The COVID “Killer Vaccine”. People Are Dying All Over the World. It’s a Criminal Undertaking

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 07, 2023

We are being accused of  “spreading disinformation” regarding the Covid-19 vaccine. The Reuters and AP media “trackers” and “fact checkers” will be out to smear the testimonies of parents who have lost their children.

A ‘Cover-Up of Evidence of Mass Murder’: The CDC Appears to be Removing VAERS Records

By DailyClout, January 09, 2023

Something strange is going on with the VAERS system. Reports that were present three months ago are now inexplicably missing. And fewer than 4% of adverse events recorded in V-Safe have made their way to VAERS.

mRNA/DNA Gene Injection “Vaccine”: Murder Charges Against Pfizer, Moderna, FDA, CDC,NIH, NIAID

By Dr. Paul Elias Alexander, January 08, 2023

Every single NFL player (or athlete in America) must be screened for myocarditis (post COVID gene injection); they must demand it! Do not take the field for you could be DAMAR! Do not let them lie to you and confuse you with commotio cordis!

The High Cost of Blowing Up the World: Ukraine and the 2023 NDAA

By Matthew Ehret-Kump, January 07, 2023

Bipartisan insanity was on display again this week as the U.S. congress responded to Biden’s requested $37 billion in additional aid to Ukraine by giving him $45 billion bringing the total U.S. support to its Davos-managed disposable ward up to $111 billion.

US Patriot Missiles in Ukraine: A Desperate and Dangerous Escalation

By Brian Berletic, January 07, 2023

US appears to be in the process of transferring its Patriot air defense missile system to Ukraine. CNN in its article, “Exclusive: US finalizing plans to send Patriot missile defense system to Ukraine,” claims the US will approve and then quickly ship the system or systems into Ukraine in just days after the decision is made.

“In Politics, Nothing Happens by Accident. If It Happens, You Can Bet It Was Planned that Way.”

By Dr. Rudolf Hänsel, January 07, 2023

Every person can correct the medieval-looking image of man instilled in him by his upbringing in order to learn to think on the basis of a scientific view of man, to understand his life better and to live it better.

Nowhere to Hide: How a Nuclear War Would Kill You — And Almost Everyone Else.

By François Diaz-Maurin, January 09, 2023

Any nuclear explosion creates radiation, heat, and blast effects that will result in many quick fatalities. Direct radiation is the most immediate effect of the detonation of a nuclear weapon. It is produced by the nuclear reactions inside the bomb and comes mainly in the form of gamma rays and neutrons.

Yet Another COVID “Variant”: Omicron XBB & the Self-driving Narrative

By Kit Knightly, January 09, 2023

There’s yet another Covid variant in the headlines – it’s Omicron XBB 1.5 if you want to know. It honestly doesn’t really matter at this point – but it does provide an interesting lesson in the nature of propaganda narrative construction and how, past a certain point, they take on a life of their own.

Pfizer Has a Shockingly Long History of Engaging in Illegal Activities and Human Experimentation

By Arsenio Toledo, January 09, 2023

Big Pharma company Pfizer has repeatedly engaged in inhumane and illegal activities in its history, including acts of fraud, corruption and even human experimentation disguised as vaccine trials.

How to Be Your Own Bank: Holding Actual Custody of Your Digital Assets

By Ben Bartee, January 07, 2023

Take warning! If you’re holding your crypto assets on big exchanges like Binance, CoinBase, or Kraken, you’re well-advised to get them off and into a privately-held wallet for a few reasons that we’ll survey here.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The COVID “Killer Vaccine”. People Are Dying All Over the World. It’s a Criminal Undertaking

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This article was first crossposted by GR in October 2022.

This summer, the New York City Emergency Management department released a new public service announcement on nuclear preparedness, instructing New Yorkers about what to do during a nuclear attack. The 90-second video starts with a woman nonchalantly announcing the catastrophic news: “So there’s been a nuclear attack. Don’t ask me how or why, just know that the big one has hit.” Then the PSA video advises New Yorkers on what to do in case of a nuclear attack: Get inside, stay inside, and stay tuned to media and governmental updates.

But nuclear preparedness works better if you are not in the blast radius of a nuclear attack. Otherwise, there’s no going into your house and closing your doors because the house will be gone. Now imagine there have been hundreds of those “big ones.” That’s what even a “small” nuclear war would include. If you are lucky not to be within the blast radius of one of those, it may not ruin your day, but soon enough, it will ruin your whole life.

Effects of a single nuclear explosion

Any nuclear explosion creates radiation, heat, and blast effects that will result in many quick fatalities.

Direct radiation is the most immediate effect of the detonation of a nuclear weapon. It is produced by the nuclear reactions inside the bomb and comes mainly in the form of gamma rays and neutrons.

Direct radiation lasts less than a second, but its lethal level can extend over a mile in all directions from the detonation point of a modern-day nuclear weapon with an explosive yield equal to the effect of several hundred kilotons of TNT.

Microseconds into the explosion of a nuclear weapon, energy released in the form of X-rays heats the surrounding environment, forming a fireball of superheated air. Inside the fireball, the temperature and pressure are so extreme that all matter is rendered into a hot plasma of bare nuclei and subatomic particles, as is the case in the Sun’s multi-million-degree core.

The fireball following the airburst explosion of a 300-kiloton nuclear weapon—like the W87 thermonuclear warhead deployed on the Minuteman III missiles currently in service in the US nuclear arsenal—can grow to more than 600 meters (2,000 feet) in diameter and stays blindingly luminous for several seconds, before its surface cools.

The light radiated by the fireball’s heat—accounting for more than one-third of the thermonuclear weapon’s explosive energy—will be so intense that it ignites fires and causes severe burns at great distances. The thermal flash from a 300-kiloton nuclear weapon could cause first-degree burns as far as 13 kilometers (8 miles) from ground zero.

Then comes the blast wave.

The blast wave—which accounts for about half the bomb’s explosive energy—travels initially faster than the speed of sound but slows rapidly as it loses energy by passing through the atmosphere.

Because the radiation superheats the atmosphere around the fireball, air in the surroundings expands and is pushed rapidly outward, creating a shockwave that pushes against anything along its path and has great destructive power.

The destructive power of the blast wave depends on the weapon’s explosive yield and the burst altitude.

An airburst of a 300-kiloton explosion would produce a blast with an overpressure of over 5 pounds per square inch (or 0.3 atmospheres) up to 4.7 kilometers (2.9 miles) from the target. This is enough pressure to destroy most houses, gut skyscrapers, and cause widespread fatalities less than 10 seconds after the explosion.

Radioactive fallout

Shortly after the nuclear detonation has released most of its energy in the direct radiation, heat, and blast, the fireball begins to cool and rise, becoming the head of the familiar mushroom cloud. Within it is a highly-radioactive brew of split atoms, which will eventually begin to drop out of the cloud as it is blown by the wind. Radioactive fallout, a form of delayed radioactivity, will expose post-war survivors to near-lethal doses of ionizing radiation.

As for the blast, the severity of the fallout contamination depends on the fission yield of the bomb and its height of burst. For weapons in the hundreds of kilotons, the area of immediate danger can encompass thousands of square kilometers downwind of the detonation site. Radiation levels will be initially dominated by isotopes of short half-lives, which are the most energetic and so most dangerous to biological systems. The acutely lethal effects from the fallout will last from days to weeks, which is why authorities recommend staying inside for at least 48 hours, to allow radiation levels to decrease.

Because its effects are relatively delayed, estimating casualties from the fallout is difficult; the number of deaths and injuries will depend very much on what actions people take after an explosion. But in the vicinity of an explosion, buildings will be completely collapsed, and survivors will not be able to shelter. Survivors finding themselves less than 460 meters (1,500 feet) from a 300-kiloton nuclear explosion will receive an ionizing radiation dose of 500 Roentgen equivalent man (rem). “It is generally believed that humans exposed to about 500 rem of radiation all at once will likely die without medical treatment,” the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission says.

But at a distance so close to ground zero, a 300-kiloton nuclear explosion would almost certainly burn and crush to death any human being. The higher the nuclear weapon’s yield, the smaller the acute radiation zone is relative to its other immediate effects.

One detonation of a modern-day, 300-kiloton nuclear warhead—that is, a warhead nearly 10 times the power of the atomic bombs detonated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined—on a city like New York would lead to over one million people dead and about twice as many people with serious injuries in the first 24 hours after the explosion. There would be almost no survivors within a radius of several kilometers from the explosion site.

1,000,000 deaths after 24 hours

Immediate effects of nuclear war

In a nuclear war, hundreds or thousands of detonations would occur within minutes of each other.

Regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan that involved about 100 15-kiloton nuclear weapons launched at urban areas would result in 27 million direct deaths.

27,000,000 deaths from regional war

A global all-out nuclear war between the United States and Russia with over four thousand 100-kiloton nuclear warheads would lead, at minimum, to 360 million quick deaths.[1]  That’s about 30 million people more than the entire US population.

360,000,000 deaths from global war

[1]This estimate is based on a scenario of an all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States involving 4,400 100-kiloton weapons under the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) limits, where each country can deploy up to 2,200 strategic warheads. The 2010 New START Treaty further limits the US- and Russian-deployed long-range nuclear forces down to 1,550 warheads. But as the average yield of today’s strategic nuclear forces of Russia and the United States far exceeds 100 kilotons, a full nuclear exchange between the two countries involving around 3,000 weapons likely would result in similar direct casualties and soot emissions.

In an all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States, the two countries would not limit to shooting nuclear missiles at each other’s homeland but would target some of their weapons at other countries, including ones with nuclear weapons. These countries could launch some or all their weapons in retaliation.

Together, the United Kingdom, China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea currently have an estimated total of over 1,200 nuclear warheads.

As horrific as those statistics are, the tens to hundreds of millions of people dead and injured within the first few days of a nuclear conflict would only be the beginnings of a catastrophe that eventually will encompass the whole world.

Global climatic changes, widespread radioactive contamination, and societal collapse virtually everywhere could be the reality that survivors of a nuclear war would contend with for many decades.

Two years after any nuclear war—small or large—famine alone could be more than 10 times as deadly as the hundreds of bomb blasts involved in the war itself.

The longer-term consequences of nuclear war

In recent years, in some US military and policy circles, there has been a growing perception that a limited nuclear war can be fought and won. Many experts believe, however, that a limited nuclear war is unlikely to remain limited. What starts with one tactical nuclear strike or a tit-for-tat nuclear exchange between two countries could escalate to an all-out nuclear war ending with the immediate and utter destruction of both countries.

But the catastrophe will not be limited to those two belligerents and their allies.

The long-term regional and global effects of nuclear explosions have been overshadowed in public discussions by the horrific, obvious, local consequences of nuclear explosions. Military planners have also focused on the short-term effects of nuclear explosions because they are tasked with estimating the capabilities of nuclear forces on civilian and military targets. Blast, local radiation fallout, and electromagnetic pulse (an intense burst of radio waves that can damage electronic equipment) are all desired outcomes of the use of nuclear weapons—from a military perspective.

But widespread fires and other global climatic changes resulting from many nuclear explosions may not be accounted for in war plans and nuclear doctrines. These collateral effects are difficult to predict; assessing them requires scientific knowledge that most military planners don’t possess or take into account. Yet, in the few years following a nuclear war, such collateral damage may be responsible for the death of more than half of the human population on Earth.

Global climatic changes

Since the 1980s, as the threat of nuclear war reached new heights, scientists have investigated the long-term, widespread effects of nuclear war on Earth systems. Using a radiative-convective climate model that simulates the vertical profile of atmospheric temperatures, American scientists first showed that a nuclear winter could occur from the smoke produced by the massive forest fires ignited by nuclear weapons after a nuclear war. Two Russian scientists later conducted the first three-dimensional climate modeling showing that global temperatures would drop lower on land than on oceans, potentially causing an agricultural collapse worldwide. Initially contested for its imprecise results due to uncertainties in the scenarios and physical parameters involved, nuclear winter theory is now supported by more sophisticated climate models. While the basic mechanisms of nuclear winter described in the early studies still hold today, most recent calculations have shown that the effects of nuclear war would be more long-lasting and worse than previously thought.

Stratospheric soot injection

The heat and blast from a thermonuclear explosion are so powerful they can initiate large-scale fires in both urban and rural settings. A 300-kiloton detonation in a city like New York or Washington DC could cause a mass fire with a radius of at least 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles), not altered by any weather conditions. Air in that area would be turned into dust, fire, and smoke.

soot-injection-5tg

A simulation of the vertically averaged smoke optical depth in the first 54 days after a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. (Robock et al., Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 2003–2012, 2007)

But a nuclear war will set not just one city on fire, but hundreds of them, all but simultaneously. Even a regional nuclear war—say between India and Pakistan—could lead to widespread firestorms in cities and industrial areas that would have the potential to cause global climatic change, disrupting every form of life on Earth for decades.

Smoke from mass fires after a nuclear war could inject massive amounts of soot into the stratosphere, the Earth’s upper atmosphere. An all-out nuclear war between India and Pakistan, with both countries launching a total of 100 nuclear warheads of an average yield of 15 kilotons, could produce a stratospheric loading of some 5 million tons (or teragrams, Tg) of soot. This is about the mass of the Great Pyramid of Giza, pulverized and turned into superheated dust.

But these lower-end estimates date back to the late 2000s. Since then, India and Pakistan have significantly expanded their nuclear arsenals, both in the number of nuclear warheads and yield. By 2025, India and Pakistan could have up to 250 nuclear weapons each, with yields of 12 kilotons on the low end, up to a few hundred kilotons. A nuclear war between India and Pakistan with such arsenals could send up to 47 Tg of soot into the stratosphere.

For comparison, the recent catastrophic forest fires in Canada in 2017 and Australia in 2019 and 2020 produced 0.3 Tg and 1 Tg of smoke respectively. Chemical analysis showed, however, that only a small percentage of the smoke from these fires was pure soot—0.006 and 0.02 Tg respectively. This is because only wood was burning. Urban fires following a nuclear war would produce more smoke, and a higher fraction would be soot. But these two episodes of massive forest fires demonstrated that when smoke is injected into the lower stratosphere, it is heated by sunlight and lofted at high altitudes—10 to 20 kilometers (33,000 to 66,000 feet)—prolonging the time it stays in the stratosphere. This is precisely the mechanism that now allows scientists to better simulate the long-term impacts of nuclear war. With their models, researchers were able to accurately simulate the smoke from these large forest fires, further supporting the mechanisms that cause nuclear winter.

The climatic response from volcanic eruptions also continues to serve as a basis for understanding the long-term impacts of nuclear war. Volcanic blasts typically send ash and dust up into the stratosphere where it reflects sunlight back into space, resulting in the temporary cooling of the Earth’s surface. Likewise, in the theory of nuclear winter, the climatic effects of a massive injection of soot aerosols into the stratosphere from fires following a nuclear war would lead to the heating of the stratosphere, ozone depletion, and cooling at the surface under this cloud. Volcanic eruptions are also useful because their magnitude can match—or even surpass—the level of nuclear explosions. For instance, the 2022 Hunga Tonga’s underwater volcano released an explosive energy of 61 megatons of TNT equivalent—more than the Tsar Bomba, the largest human-made explosion in history with 50 Mt. Its plume reached altitudes up to about 56 kilometers (35 miles), injecting well over 50 Tg—even up to 146 Tg—of water vapor into the stratosphere where it will stay for years. Such a massive injection of stratospheric water could temporarily impact the climate—although differently than soot.

tonga

Aerial footage of the 2022 Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption. The vapor plume reached altitudes up to 56 kilometers (35 miles) and injected more than 50 teragrams of water vapor into the stratosphere. (Tonga Geological Services via YouTube)

Since Russia’s war in Ukraine started, President Putin and other Russian officials have made repeated nuclear threats, in an apparent attempt to deter Western countries from any direct military intervention. If Russia were to ever start—voluntarily or accidentally—nuclear war with the United States and other NATO countries, the number of devastating nuclear explosions involved in a full exchange could waft more than 150 Tg of soot into the stratosphere, leading to a nuclear winter that would disrupt virtually all forms of life on Earth over several decades.

Stratospheric soot injections associated with different nuclear war scenarios would lead to a wide variety of major climatic and biogeochemical changes, including transformations of the atmosphere, oceans, and land. Such global climate changes will be more long-lasting than previously thought because models of the 1980s did not adequately represent the stratospheric plume rise. It is now understood that soot from nuclear firestorms would rise much higher into the stratosphere than once imagined, where soot removal mechanisms in the form of “black rains” are slow. Once the smoke is heated by sunlight it can self-loft to altitudes as high as 80 kilometers (50 miles), penetrating the mesosphere.

soot-injection-150tg

A simulation of the vertically averaged smoke optical depth in the first 54 days after a nuclear war between Russia and the United States. (Alan Robock)

Changes in the atmosphere

After soot is injected into the upper atmosphere, it can stay there for months to years, blocking some direct sunlight from reaching the Earth’s surface and decreasing temperatures. At high altitudes—20 kilometers (12 miles) and above near the equator and 7 kilometers (4.3 miles) at the poles—the smoke injected by nuclear firestorms would also absorb more radiation from the sun, heating the stratosphere and perturbing stratospheric circulation.

In the stratosphere, the presence of highly absorptive black carbon aerosols would result in considerably enhanced stratospheric temperatures. For instance, in a regional nuclear war scenario that leads to a 5-Tg injection of soot, stratospheric temperatures would remain elevated by 30 degrees Celsius after four years.

The extreme heating observed in the stratosphere would increase the global average loss of the ozone layer—which protects humans and other life on Earth from the severe health and environmental effects of ultraviolet radiation—for the first few years after a nuclear war. Simulations have shown that a regional nuclear war that lasted three days and injected 5 Tg of soot into the stratosphere would reduce the ozone layer by 25 percent globally; recovery would take 12 years. A global nuclear war injecting 150 Tg of stratospheric smoke would cause a 75 percent global ozone loss, with the depletion lasting 15 years.

Changes on land

Soot injection in the stratosphere will lead to changes on the Earth’s surface, including the amount of solar radiation that is received, air temperature, and precipitation.

The loss of the Earth’s protective ozone layer would result in several years of extremely high ultraviolet (UV) light at the surface, a hazard to human health and food production. Most recent estimates indicate that the ozone loss after a global nuclear war would lead to a tropical UV index above 35, starting three years after the war and lasting for four years. The US Environmental Protection Agency considers a UV index of 11 to pose an “extreme” danger; 15 minutes of exposure to a UV index of 12 causes unprotected human skin to experience sunburn. Globally, the average sunlight in the UV-B range would increase by 20 percent. High levels of UV-B radiation are known to cause sunburn, photoaging, skin cancer, and cataracts in humans. They also inhibit the photolysis reaction required for leaf expansion and plant growth.

Smoke lofted into the stratosphere would reduce the amount of solar radiation making it to Earth’s surface, reducing global surface temperatures and precipitation dramatically.

Even a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan—causing a relatively modest stratospheric loading of 5 Tg of soot—could produce the lowest temperatures on Earth in the past 1,000 years—temperatures below the post-medieval Little Ice Age. A regional nuclear war with 5-Tg stratospheric soot injection would have the potential to make global average temperatures drop by 1 degree Celsius.

Even though their nuclear arsenals have been cut in size and average yield since the end of the Cold War, a nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia would still likely initiate a much more severe nuclear winter, with much of the northern hemisphere facing below-freezing temperatures even during the summer. A global nuclear war that injected 150 Tg of soot into the stratosphere could make temperatures drop by 8 degrees Celsius—3 degrees lower than Ice Age values.

In any nuclear war scenario, the temperature changes would have their greatest effect on mid- and high-latitude agriculture, by reducing the length of the crop season and the temperature even during that season. Below-freezing temperatures could also lead to a significant expansion of sea ice and terrestrial snowpack, causing food shortages and affecting shipping to crucial ports where sea ice is not now a factor.

Global average precipitation after a nuclear war would also drop significantly because the lower amounts of solar radiation reaching the surface would reduce temperatures and water evaporation rates. The precipitation decrease would be the greatest in the tropics. For instance, even a 5-Tg soot injection would lead to a 40 percent precipitation decrease in the Asian monsoon region. South America and Africa would also experience large drops in rainfall.

Changes in the ocean

The longest-lasting consequences of any nuclear war would involve oceans. Regardless of the location and magnitude of a nuclear war, the smoke from the resulting firestorms would quickly reach the stratosphere and be dispersed globally, where it would absorb sunlight and reduce the solar radiation to the ocean surface. The ocean surface would respond more slowly to changes in radiation than the atmosphere and land due to its higher specific heat capacity (i.e., the quantity of heat needed to raise the temperature per unit of mass).

Global ocean temperature decrease will be the greatest starting three to four years after a nuclear war, dropping by approximately 3.5 degrees Celsius for an India-Pakistan war (that injected 47 Tg of smoke into the stratosphere) and six degrees Celsius for a global US-Russia war (150 Tg). Once cooled, the ocean will take even more time to return to its pre-war temperatures, even after the soot has disappeared from the stratosphere and solar radiation returns to normal levels. The delay and duration of the changes will increase linearly with depth. Abnormally low temperatures are likely to persist for decades near the surface, and hundreds of years or longer at depth. For a global nuclear war (150 Tg), changes in ocean temperature to the Arctic sea-ice are likely to last thousands of years—so long that researchers talk of a “nuclear Little Ice Age.”

Because of the dropping solar radiation and temperature on the ocean surface, marine ecosystems would be highly disrupted both by the initial perturbation and by the new, long-lasting ocean state. This will result in global impacts on ecosystem services, such as fisheries. For instance, the marine net primary production (a measure of the new growth of marine algae, which makes up the base of the marine food web) would decline sharply after any nuclear war. In a US-Russia scenario (150 Tg), the global marine net primary production would be cut almost by half in the months after the war and would remain reduced by 20 to 40 percent for over 4 years, with the largest decreases being in the North Atlantic and North Pacific oceans.

Impacts on food production

Changes in the atmosphere, surface, and oceans following a nuclear war will have massive and long-term consequences on global agricultural production and food availability. Agriculture responds to the length of growing seasons, the temperature during the growing season, light levels, precipitation, and other factors. A nuclear war will significantly alter all of those factors, on a global scale for years to decades.

Using new climate, crop, and fishery models, researchers have now demonstrated that soot injections larger than 5 Tg would lead to mass food shortages in almost all countries, although some will be at greater risk of famine than others. Globally, livestock production and fishing would be unable to compensate for reduced crop output. After a nuclear war, and after stored food is consumed, the total food calories available in each nation will drop dramatically, putting millions at risk of starvation or undernourishment. Mitigation measures—shifts in production and consumption of livestock food and crops, for example—would not be sufficient to compensate for the global loss of available calories.

The aforementioned food production impacts do not account for the long-term direct impacts of radioactivity on humans or the widespread radioactive contamination of food that could follow a nuclear war. International trade of food products could be greatly reduced or halted as countries hoard domestic supplies. But even assuming a heroic action of altruism by countries whose food systems are less affected, trade could be disrupted by another effect of the war: sea ice.

Cooling of the ocean’s surface would lead to an expansion of sea ice in the first years after a nuclear war, when food shortages would be highest. This expansion would affect shipping into crucial ports in regions where sea ice is not currently experienced, such as the Yellow Sea.

Nowhere to hide

The impacts of nuclear war on agricultural food systems would have dire consequences for most humans who survive the war and its immediate effects.

The overall global consequences of nuclear war—including both short-term and long-term impacts—would be even more horrific causing hundreds of millions—even billions—of people to starve to death.

*

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

Featured image: Photos from the first second of the Trinity test shot, the first nuclear explosion on Earth. (Los Alamos National Laboratory)


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute  

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Nowhere to Hide: How a Nuclear War Would Kill You — And Almost Everyone Else.
  • Tags:

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The year 2022 ended with a Zoom call to end all Zoom calls: Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping discussing all aspects of the Russia-China strategic partnership in an exclusive video call.

Putin told Xi how “Russia and China managed to ensure record high growth rates of mutual trade,” meaning “we will be able to reach our target of $200 billion by 2024 ahead of schedule.”

On their coordination to “form a just world order based on international law,” Putin emphasized how “we share the same views on the causes, course, and logic of the ongoing transformation of the global geopolitical landscape.”

Facing “unprecedented pressure and provocations from the west,” Putin noted how Russia-China are not only defending their own interests “but also all those who stand for a truly democratic world order and the right of countries to freely determine their own destiny.”

Earlier, Xi had announced that Beijing will hold the 3rd Belt and Road Forum in 2023. This has been confirmed, off the record, by diplomatic sources. The forum was initially designed to be bi-annual, first held in 2017 and then 2019. 2021 didn’t happen because of Covid-19.

The return of the forum signals not only a renewed drive but an extremely significant landmark as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched in Astana and then Jakarta in 2013, will be celebrating its 10th anniversary.

BRI version 2.0

That set the tone for 2023 across the whole geopolitical and geoeconomic spectrum. In parallel to its geoconomic breadth and reach, BRI has been conceived as China’s overarching foreign policy concept up to the mid-century. Now it’s time to tweak things. BRI 2.0 projects, along its several connectivity corridors, are bound to be re-dimensioned to adapt to the post-Covid environment, the reverberations of the war in Ukraine, and a deeply debt-distressed world.

Photo Credit: The Cradle

Map of BRI (Photo Credit: The Cradle)

And then there’s the interlocking of the connectivity drive via BRI with the connectivity drive via the International North South Transportation Corridor (INTSC), whose main players are Russia, Iran and India.

Expanding on the geoeconomic drive of the Russia-China partnership as discussed by Putin and Xi, the fact that Russia, China, Iran and India are developing interlocking trade partnerships should establish that BRICS members Russia, India and China, plus Iran as one of the upcoming members of the expanded BRICS+, are the ‘Quad’ that really matter across Eurasia.

The new Politburo Standing Committee in Beijing, which are totally aligned with Xi’s priorities, will be keenly focused on solidifying concentric spheres of geoeconomic influence across the Global South.

How China plays ‘strategic ambiguity’

This has nothing to do with balance of power, which is a western concept that additionally does not connect with China’s five millennia of history. Neither is this another inflection of “unity of the center” – the geopolitical representation according to which no nation is able to threaten the center, China, as long as it is able to maintain order.

These cultural factors that in the past may have prevented China from accepting an alliance under the concept of parity have now vanished when it comes to the Russia-China strategic partnership.

Back in February 2022, days before the events that led to Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine, Putin and Xi, in person, had announced that their partnership had “no limits” – even if they hold different approaches on how Moscow should deal with a Kiev lethally instrumentalized by the west to threaten Russia.

In a nutshell: Beijing will not “abandon” Moscow because of Ukraine – as much as it will not openly show support. The Chinese are playing their very own subtle interpretation of what Russians define as  “strategic ambiguity.”

Connectivity in West Asia

In West Asia, BRI projects will advance especially fast in Iran, as part of the 25-year deal signed between Beijing and Tehran and the definitive demise of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – or Iran nuclear deal – which will translate into no European investment in the Iranian economy.

Iran is not only a BRI partner but also a full-fledged Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) member. It has clinched a free trade agreement with the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), which consists of post-Soviet states Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

And Iran is, today, arguably the key interconnector of the INSTC, opening up the Indian Ocean and beyond, interconnecting not only with Russia and India but also China, Southeast Asia, and even, potentially, Europe – assuming the EU leadership will one day see which way the wind is blowing.

Map of INSTC (Photo Credit: The Cradle)

So here we have heavily US-sanctioned Iran profiting simultaneously from BRI, INSTC and the EAEU free trade deal. The three critical BRICS members – India, China, Russia – will be particularly interested in the development of the trans-Iranian transit corridor – which happens to be the shortest route between most of the EU and South and Southeast Asia, and will provide faster, cheaper transportation.

Add to this the groundbreaking planned Russia-Transcaucasia-Iran electric power corridor, which could become the definitive connectivity link capable of smashing the antagonism between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

In the Arab world, Xi has already rearranged the chessboard. Xi’s December trip to Saudi Arabia should be the diplomatic blueprint on how to rapidly establish a post-modern quid pro quo between two ancient, proud civilizations to facilitate a New Silk Road revival.

Rise of the Petro-yuan

Beijing may have lost huge export markets within the collective west – so a replacement was needed. The Arab leaders who lined up in Riyadh to meet Xi saw ten thousand sharpened (western) knives suddenly approaching and calculated it was time to strike a new balance.

That means, among other things, that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) has adopted a more multipolar agenda: no more weaponizing of Salafi-Jihadism across Eurasia, and a door wide open to the Russia-China strategic partnership. Hubris strikes hard at the heart of the Hegemon.

Credit Suisse strategist Zoltan Pozsar, in two striking successive newsletters, titled War and Commodity Encumbrance (December 27) and War and Currency Statecraft (December 29), pointed out the writing on the wall.

Pozsar fully understood what Xi meant when he said China is “ready to work with the GCC” to set up a “new paradigm of all-dimensional energy cooperation” within a timeline of “three to five years.”

China will continue to import a lot of crude, long-term, from GCC nations, and way more Liquified Natural Gas (LNG). Beijing will “strengthen our cooperation in the upstream sector, engineering services, as well as [downstream] storage, transportation, and refinery. The Shanghai Petroleum and Natural Gas Exchange platform will be fully utilized for RMB settlement in oil and gas trade…and we could start currency swap cooperation.”

Pozsar summed it all up, thus: “GCC oil flowing East + renminbi invoicing = the dawn of the petroyuan.”

And not only that. In parallel, the BRI gets a renewed drive, because the previous model – oil for weapons – will be replaced with oil for sustainable development (construction of factories, new job opportunities).

And that’s how BRI meets MbS’s Vision 2030.

Apart from Michael Hudson, Poszar may be the only western economic analyst who understands the global shift in power: “The multipolar world order,” he says,” is being built not by G7 heads of state but by the ‘G7 of the East’ (the BRICS heads of state), which is a G5 really.” Because of the move toward an expanded BRICS+, he took the liberty to round up the number.

And the rising global powers know how to balance their relations too. In West Asia, China is playing slightly different strands of the same BRI trade/connectivity strategy, one for Iran and another for the Persian Gulf monarchies.

China’s Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with Iran is a 25-year deal under which China invests $400 billion into Iran’s economy in exchange for a steady supply of Iranian oil at a steep discount. While at his summit with the GCC, Xi emphasized “investments in downstream petrochemical projects, manufacturing, and infrastructure” in exchange for paying for energy in yuan.

How to play the New Great Game

BRI 2.0 was also already on a roll during a series of Southeast Asian summits in November. When Xi met with Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha at the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) Summit in Bangkok, they pledged to finally connect the up-and-running China-Laos high-speed railway to the Thai railway system. This is a 600km-long project, linking Bangkok to Nong Khai on the border with Laos, to be completed by 2028.

And in an extra BRI push, Beijing and Bangkok agreed to coordinate the development of China’s Shenzhen-Zhuhai-Hong Kong Greater Bay Area and the Yangtze River Delta with Thailand’s Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC).

In the long run, China essentially aims to replicate in West Asia its strategy across Southeast Asia. Beijing trades more with the ASEAN than with either Europe or the US. The ongoing, painful slow motion crash of the collective west may ruffle a few feathers in a civilization that has seen, from afar, the rise and fall of Greeks, Romans, Parthians, Arabs, Ottomans, Spanish, Dutch, British. The Hegemon after all is just the latest in a long list.

In practical terms, BRI 2.0 projects will now be subjected to more scrutiny: This will be the end of impractical proposals and sunk costs, with lifelines extended to an array of debt-distressed nations. BRI will be placed at the heart of BRICS+ expansion – building on a consultation panel in May 2022 attended by foreign ministers and representatives from South America, Africa and Asia that showed, in practice, the global range of possible candidate countries.

Implications for the Global South

Xi’s fresh mandate from the 20th Communist Party Congress has signaled the irreversible institutionalization of BRI, which happens to be his signature policy. The Global South is fast drawing serious conclusions, especially in contrast with the glaring politicization of the G20 that was visible at its November summit in Bali.

So Poszar is a rare gem: a western analyst who understands that the BRICS are the new G5 that matter, and that they’re leading the road towards BRICS+. He also gets that the Quad that really matters is the three main BRICS-plus-Iran.

Acute supply chain decoupling, the crescendo of western hysteria over Beijing’s position on the war in Ukraine, and serious setbacks on Chinese investments in the west all play on the development of BRI 2.0. Beijing will be focusing simultaneously on several nodes of the Global South, especially neighbors in ASEAN and across Eurasia.

Think, for instance, the Beijing-funded Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway, Southeast Asia’s first: a BRI project opening this year as Indonesia hosts the rotating ASEAN chairmanship. China is also building the East Coast Rail Link in Malaysia and has renewed negotiations with the Philippines for three railway projects.

Then there are the superposed interconnections. The EAEU will clinch a free trade zone deal with Thailand. On the sidelines of the epic return of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to power in Brazil, this past Sunday, officials of Iran and Saudi Arabia met amid smiles to discuss – what else – BRICS+. Excellent choice of venue: Brazil is regarded by virtually every geopolitical player as prime neutral territory.

From Beijing’s point of view, the stakes could not be higher, as the drive behind BRI 2.0 across the Global South is not to allow China to be dependent on western markets. Evidence of this is in its combined approach towards Iran and the Arab world.

China losing both US and EU market demand, simultaneously, may end up being just a bump in the (multipolar) road, even as the crash of the collective west may seem suspiciously timed to take China down.

The year 2023 will proceed with China playing the New Great Game deep inside, crafting a globalization 2.0 that is institutionally supported by a network encompassing BRI, BRICS+, the SCO, and with the help of its Russian strategic partner, the EAEU and OPEC+ too. No wonder the usual suspects are dazed and confused.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Cradle.

Pepe Escobar, born in Brazil, is a correspondent and editor-at-large at Asia Times and columnist for Consortium News and Strategic Culture. Since the mid-1980s he’s lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore, Bangkok. He has extensively covered Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia to China, Iran, Iraq and the wider Middle East. Pepe is the author of Globalistan – How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War; Red Zone Blues: A Snapshot of Baghdad during the Surge. He was contributing editor to The Empire and The Crescent and Tutto in Vendita in Italy. His last two books are Empire of Chaos and 2030. Pepe is also associated with the Paris-based European Academy of Geopolitics. When not on the road he lives between Paris and Bangkok. 

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Cradle

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

I’ve often thought that if Dr. Jordan Peterson can be faulted for anything, it’s taking his ridiculous critics too seriously. Since he rose to prominence in 2016 for his perfectly reasonable opposition to the Trudeau government’s Bill C-16 compelled speech law, he has been contending with legions of bloviating, hysterical ninnies who are determined to make fools of themselves by debating him.

The clinical psychologist, author, and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto is probably the most learned and cultivated man in Canada. However, instead of being grateful for the privilege and pleasure of listening to him, many of Canada’s government and institutional leaders have expressed a persistent desire to punish him for his unorthodox views about the human condition.

And what are his unorthodox views? For starters, Dr. Peterson is an advocate of free speech, which he believes is a prerequisite for thinking about and discussing things—especially things of a complex nature. He also advocates that human beings take responsibility for their actions and speech, lead orderly and disciplined lives, seek purpose and meaning instead of impulsive pleasure, assume a courageous and principled position in human affairs instead of an expedient one, and study history and literature. He advocates equality of opportunity instead of state and institution imposed equality of outcome.

For advocating these ideas, Dr. Peterson has been subjected to some of the ugliest conceivable expressions of rage. Being on the receiving end of such vitriol has (understandably) been a troubling experience for him. This experience is, I suspect, an expression of Schopenhauer’s famous observation:

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Dr. Peterson’s intellectual forebears include Socrates, Jesus, Milton, Montaigne, Blackstone, Madison, Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn, and Jung. Most of the political views he espouses are firmly within the tradition of classical liberal thinkers such as John Stuart Mill. Some of his practical advice reminds me of the American motivational speaker, Jim Rohn, who spoke eloquently of how productivity and success can be attained through self-improvement, careful planning, discipline, and focus.

That Dr. Peterson is considered a controversial figure is an expression of the bad joke that now passes for higher education. His message to young men—stop playing video games and watching porn and start strengthening your characters, bodies, and minds—can only be threatening to people who derive a sense of power by claiming to represent all those mired in victimhood, weakness, and misery. Dr. Peterson’s critics remind me of the final scene of the film Amadeus, when Salieri tells the young priest taking his confession:

I will speak for you father. I speak for all mediocrities in the world. I am their champion. I am their patron saint.

On January 3, Dr. Peterson tweeted:

The Ontario College of Psychologists @CPOntario has demanded that I submit myself to mandatory social-media communication retraining with their experts for, among other crimes, retweeting [Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre] and criticizing [Prime Minister Justin Trudeau] and his political allies.

Until about a decade ago, this sort of action would have seemed perfectly outlandish in a parliamentary democracy of British ancestry. Reasonable people would have viewed it as an abomination reminiscent of the Holy Office of the Inquisition hauling Giordano Bruno or Galileo before its fanatical judges. The notion of Dr. Peterson submitting himself to “retraining” conjures the “re-education camps” of communist Cambodia, Vietnam, China, and North Korea.

His tweet also reminded me of actions taken by the American Board of Internal Medicine against Dr. Peter McCullough, which I wrote about in my Substack essay of October 30, 2022.

Like the German government did in the 1933-45 period—when many of that country’s best writers and artists emigrated to the UK, Canada, and the United States—the Canadian government and institutions such as the Ontario College of Psychologists are now trying to force one of their country’s brightest minds into ideological conformity. It seems to me that this presents a golden opportunity for an American institutional leader to give Dr. Peterson a new academic home.

*

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

Featured image is from Courageous Discourse

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dr. Jordan Peterson Accused of Heresy by Ontario College of Psychologists
  • Tags:

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Something strange is going on with the VAERS system. Reports that were present three months ago are now inexplicably missing. And fewer than 4% of adverse events recorded in V-Safe have made their way to VAERS. This is the CDC’s database; Dr. Rochelle Walensky is in charge of it. And the agency’s failure to properly manage VAERS is suppressing the already-alarming safety signal of the Covid-19 shots.

Now, what is VAERS? VAERS stands for Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. As mentioned earlier, VAERS is a database put in place in 1990 under the supervision of the CDC. Reports of suspected vaccine adverse events take about half an hour to fill out, and 86% of the time, this is done by a doctor, nurse, paramedic, coroner, or healthcare professional when he or she believes the adverse event is related to a vaccine reaction. And because of its lengthy report process as well as the lack of awareness of the existence of VAERS, there is a general consensus of a severe underreporting factor for this database.

To get a better idea of what’s going on with the CDC’s handling of the VAERS system, Dr. Naomi Wolf spoke with Dr. Henry Ealy, an expert on the database.

Dr. Henry Ealy is the Founder & Executive Community Director for the Energetic Health Institute. He holds a Doctorate in naturopathic medicine and has been at the tip of the spear on the Grand Jury front — taking action to bring forth a Grand Jury investigation of the CDC for allegations of criminal data fraud and willful misconduct.

“You mentioned that V-Safe should be added to VAERS, but only 4% of V-Safe [adverse events have been] added. Can you explain what that means to people and why it matters?” asked Dr. Wolf.

Dr. Ealy explained,

“VAERS is designed specifically for medical professionals and people alike to report, ‘Hey, I got hurt.’ And when enough people have gotten hurt for officials to look at it and say, ‘Hey, this product isn’t safe; it’s got to come off the market.’ V-Safe was created (by the CDC) to also do something similar to that — and to make that process a little bit easier. You don’t need as much information to record a report in V-Safe.”

By streamlining the process, the CDC got inundated with adverse event reports from the Covid-19 shot. Out of the 10,108,273 individual users, 800,000 had an adverse event — or about 1 in 13. And of those 800,000 V-Safe reports, only 30,492 have been logged into VAERS.

Dr. Ealy continues,

“In V-safe, there have been over 800,000 reports of injury. And the deal was that in V-Safe, every single report of injury was supposed to also then subsequently have a VAERS report associated with it. So that means all 800,000 should be in VAERS. But unfortunately, or by design — however you want to look at it — only just over 30,000 of those 800,000 have been recorded in VAERS. So what that means is that fewer than 4% of the records in V-Safe have actually been reported in VAERS as they were supposed to be done.”

“What a sneaky way to basically sweep almost 800,000 adverse events under the rug,” remarked Dr. Wolf.

“Adverse events, hospitalizations, permanent injuries, deaths — compromises [the] dataset,” replied Dr. Ealy.

“That’s so disgusting!” exclaimed Dr. Wolf.

To add insult to injury, not only are the bulk of V-Safe reports not making their way to VAERS, but Dr. Ealy suspects that VAERS reports are being removed.

Specifically, he notes that between September 2022 and December 2022, the CDC has removed at least 32,844 records of injury related to the following conditions: myocarditis, pericarditis, and heart inflammation. What were 45,388 reports three months ago has now inexplicably dropped down to 12,544.

Dr. Ealy stresses he’s “triple-checked this,” and he stands by the allegation that the agency is removing or obfuscating records.

Dr. Jessica Rose has also reported similar issues with VAERS. She wrote on November 19,

“The foreign data set was gutted this week in VAERS, and the cancer signal was halved. The myocarditis dose three response signal was lost, and 994 spontaneous abortions/stillbirths were dropped.”

So, from two credible sources, it is suspected that the CDC is removing records.

“It’s not an accident they would do this,” attested Dr. Ealy. “With Dr. Ladapo and Governor DeSantis coming out with that study about myocarditis and pericarditis, they’re trying to do everything they can to delete records to thwart what Governor DeSantis and (Florida) Surgeon General Dr. Ladipo are doing.”

“I’m stunned,” expressed Dr. Wolf. “This is as big as the Pentagon Papers, easily, if indeed the CDC deleted those records. I’ve seen the screenshots; it looks pretty bad. And so, you’re saying that Dr. Ladapo and Governor DeSantis calling for a Grand Jury investigation could be the reason that they’re deleting these, basically, evidence of their crimes? Because Ladapo and DeSantis will be investigating that data? Is that what you’re saying?”

“Right,” confirmed Dr. Ealy. “When you read through the Grand Jury petition that Governor DeSantis signed and submitted to the Florida Supreme Court, they are putting a lot of what their argument based upon their findings with myocarditis. So myocarditis and pericarditis — and that’s not without good reason.”
Dr. Ealy continues,

“So the issue is — if you’re the CDC now — and you know you’ve been complicit in data fraud from day one, what do you start doing? Well, you’ve been deleting records for the last couple of years. Why not delete the records specific for myocarditis and pericarditis to try to thwart their attempts and try to discredit their analysis of what they’re doing? That’s what it looks like to me right now.”

“That’s many felonies!” exclaimed Dr. Wolf. “That’s not just a felony in terms of data handling — that’s a felony in terms of the criminal process, right? Isn’t that covering up evidence of a crime?

“Well, yeah. It would definitely [be],” replied Dr. Ealy.

“The problem with VAERS as a federal system is yes, maybe if there is an erroneous record here or there, you should have the ability to delete it. But when you started seeing the CDC deleting hundreds of thousands of records and removing, in this case, over 32,000 records, or at least removing the search term. That’s my suspicion here — that they didn’t delete the record. What they deleted was that word — ‘myocarditis’ or ‘pericarditis or ‘heart inflammation’ in the actual report. And so, that’s modification of official records. And when you do that, that’s now criminal fraud — again. And, of course, it throws off our ability to really understand what’s going on with this because we rely on systems like this to give us information for making decisions.”

Dr. Wolf argues the CDC’s actions appear to be a “cover-up of evidence of mass murder.”
And she pleads Governor DeSantis and Surgeon General Ladapo to get in touch with Dr. Ealy’s team “because what you all have uncovered is absolutely stunning.” “And this latest, which you’ve presented, should be on the cover of every newspaper and every magazine and every news site in the world. This is huge if, indeed, they’re concealing myocarditis outcomes.”

*

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


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A ‘Cover-Up of Evidence of Mass Murder’: The CDC Appears to be Removing VAERS Records
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

There’s yet another Covid variant in the headlines – it’s Omicron XBB 1.5 if you want to know. It honestly doesn’t really matter at this point – but it does provide an interesting lesson in the nature of propaganda narrative construction and how, past a certain point, they take on a life of their own.

These days, self-driving cars are in the news a lot. Give it a few years, and driving your own car will be seen as “selfish”, “dangerous” and “old-fashioned”.

But Covid has become a self-driving narrative.

It is a self-perpetuating machine, not out of the control of its creators, but currently set to auto-pilot. We’ve reached the propaganda singularity – that point at which too many people have too much riding on the supposed “reality” of Covid to ever let it die.

If the originators of the Pandemic lie were to speak out – to admit the planning of the scam, explain how it was done and claim Covid never existed – they would be ignored or shouted down. And all the fake “science” they paid to create would be used as “evidence” they were wrong.

This is not accidental. It is the ultimate aim of propaganda. The media is an industrial machine designed to turn a collection of lies into a story, a story into a belief, and finally – most importantly – a belief into an unquestioned part of the collective reality.

This is not a new process but it usually takes years and years, Climate Change being the obvious recent example. Covid has shown us the process massively accelerated, like a time-lapse of a seed becoming a flower.

The major part of this is engaging people’s profit motive. Money mostly, as always and forever, but aspects of ego and “virtue” and purpose play into it as well – all of that can be balled into a group we can roughly term “self-interest”.

Right now there are dozens – maybe hundreds – of universities and research labs around the world being paid millions of dollars in grants and subsidies to research “Covid” in one way or another.

New variants, new methods of testing, assessing the effectiveness of PPE, pandemic preparedness and prevention, updating testing assays, modifying vaccines…the list goes on and on.

You name some small area of the “pandemic” narrative, and I can guarantee that some guy in a lab coat is out there being paid to write papers about it.

An army of people – people who likely never had any role in creating the fake narrative, and may well believe it’s entirely real – are now in the position where their very livelihood depends on Covid existing. They will NEVER allow themselves to be convinced otherwise.

Everyone knows the Upton Sinclair quote “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it.” That certainly applies here.

But just as true, and just as relevant is this: It is very easy to find something when your salary depends on finding it. So the variants will keep on coming.

Covid has become a cottage industry. Sucking in money on one end, spitting out variants on the other.

And while, for the present, that is a quiet process running in the background, at any moment one of these “variants” can be plucked from relative obscurity and used to restart lockdowns and mask mandates and the whole pandemic spiel.

A little fear porn farm, with a ripening crop to be harvested as needed.

That’s the little lesson here – the ultimate propaganda victory is not to make everyone believe a lie is the truth, it is to make some people need it to be.

*

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

Featured image is from Zero Hedge


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

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

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Big Pharma company Pfizer has repeatedly engaged in inhumane and illegal activities in its history, including acts of fraud, corruption and even human experimentation disguised as vaccine trials.

An investigative journalist writing about censored subjects under the pseudonym “Kanekoa the Great” noted on his Substack blog that one of the greatest cultural transformations to occur in the past nearly three years is the complete rehabilitation of the image of Big Pharma companies and their newfound glorification for supposedly being responsible for saving humanity from the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

“An industry plagued by decades of fraud, corruption and criminality managed to quickly rebrand itself as the savior of humanity during the COVID-19 crisis. But nothing inherently changed. Big Pharma still values shareholders’ profits more than people’s lives,” Kanekoa the Great wrote. (Related: Pfizer’s business model is to create the sickness and sell the “cure.”)

For evidence of Pfizer’s history of engaging in illegal activity that leads to the deaths of hundreds, Kanekoa the Great said to look no further than Nigeria.

In the northern Nigerian city of Kano, Pfizer in 1996 administered an experimental drug to 200 children whose parents never knew that their kids were subjected to a clinical trial. Pfizer did not obtain consent or inform any of the children or their parents that they were the subjects of an experiment. The pharma company did not even inform the recipients that the drug has not been approved for wider use.

Eleven of the children died. Dozens more of the children suffered severe adverse effects, including brain damage and organ failure.

As a result of criminal and civil suits, Pfizer agreed to pay $75 million to the families harmed. Now, Kano’s residents are reasonably hesitant of any vaccinations.

“I won’t advise, I won’t allow and I won’t tolerate seeing my son, myself or any of my relatives to receive the COVID-19 vaccine,” said Hajiya Maryam, a resident of Kano whose son was one of the victims of Pfizer’s illegal experiment. Maryam has already dedicated her life to discouraging anybody she knows in Kano from taking the vaccine and informing them of the 1996 incident.

“I will educate them on that,” she said. “My son is now living in agony despite the so-called compensation… He is neither in school nor into business. He is living a miserable life.”

Pfizer paying out hundreds of millions to settle lawsuits against illicit activities

The Kano incident is not the only time Pfizer has had to shell out millions of dollars to settle lawsuits.

In 1992, Pfizer paid an undisclosed sum of between $165 to $215 million after artificial heart valves that it developed kept fracturing, leading to nearly 300 deaths at the time. In 1994, Pfizer paid $20 million after it lied to the federal government to get approval for another mechanical heart valve that kept fracturing. Nearly half of the money went to monitor the health of patients who received the device or to pay for its removal.

In 2002, Pfizer paid $49 million for defrauding the federal government and 40 states by charging too much for its cholesterol drug. In 2004, Pfizer pleaded guilty to two felonies and paid $430 million in penalties for fraudulently promoting the drug Neurontin for unapproved uses.

In 2009, Pfizer was fined $2.3 billion, then the largest pharmaceutical fraud settlement, for misbranding the painkiller Bextra “with the intent to defraud or mislead.” In the same year, Pfizer paid another $750 million to settle a class action suit accusing its drug Rezulin of killing 63 people and causing dozens more to experience liver failure.

From 2010 to 2014 alone, Pfizer paid out another $1.72 billion to settle lawsuits related to its illicit activities and its ineffective drugs.

As Kanekoa the Great noted, the above-mentioned list of incidents are just a handful of the scandals involving Pfizer. The result of these malpractices means it continues to conduct unethical human testing of its products in the world’s poorest nations.

Watch this video featuring Tony Lin discussing the 1996 incident in Nigeria where Pfizer experimented on 200 children without their parents’ consent.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pfizer Has a Shockingly Long History of Engaging in Illegal Activities and Human Experimentation
  • Tags: ,

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

What you need for murder charge to stick is below in my substacks; he ‘died’ on the field, they are lying about commotio cordis, they killed him with this deadly gene vaccine they made Chauvin 2.0

Every single NFL player (or athlete in America) must be screened for myocarditis (post COVID gene injection); they must demand it! Do not take the field for you could be DAMAR! Do not let them lie to you and confuse you with commotio cordis!

It is time to lay murder charges on Pfizer, Moderna, CDC, NIH, FDA, NIAID, Fauci, Francis Collins, Walensky, Ashish Jha etc.

It is time. These beasts killed a black man openly on live television and the black activists must step up now! Black live DO NOT matter to these beasts like Pfizer et al., never did for public health people like Fauci, so it is time we lay murder charges for this time, they were actually at the scene of the crime with their murder weapon. No trial even needed!

Blacks in America must stand up now.

The Biden administration is flooding the border with illegals from South America who with my own eyes, get preference over blacks in New York and Buffalo. I imagine across the US. I saw sitting shocked in hospitals how whites and blacks are sidelined and sent to the back over illegals from South America. This is wrong. The assault with this vaccine that acts like a biological weapon of sorts, delivers differential morbidity and mortality on minorities. Blacks must stand up! They killed a black man on national television. This is too much ‘in your face’.

Buffalo Bills Safety Damar Hamlin is removed from Paycor Stadium in Cincinnati, Ohio in an ambulance. The Buffalo Bills, in white, kneel at the bottom left of the image. (Licensed under CC0)

They are telling us, me, McCullough etc. to STFU, that we who are asking the right questions as to what went wrong here, we must STFU. That we are loons. We are loons? Had it not been for people like me across this 3 years of lockdown lunacy, millions more would have died. People like Risch, McCullough, Oskoui, Jeff Tucker, Wolf, Ladapo, Urso, Berenson, Toby, Kirsch, Bridle, Tenenbaum etc. We were the wall while public health officials at CDC and NIH and FDA and the FDA sold us down the river. We ‘held’ and will continue to hold as more warriors step up.

I say under NO condition will we. Yes, they killed him, they killed DAMAR and know it and we will continue to go after them for we want all who did this, who brought this fraud so called vaccine, this entire pandemic fraud, all of it from lockdowns to the fraud vaccine, properly deposed in proper legal settings, proper tribunals with proper judges and we want accountability and justice. If judges rule that all of their money is to be taken, we take it. If judges rule those involved must be imprisoned, at the highest levels of government, we jail them for life. We lock them up! If judges rule capital punishment is the remedy, we seek the death penalty! Does not matter to me who.

They killed a black man, they stopped his heart in front of you, stopped his breathing with their death shot. DAMAR died for 10 minutes. From all we know so far. New reports indicate they had to bring him back to life in the hospital too.

They committed murder on live national television during an NFL game! They killed a black man! Their gun, weapon of choice was a mRNA/DNA gene injection ‘so called vaccine’. They know it. They know we are beginning to grapple with it and ask the right questions and they know the players on that field who cried, they cried out of love and horror for their teammate, yet they cried too because they know they are juiced up with the gene fraud injection and they know that that means, the bell may toll for thee too! Soon.

We want the congressional black caucus in the US congress to stand up now and defend this black American, DAMA HAMLIN, do the right thing, get accountability and not just for him and his family, but for all Americans, for all the other NFL players. We want the NAACP to stand up. You say you seek justice, you did not get it before, now here is your chance!

Pfizer placed their criminal corporate boot, with CDC and FDA and NIH and NIAID and Fauci and Francis Collins and Walensky and Albert Bourla and Bancel, all of them, their placed their money-hungry power-hungry malfeasant boot on the neck of DAMAR HAMLIN, this is Derek Chauvin once again, Pfizer is Derek Chauvin with it’s boot on the neck of George Floyd, this time George is DAMAR. Yes, DAMAR like George Floyd, could not breathe for 10 minutes, “I can’t breathe”. Pfizer took the life of an African American man on live national television.

Yes, I am saying it plainly, the Pfizer gene injection mRNA/DNA vaccine, unless we are shown otherwise, based on all the uncertainty still, and based on all the unanswered questions, but based on all we DO know, was the murder weapon that killed DAMAR HAMLIN. Yes, thank God for the medical response but he died for 10 minutes in front of us. And we know the killer. We know all involved, the DIRTY DOZEN.

Yes Pfizer and Moderna did the unthinkable, they murdered DAMAR HAMLIN, a Black African-American man as you watched, on national television, for they, their actions, their product, the COVID gene injection caused his heart to quit on him and he suddenly fell in cardiac arrest, in your face. They stopped his heart for 10 minutes we were told, and then began the cover up and lie on national television too and even sent out their television talking head dangerous deceitful corrupted medical doctors and media to lie about commotio cordis. They know the chance of this being commotio cordis is slim. They know it happens in children mainly, they know generally using a ball etc.

They know that this is more than likely ‘silent’ vaccine-induced myocardial scarring (from prior COVID injection) that lead to a high-adrenaline (catecholamine) arrhythmia episode causing cardiac arrest. They know that the catecholamine surge due to exertion in the backdrop of a myocardial damaged heart, can stress the heart and cause cardiac arrest.

They know! Fauci, Walensky, Bourla, Bancel, Ashish Jha, Francis Collins, Baric, Hotez, Wen, Njoo, Tam etc. They know! They know this will be repeated over and over! They know it already has been playing out! They know what will happen to many young persons and infants and children due to the COVID gene injection.

You want to shut me up for asking the right questions, NEVER! The record is now in place. Criminal charges must be laid at the feet of Pfzier and Moderna, along with CDC, NIH, FDA, Fauci, Birx, Walensky, Francis Collins, Ashish Jha, Bourla, Bancel etc. Murder charges!

I say murder charges!

I am riding with real warriors in this who with me, decided NO, enough is enough and we reacted with the right response and I mean myself, Oskoui, McCullough, Berenson, Stock, Wolf, Mark Crispin Miller, Rogers, Kirsch etc. We did not insert our heads into ours assess afraid, like some of the freedom fighters who recoiled and stood back. Somehow when they saw the cardiac arrest, they stapled their stones to their thighs and who had no staples, glued theirs to their thighs. They lost the ‘warrior’ in them and put on some pink ‘woke’ pussy hats. But Oskoui and McCullough and Jeff Tucker said NO. I said NO. Miller said NO. NO, we said NO, we know something is and was wrong and we told them 2 years now this will happen and more of it will. We asked the questions while many, shockingly in our movement, slinked away. Shrunk when we needed them most. The hope is that they grow back the backbone we know they have and stand up!

Warriors with balls of steel and I tip the hat to them! I tip my hat to Tucker Carlson!

NFL players be warned, what you saw with DAMAR will happen to many more of you. To our police, the best among us, our military, our pilots. Our border agents. We told you so. Sadly, you did not listen. Aaron Rodgers knew what he was saying. So was Novak. You should have understood.

Key documents in such a murder charge filing, based on my prior substacks including Berenson’s and the combined statements of Alexander, Stock, McCullough, and Oskoui:

Our official position (Alexander and Stock with McCullough and Oskoui) and you are free now to use this and quote it:

“The most likely diagnosis from the little certainty we have so far, is vaccine-induced myocardial scarring (from prior COVID injection) that lead to a high-adrenaline arrhythmia episode causing cardiac arrest. The chance of vaccine myocarditis scarring and subsequent arrhythmic predisposition is much greater than the chance of Commotio Cordis absent vaccine cardiac injury.  Commotio Cordis is very rare in his age range, non-projectile Commotio Cordis even rarer, vaccine myocardial scarring is very common to them, the hit on the play was not a major chest blow, and the Buffalo Bills have stated that they are 100% vaccinated.  Had he suffered onset of ventricular arrythmia at the time of chest impact it is unlikely he could have finished a tackle, let alone gotten to his feet after the play.  The most likely diagnosis from the little certainty we have is vaccine-induced myocardial scarring leading to high-adrenaline arrhythmia.  But he only reason for this uncertainty should be the player’s or his family’s desire for privacy.  The CDC, FDA or NIH can and should address this.  Cardiac MRI looking for late gadolinium enhancement, review of mis medical records including vaccine records and response to those, or autopsy in the horrific even he should pass, should be offered by the government for free, if not because the most likely diagnosis is vaccine induced myocardial injury, then for the sake of easing the population’s fears.  The failure to do so will be more telling than the results.”

Sanjay Verma, MD FACC, Interventional Cardiologist:

i) Myocarditis after vaccination against COVID; Why mandated COVID vaccination polices in schools and universities are unethical

ii) Myocarditis after COVID-19 Vaccination; The Stupefying and Humbling True Magnitude

iii)

In this peer reviewed French study, the authors evaluated national hospital discharge data for myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination compared to unvaccinated controls. Compared to CDC’s reliance on VAERS this French study performs a more comprehensive analysis. The analysis indicates the risk of myocarditis after mRNA vaccination was 8 times greater than unvaccinated controls for BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and and 30 times greater than unvaccinated controls for mRNA-1273 (Moderna). By comparison history of SARS-CoV2 infection yielded a 9 times greater risk of myocarditis than controls.’

*

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


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

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

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Take warning! If you’re holding your crypto assets on big exchanges like Binance, CoinBase, or Kraken, you’re well-advised to get them off and into a privately-held wallet for a few reasons that we’ll survey here.

I realize a lot of hardened crypto veterans will probably roll their eyes as if to say “duh.” But I didn’t realize this stuff when I got into the uncharted technological territory that is a cryptocurrency, and it has important implications for your financial health.

Exposure to meddlesome governments

Any crypto exchange is susceptible to getting bullied by rapacious governments envious of the peasants enjoying untraceable, untaxable commodities.

So far, by and large, Western governments have been relatively hands-off in terms of interfering in the crypto market, but the Biden administration has quietly been moving against crypto exchanges for the past year and a half.

Crypto assets held on exchanges are not subject to FDIC insurance

Crypto assets held on exchanges are not subject to FDIC insurance. That means that, in the event the exchange goes belly-up, you (the customer) have no guarantee of getting your assets out. You’ll be left holding the bag, SOL. If a crypto exchange tells you it’s FDIC insured, it’s lying.

Cryptocurrency exchanges can manipulate

Cryptocurrency exchanges, owing to the exclusive access they have to real-time market information, can manipulate supply and demand, which affects every holder’s coin value.

For instance, two bots trading in just a few months from February to November 2013 artificially jacked the Bitcoin price from $150 to $1,200.

Exchanges can be hacked (and frequently are)

By virtue of the technology’s ingenious design, blockchain cryptocurrencies are virtually immune from manipulation because they rely on a public domain ledger. Crypto exchanges, on the other hand, which house crypto wallets, are a different story.

In March 2022, hackers broke into Ronin Network and made off with $600 million in stolen pillaged cryptocurrency. In June 2022, so-called “blockchain bridge” Horizon got hacked and its users took a $100 million loss. Similar examples are legion.

‘Not your keys, not your coin’

Above all, the #1 reason to move your crypto assets from exchanges to a private wallet is that “your” cryptocurrency on exchanges actually doesn’t belong to you at all.

Every crypto wallet has two addresses: one public and one private. The public address is the one you provide to people and businesses with whom you conduct business, so it’s not important to protect.

The second address, the private one, is the proverbial key to the kingdom. It’s the code that you use to authorize transactions. Therefore, safeguarding your private key is paramount.

If you use a custodial wallet – the kind that you have if you store your crypto assets on an exchange – then you don’t own or control your private keys. The third-party exchange does that part for you, which implicitly requires that you trust in their honesty and technical capacity to do so.

A non-custodial wallet – a private wallet — means that you and you alone control both your public and private keys. They remain entirely in your possession to be used at your discretion.

Learn more about custodial vs non-custodial wallets.

The best non-custodial wallets

There are two types of non-custodial wallets, “hot” and “cold”:

  • Hot wallets store your keys in software connected to the internet. They’re more susceptible to hacks than cold wallets but more convenient for frequent transactions. I’d recommend Muun Wallet as a high-quality hot wallet.
  • Cold wallets store your keys offline in a safe physical place, fully immune from hacks. Hardware wallets are the most common form. I’d recommend Ledger Nano Walllet as an affordable, reputable hardware wallet.

Protecting your private key and seedphrase

The one major advantage to using a custodial wallet on a crypto exchange that keeps your private key on file is that you don’t have to rely on yourself to keep your information safe and secure.

However, that convenience comes at a cost to your independence. At the end of the day, you don’t really own your cryptocurrency – you’re essentially just leasing temporary and conditional access to cryptocurrency in the same way you might lease a car.

You can drive it around, and more or less do whatever you want with it within reason, but it’s not yours, and it can be confiscated if you don’t play by the rules.

All you really need to know, as the maxim goes, “not your keys not your coin.” The converse is equally true: “your keys, your coin.”

Which brings us to the #1 rule of thumb for private wallets, the Golden Crypto Rule, the First Crypto Commandment: for the love of God, don’t lose your private key and/or seed phrase.

(Your seed phrase is your ultimate protection in the event that you lose your private key.)

Two key developments in recent history, driven by the collapse of crypto exchange FTX, should drive home the importance of storing your assets offline in cold wallets.

First, in the US, Senator Elizabeth Warren has introduced legislation that would force “know Your Customer (KYC) information collection on bitcoin ATMs, digital asset mixers which anonymize your crypto making it harder to trace, and even businesses which create self-hosted wallets.”

Your identity, and your transactions, would become fully visible to the government, and therefore subject to regulation, taxation, and/or confiscation.

Second, in the EU,  new anti-money laundering proposals will enforce similar record-keeping and reporting to the authorities on customer transactions and identities.

Crypto’s whole premise – its central selling point – is decentralized finance, independent of the fiat cartel that rigs the economic game to benefit big government and big private-sector interests.

Take that ethos to heart and get your crypto off the exchanges.

In a similar vein, buy gold and silver. Gold and silver ownership justifies itself by the same logic as controlling your own crypto in your own wallet: an independent store of wealth that can’t be digitally confiscated.

Stash that silver and gold someplace safe – where only you or your most trusted family/friends can get to it.

When the dollar inevitably collapses – which it certainly will, whether in a month or ten years – you’ll be left with crypto and hard currency outside of the grasp of the central bankers’ tentacles.

Fuck Wall St. and the whole of the rotting Manhattan cesspit. Fuck the Federal Reserve. And fuck the federal fiat garbage to hell — you don’t need to be a crypto prodigy to feel that visceral call for human freedom and act on it.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Daily Bell.

Ben Bartee is a Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. Follow his stuff via Armageddon ProseSubstack, Patreon, Gab, and Twitter. Please support his independent operations however you can. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Bipartisan insanity was on display again this week as the U.S. congress responded to Biden’s requested $37 billion in additional aid to Ukraine by giving him $45 billion bringing the total U.S. support to its Davos-managed disposable ward up to $111 billion.

The aid was part of an overall omnibus spending bill passed by both houses of Congress was a gargantuan $1.7 trillion and included $858 billion in defense spending which far exceeds any sum ever spent by a U.S. government in history.

Of that $858 billion, $817 billion is allocated directly to the U.S. Department of Defense while the remaining $29 billion will be allocated to national security programs within the department of energy.

Continuing to Weaponize Taiwan

2023 NDAA Funds will be used to “strengthen” Taiwan in the Pacific with $12 billion authorized to assist Taiwan in purchasing weapons from the U.S. military industrial complex (with the $12 billion in ‘loans’ needing to be paid back over the course of the next five years of course). Of this fund, $100 million will be given directly to contractors to fill up a “contingency stockpile” to be used by Taiwan “in case of any future conflict”.

Additionally Taiwan will be invited to participate in the next U.S.-led Rim of the Pacific Military Exercise in 2024 and thus greater “Pacific NATO” strategy encircling mainland China. This exercise and broader Pacific NATO (aka Quad) anti-China arsenal of puppet colonies will be boosted by an additional $11.5 billion will be allocated to the Pacific Deterrence Initiative ‘to counter malign Chinese influence in the Pacific’.

Just as Ukraine has suffered U.S.-directed color revolutions in 2004 and 2014, so too has Taiwan been strung through a similar NED-funded ‘Sunflower Revolution’ regime change in 2014 which saw the Kuomintang Party taken out of power just as final stages of an economic integration agreement with mainland China were being finalized.

Billions have been tagged to purchase Lockheed Martin Corp’s (LMT.N) F-35 fighter jets and ships made by General Dynamics but beyond airforce, one of the biggest and most dangerous boosts in spending this year has been absorbed by a fixation on ‘space warfare’. $5.3 billion will be directed towards ‘space force’ and the ongoing effort to militarize space as a new dimension in war making in the 21st century (which was $333 million more than originally requested by military officials at space force’).

The recent U.S.-Canada-Australia joint ‘space warfare’ drills in order to prepare for an oncoming war over Europe took place at the start of December 2022 at the Schriever Space Force Base in Colorado- which indicates that the residues of any positive memory of ‘space diplomacy’ once seen under JFK’s leadership, the 1976 Apollo-Soyuz cooperation program or even the better aspects of President Trump’s Artemis Accord.

The 2000 RAD Origins of NDAA 2023’s Dark Age Doctrine

It would be a lie to say that this program for human extermination originated in 2022, or even under the previous presidencies of Trump or Obama.

If one wishes to grasp the germ seed of today’s policy doctrine, it would be necessary to revisit the Project for a New American Century Think Tank’s September 2000 Rebuilding America’s Defenses report where the end of history cultists then taking the helm of government stated:

“RAD” envisions a future in which the United States is in complete control of land, sea, air, space and cyberspace of planet Earth. It finds objectionable the limitations imposed by the ABM treaty and urges a newer rendition of Reagan’s ‘Star Wars’ defense shield program.

On top of calling for the USA’s exit from the ABM Treaty (which was promptly done in the wake of 911), the authors of RAD outline in clear detail the rationale behind the growth of the rise of a need for a new branch of the military known as space force. The authors stated that the USA must gain:

“CONTROL THE NEW ‘INTERNATIONAL COMMONS’ OF SPACE AND ‘CYBERSPACE,’ and pave the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of space control.”

Outlining the doctrine of ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’ the PNAC report outlined on page 51:

Global Missile Defenses — “A network against limited strikes, capable of protecting the United States, its allies and forward-deployed forces, must be constructed. This must be a layered system of land, sea, air and space-based components”.

Looking towards the need to expand and modernize nuclear forces due to the possible danger of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and Iraq, the RAD authors stated:

“Today’s strategic calculus encompasses more factors than just the balance of terror between the United States and Russia. U.S. nuclear force planning and related arms control policies must take account of a larger set of variables than in the past, including the growing number of small nuclear arsenals – from North Korea to Pakistan to, perhaps soon, Iran and Iraq – and a modernized and expanded Chinese nuclear force.”

Possibly one of the most dangerous and revealing aspects of RAD, was found on page 60, where the authors outline a program that soon grew into obscene proportions in the wake of the 2001 Anthrax attacks which justified the later passage of Cheney’s 2004 Bioshield Act as well as the growth of the 320+ international biolabs run by the pentagon. Describing the conversion of bioweapons from the realm of terror to “a political useful tool”, the authors state:

“Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and ‘combat’ likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, ‘cyber-space,’ and perhaps the world of microbes… Space itself will become a theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space systems – combatants and non-combatants – will become blurred. Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool”

Back to Ukraine

How will the $45 billion Ukraine money burning project be used? That’s not so easy to say exactly?

What we do know is that $22.9 billion will go towards that Kiev will be expected to use to buy more weapons from private U.S.-based defense contractors and much of the rest will be enjoyed by NGOs and Non Profits which will more often than not be run by figures closely tied to those same creatures in the Washington swamp who voted for these bills.

These uncomfortable facts were outlined repeatedly by the oft-slandered republican Senator Marjorie Taylor Greene whose multiple attempts to create some form of oversight and auditing of the handouts to Ukraine have been met with absurd levels of resistancesince the special operation was launched in February. Even when such operations as the FTX crypto exchange (a major partner to Kiev and the World Economic Forum) was discovered to be simply a money laundering outfit infusing vast sums into the coffers of the DNC that were tied to Ukrainian operations, hardly a single western Mockingbird press outlet made a peep.

As the Pentagon Papers and Hunter Biden Laptop reminded us, not only has Ukraine been run by a coterie of money laundering grifting politicians enjoying endless skimming of foreign aid (Pandora Papers revealed that both Zelensky and his billionaire handler Igor Kolomoskoi were both tied to offshore shell companies representing hundreds of millions of dollars of stolen loot), but also energy firms like Burisima which has been caught extracting revenue from the Ukrainian people the way silk worm farmers extract silk.

And what happens if you find yourself among that precious minority of republican or independent voices of resistance to this new plunge into world war? Just ask Representative Matt Gaetz who has been called out alongside other patriots such as Jim Jordan and Lauren Boebert for not applauding Zelensky’s pathetic speech in Congress this week. For the crime of keeping their hands from slapping in lock step with the rest of the congressional herd, NBC analysts like Michael Beschloss have attempted to stir up a McCarthyite witchhunt asking why these representatives refused to clap, asking:

“I’d like to know why that was for two reasons- Number one: You’re a public servant, we’re allowed to know those things. You’re supposed to tell us if you’re serving in Congress what the reason was. Do you love Putin, or are you just opposed to democracy, or is there something else?”

The fact that these figures even dared ask where graft was going probably touched a nerve too close to home with the Pentagon itself failing its fifth consecutive audit in November 2022 with over 65% of its assets and expenditures unaccounted for. That’s right, the government ‘lost track’ of $2 trillion in 2022.

Will enough Americans wake up to the reality that they have been walking on the wrong side of history for far too long or has the point of no-return already been crossed?

*

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

Matthew Ehret the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas trilogy. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide FoundationHe is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TCP


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102

PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

US appears to be in the process of transferring its Patriot air defense missile system to Ukraine. CNN in its article, “Exclusive: US finalizing plans to send Patriot missile defense system to Ukraine,” claims the US will approve and then quickly ship the system or systems into Ukraine in just days after the decision is made.

Paradoxically, CNN admits that training the large numbers of Ukrainians necessary to operate the system will take months. This has left analysts speculating that in fact NATO personnel already familiar with the system will operate it merely posing as “Ukrainians.”

This represents a significant escalation. While Western forces are believed to be covertly operating across Ukraine against Russian forces in a variety of roles, Western personnel operating an ever-growing number of sophisticated weapons may lead to mission creep in terms of other sophisticated Western weapons including Western aircraft and tanks entering the conflict with Western operators behind the controls.

The decision to send Patriot missiles follows a now steady tempo of Russian missile and drone strikes across Ukraine targeting military and dual-use infrastructure including the power grid. The Western media admits Ukraine’s own Soviet-era air defense systems are dwindling in number and running low on interceptor missiles.

The Financial Times in its article, “Military briefing: escalating air war depletes Ukraine’s weapons stockpile,” admits:

…ammunition and spares for the S300 and Buk systems, the mainstay of Ukraine’s air defences, are dwindling. Ukrainian officials have confirmed a claim by British military intelligence that Russia has been firing X-55 nuclear missiles — with the nuclear warhead replaced by an inert one — simply to exhaust Ukrainian air defences.

The article notes that buying additional ammunition and spare parts for the systems is not practical. It also notes efforts by the West to provide Ukraine their own air defense systems, however such systems suffer from similar problems in terms of limited quantities and limited access to ammunition.

Financial Times cites the German “Gepard” mobile anti-aircraft gun as being “highly effective.” No evidence was provided to substantiate that claim and ironically, shortly after the article was published, shortages of ammunition for Gepard systems were reported as was Switzerland’s unwillingness to supply additional ammunition to Ukraine.

Germany’s Rheinmetall company has announced it would expand ammunition production to compensate for Switzerland’s decision according to Anadolu Agency, but production would not begin until June at the earliest and Ukraine would not begin receiving ammunition until at least July and only if the German government places an order for the 35mm rounds the Gepard fires.

IRIS-T and NASAMS, two Western short to medium range air defense missile systems have been provided to Ukraine, albeit in small numbers that will increase incrementally over the course of several years. This represents a rate far too slow to replace Ukraine’s dwindling Soviet-era air defense systems.

Considering this reality, the decision by the US to transfer Patriot missile systems to Ukraine may not be because Washington believes they can make a difference, but simply because the US and its allies have nothing else more appropriate or numerous to send in its place.

But even the Patriot air defense system is plagued with problems ranging from its own critical shortage of ammunition to its inability to provide defense against drones and cruise missiles, the very systems they will be tasked with protecting Ukrainian skies against.

Patriot Missiles: Too Few, Too Feeble 

Far from “Russian propaganda,” the Patriot’s shortcomings have been reported by the Western media for years. Al Jazeera in an early 2022 article, “Saudi Arabia may run out of interceptor missiles in ‘months’,” would admit to Saudi stockpiles of Patriot interceptor missiles running low and the inability of the US to manufacture enough to replace them.

The Wall Street Journal would report in March 2022 that additional missiles were eventually acquired, but not because the US was able to manufacture more, and instead because the US convinced Saudi Arabia’s neighbors to transfer missiles from their own stockpiles to Saudi air defense forces.

Faced with a growing shortage of missiles, Lockheed Martin pledged in 2018 to double annual missile production from 250 to 500, according to Defense News. By 2021, Camden News would report that Lockheed was on course to reaching its 500 missiles per year goal by 2024 after building a new 85,000 square foot expansion to existing production facilities.

However, even at 500 missiles a year, and if every single missile was subsequently sent directly to Ukraine, it would not be nearly enough to match the number of cruise missiles, drones, and other long-range precision weapons Russia is using as part of its ongoing special military operation.

The New York Times in an article titled, “Russia Is Using Old Ukrainian Missiles Against Ukraine, General Says,” cites Ukrainian sources who claim Russia is likely building at least 40 cruise missiles a month. Over the course of a year that works out to 480 cruise missiles. Considering the Patriot missile system falls far short of 100% effectiveness, the idea that 500 Patriot missiles could protect Ukraine against 480 Russian cruise missiles is unrealistic.

Annual missile production for Russia is likely higher, however. From October onward alone, the BBC reports that Russia has fired over 1,000 missiles and drones at targets across Ukraine. This is twice the number of missiles Lockheed plans on producing annually.

This reality is so obvious that Western analysts have commented publicly about their doubts regarding any impact Patriot missiles will have. Breaking Defense in its article, “Patriot missile system not a panacea for Ukraine, experts warn,” would cite a missile defense expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Tom Karako, who called the transfer of Patriot missiles to Ukraine “a political gesture of support.”

The article would also note, citing Karako, that:

“We need to be careful about these scarce, precious assets,” Karako said. “While we’re only sending one battery, once it’s there, it’s probably not going to come back. And if they start expending munitions, they’re going to ask for more, right? And we don’t have just tons and tons of PAC-2s and PAC-3s [missiles] lying around that we can afford.

Karako would also point out that Patriots are needed for “deterring a Taiwan conflict,” highlighting the fact that the steady depletion of Western weapon stockpiles in its proxy war with Russia is not happening in a geopolitical vacuum and impacts the West’s ability to menace other nations in other regions of the planet – especially in East Asia.

The same article also pointed out how expensive Patriot missiles are versus the relatively cheap drones they would be attempting to intercept. But that’s even if the Patriot missile system can intercept them.

NBC News in a 2019 article titled, “Why U.S. Patriot missiles failed to stop drones and cruise missiles attacking Saudi oil sites,” would note how US-provided Patriot missile systems failed against cruise missiles and “triangular” drones used by Yemen against Saudi oil production facilities.

Despite Patriot missile batteries guarding the facilities, Saudi forces resorted to small arms fire in a failed attempt to down the drones. One attack temporarily disrupted half of Saudi Arabia’s daily oil output.

The article claims:

Drones and missiles can be detected by radar, but they tend to have small radar signatures and can fly close to the ground, sharply reducing the detection range and thus opportunities to fire on them from far away. They also are easy to maneuver, allowing them to hit the coverage gaps between radars and Patriot batteries. And drones and cruise missiles are often cheaper than a $2 million or $3 million Patriot missile, meaning the supply of Patriots can be depleted much faster than the bevy of drones launching attacks.

NBC News is describing precisely the threats Patriot missile systems transferred to Ukraine will face, but on a much larger and more sophisticated scale.

The article discusses extensive measures the US is taking to counter threats the Patriot is not well-suited to defend against – measures that only began being fielded as of 2021 – but not measures the US is prepared or even able to send to Ukraine in large numbers.

The US and its NATO allies have long neglected ground-based air defense systems in favor of achieving and maintaining air superiority over any potential battlefield through the use of warplanes. Several decades of fighting “small wars” against adversaries lacking anything resembling an air force has only compounded the problem.

Just as it will take years and large amounts of money to solve the current weapons and ammunition shortage the West faces as it continues to arm Ukraine, creating air defense systems in both the quantities and quality Ukraine’s requirements demand will take more time than Ukraine has, and more resources than the West may care to spend.

While it is common knowledge that wars are won through superior logistics, military technology, and strategy, one would be hard-pressed to recall when any war was won by “a political gesture of support.”

*

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

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

Folgen Sie uns auf Instagram und Twitter und abonnieren Sie unseren Telegram-Kanal. Sie können die Artikel von Global Research gerne weiterveröffentlichen und mit anderen teilen.

***

 

 

 

 

Jeder Mensch kann das ihm in der Erziehung eingeflößte, mittelalterlich anmutende Bild vom Menschen korrigieren, um auf der Basis eines naturwissenschaftlichen Menschenbildes denken zu lernen, sein Leben besser zu verstehen und besser zu leben.

Das oben erwähnte Zitat, das dem US-amerikanischen Präsidenten Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 bis 1945) zugeschrieben wird, sei in der Diplomatie gang und gebe. Untersucht man relevante politische Entscheidungen unter diesem Aspekt, gehen einem die Augen auf. Als Mitmensch fühlt man sich jedoch mitverantwortlich für das Schicksal der Menschen, weil man in der Regel tatenlos geschehen ließ, dass eine Minderheit auf Kosten der Mehrheit lebt. Dabei ist die Welt so reich, dass alle Menschen ohne Ausnahme im Wohlstand leben könnten. Aber das wird nicht zugelassen. Auch Ungerechtigkeiten müssten nicht sein; niemand würde in seinem Leben zu kurz kommen. Hunger und Not würden ebenfalls nicht aufkommen. Doch die Herrschenden und ihre Politiker haben geplant, das naturwissenschaftliche Menschenbild nicht aufkommen zu lassen, damit die Menschen nicht denken lernen und ihr Leben besser verstehen sowie besser leben.

Anthropologische Prämissen der Natur des Menschen

Menschenbild und Weltsicht sind für das Individuum von großer Bedeutung, ob sie ihm bewusst sind oder nicht. Das Menschenbild umfasst Ansichten über die Natur des Menschen, über seine Lebensbedingungen und Entwicklung, über seine Stellung in der Natur, im Kosmos und in der Gesellschaft. Jede Theorie über den Menschen hängt von anthropologischen Prämissen seiner Kultur ab, von der Vorstellung über die menschliche Natur und damit auch von der Weltanschauung.

Das Konzept der Natur des Menschen impliziert aus naturwissenschaftlicher Sicht die völlige Abwesenheit genetisch determinierter aggressiver Triebe. Dadurch ergibt sich die Fähigkeit des Menschen und die Notwendigkeit, ohne Gewalt und Krieg in einer friedlichen Gesellschaft zu leben und sich darin zu organisieren.

Eine zweite Annahme resultiert aus der biologischen Existenz des Menschen: Der Mensch besitzt keine voraus-definierten Instinkte; bei seiner Geburt verfügt er lediglich über ein paar Reflexe.

Daraus folgt, dass die intellektuellen Fähigkeiten, die gefühlsmäßigen Reaktionen, die subjektive Bestandaufnahme der Umwelt, die geistigen Vorstellungen der Außenwelt und die Persönlichkeit des Menschen durch Sozialisation erworben werden. „Sozialisation“ als lebenslanger Lernprozess der Eingliederung beziehungsweise Anpassung des heranwachsenden Menschen in die umgebende Gesellschaft und Kultur. Menschen können und müssen alles lernen. Dieses Lernen setzt die Beziehung zu mindestens einem Mitmenschen voraus (1).

Arbeit, Liebe und Gemeinschaft als die drei großen Lebensaufgaben

Das menschliche Leben als Ganzes hat den Charakter einer Aufgabe. In jedem Augenblick unseres Daseins sehen wir uns vor Aufgaben gestellt, die wir zu bewältigen haben. Die drei großen Lebensaufgaben, die uns unausweichlich zur Auseinandersetzung drängen sind Arbeit, Liebe und Gemeinschaft. Dieser Auffassung des Individualpsychologen Alfred Adler kann man sich nur anschließen.

Die Notwendigkeit der Arbeit geht aus der Tatsache hervor, dass sich die Menschen nur erhalten können, wenn sie einer produktiven Tätigkeit nachgehen. Somit leisten sie einen Beitrag zur allgemeinen Wohlfahrt, die den Bestand des Menschengeschlechts sichert.

Die Forderung der Liebe ist dadurch gegeben, dass die Natur die Zweigeschlechtlichkeit vorgesehen hat und damit die Aufgabe schuf, sich mit einem Liebespartner zu verbinden.

Arbeit und Liebe sind zugleich auch Gemeinschaftsfragen. Sie entspringen dem Umstand, dass der Mensch ein soziales Lebewesen ist und dass alle seine Lebensprobleme einen sozialen Charakter haben. Daraus lässt sich ableiten, dass zu einer gesunden Lebensgestaltung vor allem das Gemeinschaftsgefühl, die Verbundenheit mit den Mitmenschen erforderlich ist. Dieses äußert sich nicht nur in der Bereitschaft zur Arbeit und Liebe, sondern auch in der Anteilnahme zu Fragen des größeren Zusammenhangs, Fragen von Stadt und Land, Volk und Menschheit (2).

Die wichtigsten Grundsätze des Menschenbildes einschließlich soziobiologischer, erzieherischer und kultureller Dimensionen

Die erste Dimension ist die sozialbiologische. Sie lautet: Der Mensch ist ein soziales Lebewesen. Dabei hängen Überleben und Entwicklung der menschlichen Spezies von der gegenseitigen Hilfe (Kropotkin) und der interpersonalen Beziehung ab. Schließlich ist der Mensch ein Kind seiner Kultur, der seinerseits Kultur schafft.

Die zweite, erzieherische Dimension besagt: Der Mensch ist abhängig von seiner Erziehung. Das heißt, Charakter, Verhalten und intellektuelle Fähigkeiten sind nicht angeboren, sondern entwickeln sich im Rahmen interpersoneller Beziehungen und des soziokulturellen Milieus.

Die dritte, kulturelle Dimension besagt: Der Mensch ist ein Wesen der Kultur und abhängig von ihr. Das bedeutet, der Mensch erschafft sich sein Menschenbild; seine Weltanschauung beeinflusst seine Sicht vom Menschen, seine Sicht der Erziehung und seine interpersonalen Beziehungen (3).

Als wissenschaftlicher Pädagoge und Psychologe mache ich mir vor allem Gedanken über das gegenwärtig noch existierende – weil gewollte – vorpsychologische und mittelalterlich anmutende Menschenbild, das einem zeitgemäßen naturwissenschaftlichen partout nicht weicht. Der Mensch wird dadurch nicht aufgeklärt.

Menschen sollen an einen Aggressionstrieb glauben, damit sie sich von ihrer Liebe und den Kindern trennen und in den Krieg ziehen, um zu töten und sich töten zu lassen.

Im Buch von Arno Plack aus dem Jahr 1973 „Der Mythos vom Aggressionstrieb“ schreibt der Wissenschaftler Dr. sc. at. August Kaiser im Kapitel „Aggressivität als anthropologisches System“:

„Die Auffassung, dem Menschen wohne eine naturgegebene, angeborene Neigung inne, seinen Mitmenschen zu schaden, zieht sich durch die Jahrtausende menschlicher Kulturgeschichte wie ein roter Faden. Die Moralvorschriften aller Religionen enthalten Gebote im Sinne von „Du sollst nicht töten!“, womit die natürliche Neigung zum Bösen ausdrücklich als menschlicher Wesenszug angenommen wird. Heute zählt die Berufung auf theologische Auffassungen allerdings nicht mehr viel. Dem Bedürfnis nach wissenschaftlichen Erklärungen nachgebend, spricht man jetzt lieber von einem angeborenen ‚Aggressionstrieb‘ als von der Erbsünde.

Dieser ‚Aggressionstrieb‘ wird heute allgemein, außer von Fachleuten, als bewiesene Selbstverständlichkeit angesehen. Jeder Zeitungsleser oder Fernsehzuschauer kennt die Namen von SIEGMUND FREUD und KONRAD LORENZ, die durch ihre Arbeiten die Aggressionstrieb-Hypothese bewiesen zu haben meinten. Eine große Zahl von Schülern hat ihre Aussagen übernommen, ohne diese kritisch zu überprüfen und ohne neue Argumente beizutragen. Sind die Beweise für diese Hypothese wirklich erbracht? Oder hat die Aggressivität des Menschen andere Ursachen? Die Beantwortung dieser Fragen hat für die Menschheit schicksalhaften Charakter.“ (4)

Es ist die gewalttätige Erziehung, die beim Kind Aggressionen auslöst. Diese sind anerzogen. Der Mensch wäre nicht imstande, seinen Mitmenschen umzubringen; das entspricht nicht seiner menschlichen Natur.

Das vorpsychologische Menschenbild geht davon aus, dass Menschen in den Krieg ziehen wollen. Doch das ist ein Betrug, ein Schwindel, ein großer Unsinn. Kein Mensch verlässt seine Liebe, kein Mann Frau und Kinder, um in den Krieg zu ziehen, andere umzubringen und sich selbst umbringen zu lassen. Das sagen nahezu alle jungen Menschen im vertraulichen Gespräch.

Die Theoretiker des Aggressionstriebes verstehen den Menschen nicht. In Wirklichkeit wollen die Menschen in ihrem Haus, Hof und Garten ruhig und in Frieden leben. Auf einmal sollen sie einen Aggressionstrieb haben und gegen das andere Volk in den Krieg ziehen wollen. Haben wir den Mut und die Geduld, unsere Meinung zu revidieren. Die psychologische Fakultät der Universitäten vermittelt in weltanschaulicher und politischer Beziehung leider viel Unsinn.

Die Beiträge im erwähnten Buch „Der Mythos vom Aggressionstrieb“ stammen von Vertretern verschiedener Wissenschaften, die alle mit dem Aggressionsproblem konfrontiert sind. Auf der Buch-Rückseite steht geschrieben: „So wird von mehreren Seiten gezeigt, dass die Selbstverständlichkeit, mit der heute im Anschluss an Konrad Lorenz von einem angeborenen Aggressionstrieb gesprochen wird, keinesfalls berechtigt ist.“ (5)

Menschen sollen durch autoritäre Erziehung das Folgen lernen und vor Mitmenschen Angst bekommen, damit sie sich nicht mit ihnen zusammentun, zusammenwirken und zusammenleben.

Nicht nur ausgewiesene wissenschaftliche Experten, sondern auch aufgeklärte Erzieher wissen seit langem, dass die autoritäre, gewalttätige Erziehung aus der Zeit vor den großen Weltkriegen viel Schaden anrichtete, obgleich Eltern und Erzieher das nicht wollten. Die jungen Menschen sollten das Folgen lernen, damit sie als Erwachsene an Autoritäten glauben, ihre Befehle befolgen und in den Krieg ziehen (siehe Auschwitz-Kommandant Rudolf Höss).

Die Erziehung in unserer Kultur ist nach wie vor darauf aufgebaut, dass wir Angst haben vor den Menschen. Die Art, wie die Erzieher mit dem Kind umgehen, erzeugt in ihm Gefühlsreaktionen, die sich gegen den Menschen wenden. Der junge Mensch hat Angst vor den Mitmenschen. Wenn er dann heranwächst, ist er nicht imstande zusammenzuwirken und zusammenzuleben. Er kann sich das Leben nicht gut einrichten.

Auch eine verwöhnende und verzärtelnde Erziehung ändert daran nichts. Dazu schreibt der bereits erwähnte Naturwissenschaftler und Psychologe August Kaiser:

„Eine autoritäre Erziehung erschöpft sich nicht in psychischer Gewaltanwendung, sondern umfasst eine Reihe von subtileren Methoden, mit denen das Kind bezwungen wird. Eine versteckte Form des Zwanges liegt in der Verwöhnung vor. Durch das Überschütten mit ‚Liebe‘, das Wegnehmen aller Mühe und Schwierigkeiten wird das Kind seiner Möglichkeiten zur freien Entscheidung und Auseinandersetzung beraubt, es wir in Abhängigkeit und Unabhängigkeit gehalten. Der Charakter des Kindes wird dadurch korrumpiert. Die Strenge erzwingt die Unterwerfung mit Gewalt, die Verwöhnung hingegen erkauft sie. Beides findet sich in der traditionellen Erziehung nebeneinander.“ (6)

Hinzu kommt der Zwang der Erzieher. Das Kind versagt, wenn es bezwungen wird. Das liegt in seiner Natur. Es hat dann ein Unbehagen und kann nicht mehr lernen. Ohne Angst und Zwang lernt es gerne. Doch diese unglückliche Art der Erziehung wird auch in der Schule nicht aufgegeben.

Eigentlich ist die Schule das geeignete Werkzeug, um die Gesamtpersönlichkeit des Kindes zu bilden, meint Alfred Adler:

„Dass die Schule als die Basis der ganzen Erziehung des Volkes angesehen werden muss, daran ist kein Zweifel. Die Aufgabe der Schule ist: Wie entwickeln wir Menschen, die im Leben selbständig weiterarbeiten, die alle Erfordernisse notwendiger Art nicht als fremde Angelegenheit, sondern auch als ihre Angelegenheit betrachten, um daran mitzuwirken.“ (7)

Wenn Studenten der Psychologie in der Universität nichts Vernünftiges kernen, werden keine Psychologen ausgebildet, die dem Menschen helfen wollen und können.

Tatsache ist, dass aufgrund mangelhafter Ausbildung an den Universitäten keine Psychologen herangebildet werden, die sich der Sache der Menschen annehmen.

Der Autor hat das selbst erlebt. Er hatte jedoch das Glück, dass er sich im Anschluss an sein Psychologiestudium der Tiefenpsychologie sowie der Psychotherapie zuwenden konnte.

Da der Mensch keine Ungleichheit, keine hierarchischen Strukturen verträgt, sollte auch die.

Haltung eines echten Psychologen oder Psychotherapeuten von absoluter Gleichwertigkeit und Gewaltlosigkeit getragen sein. Weil zwischen einem Therapeuten und einem Patienten nur graduelle Unterschiede bestehen, sollten „Hilfesuchende“ einen geeigneten „Gesprächspartner“ finden, der die fundamentale Gleichheit im Verhältnis Therapeut-Patient wertschätzt und befolgt. Um sein Gegenüber – auch im Gefühl – erreichen beziehungsweise „berühren“ zu können, muss der Psychotherapeut zudem in der Lage sein, von einem akademisch-elitären Sprachgebrauch abzusehen und die jeweilige Sprache seines Gegenübers zu sprechen.

Menschen sollen nicht zur Vernunft kommen und denken lernen, weil sie sonst von der mystischen Auffassung Abschied nehmen und die Ungerechtigkeiten in der Welt nicht mehr sprachlos hinnehmen werden.

Die mystische Auffassung als Gegensatz zur wissenschaftlichen Sicht hatte schon die Gedanken der Philosophen, der neu-Hegelianischen und der libertären Sozialisten beschäftigt. Ludwig Feuerbach (1804 bis 1872) hatte gezeigt, dass jede Religion anthropomorph ist, dass der Mensch also schon vorhandene Anschauungen auf die religiöse Ebene projiziert, so dass etwa aus dem autoritären Vater der allmächtige Gott im Himmel wird. Karl Marx (1818 bis 1883) hatte darüber hinaus die Funktion der Religion für die Gesellschaft analysiert („das Opium des Volkes“) und mit der Einführung der materialistischen Geschichtsauffassung den Menschen vom Himmel herunter und auf die Erde gestellt.

Noch heute gibt es ernstzunehmende, aufgeklärte Wissenschaftler und andere Zeitgenossen, die sich die Frage stellen, welche Wirkung eine religiöse Erziehung auf die.

seelische Gesundheit, auf die Fähigkeit adäquat zu denken und mit anderen in Beziehung zu treten, auf die Entwicklung des Gemeinschaftsgefühls und die spätere Entstehung von Neurosen haben kann. Da das vorpsychologische Menschenbild bewusst aufrechterhalten wird, deshalb verharrt der Mensch im Glauben.

Es gibt Zeitgenossen, die der Auffassung sind,

  • dass Kinder, denen in jungen Jahren mystische Vorstellungen aufgedrängt werden, kein Gemeinschaftsgefühl entwickeln,
  • dass dem in der mystischen Auffassung Erzogenen die irrationale Spekulation als Methode zur Erklärung von Sachen und Ereignissen dient,
  • dass sich die Spekulation zu einem mehr oder weniger bewussten „Deutungsorgan“ des Menschen entwickelt, das ständig im Unbewussten wirkt,
  • dass die Entwicklung des Einzelnen und der Menschheit wirksamer durch Prophylaxe gefördert werden kann als beim Erwachsenen in einer Psychotherapie und
  • dass eine rationale Erziehung ohne jegliche übernatürliche Instanz der Weg zu einer gesunden Entwicklung und einer würdigen Existenz des Menschen und der Gesellschaft ist (8).

Wir Menschen haben uns noch nicht gelöst vom Mittelalter. Das Ablehnen der Mystik fällt vielen sehr schwer; die Menschen sollen nicht zur Vernunft kommen. Sie sind eingebettet in den Glauben – und damit kann nicht nur die heutige Wirtschaft aufrechterhalten werden.

Heute glauben die Menschen, weil das künstlich aufrechterhalten wird. Die Menschen können lesen und würden sich abwenden und nicht mehr glauben. Aber das wird ihnen eingeflößt. Was sie in der Schule lernen, das bestimmt die Kirche. Die Lehrpläne für diese Institution werden vorwiegend von der Kirche erstellt. Staat und Kirche sind vereint und arbeiten Hand in Hand.

Vor vielen Tausenden von Jahren haben sich die Menschen Götter erdacht – und glauben heute noch daran. Die Psychologie versucht, die Natur des Menschen und sein Wesen zu erkennen und erfährt dabei, dass die Mystik sie noch beherrscht.

Erst wenn Menschen ihr in der Erziehung erworbenes, vom Staat eingeflößtes Menschenbild korrigieren, haben sie ein Instrument in der Hand, um denken zu lernen und um das eigene Leben besser zu verstehen und zu gestalten.

Die Psychologie ist das Werkzeug, das die Menschen in die Lage versetzt, sich selbst, die politische Situation und die notwendigen gesellschafts- und kulturverändernden Maßnahmen angemessen beurteilen zu können. Ohne psychologische Kenntnis der Natur des Menschen versandet alles genauso, wie ohne geschichtliches Wissen und vertiefte Kulturkritik.

Ein Mensch kann sich in seiner Denkungsart, in seiner Weltmeinung, in seiner Gedankenwelt vollkommen ändern. Er hat Angst, es sei eine Sünde, nicht zu glauben. Wenn er jedoch anfängt die Kirchengeschichte zu lesen, die Geschichte der anderen Seite, der Zweifler, die sich aufgelehnt haben und er Einblick in die Naturwissenschaft bekommt, dann hat er andere Gedanken, eine andere Lebensauffassung.

Die Psychologie und Psychotherapie ist keine leichte Sache. Sie erfordert vom Einzelnen viel Mut, Vertrauen in den Gesprächspartner und Geduld; Gefühle und Einstellungen ändern sich nicht von einem Tag auf den anderen und das psychotherapeutische Gespräch ist kein Plaudern. Vorurteile müssen durch Wissen ersetzt werden. Insgesamt haben wir es sehr schwer, die Tatsachen, die Realität natürlich zu sehen und zu empfinden. Wie ist das im 21. Jahrhundert noch möglich? Da sich alles wehrt gegen die Psychologie und ihre Erkenntnisse, ist es schwer, sie zu vermitteln. Vielleicht muss man noch ein paar Generationen abwarten.

*

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

Dipl.-Psych. Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel ist Volksschul-Lehrer (Rektor), Erziehungswissenschaftler (Dr. paed.) und Psychologe (Dipl.-Psych.). Nach Hochschul-Ausbildung, Referendarzeit und Universitätsstudium wurde er wissenschaftlicher Lehrer in der Erwachsenenbildung. In dieser Funktion war er Ausbildungsleiter bei der BAYER-AG/Leverkusen, Mitbegründer und Leiter eines freien Schul-Modell-Versuchs in Köln, Fortbildner bayerischer Beratungslehrkräfte und Schulpsychologen an der Akademie für Lehrerfortbildung und Personalführung in Dillingen/Donau und Leiter der Zentralen Staatlichen Schulberatungsstelle München. Als Pensionär arbeitete er als Psychotherapeut in eigener Praxis und war Berichterstatter bei einer Öffentlichen Anhörung zur Jugendkriminalität im Europäischen Parlament in Brüssel. Seine Bücher befassen sich mit den Themen: Möglichkeiten der Anwendung der Individualpsychologie in der Schule (Verstehen und helfen; Wie geht es Ingo? Oder: Wie wird man Mitmensch? – Vorwort: Peter Handke), psychische Folgeschäden von „Unterhaltungsgewalt“ (Game over! ; Das spiel ich nicht mit!), psychologisches Manifest des gesunden Menschenverstands (Keinem die Macht übergeben!). In allen seinen Veröffentlichungen fordert er eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung sowie eine Erziehung zu Gemeinsinn und Frieden. Für seine Verdienste um Serbien bekam er 2021 von den Universitäten Belgrad und Novi Sad den Republik-Preis „Kapitän Misa Anastasijevic“ verliehen.

Noten 

(1) Ansbacher, H. L. und Ansbacher, R. R. (Hrsg.). (1982). Alfred Adlers Individualpsychologie. Eine systematische Darstellung seiner Lehre in Auszügen aus seinen Schriften, München

(2) A. a. O.

(3) A. a. O.

(4) Plack, Arno (Hrsg.). (1973). Der Mythos vom Aggressionstrieb. München, S. 43

(5) A. a. O.

(6) A. a. O., S. 63

(7) Adler, A. (1914). Individualpsychologie in der Schule. Frankfurt / Main, S. 25f.

(8) Zum Beispiel: Gassmann, M., Gleich, W., Greuter, D., Hug, H., Palmer, U. (1979). Soziale Psychologie. Zürich 

Vorgestelltes Bild: Franklin D. Roosevelt (Lizenziert unter CC BY 2.0)

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on “In der Politik passiert nichts zufällig. Wenn es passiert, kann man darauf wetten, dass es so geplant war.“

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

 

Every person can correct the medieval-looking image of man instilled in him by his upbringing in order to learn to think on the basis of a scientific view of man, to understand his life better and to live it better.

The above-mentioned quotation, which is attributed to the US President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945) is commonplace in diplomacy. If one examines relevant political decisions under this aspect, one’s eyes open. As a fellow human being, however, one feels co-responsible for the fate of people, because as a rule one has allowed a minority to live at the expense of the majority without doing anything.

Yet the world is so rich that all people without exception could live in prosperity.

But this is not allowed to happen. Injustice would not have to be; no one would be short-changed in life. Hunger and hardship would not arise either.

But the rulers and their proxy politicians have planned not to allow the natural-scientific image of man to arise, so that people do not learn to think and understand their lives better as well as live better.

Anthropological premises of human nature

Human image and worldview are of great importance to individuals, whether they are aware of them or not. The conception of man includes views about the nature of man, about his living conditions and development, about his position in nature, in the cosmos and in society. Every theory about man depends on anthropological premises of his culture, on the concept of human nature and thus also on the worldview.

From a scientific point of view, the concept of human nature implies the complete absence of genetically determined aggressive drives. This results in the ability of human beings and the necessity to live and organise themselves in a peaceful society without violence and war.

A second assumption results from man’s biological existence: Man has no pre-defined instincts; at birth he has only a few reflexes.

It follows that the intellectual faculties, the emotional reactions, the subjective apprehension of the environment, the mental conceptions of the external world and the personality of man are acquired through socialisation. “Socialisation” as a lifelong learning process of integration or adaptation of the growing human being into the surrounding society and culture. People can and must learn everything. This learning requires a relationship with at least one fellow human being (1).

Work, Love and Community as the Three Great Tasks of Life

Human life as a whole has the character of a task. At every moment of our existence we are confronted with tasks that we have to overcome. The three great tasks of life that inevitably urge us to confront are work, love and community. One can only agree with this view of the individual psychologist Alfred Adler.

The necessity of work stems from the fact that people can only sustain themselves if they engage in productive activity. In this way they contribute to the general welfare, which secures the existence of the human race.

The requirement of love is given by the fact that nature has provided for bisexuality and thus created the task of connecting with a love partner.

Work and love are also community issues. They arise from the fact that man is a social creature and that all his life problems have a social character. From this it can be deduced that a healthy way of life requires above all a sense of community, a bond with one’s fellow human beings. This is expressed not only in the willingness to work and love, but also in the sympathy for questions of the larger context, questions of city and country, people and humanity (2).

The main principles of the concept of man, including socio-biological, educational and cultural dimensions.

The first dimension is the socio-biological one. It is: Man is a social living being. In this respect, the survival and development of the human species depend on mutual aid (Kropotkin) and interpersonal relationships. Finally, man is a child of his culture, which in turn creates culture.

The second, educational dimension says: Man is dependent on his upbringing. This means that character, behaviour and intellectual abilities are not innate, but develop within the framework of interpersonal relationships and the socio-cultural milieu.

The third, cultural dimension says: Man is a being of culture and dependent on it. This means that man creates his image of man; his world view influences his view of man, his view of education and his interpersonal relationships (3).

As a scientific educator and psychologist, I am particularly concerned about the pre-psychological and medieval-looking image of man that still exists today – because it is intentional – and which refuses to give way to a contemporary scientific image of man. The human being is not enlightened by this.

People are supposed to believe in an aggression instinct so that they separate themselves from their love and children and go to war to kill and be killed.

In Arno Plack’s 1973 book “The Myth of the Aggression Instinct”, the scientist Dr. sc. at. August Kaiser in the chapter “Aggressiveness as an anthropological system”:

“The view that man has a natural, innate tendency to harm his fellow man runs like a red thread through the millennia of human cultural history. The moral rules of all religions contain commandments in the sense of “Thou shalt not kill!”, whereby the natural inclination to evil is explicitly accepted as a human trait. Today, however, the appeal to theological views no longer counts for much. Giving in to the need for scientific explanations, one now prefers to speak of an innate ‘instinct of aggression’ rather than of original sin.

This ‘aggression instinct’ is now generally taken for granted, except by experts. Every newspaper reader or television viewer knows the names of SIEGMUND FREUD and KONRAD LORENZ, who thought they had proved the aggression instinct hypothesis through their work. A large number of students have adopted their statements without critically examining them and without contributing new arguments. Has the evidence for this hypothesis really been produced? Or does human aggressiveness have other causes? The answer to these questions has a fateful character for humanity.” (4)

It is violent upbringing that triggers aggression in the child. These are instilled. Man would not be able to kill his fellow man; that does not correspond to his human nature.

The pre-psychological conception of man assumes that people want to go to war. But this is a fraud, a swindle, a great nonsense. No man leaves his love, no man leaves his wife and children to go to war, to kill others and to get himself killed. That is what almost all young people say in confidential conversation.

The theorists of the aggression instinct do not understand man. In reality, people want to live quietly and in peace in their house, yard and garden. All of a sudden they are supposed to have an aggression instinct and want to go to war against the other people. Let us have the courage and patience to revise our opinion. The psychology faculty of the universities unfortunately teaches a lot of nonsense in ideological and political terms.

The contributions in the aforementioned book “The Myth of the Aggression Instinct” come from representatives of various sciences, all of which are confronted with the problem of aggression. On the back of the book it says:

“Thus it is shown from several sides that the self-evidence with which today, following Konrad Lorenz, an innate aggression instinct is spoken of, is by no means justified.” (5)

People are supposed to learn to follow and become afraid of fellow human beings through authoritarian education, so that they do not associate, cooperate and live together with them.

Not only proven scientific experts, but also enlightened educators have known for a long time that the authoritarian, violent education from the time before the great world wars caused a lot of damage, although parents and educators did not want this. Young people were supposed to learn to follow so that as adults they would believe in authority, obey its orders and go to war (see Auschwitz commander Rudolf Höss).

Education in our culture is still built on being afraid of people. The way educators treat the child creates emotional reactions in him that turn against the human being. The young person is afraid of fellow human beings. When he then grows up, he is not able to cooperate and live together. He cannot arrange life well for himself.

Even a spoiling and pampering upbringing does not change this. The aforementioned natural scientist and psychologist August Kaiser writes on this:

“An authoritarian upbringing is not exhausted in the use of psychological force, but includes a number of more subtle methods by which the child is subdued. A hidden form of coercion is pampering. By showering the child with ‘love’ and taking away all effort and difficulties, the child is deprived of its possibilities for free decision-making and discussion, and is kept dependent and independent. The child’s character is thereby corrupted. Strictness enforces submission by force, whereas pampering buys it. Both are found side by side in traditional education.” (6)

Added to this is the coercion of the educators. The child fails when it is forced. That is in its nature. It then feels uneasy and can no longer learn. Without fear and coercion, it likes to learn. But this unfortunate way of education is not abandoned even in school.

Actually, school is the appropriate tool to form the child’s total personality, Alfred Adler believes:

“That the school must be regarded as the basis of the whole education of the people, there is no doubt about it. The task of the school is: how do we develop people who will continue to work independently in life, who will regard all requirements of a necessary nature not as a foreign matter, but also as their business, in order to participate in them.” (7)

If students of psychology do not learn anything sensible at university, no psychologists will be trained who want to and can help people.

The fact is that because of inadequate training in universities, psychologists are not being trained to take up people’s cause. The author has experienced this himself. However, he was lucky enough to be able to turn to depth psychology as well as psychotherapy after his psychology studies.

Since human beings do not tolerate inequality, hierarchical structures, the

The attitude of a genuine psychologist or psychotherapist should be based on absolute equality and non-violence. Because there are only gradual differences between a therapist and a patient, “help-seekers” should find a suitable “interlocutor” who values and follows the fundamental equality in the therapist-patient relationship. In order to be able to reach or “touch” his counterpart – also in feeling – the psychotherapist must also be able to refrain from an academic-elitist use of language and speak the respective language of his counterpart.

People should not come to their senses and learn to think, because otherwise they will say goodbye to the mystical view and no longer accept the injustices in the world speechlessly.

The mystical conception as an antithesis to the scientific view had already occupied the thoughts of the philosophers, the New Hegelians and the libertarian socialists. Ludwig Feuerbach (1804 to 1872) had shown that every religion is anthropomorphic, that is, that man projects already existing views onto the religious plane, so that, for example, the authoritarian father becomes the almighty God in heaven. Karl Marx (1818 to 1883) had also analysed the function of religion for society (“the opium of the people”) and, with the introduction of the materialist conception of history, placed man down from heaven and onto earth.

Even today, there are serious, enlightened scientists and other contemporaries who ask themselves what effect a religious education has on mental health, on the ability to think adequately and to relate to others, on the development of a sense of community and on the later development of neuroses. Since the pre-psychological image of man is consciously maintained, that is why man persists in believing.

There are contemporaries who are of the opinion

  • that children who have mystical ideas forced upon them at a young age do not develop a sense of community,
  • that irrational speculation serves as a method of explaining things and events to those brought up in the mystical conception,
  • that speculation develops into a more or less conscious “organ of interpretation” of man, constantly at work in the unconscious,
  • that the development of the individual and of humanity can be promoted more effectively by prophylaxis than in adults in psychotherapy, and
  • that a rational education without any supernatural agency is the way to a healthy development and a dignified existence of man and society (8).

We humans have not yet detached ourselves from the Middle Ages. Rejecting mysticism is very difficult for many; people are not supposed to come to their senses. They are embedded in faith – and this is not the only way to sustain today’s economy.

Today people believe because that is artificially maintained. People can read and would turn away and no longer believe. But that is instilled in them. What they learn in school is determined by the church. The curricula for this institution are mainly created by the church. State and Church are united and work hand in hand.

Many thousands of years ago, people invented gods – and still believe in them today. Psychology tries to recognise the nature of man and his essence and learns that mysticism still dominates it.

Only when people correct their image of man, acquired in education and instilled by the state, do they have an instrument in their hands to learn to think and to better understand and shape their own lives.

Psychology is the tool that enables people to adequately assess themselves, the political situation and the necessary measures to change society and culture. Without psychological knowledge of the nature of man, everything peters out just as it does without historical knowledge and in-depth cultural criticism.

A person can change completely in his way of thinking, in his world view, in his world of thought. He is afraid that it is a sin not to believe. But when he starts to read the history of the church, the history of the other side, of the doubters who rebelled and he gets insight into natural science, then he has different thoughts, a different view of life.

Psychology and psychotherapy is not an easy thing. It requires a lot of courage from the individual, trust in the interlocutor and patience; feelings and attitudes do not change from one day to the next and the psychotherapeutic conversation is not a chat. Prejudices have to be replaced by knowledge. Overall, we have a very hard time seeing and feeling the facts, the reality naturally. How is that still possible in the 21st century? Since everything resists psychology and its findings, it is difficult to communicate them. Perhaps one has to wait for a few more generations.

*

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

Rudolf Lothar Hänsel is an elementary school teacher (Rector), educationalist (Dr. paed.) and psychologist (Dipl.-Psych.). After university training, traineeship and university studies, he became a scientific teacher in adult education. In this capacity he was head of training at BAYER AG/Leverkusen, co-founder and head of an independent school model trial in Cologne, in-service trainer of Bavarian guidance counsellors and school psychologists at the Academy for Teacher Training and Personnel Management in Dillingen/Donau and head of the Central State School Guidance Office in Munich.

As a retiree, he worked as a psychotherapist in private practice and was rapporteur at a public hearing on juvenile delinquency in the European Parliament in Brussels. His books deal with the topics: Possibilities of applying individual psychology in schools (Understanding and helping; How is Ingo? Or: How to become a fellow human being? – Foreword: Peter Handke), psychological consequences of “entertainment violence” (Game over!; I’m not playing that game!), psychological manifesto of common sense (Don’t hand over power to anyone!). In all his publications, he calls for a conscious ethical-moral values education as well as an education for public spirit and peace. For his services to Serbia, he was awarded the Republic Prize “Captain Misa Anastasijevic” by the Universities of Belgrade and Novi Sad in 2021.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes 

(1) Ansbacher, H. L. and Ansbacher, R. R. (eds.). (1982). Alfred Adler’s Individual Psychology. A systematic presentation of his teachings in excerpts from his writings, Munich.

(2) Op. cit.

(3) Op. cit.

(4) Plack, Arno (ed.). (1973). The myth of the aggression instinct. Munich, p. 43

(5) A. op. cit.

(6) op. cit., p. 63

(7) Adler, A. (1914). Individual psychology in schools. Frankfurt / Main, p. 25f.

(8) For example: Gassmann, M., Gleich, W., Greuter, D., Hug, H., Palmer, U. (1979). Social psychology. Zurich

Featured image: Franklin D. Roosevelt (Licensed under CC BY 2.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “In Politics, Nothing Happens by Accident. If it Happens, You Can Bet it Was Planned that Way.”

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.a

a

***

“The narrative of the West is so far away from reality that practically every major story which appears in the Western Press has a hidden or shadow real story which we need to bring out!”

Professor Radhika Desai, from this week’s interview

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

If there is a single term that could describe the news stories shaping the past year, it would be POLARIZING.

We saw it in the Freedom Convoy in Canada in January and February. Some sympathized with the demand by truckers to end the COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Others saw it as a collection of threatening individuals that made the Prime Minister’s use of the human rights suspending Emergencies Act a necessary evil. [1]

We saw it in the U.S. mid term elections as voters divided according to their stands on abortion rights, gun control, and immigration. [2]

And we also saw it in the widening of the gap between countries dedicated to a US-NATO supremacy, which supposedly defends human rights and democracy, and the alternative model made up of China, Russia and many of the countries in the BRICS alliance, described by the West as the “authoritarians.” When Russia launched a “special military operation” in Ukraine and got hit hard with sanctions as a result, the world witnessed its unravelling into two factions. It is predicted that nothing short of a nuclear climax will once again reunite humanity – via universal destruction! [3]

But beyond this reality, the media itself is seeing massive changes. Different perspectives from the more NATO-friendly stories is quickly dismissed as “fake news” serving the Kremlin. Levels discouraging the dissent from these sorts of perspectives are approaching, and possibly even surpassing those in evidence during the Joseph McCarthy years of anti-communist madness. [4]

Here at the Global Research News Hour, we are striving to point out major flaws in the major news coverage. This is attributable to who or what actually owns the major press outlets, and who or what advances their financial success through advertising, not to mention devices like Operation Mockingbird and a host of other mechanisms between the Fourth Estate and the State itself.

We thus have made an annual ritual at this time of year to look into which stories relevant to the general public are actually getting under-reported or even censored by the wealthy press outlets.

Our regular guide on this journalistic journey is the renowned media institution Project Censored. PC educates the public on the important links between a free press and a democratic self-government and provides them with regular lists of news stories under-reported or censored by mainstream media.

In our first half hour, Andy Lee Roth, the contributing editor for the group returns once again as a travelling companion pointing out some of the incredible stories you otherwise might have missed out on in 2022. He also gives us a look at Censored 2023, the yearbook highlighting some of the major themes in journalistic suppression over the course of the past year.

In our second half hour, we are joined by three past guests and independent media producers to get their own takes on major stories and perspectives in the world in 2022 that were left out of mainstream news coverage. Our guests are Professor Radhika Desai, Matthew Ehret, and Max Blumenthal.

Andy Lee Roth is the Associate Director of Project Censored, a media research program which fosters student development of media literacy and critical thinking skills as applied to news media censorship in the United States.

Radhika Desai is  Professor in the Department of Political Studies and Director of the Geopolitical Economy Research Group (GERG) at the University of Manitoba in Canada; she edits newcoldwar.org, a project associated with GERG, and is the Convener of the International Manifesto Group.

Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series and Clash of the Two Americas (which you can purchase by clicking those links or the book covers below). In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Max Blumenthal is the founder and editor-in-chief of The Gray Zone. He is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling Republican GomorrahGoliathThe Fifty One Day War, and The Management of Savagery.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 374)

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. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

Other stations airing the show:

CIXX 106.9 FM, broadcasting from Fanshawe College in London, Ontario. It airs Sundays at 6am.

WZBC 90.3 FM in Newton Massachusetts is Boston College Radio and broadcasts to the greater Boston area. The Global Research News Hour airs during Truth and Justice Radio which starts Sunday at 6am.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 7pm.

CJMP 90.1 FM, Powell River Community Radio, airs the Global Research News Hour every Saturday at 8am. 

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday afternoon from 3-4pm.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 9am pacific time.

Notes:

  1. https://www.netnewsledger.com/2022/02/12/poll-finds-support-for-freedom-convoy-at-20-across-canada/
  2. https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/guide-into-us-most-polarized-midterm-elections
  3. https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/86831
  4. https://www.globalresearch.ca/conform-or-be-cast-out-the-new-model-of-journalism-during-a-time-of-war/5795751

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on Monday announced it will participate in a new project that includes assessing the health risks of exposure to 5G technologies.

According to IARC, the project will “develop tools and instrumentation for reliable evaluation of exposure, conduct experimental studies (in vitro, animal, and human studies) on potential cancer risks, and develop effective health risk communication materials for stakeholders.”

The project — Scientific-Based Exposure and Risk Assessment of Radiofrequency and Millimetre-Wave Systems (SEAWave) — aims to identify differences in exposure patterns between 5G and earlier mobile technologies, such as 2G-4G.

Horizon Europe and SERI (Switzerland) are co-funding the project, which will culminate with a risk assessment of 5G, set to be released in 2025.

Experts on the health risks of exposure to 5G technologies told The Defender that risk assessments should have been conducted years ago.

“A risk assessment should have been performed before the 5G rollout — and not years after it started,” Mona Nilsson, managing director of the Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation, said.

Instead, Nilsson said, “entire populations” have for several years been “effectively turned into 5G lab rats in a dangerous experiment.”

Eileen O’Connor, co-founder and director of the EM Radiation Research Trust in the U.K. and board member of the International EMF Alliance, agreed.

“Why isn’t IARC calling for the precautionary principle as a matter of urgency rather than agreeing to an assessment on 5G?” O’Connor asked. “There is enough evidence and reason for concern regarding public health associated with 2G, 3G and 4G,” she said.

According to O’Connor, “The whole population will be exposed to untested and unregulated [electromagnetic] radiation, which they will absorb into their bodies and without any public agreement. Too many reports and reviews delay and deny the precautionary approach due to economic interests.”

“It’s time for action,” said O’Connor, adding that she is “deeply concerned” about the role “that special interests and industry lobbying are playing.”

“It’s time to demand accountability for the imposition of this technology in every corner of our lives, and time to demand accountability on the part of the individuals who are voting to put this technology in place without a single safety test having been conducted for 5G, as established by U.S. Senator Blumenthal during congressional hearings on 5G,” she said.

Why is ‘risk communication’ last on SEAWave agenda?

According to the IARC, the agency plans to “play a critical role in the later stages of the project by coordinating a comprehensive evaluation of the project’s experimental studies and a review of the latest literature on millimeter-wave frequencies and health effects” — effectively making it the main arbiter for which scientific studies are considered when determining whether there is scientific evidence of health risks posed by 5G.

According to its website, the SEAWave project consists of completing 11 interlinked smaller projects — called “work packages” — initiated at its kick-off meeting and co-design workshop.

SEAWave plans to complete eight work packages, including studies focusing on types of 5G exposure and health outcomes, and then assess the risk of 5G on human health as its ninth work package.

After that, the project will address how to communicate risk to the public.

Scientists who invoke the precautionary principle said risk communication regarding 5G and wireless technologies — such as the use of wireless headphones like Apple’s popular AirPods — should be proactive, not retroactive.

Health risks associated with 5G already known, critics say

Nilsson — who has authored two books on the health risks associated with wireless radiation and co-authored an academic publication titled “International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on Radiofrequency Radiation” — said the IARC press release “gives the impression that we do not already know that there is massive scientific evidence of harmful effects from previous generations of telecommunication technology (2G, 3G WiFi).”

She continued:

“It fails to mention that the radiation from 5G and previous generations was classified as ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’ group 2B by IARC in 2011.

“It also fails to mention the unacceptable fact, put forward by the scientists in the 5G Appeal and the recently formed International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, that the risks must be investigated before any rollout and that there are already proven harmful effects from previous generations, such as DNA-damage, oxidative stress, cancer, harmful effects on the brain, on fertility, etc.”

O’Connor told The Defender she found it shocking that IARC would agree to coordinate production of a risk assessment on 5G exposures as part of the EU-funded SEAWave project “while admitting over the past four decades, more and more wireless applications have emerged and are continually evolving, which makes it difficult to keep abreast of changing exposure patterns to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) in populations.”

“They are admitting they are unable to keep up-to-date and yet agreeing to review 5G?” she asked.

It has been more than a decade, O’Connor explained, since members of the IARC classified the entire RF-EMF spectrum as a “2B Possible Human Carcinogen.” The vote was “nearly unanimous: 29 to 1,” she added.

Since then, O’Connor said, more human studies and toxicology studies in animals, which demonstrated clear evidence of tumors, have added to the evidence of increased cancer risks.

In 2018, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) — part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — determined in a $30 million study that there was “clear evidence” that electromagnetic radiation is associated with cancer and DNA damage.

“The $30 million U.S. National Toxicology Program RF [radio frequency] studies and the Italian Ramazzini Institute’s 10-year research project both found clear evidence of malignant tumors,” she said.

“Two different institutes,” O’Connor emphasized, “with laboratories in different countries, totally independent of each other and both producing parallel consistent findings, reinforces the validity of these groundbreaking animal studies.”

O’Connor added:

“An external peer-review panel of 11 scientists complimented the methodology of the NTP study and concluded that the results showed clear evidence of carcinogenic activity.

“Many doctors and scientists are now calling for an urgent upgrade to the classification of RF-EMF from 2B to Group 1 (Known Carcinogen), the same category as tobacco.

“Dr. [Lennart] Hardell, a specialist oncologist and a cancer epidemiologist, who provided expert commentary on the NTP study, stated unequivocally: ‘The agent is carcinogenic to humans.’”

Moreover, Nilsson said, in 2017, “Scientists warned in the 5G Appeal that 5G will lead to a massive increase of exposure to microwave radiation similar to previous generations, which have already been proven to be harmful, and that the 5G rollout should be halted until the health risks had been investigated.”

Nilsson added:

“During the last years of 5G rollout since late 2019, our measurements of radiation have confirmed that 5G indeed lead to a massive increase in exposure in Swedish cities.

“The first case study on health effects from 5G, by epidemiologist Lennart Hardell and me, showed that a 5G base station within two days caused the microwave syndrome in two persons living close to the base station.”

O’Connor noted that a worldwide list of all peer-reviewed scientific studies, through May 2020, on human health around mobile phone base stations and cell towers, compiled by Karl Muller and the EM-Radiation Research Trust, showed consistent findings of health problems. “Out of 33 studies, 32 (or 97%) reported health problems,” she said.

The only study that did not find health problems was a “very poor study of cancer in Bavaria that by its own admission did not have sufficient controls,” she said.

Just last year, 250 scientists signed a petition to the United Nations that took aim at both non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs), which are used by AirPods and other Bluetooth devices, and cellphones and Wi-Fi, which emit RF radiation.

Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, is one of the petition’s signers.

“From a precautionary standpoint,” Moskowitz said, “I would argue you shouldn’t experiment with your brain like this by keeping these kinds of wireless headphones on your head or in your ears.”

“You’re conducting a health experiment on yourself, and current regulations are completely oblivious to these kinds of exposures,” Moskowitz added.

A ‘greenwashing project’ tainted by corporate stakeholders?

According to SEAWave’s website, the project “aims to contribute to the scientific basis for health risk assessment of 5G and offer the means for effective health risk communication and results dissemination to all stakeholders, ranging from citizens and national regulators, to standardization bodies and the industry.”

But Nilsson told The Defender the project “looks like a greenwashing project for the rollout of 5G to the benefit of the major corporate stakeholders.”

For instance, Nilsson pointed out, some of SEAWave’s consortia partners — such as Telecom Paris and ITIS — are “of concern” for potentially receiving sponsor funding from 5G stakeholders.

Nilsson also noted that IARC’s press release included the “misleading claim” that many exposure parameters of 5G are similar to those of 2G-4G. “But we know that 5G has already led to a massive exposure increase compared to previous generations according to the measurements performed so far during the 5G rollout,” she said.

“The fact that 5G massively increases radiation exposure is also why the telecom sector has lobbied various governments — such as Brussels, Switzerland and Italy — to relax their radiation limits, because they will not be able to roll out 5G as planned otherwise.”

Now years into the 5G rollout, she said, exposure levels “exceed 1 million microwatts per square meter in peak values — which is far above what is known to cause harmful effects in terms of sleep disturbances, headache, dizziness, tinnitus, heart arrhythmia, and fatigue.”

“The symptoms were already described some 50-40 years ago as the microwave syndrome or radio frequency illness and are confirmed by studies on people living near mobile phone masts [cell towers] and base stations during the last two decades,” Nilsson added.

Nilsson emphasized that in view of the influential corporate economic interests involved, it is necessary that any risk assessment be performed by scientists that have no ties to the telecom sector or telecom-affiliated corporations.

“However, the IARC is unfortunately no longer a guarantee for such objectivity,” she said, adding:

“The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is by far the largest single voluntary funder of the IARCand such funding probably comes with strings attached.

“Further, IARC’s head of the radiation department, Joachim Schüz, is a well-known risk-denier, in spite of growing evidence to the contrary, who has produced a seriously biased report for the EU-Commission and flawed studies on brain tumor risks from cellphones, funded by telecom companies, such as the Danish Cohort and the Cefalo study.”

At a 2014 European Commission conference on EMFs and potential health effects at which O’Connor and Schüz were presenters, O’Connor said she confronted IARC officials — including Schüz — for excluding Hardell’s papers from their review of EMF scientific studies.

Schüz claimed the papers arrived too late following SCENIHR’s [Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks] call for papers, O’Connor said, “but I reminded him that he accepted a paper/letter that did not suggest potential health risks later than Hardell’s papers.”

Indeed, IARC leadership is sending “mixed signals” on its stance regarding acknowledging the documented health risks associated with RF radiation, Microwave News reported last month.

IARC Director Elisabete Weiderpass recently revealed that a new assessment of the evidence linking RF radiation to cancer would likely take place in early 2024 and that a formal decision could come within a few months.

Weiderpass didn’t suggest that the new assessment would reaffirm the IARC’s previous classification of RF as a possible human carcinogen. Rather, according to Microwave News, she made clear that the RF cancer risk might instead be downgraded by the IARC and the current classification could be removed.

*

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

Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master’s degree in communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.

Featured image is from CHD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on WHO’s Cancer Research Agency to Assess 5G Health Risks — But Not Until 2025
  • Tags: ,

Before the Bombs Come the Platitudes

January 6th, 2023 by Robert C. Koehler

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

What is democracy but platitudes and dog whistles? The national direction is quietly predetermined — it’s not up for debate. The president’s role is to sell it to the public; you might say he’s the public-relations director in chief:

“. . . my Administration will seize this decisive decade to advance America’s vital interests, position the United States to outmaneuver our geopolitical competitors, tackle shared challenges, and set our world firmly on a path toward a brighter and more hopeful tomorrow. . . . We will not leave our future vulnerable to the whims of those who do not share our vision for a world that is free, open, prosperous, and secure.”

These are the words of President Biden, in his introduction to the National Security Strategy, which lays out America’s geopolitical plans for the coming decade. Sounds almost plausible, until you ponder the stuff that isn’t up for public discussion, such as, for instance:

The national defense budget, recently set for 2023 at $858 billion and, as ever, larger than the rest of the world’s military budget combined. And, oh yeah, the modernization — the rebuilding — of the nation’s nuclear weapons over the next three decades at an estimated cost of nearly $2 trillion. As Nuclear Watch put it: “It is, in short, a program of nuclear weapons forever.”

And the latter, of course, will go forward despite the fact that in 2017 the countries of the world — well, most of them (the vote in the United Nations was 122-1) — approved the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which flat-out bans the use, development and possession of nuclear weapons. Fifty countries ratified the treaty by January 2021, making it a global reality; two years later, a total of 68 countries have ratified it, with 23 more in the process of doing so. Not only that, as H. Patricia Hynes points out, the mayors of more than 8,000 cities all across the planet are calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

I mention this to put Biden’s words in perspective. Does “a brighter and more hopeful tomorrow” ignore the demands of most of the world and include the presence of thousands of nuclear weapons, many still on hair-trigger alert? Does it mean the ever-present possibility of war and the ongoing manufacture and sale of every imaginable weapon of war? Is a near-trillion-dollar annual “defense” budget the primary way we intend to “outmaneuver our geopolitical competitors”?

And here’s another flicker of reality that’s missing from Biden’s words: the non-monetary cost of war, which is to say, the “collateral damage.” For some reason, the president fails to mention how many civilians’ deaths — how many children’s deaths — will be necessary to secure a brighter and more hopeful tomorrow. How many hospitals might it be necessary, for instance, for us to accidentally bomb in coming years, as we bombed the hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan in 2015, killing 42 people, 24 of whom were patients?

Public relations platitudes do not seem to have room to acknowledge videos of U.S.-inflicted carnage, such as Kathy Kelly’s description of a video of the Kunduz bombing, which showed the president of Doctors Without Borders (a.k.a., Médecins Sans Frontières) walking through the wreckage a short while later and speaking, with “nearly unutterable sadness,” to the family of a child who had just died.

“Doctors had helped the young girl recover,” Kelly writes, “but because war was raging outside the hospital, administrators recommended that the family come the next day. ‘She’s safer here,’ they said.

“The child was among those killed by the U.S. attacks, which recurred at fifteen-minute intervals, for an hour and a half, even though MSF had already issued desperate pleas begging the United States and NATO forces to stop bombing the hospital.”

Those who believe in the necessity of war — such as the president — may well feel shock and sadness when a child, for instance, is unintentionally killed by U.S. military action, but the concept of war comes complete with flowers of regret: It’s the fault of the enemy. And we will not be vulnerable to his whims.

Indeed, the dog whistle in Biden’s brief quote above is the calm acknowledgement of U.S. intention to stand up to the dark forces on the planet, the autocrats, who do not share our vision of freedom for all (except little girls in bombed hospitals). Those who, for whatever reason, believe in the necessity, and even the glory, of war, will feel the pulse of the U.S. military budget coursing through his positive, happy words.

When public relations circumvents reality, an honest discussion is impossible. And Planet Earth is in desperate need of an honest discussion about the elimination of nuclear weapons and, God help us, ultimately transcending war.

As Hynes writes: “If the U.S. could once again replace its masculinist power with creative foreign policy and reach out to Russia and China with the purpose of dismantling nuclear weapons and ending war, life on Earth would have a heightened chance.”

How can this become a country with a creative foreign policy? How can the American public move beyond being spectators and consumers and become actual, literal participants in U.S. foreign policy? Here’s one way: the Merchants of Death War Crimes Tribunal, an online event scheduled for November 10-13, 2023.

As Kelly, one of the organizers, describes it: “The Tribunal intends to collect evidence about crimes against humanity committed by those who develop, store, sell, and use weapons to commit crimes against humanity. Testimony is being sought from people who’ve borne the brunt of modern wars, the survivors of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Gaza, and Somalia, to name but a few of the places where U.S. weapons have terrified people who’ve meant us no harm.”

Victims of war will be interviewed. Those who wage war, and those who profit from it, will be held accountable to the world. My God, this sounds like real democracy! Is this the level at which truth shatters the platitudes of war?

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Before the Bombs Come the Platitudes

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Introduction

Afghanistan, Iraq, maybe Libya. If you asked the average American where the United States has been at war in the past two decades, you would likely get this short list. But this list is wrong — off by at least 17 countries in which the United States has engaged in armed conflict through ground forces, proxy forces, or air strikes.[1]

For members of the public, the full extent of U.S. warmaking is unknown. Investigative journalists and human rights advocates have cobbled together a rough picture of where the military has used force, but they rely on sources whose information is often incomplete, belated, or speculative. There is only so much one can learn about the United States’ military footprint from trawling Purple Heart ceremonies, speaking with retired military personnel, and monitoring social media for reports of civilian harm.[2]

Congress’s understanding of U.S. war-making is often no better than the public record. The Department of Defense provides congressionally mandated disclosures and updates to only a small number of legislative offices. Sometimes, it altogether fails to comply with reporting requirements, leaving members of Congress uninformed about when, where, and against whom the military uses force. After U.S. forces took casualties in Niger in 2017, for example, lawmakers were taken aback by the very presence of U.S. forces in the country.[3] Without access to such basic information, Congress is unable to perform necessary oversight.

It is not just the public and Congress who are out of the loop. The Department of Defense’s diplomatic counterparts in the Department of State also struggle to understand and gain insight into the reach of U.S. hostilities. Where congressional oversight falters, so too does oversight within the executive branch.

This proliferation of secret war is a relatively recent phenomenon, and it is undemocratic and dangerous. The conduct of undisclosed hostilities in unreported countries contravenes our constitutional design. It invites military escalation that is unforeseeable to the public, to Congress, and even to the diplomats charged with managing U.S. foreign relations. And it risks poorly conceived, counterproductive operations with runaway costs, in terms of both dollars and civilian lives. So how did we get here?

Two sources of the government’s ability to wage war in secret are already the subject of much discussion. The first is the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was enacted in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Notwithstanding the limitations in its text, the 2001 AUMF has been stretched by four successive administrations to cover a broad assortment of terrorist groups, the full list of which the executive branch long withheld from Congress and still withholds from the public. The second is the covert action statute, an authority for secret, unattributed, and primarily CIA-led operations that can involve the use of force.[4] Despite a series of Cold War–era executive orders that prohibit assassinations, the covert action statute has been used throughout the war on terror to conduct drone strikes outside areas of active hostilities.

But there is a third class of statutory authorities that enable undisclosed hostilities yet have received little public attention: security cooperation authorities. Congress enacted these provisions in the years following September 11 to allow U.S. forces to work through and with foreign partners. One of them, now codified at 10 U.S.C. § 333, permits the Department of Defense to train and equip foreign forces anywhere in the world. Another, now codified at 10 U.S.C. § 127e, authorizes the Department of Defense to provide “support” to foreign forces, paramilitaries, and private individuals who are in turn “supporting” U.S. counterterrorism operations.

While training and support may sound benign, these authorities have been used beyond their intended purpose. Section 333 programs have resulted in U.S. forces pursuing their partners’ adversaries under a strained interpretation of constitutional self-defense. Section 127e programs have allowed the United States to develop and control proxy forces that fight on behalf of and sometimes alongside U.S. forces. In short, these programs have enabled or been used as a springboard for hostilities.

The public and even most of Congress is unaware of the nature and scope of these programs. The Department of Defense has given little indication of how it interprets §§ 333 and 127e, how it decides which § 333 partner forces to defend, and where it conducts § 127e programs. When U.S. forces operating under these authorities direct or engage in combat, the Department of Defense often declines to inform Congress and the public, reasoning that the incident was too minor to trigger statutory reporting requirements.

Notwithstanding the challenges Congress has faced in overseeing activities under §§ 333 and 127e, Congress recently expanded the Department of Defense’s security cooperation authorities. Section 1202 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2018 largely mirrors § 127e, but instead of supporting U.S. counterterrorism efforts, the partner forces it covers are intended to support U.S. “irregular warfare operations” against “rogue states,” such as Iran or North Korea, or “near-peers,” such as Russia and China. Far beyond the bounds of the war on terror, § 1202 may be used to engage in low-level conflict with powerful, even nuclear, states.

Through these security cooperation provisions, the Department of Defense, not Congress, decides when and where the United States counters terrorist groups and even state adversaries. Moreover, by determining that “episodic” confrontations and “irregular” warfare do not amount to “hostilities,” the Department of Defense has avoided notification and reporting requirements, leaving Congress and the public in the dark.[5]

This report delves into the legal frameworks for conducting and overseeing security cooperation and identifies how those frameworks have inaugurated the modern era of secret war. It draws on public reporting and materials prepared by the Departments of Defense and State, as well as interviews with administration officials, congressional staffers, and journalists. Part I provides a brief history and overview of constitutional war powers and congressional oversight of the military; part II analyzes the suite of authorities under which security cooperation takes place; and part III identifies the constitutional defects of this secret war-making and proposes reforms to increase transparency and prevent abuse.

I. History and Overview of Constitutional War Powers

In the U.S. constitutional system, authority over military affairs is divided between Congress and the president. The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to declare war and the power to create, fund, and regulate the military. The Constitution also vests the president with a general “executive power” and provides that the president shall be the commander in chief of the military.

Based on Congress’s responsibility for declaring war and making military appropriations, the Constitution was long understood to afford Congress substantial control over where and how the military operates.[6] Furthermore, a special limitation on the length of army appropriations — the Constitution’s Two-Year Clause — was understood to demand Congress’s regular and informed review of military affairs.[7] The president’s role, by contrast, was narrow. Per the Supreme Court, the “power and duty” of the president was to “command [] the forces” and “direct the conduct of campaigns” after Congress had already “provide[d] by law for carrying on war.”[8] Only in narrow circumstances, when defensive force was necessary to “repel sudden attacks” on U.S. soil and persons, was the Constitution understood to empower the president to act without congressional authorization.[9]

As discussed below, this balance of power was respected for most of the nation’s history. But it began to unravel during the Cold War, a trend that has accelerated since September 11.

Early History

The precedent for congressional control and oversight of military operations was established early. Just 10 years after the Constitution’s adoption, during the Quasi-War with France, Congress exercised its authority to limit the geographic scope of U.S. naval activity. Denying a request from President Adams, Congress restricted American vessels to defending the coastline rather than cruising the high seas and seeking confrontations with French vessels.[10] Congress additionally specified how American vessels would be armed, manned, and even provisioned — rations included one pound of bread each day and four ounces of cheese every other.[11]

Adams acknowledged Congress’s wartime enactments, and the Supreme Court enforced them when American vessels exceeded their scope.[12] The Supreme Court affirmed Congress’s power to wage a war “limited in place, in objects, and in time.”[13] Early presidents were careful not to overstep their authority, even when they acted unilaterally to defend the country from foreign threats. In 1801, while Congress was out of session, President Jefferson invoked his inherent constitutional authority to prevent the Barbary States from detaining and ransoming American merchants. The day after Congress returned, however, Jefferson dutifully apprised Congress of his deployment of American vessels to the Mediterranean, the circumstances that had given rise to the deployment, and the conduct of the vessels. He then sought and received Congress’s express permission to “go beyond the line of defense” in countering the Barbary States.[14]

Presidential respect for Congress’s power to authorize or foreclose American military action, and transparency about military operations, persisted well past the Founding Era. Half a century after Jefferson repelled the Barbary States, President Lincoln followed his model in countering the Confederacy. The Civil War began when Congress was out of session, with the Confederacy’s bombardment of Fort Sumter. Lincoln called for a special legislative session and, as he waited for Congress to return, readied the nation for war and imposed a naval blockade to close the Confederacy’s ports. When Congress reconvened, Lincoln publicly outlined what he had done and sought retroactive and continuing congressional approval for it.[15] To aid Congress in its deliberations, he and his administration promised to “stand ready to supply omissions, or to communicate new facts considered important for [Congress] to know.”[16]

Even when American lives and the unity of the country were at stake, Jefferson and Lincoln acknowledged the limits of presidential unilateralism and embraced accountability to Congress. They understood that transparency enabled Congress to fulfill its constitutional role of legislating on military affairs and determining whether, when, and how war could be waged.

The Cold War 

Even as the United States grew in size and military might, Jefferson’s and Lincoln’s understanding of the constitutional balance of powers prevailed throughout the 19th century and into the early decades of the 20th. The Cold War, however, ushered in a shift in presidential practice regarding Congress’s authority to declare war and conduct military oversight.[17]

In 1950, President Truman unilaterally committed American forces to the Korean War, enmeshing the United States in a three-year conflict without prior congressional approval. Departing from the established balance of powers, Truman asserted a presidential prerogative to use the military “in the broad interests of American foreign policy.”[18] President Eisenhower followed in Truman’s footsteps, using the newly created CIA to engage in unauthorized and undisclosed hostilities in Latin America and Southeast Asia.

Eisenhower’s secret war in Laos — a war that his successors would broaden in size and scope — was particularly noteworthy. The CIA’s control of a “vast proxy army” of tens of thousands of Laotians, combined with its bombing campaign in support of those proxies, was a lurch, not a step, toward undoing the balance of powers envisioned in the Constitution and implemented by Jefferson and Lincoln.[19] Congress had not approved the “large scale operations,” and legislators eventually excoriated the agency for acting “considerably beyond” its authority.[20] But Congress’s condemnation came a full decade after the start of the secret war, as journalists finally broke the news on Laos by using “scraps of [] information picked up from irregular sources.”[21]

Laos exemplified the dangers of secrecy in military affairs: by frustrating Congress’s ability to conduct oversight, the president could usurp Congress’s power to decide when, where, and how war would take place. The president could render Laos the “most heavily bombed nation in history,” and Congress and the American public would scarcely know it.[22]

Perhaps because the constitutional balance of powers relied so heavily on military transparency, secrecy was on the rise. In 1960, Congress assessed that the Eisenhower administration had spurred “a growth of secrecy in the Federal Government unparalleled in American history,” using “the excuse of military security” to conceal where U.S. forces were and what they were doing.[23] The trend accelerated under subsequent administrations. In 1969, President Nixon expanded the Vietnam War into neutral ambodian territory without informing Congress, let alone requesting authorization. Congress learned of the incursion four years later, after an Air Force major blew the whistle on how he had “deliberately falsified the reports of at least two dozen secret B-52 [bomber] missions over Cambodia.”[24]

The secret war in Cambodia pushed Congress to enact the War Powers Resolution, over Nixon’s veto. In accordance with the Constitution’s text and history, the War Powers Resolution reaffirmed the president’s obligation to seek congressional authorization before engaging U.S. forces in hostilities beyond the line of defense.[25] It also required the president to notify and consult with Congress whenever combat-equipped U.S. forces were deployed and when they engaged in hostilities.[26] Consistent with Congress’s power to limit war “in place, in objects, and in time,”[27] the War Powers Resolution set forth special procedures for Congress to terminate hostilities and compel the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the field.[28] Even without Congress’s use of these special procedures, the War Powers Resolution directed that the president “shall terminate” any unauthorized hostilities after 60 days or, in cases of “unavoidable military necessity,” 90 days.[29]

Presidents were not eager to comply with these new measures to rein in unilateralism and restore transparency. Immediately, Nixon challenged the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution.[30] Subsequent administrations echoed his arguments while adopting strained interpretations of the law that neutered its reporting provisions and limitations on unauthorized hostilities. Thus, President Reagan maintained that his administration had acted in a manner consistent with the War Powers Resolution, even as it operated unauthorized paramilitary groups against Nicaragua’s government and launched an unauthorized invasion of Grenada.[31]

But Congress did not let up. Lawmakers repeatedly brought suit under the War Powers Resolution to challenge unauthorized hostilities, whether those undertaken by Reagan or later by President Clinton in the former Yugoslavia. Congress also enacted legislation such as the Boland Amendments, which exercised Congress’s military appropriations power to prohibit the use of funds for “supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua.”[32] During the Clinton administration, Congress enacted similar funding prohibitions to restrict the use of U.S. forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Haiti, Rwanda, and Somalia.[33]

September 11 and Its Aftermath

September 11 ushered in a new era of deference to the president. Congress quieted its efforts to preserve its constitutional role, and the War Powers Resolution lay dormant — even as new military authorities and technologies expanded the president’s power to deploy the military without explicit congressional authorization or even knowledge.

Within a week of the attacks, Congress passed the 2001 AUMF to allow President George W. Bush to pursue those who had “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks.”[34] Shortly thereafter, the Bush administration concluded that the terrorist organization al-Qaeda had perpetrated the attacks and that the Taliban, the political leadership of Afghanistan, were providing al-Qaeda with safe harbor. So began the war in Afghanistan.

But the 2001 AUMF was not limited to Afghanistan.Indeed, it had no geographic or temporal limitation. As Bush said on September 20, 2001, two days after signing the 2001 AUMF into law, “There are thousands of terrorists in more than 60 countries. . . . Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there.” Contrary to the stated purpose of the 2001 AUMF — preventing those responsible for September 11 from perpetrating future acts of terrorism against the United States — Bush’s purpose was to ensure that “every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.”[35]

This vision of the war on terror has superseded the plain text of the 2001 AUMF. Successive administrations have interpreted the 2001 AUMF to cover al-Qaeda’s “associated forces,” despite those words not appearing in the statute. The executive branch has designated a broad array of terrorist groups, including those that did not yet exist on September 11, as associated forces. In doing so, presidents have unilaterally expanded the scope of the war on terror to organizations like al-Shabaab in Somalia, which was founded in 2006 and which threatens targets in East Africa, not the United States.

For much of the war on terror, Congress was unaware of the full list of associated forces or countries that the executive branch asserted were covered by the 2001 AUMF.[36] Only in 2013 did President Obama provide Congress with a list of such forces and describe the executive branch’s rationale for designating them.[37] Even then, the list did not include the countries in which the Department of Defense countered adversaries. The Trump administration, too, refused to provide information on the geographic scope of the war on terror — despite Congress’s enactment of a law specifically demanding it.[38] In March 2022, after years of delay, the Biden administration finally provided the congressional foreign affairs[39] and defense committees with a series of overdue reports on where and against whom U.S. forces have fought. These reports had lengthy classified annexes, were not provided to all congressional offices, and are not publicly available.

The AUMF, though, was not the end of the matter. On the day before he signed the 2001 AUMF into law, President Bush made a broad finding under 50 U.S.C. § 3093, the covert action statute, to grant the CIA “exceptional authorities” to kill or capture al-Qaeda targets around the world.[40] This finding granted the CIA powers “identical” to those wielded by the Department of Defense under the 2001 AUMF, including the “direct use of lethal force.”[41] By 2011, the CIA controlled a “3,000 man covert army in Afghanistan,”[42] had used new drone technologies to conduct covert airstrikes in Yemen and Pakistan, and had killed upward of 2,000 militants and civilians.[43] Twenty percent of CIA analysts were dedicated to identifying and locating targets for future drone strikes.[44] Ostensibly a civilian agency, the CIA had the authorities and tools to act as a military force.

Even though the roles of the CIA and the military have converged, the executive branch maintains that the CIA is not subject to the same statutory reporting regime as the Department of Defense. When the CIA conducts hostilities, whether by directing a proxy force or conducting an airstrike, its hostilities are not reported to all of Congress or to the public. Indeed, they are not even reported to the congressional defense or foreign affairs committees. Instead, CIA activities are reported through highly classified notifications to the congressional intelligence committees. In some cases, the president limits these notifications to just eight senior lawmakers.[45]

Building on the 2001 AUMF and the covert action statute, Congress has enacted security cooperation statutes to allow the military to “support” foreign forces whose objectives align with those of the United States. The ways in which these authorities have enabled military operations without specific congressional authorization and with limited oversight are the focus of this report and detailed in the next part.

Finally, the creation, use, and misuse of these statutory authorities came on the heels of a dramatic increase in the president’s claimed authority to conduct military operations without congressional authorization. In the years leading up to September 11, executive branch lawyers formulated a novel theory of self-defense, under which the president could initiate hostilities just shy of an all-out war to protect “important national interests.”[46] The George H. W. Bush and Clinton administrations cited this theory in support of unilateral interventions in Somalia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. And the Obama and Trump administrations expanded the theory, using it as the basis for unilateral interventions in Libya and Syria.

These legal authorities — the 2001 AUMF, the presidential finding under the covert action statute, the security cooperation provisions, and the newly expanded conception of constitutional self-defense — coincided with the development of drone and cyber technologies, so-called light-footprint means of using force against adversaries without a clear U.S. presence.

Able to operate under these new authorities and with these new technologies, the Department of Defense, like the CIA, had the tools to conduct hostilities in ways that were nearly imperceptible to Congress and the public. So it did. The military extended the reach of the war on terror across the globe, combating adversaries Congress could not have foreseen in places ranging from the Philippines to Tunisia. At times, it became clear to Congress that the scope of these hostilities far exceeded what it had authorized or even understood.[47] But instead of invoking the War Powers Resolution or passing funding limitations,[48] Congress has allowed this unaccountable behavior to persist.[49]

Click here to read the full report.

*

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

Featured image is from The Unz Review

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Secret War: How the U.S. Uses Partnerships and Proxy Forces to Wage War Under the Radar

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva announced to his Bolivian counterpart, Luis Arce Catacora, that his country will once again join the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), from which it withdrew in 2020 by decision of former president Jair Bolsonaro.

The decision will be ratified by Lula during the VII Summit of Heads of State to be held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on 24 January, said the deputy foreign minister, Freddy Mamani.

“This participation of the president of Brazil, Brazil’s return to Celac is very important, this announcement is fundamental for Latin America and the Caribbean and will strengthen the process of regional integration,” Mamani said during a press conference.

On 16 January 2020, the Bolsonaro government announced that it had decided to withdraw Brazil from Celac because it considered that it “gave prominence to non-democratic regimes”.

On the same grounds, earlier, in April 2019, the far-right leader made Brazil’s withdrawal from the Union of South American Nations (Unasur) official. Instead, he integrated Brazil into the Forum for the Progress of South America (Prosur), founded in March 2019 in Chile by right-wing governments and which excludes Venezuela by decision of the conservative governments of the eight member countries.

Unlike Bolsonaro, Lula, who assumed the presidency on 1 January, has a different conception of both blocs and even has a broad predisposition to give them a major regional boost.

In fact, the Bolivian deputy foreign minister said that Arce and Lula talked about “recovering Unasur, on new bases, guaranteeing a clear programmatic and effective sense of the organisation”.

Mamani affirmed that the sub-regional organisation will be “reconstructed” for greater continental integration in line with the deepening of bilateral relations between Brazil and Bolivia, as agreed by Lula and Arce.

At the meeting held by the two heads of state on 2 January, it was decided to “rebuild and deepen the broad agenda of work between Bolivia and Brazil for the benefit of our peoples, including cooperation, investment, trade and environmental issues, among others,” Mamani stressed.

They also analysed actions to strengthen border security and the fight against drug trafficking.

They also discussed various trade agreements, including the purchase and sale of natural gas, the possible export of electricity and the sale of urea and potassium chloride.

Although the leaders addressed the topics in general terms, the vice-chancellor said that each of them would be analysed by work teams from both governments.

*

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

Featured image: The presidents of Bolivia, Luis Arce Catacora, and Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. (Image by abi.bo)

China and India Are Buying Up Russia’s Arctic Oil

January 6th, 2023 by Tsvetana Paraskova

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Russia’s crude grades from the Arctic, which used to be sold in Europe before the EU embargo, are now heading East to the two biggest buyers of Russian oil since the invasion of Ukraine—China and India.

Russia’s grades from the Arctic – Arco, Arco/Novy Port, and Varandey – have been selling at deep discounts in China and India as the EU embargo and the G7 price cap have further pushed more Russian crude to customers in Asia that have not joined the Price Cap Coalition, according to trade data and sources cited by Reuters.

“All these Arctic crudes usually go to the EU but now they have to go elsewhere,” a Singapore-based trader told Reuters.

India imported at the end of 2022 its first cargo of Varandey crude from the Timan-Pechora oilfields operated by Lukoil, per sources and vessel-tracking data from Refinitiv.

Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, India was a small marginal buyer of Russian crude oil. After Western buyers started shunning crude from Russia, India became a top destination for Russian oil exports alongside China.

Russia overtook Iraq to become the single-largest oil supplier to India in November, as Indian refiners raced to stock up on Russian oil ahead of the December 5 price cap and associated bans on transportation services for Russia’s crude.

In China, independent refiners have seen their refining margins jump in recent weeks as they have been able to negotiate steeper discounts for their preferred Russian crude grade, ESPO, even if they buy it above the G7 price cap.

While China hasn’t joined the Price Cap Coalition, the fact that a price cap now exists gives the world’s top crude oil importer, as well as other buyers of Russian crude such as India, more bargaining power to negotiate steep discounts for the Russian crude even outside the price cap mechanism, analysts say.

*

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

Tsvetana is a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing for news outlets such as iNVEZZ and SeeNews. 

Featured image is from OilPrice.com

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“The German government has decided to shift the problems that their predecessors created onto our country. To this end, they plan to confiscate Russian assets to rebuild Ukraine,” said Vyacheslav Volodin, speaker of the State Duma, Russia‘s lower house of parliament.

Moscow could retaliate with similar measures if Germany decides to use frozen Russian assets to help Ukraine rebuild, a senior Russian official warned on Thursday.

“The German government has decided to shift the problems that their predecessors created onto our country. To this end, they plan to confiscate Russian assets to rebuild Ukraine,” said Vyacheslav Volodin, speaker of the State Duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament.

“We have the right to take similar actions in relation to assets of Germany and other states,” he said in a Telegram post.

Click here to read the full report.

*

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

Featured image is from anews

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Moscow Could Retaliate if Germany Seizes Russian Assets to Help Ukraine

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Israel’s new national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, lost no time in demonstrating who is boss. On Tuesday, days after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government was sworn in, the ultra-nationalist politician marched straight in to the Al-Aqsa Mosque complex in the occupied Old City of Jerusalem – probably the most incendiary site in the Middle East.

Ben-Gvir did so despite reports that he had agreed with Netanyahu to delay such a visit for fear of the potentially explosive consequences.

But who will hold him to account for playing with fire? A prime minister who desperately needs Ben-Gvir’s support to stay in power so that Netanyahu can legislate an end to his corruption trial and keep himself out of jail? Or the Israeli police force that Ben-Gvir himself now has unprecedented control over?

The leader of the fascist Jewish Power party used the visit to indicate both to his followers and to Netanyahu that he answers to no one, and that he will not compromise on his own extreme ideology of Jewish supremacism.

The visit sent another message too: Ben-Gvir appears ready to provoke a religious war – one that would demonstrate once and for all the power of his kind of Jewish zealotry and thuggishness to subdue all Muslim opposition. Al-Aqsa could be the powder-keg to ignite such a conflagration.

Ben-Gvir’s visit has passed, at least so far, without a significant Palestinian backlash, although Hamas had reportedly warned beforehand that it would not “sit idly by”, threatening “explosive violence”.

Ben-Gvir was testing the waters. He will surely be back soon, with bigger provocations. Both during and after Israel’s recent general election campaign, he called for Jews to be able to pray at the Muslim holy site, and has said he will demand that Netanyahu institute what he terms “equal rights for Jews” there.

Diplomatic protest

The fear of what Ben-Gvir may do next, unless Netanyahu reins him in, was part of the reason his visit triggered such a storm of diplomatic protest. Jordan, which has formal custodianship of the holy site, called in Israel’s ambassador for a dressing down, while the US, Israel’s patron, roused itself to describe the visit as “unacceptable”. The UAE postponed Netanyahu’s forthcoming visit.

Ben-Gvir will be delighted at such ineffectual reprimands. The precedent he was drawing on was the visit to Al-Aqsa in September 2000 of then-opposition leader Ariel Sharon backed by 1,000 members of Israel’s security forces, over the opposition of the Jerusalem police.

That incursion triggered a Palestinian uprising, the Second Intifada, justifying years of crushing Israeli military repression. Israel used tanks to confine the then Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, to his Ramallah headquarters, while the Israeli army emasculated the Palestinian Authority (PA), effectively reversing the promise of self-rule implicit in the Oslo Accords. Palestinian society was gradually bled of the ability and will to sustain an uprising that cost thousands of lives.

Ben-Gvir might be angling to provoke a similar confrontation to provide a pretext for finishing off what’s left of the PA. There could be a domestic political bonus too: Sharon rode the wave of Jewish nationalism he unleashed right into the prime minister’s office. The Israeli public wanted an uncompromising general and Jewish patriot to pound the Palestinian people into submission.

Already buoyed by a renewed wave of Jewish chauvinism, along with the political legitimacy Netanyahu has conferred on him by ushering his party into government, Ben-Gvir might be hoping to see that scenario play out again.

Rival nationalisms

Israeli media, Arab states and western diplomats have all framed Ben-Gvir’s visit as threatening what is known as the “status quo”: a set of principles agreed in the 19th century, and renewed after Israel’s occupation of Jerusalem in 1967, to enshrine Muslim sovereignty over the mosque complex and Muslim authorities’ power to regulate access and worship.

The truth, however, is that Israel has been whittling away the status quo at an ever-faster pace since Sharon’s visit. That was why the Israeli general’s incursion sparked an explosion from Palestinians two decades ago, while Ben-Gvir’s, so far at least, has not. Violations of the status quo by extremist Israeli politicians are no longer quite so out of the ordinary.

Perhaps more than any other Israeli leader of his time, Sharon appreciated the degree to which Al-Aqsa had become the symbolic, beating heart of a power play between rival Israeli and Palestinian nationalisms. Encouraging the distinction between national and religious sentiment to be blurred, as he did at Al-Aqsa, helped to unify an Israeli society deeply divided by questions of religion.

Ownership of the mosque complex – or Temple Mount, as Israeli Jews call it, referring to two ancient Jewish temples that supposedly lie beneath the plaza – was seen as the natural corollary, and confirmation, of Jewish title to the land. Or as Sharon put it at the time, the holy site was “the basis of the existence of the Jewish people, and I am not afraid of riots by the Palestinians”.

It was how the ultra-nationalist, secular Sharon redefined the conflict. He made an assertion of Jewish sovereignty over the plaza a prerequisite for any Israeli politician vying for power. After he became prime minister, and in the midst of the Second Intifada, Sharon in 2003 unilaterally enforced access for Jews and other non-Muslims to the site, over the opposition of the waqf, the Muslim religious authorities at Al-Aqsa.

Today, little of the status quo agreement survives. Israeli occupation forces exclusively determine who gets entry to Al-Aqsa. Muslim worship can be limited whenever Israel decides. Palestinians from Gaza, trapped in their enclave by fences and watchtowers, are permanently excluded from the holy site.

Meanwhile, Israeli soldiers in military fatigues, and religious Jews and settlers, have ready access – and they often use their visits to pray, in stark contravention of the status quo. Increasingly, Israeli security forces storm the mosque at will; such an incident in May 2021 contributed to weeks of violence across the occupied territories and inside Israel.

Master-serf relations

Like Sharon, Ben-Gvir views Al-Aqsa as a supreme nationalist cause. One of his legislators, Zvika Fogel, a former Israeli military commander in charge of Gaza, set out Ben-Gvir’s goal, suggesting it could be achieved without a Palestinian backlash: “We shouldn’t treat his visit as something that will lead to an escalation. Why not see it as part of realising our [Jewish] sovereignty?”

Yet, faced with a weakened Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir must be hoping to push Sharon’s policy still further – not only asserting a principle of Jewish ownership of the holy site, but also entrenching the physical reality of absolute Jewish control.

This would include prioritising Jewish worship, as now happens in Hebron at the Ibrahimi Mosque. It is a model that the settlers who follow Ben-Gvir want repeated at Al-Aqsa, and it also implies the physical partition of Al-Aqsa plaza, mirroring the reality in Hebron.

Such ambitions replicate at al-Aqsa the master-serf relationship that Israel has developed in the occupied territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Should Jewish rule over the plaza be contested, the Israeli government could then punish Muslims and ban access, with state police – now under Ben-Gvir’s control – empowered to break into the mosque or any other site on the plaza whenever they deem necessary.

But it does not end there. Like his supporters, Ben-Gvir wants to destroy the Muslim holy site and restore it as a Jewish temple. He said as much last May when he visited Al-Aqsa complex, posting a picture calling for the eradication of the mosque to “establish a synagogue on the mount”.

‘The last war’

For the time being, Ben-Gvir appears to be using his party’s legislators as his mouthpiece, so as not to jeopardise his coalition agreement with Netanyahu. After Tuesday’s visit, Fogel relished the prospect of Hamas retaliating with rocket fire out of Gaza. He said such a showdown “would be worth it because this will be the last war – and after that we can sit and raise doves and all the other beautiful birds that exist”.

Ben-Gvir does not need to set the fire directly at Al-Aqsa. With Israel’s police forces under his command, and with his political ally Bezalel Smotrich in charge of managing the occupation, he has a whole armoury of other ways, particularly in Jerusalem, to inflame the Palestinian population.

Trigger-happy police killings of civilians, settlement expansion, house demolitions, and the building of a cable car route through occupied East Jerusalem to bring Jewish tourists to the foot of Al-Aqsa all have the potential to fire up tensions. Ben-Gvir can also make the lives of Palestinian security prisoners even more miserable, as he promised to do during the elections, provoking hunger strikes.

Palestinian anger often finds its outlet at Al-Aqsa because of the holy site’s role as a religious and nationalist symbol, particularly for a people denied any other symbols of nationhood.

Ben-Gvir’s closest political allies in the Temple Mount movement are already setting their sights on Passover in April, which this year coincides with the middle of Ramadan. They have appealed to the police, as they do every year, to allow them to carry out provocative rituals, such as animal sacrifice, associated with the construction of a Jewish temple in place of Al-Aqsa Mosque. Each year, police try to stop them; but this year, Ben-Gvir will be dictating police policy.

Scholar Tomer Persico, a keen observer of Ben-Gvir’s Kahanist roots, notes that in a 2019 interview, the Jewish Power leader argued that the “big difference” between him and his mentor, extremist Rabbi Meir Kahane, was that “they give us a microphone”, while Kahane was shunned by the Israeli political establishment.

That was three years ago. Ben-Gvir has rapidly become the new mainstream in Israel. Today, with his ministerial powers and a national platform to amplify his incitement, it is only a matter of time before he sets things alight.

*

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

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: Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir visits Al-Aqsa, 3 January (Social Media)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is Ben-Gvir Preparing a Holy War Against the Palestinians? Jonathan Cook
  • Tags:

Sudden Death: The No. 1 Cause of Death for Under 65s in 2021

January 6th, 2023 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Mounting evidence shows the COVID shots are destroying people’s immune systems and are triggering turbo-charged cancers

A survey by Steve Kirsch found sudden death is the No. 1 cause of death among those under the age of 65 who got the COVID jab

Myocarditis as a cause of death is now registering across all age ranges but only for the vaccinated. Cardiac-related deaths are also significantly elevated among younger people (under 65) who got the jab compared to their unjabbed peers

Recent research shows repeated jabs trigger a switch in the types of antibodies your body produces and lower your ability to clear viruses. By switching from spike-specific neutralizing IgG antibodies to IgG4 antibodies, your body switches from tumor suppression mode into tumor progression mode

In addition to the potential for cancer cells to run amok, IgG4 dominance may also have severe autoimmune implications, as the COVID jab spike protein share similarities with human proteins

*

Evidence showing the COVID shots are a public health disaster keeps mounting. In late December 2022, Steve Kirsch1 and Jessica Rose,2 Ph.D., both published Substack articles detailing some of the latest evidence showing the shots are destroying people’s immune systems and have triggered an avalanche of turbo-charged cancers.

Kirsch’s article3 features results from a recent survey he conducted. It included four questions: age, whether the deceased was jabbed or not, year of death and cause of death. While the number of responses is low, major insights can still be gleaned by looking at the trends.

First, we have the baseline data from 2020, which show cancer was the No. 1 killer of Americans younger than 65, followed by hospital treatment for COVID. Turbo-charged cancers accounted for one-ninth of the cancer reports, and there were no reports of death from myocarditis.

Among seniors over the age of 65, preexisting conditions were the top cause of death in 2020. Cancer was second, COVID infection third and cardiac events fourth. There were no turbo-charged cancer deaths, nor any myocarditis deaths. Kirsch then gets into the differences between the vaxxed and the unvaxxed in 2021 and 2022.

What the Unvaxxed Died of in 2021 and 2022

In 2021 and 2022, the primary cause of death for people 65 and younger was hospital treatment for COVID. Incidences of sudden death, pulmonary embolism and turbo-charged cancers were all low, and there were no unknown causes of death, nor any myocarditis deaths.

Click to enlarge.

The same went for people older than 65. Hospital treatment for COVID was the No. 1 killer. Heart attacks, turbo-charged cancer and sudden death were all low, and there were no deaths from myocarditis.

Click to enlarge.

What the COVID-Jabbed Died of in 2021 and 2022

Among the COVID-jabbed aged 65 and younger, sudden death was the No. 1 cause of death in 2021 and 2022. The second was cardiac-related death and cancer was third. Importantly, the incidence of turbo-charged cancer among the jabbed was significant in this group, and myocarditis killed more than COVID-19.

Click to enlarge.

Among those older than 65, cancer was the No. 1 cause of death, and the turbo-charged cancer rate is “huge compared to those without the vaccine.” Sudden death was also significantly elevated.

Click to enlarge.

Stark Difference in Cancer Deaths Between Jabbed and Unjabbed

Kirsch summarizes the three most stunning differences between the jabbed and unjabbed:4

1. “Sudden death rates are off the charts for the vaccinated cf. unvaccinated for those <65 … It’s the #1 cause of death for this age group …

2. Myocarditis as a cause of death is registering now for both age ranges but only for the vaccinated …

3. Cardiac issues as a cause of death in vaccinated young people (<65) are significantly elevated vs. their unvaxxed peers.”

How COVID Jabs Raise Risk of Infections and Cancer

Exploding cancer rates is precisely what you would expect from a drug that impairs and destroys your immune system, which is what the COVID jabs do. The scientific paper “Innate Immune Suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccinations”5 describes how the COVID shots suppress your innate immune system by inhibiting the type-1 interferon pathway, which is the first-stage response to all viral infections.

The reason type-1 interferon is suppressed is because it responds to viral RNA, and there’s no viral RNA in the COVID shot. The RNA is modified to look like human RNA, so the interferon pathway doesn’t get triggered. As a result, the COVID jab makes you more susceptible to infections.

One mechanism by which the jab causes cancer has to do with the fact that the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein obliterates 90% of the DNA repair mechanism in lymphocytes,6 a type of white blood cell that helps your body fight infections and chronic diseases such as cancer. That’s bad enough, yet that’s just one mechanism of many.

How the Jab Lowers Your Viral Clearance Capacity

Recent research7,8 also shows that repeated jabs trigger a switch in the types of antibodies your body produces and lower your ability to clear viruses. Jessica Rose reviews these findings in her Substack article:9

“A paper was published in Science Immunology on December 22, 2022 entitled: ‘Class switch towards non-inflammatory, spike-specific IgG4 antibodies after repeated SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination’10

[It] explains in wonderful detail how a class of antibody that commands a non-inflammatory response (more like tolerizing) is prominent in people who have been repeatedly injected with the modified mRNA COVID-19 injectable products.

Translation: Instead of the intended pool of spike-specific neutralizing IgG antibodies being dominant in multiply-injected people, a pool of antibodies associated with spike-specific tolerance are dominant in multiply-injected people.

Besides the tolerizing capacity, they also showed that the phagocytic enabling capacities were much reduced overall. These activities lead to clearance of viral pathogens. Reduce them → reduction in viral clearance capacity …

To be clear, this wasn’t a ‘maybe the antibody profile was a little different’ … This was a ‘whoa there’s a 48,075% increase in spike-specific antibodies between the 2nd and 3rd injections …

IgG4 antibodies among all spike-specific IgG antibodies rose on average from 0.04% shortly after the second vaccination to 19.27% after the third … [I]mportantly, that is not a typical consequence of repeat antigen exposure from either natural infections and vaccination.”

Spike Overexposure Also Opens the Door for Cancer

As noted by Substack author Brian Mowrey:11

“This is a totally bonkers thing for an anti-spike-protein B cell to decide to do, and reflects B cell over-exposure to spike, which reflects super-excess production of spike by the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA code …

It is not normal to make IgG4 when repeat encounter with a virus is spaced out over a lifetime, but injection-prompted antigen exposure promotes this response, and mRNA vaccines accelerate this effect …

There is no reason to predict that this would be ‘good’ in an antiviral response … ‘Wearing out’ the immune response in this way is believed to contribute to the development of tolerance against tumors.”

So, to summarize the effects in layman’s terms, the switch from spike-specific neutralizing IgG antibodies to IgG4 antibodies switches your body from tumor suppression mode into tumor progression mode, as cancerous cells now can evade your immune system. You become “tumor tolerant” as your immune system is no longer scavenging for and eliminating cancer cells. Mowrey also points out that:12

“Once a B cell has switched to IgG4, it cannot switch to any other IgG subclass, as the genes for all those other base designs have been discarded. All future clones of this B cell will code for IgG4 receptor/antibody for the antigen in question.”

What Other Health Effects May Result?

For clarification, IgG4 is a subclass of the immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody type that responds to repeated and/or long-term exposure to an antigen. The mRNA shot evaluated here was that of Pfizer, and it was compared against Janssen’s viral vector-based shot. Moderna’s shot was not included. Notably, these results were not found among people who got Janssen’s shot, only Pfizer’s Comirnaty jab.

As noted by Rose:13

“… the bottom line here is that the Comirnaty product … induces a shift away from a viral clearing to a tolerance-inducing antibody class, and this is not the status quo for traditional vaccines or natural infections. The main problem here is … we have no idea of the effects of this ‘effect.'”

That said, we can look at what happens in people with IgG4-related disease, and start formulating hypotheses from there. As explained by Rose, a hallmark of IgG4-related disease is fibrosis, i.e., tissue scarring, which can lead to organ dysfunction, organ failure and even death if left untreated.

Rose is now researching the possible links between this antibody switching and the stringy white deposits found in COVID-jabbed people who died. Might it be a new form of connective tissue disease?

In addition to the potential for cancer cells to run amok (as discussed in the section above), IgG4 dominance may also have severe autoimmune implications seeing how the COVID jab spike protein share similarities with human proteins.

“Molecular mimicry has been shown14 in multiple publications to be a potential problem with regard to the spike protein whereby it has been shown to share motifs with human proteins,” Rose writes.15 “What this means is that autoimmunity potential against these human proteins is clear and present.

In the context of this recent publication showing a dominant IgG4 pool, I have to wonder what the implications of this dominant pool are for molecular mimicry. Are these IgG4 antibodies capable of tolerizing in the context of our own protein?”

Resources for Those Injured by the COVID Jab

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

The same goes for anyone who has taken one or more COVID jabs and had the good fortune of not experiencing debilitating side effects. Your health may still be impacted long-term, so don’t take any more shots.

When it comes to treatment, there are still more questions than answers, and most doctors are clueless about what to do — in part because they never bothered to give early treatment for COVID and therefore don’t understand how different medicines and supplements impact the spike protein.

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

Two doctors who have started tackling the treatment of COVID jab injuries in earnest include Dr. Michelle Perro (DrMichellePerro.com), whom I’ve interviewed on this topic, and Dr. Pierre Kory (DrPierreKory.com).

Both agree that eliminating the spike protein your body is now continuously producing is a primary task. Perro’s preferred remedy for this is hydroxychloroquine, while Kory’s is ivermectin. Both of these drugs bind and thereby facilitate the removal of spike protein.

As a member of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), Kory helped develop the FLCCC’s post-vaccine treatment protocol called I-RECOVER. Since the protocol is continuously updated as more data become available, your best bet is to download the latest version straight from the FLCCC website at covid19criticalcare.com16 (hyperlink to the correct page provided above).

The World Health Council has also published lists of remedies that can help inhibit, neutralize and eliminate spike protein. Inhibitors that prevent spike protein from binding to your cells include Prunella vulgaris, pine needle tea, emodin, neem, dandelion extract and the drug ivermectin.

Spike protein neutralizers, which prevent the spike from damaging cells, include N-acetylcysteine (NAC), glutathione, fennel tea, star anise tea, pine needle tea, St. John’s wort, comfrey tea and vitamin C. A March 2022 review paper17 suggests combating the neurotoxic effects of the spike protein using the flavonoids luteolin and quercetin.

Time-restricted eating (TRE) and/or sauna therapy can also help eliminate toxic proteins by stimulating autophagy. Several additional detox remedies can be found in “World Council for Health Reveals Spike Protein Detox.”

Other Helpful Treatments and Remedies

Other treatments and remedies that may be helpful for COVID jab injuries include:

  • Hyperbaric oxygen therapy, especially in cases involving stroke, heart attack, autoimmune diseases and/or neurodegenerative disorders. To learn more, see “Hyperbaric Therapy — A Vastly Underused Treatment Modality.”
  • Lower your Omega-6 intake. Linoleic acid is consumed in amounts ten times of ideal in well over 95% of the population and contributes to massive oxidative stress that impairs your immune response. Seed oils and processed foods need to be diligently avoided. You can review my previous post for more information.
  • Pharmaceutical grade methylene blue, which improves mitochondrial respiration and aid in mitochondrial repair. It’s actually the parent molecule for hydroxychloroquine. A dose of 15 to 80 milligrams a day could go a long way toward resolving some of the fatigue many suffer post-jab.

It may also be helpful in acute strokes. The primary contraindication is if you have a G6PD deficiency (a hereditary genetic condition), in which case you should not use methylene blue at all. To learn more, see “The Surprising Health Benefits of Methylene Blue.”

  • Near-infrared light, as it triggers production of melatonin in your mitochondria18 where you need it most. By mopping up reactive oxygen species, it too helps improve mitochondrial function and repair. Natural sunlight is 54.3% infrared radiation,19 so this treatment is available for free. For more information, see “What You Need to Know About Melatonin.”
  • Lumbrokinase and serrapeptidase are both fibrinolytic enzymes taken on an empty stomach one hour before or two hours after to help reduce the risk of blood clots.

*

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

Notes

1, 3, 4 Steve Kirsch Substack December 27, 2022

2, 9, 13 Jessica Rose Substack December 27, 2022

5 Food Chem Toxicol June 2022; 164: 113008

6 The Expose August 2, 2022

7, 10 Science Immunology December 22, 2022

8, 11, 12 Brian Mowrey Substack July 22, 2022

14, 15 Jessica Rose Substack July 4, 2022

16 Covid19criticalcare.com

17 Molecular Neurobiology March 2022; 59(3): 1850-1861

18 Physiology February 5, 2020 DOI: 10.1152/physiol.00034.2019

19 Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology February 2016; 155: 78-85

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sudden Death: The No. 1 Cause of Death for Under 65s in 2021

Will the War Party Wield the Speaker’s Gavel?

January 6th, 2023 by Dan McKnight

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

We’re witnessing a fascinating thing: Congress is actually debating and voting on something.

Remarkable!

For the first time in a century—and only the second time since the Civil War—the vote for the next Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives has entered multiple ballots.

To replace Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats have put forward Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, a walk-the-line party man.

Jeffries has supported curtailing the war on Yemen and has cautiously questioned the the American military occupation of Syria. But he’s a reliable yes-man for every Pentagon budget, and he’s committed to U.S. military intervention in Ukraine (the springboard for World War III).

This vote was intended to be a shoe-in for Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican House Minority Leader.

McCarthy—who already tried and failed to become Speaker in 2015—is bought and paid for shill of the War Party and military-industrial complex.

When Kevin McCarthy hears about a new country we’re bombing illegally, he gets dollar signs in his eyes. He has no saving grace when it comes to an America First foreign policy.

For pete’s sake, four years ago his nominating speech for Minority Leader was given by the reptile Liz Cheney herself!

So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that a small cadre of Freedom Caucus members are opposing his coronation to the speakership.

On Tuesday, on the first vote, there were an assortment of names put forward. The one with the strongest showing in opposition was Andy Biggs of Arizona.

Rep. Biggs is a patriot, and principled defender of the U.S. Constitution. He’s a signer of my organization’s Congressional War Powers Pledge, where he swore to not support a war that was not first explicitly authorized by a vote of Congress.

He has kept that pledge.

Just a few weeks ago, Rep. Biggs told Judge Andrew Napolitano,

“These AUMFs, which I believe are unconstitutional to begin with, the AUMFs are being bastardized as we speak and they’re being used in every which way. And effectively, I gotta put it this way. We are fighting a proxy war with Russia today in the Ukraine. And there is absolutely no authority for that…”

That’s the sort of America First perspective that’s never entered Kevin McCarthy’s tiny mind.

On the second and third vote, the dissenters coalesced around conservative workhorse Jim Jordan of Ohio, who’s officially supporting McCarthy for the speakership.

Now, as I write, the House has finalized its sixth round of voting and has adjourned until noon today.

Twenty determined members have settled on Byron Donalds of Florida as their choice.

Rep. Donalds has only served one-term in the U.S. House, so it’s difficult to ascertain a full-scope view of his foreign policy.

He has voted to repeal the 2002 AUMF against Iraq, but last year supported giving even more military supplies to Ukraine than Joe Biden countenanced. Over the summer, like dozens of other Republicans, he flip-flopped and now opposes further aid.

Personally, I find the legislative process refreshing. This is how the people’s house is supposed to function!

(Maybe the whole country would be better off if they just vote on the Speakership a couple thousand times for the next two years).

In the meantime, while Beltway organizations sit on their hands waiting to see who they’ll be taking out to lunch in the new session, Bring Our Troops Home has continued our labor to pass Defend the Guard.

With this bill, we will prevent our National Guard’s deployment into illegal, undeclared wars and starve imperial Washington of manpower.

State Senator Eric Brakey of Maine, one of our most intelligent and committed supporters, has introduced Defend the Guard and is waiting to receive a formal bill number.

We’ve had Defend the Guard presented before a Maine House committee back in 2021, which you can watch.

I’ll let you in to a little secret: whoever becomes the next Speaker of the U.S. House, the swamp is not going to get drained. The War Party will not be kicked off its roost so easily.

But in state governments, closer to voters and the beating heart of our once proud republic, we can make real progress. We can fix our broken foreign policy.

Bring Our Troops Home is not working around the clock just for a dog and pony show. We’re meeting with legislators, gathering veterans, and educating the public to pass actionable legislation to end our endless wars.

When we go to committee again, and hopefully a floor vote—not just in Maine but in over thirty states in 2023—I need to know that we have your support.

To find out what you can do to defend the integrity of your state’s National Guard, visit DefendTheGuard.US

*

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

Dan McKnight is a 13-year veteran of the military, including service in the United States Marine Corps, United States Army, and the Idaho Army National Guard. He is founder and chairman of Bring Our Troops Home. Follow him on Twitter @DanMcKnight30 and @TroopsHomeUS

Featured image is from TLI

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Will the War Party Wield the Speaker’s Gavel?

Do Meghan and Harry Really Believe They Control the Narrative?

January 6th, 2023 by Barbara Nimri Aziz

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

My sister in Canada once had an ardent although not excessive interest in British royalty. She’s followed successive generations of The Windsors from the 1940s into the 21st Century. Now, she says, that’s over. First she refused to indulge the latest ‘Crown’ film series; now she’s determinedly ignoring the newest BritRoyal wrangles and confessions displayed on Netflix’s ‘Harry and Meghan’ run. 

I’m joining the boycott. Not because I might not sympathize with a young couple’s reported difficulties with their family. But because they have taken on a narrative that they cannot possibly control, one that simply provides a captivated public with a new chapter in an endless loop; it’s unarguably mere entertainment. So, are they exploiting the family name? Or is the media machine exploiting them?

However savvy the exiled young family may appear, however trusted the advisors who arrange their appearances, however candid, perceptive and valid their interpretations of BritRoyal life, do they really believe their story can rise beyond a quotidian media event to feed the public’s insatiable mythomania?

I admit I found some of the stories presently circulating irresistible: ‘The Crown’ drama and the countless documentaries about the doomed and adored Diana: cheated wife, cool mother, pitiable sister, shunned daughter-in-law, public martyr. All are supplemented with film forays through the Windsor family tree, each limb with its jealousies, intrigues and mysteries: the royal sisters, Margaret and Elizabeth; a new Channel 4 British production ‘Prince Andrew: The Musical’; the exiled recluse, Princess Alice of Battenberg, mother of the Duke of Edinburgh. Royal historians proffer appropriate dignity and authority while doddering cousins, eyewitnesses to the royals as adorable infants, are pulled from retirement to add a kinder touch.

Controversies from the 2021 Oprah TV interview highlighting the problems of the likable scion Harry and his American wife Meghan were preempted by June’s week-long spectacle, the funerary ritual of Elizabeth II. But the current docuseries, with its added layer of Sussex-Windsor confessions, must have been underway before the matriarch’s royal body was cold. As if Harry’s and Meghan’s tattling would not create a backlash, this week we have Harry offering a footnote for the public to chew on.

I’m inclined to concur with my sister’s decision to dismiss further portrayals of BritRoyals. Whatever insights they may offer about dysfunctional family realities and the plague of press attention they suffer, there’s no definitive truth here, certainly no winner. Whichever side we may come down on after hearing revelations by the Duke and Duchess, all this is a sort of pulp biopic.

This enchanting couple has succumbed to a powerful drug—celebrity. They may win sympathy; they may fill their de-royaled coffer (reputedly $100 M for the series); they may feel vindicated. But they’re no more than itinerant celebrity entertainers.

Wasn’t Harry’s mother Diana, whose victimization he himself invokes, a casualty of press obsession with celebrity? Not only was the ‘People’s Princess’ doomed; she fell victim to the myth that she might set the record straight. Perhaps she believed that the adoration showered on her would affirm the inviolability of her truth. Harry, like Diana, is turning to that same media monster, perhaps believing it’s the court of true justice. And like Diana, he may be entangled in a web where it’s hard to distinguish clash from collusion. He may never resurface.

Remember Diana’s cunningly-arranged 1995 BBC interview? She was lured into that after she’d been maneuvered to provide the text for Diana: Her True Story­­ — the in-her-own-words book by Andrew Morton. Now Harry, insisting his mother’s woeful history will not be repeated, is about to release his ‘raw, unflinching’ (to use the book’s promotional blurb) memoir, Spare.

Great British authors, from Shakespeare to Hilary Mantel, have created complex, engaging, irresistible portraits of the British aristocracy and monarchy for public consumption. Their plots and characters derive from royal competitions and jealousies, family rivalries, church and state intrigue, misogyny and sedition, mental illness, betrayal, racism, abuse, thwarted ambitions and false claimants. The British House of Windsor provides today’s creative minds with abundant material for our binge-watching and tabloid journalism. Doubtless, novels and plays will follow.

The unfortunate aspect of the current brouhaha created by Harry and Meghan is that as exiled-royals they have joined the media business—Meghan’s pre-royal life was in TV drama; she now hosts a podcast. Yet it appears she and her husband fail to understand that the business is so much bigger than them.

We wait for a wise counselor to bring them up to speed on the vagaries of digital data, polarization of news reporting, the business of media criticism and the genre of fact-checking.

And what about their American children and those young royal cousins across the pond?

*

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

Barbara Nimri Aziz whose anthropological research has focused on the peoples of the Himalayas is the author of the newly published “Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”, available on Amazon

She is a regular contributor to Global Research.


“Yogmaya and Durga Devi: Rebel Women of Nepal”

By Barbara Nimri Aziz

A century ago Yogmaya and Durga Devi, two women champions of justice, emerged from a remote corner of rural Nepal to offer solutions to their nation’s social and political ills. Then they were forgotten.

Years after their demise, in 1980 veteran anthropologist Barbara Nimri Aziz first uncovered their suppressed histories in her comprehensive and accessible biographies. Revelations from her decade of research led to the resurrection of these women and their entry into contemporary Nepali consciousness.

This book captures the daring political campaigns of these rebel women; at the same time it asks us to acknowledge their impact on contemporary feminist thinking. Like many revolutionaries who were vilified in their lifetimes, we learn about the true nature of these leaders’ intelligence, sacrifices, and vision during an era of social and economic oppression in this part of Asia.

After Nepal moved from absolute monarchy to a fledgling democracy and history re-evaluated these pioneers, Dr. Aziz explores their legacies in this book.

Psychologically provocative and astonishingly moving, “Yogmaya and Durga Devi” is a seminal contribution to women’s history.

Click here to order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Do Meghan and Harry Really Believe They Control the Narrative?
  • Tags:

Ukraine, 2023

January 6th, 2023 by Karen Kwiatkowski

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Eleven months after the Russians acted to provide a military protection force for Russians living in western Ukraine, or alternatively, 11 and a half months after Kiev and Zelensky stepped up attacks on their “own people” in the Donbass, presumably for their own good, what have we learned?

People of the world have gained new perspectives on things like gross US and NATO hypocrisy, the ability of politicians and diplomats to lie to your face, and in writing, and the ability of any number of countries exist and persist despite their ostensibly and possibly corruptly elected leadership being infirm, decrepit, insane, criminal and/or widely known for playing pianos with their dicks.

Life goes on – money gets made – people vote with their feet – and politicians hold their index fingers in the air to determine what next.

The WEF elite meets in Davos this month.  Many of the topics revolve around how to rebuild Ukraine, and all the “right” investors will reserve their tickets on that 2023 gravy train.  If 2022 was a profitable US/NATO/EU/UK military and logistics laundry and boondoggle in Ukraine, 2023 is looking to be an even bigger operation.  Quadrillions will be spent – as time runs out on the dollar and dollar-pegged currencies.

After destruction of the electrical and industrial infrastructure, the collapse of the military capability and the departure of nearly a third of the population– 8 million to Europe, 3 million choosing Russian-protected independence in the Donbass – Ukraine is both a carcass for European and American vultures, as well as a nearly clean slate for a delightful WEF experiment.

Economic collapse in a small country with natural resource and agricultural wealth, accompanied by a domestic political-cultural crisis, and a weakened national military makes for good times, if you are a Davos believer, a US foreign policy designer, or just a good old-fashioned Rodney Dangerfield of a neighbor who has done so much for Ukraine already, and still can’t get any respect.

Medvedev’s predictions are entertaining, but he is not lying about Poland and western Ukraine.  Just last week, Germany rudely denied Poland’s demand for $1.3 trillion in WWII reparations.  Poland may be forced to take their reparations directly out of Germany’s current bestie.  It would actually be a good deal for a Germany impoverished by green socialism and bloodied by self-flagellation.  Trade western Ukraine for the past “debt” and Poland’s trouble, and now we have the makings of an excellent resolution of the small European war of 2022.

Poland is NATO – so the wheezing hawks get a little bit of NATO-ized “Ukraine.” The Donbass and Crimea are Russian, associating with the Russian Federation as they see fit.  But how can we ensure the graft, the grift, the laundering and the wet dreams of the WEF?  Perhaps a small enclave in the middle of Ukraine can be set aside as that “big Israel” of Europe that Zelensky has offered – a place for global thievery and intrigue, a playground for all types.  Perhaps this New Ukraine could exist on transfer taxes on oil and gas, become a convenient capitol laundry for dying Western currencies, a host for US and EU government cryptocurrency?  A green casino, or a Maz Kanata’s Castle?  Towards this end, Zelensky has already thoughtfully destroyed the press, the police and the church. What a happy accident!

Zelensky, and his western enablers and sponsors, have done all they can to pave the way for a larger Poland and a New Ukraine – all for the price of 3 or 4 million Russians who, in flying new flags, will only slightly enhance Russia’s geography and economy.

We are seeing a new shift in the elite conversation.  Two months ago it was punishing and wearing down Russia to defend precious Ukrainian democracy; today, is it “rebuilding” and refunding a post-war Ukraine, with a sudden need to pay back Poland for seven decades of bad faith.  Yet, the western media is still reporting that Ukraine is winning.  Maybe that’s part of the plan.

The wind over Ukraine stinks of dead animals and smoke, and the organized rape is just beginning.  On the bright side, global war may be postponed.  That the West’s latest victim is of the Christian European northern hemisphere – and not part of a Crusade narrative against an alien and godless “other” – should set off alarm bells everywhere.

*

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

Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. [send her mail], a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, farmer and aspiring anarcho-capitalist. She ran for Congress in Virginia’s 6th district in 2012.

Featured image is from Alexey Fedorenko/Shutterstock

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Zaporizhzhia region in south eastern Ukraine houses the largest nuclear power station in Europe – the Zaporizhzhia NPP – one of the ten largest such plants in the world. It is currently in an intensely fought war zone. Dr Philip Webber, SGR, explains some of the risks of radiation releases that this poses, both nationally and internationally.

About the Zaporizhzhia site

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant [1] is part of a huge industrial complex some 8km square. It houses six large (1 gigawatt or GW) VVER-1000 Russian designed and built nuclear power reactors, [2] three thermal (coal- and gas-powered) power stations, and the purpose-built city of Enerhodar, which was built in 1970 to house 11,000 power plant workers and a total population of around 53,000. [3]  Before the war, the nuclear plant supplied about 20% of Ukraine’s electricity – widely used for heating in large apartment blocks. The reactors’ containment structures [4] house the nuclear core and used or ‘spent’ nuclear fuel in cooling pools. After five years, this spent fuel is transferred to dry storage casks nearby, which are air-cooled. In addition, huge external cooling ponds – which are continuously sprayed with water – store many older used nuclear fuel rods. The three thermal plants were shut down in May 2022 having run out of fuel due to the Russian invasion.

The Zaporizhzhia power site is much larger than the biggest UK nuclear sites such as Sellafield or Hinkley Point – either of these would fit within just the area of the cooling ponds at Zaporizhzhia. The entire complex is situated on a flat promontory on the south-east bank of the Dnipro River which is 5km wide at that point. [5]  The site is 50km south west of the city of Zaporizhzhia, also on the south bank of the Dnipro. Kherson is about 150km to the south west – but on the other bank of the river.

Under occupation

The reactor site has been occupied by Russian military forces since March 2022 – with Ukrainian forces in control of the opposite river bank. The original Ukrainian Energoatom plant operators are being forced to keep working there under conditions of extreme stress. These stresses include excessively long shifts, extreme concerns about family safety, and even the arrest of the plant chief. Various parts of the site have been hit by artillery shells and warheads from rocket-launched missiles over several months. Photographs show cratering and rocket tubes embedded in the ground. Both sides accuse the other of deliberately targeting and hitting the plant site. As a result of major safety concerns, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has placed monitoring teams at the site and nearby, but sourcing reliable information remains extremely difficult. [6]

The local electricity grid is very extensive and extremely vulnerable. Before the war, several high voltage (HV) power lines extended east from the nuclear and thermal plants to what is now Russian-occupied Ukraine via extensive electricity sub-stations, whilst one large HV line connected directly across the Dnipro to the opposite bank – under the control of Ukraine – via Marhanets just 15km away. Artillery shells can easily be fired over 40km whilst rocket launchers can reach even further, so the entire area is within range of both Russian and Ukrainian forces. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the IAEA continue to report that connections to the electricity grid keep being destroyed by artillery shelling which are then intermittently repaired. Repairs are very difficult owing to a severe shortage of supplies such as power transformers, insulators, cabling and HV circuit breakers. So far, neither the containment buildings for the reactors, nor the spent fuel assemblies in canisters, nor the large cooling ponds appear to have been seriously breached, but there is no guarantee this will continue to be the case.

The plants remain in a highly contested conflict area. The IAEA and UN have called for the plants to be placed in a demilitarised safety zone. No such zone has yet been set up. It is perhaps worth saying that any such demilitarised zone would have to include the city of Enerhodar because of its intimate connection and proximity to the nuclear power plants and power lines that traverse the entire area. Creating such an exclusion zone at the centre of a high intensity war zone is extremely difficult and has been rarely achieved in other conflicts.

Emergency shutdown

It is extremely difficult to secure a reliable picture of what is actually going on at the Zaporizhzhia power generation site. The most reliable and consistent reporting in December 2022 appears to be that all of the Zaporizhzhia reactors were ‘scrammed’ – put into emergency shutdown – as the entire Ukrainian power grid was hit by multiple Russian strikes on 23rd November 2022. All of Ukraine’s other three reactor sites – Rivne, South Ukraine and Kmelnytskyi – were also scrammed. These three latter plants are still under Ukrainian control being outside of the Russian occupied areas east of the Dnipro River. In a scram, the control rods are fully inserted into the reactor, emergency back-up diesel generators are activated for core cooling, and thus the reactor cores gradually reduce to low levels of nuclear fission. According the Petro Kotin, President of Energoatom, [7] after the emergency shutdowns, two of the six Zaporizhzhia reactors were restarted to generate sufficient power to enable the emergency diesel generators to be taken off-line and to provide some power to the city of Enerhodar. However, restarting a cold shutdown reactor is very far from routine in the middle of a war zone without reliable external power supplies. Emergency shutdowns and restarts place large strains on the steam generation circuit pipework and valves making equipment failures more likely.

What if the cooling fails?

Any nuclear reactor, for safe operation, needs to be connected to an electricity supply to provide a reliable source of emergency core cooling power. Without such active cooling from pumped water, the reactor core will eventually overheat to dangerous levels. Outside the reactor cores, radioactive decay in spent fuel continues, releasing heat inside the reactor containment structure, the dry storage casks, and the external ponds. Any failures of, or threats to, electricity supplies create serious emergency situations. Because of this danger, each reactor has emergency diesel-fired electricity generators with around 10 days of fuel. [8]  Ultimately, without active cooling powered by the grid, and once back-up diesel generators run out of fuel, core temperatures would rise uncontrollably. This would lead first to hydrogen gas release, then explosions, and ultimately, runaway core meltdowns breaching the core containment.

This is what happened at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan in 2011 [9] – when the cores in three reactors could not be cooled, large volumes of hydrogen gas were released into the containment structures, which then exploded, releasing highly radioactive materials into the environment – mainly as gases and vapours. After a few days, the reactor cores reached the melting points of the nuclear fuels and these highly radioactive molten materials burned down through the lower regions of the reactor vessels. This situation also has similarities with the 1986 Chernobyl disaster – the site of which is now part of Ukraine (and was occupied briefly by Russian troops early during the invasion).

In a reactor core of 1GW size, as those at Zaporizhzhia, if the cooling system breaks down, hydrogen explosions would occur after 8 to 12 hours. After about two days, the reactor core would become hot enough to burn through the base of the reactor vessel. [10]

Cooling for the reactor cores and spent fuel storage relies on several factors: a reliable supply of water; a reliable supply of power for the cooling pumps; working pumps; and staff to conduct any repairs and maintain the cooling systems. Without a reliable connection to the electricity grid, the only source of power for the pumps are, as mentioned, the back-up generators. With all of these factors now under threat, the risk of a reactor containment breach due to cooling failure is high. [11]

Other risks result from the ongoing conflict. Whilst an artillery shell or conventional cruise missile strike is unlikely to breach the reactor core containment directly, the threat is much greater to the integrity of over 3,000 spent fuel assemblies stored locally in concrete containers. Artillery, or a cruise missile could easily breach any of these containers releasing highly radioactive materials. This in turn could make part of the site – for example, cooling circuitry or fuel supplies – too dangerous to manage, which would lead to an even more serious core failure.

The possible effects of a nuclear disaster

There are a wide range of possible disaster scenarios.

Firstly, considering a meltdown of one or more reactor cores, the most comparable reactor accident so far has been the Fukushima plant radiation releases following the Great East Japan Earthquake and its subsequent tsunami in 2011. This led to an initial obligatory exclusion zone of 20km radius around the plant with 30km radius stay-at-home and no-fly zones and finally a larger zone extending 40km to the north west. Within a year, some people were permitted to return home within the 20km zone, whilst others with higher radiation levels were restricted for five years after the disaster, and a 30-year clean up period was envisaged. The Fukushima experience however does not give one high confidence that future nuclear disasters may be better managed. Following the meltdowns, the Japanese authorities did not coordinate information about radiation properly. For example, residents were evacuated from one area to another which in fact had higher levels of radiation contamination. [12]  There were multiple failures including a lack of evacuation planning and deliberate restriction of information.

Establishing the levels of radiation requires monitoring over-flights – in the Fukushima case, these were undertaken by the US military. Such flights would be highly dangerous and perhaps impossible in a war zone, so it would be extremely difficult for anyone to gather accurate information about the radiation levels on the ground. This would make any emergency planning very difficult from the outset.

A further difficulty arising from the conflict is that emergency responses such as evacuation of population, distribution of iodine tablets or provision of emergency medical treatment would be very difficult to coordinate, especially as no one authority would be able to take charge of the situation. Reactor crises require rapid, coordinated and well-organised recovery measures including evacuation, emergency measures to reduce radiation, suppress fires etc. These would be unlikely to be possible further increasing the impacts of any radiation release.

The most likely risk scenario is a breach of spent fuel held in canisters or cooling ponds outside of the reactor core containment structure. This spent fuel is still highly radioactive and vulnerable to missiles, shells and rocket strikes which could spread radiation directly or start fires spreading radiation. An impact by an aircraft is also a significant risk due to the highly inflammable aircraft fuel onboard.

What if a nuclear weapon were used?

At Zaporizhzhia, the large amounts of spent fuel storage make this risk even worse. Fallout would create a lethal radiation risk across the entire plant site and city of Enerhodar. Risks downwind would be highly dependent on the wind direction, speed and any rainfall, but could threaten lethal dose rates in Marhanets and Nikopol (population 100,000) only 15km away. Lethal radiation doses could be experienced at least 60km downwind. [14]  This could potentially include the city of Zaporizhzhia itself, which had a pre-war population of 750,000. This would present a completely unmanageable evacuation requirement in peacetime let alone in the middle of an intense war. Depending on the dose rates, some areas may need to be avoided for years to decades. This was a major problem after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 1986 with a 30km radius exclusion zone still in place over 30 years later.

In the case of a larger nuclear weapon (e.g. 1,000kT), even larger potentially lethal radiation zones would be created up to 550km in extent and 100km wide. [15]  Again, the primary source of radiation risk would be the reactor products, although in this case, combined with major blast and fire damage across a 5km radius.

Impacts in a war zone

Both the risk of a nuclear disaster and the consequences of it are multiplied in a war zone. In Ukraine, the population are already suffering intense pressure, strain and casualties due to direct impacts such as widespread Russian bombardment with artillery and missiles. Continued attacks on the energy infrastructure are leading to widespread power outages, water shortages, cold homes and huge damage to vital infrastructure such as hospitals and access to medical care. These acts already amount to widespread breaches of international humanitarian law, and are contributing to an as yet uncertain death toll amongst the civilian population.

Any nuclear accident leading to a significant release of radiation would further escalate consequences by adding yet another layer of uncertainty and danger combined with extreme difficulty in responding to an emergency. Coordination of effort cannot be achieved in the middle of an intense conflict; within Ukraine, comprehensive radiation monitoring would be extremely difficult or impossible and either side would doubt any information that was produced. Any of the more severe accident scenarios could result in radiation impacts outside of the borders of Ukraine including the EU, Russia and Belarus. In the case of Chernobyl these led to restrictions on some food stuffs over very wide areas.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the existence of nuclear plants in any war zone creates a whole new range of risks and dangers as the maintenance of safe operation relies on expert management, reliable supplies of vital materials such as diesel, and a connection to a working grid. Nuclear power and conflict (or environmental disaster such as recent flooding in Pakistan or drought in France) are mutually incompatible. For this reason, some commentators have likened nuclear reactors to giant landmines that can be ‘detonated’ in war in a disaster impossible to contain or effectively manage. The other three Ukraine reactor sites are also at high risk due to damage to the electricity grid and have already been subject to emergency shutdown due to such damage. The attacks on the electricity supplies also create problems and risks for neighbouring Moldova which also faces a cold winter as it obtains its electrical power from the Ukrainian grid via Russian-controlled Transnistria. [16]

Any conflict highlights how our modern society now relies on a wide range of infrastructure: energy; clean water; medical and social care; and other public services such as housing and transport. Wars disrupt all of these as they become deliberate military targets in the attempt to disrupt the resources that support frontline troops and to break the resolve of the civilian population. This has been the case for centuries and continues regrettably with much more destructive weaponry today. [17]  Other recent examples of the targeting of civilians and vital infrastructure include conflicts in former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and several ongoing conflicts across the horn of Africa. That today, in Europe, yet another conflict is seeing deliberate attacks on civilian targets including highly vulnerable nuclear power plants, water supplies and the electricity grid is yet another example of how vital it is to find peaceful solutions to conflict and how ultimately military action creates long-lasting destruction that will take decades of post-conflict rebuilding and many generations to heal.

*

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

Dr Philip Webber is Chair of Scientists for Global Responsibility. He has written widely on the risks of nuclear weapons and nuclear power – including co-authoring the book London After the Bomb. He spent part of his career working as an emergency planner in local government.

Notes

[1] Wikipedia (2022a). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant

[2] The VVR reactors are not only Russian designed and built but also supplied with enriched uranium from Russia. Despite much publicised sanctions, 20% of the nuclear fuel used by the EU is still supplied by Russia. No2NuclearPower (2022). 2 December. https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/nuclear-fuel-3-12-22/

[3] Wikipedia (2022b). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enerhodar

[4] A reactor containment structure is a massive concrete and steel structure designed to contain intense radiation and superheated steam circuit pipework and valves protecting the highly radioactive reactor core.

[5] The river is dammed in several places, so strictly speaking the body of water to the north of Zaporizhzhia is part of the extensive Kakhovka reservoir 240km long and up to 23km wide.

[6] IAEA (2022). Director General Statement on Situation in Ukraine, 20 November. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-128-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine

[7] The Observer (2022). 27 November. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/26/fears-for-all-ukraines-nuclear-plants-after-emergency-shutdowns

[8] Electricity Info (2022). 9 October. https://electricityinfo.org/news/ukraine-zaporizhzhia/

[9] Wikipedia (2022c). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_disaster

[10] Wikipedia (2022d). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown (also see note 13)

[11] Popovych Z, Bondar D, Ramana M (2022). 7 October. https://thebulletin.org/2022/10/zaporizhzhia-on-the-brink-how-deteriorating-conditions-at-the-nuclear-power-plant-could-lead-to-disaster/; Ouest France (2022). 1 September. https://www.ouest-france.fr/monde/guerre-en-ukraine/guerre-en-ukraine-quels-sont-les-risques-d-accident-nucleaire-autour-de-la-centrale-de-zaporijjia-b1108af8-29e8-11ed-bd3f-f86da3bd80f7

[12] Reference 133: The Economist, 10 March 2012 from: Wikipedia (2022c) – as note 9.

[13] Fetter S, Tsipis K (1981). Catastrophic Releases of Radioactivity. Scientific American, vol.244, no.4, pp.41–47; Rotblat J (1981). Nuclear radiation in warfare. SIPRI/ Taylor & Francis; Fetter S (1982). The Vulnerability of Nuclear Reactors to Attack by Nuclear Weapons. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Program in Science and Technology for International Security, Report No.7.

[14] This estimate is based on fallout spread for a 1kT weapon from nuclear tests entraining reactor products. Data from: Fetter (1982); Rotblat (1981) – as note 13.

[15] The danger zone (1 gray cumulative dose causing radiation sickness and some longer-term deaths) for a 1GW reactor and 1MT weapon is 550km x 100km. Rotblat (1981) – as note 13.

[16] In a legacy from the Soviet Union, the Ukraine, Russian and Moldovan electrical power grids remain part of a common infrastructure. Quite apart from efforts by the EU to secure energy independence from Russia and self-sufficiency this is another example of how interdependence of energy supplies can be used as a weapon of war.

[17] Some weapons have been specifically designed to damage electricity generation for example by air-dropped conducting fibres.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Nuclear Power in Ukraine: What Would Happen if Zaporizhzhia Was Hit?

Documentary: The Real Story of January 6

January 6th, 2023 by The Epoch Times

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“The Real Story of January 6,” a documentary by The Epoch Times, reveals the truth that has been hidden from the American people. While a narrative has been set that what took place that day was an insurrection, key events and witnesses have been ignored until now. The documentary takes an unvarnished look at police use of force and the deaths that resulted in some measure from it. The film asks tough questions about who was responsible for the chaos that day. With compelling interviews and exclusive video footage, the documentary tells the real story of January 6. The film is narrated by Joshua Philipp, host of “Crossroads” on EpochTV and a senior investigative reporter at The Epoch Times.

Jasper Fakkert, editor-in-chief of The Epoch Times, said: “There has been a narrative perpetuated about January 6 that omits many of the facts about what happened that day.

“With in-depth interviews and exclusive video footage, we take an objective look at the issues, the people, and the impacts of the events.”

The film takes a close look at the shooting of 35-year-old Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt and the deaths of three other supporters of former President Donald J. Trump. It analyzes the police response to the massive crowds and use of force around the U.S. Capitol.

It examines the human impacts of Jan. 6, including the suicide of one defendant and the long pretrial imprisonment of dozens of others. It also investigates claims that some attacks on the Capitol and police were carried out by unindicted suspicious actors.

What Really Happened on January 6? | The Real Story of January 6

While the dust from Jan. 6, 2021, has long cleared, it has been replaced by a smoke screen. A carefully crafted narrative has been set that claims the events of that day amounted to a “violent insurrection.” This claim, however, does not match the facts. “The Real Story of January 6” takes an objective look at what happened through the eyes of those who were there. The Epoch Times provides the first comprehensive look into what really happened that day. The Truth can’t be hidden.

We are Being Censored. Help Spread This Documentary.

While this documentary is groundbreaking in providing a complete overview of what happened on January 6, The Epoch Times has been censored and suppressed by Big Tech. In order to spread the documentary, The Epoch Times relies on its own Epoch TV as well as other non-cancelable platforms to spread the truth. Stand up for free speech and oppose censorship by sharing the documentary with as many people as you can.

Click here to watch the documentary.

*

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

What to Expect from the Government in 2023? More of the Same

January 6th, 2023 by John W. Whitehead

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.”—Montesquieu, Enlightenment philosopher

For those wondering what to expect from the government in 2023, it looks like we’re going to be in for more of the same in terms of the government’s brand of madness, mayhem, corruption and brutality.

Digital prisons. Unceasingly, the government and its corporate partners are pushing for a national digital ID system. Local police agencies have already been given access to facial recognition software and databases containing 20 billion images, the precursor to a digital ID. Eventually, a digital ID will be required to gain access to all aspects of life: government, work, travel, healthcare, financial services, shopping, etc. Before long, biometrics (iris scans, face print, voice, DNA, etc.), will become the de facto digital ID.

Precrime. Under the pretext of helping overwhelmed government agencies work more efficiently, AI predictive and surveillance technologies are being used to classify, segregate and flag the populace with little concern for privacy rights or due process. All of this sorting, sifting and calculating is being done swiftly, secretly and incessantly with the help of AI technology and a surveillance state that monitors your every move. AI predictive tools are being deployed in almost every area of life.

Mandatory quarantines. Building on precedents established during the COVID-19 pandemic, government agents may be empowered to indefinitely detain anyone they suspect of posing a medical risk to others without providing an explanation, subject them to medical tests without their consent, and carry out such detentions and quarantines without any kind of due process or judicial review.

Mental health assessments by non-medical personnel. As a result of a nationwide push to train a broad spectrum of so-called gatekeepers in mental health first-aid training, more Americans are going to run the risk of being reported by non-medical personnel and detained for having mental health issues.

Tracking chips for citizens. Momentum is building for corporations and the government alike to be able to track the populace, whether through the use of RFID chips embedded in a national ID card, microscopic chips embedded in one’s skin, or tags in retail products.

Military involvement domestically. The future, according to a Pentagon training video, will be militaristic, dystopian and far from friendly to freedom. Indeed, all signs point to the battlefield of the future being the American home front. Anticipating this, the government plans to have the military work in conjunction with local police to quell civil unrest domestically.

Government censorship of anything it classifies as disinformation. In the government’s ongoing assault on those who criticize the government—whether that criticism manifests itself in word, deed or thought—government and corporate censors claiming to protect us from dangerous, disinformation campaigns are, in fact, laying the groundwork now to preempt any “dangerous” ideas that might challenge the power elite’s stranglehold over our lives.

Threat assessments. The government has a growing list—shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies—of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state. Before long, every household in America will be flagged as a threat and assigned a threat score. It’s just a matter of time before you find yourself wrongly accused, investigated and confronted by police based on a data-driven algorithm or risk assessment culled together by a computer program run by artificial intelligence.

War on cash. The government and its corporate partners are engaged in a concerted campaign to shift consumers towards a digital mode of commerce that can easily be monitored, tracked, tabulated, mined for data, hacked, hijacked and confiscated when convenient. This push for a digital currency dovetails with the government’s war on cash, which it has been subtly waging for some time now. In recent years, just the mere possession of significant amounts of cash could implicate you in suspicious activity and label you a criminal.

Expansive surveillance. AI surveillance harnesses the power of artificial intelligence and widespread surveillance technology to do what the police state lacks the manpower and resources to do efficiently or effectively: be everywhere, watch everyone and everything, monitor, identify, catalogue, cross-check, cross-reference, and collude. Everything that was once private is now up for grabs to the right buyer. With every new AI surveillance technology that is adopted and deployed without any regard for privacy, Fourth Amendment rights and due process, the rights of the citizenry are being marginalized, undermined and eviscerated.

Militarized police. Having transformed local law enforcement into extensions of the military, the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and the FBI are moving into the next phase of the transformation, turning the nation’s police officers into techno-warriors, complete with iris scanners, body scanners, thermal imaging Doppler radar devices, facial recognition programs, license plate readers, cell phone extraction software, Stingray devices and so much more.

Police shootings of unarmed citizens. Owing in large part to the militarization of local law enforcement agencies, not a week goes by without more reports of hair-raising incidents by police imbued with a take-no-prisoners attitude and a battlefield approach to the communities in which they serve. Police brutality and the use of excessive force continues unabated.

False flags and terrorist attacks. Almost every tyranny being perpetrated by the U.S. government against the citizenry—purportedly to keep us safe and the nation secure—has come about as a result of some threat manufactured in one way or another by our own government. This has become the shadow government’s modus operandi regardless of which party is in power: the government creates a menace—knowing full well the ramifications such a danger might pose to the public—then without ever owning up to the part it played in unleashing that particular menace on an unsuspecting populace, it demands additional powers in order to protect “we the people” from the threat.

Endless wars to keep America’s military’s empire employed. The military and security industrial complexes that have advocated that the U.S. remain at war, year after year, are the very entities that will continue to profit the most from America’s expanding military empire abroad and here at home.

Erosions of private property. Private property means little at a time when SWAT teams and other government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, wound or kill you, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family. Likewise, if government officials can fine and arrest you for growing vegetables in your front yard, praying with friends in your living room, installing solar panels on your roof, and raising chickens in your backyard, you’re no longer the owner of your property.

Overcriminalization. The government has increasingly adopted the authoritarian notion that it knows best and therefore must control, regulate and dictate almost everything about the citizenry’s public, private and professional lives. Overregulation and overcriminalization have been pushed to such outrageous limits that federal and state governments now require on penalty of a fine that individuals apply for permission before they can grow exotic orchids, host elaborate dinner parties, gather friends in one’s home for Bible studies, give coffee to the homeless, let their kids manage a lemonade stand, keep chickens as pets, or braid someone’s hair.

Strip searches and the denigration of bodily integrity. Court rulings undermining the Fourth Amendment and justifying invasive strip searches have left us powerless against police empowered to forcefully draw our blood, forcibly take our DNA, strip search us, and probe us intimately. Individuals—men and women alike—continue to be subjected to what is essentially government-sanctioned rape by police in the course of “routine” traffic stops.

Censorship. First Amendment activities are being pummeled, punched, kicked, choked, chained and generally gagged all across the country. Free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors have conspired to corrode our core freedoms. The reasons for such censorship vary widely from political correctness, safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes but the end result remains the same: the complete eradication of what Benjamin Franklin referred to as the “principal pillar of a free government.”

Taxation Without Any Real Representation. As a Princeton University survey indicates, our elected officials, especially those in the nation’s capital, represent the interests of the rich and powerful rather than the average citizen. We are no longer a representative republic. With Big Business and Big Government having fused into a corporate state, the president and his state counterparts—the governors—have become little more than CEOs of the Corporate State, which day by day is assuming more government control over our lives. Never before have average Americans had so little say in the workings of their government and even less access to their so-called representatives.

Year after year, the government remains the greatest threat to our freedoms, and yet year after year, “we the people” allow ourselves to be suckered into believing that politics will fix what’s wrong with the country.

Indeed, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, this is the very definition of insanity.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Rutherford Institute.

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

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

They are regular contributors to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What to Expect from the Government in 2023? More of the Same

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

While helicopters flew overhead, members of Peru’s national army shot down civilians with live bullets in the outskirts of the city of Ayacucho on December 15. This action was in response to a national strike and mobilization to protest the coup d’état that deposed President Pedro Castillo on December 7.

Hundreds of university students, shopkeepers, street vendors, agricultural workers and activists gathered on December 15, at the center of Ayacucho to express their discontent over the removal of Castillo and continued their mobilisation toward the airport. Similar action was witnessed in several other cities across the southern Andean region of the country.

As protesters approached the airport, members of the armed forces opened fire and shot tear gas canisters directly at them. The firing by the army from the helicopters proved to be the most lethal. As the hundreds of unarmed people ran for their lives, the shooting continued.

Ten people were killed as a result of this violence inflicted by the army, and dozens more were injured, according to official numbers provided by the ombudsman’s office. At least six people are still fighting for their lives in hospitals in Peru’s capital Lima and in Ayacucho. Autopsies of 10 of those who died in Ayacucho show that six of the victims died from gunshot wounds to the chest. The youngest was just 15 years old.

Reuters reported, on December 27, how one of these fatal victims in Ayacucho — 51-year-old Edgar Prado — was shot and killed while attempting to help someone else who had been shot down during the protests.

The exceedingly violent response of the security forces to the anti-coup protests across Peru was widely condemned. A delegation of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) visited the country from December 20–22 to receive testimonies from local human rights organisations and victims about the violent repression suffered by protesters and also spoke to families of the 28 fatal victims. The delegation traveled to Ayacucho on December 22.

More than a dozen other family members, Ayacucho inhabitants, organisers, and a couple of independent journalists, including myself, waited on the sidewalk of one of the city’s narrow and colourful streets as the meeting was underway. As people came and went, much of the events and tragedies of December 15 were recounted.

The massacre

“They won’t show you this on the news here,” Carmen (name changed) told me as she showed me a video on her phone of a young boy with blood all over his shirt being dragged to safety by fellow protesters. “That’s her nephew,” she said, pointing to a woman sitting on the ground.

Pedro Huamani, a 70-year-old man who is a member of the Front in Defense of the People of Ayacucho (FREDEPA), was accompanying the victims waiting outside the IACHR meeting. “We have suffered a terrible loss,” he told me, “I was present that day in a peaceful march toward the airport.

“When they began to shoot tear gas grenades and bullets at us, I started to choke, I almost died there,” Huamani said. “I escaped and went down to the cemetery, but it was the same, we were trying to enter and they started to shoot at us from behind. Helicopters were flying overhead and from there they shot tear gas grenades at us, trying to kill us.”

Carmen brought over some of her friends and one of them, who was wearing a grey sweatsuit, told me, “We all live near the airport, and saw everything happen. You should’ve seen how they shot them down like animals. We tried to help some of the injured, but it was hard.”

The massacre in Ayacucho, as well as the violent repression across the country, has only intensified people’s demand that Dina Boluarte step down. Boluarte was sworn in on December 7 immediately following the coup against Castillo. In interviews and public addresses, she has justified the use of force by police against protesters calling their actions as acts of “terrorism” and “vandalism.”

Huamani, while shaking and holding back tears, said: “She is a murderous president and in Huamanga, we do not want her, nor do we recognise her as president because this woman ordered the police and the army to shoot at us Peruvians. And these bullets, these weapons, are really bought by us, not by the army, nor the soldiers, but by the people. And for them to kill us is really horrible.”

The anger felt by Ayacucho residents is also linked to the historical undermining of Peruvian democracy and the economic exclusion suffered by the regions outside of Lima. Huamani explained: “They took out our president [Castillo] so this is not a democracy. We are not a democracy, we are in [state of] war, but not just in Ayacucho and Huamanga, but also in Arequipa, Apurímac, Cusco. In these regions, we are suffering from poverty, we can no longer survive, we are dying of hunger … and these right wingers want to make us their slaves, but we won’t permit this because we are responding and resisting.”

Old wounds ripped open

December 15 was not the first time civilians in Ayacucho were massacred by the Peruvian armed forces. Many who were present on December 15 said that the warlike treatment received by the peaceful protesters was reminiscent of the days of the two-decades-long internal armed conflict that Peruvians suffered through more than 20 years ago.

“They still treat us as if we were all terrorists,” a family member of one of the victims of the protests pointed out.

As part of the state’s campaign against the guerrilla insurgency, it tortured, detained, disappeared, and murdered tens of thousands of innocent peasants and Indigenous people, accusing them of supporting or being part of the insurgency.

The population of Ayacucho was one of the hardest hit. According to reports by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which was set up to look into the human rights violations, of the estimated 69,280 fatal victims of the internal armed conflict in Peru from 1980-2000, 26,000 were killed or disappeared by state actors or insurgent groups in Ayacucho. Thousands of people that fled their towns for the city of Ayacucho during the conflict continue to search for their loved ones and demand justice.

One of them is Paula Aguilar Yucra, who I met outside the IACHR meeting. Like more than 60% of people in Ayacucho, Indigenous Quechua is her first language. The 63-year-old is a member of the Ayacucho-based National Association of Relatives of Kidnapped, Detained and Disappeared of Peru (ANFASEP). She fled her rural community in Usmay for Ayacucho in 1984 after her mother was killed and her brother was taken by soldiers and never seen again.

Nearly 40 years later, she mourns again. Her grandson, 20-year-old José Luis Aguilar Yucra, father of a two-year-old boy, was killed on December 15 by a bullet to the head as he attempted to make his way home from work.

In a vigil held on the afternoon of December 22, Paula stood tall with the other members of ANFASEP and held a sign reading: “Fighting today does not mean dying tomorrow.”

*

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

This article was produced by Globetrotter.

Zoe Alexandra is a journalist and co-editor of Peoples Dispatch.

Featured image: Outside the meeting with the human rights delegation, relatives of victims and witnesses to the massacre hold a sign that reads “Justice for our brothers killed in the massacre on December 15”. Photo: Zoe Alexandra/People’s Dispatch

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

While there’s no doubt that both sides could benefit from a temporary lull in fighting that enables them each to resupply their forces even more during that narrow window, it’s not a game-changer either way since a day and a half doesn’t make any military difference. With this in mind, the question therefore becomes why Kiev didn’t decide to take this mutually beneficial opportunity.

President Putin declared a unilateral 36-hour truce for Orthodox Christmas from 12pm Moscow time on Friday until midnight on Saturday, yet this was rejected by Kiev on false pretexts. Zelensky claimed that his counterpart just wanted time to resupply, while his Foreign Minister also expressed similar sentiment speculating that the Russian leader was insincere. For his part, Biden added that President Putin was “trying to find some oxygen”, but all these excuses don’t make any sense.

It’s extremely unlikely that Russia really thought that Ukraine would agree to its unilateral 36-hour truce, meaning that Moscow probably didn’t expect that it would be able to resupply its forces during that narrow window without interruption if that truly was its motivation all along. Not only that, but even in the event that Kiev went along with this to deflect from its crusade against elements of its Orthodox Christian population, 36 hours isn’t long enough to make a military difference for either side.

The notion that Russia’s special operation is supposedly failing so badly that the Kremlin desperately needs a day-and-a-half-long lull in fighting to resupply its forces in order to stave off their allegedly imminent defeat contradicts the US-led Western Mainstream Media’s (MSM) “official narrative”. According to them, President Putin is obsessed with the Battle for Artyomovsk/Bakhmut for reasons related purely to his personal prestige and that of his country.

The reality is that control of this city is tactically crucial for both sides, hence why they’ve redoubled their respective efforts along that front. In any case, whether one acknowledges the aforementioned objective military reality or ascribes to the MSM’s “official narrative”, the outcome of President Putin regarding this battle as “too big to lose” (at least for the time being) is the same. That in turn extends credence to the assessment that he already ordered his forces to be regularly resupplied long ago.

Thus, it’s unimportant whether Kiev agreed to the unilateral 36-hour truce or not since the Russian Armed Forces continue being supplied no matter what, including during the most intense firefights along this front over the past weeks. While there’s no doubt that both sides could benefit from a temporary lull in fighting that enables them each to resupply their forces even more during that narrow window, it’s not a game-changer either way since a day and a half doesn’t make any military difference.

With this in mind, the question therefore becomes why Kiev didn’t decide to take this mutually beneficial opportunity. The answer is most likely political for two reasons: first, agreeing to a Russian-initiated truce could be interpreted as signaling weakness and thus prompting speculation that Ukraine might agree to tacitly recognize the loss of its four peripheral reasons; and second, keeping the military pressure on Russia during Orthodox Christmas is part and parcel of its crusade against that religion.

Altogether, it can be concluded that that this was a missed opportunity for both sides, but one that Kiev decided to do without since its political motivations overrode its military ones. That being the case, this insight can be extrapolated upon to predict that fighting will continue for the foreseeable future without any credible chance of a lasting ceasefire anytime soon. The only variable that could offset this scenario is if one side achieves a major breakthrough along the Line of Control, but that seems unlikely for now.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter.

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

Featured image is from the author

Erdogan Wants to Solve the Kurdish Problem with Assad

January 6th, 2023 by Hamide Rencüzoğulları

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Thursday,

“We have launched a process as Russia-Turkey-Syria,” and added, “We will bring our foreign ministers together and then, depending on developments, we will come together as leaders.”

Last week, the Foreign Ministers of Turkey, Syria and Russia met together in Moscow for the highest-level talks since 2011.  Prior to the conflict in Syria, Erdogan and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were close enough to refer to each other as brother.  All that changed after Turkey participated in the US attack on Syria for regime change, which has left thousands dead, and millions of refugees, and utilized thousands of Radical Islamic terrorists as foot-soldiers inside Syria.

The US has imposed a stalemate in Syria, but Erdogan has decided to create a solution to Turkey’s National Security issue by working in conjunction with Assad.

Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Hamide Rencüzoğulları, Educator and Researcher, specialized in the Middle East. Published books: AKP’s Syrian War, Bloody Spring in Libya, All at Once: the ISIS and Women in the Claw of Jihad. Her articles were published in various newspapers and magazines, and she prepared and presented the TV Program “Agenda: Middle East”. Nine lawsuits have been filed against her for her books and articles and she is still on trial by the Turkish judiciary.

Steven Sahiounie (SS):Recently, it is apparent that Turkey is trying with all means to repair their relationship with Syria; however, Turkey had participated in the US/NATO war on Syria. Now, they can see that attack has failed. In your opinion, what does Turkey want to get out of Syria?

Hamide Rencüzoğulları  (HR)Turkey can no longer bear the burden of militants trained and equipped by NATO and Arab countries in the region.

Everyone withdrew their hands and this burden is only on Turkey’s shoulders. On the other hand, Western countries no longer pay for refugees. The economic crisis has already deepened. The postponement of Russia’s natural gas debt relieved the Turkish Government. He wanted Damascus and Ankara to get closer in return for this election gift that Putin gave Erdogan until the election. In fact, because Putin put pressure on Erdogan, he sought a formula to reconcile with Assad, but the reason is not just Putin’s will. Turkey is in a stalemate on Syrian territory. It has both economic and political reasons. Investing in infrastructure and wages of militants in the regions controlled by Turkey is now challenging. On the other hand, Erdogan presents the position of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the PYD in Syria as a justification for national security, but neither Russia nor America gave permission for the final operation. Erdogan’s intention is for the Kurds to withdraw to a depth of 32 kilometers and, to place the jihadist militants and their families there instead. Rather than failing in the wars against the SDF, he wants to solve the SDF problem with Damascus. Of course, if Damascus is going to give Erdogan an election gift, he will accept this condition, but this is not an easy issue.

SS: President Erdogan has made sending back the Syrian refugees a national policy. Isn’t this the same policy of all Turkish opposition parties?

HR:  The problem of refugees started to put the ruling party in a difficult position. Because a large part of the society wants the Syrians to return. The authority lost the vote when it said that we will not send power. Especially after the leaders of the nationalist opposition started to turn the Syrian refugees into election material against Erdoğan.  Erdoğan also announced that he would send the Syrians back. The main opposition party, the Republican People’s Party, already has the subject of deportation of Syrians to their country on their agenda, but it does not say “we will expel them”. “Honorable and voluntary return”, they are saying instead, which means reconciliation with Damascus and creating a common political solution. Erdogan was first talking about occupying an area 32 kilometers deep and relocating Syrians there. Now he has aligned with what the main Opposition Party, CHP, said. For that reason, he says he wants peace with Damascus. He wants to make peace with Damascus despite the reactions of the opponents he protects and feeds. Therefore, he needs propaganda before the election: the propaganda of “We solve the refugee crisis and the Kurdish problem together with Syria”.

SS: We hear through media reports, that Turkey and Syria are meeting and that Turkey is willing to give up the Radical Islamic terrorists. In your opinion, where will terrorists go including the Uyghurs?

HR:  He can’t go anywhere with those terrorists. More precisely, the Justice and Development Party-AKP has no power to solve it. First of all, the “Syrian National Army” established by the AKP includes over 100 thousand militants, but it is not homogeneous. There are many different groups and not all of them give unconditional allegiance to Erdogan. If he says he will lay down arms, not all of them will. Second, there is Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS) and the Turkistan Islamic Party, which the AKP does not undertake as a guarantor. He can never speak to them. But Turkey seems to have a secret agreement with HTS for several months. Groups close to Turkey started to act with HTS, and HTS took Afrin together with these pro-Turkey groups. Turkey neither spoke out, nor took any steps to prevent it. On the contrary, when HTS launched the Afrin operation, senior officials from Turkey went to Azaz to meet with opposition leaders and returned. In this meeting, I think that Turkey gave the green light to HTS and warned the opposition not to engage in conflict. Why is Turkey paving the way for HTS? There was already a secret alliance from the beginning, now the Hamza, Suleyman Shah and Sultan Murad Brigades, who are closest to Turkey, joined HTS and took over the areas under Turkish control. AKP probably has an account like this: It wants to withdraw from Syria and leave this area to HTS. Groups in the Syrian National Army that refuse to lay down their arms also join HTS in this way, so the AKP can say that it has withdrawn its hand from Syria, but on the other hand, it will continue to deepen the conflict in Syria with this growing jihadist army. I guess they have such plans. But this is too dangerous. Because the muzzle of the abandoned jihadists may return to Turkey.

SS: Media leaks have said America is offering Syria a deal if Syria will not repair the relationship with Turkey. In your opinion, why is America against a new relationship between Ankara and Damascus?

HR:  Although the USA withdrew its hand from the Syrian opposition, it actually continued to manage the conflicts through Turkey. Even though it has a position in Syria only through the Kurds, the USA has support for the Turkish invasions. The USA wants Turkey to maintain its position in the Syrian territory it has entered. However, it does not want to offend Turkey, which highlights the SDF as a security issue. In particular, the USA never wants Ankara to get closer to Damascus. We have read in some media that the USA has offered a different proposal to Turkey in order to disrupt this, which is that, the USA will pull the SDF back one kilometer, but it will revive the Suvvarül Raqqa (Raqqa Revolutionaries) group and place it on the Turkish border. This group of Raqqa Revolutionaries is a jihadist structure and the USA thinks that Turkey will not be bothered by them. As long as Russia and the Syrian army do not replace the Kurds… I guess this is the formula of the USA.

SS:We have heard media reports that the Syrian opposition in Turkey has been asked to leave Turkey immediately. In your opinion, is the break with the Syrian opposition signaling that the rapprochement with Damascus is more important?

HR:  I don’t think there will be a complete break. The persuasion process continues. There are those who accept unconditionally. Turkey may close a few of the opposition channels broadcasting in the country as a formality. Or, objecting leaders can be expelled from the country, but I think this is all a formality. Because it cannot completely confront the opponents, it is very risky…

*

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

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Erdogan Wants to Solve the Kurdish Problem with Assad

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

January 6th, 2023 by Global Research News

Alexander Mercouris: “Something Big Is on the Way”

Mike Whitney, January 4, 2023

The Plan: WHO’s Ten Years of Infectious Diseases (2020 to 2030), Leading to World Tyranny

Peter Koenig, January 4, 2022

Top Japanese Physician-Scientist Gives Dire Warning About COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: ‘Scientifically Misconceived’

TrialSite, January 4, 2023

PfizerGate: Tragic Truth Behind COVID Vaccines in the U.K.: 47,379 Excess Deaths in 8 Months Due to Vaccination

The Expose, January 2, 2023

Again, Fear on the Run, “Catastrophic Contagion”

Peter Koenig, January 3, 2022

Video: Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the Covid Vaccine. Beyond Manslaughter. The Evidence is Overwhelming. The Vaccine Should Be Immediately Withdrawn Worldwide

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 28, 2022

Ransacking the World Economy Until ‘You’ll Own Nothing.’

Robert J. Burrowes, January 3, 2023

Look Up! Wake Up, People! You Are Being “Suicided in Warp Speed”.

Peter Koenig, December 26, 2022

Is Western Propaganda Failing?

Larry Johnson, January 3, 2023

WHO Fraud. There Never Was A Pandemic! February 20, 2020, Dr Tedros Announced an “Expanding Worldwide Epidemic”

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 4, 2023

New Year in London: Mass Poverty is Deeply Rooted. Ongoing Praise for NATO Militarization Ukraine

Kurt Nimmo, January 2, 2023

Murder They Wrought

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, December 29, 2022

Russia Consolidates in East Mediterranean

M. K. Bhadrakumar, January 1, 2023

Historical Analysis of the Global Elites: Ransacking the World Economy Until ‘You’ll Own Nothing’

Robert J. Burrowes, December 27, 2022

The Big Hoax – From Climate Change to Biodiversity

Peter Koenig, January 2, 2023

Itaewon Disaster: Who Killed 158 Children?

Prof. Joseph H. Chung, December 30, 2022

Seventy Years of U.S. Destabilisation in China. U.S. Sponsored Uyghur Insurgency in Xinjiang

Shane Quinn, January 2, 2023

The Disastrous Events of the Year 2022 Will Plague Us for as Long as We Exist

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, January 5, 2023

COVID Jabs Have Erased 25 Years of Health Gains. Shocking Decline in US Life Expectancy

Dr. Joseph Mercola, January 3, 2023

Spies and More Lies Add Confusion to the Ukraine Conflict

Philip Giraldi, January 3, 2023

What’s Inside the Budget for the Secretive DARPA Agency?

By Jeremy Loffredo, January 06, 2023

DARPA was providing funding and technical support to Moderna’s mRNA vaccine technology since at least 2013. DARPA also had long-time associates and partners at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Jackson Water Crisis Continues Despite Federal Government Interventions

By Abayomi Azikiwe, January 06, 2023

In a city of more than 150,000 people which is the capital of the State of Mississippi, residents of Jackson were facing an all too familiar water crisis over the holiday period of late 2022 and early 2023.

California Bill to Punish Doctors for ‘False’ COVID-19 Information Goes Into Effect

By Zero Hedge, January 06, 2023

A bill which allows the state of California to punish doctors over ‘false information about Covid-19 vaccinations and treatments’ went into effect on January 1st.

A Year of Global Displacement

By Prof. Farrah Hassen, January 06, 2023

This year had the unwelcome distinction of being the first to see over 100 million people displaced worldwide. Such a staggering milestone reminds us that greater efforts are needed to address the underlying causes forcing so many innocent people to flee their homes.

A Government That Assaults Liberty

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, January 06, 2023

During the course of an FBI written response to a Freedom of Information Act request asking about the trade names and suppliers of surveillance software the FBI had purchased, and in a legal brief submitted to a federal judge, the government has yet again quietly acknowledged its antipathy to constitutional provisions that all of its employees have sworn to uphold.

What If Ukraine Had Kept Its Nuclear Weapons?

By Daniel Larison, January 06, 2023

The nuclear disarmament of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine was one of the great success stories of the end of the Cold War, and it was one of the most significant victories for the cause of nonproliferation.

The Likud Party of Netanyahu, a Terrorist Organisation?

By Hans Stehling, January 05, 2023

It is surely correct for the UK to proscribe the IRGC under a formal legal process of the  Terrorism Act 2000, as a terrorist organisation, as is now proposed by the British government. However, by the same criteria it must also be right to award such a dubious distinction to the Likud party of Binyamin Netanyahu whose IDF has killed more than 100 primarily unarmed Palestinian civilians since January 2022.

Ukraine’s Intelligence Boss Predicts Further Attacks Deep Inside Russia

By Kurt Nimmo, January 05, 2023

Kyrylo Budanov, the military intelligence boss of Ukraine, told the war propaganda disseminator, ABC News, there will be additional strikes deep inside Russia, follow-ups to the December 26 attack on the Engels Air Force Base, more than 800 miles from the border.

Kyrgyzstan – Next in Line for a Colour Revolution?

By Gavin OReilly, January 05, 2023

The accession of Kyrgyzstan to chair of the Commonwealth of Independent States for 2023 should bode well for the central Asian republic. Having not held the position since 2016, Kyrgyzstan’s new role in the CIS, a transnational Eurasian body intended to foster economic and military development, will likely spur economic growth in what is the poorest country in the region.

Eight-Year-old Debunked Lie Blaming Russia for Shooting Down Malaysian Passenger Flight in 2014 Is Given New Life by Dutch Judge

By Jeremy Kuzmarov, January 05, 2023

That the trial was unfair is indicated by the judge’s ruling that all evidence supplied by Dutch and Ukrainian state organizations was admissible in court; but all evidence supplied by Russian organizations were inadmissible.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: What’s Inside the Budget for the Secretive DARPA Agency?

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In a city of more than 150,000 people which is the capital of the State of Mississippi, residents of Jackson were facing an all too familiar water crisis over the holiday period of late 2022 and early 2023.

Extreme weather events impacted huge swaths of territory within the United States during late December and the first week of January resulting in the injury and deaths of many persons.

In Jackson, below freezing temperatures precipitated pipe breaks disrupting the flow of water throughout the city. Some people had very low water flow while others had no pressure at all making it impossible to function under any semblance of normalcy.

On the south side of the city the situation appears to be more acute than any other areas. People reported that for seven days there was no water service in this area of the municipality.

At the Historically Black College (HBCU) Jackson State University (JSU), the administration sent out an e-mail requesting that students not return to campus until the second week of the month due to the lack of water pressure in the buildings and dormitories. This is the second consecutive semester where students have been urged not to return to the campus due to failure of the O.B. Curtis water treatment plant along with persistent structural damage to the system.

Jackson water treatment plant

According to the JSU public notice to the community:

“As an update, the City of Jackson continues to make repairs to broken water pipes near campus. While we anticipate these repairs should be completed before classes begin on January 9th, our water pressure on campus remains low at this time. For your convenience, students who can are encouraged to arrive in the latter part of the week or weekend.”

The water crisis does not only impact higher education. The Jackson Public Schools (JPS) has again reverted back to virtual learning as of January 5-6. The JPS announced that students and parents could retrieve learning materials on January 4. Lunches for students will also be available for pick up at the schools for January 5-6. There are 33 schools operating under the control of the JPS where they are facing low or no water pressure in the buildings.

The school system noted in a statement:

“The loss of water pressure in our school communities has had an enormous impact on us all. Please know that this decision was made after careful consideration of many factors, including the possibility of more schools losing pressure while scholars and staff are present, and the challenge of maintaining a safe and clean environment.”

City Councilman Aaron Banks of Ward 6 called for a town hall meeting on January 2 in an effort to seek information on the current status of the water system. The councilman in a press statement reprinted over social media suggested that the city administration was not forthcoming in reporting on the extent of the crisis. Although statements are being periodically issued by the offices of Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba saying that progress is being made in repairing the water system, Banks apparently is not satisfied with the current situation.

Banks said in a press statement on New Year’s Day that:

“People are seeking information and as a councilman, I would like to provide daily updates to ALL those that are suffering, but, especially those that I represent. As the councilman for the area of Jackson that is usually hit the hardest during most water crises, I think the flow of communication/information should be stronger, more consistent, more frequent and presented in a more truthful and concise way.  People are seeking information and as a councilman, I would like to provide daily updates to ALL those that are suffering, but, especially those that I represent. As the councilman for the area of Jackson that is usually hit the hardest during most water crises, I think the flow of communication/information should be stronger, more consistent, more frequently and presented in a more truthful and concise way.”

As of January 3, the Clarion Ledger newspaper reported that most of the city of Jackson remained under a boil-water alert. The media outlet then announced several locations in South and West Jackson where bottled water could be picked up by residents. Elderly people and those living with disabilities were encouraged to call a number to ostensibly arrange for water to be delivered to their homes.

The Role of the State and Federal Governments in the Crisis

Although the burden of the water crisis has fallen on local authorities and residents of Jackson, the city and state of Mississippi has a long history of institutional racism and national oppression extending back to the antebellum period. Moreover, the complicity of the successive United States administrations and the Congress cannot go unrecognized.

During the recent period, the U.S. Justice Department has filed suit against the City of Jackson on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the guise of violations of the Clean Water Act. In addition to the lawsuit, the city is being forced to accept a consent decree imposed by the federal government which involved the appointment of a “third-party administrator”, Ted Henifin, for the O.B. Curtis water treatment plant.

At the town hall meeting hosted by Councilman Banks, Henifin was present and expressed sympathy for the people of Jackson and those under its water system. Henifin said he had come out of retirement in Virginia to take his current position. Hundreds of people attended the meeting to express their frustrations with the perennial water crisis in Jackson.

Nonetheless, the situation in Jackson warrants far more urgent measures than what has been proposed and enacted by the federal government under the administration of President Joe Biden. Although the former majority-Democratic Congress along with the Senate approved a $600 million dollar appropriation through the Omnibus Bill to address the water crisis in Jackson, it remains to be seen whether this pledge will be sufficient to effectively fix the problems. Mayor Lumumba says that at least $2 billion is needed to repair the system. (See this)

The fact that Jackson is an 83% majority African American city further emphasizes the historical plight of these oppressed people in the U.S. Mississippi continues to be one of the most impoverished states in the U.S. Consequently, it is by no means coincidental that the contradictions prevalent in modern-day 21st century urban society are glaringly obvious in this southern state.

Even some six-to-seven decades after the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s in Mississippi where scores of people were martyred, imprisoned and dislocated, the promise of the Great Society and War on Poverty programs as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965 remains unfulfilled. Obviously, the Republican-dominated Mississippi state government is biased towards the Black-dominated city of Jackson. Such an attitude is reflected in comments from state officials solely blaming the people in Jackson for the water crisis. However, Jackson is the capital of the State of Mississippi and therefore, the government there must bear responsibility along with the federal government for the present situation.

Structural problems in the water system should have never gotten to this level. Where has the State of Mississippi and the EPA been all of these decades when the O.B. Curtis water treatment plant and the pipelines have been deteriorating?

The Clarion Ledger in an article on the City Council town hall meeting on January 2, emphasized:

“He (Henifin) characterized Jackson’s water problems as ‘extremely complicated’ and portrayed the nationally publicized water problems facing Flint, Michigan, as ‘simple’ compared to the challenges in Jackson. Among the problems noted by Henifin was a non-functioning water quality monitoring system at intake valves feeding the O. B. Curtis plant. The system is supposed to measure things like the ph level and turbidity of incoming water from the reservoir but because it doesn’t work the water cannot be tested and chemically treated until it reaches the plant, he said. An old and porous distribution system which wastes as much or more treated water than it actually delivers to customers is another huge concern. By some estimates Jackson loses upwards of 30 million gallons a day, requiring the city to treat at least twice the amount of water that other cities of similar size do, he said.”

Consequently, it could take several years to correct the existing structural issues hampering the normal functioning of the water system in Jackson. With the dysfunctionality of the Republican-dominated Congress which could not during the first week of 2023 agree on a Speaker, it remains unlikely that the House of Representatives could engage in another legislative act which could provide much-needed immediate relief to the people of Jackson.

Moreover, the crisis in Jackson is not taking place within a social vacuum. Cities, suburbs and rural areas across the U.S. are in need of similar interventions by the state and federal governments. Water systems, schools, housing, power grids and healthcare institutions are in dire need of massive government subsidization.

Such priorities conflict with the existing war policies which provide over $1 trillion per year for defense, nuclear weapons and intelligence. The majority of House and Senate members irrespective of political party are firmly aligned with international finance capital and the Pentagon. Until the people take control of the political direction of the U.S., there will continue to be the rapid deterioration of the standards of living among the workers and oppressed.

*

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

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

Featured image: Jackson Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba at press conference / All images in this article are from the author

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

A bill which allows the state of California to punish doctors over ‘false information about Covid-19 vaccinations and treatments’ went into effect on January 1st.

Under the new law (AB 2098) which took effect Jan.1, the state’s Medical Board would categorize dispensing information – such as the effectiveness of Ivermectin, or the Covid-19 vaccine’s rapidly waning efficacy, as unprofessional conduct.

The law was challenged in court by two California doctors, who said that it would restrict their free speech in violation of the first amendment, and that it was “vague” under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

However on December 28th, Biden Nominee Judge Fred Slaughter refused to halt the law, ruling that the law trumps free speech claims, and that it falls “within the longstanding tradition of regulations on the practice of medical treatments.”

Another lawsuit, brought by Physicians for Informed Consent, was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of California in early December. The plaintiffs, physician LeTrinh Hoang and Children’s Health Defense, are being represented by Rick Jaffe, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Mary Holland, and argues that the state of California has weaponized the vague phrase “misinformation,” and thereby has illegally targeted physicians who disagree with the government’s public stance on Covid-19.

Expert cardiologist and PIC member Sanjay Verma, M.D., has been tracking and cataloging CDC errors in real time. For the case, he has provided what he calls “a detailed declaration exposing the government’s scientific errors and the constitutional dangers of censoring dissent”:

“To demonstrate these points of vagueness and the general unsuitability of using ‘contemporary scientific consensus’ as a disciplinary criterion, I have prepared a detailed overview of public health response to the pandemic broken down into categories such as Masks and Vaccines (transmission, safety, efficacy of natural immunity). I have also included evidence of what [I testify] would be considered misinformation promulgated by the CDC as well as its withholding of information which led to the then ‘contemporary scientific consensus’ eventually being proven wrong.” –KRON4

*

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

Featured image is from ZH


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

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

A Year of Global Displacement

January 6th, 2023 by Prof. Farrah Hassen

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This year had the unwelcome distinction of being the first to see over 100 million people displaced worldwide. Such a staggering milestone reminds us that greater efforts are needed to address the underlying causes forcing so many innocent people to flee their homes.

Even more alarming, this milestone was reached by the middle of the year. Over 50 million people were internally displaced within their own countries, over 30 million were refugees forced to flee their countries, and some 4.3 million were stateless.

More than 70 percent of all refugees came from five countries mired in violent conflict: Syria, Venezuela, Ukraine, Afghanistan, and South Sudan. Climate-related emergencies, meanwhile — including severe floods in Pakistan and drought in Somalia — contributed heavily to the growing number of people internally displaced.

Many countries have welcomed refugees this year, despite seismic challenges and limited resources. In the first five months of the Ukraine war, the United States admitted more than 100,000 Ukrainians, while other communities around the world have welcomed millions more.

Such compassion in the face of enduring struggles is encouraging — and should extend to all crises. Refugees have also remained resilient while confronting these obstacles, which speaks to their inspiring grit and bravery that rarely makes the news.

But far too often, states adopt double standards in their treatment of refugees and asylum seekers.

This is especially true for Haitians, who have long encountered discriminatory U.S. immigration policies and abuse — exemplified by images of U.S. Border Patrol agents on horseback whipping desperate Haitian asylum seekers in Del Rio, Texas last year. Between October 2018 and June 2021, the U.S. denied asylum to Haitians more than any other nationality.

After decades of political and economic turmoil, living conditions in Haiti deteriorated this year due to gang violence following the 2021 assassination of then-President Jovenal Moïse. Nearly half the country faces acute hunger. A lack of safe drinking water and basic sanitation have also led to a rapid reemergence of cholera.

As a result, many Haitians have had to flee their country, which prompted the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi to call on all countries “to stand in solidarity with Haiti” and “not to return Haitians to a country that is extremely fragile.”

Unfortunately, the U.S. accelerated the mass expulsion of more than 25,000 Haitians between September 2021 and May 2022. They were returned to Haiti where they face likely harm and humanitarian disaster.

Most of the expulsions have been carried out under Title 42, a rarely used provision of U.S. health law first invoked by President Trump and continued under President Biden to bar people from seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border under the pretext of preventing COVID-19.

By denying Haitians and others the right to seek asylum, this use of Title 42 blatantly violates both international and U.S. law. It’s discrimination masquerading as a public health policy, and it’s only created more chaos at the border.

In November, a federal judge’s ruling confirmed as much by striking down Title 42, although what happens next remains to be seen. In another step forward, Biden recently extended temporary protected status for Haitians already in the U.S.

The U.S. has long served as a safe haven for the persecuted, but it must do more to treat all asylum seekers with respect and allow them to fully access the asylum process. The disparate treatment of refugees and asylum seekers also emphasizes the larger need for a more efficient, just, and inclusive U.S. immigration system.

This year’s record-breaking global displacement crisis calls for greater protections and investment by the international community instead of more indifference and cruelty. It demands humane policies anchored in respect and dignity for all people.

*

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

Farrah Hassen, J.D., is a writer, policy analyst, and adjunct professor in the Department of Political Science at Cal Poly Pomona.

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

December was a good month for President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. First he was selected by Time magazine as Person of the Year. Then he was asked to address a joint session of Congress. And then he was promised more money for Ukraine.

How much more?

U.S. Army General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, have both said that the United States would support Ukraine for “as long as it takes.” President Biden has said the same thing.

Because of the different metrics used, and differences between total aid committed and actual aid supplied, how much Ukraine has been given and how much more it will be given is not exactly easy to figure out.

According to a report (updated Dec. 7) by the Congressional Research Service on “U.S. Security Assistance to Ukraine”:

From 2014, when Russia first invaded Ukraine, through November 23, 2022, the United States has provided approximately $21.8 billion in security assistance “to help Ukraine preserve its territorial integrity, secure its borders, and improve interoperability with NATO.” Of this amount, the Biden Administration has committed more than $19 billion in security assistance since the start of the 2022 war.

Especially since 2021, the United States has been providing defense items to Ukraine via Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), by which the President can authorize the immediate transfer of articles and services from U.S. stocks, up to a funding cap established in law, in response to an “unforeseen emergency” (22 U.S.C. §2318(a)(1)). Since August 2021, the Biden Administration has authorized 26 drawdowns valued at $11.7 billion.

The German Kiel Institute puts U.S. military, humanitarian, and financial support to Ukraine from January 24 to November 20 at $47.9 billion.

What we do know is that in 2022, the U.S. government authorized to be given to Ukraine $13.6 billion in March as part of the fiscal year 2022 omnibus spending bill, $40 billion in May in a standalone bill, $12 billion in September as part of a continuing resolution, $800 million in December in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, $45 billion as part of another omnibus spending bill that would fund the government through October, and $1.85 billion in additional military assistance, including a transfer of the Patriot Air Defense System.

In his speech to Congress, Zelensky said:

Financial assistance is also critically important and I would like to thank you, thank you very much. Thank you for both financial packages you have already provided us with and the ones you may be willing to decide on. Your money is not charity. It’s an investment in the global security and democracy that we handle in the most responsible way.

An investment? That’s what members of Congress call all the unconstitutional spending they authorize.

But rather than terming aid to Ukraine an investment, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)—one of several Republican members of Congress who skipped Zelensky’s speech—called it what it is: “The American taxpayers have been conscripted into making welfare payments to this foreign government.”

Screaming conservative journalist Cliff Kincaid insists: “It is not ‘neo-conservatism’ to advocate regime change in Moscow. It is a matter of Ukraine’s and America’s survival.” He believes we can save America by saving Ukraine. He says that “America has no alternative but to supply the weapons necessary for Ukraine to survive and even turn the tide against Russia.” Kincaid even considers billions of U.S. tax dollars sent to Ukraine as a bargain: “Currently, even under the impact of the Red Russian Army, backed by drones from Iran, the Ukraine resistance is holding its own and making progress. And all this is costing the United States several billion dollars. What a bargain!”

Ukraine supporters should put their money where their mouth is.

How much money has Zelensky loving, Ukraine supporting conservatives like Kincaid given to Ukraine?

President Biden receives an annual salary of $400,000. How much of it has he given to Ukraine?

Vice president Kamala Harris receives an annual salary of $255,800. How much of it has she given to Ukraine?

Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi received an annual salary of $223,500. How much of it did she give to Ukraine?

Congressional majority and minority leaders and the president pro tempore of the Senate receive an annual salary of $193,400. How much of it did Steny Hoyer, Kevin McCarthy, Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer, and Mitch McConnell give to Ukraine?

Members of Congress receive an annual salary of $174,000. How much of it has any of them given to Ukraine?

I think we all know the answer: zilch, zero, nothing. Ukraine supporters should put their money where their mouth is.

How much money have people who chant “Stand with Ukraine” actually given to Ukraine?

How much money have people who have dumped out Russia vodka actually given to Ukraine?

How much money have people who have boycotted Russian goods actually given to Ukraine?

How much money have people who put up pro-Ukraine yard signs actually given to Ukraine?

How much money have people who fly Ukrainian flags or wear Ukrainian lapel pins actually given to Ukraine?

How much money have people who have demonstrated against Russia actually given to Ukraine?

How much money have people who wear pro-Ukrainian t-shirts actually given to Ukraine?

Would all the money given by these people even buy Ukraine one missile? Ukraine supporters should put their money where their mouth is.

It doesn’t matter if Vladimir Putin is another Hitler, a diehard communist, the personification of evil, the antichrist, or the devil incarnate. Ukraine supporters should put their money where their mouth is.

It doesn’t matter if Russia is an evil empire, is aggressing Ukraine for no good reason, is trying to reestablish the USSR, is attempting to take over all of Ukraine, or is committing genocide against the Ukrainians. Ukraine supporters should put their money where their mouth is.

No matter what has happened or will happen in Ukraine—

It is not the business of the U.S. government to take sides in disputes between countries.

It is not the business of the U.S. government to take money from Americans and give it to foreigners or their governments.

It is not the business of the U.S. government to intervene in the affairs of other counties.

Ukraine supporters should put their money where their mouth is.

*

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

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from central Florida. He is the author of The War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom; War, Christianity, and the State: Essays on the Follies of Christian Militarism; War, Empire, and the Military: Essays on the Follies of War and U.S. Foreign Policy; King James, His Bible, and Its Translators, and many other books. His newest books are Free Trade or Protectionism? and The Free Society.

Featured image is from Kim Petersen

A Government That Assaults Liberty

January 6th, 2023 by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

During the course of an FBI written response to a Freedom of Information Act request asking about the trade names and suppliers of surveillance software the FBI had purchased, and in a legal brief submitted to a federal judge, the government has yet again quietly acknowledged its antipathy to constitutional provisions that all of its employees have sworn to uphold.

Since we are dealing with software used to spy on Americans in the U.S. and abroad, the constitutional right being transgressed is the right to privacy.

This is the ancient natural right to be left alone, which the Supreme Court took 175 years to recognize as being protected by the Fourth Amendment. Since that recognition in 1965, however, notwithstanding near universal judicial acceptance of the constitutional protection of the right, the executive branch of the government has persistently negated it.

Here is the backstory.

The Fourth Amendment, which requires judicially issued search warrants for all searches and seizures, protects the contents of devices that store data. Thus, the owners of mobile devices and desktop computers have a privacy right in the data they have stored there. Even a narrow interpretation of the amendment, which guarantees privacy in “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” must acknowledge that a computer chip is an “effect” and thus its owner enjoys this protection.

It is an allegiance to the plain language, general understanding and definitive judicial interpretations of the Fourth Amendment to which all in government have sworn.

During the Trump administration, and likely behind the president’s back but with the knowledge of senior folks appointed by him, the FBI purchased Israeli-manufactured software known as zero-click. Zero-click refers to the ability of the user of the software to target and download the contents of a computer without the need for tricking an unwary target into clicking on to a link. The manufacturer of this diabolic software is known as NSO, and the trade name of the software is Pegasus.

When President Joe Biden learned of the FBI’s use of Pegasus without search warrants, he banned it from government use, and his Department of Commerce banned all American purchases from NSO. The FBI now stores this software in a warehouse in New Jersey.

Why didn’t Biden just do his job and prohibit all warrantless domestic spying?

Image: Adam Schiff (Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons)

Last week, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the outgoing chair of the House Intelligence Committee, revealed that the Drug Enforcement Administration has purchased a similar product to Pegasus, called Graphite, from another Israeli manufacturer, called Paragon. Schiff revealed this in time for Congress to include in its $1.65 trillion omnibus legislation, enacted just before Christmas, provisions that give the director of national intelligence power to prohibit all parts of the intelligence community from purchasing or using foreign spyware.

Why didn’t Congress just do its job and prohibit all warrantless domestic spying, irrespective of the software?

The answers to these questions reflect that the intelligence community knows too much about Biden and too many members of Congress for Congress to defy it. Thus, Schiff’s proposal, which became law, was premised upon a supposed congressional fear that the Israeli-manufactured spyware, when employed by the FBI or DEA, could serve as a spying mechanism by the Israeli government on the American government.

How quaint; spies and allies spying on each other! Taxpayers paying for this. The Constitution trashed yet again.

When Rep. Schiff’s civil liberties-defending colleague, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked the DEA about this, it declined to give him a clear answer. Sen. Wyden was concerned about the DEA spying on Americans outside the U.S. Outside? Yes, outside. For years the governments of presidents of both parties have argued that the Fourth Amendment only restrains law enforcement, not intelligence, and they have argued that the Constitution only restrains the government in the U.S.

This discredited argument has been rejected by the Supreme Court since the 1940s, and as recently as 2008, when the court held that wherever the government goes to do its work, the Constitution goes with it. This holding is hardly novel. Rather, it is based on 400 years of British law that prohibited kings and sheriffs from removing defendants to places outside of Britain for torture and interrogation, only to be returned for trial.

Were this rule — wherever the government goes, so goes the Constitution — not so, then nothing would prevent the FBI and DEA from doing what British officials tried to get away with.

Now, back to the DEA. Joe Biden’s DEA, and Donald Trump’s before it, takes the position that when it operates outside the U.S. — such as its drug war against Mexico and Mexican civilians — it also operates outside the Constitution. In order to prevent a judicial prohibition of its extra-constitutional lawlessness, lawyers for the DEA must labor mightily to keep its behavior and its well-discredited arguments from being aired in an American courtroom.

They do this in two ways. First, as addressed above, is to use quiet threats to coerce government officials to decline to prohibit expressly these practices. And second, if necessary, to dupe federal judges and defense lawyers by creating a fictitious version of its acquisition of evidence. The fiction usually posits a foreign intermediary handing over evidence to the feds who hand it to other feds who do not know of its criminal origins.

Criminal? Yes, criminal. Hacking a computer without consent or a search warrant is a crime, no matter where it is committed or by whom.

Rep. Schiff and Sen. Wyden are well-intended. They each have a consistent track record of defending civil liberties from attacks by the government. But the culture in Congress today prevents full-throated congressional defenses of privacy, no matter which party is in control.

We have elected a government and hired its employees to protect our liberties and our property. Today it does neither. Rather, it assaults them.

What do we do about it?

*

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

Featured image is from Indian Punchline

What If Ukraine Had Kept Its Nuclear Weapons?

January 6th, 2023 by Daniel Larison

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The nuclear disarmament of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine was one of the great success stories of the end of the Cold War, and it was one of the most significant victories for the cause of nonproliferation. 

When the Soviet Union ceased to exist, these newly independent states had to manage the problem of the Soviet nuclear legacy left behind in their lands. Their disarmament was bound up with their status as independent, sovereign countries as they sought and needed to be integrated with the rest of the world.

The commitment of the non-Russian republics to disarm saved the original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and upheld the principles of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and their eventual disarmament is one of the underappreciated achievements of U.S. foreign policy in the post-Cold War era.

While all three states were always willing to get rid of the nuclear weapons they had inherited from the Soviet Union, the paths that they took to disarmament were somewhat different with respect to the terms and timing of removing these weapons and their delivery systems from their territories. The Ukrainian case is the most involved of the three, and because of the war in Ukraine it is also the most salient today in current debates about disarmament and nonproliferation. It is therefore fortunate that there is a new book that can expertly guide us through this complicated and important history.

US Secretary of Defense William Perry (left), Ukraine ministry of defense Mr. Schmarov (center) and Russian Ministry of Defense ltgen Grachov (right), celebrate the completed dismantlement of silo 110 and Ukraine’s completed nuclear weapons arsenal dismantlement. Silo 110 was the first of 160 Ukrainian silos to be dismantled in the next two years as part of the Nunn-Lugar / Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. (April 6, 1996)(National Archives)

Mariana Budjeryn’s Inheriting the Bomb: The Collapse of the USSR and the Nuclear Disarmament of Ukraine is an excellent study of how the process of disarmament unfolded. Drawing on a wide range of sources, including some Ukrainian sources not tapped before, Budjeryn details in great depth the internal deliberations of the Ukrainian government and the intensive rounds of negotiations among the U.S., Russia and the three non-Russian republics.

The book should become a standard reference for anyone working on this issue and on nonproliferation more broadly, and I expect that it will.

Budjeryn shows how the Ukrainian government realized that they had no practical alternative to disarmament if they were going to be a full-fledged member of the international community, but they also believed that their country should not give up the weapons without receiving something in return. The Ukrainian government took a nuanced position on the question of disarmament, as they were committed to denuclearization but wanted, for reasons of sovereignty and leverage, to emphasize that they “owned” the weapons on their territory even if they couldn’t and wouldn’t use them.

This insistence on ownership created some tensions in relations with both the U.S. and Russia, and opened Ukraine up to untrue charges of “backsliding” on its commitments. But in the end, Ukraine was never in a position to keep the weapons and did not want to keep them.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the story is how the three non-Russian republics leveraged the U.S. desire to ratify and implement START into securing themselves places at the negotiating table. Russia would have preferred to keep all arms control discussions bilateral, but since START could not be implemented without the cooperation of the other states it became necessary to include them.

This created some interesting contradictions in Washington’s dealings with these states. On the one hand, Washington accepted that the three non-Russian republics were successors to the Soviet Union for the purposes of arms control under START, but it would not accept that they were successors to the Soviet Union’s status as a nuclear weapons state.

The U.S. bottom line was that there should be no additional nuclear weapons states emerging from the collapsed Soviet Union. The NPT was clear that there could only be five nuclear weapons states, and the U.S. was not going to compromise on this point. This meant that Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine had to commit to joining the NPT as non-nuclear weapons states while simultaneously assisting the U.S. in eliminating part of the Soviet nuclear arsenal that they had in their countries.

It took some time to get all three across the finish line with the ratification of both treaties, but it is a credit to their governments and to the Bush and Clinton administrations that they kept this process moving forward to a successful conclusion.

If Ukraine’s disarmament is discussed today, it is often mentioned as a supposed cautionary tale of what other states shouldn’t do. Shortly after the 2022 Russian invasion began, John Ullyot and Thomas Grant declared Ukraine’s disarmament to have been a mistake: “If you abandon your nuclear program and entrust your security to formal guarantees and conventional deterrence, you gamble with your future. If you give up your nukes, you give up your national security ace-in-the-hole.”

Bill McGurn of The Wall Street Journal asked rhetorically, “If Ukraine hadn’t given up its nukes after the collapse of the Soviet Union, would Vladimir Putin have dared invade?” This line of thinking is misguided for several reasons.

As Budjeryn shows, there really was no serious option of keeping the inherited nuclear weapons without exposing Ukraine to international opprobrium and isolation, and the cost of building up an indigenous nuclear weapons program to maintain their own arsenal was prohibitive. She sums up the Ukrainian foreign ministry’s view at the time: “The negative repercussions of the nuclear option would far outweigh the positive.”

It is a mistake for people today to indulge the fantasy that Ukraine could have kept these weapons without suffering severe negative political and economic consequences, and it gives encouragement to would-be proliferators that our collective commitment to nonproliferation is waning.

Another problem with the counterfactual is that there is no guarantee that Ukraine would have been made more secure if it had paid the high price to retain these weapons. If anything, possession of what would have been the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal probably would have made Ukraine more of a target for interference and intervention, and the resources it would have had to pour into its nuclear weapons program would have come at the expense of its other defenses.

Budjeryn quotes Boris Tarasyuk, Ukraine’s then-foreign minister, as saying, “For Ukraine to keep nuclear weapons would have been to go against the entire world order.” When critics of disarmament argue that Ukraine should have somehow kept this arsenal, they are ignoring the enormous, immediate costs that Ukraine would have faced for doing so. Ukraine would not only have been putting its good relations with the U.S. and its allies at risk by keeping these weapons, but counterintuitively it would have also risked its own survival.

Budjeryn concludes: “If Ukraine had refused to join the NPT and kept a part of its nuclear inheritance, it would not be the same country it is today but with nuclear weapons. Indeed, it is doubtful whether it would be a country at all.”“Inheriting the Bomb” is essential reading for anyone interested in issues of disarmament and nonproliferation. It is exceptionally well-researched and well-written, and it deepens the reader’s understanding of the complex problems that were created by the collapse of the Soviet Union. It also reminds us of the importance of careful, patient diplomacy in managing multiple potential crises peacefully.

*

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

Featured image: Intermediate-range ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead RSD-10 Pioneer. It was deployed by the Soviet Union from 1976 to 1988. NATO reporting name was SS-20 Saber. It was withdrawn from service under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Ukrainian Air Force Museum in Vinnitsa. (Licensed under the Public Domain)

What’s Inside the Budget for the Secretive DARPA Agency?

January 6th, 2023 by Jeremy Loffredo

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Economist has called DARPA the agency “that shaped the modern world,” and listed weather satellites, GPS, drones, stealth technology, voice interfaces, the personal computer and the internet on the list of innovations for which “DARPA can claim at least partial credit.” These technologies were originally invented for the military aims of the Pentagon. 

DARPA was providing funding and technical support to Moderna’s mRNA vaccine technology since at least 2013. DARPA also had long-time associates and partners at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

A look at their new budget provides a glimpse at what the U.S. Military sees as part of the future of warfare.

Using machine-learning and artificial intelligence (AI) to manipulate information or human behavior seems to be a priority for DARPA judging by the budget.

A project named AAI aims to further the “facilitation of operator-machine interface, knowledge management and dissemination, and social context-informed AI forecasting.” The project also aims to include a “focus on measuring and aggregating preconscious signals and how these can be used to determine what people believe to be true.”

Project SemaFor is being earmarked for hundreds of millions of dollars and will use AI “to identify false information, its origin, and its intent [emphasis added]. A project named ASED is developing “counter-social engineering bots.” A little description of this project is given.

Once thought to be a thing of only movies and television shows, DARPA plans to further its development of a type of “ray gun.” Project Warden is being earmarked millions of dollars to “amplify the range and lethality of high-power microwave systems and weapons.”

The World Economic Forum idea of Fourth Industrial Revolution technology, which is partly defined as the merging of the digital, technical and biological systems is also highlighted in the DARPA budget.

In a project titled “Rapid Healing for Warfighter Injuries,” DARPA plans to leverage “artificial intelligence to predict, stimulate, and control physiological processes in complex tissues.”

The project codenamed “NSIA” or non-surgical machine interface technology aims to “input multiple channels of information into biological human neural tissue.” The description explains that this is currently in “final testing/transition to implementation phase.”

The agency also plans to use smart devices like smart watches, smart phones, smart cars, and smart home appliances also known as the internet of things (IoT) to further spying and surveillance. aims to facilitate maintaining custody (constant surveillance) of “targets” in contested environments, “interfacing with IoT infrastructure to supplement satellite capability.”

*

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

Featured image is from South Front

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What’s Inside the Budget for the Secretive DARPA Agency?
  • Tags: ,

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the public face of the COVID-19 pandemic, has officially stepped down from his positions at the NIH-NIAID. He may be out but his legacy of scientific fraud and falsehood remains.

We will never forget the mass casualties and injuries he has caused through his public health policy recommendations that are founded on lies and deception.

We will continue with our efforts in exposing COVID crimes spearheaded by state-sanctioned authorities in collaboration with the WHO and WEF.

Our ask is for you to help us in this endeavor.

Click to view our membership plans

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation


Download a free copy of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky’s PDF book:

The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Global Research Donation Drive: Fauci Is Out, His Legacy of Scientific Fraud: Truth Is a Powerful Instrument.

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Upon once again being reinstated last month as Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu dropped a bombshell about how he pressured Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla to turn the “Holy Land” into a “lab for Pfizer” to unleash its covid “vaccines.”

In a recent interview with philosopher Dr. Jordan Peterson, Netanyahu made numerous shocking admissions, without any shame, about how the Israeli people were used as human guinea pigs in the Pfizer experiment – all thanks to Netanyahu’s goading.

“I described that in my book, my conversations with Albert Bourla, Pfizer and I persuaded him to give tiny Israel then the necessary vaccines to get us out first from the covid,” Netanyahu revealed.

“And the reason I could do that is because we have a database, 98%, a medical database. 98% of our population has digitized medical records and [a] little card.” (Related: The Israeli government knew from the beginning that covid injections were injuring and killing people; pushed the shots anyway.)

Netanyahu used Israel’s medical records technology to force the Israeli people to get jabbed, as it allowed for quick and easy access to their “vaccinated” or “unvaccinated” status. This is how the Middle Eastern state’s vaccine “passport” scheme was made possible.

“I said, we’ll use that to tell you whether these vaccines – what do they do to people, no individual people, not with their individual identities,” Netanyahu revealed. “But statistically what does it do to people with … meningitis: what does it do to people with high blood pressure, what is it you want to know?”

“So Israel became, if you will, the lab for Pfizer, and that’s how we did it. We gave the information to the world, and not only it’s been published in medical magazines and so on. That’s a database we have.”

Be sure to watch the interview below:

Netanyahu wants Big Pharma to “run algorithms” using Israel’s medical database so a genetic database can be built

Netanyahu’s ultimate goal, he says, is to build upon Israel’s personal medical records database to create a new genetic database covering the entire population of the country.

He believes that most Israelis would willingly provide a personal saliva sample to be added to that genetic database. Those who are resistant, he added during the interview, could simply be bribed with cash.

“Maybe we’ll pay them,” Netanyahu said nonchalantly about the matter. “Now we have a genetic record on a medical record of a robust population. You have diversified populations’ we have people from 100 lands. This is a very powerful engine.”

“Now let pharma companies, let medical companies, let them run algorithms on this database. […] But you can create a biotechnological industry that is unheard of right now, unheard of, unimagined even.”

It is important to note that what Netanyahu admitted to in this interview concerning Pfizer’s access to personal data about Israelis and their health conditions was recently denied by the Ministry of Health, which claims that Pfizer was never given said access – so who is lying?

Bourla himself back in 2021 said many of the things that Netanyahu did in this recent interview, including an admission about the fact that Israel “has become the world’s lab right now because they are using only our vaccine at this state and they have vaccinated a very big part of their population, so we can study both economy and health indices.”

In the United States, the government here is said to be using a “precision monitoring” system to similarly, but perhaps not as extensively, monitor the fully vaccinated for a least two years post-injection.

*

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

Featured image is from America’s Frontline Doctors


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

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

The Likud Party of Netanyahu, A Terrorist Organisation?

January 5th, 2023 by Hans Stehling

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

It is surely correct for the UK to proscribe the IRGC under a formal legal process of the  Terrorism Act 2000, as a terrorist organisation, as is now proposed by the British government. However, by the same criteria it must also be right to award such a dubious distinction to the Likud party of Binyamin Netanyahu whose IDF has killed more than 100 primarily unarmed Palestinian civilians since January 2022. That is also terrorism, for a Palestinian Arab is also a human being, just as is an Israeli Jew or an English Christian.

Israeli forces have killed more Palestinians in the occupied territories during 2022 than in any year since 2005 when the second intifada ended, according to Middle East Eye‘s (MEE), which relies on UN, Palestinian, Israeli and rights groups’ data. The report found that at least 220 Palestinians were killed, including 48 children, 167 of them in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and 53 in Gaza. Some 9,000 were injured in the West Bank, MEE stated, citing UN sources. It stated that 95 Palestinian civilians were shot by Israeli troops during raids or while taking part in anti-occupation protests, 21 Palestinian fighters were killed during clashes with Israeli troops; and in the cases of a further 20 people killed in Israeli raids, it was not clear whether or not they were civilians or combatants.

Definitions

Any armed force that kills unarmed civilians is a terrorist organisation that employs terror as a political weapon; often uses religion as a cover for its terrorist activities.

An individual in an  armed force, or otherwise, who commits an act or acts of violence or threatens violence in pursuit of political, religious, or ideological objectives, including the forced acquisition of another’s land by violence and illegal annexation.

*

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

Hans Stehling (a pen name) is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: A Palestinian child, Omar Alhadeede, the sole survivor of his family, looks at a photo of his brothers, killed by the recent Israeli bombing on Gaza. (Image tweeted by Aya Isleem)

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Kyrylo Budanov, the military intelligence boss of Ukraine, told the war propaganda disseminator, ABC News, there will be additional strikes deep inside Russia, follow-ups to the December 26 attack on the Engels Air Force Base, more than 800 miles from the border. Budanov refused to say one way or another if Ukraine is responsible for the attacks. He added Ukraine will take responsibility for the attacks after it has won the war and reclaimed its “annexed” territory.

It is entirely possible Budanov will be captured and shipped to Russia to face a war crimes tribunal at some point in the future, that is if he does not become a mangled corpse buried under the charred rubble of a destroyed Ministry of Defense at number 6, Povitroflotskyi Ave, Kyiv.

Budanov has fooled himself into believing the Ukronazis are capable of taking back Crimea and the oblasts of Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kherson, Luhansk, Mykolaiv, and Zaporizhzhia.

And when asked about attacks on Crimea, which was illegally annexed by Russia in 2014, Budanov said, “Crimea is Ukrainian territory, we can use any weapon on our territory.”

Not mentioned is the fact the majority of ethnic Russians in these areas voted to leave the corrupt and poverty-stricken Ukronazi state after it made clear, most dramatically after the Maidan coup, it plans to ethnically cleanse all Russians and, according to the Ukrainian News website, herd them into concentration camps.

Maybe the Brits can help with this, as they pioneered deadly concentration camps during the Boer War in South Africa, resulting in the death of thousands (mostly women and children).

I don’t know if Ukronazi concentration camps are a real thing. However, it is no secret the post-coup government in Kyiv has held nothing but toxic enmity for ethnic Russians, the Russian language (which half the country speaks), Russian culture, and even the Russian Orthodox Church.

Soon after the USG coup in Kyiv, the handpicked prime minister—handpicked by Victoria Nuland and USG ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt—Arseniy Yatsenyuk, called for “wiping out” the “inhumans” (ethnic Russians) and “cleaning our land from the evil,” in other words, ethnic cleansing.

But don’t take my word for it. Read “White Book: On Violations of Human Rights and the Rule of Law in Ukraine.”

The document presents evidence of repeated and serious violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995).

The Washington Post (major propaganda player, CIA’s Operation Mockingbird) insists Ukraine is a democracy, never mind, as the above document reveals, “democratic” Ukronazis have harassed, beaten, abducted, tortured, and killed journalists and activists opposed to the Ukronazi, USG-supported coup d’état removing an elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, in 2014.

Ukraine has many aspects of a democracy. The president, who is head of state and commander in chief, is chosen by a popular election. The legislature has a mix of single-seat and proportional representation. The prime minister is chosen through a legislative majority and is head of government. The Supreme Court is appointed by the president upon nomination by the Supreme Council of Justice.

How is it possible the violent overthrow of an elected government, the outlawing and persecution of political opposition, reducing Russian speakers to second-class citizenship, the banning of religious freedom, and numerous war crimes against civilians and POWs, can be considered a democracy?

Ukronazi apologists in the USG propaganda media, calling themselves professional journalists, argue Ukraine has imposed martial law in response to Russia’s SMO, and that has effectively put democracy on hold until the war is over and Ukraine is victorious.

Ukronazis engaged in this behavior years before the Russians decided, some argue rather belatedly, to go into Ukraine and disarm them. For the USG national security state’s propaganda media, historical fact is malignant disinformation spewed by Putin, the New Hitler, and if you believe anything coming out of Russia, you’re a Russian dupe, a national security threat to the USG, as Tucker Carlson apparently is for daring to speak the truth about Ukraine.

As I pointed out in “CIA’s Deadly ‘Strategy of Tension’ to Destroy Russia,” the USG is not interested in promoting democracy in a corrupt hellhole run by Ukronazi terrorists and oligarchs. That’s feel-good PR, an excuse to escalate the war.

The primary objective here is to “weaken” Russia, overthrow its government, and as the demented warmonger Lindsay Graham has demanded, assassinate Vladimir Putin.

The USG and its CIA have spent decades prepping Ukraine to be the frontline in the war to eliminate Russia and its elected leader. This is normal behavior for the USG and its psychopathic functionaries.

Kyrylo Budanov realizes Ukraine is not capable on its own of accomplishing attacks inside Russia, hundreds of miles from the border. He knows these raids are the work of the USG, its CIA (in-country for decades), Pentagon special forces, British intelligence, and private mercenary contractors of the sort responsible for so much death and misery in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Following the attack on Makiivka that killed an unknown number of Russian soldiers, we can expect Putin and his generals to speed up their planned winter offensive to finally delouse a smoldering rump state of its last neo-Nazis. The Russian people are demanding as much, in addition to punishing the military brass responsible for putting troops in harm’s way.

However, the war is far from over. The USG has prepared for a guerrilla war against the Russian “occupation” of Crimea and Donbas and plans for a government in exile. In this way, Zelenskyy, if he is still alive, can become the new Juan Guaido, the USG-declared president of Venezuela, never mind Venezuelans voted for somebody else.

Guaido was eventually thrown under the bus. This will be the fate of Zelenskyy or whoever declares himself the leader of a failed and destroyed Ukronazi state.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

As probably should be expected, The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post, Fox News, et al, ad nauseam, are dwelling on the anger of Russians following the deadly attack on a Russian base in Makiivka, an industrial city in Donetsk Oblast, now part of the Russian Federation.

For the USG and its war propaganda media, the outpouring of anger and frustration over the attack is a positive development for Ukronazis. It is hoped outrage will turn against Putin and the Russian leadership.

As usual, the BBC and those who buy into its nonstop propaganda are misjudging the Russian people. Indeed, they are “beginning to wake up,” not in response to missteps by Putin and his generals, although there is justifiable anger, but rather that Ukraine is in large part controlled by psychopaths who consider them cockroaches and want nothing more than to kill them.

Of course, we can’t expect the BBC, the main propaganda outlet for a nation responsible for blowing up the NordStream pipeline, thus leaving Germans to freeze this winter, to report details on the attack. For warmonger propagandists, the death of hundreds of Russian soldiers, without much detail on the attacks, is enough info for blinkered Brits.

First and foremost, we were told by script-reader Biden and the USG that they would only provide Ukraine with governed Lockheed Martin HIMARS artillery, unable to reach Russia. However, according to the death merchant manufacturer, “the launcher can fire rounds reaching beyond 300km and is ‘interoperable with the latest precision munitions that range 15 to 499+ km,’” reports Newsweek.

Depending on where the HIMARS were fired, most of Donetsk is within reach of potentially illegal rounds, illegal because the platform was used to fire cluster bombs, outlawed by all sane and rational nations. Believe it or not, Biden is actually considering sending cluster bombs to genocidal Ukronazis.

The original M26 rockets had cluster warheads which distributed over 600 small bomblets over a wide area. Nicknamed ‘steel rain,’ these proved extremely effective during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, but left an unacceptable number of unexploded bomblets on the battlefield. The M26 was replaced with a unitary warhead, that is, one with a single, large explosive charge.

News reports dutifully ignored by the war propaganda media indicate the Ukronazis have in fact already used cluster munitions, more than likely provided by the USG, which lies about the degree of military assistance given to Zelenskyy and his band of whack-job ultranats. Remarkably, the use of cluster bombs in Ukraine, often responsible for killing and maiming children, was reported by The New York Times. According to a report on MRonline:

The cluster bombs that the Ukrainian forces used against a village populated with civilians on their own territory are banned by countries around the world for their capacity to haphazardly kill innocent civilians, according to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. Almost 20% of these munitions fail to detonate on impact, and remain a threat to civilians long after hostilities end, killing and maiming them indiscriminately.

The Ukronazis, notorious for disemboweling and hacking to death Polish children in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia during WWII, began using cluster bombs in Donetsk following the USG-orchestrated coup in Kyiv.

Ukrainian forces had also used cluster bombs in 2015 in battles against the breakaway republics of Lugansk and Donetsk to the country’s east. More recently, they fired such munitions on Donetsk on March 14, killing 20 people and wounding 37 others…

The head of the [Donetsk’s] Defense Ministry’s National Defense Management Center, General Mikhail Mezentsev, touched on Ukraine’s actions in Donetsk, revealing the toll of the Ukrainian Tochka-U attack, a missile containing cluster munition. He described the bombing as a “war crime.”

If in fact HIMARS artillery was used in the attack on the Russian base in Makiivka, it is more than likely USG trainers and Pentagon technicians were present. The Russians understand “that targets are selected using US military satellites,” and training of Ukronazis on the complex precision rocket system is intense.

“Ukrainian Soldiers have begun training on the first U.S.-made rocket artillery systems at an undisclosed location outside of the country, according to a senior U.S. defense official,” the Defense Blog noted in June.

“What the HIMARS will allow them to do is to get greater standoff. Right now, the howitzers we provided them have about a 30 km range; the HIMARS have more than twice that, which will allow them—even with fewer systems—greater standoff,” said Colin H. Kahl, undersecretary of defense for policy.

It is entirely possible a “shoot-and-scoot” HIMARS unit could have positioned itself close enough to level a Russian military facility in Donetsk. However, I doubt the mission was carried out by Ukrainians, as we know the Pentagon and NATO do not entirely trust them—and with good reason. USG weapons systems are showing up in Africa, sold to potential terrorists and other “bad actors” by unscrupulous Ukrainians.

“NATO does not trust Ukrainian soldiers to operate HIMARS themselves, presumably for a number of reasons,” explains Ian Summer, “An American Tourist in Russia,”

Ukrainian crews might not be competent enough to perform these high-speed “shoot and scoot” missions without being detected and destroyed by Russian counter-battery fire, Ukrainian neo-nazis might be too tempted to [attack] Russian territory, Ukrainian commanders might be too corrupt and sell HIMARS launchers and munitions, or all the above.

I admit this is speculation (a conspiracy theory rendering me, according to the FBI, a domestic terrorist, maybe even a white supremacist). However, a number of reported facts strengthen the argument that the USG is on the ground in Ukraine, employing its sophisticated GPS and satellite imagery to target Russians. In short, the USG is killing Russians—and many of them (some estimates say the Makiivka bombing killed over 600, although this has yet to be confirmed).

1. The CIA is in Ukraine, and has been for some time. This was reported by The New York Times, but only because the state has made it part of the pro-war narrative. The CIA is not in the business of passing out cookies like Victoria Nuland.

2. In early December, the Pentagon admitted its willingness to push the envelope in Ukraine. “An anonymous US defense source told The Times that ‘the fear of escalation has changed since the beginning. It’s different now.’”

3. While it would be counterproductive for the USG to admit it has troops on the ground, it is far less controversial to admit there are a lot of American mercenaries willing to do what the Pentagon can’t, or won’t do in Ukraine, at least for the moment.

4. As with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the USG is using corporate mercenaries, according to the Russians, in particular, hired guns from Greystone, a former affiliate of Blackwater (subsequently Xe, then Academi). The Russians claimed in April there were 150 American mercenaries operating in Ukraine.

5. Even before Russia’s SMO, the USG decided to send “advisers” to Ukraine. “The Biden administration is considering sending military advisers and new weapons to Ukraine in the face of a Russian military buildup near the border between the two countries,” The Hill reported on November 23, 2021, citing CNN. Consider, as a historical parallel, what occurred after President Kennedy sent military advisers to Vietnam in 1961.

6. The CIA again. On December 26, I wrote “CIA’s Deadly ‘Strategy of Tension’ to Destroy Russia,” a look at mysterious attacks deep inside Russia. I pointed out how the CIA recruited a “stay behind army” of extremists to engage in various terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage following WWII. I wrote the post after former US Army Special Operations operative Jack Murphy claimed,

“NATO and US intelligence agencies have been running agents inside Russia, directing them to target critical infrastructure in a bid to create “chaos.” Shopping centres, gas pipelines and fuel depots have all suffered damage across Russia in recent months with Mr Murphy pointing to a CIA-directed campaign of covert “sabotage.”

Again, considering the past history of the national security state and its CIA enforcer, I find it difficult to believe the CIA and the Pentagon (along with British intelligence) are not responsible for attacking far-flung cities in Russia and also coordinating, if not accomplishing on its own, attacks on the Russians in Donetsk.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Kyrgyzstan – Next in Line for a Colour Revolution?

January 5th, 2023 by Gavin OReilly

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The accession of Kyrgyzstan to chair of the Commonwealth of Independent States for 2023 should bode well for the central Asian republic. Having not held the position since 2016, Kyrgyzstan’s new role in the CIS, a transnational Eurasian body intended to foster economic and military development, will likely spur economic growth in what is the poorest country in the region.

Going by recent trends related to the two most recent chairs of the CIS however, Belarus in 2021 and Kazakhstan last year, it also may mean that Bishkek has now been placed in the sights of the regime change lobby.

In August 2020, following Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko’s electoral victory over opposition candidate Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, a US-orchestrated regime change operation would be launched against Minsk, owing to it being Moscow’s sole European ally, its nationalised state industries, and in what was perhaps the most pertinent factor at the time, Lukashenko’s refusal to implement the lockdown measures as part of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset initiative.

Violent protests, backed by US NGO the National Endowment for Democracy, would sweep the former Soviet state in the aftermath of the election, continuing for several months before finally being quelled by Minsk, with Lukashenko’s government remaining intact.

This would not be a fate shared by neighbouring Ukraine, with Kiev having been subjected to the Euromaidan regime operation in 2013-14 which resulted in a Western-backed coalition coming to power. A situation, that had it occurred in Belarus in 2020, would have resulted in the precarious situation where Russia’s entire western border was composed solely of NATO-members and allies.

Likewise, in Russia’s southern neighbour Kazakhstan, protests in response to rising fuel prices in early 2022 would rapidly escalate into extreme violence in the space of several days, resulting in the deaths of 18 members of the Kazakh security services, including two who were decapitated.

The sudden, violent nature of the Kazakh protests, as well as their coordinated coverage by the corporate media, bore all the hallmarks of a Western-backed colour revolution. Indeed, this was effectively confirmed as such by a May 2020 policy document published by neoconservative think tank the RAND Corporation, which envisaged the destabilisation of Kazakhstan as having a spill-over effect into neighbouring Russia, the 7,000km long border between both nations being the 2nd largest in the world after the US and Canada.

This is where the potential for a colour revolution attempt in Kyrgyzstan comes into play.

Though a small country, Kyrgyzstan’s geographical location, to the west of the Xinjiang region of China, means that a Maidan-style colour revolution in the country would ultimately have a spill-over effect into its larger eastern neighbour, specifically into a region known for extremist activity, such as that of ETIM, a group which previously fought with the Al-Nusra Front in Syria, and which bombed the Chinese Embassy in Bishkek in a 2016 attack.

Indeed, destabilising Kyrgyzstan as a means to trigger a Domino effect which would ultimately destabilise China, ties in perfectly with the recent activity of the regime change lobby.

Just last month, protests against Beijing’s ‘zero-Covid’ policies quickly escalated into demands for the removal of Xi Jinping from office, a situation conspicuously envisaged by Open Society founder George Soros in a January 2022 address to the Hoover Institution. Despite also receiving the support of the NED, this attempt at regime change would quickly falter due to Beijing acceding to the demands of legitimate protesters and removing lockdown restrictions, resulting in the corporate media switching to a ‘Covid is spreading again’ narrative.

However, with Kyrgyzstan’s new role as chair of the CIS, and what happened with the two previous holders of the position, 2023 may see another attempt at regime change in China, one that could possibly begin in its smaller western neighbour.

*

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

Gavin O’Reilly is an activist from Dublin, Ireland, with a strong interest in the effects of British and US Imperialism. Secretary of the Dublin Anti-Internment Committee, a campaign group set up to raise awareness of Irish Republican political prisoners in British and 26 County jails. His work has previously appeared on American Herald Tribune, The Duran, Al-Masdar and MintPress News. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. Support him on Patreon.

Featured image: Bishkek (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

That the trial was unfair is indicated by the judge’s ruling that all evidence supplied by Dutch and Ukrainian state organizations was admissible in court; but all evidence supplied by Russian organizations were inadmissible.

On November 17, a Dutch court convicted two Russians, and a Ukrainian commander of a military unit in the Donetsk People’s Militia, in absentia for shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014.[1]

The Russians are Igor Girkin, a 51-year-old former colonel in Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), and his subordinate, Sergey Dubinsky, and Donetsk People’s Militia commander Leonid Kharchenko, who allegedly took orders from Dubinsky.[2]

Russian Oleg Pulatov[3]—the only defendant to employ an attorney—was acquitted at the trial for lack of evidence.

Dutch prosecutors acknowledged that the four defendants had not “press[ed] the button themselves,” but said that they had worked to get Buk missiles to the firing location.[4]

Secretary of State Antony Blinken proclaimed after the verdict that the

“U.S. welcomes today’s decision finding three members of Russian proxy forces in eastern Ukraine guilty for their roles in the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. The decision by the District Court of The Hague is an important moment in ongoing efforts to deliver justice for the 298 individuals who lost their lives on July 17, 2014.”

Justice was not actually delivered for the victims, however. The Dutch judge, Hendrik Steenhuis, ruled admissible evidence supplied by Dutch and Ukrainian state organizations and their military officers, intelligence agents, and police but not by Russian organizations because, he said, they are state agencies and “not clear, transparent, entirely unconvincing.”

Steenhuis admitted at the beginning of the trial, however, that bodies were tampered with by Ukrainian authorities at the scene of the crash, making clear that they were not transparent.

Ukrainian authorities also withheld communication between the MH17 pilots and Ukrainian air control, the radar tracking data at the Ukrainian air control center, and communication from the air controller in charge of MH17, and appear to have fabricated an audio tape purporting to show Russian-backed rebels in Donetsk bragging about shooting down the MH17 plane.[5]

The U.S. for its part obstructed justice by refusing to provide satellite imagery from the crash it claimed to have after Judge Steenhuis demanded it, telling the court that it was willing to interpret the satellite images but not reveal them.[6]

A Show Trial

Christopher Black, a veteran litigator in international war crimes trials, referred to the Dutch trial “as nothing more than a Ukrainian civil war fought by the Kyiv regime, with lawyers instead of soldiers. It’s a show trial. Nothing more than propaganda.”[7]

According to Christelle Néant writing in the Donbass Insider, evidence presented by Russia that Judge Steenhuis refused to consider included the serial number from the Buk missile allegedly used in the shootdown, which indicated that the missile belonged to the Ukrainian Army.

Despite intensive overhead surveillance of Ukraine in 2014, U.S. and other Western intelligence services could find no evidence that Russia had ever given a Buk system to the rebels or introduced one into the area.[8]

Image: Russian-made Buk system. [Source: consortiumnews.com]

Satellite intelligence reviewed both before and after the shoot-down only detected Ukrainian Buk missile systems in the conflict zone.

Dutch intelligence specified in a suppressed October 2015 report that the only anti-aircraft weapons in eastern Ukraine capable of bringing down MH17 at 33,000 feet belonged to the Ukrainian government.[9]

Major General Onno Eichelsheim, Director of the Dutch Military Intelligence Service (MIVD), concluded—based on review of top-secret NATO and U.S. signals intelligence monitoring Russian military units—that flight MH17 was “flying beyond the range of all identified and operational Ukrainian and Russian locations where 9K37MI Buk M1 Systems were deployed.”[10]

The Dutch court in 2022 suggested that the Buk was fired from a field near Pervomaysky, located on the border of the zone in eastern Ukraine controlled by the Ukrainian army, which was encircling and shelling Saur-Mogila next to it.

A former commander of the Donetsk People’s Militia told Néant—in a statement corroborated by a local villager named Valentina—that the Ukrainian Army was present on the outskirts of Stepanovka around Saur-Mogila at the time of the crash and that Ukrainian soldiers would have consequently seen and heard the shot from the Buk system and destroyed it, given their close proximity.

The same commander said that, if the Donetsk People’s Militia had a Buk system, they would never have installed it in Pervomaysky within range of Ukrainian artillery—with just a few soldiers to protect the device.

Rather, he told her, they would have installed it in Snezhnoye, to protect the town—which had been bombed the day before by the Ukrainian Air Force, which killed 12 civilians.

According to Valentina, the Buk in Stepanovka was too far away to hit MH17, and its trajectory was not consistent with where the plane was shot down.[11]

The damage to the plane also was inconsistent with a hit from a missile as heavy as a Buk.[12]

A map showing the distance between the launch site and the MH17 crash site

Source: dailymail.co.uk

The Buk was thus likely not the weapon—as the Dutch court and U.S. government officials claim.

The Lie That Shot Down MH17

John Helmer, the longest serving foreign correspondent in Russia, writes in his 2020 book, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, that “CT scans, x-rays, autopsy sections, and spectroscopic testing of metals…conducted in the Netherlands and verified in Australia, make the Buk story impossible.”[13]

Helmer points out that a Buk warhead would have caused thousands of pieces of shrapnel to have been lodged in the bodies of the crash victims. The only shrapnel evidence discovered in the bodies of the MH17 victims, however, was confined to the three cockpit crew.[14]

An Australian investigation led by Dr. David Ransom, a Victoria forensic pathologist, ruled out that the recorded injuries of the victims or cause of death “resulted from metal penetration of a Buk warhead or other ordinance.”[15]

The Russians from the outset claimed that the MH17 was shot down in an air-to-air strike. This is consistent with numerous eyewitnesses in Rozspyne and Grabovo, who stated that they heard multiple aircraft around the time of the crash, and that one of the aircraft flew away.[16]

Two of the eyewitnesses said that the other aircraft had to have been Ukrainian because they saw a Ukrainian fighter fall down, nose-up, behind a forest on Ukraine-controlled territory and saw two pilots descend by parachute.[17]

Another witness reported to a Dutch police investigator in July 2015 that he had seen two Ukrainian Air Force fighter jets in the air at the time of the shootdown and a plume moving horizontally across the sky indicating an air-to-air missile launch, not a missile fired from the ground.[18]

The apparent rod from an Air to Air missile in the NH17 wreckage.

Rod from what experts believe is the air-to-air missile that shot down the MH17 flight. [Source: crimesofempire.com]

Russian radar readings significantly revealed the presence of a Ukrainian jet fighter “gaining height” as it closed to within three to five kilometers of MH17, while a retired Lufthansa pilot, Peter Haisenko, analyzed photos which indicated that a side panel of the fuselage located next to the pilot was riddled with 30 mm bullets—which had to have come from a Ukrainian Su-25 plane, and not a ground-to-air missile.

Objects found in the pilots’ bodies were also believed to have been bullets—which would indicate Ukrainian responsibility since it had an Air Force when the Donetsk rebels did not.

Flight and Suicide

Russian media sources reported that the pilot responsible for shooting down the MH17, Lt. Col. Dmitro Yakatsuts of the elite 299 Squadron in the Ukrainian air force, fled afterwards to Dubai with a pretty air traffic controller named Anna Petrenko, who was allegedly in charge of the MH17 flight.

Another pilot allegedly responsible, Captain Vladyslav Voloshyn, committed suicide allegedly in March 2018.

U.S. Intelligence Concurs with Russian Assessment

U.S. intelligence analysts concurred with the Russian assessments, telling journalist Robert Parry that Flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile and that the Ukrainian government had something to do with it.

Likely it was rogue elements of the Ukrainian military tied to warlord Ihor Kholomoisky, who financed neo-Nazi militias that fought the Russian-backed rebels in Donetsk.[19]

This corroborates the theory by local investigators that the MH17 was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from a fighter that had been shadowing it as it plummeted to earth.

Source: readersupportednews.org

Ukrainian Obstruction

John Helmer recounts that, according to a Dutch investigator, when Ukrainian investigators came on the crash scene, one of them curiously received a call from the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs reminding him that they had an order not to study the site and send bodies to Kharkiv [in eastern Ukraine]. When the Dutch investigator refused the orders, he was fired.

Alexandr Gavrilyako, a prosecutor working at the time for the Ukrainian Internal Affairs Ministry, said:

“If they knew and believed that a crime had been committed by militias or members of the Russian Federation, then on the contrary, they would have given me and my investigators instructions to examine the scene and find evidence of the guilt of this or that person. But they gave the completely opposite instructions.”[20]

Key Unanswered Question

A key unanswered question is why Kyiv Air Traffic Control, as part of the Ukraine Ministry of Aviation, ordered the MH17 to deviate from its scheduled route that avoided the war zone in eastern Ukraine.

Source: screenshot images from FlightAware.com compiled by from Vagelis Karmiros who collated all the recent MH-17 flight paths as tracked by FlightAware and shows that while all ten most recent paths pass safely well south of the Donetsk region, and cross the zone above the Sea of Azov, it was only July 17 MH17 tragic flight that passed straight overhead Donetsk.

Screenshot images from FlightAware.com compiled by Vagelis Karmiros who collated all the recent MH17 flight paths as tracked by FlightAware and shows that, while all ten most recent paths pass safely well south of the Donetsk region, and cross the zone above the Sea of Azov, it was only the tragic July 17 MH17 flight that passed straight overhead Donetsk. [Source: rt.com]

After the FlightAware data was initially published, the site changed its version of the trajectory of MH17. The question arises: Were they pressured to do so?

“Not Really Looking at the Causes of the Crash”

The Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, expressed his belief in a documentary film that the claim that the Russians were responsible was invented from the start.

Emphasizing that Malaysian officials were stopped from reviewing the evidence, Mahathir said on May 26, 2019:

“They [Dutch, Australian and U.S. governments] never allowed us to be involved from the very beginning. This is unfair and unusual. So we can see they are not really looking at the causes of the crash and who was responsible. But already they have decided it must be Russia. So we cannot accept this kind of attitude. We are interested in the rule of law, in justice for everyone, irrespective of who is involved.”[21]

A Highly Interesting Coincidence?

RT News reported that, just as was the case during the World Trade Center attacks of September 2001, there were military war games exercises taking place on the days before and right after the MH17 event, which could have provided a cover for a covert operation.[22]

According to Wayne Madsen, NATO and the Ukraine military were involved in ten days of joint military “exercises,” code-named “Sea Breeze,” that included the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler, which have the capability to jam radar systems in all surface-to-air threats, and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS).

Image: Boeing EA-18G Growler. [Source: jet-airlinezz.blogspot.com]

Sea Breeze, according to Madsen, included the AEGIS-class guided missile cruiser USS Vela Gulf. From the Black Sea, “the Vela Gulf was able to track Malaysia Airlines MH17 over the Black Sea as well as any missiles fired at the plane.” As well, U.S. AWACS electronic intelligence (ELINT) aircraft were also flying over the Black Sea region at the time of the MH17 fly-over of Ukraine.

Operation Trident was also taking place at the time of the MH17 shootdown involving airborne and air infantry troops from the U.S., Germany, Italy, the UK, Canada, Poland and Ukraine.

Spanish Air Traffic Controller Threatened

According to Madsen, a Spanish air traffic controller, who possessed knowledge of the Ukrainian Interior Ministry’s involvement in the shoot-down of MH17, reportedly had his life threatened by people he described as “Maidan” troops, a reference to the Maidan Square uprising that toppled the Ukrainian government in February 2014.

The Spanish controller, identified only as “Carlos,” understood that the shootdown of MH17 was carried out by supporters of former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, both allies of Ihor Kolomoisky.

MI6 Psywar Operation

One of the first articles to allegedly break the story of the MH17 crash in the London Daily Mail quoted Dr. Igor Sutyagin, Research Fellow in Russian Studies from the Royal United Services Institute, who promoted the theory that MH17 had been shot down by rebels based in the 3rd District of Torez in eastern Ukraine after mistaking the plane for a government military transport aircraft, and that the rebels had brought it down using a ground-to-air Buk missile system.

Sutyagin was a Russian nuclear weapons academic convicted and imprisoned in Moscow in 2004 for espionage, then released to the UK in a spy swap in July 2010 with Sergei Skirpal—the target of an alleged poisoning attack that was blamed on Russia, but which appears to have been part of a false-flag operation orchestrated by Great Britain, whose aim was to further the demonization of Vladimir Putin and promote further sanctions and regime-change efforts.

John Helmer writes that “Sutyagin’s appearance in the Daily Mail twenty four hours after the crash is the first public sign of British intelligence at work on the [MH17] case. The only sources Sutyagin had for what he told the newspaper were in, or working for British intelligence.”[23]

Bellingcat

Another sign of a British intelligence operation was the role played by Bellingcat, a research institute that purveys disinformation in support of the new Cold War.

Bellingcat’s founder, Eliot Higgins, is a college dropout who made significant mistakes in an earlier investigation of the Syria-sarin case in 2013; he was for years treated as a savant on the MH17 case in the mainstream media while basing his analysis on dubious internet photographs that he used to blame Russia for the attacks.

Team Obama Adopts the Ukrainian Story…and Lies

Just over two hours after the MH17 crash, President Barack Obama spoke to Vladimir Putin, who informed Obama of a report received from air traffic controllers suggesting that the lethal explosion which took down the aircraft originated from the air, not from the ground.

After the call, Obama called Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and then quickly adopted the Buk story, the official position of the Foreign Ministry in Kyiv, absent any independent investigation.[24]

On July 21, 2014, Obama stated on national television that the Malaysia Airlines plane, “was shot down over territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine,” and that Russia both trained the separatists and “armed them with military equipment and weapons, including anti-aircraft weapons.” William Engdahl wrote that Obama’s speech “brought the entire world one giant step closer to a Cold War with Russia that easily could become a hot war.”

The same was true for statements made by Secretary of State John Kerry on July 20 on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Kerry claimed that he had “seen U.S. satellite imagery of the attack on the MH17 flight [which has never been released[25]]—the launch of a ground-based missile, its flight, and then detonation beside the civilian aircraft in flight.” Kerry continued:

“We picked up the imagery of this launch, we know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing…And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft [MH17] disappeared from the radar. We also know from voice identification [a Ukrainian fabrication that was also ambiguous] that the separatists were bragging about shooting it down afterwards.”[26]

When Thomas Schansman, father of a U.S.-Dutch citizen killed in the crash, wrote to Kerry in 2016 requesting information about the satellite images Kerry claimed to have viewed, Kerry, tellingly, was evasive. Schansman told Robert Parry that the message was “clear. No answer on my request to hand over satellite and/or radar data to DSB [Dutch Safety Board] or public.”[27]

DNI Repeats Kerry’s Lies

On July 22, 2014, two days after Kerry’s appearance on “Meet the Press,” the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), James Clapper, authorized the release of a brief report repeating Kerry’s allegations. It referred to “an increasing amount of heavy weaponry crossing the border from Russia to separatist fighters in Ukraine”; claimed that Russia “continues to provide training including on air defense systems to separatist fighters at a facility in southwest Russia”; and noted that the rebels “have demonstrated proficiency with surface-to-air missile systems, downing more than a dozen aircraft in the months prior to the MH17 tragedy, including two large transport aircraft.”

Yet, despite the insinuation of Russian guilt, what the public report actually said was that the rebels had previously only used short-range shoulder-fired missiles to bring down low-flying military planes, whereas MH17 was flying at approximately 33,000 feet, far beyond the range of those weapons.[28]

Samantha Power Adds Her Condemnation of Russia

The key government figure responsible for presenting the Buk story as the official U.S. government “assessment” was then-U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power.[29] Power was author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book, “A Problem From Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide (2003), which lamented past American inaction in the face of genocide, and was a hawk in the Obama administration pushing for military intervention in Libya to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi on supposed humanitarian grounds.

In an emergency session of the UN Security Council on July 18, 2014, Power gave an emotional speech blaming Russia for killing women and children on board the MH17 flight. She flat-out lied when she claimed that “Russian-backed separatists prevented investigators from gaining full and timely access to the crash site,” when in reality it was Ukraine that had done so.

Journalist Alexander Nettyosov reported having spent several days with Donetsk law enforcement who, he said, “fulfilled their duties to the last, in spite of the fact that Ukraine had all but abandoned its responsibilities and tried a variety of administrative and psychological measures first to delay the investigation, and then to stop it altogether.”[30]

War Plans

Buoyed by Power’s emotional testimony before the UN, which included the shedding of tears for the victims, President Obama and his advisers spent at least a week after the MH17 crash and as much as three weeks planning to send up to 9,000 combat troops into eastern Ukraine.[31]

The scheme—which was leaked by an Australian Army captain—was to have involved Dutch and Australian army units, with German ground and U.S. air support, plus NATO direction.

A picture containing calendar Description automatically generated

Source: 21stcenturywire.com

James Brown, head of research at the United States Studies Center at the University of Sydney, said that the plan—which had Australia’s National Security Committee meeting every day for more than three weeks—would have consumed the bulk of the Australian Army.[32]

The official pretext for the invasion would have been to secure the MH17 crash site, but the real agenda was to defeat the separatist movement in the Donbas, and to move against Russian-held Crimea.[33]

According to Dutch sources, the military plan of attack was aborted when Germany refused to participate directly, or allow its bases or airspace to be used. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte announced the Dutch were pulling their troops out of the plan on July 27, 2014.

As a consolation prize, the U.S. and EU officials, on July 29, 2014, announced the imposition of new sanctions on Russia, which were the first to commence economic and trade warfare against Russian banks and the Russian ship-building sector. This was all part of a regime-change strategy designed to undermine the nationalist Putin and replace him with a pliable leader like Boris Yeltsin who had opened the Russian economy to foreign exploitation in the 1990s.[34]

Flight MH17 and the New Cold War

In his book Flight MH17: Ukraine and the new Cold War: Prism of Disaster (Manchester University Press, 2018), Dutch scholar Kees van der Pijl points out that on the eve of the crash, Putin had been promoting economic integration with Germany to the chagrin of the U.S. foreign policy elite and advancing a land for gas deal with German Chancellor Angela Merkel bolstered by the construction of the Nord Stream pipeline that would enable Russia to supply Germany with natural gas.

The MH17 crash had the effect of preventing this new arrangement and ending tripartite talks between Vladimir Putin, German chancellor Angela Merkel and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko over the gas deal and in which Russia had promised to compensate Ukraine for the loss of rental income for the Russian naval base at Sevastopol and drop objections to a free trade agreement with the EU in exchange for Ukraine agreeing not to pursue NATO membership.

The MH17 crash also helped secure EU support for U.S. sanctions that had been levied on Ukraine the day before, while helping to validate an escalation of U.S. military intervention in Ukraine, which was already considerable to that point.[35]

Was Putin the Intended Target?

Robert Parry said that he was told by his intelligence source that U.S. analysts looked seriously at the possibility that the intended target of the attack on the MH17 was President Putin’s official plane returning from a state visit to South America. His aircraft and MH17 had similar red-white-and-blue markings, but Putin took a more northerly route and arrived safely in Moscow.

A side-by-side comparison of the Russian presidential jetliner and the Malaysia Airlines plane. [Source: consortiumnews.com]

Other possible scenarios were that a poorly trained and undisciplined Ukrainian squad mistook MH17 for a Russian plane that had penetrated Ukrainian airspace or that the attack was a willful provocation designed to be blamed on the Russians.

Classic Piece of Strategic Communication

Parry wrote in 2016 that the MH17 case was deployed like a classic piece of “strategic communication,”  mixing propaganda with psychological operations to put an adversary—Russia and Vladimir Putin—at a disadvantage.[36]

The Dutch MH17 trial and verdict is obviously a continuation of the psyops at a time when the anti-Russian demonization campaign has greatly expanded and when a potential hot war with Russia appears to be on the horizon.

During the 1930s, the term “show trial” was invented to describe politicized court proceedings in Stalinist Russia in which a guilty verdict for those accused of sabotaging the Soviet state was never in doubt. Now the term is most appropriate in the West where evidence and facts do not matter in legal proceedings that are designed to mobilize public support for World War III.

*

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

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

Notes

  1. Flight MH17 was going from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. All 298 people on board were killed, including 80 children. 

  2. Girkin was Minister of Defense in the Donetsk People’s Republic. 
  3. Pulatov was deputy head of the intelligence service in Donetsk
  4. John Helmer, with Max van der Werff, Liane Theuerkauf and Sam Bullard, The Lie That Shot Down MH17 (John Helmer, 2020), 399. 
  5. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 107, 421; William Engdahl, “Ukraine MH17 may be CIA false flag and it ain’t flying,” RT News, August 1, 2014, https://www.rt.com/op-ed/177388-mh17-cia-false-ukraine/. The rebels could have been bragging about shooting down a Ukrainian Su-25 which was shot down some hours earlier; the tapes are unclear which aircraft they are referring to that had been shot down. Sergey Dubinsky stated in an interview that the conversation recorded in the tapes was from before the MH17 crash and that the Ukrainian Security Services (SBU) had “edited it a lot.” Malaysian and German voice recording experts confirmed that the tape had been tampered with
  6. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 521. 
  7. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 580. 
  8. Parry wrote: “If Russian-supplied Buks had been spotted and the batteries of four 16-foot-long missiles hauled around by trucks that are hard to miss their presence surely would have been noted.” 
  9. The rebels, the report said, lacked that capacity. 
  10. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 397, 407. The U.S. hence knew that the Buk missile could not have shot down MH17—though nevertheless has claimed that it did. Eichelsheim said that “these locations [where the Buk missile was allegedly placed] are in the immediate vicinity of large population centers, and the landed missile would most likely have led to messages on social media or other public media. MIVD is not aware of such publications.” 
  11. Almaz-Antey Corporation, the Russian arms manufacturer of the Buk system, conducted its own experiments to determine the likely firing location and placed it near the village of Zaroshchenskoye in an area under Ukrainian government control. 
  12. Kees van der Pijl, Flight MH17: Ukraine and the new Cold War: Prism of Disaster (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2018), 134. 
  13. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 159. 
  14. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 87. 
  15. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 142. 
  16. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 61, 395. The eyewitness testimony is preserved in the Prosector’s office of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). 
  17. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 61. 
  18. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 397. Numerous other witnesses said that they saw Ukrainian military planes and that the planes shot a missile which led to the explosion of the MH17. The Ukrainian military jet, they specified, was flying below the civilian MH17 airliner. Residents also specified that it was impossible for the plane to have been shot down by a Buk missile in the way the official narrative holds. 
  19. Kholomoisky also financed the political rise of Ukraine’s current president Volodymyr Zelensky. 
  20. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 39. 
  21. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 368. 
  22. On war games exercises on 9/11, see Ray McGinnis, Unanswered Questions: What the September Eleventh Families Asked and the 9/11 Commission Ignored (Vancouver, B.C.: Northern Star Publications, 2021), 113, 114. McGinnis notes that the scenario for one of the war games on 9/11, Amalgam Virgo One, involved a suicide pilot attacking a military building, while Fertile Rice featured Osama bin Laden directing a drone filled with explosives to target Washington, D.C. Two other games, Vigilant Guardian and Global Guardian, had a photo of bin Laden on the cover of their documents and featured a script where terrorists hijacked a plane in order to attack Manhattan. 
  23. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 43. 
  24. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 155, 156. 
  25. Onno Eichelsheim, Director of the Dutch Military Intelligence Service (MIVD), claimed that these images actually revealed that Flight MH17 flew beyond the range of any Buk missiles, hence discrediting Kerry’s statements and proving him to be a liar. During the Vietnam War, Kerry had eloquently called out high-level government officials like Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara for the lies that had been used to promote the war; but now Kerry had become McNamara, selling his soul for the trappings of power. 
  26. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 418. 
  27. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 495. 
  28. The DNI never expressed certainty that Russian-backed rebels were behind the shooting down of the aircraft, claiming at one point that it was possible the missile that struck the plane was launched by a defector from the Ukrainian military who was trained to use similar missile systems. 
  29. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 160. 
  30. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 51. Noting that Russia was most interested in a transparent investigation, Nettyosov added that, “unfortunately, the work of the Donetsk investigators who spent two days on the Boeing 777 crash site was not used by anybody.” He continued: “If Ukraine were interested in investigating this case in which, according to the official Kyiv version, both the local militias and Russia were implicated, nobody would have held us up. Rather, to the contrary, they’d be asking us to leave no stone unturned to find every last piece of evidence, monitoring my every move, confident in my thoroughness and professional ability.” Nettyosov noted further that there is little reason to point to the militias—as downing a Boeing would brand them as international terrorists, and was also beyond their capacity. Some of the militia members, he said, were “carrying hunting shotguns.” 
  31. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 257. 
  32. Idem.
  33. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 385, 386. 
  34. Helmer, The Lie That Shot Down MH17, 257, 261; Jeremy Kuzmarov, “‘A New Battlefield for the United States’: Russia Sanctions and the New Cold War,” Socialism and Democracy, 33, 3 (2019). 
  35. Van der Pijl, Flight MH17, 99, 114, 115. Mark Leonard, founder and director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, noted in a newspaper interview “without MH17 it would have been pretty difficult to find sufficient support for the increased sanctions on the Russian economy.” 
  36. Van der Pijl, Flight MH17. 

Featured image: Source: johnhelmer.net

This article was originally published on Asia Times on October 11, 2020

Chinese scholar Lanxin Xiang has written a book, The Quest for Legitimacy in Chinese Politics, that is arguably the most extraordinary effort in decades trying to bridge the East-West politico-historical divide.

It’s impossible in a brief column to do justice to the relevance of the discussions this book inspires. Here we will highlight some of the key issues – hoping they will appeal to an informed readership especially across the Beltway, now convulsed by varying degrees of Sinophobia.

Xiang delves right into the fundamental contradiction: China is widely accused by the West of lack of democratic legitimacy exactly as it enjoys a four-decade, sustainable, history-making economic boom.

He identifies two key sources for the Chinese problem:

“On the one hand, there is the project of cultural restoration through which Chinese leader Xi Jinping attempts to restore ‘Confucian legitimacy’ or the traditional ‘Mandate of Heaven’; on the other hand, Xi refuses to start any political reforms, because it is his top priority to preserve the existing political system, i.e., a ruling system derived mainly from an alien source, Bolshevik Russia.”

Ay, there’s the rub: “The two objectives are totally incompatible”.

Xiang contends that for the majority of Chinese – the apparatus and the population at large – this “alien system” cannot be preserved forever, especially now that a cultural revival focuses on the Chinese Dream.

Needless to add, scholarship in the West is missing the plot completely – because of the insistence on interpreting China under Western political science and “Eurocentric historiography”. What Xiang attempts in his book is to “navigate carefully the conceptual and logical traps created by post-Enlightenment terminologies”.

Thus his emphasis on deconstructing “master keywords” – a wonderful concept straight out of ideography. The four master keywords are legitimacy, republic, economy and foreign policy. This volume concentrates on legitimacy (hefa, in Chinese).

When law is about morality

It’s a joy to follow how Xiang debunks Max Weber – “the original thinker of the question of political legitimacy”. Weber is blasted for his “rather perfunctory study of the Confucian system”. He insisted that Confucianism – emphasizing only equality, harmony, decency, virtue and pacifism – could not possibly develop a competitive capitalist spirit.

Xiang shows how since the beginning of the Greco-Roman tradition, politics was always about a spatial conception – as reflected in polis (a city or city-state). The Confucian concept of politics, on the other hand, is “entirely temporal, based on the dynamic idea that legitimacy is determined by a ruler’s daily moral behavior.”

Xiang shows how hefa contains in fact two concepts: “fit” and “law” – with “law” giving priority to morality.

In China, the legitimacy of a ruler is derived from a Mandate of Heaven (Tian Ming). Unjust rulers inevitably lose the mandate – and the right to rule. This, argues Xiang, is “a dynamic ‘deeds-based’ rather than ‘procedure-based’ argument.”

Essentially, the Mandate of Heaven is “an ancient Chinese belief that tian [ heaven, but not the Christian heaven, complete with an omniscient God] grants the emperor the right to rule based on their moral quality and ability to govern well and fairly.”

The beauty of it is that the mandate does not require a divine connection or noble bloodline, and has no time limit. Chinese scholars have always interpreted the mandate as a way to fight abuse of power.

The overall crucial point is that, unlike in the West, the Chinese view of history is cyclical, not linear: “Legitimacy is in fact a never-ending process of moral self-adjustment.”

Xiang then compares it with the Western understanding of legitimacy. He refers to Locke, for whom political legitimacy derives from explicit and implicit popular consent of the governed. The difference is that without institutionalized religion, as in Christianity, the Chinese created “a dynamic conception of legitimacy through the secular authority of general will of the populace, arriving at this idea without the help of any fictional political theory such as divine rights of humanity and ‘social contract’’.

Xiang cannot but remind us that Leibniz described it as “Chinese natal theology”, which happened not to clash with the basic tenets of Christianity.

Xiang also explains how the Mandate of Heaven has nothing to do with Empire: “Acquiring overseas territories for population resettlement never occurred in Chinese history, and it does little to enhance legitimacy of the ruler.”

In the end it was the Enlightenment, mostly because of Montesquieu, that started to dismiss the Mandate of Heaven as “nothing but apology for ‘Oriental Despotism’”. Xiang notes how “pre-modern Europe’s rich interactions with the non-Western world” were “deliberately ignored by post-Enlightenment historians.”

Which brings us to a bitter irony: “While modern ‘democratic legitimacy’ as a concept can only work with the act of delegitimizing other types of political system, the Mandate of Heaven never contains an element of disparaging other models of governance.”  So much for “the end of history.”

Why no Industrial Revolution?

Xiang asks a fundamental question: “Is China’s success indebted more to the West-led world economic system or to its own cultural resources?”

And then he proceeds to meticulously debunk the myth that economic growth is only possible under Western liberal democracy – a heritage, once again, of the Enlightenment, which ruled that Confucianism was not up to the task.

We already had an inkling that was not the case with the ascension of the East Asian tigers – Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea – in the 1980s and 1990s. That even moved a bunch of social scientists and historians to admit that Confucianism could be a stimulus to economic growth.

Yet they only focused on the surface, the alleged “core” Confucian values of hard work and thrift, argues Xiang: “The real ‘core’ value, the Confucian vision of state and its relations to economy, is often neglected.”

Virtually everyone in the West, apart from a few non-Eurocentric scholars, completely ignores that China was the world’s dominant economic superpower from the 12th century to the second decade of the 19th century.

Xiang reminds us that a market economy – including private ownership, free land transactions, and highly specialized mobile labor – was established in China as early as in 300 B.C. Moreover, “as early as in the Ming dynasty, China had acquired all the major elements that were essential for the British Industrial Revolution in the 18th century.”

Which brings us to a persistent historical enigma: why the Industrial Revolution did not start in China?

Xiang turns the question upside down: “Why traditional China needed an industrial revolution at all?”

Once again, Xiang reminds us that the “Chinese economic model was very influential during the early period of the Enlightenment. Confucian economic thinking was introduced by the Jesuits to Europe, and some Chinese ideas such as the laisser-faire principle led to free-trade philosophy.”

Xiang shows not only how external economic relations were not important for Chinese politics and economy but also that “the traditional Chinese view of state is against the basic rationale of the industrial revolution, for its mass production method is aimed at conquering not just the domestic market but outside territories.”

Xiang also shows how the ideological foundation for Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations began to veer towards individualist liberalism while “Confucius never wavered from a position against individualism, for the role of the economy is to ‘enrich people’ as a whole, not specific individuals.”

All that leads to the fact that “in modern economics, the genuine conversation between the West and China hardly exists from the outset, since the post-Enlightenment West has been absolutely confident about its sole possession of the ‘universal truth’ and secret in economic development, which allegedly has been denied to the rest of the world.”

An extra clue can be found when we see what ‘economy” (jingji) means in China: Jingji is “an abbreviate term of two characters describing neither pure economic nor even commercial activities. It simply means ‘managing everyday life of the society and providing sufficient resources for the state”. In this conception, politics and economy can never be separated into two mechanical spheres. The body politic and the body economic are organically connected.”

And that’s why external trade, even when China was very active in the Ancient Silk Road, “was never considered capable of playing a key role for the health of the overall economy and the well-being of the people.”

Wu Wei and the invisible hand

Xiang needs to go back to the basics: the West did not invent the free market. The laisser-faire principle was first conceptualized by Francois Quesnay, the forerunner of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”. Quesnay, curiously, was known at the time as the “European Confucius”.

In Le Despotisme de la Chine (1767), written 9 years before The Wealth of Nations, Quesnay was frankly in favor of the meritocratic concept of giving political power to scholars and praised the “enlightened” Chinese imperial system.

An extra delicious historical irony is that laisser-faire, as Xiang reminds us, was directly inspired by the Taoist concept of wu wei – which we may loosely translate as “non-action”.

Xiang notes how “Adam Smith, deeply influenced by Quesnay whom he had met in Paris for learning this laisser-faire philosophy, may have got right the meaning of wu wei with his invention of “invisible hand”, suggesting a proactive rather than passive economic system, and keeping the Christian theological dimension aside.”

Xiang reviews everyone from Locke and Montesquieu to Stuart Mill, Hegel and Wallerstein’s “world system” theory to arrive at a startling conclusion: “The conception of China as a typical ‘backward’ economic model was a 20th century invention built upon the imagination of Western cultural and racial superiority, rather than historical reality.”

Moreover, the idea of ‘backward-looking’ was actually not established in Europe until the French revolution: “Before that, the concept of ‘revolution’ had always retained a dimension of cyclical, rather than ‘progressive’ – i.e., linear, historical perspective. The original meaning of revolution (from the Latin word revolutio, a “turn-around”) contains no element of social progress, for it refers to a fundamental change in political power or organizational structures that takes place when the population rises up in revolt against the current authorities.”

Will Confucius marry Marx?

And that brings us to post-modern China. Xiang stress how a popular consensus in China is that the Communist Party is “neither Marxist nor capitalist, and its moral standard has little to do with the Confucian value system”. Consequently, the Mandate of Heaven is “seriously damaged”.

The problem is that “marrying Marxism and Confucianism is too dangerous”.

Xiang identifies the fundamental flaw of the Chinese wealth distribution “in a system that guarantees a structural process of unfair (and illegal) wealth transfer, from the people who contribute labor to the production of wealth to the people who do not.”

He argues that, “deviation from Confucian traditional values explains the roots of the income distribution problem in China better than the Weberian theories which tried to establish a clear linkage between democracy and fair income distribution”.

So what is to be done?

Xiang is extremely critical of how the West approached China in the 19th century, “through the path of Westphalian power politics and the show of violence and Western military superiority.”

Well, we all know how it backfired. It led to a genuine modern revolution – and Maoism. The problem, as Xiang interprets it, is that the revolution “transformed the traditional Confucian society of peace and harmony into a virulent Westphalian state.”

So only through a social revolution inspired by October 1917 the Chinese state “begun the real process of approaching the West” and what we all define as “modernization”. What would Deng say?

Xiang argues that the current Chinese hybrid system, “dominated by a cancerous alien organ of Russian Bolshevism, is not sustainable without drastic reforms to create a pluralist republican system. Yet these reforms should not be conditioned upon eliminating traditional political values.”

So is the CCP capable of successfully merging Confucianism and Marxism-Leninism? Forging a unique, Chinese, Third Way? That’s not only the major theme for Xiang’s subsequent books: that’s a question for the ages.

*

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

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The Disastrous Events of the Year 2022 Will Plague Us for as Long as We Exist

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, January 05, 2023

The unprecedented raid on President Trump’s home revealed the Gestapo State that has replaced American Democracy.  Few comprehend the threat that the raid reveals. First there is the disrespect shown a recent President of the United States who clearly has far more public support than any president since Ronald Reagan.

Sportswashed: Ronaldo Heads to Saudi Arabia

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, January 05, 2023

Cristiano Ronaldo of Portugal, his sun setting and his prospects diminishing among Europe’s top clubs, was signed to play in Saudi Arabia.

The UN General Assembly Drags Israel to the World Court

By Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, January 05, 2023

The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted last week to refer Israel to the International Court of Justice (World Court) for its on-going violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza and for adopting measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the holy city of Jerusalem.

From the History of GB-EU Relations. “How Great Britain Fell for a Confidence Trick”

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, January 04, 2023

Although Great Britain was twice saved from her own folly by the French President Ch. de Gaulle in the 1960s, however, in 1973 she not so much joined as bound herself to the common market, and agreed to be bound by the 1957 Treaty of Rome.

The EU-Anglosphere Climate War

By William Walter Kay, January 04, 2023

The EU alone possesses motive and capacity to conduct climate-camouflaged economic warfare on the Anglosphere. With English commonly, often officially, spoken in 60+ countries, “Anglosphere” presents problems.

Criminal Malfeasance: Pfizer Knew 275 People Suffered Serious Strokes in the First 90 Days After Vaccine Rollout

By DailyClout, January 04, 2023

Seventy-five years. That’s how long Pfizer and the FDA tried to hide the Pfizer documents from public view — long after just about everyone affected is dead. It wasn’t until renowned attorney Aaron Siri led a FOIA case against the FDA that a federal judge ordered the documents to be released in 108 days, the same amount of time it took the FDA to approve the Covid-19 injections.

Surveillance State: What the #TwitterFiles Mean for America, Ukraine and Libertarianism

By Thomas R. Eddlem, January 04, 2023

The #TwitterFiles are fast becoming the greatest glimpse behind the veil of America’s out-of-control surveillance state since 2013, when Edward Snowden heroically sacrificed his career and citizenship to reveal the blatantly unconstitutional and dangerous surveillance of the American people by the NSA.

How Joe Biden Is Slowly “Suiciding America’s Economy”

By Eric Zuesse, January 04, 2023

Starting on 7 April 2023, a rule that Joe Biden’s U.S. Commerce Department issued on 12 October 2022 will be fully in force, outlawing, by U.S. Executive (President Biden’s) fiat, any U.S.-allied country to engage in any commerce (buying or selling) with China that his Administration considers to be (or potentially to be) related to either artificial intelligence or supercomputing.

Let Them Eat Bugs

By David Robb, January 04, 2023

The global elites have shown great interest in insects as a source of food.  Not for themselves, mind you, but rather for the rest of us.  It is only incidental that using bugs as a food source would reserve fresh fruits and vegetables, beef, pork and chicken, and other current foodstuffs for those most deserving, such as themselves.  We have to ask, though, is eating bugs really such a good thing for humans?

WHO Fraud. There Never Was a Pandemic! February 20, 2020, Dr. Tedros Announced an “Expanding Worldwide Epidemic”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, January 04, 2023

The “killer virus” fear campaign coupled with Dr. Tedros’s timely “warnings” of the need to implement a worldwide pandemic indelibly served the interests of Wall Street’s institutional speculators and hedge funds.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Disastrous Events of the Year 2022 Will Plague Us for as Long as We Exist

Sportswashed: Ronaldo Heads to Saudi Arabia

January 5th, 2023 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

It just keeps getting darker and darker.  For the professionally ignorant, things are only getting better.  With one of history’s great events of sportswashing concluded – the 2022 Qatar World Cup – another state famed for its cosmetic distractions and moneyed seductions made a splash.  Cristiano Ronaldo of Portugal, his sun setting and his prospects diminishing among Europe’s top clubs, was signed to play in Saudi Arabia.

He had been seething and fuming at Manchester United, increasingly cast into peripheral, bench warming roles.  The inner truculent brat screamed and found a voice on the ever humbly named show Piers Morgan Uncensored.  In a conversation between brats who felt they had been mistreated over the years, the impression given by Ronaldo was always going to be a love of the game over cash.

“Is it also that you want to keep playing at the highest level?  That you want to play Champions League football, you want to keep breaking records?” asked Morgan.  In the manner of a ghost writer mulling over the bleedingly obvious, Morgan persisted.  “Again, it comes back to my gut feeling about you that, if it was just about the money, you’d be in Saudi Arabia earning this king’s ransom.  But that’s not what motivates you, you want to keep at the top…”

Whether he was already being courted by the money goons in Riyadh is hard to say, but if that was the case, Ronaldo was keen to keep up appearances.  He wanted goals, to score in the big leagues, to be in the service of the elite clubs.  “Exactly, because I still believe that I can score many, many goals and help the teams.  I believe I am still good and capable to help the national team and even Manchester United.”

The king’s ransom, however, is exactly what he came to accept, though he aggrandised his own appeal by claiming to be hot property on the international transfer market.  “I had many offers in Europe, many in Brazil, Australia, the US, even in Portugal.”  At around £172 million, it will be the largest amount forked out for a football player in history, beating that offered Lionel Mess for his final four years with FC Barcelona at £137.2 million per annum.  And Ronaldo only needs to play till June 2025.

Ronaldo will be helping Al-Nassr FC, whose administrators and backers are already moist with delight.  “History in the making,” their twitter account crowed. “This is a signing that will not only inspire our club to achieve even greater success but inspire our league, our nation and future generations, boys and girls to be the best version of themselves.”

There is something sickly about such hailing: it projects a fantasy brand of equality, a delusion underwritten by cash. And there’s lots of it.  Ronaldo is there to add rich lashings of sugary cover to the Kingdom’s broader agenda, which has reached across sporting fields such as golf, boxing, tennis, and Formula One.  “We will support the rest of our clubs for qualitative deals with international stars soon,” came the solemn promise of the Saudi Minister for Sports, Abdulaziz bin Turki Al-Faisal.

As for the player himself, he shows little clue about who he is doing this for.  “It’s not the end of my career to come to South Africa,” he said at his first Saudi press conference, even with the message of “Saudi welcome to Arabia” in his backdrop.  The faux pas did little to dampen the enthusiasm of fans and officials.  “You don’t need to know the name of a country to make 200 million euros,” remarked one.   Nor, it would seem, its role in perpetrating humanitarian disasters, murdering journalists and indulging in mass executions.

Like Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is luring the big stars like stain removing agents for bloodstained clothes.  Messi may well be considered a footballing demigod among fans and his countrymen, but like Ronaldo, he is keen about the way money talks.  In May 2022, the Argentinian master became tourism ambassador for Riyadh.  “We are excited for you to explore the treasures of the Red Sea, the Jeddah Season and our ancient history,” exclaimed Minister for Tourism Ahmed Al Khateeb in twitter-land.  “This is not his first visit to the Kingdom and it will not be the last!”

The broader Saudi agenda here is clear enough.  Such signings are also intended to improve the country’s chances for hosting the 2030 World Cup.  Last year, Riyadh revealed it would be proposing a joint bid for the games that might also include Egypt and Greece.  “Definitely the three countries would invest heavily in infrastructure and would definitely be ready,” Al Khateeb insisted in an interview last November.  “And I know by then Saudi Arabia would have state of the art stadiums and fanzones built.”

Ronaldo, his challenged geography aside, is clear about one thing: he doesn’t want to retire gracefully and live off his accumulated treasure. Football now is less relevant than Mammon’s calling.  That is something the House of Saud knows all too well.

*

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

Featured image is from @AlNassrFC

The UN General Assembly Drags Israel to the World Court

January 5th, 2023 by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted last week to refer Israel to the International Court of Justice (World Court) for its on-going violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza and for adopting measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the holy city of Jerusalem.

Before we analyse the significance of the vote, let us probe the actual voting pattern. 87 states voted to refer Israel to the World Court. This represents almost all the Muslim majority states including those that had recently established diplomatic relations with Israel. It shows that on this issue at least, the diplomatic manoeuvres of Israel and its backers have not helped the Zionist state. Other largely non-Muslim majority states in Latin America, Africa and Asia also endorsed the resolution. It is notable that both China and Russia supported the move to haul Israel before the World Court. 26 countries voted against the UNGA resolution. Among them were of course the US, Britain and a number of other Western states. A huge number — 53 — also abstained. India which at the time of the creation of Israel in 1948 was in the forefront of the struggle to defend the rights of the Palestinians was one of the abstentions. Its growing ties with Israel, especially in the military sphere have often been cited as the main reason for this change in attitude.

The Indian stance does not in any way nullify the significance of the vote for the resolution. The UNGA is asking the highest jurisdictional authority in the world to state its stand on Israel’s conduct as the Occupying Power over lands it has held in its grip for the last 55 years. Right from 1967, the UNGA has viewed Israel not only as an Occupying Power but has also demanded that Israel withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza. Needless to say, Israel has ignored this plea. It is worth observing that this time the UNGA’s request is being made when Israel is led by perhaps its most extreme right-wing government which has pledged to pursue policies that will undermine even further what little is left of the rights of the Palestinian people and demolish even more the Christian and Muslim features of Jerusalem.

By asking the World Court to examine Israeli behaviour in the Occupied Territories, the UNGA is telling Israel that it is under scrutiny. It is holding Israel accountable. It is forcing a rogue state to behave properly — a State that since 1948 has refused to abide by the norms and standards of conduct that all states are expected to uphold.

If the World Court concurs in essence with the UNGA resolution that Israel has violated the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and has attempted to alter the character of Jerusalem, how would the Israeli government under Benjamin Netanyahu respond? Going on the basis of his past and present conduct, it is almost certain that he will ignore the World Court’s position and even rail against the body just as he has condemned the UNGA for its recent resolution. In other words, there will be no change in Israeli behaviour in the Occupied Territories or in Jerusalem. After all, in 2004 the World Court had already ruled that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories were in breach of international law but Israel continued to expand the settlements which today house about 700,000 Jewish settlers.

But this should not in any way diminish the usefulness of going to the World Court or working through the UNGA. These are important routes to take for at least two reasons. One, they reveal that Israel is the real problem and that it is this problem that has to be resolved in the interest of genuine peace. Two, by harnessing support from UN member states and UN agencies, the Palestinian cause is enhanced. It strengthens the Palestinian position as it confronts not just Israel but its principal backer, the US and a number of European states, sometimes joined by Japan and South Korea.

It is perhaps at this juncture that we should examine briefly Palestine’s relationship with the UN. It has been ambivalent at best. It was the UN under the influence of the US and other Western powers that presided over the unjust partition of historical Palestine in 1948 giving the less than 30% Jewish population two-thirds of the land while the 70% Palestinian majority comprising Muslims and Christians was awarded the remaining one-third. There was no plebiscite to determine how the people — the entire population — felt about the proposed partition. By ignoring the people’s feelings, the UN in effect transgressed its own Charter.

But after Israel seized Gaza and the West Bank including East Jerusalem in 1967, UN resolutions — as we have seen — clearly recognise Palestinians living in those territories as victims of Occupation. It should also be emphasised that through various resolutions the UN continues to recognise the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty. Besides, since November 2012, Palestine is a non-member observer state of the UN General Assembly.

The UN also looks after Palestinian refugees. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) provides education, health relief and social services for over 5 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria. Gaza and West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

Palestine’s relationship with the UN is one wrapped in obligations, responsibilities, rights and aspirations. It has had its ups and downs. But it should continue to be viewed as one of the many channels through which the Palestinian people seek to secure their justice, freedom and dignity.

*

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

Dr Chandra Muzaffar is the president of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), Malaysia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

2022  planted the seeds for tyranny and death.  My analysis today will focus on only four of the many terrible events of 2022.

One is the FBI raid on President Trump’s home.

One is the second stolen national election.

One is the war against Russia that is leading to Armageddon.

One is the deception about the effectiveness and safety of the Covid mRNA “vaccine.”

The unprecedented raid on President Trump’s home revealed the Gestapo State that has replaced American Democracy.  Few comprehend the threat that the raid reveals. First there is the disrespect shown a recent President of the United States who clearly has far more public support than any president since Ronald Reagan.  If a President of the United States can be treated in such a high-handed way, what prospect do the rest of us have?

Evidence seized, arrayed, and photographed by the FBI at Mar-a-Lago (Licensed under the Public Domain)

The raid was not only beyond the pale, it was gratuitous in its justification. The FBI had access to the documents and had gone through them previously.  The documents were not being withheld from inspection. The story planted in the presstitute media that Trump left the documents lying around in Mar-a-Largo for Russian spies on his staff to photo is absurd. Trump has Secret Service protection, and the agents would certainly notice any top secret documents lying around on the furniture.  If Russian agents had penetrated Trump’s household staff, the CIA would have warned him.  That media actually discussed this fabrication as if it were real reveals the incompetence and dishonesty of the media.

Normally, presidents and high government officials do not concern themselves with documents unless they are writing memoirs.  They don’t have time for documents.  Most of what is signed off on is from advice not from reading.  Presidential appointees and I assume presidents are entitled to copies of all documents that moved through their offices.  I would have needed a moving and storage service to deal with documents to which I was entitled during my time at the Treasury. I very much doubt Trump knows what documents are in the boxes.  I would have advised him not to take documents packed by others as anything could be planted on him.  All documents should have gone to a presidential library, which once set up was probably where the documents were headed.

The “raid” by a FBI SWAT team was an orchestrated political event.  In a political system where there is accountable government, the FBI director and the attorney general would have been fired for political use of a police agency.  The fact that they got away with it shows that the days of accountable government in the United States are past.

The purpose of the raid was to create the image of Trump in the public mind as a criminal, so that the public already saw him that way and it would be old hat when the criminal referral from the Democrats in the House and subsequent Department of Justice indictment materialized. Any jurors involved would be accustomed to Trump as criminal and have the same view as the prosecutor.  This is what happened to Derick Chauvin.

Not many understood what was happening in front of their eyes.  Democrats and Trump haters were simply thrilled that the orange man was being had.  Trump supporters simply saw biased Democrats and biased media.  This was the way the public saw the transformation of a federal police force subject to the rule of law into an unaccountable Gestapo political operation dedicated to the Democrats’ seizure of power by eliminating the opponent. This is how the police were transformed in the Third Reich.

A question before us is whether the audacious raid on an American president’s home could have happened if the Deep State had been held accountable in the past for its crimes.  But having got away with so much despite overwhelming evidence of Deep State guilt–for example, the murders of President Kennedy, Senator Kennedy and Martin Luther King, the Bay of Tonkin, 9/11, Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, and two stolen national elections–to set up a president for indictment  on false charges is not a big step.  

Trump’s reelection was stolen after four years of vilification of President Trump while in office accused as a Russian agent elected by the Kremlin’s interference in the election, a charge exploited by the presstitutes and Democrats for years during the Russiagate investigation. Russiagate was followed by two attempted impeachments, and by an orchestrated “Jan. 6 insurrection,” a fabrication still ongoing with the House’s criminal referral of Trump to the Department of Justice (sic). 

Trump’s reelection meant 4 more years of the same, and people were tired of it.  Therefore, despite overwhelming evidence that the Democrats stole the election, the public acquiesced  in the theft.

The 2022 national election did not involve the president, so the public was less moved by its theft.  Moreover, the Republicans, despite the theft, recaptured the House.  But the inattention to the theft paves the road for more thefts.  

The theft of the Arizona governorship from Kari Lake is completely obvious. In Maricopa County, Arizona’s most populous, voting machines failed to function in the precincts known to be Republican. Voting lines were hours long.  The Republicans who suffered them were given paper ballots dropped into a box that the Democrat election officials said would be counted later.  When later arrived, it turned out that the uncounted ballots were “accidentally” mixed in with the counted ballots and could not be separated.  

Even this was not enough to elect Kari Lake’s opponent, who was serving as Election Commissioner and controlling every step of the voting and counting.  So for three days running the vote count stopped for 19 hours, 15 hours, 17 hours while Democrats forged Democrat votes. 

When presented with the evidence, the Republican judge said that whereas all these failures occurred, there was no proof that they were intentional.  

To be clear, a Republican judge ruled that as long as Democrats steal elections accidentally, it is OK.

So expect more accidentally stolen elections.

What two stolen national elections in a row means is that the electorate is powerless.  It is unable to put into office politicians who represent the voters and the country’s interest.  The electorate is powerless against the organized private interests, the ideologues who are erasing America, and the Deep State.  Elections have become a democratic cover for a stolen route to a one-party state.

So what is the Deep State?  We have some idea but we don’t know precisely.  We don’t know because political science in the universities and in high school civics classes if they still exist, teaches about what might once have existed years ago–democratically elected leaders who represent the people and the national interest.  

Today there is no such process. The President, House, and Senate are elected by the campaign contributions of powerful interests.  It is the interests of these interests, not those of voters, to which politicians respond.  

Together with these private interests, permanent government networks between some of these interests, social media and the remnants of print and TV media,  and established government bureaucracies such as the CIA and FBI control the explanations that the public receives. 

When the media is in service to government and is not watching government and holding government accountable, there can be no accountable government.

The fact that Democrats, with little public opposition, have succeeded in stealing two national elections proves the point.

Whether any of this matters depends on how determined are the neoconservatives who control US foreign policy to pursue Washington’s hegemony over the world in the face of Russian and Chinese opposition, and how long Putin will continue to drag out his “limited military operation in Ukraine,” thus enabling Washington to become too involved to let go.  Putin does not realize it, but he has empowered Washington to turn his ill-considered, indeed mindless, limited operation into a general war that leads to nuclear Armageddon.

Trump and Putin share gullibility in common.  Both have been slow to understand the Satanic forces confronting them. The consequences  will be horrendous. 

The fourth disastrous event is the Covid deception.  2022 is the year when it became completely clear that the Western medical establishment, media, and politicians lied through their teeth about the dangers of Covid and the safety and effectiveness of the mRNA “vaccines.”  Thanks to independent medical scientists, who stood their ground despite being censored, discredited, and punished, we know for certain that the Covid “vaccines” are neither safe nor effective.  Moreover, the Pfizer internal documents forced into release by federal court order show conclusively that Pfizer knew the “vaccine” was deadly.  As Pfizer shared the documents with its marketing agent, the US Food and Drug administration, the FDA also knew, yet gave approval to the Emergency Use Authorization of the mRNA “vaccines.”  As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has pointed out, the failure by Pfizer and the FDA to recall the “vaccines” based on Pfizer’s own internal study is mass murder.  At this point, very little is being done to hold Pfizer and the FDA accountable for murdering millions of people.

Image is from Children’s Health Defense

Almost all who died from Covid died from lack of treatment.  The medical protocols imposed prevented doctors from treating the virus with two known cures–HCQ and Ivermectin.  Some doctors in independent practice refused to follow the imposed protocols and saved thousands of lives. In other parts of the world–Brazil, India, Africa–use of Ivermectin both as cure and preventative essentially eliminated Covid as a health threat.  But in the “scientific” Western world, the cures were obstructed by official medical authorities. The Lancet, formerly a respected British medical journal, today a marketing shill for Big Pharma, denounced Brazil’s use of HCQ and Ivermectin as “an anti-scientific decision” and accused “a populist government” of  “undermining science.” See this.

There is no longer any doubt.  Following the vaccination campaign, excess deaths rose dramatically, and the excess deaths are among the vaccinated.  Still nothing is being done to help the millions of people whose health has been adversely impacted by the mRNA “vaccines.”

The orchestrated “pandemic” is a massive crime against humanity.  There has been no accountability and no help for the injured, which leaves the “pandemic” with the smell of organized genocide.  If so, we have reached the point where crimes against humanity is the official policy of the West.

How does a civilization recover when morality has been stripped of authority?  What has happened to us that Pfizer’s profits are elevated above life and public health, that executive branch mandates can override the US Constitution and the judgments of doctors and patients, that official narratives can be enforced by censorship?  Clearly, the foundation of our society is rotten and our civilization is collapsing.

In our society truth is dismissed as misinformation, normality is demonized as oppression, and perversity is normalized as liberation.  Transgender propagandizing of children is now common fare in public schools and public libraries.  This child abuse, ignored by Child Protective Services, is possible because laws require equal access to all organizations, depraved or normal.  The drag queen lobby has mastered the ability to manipulate the system.  The pretense is that it is just a matter of inclusion, but in fact it is revolution.  Sexual relations between a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman is “heterosexual capitalist oppression,” but sex between adults and children is “the sexual liberation of children.”  The drag queen agenda is to undermine traditional notions of sexuality, to replace the biological family, and to arouse transgressive sexual desires in young children, and it is being financed with taxpayers’ money.  You can read about this in Christopher Rufo’s article in the Autumn 2022 City Journal.

So, just as prominent doctors and medical scientists who cured Covid patients with Ivermectin and HCQ are punished for saving lives by having their licenses and certifications stolen by bureaucrats whose protocols resulted in mass murder, parents who protest against public schools indoctrinating their children into sexual perversity are thrown out of school board meetings.  This is what I mean when I said morality has been stripped of authority.

Authority rests with those who are normalizing perversity.  Authority rests with the Satanists. It is going to be very difficult to get it away from them.

*

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

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 is from South Front

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Disastrous Events of the Year 2022 Will Plague Us for as Long as We Exist

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

How Great Britain fell for a confidence trick

In the 1960s, when Great Britain twice sought entry into then the EEC/EC, the historian Sir Arthur Bryant issued an unheeded warning:

“Once in the common market, we shall be a minority in an organization in which the decisions of the majority will have the power to bind the minority, not only for a few years but theoretically for all time.”

Sir Arthur Bryant could not have chosen a more apt word than “bind”. Although Great Britain was twice saved from her own folly by the French President Ch. de Gaulle in the 1960s, however, in 1973 she not so much joined as bound herself to the common market, and agreed to be bound by the 1957 Treaty of Rome.[i] Even at that time, the founders of the common market knew – but apparently Great Britain did not – that the common market (today the European Single Market) was not a club to join or a free trade area (the EFTA) with which to associate, but a superstate in the making. Its founders were in no doubt about this, even if the British politicians were unaware of – or unwilling to face up to – the ultimate goal of the founders. Robert Schuman, while preparing the European Coal and Steel Community in 1950, had said:

“These proposals will build the first concrete foundation of the European Federation”.

Article 189 of the 1957 Treaty of Rome is quite clear about what was involved:

“Regulations […] shall be binding in every respect and directly applicable […].” “Directives shall bind any Member State […].” “Decisions shall be binding in every respect […].”[ii]

Unfortunately, no more people read the 1957 Treaty of Rome than had read Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf before WWII (after the war it was too late), and many who should have known better-accepted assurances that no loss of sovereignty was involved in acceding to the EEC. Looking back, we can just regret that they did not know better about the issue. After a quarter of a century, during which the EEC became transformed firstly into the EC and then the EU, experience ought to have taught us what the anti-marketers failed to teach.[iii]

We can read, for instance:

“Initially I thought like everybody else, that we had joined a common market, and what could be nicer and more friendly and sensible and economically wised to do, but since then in 1975 when we had the vote to remain in that, so we were told, it has to become something more than a common market, it than became, a few years later, a European Economic Community than a European Community, it’s now the European Union, with all kinds of controls and restrictions, regulations and we are faster approaching by this new Constitution, something that the French have already named potentially the United States of Europe and I am not at all sure that that’s what I and many others voted to join back in 1975” [Delphine Gray-Fisk, retired airline pilot, a British citizen].

“We have lost one hundred percent control over our environment including health and safety regulations, we have lost near enough hundred percent control over our fishing, we have lost hundred percent control over our farming and we have lost hundred percent control over our trade policy and that last is of particular significance when you consider that Britain is the 4th largest economy in the world and we do more trade than any other country in the world, by far” [Linsday Jenkins, author].

“So, what are the MEPs [Member of the European Parliament] for? Well, I will tell you, the MEP’s are here to vote and to vote often and to vote regularly, sometimes we vote up to 450 times in the space of 80 minutes. Now I have to confess, I do not know what is going on half of the time, I have not either read all of the documents, so massive, are they. Now it can be, that my fellow MEP’s down there are all Albert Einsteins and all absolutely understand what is going on, but I suspect that is not the case, in fact, it is rather like paying monkeys – because what happens is the civil servants draw up the lists and if it is vote No. 58 and the piece of paper say VOTE, YES you VOTE YES and if it is No. 59 and it says to VOTE NO you VOTE NO, it is an absolute false, it is a complete masquerade democracy” [Nigel Farage, the MEP, the UK Independence Party, later the leader of the Brexit].

“We are now living under a legal order. The 1972 European Communities Act was a one-off, not an ordinary treaty, but a new way of life. These are new constitutional powers. The British Parliament surrendered its sovereignty in 1972. European laws have overriding force with priority over our British laws… The articles on the supremacy of the British parliament are now only historical perspective – they are non-binding” [Judge Morgan.]

The plot to destroy the sovereignty of the Member States

What is the real nature and purpose of such kind of united Europe? It can be easily claimed that behind the respectable European mask is, in fact, a plot with the ultimate aim to destroy the real sovereignty (independence) of its Member States and to re-align the whole balance of power worldwide.[iv] It should be remembered that, strategically, Europe’s unification drive began at a time when the entire Atlantic Alliance was coming to grips with the relative decline of the United States both as a world economic power and as leader of the West. The European Union (the EU, est. 1992/1993) with its central motor, the French-German axis, became a new GP in global politics. Therefore, the USA is no anymore in a position to dictate and implement global policies like at the time of the Cold War. After the creation of the EU, the US administration seeks multilateral action with the EU in several hot-spot areas of the conflicts in Europe, for instance, ex-Yugoslavia or Ukraine.

America’s generosity to the world has reduced her riches and necessitated a serious reassessment of her global strategic commitment. Trade frictions between the US and West Europe have long been a reality and have moved from the agricultural sector into advanced technological areas. Doubts also grew about the reliability of the US “nuclear umbrella” protecting West Europe, and a subsequent reduction of the American forces and the withdrawal of the Russian forces on the Continent followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union has been paralleled by increasing calls for a solely European self-defense capability. The European army and the European police force already exist in more than embryonic form.

It has to be noted that for centuries it has been the British most basic right to vote in one hundred percent of the members of Parliament who govern their country or vote them all out if they do not perform.

“For instance, the basic principle that you can elect a new parliament and then you can have a new law, that is the call of the democracy and this call does not exist in the EU and it does not exist in the Constitution we are building now” [Jense Peter Bonde, Danish MEP].

*

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

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[i] In 1973, Great Britain together with Ireland and Denmark became Member State of the European Community.

[ii] Sir Arthur Wynne Morgan Bryant (1899–1985), was an English historian, a columnist for The Illustrated London News, and man of affairs [Wikipedia].

[iii] See more in [M. J. Artis, Frederick Nixson, The Economics of the European Union: Policy and Analysis, 2001.

[iv] A concept of sovereignty refers to a status of legal autonomy (independence) that is enjoyed by states what means in practice that the government has sole authority within its borders and enjoys the rights of the membership of the international political community. Therefore, the terms of sovereignty, autonomy, and independence can be used as synonyms.

Featured image is from the author

The EU-Anglosphere Climate War

January 4th, 2023 by William Walter Kay

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The EU alone possesses motive and capacity to conduct climate-camouflaged economic warfare on the Anglosphere. With English commonly, often officially, spoken in 60+ countries, “Anglosphere” presents problems; herein, it means:

  • Australia: 7.7 million square kilometres; 26 million citizens.
  • Canada: 9.9 million square kilometres; 39 million citizens.
  • New Zealand: 268,000 square kilometres; 5.1 million citizens.
  • UK: 242,500 square kilometres; 68 million citizens.
  • USA: 9.8 million square kilometres; 332 million citizens.
  • Total: 28 million square kilometres; 470 million citizens.

The 27-country EU spans 4.2 million square kilometres and counts 450 million citizens; i.e., same population; a seventh the land. Natural resource disparities are greater. Differences in fossil fuel endowments explain “Climate Change.”

The Anglosphere is Earth’s fossil fuel superpower; America its leading oil producer. Canada ranks fourth, the UK twentieth and Australia thirty-first. No EU country is a top 40 producer. None possess significant reserves. EU imports: 14 million b/p/d. Germany, Netherlands, Italy, France, Spain and Belgium – top 15 importers all – shelled-out $US176 billion for oil in 2021.

Anglosphere coal reserves are unmatched. American reserves far exceed second-place Russia’s whose reserves barely exceed Australia’s.

Canada and New Zealand are both top 15. Tory coal-phobes understate Britannia’s huge deposits. Germany tops the EU at a distant seventh in reserves and no black coal mining. Germany imports 40 million tonnes a year. EU countries imported 440 million tonnes in 2020. (EU outlier Poland, has the ninth largest reserves.)

*

Behind egalitarian 27-culture tableaus, 10 wealthy western nations run the EU. In 1951, to coordinate energy policies, West Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg founded the European Coal and Steel Community. They became the “European Economic Community” (1957) before welcoming Denmark (1973), and Greece (1981). Spain and Portugal joined in 1986. Rebranded “European Union” (1993), they embraced AustriaFinland and Sweden in 1995. During 2004-13, they admitted a dozen, mostly eastern, states. These 10 account for 70% of EU population; 90% of production. The small, divided, subordinated and poor Fringe 17 do not measurably influence climate politics. Brussel’s bureaucracies remain Core 10 preserves. (“Neutral” Switzerland is the Ten’s eleventh member.)

*

The Allies, to administer the Marshall Plan, summoned a ‘Council of 16.’ In 1961, this morphed into “OECD” (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) with 19 European and Anglosphere member-states.

Today, OECD execs ladle-out $400 million annually from their Parisian HQ. OECD receives regular stipends from Anglosphere, Core EU, Japanese and Norwegian governments. Despite claiming 38 equal members, donors rule. A third of donations arrive strung with stringent strings.

OECD conjures multiday ministerials – without attracting media coverage. In March 2022, enviro-ministers from 38 nations huddled in Paris for days… crickets. A year earlier, OECD’s Environmental Policy Committee feted enviro-ministers at a confab themed: “Building a Green and Inclusive Future.”

In 1972, OECD members established UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) – now bigger than OECD, and a titanic climate actor; albeit highly donor-constrained. 100+ countries attend UNEP enviro-minister conferences.

A 1974 OECD energy ministers’ conference parried OPEC by unveiling an ‘organization of petroleum importing countries’ – the International Energy Agency. IEA execs now disperse $30+ million yearly from Parisian headquarters, a stumble from OECD’s digs. IEA members must be OECD members. With minimal fanfare, IEA routinely holds energy ministers’ conferences. From the get-go, IEA promoted biofuels, hydrogen and solar as oil substitutes. The oil phase-out campaign dates to IEA’s founding. In 2009 IEA’s green power efforts were spun-off into IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency); another $30-million-a-year outfit.

Thatcher unlocked the gates for the Huns by slipping “Climate Change” onto the London-hosted, 1984 G7 Summit’s agenda; signalling willingness to wed IEA’s oil phase-out with an Anglosphere coal phase-out. This stratagem, borne of Maggie’s war on the miners, found favour among German oligarchs, and American gas-mongers coveting coal’s share of the electricity market. Assembled heads of state had their enviro-ministers prepare ‘Climate’ briefs for the 1985 (Bonn) Summit. A proper crusade commenced. 

To conduct the Climate Science Orchestra, UNEP concocted IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in 1988. IPCC helps donor-government-selected Climate Science citation alliance ringleaders collate reports for donor-government Climate Science epistemic elites.

OECD/UNEP/IEA/IPCC masterminded the 1992 Rio mega-conference spawning the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. UNFCCC’s Conferences of the Parties (COPs) draw officials in ever-greater multitudes. COP27 (2022) broke records with 49,704 delegates. OECD member-states dispatch thousands; and cover costs for poor countries’ absurdly numbersome entourages; and for thousands of OECD-based NGO and media flunkies. COPs are EU-built Potemkin villages; luring and nudging Anglosphere politicians.

Fifty passages in UNFCCC’s 27-page Framework sort countries into groups possessing “differentiated responsibilities.” Categories include: developed,  developing, and least-developed. Eight climate-vulnerability groups are enumerated. Africa gets centered-out; as do fossil fuel-rich developing countries.

Ten passages deputize “Annex countries” as first-responders and bankrollers. Only Annex 1 countries (OECD + east European ‘economies in transition’) pledge domestic emission reductions. Only Annex 2 (OECD) must fund: UNFCCC, IPCC, and green energy in least-developed countries.

The 2015 Paris Accord affirms the Framework, stressing:

“Developed countries should continue to take the lead by undertaking economy-wide emission reduction targets.”

*

Five defy categorization.

Geografi er skjebne. Oil separates Norway from Europe.

Polish coal melts EU links. At COP26, Poland’s enviro-minister committed to a 2030 coal phase-out only to reverse herself hours later; re-affirming her government’s 2049 plan. Annex 1 Poland suffers existential damage under the climate regime.

Japan isn’t in the EU, but it is in OECD, IEA, G7 and Annexes 1 and 2. This third largest oil and coal importer, drops $40ish billion a year on oil.

Turkey isn’t in the EU, but is in OECD, IEA, NATO and Annexes 1 and 2. Turkey imports 95% of its oil and most of its coal.

Adrift amidst Anglospheric vistas boasting more Irish than Ireland; EU’s lonely Anglophone finds a foot in two canoes.

*

Clues cracking the climate caper came with the tip that tools used in the crime included: …national science institutions! Perps wielding education ministries and science foundations?! Suspect lists shrank.

Core EU states weaponized Climate Science to facilitate fossil fuel phase-outs. State science mandarins cultivated Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming into a zeitgeist-permeating paradigm. Cultural assets and authority symbols mobilized by Euroscience commissars overwhelmed intelligentsia, home and away.

Core EU states maintain standing armies of scientists. Commanders occupy chairs in illustrious academies, and edit renowned journals. Germany’s Education Minister supplies: 69% of the German Research Foundation’s $4 billion budget; 100% of the $600 million going annually to the 30,000-scientist/scholar German Academic Exchange Service; and most of the $6.5 billion feeding the 42,000-employee Helmholtz Research Centres, now all-aboard the Helmholtz Climate Initiative. France’s Higher Education Minister gives $3.8 billion yearly to the 33,000-employee National Center for Scientific Research; and $1.15 billion to a National Research Agency. Mussolini’s National Research Council takes $1.1 billion annually from Italy’s government (40% of national research funding). Franco created Spain’s National Research Council so Opus Dei could re-Catholicize science. Its $1.2 billion budget blesses 13,338 scientists and staff…

No scientific fact shineth by its own light. Carrying alarmist torches through the towns, run that gang of eight EU-based ‘strategic corporations’ dominating Anglosphere music, advertising and publishing.

*

Waltzing suckers over abysses requires close constant contact. Eurocrats whisk Anglosphere politicians into labyrinthine multilateral fora affording Eurocrats ample access to Anglosphere politicians.

The 4,000 full-timers at NATO’s Brussels’ headquarters toil but a 50-minute flight from Paris. Of NATO’s 30 members, 27 are OECD. NATO HQ’s and OECD’s budgets look suspiciously similar. OECD’s been faulted for duplicating NATO’s work. Mandates intersect. NATO’s new Climate Change and Security Center for Excellence inspects all member-states’ obligatory annual climate impact assessments. NATO has hosted 32 heads of state summits; the last in June 2022. NATO ministerial conferences occur regularly, and irregularly. In March 2021 NATO quietly convened 30 foreign ministers.

EU-controlled orgs (OECD, NATO, G7, IEA, UNEP, IRENA, UNFCCC) stage continuous ministerial conferences. Anglo foreign ministers must vet endless preparations. Anglo heads of state must appear, or participate remotely. Preoccupied, mesmerised ministers attend back-to-back confabs where EU whips lurk furtively and Euros outnumber Anglos 5-to-1.

*

Anglosphere and EU agree to sacrifice their coal and oil industries. EU sacrifices nothing whilst boosting climate-friendly exports and reducing fuel imports. Anglosphere surrenders its competitive advantage whilst back-flopping into the Great Depression. Sounds melodramatically awful, but EU sharps hold a boss hand: a 4-Prime Minister, President-high, climateer flush.

Republicans represent the last ditch.

*

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

William Walter Kay is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from International Man

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In a rare victory, Louisiana recently reached a $100 million settlement with the mining giant Freeport-McMoRan Inc., for contributing to the erosion rapidly devouring the state’s coast.

And this is just the beginning. Recently, a federal court ordered anine-year-old lawsuit to return to state court. The suit was filed against Chevron USA, Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips Co. and BP America. Over 40 similar legal challenges may follow against the oil and gas companies that have caused, and are causing, Louisiana’s wetlands to disappear at an alarming rate. These lawsuits could win billions of dollars in damages.

The call for accountability against oil and gas companies is critical, but the dominant narrative misses an essential component: There’s no mention of financial reparations for Indigenous and historically Black communities in southern Louisiana who suffer the most loss and damages due to land loss and climate change and who are being actively displaced.

Southern Louisiana is home to large Native communities, including my own, the Houma. While many Houma still live on our ancestral lands, it is the fastest disappearing region in the country. Our lands are unprotected because no Indigenous tribe in the southernmost regions of Louisiana has federal recognition, and the state of Louisiana is heavily invested in fossil fuels.

Oil and gas companies have long opposed Indigenous tribes in Southern Louisiana achieving federal recognition. They fear that Native people will reclaim the oil-rich, ocean-accessible lands that fossil fuel corporations have been ruining for nearly a century.

Since oil and gas established corporate-colonial occupation over the area in the 1930s, Louisiana has lost more than 2,000 square miles of land. Companies dredged thousands of miles of canals through the marsh to get to and from oil and gas wells, carving up Native bayou communities. These canals directly destroy wetlands, disrupt wetland hydrology and act as avenues for salt water intrusion, causing the coastal marshes, our necessary and natural barriers to hurricanes, to rapidly erode.

In Louisiana, on average a football field of wetlands turns to open water every 100 minutes. Plaquemines Parish alone stands to lose 55% of its land over the next 50 years. The wetlands near Leeville, on Bayou Lafourche, sinks as much as an inch every 30 months.

The Jean Charles Choctaw Nation, which recently changed its name from the Isle de Jean Charles band of the Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw, a neighboring tribe related to the Houma, recently relocated from their home island in Terrebonne Parish, which shrunk from its original 35 miles to less than 1 square mile. Elders will tell you that Isle de Jean Charles used to be walkable to Pointe-aux-Chenes, the tiny Houma-French speaking town where my dad was raised and where my family lives. This trek is no longer possible.

Likewise, historically Black communities such as Ironton, a freedmen’s town located in Plaquemines Parish, continue to resist displacement. After hurricanes Katrina and Isaac, only about 50 families remain in the community. In 2021, Hurricane Ida scattered dozens of unearthed coffins from Ironton’s community cemetery and left few houses unscathed; recovery is ongoing. It is not incidental that Ironton is surrounded by polluting infrastructure, including the 2,400-acre Phillips 66 Alliance oil refinery, a grain terminal, and two coal export terminals. Not far from Ironton, a company called Venture Global is preparing to construct a pipeline and an export terminal, Plaquemines LNG, for liquified natural gas.

Oil and gas companies argue that they are legally allowed to destroy wetlands under state and federal rules put in place decades ago. Over time, the fossil fuel industry has ramped up destructive practices despite knowing the severe environmental consequences; it has become a wealthy and powerful machine that can manipulate laws in its favor.

At the same time oil and gas wells and canals are sinking the Louisiana coast, sea levels are rising due to climate change. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has removed the names of 31 bodies of water from their maps of Louisiana as bayou and bay borders disappear and become open water. The Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act will add another layer to these injuries by reinstating $190 million in bids from fossil fuel companies to drill in the Gulf.

At the recent COP27 climate conference, one of the primary points of discussion was sourcing funding for loss and damages” from climate change. Environmental leaders from across the world called on colonizing countries such as the United States and European countries to reinstate their extracted wealth to countries in the Global South who have contributed the least to climate change but are experiencing the worst impacts.

Likewise, our conversations around loss and damages here in the United States must include accountability for the rich, extractive, polluting industry that has torn up the Louisiana coast, while emphasizing a just transition. In a an essay calling for reparations from oil and gas corporations, New Orleanian artist and researcher Imani Jacqueline Brown invoked the doctrineof ​unjust enrichment:” If an entity profits by impoverishing another, then these profits are unjust and must be reinstated.

In October, Shell reported its second highest quarterly profit ever at $9.5billion. Chevron made $11.2 billion and Exxon made $19.7 billion. Despite being an oil and gas state — which is supposed to mean jobs and prosperity, according to fossil fuel corporations — Louisiana is the second poorest state in the United States, with one of the highest racial wealth divides.

I can’t tell you in numbers the cost of a dying delta: It is invaluable and irreplaceable. I can tell you that since 1970, the oil and gas industry has raked in $52 trillion in profits, or nearly $3 billion per day for the last 50 years.

The solution: It’s time for oil and gas to pay the costs. These companies owe reparations and need to forfeit their wealth.

It must be acknowledged that successful litigation and money gifts, while necessary, only slow or reframe the problem — they do not change the system that allowed the harm in the first place or guarantee protections from more legal extraction. Our impacted communities need financial reparations to recover from past abuse and brace for future loss and damages as we fight for systemic change. And we should treat those reparations as a means by which to end to the extractive industry, once and for all. It’s too cheap for them to exploit us, and, even after major environmental victories, they are set up to do it again.

We need true systemic change. We need Pachamama—inalienable rights of nature that safeguard our natural environments, from living creatures to our water and air. And ultimately, the government needs to give land back to Indigenous people, so that Native communities like the Houma can protect their ancestral lands from companies that would plunder them for profit. Our future generations deserve to live on the lands of their elders and ancestors.

*

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

Courtney Naquin is the Gulf Coast press secretary for Sierra Club and program manager and education coordinator for the Houma Language Project’s youth language internship program. They are also a Public Voices on the Climate Crisis fellow with Yale Climate Communications and the Op-Ed Project.

Featured image: The author’s grandfather’s house in Pointe-Aux-Chenes, Louisiana in the wake of Hurricane Ida. Oil and gas development has contributed to the massive destruction of the state’s coastal wetlands, and towns like Pointe-Aux-Chenes are particularly vulnerable to bigger storms and rising seas.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Oil Companies Have Plundered Louisiana’s Coast. They Owe Us Reparations.
  • Tags:

Could Julian Assange be Released in Two Months?

January 4th, 2023 by Kevin Gosztola

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

As the new year began, ABC Global Affairs Editor John Lyons stated during a broadcast segment that he expected WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange would be released “within the next two months or so.”

“I know [Australia Prime Minister] Anthony Albanese. He’s working strongly behind the scenes,” Lyons added. “He has said as much, but enough is enough.”

Lyons is sympathetic to Assange’s plight, making him one of the few correspondents in the world working for establishment news media who is willing to endorse calls to end the United States case against him.

But the key question is whether Lyons knows about some shift in the so-called “quiet diplomacy” between the US and Australia that may result in Assange being released from Belmarsh prison and returned home to Australia.

It does not appear that Lyons possesses any knowledge of any development that has yet to be publicly reported in more concrete detail.

In the clip of Lyons that was shared widely, he does not elaborate on how Albanese is “working strongly behind the scenes.”

Albanese is the leader of the Australian Labor Party, and previous reporting in July 2022 by Kellie Tranter for Declassified Australia featured documents obtained from the Australian Attorney General’s office that showed the Labor Party had not ruled out Assange’s extradition from the United Kingdom to the US.

Talking points in the documents indicated that the Labor Party was prepared for a prisoner transfer of Assange. A prisoner transfer could only happen if Assange pled guilty to one or all of the offenses or if he was put on trial and sentenced in a US courtroom.

“The Assange case is unique. One of the ways in which that is the case is the attempted extraterritorial use of the US Espionage Act,” Greg Barns SC, adviser to the Australian Assange Campaign, told Declassified Australia. “The US is seeking to establish a precedent where it could seek to extradite any journalist anywhere in the world for disclosure of US information.

“If Australia were to sanction a ‘deal’ whereby Assange pleaded guilty to a charge in exchange for an Australian served sentence, it would be endorsing that approach,” Barns added.

Assange also knows that if he pleads guilty he would be helping the US government establish a precedent that could be used against journalists like him in the future. That makes a guilty plea unlikely.

Tranter, an attorney, researcher, and human rights advocate, concluded, “The imprecise language of the Labor government statements on using ‘quiet diplomacy’ to ‘bring the matter to a close,’ rather than clearly saying what they are seeking, may be giving false hope to the Australian public. Without putting forward its ‘quiet diplomacy’ in non-negotiable terms to the US, it may be that the dropping of charges will not even be considered.”

Given that, Lyons’ remarks give us no reason to believe that the limbo in Assange’s case will end soon.

Lyons suggests the compelling thing about the Assange case is that Chelsea Manning, the “military officer who leaked the information,” is “free.” She was “pardoned by her own government.”

That is not exactly true, and in fact, it is also misleading. Manning had her sentence commuted by President Barack Obama because she was dealing with severe mental health problems and had even attempted suicide at Fort Leavenworth prison in Kansas. Obama accepted that Manning had served enough of a sentence, since she had been in confinement for over six and a half years.

However, Obama did not pardon her. He did not recognize that what she had done when releasing documents to WikiLeaks amounted to whistleblowing on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that was crucial to fueling important debates on counterinsurgency warfare and open-ended military occupations to fight terrorism.

Prosecutors at the US Justice Department would probably say of Manning that unlike Assange she did her time and was found guilty. The reason they are still pursuing Assange is because he has “evaded justice” and “must be held accountable.”

There is no evidence that officials in the Justice Department have changed their attitude. One unnamed official told longtime US national security journalist Eric Lichtblau in December 2022 that US Attorney General Merrick Garland “has made clear that he will follow the law wherever it leads.”

Lyons refers to Assange’s deteriorating health, saying that Assange’s brother Gabriel Shipton mentioned to him that Assange had a mini-stroke in Belmarsh last year. He also mentions the lockdown conditions that Assange had to endure in detention during early stages of the COVID pandemic.

None of these details consist of new information on Assange’s health. For the most part, Stella Assange, Assange’s family, or Assange’s legal team have not shared any specifics on his condition since the health scare in 2021.

It may be logical to presume that Julian Assange’s condition has worsened, but we do not know that he is any closer to death than he has been since his arrest in 2019.

“It’s been eight or nine years now of limbo,” Lyons states. “I think that it only takes one phone call from Anthony Albanese to Joe Biden, or at the end of a phone call, to say, listen, this is fine. Joe Biden would barely know the name Julian Assange. Of all the issues he’s got to deal with, Julian Assange is way down there.”

“Just to say, listen, we’re a great ally. We’re doing all this. Please, you’ve had this Australian citizen now waiting for justice for years and years and years. Whether he’s a journalist or not, I think any Australian citizen should be given due process, and he has not been given due process.”

The problem for Assange, however, is Biden does know his name.

Biden was vice president in the Obama administration and remembers the government had to respond to the WikiLeaks publications in 2010 and 2011. He also called Assange a “high-tech terrorist” when he appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in 2010, and in 2019, when Biden was running for president, the Times asked him about the Espionage Act charges against Assange.

The US government under Biden does not believe Assange has been “denied due process.” That much is evident in their “assurances” to the UK government about how they would treat him.

Overall, what Lyons said is primarily advocacy, with no real news. It may not even be advocacy that benefits Assange because what Lyons said leads one to believe the Albanese administration is doing all that it can to have Assange freed from prison. Except we have no evidence that anything changed in 2022 to make this a reasonable expectation.

Yet let’s pretend for a moment that there is a small chance that what Lyons expects will come to fruition. Think of what it would signal to the world if a phone call from Albanese played an instrumental role in ending the case.

It would demonstrate that Assange was always one phone call away from freedom but remained in detention because the Australian government for several years refused to stand up and tell the US government that they had no right to put him on trial for engaging in journalism.

For the US government, it would be even worse. Dropping the case after a call would demonstrate that Assange was only prosecuted because he was an easy target for vindictive US officials. And after resistance to targeting him developed among the leadership of an allied country, officials could live with abandoning the case since “bringing him to justice” in a trial was never the main objective.

The objective was neutralizing Assange, and they succeeded in doing that years ago.

*

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

Featured image is from Lawyers for Assange

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Seventy-five years. That’s how long Pfizer and the FDA tried to hide the Pfizer documents from public view — long after just about everyone affected is dead. It wasn’t until renowned attorney Aaron Siri led a FOIA case against the FDA that a federal judge ordered the documents to be released in 108 days, the same amount of time it took the FDA to approve the Covid-19 injections.

Within the Pfizer documents is Document 5.3.6 (Post-Marketing Experience), a cumulative analysis of adverse event reports occurring in the 90 days after the public rollout of the Covid-19 mRNA injection. And within that report, 275 people suffered a stroke suspected to be attributed to the vaccine between days 1 to 41; 50% of these occurred within the first 48 hours after injection.

It’s important to note that strokes are life-altering events, which occur “when the blood supply to part of the brain is interrupted or reduced, preventing brain tissue from getting oxygen and nutrients. Brain cells begin to die in minutes.”—Mayoclinic

It’s a medical emergency. And prompt treatment is crucial. “Many stroke survivors experience paralysis on one side of the body or inability to move a specific part of the body.” And “Some stroke survivors may experience trouble using or understanding language (aphasia) or have trouble swallowing liquids or foods (dysphagia).”—thestrokefoundation.org

Sadly, all 300 stroke adverse event reports affecting 275 different patients within Pfizer Document 5.3.6 were classified as “serious.” One in five (61 of the 300) strokes was fatal, 32% did not resolve, 28% had an “unknown” outcome, and three suffered very rare deep brain clots (cerebral venous sinus thrombosis).

Amy Kelly’s full report can be viewed here.

And what was Pfizer’s conclusion? “This cumulative case review does not raise new safety issues.”

“If anything, it’s an underestimate,” argued Dr. Chris Flowers, as he joined DailyClout’s CEO Dr. Naomi Wolf and COO and WarRoom/DailyClout Pfizer Documents Research Project Director Amy Kelly to discuss the stroke findings from Pfizer Document 5.3.6.

Dr. Chris Flowers, MBBS, FRCR, FSBI, is a retired Associate Professor of Radiology at the University of South Florida and an extraordinary member of the Pfizer documents volunteer team. It was he who broke the story that Pfizer and the FDA knew, months ahead of time, that 35 teens suffered heart damage within a week of receiving the C19 shots before any U.S. government agency issued a press release warning the risks of myopericarditis to parents. He is also an author and a retired scientific paper reviewer for multiple radiology journals.

Dr. Flowers elaborates on the underestimate. “The problem is that there’s a huge number of patients who had a stroke whose resolution or outcome is not known (28%) and not reported, even though they’re supposed to follow this up for two years (another FOIA may be necessary to get that data). And we can’t find the data on these patients. What was their final outcome? By statistical analysis, there’s bound to be more people that have actually died, which will inflate that number.”

“So it could be more than 61 [deaths] out of 275 people who had stroke-like events,” added Dr. Wolf. “Right,” confirmed Dr. Flowers.

Dr. Flowers focuses on the lack of proper safety testing.

“As you know, endlessly on TV, all the pundits, all the bigwigs, they were all telling us we had to get the vaccine, and it was “perfectly safe.” But it’s getting more and more clear, as we spend time going through the documents, that the safety aspects of any vaccine trial were basically ignored. And I found out even more disturbing things coming out of the European Medicines Agency (think of as Europe’s FDA) in that they don’t even require the safety testing. They don’t even require the distribution and excretion of a vaccine to be approved for use in patients.”

Dr. Flowers came to this conclusion from a paper by Hélène Banoun, biological pharmacist, PhD: “The anti-Covid mRNA vaccines aren’t subject to biodistribution and excretion studies, and this is according to the regulations of the health agencies.”

“The same product may or may not be classified as a gene product depending on whether or not it is qualified as a vaccine against an infectious disease. In the latter case, it may be exempted from these studies.”

Dr. Chris Flowers later adds that the phase one portion of the clinical trials (safety testing) was essentially glossed over. What usually takes years was six months maximum. “The Wistar rats — and that was virtually it.” He elaborates on the importance of safety testing. “Every time you look at things like this, you’ve got to wait several years to make sure nothing [bad] has happened since someone has received this experimental intervention in their lives. It can be all sorts of things, and some of these things, like cancers, may not occur for months or years later.”

“And so, this is yet another example of Pfizer not doing what it said it would do and the FDA not performing its regulatory function,” commented Dr. Wolf.

She asks, “Would you say, Dr. Flowers, that making sure a trial is conducted, according to trial protocols, is a core regulatory function of the agency that is the FDA?”

“That’s how they used to do it,” answered Dr. Flowers. “Even with the swine flu, they had just a few serious adverse events, and they pulled the vaccine. … And yet, here we are with huge numbers. They occurred very, very early on — way before this post-marketing experience document was being produced. Even at the interim analysis stage of the trial before the EUA, there were serious adverse events. But because the Pfizer doctors had turned around every single time and said, ‘Well, no serious safety signal has been identified in these reports.’ It’s absolute nonsense!”

Dr. Wolf and Dr. Flowers then discuss the “odd” distribution of adverse events.

Dr. Flowers informs that Pfizer Document 5.3.6 tracked all countries receiving the Pfizer injection 90 days after vaccine rollout. And of that global rollout, approximately half of the total adverse events (42,086) occurred in the UK, a little less than half were in the United States, and the rest were scattered across a mix of other countries.

“Does that strike you as odd that this is a global rollout and the vast majority, once again, we found this once before in the total of adverse events, are in the UK and the US? Wouldn’t you expect it to be more random in a global rollout?” asked Dr. Wolf.

“Absolutely,” answered Dr. Flowers. “The distribution of the Pfizer vaccine was rather chaotic, shall we say, amongst many countries, with Pfizer trying to exploit governments as, for example, what happened in Uruguay, and in Argentina and Brazil — that we actually know about. I wouldn’t go all in and say, ‘Well, it’s targeted against a western population.’ But I mean, it’s particularly fair to commentate that maybe that is a possibility.”

Going back to Document 5.3.6, how many took the C19 injection, suffered a stroke, then died because of it?

If we do some quick math, we can get an idea. So, after 90 days, 61 people died, and Pfizer stopped recording data on February 28, 2021. We are now at the end of December 2022, and 22 months have since passed. So, 61 deaths multiplied by 22 months — then divided by 3 (90 days) equals 447 vaccine-induced deaths from stroke.

“This is just dying of one thing, “ added Dr. Flowers.

“Look at all the other things we’ve shown.”

These Covid-19 injections could also be affecting the personalities of those unfortunate enough have spike protein in the brain.

“From the brain point of view, we know that lipid nanoparticles in of themselves are irritant to blood vessels and [are] getting inside the brain, which has very, very sensitive blood vessels,” explained Dr. Flowers. And the spike proteins, carried by lipid nanoparticles, cause inflammatory change, which can then cause microvessel disease. “So when you get things like microvessel disease, little micro-clots occurring, then you are going to get lots of little micro-strokes that may not be visible on any type of imaging,” stated Dr. Flowers.

“Could a lot of inflammation or tiny micro-strokes in the brain cause personality changes?,” asked Dr. Wolf.

“Absolutely, if it affects the frontal lobes,” answered Dr. Flowers. “If you remember, there was a very barbaric old-fashioned treatment — One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest — for example. They used to do a frontal lobotomy; they basically cut off the frontal lobe to pacify the really aggressive sociopath in prison.”

“I think that’s against the human court,” added Dr. Flowers. “And yet it’s being done in a different manner.”

“The notable thing about people who had frontal lobe lobotomies is how compliant they were,” added Dr. Wolf. “That their critical thinking facilities died — that they were tractable. They could be managed better institutionally.” She asks, “Couldn’t that be a possible explanation for the mysterious death of critical thinking we’re seeing in the vaccinated?”

“That’s definitely a potential real cause, a pathological cause for it,” answered Dr. Flowers. But “Is it [the] chicken [or the] egg? Because those sorts of people tended to be compliant beforehand.”

But the best way to really get to the bottom of it is to do immunohistochemical stains, as suggested by Dr. Ryan Cole. That is, an antigen-antibody pathology test that can be done on post-mortem brains to get to the bottom of “where does the spike protein go?”

What is the distribution of the spike protein? How long does it remain in the body? The authorities told us the contents of the injection would stay in the arm and that the spike proteins would degrade within a few weeks. But, in Dr. McCullough’s words, “It [mRNA] is everywhere. It’s in oral secretions. It’s in your genital secretions. It’s in sweat. It’s in breast milk. We don’t know when this clears out of the body.”

Nevertheless, Pfizer knew after the first 90 days, 275 people suffered stroke-related brain damage. While 61 families were grieving the death of their loved ones and the other 214 were seeking care for their family members post-stroke, Pfizer was too busy with their marketing campaign. “Safe and effective.” They failed to address the strokes, considered them to “not raise new safety issues,” and continued pushing the Covid-19 injections. And for that, they are, at minimum, guilty of criminal negligence and malfeasance.

*

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

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense


The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’Etat Against Humanity

by Michel Chossudovsky

Michel Chossudovsky reviews in detail how this insidious project “destroys people’s lives”. He provides a comprehensive analysis of everything you need to know about the “pandemic” — from the medical dimensions to the economic and social repercussions, political underpinnings, and mental and psychological impacts.

“My objective as an author is to inform people worldwide and refute the official narrative which has been used as a justification to destabilize the economic and social fabric of entire countries, followed by the imposition of the “deadly” COVID-19 “vaccine”. This crisis affects humanity in its entirety: almost 8 billion people. We stand in solidarity with our fellow human beings and our children worldwide. Truth is a powerful instrument.”

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-3-0,  Year: 2022,  PDF Ebook,  Pages: 164, 15 Chapters

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Criminal Malfeasance: Pfizer Knew 275 People Suffered Serious Strokes in the First 90 Days After Vaccine Rollout
  • Tags: ,

Facing the Failure of Our Cruel Venezuela Policy

January 4th, 2023 by Daniel Larison

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Venezuelan opposition legislators voted last week to dissolve their interim government, and with that they have ended the project of trying to replace Maduro with Juan Guaidó:

But nearly four years later and with little to show for the effort, the experiment has come to an end. On Friday, the opposition lawmakers who once rallied behind Guaidó voted 72-29 to dissolve their so-called interim government, effectively ending his mandate.

This was a long overdue move. Guaidó never had control of anything outside the National Assembly in Venezuela, and eventually he didn’t really have control over that. The U.S. made a major mistake in trying to foment regime change in Venezuela, and the backing of Guaidó was a perfect example of why the policy never made any sense. The entire policy has been an exercise in wishful thinking and reckless meddling from the start. After four years of failure and worsening hardship for the Venezuelan people, there may now be a chance for a serious rethinking of this policy.

Dumping Guaidó was a necessary move, but it was one that should have been done years ago. Following almost four years of ineffective efforts to dislodge Maduro, Guaidó’s standing with the Venezuelan people was terrible. According to one recent survey, his approval rating was 5% and only 6% of Venezuelans would vote for him as a candidate for president. All the time that was spent offering him up as the alternative and “legitimate” president of Venezuela was a waste, and now the opposition will be back more or less to square one with even less political capital and goodwill than they had before. It will take years to repair the damage done by being so openly aligned with the U.S. economic war that has been waged against Venezuela, and that can’t really begin until the economic war is brought to an end.

The Biden administration has begun taking very modest steps towards altering sanctions on Venezuela, but it needs to move much faster and go much further if sanctions relief is going to help the population. Keeping broad sanctions in place primarily punishes ordinary Venezuelans, and there can be no doubt about that at this point. No country has ever been democratized by being subjected to grueling collective punishment, and collective punishment will just make things worse for the people while Maduro clings to and tightens his hold on power. Our government’s policy aggravates the problems of food insecurity and poverty with economic coercion, and it is both morally indefensible and politically stupid.

The pro-sanctions theory that “maximum pressure” would force the Maduro government to crack and collapse has been tested and proven false. The U.S. will have to deal with Maduro as the de facto president for the foreseeable future, and it will have to acknowledge that its latest regime change attempt failed. Venezuela policy is a cautionary tale of what happens when the U.S. pays too much heed to ideological exiles, sets unrealistic goals, and uses the blunt instrument of sanctions to try to achieve far-reaching political goals. The U.S. must overhaul its Venezuela policy so that it is no longer focused on coercion and punishment, and that means ending broad sectoral sanctions. That may or may not help end the country’s political crisis, but it will at least stop making its economic and humanitarian crises worse than they already were.

*

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

Featured image is from Alexandros Michailidis/StringerAl/Shutterstock

2022 US Middle East Policy Review and 2023 Forecast

January 4th, 2023 by Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

US Middle East policy continued its downward spiral in 2022. The president and Congress aided and abetted illegal Israeli objectives over better policies preferred by overwhelming majorities of American voters. In poll after poll, Americans have signaled they would like to cut U.S. foreign aid to Israel. Sanction Israel over apartheid practices. Hold it responsible for being the Middle East’s leading state sponsor of nuclear proliferation and not recognize Israeli territorial annexation. Americans also oppose Israel’s U.S. surrogates attempting to curb their 1st Amendment rights to boycott Israel in response to its perpetual human rights violations.

None of these popular and noble objectives were translated into U.S. policy in 2022. Americans are instead likely to be further undermined in 2023. Below are IRmep’s takes on 2022 and 2023 predictions.

Israel’s foreign agent AIPAC

AIPAC is an Israeli foreign influence operation. It was set up with Israeli and foreign funding laundered into the US by an Israeli foreign agent. The Department of Justice ordered AIPAC to register as an Israeli foreign agent in 1962 under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). At the time, AIPAC was the lobbying division of the American Zionist Council. The Department of Justice has never enforced the order.

Prediction: The Department of Justice will continue to refuse to properly regulate AIPAC under FARA leading to further abuses of the American system on behalf of AIPAC’s Israeli foreign principals.

Unconditional US foreign aid to Israel

US aid to Israel is illegal, unjustified and increasingly indefensible. That is why following passage of the $1.7 trillion omnibus spending bill this month, Israel surrogates in the US falsely claimed that at $100 billion Ukraine received more cumulative foreign aid than Israel. That is wrong. The Congressional Research Service pegs inflation adjusted aid to Israel between 1946-2018 at $236 billion. Even that aid figure does not include billions of “black” budget intelligence and covert aid.

It is a common tactic for lobby surrogates to attempt to minimize the enormous, illegal, unjustified and unconditional aid package. In past years, Israel surrogates even claimed the U.S. costs of maintaining its “ally” Israel were far less than costs of troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea. This claim is also false because there is no treaty alliance between the U.S. and Israel and therefore Israel is not technically an ally. The aid has also been illegal since the 1970s.

After learning that Israel, with the aid of U.S. surrogates, stole U.S. weapons grade uranium in the 1960s to fabricate Israel’s first atomic weapons, Senators John Glenn and Stuart Symington passed amendments now within the Arms Export Control Act prohibiting US foreign aid to clandestine nuclear weapons states. No U.S. president has ever issued waivers to make US aid legal and Congress ignores its own law. Most presidents sign letters promising never to discuss Israel’s nuclear weapons program.

Prediction: The president and Congress will continue to deliver illegal aid to Israel in violation of the Arms Export Control Act. Israel will continue to be the largest direct, indirect and black budget aid beneficiary.

AIPAC replaces “citizen lobbying” and conferences with campaign cash

AIPAC expenditures on “citizen lobbying” in conjunction with an annual policy conference in Washington used to be its biggest expenditure. It spent less directly lobbying Congress, the executive, and federal agencies through a dozen full time employees. While it tried to influence PAC and individual campaign contributions, it did not operate its own PAC.

No more. AIPAC faced increasing public protests at its conferences, counter conferences, unfavorable TV and radio and public denunciations when it emerged from the shadows and operatives flooded into the Washington Convention Center and Capitol Hill.

In 2021-2022 AIPAC launched a new PAC and super PAC to promote Israel’s preferred candidates over those who might instead demand abidance to American popular demands, international law, peace, justice and fairness. For the most part in 2022, Israel’s foreign agent managed to install pliable politicians and keep more principled representatives out of power.

From Israel and AIPAC’s perspective, it was worth spending up to $9 million on each House election race, and $48 million on a Senate race to install malleable politicians willing to unconditionally support Israeli, rather than popular American, interests. In most cases, AIPAC spent much less to dislodge even the mildest critics.

US aid divided by House and Senate count

Prediction: AIPAC will continue to raise and expend tens of millions in political races. AIPAC will not hold any further public “citizen lobbying” events in Washington over fear of mass protests and backlash. This will lower political exposure of U.S. politicians attending the conference and passing AIPAC drafted laws.

Abraham scams power illegal annexations

One major recent Israel lobby territorial demand is that the U.S. recognize 102,703 square miles of Western Sahara as Moroccan territory. In turn, Morocco is to engage in trade and diplomatic interchanges with Israel.

This is one phase of the worst recent debasements of US policy called the “Abraham Accords.” This Israel lobby initiative launched during the Trump administration seeking to transcend demands to stop Israeli violence, ethnic cleansing, oppression, apartheid and territorial displacement of the native Palestinian population. The Biden administration has done nothing to reverse the Abraham Accords and restore American credibility.

Since the Second World War international law has forbidden territorial acquisition via war and conquest. The Abraham Accords demand that the U.S. legitimize territorial acquisition via war and conquest if it works to Israel’s benefit.

At the close of 2022 the U.S. continues to support Trump administration legal theories that Israel has sovereignty over Syria’s Golan Heights, captured by Israel in a war it launched in 1967. The Biden administration also supports the idea that Jerusalem is the “undivided capital of Israel” while the UN holds that its status is subject to negotiations. Although there is mild Biden administration lip service opposition to Israel’s December declaration of its entitlement to “Judea and Samaria” (the West Bank) there has been no visible substantive action against ongoing Israeli illegal settlements.

Illegal annexations for Israel vs Russia

Some Arab leaders have begun to accept the Abraham Accords, even as most Arab populations remain universally opposed to normalization with Israel until there is justice for Palestinians.

At the close of 2022, the United States continues to push for the illegal annexation and recognition of 105,709 square miles of territory on Israel’s behalf. This is over ten times the amount of Ukrainian territory that Russia illegally annexed through 2022.

Prediction: Israel and its U.S. lobby will continue to demand illegal annexations under the Abraham Accords as Israel lobby media pundits deflect and provide cover. U.S. government officials will dodge questions about the illegal seizures using exclusive language when referring to Israel while condemning illegal Russian annexations.

Americans rise up against their own “Palestinianization”

Given the factors listed above, Americans wanting less corruption in foreign policy have had few avenues for effective resistance in Washington. However, as Israel through its lobby demands ever more entwinement and tribute from America, it has unwittingly expanded into hostile territories it has not managed to co-opt and is losing big.

AIPAC interlards spending bills in Congress with demands that Israeli companies be allowed preferential access to capital and participation in “joint” ventures in water, energy, health and military initiatives, harvesting billions of additional revenues for Israel and lobby insiders.

In Virginia, AIPAC and its state cutout, the Virginia Israel Advisory Board (VIAB) worked hard since 2013 to steer $25 million in US government funding and over $100 million in UAE government funds into an Israeli aquaculture company best known in the industry for killing fish. Highly qualified Virginia acuaculture companies were bypassed. The people rose up and the Israeli company was shown the door for an experienced Norwegian company. This operator change cut Israel and its surrogate AIPAC out of an estimated $2.9 billion in revenues.

The Israeli company Energix is accustomed to building on Israeli occupied West Bank and Golan Heights territories, landing it on the UNHCR list of human rights violators. Energix is importing its worst practices into Virginia, trying to corrupt and co-opt county boards of supervisors, using AIPAC-like behind the scenes tactics to disenfranchise neighboring landowners as it installs cheap, toxic, cadmium-heavy solar panels 95% of the market rejects, on prime agricultural land.

Communities, alerted to Energix’s practices, have now risen up. They have forced boards of supervisors to withhold zoning permits to Energix, sued, and are now pressing state agencies to withhold future licenses over widespread deceptive Energix practices. This has canceled or put on hold $4.3 billion worth of Energix revenues.

Prediction: As Americans face ever more direct Israeli attempts to “Palestinianize” their communities and future, they will increasingly band together and fight back.

Conclusion

While Israel and its lobby isn’t the only driver of disastrous U.S. Middle East policy, it plays the critical role. The Israel lobby mostly escapes scrutiny from even staunch critics. Many prefer to advance canards that Israel is merely a U.S. “client state”, America’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier” and that Israel’s lobby is both legitimate and not a major factor in policymaking.

None of this is true. For this reason, IRmep will continue its research and education programs into its third decade of operations.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 2022 US Middle East Policy Review and 2023 Forecast
  • Tags: ,

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

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

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

About 4,000 members of the US Army’s 101st Airborne Division are still deployed in Romania as part of a military buildup in Eastern Europe that President Biden ordered last year, as the Pentagon is still deciding whether to maintain current troop levels.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that some 101st soldiers are stationed at a base near the Romanian city of Constanta on the Black Sea while others are further north, just a few miles from the Ukrainian border, and are simulating fighting Russia in Ukraine.

In exercises with Romanian troops, the Times report said the 101st soldiers are firing artillery, launching helicopter assaults, and digging trenches similar to those on the front lines in Ukraine’s Kherson Oblast.

The deployment marks the first time the 101st has been sent to Europe since World War II.

CBS News reported in October that the 101st was conducting drills within just four miles of the Ukrainian border and that the unit was prepared to “fight tonight.” Commanders told CBS that they were in Romania to protect NATO territory but said they were ready to enter Ukraine if the war escalated.

The Times report stressed that the 101st Airborne deployment was about deterrence. If the US were preparing to enter the war directly, it would likely send significantly more troops. While in Romania, the soldiers are also participating in coastal defense drills, and Romanian troops are practicing firing HIMARS rocket launch systems into the Black Sea.

The military buildup in Eastern Europe has brought US troop levels on the continent to over 100,000 for the first time since 2005. The Pentagon is expected to decide soon if it will maintain the current levels for the long term or reduce or increase them.

The over $100 billion that has been authorized to spend on the war in Ukraine includes money to fund troop deployments in Europe. The latest Ukraine aid bill that was passed by Congress includes $6.98 billion for US European Command, which will likely fund the training of Ukrainian troops, other types of support for Kyiv, and US deployments in the region.

*

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

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Featured image: Army soldiers assigned to the 101st Airborne Division arrive in Mihail Kogalniceanu, Romania, Jun. 28, 2022. Units from the 101st will support the Army’s V Corps’ mission to reinforce NATO’s eastern flank and engage in multinational exercises with partners across Europe to reassure allies and deter further Russian aggression. (Photo by Army Capt. Angelo Mejia)