and again. It is now possible to technologically ”deliver” the necessary facts for such crises. Within such a planetary mega-machine of the new system of progress, a human being, if still in existence by then, would de facto cease to exist as a free agent and as a living individual (Werlhof, forthcoming 2022).
Victim of the new progress – the human race itself?
The transformation of human beings from being users of machines into patentable, trans,- and even posthuman partsof a superimposed machinery, i.e. human beings used by the machine, lies ahead of us. It now takes the form of the digital mega-machine, currently in development, called the ”internet of things”, IoT. Humans integrated into themachine in this way, would no longer be considered living beings with their own rights, but rather be defined as patents, i.e. ”things”, or ”information”, usually belonging to a company. This “thing“ by then has become the property of others, much like a slave in previous times, and because of this status, is no longer allowed to have property of its own.
This is what the so-called circular economy of the ”Great Reset” i.e. the ”Green New Deal” is designed for.
Thus, today’s ”green revolution” as a new world order no longer recognizes the homo sapiens, the individual, the owner, the proprietor, or any otherwise independent and free human being – except those on the very top. It would be the utmost of a ”technocratic dictatorship” that is now becoming blatantly clear.
However, 7-8 billion people are not needed for such a transhumanism. This form of ”de-growth” only works via de-population, as a new form of eugenics, even euthanasia. The new progress of mankind now turns directly against mankind itself – it is a complete reversal of the perspective on humanity.
It is this very reversal that is not comprehended, because progress is always supposed to be in the service of the good. That is why no alternative is considered. There is a compulsion to always apply progress in its latest development. So, no ”why”-question is asked about the fact that progress demands ever higher sacrifices.
For instance, the remaining ”new human” preferably would no longer be born of a mother in the hitherto sense of conditio humana, but rather become a product of industrial human-, and chimera-manufacturing. Genetic engineering, synthetic biology and nano-technology as well as AI are already working on the process of incrementally unhinging human beings from nature and creating all kinds of mixed ”life“ forms.
Until then, the new no-longer-human could be produced via an increasing ”merging” of him/it, inwardly and outwardly, with the particular machinery (Kurzweil; Schwab). In the meantime, the IoT with which humans are to be merged, is already praised as the greatest progress of all times.
This very ”progress“ is considered the alleged ”evolution” created by and belonging to, ”a better, higher, all powerful”, but no longer human ”homo deus” within the ”god-machine“ (Harari).
Indeed, ”man-made” problems beyond the elite and its system, would thus no longer in need of being feared. Progress, in such a complete reversal of perspective, is to become ever more our belief system and our religion. In such a scenario, ”why-questions” are altogether superfluous – possibly for ever.
Today’s crisis is a topic that is defined from above. Not only is it laid out in deceptive ways, it is also offering incorrect answers. The opportunity is not taken to create a civilization capable of ”affording” human beings, because of their ability to create life – i.e. to live and to produce without destruction. Such a human being would still be the ”wellspring of abundance”, in the understanding of Karl Marx. For this once existed and continues to still exist, here and there.
But this is not referred to here, even though the terms ”green”, ”sustainable” or ”basic income” as a prospect suggest a connection with former social movements that had expressed a critique of progress from ”below” rather than from above.
Because a truly nature-oriented and egalitarian society would surely not be a machine-oriented one with high-energy consumption and thus not considered to be ”progressive”. Such a society would rather be a ”return” to – or a new advancement to the well-known methods of non-interfering and non-damaging interaction with the earth, in which nobody would generate profit, or achieve any form of power.
Most of all one would not fulfill the alleged human task of establishing a civilization which is to pursue a constant higher and better development, including the subsequent vanishing of humans from the earth altogether, according to the motto: mission accomplished – humans obsolete?!
So far, there is no uprising in sight against the new and shocking plan of making homo sapiens disappear from the earth, a project that is not even concealed (e.g. Kurzweil; Schwab), as the common belief in progress being per se for the good is so powerful everywhere.
One continues to believe in progress, even if life is at stake now – be it life itself, or the autonomous life of a still free human being. It seems that most people have not yet understood what today’s crisis is all about. It is about themselves, or more precisely: it is about a development directed against themselves!
A critique of progressive technologies remains chronically underexposed and, for reasons already outlined above, also unchallenged, because there is a belief in these technologies much like in a fetish. Nothing less than a technological world revolution in favor of man is expected from them.
Men, especially, always identified with the technology of the machine even to the point of ”a mimetic approximation“(Genth), and in their fascination bowed down to them in ”promethean shame” (Anders).
Hence, an ”apocalypse-blindness” (Anders) reigns, which does not allow for the current developments to be experienced as an unveiling or even as a revelation on the actual truth of this civilization. The consciousness of most people has not yet entered the dehumanized, mere machine-logic dimension (Genth) within which technological progress is moving today. In 2008, shortly before his death, Joseph Weizenbaum, a most intimate connoiseur of the 4th industrial revolution declared at a meeting of the WEF in Davos:
“When the 4th industrial revolution is being realized, the living will envy the dead!”
As a scientist who has taught and done research for decades at the hereon specialized, famous Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, in Boston, in the area of expert-systems, i.e. artificial intelligence systems, knew what he was talking about. Contrary to most of his colleagues, he was a critical thinker who did not become corrupted or blinded. He raised his voice in warning (Weizenbaum).
Furthermore, he clarified that in the case of the new industrial revolution the quality of progress as the alleged generator of a ”better” world does not apply, particularly and notably, not for human beings.
So, how if progress so far has not only damaged nature, but generally did not produce anything better than nature? And what if now the same development would take place with respect to humans?
On the historical deep structure of progress and human sacrifice
Are 500 years sufficient in calling forth and strengthening an unquestionable belief like the one in progress, even under continuously adverse conditions and exorbitant sacrifices, including human sacrifices, which so far have always been an integral part of it ever since its implementation?
Are the developments during the last centuries sufficient in explaining that people today seem to be ready to offer themselves voluntarily in the name of progress – i.e. to sacrifice their very lives or their lives as human beings in the hitherto existing understanding?
Are we approaching a large human sacrifice, whose ritualization is already heralded, considering the propaganda for massive Covid-19 genetic therapy, called „vaccination“ and the beginning diffamation of the unvaccinated, called the ”non solidary ones”? In the summer of 2021, this was still about 40% of the population in Central Europe.
Are we approaching the sacrifice of the lives of people, even the lives of their children, the worst possible sacrifice of all – or will it finally come to a revolt?
It is no coincidence that the moderne era is almost always presented as a civilization sui generis, rarely having roots in a past – except for a few references to antiquity. The modern era does not seem to have a historical depth-dimension. In this way, the view of its old historical roots and what these consist of is obscured.
Issues like a ”creation out of destruction”, the alleged ”improvement” of nature, of life, of matter and of humans, even their ”higher re-creation”, a characteristic feature of the modern era, are ideas, utopias, plans and experiments that are not limited to the current time. On the contrary, these issues have a history of several 1000’s of years, even though initially, these have not been defined as ”progress”.
One could not talk about progress as long as it remained in the imagination and was not able to be put into practice and as long as these attempts kept unsuccessful. Respective experiments have been conducted for a long time, mostly without success.
”Alchemy” as the method of progress – the utopia of a re-creation of the world via its destruction
The name of these experiments was ”alchemy” (Schütt) and this continues to be the name, even though it is nearly nowhere admitted nor identified as such!
This is my hypothesis which I have investigated from a historical perspective and documented in great detail in a comprehensive body of work (Werlhof, forthcoming, 2022). It shows that the supposedly improved neo-creation of the world is a much older project. It is surrounded by an ideology that has shaped humanity for thousands of years and it is one we know since our earliest days. It is also tied to a belief system that is disseminated continuously. Recently, it is propagated with increased intensity.
Initially, the only thing missing was a general, success-promising practice.
Alchemy, pursuing this aim, failed time and again. Only in the modern era has progress as alchemy gained a systematic gestalt and became more successful.
The failure of alchemy as a method is related to the fact that it abandoned its predecessor, an alchemy of a much older source – in translation – alchemy as the „black mud“ from the river Nile, „land of the moon“, the „flow of the Goddess“.
For this older form of alchemy stems from a culture and civilization that essentially honored and imitated the process of nature – in this case the cyclical flooding of the Nile and its effects on the fecundity of the soil on its banks. Such was the custom in all early garden and agricultural communities.
Much later a ”new” form of alchemy was invented, that did not observe nature’s processes, but instead was interested in overcoming nature, desiring to create something entirely new: a neo-creation. This intent was unsuccessful because nature’s process is not meant to be overcome. Later success in the practice of alchemy, which we can observe in modern times, can eventually only be of temporary nature and not be of lasting value.
This in fact is the key question of today:
Did alchemy achieve its final break-through in the modern era or is it approaching its final failure?
To begin with: if one compares the failed alchemical method with today’s progress, then the latter one means:
Progress is the alchemical transformation of the original state of the world into something which is precisely not its natural state, but considered as being better, higher and closer even to god’s desire. It is represented as something that nature itself was allegedly dreaming of ever since.
The belief in progress is the alchemical belief in miracles, in a literal overthrowing of nature’s inherent order, anticipating its complete neo-creation, produced by man, preferably in random ways: it is deemed to be better and good, even god’s desire and anticipated by nature itself.
From an alchemical perspective, the meaning of progress as a form of religion, ideology and utopian project is grounded in the belief that progress is supposedly the raison d’etre of man on earth.
Progress is the ”sacred cow” especially of our times, as it is only now becoming a reality after alchemical experimenting of 500 years. It is supposed to be the realization of an old dream of mankind as well as seemingly the dream of nature itself. That is why it is sacro-sanct. Hence, critiquing progress appears as a kind of lèse-majesty!
Alchemical transformation of the world precisely means: transformation of matter, of the living and all of nature to the point of transforming the earth as a planet and even human beings themselves.
The object to be transformed becomes disected first, then is assembled with new kinds of material and finally is turned into ”machine”. The machine appears as the respective better and higher, as the ”2.”, now truly successful creation and ”nature”. By comparison, god as the alchemical father and „creator“ allegedly was not good enough, yet.
The ”improvement of man” or the creation of a ”new human being” was already undertaken in previous times, e.g. via specific measures in cloisters, dungeons and educational institutions, in factories, in the military, in the field of medicine and in psychotherapy.
After millenia alchemists are now at the point of attempting to substitute the very body of a human being, i.e. no longer being born (in a natural way) from the body of a mother. Thus, they are changing the very conditio humana. So far, experiments were limited to the homunculus: the first attempts of breeding a human being outside the body of a mother, i.e. in retort, have remained unsuccessful for millenia.
The now anticipated, literal ”manufacturing of (human) beings” in an industrial sense is supposed to be the crown of creation, the neo-creation of humans by humans, or rather by man and his machinery – and precisely not by woman, or a mother. In this way, humans would become allegedly better and higher forms of beings, even though – or precisely, because – s/he would no longer be a natural, free and souvereign human being.
Actually, as a ”machine-being” s/he is intended to be more ”godly”. In that case the new god no longer requires women as mater-ial mothers; and the ”father” would appear in the form of the universal ”god-machine”. Overall, this is a utopian, planetary mega-project and its realization is intended to be implemented gradually. In its course the entireworld would literally be turned upside down, taken apart and put together in new and completely different ways, largely independent of nature’s inherent order, evolution, and boundaries. The random composition of its parts would then be propagated as a “higher“ neo-creation – even though the exact opposite would be true.
In alchemy, essential terms for this process include:
1.”mortification”, deriving from morse, death, i.e. the taking apart of/killing of living mater,
2. the ”Opus Magnum” as the result of the new composition of what was mortified, beyond the original, natural appearance, becoming a new and considered a ”higher” form of matter (originally gold), or rather, a ”higher form of life” (machine),
3. ”the philosopher’s stone”, a kind of formula/technique/essence/substance/idea which is to render possible the Opus Magnum everywhere and at all times.
It is about nothing less than the utopian creation of a new world and a new order, which is directed against the current one. The intention is to gradually substitute the latter one by a kind of counter-, or anti-nature-order. This then is propagated as a better and higher ”order of nature”, allegedly intended by nature itself, as nature presumably feels imperfect itself. In order to document this claim, the results ofalchemy are called ”2. Nature“, even though the neo-creation is precisely intended to no longer be nature in its original sense. But it has to be pretended that everything emerging from alchemy is „natural“.
The contradiction of this entire endeavour lies in the treatment of the world and a course of action based on ”destruction as method”. Naturally, the total result in the end cannot produce a ”more” and a ”better”. If at all, the latter one can only be of a temporary nature.
What is the source of such a monstrous utopia, this concrete project which since centuries, keeps the world in suspension with its actions, thoughts and intentions, and in a breathless dynamic of constant change?
In its process it has already transformed and damaged the world to a large extend. For without destruction – mortification – of the world there can be no new one. Hence, those who want a different world will have to sacrifice the existing one.
This is the reason for the continuous destruction of the world, which is reigned by alchemists, approaching essentially the final ”Omnicide”, the destruction of everything, while there is a co-existing belief of witnessing the alleged emergence of a completely new and better world.
That way, the phenomenon of a ”nuclear alchemy“ is celebrating even the atomic mortification as the ultimate creation of a new life, while existing life turns to ashes (Wagner).
On this monstrous path we are on, and we shall soon find out how long original nature will go along with all this. We shall experience whether people, being blind to this apocalypse, are willing to sacrifice themselves, too, in order to become ”improved”, or whether they will finally rise up in protest instead.
At the core – pater arché instead of mater arché – patriarchy as a civilization of ”fathers” instead of mothers
The entire endeavour remains incomprehensible unless the core theme is identified, i.e. the key issue from the onset seems to be locked up in the collective unconscious. The neo-creation shall no longer be natural and born from a mother, as it is generally common – a ”mater arché”, to have a mother as the original source of new life. Arché initiallly means origin, beginning and womb (arché as domination only came about with patriarchy). Nature itself is primarily organized in feminine-motherly-creative ways and women are by nature, much like her, i.e. they are, as it were, nature in its human dimension.
In the alchemical project, nature is to be transformed from a feminine into a ”masculine” one – in the sense of a patriarchal nature, bringing forth a ”fatherly” neo-creation, instead of a motherly one – a pater arché instead of mater arché. (in more detail in Werlhof, forthcoming 2022)
That is the reason why, since then, all ”science” on behalf of the patriarchal system can never be viewed as being ”neutral”, merely ”rational” and allegedly ”not normative” (see Kaiser interview in the movie) – as it were, in the sense of common reason. This was and is merely its claim and self-justification. The truth is, it has always been about the realization of the self-fulfilling prophecy of a world of the fathers against the world of the mothers, which is why it cannot be called a ”neutral” and reasonable project. At some point, however, the discussion of this issue was stopped, namely since modern times. Instead, this project became the unquestioned or unjustifyable cause of a general sine qua non for one’s own acting, thinking, feeling and desiring – i.e. it became part of the collective unconscious.
It is not helpful to embed the resulting technology in an appropriate philosophy (see text of movie) when this philosophy does not identify the patriarchal preconditions of its orgins, not questioning its own foundation. Such an attempt is unsuitable for a (proper) contextualization.
Already in ancient Egypt, the pharao Echnaton had himself depicted as a pregnant man and adopted the name of the former original and all powerful goddess Nut/nouth – via a (sly) reversal of the syllables (!). The aspiration is clear. In this way, the first monotheistic, patriarchal religion, the Aton religion, was founded. From then on, God became the opposite of the Goddess. He became the creator of life, not her. From then on the ”pater arché” was valid.
The neo-creation is to be ”born of the fathers”, man-made, without nature’s creation, an invention beyond nature, an anti-, and counter–nature, an alleged ”2. nature” – allegedly desired even by nature itself. It would be the fulfillment of its own dream, perfected and redeemed from the mother through the pater arché, the fatherly creator.
Likewise, well-nigh, the alchemical mesopotamian creation myth Enuma Elish, which depicts the fight of Marduk against his mother, the all powerful Ur-goddess – ”chaos” – Tiamat. He kills her and from the parts of her dead body he forms the new nature, which he dominates, creating the new order of the ”cosmos”.
This is the key issue at the root of it all, ever since the foundation of patriarchal civilizations. It remains the central theme to this very day. Neo-creation after destruction of the original creation is the utmost goal, to be achieved in everything and everywhere, on a global scale. For a new world, created by the self-proclaimed ”fathers” as opposed to the one of the mothers and by mother nature, would prove the existence and justification of a patriarchal world, a civilization and a new ”nature”, according to the conceptions of those fathers. It would represent their permanent legitimization.
The success of such a project would furthermore be the final prove of the alleged existence of god, who incarnates himself even in human earthly form, i.e. in the ”fathers” and who, in the end, would have found his final gestalt in a god-machine, allegedly representing nothing less than the creation of the universe itself.
In this way, the hubris of patriarchy turns into a mere joke in the end, a joke into which the entire world is now about to be forced to believe in.
Today, we have a definition of patriarchy that allows us to understand what is taking place, what has taken place and what is supposed to happen in the future, as long as the patriarchal civilization exists.This definition far exceeds the regular term of patriarchy as a mere form of domination, which is only a political term. It is about far more than that, namely the concrete technical transformation of the world, to the point where one does no longer need to dominate it, because it has become the way one always wanted to have the world.
From a patriarchal perspective, domination is only necessary as long as the world is still in its primary, original nature, or in one of its corresponding culture. The ideal patriarchal condition however, would be one in which domination is obsolete. ”It does what we want” said Craig Venter, inventor of synthetic biology, in reference to a bacteria he created in order to describe what the new ”life” is supposed to be. From a patriarchal-alchemical perspective, the better and higher life form is one which is no longer an independent life, and hence is no longer in need of being ”dominated”. Ideally, it has its source in the patriarchal system itself and as a pater-arché-product it is apriori perfectly fitted for patriarchy – like the machine. Likewise, the machine’s purpose is to do ”what we want”.
Patriarchy as an ”alchemical war system” against humanity and nature: the Why of it all!
After the invention of the machine during the 18th century, the 4th industrial revolution represents the realization of the alchemical-patriarchal dream per se.
This revolution is based on a ”total” alchemy in the form of segmentation of all matter and non – matter, down to its finest molecular/atomic structures and is supposed to bring forth completely new compositions, neo-creations and inventions of the world and all its creatures, by way of pushing beyond the evolutionary boundaries, previous forms and inherent order.
Its inventors are in an actual state of intoxication and delusion. Now everything seems to be possible. Not only is now apparently proven that God as a creator does exist, but he is among us, and I, the creator of new life, am God. The 2. creation, the new Genesis, is on its way (see Preston). It is about finalizing the complete implementation of patriarchy as the ultimate ”alchemical war system” against all of life, i.e. human and other beings, nature and the earth itself.
Our in essence simple, yet comprehensive definition of patriarchy, which is applicable in complex contexts and able to convert all reversals, has led to the new, pre-disciplinary approach of ”Critical Theory of Patriarchy” (Werlhof forthcoming, 2022).
Patriarchy as explanation came about because the ”why-question” was asked, time and again, and in expansive ways. The ”why-question” was leading to the identification of patriarchy. Perhaps this is the reason why this question is not asked, in order to avoid this very answer.
However, our movie abstained from such a definition of patriarchy. Hence, the following addendum.
Not until this perspective is considered, one can comprehend:
Why is there so much destruction by the ”fathers” against the mothers and mother nature? Without it, there would be no opportunity for a neo-creation by the ”fathers”.
Why is the element of the living in science not considered? Because after its destruction, the scientists want to neo-created it and present it as ”father-made”, as the allegedly better and higher and even godly ”life”.
Why is a human being in patriarchy, on the one hand conceived of as a nothing and on the other hand as God? Because being born of a mother is considered to be lower and not perfect, essentially ”unworthy”. Only being manufactured/“born“ by a ”father” accounts for a ”higher” value, even a godly one.
Why does the belief in progress exist, to the point of being a progress-religion? Because it promises to create a new and better world via neo-creation by the fathers. The world of the mother is considered imperfect and to be of low value.
Why is there no moment of pause (for reflection), why do change and destruction continue? Because everything, according to this patriarchal way of thinking, requires a neo-creation and therefore needs to be destroyed first.
Why has this patriarchal endeavour become a veritable world-war against life, women and mothers, against original nature, and is now even turning against human beings as such themselves? Because all are supposed to vanish, be annihilated and/or be turned into their very opposite – the neo-creation.
Why are the inherent dangers of such a project not identified? Because, in a complete reversal of things, the moment of pause and maintaining nature’s given ways themselves are seen as the danger!
What is the meaning of the machine as a patriarchal technique? It is the epitome of the alchemical bringing forth of a ”better” life, without a living body, without women and mothers, without a gender and a motherly geneology and without the orginal natural occurance of childbirth. The machine represents the ideal of a machine-body, and the natural living body is to be transformed and replaced by it.
Why does science not admit that they are operating from a wrong premise, from a wrong definition of nature? Because they want to destroy – mortify – living nature and substitute it, pursuing a self-fulfilling prophecy, proving they were right by saying all matter is dead matter and life is created from dead matter – with their leading premise of death coming first before there was life.
Why is natural science not ”dumb” when it comes to life? Because it is intentionally committing a crime against life itself and tries to deny this fact.
If destruction – mortifivarion – is ”neccessary”, it is logically impossible that in the long run more and something better will emerge.
Instead, systemic destruction is rampant – up to the point where everything will vanish and the ”Omnicide” appears as „Nothingness”.
The ”top” admits to this by pulling the emergency brake on progress in its current form and by ruthless decimation of its participants, while the idea of progress itself is not given up.
In this way, the problem is only deferred, resulting in ever more destructive forms.
Why is patriarchy and its method, patriarchal alchemy, not abolished?
Because it is collectively unconscious and – as a form of religion – it is a taboo. Even though it is applied with increasing and intentional implementation on an always larger scale, it is not supposed to be identified for what it really is – the destruction of the world, rather than its so-called neo-creation. Abandoning patriarchal alchemy would be equivalent to dismantling patriarchy.
How did the human tragedy, as a result of this, begin? When was this development initiated and when did the fatality start? It began with patriarchy a few thousand years ago. In modern times, it gained steadily momentum with its alchemical development dynamics, reaching a culmination point today.
Why is it so difficult to identify patriarchy? Because then, what was once believed to be true and right, in almost all aspects of life, would need to be questioned as well as everything that was thought, felt, done and desired.
It would culminate in the enormous question of guilt in the face of the destruction of the world and the killing of the living. lt would most likely lead to a comprehensive, socio-somatic as well as psychic-spiritual breakdown of the modern era as civilization of patriarchy (see Renggli 1992).
The Answer – The revolt of life and the people!?
After answering the ”why”- question on the destruction, there could be a spiritual revolt of unknown dimensions. The beginning sacrifice of human life as such could and would instead be followed by a revolt of life and of the people!
A sense of how this might announce itself was palpable during a concert performance of Puccuni’s opera Tosca in Graz, Austria, on August 8, 2021. In his famous aria, Mario, the lover of Tosca, sang these words towards the end of the first stanza, ”…and I never loved as much as I do now – THIS LIFE!” – LA VITA!
At this moment, long before the end of this aria, in the middle of the song there was a sudden outburst among the audience, and for a few minutes the singer, Jonas Kaufmann, the orchestra, the conductor, everybody had to pause.
There was an uproar, calling, clapping, screaming, crying and cheering, as if LIFE itself just found its riverbed in the audience, as if streaming from the depths of their souls into the trembling hearts, hands, eyes, voices and bodies, breaking through… wild and boisterously and full of irrepressable desire, joy, power and certainty!
It was a moment of collective shake-up, LIFE had shown its force. It does not want to be sacrified. A premonition of this sacrifice is already in the air, but LIFE wants to LIVE!
What LIFE really means has to enter people’s consciousness now and not only stream spontaneously through their hearts like in this moment at the opera, only to ebb away again.
The answer to the ”why-question”, i.e. why progress knows no limits and is systemically destructive, needs to be addressed and is urgent like never before.
For today the moment of truth has come. In unfathomable ways, those ”above” have already begun to downright relinquish LIFE, to sacrifice humans, if not humanity and even the children, in the name of progress and according to the intentions of its patriarchal protagonists. The ”mortification” of human beings as their transformation into ”no longer-human-beings” within the ”Opus Magnum ” has already begun on a global scale, too.
Could this have been it? Are these indeed ”the last days of mankind”?
One hundred years after Karl Krauss, this topic is coming up again, and now even for almost everyone, for ”mankind”. Why and how could it come to such a situation? Already in 1986, after the nuclear accident – the MCA , the maximum credible accident – of Chernobyl we, the mothers, appealed in protest ”We will not sacrifice our children to progress!” (Werlhof 1986).
And now it has come thus far, in fact on the entire planet? (see Chossudovsky)
Culmination or the End of patriarchy?
The question today is about the provisional end of a long history – the history of patriarchy. It consisted of building a world, that is less mother-, human-, and nature- oriented, consisting instead of destruction, transformation and substitution of mothers, humans and nature – deemed to be ”capital” (Werlhof 2012). This project was performed with humans, and humans essentially participated in it, either voluntarily or by force. In this respect, patriarchy is truly ”man-made”, most of all, ”elite-made”. It has been extended into a comprehensive system of so-called civilization.
This historical process of a massive ”reversal” of everything (Werlhof 2011) is not being understood to this very day, not to mention, being regretted or put on hold. Things cannot continue in this way. In the face of all this destruction, the earth has reached its limits. Likewise to nature and non-patriarchal cultures, all human beings not yet transformed or not able to be turned into ”capital” are now supposed to give way to patriarchy. In the end, its ruthless, brutal project can only be sustained for a minority of people, due to its destructive nature – unless it is given up. From the perspective of patriarchy, such an idea certainly is not an option (Werlhof 2010).
In the meantime, capitalism has done its part, by mobilising the masses via free enterprise economy into plundering and transforming the world. In socialism this was accomplished via command-economy of the state. Today, this is no longer necessary. On the contrary, it has long become counterproductive for the system, because the consumption of resources, given their finiteness, has become too comprehensive.
Furthermore, in the meantime the system has build up capital in the form of a machinery that no longer requires masses of people, like before.
Similarly to the entrepreneur and the laborer, now even the ”housewife” who was previously in wide demand, is now abraded, in order to diminish or even stop the reproduction of the species (Werlhof 2019).
The system thus transforms itself into a technocracy (see Wood), or rather into one that ”substitutes” nature and society with the mega-machine which makes and distributes its profits no longer in the common form, so far used in the Western world. In the East, these practices had already been different. After all, money can be printed, or rather be ”dished-out” in different forms. This is what is already happening and what has been in the planning for a long time (see Wolff).
In this process, the criterion has shifted, from human beings to the machine, their ”higher” substitute as the alleged ”better life”. That is how its ”fathers” attempt to fulfill their delusion of a complete neo-creation of the world. Will they succeed? What kind of problems will such a transition entail? The key players, e.g. the WEF and UN estimate a period of approximately 10-30 years. By then the last rebels will have passed away, that is, if there are no new ones. That is why nowadays children are targeted, becoming more and more the focal point of the „measures“. Then follows the industrial „creation“ of the human-machine-being still needed. Such seems to be the plan.
In this way, the genuine patriarchal „hate of LIFE“ and of living human beings finally is revealed. Patriarchy no longer wants to tolerate free human beings who are original, surprising, loving, funny, always different, wonderful, clever, graceful, independent, resistant and act with self-authority. For it views humans born by a mother essentially as ”deficient beings”, as evil, low, imperfect and as a permanent ”risk-factor”, in need of being transformed into something supposedly higher, better, according to god, through an alleged fatherly neo-creation. Initially this applied particulary to women as mothers, who were always suitably tormented – but they were still needed. Now, this applies to everyone:
Matricide is on the verge of becoming now global mass-murder!
In time, most people believed in patriarchy and participated in its politics. Recently, also inceasing numbers of women, who were made to believe that the category of ”sex“ or gender would be dropped, by overcoming nature through progress. Thus they would be liberated from patriarchy, in the understanding of being a system to simply mean the domination by men. In reality, however, it is about robbing women of their creative abilities and integrating them into the gender-neutral machinery.
Most human beings no longer know anything different than progress of patriarchy. Patriarchy is ”man-made” insofar as people have increasingly handed over their responsibility to the ones ”above” – or rather, to the machine. Should this behaviour continue, it will become their suicide. They are literally falling prey to their own system – its reversal of everything. Now they will have to recognize this very fact and make a choice.
Do they really want to be ”born of fathers” and become cyborgs, allowing the sacrifice of living bodies, no longer born of a mother, to happen – in the same way they allowed the body of nature to be sacrified? Do they really want to perform an alleged service to the ”grand plan” and contribute with their very lives to progress, thus ”bidding farewell to the concept of man being a part of nature”, as recommended from above? (Schwab)
Or, will they finally ask the ”why-question” – in order to receive the feared and long postponed, but saving answer? Do they want to be saved and will they save nature as well? Or will they continue to abandon nature? Will they, thereupon, finally want to abandon patriarchy and carry this out? (see Projektgruppe)
Patriarchy is the historical deep structure of the modern era as ”capitalist patriarchy”, the ”higher-order” civilization, which imposed itself by means of violence and war on the old world civilization of matriarchy, understood as the order of mater arché. In this process, patriarchy gradually annihilated the previous order almost everywhere.
The inherent life affirming, egalitarian, non-dominating and nature-honoring motherly order and wisdom, which can still be experienced in the living matriarchies of today (Göttner-Abendroth/Derungs) was followed by its exact opposite. Our definition of patriarchy explains why, where, when and how this took place (Werlhof forthcoming 2022).
In the movie, barely any of these issues were explained; its intentions were different. The mention of the term patriarchy alone is not sufficient to comprehend why and how the system of patriarchy is the key to arriving at a true understanding of our times.
The moment of truth
This moment of truth decides who will survive the current demolition of the modern era and, if so, for what purpose. What is at stake, by penalty of one’s own downfall, is to at last understand patriarchy, to abandon this system and to rebuild a nature-honoring civilization.
Saying no is not enough and illusions are counterproductive, as these prevent the recognition of the key issue and a right course of action. One has to really think our current situation all the way through and consider where we are now, and why, what we each have contributed to the situation, leastway by not having prevented it.
Hope would come from the certitude of finally being on the right path. How this is to take place on a political level is unclear, as the means to do so are not in reach, or in decline. On a spiritual level, this would first of all require reparations towards the earth, mother nature and the natural state of humanity.
The purpose of the moment of truth is to eventually arrive at an understanding of patriarchy. This requires a considerable leap of consciousness. Otherwise there will be no corresponding action, feeling and volition. So far, hardly anyone knows why all this happened and is happening. Hardly anyone even wants to know.
The ”why-question” inevitably leads to patriarchy and one would see that almost everyone participated, either voluntarily or out of necessity. This recognition of course had to be prevented. The question of guilt can only be answered by admitting to it, to know its origins, and to immediately stop contributing to it.
The evidence of the existence of patriarchy and the explanatory power of our different definition of patriarchy are resounding. What actually cannot be explained by it?
Patriarchy is the common blockhead that hides in the collective unconscious.
People will take away this blockhead and will be able to see – what a liberation this would be! It will open the door for a revolt of life and of the people…
As with a thirsty person in the desert, the current destitution and threat evoke the memory of the body, the mind and the soul, of LIFE itself. For a long time, their plethora and powers have been betrayed, destroyed, lost, and forgotten.
Today’s first and foremost call is this:
”I will affirm and honor the sacredness of life in myself.
Since eons of time, life is present in every cell of my body.
The body is the place where all that is essential is united.
The body has its own wisdom and I trust it.
I want to become aware of this life, this body and the great source of joy they bring me. I want to honor and appreciate this gift.
I will never render the responsibility for my life, my body, my spirit and my soul to anyone else.
I shall defend body and life wherever they are devalued or threatened.
I shall disapprove with every fiber of my being the abandonment or even sacrifice of my body and my life.
This is the marrow of what I can do in this moment, for myself, for all my loved ones and all others.
I shall commit to this”.
This is only the beginning, all else will follow from it.
*
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. Claudia von Werlhof is Prof. Emerita of Political Science and Women’s Studies at the University of Innsbruck in Austria. She is the author of many books and has worked hard to make Rosalie Bertell’s important book Planet Earth: The Latest Weapon of War on Geoengineering available in German, Spanish, Italian, French and English again. Claudia was the founder of the Planetary Movement for Mother Earth (PMME) in 2010.
She is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).
Sources
Anders, Günther, 1980; Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen, 2 Bde. München, Beck
Carson, Rachel, 1962: Der stumme Frühling, München, Beck
Chossudovsky, MIchel, 2021: The “Killer Vaccine” Worldwide. 7.9 Billion People. The Covid-19 Vaccine should be Halted and Discontinued Immediately Worldwide, Global Research, August 27
Ehrlich, Paul, 1973: Die Bevölkerungsbombe, Frankfurt a.M., Fischer
Genth, Renate, 2002: Über Maschinisierung und Mimesis, Frankfurt, Peter Lang, www.globalresearch.at, laufend seit 2020
Göttner-Abendroth, Heide und Derungs, Kurt (Hg.), 1997: Matriarchate als herrschaftsfreie Gesellschaften, Bern, Amalia
Harari, Yuval, 2017: Homo Deus. Eine Geschichte von morgen, München, Beck
Jaeger, Michael, 2015: Wanderers Verstummen. Goethes Schweigen. Fausts Tragödie. Oder: Die große Transformation der Welt, Würzburg, Königshausen & Neumann
Kurzweil, Ray, 2016: Die Intelligenz der Evolution. Wenn Mensch und Computer verschmelzen, Köln, Kiepenheuer & Witsch
Matters, Ryan, 2021: mRNA “Vaccines”, Eugenics & the Push for Transhumanism. https://offguardian.org/2021/08/28/mrna-vaccines-eugenics-the-push-for-transhumanism/
PBME, Planetare Bewegung für Mutter Erde, 2019: Greta und die große Ver(w)irrung. 2. Offener Brief an Greta Thunberg, www.pbme-online.org, Oktober 2019
Preston, Christopher, 2018: Sind wir noch zu retten? Wie wir mit neuen Technologien die Natur verändern können, Berlin Springer
Projektgruppe „Zivilisationspolitik“ (Hg.) 2009: Aufbruch aus dem Patriarchat – Wege in eine neue Zivilisation? Frankfurt a.M., Peter Lang
_____ 2011: Kann es eine ´neue Erde´ geben? Zur Kritischen Patriarchatstheorie und der Praxis einer post- patriarchalen Zivilisation, Beiträge zur Dissidenz, Nr. 28, Frankfurt a.M., Peter Lang
Renggli, Franz, 1992: Selbstzerstörung aus Verlassenheit, Hamburg, Rasch & Röhring
Rifkin, Jeremy, 2019: Der Globale Green New Deal, Frankfurt a.M., Campus
Ripple, William et al, 2021: World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021, in BioScience, Vol. 71, Issue 9, September 2021, pp 894-898 https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab079
Schütt, Hans Werner, 2000: Auf der Suche nach dem Stein der Weisen. Die Geschichte der Alchemie, München, Beck
Schwab, Klaus und Malleret, Thierry, 2020: Covid-19. The Great Reset, Davos, WEF
Severino, Emmanuele, 1983: Vom Wesen des Nihilismus, Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta
Sorgner, Stefan Lorenz, 2018: Schöner neuer Mensch, Berlin, Nicolai publishing
Wagner, Friedrich, 1970: Weg und Abweg der Naturwissenschaft, Stuttgart, Klett-Cotta
Weizenbaum, Joseph, 1989: Die Macht der Computer und die Ohnmacht der Vernunft, Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp
Werlhof, Claudia von et al. 1983: Frauen, die letzte Kolonie, Reinbek, Rowohlt
____ 1986: Wir werden das Leben unserer Kinder nicht dem Fortschritt opfern! in Gambaroff, Marina et al.: Tschernobyl hat unser Leben verändert. Vom Ausstieg der Frauen, Reinbek, Rowohlt, S. 8-24
_____2010: West-End, Das Scheitern der Moderne als „kapitalistisches Patriarchat“ und die Logik der Alternativen, Köln, PapyRossa
_____2011: Die Verkehrung. Das Projekt des Patriarchats und das Gender-Dilemma, Wien, Promedia
_____2012: Der unerkannte Kern der Krise. Die Moderne als Er-Schöpfung der Welt. Zur Alchemie des Patriarchats, Uhlstädt-Kirchhasel, Arun
____ 2019: Die „Ver-Schattung“ der Hausarbeit, in Marianne Gronemeyer et al. (Hg.):“Aber ich will nicht in diese Welt gehören…“ Beiträge zu einem konvivialen Denken nach Ivan Illich, Bielefeld, Transcript, S. 165-181
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.
On 9 October 2021 Austria’s Chancellor Sebastian Kurz (35) resigned from his chancellor position, but said he would remain in politics as a member of Parliament. The media said he was involved in “financial scandals”. His friend and party ally (the conservative ÖVP – Austrian Peoples Party), then Foreign Minister, Alexander Schallenberg, took over as chancellor. Yesterday, 2 December – just two months after taking office, he resigned, but said he would remain in the post until his party agrees on a new leader.
Just hours earlier, Schallenberg’s predecessor and People’s Party leader Kurz said he was leaving politics altogether and would officially step down as party chair on Friday, 3 December. He cited family reasons. Mr. Kurz’s wife just had a baby, and he wanted enjoy being a dad. Schallenberg too, mentioned family reasons.
“Family reasons” are always good reasons to escape politically sensitive jobs. Nobody can or dares to ask personal questions. Mr. Kurz was also said to have already a lucrative private sector job lined up.
What could possibly be complementary reasons? Maybe conscience, ethics? Or Fear? Austria was the first country to announce the most severe and drastic covid measures, including compulsory “vaccination” – forcing the public to take the untested gene-therapy jab (or worse), as of 1 February 2022.
Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets. Maybe millions. And protests continue and are expected to further escalate during this coming weekend of 4/5 December. These events and the related police brutality were hardly covered by the mainstream media.
Yes, perhaps family reasons. The two ex-chancellors are better off just sticking to a good life, then having to obey orders from an obscure Power that is manipulating the fate of the entire world – with apparently no way to escape.
Now, a successor has already been found. He is the Interior Minister, Karl Nehammer. He has a military background and a reputation to be a hardliner. He has been voted unanimously by his party as the new head of the ÖVP, and will most likely succeed Schallenberg as the new Chancellor. He may be a good choice for the “outside of Austria” – globalist – Powers that Be. He must implement harsh measures. He knows it and is apparently willing to do so.
Importantly, as a sideline, Germany’s new “red-green-yellow” coalition, is also strongly considering implementing a lockdown for unvaxxed people, as well as compulsory “vaccination”, provided the Parliament approves the move. This latter conditionality sounds rather like a joke, since in a dictatorial government, like what Germany has become, along with most of her European allies, Parliaments only serve to ratify what the dictators decide. See this.
This concept may be pushed and spread to other countries in Europe. That’s when we all know, or should know, that our constitutional and human rights have been trampled like dirt and abolished – that we are mere subjects at the mercy of a heinous and evil super power. Except, of course the elite and government officials that go along and implement the dictated measures. They may be rewarded with placebo jabs.
Germany, where barely more than 50% of the population is vaxxed, has produced probably false public polls, indicating that 71% of the people would support the compulsory (poison) jab. The “new variant Omicron”, emanating conveniently from savage southern Africa. The propaganda is so devastatingly strong and omnipresent in literally every newscast, that people must be scared.
Is Austria at the onset of a major chaos, reminiscent of WWI and WWII which both broke out in Austria? See this and this. Throughout WW II, 950,000 Austrians fought for Nazi Germany’s armed forces.
Adolf Hitler was an Austrian; he was Germany’s dictator throughout the Third Reich 1933-1945. But who put him there? One might be inclined to ask.
Already then, the US, mostly with corporate funds, IBM was one of them, and Federal Reserve (US Central Bank) money funded large portions of Hitler’s war. For example, the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, which was destroyed by the USSR, but resulted nevertheless in some 25 to 30 million Soviet deaths.
Are we perhaps at the beginning of WWIII?
Many would say that we are already in the midst of WWIII; that it may have started in March 2020, when on 11 March 2020, WHO declared a Covid-19, alias SARS-CoV-2, pandemic. This led to a global lockdown around mid-March, of all 193 UN member countries, followed by draconian and dictatorial “measures” implemented across the board, throughout the world. This, at first glance must immediately be recognized, can have absolutely nothing to do with health and health protection. A different agenda is behind this extraordinary move – that actually started at midnight on December 31, 2019. It’s a clockwork conundrum, fitting coincidentally the UN Agenda 2030.
A lot of what follows now is speculation and may give rise to “unconventional” thoughts. Ideas, that are often shredded as “conspiracy theory”; and later when they become clearer and actually the conspiracy part disappears under a rush of evidence, then sets in, what is commonly called “cognitive dissonance”. People deny to themselves the truth that they are seeing, but don’t want to accept, as it destroys their (false) image of a safe and comfortable world.
This psychological phenomenon is further pointedly fed by an atrocious and ferocious propaganda fear campaign, funded mostly by the governments, i.e., by tax-payers money and by prominent interest groups, like the pharma industry and the largest wealth and investment financial conglomerates, Black Rock, Vanguard, State Street and Fidelity, plus the IT Super Powers, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple.
They are all interlinked as shareholders and as partners in crime, financial and tech-companies, with the IT Technology conglomerates providing the data needed by the financial superpowers. Their combined assets exceed 20 trillion dollars. For purposes of comparison, the US GDP is about US$ 22 trillion; the European Union’s GDP is about US$ 15 trillion; and Germany’s GDP, Europe’s strongest economy, is about US$ 3.8 trillion equivalent. These are all 2020 values – see this.
The Finance-IT Conglomerate has a combined leverage power exceeding an estimated US$ 80 trillion – the world’s GDP is about US$ 84.5 trillion (2020).
Given this background, it becomes easier accounting for and understanding what is going on. Also, by driving the world economy into the ground, the bankrupted assets are simply transferred to the top, for a penny on the dollar, accumulating further capital for the few billionaires who head this financial cum IT conglomerate.
According to Oxfam, the last 20 months witnessed destruction of medium and small enterprises of at least US$-equivalent of 3.8 trillion worldwide, but mostly affecting developing countries – unemployment, absence of social services – leading to disease, despair and death. Imagine! We are only at the beginning of this abject plan of destruction – what Klaus Schwab (WEF) calls in his “Great Reset” a “Constructive Destruction”.
In other words, this financial and IT Super Power can exert total control over the world, including the entire UN system, and world leaders have to follow, or else. There is hardly anybody on this globe who would have suspected only 2 years ago what has unraveled in warp-speed in the last 20+ months. Except, of course the “leaders” of these 193 UN member governments. They were prepared, and once they accepted, they had to play along.
Austria, being the first country worldwide to impose mandatary vaccination with an untested substance that has already caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, may again be at the center of what may become the next World War, i. e. WWIII. At the onset of this enormous vaxx-atrocity – what looks like a massive eugenist scheme – two successive chancellors have for ethical or other reasons, decided they didn’t want to be part of this monstruous tyranny.
Only history will show how these next few years – always part of the infamous UN Agenda 2030 – will unravel. There is already a great awakening of people throughout Europe, especially in those countries where oppressive tyranny is already openly announced. In Austria and Germany people take to the streets by the hundreds of thousands, but they remain unreported by the mainstream media. This desperate censoring that has been going on for months, but seems to escalate further, may be an indication that the evil plans are running into serious resistance.
Our battle scream from the heart: We, The People, shall Overcome!
*
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.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020)
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also is a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
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.
Author’s Note: This presentation was written and delivered in part to the New York City People’s Forum during a webinar on the struggle against the opening of an office of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in downtown Detroit. Other panelists were Mike Shane of the Moratorium NOW! Coalition, Rev. Bill Wylie-Kellerman, retired pastor of the Episcopal Church of Detroit, Crystal Bernard, Michigan State University senior and member of the Poor People’s Campaign and moderator David Chung of the People’s Forum.
Detroit, which remains a major industrial center in the sectors of automotive and other sources of production and services, is a focal point for the economic and social transformations of urban areas in the United States and internationally.
Since the 19th century, the city has been a location for various forms of manufacturing, mining and shipping.
Initially there was the strategic location linked to the Great Lakes and rivers which flow into them. The mining of copper during the mid-to-late 19th century which fueled migration eventually gave way to steam engine manufacturing for shipping and the timber trade.
By the early decades of the 20th century, the first assembly line within auto production was established by Henry Ford. The production of millions of automobiles within a matter of years, created the demand for jobs and the consequent suppression and division of labor.
Significant numbers of Africans were brought into Michigan and Detroit as enslaved persons and later through what became known as the Underground Railroad. The first urban rebellion in the city took place in 1833, when an African couple, the Blackburns, fled to the city from enslavement in Kentucky, taking refuge in Detroit.
When the Blackburns were faced with capture and re-enslavement, the African Americans in the city broke them from captivity, made threats to burn down the city and then transported the couple across the Detroit River to Canada. It was 1833 when African enslavement was abolished in the British crown territories. After this period, Canada became a destination point for thousands fleeing from the slave catchers fueled by the Fugitive Slave Acts.
Detroit Hasting Street under demolition to build Chrysler and Fisher Freeways in the early 1960s (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
We are saying this to note that the current efforts by modern-day exploitative interests are a continuation of policies of containment and repression. The opening of the World Economic Forum (WEF) offices in Detroit inside the headquarters of the worst capitalist expropriators and abusers, Quicken Loans, Rocket Mortgage, and their various iterations, signals to the conscious elements in the city and nationally, that these interests are by no means done in furthering the aims of finance capital within metropolitan areas of the country.
The Housing Question in Detroit
One of the major issues which the Moratorium NOW! Coalition has been engaged is the burgeoning housing crisis in Detroit and throughout the southeast Michigan region. Although there are tens of thousands of abandoned structures and vacant land, these resources, which by right belong to the people of the city, are controlled largely by the Detroit Land Bank Authority (DLBA). The DLBA, which was chaired by Dan Gilbert of Rocket Mortgage, is the largest landowner in Detroit, a city more than 80% populated by Black, Brown and other people of color. What right do these people have to seize land destroyed as housing, commercial centers, community institutions, etc.? This land belongs to the people of the city and not the capitalist ruling class.
The forced removals of people in Detroit have been ongoing for more than a century. For the purpose of this discussion, we can begin in 1935, during the Great Depression and the New Deal of the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt came to Detroit in 1935 to announce the construction of the Brewster Projects on the lower east side where tens of thousands of African Americans had settled as a result of the Great Migration.
This act on the part of the Roosevelt administration was viewed as being progressive since it was replacing what was considered “substandard housing”: lacking in-door plumbing, structural deterioration, overcrowding and other problems. There is a long and intricate history of the Brewster and other public housing complexes. Since 1935, there were the so-called Race Riots of June 1943, which occurred during World War II. The third major racial disturbance took place in 1943, 80 years after the 1863 Race Riot during the Civil War.
After the War, the City of Detroit developed and initiated its urban renewal plan which targeted the African American and other oppressed and working class communities. From the mid-1950s through the 1970s, the building of expressways and new upscale housing areas destroyed thousands of homes, apartments, flats, businesses, religious institutions, fraternal organizations, schools, etc.
Of course, by July 1967, the social combustion fueled by displacement, police brutality, de facto segregation, overcrowding in housing and schools exploded into what became the Great Rebellion. The actual violence lasted for six days, yet the aftermath between 1967-1973, was even more dynamic in regard to the efforts to reshape the city which had national and international dimensions.
Independent Political Thinking and Action
The city has been a source of independent and innovative political, social and cultural thinking particularly within the African American community. The Underground Railroad was not only an avenue of escape. It created the conditions for the establishment of African religious institutions, newspapers and new philosophical approaches in the U.S. and Canada to the eradication of the enslavement through mass struggle including emigration.
Mary Ann Shadd who emigrated to Canada after the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act was the founder and editor of the Provincial Freeman. She was one of the first women who spoke publicly in the U.S. in defiance of social norms and even laws designed to silence half of the population.
Shadd was reported to have been the only woman to participate in the Colored Convention on Freeman as a speaker and theoretician. She wrote a study on the question of emigration as an avenue of resistance to encroaching enslavement of African people. (See this)
In the 20th century, many of the pioneering and impactful organizations were founded in city of Detroit including the Nation of Islam (NOI), Republic of New Africa (RNA), League of Revolutionary Black Workers LRBW), National Black Economic Development Conference (NBEDC), the Black Manifesto and many others. On a cultural level, Joe Von Battle of JVB Records and Barry Gordy, Jr. of Motown transformed the recording and distribution of urban music.
In 1973, the first African American Mayor Coleman A. Young, a former labor organizer and Leftist, was elected to head the city. Young served for two decades under conditions of increased disinvestment, capital and white flight to the suburbs and other regions of the country along with an ageing and deteriorating infrastructure. Despite these challenges, a struggle to end homelessness, unemployment, police repression and the privatization of education continued among mass organizations.
The HUD Crisis of the 1970s
Some 50 years ago, the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) crisis gained national attention through an article published in the New York Times. The failure to implement the 1968 Fair Housing Act, ostensibly designed to eliminate discrimination in the sale and rental of properties, the federal government through benign neglect and inherent institutional racism extended the crisis which arose during Great Migration i.e., the National Housing Act of 1934 and the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. These Acts represented the federal rationalization of de jure and de facto residential segregation in the U.S.
“A major scandal involving Federal mortgage programs in Detroit has left the Government the owner of thousands of decrepit homes and may cost up to $200‐million in Federal funds. The Federal programs inadvertently contributed to the decay of troubled neighborhoods, the victimization of the poor who expected homes and the enrichment of real estate speculators. The details of the scandal have been emerging for months in newspaper articles, in local investigations and, this week, in an investigation of the Legal and Monetary Affairs Subcommittee of the House Government Operations Committee, which held hearings here today. Similar troubles exist in other cities, but Detroit is believed to be the worst example of the perversion of a program aimed to help the poor. The program, to allow the Federal Housing Administration to help poor people, including welfare mothers, to buy homes, began in 1968.”
Destroying the housing stock of a municipality does not only create a crisis of habitation. There is a huge impact on funding for municipal services, education and job creation. During the mid-to-late 1970s, a decline in credible housing was inherited by the Young administration and all residents of the city.
Consequently, there is a direct line between the depression-era construction of public housing, the 1943 race riot, the post-War urban renewal, the 1967 rebellion and its aftermath, leading into the HUD scandal and the continued loss of jobs and services. By the close of the 20th century, the city was poised for further destabilization and depopulation.
Foreclosure Crisis of the 2000s
After the purported deregulation of the financial industry in the years of the presidency of Bill Clinton, by the close of the 1990s, there was the proliferation of “first time mortgage and refinancing schemes” which had a deleterious effect on Detroit and other cities around the U.S. Although the racist practices reinforced by the FHA and HUD had escalated depopulation in the city, the beginning of the decade of the 2000s was still characterized by a majority of residential home ownership in Detroit. However, that would soon change with the deliberate targeting of homeowners for predatory lending schemes. Moreover, it was workers and impoverished which were forced by acts of Congress to bailout the banks, insurance companies and other corporations responsible for the theft of trillions in monetary resources and services.
The predatory lending practices in housing was also reflected in municipal financing. The fact of the rapid decline in populations and household incomes, drained the treasuries of the city making it prey to the financial institutions. Both the municipality and the communities became drowned in debt to the banks through usurious mortgage deals and monetary obligations designed to refinance payments to some of the same entities responsible for the housing losses.
These sources of profit-making for finance capital are directly related to the illegal imposition of emergency management and bankruptcy during the period of 2013-2014. Those who suffered the impact of these measures included the municipal retirees, active employees–who had negotiated pensions and other benefits reduced–along with community members who previously controlled Belle Isle, the Detroit Public Works and Lighting, the Art Institute, among other public institutions, seize by the State of Michigan and “authorities”. This paved the way for the ascendancy and false legitimacy of the Duggan administration and the usurpation of local control of municipal governance.
We Must Reject the WEF and All It Represents
Consequently, the People Against Corporate Theft (PACT) coalition has come into existence to emphasize the necessity of continuing the struggle against displacement, exploitation and oppression. The WEF has nothing to offer the people of Detroit, the U.S. and the globe other than the current crises of their making: environmental degradation, climate change, the privatization of municipal services and education, state repression, a housing shortage amid the COVID-19 pandemic and other social ills.
After 50 years, when the WEF was formed in Switzerland in 1971, the overall conditions of residents living within urban areas like Detroit have further deteriorated. The only alternative we have as the nationally oppressed, working class and poor is to organize against these adversaries.
Demands for quality housing, education and municipal services for all is key. The end of corporate welfare and the demonization of the workers and the poor is essential. We can only rely on ourselves to resolve these issues and create a society of genuine equality and empowerment for the emerging majority.
*
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.
Featured image: Detroit MLK Day 2011 March Down Woodward Ave. (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)
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.
There seems to be an endless refusal by the public health establishment to fight the pandemic with the best science-based tools. Instead, they keep pushing vaccines.
Great German research provides unequivocal medical evidence that the government should be strongly advocating two actions: 1. Take vitamin D supplements and 2. Have your blood tested for vitamin D.
The title for this October 2021 journal article says it all: “COVID-19 Mortality Risk Correlates Inversely with Vitamin D3 Status, and a Mortality Rate Close to Zero Could Theoretically Be Achieved at 50 ng/mL 25(OH)D3: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” [25(OH)D3 refers to metabolite of the vitamin in blood]
In other words, there is clear evidence that the lower your vitamin D level the greater your risk of dying from COVID infection. Moreover, the data clearly show that you need a blood level of at least 50 ng/mL.
Odds are, however, that very, very few people have been tested for their vitamin D level. This is a situation where waiting for testing is not the prudent approach. Vitamin D pills are pretty cheap and it is perfectly safe to take a healthy daily dose to maintain a good immune system. I take 4,000 IUs twice daily.
Here are a number of highlights from this research and other sources; the discussion is aimed at informing people with information not provided by Big Media, Big Government and Big Pharma.
Vitamin D is an accurate predictor of COVID infection. Its deficiency is just as significant, and perhaps more so, than more commonly discussed underlying medical conditions, including obesity.
To be clear, there is a level of vitamin D for an effective strategy at the personal and population level to prevent or mitigate new surges and outbreaks of COVID that are related to reduced vaccine effectiveness and new variants.
In the German study, fifteen other studies were cited that showed low vitamin D levels were related to cases of severe COVID infection, and seven studies that found positive results from treating ill patients with the vitamin.
The German study noted: “The finding that most SARS-CoV-2 patients admitted to hospitals have vitamin D3 blood levels that are too low is unquestioned even by opponents of vitamin D supplementation.”
The German study “followed 1,601 hospitalized patients, 784 who had their vitamin D levels measured within a day after admission and 817 whose vitamin D levels were known before infection. And the researchers also analyzed the long-term average vitamin D3 levels documented for 19 countries. The observed median vitamin D value over all collected study cohorts was 23.2 ng/mL, which is clearly too low to work effectively against COVID.”
Why does this vitamin work so well? The German study explained: A main cause of a severe reaction from COVID results from a “cytokine storm.” This refers to the body’s immune system releasing too many toxic cytokines as part of the inflammatory response to the virus. Vitamin D is a main regulator of those cells. A low level of the vitamin means a greater risk for a cytokine storm. This is especially pertinent for lung problems from COVID.
Other studies
On a par with the German study was an important US medical article from May 2021: Vitamin D and Its Potential Benefit for the COVID-19 Pandemic. It noted:
“Experimental studies have shown that vitamin D exerts several actions that are thought to be protective against coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infectivity and severity. … There are a growing number of data connecting COVID-19 infectivity and severity with vitamin D status, suggesting a potential benefit of vitamin D supplementation for primary prevention or as an adjunctive treatment of COVID-19. … there is no downside to increasing vitamin D intake and having sensible sunlight exposure to maintain serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D at a level of least 30 ng/mL and preferably 40 to 60 ng/mL to minimize the risk of COVID-19 infection and its severity.”
This confirms the German study and its finding of a critical vitamin level of 50 ng/mL.
Daniel Horowitz has made this correct observation about vitamin D supplementation: “An endless stream of academic research demonstrates that not only would such an approach have worked much better than the vaccines, but rather than coming with sundry known and unknown negative side effects.“
There are now 142 studies vouching for the near-perfect correlation between higher vitamin D levels and better outcomes in COVID patients.
From Israel came work that showed 25% of hospitalized COVID patients with vitamin D deficiency died compared to just 3% among those without a deficiency. And those with a deficiency were 14 times more likely to end up with a severe or critical condition.
Also from Israel, data on 1,176 patients with COVID infection admitted to the Galilee Medical Center, 253 had vitamin D levels on record and half were vitamin D-deficient. This was the conclusion: “Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, pre-infection deficiency of vitamin D was associated with increased disease severity and mortality.”
Several studies have come from the University of Chicago. One found that a vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/ml) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19, actually a 7.2% chance of testing positive for the virus. And that more than 80% of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were vitamin D deficient. And Black individuals who had levels of 30 to 40 ng/ml had a 2.64 times higher risk of testing positive for COVID-19 than people with levels of 40 ng/ml or greater.
On the good news side is a new study from Turkish researchers. They focused on getting people’s levels over 30 ng/mL with supplements. At that level there was success compared to people without supplementation. This was true even if they had comorbidities. They were able to achieve that blood level within two weeks. Those with no comorbidities and no vitamin D treatment had 1.9-fold increased risk of having hospitalization longer than 8 days compared with cases with both comorbidities and vitamin D treatment.
Another option
Some people may have absorption problems. The solution is to use the active form of D – either calcifediol or calcitriol – to raise their levels more quickly. This bypasses the liver’s metabolic process very effectively. Studies have shown that people hospitalized with low levels but given the active form of D did not progress to the ICU. Places that sell vitamin D often sell the concentrated active form.
I have a supply of cholecalciferol pills that provide 50,000 IUs, compared to ordinary D pills typically with 2,000 IUs. A reasonable use of the high concentration pills is in the event of coming down with a serious COVID infection. This may be a sensible strategy for those who do not know what their level is or have not taken the normal pills for some period. It can take months to raise a very low level to above the critical level the German study found necessary for the best protection.
Deficiency
Aside from dealing with COVID, two pertinent questions are: Is there an optimal level of vitamin D and are Americans deficient in it? For the first, this has been said: “While blood levels of 30 ng/mL or higher are considered normal, the optimal blood level of vitamin D has not yet been established.” From the Cleveland Clinic is this: “Normal vitamin D levels are usually between 20-80 NG/ML. If supplementation is recommended, remember to take it with a meal and on a full stomach to help absorption. Unfortunately, about 42% of the US population is vitamin D deficient with some populations having even higher levels of deficiency.”
“Vitamin D deficiency is more common than previously thought. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that the percentage of adults achieving vitamin D sufficiency as defined by 25(OH)D of at least 30 ng/mL has declined from about 60% in 1988-1994 to approximately 30% in 2001-2004 in whites and from about 10% to approximately 5% in African Americans during this same time. Furthermore, more people have been found to be severely deficient in vitamin D [ <10 ng/mL]. Even when using a conservative definition of vitamin D deficiency, many patients routinely encountered in clinical practice will be deficient in vitamin D.”
Clearly, personal deficiency can only be determined by a blood test that prudent people will request their doctors to order for a lab test.
Conclusions
Seeing vitamin D as crucial to surviving COVID is supported by solid medical research. There is good data to support a desired level of 50 ng/mL. Whether a person has this level requires a blood test for the vitamin, not something that most physicians normally call for when ordering blood tests for other reasons.
As the US approaches 800,000 COVID related deaths it is reasonable to believe that perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved if the government had strongly supported vitamin D blood testing and supplementation if needed. But in the absence of such a COVID policy, people have good reasons to use D supplements if they are not routinely exposed to sunlight without using sunscreen products.
Many physicians have issued protocols for preventing and treating COVID that include vitamin D supplements. For example, the esteemed Dr. Zelenko uses the following: 5,000 IU 1 time a day for 7 days for low risk patients, and for high risk patients: 10,000 IU once a day for 7 days or 50,000 IU once a day for 1-2 days.
However, continuing its stupidity, NIH maintains that “There is insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use of vitamin D for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19.” This too was said: “Vitamin D deficiency (defined as vitamin D ≤20 ng/mL) is common in the United States, particularly among persons of Hispanic ethnicity and Black race. These groups are also overrepresented among cases of COVID-19 in the United States. Vitamin D deficiency is also more common in older patients and patients with obesity and hypertension; these factors have been associated with worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19.” Sounds smart to fight deficiency for avoiding COVID health impacts.
Sadly, we cannot count on the public health establishment to take a science-based, aggressive policy on using vitamin D supplements as an alternative to COVID vaccines or expensive medicines. Its up to individuals to protect their own lives by being well informed and proactive.
*
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. Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Pandemic Blunder and many articles, podcasts and radio shows on the pandemic, worked on health issues for decades. As a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, he directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. As a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major studies on health-related subjects; he testified at over 50 US Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles and op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has served as an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. He is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and America’s Frontline Doctors.
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.
When a faultline breaks open on earth’s surface it reveals the presence of an underlying structural discontinuity that was previously unsuspected by those casually passing by. Those who come across it suddenly realize that things are not what they seem and that powerful forces are at work under their feet which can at any point erupt in scenes of great upheaval.
Sometime even the most adroit deceivers and manipulators commit an act that is so utterly illogical and patently senseless that it breaks open a deep fissure in their narrative which reveals the immensity and depth of their fraud to everyone with eyes to see.
The vaccinators committed one such act when they insisted that children as young as five years old be made to take their injections.
It is widely known that healthy children are at virtually zero risk of severe outcomes from Corona.
The CDC itself has told us that in the United States only 66 children under the age of 12 have died of Covid in the past twelve months. The vast majority — if not all — of those unfortunate children suffered from serious life-threatening conditions. If we generously assume that 10 of those children were healthy, then the probability of a healthy child being struck by lightning is one thousand percent greater than that of dying of Covid 19. (For reference, there were 120 people struck by lightning in 2019 in the United States.)
While the chances of young children dying of Covid are infinitesimally small, the danger of vaccine injury and death are real.
We know by now that the Covid vaccines are by far the most deadly and dangerous vaccines ever unleashed upon mankind. To wit, they are eight hundred times more deadly than the notorious smallpox vaccine which had previously claimed that infamous distinction.
To see just how deadly the Covid vaccines are consider the chart below. This chart presents data from the VAERS database. VAERS, as you may know, stands for Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which is a government- run facility that collects information about vaccine side effects.
The chart depicts the number of yearly death reports following vaccination for the last thirty years. As you can see, the numbers held relatively steady from 1990 until 2020, and it was generally under 500 cases per year. This changed dramatically toward the end of 2020 when the Covid vaccines were introduced. At that point we see a rapid explosion of death reports. So exponential is the increase that the graph line shoots up almost vertically.
It is both astonishing and revealing that in the last 11 months there were more reports of vaccine deaths than in the previous 29 years combined.
This should raise red flags all over, because it is a good indication that there is likely something seriously wrong with the Covid vaccines, and that these hastily devised and inadequately tested pharmaceuticals are causing death on an unprecedented scale.
The push to inject these concoctions into children who are for all practical purposes at no risk from the disease itself is thus preposterous on its face.
Myocarditis and pericarditis have been of special concern in young people. The misguided effort is already bearing its gruesome fruit as young children die of heart attacks and strokes in numbers never seen before.
Ernest Ramirez’s healthy 16-year-old son died of a heart attack 5 days after receiving Pfizer vaccine (see Mr. Ramirez’s Twitter feed for updates).
According to a cost-benefit analysis conducted by Toby Rogers, PhD in the 5 to 11 age range, 117 healthy kids will have to die of vaccine-related side effects in order to save one child from perishing of Covid 19. Lest you may be tempted to think that this is the prediction of some fringe conspiracy theorist, we recommend that you check out Dr. Rogers’ credentials. He has professionally specialized in precisely this kind of analysis for a number of years.
Neither will vaccinating children bring any benefits to the community at large.
We now know that the vaccines will not protect children from contracting infection and then passing it onto others. We have this on the authority of no lesser authority than the CDC Director Rochelle Walensky who confessed in her August 5 interview with CNN that the vaccines can no longer “prevent transmission.”
*
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.
Featured image is from Notes from the Twilight Zone
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.
The COVID-19 shots cause heart disease, mainly myocarditis and pericarditis, which is destroying the health of our young people.
This is a fact that is no longer in dispute, as even the CDC admits this, as their most recent report states:
As of November 24, 2021, VAERS has received 1,949 reports of myocarditis or pericarditis among people ages 30 and younger who received COVID-19 vaccine. Most cases have been reported after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna), particularly in male adolescents and young adults. (Source.)
The only debatable points are, 1, whether or not these cases are “rare,” and 2, if the benefits of COVID-19 mass vaccination of young people outweigh the risk for heart disease.
And it is on these two points that the CDC is lying to the public, as I will conclusively prove in this article.
The second point is actually very easily debunked, by simply looking at publicly available statistics on COVID-19 deaths for this age group.
As of December 1, 2021, out of 779,402 alleged COVID-19 deaths covering almost 2 years now, only 630 of those were under the age of 17.
And even those 630 alleged deaths in this age group are not necessarily caused by COVID-19. It just means that when they died, they tested positive for COVID-19.
So there is no benefit to vaccinating children under the age of 17 for COVID-19 when they have almost a statistically zero percent chance of dying from COVID-19, when it is known that these shots cause heart disease.
As to the claim by the CDC that instances of heart disease caused by COVID-19 shots are “rare,” the factual evidence states otherwise.
I ran a search in VAERS, the U.S. Government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, for all cases of “carditis” following COVID-19 shots for this age group, and from the 11/26/2021 release of VAERS data, it returned a result of 666 cases. (Source.)
Next, I preformed the exact same search for the same age group excluding COVID-19 shots and including all other vaccines listed in VAERS for the past 30+ years, and it returned a value of 40 cases, less than 2 cases per year. (Source.)
Keep in mind that the 666 cases in this age group following COVID-19 shots are for only 6 months for 12 to 15-year-olds in the U.S., as the Pfizer shot was only given emergency use authorization for that age group in May of this year (2021).
Children between the ages of 5 and 11 were just given emergency use authorization last month, November, 2021, but there are already 2 cases of heart disease also reported in this age group, a 6-year-old and 8-year-old, both boys. (Source.)
By whose definition are these cases of heart disease in these children “rare”?
We reported a couple of weeks ago that the American Heart Association journal, Circulation, published an abstract from a cardiologist, Steven R Gundry, that claims getting COVID-19 shots “Dramatically Increases” the risk for heart attacks.
Dr. Aseem Malhotra, another cardiologist from the UK, confirmed the results of the AHA study and shared that British authorities in the field of Cardiology confirmed to him that this is happening, that the COVID-19 shots are leading to increased heart attacks, but they are afraid to go public because they will lose their research funding from the Drug Companies.
He called for an immediate end to vaccine mandates. Watch the interview, which is on our Bitchute channel.
Ben Madgen: Former Pro-Basketball Player in Australia. Image source.
The COVID World recently reported that former Australian pro-basketball player Ben Madgen has been diagnosed with pericarditis (inflammation of the sac surrounding the heart) shortly after receiving his second dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.
The Australian doctors who treated him apparently disagree with the CDC that this is a “rare” side effect, as they told him that pericarditis is now a common side effect of the Pfizer shot for young males.
There are so many reports now of athletes and other young males suffering from heart attacks since the COVID-19 shots have started, that medical authorities had to try to come up with a different explanation to deflect attention away from the deadly COVID-19 shots.
So they invented a new disease: “post-pandemic stress disorder.”
Up to 300,000 people in the UK are facing heart-related illnesses due to post-pandemic stress disorder (PPSD), two London physicians have warned.
This could result in a 4.5 per cent rise in cardiovascular cases nationally because of the effects of PPSD, with those aged between 30 to 45 most at-risk, they claim.
Mark Rayner, a former senior NHS psychological therapist and founder of EASE Wellbeing CIC, said that as many as three million people in Britain are already suffering from PPSD, thanks to stress and anxiety caused by the effects of Covid-19. (Source.)
You can’t make this stuff up!
If adults want to be stupid enough to believe this nonsense and risk taking a COVID-19 shot, that is their choice.
But minor children are subject to the choices of their parents, so please do NOT give your child a COVID-19 shot!
Heed the warning from these parents who now regret their children getting one of these shots because their child is now dead, or suffering with heart disease.
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.
Comments Off on 666 Cases of Heart Disease in 12 to 17-Year-Olds after COVID Shots – Less than 2 Cases Per Year Following All Vaccines for Past 30+ Years
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.
The latest data dump into the U.S. Government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) happened yesterday (12/3/21) and covers data through 11/26/2021.
That means that 52% off ALL vaccine adverse reaction cases in VAERS for the past 30+ years have been reported in the last 11 months following the COVID-19 shots.
In addition, 68% of all deaths following vaccines reported in VAERS for the past 30+ years have been reported in the last 11 months following the COVID-19 shots.
We are on pace to see 21,307 deaths reported in the first year following the experimental COVID-19 shots, while the average yearly deaths reported after FDA-approved vaccines for the past 30+ years is 305 deaths.
That is an astounding 86% increase in reported deaths following the COVID-19 shots, a 70X increase over the average reported deaths following vaccinations for the past 30+ years!
FDA-approved vaccines: 305 deaths per year
COVID-19 EUA shots: 21,307 deaths per year
And as Dr. Jessica Rose has previously reported, the under-reporting factor in VAERS for the COVID-19 shots is 41X, as a conservative number, which means that at least 800,812 people have now died following COVID-19 shots based on the VAERS data.
Most, if not all, of those deaths are being reported in the pharma-owned corporate media as “COVID” deaths, as there are now more recorded “COVID deaths” for the first 11 months of 2021 than there were for the entire year in 2020, when there were no COVID vaccines until December. (Source.)
Record Number of Fetal Deaths Following COVID-19 Shots
As of this most recent update in VAERS, we have now found 2,809 fetal deaths following COVID-19 shots injected into pregnant and child-bearing women for the past 11 months. (Source.)
By way of contrast, using the exact same search parameters in VAERS, but excluding the COVID-19 shots, we found 2,168 fetal deaths following all FDA-approved vaccines for the past 30+ years. (Source.)
That’s an average of 72 fetal deaths per year following all FDA-approved vaccines for the past 30+ years, compared to what is on pace to be 3064 fetal deaths in 1 year following COVID-19 shots.
FDA-approved vaccines: 72 fetal deaths per year
COVID-19 EUA shots: 3064 fetal deaths per year
That is an 80% increase in fetal deaths recorded in VAERS following the COVID-19 shots. And yet, the CDC and FDA continue to recommend these EUA shots for pregnant women and nursing mothers.
Not only do they recommend these shots for pregnant women, we now have ample evidence that they have known since earlier this year that these shots are dangerous to pregnant women, and causing fetal deaths.
In a March 4, 2021 Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) meeting, the CDC submitted a report that contained a section titled: Maternal vaccination safety summary (starting on p. 39).
They stated (emphasis mine – my comments in red):
* Pregnant women were not specifically included in pre-authorization clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines
– Post-authorization safety monitoring and research are the primary ways to obtain safety data on COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy
* Larger than expected numbers of self-reported pregnant women have registered in v-safe
* The reactogenicity profile and adverse events observed among pregnant women in v-safe did not indicate any safety problems (based on what criteria???)
* Most reports to VAERS among pregnant women (73%) involved non-pregnancy specific adverse events (e.g., local and systemic reactions)
* Miscarriage was the most frequently reported pregnancy-specific adverse event to VAERS; numbers are within the known background rates based on presumed COVID-19 vaccine doses administered to pregnant women (no supporting evidence to backup these claims)
It is important to note through all of this reporting by the CDC that these are based on self-reporting data from pregnant women.
We know that it is politically incorrect to blame any health issue on a COVID-19 “vaccine,” and that doctors and nurses are pressured to NOT report these, so how many pregnant women had an adverse reaction, like a miscarriage, and never even thought to link it to their COVID-19 shot?
So back in March of this year (2021), there were already major concerns about the effects of the shots on pregnant women, as “larger than expected” pregnant women were reporting adverse reactions, and “the most frequently reported pregnancy-specific adverse event to VAERS” was “miscarriage.”
Again, this “data” is dependent on pregnant women “self-reporting” adverse reactions, so we know these reports will be well below what was actually happening in the population, as it is politically incorrect to report any adverse reactions related to the experimental COVID-19 shots. To do so is to be branded an “anti-vaxxer” and shame you for life.
The August update admitted that 13% of the pregnant women who had received a COVID-19 shot reported a miscarriage. The CDC brushed this aside by stating “miscarriage typically occurs in about 11-16% of pregnancies.”
But of course ALL miscarriages are reported somewhere in the medical files, which is why they can even come up with a number range like this. So this figure is based on 100% of the reported data, while the COVID-19 related miscarriages are only based on what was self-reported, and we have no idea how many women never reported their miscarriages because they never related it to their COVID-19 shot.
But on October 14, 2021, they issued a statement stating that some of their data was wrong in the June 17th study. (Source.) It dealt specifically with pregnancies in their 20th week or earlier.
“No denominator was available to calculate a risk estimate for spontaneous abortions, because at the time of this report, follow-up through 20 weeks was not yet available for 905 of the 1224 participants vaccinated within 30 days before the first day of the last menstrual period or in the first trimester. Furthermore, any risk estimate would need to account for gestational week–specific risk of spontaneous abortion.” (Source.)
In this video we produced in October, Dr. Byram Bridle in Canada and Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard Medical School discuss the significance of this error made in this study which determined CDC policy on Fox News with Laura Ingraham. (It is in the second half of the video after the examples of adverse events on infants.)
Since then, researchers in New Zealand have conducted a new study on the original data, and concluded:
A re-analysis of these figures indicates a cumulative incidence of spontaneous abortion ranging from 82% (104/127) to 91% (104/114), 7–8 times higher than the original authors’ results. (Source.)
And yet, the CDC and FDA still continue to recommend the shots for pregnant women, even though a correct analysis on the original data shows that 82% to 91% of pregnant women will suffer miscarriages if their unborn child is less than 20 weeks old. (Source.)
We also have evidence that Pfizer knew about the risk of their COVID-19 shots to pregnant women.
In May of this year (2021), we published a report written by Bud Shaver of Abortion Free New Mexico based on a whistleblower who served on a COVID-19 task force and had found documents that Pfizer had submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to authorize the shots in Europe, which included animal trials that showed there were serious birth defects occurring in rat specimens.
The Pfizer factsheets state that pregnant or breastfeeding women should discuss their options with their healthcare providers. Although the U.S. FDA has not released the full study details provided to them for approval of the emergency use authorization (EUA), the European Medicines Agency has.
According to the reproduction toxicity study on the Pfizer product, performed in pregnant rats: “There was an increase (~2x) of pre-implantation (pregnancy) loss”and,“a very low incidence of gastroschisis, mouth/jaw malformations, right sided aortic arch, and cervical vertebrae abnormalities.”
They claim that these pregnancy reductions are within normal histological ranges, however, they were consistently seen, and are likely statistically significant. Gastroschisis is where the intestines grow outside of the body.
Right-sided aortic arch means the heart has basically formed in the wrong direction (the aortic arch should be on the left side). (Source.)
Last month, November, 2021, we published the report written by Attorney Aaron Siri, a Vaccine Injury attorney, who is suing the FDA on behalf of several physicians who are the plaintiffs and have chosen to put their careers on the line to dare to expose vaccine deaths and injuries caused by the experimental COVID-19 shots.
Attorney Siri wrote that Pfizer had requested to take 55 years to supply their trial data on the COVID-19 shots.
The FDA has asked a federal judge to make the public wait until the year 2076 to disclose all of the data and information it relied upon to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. That is not a typo. It wants 55 years to produce this information to the public.
So, let’s get this straight. The federal government shields Pfizer from liability. Gives it billions of dollars. Makes Americans take its product. But won’t let you see the data supporting its product’s safety and efficacy. Who does the government work for? (Source.)
In a follow up article he published on November 19, 2021, he reported that the judge was forcing Pfizer to start releasing the data, and that they had released the first 91+ pages.
Two months and one day after it was sued, and close to 3 months since it licensed Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine, the FDA released the first round of documents it reviewed before licensing this product. The production consisted of 91 pdf pages, one xpt file, and one txt file. You can download them here.
While it is for the scientists to properly analyze, let me share one observation. One of the documents produced is a Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of [the Vaccine] Received Through 28-Feb-2021, which is a mere 2 ½ months after the vaccine received emergency use authorization (EUA). This document reflects adverse events following vaccination that have completed Pfizer’s “workflow cycle,” both in and outside the U.S., up to February 28, 2021.
Pfizer explains, on page 6, that “Due to the large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports received for the product, [Pfizer] has prioritised the processing of serious cases…” and that Pfizer “has also taken a [sic] multiple actions to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports” including “increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues” and “has onboarded approximately [REDACTED] additional fulltime employees (FTEs).” Query why it is proprietary to share how many people Pfizer had to hire to track all of the adverse events being reported shortly after launching its product.
As for the volume of reports, in the 2 ½ months following EUA, Pfizer received a total of 42,086 reports containing 158,893 “events.” Most of these reports were from the U.S. and disproportionately involved women (29,914 vs. 9,182 provided by men) and those between 31 and 50 years old (13,886 vs 21,325 for all other age groups combined, with another 6,876 whose ages were unknown). Also, 25,957 of the events were classified as “Nervous system disorders.” (Source.)
So by the end of February of this year (2021), as Pfizer was petitioning the FDA for full approval of their EUA COVID-19 shot, they already had data from 42,086 reports containing 158,893 “events,” disproportionately affecting women between the ages of 31 and 50.
In Pfizer’s “postmarketing” report, found here, there is a Table, Table 6, labeled “Description of Missing Information” for “Use in Pregnancy and lactation,” which covers 274 cases and states:
Pregnancy cases: 274 cases including:
• 270 mother cases and 4 foetus/baby cases representing 270 unique pregnancies (the 4 foetus/baby cases were linked to 3 mother cases; 1 mother case involved twins).
• Pregnancy outcomes for the 270 pregnancies were reported as spontaneous abortion (23), outcome pending (5), premature birth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1 each). No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies (note that 2 different outcomes were reported for each twin, and both were counted).
• 146 non-serious mother cases reported exposure to vaccine in utero without the occurrence of any clinical adverse event. The exposure PTs coded to the PTs Maternal exposure during pregnancy (111), Exposure during pregnancy (29) and maternal exposure timing unspecified (6). Trimester of exposure was reported in 21 of these cases: 1st trimester (15 cases), 2nd trimester (7), and 3rd trimester (2).
• 124 mother cases, 49 non-serious and 75 serious, reported clinical events, which occurred in the vaccinated mothers. Pregnancy related events reported in these cases coded to the PTs Abortion spontaneous (25), Uterine contraction during pregnancy, Premature rupture of membranes, Abortion, Abortion missed, and Foetal death (1 each).
• 4 serious foetus/baby cases reported the PTs Exposure during pregnancy, Foetal growth restriction, Maternal exposure during pregnancy, Premature baby (2 each), and Death neonatal (1). Trimester of exposure was reported for 2 cases (twins) as occurring during the 1st trimester.
This was the data that the FDA used to approve the Pfizer COVID-19 shot.
They also provided data to the FDA for breastfeeding babies that clearly indicated the shots were affecting these babies.
Breast feeding baby cases: 133, of which:
• 116 cases reported exposure to vaccine during breastfeeding (PT Exposure via breast milk) without the occurrence of any clinical adverse events;
• 17 cases, 3 serious and 14 non-serious, reported the following clinical events that occurred in the infant/child exposed to vaccine via breastfeeding: Pyrexia (5), Rash (4), Infant irritability (3), Infantile vomiting, Diarrhoea, Insomnia, and Illness (2 each), Poor feeding infant, Lethargy, Abdominal discomfort, Vomiting, Allergy to vaccine, Increased appetite, Anxiety,
Crying, Poor quality sleep, Eructation, Agitation, Pain and Urticaria (1 each).
Breast feeding mother cases (6):
• 1 serious case reported 3 clinical events that occurred in a mother during breast feeding (PT Maternal exposure during breast feeding); these events coded to the PTs Chills, Malaise, and Pyrexia
• 1 non-serious case reported with very limited information and without associated AEs. (Source.)
And this was at the end of February. We can clearly see what the results have been on unborn children since then just based on the limited data reported to VAERS, where there has been an 80% increase in fetal deaths recorded in VAERS following the COVID-19 shots.
Now I’m just a reporter sitting behind a computer accessing this publicly available data so that I can report it to you.
You can be certain that the scientists and researchers working at Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC have access to all of this data as well.
This article alone, with all the links to the publicly available data, has more than enough information to immediately issue arrest warrants for Rochelle Walensky, the director of the CDC, Janet Woodcock, the FDA director, and Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, for mass murder and crimes against humanity.
But is there an attorney anywhere in the United States who would issue these warrants?
We can pretty much rule out Biden’s Attorney General for the U.S., Merrick Garland.
Are there any attorney generals in the 50 United States who would have the courage and the blessing of their Governor to issue arrest warrants like this?
Not likely, as not a single governor of any state, whether Red or Blue, has taken any actions to protect life and arrest the criminals behind these bioweapon shots.
But since these are federal agencies, the FDA and CDC, that affect every single citizen of the United States, a county District Attorney could issue warrants and try to serve them. They would mostly likely need something like a militia group, perhaps comprising of Sheriff deputies and members of their State National Guard, to be able to attempt something like this.
But if nothing is done at all, these deaths will continue to climb, as they are now injecting children between the ages of 5 and 11, and are getting ready to inject babies soon between the ages of 6 months and 4-years-old, just after the first of the year.
Is this the United States you want to live in and be a part of? How long are we going to stand by and watch innocent people killed to fulfill the Globalists’ eugenic plans to reduce our population?
*
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.
Comments Off on 2,809 Dead Babies in VAERS Following COVID Shots as New Documents Prove Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC Knew the Shots Were Not Safe for Pregnant Women
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.
Laotians continue to be crippled and maimed by unexploded ordnance left over from the Indochina War.
Because of the world’s indifference, only one percent of 80 million undetonated antipersonnel bombs have been cleared.
On a bright Saturday morning, August 2, 2008, Yae Li, a middle-aged rice farmer with six children, was hoeing his rice fields as usual in Xieng Khouang, Laos, on the Plain of Jars when all of a sudden his life was changed forever.
Yae’s hoe struck an undetonated ordnance lodged in the ground, a remnant from the U.S. secret war in Laos lasting from 1964 to 1975.
The bombie exploded and Yae’s body flew backwards. He lost both of his feet, parts of his legs and a hand; at the time he thought he would die.
After his recovery he and his family suffered greatly. Yae could no longer farm his land and his eldest son had to drop out of school to help feed the family. With money tight, the other kids sometimes lacked food, and it was hard to pay for school fees. Yae himself became depressed and lost his purpose in life, asking why he had to “endure this suffering.”
Eventually his fortunes changed when an NGO raised funds to buy him a tractor and help him establish a store in town, though life for him and his family remains very difficult.
The United States dropped more ordnance on Laos during the Indochina War than it did on Germany and Japan during World War II.
The purpose of the bombing was to cut off North Vietnamese communist supply routes to South Vietnam along the Ho Chi Minh trail and terrorize villagers in northern Laos who were supporting the pro-Communist Pathet Lao.
The latter had led the liberation war against France and won elections in 1958 that were sabotaged by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which created a private army among the indigenous Hmong people to fight the Pathet Lao—backed up by the massive bombing.
CIA paramilitary specialist training Hmong tribesmen to fight the Pathet Lao. [Source: readex.com]
The majority of the bombs that the U.S. Air Force dropped were cluster bombs—manufactured by Honeywell Corporation of Minnesota—that were not designed to destroy tanks but human beings.
Some 35,000 Laotians were reported to have been killed during the war, and another 20,000 after from unexploded ordnance which remained buried in rice paddies and fields.
Waiting to Explode includes an interview with Fred Branfman, a U.S. aid worker who helped expose the secret bombing of Laos before the U.S. public in the early 1970s.
Branfman was a hippie adventurer who had come to love the Laotian people after working as an educational adviser in the country beginning in the late 1960s.
He especially admired how the priorities and values of the Laotians were different from most Americans—they had few material possessions but respected and loved nature and treasured time spent with friends and family.
After discovering that the U.S. was secretly bombing the northern part of the country, Branfman recorded the testimony of villagers who had to survive the attacks hiding in caves, often coming out at night to farm their fields.
Many lost loved ones and had to leave their villages which were destroyed. Branfman interviewed kids struck by napalm and who were blinded and maimed by the bombs and traumatized.
Infiltrating the U.S. Air Force base in Thailand where the bombings were carried out, Branfman found the businesslike atmosphere eerie. The attacks, he uncovered, were carried out because U.S. pilots had run out of targets in North Vietnam. Monteagle Stearns, deputy chief of mission in Laos from 1969 to 1972 told Congress: “We had all those planes sitting around and couldn’t just let them stay there with nothing to do.”
In 1971, Branfman tried to alert the U.S. public that major war crimes were taking place by testifying before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and a year later published the book Voices from the Plain of Jars, which recorded the experiences of Laotian refugees whom he had interviewed.
Decades later when Branfman returned to the Plain of Jars, he was struck by how many people from the region were still adversely impacted by the bombing. One man, for example, said he had ten water buffalo when he had 100 prior to the Indochina War.
Terrible Human Costs of War
Besides Yae Li, Waiting to Explode spotlights the suffering of numerous other victims of the U.S secret war in Laos. One of them, Chongcher Vue, lost his young son Mai and two nephews when Mai was playing with his friends and picked up an undetonated bomb that exploded.
Another boy, Ka Ying, who was only two at the time, lost his vision and many of his teeth, and had his face deformed, when he was playing in the dirt near his house and picked up a bomb that exploded in his face.
With the help of an NGO, Ka Ying’s family was able after some years to get him medical attention in Thailand, and he is currently doing okay in a school for the blind.
His grandmother, who helped raise the boy, cried every day for months after the accident.
This and other heart-wrenching stories remind us of the terrible human costs of the U.S. war in Indochina—which the public remains largely oblivious to.
*
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.
Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].
Featured image: Undetonated ordnance piled up. [Source: nwasianweekly.com]
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) on Thursday introduced legislation to require the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to release, within 100 days, all records of information related to Pfizer COVID vaccines. The FDA had asked to be allowed to take up to 55 years to release the documents.
U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) on Thursday introduced legislation that would require the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to release, within 100 days, all records of information submitted to the agency regarding the Emergency Use Authorization of, or licensing of all Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines.
PHMPT, a group of more than 30 scientists, medical professionals, international public health professionals and journalists, asked the FDA for “all data and information for the Pfizer vaccine,” including safety and effectiveness data, adverse reaction reports and a list of active and inactive ingredients.
“The FDA’s only priority should be the health and safety of consumers. The agency has compromised its integrity by delaying information that belongs to the public. Since the Biden administration is hell-bent on forcing these vaccine mandates on us, the public has every right to know how this vaccine was approved, especially in such a short amount of time.
“After all, the FDA managed to consider all 329,000 pages of data and grant emergency approval of the Pfizer vaccine within just 108 days. So it’s hard to rationalize why it now needs 55 years to fully release that information to the public.”
“Hiding the data for 55 years is the opposite of transparency,” Kennedy said. “It’s no wonder Americans no longer trust these vaccines or the governmental agencies that regulate them.”
PHMPT’s lawsuit referenced the Aug. 23 approval of Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID vaccine for individual 16 and older. The lawsuit alleges that while the FDA claims the vaccine “meets the high standards for safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality,” medical experts and others have questions regarding the data.
According to the complaint:
“The medical and scientific community and the public have a substantial interest in reviewing the data and information underlying the FDA’s approval of the Pfizer Vaccine. Reviewing this information will settle the ongoing public debate regarding the adequacy of the FDA’s review process. Releasing this data should also confirm the FDA’s conclusion that the Pfizer Vaccine is safe and effective and, thus, increase confidence in the Pfizer Vaccine.
“The public’s need for this information is urgent given the fact that COVID-19 vaccines are being mandated to individuals across the country by federal, state and local governments as well as private businesses.”
The FDA responded on Nov. 15 stating there are more than 329,000 pages of documents, which would require the agency to process more than 80,000 pages a month to fulfill the FOIA request.
The FDA asked to be allowed to provide 500 pages a month, which would mean 658 months — or just under 55 years — for the full release.
The FDA said that from its experience with other FOIA requests, “such records can be expected to contain both confidential business and trade secret information of Pfizer or BioNTech and personal privacy information of patients who participated in clinical trials.”
The FDA said it’s a “specious argument” that the process to release documents can be done in the same timeframe it took the FDA to review the documents for the approval of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine — as the agency has only 10 employees who process FOIA requests.
In its response, the FDA said:
“Increasing the volume to more than 80,000 pages per month (if such rate is even possible — and it likely is not), as Plaintiff requests, would result in Plaintiff monopolizing essentially all of FDA’s resources and leaving little resources to process other FOIA requests. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has recognized that another agency’s policy of processing 500 pages per request per month ‘serves to promote efficient responses to a larger number of requesters.’”
Redactions raise questions about what FDA deems ‘confidential,’ attorney says
Aaron Siri, one of the lawyers representing PHMPT, said the lawsuit was filed in September after the FDA “produced nothing” from the August FOIA request.
“So, let’s get this straight. The federal government shields Pfizer from liability. Gives it billions of dollars. Makes Americans take its product. But won’t let you see the data supporting its product’s safety and efficacy. Who does the government work for?
“The lesson yet again is that civil and individual rights should never be contingent upon a medical procedure. Everyone who wants to get vaccinated and boosted should be free to do so. But nobody should be coerced by the government to partake in any medical procedure. Certainly not one where the government wants to hide the full information relied upon for its licensure until the year 2076!”
In a Nov. 19 blog post, Siri wrote that the first 91 pages had been produced. However, some information was redacted, raising questions about what the FDA views as “confidential.”
Siri wrote:
“Pfizer explains, on page 6, that ‘Due to the large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports received for the product, [Pfizer] has prioritized the processing of serious cases …’ and that Pfizer ‘has also taken a [sic] multiple actions to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports’ including ‘increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues’ and ‘has onboarded approximately [REDACTED] additional full-time employees (FTEs).’”
Siri also asked why it would be proprietary to share how many people Pfizer had to hire to track all of the adverse events being reported shortly after launching its product.
*
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.
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.
It is possible to actually measure Washington’s dishonesty. How big is it? It’s about 600 miles.
In 1990, according to declassified documents, Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “one inch” east of Germany. Thirty years ago, that was Russia’s red line.
On December 2, that red line moved from one inch to 600 miles as Vladimir Putin said he would now seek a promise that NATO would not expand further east to Ukraine.
Since these assurances, NATO has wandered its way through Hungary, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and Poland. Six hundred miles of broken pledges have brought the U.S. and NATO to the border of Ukraine.
On September 1, President Biden met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House. Biden used code words for NATO encroachment when he pledged his “support for Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations” and American support for Ukraine’s “being completely integrated in Europe.” He then announced “a new $60 million security assistance package” in addition to the $400 million in security assistance the U.S. has already provided Ukraine this year.
Having retreated 600 miles from Gorbachev’s red line, Putin drew a new red line on December 2, seeking “reliable and long-term security guarantees.” Those guarantees “would exclude any further NATO moves eastward and the deployment of weapons systems that threaten us in close vicinity to Russian territory.”
Putin is keenly aware that the red line has moved east 600 miles. At the Munich Conference on Security Policy in 2007, Putin asked the world, “And what happened to the assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr. Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: ‘the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.’ Where are these guarantees?”
The guarantees were a deception, and the red line has moved hundreds of miles and has become a threat. Seven years later, in its review of 2014, Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs would note that the “ongoing eastward expansion [and] successive waves of NATO enlargement [are] contrary to the assurances issued at the highest level.” In 2015, Russia’s National Security Strategy would note that NATO’s “continued expansion and the approach of its military infrastructure to Russia’s borders, all create threat to national security.”
The first guarantee was given on February 9, 1990 when Secretary of State Baker assured Gorbachev that if NATO got Germany and Russia pulled its troops out of East Germany, NATO would not expand east of Germany. Gorbachev records in his memoirs that he agreed to Baker’s terms “with the guarantee that NATO jurisdiction or troops would not extend east of the current line.”
In his book Superpower Illusions, Jack F. Matlock Jr., who was the American ambassador to Russia at the time and was present at the meeting, confirms Gorbachev’s account, saying that it “coincides with my notes of the conversation except that mine indicate that Baker added ‘not one inch.’”
The next day, according to West German foreign ministry documents, on February 10, 1990, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher told his Soviet counterpart Eduard Shevardnadze “‘For us . . . one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east.’ And because the conversation revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: ‘As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general.’”
Even earlier, on January 31, 1990, Genscher had said in a major speech that there would not be “an expansion of NATO territory to the east, in other words, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union.”
The National Security Archive published the actual documents detailing what Gorbachev was promised on December 12, 2017. According to the late Stephen Cohen in his book, ”War With Russia?” the documents finally, and authoritatively, reveal that, “the truth, and the promises broken, are much more expansive than previously known: all of the Western powers involved — the US, the UK, France, Germany itself — made the same promise to Gorbachev on multiple occasions and in various emphatic ways.”
It didn’t have to be this way. Like Gorbachev before him at the end of the cold war, Putin has hoped to help create an international community that, rather than building blocs, featured cooperation among equals. He had even suggested Russian membership in NATO. Even in the speech where he drew Russia’s new red line, Putin was still suggesting a cooperative solution. He said that the “working out specific agreements” should be done “in a dialogue with the United States and its allies.” He added, diplomatically, that “we aren’t demanding any special conditions for ourselves and realize that any agreements must take interests of Russia and all Euro-Atlantic countries into account.”
While this would obviously be the least confrontational path, it is the least likely to be be taken, as the only assurances being given today come in the form of Sec. of Defense Lloyd Austin, who recently reassured Georgia and Ukraine that the “door is still open” to NATO membership, much to the chagrin of Moscow.
*
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.
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.
What has unfolded in the past 24 hours in the US-Russia diplomatic tango can be seen as a foreplay of the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Joe Biden, which is slated for Tuesday evening.
Russia has got what it has been keenly seeking — a meeting between Putin and Biden. Beyond that lies the “unknown unknown”.
In remarks last Friday, top Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov had described the forthcoming meeting as a “follow-up” to the Putin-Biden talks at Geneva in June. But Ushakov ended up conveying that Ukraine tops the agenda and within it, NATO-related issues. Ushakov stressed that Putin intends to propose to Biden “the need to hold joint work with colleagues, with leading countries, on reaching corresponding legal accords that would rule out any further eastward expansion by NATO and the deployment of weapon systems that directly threaten us on the territory of states bordering on Russia, including Ukraine.”
Ushakov said Moscow urgently needs assurances that NATO would not expand in the eastward direction. To quote Ushakov,
“It (NATO expansion) is a very old issue. Both the the Soviet Union and Russia were given verbal assurances that NATO’s military structures would not advance eastward. However, it urned out that those verbal assurances were worthless, although those statements were documented somehow, and there are records of the corresponding conversations.”
“Given the current tense situation, there is an urgent need for us to be provided with appropriate guarantees, as it cannot go on like this. It is hard to say what form this document will take, the main thing is that they must be written agreements,” he said.
Within hours, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken hit back alleging that the Russian president is responsible for the current tensions, being “the decision maker in Russia”, and underscored that there will be “very serious consequences” if Russia “decides to pursue a confrontation course” and Biden himself will “stand up resolutely against any reckless or aggressive actions that Russia may pursue.”
Soon afterward on Friday, President Biden stepped in to say “I don’t accept anyone’s red line,” in an indirect challenge to Moscow. He said, “We’re aware of Russia’s actions for a long time and my expectation is we’re going to have a long discussion with Putin.”
Biden added,
“What I am doing is putting together what I believe to be the most comprehensive and meaningful set of initiatives to make it very, very difficult for Mr. Putin to go ahead and do what people are worried he’s going to do.” read more
Quite obviously, Biden is not about to agree to negotiate a security treaty with Russia over Ukraine or NATO expansion. Interestingly, the White House readout on Saturday mentions Biden as talking point but leaves out the NATO.
Unlike the brash megaphone diplomacy of his top diplomat, Biden himself has taken a more sophisticated approach hinting at some “most comprehensive and meaningful set of initiatives” to discuss with Putin. He hasn’t poured oil on the fire, but spoke like Don Vito Corleone in the Mario Puzo novel.
That said, the chances of a US-NATO rollback in Ukraine are virtually nil. The optics of a “retreat” will be simply too negative for Biden, post-Afghanistan. Besides, Ukraine’s transformation as an anti-Russian state is still unfinished business.
In the regime change project in Ukraine in 2013-2014, then vice-president Biden had a hands-on role. When Biden brought back Victoria Nuland into his administration in a key position in the state department he signalled his intention to follow through.
The Ukraine tensions have enabled the US to reassert its trans-Atlantic leadership. The NATO’s future is at stake here, too. The US and allies will ever give Russia a veto over Ukraine’s ambitions to one day join NATO and the EU.
On Wednesday, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said after a meeting Wednesday of allied foreign ministers in Riga, “Only Ukraine and 30 NATO allies decide when Ukraine is ready to join NATO. Russia has no veto. Russia has no say. And Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence, trying to control (its) neighbours.”
The point is, there is little Washington can offer to meet Russia’s demands without undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, which the US and its NATO allies have pledged to support in an “ironclad” commitment.
That said, some NATO Allies are privately sceptical about US warnings of an imminent Russian invasion. An internal analysis prepared for European Commission officials and diplomats, and seen by POLITICO, says, “Due to lack of logistical support, it would take one to two months for the Russian army to mobilise for a full-fledged invasion. (Moreover, its overall logistical weakness prevents the Russian army from serious invasion). Thus, there is no threat of imminent invasion.”
The analysis found “Moscow seems fully understanding [of] the costs of an invasion. So pre-positioning of (Russian troops) is more about delivering the message of discontent about the Western policy vis-vis Ukraine (increasing U.S./U.K. and NATO presence).”
Indeed, Putin’s predicament is no less acute. Putin doesn’t want to start another war in Ukraine but Moscow also cannot accept the increasing US, UK and NATO military ties with Ukraine, as well as Ukraine’s acquisition of new weaponry.
While NATO has no permanent troop presence in Ukraine, the allied nations have built up close mil-to-mil links with Ukrainian forces.
This is where the risk lies. If Russia’s legitimate security concerns over the growing Western military presence in Ukraine and that country’s steady transformation as an anti-Russian state with tacit Western encouragement are not addressed, Russia will have no option but to resort to coercive diplomacy.
As Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrovput it, further NATO expansion will “unambiguously affect the fundamental interests of our security.” Biden cannot afford to underestimate Russia’s bottom line.
How Biden goes about squaring the circle at Tuesday’s meeting remains to be seen. To be sure, Russia gets the best chance ever today in the post-Cold War era to force the US to the negotiating table on the core issue of its discontent with the West — NATO expansion.
But on his part, Biden also cannot afford to look “weak” at a juncture when his performance and competence no longer instil confidence among the American voters.
Ukraine and Russia per se do not agitate the voter, but in the political environment that Biden and the Democratic Party navigate, negativity and tribalism are what is driving American politics today. A confrontation with Russia could add to the grist of the mill alongside issues of price hikes and shortages, pandemic, education, culture war, Afghanistan and so on.
Russia also happened to be an energy superpower and given Europe’s heavy dependence on Russian energy supplies and the instability in the world oil market, isolating Russia is easier said than done.
Above all, Biden cannot afford to get entangled with Russia and take eyes off China. Make no mistake, China is closely watching how Biden is cutting the Gordian knot on Tuesday. It has implications for China’s “peaceful reunification” with Taiwan.
*
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.
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.
The Russians are up to no good and we must prepare to protect Ukraine. Moscow interferes in US and Canadian elections. That’s what Washington, Ottawa and their media sycophants claim. But is this just another case of accusing others of doing the things you do? An age-old propaganda technique designed to deflect attention away from your misdeeds?
For example, amidst claims the Russians may invade the Ukraine or overthrow its government, Ottawa says it is considering a military response. According to the Globe and Mail, Canada may deploy fighter jets currently in Romania to the Ukraine or send (again) a warship into the Black Sea, which borders the Ukraine and Russia. But 200 Canadian troops, as well as two dozen police, are already based in the Ukraine. Through a memorandum of understanding Ottawa signed with Kiev a Canadian company is also helping build up Ukrainian ammunition production.
As for interfering in the politics of another country, since the mid-2000s Ottawa has provided significant support to right wing, nationalist opponents of Russia in the Ukraine. According to the Canadian Press, opposition protesters were camped in the Canadian embassy for a week during the successful February 2014 rebellion against Viktor Yanukovych, who hailed from the Russian speaking east of the Ukraine. In a paper titled “The far right, the Euromaidan, and the Maidan massacre in Ukraine” University of Ottawa professor Ivan Katchanovski reported, “The leader of the [Far right] Svoboda-affiliated C14 admitted that his C14-based Maidan Self-Defense company took refuge in the Canadian embassy in Kyiv on February 18 and stayed there during the Maidan massacre.”
Alongside Canada’s support for the Ukrainian military, over 500 Canadian troops are leading a NATO mission on Russia’s doorstep in Latvia. Thirty countries are currently conducting drills in Latvia as part of NATO Baltic Winter Shield 2021. In a position sure to anger the Kremlin, Latvia’s defence minister recently requested US missiles capable of hitting Moscow and called for a permanent US military presence there. US and British troops are stationed throughout the region.
Canada has sanctions on Russia and the Liberals have repeatedly labeled that country a threat to the “international rules-based order” Canada claims to uphold. In a major June 2017 foreign policy speech minister Chrystia Freeland called, “Russian military adventurism and expansionism … clear strategic threats to the liberal democratic world, including Canada.”
But it is absurd to suggest that growing tension over the Ukraine simply reflects Russian belligerence.
This is not the first time the media and politicians have grossly distorted reality to bash Russia.
Aping Hillary Clinton, cold warriors and other segments of the US establishment, Canadian media and politicians pushed the idea of Russian electoral interference. In December 2018 the front page of The Walrus boldly proclaimed: “The Russian Threat to Canadian Democracy.” The lead article was titled “Could the Russians Decide Canada’s Next Prime Minister? Why the upcoming federal election isn’t safe from manipulation by Moscow.”
Canadian politicians repeatedly beat the “Russiagate” drum. In April 2019 Freeland said she was “very concerned that Russia is meddling” in Canada’s election and claimed there had “already been efforts by malign actors to disrupt our democracy.” For his part, Trudeau opined that “countries like Russia are behind a lot of the divisive campaigns … that have turned our politics even more divisive and more anger-filled than they have been in the past.”
Ten months before the 2019 federal election the government established a special task force to monitor potential threats to Canada’s democracy that included representatives of CSIS, RCMP, Communications Security Establishment and Global Affairs’ intelligence branch. It was all for naught. Two days after the 2019 election the Privy Council Office quietly announced no foreign actor attempted to interfere. (Recently the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency reported that CSIS “skirted” the law in its effort to protect the 2019 election from possible foreign interference.)
From the get-go the claim that Russia got Donald Trump elected was silly. But, the “Russiagate” narrative collapsed definitively last month when the Steele dossier was conclusively discredited.
Alongside outlandish claims of electoral interference, Ottawa adopted a sanctions regime based on a highly dubious individual’s criticism of Russia. In 2017 the government adopted sanctions legislation, modeled after the 2012 US Magnitsky Act, designed to demonize Russia. Ottawa immediately targeted Russian officials under legislation that allowed the government to freeze individuals’ assets/visas and prohibit Canadian companies from dealing with sanctioned individuals.
The legislation was named after Sergey Magnitsky who proponents claim was tortured to death for exposing Russian state corruption. The source of the claim was William Browder, an American who got rich amidst the fire sale of Russian state assets in the 1990s. With billionaire banker Edmond J. Safra, Browder co-founded Hermitage Capital Management, which became the largest hedge fund in Russia. Hermitage Capital earned a staggering 2,697% return between 1996 and 2007.
Those who question the western-backed story line say Magnitsky was an accountant who helped Browder claim illicit tax breaks. According to this version of the story, Browder exploited Magnitsky’s death — caused by inhumane jail conditions — to avoid being extradited to Russia on tax fraud charges.
While it’s hard to be completely confident about the truth, it’s difficult to believe that a US capitalist who got rich in Russia in the 1990s would simply turn into a human rights activist. On the other hand, the idea that a wealthy and powerful individual meshed self-preservation with growing Russophobia seems plausible.
Both Browder and partner Safra have dubious backgrounds. Browder worked for Robert Maxwell, a crooked British press baron and Mossad spy, whose daughter Ghislaine Maxwell was Jeffrey Epstein’s decades-long sex ring coordinator/partner. Safra’s name is cited in Epstein’s little black book.
A November 2019 Der Spiegel exposé titled “The Case of Sergei Magnitsky: Questions Cloud Story Behind U.S. Sanctions” poked important holes in Browder’s story. Further undermining Browder’s claims, last year Switzerland’sAttorney General dropped a decade-long investigation into Russian money laundering Browder brought to the Swiss authorities’.
There are many good reasons to distrust the media and politicians’ drum beating about Russian belligerence in the Ukraine. Evidence suggests these sorts of accusations are often hypocritical self-justifications for more military/intelligence spending.
*
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.
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.
Russiagate, that fraudulent fable wherein Russian President Vladimir Putin personally subverted American democracy, Russian intelligence pilfered the Democratic Party’s email, and Donald Trump acted at the Kremlin’s behest, is at last dead.
No, nothing sudden. It has been a slow, painful death of the sort this destructive beast richly deserved. But its demise is now definitive — in the courts and on paper. We await the better historians to see this properly into the record.
Three key operatives in the construction of the Russiagate edifice are indicted for lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation about aspects of the Russiagate tale. The Steele dossier, the document on which much of the case against former President Trump rested, is now exposed as a Nixonesque “dirty trick” authorized and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
Some mainstream newspapers — certainly not all — are busy in their archives, editing out the worst of the falsehoods they reported in 2016 and 2017 as unassailable fact.
This is a wholesale collapse now.
There are, as one would expect, those who seem determined to hold out no matter what the factual evidence. These go well beyond MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, whose record I will let speak for itself.
I am thinking of people such as David Corn, the Mother Jones correspondent in Washington, and David Frum, a staff writer at The Atlantic. Both invested big time into the Russiagate junk, and both published books filled with the ridiculous, evidence-free piffle of which it was made.
Corn, Frum and numerous others like them are now industriously throwing good money after bad to go by recent publications. Here is Corn’s latest, and here Frum’s. One finds the same tired combination of presumption, useless innuendo, and spoon-fed, evidence-deficient falsities derived from the intelligence agencies that were key to fomenting the Russiagate hoax. Yes, Messrs. Corn and Frum, it was a hoax.
To these diehards, people such as your columnist, given to rational, disinterested consideration of what is known and what is conjured from thin air, are “denialists.” Strange it is that those denying established facts and truths call those who accept these facts and truths by this name.
But this is a measure of the extent Russiagate has plunged us into Alice–in–Wonderland depths where what is up is down, what is dark is light, what is true is to be buried, what is false is to be held high — where blindness is preferred to sight.
This leads us to the essential question we now face, or one of them. What are the consequences of the Russiagate scam? If it rested on lies start-to-finish, this is not to say it did not exact its price. It did. The price is high, and we are fated to pay it for some time to come.
The Damage Done
Nov. 11, 2017, protest outside the White House, dubbed the “Kremlin Annex.” (Wikimedia Commons/Ted Eytan)
An inquiry of this kind must begin with the damage Russiagate has done to the prevalent American consciousness. The last five years have delivered Americans into a culture of unreason of the kind they have been prone to indulging periodically throughout their history. It is made in equal parts of a native insecurity and anxiety, of paranoia and of irrationality.
This is at once a pitiable and dangerous state. All is reduced to the Manichean distinctions characteristic of the old Westerns (not to mention most of the good guys vs. bad guys Dreck that comes out of Hollywood these days).
No subtlety of thought survives in the culture of unreason. Public space is populated with poseurs, cutouts, and imposters. Public discourse, with some exceptions, is much of the time not worth bothering with.
To understand this condition, we must recognize it as the work of a diabolic alliance comprised of the Democratic Party’s corrupt leadership, the F.B.I. and other law-enforcement agencies, the national security apparatus and its many appendages, and the media. It is no longer in the slightest objectionable to speak or write of a Deep State that controls this country.
The elite minority this alliance represents derives its power from its claim to speak for the majority — an absolutely classic case of the “soft despotism” Alexis de Tocqueville warned Americans of 190 years ago. Liberal authoritarianism is another name for what has consolidated itself in the years since Democrats, in mid–2016, first raised the phony specter of Russia “hacking” into its mail systems.
In effect, Russiagate has tipped the American polity upside down. It is the illiberal liberals among us, righteous as the old Puritan ministers of New England, who now prosecute a regime of censorship and suppression of dissent that is at least as severe and anti-democratic as what conservatives had going during the Cold War (and in my view worse).
It is they who seek to cow ordinary Americans into the new, weird idolatry of authority, no matter that those to whom the nation is urged to bow are proven liars, law-breakers and propagandists.
Culture of Unreason
There is, of course, the more dangerous world Russiagate has done so much to create. In the culture of unreason, the Deep State has a discouraging record of success in gaining wide public support for any aggressive campaign against any nation or people it wishes to act against.
In this dimension, Russiagate has destroyed the Democrats as a party willing to stand against the imperial project in its late phase.
A war with China over the Taiwan question is now spoken of as a logical possibility. Washington is now raising the temperature on the Ukraine–Russia border, just as it did when it cultivated the 2014 coup in Kiev, and this is put across as a Democratic administration’s sound policy. Rampant Russophobia is a direct consequence of the Russiagate ruse, Sinophobia its uglier sibling — uglier for its racist subtext.
We have active subversion operations in Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba and Peru, all progressive states in the true meaning of this term, and Democrats of all stripes — including “progressives” with the necessary quotation marks — cheer on every one of them.
We cannot view this as distinct from the elevation of institutions dedicated to campaigns of covert subterfuge — chiefly but not only the C.I.A. — to wholly inappropriate positions of respect.
The damage Russiagate has done to the press … let me rephrase this. The damage the press has inflicted upon itself in the cause of Russiagate is so extensive it is hard to calculate with any precision. We watch now as their credibility collapses in real time.
Those running the mainstream newspapers and networks seem to understand this, as they rush to protect what remains of their reputations with rearguard actions to obscure their grossly irresponsible conduct.
The long list of those who caved to the Russiagate orthodoxy includes some stunning names. Among publications that should have known better we find Mother Jones,The Nation, The Intercept, and Democracy Now! Was it conformity, pressure from donors or Democratic Party ventriloquists, or some combination of ideology, ignorance and inexperience that caused them to flip?
The Atlantic,The New Yorker, the major dailies, the networks — they have all sustained one or another degree of discredit, left either to craven rewrites in their archives, denial in the Corn–Frum mode, or silence. None will do: They will never regain lost ground without first acknowledging what they have done, and this appears out of the question.
Resort of Omission
“The Usual Suspects,” urban art, Norway, 2015. (Anne Worner, Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)
The feature of the corporate-owned press — and the “progressive,” press, as just suggested — that strikes me most now is its resort of omission.
Think about it: Lengthy hearings on Capitol Hill, in which leading Democratic Party Russiagaters admit under oath they never had any of the evidence they long claimed, go unreported. The collapse of the Steele dossier goes unreported in The New York Times and other major dailies.
It is but a short step to all else that is newsworthy but left out — the collapse of the case against Julian Assange (against whom the Russiagate frenzy was wielded), the collapse of the chemical weapons case in Syria, all the above-noted covert subversions.
It is wholesale dereliction of duty now, and it was Russiagate that licensed this betrayal.
Mainstream media are now approaching that point when they leave out more of the world we live in than they report. This is a losing proposition in the medium term — a desperate, last-ditch strategy to defend a “narrative” that simply no longer holds. I put the acceleration of this trend down to the poisoned information environment Russiagate did so much to engender.
There is a positive dimension to the media’s fate since Russiagate, and regular readers of this column may already guess where I am headed. The disaster Russiagate has proven for the corporate-owned press, the networks, and the “left” — with-quotation-marks — press has landed independent media such as Consortium News with large, new responsibilities, and they have by-and-large risen to the occasion. Their role in keeping the truth of the Russiagate fraud on the table cannot be overstated.
We witness, in effect, an historically significant transformation in how Americans get their news and analysis. This, a gradual process, is an excellent thing. In time, independent media stand to play as important a role in repairing the across-the-board damage of Russiagate as legacy media played in hatching and deepening it.
*
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.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune, is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century. Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist. His web site is Patrick Lawrence. Support his work via his Patreon site.
Featured image: TV coverage of 2016 U.S. election results. (U.S. embassy, Kyiv)
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.
US forces continue providing military training to YPG/PKK terrorists in Syria, according to local sources.
Sources said US Special Forces dispatched 70 soldiers to Al-Hasakah through Iraq on Nov. 28 to provide armed training to YPG/PKK members east of the Euphrates River.
The US soldiers, who arrived in the town of Rmelan — where the US airbase is located — started armed training for hundreds of YPG/PKK terrorists on Dec. 1.
In the training, which will last for about a month, the use of light, medium and heavy weapons, raids and infiltration methods in the villages will be taught to the terrorists.
After the training, the sources, who asked not to be named, said that some of the terrorists will be sent to the Ash Shaddadi district in Al-Hasakah and the Omar Oil Field in Deir Ez-Zor, while the remaining terrorists would stay in Rmelan.
The US and France, members of the coalition against Daesh/ISIS, previously supported YPG/PKK terrorists with military training in areas of Al-Hasakah and Deir ez-Zor.
The YPG is the Syrian branch of the PKK, a designated terror group in the US, EU, and Turkey. US support for the YPG-led SDF has significantly strained relations with Ankara.
In its more than 35-year terror campaign against Turkey, the PKK has been responsible for the deaths of at least 40,000 people, including women, children, and infants.
*
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.
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.
Over a thousand victims of Ukraine’s military aggression against Donbass were discovered in unnamed graves. From the summer to the present, an active search for all victims of the Ukrainian military and their allied Far-Right militias has been underway, culminating in the creation of a joint committee which includes representatives of the Donetsk (DPR) and Luhansk (LPR) People’s Republics, investigators, forensic experts and others. Investigations into the mass graves will form the foundation of a future tribunal against Kiev. Collected dossiers of Ukraine’s war crimes in Donbass have already been transferred to international authorities.
There is colossal work that needs to be carried out in Donetsk. Since 2014, about 130 burial places of missing persons have been discovered. It is not known how many more there are. According to Daria Morozova, head of the commission for the search of missing persons in Donetsk, more than 3,000 claims have already been sent to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
“There is information that the documents have been accepted for consideration and included in the evidence base,” Morozova said.
According to the head of the DPR forensic medical examination bureau Dmitry Kalashnikov, the investigated graves contain people who died during the Ukrainian military’s artillery shelling. However, there are also remains of people with traces of torture and bullet wounds perpetrated by the Far-Right militias.
“There were cases when people came and knew by their names those who were buried in unknown graves, but they had no death certificates. In such situations, children cannot receive survivor pensions and other social benefits,” Kalashnikov said.
In Luhansk, teams are also continuing to search for victims of Ukrainian aggression. Seven out of 17 discovered mass graves were investigated, 300 bodies of the dead were exhumed and almost 400 people donated blood for DNA examination. The remains of many victims were reburied in November at a cemetery in Luhansk, where a memorial complex is being created.
Anna Soroka, chair of the interdepartmental working group on the search for burials in the LPR, said: “the enemy went so far as to prevent the burial of the dead, cemeteries were mined, people could not send their loved ones on their final journey.”
“As for tortured civilians from the graves, if the places of these graves are put on a map, then they fall on settlements that have been under the control of the so-called Ukrainian ‘volunteer battalions.’ We have information where they were based. It is there that the bodies with traces of torture and execution are located,” she added.
Donbass residents also submitted burial site examination results to the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court. The Commission managed to establish communication with private groups of Ukrainian volunteers and human rights defenders who are looking for missing persons on Kiev-controlled territory.
Meanwhile, Kiev’s authorities completely ignore the Donetsk and Luhansk initiative to establish cooperation in this area. The reasons for non-cooperation are clear: the perpetrators of aggression do not want to admit crimes and be held accountable. Therefore, Kiev is blocking all proposals for a joint search of missing persons and mass graves.
Of the international organizations and bodies, only the Red Cross provides assistance in exhuming bodies in Donbass. Although the OSCE has all necessary information and records, visit morgues and mass graves, and document violations and take photographs, their published reports are emasculated and their conclusions biased.
This manipulation of information was assessed by LPR representative Andrey Marochko: “I have read all their reports from 2015 to this day. […] In general, drafts of OSCE reports leave Luhansk in voluminous terms, and already from their office in Kiev, fairly cleaned up versions are published. […] Sometimes even journalists recorded the mistakes of the OSCE mission representatives who saw violations, but this was not reflected in the reports.” As an example, Marochko cited how an OSCE representative was captured near a Ukrainian tank, but this tank was not listed in the report.
After the kidnapping of Luhansk observer Andriy Kosyak, the Joint Center for Control and Coordination issued a number of statements for the OSCE to influence the terrorist-like behavior of Ukraine. There is still no reaction from the European mission even though a month and a half has passed since the abduction of the Luhansk observer by Ukrainian saboteurs. As a result, the OSCE mission is limited in movement across LPR until Kosyak is released.
In order to break the obvious information blockade, the DPR and the LPR are creating a special site, “The Tragedy of Donbass”, to collect data on Ukrainian war crimes and on those missing. The project aims to process and organize data and provide access for the general public to collate stories of survivors and victims. Just as importantly, it will also provide the names, ranks and other information of Ukrainians suspected of committing crimes against humanity, including mass killings.
Although this resource will assist in highlighting Ukraine’s war crimes, true accountability cannot be made until the OSCE is depoliticized and carries out the work it is expected to do in an apolitical manner. However, there is little evidence that this will occur in the short-term.
*
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.
Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.
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.
The WHO and Coronavirus experts are increasingly convinced the new Omicron variant is ‘super mild’ and has, so far, not led to a jump in Covid death rates anywhere in Southern Africa.
The WHO is calling this morning for countries to drop travel restrictions and end the mass hysteria, and instead be cautiously optimistic as more and more reports out of South Africa suggest the new Omicron variant is not more lethal than the previous Delta variant.
In fact, there have been no reports of hospitalisations or deaths as a result of anyone being diagnosed with Omicron.
Most patients merely experience a severe headache, nausea, dizziness and a high pulse rate, according to hospitals and medics across Southern Africa.
However, the news of the new variant, first reported in South Africa, led to mass hysteria around the world: markets thumbed and dozens of countries imposed travel restrictions and additional checks, including the UK, US, EU, Israel, Australia and Japan after the new mutation popped up in the UK, Germany, Italy, Czech Republic and Israel among other countries.
‘A hype’
Dr Angelique Coetzee, chair of the South African Medical Association, said this reaction was “medically seen, not justified.”
A GP for over three decades, and chair of the South African Medical Association, she was the first African doctor to suggest to local authorities Covid had mutated into a new strain.
Coetzee called the response from many European countries, including the UK, “just a hype.”
“Looking at the mildness of the symptoms we are seeing, currently there is no reason for panicking as we don’t see any severely ill patients.”
South Africa’s health minister Joe Phaahla also said the majority of cases of Omicron seen by doctors in his country have been “mild”.
Asked what he knows about how unwell people are who have it, Dr Phaahla said: “It is still too early at this stage.
He added he has heard from GPs that the “majority of the people they’ve been seeing are mild.”
“Our clinicians have not witnessed severe illness. Part of it may be because the majority of those who are positive are young people,” Dr Paahla added.
Hundreds of infected people across Southern Africa reportedly complain of nausea, headaches, fatigue and a high pulse rate, but none seem to suffer from a loss of taste or smell, which has been the case with most other Covid mutations.
Moreover, more and more medics across Southern Africa are confirming that most Omicron-infected patients merely have a severe headache, nausea or dizziness.
WHO criticises travel bans
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has also urged countries around the world not to impose flight bans on southern African nations due to concerns over the Omicron variant.
In fact, the WHO fiercely lashed out at the UK and other countries, calling their response “extreme.”
Dr Catherine Smallwood, Senior Emergency Officer at WHO’s Regional Office for Europe, said “these types of interventions are not sustainable. Those types of extreme measures are not our recommendations.”
The WHO’s regional director for Africa, Dr Matshidiso Moeti, called on countries “to follow science” and international health regulations in order to avoid using travel restrictions.
“If restrictions are implemented, they should not be unnecessarily invasive or intrusive, and should be scientifically based, according to the international health regulations, which is a legally binding instrument of international law recognised by over 190 nations, Dr Moeti added.
Cases of the Omicron variant have popped up in countries on opposite sides of the world and many governments rushed to close their borders even as scientists cautioned that it is not clear if the new variant is more alarming than other versions of the virus.
While investigations continue into the Omicron variant, the WHO recommends that all countries “take a risk-based and scientific approach and put in place measures which can limit its possible spread”.
Dr Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health in the United States, emphasised that there is no data yet that suggests the new variant causes more serious illness than previous Covid-19 variants.
“I do think it’s more contagious, when you look at how rapidly it spread through multiple districts in South Africa,” Dr Collins said.
Omicron could kill off Delta
The high level of contagiousness, paired with very mild symptoms, may make Omicron a blessing in disguise.
Looking at the first data coming out of Southern Africa, virologist Marc van Ranst said this weekend that “if the omicron variant is less pathogenic but with greater infectivity, allowing Omicron to replace Delta, this would be very positive.”
The WHO warned that preliminary evidence suggests the variant has an increased risk of reinfection and may spread more rapidly than other strains, including Delta.
They said there is early evidence to suggest Omicron has an “increased risk of reinfection” and its rapid spread in South Africa suggests it has a “growth advantage”.
“It is extremely important we need to closely monitor the clinical data of Omicron patients in South Africa and worldwide,” Van Ranst stressed.
The variant has more than 30 mutations – around twice as many as the Delta variant – which make it more transmissible and evade the protection given by prior infection or vaccination.
More testing is needed and experts say it can take weeks before a clear picture will emerge.
Nearly two years since the start of the pandemic that has claimed more than 5 million lives around the world, countries are on high alert.
In the Netherlands, 61 people on two flights from Cape Town to South Africa tested positive for Covid upon arrival in Amsterdam.
Novavax said it has “already initiated development of a new recombinant spike protein based on the known genetic sequence of Omicron and will have it ready to begin testing and manufacturing within the next few weeks”.
Moderna said: “Since early 2021, Moderna has advanced a comprehensive strategy to anticipate new variants of concern.
“This strategy includes three levels of response should the currently authorized 50 µg (microgram) booster dose of mRNA-1273 prove insufficient to boost waning immunity against the Omicron variant.”
*
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.
This video by the late Dr. Andreas Noack pertains to graphene hydroxide contained in the Covid vaccine vial. Dr. Noack explains the devastating impacts of graphene hydroxide on the cardiovascular system.
I compiled all the evidence we have into this article that prove Graphene Oxide, Graphene Hydroxide and other Graphene variants are in fact being injected into people by governments and Big Pharma.
Would a sane person mix a patient sample (containing various sources of genetic material and never proven to contain any particular virus) with transfected monkey kidney cells, fetal bovine serum and toxic drugs, then claim that the resulting concoction is “SARS-COV-2 isolate” and ship it off internationally for use in critical research (including vaccine and test development)?
The doctrine of the inherited aggression drive or aggression instinct is one of the most controversial formulas with the help of which psychoanalysts and animal behaviourists seek to explain problems of the political and social situation, indeed of the history of human coexistence per se.
Welcome to the age of fear. Nothing is more corrosive of the democratic impulse than fear. Left unaddressed, it festers, eating away at our confidence and empathy.
By February of 2021, Pfizer had already received more than 1,200 reports of death allegedly caused by the vaccine and tens of thousands of reported adverse events, including 23 cases of spontaneous abortions out of 270 pregnancies and more than 2,000 reports of cardiac disorders.
In a recent interview with Sarah Westall, Dr. Joe Nieusma, who has a PhD in toxicology, discusses possible ways to detox from the COVID shot. He spends quite a bit of time discussing the merits of chlorine dioxide (chemical abbreviation ClO2) which has been marketed by Jim Humble as Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) for some time.
They produce a lethal spike protein in insensitive organs like the brain or the heart or elsewhere. The spike protein damages blood vessels, damages organs, causes blood clots. So it’s well within the mechanism of action that the vaccine could be fatal. Someone could have a fatal blood clot.
It’s telling us that the vaccine can reduce the flow of blood to the heart, damage heart tissue, and greatly increase the risk of a heart attack. The authors are telling readers point-blank that the vaccine can either kill or severely injure them. Can you see that?
A major new technology known as Gene Editing has gained significant attention in recent months. Its advocates claim it will revolutionize everything from agriculture production to disease treatment.
There are indications that the decision of the WHO Director General to declare a PHEIC was taken on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos (January 21-24) overlapping with the Geneva January 22 meeting of the WHO emergency committee on 22 January, 2020.
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.
Stick to the script: owe that duty of care to your population, so the legal experts in government tell you. Self-interest pays, if in small amounts. These rigid, formulaic assumptions have done wonders to harm and deter any spirit of cooperation regarding dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic.
History’s record of humanity’s response to plagues, pandemics and disease is one of isolation, marginalisation, and exclusion. The infected shall be kept away and sealed off from the healthy and wealthy. This, inevitably, results in partiality, prejudice and distinctions. Omicron, having been pumped with the prestige of a potential COVID super variant, has given dozens of countries grounds to stop travel, halt movement and stem flights. As always, these measures have been applied unevenly and hypocritically.
First reported by South Africa, the country now has the distinction of being, along with a range of other Southern African countries, pariahs in terms of international travel. Little wonder that individuals such as the Chair of the South African Medical Association, Dr. Angelique Coetzee are alarmed at what was essentially a replay of the initial global response to COVID-19.
In Coetzee’s judgment, Omicron, while seemingly harder to detect, does not deserve a ladle full of fear. “Looking at the mildness of the symptoms that we are seeing, currently there is no reason for panicking, as we don’t see severely ill patients.” The prevailing “clinical complaint is severe fatigue for one or two days, with the headache and body aches and pains.” She also noted instances of a scratchy throat and dry coughing.
South African Health Minister Joe Phaahlasimilarly reported that his country’s “clinicians have not witnessed severe illness. Part of it may be because the majority of those who are positive are young people.”
Vaccine manufacturers such as Moderna have been quick off the mark in sowing seeds of mild panic, claiming that existing COVID-19 vaccines will be less effective against Omicron. According to the company’s chief executive, Stéphane Bancel, the number of Omicron mutations on the spike protein – the part of the virus famed for infecting human cells – and the speed of transmissibility, suggested an imminent “material drop” in effectiveness.
This less than responsible prediction, in the absence of cold hard trials and laboratory results, was marvellous for speculators and someone was obviously making a packet on the sliding of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which slipped 652 points (1.9%) on November 30. The S&P 500 and the Nasdaq also fell 1.9% and 1.6% respectively.
The World Health Organisation has never been partial to the idea of a travel ban in the face of disease. But it finds itself in a difficult position. Closing the borders can inflict harm; but not encouraging closures might result in retrospective condemnation from governments who fear their populace and chances of survival at the ballot box. The stance taken towards Omicron is that the haste on the part of many countries in sealing Southern African countries off has been irrational and disproportionate.
In a statement from WHO Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, concern was expressed that countries such as Botswana and South Africa “are now penalized by others for doing the right thing.” Nation states should “take rational, proportional risk-reduction measures, in keeping with International Health Regulations.”
Suggestions included passenger screenings prior to and after travel, or the use of quarantine for international travellers. “Blanket travel bans will not prevent the international spread of Omicron, and they place a heavy burden on lives and livelihoods.”
The Director-General also made the pertinent point that the Delta variant remained pre-eminently dangerous. With the tools already available to combat that mutation, using them effectively would invariably also “prevent transmission and save lives from Omicron.”
These are also views held by the UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who has also suggested a testing regime for travellers rather than a shutting of the door. “With a virus that is truly borderless, travel restrictions that isolate any one country or region are not only deeply unfair and punitive – they are ineffective.”
On a cooperative and collaborative level, the travel ban on South Africa has also had a discernible effect. As Maria Van Kerhove, the WHO’s lead on COVID-19 remarked, South African researchers, despite being keen to share data, samples and information, find themselves facing obstacles in actually having samples “shipped out of the country”.
As with other pandemics, gross inequality shadows, imposes and manifests in every phase of the response. “We are living through a cycle of panic and neglect,” laments Tedros. Be it the imposition of national quarantines, international closures, restrictions on access to diagnostic equipment, protective equipment, vaccines, the moneyed shall find their way to the top, if only because they were there to begin with. Those without bountiful lucre, few resources other than ambition and little else other than hope, will be squashed, or at the very least find themselves isolated and delayed.
In the whirlwind that is viral change and adjustment, the WHO has uttered some statements of sense. But these are not going to find a home in countries which have invested billions in pandemic infrastructure and restrictions. Vaccine mandates are being retained in some countries with high vaccination rates, which tends to make more than a mild mockery of the vaccination program itself.
The talk of boosters means that those who have not satisfied the next round of regulatory safety will be barred from bar and border; from restaurant and recreation facility. It is also a reminder that wealthier, high-income states will prioritise their own populations, leaving such collective efforts to immunise the globe, such as COVAX, behind. Doing this will only serve to delay the vaccination of poorer countries and encourage the next roaring mutation to stumble onto the world stage. There are many other potential Omicrons in the pipeline.
In the meantime, countries such as South Africa may well rue their candour in disclosing a variant it was so quick to identify and sequence. There is little to suggest that Omicron actually originated there but such details will never get in the way of irrational impulse and shoddy judgments.
*
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. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]
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.
What President Dwight D. Eisenhower dubbed the “military-industrial complex” has been constantly evolving over the decades, adjusting to shifts in the economic and political system as well as international events. The result today is a “permanent-war complex,” which is now engaged in conflicts in at least eight countries across the globe, none of which are intended to be temporary.
This new complex has justified its enhanced power and control over the country’s resources primarily by citing threats to U.S. security posed by Islamic terrorists. But like the old military-industrial complex, it is really rooted in the evolving relationship between the national security institutions themselves and the private arms contractors allied with them.
The first phase of this transformation was a far-reaching privatization of U.S. military and intelligence institutions in the two decades after the Cold War, which hollowed out the military’s expertise and made it dependent on big contractors (think Halliburton, Booz Allen Hamilton, CACI). The second phase began with the global “war on terrorism,” which quickly turned into a permanent war, much of which revolves around the use of drone strikes.
The drone wars are uniquely a public-private military endeavor, in which major arms contractors are directly involved in the most strategic aspect of the war. And so the drone contractors—especially the dominant General Atomics—have both a powerful motive and the political power, exercised through its clients in Congress, to ensure that the wars continue for the indefinite future.
*
The privatization of military and intelligence institutions began even before the end of the Cold War. But during the 1990s, both Congress and the Bush and Clinton administrations opened the floodgates to arms and intelligence contractors and their political allies. The contracts soon became bigger and more concentrated in a handful of dominant companies. Between 1998 and 2003, private contractors were getting roughly half of the entire defense budget each year. The 50 biggest companies were getting more than half of the approximately $900 billion paid out in contracts during that time, and most were no-bid contracts, sole sourced, according to the Center for Public Integrity.
The contracts that had the biggest impact on the complex were for specialists working right in the Pentagon. The number of these contractors grew so rapidly and chaotically in the two decades after the Cold War that senior Pentagon officials did not even know the full extent of their numbers and reach. In 2010, then-secretary of defense Robert M. Gates even confessed to Washington Post reporters Dana Priest and William M. Arkin that he was unable to determine how many contractors worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which includes the entire civilian side of the Pentagon.
Although legally forbidden from assuming tasks that were “inherent government functions,” in practice these contractors steadily encroached on what had always been regarded as government functions. Contractors could pay much higher salaries and consulting fees than government agencies, so experienced Pentagon and CIA officers soon left their civil service jobs by the tens of thousands for plum positions with firms that often paid twice as much as the government for the same work.
That was especially true in the intelligence agencies, which experienced a rapid 50 percent workforce increase after 9/11. It was almost entirely done with former skilled officers brought back as contractor personnel. Even President Barack Obama’s CIA director Leon Panetta admitted to Priest and Arkin that the intelligence community had for too long “depended on contractors to do the operational work” that had always been done by CIA employees, including intelligence analysis, and that the CIA needed to rebuild its own expertise “over time.”
By 2010, “core contractors”—those who perform such functions as collection and analysis—comprised at least 28 percent of professional civilian and military intelligence staff, according to a fact sheet from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
The dependence on the private sector in the Pentagon and the intelligence community had reached such a point that it raised a serious question about whether the workforce was now “obligated to shareholders rather than to the public interest,” as Priest and Arkin reported. And both Gates and Panetta acknowledged to them their concerns about that issue.
Powerfully reinforcing that privatization effect was the familiar revolving door between the Pentagon and arms contractors, which had begun turning with greater rapidity. A 2010 Boston Globe investigation showed that the percentage of three- and four-star generals who left the Pentagon to take jobs as consultants or executives with defense contractors, which was already at 45 percent in 1993, had climbed to 80 percent by 2005—an 83 percent increase in 12 years.
The incoming George W. Bush administration gave the revolving door a strong push, bringing in eight officials from Lockheed Martin—then the largest defense contractor—to fill senior policymaking positions in the Pentagon. The CEO of Lockheed Martin, Peter Teets, was brought in to become undersecretary of the Air Force and director of the National Reconnaissance Office (where he had responsibility for acquisition decisions directly benefiting his former company). James Roche, the former vice president of Northrop Grumman, was named secretary of the Air Force, and a former vice president of General Dynamics, Gordon R. England, was named the secretary of the Navy.
In 2007, Bush named rear admiral J. Michael McConnell as director of national intelligence. McConnell had been director of the National Security Agency from 1992 to 1996, then became head of the national security branch of intelligence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Not surprisingly McConnell energetically promoted even greater reliance on the private sector, on the grounds that it was supposedly more efficient and innovative than the government. In 2009 he returned once again to Booz Allen Hamilton as vice chairman.
The Pentagon and the intelligence agencies thus morphed into a new form of mixed public-private institutions, in which contractor power was greatly magnified. To some in the military it appeared that the privateers had taken over the Pentagon. As a senior U.S. military officer who had served in Afghanistan commented to Priest and Arkin, “It just hits you like a ton of bricks when you think about it. The Department of Defense is no longer a war-fighting organization, it’s a business enterprise.”
*
The years after 9/11 saw the national security organs acquire new missions, power, and resources—all in the name of a “War on Terror,” aka “the long war.” The operations in Afghanistan and Iraq were sold on that premise, even though virtually no al Qaeda remained in Afghanistan and none were in Iraq until long after the initial U.S. invasion.
The military and the CIA got new orders to pursue al Qaeda and affiliated groups in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and several other African countries, parlaying what the Bush administration called a “generational war” into a guarantee that there would be no return to the relative austerity of the post-Cold War decade.
Drone strikes against targets associated with al Qaeda or affiliated groups became the common feature of these wars and a source of power for military and intelligence officials. The Air Force owned the drones and conducted strikes in Afghanistan, but the CIA carried them out covertly in Pakistan, and the CIA and the military competed for control over the strikes in Yemen.
The early experience with drone strikes against “high-value targets” was an unmitigated disaster. From 2004 through 2007, the CIA carried out 12 strikes in Pakistan, aimed at high-value targets of al Qaeda and its affiliates. But they killed only three identifiable al Qaeda or Pakistani Taliban figures, along with 121 civilians, based on analysis of news reports of the strikes.
But on the urging of CIA Director Michael Hayden, in mid-2008 President Bush agreed to allow “signature strikes” based merely on analysts’ judgment that a “pattern of life” on the ground indicated an al Qaeda or affiliated target. Eventually it became a tool for killing mostly suspected rank-and-file Afghan Taliban fighters in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, particularly during the Obama administration, which had less stomach and political capital for outright war and came to depend on the covert drone campaign. This war was largely secret and less accountable publicly. And it allowed him the preferable optics of withdrawing troops and ending official ground operations in places like Iraq.
Altogether in its eight years in office, the Obama administration carried out a total of nearly 5,000 drone strikes—mostly in Afghanistan—according to figures collected by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
But between 2009 and 2013, the best informed officials in the U.S. government raised alarms about the pace and lethality of this new warfare on the grounds that it systematically undermined the U.S. effort to quell terrorism by creating more support for al Qaeda rather than weakening it. Some mid-level CIA officers opposed the strikes in Pakistan as early as 2009, because of what they had learned from intelligence gathered from intercepts of electronic communications in areas where the strikes were taking place: they were infuriating Muslim males and making them more willing to join al Qaeda.
In a secret May 2009 assessment leaked to the Washington Post, General David Petraeus, then commander of the Central Command, wrote, “Anti-U.S. sentiment has already been increasing in Pakistan…especially in regard to cross-border and reported drone strikes, which Pakistanis perceive to cause unacceptable civilian casualties.”
More evidence of that effect came from Yemen. A 2013 report on drone war policy for the Council on Foreign Relations found that membership in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen grew from several hundred in 2010 to a few thousand members in 2012, just as the number of drone strikes in the country was increasing dramatically—along with popular anger toward the United States.
Drone strikes are easy for a president to support. They demonstrate to the public that he is doing something concrete about terrorism, thus providing political cover in case of another successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Donald Trump has shown no interest in scaling back the drone wars, despite openly questioning the stationing of troops across the Middle East and Africa. In 2017 he approved a 100 percent increase in drone strikes in Yemen and a 30 percent increase in Somalia above the totals of the final year of the Obama administration. And Trump has approved a major increase in drone strikes in Afghanistan, and has eliminated rules aimed at reducing civilian casualties from such strikes.
Even if Obama and Trump had listened to dissenting voices on the serious risks of drone wars to U.S. interests, however, another political reality would have prevented the United States from ending the drone wars: the role of the private defense contractors and their friends on Capitol Hill in maintaining the status quo.
*
Unlike conventional bombing missions, drone strikes require a team to watch the video feeds, interpret them, and pass on their conclusions to their mission coordinators and pilots. By 2007 that required more specialists than the Air Force had available. Since then, the Air Force has been working with military and intelligence contractors to analyze full-motion videos transmitted by drones to guide targeting decisions. BAE, the third-ranking Pentagon contractor according to defense revenues, claims that it is the “leading provider” of analysis of drone video intelligence, but in the early years the list of major companies with contracts for such work also included Booz Allen Hamilton, L-3 Communications, and SAIC (now Leidos).
These analysts were fully integrated into the “kill chain” that resulted, in many cases, in civilian casualties. In the now-famous case of the strike in February 2010 that killed at least 15 Afghan civilians, including children, the “primary screener” for the team of six video analysts in Florida communicating via a chat system with the drone pilot in Nevada was a contract employee with SAIC. That company had a $49 million multi-year contract with the Air Force to analyze drone video feeds and other intelligence from Afghanistan.
The pace of drone strikes in Afghanistan accelerated sharply after U.S. combat ended formally in 2014. And that same year, the air war against ISIS began in Iraq and Syria. The Air Force then began running armed drones around the clock in those countries as well. The Air Force needed 1,281 drone pilots to handle as many “combat air patrols” per day in multiple countries. But it was several hundred pilots short of that objective.
To fulfill that requirement the Air Force turned to General Atomics—maker of the first armed drone, the Predator, and a larger follow-on, the MQ-9 Reaper—which had already been hired to provide support services for drone operations on a two-year contract worth $700 million. But in April 2015 the Air Force signed a contract with the company to lease one of its Reapers with its own ground control station for a year. In addition, the contractor was to provide the pilots, sensor operators, and other crew members to fly it and maintain it.
The pilots, who still worked directly for General Atomics, did everything Air Force drone pilots did except actually fire the missiles. The result of that contract was a complete blurring of the lines between the official military and the contractors hired to work alongside them. The Air Force denied any such blurring, arguing that the planning and execution of each mission would still be in the hands of an Air Force officer. But the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Office had published an article in its law review in 2010 warning that even the analysis of video feeds risked violating international law prohibiting civilian participation in direct hostilities.
A second contract with a smaller company, Aviation Unlimited, was for the provision of pilots and sensor operators and referred to “recent increased terrorist activities,” suggesting that it was for anti-ISIS operations.
The process of integrating drone contractors into the kill chain in multiple countries thus marked a new stage in the process of privatizing war in what had become a permanent war complex. After 9/11, the military became dependent on the private sector for everything from food, water, and housing to security and refueling in Iraq and Afghanistan. By 2009 contractors began outnumbering U.S. troops in Afghanistan and eventually became critical for continuing the war as well.
In June 2018, the DoD announced a $40 million contract with General Atomics to operate its own MQ-9 Reapers in Afghanistan’s Helmand Province. The Reapers are normally armed for independent missile strikes, but in this case, the contractor-operated Reapers were to be unarmed, meaning that the drones would be used to identify targets for Air Force manned aircraft bombing missions.
*
There appears to be no braking mechanism for this accelerating new reality. U.S. government spending on the military drone market, which includes not only procurement and research and development for the drones themselves, but the sensors, modifications, control systems, and other support contracts, stood at $4.5 billion in 2016, and was expected to increase to $13 billion by 2027. General Atomics is now the dominant player in the arena.
This kind of income translates into political power, and the industry has shown its muscle and more than once prevented the Pentagon from canceling big-ticket programs, no matter how unwanted or wasteful. They have the one-two punch of strategically focused campaign contributions and intensive lobbying of members with whom they have influence.
This was most evident between 2011 and 2013, after congressionally mandated budget reductions cut into drone procurement. The biggest loser appeared to be Northrop Grumman’s “Global Hawk” drone, designed for unarmed high-altitude intelligence surveillance flights of up to 32 hours.
By 2011 the Global Hawk was already 25 percent over budget, and the Pentagon had delayed the purchase of the remaining planes for a year to resolve earlier failures to deliver adequate “near real time” video intelligence.
After a subsequent test, however, the Defense Department’s top weapons tester official reported in May 2011 that the Global Hawk was “not operationally effective” three fourths of the time, because of “low vehicle reliability.” He cited the “failure” of “mission central components” at “high rates.” In addition, the Pentagon still believed the venerable U-2 Spy plane—which could operate in all weather conditions, unlike the Global Hawk—could carry out comparable high-altitude intelligence missions.
As a result, the DoD announced in 2012 that it would mothball the aircraft it had already purchased and save $2.5 billion over five years by foregoing the purchase of the remaining three drones. But that was before Northrop Grumman mounted a classic successful lobbying campaign to reverse the decision.
That lobbying drive produced a fiscal year 2013 defense appropriations law that added $360 million for the purchase of the final three Global Hawks. In Spring 2013, top Pentagon officials indicated that they were petitioning for “relief” from congressional intent. Then the powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, California Republican Buck McKeon, and a member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, Democrat Jim Moran of Virginia, wrote a letter to incoming Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on May 13, 2013, pressing him to fund the acquisition of the Global Hawks.
The Pentagon finally caved. The Air Force issued a statement pledging to acquire the last three Northrop Grumman spy planes, and in early 2014, Hagel and Dempsey announced that they would mothball the U-2 and replace it with the Global Hawk.
Northrop spent nearly $18 million on lobbying in 2012 and $21 million in 2013, fielding a phalanx of lobbyists determined to help save Global Hawk. It got what it wanted.
Meanwhile, Northrop’s political action committee had already made contributions of at least $113,000 to the campaign committee of House Armed Services Committee Chairman McKeon, who also happened to represent the Southern California district where Northrop’s assembly plant for the Global Hawk is located. Representative Moran, the co-author of the letter with McKeon, who represented the northern Virginia district where Northrop has its headquarters, had gotten $22,000 in contributions.
Of course Northrop didn’t ignore the rest of the House Armed Services Committee: they were recipients of at least $243,000 in campaign contributions during the first half of 2012.
*
The Northrop Grumman triumph dramatically illustrates the power relationships underlying the new permanent-war complex. In the first half of 2013 alone, four major drone contractors—General Atomics, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing—spent $26.2 million lobbying Congress to pressure the executive branch to keep the pipeline of funding for their respective drone systems flowing freely. The Center for the Study of the Drone observed, “Defense contractors are pressuring the government to maintain the same levels of investment in unmanned systems even as the demand from the traditional theatres such as Afghanistan dies down.”
Instead of dying down, the demand from drones in Afghanistan has exploded in subsequent years. By 2016, the General Atomics Reapers had already become so tightly integrated into U.S. military operations in Afghanistan that the whole U.S. war plan was dependent on them. In the first quarter of 2016 Air Force data showed that 61 percent of the weapons dropped in Afghanistan were from the drones.
In the new permanent-war complex the interests of the arms contractors have increasingly dominated over the interests of the civilian Pentagon and the military services, and dominance has became a new driving force for continued war. Even though those bureaucracies, along with the CIA, seized the opportunity to openly conduct military operations in one country after another, the drone war has introduced a new political dynamic into the war system: the drone makers who have powerful clout in Congress can use their influence to block or discourage an end to the permanent war—especially in Afghanistan—which would sharply curtail the demand for drones.
Eisenhower was prophetic in his warning about the threat of the original complex (which he had planned to call the military-industrial-congressional complex) to American democracy. But that original complex, organized merely to maximize the production of arms to enhance the power and resources of both the Pentagon and their contractor allies, has become a much more serious menace to the security of the American people than even Eisenhower could have anticipated. Now it is a system of war that powerful arms contractors and their bureaucratic allies may have the ability to maintain indefinitely.
*
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.
Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to The American Conservative. He is also the author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.
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.
VAERS data released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention included a total of 927,740 reports of adverse events from all age groups following COVID vaccines, including 19,532 deaths and 146,720 serious injuries between Dec. 14, 2020, and Nov. 26, 2021.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention today released new data showing a total of 927,740 reports of adverse events following COVID vaccines were submitted between Dec. 14, 2020, and Nov. 26, 2021, to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). VAERS is the primary government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S.
Foreign reports are reports received by U.S. manufacturers from their foreign subsidiaries. Under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, if a manufacturer is notified of a foreign case report that describes an event that is both serious and does not appear on the product’s labeling, the manufacturer is required to submit the report to VAERS.
Of the 8,986 U.S. deaths reported as of Nov. 26, 20% occurred within 24 hours of vaccination, 26% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination and 61% occurred in people who experienced an onset of symptoms within 48 hours of being vaccinated.
In the U.S., 454 million COVID vaccine doses had been administered as of Nov. 24. This includes 264 million doses of Pfizer, 173 million doses of Moderna and 16 million doses of Johnson & Johnson (J&J).
Every Friday, VAERS publishes vaccine injury reports received as of a specified date. Reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before a causal relationship can be confirmed. Historically, VAERS has been shown to report only 1% of actual vaccine adverse events.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Nov. 26, 2021 for 5- to 11-year-olds show:
2,586 adverse events, including 34 rated as serious and 2 reported deaths. One death occurred in an 11-year-old girl from Georgia vaccinated Sept. 14, prior to the authorization of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine in the 5 to 11 age group.
The second death (VAERS I.D. 1890705) occurred in a 5-year-old girl who died four days after receiving her first dose of Pfizer.
1,581 adverse events have been reported in the 5 to 11 age group since Nov. 1.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Nov. 26, 2021 for 12- to 17-year-olds show:
The most recent death involves a 16-year-old girl from Georgia (VAERS I.D. 1865389) who died reportedly from a heart condition and multi-organ failure two days after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.
60 reports of anaphylaxis among 12- to 17-year-olds where the reaction was life-threatening, required treatment or resulted in death — with 96% of cases
attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
563 reports of myocarditis and pericarditis (heart inflammation) with 553 cases attributed to Pfizer’s vaccine.
139 reports of blood clotting disorders, with all cases attributed to Pfizer.
U.S. VAERS data from Dec. 14, 2020, to Nov. 26, 2021, for all age groups combined, show:
19% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders.
54% of those who died were male, 42% were female and the remaining death reports did not include gender of the deceased.
Athletes experience devastating injuries following COVID vaccines
As The Defender reported Dec. 2, several high-performing professional athletes are facing the end of their careers after COVID vaccines destroyed their health.
World record-holder in static breath-hold freediving, veteran triathlete, professional tennis player, professional mountain biker—all high-performing athletes until COVID vaccines ruined their health + their careers.#TheDefender: https://t.co/zL66Edfiw5https://t.co/L76vBedOOW
Florian Dagoury, a world record-holder in static breath-hold freediving, who once held his breath for a shocking 10 minutes and 30 seconds, was diagnosed with myocarditis, pericarditis and trivial mitral regurgitation after receiving Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.
Dagoury said he now struggles to reach an 8-minute breath-hold, feels an urge to breathe doing 40-minute dives, can’t keep his heart rate low and experienced a 30% decrease in his diving performance.
Veteran triathlete Antoine Méchin, 32, is also facing the potential end to his career after experiencing a pulmonary embolism after receiving Moderna’s COVID vaccine.
The symptoms, which included breathing problems and arm pain, started after the first dose, but doctors brushed off his shortness of breath as related to stress and fatigue.
Jeremy Chardy, a 34-year old professional tennis player ranked 73rd in the world, suspended his season due to a severe adverse reaction to a COVID vaccine, which left him unable to engage in intense activity.
Kyle Warner, a 29-year-old professional mountain bike racer, developed pericarditis, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and reactive arthritis following his second dose of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine.
Warner’s reaction was so severe that, as of October, he was still spending days in bed, overwhelmed by too much mental or physical exertion.
Two professional soccer players collapse during games
A professional soccer player collapsed suddenly on Nov. 25, during a Real Madrid’s Champions League game with Sheriff Tiraspol, a Moldovan soccer club, ZeroHedge reported.
Adama Traore, 26, a winger for Sherriff Tiraspol, was seen clutching his chest as he slumped to the ground in the middle of the game as medics rushed to revive him. The reasons behind Traore’s collapse and why he was suffering from chest pains have not been confirmed.
Traore’s collapse occurred the night after another player, Sheffield United’s John Fleck, went down during a match against Reading. Fleck was taken off on a stretcher after receiving lengthy treatment.
When a radio pundit questioned whether Fleck had received the COVID vaccine, his live feed to the show was cut.
A major German newspaper, Berliner Zeitung, recently published a report attempting to answer why an “unusually large number of professional and amateur soccer players have collapsed recently.”
The article listed many recent cases of players who experienced heart problems or collapsed on the field — in some cases resulting in death.
Pfizer seeks authorization for boosters shots for 16- and 17-year-olds
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said in a tweet on Tuesday the pharma giant, along with BioNTech, formally asked the FDA to authorize COVID booster doses for 16- and 17-year olds.
If approved, the shot would be the first booster available to people under 18.
The FDA could approve Pfizer’s booster doses for 16- and 17-year olds as soon as next week, according to people familiar with the matter.
COVID vaccines may be associated with heightened risk of myopericarditis among men
To help determine whether a correlation exists between COVID vaccines and myopericarditis, researchers tracked data from more than 268,000 adults in Massachusetts who received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine between August 2020 and May 2021.
The researchers compared the data to a control group made up of 235,000 of the same patients — from 2018 and 2019, well before they had received any doses of a COVID vaccine.
In a study published in the American Journal of Cardiology, the researchers found the age-adjusted incidence rate of myopericarditis in men was higher in the vaccinated than the control population, while the incidence rate of myopericarditis in women was the same between the vaccinated and control populations.
They also found an increased incidence of myocardial injury in both men and women in 2021 compared to 2019, although they suggested some of the apparent increase in the diagnosis of myopericarditis after vaccination may be attributable to factors unrelated to the COVID vaccines.
Moderna CEO says Omicron COVID booster could be ready by March
Moderna President Stephen Hoge said Wednesday boosters of its COVID vaccine targeting the Omicron variant could be ready for U.S. authorization as early as March.
Moderna is also developing a multivalent vaccine targeting Omicron and three other COVID variants, although the shot will not be available for several more months, Forbes reported.
March is the earliest date an Omicron booster could be approved under current FDA guidelines, though the company can start manufacturing the vaccine during testing.
Hoge said he thinks existing vaccines “will be able to slow down, if not completely stop, the Omicron variant.”
*
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.
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.
A man in Pennsylvania has reported that his niece, Harper, was taken to the ICU recently due to having a stroke and hemorrhaging in her brain, 7 days after receiving a Pfizer COVID-19 shot.
The uncle, Barry Gewin, does not refer to the shot she received as a “vaccine,” but a “lethal injection” that is “pure evil,” suggesting that he might have a different opinion about the Pfizer shots for children than maybe his brother does, the father of Harper.
At one point he posted an update along with a short video stating that Harper was beginning to walk again.
But in a subsequent comment, he appeared to be reporting that she had lapsed again and was not “eating, drinking, sitting up, or walking,” according to his brother.
He does not state the age of his niece, that I could see, but other comments seemed to mention that she is 7-years-old.
An Obligation and Commitment to the Truth
I am afraid that this is what it is going to take to bring these COVID-19 lethal injection casualties in children to the public. Family members and friends cannot just sit by and watch this happen, especially if the parents are reluctant to go public with their child’s COVID-19 “vaccine” injuries and deaths, as most assuredly the majority of them will be pressured to keep quiet about this, as they deal with their own guilt and shame.
Not a single Governor of either a Red or Blue State has stepped in to stop these bioweapons from being injected into children, even though they have the power to do so, so they are complicit with these injuries and murders, as unaware parents take their children in to get injected and be abused with these shots.
Do not let the blood of these innocent children whose parents are foolishly sacrificing their children to the vaccine gods stain your own hands with blood. Let the public know what is going on, letting this evil see the light of day, and not hiding in the darkness.
Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.
If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done? (Proverbs 24:11-12)
You can send their stories to us, and also to The COVID Blog, and The COVID World, who are also publishing many of these stories.
Share this video far and wide showing what parents have already gone through in losing their children to the Vaccine Cult.
*
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.
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.
General Secretary of the UN, Mr António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres UK Prime Minister, Mr Boris Johnson French President, Mr Emmanuel Macron German Chancellor, Mrs Angela Merkel High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Mr Josep Borrell Fontelles US President, Mr Joe Biden Chinese President, Mr Xi Jinping Russian President, Mr Vladimir Putin
As state officials from the UK, France, Germany, China and Russia are currently meeting with the Iranian delegation in Vienna for a new round of negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, we the undersigned note and demand the following:
The United States left the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, under the pressure from Israel, when Iran was in verified total compliance with its commitments.
Iran’s nuclear program has proven to be peaceful and no credible evidence has been presented which contradicts the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.
The economic sanctions imposed on Iran by the United States and its European allies is an illegal and criminal act of war on the Iranian population. It has killed thousands of innocent people, damaged and impeded critical infrastructure projects and social programmes, and inflicted incalculable suffering on Iranian society.
Iran and Iranians have been constantly targeted with terrorism and threatened with military attack by Israel and the US, in clear violation of the UN Charter.
The negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program have been constantly exploited by the hegemonic powers to pressure Iran to compromise its security and to surrender its rights of independence and national sovereignty.
We demand:
The unconditional return of the United States to the JCPOA as signed in 2015.
Removal of all sanctions.
Stopping the threats of war.
Bringing pressure by the international community upon Israel to join the NPT and for its nuclear arsenal disarmament.
Initial List of Endorsers
Organizations:
Association for Investment in Popular Action Committees
Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMI)
Free Palestine Movement
House of Latin America, Research Center
International Action Center
International Solidarity Movement-Northern California
NakbaTour
One State Assembly
Palbox
Palestine Children’s Welfare Fund
Resumen Latinoamericano
Solidarity Iran – SI
Syria Solidarity Movement
Workers World
Individuals
Abdollahi, Mahmoudreza: Translator, Cultural and Peace Activist
Abutalebi, Ali: Publisher, MazmoonBooks, Executive Director
Ahrabi, Fereydoon: Professor of Statistics
Anthony, Navid: Public Health Manager, Political activist
Anthony, Simon: England Green Party, IT College Lecturer
August، Arnold: Canada, Journalist Contributing Editor for The Canada Files & Authors
Azad, Bahman: PhD Sociology, Executive Secretary, US Peace Council
Azin, Kazem: Solidarity Iran SI, US Coordinator
Bahrani, Assadolah H. : Economic Teacher
Bello, Judith, Syria Solidarity Movement, United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC)
Clay, Am: December 12th Movement International Secretariat
Edalat, Abbas: Professor of Computer Science and Mathematics, Imperial College, London, Founder of CASMII (Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran)
Edmonds, Sibel: The Founder and Editor-in-chief of the NewsBud
Flounders, Sara: International Action Center
Gharavi, Nureddin: Peace Activist
Golestani, Khosro : Political Analyst and Translator
Gorbani, Mohammad : Translator, Antiwar Activist
Golestani, Mohammad-Ali: Peace Activist
Haghpassand, Marjaneh : Environmental Activist
Kia، Siamak: Peace Activist
Kovalik, Dan: American Labors Rights, Human Rights Lawyer.
Lombardo, Joe: Coordinator, United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC)
Maguire, Mairead: Irish Peace Activist, Nobel Peace Prize Winner
Marjaee, Fareed: Peace Activist, Writer
Mazarei, Ahmad: Writer and Translator
Moradi, Elmira: Peace Activist
Maupin, Caleb: Journalist, Political Analyst
Nabavi, Badieh: Peace Activist, France
Nabavi, Mir-Mahmoud: Translator, Peace and Cultural Activist
Namdari, Reza: Peace Activist
Omani, Elinor: Cofounder AFIC
Pahlavan, Salome’: Peace Activist
Rashidi, Iraj: Political Analysts
Raoufi-Rad, Vahid: Mainframe Consultant, Sydney, Australia
Rezvi, Sarbaz Roohulla: Peace and Justice Activist, Kashmir, India
Rohani, Ali: Poet, Peace Activist
Rouiniyan, Negar: Peace and Cultural Activist
Rehmani, Tasleem: President of Muslim Political Council of India
Saedi, Anwar: Attorney at Law
Saeedi, Bahman: Political Activist
Sassani, Massoud: Economist, USA
Shahabi, Farhad: Researcher in International Relations, Austria
Shahabi, Mehrdad: Translator, Peace and Cultural Activist
Shahabi, Mehrnaz: Peace and Cultural Activist, Independent Researcher, UK
Shahrabi, Abdolhamid: Solidarity Iran – SI, Coordinator
Shafazand, Azita: Political Activist
Sheehan, Cindy: Prominent American Antiwar Activist
Shiri, Ebrahim: Writer and Translator
Silverstein, Richard: Journalist, USA
Taghavi, Mahdad: Peace and Cultural Activist, UK
Talaee, Ahmad: Political Activist
Tavallai, Majid: Peace Activist
Tchanguizi, Ali: Peace Activist
Teymouri, Hossein: Translator, Cultural and Peace Activist, Canada
Taheri, Sherwin: Media Activist, Journalist
Taherian, Mohammadreza: Political Analyst, Editor in Chief, Danesh O Mardom Journal
Vahedian, Farshid: Translator, Cultural and Peace Activist, USA
Wilayto, Phil: Editor, The Virginia Defender – USA
*
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.
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.
The head of the Indian Bar Association’s legal cell, Dipali Ojha, details the latest developments of her organization’s ongoing pursuit of justice and accountability related to her country’s management of covid and vaccination.
Ojha details a string of wins and talks about the her organization filing the world’s first murder charges against Bill Gates as a vaccine manufacturer. Link to case against Gates.
*
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.
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.
‘When you tell a student, get injected or get expelled, there is no free and informed consent to this vaccine,’ John Carpay of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms stressed.
The head of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) says Canadian universities with COVID jab mandates are violating the Nuremberg Code by “punishing students who exercise their legal right to bodily autonomy.”
“Universities are blatantly violating the Nuremberg Code, as well as the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights by pressuring students to get injected,” John Carpay said in a JCCF video posted Monday titled “Universities violate Nuremberg Code with vaccine coercion.”
“When you tell a student, get injected or get expelled, there is no free and informed consent to this vaccine.”
Carpay said in his video that the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights provides that any “preventive diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention” should only be carried out with the “prior free and informed consent of the person concerned based on adequate information.”
According to Carpay, universities are also tarnishing their “reputation as institutions of reason and science.”
In August, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) released a 2021 Campus Vaccine Index intending to help students and their parents to see what type of COVID mandates each of Canada’s 61 public universities has.
The JCCF index found that around 65 percent of Canada’s public universities did not enact mandatory COVID jab policies for the start of the new school year.
However, this still leaves 35 percent that did mandate the COVID jabs.
Just recently, 22-year-old Canadian engineering student Harry Wade was dragged out of his Western University class by cops because he was not vaccinated against COVID-19. Wade says he is ready to fight his court summons.
Many do not want the COVID injections due to safety concerns surrounding the jabs. There have been reports of thousands of people who have developed tumors after getting their COVID shots.
Also, many Catholics, Christians, and even agnostics object to the novel medical injections because cell lines derived from aborted babies were used either in their development or their testing.
The Nuremberg Code was drafted in 1947 after the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. The trials put a spotlight on Nazi doctors and scientists for their inhumane experiments on people.
The first principle the code lists is that “[t]he voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential” in any type of medical procedure or experiment.
Carpay: Students are being denied their ‘futures’ because of jab mandates
In the video, Carpay said students are being “deprived of their careers, their futures and their success” for refusing to go along with jab mandates, despite facing “no threat from COVID.”
Carpay said the COVID “vaccine has not been subjected to long-term safety testing,” and called out known risks associated with them.
“For young men ages 18 to 24, the vaccine poses a risk of serious heart conditions myocarditis and pericarditis. For young men, this risk of vaccine harm is higher than the risk of harm from COVID,” Carpay said.
“Mandatory vaccination policies are based on the disproven idea that the COVID vaccine actually stops the spread of COVID. However, COVID vaccines do not stop individuals from contracting or transmitting this virus.”
Carpay noted that even the vaccine manufacturers “themselves have stated publicly that there is no evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of COVID from person to person.”
“We also know that Israel, Ireland, Gibraltar and other places with very high vaccination rates continue to see plenty of people sick with COVID,” Carpay said.
“Harvard, Cornell and other universities with vaccination rates of 95 percent or higher are still seeing more COVID during the current academic year than they had last year. If the vaccine does not stop the spread of COVID, why force young and healthy university students or anyone for that matter, to take it.”
Canadian Dr. Patrick Phillips, who works in rural Ontario, has for months been calling out COVID jab mandates along with restrictions.
In his opinion, preventive measures such as a higher intake of Vitamin D and C and Zinc are key to beating the virus, as well as the use of Ivermectin.
Phillips told LifeSiteNews earlier in the year that a growing number of doctors in Canada “are a movement of physicians who are going to follow the Nuremberg Code, a diverse group of physicians. We are not anti-vaccine, or even anti-lockdown necessarily.”
Phillips has now had sanctions placed on him by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. He is barred from prescribing Ivermectin as well as handing out COVID exemptions.
Harvard trained lawyer: COVID jabs being forced on people is ‘Dr. Mengele at Auschwitz all over again’
In a November 29 opinion piece published on LifeSiteNews, Dr. Joseph Mercola wrote about a video interview he did with Dr. Francis Boyle, a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law who has called out lawmakers pushing COVID jabs.
Boyle is a Harvard-trained lawyer, whom Mercola wrote wants COVID pushing-pushing lawmakers held accountable for “murder.”
Mercola wrote that he had interviewed Boyle about “likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 having been engineered in a lab” and that those responsible for the virus need to be held accountable.
“These are the exact same people, the FDA, who are authorizing all of these frankenshots, including last week for kids from 5 to 11. So, they developed this biological warfare weapon and now they’re approving all the frankenshots. This is a one-two punch against the American people,” Boyle said to Mercola.
“What we’re seeing now with these frankenshots for children, this is Dr. Mengele at Auschwitz all over again. That’s where this Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation came from.”
Boyle also said to Mercola that “In the Nuremberg Charter judgment and principles, ‘a crime against humanity’ is defined in part as ‘murder, extermination or other inhumane acts committed against a civilian population.’ That’s what’s going on right now against the American population.”
As for Carpay, he said that the Nuremberg Code of Medical Ethics “requires that subjects can exercise free power of choice without any force fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion.”
Despite the Canadian government praising the effectiveness of the COVID jabs, trials have never produced evidence that vaccines stop infection or transmission. In fact, they do not even claim to reduce hospitalization, but the measurement of success is in preventing severe symptoms of COVID-19.
*
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.
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.
South Australian Senator Alex Antic was taken into hotel quarantine under police escort in Adelaide on Thursday night. The senator who has been very vocal against vaccine mandates is now forced to quarantine for two weeks.
The bizarre incident comes after Prime Minister Scott Morrison insisted in an interview last Friday that the senator has received both doses of the COVID vaccine.
The senator was asked by ABC Radio Adelaide on Friday why he was taken to a hotel to quarantine for two weeks to which he responded:
“That’s a very good question.
I’ve been a person who has been very, very vocal about mandates, vaccine passports, discrimination, government overreach and bureaucratic overreach.
Now all of a sudden I seem to have been singled out in what appears to be a political stunt and the only inference you can really draw from this is this has been quite premeditated.
My wife and my three-month-child are now at home for another two weeks without me.”
Scott Morrison has revealed he was “surprised” that Antic was detained and locked up in a medi-hotel for the unvaccinated on Thursday night because he believed he had been fully vaccinated.
“It was certainly my understanding that he’d been double vaccinated. And I had discussed vaccinations and made it very clear that that’s what I understood him to be, double vaccinated. So I was surprised.”
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.
All images in this article are from The COVID World
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.
Citing threats to Honolulu’s drinking water, the Sierra Club of Hawaii and the Oahu Water Protectors have called on President Biden, the Hawaii congressional delegation, and the U.S. military to shut down the leaking fuel tanks.
The long citizen protest underscoring the dangers from the U.S. Navy’s 80-year-old leaking 20 jet fuel tanks at Red Hill each tank 20 stories tall and holding a total of 225 million gallons of jet fuel came to a head over the weekend with Navy families around the large Pearl Harbor Naval Base being sickened by fuel in their home tap water. The Navy’s huge jet fuel tank complex is only 100 feet above Honolulu’s water supply and has been leaking with regularity.
The Navy command was slow to alert the community while the State of Hawai’i quickly issued a notice not to drink the water. Foster Village community members stated that they were smelling fuel after the November 20, 2021 release of 14,000 gallons of water and fuel from a fire suppression drain line a quarter-mile downhill from the fuel tank farm. The Navy has acknowledged that another pipeline fuel leak of more than 1,600 gallons of fuel had occurred on May 6 due to human error and that some of the fuel likely “reached the environment.”
All hell broke loose at four military community town hall meetings on November 30, 2021 when the Navy told housing residents that they should flush the water out of home pipes, the smell and fuel sheen would go away and they could use the water. Residents yelled at military briefers that the State of Hawai’i Department of Health was warning resident not to drink or use the water.
Three wells and water shafts serve the 93,000 military and family members around Pearl Harbor. Water samples have been sent for analysis to a laboratory in California to determine what type of contamination is in the water.
Over 470 persons have made comments on the Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam community Facebook about a fuel smell coming from their water taps and a sheen on the water. Military families are reporting headaches, rashes and diarrhea in children and pets. Basic hygiene, showers and laundry are major concerns of residents.
Valerie Kaahanui, who lives in the Dorris Miller military housing community, said she and her three kids began noticing problems about a week ago. “My kids have been sick, respiratory issues, headaches. I’ve had a headache for the past week,” she said. “My kids have had nosebleeds, rashes, we’ve been itchy after we get out of the shower. It feels like our skin is burning.” Kaahanui added that on Saturday, a smell became noticeable in the shower, and on Sunday, it was “heavy” and a film was noticeable on top of the water.
Hawaii’s 4-person Congressional delegation has finally begun challenging the safety of the U.S. Navy’s Red Hill jet fuel tank complex and met with the Secretary of the Navy. Afterwards they issued a joint statement that read: “The Navy owes the community straightforward communications on all events that occur at Red Hill and a commitment to address concerns with the Red Hill infrastructure no matter the cost. Given the resources and engineering expertise available to the Navy, we made it clear that there is zero tolerance for endangering the health and safety of the public or the environment.”
On December 1, Tanaka stated, “We’ve locked horns with the Navy for the last several years. I’m just trying to get them to acknowledge the risk—existential risks—that this fuel facility poses to our drinking water supply. It’s still unclear how and where fuel flow, if there is a massive leak, how quickly and whether it will actually migrate toward the Halawa shaft, which again would be pretty catastrophic. We all want to make sure that this doesn’t become a harbinger of things to come of what may be impacting a much, much, much broader segment of the population here.”
Dangers from the Underground Jet Fuel Storage Tanks
The facts presented in a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club against the Navy presented the evidence of the dangers of the 80 year old tanks include:
1). Eight of the tanks, each containing millions of gallons of fuel, have not been inspected in over two decades; three of these have not been inspected in 38 years;
2). Leaked fuel and fuel components have already been found in the groundwater below the facility;
3). The thin steel tank walls are corroding faster than the Navy anticipated due to moisture in the gaps between the tanks and their concrete casing;
4). The Navy’s system to test and monitor tanks for leaks cannot detect slow leaks that may indicate a heightened risk for larger, catastrophic leaks; cannot prevent human error that has led to large releases of fuel in the past; and cannot prevent an earthquake, like the one that spilled 1,100 barrels of fuel when the tanks were brand new.
In 2014, 27,000 gallons of jet fuel leaked from Tank 5;
In March 2020, a pipeline connected to Red Hill leaked an unknown quantity of fuel into Pearl Harbor Hotel Pier. The leak, which had stopped, started again in June 2020. Approximately 7,100 gallons of fuel was collected from the surrounding environment;
In January 2021, a pipeline that leads to the Hotel Pier area failed two leak detection tests. In February, a Navy contractor determined that there is an active leak at Hotel Pier. The Department of Health only found out in May 2021;
In May 2021, over 1,600 gallons of fuel leaked from the facility due to human error after a control room operator failed to follow correct procedures;
In July 2021, 100 gallons of fuel was released into Pearl Harbor, possibly from a source connected to the Red Hill facility;
In November 2021, residents from the neighborhoods of Foster Village and Aliamanu called 911 to report the smell of fuel, later found likely to have come from a leak from a fire suppression drain line connected to Red Hill. -The Navy reported that about 14,000 gallons of a fuel-water mixture had leaked;
The Navy’s own risk assessment reports that there is a 96% chance that up to 30,000 gallons of fuel will leak into the aquifer over the next 10 years.
Is Human Security Also National Security?
The Navy has warned that the tanks are vital for U.S. national security. Citizen activists, including the newly formed Oahu Water Protectors coalition, have maintained that the real national security issue is the security of the water supply for 400,000 resident on an island 2300 miles from the closest continent and an island considered a key military location for projection of power. If the Honolulu aquifer is contaminated, water would have to be transported from the other aquifers on the island.
It is ironic that the major test of human security vs. national security centers on the drinking water contamination of the military families and military members that provide the human element of the US military strategy in the Pacific..and that the safety of the 400,000 who drink from the aquifer of 970,000 civilians who live on Oahu will be determined on how the State of Hawai’i and the federal government force the US Navy to eliminate the major catastrophic danger to the islands water supply by finally shutting down the Red Hill jet fuel tanks.
From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
*
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.
Ann Wright is a 29 year US Army/Army Reserves veteran who retired as a Colonel and a former US diplomat who resigned in March 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq. She served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. In December 2001 she was on the small team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. She is the co-author of the book “Dissent: Voices of Conscience.”
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.
Israel seems to have acquired another formidably biased ally in the latest US Ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield. Her Trump era predecessor Nikki Haley once said, “If there’s anything I have no patience for, it is bullies – and the UN was being such a bully to Israel because they could.” Thomas-Greenfield is going down the same route; less fiery language, perhaps, and more diplomatic tact, but subjugating Palestinians to Israel’s colonial violence nonetheless.
During a briefing to the UN Security Council this week, Thomas-Greenfield spoke about Palestinians’ security concerns while invalidating them in the same speech by upholding Israel’s security narrative.
Israeli settlers, she noted, are attacking Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, while settlement expansion is threatening the two-state paradigm. However, Israel has “real and understandable security concerns” about which the UN is not doing enough. That’s if the US narrative is to be believed which, of course, it shouldn’t.
Israelis “interpret the overwhelming focus on Israel in this body as a denial of Israel’s right to exist and an unfair focus on this one country – and they are correct,” Thomas-Greenfield declared. Only a few days ago, the UN Secretary General made sure that the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People did not infringe on Israel’s colonial existence. So how can the US ambassador claim that the UN is denying Israel’s right to exist, when the two-state framework and the 1947 Partition Plan endorsed colonialism in Palestine and has protected it ever since?
The UN’s “unfair” focus on Israel is favourable to the settler-colonial enterprise. Its alleged unfairness has generated unrivalled impunity for Israel, while Palestinians have been begging for their political rights for decades to no avail. While Israel is recognised, endorsed and supported, Palestinians have lost so much territory that recognition of a Palestinian state renders no tangible benefits in terms of state-building. The “unfair focus” to which Thomas-Greenfield refers has allowed a colonial settlement project – with war crimes, as the International Criminal Court determined – to continue without any punitive measures, while Palestinians remain stuck in a perpetual cycle of dispossession. “Unfair focus” has also prioritised Israel’s existence over the Palestinian right of return, which the international community has long since written off as unfeasible and worthy only as a symbolic gesture, as opposed to a necessary political reckoning.
Thomas-Greenfield’s rhetoric takes the purported anti-Israel bias at the UN to a whole new level. The UN does not speak of decolonisation, let alone “a denial of Israel’s right to exist”, as she puts it. On the contrary, the UN affirmed Israel’s existence despite knowing that the creation of the settler-colonial state was based upon the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their own land.
In fact, so favourable is the UN’s focus on Israel, that Palestine is defined through Israel’s colonial requirements that will only consider complete annihilation of the land and its people as an acceptable end result. Hence the silence on Israel’s de-facto annexation of ever more Palestinian land, while issuing futile reprimands on settlement expansion and promoting dissociation between Israel’s violations of international law to avoid speaking of decolonisation. In light of all the pro-Israel bias at the UN, what else do the US and Israel expect from the international community?
*
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.
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).
Written with foresight, this incisive article by Rudolf Haensel first published by Global Research on August 3, 2021
***
On the fringes of a demonstration against the introduction of the green passport in Italy, a demonstrator described what we citizens can expect in the near future – if we let it happen:
“We will soon see how the vaccinated will attack us. People are being played off against each other.
Last year it was those who had jobs and those who lost them. This year, society will be divided between those who are vaccinated and those who are not.” (1)
Peaceful citizens are thus pitted against each other to advance the eugenics agenda of the ruling “elite”. Those responsible for this diabolical plan will wash their hands of the matter and blame the expected coven – as in every war – on the supposedly innate aggression instinct of man. But this is a myth that has always served tyrants of all stripes as a welcome legitimisation for fratricide or genocide. In truth, man is inherently good and not evil.
“The myth of the aggression instinct”
The doctrine of the inherited aggression drive or aggression instinct is one of the most controversial formulas with the help of which psychoanalysts and animal behaviourists seek to explain problems of the political and social situation, indeed of the history of human coexistence per se. But the self-evidence with which, following Konrad Lorenz (1903-1983), an innate aggression instinct is spoken of is by no means justified. This is shown by representatives of various sciences in the anthology “Der Mythos vom Aggressionstrieb” (2). Lorenz was an Austrian representative of “animal psychology”. According to the findings of the human sciences anthropology, sociology and psychology, man is by nature good and not evil.
Man has an inhibition to kill, an original aversion to killing. However, in order for him to attack his fellow human being anyway, this inhibition must be eliminated through appropriate explanations. The German philosopher Arno Plack calls it in the above-mentioned anthology from the 1970s:
“Militant leaders always had and have to reckon with the fact that a vital conscience resists carrying out orders to kill. And they took this into account by declaring, as they have done over the centuries, that the people or group they were fighting against were not really human beings at all, but ‘higher animals’ (as Pope Paul III said of the Indians) or ‘beasts’, ‘heathens’, ‘witches’, ‘subhumans’, ‘vermin’ even, which had to be exterminated. Thus manipulation of consciousness on the part of murderous rulers intervenes to bring people who still feel differently up to speed.” (3)
This view of Plack’s is confirmed by more recent specialist literature. For the renowned American social psychologist and violence researcher Philip Zimbardo, it is the power of circumstances that makes people violent criminals and murderers. In his book “The Lucifer Effect” he writes:
“It is not disposition that makes good people do evil, but the situation they find themselves in or are put in.” (4)
The prerequisite for the acts, he says, is that the victims are declared a threat and dehumanised at the same time. In Rwanda, the Hutu government proclaimed that Tutsis were nothing more than “hangovers” and therefore deserved to die. German Nazis portrayed Jews as dangerous “vermin”.
Today, the large group of unvaccinated fellow citizens is declared by the adlates of the ruling “elite” to be a life-threatening danger to the health of the population group of the already vaccinated, which should be urgently fought against or even excluded from the human community. Independent thinkers have long been discriminated against as confused “lateral thinkers”, as incorrigible “conspiracy theorists” and thus as a threat to those in power – and cleared for shooting down by the mass media. Where will this lead, if more and more authority-affiliated, government-loyal fellow citizens join this misanthropic and dangerous view – and the victims of this state discrimination campaign will not put up with it? The worldwide demonstrations and the apparent use of disproportionate force by mandated police forces does not bode well.
Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav: “History repeats itself”
The past histories of past civil, regional and world wars provide enough illustrative material to make one prick up one’s ears and yet still be perceptive. This includes the denigration of the Russian president and Russian citizens that has been going on for years as a method of psychological warfare.
In an article in the Austrian “Wochenblick” of 3 July, the Holocaust survivor, Mrs. Vera Sharav, is quoted as saying: “History repeats itself” (5). It is worth quoting longer passages from this article verbatim:
“Vera Sharav survived the Holocaust as a child. She describes: ‘When I came to New York, I asked myself: where was everyone? Where was everyone when I was in hell?’ Justice and not looking away when injustice happens is therefore a major concern for Sharav. Sucharit Bhakdi was recently accused of being anti-Semitic for calling Israel ‘hell on earth’. But Holocaust survivor Vera Sharav agrees with him: ‘I wish it were not so.’ History is repeating itself. They call for Nuremberg trials for those responsible for the Covid ‘crime against humanity’.
Sharav explains,
“The Nazi crimes happened without contradiction to International Law. But the Nuremberg Trials emerged, which provided justice and introduced the concept of crimes against humanity. So that something like what happened in Nazi Germany could never happen again. The Nuremberg Code was introduced in the wake of the Doctors’ Trials (1946) after World War II and was intended to ensure the ethical treatment of people by the media. But nevertheless, history is now repeating itself. (…)
It is terrible for Sharav to witness the decline of democracy now. The constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom have been suspended, as in Nazi Germany, analyses the Holocaust survivor. This is a great betrayal of trust that the governments are committing against their people. Sharav strongly criticises the Israeli government. She is shocked at how non-vaccinated people are demonised. ‘Under the Nazis, Jews were stigmatised as spreaders of disease and locked up in camps.‘ Now a two-class society would be created again. Society would be divided into the privileged and the underprivileged.” (6)
*
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. Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
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).
This incisive and timely article by award winning author Jonathan Cook was published on March 24, 2021,
***
Welcome to the age of fear. Nothing is more corrosive of the democratic impulse than fear. Left unaddressed, it festers, eating away at our confidence and empathy.
We are now firmly in a time of fear – not only of the virus, but of each other. Fear destroys solidarity. Fear forces us to turn inwards to protect ourselves and our loved ones. Fear refuses to understand or identify with the concerns of others.
In fear societies, basic rights become a luxury. They are viewed as a threat, as recklessness, as a distraction that cannot be afforded in this moment of crisis.
Once fear takes hold, populations risk agreeing to hand back rights, won over decades or centuries, that were the sole, meagre limit on the power of elites to ransack the common wealth. In calculations based on fear, freedoms must make way for other priorities: being responsible, keeping safe, averting danger.
Worse, rights are surrendered with our consent because we are persuaded that the rights themselves are a threat to social solidarity, to security, to our health.
‘Too noisy’ protests
It is therefore far from surprising that the UK’s draconian new Police and Crime Bill – concentrating yet more powers in the police – has arrived at this moment. It means that the police can prevent non-violent protest that is likely to be too noisy or might create “unease” in bystanders. Protesters risk being charged with a crime if they cause “nuisance” or set up protest encampments in public places, as the Occupy movement did a decade ago.
And damaging memorials – totems especially prized in a time of fear for their power to ward off danger – could land protesters, like those who toppled a statue to notorious slave trader Edward Colston in Bristol last summer, a 10-year jail sentence.
Police & Crime Bill allows for:-
• Gypsy & Traveller vehicles to be seized; • 3 months jail or £2.5k fine for a nomadic life without a travellers passport; • Banning of “disruptive” protests; • Up to 10 years jail for damage to a statue;
In other words, this is a bill designed to outlaw the right to conduct any demonstration beyond the most feeble and ineffective kind. It makes permanent current, supposedly extraordinary limitations on protest that were designed, or so it was said, to protect the public from the immediate threat of disease.
Protest that demands meaningful change is always noisy and disruptive. Would the suffragettes have won women the vote without causing inconvenience and without offending vested interests that wanted them silent?
What constitutes too much noise or public nuisance? In a time of permanent pandemic, it is whatever detracts from the all-consuming effort to extinguish our fear and insecurity. When we are afraid, why should the police not be able to snatch someone off the street for causing “unease”?
The UK bill is far from unusual. Similar legislation – against noisy, inconvenient and disruptive protest – is being passed in states across the United States. Just as free speech is being shut down on the grounds that we must not offend, so protest is being shut down on the grounds that we must not disturb.
From the outbreak of the virus, there were those who warned that the pandemic would soon serve as a pretext to take away basic rights and make our societies less free. Those warnings soon got submerged in, or drowned out by, much wilder claims, such as that the virus was a hoax or that it was similar to flu, or by the libertarian clamour against lockdowns and mask-wearing.
Binary choices
What was notable was the readiness of the political and media establishments to intentionally conflate and confuse reasonable and unreasonable arguments to discredit all dissent and lay the groundwork for legislation of this kind.
The purpose has been to force on us unwelcome binary choices. We are either in favour of all lockdowns or indifferent to the virus’ unchecked spread. We are either supporters of enforced vaccinations or insensitive to the threat the virus poses to the vulnerable. We are either responsible citizens upholding the rules without question or selfish oafs who are putting everyone else at risk.
A central fracture line has opened up – in part a generational one – between those who are most afraid of the virus and those who are most afraid of losing their jobs, of isolation and loneliness, of the damage being done to their children’s development, of the end of a way of life they valued, or of the erasure of rights they hold inviolable.
The establishment has been sticking its crowbar into that split, trying to prise it open and turn us against each other.
‘Kill the Bill’
Where this heads was only too visible in the UK at the weekend when protesters took to the streets of major cities. They did so – in another illustration of binary choices that now dominate our lives – in violation of emergency Covid regulations banning protests. There was a large march through central London, while another demonstration ended in clashes between protesters and police in Bristol.
What are the protesters – most peaceful, a few not – trying to achieve? In the media, all protest at the moment is misleadingly lumped together as “anti-lockdown”, appealing to the wider public’s fear of contagion spread. But that is more misdirection: in the current, ever-more repressive climate, all protest must first be “anti-lockdown” before it can be protest.
The truth is that the demonstrators are out on the streets for a wide variety of reasons, including to protest against the oppressive new Police and Crime Bill, under the slogan “Kill the Bill”.
There are lots of well-founded reasons for people to be angry or worried at the moment. But the threat to that most cherished of all social freedoms – the right to protest – deserves to be at the top of the list.
If free speech ensures we have some agency over our own minds, protest allows us to mobilise collectively once we have been persuaded of the need and urgency to act. Protest is the chance we have to alert others to the strength of our feelings and arguments, to challenge a consensus that may exist only because it has been manufactured by political and media elites, and to bring attention to neglected or intentionally obscured issues.
Speech and protest are intimately connected. Free speech in one’s own home – like free speech in a prison cell – is a very stunted kind of freedom. It is not enough simply to know that something is unjust. In democratic societies, we must have the right to do our best to fix injustice.
Cast out as heretics
Not so long ago, none of this would have needed stating. It would have been blindingly obvious. No longer. Large sections of the population are happy to see speech rights stripped from those they don’t like or fear. They are equally fine, it seems, with locking up people who cause a “nuisance” or are “too noisy” in advancing a cause with which they have no sympathy – especially so long as fear of the pandemic takes precedence.
My latest: Trump is not the cause of US political woes, he is one obnoxious symptom. For that reason, banning him from Twitter will not heal the US political divide, it will deepen and inflame it https://t.co/Qe5FYwSICN
That is how fear works. The establishment has been using fear to keep us divided and weak since time immemorial. The source of our fear can be endlessly manipulated: black men, feminists, Jews, hippies, travellers, loony lefties, libertarians. The only limitation is that the object of our fear must be identifiable and distinguishable from those who think of themselves as responsible, upstanding citizens.
In a time of pandemic, those who are to be feared can encompass anyone who does not quietly submit to those in authority. Until recently there had been waning public trust in traditional elites such as politicians, journalists and economists. But that trend has been reversed by a new source of authority – the medical establishment.
Because today’s mantra is “follow the science”, anyone who demurs from or questions that science – even when the dissenters are other scientists – can be cast out as a heretic. The political logic of this is rarely discussed, even though it is profoundly dangerous.
Political certainty
Politicians have much to gain from basking in the reflected authority of science. And when politics and science are merged, as is happening now, dissent can be easily reformulated as either derangement or criminal intent. On this view, to be against lockdown or to be opposed to taking a vaccine is not just wrong but as insane as denying the laws of gravity. It is proof of one’s irrationality, of the menace one poses to the collective.
But medicine – the grey area between the science and art of human health – is not governed by laws in the way gravity is. That should be obvious the moment we consider the infinitely varied ways Covid has affected us as individuals.
The complex interplay between mind and body means reactions to the virus, and the drugs to treat it, are all but impossible to predict with any certainty. Which is why there are 90-year-olds who have comfortably shaken off the virus and youths who have been felled by it.
But a politics of “follow the science” implies that issues relating to the virus and how we respond to it – or how we weigh the social and economic consequences of those responses – are purely scientific. That leaves no room for debate, for disagreement. And authoritarianism is always lurking behind the façade of political certainty.
Public coffers raided
In a world where politicians, journalists and medical elites are largely insulated from the concerns of ordinary people – precisely the world we live in – protest is the main way to hold these elites accountable, to publicly test their political and “scientific” priorities against our social and economic priorities.
That is a principle our ancestors fought for. You don’t have to agree with what Piers Corbyn says to understand the importance that he and others be allowed to say it – and not just in their living rooms, and not months or years hence, if and when the pandemic is declared over.
The right to protest must be championed even through a health crisis –most especially during a health crisis, when our rights are most vulnerable to erasure. The right to protest needs to be supported even by those who back lockdowns, even by those who fear that protests during Covid are a threat to public health. And for reasons that again should not need stating.
Politicians and the police must not be the ones to define what protests are justified, what protests are safe, what protests are responsible.
Because otherwise, those in power who took advantage of the pandemic to raid the public coffers and waste billions of pounds on schemes whose main purpose was to enrich their friends have every reason to dismiss anyone who protests against their cupidity and incompetence as endangering public health.
At what point does the UK officially become a banana republic? At the point when its health secretary awards a massive contract for medical supplies to his former neighbour and pub landlord? https://t.co/9DPlVXj5DB
Because otherwise, leaders who want to crush protests against their their current, and future, criminal negligence with extraordinary new police powers have every incentive to characterise their critics as anti-lockdown, or anti-vaccine, or anti-public order, or anti-science – or whatever other pretext they think will play best with the “responsible” public as they seek to cling to power.
And because otherwise, the government may decide it is in its interests to stretch out the pandemic – and the emergency regulations supposedly needed to deal with it – for as long as possible.
Selective freedoms
Quite how mercurial are the current arguments for and against protest was highlighted by widespread anger at the crushing by the Metropolitan Police this month of a vigil following the murder of Sarah Everard in London. A Met police officer has been charged with kidnapping and murdering her.
A reactionary police force full of white men picked chiefly for their physical attributes is not only inherently violent, institutionally racist and hostile towards political protest but also anti-women. Now who would have guessed that? https://t.co/PfCYwwmF1N
In the spirit of the times, there has been much wider public sympathy for a vigil for a murder victim than there has been for more overtly political demonstrations like those against the Police and Crime Bill. But if health threats are really the measure of whether large public gatherings are allowed – if we “follow the science” – then neither is justified.
That is not a conclusion any of us should be comfortable with. It is not for governments to select which types of protests they are willing to confer rights on, even during a pandemic. We either uphold the right of people to congregate when they feel an urgent need to protest – whether it be against the erosion of basic freedoms, or in favour of greater safety for vulnerable communities, or against political corruption and incompetence that costs lives – or we do not.
We either support the right of every group to hold our leaders to account or we do not. Selective freedoms, inconsistent freedoms, are freedom on licence from those in power. They are no freedom at all.
Fight for survival
What the UK’s Police and Crime Bill does, like similar legislation in the US and Europe, is to declare some protests as legitimate and others as not. It leaves it to our leaders to decide, as they are trying to do now through the pandemic, which protests constitute a “nuisance” and which do not.
The political logic of the Bill is being contested by a minority – the hippies, the leftists, the libertarians. They are standing up for the right to protest, as the majority complacently assumes that they will have no need of protest.
That is pure foolishness. We are all damaged when the right to protest is lost.
It is unlikely that the aim of the Police and Crime Bill is to keep us permanently locked down – as some fear. It has another, longer-term goal. It is being advanced in recognition by our elites that we are hurtling towards an environmental dead-end for which they have no solutions, given their addiction to easy profits and their own power.
Decades late we *again* learn that corporations lied to us, knowing they were destroying our health, and regulators failed to act.
Decades in the future, we'll learn exactly the same: that these corporations were lying to us right now and got away with it https://t.co/gj3UOqEbZq
Already a small minority understand that we are running out of time. Groups like Extinction Rebellion – just like the sufragettes before them – believe the majority can only be woken from their induced slumber if they are disturbed by noise, if their lives are disrupted.
This sane minority is treading the vanishingly thin line between alienating the majority and averting oblivion for our species. As the stakes grow higher, as awareness of imminent catastrophe intensifies, those wishing to make a nuisance of themselves, to be noisy, will grow.
What we decide now determines how that struggle plays out: whether we get to take control of our future and the fight for our survival, or whether we are forced to stay mute as the disaster unfolds.
So pray for the “anti-lockdown” protesters whether you support their cause or not – for they carry the heavy weight of tomorrow on their shoulders.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.
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).
Incisive and timely article first published by Global Research on March 29, 2021
***
David Rothkopf wrote a book about the world’s richest people called Superclass. In it he noted that 161 people control $23 trillion, and that the incomes of the top 25 hedge fund managers are approximately $800 million per year each.(1) Other writers discuss the richest 0.1% of the population, who have incomes of over $2million per year in the US.(2)
They have coined the term Excessive Wealth Disorder to explain that when some people are too rich, this creates big downsides for many other people, and for society in general. This post discusses some of those downsides.
This post should ideally be read in conjunction with earlier posts that explain that excessive wealth is extracted by controlling an industry, receiving many types of unearned income (known as rent-seeking) and all manner of unethical, fraudulent or criminal activity. Excessive wealth is a symptom of an economic system that drains wealth from everybody else, because the biggest companies have enough power to exploit employees, suppliers, customers, governments and the environment. These people have not ‘earned’ their wealth. They became rich because they understand how the system is rigged.
Property and Land
The buying power of rich people can drive prices upwards so that poor people cannot afford things. This is most noticeable with property. If we allow rich people to buy as many properties as they wish in any country, then property prices in certain areas, like London, New York, and other major cities, go up.
Historically, houses in the UK cost approximately four times average earnings. Now, in London and other expensive locations, homes cost ten times average earnings.(3) Many people now spend over half their income on rent or mortgage payments.(4)
New construction is geared towards maximising profits for any given plot of land, so affordable housing is replaced with expensive housing that is mostly bought by people with excess wealth from around the world.(5) In London, 70% of new properties are sold to foreign investors, whilst poor people are forced out of their homes in what is known as ‘social cleansing’.
Wasted Energy, Wasted Time, More Costs, Lower Standard of Living
Building a property requires large amounts of energy and resources. If we want to minimise global warming and the depletion of resources, then we will have to stop wasting energy on buildings that we do not need. Additionally, if people own multiple properties in different countries, they are much more likely to fly back and forth, again wasting large amounts of energy.
Lots of properties sit empty much of the time, because they are bought primarily as an investment rather than a home. This has been described as a ‘desert of wealth.’(6) Ordinary people cannot afford them, so people who want to work in these cities have to commute further and further, increasing congestion, increasing costs for transport, and increasing energy consumption. When people spend more time travelling, they have less time to do other things, or to spend with their families, and many of them experience more stress.
Silicon Valley
Silicon Valley in the US, where many technology companies are based, is an excellent example. One commentator explained that billionaires there buy surrounding properties as a ‘privacy buffer’. They “play real-life monopoly, buying up houses on their blocks and down the street for family, staff, art collections, or to hold political and philanthropic events.”
Homes in Silicon Valley are too expensive for teachers, firemen and other public servants, who end up commuting up to 2 hours each way.(7) Alternatively, people on low pay share rooms, with one commentator saying that they had come across extreme cases of 6 people sharing a room. Many students at local schools are homeless, living in trailers and shelters.
Property is the biggest item of expenditure for many people. Expensive homes (and higher spending on transport) leave poorer people with much less to spend on everything else. This means that they have a significantly lower standard of living. This has additional knock-on consequences for the rest of the economy. They spend less at other businesses, so it becomes more difficult for businesses to survive.
High Land Rents Are Too Expensive for Local Companies
The value of land for building expensive homes means that other activities that cannot generate high revenues are no longer viable. Councils sell city hospitals so that the land can be used by property developers.(8) The hospitals are relocated out-of-town on cheaper land, which is much less convenient for many patients, but profitable for the council, and very profitable for the property developers.
Higher land values tend to increase business rents. This is fine for big international companies, such as McDonalds, but smaller or local businesses are unable to afford the rents, so more towns become clones with the same big chains. The general pattern is for small or local businesses to be priced out of the area. It becomes difficult for new, small businesses to get started. High business rents generally get passed on to customers in higher prices. This creates a general increase in the cost of living. Businesses selling high-priced coffee are of more relevance to the middle class than to the poor, who cannot afford it. In developing countries, large swathes of major cities contain only businesses that serve wealthier people. Many of the dominant businesses are international, so profits go overseas, leaving less to circulate locally.
Some local businesses, with strong ties to their communities, have benefits that go beyond economic, and are considered culturally important, but they cannot survive.(9) Local cultures are destroyed, and it becomes difficult for people with the wrong skills to earn a living in the area. Poorer communities are no longer able to easily access the businesses and services that might be useful for them.
Distorting The Economy
There have been people serving the interests of big companies for many years. This includes management consultants, corporate lawyers and lobbyists. In 2005, a report by Citigroup explained that there were going to be big profits to be made from servicing the needs of individuals with excessive wealth.(10) This has led to the creation of another layer of very well-paid jobs, such as wealth managers, tax specialists, offshore account experts, private bankers, and personal lawyers, whose main role is to serve the rich. Britain has actively changed its policies to attract excessively wealthy people. It has become the tax-dodging capital of the world, as hundreds of accountants, often from the Inland Revenue, are recruited to manipulate the tax system.(11)
Many well-educated people go to work for financial companies (particularly before the 2008 financial crisis) where their work is of no benefit to society in general. In fact their work ends up making society worse off, as it involves re-structuring the economy to enable shareholders and executives to extract more wealth from everybody else.
People with excessive wealth have so much money that they spend large amounts on status symbols. As with houses, the bigger luxury items, such as yachts, private jets, helicopters and cars like Rolls-Royces (many luxury car owners own many vehicles) use many resources to build, and use lots of energy to move because they are heavy. Pollution by the rich is on an altogether higher scale than pollution by everyone else, particularly in relation to the use of private jets, even for an occasional flight by their pets.(12)
Rich people are more likely to spend money in ways that do not benefit the majority of people. They buy imported luxury goods, such as jewellery, watches, expensive clothes, wine and cigars, and they participate in exclusive activities such as polo.(13) In some areas, such as expensive paintings, their wealth circulates in a parallel economic system, moving only between the bank accounts of the rich.
The System That Creates Excessive Wealth Causes Poverty
Advanced nations have not grown very much for the last two decades. This means that if some people are receiving more, others are receiving less. This is known as a zero-sum game. Most people in Britain are made poorer by a small amount over and over again because they pay more than they should for loans, credit card borrowing and hire–purchase agreements; for water, sewerage, electricity, gas, energy, food; for computers, phones, TVs and other electronic devices. Excessive wealth for a few people comes from the pockets of the majority. Similarly, if executives can negotiate lower pay for their employees or their suppliers, then the executives and shareholders get richer because others receive less.
The world’s richest person, Jeff Bezos (CEO of Amazon) makes himself wealthier by exploiting garment workers in Bangladesh, and other staff all over the world. He also uses a business-model that is excessively-damaging to the environment, using huge amounts of packaging and energy, creating large amounts of waste and contributing to climate change.(14)
Similarly, more and more people are employed with little job-security, on zero-hours contracts.(15) This has far more impact than most people realize. Uncertainty of income makes it difficult to make long-term plans. It is difficult to buy a house, or even to agree a rental contract. Borrowing money becomes more difficult, so more people are forced to use high-interest payday lenders.
The existing economic system is built around the poorest people receiving less income, and having to pay more for everything, including basic necessities. In other words, the system that creates excessive wealth is a direct cause of poverty. Some readers might be shocked by this idea, as the mainstream media, and mainstream economists, never link the wealth of billionaires with the causes of poverty. But if you want to understand poverty, you have to study the role played by the rich in structuring the economy to benefit themselves.
It is much easier to see with examples in developing countries. These countries still have groups of people with immense wealth. They run the country, and rig the system, so that they can extract wealth from everyone else, and put it into their pockets. Some of them are literally stealing the wealth of the nation.(16) Millions of people are struggling to survive, because their rich politicians have consciously chosen not to provide food, water, sanitation, healthcare, education, and other essentials needed for development. The same is true in rich countries, but with less dramatic effects. We get more and more people queueing at food banks and in need of assistance, because the economy is structured to concentrate wealth into the hands of a few people.
The Psychology of Excessive Wealth
The psychological effects of excessive wealth have not been thoroughly studied. People tend to judge themselves relative to others. If we see people with immense wealth flying all over the world, and their lifestyles are presented as desirable, then many other people will aspire to those lifestyles. Even those who have substantial wealth by normal standards still feel they want more. We begin to see owning multiple properties and having large numbers of foreign holidays as an automatic right, without questioning the downsides. The evidence shows clearly that beyond a certain level, more money does not make people happier. An important aspect of happiness involves being satisfied with what we have. This becomes more difficult when we are surrounded by propaganda celebrating excessive wealth.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Rod Driver is a part-time academic who is particularly interested in de-bunking modern-day US and British propaganda, and explaining war, terrorism, economics and poverty, without the nonsense in the mainstream media. This article was first posted at medium.com/elephantsintheroom
Notes
1) David Rothkopf, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and The World They Are Making, 2008
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).
First published by Global Research on April 23, 2021
***
Vandana Shiva (born 5 November 1952) is an Indian scholar, environmental activist, physicist, food sovereignty advocate, and anti-globalization author. Based in Delhi, Shiva has written more than 20 books.
Shiva founded the Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Natural Resource Policy (RFSTN), an organization devoted to developing sustainable methods of agriculture, in 1982.
She has traveled the world spreading a powerful message of oneness and interconnectedness.
This Video is produced by After Skool
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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).
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.
***
.
First published on June 17, 2021
“From the beginning Covid has been a conspiracy against health and life. Covid is a profit-making agenda and an agenda for increasing arbitrary government power over people. There should be massive law suits and massive arrests of those who block effective Covid cures and impose a deadly vaccine.” – Paul Craig Roberts, Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan
The Spike Protein is a “uniquely dangerous” transmembrane fusion protein that is an integral part of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. “The S protein plays a crucial role in penetrating host cells and initiating infection.” It also damages the cells in the lining of the blood vessel walls which leads to blood clots, bleeding, massive inflammation and death.
To say that the spike protein is merely “dangerous”, is a vast understatement. It is a potentially-lethal pathogen that has already killed tens of thousands of people.
So, why did the vaccine manufacturers settle on the spike protein as an antigen that would induce an immune response in the body?
That’s the million-dollar question, after all, for all practical purposes, the spike protein is a poison. We know that now due to research that was conducted at the Salk Institute. Here’s a summary of what they found:
“Salk researchers and collaborators show how the protein damages cells, confirming COVID-19 as a primarily vascular disease…. SARS-CoV-2 virus damages and attacks the vascular system (aka–The circulatory system) on a cellular level… scientists studying other coronaviruses have long suspected that the spike protein contributed to damaging vascular endothelial cells, but this is the first time the process has been documented….
… the spike protein alone was enough to cause disease. Tissue samples showed inflammation in endothelial cells lining the pulmonary artery walls. The team then replicated this process in the lab, exposing healthy endothelial cells (which line arteries) to the spike protein. They showed that the spike protein damaged the cells by binding ACE2…“If you remove the replicating capabilities of the virus, it still has a major damaging effect on the vascular cells, simply by virtue of its ability to bind to this ACE2 receptor, the S protein receptor, now famous thanks to COVID.” (“COVID-19 Is a Vascular Disease: Coronavirus’ Spike Protein Attacks Vascular System on a Cellular Level”, scitechdaily.com
Remember how everyone laughed at Trump when he said injecting household bleach would cure Covid? How is this any different?
It’s not different, and whatever modest protection the vaccines provide as far as immunity, it pales in comparison to the risks they pose to personal health and survival.
And did you notice what the author said about stripping-out the virus and leaving the spike protein alone?’
He said “it still has a major damaging effect” implying ‘blood clots, bleeding and severe inflammation.’ In other words, the spike protein is deadly even absent the virus. Here’s how Dr. Byram Bridle (who is a viral immunologist and associate professor at University of Guelph, Ontario) summed it up:
“We made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now… We thought the spike protein was a great target antigen, we never knew the spike protein itself was a toxin and was a pathogenic protein. So, by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.” (“Vaccine scientist: ‘We’ve made a big mistake’”, Conservative Woman)
Think about that for a minute. This is a very big deal, in fact, this is the critical piece of the puzzle that has been missing for the last 15 months. Just as the respiratory virus concealed the real killing-agent in Covid, (the spike protein) so too, the relentless hype surrounding mass-vaccination has concealed the glaring problem with the vaccines themselves, which is, they generate a substance that is “capable of causing disease.”
That is the literal definition of pathogenic. The spike protein is a disease-producing toxin that poses a serious and identifiable threat to the health of anyone who chooses to get vaccinated. Could it be any clearer?It’s worth noting, that Bridle is a vaccine researcher who was awarded a $230,000 government grant last year for research on COVID vaccine development. He understands the science and chooses his words carefully. The term “pathogenic” is not meant to whip people into a frenzy, but to accurately describe how vaccine-generated proteins interact in the bloodstream. And the way they interact, is by inflicting serious damage to cells in the lining of the blood vessels which can result in illness or death. Here’s more from the same article:
“As many will know by now, the problem lies within a structure that enables the virus, originally from bats, not only to enter human cells but to deliver a toxin called the spike protein. Most Covid vaccines instruct our body cells to produce the same protein. This is in the hope that antibodies developed against it will prevent the most damaging effects of the actual virus. There is evidence that this is the case for some.
But there’s also a problem, spelled out most recently by Canadian researcher Dr Byram Bridle, who was awarded a $230,000 Ontario government grant last year for research on Covid vaccine development. This is that the spike protein produced by the vaccine does not just act locally, at the site of the jab (the shoulder muscle), but gets into the bloodstream and is carried through the circulation to many other sites in the body.
Previously confidential animal studies using radioactive tracing show it to go just about everywhere, including the adrenal glands, heart, liver, kidneys, lungs, ovaries, pancreas, pituitary gland, prostate, salivary glands, intestines, spinal cord, spleen, stomach, testes, thymus, and uterus.
The quantities are small and usually disappear within days. But the questions arise, is this mechanism involved in the thousands of deaths and injuries reported soon after Covid vaccination, and might it set some people up for the same long-term consequences as in severe cases of the disease itself?” (‘We’ve made a big mistake’“, Conservative Woman)
This is the most important question: What will the long-term impact of these vaccines be on the population at large? Here’s more from the same article:
“Some researchers say the risk from the vaccine may be greater than that from the actual virus in healthy people. This would be especially true for the young, whose immune systems deal with the virus successfully. In contrast, the vaccine has a device that protects the spike protein mechanism against immediate destruction by the body, in order to promote the immune response.”(Conservative Woman)
Repeat: ” the vaccine has a device that protects the spike protein mechanism against immediate destruction by the body, in order to promote the immune response.”
What does that mean? Does it mean that the spike protein created by the vaccine lingers on indefinitely risking a potential flare-up sometime in the future if another virus emerges or if the immune system is compromised? Will the people who have been vaccinated have the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads until the day they die?
Dr Judy Mikovits thinks so. “Mikovits thinks the COVID-19 vaccine is a bioweapon designed to destroy your innate immunity and set you up for rapid onset of debilitating illness and premature death. She too suspects many will die rather rapidly. “It’s not going to be ‘live and suffer forever,” she says. “It’s going to be suffer five years and die.” (Mercola.com)
Is that possible? Could we see an unprecedented surge in fatalities in the next few years directly linked to these experimental vaccines?
Let’s hope not, but without any long-term safety data, there’s no way to know for sure. It’s all a big guessing game, which is one of the reasons that so many people are refusing to get vaccinated. Here’s more from Bridle:
‘I’m very much pro-vaccine, (said Dr Bridle) but … the story I’m about to tell is a bit of a scary one. This is cutting edge science. There’s a couple of key pieces of scientific information that we’ve been privy to, in the past few days, that has made the final link, so we understand now – myself and some key international collaborators – we understand exactly why these problems [with the vaccine] are happening.’
One of these ‘is that the spike protein, on its own, is almost entirely responsible for the damage to the cardiovascular system, if it gets into circulation. Indeed, if you inject the purified spike protein into the blood of research animals they get all kinds of damage to the cardiovascular system, and it can cross the blood-brain barrier and cause damage to the brain.
‘At first glance that doesn’t seem too concerning because we’re injecting these vaccines into the shoulder muscle. The assumption, up until now, has been that these vaccines behave like all of our traditional vaccines: they don’t go anywhere other than the injection site, so they stay in our shoulder. Some of the protein will go to the local draining lymph node in order to activate the immune system.
‘However – this is where the cutting edge science has come in, and this is where it gets scary – through a request for information from the Japanese regulatory agency, myself and several international collaborators have been able to get access to what’s called the biodistribution study. It’s the first time ever that scientists have been privy to seeing where the messenger RNA vaccines go after vaccination; in other words, is it a safe assumption that it stays in the shoulder muscle? The short answer is, absolutely not. It’s very disconcerting. The spike protein gets into the blood and circulates over several days post-vaccination.’”(Vaccine scientist: ‘We’ve made a big mistake’“, Conservative Woman)
They got the biodistribution study from the Japanese? Are you kidding me? You mean, the FDA waved these experimental “new technology” vaccines into service before they had the slightest inkling of where the substance in the vaccine would end up in the body. If that isn’t criminal negligence, then what is? Do you want proof that our regulators are controlled by the industries they are supposed to monitor? Here it is!
Here’s more from an article at Children’s Health Defense on the same topic:
“… in key studies — called biodistribution studies, which are designed to test where an injected compound travels in the body, and which tissues or organs it accumulates in — Pfizer did not use the commercial vaccine (BNT162b2) but instead relied on a “surrogate” mRNA that produced the luciferase protein….
Regulatory documents also show Pfizer did not follow industry-standard quality management practices during preclinical toxicology studies of its vaccine,as key studies did not meet good laboratory practice (GLP)….
“The implications of these findings are that Pfizer was trying to accelerate the vaccine development timeline based on the pressures of the pandemic,” said TrialSite founder and CEO Daniel O’Connor. “The challenge is that the processes, such as Good Laboratory Practices, are of paramount importance for quality and ultimately for patient safety. If such important steps are skipped, the risk-benefit analysis would need to be compelling.”….(“Pfizer Skipped Critical Testing and Cut Corners on Quality Standards, Documents Reveal“, Children’s Health Defense)
Let’s see if I got this right: The Covid vaccine was approved even though “Pfizer did not follow industry-standard quality management practices” and even though “key studies did not meet good laboratory practice?”
Do you still think these vaccines are safe? And, it gets worse, too. Check it out:
“... documents obtained by scientists through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) revealed pre-clinical studies showing the active part of the vaccine (mRNA-lipid nanoparticles) — which produce the spike protein — did not stay at the injection site and surrounding lymphoid tissue as scientists originally theorized, but spread widely throughout the body and accumulated in various organs, including the ovaries and spleen.” (“Pfizer Skipped Critical Testing and Cut Corners on Quality Standards, Documents Reveal”, Children’s Health Defense)
Like we said earlier, the vaccine was supposed to be “localized”, that is, remain in the area where it was injected. But that theory proved to be wrong, just like the theory that the spike protein would be a good antigen was wrong. There are literally thousands of fatalities and other injuries that attest to the “wrongness” of that theory, and there will be many more before this campaign is terminated. Here’s more:
“Research suggests this could lead to the production of spike protein in unintended places, including the brain, ovaries and spleen, which may cause the immune system to attack organs and tissues resulting in damage, and raises serious questions about genotoxicity and reproductive toxicity risks associated with the vaccine.” (“Pfizer Skipped Critical Testing and Cut Corners on Quality Standards, Documents Reveal“, Children’s Health Defense)
So, it goes everywhere. Wherever blood flows, there too goes the spike proteins. Do young women really want these lethal proteins in their ovaries? Do you think that will improve their prospects for getting pregnant or safely delivering their babies? This is madness on a scale that is, frankly, unimaginable. Here’s more:
“Studies indicate that the protein is able to gain access to cells in the testicles, and may disrupt male reproduction…..
Furthermore, the genetic code the virus carries contains inserts that make it ‘extremely plausible’ that the protein could misfold into a prion (such as held responsible for mad cow disease in the 1980s), causing widespread damage to brain cells and increasing the risk of conditions including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease….” (“Covid vaccines: Concerns that make more research essential“, The Conservative Woman
We hope that readers are beginning to understand how risky these vaccines really are. It’s literally a matter of life and death. As Bridle opines:
“‘We have known for a long time that the spike protein is pathogenic…. It is a toxin. It can cause damage in our body if it’s in circulation. Now, we have clear-cut evidence that . . . the vaccine itself, plus the protein, gets into blood circulation.’”
Once that happens, the spike protein can combine with receptors on blood platelets and with cells that line our blood vessels. This is why, paradoxically, it can cause both blood clotting and bleeding.‘And of course the heart is involved, as part of the cardiovascular system,’ Bridle said. ‘That’s why we’re seeing heart problems. The protein can also cross the blood-brain barrier and cause neurological damage.…
‘In short,… we made a big mistake. We didn’t realize it until now. We didn’t realize that by vaccinating people we are inadvertently inoculating them with a toxin.” (Conservative Woman)
“Mistake?” He calls it a “mistake”? That’s got to be the understatement of the century!
Let’s cut to the chase: These aren’t vaccines; they’re a spike-protein delivery-system. Regrettably, 140 million Americans have already been injected with them which means we can expect a dramatic uptick in debilitating medical conditions including blood clotting, bleeding, autoimmune disease, thrombosis in the brain, stroke and heart attack. The vast human wreckage we are now facing is incalculable.
Has there ever been a greater threat to humanity than the Covid vaccine?
Michael Whitney, renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization
O Tratado do Quirinale promovido pelo Presidente da República Mattarella, assinado em 26 de Novembro pelo Primeiro Ministro Draghi e pelo Presidente da República Macron, é um tratado político de 360º no qual a Itália e a França “se comprometem a desenvolver a sua coordenação e a promover a sinergia entre as respectivas acções a nível internacional”, concretizando “parcerias industriais em sectores militares específicos” e outros programas que envolvem encargos financeiros para o Estado. Para ser ratificado pelo Presidente da República, o Tratado teria primeiro de ser autorizado pelo Parlamento com base no Art. 80º da Constituição, segundo o qual “as Câmaras autorizam como lei a ratificação de tratados internacionais que sejam de natureza política, ou que prevejam encargos financeiros”. Em vez disso, o texto do Tratado permaneceu secreto, excepto para um pequeno círculo do governo, até à sua publicação após a assinatura.
O objectivo do Tratado, que veio a público após o final de uma negociação secreta, é claro pela sua calendarização: está a ser concluído numa altura em que, com a saída de cena da Chanceler alemã Merkel, se estabelecem novas relações de força na União Europeia. A França que, em 2022, assume a presidência semestral da União Europeia, substitui o eixo Paris-Berlim pelo eixo Paris-Roma. No centro do acordo bilateral está o Art.º 2º relativo à “Segurança e Defesa”, composto por sete parágrafos. A Itália e a França comprometem-se a “reforçar as capacidades de Defesa da Europa e, deste modo, operando também para consolidar o pilar europeu da NATO”. Como Draghi sublinhou, em sintonia com Washington, deve-se construir “uma verdadeira defesa europeia, que seja naturalmente complementar da NATO e não uma substituição: uma Europa mais forte torna a NATO mais forte”. Para pagar tanto a Defesa da NATO como a da Europa, será necessário um aumento colossal da despesa militar italiana, que já hoje supera os 70 milhões de euros por dia.
No âmbito das “alianças estruturais” entre as respectivas indústrias militares, a Itália ajudará a França a desenvolver as suas forças nucleares estratégicas e os sistemas espaciais militares. Macron lançou um programa de “modernização” que inclui o desenvolvimento de submarinos de ataque nuclear de terceira geração, armados com novos mísseis balísticos, e um caça de sexta geração (Fcas) armado com novos mísseis de cruzeiro hipersónicos com ogivas nucleares. A Itália, no entanto, já participa no projecto de outro caça de ataque nuclear de sexta geração, o Tempest, promovido pela Grã-Bretanha, pelo que provavelmente colaborará em ambos, a menos que não sejam unificados. O programa de Macron, anunciado em Outubro, que contribui para a “modernização” das forças nucleares francesas, está direccionado para a construção de um sistema de pequenos reactores nucleares modulares com um custo de 30 biliões de euros. Provavelmente o Tratado prevê uma colaboração da Itália também neste campo, como parte do plano de reintrodução da energia nuclear no nosso sistema energético.
Também no Art. 2º, a Itália e França comprometem-se a “facilitar o trânsito e o estacionamento das forças armadas da outra Parte no seu território”, sem especificar para que fim, e a coordenar a sua participação em “missões internacionais de gestão de crises”, em particular no Mediterrâneo, no Sahel e no Golfo da Guiné. Prepara-se um forte aumento da participação das forças especiais italianas – com veículos blindados, aviões e helicópteros de ataque – na Task Force Takuba, que opera no Mali e nos países vizinhos sob comando francês. Está implantada oficialmente nesta região para “combater o terrorismo”, mas na realidade destina-se a controlar uma das áreas mais ricas de matérias-primas estratégicas exploradas pelas multinacionais americanas e europeias, cujo oligopólio está ameaçado pelas mudanças políticas em África e pela presença económica chinesa.
Deste modo – declara o Tratado do Quirinal – a Itália e a França unidas “contribuem para a manutenção da paz e da segurança internacionais e para a protecção e promoção dos direitos humanos”.
Os Estados Unidos não estão ameaçados por ninguém, desmoronam-se a partir do interior. Para manter o seu controlo sobre os seus aliados, esforçam-se para convencer os asiáticos de um perigo chinês e a União Europeia de uma ameaça russa. Se não tiverem êxito no Extremo Oriente, encontram um acolhimento favorável entre as classes dirigentes europeias. Tudo é útil para alimentar o seu discurso com ainda mais facilidade visto que os dirigentes europeus ignoram a História imediata.
O Secretário Geral da NATO, Stoltenberg encontrou-se com o Presidente Draghi, em 17 de Novembro, em Roma, para enfrentar “os actuais desafios de segurança” provenientes do “desenvolvimento militar da Rússia na Ucrânia e à volta da mesma”. Stoltenberg agradeceu à Itália porque “contribui para a nossa presença na Região Báltica com o seu patrulhamento aéreo e com as suas tropas”. A Força Aérea Italiana – especifica o Ministro da Defesa – implantou, no aeroporto de Ämari, na Estónia, caças F-35A do 32º Esquadrão, em Amendola e caças Eurofighter Typhoon do 4º Esquadrão em Grosseto, do 36º Esquadrão, em Gioia del Colle, do 37º Esquadrão, em Trapani e da 51º Esquadrão, em Istrana (Treviso). Quando os aviões russos voam no espaço aéreo internacional sobre o Báltico, normalmente com destino ao exclave russo de Kaliningrado, os caças italianos recebem uma ordem do comando da NATO para descolar imediatamente em alerta e interceptá-los em mi-nutos. O objectivo oficial desta operação é “preservar o espaço aéreo aliado”. O verdadeiro objectivo é fazer com que a Rússia pareça uma potência ameaçadora que se prepara para atacar a Europa. Alimenta-se, assim, um clima de tensão crescente: os F-35As e os Eurofighter Typhoons, instalados a poucos minutos de voo do território russo, são caças com dupla capacidade convencional e nuclear. O que aconteceria se caças russos semelhantes fossem instalados junto às fronteiras dos EUA?
O “patrulhamento aéreo” nas fronteiras da Rússia faz parte da frenética escalada militar USA-NATO na Europa, contra um inimigo inventado, a Rússia, num jogo estratégico cada vez mais perigoso. Foi iniciado em 2014 com o golpe de Estado USA/NATO na Ucrânia, apoiado pela União Europeia, para provocar uma nova guerra fria na Europa a fim de isolar a Rússia e reforçar a influência e presença dos EUA na Europa. A Rússia foi acusada de anexar à força a Crimea, ignorando o facto de terem sido os russos da Crimeia a decidir, num referendo, separar-se da Ucrânia e voltar a juntar-se à Rússia para evitar serem atacados, como os russos no Donbass, por batalhões neonazis de Kiev. Os mesmos que foram utilizados em 2014 como força de ataque no putsch da Praça Maidan, desencadeados por franco-atiradores georgianos a disparar contra manifestantes e polícias e em acções subsequentes: aldeias devastadas a ferro e fogo, activistas queimados vivos na Câmara do Trabalho de Odessa, civis indefesos massacrados em Mariupol, bombardeados com fósforo branco em Donetsk e Lugansk.
Stoltenberg e Draghi também abordaram o tema da “crise na fronteira da Bielorrússia com a Polónia, a Letónia e a Lituânia”. A NATO acusa a Bielorrússia de utilizar, com o apoio da Rússia, “migrantes vulneráveis como instrumentos de tácticas híbridas contra outros países, pondo em risco as suas vidas”. A defender os migrantes, a manifestar medo pelas suas vidas, estão os mesmos líderes dos EUA e da NATO, incluindo os governantes italianos, que nos últimos trinta anos lideraram a primeira guerra contra o Iraque, a guerra contra a Jugoslávia, a guerra no Afeganistão, a segunda guerra contra o Iraque, a guerra contra a Líbia e a guerra contra a Síria. Guerras que demoliram estados indivisíveis e desagregaram sociedades inteiras, provocando milhões de vítimas e forçando milhões de pessoas à emigração forçada.
No dia seguinte ao seu encontro com Draghi, Stoltenberg participou no 70º aniversário do NATO Defense College, no qual se graduaram em Roma, desde 1951, cerca de 15.000 militares e civis de 80 países membros e parceiros da Aliança. Depois de terem recebido formação em todos os aspectos da “segurança internacional”, passaram a “ocupar os mais altos cargos civis e militares”, ou seja, cargos de responsabilidade nos governos e nas forças armadas dos países membros e parceiros da NATO. Nesta universidade da guerra, na qual se ensinam as estratégias mais sofisticadas, o sector mais importante é dedicado à Rússia. Juntar-se-á agora outro. No seu discurso de celebração, o Secretário Geral da NATO salientou: “A Rússia e a China estão a liderar uma acção autoritária contra a ordem internacional baseada em regras”. No entanto, Stoltenberg esqueceu-se de especificar “sobre as nossas regras”.
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).
***
First published by Global Research on April 3, 2021, coinciding with the decision of the EU Parliament to endorse the Digital Vaccine Passport.
***
On March 25, 2021, the European Parliament voted 468 to 203 in favour of the Digital Vaccine Passport or “Green Pass” which requires EU citizens to get vaccinated if they want to travel, or even have access to various social and cultural activities within their respective communities.
Ironically, this historic vote –which is tantamount to the creation of a Digital Police State– took place barely a couple of weeks after 18 European countries including France, Italy, Germany and Spain decided to suspend the AstraZeneka mRNA vaccine.
In this regard, a collective of prominent medical doctors and scientists issued a statement addressed to the European Medicines Agency (EME) pointing to:
Big Pharma, the IT Digital conglomerates, and their lobby groups not only influenced the debate as well as the vote in the European Parliament, they also pressured the EU political apparatus including the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to provide a green light to an “un-approved” and “experimental” mRNA vaccine coupled with a digital vaccine passport.
.
Were Members of Parliament informed regarding the vaccine related deaths and injuries? Or did they simply turn a blind eye?
Total reactions for the experimental vaccine AZD1222(CHADOX1 NCOV-19) from Oxford/AstraZeneca: 451 deaths and 54,571 injuries to 13/03/2021
Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2, Comirnaty) from BioNTech/ Pfizer: 2,540 deaths and 102,100 injuries to 13/03/2021
Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine mRNA-1273 (CX-024414) fromModerna: 973 deaths and 5,939 injuries to 13/03/2021
These figures correspond to the beginning of the most important vaccine program in World history, which if adopted will indelibly result in a significant loss of human life.
The longer term risks of death and injury (autoimmune reactions, blood clotting, strokes and internal bleeding, etc.) are still unknown. They will occur over a period of several years.
A Multibillion Dollar Bonanza for Big Pharma
The European Commission has confirmed that 420 million doses will be delivered to the EU by mid-July, of which 70 million will be supplied by AstraZeneka. (France Soir Report)
The digital Passport is not compulsory. But if you don’t have it, you will be socially excluded. You will not be able to travel, and you will be excluded from “participating in important events” and “having access to public places” (e.g. sports, cultural events, etc.), according to the EU Commission.
What is the choice presented to the citizens of the European Union.
Accept to be jabbed with a dangerous vaccine which consists in “gene therapy”, namely modification of the human genome.
Refuse the vaccine and be excluded from travel as well as a normal social life within your own country.
“Fraudulent Marketing”
Amply documented, Big Pharma’s mRNA vaccines are dangerous. In the US, a “Green Light” to market the experimental mRNA vaccine was granted back in December 2020, despite the fact that according to the FDA, the vaccine is an “unapproved product”.
The FDA in its ambiguous statement has provided a so-called Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, namely “to permit the emergency use of the unapproved product, … for active immunization…” (see below)
There is something fishy and “contradictory” in this statement. The experimental Pfizer mRNA vaccine is both “unapproved” and “permitted”. I have checked this statement with a prominent lawyer. It is blatantly illegal to market an “unapproved product”.
In the US, the Pfizer-Moderna vaccine is categorized by the CDC as an “investigational drug”. “The emergency use” clause is there to justify the launching of what might be described as an “illegal drug”.
Pfizer Has a Criminal Record. Is It Relevant?
Flashback to 2009. In a historic US Department of Justice decision in September 2009, Pfizer Inc. pleaded guilty to criminal charges. It was “The Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement” in the History of the US Department of Justice:
American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. … have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, … ” (September 2, 2009)
How on Earth can you trust a Big Pharma vaccine conglomerate which pleaded guilty to criminal charges by the US Department of Justice (DoJ) including “fraudulent marketing” and “felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act”?
We are not dealing with a civil lawsuit against Pfizer. In this 2009 DOJ Judgment, Pfizer was so to speak “Put on Probation”. Pfizer was ordered to enter into “a corporate integrity agreement” with the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting as a de facto “Parole Officer”. “That agreement provided for “procedures and reviews to … avoid and promptly detect” (future) misconduct on the part of Pfizer, Inc.
Johnson and Johnson and “The Opioid Epidemic”
At the height of the corona crisis, barely covered by the media, coinciding with the launch of the Covid-19 vaccine in early November 2020, Johnson and Johnson (and its three distributors) (involved in the marketing of prescription opioids) “reached a tentative $26 billion settlement with counties and cities that sued them for damages”. The class action law suit was “the largest federal court case in American history”:
The settlement offer from opioid manufacturer Johnson & Johnson and the “Big Three” distributors, McKesson, Cardinal Health and Amerisource Bergen, potentially brings a large measure of legal closure for the companies and will funnel money to communities devastated by an addiction crisis that claims more than 70,000 lives in America every year.
It is worth noting that the US death rate resulting from drug overdose has more than tripled since the outset of the corona crisis in late January 2020.
Are these legal antecedents relevant to an understanding of Big Pharma’s vaccine initiative?
Johnson and Johnson is currently involved in the production and marketing of a Covid adenovirus viral vector vaccine which also entails genetic therapy.
I should mention that the above J & J 26 billion dollar settlement is one among several law suits against J&J.
You decide whether you want to be vaccinated by Pfizer or J&J? In contrast to Opioids, the U.S. victims of vaccine deaths and injuries cannot sue the Big Pharma vaccine conglomerates.
“Now the court has comprehensively found that Johnson & Johnson are liable for the losses that these women have suffered,” … About 10,000 women have registered their interest in joining the class action, which Ms Jancauskas said made it the largest product liability class action in Australian history. (SBS Australia)
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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.
First posted on Global Research on November 4, 2021
The Premier of the Australian state of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, has just tabled legislation in parliament which is possibly the most monstrous ever introduced into a country calling itself democratic. Basically it gives Andrews the power to do whatever he wants and whenever he wants it. He has been turning Victoria into a police state for the past year and a half but behind the bland face and earnest manner, the legislation openly stamps him as a totalitarian psychopath.
Here are some of the salient points of the Public Health and Wellbeing Amendment (Pandemic Management) Bill 2021. Read on and be amazed that this can actually be happening in Australia, the laidback happy country of beaches, sunshine, beer and prawns on the barby.
The legislation allows Andrews to declare a pandemic even if there is not one. He only has to think there could be one. This antipodean combination of commissar and gauleiter is taking complete personal control of the state and its people. He can close down parts of the state or the whole state and prevent people from entering or leaving in whole or part. He can extend closures without limit.
Enforcement will rest in the hands of police and ‘authorised officers.’ For those who don’t do what they are told there will be heavy fines, up to $90,000 for individuals and $450,000 for businesses. People can be detained for two years and will have to pay the cost of their own detention in the massive internment camp that has been built at Mickleham, on the outskirts of Melbourne. The legislation authorizes police to use ‘reasonable force’ to help an ‘authorised officer’ when he/she detains them.
The Mickleham camp is capable of taking in thousands of people. The likely victims in this Australian gulag will be the minority who have refused vaccination either on the basis of their human right to reject medical intervention they don’t want or because of the known dangers to health of the vaccines on offer, known to them but suppressed from public knowledge by the media. Abused by the politicians and media commentators, shut out of many normal activities of daily life, they have already been turned into social pariahs whom those who obey orders without asking questions will no doubt think will deserve to be locked away in this Australian gulag.
The legislation includes a points system as punishment for bad behavior. Individuals and business owners who don’t obey an authorized officer will lose points and more points if the offence is regarded as aggravated. What Andrews has done here is slip into the legislation the beginning of a social credit system of full state control of the individual’s life.
People can be detained on the basis of their ‘characteristics, attributes and circumstances’ as assessed by an authorised officer. This extraordinary clause surely has no parentage in any legislatiuon passed in any country regarding itself as democratic. It would seem to allow the detention of anyone for any reason.
Detained individuals can be required to submit to medical testing and their detention can be extended if they refuse to accept it. If they cannot pay the cost of their detention, however long it might be, they will be fined. All orders can be extended or varied without limit by
Andrews or his health minister. Police can enter premises without a warrant. Information can be extracted from people who have been detained, not just names and addresses but ‘any other information’ an authorised officer might want. How this might be done if the detaained person does not want to give this information is not explained. Public and private meetings can be banned and businesses closed.
Daniel Andrews has spent the last two years turning Victoria into a police state, The damage he has done has been colossal at the economic, social level and even medical level. Thousands of businesses have been ruined and the state has been plunged into debt (from $29 billion in 2019 to an estimated $155 billion in 2023/24). Mental health problems have soared because of close to two years of lockdowns and many have been blocked from receiving the medical treatment they need because of the focus on the virus. In 2020 more than 650 people died in aged care homes. Official inquiries have pointed the finger of blame at the federal and sate governments and ther management of the homes for neglect and/or maladministration. Of the 915 people who died from./with the virus from January 2020 to July 2021, 820 were in Victoria.
The record is shocking yet thanks largely to the complicity of the media and the ignorance of indifference of a panicked/terrorised population Andrews has never been held to account, The national broadcaster, the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) and the Melhourne newspaper the ‘Age’ are especially culpable, They have run Andrews’ propaganda campaign for him, suppressing all information that gets in the way of ‘vaccine hesitancy,’ from deficiencies in the PCR test to the tens of thousands of post-vaccination deaths in Europe, the UK and the US. Hundreds have died already in Australia but this is not up for discussion. Neither is the limited efficacy of the vaccines.
In the past year the editor of the ‘Age’, Gay Alcorn, has gone to far as to suppress 12 cartoons drawn by Michael Leunig, officially designated as a ‘living national treasure’ for his artistry and drawing for the ‘Age’ for half a century. She followed her suppression of his cartoons by removing him completely from the news pages. Leunig has been a lone dissenting voice amidst a torrent of government propaganda yet even he had to be silenced, One of his most striking suppressed cartoons is a play on the lone protestor facing the tank in Tiananmen square. Leunig turns the gun barrel into a syringe aimed at one of his typically bewildered characters. ‘Age’ readers were incensed and supported the censorship but this legislation shows that Leunig’s instincts were100 per cent spot on.
This permanent pandemic legislation now shreds what is left of human rights in Victoria. The head of the Victorian Bar Council has compared it to the laws enforced by the state security service (STASI) in former east Germany. He said it allowed virtually unlimited interference in the civil liberties of the Victorian people, with little in the way even of consultation. A human rights council will be set up, but clearly for cosmetic purposes as it has no power to restrain Andrews, There has been no public debate, because nothing was known about the legislation outside the government until the day before this 121 page document was introduced in parliament.
The law is now effectjvely what Andrews says it is. The barriers to stopping him are very thin. He has a majority in parliament, and a weak opposition, Even the Greens and the Animal Welfare Party have supported this legislation, no doubt having struck some kind of deal with Andrews.
The federal government could possibly override the legislation on any number of grounds but its silence indicates not just that it will not intervene but that Victoria is perhaps being set up as a template for what is to come across the country and elsewhere to bring about the dystopian ‘great reset.’
Thanks to Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister, Australia has been closed off to the world for close on two years. Its citizens have been unable to return and they have to apply for an exemption to leave. Few exemptions are being granted. Their rights under international law have been completely violated. The tens of thousands of Australian nationals stranded in other countries have no access to government services and state and federal governmentrs and the media are indiffgerent to their plight.
State borders remain closed. with thousands of elderly Victorians who had travelled north to escape winter stranded in NSW for three months because Andrews closed the border in July before they could reach it. How they survived in their caravans or hotels was their problem. Andrews didn’t care and neither did the media.
MPs who have refused vaccination cannot enter the Victorian parliament building, allowing Andrews to narrowlyndefeat an attempt to set up an inquiry into his mishandling of the pandemic. On the national front. the deputy president of the Fair Work Comnmission has been suspended from the bench after issuing a dissenting opinion in which she described mandatory vaccination as a violation of medical ethics and international law. She has been ordered to undergo ‘professional training’, re-education in other words, so she does not repeat her mistake, She is completely correct in her reading of the law. Mandatory/coerced vaccination also violates the ethics of the AMA (Australian Medical Association) but it has refused to take a public stand.
This is Australia 2021, not Germany 1935/36. Those who sneer at the comparison are deceiving themselves as the essentials are the same, Just like middle class Germans, the majority of Victorians will be able to enjoy the same comfortable life as before as long as they do what they are told, believe what they are told and look the other way as the police break into homes and the internment camp fills up. It must be hoped the day will come when Andrews, the cabal around him and all those in public life who have deceived and betrayed the Victorian people, beginning with Daniel Andrews, will be held accountable, preferably in a court of criminal law.
*
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.
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).
Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.
***
This is a rather long interview, with detailed analysis of the Covid-19 crisis
***
Independent Journalist Taylor Hudak interviews Prof. Michel Chossudovsky.
The topic of discussion are the many different ways in which the people are being deceived regarding COVID-19. The interview largely focusses on the process of economic destabilization and how it affects people’s lives Worldwide:
Worldwide, people have been misled both by their governments and the media as to the causes and devastating consequences of the Covid-19 “pandemic”.
The unspoken truth is that the novel coronavirus provides a pretext and a justification to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire World into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair.
More than 7 billion people Worldwide are directly or indirectly affected by the corona crisis.”
Censorship prevails: Since the posting of this interview, Youtube has already taken it down.
Video (click lower right corner to go full screen)
**
Taylor Hudak, MA, is an independent journalist focusing on free speech, press freedoms, whistleblowing and US foreign policy. Taylor’s work can be found on acTVism Munich YouTube channel, as well as The Last American Vagabond.
First published by Global Research on February 25, 2021
“We are health professionals of the international collective : United Health Professionals, composed of more than 1,500 members (including professors of medicine, intensive care physicians and infectious disease specialists) from different countries of Europe, Africa, America, Asia and Oceania and, on August 26, 2020, we addressed to governments and citizens of countries around the world an alert message regarding the COVID outbreak.
We say : STOP to all crazy and disproportionate measures that have been taken since the beginning to fight SARS-CoV-2 (lockdown, blocking the economy and education, social distancing, wearing of masks for all, etc.) because they are totally unjustified, are not based on any scientific evidence and violate the basic principles of evidence-based medicine.
On February 4, 2021, United Health Professionals sent a followup report to national governments entitled:
1. We say : STOP to all crazy and disproportionate measures that have been taken since the beginning to fight SARS-CoV-2 (lockdown, blocking the economy and education, social distancing, wearing of masks for all, etc.) because they are totally unjustified, are not based on any scientific evidence and violate the basic principles of evidence-based medicine. However, we of course support reasonable measures such as recommendations of washing hands, sneezing or coughing in elbow, using a disposable tissue, etc.
It is not the first time that humanity faces a new virus : it experienced H2N2 in 1957, H3N2 in 1968, SARS-CoV in 2003, H5N1 in 2004, H1N1 in 2009, MERS-CoV in 2012 and faces the seasonal flu virus every year. However, none of the measures taken for SARS-CoV-2 has been taken for these viruses. We are told :
-“But, SARS-CoV-2 is very contagious” and we answer : IT’S ABSOLUTELY FALSE. This claim is, moreover, rejected by internationally renowned experts[1]. A simple comparison with the other viruses shows that the contagiousness of SARS-CoV-2 is moderate [2,3]. It’s diseases like measles that can be described as very contagious. For example, a person with measles can infect up to 20 people while a person infected with this coronavirus only contaminates 2 or 3, that is : 10 times less than measles. –
“But, it is a new virus” and we answer : H1N1 and the other viruses that we mentioned were also new viruses. Yet : we did not put countries into lockdown, we did not block the global economy, we did not paralyze the education system, we did not social distancing and we did not tell the healthy people to wear masks.
In addition, some experts say that it is possible that this virus was already circulating before but we did not realize it [4].
-“But, we don’t have a vaccine” and we answer : at the start of H1N1, we also had no vaccine, as at the time of SARS-CoV. Yet : we did not put countries into lockdown, we did not block the global economy, we did not paralyze the education system, we did not social distancing and we did not tell the healthy people to wear masks.
-“But, this virus is much more deadly” and we answer : IT’S ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Because, compared to the flu for example, and if we take into account the period between 01 November and 31 March, there was worldwide -when those measures have been taken- : 860,000 cases and 40,000 deaths while the flu in the same period of 5 months infects, on average 420 million people and kills 270,000. In addition, the case fatality rate announced by the WHO (3,4%) was greatly overestimated and was rejected from the beginning by eminent experts in epidemiology5.
But even if we take this case fatality rate, we can see that this coronavirus is three times less lethal than that of 2003 (10%) and ten times less lethal than that of 2012 (35%).
-“But, COVID-19 is a serious illness” and we answer : IT’S ABSOLUTELY FALSE. SARS-CoV-2 is a benign virus for the general population as it causes 85% of benign forms, 99% of those infected recover, it does not constitute a danger for pregnant women and children (unlike the flu), it spreads less faster than the flu6 and 90% of those who die are elderly people (who must, of course, be protected like other populations at risk). This is why experts have called “delirium” the claim that it is a serious illness and said, on August 19, that “it is not worse than the flu” 7.
–“But, there are asymptomatic people” and we answer : 77% of infected people are asymptomatic in influenza too and they can also transmit the virus8. Yet : healthy people are not told every year to wear masks and no social distancing is done despite the fact that the flu infects 1 billion people and kills 650,000.
-“But, this virus leads to saturation of hospitals” and we answer : IT’S ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Saturation affects only a few hospitals, but people are made to believe that the entire hospital system is saturated or that saturation is imminent when there are thousands of hospitals in certain countries.
Is it reasonable and true to attribute, for example, to 1,000 or 2,000 hospitals a situation which concerns only 4 or 5 hospitals? Furthermore, it is not surprising that some hospitals were saturated because they were situated in clusters (like Lombardy in Italy or New York in the USA). It should not be forgotten that hospitals in many countries have been overwhelmed (including intensive care units) during previous influenza epidemics9 and at the time, we were even talking about : “tsunami” of patients in hospitals, “saturated hospitals”, tents erected outside the hospitals, “war zones”, “collapsed hospitals” and a “state of emergency”. And yet : we did not put countries into lockdown, we did not block the global economy, we did not paralyze the education system, we did not social distancing and we did not tell the healthy people to wear masks.
2. We say : STOPto these crazy measures also because of their catastrophic consequences that have already started to appear : suicide of people as it was reported in China, development of psychiatric disorders, paralysis of the educational path of pupils and students at the university, negative impacts and dangers on animals, neglecting other diseases (especially chronic) and an increase in their mortality, domestic violence, economic losses, unemployment, major economic crisis (few people know that the economic crisis of 2007-2008 has caused the suicide of at least 13,000 people in Europe and North America), serious consequences on agriculture, destabilization of countries and social peace, risk of wars.
An editorial [5] published in the European Journal Of Clinical Investigation has denounced, from the beginning, the harms of : non‐evidence‐based extreme measures, exaggerated information on the real danger of the virus and the fake news spread (even by major journals). Some have even compared this pandemic to that of the 1918 influenza, which is a LIE and a manipulation since it killed 50 million people, which has absolutely nothing to do with the death toll of this coronavirus.
3. We REFUSE the obligation of contact tracing applications as it is the case in certain countries because SARS-CoV-2 is a benign virus which does not justify such a measure. Moreover, according to international recommendations and whatever the severity of a pandemic (moderate, high, extraordinary), contact tracing is not recommended. During flu epidemics, do we make contact tracing ? Yet, the flu virus infects much more people and has more populations at risk than this coronavirus.
4. We say : STOP the censorship of experts and health professionals to prevent them from telling the truth10 ( especially in countries that claim to be democratic).
5. We share the opinion of experts who denounce the inclusion of screenings in the counting of cases, even if the subjects are healthy and asymptomatic. This resulted in an overestimation of the cases. It should be remembered that the definition [11] of a case in epidemiology is : “the occurrence of many possible outcomes : illnesses, complications, sequelae, deaths. In so-called syndromic surveillance, the occurrence of non-specific events such as grouping of symptoms or reasons for seeking care, hospitalizations, calls to emergency services is defined as a case”. So, we say : separate the screenings from the cases and stop confusing them.
6. We share the opinion of experts who denounce the fact that no distinction is made between people who died from the virus and people who died with the virus (with co-morbidities), the fact that the cause of death is attributed to SARS-CoV-2 without testing or autopsy and that doctors are pressured to add COVID-19 to death certificates even if the patient died from other reasons.
This leads to an overestimation of the number of deaths and constitutes a scandalous manipulation of the figures because during epidemics of seasonal flu for example, we don’t work in this way. Especially, since 20% of COVID patients are co-infected with other respiratory viruses [12].
After re-evaluation, only 12% of death certificates in a European country13 have shown a direct causality from coronavirus. In an another European country, Professors Yoon Loke and Carl Heneghan showed that a patient who has tested positive, but successfully treated and discharged from hospital, will still be counted as a COVID death even if he had a heart attack or were run over by a bus three months later.
On July 31, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s director of a country in North America recognized that it is true that there is a perverse economic incentive for hospitals to inflate coronavirus deaths.
7. We share the opinion of experts who warned against the almost systematic intubation of certain patients, due to the mad fear of the virus. Protocols must be changed as they have resulted in a high number of deaths [14].
8. We say : it is important that a review of the analytical and clinical performances of the tests placed on the market be made, including the virological tests.
Many testing kits are currently used when a significant part of their performances (for example : analytical specificity, especially for the four seasonal coronaviruses) has not been evaluated, which is a serious problem because in addition to cases of false negatives, the literature reports worrying false positives, which may overestimate the number of cases and deaths. According to a professor of microbiology7, the false positive rate can reach 20%. Certain scientific articles which reported these cases of false positives have been censored [15].
Therefore, we say : STOP the obligation of screening tests because of this unreliability and the lack of verification of their performances and because nothing in this coronavirus (which is a benign virus and with a low case fatality rate) justifies it. As we said : The flu infects 1 billion people every year (30 times more than SARS-CoV-2) and yet no test is required for travel.
9. We say to citizens : do not be afraid, this virus is benign unless you are part of the populations at risk. If the TV channels do the same thing with the flu, the figures will be much higher than for the coronavirus ! The TV channels will report to you every day, on average, 3 million cases and 2,000 flu deaths. And for tuberculosis, TV channels will report to you each day, on average, 30,000 cases and 5,000 dead. In fact, the flu virus infects 1 billion people each year and kills 650,000 and tuberculosis infects 10,4 million people each year and kills 1,8 million people. In addition, on TV you are informed about “cases” but they are screenings and not cases. A scientific article, SARS-CoV-2 : fear versus data, published in the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, has proven that the danger of the virus was overestimated and that fear could be more dangerous than the virus itself.
10. We say to citizens : hand washing is a reflex that we must have throughout our lives, whether there is coronavirus or not, because it is the most effective hygiene measure. But wearing a mask when you are not sick and practicing social distancing, it is not part of hygiene or preservation of public health, but it is madness. Wearing a mask for a long time has several undesirable effects for your health16 and turns it into a microbes nest. “The virus can gather in the mask and when you take it off, the virus can be transferred to your hands and thereby spread further”, state epidemiologist Doctor Anders Tegnell. Asked if people are putting themselves more at risk by wearing masks, Doctor Jenny Harries said : “Because of these behavioural issues, people can adversely put themselves at more risk than less”.
Even dentists warned, recently, about the serious effects on oral health because they see that wearing masks for a long time leads to diseases like decaying teeth, periodontal diseases or seriously sour breath.
“We’re seeing a lot of people with more inflammation, more cavities and gum disease…We’re seeing inflammation in people’s gums that have been healthy forever, and cavities in people who have never had them before…About 50% of our patients are being impacted by this”,
says Doctor Robert Raimondi, a dentist.
“People tend to breathe through their mouth instead of through their nose while wearing a mask…The mouth breathing is causing the dry mouth, which leads to a decrease in saliva and saliva is what fights the bacteria and cleanses your teeth…Patients are coming into us like, ‘Wow, my breath smells, I need a cleaning.’ [But] when you smell the bad breath, you either already have periodontal disease or you have a lot of bacteria that’s sitting on your tongue because of dry mouth…Gum disease -or periodontal disease- will eventually lead to strokes and an increased risk of heart attacks”,
says Doctor Marc Sclafani, another dentist.
In addition, many of you complain about these masks, especially in this summer period. You must know that the mouth and the nose are not made to be obstructed. What you wear is a mask, apparently but a muzzle of your freedom, in reality. Especially since the epidemic is over in most countries, as several experts say like Professor Yoram Lass, and those who tell you the opposite are LIARS. By telling you that the epidemic is not over, by talking about the threat of a second wave (which is not based on any evidence), by asking you to wear a mask and to do social distancing, the goal is, in fact, to prolong the fear until a vaccine is made and so that it will be better accepted by you.
11. We say to the airlines compagnies : several scientific studies have shown a link between excess in hygiene and the development of diseases such as allergic diseases, autoimmune diseases, inflammatory diseases or certain cancers. This is what we call in medicine : the hygienist hypothesis. So, stop the disinfection operations and remove the masks and the ridiculous protective suits of your employees that we have seen in the media [17]. Doing this is madness. Airports must also stop taking temperatures and making quarantine. SARS-CoV-2 is not the Black plague. You too, like the citizens, have been manipulated.
12. We say to governments : lift all restrictions and obligations on citizens (state of emergency, lockdown, wearing a mask, social distancing, etc) because they are stupid and purely dictatorial and have nothing to do with medicine or hygiene or the preservation of public health. There is no scientific or medical reason for non-sick citizens to wear a mask5. Doctor Pascal Sacré, anesthesiologist and intensive care physician, said : “Forcing everyone to wear them all the time, while the epidemic disappears, is a scientific and medical aberration”. Professor Didier Raoult says :
“The decision of lockdown as the decision of wearing masks…are not based on scientific data…”.
Dr. Lisa Brosseau and Dr. Margaret Sietsema, experts on respiratory protection, say :
«We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks because : there is no scientific evidence that they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission…».
Professor Maël Lemoine precised that the change in the recommendations about masks is : “political, not scientific”.
In some Asian countries, people wear masks all the year (to protect themselves from pollution, for example). Did this widespread mask-wearing in these countries prevent them from having coronavirus epidemics ? Does this widespread mask-wearing in these countries prevent them from having each year epidemics of the flu or other respiratory viruses ?
The answer is of course : No. On the other hand, with the 8 million tonnes of plastic that are already dumped into the oceans every year, masks and gloves add a new threat and constitute a pollution that is particularly dangerous for our health and for fauna. In Italy, if only 1% of the masks currently used were thrown, 10 million masks would end up in the ocean each month18. In addition, the surgical masks have a lifespan of 450 years! Therefore, we say to governments : STOP these illegal and dangerous measures of mandatory mask wearing.
13. We say to the police : the citizens owe you a lot because you are every day the guarantors of their security and the respect of law and order. But this does not mean submitting blindly to unfair orders. It was this mistake that led to the second world war and the death of 50 million people.
So, we tell you : enforce the law but not injustice and dictatorship, refuse to enforce these measures, refuse to verbalize your fellow citizens (when they are not wearing a mask for example), don’t beat them, do not imprison them.
Don’t be the instruments of dictatorship. Be on the side of the citizens and follow the beautiful example of the American police officers who supported the citizens by kneeling with them. We assure you that these measures have nothing to do with medicine or hygiene or the preservation of public health, it is dictatorship and madness.
14. We say to citizens : we must respect the law. But, this does not mean blind submission to madness, injustice or dictatorship.
It was this blind submission of citizens that led to the second world war with the death of 50 million people. You were born free and you must live free, therefore : do not be afraid and if you are not sick : take off the masks, leave your house as you wish and without social distancing, but do it peacefully and without any violence. Professors Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson, epidemiologists with a great expertise in evidence-based medicine, say : “There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two- metre rule. Poor quality research is being used to justify a policy with enormous consequences for us all”.
15. We say that a total reform of the WHO must be done. WHO’s successes are indisputed : millions of lives have been saved thanks to smallpox vaccination programs and the consumption of tobacco has been reduced worldwide. However, the major problem of the WHO is that, since several years, it is 80% funded by companies (especially, pharmaceutical laboratories) and private donors (especially, a very well-known foundation) and there are many scandals :
false alarm on H1N1 flu under the pressure of pharmaceutical lobbies,
disturbing complacency towards glyphosate which the WHO declared safe despite the victims of the herbicide,
blindness towards the consequences of pollution due to oil companies in Africa,
minimization of the human toll of nuclear disasters from Chernobyl to Fukushima and the disasters of
the use of depleted uranium munitions in Iraq and the Balkans,
non- recognition of Artemisia in the treatment of malaria to protect pharmaceutical interests despite the fact that it has been already evidence-based medicine.
The independence of the organization is compromised both by the influence of industrial lobbies -especially pharmaceuticals- and by the interests of its member states, in particular : China. The president of a country said :
“I think that the World Health Organization should be ashamed of themselves because they are like the public relations agency for China”.
The Geneva institution, which had underestimated the Ebola threat (more than eleven thousand dead) is also accused of neglect towards tropical diseases, in favor of juicier markets.
An investigation done in 2016 (WHO in the clutches of lobbyists)[19] showed an edifying radiography of the WHO ; a weakened structure subject to multiple conflicts of interest. This investigation has shown how private interests dominate public health in the WHO.
It is not acceptable that the money which finances it comes mainly from a single person and that it is infiltrated by lobbies. Recently, the WHO became even more discredited by falling into the trap of the Lancet Gate while a simple student could find that it was a fraudulent study
At the time of the H1N1 flu : Dr. Wodarg, the chairman of the Health Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), criticized the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on scientists and officials of the WHO, saying that it has led to the situation where “unnecessarily millions of healthy people were exposed to the risk of poorly tested vaccines” and that, for a flu strain, it was “vastly less harmful” than all previous flu epidemics [20].
He was totally right because, later, the vaccine made 1,500 victims of narcolepsy including 80% were children, as we will see.
He also criticized the WHO for spreading the fear of a “false pandemic“, called it “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century” and he called also for an enquiry.
In fact, the criteria for declaring a pandemic (such as severity) have been modified by the WHO under the influence of pharmaceutical lobbyists so that they can sell the vaccines to countries around the world. According to a report21 done by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe about the way in which the H1N1 influenza pandemic had been managed, including by the WHO :
“waste of large sums of public money and also unjustified scares and fears about health risks…Grave shortcomings have been identified regarding the transparency of decision-making processes relating to the pandemic which have generated concerns about the possible influence of the pharmaceutical industry on some of the major decisions relating to the pandemic. It must be feared that this lack of transparency and accountability will result in a plummet in confidence in the advice given by major public health institutions”.
History repeats itself today with exactly the same actors and the same compaign of fear. The former WHO director of public health department revealed in another investigation (Trust WHO) that at the time of H1N1 nobody was afraid at the WHO and that he didn’t know anyone at the WHO who had himself vaccinated, including the former Director-General : Dr. Margaret Chan [22]. Although he was a leading official at the WHO, he was excluded as well as most of his colleagues from a meeting between the Director-General and the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing the vaccine and the reason was : “it is a private meeting”…
16. We say that an enquiry must be opened and that certain WHO officials must be questioned, in particular the one who made the international promotion of the lockdown, which is a heresy from a medical point of view and a scam that has misled the world. Indeed, on February 25, 2020 : the head of WHO-China joint mission on COVID-19, praised the response brought by Beijing to the epidemic [23]. He said that China had succeeded by “old-fashioned” tools, emphasized that “the world needed to learn from China” and must be inspired by it. He also said that “if he had COVID-19, he wanted to be treated in China” ! Once, he also praised China [24] calling it “very open” and “very transparent”.
Who can believe these statements ? Who can believe that if he had COVID-19, he wanted to be treated in China ? Who can believe that the world must be inspired by China and that the control of the epidemic must be done with “old-fashioned methods” ?
What is amazing is that he made the whole world believe what he said. Because unfortunately : since his declarations and the report overseen by him (where we can read that China methods are : “agile and ambitious”), the countries of the world have taken disproportionate measures and blindly followed the recommendations of the WHO by confining their populations.
Fear and psychosis have been propagated by presenting SARS-CoV-2 as a very dangerous virus or with massive mortalitywhen it is absolutely not the case.
Fortunately, an interview with him showed an important part of the truth and WHO’s conflicts of interest with China when a journalist asked him about the status of Taiwan (which is in conflict with China) in the WHO and whether the WHO would reconsider Taiwan’s membership : he pretended not to hear the question then when he was asked again, he ended the video call ! (The video reached more than 8 million views)[25]. It was also he who said at the end of February : “There is only one drug right now that we think may have real efficacy and that’s remdesivir”. How can he say this even before the results come out ? And why did he say it ?
Canadian Members of Parliament [26] have even issued a mandatory summons to him, after he turned down repeated invitations to testify to a House of Commons committee. Even, the Canadian Conservative Leader has raised concerns about the accuracy of the WHO’s data on COVID-19.
Indeed, saying that China has reduced the number of cases or managed the epidemic well and has flattened the curve thanks to the lockdown is a pure lie and is not based on any evidence because no one is able to give the number of cases or deaths in China if it had not applied the lockdown. In addition, a few months later : the world discovered that the numbers of cases and deaths were not even true !
Recently, three African countries expelled WHO officials because, according to some states, they falsified the COVID-19 case numbers by inflating them.
The people who are behind the lockdown, the global psychosis and terror, when they see : the rush of people to the supermarkets, the people arguing for pasta or toilet paper, the distances of 1 meter as if it was the plague, the people confined as if they were animals, the streets disinfected, the police beating citizens, drones and helicopters mobilized, the people going out with certificates, the wearing of mask despite the end of the epidemic and the fact that people are not sick, it is not excluded that they are laughing because of the ease with which they have manipulated whole countries and may be, they even call them : sheep.
The madness has reached the point that in some countries :
beaches have been disinfected with bleach,
mustached and bearded firefighters have been banned from work,
plexiglass barriers have been installed everywhere (even in the classrooms) as if it was the pestilence,
a train was stopped because a person was not wearing the mask,
families deprived of seeing their dead (as if the virus was going to jump from the body and bite them),
women in their seventies fined after going out to throw trash
and even coins and banknotes coming from abroad have been “isolated” !
How can countries accept to fall into this level of madness, stupidity and dictatorhip ?Especially those who call themselves democratic countries.
All this for a virus that causes 85% of mild forms and for which 99% of infected people recover.
WHO has urged the world to copy China’s response to COVID-19 and it has succeeded ; every country in the world, blindly following the WHO, has become a certified copy of China.
Only a few countries have refused to imitate others stupidly like Sweden or Belarus that can be congratulated.
The president of a European country was right when he said that :
“it is only a psychosis more dangerous than the virus itself”. World renowned experts have qualified the global alert as “disproportionate”.
Professor Jean-François Toussaint said :
“It seems to me that WHO has a very great responsibility in not being able to establish priority, in having tirelessly repeated that it was a threat to the humanity” (Journal International de Médecine, June 13, 2020).
17. We say that we must stop following blindly the WHO because it is not a learned society and is far from being independent, as we have seen.
Asked about the reason of the decision to make 11 vaccines compulsory, a former health minister [27] of a European country answered :
“It is a public health decision which in fact responds to a global objective of the WHO which demands today from all countries of the world to obtain 95% of children vaccinated for the necessary vaccines”.
We also recommend governments to choose well the experts who advise them and avoid those who have links with pharmaceutical companies ;
An eminent professor in infectiology made this remark on certain experts of a European country:
“An eminent member of the High Council’s Communicable Diseases Commission received 90,741 euros from the pharmaceutical industry, including 16,563 euros from [the pharmaceutical laboratory which produces a competing molecule of hydroxychloroquine]. However, it is this High Council which made the famous decision of prohibiting hydroxychloroquine, except for those who will die…I do not see any trace in this decision of the respect of the procedure for managing conflicts of interest… If a member presents a major conflict of interest, he must leave the meeting and not participate in the debates or in the writing of the decision… However, at the bottom of this decision, there is no mention of conflicts of interest or the number of members qualified who participated in the vote. It’s a serious violation of the rules”.
A former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine said :
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful” 28.
This, of course, should not be generalized to everyone.
18. We say to governments : no longer follow -in epidemics- the mathematical models which are virtual things unrelated to reality and which have misled the world in several occasions and were a justification for the mad policies of lockdown.
Indeed, a European university which has strong links with the WHO said that :
-50,000 British people will die from mad cow disease whereas in the end only 177 have died.
-Bird flu was going to kill 200 million people while only 282 died.
-H1N1 flu was going to kill 65,000 British people while only 457 died [29].
The mortality rate was also exaggerated and the H1N1 flu ended up being milder than originally anticipated motivating some to decry the considerable money, time and resources consumed by the response.
At that time, the press discovered that the rector of this university [30], who advised WHO and governments, received a salary of 116,000 £ a year from the swine flu vaccine manufacturer.
Today, it is on the base of the same faulty model, developed for the planning of the influenza pandemic, that they gave their astrological predictions on COVID-19 ; they said that 500,000 will die in the UK, 2,2 million in the USA, 70,000 in Sweden and between 300,000 and 500,000 in France[31] !
Who can believe these crazy numbers ? That’s why Professor Didier Raoult qualifies these modellings as : “the modern version of divinations”.
Professor John Ashton also denounced these astrological predictions and the fact that they have a kind of religious status. In addition, the press has discovered that the one who, in this university, urged governments to make lockdown does not even respect what he recommended them32. Here, too, an enquiry must be conducted with certain officials of this university. Professor Jean-François Toussaint said about the lockdown :
“We must absolutely prevent any government from making such a decision again. Especially since the instrumentalization of the pandemic with generalized lockdowns for half of humanity has only resulted in strengthening authoritarian regimes and stopping campaigns to prevent major deadly diseases. In France, the simulations estimating that 60,000 lives have been saved are pure fantasies”.
The famous international slogan : “stay home, save lives” was just a lie. On the contrary, lockdown has killed many people.
19. We REFUSE the compulsory vaccination and we REFUSE the compulsory coronavirus vaccination certificate to travel, for the following reasons :
–The vaccine is not essential because 85% of the forms are benign, 99% of the infected subjects recover and the children as well as the pregnant women are not subjects at risk. In addition, a large part of the population is already protected against SARS-CoV-2 by the cross-immunity acquired with the seasonal coronaviruses[33].
Saying that we are not sure of this is a LIE and raising doubts on the duration or the effectiveness of this protection is a manipulation aiming to protect the business plan of the vaccine.
-It is an RNA virus, therefore more prone to mutations and there is a risk that the vaccine may be ineffective.
-Vaccine trials are carried out in a rush34 and some call for speeding up the testing procedures and doing them without the usual animal trials, which is risky. Testing vaccines without taking the time to fully understand safety risks could bring unwarranted setbacks during the pandemic and into the future.
-The previous trials of vaccines against coronaviruses are worrying [34] : in 2004, one of the vaccines developed against SARS had caused hepatitis to the animals on which it had been tested. Another vaccine in the testing phase had caused severe lung damage to laboratory animals, making them more susceptible to future infections. Decades ago, vaccines developed against another coronavirus, feline infectious peritonitis virus, increased cats’ risk of developing the disease caused by the virus. Similar phenomena have been seen in animal studies for other viruses, including the coronavirus that causes SARS.
-Some vaccines are tested by companies that have no experience in the manufacture and marketing of vaccines and that use new technologies in medicine of which we know neither the benefits nor the risks for health.
-The search for financial profit of several pharmaceutical companies at the expense of the people’s health (without generalizing, of course).
The head of a pharmaceutical company said to his shareholders during H1N1 flu : “This vaccine, it will be a significant opportunity in terms of income. It is a nice boost for us, for the turnover and for the cash flow” [27] . The former health minister of a European country declared on May 23, 2020 :
“When there is an epidemic like COVID, we see : mortality, when we are a doctor, … or we see : suffering. And there are people who see : dollars…you have big laboratories that say : now is the time to make billions” [35].
On June 16, 2020, Professor Christian Perronne, a specialist in infectious diseases, said to Sud Radio about the coronavirus vaccine :
“We don’t need it at all … All this is about purely commercial goals”. The website of the magazine Nexus published on August 07 the opinion of Doctor Pierre Cave who said :
“In France, the epidemic is over…as a doctor, I do not hesitate to anticipate the decisions of the government : We must not only refuse these vaccines [against COVID-19], but we must also denounce and condemn the purely mercantile approach and the abject cynicism which guided their production”.
-The scandalous ethical violations in many clinical trials :
As Western countries do not allow them to violate ethical principles, many pharmaceutical companies (without generalizing) carry out their clinical trials of drugs and vaccines in developing or poor countries where experiments are carried out on people without informing them and without their consent.
A report [36] written by Irene Schipper (SOMO briefing paper on ethics in clinical trials) showed shocking and very serious ethical violations ; in a clinical trial, for example, African women became infected by HIV and then ill with AIDS. This clinical trial was funded by well-known foundation and laboratory. In some countries, these scandalous clinical trials were carried out with the complicity of local authorities and with conflicts of interest.
-A pharmaceutical company : AstraZeneca has been granted protection from future product liability claims related to its COVID-19 vaccine, in case of harmful side effects by most of the countries with which it has struck supply agreements. In other words, it is the states and not AstraZeneca that will compensate the victims, that is to say with the money of the citizens ! In this regard, we say to citizens : protest MASSIVELY against this scandalous, shameful and deeply unfair agreement until it will be deleted. You must refuse this IRRESPONSIBLE use of your money. Even Belgian experts were “shocked” by this agreement.
-The scandals of dangerous and even deadly vaccines developed during epidemics and we will mention two examples (we are, of course, not anti-vaccines since it calls into question the discoveries of Edward Jenner).
The scandal of the vaccine against the H1N1 : it has been tested on a small number of people and yet it was marketed as safe in 2009.
But one year later, concerns were raised in Finland and Sweden about a possible association between narcolepsy and the vaccine. A subsequent cohort study in Finland reported a 13-fold increased risk of narcolepsy after vaccination in children and young people aged 4- 19, most of whom had onset within three months after vaccination and almost all within six months.
In 2013, a study published in the British Medical Journal confirmed these results for England, too37. In total, this dangerous vaccine has resulted in 1,500 cases of narcolepsy in Europe alone and 80% of the victims are children. Part of the vaccinated NHS medical staff was also affected by narcolepsy.
Narcolepsy is a chronic and incurable neurological disease where patients fall asleep uncontrollably, they suffer from sleep attacks that last minutes and happen anywhere and at anytime in the day (daytime sleepiness) and are also victims of impressive cataplexy attacks (sudden temporary muscle weakness or loss of muscular control caused by a strong emotion like a laugh, anger or surprise. This can cause weakness in the knees, inability to articulate or sometimes even a fall during a few seconds). This disease damages mental functions and memory and can lead to hallucinations and mental illness. Peter Todd, a lawyer who represented many of the claimants, told the Sunday Times:
“There has never been a case like this before. The victims of this vaccine have an incurable and lifelong condition and will require extensive medication”.
Among the vaccine victims : Josh Hadfield (eight years) who is on anti- narcolepsy drugs costing £15,000 a year to help him stay awake during the school day.
“If you make him laugh, he collapses. His memory is shot. There is no cure. He says he wishes he hadn’t been born. I feel incredibly guilty about letting him have the vaccine”, said his mother [38].
Families suffered an ordeal that lasted 7 years to win their case in court. And instead of the pharmaceutical laboratories compensating them, the states [38,39] did it, that is to say with the money of the citizens !
The scandal of the deadly dengue vaccine in an Asian country [40], in 2018: According to the office of the prosecutor Persida Acosta, 500 children died as a result of this vaccine and several thousand are sick.
Some children need operations to absorb the blood after severe bleedings. Most families cannot pay those operations. According to the prosecutor, the responsibilities are shared between the laboratory which sold “a dangerous vaccine” and the government which set up a “massive and indiscriminate” vaccination campaign, in deplorable conditions. Doctor Erwin Erfe, who worked for the prosecutor’s office, performed two to three autopsies of children per week with always the same results : “Internal bleedings, especially in the brain and lungs…and swollen organs”.
This vaccine, however, promised to be a planetary triumph ; in 2015, the laboratory confirmed with great fanfare the marketing of a revolutionary dengue vaccine. It was a world first, the product of twenty years of research and 1,5 billion euros of investment. Yet from the beginning, voices raised in the scientific community : Doctor Antonio Dans tried to warn about the inconclusive results of the first clinical trials. In the United States, Professor Scott Halstead, a world renowned specialist in the disease, even sent a video broadcasted in the Senate of the country to urge to suspend the vaccination program. The former health minister of the country has been charged in this scandal. “It’s the lure of profit that killed these children”, said prosecutor Persida Acosta.
20. We say : STOP to all these mad, dictatorial measures and certainly not sanitary because of which tragedies occur every day :
a teenage girl committed suicide in Great Britain because, for her, the lockdown was to last 300 years [41],
a pregnant woman suffered martyrdom during the childbirth in France [42],
a teenager in the USA suffered a displaced jaw and will require surgery after he was assaulted by a couple he asked to wear masks,
a nurse were also assaulted in France and a bus driver even died due to these illegal measures of mandatory masks,
60,000 cancer patients could die in the UK because of a lack of treatment or diagnosis according to Professor Karol Sikora,
12,000 people could die per day by the end of the year as a result of hunger linked to COVID-19 measures (according to Oxfam),
the number of cardiac arrest doubled in some countries43, companies go bankrupt,
305 million full-time jobs have been lost -affecting especially : women and young people- according to the International Labour Organisation, a man is dead because of mask in the USA [44],
etc.
Even the birds suffer from these dangerous measures and are trapped and killed because of the masks :
” [the gull could only] stumble and fall as the poor thing had a disposable Covid face mask tangled around both legs…It’s clear the mask was there for some time and the elastic straps had tightened around his legs as his joints were swollen and sore…I’m concerned that this gull could be the first of many victims now that face masks are the norm”,
Employees of the Royal Society for the prevention of cruelty to animals said to the BBC on July 20 and the bird suffered this torture for a week !
It should, also, be noted that the initial and primary cause of George Floyd’s tragedy is the lockdown : if there was no lockdown, he would not have lost his job, he would have been on May 25 at work, he would not have been murdered, the stores vandalism and fires as well as the clashes with the police would not have happened, the chaos in the USA would have been avoided and George Floyd would still be alive among us today.
21. We say to governments : EVERYTHING must return immediately to normal (including the reopening of hospital services, air transport, economy, schools and universities) and this global hostage-taking must stop because you have known, with supporting evidence, that you as citizens, have been the victims of the biggest health scam of the 21th century.
Professor Carl Heneghan said on August 23 that the public fear that is stopping the country returning to normal is unfounded, according to the Express. Professors Karina Reiss and Sucharit Bhakdi released in June, a book called : “Corona : false alarm ?” 45 .
The mayor of a city in Europe declared : “The atmosphere spread on [the subject of the coronavirus] is particularly heavy and becomes suspicious”.
Dr. Olivier Chailley has written a book called :
“The virus of fear, how the whole world became crazy”. Professor Sucharit Bhakdi (he sent, also, a letter to Angela Merkel) described the measures taken, including lockdown, as : “grotesque, absurd and very dangerous…a horrible impact on the world economy…self-destruction and collective suicide…”.
An international and independent investigation must be opened and those responsible must be tried.
22. We say to the citizens : to keep you in the “flock”, it is possible that some will try to discredit us by all means, for example by accusing us of conspiracy, etc. Do not listen to them, they are LIARS because the information you have been given are : medical, scientific and documented.
23. We say to the citizens : this letter should not lead you to violence towards anyone. React peacefully. And if a healthcare professional who signs this letter will be attacked or slandered or threatened or persecuted : support him MASSIVELY.
Dear citizens : a lot of scientists, eminent professors in medicine and health professionals around the world denounced what is going on and it’s time for you to wake up !
If you don’t talk, new dictatorial measures will be imposed.
You must REFUSE this. We assure you that these measures have nothing to do with medicine or hygiene or the preservation of public health, it is dictatorship and madness.
Doctor Anders Tegnell said : «The world went mad» with coronavirus lockdowns which «fly in the face of what is known about handling virus pandemics».
24. We invite health professionals ALL AROUND THE WORLD to be strong and courageous and to do their duty of telling the truth, to join us MASSIVELY in the collective : United Health Professionals and to sign this letter by :
Sending the following 4 pieces of information: first name, last name, profession and country to :
Sending (to join.[email protected] ) a video (in English or in your language) between 5 and 10 minutes in which you give your opinion and expertise on COVID-19 or on the measures taken to fight COVID-19.
Your video will be then published on the YouTube channel of the collective.
The list of signatories will be updated regularly.
Albert Einstein said : “the world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who look at them without doing anything”. Follow us on :
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).
***
First published on May 28, 2021
Joining us today is Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, here to discuss the ‘dangerous mRNA vaccines’ and how he and his organization warned about the blood clots (and much else now coming to pass) that we are now seeing from the COVID-19 injections, months before they began.
He stresses that it is important that we come to understand what Cerebral Venous Thrombosis is, and why all of its symptoms seem to be identical to what we are told COVID-19 symptoms are.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
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.
First published by Global Research on November 22, 2021
Austria has announced that it will go into a total lockdown for at least 2 weeks and a maximum of 20 days. Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg added that ”there will be a legal requirement to get vaccinated from 1 February 2022.”
This and more was reported by the BBC. And as we know, the BBC gets it always right and questions nothing; doesn’t criticize even the most flagrant infraction of human rights.
What “legal requirement”?
There can be no legal requirement in a so-called democracy that is above a Human Right. None.
The BBC doesn’t seem to know, nor care. What Austria is implementing is tyranny, is dictatorship at its worst, while trying to preserve an image of democracy and of protecting the public from increasing “Covid numbers”. What are these increasing Covid numbers?
The numbers are increasing all over the western world (Northern Hemisphere), which not only is mandating even primary school children for testing, testing, testing, and more testing, in some cases up to four times a month, with this infamous PCR test – which has been disapproved for inaccuracy even by WHO (see this). Many scientists go as far as saying that the false positives of these tests are 97%.
These repeated senseless testing even on small children, with a predominantly false positive test method, obviously increases the “case” numbers. But they are totally meaningless, because nobody is sick.
Dr. Kary B. Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, who mysteriously passed away on August 7, 2019, at age 74, stated emphatically that no infection or illness can be accurately diagnosed with the PCR-RT. He added, “PCR is a Process. It does not tell you that you are sick. … The measurement is not accurate”.
Mullis described the PCR-RT as a “technique” rather than “a test”. It is a useful technique which allows for “rapid amplification of a small stretch of DNA”.
See also this breathtaking and shocking video interview (45 min) with Dr. Elisabeth Eads, “Video: Covid-19 Injections Will Cause Massive Deaths”, where Dr. Eads not only points out that the PCR tests false positives are an estimated 97%, but also lays bare the real death count related to the Covid vaxxes.
In other words, the death directly related to Covid jabs, falsely called “vaccines”. See the entire video, it is pointing to at least 600,000 deaths in the US, resulting from the jabs – not VAERS-reported – and predicting that the death figures may rise in 2022 to several million, in the US alone.
VAERS stands for Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System in the US. The European equivalent is the European Medicines Agency (EMA) which also has a function similar to the US CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
Covid vaccine side effects are so many and serious. It is estimated that only about 1% to 5% of harmful Covid “vaccine” injuries are reported.
If the death rate from Covid vaxx-injections in the US is about 600,000, you may add a proportionately similar incidence throughout the western world that has been injected with the mRNA-type concoctions. The resulting astronomical numbers, and the fact that no mainstream media nor government will talk about it, can only point to a de facto eugenist agenda to reduce the World’s population.
We are only at the beginning of the UN Agenda 2030 which is being implemented flagrantly on our watch, on schedule, albeit under false pretenses, but we, The People, do nothing about it. We take to the streets in Vienna, in Bern, in Paris and in Berlin – but nothing happens – and the implementation of these draconian killing measures continues.
The masters behind these well-orchestrated actions knew and know that they all will result in upheavals, in demolition of property.
They know that this will cause a few injuries, maybe deaths, but by and large, it will not change anything.
They talked about 300,000 people in the streets of Vienna this past weekend. Is it true? Even if it were true, the public anger will simply be ignored, smothered, and eventually subside, or being overtaken by the next much stronger measures being imposed. Worldwide, we are already talking millions of deaths directly related to the Covid jab. But of course, the mainstream media have been paid to remain silent.
And the lied-to and manipulated “mainstream public” calls anything that deviates from the sacred official narrative a “conspiracy theory”. When the day comes, when there is no more denying but our civilization is in shambles, it’s no good saying, “sorry, we didn’t know, we just followed orders.”
The Nuremberg Code makes it clear that this excuse is not accepted. We may but hope that these crimes committed by coerced, or bought, or ordered or even sympathetic governments will be brought to justice by an equivalent of the Nuremberg Trials that brought the Third Reich criminals to justice in 1945-46.
Mind you, the Third Reich crimes pale in the light of what is going on and is planned worldwide, embracing 193 UN member countries, driving towards a diminished world population, a colossal capital shift from the bottom and the middle to a few already ultra-rich on the top – and a fully digitized world, called “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” or “The Great Reset” with a remaining slave society of “humanoids” or “transhumans”, as Klaus Schwab from the WEF calls them.
A One World Order of the worst kind. It will not be able to come to fruition. Because total satanic take-over never does. But the suffering from now to then, is a colossal agony.
Back to Austria. Might it be possible that the former Austrian Chancellor, Sebastian Kurz, who on 9 October 2021 rather surprisingly stepped down as Chancellor of Austria, under the shady pretext of financial irregularities, knew what was coming?
Mind you, these orders come from outside the UN system. And they are not contestable – or else. As a consequence of a sense of ethics, Kurz may have felt, he preferred to step down and transfer the Chancellorship to his then Foreign Minister, Alexander Schallenberg, like Kurz, also from the conservative ÖVP (People’s Party).
Kurz did say in a televised statement, “My country is more important to me than myself.”
In Austria about one third of the population is not vaxxed and so far has refused to get the poison jab. They are educated people. So, Schallenberg insinuated that many of the “European countries will be imposing restrictions, as “cases” rise”.
What “cases”?
Nobody ever describes what a case is.
Only when you go and dig and ask around, a “case” is a “PCR positive tested person”. That includes umpteenth times tested school children, of which we know chances that they get Covid-sick is about one in 10,000. In addition, and I repeat, almost all of the PCR positives are false positives. See previous references, and especially WHO’s statement to this effect, statement that seems to be totally ignored by its member countries.
Furthermore, with testing-testing-testing ad absurdum – you drive the “case” figures up, but hardly anybody has disease symptoms. So, the entire statistics that serve to scare you into submission are false; they are manipulated to instill fear.
Unfortunately, they, the dark forces, are very successful. Fear is the best instrument to manipulate people and public opinion. Those who spread fear know that those in fear lose clear sight.
Now come those who argue for the corona believers, saying that hospitals are overloaded especially emergency beds are at the brink.
This is a lie, or a manufactured fiction. In Switzerland, for example, Intensive Care Units (ICU) were reduced in the course of 2020 by 40%, (i) since they need on average an occupancy rate of above 80% to recover their costs and remain profitable, and (ii) with 40% less ICUs, its much easier to manipulate the figures in a way that they look fully booked – and favorable for the corona narrative.
Chancellor Schallenberg also doesn’t miss a beat hammering the drums of fear. “We don’t want a fifth wave,” he said at a meeting of the governors of Austria’s nine provinces.
From the looks of it, and recalling what Dr. Elisabeth Eads said in her interview with Greg Hunter (see above), this is planned mass killing, “medical tyranny by life threatening infections”, caused by poison injections.
If Austria is the first Western country that directly and “legally” imposes “vaccination” – meaning enforced by police or military – others will for sure be following.
The Forth wave and the prevention of the Fifth Wave of a virus that doesn’t exist – see this.
The agenda will continue with a fifth and sixth and seventh …. wave, if not enough people are going to be vaxxed. The purpose is injecting, not healing or preventing a disease. Injecting for transforming humans to electronically manipulatable transhumans (Klaus Schwab).
You may also be interested in a US Patent of August 2021, a complex description of a process of transmitting vaxx-properties from the vaxxed to the unvaxxed. It describes, for example, the method of transmitting an electromagnetic (EM) field created by foremost Pfizer graphene-loaded vaxxes to non-injected people, so that they too may become susceptible to EM wave manipulations. It’a like vaxxing the unvaxxed by the vaxxed so nobody may escape. This is a true evil agenda.
Austria may be the west’s first country that imposes the poison jab – totally illegal. But others may be following closely in Austria’s footsteps. In Geneva and other Swiss Cantons, high school and university students may not attend classes unless they are vaxxed. This is blackmail. Blackmail is a crime. In Switzerland a referendum putting the entire Covid measures agenda up for a popular vote on 28 November is pending.
In Germany Health Minister Jens Spahn has spoken of “a national emergency that requires a combined national effort”, meaning the introduction of restrictions for unvaccinated people in areas with high [fake Covid – added by author] hospital admissions. And parliament has backed requirements for people to show Covid passes on buses and trains, and in workplaces.
Unless, We, the People, show courage and a disciplined and well-coordinated but peaceful civil disobedience, we may be in for a Dark Winter. And that without the seasonal flu. Have you noticed, since 2020, the common flu has virtually disappeared from the annual agenda? Does it perhaps mean that all the flu “cases” became conveniently “Covid cases”?
*
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.
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst and a former Senior Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he has worked for over 30 years on water and environment around the world. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals and is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
The majority of UN member states supported this Anti-Nazi Resolution, as they had done since its inception in 2013, when Ukraine merely abstained, and Yanukovich was still the democratically elected President of Ukraine. The United States attempts to justify its opposition to this Resolution for nine years, with a variety of bogus explanations, originally “in defense of free speech,” but considering the recent draconian censorship imposed in the US today, and the imposition of the vaccine mandate, violating the Nuremburg Code and the UNESCO Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, the US was obliged to contrive another explanation for their support for burgeoning neo-nazism, now attributing the Resolution to a Russian disinformation campaign.
Ukraine is now a puppet of the US, since 2014, when the US sponsored overthrow of President Yanukovich in Kiev was orchestrated by Victoria Nuland of the infamous “F**k the EU” fame, during which time she and her cohorts placed neo-nazis in the most powerful positions of the regime in Ukraine.
This UN Resolution Prohibiting the “Glorification of Nazism” is a crucially needed rebuttal to the obfuscations of the notorious “Prague Declaration,” with its contrivance of the “double genocide” theory, tantamount to Holocaust Denial. So far from being any form of “Russian Disinformation campaign,” the Anti-Nazi resolution attempts to protect historic truth, and the truth that it was predominantly the 30 million Soviet heroes who died to defeat Hitler, and ultimately won World War II, with the help of the munitions provided by US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, under lend-lease, which he had to virtually demand be honored. Although Roosevelt was loved, and virtually revered by the majority of the American people, there were powerful pro-nazi movements within the USA, including at the State Department, who hated him, and to whom he replied: “I welcome their hatred.”
Nazi sympathies have always existed in the US, primarily because Nazism is “better for business,” and slave labor drives up profits for the capitalists; and though there were many heroic anti-nazi fighters in Ukraine, many of whom gave their lives in the “Great Patriotic War,” there was a powerful nazi underground in Ukraine, led by Stefan Bandera. It continues today.
“Covert Action Magazine”, in a recent article exposes some grisly details of Ukranian Nazism:
“Over his lifetime, Lev Dobriansky, who led the Ukranian Congress Committee of America (UCCA),…..ardently supported the ambitious postwar aims of Stefan Bandera (1909-1959), and his dominant, more radical faction of the OUN that arose in 1941, the ‘Banderites’ (OUN-B). The OUN, founded in 1930 was, in truth a terrorist organization that emulated the Nazis in words and deed for the sake of ‘liberating’ Ukraine. Bandera was sentenced to life in prison for the 1934 assassination of the Polish Interior Minister, but he escaped at the outbreak of World War II. Meanwhile, Hryhorii Matseiko, the OUN assassin who gunned down the Polish minister, had fled to South America. As Bandera established the OUN-B, President Roosevelt’s Secret Service was on the lookout for Matseiko, a “Ukranian Terrorist” believed to be in the United States because the Germans promised him ‘a very considerable financial reward if he should have the ‘same success’ with President Roosevelt.”
Throughout the Administrations of Obama, Trump and Biden, the US has endorsed the resurgence of Nazism throughout Europe and elsewhere, and opposed this UN Resolution prohibiting the rise and glorification of neo-nazism.
The now neo-fascist vaccine mandate forced upon citizens of the US and other nations, including the UN itself, the violation of the Nuremberg Code and numerous UN Resolutions protecting human rights, especially the right to bodily autonomy, indicate an ominous global trend toward totalitarianism which must be opposed by all necessary means. Otherwise, Hitler’s diabolic agenda will become a global reality.
“The Great Reset” (with its “transhumans”) is an expanded, updated disguised version, of “Mein Kampf,” eugenics masquerading as “public health.” A new cult has arisen with a tragically gullible mass of deceived people following the cult leader, who arrogantly and falsely claims to “represent science.”
Like the frog boiled to death in water, as the temperature is inexorably raised, until it becomes too late for the frog to escape, will humanity be boiled to death as the population “reduction” efforts accelerate the agenda, under the guise of exterminating Covid-19?
*
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.
Carla Stea is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and Global Research’s Correspondent at UN headquarters, New York.
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).
“Science is more than a body of knowledge. It’s a way of thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions to interrogate those who tell us something is true to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan political or religious, who comes ambling along.”
One can imagine just how difficult the term ‘anti-science’ would be to some people outside the norm of a society programmed for the continuation of a policy of technical advancement, such as 5G technology, Genetic Modification, etc that while attractive at first glance may have deserved criticisms in relation to impacts on human and animal health.
One suspects the CIA suggested to their paid inserts in the major media stations to use the term ‘anti-science’ as a thought stopper, much like the way they got the media to embrace the term ‘conspiracy theory’ in relation to major crimes of State, such as the JFK assassination.
In a world of such bitter divisions where people can be afraid not to conform. Even if they can be convinced of the problems with the COVID vaccine, and indeed the whole COVID narrative, they can be afraid for their reputations that would take a hit. Even their ability to practice is threatened in some cases. [2]
In such unprecedented and intimidating times, it is refreshing to have the voice of someone who has been damned near obsessed with keeping the science disciplined and pure of influences, including and especially the profit-driven thrust of the major pharmaceutical corporations. The man for the Global Research News Hour this week is the renowned author and scientist James Lyons-Weiler.
Not only has Dr. Lyons-Weiler worked on studies in relation to COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 research, he is the president and CEO of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK) a group designed, they claim, to provide impartial research results and views on some of the most important and controversial topics in biomedicine, psychiatry, and sociology. IPAK conducts its research in a manner independent of profit motive so that their results can be better trusted.
In this interview, Dr Lyons-Weiler elaborates on conventional research in COVID-19 and other areas of medicine favoring profits over people, his research into something called Pathogenic Priming and its contribution to severe illness, the possibility of malfeasance by health authorities, the threat to children and more!
CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.
WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.
Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.
CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am.
Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.
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.
The winter came to Syria with a hurricane and a new wave of hostilities. On December 1, a storm hit refugee camps in the north of the country. The hurricane damaged and destroyed a large number of settlements in Idlib and in the north of Aleppo.
The hurricane is not the only reason of a headache for Syrian militants in Greater Idlib, where a military storm is going really strong. Several recent reports talked about a near ground operation by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies to reinforce the ceasefire in the region.
On November 30, three militants were killed when the SAA shelled a position they were manning in the al-Ghab Plains in the western part of the Greater Idlib region. The army reportedly used its Russian-made 2K25 Krasnopol laser-guided 155 mm artillery round.
The slain militants were Syrian members of the al-Qaeda-affiliated Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP). They were fighting in the terrorist group’s Ansar [Supporters] unit which is dedicated for Syrians only.
The SAA shelling was likely a response to the ceasefire violations which led to casualties in Syrian ranks. In the last few days, two soldiers were allegedly killed in the al-Ghab Plains by sniper fire.
Meanwhile, the SAA, supported by the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS), continues fighting terrorists in Syria’s central regions, and the last month was busy enough for the allies.
In November, the VKS carried out more than 610 airstrikes on ISIS cells and their hideouts in Syria’s central region, while the Syrian army conducted several combing operations in different parts of the region.
The most recently, a new wave of airstrikes targeted hideouts of ISIS cells located near the strategic Ithriyah-Khanasir highway, which links Hama with Aleppo.
While the SAA and Russian forces are doing their job, members of the US-led international coalition are busy revealing their activities in Syria.
The UK has officially claimed responsibility for the October 25 drone strike on northeastern Syria. The remotely piloted [MQ-9] Reaper, armed with Hellfire missiles, reportedly killed Sabahi Ibrahim al-Muslih, also known as “Abu Hamzah al- Shheell”, a cochairman of ISIS Shura Council.
The US also did not stay aside. However, it had no successful operation to reveal. Thus, Washington launched investigation into the murder of dozens of civilians.
US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has ordered an investigation into an airstrike in Syria in 2019. According to The New York Times, an American F-15 fighter jet, by order of Task Force 9, dropped a bomb on a crowd of civilians gathering in a field near the settlement of El-Baguz on March 18, 2019. The US military leadership downplayed the strike, which reportedly killed about 80 people.
Despite the growing discontent among the locals, the US-led international coalition continues its reinforcement in northeastern Syria. Over the last few days, dozens of trucks loaded with supplies and military equipment for the US-led coalition entered the country from Iraq.
While civilians are preventing some US convoys from passing through their villages, throwing stones to the vehicles, other US convoys suffer more severe damage. On December 1, a convoy moving logistic supplies to US-led coalition bases came under an IED attack, when it was passing near the town of al-Malikiyah in the northeastern countryside of al-Hasakah. Two trucks reportedly burnt out as a result of the explosion.
*
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.
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.
It’s impossible to understand the resumption of the JCPOA nuclear talks in Vienna without considering the serious inner turbulence of the Biden administration.
Everyone and his neighbor are aware of Tehran’s straightforward expectations: all sanctions – no exceptions – must be removed in a verifiable manner. Only then will the Islamic Republic reverse what it terms ‘remedial measures,’ that is, ramping up its nuclear program to match each new American ‘punishment.’
The reason Washington isn’t tabling a similarly transparent position is because its economic circumstances are, bizarrely, far more convoluted than Iran’s under sanctions. Joe Biden is now facing a hard domestic reality: if his financial team raises interest rates, the stock market will crash and the US will be plunged into deep economic distress.
Panicked Democrats are even considering the possibility of allowing Biden’s own impeachment by a Republican majority in the next Congress over the Hunter Biden scandal.
According to a top, non-partisan US national security source, there are three things the Democrats think they can do to delay the final reckoning:
First, sell some of the stock in the Strategic Oil Reserve in coordination with its allies to drive oil prices down and lower inflation.
Second, ‘encourage’ Beijing to devalue the yuan, thus making Chinese imports cheaper in the US, “even if that materially increases the US trade deficit. They are offering trading the Trump tariff in exchange.” Assuming this would happen, and that’s a major if, it would in practice have a double effect, lowering prices by 25 percent on Chinese imports in tandem with the currency depreciation.
Third, “they plan to make a deal with Iran no matter what, to allow their oil to re-enter the market, driving down the oil price.” This would imply the current negotiations in Vienna reaching a swift conclusion, because “they need a deal quickly. They are desperate.”
There is no evidence whatsoever that the team actually running the Biden administration will be able to pull off points two and three; not when the realities of Cold War 2.0 against China and bipartisan Iranophobia are considered.
Still, the only issue that really worries the Democratic leadership, according to the intel source, is to have the three strategies get them through the mid-term elections. Afterwards, they may be able to raise interest rates and allow themselves time for some stabilization before the 2024 presidential ballot.
So how are US allies reacting to it? Quite intriguing movements are in the cards.
When in doubt, go multilateral
Less than two weeks ago in Riyadh, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), in a joint meeting with France, Germany and the UK, plus Egypt and Jordan, told the US Iran envoy Robert Malley that for all practical purposes, they want the new JCPOA round to succeed.
A joint statement, shared by Europeans and Arabs, noted “a return to mutual compliance with the [nuclear deal] would benefit the entire Middle East, allow for more regional partnerships and economic exchange, with long-lasting implications for growth and the well-being of all people there, including in Iran.”
This is far from implying a better understanding of Iran’s position. It reveals, in fact, the predominant GCC mindset ruled by fear: something must be done to tame Iran, accused of nefarious “recent activities” such as hijacking oil tankers and attacking US soldiers in Iraq.
So this is what the GCC is volunteering to the Americans. Now compare it with what the Russians are proposing to several protagonists across West Asia.
Essentially, Moscow is reviving the Collective Security Concept for the Persian Gulf Region, an idea that has been simmering since the 1990s. Here is what the concept is all about.
So if the US administration’s reasoning is predictably short-term – we need Iranian oil back in the market – the Russian vision points to systemic change.
The Collective Security Concept calls for true multilateralism – not exactly Washington’s cup of tea – and “the adherence of all states to international law, the fundamental provisions of the UN Charter and the resolutions of the UN Security Council.”
All that is in direct contrast with the imperial “rules-based international order.”
It’s too far-fetched to assume that Russian diplomacy per se is about to accomplish a miracle: an entente cordiale between Tehran and Riyadh.
Yet there’s already tangible progress, for instance, between Iran and the UAE. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri held a “cordial meeting” in Dubai with Anwar Gargash, senior adviser to UAE President Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan. According to Bagheri, they “agreed to open a new page in Iran-UAE relations.”
Geopolitically, Russia holds the definitive ace: it maintains good relationships with all actors in the Persian Gulf and beyond, talks to all of them frequently, and is widely respected as a mediator by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, and other GCC members.
Russia also offers the world’s most competitive and cutting edge military hardware to underpin the security needs of all the parties.
And then there’s the overarching, new geopolitical reality. Russia and Iran are forging a strengthened strategic partnership, not only geopolitical but also geoeconomic, fully aligned to the Russian-conceptualized Greater Eurasian Partnership – and also demonstrated by Moscow’s support for Iran’s recent ascension to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the only West Asian state to be admitted thus far.
Furthermore, three years ago Iran launched its own regional security framework proposal for the region called HOPE (the Hormuz Peace Endeavor) with the intent to convene all eight littoral states of the Persian Gulf (including Iraq) to address and resolve the vital issues of cooperation, security, and freedom of navigation.
The Iranian plan didn’t get far off the ground. While Iran suffers from adversarial relations with some of its intended audience, Russia carries none of that baggage.
The $5.4 trillion game
And that brings us to the essential Pipelineistan angle, which in the Russia–Iran case revolves around the new, multi-trillion dollar Chalous gas field in the Caspian Sea.
A recent sensationalist take painted Chalous as enabling Russia to “secure control over the European energy market.”
That’s hardly the story. Chalous, in fact, will enable Iran – with Russian input – to become a major gas exporter to Europe, something that Brussels evidently relishes. The head of Iran’s KEPCO, Ali Osouli, expects a “new gas hub to be formed in the north to let the country supply 20 percent of Europe’s gas needs.”
According to Russia’s Transneft, Chalous alone could supply as much as 52 percent of natural gas needs of the whole EU for the next 20 years.
Chalous is quite something: a twin-field site, separated by roughly nine kilometers, the second-largest natural gas block in the Caspian Sea, just behind Alborz. It may hold gas reserves equivalent to one-fourth of the immense South Pars gas field, placing it as the 10th largest gas reserves in the world.
Chalous happens to be a graphic case of Russia-Iran-China (RIC) geoeconomic cooperation. Proverbial western speculative spin rushed to proclaim the 20-year gas deal as a setback for Iran. The final breakdown, not fully confirmed, is 40 percent for Gazprom and Transneft, 28 percent for China’s CNPC and CNOOC, and 25 percent for Iran’s KEPCO.
Moscow sources confirm Gazprom will manage the whole project. Transneft will be in charge of transportation, CNPC is involved in financing and banking facilities, and CNOOC will be in charge of infrastructure and engineering.
The whole Chalous site has been estimated to be worth a staggering $5.4 trillion.
Iran could not possibly have the funds to tackle such a massive enterprise by itself. What is definitely established is that Gazprom offered KEPCO all the necessary technology in exploration and development of Chalous, coupled with additional financing, in return for a generous deal.
Crucially, Moscow also reiterated its full support for Tehran’s position during the current JCPOA round in Vienna, as well as in other Iran-related issues reaching the UN Security Council.
The fine print on all key Chalous aspects may be revealed in time.
It’s a de facto geopolitical/geoeconomic win-win-win for the Russia, Iran, China strategic partnership. And it reaches way beyond the famous “20-year agreement” on petrochemicals and weapons sales clinched by Moscow and Tehran way back in 2001, in a Kremlin ceremony when President Putin hosted then Iranian President Mohammad Khatami.
There’s no two ways about it. If there is one country with the necessary clout, tools, sweeteners and relationships in place to nudge the Persian Gulf into a new security paradigm, it is Russia – with China not far behind.
*
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.
This article was originally published on The Cradle.
Pepe Escobar,born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture in Moscow. 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.
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.
As preparations are underway for the second Russia-Africa summit planned for 2022, African leaders, politicians, academic researchers and experts have been discussing several aspects of the current state of Russia-Africa relations. They, most often, compare it with a number of foreign countries notably China, the United States, European Union, India, France, Turkey, Japan, and South Korea that have held such gatherings in that format with Africa.
Some have argued that Russia has moved away from its low-key strategy to vigorous relations, as shown by the first symbolic Russia-Africa summit in the Black Sea city of Sochi in October 2019. Russia and Africa adopted a joint declaration, a comprehensive document that outlines the key objectives and necessary tasks that seek to raise assertively the entirety of relations to a new level.
Long before the summit, at least, during the past decade, several bilateral agreements between Russia and individual African countries were signed. Besides, memoranda of understanding, declaration of interests, pledges and promises dominated official speeches. On the other side, Russia is simply invisible in economic sectors in Africa, despite boasting of decades-old solid relations with the continent.
Undoubtedly, Africa is opening up new fields of opportunity. The creation of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) provides a unique and valuable opportunity for businesses to access an integrated African market of over 1.3 billion people with a GDP of over US$2.5 trillion. It aspires to connect all the regions of Africa, to deepen economic integration and to boost intra-African trade and investment.
Despite existing risks, challenges and threats, a number of external countries continue strengthening their economic footholds in Africa and contribute enormously towards the continent’s efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Russia has to upgrade or scale up its collaborative engagement with Africa. It has to consider seriously launching more public outreach programmes, especially working with civil society to change public perceptions and the private sector to strengthen its partnership with Africa. In order to achieve this, it has to surmount the challenges, take up the courage and work consistently with both private and public sectors and with an effective Action Plan.
In this exclusive interview with Steven Gruzd, Head of the African Governance and Diplomacy Programme at the at the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA), discusses a few questions, highlights existing challenges and passionately offers some progressive suggestions regarding Russia-African relations.
Steven Gruzd also heads the Russia-Africa Research Programme initiated this year at SAIIA, South Africa’s premier research institute on international issues. It is an independent, non-government think tank, with a long and proud history of providing thought leadership in Africa. Here are the interview excerpts:
Kester Kenn Klomegah: What are your appreciations and fears for Russia returning to Africa?
Steven Gruzd: Africa is becoming crowded, with many old and new actors actively involved on the continent. Apart from EU countries, China and the US, we have players such as Iran, Turkey, Israel, the UAE, Japan and others. So Russia’s renewed interest in Africa does not happen in isolation. It, of course, seeks to build on Soviet-era ties, and several African leaders today studied in the USSR or the Soviet sphere of influence. Russia has tended to focus on niche areas such as weapons sales, nuclear energy and resource extraction, at a much smaller scale than China. Many leaders are welcoming the attention of Russia, but some remain wary of Russia’s hidden motives and intentions. Russia’s dealings are not transparent and open compared to China. The shadowy world of private military companies such as Russia’s Wagner Group is causing concern in unstable countries like the CAR, Libya and Mali. So, in fact, there is a kind of mixed picture, sentiments and interpretations are also varied here.
KKK: How would you argue that Russia engages fairly in “competition for cooperation” in Africa?
SG: Africa is a busy geopolitical arena, with many players operating. Russia has to compete against them, and distinctively remain focused its efforts. Russia welcomes diplomatic support from African countries, and unlike the West, it does not demand good governance or advocate for human rights reforms. Russia likes to portray itself as not interfering in local politics or judging African countries, even though there is mounting evidence that it has been involved in meddling in elections in Africa through disinformation, fake news and attempting to exploit fault lines in societies through social media.
KKK: Do you think, to some extent, Russia is fighting neo-colonial tendencies, as shown in Guinea, Mali, CAR and Sudan? Does it imply that Russia supports military leaders in Africa?
SG: Russia uses the rhetoric of anti-colonialism in its engagement with Africa, and that it is fighting neo-colonialism from the West, especially in relations with their former colonies. It sees France as a threat to its interests especially in Francophone West Africa, the Maghreb and the Sahel. Russia has invested resources in developing French-language news media, and engages in anti-French media activity, including through social media. I think Russia has its own economic and political interests in countries like Guinea, Mali, CAR and Sudan, even if it uses the language of fighting neo-colonialism. It explicitly appears that Russia supports several undemocratic African leaders and their regimes.
KKK: Some experts have argued that Russia’s diplomacy is full of bilateral agreements, largely not implemented, and gamut of pledges and promises. What are your views about these?
SG: I would largely agree that there is a divide between what has been pledged and promised at high-level meetings and summits, compared to what has actually materialised on the ground. There is more talk than action, and in most cases down the years mere intentions and ideas have been officially presented as initiatives already in progress. It will be interesting to see what has been concretely achieved in reports at the second Russia-Africa summit scheduled for late 2022.
KKK: From the above discussions so far, what do you think are Russia’s challenges and setbacks in Africa?
SG: Africa is a crowded playing field. Russia does not have the same resources and approaches as China, France, UK or US, so it has limited impact. The language barrier could be used as an excuse, but Russia has the great possibility to leverage into the Soviet- and Russian-trained diaspora. On the other hand, Russia feels it is unfairly portrayed in Western media, so that is another perception it seeks to change. It can change the perception by supporting public outreach programmes. Working closely with the academic community, such as the South African Institute of International Affairs and similar ones throughout Africa, is one potential instrument to raise its public image. In places like Mozambique and the CAR, the Wagner Group left after incurring human losses – does Russia have staying power?
KKK: As it prepares to hold the second Russia-Africa summit in 2022, what could be the expectations for Africa? What to do ultimately with the first Joint Declaration from Sochi?
SG: As already mentioned, there needs to be a lot of tangible progress on the ground for the second summit to show impact. It is worth to reiterate here that African countries will expect more debt relief and solid investment from Russian businesses. In terms of political support at places like the UN Security Council, there is close interaction between Russia and African States, but as recent research by SAIIA shows, not as much as assumed. See this. The relationship has to however deliver, and move from words to deeds. In conclusion, I would suggest that Russia has to take up both the challenges and unique opportunities, and attempt to scale up its influence by working consistently on practical multifaceted sustainable development issues and by maintaining appreciable relations with Africa. And African countries likewise have to devise viable strategies for engaging with Russia.
*
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.
Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), is now a frequent and passionate 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” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
The COVID shot, COVID jab or COVID fake-vaccine is not a real vaccine, however its grave and sometimes lethal effects are definitely real.
Databases worldwide are overflowing with reports of COVID vaccine injuries (adverse events) and deaths. As of the time of writing, the US-based VAERS database shows approximately 915,000 injuries including 20,000 deaths, which according to the 2010 Harvard Pilgram Study is underreported by a factor of 100 [for injuries]. As of the time of writing, the Europe-based EudraVigilance database (which tracks data from the 30 nations of the European Economic Area) records approximately 2,900,000 injuries including 31,000 deaths following the COVID shot. It would be fair to assume similar underreporting happens there, although it is hard to know for sure.
All the Big Pharma apologists and NWO-funded fact checkers are naturally eager to jump in and claim that this data is all just self-reported and doesn’t prove causation, however it doesn’t take a genius to see the trends here. Whatever the real stats, the fake-vaccine effects are devastating. However, there is some good news. If you or someone you know has taken the COVID shot, and is experiencing post-vaccine regret, there are some possible ways you can recover. Below is a list of options for COVID shot detox.
Therefore, when I refer to spike proteins below, I am not talking about the spike proteins of an abstract virus. I am talking about the spike proteins your body has been genetically instructed to make (if you took the COVID shot). Remember, the various COVID chemical devices (fake-vaccines) on the market rewire your genes so you make spike proteins (either via mRNA, in the case of Pfizer and Moderna, or via an adenovirus, in the case of AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson). These spike proteins that your body makes then bind to your own ACE2 receptors or cause havoc in numerous other ways. Some of the remedies listed below are to detoxify these self-made spike proteins.
Chlorine Dioxide (ClO2, MMS)
In a recent interview with Sarah Westall, Dr. Joe Nieusma, who has a PhD in toxicology, discusses possible ways to detox from the COVID shot. He spends quite a bit of time discussing the merits of chlorine dioxide (chemical abbreviation ClO2) which has been marketed by Jim Humble as Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS) for some time. Humble had great success with it helping those with malaria in Africa. Other claims attributed to it are that it can help with Hepatitis A, B and C, herpes, TB, AIDS and cancer. Recently, Dr. Andreas Kalcker has become well known for recommending it to fight COVID itself (whatever you think COVID really is).
“Aim: COVID-19 caused by a new coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, has become an ongoing worldwide pandemic. A safe and potent virucidal disinfection system is urgently needed to protect the population from the virus. Chlorine Dioxide (ClO2) is a powerful disinfectant that is known to inactivate both viruses and bacteria. The aim of this study was to investigate whether chlorine dioxide inhibits the binding of the receptor-binding domain of the Spike protein (S protein) from variant coronavirus (British and South African variants) to human receptor, Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2).
Materials and Methods:In vitro experiments to determine binding of the purified receptor-binding domain of spike protein to ACE2 were performed in the presence of various concentrations of chlorine dioxide. Purified spike proteins from the British and South African variants were used. Spike protein coated onto a microtiter plate was treated with chlorine dioxide aqueous solution or chlorine dioxide spray solution.
Result: Binding of variant spike proteins was inhibited in a concentration-dependent manner (50% Inhibitory Concentration (IC50) of 7.6 μmol/L and 5.8 μmol/L for the British and the South African variants, respectively).
Conclusion: These findings show that chlorine dioxide aqueous solution can inactivate the binding of the variant spike proteins to the human ACE2 receptor protein, indicating that this strategy may be useful in blocking the transmission of variant SARS-CoV-2 viruses.”
For readers who know little to nothing about ClO2, here are some basic facts. ClO2 is very different to bleach, chlorine compounds or chlorine alone. Chlorine kills by chlorination whereas chlorine dioxide kills by oxidation. That is a huge difference, because chlorination ends up making molecules toxic to the human body. ClO2 is an oxidizer which draws off electrons from pathogenic molecules, thus weakening and breaking them up; however, it is a weak oxidizer, unlike oxygen (O2), ozone (O3) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) which are strong oxidizers. ClO2 won’t have any effect on strong healthy cells and molecules which are alkaline, but it will tear apart weak acidic molecules. ClO2 has no byproducts, can be used as a disinfectant and is effective against spore-forming bacteria like Anthrax. It is also effective against microorganisms hiding inside the biofilm of your body (where other remedies can’t reach). The biofilm is a thin layer of bacteria that form inside a sticky slime matrix, usually on surfaces in contact with water. The biofilm protects microorganisms (like listeria), so remedies like ClO2 are extremely useful for detoxification.
Suramin
In a May 2021 article entitled Is This a Possible COVID Vaccine Antidote?, I talked about the potential of suramin to inhibit blood coagulation and RNA replication, after Dr. Judy Mikovits had touted suramin as a COVID vaccine detox strategy. After all, the COVID fake-vaccine has become notorious for its blood clotting effects, which in serious cases can lead to stroke and heart attack, and has aptly earned the nickname of the clot shot. Later it appears that Dr. Mikovits has emphasized that suramin does not come from or is not connected to pine needle tincture, which is strange, since the evidence I have seen is that it does. In the above-linked interview, Dr. Nieusma points out that suramin is structurally similar to ivermectin. I encourage anyone interested in this to do their own research, however suramin seems to be a very important detox remedy for the COVID shot, since it inhibits and prevents both blood clotting and unwanted DNA/RNA replication, 2 of the worst effects of the jab.
Black Seed Oil
Black seed oil is another great supplement and natural remedy that can help with COVID shot detox. According to Dr. Nieusma, it binds to the spike proteins before they bind to your body’s ACE2 receptors. It also prevents inflammation and the dreaded cytokine storms which have been responsible for some horrendous effects of the fake-vaccine.
Antioxidants
After these 3 supplements, Dr. Nieusma lists some others that I believe are more general detoxifiers, rather than substances or remedies specific to the COVID shot. He recommends C60 (carbon 60) to manage oxidative stress and inflammation, which makes sense, since C60 is known as the strongest antioxidant in the world. He recommends glutathione, which is the human body’s master antioxidant, capable of preventing cellular damage via reactive oxygen species such as free radicals, peroxides, lipid peroxides and heavy metals. Boosting glutathione is a clear and obvious tactic for detoxification and good health. Some easy ways to do this are to get regular exercise, good sleep, high levels of Vitamin C and D, and to eat foods like sulfurous veggies, avocado, spinach, asparagus, okra, whey protein and turmeric. You can also boost glutathione via supplements like NAC, DMG (dimethylglycine) and milk thistle.
Dr. Nieusma also mentions ozone as a COVID shot detox method, but he doesn’t elaborate on how to take it, so I encourage readers to do their own research and be careful, because ozone can be dangerous if used in the wrong way. Lastly, let us remember one of the best detox strategies of all, a method which is also free: fasting. Fasting is a way that your body can clean up things it would not normally pay attention to during the process of constant digestion. It is an under-used but very effective way to detoxify virtually anything unwanted from your body.
Ways to Detox Graphene from the Body
Another good source of information for COVID shot detox is Ricardo Delgado, who is a part of La Quinta Columna, the Spanish research organization that first brought to light in a major way that the fake-vaccine shots contained graphene or graphene oxide. This was later corroborated by other researchers such as Dr. Robert Young. Whitney Webb has rightly challenged Delgado’s claim that the vaccine is over 90% graphene, however that is irrelevant to our discussion today. Regardless of the exact percentage of graphene in the shot, it does contain some, and we know that graphene oxide is a superconductor that emits and receives signals. It could be fully or partially responsible for the COVID vax magnetism phenomenon. In this video (in Spanish but with English subtitles), Delgado proposes 7 natural products which help detox graphene from the body:
1. NAC (N-acetylcysteine) 2. Zinc
3. Astaxanthin
4. Quercetin
5. Vitamin D
6. Milk thistle
7. Melatonin
I will comment briefly on each. NAC is mentioned above in the antioxidant section as a way to boost gluathione. Zinc is an essential mineral that many people are deficient in; it is commonly suggested for colds, flu and detox, and is particularly important for men to build testosterone. Astaxanthin is an algae superfood which I take personally and which I highly recommend; it also helps with immunity, energy, stamina, eye health, joint health and skin health. Quercetin is a well-known antioxidant and detox agent. I mentioned Viatmin D and milk thistle above, and finally, melatonin (the sleep hormone) is known to stimulate glutathione production, as this study found.
I would also encourage vaccined-damaged individuals to experiment with safe and trusted detoxifiers such as zeolite, clay, boron and epsom salts, many of which can be used topically and internally.
Final Thoughts on COVID Shot Detox
The products listed in this article are meant as a starting place for your research. As always, conduct your own due diligence and check anything out thoroughly before putting it in your body. For those with post-vaccine regret, the good news is that the human body is capable of amazing healing and regeneration, however you need to stop poisoning it and to give it what it needs. As humanity continues its awakening journey, there will be many who didn’t see through the COVID scamdemic propaganda at first, but who later caught gist of it, a couple of shots later. My hope is that those people can recover their health and that we can reach as many people as possible with this information before people succumb to fake vaccine-induced “adverse events,” injuries and death.
As a final comment, I will note that this article does not specifically address how to get nanotechnology out of your body – whether it’s self-aware fibers, self-propelling critters, machine-like discs or any of the other weird things which people have found. In pre-COVID times, Clifford Carnicom and Tony Pantelleresco have done good work in this area, which Morgellons’ sufferers have found useful. If you know of any solutions here, please leave your ideas in the commments below.
*
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.
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.
When the Department of Defense released its annual report on Chinese military strength in early November, one claim generated headlines around the world. By 2030, it suggested, China would probably have 1,000 nuclear warheads — three times more than at present and enough to pose a substantial threat to the United States. As a Washington Post headline put it, typically enough: “China accelerates nuclear weapons expansion, seeks 1,000 warheads or more, Pentagon says.”
The media, however, largely ignored a far more significant claim in that same report: that China would be ready to conduct “intelligentized” warfare by 2027, enabling the Chinese to effectively resist any U.S. military response should it decide to invade the island of Taiwan, which they view as a renegade province. To the newsmakers of this moment, that might have seemed like far less of a headline-grabber than those future warheads, but the implications couldn’t be more consequential. Let me, then, offer you a basic translation of that finding: as the Pentagon sees things, be prepared for World War III to break out any time after January 1, 2027.
To appreciate just how terrifying that calculation is, four key questions have to be answered. What does the Pentagon mean by “intelligentized” warfare? Why would it be so significant if China achieved it? Why do U.S. military officials assume that a war over Taiwan could erupt the moment China masters such warfare? And why would such a war over Taiwan almost certainly turn into World War III, with every likelihood of going nuclear?
Why “Intelligentization” Matters
First, let’s consider “intelligentized” warfare. Pentagon officials routinely assert that China’s military, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), already outmatches the U.S. in sheer numbers — more troops, more tanks, more planes, and especially more ships. Certainly, numbers do matter, but in the sort of high-paced “multi-domain” warfare American strategists envision for the future, “information dominance” — in the form of superior intelligence, communications, and battlefield coordination — is expected to matter more. Only when the PLA is “intelligentized” in this fashion, so the thinking goes, will it be able to engage U.S. forces with any confidence of success.
The naval aspect of the military balance between the two global powers is considered especially critical since any conflict between them is expected to erupt either in the South China Sea or in the waters around Taiwan. Washington analysts regularly emphasize the PLA’s superiority in sheer numbers of combat naval “platforms.” A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report released in October, for instance, noted that “China’s navy is, by far, the largest of any country in East Asia, and within the past few years it has surpassed the U.S. Navy in numbers of battle force ships, making China’s navy the numerically largest in the world.” Statements like these are routinely cited by Congressional hawks to secure more naval funding to close the “gap” in strength between the two countries.
As it happens, though, a careful review of comparative naval analyses suggests that the U.S. still enjoys a commanding lead in critical areas like intelligence collection, target acquisition, anti-submarine warfare, and data-sharing among myriad combat platforms — sometimes called C4ISR (for command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance), or to use the Chinese terms, “informationized” and “intelligentized” warfare.
“Although China’s naval modernization effort has substantially improved China’s naval capabilities in recent years,” the CRS report noted, “China’s navy currently is assessed as having limitations or weaknesses in certain areas, including joint operations with other parts of China’s military, antisubmarine warfare, [and] long-range targeting.”
This means that, at the moment, the Chinese would be at a severe disadvantage in any significant encounter with American forces over Taiwan, where mastery of surveillance and targeting data would be essential for victory. Overcoming its C4ISR limitations has, therefore, become a major priority for the Chinese military, superseding the quest for superiority in numbers alone. According to the 2021 Pentagon report, this task was made a top-level priority in 2020 when the 5th Plenum of the 19th Central Committee established “a new milestone for modernization in 2027, to accelerate the integrated development of mechanization, informatization, and intelligentization of the PRC’s armed forces.” The achievement of such advances, the Pentagon added, “would provide Beijing with more credible military options in a Taiwan contingency.”
Five years is not a lot of time in which to acquire mastery over such diverse and technically challenging military capabilities, but American analysts nonetheless believe that the PLA is well on its way to achieving that 2027 milestone. To overcome its “capability gap” in C4ISR, the Pentagon report noted, “the PLA is investing in joint reconnaissance, surveillance, command, control, and communications systems at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels.”
If, as predicted, China succeeds by 2027, it will then be able to engage the U.S. Navy in the seas around Taiwan and potentially defeat it. This, in turn, would allow Beijing to bully the Taiwanese without fear of intervention from Washington. As suggested by the Defense Department in its 2021 report, China’s leadership has “connected the PLA’s 2027 goals to developing the capabilities to counter the U.S. military in the Indo-Pacific region and compel Taiwan’s leadership to the negotiation table on Beijing’s terms.”
Beijing’s Taiwan Nightmare
Ever since Chiang Kai-shek and the remnants of his Chinese Nationalist Party (the Kuomintang, or KMT) fled to Taiwan after the Communist takeover of China in 1949, establishing the Republic of China (ROC) on that island, the Communist Party leadership in Beijing has sought Taiwan’s “reunification” with the mainland. Initially, Taiwanese leaders also dreamed of reconquering the mainland (with U.S. help, of course) and extending the ROC’s sway to all of China. But after Chiang died in 1975 and Taiwan transitioned to democratic rule, the KMT lost ground to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which eschews integration with the mainland, seeking instead to establish an independent Taiwanese state.
As talk of independence has gained favor there, Chinese officials have sought to coax the Taiwanese public into accepting peaceful reunification by promoting cross-Strait trade and tourism, among other measures. But the appeal of independence appears to be growing, especially among younger Taiwanese who have recoiled at Beijing’s clampdown on civil liberties and democratic rule in Hong Kong — a fate they fear awaits them, should Taiwan ever fall under mainland rule. This, in turn, has made the leadership in Beijing increasingly anxious, as any opportunity for the peaceful reunification of Taiwan appears to be slipping away, leaving military action as their only conceivable option.
President Xi Jinping expressed the conundrum Beijing faces well in his November 15th Zoom interchange with President Biden. “Achieving China’s complete reunification is an aspiration shared by all sons and daughters of the Chinese nation,” he stated. “We have patience and will strive for the prospect of peaceful reunification with utmost sincerity and efforts. That said, should the separatist forces for Taiwan independence provoke us, force our hands, or even cross the red line, we will be compelled to take resolute measures.”
In fact, what Xi calls the “separatist forces for Taiwan independence” have already gone far beyond provocation, affirming that Taiwan is indeed an independent state in all but name and that it will never voluntarily fall under mainland rule. This was evident, for example, in an October 10th address by Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. The island, she declared, must “resist annexation or encroachment upon our sovereignty,” directly rejecting Beijing’s right to ever rule Taiwan.
But if China does use force — or is “compelled to take resolute measures,” as Xi put it — Beijing would likely have to contend with a U.S. counterstroke. Under existing legislation, notably the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, the United States is under no obligation to aid Taiwan in such circumstances. However, that act also states that any use of force to alter Taiwan’s status will be viewed as a matter “of grave concern to the United States” — a stance known as “strategic ambiguity” as it neither commits this country to a military response, nor rules it out.
Recently, however, prominent figures in Washington have begun calling for “strategic clarity” instead, all but guaranteeing a military response to any Chinese strike against the island. “The United States needs to be clear that we will not allow China to invade Taiwan and subjugate it,” Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton typically said in a February 2021 address at the Ronald Reagan Institute. “I think the time has come to be clear: Replace strategic ambiguity with strategic clarity that the United States will come to the aid of Taiwan if China was to forcefully invade Taiwan or otherwise change the status quo across the [Taiwan] Strait.”
President Biden, too, seemed to embrace just such a position recently. When asked during an October CNN “town hall” whether the United States would protect Taiwan, he answered bluntly, “Yes, we have a commitment to do that.” The White House would later walk that statement back, insisting that Washington still adheres to the Taiwan Relations Act and a “One China” policy that identifies both Taiwan and mainland China as part of a single nation. Nonetheless, the administration has continued to conduct massive air and sea maneuvers in the waters off Taiwan, suggesting an inclination to defend Taiwan against any future invasion.
Clearly, then, Chinese policymakers must count on at least the possibility of U.S. military intervention should they order an invasion of Taiwan. And from their perspective, this means it won’t be safe to undertake such an invasion until the PLA has been fully intelligentized — a milestone it will achieve in 2027, if the Pentagon analysis is correct.
The Road to World War III
Nobody can be sure what the world will look like in 2027 or just how severe tensions over Taiwan could be by then. To take but one example, the DPP could lose to the KMT in that island’s 2024 presidential elections, reversing its march toward independence. Alternatively, China’s leadership could decide that a long-term accommodation with a quasi-independent Taiwan was the best possible recourse for maintaining its significant global economic status.
If, however, you stick with the Pentagon’s way of thinking, things look grim. You would have to assume that Taiwan will continue its present course and that Beijing’s urge to secure the island’s integration with the mainland will only intensify. Likewise, you would have to assume that the inclination of Washington policymakers to support an ever-more-independent Taiwan in the face of Chinese military action will only grow, as relations with Beijing continue to spiral downward.
From this circumscribed perspective, all that’s holding China’s leaders back from using force to take Taiwan right now is their concern over the PLA’s inferiority in intelligentized warfare. Once that’s overcome — in 2027, by the Pentagon’s reckoning — nothing will stand in the way of a Chinese invasion or possibly World War III.
Under such circumstances, it’s all too imaginable that Washington might move from a stance of “strategic stability” to one of “strategic clarity,” providing Taiwan’s leadership with an ironclad guarantee of military support in the face of any future attack. While this wouldn’t alter Chinese military planning significantly — PLA strategists undoubtedly assume that the U.S. would intervene, pledge or not — it could lead to complaisance in Washington, to a conviction that Beijing would automatically be deterred by such a guarantee (as Senator Cotton and many others seem to think). In the process, both sides could instead find themselves on the path to war.
And take my word for it, a conflict between them, however it began, could prove hard indeed to confine to the immediate neighborhood of Taiwan. In any such engagement, the principal job of China’s forces would be to degrade American air and naval forces in the western Pacific. This could end up involving the widespread use of cruise and ballistic missiles to strike U.S. ships, as well as its bases in Japan, South Korea, and on various Pacific islands. Similarly, the principal job of the U.S. military would be to degrade Chinese air and naval forces, as well as its missile-launching facilities on the mainland. The result could be instant escalation, including relentless air and missile attacks, possibly even the use of the most advanced hypersonic missiles then in the U.S. and Chinese arsenals.
The result would undoubtedly be tens of thousands of combat casualties on both sides, as well as the loss of major assets like aircraft carriers and port facilities. Such a set of calamities might, of course, prompt one side or the other to cut its losses and pull back, if not surrender. The likelier possibility, however, would be a greater escalation in violence, including strikes ever farther afield with ever more powerful weaponry. Heavily populated cities could come under attack in China, Taiwan, Japan, or possibly elsewhere, producing hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Unless one side or the other surrendered — and which of these two proud nations is likely to do that? — such a conflict would continue to expand with each side calling for support from its allies. China would undoubtedly turn to Russia and Iran, the U.S. to Australia, India, and Japan. (Perhaps anticipating just such a future, the Biden administration only recently forged a new military alliance with Australia and the United Kingdom called AUKUS, while beefing up its “Quad” security arrangement with Australia, India, and Japan.)
In this way, however haltingly, a new “world war” could emerge and, worse yet, could easily escalate. Both the U.S. and China are already working hard to deploy hypersonic missiles and more conventional weaponry meant to target the other side’s vital defense nodes, including early-warning radars, missile batteries, and command-and-control centers, only increasing the risk that either side could misconstrue such a “conventional” attack as the prelude to a nuclear strike and, out of desperation, decide to strike first. Then we’re really talking about World War III.
Today, this must seem highly speculative to most of us, but to war planners in the Department of Defense and the Chinese Ministry of Defense, there’s nothing speculative about it. Pentagon officials are convinced that China is indeed determined to ensure Taiwan’s integration with the mainland, by force if necessary, and believe that there’s a good chance they’ll be called upon to help defend the island should that occur. As history suggests — think of the years leading up to World War I — planning of this sort can all too easily turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So, however speculative all of this may seem, it should be taken seriously by any of us who dread the very idea of a major future outbreak of war, let alone a catastrophe on the scale of World Wars I and II, or with nuclear weapons on a scale as yet unknown. If such a fate is to be avoided, far more effort will have to go into solving the Taiwan dilemma and finding a peaceful resolution to the island’s status.
As a first step (though don’t count on it these days), Washington and Beijing could agree to curtail their military maneuvers in the waters and airspace around Taiwan and consult with each other, as well as Taiwan’s representatives, on tension-reducing measures of various sorts. Talks could also be held on steps to limit the deployment of especially destabilizing weapons of any kind, including hypersonic missiles.
If the Pentagon is right, however, the time for such action is already running out. After all, 2027, and the possible onset of World War III, is only five years away.
*
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.
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102 Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling) PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.” –John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” -Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
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.
More than 10,000 Australians so far requested compensation for COVID vaccine injuries under the country’s vaccine injury compensation scheme. What types of compensation programs exist in other countries?
Recent reports from Australia indicate more than 10,000 Australians are requesting compensation for vaccine injuries that they received following inoculation with the COVID-19 vaccine.
The claims come as part of an Australian government program allowing individuals to be compensated for lost income after being hospitalized for “rare but significant” side effects resulting from the vaccination.
As originally conceived, compensation through the program was available to people who incurred A$5,000 or more in vaccine injury-related medical costs. However, the government enacted a reduction in the compensation threshold, permitting claims for the cost of vaccine injuries beginning at A$1,000.
The 10,000-plus compensation claims were submitted as almost 79,000 adverse side effects after COVID vaccines were reported to the country’s Therapeutic Goods Administration, as of mid-November.
No-fault vaccine liability: what is it?
Australia’s vaccine injury compensation program is an example of a “no-fault compensation program.”
This refers to a measure put in place by public health authorities, private insurance companies, manufacturers, and/or other stakeholders to compensate individuals harmed by vaccines. Such programs allow a person who has sustained a vaccine injury to be compensated financially, without having to attribute fault or error to a specific manufacturer or individual.
No-fault compensation schemes are one of three options used by various countries to handle vaccine injury claims.
The other two options include allowing vaccine-injured people to sue private-sector actors, such as vaccine manufacturers or their insurers, or to place the full financial burden on the patient.
Australia’s no-fault compensation program is fairly new. It was launched in August 2021, despite longstanding calls for the development of such a scheme well before COVID.
A 2020 study found 25 countries with a no-fault program in place, with 15 of these programs administered at the government level.
In some countries, such programs are administered at the provincial level or at multiple levels of government, while two countries (Sweden and Finland) were identified by the study as having no-fault programs fully administered by the insurance sector.
The exact nature of such no-fault schemes, however, can differ significantly from one country to another. As explained in the 2020 study:
In Sweden and Finland, pharmaceutical companies who market their products in these jurisdictions provide insurance contributions which fund those countries’ no-fault programs.
Similarly, Norway’s no-fault program is funded by a special insurance organization known as the Drug Liability Association.
Latvia’s Treatment Risk Fund is funded through contributions from medical institutions, acting as professional indemnity insurance.
In China and South Korea, there are two separate programs, covering those vaccines in each country’s national immunization program (NIP) and those not included in the respective country’s NIP. Each government funds injury claims for NIP vaccines, while pharmaceutical companies or those holding a drug’s market authorization are responsible for funding injury claims regarding non-NIP vaccines.
The U.S. no-fault Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is funded by a flat-rate tax of 75 cents for each disease covered in each vaccine dose.
New Zealand has set up an Accident Compensation Corporation, which acts as a general compensation fund for accidents stemming from vaccinations, and treatment injuries. The program is funded through general tax contributions and levies on employee wages, businesses, vehicle licenses and fuel sales.
Not all no-fault programs compensate for injuries arising from all vaccines. For instance, according to the 2020 study:
Only five (Japan, France, Italy, Hungary, and Slovenia) of the 23 programs specifically examined by the study covered injuries arising from mandatory vaccines or vaccines recommended by law — of particular significance in a world where more and more countries are attempting to implement COVID vaccine mandates.
Just over half (57%) of the programs examined provide compensation for injuries arising from registered and recommended vaccines for children, pregnant women or adults and for special indication, such as occupation or travel, within the jurisdiction. This latter point is also significant in an era where many COVID vaccine mandates are being imposed on specific occupations or as a means of being “allowed” to travel.
Different no-fault programs also have differing rules with regard to when claims can be filed.
Referring again to the 2020 study, in certain countries, claims have to be filed within a certain number of years of vaccination or, in some cases, of the initial onset of vaccine injury symptoms. This ranges from 20 years (Norway), to six years (UK, for adults), to three years (U.S. and several other countries).
In some other countries, the maximum interval varies by province (China), or there is no specific deadline for filing a claim (including Sweden, Germany, New Zealand and Japan for NIP vaccines).
As seen with the example of Australia above, no-fault programs also set compensation thresholds. This is true in all no-fault countries examined by the 2020 study.
Thresholds of eligibility also exist, which may include injuries resulting in financial loss or permanent or significant injury (such as a medical disability), serious health damage or death, severe injuries surpassing normal post-vaccination reactions or other degrees of injury.
Just over half (52%) of the programs studied also provided compensation for claims regarding vaccine defects or immunization errors, while in the remaining countries, these types of claims are covered separately, through civil litigation or medical malpractice indemnity.
The 2020 study also noted that in almost all no-fault jurisdictions, such programs are non-judicial in nature and are instead administrative in scope, typically involving panels of medical experts who review each individual vaccine injury claim.
In a minority of countries, the administrative program is combined with a legal approach and the involvement of legal experts, while in Finland and Sweden, compensation decisions are made based on civil liability (tort) laws.
The standard of proof the claimant is required to demonstrate is generally similar across most no-fault programs, according to the 2020 study. These programs tend to employ a “balance of probabilities” approach that weighs whether it is “more likely than not” that the vaccination led to the injury in question.
This approach takes into consideration such factors as the time interval since vaccination, and existing medical evidence establishing a connection between the vaccine and that type of injury.
A country-by-country look
The above provides a general overview of how no-fault compensation programs work. However, it is also worth examining the specific rules in place in major countries and blocs of nations around the world.
Through this program, any individual claiming a vaccine injury (or a parent or guardian of a child) can file a petition with the U.S.Court of Federal Claims. The petition is reviewed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which makes a preliminary recommendation.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) then prepares a legal report, which includes the medical recommendation, and submits it to the court. The court then appoints a special master, who may convene a hearing, and who decides whether the petitioner should be compensated, and if so, what the level of compensation will be.
This compensation is then disbursed to the petitioner through HHS. Petitioners may also appeal a decision that isn’t in their favor, and by rejecting the decision of the court, may then file a lawsuit in civil court against the vaccine maker and/or the healthcare provider who administered the vaccine.
VICP, however, does not encompass all vaccines. It covers vaccines that are routinely administered to children and to pregnant women, and that are subject to the previously-mentioned 75-cent excise tax.
To date, more than 8,400 VICP claims have been settled, out of more than 24,000 petitions, with a total of $4.6 billion issued in settlements.
Compensation has also been issued. However, most such settlements were reached following negotiations instead of a hearing, with no admission on the part of HHS that vaccines were ultimately responsible for the injuries in question.
A different category of vaccines, including, at present, the existing COVID-19 vaccines, are covered under what is known as the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).
This program was established under the aegis of the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005. The PREP act was developed to coordinate the response to a “public health emergency.” The law is scheduled to remain in place until 2024.
CICP specifically focuses on countermeasures, that is, “a vaccination, medication, device or other item recommended to diagnose, prevent or treat a declared pandemic, epidemic or security threat.”
Under CICP, a different claims process exists as compared to the VICP. The process for claimants is more cumbersome, and individuals have only one year after the administration of the vaccine to file a claim. Injuries whose symptoms materialize later in life, for instance, would presumably not be covered under this process.
“The program’s parsimonious administrators have compensated under 4% of petitioners to date — and not a single COVID vaccine injury — despite the fact that physicians, families and injured vaccine recipients have reported more than 600,000 COVID vaccine injuries.”
Notably, vaccines with full FDA approval but which are not placed on a vaccination schedule for children or pregnant women are subject to ordinary product liability laws, while vaccines administered under an Emergency Use Authorization are protected from legal liability.
Furthermore, a 2011 Supreme Court decision, Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, held that the Vaccine Act preempts claims made under state-designed defect laws, against vaccines covered by the Act. The decision stated that ““[The Vaccine Act] reflects a sensible choice to leave complex epidemiological judgments about vaccine design to the FDA and the National Vaccine Program rather than juries.”
Until the 1980s, a series of successful lawsuits against vaccine makers was seen as resulting in increasing vaccine hesitancy and declining vaccination rates, as indicated in a 1985 National Research Council publication, released just one year before the passage of the Vaccine Act.
Canada:
In recent years, Canada was the only G7 country without a nationwide no-fault vaccine injury compensation program. On a provincial level, Quebec established such a program in 1985, at which time calls for the creation of a national program followed. Attempts were made to develop a national program at this time, which ultimately failed.
As of 2018, Quebec’s program had approved a total of 43 claims, paying $5.49 million (CAD) in compensation.
In June 2021, launched a national vaccine injury compensation program, the Vaccine Injury Support Program. The program covers all provinces except Quebec, whose provincial program will continue to operate.
While this program is funded by Public Health Canada, it is administered by a private company, RCGT Consulting.
The program covers claimants who received a Health Canada-authorized vaccine (on or after Dec. 8, 2020), administered in Canada, with a resulting injury that is serious and permanent or which has resulted in death, and which was reported to the healthcare provider that administered the vaccine.
Though it wasn’t until a few months ago that Canada was able to establish a nationwide vaccine compensation program, COVID vaccine manufacturers were already, as of December 2020, indemnified against claims of vaccine injuries.
United Kingdom:
In the UK, the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) provides compensation totaling £120,000 to anyone who suffers a disability of 60% or more, as a result of their vaccination.
The percentage figure refers to a severe disability resulting in such injuries as the loss of a limb, an amputation, losing 60% or more of normal vision or severe narcolepsy.
Additionally, the 1987 Consumer Protection Act also applies to those who have sustained a vaccine injury, if is found that the product in question did not meet safety standards or was defective. This is further strengthened by the 2005 General Product Safety Regulations.
Consumer protection rights still apply for people injured by the COVID vaccine, as the government wasn’t allowed to take those away. But due to the legal definition of defects, and a rule known as the state-of-the-art defense, it is difficult to get compensation when specific problems with the vaccine are not yet known.
COVID vaccines have been added to the VDPS. However, according to the Human Medicines Regulation of 2012, protection against civil liability is provided to vaccine manufacturers for unlicensed products issued under a temporary use authorization by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.
This regulation was further amended by the Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, providing extended immunity from civil liability to vaccine makers and those administering vaccinations. However, the consumer protection laws mentioned above still apply.
Legal indemnity has also been directly provided to vaccine manufacturers in the case of the COVID-19 vaccine.
European Union
The UK laws are based largely on EU legislation, which was codified into British law prior to Brexit.
For instance, the UK Human Medicines Regulations of 2012 and 2020 are largely based on their EU equivalent, EU Directive 2001/83/EC relating to medicinal products for human use. This includes protections against civil actions for products released under temporary or emergency authorizations.
The 1987 Consumer Protection Act in the UK is, in turn, equivalent to the EU’s Directive 85/374/ECC of 1985, on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, while the 2005 General Product Safety Regulations were harmonized with EU Directive 2001/95/EC on general product safety.
At the EU level, immunity for vaccine manufacturers was not standard prior to COVID, when legal responsibility tended to lie with the companies.
This, however, is not the case with the COVID vaccines. Under pressure from Vaccines Europe, a trade organization representing vaccine manufacturers in the EU, and under the guide of “ensuring access” to vaccines, exemptions from liability were granted to companies such as AstraZeneca.
Notably, a question posed in August to the European Parliament by one of its elected representatives, Ivan Vilibor Sinčić of Croatia, regarding liability for COVID-19 vaccine side effects, remains unanswered as of this writing.
Within the EU, different member states have enacted their own legislation with regard to vaccine injury compensation claims. These programs were summarized in a 2021 study examining such policies on a global basis. They can be summarized as follows:
Austria: The Vaccine Damage Act is a public-law system for the payment of compensation for vaccine injuries by the state. COVID vaccines are included in this program.
Belgium: No vaccine compensation legislation exists.
France: The existing vaccine injury compensation program provides relief only for injuries related to mandatory vaccinations. Claims for injuries resulting from non-compulsory vaccinations fall under the general principles of French civil law. For COVID vaccines, claims can be lodged with the National Office for Compensation of Medical Accidents, without having to prove a defect with the vaccine or fault on the part of healthcare providers.
Germany: A flat-rate no-fault compensation program exists for vaccines that are mandatory or that are publicly recommended, including COVID vaccines.
Greece: A no-fault program doesn’t exist, but a May 2021 high court ruling held that those who sustained vaccine injuries are entitled to state compensation.
Italy: A no-fault program providing state compensation for injuries stemming from required or highly recommended vaccines exists, although it is unclear if this extends to COVID vaccines. Claimants are also free to pursue claims under tort law.
Netherlands, Portugal: There is no specific no-fault scheme, but vaccine injury claims can be filed via provisions of the civil code.
Sweden: An insurance fund, Swedish Pharmaceutical Insurance, handles vaccine injury claims out of court. However, new legislation which took effect Dec. 1 will provide additional state compensation for injuries arising from COVID-19 vaccinations.
Israel:
In Israel, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Law was passed in 1989, providing compensation to those injured by vaccines, without having to prove negligence.
Earlier this year, COVID-19 vaccines were included under this law.
New Zealand:
New Zealand maintains a no-fault system for accident compensation, including vaccine injuries, under the aegis of the previously-mentioned Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC).
Although most information on claims appears to be classified, financial compensation totaling $1.6 million (NZD) was provided between 2005 and 2019.
The ACC also handles claims related to COVID-19 vaccination.
China:
China’s vaccination program differentiates between mandatory and non-mandatory vaccinations, for the purposes of vaccine injury claims.
The 2019 Law on Vaccine Administration establishes a compensation system for deaths or significant injuries, such as organ or tissue damage, stemming from vaccines. Compensation is paid from the vaccination funds of the country’s provincial governments.
Draft legislation in 2020 called for mandatory liability insurance for vaccine manufacturers distributing vaccines in mainland China. However, it is unclear if this legislation was enacted.
Japan:
Until recently, Japan did not have a specific no-fault compensation program for vaccine injuries. But temporary programs where the government would provide compensation to vaccine makers for legal claims they sustained due to vaccine injuries had previously been passed in 2009, for the H1N1 vaccine, and again in 2011 until 2016.
However, a 2020 amendment to Japan’s Immunization Act now allows the government to take on the liability risks for COVID-19 vaccines.
India:
India has no specific no-fault legislation under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act for injuries stemming from vaccines that are fully licensed by the country’s regulator.
Claimants are, however, able to file claims in consumer courts or in India’s High Court, and the country’s drug regulator can also take action against vaccine manufacturers for violations of the law.
Indian law does provide for compensation in the event of injury or death following participation in clinical trials.
Notably, the Indian government’s negotiations with Pfizer fell through earlier this year when Indian regulators refused to provide it legal protection via indemnity.
Such protection was not provided to the three COVID-19 vaccines which received an emergency use authorization in India: Covishield, Covaxin and Sputnik V.
Adar Poonawalla, the head of the India-based Serum Institute, the world’s largest vaccine manufacturer, had previously called for protection from lawsuits for COVID vaccine injuries.
Malaysia and Singapore:
The country has not developed a no-fault vaccination program, unlike nearby Singapore.
Instead, a variety of legal remedies exist for claimants under civil law, including the Sales of Goods Act of 1957, the Consumer Protection Act of 1999, and the Contracts Act of 1950, and under criminal law, including the Poisons Act of 1952 and the Sale of Drugs Act of 1952.
South Africa:
South Africa is another country that did not develop a no-fault vaccine injury compensation fund until recently, but did so as a result of COVID and, apparently, pressure from vaccine manufacturers.
The fund is meant to provide compensation for “serious adverse responses” which lead to “permanent or significant injury, serious harm to a person’s health, other damage or death,” assuming these injuries were caused by vaccination.
Philippines:
Similar to South Africa, the Philippines only recently set up a no-fault indemnity program, shielding vaccine manufacturers, as well as public officials, from lawsuits, except in instances of gross negligence or willful misconduct.
This same program will also set up a state fund to provide compensation for vaccine injury claims.
Developing world:
Finally, for 92 low- and middle-income countries, the World Health Organization (WHO), along with a private company, Chubb Limited, has begun to administer a no-fault compensation program.
The countries in question are receiving COVID vaccines via the Gavi Alliance’s COVAX Advanced Market Commitment (AMC) program, with vaccine injury claims processed through the WHO’s new program, which is set to remain in effect until June 30, 2022.
No-fault schemes are increasing, but questions remain
With the recent examples of countries such as Canada and Australia, as well as South Africa and the Philippines, developing their own no-fault vaccine injury compensation funds, as well as their further extension to 92 low- and middle-income countries via the WHO, this type of compensation scheme is clearly the predominant method of dealing with financial claims stemming from vaccine injury claims.
As seen in the case of the U.S., such no-fault programs were developed to address claims of increased vaccine hesitancy, as a result of high-profile lawsuits against vaccine makers, and a decline in vaccine production from hesitant pharmaceutical companies which did not want to shoulder the legal and financial risks involved with releasing a new vaccine to the public.
What, however, goes unaddressed in such claims is the vaccine hesitancy, or outright refusals to get vaccinated, as people question why vaccine makers and, in many cases, everyone involved in distributing and administering vaccines, are shielded from legal action.
Such legal shields cast, for some people at least, a net of doubt, calling into question the safety of such vaccines if their manufacturers, distributors, and public health officials involved in their administration feel the need for legal protections. They may wonder why a product that is said to be safe requires such legal shields.
Such doubts further increase when governments and their agencies, which are essentially acting as guarantors of these vaccines through various no-fault schemes, redact critical information about these products, including their ingredients, and claims that releasing such documentation will take several decades, as the FDA did recently regarding its documents related to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine.
This is despite the fact that in the 2011 Bruesewitz v. Wyeth decision, the U.S. Supreme Court gave considerable latitude to the FDA for, essentially, knowing better than judges and juries, or state lawmakers, how to regulate vaccines.
Despite this legal shielding, plenty of coverage of adverse reactions, and even deaths, following vaccinations is making its way into the media, and to the public consciousness, seemingly negating yet another argument in favor of indemnity.
Furthermore, as many no-fault schemes place the burden on taxpayers and government coffers, these financial costs are ultimately borne by the public.
Arguments that claim shielding vaccine makers from lawsuits also helps to keep the cost of these products down can be called into question on such grounds, especially if the government is the one making deals with vaccine manufacturers and paying for these vaccines.
Costs may be reduced in their purchase price, but the same government and same funds are then used to settle vaccine injury claims.
Such claims from vaccine makers, such as Pfizer for instance, also appear to be disingenuous when considering their high marketing budgets, which in the U.S., far exceed their research and innovation expenditures.
Arguments can be made that such funding could be redirected towards legal claims, towards reducing vaccine and drug prices, or both.
*
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.
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.
Things are starting to get really weird. What I am about to share with you sounds very strange, but it is all true. Before I get into it, let me ask you a question. If you could have a vaccine passport permanently embedded into your hand, would you do it? Amazingly, some people in Sweden are willingly doing this to themselves. They are putting microchips that contain their vaccine passport information into their hands, and they are raving about how convenient this is. You can actually watch a video of this being done to someone right here. The video is not in English, but you will be able to understand what is happening.
Sweden: Get your vaccine passports in a chip in your hand or elsewhere under the skin.
Society is increasingly being divided into two classes of people, and the class of people that is willingly conforming is being granted many “privileges” that the other group is being denied.
Many believe that this is “just a phase” and that things will eventually go back to normal.
But the truth is that this is not “just a phase” at all.
For a long time, health authorities were promising us that if we all did exactly what they asked that the pandemic would come to an end.
The White House’s chief medical adviser, Anthony Fauci, says it’s unlikely that the Covid-19 coronavirus will ever be wiped out, and insists the world is just going to have to start living with it.
During an interview with CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ on Sunday, Fauci said he didn’t believe Covid-19 was ever going to entirely go away. He noted that the world had only ever eliminated one infection completely: smallpox.
“We’re going to have to start living with Covid. I believe that’s the case because I don’t think we’re going to eradicate it,” Fauci told CBS.
If we are “going to have to start living with COVID”, that means that all of the infrastructure that they are now putting in place will be with us from now on.
That means that there isn’t going to be an end to the vaccine passports, the mandates or the injections.
“I think we’re going to have an annual revaccination and that should be able to keep us really safe.”
You are going to keep getting shots year after year after year in order to keep earning the “privileges” that you have been granted.
How sick is that?
They want to make their authoritarian measures a permanent part of our lives, and this is what our society is going to look like from now on unless we take a stand.
The good news is that some courts here in the United States are starting to reject the mandates that Joe Biden tried to implement. On Monday, a federal court blocked Biden’s mandate for health care workers in 10 states, and on Tuesday a different court blocked that same mandate on a nationwide basis…
A federal court has issued a nationwide injunction protecting health care workers across the country from Joe Biden’s COVID vaccine mandate.
Yesterday, in response to a multi-state lawsuit led by Missouri, a federal court barred the Biden administration from enforcing a vaccine mandate for health care workers in 10 states who are employed at federally-funded health care clinics. That means they doctors and nurses can’t be fired for refusing the COVID vaccine despite Biden’s federal mandate requiring them to get it.
Today, a federal court in Louisiana expanded on that ruling and blocked the vaccine mandate nationwide.
But just because they have a legal setback or two does not mean that they are going to stop trying.
Over in Germany, it is being reported that incoming Chancellor Olaf Scholz wants to impose a vaccine mandate on every single German starting in February…
Germany’s incoming Chancellor Olaf Scholz is in favor of introducing mandatory coronavirus vaccination for all Germans as early as February, an official close to Scholz said.
During a crisis meeting Tuesday between the outgoing government of Chancellor Angela Merkel and the premiers of the German federal states, Scholz “signaled his sympathy for such a regulation,” the official told POLITICO.
Such a measure would have to be approved by the German Bundestag, the official said, adding that the mandatory vaccination could come “at the beginning of February.”
Other major industrialized nations are considering similar measures.
If I was living in Germany, I would leave. Of course the same thing could be said about Australia, New Zealand and a bunch of other countries that have gone in a deeply authoritarian direction.
Once vaccines become mandatory for an entire population, vaccine passports will be absolutely necessary for anyone that still wants to live anything that even resembles a “normal life”.
Whether it is on your phone, on a card that you show or actually embedded in your skin, you will need to take it with you wherever you go in case you are stopped by law enforcement authorities.
Needless to say, all of this sounds eerily similar to what we witnessed back in the 1930s.
The people that are doing this to us have taken their masks off and they are showing us who they really are.
These are such dark times, and I have a feeling that they are about to get a whole lot darker.
*
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.
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.
Just as the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) was being unveiled to the world back in late 2019, a team of researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) conveniently rolled out a new injectable marking method to label, identify and track people based on their “vaccination” status.
Funded in large part by billionaire eugenicists Bill and Melinda Gates, the transdermal patch technology contains special quantum dots that are inserted subcutaneously into the body. Though invisible to the naked eye, these patches are easily scanned with special equipment.
Think of it like an invisible tattoo that a person might inject into, say, the right hand or the forehead. When going to pay for groceries, for instance, these tattoos can be scanned and verified as part of the “vaccine passport” systems that are now being rolled out all around the world.
“When the quantum dots are illuminated by UV light, an electron in the quantum dot can be excited to a state of higher energy,” reported Free West Media.
“In vitro studies, based on cell cultures, on quantum dots suggest that their toxicity may derive from multiple factors including their physicochemical characteristics.”
Soon, the “fully vaccinated” will need to get injected with a Mark of the Beast chip in order to participate in society
According to Kevin McHugh, a member of the research team that developed the technology, these patented transdermal patches are a way to easily label people while also storing their medical and other information on hidden microchips within their skin.
The technology can also be used to rapidly inspect a person’s vaccination history, having been specifically designed for use in “regions where vaccination cards are easily lost and the equipment needed by authorities to read the information encapsulated in the arm is not expensive,” Free West Media further explained.
The latest smartphones reportedly come equipped with the built-in infrared cameras that are needed to capture the presence of invisible quantum dot tattoos – meaning the plandemic purveyors planned for all of this well in advance.
“Because many people do not make sure to get a booster vaccination in time, 1.5 million people could die in these regions every year,” alleges McHugh, using scare tactics to try to justify the technology.
McHugh says that he and his colleagues have long wanted to create a “safe replacement” for paper vaccination records. Their goal was to create a microchip of sorts capable of storing one’s medical records inside their bodies for easy scanning.
“In many third world countries, getting vaccinated regularly is a real challenge,” insists Ana Jaklenec, another MIT researcher who supports the technology.
“Because there is a lack of data on when children were vaccinated against which disease.”
Thus far, the technology has only been tested on animals, specifically rats “vaccinated” against polio. These same rats were given a color code to identify that they had received the injection.
Once these invisible quantum dot tattoos get approved for human use, you can be sure that they will be mandated right alongside the “vaccine” injections in order to achieve “fully vaccinated” status.
Only those people who take the injections and the injectable microchips will be awarded with valid “vaccine passport” certificates, allowing them to buy, sell and participate in society.
As many have predicted, this is all part of the Mark of the Beast, starting with the injections. It is a processthat is building over time, and eventually every last person will be required to take all of it in order to live.
*
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.
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.
Before we get to Omicron, there’s two important things related to COVID Mania that are worth highlighting:
If your COVID test comes back positive on a PCR test, you have a well over 99% chance of recovering from the disease that you are being diagnosed with. This has remained the case since the beginning of COVID Mania. It doesn’t matter which “new strain” surfaces, whether it’s Alpha, Beta, Delta, or the next dominant strain, the result has remained consistent.
The average age of a COVID death both in the United States and abroad is about the same as the average lifespan. In previous global plagues, this was not at all the case. The hysteria surrounding COVID Mania is the product of the world’s largest and most widespread case of wholesale statistics fraud, corruption, and deceit.
Recall the early reporting on the Delta strain from earlier this summer. Similar to previous strains, Delta sported an extremely high recovery rate, significantly higher than the original strain “detected” in Wuhan. Here’s the data straight from the U.K. government:
However, as Delta became the dominant strain (according to gene sequence tests), everyone who was “dying of COVID” now had a Delta tag attached to their case file. Since earlier this summer, Delta has had complete dominance over COVID testing. Here’s the latest from the CDC, showing that over 99.9% of samples in recent months have come back attached to Delta.
The early Omicron cases, like 99+% of all other COVID cases, regardless of variants, have been reported as mild. This has confused doctors and scientists who don’t know what to make of the panicked presses and world governments treating Omicron as if it’s the Black Plague once more.
Should Omicron defeat Delta on the surveillance test, then Omicron will inevitably replace Delta as the new “deadly virus.” Every death with a positive Omicron test is a corporate press headline. Every hospitalization is a “mandate” for the ruling class to impose more tyranny on the masses, in the name of our health.
If Omicron indeed becomes the dominant gene sequence, the corporate press and the tyrannical “public health expert” class will of course reframe the strain from “mild” to something far more dangerous. If Omicron becomes dominant (and some virologists are convinced that it will, but it remains to be seen), it will inevitably find its way into a nursing home or another setting where the average individual is both very old and very sick. When these individuals tragically pass away, they will be considered “Omicron deaths.” The same goes for the 450 pound diabetic, or someone the media will describe as a “young and healthy person with no comorbidities,” eventually “dies of Omicron.” If Omicron supersedes Delta, that means billions of potential hosts for a virus with a previously tracked 99.8-99.9% recovery rate. So regardless of whether Omicron has become a mutation so weak that it is akin to the common cold, there’s enough headlines in there for the panicked presses and maniacal governments to seize the situation to their benefit.
South African Dr Angelique Coetzee first raised the alarm over the Omicron variant and says the rest of the world is over-reacting.
"Patients I've seen had mild symptoms and recovered. None were admitted and no oxygen was needed. The hype makes no sense to at all."@JuliaHB1pic.twitter.com/c14pbzveN6
There is only one way Omicron remains attached to the “mild” tag, and that would come through its failure to supersede Delta through genomic surveillance. If Omicron dominates Delta, it will become just one of an endless series of excuses for the failure of governments to “stop the spread,” along with the failure of products coerced upon us by mafia-like pharmaceutical companies. As with Delta, the Omicron stats trick can serve as the perfect pretext for more government-imposed tyranny, coupled with hundreds of billions of dollars in further sales of junk pharma products.
*
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.
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.
Julian Assange’s fate lies in the hands of an appeal judge who is a close friend of Sir Alan Duncan – the former foreign minister who called Assange a “miserable little worm” in parliament.
Lord Chief Justice Ian Burnett, the judge that will soon decide Julian Assange’s fate, is a close personal friend of Sir Alan Duncan, who as foreign minister arranged Assange’s eviction from the Ecuadorian embassy.
The two have known each other since their student days at Oxford in the 1970s, when Duncan called Burnett “the Judge”. Burnett and his wife attended Duncan’s birthday dinner at a members-only London club in 2017, when Burnett was a judge at the court of appeal.
Now the most powerful judge in England and Wales, Burnett will soon rule on Assange’s extradition case. The founder of WikiLeaks faces life imprisonment in the US.
In his recently published diaries, In The Thick of It, Duncan wrote in July 2017: “My good friend and Oxford contemporary Ian Burnett is announced as the next Lord Chief Justice.”
He continued: “At Oxford we always called him ‘the Judge’ and they always called me ‘Prime Minister’, but Ian’s the one who’s got there.”
In an emailed response to Declassified, Lord Chief Justice Burnett confirmed he and Duncan have been “friends since university days”.
Duncan studied politics and economics at St John’s College, Oxford from 1976-79, while Burnett studied jurisprudence at Pembroke College in the same period.
“Miserable little worm”
Duncan’s diaries also show that as foreign minister he spoke privately to Lord Chief Justice Burnett in May 2019, a conversation that was not logged in government records. Burnett briefed him on a dinner he’d had with then prime minister Theresa May two days before.
But Duncan told Declassified: “There was nothing that was required to be ‘logged in government records’.” He and Burnett both said nothing related to their roles as a minister or judge was discussed.
Duncan served as foreign minister for Europe and the Americas from 2016-19. He was the key official in the UK government campaign to force Assange from the embassy.
As minister, Duncan did not hide his opposition to Julian Assange, calling him a “miserable little worm” in parliament in March 2018.
In his diaries, Duncan refers to the “supposed human rights of Julian Assange”. He admits to arranging a Daily Mailhit piece on Assange that was published the day after the journalist’s arrest in April 2019.
Duncan watched UK police pulling the WikiLeaks publisher from the Ecuadorian embassy via a live-feed in the Operations Room at the top of the Foreign Office.
He later admitted he was “trying to keep the smirk off [his] face”, and hosted drinks at his parliamentary office for the team involved in the eviction.
Duncan then flew to Ecuador to meet President Lenín Moreno in order to “say thank you” for handing over Assange. Duncan reported he gave Moreno “a beautiful porcelain plate from the Buckingham Palace gift shop.”
“Job done,” he added.
“Generous present”
Duncan’s diaries also highlight a birthday dinner held for him in June 2017 that was attended by Burnett and his wife. The dinner, held at the private Beefsteak club in London the day before the general election, was a “generous present from David Ross”, Duncan noted.
Ross, a businessman and co-founder of Carphone Warehouse, has funded an array of Conservative MPs, including Duncan, and gave the Conservative Party £250,000 to fight the 2019 election.
Other guests included the Syrian-Saudi billionaire businessman Wafic Saïd. Long close to the Saudi royal family, Saïd helped negotiate the massive UK-Saudi arms deal known as al-Yamamah in the 1980s.
Saïd’s wife, Rosemary, who was also in attendance, is another major donor to the Conservative Party and has funded Boris Johnson. She was a guest at David Cameron’s “Leader’s Group” meetings of key party donors.
Other attendees at Duncan’s birthday dinner included William Hague, Duncan’s close colleague and friend, who was foreign secretary when the UK decided not to recognise the asylum granted to Assange by the Ecuadorian government.
Also present was Salma Shah, an adviser to Sajid Javid when, as home secretary, he controversially certified the initial US extradition request for Assange.
Sir Alan Duncan and Lord Chief Justice Burnett both told Declassified they have never discussed the Julian Assange case with each other.
*
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.
Matt Kennard is chief investigator at Declassified UK. He was a fellow and then director at the Centre for Investigative Journalism in London. Follow him on Twitter @kennardmatt.
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” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
As of midnight November 15, 2021, Austria began another nationwide lockdown, but it only applies to residents aged 12 and older who have declined the experimental COVID jab. An exception is made for unvaccinated individuals who have recently recovered from COVID-19. The lockdown will reportedly affect an estimated 2 million of the 8.9 million residents
Germany is preparing legislation to make people work from home again unless they have a “compelling professional reason” to be in the office, in which case they must prove they’ve gotten the COVID jab or show a negative PCR test
In 2017, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was granted authority to restrict interstate travel during a health crisis and to quarantine Americans without a clear and direct path to challenge the quarantine order in federal court
Will the CDC use these powers? At the end of October 2021, CDC director Rochelle Walensky said “there’s a plan” to provide unvaccinated workers with “education and counseling,” which sounds like a plan to put people in reeducation camps
The plan to quarantine people in their homes and shutter private businesses as a form of pandemic response was invented by Dr. Rajeev Venkayya, president of the Global Vaccine Business Unit at Takeda Pharmaceuticals and a former head of pandemic policy for the Gates Foundation
*
As of midnight November 15, 2021, Austria began yet another nationwide lockdown, ostensibly to rein in rising COVID cases.1 What makes this lockdown unique is that it only applies to residents aged 12 and older who have declined the experimental COVID jab. An exception is made for unvaccinated individuals who have “recently recovered from COVID-19.”
They’re only permitted to exit their front door for “essential” work, “essential” shopping (such as food), quick exercise and getting vaccinated. All other outdoor leisure activities are forbidden. The lockdown will reportedly affect an estimated 2 million of the 8.9 million residents.
Random spot-checks are prescribed to make sure no healthy unvaccinated people are roaming the streets, and fines for breaking the lockdown order can run as high as €1,450 (approximately $1,640).
Just two days earlier, it had been suggested the lockdown would only affect the northern portion of Austria and Salzburg,2 but that quickly changed to include the whole country. It’s hard to see this action as anything but punishment for refusal to be a medical guinea pig, considering Chancellor Alexander Schallenberg referred to the country’s 65% COVID jab rate as “shamefully low.”3
How Do Austrians Feel About It?
On the first day of Austria’s quarantine of the unvaxxed, Freddie Sayers of Unherd.com took to the streets to find out how Austrians feel about it. He writes:4
“What strikes me most is the class inflection to the whole thing. We started this morning on one of the fancier shopping streets in the old town, full of Rolex and Karl Lagerfeld stores in which well-heeled locals lined up to express their support for the lockdown. There is very little sympathy for a truculent minority that is seen as ‘stupid’ and ‘having brought it on themselves.’
On the same street, however, if you approach the people wearing fluorescent vests, guarding the stores and making deliveries, you tend to get a different response. They are more reluctant to speak to us, but decidedly less supportive. ‘It is bullshit,’ was one man’s pithy response.
Questions about the practical efficacy of such a measure don’t seem to be of much interest. When I ask people if they know that vaccinated people can also contract and transmit COVID, they tend to brush it aside as a minor detail.
Not a single person we have spoken of so far referred to the likely practical outcome of this new policy — it is simply a hardening of the vaccine passport policy that so far has evidently failed to contain the latest wave of infections …
I can’t escape the sense that the motivation is at least partly punitive. They don’t understand people who are not taking the vaccine, they don’t like them, and they are slightly afraid of them — so the simplest thing is to remove them from society altogether.”
Totalitarians Are Ignoring the Will of the People
It’s interesting to note that this latest round of lockdowns comes despite persistent, ongoing public protests. In fact, some areas of Europe have regularly held mass protests for well over a year, yet government leaders are flatly ignoring the will of the people and mainstream media refuse to report on these gatherings.
And, as the failures of the COVID shots are becoming increasingly evident, public demonstrations against mandates and lockdowns are gaining speed. As reported by The Vaccine Reaction,5 Vienna, Amsterdam, The Hague, Rome, Brussels, Rotterdam and other European cities all held mass protests the weekend of November 19 and 20, 2021. Some of these cities are among the most highly vaccinated in Europe. The Vaccine Reaction reports:6
“Nov. 19, 2021, the Austrian government announced a new 10-20 day nationwide lockdown … The government also became the first E.U. country to institute mandatory vaccination, giving citizens a Feb. 1, 2022 deadline to get vaccinated.
The next day, tens of thousands of Austrians took to the streets whistling, blowing horns and banging drums in Vienna. Waving Austrian flags, chanting ‘Resistance’ and holding signs that proclaimed ‘no to vaccination’ and ‘enough is enough’ and ‘down with the fascist dictatorship,’ they marched to Heroes’ Square in front of the former Hofburg Palace in central Vienna.
There was another big rally on Nov. 27 in Graz, Sankt Poelten and Klagenfurt. This time they chanted ‘Peace, freedom, no dictatorship’ …
[T]he leader of Austria’s populist FPO party Herbert Kickl branded the government’s mandatory vaccination announcement as ‘unconstitutional’ and said ‘Austria is now a dictatorship.’ He called on the nation’s high court to intervene and block ‘totalitarian’ measures by a government ‘that believes it should think and decide for us.’ He said:
‘… In almost two years, the government has not been able to develop effective strategies to protect the people. Instead it has set up new harassment week after week to curtail healthy people in their basic rights bit by bit. And now we have reached a level with compulsory vaccination that nobody actually thought was possible. We cannot and must not put up with that.’”
Europeans Demand Freedom
Several other European countries are also in turmoil, as their governments ignore the people’s demand for freedom. Germany, which is also reporting a new spike in cases, is reportedly preparing a law to make people work from home again unless they have a “compelling professional reason” to be in the office, in which case they must prove they’ve gotten the COVID jab or show a negative PCR test.7
In Belgium, which has a 76% COVID jab rate, government officials have reinforced its COVID restrictions, triggering a protest of at least 35,000 people in central Brussels. People were shouting “Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!” and singing “Bella Ciao,” an anti-fascist song.8
The rally remained peaceful until the very end, when a small number of people clashed with police, who brought out tear gas and water cannons. Forty-two protestors were detained; two were arrested.
Violence also erupted in the Netherlands during an anti-lockdown protest. November 12, 2021, government placed limits on the number of people allowed in each home. Bars, restaurants, cafes and supermarkets all faced a mandatory 8 p.m. closure and “nonessential” shops had to close at 6 p.m. They also canceled a number of public events. According to The Vaccine Reaction:9
“Nov. 19, seven people were injured when Dutch police used water cannons and fired on anti-lockdown protesters throwing rocks and fireworks, wounding two and arresting 20 people during a demonstration in one of Rotterdam’s main shopping areas.
Riot police carrying shields and batons and officers on horseback and in police vans patrolled the streets after the confrontation that left at least one police car burned out and dozens of bicycles destroyed.”
People are also fighting for freedom in Italy, where thousands gathered in the Circus Maximus in Rome, November 20, 2021, to protest the Green Pass requirement. One demonstrator carried a banner that said, “People like us never give up.”
Australia, where some of the most mind-boggling overreaches have occurred in recent weeks, is also fighting back. November 27, 2021, Millions March against Mandatory Vaccination organized protests in 30 cities, including Sydney and Melbourne, where thousands gathered. Here, protesters bore signs saying “Never lock down again,” and “Less government, more freedom.”
CDC’s Unconstitutional Quarantine Powers
Around the world, we’re seeing ever-more tyrannical infringement on basic human rights and freedoms, and while the Supreme Court recently paused president Biden’s vaccine mandate for businesses with 100 employees or more, pending judicial review,10,11 Americans are not out of the woods yet.
As reported in a New York Times op-ed back in January 2017,12 there’s reason to be concerned about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s authority to quarantine Americans at will. At that time, we didn’t know how that power might be used. Today, you don’t need a very vivid imagination to see how that 2017 regulation might be pulled out as a fail-safe if the mandates fall through. As reported by the NYT at the time:13
“The rules outline for the first time how the federal government can restrict interstate travel during a health crisis, and they establish in-house oversight of whether someone should be detained, without providing a clear and direct path to challenge a quarantine order in federal court.
State and local authorities had previously been the ones to usually deal with issues like this during epidemics … It’s imperative that whenever the next outbreak hits, emergency health measures are grounded in scientific evidence and guided by clear, fair rules to protect people from wrongful deprivation of their liberties …
Prompt judicial review has always been important during epidemic scares. People can usually challenge a state’s order of quarantine immediately. Indeed, in several states, the government has to get a judge’s approval before quarantining someone.
Unfortunately, the new rules give the C.D.C. significant in-house oversight of the decision to quarantine, with up to three layers of internal agency review. This internal review has no explicit time limit and could easily stretch on for weeks while a healthy person languishes in quarantine.
And since federal courts often wait until an agency has completed its internal process before it will consider hearing an appeal, we won’t know until the next crisis hits whether a federal judge will agree to hear a petition from someone detained before the C.D.C. review is completed. In addition, the C.D.C. now has clear legal authority to take over the quarantine role from states in many cases, and to restrict interstate travel.”
Fast-forward to the end of October 2021, and CDC director Rochelle Walensky is now on record saying “there’s a plan” to provide unvaccinated workers with “education and counseling,”14 which sounds an awful lot like sticking people in FEMA reeducation camps. So, the CDC’s quarantine powers may be used yet.
The Founding Father of Lockdowns
In a mid-November 2021 article for Brownstone,15 Jeffrey Tucker reviews how the idea of nationwide lockdowns in response to an infectious pandemic was born, and whose mind it came from.
The plan to quarantine people in their homes and shutter private businesses as a form of pandemic response was invented by a Dr. Rajeev Venkayya, president of the Global Vaccine Business Unit at Takeda Pharmaceuticals and a former head of pandemic policy for the Gates Foundation.
In his book, “The Premonition,” Michael Lewis identifies Venkayya as the proverbial “father of lockdowns.” In 2005, Venkayya led a bioterrorism study group under then-president George W. Bush, who reportedly demanded a “whole-of-society plan” for dealing with pandemic threats.
Bush wanted something that would encompass borders, travel and commerce, not just the conventional threat assessment, distribution of therapeutics and vaccine development. Venkayya’s answer was wholesale lockdowns. But the basis for this idea is questionable at best.
An Idea Devoid of Science
Tucker explains:16
“Dr. Venkayya began to fish around for people who could come up with the domestic equivalent of Operation Desert Storm to deal with a new virus. He found no serious epidemiologists to help. They were too smart to buy into it.
He eventually bumped into the real lockdown innovator working at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. His name was Robert Glass, a computer scientist with no medical training, much less knowledge, about viruses. Glass, in turn, was inspired by a science fair project that his 14-year-old daughter was working on.
She theorized (like the cooties game from grade school) that if school kids could space themselves out more or even not be at school at all, they would stop making each other sick.
Glass ran with the idea and banged out a model of disease control based on stay-at-home orders, travel restrictions, business closures, and forced human separation. Crazy, right? No one in public health agreed with him but like any classic crank, this convinced Glass even more …
Glass imagined himself to be smarter than 100 years of experience in public health. One guy with a fancy computer would solve everything! Well, he managed to convince some people, including another person hanging around the White House named Carter Mecher, who became Glass’s apostle.
Please consider the following quotation from Dr. Mecher in Lewis’s book: ‘If you got everyone and locked each of them in their own room and didn’t let them talk to anyone, you would not have any disease.’
At last, an intellectual has a plan to abolish disease — and human life as we know it too! As preposterous and terrifying as this is — a whole society not only in jail but solitary confinement — it sums up the whole of Mecher’s view of disease.
It’s also completely wrong. Pathogens are part of our world; they are not generated by human contact. We pass them onto each other as the price for civilization, but we also evolved immune systems to deal with them. That’s 9th-grade biology, but Mecher didn’t have a clue.”
Hell Unleashed
March 12, 2020, Venkayya’s now 15-year-old plan was put into practice and schools across the U.S. were shut down even though there wasn’t a shred of evidence to suggest educational facilities were hotbeds of viral spread. Indeed, actual science suggested the opposite, that children were not good carriers of infection and didn’t pose a serious threat to adults.
None of that mattered though. The models of Glass and Mecher suggested school closures would cut transmission rates by 80%. As noted by Tucker, what we’re seeing “is not science but ideological fanaticism in play.” He continues:17
“As with almost every revolution in history, a small minority of crazy people with a cause prevailed over the humane rationality of multitudes. When people catch on, the fires of vengeance will burn very hot. The task now is to rebuild a civilized life that is no longer so fragile as to allow insane people to lay waste to all that humanity has worked so hard to build.”
I couldn’t agree more. At the same time, we must also recognize the prevailing psychological underpinnings of society at large that empowered this minority to step in and attempt to crush us.
Psychological Conditions That Allow for Totalitarianism
As explained by psychology professor Mattias Desmet in the interview above, the reason so many have bought into what are clearly illogical pandemic measures is because enough of us were psychologically weakened to begin with.
This in turn allowed for a psychological condition known as “mass formation” to occur. It can be likened to a form of mass hypnosis, as it eliminates people’s critical thinking ability en masse. This also just so happens to be a prerequisite for totalitarianism. Four base conditions must be met by a large portion of society in order for mass formation to occur:
1. Lack of social bonding — Social isolation was a widespread problem long before the pandemic. In one survey, 25% of respondents said they didn’t have a single close friend.
2. Seeing life as meaningless and purposeless — Desmet cites research showing that half of all adults feel their jobs are completely meaningless, providing no value to either themselves or others.
In another poll, done in 2012, 63% of respondents said they were “sleepwalking” through their workdays, putting no passion into their work whatsoever. So, condition No. 2 for mass formation hypnosis was also fulfilled, even before the pandemic hit.
3. Widespread free-floating anxiety and free-floating discontent — Free-floating anxiety refers to anxiety that has no apparent or distinct cause. Judging by the popularity of antidepressants and other psychiatric drugs, condition No. 3 was also fulfilled long before the pandemic.
4. Widespread free-floating frustration and aggression — This tends to naturally follow the previous three. Here, again, the frustration and aggression have no discernible cause.
Mass Formation Gives Rise to Totalitarianism
When these four conditions are fulfilled by a large enough portion of society, they are ripe for mass formation hypnosis — and the rise of totalitarianism. All that’s needed is a story in which the cause of the anxiety is identified, while simultaneously providing a strategy for neutralizing that cause.
By accepting and participating in whatever that strategy is, people with free-floating anxiety feel equipped with the means to control their anxiety and avoid panic. They also suddenly feel reconnected with others, because they’ve all identified the same nemesis.
They’re joined together in a heroic struggle against the mental representation of their anxiety, and this new-found solidarity gives their lives the meaning and purpose they lacked before. This explains why so many have bought into a clearly illogical narrative, and why they are willing to participate in the prescribed strategy — “even if it’s utterly absurd,” Desmet says.
Mass formation is a very dangerous condition, especially for those under its spell, but also for everyone who isn’t. The “mental intoxication” that results makes people willing to do things that are clearly wrong and utterly immoral, up to and including voluntarily killing their own families and themselves, if told it’s for the greater good. In short, masses of people become profoundly gullible and self-destructive, which is not a good combination.
Since self-destructiveness is built into the totalitarian system from the ground up, totalitarian regimes cannot be sustained forever. They fall apart as they’re destroyed from within. But it can be hell while it lasts, as totalitarianism built on mass formation almost always leads to heinous atrocities being committed in the name of doing good.
Action Plan
The good news is that understanding the psychology that led us here also gives us the answer for getting out of it. The key strategy, Desmet insists, is to dissent, and to do so loudly. Not violently, but persistently and frequently. We must join together and speak against totalitarianism for two reasons:
1. To give the cowardly majority a sound alternative — Typically, only 30% of people in a totalitarian society are actually under the hypnotic spell of mass formation. Another 40% simply go along because they fear sticking out or going against the grain.
The remaining 30% are not hypnotized and want to wake the others up. By grouping together, the dissenters give the 40% majority an alternative to simply going along for fear of being ostracized.
Once the vocal dissenters and the acquiescing majority are joined together, the mass formation falls apart and the totalitarian state is finished, because it’s those who go along with what they know to be wrong that allow mass formation to take root and grow. Once they’re no longer participating in and feeding that process, the totalitarian takeover cannot succeed.
2. Speaking out limits the atrocities a totalitarian regime commits — In a traditional dictatorship, the dictator usually softens his grip once dissenters are silenced, but in a totalitarian system, the opposite occurs. Once dissenting voices are silenced, that’s when the real atrocities are rolled out, against friend and foe alike.
We can see signs of this already. The more people comply, the worse it gets. “Get the shot and you won’t need to wear a mask” became “you have to wear a mask even if vaccinated, and, by the way, you’re not fully vaccinated unless you get all the boosters, oh, and even if everyone’s vaccinated, we may still need to lock down if the caseload goes up, oh, and you can’t work unless you’re fully jabbed or access medical care” — it has just gone from bad to worse.
In what ungodly universe do people condemn other people to die from treatable medical conditions or bar them from buying food “in order to save lives”? I can think of only one right now, and we’re in it.
If for no other reason than to limit the devaluation and destruction of life that is guaranteed to occur in any totalitarian system, we must never, ever, become silent. What they’re doing is wrong, and it must be stopped.
Once we’re free and clear of the totalitarian threat, we need to address the four base conditions for mass formation, to prevent this condition from appearing again. But for now, we need to focus on uniting and speaking out against tyranny and the stripping away of our God-given rights and freedoms.
*
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.
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.
And if no measures are taken to rectify this situation, the Walloon region will soon have to pay a penalty of 5000 euros per day until they withdraw the measure, local media reported Wednesday.
An alliance of health workers, scientists, lawyers and citizens – gathered together as the non-profit organization Notre bon Droit – has been fighting the health pass for some time. The pass indicates whether someone has been vaccinated against the Coronavirus, has recently tested negative or has been declared cured and it is used throughout Belgium to, among other things, regulate access to the catering industry.
The court of first instance in Namur has now ruled in favor of the non-profit association in summary proceedings. “Several cases have been established in the Walloon decree that legally contradict European law and the right to the protection of personal data. The verdict also states that it has not been demonstrated that the Corona pass is the only alternative to a new lockdown.
According to the judge, the measure restricts freedom in such a way that it is not proportionate to the objectives pursued.
The lawyers of the association noted that “the court also criticized the discrimination established between the citizens without objective and scientific justification”.
Officials from the Walloon Region must now take measures to rectify the situation until a verdict is reached on the merits of the case. From a period of seven days after the court’s decision has been served, there will be a penalty of 5000 euros per day. The region must also bear the legal costs.
‘Protecting the data’ of the fully vaccinated sick with Covid
Another non-profit association has also instituted summary proceedings before the Brussels court of first instance. There will be a plea hearing on December 8. The association for the defense of freedoms and privacy Charta21 recently brought an urgent action before the Brussels court of first instance to suspend the CovidScan application in order to protect data on sick vaccinated individuals.
“This is a first step which allows our action to be continued,” explained Jacques Folon, an expert in General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and administrator of the association.
Charta21’s action “aims to put an end to multiple breaches of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and in particular to prevent a leak of personal health data from vaccinated people”. Folon pointed out that a flaw in the software indeed disclosed the names of tens of thousands of people both vaccinated and sick with Covid.
When this flaw was exposed, eHealth – the health data exchange platform that is the subject of the complaint – did not report it to the Data Protection Authority (DPA). It also did not warn the people concerned. “eHealth should have immediately warned that there had been a data breach within the realm of the GDPR and warned all those involved, which it did not do,” said Folon.
Walloon officials to scared to show up?
The Walloon government has meanwhile announced in a short response that the Corona pass will remain in force in Wallonia. “The government has taken note of the decision of the court of first instance in Namur. That decision cancels neither the Walloon decree nor the ‘Covid Safe Ticket’ (CST) which continues to apply in Wallonia.”
The Wallonia region announced that they would not only repeal the regulation but immediately appealed against the judgment. Regional governments are responsible for imposing the restrictive measures under the Belgian federal-state system.
According to the ruling however, all citizens are required to show their CST before entering cafés, restaurants, gyms and cultural venues, which are curbing individual freedoms in a disproportionate way that does not serve their alleged objective.
The Belgian daily Le Soir, reported that representatives of the Wallonia government failed to appear at a court hearing on November 16. Officials in the public administration office neglected the file for five days “due to a combination of a weekend and public holidays”.
The summons had been received on November 10, but the day after was Armistice Day commemorating the end of World War I, a public holiday in Belgium. The holiday fell on a Thursday and officials simply extended it to a long weekend.
The following Monday, on November 15 was King’s Day, which grants the public administration a holiday. As a consequence, they claim, nobody dealt with the file and the hearing took place without the Wallonia officials.
*
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.
Featured image: The Parliament of Wallonia and la Citadelle de Namur. Wikipedia
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.
Israel stepped up its opposition to the Iran nuclear deal talks on Thursday and demanded that the US and other world powers put an immediate end to the negotiations.
Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett delivered the message in a call with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. “Iran is carrying out nuclear blackmail as a negotiating tactic, and this should be answered by the immediate halt to negotiations and the implementation of tough steps by the world powers,” Bennett said, according to a statement released by his office.
Israel claims that Iran has no intention of reducing its nuclear activity back to JCPOA levels and is only trying to buy time to develop a nuclear bomb. But there’s no evidence to support the claim, and Iran has only taken steps to advance its nuclear program in the face of pressure from the US and Israel, and a JCPOA revival would reverse those steps.
Iran has said Israel is spreading lies about Iran to “poison” the negotiations. When the talks first resumed Monday, Israeli media reported that Israel warned the US Tehran is about to enrich uranium to the 90 percent level needed for weapons-grade. But again, there was no evidence to back up the claim.
With the demands from Israeli officials to halt negotiations come threats. Israeli Defense Minister Benny Gantz said Thursday that attacking Iran must always be an option for Israel, even if the country has to act alone.
Israel has taken extreme measures to sabotage diplomacy between the US and Iran in the past. In April, when the first rounds of negotiations began, Israel carried out an attack on Iran’s Natanz Nuclear Facility. Tehran responded to the incident by starting to enrich some uranium at 60 percent, which Israel now claims is evidence the Iranians are racing towards a bomb.
*
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.
Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.
