[We repost this article by the late Prof. Joseph H. Chung, first published by GR in August 2021. Prof. Chung was an indefatigable voice on the politics of Asia-Pacific, especially on the dynamics of the Korean Peninsula.]

One of the global challenges of the 21st century is the falling liberal democracy. Indeed, the state of democracy is so alarming that some are talking about the crisis of democracy. 

Is the decline of democracy a temporary phenomenon? Is it a more fundamentally structural problem?  Can it restore its power and glory of the past?

The slump of democracy is terribly important problem, because it is based on Judeo-Christian way of thinking and the corner stone of the Western civilization.

It is a serious challenging for the West, because the Asian civilization represented by the Chinese political system is becoming more visible and more popular.

Some opinion leaders in the West may fear the possibility that the Chinese authoritarian regime be considered as a possible alternative to the West’s liberal democracy.

In this paper, I will first examine how serious the fall of democracy is. Then I will discuss the factors responsible for the decline of democracy. Finally I will examine if the Chinese political regime is responsible for the decline of democracy…

How serious is the Fall of Democracy?

For decades, in great many countries, the American democracy has been the role model of political regime. In fact, the popularity of the American democracy is such that the basic principles of democracy are integrated even in the constitutions of non-democratic countries.

There are many data showing the retreat of democracy. For instance, the Freedom House has produced alarming data.

In the period, 2005-2020, the number of countries where democracy improved has fallen from 83 to 28, whereas, that of countries where democracy deteriorated rose from 52 to 73. (See this)

The demographic distribution of political regime in 2019 was as follow: pure democracy (4.5%), defective democracy (43.6%), hybrid regimes (16.7%) and authoritarian regimes (35.6%).

According to a survey made for the world as a whole, in 1995, 48% of respondents in 154 countries were dissatisfied with democracy. Now the percentage increased to 58%.

According to a report of Cambridge University, democracy fell in all developed countries, especially in the U.S. Before the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, only 25% of Americans were dissatisfied with democracy, but after 2008, 45% were dissatisfied. (See this) (2020.01.29)

In all well established democracies like the Unites States, democratic governance will continue its inexorable decline and eventually fall. (See this) (2019.09.08)

Many countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia, especially in Europe, people are dissatisfied with democracy and chose authoritarian regime.

The Guardian presents the results of a large scale poll with 50,000 persons in 53 countries carried out by the Alliance of Democracies Foundation in 2021. (See this)

The dissatisfaction with democracy rose further after the pandemic. Before the pandemic in all democratic countries included in the sample, 70% of respondents was satisfies with democracies. But in 2021, the percentage of satisfaction with democracy was 65 % for developing countries, 51% for developed countries, 45% in Europe and 76% in Asia.

One of the messages coming out of the Global Poll is that despite the trend of falling democracy, the love of democracy remains high. In fact, 81% of respondents say that democracy is important for their country, but only 63% say that their country is democratic.

One intriguing outcome of the poll is that, in China, 71% of the respondents say that they have a right amount of democracy.

What are the factors responsible for the Decline of Democracy? 

There can be many reasons for the decline of democracy. For some, it is the fault of China. The authors of the Freedom House Report (2021) make this statement without elaboration.

“Beyond the pandemic, Beijing’s exports of anti-democratic tactics, financial coercion, and physical intimidation have led to an erosion of democratic institutions and human right protection in numerous countries.”

But, there is another perception of Chinese influence on the decline of democracy,

“By demonstrating that advanced modernization can be combined with authoritarian rule, the Chinese regime has given hope to authoritarian rules everywhere.” (See this)

On the other hand, only 38% of the respondents of the Global Poll expressed their fear of Chinese influence on democracy. As for the Russia’s influence on democracy, only 28% confirmed such influence.

Then, what are the main determinants of the retreat of democracy? The Global Poll identifies the following three determinants.

First, the US appears to be the most responsible for the retreat of democracy. No less than 44% says that it is the U.S. which is a threat to democracy.

“Since 2020, the perception of the US influence as a threat to democracy around the world has increased significantly, from a net of +6 to a net opinion of +14. This increase is particularly high in Germany (+20) and China (+16)” (theguardian.com)

Second, the high tech companies are significant threat to democracy.

According to the poll, 50% say that high tech companies are a threat to democracy; it is particularly so in the U.S.(62%).

Third, the inequality of income is the threat to democracy. No less than 64 % say that inequality is the threat to democracy.

It goes without saying that the American influence, the domination of large high tech companies and inequality of income distribution are closely interrelated.

The poll makes it clear that the decline of democracy is attributable to the poor management of democracy of leading developed countries implying that the future of democracy depends on the leadership of these countries.

And, the respondents of the poll are very pessimistic about the leadership of the U.S. and European countries.

“With the United States, the biggest promoter of democracy and human right in retreat and the European Union experiencing existential battle, it is uncertain how liberal order can check the rising of the Chinese authoritarian model.” (theguardian.com)

The poll shows ” neither the US nor G7 can simply assure the mantle of defender of democracy.”  (theguardian.com)

“In fact, democracy is in decline, because its most prominent examples are not doing enough to protect it”. (The Freedom House Report, 2021)

These quotations are saying that the government of the US and developed democratic country have to find their redemption by doing better job for the protection of democracy.

Here, I must ask why the U.S. has failed in protecting democracy, let alone promoting it. I think that Washington has failed on two fronts. On the one hand, it has failed to make America a true democratic country and on the other, it has failed in propagating democracy in the world.

The most important yardstick of measuring the performance of a democratic government should be its capacity to provide such public goods as foods, clothing, housing, public health, education, people’s security to the people.

The U.S is the richest country in the world. Yet, Washington’s capacity of providing these public goods is dismal. The homeless people are filling streets of cities; 20% of the population has no affordable medical care; more than 25% of school children are starving without school meals: Americans are afraid of going out, because every day, 1.4 cases of armed street violence kill people. In the eyes many democratic countries, the American democracy is no longer their model.

The failure of Washington in protecting democracy and the rise of authoritarianism among democratic countries may make non-democratic countries to feel more satisfied with their authoritarianism.

As we saw above, the major threat to democracy is the combination of large high tech companies and the inequality of income and wealth. This is the unavoidable outcome of neo-liberal economic system of which the U.S. is the champion.

Remember how neo-liberal economic system works

First, the government’ role is minimized, or rather, it is paralyzed.

Second, to make profit, the production is automated and labour cost is minimized through the freezing of wage and abolition of effective labour unions.

Third, competition is limitless. Only the fittest survive, but as the free competition continues the number of fittest shrinks.

The combination of profit making and the limitless competition produces a situation where the income and wealth is bound to be in the hand of a few winners.

Moreover, the decreasing power of the government leads to a serious situation in which the big corporations dictate national economic policies, in which the oligarchy of politicians-bureaucrats-businessmen establishes the culture of corruption and aggravates unequal income distribution.

The inequality of income distribution is measured by the Gini coefficient which varies between zero and 100; the higher the Gini coefficient, the wider becomes the income distribution in favour of the rich.

The Gini coefficient which represents acceptable income distribution is about 35.

But, most of the developed democratic countries have a Gini coefficient varying between 45 and 50. The Gini coefficient for the U.S. is 50. Under such situation, only the transfer of income from the rich to the poor through taxes can provide reasonable amount of welfare to the poor; Washington has failed to do so.

Washington’s approach to the evangelization of democracy is another determinant factor of the decline of democracy. The core of Washington’s propagation of democracy has been the strategy of regime change through coercion and military intervention.

The amazing thing is that the U.S. has coercively intervened 60 times since 1950 in 48 countries, but succeeded only in handful cases in changing regimes. This leads us to question if the attempts were really regime change or something else, for example, the access to raw materials.

There is no doubt that Washington’s regime change operations have been one of factors of the decline of democracy.

Is China responsible for the Decline of Democracy? 

In order that China is responsible for the decline of democracy, the Chinese ideology-Confucian socialism- should be global enough to be competitive with American ideology represented by democracy.

Allison summarized well the basic structure of the two sets of values.

Graham Allison, wrote a book: “Destines for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides Trap? Houghton Miffin Harcourt, 2017“

Allison is saying that Western value (democracy) is so different from Chinese values (Confucian socialism) that the Chinese values cannot influence the Western values.

Here is Allison’s view of Western values.

“The United States is a missionary nation derived from the belief that the non-western nations should submit to the western values of democracy, free market, limited government, human right, individualism, the rules of law, and should embody these values in their institutions.” (Allison.14)

Here is Allison’s perception of Chinese values.

“The value of authority, the subordination of individual rights and interests, the importance of consensus, and avoidance of confrontation, saving face, and, in general, the supremacy of the state over society and individuals” (Allison p.138)

In addition, Allison provides a table which shows the difference between the American values and the Chinese values.

In this table, we see how wide the difference between the two sets of values is. The difference is so deep and so wide that it looks impossible to integrate them into one set of values, let alone find reconciliation.

Another point is that the American values are missionary, while the Chinese values are inimitable. In other words, the Chinese political regime cannot be a threat to democracy.

In conclusion, it can be said that the Chinese socialism cannot be responsible for the decline of democracy. The phenomenon of the fall of democracy and rising authoritarianism takes place in democratic countries not non-democratic countries.

Hence, it can be said that the only way to restore democracy does not consists in blaming China but in putting pressure on the government of democratic countries to adopt policies conducive to more equal income distribution and to assure the needed public goods.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Dr. Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics at Quebec University  in Montreal (UQAM). He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from TheAltWorld

[We repost this article by the late Prof. Joseph H. Chung, first published by GR in March 2022. Prof. Chung was an indefatigable voice on the politics of Asia-Pacific, especially on the dynamics of the Korean Peninsula.]

Introduction

The civil and political human rights (CPR) require that the government should not interfere in people’s efforts to assure freedom of speech, freedom of press and other types of freedom. If the government prevents the freedom, it violates the CPR.

On the other hand, the economic, social and cultural human rights (ESCR) refer to the people’s right to a decent and dignified life. To be more precise, the ESCR means the right to decent housing, enough foods, sound clothing, effective public health, rewarding education, fair equality and other goods and services. 

It is the government’s responsibility to provide these goods and services or, at least, create the conditions and environment which facilitate the access to these rights. If the government fails to provide these goods and services, it violates the ESCR.

In this paper, I will discuss to what extent China and the U.S. violate the ESCR. This paper has the following sections.

First, I will compare the economies of China and the U.S., because the level of the economy has significant bearing on the ESCR. In principle, the higher the level of the economy, the greater should be the protection of ESCR. So, a priori, one should expect that in the U.S. the ESCR should be better protected than in China.

Second, I will compare the degree of the violation of the ESCR in China and the U.S. The comparison will be done for each type of the ESCR.

Third, I will discuss the impact of the corruption culture on the SECR.

Fourth, I will sum up the findings of this paper.

U.S. Economy and Chinese Economy

Before anything else, the speed at which the Chinese economy has been catching up with the American economy is just amazing. The following table shows some of the amazing features of the Chinese economy.

It is amazing to see that Chinese nominal GDP is already 72.4% of the American GDP. In the past, no country had its economy passing beyond 40% of the US economy. The Japanese economy once represented 37% of the American economy. If we consider the purchasing power parity, the Chinese GDP (PPP) already went beyond the American economy.

Yet, China is still a poor country. Its nominal per capita GDP is still 16.8% of the American per capita GNP. Therefore, we would expect that the economic, social and cultural rights be better protected and promoted in the U.S. But, as we will see, that is not the case.

Table: Economy of China and the U.S. 2021

 

ESCR Violation in China and the U.S.

The following areas of ESCR violation are discussed: inequality of income, housing right, medicare right, education right and group right.

Inequality of Income

China: There is little data on the state of inequality in China. One of the indices of the shape of income distribution is the Gini coefficient which varies between zero to 100. The higher the Gini coefficient, the more skewed is the income distribution in favour of the rich. In recent years, the Gini coefficient was 47 in China as against 49 in the U.S.

The Gini coefficient is supposed to decline as the per capita GDP increases. As we saw in the table above, the Chinese per capita GDP is mere 16.8% of the American per capita GDP. Yet, the American income distribution is abnormally unequal in favour of the rich. Here are some of the data which attest to this reality.

• 70% of households has had zero net asset increase in the period 1989-2019
• The top 1% of households gets 32% of household assets
• 40 million households find themselves in poverty representing 12% of the total number of households
• New York Times (2019.09.10) reported that the rich lived longer than the poor
• The chief executive of the largest MNE gets hourly income which is the annual income of the average worker
• Ten CEO of S&P 500 Index Companies earn 1,000 times the income of ordinary worker
• The US Congress refused for decades to increase the minimum wage of $7.25

Housing Right

China: The Chinese housing system is based on the government’s land ownership and privatization of construction, distribution and management. 

In the 1980s, 90% of the housing stock was rental and the rent was 1% to 3% of tenant’s income. However, in the period 1996-1998, 60% of the housing stock was sold to individuals. In 2020, 95% of the housing stock was owner-occupied.

The notion of home ownership is unique. The land belongs to the state so that the home owner is a tenant to be exact. The owner buys the occupation-right for 70 years without paying tax except once at the time of the contract. This is intended to prevent real estate speculation. Lately, there was a scandal of the Construction Company, Evergrande’s real estate speculation. But this was for the non-residential properties.

The Chinese housing system allows the citizens to spend a lifetime rental dwelling with relative security and safety with little fear of eviction.

In China, there are homeless people, but they are the victims of natural disasters. They are not homeless due to the shortage of dwellings or housing discrimination or excessive rent burden.

US: In the U.S., the production, distribution and management of housing is determined by the free market relying on the “invisible hands” (the price mechanism). However, the invisible hands become visible (real estate speculation and corruption of the real estate market) and distorts the housing market.

The textbook of microeconomics says that in order for the invisible hands (the price mechanism) to work, there should be no monopoly, no oligopoly; both the consumer and the supplier of housing should have complete market information, the houses should be geographically mobile. We know that such market does not exist.

The worst condition which prevents the housing market from doing its job is the distorted income distribution in favour of the rich. As we saw above, the American income distribution is the most distorted among the developed countries.

It is not surprising that the home ownership in the country of Uncle Sam dropped from 70% in 2004 to 60% in 2016. But, in 2022, it rose to 64%.

The home ownership is the central component of the “American Dream.” It is now threatened.

No less than one third of Americans live in rental dwelling. The problem is the fact that the great number of tenants has to allocate more that 30% of their income. If the rental burden exceeds 30% of income, the tenant has to sacrifice other expenses, especially, those for children education and health care.

In 2022, 40% of American tenants pay more than 35% of household income.

In the United States, one of the ugly phenomena is the increasing number of the homeless. They occupy a whole block of cities and even threaten the safety and hygiene of the city population.

In the U.S., in 2019 no less than 568,000 people were the homeless. In Los Angeles alone, there were 41,290 homeless people in 2019. In New York City, in 2019, there were 48,690 homeless people.

Medicare Right

China: In the public health programs, there is the basic medical insurance and supplementary medical aid for the poor.

There are two Basic Medical Insurance systems: the employee basic medical insurance (EBMI) and residential basic medical insurance (RBMI).

In China, 95% of Chinese has medical insurance. The rate of reimbursement is 70% to 80%. As for the medical aid, since 2018, 480,000,000 low income people benefitted from it.

US: The U.S., the richest country in the world has one of the most complex piecemeal and the most expensive health insurance system in the world. In 2019, 56% of American population had private insurance, of which 50% was employer initiated insurance, the remaining 6% being non-group insurance.

The government-run insurance programs comprise the Medicare and the Medicaid. The Medicare is for the old-aged people of 65 plus and some young people. No more than 14% of Americans benefit from it. On the other hand, 20% of Americans benefit from the Medicaid program. This program is for low income people. In addition, there is the military medical insurance.

The American health system has two basic problems.

First, almost 10 % of Americans have no medical insurance. It is just incredible to see that the wealthiest country in the whole cannot provide minimum medical insurance to all citizens.

Second, it is too expensive. The average annual medical expenditure of Americas is as much as USD 12,000. As long as more than half of the entire population have to rely on private insurance companies for medical service, the cost of medical service is bound to rise.

According to the LA Times (2019.01.23), about 65,000,000, representing 19.0% of American population cannot have medical treatment due to cost. And, 15,000,000 are unable to pay prescribed drugs.

Education Right

China: In China, the citizens have access to free public education including post-secondary education. Nonetheless, at the college level, students are expected to pay $400 to $2,200 a year. At private colleges, students pay up to % 9,000. It is estimated that the cost which the undergrad students pay is 2% of what undergrad students pay in the U.S. 

US: The American education system is perhaps the most sophisticated system in the world. It is also the most expensive system in the world. This is translated by students’ debts. To illustrate this point, it is known that in 2019 students’ debts were as much as USD 1.5 trillion, which was the South Korean GDP. Moreover, as many as 18% of the total number of 2-year college students are homeless students.

It is true that the American education system produces many of the best brains in the world. But, it produces also the inevitable consequences of alienating the less educated and increasing the risk of violating the human rights of the weak.

I think that it is important that graduates of the ivy league universities and the big businesses leaders should be aware of the fact that they are there at the top of the social hierarchy due partly to the public goods (social and industrial infrastructure facilities, national defence, security, diplomacy, public education and so many other public goods) produced by the whole of the population including the poor, the weak, and the less talented.

They should not think that they are at the top of the society due to their competence alone. They should not ignore their obligation toward the poor, the weak and the less talented.

I am asking: “Does the CEO of a large corporation have the right to earn in one hour what the average worker earns in one year?”

Minority Group Rights

China: In China, 90% of the population is represented by the Han Chinese. There are 58 minority racial groups. There are no reported cases of the violation of group rights.

However, in the region of Guangzhou, the place of the concentration of African population, in some restaurants, one reads “The Africans are not allowed to restaurants.” This is clearly a violation of the Africans’ rights to choose the place to eat.

The U.S.: In the U.S. we see the wide spread phenomena of group discrimination leading to the negation of the access to the right of decent and dignified life. We see bellow some cases of the violation of group rights.

Afro-American are easy victims of judicial and penal system discrimination. They are 5.9 times more likely to be incarcerated. As for the religious discrimination, no less than 82% of Muslim Americans admit to have had experience of religious discrimination.

The results of the Pew Research Center Survey 2019 “Race in America” are interesting:

• 46% says that the government has no done enough for racial discrimination
• 58% says that the situation is getting worse
• 76% of Afro-American and Asians had racial discrimination experience
• 58% of Latino had the same experience
• Here is the proportion of those who said that it was Donald Trump who made the situation worse: Afro-American, 73%; Latino 69%; Asians, 65%

The women are the very vulnerable victims of discrimination. In fact, the US does not seem to have a sincere wish to prevent discrimination against women; the US has not signed the international convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against women.

Here is some of information on the seriousness of discrimination against women.

According to the Website of the Everytown Research Report (2019.10.17), the US is the most dangerous place for women in the world.

• In 2015, 92% of women killed with guns in high income countries took place in the US
• In the US, women are 21 times more likely to be killed by guns than in peer countries
• 50% o women killed by guns is by present or former intimate partners
• Every day, 50 women are killed by intimate partners
• 4,500,000 women are threatened by guns
• A CNN Report says that 70% of women have had experience of sexual violence in life
• The Jama International Medicine reports that 3,000,000 women aged 18-44 were raped at the first time they had sexual relation
• UN Women Report (2019.11.24) says that 24% of female undergrad of universities are sexually assaulted

In the U.S., the worst kind of racial discrimination is the hate discrimination.

• The US Today (2019.06.27) reports that at the college campus, 122 extreme racial propaganda were published in 32 states
• In 2019, in El Passo, 22 people were killed by white supremacists
• On 2019.12.17, the Mississippi prosecutor has excluded Afro-Americans from trials since he took office.
• According to the FBI 2019 Report, among 1,617 victims of antireligious hate, 56.9% was against Jews and 14.6%, against Muslims
• FBI Data (2019.11.11) show that, in 2018, of 7,036 hate crimes, 57.5% was against race/ethnicity/ancestor biased; 42.1% .
• The Guardian Website (2019.08.04) reported that in Walmart Supermarket in a Texas Border city, a 21-year-old boy, Patrick Crucius, drove 650 miles to kill 22 people for the reason for their being Hispanic.
• According to CNN Report (2019.12.2, 14-year girl was walking to Indian Hill High Junior School, when a vehicle drove on the sidewalk and ran over the girl

The discrimination against indigenous people is still there; 28% of them had had discrimination experience. The Republic Radio (2019.11.18) says that a considerable number of indigenous households have no plumbing facilities.

The job discrimination is also threatening Afro-Americans-Latino-Asians. They represent 36% of American population but they take up 58% of miscellaneous jobs and 70% of baggage porter jobs, bell hop jobs or concierge jobs.

• In 2018, the income of Afro-Americans was 62% of the white’s income.
• According to the Bureau of Statistics (2019. 11.), in 2018, women received 81% of male’s wage.
• According to the Huffpost (2019.12.04), the US is the only country that does not guarantee paid time for new mom
• According to the WBUR Report (2019.10.28) on the low-wage jobs, in the case of the white, only 20% had low wage job as against 46% for Latinos

The visible minorities are subject to racial insults.

At workplace, the Afro-Americans are often told to “go back to Africa.”

• According to CNN Report (2019.08.28), at the Oklahoma TV Station, white co-anchor called the black anchor as “gorilla.”

Housing discrimination is an integral part of the malaise of the American society.

According to various data sources, 17% of Native Americans, 31% of Latinos, 25% of Asians and 45% of Afro-American have had housing discrimination experience. Not surprisingly, only 5 % the white has had the similar experiences.

• The value of dwellings inhabited by the Afro-American worth $ 48,000 less compared to dwellings inhabited by the white
• The Native Hawaiian represent 10% Hawaiian population, but, they represent 39% of homeless
• Among the indigenous people 59 out of 1,000 have no plumbing

The school discrimination is another ugly side of the richest country in the world. 

• The white school board gets $ 13,908 per students as against $11,682 for the black school board
• The number of enrolment is discriminatory. In the white school board, it is 1,500 as against 10,000 for the black school board.
• Black students are 3 times most likely to be suspended compared to the white students. In the South, 100% of the suspended is the black children 

Child abuse is perhaps the worst kind of human right violation.

• Department of Health and Human Service (2019.01.28) reported that there were 647,000 victims of child abuse of which 18.3% was physical abuse and 6.6% was sexual abuse
• In Indiana, in the period, 2016.07.01 – 2017.06.30, 65 children died due to abuse
• The National Center for Education Statistics (2019.04) shows that, in 2017, 827,000 children aged, 12-18, were victims of child abuse of which 503,300 took place outside the school

The abuse of the elderly is also a part of human right abuse in the U.S.

• According to the Elderly Feeding America (2019.09.19), 5,500,000 of persons aged of 65 plus did not have enough foods to eat.
• In Albany, at the nursing home, the inhabitant has to pay daily as much as $400, even if they qualify for medicaid; it amounts to $146,000 a year.
• Medical Exports Report (2019.06.14) reports that 16% of the elder is victim of mistreatment, financial exploitation, neglect, physical abuse, psychological abuse and sexual abuse.
• In 2017, ne less than 8,500 elders killed themselves

The disabled are deprived of care which they are entitled to get.

• The Center for American Progress Report (2019.07.26) said that 25% of the disable had no job
• According to Chicago Tribune (2019.07.26), a disabled person has to wait for 7 years to get into home care
• The LA Times (2019.04.01) shows that, due to government oversight, low rental housing has no facilities for wheelchair needed to go to bathroom and kitchen 

The migrants are also mistreated due to the 2018 zero-tolerance set by Trump.

• The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) shows that 5,400 children are separated from their parents at the Mexican border
• As of 2019, 2,838 children lived in poor facilities

Corruption

The corruption of political leaders and military leaders is one of the most important factors of human right violation.

China: The corruption of political leaders and military leaders is one of the most difficult challenges to handle in China. More than millions persons have been punished and, in many cases, they have been executed. But, corruption is still a part of the Chinese society.

The U.S.: In the U.S., the corruption of the political leaders can be guessed in terms of political lobbying. It is said that a few tens of thousands of lobbying people are operating in Washington. Lobbying is, in fact, the bribery paid by individuals, businesses and other organizations to politicians in order to obtain privileges which may be legal but immoral.

The problem of the lobbying culture in the U.S. is the fact that those who are not rich enough to pay the bribes are penalized in the allocation of public goods, which ends up by violating the rights of the weak and the alienated.

In the U.S. the Congressional election cost $5.7 billion. The Republican Rick Scott spent $ 6.3 million. In 2018, the largest donor gave $436 million to the PAC (Political Action Committee). This shows to what extent the American politics is governed by money and why the poor and the weak have little voice in politics.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have tried to compare the state of ESCR violation in the two global super powers. I admit that it is not always easy to judge the gravity of the violation of these human rights, because the capacity of protecting them varies greatly in relation to the level of economic development and the distribution of the fruits of economic development.

For the developing countries, it can be difficult to provide decent housing, adequate public health, productive education and other needed public goods.

Therefore, the debate is concerned with the capacity and the willingness of developed countries to provide these public goods, which varies in regime type.

In the neo-liberal countries represented by the U.S., the possibility of violating the ESCR is high, because in this regime it is the responsibility of each individual to provide what is needed to have a decent and dignified life.

This regime does not recognize the reality in which the alienation of people is the result of job-killing technologies and irresponsible skewed income distribution in favour of the rich.

Most of the developed countries including Canada have liberal politico-economic regime along with welfare programs. In developed countries with the exception of the U.S., the negative impact of the liberal regime on the unequal income distribution is dealt with by welfare system in which the inequality of income distribution is corrected by income transfer program on the one hand, and on the other, the supply of free public goods such as old-age pension, low cost public health services and low cost education and low-cost housing.

In general, economic, social and cultural rights are better protected by socialist countries for the simple reason that the major part of housing, public health, education and other public goods are provided by the government free of charge. Of course this observation can be modified depending on the quality of public goods and of the leaders’ integrity, honesty and dedication to the people’s wellbeing.

But, it seems that the violation of economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) is much worse in the country of Eagle than in the nation of Dragon.

Finally, I sincerely hope that the human right debate should put focus as much on the economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) as on the civil and political rights (CPR), if not more. After all, if man dies because of poor housing condition, poor health and no job due to poor education, the freedom of speech means little.

*

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books!

Dr. Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics at the Quebec University in Montreal (UQAM) and member of the Research Center on Integration and Globalization (CEIM) of UQAM.

He is Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

---

Annex

I have done my best to be objective and to compare as much as possible the state of human right violations of the two super powers which can ruin the humanity depending on the course of their mutual relations in years to come. It is understandable for China to wish to develop and make its people proud and happy.

The U.S. has saved the world from the evil of Nazism, Facism and Imperial Shintoism and international communism. It has ruled the world for almost a century and accumulated power, wealth and privileges.

Since the 1970 visit of Kissinger and the normalization of diplomatic relations with China in 1979, the U.S. has been the principal determinant of Chinese economic success and rising power.

Now China is catching up rapidly with the U.S. in terms of economic development. The Chinese nominal GDP is 72 % of the American GDP. The U.S. feels threatened by China even if China denied its intention of ruling the world. In fact, even if it wanted to, it will be almost impossible to do so partly due to its values.

Nevertheless, Washington regards China as enemy and deploys all means to contain China. One of the favoured weapons is the demonization of the nation-state through human rights violation. 

US Elections 2024: The Mechanism of Fraud. Manlio Dinucci

By Manlio Dinucci, November 03, 2024

558 Major Electors are to elect the President of the United States. To become President, it is necessary to obtain the votes of at least 270 of them. Each Great Elector represents the party to which he/she belongs, but the US Constitution does not require him/her to vote for the presidential candidate chosen by his/her party.

2016 Election Candidate Hillary Clinton: “We Created Al Qaeda”. The Protagonists of the “Global War on Terrorism” Are the Terrorists

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 02, 2024

The following video features 2016 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton who candidly acknowledges that America created and funded Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war.

November 2024: A Swing States Deja Vu Election? Dr. Jack Rasmus

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, November 04, 2024

More important than even the issues of democracy, immigration, and women’s rights, the economic issue has polled in the top of voter concerns ever since the start of 2024. In September, the Gallup poll listed it as continuing to represent the voters’ number one concern.

Al Qaeda Will Vote for Hillary on November 8, 2016…

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 04, 2024

At the height of the war in Bosnia, Bill Clinton and Osama bin Laden joined hands in recruiting Al Qaeda mercenaries and channelling weapons to the “jihadists.”

Attempted Invasion? Bryansk Region of the Russian Federation, Foreign Saboteurs and Ukrainian Forces

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, November 03, 2024

On October 28, 2024, in the Bryansk region, an undisputed territory of the Russian Federation, military personnel and border guards prevented an attempted ground invasion led by a foreign sabotage and reconnaissance group consisting of approximately 20 people.

South Africa’s Memorial to the ICJ: More Evidence on Israel’s Genocide

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, November 03, 2024

The timing, as with so much in the ongoing wars in Gaza and Lebanon, was most appropriate. The Israeli Knesset had signalled its intent on crippling and banishing the sole agency of humanitarian worth for Palestinian welfare by passing laws criminalising its operations by 92 to 10 on October 28.

Life Beyond the Kamala-Trump Election Duopoly. The Free and Equal Presidential Debate. Jill Stein, Randy Terry, Chase Oliver

By Michael Welch, November 03, 2024

According to the most recent poll by Atlas, voter support in the critical swing states, the competition between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump is ‘neck and neck.” What’s more, in a number of states, the percentage of people willing to vote for Jill Stein or “undecided” is higher than the difference between the “Big Two.”

[Este artigo foi traduzido do inglês.]

Hoje, 11 de março de 2024: Quatro anos atrás, o bloqueio da Covid-19 foi imposto de uma só vez pelos governos nacionais em todo o mundo. 

O bloqueio implicou: “Confinar a força de trabalho” e “ Congelar o local de trabalho”. 

Nem um único economista reconheceu esta relação.

Do seu ponto de vista, foi o vírus que desencadeou o colapso económico e social. Que absurdo. 

O que isso implica.

A mais grave crise económica e social da história mundial que quatro anos depois ainda continua, levando ao caos económico e à pobreza em massa em todo o mundo. 

—Michel Chossudovsky, 11 de março de 2024, Atualizado em 18 de maio de 2024

Mensagem do autor aos leitores 

Este artigo enfocando o suposto novo coronavírus está entre os artigos mais importantes que escrevi.

Há um elemento de simplicidade e bom senso no texto. Meu objetivo é que este artigo seja amplamente  lido e debatido nas bases da sociedade  , não apenas por cientistas e médicos. A complexidade desta crise é esmagadora. Esta não é apenas uma “crise de saúde pública”.

As implicações são de longo alcance porque o artigo refuta e invalida “  tudo” relativo à pandemia de Covid.   Estas incluem as políticas relacionadas com  o Lockdown  e a   “Vacina” Covid-19  , para não mencionar o infame  Tratado da Pandemia  e  a “Grande Reinicialização” do Fórum Económico Mundial. 

A “narrativa corona” oficial baseia-se numa “Grande Mentira” endossada por políticos corruptos.

Esse “consenso oficial” é extremamente frágil. A nossa intenção é precipitar o seu colapso “como um castelo de cartas”. 

O que está em última análise em jogo é  o valor da vida humana e o futuro da humanidade  .

Nosso objectivo é salvar vidas, inclusive  de bebés recém-nascidos  vítimas da “Vacina” Covid-19.

Neste momento da nossa história, a prioridade é “  Desactivar a Campanha do Medo” e “  Cancelar a Vacina”   (incluindo a revogação do chamado  “Tratado da Pandemia”).

Esperemos que isto prepare o terreno para o desenvolvimento de  um movimento mundial de solidariedade  , que questione a legitimidade das poderosas elites financeiras do “Big Money” que estão por detrás deste projecto infame.

Caros leitores, por favor, encaminhem este artigo e o vídeo para todos os lugares.

—Michel Chossudovsky,  Pesquisa Global, 5 de Dezembro de 2023

---

“Saia desse trem maluco. Eu sei, é assustador, pode doer. Recupere sua autonomia física e intelectual e proteja seus filhos.”  – Dr. Pascal Sacré, autor e médico belga, Novembro de 2021.

“O inferno está vazio e os demónios estão todos aqui.”   – William Shakespeare, “A Tempestade”, 1623

Minha resposta a Shakespeare  : “Mande os demónios de volta para onde eles pertencem”.

“Quando a mentira se torna verdade, não há como voltar atrás.”

Este artigo foi publicado pela primeira vez pela Global Research

Introdução

Desestabilizar a estrutura social, política e económica de 190 países soberanos não pode constituir uma “solução” para combater um   novo coronavírus    que surgiu misteriosamente em Wuhan, província de Hubei (RPC), no final de Dezembro de 2019. Essa foi a “solução” imposta – implementada em vários etapas desde o início -, levando ao  bloqueio de Março de 2020  e  ao lançamento da chamada “vacina” Covid 19 em dezembro de 2020  , que desde o seu início resultou numa  tendência ascendente no excesso de mortalidade.

É a destruição da vida das pessoas em todo o mundo. É a desestabilização da sociedade civil.

A falsa ciência apoiou esta agenda devastadora. As mentiras foram sustentadas por uma campanha massiva de desinformação nos meios de comunicação social. 24 horas por dia, 7 dias por semana,  “Alertas Covid”  incessantes e repetitivos  ao longo de mais de três anos.

O histórico bloqueio de 11 de Março de 2020 desencadeou o caos económico e social em todo o mundo. Foi um acto de “guerra económica”:  uma guerra contra a humanidade. 

O novo vírus: 2019-nCoV

A história oficial é que um  NOVO VÍRUS perigoso  foi detectado em Wuhan, província de Hubei, China, em Dezembro de 2019. Era intitulado  2019-nCoV  , que significa “  2019 Novo (n) Corona (Co) Vírus (V)”.

Em 1º de Janeiro de 2020, “as autoridades de saúde chinesas fecharam o Mercado Atacadista de Frutos do Mar de Huanan, em Wuhan, após relatos da média ocidental alegando que os animais selvagens vendidos ali poderiam ter sido a fonte do vírus.

No início de Janeiro de 2020, foi objecto de ampla cobertura mediática e de uma campanha de medo em todo o mundo. A desinformação mediática acelerou.

“As autoridades chinesas (supostamente) “identificaram um novo tipo de vírus” em 7 de Janeiro de 2020, através do teste RT-PCR. Não foram fornecidos detalhes específicos sobre o processo de isolamento do vírus.

Falha na identificação do novo coronavírus

No final de Janeiro de 2020, a OMS confirmou que:

Não possuía um isolado de 2019-nCoV de uma amostra purificada de um paciente infectado  , o que significava que não foi  possível confirmar a identidade do novo coronavírus.

11 de Fevereiro de 2020. O suposto “novo vírus” foi renomeado 

No início de Fevereiro de 2020, após a falha na identificação do novo coronavírus, foi tomada a decisão de alterar o seu nome para:

“Síndrome respiratória aguda grave vírus corona”: SARS-CoV-2  que (de acordo com a OMS)  é “semelhante” a um vírus de 20 anos intitulado:

2003-SARS-CoV.

Um coronavírus de 2003 com vinte anos de idade foi categorizado em Fevereiro de 2020 como um “novo vírus”? 

Confirmado pela OMS e pelo The New England Journal of Medicine, maio de 2003 (NEJM):

“Um novo coronavírus associado à síndrome respiratória aguda grave”

que eclodiu na província de Guangdong, no sul da China, em 2002,  foi  identificado e classificado como um “novo vírus” em 15 de Maio de 2003. (Mais de 20 anos atrás)

Veja a captura de tela do artigo NEJM de 15 de Maio de 2003 abaixo:

.

.

Vídeo: O “Novo Corona Vírus” Inexistente?

Clique aqui para ver o vídeo. Para deixar um comentário ou acessar o Rumble, clique aqui.

“Big Money” e “Big Pharma” encontram-se em Davos

O alegado novo vírus foi activamente debatido no Fórum Económico Mundial (WEF), reunido em Davos, Suíça (22 de Janeiro de 2020).

Proposto pela Coligação para Inovações em Preparação para Epidemias (CEPI), uma entidade financiada pela Fundação Bill e Melinda Gates,  foi apresentado um programa de vacina 2019-nCoV  . Anunciado em Davos, a Moderna, com sede em Seattle (com o apoio da CEPI), iria fabricar uma vacina de mRNA para aumentar a imunidade contra 2019-nCoV.

As provas, bem como as declarações em Davos, sugerem que  o projecto da vacina 2019-nCoV  já estava em curso no início de 2019. E a CEPI tinha conhecimento prévio relativamente ao anúncio do 2019 nCoV. (Michel Chossudovsky, Capítulo VIII).

.

.

Nota: O desenvolvimento de  uma vacina nCoV 2019  foi anunciado em Davos, 2 semanas após o anúncio de 7 de Janeiro de 2020, e apenas uma semana antes do lançamento oficial da emergência de saúde pública mundial da OMS em 30 de Janeiro. Anúncio da vacina precede a Emergência de Saúde Pública da OMS (PHEIC)

Tudo isto aconteceu numa altura em que o alegado   novo vírus corona não tinha sido isolado, a sua identidade não tinha sido confirmada  e o número de casos notificados na China era extremamente baixo: “Em 3 de Janeiro de 2020, havia 44 casos notificados, 11 estão gravemente doentes, enquanto os restantes 33 pacientes estão em condições estáveis ​​(Relatório da OMS).

Não houve evidência de uma epidemia em desenvolvimento na China, nem houve evidência de vazamento de laboratório.

E então, em 30 de Janeiro de 2020, o Director Geral da OMS,  Dr. Tedros,  declarou  uma Emergência de Saúde Pública de Importância Internacional (PHEIC)  sem absolutamente nenhuma evidência de uma epidemia ameaçadora.

Nesse mesmo dia, registaram-se 83 casos positivos em todo o mundo, fora da China,  para uma população de 6,4 mil milhões de pessoas. Veja tabela abaixo: 5 casos positivos nos EUA, 3 no Canadá, 4 na França e 4 na Alemanha. 

E esses casos foram baseados no teste RT-Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) que  não detecta a identidade do vírus.  (Veja o apendice). 

.

Captura de tela da OMS, 29 de Janeiro de 2020. Número de casos positivos confirmados nos EUA, Canadá, França e Alemanha 

.

Três semanas depois, numa conferência de imprensa em 20 de Fevereiro de 2020, o Director-geral da OMS,  Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, insinuou que a pandemia era iminente: 

“[Estou] preocupado que a oportunidade de conter o surto de coronavírus estivesse “fechando”  …

“Acredito que a janela de oportunidade ainda existe, mas  está se estreitando.”

Quais foram as evidências apresentadas pelo Dr. Tedros em apoio à sua ousada declaração?

Em 20 de Fevereiro de 2020, havia apenas  1.076 casos confirmados fora da China (incluindo os do navio de cruzeiro Diamond Princess encalhado nas águas territoriais do Japão).

Nesse mesmo dia, a OMS forneceu os dados dos casos confirmados “por países, territórios ou áreas fora da China”:   15 nos EUA, 8 no Canadá, 16 na Alemanha, 12 em França, 9 no Reino Unido

11 de Março de 2020: O histórico bloqueio pandémico da COVID-19, “Encerramento” de aproximadamente 190 Economias Nacionais 

O Director-geral da OMS já tinha preparado o cenário na sua conferência de imprensa de 21 de Fevereiro.

 “O mundo deveria fazer mais para se preparar para uma possível pandemia de coronavírus.” 

A OMS declarou oficialmente uma pandemia mundial numa altura em que havia  44.279 casos positivos (cumulativos) de Covid  fora da China para uma população de 6,4 mil milhões. (Para detalhes ver Michel Chossudovsky, Capítulo II)

A simulação do “Evento 201” de outubro de 2019 de um “vírus perigoso” intitulado nCoV-2019

O Evento 201  foi uma simulação de mesa de uma epidemia de coronavírus, patrocinada por John Hopkins e pela Fundação Gates. 

A OMS inicialmente adoptou exactamente a mesma sigla (para designar o novo coronavírus)  daquela do Exercício Simulado do Evento pandémico 201 da Johns Hopkins.

O nome do novo coronavírus era (com excepção da colocação de 2019)  idêntico ao da simulação do Evento 201.

Com a presença de personalidades proeminentes, foi realizada em 18 de Outubro de 2019, menos de três meses antes do anúncio, no início de Janeiro de 2020, de um novo coronavírus.

Entre os participantes estavam representantes (também conhecidos como tomadores de decisão) da OMS, da Inteligência dos EUA, da Fundação Gates, da Aliança Global sobre Vacinas e Imunização (GAVI) (financiada pela Fundação Gates), da Coalizão para Inovações em Preparação para Epidemias (CEPI ), o Fórum Económico Mundial (WEF), as Nações Unidas, os Centros de Controle e Prevenção de Doenças (CDC) dos EUA, o Centro de Controle e Prevenção de Doenças da China (CDC, Director Dr. George Fu Gao), Big Pharma, o Banco Mundial , entre outros. 

Estas diversas organizações desempenharam um papel fundamental quando  a chamada pandemia entrou em vigor no início de 2020  . Muitas características do “exercício de simulação” de 201 corresponderam de facto ao que realmente aconteceu quando o Director-Geral da OMS lançou uma  Emergência de Saúde Pública Global (PHEIC)  em 30 de Janeiro de 2020. 

Além disso, os patrocinadores do Evento 201 — incluindo o FEM e a Fundação Gates — bem como os participantes estiveram activamente envolvidos desde o início na coordenação (e financiamento) das políticas relacionadas com a COVID-19, incluindo o teste RT-PCR, o confinamento de Março de 2020 bem como a vacina mRNA, lançada em Dezembro de 2020

O Director do CDC da China,  Dr. George Fu Gao  – que participou da simulação de 201 – desempenhou um papel central na supervisão do surto de COVID-19 em Wuhan no início de 2020, agindo em estreita ligação com seu mentor ,  Dr.  Fundação Gates, CEPI, et al. 

O Dr. Gao Fu é formado em Oxford e tem ligações com a Big Pharma. Ele também foi por vários anos membro do Wellcome Trust. (REF)

A misteriosa “identidade do vírus”

O nome do vírus foi identificado pela primeira vez: 

E então, misteriosamente, outra mudança no nome do vírus ocorreu em 11 de Fevereiro de 2020.

de   2019-nCoV para SARS-CoV-2,  que significa   “Síndrome respiratória aguda grave”: SARS – Corona (Co) Virus(V)-2″.  

Não existia mais o   prefixo “n” (indicando que se tratava de um NOVO VÍRUS)  . O prefixo “n”  foi substituído por um  sufixo “2”  

Qual é o significado de  SARS-CoV-2  . Mais especificamente, qual é o significado do misterioso  sufixo “2”?   Refere-se a um vírus de 20 anos intitulado: 

2003 -SARS-CoV, que não pode de forma alguma ser classificado como um NOVO VÍRUS

“Novo Vírus” versus “Velho Vírus”: A “Síndrome Respiratória Aguda Grave” (SARS) de 2002-2003

O SARS-CoV-2    – que desde 11 de Fevereiro de 2020 se tornou o nome oficial do  novo vírus corona de 2019 –  não é de forma alguma  UM NOVO VÍRUS.  

Flash Back para a China, província de Guangdong 2002-2003. Confirmado pela OMS e relatórios revisados ​​por pares: 

“Um novo coronavírus associado à síndrome respiratória aguda grave”  eclodiu em Guangdong, província, RPC, em 2002. 

.

NEJM, Maio de 2003

.

A SARS foi categorizada como  Novo Coronavírus em 2003  . ou seja, não é mais NOVO. Foi detectado e isolado há 20 anos, no início de 2003. 

No decurso dos últimos vinte anos, deve ter resultado em múltiplas variantes do Coronavírus 2003-SARS original  .

As características essenciais do vírus 2003-SARS-CoV

Confirmado pela OMS:

“A síndrome respiratória aguda grave (SARS) é uma doença respiratória viral causada por um coronavírus associado à SARS. Foi identificado pela primeira vez no final de Fevereiro de 2003 [há mais de 20 anos], durante  um surto que surgiu na China e se espalhou para outros 4 países. … 

Um surto mundial de síndrome respiratória aguda grave (SARS) foi associado  a exposições provenientes de um único profissional de saúde doente da província de Guangdong, China.  Realizamos estudos para identificar o agente etiológico deste surto.

…   um novo coronavírus foi isolado de pacientes que atendiam à definição de caso de SARS.   … Primers de consenso para coronavírus projectados para amplificar um fragmento do gene da polimerase por transcrição reversa-reação em cadeia da polimerase (RT-PCR) foram usados ​​para obter uma  sequência que identificou claramente o isolado como um coronavírus único, apenas remotamente relacionado aos coronavírus previamente sequenciados  .

O que é significativo neste relatório é que a OMS confirmou que o   novo coronavírus de 2003,   intitulado  2003 SARS-CoV,  foi isolado de amostras de pacientes, identificado e designado  “síndrome respiratória aguda grave”   em Março de 2003. A OMS também confirma que: “O a letalidade entre pessoas com doença… para casos prováveis ​​e suspeitos de SARS é de cerca de 3%” (Ver Apêndice).

Ausência de um Isolado do “Novo Vírus 2019 (2019-nCoV)” 

Embora o   SARS-CoV de 2003 tenha sido devidamente isolado,  a OMS reconheceu em Janeiro de 2020 que não possuía  uma amostra isolada e purificada do novo coronavírus de 2019 de um paciente infectado,  o que significava que  não foi possível confirmar a identidade do (“ perigoso”) novo coronavírus de 2019 intitulado 2019-nCoV.  Essa foi a razão apresentada.  Parece absurdo. 

Como esse assunto foi resolvido. Seguindo o conselho da Fundação Gates, a OMS esteve em ligação com o  Instituto de Virologia de Berlim no Hospital Charité  .

Sob a orientação científica do   Dr. Christian Drosten  , o estudo de Virologia de Berlim foi intitulado:

Detecção do novo coronavírus de 2019 (2019-nCoV) por RT-PCR em tempo real

.

.

O estudo do Instituto de Virologia de Berlim reconheceu firmemente que:

[Embora]… várias sequências do genoma viral tenham sido divulgadas,…  isolados de vírus ou amostras [de 2019-nCoV] de pacientes infectados não estavam disponíveis  …”

O que a equipa de Berlim recomendou à OMS foi que, na ausência de um isolado do vírus 2019-nCoV, um vírus SARS-CoV semelhante de 2003 deveria ser usado como “proxy” (ponto de referência) do novo coronavírus de 2019:

“As sequências do genoma sugerem a presença de um vírus intimamente relacionado aos membros de uma espécie viral denominada CoV relacionado à síndrome respiratória aguda grave (SARS)  , uma espécie definida pelo agente do surto de SARS em humanos em 2002/03 [3,4 ].

Relatamos o estabelecimento e validação de um fluxo de trabalho de diagnóstico para triagem de 2019-nCoV e confirmação específica [usando o teste RT-PCR],  projectado na ausência de isolados de vírus disponíveis ou amostras originais de pacientes. O design e a validação foram possibilitados pela estreita relação genética  com o SARS-CoV de 2003 e auxiliados pelo uso da tecnologia de ácido nucleico sintético.” (Eurosurveillance, 23 de Janeiro de 2020, grifo nosso).

O que esta declaração ambígua sugere é que  a identidade do 2019-nCoV não era exigida e que os “casos confirmados de COVID-19”  (também conhecido como infecção resultante do novo coronavírus de 2019) seriam validados pela  “estreita relação genética com o SARS-CoV de 2003”. .”

Como poderia o novo vírus ser classificado como  semelhante  sem ter sido identificado, ou seja, sem um “isolado”? Além disso, tenha em mente que embora o teste PCR não detecte o vírus, ele detecta fragmentos genéticos (de vários vírus). 

Arma fumegante

O que isto significa é que  um coronavírus detectado há 20 anos  (no momento em que este artigo foi escrito) na província de Guangdong (  2003 SARS-CoV  ) foi usado para  “validar” a identidade  de um chamado “novo coronavírus” detectado pela primeira vez em Hubei, na China. Província no final de Dezembro de 2019.

As recomendações do estudo Drosten (financiado com uma doação de 249 mil dólares da Fundação Gates) foram então transmitidas à OMS. 

Posteriormente, foram endossados ​​pelo Diretor-Geral da OMS,  Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus  .

A OMS não tinha em sua posse o “isolado de vírus” necessário para identificar o novo vírus.

“Deixa para lá”.   Foi decidido que não era necessário um isolado do novo coronavírus.

É lógico que se o teste PCR utilizar o  vírus SARS-CoV de 2003 como proxy ou “ponto de referência”  , não poderá haver casos “confirmados” relativos ao  novo coronavírus 2019-nCoV.

O novo coronavírus de 2019  2019 nCoV   foi renomeado como  SARS-CoV-2  em 11 de Fevereiro de 2020 pelo Comité Internacional de Taxonomia de Vírus. Isso explica o sufixo 2.

Diz-se que o novo coronavírus de 2019 é “semelhante” ao   2003-SARS-CoV,  que foi posteriormente renomeado como  SARS-CoV-1 (  para distingui-lo do SARS-CoV-2).  

O NOVO Vírus (2019 nCoV) é “inexistente” no que diz respeito ao teste  RT-PCR  . 

Amplamente documentado, o teste RT-PCR detecta fragmentos genéticos de numerosos vírus sem ser capaz de identificá-los. Veja nossa revisão do RT-PCR no Apêndice deste artigo. 

O significado e a ambiguidade da decisão da OMS – seguindo o conselho do Instituto de Virologia de Berlim – nomeadamente a questão do “isolamento” do novo coronavírus foram casualmente ignorados.  “Sem perguntas”

A média britânica noticiou em 6 de Fevereiro de 2020 a mudança no nome do vírus:  

“[O] coronavírus mortal FINALMENTE receberá um nome: os cientistas planejam rotular oficialmente a doença como ‘dentro de dias’ – mas não receberá o nome de nenhum lugar ou animal. O Comité Internacional de Taxonomia de Vírus apresentou um nome. …

Muito dinheiro, grande indústria farmacêutica. Direitos de patente

Tenhamos em mente: A crise da Covid que ainda está em curso é uma   operação de muito dinheiro em todo o mundo  , com numerosos produtos da Big Pharma, que se estende desde o  uso indevido global do teste RT-PCR  , até ao projecto multibilionário de vacinas da Big Pharma, largamente dominado pela Pfizer. .

A mudança do nome do vírus para SARS-CoV-2 foi uma questão de “royalties” e direitos de propriedade intelectual? Os direitos de patente dos EUA, relativos ao  SARS-CoV de 2003,  foram registados em Abril de 2004 e atribuídos em Maio de 2007 ao Departamento de Saúde e Serviços Humanos dos EUA:  

Patente nº: US 7.220.852 B1 Data da patente: 22 de maio de 2007.  (Este é um assunto para investigação mais aprofundada.)

“A Grande Mentira” e o “Novo Vírus Inexistente”. Quais são as consequências?

Conforme documentado acima (confirmado pela OMS), o novo vírus corona de 2019 nunca foi identificado.

A utilização de um vírus de 20 anos intitulado  2003 SARS-CoV   como  proxy  para o alegado novo vírus confirma que   NÃO HOUVE PANDEMIA resultante de um NOVO CORONAVÍRUS em Janeiro-Março de 2020.

NÃO HAVIA “NOVO VÍRUS”  .

O que isto significa é que tanto as   políticas de bloqueio devastador impostas a 190 países  (11 de Março de 2020), como a   implementação mundial da vacina contra a Covid-19 (meados de Dezembro de 2020) são fraudulentas. Baseiam-se numa “Grande Mentira”,    que contribuiu ao longo de quase quatro anos para  destruir literalmente a vida das pessoas. 

“A grande mentira” precipita o bloqueio

A verdade tácita é que o novo coronavírus forneceu um pretexto e uma justificação para que interesses financeiros poderosos e políticos corruptos precipitassem o mundo inteiro numa espiral de desemprego em massa, falência, pobreza extrema e desespero.

O bloqueio foi um ato de guerra económica e social. A força de trabalho foi confinada, o local de trabalho está congelado, levando a um colapso económico mundial planeado.

Esta crise não acabou de forma alguma. O mundo inteiro está actualmente estrangulado pela  mais grave crise da dívida da história mundial  . Todas as categorias de endividamento (privado e público).

Nas palavras dos bilionários do FEM para aqueles que estão perdendo suas casas ou não conseguem pagar o aluguel mensal: seu lema é: 

“  Não tenha nada, seja feliz”.   

A “vacina” de mRNA destinada a proteger as pessoas contra um “novo vírus inexistente”

Amplamente documentada, a “vacina” de mRNA, que se destinava a proteger as pessoas contra  este novo coronavírus inexistente, renomeado como SARS-nCoV-2,  resultou numa tendência ascendente no  excesso de mortalidade.  

Existe o Relatório Confidencial da Pfizer divulgado sob Liberdade de Informação que confirma com base nos seus próprios dados que a vacina é uma substância tóxica    Para acessar o relatório completo da Pfizer clique aqui.

A evidência é esmagadora: existem numerosos estudos sobre  o excesso de mortalidade relacionado com vacinas.  Abaixo está um resumo de um estudo incisivo relativo ao   excesso de mortalidade relacionado ao câncer na Inglaterra e no País de Gales,   resultante da vacina de mRNA conduzida pela equipe de  Edward Dowd.

O método de Dowd consistiu em analisar o  número de mortes atribuídas ao cancro em Inglaterra e no País de Gales entre 2010 e 2022   (com base nos dados do Gabinete de Estatísticas Nacionais do Reino Unido). 

A tabela abaixo refere-se ao  excesso de mortes  relacionadas com   neoplasia maligna (tumor cancerígeno)  em Inglaterra e no País de Gales, registadas em três anos consecutivos: 2020, 2021 e 2022 versus uma tendência de 10 anos (2010-2019).

Os dados de excesso de mortalidade em 2020 (ano anterior à vacina) são negativos,  com exceção de “neoplasia maligna sem especificação de localização”.

A vacina contra a COVID-19 foi implementada em várias fases em Inglaterra e no País de Gales, começando em 8 de Dezembro de 2020 e estendendo-se até Março-Abril de 2021.

O movimento ascendente do excesso de mortalidade (%) começa em 2021. O aumento do excesso de mortalidade relacionado a neoplasias malignas é tabulado para os  dois primeiros anos da vacina. 

.

.

Abaixo está uma tabela semelhante relativa ao  Excesso de Mortalidade na Alemanha , que aponta para o Desvio da  Mortalidade Observada  em relação à  Mortalidade Esperada  (por faixa etária) em 2020, 2021 e 2022.

Observe a mudança ascendente no  excesso de mortalidade em 2021 e 2022,  após o lançamento da vacina Covid em Dezembro de 2020.

Alemanha: Excesso de mortalidade por faixa etária (%)

.

Excesso de mortalidade em  vermelho  por faixa etária, Excesso de mortalidade total em cinza 

.

Desinformação da média, mentiras ousadas 

Existem numerosos estudos sobre o excesso de mortalidade resultante da vacina, que são ignorados pela média.

Invariavelmente, os relatórios da imprensa afirmam com autoridade que é   o vírus que é “perigoso” ou “mortal”  , quando na verdade é a “vacina” que desencadeou uma tendência ascendente na mortalidade.

O Daily Mail (6 de Fevereiro de 2020) refere-se a um  “coronavírus mortal”,  insinuando que está se espalhando por todo o mundo.

A designação de vírus perigoso é uma MENTIRA em negrito:

Confirmado pela OMS, pelo CDC e por relatórios revisados ​​por pares, o  nCoV-19 de 2019   não é perigoso. Veja o Apêndice abaixo.

Clique aqui para ler o artigo completo em inglês.

Below is a fundraiser organized by Belle Henry and Paul Tkalcevic, friends of Harry Allchin, for his bereaved family:

On Sunday 13/10/24 we lost a dear friend, brother and son.

Harry was a light in many peoples lives.

With his trademark mullet and silver sunglasses, Harry was known for his love for travel, his mates, family and his job.

The gravity of the loss of our mate will be felt throughout the community and beyond. The loss of Harry was very sudden and unexpected and his family are now trying to navigate through this process while dealing with their grief.

We are hoping to raise funds so we can give Harry the appropriate send off he deserves, all money raised will be given directly to Paul Tkalcevic, Harrys best friend, who will pass on these funds to the Allchin Family to aid them in this process.

.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

---

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

You may also access the online version of the e-Book by clicking here.

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

With the November 2024 election now just days away, the political marketing passing as political polling is intensifying. If one were to believe the in-house CNN or Bloomberg polls, Harris is leading. If Emerson and other polls, Trump is enjoying a late surge and leads. Most put national public opinion about even or at most one percentage point either way in favor of Trump or Harris. But all that’s just political ‘white noise’. National opinion polls mean nothing; swing states voting will determine the outcome of the national election next week just as they did in 2020 and 2016 before.

In between the national opinion ‘white noise’ there are some polls focusing on the seven swing states. But they are see-sawing as well, depending on their political leaning. The swing states come in two ‘tiers’. The southern tier is Nevada (NV), Arizona (AZ), Georgia (GA) and North Carolina (NC). The northern tier is Wisconsin (WI), Michigan (MI) and Pennsylvania (PA). There are some early indications that Virginia (VA) and perhaps even New Hampshire (NH) may become swing states this election cycle, although that evidence is still perhaps too tenuous to conclude so.

It remains to be seen within another week in the swing states which concerns are most on voters minds: either economic and pocketbook issues, as the Trump-Vance team seems to be emphasizing; or on social issues like women’s and reproductive rights as the Harris-Walz team emphasizes. Meanwhile, both sides are slinging mud at each other in the form of personality attacks, claiming the other is outright evil and, if elected, will mean the end of the USA and even civilization itself! It’s perhaps more reminiscent of a high school cafeteria food fight than a normal national political campaign.

Both sides are also driving their respective versions of the threat to democracy, an issue that, after the economy and inflation, seems to be uppermost to voters as well. However, the supporters of the Democratic Party ticket and of the Republican ticket seem to be talking past each other on this topic. Democrats define the issue as the Supreme Court’s various decisions circumscribing voters rights, opening up the role of money in elections even further, and Trump’s behavior on January 6, 2021, and statements during the current campaign. For Republicans, the democracy issue boils down to Democrats’ ‘lawfare’ against Trump, their ballot denialism of Republican and independent candidates alike, their internal manipulations of their own primaries selecting and then de-selecting their candidate, as well as alleged censorship initiatives of late.

Neither party bothers to mention their mutual support in recent decades in gerrymandering safe seats for themselves in the US House of Representatives. As the New York Times just this past Saturday, November 2, noted in its front page article by Catie Edmondson: Out of 435 seats contested in the US House of Representatives, only 22 are actually competitive. Both parties in recent decades have thus safely engineered themselves near ensured majorities. The US Senate has also become virtually grid-locked at a 50-50 party split.

More important than even the issues of Democracy, immigration, and womens rights, the economic issue has polled in the top of voter concerns ever since the start of 2024. In September, the Gallup poll listed it as continuing to represent the voters’ number one concern.

The ‘economy’ is also virtually congruent with inflation. Democrats point to success in the past year in bringing inflation rate down. But voters seem to be focusing on the LEVEL of prices, which, while they have plateaued over the past year, remain especially high. The estimates of how much range from 24% to 35%, depending on the source and what is contained in the survey or index. As another New York Times front page feature story admitted just days ago entitled ‘Inflation Has Cooled, but Americans Are Still Seething Over Prices,’ the authors of the piece remarked, “Even though the growth in prices has eased significantly, prices themselves aren’t getting lower”. 

Official US government data show that nominal hourly wages have risen during the recent inflation surge. But when adjusted for inflation, considered for all workers, not just full time employed, not estimated as an average but as a median, and considered as weekly earnings, not just hourly wage, then other government data show real pay has been declining the past two years. And that’s even before higher costs of rising interest rates and taxes are factored in, which the price indexes don’t include. It’s not surprising that the Trump-Vance team talk about ‘take home pay’ and not unadjusted hourly wages as the Harris-Walz camp point out.

It is interesting that the September Gallup poll showed that the economy issue was not among the top five concerns for Democrat voters, while it ranked especially high for Republicans and most independents. This may prove the Harris-Walz team’s ultimate political ‘Achilles Heel’, especially in the three northern swing states, WI-MI-PA, which for decades have struggled with the impact of de-industrialization, offshored jobs, free trade, small business decline, and related issues associated with economic decline.

It is perhaps a characteristic of human beings to selectively remember the good times and block out the bad. It’s also a characteristic to recall more recent events more clearly than the more distant. If true, it means they as voters are apt to remember the more pleasant events of Trump’s prior term than the more negative; and focus on the more negative of Biden’s more recent term and the positive events less so.

If so, then the current 2024 election will be more or less a repeat of the 2016 when Trump flipped the seven swing states—and especially the northern tier—from the Democrats. If not, then the election in the swing states will appear more like the 2020 election when the opposite happened and Trump lost control of most of the swing states.

It’s perhaps interesting on this even of the 2024 election to consider what happened in the critical swing states in both the 2016 and 2020 elections. What can be learned from those experiences, in particular in the critical swing states that will determine the 2024 election again, as they did in 2016 and 2024.

Swing States in the 2020 Election

In 2020, Trump narrowly lost the electoral college (EC) and thus the election. The EC tally was 306 for Biden and 232 for Trump. In 2020, Arizona and Georgia were lost to Biden and to the Democrats by the narrowest of margins. In the case of Georgia, it was by less than .01 of votes cast. Trump also lost Nevada narrowly by a 16,000 vote swing out of 1.7m votes but won North Carolina handily. In contrast to Trump’s narrow losses in 2020 in three of the four southern swing states (Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia) in 2024 Trump now has comfortable margins in all four in the southern tier once again just weeks before November 5.However, even if he wins all four, it is not sufficient to get to 270 electoral votes. That means the election’s final outcome will be determined in the northern tier states in 2024—just as it had in 2020 and 2016.

In 2016, Trump won all three northern tier swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania (along with three of the four southern tier). Then in 2020 lost all the ‘northern tier’ swing states again.

The northern tier states have together 46 electoral college votes. 270 EC votes are required to win. In 2020, Biden won 306. Without all three northern states, Biden would have tallied only 260 EC votes and thus lost the election. Trump would have tallied 276 and won it. So it is clear whoever hopes to win the presidency must carry all three northern states—especially if they can’t carry any of the four ‘southern tier’ states of Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina.

After Trump won the three northern states in 2016, Biden flipped the northern tier by having no standout negative track record of his own for Trump to attack. Moreover, Biden had Trump’s 2020 vacillating Covid response record plus the deep economic contraction of 2020 to hang over Trump’s head. Another positive for Biden in 2020 was direct campaign rallies, and physical appearances were not a factor in summer-fall 2020 as the Covid epidemic raged. Biden could and did run his 2020 campaign mostly via media, his appearances recorded from his home in Delaware.

In short, Trump’s political stumbles addressing Covid, the deep recession in 2020 he got tagged with despite bipartisan Congressional support for the shutdown of the economy, and the interruption to normal campaigning gave Biden and the Democrats enough edge to take back the northern tier states again in 2020. However, none of those factors prevail today in 2024.

The Democrats no longer have today any of these advantages they had in 2020—Covid is not an issue, the 2020 bipartisan induced economic recession is in the past as far as voters are concerned (as probably are the January 6, 2021 events as well), and Democrats themselves are now carrying significant economic baggage of their own in the form of an inflation surge the past four years between 24% to 35%, depending on the source cited. In addition, 4 to 5 million undocumented immigrations have entered the USA the past four years, according to US government statistics, lending credence to Trump’s claims it’s an issue (which a number of polls confirm is in the top 5 issues for voters).

The Swing States in the 2016 Election

The importance of the northern swing states was evident in 2016 as well as in 2020 and played a major part in Hillary Clinton’s upset loss in 2016 to Trump. Most analysts agree she lost the 2016 election because she hardly campaigned at all in the northern tier states, thinking they were solidly Democrat as they had been under Obama and in decades past.

But the US political and election landscape began changing dramatically in the 21^st century and especially after 2008, which Hillary failed to consider in her 2016 campaign strategy and her ignoring of the northern tier:

Many traditional union and blue collar voters had left the northern swing states in the previous two decades before 2016, largely due to the prior deindustrialization and trade policies of the Democrats since 1992. Nor did the economic policies of the Democrats following the 2008 economic crash and election benefit workers in the northern tier states very much (or workers in general, for that matter). Obama’s $787 billion rescue plan response to the 2008-09 economic crash that he introduced in February 2009 did not filter down to working and middle class families, composed as it was largely of business tax cuts and grants to the states. As result, it took seven years, until 2015, for jobs lost during the 2008-09 recession to return to the level of 2007. Moreover, economic growth rates in GDP terms post-2008 were barely half normal under Obama from 2009 to 2015 compared to what they averaged after the ten prior US recessions since 1948. Free trade policies under Obama in the post-2008 period continued to offshore good paying manufacturing jobs. And his Affordable HealthCare Act passed in 2010 did not get implemented until 2015; in the interim health care costs surged.

By the 2016 election, Democrat policies since 1992 thus undermined Democrats’ own traditional blue collar base in the northern tier swing states—just as Hillary erroneously assumed the so-called ‘blue wall’ of Democrat support was still solid in the region and didn’t bother campaigning there much. Hillary’s excuse after the election was to ignore her strategic error in the campaign and instead blame the Russians for interfering with the election on behalf of Trump—without explaining exactly how that cause and effect occurred. That campaign theme of ‘Putin’s the reason’ continued into the 2020 campaign and still reverberates to this day in 2024.

As the French saying goes, ‘everything changes but nothing changes’ (plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose). That saying applies to US the last three national election cycles since 2016. Midterm Congressional elections as well, where Congressional control has shifted between the two parties by single digit seats in both the US House and the US Senate. It is highly likely therefore that the 2024 election will reveal a swing back of more of the seven (or eight) key swing states from the Democrats, just as those states wobbled back and forth between Republicans and Democrats since 2016 (and one might loosely argue since 2012 as well perhaps).

Is November 2024 a Déjà vu Election?

In the pending November 5 election, the Democrats can write off the swing states of Arizona and Georgia for Harris, where additionally this time around Trump forces have also re-established an iron tight grip over Georgia’s and Arizona’s election commissions. There will be no close vote tally in either state this time.

Trump’s aggressive stand on Immigration also may help him in Arizona, and perhaps to some lesser extent in Nevada and Georgia perhaps. So too will his various tax proposals targeting working class voters, employed and retired: i.e. to end taxing social security monthly benefit payments (imposed in the 1980s by Reagan)—which plays especially well among the retiree population in Arizona; and ending taxes on tip wages and overtime pay that is popular among the large population of leisure & hospitality service workers in Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada.

As for North Carolina, it hasn’t voted Democrat in national elections for some time and most likely won’t in 2024. The recent Hurricane Helene and slow response by the Biden administration providing federal government aid, just as the voting cycle begins, is not a positive for Democrat votes in that state. As for Georgia, as noted, Democrats barely won in 2020 by the narrowest margin and due no doubt to the special circumstances of the 2020 election and the economy. Georgia voters almost certainly won’t vote Democrat again in 2024 either.

In short, it appears Trump has a strong advantage in all the four ‘southern tier’ swing states going into the final weeks of the 2024 election. That means the election will come down to which candidate prevails in the three ‘northern tier’ swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—just as the three proved critical in the 2020 and 2016 elections.

And here’s an important arithmetic fact: Should Trump take the four southern tier states—which is more likely than not—that means Trump only has to win one of the three northern tier states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania in order to win 270 Electoral College votes and the election. In contrast, should Harris lose all the four southern tier states, she has to win all three of the northern tier to get to the required 270 Electoral College votes.

Since the history of both the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections shows that outcomes are largely determined by what happens in the northern tier states (and to the southern tier to some extent as well), it’s not coincidental therefore that both candidates, Trump and Harris, are now in 2024 spending most of their funds and time campaigning in person up and down the three northern states, with occasional forays into the four southern states. Or their brief appearances raising money in the rich donor states of California or New York.

Meanwhile, voters in the rest of the country remain mostly spectators as the two candidates rarely visit the remaining 43 states that are solidly in the candidates’ respective camps.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Dr. Rasmus is author of the books, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes’, Clarity Press, 2017 and ‘Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of the Fed’, Lexington Books, 2020. Follow his commentary on the emerging banking crisis on his blog, https://jackrasmus.com; on twitter daily @drjackrasmus; and his weekly radio show, Alternative Visions on the Progressive Radio Network every Friday at 2pm eastern and at https://alternativevisions.podbean.com.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Voting signs in Spanish, English, and Chinese show the way to the polling station. Photo by Tim Brown / Flickr.

Mainstream western politics and culture pretend the rest of the world does not exist. The mainstream western worldview shrinks the earth down to US-aligned countries and acts as though the billions of people who live in the global south do not share a planet with us.

You really see this illustrated in US presidential election season, when debates will feature five or six minutes on “foreign policy” with the remaining two hours dedicated to “domestic policy” and culture war wedge issues despite the the White House’s relationship with foreign countries having orders of magnitude more significant real-world consequences. Americans discuss election results as though the whole thing revolves around them and their feelings and how much more convenient or inconvenient the next president might make their lives, while Europeans discuss what the results might mean for NATO expenses and trade agreements. The fact that the next US president will be committing genocide, starving people with economic sanctions and increasing Washington’s stranglehold on earth’s population by any amount of violence and tyranny necessary barely ever enters into the conversation.

Whenever you hear western officials talking about how “the international community” views a particular issue, they’re almost always talking about the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, and maybe a few US-aligned Asian countries like Japan and South Korea — while pretending the rest of the world just isn’t there.

.

.

You see it in politics, but you see it throughout our culture too. In our movies, our shows, our conversations, our thoughts. We don’t really think about all the exploitative imperialist extraction of resources and labor that makes our lifestyles possible, even though it directly affects damn near every waking moment of our lives. You wouldn’t be reading this sentence right now had not this exact dynamic led to a highly complex electronic device making its way into your field of vision.

We just conduct ourselves from moment to moment like this relationship isn’t happening. It’s as though we’re all walking around with living people strapped to our feet like slippers, but we’re just laughing and talking about the weather and celebrities and how we’re feeling about this and that without ever acknowledging the existence of the human beings we’re standing on top of.

The global south is omitted from our thinking and our conversations in this way all the time, leaving us in this fractured, redacted mental universe where we pretend we’re the only people living in this rapidly shrinking world. Our lives are no less significant or valuable than those of people in Africa or Asia, but we live as though they don’t exist, even when their labor may affect our moment to moment reality far more than the white-skinned person we’re paying attention to in this instant.

This is going to have to change if we’re to become a conscious species and create a healthy world together. Our perception of the world is going to have to reflect the actual world, not just the small cloistered segment which exists within the confines of western civilization. We’re going to have to start thinking about humanity as a whole and stop living the lie that we are not intimately interconnected with the lives on every populated continent.

Until we open up our worldview and begin taking into account the needs and struggles of our fellow human beings around the world, it will be like we’re at a dinner party that’s being waited on by slaves. We’re all looking at each other and talking about our lives and our families as the slaves clear our plates and refill our drinks, never acknowledging them or discussing the fact that they’re being kept as material property and forced to do what they’re doing to avoid punishment and torture. Until we demand their freedom and invite them to come and dine with us, we’re going to be in a highly dysfunctional and abusive relationship with them, and nothing will ever feel quite right — because it won’t be.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image is from the author

After months of protests on the streets and organizing within the Democratic party, Kamala Harris’s campaign has not shown signs it will stray from the Biden administration’s steadfast support for Israel amid its genocidal war in Gaza and invasion into Lebanon. Donald Trump has shown no indication that he would change U.S. backing of the Israeli war machine, and is the personal favorite of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. One of these two candidates will become president.

The Intercept interviewed voters who are horrified by the ongoing U.S. support for Israel’s war, and in many cases have dedicated the past year of their lives to organizing against it in key swing states such as Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Arizona. 

The race remains extremely tight, with the majority of polls showing Harris and Trump at a virtual tie. In the swing states that will decide the election, the candidates are either tied or hold narrow leads. Four years ago, Joe Biden won some key states by as few as 10,000 ballots. Every vote, including those voting with Gaza and Israel’s expanding wars top of mind, matters.

.

Source

.

Each voter interviewed for this article has demanded of Biden, and now Harris, an immediate, permanent ceasefire, and an end to the U.S. policy of unconditional military aid to Israel — both of which have been found to be popular among Democrats in swing states and across the U.S. The rejection of such demands have left voters uneasy about their choices.

These voters have their own reasons for deciding how, why, and whether to vote, but they fell into three distinct categories: the anguished undecided, the strategic anti-Trump Harris voters, and the protest voters either going third-party or opting out entirely.

Responses have been condensed and edited for clarity.

The Anguished Undecided

Halah Ahmad, Wisconsin, political strategist and organizer with Listen to Wisconsin

I actually have not decided. I tried filling out my early ballot today, and to be honest with you, I started crying and I couldn’t finish filling it out, because I feel so upset about the options and also I’m holding out for as long as I can.

It’s a really heavy choice — every choice is loss. It is so deeply dehumanizing to have to ignore a genocide and complicity in it, and a promise to continue the same policy, which is what Vice President Harris has said. At the end of the day, we’re being presented with a little bit of a false choice: If people can be protesting on this scale, and we don’t have an option that can align with that, and you can suppress anti-genocide voters in that calculus, I don’t know what kind of democracy you’re protecting. And that’s really heavy. My sister is trying to fill in her ballot, and she’s like, “I feel physically nauseous.” That’s real. If I see a shredded child on my timeline again, I don’t know what I’m expected to do, like, vote for that? 

I’m Palestinian and my husband is Lebanese, and our family is not from Gaza, but I have very close friends who’ve lost their family and their childhood homes and their neighborhoods. And my husband’s neighborhood in Lebanon has also been virtually, completely leveled. 

Folks are committed, as far as I can tell, to voting third-party, or leaving it blank, or writing something in. And then there are other folks that, on a day-to-day basis, they’re reluctant Harris voters or they flip-flop between that and deciding they’re not going to do it — they’re going to vote third-party or something of that sort. The picture that I’m getting is that voters are pretty committed to this idea that they want to vote against genocide.

Meghan Watts, North Carolina, graduate student

I’m not very sure. I am probably between Harris and maybe [Jill] Stein at this point. Waiting on Harris to take a firmer stand on the genocide in Gaza and the expansion of that into Lebanon and parts of the West Bank as well. I’ve seen a recent report saying that our tax dollars have funded about 70 percent of this current genocide, so that’s an alarming number. I’m not sure what the odds are, maybe they’re slim, but I’m holding out hope that she might call for an arms embargo and that it happens as immediately as possible.

Even aside from this genocide, it’s been difficult to get Harris to take a firm stand on other things I’m concerned about like trans rights; having some sort of meaningful, humane immigration reform; and taking a stand on climate change. I’m a parent of trans kids in a state where right now they’re able to get gender-affirming care, and in a recent interview where Harris was asked whether she supported the rights of trans individuals, her response was “I believe we should follow the law,” which is concerning. In many states, they’re actively antagonistic to trans people.

We absolutely do not want a second Trump presidency. However the lines have been a bit blurred between what exactly is the difference between Harris and Trump on particular issues, such as the border — probably the difference is in degrees of what they’ll do, not necessarily that they’ll do it.

Maryam Hassanein, Arizona, the first Muslim American appointee to resign from the Biden administration over the war in Gaza

As of right now, I’m still debating what I’m going to do come Tuesday. For me, it’s between Harris and then third-party, probably Stein. I’ve voted Democrat for as long as I’ve been eligible to vote. The reason that I’m still debating whether to vote for Harris is really because of that history of mine, also conversations about the likelihood of a third party’s chance to win. But at the same time, I’ve been hesitant to put my support behind Harris-Walz because of their unwillingness to denounce genocide, unwillingness to indicate that they do anything differently than what the Biden-Harris administration has done in regard to Israel-Palestine policy.

Something I’ve seen from the Harris-Walz campaign is that in an attempt to make up for [lost] progressive voters, for voters on the left, I’m seeing they are kind of shifting right on certain policies, like a bit of a harsher immigration policy than is normal for a Democrat. Also not necessarily an amazing climate policy given the accelerating climate crisis. The Gaza issue is affecting other issues.

Being Muslim, I was at one point excited to join an administration that had the most Muslim employees. But then just seeing everything unfold, I recognized it really doesn’t matter how many Muslim appointees you have, if you are causing so much harm to Muslims in other parts of the world. It’s a face-value, surface-level type of inclusion.

I’ve seen debates play out in groups I’m in, and I think the main point is “Hey, we just don’t want Trump in office.” And while I completely understand that, I think that there is also an incredible danger to just support Harris because of that, because then it kind of sets the precedent that, “Hey, it’s OK that you can do all these bad things. We’re gonna still vote for you because we just don’t want the other person at all.”

Reem Abuelhaj, Pennsylvania, organizer with No Ceasefire No Vote PA

I’m a Palestinian American. I’ve lived in Philadelphia my whole life. I voted Democrat in every Penn election since I turned 18, but for the first time, I’m finding myself in the position of being unable to cast a ballot for the Democratic nominee for her ongoing support of Israel as it continues its genocide in Gaza.

I’m in community with a lot of people who feel similarly to me, who feel backed into a corner. We’re terrified of another Trump presidency. We know that another Trump president, he would be disastrous for our communities, but we’re people of conscience when it comes to the ballot. This is a time of incredible grief and fear and desperation. In my case, people I love fear for the lives of their family members in Gaza, and we feel we have to continue to put pressure in every way we can while we have this moment of leverage with swing-state voters to push the Biden-Harris administration to take action.

The thing I don’t want to lose here is how many more people will be killed between November and January if the Biden-Harris administration continues this policy of unconditional support to Israel. If they don’t take action before Election Day, then the next question is, how do we continue to mobilize while the Biden-Harris administration is still in office? That’s a critical period of time, when we’re going to see thousands of more people in Gaza and the West Bank and Lebanon be killed if the administration does not take action.

It’s our assessment that with efforts like this in key swing states, it will no longer be possible for the Democratic Party to put forth a presidential candidate who is promoting a policy of unconditional support to Israel to carry out genocidal violence. 

This is about this election, and this is also about the future of elections and of democracy in the U.S. We’re representing a movement of voters who are concerned, not only about Vice President Harris and the Democratic Party and the Biden-Harris administration’s continued support of a policy that is extremely unpopular among their electorate, but also concerned about what other issues we might see on the ballot in the future that 80 percent of Democratic voters strongly oppose, that are in violation of U.S. and international human rights law, but that the Democratic Party feel that they can continue to promote despite the mass dissent of their base.

The Anti-Trump Voters

Usama Shami, president of the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix, Arizona

This has been very difficult. I’m going to hold my nose and vote for Harris, knowing that a third-party vote, at the end of the day is basically: If you vote for a third-party candidate, then Harris loses and Trump is gonna win. That’s something that I don’t want to happen.

Looking at the community as a whole, they’re conflicted, and some of them are voting for a third-party candidate because they’re sick of the two-party system and they’re thinking about maybe doing this for the future, having a viable third-party option in the future.

Look, if I were living in California or New York, I wouldn’t have a hesitation to cast a vote for a third party, or if I were in Texas for example, because you know it’s not gonna make a difference. Five percent in California is not going to split the election. But we live in a swing state and every vote counts, and at least I want to have a clear conscience that, even if Trump wins, I was not part of the reason that he won.

In 2016, when Trump made the announcement that he was going to institute a Muslim travel ban, our mosque was vandalized. He made the announcement during the day; in the evening, somebody came and took a huge rock and broke the office window at the mosque. We had people shooting [at the mosque]. So for me, I can see the impact of his words — a lot of people don’t see that. The day after he was elected, we got people calling the mosque and leaving messages that our time is limited here in the U.S., and there is a new sheriff in town. So we don’t need more of this crap.

I don’t blame people for voting third-party, although in my mind they’re misguided, but I don’t blame them, because you have people that either know people that died, or have family that they lost in Gaza, or people that are enraged by what they’re seeing daily on TV. I can see how it makes people despair that things will change, so I don’t blame people for looking for a third-party candidate, looking for a different alternative.

Jesse Myerson, New York, community organizer

I live in New York, so it doesn’t matter who I vote for because of this ridiculous antidemocratic Electoral College system we have. But I have been offering to coach people who live in [swing] states who are struggling with their vote, and the coaching that I would give people who live in those states is to hold their nose and vote for Harris in order to defeat Trump.

The side that I’m on in this election is against Trump, and I wish there were a better way of defeating him than electing Harris, but given that that’s the only viable pathway to defeating Trump, that’s the least horrific option I think we have. And I stipulate that I would never presume to counsel a Palestinian American voter to vote that way, because I fully understand why that sort of tactical calculation is not necessarily available to people who are losing dozens of family members or are at risk of doing that any day.

Knowing that the Biden administration, with no note of dissension from Harris, has been financing and materially supporting this genocide in Gaza is just a bridge too far for so many people, and I can fully understand that. That makes perfect sense to me. If people want to write in “Hind Rajab,” or vote third-party, or abstain from voting for president on grounds that it’s unconscionable to vote for génocidaires, I might not share their theory of change or their power analysis, but I don’t feel like I’m in any position to tell them that’s a wrong way of going about things. It’s good to have principles and political convictions and to have lines that beyond which you will not go.

I don’t feel it’s necessarily my role to tell people how to vote. I think it’s my role to tell people how I am thinking about the election and hope that that’s persuasive to people.

I think there are several conceivable things to say. One is that the people who are most directly carrying out that genocide and who are seeking to extend that genocide to the West Bank and to expand the borders of Israel, sometimes to parts of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, and beyond, which is to say [Israeli Finance Minister] Bezalel Smotrich, [Israeli National Security Minister Itamar] Ben-Gvir, the ultra-right, which are the ruling coalition in Israel — they all want Trump to win. And so do, you know, Nazis and neo-Nazi adjacent billionaire figures like Elon Musk. They all want Trump to win, and for me, it’s sufficient to want to deny them that victory.

Whoever wins, Trump or Harris, we’re going to have to continue to be courageous and inventive and organized to figure out new ways of trying to end this genocide. But if it’s Trump, the onslaught of attacks that his administration is going to unleash against queer and trans Americans, immigrants, Muslims, people of color, Jews, anyone whose reproductive rights are under attack, anyone who’s on the front line of climate catastrophes — those are going to require that we play defense on a whole host of issues, and that is going to reduce the capacity that we have for fighting against this genocide. And honestly, given the Project Esther plans, there’s going to be even more direct attacks on the movement for Palestinian human rights than there are right now.

The possibilities for forward motion, slim as they would be under Harris, would be completely obliterated under Trump, and force such a defensive posture that I think we would just lose ground in huge incomprehensible ways.

“The possibilities for forward motion, slim as they would be under Harris, would be completely obliterated under Trump.”

Then generally, there are a small number of elected officials in Washington, D.C., who support an arms embargo, and all of them are Democrats and none of them are Republicans. And so would we want them to be junior partners in the leading coalition, or would we want them to be the opposition within the opposition, which is to say, relegated to the most marginal position in Washington, D.C.?

I only offer these thoughts from a place of profound sorrow and powerlessness and desperation. I’m terrified of the fallout of Trump and Project 2025 and Project Esther, and as somebody who is visibly Jewish at a glance in public because of my garb, I think that every neo-Nazi’s favorite president coming to power personally endangers me. I am desperate to defeat him, and poll after poll in crucial swing states has shown that the best way that Harris can ensure that happens is by supporting an arms embargo— a measure supported by the vast majority of Democrats, a majority of Jews in America, a majority of voters overall. And the fact that she has refused to do that — and Biden, of course, as well — I experience as a profound betrayal, a searing, searing betrayal and clear statement of a willingness to sacrifice my safety, the safety of all those other groups targeted for violence and repression by Trump’s coalition, in the interest of continuing to support the Israeli Trump — which is Netanyahu — and his fascistic genocidal regime.

But there’s simply not a good option. This coaching that I offer is, like, really scraping the bottom of the barrel of the lesser of two evils. But that’s the predicament we find ourselves in.

The Third-Party Approach, or Opting Out Entirely

John Harris, Georgia, graduate student and organizer with No Peace, No Peach

I will not be voting for Kamala Harris, even though I’m typically a Democratic voter. At this late hour, we have not seen policy change. We don’t expect to see policy change. And so I am acting in accordance with that pledge that we outlined. I haven’t yet decided if I’m going to vote for the third party or simply leave the top of the ticket blank and just vote down-ballot.

I have no illusions that I am in the majority of people in my community. I would say a lot of folks out of fear of another Trump presidency are voting for Kamala Harris. Based on everything Trump has said and his explicitly fascist rhetoric, I can’t fully blame them. The reason that I and the organizers of No Peace, No Peach went the way we did was to hopefully provide some sort of alternative between the approaches — either eschewing the Democrats altogether immediately, or saying that we should just try to work under the nicer genocidal regime. 

I can’t blame people personally for wanting to try and mitigate harm. Trump’s rhetoric around immigrants and trans rights are abhorrent. His actions to affect abortion rights have been catastrophic and lethal for many women and children across the country. But I just don’t see anything from the presidency of Joe Biden or even Barack Obama that gives me any confidence that the Democrats, even in power, would do anything to mitigate harm, other than just not press the gas pedal to the floor. I will likely be responding to the outcome the same way regardless of who is elected. And that’s with continued organizing.

Nerdeen Kiswani, New York, organizer and founder of Within Our Lifetime

I’m not voting for either of the major presidential candidates for both the Republican and Democratic Party, not voting for Kamala or Trump. I might abstain or do a write-in, but I think abstaining, doing a write-in, or voting third-party is all pretty much a protest vote at this point, which is something that we’re seeing trending a lot in the Arab, Muslim community and among people who support Palestine. 

I don’t believe either choice represents what the people want, which is an end to the genocide, and I think that the Democratic Party has made it clear that they will continue to arm and fund the genocide of the Palestinian people. And so I can’t in good conscience give them my vote.

I think for the Republican Party and Donald Trump, it goes without saying: He’s also been racist toward the Palestinian, Arab, Muslim community, even using “Palestinian” as a slur a couple of months ago. But Kamala is also running to the right of Trump on many things, saying that she wants to be tougher on the border than he was, saying that she wants a more “lethal” U.S. military. Constantly voting for the so-called lesser of two evils just paves the way for the greater evil.

Either way I feel like a lot of people after the election are just going to disappear when it comes to Palestine, especially if the Democratic Party wins. 

We can’t rely on the supporters of either party to be long-term advocates for the Palestinian struggle. So I think it’s on those of us who come from oppressed communities to band together to support each other to organize face to face. Imagine if all of the millions and billions of dollars that are pumped into electoralism are actually put back into our communities. The effort and resources and canvassing that even with people who don’t have money, you know, all the time and energy they give to the Democratic Party — imagine we gave that time and energy to people who are directly suffering from American imperialism and war.

Kafia Haile, Georgia, a former university professor and Spelman graduate who voted for a Democrat every year since 1998

I’m voting for Jill Stein. It’s because my red line, the thing I care about most is Palestine. And that the U.S. should not be arming Israel when we know very clearly that Israel is committing a genocide in Palestine and with U.S. support is going after people in Lebanon and Iran and Syria. I hoped for more from Harris — I was hopeful because she’s a Black woman. I recognize that as a Black woman, we have experienced so much oppression in this country that it should make us all more empathetic to what Palestinians are going through. But there’s a quote from Ruha Benjamin, a college professor who attended my alma mater, Spelman College, and she said, “Black Faces in high places are not gonna save us.” It doesn’t matter what their race is; we should be paying attention to their actions and policies.

Initially what I saw were Black women in my community quietly telling each other that we weren’t going to vote for Harris. I think it’s because we wanted to be supportive of a Black woman, but also we were concerned that if we said something negative publicly about her, then that would draw racists out who would decide that they could start saying something racist because she’s already being attacked by her community. But then the voices started to get louder, and there were more. I’m in my 40s, and I’m calling for an arms embargo. And I think that within my age group — as a college-educated, middle-class, Black woman in our 40s — this is who the Democratic Party expects to vote for them without question. But I had a conversation with another friend of my age, another Black woman, and she said, “If you vote for Harris, can you look a Palestinian in the eye?” And I said, “No.”

Dan Sheehan, Wyoming, author and editor at Literary Hub, immigrated from Ireland

I am not voting for Kamala Harris. Personally I think the idea of voting for somebody who was a part of an administration that presided over a genocide and fully endorsed those policies and has made it clear that she’s not going to break from those policies is abhorrent. I think I consider what’s happened in the last 13 months to be the greatest atrocity of my lifetime. And from a moral standpoint, it feels impossible to cast a vote for her. 

Having said that, I live in Wyoming. I’m conscious of the fact that I have the luxury of taking a moral stand in a state which is deep red. A large part of me thinks that if I was in a swing state, I still wouldn’t be able to do it. I think I have waited and waited and waited for some small indication from the Harris camp that there would be a change in policy coming, or that they even have enough respect for the Arab American community to take their grief seriously, and I haven’t seen that. But if I was in Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Wisconsin, I honestly wouldn’t be able to tell you for sure, whether or not on the day I would pull the lever for Harris. It’s a very dark and depressing situation that the person who has been part of an administration that has presided over a holocaust of children is the morally superior candidate of the two, and I think that’s probably the case.

I think there’s no doubt that Trump will make things worse for vulnerable Americans, and I don’t want to see those people, most of whom object strongly to what’s happening in Gaza, punished. So if I was in a swing state, it’s certainly possible that I would end up voting for Harris.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image source

On October 28, 2024, in the Bryansk region, an undisputed territory of the Russian Federation, military personnel and border guards prevented an attempted ground invasion led by a foreign sabotage and reconnaissance group consisting of approximately 20 people.

As a result of the clash, four foreign saboteurs from the USA, Canada and Poland were eliminated by Russian soldiers. The other members of the group were hit by rocket and artillery fire while trying to evade, suffering even greater losses. Militarily, the enemy operation was an absolute failure, with no practical results on the battlefield and a high number of casualties.

It is surprising that, despite the fact that the conflict is, for the Western media, “between Russia and Ukraine”, not a single Ukrainian military personnel was identified in the group. It was discovered that the destroyed saboteurs had foreign weapons, uniforms and communications equipment, as well as personal items indicating their belonging to other countries that are not legally involved in the conflict in Ukraine. For example, according to some reports circulating on military channels (and confirmed by me with local sources), a Canadian flag, a prayer book in Polish, and a notebook with notes on tactical training in English were found with the dead enemies.

In addition, a rather interesting fact drew the attention of the Russian military to the case. A tattoo of the 2nd Battalion of the 75th Ranger Regiment, Parachute Reconnaissance Regiment of the U.S. Army Special Forces, was found on the body of one of the dead militants. It is practically impossible that such a tattoo was made “by chance”. Surely, the eliminated enemy was a veteran of such a military unit, and therefore a member of one of the most qualified commando groups in the West.

It must be remembered that the 75th Parachute Reconnaissance Regiment of the United States Army (75th Ranger Regiment), also known simply as the “Rangers”, is an amphibious reconnaissance paratrooper regiment. Like all American military units, the regiment is directly subordinate to the U.S. Department of Defense – and is, of course, part of the American war apparatus. The headquarters and main units of the Army’s special forces are stationed on the territory of the U.S. Army unit at Fort Benning, Georgia.

The regiment is designed to perform special combat missions, including reconnaissance and sabotage behind enemy lines, capture of airfields and reconnaissance in the interests of advancing units of the Ground Forces. Units of the 75th Parachute Regiment are troops prepared for helicopter landing or amphibious assault, being highly qualified groups with broad operational capabilities for the most diverse environments of military activity.

Officially, by decision of the U.S. Army leadership, the parachute battalions of the 75th Airborne Division must be on combat readiness to deploy anywhere in the world within 18 hours. This only reinforces how the group is part of what is most advanced, special and sophisticated in the American military.

Despite the special nature of the American unit, the Western media simply ignored Russian reports of a Ranger in the Bryansk raid. There was no explanation from U.S. authorities as to why members of their most highly skilled military personnel were fighting in a land invasion on another continent.

In theory, the Rangers should be under the full control of the U.S. authorities. Like any special forces unit, the group must be on combat readiness so that it can be called into a real operational situation at any time – if Washington deems it necessary to use such forces on the battlefield. Given such conditions, it would not be an exaggeration if the Russian Federation viewed the involvement of such special forces in Ukraine as an open declaration of war, prompting an appropriate military response.

In practice, once again, it is only Russia’s diplomatic goodwill and its desire for de-escalation that prevent Moscow from taking decisive action against Western countries. NATO is making it increasingly clear that it is at war with Moscow and will not stop its efforts to harm Russia, using ever more terrorism and even its most skilled troops.

As long as this Western war effort is limited to low-level impacts, such as the useless and shameful invasion of Bryansk, Russian patience will prevent a reaction. But it is unwise for the West to continue betting on the constant violation of Russian red lines, since once patience runs out, there will be no turning back.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on Strategic Culture Foundation.

Lucas Leiroz is a member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the Public Domain

The most important and unprecedented aspect of the world in recent decades has been that for the first time there are human made factors that threaten the basic life-nurturing conditions of the entire planet. These life-nurturing conditions are threatened mainly due to two factors.

Firstly we have accumulation of weapons of mass destruction, application of AI to them, steps towards space warfare and related issues.

Secondly, there are a number of various serious environmental problems, about a dozen, which taken together and with various inter-relationships, constitute a very serious survival crisis.

There can be controversies on the details of this situation, on which aspect of these factors are a bigger threat, or on other issues, but the overall reality of earth’s life-nurturing conditions being threatened by these two factors is well-established and cannot be denied.

While this is the most important reality and the biggest issue of our times, of course this cannot be considered in isolation from other very important issues. Firstly, there is large-scale injustice, inequality and conflict due to which a large number of people are denied their basic needs. Secondly, democracy and human rights face many threats and appear to be in retreat in many parts of the world.

Once this basic reality is recognized, the most essential task before humanity can be defined very clearly—this is to protect the basic life-nurturing conditions of our planet within a framework of justice, peace, democracy and improved social relationships. Increasing international cooperation of various countries is needed for this, as well as increasing mobilization of people everywhere on an agenda of peace, justice and environment protection. This is best achieved in conditions of peace. Large-scale mobilization of people with enthusiasm for contributing to such an agenda is possible if justice based policies for people are promoted, while strength for this can come from improved social relations at the level of family, community, workplace etc. 

All this is not a burdensome task; in fact people absorbed in this can lead very happy and creative life, all the time having the satisfaction of contributing to a better and safer world for the entire humanity and for future generations.

Hence it is a very important responsibility of world leadership to create the essential conditions in which people of the world have the motivation, the capacity and the conducive conditions for making these contributions.

Unfortunately, the world leadership has completely failed to create such conditions and to implement such an agenda. The result is that the most serious problems are in most contexts worsening further while most people remain largely involved in their personal or in other narrow pursuits. What is more, very powerful business and related political and military interests are all the time distorting the real issues and tasks before humanity to serve their very narrow interests which are generally harmful for most other people, or for the justice and peace based agenda mentioned above. 

While many world leaders share the blame for this state of affairs, the biggest share of the blame goes to those who have been the most powerful in recent decades, namely the leaders of the USA and close allies who are more responsible than anyone else for the various highly destructive wars unleashed one after another and due to which the basic conditions of peace and international cooperation essential for implementing the protective agenda mentioned above could not be available. These wars in turn are linked to the military-industrial –politician-expert complex, to greed and corruption, and to the overpowering urge for dominance, to be always the dominant number one power.

It is amazing and extremely unfortunate that the most powerful decision-makers of world are (mis)guided by such distorted thinking and vision, when the overwhelming need is for an entirely different and protective approach. Never was the gulf between what was needed and what was actually happening more acute at world level than it has been in recent decades. The 21^st century dawned amidst the greatest urgency for protective policies; it was received by world leaders with the most destructive ones. Even in terms of advancing their own stated priorities—like fighting or curbing terrorism– they have proceeded in highly suspect ways that cannot withstand independent scrutiny, and which have increased destruction instead of reducing it.

We and future generations can be rescued from this highly dangerous situation only by a great upsurge of people for justice, peace and environment protection, led by the young but helped in terms of experience-based guidance by the elderly. This must be an entirely peaceful movement of people worldwide, but must have a particularly important and strong presence in leading western countries.

Many experienced, respected statesman and scholars known for their commitment to peace and justice must get together to issue appeals for this, providing their valuable guidance on the way forward. 

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Bharat Dogra, a peace activist, is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent Books include Planet in Peril, Protecting Earth for Children, Earth without Borders and A Day in 2071. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.   

Featured image: “Peace Dove” by Jose Trujillo

Early in 2020 we saw images of vulnerable senior home patients being isolated, denied treatment, and suffering to the point of hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and death.

Nothing could be more horrible. Public health officials and nursing home administrators waited for patients to be “saved” by COVID-19 vaccines.

An analysis from Girma and Paton used machine learning with key assumptions that COVID-19 vaccination could save lives and that there were no lives lost due to fatal side effects.

Even with these biased assumptions which were not supported by randomized, placebo-controlled trials, their machine learning analysis was tremendously disappointing.

.

Girma S. Paton D. Using double-debiased machine learning to estimate the impact of Covid-19 vaccination on mortality and staff absences in elderly care homes. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2024.104882

.

No wonder our public health officials quickly shifted the focus from nursing homes to younger populations for the vaccine campaign. To this day routine childhood ACIP schedules effectively enforced by K-12 school mandates are pushing mRNA vaccines harder on healthy children than our most vulnerable citizens in nursing homes. The reality is that all would be healthier and safer with COVID-19 shots off the market.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

---

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

You may also access the online version of the e-Book by clicking here.

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

Democracy is vastly overrated.

The national elections this November 5 (Guy Fawkes Day, FWIW) have every chance of turning into a chaotic catastrophe. I’m not, therefore, going to discuss either candidate. Let’s instead talk about principles. That’s something few people discuss these days.

“Democracy” is not like the consensus of a few friends agreeing to see the same movie. Most often, it boils down to a kinder and gentler variety of mob rule, dressed in a coat and tie. The essence of positive values like personal liberty, prosperity, opportunity, fraternity, and equality have little to do with democracy. Those things exist because of free minds, free markets, and limited government.

Democracy, by contrast, focuses people’s thoughts on politics, not production, on the collective, not on their own lives. That’s not good.

Although democracy is just one way to structure a state, the concept has reached cult status, unassailable as political dogma. It is, as economist Joseph Schumpeter observed, “a surrogate faith for intellectuals deprived of religion.” Most of the founders of America were much more concerned with liberty than democracy. Tocqueville saw democracy and liberty as almost polar opposites.

Democracy can work when all concerned know one another, share the same values and goals, and abhor any form of coercion. It is the natural way of accomplishing things among small groups. But it doesn’t work well with a conglomeration of 350 million people, many of whom are voting in order to get something for nothing. Or at the expense of their neighbor.

Once the belief in democracy becomes a political ideology, it’s necessarily transformed into majority rule. And, at that point, the majority (or even a plurality, a minority, or an individual) can enforce their will on everyone else by claiming to represent the will of the people.

The only form of democracy that suits a free society is economic democracy in the laissez-faire form, where each person votes with his money for what he wants in the marketplace. Only then can every individual obtain what he wants without compromising the interests of any other person. That’s the polar opposite of the “economic democracy” of socialist pundits who have twisted the term to mean the political allocation of wealth.

But many terms in politics wind up with inverted meanings. “Liberal” is certainly one of them.

The Spectrum of Politics

The terms liberal (left) and conservative (right) define the conventional political spectrum; the terms are floating abstractions whose meanings change with every politician.

In the 19th century, a liberal was someone who believed in free speech, social mobility, limited government, and strict property rights. The term has since been appropriated by those who, although sometimes still believing in limited free speech, always support strong government and weak property rights and see everyone as a member of a class or group.

Conservatives tend to believe in strong government and nation­alism. Bismarck and Metternich were archetypical conservatives. Today’s conservatives are some­times seen as defenders of economic liberty and free markets, although that is mostly true only when those concepts coincide with the interests of big business and economic nationalism.

Bracketing political beliefs on an illogical scale, running only from left to right, results in constrained thinking. It is as if science were still attempting to define the elements with air, earth, water, and fire.

Politics is the theory and practice of government. It concerns itself with how force should be applied in controlling people and restricting their freedom. It should be analyzed on that basis. Since freedom is indivisible, it makes little sense to compartmentalize it; but there are two basic types of freedom: social and economic.

Until quite recently, liberals tended to allow social freedom but restrict economic freedom, while conservatives tended to restrict social freedom and allow economic freedom. An authoritarian (they now sometimes class them­selves as “middle-of-the-roaders”) is one who believes both types of freedom should be restricted.

But what do you call someone who believes in both types of freedom? Unfortunately, something without a name may get overlooked, or if the name is only known to a few, it may be ignored as unimportant. That may explain why so few people know they are libertarians.

A useful chart of the political spectrum would look like this:

.

.

A libertarian believes that individuals have a right to do anything that doesn’t impinge on the common-law rights of others, namely force or fraud. Libertarians are the human equivalent of the Gamma rat, which bears a little explanation.

Some years ago, scientists experimenting with rats categorized the vast major­ity of their subjects as Beta rats. These are basically followers who get the Alpha rats’ leftovers. The Alpha rats establish territories, claim the choicest mates, and generally lord it over the Betas. This pretty well corresponded with the way the researchers thought the world worked.

But they were surprised to find a third type of rat as well: the Gamma. This creature staked out a territory and chose the pick of the litter for a mate, like the Alpha, but didn’t attempt to dominate the Betas. A go-along-get-along rat. A libertarian rat, if you will.

My guess, mixed with a dollop of hope, is that as society becomes more repressive, more Gamma people will tune in to the problem and drop out as a solution. No, they won’t turn into middle-aged hippies practicing basket weaving and bead stringing in remote communes. Rather, they will structure their lives so that the government—which is to say, taxes, regulations, and inflation—is a non-factor. Suppose they gave a war and nobody came? Suppose they gave an election, and nobody voted, gave a tax, and nobody paid or imposed a regulation, and nobody obeyed it?

Libertarian beliefs have a strong following among Americans, but the Liber­tarian Party has never gained much prominence, possibly because the type of people who might support it have better things to do with their time than vote. And if they believe in voting, they tend to feel they are “wasting” their vote on someone who can’t win. But voting is itself another part of the problem.

None of the Above

At least 95% of incumbents in Congress typically retain office. That is a higher proportion than in the Su­preme Soviet of the defunct USSR and a lower turnover rate than in Britain’s hereditary House of Lords, where people lose their seats only by dying.

The political system in the United States has, like all systems which grow old and large, become moribund and corrupt.

The conventional wisdom holds that a decline in voter turnout is a sign of apathy. But it may also be a sign of a renaissance in personal responsibility. It could be people saying, “I won’t be fooled again, and I won’t lend power to them.”

Politics has always been a way of redistributing wealth from those who produce to those who are politically favored. As H.L. Mencken observed, every election amounts to no more than an advance auction on stolen goods, a process relatively few would support if they saw its true nature.

Protesters in the 1960s had plenty of flaws, but they were quite correct when they said, “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” If politics is the problem, what is the solution? I have an answer that may appeal to you.

The first step in solving the problem is to stop actively encouraging it.

Many Americans have intuitively recognized that government is the problem and have stopped voting. That tends to delegitimize the State, which deprives it of power.

There are at least five reasons many people do not vote:

1. Voting in a political election is unethical. The political process is one of institutionalized coercion and force. If you disapprove of those things, then you shouldn’t participate in them, even indirectly.
2. Voting compromises your privacy. It gets your name in another government computer database.
3. Voting, as well as registering, entails hanging around government offices and dealing with petty bureaucrats. Most people can find something more enjoyable or productive to do with their time.
4. Voting encourages politicians. A vote against one candidate—a major, and quite understandable, reason why many people vote—is always interpreted as a vote for his opponent. And even though you may be voting for the lesser of two evils, the lesser of two evils is still evil. It amounts to giving the candidate a tacit mandate to impose his will on society.
5. Your vote doesn’t count. Politicians like to say it counts because it is to their advantage to get everyone into a busybody mode. But, statistically, one vote in scores of millions makes no more difference than a single grain of sand on a beach. That’s entirely apart from the fact that officials manifestly do what they want, not what you want, once they are in office.

Some of these thoughts may impress you as vaguely “unpatriotic”; that is certainly not my intention. But, unfortunately, America isn’t the place it once was, either. The United States has evolved from the land of the free and the home of the brave to something more closely resembling the land of entitlements and the home of whining lawsuit filers.

The founding ideas of America, which were highly libertarian, have been thoroughly distorted. What passes for tradition today is something against which the Founding Fathers would have led a second revolution.

This sorry, scary state of affairs is one reason some people emphasize the importance of joining the process, “working within the system,” and “making your voice heard” to ensure that “the bad guys” don’t get in. They seem to think that increasing the number of voters will improve the quality of their choices.

This argument compels many sincere people, who otherwise wouldn’t dream of coercing their neighbors, to take part in the political process. But it only feeds power to people in politics and government, validating their existence and making them more powerful in the process.

Of course, everybody involved gets something out of it, psychologically if not monetarily. Politics gives people a sense of belonging to something bigger than themselves and so has special appeal for those who cannot find satisfaction within themselves.

We cluck in amazement at the enthusiasm shown at Hitler’s giant rallies but figure what goes on here today is different. Well, it’s never quite the same. But the mindless sloganeering, the cult of the personality, and the certainty of the masses that “their“ candidate will kiss their personal lives and make them better are identical.

And even if the favored candidate doesn’t help them, then at least he’ll keep others from getting too much. Politics is the institutionalization of envy, a vice which proclaims, “You’ve got something I want, and if I can’t get one, I’ll take yours. And if I can’t have yours, I’ll destroy it so you can’t have it either.“ Participating in politics is an act of ethical bankruptcy.

The key to getting “rubes“ (i.e., voters) to vote and “marks“ (i.e., contribu­tors) to give is to talk in generalities while sounding specific and looking sincere and thoughtful, yet decisive. Vapid, venal party hacks can be shaped, like Silly Putty, into salable candidates. People like to kid themselves that they are voting for either “the man“ or “the ideas.“ But few “ideas“ are more than slogans artfully packaged to push the right buttons. Voting for “the man” doesn’t help much either since these guys are more diligently programmed, posed, and rehearsed than any actor.

This is probably more true today than it’s ever been since elections are now won on television, and television is not a forum for expressing complex ideas and philosophies. It lends itself to slogans and glib people who look and talk like game show hosts. People with really “new ideas” wouldn’t dream of introducing them to politics because they know ideas can’t be explained in 60 seconds.

I’m not intimating, incidentally, that people disinvolve themselves from their communities, social groups, or other voluntary organizations; it’s just the opposite since those relationships are the lifeblood of society. But the political process—government itself—is not synonymous with society or even complementary to it. In fact, government is a dead hand on society.

Consider these things before you decide to vote.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Doug Casey (send him mail) is a best-selling author and chairman of Casey Research, LLC., publishers of Casey’s International Speculator.

Featured image is from Radio NZ

The timing, as with so much in the ongoing wars in Gaza and Lebanon, was most appropriate. The Israeli Knesset had signalled its intent on crippling and banishing the sole agency of humanitarian worth for Palestinian welfare by passing laws criminalising its operations by 92 to 10 on October 28.

The attack on UNRWA also came with a contemporaneous legal effort, this time from South Africa.  Pretoria had already made its wishes clear on December 28, 2023 in filing an application in the International Court of Justice alleging “violations by Israel regarding the [United Nations] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide […] in relation to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”  Acts and omissions by Israel, argued the South African government, were alleged to be of a “genocidal” nature, “committed with the requisite specific intent … to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza as part of the broader Palestinian national, racial and ethnical group”.

By May 10, South Africa had filed four requests seeking additional provisional measures with modifications to the original provisional measures laid down by the ICJ.  The momentum, and frequency of the actions, even gave certain commentators room to wonder: Was Israel’s own due process rights regarding judicial equality and the right to be heard compromised?  Israel had promised to submit written observations by May 15 to the ICJ when faced with the sudden announcement on May 12 that the court would be holding an oral hearing instead.

These debates have been taking place before the concerted, dedicated, enthusiastic pulverisation of Gaza, and the ongoing killing, terrorisation and displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank.  In these cases, due process remains fantasy and distant speculation, especially concerning civilians.  With increasing regularity, there is chilling evidence that Israeli units have a programmatic approach to destroying a viable infrastructure and means of living on the strip.

On October 22, the Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem expressed horror at the sheer scale “of the crimes Israel is currently committing in the northern Gaza Strip in its campaign to empty it of however many residents are left […] impossible to describe, not just because hundreds of thousands of people enduring starvation, disease without access to medical care and incessant bombardments and gunfire defies comprehension, but because Israel has cut them off from the world.”

In a chilling overview of the exploits of the IDF’s 749 Combat Engineering Battalion written by Younis Tirawi and Sami Vanderlip for Drop Site News, a record of systematic elimination of cultural, structural and intellectual life in the Gaza Strip is evident.  As members of the battalion’s official D9 company stated: “Our job is to flatten Gaza.”  In an operation that saw the destruction of the Al-Azhar University, First Sergeant David Zoldan, operational officer of Company A of the battalion, rejoices with fellow soldiers on seeing the explosion: “Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, did you see?!”

Statements of this sort are frequent and easily found up the chain of command.  They are also uttered with ease at the highest levels of government.  On October 21, Israeli Minister for National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir had told a “settlement” conference held in a restricted military zone that Gaza’s inhabitants would be given the chance to “leave from here to other countries”.  His reasoning for this ethnic cleansing has remained biblically consistent: “The Land of Israel is ours.”

In a media statement from its Department of International Relations and Cooperation dated October 28, the South African government announced its filing of a Memorial to the ICJ pertaining to its ongoing case against Israel.  The Memorial itself runs into 750 pages, with 4000 pages of supporting exhibits and annexes.  (Its December 2023 application had run into 84 pages.)  “The problem we have is that we have too much evidence,” remarked South Africa’s representative to The Hague, Ambassador Vusimuzi Madonsela to Al Jazeera.

Zane Dangor, director-general of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation, was more practical.  Israel might well inflate its dossier of bloody misdeeds, but some line had to be drawn in the submissions.  “The legal team will always say we need more time, there’s more facts coming.  But we have to say you have to stop now.  You [have] got to focus on what you have.”

While the formal contents of the Memorial remain confidential, the clues are thickly obvious.  It contains, for instance, evidence that Israel “has violated the genocide convention by promoting the destruction of Palestinians living in Gaza, physically killing them with an assortment of destructive weapons, depriving them access to humanitarian assistance, causing conditions of life which are aimed at their physical destruction and ignoring and defying several provisional measures of the International Court of Justice, and using starvation as a weapon of war to further Israel’s aims to depopulate Gaza through mass death and forced displacement of Palestinians.”

Despite that comprehensive assortment of alleged crimes, the legal commentariat wonder how far this latest effort will necessarily go in linking the decisions of Israeli officialdom with genocidal intent.  That Israel is committing war crimes and violating humanitarian law is nigh impossible dispute.  The threshold in proving genocide, as international jurisprudence has repeatedly shown over the years, is a high one indeed.  The dolus specialis – that specific intent to destroy in whole or in part the protected group – is essential to prove.

Cathleen Powell of University of Cape Town, for instance, has her reservations.  “If they can find genocidal statements from state officials and show that that directly led to a particular programme that led to the destruction on the ground, then that’s probably a very strong case”.  But making that link would be “very difficult”.

Dangor has no doubts.  “Genocidal acts without intent can be crimes against humanity.  But here, the intent is just front and centre.”  Suffice to say that Israeli lawmakers and officials, aided by the exploits of the IDF, are making proving such intent an easier prospect with each passing day.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University.  He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Email: [email protected]

Robert F. Kennedy Junior has decided to support the candidacy of Donald Trump which unquestionably will have an impact on the results of the 2024 Presidential Elections. 

He has condemned the Democratic Party of  political fraud.

“Today’s Democratic Party is the party of war. It’s the party of the CIA. You had Kamala giving a speech at the Democratic Convention that was written by neocons, that was belligerent”:

“President Trump called me three hours after his shooting.

He said, ‘Would I come and sit down with him?’ He said to me during that meeting, ‘There are some things that we can agree on and some that we disagree on, but the landscapes on which we agree are much larger.’

He said, ‘I want to end the wars. I want to end this surveillance and censorship. I want to protect the Constitution. I want to protect freedom of speech.’”

(M. Ch.)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired up a crowd of Trump supporters with a powerful message of unity, populism, and fierce criticism of today’s Democratic Party.

Kennedy, the son of former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy, painted a vivid picture of the Democratic Party’s transformation from a champion of peace, civil rights, and the middle class into a force that he claims now embodies war, division, and corporate interests.

He pointed to the current Democratic agenda, which he claimed prioritizes the interests of Wall Street and big corporations over the American people. (Jim Hoft)

..

TRANSCRIPT

 

“Thank you, New York. Thank you. A lot of people ask me why I left the Democratic Party. I say, I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me. This is not the party anymore of Martin Luther King, of Robert Kennedy, of John Kennedy.

That was the party of peace. It was the party of constitutional rights, of civil rights, of freedom of speech.

It was the party that wanted to protect and nurture the middle class. It was the party that stood up to censorship, to surveillance, that stood up to the CIA, the military-industrial complex.

It was the party that wanted to protect public health and women’s sports. My uncle, Ted Kennedy, wrote Title IX, which protected women’s sports in college. It was the party that believed in voting rights and fought for the right of every American to vote for the person of their choice.”

Today’s Democratic Party is the party of war. It’s the party of the CIA. You had Kamala giving a speech at the Democratic Convention that was written by neocons, that was belligerent.

Ignatius talked about the domination of the world by the United States through our weapons of war. It’s the party today that wants to divide Americans. It’s the party that is dismantling women’s sports by letting men play women’s sports. It’s the party of Wall Street. It’s the party of Bill Gates, who just gave $50 million to Kamala Harris.

The Harris campaign is very proud that it received the endorsement of 50 former CIA agents and officers, and of John Bolton, and of Dick Cheney.

These are the people that gave us a war in Iraq, the worst foreign policy catastrophe that’s ever happened to this country. These are the people that gave us the Patriot Act that launched the surveillance state.

These are the people that are trying to undermine voting rights in this country by weaponizing the federal agencies against political candidates, including me and Donald Trump and all other political candidates that can’t win an election.

Instead of bringing in a candidate who wins the primaries, abolish the primaries, and then pick two candidates, anointing them without receiving votes.”

We don’t even know how Kamala Harris received the nomination.

This is the party of Wall Street, of big banks, of big data, of big tech, of the military contractors, and the party of big pharma, big ag, big food, and big chemicals.

It’s the party that’s given us the sickest children in the history of the world. When my uncle was President, 6% of Americans had chronic disease, and we spent zero on chronic disease in this country.

Today, 60% of Americans have chronic disease. This is existential for our country. We’re spending $4.3 trillion a year, five times our military budget. Seventy-seven percent of American boys cannot qualify for military service because of chronic disease diagnoses. This is existential for our country. President Trump called me three hours after his shooting.

He said, ‘Would I come and sit down with him?’ He said to me during that meeting, ‘There are some things that we can agree on and some that we disagree on, but the landscapes on which we agree are much larger.’

He said, ‘I want to end the wars. I want to end this surveillance and censorship. I want to protect the Constitution. I want to protect freedom of speech.’”

I want to end the surveillance. I want to end the weaponization of government against American politicians. I want to end the chronic disease epidemic.

Now, don’t you think that we deserve a president in this country who’s going to restore the moral authority of the United States of America?

Don’t you think that we deserve a president who’s going to end the warfare state and rebuild the middle class?

Don’t you want a president who’s going to put America first? Don’t you want a president who’s going to protect our children? Who’s going to protect women’s sports? Who’s going to stop dividing this country along racial lines?

Don’t you want a president who’s going to end the corruption at the federal agencies—at FDA, at NIH, at CDC, and at the CIA? Don’t you want a president who’s going to make America healthy again?

Don’t you want a president who’s going to make America great again? We need to go to the polls on November 5th and vote for Donald Trump. God bless you, and God bless America.”

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image is from GP

“It is an impossible task to ask me to have to vote for someone who is actively contributing to a genocide of people like me, that directly affects friends and family. I’m not going to do that… I think it’s worse for the long term, strategically, to allow the Democrats to do whatever they want and still vote for them. That’s how we got a Democratic Party that is so far to the right, and endorsed by Dick Cheney.”

– Sonia Rosen, a voter in Pennsylvania discussing her reasons for voting for not supporting either candidate in 2024 presidential election [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

According to the most recent poll by Atlas, voter support in the critical swing states, the competition between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump is ‘neck and neck.” What’s more, in a number of states, the percentage of people willing to vote for Jill Stein or “undecided” is higher than the difference between the “Big Two.”

Michigan, for instance holds Donald Trump at 49.2 percent, Kamala Harris at 47.9 percent, and Jill Stein at 1.8 percent! No big surprise that the Democrats and their media lapdogs like Lawrence O’Donnell are saying that “a vote for Stein is really a vote for Trump.”

But if America is TRULY a democracy, why restrict policies that many Americans care deeply about? The Genocide of Palestinians by Israel. The cost of war at every level. The lack of housing and so forth. Candidates do attempt to run on these positions, but they are left out of the media lime-light.

The big elite donors, like Bill Gates with his $50 million donation to the Kamala Harris campaign will determine who can and cannot solicit support for candidates in service of working people.

Even beyond selecting the voters’ “weapon-of-choice” in this quadrennial ceremony, how well served are people who don’t see their concerns reflected in major political debates and PACs? This dynamic may not be of interest to the mainstream legacy media, but is fully endorsed by this radio program, the Global Research News Hour.

The program this week is a presentation of the Free and Equals Presidential debate aired Wednesday October 23rd in Los Angeles. The contenders were Jill Stein of the Green Party, Chase Oliver of the Libertarian Party, and Randall Terry of the Constitution Party. The moderators were Christina Tobin, the Founder and Chair of Free and Equal Inc, and David Walker, the former U.S. Comptroller General. It was edited for the length of the program. Mike Leon, the director of policy and strategy for Free and Equal Inc was interviewed briefly at the beginning of the program.

Here is the program in its entirety:

Please be advised the Global Research News Hour does not endorse any of the candidates. The debate is included to equip listeners with a wider range of views on the issues at hand.

(Global Research News Hour episode 447)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format) 

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg.

1. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/10/trump-harris-election-presidential-polls-israel.html

The sucking up to Israel and its backers by the political class in America never seems go away. Indeed, it if anything increases during the lead up to national elections. In the latest manifestation of Judeophilia, Rudy Giuliani, self-described as “America’s Mayor,” has now informed us that

“They [the Israelis] are our best friends. I worked for Ronald Reagan for eight years and Ronald Reagan said that we have to always be there for Israel always because Israel is always there for us! Hamas is not there for us, the Iranians are not there for us, they want to kill us and the Palestinians are taught to kill us at two years old! They won’t let a Palestinian in Jordan. They won’t let a Palestinian in Egypt. And [Kamala] Harris wants to bring them to you! They may have good people, I don’t care, but I won’t take a risk with people that are taught to kill Americans at two! I’m on the side of Israel! You’re on the side of Israel! Donald Trump is on the side of Israel! And they [the Democrats] are on the side of the terrorists.”

Giuliani said all that and more at a Donald Trump election rally in New York’s Madison Square Garden, where he was breathing fire in a speech [at minute 17:27] that one media outlet described as “unhinged” to rouse the overflow crowd to hate Israel’s enemies, which apparently includes the Democratic Party if they should regain the presidency. I would not want to disagree with a man of Giuliani’s psycho-phantasmagoric stature about facts, but I do not recall when the United States was actually threatened by Israel’s enemies to include Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran or a place we once called Palestine, but then again, I am getting older and my memory might be failing. Nor can I recall anything at all that Israel has done for what was once my country apart from take huge bundles of our tax money equivalent to one quarter of a trillion dollars while also corrupting our politicians and undermining both our rule of law and our Bill of Rights, but, then again, blame it on my memory since I cannot imagine a warm and friendly chap like Benjamin Netanyahu doing anything nasty or naughty.

In trying to score political points, Giuliani does not seem to get that the adoration of the Jewish state is a bipartisan thing, that the US government, no matter who wins elections, will continue to supply the Israelis with money and weapons to expel or kill as many of its neighbors as possible. The carnage will create a new metaphoric “land without people” empty space between the Euphrates and Nile Rivers that will become a great nursery for establishing and populating the Eretz or “Greater Israel” Chosen by Yahweh to rule the Middle East.

One good thing about Giuliani and his master Donald Trump is that they do not even pretend to want to help Palestinians and other “lesser breeds without the law” to resist the occupation and eradication by their Jewish masters. Trump would like to have the job of extermination finished so Israel’s public relations image would not be further damaged. Kamala, on the other hand, would keep handing out weapons and money while piously calling for a cease fire, an objective that is routinely rejected by a stern Netanyahu. How the Biden-Harris rule of foreign relations vis-à-vis the Middle East operates is to pretend one thing while doing something else. It has been reported that Biden’s peace negotiators Amos Hochstein, an Israeli who served in the IDF, and Brett McGurk, who were ostensibly working to help avoid expansion of the Gaza crisis into Lebanon, were doing quite the opposite. They have been working “behind the scenes” to encourage Israel, and they are now describing Israel’s Lebanon operations that have included a major land invasion as a “history-defining moment” — one that will “reshape the Middle East for the better for years to come.”

And there’s more. The US Ambassador to Lebanon one Lisa Johnson has been meeting with the various parties and groups that make up the Lebanese government and its social and religious mix with a proposal that it organize to prepare the country for a “post-Hezbollah era” by mobilizing “internal” forces to eliminate the Islamic resistance movement while it is engaged in fighting the Israeli Army. Johnson, a Joe Biden appointee to her post, certainly reflects White House and State Department thinking on the Middle East. She reportedly told Lebanese politicians,

“Israel cannot achieve everything through war; it’s time for you to do your part and launch an internal uprising under the banner of ‘Enough.’ The Lebanese people must show their desire to rise-up and get rid of Hezbollah.”

Johnson challenged the politicians,

“Why do you seem afraid? Hezbollah has been defeated, its leadership is destroyed, and we are with you, and the entire free world stands by your side… We do not only want to limit Hezbollah’s influence, but we will strike its support lines, and we are working non-stop to bring down the regime in Iran as well.”

Someone should remind Ms. Johnson as well as McGurk and Hochstein that we are not legally at war with Lebanon, nor with Iran, and nor even with the Palestinians whose genocide we are enabling.

The reality is that Gaza and Lebanon are America’s war in the sense that Israel’s onslaught against its neighbors would not be either possible or sustainable without Washington picking up the costs and supplying the weapons. A recently released report by the Israeli news outlet Calcalist reviewed Israeli military spending on wars since fighting began on October 7^th. It determined that Washington has over the past year funding directly 70% of Tel Aviv’s total military costs. That has amounted to more than $20 billion in military aid, a figure close to the $22.57 billion billion estimated by several US sources including Brown University’s highly respected Cost of War Project which has likewise looked at the numbers. And, one assumes there are also substantial hidden expenses consisting of armaments shipped directly from US arsenals without any accounting procedure as well as money concealed in other projects.

As a bottom line, one has to conclude without direct US support, Netanyahu’s war would simply be unaffordable for the Jewish state. Calcalist concludes that “Therefore, it is doubtful whether this war would have been conducted as it is – neither in intensity nor in scope – without the American assistance.” So in a very real sense it is and has been America’s war while the secret objective by the US government to destroy Hezbollah as well as Hamas and even overthrow the regime in Iran indicates clearly that Netanyahu’s hegemonical and genocidal plan to make Israel the supreme power in the Middle East is shared by many in Washington.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

Outstanding analysis by Al Jazeera on Muslim Vote, 

“Only three days remain until Election Day 2024, and both Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris are hitting the American South, continuing to make their closing arguments to voters.

Trump will hold two rallies in North Carolina, one in Gastonia and one in Greensboro, but in between will hold an event in Salem, Virginia.”

Michigan’s Arab American Vote

Trump Seeks Arab American Support

Donald Trump Targets Liz Cheney. Courts Arab, Muslim Voters

Bernie Sanders Disagrees with Kamala’s Support of Gaza Genocide

 Will Arab Americans Sway the Presidential Election?

click here to view

click here

Our book, The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity, was published October 15 and became an immediate bestseller. This is a book that three governments—the US, the UK and Australia—all sought to suppress. The story of how it came to be is extraordinary—3,250 highly credentialed doctors and scientists under the leadership of one extraordinary woman, Amy Kelly, worked for two years on the 450,000 internal Pfizer documents released under court order by a successful lawsuit by attorney Aaron Siri. In the process these volunteers confirmed the greatest crime against humanity of all time. Read on.

This book in your hands is the result of an extraordinary set of confluences. It also presents, in a format available in bookstores for the first time, material that has already changed history.

You are about to embark as a reader on a journey through an extraordinary story—one whose elements almost defy belief.

The Pfizer Papers is the result of a group of strangers—ordinary people with extraordinary skills, located in different places around the world, with different backgrounds and interests—who all came together, for no money or professional recompense at all; out of the goodness of their hearts, and motivated by love for true medicine and true science—to undertake a rigorous, painfully detailed, and complex research project, which spanned the years 2022 to the present, and which continues to this day.

The material they read through and analyzed involved 450,000 pages of documents, all written in extremely dense, technical language.

This far-flung, relentlessly pursued research project—under the leadership of DailyClout’s COO, the remarkably gifted project director Amy Kelly—brought one of the largest and most corrupt institutions in the world, Pfizer, to its knees. This project, pursued by 3,250 strangers who worked virtually and became friends and colleagues, drove a global pharmaceutical behemoth to lose billions of dollars in revenue. It balked the plans of the most powerful politicians on earth. It bypassed the censorship of the most powerful tech companies on earth.

This is the ultimate David and Goliath story.

The story began when lawyer Aaron Siri successfully sued the Food and Drug Administration, to compel them to release “The Pfizer Documents.” These are Pfizer’s internal documents—as noted above, 450,000 pages in number—that detail the clinical trials Pfizer conducted in relation to its COVID mRNA injection. These trials were undertaken to secure the ultimate prize for a pharmaceutical company, the “EUA,” or Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA. The FDA awarded EUA for ages 16+ to Pfizer in December 2020. The “pandemic,” of course (a crisis in public health that a book of mine, The Bodies of Others, confirmed, involved hyped and manipulated “infections” data and skewed mortality documentation) became the pretext for the “urgency” that led the FDA to bestow EUA on Pfizer’s (and Moderna’s) novel drug. The EUA is the hall pass, essentially, allowing Pfizer to race right to market with a not-fully-tested product.

The Pfizer Papers also contains documentation of what happened in “post-marketing,” meaning in the three months, December 2020 to February 2021, as the vaccine was rolled out upon the public. All leading spokespeople, and bought-off media, called the injection “safe and effective,” reading from what was a centralized script.

Many people who took this injection, as it was launched in 2020–2021–2022 and to the present, did not realize that normal testing for safety of a new vaccine—testing that typically takes ten to twelve years—had simply been bypassed via the mechanisms of a “state of emergency” and the FDA’s “Emergency Use Authorization.” They did not understand that the real “testing” was in fact Pfizer and the FDA observing whatever was happening to them and their loved ones, after these citizens rolled up their sleeves and submitted to the shot. As we can never forget, many millions of these people who submitted to the injection were “mandated” to take it, facing the threat of job loss, suspension of their education, or loss of their military positions if they refused; in some US states and overseas countries, people also faced the suspension of their rights to take transportation, cross borders, go to school or college, receive certain medical procedures, or enter buildings such as churches and synagogues, restaurants and gyms—if they refused.

The FDA asked the judge in the Aaron Siri lawsuit to withhold the release of the Pfizer documents for seventy-five years. Why would a government agency wish to conceal certain material until the present generation, those affected by what is in these documents, is dead and gone? There can be no good answer to that question.

Fortunately for history, and fortunately for millions of people whose lives were saved by this decision, the judge refused the FDA’s request, and compelled the release of the documents; a tranche of 55,000 pages per month.

When I heard about this, though, I was concerned as a journalist. I knew that no reporter had the bandwidth to go through material of this volume. I also understood that virtually no reporter had the training or skill sets required to understand the multidimensional, technically highly specialized language of the reports. In order to understand the reports, one would need a background in immunology; statistics; biostatistics; pathology; oncology; sports medicine; obstetrics; neurology; cardiology; pharmacology; cellular biology; chemistry; and many other specialties. In addition to doctors and scientists, in order to understand what was really happening in the Pfizer documents, you would also need people deeply knowledgeable about government and pharmaceutical industry regulatory processes; you would need people who understood the FDA approval process; you would need medical fraud specialists; and eventually, in order to understand what crimes were committed in the Papers, you would need lawyers.

I was worried that without people with all of those skill sets reading through the documents, their volume and complexity would lead them to vanish down “the memory hole.”

Enter Steve Bannon, the former Naval Officer, former Goldman Sachs investment banker, former advisor to President Trump, and current host of the most popular political podcast in America and one of the most listened-to worldwide, WarRoom.

He and I come from opposite ends of the political spectrum. I had been a lifelong Democrat, an advisor to President Bill Clinton’s reelection campaign, and to Al Gore’s presidential campaign. He, of course, is a staunch Republican-turned-MAGA. I had been deplatformed in June 2021, before the Pfizer documents came out, for the crime of warning that women were reporting menstrual dysregulation upon having received the mRNA injections. As a career-long writer on women’s sexual and reproductive health issues, I knew that this was a serious danger signal and that this side effect would affect fertility. (Any eighth grader should be able to foresee that as well.) Upon my having posted this warning, I was banned from Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms. I was attacked globally, all at once, as an “anti-vaxxer” and “conspiracy theorist”; and my life as a well-known, bestselling feminist author, within the legacy media, ended. No one in that world would talk to me anymore, publish my work, or return my calls. I was un-personed.

(It turned out, upon two successful lawsuits in 2023 by Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general, that it was actually the White House, the CDC, and senior leaders of other government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, that unlawfully pressured Twitter and Facebook to remove that cautionary tweet of mine, to shut me down, and to “BOLO” or Be On the Lookout for similar posts. This suppression is now the subject of a pending Supreme Court decision on whether or not it violated the First Amendment.)

In this dark time in my life, to my surprise, I received a text from Steve Bannon’s producer, who invited me onto WarRoom. I brought forward my concerns about women’s reproductive health in the wake of mRNA injection, and to my surprise he was respectful, thoughtful about the implications, and took the issue very seriously. I returned again and again, to bring that and other concerns that were emerging in relation to the mRNA injections to his audience. I was relieved to have a platform on which I could share these urgent warnings. At the same time, I was sad that the Left, which was supposed to champion feminism, seemed not to care at all about serious risks to women and unborn babies. I recognized the irony that a person whom I had been taught to believe was the Devil Incarnate, actually cared more about women and babies than did all of my right-on former colleagues, including the feminist health establishment, who had always spoken so loudly about women’s wellbeing and women’s rights.

Given my appearances on WarRoom leading up to 2022, it was natural that the subject of the Pfizer documents came up on that show when the documents were released. I shared my concern that they would be lost to history due to their volume and technical language. Bannon said something like, “Well, you will crowdsource a project to read through them.”

I was taken aback, as I had zero skills related to, or knowledge about how possibly to do such a thing. I answered something like, “Of course.”

So, my news and opinion platform DailyClout was deluged with offers from around the world, from WarRoom listeners with the skill sets needed, to decipher the Pfizer documents. I was terrified. It was chaos. I had excellent people on my team. But none of us knew how to manage or even organize the deluge of emails; we did not know how to evaluate the thousands of CVs; and even once we had “onboarded” these thousands of people, in different time zones, to “the project,” our inboxes became even more terrifying, as it was literally impossible to organize 3,250 experts into an organization chart that could systematically work through these documents. Emails were getting tangled or went unanswered. People asked questions we could not answer. We had no idea what structure could allow such a huge number of disparate experts to work through the vast trove of material.

A few weeks in, as I was in despair, Bannon had me on again. He asked about the progress of the project, and I replied, more upbeat than I felt, that many people had joined us, and they were starting to read. “Of course, you will begin delivering reports,” he prompted. “Of course,” I answered, horrified at being in so far over my head.

I have never had a corporate job, so it had not even occurred to me that a series of reports was the format that the analyses of the documents should take.

Then something happened that I can only describe as providential. We put out a call to the volunteers for a project manager, and Amy Kelly reached out. Ms. Kelly is a Six Sigma-certified project manager, with extensive experience in telecommunications and tech project management. She is also a simply inexplicably effective leader. The day that she put her hand to the chaos in the inboxes, the waters were stilled. Peace and productivity prevailed. Ms. Kelly somehow effortlessly organized the volunteers into six working groups, with a supra-committee at the head of each, and the proper work began.

I can only explain the scope and smoothness and effectiveness of the work that followed, as occurring in a state of grace.

In the two years since Ms. Kelly and the volunteers have been working together, they have gone through 2,369 documents and data files totaling hundreds of thousands of pages and have issued almost one hundred reports. I taught the volunteers to write these in a language that everyone could understand—which I thought was very important to maximize their impact. And Amy Kelly meticulously revised almost all, and edited all, of them.

The first forty-six reports appeared in a self-published format that we put out. It was very important to us that they appear in a published form that was physical, and not just digital, as we wanted something that people could hand to their doctors, their loved ones, their congressional representatives.

These forty-six reports broke huge stories. We learned that Pfizer knew within three months after rollout in December 2020, that the vaccines did not work to stop COVID. Pfizer’s language was “vaccine failure” and “failure of efficacy.” One of the most common “adverse events” in the Pfizer documents is “COVID.”

Pfizer knew that the vaccine materials—lipid nanoparticles, an industrial fat, coated in polyethylene glycol, a petroleum byproduct; mRNA; and spike protein—did not remain in the deltoid muscle, as claimed by all spokespeople. Rather, it dispersed throughout the body in forty-eight hours “like a shotgun blast,” as one of the authors, Dr. Robert Chandler, put it; it crossed every membrane in the human body—including the blood-brain barrier—and accumulated in the liver, adrenals, spleen, brain, and, if one is a woman, in the ovaries. Dr. Chandler saw no mechanism whereby those materials leave the body, so every injection appears to pack more such materials into organs.

Pfizer hired 2,400 fulltime staffers to help process “the large increase of adverse event reports” being submitted to the company’s Worldwide Safety database.

Pfizer knew by April 2021 that the injections damaged the hearts of young people.

Pfizer knew by February 28, 2021—just ninety days after the public rollout of their COVID vaccine—that its injection was linked to a myriad of adverse events. Far from being “chills,” “fever,” “fatigue,” as the CDC and other authorities claimed were the most worrying side effects, the actual side effects were catastrophically serious.

These side effects included: death (which Pfizer does list as a “serious adverse event”). Indeed, over 1,233 deaths in first three months of the drug being publicly available.

Severe COVID-19; liver injury; neurological adverse events; facial paralysis; kidney injury; autoimmune diseases; chilblains (a localized form of vasculitis that affects the fingers and toes); multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (when more than one organ system is failing at once); the activation of dormant herpes zoster infections; skin and mucus membrane lesions; respiratory issues; damaged lung structure; respiratory failure; acute respiratory distress syndrome (a lung injury in which fluid leaks from the blood vessels into the lung tissue, causing stiffness which makes it harder to breathe and causes a reduction of oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange); and SARS (or SARS-CoV-1, which had not been seen in the world since 2004, but appears in the Pfizer documents as a side effect of the injections).

Thousands of people with arthritis-type joint pain, one of the most common side effect, were recorded. Other thousands with muscle pain, the second most common. Then, industrial-scale blood diseases: blood clots, lung clots, leg clots; thrombotic thrombocytopenia, a clotting disease of the blood vessels; vasculitis (the destruction of blood vessels via inflammation); astronomical rates of neurological disorders—dementias, tremors, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, epilepsies. Horrific skin conditions. A florid plethora of cardiac issues; myocarditis, pericarditis, tachycardia, arrhythmia, and so on. Half of the serious adverse events related to the liver, including death, took place within seventy-two hours of the shot. Half of the strokes took place within forty-eight hours of injection.

But what really emerged from the first forty-six reports, was the fact that though COVID is ostensibly a respiratory disease, the papers did not focus on lungs or mucus membranes, but rather they center, creepily and consistently, on disrupting human reproduction.

By the time Pfizer’s vaccine rolled out to the public, the pharmaceutical giant knew that they would be killing babies and significantly harming women and men’s reproduction. The material in the documents makes it clear that damaging human’s ability to reproduce and causing spontaneous abortions of babies is “not a bug, it is a feature.”

Pfizer told vaccinated men to use two reliable forms of contraception or else to abstain from sex with childbearing-age women. In its protocol, the company defined “exposure” to the vaccine as including skin-to-skin contact, inhalation, and sexual contact. Pfizer mated vaccinated female rats and “untreated” male rats, and then examined those males, females, and their offspring for vaccine-related “toxicity.” Based on just forty-four rats (and no humans), Pfizer declared no negative outcomes for “. . . mating performance, fertility, or any ovarian or uterine parameters . . . nor on embryo-fetal or postnatal survival, growth, or development,” the implication being that its COVID vaccine was safe in pregnancy and did not harm babies. Pfizer knew that lipid nanoparticles have been known for years, to degrade sexual systems, and Amy Kelly in fact found nanoparticles, of which lipid nanoparticles are a subtype, pass through the blood-testis barrier and damage males’ Sertoli cells, Leydig cells, and germ cells. Those are the factories of masculinity, affecting the hormones that turn boys at adolescence into men, with deep voices, broad shoulders, and the ability to father children. So, we have no idea if baby boys born to vaccinated moms, will turn into adults who are recognizably male and fertile. Pfizer enumerated the menstrual damages it knew it was causing to thousands of women, and the damage ranges from women bleeding every day, to having two periods a month, to no periods at all; to women hemorrhaging and passing tissue; to menopausal and post-menopausal women beginning to bleed again. Pfizer’s scientists calmly observed and noted it all but did not tell women.

Babies suffered and died. In one section of the documents, over 80 percent of the pregnancies followed resulted in miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. In another section of the documents, two newborn babies died, and Pfizer described the cause of death as “maternal exposure” to the vaccine.

Image is from Children’s Health Defense

Pfizer knew that vaccine materials entered vaccinated moms’ breast milk and poisoned babies. Four women’s breast milk turned “blue-green.” Pfizer produced a chart of sick babies, made ill from breastfeeding from vaccinated moms, with symptoms ranging from fever to edema (swollen flesh) to hives to vomiting. One poor baby had convulsions and was taken to the ER, where it died of multi-organ system failure.

I will now take you to the thirty-six reports you will find in this book. Some of the headlines from the reports that follow are:

On Feb 28, 2021, Pfizer produced “Pregnancy and Lactation Cumulative Review” showing that after mothers’ vaccination with its vaccine:

• Adverse events occurred in over 54 percent of cases of “maternal exposure” to vaccine and included 53 reports of spontaneous abortion (51)/ abortion (1)/ abortion missed (1) following vaccination.
• Premature labor and delivery cases occurred, as well as two newborn deaths.
• Some newborns suffered severe respiratory distress or “illness” after exposure via breast milk.
• “Substantial” birth rate drops happened across thirteen countries: countries in Europe, as well as Britain, Australia, and Taiwan, within nine months of public vaccine rollout.
• Approximately 70 percent of Pfizer vaccine-related adverse events occur in women.
• Spike protein and inflammation were still present in heart tissue one year after receipt of the mRNA COVID vaccine.
• In Pfizer’s clinical trial, there were more deaths among the vaccinated than the placebo participants. However, Pfizer submitted inaccurate data, showing more deaths in the placebo group, to the FDA when seeking emergency use authorization.
• Infants and children under twelve received Pfizer’s vaccine seven months before a pediatric vaccine approval resulting in:

* Stroke.

* Facial paralysis.

* Kidney injury or failure.

• There was an over 3.7-fold increase in the number of deaths due to cardiovascular events in vaccinated clinical trial subjects compared to placebo subjects.
• The vaccine Pfizer rolled out to the public was different than the formulation used on the majority of clinical trial participants, and the public was not informed of this.
• Histopathologic analyses (the staining of tissues to show disease states) show clear evidence of vaccine-induced, autoimmune-like pathology in multiple organs; spike protein-caused erosion of the blood vessels, heart, and lymphatic vessels; amyloids in multiple tissues; unusual, aggressive cancers; and atypical “clot” formations.
• Following vaccination, younger patients began presenting with cancers; tumors were bigger and grew more aggressively and faster than cancers had prior to mass inoculation of populations; co-temporal onset (the onset more than one cancer at the same time) of cancers became more common—a situation that was typically very unusual before the mRNA vaccines’ rollout. Benign tumors’ growth accelerated.
• By March 12, 2021, Pfizer researchers vaccinated almost the entire placebo (non-vaccinated) cohort from the trial, though Pfizer had previously committed to following both the vaccinated and placebo cohorts for two years. Immediately after receiving the Emergency Use Authorization, Pfizer lobbied the FDA to allow them to vaccinate the unvaccinated cohort for “humanitarian” reasons. Vaccinating the placebo group ended the ability to pursue safety studies over time.
• Autoimmunity cases reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) increased 24-fold from 2020 to 2021, and annual autoimmunity-related fatalities increased 37x in the same time period.
• In Pfizer’s October 2021 emergency use authorization data and documents submission for children ages five to eleven, Pfizer investigators speculated in writing that subclinical damages would manifest in patients in the long term, implying that continued doses with subclinical damages would eventually manifest as clinical damages.
• In trial studies, Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccine damaged mammals’ reproduction—resulting in 22 percent fewer pregnancies; skeletal malformations; and nursing problems.
• There were hundreds of possible vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) cases in the first three months of Pfizer’s mRNA COVID vaccine rollout. Public health spokespeople minimized their severity by calling them “breakthrough COVID cases.”
• Pfizer concealed eight vaccinated deaths that occurred during the clinical trial in order to make its results look favorable for receiving its ages 16+ EUA.

*

The most powerful forces in the world—including the White House, the staffers of the United States president himself; Dr. Rochelle Walensky of the CDC; the head of the FDA, Dr. Robert M Califf; Dr. Anthony Fauci; Twitter and Facebook; legacy media, including the New York Times, the BBC, the Guardian and NPR; OfCom, the British media regulatory agency; professional organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecology, and the European Medicines Agency, the European equivalent of the FDA, and the Therapeutics Goods Administration, Australia’s equivalent of the FDA—all sought to suppress the information that Amy Kelly, the research volunteers, and I brought to the world starting in 2022, and that you are about to absorb in the following pages.

Nonetheless, in spite of the most powerful censorship and retribution campaign launched in human history—made more powerful than past such campaigns by the amplifying effects of social media and AI—these volunteers’ findings were not suppressed at last, and survived on alternative media, and on our site DailyClout.io; to be shared from mouth to mouth, saving millions of lives.

Fast forward to more recent events. What has the role of this information been in stopping this greatest crime ever committed against humanity?

The worst has happened. Disabilities are up by a million a month in the United States, according to former BlackRock hedge fund manager Edward Dowd.

Excess deaths are way up in the US and Western Europe. Birth rates have plummeted, according to the mathematician Igor Chudov (and WarRoom/DailyClout Volunteer Researcher Dr. Robert Chandler) by 13–20 percent since 2021, based on government databases. Athletes are dropping dead. Turbo-cancers are on the rise. Conventional doctors may be “baffled” by all of this, but sadly, we, thanks to Amy Kelly and the volunteers, understand exactly what is happening.

Our relentless effort to get this information to the world, in an unimpeachable form, has finally paid off with results. The uptake for boosters is now 4 percent. Very few people “boosted” their children. Most colleges in the United States withdrew their vaccine “mandates.” Pfizer’s net revenue dropped in Q1 of 2024 to pre-2016 levels. OfCom, which had targeted Mark Steyn for “platforming” on his show my description of the reproductive and other harms in the Pfizer documents, is being sued by Steyn. The BBC had to report that vaccine injuries are real, as did the New York Times. AstraZeneca, a somewhat differently configured COVID vaccine in Europe, was withdrawn from the market in May 2024, following lawsuits involving thrombotic thrombocytopenia (a side effect about which our research volunteer Dr. Carol Taccetta had informed the FDA by letter in 2022), and the European Medicines Agency notably withdrew its EUA for AstraZeneca. Three days after we published our report showing that the FDA and CDC had received the eight-page “Pregnancy and Lactation Cumulative Review” confirming that Dr. Walensky knew about the lethality of the vaccine when she held her press conference telling pregnant women to get the injection, Dr. Walensky resigned.

It is difficult indeed to face this material in the roles that Amy Kelly and I play. No doubt for the volunteers, unearthing this criminal evidence is painful indeed. It may be hard to read some of what follows. As I have said elsewhere, seeing this material is like being among the Allied soldiers who first opened the gates of Auschwitz.

But the truth must be told.

Among other important reasons to tell these truths, people were injured and killed with a novel technology not deployed before in medicine; and these pages hold important clues as to the mechanisms of these injuries, and thus, they provide many signposts for physicians and scientists in the future, for treating the many injuries that these new mRNA technologies, injected into people’s bodies, have brought about.

We must share the truth, as the truth saves and sustains; and eventually, the truth will heal.

*

We thank Steve Bannon, and his wonderful team at WarRoom, for being the instigator of this entire project and for consistently bringing us onto his show so that we can tell the world what the volunteers find.

We thank Skyhorse Publishing, publisher Tony Lyons, and our editor Hector Carosso, for taking the critical step of publishing this material in a book that will be available everywhere. Books matter, and this publication will make a difference in bringing about accountability and an accurate history of this catastrophic set of events.

We thank the volunteers, 3,250 strangers around the world who banded together in the love of truth and of their fellow human beings. We thank our two hundred lawyers, who helped us to FOIA emails from the CDC and helped us to understand the crimes that we were seeing in the following pages.

Many of our volunteers themselves have suffered ostracism, job loss, marginalization, and other penalties, as a consequence of their commitment to real science, real medicine, and to bringing forth the truth to save their fellow human beings, and generations yet unborn.

*

The battle is ongoing. No one who committed this massive crime against humanity is in jail, or even facing civil or criminal charges. There are at least three lawsuits against Pfizer—two of ours, and one of Brook Jackson’s—but, to date, none of the lawsuits have completely prevailed. The litigation drags on.

Nonetheless—nonetheless. The word is out.

Amy Kelly and I get hundreds of emails from grateful families, telling us about their healthy babies or grandchildren and thanking us for saving those babies, or sons and daughters and daughters-in-law, and we know this project has saved many lives; perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives and maybe saved millions from disabling injuries. Steve Bannon, who started it all, saved hundreds of thousands of lives and saved his listeners and ours from sustaining millions of injuries. God know how many babies will be born in the future, safe and well, because of our collective, arduous, much-targeted work.

The story of this project is not over.

Your own actions, upon your having read these reports, are part of the ongoing ripples of this work.

Whom will you tell?

How will you process the information?

What will you do to avenge the crimes of the past?

What will you do to save the future?

*

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

Birds Not Bombs: Let’s Fight for a World of Peace, Not War 

Featured image is from the author

---

The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity

by The WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Analysts (Author),

Naomi Wolf (Editor),

Amy Kelly (Editor),

Stephen K Bannon (Foreword)

ASIN: ‎ B0CNQGVDKB

Publisher: ‎ War Room Books (October 15, 2024)

Publication date: ‎ October 15, 2024

Click here to purchase the book.

The US presidential election is only a dozen days away and the Biden/Harris complicity in the mass murder of Gazans by Jewish Israelis should be the key issue for decent Americans. However the expert UK estimate of 335,500 Gaza dead (mostly children) is ignored by mainstream media, Trump and Harris. Only Dr Jill Stein (Greens), Dr Cornel West (independent) and Chase Oliver (Libertarian) would stop the Kid-Killing Kamala (KKK) Harris-complicit Gaza Genocide.

A widely-reported mainstream estimate is of about 40,000 Gazans killed since 7 October 2023 (1,139 Israelis killed) in the Jewish Israeli-imposed Gaza Genocide or 50,000 including 10,000 dead under rubble. Thus Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (6 October 2024):

“Since the start of the genocide in Gaza, more than 50,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli army, including around 42,000 recorded by the Gaza Ministry of Health, the majority being women and children”.

However these estimates do not consider indirect deaths from Jewish Israeli-imposed deprivation through war criminal siege involving deprivation of life-sustaining water, food, shelter, sanitation, medicine and medical care in gross violation of Articles 55 and 56 of the Fourth Geneva Convention that unequivocally state that an Occupier must provide its conquered Subjects with life-sustaining food and medical services “to the fullest extent of the means available to  it”.

I have been researching avoidable mortality from deprivation for 3 decades (see my huge book “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”). Thus, for example, I estimated 9.5 million deaths from violence and deprivation in the Iraq and Afghan wars as compared to the 4.7 million estimate by the “Cost of War” project of a huge team at prestigious Brown University.

Rasha Khatib, Martin McKee  and  Salim Yusuf in the leading medical journal The Lancet (10 July 2024):

“Collecting data is becoming increasingly difficult for the Gaza Health Ministry due to the destruction of much of the infrastructure… Applying a conservative estimate of four indirect deaths per one direct death to the 37,396 deaths reported, it is not implausible to estimate that up to 186,000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza”.

Professor Devi Sridhar (chair, global public health, University of Edinburgh) taking deaths from deprivation (indirect deaths) into account (5 September 2024):

“For several decades, methods have been developed to build up datasets in situations with poor or damaged health and monitoring systems…Using the method, the total deaths since the conflict began would be estimated at about 335,500 in total”.

Because Global South under-5 year old infant deaths are 70% of avoidable deaths from deprivation this 335,500 deaths in 11 months can be translated (based on reported child, adult female and adult male proportions of the 50,000 violent deaths) to deaths from violence and imposed deprivation in the first year of the Gaza Massacre totalling about 366,000, including 267,000 children, 31,000 women and 71,000 men.

This horrific and utterly unforgivable killing in the US- and US Alliance-complicit  Gaza Massacre and Gaza Genocide should be the key issue in all Western elections but is not. Indeed the horrific estimated numbers (e.g.  335,500 dead) are overwhelmingly not reported by racist, mendacious and genocide-ignoring US and Western mainstream journalist, editor, politician, academic and commentariat  presstitutes. I have ranked the five US presidential candidates for decency as follows:

#1.  Dr Jill Stein (the Greens candidate)  tops the list of candidates because she ticks all boxes – an end to the killing, genocide, occupation and human rights denial . (In addition she wants strong action on climate  change, and war and  no doubt is opposed to nuclear weapons.)

#2.  Dr Cornell West (Independent) comes equal first with Dr Stein on Palestinian human rights and ending  war and occupation, but Dr Stein as a Green is in addition more strongly active on climate change.

#3.  Chase Oliver (Libertarian candidate) comes third because he opposes war and thus would want the violence in Gaza and Lebanon to end. However he supports the Mainstream American position by support (albeit non-military) for  Apartheid Israel and hence is seriously morally compromised over Palestinian human rights. Indeed he “would allow private parties, including defense contractors, to voluntarily contribute funds and sell weapons to our friends without fear of violating any Federal laws”. Those supporting Apartheid Israel are supporting the vile crime of Apartheid and are thus severely morally compromised in a one-person- one-vote democracy like America.

#4.  Donald Trump (Republican) is awful in fervently supporting Apartheid Israel and hence the vile crime of Apartheid. He enthusiastically supports the Apartheid Israeli war on Gaza but thinks that the devastation and killing is a bad look. A serious flaw is his appalling and continuing record of blatant lying (over 30,000 lies during the  4 years of his administration) – this seriously questions his judgement, his amenability to expert scientific opinion, and hence his suitability for high office. On the other hand his lying could be regarded as political gamesmanship , noting that his opponent Kamala Harris also lies but in a less obvious and hence more plausible and more dangerous fashion. 2 big pluses of Trump over Kamala Harris are (1)  he is against  wars, talks to his international enemies and will stop the Ukraine War to end the horrific killing, and (2) he is not actually involved in the Gaza Massacre.

#5.  Kamala Harris (Democrat) must be ranked last if you believe in the sanctity of life of born children. Child-killing geriatric Genocide Joe and Kid-Killing Kamala (KKK) Harris are still supplying the funding, the bombs and the weapons that in the first year alone have killed 366,000 Gazans including 267,000 children, 31,000 women and 71,000 men. The Bible states “An eye for eye, tooth for tooth” but the bombs-supplying Biden/Harris Administration has killed 366,000 Gazans in the first year alone in Jewish Israeli reprisals for the deaths of 1, 139 Israelis on 7 October 2023 (97.5 % adults and hence mostly  present or former Occupier IDF soldiers, and many killed in the IDF response under the IDF “Hannibal Directive”). Indeed  Jesus stated:

“And whosoever shall offend ONE of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea”.

For details and documentation see this.

*

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

Birds Not Bombs: Let’s Fight for a World of Peace, Not War   

Dr Gideon Polya taught science students at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia over 4 decades. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, notably a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds” (2003). He has also published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (2007, 2021), “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History” (1998, 2008, 2022), “US-imposed Post-9-11 Muslim Holocaust & Muslim Genocide” (2020), “Climate Crisis, Climate Genocide & Solutions” (2020), “Free Palestine. End Apartheid Israel, Human Rights Denial, Gaza Massacre, Child Killing, Occupation and Palestinian Genocide” (2024), and contributed to Soren Korsgaard (editor) “The Most Dangerous Book Ever Published – Dangerous Deception Exposed!” (2020). For images of Gideon Polya’s huge paintings for the Planet, Peace, Mother and Child see: http://sites.google.com/site/artforpeaceplanetmotherchild/.

Featured image: Then-senator Kamala Harris, left, hosted by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his Jerusalem office, November 2017. (Amos Ben Gershom/GPO)

Jill Stein  Presidential Candidate for the Green Party Takes a Stance against the so-called Lesser Evil.

She condemns the Democratic Party which has aligned itself with Israel and the genocide directed against the people of Palestine.

 

.

.

O sistema de eleição presidencial

1) Os dois principais partidos, Republicano e Democrata, escolhem seu candidato presidencial por meio de eleições primárias realizadas nos 50 estados. Elas são realizadas de maneiras diferentes de estado para estado. Em alguns, os candidatos são escolhidos por meio de cédulas secretas, em outros, por meio de reuniões abertas, os caucuses. Em alguns estados, somente os membros registrados do partido que organiza o caucus podem participar do caucus; em outros, os não membros do partido ou os membros do partido rival também podem participar e votar.

2) Dependendo do resultado do caucus, cada candidato recebe um número variável de delegados, que representam seu estado na convenção nacional do partido que escolhe seu candidato presidencial. A convenção conta com a presença não apenas dos delegados dos estados, mas também dos superdelegados: personalidades importantes do partido que podem votar em quem quiserem, às vezes invertendo a situação.

3) Depois que os dois partidos escolhem seus candidatos presidenciais, é realizada uma eleição geral. Os eleitores não elegem diretamente o presidente, mas um Grande Eleitor que representa o candidato escolhido.

4) A eleggere il Presidente degli Stati Uniti sono 538 Grandi Elettori. Per diventare Presidente bisogna ottenere il voto di almeno 270 di loro Ogni Grande Elettore rappresenta il partito cui appartiene, ma la Costituzione degli Stati Uniti non gli impone di votare il candidato alla presidenza scelto dal suo partito.

5) Ogni Stato ha una quota di Grandi Elettori, calcolata in modo da favorire gli Stati più piccoli.: il Wyoming, poco popolato, ha un Grande Elettore ogni 194’000 abitanti.; la California, più popolata, ne ha uno ogni 723’000 abitanti.

Resultado:

Esse sistema permite manobras políticas de todos os tipos: por exemplo, fazer com que os membros do próprio partido compareçam e votem nos membros da bancada do partido oposto para não eleger um determinado candidato considerado politicamente perigoso. A alocação de um Grande Eleitor com base em um número de habitantes que varia de estado para estado às vezes leva à Presidência dos Estados Unidos candidatos que receberam menos votos na eleição geral.

O mecanismo de votação

1) Não há nenhuma lei federal que exija a identificação das pessoas que vão às urnas. O governador da Califórnia, que pertence ao Partido Democrata, promulgou uma lei que proíbe a exigência de identificação das pessoas que comparecem às seções eleitorais para votar.

2) Nas eleições de 2020, o voto por correspondência aumentou acentuadamente para mais de 66 milhões (contra 28 milhões em 2016).

3) Uma lei de 2002 exige a presença de uma máquina de votação eletrônica em todas as seções eleitorais. Não existe um padrão para construir uma máquina eletrônica utilizável com segurança.

4) Cerca de um quarto dos eleitores votará com máquinas que emitem cédulas de papel. O restante votará com máquinas eletrônicas que armazenam votos e podem ou não produzir um registro em papel do voto.

Resultado:

Esse mecanismo permite fraudes de todos os tipos. As cédulas que chegam pelo correio são abertas e registradas por pessoal contratado por empresas privadas, nas quais pode haver pessoas encarregadas de falsificar os resultados.

As urnas eletrônicas podem ser adulteradas, carregando-as com programas que falsificam os resultados.

O professor Alex Halderman, que leciona ciência da computação na Universidade de Michigan, demonstrou isso ao simular uma votação em que as máquinas eletrônicas anularam o resultado.

Manlio Dinucci

 

Breve resumo da análise da imprensa internacional do Grandangolo na sexta-feira, 1 de Novembro de 2024, no canal de TV italiano Byoblu:

https://www.byoblu.com/2024/11/01/elezioni-usa-i-meccanismi-della-frode/

Tradução : Mondialisation.ca 

VIDEO (italiano) :

*

Manlio Dinucci é geógrafo e jornalista, e ex-diretor executivo italiano da International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, que recebeu o Prêmio Nobel da Paz em 1985. Porta-voz do Comitato no Guerra no Nato (Itália) e pesquisador associado do Centre de recherche sur la Mondialisation (Canadá). Vencedor do Prêmio Internacional de Jornalismo 2019 para Análise Geoestratégica do Club de Periodistas de México.

Il sistema delle elezioni presidenziali

1) I due maggiori partiti, Repubblicano e Democratico, scelgono il candidato alle presidenziali attraverso le elezioni primarie che si tengono nei 50 Stati. Esse si svolgono in modalità diverse da Stato a Stato.  In alcuni i candidati vengono scelti attraverso votazioni segrete, in altri attraverso riunioni aperte, i caucuses.  In alcuni Stati al caucus possono partecipare solo gli iscritti al partito che lo organizza, in altri possono partecipare e votare anche non iscritti al partito o iscritti al partito rivale. 

2) In base al risultato del caucus a ciascun candidato viene assegnato un numero variabile di delegati, i quali rappresentano il loro Stato alla Convention nazionale del Partito che sceglie il suo candidato alle presidenziali.  Alla Convention partecipano non solo i delegati degli Stati, anche i super-delegati: personalità importanti del Partito che possono votare per chiunque vogliano, ribaltando a volte la situazione.

3) Una volta che i due partiti hanno scelto i rispettivi candidati alla Presidenza, si procede alle elezioni generali.  Gli elettori non eleggono direttamente il Presidente ma un Grande Elettore che rappresenta il candidato prescelto. 

4) A eleggere il Presidente degli Stati Uniti sono 538 Grandi Elettori. Per diventare Presidente bisogna ottenere il voto di almeno 270 di loro Ogni Grande Elettore rappresenta il partito cui appartiene, ma la Costituzione degli Stati Uniti non gli impone di votare il candidato alla presidenza scelto dal suo partito.

5) Ogni Stato ha una quota di Grandi Elettori, calcolata in modo da favorire gli Stati più piccoli.: il Wyoming, poco popolato, ha un Grande Elettore ogni 194’000 abitanti.; la California, più popolata, ne ha uno ogni 723’000 abitanti.

RISULTATO:

Tale sistema permette manovre politiche di tutti i tipi: ad esempio quella di far partecipare e votare membri del proprio partito al caucus del partito avversario per non far eleggere un determinato candidato ritenuto politicamente pericoloso.  L’attribuzione di un Grande Elettore in base a un numero di abitanti che varia da Stato a Stato porta talvolta alla Presidenza degli Stati Uniti candidati che alle lezioni generali hanno ricevuto meno voti. 

Il meccanismo della votazione 

1) Manca una legge federale che imponga l’identificazione di chi si reca alle urne. Il Governatore della California, appartenente al Partito Democratico, ha promulgato una legge che vieta di richiedere l’identificazione di chi si presenta ai seggi per votare.

2) Alle elezioni del 2020, il voto per corrispondenza è fortemente aumentato superando  i 66 milioni (rispetto ai 28 milioni del 2016).

3) Una Legge del 2002 richiede la presenza di una macchina per il voto elettronico in tutti i seggi elettorali. Non esiste operò nessuno standard per costruire una macchina elettronica utilizzabile in sicurezza.

4) Circa un quarto degli elettori voterà con macchine che rilasciano schede cartacee. Il resto voterà con macchine elettroniche che memorizzano i voti e possono produrre o no una registrazione cartacea dell’avvenuta votazione.

RISULTATO:

Tale meccanismo permette frodi di tutti i tipi. Le schede che arrivano per posta vengono aperte e registrate da personale assunto attraverso società private, nel quale possono esserci persone incaricate di falsare i risultati. Le macchine elettroniche per la votazione possono essere manomesse, caricandovi programmi che falsano i risultati.  Il professore Alex Halderman, che insegna scienze informatiche all’Università del Michigan, lo ha dimostrato simulando una votazione di cui le macchine elettroniche capovolgono il risultato. 

Manlio Dinucci

VIDEO :

Despite the overall accolades the recent BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, received both from the mainstream and non-mainstream media, not all that glitters is gold.

A second look reveals—unfortunately—that the BRICS nations follow the same globalist agenda as does the Western world.

And if the BRICS are representative of the Global South, then maybe much of the Global South has also been taken hostage by that globalist agenda.

What concrete proof do we have of these claims?

Here are some BRICS declarations made at the Kazan summit that supply all the proof we need, despite having received little-to-no coverage from the news media:

• BRICS supports “global governance” and “the central role of the United Nations in the international system,”
• BRICS supports the leading role of the IMF in global finance,
• BRICS supports the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
• BRICS supports public-private partnerships to help nations achieve their Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),
• BRICS supports the reduction and removal of greenhouse gases to combat climate change,
• BRICS supports the creation of carbon markets,
• BRICS supports the World Health Organization (WHO) and its “central coordinating role” in strengthening “the international pandemic prevention, preparedness and response system,”
• BRICS supports the development of “safe & effective vaccines,”
• BRICS supports “digital transformation” using 5G and other “emerging technologies,” and
• BRICS supports the goal of “Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security” instead of the goal of “Building a Just World and a Sustainable Planet.”

The BRICS countries are spouting the same nonsense—or much worse than nonsense—as one might find at the G20 and the G7 summits. In some cases, it looks like their declarations were taken verbatim from the last G20 conference, held in New Delhi 9–10 September 2023.

Let’s be on the alert: the next G20 summit is scheduled for 18–19 November 2024 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, hosted by the ultra-globalist Lula government. And the next planned G7 conference is to take place in June 2025 in Kananaskis, Alberta, Canada.

No doubt, all the BRICS nations firmly support the Pandemic Agreement being formulated by the WHO as well as the UN Pact for the Future. The intent of that agreement and that pact is to move the world straight into a One World Government, with the UN as the government and the WHO as the worldwide Gestapo.

In addition, any new nation joining the BRICS organization must agree to all the above-stated declarations.

It is time for “We the People” to declare our own international agreement, free from the meddling intrusions being proposed by the tyrannical organizations and nations that are attempting to destroy our inherent and inalienable rights.

Maybe this is the reason President Vladimir Putin gently suggested a new funding and financing platform for the BRICS, so that Russia and its alliance partners could escape the tentacles of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.

To enhance such a move—if ever the BRICS nations can see eye-to-eye, that is—perhaps a common Secretariat and joint Economic Development, Trade, and Defense policies would be in order.

If the BRICS were to take a stand for their independence within the UN Pact for the Future, they may also consider a common virtual BRICS currency along the lines of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR) principle—but without adhering to IMF rules.

The SDR principle is simply currency that is the weighted average of all the BRICS nations’ currencies—not including the US dollar, of course.

Although the UN Pact is not legally binding, it may be difficult for smaller countries to refuse to abide by its mandates. But declining the UN Pact mandates would be less of a problem for larger countries and/or for a bloc of countries such as the BRICS.

A new BRICS virtual currency could also be used to back the nine individual countries’ own national currencies and to trade among each other. And because their currency would not include the US dollar, the BRICS nations would be free of interference from the West.

Given the outcome of the just-completed Kazan summit and the overall rift within the BRICS nations, the suggestions offered above may be a long shot at this time.

However, they should not be ignored. For, in the not-too-distant future, we could find ourselves in “A New World”—a world not of the UN’s or the WHO’s making, but of the people’s making. That is, a world striven for and developed by humanity itself.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books!

David Skripac has a Bachelor of Technology degree in aerospace engineering. During his two tours of duty as a captain in the Canadian Air Force, he flew extensively in the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Djibouti.

With a keen eye for detail, problem-solving skills and a spiritual mind, David is a geopolitical analyst and writes regularly on a myriad of topics for Global Research, and other non-mainstream media. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

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

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

Featured image: President of Russia Vladimir Putin addresses the official reception of the 16th BRICS Summit. (Grigory Sysoev / Photohost agency brics-russia2024.ru)

Lost in the hoopla of the coming US presidential election and the pandemonium of current global affairs was an unheralded summit last month that could cause more upheaval on the planet than anything our self-described world leaders have thrown at the populace yet.

On September 22, representatives of 193 sovereign nation-states gathered at the United Nations headquarters in New York City to adopt a Pact for the Future.

The document, which includes a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations, promises to “open the door to new opportunities and untapped possibilities,” according to UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

The landmark agreement, which Guterres called a “step-change towards more effective, inclusive, networked multilateralism,” contains 56 “actions” that countries pledged to achieve.

The net effect of the Pact for the Future and its two so-called annexes is intended to radically accelerate the push toward completion of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and its Agenda 2030.

Marketed as a blueprint to “lay the foundations for a sustainable, just, and peaceful global order—for all peoples and nations” (and who could possibly object to such a heavenly vision?)—this latest flurry of UN paperwork may have set new records in linguistic maneuvers and platitudes per page.

.

Screenshot from un.org

.

A few questions are in order:

• What do all the bureaucratic bromides and buzzwords in the Pact actually mean when translated into plain English?

• How will the Pact’s sound and fury impact us once its “multilateral” wheels are set in motion?

• Is this “sustainable, just, and peaceful global order” really a pot of gold awaiting us at the end of the United Nations Summit of the Future rainbow?

• Are these promises of “new opportunities and untapped possibilities” truly wonderful gifts designed to serve the public? Or are they just more Trojan horses that will carry us closer to the cliff’s edge than into a Canaan-like Promised Land flowing with milk and honey?

• And what exactly did Secretary-General Guterres mean when he said the UN Summit of the Future represented “an essential first step towards making global institutions more legitimate, effective, and fit for the world of today and tomorrow” and that UN member states had gathered to “bring multilateralism back from the brink”?

Wading through the finished product, 66 pages of hackneyed phrases passed off as profound policy, requires the stoicism of a saint and a devil’s dictionary in order to translate its conniving “globalese” into a comprehensible tongue.

Rather than answer the above questions one by one, we can turn to the accompanying four-page Concept Notes for the Interactive Dialogues, which offer a concise version of the Pact’s mind-numbing pages and pages.

The Concept Notes begin by highlighting the need to “transform global governance and turbocharge the implementation of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.” These notes give us a clear idea of what the priorities were for the two-day “Summit of the Future” as well as the direction that UN 2.0 is attempting to steer the planet.

For instance, the opening line of Interactive Dialogue 1 speaks of “[t]he urgent need for reform of the global financial architecture” in order to “modernize the system while accelerating progress to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.” Well, those words end our suspense as to what the UN’s top priority shall be: total control of the world’s financial transactions and systems.

The framework for what that new global economic system might look like is articulated in the World Economic Forum’s guidebook The Great Reset. A deep dive into the details of The Great Reset, made famous by the slogan “You’ll own nothing and be happy,” exposes this pretentious tract as just another long-winded rationale for economic despotism and centralized control over the lives of all the people (read: peons) on the planet.

Next on the globalists’ to-do list is the “urgent” need for a vaguely defined “enhanced multilateralism.”

According to various UN pooh-bahs, the international community is facing challenges that are “too great for any nation, small or large, to tackle alone.” Naturally, the UN proclaims that these undefined “challenges” can be resolved only through mechanisms installed by the UN and its sponsors.

Putting aside the fact that the UN and its affiliates have a track record that proves they are part of the problem instead of the solution to anything, the terms “multilateralism” and “global governance”—repeated throughout the UN documents—need to be exposed for what they actually mean.

Apparently, from what we can ascertain, the UN decided that the more sinister-sounding terms “one world government” and “new world order” had worn out their welcome and were justifiably raising alarm bells in the public square. Thus, kinder, gentler surrogate words have been introduced in an attempt to pacify the people and soften the not-so-fuzzy image of global totalitarianism.

It’s called marketing.

When the curtains are pulled back, exposing the spin machine, we find that the true intent of these autocrats, who claim to “represent the peoples of the world,” is to create a global governance structure with dramatically increased powers over all human activity.

Such a centralized control system would, by design, erode a nation’s ability to control its own domestic and foreign policy, eliminating such “quaint” notions as national sovereignty.

One example of how this might play out in the real world can be found in how the UN pushes the idea that the only possible way to effectively tackle what it determines to be “complex global shocks” is through “multilateralism,” as defined by the UN.

In a March 2023 policy paper titled “Strengthening the International Response to Complex Global Shocks — An Emergency Platform,” the UN Secretary-General proposed that

“the General Assembly provide the Secretary-General and the United Nations system with a standing authority to convene and operationalize automatically an Emergency Platform in the event of a future complex global shock of sufficient scale, severity and reach.”

In practice, what this could mean is that the standing UN Secretary-General would become a “global emergency czar” who is given power to preside over any international emergency, be it real or manufactured.

The proposal would strip nations, businesses, and the public sector of the right to make their own decisions, while handing over all authority to intergovernmental bodies within the UN’s orbit. NGOs, UN agencies and private “stakeholders” would effectively rule, like dictators, over every nation and even over every jurisdiction (province, state, county, city) within each nation. National sovereignty would be null and void.

Another major item on the UN menu is the concept of a “Common Digital Future,” which is embedded within the aforementioned “Global Digital Compact.”

Curiously, the UN directly compares these digital technologies to natural resources, observing that the potential of digital technology can be only optimized through shared access and use of resources such as the air around us and earth’s bodies of water.

Setting aside the fact that we can’t drink technology or eat data, the irony of the UN suggesting that shared access will be a defining feature of any of its programs flies in the face of the UN’s history as a vehicle for increased privatization of the commons.

As part of this Common Digital Future, the UN promotes the idea of “working together to promote information integrity, tolerance and respect in the digital space.” Again, more noble-sounding words, but how does the UN propose to do this?

Here’s a clue: The UN offers to help the public sort through the flotsam and jetsam of the social media landscape by promising to “strengthen international cooperation to address the challenge of misinformation and disinformation and hate speech online and mitigate the risks of information manipulation in a manner consistent with international law.”

If you are uncertain as to what that means, consider that the UN is seeking tighter controls over what they judge to be misinformation in order to manage and restrict what information the public can freely access. The end product, if implemented, would allow certain UN agencies to have complete control over all information sources.

This has long been one of the principal desires of the globocrats, who know that a well-informed public that is able to discern between government deceptions (such as the propaganda used to sell the corona crisis) and on-the-ground realities is exceedingly difficult to control.

At the conclusion of the September summit, UN leaders stressed the importance of the need for “a reinvigorated multilateral system.” The countries in attendance reached the consensus that “the world must accelerate progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.”

If you didn’t hear about the summit and its outcome on your evening news, don’t be surprised. It was scarcely covered by any nation’s news media. Are your eyebrows raised at the thought of the world’s “leaders” making plans to reshape the earth, its economy, and its inhabitants without so much as a whisper or a whimper from mainstream journalists?

If these journalists were to scrutinize the UN’s latest plans, they would find that what is being presented as a new and necessary plan of action is really the same old story of the megalomaniacs’ desire for total control of the planet, dressed up in a shiny new package to conceal their intentions.

The bottom line is that any time you see a program being forwarded by a gaggle of unelected, unaccountable globalists, you can rest assured that the program being promised is as thoroughly tyrannical as it can be. And that’s by design.

*

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

Birds Not Bombs: Let’s Fight for a World of Peace, Not War 

This article was originally published on Health Freedom Defense Fund.

Michael Bryant is a freelance journalist/activist and researcher who presently focuses primarily on issues surrounding health freedom. His work has appeared on HealthFreedomDefense.org. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from HFDF

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).

***

.

.

Introduction 

In September 2009, the U.S Justice Department attorneys and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius held a news conference “dealing with a health care-related settlement”.

  Pfizer [was] ordered [2009] to pay $2.3 billion to settle charges of promoting its drugs for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”

Pfizer Inc which is currently involved in the Worldwide distribution of the mRNA vaccine, was accused in 2009 of “Fraudulent Marketing”.

American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc…. has 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, the Justice Department announced today.

The company [Pfizer] will pay a criminal fine of $1.195 billion, the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. Pharmacia & Upjohn will also forfeit $105 million, for a total criminal resolution of $1.3 billion. (US DOJ)

To consult the Department of Justice’s historic decision click screenshot below

 

How on earth can we trust a Big Pharma vaccine conglomerate which pleaded guilty to criminal charges by the US Department of Justice.

People were never informed. Both the media and the governments “turned a blind eye”. 

In 2009 Pfizer pleaded “Guilty to a Felony Violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.” 

And that is the Big Pharma Company which is now marketing the “unapproved” mRNA vaccine, which has resulted in an upward trend of mortality and morbidity, starting immediately following the roll-out of the Covid-19 in mid-December 2020. (That was exactly three years ago)

Video. US Department of Justice. 2.3 Billion Medical Fraud Settlement

Pfizer’s CEOs Were not Arrested.  They were Put on “Probation” by the U.S. DOJ  

A probation officer under the auspices of the U.S. DOJ has the mandate to “investigate and supervise persons charged with or convicted of federal crimes”.

In the case of Pfizer’s probation, the DOJ had called upon the company to “cease its conduct of criminal activities” 

“As part of the settlement, Pfizer also has agreed to enter into an expansive corporate integrity agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS].

That agreement provides for procedures and reviews to be put in place to avoid and promptly detect conduct similar to that which gave rise to this matter.” (US DOJ, emphasis added)

The DOJ’s 2009 decision regarding Pfizer’s Probation with DHHS was mistaken to say the least.

In 2009, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the DHHS was headed by Dr. Anthony Fauci, who (to put it mildly) is known to be in “conflict of interest” in regards to his relationship with Big Pharma. 

Pfizer has casually violated the conditions of its 2009-2013 four year probation.

That “similar conduct” by Pfizer has been repeated in 2020-2023 in relation to a very dangerous substance (mRNA Vaccine), on a much larger scale (compared to Bextra, Celebrex in 2009).

What is unfolding is the Worldwide “fraudulent marketing” of a “killer vaccine”.

The level of criminality is beyond description.

Amply documented the mRNA “vaccine” which was intended to protect people has resulted in an upward trend in excess mortality.

The Pfizer Confidential Report released under Freedom of Information confirms based on their own data that the vaccine is a toxic substance.  To access the complete Pfizer report click here

Neither the media nor the governments of 190 countries (with some exceptions) have had the courage to inform the broader public.

From a legal standpoint, the Pfizer’s CEOs who violated the DOJ clauses pertaining to their 2009 probation should have been arrested.

Al Capone (1931) Versus Pfizer (2020-2023)

Most people in the America are aware that Al Capone was indicted in 1931 on charges of tax evasion.  

There are several Hollywood productions on Al Capone and numerous press reports focussing on organized crime in Chicago.

Public opinion is well informed. Everybody knows about Al Capone.

Nobody knows about Pfizer being put on probation by the US Department of Justice.

When is the media going to wake up and inform America??

When is Hollywood going to produce a film entitled: 

“The Greatest Crime against Humanity, The Roll-out of the Covid-19 Vaccine”? .

.

Had You known that Pfizer Had a Criminal Record Would you have Accepted to Receive the  Covid-19 Jab? 

The Roll-out happened Three years ago on December 15, 2020

The evidence of criminality pertaining to the mRNA “vaccine” is overwhelming. 

Our thoughts are with the victims of this diabolical project

At this juncture in our history, the priority is to “Disable the Fear Campaign” and “Cancel the Vaccine” (including the repeal of the so-called “Pandemic Treaty”).

Hopefully this will set the stage for the development of a Worldwide movement of solidarity, which questions the legitimacy of the powerful “Big Money” financial elites which are behind this infamous project. 

At the time of writing, in the course of the last 3 years, almost 14 billion doses of the Covid-19 killer vaccine have been administered Worldwide to a population of 8 billion people. (Data of the WHO)

In the last two months, Worldwide, humanity has taken a stance. A mass movement has unfolded in solidarity with the People of Palestine, who are the object of a criminal undertaking by the Netanyahu government which has resulted in countless deaths of civilians including women and children. 

While the vaccine rollout is by no means comparable, it is ultimately (in both cases) the value of human life which is at stake.  

The evidence regarding the loss of life pertaining to the Covid-19 “vaccine” is overwhelming: See Pfizer’s “Secret Report”, See the carefully documented impacts of the “vaccine” by Dr. William Makis: health workers, school children, students, pregnant women and new born babies (and many more). 

And that is why we need a mass movement against the Covid-19 “Vaccine”.

The Vaccine should be discontinued. And the main actors behind the Covid-19 vaccine should be the object of a criminal investigation.

 

Video

Interview with Caroline Mailloux, Lux Media: 

The Covid Vaccine and the “Secret” Pfizer Report”

Michel Chossudovsky Puts Forth a Strategy and Legal Procedure to Confront Big Pharma with a view to Withdrawing the Covid-19 Vaccine Worldwide

 

[Click upper title and right corner to enter fullscreen]

Click here to leave comment

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, December 15, 2023 

 

---

 

Transcript 

***

Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History

*

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

Two days ago on October 14, I posted my column about a new US Department of Defense Directive, 5240.01, that radically alters the relationship between the US military and American citizens.  In the new directive issued one month prior to the election, the US military is authorized to intervene against American citizens and to use deadly force against Americans.  

I asked why such a drastic reformulation of long established policy unless the Democrats were setting up a coup in place of a lost election.

The dramatic change in policy requires more examination than my speculative question, but does not seem to be getting any attention. 

One would think that those patriots who are convinced that the military will come forward at the last resort and save our freedoms should be alarmed by Department of Defense Directive 5240.01.

Those patriots who see Trump as America’s savior should be alarmed by his response.  In a Fox Business interview on October 13, Trump was asked if he anticipated any chaos following the announcement of the election results.  Trump said not from his supporters, a surprising statement if the Democrats steal the election.  Trump thought that Kamala’s loss could result in disturbances from the woke left-wing, but “it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, the National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military.” So here we have it: Trump has bought into Directive 5240.01.

Having accepted the directive, how can Trump complain if the directive is used against him? 

It is only a few days before the presidential election and Trump seems again to be in the clutches of advisors composed of the ruling elites. 

Who are Trump’s advisors?  Do they have any sense?  Why is Trump aligned with Israel’s genocide of Palestine and attacks on Iran?  Is Trump just another warmonger serving the military/security complex and  Greater Israel?

Trump directs American hostility toward China, because of the lopsided trade deficit.  But it was Wall Street that forced the offshoring of US manufacturing.  The trade deficit results when the US corporations bring their offshored production home to America to sell.  How can it be that Trump hasn’t a single advisor able to inform him of the real problem?

We have to be grateful for Trump.  He realizes that America is in dire straits, and he alone has emerged as anyone willing to do anything about it.  But Trump is a real estate developer. He does not know issues and their history.  His first term proved him to be a poor judge of people as he appointed to his government the very people he had declared to overthrow, and they overthrew him.  Judging by his positions on DOD 5240.01, China, Israel, he has learned nothing and has no better advisors.

In my opinion it is essential that Trump be elected, because it will give America four more years.  But the result is unlikely to be renewal of our country.  Simply, the can will be kicked down the road.

It is difficult to rouse the American people to the realities that they face. Americans are the most insouciant of all peoples. They exist surrounded by oceans and friendly countries devoid of military potential.  Americans have ruled the world because World War II destroyed all rivals.  Americans might be beginning an acquaintance with hardship, having lived on credit card and student loan debt, but despite the deceptions their government inflicts on them — 9/11, Muslim Terrorists and weapons of mass destruction, Covid pandemic, Russian invasion of Ukraine, Iranian nukes, Chinese threat, Trump insurrection, Putin’s resurrection of the Soviet Empire, the return of slavery by white supremacists– a large segment of the population still trusts the government that is destroying them.

So, what can be done?

How can an insouciant population deal with a ruling elite when the population doesn’t understand what is happening?  

*

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

Birds Not Bombs: Let’s Fight for a World of Peace, Not War 

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

First published on June 1, 2013

The following video features 2016 Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton who candidly acknowledges that America created and funded Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war:  

““Let’s remember here… the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago

… let’s go recruit these mujahideen. 

“And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.” 

In 1979 the plan in Afghanistan was regime change: destroy the secular (pro-Soviet) government which came to power in 1973, and install a proxy U.S. Islamic State, led by the Taliban.

THEN AND NOW 

 

NOW

 

And today leading up to the 2024 elections, it’s “Déjà Vu: financing the “terrorists” as part of US-NATO’s  “Global War on Terrorism”

What Hillary does not mention is that at no time in the course of the last 45 years since the so-called Soviet-Afghan War, the US has not ceased to support and finance Al Qaeda as a means to destabilizing and impoverishing sovereign countries.

It was “a pretty good idea”, says Hillary, and it remains a good idea today.

 

 

TRANSCRIPT 

“Let’s remember here… the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago… and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union.

“They invaded Afghanistan… and we did not want to see them control Central Asia and we went to work… and it was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea… let’s deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and let’s go recruit these mujahideen.

“And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.

“And guess what … they (Soviets) retreated … they lost billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

“So there is a very strong argument which is… it wasn’t a bad investment in terms of Soviet Union but let’s be careful with what we sow… because we will harvest.

“So we then left Pakistan … We said okay fine you deal with the Stingers that we left all over your country… you deal with the mines that are along the border and… by the way we don’t want to have anything to do with you… in fact we’re sanctioning you… So we stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with ISI and we now are making up for a lot of lost time.” (HILLARY CLINTON)

C’est le monde à l’envers.

President Ronald Reagan issued (and signed) the National Security Decision Directive 166 (NSDD 166), which de facto authorized  “stepped-up covert military aid to the Mujahideen” as well as CIA support to religious indoctrination.

 

 

The promotion of “Radical Islam” was a deliberate CIA initiative (NSDD 166) which in the wake of 9/11 has served as justification to waging a “Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) in the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia and sub–Saharan Africa. 

See:

October 7, 2001: America’s “Just War” against Afghanistan: Women’s Rights “Before” and “After” America’s Destructive Wars

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 23, 2024

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles. First published in June 2024.

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The year 2024 seems to have been a banner year for assassination attempts on the world stage. [1]

In May, there was a hit put on the Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico. The man just shy of his sixtieth birthday was off-side with NATO and most European countries in his advocacy for not selling weapons to Ukraine, allowing the country to cede some of its territory to Russia.  Fico also promised to launch investigations into COVID-19 pandemic corruption, COVID-19 vaccine injuries and deaths, and 21,000 excess deaths. [2][3]

Ebrahim Raisi, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, died in a suspicious helicopter crash that same month. [4]

So the suspicion of some people, this author included, was that Trump, the high profile personality who is accused of being a Manchurian Candidate (Putin’s buddy) and not quite reliable in dealing with standard “COVID protocols,” likely had a deep state bullet with his name on it. [5][6]

There have been not just one but two assassination attempts on the former president in the past two months. Both attempts failed, though one came awfully close to succeeding. [7]

This brings to mind several other assassination attempts of presidents and presidential candidates going back to the 1960s. As with the Kennedy brothers, JFK and RFK, there were some details 6 decades later that have curious qualities not generally explained by the official story. For example, why was the first shooter able to climb up on a roof only 100 yards away without any Secret Service personnel questioning him or stopping Trump from giving a speech? Why did the second gunman have the ability to get in and out of Ukraine and know Trump’s whereabouts on one of Trump’s golf courses in Florida? And how did he fit the typical description (not unlike Lee Harvey Oswald) of “lone gunmen?”

Is there more to this scenario than individuals taking matters into their own hands to deal with the man President Biden refers to as being a “threat to American democracy?” If so, then it might be helpful to get hold of a person who has devoted years investigating the suspected state murders of the past. And at this time, the Global Research News Hour had the great privilege of tracking down the knowledgeable yet polite voice of Lisa Pease.

Lisa Pease has spent many lunch hours, nights and weekends at her local library pouring through the files on microfilm to research the assassination of Robert F Kennedy. On 2018, she has published the critically acclaimed book A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. She joind us for the bulk of the hour to share her perspectives on RFK, the inconsistency around the official story, and the problematic aspects of Trump’s two close calls with the Grim Reaper.

Guiding listeners through the conversation this week is the former CJUM (University of Manitoba radio) host and broadcaster David Wright.

Lisa Pease is the author of ‘A Lie Too Big to Fail: The Real History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy.’ Based on more than two decades of investigative research, Pease’s recently published book has already been hailed as “the magnum opus of RFK assassination research” by the acclaimed author of ‘JFK and the Unspeakable,’ James Douglass. Pease was previously published in a collection of essays titled ‘The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X.’

Global Research News Hour Episode 442

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg.

A deserção está a tornar-se um problema cada vez mais sério entre as tropas ucranianas. Até os políticos locais na Ucrânia estão a admitir a terrível situação das forças armadas do país no meio de uma crise moral e psicológica devastadora que levou muitos soldados a simplesmente abandonarem as suas fileiras.

Numa declaração recente, a deputada ucraniana Anna Skorokhod afirmou que mais de 100.000 soldados ucranianos desertaram durante o atual conflito com a Federação Russa. Ela disse aos jornalistas ucranianos que existe um problema de má gestão nas forças armadas ucranianas, com muitos oficiais a tomarem decisões inadequadas, contribuindo assim para o baixo moral no campo de batalha.

Ela comentou como os soldados ucranianos estão reagindo psicologicamente às políticas draconianas de mobilização. Muitas pessoas ficam descontentes por terem de lutar nas trincheiras quando, na verdade, as suas competências profissionais são diferentes e carecem de conhecimentos e formação militar. Além disso, a elevada letalidade do desgaste militar incentiva os soldados a desistirem de lutar, uma vez que esta parece cada vez mais uma guerra perdida.

Além disso, Anna também afirmou que os soldados questionam a autoridade da hierarquia militar ucraniana. Segundo ela, apenas 10% a 15% do exército ucraniano está efetivamente a lutar no campo de batalha, o que é obviamente visto como extremamente negativo pelos soldados que foram enviados para a frente – pois percebem que estão a lutar por comandantes covardes e políticos corruptos.

“Não vou dizer-vos o número [exato] de pessoas que desertaram e desapareceram, mas direi que são mais de 100.000 (…) As pessoas estão a levantar questões às quais não consigo dar respostas. ‘Por que eu, um trabalhador de oficina até um mês atrás, devo sentar nas trincheiras enquanto os oficiais superiores estão longe da linha de frente? Por que apenas 10% a 15% do pessoal do exército está realmente participando de combates?’”, disse ela.

Ela não é a primeira pessoa a expor tais números. Anteriormente, o advogado militar Roman Lykhachev afirmou que “definitivamente mais de 100.000 militares” já abandonaram ilegalmente os seus deveres militares. Ele ainda mencionou que muitas vezes há casos em que cerca de 20 a 30 soldados desertam ao mesmo tempo, o que mostra a gravidade do problema entre as tropas.

A este problema somam-se diversas outras questões bem conhecidas relativas à atual realidade ucraniana. O país está a ser devastado por uma crise sem fim, que tem afetado não só a sua estrutura militar e política, mas também a sua situação moral e psicológica. Existem muitos fatores que influenciam a decisão de um soldado e o levam a desertar. O medo da morte é, sem dúvida, um fator relevante, mas é ingênuo acreditar que todos os desertores tomem tal decisão simplesmente por medo.

O fator mais relevante parece ser a falta de “vontade de lutar”. Por outras palavras, os ucranianos comuns não acreditam que valha a pena dar a vida pela Ucrânia. Para os soldados ucranianos de hoje, lutar pelo regime neonazista parece uma enorme perda de tempo, uma vez que claramente não há qualquer possibilidade de vitória.

Esta falta de qualquer crença na vitória não está apenas a levar os ucranianos à deserção, mas também a encorajar muitos deles a mudar de lado – rendendo-se, juntando-se às forças armadas russas e regressando à frente para combater o regime que está a levar o seu povo a uma catástrofe humanitária. O governo neonazista está a responder a esta tendência endurecendo ainda mais as suas políticas de recrutamento, com planos atualmente em curso para mobilizar mais de 160.000 novos soldados para a frente.

Curiosamente, nem a Ucrânia nem a OTAN são capazes de compreender que esta política irresponsável apenas acelera a derrota do regime. Quanto mais duras forem as medidas militares, mais deserções e problemas internos haverá no exército. Foi exatamente isso que a deputada ucraniana quis dizer quando mencionou a existência de “más decisões” e problemas na hierarquia política e militar. É inevitável que esta crise se torne ainda mais grave no futuro, tendo uma reação popular violenta, com soldados e seus familiares resistindo às imposições ditatoriais de Vladimir Zelensky.

Tudo isto é uma consequência da decisão da OTAN de concordar em trabalhar como proxy numa guerra suicida contra a Rússia. As palavras dos líderes ocidentais sobre “lutar até ao último ucraniano” não foram um exagero. A OTAN  está de fato pronta para destruir a Ucrânia e o seu povo apenas para prolongar a situação de conflito no ambiente estratégico russo. Todos os soldados enviados para a frente são apenas bucha de canhão numa guerra em que tanto Kiev como a OTAN sabem que a vitória é absolutamente impossível.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

Artigo em inglês : Desertion becoming serious problem among Ukrainian troops, InfoBrics, 31 de Outubro de 2024.

Imagem :  InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, membro da Associação de Jornalistas do BRICS, pesquisador do Centro de Estudos Geoestratégicos, especialista militar.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://x.com/leiroz_lucas

Held in Samoa in the wake of the BRICS Summit in Russia, the 27th Meeting of Heads of State of the Commonwealth of Nations was not attended by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, a demonstration that the prestige of the United Kingdom is on the decline.

India and South Africa sent junior representatives. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju led the Indian delegation, while Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Thandi Moraka headed the South African delegation.

At first glance, there are undeniable practical reasons, such as returning from the 16th BRICS Summit, held between October 22 and 24 in Russia. However, there is another aspect. Modi and Ramaphosa could have attended the Commonwealth meeting instead of the BRICS one. Having preferred to go to Russia denotes a foreign policy decision.

Created in different stages – the Balfour Declaration in 1926, the Statute of Westminster in 1931, and the London Declaration in 1949 – the Commonwealth of Nations was a way for the British Crown to provide greater independence of government for its colonies while still retaining influence.  This power relationship was and is essential for the United Kingdom.

Based on its history, the Commonwealth of Nations is diametrically opposed to BRICS, a group of countries that advocates the creation of a world order based on multipolarity and the development of so-called peripheral countries. Therefore, BRICS is naturally incompatible with the Commonwealth, which represents the idea of ​​the British empire and colonialism.

In effect, the Commonwealth is a meeting around the British Crown to honour and revere its colonial past. Thus, Modi and Ramaphosa’s choice to prioritise the BRICS Summit, to the detriment of the meeting led by King Charles III, reveals the geopolitical reorganisation underway worldwide.

.

25/10/2024. Apia, Samoa. Prime Minister Keir Starmer attends the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Samoa. Picture by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)

.

The Indian and South African leaders’ absence was not the only setback for the 27th Commonwealth Heads of State Meeting, the first to be presided over by King Charles III. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau did not attend the meeting, so Canada’s High Commissioner to the UK, Ralph Goodale, was sent in his place.

However, unlike Modi and Ramaphosa, Trudeau’s absence does not signal geopolitical opposition. Canada is aligned with the Euro-Atlantic order, a member of NATO and the G7, which were created to maintain the Old World order. Instead, Trudeau’s absence is explained by domestic political problems. Parliamentarians are pushing for the prime minister’s resignation as his popularity plummets.

Still, the message about Trudeau’s priorities is clear: Maintaining his power instead of meeting with the King of England. As such, the only major Commonwealth countries present at the meeting were the United Kingdom and Australia, which sent Prime Ministers Keir Starmer and Anthony Albanese, respectively.

The UK’s presence is more than mandatory, while Australia operates in the same Western sphere of influence as Canada. Australia positions itself as a country of the Global North, a developed country, and a Western country that benefitted from British colonialism rather than be looted and pillaged like what happened in India and South Africa.

However, more than expected, the West still encourages the presence of Australian leadership. The Oceanian country is used as a spearhead in the AUKUS military alliance, which is composed of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States and created to combat any influence in the Indo-Pacific region that does not align with the Anglo alliance.

In addition to the absence of three of the five largest economies, the Commonwealth meeting also saw some discontent with the UK. Even before it began, during a visit to Australia, King Charles III was confronted by Indigenous senator Lidia Thorpe, who accused him of complicity in the genocide of the indigenous population in her country.

Furthermore, in August, former Jamaican Prime Minister P. J. Patterson (1992–2006) stated that reparations for slavery would be discussed at the summit. This was vehemently denied by the UK, which further stressed that neither the government nor the Crown would issue an apology for the country’s role in the transatlantic slave trade.

Although financial compensation is being requested, London could indeed provide the abandonment of the colonial relationship that the Commonwealth itself proposes. In years past, this meeting was the moment to revere the British monarchy, yet a small country like Jamaica now dares to challenge the Crown.

The decline of British influence in the world is evident, with countries of the Global South, such as India and South Africa, continuing to question Western policies and practices. These countries advocate some degree of transformation in the international system, mainly in the sphere of economic relations and international institutions, and are becoming far more relevant and important than the UK.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Leaders attending an executive session of CHOGM at Maota Fono (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

“I use the words you taught me. If they don’t mean anything anymore, teach me others. Or let me be silent.” – Samuel Becket, Endgame

Before he went to Rockaway Beach to bury himself in sand up to his neck, Patrick said to me: “People ask me where I’ve been, and I tell them I’ve gone within to a place that’s so damn dim I can’t see them anymore. Then listen up, they tell me, to what’s going down these days, but my ears are blocked, yet they won’t stop, their tongues just flop like socks.”

He worried me, and I told him so, but he just smiled and added, “Up in the tower the cuckoo strikes his fist to stop the chiming of the bells.”

I told him it was all very poetic but strange as hell. Why was he talking like that and why was he going to bury himself in sand?

He laughed and said, “Why not? There’s something dripping in my head. A heart, a heart in my head. You’ve heard that one before?”

Inspired by his Irish compatriot, Samuel Becket, he wanted to make a point. What it was he wasn’t sure, only that it required a symbolic statement fitting for this Halloween season at a time of historical grotesqueries.

In some place in his mind he thought of his Aunt Winnie, who was always saying it was too late for her to change her life. She had been saying that ever since Patrick came over from Ireland decades ago. Hearing her, Patrick would think – then what’s the point of going on living, but he never said this to her.

His thinking was ambivalent, to put it mildly. He too was absolutely terrorized by the thought of death. He had these recurring dreams that he needed to use the toilet and everywhere he looked he was faced with toilets overflowing with shit. Every month or so, he would say to me, “To think, one moment you’re here and the next you’re not. I can’t get over it.” Yet he never could make the connection between his dream and his aunt’s neurosis.

Patrick and I had been friends for a long time and I had never known him to act like this. He was an accomplished poet but also a very good musician. When we were in our early twenties, we had been in a band together, The Young Artists. We took the name from James Joyce’s novel, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Patrick had been born in Cork, Ireland and moved to the Woodlawn section of the north Bronx when he was 18, just out of high school. He was living with his aunt and uncle, who were our next door neighbors, and that’s how we met. He had an eye for one of my sisters, but that’s a story I’d rather not touch.

We were both big fans of Joyce and fancied ourselves young artists, wild bon vivants in the mold of J.P. Donleavy’s character in The Ginger Man, Sebastian Dangerfield. Donleavy had grown up a few blocks over in the neighborhood and we both loved his wild use of language and poetry. We also loved Guinness and the neighborhood pubs, all of them Irish, with rollicking music on the weekends and young women as crazy as we were. Our buddy Diego Sandoval, who grew up in Mexico City and whose father, a psychiatrist, knew Fidel Castro, was a member of our group. Diego loved Nietzsche and his idea of the music of forgetting. He loved to free associate, so the three of us would often improvise songs in English and Spanish with a little Gaelic thrown in. It was very Joycean, so like Leopold Bloom, and we often weren’t sure what we were singing but there were times when some spot of magic seemed to touch us and everything made sense. What started as a farce ended as a feast.

Patrick says it’s all a farce now, a spectral theatrical show, just look at the news, it all repeats itself and people never seem to wise up. He thinks everyone is like his Aunt Winnie now, anxiously waiting for death and disaster to strike but denying their repressed anxiety as they participate in a blatant political masquerade led by the phoniest crew of political actors who are leading the world toward nuclear annihilation. Death of the soul at the very least.

I sure as hell agree with him.  As I have said before but which I think bears repeating, this waiting business is a deadly and widespread game.

I remember reading somewhere that some sullen sage once said that life is what we do while we wait for death. It’s not the kind of wise-guy wisdom I would try to refute, especially with today’s widespread public insouciance as our political charlatans make a mockery of the sacredness of life.

The writer William Saroyan once said that he could enjoy thinking that an exception to death would be made in his case. Now that he’s dead for more than half as long as he lived, his enjoyment can be considered short-lived. Kaput.

But wishful thinking aside, there’s no question but that Mr. Death knocks at everyone’s door sooner or later, better never than late, to coin a phrase in reverse and revert to wishful thinking. Nevertheless, it’s hard to deny the fact that he’s coming and everybody’s waiting for his knock. Unless, that is, you are in league with those technologists out in Silicon Valley, such as Ray Kurzweil of Google, who think they are going to employ technology to knock death dead and live forever. But even Ray is waiting for what he calls the Singularity to kick in – the day when humans and computers tie the knot and the former get uploaded or downloaded into the latter, I forget which, and death disappears as humans live in the “cloud.” In the meantime, Ray swallows a few hundred pills a day to keep chugging along until he reaches the promised land.

These artificial intelligence (AI) folks in Silicon Valley and at the World Economic Forum, all besotted on their machine dreams, seem to feel they’re smarter than Plato, Jesus, Buddha, Shakespeare, and other idiots we used to think wise, but I think George Carlin meant to include the Artificial Intelligence crowd when he said:

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

Of course, rather than knock, Mr. Death just might blow the house down. Although it’s a little impersonal and there will be no introductions, a lot of people are waiting for that. Like the early Christians who were eagerly awaiting the imminent end of the world, most people today are unconsciously waiting for a nuclear holocaust – to be seen on the evening news, of course, or maybe announced by a tweet or an instant message as they scroll their little crystal rectangles to see what’s going down.

Everyone will, that’s what going down.

The general consensus seems to be it will solve all problems, which is a brilliant insight in a Humpty Dumpty sort of brillig way in a looking-glass/ technological world where our most amazing technology is the nuclear bomb, rather recently joined in conjugal bliss with the computer that will save us from death.

In any case, what’s there to do? Keep waiting, that’s all, seems to be the popular approach. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think people were looking forward to meeting Mr. Death. For why else are they waiting without raising their voices in protest against U.S. nuclear first strike policy and the trillion-dollar modernization of American nuclear weapons announced by Barack Obama and continued under Donald Trump and Joseph Biden.  Why do they wait in silent fear and trembling as the United States military and CIA maraud across the planet killing and maiming to profit their capitalistic masters?  How can they possibly in good conscience wait while the Israelis with full American support try to obliterate all Palestinians in their ongoing genocidal bloodbath?

That’s the big picture, so to speak, the big waiting game. Waiting in the smaller sense can also kill you, or keep you going (but don’t ask where), depending on your point of view. There are endless variations to this waiting game with the smaller joined to the larger in a powerful synergy that freezes people in their tracks.

This sense of waiting for something terrible to happen permeates the air these days. The media and government pump out incendiary reports in an endless stream of things to fear in an effort to immobilize the population. Neurotic fears have long been known to be most effective tools of social control. When these can be manufactured in great and continuous numbers, they have a cumulative effect of creating growing social anxiety, which is the case today. It is no accident that the dramatic increase in drug usage to quell anxiety, nervous stress, and depression has occurred concurrently with the mainstream media’s propagandistic outpouring of fear-mongering and the drug industries relentless advertising campaigns for their psychotropic fixes.

The news is constantly suggesting that some “apocalyptic” event is just around the corner.

Like: there will be strong thunderstorms at 4:30 PM, or at least a 58.5% chance, so wear your helmet and take shelter.

Like: a woman in South Dakota ate a cherry that had a double pit that caused her to almost choke to death, so be very careful eating cherries; “almost” might be “really” in your case.

Like: the sun is very hot this year, so never step outside unless you are sprayed with chemical sunscreen from head to toe.

Like: there is a bug or bird or some critter that has recently been detected that is carrying a disease so deadly that if it flies by you within 11 ½ inches you will die a slow tortuous death in four days, five at the most.

Like: space aliens are coming for you if the Russians don’t get you first.

All kinds of neurotic fears are endlessly broadcast to keep folks on their anxiety-ridden toes while the real dangers go unmentioned and bubble under the surface. This is the corporate media’s job, of course, one they have perfected.

Wherever you go in the United States, you can see on people’s faces the strain of waiting for some absurd fear to become a reality, while things they should be fearing are repressed.  You can almost feel them holding their breaths in nervous anticipation. It keeps people occupied as they await every presidential election that is “the most important one in your lifetime.”

Yet no one laughs.

The recently deceased wonderful essayist Lewis Lapham said it eloquently in an issue of Lapham’s Quarterly:

In my capacity as human being, I’ve met with most if not all of the descriptives handed down from antiquity, but in my profession as journalist, I’ve encountered primarily the distinctions between what Sigmund Freud in 1917 defines as real fear and neurotic fear, the former a rational and comprehensible response to the perception of clear and present danger, the latter ‘free-floating,’ anxious expectation attachable to any something or nothing that catches the eye or the ear, floats the shadow on a wall or a wind in the trees. Real fear invites action, the decision to flee or fight dependent upon ‘our feeling of power over the outer world’; expectant fear induces states of paralysis, interprets every coincidence as evil omen, prophesizes the most terrible of possibilities, ascribes ‘a dreadful meaning to all uncertainty.’

Ironically, it was Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, the great red, white, and blue American propagandist, who took his uncle’s insights and used them in the service of corporate and government control. By inducing irrational fears of a foreign enemy – i.e. the Soviet Union in the 1950s – as he urged President Eisenhower, you could distract people from the real threat, which was their own government and the CIA with whom Bernays worked overthrowing the democratically elected president of Guatemala, among other evil projects. Fake fears large and small could paralyze the average person and create loyalty to the state and capitalism. They would wait for their protectors to tell them what to do. The present Russia bashing and fear-mongering as well as Israeli propaganda is straight from Bernays’ play book.

Is it any wonder that Samuel Becket’s Waiting for Godot was such a popular play in the 1950s? Godot never came then and he’s not coming now, but waiting is still the name of the game. The character Vladimir sums up the waiting game:

Was I sleeping, while the others suffered? Am I sleeping now? Tomorrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of today? That with Estragon my friend, at this place, until the fall of night, I waited for Godot?

It is not just waiting that recurs to me as Patrick undertakes his novel act on the slippery sands of Rockaway.  The autumnal season and especially this weekend of ghosts, the dead, and masks has me thinking once again of my own experience with acting, so I will repeat myself as in a second coming, in the hope of a visionary breakthrough, chimerical as it may be.

Having grown up as the only brother among seven sisters, I was always my parents’ favorite son. With such dumb luck, I never felt the need to be someone I wasn’t and so accepted my favored fate. But from an early age I learned from my sisters what it meant to “put on your face.” Like most girls in a cosmetic culture, they would stand or sit in front of a mirror dutifully applying lipstick, cover-up, and mascara (Italian, maschera, mask) in preparation for their entrances onto the social stage where they would face so many other faces facing and eyeing them. Mirrors meeting mirrors, the looking-glass selves. It seemed to the boy that it was an exhausting act.

At the time, I had only a dim awareness of the depth of people’s playacting, although I don’t think there was much playful joy in it.

I’ve been fascinated by masks, liars, and the role of acting on the social stage ever since I was three years-old and was posed before a large mirror for a professional photographer. Look in the mirror, son. Look at yourself looking at yourself. Pose for us. The photographer’s cigarette providing the smoke.

When Patrick and I met, we realized we had a common interest in the performative nature of social life and so we fashioned our songs and performances around this theme. Diego added great spontaneity. We believed we could use words in a poetical way to reach people below their everyday consciousness.

Patrick has lost his faith in words and thinks a stunt like burying himself in sand up to his neck, like Nag and Nell in Becket’s Endgame, both contained up to their necks in ash cans, might reach people.  I don’t.  Becket had an actual stage and mesmerizing words to match.  Even then, it took years for audiences to appreciate the play’s brilliance. They at first thought he was too depressing and now probably have no idea who he is.

Today is Halloween and Patrick therefore thinks his act might resonate with the day. I told him that I think the only thing he will accomplish is to suggest to people to put their heads deeper into the sand.

As Halloween and the coming weekend transpires, enchantment only increases. I think of how all persons are, by definition, masked, the word person being derived from the Latin, persona, meaning mask. Another Latin word, larva, occurs to me, it too meaning mask, ghost, or evil spirit. The living masks light up for me as I think of ghosts, the dead, all the souls and spirits circulating through our days, like the wind blowing the dry leaves everywhere.

While etymology might seem arcane, I rather think it offers us a portal into our lives, not just personally, but politically and culturally as well. Shakespeare was right, of course, “all the world’s a stage,” though it’s debatable whether we are “merely” players. It does often seem that way, but seeming is the essence of the actor’s show and tell.

But who are we behind the masks? Who is it uttering those words coming through the masks’ mouth holes (the per-sona, Latin, to sound through).

Halloween. The children play at scaring and being scared. Death walks among them and they scream with glee. The play is on. The grim reaper walks up and down the street. Treats greet them. The costumes are ingenious; the masks, wild. The parents stand behind, watching, smiling. It’s all great fun, the candy sweet. So what’s the trick? When does the performance end?

As Halloween ends, the saints come marching in followed by the souls. All Saints. All Souls. The Days of the Dead. Spirits. Ghosts walk the streets. Dead leaves fall. The dead are everywhere, swirling through the air, drifting. We are surrounded by them. We are them. Until.

Until when? Perhaps not until we see through the charade of social life and realize the masked performers are not just the politicians and celebrities, not only the professional actors and the corporate media performers, but us.

Lying is the leading cause of living death in the United States, and the pharmaceutical companies have no prescription for this one. Not yet, anyway, as far as I care to know.

By the time you read this, Patrick’s performance will be over. I hope he planned to do it at high tide. Otherwise, Patrick’s endgame will be Patrick’s end.

Then I too will be at a loss for words.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Behind the Curtain.

Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).  

Israel knew that, if it could stop foreign correspondents from reporting directly from Gaza, those journalists would end up covering events in ways far more to its liking.

They would hedge every report of a new Israeli atrocity – if they covered them at all – with a “Hamas claims” or “Gaza family members allege”. Everything would be presented in terms of conflicting narratives rather than witnessed facts. Audiences would feel uncertain, hesitant, detached.

Israel could shroud its slaughter in a fog of confusion and disputation. The natural revulsion evoked by a genocide would be tempered and attenuated.

For a year, the global networks’ most experienced war reporters have stayed put in their hotels in Israel, watching Gaza from afar. Their human-interest stories, always at the heart of war reporting, have focused on the far more limited suffering of Israelis than the vast catastrophe unfolding for Palestinians.

That is why western audiences have been forced to relive a single day of horror for Israel, on 7 October 2023, as intensely as they have a year of daily horrors in Gaza – in what the World Court has judged to be a “plausible” genocide by Israel.

That is why the media have immersed their audiences in the agonies of the families of some 250 Israelis – civilians taken hostage and soldiers taken captive – as much as they have the agonies of 2.3 million Palestinians bombed and starved to death week after week, month after month.

That is why audiences have been subjected to gaslighting narratives that frame Gaza’s destruction as a “humanitarian crisis” rather than the canvas on which Israel is erasing all the known rules of war.

While foreign correspondents sit obediently in their hotel rooms, Palestinian journalists have been picked off one by one – in one of the greatest massacres of journalists in history.

Israel is now repeating that process in Lebanon. On Thursday night, it struck a residence in south Lebanon where three journalists were staying. All were killed.

In an indication of how deliberate and cynical Israel’s actions are, it put its military’s crosshairs on six Al Jazeera reporters this week, smearing them as “terrorists” working for Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

They are reportedly the last surviving Palestinian journalists in northern Gaza, which Israel has sealed off while it carries out the so-called “General’s Plan”.

Israel wants no one reporting its final push to exterminate northern Gaza by starving out the 400,000 Palestinians still there and executing anyone who remains as a “terrorist”.

These six join a long list of professionals defamed by Israel in the interests of advancing its genocide – from doctors and aid workers to UN peacekeepers.

Sympathy for Israel

Perhaps the nadir of Israel’s domestication of foreign journalists was reached this week in a report by CNN. Back in February whistleblowing staff there revealed that the network’s executives have been actively obscuring Israeli atrocities to portray Israel in a more sympathetic light.

In a story whose framing should have been unthinkable – but sadly was all too predictable – CNN reported on the psychological trauma some Israeli soldiers are suffering from time spent in Gaza, in some cases leading to suicide.

Committing a genocide can be bad for your mental health, it seems. Or as CNN explained, its interviews “provide a window into the psychological burden that the war is casting on Israeli society”.

In its lengthy piece, titled “He got out of Gaza, but Gaza did not get out of him”, the atrocities the soldiers admit committing are little more than the backdrop, as CNN finds yet another angle on Israeli suffering. Israeli soldiers are the real victims – even as they perpetrate a genocide on the Palestinian people.

One bulldozer driver, Guy Zaken, told CNN he could not sleep and had become vegetarian because of the “very, very difficult things” he had seen and had to do in Gaza.

What things? Zaken had earlier told a hearing of the Israeli parliament that his unit’s job was to drive over many hundreds of Palestinians, some of them alive.

CNN reported: “Zaken says he can no longer eat meat, as it reminds him of the gruesome scenes he witnessed from his bulldozer in Gaza.”

Doubtless some Nazi concentration camp guards committed suicide in the 1940s after witnessing the horrors there – because they were responsible for them. Only in some weird parallel news universe would their “psychological burden” be the story.

After a huge online backlash, CNN amended an editor’s note at the start of the article that originally read: “This story includes details about suicide that some readers may find upsetting.”

Readers, it was assumed, would find the suicide of Israeli soldiers upsetting, but apparently not the revelation that those soldiers were routinely driving over Palestinians so that, as Zaken explained, “everything squirts out”.

Banned from Gaza

Finally, a year into Israel’s genocidal war, now rapidly spreading into Lebanon, some voices are being raised very belatedly to demand the entry of foreign journalists into Gaza.

This week – in a move presumably designed, as November’s elections loom, to ingratiate themselves with voters angry at the party’s complicity in genocide – dozens of Democratic members of the US Congress wrote to President Joe Biden asking him to pressure Israel to give journalists “unimpeded access” to the enclave.

Don’t hold your breath.

Western media have done very little themselves to protest their exclusion from Gaza over the past year – for a number of reasons.

Given the utterly indiscriminate nature of Israel’s bombardment, major outlets have not wanted their journalists getting hit by a 2,000lb bomb for being in the wrong place.

That may in part be out of concern for their welfare. But there are likely to be more cynical concerns.

Having foreign journalists in Gaza blown up or executed by snipers would drag media organisations into direct confrontation with Israel and its well-oiled lobby machine.

The response would be entirely predictable, insinuating that the journalists died because they were colluding with “the terrorists” or that they were being used as “human shields” – the excuse Israel has rolled out time and again to justify its targeting of doctors in Gaza and UN peacekeepers in Lebanon.

But there’s a bigger problem. The establishment media have not wanted to be in a position where their journalists are so close to the “action” that they are in danger of providing a clearer picture of Israel’s war crimes and its genocide.

The media’s current distance from the crime scene offers them plausible deniability as they both-sides every Israeli atrocity.

In previous conflicts, western reporters have served as witnesses, assisting in the prosecution of foreign leaders for war crimes. That happened in the wars that attended the break-up of Yugoslavia, and will doubtless happen once again if Russian President Valdimir Putin is ever delivered to The Hague.

But those journalistic testimonies were harnessed to put the West’s enemies behind bars, not its closest ally.

The media do not want their reporters to become chief witnesses for the prosecution in the future trials of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defence minister, Yoav Gallant, at the International Criminal Court (ICC). Karim Khan, the ICC’s prosecutor, is seeking arrest warrants for them both.

After all, any such testimony from journalists would not stop at Israel’s door. They would implicate western capitals too, and put establishment media organisations on a collision course with their own governments.

The western media does not see its job as holding power to account when the West is the one committing the crimes.

Censoring Palestinians

Journalist whistleblowers have gradually been coming forward to explain how establishment news organisations – including the BBC and the supposedly liberal Guardian – are sidelining Palestinian voices and minimising the genocide.

An investigation by Novara Media recently revealed mounting unhappiness in parts of the Guardian newsroom at its double standards on Israel and Palestine.

Its editors recently censored a commentary by preeminent Palestinian author Susan Abulhawaafter she insisted on being allowed to refer to the slaughter in Gaza as “the holocaust of our times”.

During Jeremy Corbyn’s tenure as leader of the Labour Party, senior Guardian columnists such as Jonathan Freedland made much of the insistence that Jews, and Jews alone, had the right to define and name their own oppression.

That right, however, does not appear to extend to Palestinians.

As staff who spoke to Novara noted, the Guardian’s Sunday sister paper, the Observer, had no problem opening its pages to British Jewish writer Howard Jacobson to smear as a “blood libel” any reporting of the provable fact that Israel has killed many, many thousands of Palestinian children in Gaza.

One veteran journalist there said: “Is the Guardian more worried about the reaction to what is said about Israel than Palestine? Absolutely.”

Another staff member admitted it would be inconceivable for the paper to be seen censoring a Jewish writer. But censoring a Palestinian one is fine, it seems.

Other journalists report being under “suffocating control” from senior editors, and say this pressure exists “only if you’re publishing something critical of Israel”.

According to staff there, the word “genocide” is all but banned in the paper except in coverage of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), whose judges ruled nine months ago that a “plausible” case had been made that Israel was committing genocide.

Things have got far worse since.

Whistleblowing Journalists

Similarly, “Sara”, a whistleblower who recently resigned from the BBC newsroom and spoke of her experiences to Al Jazeera’s Listening Post, said Palestinians and their supporters were routinely kept off air or subjected to humiliating and insensitive lines of questioning.

Some producers have reportedly grown increasingly reluctant to bring on air vulnerable Palestinians, some of whom have lost family members in Gaza, because of concerns about the effect on their mental health from the aggressive interrogations they were being subjected to from anchors.

According to Sara, BBC vetting of potential guests overwhelmingly targets Palestinians, as well as those sympathetic to their cause and human rights organisations. Background checks are rarely done on Israeli or Jewish guests.

She added that a search showing that a guest had used the word “Zionism” – Israel’s state ideology – in a social media post could be enough to get them disqualified from a programme.

Even officials from one of the biggest rights group in the world, the New York-based Human Rights Watch, became persona non grata at the BBC for their criticisms of Israel, even though the corporation had previously relied on their reports in covering Ukraine and other global conflicts.

Israeli guests, by contrast, “were given free rein to say whatever they wanted with very little pushback”, including lies about Hamas burning or beheading babies and committing mass rape.

An email cited by Al Jazeera from more than 20 BBC journalists sent last February to Tim Davie, the BBC’s director general, warned that the corporation’s coverage risked “aiding and abetting genocide through story suppression”.

Upside-down Values

These biases have been only too evident in the BBC’s coverage, first of Gaza and now, as media interest wanes in the genocide, of Lebanon.

Headlines – the mood music of journalism, and the only part of a story many of the audience read – have been uniformly dire.

For example, Netanyahu’s threats of a Gaza-style genocide against the Lebanese people earlier this month if they did not overthrow their leaders were soft-soaped by the BBC headline: “Netanyahu’s appeal to Lebanese people falls on deaf ears in Beirut.”

Reasonable readers would have wrongly inferred both that Netanyahu was trying to do the Lebanese people a favour (by preparing to murder them), and that they were being ungrateful in not taking up his offer.

It has been the same story everywhere in the establishment media. In another extraordinary, revealing moment, Kay Burley of Sky News announced this month the deaths of four Israeli soldiers from a Hezbollah drone strike on a military base inside Israel.

With a solemnity usually reserved for the passing of a member of the British royal family, she slowly named the four soldiers, with a photo of each shown on screen. She stressed twice that all four were only 19 years old.

Sky News seemed not to understand that these were not British soldiers, and that there was no reason for a British audience to be especially disturbed by their deaths. Soldiers are killed in wars all the time – it is an occupational hazard.

And further, if Israel considered them old enough to fight in Gaza and Lebanon, then they were old enough to die too without their age being treated as particularly noteworthy.

But more significantly still, Israel’s Golani Brigade to which these soldiers belonged has been centrally involved in the slaughter of Palestinians over the past year. Its troops have been responsible for many of the tens of thousands of children killed and maimed in Gaza.

Each of the four soldiers was far, far less deserving of Burley’s sympathy and concern than the thousands of children who have been slaughtered at the hands of their brigade. Those children are almost never named and their pictures are rarely shown, not least because their injuries are usually too horrifying to be seen.

It was yet more evidence of the upside-down world the establishment media has been trying to normalise for its audiences.

It is why statistics from the United States, where the coverage of Gaza and Lebanon may be even more unhinged, show faith in the media is at rock bottom. Fewer than one in three respondents – 31 percent – said they still had a “great deal or fair amount of trust in mass media”.

Crushing Dissent

Israel is the one dictating the coverage of its genocide. First by murdering the Palestinian journalists reporting it on the ground, and then by making sure house-trained foreign correspondents stay well clear of the slaughter, out of harm’s way in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

And as ever, Israel has been able to rely on the complicity of its western patrons in crushing dissent at home.

Last week, a British investigative journalist, Asa Winstanley, an outspoken critic of Israel and its lobbyists in the UK, had his home in London raided at dawn by counter-terrorism police.

Though the police have not arrested or charged him – at least not yet – they confiscated his electronic devices. He was warned that he is being investigated for “encouragement of terrorism” in his social media posts. 

Police told MEE that his devices had been seized as part of an investigation into suspected terrorism offences of “support for a proscribed organisation” and “dissemination of terrorist documents”.  

The police can act only because of Britain’s draconian, anti-free speech Terrorism Act. 

Section 12, for example, makes the expression of an opinion that could be interpreted as sympathetic to armed Palestinian resistance to Israel’s illegal occupation – a right enshrined in international law but sweepingly dismissed as “terrorism” in the West – itself a terrorism offence. 

Those journalists who haven’t been house-trained in the establishment media, as well as solidarity activists, must now chart a treacherous path across intentionally ill-defined legal terrain when talking about Israel’s genocide in Gaza. 

Winstanley is not the first journalist to be accused of falling foul of the Terrorism Act. In recent weeks, Richard Medhurst, a freelance journalist, was arrested at Heathrow airport on his return from a trip abroad. Another journalist-activist, Sarah Wilkinson, was briefly arrested after her home was ransacked by police. Their electronic devices were seized too. 

Meanwhile, Richard Barnard, co-founder of Palestine Action, which seeks to disrupt the UK’s supply of weapons to Israel’s genocide, has been charged over speeches he has made in support of Palestinians. 

It now appears that all these actions are part of a specific police campaign targeting journalists and Palestinian solidarity activists: “Operation Incessantness”.

The message this clumsy title is presumably supposed to convey is that the British state is coming after anyone who speaks out too loudly against the British government’s continuing arming and complicity in Israel’s genocide.

Notably, the establishment media have failed to cover this latest assault on journalism and the role of a free press – supposedly the very things they are there to protect.

The raid on Winstanley’s home and the arrests are intended to intimidate others, including independent journalists, into silence for fear of the consequences of speaking up. 

This has nothing to do with terrorism. Rather, it is terrorism by the British state.

Once again the world is being turned upside down.

Echoes from History

The West is waging a campaign of psychological warfare on its populations: it is gaslighting and disorientating them, classing genocide as “self-defence” and opposition to it a form of “terrorism”.

This is an expansion of the persecution suffered by Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder who spent years locked up in London’s Belmarsh high-security prison. 

His unprecedented journalism – revealing the darkest secrets of western states – was redefined as espionage. His “offence” was revealing that Britain and the US had committed systematic war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Now, on the back of that precedent, the British state is coming after journalists simply for embarrassing it. 

Last week, I attended a meeting in Bristol against the genocide in Gaza at which the main speaker was physically absent after the British state failed to issue him an entry visa. 

The missing guest – he had to join us by Zoom – was Mandla Mandela, the grandson of Nelson Mandela, who was locked up for decades as a terrorist before becoming the first leader of post-apartheid South Africa and a feted, international statesman. 

Mandla Mandela was until recently a member of the South African parliament. A Home Office spokesperson told MEE that the UK only issued visas “to those who we want to welcome to our country”. 

Media reports suggest Britain was determined to exclude Mandela because, like his grandfather, he views the Palestinian struggle against Israeli apartheid as intimately linked to the earlier struggle against South Africa’s apartheid.

The echoes from history are apparently entirely lost on officials: the UK is once again associating the Mandela family with terrorism. Before it was to protect South Africa’s apartheid regime. Now it is to protect Israel’s even worse apartheid and genocidal regime.

The world is indeed turned on its head. And the West’s supposedly “free media” is playing a critical role in trying to make our upside-down world seem normal.

That can only be achieved by failing to report the Gaza genocide as a genocide. Instead, western journalists are serving as little more than stenographers. Their job: to take dictation from Israel. 

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Jonathan Cook is the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His website and blog can be found at www.jonathan-cook.net

Featured image: The funeral of two Palestinian journalists killed by Israeli forces in Gaza. (Photo: Mahmoud Ajjour, The Palestine Chronicle)

.

.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Notes

[1] https://www.fraserhealth.ca/health-topics-a-to-z/school-health/healthy-schools-communications-toolkit

[2] https://www.fraserhealth.ca/health-topics-a-to-z/immunizations/children-and-youth-immunization

[3] https://www.fraserhealth.ca/health-topics-a-to-z/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccine

[4] https://parl-gc.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/delivery/01CALP_INST:01CALP/12165649990002616?lang=en

[5] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.05.20.24306810v1.full.pdf

[6] https://www.floridahealth.gov/diseases-and-conditions/respiratory-illness/COVID19/_documents/news/2022/10/20221007- guidance-mrna-covid19-vaccines-doc.pdf

[7] https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/letters/the-science-to-conclude-vaccine-safety-is-inadequate

[8] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2402379

[9] https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/and-like-that-the-claim-vaccines

[10] https://icandecide.org/article/childhood-vaccine-trials-summary-chart

[11] https://uptoeveryone.com/products/new-parents-guide-to-understanding-vaccination

Featured image source

Russian Economy Zooms Ahead, Outpaces US and EU Growth. “Unprecedented Grow of Small and Medium- Sized Enterprises”

By Drago Bosnic, November 01, 2024

Top-ranking Russian officials, including the current Defense Minister Andrei Belousov (previously tasked with economic development), expected the growth to be stable enough for the Eurasian giant to overtake Japan by 2030.

Life Beyond the Duopoly Part 2. The Free and Equal Presidential Debate

By Michael Welch, November 01, 2024

According to the most recent poll by Atlas, voter support in the critical swing states, the competition between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump is ‘neck and neck.” What’s more, in a number of states, the percentage of people willing to vote for Jill Stein or “undecided” is higher than the difference between the “Big Two.”

A No-Win Dilemma for US Peace Voters

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, November 01, 2024

Many of the principles and policy proposals of “third-party” and independent candidates are more in line with the views of most Americans than those of Harris or Trump. This is hardly surprising given the widely recognized corruption of the U.S. political system.

Yahya Al-Sinwar’s Will. “My will to you starts here, from that child who threw the first stone at the occupier”

By Yahya Al-Sinwar, October 31, 2024

My will to you starts here, from that child who threw the first stone at the occupier, and learned that stones are the first words we utter in the face of a world that stands silent before of our wound.

Bill Gates Calls for ‘Vaccine Misinformation’ to be Censored in Real-Time by AI. Bill Gates Accused of “Medical Malpractice” and “Crimes against Humanity”

By Frank Bergman and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 30, 2024

“An online petition is calling on the White House to investigate Bill Gates and Melinda Gates for “crimes against humanity” and “medical malpractice”. The petition received more than 500,000 signatures as of 11th May 2020.

The Ever Widening War. Paul C. Roberts

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, October 31, 2024

The Pentagon spokeswoman, Sabrina Singh, says that if these North Koreans do for Russia what French troops and NATO personnel are doing for Ukraine, the US will remove its ban on NATO firing missiles into Russia from Ukraine.  

Hezbollah and Lebanon After Nasrallah

By Steven Sahiounie, October 30, 2024

Many expected Hezbollah to dissolve into disarray after its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, was assassinated on September 27 by Israeli airstrikes, but Hezbollah fights on in Lebanon and has increased its attacks on Israel since Nasrallah’s death. Nasrallah’s death motivated the armed fighters to avenge the death of their charismatic leader who began his leadership in 1992.

The US Republican and Democratic parties have essentially agreed to ignore the size of the country’s public debt and budget deficit, writes The Wall Street Journal. Rather than discussing the issue of debt, the respective presidential campaigns have become opportunities to divide American society further.

According to estimates by the International Monetary Fund, the US public debt level will reach 121% of GDP by the end of 2024 and 131.7% by 2029. During Joe Biden’s presidency, US debt rose from $28 trillion in 2021 to an unprecedented level of more than $34.5 trillion today.

“Both major parties have essentially agreed to ignore Washington’s World War II levels of debt and gargantuan annual deficits in the absence of a national emergency,” writes the newspaper’s editor, James Freeman.

According to him, the winner of the next presidential elections will be forced to spend “a lot less” than promised during their campaign. Freeman noted that the US “cannot allow itself to become Argentina,” suggesting that with such a large debt, Americans will need “not just hope but prayer as well.”

The US is less than a week away from the presidential election, which will decide whether the Democratic administration, with Kamala Harris, will continue or the Republicans will return to power, once again led by Donald Trump. Although foreign policy dominated a good part of the campaign of both candidates, it is evident among analysts that the problems that decide an election are the problems closest to the population’s daily lives.

Although inflation has slowed from its peak in 2022, when it reached 9.1%, the highest increase in 40 years, it is still eroding the purchasing power of the American population. In September, the index was 2.5%, above the 2.3% expected by the market. After Biden became president, with economic recovery as one of his main goals, voters expected inflation to cool down after four years of consecutive increases. However, high inflation persisted, affecting food prices and currently leading workers to go into debt or resort to loans to ensure their livelihood.

In September, the Labor Department reported that the unemployment rate in the US fell to 4.2%, with 142,000 job openings in August. The number, however, was below market expectations, which projected the creation of 160,000 jobs. The department’s data shows that despite the slight drop, there are still 7.1 million people unemployed in the country. This explains the increase in the number of unemployment benefit requests, which in September stood at 230,000, an increase compared to 227,000 registered at the end of August.

At the same time, the US public debt surpassed the $35 trillion mark for the first time this year, according to data released by the US Treasury Department in August. The amount began to increase during the spending required to contain the effects of the pandemic but has continued throughout the current administration. In July, when addressing the issue, the chairman of the US House of Representatives Budget Committee, Jodey Arrington, classified the public debt as “another alarming milestone” and called for more fiscal responsibility regarding public spending.

As Freeman noted in his WSJ article:

“After next Tuesday Americans will need to come together to pressure the winner to consider fiscal sanity before global investors start applying their own kind of pressure.”

However, this is unlikely to occur since division in the US is only deepening.

The final days of Democratic candidate Harris’ election campaign seem to have been filled more with anger and recriminations against Trump than with celebration and joy, which shows that the atmosphere surrounding the vice president is not exactly the most optimistic a few days before the US presidential elections.

Democratic rallies are no longer events where optimism predominates, and due to the political polarisation that American society is experiencing, Harris’ rallies are marked by extremely aggressive language that seeks to shame Republicans and their ideology. Democrats are accusing their opponents of fascism and say Republican voters of supporting the second coming of Adolf Hitler.

At the same time, Trump also accused Harris of being a fascist.

With Democrats and Republicans both responsible for the US being in a precarious economic situation, it is little wonder that they both choose to ignore the issue and instead sling false accusations of fascism. This not only demonstrates political immaturity for the leaders of the two biggest parties in the US but bodes negatively that the suffering economy will be properly dealt with no matter who is elected.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

When the special military operation (SMO) was launched to end the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict, the political West insisted that Russia was finished (precisely what it tried to ensure back in the 1990s). Its economy was supposed to be ruined, with the Kremlin even expected to default after much of its forex reserves were frozen (i.e. stolen) by Western banks.

After all this failed, the US-led belligerent power pole tried to impose the laughable price cap on Russian oil, one that even the most prominent Western nations tried to circumvent, including Japan and even the pathologically Russophobic United Kingdom. As for the United States, it continued buying Russian commodities while criticizing everyone else who did. Still, through its Neo-Nazi puppets in Kiev, NATO launched a virtual total war on Moscow in an attempt to disrupt its economy and cause as much damage as possible.

And yet, it all failed once again. The Kremlin secured economic stability despite being forced to conduct the SMO against the entire political West. Not only that, Russia overtook Germany as the world’s fifth and Europe’s largest economy, a humiliating defeat for its EU/NATO rivals who expected quite the contrary. Berlin’s economic performance was worse than in decades, while London was at its lowest in well over 300 years (since 1709, to be specific).

And yet, to “add insult to injury”, even Western data showed that the initial estimates of Moscow’s economic performance were wrong and that it was actually even better in both 2023 and 2024. Updated IMF’s forecast of 2.6% GDP growth doubled its previous assessment. According to the Financial Times, this increase of 1.5% was the largest for any economy featured in an update to the IMF’s World Economic Outlook, released on January 30 this year.

Top-ranking Russian officials, including the current Defense Minister Andrei Belousov (previously tasked with economic development), expected the growth to be stable enough for the Eurasian giant to overtake Japan by 2030. However, what was supposed to happen in no less than six years, actually happened in less than six months. According to this year’s data, President Putin’s forecast of increased economic growth (over 3.5-4%) not only turned out to be true, but even conservative, although the mainstream propaganda machine attempted to portray it as “too overoptimistic”. However, the only thing that was actually too overoptimistic was the political West’s expectation that the sanctions would work. Namely, according to earlier World Bank data updates for this year, Russia indeed managed to overtake Japan as the fourth largest economy in the world (in terms of GDP PPP).

It should be noted that GDP PPP (purchasing power parity) is a very reliable metric and far more suitable to measure true economic might than the overblown nominal GDP figures that serve only to feed the oversized ego of the US-led political West. Less than 10 months after overtaking Germany, Russia also zoomed past Japan, leaving Western observers dumbfounded as to how a country they were told would “collapse under the weight of sanctions” and outright theft of its forex reserves managed to accomplish such a feat. What’s more, some sources estimated that the Eurasian giant was among the fastest-growing major economies in the world. In addition, even Moscow’s updated projection of overtaking Tokyo (explicitly set for March 2025 by President Putin) turned out to be “too cautious”, as this unprecedented feat was accomplished nearly a year earlier.

eHowever, the latest estimates of Russian economic performance suggest that things are only getting better for the Kremlin. Namely, in an interview with CBS News, Richard Connolly, a junior research fellow at the Royal Institute of Shared Services in London and an expert on the Russian economy, said that “the number of small and medium-sized enterprises registered in Russia has reached an unprecedented level”. In the aftermath of the exodus of major Western companies who were forced to leave or suspend their activities due to sanctions imposed by their own countries, they left a massive market gap that was filled by domestic businesses.

Thus, Russian companies replaced major Western brands, so instead of Starbucks, there’s now Stars Coffee, instead of Zara, there’s MAAG, instead of Coca-Cola, the Russians drink Dobry Cola, etc. Other segments of th economy went through a similar shift.

What’s more, these domestic brands not only replaced their foreign predecessors, but also quickly outpaced them. For instance, back in April, Dobry Cola reported that its 2022 profits were quadrupled in 2023. Connolly says that “sanctions have proven ineffective, essentially resulting in sanctions evasion becoming a sector in and of itself”. It can even be argued that the restrictions imposed by the political Westjumpstarted parts of the Russian economy that were small and largely dormant (if not even non-existent prior to the SMO).

Russia’s Stars Coffee

What’s more, the Russians are still getting virtually all the goods and services they had before, including through imports via third countries (Georgia, Kazakhstan, China, Turkey, etc). And while some prices are higher, local brands that took over the Western market share are actually more affordable while offering similar or even better quality.

As a result, Russia is experiencing what Connolly called the “fastest economic growth in the last decade”. In other words, much unlike the atrocious Bidenomics, what the bne IntelliNews called Putinomics turned out to be far more effective, particularly considering the fact that Russia is waging a defensive war against the entire US-led political West. According to their report, the Kremlin’s policies are “spurring growth in a new Putinomics”. Apart from the resurgence of investment in defense, “Putin has also launched the National Projects 2.1 program to invest into the civilian economy as well and improve the quality of life for the average Russian, as he made clear in his recent guns and butter speech”. The report further posited that, as a result of Putinomics, “Russia’s poorest regions have been the biggest winners and as bne IntelliNews recently reported, the country’s despair index has fallen to its lowest level ever this year”.

It should be noted that even the infamous CIA admits that Russia is the fourth largest economy in the world. However, while the World Bank’s numbers put Russia’s and Japan’s economies at $5.95 and $5.87 trillion respectively, the actual discrepancy might be far bigger. Namely, the World Bank also estimates that a whopping 39% of the Russian economy is in the shadows, while the same metric for Japan stands at 10%.

In terms of GDP PPP, this would add $2.5 trillion to Russia’s $6.45 trillion PPP-adjusted economic size, which, although still far from India’s $14.6 trillion GDP, further widens the gap with Japan. Expectedly, this economic resurgence is also enabling Moscow to rebuild its Soviet-era military might, resulting in an unprecedented real defense budget of over half a trillion dollars. The political West, powerless to stop Russia’s recovery, now wants to launch a terror campaign to disrupt this.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) warns that the pro-censorship ‘IHRA handbook’ released today by Canadian Heritage will have a chilling effect on pro-Palestine speech and activism and demands it to be withdrawn immediately. Civil society, human rights groups, and faculty associations broadly oppose the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism (known as “IHRA”) because it purposefully conflates criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism and is frequently deployed by supporters of Israel to unfairly shut down Palestinians’ perspectives. CJPME warns that this seemingly innocuous handbook will result in public institutions persecuting people who criticize systemic racism within Israel, rather than fighting discrimination.

“After over a year of Canadians protesting Israel’s genocide in Gaza, Trudeau has the audacity to publish a guide on how to crack down on pro-Palestine speech,” said Michael Bueckert, Vice President of CJPME. “This anti-Palestine, pro-censorship handbook poses a direct threat to civil liberties and will target the critics of Israel’s atrocities, especially Palestinians. We urge Canadian institutions to reject the use of the handbook,” added Bueckert. More than 11,000 Canadians have e-mailed the Prime Minister asking for the handbook to be shelved.

Based on a preliminary analysis of Trudeau’s IHRA handbook, CJPME has identified several important ways that it maliciously and falsely labels pro-Palestine speech and actions as antisemitic. For example:

• The handbook claims that it is antisemitic to oppose the ideology of Zionism, which is defined only as support for Jewish self-determination in their ancestral homeland (ignoring the role of Zionism in the dispossession and oppression of Palestinians) (29). Case studies of antisemitic incidents include a social media post that says “you can’t be antiracist and Zionist” and that “Zionism is a racist & violent settler-colonial project (29), and a social media post that says “Israel has no right to exist” (30). CJPME warns that this will be used to silence Palestinian experiences of Zionism, including the Nakba.
• The handbook claims that it is antisemitic when Israel is “held to a double standard,” cast in an “especially negative light,” or when its “right to exist” is “question[ed]” (30, 47). CJPME notes that these are entirely subjective arguments that are routinely deployed by Israel’s supporters against any and all forms of criticism and protest that they deem to be excessive or unfair.
• Other examples of supposed antisemitism in the handbook include the disinvitation of a speaker from an event because she had served in the Israeli military (31); an Instagram post that said “Zionist genocide is the greatest act of aggression. It is the root cause of the violence” and did not recognize Israel’s “right to defend itself during a time of war” (31); the suggestion that Israelis are “colonizers” (31); accusing Israelis of being “child murderers” (31); the use of the term “Zionist,” which the handbook insists should be treated as a proxy for “Jew” (32); and comparing Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza to the Holocaust (34).

The handbook was produced under the leadership of Deborah Lyons, Canada’s Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism. Earlier this year, CJPME issued a report titled “Defaming the Pro-Palestine Movement” which revealed how Lyons wasconsistently spreading false and malicious claims about pro-Palestine activists – misrepresenting protests, slogans, and pro-Palestine positions as antisemitic – and routinely advocating for the suppression of nearly all types of pro-Palestinian protest. The report concluded that Special Envoy Lyons’ behaviour showed a pattern of anti-Palestinian racism and inappropriate collaboration with Israeli officials.

“Trudeau handpicked Lyons, the former Ambassador to Israel, to produce a guide on how to suppress Palestinians who are speaking out against Israel’s racist practices. At Trudeau’s behest, Lyons has worked with Israeli officials and pro-Israel groups to design a document which is intended to shield Israel from even the mildest criticism of its policies. With this handbook, Trudeau is choosing to protect the ideology of Zionism over the Charter rights of Canadians,” said Alex Paterson, Senior Director of Parliamentary Affairs of CJPME.

CJPME reiterates the view that IHRA is designed to suppress Palestinian perspectives, including critical scholarship on core legal concepts like apartheid and genocide, and should therefore be understood as a form of state-sponsored anti-Palestinian racism. Last year, CJPME joined more than 100 civil society organizations including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, as well as Palestinian and Israeli human rights groups, to warn the United Nations against adopting IHRA. In Canada, groups that oppose IHRA include Independent Jewish Voices Canada, the BC Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Federation of Students, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, Confédération des syndicats nationaux, and over 40 faculty associations and academic unions. Instead of adopting IHRA, CJPME urges alternative definitions of antisemitism which do not reproduce these harms, such as the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Free Palestine protest at Parliament Hill, Ottawa, July 2014. Photo: Flickr/Tony Webster

With Moscow’s steady advances since February (it has now seized the Selydovo mining hub in Donetsk), Kyiv is announcing plans to draft another 160,000 troops into its army. According to an Institute for the Study of War’s data analysis, the Russian Federation, in October alone, has advanced 478 square kilometers (185 square miles) – this being a record since March 2022.

Moreover, Ukrainian army, according to an Economist news report, is on survival force, “struggling to survive, not to win” (as the report is titled). Its commanders worry about the very direction of the war, the country being “on the defense, militarily, economically, and diplomatically.” Since Kyiv recaptured Kherson in late 2022, it has in fact made almost no progress. Already in April 2023 I wrote on how the Ukrainian establishment was rethinking the very idea of “reconquering Crimea”, for instance.

The aforementioned Economist piece describes “understrength and overstretched” Ukrainian units, despite the drastic new mobilization law, with an “alarming demographic crisis”, a “limited stock of shells”, and “a shortfall in its air-defence interceptors.” In addition to that, one should also consider the following:

1) Washington is basically, as I’ve put it, shifting the burdens of Ukraine on Europe. as it pivots to the Pacific. The American Establishment by now is free to admit that “the war in Ukraine is not existential”, for that matter. Tellingly (priority-wise), the US is deploying its troops to Israel and sending the THAAD anti-missile system to the Jewish state – it is the same system Kyiv has repeatedly asked for – to no avail.

2) According to Forbes, the Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky risks facing an “ultra-nationalist” coup.

3) Zelensky’s new “Victory Plan” counts largely on Europe and NATO support. Europe however can only do so much, with the American superpower basically controlling the Atlantic Alliance and normally having a final say.

In short, Ukraine and the Europeans are left with an unwinnable proxy war, while European structures will be tasked with welcoming and integrating a divided state (South Korean style) that can only be described as extremely corrupt and bent on authoritarian ethnocracy (see below).

Interestingly, two-third of the aforementioned Russian military gains have taken place in the Donetsk region, which is part of the larger Donbass area. Donbass has in fact been the stage for conflict since 2014– that is, shortly after the ethnonationalist Maidan revolution which turned the country into a global hub for the far-right and White supremacists, as a 2021 TIME magazine story described it.

Over the last decade, the Donbass region has often been under heavy Ukrainian artillery, while Ukrainian leaders tell ethnic Russians of the region to “go to Russia”. The Ukrainian record of atrocities and human rights infringements in that area (including state-controlled far-right and neo-Nazi violence by means of battalions such as the Azov one) is typically underreported – in today’s Western media reports at least.

To put things in context, the fact is that, whatever one thinks of the Soviet experiment (in terms of the economy, social policies and ideology), the Soviet collapse was arguably one of “the greatest geopolitical catastrophes of the century”, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has famously described it. For one thing, the post-Soviet border situation in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus remains troublesome, with its “frozen conflicts” and unrecognized states or de facto republics which have disputed or limited recognition – and all the internal ethnopolitical dramas brought about by some of the post-soviet republics efforts at “nation-building”.

Moreover, whether one likes or not the ongoing Russian policies or its campaign in Ukraine, all of the above pertaining to Ukrainian far-right politics is part of the larger context behind Donbass annexation referendums, for one thing. As  I’ve written, one can only imagine what would happen with that region and its inhabitants in a Kyiv victory scenario.

Nicolai N. Petro, a professor of political science at the University of Rhode Island, is one of the experts who has warned (writing for Foreign Policy) that Ukraine does have a “civil rights problem” concerning its pro-Russian, Russian-speaking and ethnic Russian minorities, with policies that “effectively relegate Russian speakers to permanent second-class status” and that could, even after peace is achieved, “alienate, criminalize, or deport a significant portion of the country’s population.” These “civil rights” issues pertaining to ethnopolitics, the politics of memory and identity are a major part of what the tensions and the conflict has been about in the Eastern Slav region since at least 2014.

Adding fuel to the fire, there is of course the ever pressing topic of Western attraction, plus NATO expansion and its risks, in the larger context of an American policy of “dual-containment” and of “countering” and “encircling” Russia. Amazingly, journalistic lay analyses and lay reporting on the region tend to minimize or to ignore all together these two key aspects – the geopolitical and the ethnopolitical – by (as academic says) “naturalizing”, that is, taking at face value post-Maidan Ukrainian nation-building discourses and territorial claims. They do so while at the same time demonizing Russian perspectives and concerns – not only those of the Russian state but also those of a large part of the Donbass population, for that matter.

Worse still, in a New Cold War climate, aggravated by today’s “cancel culture”, any informed analysis who addresses the aforementioned key issues risks being “denounced” as “Russian propaganda”, and there are various institutes and journalists who make a living of reporting such things. Sometimes the targets are scholars who are even very critical of Moscow but who nonetheless dare to mention the topic of Ukrainian ethno-chauvinistic policies or of NATO enlargement or literal Nazism amongst Ukrainian military and paramilitary forces.

All of this is part of the elephant in the room, and not addressing such issues (or turning a blind-eye to it as the European Union has been doing) is a recipe for disaster and for the continuation of conflict in Eastern Europe. Moreover, it short-circuits some of the key values of Western Europe itself – simply speaking, by welcoming post-Maidan Ukraine as one of its own, the European and Western bloc denies much of the human-rights discourse that has been constructed to be the very core and the raison d’être of its key institutions.

From a European perspective, Kyiv’s efforts to realize its ethnocratic nation-building project (which I addressed elsewhere) and, moreover, the Ukrainian struggle to “survive” endangers the very survival of Europe – at least in the way Western Europe has come to envision itself.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Uriel Araujo, PhD, is an anthropology researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Whenever the government of India announces any new initiatives for promoting natural farming, the people of India committed to ecologically protective farming are very happy that at last the government is coming to the right path.

However when they learn that the government or its farm research establishment is also entering into collaborations with those multinational companies which are known to be closely associated with the promotion of most hazardous technologies (such as GM crops and highly hazardous agrochemicals that go with them), which have already paid billions of dollars in other countries for the health harm caused by them, which have  indulged in shockingly unethical practices and have even been involved in war crimes (the most shocking experiments in concentration camps) and chemical weapons in the past, then people are shocked and start thinking—if we are on the path of ecologically protective farming, then why are we inviting such multinational companies to destroy our environment?

Any country or government must be clear about its policies and priorities. It cannot have the contradictory attitude of saying that it is walking on the ecologically protective and destructive paths at the same time.

Several organizations and scientists are doing wonderful work on agro-ecology and natural farming in several countries. If the government feels that there is something very valuable to be learnt from the experiences and knowledge of some of them (even though in the context of natural farming most effective solutions are best found at the local level keeping in view local conditions), then the government can certainly invite them or even have a collaboration with them. But surely there can be absolutely no justification for having collaboration with those multinational companies that have become widely known for the spread of hazardous technologies including GM crops, who have been involved in legal cases amounting to billions in the context of these hazards, and some of whom have been involved in the course of their history even with the most horrible war crimes under the Nazi regime led by Hitler.

What are such companies doing in India?

Are we going to open up our agriculture research establishment to them?

Are we going to follow their lead?

Are we going to ask our scientists to work in collaboration with them? If yes, why? What is the logic or the rationale of this? 

Of course it is well-known that some of the worst polluter companies are trying to hide their massive ecological harm by adopting green-washing techniques and even trying to present themselves as climate saviors and environment protectors. No one should be fooled by such tactics of those who have already paid billions for cases relating to high health hazards or else are still entangled in many such cases. Why are they paying huge compensation for hazards mainly only in rich countries? Why are they not paying such compensation for the harm done by the same products in poorer countries?

The government should carefully reconsider all such harmful and dangerous collaboration agreements.      

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include India’s Quest for Sustainable Farming and Healthy Food. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Scientific India Magazine

On October 24th, a U.S. presidential candidate told an interviewer,

“Our day one agenda… also includes picking up the phone and telling Bibi Netanyahu that the war is over, because it’s basically our proxy war. We control the armaments, the funding, the diplomatic cover, the intelligence, etc., so we can end this in the blink of an eye with a single phone call, which is what Ronald Reagan did when Israel had gone into Lebanon and was massacring thousands of people. So we can do that right now. That’s day one.”

Tragically, the candidate who said that was not Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, but Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Most Americans have been persuaded that Stein cannot win the election, and many believe that voting for her in swing states will help elect Trump by siphoning voters from Harris.

There are many other “third-party” candidates for president, and many of them have good policy proposals for ending the genocidal U.S.-Israeli massacre in Gaza. As the website for Claudia de la Cruz, the presidential candidate for the Party of Socialism and Liberation, explains,

“Our tax dollars should be used to meet people’s needs — not pay for the bullets, bombs and missiles used in the massacre in Gaza.”

Many of the principles and policy proposals of “third-party” and independent candidates are more in line with the views of most Americans than those of Harris or Trump. This is hardly surprising given the widely recognized corruption of the U.S. political system. While Trump cynically flip-flops to appeal to both sides on many questions, and Harris generally avoids committing to policy specifics at all, especially regarding foreign policy, most Americans understand that they are both more beholden to the billionaires and corporate interests who fund their campaigns than to the well-being of working Americans or the future of the planet.

Michael Moore has published a flier titled “This Is America,” which shows that large majorities of Americans support “liberal” positions on 18 different issues, from a ceasefire in Gaza to Medicare For All to getting money out of politics.

Moore implies that this should be reassuring to Democrats and Harris supporters, and it would be if she was running on those positions. But, for the most part, she isn’t. On the other hand, many third party and independent candidates for president are running on those positions, but the anti-democratic U.S. political system ensures that they can’t win, even when most Americans agree with them.

War and militarism are the most deadly and destructive forces in human society, with real world, everyday, physical impacts that kill or maim people and destroy their homes, communities and entire countries. So it is deeply disturbing that the political system in the United States has been corrupted into bipartisan subservience to a military-industrial complex (or MICIMATT, to use a contemporary term) that wields precisely the “unwarranted influence” that President Eisenhower warned us against 64 years ago, and uses its influence to drag us into wars that wreak death and destruction in country after country.

Apart from brief wars to recover small neocolonial outposts in Grenada, Panama and Kuwait, all now many decades ago, the U.S. military has not won a war since 1945. It systematically fails on its own terms, while its nakedly lethal and destructive power only fills graveyards and leaves countries in ruins. Far from being an effective vehicle to project American power, unleashing the brutality of the U.S. war machine has become the fastest, surest way to further undermine America’s international standing in the eyes of our neighbors.

After so many wars under so many administrations of both parties, neither Republicans nor Democrats can claim to be a “lesser evil” on questions of war and peace, let alone a “peace party.”

As with so many of America’s problems, from the expansion of corporate and oligarchic power to the generational decline in living standards, the combined impact of decades of Democratic and Republican government is more dangerous, more lasting and more intractable than the policies of any single administration. On no question is this more obvious than on questions of war and peace.

For decades, there was a small but growing progressive wing in the Democratic Party that voted against record military spending and opposed U.S. wars, occupations and coups. But when Bernie Sanders ran for president and millions of grassroots Democrats rallied around his progressive agenda, the Party leaders and their corporate, plutocratic backers fought back more aggressively to defeat Bernie and the progressives than they ever fought to win elections against the Republicans, or to oppose the war on Iraq or tax cuts for the wealthy.

This year, flush with blood money from the Israel lobby, pro-Israel Democrats defeated two of the most progressive, public-spirited Democratic members of Congress, Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman.

On the Republican side, in response to the U.S. wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, the libertarian Republican member of Congress Ron Paul led a small group of Republicans to join progressive Democrats in an informal bipartisan peace caucus in Congress. In recent years though, the number of members of either party willing to take any kind of stand for peace has shrunk dramatically. So while there are now over 100 Congressional caucuses, from the Candy Caucus to the Pickleball Caucus, there is still not one for peace.

After the neocons who provided the ideological fuel for Bush’s catastrophic wars reconvened around Hillary Clinton in 2016, President Trump tried to “make America’s military great again” by appointing retired generals to his cabinet and characteristically staking out positions all over the map, from a call to kill the families of “terrorists” to a National Defense Strategy naming Russia and China as the “central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security,” to casting himself as a peacemaker by trying to negotiate a peace treaty with North Korea.

Trump is now running against Biden’s war in Ukraine and trying to have it both ways on Gaza, with undying support for Israel and a promise to end the war immediately. Some Palestinian-Americans are supporting Trump for not being the VP for Genocide Joe, just as other people support Harris for not being Trump.

But most Americans know little about Trump’s actual war policy as president. The unique value of a leader like Trump to the military-industrial complex is that he draws attention to himself and diverts attention away from U.S. atrocities overseas.

In 2017, Trump’s first year in office, he oversaw the climax of Obama’s war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, which probably killed as many civilians as Israel has massacred in Gaza. In that year alone, the U.S. and its allies dropped over 60,000 bombs and missiles on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan,Yemen, Libya, Pakistan and Somalia. That was the heaviest bombing since the first Gulf War in 1991, and double the destruction of the “Shock & Awe” bombing of Iraq in 2003.

Most chillingly, the Iraqi forces who defeated the last remnants of ISIS in Mosul’s Old City were ordered to kill all the survivors, fulfilling Trump’s threat to “take out their families.”

“We killed them all,” an Iraqi soldier told Middle East Eye. “Daesh, men, women and children. We killed everyone.”

If anyone is counting on Trump to save the people of Gaza from Netanyahu and Biden’s genocide, that should be a reality check.

In other areas, Trump’s back-pedaling on Obama’s diplomatic achievements with Iran and Cuba have led to new crises for both those countries on the eve of this election. By moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, bribing Arab despots with ‘Abraham’ deals, and encouraging Netanyahu’s Greater Israel ambitions, Trump primed the powder-keg for the genocide in Gaza and the new crisis in the Middle East under Biden.

Image: Jill Stein

On the other side, Harris shares responsibility for genocide, arguably the most serious international crime in the book. To make matters worse, she has connived in a grotesque scheme to provide cover for the genocide by pretending to be working for a ceasefire that, as Jill Stein and many others have said, the U.S. could enforce “in the blink of an eye, with a single phone call” if it really wanted to. As for the future, Harris has only committed to making the U.S. military even more “lethal.”

The movement for a Free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza has failed to win the support of the Republican or Democratic presidential campaigns. But this is not a failure on the part of the Palestinian-Americans we have listened to and worked with, who have engaged in brilliant organizing, gradually raised public awareness and won over more Americans to their cause. They are leading the most successful anti-war organizing campaign in America since the Iraq War.

The refusal of Trump or Harris to listen to the calls of Americans whose families are being massacred in Gaza, and now in Lebanon too, is a failure on the part of the corrupt, anti-democratic political system of which Trump and Harris are figureheads, not a failure of activism or organizing.

Whomever each of us votes for in the presidential election, the campaign to end the genocide in Gaza will continue, and we must grow stronger and smarter and more inclusive until politicians cannot ignore us, no matter how much money the Israel lobby and other corrupt interests throw at them, or at their political opponents.

Whomever we vote for, the elephant in the room will still be US militarism and the violence and chaos it inflicts on the world. Whether Trump or Harris is president, the result will be more of the same, unless we do something to change it. As legendary Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu famously said, “If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.”

No American should be condemned for voting for a candidate of their choice, however successfully the Democrats and Republicans have marginalized the very concept of multi-party democracy that the U.S. claims to support in other countries. Whoever wins this election, we must find a way to put peace back on this country’s national agenda, and to make our collective voices heard in ways that cannot be drowned out by oligarchs with big bags of cash.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK for Peace, and the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher for CODEPINK and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies are the authors of War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, published by OR Books, with an updated edition due in February 2025. They are regular contributors to Global Research.

Featured image is from CODEPINK

The Monster Behind Weather Engineering?

Peter Koenig, October 18, 2024

“Nuclear High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse”: The United States Has Zero National Security

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, October 19, 2024

German Lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich’s Persecution in Prison


Reiner Fuellmich, October 14, 2024

Climate Instability Worldwide: Does the US Military “Own the Weather”? “Weaponizing the Weather” as an Instrument of Modern Warfare?

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 8, 2024

It’s a “Killer” Vaccine Worldwide: Japanese Researchers Say Side Effects of COVID Vaccines Linked to 201 Types of Diseases

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 27, 2024

Slovakia Moves to Ban ‘Dangerous’ COVID ‘Vaccines,’ Declares Pandemic a ‘Fabricated Operation’

Frank Bergman, October 18, 2024

The One World Order Is Here. UN Pact of the Future. “United under UN Tyranny”

Peter Koenig, October 3, 2024

The Present State of Israel vs. the Israel of the Bible: Understanding the Difference.: “The Present State of Israel Is Not the Israel of God”

Prof. Ruel F. Pepa, October 16, 2024

The Effects of Pulsed Microwaves And Extra Low Frequency Electromagnetic Waves on Human Brains? Governments Routinely “Classify Information” Pertaining to the Manipulation of the Human Nervous System

Mojmir Babacek, October 4, 2024

Canada Starts Euthanizing the COVID-19 Vaccine-Injured. “Post-vaccine Syndrome”

Dr. William Makis, October 25, 2024

How to Steer Hurricanes, Flood Homes, and Steal Lithium. West North Carolina’s Tragic Aftermath

Greg Reese, October 24, 2024

Over 30 U.S. Schoolchildren Died Suddenly This Week as Deaths Surge Among COVID-Vaxxed

Baxter Dmitry, October 28, 2024

There Never Was a “New Corona Virus”, There Never Was a Pandemic

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 30, 2024

After 4 Years of Censorship: Mainstream Media Now Confirms that “COVID Jabs May be to Blame for Increase in Excess Deaths”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 25, 2024

Hurricane Milton Is So Unusual That It Does Not Seem Natural

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, October 8, 2024

The Biden Regime Has Just Issued a Very Suspicious Directive Permitting Military Intervention in US Domestic Affairs. Dr. Paul C. Roberts

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, October 14, 2024

Food Production is Causing “Global Warming”, “Farms Must Shut Down”: 13 Nations Sign Agreement to Engineer Global Famine by Destroying Food Supply

Hunter Fielding, October 26, 2024

Uncovering World Tyranny and Its War Strategies. Peter Koenig and David Icke

David Icke, October 7, 2024

Bomb Cyclones and Atmospheric Rivers: Is Someone Messing with the Weather?

F. William Engdahl, October 26, 2024

New German Study: All COVID mRNA Vaccinated Children Are at Increased Risk of Cancer

Dr. William Makis, October 7, 2024

Oct. 16, 2024 – Goodpasture cross country runner Janie Grace Moss dies three days after collapsing on run

Goodpasture cross country runner Janie Grace Moss died Wednesday morning, due to complications after she collapsed during a run. 

Goodpasture announced her death on social media and athletic director Jim Carter also confirmed it to The Tennessean.  

Moss collapsed during a run at Wright Park on Sunday, according to a GoFundMe created for her. She was life-flighted to Centennial Hospital, where she experienced cerebral edema, or brain swelling, and was put on life support, according to the fundraiser page. 

Moss, a senior, was also a member of Goodpasture’s cheer and swim teams. A prayer vigil was held for her Monday at Goodpasture’s W.F. Ruhl Arts Center. 

“It is with great sadness we share that GCS senior Janie Grace Moss passed away this morning,” Goodpasture’s athletic department posted in a statement to the ‘X’ platform, formerly Twitter. “We are so thankful for the person she was in this world. Her light shines and will continue to shine bright. Please be prayerful for her family and the GCS school community.”

The cause of Moss’ death was not immediately known. 

* 

Goodpasture Runner Is Third TSSAA Cross Country Death This Season

Moss represents the third death of cross country runner in Middle Tennessee this TSSAA cross country season.

Sycamore runner Tristen Franklin died on Aug. 27 after collapsing during a run in triple-digit temperatures. He was 15. Franklin was on a run in his neighborhood, not on school property, when he collapsed. His cause of death has not been released.

Katherine Lindsay Rust, an eighth grader at Thompson’s Station Middle School, died on Sept. 18 after running in a meet, according to her obituary. She was 13.

.

.

My Take…

Three Tennessee child athletes – Cross Country runners, have dropped dead in the past 2 months.

I suspect all three were COVID-19 Vaccinated.

In Canada, 80% of kids ages 12-19 got two mRNA vaccines and athletes were MANDATED two contaminated mRNA injections in 2021 in order to be able to continue participating in sports.

It’s one of the greatest crimes that has gone entirely unpunished.

This will continue to happen until parents do something about it.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

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

Featured image is from COVID Intel

---

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

You may also access the online version of the e-Book by clicking here.

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Big Tech’s Effort to Silence Truth-tellers: Global Research Online Referral Campaign

***

Among the most visible geopolitical controversies of our age is planetary climate. The idea goes that earth’s temperature is rising, that this rise is becoming catastrophic, that its cause is manmade carbon emissions, and that only reductions in those emissions will save the planet and, by extension, humanity. But is any of this true? The American Geopolitical Institute will be exploring these questions through the eyes of our lead investigator, Dr. Lewis Coleman. In his initial article, Dr. Coleman takes a hard look at the much-maligned atmospheric gas, CO2.

*

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most misunderstood of all atmospheric gases, but also the most interesting. It is benign, beneficial, and essential for both plant and animal life, but it is vociferously vilified as toxic waste, like urine, that must be expelled from the body by breathing, and as a “greenhouse gas” that threatens human existence with excessive heat and melted polar ice.

Given overwhelming evidence to the contrary, these fractured fairy tales are flabbergasting. They can only be explained by prevailing ignorance plus the power, politics, privilege, and persuasion that perpetually prevails and perturbs human endeavor and prevents progress.¹

CO2 is essential for life on the earth’s surface. Multicellular plants convert carbon dioxide into carbohydrates for food and cellulose for structural support. In multicellular vertebrates, carbon dioxide is as essential as oxygen, because it enables the mechanism of oxygen transport and delivery that captures oxygen from the atmosphere (or water) and delivers it to cells deep within the body.²

CO2 is also the major component of hydroxyapatite, which forms bone. The human body contains some 20 liters of gaseous carbon dioxide that is mostly dissolved in bodily fluids, as compared to 1 L of nitrogen and 1 L of oxygen. The CO2 leaks from the skin and equilibrates with atmospheric CO2, which slowly fluctuates over eons within a narrow range. Respiratory drive mechanisms adapt to this equilibrium and stimulate breathing to sustain it.

If CO2 was a narcotic, we would all be drunk, and if it were toxic, we would all be dead. Instead, CO2 has powerful therapeutic properties that were revealed by medical research at the turn of the 20th century. This is because breathing or bathing in CO2 stimulates respiratory drive, reduces microvascular flow resistance, speeds the transport of oxygenated blood from the lungs to organs and tissues, and releases oxygen from blood into tissues.²

Carbon dioxide is one of the most beneficial substances on planet earth. Why then do the madmen who control society want to get rid of it?

It wasn’t always this way.

A century ago, the nurse-anesthetists who dominated anesthesia service in operating rooms after WWI embraced physician research and supplemented ether anesthesia with morphine analgesia to prevent harmful nervous activity induced by surgery.¹ They also supplemented ether with carbon dioxide to speed anesthetic induction and emergence; counteract morphine respiratory depression; optimize cardiorespiratory function, tissue oxygenation, and organ protection; and prevent heart attacks, strokes, atelectasis, pneumonia, nausea, vomiting, and unexpected postoperative respiratory arrest.

The success of these heroic nurses inspired physicians to use Carbogen, a therapeutic mixture of oxygen and carbon dioxide in pressurized tanks, to treat strokes, heart attacks, drowning, alcohol inebriation, drug overdose, asthma, pneumonia, smoke inhalation, cardiopulmonary arrest, and bacterial infections, and to assist newborn babies with breathing problems. Soon Carbogen became standard equipment on fire trucks in major cities, and it saved countless lives. All this came close to revolutionizing medicine in the 1930s.³

Carbogen has largely been forgotten, though with today’s modern machines, monitors, and medications it could be more useful than ever. For example, it could cure or facilitate the treatment of interstitial cystitis, ulcerative colitis, regional enteritis, rheumatoid diseases, cancer, heart disease, and life-threatening critical illnesses such as eclampsia and multi-organ failure syndrome. CO2 remains FDA-approved, but its therapeutic properties and even the mechanism of oxygen transport and delivery have been banished from medical literature and awareness, so it is almost never used anymore.

What happened was that, disastrously, organized medicine became envious of the success of the nurse-anesthetists and conspired to control this profitable medical specialty.⁴ In 1897 Dr. Charles Bardeen, the son of a New York publishing magnate, became the first graduate of Johns Hopkins Medical School. He was immediately appointed as a professor of anatomy at the University of Wisconsin Medical School, and then elevated to the position of Dean in 1907.

In 1927 he selected Dr. Ralph Waters to be the first chairman of a university department of anesthesia in the world. He later said, “Ralph Waters was the first person the university hired to put people to sleep, but instead he awakened a worldwide interest in anesthesia.”⁵ This anointed Dr. Waters with priceless prestige, and he knew how to use it. He was a shrewd salesman, who had acquired prominence in medical circles by dunking his anesthetized and intubated pet dog named “Airway” into a tank of water to demonstrate the effectiveness of Arthur Gudel’s endotracheal tubes, which are inserted into the trachea to prevent airway obstruction and support breathing.^6,7

Dr. Waters immediately joined forces with Dr. Chauncey Leake, the chairman of the Department of Pharmacology at Wisconsin, whose specialty was war gas research, to devise specious animal experiments that deliberately confused CO2 asphyxiation with anesthesia. Dr. Waters also confabulated clinical reports of anonymous anesthetists that dramatically described fictitious disasters caused by overenthusiastic CO2 supplementation, which he characterized as “CO2 toxicity” instead of asphyxiation.^1,8,9 This confusion has been subsequently sustained by rigged research and specious publications.^10-13

As chairman, Dr. Waters introduced his practical new anesthetic technique that used intravenous barbiturate induction and paralysis to enable elective endotracheal intubation. This secured the airway against aspiration and obstruction, facilitated breathing, and enabled surgery in the prone position and in the oral cavity. These procedures were impossible with the mask management technique used by the nurses. Furthermore, the paralysis promoted surgical convenience by preventing untoward muscle tension and unexpected movements due to uncontrolled surgical stimulation.

Waters thus had devised a powerful political strategy to wreck the reputation of the nurses, replace them with his MD anesthesiology trainees, and promote the sales of his patented “Waters Canister” that absorbed carbon dioxide from gas mixtures. This created a powerful hoax that frightened physicians into avoiding both CO2 and narcotics that has been abetted ever since by professional medicine, medical corporations, and “climate change” hucksters.⁴

He also indoctrinated his residents with the notion that carbon dioxide is “toxic waste, like urine,” that must be “rid from the body” to prevent mythical “CO2 toxicity” by using mechanical hyperventilation during anesthesia.^9,14 This was cleverly consistent with entrenched orthodox CO2 beliefs, but it is scientific insanity, because hyperventilation is inherently dangerous, confers no benefits, and is incompatible with therapeutic narcotics. It also dangerously depletes CO2 body reserves, which exaggerates narcotic respiratory depression and invites heart attacks, strokes, and unexpected postoperative respiratory arrest.

These effects, however, didn’t become problematic until several years later when defective “closed circuit” anesthesia machines, which were designed to conserve expensive anesthetic gases, were replaced with “open circuit” anesthesia machines that were designed to eliminate any possibility of CO2 accumulation within the machines.¹⁵ By that time, the therapeutic and life-sustaining characteristics of carbon dioxide were forgotten, so the consequent postoperative respiratory depression problems were blamed on narcotics.

Why? Because CO2 is cheap, safe, effective, and easy to use, not all that far removed from a “home remedy.” And because the combination of carbon dioxide and narcotics prevented lingering manifestations of the “surgical stress syndrome” including cancer, heart disease, and chronic illnesses, all of which promote professional and corporate profits at the price of public health.

Dr. Waters next took care to place his graduates in prominent positions in hospitals and university medical schools. Having successfully displaced the nurses, founded the anesthesiology profession on false science, and created a deadly hoax that has confused anesthesia practice ever since, he mysteriously retired at the age of 65 and refused further contact with the monstrous profession he had created.^4,16-18 Meanwhile, Dr. Chauncey Leake enjoyed prestigious appointments at UC San Francisco, the University of Texas, the Ohio State University, and as chairman of the Board of Science Journal.¹⁹

Seldom have so few caused so much harm to so many.¹ Their acts of wholesale mischief have reversed medical progress; derailed medical research; and killed and maimed countless patients ever since. Their endeavors are replete with the cloven hoofprints of organized medicine, powerful medical corporations, and the Wellcome Trust.

Back to CO2

CO2 is a “trace gas” in the earth’s atmosphere that couldn’t possibly cause “global warming,” which is a cyclical phenomenon that occurs at intervals of hundreds of years. The most recent prior episode occurred during the early 1400s, when a fleet of massive Chinese junks sailed through the melted North Pole passage and mapped the world, soon followed by Western explorers.²⁰ But the ice froze again before Admiral Byrd and his contemporaries searched for the mysterious polar passage. Now it has melted again, and commercial shipping prefers it to the Panama Canal.

What, then, is the source of CO2? The fact is that it is continuously produced by the vast mass of microbial life that thrives in the hellishly hot environment deep beneath the earth’s surface, where the nuclear core provides abundant chemicals that serve as food. This explains the high CO2 concentrations found in caves and why volcanic eruptions belch forth vast quantities of carbon dioxide. Its high molecular weight causes atmospheric CO2 to hover near the earth’s surface, where photosynthetic bacteria and multicellular plants avidly consume it and constrain its concentration to only 0.03% of the atmospheric gas mix, so that plant and animal life on the earth’s surface thrive at the brink of CO2 starvation.

Multicellular life cannot survive at higher altitudes such as the “dead zone” near the top of Mt. Everest where CO2 is virtually absent, which explains why the top of Mt. Everest is littered with lemming-like Darwin Award winners and why their guides suffer hypoxic brain damage.

CO2 is also an ideal refrigerant with a revealing history. It was patented in Britain as a refrigerant in 1850, and in 1870 an American businessman installed CO2 refrigeration in a cargo ship to transport beef from Texas to New York City. It is devoid of toxicity, but its low cost undermines its commercial viability.²¹ CO2 was soon supplanted by ammonia, but consumers feared ammonia toxicity, and preferred ice deliveries to ammonia refrigerators.

For example, tour guides at California’s Hearst Castle were sickened by ammonia leaking from its damaged antique refrigerators after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The German division of the international General Electric cartel retained Albert Einstein and Moshe Szilard to invent safe refrigeration technologies during the interval between WWI and WWII. They patented several commercially impractical ideas,²² but their efforts were rendered moot by Thomas Midgely, Jr., the infamous inventor of leaded gasoline, who dramatically inhaled Freon, a fluorinated hydrocarbon developed by DuPont, to demonstrate its safety before a crowded engineering convention.²³ The DuPont Corporation then promoted Freon, whereupon Freon refrigerators were enthusiastically embraced after WWII.

However, Freon was never safe. When exposed to open flame it degenerates to phosgene gas, which killed more soldiers than any other “war gas” during WWI. This was particularly problematic because refrigeration repairmen routinely used propane torches to detect Freon leaks.²⁴ This explains the fakery of the “Ozone Hole” hysteria, which enabled DuPont to replace dangerous Freon with hydrocarbon alternatives that likewise cannot compare to the safety of carbon dioxide.

Freon also explains the pulmonary illness suffered by firemen and policemen during the 9/11 demolition of the World Trade Center towers, which exposed massive quantities of Freon to thermite flame.²⁴ Thankfully, the European Union has introduced regulations to restrict toxic chemicals, so Mercedes Benz and other European corporations are now developing safe CO2 air conditioning systems for cars and homes.

So, the next time a “climate change” fanatic starts ranting at you about the horrors of CO2 you can tell them to hold on until they hear “the rest of the story.” Meanwhile, must we await the arrival of our great-great grandchildren before the therapeutic blessings of carbon dioxide, surgical narcotics, and stress theory can be realized? Why not us? Why not now?

*

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

Dr. Lewis S. Coleman is Chair of the Science and Education Board of the American Institute of Stress. He is a board-certified anesthesiologist who completed his BS degree in biology at the Ohio State University, obtained his MD degree from New York Medical College, and completed his surgical internship and anesthesiology residency at UCLA, followed by 40 years in private practice. Coleman’s basic sciences instruction at NYMC miraculously coincided with the two-year sojourn of Dr. Johannes Rhodin, who was retained by the school to reform its curriculum. Dr. Rhodin was a famous researcher and expert on the stress theory of Dr. Hans Selye. His lectures devastated the dogma of classical physiology and convinced Coleman that stress theory represented the future of medicine. Many years later, these lectures enabled Coleman to identify Selye’s long-sought stress mechanism. It promises to revolutionize medicine and provide a new era of health, longevity, and freedom from the eternal scourge of disease and premature death. Coleman sets forth his ideas in his important new book, “50 Years Lost in Medical Advance: The Discovery of Hans Selye’s Stress Mechanism.”

Notes

1 Coleman, L. S. Four Forgotten Giants of Anesthesia History. Journal of Anesthesia and Surgery 3, 1-17 (2015). <http://www.ommegaonline.org/article-details/Four-Forgotten-Giants-of-Anesthesia-History/468>.

2 Coleman, L. S. Oxygen Transport and Delivery. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efi9v86isSw&t=117s (2022). <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efi9v86isSw&t=117s>.

3 Henderson, Y. Resuscitation with Carbon Dioxide. Science 83, 399-402 (1936). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.83.2157.399

4 Coleman, L. S. The Great Medical Hoax of the 20th Century.  (2022). <https://www.amazon.com/Great-Medical-Hoax-20th-Century/dp/B09X4BCTWG/ref=sr_1_1?crid=8A8KBG2F26D7&keywords=the+great+medical+hoax+of+the+20th+Century&qid=1659205157&sprefix=the+great+medical+hoax+of+the+20th+century%2Caps%2C153&sr=8-1>.

5 Morris, L. E., Schroeder, M. E., Warner, M. E. & Wood Library-Museum of Anesthesiology (Park Ridge Ill.). Ralph Milton Waters, M.D., mentor to a profession : proceedings, the Ralph M. Waters International Symposium on Professionalism in Anesthesia, Madison, Wisconsin, 2002.  (Wood Library-Museum of Anesthesiology, 2004).

6 Waters, R. M. Ltr Waters to Guedel Re: intention tremors, ET tube durability. https://calisphere.org/item/784c2d71-bb93-4c73-af85-2ce6faf9f8d6/ (1929, March 19).

7 Waters, R. M. Waters reports one-lung anesthesia with new ET tubes. https://calisphere.org/item/f8195ad6-f577-4a0e-8f9f-aa9dbfaf1ae1/ (1931, June 10).

8 Leake, C. D. W., R.M. The Anesthetic Properties of Carbon Dioxid. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 33 (1928).

9 Waters, R. M. Toxic Effects of Carbon Dioxide. J.A.M.A 100:519, 1933, 219-224 (1933).

10 Eisele, J. H., Eger, E. I., 2nd & Muallem, M. Narcotic properties of carbon dioxide in the dog. Anesthesiology 28, 856-865 (1967).

11 Cullen, D. J. & Eger, E. I., 2nd. Cardiovascular effects of carbon dioxide in man. Anesthesiology 41, 345-349 (1974).

12 Cullen, D. J., Eger, E. I., 2nd & Gregory, G. A. The cardiovascular effects of carbon dioxide in man, conscious and during cyclopropane anesthesia. Anesthesiology 31, 407-413 (1969).

13 Eckenhoff, J. E. Carbon Dioxide and Man. Anesthesiology 21, 585-586 (1960).

14 Waters, R. M. Carbon Dioxide. Can Med Assoc J 38, 240-243 (1938).

15 Jackson, D. E. Anesthesia Equipment From 1914 to 1954 and Experiments Leading To Its Development. Anesthesiology 16, 953-969 (1955).

16 Overdyk, F. J. postoperative Opioids Need System-Wide Overhaul. Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation Newsletter (2010). <http://www.apsf.org/newsletters/html/2010/winter/11_opioids.htm>.

17 Coleman, L. S. Intraoperative Hyperventilation May Contribute to Postop Opioid Hypersensitivity. apsf Newsletter Winter 2009-2020 (2010). <https://www.apsf.org/article/intraoperative-hyperventilation-may-contribute-to-postop-opioid-hypersensitivity/>.

18 Coleman, L. S. A call for standards on perioperative CO(2) regulation. Can J Anaesth (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-011-9469-7

19 Shimkin, M. B. Chauncey D. Leake, president-elect. Science 129, 468-469 (1959). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.129.3347.468

20 Menzies, G. 1421 : the year China discovered the world.  (Bantam, 2002).

21 Nguyen, O. a. Carbon Dioxide as a Refrigerant, <https://www.rsi.edu/blog/hvacr/carbon-dioxide-refrigerant/> (2016).

22 Dannen, G. The Einstein-Szilard Refrigerators, <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-einstein-szilard-refrigerators/> (1997).

23 Knight, L. The Fatal Attraction of Lead. BBC News Magazine (2014). <https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29568505>.

24 Shawn. Burning freon can produce phosgene gas, <https://honda-tech.com/forums/honda-civic-del-sol-1992-2000-1/burning-freon-can-produce-phosphene-gas-229557/> (2002).

Featured image is from VTFP

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

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

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

First published on October 11, 2023

*** 

In my last article I wrote about the history and aim of the Club of Rome. I mentioned that they now are one of the leading advocates for declaring a “Planetary Emergency”. This will most likely be the trigger for the setup of a scientific dictatorship.

The idea of declaring an emergency was first proposed to Club of Rome by British consultant and psychotherapist David Wasdell in 2005.

Wasdell, with training from Tavistock Institute, had written a paper called Global Warning that was circulated during the G8 summit in Gleneagles in 2005, with the mission of getting the climate issue higher up on the political agenda.

We have a narrow remaining window to engage global strategic planning and mobilisation, followed by a maximum of fifty years to achieve the transition, to scale down resource usage, to terminate inequitable capital accumulation, and to stabilise and begin the long term reduction of global population.

Wasdell was then invited by the Club of Rome president Prince El Hassan bin Talal to make a speech at their annual conference in Norfolk, Virginia.

In order to achieve the desired impact, Wasdell advised them to:

• Recognise that there now exist a state of global emergency
• Declare excess CO2 to be an eco-toxin [!] with potentially catastrophic impact on the global biosphere
• Develop and operationalize an emergency strategy to move our global society towards a zero or negative carbon economy within the shortest possible timescale
• Develop and operationalize the most effective institutional instruments to manage the transition.

Wasdell, who became an adviser to Al Gore, was also working closely with the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research (PIK) and its director and Club of Rome-member Hans Joachim Schellnhuber to develop the concept of Tipping Points in the climate system.[1]

This concept was incorporated into the Planetary Boundaries framework, which was developed under the leadership of Johan Rockström at the Stockholm Resilience Centre and introduced in the article “A safe operating space for humanity” in 2009. This was done in cooperation with Schellnhuber and PIK.[2]

Planetary Boundaries is a framework to “describe limits to the impacts of human activities on the Earth system”. If left unchecked, it is said to trigger cascading tipping points leading to “large-scale abrupt or irreversible environmental changes”. To prevent this potential scenario, a top-down population control is considered necessary.

Rockström, a Swedish agronomist, had in 2004 been headhunted by the first IPCC chairman Bert Bolin to serve as director of Stockholm Environment Institute and became the first director of Stockholm Resilience Centre in 2007.

The latter institute, located at Stockholm University, had been set up by the Swedish foundation for strategic environmental research (MISTRA) with the task of developing strategies for sustainable governance and stewardship of ecological and social systems. Rockström later succeeded Hans Joachim Schellnhuber as joint director of PIK in 2018.

The Planetary Boundaries framework was presented by Rockström at Club of Rome’s Global Assembly in Amsterdam in October 2009, with attendance from their royal patron Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and honorary member Mikhail Gorbachev. Sponsors were Philips, Royal Dutch Shell and KLM.[3]

The framework was included in the Club of Rome-report Bankrupting Nature, authored by Johan Rockström and former Club of Rome-president Anders Wijkman, and became a part of Club of Rome’s and PIK’s The Planetary Emergency Plan in 2019. One year later their Planetary Emergency Partnership was launched with over 300 partners all over the world.

These plans have now come into fruition. A few weeks ago, a statement was made by The Climate Governance Commission at the UN General Assembly High-Level Week & Climate Week.[4]

The commission, which includes the current president of the Club of Rome, Sandrine Dixson-Declève, and Johan Rockström, paints a bleak picture of the future – unless we take decisive action.

The world faces a deepening planetary emergency – and is on a reckless path toward catastrophic climate change – having already over-stepped six of nine scientifically-identified planetary boundaries. A continued failure to address the underlying causes of this emergency – such as fossil fuel-based economies, resource waste/overconsumption and the destruction of nature – will have further devastating effects for all of humanity, triggering potentially irreversible tipping points, with dangerous consequences for planetary stability, both social and ecological. A system-wide approach to solving the climate crisis is required now, ensuring reliable climate and planetary boundary governance for the Earth as a whole.

Due to these alleged crises, the commission recommends “bold and concrete steps to catalyze a shift in global governance” in their forthcoming report Governing Our Planetary Emergency, which will be released in conjunction with the climate summit in Dubai (COP28) in November 2023.

The Climate Governance Commission was founded by the Swedish Global Challenges Foundation at the UN75 Global Governance Forum, September 16 & 17 2020, and is led by former Irish President Mary Robinson from The Elders and Club of Madrid with Johan Rockström and the former President of the UN General Assembly María Fernanda Espinosa as co-chairs. Supporters include Club of Madrid, Stimson Center and The Rockefeller Foundation.

The former president of Club of Rome that intervened trying to prevent my dissertation from being approved is a “contributing expert”.

They CGC state that the “global governance system is ill-equipped to deal with our planetary emergency, which now encompasses the “polycrisis” including, for example, international conflict, financial instability, global inequality, and pandemic risk and recovery.” The new term “polycrisis” was frequently used in discussions at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2023.[5]

To handle this “polycrisis”, CGC calls for “competent” crisis leadership.

Empowered with new authorities, current and new international governance institutions must exert competent crisis leadership, developing and deploying emergency plans and a new generation of effective policies while pursuing a more equitable allocation of resources. Further, scientific boundaries are not negotiable, but must drive and fundamentally inform our collective action and management systems.

To set these “new authorities and capabilities” in motion the commission proposes that the UN General Assembly declares a planetary emergency at the Summit of the Future in September 22-23 next year.

The UN General Assembly should declare a global planetary emergency at the 2024 Summit of the Future, reinforced in similar statements by UN Agencies, regional bodies, and national and local governments.

The commission then suggests to elaborate on the UN Secretary-General’s proposed Emergency Platform “to design and convene an inter-agency, intergovernmental Planetary Emergency Platform to bring together fragmented international institutional structures, and to develop a Planetary Emergency Plan for urgent, coordinated action, with linked national emergency plans.”

I describe the Emergency Platform here.

This Platform, consisting of intergovernmental, State and non-State actors, would “plan for and cooperate on urgent action at all levels of governance, including a global decarbonizing package”.

The commission point out that over-stepping the planetary boundaries has to come with consequences.

Global security norms should be broadened to reflect the grave implications of over-stepping climate/planetary boundaries, including UN Security Council practices to better reflect the climate policy challenges and priorities of the Global South and of all peoples.

They are because of this calling for “courageous “top down” leadership within all levels of government, combined with generalized “bottom up” citizen pressure and engagement, to catalyze fundamental transformations.”

Some of the other suggestions in the statement includes:

• A Global Environment Agency
• An International Court for the Environment
• Institutional Reform of the Global Financial System

Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Global Commons Alliance

In the background, another closely related initiative has been developed to execute the prescribed transformation. In 2019 the Global Commons Alliance was launched in Singapore by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors with the mission “to mobilize citizens, companies, cities and countries to accelerate systems change, and become better guardians of the global commons”.[6]

Their strategic priorities are to change minds, actions and systems in order to safeguard the global commons and “regaining planetary stability”. They are ready to act swiftly when an emergency is declared.

By 2025, the true magnitude of the multifaceted transformations we need to safeguard the global commons will be well understood. Key actors will know what they need to do, where things are most urgent, and be taking action that sparks and sustains transformational change in order to protect the global commons.

Their philosophy is all based on Rockström’s Planetary Boundaries Framework.

The 70+ partners include Club of Rome, PIK, WEF, and WRI, with support from an “Investor Collaborative” consisting of among others Swiss MAVA Foundation, Dutch foundation Porticus and United Nations Global Environment Facility.

Rockström is a member of the steering committee of the Global Commons Alliance and leads the “Alliance Component” The Earth Commission with the mission to define “safe and just boundaries for people and the planet”.

This is a graph from my book The Digital World Brain (under translation to English), illustrating their formula for “systems transformation”.

It is a recipe for a Scientific Dictatorship. To quote the “tenth commandment” on the now demolished Georgia Guidestones:

Be not a cancer on the Earth – Leave room for nature – Leave room for nature.

It also reminds me of a document from the Secretariat of World Order that George Hunt uncovered during a “UNA Environment and Development Conference to provide broad public debate and support for United Nations Earth Summit” in Des Moines, September 22 1991.[7]

The security council of the UN, led by the Anglo-Saxon Major Nation Powers, will decree that henceforth, the Security Council will inform all nations that its suffrance on population has ended, that all nations have quotas for REDUCTION on a yearly basis, which will be enforced by the Security Council’ by selective or total embargo of credit, items of trade including food and medicine, or by military force, when required.

This has now been rebranded as carbon footprint reduction.

I will delve more into the Global Commons Alliance in a coming article. I also mention their influence in my presentation “Shaping the Future Agenda – The Digital World Brain” from Stavanger.

*

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

Notes

[1] www.apollo-gaia.org/A-GProjectDevelopment.pdf

[2] Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a

[3] www.slideshare.net/Eurotopia/assembly-programme

[4] globalgovernanceforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Governing-our-Planetary-Emergency-CGC-Statement-UNGA-v2.pdf

[5] www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/01/polycrisis-global-risks-report-cost-of-living/

[6] globalcommonsalliance.org/about/

[7] archive.org/details/GeorgeHuntUncedEarthSummit1992cobdenClubsPapersaldousHuxleythe_125/2-1-unUncedEarthSummit1992ByGeorgeHunt..mp4

Featured image is from SHTFplan.com

A Ucrânia está aparentemente a tentar interferir na política interna dos seus “parceiros” europeus. Recentemente, o embaixador ucraniano na Alemanha tentou pressionar os partidos políticos alemães a não cooperarem com partidos ou figuras públicas que se opõem ao programa de ajuda militar a Kiev. Isto mostra o quão desesperado o regime neonazista está em evitar qualquer diminuição do seu apoio internacional, pois isso significaria o fim da sua capacidade militar.

O embaixador ucraniano na Alemanha, Aleksey Makeev, lançou recentemente uma campanha de chantagem contra os partidos políticos locais que defendem uma solução pacífica para o conflito ucraniano. Makeev declarou publicamente que todos os principais políticos alemães deveriam evitar qualquer envolvimento em projetos destinados a reduzir ou acabar com a participação da Alemanha na guerra contra a Federação Russa.

A declaração veio pouco depois da criação da chamada “Aliança Sahra Wagenknecht” (BSW), uma coligação de partidos políticos e movimentos sociais que se opõem à participação alemã na guerra. O grupo é liderado pela conhecida líder de esquerda alemã Sahra Wagenknecht. Segundo Sahra, é necessário haver “mais esforços diplomáticos” e não é certo que Berlim se envolva em iniciativas militares.

“Precisamos de mais esforços diplomáticos (…) Existe um bom plano de paz do Brasil e da China. Espero que a Alemanha e a UE apoiem tais iniciativas (…) Não se trata de ser amigo ou inimigo da Rússia, mas sobre a paz na Europa e [acabar] com a guerra na Ucrânia. Sem paz, todo o resto não é nada (…) (a Alemanha tornou-se) uma voz respeitada internacionalmente que media conflitos e defende soluções diplomáticas”, disse ela na altura.

Aparentemente, apesar do estatuto hegemônico do lobby anti-russo na Alemanha, a proposta chamou a atenção de muitos políticos e ativistas locais, razão pela qual a Ucrânia decidiu “reagir”. O embaixador ucraniano anunciou que os “partidos democráticos” locais deveriam evitar participar em tais iniciativas, considerando “intolerável” qualquer possibilidade de Berlim cooperar com um projeto de solução diplomática.

“Se os políticos dos partidos democráticos precisarem de apoio para lidar com os ultimatos intoleráveis ​​dos actores não democráticos, particularmente em questões de política externa, estou pronto a partilhar a minha própria experiência de negociação com a Rússia”, disse ele.

As palavras do embaixador foram apenas a continuação de uma série de declarações recentes contra qualquer forma de aliança com ativistas pró-paz na Alemanha. Anteriormente, ele já havia dito que nenhum partido deveria “ceder” ao BSW. Ele chamou todos os ativistas anti-guerra alemães de “populistas”, sugerindo que quaisquer iniciativas de paz são mera retórica populista sem sentido.

“Quem adotar os slogans do BSW só se perderá. Os partidos democráticos não devem permitir que os populistas, tanto a nível regional como a nível federal, os dissuadam da solidariedade com a Ucrânia”, disse ele.

É importante sublinhar que a Embaixada da Ucrânia não se limita a criticar a iniciativa. Tal atitude seria natural para Kiev, uma vez que o regime está no meio de um conflito armado com Moscou. Mas o que está acontecendo é na verdade mais profundo. O embaixador ucraniano exige simplesmente que os partidos alemães não participem num movimento que surgiu na própria Alemanha. Por outras palavras, ele está a tentar dizer aos políticos alemães o que fazer no seu próprio país.

Não é surpreendente que a Ucrânia esteja a usar o seu aparelho diplomático para fazer lobby pela guerra. Embora esta prática seja errada e repreensível – uma vez que o próprio objetivo da diplomacia é evitar a guerra – não há nada realmente surpreendente neste caso, considerando que o regime de Kiev está simplesmente a implementar as mesmas práticas que já se tornaram comuns entre os seus aliados e patrões ocidentais.

A ação ucraniana é motivada pelo desespero e pelo medo. O lobby sionista sente-se “ameaçado” pela iniciativa BSW. A coligação apresentou resultados eleitorais interessantes nas principais regiões alemãs, como Brandemburgo, Saxônia e Turíngia, onde obteve cerca de 15% dos votos – concluindo as eleições regionais em terceiro lugar. Têm havido um crescimento do sentimento anti-guerra em algumas cidades da antiga Alemanha Oriental, onde as pessoas geralmente têm opiniões muito críticas sobre a política externa de Berlim.

No entanto, ao contrário dos seus chefes ocidentais, a Ucrânia não tem poder suficiente para influenciar profundamente a política interna de outros países. O lobby que a embaixada ucraniana está a promover irá provavelmente fracassar, à medida que aumenta a insatisfação popular com a posição pró-guerra do governo alemão. No final, todos os esforços de chantagem ucranianos revelar-se-ão inúteis, pois é inevitável que haja um crescimento de iniciativas anti-guerra na Alemanha – tanto entre os políticos como entre as pessoas comuns.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

Artigo em inglês : Kiev regime trying to interfere in Germany’s domestic politics, 30 de Outubro de 2024.

Imagem :  InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, membro da Associação de Jornalistas do BRICS, pesquisador do Centro de Estudos Geoestratégicos, especialista militar.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://x.com/leiroz_lucas

Aparentemente, as autoridades britânicas começam a reconhecer que estar envolvido num conflito é inviável para o país num futuro próximo. Recentemente, o chefe da defesa do Reino Unido admitiu que as tropas do país não estão preparadas para uma guerra real. Isto significa que, apesar de toda a pressão que o país exerce para prolongar o conflito ucraniano, o Reino Unido não está preparado para lidar com as consequências finais de uma escalada com Moscou.

Segundo John Healey, Secretário da Defesa do Reino Unido, o exército britânico, nas atuais condições, não é capaz de travar uma guerra em grande escala. Ele acredita que as tropas do país não estão em posição de dissuadir um inimigo significativo num cenário de guerra real, uma vez que as capacidades militares britânicas foram “esgotadas” nos últimos tempos.

Healey afirmou que o Partido Conservador do Reino Unido geriu mal os seus recursos financeiros e militares, afetando gravemente as estruturas de defesa do país. Healey disse que a situação real dos militares britânicos era muito pior do que as autoridades trabalhistas esperavam quando chegaram ao poder. Segundo ele, foram envidados esforços para mudar esta situação, mas também deixou claro que Londres carece atualmente de uma capacidade dissuasiva significativa.

Healey afirmou ainda que Londres ainda é uma potência militar totalmente operacional, capaz de participar em operações conjuntas com parceiros da OTAN. No entanto, disse que as tropas do país não estão preparadas para um cenário real de guerra, o que as impede de se considerarem em situação de defesa adequada. Na prática, o Reino Unido já não parece estar entre as principais potências no cenário militar global.

“Esperávamos que as coisas estivessem num mau estado – mas o estado das finanças, o estado das forças, era muito pior do que pensávamos (…) O Reino Unido, tal como muitas outras nações, tornou-se essencialmente muito qualificado e pronto para conduzir operações militares. O que não estamos preparados para fazer é lutar. A menos que estejamos prontos para lutar, não estamos em condições de dissuadir ninguém (…) Isto está no cerne do pensamento da OTAN. Temos não apenas de ser capazes de defender as nossas nações da OTAN, mas, mais importante ainda, temos de ser mais eficazes na dissuasão que proporcionamos contra qualquer agressão futura (…) Este governo fará sempre o que for necessário para defender o país . As Forças Armadas do Reino Unido estão entre as melhores do mundo e oferecem uma defesa do Reino Unido 24 horas por dia, 7 dias por semana, operando ao lado dos nossos aliados e parceiros para se preparar para qualquer evento (…) A Revisão Estratégica da Defesa [que foi lançada em Julho] irá analisar as ameaças que enfrentamos e as capacidades que necessitamos para que as nossas Forças Armadas estejam mais preparadas para o combate, mais integradas e mais inovadas”, afirmou.

Obviamente, o secretário britânico usou o seu discurso para fazer uma forte propaganda política, criticando a administração rival e tentando fazer avançar as suas próprias ideias e agenda. No entanto, deve admitir-se que ele tem razão em criticar as capacidades militares do seu país. Depois de tantos anos sem qualquer participação em grandes conflitos – apenas enviando tropas em ações conjuntas da OTAN – os militares do Reino Unido tornaram-se despreparados para enfrentar desafios de grande escala.

O principal problema no caso britânico é que, apesar do enfraquecimento dos militares, a política externa do país tornou-se mais hostil. Ao mesmo tempo que o Reino Unido perdeu a sua capacidade dissuasora, expandiu as suas ações irresponsáveis ​​na arena internacional, aumentando significativamente a possibilidade de entrar num conflito em algum momento no futuro. O exemplo mais marcante disso é o profundo envolvimento de Londres no conflito ucraniano. O Reino Unido tem estado por trás das principais ações de escalada do Ocidente, sendo o primeiro país a fornecer armas de longo alcance a Kiev – além de ser um dos principais lobistas da OTAN para a autorização do uso destas armas em “ataques profundos”. contra cidades no território indiscutível da Federação Russa.

Healey propõe obviamente mudanças no cenário militar – o que faz parte da sua propaganda política – mas em vez de deixar o país “pronto para a guerra”, a abordagem mais racional seria criar as condições necessárias para garantir que o Reino Unido não entrará em guerra no futuro. A única forma de o fazer seria através de uma política de paz e neutralidade, abandonando a participação nos planos de guerra da OTAN.

Infelizmente, porém, o Reino Unido é co-participante em todas as ações estratégicas tomadas pelos EUA – que é o país que de fato lidera a OTAN. É possível dizer que o Reino Unido é o país mais alinhado com os EUA no seio da OTAN. Ao contrário dos países da UE, que são vistos por Washington como meros representantes e colônias – muitas vezes considerados “descartáveis” – o Reino Unido está totalmente integrado no processo de tomada de decisão americano, o que explica as razões de tantas decisões irresponsáveis ​​nos últimos tempos.

Healey está errado se pensa que será capaz de resolver os problemas militares do país. Mesmo que haja algumas melhorias, o país nunca conseguirá alcançar poder de dissuasão suficiente para intimidar Moscou – que é o principal alvo das agressões britânicas. Por esta razão, o melhor que Londres pode fazer é procurar a diplomacia e o diálogo em vez da guerra.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

Artigo em português : UK defense chief says his country’s troops ‘not ready’ for real conflict situation, InfoBrics, 28 de outubro de 2024.

Imagem :  InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, membro da Associação de Jornalistas do BRICS, pesquisador do Centro de Estudos Geoestratégicos, especialista militar.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://x.com/leiroz_lucas

 

The family of a University of Alabama baseball player who passed away after being pressured into getting the COVID-19 vaccine is raising awareness and helping young athletes succeed.

Davis James Heller was only 22 years old and had a promising baseball career ahead of him when he suddenly passed away from a cardiac episode on Oct. 5, 2022.

His family described Heller as “fiercely passionate about everything he did,” especially baseball.

His father, DJ Heller, told 1819 News his son did not want to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Heller presented a fake vaccination card the first year. But when it was time for a second vaccination, DJ Heller said his son felt guilty despite having a pre-existing condition.

“Davis was very much of a conscientious, good kid. He didn’t do anything wrong and didn’t like to get in trouble,” DJ Heller said.

The university said there were never any official vaccine mandates in any UA sport.

“No student-athletes at The University of Alabama were ever required to be vaccinated against COVID,” the university said in response to an 1819 News inquiry. “To state otherwise is false.”

However, Heller told his parents that coaches told the team it was selfish not to get vaccinated. Without the shot, players were not allowed to go out to eat on road trips or eat in the dining hall, Heller told his parents. They also had to be tested for COVID twice a week and quarantined for five days after every contact trace, according to Heller.

He told his parents the coaches strongly advised them to get the shot if they planned to play ball. Even though he had a medical exemption from a doctor, Heller did not want to let anyone down.

“So, when he got there in the second year and was told he would not be able to go into a locker room or a training room, he knew he would basically be isolated,” DJ Heller said. “Now looking back on it, he reluctantly decided to get it. He was completely distraught about it and towards the end of that year, he didn’t get a whole lot of opportunities.”

Davis Heller’s teammate Jim Jarvis spoke to 1819 News about his friend and his own experience feeling pressured to get the vaccine.

The pair became fast friends when they played in the same San Diego league. Jarvis said Heller was an amazing player, and even though they were on opposing teams, he was respectful.

“His first ‘at bat,’ he’s just like crushing line drives everywhere and obviously, he’s an impressive figure just because he’s so tall,” Jarvis remembered. “Usually people in baseball, there is a stereotype where if they’re playing really well they have pretty big egos.”

“But my first conversation with Davis, he was actually super friendly and open,” he said. “You could tell he was really a nice person and it wasn’t an act or anything.”

Jarvis said he also felt pressure to get the vaccine. He believes Heller took the chance and got vaccinated because he loved his team.

“There were like different guidelines if you didn’t get the vaccine and those guidelines came off as very, very strict,” said Jarvis. “It was to a point where you got the feeling that if you didn’t get the vaccine, you, like, basically were going to be kind of excluded from the rest of the team.”

“You were basically told that without getting the vaccine, you were hurting the team,” he continued. “And again, knowing Davis would do anything to help the team, that messaging is probably what struck him. He didn’t want to do anything that would come across as selfish or anything that would hurt his friends.”

Davis Heller continued to play ball and eventually transferred to North Greenville University.

His father said his son was very good at overcoming challenges.

“He was born with a cleft lip and had multiple surgeries,” DJ Heller remembered. “He was always having to overcome something.”

The 6-foot, 8-inch pitcher initially signed with Oklahoma after his junior year in high school. He suffered from “yips,” a sudden and unexplained condition that impacts a player’s abilities, but his father said he still didn’t give up.

“He was supposed to get drafted really high and all of a sudden, one day, he just couldn’t throw the baseball,” DJ Heller said. “And he didn’t quit.”

While still in high school, Davis Heller was treated for pericarditis. Years before going to college, he was given a clean bill of health. His dad said tests showed there were no longer any issues with his heart.

However, when he passed away nine months after receiving the vaccine, an autopsy showed his heart was double in size and was severely damaged.

“I remember talking the night before he was studying for a test,” Heller remembered of his child’s final hours. “He got up the next morning and had just showered and was sitting on the couch and he was gone. Just his heart gave out.”

“It was damaged to the point that they thought it was like a 70-year-old man’s heart who smoked his whole life,” he said. “But he never did any of that stuff. He was healthy.”

“You know, it’s pretty obvious to me what it was,” he continued.

DJ Heller believes the COVID-19 vaccine contributed to his son’s death, and he wants to spread awareness.

“I’m not looking for any money or a lawsuit and none of that’s going to bring my son back,” he told 1819 News. “So, this is just probably more so exposure and information as to what happened and the tragedy and the travesty of the decision-making that went on.”

Heller played under Coach Brad Bohannon, who left amid a gambling controversy. Rob Vaughn was named head coach in 2023.

The Heller family wants Heller to be remembered for being an excellent team member and friend.

“I think everybody that ever came in contact with Davis would say he was their best friend,” DJ Heller said. “He was faith-based. He was always there for anybody in need. He worked really hard. He loved his family.”

“He was a perfect son,” he added. “He did everything right, and it’s too bad because the world needs good people, and he’s not here. That’s hard.”

“He’s like the most selfless person I’ve ever met. He just puts everyone else in front of him,” Jarvis added. “He’s constantly checking in and he just genuinely cared about everyone that he knew and had a relationship with.”

The Davis Heller Memorial Foundation was established to continue Davis Heller’s legacy. The organization offers financial opportunities to players who value being a team player.

DJ Heller went public on the America Out Loud Pulse podcast with Dr. Mary Talley Bowden. Bowden is the founder of Americans for Health Freedom.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image: Davis Heller. Photo: Davis Heller Memorial Foundation.

---

Price: $11.50 FREE COPY! Click here (docsend) and download.

You may also access the online version of the e-Book by clicking here.

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

1. We, the Leaders of BRICS countries, met in Kazan, Russian Federation, from 22 to 24 October 2024 for the XVI BRICS Summit held under the theme: “Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security”.

2. We reiterate the importance of further enhancing BRICS solidarity and cooperation based on our mutual interests and key priorities and further strengthening our strategic partnership.

3. We reaffirm our commitment to the BRICS spirit of mutual respect and understanding, sovereign equality, solidarity, democracy, openness, inclusiveness, collaboration and consensus. As we build upon 16 years of BRICS Summits, we further commit ourselves to strengthening cooperation in the expanded BRICS under the three pillars of political and security, economic and financial, cultural and people-to-people cooperation and to enhancing our strategic partnership for the benefit of our people through the promotion of peace, a more representative, fairer international order, a reinvigorated and reformed multilateral system, sustainable development and inclusive growth.

4. We commend the Russian BRICS Chairship for hosting an “outreach”/”BRICS Plus” Dialogue with participation of EMDCs from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and Middle East under the motto: “BRICS and Global South: Building a Better World Together” in Kazan on 24 October 2024.

5. We welcome the considerable interest by countries of the Global South in BRICS and we endorse the Modalities of BRICS Partner Country Category. We strongly believe that extending the BRICS partnership with EMDCs will further contribute to strengthening the spirit of solidarity and true international cooperation for the benefit of all. We commit to further promoting BRICS institutional development.

Strengthening Multilateralism for a More Just and Democratic World Order

6. We note the emergence of new centres of power, policy decision-making and economic growth, which can pave the way for a more equitable, just, democratic and balanced multipolar world order. Multipolarity can expand opportunities for EMDCs to unlock their constructive potential and enjoy universally beneficial, inclusive and equitable economic globalization and cooperation. Bearing in mind the need to adapt the current architecture of international relations to better reflect the contemporary realities, we reaffirm our commitment to multilateralism and upholding the international law, including the Purposes and Principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (UN) as its indispensable cornerstone, and the central role of the UN in the international system, in which sovereign states cooperate to maintain international peace and security, advance sustainable development, ensure the promotion and protection of democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all as well as cooperation based on solidarity, mutual respect, justice and equality. We further emphasize the urgent need to achieve equitable and inclusive geographical representation in the staff composition of the Secretariat of the United Nations and other international organizations in a timely manner.

.

From left: Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin; second right, foreground: South African President Cyril Ramaphosa; right, foreground: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan posing for a joint photo of the BRICS leaders during the 16th BRICS summit in Kazan. (Sergey Bobylev / Photohost agency brics-russia2024.ru)

.

7. We reiterate our commitment to improving global governance by promoting a more agile, effective, efficient, responsive, representative, legitimate, democratic and accountable international and multilateral system. We call for assuring greater and
more meaningful participation of EMDCs and least developed countries, especially in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean, in global decision-making processes and structures and making them better attuned to contemporary realities. We also call for increasing the role and share of women, especially from EMDCs, at different levels of responsibilities in the international organizations. As a positive step in this direction, we acknowledge the G20 Call to Action on Global Governance Reform launched by Brazil during its G20 presidency. We also acknowledge dialogues and partnerships which strengthen cooperation with the African continent like Summit of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, India-Africa Forum Summit, Russia-Africa Summit and Ministerial Conference.

8. Recognizing the 2023 Johannesburg II Declaration we reaffirm our support for a comprehensive reform of the United Nations, including its Security Council, with a view to making it more democratic, representative, effective and efficient, and to increase the representation of developing countries in the Council’s memberships so that it can adequately respond to prevailing global challenges and support the legitimate aspirations of emerging and developing countries from Africa, Asia and Latin America, including BRICS countries, to play a greater role in international affairs, in particular in the United Nations, including its Security Council. We recognise the legitimate aspirations of African countries, reflected in the Ezulwini Consensus and Sirte Declaration.

9. We reaffirm our support for the rules-based, open, transparent, fair, predictable, inclusive, equitable, non-discriminatory, consensus-based multilateral trading system with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) at its core, with special and differential treatment (S&DT) for developing countries, including Least Developed Countries and reject the unilateral trade restrictive measures that are inconsistent with WTO rules. We welcome the outcomes of the 13th Ministerial Conference in Abu Dhabi (UAE) and reiterate our commitment to work towards the implementation of the decisions and declarations of WTO Ministerial Conferences. We note however there is still a need for further efforts in many outstanding issues. We emphasize the importance of reforming the WTO and strengthening the developmental dimension in its work. We commit to engage constructively within the WTO to attain the goal to deliver a fully and well-functioning two-tier binding WTO dispute settlement system by 2024 accessible to all, and the selection of new Appellate Body Members without further delay. We agree to enhance our dialogue on
multilateral trading system and WTO-related issues and welcome the establishment of the BRICS Informal Consultative Framework on WTO issues. We reiterate the decision under the Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership 2025 to take actions to support the necessary WTO reform to enhance the WTO’s resilience, authority and efficacy, and promote development and inclusivity.

10. We are deeply concerned about the disruptive effect of unlawful unilateral coercive measures, including illegal sanctions, on the world economy, international trade, and the achievement of the sustainable development goals. Such measures undermine the UN Charter, the multilateral trading system, the sustainable development and environmental agreements. They also negatively impact economic growth, energy, health and food security exacerbating poverty and environmental challenges.

11. We reaffirm our commitment to maintaining a strong and effective Global Financial Safety Net with a quota-based and adequately resourced IMF at its center. We call for the reform of the Bretton Woods institutions, which includes increased representation of EMDCs in leadership positions to reflect the contribution of EMDCs to the global economy. We support a merit-based, inclusive and equitable selection process for the top positions at the Bretton Woods institutions, increased geographical representation and the role and share of women. We note the quota increase at the 16th General Review of Quotas (GRQ) and urge members to secure domestic approvals to make quota increase effective. We welcome the decision to create a 25th chair at the IMF Executive Board to enhance the voice and representation of Sub-Saharan Africa. We acknowledge the urgency and importance of realignment in quota shares to better reflect members’ relative positions in the world economy, while protecting the quota shares of the EMDCs, in particular, the poorest members. We welcome the IMF Executive Board’s ongoing work to develop by June 2025 possible approaches as a guide for further quota realignment, including through a new quota formula, under the 17th GRQ. The discussions should result in quota realignment that is fair and transparent, enhances the representation of underrepresented IMF members, and transfers quota share from advanced economies to EMDCs. We look forward to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) 2025 Shareholding Review.

12. We recognise the crucial role of BRICS in the process of improving the international monetary and financial system (IMFS), with a view to making it more responsive to the needs of all countries. In this regard, we take note of the BRICS Chairship Research on the Improvement of the IMFS, which outlines core principles of security, independence, inclusion and sustainability crucial for economic and social prosperity. We encourage our Finance Ministers and Central /National Bank Governors to continue this work.

.

A proposal to visualize the 17 SDGs in a thematic pyramid (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

.

13. We stress the universal and inclusive nature of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals, and that implementation should take into account different national circumstances, capacities and levels of development, whilst respecting national policies and priorities and in conformity with national legislation. We will exert all efforts to achieve sustainable development in its three dimensions and commit to put it at the center of the international cooperation agenda in order to better address imbalances and inadequacies of development. We condemn the attempts to subject development to discriminatory politically motivated practices, including but not limited to unilateral coercive measures that are incompatible with the principles of the UN Charter, explicit or implied political conditionality of development assistance, activities, aiming at compromising the multiplicity of international development assistance providers.

14. We underscore the key role of the G20 as the premier global forum for multilateral economic and financial cooperation that provides a platform for dialogue of both developed and emerging economies on an equal and mutually beneficial footing for jointly seeking shared solutions to global challenges. We recognise the importance of the continued and productive functioning of the G20, based on consensus with a focus on result-oriented outcomes. We support the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty and the work of the Task Force for a Global Mobilization against Climate Change, as well as the landmark Rio de Janeiro Declaration on International Tax Cooperation. We look forward to the successful hosting of the G20 leaders’ summit in Rio de Janeiro in November 2024 under the Brazilian presidency and reaffirm our willingness to coordinate our positions to enhance inclusiveness and amplify the voice of the Global South and further integrate their priorities in the G20 agenda through the consecutive G20 presidencies of BRICS member states – India, Brazil and South Africa – during 2023-2025 and beyond. In this regard, we also welcome and support the inclusion of the African Union as a member of the G20 at the G20 New Delhi Summit in 2023.

15. We reiterate that the objectives, principles and provisions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), its Kyoto Protocol and its Paris Agreement, including its principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) in the light of different national circumstances, must be honoured. We condemn unilateral measures introduced under the pretext of climate and environmental concerns and reiterate our commitment to enhancing coordination on these issues. We will strengthen cooperation on a whole range of solutions and technologies that contribute to the reduction and removal of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs). We also note the role of carbon sinks in absorbing GHGs and mitigating climate change, whilst also highlighting the importance of adaptation and stressing the need for the adequate provision of the means of implementation, namely financial resources, technology transfer and capacity building.

16. We recall that the UNFCCC, including the annual Conference of the Parties (COP) sessions, is the primary and legitimate international forum to discuss the issue of climate change in all its dimensions. We are deeply concerned with attempts to link security with the climate change agenda. We commend Egypt for hosting COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh in 2022, where the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage was established, and the UAE for hosting COP28 in Dubai in 2023, where the Fund was operationalized. We welcome the UAE Consensus achieved at COP28, including the decision entitled “Outcome of the first global stocktake”, and the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience. We express commitment to a successful COP29 in Azerbaijan, with an expectation of strong outcomes on climate finance to developing countries, as a critical enabler for delivering on the current and future nationally determined actions and ambitions in mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage. We support Brazil’s leadership in hosting COP30 in 2025 and welcome India’s candidacy to host COP 33 in 2028.

17. We reaffirm the importance of biodiversity conservation, including the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. We urge developed countries to ensure the provision of adequate, effective and easily accessible financial resources to developing countries to promote the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. We highlight the importance of improving capacity building, development and transfer of technology from developed countries to developing countries for the conservation, sustainable use and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of biodiversity.

18. We recognise that land degradation, desertification, and drought are posing serious threats to the well-being and livelihoods of people and the environment, and, whilst acknowledging the ongoing efforts in promoting sustainable land management practices, we call for the urgent provision of increased financial resources, strong partnerships, and integrated policies to address the challenges of land degradation, desertification, and drought. In this regard, we look forward to the forthcoming sixteenth session of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD COP16) that will take place in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from 2 to 13 December 2024.

19. In light of global efforts towards tackling global water scarcity challenge, we welcome the UAE and Senegal for co-hosting the 2026 UN Water Conference in the UAE.

20. While appreciating the efforts of our countries to preserve rare species and noting the high vulnerability of big cats, we take note of the Republic of India’s initiative to create an International Big Cats Alliance and encourage BRICS countries to work together to make further contributions to the conservation of big cats. We also take note that the UAE established the Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund. In that regard we encourage BRICS countries to improve collective collaboration in areas of conservation and preservation of the most vulnerable species.

21. We reaffirm the need for all countries to cooperate in promoting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms under the principles of equality and mutual respect. We agree to continue to treat all human rights including the right to development in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis. We agree to strengthen cooperation on issues of common interests both within BRICS and in multilateral fora including the United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights Council, taking into account the necessity to promote, protect and fulfil human rights in a non-selective, non-politicised and constructive manner and without double standards. We call for the respect of democracy and human rights. In this regard, we underline that they should be implemented on the level of global governance as well as at national level. We reaffirm our commitment to ensuring the promotion and protection of democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all with the aim to build a brighter shared future for the international community based on mutually beneficial cooperation.

22. We reiterate that the unilateral coercive measures, inter-alia in the form of unilateral economic sanctions and secondary sanctions that are contrary to international law, have far-reaching implications for the human rights, including the right to development, of the general population of targeted states, disproportionally affecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations. Therefore, we call for their elimination.

23. We recall the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) and the Outcome Document of the 2009 Durban Review Conference and acknowledge the need to intensify the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance as well as discrimination based on religion, faith or belief, and all their contemporary forms around the world including the alarming trends of rising hate speech, and acknowledge the annual UNGA resolution on “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism, and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”.

Enhancing Cooperation for Global and Regional Stability and Security

24. We strongly support enhanced BRICS dialogue on policy and security issues. We welcome the Joint Statement of the BRICS Ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Relations Meeting in Nizhny Novgorod on 10 June 2024 and note the 14th Meeting of BRICS National Security Advisors and High Representatives on National Security held on 10-11 September 2024 in Saint-Petersburg.

25. We remain concerned about at the rise of violence and continuing armed conflicts in different parts of the world including those that have significant impact at both regional and international levels. We reiterate our commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes through diplomacy, mediation, inclusive dialogue and consultations in a coordinated and cooperative manner and support all efforts conducive to the peaceful settlement of crises. We stress the need to engage in conflict prevention efforts, including through addressing their root causes. We acknowledge the legitimate and reasonable security concerns of all countries. We call for the protection of cultural heritage, particularly in regions affected by conflict, to prevent the destruction and illicit trafficking of cultural property, which is vital for preserving the history and identity of affected communities.

26. We stress that tolerance and peaceful coexistence are among the most important values and principles for relations between nations and societies. In this regard, we welcome the adoption of Security Council resolution 2686 and other UN resolutions in this regard which enjoy consensual support of UN member states.

27. We reiterate the need for the full respect of the international humanitarian law in conflict situations and the provision of humanitarian aid in accordance with the basic principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence established in UNGA resolution 46/182. We call on the international community to seek collective answers to global and regional challenges and security threats, including terrorism. We stress the need to abide by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. We reiterate that differences and disputes between countries should be resolved peacefully through dialogue and consultation. We also underline the need to respect the legitimate and reasonable security concerns of all countries. We underscore the need for full, equal and meaningful participation of women in peace processes including in conflict prevention and resolution, peacekeeping, peacebuilding, post-conflict reconstruction and development, and sustaining peace.

28. We are deeply concerned over continued conflicts and instability in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, noting the Joint Statement by BRICS Deputy Foreign Ministers and Special Envoys at their meeting of 25 April 2024.

29. We mourn the tragic loss of civilian lives in the recent period and express sympathy with all civilian victims and their families. We call for urgent measures, in accordance with international law, to ensure the protection of lives.

.

Palestinians line up to fetch some water in a refugee camp in Gaza. (Photo: Mahmoud Ajjour, The Palestine Chronicle)

.

30. We reiterate our grave concern at the deterioration of the situation and humanitarian crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in particular the unprecedented escalation of violence in the Gaza Strip and in West Bank as a result of the Israeli military offensive, which led to mass killing and injury of civilians, forced displacement and widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure. We stress the urgent need for an immediate, comprehensive and permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages and detainees from both sides who are being illegally held captive and the unhindered sustainable and at scale supply of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, and cessation of all aggressive actions. We denounce the Israeli attacks against humanitarian operations, facilities, personnel and distribution points. For this purpose, we call for the full implementation of resolutions 2712 (2023), 2720 (2023), 2728 (2024) and 2735 (2024) of the United Nations Security Council and in this regard welcome the continuous efforts by the Arab Republic of Egypt, the State of Qatar, other regional and international efforts in order to reach immediate ceasefire, accelerate the delivery of humanitarian aid and Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. We call for adherence to international law. We are also alarmed that the further escalation of the
conflict in the Gaza Strip fuel tension, extremism and severe negative consequences both regionally and globally. We call on all relevant parties to act with utmost restraint and to avoid escalatory actions and provocative declarations. We acknowledge the provisional measures of the International Court of Justice in the legal proceedings instituted by South Africa against Israel. We reaffirm our support for the State of Palestine’s full membership in the United Nations in the context of the unwavering commitment to the vision of the two-state solution based on international law including relevant UNSC and UNGA resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative that includes the establishment of a sovereign, independent and viable State of Palestine in line with internationally recognised borders of June 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital living side by side in peace and security with Israel.

31. We express alarm over the situation in Southern Lebanon. We condemn the loss of civilian lives and the immense damage to civilian infrastructure resulting from attacks by Israel in residential areas in Lebanon and call for immediate cessation of military acts. We stress the need to preserve the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State of Lebanon and to create conditions for political and diplomatic solution in order to safeguard peace and stability in the Middle East while underlining the importance of strict observance of UNSC resolutions 1701 (2006) and 2749 (2024). We strongly condemn attacks on UN personnel, threats to their safety and call upon Israel to immediately cease such activity.

32. We express our concern over the increasing incidents of terrorist attacks linked with ICT capabilities. In this regard, we condemn the premeditated terrorist act of detonating handheld communication devices in Beirut on 17 September 2024, resulted in the loss of life and injury of dozens of civilians. We reiterate that these attacks constitute a grave violation of International Law.

33. We stress the importance of ensuring the exercise of navigational rights and freedoms of vessels of all states in the Red Sea and Bab Al-Mandab Strait, in accordance with international law. We encourage enhanced diplomatic efforts by all parties to that end, including by addressing the causes of the conflict, and continued support for dialogue and Yemen’s peace process under UN auspices.

34. We stress that Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity must be strictly observed. We condemn illegal foreign military presence that lead to increasing risks of a large-scale conflict in the region. We emphasize that illegal unilateral sanctions seriously exacerbate the suffering of the Syrian people.

35. We condemn the attack against the diplomatic premises of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Syrian capital Damascus by Israel on 1 April 2024 that constitutes a violation of the fundamental principle of the inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

36. We recall national positions concerning the situation in and around Ukraine as expressed in the appropriate fora, including the UNSC and the UNGA. We emphasize that all states should act consistently with the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter in their entirety and interrelation. We note with appreciation relevant proposals of mediation and good offices, aimed at a peaceful resolution of the conflict through dialogue and diplomacy.

37. We stress the importance of full implementation of the JCPOA endorsed by the UNSCR 2231 (2015) and underscore the importance of a constructive approach based on the good faith by all relevant actors to resume full implementation of the JCPOA
commitments by all sides.

38. We reiterate that the principle “African solutions to African problems” should continue to serve as the basis for conflict resolution on the African continent. In this regard, we recognise the critical role of the African Union in the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts in Africa. We reaffirm our support for African peace efforts on the continent including those undertaken by the African Union and African sub-regional organizations in line with the principles of African ownership, complementarity and subsidiarity.

39. We commend the efforts and achievements by African countries in their pursuit of the peace and development, and to combat the growing scourge of terrorism in Africa, particularly in the Horn of Africa and the Sahel, and call for the channeling of more global counter-terrorism resources to developing countries to help African countries, particularly those affected, enhance their counter-terrorism capacity building. We commend efforts undertaken by African countries, the African Union, African sub-regional organizations and the United Nations in promoting peace process in South Sudan, stabilizing the situation in the Central African Republic as well as success of the Government of Mozambique supported by the Southern African Development Community (SADC) in counteraction to the terrorist threat in the North of the country.

40. We express grave concern over the escalating violence and humanitarian crisis in Sudan and reiterate our call for an immediate, permanent and unconditional ceasefire and peaceful resolution of the conflict with engagement in peace talks as the
only way to end this conflict, sustained, urgent and unimpeded access of the Sudanese population to humanitarian assistance, and the scaling up of humanitarian assistance to Sudan and neighboring states. We condemn the attack on the residence of the Head of Mission of the United Arab Emirates Embassy to Sudan on 29 September 2024, causing extensive damage to the  remises located in a residential area in Khartoum. We stress the fundamental principle of the inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises, and the obligations on receiving States including under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

41. We deplore the brutal gang attack in Pont Sondé, in Haiti, which resulted in the deaths and the forced displacement of civilians, and express deep concern over the ongoing deterioration of the security, humanitarian and economic situation in Haiti. We commend the establishment of Haiti´s Transitional Presidential Council and the creation of an electoral council, as essential steps to solve the current crisis. We stress that the current crisis requires a Haitian-led solution that encompasses national and inclusive dialogue and consensus building among local political forces, institutions and the society and call on the international community to support the interim government’s endeavors to dismantle the gangs, enhance the security situation and put in place the foundations for long-lasting social and economic development in the country and hold general elections by the end of 2025. We support the role of the United Nations in providing humanitarian assistance and highlight the need for international cooperation to address Haiti’s multifaceted crises effectively.

42. We emphasize the need for an urgent peaceful settlement in Afghanistan in order to strengthen regional security and stability. We advocate for Afghanistan as an independent, united and peaceful state free from terrorism, war and drugs. We urge for more visible and verifiable measures in Afghanistan to ensure that the territory of Afghanistan is not used by terrorists. We stress the need to provide urgent and uninterrupted humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people and to safeguard the fundamental rights of all Afghans including women, girls and different ethnic groups. We call on Afghanistan authorities to reverse the effective ban on girl’s secondary and higher education. We emphasize the primary and effective role of regional platforms and neighboring countries of Afghanistan and welcome the efforts of such regional platforms and initiatives to facilitate the Afghan settlement.

43. We call for the strengthening of non-proliferation and disarmament to safeguard and maintain global stability and international peace and security. We note the paramount importance of the efforts aiming at accelerating the implementation of the resolutions on the Establishment of a Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and other Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East, including the Conference convened pursuant to UN General Assembly Decision 73/546. We call on all invited parties to participate in this conference in good faith and engage with this effort constructively.

44. We also call for the full implementation of the UNSC Resolution 1540 which offers states an important impetus for adopting effective and robust measures at the national level to prevent weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and related materials from getting into the hands of non-state actors, including terrorists, as well as frameworks for cooperation at the international level for this aim.

45. We reassert our support for ensuring the long-term sustainability of outer space activities and prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS) and of its weaponization, including through negotiations to adopt a relevant legal multilateral instrument to ensure global security. We recognise the submission of the updated Draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects (PPWT) to the Conference on Disarmament in 2014 as an important step towards this goal. We welcome the consensual adoption of the Report of the UN Group of Governmental Experts on further practical measures for the prevention of an arms race in outer space on 16 August 2024, which provided substantive elements of a legally-binding instrument on PAROS. We stress that practical and non-binding commitments, such as
Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures (TCBMs), and universally agreed norms, rules, and principles may also contribute to PAROS.

46. Recalling the respective obligations of our States in the field of export controls stemming from relevant internationally recognised legal instruments, we underscore our determination to enhance dialogue and cooperation in this sphere with due account of the necessary balance between nonproliferation and peaceful uses of technology while ensuring legitimate rights of states to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific and technological information, equipment and materials for peaceful purposes.

47. We reiterate our unequivocal condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations whenever, wherever and by whomsoever committed while reaffirming that it should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group. We emphasize that terrorism is a common threat, which requires a comprehensive and balanced approach at global and regional levels with due regard to national priorities of States. We commit to enhance further international and regional cooperation to prevent and counter terrorist threats on the basis of full respect for the sovereignty and security of States and in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law. We acknowledge that States have the primary responsibility in preventing and combating terrorism with the United Nations continuing to play central and coordinating role in this area. We recognise that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivations, and stress the need to ensure strong collective response to the persistent and emerging terrorist threats without double standards. We reject any attempts at politicization of counter-terrorism issues and the use of terrorist groups to achieve political ends. We commit to take decisive measures to prevent and disrupt the spread of terrorist ideology and radicalization, the misuse of modern technologies for terrorist purposes, cross-border movement of terrorists, terrorist financing and other forms of terrorism support, incitement to commit terrorist acts, as well as recruitment of foreign terrorist fighters. We call for an expeditious finalization and adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism within the UN framework. We call for concerted actions against all UN designated terrorists and terrorist entities.

48. We look forward to further strengthening practical counter-terrorism cooperation. We welcome the activities of the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Working Group (CTWG) and its five Subgroups based upon the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Strategy and the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Action Plan, including adoption of the CTWG Position Paper.

49. We reiterate our commitment to preventing and combating illicit financial flows, money laundering, terrorism financing, drug trafficking, corruption and the misuse of new technologies, including cryptocurrencies, for illegal and terrorist purposes. We reaffirm our commitment to the principles of technical and non-politicized nature of international anti-criminal cooperation including for the purpose of preventing and establishing financial traces of these crimes. We note the need to further strengthen such cooperation based on the relevant international legal instruments to which BRICS countries are parties, including relevant UN conventions and resolutions, regional conventions and treaties.

50. We call for an enhanced dialogue within BRICS on the issues of money-laundering and countering the financing of terrorism with the participation of relevant stakeholders. We emphasize the importance of creating conditions for the safe development of the younger generation, reducing the risk of their involvement in illegal activities and welcome the development of relevant international projects with the participation of young people.

51. We express concern over the situation with illicit drug production, trafficking and abuse worldwide, recognise that it seriously threatens public security and international and regional stability, health, safety and well-being of humankind and as well as undermines the sustainable development of States. We confirm our commitment to the existing international mechanism of drug control based on three UN drug control conventions. We acknowledge the importance of enhancing counter narcotics cooperation and strengthening contacts among BRICS law enforcement authorities and in this regard welcome the Joint Statement adopted at the Meeting of the BRICS Anti-Drug Working Group in Moscow on 22 May 2024.

52. We consider countering transnational organized crime as one of the key areas for international law enforcement cooperation. We also note that this cooperation shall not be politicized as it can cause harm to the overall fight against crime. We express particular concern with crimes which affect the environment that need to be addressed.

53. We are resolute to promote BRICS cooperation in the prevention of and fight against corruption and strengthen our coordination on major issues of the international anti-corruption agenda, including United Nations Convention Against Corruption. We are determined to honor our commitment and call for the international community to strengthen cooperation on denial of safe haven to corruption. We welcome the document “Formulation of the BRICS Common Vision and Joint Action on Enhanced Anti-Corruption Cooperation and Recovery and Return of Assets and Proceeds of Corruption” and attach importance to putting it into practice in accordance with our domestic frameworks. We appreciate the issuance of the Analytical Note on Asset Recovery in BRICS Countries by the Anti-Corruption Working Group (ACWG) and its efforts to step up collaboration among our practitioners in asset recovery. We also commend the ACWG for updating the document on BRICS Cooperation in Anti-Corruption Education, Knowledge-Sharing and Capacity-Building that benchmarks our collective achievements, including a number of expert initiatives held this year, and traces a way forward in this priority area.

54. We recognise the huge potential of ICTs bridging the digital divides for socioeconomic growth and development. We also acknowledge challenges and threats stemming from and within the digital realm. We call for a comprehensive, balanced, objective approach to the development and security of ICT products and systems as well as for the development and implementation of globally interoperable common rules and standards for supply chain security. We are concerned over the increase in frequency and sophistication of malicious use of ICTs. In this regard, we stress the importance of international cooperation in preventing and countering the use of ICTs for criminal purposes and therefore look forward to the adoption at the 79th UNGA session the draft UN Convention against Cybercrime; Strengthening international cooperation for combating certain crimes committed by means of information and communications technology systems and for collection, preservation and the sharing of evidence in electronic form of serious crimes. We also believe that technical assistance, capacity-building are foundational for developing resources, skills, policies and institutions necessary to increasing security of States while enhancing ICT resilience and to accelerate the digital transformation of States, taking into particular consideration the interests and needs of developing States. We underscore the leading role of the United Nations in promoting dialogue to forge common understandings in the security of and in the use of ICTs, including discussions on developing a universal legal framework in this realm and further development and implementation of universally agreed norms, rules and principles for responsible behavior of States in the use of ICTs. We commend the ongoing work of the UN OEWG on Security of and in the Use of ICTs 2021-2025 as a sole global and inclusive mechanism on this matter and support the establishment by consensus of a single-track, state-led permanent mechanism under the auspices of the United Nations, reporting to the First Committee of the UNGA, recognising the importance of the principle of consensus regarding both the establishment of the future mechanism itself as well as the decision-making processes of the mechanism. We are committed to promoting respect for States sovereignty and sovereign equality in the ICT environment, and oppose unilateral actions that could undermine international cooperation in this domain, including global supply chains sustainability.

55. We recognise the progress made in promoting BRICS cooperation in accordance with the Roadmap of Practical Cooperation on Ensuring Security in the Use of ICTs, and its progress report, including the establishment and further operationalization of the
BRICS Points of Contact Directory for pragmatic cooperation among national entities responsible for responding to ICT incidents as a confidence-building measure. We underscore the importance of establishing frameworks of cooperation among BRICS member states on ensuring security in the use of ICTs. We also acknowledge the need to advance practical intra-BRICS cooperation through the activities of the BRICS Working Group on security in the use of ICTs.

56. We express serious concern over exponential spread and proliferation of disinformation, misinformation, including propagating false narratives and fake news, as well as hate speech especially on digital platforms fueling radicalization and conflicts. While reaffirming commitment to sovereignty of States we emphasize the importance of information integrity and ensuring free flow of and public access to accurate fact-based information, including the freedom of opinion and expression as well as digital and media literacy in order to allow for meaningful connectivity, in accordance with applicable national and international law.

Fostering Economic and Financial Cooperation for Just Global Development

57. Recalling the 2023 Johannesburg II Declaration we reiterate our strong belief that multilateral cooperation is essential to limit the risks stemming from geopolitical and geo-economic fragmentation and commit to intensify efforts in areas of mutual interest, including but not limited to, trade, poverty and hunger reduction, sustainable development, including access to energy, water and food, fuel, fertilizers as well as mitigating and adapting to the impact of climate change, education, and health, including pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

58. We emphasize the importance of the full implementation of Addis-Ababa Action Agenda adopted at the Third International Conference on Financing for Development in 2015 and the effective participation of developing countries in the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development, which will be held in Spain from 30 June to 3 July 2025. We call on the developed countries to honor their commitment to financing for development and encourage their cooperation with developing countries in different development areas including taxation, debt, trade, official development assistance, technology transfer and reforming of international financial architecture.

59. We underscore the need to reform the current international financial architecture to meet the global financial challenges including global economic governance to make the international financial architecture more inclusive and just.

60. We note that high debt levels in some countries reduce the fiscal space needed to address ongoing development challenges aggravated by spillover effects from external shocks, particularly from fluctuations in financial and monetary policies in some advanced economies as well as the inherent problems with the international financial architecture. High interest rates and tighter financing conditions worsen debt vulnerabilities in many countries. We believe it is necessary to address the international debt properly and in a holistic manner to support economic recovery and sustainable development, taking into account each nation’s laws and internal procedures, accompanied by sustainable external debt and fiscal prudence. We recognise the need to address in an effective, comprehensive and systematic manner the debt vulnerabilities of both low and middle income countries. One of the instruments, amongst others, to collectively address debt vulnerabilities is through predictable, orderly, timely and coordinated implementation of the G20 Common Framework for Debt Treatment with the participation of official bilateral creditors, private creditors and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) in line with the principle of joint action and fair burden-sharing.

61. We recognise that the use of blended finance is an effective way to mobilize private capital to finance infrastructure projects. We note the important role of multilateral development banks and development finance institutions, in particular national development banks, in institutionally scaling up the use of blended finance and other instruments, and thereby contributing to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals in accordance with country-specific needs and priorities. To this end, we commend the work of the BRICS Public-Private Partnership and Infrastructure Task Force and endorse its Technical Report on Infrastructure Projects Blended Finance.

Image: New Development Bank’s logo in the HQ of the bank in Shanghai (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

62. We recognise the key role of the New Development Bank (NDB) in promoting infrastructure and sustainable development of its member countries. We support further development of the NDB and improvement in corporate governance and operational effectiveness towards the fulfillment of the NDB’s General Strategy for 2022-2026. We support the NDB in continuously expanding local currency financing and strengthening innovation in investment and financing tools. We encourage the Bank to follow member-led and demand-driven principles, the employment of innovative financing mechanisms to mobilize financing from diversified sources, and in this regard, we acknowledge the initiative to create new investment platform to leverage the existing institutional infrastructure of the NDB to boost the investment flow into the countries of BRICS and the Global South mechanisms. We support the enhancement of capacity building and knowledge exchange, including by building synergies with knowledge sources from developing countries, the assistance of member countries in achieving the SDGs and the further improvement of efficiency and effectiveness to fulfill its mandate, aiming to be a premier multilateral development institution for EMDCs. We agree to jointly develop the New Development Bank into a new type of MDB in the 21st century. We urge the Bank to execute its purpose and functions in accordance with the Articles of Agreement of the New Development Bank in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. We support the further expansion of NDB membership and expedited consideration of applications of
BRICS countries in line with the NDB General Strategy and related policies.  

63. We welcome the BRICS Interbank Cooperation Mechanism (ICM) focus on facilitating and expanding innovative financial practices and approaches for projects and programmes, including finding acceptable mechanisms of financing in local currencies. We welcome a continued dialogue between the ICM and the NDB.

64. We recognise the important role of BRICS countries working together to deal with risks and challenges to the world economy in achieving global recovery and sustainable development. We reaffirm our commitment to enhance macro-economic policy coordination, deepen economic cooperation and work to realize strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive economic recovery. We emphasize the importance of continued implementation of the Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership 2025 in all relevant ministerial tracks and working groups.

65. We reiterate our commitment to enhancing financial cooperation within BRICS. We recognise the widespread benefits of faster, low cost, more efficient, transparent, safe and inclusive cross-border payment instruments built upon the principle of minimizing trade barriers and non-discriminatory access. We welcome the use of local currencies in financial transactions between BRICS countries and their trading partners. We encourage strengthening of correspondent banking networks within BRICS and enabling settlements in local currencies in line with BRICS Cross-Border Payments Initiative (BCBPI), which is voluntary and non-binding, and look forward to further discussions in this area, including in the BRICS Payment Task Force.

66. We acknowledge the importance of exploring the feasibility of connecting BRICS countries’ financial markets infrastructure. We agree to discuss and study the feasibility of establishment of an independent cross-border settlement and depositary infrastructure, BRICS Clear, an initiative to complement the existing financial market infrastructure, as well as BRICS independent reinsurance capacity, including BRICS (Re)Insurance Company, with participation on a voluntary basis.

67. We task our Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, as appropriate, to continue consideration of the issue of local currencies, payment instruments and platforms and report back to us by the next Presidency.

68. We recognise the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) being an important mechanism to forestall short-term balance of payments pressures and further strengthen financial stability. We express our strong support for the CRA mechanism improvement via envisaging alternative eligible currencies and welcome finalization of the amendments to the CRA documents. We acknowledge the successful completion of the 7th CRA Test Run and the fifth edition of the BRICS Economic Bulletin under the title “BRICS Economies in a Higher-rate Environment”.

69. We acknowledge the outcomes of the first cross-border BRICS Rapid Information Security Channel (BRISC) drills that would further strengthen the BRICS countries’ financial sector cyber resilience.

70. We highlight that secure, resilient, stable, effective and open supply chains are crucial for sustainable development. Acknowledging the role of the BRICS Members as the world largest producers of natural resources, we underscore the importance of strengthening cooperation of the BRICS Members across the entire value chain and agree to take joint actions with the aim to oppose unilateral protectionist measures that are inconsistent with the existing WTO provisions.

71. Concerned with the fast-paced digitalization process of all aspects of human life in the 21st century, we underscore the key role of data for development and the need to intensify the engagement within BRICS to address this issue. We highlight that fair, inclusive and equitable governance of data is critical to enable developing countries to harness the benefits of the digital economy and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence. We call for the design of a fair and equitable global framework for data governance, including cross-border data flows, to address the principles of collection, storage, use and transfer of data; ensure the interoperability of data policy frameworks at all levels; and distribute the monetary and non-monetary benefits of data with developing countries.

72. We emphasize that e-commerce has become an important driver of global economic growth, fostering international trade in goods and services, ensuring foreign investment flows and facilitating innovation. We are resolved to further increase trust in e-commerce and ensure full-fledged protection of the rights of e-commerce parties, by intensifying cooperation in the realms of utilizing digital technologies for consumer rights protection, exploring online dispute resolution tools and creating enabling environment for businesses to enter global markets, exchanging views on the issue of small value product trade through the cross-border e-commerce.

73. We agree that resilience of supply chains and unimpeded trade in agriculture along with domestic production are crucial for ensuring food security and livelihoods, especially for low-income or resource-poor farmers, as well as for net food importing developing countries. We recognise efforts to support smallholder farmers as an important part of national agriculture system. We welcome the Conference on Food Security and Sustainable Agricultural Development held on 27-28 of June 2024 in Moscow, and look forward to the upcoming Global Food Security Summit that would be held in Abu Dhabi on 26-28 November 2024. We reaffirm the need to develop a fair agricultural trading system and implement resilient and sustainable agriculture. We commit to minimize disruptions and promote rules-based trade in agriculture and fertilizers with the view to ensure a continuous flow of food and essential inputs for agricultural production which should be exempted from undue restrictive economic measures, inconsistent with WTO rules, including those affecting producers and exporters of agricultural products as well as business services with regard to international shipments. In this regard, we welcome the initiative of the Russian side to establish a grain (commodities) trading platform within BRICS (the BRICS Grain Exchange) and to subsequently develop it including expanding it to other agricultural sectors.

74. We recognise the effectiveness of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) of the BRICS countries as a well-established mechanism for trade and industrial cooperation and the facilitation of manufacturing, including those but not limited to high-tech sectors of the economy, IT and IT enabled services, tourism, port and transport infrastructure, development and commercialization of technologies as well as for the production of new types of value-added products. We also acknowledge that Special Economic Zones provide immense opportunities for encouraging additional investment in priority areas of economic development. We welcome the establishment of a forum for cooperation on SEZs of the BRICS countries. We agree to carry out practice-oriented activities including exchanges of best practices on implementation of standards and methodologies for managing SEZs.

75. We acknowledge that the MSMEs sector is a well-proved lever of economic growth, enabling an increase in overall labour productivity, household incomes and quality of goods and services. We intend to exchange best practices of supporting MSMEs, including through digital services and platforms aimed at simplifying business operations. We recognise the importance of maintaining existing value chains created with participation of MSMEs, as well as building up new cooperative ties for MSMEs, especially high-tech and innovation driven ones, within BRICS.

76. We acknowledge that the Partnership for the New Industrial Revolution (PartNIR) serves as a guiding platform for BRICS cooperation within the framework of the New Industrial Revolution to identify interests, challenges, and opportunities in the rapidly evolving industrial landscape and capacity building in the field of industry as well as ensures the continuity of BRICS industrial cooperation in a structured framework for sustained collaboration. We appreciate the efforts of the BRICS PartNIR Innovation Center (BPIC) in organizing events including BRICS Forum on PartNIR 2024, BRICS Industrial Innovation Contest 2024, BRICS Exhibition on New Industrial Revolution 2024, and the BPIC Training Programmes, and encourage all BRICS countries to actively participate in the above events. We appreciate the efforts of the BRICS Startup Forum in realizing start-ups projects that play crucial role in driving innovation and economic growth in the era of New Industrial Revolution. We look forward to deepening engagements with BRICS countries to participate in future events and activities of the BRICS Startup Forum. We note the agreement to launch the BRICS Center for Industrial Competences in cooperation with United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) to jointly support the development of Industry 4.0 skills development among the BRICS countries and to promote partnerships and increased productivity in the New Industrial Revolution. We endorse the decision by the PartNIR Advisory Group to create seven working groups, including on Chemical Industry; Mining and Metals; Digital Transformation of Industry; SMEs; Intelligent Manufacturing and Robotics; Photovoltaic Industry; Medical Devices and Pharma.

77. Recognising the importance of creating an enabling, inclusive, and secure digital economy and that digital connectivity is an essential prerequisite for digital transformation as well as social and economic growth, we emphasize the need to strengthen cooperation among BRICS countries. We also recognise that emerging technologies such as 5G, satellite systems, terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks, have the potential to catalyze the development of the digital economy. We acknowledge that resilient, safe, inclusive and interoperable digital public infrastructure has the potential to deliver services at scale and increase social and economic opportunities for all. We encourage BRICS members to explore the possibility for joint activities in the field of digital infrastructure to ensure the integrity, stability of the functioning and security of national segments of the Internet while respecting national legislative frameworks regarding any aspects of Internet use, including security ones. We note the need to enhance further intra-BRICS dialogue to unlock the enormous potential of ICTs and encourage policy exchanges and dialogues on Artificial Intelligence (AI), with a view to establishing an effective global governance framework, based on broad consensus, to boost national economies as well as to mitigate the risks of malicious use, misinformation, privacy leakage, prejudice and discrimination arising from such technologies, and to uphold a human-centred, development-oriented, inclusive, and sustainable approach, with the aim to improving people’s lives and bridging digital divides, especially between developed and developing countries.

78. Recognising that the rapid technological change, including the rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence has the potential to bring new opportunities for socioeconomic development around the globe, we encourage more international discussions, we support the United Nations to play an important role in global AI governance and welcome the UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/78/311 entitled Enhancing International Cooperation on Capacity-Building of Artificial Intelligence, which was adopted by consensus. We look forward to BRICS cooperation to help developing countries strengthen AI capacity building. We encourage consultations on AI topic including through the established BRICS Institute of Future Networks (BIFN) Study Group on AI.

79. We reiterate our support to the work of the BIFN and encourage all BRICS members to nominate national branches. Recalling the decision of creation of four study groups under the BIFN council and noting the discussion on their draft Terms of References. We encourage BRICS members to actively participate in this regard, as appropriate. We encourage the study groups to start working and recognise the continuing efforts of the Focus Group on BRICS Platform on Digital Public Good created under the BRICS Working Group on ICTs.

80. While emphasising the fundamental role of access to energy in achieving SDGs and noting the outlined risks to energy security we highlight the need for enhanced cooperation among the BRICS countries as major producers and consumers of energy products and services towards fair, inclusive, sustainable, equitable and just energy transitions. We believe that energy security, access and energy transitions are important and need to be balanced taking into consideration full and effective implementation of the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement. We reaffirm our determination to foster free, open, fair, non-discriminatory, transparent, inclusive, and predictable international energy trade and investment environment and agree to deepen technological cooperation. We stress the necessity for resilient global supply chains and stable, predictable energy demand in order to provide universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy sources as well as to ensure national, global and regional energy security. In this regard, we also strongly condemn all terrorist attacks against critical cross-border energy infrastructure and call for an open and unbiased approach to investigating such incidents.

81. We reiterate the need to take into account national circumstances, including climate and natural conditions, the structure of national economy and energy mix as well as the specific circumstances of those developing countries whose economies heavily depend on income or consumption of fossil fuels and related energy-intensive products to achieve just energy transitions. We believe that the efficient use of all energy sources is critical for just energy transitions towards more flexible, resilient and sustainable energy systems and in this regard we uphold the principle of technological neutrality, i.e. using all available fuels, energy sources and technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which includes, but is not limited to fossil fuels with abatement and removal technologies, biofuels, natural gas and LPG, hydrogen and its derivatives, including ammonia, nuclear and renewable power, etc.

82. We call for allocating adequate, predictable and accessible finance from developed to developing countries for the just energy transitions, in line with the principles of CBDR-RC. Stressing that new industrial development models associated with energy transitions would require enormous investments in existing and new infrastructure.

83. We reject unilateral, punitive and discriminatory protectionist measures, that are not in line with international law, under the pretext of environmental concerns, such as unilateral and discriminatory carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs), due diligence requirements, taxes and other measures and reconfirm our full support for the call in COP28 related to avoidance of unilateral trade measures based on climate or environment. We also oppose unilateral protectionist measures, which deliberately disrupt the global supply and production chains and distort competition.

84. We welcome the ongoing cooperation under the framework of the BRICS Energy Research Cooperation Platform, including publishing BRICS Just Energy Transition Report, and note with appreciation the 6th BRICS Youth Energy Summit held 27-28 September 2024 in Moscow.

85. We recognise the important role of carbon markets as one of the drivers of climate action, and encourage enhancing cooperation and sharing experiences in this field. We oppose unilateral measures introduced under the pretext of climate and environmental concerns and reiterate our commitment to enhancing coordination on these issues. We welcome the adoption of the MoU on the BRICS Carbon Markets Partnership as a platform dedicated to sharing knowledge, experiences and case studies of developing carbon markets and discussing the potential intra-BRICS cooperation on carbon markets to exchange views on potential cooperation under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement among the BRICS countries.

86. We welcome the establishment of the Contact Group on Climate Change and Sustainable Development by BRICS Environment Ministers on 28 June 2024 in Nizhny Novgorod and the adoption of the Framework on Climate Change and Sustainable Development at the High-level Dialogue on Climate Change (30 August 2024, Moscow). We look forward to establishing the BRICS Climate Research Platform (BCRP) to enhance the scientific and expert exchange of views, knowledge and best practices of the grouping.

87. We underscore the critical need for active climate adaptation projects, moving beyond research and forecasting to the implementation of practical solutions, advancing renewable energy, sustainable financing, low-emission technologies, and sustainable development investments, while highlighting the importance of collective action and international cooperation to address the adverse impacts of climate change and ensure inclusive, equitable climate initiatives.

88. Having significant deposits of a wide range of mineral resources, including critical, we commend the outcomes of the First Meeting of the Heads of Geological Services of the BRICS countries and acknowledge joint effort to launch the BRICS Geological Platform as the first step of practical collaboration in the field of geology and rational development of mineral resources.

89. Recognising that environmental problems are posing increasing threat, causing huge damage to the economy and affecting the quality of life of our citizens, we welcome the efforts to further develop the BRICS Clean Rivers Initiative within the framework of the BRICS Environmentally Sound Technology (BEST) Platform. We encourage more active involvement of young people in environmental activities believing it is critical to increase environmental culture and knowledge among the population, primarily young people.

90. Being fully aware of the critical importance of the oceans for sustainable development and climate stability, we recognise that appropriate planning and management, as well as adequate funding, capacity building and transfer and development of marine technology are essential to ensure the protection of the marine environment and the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources and biodiversity.

91. We support the Kimberley Process as the sole global intergovernmental certification scheme, regulating trade in rough diamonds emphasising our commitment to preventing conflict diamonds from entering the markets and acknowledge the launch of the Informal BRICS Cooperation Platform with the participation of African diamond-mining nations to ensure free trade in rough diamonds and the sustainable development of the global diamond industry. We welcome the UAE’s efforts as chair of the Kimberly Process for 2024. We support efforts to increase the turnover of precious metals within BRICS based on common
quality standards.

92. Acknowledging that developed transport infrastructure, safe, secure and cost-effective international transport routes, innovative technologies and regulations would facilitate trade flows and cross-border movement of people, we recognise the importance of integrating various modes of transport for an efficient and sustainable transport system in the BRICS countries. We welcome the outcomes of the First BRICS Transport Ministers’ Meeting in Saint-Petersburg on 6 June 2024 and look forward to further promoting transport dialogue to meet the demand of all stakeholders and to enhance the BRICS countries transport potential while also respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all member states while carrying out transport cooperation. We also look forward to further exploring opportunities to establish a logistics platform to coordinate and improve transport conditions for multimodal logistics between the BRICS countries.

93. We reiterate our support to the central coordinating role of the World Health Organization in the implementation of multilateral international efforts to protect public health from infectious diseases and epidemics and commit to reform and strengthen the international pandemic prevention, preparedness and response system. We recognise the fundamental role of primary health care as a key foundation for Universal Health Care and health system’s resilience, as well as on prevention and response to health emergencies. We welcome fostering closer ties among BRICS health institutions responsible for sanitary and epidemiological health and well-being, prevention, preparedness and response to epidemic prone communicable diseases and
health impact following disasters and encourage further exploring opportunities for knowledge sharing, exchange of expertise and undertaking joint projects in the health sector.

94. We acknowledge that BRICS cooperation on countering Tuberculosis (TB) and Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) as well as strengthening capacities in preventing communicable diseases and other health issues such as non-communicable diseases, research and development, experience sharing, including on traditional medicine systems, digital health, nuclear medicine and radiopharmaceutical science, with a particular emphasis on strengthening the radiopharmaceutical supply chain and enhancing isotopes production, alongside fostering the development of advance digital solutions, greatly contributes to relevant  international efforts.

95. We support the initiatives of the BRICS R&D Vaccine Center, further development of the BRICS Integrated Early Warning System for preventing mass infectious diseases risks and the operations of the BRICS TB Research Network. We welcome the outcomes of the 79th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) High-Level Meeting on AMR, committing to a clear set of targets and actions, including reducing the estimated 4.95 million human deaths associated with bacterial antimicrobial resistance (AMR) annually by 10% by 2030. We express concern about the growing threat of AMR to all sectors of the economy, in particular healthcare, and note the timeliness of holding the first BRICS Conference on AMR in May 2024.

96. Recalling significant potential of BRICS countries in the field of nuclear medicine, we welcome the decision to establish a BRICS Working Group on Nuclear Medicine. We note the successful holding of the First BRICS Nuclear Medicine Forum on 20-21 June 2024 in St. Petersburg and the publication of the BRICS Review of Best Practices in Nuclear Medicine.

97. We welcome the release of the first edition of the BRICS Health Journal and take note of the creation of the BRICS Medical Association. We support the launch of the BRICS Public Health Institutes Network – a platform designed for exchange of experiences and best practices in strengthening and protecting public health.

98. We look forward to enhanced BRICS cooperation including through established mechanisms in remote sensing satellite applications for the economic and social development of the BRICS countries, including in support of combatting climate change, disaster risk reduction and early warning systems. We encourage enhancing inter-agency dialogue to further explore cooperation possibilities in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space and, in this regard, welcome the statement of BRICS Heads of Space Agencies.

99. Recognising that the BRICS countries have a huge tourist potential, we welcome the results of the first BRICS Tourism Forum, held in Moscow on 20-21 June 2024. We commit to further strengthening people-to-people connectivity, enhancing multi-stakeholder cooperation as well as developing joint projects in the tourist sphere. We appreciate the adoption of the Roadmap for BRICS Tourism Cooperation aimed at facilitating tourist exchanges, skills development, promoting sustainable tourism and digitalizing tourist services. 

100. We reaffirm our commitment to further advance and develop cooperation in the field of competition law and policy among BRICS countries with a view to contribute to sustainable development of markets, effective combatting anticompetitive cross-border practices, promoting healthy market environment. We acknowledge the role of the BRICS International Competition Law and Policy Center activities in knowledge creation and knowledge sharing amongst BRICS competition authorities and the importance to ensure the most favorable conditions for the competition law development of BRICS economies and work towards the elimination of monopoly barriers in socially important markets. We welcome holding of the IX BRICS International Competition Conference in 2025 in South Africa.

101. We welcome the continued evolution of cooperation among BRICS countries, including, but not limited to, further discussion on the Mutual Administrative Assistance Agreement, signature of BRICS Authorized Economic Operator Joint Action Plan among the BRICS Customs Administrations towards Mutual Recognition of Their Respective Authorized Economic Operator Programmes. Such cooperation enables the inclusion of new countries and their induction in the established process, capacity building, law enforcement cooperation, and the strengthening of cooperation among BRICS customs training centers to implement joint customs training activities and establishment of BRICS Centers of Excellence and its related online platforms.

102. Recognising the importance of further enhancing and institutionalizing BRICS tax cooperation, we welcome the adoption of the BRICS Heads of Tax Authorities Governance Framework as an important step towards systematic and consistent tax cooperation among BRICS countries.

103. We welcome the UN General Assembly resolution 78/230 on Promotion of inclusive and effective international tax cooperation at the United Nations. We express our appreciation for the commitment and dedication in developing the Terms of Reference for a United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation (UNFCITC) by the UN Ad Hoc Committee. We recognise the critical importance of developing the UNFCITC with its early Protocols to strengthen international tax cooperation and make it fully inclusive and more effective. We expect that the implementation of the UNFCITC will promote an inclusive, fair, transparent, efficient, equitable, and effective international tax system for sustainable development, with a view to enhancing the legitimacy, certainty, resilience, and fairness of international tax rules, while addressing challenges to strengthen domestic resource mobilization. We support initiatives to enhance tax cooperation and build a more progressive, stable, and effective international tax system, promoting tax transparency and facilitating discussions on effective taxation of high net-worth individuals.

104. We recognise the role of standardization tools in trade facilitation and agree to strengthen mutually beneficial cooperation in the sphere of standardization.

105. Recognising the importance of data, statistics and information for effective decision-making, we express our support to enhance the statistical cooperation within BRICS, including the annual release of the BRICS Joint Statistical Publication and the BRICS Joint Statistical Publication Snapshot, as well as exchange in best practices in the areas of official statistics in the member countries of BRICS.

106. We welcome the cooperation of the BRICS Intellectual Property (IP) Offices and exchange of best practices and experience in the IP field, in particular on advanced technological issues, aimed at supporting rightholders, including MSMEs and talent, in IP protection, commercialization and utilization.

107. We reiterate the need to further strengthen BRICS cooperation in the field of disaster management. We stress the importance of improving national disaster risk reduction systems and capacities so as to reduce disaster-related damage and protect infrastructure, human lives and livelihoods. In this regard, we encourage enhancing comprehensive disaster risk reduction capacity of BRICS countries to effectively resist natural disasters including floods, draughts, earthquakes, forest fires, etc. We support the enhanced dialogue on the development of systems for monitoring of natural hazards, forecasting natural disasters and their possible consequences, including the use of satellite Earth observation, promoting the development of information and early warning systems for natural disasters.

108. We reaffirm our commitment to enhancing BRICS cooperation in labour market development and promoting high-quality and full employment through sustainable economic and social development, inclusive and human-centered labour markets environment. We commit to continue efforts to develop comprehensive strategies for lifelong learning, vocational guidance continuous professional education and vocational skills training to ensure workers are equipped with the skills needed for the future of work and a resilient and equitable labour market. We emphasize the importance of regulating platform employment to ensure decent work, fair compensation, and social protection for all. We commit to improving safety and healthy working environment and modernizing social support systems and to take all relevant measures to reduce occupational injuries and diseases to meet the diverse needs of our populations.

109. We highlight the important role that public sector auditing plays in ensuring efficiency, accountability, effectiveness and transparency of public administration in BRICS countries and maintaining their financial and economic stability. We welcome increased interaction and sharing of best practices between supreme audit institutions of the BRICS countries. We also pay special attention to the need for improvement of the activities of external public sector audit institutions operating at the regional and local levels within BRICS countries, in accordance with Supreme Audit Institutions’ mandates and procedures, as appropriate.

110. We recognise the need of deepening cooperation in the field of justice within the BRICS framework and acknowledge the first Meeting of the BRICS Ministers of Justice. We recognise the importance of attracting investment and developing the economies of the BRICS countries and developing robust framework to address Investors’ grievances with further consultation and deliberations among BRICS countries. We take note of the Russian initiative to establish the BRICS International Investment Arbitration Centre.

111. We acknowledge the enormous potential of the BRICS countries in the sphere of Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) and the proposed Protocol to the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in STI. We commend the work of the BRICS STI Steering Committee being one of the crucial mechanisms to manage and ensure the successful holding of BRICS STI activities. We welcome the establishment of the BRICS Working Group focusing on social sciences and humanities research and adaptation of the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the BRICS STI Framework Program to appropriately navigate the further management of Joint Calls for Proposals to support research work, including early launch of the BRICS STI Flagship Projects. Recognising the important role of scientometric systems and databases in modern scientific world and considering the research potential of BRICS countries, we encourage initiatives, aimed at exploring scientometric systems and databases in the BRICS countries.

112. We further underscore the importance of science, technology and innovation as a critical catalyst for economic development and improved quality of life of the people in the BRICS nations. We also note the progress made in advancing research, development and innovation programmes in critical cross cutting sectors, including biomedical fields, renewable energy, space and astronomical sciences, ocean and polar sciences, through joint research and innovation projects and promotion of joint institutional exchanges. We commend the STI sector for establishing the STI Framework Programme for possible funding of joint collaborative research and innovation is priority scientific areas. We encourage BRICS member countries to explore the possibility of allocating funding for research and development especially for supporting innovation initiatives for Startups and MSMEs, while aligning with their national priorities and strategies. We encourage the establishment of incubation and startup centers to promote innovation and technology within the BRICS STI Framework Programme.

113. We note with appreciation measures taken by BRICS countries to establish frameworks for building capacities in STI policy development; platforms for technology foresight studies; and supporting the capacities of young scientists and innovators. We encourage all BRICS member countries to explore ways to enhance investment in research infrastructures to advance scientific capabilities and competitiveness.

114. We welcome the enlargement of the BRICS Network University as well as expansion of its research areas including mathematics, natural sciences, social and humanitarian sciences, sustainable agriculture and food security, health sciences. We
agree to explore opportunities of cooperation between the BRICS member states to promote the development of the framework for mutual recognition of qualifications. We support continued dialogue on quality evaluation systems for BRICS universities, in line with their national education systems.

115. We reaffirm our commitment to enhancing BRICS Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) cooperation and appreciate the pivotal role of the BRICS TVET Cooperation Alliance as a multilateral platform for dialogue, experience sharing and project collaboration. We look forward to further discussions on qualitative and quantitative assessment of technical and vocational education and training systems through joint research projects. We support the establishment of the BRICS Digital Education Cooperation Mechanism as an outcome of the consultative process agreed by the BRICS Ministers of Education in the 2023 Skukuza Declaration and 2024 Kazan Declaration.

116. We appreciate the initiative to establish on 18 August BRICS Geographer’s Day as an annual professional holiday aimed at fostering joint research in geographical and geospatial sciences within BRICS to enhance capacities in addressing sustainable development challenges.

117. We welcome the hosting of the Global Education Meeting on 1 November 2024 in Fortaleza, Brazil, dedicated to SDG 4 and spearheaded by UNESCO, which for the first time will be held in a country of the Global South.

118. Recognising that development of high technology products based on domestic technological capacity is a factor predetermining competitiveness of national economies contributing to sustainable and inclusive economic growth, we encourage technological cooperation among BRICS countries. We acknowledge the Chairship’s initiative on the BRICS New Technological Platform under the umbrella of the BRICS Business Council, aimed at promoting technology and innovation cooperation between BRICS countries. We note the results of the BRICS Solutions Award 2024 that distinguished the best technological practices in priority areas of innovative development in the BRICS countries.

Strengthening People-to-people Exchanges for Social and Economic Development

119. We reaffirm the importance of BRICS people-to-people exchanges in enhancing mutual understanding, friendship and cooperation. We appreciate events, held under Russia’s Chairship in 2024 including in the fields of media, culture, education, sports, arts, youth, civil society, public diplomacy, and academic exchanges and acknowledge that people-to-people exchanges play an essential role in enriching our societies and developing our economies. In this regard, we call for more efforts to respect diversity of cultures, highly value inheritance, innovation and creativity, jointly advocate robust international people-to-people exchanges and cooperation and recognise the adoption of the UNGA Resolution A/RES/78/286 entitled “International Day for Dialogue among Civilizations”.

120. We stress our commitment to enhancing international cooperation in education, science, culture, communication and information in view of the complexity of contemporary challenges and transformations and in this regard note the relevance of the principles set forth in the UNESCO Constitution and its mandate to foster cooperation and peace through international collaboration that should be based on equality, dialogue, mandated programmatic activities and the spirit of consensus. We recall the UNESCO Framework for Culture and Arts Education that was unanimously adopted in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates in February 2024.

121. We underscore the vital role of culture in sustainable development as it largely benefits economic growth, social cohesion, and overall well-being. In this context, we reaffirm the importance of strengthening BRICS cooperation in the fields of culture and preservation cultural heritage. We welcome the BRICS Culture Festival that highlights the diversity and richness of the BRICS cultures and serves as a catalyst for fostering greater mutual understanding among our nations. We also welcome the BRICS Film Festival and music concerts. We encourage participation in BRICS Alliances, including the Alliance of Museums, the Alliance of Museums and Art Galleries, the Alliance of Libraries and the Alliance of Theatres for Children and Young People. We welcome the establishment the BRICS Alliance of Folk Dance and encourage the establishment of a BRICS Film Schools Alliance.

122. We regard these alliances as ideal in supporting cultural exchange, knowledge-sharing, and the preservation of our shared heritage. Through these initiatives, we aim to deepen cultural ties, enhance mutual appreciation, and contribute to a more interconnected world. We underscore the importance for the BRICS cooperation in the fields of preserving cultural heritage and culture. Recalling the UNESCO World Conference on Cultural Policies and Sustainable Development and the G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration 2023, we recognise the power of culture as а catalyst for sustainable development including creativity, innovation and inclusive economic growth, social cohesion and environmental protection.

123. We emphasize that all BRICS countries have rich traditional sport culture and agree to support each other in the promotion of traditional and indigenous sports among BRICS countries and around the world. We strongly oppose any form of discrimination on grounds of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, economic or other status of athletes. We recognise the importance of joint BRICS sports events, meetings, conferences, seminars in the field of sports science and sports medicine.

124. We attach great importance to the role of BRICS in developing sports ties among BRICS countries, including mass, youth, school and student sports, high-priority sports, parasport, national and traditional sports. In this regard we highly appreciate Russia’s Chairship for hosting the BRICS Games in Kazan in June, which brought together participants in 27 sports disciplines. 125. We reiterate the need to further develop youth exchanges, including in such areas as education, training, skills development, science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurship, healthy lifestyle and sports, as well as community service and volunteering. We positively assess the results of the BRICS Youth Summit, held in Ulyanovsk in July 2024, and recognise its value as a platform for open discussion and constructive interaction between the young people of BRICS countries. We intend to promote further the BRICS Youth Council which serves as a mechanism for the development and consolidation of the youth agenda within the alliance. We agree to explore the possibility to organize educational missions to the BRICS countries to raise awareness of young people about the values and principles of BRICS.

126. We commit to further promoting inter-parliamentary interaction between BRICS member states through regular exchange of views, experiences, and best practices in line with the Memorandum on the BRICS Parliamentary Forum signed on 28 September 2023 in Johannesburg and its Protocol signed on 12 July 2024. In this regard, we welcome successful holding of the X BRICS Parliamentary Forum in St.Petersburg on 11-12 July 2024.

127. We acknowledge that dialogue among political parties of BRICS countries plays a constructive role in building consensus and enhancing cooperation. We note the successful hosting of BRICS Political Parties Dialogue in Vladivostok in June 2024 and welcome other BRICS countries to continue the tradition of holding this event in the future.

128. We commend the progress made by BRICS countries in promoting affordable housing and urban development and resilience and appreciate the contribution of mechanisms including the BRICS Urbanization Forum, BRICS Friendship Cities and Local Governments Cooperation Forum and BRICS Municipal Forum to facilitating the building of more friendship city relations among BRICS countries and promoting the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

129. We commend the successful holding of the BRICS Business Forum. We welcome the BRICS Business Council’s self-reflection with a focus on milestones achieved and areas of improvement. We support BRICS Business Council activities in different domains, including agriculture, finance and investment, infrastructure, transport and logistics, digital economy, energy manufacturing and sustainable development.

130. We acknowledge the critical role of women in political, social and economic development. We underline the importance of women’s empowerment and their full participation on the basis of equality in all spheres of society, including their active participation in decision-making processes, including in senior positions, which are fundamental for the achievement of equality, development and peace. We recognise that inclusive entrepreneurship and access to finance for women would facilitate their participation in business ventures, innovation, and the digital economy. In this regard, we welcome the outcomes of the Ministerial Meeting on Women’s Affairs and BRICS Women’s Forum held in September in Saint Petersburg under the theme “Women; Governance and Leadership” and recognise the valuable contribution of these annual meetings to the development and consolidation of women empowerment across all three pillars of BRICS cooperation.

131. We appreciate the efforts of the BRICS Women`s Business Alliance to promote women’s entrepreneurship, including the launch of the Common BRICS Women’s Business Alliance Digital Platform, the holding of the first BRICS Women’s Entrepreneurship Forum in Moscow on 3-4 June 2024 and the first BRICS Women’s Startups Contest. We support further strengthening cooperation between the BRICS Women’s Business Alliance and women entrepreneurs from the Global South, including the establishment of Regional Offices, as appropriate.

132. We encourage strengthening ties between experts communities and civil society of BRICS countries. In this regard, we welcome the successful holding of the BRICS Academic Forum and BRICS Civil Forum, activities of the BRICS Think Tank Council enhancing cooperation in research and capacity building among the academic communities of BRICS countries and the launching of the BRICS Think Tank Network for Finance that will support the discussions of the BRICS Financial Track. We endorse the establishment of the Civil BRICS Council.

133. We commend Russia’s BRICS Chairship in 2024 and express our gratitude to the government and people of the Russian Federation for holding the XVI BRICS Summit in the city of Kazan.

134. We extend full support to Brazil for its BRICS Chairship in 2025 and the holding of the XVII BRICS Summit in Brazil.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image: The plenary session of the Outreach/BRICS Plus meeting. (By Alexei Danichev / Photohost agency brics-russia2024.ru)

I visited Kamala Harris’s “Closing Argument” rally at the White House to ask people why they’re voting for Kamala Harris. Occasionally, if someone brought up the Constitution or freedom, I’d follow up and ask them for their thoughts on internet censorship during the Biden/Harris administration. More often than not, they abruptly ended the interview: “Just go away!”

.

.

Between this and one-hour livestream that I recorded earlier, in line for the rally, the number one reason Harris supporters gave me was some variation of, “She’s not Donald Trump.” A close second was abortion/women’s rights.

Many people were offended or angry about comedian Tony Hinchcliffe’s Puerto Rico “garbage” joke at the previous night’s Trump rally in Madison Square Garden.

.

Click here to watch the video

.

HINCHCLIFFE: It is absolutely wild times. It really, really is. And, you know, there’s a lot going on. Like, I don’t know if you guys know this, but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. Yeah, I think it’s called Puerto Rico. Okay. All right. Okay. We’re getting there now. Again, normally I don’t follow the national anthem.

One Harris supporter said Hinchfliffe’s joke was evidence that Trump “hates people the way they were born.” Another said it was proof that Trump is a “fascist”.

But Hinchcliffe did not refer to the Puerto Rican people as “garbage”—just the island, which does have an environmental problem with an overwhelming amount of garbage.

Joe Biden went on to use the word “garbage” too, but he wasn’t joking.

.

Click here to watch the video

.

BIDEN: “And just the other day, a speaker at his rally called Puerto Rico a ‘floating island of garbage.’ Well, let me tell you something. I don’t — I — I don’t know the Puerto Rican that — that I know — or a Puerto Rico, where I’m fr- — in my home state of Delaware, they’re good, decent, honorable people. The only garbage I see floating out there is his [supporters/supporter’s].”

It sure sounds like President Biden just called Trump supporters “garbage”’; however, the White House claims he was only referring to the comedian’s joke as “garbage.”

.

.

Back at the rally, some people told me they were voting for Jill Stein. “It’s just because she has honor. The other parties? Different stories,” one told me. Another’s sign said they were voting for Stein’s Green Party for the first time because Harris is “committing genocide” through her support of Israel’s ongoing attacks in Gaza.

“You should skip me,” one man said, “I’m not a fan of Kamala at all.” He voted for Trump but was supporting his wife who voted for Kamala. She said she found Kamala “too liberal” but could not bring herself to vote Trump.

.

.

“I don’t like a lot of the things that Donald Trump does and says but he was the better candidate for me,” the man said.

The woman put her arm around his shoulders and smiled.

Maybe we don’t need a Civil War after all!

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Featured image is from Flickr

Zero Hedge, normally a reliable site, reports that the US Department of Defense and the NATO Secretary General claim that 10,000 to 12,000 North Korean soldiers have joined Russian forces in Kursk to help drive out the Ukrainian incursion.  

The Pentagon spokeswoman, Sabrina Singh, says that if these North Koreans do for Russia what French troops and NATO personnel are doing for Ukraine, the US will remove its ban on NATO firing missiles into Russia from Ukraine.  

As Putin has said, this would mean the US/NATO are at war with Russia, which, Putin has implied, means a nuclear response from Russia. Why Putin is OK with drones fired deep into Russia but not missiles is unclear.

What do we make of this report?  It strikes me as nonsensical and contrary to Putin’s abhorrence  of expanding the conflict.  It also strikes me as nonsensical that Russia cannot expel Ukrainians from Kursk without North Korean reinforcements. 

There are two possible real explanations.  One is that Washington’s military/security complex wants to carry the war further into Russia, confident from Putin’s past non-response that Putin will do nothing about it, and the alleged Korean troops are an excuse.  The neoconservatives believe that Putin is nothing but hot air and that they can destabilize his regime by sending in missiles to kill Russians and destroy infrastructure all over Russia.  That Putin has been unwilling to use the available force that he has to end a conflict with a third world military with zero military technology of its own after three years suggests to the neoconservatives that Putin is so averse to war that he simply will not fight anything other than a limited military operation.  

The other explanation is that Putin is demonstrating to Washington that Russia, also, can bring in foreign resources to the conflict. The French send troops.  NATO sends “mercenaries.”  Washington provides weapons and people to operate them along with intelligence and targeting information.   If this is the explanation, assuming there actually are North Korean troops there, it shows that Putin has a defective understanding of the situation.

President Putin, you are at war.  You, Russia, China, and Iran are in the way of American hegemony.  American foreign policy has not repudiated the neoconservative doctrine that hegemony is the principal goal of US foreign policy. Therefore your support for peace negotiations is nonsensical.  Negotiations make no sense. They show you to be humanitarian but unrealistic.

Russia is in the way of Washington.  There can be no peace until Washington redefines its foreign policy goal, or Russia is broken up into its constituent parts.  While Putin speaks of peace negotiations with Ukraine, Washington is attempting to open a second front against Russia with a color revolution in Georgia.

Whatever peace deal Putin makes would have no more reality than the Minsk Agreement, Washington’s pledge not to move NATO one inch to the east, or any of the broken 20th century agreements.   Washington only respects force, and Russia has not demonstrated force.  Neither has China.  Neither has Iran.  The absence of countervailing power is building toward a major war.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books! 

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

This position of “communications and content specialist” that was advertised broadly yesterday on the internet by Booz Allen Hamilton represents perfectly what is happening to our country as part of the secret takeover of our society—which you are not supposed to notice because you are so caught up with Trump hate or Harris contempt, or some variation of that pre-planned political distraction called the “election.”

.

.

.

The tempting position at BAH is described as providing support for external communications and marketing strategies for workshops, forums, action tracking, and other programs for corporations that have hired Booz Allen Hamilton as a consultant.   

Such corporate promotion of events and activities within businesses, between businesses, and for public consumption has a long history, and is neither remarkable nor notable.

However, the small print of the job description gives the entire project away.

“Top Secret/SCI (secret compartmented information) clearance with polygraph is required.”

The question that should come to mind for anyone reading this job advertisement who still has a brain is: “why does a corporate marketing consultant position require top secret clearance?”

That question is a good one. Top Secret/SCI, the highest level of clearance, is completely unnecessary for anyone handling communications and marketing for corporations. Of course, there could be circumstances in which work for a defense contractor might require security clearance, but that most certainly should not extend to marketing and advertising work using “Microsoft Office Suite Applications, including Word, PowerPoint, and Excel” or “Adobe Creative suite tools, including Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, and Audition.”

The reason that clearance is required for corporate advertising is that secret governance after the 9/11 incident and the COVID 19 operation has extended from the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies, to State, Treasury, Energy and Homeland Security, to the entire federal government, and increasingly to state government and to the defense and security contractors, often located outside the US in places like Israel, and to private intelligence/marketing/consulting firms like Booz Allen Hamilton. In short, what government and corporations do to the nation, and its citizens, is secret even from lawyers and judges.

Corporations can show you a memorandum of understanding they have with the government and they can act as if the classified codicil to the MoU does not exist—even though it describes what the corporation actually does, and what the true chain of command is. No one is entitled to know anything and in effect there is no judiciary any more.

So why do you need top secret/SCI clearance to work in marketing? Because much of the administration and finances of multinational corporations, from Coca Cola to Lockheed Martin, is labeled as classified using various bogus government-tied “security concerns” these days.

What does that mean specifically? It means that orders can be given within the corporation which are classified and for which you will go to jail for disclosing to anyone, and be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars too.

That means that as an employee, if you get an order to promote Covid 19 as a life-threatening virus, Covid vaccines as a scientific miracle drug, the 9/11 commission’s report as a scientifically sound study of the facts, or any other fraud that the rich and powerful may want to impose on citizens, you are free to do so, and you must do so, or else you will be brutally punished for not doing so without anyone ever knowing. Noone who gets in the way of corporate power will go unpunished.   

In such an ecosystem, it makes perfect sense to require a security clearance for marketing. After all, the images and storylines that are fed to the public, and to employees of government and corporations, are the front line in the war on truth, and the destruction of civil society.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books!

This article was originally published on Fear No Evil.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

There Never Was a “New Corona Virus”, There Never Was a Pandemic

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 30, 2024

My research based on a careful review of  WHO data, concepts and “methodologies” confirms that there never was a dangerous epidemic, and the identity of the new virus was never confirmed. 

Iran: The Road to Armageddon? Felicity Arbuthnot

By Felicity Arbuthnot, October 31, 2024

The increasingly hysterical claims regarding Iran, the latest threat to life as we know it, is being brought to you by the very same warmongers who wrought the duplicity that resulted in Iraq’s murderous decimation, the hawks’ nest which is the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and their friends.

The BRICS’ 16th Summit in Kazan Revisited. “Not All That Glitters Is Gold”. BRICS Nation Follow the Same Globalist Agenda”. Peter Koenig and David Skripac

By David Skripac and Peter Koenig, October 30, 2024

A second look reveals—unfortunately—that the BRICS nations follow the same globalist agenda as does the Western world. And if the BRICS are representative of the Global South, then maybe much of the Global South has also been taken hostage by that globalist agenda.

Virtuous, Smug and Venal: British Electoral Interference in the US

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, October 31, 2024

US politics, to that end, remain a matter of enormous importance to the UK.  Interfering in US elections is a habit that dies hardest of all.  In 1940, with the relentless march of Nazi Germany’s war machine across Europe, British intelligence officers based in New York and Washington had one primary objective: to aid the election of politicians favouring US intervention on the side of Britain. 

Disaster for Ukraine Military as NATO Assets Fail Across Battlefield. “Zelensky Now Wants Nukes”

By Drago Bosnic, October 30, 2024

The situation is so bad that over half of the forcibly conscripted Ukrainians last no longer than a few days. It could be argued that this has essentially turned into a death cult of sorts, as evidenced by the disturbing views of some service members.

Lies Cannot Hide Israel’s Failed Attack on Iran’s Air Defense System

By Joachim Hagopian, October 30, 2024

Over a hundred US-made F-35 stealth fighter jets piloted by Israeli Air Force last weekend, assisted by US refuel tankers over Iraq, were able to provide safe enough distance and cover away from Iran’s solid, still intact air defense system to launch Israel’s air-to-air ballistic missiles at targets deep inside Iran.

From Cyber Parks to Sadhus, Change and Tradition in Urban India: Colin Todhunter

By Colin Todhunter, October 30, 2024

While societal structures may evolve externally, fundamental cultural and spiritual values remain deeply entrenched. Indian urbanism allows for the coexistence of age-old practices with contemporary realities; tradition and modernity, spirituality and materialism exist together.

*

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

Don’t Miss Out on Global Research Online e-Books!

Zachary J. Patterson is an independent researcher, activist, and ROAPE.net contributor. He writes on Kenya, NGOs, socialist politics and movements on the continent. He works in the space of art and revolutionary politics and is an organizer with the Indianapolis Liberation Center.

Notes