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 British Parliament may start debating the Online Safety Bill again as soon as this week. The bill is a deeply flawed censorship proposal that would allow U.K. residents to be thrown in jail for what they say online. It would also force online service providers to use government-approved software to search for user content that is deemed to be related to terrorism or child abuse. In the process, it will undermine our right to have a private conversation, and the technologies that protect that right, like end-to-end encryption. 

In a letter published today, EFF has joined dozens of security researchers and human rights groups to send a clear message to incoming U.K. prime minister Rishi Sunak: the Online Safety Bill must not undermine encryption. As the letter notes, in its current form, the Online Safety Bill “contains clauses that would erode end-to-end encryption in private messaging.” It continues:

Undermining protections for end-to-end encryption would make UK businesses and individuals less safe online, including the very groups that the Online Safety Bill intends to protect. Furthermore, because the right to privacy and freedom of expression are intertwined, these proposals would undermine freedom of speech, a key characteristic of free societies that differentiate the UK from aggressors that use oppression and coercion to achieve their aims.

In the past few years, we’ve seen a number of proposals brought forward by governments that want to scan user-to-user communications for criminal content: the U.S. EARN IT Act, and the EU’s proposal to scan private chats. All of these proposals suffer from the incorrect belief that a backdoor or other workaround to read encrypted messages can be designed for use only in benevolent ways.

That isn’t the case, and never will be. Criminals, rogue employees, domestic abusers, and authoritarian governments are just some of the bad actors that will eagerly exploit backdoors like those proposed by the Online Safety Bill. Proposals like this threaten a basic human right: our right to have a private conversation.

We hope Prime Minister Sunak acknowledges the consensus among technologists against the current Online Safety Bill and proposals like 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 blogtrepreneur/Flickr

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Deeply Flawed Censorship Project: Experts Condemn UK Online Safety Bill as Harmful to Privacy and Encryption
  • 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.

***

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro filed a complaint on Tuesday contesting the results of the run-off election he lost more than three weeks ago. In it, Bolsonaro’s lawyer Marcelo de Bessa claims that a “software bug” on 59% of the voting machines used across Brazil invalidates many ballots, according to a report from the Associated Press.

BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) — More than three weeks after losing a reelection bid, President Jair Bolsonaro on Tuesday blamed a software bug and demanded the electoral authority annul votes cast on most of Brazil’s nation’s electronic voting machines, though independent experts say the bug doesn’t affect the reliability of results.

Such an action would leave Bolsonaro with 51% of the remaining valid votes — and a reelection victory, Marcelo de Bessa, the lawyer who filed the 33-page request on behalf of the president and his Liberal Party, told reporters.

The electoral authority has already declared victory for Bolsonaro’s nemesis, leftist former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and even many of the president’s allies have accepted the results. Protesters in cities across the country have steadfastly refused to do the same, particularly with Bolsonaro declining to concede.

Liberal Party leader Valdemar Costa and an auditor hired by the party told reporters in Brasilia that their evaluation found all machines dating from before 2020 — nearly 280,000 of them, or about 59% of the total used in the Oct. 30 runoff — lacked individual identification numbers in internal logs.

The 33-page complaint describes the alleged voting machine issue as an “irreparable non-compliance due to malfunction,” affecting all machines more than two years old, said the AP. And the filing demands that ballots cast on the ~280,000 machines in question be voided. Specifically, an auditor hired by Bolsonaro’s Liberal Party said the voting machines lacked individual identification numbers, without explaining how that could’ve possibly impacted election results, according to a report from Politico.

“It does not undermine the reliability or credibility in any way,” Wilson Ruggiero, a computer engineer at the Polytechnic School of the University of Sao Paulo, told the AP.

Another expert, Diego Aranha, a systems security researcher at Aarhus University in Denmark who has previously been part of security tests of Brazil’s election system, also told the AP something similar. Arhana explained that, though the machine ID numbers didn’t show up in internal digital logs, they did appear on printed receipts tallying the votes cast for each candidate.

Bolsonaro’s loss (and Lula’s victory) has already been declared by Brazil’s electoral authority, and the results have been widely accepted by politicians across the country—even many of Bolsonaro’s allies.

In response to Bolsonaro’s new claims, the leader of Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court said it would not reassess the election results unless the Liberal Party files a new complaint inclusive of the congressional elections it won earlier in October, Politico reported.

The concept of faulty and vulnerable voting machines have been a constant refrain in Bolsnaro’s attempts to undermine Brazil’s democracy for years. However, there has never been any evidence of fraud or ill-doing via the machines that have been used since 1996—despite regular audits, according to another AP report.

Though the complaint is unlikely to have a direct impact on government actions or sway election officials, according to multiple outlets, it is likely to fuel ongoing protests by Bolsonaro supporters. Emboldened by Bolsonaro’s earlier refusal to officially concede, tens of thousands of Brazilians have taken to the streets, refusing to accept the President’s loss. Sure sounds like he’s taking a page out of former President Donald Trump’s election-denying playbook.

*

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.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

First published on July 5, 2021

what was promised by the WEF in June 2021, is happening NOW. 

***

The World Economic Forum announced June 29 2021 it will initiate a new “public-private partnership” with Big Tech and governments around the world to identify and uproot all opinions from the Internet that it considers “harmful.”

The WEF is one of those elitist organizations that wields enormous influence over the elected leaders of Western nations but which almost nobody in the general population has heard of.

Its members are internationalist corporate honchos and technocrats who meet once a year in Davos with the stated goal of working to “shape global, regional and industry agendas.”

It made a big splash last year with its highly touted “Great Reset,” which promises to use the pandemic as an “opportunity” to crash the world’s dollar-based, capitalist economic system and “build back better” under a more socialist and globally integrated system that mirrors the United Nations Agenda 2030 goals for Sustainable Development.  

Any politician you hear using the term “build back better” [Biden-Harris-Trudeau-Johnson repeat this mantra daily] you know has drunk the poisonous Kool-Aid of the World Economic Forum and its founder, Klaus Schwab [pictured below].

Schwab’s latest venture is the so-called “Global Coalition for Digital Safety” that consists of execs from Big Tech and government officials with the goal of creating a “global framework” for regulating speech on the Internet, wiping it of so-called “harmful content.”

[I could not help but think of the Committee of Public Safety that conducted the reign of terror during the French Revolution.]

And who gets to define what’s “harmful”?

Why, the global coalition set up by the elitist WEF of course!

The “harmful” content targeted by this Global Coalition for Digital Safety you can bet will be tailor made to entrap those who stand for limited government, traditional values and individual freedom. Those of us who still believe in such things will not be included in the WEF’s definition “inclusive,” “equality” or “diversity.”

“The Global Coalition for Digital Safety is a public private platform for global, multi stakeholder cooperation to develop innovations and advance collaborations that tackle harmful content and conduct online,” states the WEF on its website.

Microsoft immediately announced it was on board with the WEF’s plan to squelch free speech on the Internet.

Chief digital safety officer for Microsoft Courtney Gregoire stated:

“Technology offers tools to learn, play, connect, and contribute to solving some of the world’s greatest challenges. But digital safety harms remain a threat to these possibilities. As the World Economic Forum is uniquely positioned to accelerate the public-private collaboration needed to advance digital safety globally, Microsoft is eager to participate and help build whole-of-society solutions to this whole-of-society problem.”

Facebook also seems excited to get started on finding new ways to groom users to start thinking about turning in their friends for wrongthink. The social media giant has begun sending cryptic messages to some users that read as follows:

“Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist?”

See screenshot below that one user received from Facebook today, July 1, and sent to this reporter.

This program fits perfectly with the rhetoric coming out of Washington since Biden claimed the presidency.

Biden and his attorney general, Merrick Garland, take every opportunity to talk about “extremists” on the right being the “biggest threat to our democracy.” This is a classic propaganda technique used to turn public sentiment against a targeted demographic. The Nazis perfected this, using the media to blame all of Germany’s problems on Jews before they actually started rounding them up and making them disappear.

The next phase in this evil plan is to encourage Americans to turn each other in to the online thought police. What happens next, after one has been reported to Facebook, Google or Microsoft? Will the tech giants turn those accused of thought crimes by their online “friends” and “followers” over to Biden’s politicized FBI? This is exactly how it works in China.

Readers of this blog know that China is the model being touted by those who believe in the Great Reset. Now their plans are right out in the open on the World Economic Forum website with this announcement of their Global Coalition for Digital Safety.

The WEF states:

“With the growing challenge to counter health misinformation, violent extremist and terrorist content, and the exploitation of children online, there is an urgent need for more deliberate global coordination to improve digital safety.

“The Global Coalition for Digital Safety aims to accelerate public-private cooperation to tackle harmful content online and will serve to exchange best practices for new online safety regulation, take coordinated action to reduce the risk of online harms, and drive forward collaboration on programs to enhance digital media literacy.”

In the above quote, notice how sneakily the WEF lumps spreaders of “health misinformation” – that would be anyone who expresses reticence about experimental mass vaccination programs, COVID lockdowns, mandatory mask wearing, etc. – in with violent extremists, terrorists and child traffickers. How clever.

The WEF has the audacity to claim its coalition will be “impartial” in policing the Internet. This is the same organization run by Schwab, who openly states that the pandemic should be exploited as a “unique window of opportunity” to fundamentally change the way the people live, work, do business and fit into society.

“The Forum is uniquely positioned to leverage its impartial platform and convening power to drive public-private cooperation amongst key stakeholders focused on improving safety online,” the WEF states in its release about the new coalition.

The WEF sets itself up as the global arbiter that defines terms like “harmful content” and “misinformation.” It also laments the fact that encrypted social media channels like Telegram and Signal are able to allow users to communicate free of censorship and spying.

Here are its recommendations for “key focus areas that now require coordinated action” by governments and their Big Tech allies:

1. Share Best Practices on Safety Standards: Exchange knowledge on policies and practices for improving online safety, considering content policies, remedies, transparency reports, use of data, and new technologies

2. Address Balance of Privacy and Safety: Share best practices on addressing the growing tension between privacy and safety as harmful content on encrypted channels risks evading detection

3. Market Competition: Drive better alignment between regulations focused on safety and competition to foster market innovation and enable consumer choice

4. Cross-Jurisdictional Content Cooperation: Enable action on content that spans jurisdictions and requires greater coordination amongst countries (e.g. content created in one county but causing harm in another)

5. Definitional Alignment: Support work on consistent definitions for content categories, such as self-harm and cyber-bullying to enable standardized enforcement, reporting, and measurement across regions.

If COVID taught us anything, it’s that Big Tech social-media platforms, in league with global power elites, defined for us what is allowed and not allowed to be said on the Internet.

Posts that challenge the official narrative about the virus and the best way to respond to it were immediately censored, either tagged with warnings meant to discredit the posts or removed all together.

The most typical reason for such censorship was that these posts “violated community standards,” which consist of mysterious, vaguely worded legalese that nobody reads.

Big Tech corporations are also increasingly working in concert with governments around the world, including in the U.S. and the ruling Chinese Communist Party in China, to regulate what people are allowed to see on the Internet.

But all of this control over the free flow of information is not enough for some of the global power elites.

Now they are ready to take their Gestapo tactics to the next level.

They want to turn us against each other.

Don’t let them do it.

Now is the time for all freedom-loving patriots in nations across the world to wake up, rise up, recognize these tactics as divisive and anti-human, and unite against this pernicious group of global predators.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @crg_globalresearch. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

All images in this article are from LeoHohmann.com

Ukrainian Authorities Advance “De-russification” Project

November 25th, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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.

***

 

 

 

 

Even in the midst of a high-intensity military conflict, one of the main priorities of the Ukrainian authorities is to attack Russian culture and history. The local administration of Odessa recently approved the demolition of Russian monuments, including those of Empress Catherine the Great and Generalissimo Alexander Suvorov. The move shows how Kiev plans to advance its “de-Russification” project, which can only be stopped with a Russian military victory.

The decision was announced by Ukrainian legislator Alexey Goncharenko, who is a spokesman for the executive committee of the Odessa City Council. He said: “During a session of the executive committee of the Odessa City Council, ExCo members supported the decision to dismantle and relocate the Monument to Odessa’s Founders”.

In the past, Goncharenko had already submitted to the mayor of Odessa, Gennady Trukhanov, a bill proposing the removal of the statue of Catherine the Great, but it had then remained unanswered, with the decision taking place now. Trukhanov participated in the statue’s installation nearly a decade ago, but now he seems to have adhered to the Russophobic frenzy that affects Ukrainian officials and their militant supporters. In November alone, the statue of Empress Catherine was attacked twice by neo-Nazi vandals, which shows the serious situation of anti-Russian sentiment among local political groups.

Source: InfoBrics

Previously, several other acts of vandalism had already been made against the statue, as well as petitions produced by neo-Nazi militants to demolish it. On July 5, for example, ultranationalist groups created an online petition proposing the replacement of the monument by a statue in honor of the American actor Billy Herrington, known for having worked in several pornographic films. Obviously, the proposal was a mockery and could not be taken seriously, but such is the depth of anti-Russian animosity in post-Maidan Ukrainian society that more than 25,000 people signed the petition – which was presented to President Volodymyr Zelensky himself, despite its grotesqueness. Surprisingly, in August, the Ukrainian president reacted to the petition asking local authorities to “consider” the demolition topic.

It is important to note how the decision to destroy such a monument constitutes a direct attack against the memory of Odessa itself, since it was Catherine the Great who founded the city by an imperial decree in the 18th century. Goncharenko even emphasized in his speech that this was an act against the “Odessa’s Founders”, making clear the intention of the Ukrainian authorities to erase their own history. The objective is to detach Odessa – and the entire Ukraine – from any cultural ties with Russia, destroying national memory and rewriting local history as being purely “Ukrainian”, without Russian participation.

Repeatedly, Zelensky commented on the alleged “necessity” to make Ukraine free of “Russian-related objects”. Several attacks on monuments of Russian and Soviet heroes have already been carried out in many regions of Ukraine. The conflict in Donbass itself was marked in its first days – 2014 – by the attempt on the part of the Ukrainian forces to remove a statue of Lenin, prevented by strong popular resistance.

It is also necessary to emphasize that Ukraine is not the only country going through such a process. The Ukrainian case is more serious because the country is under a neo-Nazi regime since the Maidan coup, but there are similar initiatives in all states that joined the Western-backed anti-Russian wave. In the Baltics, the removal of Soviet monuments has become common a practice, for example. And so, the countries that participated in Russian civilization in the past gradually try to erase or rewrite their history, considering this a kind of “cleaning”.

The demolition of statues is just one of the lines of action in this broad project to “cancel” Russian history. The rejection of Russian culture, language and art is also part of this problem. As well known, Ukraine has been promoting the elimination of Russian-language books – including translations of non-Russian authors – in recent months, and there have been even public book burning events. Indeed, if Kiev’s neo-Nazi regime lasts long, surely future generations will be educated with adulterated versions of their own history, believing that their ancestors were never part of the Russian civilization and that Russia has always been an “enemy”, “aggressor” country.

In fact, rewriting history based on racism and resentment is an intolerable practice. The only way to prevent cultural genocide against Russians and to preserve Russian memory in Ukraine is through military victory against the Maidan regime. Only by ending NATO’s proxy dictatorship it will be possible to promote conciliation between Russians and Ukrainians and keep the national memory, interrupting the racist and irrational hate instilled by foreign groups.

*

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.

Lucas Leiroz is a researcher in Social Sciences at the Rural Federal University of Rio de Janeiro; geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on Twitter and Telegram.

Featured image: This is a photo of a cultural heritage object in Russia, Suvorov Monument, Suvorov Square (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukrainian Authorities Advance “De-russification” Project

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.

***

Financial analyst Edward Dowd recently told the Health Ranger Mike Adams that the supposedly “safe and effective” vaccines against the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) are the main cause of excess mortality in America and around the world. He made this claim during an episode of Adams’ “Health Ranger Report.”

According to the “They Lied, People Died” website, a project of Dowd’s, his career “was spent analyzing companies and earning billions for hedge funds. In early 2020, [he] famously made some predictions on Twitter.” A year later, Dowd backed up his predictions with data from government agencies – leading to his ban on the social media platform.

Dowd recounted to the Natural News and Brighteon.com founder that he began hearing anecdotes about people dying and being injured from the so-called vaccines in March and April 2021. This led him to look into data from insurance companies and funeral homes. When his fame grew and a team assembled around him, Dowd decided to partner with two physicists in Portugal to start the Humanity Project – which outlined all the deaths caused by the COVID-19 vaccines per country.

“They reached out to me to help with the project. They basically have taken the U.S. data, the U.K. data and the European data. It’s a pretty devastating analysis that goes country by country,” he said.

Dowd, a former BlackRock managing director, added that he and his partners came up with a methodology paper on how to accurately find out excess mortality from the COVID-19 vaccines. According to the analyst, this could be published in a peer-reviewed journal and its findings used in future court cases.

Daily vaccine deaths almost at the same scale as 9/11 deaths

In response to the Health Ranger’s question about what level of excess mortality is expected following the introduction of the vaccines, Dowd said the general U.S. population had a 32 percent excess mortality rate in 2021. This mortality will continue in 2022, he added, but will slightly dip as people are not enthusiastic about taking up boosters.

According to Adams, this 32 percent excess mortality equates to more than 2,400 people dying daily. This, he added, is almost the same scale as the Sept. 11 attacks. (Related: EXCESS MORTALITY: Over 2400 Americans are DYING each day following vaccine mandates… Ed Dowd unveils alarming, evidence-based data.)

The former BlackRock executive warned that this will have serious consequences for the economy for years to come, adding that being employed in 2021 and 2022 was detrimental for a person’s health

He cited that the number of employed workers in the U.S., amounting between 98 million and 100 million, reported a 26 percent increase in their disability rate. Since 2021, between 3.5 million and four million have been disabled by the vaccines. The general population, meanwhile, saw disability rates increase by 11 percent.

Moreover, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics five years before the pandemic showed only around 29 million to 30 million Americans being disabled. This did not increase in 2021, and even dropped, because the COVID-19 lockdowns prevented accidental disabilities or injuries. But come May 2021, the disability rate took off “like a growth stock chart that broke out of its trend.”

Follow VaccineDeaths.com for more stories about deaths caused by the COVID-19 injections.

Watch the full conversation between Edward Dowd and Mike Adams below.

*

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 Pandemic.news


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 COVID-19 Vaccines Are the Main Cause of Excess Mortality Around the World
  • 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 CDC blocks all my emails, so a doctor friend of mine sent in the question.

The question 

This question was submitted to the CDC on October 11, 2022 1:54 PM (Pacific Time):

Is this true that the death safety signal in VAERS triggered and nobody at the CDC noticed as pointed out in this article.

If not, can you supply the correct calculation?

The CDC’s response (6 weeks later)

As you might expect, they side-stepped the question.

They said that since the calculation was done by a third party, they couldn’t comment on it.

But you can rest assured that the CDC is monitoring VAERS for safety signals!

Here is the official response that was received 

From: Vaccine Safety (CDC) <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 6:51 AM
Subject: Your Inquiry Regarding VAERS
To: <my doctor friend>
Cc: CDCExecSec (CDC) <[email protected]>

Dear Dr. <redacted>:

Thank you for your inquiry to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH, regarding your concerns about the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Your message was referred to my office for a response.

CDC was not involved with the work you mentioned in your correspondence, which used limited information from a publicly accessible VAERS database. Please see the disclaimer on the CDC WONDER site for more information: About the VAERS System. CDC is unable to comment on this analysis conducted outside of the agency. CDC has been publicly presenting and openly discussing data from our vaccine safety monitoring systems regarding coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations at meetings of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and we have also regularly published analyses of these data. Statements that imply that reports of deaths to VAERS following vaccination equate to deaths caused by vaccination are scientifically inaccurate, misleading, and irresponsible. We continue to monitor these and other adverse events using our safety surveillance systems.

Authorized and approved COVID-19 vaccines are being administered under the most comprehensive and intensive vaccine safety monitoring effort in U.S. history. CDC expanded and strengthened its ability to monitor vaccine safety and created new ways to gather information about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Robust systems and processes are in place to identify and evaluate potential vaccine safety concerns. Monitoring vaccine safety involves multiple complementary ongoing systems. Within CDC, these systems include VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink, the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project, v-safe, and the v-safe Pregnancy Registry. For more information on vaccine safety monitoring systems at CDC, please see: Vaccine Information and Safety Studies | Vaccine Safety.

Anyone can submit reports to VAERS, including patients, family members, healthcare providers, and vaccine manufacturers, regardless of the plausibility of the vaccine causing the event or the clinical seriousness of the event. Data from VAERS are especially useful for the timely detection of unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety concern (or “safety signal”) about a vaccine. VAERS is not designed to assess causality; VAERS is designed to collect data, detect potential safety signals, and generate hypotheses.

Around 90% of reports to VAERS after COVID-19 vaccination have been non-serious. Healthcare providers who administer COVID-19 vaccines are required under the provider agreements for the CDC COVID-19 Vaccination Program and Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to report certain serious adverse events, like deaths, to VAERS regardless of whether the reporter thinks the vaccine caused the adverse event. This required reporting is one reason why many reports to VAERS do not represent adverse events caused by the vaccine.

Physicians at CDC and FDA continuously screen and analyze VAERS data for possible safety concerns related to COVID-19 vaccines, including review of individual reports and aggregate data analysis. Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it is unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. More than 624 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through October 6, 2022. During this time, VAERS received 16,803 preliminary reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. As part of the vaccine safety review and analysis process, CDC and FDA clinicians obtain additional information for these reported patients, including death certificates, autopsy reports, and medical records.

Through these methods, FDA and CDC have successfully identified various rare safety signals related to COVID-19 vaccines, including anaphylaxis, thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS) following use of the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen COVID-19 vaccine, and myocarditis and pericarditis following use of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. This information is included in the fact sheets for both healthcare providers administering vaccines and for vaccine recipients and caregivers. Continued monitoring has identified nine deaths causally associated with Johnson & Johnson/Janssen COVID-19 vaccination, who all died after developing TTS. On May 5, 2022, FDA revised the EUA for the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen COVID-19 vaccine to limit the authorized use of the vaccine to people ages 18 years and older for whom other authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccines are not accessible or clinically appropriate, and to people ages 18 years and older who elect to receive the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen COVID-19 vaccine because they would otherwise not receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

CDC continues to monitor the COVID-19 pandemic and is partnering with international, state, and local governments and public health partners to respond to this public health threat. For further information on the response and the current situation in the United States and abroad, please visit www.cdc.gov/COVID-19/.

We appreciate your interest in this important public health issue and hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Michael McNeil, MD MPH

Acting Director,
Immunization Safety Office, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Disease
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Summary 

The CDC says “trust us, if there was a safety problem, we’d let you know about it.”

It takes only minutes to do the calculation that the safety signal was triggered. Now we have a public record that they were notified it was triggered and chose not to look.

Similarly, so-called “truth tellers” including UPenn Professor Jeffrey Morris and famous anti-vax debunker David Gorski both refuse to validate the calculation as well. I even offered monetary incentives to both of them and they turned it down. They didn’t want to look either.

My doctor friend who sent that note is now being investigated by the Medical Board of California (they are seeking to take away his license to practice medicine).

Similarly, no fact checker in the world is going to fact check this since it would destroy all remaining confidence in the CDC and the US government that they are protecting us. If you are a fact checker and you think I made a mistake, call me and let’s have a RECORDED chat about it instead of saying that you asked someone else and they thought it was false so you rated it false.

I’ve had multiple independent statisticians validate the calculation. The signal was triggered and we have an organization which is ignoring the safety signals, even when it is clearly pointed out to them.

P.S. I took a several day “vacation” from posting (getting my new BMPCC to work with a custom in-camera LUT that I built in Davinci Resolve) but now I’m back.

*

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: This is our billboard outside of CDC headquarters. I’m hoping that someone at the CDC will notice it, but so far, nobody has reached out to me and they continue to ignore the safety signal in plain sight for DEATH. Wow. (Source: Steve Kirsch)


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 Here Is the Official Response from the CDC About the Death Safety Signal Being Triggered in VAERS
  • Tags: , ,
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on War on Cash: India Rolling Out Retail Pilot Program for Digital Rupee
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.S. Military Poised to Return to Subic Bay, Counter China’s Presence

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 our government continues to bumble and stumble at full speed towards World War III, the concept of tripwires and the legal authority of Article 5 become required understanding for the vigilant citizen.

Last week the American people received the then-breaking news that a missile had landed in Poland and killed two people.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky said that this was a purposeful act of war by Russia, and that the West must respond with full kinetic retaliation.

He was joined by his amen corner here in the United States, that group of politicians, regime journalists, and paid lobbyists who have sold out their country for the requisite thirty pieces of silver.

The War Party immediately jumped into action: this was what they’ve been waiting, praying for. A catalyst to launch the missiles, and sacrifice the world.

Poland, like the United States and nearly all of Europe, is a member of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (Maybe we should wonder why countries like Poland, Estonia, and Romania are in an “Atlantic” alliance.)

A provision of NATO is Article 5, which popular conception treats as a mandatory obligation to go to war when a member of the alliance is attacked.

It’s a one way pass into World War III.

There were just two things wrong with this narrative.

First, as was revealed within forty-eight hours and confirmed by both the Polish government and Biden White House, the missile was Ukrainian, not Russian.

Vladimir Putin had not attacked NATO—purposefully or accidentally. Instead, a Ukrainian air defense missile attempting to intercept a Russian strike went off trajectory killed two Poles across the border.

All of a sudden “collective security” was no longer threatened, and no one on cable news was talking about how this required NATO retaliation on Kiev. (Surprised?)

Secondly, even if it had been a Russian missile, and even if Vladimir Putin himself had aimed directly at that Polish farm, Article 5 obligates the United States to nothing.

The NATO Treaty also has an Article 11, which specifies that the provisions of the alliance will be carried out in accordance with the domestic constitutions and processes of the respective members.

That means a majority vote of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives on a formal declaration of war.

Any member of Congress or news talking head saying Article 5 requires an immediate military response without a debate or vote is either lying or woefully uninformed.

And even if the NATO Treaty didn’t have that provision, we’d still rest our argument of Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, the supreme authority of our laws.

We are a sovereign nation, and the American people always have a choice on whether or not to go to war. Any international piece of paper trying to say otherwise be damned.

Unfortunately, the War Party doesn’t always make that choice easy. They bribe politicians with weapon contract profits, flood the corporate press with propaganda, and instruct the American people that they must either commit to endless war or lose their liberty. They manufacture themselves consent.

This crisis continues to demonstrate why we need Defend the Guard. This legislation would prohibit the deployment of a state’s National Guard units into active combat without a declaration of war by Congress.

It’s the best way to tell Washington DC that they can’t go to war without a debate and a vote by the people’s representatives. And if they try, they won’t have the manpower to fight such a conflict because patriotic state legislators won’t allow their National Guard, the backbone of the U.S. Armed Forces, to participate in an illegal war.

I have worked to introduce this bill in over twenty states in the past, and my team is already preparing for the 2023 legislative session.

But to be successful I need your support. Visit DefendTheGuard.US to see if a bill has been sponsored in your state, or if you need to contact your representative and state senator.

An American people, active and informed, will not be led into World War III by their irresponsible, stupid leaders.

*

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 Al Mayadeen English

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on NATO Doesn’t Supersede the U.S. Constitution. “As our government continues to stumble towards World War III”
  • Tags: ,

Putin Invokes Castro’s Legacy

November 25th, 2022 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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 three-meter-tall bronze statue of Fidel Castro was unveiled on Tuesday in the Fidel Castro Square in Moscow’s Sokol District by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel in memory of the historical leader of the Cuban Revolution.

Fidel himself was staunchly against creating a cult of personality and in Cuba there are no streets, buildings, institutions or localities named for him. In a speech in 2003, Fidel stated: “There is no cult of personality around any living revolutionary, in the form of statues, official photographs, or the names of streets or institutions. The leaders of this country are human beings, not gods.” 

Thus, the only things named in honour of the great revolutionary are located outside Cuba — a park in Vietnam, several streets in South Africa, Namibia, Angola, Tanzania, Mozambique and so on.

The event in Moscow saluting Fidel’s legacy is highly symbolic. From being a “status quoist” state, Russia is rapidly assuming a “revolutionary” role in world politics, challenging the so-called “rules-based order” imposed by the West, and is in the middle of one of the gravest crisis of the post-Cold War era. 

The year 2022 happens to be the 60th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis marking the high noon of the Cold War when again Moscow found itself at the centre of a showdown with Washington. The discord then was eerily similar to the one now — over the US attempts to push strategic deployments in Russia’s immediate neighbourhood threatening its national defence and security. 

The crisis in 1962 erupted when the US detected the construction of Soviet launch sites in Cuba as retaliation for the US deployment of Jupiter missiles in Turkey. It was addressed through back channel negotiations to reach a deal whereby the Soviet missiles were eventually dismantled and removed from Cuba, while on its part, the US ended its quarantine of Cuba in October 1962 and removed its Jupiter missiles from Turkey by April 1963. 

Alas, President Biden, unlike President Kennedy, has refused to negotiate with Russia, and a proxy war ensued in Ukraine. The war could have been avoided and Ukraine’s destruction averted if only negotiations were held to resuscitate the Minsk Agreements that made allowance for some form of regional autonomy for Donbass region within a federated country governed from Kiev. President Biden chose not to take that road (and, of course, the pro-Western Ukrainian leadership in Kiev felt encouraged to undermine the Minsk Agreements as such.)  

Putin recalled poignantly on Tuesday that in his last conversation with Fidel in July 2015, “He talked about the things that were surprisingly consonant with the time –- the time of the development of a multipolar world – saying that independence and dignity cannot be put up for sale and that every nation is entitled to develop as it sees fit and to choose its own path, and that a truly fair world has no place for dictatorship, plunder or neo-colonialism.” 

Putin later drew the attention of Diaz-Canel to the demeanour of the statue. “I do not know if you liked it or not, but it seems to me that one can’t help but like it,” Putin said with a smile, adding that it was an appropriate tribute to Fidel’s memory and a real work of art. “It’s dynamic, on the move, looking forward. A perfect image of a true fighter.” Diaz-Canel concurred: “This is a monument in motion. I think it reflects Fidel’s personality in the midst of struggle, just like we are in the midst of struggle today.” The meaningful exchange carried a far-reaching message of its own. 

Truly, the Ukraine war has been a moment of truth for Russia. From a foreign policy focused narrowly on national interests, Russia is reclaiming its regional and global role lately. Fidel would have nodded approvingly, as Cuba under him had an internationalist outlook and made immense sacrifices in challenging US hegemony. 

Fidel’s legacy is of exceptional importance to Russia today. Putin described the friendship between Russia and Cuba as their “shared heritage.” He underscored, “Jointly, we will continue to strengthen our union and defend the great values of freedom, equality and justice.” 

Putin added, “Based on this solid foundation of friendship, we must, of course, bearing in mind the current realities, move on, and strengthen our cooperation. I am very glad that we have such an opportunity.” 

Diaz-Canel was more direct and forthright. He told Putin: “We appreciate all the work that the Russian Federation is doing to ensure that the world moves toward multipolarity and makes progress in that direction. In this sense, you have serious leadership.  

“Russia and Cuba have been subjected to unfair unilateral sanctions and have a common enemy, a common source which is the Yankee empire, which manipulates a large part of humankind… And our first commitment is to continue to uphold the Russian Federation’s position in this conflict which, we believe has its origins, unfortunately, in the fact that the United States is manipulating the international community… We appreciate all efforts of the Russian Federation and your role in orienting the world towards multi-polarity, in encouraging it to move in this direction. In this sense, you have a very strong leadership role.” 

How this verve in the Russian-Cuban relations pans out in the complex geopolitical setting will bear watch. The Russian-Cuban intergovernmental commission held a session in Moscow during Diaz-Canel’s visit, where, reportedly, “a number of important decisions on key issues” were taken to advance the bilateral relations. Diaz-Canel told Putin, “We have identical approaches and views on global issues. I would like to say again that Russia can always rely on Cuba.” 

No matter the denouement to the Ukraine war, Russia still would face the stark reality of the US-NATO military presence right at its doorstep. There is no question of a NATO rollback to the 1998 position in Europe. The Western mercenaries in their thousands are fighting in Ukraine and prominent faces like General David Petraeus are demanding an open western military intervention in Ukraine to defeat Russia. 

Indeed, the US initiative to induct Finland into NATO as a member — although that country faces no threat from Russia —  aims to “box in” Russia. And the West is aggressively stepping up its presence all around Russia. It is inconceivable that Russia can afford to remain passive. 

Suffice to say, Putin is playing the “Cuban card” at an inflection point. Interestingly, Diaz-Canel’s itinerary of visit also includes China. Díaz-Canel will be the first head of state from a Latin American country that Xi Jinping receives after the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. 

The Chinese Foreign Ministry took note that “despite international vicissitudes, China and Cuba have forged ahead together on the path of building socialism with national characteristics, supported each other on issues concerning core interests and had close coordination on international and regional issues, setting an exemplary model for solidarity and cooperation between socialist countries and sincere mutual assistance between developing countries.” 

In a commentary on Díaz-Canel’s forthcoming visit, Global Times took note that “Despite US’ long-term crackdown on left-wing governments in the region, Latin America is now experiencing “pink tide” resurgence with major countries in the region “turning left.” Latin America is tired of US’ hegemony and coercion, and leaders with agenda focusing on domestic development are gaining public 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.

A Shocking and Revealing Documentary: “State of Control”

November 25th, 2022 by Debunk Productions

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.

***

“State of control”, the control society is increasingly becoming a reality.

What is the price of convenience?

The CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) and the digital passport can make our lives easier and more efficient. But new international legislation shows that the purpose of these possibilities, has far-reaching implications for our privacy.

In this documentary international experts such as Edward Snowden, Arno Wellens, Catherine Austin Fitts express their serious concerns and criticisms.

It compiles the range of facts and opinions, creating a shocking picture about the future of mankind. A crystal-clear narrative that can”t be ignored.

Click here to watch the movie.

*

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.

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.

***

On 3 December 2021, a year ago, Lockheed Martin shares cost $333.81. On 23 November 2022, they cost cost $481.07. That’s a 44% gain during this year-long period.

$4,027.26 is the S&P on 23 November 2022, and it was $4,701.46 on 24 November 2021. That’s a 14% decline during this year-long period.

A dollar invested in the S&P became $0.86, but in Lockheed became $1.44, and that is 68% more than the S&P market-average performance.

That’s the benefit of owning a controlling interest in a mega-corporation whose market is the Government in which you have purchased a controlling interest (by political donations and lobbyists), as compared to not.

And you will see there that though the stock-price of Lockheed soared after Russia’s 24 February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the rise in its stock-price actually started on 3 December 2021. Perhaps that was when U.S.-Government insiders got their first clear indications that the U.S. Government was going to force Russia to invade Ukraine in order to prevent Ukraine from ever being able to join NATO so as for the U.S. to place its missiles only 317 miles away from The Kremlin.

Here are all of the headlined news-stories at the New York Times site on 3 December 2021, all 45 of them, and here are all 3 of the ones there featuring national defense or international relations:

  • “Shell pulls out of a U.K. oil field targeted by climate activists”
  • “With No Resources, Authority or Country, Afghan Ambassador Presses On”
  • “Why Peng Shuai Has China’s Leaders Spooked”

NONE has to do with national defense or international relations at all, but 100% of the news-stories are instead domestic-affairs articles, even the ones on global warming and on the former Afghan Ambassador, and on the Chinese tennis star. This fact (0 out of 45 being ‘defense’ or international-relations) goes to exemplify that if anyone is interested in warfare or other international-relations topics, it’s NOT the general public. Who might it be, then? Perhaps it’s the types of people who control firms such as Lockheed and other ‘Defense’-contractors — firms that sell onlyto the U.S. Government and to its allied (or vassal) Governments such as in NATO, and so these firms need to control their own Government in order to control their sales-volumes and their profits — which they manifestly do (the U.S. Government is bipartisanly neoconservative — pro-increasing the U.S. empire)

Here are all of the headlined news-stories at the New York Times site on 23 November 2022, and these are the 8 international-relations stories there:

  • “Will Mexico Be the Next Venezuela?”
  • “Ukraine Fights for Peninsula That Could Prove Critical to War’s Next Phase”
  • “Missiles for Poland Raise Questions on NATO Stance in Ukraine War”
  • “Ukraine raided a holy site amid suspicion of an Orthodox Church tied to Moscow”
  • “Buffeted by Economic Woes, U.K. Starts to look at Brexit With ‘Bregret’”
  • “Even the Saudi Team Is Stunned After Its Victory Over Argentina”
  • “England Had a Game, but First Its Fans Had a Quest. For Beer.”
  • “France decisively beat Australia, capping a wild day at the World Cup”

Five of those 8 concern international relations and national defense. All of a sudden, after Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022 because America rejected on 7 January 2022 Russia’s demand on 17 December 2021 “Article 6: All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States”, America’s public care at least a little about international relations and national defense.

But: Is Ukraine actually about defending America, at all? Of course, it isn’t, but it very much is about Russia’s national defense, because it has the closest border to Moscow of any nation, being only around 300 miles away from The Kremlin.

Though keeping Ukraine out of NATO is a national-defense imperative for Russia, it’s no national-defense issue, at all, for America. It is purely a neoconservative issue for America. It is a U.S.-and-allied billionaires’ issue, NOT authentically about “defending” the United States.

It is, instead, actually, the most effective marketing campaign for the billionaires who control Lockheed Martin and its Government, the U.S. Government. And THAT is the reason why NO billionaire — not a single one of them in either the U.S. or the UK — advocates for and donates to, writers and organizations that are anti-neoconservative: anti-imperialist. Not a single one of them is and does. They are invested in warfare, against their ‘competitors’ (the countries that they DON’T yet control, and which they therefore are obsessed to “regime-change”).

*

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

This article was originally published on The Duran.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public. 

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II fighter jet takes off from HMS Queen Elizabeth (Source: Stop the War Coalition)

Monument in Memory of Fidel Castro’s Political Struggle

November 25th, 2022 by Kester Kenn Klomegah

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.

***

Under the auspices of an official state visit to attend the unveiling of  a statue in memory of former leader Fidel Castro in northwestern Moscow, Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel Bermudez unreservedly expressed support for anti-American position taken by Russia, recalled the history of Cuba and the Soviet Union during the Cold War when both shared the same stand.

Diaz-Canel Bermudez highlighted the significance of the visit to Moscow. Cuba and Soviet Union had similar experience, both were blockaded.

“It takes place at a time when both Russia and Cuba have been subjected to unfair unilateral sanctions and have a common enemy, a common source which is the Yankee empire, which manipulates a large part of humankind,” he said. “We constantly condemn the sanctions imposed on the Russian Federation and the sources of the ongoing conflict so that people are not misled and do not blame Russia for this, and we also condemn what Europe is doing, being completely subordinate to US interests.”

Referring to the unveiling of the monument, he described it as a true reflection of Fidel Castro’s personality in the midst of struggle, just like in the midst of struggle today. He denounced the imperialist powers and further praised all efforts of the Russian Federation and, under such complicated circumstances, Russia’s role in orienting the world towards multi-polarity.

Russia can always rely on Cuba. Moscow and Havana will continue to strengthen cordial bilateral relations and defend the great values of freedom, equality and justice. The principle of continuity, not just a slogan or a motto, but to continue promoting relations with the Russian Federation. Cuban leader thanked Russia for its support for his country and spoke in favor of expanding economic cooperation between the two countries.

President Vladimir Putin noted in his speech that the bilateral relations between Cuba and Russia have been making steady headway in the past three years since the previous meeting in the Kremlin. He pointed to the appreciable developing cooperation between foreign ministries, parliaments and governments. State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin visited Cuba quite recently.

The Russia-Cuba Intergovernmental Commission is working. It held its 19th session. There are plans for cooperation between the governments with many joint projects up to 2030. Cuba maintains a cautious stance based on the need to maneuver between Russia who is capable of providing it with considerable support, and the United States who is gradually going back to Barack Obama’s policy aimed at restoring relations, which was suspended by Donald Trump.

Cuba does not have much importance for Russia as a trade partner. At the same time, there is a lot of Soviet and Russian made civilian equipment in the Caribbean island country, as well as infrastructure facilities built with Moscow’s assistance. The maintenance of those equipment and infrastructure that are currently of interest to Russia.

That however, Putin stressed that the Soviet Union and Russia have always supported the Cuban people in their struggle for independence and sovereignty.

“We have always opposed any restrictions, embargoes, blockades and so on. We have always backed Cuba on international platforms. We are seeing that Cuba occupies the same position with respect to our country, to Russia,” he added.

All this is a result of the traditional friendship that was started by Comrade Fidel Castro. Today, Cuba and Russia agreed to have unveiled a monument to him. Indeed, this is a good memory of him, a true work of art. He is so dynamic, always in motion, moving forward. It definitely captures the look of a fighter that he had.

Putin really remembered his personal meetings very well, even the details with him.

“He was an impressive man. I remember how during our first meeting in his office when we were freely discussing the current situation during lunch, I was stunned by his attention to detail and his knowledge of the nuances of ongoing events, even if they took place far away from Cuba,” he narrated the story.

“He was aware of and could analyse everything happening in the world. It was very interesting and useful for me to have these meetings with him. Relying on this firm foundation of friendship, we must certainly move forward and enhance our cooperation in the current conditions,” Putin said in conclusion.

Work on the bronze-made three-meter-monument lasted for six months and took place in the Russian capital. Castro is depicted seated on a rock with a stylized map of Cuba inscribed on it. The image reflects the heroic path of a person who stood up for the rights and freedoms of the Cuban people, according to the Kremlin’s press service fact sheet.

The Moscow city legislature approved the idea of such a monument on February 16. The initiative to erect a monument to Fidel Castro came from the leadership of the Russian Defense Ministry. The idea was supported by the Russian Military-Historical Society which held a closed artistic contest with 11 works participating.

The monument was erected on Moscow’s square named in honor of Castro. Cuba has been under a U.S. embargo since 1962 after the Communist revolution. Fidel Castro was one of the leaders of Cuba’s revolutionary movement who chaired Cuba’s Council of Ministers from 1959 to 2008. The Cuban politician died in 2016.

*

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.

Kester Kenn Klomegah, who worked previously with Inter Press Service (IPS), is now a regular contributor to Global Research. As a versatile researcher, he believes that everyone deserves equal access to quality and trustworthy media reports.

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.

***

 

 

 

There are troubling insights to be gained into modern European racism from the German arts community’s decision to revoke a lifetime achievement award to the respected British playwright Caryl Churchill over her trenchant support for the Palestinians.

On 31 October, Churchill was stripped of the European Drama Prize she had been given in April in recognition of her life’s work. The decision was backed by Petra Olschowski, the arts minister of the state of Baden-Wurttemberg, who said:

“We as a country take a clear and non-negotiable stance against any form of antisemitism. This is all the more reason why a prize funded by the state cannot be awarded under the given circumstances.”

The jury – comprising eminent figures in German cultural life – said they had had their attention drawn, since making the award, to two problems. First, Churchill had backed BDS, a Palestinian grassroots movement calling for a boycott of Israeli institutions directly involved in Israel’s decades-long oppression of the Palestinians.

Back in 2019, an overwhelming majority of the German parliament designated support for BDS as “antisemitic”.

And second, the panel had been reminded of a short play called Seven Jewish Children, written 13 years ago in the immediate aftermath of Israel’s savage and extended bombardment of Gaza’s besieged Palestinian population in the winter of 2008-09. In a statement, the German jury said the play could “be regarded as being antisemitic”.

In Churchill’s now largely forgotten play, Jewish parents articulate their trauma generation by generation.

Palestinians are not present. They are shadows. They are the referred pain of a wound from Europe. Instead, the play contextualises the suffering in Gaza through a series of monologues as each generation of Jewish parents struggles to decide what they should tell their children and what realities they should hide – be it about the horrors of Europe, the crimes involved in the creation of Israel, or the bombardment of Gaza.

The play hints at uncomfortable truths: that the oppressed can turn into oppressor; that traumas do not necessarily heal or enlighten; and that their effects can be complex and paradoxical.

Friends to tormentors

One conclusion to draw from the revocation of Churchill’s award – the latest episode in Europe’s endless “antisemitism rows” – is that German elites, who control the public discourse, have signally failed to internalise the Holocaust’s key lesson.

It is a universal one: that we should never tolerate the demonisation of oppressed and marginalised groups, or those who stand in solidarity with them, especially when the state itself or its representatives are behind such demonisation. That way lies pogroms and gas chambers.

How has support for the Palestinian cause of BDS – for boycotts of those directly involved in Israel’s decades-long oppression and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians – come to be reinterpreted as racism against Jews?

This, of course, is not a uniquely German failing. Most western states – including the US, France and Britain – have willingly conflated criticism of Israel over its oppression of Palestinians with antisemitism, and sought to silence or criminalise calls to punish Israel through boycotts.

But this failure ought to be all the more surprising given the enormous efforts Germany has expended over many decades in Holocaust education, supposedly to eradicate the susceptibility of Germans to state-sponsored racism. How have they switched – so easily, it seems – from one kind of state-sanctioned racism, antisemitism, to another kind, anti-Palestinian racism?

But even more paradoxically, Germany has smeared not just Palestinians and their supporters through its crackdown on BDS, but Jews too. It treats them all as inherently responsible for the actions of Israel, a state that no more represents all Jews than Saudi Arabia represents all Muslims.

Germany’s ostentatious philo-semitism – expressed in its reflexive support for Israel – is simply antisemitism-in-waiting. If Jews are viewed as intrinsically tied to Israel’s actions, then their fate depends on how Israel is viewed at any particular moment. Should western elites support Israel, as they do now, then Jews are safe. Should western elites turn against Israel, then Jews are not safe.

Crucially, what Caryl Churchill and the vast majority of Palestinians and their supporters are highlighting is that Israel and “the Jews” are not the same. Criticism of Israel is not criticism of Jews. And those who claim it is are playing with fire. They are providing the conditions for those they now regard as friends to later become their tormentors.

‘Reeks of fascism’

So how has Germany reached the point where it can cancel an award to a renowned playwright – and smear her as antisemitic – because she supports the right of Palestinians to freedom and dignity and because she wishes to speak out against their silencing in Europe? How has Germany so casually, so unthinkingly, become racist towards Palestinians and their supporters, and once again to Jews?

As Mike Leigh, a famous British film director who is Jewish, has observed in Churchill’s defence, the decision to revoke the prize “reeks of the very fascism it affects to oppose”. There is a wider context to Germany’s repurposing of its racism.

The same elites who were attracted to a worldview that blamed the Jews, and others, for the subversion of a supposed “Aryan civilisation” are now attracted to a worldview that blames Muslims – including Palestinians (not all of whom are Muslim, it is too often forgotten) – for the subversion of European civilisation.

This monochrome worldview is appealing because it sweeps aside complexity and offers simple solutions that turn the world upside down and place the oppressor, western elites, on the side of Good and those they oppress on the side of Evil. Back in the 1930s and 1940s those solutions propelled Germany towards the horrors of the death camps.

The same racism that fuelled the Holocaust does not, of course, have to lead precisely to another industrial-scale genocide. That supreme crime has nephews and nieces, some of whom ostensibly look less ugly than their older relative. It can lead to exclusion, demonisation and McCarthyism, all of which serve as a prelude to worse crimes.

In our supposedly more enlightened age, the same Manichean impulse divides the world into camps of good and evil. Into “white” European natives versus Muslim and Arab invaders. Into moderates versus extremists. And somehow, conflated with these other categories, it pits supporters of Israel against “antisemites”.

To the dark side

This is no accident. Israel has helped to cultivate this divide, while its supporters have richly exploited it. Israel has provided the cover story for western elites to engineer a supposedly civilisational confrontation between West and East, between the Judaeo-Christian world and the Muslim world, between humanism and barbarism, between good and evil.

This morality tale, paradoxically with the Holocaust serving as its prequel, has been written to reassure western publics of their leaders’ benevolence. It suggests that through its repentance, Germany – the epicentre of the genocide of the Jews – cleansed itself and the rest of Europe of its sins.

Perversely, the industrialised crime of the Holocaust serves as the alibi for an enlightened Europe. The barometer of German and European atonement and redemption is their reflexive support for Israel. To back Israel uncritically is supposedly proof that today’s Europe is morally superior to a global south in which many condemn Israel.

Through Israel’s creation, according to this morality tale, Europe did not perpetuate its racism – by relocating its victims to another region and turning them into the tormentors of the native population. No, Europe turned over a new leaf. It made amends. Its better nature triumphed.

To bolster this improbable story, to breathe life into it, a yardstick of difference was needed. Just as “the Jews” once served that purpose by contrasting a pure Aryan race from a supposedly degenerate Jewish one, now the Muslim world is presented as the antithesis of an advanced white European civilisation.

And anyone who sides with those oppressed by Israel – and by a colonial West that inserted a self-declared Jewish state into the Middle East by destroying the Palestinians’ homeland – must be cast out, as Churchill has been by Germany. Such people are no longer part of an enlightened Europe. They have gone over to the dark side. They are traitors, they are antisemites.

‘Confected outrage’

This story, absurd as it sounds, carries great weight outside Germany too. One need only remember that a very short time ago a British political leader, Jeremy Corbyn, came within sight of power before he was crushed by the same antisemitism smears faced by Churchill.

But there is a notable difference.

In the case of Churchill, it has been harder to contain the backlash – at least outside Germany. Prominent artists, including Jewish actors, directors and writers, have rushed to her defence.

Perhaps more surprising still, so have liberal media outlets in Britain, such as the Guardian, which, according to research, was as deeply invested as the rest of the establishment media in undermining Corbyn and the anti-racist, anti-imperialist left he briefly led.

Take, for example, this comment from Dominic Cooke, an associate director at the National Theatre, defending Churchill’s play Seven Jewish Children, which he directed at the Royal Court.

He is quoted sympathetically by the Guardian:

“The confected outrage about Caryl’s play was designed to divert attention away from this fact [the large Palestinian death toll caused by Israel’s bombardment of Gaza in 2009] and scare possible critics of it into silence.”

He is right. But the “confected outrage” directed at Churchill is exactly the same confected outrage that was directed at Corbyn – a confected outrage designed in Corbyn’s case both to divert attention from the former Labour leader’s anti-imperial opposition to Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians and to scare leftwing critics of Israel into silence.

In Labour’s case, simply noting that the outrage had been “confected” – or weaponised – was sufficient grounds to suspend or expel party members for antisemitism. In fact, it was precisely Corbyn’s comment about the problem of antisemitism being “dramatically overstated” for political reasons that ultimately served as the pretext to oust him from the Labour parliamentary party.

Timid cultural world

There are reasons why prominent artists and establishment media outlets such as the Guardian are coming to the defence of Churchill in a way, and using a forthrightness, they avoided with Corbyn.

In a very real sense, the fight to stand up for Palestinians culturally and artistically is now largely a lost cause. Who can imagine Seven Jewish Children being produced in the West End now, as it was 13 years ago? Or Peter Kosminsky, another Jewish signatory of the letter defending Churchill, being allowed to make The Promise, as he was 11 years ago by Channel 4, a drama series that revealed the full panorama of violence associated with Israel’s creation and its occupation?

Our cultural world is once again far more timid, more intimidated, in exploring and representing the realities of Palestinian suffering, paradoxically even as those realities are better understood than ever before because of social media.

The other reason Churchill is receiving the kind of support denied to Corbyn is that the cancellation of her award is really a skirmish on the margins of the fight to give voice to Palestinian oppression – the reason the Guardian can afford to indulge it. Defending a respected, elderly playwright from the accusation of antisemitism for a play that was quickly erased from memory incurs no real cost.

Far more was at stake in the battle to defend Corbyn. He had the potential power – had he become prime minister – to make real amends for European colonialism, to really atone, by denying British support and arms for Israel to perpetuate that colonialism in the Middle East and continue its oppression of the Palestinians.

More likely, however, had Corbyn been able to form a government, and been in a position to challenge Europe’s collusion in Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians, he would have faced even more savage resistance than he endured as Labour leader – and not just from the British establishment but from a wider western one.

That would have risked exposing as a myth the morality tale Europeans have been encouraged to tell about themselves. It would have risked highlighting the absurdity of the Holocaust alibi for European moral superiority.

Caryl Churchill has been stripped of her award because state-sponsored racism still lies at the heart of the European project. Europe’s racism was never cleansed. The seeds of fascism did not go away. They simply need a new time and purpose to flourish once more.

*

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: Portrait sketch of the playwright Caryl Churchill (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)

This Week’s Most Popular Articles

November 25th, 2022 by Global Research News

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario “Suggests”: Unvaccinated Patients Are Mentally Ill and Should be Put on Psychiatric Medication

Jim Hoft, November 21, 2022

The Dark Origins of the Davos Great Reset

F. William Engdahl, November 23, 2022

How Blackrock Investment Fund Triggered the Global Energy Crisis

F. William Engdahl, November 24, 2022

Video: 90 Sudden or Unexpected Canadian Doctor Deaths: Dr. William Markis Interview

William Markis, November 20, 2022

Were the 9/11 Aircraft Electronically Hijacked and Remotely Controlled?

Dan Hanley, November 20, 2022

“What a Scam it Actually is.” Assessing COP27 and Modern Climate Activism

Michael Welch, November 19, 2022

New US B61-12 Nuclear Bombs Deployed in Europe: What Will Russia Do? “Much Worse than the Cold War”

Vladimir Kozin, November 21, 2022

Putin’s Sledgehammer

Mike Whitney, November 23, 2022

They Will Lock You Down Again

Jeffrey A. Tucker, November 21, 2022

NATO-Exit under Art. 13: Dismantle NATO, Close Down 800 US Military Bases, Prosecute the War Criminals

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 20, 2022

Why Do Americans Hate Putin?

Mike Whitney, November 23, 2022

A World Ever More Dystopian. Klaus Schwab’s – WEF – Full Speech at G20 / B20 in Bali, Indonesia

Peter Koenig, November 22, 2022

48,817 Dead and 5,107,883 Injured Following COVID-19 Vaccines in European Database of Adverse Reactions

Brian Shilhavy, November 18, 2022

Armageddon in the Holy Land? Israel’s Nuclear Weapons Program, Mordechai Vanunu, and the Coming War on Iran

Timothy Alexander Guzman, November 21, 2022

US Aid to Ukraine Invested in Corrupt Crypto FTX Scheme. “Instead of using funds to fight Russia, the money was invested in the FTX Ponzi scheme”

Free West Media, November 18, 2022

Maligned in Western Media, Donbass Forces Are Defending Their Future from Ukrainian Shelling and Fascism

Eva Bartlett, November 20, 2022

The Covid-19 “Co-Conspiracy”: The Hidden Face of US-China Relations

Emanuel Pastreich, November 22, 2022

“The Covid mRNA Vaccine Causes Cardiac Arrests, Heart Attacks, Strokes… : Leading British Cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra, and Dr. Peter McCullough Independently Come to Same Conclusion

John Leake, November 24, 2022

Is Your Body the Legal Property of Big Pharma?

Dr. Joseph Mercola, November 18, 2022

When Green Turns Brown – And Nobody Notices

Peter Koenig, November 19, 2022

Accused of “Corona Insanity”: Swiss Doctor Locked Away in Mental Asylum for Speaking Against COVID Laws, April 2020

By Martin Armstrong, Dr. Thomas Binder, and Taylor Hudak, November 24, 2022

Dr. Thomas Binder is a Swiss cardiologist with over 34 years of experience in treating respiratory infections. He received a doctorate in immunology and virology, specializing in internal medicine and cardiology, from the University of Zurich. Binder is an intelligent man who was deemed insane by the Swiss government for speaking out against COVID regulations.

US Defenseless to Protect Kurds Against Turkish Invasion in Syria

By Steven Sahiounie, November 25, 2022

Ilham Ahmed, a co-chair of the Syrian Democratic Council, confirmed on November 20 that Turkish airstrikes had struck near Derik, a town within the US military’s area of occupation.

Medical Ethics and the Covid Pandemic. Give People “Morality Pills”

By Igor Chudov, November 24, 2022

Be aware that “bioethics” has moved on to proposals that might seem crazy to you but are considered seriously and published in Bill Gates-funded publications and scientific journals. Important studies on this subject are conducted under the auspices of the World Economic Forum.

Silicon Valley Fake: Elizabeth Holmes and the Fraudster’s Motivation

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, November 24, 2022

It has been one noisy time for the paladins of big tech.  Jobs have been shed by the thousands at Meta, Amazon and Twitter; FTX, the second largest cryptocurrency company, has collapsed.  Then came the conviction of Elizabeth Holmes, founder of the healthcare company Theranos, for fraud.

Swimming in Superbugs: MRSA and E coli Found in British Rivers

By Andrew Wasley, November 24, 2022

Testing commissioned with World Animal Protection and the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics has found evidence of drug resistance in waterways near poultry and pig farms and in cattle farm waste, highlighting the risks of slurry leaks contaminating rivers.

Video: Biden COVID Minion Tells Americans “God Gave Us Two Arms” for Multiple Vaccines

By Steve Watson, November 24, 2022

Joe Biden’s COVID ‘czar’ declared Tuesday during a White House press briefing that “God gave you two arms” so we can all be injected with different vaccines. Dr. Ashish Jha made the statement while simultaneously pushing COVID booster shots and flu shots as if they are the same thing.

NY Times Takes Rare Look at Apparent Ukrainian War Crimes

By Zero Hedge, November 24, 2022

The New York Times has in an extremely rare moment (or perhaps more like unprecedented) conducted an in-depth visual investigation of a likely war crime against surrendered Russian troops conducted by Ukrainian forces. Multiple videos from different angles, including drone footage, emerged last week showing the incredibly disturbing scenes as Ukrainian forces were recapturing the village of Makiivka in the Luhansk region.

French Ambassador: US ‘Rules-based Order’ Means Western Domination, Violating International Law

By Ben Norton, November 24, 2022

France’s ex US Ambassador Gérard Araud criticized Washington for frequently violating international law and said its so-called “rules-based order” is an unfair “Western order” based on “hegemony.” He condemned the new cold war on China, instead calling for mutual compromises.

White House Announces ‘New Enforcement Guidance’ on COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

By Jack Phillips, November 24, 2022

It announced “new enforcement guidance to ensure nursing homes are offering updated COVID-19 vaccines and timely treatment to their residents and staff,” according to a White House fact sheet released on Nov. 22. It stated that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) still requires “nursing homes to educate their residents” on COVID-19 vaccines and offer vaccines to residents.

Pfizer CEO Claims 400% Price Hike on COVID Vaccines Will be “Free”

By Beth Mole, November 24, 2022

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla claimed at a news event last week that the company’s COVID-19 vaccines will continue to be “free to all Americans,” despite the company’s plan to raise the price of the vaccine roughly 400 percent—a price difference that will be picked up by health insurers.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Accused of “Corona Insanity”: Swiss Doctor Locked Away in Mental Asylum for Speaking Against COVID Laws, April 2020

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

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

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

***

“It’s the end of the road for those who believe they can stall Turkey by pun games, by changing names of terrorist organizations, by sharing pictures showing their soldiers next to terrorists,” Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said.

Erdogan was directly referring to the US and their support of the Syrian Defense Forces (SDF) and their fiercest fighters, the People’s Defense Units (YPG), who are tied to the PKK, an internationally outlawed terrorist group which have killed about 40,000 people in Turkey over three decades.

“We oppose this move and call for immediate de-escalation,” US Defense Department spokesperson Phil Ventura said in response to the Turkish president’s stated plans to attack and invade the Kurdish region of northeastern Syria.

Ilham Ahmed, a co-chair of the Syrian Democratic Council, confirmed on November 20 that Turkish airstrikes had struck near Derik, a town within the US military’s area of occupation.

The Turks are aware that the US military operates a joint training camp there with their SDF and YPG allies. Two SDF soldiers died and three others were wounded in the attack on November 22 which marks the first Turkish attack so close to a US military occupation base in Shamuka, Syria.

The Turkish military also attacked territory between Raqqa and Hasakah which is controlled jointly by US and Russian forces.

The northeastern quadrant of Syria is not solely inhabited by Kurds, but they have always been a very sizeable majority. Kobani is where the US and the Kurdish SDF and YPG formed their military alliance to fight ISIS.

On November 23, Erdogan said,

“Air strikes against terrorists in Syria and Iraq are only beginning. We have never been more serious about securing our borders. We will launch the operation at the best possible time for us. The administrations in Syria and Iraq must not feel threatened. We intend to ensure the territorial integrity of these countries,” he said in his speech to the parliament.

Turkey’s Defense Minister Hulusi Akar said on November 23 that Turkish armed forces have neutralized more than 254 terrorists and hit 471 targets during military operations in Syria and Iraq.

“Claw Sword”, the Turkish military codename, began on November 20. Using 20 drones and over 50 aircraft strikes were carried out against the SDF and YPG bases in Syria, and areas in northern Iraq as well.

Turkish F-16 fighters resumed strikes on targets in Syria on November 21 and 22 and Erdogan has threatened an intended ground invasion into northeast Syria following the November 21 attack on the Turkish town of Karkamis near Gaziantep which killed three civilians.

A Turkish ground operation would require air support, and the US and Russia would have to first allow Turkish planes to use the airspace under their control.

Turkey has launched three prior ground offensives against SDF and YPG forces in northern Syria over the past several years. Turkish officials continue to publicly condemn Washington’s partnership with Kurdish forces.

Ankara’s most recent incursion against the YPG in October 2019 initially displaced some 300,000 civilians and led to extensive allegations of war crimes against local populations by Turkey’s mercenaries who are followers of Radical Islam, the same political platform as Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Turkey has been protecting and defending Idlib which is the last terrorist-occupied area in Syria.  The terror group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) has recently made advances in Afrin and it is widely believed that Turkey will use HTS as part of its attack on Manbij.

Revenge for the Istanbul attack

A bomb attack took six lives in Istanbul on November 13.  The following air strikes have been seen as revenge for the Istanbul attack, which was immediately blamed by Turkish authorities on a Syrian Kurd.

General Kobane revealed his investigation into the person the Turkish police arrested in Istanbul following the bombing and have blamed for the attack. According to Kobane, “The woman who was arrested for planting the bomb comes from a family linked to the Islamic State. Three of her brothers died fighting for the Islamic State. One died in Raqqa, another in Manbij, and a third died in Iraq. Another brother is a commander in the Turkish-backed Syrian opposition in Afrin. She was married to three different Islamic State fighters and the family is from Aleppo. We had absolutely nothing to do with the bombing and we have no such policy.”

Erdogan and elections

Erdogan faces re-election in June 2023.  His support is at its lowest point due to failed economic policies and his participation in the failed US-NATO attack on Syria for ‘regime change’ beginning in 2011.

Many see the brewing war on the Kurds in Syria as a distraction manipulated by Erdogan in his effort to boost nationalist sentiments ahead of the election.

According to Kobane,

“Turkey wants to destroy our autonomous administration. That’s its overarching goal. But most immediately there is the question of elections in Turkey. Through these attacks, Erdogan and his government are laying the ground, setting the public mood for the forthcoming elections. “

The US position

Turkey’s Defense Minister Hulusi Akar called on the US to cut ties with the SDF and YPG in a speech to lawmakers in Ankara.

About 900 US troops remain in Syria, most of them in support of the SDF and YPG.

“We have urged Turkey against such operations, just as we have urged our Syrian partners against attacks or escalation,” the US State Department spokesperson said.

Erdogan has blamed the bombing in Istanbul on the US-backed SDF and YPG. Ankara considers the YPG to be inextricable from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which is designated a terrorist group by Turkey and the US.

US forces were ordered to evacuate their posts so as not to risk hostile fire when Turkey invaded Syria in 2019. The Biden administration has not expressed any interest in a solution to the years-long stalemate in northeast and northwest Syria.

The Russian position

Alexander Lavrentiev, Russian Presidential Envoy to Syria, on November 22 urged Turkey to show restraint. He hopes that “it will be possible to persuade our Turkish partners to refrain from using excessive force on Syrian territory.”

A Turkish incursion into Manbij or Kobani would penetrate areas under the influence of Russian troops, which support negotiation and reconciliation efforts in Syria, and oppose any Turkish invasion.

The Damascus position

Damascus and Ankara share the same view concerning the Kurdish region in northeast Syria.  Both want to contain the Kurds. However, during the US-NATO attack on Syria, Turkey and Syria were in direct opposition.

Over the last year, there have been a series of overtures by Erdogan to repair the broken relationship between Ankara and Damascus.

Prison camps

Some 10,000 captured ISIS fighters and more than 50,000 suspected family members remain in prison camps across Syria’s northeast.

Dana Stroul, the Pentagon’s top Middle East policy official said in July,

“ISIS views the detention facilities where its fighters are housed as the population to reconstitute its army.”

The prisons are administered by the SDF, but with few resources, the prisoners, women, and children live in squalor. The Biden administration helped Syrian Kurdish authorities to fund new detention facilities to better secure the ISIS prisoners.  Their indefinite detention, which recalls Guantanamo, will depend on a political settlement in Syria, but that seems elusive.

*

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 Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MD


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-9-1

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

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.

***

Medical ethics is a large field of study. The Covid pandemic certainly brought many medical ethics issues to the forefront and produced rather amazing “ethicist” gems, such as this:

Be aware that “bioethics” has moved on to proposals that might seem crazy to you but are considered seriously and published in Bill Gates-funded publications and scientific journals. Important studies on this subject are conducted under the auspices of the World Economic Forum.

Forcibly giving people collectivism-promoting “Morality Pills” (archive link) is a popular suggestion among bioethicists.

It was published in Bill Gates-funded The Conversation and is discussed widely in scientific literature. (The Conversation received 7 million dollars from Bill Gates but pretends to be an independent journalism publication)

What are these morality pills? You might think that morality, to them, means being a good husband or wife, an honest businessperson, fulfilling promises, and so on. Why not enhance that? What’s the problem?

The problem is that this is NOT how they define morality! To them, morality is a collectivist mindset, lack of critical thinking, and compliance. The article explains that some people lack “moral qualities” and refuse to wear masks or take Covid vaccines, or even deny climate change:

My research in bioethics focuses on questions like how to induce those who are noncooperative to get on board with doing what’s best for the public good. To me, it seems the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior. Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?

They propose giving people pills to enhance “morality” and explain the climate change angle relevance:

But a strategy like this one could be a way out of this pandemic, a future outbreak or the suffering associated with climate change. That’s why we should be thinking of it now.

The proposed solution to give people morality pills is more than idle thinking. Several candidate psychoactive substances are identified and considered seriously: psilocybin and oxytocin, for example.

You Would not Take Morality Pills? Administer them Secretly!

The obvious objection to all this morality pill talk is that skeptics would not take them! I would not take such a pill to enhance my collectivist mindset. At the risk of being presumptuous, I would say that you, my dear subscriber, would refuse them also. Right?

The ethicists have a solution: administer collectivist morality pills by force or surreptitiously.

As some have argued, a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply. These actions require weighing other values. Does the good of covertly dosing the public with a drug that would change people’s behavior outweigh individuals’ autonomy to choose whether to participate? Does the good associated with wearing a mask outweigh an individual’s autonomy to not wear one?

Serious articles discuss how to do it:

A covert psychoactive substance administration to the masses must not be discussed publicly before its implementation, right? So the ethicists desire to bypass any democratic process or prior public discussion and scrutiny. These ethicists refuse to see an ethical problem with that!

World Economic Forum Sponsored Research into “Collectivist Bioenhancement”

Some of you, my dear readers, might think this is so batshit crazy that it is simply useless musings of fringe philosophers, not worth discussing.

Quite to the contrary, the famous and influential organization called the World Economic Forum sponsors such bioenhancement research.

Linda Fried, mentioned above, is the aunt of Sam Bankman-Fried. Sam stole billions of dollars from crypto-investors (in my opinion) and used that money to become the second largest Democratic party donor. So, Linda Fried is not exactly a nobody languishing in obscurity. By the way, a friend of this blog El Gato wrote a great post discussing Sam — check it out.

Linda explains in her article that her goal is “collective welfarism,” and she is part of the group convened by the World Economic Forum:

A stronger ethical approach, though, would be to abide by the principle, termed ‘collective easy rescue’, whereby small individual losses are justified in the name of collective well-being. Mass vaccination is a well-documented example of collective easy rescue.

Human “enhancement” to force mass vaccination? Sounds familiar?

Self Absorbed Do-Gooders 

Those “medical ethicists,” “world changers,” and “disinformation fighters” are so self-absorbed and self-righteous that they think their way of thinking is the only right way. They consider any deviation from their mindset to be antisocial, divisive, and subversive.

To them, freedom is dangerous. Truth is misinformation. Pursuing personal happiness and liberty instead of welfarism is selfish and immoral and needs to be dealt with through covert bioenhancement pills. Their opponents need to be silenced as “disinformation agents” or influenced via secretly applied substances to enhance compliance and lower critical thinking.

This is NOT a Conspiracy Theory!

My post, discussing outlandish agenda developed under the auspices of the World Economic Forum, may sound like the perfect conspiracy theory. If someone approached me and told me that the WEF is sponsoring “bioenhancement research,” whose goal is to develop substances to impose “collective welfarism” and achieve compliance with mass vaccination, I would not take that person seriously!

Such is the problem with describing many WEF proposals. Some of their ideas are so crazy that they are difficult to accept as genuine when retold. Official papers, proposals, peer-reviewed studies, and agenda articles describe plans that are extremely strange to the uninitiated — and yet are pursued seriously. Other authors, such as Tessa Lena, also mentioned how difficult it is to describe these tendencies.

I explained my difficulties with describing crazy but real proposals by world-leading unelected organizations such as the WEF.

Their proposals, when understood properly, are highly disturbing and seem unreal — except that they are very serious.

The difficulty with their plans is that regular people cannot believe they are real. That happens for a good reason: nobody would expect such insanity to be seriously promulgated by important men and women. Even I have difficulty reconciling the plain text and the simple meaning of their anti-human theories with my idea of what our leaders should act like.

And yet, here we are — the welfarist pills are promulgated under the auspices of the WEF by no one but Linda Fried, the aunt of the second-largest Democrat donor and crypto thief (in my opinion) Sam Bankman-Fried.

In the future, you may need to be careful with your drinking water or the compulsory mystery “health enhancement pill” you must take for an unexplained reason!

Would you take such a welfarism bioenhancement pill?

*

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 Medical Ethics and the Covid Pandemic. Give People “Morality Pills”
  • Tags: ,

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.

***

Guten Tag Redaktion,

Das ist wiederum eine Lüge.

Die Schweiz mag zwar keine eigenen Gasspeicher haben – aber sie hat sehr wohl ein Abkommen mit Deutschland zur Belieferung von Gas.

In Deutschland sind die Gasspeicher bis zu 94% voll, mehr denn je in den letzten 5 Jahren. 

Siehe auch den untigen Artikel der bezeugt wie Europa vollbeladen ist mit Gas – wie noch nie zuvor.

Das muss so gesagt werden nicht weiterhin das Volk belügen und Angstmachen – sodass Busen verhängt werden können wenn jemand über, sagen wir mal, 19 Grad C heizt in einem eiskalten Winter, der wie Sie wissen – wie es Professoren der ETH wissen – manipuliert, oder “Geoengineered” werden kann. So wie es die Sommer Hitze war.

Mit solchen Lügen und die entsprechenden Strafmassnahmen – wie kontrolliert und limitierte Wohn-Heizungen auf ein Minimum, sagen wir mal 19 Grad C – ist eine reine Einschüchterung der Bevölkerung.

Eine physische und mentale Krankmacherei.

Ein Schritt zur weiteren Unterdrückung und Tyrannei.

Es ist notwendig, dass diese Wahrheiten ans Volk gelangt, dass wir uns verteidigen können gegen eine stets wachsende Tyrannei.

Wo glauben Sie, werden Sie, Herren und Frauen Redaktoren und Redaktorinnen, landen unter einer völligen Tyrannei? Haben Sie sich darüber schon Gedanken gemacht? Irgendwann spielt vermutlich auch Ihr Gewissen eine Rolle.

Die betrifft zwar nicht nur die Schweiz – sondern die meisten der 193 UN-Mitgliedsländer – aber die Schweiz ist klein genug um sie zu bekämpfen, die Tyrannei.

Sie – die NZZ – als eine der wichtigsten Zeitungen der Schweiz, haben eine Schlüssel-Rolle zu spielen in der Verbreitung der Wahrheit – und NICHT in der Verbreitung von Lügen.

Mit freundlichen Grüssen, 

Peter Koenig

***

EU Stockpiles Russian Diesel Before the Ban on Russian Oil Begins

By Mac Slavo, November 23, 2022

Russian diesel shipments headed to the Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp (ARA) storage region surged to 215,000 barrels per day from November 1 to November 12. It is a 126% increase from October, according to Pamela Munger, Vortexa senior market analyst.  This means, that in order to prepare themselves for the ban they instituted, they are stockpiling the very thing they insisted on banning.

NZZ – Zitat – 23 November 2022:

Darum ist es wichtig: Wegen der westlichen Sanktionen hat Russland Mitte Juni die Erdgaslieferungen über die Nord-Stream-1-Pipeline nach Europa gestoppt. Da Strom auch durch Gas erzeugt wird, droht daher eine Strommangellage. Die Schweiz ist dabei in einer Zwickmühle: Weil das Land keine eigenen Gasspeicher hat, ist es auf Importe angewiesen. Als Brandbeschleuniger erweist sich in dieser Lage das Fehlen eines Stromabkommens mit der EU.

*

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.

Peter Koenig ist geopolitischer Analyst und ehemaliger leitender Wirtschaftswissenschaftler bei der Weltbank und der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO), wo er über 30 Jahre lang in der ganzen Welt tätig war. Er hält Vorlesungen an Universitäten in den USA, Europa und Südamerika. Er schreibt regelmäßig für Online-Zeitschriften und ist Autor von Implosion – Ein Wirtschaftsthriller über Krieg, Umweltzerstörung und Konzerngier sowie Mitautor von Cynthia McKinneys Buch “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).

Peter ist wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter des Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). Er ist auch ein nicht ansässiger Senior Fellow des Chongyang Instituts der Renmin Universität in Peking.

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on “Ein Schritt zur weiteren Unterdrückung und Tyrannei”: Offener Brief an die Redaktion der NZZ

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 has been one noisy time for the paladins of big tech.  Jobs have been shed by the thousands at Meta, Amazon and Twitter; FTX, the second largest cryptocurrency company, has collapsed.  Then came the conviction of Elizabeth Holmes, founder of the healthcare company Theranos, for fraud.

Pursuing the steps of the college drop-out turned billionaire, Holmes claimed that her company had remarkable technology, capable of diagnosing a number of medical conditions from a mere drop of blood.  The ruse of the blood analyzer known as the Theranos Sample Processing Unit (TSPU), Edison or minilab, worked – at least for a time.  All the way, Holmes was very consciously promoting herself in the mould of Steve Jobs, initially mocked only to become mighty.  Investment flowed into the company coffers.  By 2014, Theranos was valued at $10 billion.

Some noses were detecting a strange smell in such success.  The Wall Street Journal picked up a scent in 2015.  Unreliable results arising from ineffectual blood-testing technology from Theranos, made available across dozens of Walgreens stores, actually posed a risk to patients.

The response from Holmes regarding suspicions was pure Apple, which is to say, copied.  “This is what happens when you work to change things.  First they think you’re crazy, then they fight you, then you change the world.”

Cliché followed cliché, platitude bolstered platitude.  At the Forbes 30 Under 30 Summit, a gathering bound to be unreliable if not questionable in ethics, she was there to add to the show, only this time sounding like Chumbawamba.  “You’ll get knocked down over and over again, and you get back up… I’ve been knocked down a lot, and it became really clear that this was what I wanted to do, and I would start this company over 10,000 times if I had to.”

In 2018, the US Securities and Exchange Commission rather punctured the balloon of hubris by charging Theranos, Holmes and former President Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani “with raising more than $700 million from investors through an elaborate, years-long fraud in which they exaggerated or made false statements about the company’s technology, business and financial performance.”

As the Commission’s media release continued to explain, the allegations focused on false and misleading statements across investor presentations, product demonstrations and media articles claiming that the “portable blood analyzer – could conduct comprehensive blood tests from finger drops of blood, revolutionizing the blood testing industry.”

Theranos, Holmes and Balwani had also claimed that company products were used to effect by the US Department of Defense in Afghanistan and on medevac helicopters.  This fabulous fib was complete by assertions that $100 million in revenue would flow back to the company.  In the Commission’s words, “Theranos’ technology was never deployed by the US Department of Defense and generated a little more than $100,000 in revenue from operations in 2014.”

After a trial lasting a month, Holmes was found guilty on three counts of wire fraud and one of conspiracy. She was found not guilty on four other counts, and the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict on the remaining three counts.  This month, she received a prison sentence of 11 years and three months.  (Lawyers for the government had asked for 15 years.)

“I am devastated by my failings,” Holmes stated.  “Looking back there are so many things I’d do differently if I had the chance.  I tried to realise my dream too quickly.”  And there, the rationale of the fraud was set out, the fine line between tolerated crookedness and the crookedness that gets you found out.

Big fraud is an indispensable element in society.  To succeed, a presumption must work: the fraudulent behaviour can only hit a mark with the collusion of the gullible, those willing to fall for the outrageous suggestion, the astonishing proposition.  The world of art forgeries is the best illustration of this fact: is the purchaser intent on collecting the original, or merely a signature?  Throw in a few experts to sign off on authenticity and provenance, and we can forget the reality.

Orson Welles, in characteristically brilliant fashion, drew out this point in his idiosyncratically subversive F for Fake (1973).  The two stars are the Hungarian aristocrat – or so he purported to be – Elmyr de Hory, and Clifford Irving.  Both figures perpetrated, in their own way, frauds of daring.

Irving made his name by convincing McGraw-Hill, Inc. that he had worked with billionaire Howard Hughes to produce his life story. To substantiate the account, Irving forged Hughes’ handwriting, which was, as it were, authenticated by the publishing house.  It took the sceptical approach of postal inspectors to change tack and ask for samples of Clifford’s own writing.

Elmyr’s own contribution to fakery came with art forgeries verging on genius.  With breezy effortlessness, he would whip up a Picasso, a Monet or a Modigliani.  Art collectors and galleries acquired them by the dozens.  Along the way, the armies of the duped and cheated, refusing to do their own critical research and even ask the basic questions, grew.

While the most gullible are often thought of as the weakest and most vulnerable in society, they can sometimes be the most powerful.  The most acute illustration of this is the fact that those in power, at the very least those with supposed expertise, hate being fooled so blatantly.

Fraud, for it to be committed to scale, comes with a certain style, a fashion.  Make it plausible, make it receivable.  Holmes did that to a tee, aping, mimicking the Jobs factor, even dressing in his fashion.

Engineer Andy Hertzfeld’s own account of Jobs is relevant in this regard.  The founder of Apple had a “reality distortion field, a confounding mélange of a charismatic style, an indomitable will, and an eagerness to bend any fact to fit the purpose at hand.”  Holmes was exploiting the notion of drop out chic, but she was also operating in a world of evangelical hustling and truth stretching.

The dupes, to some extent, deserve it, and Holmes, as egregious as her behaviour might have been, merely fed it.  To that end, the sentence she received was harsh, even vengeful. Former New York federal prosecutor Andrey Spektor is one who thinks as much.  Federal sentencing, while seeming arbitrary, “requires a humane and common sense result: Defendants must not be punished more than necessary.”  To lock up Holmes in a federal penitentiary till her 50s, was not necessary.  But such is the vicious retaliation that comes from the duped.

*

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. 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: Elizabeth Holmes Backstage at TechCrunch Disrupt San Francisco 2014. (Photo by Max Morse for TechCrunch, licensed under CC BY 2.0)

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

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

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

***

On November 15, as 90 Russian cruise missiles struck at Ukraine’s energy network, a companion US-UK propaganda blitz blamed the Russian missiles for the deaths of two workers on a farm in Poland.

This was a big deal. Poland is a member of Nato and Article 5 of Nato’s treaty reads:

‘The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all…’

The fear being, obviously, that treating a Russian attack on a Nato member as an attack on the United States or Britain could lead to rapid escalation and possible nuclear confrontation. Accurate media reporting of events in Poland was therefore vital. On November 16, the headlines said it all.

The Times:

‘Russians blamed for fatal strike on Poland’

The Telegraph:

‘Russian missile strikes Poland’

The Guardian:

‘Russian barrage strikes Ukraine amid claims missiles hit Poland’

The Daily Mirror:

‘RUSSIAN MISSILES HIT POLAND’

Metro:

‘“RUSSIAN MISSILES” HIT POLAND’

The Daily Express:

‘Russian missiles kill 2 in Poland’

Daily Star:

‘Putin bombs NATO’

Online, Sky News reported:

‘Reports Russian missiles have killed two people in Poland…’

Channel 4 News:

‘“Russia missiles” kill two in Nato member Poland claims US official’

With little known about the explosions and much at stake, the Pentagon’s spokesman Patrick Ryder was more cautious:

‘I don’t want to speculate when it comes to our security commitments and Article 5. But we have made it crystal clear that we will protect every inch of NATO territory.’

In an extraordinary message aimed at President Joe Biden, Anders Aslund of the Atlantic Council said:

‘You have promised to defend “every inch of NATO territory.” Are you going to bomb Russia now?’

Aslund added that Biden’s first move should be to establish a no-fly zone in Ukraine before ‘clean[ing] out the Russian Black Sea fleet’.

Ukraine was also quick to stoke the tension. President Zelensky called it ‘a Russian missile attack on collective security’ and, as such, ‘a very significant escalation’. Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said it was ‘a conspiracy theory’ to suggest missiles were part of Ukrainian air defences.

In fact, this version of events was rubbished on the same day the front pages appeared. Even the BBC admitted of Zelensky and Kuleba’s comments:

‘These claims about Russia subsequently appear unfounded.’

And:

‘Polish President Andrzej Duda has said there are no signs of an intentional attack after a missile strike killed two people on a farm near the western border with Ukraine.

‘Earlier, US President Joe Biden said it was “unlikely” the missile had been fired from Russia.’

After nine months of relentlessly propagandising against Russia and for Ukraine-Nato, the Guardian struggled to adapt to this new situation where it was actually good – because it led away from nuclear war – to blame the Ukrainians. A Guardian news report read:

‘Polish village struck by Ukraine war missile struggling with trauma’

What is a ‘Ukraine war missile’? Is it a Ukrainian missile? Or is it a missile fired by one of the sides fighting the war in Ukraine? Might it, then, have been fired by Russia? The mangled grammar – was the ‘Ukraine war missile’ ‘struggling with trauma’? – suggested editors desperately trying to massage the message.

Like numerous other media, NBC News reported that the missile was ‘Russian-made’:

‘The Polish government said a Russian-made missile killed two of its citizens Tuesday near the border with Ukraine, but U.S. President Joe Biden said that it was “unlikely” that it was launched from Russia.’

This will surely have bewildered many readers into thinking the missile might well have been fired by Russia. Although it was clear who fired the missile, NBC described the investigation as ‘ongoing’. As Seinfeld once said: ‘It’s a hazy mystery.’

In fact, Reuters reported on November 16 that Biden had confirmed that the blast in Poland had been ’caused by a Ukrainian air defence missile’.

Responding to this astonishingly reckless propaganda blitz, Mark Curtis, co-founder and editor of Declassified UK, said it all:

‘It’s almost as if the British press sees its primary role as backing the state’s foreign policy rather than accurately informing the public.’

And that is indeed the key role of the dozen or so major UK newspapers and also other news media ostensibly serving the British public a diet of impartial, balanced fact – their primary task is to promote, defend and whitewash US-UK foreign policy driven by corporate greed for resources, power and profit (especially fossil fuels).

But what is so fascinating and terrible about this propaganda system – the reason we have continued writing about these issues for more than two decades – is that this is only one of the ‘mainstream’s’ smaller brainwashing functions. The real work goes much deeper.

A Sad Heart At The Supermarket

In 1962 – long before the full eruption of the global, 24/7 corporate monoanticulture – poet, literary critic and acutely sensitive soul, Randall Jarrell, captured the truth of ‘mainstream’ media exactly. In his collection of essays, ‘A sad heart at the supermarket’, Jarrell wrote that ‘the media’ should actually be termed the ‘Medium’:

‘For all these media – television, radio, movies, newspapers, magazines, and the rest – are a single medium, in whose depths we are all being cultivated. This Medium is of middle condition or degree, mediocre; it lies in the middle of everything, between a man and his neighbor, his wife, his child, his self; it, more than anything else, is the substance through which the forces of our society act upon us, and make us into what our society needs.’ (Randall Jarrell, ‘A sad heart at the supermarket; essays & fables’, Atheneum, 1962, pp.65-66)

But what does the Medium want?

‘Oh, it needs for us to do or be many things: workers, technicians, executives, soldiers, housewives. But first of all, last of all, it needs for us to be buyers; consumers; beings who want much and will want more – who want consistently and insatiably… It is the Medium which casts this spell – which is this spell. As we look at the television set, listen to the radio, read the magazines, the frontier of necessity is always being pushed forward. The Medium shows us what our new needs are – how often, without it, we should not have known! – and it shows us how they can be satisfied: they can be satisfied by buying something. The act of buying something is at the root of our world.’ (p.66, our emphasis)

Of course, it is this same Medium on which many of us are relying now to tell the truth about the results of a system that trains us to ‘want consistently and insatiably’. We are relying on the Medium to tell us how the Medium and its consumerism is destroying us. We are hoping for the Medium to urge us to rise up and overthrow… the Medium.

The classic science fiction movie, ‘The Day The Earth Caught Fire’, foresaw our current predicament with astonishing accuracy, with one failing. It assumed that the Medium – and as a consequence, the public – would become more and more concerned, more and more determined to do something in the face of an authentically existential crisis. But the Medium is far too deeply entrenched in greed for that to happen. Ironically, the film’s leading character, Peter Stenning, is a journalist at the Daily Express – filming took place in the newspaper’s actual offices.

In reality, record-breaking carbon emissions, temperatures, floods, hurricanes, droughts, wildfires, animal and plant extinctions have become the new ‘normal’ for our press, ‘just the way things are’.

Across Europe, heavily botoxed and surgically enhanced hosts of glitzy TV chat shows are being forced to mention temperature rises so extreme that even weather forecasters look worried, with even members of the public interviewed on beaches no longer smiling. But these are rarely glimpsed moments, quickly drowned out by the celebrity gossip, royal tittle-tattle and sports – the Medium is fundamentally unmoved.

No surprise, then, that in October the corporate-advertising packed, profit-maximising, warmongering Guardian, reported:

‘Concerns about climate change shrank across the world last year, with fewer than half of those questioned in a new survey believing it posed a “very serious threat” to their countries over the next 20 years.

‘Only 20% of people in China, the world’s biggest polluter, said they believed that climate change was a very serious threat, down 3 percentage points from the last survey by Gallup World Risk Poll in 2019.

‘Globally, the figure fell by 1.5 percentage points to 48.7% in 2021. The survey was based on more than 125,000 interviews in 121 countries.’

Incredibly, as carbon emissions, temperatures and extreme weather events rise precipitously, concern is falling. But why?

In September, Media Matters described a typical case of Medium performance:

‘In late August a massive, unrelenting heat dome began impacting much of the western United States – breaking numerous temperature records. California is bearing the brunt of the heat, with the state’s power grid stretched to its limit. Climate scientist Daniel Swain called the heat wave in California “essentially the worst September heat wave on record… By some metrics, it might be one of the worst heat waves on record, period, in any month, given its duration and its extreme magnitude.”

‘While the size and scope of the heat wave is not being ignored by major national TV news networks – there have been 153 segments and weather reports on the heat and the fires it helped spawn since August 31 – only 18 of the segments (12%) mentioned climate change. Even worse, only 3 of these climate segments mentioned the need for climate action in order to stave off worsening heat waves like this one in the future.’ (Our emphasis)

Media Matters added:

‘This is a pitiful performance by TV news reporters, especially considering the fact that a year ago they mentioned climate change in a collective 38% of segments on a similar record-breaking heat wave in the Pacific Northwest. There are clear links between the emissions from burning fossil fuels and the growing frequency, duration, and intensity of extreme heat. This record-breaking heat event occurs alongside a devastating flooding event in Pakistan that has displaced millions and can be seen from space, and after a summer of extreme heat and drought events in both Europe and China. The western U.S. heat wave should thus not be treated as a one-off, freak-of-nature incident, but rather contextualized in the larger global climate emergency.’

Peter Kalmus, a climate scientist who has been repeatedly arrested on direct action protests, commented:

‘Just unbelievable the media’s lack of concern about ongoing, intensifying climate and Earth breakdown. It’s all around us now. A few years ago I thought for sure, by this point, these levels of flooding and heat, the media would be sounding the alarm loudly, clearly, skillfully.’

Kalmus added:

‘As a climate scientist trying to sound the alarm for the good of us all, I can’t even tell you how infinitely harder this makes it’

The Independent’s climate columnist, Donnachadh McCarthy, responded to Kalmus:

‘Rather in my experience, uk’s oligarch media have gone in opposite direction on a frenzy attacking all action on climate, since the 40C heatwave set Britain on fire & extreme weather engulfed all continents. Dealing with it in interviews is beyond depressing.’

As the latest pitiful climate conference, COP27, ground to a halt this week, the BBC reported:

‘The final overarching deal did not include commitments to “phase down” or reduce use of fossil fuels.’

If this was shocking news, economic historian Matthias Schmelzer placed it in astonishing context:

‘In 30 years of UN climate negotiations, eliminating the primary cause of global heating – fossil fuels – has never been mentioned in the decisions, not even in the COP27 in 2022.’

What on earth has become of us, of humanity? Who are we? How can we be responding like this to the literal destruction of the stable climate on which we depend? Jarrell explained:

‘The Medium shows its People what life is, what people are, and its People believe it: expect people to be that, try themselves to be that. Seeing is believing; and if what you see in Life [magazine] is different from what you see in life, which of the two are you to believe? For many people it is what you see in Life (and in the movies, over television, on the radio) that is real life; and everyday existence, mere local or personal variation, is not real in the same sense.’ (p.78, our emphasis)

In our lives, we see the parched grass, experience the 40 degrees of heat, the fires and floods, but this is ‘mere local or personal variation’. In Life, as it were, we see car adverts, holiday offers, Black Friday deals on tech. And this genuinely seems more real.

This is the final truth of why we are unable, most of us, to feel the disaster that is overwhelming us in plain sight:

‘The Medium mediates between us and raw reality, and the mediation more and more replaces reality for us.’ (p.78)

This is not a struggle between good and evil; it is a struggle between reality and unreality. It is a struggle between human agency and an automatic profit-maximising machine that was built by human beings but which automatically seeks to neutralise any internal or external human opposition. The state-corporate system is a runaway train, a Frankenstein’s monster.

Ultimately, we are engaged in a struggle between truth and lies. Infinite profit-maximising on a finite planet is a lie; human survival depends on the extent to which enough of us can perceive the truth and act.

For more than 21 years we have argued that the Medium is the lynchpin, the Achilles’ heel, for anyone hoping to stop this runaway train, to break this spell.

When Julian Assange tried to challenge this system, the Medium turned on him, crushed his reputation, and thereby crushed the public support that might otherwise have protected him.

When Jeremy Corbyn challenged the system, the Medium tried and failed with everything, until it threw the ultimately despicable sink, barbarically exploiting the suffering and deaths of six million Jews in the Holocaust to crush him.

Now that the courageous, smart and principled heroes of Just for Oil, Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion are trying to save their lives, your lives and our lives by exposing the truth of fossil fuel industry insanity, the Medium is branding them narcissists, traitors, public enemies. Trashy, billionaire-owned, capitalist tabloids are assailing the opponents of runaway capitalism in the name of ordinary working people.

It’s all very well trying to expose US-UK military crimes, to reform the Labour Party from within, to shine a bright light on climate crisis, but the real battle, the deepest need, is to destroy the credibility of the Medium that controls the public mind and politics through illusions, false allies, false promises and false hopes. We must persuade the public to reject this system and to seek out and support genuinely human, compassionate, rational alternatives not poisoned by limitless greed.

As Noam Chomsky has commented, corporate propagandists will continue subordinating people and planet to profit until they are up to their necks in climate change floodwater. Our plan is to continue challenging them, refuting them, until that happens.

*

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 Message to Joe Biden: ‘You have promised to defend “every inch of NATO territory.” Are you going to bomb Russia now?’

Government Requires “Make Believe”

November 24th, 2022 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.

***

 

“Government requires make-believe. Make believe that the king is divine, make believe that he can do no wrong or make believe that the voice of the people is the voice of God. Make believe that the people have a voice or make believe that the representatives of the people are the people. Make believe that governors are the servants of the people. Make believe that all men are created equal or make believe that they are not.”— Edmund S. Morgan, 1916-2013

What if the government’s true goal is to perpetuate its own power?

What if the real levers of governmental power are pulled by agents and diplomats and by bureaucrats and central bankers behind the scenes?

What if they stay in power no matter who is elected president or which political party controls either house of Congress?

What if the frequent public displays of adversity between Republicans and Democrats are just a facade? What if both major political parties agree on the fundamental issues of our day?

What if the leadership of both political parties believes that our rights are not natural to our humanity but instead are gifts from the government? What if those leaders believe the government that gives gifts to the people can take those gifts away?

What if the leadership of both parties gives only lip service to Thomas Jefferson’s assertions in the Declaration of Independence that all persons “are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” and that when the government assaults our natural rights, we can “alter or abolish” it?

What if the leadership of both parties quietly dismisses those ideas as Jefferson’s outdated musings? What if Jefferson’s words have been enacted into federal law that all in government have sworn to uphold?

What if the leadership of both political parties believes that the constitutional requirement of due process somehow permits mothers to hire doctors to kill babies in their wombs, out of fear or convenience? What if the leadership of both political parties believes that the president may lawfully kill any foreigner out of fear, because due process is an inconvenience?

What if the last four presidents — two from each political party — have used high-tech drones to kill innocent people in foreign lands with which America was not at war and claimed that they did so legally, relying not on a declaration of war from Congress but on erroneous and secret arguments that claim American presidents can kill with impunity?

What if the Constitution requires a congressional declaration of war or due process whenever the government wants anyone’s life, liberty or property, whether convenient or not, and whether the person is American or not? What if due process means a fair jury trial, not a secretly ordered killing?

What if most members of Congress from both political parties believe in perpetual war and perpetual debt? What if the political class believes that war is the health of the state? What if the leadership of that class wants war so as to induce the loyalty of its base, open the pocketbooks of the taxpayers and gain the compliance of the voters? What if the political class uses war to enrich its benefactors? What if the government has been paying for war by increasing its debt?

What if the $31 trillion current federal government debt has been caused by borrowing to pay for wars and false prosperity? What if the federal government collects about $4 trillion annually but spends about $6.8 trillion? What if the feds borrow money to pay $500 billion in interest annually?

What if it is insane to borrow money to pay interest on borrowed money? What if American taxpayers are still paying interest on debts incurred by Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and every post-World War II president?

What if the banks have borrowed the money that they lend? What if they can’t pay it back? What if the stock market was once soaring on money borrowed at artificially low interest rates?

What if the government demands transparency from us but declines to be transparent to us? What if government leaders assert the make-believe that they work for us but recognize silently that we work for the government?

What if the federal government has access to all our electronic communications, bank accounts, medical and legal records, and utility and credit card bills? What if the government knows more about us than we know about it?

What if the federal government stays in power by bribing the states with cash, the rich with bailouts, the middle class with tax cuts and the poor with welfare?

What if the government thinks the Constitution is make-believe and doesn’t apply in bad times? What if it thinks it can cure disease by forcing experimental drugs on the healthy? What if it mocks the Bill of Rights?

What if the government the Founding Fathers gave us needed our permission to do nearly everything? What if today we need the government’s permission to do nearly anything?

What if, on Thanksgiving Day, our gratitude is not to the government that assaults our freedoms and steals our wealth but to God, who gave us our freedoms and our ability to earn wealth?

What if, on Thanksgiving Day, our gratitude is for life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the exercise of free will and human reason? What if these are integral to our humanity despite the government’s assaults on them?

What if the Thanksgiving holiday has become a four-day oasis from a fractious government that is blind to the consequences of its borrowing, killing and assaults on freedom?

What if, on Thanksgiving Day, we are most grateful that we are free creatures made in God’s image and likeness?

What if, on Thanksgiving Day, we begin altering or abolishing the government, make-believe or not?

Happy Thanksgiving.

*

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.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge, has published nine books on the U.S. Constitution.

Featured image: The Declaration of Independence (Photo from New Jersey Herald)

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.

***

UK rivers near livestock farms are awash with superbugs and antibiotic residues, including in the idyllic River Wye, research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has found.

Testing commissioned with World Animal Protection and the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics has found evidence of drug resistance in waterways near poultry and pig farms and in cattle farm waste, highlighting the risks of slurry leaks contaminating rivers. Combined with previously unseen data released under freedom of information laws, it presents a snapshot of the extent of superbug pollution stemming from farm waste.

The tests found antibiotic-resistant strains of E coli and Staphylococcus aureus, which can cause serious infections in humans, among other superbugs. Some of the samples showed resistance to antibiotics that are classified as “highest-priority critically important for human medicine”. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a serious health threat because it makes illnesses harder to treat.

Residues of controversial medicines known as ionophores, widely used in Britain’s intensive chicken industry, were also found.

There are growing concerns about the health of British rivers and the apparent lack of regulation around AMR in farm waste. In October, the Guardian found wide scale river pollution from dairy farms in Devon, and there has been public outcry over raw sewage dumped in UK rivers earlier this year.

Contamination of the River Wye, which flows from the Cambrian mountains in Wales to the Severn estuary, has caused particular outrage, with farming blamed for high levels of phosphates. The river passes through Herefordshire, an area where chicken farming has rapidly expanded and an estimated 20 million birds are reared in the river’s catchment.

Angela Jones has been swimming, working on and exploring the River Wye for decades. She said she had seen sections of the river turn “cloudy and foul” and felt her eyes stinging after swimming.

She told the Bureau: “I feel like crying but I knew two years ago we were close to the edge. And I know now it’s not changed … [Poultry farms are] still chucking all that manure. We need something drastic.”

A recent environmental audit committee inquiry concluded that the UK’s rivers were “in a mess”, citing farm pollution as a significant cause. The inquiry also said that waterways had become a breeding ground for antibiotic resistance.

The Bureau’s new evidence prompted immediate calls for increased surveillance and tougher regulations.

Philip Dunne, the chairman of the environmental audit committee, told the Bureau: “While much of the attention is on sewage overflows when it comes to water quality of our rivers and beaches, diffuse agricultural pollution is another issue lurking under the surface. This investigation raises the risk in our rivers from emerging antimicrobial resistance. This is another good reason why water quality monitoring needs to be ramped up to avoid people becoming gravely ill.”

Charles Watson, chairman of the NGO River Action, said: “This critically important investigation adds to our understanding of the true horrors being inflicted on our rivers by intensive livestock production. In particular, it highlights how the UK’s existing regulatory controls for managing farm waste are simply nowhere near fit for purpose.”

A 2016 UK government review on AMR estimated that superbugs kill at least 700,000 people worldwide every year – which could rise to 10 million extra deaths by 2050 if no action is taken.

Antibiotics are widely used in livestock production to treat and prevent disease, particularly on factory farms where animals are often reared in overcrowded conditions where bacteria thrive. These farms can act as incubators for potentially fatal drug-resistant diseases in humans.

Although UK livestock sectors have significantly reduced the use of antibiotics on farms in recent years, there are concerns that overuse of certain antibiotics have created superbugs still circulating in farm animals and, consequently, in meat and the environment.

While the public health risks from superbug-contaminated meat has received much media coverage, environmental contamination linked to antibiotic use on farms is underreported.

Livestock farms generate large quantities of animal waste, which is often spread on land for use as a fertiliser, or discharged into public waterways, where superbugs can accumulate.

Superbugs can then reach humans through drinking water, fish and molluscs from contaminated water, or crops grown with contaminated manure. Even washing or swimming in contaminated water can put people at risk.

Dr Andrew Singer, a scientist at the UK’s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, told the Bureau that the environment was an important transmitter of antibiotic resistance. He added that the “continuous pollution of our environment with drugs and bugs simply hastens” the development of superbugs.

Our investigation obtained samples of water and sediment from waterways near twelve poultry and pig farms, including in the Wye Valley and Norfolk. Waste at four cattle units in Sussex, including dairy and beef farms, and one sample from poultry litter (a mixture of droppings and soiled straw) in Sussex, were also tested.

All of the cattle farms, and eight of the poultry and pig farms, were intensive, with some or all animals permanently kept indoors. Four were free range.

The river samples were collected both upstream and downstream of the pig and poultry farms to assess differences in resistant bacteria, genes – regarded as the building blocks of antibiotic resistance – and residue levels. Cattle farm samples were obtained directly from slurry, which in one case was leaking from a waste lagoon, polluting a footpath and nearby fields.

Analysis by scientists at the Fera laboratory in York revealed resistance to antibiotics known as sulfonamides, which are classified as highly important in human medicine, was more consistently found downstream than upstream of factory pig and chicken farms. This suggests resistance is entering the environment from these farms.

In human medicine, sulfonamides are often used to treat urinary tract infections, one of the most common bacterial infections. Despite this, in the UK the drugs are more widely used in farm animals than in human medicine, prompting fears that overuse in livestock could reduce their effectiveness in treating humans.

All of the cattle waste samples tested positive for sulfonamide-resistant genes, while one harboured antibiotic resistant E coli. The poultry litter tested was also found to contain sulfonamide-resistant genes and drug resistant E coli.

In the Wye Valley, the river water contained a version of MRSA and residues of ionophore antibiotics, which are widely used in the chicken industry.

Campaigners said that among the most worrying findings were E coli resistant to cefotaxim and S aureus resistant to vancomycin. Both drugs are classified by the World Health Organization as being highest-priority critically important in human medicine. Earlier this year the Bureau revealed that UK pork meat was contaminated with a vancomycin-resistant superbug.

Cóilín Nunan, the scientific advisor to the Alliance to Save our Antibiotics, said: “Cefotaxime is a particularly important antibiotic for treating serious human infections caused by E coli and other pathogens. It is very worrying that resistance to this antibiotic was found in a chicken litter sample and a cattle slurry sample from intensive farms, and downstream of an intensive chicken farm.

“The use of antibiotics related to cefotaxime is finally being reduced in farming, but far greater reductions are needed and this will only be achieved through government action.”

Previously unpublished records obtained using freedom of information laws also revealed further evidence of UK rivers and farms being contaminated with both antibiotics and superbugs.

In southwest England, testing of waste from more than fifty dairy units found infection with drug resistant disease, including on footpaths polluted with slurry, which has the potential for onward contamination.

Catherine McLaughlin, chief animal health and welfare adviser to the National Farmers’ Union said there have been “hugely positive” voluntary achievements across the industry in reducing antibiotic use.

“Our farmers are continuing to work hard to protect animal health and welfare, using alternative strategies such as vaccines and engaging with vets in various initiatives which focus on data collection and preventive health care and animal husbandry,” she said.

In Northern Ireland, testing downstream of livestock farms and farms fertilised with manure found residues of antibiotics known to be used in veterinary medicine. The antibiotic tilmicosin – which can be harmful for humans – was also found at a wastewater treatment outflow serving Belfast.

The pollution of water with these antibiotic residues encourages the development and spread of superbugs because bacteria already present in the water can develop resistance.

Much like the Wye Valley, Northern Ireland has become a powerhouse for livestock production in recent years, with a steep rise in intensive poultry farms.

The UK has no specific laws relating to mitigating the spread of antibiotic resistance through farm waste disposal. Instead, regulators rely on farmers to adhere to best practice guidance and codes of practice. The lack of official controls risks the spread of antibiotic resistant diseases in the environment.

The Bureau has learnt that in some instances litter from poultry farms contaminated with antibiotic-resistant strains of salmonella was freely spread on land in Northern Ireland for use as fertiliser, despite birds from affected flocks being destroyed.

Experts and campaigners say this practice is unacceptable.

Dr Singer said: “Litter from diseased animals should be destroyed in such a way to eliminate the risk from the disease spreading in the manure. This is going to be expensive and challenging, but it must be done.”

James Orr, director of Friends of the Earth Northern Ireland, said: “It is scandalous for the industry to continue this practice of diseased poultry waste to be spread on farmland. We are increasing the risk of AMR being spread when we could just as easily stop this practice.”

The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland said that farmers were offered guidance on salmonella outbreaks that included “measures to prevent exposure of any litter pathogens to both wild and farmed animals” and advice on preventing run-off into watercourses. It added: “Poultry litter should be deep ploughed into arable ground and should not be spread on land that is to be grazed, or from silage or hay [that] is to be harvested in the same year.”

Investigations into tilmicosin pollution were suspended because of the pandemic, the department said.

A Defra spokesperson said: “We do not support routine preventative use of antibiotics in animals – they should not compensate for poor husbandry practices and we will continue to look into strengthening legislation in this area.”

*

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: Samples of water and sediment were taken at sites in England and Wales (Source: World Animal Protection)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Swimming in Superbugs: MRSA and E coli Found in British Rivers

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.

***

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla claimed at a news event last week that the company’s COVID-19 vaccines will continue to be “free to all Americans,” despite the company’s plan to raise the price of the vaccine roughly 400 percent—a price difference that will be picked up by health insurers.

The company said in October that it plans to raise the price of a dose of its COVID-19 vaccine from about $30 to somewhere between $110 and $130 as it moves the shots to the commercial market next year.

Until now, all COVID-19 vaccines in the US have been bought by the US government, which paid $30.48 per dose in its latest vaccine supply agreement from June. The US government had previously paid $24 per dose in July 2021 and $19.50 per dose in July 2020. The government offered all the doses to Americans for free.

Now, the company expects health insurance companies to pick up the tab, however larger. “Based on our current understanding, when we enter a traditional commercial model, anyone with commercial or government insurance who is eligible to be vaccinated should be able to access the vaccine without any out-of-pocket payments,” Angela Lukin, Pfizer’s US president of global primary care, said in an October call with investors.

That assumption led Bourla to suggest last week that the large price hike would be “free.”

“Americans will see no difference,” he said, according to Stat News, which hosted the event. The vaccine will “be free for them to get, regardless of the insurance they have.”

“Double talk”

But outsiders were quick to point out flaws in that statement. For one, it would seem that the shots would no longer be free for those without insurance. Moreover, for those with insurance, the lack of out-of-pocket costs at the time of vaccination does not mean that the price hike is free. The hiked price will be absorbed by health insurance companies, which may pass on the extra cost in the form of higher premiums.

The cost “ultimately comes out of workers’ paychecks,” Stat’s health care business reporter, Bob Herman, pointed out.

David Mitchell, co-founder of the advocacy group Patients for Affordable Drugs, echoed the point. “[Bourla said] repeatedly that COVID vaccines priced at $120 a dose will be ‘free.’ It’s not true,” Mitchell tweeted. “It’s more Bourla/pharma double talk.”

It’s unclear what price Moderna will set for its COVID-19 vaccine when it moves to the commercial market next year. But, financial analysts who spoke with Reuters said Pfizer’s price could drive up the prices of rivals.

Pfizer’s price is not wildly out of the normal range for vaccinations. While the annual flu shot can range from $50 to $95 at CVS for those without insurance, an MMR vaccine goes for $135, a shingles vaccine goes for $179, and meningitis vaccines are a little over $200.

Still, Pfizer’s price between $110 and $130 is higher than financial analysts expected for the COVID-19 vaccines. “This is much higher than our assumption of $50 per shot,” Wells Fargo analyst Mohit Bansal wrote in a research note, according to Reuters. Bansal added that the pricing could add around $2.5 billion to $3 billion to Pfizer’s annual revenue.

It’s unclear how the commercial price hike—likely to occur in the first quarter of next year—will influence booster uptake. Currently, uptake is dismal. Only 11 percent of Americans eligible for an updated COVID-19 booster have received one ahead of Thanksgiving, according to data tracking by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

*

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.

Beth is Ars Technica’s health reporter. She’s interested in biomedical research, infectious disease, health policy and law, and has a Ph.D. in microbiology.

Featured image is from Health Thoroughfare


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.

***

Dr. Thomas Binder is a Swiss cardiologist with over 34 years of experience in treating respiratory infections. He received a doctorate in immunology and virology, specializing in internal medicine and cardiology, from the University of Zurich. Binder is an intelligent man who was deemed insane by the Swiss government for speaking out against COVID regulations.

Dr. Binder has been an outspoken critic of COVID restrictions since the beginning of the pandemic. On April 9, 2020, the cardiologist criticized the government’s response to COVID and provided his own analysis of the virus. He posted his thoughts on his private website, and the post received over 20,000 views.

Three days later, a day before Easter, 60 armed police officers and 20 members of the Kantonspolizei Aargau’s anti-terrorism unit forcibly removed Dr. Binder from his home.

Authorities searched through the doctor’s online activity and could not find anything to use against him. However, an emergency room doctor who was working with the authorities arrived and diagnosed Dr. Binder with “corona insanity.” He was locked away in a mental asylum for questioning the COVID narrative.

Yet, he refuses to be silenced. He is now a member of the Doctors for COVID Ethics and the German Physicians and Scientists for Health, Freedom, and Democracy. I applaud him for still speaking against coronavirus mandates despite the government’s pitiful attempt to silence him.

Martin Armstrong

***

Video. Thomas Binder Interviewed by Taylor Hudak

*

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 Massoud Nayeri


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 Accused of “Corona Insanity”: Swiss Doctor Locked Away in Mental Asylum for Speaking Against COVID Laws, April 2020
  • 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.

***

Joe Biden’s COVID ‘czar’ declared Tuesday during a White House press briefing that “God gave you two arms” so we can all be injected with different vaccines.

Dr. Ashish Jha made the statement while simultaneously pushing COVID booster shots and flu shots as if they are the same thing.

“Get one in each arm if you want,” Jha proclaimed.

Watch:

The COVID shot contains experimental mRNA. Most people have many times greater protection from having had the virus and recovered, whereas the flu shot is a traditional vaccine backed by years of research and data.

To lump these two vaccines together in a 2 for 1 type campaign is at best disingenuous.

It isn’t the first time Jha has made the “God gave you two arms” comment, he also used it back in September, noting that he “really believes” that is why humans have two arms:

Elsewhere during Tuesday’s briefing, Jha told Americans they will need to get yet another Covid vaccine next year.

“We’re probably gonna need to update our vaccine again next year and have Americans get vaccinated again next year,” Jha asserted, calling the COVID vaccine a “once a year shot.”

The five jabs from the past year isn’t enough. Get more.

He also encouraged people to push vaccines on their families “around the Thanksgiving table,”:

“If folks get their updated vaccines, and they get treated, if they have a breakthrough infection, we can prevent essentially every COVID death in America,” Jah said.

Breakthrough infections are no longer a dangerous conspiracy theory, they’re now a good thing apparently.

During the same presser, The White House Press Secretary immediately shut down a reporter who attempted to ask Anthony Fauci a question about the origin of COVID:

Real questions are not allowed.

*

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 a screenshot from Summit News


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.

***

From reading the previous article, one could get the impression that, against the background of North Korea’s unprecedented missile activity and the likelihood of a seventh nuclear test by Pyongyang, there are growing calls in the US for an end to Pyongyang through sanctions, a pre-emptive strike or the deployment of nuclear weapons on the peninsula.  However, the author points to a different trend: voices calling for recognition of the DPRK’s nuclear power status and a review of the policy of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Here are some examples.

On October 26, 2022, ROK Minister of Defense Lee Jong-sup said the focus of efforts to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue should shift from deterring their development to deterring the use of nuclear weapons. “We have put our focus on trying to prevent North Korea from conducting additional nuclear tests and advancing its nuclear capabilities, but it’s time to change our strategy.” Now “the priority should be on deterring the use of nuclear weapons,” giving the North Koreans an understanding that if the DPRK attempts to use nuclear weapons, it will result in the termination of the North Korean regime.

In a similar vein, ruling party chief Chung Jin-suk said, “We have entered a completely new phase in North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats. We need to reexamine our entire response system to the North’s nuclear threats… We should also have an overpowering defense system so local provocations do not evolve into a full scale war.” Conservative MP Han Ki-ho, who heads the DPRK Threat Response Committee, also noted that “denuclearization policies we have pushed for until now have failed.”

Although South Korean conservatives speak not of negotiation but of a forceful response to force, such deterrence is also a form of control. But far more important is the opinion of US officials. At the 2022 Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference in Washington, US Deputy Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Bonnie Jenkins said that if Pyongyang is willing to return to engagement, an arms control treaty could eventually be worked on. Jenkins added that the US and North Korea may have different interpretations of “arms control” and “nuclear disarmament,” which have complicated related discussions and proved to be serious obstacles during the Trump era engagement, but “building a foundation by defining a goal” would be the starting point of any potential negotiations, which she said would take time.

It should be noted that this is not the last US government official to speak out, but the basic official position is still the same. In response to a question about Jenkins’ remarks on October 31, US Department of State Spokesman Ned Price said that “there has been no change to US policy. Our DPRK policy remains the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” The United States does not and will not recognize North Korea as a nuclear state: “That is not our policy. I do not foresee that ever becoming a policy”.

The US and South Korean experts and retirees are more outspoken. As former Minister of Unification under the Moon Jae-in administration Jong Se-hyun told The Korea Times,

“after the midterm elections, the US will have no options but to start arms control talks with North Korea based on the North’s commitment to the non-proliferation of its nuclear weapons”.

As former US special envoy for talks with North Korea Joseph DeTrani points out, North Korea has no intention of getting rid of its nuclear weapons in exchange for economic incentives or normalization of diplomatic relations, so offering Pyongyang such “carrots” in exchange for disarmament will not work.  According to DeTrani, North Korea wants to be accepted as a nuclear state like Pakistan, while stressing that its nuclear program is for deterrence and will not be used for offensive purposes. The US, on the other hand, has openly said that it does not accept the DPRK as a nuclear state, as this would lead to a nuclear arms race in the region and create opportunities for nuclear proliferation, fissile material falling into the hands of a rogue state or terrorist groups.

Robert Kelly, a professor of political science at Pusan National University, also believes that persuading North Korea to abandon its nuclear program will not be easy, while Seoul has no options. The only thing that can be achieved is arms control: “we might get some constraints, maybe we’ll get some inspectors to get the North Koreans to cap it at like 200 strategic missiles and warheads or something like that, but they’re never going to go to zero.”

Soo Kim, a policy analyst at the RAND Corporation, thinks the US, like South Korea, is running out of options “because there just aren’t that many creative ideas to bring North Korea back to the negotiating table, and to actually convince Kim Jong-un to give up some aspect of his nuclear program.”

Kim Jong-dae, a former South Korean defense official and visiting professor at Yonsei University, also thinks that complete denuclearization of the North is something that cannot be achieved at all and developing discussions with North Korea in terms of arms control is a very realistic idea.

A recent Bloomberg article states that the policy of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, pursued in recent decades, has failed. The US and its allies must accept the DPRK’s status as a nuclear power and learn to operate in the new environment. Criticism has also been levelled at anti-North Korean sanctions, which have had no effect other than to create food shortages for millions of North Koreans.

Earlier, Jeffrey Lewis, an expert in nuclear non-proliferation at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, spoke of the need to recognize North Korea’s nuclear status in the interest of easing tensions on the Korean peninsula.

Journalist Donald Kirk, who specializes in East Asia, also wrote that hopes of talks with Kim Jong-un on the nuclear issue were a fantasy. He called for a focus on strengthening defense capabilities, describing the North’s adoption of a nuclear doctrine at the legislative level as a real threat.

Statements of this kind are based not only on an assessment of the DPRK’s military capabilities, but also on public opinion: the proportion of those who consider the DPRK’s threat serious is declining in the US, while the number of supporters of a constructive solution is rising.

In August-September 2022, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs conducted an opinion poll on how important certain foreign policy issues seem to the average American. It was found that only 52% of Americans believe that North Korea’s nuclear program poses a “serious threat” to the United States (compared to 75% in 2017 and 59% in 2021). There is a split on “what should be done to get North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons,” with 46% of respondents believing that the US should establish formal diplomatic relations with the DPRK, while 31% are of the opinion that the US should use military force under favorable conditions.

Commenting on the poll results, experts from the Chicago Council noted that the DPRK issue is currently overshadowed in American consciousness by events in Ukraine, as well as economic problems. As a result, North Korean issues have been put on the backburner in Biden’s policy.

On September 22, the Institute for Peace and Unification Studies at Seoul National University released the results of a poll showing that 92.5% of respondents are convinced that North Korea will not give up its nuclear weapons, which is the highest score ever.  55.5% were in favor of Seoul possessing its own nuclear weapons, the highest score on record as well. Compared to last year, there was a 10% increase.

It should be noted that the “arms control treaty” is what Pyongyang has demanded in past years. However, negotiating arms control is not an easy process for the US, as it would mean recognizing the North as a nuclear state and thus fundamentally changing US policy towards the DPRK, because Washington has always maintained that North Korea’s nuclear program is illegal and subject to United Nations sanctions.

Nevertheless, Russian experts, such as Aleksandr Zhebin, have repeatedly stressed that the West should accept reality and move on from talks on denuclearization to talks on arms control, given that the DPRK positions itself as a responsible state that adheres to the doctrine of nuclear non-proliferation. All attempts to find evidence of nuclear smuggling and/or technology (which was actively sought for the sake of the new stranglehold) were unsuccessful.

*

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.

Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia, the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Featured image is from NEO

U.S. Authorizes Firms to Provide Services to Russian Oil Trade

November 24th, 2022 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.

***

U.S. persons are allowed to provide certain services relating to the maritime transportation of Russian oil as long as said crude oil is purchased at or below the price cap expected to be announced shortly, according to new guidance from the U.S. Treasury. 

The new price cap policy guidance, issued late on Tuesday, sheds more light on the so-called price cap mechanism, how it will apply, and who will be affected. The guidance, as well as several general licenses for certain exemptions, were issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control less than two weeks before the EU embargo on imports of Russian crude oil by sea and the price cap on Russian oil enters into force on December 5.

While considering the parameters of the price cap, the U.S. Treasury already issued at the end of October guidance that says Russian crude oil loaded onto a vessel at the port of loading for maritime transport prior to December 5 will not be subject to the price cap if the oil is unloaded at the port of destination before January 19, 2023.

In several general licenses issued this week, the U.S. Treasury authorized certain transactions related to the imports of Russian oil into Bulgaria, Croatia, or landlocked European Union member states. This aligns the U.S. licensing and sanctions regime with the EU embargo which, at its adoption in June, issued a special temporary derogation to Bulgaria, because of its geographical exposure, to continue importing crude oil and petroleum products via maritime transport until the end of 2024.

Another EU derogation that the U.S. also authorizes is “As of 5 December 2022 for a landlocked EU Member State, if the supply of crude oil by pipeline from Russia is interrupted for reasons outside the control of that EU Member State, for seaborne crude oil from Russia … to be imported into that EU Member State, until the supply is resumed or until the Council of the EU decides to terminate this exemption with regard to that EU Member State, whichever is the earliest.”

*

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 New York Times has in an extremely rare moment (or perhaps more like unprecedented) conducted an in-depth visual investigation of a likely war crime against surrendered Russian troops conducted by Ukrainian forces. Multiple videos from different angles, including drone footage, emerged last week showing the incredibly disturbing scenes as Ukrainian forces were recapturing the village of Makiivka in the Luhansk region. 

The videos show ten apparently unarmed Russian soldiers lying facedown on the ground, who early on are seen moving and in a position of surrender as at least four Ukrainian troops stand nearby outside of a house in a farmyard.

By the end of the footage, eleven Russians had been shot dead at close range, in what Russia says was a summary execution of people who at that point (based on their surrender) effectively become non-combatants based on accepted international laws of war.

The Russian Defense Ministry has said the videos confirm “deliberate and methodical murder” of its soldiers by the Ukrainian side, also with the Russian Foreign Ministry calling the act “merciless” and “shocking”.

Surprisingly, the videos were initially made public by Ukrainian news sources and soldiers themselves, and were shared widely on social media, as they purportedly showed the ‘heroism’ of Ukrainian soldiers as they clawed back territory in eastern Ukraine.

But The New York Times described, “The videos show the grisly before-and-after scenes of the encounter earlier this month, in which at least 11 Russians, most of whom are seen lying on the ground, appear to have been shot dead at close range after one of their fellow fighters suddenly opened fire on Ukrainian soldiers standing nearby.”

The United Nations has called for a formal investigation into the videos, with a statement from the UN Human Rights Office quoted in Reuters saying, “We are aware of the videos, and we are looking into them.”

“Allegations of summary executions of people hors de combat should be promptly, fully and effectively investigated, and any perpetrators held to account,” the statement continued, in reference to people legally designated “outside of combat”.

The Times report details the sequence of events beginning as follows:

One soldier, with his rifle drawn, tentatively approaches the structure where the Russian soldiers are sheltering. The soldier with the machine gun provides cover. Several gunshots are heard — though it’s not clear from where — and the soldier slowly backs away from an outhouse, drawing out the Russian soldiers at gunpoint.

The report comments that soon after the Russian soldiers emerge from the building, it is clear that an orderly surrender has taken place, with many of the prone Russian solders moving around on the ground after giving up their arms, clearly alive.

But soon after the entire scene turns to carnage:

Two of the Ukrainians standing by appear to be relaxed and are pointing their rifles toward the ground…

As an 11th Russian soldier emerges from the outhouse, he opens fire, aiming at one of the Ukrainian soldiers. The Ukrainians are taken by surprise. The cellphone camera jolts away as the Ukrainian soldier filming the scene flinches. A frame-by-frame analysis of what happens next shows the Ukrainian soldier standing beside him raise his rifle and aim toward the Russian gunman.

By the time the dust settles, all of the Russian soldiers – and not just the gunman who emerged from the outhouse – lie dead, apparently shot in the head at close range, pools of blood forming around them.

“The video ends and it’s unclear what happens next. But a second aerial video of the location shows the bloody aftermath,” the NYT writes. “The Russian soldiers are lying motionless, apparently dead, most of them positioned as they were when they surrendered. Blood is pooling around them, and some appear to be bleeding from the upper body or head. The soldiers are dressed in the same uniforms with the distinctive red straps and blue marking.”

Screenshot/Twitter: Just prior to being shown deceased, the captured Russian soldiers were ordered to lie face down on the ground.

The footage, as well as the NY Times’ confirmation of the event, is now going viral inside Russia, causing fury and an angry denunciations, while at the same time Ukrainian officials have suggested the initial surrender had been “staged” by the Russian side in order to set a trap for the Ukrainian soldiers. Kiev has rejected the charges of war crimes from Moscow.

Russia has consistently complained that the West routinely ignores clear evidence of Ukrainian war crimes, while only putting Russian forces under the microscope. This NY Times investigation is an almost unprecedented moment where the “paper of record” is actually hinting that the Kremlin has a valid point.

*

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.

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.

***

One month ago, weeks before the crypto sector was shaken by the crushing FTX bankrun which led to a quick and painful bankruptcy, and revealed that one of the world’s biggest crypto exchanges and its “JPMorgan-esque” owner were nothing but hollow shells of fraud, another bank was suffering from a far bigger bank run.

Readers will recall that in mid-October we reported that the Fed was quietly wiring increasingly greater dollar amounts to the Swiss National Bank – which eventually peaked at around $11 billion weekly – which in turn was then using these dollar swap lines to plug USD funding holes within one or more Swiss commercial banks.

One didn’t need to be a rocket surgeon to figure out that the bank in question was Credit Suisse, which had seen its stock tumble amid a relentless barrage of scandals, corporate mistakes and the occasional fraud (that we know of), and which we said was likely suffering from a painful behind-the-scenes bank run.

Fast forward one month, when this morning the 2nd largest Swiss bank confirmed our worst-case speculation, admitting that it had just gone through a staggering bank run in which clients pulled as much as 84 billion Swiss francs, or $88.3 billion, of their money from the bank during the first few weeks of the quarter, underlining ongoing concerns over the bank’s restructuring efforts after years of scandals.

Of course, as FTX learned the hard way, bank runs don’t have a happy ending, and the Zurich-based bank warned on Wednesday that it will face a loss of up to 1.5 billion Swiss francs ($1.6 billion) for the three final months of the year, in large part as a result of the decline in wealth and asset management client funds from the start of October to Nov. 11. That, according to Bloomberg, is the worst exodus since the financial crisis.

The outflows were especially acute at the key wealth management unit, where they amounted to 10% of assets under management. While they have been “reduced substantially from the elevated levels of the first two weeks of October 2022,” they have yet to reverse, the bank said.

This means that just as we expected, the massive dollar swap lines were being used by the SNB to provide Credit Suisse with much needed, critical funding; had the funds not arrived, Credit Suisse would likely have liquidated!

The client withdrawals contrast with inflows at rival wealth managers in recent months. AT UBS Group AG, investors added more than $17 billion to the wealth management unit in the third quarter. Julius Baer Group Ltd. said on Monday that it saw a “clear improvement” in new money flows since the end of June, with wealthy clients adding a net 4.1 billion francs in the four months through October.

“The massive net outflows in Wealth Management, CS’s core business alongside the Swiss Bank, are deeply concerning — even more so as they have not yet reversed,” said Andreas Venditti, banking analyst at Bank Vontobel AG in Zurich. “Credit Suisse needs to restore trust as fast as possible – but that is easier said than done.”

Analysts at JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Jefferies said the wealth-management outflows were much worse than expected, and warned that bank wasn’t out of the woods. Ethos Foundation, a proxy advisor, said more steps may be needed to restore investor confidence than the bank has so far outlined.

“Cutting cost is one thing but growing the business is another one,” Vincent Kaufmann, Chief Executive Officer of Ethos, said on Bloomberg TV. “Maybe they can do both, but it remains to be seen.”

Besides the massive bank run which has drained the bank’s capital, the Zurich-based bank said it expects losses in both the wealth management division and its investment banking unit due to “subdued activity, market conditions, continued outflows of customer assets and the sale of non-core businesses.”

The bank’s grim outlook underscores the urgency for the bank’s latest (and soon to be former) Chairman Axel Lehmann to put Credit Suisse on a sustainable footing again through a sweeping overhaul that will see its investment bank carved up and greater focus placed on private banking. Shareholders on Wednesday approved a capital raise of about 4 billion francs that’s needed to finance the restructuring, which will also see about 9,000 jobs cut by 2025.

“Credit Suisse is on an important journey,” Lehmann said in a speech posted on the lender’s website. “We will work to rebuild and refocus this proud 166-year-old Swiss institution with global reach.”

The market was not as optimistic, and Credit Suisse tumbled more than 5%, crashing to a new record low.

In conclusion, the dismal Credit Suisse news provides a handy comparison between the fiat and crypto regimes:

  • FTX was hit with record bank run, and filed for bankruptcy in days, with no central bank to bail it out.
  • Credit Suisse hit with record bank run, and both the SNB and Fed rushed to bail it out.

One wonders which system is a better representation of what true capitalism should be like…

*

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: Credit Suisse, Paradeplatz in Zürich (Switzerland) (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Credit Suisse Craters to Record Low After Revealing Staggering $88 Billion Bank Run
  • 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.

***

France’s ex US Ambassador Gérard Araud criticized Washington for frequently violating international law and said its so-called “rules-based order” is an unfair “Western order” based on “hegemony.” He condemned the new cold war on China, instead calling for mutual compromises.

France’s former ambassador to the United States, Gérard Araud, has publicly criticized Washington, saying it frequently violates international law and that its so-called “rules-based order” is actually an unfair “Western order.”

The top French diplomat warned that the United States is engaged in “economic warfare” against China, and that Europe is concerned about Washington’s “containment policy,” because many European countries do not want to be forced to “choose a camp” in a new cold war.

Araud condemned US diplomats for insisting that Washington must always be the “leader” of the world, and stressed that the West should work with other countries in the Global South, “on an equal basis,” in order “to find a compromise with our own interests.”

He cautioned against making “maximalist” demands, “of simply trying to keep the Western hegemony.”

Araud made these remarks in a November 14 panel discussion titled “Is America Ready for a Multipolar World?“, hosted by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a think tank in Washington, DC that advocates for a more restrained, less bellicose foreign policy.

Gérard Araud’s credentials could hardly be any more elite. A retired senior French diplomat, he served as the country’s ambassador to the United States from 2014 to 2019. From 2009 to 2014, he was Paris’ representative to the United Nations.

Before that, Araud served as France’s ambassador to Israel, and he previously worked with NATO.

He was also appointed as a “senior distinguished fellow” at the Atlantic Council, NATO’s notoriously belligerent think tank in Washington.

This blue-blooded background makes Araud’s frank comments even more important, as they reflect the feelings of a segment of the French ruling class and European political class, which is uncomfortable with Washington’s unipolar domination and wants power to be more decentralized in the world.

The ‘rules-based order’ is actually just a ‘Western order’

In a shockingly blunt moment in the panel discussion, Gérard Araud explained that the so-called “rules-based order” is actually just a “Western order,” and that the United States and Europe unfairly dominate international organizations like the United Nations, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund (IMF):

To be frank, I’ve always been extremely skeptical about this idea of a ‘rules-based order.’

Personally, for instance, look, I was the permanent representative to the United Nations. We love the United Nations, but the Americans not too much, you know.

And actually when you look at the hierarchy of the United Nations, everybody there is ours. The Secretary General [António Guterres] is Portuguese. He was South Korean [Ban Ki-moon]. But when you look at all the under secretaries general, all of them really are either American, French, British, and so on. When you look at the World Bank, when you look at the IMF, and so on.

So that’s the first element: this order is our order.

And the second element is also that, actually, this order is reflecting the balance of power in 1945. You know, you look at the permanent members of the Security Council.

Really people forget that, if China and Russia are obliged to oppose [with] their veto, it is because frankly the Security Council is most of the time, 95% of the time, has a Western-oriented majority.

So this order frankly – and you can also be sarcastic, because, when the Americans basically want to do whatever they want, including when it’s against international law, as they define it, they do it.

And that’s the vision that the rest of the world has of this order.

You know really, when I was in – the United Nations is a fascinating spot, because you have ambassadors of all the countries, and you can have conversations with them, and the vision they project of the world, their vision of the world, is certainly not a ‘rules-based order’; it’s a Western order.

And they accuse us of double standards, hypocrisy, and so on and so on.

So I’m not sure that this question about the ‘rules’ is really the critical question.

I think the first assessment that we should do will be maybe, as we say in French, to put ourselves in the shoes of the other side, to try to understand how they see the world.

Araud argued that if the international community is serious about creating a “rules-based order,” it must entail “integrating all the major stakeholders into the managing of the world, you know really bringing the Chinese, the Indians, and really other countries, and trying to build with them, on an equal basis, the world of tomorrow.”

“That’s the only way,” he added. “We should really ask the Indians, ask the Chinese, the Brazilians, and other countries, really to work with us on an equal basis. And that’s something – it’s not only the Americans, also the Westerners, you know, really trying to get out of our moral high ground, and to understand that they have their own interests, that on some issues we should work together, on other issues we shouldn’t work together.”

“Let’s not try to rebuild the Fortress West,” he implored. “It shouldn’t be the future of our foreign policy.”

French diplomat criticizes US new cold war on China

Gérard Araud revealed that, in Europe, there is “concern” that the United States has a “containment policy” against China.

“I think the international relationship will be largely dominated by the rivalry between China and the United States. And foreign policy I think in the coming years will be to find the modus vivendi … between the two powers,” he said.

He warned that Washington is engaged in “economic warfare” against Beijing, that the US is trying “basically to cut any relationship with China in the field of advanced chips, which is sending a message of, ‘We are going to try to prevent you from becoming an advanced economy.’ It’s really, it’s economic warfare.”

“Really on the American side is the development of economic warfare against China. It’s really cutting, making impossible cooperation in a very important, critical field, for the future of the Chinese economy,” he added.

Araud pointed out that China is not just “emerging”; it is in fact “re-emerging” to a prominent geopolitical position, like it had for hundreds of years, before the rise of European colonialism.

He stressed that many countries in Asia don’t want to be forced to pick a side in this new cold war, and are afraid of becoming a zone of proxy conflicts like Europe was in the first cold war:

Asia doesn’t want to be the Europe of the Cold War. They don’t want to have a bamboo curtain. They don’t want to choose their camp.

Australia has chosen its camp, but it’s a particular case. But Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, they don’t want to choose their camp, and we shouldn’t demand they choose their camp.

So we need to have a flexible policy of talking to the Chinese, because talking is also a way of reassuring them, trying to understand their interests, also to define our interests not in a maximalist way, of simply trying to keep the Western hegemony.

Araud challenged the idea that the United States must be the unipolar “leader” of the world, stating:

The Americans entered the world, in a sense, being already the big boy on the block. In 1945, it was 40% of the world’s GDP.

Which also may explain what is American diplomacy. The word of American diplomats, the word of American diplomacy is ‘leadership.’

Really, it’s always striking for foreigners, as soon as there is a debate about American foreign policy, immediately people say, ‘We have to restore our leadership.’ Leadership. And other countries may say, ‘Why leadership?’

West must ‘try to see the world from Beijing’

Gérard Araud similarly criticized Western media outlets for their cartoonishly negative coverage of China. The top French diplomat called on officials to “try to see the world from Beijing”:

When you look at the European or Western newspapers, you have the impression that China is a sort of a dark monster which is moving forward, never committing a mistake, never really facing any problem, and going to the domination of the world – you know, the Chinese work 20 hours a day, they don’t want a vacation, they don’t care, they want to dominate the world.

Maybe that if we will try to see the world from Beijing, really we will consider certainly that all the borders of China are more or less unstable, or threatened, or facing unfriendly countries, and that’s from the Chinese point of view.

Maybe they want to improve their situation. It doesn’t mean that we have to accept it, but maybe to see, to remember, that any defensive measure of one side is always seen as offensive by the other side.

So let’s understand that China has its own interests. You know, even dictatorships have legitimate interests. And so let’s look at these interests, and let’s try to find a compromise with our own interests.

Araud went on to point out that the US government is constantly militarily threatening China, sending warships across the planet to its coasts, but would never for a second tolerate Beijing doing the same to it:

When I was in Washington, just after the [hawkish anti-China] speech of Vice President Pence to the Hudson [Institute] in October 2018, I met a lot of specialists on China in Washington, DC, but when I was trying to tell them, you know, your [US] ships are patrolling at 200 miles from the Chinese coast, at 5000 miles from the American coast, what would be your reaction if Chinese ships were patrolling at 200 miles from your coast?

And obviously my interlocutors didn’t understand what I meant. And that’s the question, you know, really trying to figure out what are the reasonable interests of the other side.

Araud stressed that China “is not a military threat” to the West.

French diplomat: Western sanctions on Russia are causing us to ‘inflict pain on ourselves’

With this new cold war between the United States and China, Gérard Araud explained, “in this context, Russia is a bit like Austria-Hungary with Germany before the First World War, is a bit doomed to be the ‘brilliant second’ of China.”

While Araud harshly denounced Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, he also criticized the Western sanctions on Moscow, which he cautioned, “on the European side, it is inflicting to ourselves some pain.”

He warned that Europe is in a “dead end” with Russia, “because as long as the war in Ukraine will go on, and my bet unfortunately is that it may go on for a long time, it will be impossible for the Europeans, and the Americans in a sense, but also for the Europeans to end the sanctions on Russia, which means that our relationship with Russia may be frozen for an indefinite future.”

“And I think it’s very difficult to have diplomatic activity [with Russia] in this situation,” he added.

You can watch the full panel discussion hosted by the Quincy Institute below:

*

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: France’s Ambassador to the US Gérard Araud with President Barack Obama in the White House in 2016 (Source: Multipolarista)

Lebanon Still Faces Multiple Crises

November 24th, 2022 by Michael Jansen

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.

***

Jibran Bassil, who heads Lebanon’s Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), has been told by its ally Hizbollah the group will not support him for the presidency and will, instead, continue to back the candidacy of Suleiman Frangie. Kuwait daily Al Rai reported, Hizbollah “has sent Bassil unequivocal signals that it will not back his own nomination under any circumstances although it is keen on preserving the political alliance with him”.

The alliance with the Maronite Christian FPM is important to both Shia Hizbollah and Amal, as it gives them a Christian ally and a total of 47 seats in the 128-member Lebanese parliament. However, the faction which lost most seats in the May 15th legislative election was the FPM, which shed 12 of the 29 seats it obtained in the 2009 election. This made the FPM the second largest party after the right-wing Lebanese Forces.

Al-Rai cited an informed source who said that, in Hizbollah’s view, Bassil has an “unhidden desire to prepare the circumstances for his own presidential nomination [which involves] prolonging [the current] vacuum and eliminating those who have the best chances”.

Hezbollah, Al Rai said, is also “open to consensus on any other name which might enjoy broad domestic, international and Arab support, seeing as it wants to create an atmosphere that would allow for international-Gulf involvement in Lebanon’s revival process” once assurances are provided to the movement over retaining its weaponry. Frangie has given such a commitment, stating that Hizbollah’s weapons “do not need my cover or protection”. Presumably because there is no paramilitary force in Lebanon to challenge these weapons while the Lebanese army would not do so.

Former minister Wiam Wahhab has revealed that Hizbollah is also holding discussions with army chief Joseph Aoun whose name has been repeatedly mentioned as a successor to ex President Michel Aoun (who is not a relative of the general).

Parliament is set to hold a seventh session today with the aim of electing a president by majority vote. This will be the third since the former president left office at the end of October. Parliamentary speaker Nabih Berri has been criticised for repeatedly convening the national assembly while deeply divided factions cannot agree on a consensus candidate. It could take months before this is achieved while the country suffers economic collapse and 80 per cent of the population lives below the poverty line.

Since Lebanon’s parliament has in the past repeatedly failed to elect a president, this is not an unusual occurrence. Lebanon was without a president for 30 months before Aoun was chosen. However, the current situation leaves the country in a vacuum, facing multiple political, economic and social crises without a president, without a fully empowered government, and without a functioning legislature.

Caretaker prime minister Najib Mikati has declared support for Frangie, grandson of a former president, whose Marada movement has only two seats in parliament. According to Beirut daily Al Akbar France and Saudi Arabia have indicated they could accept Frangie while the US has rejected Bassil. He has been sanctioned for corruption and connections with Hizbollah, which Washington has accused of being a “terrorist” organisation because of its opposition to Israel.

Deadlock persists because Aoun appears to be supporting the strategy adopted by Bassil, his son-in-law, for securing the nomination by wearing down and wearing out parliament. Since May, when Mikati was compelled to become caretaker premier due to the parliamentary election, Aoun rebuffed every attempt he made, as premier designate, to form a government. A caretaker Cabinet cannot take major policy decisions and a caretaker prime minister cannot assume the presidency once the incumbent has stepped down and there is no replacement. Former Prime Minister Tammam Salam stepped into the role of acting president from May 2014 to October 2016 when Aoun was elected.

Meanwhile, there is some good news from Lebanon. Its vaccination campaign against cholera has inoculated 190,000 people, most between five and 14 years of age, reported caretaker Health Minister Firass Abiad. This is far above expectations in the drive to prevent cholera’s spread throughout the country. Some 600,000 doses of vaccine have been received by Lebanon where at least 18 people have died among 3,369 cases registered by the ministry since early October. The disease crossed the border from war and sanction devastated Syria where the UN’s children’s agency has reported 35,569 cases.

Following the US-brokered deal defining the maritime border between Lebanon and Israel, France’s Total and its partner Italy’s Eni announced they will soon begin exploration for natural gas in Lebanon’s Qana field. High yields could eventually help Lebanon overcome its financial crisis and encourage potential donors and investors to provide funding.

The American University of Beirut (AUB) founded by US missionaries in 1866, has been ranked top university in sustainable education in the region and 140th of 700 on the world scene, tying with prestigious Princeton in the US. The AUB has had a huge impact on the Arab world by educating generations of young people and providing independence leaders, presidents, prime ministers, doctors, scientists, literary figures, entrepreneurs and environmentalists.

*

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 OneWorld

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Lebanon Still Faces Multiple Crises
  • 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 White House on Nov. 22 announced “new enforcement guidance” on COVID-19 vaccine mandates for nursing home residents and staff.

It announced “new enforcement guidance to ensure nursing homes are offering updated COVID-19 vaccines and timely treatment to their residents and staff,” according to a White House fact sheet released on Nov. 22. It stated that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) still requires “nursing homes to educate their residents” on COVID-19 vaccines and offer vaccines to residents.

“CMS will issue guidance today reminding health care providers of this requirement,” the fact sheet reads. “In its guidance, CMS will make clear that nursing homes with low vaccination rates will be referred to state survey agencies for close scrutiny, and that facilities that do not comply with the requirement to offer and educate on the benefit of lifesaving COVID-19 vaccinations will face enforcement actions, including the need to submit corrective action plans to achieve compliance.”

The White House didn’t elaborate on what “enforcement actions” it would implement. However, in the fall of 2021, President Joe Biden’s administration announced vaccine mandates for facilities that receive Medicaid or Medicare funding—along with a now-scrapped rule that would force workers at companies with 100 or more employees to get the vaccine.

CMS officials didn’t respond to a request by The Epoch Times for comment by press time regarding what penalties health care providers may encounter.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will ask “governors for their assistance and partnership in increasing COVID vaccination rates for long-term care residents and highlight for them how their states are performing against their peers,” according to the White House.

Corporate and government COVID-19 vaccine mandates have largely fallen out of favor in recent months amid falling COVID-19 numbers. Tyson Foods, the largest meat company by sales in the United States, confirmed last week that it dropped its mandate, while a New York judge tossed New York’s mandate for city employees in October.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated in 2021 that the requirement covers 10.4 million health care workers at 76,000 facilities.

Mandate

The vaccine requirement for Medicare and Medicaid providers was one of several mandates Biden’s administration imposed upon private-sector employers to try to drive up vaccination rates. The rule impacted doctors, nurses, aides, technicians, and even volunteers at hospitals, nursing homes, outpatient surgery centers, home-health providers, and other medical facilities that get Medicaid or Medicare funding.

The Supreme Court blocked a rule requiring employers with more than 100 workers to be vaccinated or tested weekly for COVID-19. A lower court also blocked a requirement for employees of federal contractors to be vaccinated.

Over the months, Biden’s various vaccine orders were challenged in court by Republican-led states, conservative groups, and some businesses. The lawsuits argued in part that the mandates exceeded federal executive powers and infringed on states’ rights to regulate public health matters.

About two dozen states recently asked (pdf) HHS and CMS to end its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers. Led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, 22 state attorneys general argued that the current policy is outdated and noted that vaccines don’t protect against COVID-19 infections.

“The mandate has limited many patients’ access to needed medical care and imposed substantial costs on patients and health care workers without any corresponding benefits. The Biden administration should have never imposed this mandate, and CMS should now throw it in the trash bin where it belongs,” Knudsen, a Republican, said in a statement.

Further, the states asserted that the CMS mandate led to widespread staffing shortages at health care facilities and limited patients’ access to medical care. CMS and HHS officials didn’t respond to a request for comment on the letter.

Earlier this year, CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said vaccine mandates hadn’t led to significant shortages, although she didn’t provide evidence.

“We have seen that healthcare systems that implement vaccine requirements are not experiencing dramatic staff losses,” Brooks-LaSure said in a letter (pdf) in February to health care facilities. “Vaccinated staff are instead more available to work since they are less likely to get sick.”

On Nov. 11, a spokesperson for HHS said the Biden administration will keep its COVID-19 emergency intact when the current emergency expires in January 2023 after a 60-day deadline passed. The spokesperson said the emergency “remains in effect and as HHS committed to earlier, we will provide a 60-day notice to states before any possible termination or expiration.”

A number of individual states, including ones run by Democrats, have dropped their respective states of emergency and some mandates in recent days. For example, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, announced that his state’s public health emergency ended on Oct. 31.

*

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 Associated Press contributed to this report.

Jack Phillips is a breaking news reporter at The Epoch Times based in New York.

Featured image: A hospital corpsman administers a COVID-19 vaccine to a fellow corpsman at Naval Health Clinic Hawaii on Dec. 16, 2020. (Naval Health Clinic Hawaii)


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 White House Announces ‘New Enforcement Guidance’ on COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.\

First published on 22 July 2021

Updated

***

Early in the Covid-19 pandemic Michel Chossudovsky recognized how this was being deliberately engineered to be The Most Devastating Crisis in Human History.

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.

August 2022: Michel Chossudovsky’s E Book (15 Chapters):

The Worldwide Corona Crisis: Global Coup d’État against Humanity

.

Watch the interview below, Vaccine Choice Canada

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Planet Lockdown. The Most Devastating Crisis in Modern History: Prof. Michel Chossudovsky
  • Tags: , ,

Washington’s Plan to Break Up Russia

November 24th, 2022 by Mike Whitney

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

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

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

First published on November 6, 2022

***

“The Western goal is to weaken, divide and ultimately destroy our nation. They are openly stating that, since they managed to break up the Soviet Union in 1991, now it’s time to split Russia into many separate regions that will be at each other’s throats.” Russian President Vladimir Putin

“Cheney ‘wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat to the rest of the world.’...The West must complete the project that began in 1991 …. Until Moscow’s empire is toppled, though, the region—and the world—will not be safe…” (“Decolonize Russia”, The Atlantic)

Washington’s animus towards Russia has a long history dating back to 1918 when Woodrow Wilson deployed over 7,000 troops to Siberia as part of an Allied effort to roll back the gains of the Bolshevik Revolution. The activities of the American Expeditionary Force, which remained in the country for 18 months, have long vanished from history books in the US, but Russians still point to the incident as yet another example of America’s relentless intervention in the affairs of its neighbors. The fact is, Washington elites have always meddled in Russia’s business despite Moscow’s strong objections. In fact, a great number western elites not only think that Russia should be split-up into smaller geographical units, but that the Russian people should welcome such an outcome.

Western leaders in the Anglosphere are so consumed by hubris and their own blinkered sense of entitlement, they honestly believe that ordinary Russians would like to see their country splintered into bite-sized statelets that remain open to the voracious exploitation of the western oil giants, mining corporations and, of course, the Pentagon. Here’s how Washington’s geopolitical mastermind Zbigniew Brzezinski summed it up an article in Foreign Affairs:

“Given (Russia’s) size and diversity, a decentralized political system and free-market economics would be most likely to unleash the creative potential of the Russian people and Russia’s vast natural resources. A loosely confederated Russia — composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic — would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic relations with its neighbors. Each of the confederated entitles would be able to tap its local creative potential, stifled for centuries by Moscow’s heavy bureaucratic hand. In turn, a decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski, “A Geostrategy for Eurasia”, Foreign Affairs, 1997)

The “loosely confederated Russia”, that Brzezinski imagines, would be a toothless, dependent nation that could not defend its own borders or sovereignty. It would not be able to prevent more powerful countries from invading, occupying and establishing military bases on its soil. Nor would it be able to unify its disparate people beneath a single banner or pursue a positive “unified” vision for the future of the country. A confederal Russia –fragmented into a myriad of smaller parts– would allow the US to maintain its dominant role in the region without threat of challenge or interference. And that appears to be Brzezinski’s real goal as he pointed out in this passage in his magnum opus The Grand Chessboard. Here’s what he said:

“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia…and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” (“THE GRAND CHESSBOARD – American Primacy And It’s Geostrategic Imperatives”, Zbigniew Brzezinski, page 30, Basic Books, 1997)

Brzezinski sums up US imperial ambitions succinctly. Washington plans to establish its primacy in the world’s most prosperous and populous region, Eurasia. And–in order to do so– Russia must be decimated and partitioned, its leaders must be toppled and replaced, and its vast resources must be transferred to the iron grip of global transnationals who will use them to perpetuate the flow of wealth from east to west. In other words, Moscow must accept its humble role in the new order as America’s de-facto Gas and Mining Company.

Washington has never really veered from its aim of obliterating the Russian state, in fact, the recently released National Security Strategy (NSS) along with a congressional report titled “Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress”, confirm much of what we have said here, that the US plans to crush any emerging opposition to its expansion into Central Asia in order to become the dominant player in that region. Here’s an excerpt from the congressional report:

The U.S. goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia, though long-standing, is not written in stone—it is a policy choice reflecting two judgments: (1) that given the amount of people, resources, and economic activity in Eurasia, a regional hegemon in Eurasia would represent a concentration of power large enough to be able to threaten vital U.S. interests; and (2) that Eurasia is not dependably self-regulating in terms of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons, meaning that the countries of Eurasia cannot be counted on to be able to prevent, though their own actions, the emergence of regional hegemons, and may need assistance from one or more countries outside Eurasia to be able to do this dependably.” (“Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress”, US Congress)

How different is this new iteration of official US foreign policy than the so-called Wolfowitz Doctrine that was delivered prior to the War in Iraq. Here it is:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

As you can see, there has been no meaningful change in the policy since Wolfowitz articulated his doctrine nearly 2 decades ago. The US foreign policy establishment still resolutely asserts Washington’s right to dominate Central Asia and to regard any competitor in the region as national security threat. This is further underscored by the fact that both Russia and China have been identified in the latest National Security Strategy as “strategic competitors” which is a deep-state euphemism for mortal enemies. Check out this excerpt from an article titled “Partitioning Russia After World War III?”:

The end goal of the US and NATO is to divide and pacify the world’s biggest country, the Russian Federation, and to even establish a blanket of perpetual disorder (somalization) over its vast territory or, at a minimum, over a portion of Russia and the post-Soviet space…

The ultimate goal of the US is to prevent any alternatives from emerging in Europe and Eurasia to Euro-Atlantic integration. This is why the destruction of Russia is one of its strategic objectives….

Redrawing Eurasia: Washington’s Maps of a Divided Russia

With the division of the Russian Federation, (the) article claims that any bipolar rivalry between Moscow and Washington would end after World War III. In a stark contradiction, it claims that only when Russia is destroyed will there be a genuine multipolar world, but also implies that the US will be the most dominant global power even though Washington and the European Union will be weakened from the anticipated major war with the Russians.” (“Partitioning Russia after World War 3”, Global Research)

Washington’s relations with Russia have always been contentious but that has more to do with Washington’s geostrategic ambitions than any disruptive behavior on Moscow’s part. Russia’s only crime is that happens to occupy real estate in a part of the world the US wants to control by any means necessary. When Hillary Clinton first announced US plans to “pivot to Asia” most people thought it sounded like a reasonable scheme for shifting resources from the Middle East to Asia in order to increase US participation in the world’s fastest growing market. They didn’t realize at the time, that policymakers intended to goad Russia into a bloody ground-war in Ukraine to “weaken” Russia so that Washington could spread its military bases across the Eurasian landmass unopposed. Nor did anyone foresee the lengths to which Washington would go to provoke, isolate and demonize Russia for the express purpose of removing its political leaders and splitting the country into multiple statlets. Here’s Hillary making the case back in 2011:

“Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests… Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology…..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia…

The region already generates more than half of global output and nearly half of global trade…. we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia…and our investment opportunities in Asia’s dynamic markets.”(“America’s Pacific Century”, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton”, Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)

A careful reading of Clinton’s speech along with a review of the Wolfowitz Doctrine will help even the most obtuse reader to draw some obvious conclusions about the current conflict in Ukraine which has almost nothing to do with so-called “Russian aggression”, but everything to do with Washington’s plan to project power across Asia , control Russia’s massive oil and gas reserves, encircle China with military bases, and establish American domination at the epicenter of this century’s most prosperous market. Here’s Putin again:

“In order to free itself from the latest web of challenges, they need to dismantle Russia as well as other states that choose a sovereign path of development, at all costs, to be able to further plunder other nations’ wealth and use it to patch their own holes. If this does not happen, I cannot rule out that they will try to trigger a collapse of the entire system, and blame everything on that, or, God forbid, decide to use the old formula of economic growth through war.”

US foreign policy experts are shameless in their promotion of theories that threaten to trigger a direct military confrontation with Russia that could result in a nuclear exchange. In a recent “webinar for congressmen and women hosted on June 23 under the title “Decolonizing Russia.” The webinar, staffed by CIA operatives and right-wing nationalists from Ukraine and the Caucasus, effectively argued that Russia was a colonial empire that had to be broken up with the support of Washington.” (WSWS) The author explores the reasons why some experts want to brand Russia as “imperialist”? An article at the WSWS explains why:

...”the claim that Russia is “imperialist” serves a vital political function: It provides a political cover for the imperialist aggression against Russia and the war aims of the imperialist powers…. It is this strategy which the pro-NATO pseudo-left covers up for with its clamor about “Russian imperialism.” The fostering of nationalist, regionalist and ethnic tensions has been a key component of imperialist war policy for decades…..

Through a combination of NATO expansion, coups on its borders and military interventions in countries allied with Russia and China, the imperialist powers have systematically and relentlessly encircled Russia…

Indeed, if one reviews the history of the wars waged by US imperialism over the past thirty years, the unfolding war for the carve-up of Russia and China appears like a brutal inevitability. Despite their reintegration into the world capitalist system, the imperialist powers have been barred by the ruling oligarchic regimes from directly plundering the vast resources of these countries. Vying for these resources between themselves, and driven by irresolvable domestic crises, they are now determined to change this.

… the draft resolution describes the basic aims of the US war against Russia as follows: “the removal of the present regime in Russia, its replacement by an American-controlled puppet, and the breakup of Russia itself—in what is referred to as “decolonizing Russia”—into a dozen or more impotent statelets whose valuable resources will be owned and exploited by US and European finance capital.” This passage is central for understanding both the unfolding conflict and the politics of the pro-NATO pseudo-left and their insistence that Russia is an “imperialist country.” (“The historical and political principles of the socialist opposition to imperialist war and the Putin regime“, Clara Weiss, World Socialist Web Site)

As you can see, elite members of the foreign policy establishment are doggedly searching for new and more convincing justifications for a confrontation with Russia the ultimate purpose of which is to fragment the country paving the way for Washington’s strategic rebalancing or “pivot”. 20 years ago, during the Bush administration, politicians were not nearly as circumspect in their views about Russia. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, for example, made no attempt to conceal his utter contempt for Russia and was surprisingly candid about the policy he supported. Check out this excerpt from an article by Ben Norton:

Former US Vice President Dick Cheney, a lead architect of the Iraq War, not only wanted to dismantle the Soviet Union; he also wanted to break up Russia itself, to prevent it from rising again as a significant political power…. Former US Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote that, “When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, Dick wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat.”…

The fact that a figure at the helm of the US government not-so-secretly sought the permanent dissolution of Russia as a country, and straightforwardly communicated this to colleagues like Robert Gates, partially explains the aggressive posturing Washington has taken toward the Russian Federation since the overthrow of the USSR.

The reality is that the US empire will simply never allow Russia to challenge its unilateral domination of Eurasia, despite the fact that the government in Moscow restored capitalism. This is why it is not surprising that Washington has utterly ignored Russia’s security concerns, breaking its promise not to expand NATO “once inch eastward” after German reunification, surrounding Moscow with militarized adversaries hell bent on destabilizing it.

Russian security services have published evidence that the United States supported Chechen separatists in their wars on the central Russian government. British academic John Laughland stressed in a 2004 article in The Guardian, titled “The Chechens’ American friends,” that several Chechen secessionist leaders were living in the West, and were even given grant money by the US government. Laughland noted that the most important US-based pro-Chechen secessionist group, the deceptively named American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC), listed as its members “a rollcall of the most prominent neoconservatives who so enthusiastically support the ‘war on terror’”:

They include Richard Perle, the notorious Pentagon adviser; Elliott Abrams of Iran-Contra fame; Kenneth Adelman, the former US ambassador to the UN who egged on the invasion of Iraq by predicting it would be “a cakewalk”; Midge Decter, biographer of Donald Rumsfeld and a director of the rightwing Heritage Foundation; Frank Gaffney of the militarist Centre for Security Policy; Bruce Jackson, former US military intelligence officer and one-time vice-president of Lockheed Martin, now president of the US Committee on Nato; Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, a former admirer of Italian fascism and now a leading proponent of regime change in Iran; and R James Woolsey, the former CIA director who is one of the leading cheerleaders behind George Bush’s plans to re-model the Muslim world along pro-US lines.

The fact that far-right Salafi-jihadists made up a significant percentage of the Chechen insurgency didn’t bother these anti-Muslim neocons – just as Islamophobic “War on Terror” veterans had no problem supporting extremist head-chopping Takfiri Islamists in the subsequent US wars on Syria and Libya….

…. Victoria Nuland, the third-most powerful official in the Joe Biden administration’s State Department, served as Vice President Cheney’s principal deputy foreign policy adviser from 2003 to 2005. (She also helped to sponsor the violent coup in Ukraine in 2014 that toppled the democratically-elected government.) Like her mentor Cheney, Nuland is a hard-line neoconservative. The fact that he is a Republican and she works primarily in Democratic administrations is irrelevant; this hawkish foreign-policy consensus is completely bipartisan.

Nuland (a former member of the bipartisan board of directors of the NED) is also married to Robert Kagan, a patron saint of neoconservatism, and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century – the cozy home of the neocons in Washington, where he worked alongside Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and other top Bush administration officials. Kagan was a longtime Republican, but in 2016 he joined the Democrats and openly campaigned for Hillary Clinton for president.” (“Ex VP Dick Cheney confirmed US goal is to break up Russia, not just USSR”, Ben Norton, Multipolarista)

US foreign policy is now exclusively in the hands of a small group of neocon extremists who reject diplomacy outright and who genuinely believe that America’s strategic interests can only be achieved through a military conflict with Russia. That said, we can say with some degree of certainty, that things are going to get alot worse before they get better.

*

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 Unz Review.

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.

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

Featured image is from The Unz Review

Selected Articles: Why Do Americans Hate Putin?

November 24th, 2022 by Global Research News

Why Do Americans Hate Putin?

By Mike Whitney, November 23, 2022

Is Carlson right, do Americans hate Putin because the media and the political class in Washington have told them to do so? Yes and no. Yes, the media and the politicians have played a big role in the demonization of Putin. But, no, they’re not the main drivers of this smear campaign.

“The COVID mRNA Vaccine Causes Cardiac Arrests, Heart Attacks, Strokes… : Leading British Cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra, and Dr. Peter McCullough Independently Come to Same Conclusion

By John Leake, November 24, 2022

Until the British cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra, expressed grave concern about the safety of Covid mRNA vaccines, he was one of the most celebrated doctors in Britain. In 2016 he was named in the Sunday Times Debrett’s list as one of the most influential people in science and medicine in the UK in a list that included Professor Stephen Hawking.

Where Has the DoDs Money Gone? The Pentagon Fails Its Fifth Audit. $3.5 Trillion in Assets, 39% of Which Are Accounted For…

By Connor Echols, November 23, 2022

The news came as no surprise to Pentagon watchers. After all, the U.S. military has the distinction of being the only U.S. government agency to have never passed a comprehensive audit.

Massachusetts Death Certificates Show Excess Mortality Could be Linked to COVID Vaccines

By Madhava Setty, November 23, 2022

After analyzing more than seven years of Massachusetts death certificates, independent investigator John Beaudoin, Sr., uncovered evidence that thousands of deaths in 2021 may have been linked to COVID-19 vaccines.

The WEF’s Digital Tyranny: “Are We Ready for a New World Order?” Cashless Society Talk Goes Mainstream in a Hurry and Should be Trusted Like the NSA

By David Haggith, November 23, 2022

We’re on the brink of a dramatic change where we’re about to — and I’ll say this boldly — we’re about to abandon the traditional system of money, and accounting, and introduce a new one…. The new accounting is what we call “blockchain.”

Israeli Military Chief Tells US to Step Up Planning for Joint Attacks on Iran

By Dave DeCamp, November 23, 2022

IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kohavi arrived in the US on Sunday and has been holding talks with high-level officials. So far this week, he has met with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and CIA Director William Burns.

All Western Attempts to Isolate Russia at G20 Failed

By Ahmed Adel, November 23, 2022

From November 15 to 16, the G20 Summit took place in Indonesia, and contrary to Western attempts, Russia was an active and welcomed participant. On the eve of the Summit, the US called for Russia to be isolated, however, what transpired in Bali instead did not live up to Washington’s expectations – the Russian delegation, led by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, was not abandoned despite all efforts and attempts.

COP27 Concludes While the Environmental Crisis Continues

By Abayomi Azikiwe, November 23, 2022

There were high expectations for the United Nations Climate Conference held in the Egyptian seaside resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh. COP27 took place on the African continent amid months of preparations by governments, non-governmental and mass organizations across the region and beyond.

From the History of WWII: A Genocide in Nazi Croatia

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, November 23, 2022

Due to the current conflict in (East) Ukraine (historically known as Russia Minor), the world is more and more becoming informed about the genocide of the Poles, Jews, and Russians on the territory of West Ukraine during WWII committed by Ukrainian Nazi-nationalists (the Banderists).

Cancel Culture’s War on History, Heritage and the Freedom to Think for Yourself

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, November 23, 2022

We are being shunted down the road to that dystopian future right now, propelled along by politically correct forces that, while they may have started out with the best of intentions, have fallen prey to the authoritarian siren song of the Nanny State, which has promised to save the populace from evils that only a select few are wise enough to recognize as such.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Why Do Americans Hate Putin?

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 Covid mRNA vaccine has likely played a significant role or been a primary cause of unexpected cardiac arrests, heart attacks, strokes, cardiac arrhythmias, and heart failure since 2021…”

Until the British cardiologist, Dr. Aseem Malhotra, expressed grave concern about the safety of Covid mRNA vaccines, he was one of the most celebrated doctors in Britain. In 2016 he was named in the Sunday Times Debrett’s list as one of the most influential people in science and medicine in the UK in a list that included Professor Stephen Hawking. His total Altmetric score (measure of impact and reach) of his medical journal publications since 2013 is over 10,000 making it one of the highest in the World for a clinical doctor during this period.

In the early days of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in Britain, he advocated the injections for the general public. However, in July of 2021, he experienced a terrible personal loss that caused him to reevaluate the shots—namely, the sudden and unexpected death of his 73-year-old father. His father’s death made no sense to him because he knew from his own examination that his father’s general and cardiac health were excellent. As he put it in a recent interview:

His postmortem findings really shocked me. There were two severe blockages in his coronary arteries, which didn’t really make any sense with everything I know, both as a cardiologist—someone who has expertise in this particular area—but also intimately knowing my dad’s lifestyle and his health. Not long after that, data started to emerge that suggested a possible link between the mRNA vaccine and increased risk of heart attacks from a mechanism of increasing inflammation around the coronary arteries. But on top of that, I was contacted by a whistleblower at a very prestigious university in the UK, a cardiologist himself, who explained to me that there was a similar research finding in his department, and that those researchers had decided to essentially cover that up because they were worried about losing funding from the pharmaceutical industry. But it doesn’t stop there. I then started looking at data in the UK to see if there had been any increase in cardiac arrest. My dad suffered a cardiac arrest and sudden cardiac death at home. Had there been any change in the UK since the vaccine rollout? And again those findings were very clear. There’s been an extra 14,000 out of hospital cardiac arrests in 2021 vs 2020.

The more Dr. Malhotra looked into it, the more he felt the same concern about the safety of the mRNA vaccines that Dr. Peter McCullough had felt since the spring of 2021. The alarming incidence of sudden, unexpected deaths during the latter half of 2021 and the first eight months of 2022—especially among the young and fit—strengthened his grave concern and suspicion.

In September of 2022,—after a thorough investigation of the growing volume of data—he came to his conclusion:

The Covid mRNA vaccine has likely played a significant role or been a primary cause of unexpected cardiac arrests, heart attacks, strokes, cardiac arrhythmias, and heart failure since 2021 until proven otherwise.

His conclusion, including his precise verbal formulation of it, was identical to the conclusion drawn by Dr. Peter McCullough. Though the two doctors ultimately established contact to compare notes, they reached their conclusions based on their own, independent inquiries, before they spoke with each other.

Recently the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation produced Until Proven Otherwise— a short video documentary about the corroborating findings of these two leading cardiologists. I believe it is no exaggeration to say that the gripping, four-minute video is a MUST SEE for everyone. Please share it with your family and friends.

 

 


If you live in Dallas—or happen to find yourself in Dallas—on the evening of November 29, 2022, please be sure to attend the dinner for Drs. Malhotra and McCullough, hosted by the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation. It is sure to be a fascinating evening of discovery and conversation—not to mention a great party. We hope to see you there. Please click HERE to register for the event.

*

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.

John Leake is a True Crime Writer. Coauthor with Dr. Peter McCullough of “The Courage to Face COVID-19.: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Biopharmaceutical Complex.”

Featured image:  A hand holding an mRNA vaccine vial. (Spencer Davis / Unsplash)


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” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

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 Launching of  Michel Chossudovsky’s Book entitled:

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

As a means to reaching out to millions of people worldwide whose lives have been affected by the corona crisis, we have decided in the course of the next few weeks to distribute the eBook for FREE.

FREE COPY Click here to download.

***

 

Video Interview of Michel  Chossudovsky with Caroline Mailloux

Click screen below

 

 

This is an in-depth resource of great interest if it is the wider perspective you are motivated to understand a little better, the author is very knowledgeable about geopolitics and this comes out in the way Covid is contextualized, –Dr. Mike Yeadon

In this war against humanity in which we find ourselves, in this singular, irregular and massive assault against liberty and the goodness of people, Chossudovsky’s book is a rock upon which to sustain our fight. –Dr. Emanuel Garcia

Professor Chossudovsky exposes the truth that “there is no causal relationship between the virus and economic variables.” In other words, it was not COVID-19 but, rather, the deliberate implementation of the illogical, scientifically baseless lockdowns that caused the shutdown of the global economy. David Skripac

 仕組まれたコロナ危機:「世界の初期化」を目論む者たち

Reviewed in Japan 🇯🇵 on November 18, 2022

“It’s a great book that I want people all over Japan to read. When I read this book, the various events explained in chronological order all fall into place and context, and they came close with a sense of reality. It’s terrifying. My heart became pounding and painful as I read on. We must carefully determine the reverse side of the goodwill of the people who organized the COVID-19 pandemic. What can we do as a grassroots person? It’s a tough question. 

 

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 confidential report obtained by Middle East Eye reveals intricate details of a plot involving fraudulent cheques dubbed the “theft of the century” by Iraqi media in which trillions of dinars were stolen from Iraq’s tax authority.

The report sets out the findings of an investigation by Iraq’s ministry of finance that uncovered how hundreds of cheques purportedly issued by the tax authority were cashed at branches of a state-owned bank between September 2021 and August 2022.

The investigation, launched in September by the country’s then-acting finance minister Ihsan Abdul Jabbar Ismail, concluded that almost 3.7 trillion dinars (about $2.5bn) had been stolen from the Iraqi General Commission of Taxes (IGCT).

The report was sent by the finance ministry to the Iraqi parliament’s finance committee last month but has not been made public.

It raises serious concerns of corruption or negligence involving senior figures at the tax authority, the state-owned Rafidain Bank, and within the wider Iraqi political system – with dozens of officials in different state apparatus facing charges over alleged theft or alleged facilitation of theft from the IGCT’s tax deposit accounts used to hold money paid in advance by companies against future tax liabilities.

It also suggests that the thefts were enabled by the removal of Iraq’s public spending watchdog, the Federal Board of Supreme Audit (FBSA), from oversight of tax deposit refund requests just weeks before the first cheques were cashed.

According to documents reviewed by MEE, this change was proposed by the then-head of the parliamentary finance committee.

It also appears to have been approved by a top official in the office of then-prime minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi, as well as by the heads of the IGCT and the FBSA.

Details of the thefts came to light following the resignation in August of the finance minister, Ali Allawi, in protest at what he described as endemic corruption in public finances.

In Allawi’s place, Kadhimi appointed Ismail, then also the oil minister, as acting finance minister.

MEE understands Ismail was told about the missing funds when officials discovered there was not enough money in the IGCT’s accounts to cover genuine requests from companies for tax deposit refunds.

But Iraq’s parliament – at the recommendation of the finance committee – last month voted for Ismail to be removed from the finance ministry over alleged mismanagement just days after the ministry forwarded the report on the investigation.

Ismail subsequently offered his resignation to Kadhimi, which the prime minister accepted.

In his resignation letter, which MEE has seen, Ismail blamed moves to oust him from the finance ministry on parties who he said wanted to stop the investigation into the missing tax money, and said that removing him from the post was in the interests of those who had profited from the theft.

The saga has unfolded amid wider upheaval in Iraqi politics. On 27 October, the parliament finally approved a new government led by Mohammed Shia al-Sudani after more than a year of deadlock since elections in October 2021 during which Kadhimi had remained in office as caretaker prime minister.

Speaking earlier this month, Sudani vowed to tackle corruption and called for the funds stolen from the IGCT to be recovered.

Those so far arrested or the subject of warrants include current and former officials at the IGCT, the finance ministry, Rafidain Bank, and the Federal Commission of Integrity (FCI), a regulatory body.

MEE understands they also include members of Iraqi intelligence, senior staff in former Prime Minister Kadhimi’s office, and a number of businessmen.

‘Reverse-tracking’ the missing money

The classified report obtained by MEE reveals how a web of companies and related bank accounts was created to enable trillions of dinars to be stolen through fake cheques purportedly issued and then cashed for tax deposit refunds from the IGCT’s accounts at Rafidain Bank.

According to the report, the balance of the accounts at the time of the investigation should have been 3,531,501,702,289 dinars (about $2.4bn). But the actual balance was just 145,050,309,732 dinars ($99m).

Investigators said the money had been stolen using 247 cheques paid to five companies with accounts at branches of Rafidain Bank between September 2021 and August 2022.

All of the money was withdrawn from the banks as cash shortly after the cheques had been paid to the accounts. The scheme peaked in June 2022 when 45 cheques worth 775 billion dinars ($531m) were cashed.

Rafidain Bank branch in Baghdad (MEE)

Rafidain Bank’s branch in Baghdad’s Al-Waziriya neighbourhood, where some of the cheques were cashed (Mohammed Aqeel/MEE)

But investigators found no records of the cheques being issued by the IGCT. One person involved in the investigation, speaking to MEE on condition of anonymity, said the money appeared to have “evaporated”.

“The robbers cancelled the entire documentation process for requests for tax refunds,” he said.

“All the cheques were issued without any documents, so we did not know what had happened until we started reverse-tracking the movement of money.”

Investigators discovered that none of the companies to whom the money was paid had any tax deposits to reclaim. Some of the companies had been created just weeks beforehand, and all five company accounts held by Rafidain Bank were opened shortly before they were first used to cash the cheques.

The five companies which cashed cheques were Al-Qant General Contracting Company, Al-Mobdioon Oil Services Company, Al-Hout Al-Ahdab General Trading Company, the Badiat al-Masaa Company, and the Riyah Baghdad Company for General Trading.

Al-Qant cashed cheques totalling almost 1.2 trillion dinars (around $812m) between September 2021 and August 2022.

According to the report, the first cheque, worth more than 44 billion dinars ($30m), was paid into Al-Qant’s account at Rafidain Bank on 9 September 2021, just two days after the account had been opened.

Al-Hout Al-Ahdab cashed cheques worth 982 billion dinars ($673m), Badiat al-Masaa cashed 624 billion dinars ($428m), Riyah Baghdad Company cashed 477 billion dinars ($327m), and Al-Mobdioon cashed 433 billion dinars ($297m).

The report names a businessman, Noor Zuhair Jassim, as the CEO of both Al-Qant and Al-Mobidoon companies. Jassim was arrested last month at Baghdad International Airport. MEE was unable to reach Jassim for comment but understands he is still in custody.

The three other companies were all established in July 2021 and all share the same CEO, named in the report as Abdul Mahdi Tawfiq Mahdi, a 68-year-old businessman. Mahdi has been released on bail but his whereabouts are unknown and MEE was unable to reach him for comment.

All three companies opened bank accounts in November 2021, about six weeks before cheques were paid into the accounts.

Bank statements up to September 2022 for the five companies seen by MEE show that no deposits were paid into the accounts other than the cheques from the IGCT. Most of the money was withdrawn in cash on the same day it was deposited.

Officials involved in the investigation told MEE the withdrawal of such large amounts of cash – on some days totalling 90 billion dinars ($61.7m) – should have set alarm bells ringing.

“Withdrawing such huge sums in cash, not only draws attention, but is considered a disaster in the banking sector,” said an advisor at the finance ministry.

“Money for a bank manager is like a child that has to be cared for and protected. Allowing such amounts to be withdrawn over a year without the bank manager opening an investigation, or informing the minister of finance or the Central Bank, is an unforgivable and unjustifiable sin.”

MEE contacted the finance ministry, which also handles media queries relating to Rafidain Bank. But the ministry declined to comment because it said the case is still under investigation.

How the watchdog was sidelined

According to the report, one of the main reasons why the thefts were not detected earlier was that Iraq’s public spending watchdog, the FBSA, which had previously been responsible for auditing tax deposit refund requests, had been removed from this oversight role in August 2021, just weeks before the first cheque was cashed.

“The FBSA was the biggest obstacle faced by the thieves, so they worked to remove it,” a senior Iraqi official familiar with the investigation told MEE.

The FBSA oversees the financial accounts of ministries, government departments, and independent public bodies.

In 2017, then-Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi tasked the FBSA with auditing requests to refund tax and customs deposits. Abadi told MEE this was necessary to “reduce manipulations” of the system.

In July 2021, however, Haitham al-Jubouri, who was then the head of the parliamentary finance committee and later became an advisor to Kadhimi on financial policy, sent a letter to Ali Allawi, the finance minister, urging him to reverse this move.

Jubouri told Allawi his committee had received complaints from companies frustrated that payment of tax refunds was being delayed by the FBSA’s scrutiny of the process.

Jubouri wrote:

“With the aim of mitigating the procedures… we suggest that the IGCT conduct the audit procedures… and limit the role of the FBSA to its basic tasks stipulated in its law.”

Copies of the letter were sent to the heads of the FBSA and the IGCT.

In a statement, Jubouri told MEE his proposal had only made the point that Iraq’s financial management law “did not mention any role for the FBSA to disperse tax trust deposits”.

He said responsibility for the subsequent change to the auditing arrangements rested with the IGCT.

“Those who stopped the audit were [carrying out] the directives of the IGCT… not the proposal we submitted,” said Jubouri.

Rafidain bank headquarters

The headquarters of the Rafidain Bank in Baghdad (Mohammed Aqeel/MEE)

Jubouri was questioned by a Baghdad court as part of preliminary investigations but no arrest warrant against him was issued. A security official familiar with the progress of the investigation told MEE Jubouri had left Iraq for Jordan.

Jubouri’s letter appears to have set in motion a chain of events that led to the shift in responsibility for auditing tax refund requests from the FBSA to the IGCT.

In a letter sent to Kadhimi’s office on 27 July, the head of the FBSA expressed support for Jubouri’s proposal and asked whether the watchdog should continue to audit tax refund requests.

Jubouri’s proposal then appears to have gained the backing of Raed Jouhi, the head of Kadhimi’s office.

According to documents seen by MEE, Jouhi instructed Ibrahim al-Zubaidi, the prime minister’s legal adviser, to write to the FBSA, the IGCT, and the General Customs Authority in support of the proposed reduced role for the FBSA.

In his letter, however, Zubaidi advised them only to “do what is necessary in accordance with the law”, citing articles of the financial management law and another law relating to the work of the FBSA.

Neither of the laws cited by Zubaidi appears to provide any statutory basis for removing the oversight role of the FBSA in regard to tax refund requests, MEE found.

In fact, in law, the FBSA has a broad remit to audit all aspects of public finance.

MEE contacted both Jouhi and Ibrahim al-Zubaidi for comment but got no response.

According to further correspondence and documents reviewed by MEE, Zubaidi’s letter nevertheless appears to have been taken as approval by top officials at both the IGCT and the FBSA to halt the auditor’s oversight of refund requests.

On 2 August, the director general of the IGCT, Shaker Al-Zubaidi, ordered officials to begin work to adopt the new auditing procedure that he said had been approved by Kadhimi’s office and the FBSA.

Zubaidi left the IGCT days later, moving to another role within the finance ministry in the customs department. When contacted for this story, Shaker al-Zubaidi referred MEE to his media advisor who declined to comment.

By the end of August 2021, Allawi was facing mounting pressure to remove the FBSA from the process of auditing requests for tax deposit refunds and finally agreed.

Within weeks millions of dollars were being siphoned unnoticed – and yet withdrawn as cash at branches of Rafidain Bank – from the IGCT’s account.

‘Secret networks’

It would be almost another year before Allawi quit over what he described as his frustration at a separate scandal also involving Rafidain Bank in which it had agreed to pay an e-payments company $600m in compensation to terminate a contract between them.

Allawi denounced the contract as corrupt, describing the case as “the straw which broke the camel’s back” and citing endemic public sector corruption.

“There are extensive secret networks [consisting of] senior officials, businessmen, politicians, and corrupt state officials, operating in the shadows to control entire sectors of the economy and withdraw billions of dollars from the public treasury,” he wrote in a devastating resignation letter to Kadhimi which he read out at cabinet.

Asked why he had agreed to the removal of the FBSA from its oversight role, Allawi told MEE: “My approval was based on the request of the legislative authority represented by the finance committee of the former parliament, the approval of the FBSA and the prime minister’s office, as well as the request of the IGCT.”

Allawi said he had nonetheless put other auditing processes in place, and suggested that the FBSA’s scrutiny of tax deposit requests would not have been enough to stop the theft of the tax authority’s money – because the thieves had left no paper trail for auditors to follow.

“The existence of the FBSA would have made [the thieves] think twice before doing this, but it [the FBSA] would not have discovered the theft,” he said.

*

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: 247 cheques worth about $2.5bn were cashed at branches of Rafidain Bank between September 2021 and August 2022 (Ilustration by Mohamad Elaasar)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Iraq’s ‘Theft of the Century’: How $2.5bn in Public Money ‘Evaporated’
  • 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.

***

Today is the fifty-ninth anniversary of the brutal assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in Dallas, Texas and the subsequent regime change/cover-up of his murder. After almost six decades the final confrontation, repercussions, reconciliation, and resolution of this tragic event and its impact must be undertaken.

President Joseph R. Biden must issue the appropriate executive order in compliance with the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, and direct all government agencies/entities to make public and unredacted all complete files and records pertaining to the assassination of John Kennedy as directed by this Act. This information shall be transmitted to the National Archives for full public disclosure to be included in the Archives’ Collection and made available for public inspection and copying.

There is an ever-growing scholarly consensus among presidential historians, distinguished political analysts, and JFK assassination researchers that on November 22, 1963, an insidious coup d’état by Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson and the highest echelons of the National Security State was accomplished with the brutal murder of President John F. Kennedy.

The official full 889-page report by the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, known unofficially as the Warren Commission, about the assassination of President John Kennedy on November 22, 1963, established the cover-up of this coup. Their landmark final report was presented to President Lyndon Johnson on September 24, 1964, and made public on September 27.

What happened on that fateful Friday in Dallas fifty-nine years ago led to perhaps the single most important series of events affecting the subsequent history of our nation. It lies at the inner most depth, the dark clotted heart, of what observers now describe as the deep state.

Here are additional authoritative evidentiary resources to assist readers in examining this seminal event —  

Thirty years after his film JFK, filmmaker Oliver Stone takes viewers on a journey though recently declassified evidence in the assassination of President Kennedy — the most consequential American murder mystery of the twentieth century. Joined by Whoopi Goldberg and Donald Sutherland, as well as a distinguished team of forensics, medical and ballistics experts, historians, and witnesses, Stone presents compelling evidence that in the Kennedy case ‘conspiracy theory’ is now ‘conspiracy fact.’

This is the full length uncut version of Rush to Judgment by Mark Lane. Lane, one of the early critics of the preconceived conclusions of the Warren Commission, went to Dallas to do his own investigation and interview witnesses that were ignored by the Commission and others who expanded on their knowledge of the JFK assassination. Particularly crucial were the authoritative statements of eyewitnesses S. M. Holland, Lee E. Bowers, and Mrs. Acquila Clemons, What is portrayed in this short critique offers a different picture from the one presented by the US government to the world. This film is a brief for the defense of Lee Harvey Oswald. Mark Lane’s pioneering best-selling book, Rush to Judgment, challenged the Warren Commission Report relating to Lee Harvey Oswald as the sole assassin of President John Kennedy.

Andrew Gavin Marshall in 2010 wrote an exceptional online summary article entitled , “The National Security State and the Assassination of JFK” which builds upon the path-breaking research of author James W. Douglass in his widely-acclaimed book, JFK and the Unspeakable:Why He Died and Why It Matters

These are the first analytical studies serious scholars should examine in depth, followed by the entire five volume series of Douglas P. Horne’s Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government’s Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK.

Horne is the former Chief Analyst for Military Records for the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), established by the JFK Records Act of 1992, which was tasked with defining, locating, and ensuring the declassification (to the maximum extent possible under the JFK Act) of all Federal Records considered “reasonably related” to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Horne details the numerous anomalies and interrupted chain of custody and destruction of key evidence regarding the president’s body, in the autopsy report(s), the autopsy photo collection (particularly the JFK brain photographs), the deliberate alteration and forgery of the extant Zapruder film, and the supposed “magic bullet” found at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. Watch Douglas P. Horne’s definitive five part video documentary series which summarizes his exceptional research, Altered History: Exposing Deceit and Deception in the JFK, Assassination Medical Evidence. Horne has also written the concise authoritative summary volume, JFK’s War with the National Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated.

While serving as chief analyst of military records at the Assassination Records Review Board in 1997, Douglas P. Horne discovered that the Zapruder Film was examined by the CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center two days after the assassination of President Kennedy. In this film, Horne interviews legendary NPIC photo interpreter Dino Brugioni, who speaks for the first time about another NPIC examination of the film the day after the assassination. Brugioni didn’t know about the second examination and believes the Zapruder Film in the archives today is not the film he saw the day after the assassination. Drawing on Volume 4 of his book “Inside the ARRB”, Horne introduces the subject and presents his conclusions.

Jeffrey Sachs – “JFK’s Quest for Peace;”

Stephen Kinzer – “Regime Change: Roots of the Imperial Temptation;”

Michael Glennon – “Double Government and the ‘Best Truth’ about the Assassination;”

Douglas Horne —  “The National Security Establishment’s Obsession with Invading Cuba;”

Michael Swanson – “What Is The Purpose of the National Security State?”

Peter Janney – “JFK & Mary Meyer: Relationship as Redemption;”

Ron Paul – “Enemies: Foreign and Domestic;”

Jefferson Morley – “Angleton, Cuba, and Assassination;”

James DiEugenio – “Vietnam Declassified: Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon;”

Oliver Stone with James DiEugenio – “If JFK Were Alive Today;” and

Jacob G. Hornberger – “The National Security State: The Biggest Mistake in U.S. History”

The national-security establishment’s assassination of President John F. Kennedy was one of the pivotal events in our lifetime, and it continues to have an adverse impact on American life today. This conference was held in March and April of 2021 and was oriented toward people who are not well-versed in the assassination and who wish to gain a deeper understanding of it.

The conference presents an easy-to-understand introduction to what happened and why. Consider it a primer on the Kennedy assassination. Attendees learned about President Kennedy’s foreign policy and how it was so different from that of both his predecessors and successors — and why the Pentagon and the CIA considered it to be such a grave threat to national security. Attendees also learned about the fraudulent nature of the autopsy that the national-security establishment performed on the president’s body on the evening of the assassination and how it leads to an understanding of the assassination itself.

The conference consists of an astounding 31 hours of online presentations by various speakers,  Viewers will have a good grasp of what happened on that fateful day in November 1963 and why it is so critically important today. 

  • The “smoking gun” in the cover-up of the assassination is found in CIA Dispatch #1035-960 (available online). This was the crucial covert directive to the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird elite media assets to vigorously denounce critics of the Warren Commission Report as “conspiracy theorists.” This is when that particular derogatory term of denunciation and disinformation widely entered the national conversation in an attempt to marginalize, cut off and stifle informed debate on the president’s murder because the path of evidence would lead directly to those elements behind the sinister cover-up. These facts are discussed in detail in Lance deHaven-Smith’s authoritative Conspiracy Theory in America (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press). Dr. Smith is a widely published scholar in peer-reviewed academic journals and is Professor in the Reubin O’ D. Askew School of Public Administration and Policy at Florida State University in Tallahassee.

This is an excellent and invaluable resource. Comprehensive, accessible and unprecedented, Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination presents vital information on each of more than 1,400 individuals related in any noteworthy way to the murders of President John F. Kennedy, Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit and alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22 and 24, 1963. Based on years of research, a wealth of sources and a long study of the Warren Commission’s twenty-six volumes, this encyclopedic book includes: A-to-Z entries on virtually all the suspects, victims, witnesses, law enforcement officials and investigators.

Quick identification of each person followed by biographical facts, testimony, evidence and more. Detailed listings of sources. Explorations of the puzzling theories and countless sides of the case. Extensive cross-referencing of entries, allowing readers to follow their own investigations and construct their own conclusions. This all-new who’s who will prove an essential companion to the many best-selling books, documentaries and feature films about the JFK assassination.

Bound to be referred to again and again, it is the complete resource for anyone who wants to know more about– or wants to keep better track of– the key players involved in one of the most infamous chapters in American history.

This is the first of several high-level political analyses motivated by a need to better understand the politics that led to both the JFK assassination and the Nixon Watergate Affair. It deploys as the primary theoretical model, C. Wright Mills “Theory of the Power Elite” and the framework in Carroll Quigleys book Tragedy and Hope. With these tools, Carl Oglesby posits an interesting thesis: that JFK’s assassination, instead of being a random act by a lone nut was in fact a carefully planned and professional executed ongoing coup d’ etat a la Americaine, a not so silent coup by the same forces responsible for the murders of JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X and possibly the demise and eventual destruction of the billionaire Howard Hughes.

What all of these events had in common was that they were links in a chain designed to replace one set of power elite (members of the old moneyed “peace promoting” Northeastern Yankee Establishment) with another (the Nuevo Riche and newly arrived, “progress through war” Western Cowboys). Thus it is argued here that the events connecting Dallas, Memphis, Watergate and the demise of the Hughes empire, are but threads in a common fabric, growing and evolving directly out of the systematic corruption of American politics and out of contemporary political realities.

The late Murray N. Rothbard was particularly enamored with this pioneering book, remarking:

Carl Oglesby’s new book is not only exciting and thoroughly researched, it presents the only analytic framework — originated by himself — which makes sense of the violent events of the last decade and a half our recent political history, and puts them all into a coherent framework: the Yankee vs. Cowboy analysis.

The important question looms: why is it that Oglesby has been alone in coming up with this framework? I think the answer is that the methodologies of other writers and researchers have led them astray: the free-market economists who are critical of government actions never bother to ask who benefited from those actions and who were likely to be responsible for them; the Marxists are anxious to indict an abstract, mythical and unified ‘capitalist class’ for all evils of government, and believe that detailed research into concrete divisions and conflicts among power elites detract from such an indictment; those sociologists who have engaged in concrete power elite analysis have only examined structures (who owns corporation X, who belongs to what social club?) rather than the dynamics of concrete historical events; the one writer who has treated Yankees and Cowboys has been so blinded by particular hostility to the Cowboys that he virtually includes everyone living in the Sunbelt as part of a vast Cowboy conspiracy; and the various doughty investigators and reporters of Dallas or Watergate have struck to surface events because they lacked the overall coherent framework.

Carl Oglesby has surmounted all of these defects, and has therefore been able to make a giant breakthrough in explaining our recent history.

The death of Mary Meyer left many Americans with questions. Who really killed her? Why did CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton rush to find and confiscate her diary? Had she discovered the plan to assassinate her lover, President Kennedy, with the trail of information ending at the steps of the CIA? Was it only coincidence that she was killed less than three weeks after the release of the Warren Commission Report?

Fans of The Murder of Mary Russell, JFK: A Vision for America, and other JFK books will love Mary’s Mosaic. Building and relying on years of interviews and painstaking research, author Peter Janney follows the key events and influences in Mary Pinchot Meyer’s life—her first meeting with Jack Kennedy; her support of her secret lover, President Kennedy, as he worked towards the pursuit of world peace and away from the Cold War; and her exploration of psychedelic drugs. Fifty years after the assassinations of President Kennedy and Mary Meyer, this book helps readers understand why both took place.

Author Peter Janney fought for two years to obtain documents from the National Personnel Records Center and the US Army to complete this third edition. It includes a final chapter about the mystery man who could be the missing piece to learn the truth behind Meyer’s murder.

Focuses upon the intimate relationship between JFK and Mary Pinchot Meyer and their brutal murders.

Dr. Cyril Wecht, for two decades the elected coroner of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (including Pittsburgh), is a nationally acclaimed forensic pathologist, and holds both a medical degree from the University of Pittsburgh (1956), and a law degree from the University of Maryland (1962). Forensic pathologists specialize in medically determining how and why someone died.

In criminal murder cases this function is absolutely vital in helping to determine the guilt or innocence of a suspect — in no case more so than in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Dr. Wecht, a very early critic of the Warren Commission, testified at the HSCA. At the annual JFK Lancer assassination research conference in Dallas, held in November, Dr. Wecht summarized the medical evidence against the lone-gunman hypothesis. At the center of Dr. Wecht’s examination is what has become known as the “single-bullet theory” — or the “magic bullet,” as it is known to its detractors: the theory that one bullet can account for the multiple wounds (besides the headshot) of both JFK and Governor Connally.

According to Dr. Wecht, the conclusions of the Warren Commission rest entirely on the single-bullet theory. If that theory fails, then there had to be more than one gunman. This, in turn, leads to questions about the history of the United States since 1963 that many people would rather not pursue. With both passion and meticulous attention to detail, Wecht dissects the Warren Commission’s conclusions.

Moving beyond the medical evidence, he then utters words unexpected from any former American elected official, and particularly powerful coming from a person with his credentials: “What we witnessed…my friends, in plain, plain English — was [a] coup d’état in America. The overthrow of the government. That’s what this case was all about.”

Watch this classic eight minute YouTube clip of JFK Assassination researcher John Judge from the “JFK: Cinema as History” conference (January 1992) which appeared on C-SPAN. It reveals more about “the why” of the November 22, 1963 assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and the coup d’état following his murder than almost anything you have probably heard.

After quoting Thomas Jefferson on the importance of a free press to a republic, John Judge makes a disparaging reference to The Washington Post and The New York Times. He then pauses for a few seconds and is shown glaring at another panel member. This person (not shown in the clip) was Walter Pincus of The Washington Post, who had viciously attacked Oliver Stone’s movie JFK. The older man who is briefly shown in one momentary scene is the late Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty who served as chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff where he was in charge of the global system designed to provide military support for covert activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. In Oliver Stone’s highly acclaimed film, JFK, the mysterious character ‘X’ portrayed by Donald Sutherland was in fact Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who assisted director Stone in the production and scripting of this historical epic.

Prouty had relayed the shocking information detailed in the movie to the actual New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison (played by Kevin Cosner) in a series of communiques. Fletcher Prouty was the author of two excellent books, The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World. and JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy.

JFK: A President Betrayed

Narrated by Academy Award winner Morgan Freeman, “JFK: A President Betrayed” uncovers shocking evidence that reveals how President John F. Kennedy, early in his term as president in 1961, felt entrapment, that he had been misled by his military and intelligence advisors regarding the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Because of this betrayal he was determined to constantly be on guard regarding subsequent strategic advice issued to him.

After his confrontational June 1961 Vienna Summit meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, later that year in September Kennedy under took a bold initiative and introduced at the Sixteenth General Assembly of the United Nations a Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.

Conversely the national security establishment (particularly the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff and CIA) believed, not in disarmament but in a nuclear first strike policy against the Soviet Union, and that JFK was naive and lacked determination and resolve in his opposition to this apocalyptic doomsday scenario. On March 13, 1962 the JCS submitted Operation Northwoods as a pretext for a Cuban Invasion.

This war between JFK and the military intensified following the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. Pentagon leaders such as Air Force chief of Staff General Curtis LeMaybelieved the peaceful resolution of the Crisis was not Kennedy’s finest hour but had been appeasement of the Soviets and the worst disaster in American history.

JFK proceeded to embark on secret back channel peace efforts with Nikita Khrushchev and Fidel Castro and was determined to get out of Vietnam despite intense opposition inside his own government.

“The Peace Speech” — JFK Commencement Address at American University, June 10, 1963.

To the deep state, this was treason.

It all came to an end on November 22, 1963, when an insidious coup d’état by Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson and the highest echelons of the National Security State was accomplished with the brutal murder of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas.

*

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 OffGuardian

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.

***

“FTX’s implosion should be a wake-up call,” said the Massachusetts Democrat. “Regulators must enforce the law before more people get cheated, and Congress must plug the remaining holes in our regulatory structure.”

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren warned Tuesday in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that if the federal government fails to adequately regulate the planet-killing cryptocurrency industry, it will “take down the economy.”

Writing in the wake of the collapse of Sam Bankman-Fried’s digital asset exchange platform FTX, the Massachusetts Democrat argued that “crypto is following a well-worn path of financial innovations, such as subprime mortgages and credit-default swaps, that began with dazzling rewards and ended with crippling losses.”

“Proponents say crypto holds great promise for making the financial system more efficient and inclusive,” wrote Warren. “We’ve heard that story before. History is littered with financial schemes promoted by criminals and charlatans who claimed that the latest and greatest tools had evolved beyond the need for regulation or a cop on the beat. During the 2008 collapse and every financial crisis before that, these claims have proved dangerously delusional. Crypto is no exception.”

“FTX’s implosion should be a wake-up call,” Warren continued. “Regulators must enforce the law before more people get cheated, and Congress must plug the remaining holes in our regulatory structure—before the next crypto catastrophe takes down our economy.”

As the Journal reported on November 11:

“FTX is the latest in a string of crypto companies seeking bankruptcy protection this year. Months ago, Mr. Bankman-Fried served as a lender of last resort to his industry, following the failure of other crypto companies. Its fortunes reversed in the past 10 days, after a CoinDesk report showed the depth of the relationship between FTX and Alameda, triggering a loss of faith in the platform by amateur and professional investors.”

According to the newspaper, which in another article cited unnamed sources familiar with the matter, “FTX extended loans to Alameda using money that customers had deposited on the exchange for trading purposes, a decision that Mr. Bankman-Fried described as a poor judgment call.”

As the Journal noted:

FTX was previously seen as a rising star in the digital asset world. It attracted nearly $2 billion of investments from high-profile venture capital funds, hedge funds, and the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan. Many investors face a wipeout of their equity stakes in FTX as the exchange heads to the bankruptcy court. Venture capital firm Sequoia Capital said on Wednesday it is writing down its $150 million investment in FTX to zero.

Bankruptcy means that it could be a long time before individual investors and others owed their funds are able to potentially recover any of them, if ever. Creditors to Mt. Gox, the Japanese crypto exchange that failed following a 2014 hack, are still waiting for their funds almost a decade later.

“Crypto investors may find an uphill battle to get their crypto deposits back in bankruptcy proceedings,” the newspaper explained, “because their investments are likely to be treated as unsecured claims without collateral rights.”

The sudden disintegration of FTX prompted the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to launch an ongoing investigation.

“Crypto executives who break the law are just like any other crooks, and the Justice Department should use its full range of tools, including criminal penalties, against them,” Warren wrote Tuesday. “If Mr. Bankman-Fried and FTX executives committed fraud, then federal prosecutors should send them to prison.”

“But FTX’s fall, like the collapse of Lehman Brothers before it, isn’t limited to one out-of-control company,” the progressive lawmaker stressed. “That means the Securities and Exchange Commission needs to suit up as well. Market manipulation, theft, insider trading—the SEC has decades of experience in rulemaking and monitoring retail investment and knows how to root out fraud and hold cheaters accountable.”

She continued:

The Treasury Department has also moved, using existing law to impose sanctions on two crypto mixing services, Blender and Tornado Cash,which were used to launder billions of dollars worth of virtual currencies, including hundreds of millions stolen by hackers. Crypto lobbyists howled, but Treasury was right to use its authority to force these entities to comply with the law. A few cases are good, but Justice, SEC, and Treasury are the frontline enforcers, and they need to act like it every single day. Federal agencies should use their expansive authority to crack down hard on crypto fraud.

Congress should back up these law enforcement agencies and financial regulators with more funding. Many crypto executives have armies of lawyers, PR advisers, and paid celebrity supporters, and they seem to think they can escape the laws that apply to everyone else. If the financial cops are going to take on crypto criminals, they need adequate resources to fight and win.

“It is past time for crypto to be subjected to the same basic rules as other financial activities,” Warren concluded. “If the crypto industry can succeed without stealing from investors or providing money-laundering services to terrorists and drug dealers, that’s great—but we won’t know that until the loopholes are closed and the laws are rigorously enforced.”

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. 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 US Sen. Elizabeth Warren Warns Crypto Madness Will ‘Take Down the Economy’ If It Isn’t Regulated
  • 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.

***

Last week, the Department of Defense revealed that it had failed its fifth consecutive audit. 

“I would not say that we flunked,” said DoD Comptroller Mike McCord, although his office did note that the Pentagon only managed to account for 39 percent of its $3.5 trillion in assets. “The process is important for us to do, and it is making us get better. It is not making us get better as fast as we want.”

The news came as no surprise to Pentagon watchers. After all, the U.S. military has the distinction of being the only U.S. government agency to have never passed a comprehensive audit.

But what did raise some eyebrows was the fact that DoD made almost no progress in this year’s bookkeeping: Of the 27 areas investigated, only seven earned a clean bill of financial health, which McCord described as “basically the same picture as last year.”

Given this accounting disaster, it should come as no surprise that the Pentagon has a habit of bad financial math. This is especially true when it comes to estimating the cost of weapons programs.

The Pentagon’s most famous recent boondoggle is the F-35 program, which has gone over its original budget by $165 billion to date. But examples of overruns abound: As Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Jack Reed (D-RI) wrote in 2020, the lead vessel for every one of the Navy’s last eight combatant ships came in at least 10 percent over budget, leading to more than $8 billion in additional costs.

And another major overrun is poised to happen soon, according to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office.

The Navy plans to expand its ship production in an effort to maintain an edge over China, with a particular focus on a new attack submarine and destroyer ship. The Pentagon has proposed three versions of this plan at an average cost of $27 billion per year between 2023 and 2052, a 10 percent jump from current annual shipbuilding costs.

But the CBO says this is a big underestimate. The independent agency’s math says the average annual cost of this shipbuilding initiative will be over $31 billion, meaning that the Navy is underestimating costs by $120 billion over the program’s life.

As Mark Thompson of the Project on Government Oversight recently noted, these overruns “shouldn’t come as a shock” to anyone who has paid attention to DoD acquisitions in recent years. “But it does suggest a continuing, and stunning, inability by the Navy to get its ducks, and dollars, in a row,” Thompson wrote.

So will the Pentagon manage to get its financial house in order any time soon? It’s possible, if a bit unlikely.

Despite the long odds, a bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) proposed a bill last year that could help make that happen. The legislation would cut one percent off the top of the budget of any part of the Pentagon that fails an audit. That means that, if the proposal had already passed, 20 of the agency’s 27 auditing units would face a budget cut this year.

Unfortunately, momentum around that bill appears to have fizzled out, leaving the Pentagon’s accountants as the last line of defense. Per Comptroller McCord, the DoD hopes to finally pass an audit by 2027, a mere 14 years after every other agency in the U.S. government blew past that milestone. That may coincide with another historical moment, according to Andrew Lautz of the National Taxpayers Union.

“[W]e could reach a $1 trillion defense budget five years sooner [than the CBO estimates], in 2027,” Lautz wrote.

*

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 by gualtiero boffi/shutterstock

UK to Join Dutch-led Military Mobility Project

November 23rd, 2022 by Alie Peter Neil Galeon

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 following text are excerpts from the Defence Post which confirm the nature of Britain’s military deployment within the European Union, extending into Ukraine.

To read the complete article click here

The British Ministry of Defence has confirmed its participation in the Netherlands-led Military Mobility project, further enhancing cross-border military transport procedures across Europe.

The Military Mobility project was established to enable the unhindered movement of troops and equipment within the European Union (EU) by cutting lengthy bureaucratic procedures on the road, rail, air, or sea.

“We are joining the Dutch-led Military Mobility project, which will better enable us to deploy troops and equipment across Europe and crucially support EU-NATO cooperation,” said MP Ben Wallace

The former EU member is the latest addition to the Dutch-led project, joining 24 other member states. Norway, Canada, and the US joined last year.

Permanent Structured Cooperation

The Dutch-led project is part of the EU’s Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) framework.

“It is a framework and a structured process to gradually deepen defence cooperation to deliver the required capabilities to also undertake the most demanding missions and thereby provide an improved security to EU citizens,” the EU said.

To read the complete article click here

*

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: Military convoy. Photo by: Netherlands Ministry of Defence

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.

***

After analyzing more than seven years of Massachusetts death certificates, independent investigator John Beaudoin, Sr., uncovered evidence that thousands of deaths in 2021 may have been linked to COVID-19 vaccines.

In this article, I highlight the work of independent investigator John Beaudoin, Sr., who analyzed nearly seven years of Massachusetts death certificates he obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

Beaudoin’s findings demonstrate that the COVID-19 death toll in Massachusetts was largely confined to a short window of time in 2020, and that COVID-19 deaths in 2020 resulted from pulmonary causes — in contrast to COVID-19 deaths in 2021, which were more closely linked to illnesses of the heart and blood.

There is no reasonable way to explain how SARS-CoV-2 dramatically changed the way it attacks and kills human beings and why it did so at precisely the time the experimental mRNA inoculations were deployed.

Beaudoin’s analysis also suggests that medical fraud and negligence may have been in play on a scale yet to be definitively determined.

Massachusetts: a center of COVID controversy

Beaudoin is a fellow resident of Massachusetts. Just down the road from us sit some of the most renowned hospitals and centers for medical research. None seem interested in validating or refuting the devastating implications of Beaudoin’s findings.

Boston was home to the infamous Biogen conference held in March 2020. The event was considered to be one of the first “super spreader events” in the country.

In the summer of 2021, an outbreak of COVID-19 in Massachusetts’ Barnstable County forced the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to acknowledge that the injectable mRNA therapies were worthless.

When all was said and done, the vaccinated comprised a disproportionately larger percentage of those who contracted COVID-19 than the percentage of the county’s residents who were fully vaccinated.

In other words, there was no evidence that the vaccine offered any protection against infection.

Of those who were hospitalized in this outbreak, 80% were fully vaccinated. The “vaccines” offered no protection against severe disease.

Furthermore, vaccination status had no bearing on the viral load of those who got sick. Because viral load is correlated with infectiousness, the vaccine did not offer any reduction in transmissibility.

In one of its first real-world tests, the rapidly developed, tested and deployed therapy failed completely on all counts.

Massachusetts researchers can’t seem to move on from mask mandates

Earlier this month, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) found there was an increase in COVID-19 cases in Massachusetts school districts that lifted their mask mandates.

The authors of the study were researchers from the Boston Public Health Commission and venerated, local academic institutions in Boston (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Boston University, the Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School).

According to the authors, school districts with mask mandates had 39.9 fewer cases per 1,000 students over a 15-week period.

I wish to pose a simple question to the dutiful scientists down the road: so what?

Although districts that continued to enforce mask mandates after the statewide mandate was dropped had a lower COVID-19 incidence rate, mask mandates did not eliminate the transmission of the disease. Those districts still had 60 cases per 1,000 students.

The NEJM authors also proved that COVID-19 is transmissible whether or not masking precautions are implemented.

Children are going to get COVID-19 whether they are forced to wear a mask or not. There is no longer a need to “flatten the curve” until a miracle “vaccine” can be developed at “warp speed.”

COVID-19 is a disease that will be with us for the foreseeable future. What is the point of such a study? To convince Massachusetts residents that a modest decrease in school days missed is worth the imposition of perpetual mask mandates upon their children?

The ‘Big Story’ in Massachusetts

While the NEJM researchers were busy tabulating COVID-19 infection rates in different school districts during the first part of 2022, a far more important story was unfolding in Massachusetts.

Through a FOIA request made to the state’s department of public records, Beaudoin, an electrical engineer, obtained access to every death certificate in the state of Massachusetts between 2015 and September 2022.

His investigation into these records paints a disquieting picture of how the COVID-19 “vaccine” likely devastated the health of Massachusetts residents.

Beaudoin’s analysis is detailed and rigorous and stands as an example of why a medical degree or an academic appointment is not required to uncover explosive evidence.

In fact, those kinds of credentials can often be impediments rather than assets. There is no excuse why the Massachusetts Department of Public Health has not done the analysis Beaudoin chose to do himself.

For the purposes of this article, I will focus on the summary points. A deeper dive can be found on Mathew Crawford’s “Rounding The Earth” podcast or in Beaudoin’s own Substack, which he writes under the name “Coquin de Chien.”

Below is a plot of the raw numbers of daily deaths (confirmed by death certificates) over time for the years 2015-2021 overlayed:

massachusetts all cause daily deaths

Image credit: John Beaudoin, Sr.

The takeaway is impossible to miss. The rise and fall of daily deaths over a 10-week period in the early-to-late spring of 2020 is representative of a non-immune population encountering an infectious and virulent pathogen for the first time. This bump in the black line was from the casualties of the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections in Massachusetts.

Whether or not the state was still in the throes of a pandemic emergency beyond the first few weeks of June 2020 is debatable because it is quite clear that daily deaths quickly returned to baseline and stayed there until the autumn — when a far less lethal second wave hit the state. Recall that Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) stipulates that a public emergency is required before any mitigating therapy can obtain EUA.

The rapid rise and fall of deaths in Massachusetts in early 2020 is unmistakable, but who died? Beaudoin answers this question here:

2020 standard deviations

Image credit: John Beaudoin, Sr.

This graphic visualization technique is called a heat map. Each cell in the array represents the deviation from the expected number of deaths in specific age groups at a specific time in 2020, based on values from 2015-2019. The deeper the red, the greater the difference is over expected levels. The deeper the blue, the lower the difference.

The majority of the casualties were confined to the elderly (65 and older) over a 10-week period. This is represented by the deep red cells in ages over 65 starting April 1.

Contrary to the endless deluge of news reports that suggested otherwise, official death certificates indicate the pandemic in Massachusetts was short-lived and affected only the most vulnerable.

Beaudoin gives us the equivalent heat map for the year 2021. Once again comparisons are made with the years 2015-2019:

2021 standard deviations

Image credit: John Beaudoin, Sr.

The distribution of deaths in 2021 is remarkably different than in 2020:

  • The short-lived and profound increase in deaths in the elderly in the spring of 2020 is not present in 2021. As mentioned above, the pandemic emergency was arguably over by the summer of 2020.
  • There is a substantial and sustained (present throughout the year) increase in deaths in people ages 60 to 80 that is not present in 2020. What is causing or contributing to the excess deaths in this younger age group in 2021 that was not present in 2020?
  • There is a substantial decrease in deaths in the eldest age group (85+).

The paradoxical drop in deaths in the most elderly (85+) is best explained by the substantial jump in deaths from the previous year in that age group. SARS-CoV-2 took the lives of the most elderly leaving a hardier group of octogenarians.

The increase in deaths throughout 2021 implicates the COVID-19 “vaccines” as a contributing factor (among others) for two reasons.

First, the pattern of deaths is not representative of an infectious agent that takes the lives of the vulnerable while leaving behind a population that is more robust and that is attaining natural immunity through exposure, i.e., what was seen in 2020.

Second — and most obvious — is that the “vaccines” were present in 2021 and not in 2020.

What is actually killing people in 2021?

The increase in all-cause mortality in 2021 in Massachusetts is reflected in other parts of the world. This concerning trend is often explained as solely the result of pandemic restrictions that prevented people from obtaining basic healthcare, cancer screenings, chemotherapy, etc.

This is where Beaudoin’s Massachusetts findings go further. Here are some key points from his detailed analysis:

  • Average age of all-cause deaths in 2021 was 75, which is significantly lower than the average for the years 2015-2019 (75.6) and even more so than in 2020 (76.2).
  • 2021 saw an 8% jump in deaths from all causes compared to the average for the years 2015-2019, yet there was a substantial decrease in deaths attributed to COVID-19 compared to 2020. This could be explained by a vaccine that is partially effective in preventing COVID-19 deaths. However …
  • 2021 saw the biggest jump in deaths from cardiac arrest compared to the previous year. Deaths from cardiac arrest in 2020 made up 16.62% of all deaths that year. In 2021, it was 18.63% of all deaths — or a 12.1% increase from 2020, which already had the greatest percentage of the previous five years.
  • A similar jump in deaths from pulmonary emboli occurred in 2021 as well. Moreover, COVID-19 deaths that involved pulmonary emboli doubled in 2021 compared to 2020 and more than tripled in 2022.
  • The proportion of COVID-19 deaths that involved cardiac arrest increased by 47.5% in 2021 compared to 2020 and 63.3% in 2022. Recall that Pfizer’s six-month results demonstrated a four times greater risk of cardiac arrest in vaccinated participants than in those who received the placebo (Table S4).

According to information extracted from actual death certificates, COVID-19 apparently changed its way of killing people in 2021. Beaudoin accurately summarizes:

“Viruses do not simply change how they kill from one year to the next. Something happened in C19-involved deaths after 2020 that changed how C19 purportedly kills people. Pneumonia and respiratory issues dominated 2020, the year of C19, but something insidious has doubled and tripled relative numbers of circulatory system deaths after 2020. The Massachusetts DPH cannot hide from this. Either there is massive fraud in coding of deaths or some intervention in 2021 and 2022 caused deaths or both are true at the same time.”

Evidence of medical fraud?

In his dive into the 400,000 or so death certificates he obtained, Beaudoin showed there is also a high likelihood that some deaths are being inappropriately attributed to COVID-19 while others are linked to the vaccine but no mention of this appears on the certificate.

One such example involves the death of a 7-year-old girl in a town near my own. As Beaudoin has respectfully declined to mention the name of the child in his Substack, I will follow his example. Multiple news outlets covered this tragedy. All reported that she died from COVID-19.

Beaudoin was able to find her death certificate, which indeed states that she died from “Complications from COVID-19 viral infection.”

But was her death certificate accurate?

He also found a report in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, of a complication from a second dose of the Pfizer formulation that was administered to a 7-year-old girl in Massachusetts.

Personal identification information does not appear on VAERS reports. However, the report indicates that this vaccine complication occurred just three days prior to the day of the death of the child who died of COVID-19:

vaers report covid vaccine injury child

Source: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System

Note that this VAERS report indicates the child previously experienced severe nausea and vomiting for 8-10 hours immediately following her first dose. After her second dose, for which this report was filed, her fever spiked to 103, she developed a severe stomachache and had not had a bowel movement for three days.

Is this the same child who purportedly died from COVID-19? If so, attributing the death to COVID-19 with no mention of the vaccine on her death certificate would constitute medical fraud — or at the very least, negligence on the part of the medical examiner.

Conspicuously missing from news reports covering this child’s death was her vaccination status. Was this an oversight? If this young person who died from COVID-19 had not received the COVID-19 “vaccine” would this have been mentioned?

Notably, a different 7-year-old girl who died from COVID-19 made the news around the same time this year. This child was from Tennessee. People magazine covered her story, taking care to mention that she had not been inoculated.

People printed a quote from her doctor, a pediatric infectious disease expert, who told Good Morning America:

“This is not something to mess around with. The takeaway for parents is this is a virus that we have got to take very seriously and one we have a safe and effective vaccine for.”

Media coverage rarely misses an opportunity to laud the vaccines’ benefits and warn of the danger of remaining unvaccinated. Simultaneously, any information that may implicate the COVID-19 “vaccines” when harm has occurred is categorically omitted.

Of course, without proof of this child’s vaccination status, we can only speculate. This information exists on the Massachusetts Immunization Information System, which Beaudoin hopes he will eventually be able to access.

Questions for the medical establishment

How many deaths have occurred where the COVID-19 “vaccine” likely played a role but was not mentioned in official records?

How many deaths have been falsely attributed to COVID-19?

In March, health officials in Massachusetts eliminated nearly 4,000 (approximately 15%) COVID-19 deaths from their tally. Dr. Catherine Brown, a Massachusetts Department of Public Health epidemiologist said:

“After a deep dive into our data and reviewing thousands of death certificates we recognize that this updated definition gives us a truer picture of mortality associated with COVID-19.”

What prompted this “deep dive?” Was it news of Beaudoin’s FOIA request and his investigation that was being picked up around the same time?

While researchers at prestigious institutions are trying to retrospectively determine whether face coverings may have prevented absenteeism in a handful of school districts, Massachusetts health officials continue to ignore enormous vaccine safety signals and evidence of medical fraud in their own state.

Official death certificates indicate that thousands of deaths in 2021 may have been linked to the COVID-19 vaccines. If they weren’t linked to these products, why and how has the SARS-CoV-2 virus found a different way to kill people in 2021 and 2022?

Do these same signals appear in other states as well? How long will state departments of public health sit on their data before telling the public what that data show?

*

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.

Madhava Setty, M.D. is senior science editor for The Defender.

Featured image is from CHD


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 Massachusetts Death Certificates Show Excess Mortality Could be Linked to COVID Vaccines
  • 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.

***

We’re on the brink of a dramatic change where we’re about to — and I’ll say this boldly — we’re about to abandon the traditional system of money, and accounting, and introduce a new one…. The new accounting is what we call “blockchain.”

It means digital. It means having an almost perfect record of every single transaction that happens in the economy, which will give us far greater clarity over what’s going on…. It also raises huge dangers in terms of the balance of power between states and citizens.

At least the World Economic Forum and its counterpart now have the decency to title their videos candidly: “Are We Ready for a New World Order?” However, I’m pretty sure our supreme leaders won’t listen if I answer, “No, thank you.”

As recently as a year ago, I’d be labelled a “conspiracy theorist” and get locked up as a Twitter jailbird for claiming some cabal of banksters, economists and government leaders is planning a new world order for everyone along with a government-controlled digital currency to empower it. Now, it is table talk, and those who are planning it all are only too happy to share their thoughts, so confident are they in how it will go down.

At the recent 2022 “World Government Summit” in Dubai, the moderator directly raised the question, “Are you ready for a new world order?” During the conversation about that in the video above, Dr. Pippa Malmgren, who recently let me run her article about the dangers of digital currency here on The Great Recession Blog, made the above proclamation. She clarifies that she is not talking about cryptocurrencies that we now have that use blockchain technology but sovereign currencies that she openly states will be anything but private.

Central-bank digital currencies have become something global planners talk about openly in their world forums as a fact of the immediate future, not some faraway horizon. They are already being rolled out, as I described in my last article, “The Money of the Apocalypse is Rising in US Banks from the Ashes of the Cryptocrisis THIS WEEK!

In her own article published earlier on my site, Dr. Malmgren warned extensively of the huge dangers that digital currencies will pose, but in this video she indicates she believes we can resolve all those problems with a “digital constitution of human rights.”

In my opinion, such safeguards are even less likely to protect everyone’s privacy than the FISA warrant system was when the Patriot Act became law, making the harvesting of all cell and internet data on a continual basis possible in the Bush II years. When I first read about the big black box being built by the NSA in Fort Meade, Maryland, to collect and store all that data, I never believed FISA would be respected carefully enough to prevent snooping into everything you’ve ever said and written in digital form.

We learned about just how weakly guarded the system is after it was used to snoop on presidential candidate Donald Trump back in 2016. Edward Snowden, who worked in the system, warned us about how it was harvesting all the cellular and digital data of leaders and ordinary citizens around the world well before that; yet, I remember reading about how it would do that when Bush first started building it, and I never trusted it to be safeguarded properly.

If protections are as weak as the were for Trump, who was likely to become president of the United States back when the exiting government wanted to gin up the Trump-Russiagate scandal, imagine how careless the system is with protecting your information! Without the vast powers of the presidency to go after the people who abused their powers against him — and even then to little avail — imagine how powerless even billionaire Trump would have been against this system. The digital data of all your calls and internet use is simply so abundant and so readily available, that the temptations to snoop whenever there is suspicion or even where there is merely hope for something suspect, as was the case with Trump, are great.

Far less do I trust a system of bankers to keep everything I do that can be traced through financial activity sacred just because they create a digital constitution for my privacy. Even less do I trust such a system not to be used by my government to shut me out of the world financially or narrowly regulate my financial activity if I do something the government disapproves of … just as Canada tried to do last year with digital money when people supported truckers striking against the Covid vaccine or as many governments did with Russian oligarchs through the regular banking system. Imagine how much easier that will be when they can simply use electronic switches to regulate your available options.

These central-bank digital currencies will be easier to do that with than cryptocurrencies were when Canada tried because they will be under full government control via the government’s banker and/or the US Treasury; and, as I said in my last article, they are coming online just as crypto has entered a global crisis of its own, making it suspect and government-regulated digital currency more safe in the eyes of many.

If you think government autocracy is a risk for you right now, wait until you see all it can do to you to shut you out of life itself once money becomes fully digital. Dr. Malgren — although she seems like an advocate of such systems in the interview above — does about as thorough a job of pointing out the pitfalls of central bank digital currencies as I could, so I encourage you to read her article here if you haven’t already.

Don’t worry about whether the new cashless system will be accepted in the next year or two, though, because The WEF & Co. will come up with a beautiful video concert from around the world to assure us all of how beautiful the new-world odor of their money will be for all of us just as they did for us during Covid: (If you don’t have time for such a long and inspirational video, or the stomach for King Charles, I recommend you, at least enjoy the singing finish at 2:24:54. It’s as happy, happy as the cadmium yellow in a Bob Ross painting.)

Click here to watch the video.

Just so much to love about that New World Order. See all the smiling people, and you know it’s going to be good for you, too. “Take our vaccine. Use our money … and all this fun and freedom can be yours … for as long as we decide it will be.” And, as they say in the video, it is so important that we all share our opinions about this now-dawning Aquarian age … so they can continue to ignore us or silence us on social media while assuring us how important our “conversation” is to them.

Soon, your money will even be able to accomplish all of the following in order to help us all live better lives … together:

*

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 The WEF’s Digital Tyranny: “Are We Ready for a New World Order?” Cashless Society Talk Goes Mainstream in a Hurry and Should be Trusted Like the NSA
  • 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.

***

Bickering Over the Cap

The EU agreed to scrap its plan to not insure tankers carrying Russian oil in favor of a Biden-sponsored plan to cap the price of oil.

The insurance scheme was absurd. Russia would have exported oil in tankers not insured. The only loser would be Western insurance companies.

Today, the US and EU are bickering over where the cap is set. Poland wants the cap at $20 and the Biden administration is looking at caps as high as $70.

Watered Down Plan

The European Union watered down its latest sanctions proposal for a price cap on Russia’s oil exports by delaying its full implementation and softening key shipping provisions.

The bloc proposed adding a 45-day transition to the introduction of the cap, according to a document seen by Bloomberg. The proposed grace period would apply to oil loaded before Dec. 5 — the date oil sanctions are due to kick in — and unloaded by Jan. 19, aligning the EU to a clause previously announced by the US and the UK.

The EU is also proposing a 90-day transition in the event of any future changes to the level of the price cap.

Western Allies Aim to Agree on Russian Oil Price Cap Wednesday

The Wall Street Journal reports Western Allies Aim to Agree on Russian Oil Price Cap Wednesday emphasis mine.

Ambassadors from the 27 European Union member states are scheduled to meet Wednesday, when they will try to come to an agreement on a price. The bloc must agree on the price cap unanimously and diplomats warned that may prove difficult. The G-7 is aiming to approve the cap in sync with the EU.

The aim of the plan, which was pushed hard by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, is to crimp Russian energy exports revenue while avoiding a surge in oil prices when a European embargo on Russian oil imports kicks in early next month. Despite European reluctance at the time, the G-7 first agreed on setting the oil price cap in June following Russia’s Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine.

The price cap will replace Europe’s plan to completely ban the financing and insurance of Russian oil shipments, which is set to take effect on Dec. 5. U.S. officials are worried those sanctions would cut Russian oil off from global markets and send energy prices higher, so they want to put into place the price cap by that date.

Aim of the Plan

The aim of the plan is to not eat Russian cake while eating Russian cake. 

It’s quite amazing that anyone thinks the plan can possibly work, but president Biden, the EU, Janet Yellen and even prominent economists think the cap is a good idea.

Q&A Why Not?

Q: Why not cap the price of everything and end inflation?
A: Figure it out.

Q: Is it possible a cap might seem to work?
A: Yes. If the cap is set high enough it will be meaningless.

And if by some lucky fate a cap is set where the direction of oil is headed anyway, then the economic illiterates will be hooting and cheering their alleged success.

Why Won’t Caps Work?

  • China, India and other countries will not go along. That’s enough right there to show the ridiculousness of the idea.
  • Countries in the EU have an incentive to cheat.

The Incentive to Cheat

Here’s an amusing snip from the WSJ:

 “Under a compromise hammered out by U.S. and EU member state officials, the ban for vessels will now be time limited, according to people familiar with the plan. It will also rest on evidence that the vessel had deliberately breached the price cap.”

Oh, we breached the cap but it wasn’t deliberate. What a hoot.

One of Two Things

  1. The cap will fail and do nothing.
  2. The cap fail spectacularly and drive up the price by re-routing oil headed to the EU to China and India instead. Then the EU will have to get oil from the US or OPEC over longer routes increasing the cost.

The above two points are in isolation. But things should not be viewed in isolation. Given a pending global recession, oil prices are likely to drop anyway.

If they do, then as noted above, the economic illiterates will be hooting and cheering the alleged success of caps.

This is all so stupid that only economists and politicians are dumb enough to believe it can work.

*

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 Primorsk Oil Terminal near St. Petersburg (file image)

To our readers,

Yesterday, we commemorated the assassination of  John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. 

59 years have passed yet the real perpetrators remain free and unchained.

Global Research has challenged the establishment’s narrative and published a plethora of articles exposing the links to the JFK murder, see this list. 

 

 

Our intention at Global Research is to continue to relentlessly promote independent and authoritative voices that speak out on issues which are deliberately neglected or distorted by the corporate media.

We live in an age of fear brought about by disinformation, where free speech is outlawed.

Online censorship has greatly affected our readership. In this context, with a view to sustaining our endeavours, we ask our readers to help us reach as many people as possible.

We are doing our best to circumvent all forms of censorship but only an army of readers and supporters can get us through it.

  • Crossposting Global Research articles on your blog sites,
  • Forwarding Global Research articles to emails lists,
  • Sharing Global Research articles on social media,
  • Bringing the Globalresearch.ca Newsletter to the attention of friends and colleagues,
  • Use the translate template on the top of our website to reproduce Global Research in many foreign languages

If you have the means, you can also help us continue with our mission through donation and membership.

Click to view our membership plans

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on JFK’s Legacy Will Live Forever. “Tell The Truth”. Support Global Research Through 2023

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 US is continuing to review its relationship with Saudi Arabia despite a Biden administration decision that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman should be provided immunity from a lawsuit over the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Tuesday.

“The opinion that we provided does not speak in any way to the merits of the case nor the current status of the bilateral relationship.”

“Our review of that relationship is ongoing,” insisted Blinken, who arrived in Doha on Monday, a day after the crown prince was at the football World Cup opening ceremony.

“The Biden administration has always claimed they are re-evaluating their relationship with Saudi, but time and again, it seems to be promises and gestures more than a real fundamental shift of policy,” Aziz Alghashian, a Riyadh-based researcher of Saudi foreign policy, told Middle East Eye.

The US said last month that it would reassess its relationship with Saudi Arabia after Riyadh backed an oil production cut at Opec+ that was seen as a snub to the US amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and heightened energy prices.

The move was particularly embarrassing for Biden, who defended his visit to the kingdom in July as necessary to shore up US energy security.

“We’ve seen mostly gestures from the White House that signal how the relationship with Saudi Arabia has become less friendly. But beyond such gestures and symbolic moves, I don’t think we can necessarily expect much in terms of ‘consequences’ for Riyadh,” Giorgio Cafiero, the CEO and founder of Gulf State Analytics, told MEE.

Downgrade unlikely  

As a candidate, Biden pledged to make Saudi Arabia “a pariah” over the murder of Middle East Eye and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, which the CIA said was sanctioned by Mohammed bin Salman.

Some Democratic lawmakers said the US should pursue measures against Saudi Arabia following the Opec+ move. Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, who chairs the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called for the US to freeze some arms sales to the kingdom – though that rhetoric has died down recently.

But the Biden administration is unlikely to make any of those moves as it looks to preserve the relationship in the context of a growing rivalry with China and Russia’s continued outreach to Riyadh, said Cafiero, from Gulf State Analytics.

“Any major moves on the administration’s part to downgrade relations or punish Riyadh would likely only push the Saudis even closer to Moscow and Beijing,” he added.

In addition, both Riyadh and Washington continue to share common concerns about security in the region, as tensions with Iran escalate.

“Shared interests continue keeping the US and Saudi Arabia close despite the shouting and angry sentiments between officials in Washington and Riyadh,” Cafiero said.

Keeping it vague

Democracy for the Arab World Now (Dawn), the US-based advocacy group founded by Khashoggi, and his fiancee, Hatice Cengiz, are plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking justice for Khashoggi’s killing.

This month, the Biden administration said that Mohammed bin Salman should have immunity in the lawsuit, as head of state. The crown prince’s elevation to prime minister in September was seen by critics as an attempt to protect him from litigation.

Blinken added that there were “no plans” for the crown prince to visit Washington while it reviews relations with the Gulf state.

“With regard to MBS, there are no plans for him to travel to Washington,” Blinken said.

Like other Gulf leaders, the crown prince has been courted by western powers as the war in Ukraine revives concerns about energy security.

Mohammed bin Salman travelled to Europe this summer, and despite the rupture over Opec+, western executives have flocked to the oil-rich kingdom to get a slice of its booming economy. The World Bank predicts Saudi Arabia will have the fastest-growing economy in the G-20 this year.

Blinken reaffirmed the administration’s case for granting immunity.

Blinken told a press conference the US administration had followed “longstanding legal practice” that a head of state or government, or foreign minister, was “entitled to immunity”.

“This is a determination that we’ve made in dozens, hundreds of cases over the years. And in every case, we simply follow the law,” he said.

Alghashian said the Biden administration likely hopes to keep its pledge to reset the relationship vague, “to avoid being perceived as breaking promises towards/against Saudi”.

*

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.

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 parliament announced on 21 November its decision to sever ties with Iran. The announcement comes in response to the Islamic Republic’s recent decision to place sanctions on the European governing body, which has been slapping its own sanctions against Tehran throughout the ongoing unrest in the country.

“We will not look away from those who look to us from the streets of Iran. Iran must stop its oppression of legitimate protests. In response to Iran’s [sanctions] on members of the European Parliament, [it] will no longer engage with Iranian authorities,” President of the EU parliament, Roberta Metsola, said in a statement via Twitter with the popular Iranian protest slogan “Women, life, freedom” written in Persian at the end of the tweet.

At the opening of its November plenary session on the same day, Metsola said that there would be “no direct contract” between the parliament and Iranian officials “until further notice.”

As Iran continues to face large waves of violent riots – which have resulted in the deaths of several members of the security forces and the destruction of public property – western media has framed the response by authorities as nothing more than a brutal crackdown on peaceful protestors.

In addition to the propagation of misinformation by mainstream, western European media, the EU has repeatedly placed several rounds of sanctions against Iran.

Accusing European states of interventionist policies and “supporting terrorism and violence” on Iranian soil, Tehran on 26 October announced the implementation of its own sanctions against several individuals and institutions associated with the EU.

Earlier that month, the Islamic Republic had sent several letters to European diplomats warning them that the aggressive EU sanction policy against Tehran could result in a “rupture” of relations between them.

As European, Saudi, British, and US media outlets lead the misinformation campaign against Tehran, violent attacks against the country’s security personnel are on the rise, and internationally-backed armed separatists continue to push for the illegal overthrow of the Islamic Republic.

*

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 KUNA

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 head of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) is pressing the US to step up planning for joint attacks against Iran, The Times of Israel reported on Tuesday.

IDF Chief of Staff Aviv Kohavi arrived in the US on Sunday and has been holding talks with high-level officials. So far this week, he has met with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and CIA Director William Burns.

“During the discussions, it was agreed that we are at a critical point in time that requires the acceleration of operational plans and cooperation against Iran and its terrorist proxies in the region,” Kohavi said.

Tensions are high between the US and Iran as the Biden administration has been increasing sanctions on the Islamic Republic and is voicing support for protesters inside the country. Talks to revive the Iran nuclear deal have been stalled for months, and administration officials have made clear they have no plans to resume them, at least anytime soon.

The US acknowledged in its recently released Nuclear Posture Review that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, but Israel continues to hype up the threat of Iran’s nuclear program.

“On the one hand, Iran is under many economic, military, and internal pressures, and on the other hand, it continues to promote its nuclear program. The IDF strongly promotes all operational plans against the Iranian threat,” he said.

*

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.

The Danger of Taking Official Claims at Face Value

November 23rd, 2022 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 Associated Press has fired the reporter behind an erroneous report that claimed that the missile that struck Poland last week had been fired by Russian forces. The original report relied on the word of a single anonymous U.S. intelligence official. An investigation into the erroneous report shows that a willingness to take official sources at their word seems to have been part of the larger problem:

Internal AP communications viewed by The Post show some confusion and misunderstanding during the preparations of the erroneous report.

LaPorta shared the U.S. official’s tip in an electronic message around 1:30 p.m. Eastern time. An editor immediately asked if AP should issue an alert on his tip, “or would we need confirmation from another source and/or Poland?”

After further discussion, a second editor said she “would vote” for publishing an alert, adding, “I can’t imagine a U.S. intelligence official would be wrong on this.” [bold mine-DL]

Skepticism about official claims should always be the watchword for journalists and analysts. These are claims that need more scrutiny than usual rather than less. If you can’t imagine that an intelligence official could get something important wrong, whether by accident or on purpose, you are taking far too many things for granted that need to be questioned and checked out first.

Intelligence officials of many governments feed information to journalists and have done so practically ever since there was a popular press to feed information to, and that information certainly should not be trusted just because an official source hands it over. It is also always possible for intelligence officials to just get things wrong, whether it is because they are relying on faulty information or because they were too hasty in reaching conclusions about what they think they know.

Whether the AP’s source was feeding them a line or was simply mistaken, a claim as provocative and serious as this one should have been checked out much more thoroughly before it got anywhere near publication. The AP report in this case seems to have been a combination of a story that was “too good to check” and a culture of deference to official sources in which the editors didn’t feel compelled to make the effort to check. The desire for a quick, eye-grabbing headline probably also contributed to the mistake. The incentives for news outlets to be first rather than right are strong and can have distorting effects on what gets published.

Fortunately, both the Polish and the U.S. governments reacted responsibly and carefully to the missile incident and the bad reporting about it, but we can see how easy it would be for them to have acted otherwise when there are too many journalists and analysts ready to believe whatever comes through official channels. There will be other situations where official sources will want to push a certain story out to manipulate public opinion, and there are not enough safeguards against media outlets reproducing and amplifying propaganda. I don’t know how that gets fixed or even if it can be fixed, but the first step is to treat official claims with much more skepticism until they can be confirmed by other sources.

*

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 InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Danger of Taking Official Claims at Face Value

All Western Attempts to Isolate Russia at G20 Failed

November 23rd, 2022 by Ahmed Adel

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.

***

From November 15 to 16, the G20 Summit took place in Indonesia, and contrary to Western attempts, Russia was an active and welcomed participant. On the eve of the Summit, the US called for Russia to be isolated, however, what transpired in Bali instead did not live up to Washington’s expectations – the Russian delegation, led by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, was not abandoned despite all efforts and attempts.

Rather, the experienced Russian Foreign Minister was received at the Indonesian holiday island with red carpets and an Honour Guard on the runway. Even a traditional dance was performed for him. In this way, even Lavrov’s reception made it clear that the Russian delegation was a welcomed party to the G20. It is noted that not even US President Joe Biden was welcomed in the same way as Lavrov.

None-the-less, there were still attempts to tarnish Lavrov’s mission in Bali, with the AP news agency falsely claiming that Russia’s top diplomat was hospitalised. This news was then disseminated all over Western media, proving that Western media only wants to take advantage of any situation to spread false information against Russia.

Despite all efforts by Western politicians and media, portraying Russia as an undesirable state at important international events failed to materialise. The West would rather Russia not be an active participant in shaping global affairs, including the G20, but there is no reason why Moscow would withdraw from such formats.

It was German Chancellor Olaf Scholz who had to admit that they had failed to isolate Russia at the G20 summit in Bali. On the Ukraine issue, he had to admit that “there are different opinions on the matter”. There are several countries in the G20 that refuse to condemn Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine and Scholz had to concede that it is very important to keep communications with Russian President Vladimir Putin open.

On the sidelines of the summit, Lavrov held many working meetings with colleagues from other countries, clearly showing the need for dialogue with Russia. The Russian Foreign Minister met with United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. During his talks with Lavrov, Wang Yi stressed that attempts to isolate Russia were unacceptable and condemned the West’s punitive policies towards Moscow.

In addition, Lavrov also had a meeting with his Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu at the East Asia Summit, held before the G20 Summit, and held bilateral meetings with the foreign ministers of Vietnam, Indonesia, Laos and Cambodia.

The West’s failure against Russia at the G20 is evidenced by the joint statement given by partipating leaders.

“There were other views and different assessments of the situation and sanctions. Recognising that the G20 is not the forum to resolve security issues, we acknowledge that security issues can have significant consequences for the global economy,” the G20 joint statement said in regards to Russia’s military operation in Ukraine.

This phrase clearly shows that not every G20 member condemns Russia for its military operation in Ukraine. The joint declaration also demonstrates that a belligerent West had to compromise despite its own interests not being served.

Press secretary for Russian President Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Peskov, also stressed that such an outcome in the joint statement is a great merit for both Russian diplomats and Indonesia, the host of G20, as well as India, the next country to assume the role of G20 presidency, and other partner countries.

Thus, it is undeniable that the attempt to isolate Russia at the G20 failed.

Instead of being alienated, the Russian delegation was greeted with friendliness. Expressions of willingness to cooperate were also given by several countries. Just as importantly, there was no condemnation of Russia in the joint G20 declaration as not every country is putting the war in Ukraine at the top of its agenda, like Western countries.

In the past, Washington could, by threat, dictate to countries what positions they should adopt regarding certain issues. Now, the situation is changing, and contrary to Western desires, Russia is too important in the world economy and political system, making it impossible to isolate the country.

*

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.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on All Western Attempts to Isolate Russia at G20 Failed

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 now official: The newly “selected” Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Rish Sunak is committed to “replacing Real Health Professionals with Robots”, assuming that these “robots” will keep their mouth shut and will not “question” His Majesty’s National Health (HMS) policies.

It’s constitutes an obvious threat to health professionals who fail to accept the mRNA Covid killer vaccine. Amply documented by official data the mRNA vaccine is characterized by an upward Worldwide trend in  mortality and morbidity.

The Prime Minister’s stance is a move towards the demise of medical practice, the layoff of thousands of health workers as well as the de facto privatization of Britain’s national healthcare system. 

“He is a Traitor”.  

Read the report by the Daily Telegraph below. 

Michel Chossudovsky,  Global Research, November 23 2020

 

Rishi Sunak has urged the NHS to embrace the use of robots as the health service prepares to cut its workforce by half in a drastic effort to cut costs.

The Prime Minister said supporting innovation was a “defining focus” of his premiership, as he described more automation and investment in robotics as “low hanging fruit” that will drive up pay and economic growth “quickly”.

“If we can get that right with more robotics and automation, then we can drive up productivity. It reduces some of the pressure on labour, and creates good jobs for people,” he told an audience of business leaders in Birmingham.

It came as Mr Sunak pledged to “radically innovate” Britain’s health service with new technologies in a “bold” move that would challenge “conventional wisdom” in healthcare reform. [No details were provided]

Ministers are drawing up plans to slash NHS England’s 6,500 bureaucrats by as much as half and to remove a swathe of targets to allow hospitals more control over how money is spent.

 

Click here to continue reading on The Telegraph.

*

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: Photo by HM Treasury and The Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP, licensed under OGL 3

COP27 Concludes While the Environmental Crisis Continues

November 23rd, 2022 by Abayomi Azikiwe

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 were high expectations for the United Nations Climate Conference held in the Egyptian seaside resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh.

COP27 took place on the African continent amid months of preparations by governments, non-governmental and mass organizations across the region and beyond.

Nonetheless, when the conference ended on November 20, there were no definitive deadlines established for the significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions nor the adoption of plans to rapidly move towards alternative forms of power generation, agricultural and industrial production. The underdeveloped countries and the western imperialist states have different and often contradictory sets of priorities as it relates to economic development.

Reparations and Reconstruction

Many states within the 55-member African Union (AU), based in neighboring Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, are demanding that the governments in Western Europe and North America which have gained their wealth and political dominance through the exploitation of large areas of the globe, should compensate their formerly enslaved, colonized and neo-colonized peoples. The ruling class within the United States and other imperialist countries are not willing to make any promises since the level of “loss and damage” is almost incalculable.

Other geo-political regions in the Caribbean, Central America, South America and the Asia-Pacific are taking a similar position. Under the current world economic system characterized by the unequal distribution of wealth and military power, the U.S., European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries are not about to relinquish their status without a monumental struggle. This viewpoint on the part of the western capitalist governments was reflected in arguments advanced at COP27 which attempt to obfuscate the central questions of responsibility and reparations for the current global environmental crisis.

It is undisputed that the main emitters of greenhouse gases are to be found in the imperialist states. The main source of pollutants emanates from the numerous military bases of the Pentagon and NATO which are sprawled across several continents.

The most newsworthy report to emerge from the concluding document was the announcement that a “loss and damage” fund was being set up in order to address the demands of the developing states. However, in reading the actual statement related to the “loss and damage” fund, more questions than answers come to the fore.

In a report on the COP27 conference published by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) noted that:

“While the negotiated text recognized the need for financial support from a variety of sources, no decisions have ben made on who should pay into the fund, where this money will come from, and which countries will benefit. The issue has been one of the most contentious on the negotiating table. Adapting to the climate crisis — which could require everything from building sea walls to creating drought-resistant crops — could cost developing countries anywhere from US$160-US$340 billion annually by 2030. That number could swell to as much as US$565 billion by 2050 if climate change accelerates, found UN Environment Programs (UNEP’s) 2022 Adaptation Gap Report.”

Beyond not making a clear statement about what is needed for the developing states to improve weather conditions, agricultural sustainability and to end military occupations directly or indirectly by the Pentagon-NATO forces, there were no firm guidelines spelled out for acknowledging past obligations to end production methods and forms of international relations which are damaging the planet and its people.

During the summit another major news story was the population of the earth reaching 8 billion people. Various geo-political regions such as South Asia and the AU member-states were noted for their rapid population growth. As a result of these developments, the western imperialist states will eventually be forced to adapt to the realities of a world bound to escape their spheres of influence.

The UNEP report quoted earlier also says:

“The final agreement did mention ‘the urgent need for deep, rapid and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions’ to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the most ambitious goal of the Paris Agreement. Yet there were concerns that no real progress was made on raising ambition or cutting fossil fuel emissions since COP26. That was considered bad news for a rapidly warming world. The Emissions Gap Report 2022, released by UNEP just before COP27, painted a bleak picture, finding that without rapid societal transformation, there is no credible pathway to a 1.5°C future. For each fraction of a degree that temperatures rise, storms, droughts and other extreme weather events become more severe.”

Not acting in a revolutionary manner towards these predictions endangers the futures of the majority of the 8 billion people now living around the world. Therefore, the developing states with their majority working class, farmers and youth must take matters into their own hands to ensure that imperialism does not do further damage to the planet.

Imperialism and the Environmental Crisis

Since the first U.S.-led war on Iraq in 1991, the region of West Asia and its environs have been plunged into instability and societal disruptions. Later in 2003, when a complete Pentagon occupation of Iraq was carried out, there was the further dislodging of millions of people creating the conditions for the eruption of other wars and the expansion of U.S.-NATO troops.

The continuing occupation of Palestine by the U.S.-funded Israeli regime not only drains much needed resources needed to feed, house and clothe billions around the world, it is the source of the forced exile of the Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians from their homelands. Successive U.S. administrations and their allies have supplied tens of billions of dollars in direct aid and assistance to the Israeli regime while the Palestinians and others in the region are subjected to the institutional discrimination and colonial impunity of Tel Aviv.

A program of resource extraction, political interference and military occupation has perpetuated the underdevelopment of Africa and other geo-political regions of the Global South since the conclusion of World War II and the independence movements which won liberation since the late 1940s. The nexus of economic and military hegemony exercised by the U.S. and NATO countries has reached its capacity to maintain compliance.

Yet, the impact of climate change has become far greater on the countries Asia, Africa and Latin America. There is the increasing frequency of extreme weather events which causes damage to human lives and societal institutions.

One indication of the changing political landscape was the presence of Brazil President-elect Lula da Silva. The former leader won a run-off election in October against ultra-right incumbent Joao Bolsonaro who had declared war on the indigenous and African people of Brazil during his administration.

Lula arrived at COP 27 with much fanfare. People greeted him with the anticipation that environmental policy would change under his leadership in Brazil. Lula addressed the UN gathering at Sharm-el-Sheikh by emphasizing the need to engage in the major international questions of the period. He invited the UN Climate Conference to be held in the Amazon in Brazil in 2025.

Lula’s speech at COP27 expressed his mandate from the electorate to reverse the current disastrous course embarked upon by his predecessor:

“There is no climate security for the world without a protected Amazon. We will spare no efforts to have zero deforestation and the degradation of our biomes by 2030. The planet is at every moment alerting us that we need one another to survive. However, we ignore these alerts. We spend trillions of dollars on wars that bring destruction and death, while 900 million people in the world don’t have something to eat.”

This is the sentiment of the majority of people throughout the world today. However, to achieve this objective it will be necessary to defeat the forces of imperialism and its surrogates in order for the will of the people to be realized.

*

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 is from the author

Putin’s Sledgehammer

November 23rd, 2022 by Mike Whitney

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 Ukrainians are in bad shape… It won’t be long before the Ukrainians run out of food. It won’t be long before they freeze… They have done all that we can reasonably expect them to do. It’s time to negotiate…. before the offensive begins, because once it begins, there will be no further discussion between Moscow and Kiev until it is over to the satisfaction of the Russians.” —Colonel Douglas MacGregor, “War in Ukraine; Quiet Before the Storm”, 15 minute-mark

“Strictly speaking, we haven’t started anything yet.”  —Russian President Vladimir Putin

The relentless attacks on Ukraine’s electrical grid, fuel-storage units, railway hubs, and Command-and-Control centers mark the beginning of a second and more lethal phase of the war.

The increased tempo of the high-precision, long-range missile attacks suggests that Moscow is laying the groundwork for a major winter offensive that will be launched as soon as Russia’s 300,000 reservists join their formations in east Ukraine. Kiev’s refusal to negotiate a settlement that addresses Russia’s core security concerns, has left Russian president Vladimir Putin with no other option but to defeat Ukrainian forces on the battlefield and impose a settlement through force-of-arms. The impending winter offensive is designed to deliver the knock-out punch Russia needs to achieve its strategic objectives and bring the war to swift end. This is from Reuters:

Russian missile strikes have crippled almost half of Ukraine’s energy system, the government said on Friday, and authorities in the capital Kyiv warned that the city could face a “complete shutdown” of the power grid as winter sets in.

With temperatures falling and Kyiv seeing its first snow, officials were working to restore power nationwide after some of the heaviest bombardment of Ukrainian civilian infrastructure in nine months of war.

The United Nations says Ukraine’s electricity and water shortages threaten a humanitarian disaster this winter.

“Unfortunately Russia continues to carry out missile strikes on Ukraine’s civilian and critical infrastructure. Almost half of our energy system is disabled,” Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said….

“We are preparing for different scenarios, including a complete shutdown,” Mykola Povoroznyk, deputy head of the Kyiv city administration, said in televised comments.” (“Ukraine says half its energy system crippled by Russian attacks, Kyiv could ‘shutdown’”, Reuters)

Until recently, Russia had avoided targets that would dramatically impact civilian activities, but now military leaders have returned to a more conventional approach. Presently, the military is destroying whatever facilities, transformers, storage units, substations, rail yards and energy depots that allow Ukraine to continue to wage war. Clearly –as the bigger and more powerful state — it was always within Russia’s ability to take a sledgehammer to Ukraine and break it into a million pieces, but Putin chose to hold back hoping that Kiev would come to its senses and see the hopelessness of its cause.

And –despite the deluge of western propaganda to the contrary– the outcome of this war has never been in doubt. Russia is going to impose a settlement on Kiev and that settlement will require the government to cut all ties with NATO and to sign a treaty declaring its neutrality into perpetuity. Russia is not going to allow a hostile military alliance to place its missile sites and combat troops on its western flank. That won’t happen.

Unfortunately, Russia’s military operation is going to greatly increase the suffering of the Ukrainian people who find themselves locked in a cage-match between the Washington and Moscow. This is from the World Socialist Web Site:

Poverty in Ukraine has increased more than tenfold since the outbreak of the US/NATO-Russia war, according to the latest data from the World Bank (WB). Officially, 25 percent of the country’s population is now poor, up from supposedly just 2 percent before February 2022… With officials predicting that the poverty rate could rise to as much as 60 percent or more next year, levels of deprivation are emerging in Ukraine that have not been witnessed on the European continent since the end of World War II.

Unemployment is now running at 35 percent, and salaries have fallen by as much as 50 percent over the spring and summer for some categories of workers. … according to the International Monetary Fund, Ukraine’s public debt has now soared to 85 percent of GDP…. A recently released joint study by the World Health Organization and Ukraine’s Ministry of Health found that 22 percent of people in Ukraine cannot access essential medicines. For the country’s 6.9 million internally displaced, that number rises to 33 percent.

The medications that are hardest to get—those that treat blood pressure, heart problems and pain, as well as sedatives and antibiotics—reveal a population struggling to cope with decades of poverty-induced ill health and the physical and psychological trauma of war.

While US and NATO officials are able to dispatch massive amounts of firepower to Ukraine’s front lines within a matter of weeks, the delivery of life-saving humanitarian goods is seemingly an impossible logistical challenge.”(“Poverty skyrockets in Ukraine”, World Socialist Web Site)

Washington’s proxy-war on Moscow has inflicted incalculable suffering on the people of Ukraine who now face plunging temperatures, dwindling food supplies, a crashing economy and a growing shortage of essential medications. And despite the chest-thumping bravado over the recapturing of Kherson, the Ukrainian people will now be forced to flee their battered homeland by the millions seeking refuge in Europe which has already slipped into a post-industrial slump brought on by Uncle Sam’s reckless provocations.

How many of these working-class Ukrainians would have preferred that their leaders reach an accommodation with Putin (regarding his legitimate security concerns) rather than engaging the Russian army in a pointless war which has cost them their homes, their jobs, their cities, and (for many) their lives? And do the people outside the country who claim to “Stand With Ukraine” realize that they are actually supporting the impoverishment and immiseration of millions of civilians that are caught in a geopolitical crossfire between Washington and Russia? Anyone who genuinely cares about Ukraine should support Ukrainian neutrality and an end to NATO expansion. That is the only way this war is going to end. Russian security will be achieved by-way of a treaty or an iron-fist. The choice is Ukraine’s. This is from an article titled ‘Russia Is Right: The U.S. Is Waging a Proxy War in Ukraine‘:

“The war in Ukraine isn’t just a conflict between Moscow and Kyiv, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently declared. It is a “proxy war” in which the world’s most powerful military alliance … is using Ukraine as a battering ram against the Russian state … Lavrov is … not wrong. Russia is the target of one of the most ruthlessly effectively proxy wars in modern history.”

The US foreign policy establishment does not care about Ukraine or the Ukrainian people. The country is merely a launching pad for Washington’s war on Russia. That is why the CIA toppled the democratically-elected government in Kiev in 2014 and that is why the CIA armed and trained Ukrainian paramilitaries to fight the Russian military in 2015 (7 years before the invasion!) Here’s some background from a 2015 article at Yahoo News:

“The CIA is overseeing a secret intensive training program in the U.S. for elite Ukrainian special operations forces and other intelligence personnel, according to five former intelligence and national security officials familiar with the initiative. The program, which started in 2015, is based at an undisclosed facility in the Southern U.S., according to some of those officials….

“The United States is training an insurgency,” said a former CIA official, adding that the program has taught the Ukrainians how “to kill Russians.”

…the CIA and other U.S. agencies could support a Ukrainian insurgency, should Russia launch a large-scale incursion.

…“We’ve been training these guys now for eight years. They’re really good fighters. …representatives from both countries also believe that Russia won’t be able to hold on to new territory indefinitely because of stiff resistance from Ukrainian insurgents, according to former officials.

If the Russians launch a new invasion, “there’s going to be people who make their life miserable,” said the former senior intelligence official…

“All that stuff that happened to us in Afghanistan,” said the former senior intelligence official, “they can expect to see that in spades with these guys.” (“CIA-trained Ukrainian paramilitaries may take central role if Russia invades”, Yahoo News)

There it is in black and white. The plan to use Ukraine as a staging-ground for conducting a proxy-war on Russia preceded the invasion by at least 7 years.

The Obama administration and their neocon allies set a trap for Russia in order to drag them into an Afghanistan-like quagmire that would deplete their resources and kill as many Russian servicemen as possible. As Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin recently admitted, the US wants to “weaken” Russia so it is unable to project power beyond its borders. Washington seeks unhindered access to Central Asia so it can encircle China with military bases and nuclear missiles. The US intends to control China’s growth while dominating the world’s most populous and prosperous region of the next century, Asia. But first, Washington must crush Russia, collapse its economy, isolate it from the global community, demonize it in its media, and topple its leaders. Ukraine is seen as the first phase in a much broader strategy aimed at regime change (in Moscow) followed by the forced fragmentation of the Russian state. The ultimate objective is the preservation of Washington’s preeminent role in the global order.

Putin’s winter offensive threatens to derail Washington’s plan to drag the conflict out for as long as possible. In the weeks and months ahead, Russia is going to intensify its assault on Ukraine’s critical infrastructure. Most of the country will be plunged into darkness, fuel supplies will dry up, food and water will become scarcer, communications will be cut off, and all rail-traffic will cease. Millions of civilians will flee to Europe while the entire country slowly grinds to a standstill. At the same time that Russian battalions overtake cities and towns east of the Dnieper, the Russian army will block vital supply-lines from Poland cutting off the flow of lethal weaponry and combat troops headed to the front. This, in turn, will lead to widespread capitulation among Ukrainian fighting units operating in the field which will force Zelensky to the negotiating table. Eventually, Russia will prevail and its legitimate security demands will be met. Here’s how Colonel Douglas MacGregor summed it up in a recent interview:

“What’s coming in the future is a very massive offensive... the kind of offensive that I and many other military analysts expected at the beginning; Very decisive operations, multiple operational axes designed to effectively annihilate the enemy on the ground. And that’s what’s coming now, that’s what lies in the future.” (Colonel Douglas MacGregor, “War in Ukraine; Quiet Before the Storm”, you tube)

When the ground freezes, Russia’s offensive will begin.

*

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 Unz Review.

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace.

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

Featured image: Russian president Vladimir Putin (Illustration by TPYXA_ILLUSTRATION/Shutterstock)

From the History of WWII: A Genocide in Nazi Croatia

November 23rd, 2022 by Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović

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.

***

Preface

Due to the current conflict in (East) Ukraine (historically known as Russia Minor), the world is more and more becoming informed about the genocide of the Poles, Jews, and Russians on the territory of West Ukraine during WWII committed by Ukrainian Nazi-nationalists (the Banderists). However, at the same time, in the Balkans, in parallel with the Ukrainian case, the organized genocide of the Jews, Roma, and above all the ethnic Serbs were on agenda but the world audience is still not properly informed about the case – the case occurred in the Nazi-shaped Independent State of Croatia.

At the very start, it must be mentioned that Nazi Croatia during WWII (1941−1945) concerning its inner policy (of genocide) was independent of its mentors Germany and Italy. Moreover, both Rome and Berlin in several cases tried to convince a Nazi government in Zagreb to stop with the policy of genocide but in vain.

The division of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia

After the April War of 6−18th, 1941, the Germans, Italians, Bulgarians, and Hungarians occupied and divided the territory of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia into several parts. The Germans annexed North Slovenia and put under their direct occupation the Yugoslav part of Banat and Central Serbia with Kosovska Mitrovica.

The Italians occupied South Slovenia, established their marionette regime in Montenegro, and annexed the Gulf of Boka Kotorska, parts of Konavli, and Dalmatia. The Hungarians annexed Prekomurje, Baranja and Bachka. The Bulgarians occupied the East and Central Vardar Macedonia and South-East Serbia. The Italians established their marionette state of Greater Albania with East Montenegro, Kosovo (without its northern part that was occupied by the Germans for economic reasons), and West Vardar Macedonia.[i]

However, the most important post-April War creation on the territory of the ex-Kingdom of Yugoslavia was an Independent State of Croatia that was officially proclaimed on April 10th, 1941. It was composed of Croatia, Slavonia, parts of Dalmatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and East Srem (today in Serbia). The official name of the state was Neovisnadržava Hrvatska (the NDH) with a capital in Zagreb. It had 6.663.157 inhabitants according to the last pre-war census and covered a territory of 102.725 sq. km.[ii] According to the Rome Treaties from May 1941, the NDH gave to its patron Italy Kastav and Sushak with its hinterland, the islands of Krk and Rab, the North Dalmatian, and parts of the Central Dalmatian littoral, the biggest part of the Adriatic islands and a part of Konavle. Therefore, Italy realized all paragraphs of the secret London Treaty signed between Italy and the Entente in April 1915. Nevertheless, after the capitulation of Italy on September 8th, 1943 the NDH tried to incorporate parts of Dalmatia but did not succeed to establish a real state-administrative sovereignty over these territories due to German obstruction.

The collapse of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1941 was very rapid for at least three reasons:

  1. The country was not prepared for the war at all.
  2. The aggressors were much stronger from all points of view.
  3. The Croat treachery during the April War.

Because of the military defeat, some 375.000 officers and soldiers of the Yugoslav army, but only of Serb origin, fell into the Axis hands and became prisoners of war in Germany. Nevertheless, on the territory of the NDH fanatical Serb-hating Croat Nazi-Ustashi were on the loose, perpetrating appalling massacres which very soon led to the Serb uprising and the loss of de facto control over the large areas.[iii] Destruction of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, her occupation followed by the creation of a Greater NDH, and massacres of its Orthodox and Jewish population were the historical triumph of the Vatican and Roman Catholic separatism.[iv]

The creation of Nazi Croatia

After the April War in 1941 and the occupation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, as a leading pre-war Croat politician Vladimir Vladko Machek refused the Italian and German offer to become a head of the new quisling state of the NDH, the Croat Nazi-Ustashi leader, Ante Pavelic was brought back from Italy to lead this Independent State of Croatia. V. Machek himself noted that the declaration of the NDH on April 10th, 1941 was greeted with “a wave of enthusiasm” in Zagreb “not unlike that which had swept through the town in 1918 when the ties with Hungary were severed”.[v] The territory of NDH, like the rest of the ex-Kingdom of Yugoslavia, was divided between the German and Italian zones of influence and administration. When the Nazi-Ustashi Poglavnik (Führer) Ante Pavelic was returned from Italy to be appointed by the Italians as the leader of the NDH he came with some 300 supporters, but it turned out soon that he got silent massive support from the ethnic Croats in the country. The Ustashi movement, established in 1929, found its ideological roots in the mid-19 century chauvinistic Roman-Catholic and Serbophobic ideologist Ante Starchevic – a founder of the nationalistic Croat Party of Rights. A. Starchevic was exactly the person who formulated the ideological framework of a Greater Croatia and the Nazi-Ustashi-committed brutal and sadistic genocide against the Serbs during WWII on the territory of the NDH.[vi]

The Italian installation of the Ustashi regime in the NDH meant nothing else than the Serbophobic Roman Catholic fanatics were now in power in a state where the law and order were framed on the pattern of Nazi Germany’s anti-Jewish law and order – in a state whose population was barely 50 percent Croat followed by 12 percent Muslims (today Bosniaks) and at least one-third the Serbs whose destiny was to disappear by these or other means.

The Bosnian-Herzegovinian Muslims officially declared by the Ustashi regime as the “flower of the Croat nation”, i.e., as the ethnic Croats of the Islamic faith, and as such the Bosniaks took full participation in the Croat-run four years  genocide against the Orthodox Serbs. During the war, the most infamous Bosnian-Herzegovinian Muslim military unit was the SS Hanjar Division which was inspected by H. Himler himself. However, differently to the Muslim case in the NDH, the implacable extreme Serbophobic regime in Zagreb sought to exterminate all Serbs on the territory of the NDH according to the self-proclaimed principle by the NDH Minister of Education,

Mile Budak on June 22nd, 1941: one third to kill, one third to expel and one third to convert to the Roman Catholicism (to Croatize).[vii] The first laws in the NDH were to ban the Cyrillic script and to outlaw the Serbs who had to wear a special sign on their clothes that they are the Orthodox.[viii]The Serb Orthodox churches and schools were first closed and later destroyed. The Ustashi organized bloody massacres of the Serbs even inside the churches (in Glina in August 1941) or the schools (in Prebilovci in August 1941). Deportations of the Serbs to Serbia were part of the Ustashi-designed “Final Solution” of the Serb Question in the NDH – in 1945 there were around 400.000 Serb refugees in Serbia from the NDH.

The role of the Vatican

We do not have the right to forget that the essence of the NDH was that this state was the first Vatican-sponsored state in the Balkans. The Roman Catholic Church in the NDH put itself to the full exposal to the new Nazi Roman Catholic Ustashi authorities and even participated directly in the massacres of the Orthodox Serbs.[ix] For the Roman Catholic clergy in the NDH, one of the most controversial demands of the Ustashi authorities was the conversion of the Serbs to Roman Catholicism.

In principle, the clergy was uncomfortable with this policy of direct conversion, without the converts first accepting the Union act (recognizing the Pope as a head of the church but keeping Slavonic liturgy). Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church in the NDH accepted a forced conversion of the Serbs under the formal pretext of saving their lives. It is estimated that the total number of converted Orthodox Serbs in the NDH was around 300.000, but it is recorded also that many of the already converted Serbs became anyway murdered by the Ustashi detachments. In the spring of 1943, the Ustashi government created a Croatian Orthodox Church that was headed by Bishop Hermogen – the Russian Orthodox priest who escaped from the USSR.

The 9th Circle of Dante’s Hell  

The first organized massive massacre of the Serbs in the NDH was committed on April 28th, 1941 when 187 Serbs from the village of Gudovac and its surroundings were massacred. Among the most brutal and sadistic massacres at the beginning of the NDH was in Glina on August 5th, 1941 when some 1.200 Orthodox Serbs dressed in their Sunday best were called to the local Orthodox church from surrounding villages to be converted to Roman Catholicism.

However, instead of conversion they were locked inside the church and slaughtered by knives. In August 1941 occurred and the Prebilovci massacre of the local Serbs in East Herzegovina including the children in the village school. A report on this event by the local Italian commander to Mussolini is very sensitive and anti-Catholic as the commander noticed that after the Prebilovci massacre is shameful to be a Roman Catholic. The organized Ustashi genocide against the Serbs very soon became rapid and efficient according to the U.S. official reports up to August 1942 there were some 600.000 killed people in the NDH, the overwhelming majority of them the Serbs.[x] The massacres of Croat-Muslim Ustashi forces were to such an extent that even Adolf Hitler was forced to personally intervene in this case in order to restrain the Ustashi barbarism. It is also recorded that the German troops were in some cases in Bosnia-Herzegovina opening fire on the Ustashi soldiers to save the lives of the Serbs. That was a fact that the Serbs and the Jews were fleeing from the Germans to the Italian occupation zone of Yugoslavia for the very reason as the Italians protected them from the Ustashi knives.[xi]

In the attempt to finally solve the Serb Question westward of the Drina River, the Ustashi government established a network of death camps among all Jasenovac (a Yugoslav Auschwitz) nearby the Sava River on the very border with Bosnia-Herzegovina became the most infamous as in it perished around 700.000 people among them 500.000 the Serbs (official Croat propaganda ). The extermination techniques included a slaughtering of the prisoners with a special type of knife known as the Srbosjek (a Slaughterer of the Serbs) made in the Solingen factory in Germany under the Ustashi design or making the hand-washing soaps of alive boiled human bodies sold in the shops in Zagreb. The pieces of evidence of the extermination of the Serbs were sent by the local executors to Zagreb and from Zagreb to the Vatican. The most enduring of this genocide is for sure the scene described by the Italian journalist and writer Curzio Malaparte in his book Kaputt. This book is an account of his wartime experiences as a war correspondent. Therefore, several months after the NDH became proclaimed Malaparte went to make an interview with Ante Pavelic – a head of the state and a leader of the Ustashi movement. On this occasion, he was joined by the Italian minister in Zagreb, Raffaele Casertino. What he wrote as a witness is:

While he spoke, I gazed at a wicker basket on the Poglavnik’s desk. The lid was raised and the basket seemed to be filled with mussels or shelled oysters – as they are occasionally displayed in the windows of Fortnum and Mason in Piccadilly in London. Casertano looked at me and winked, “Would you like a nice oyster stew?” “Are they Dalmatian oysters?” I asked Poglavnik. Ante Pavelic removed the lid from the basket and revealed the mussels, that slimy and jelly-like mass, and he said smiling, with that tired good-natured smile of his, “It is a present from my loyal Ustashis. Forty pounds of human eyes.”[xii]

The NDH was internationally recognized by Germany, Italy, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Japan, Spain, National China, Finland, Denmark, and Manchuria [declared an Independent State by Japan].

It existed from April 10th, 1941 to May 15th, 1945.

In the other words, the NDH existed for a whole week after the German capitulation as the last Nazi state in Europe. After the war, a new communist authority in Yugoslavia, led by Josip Broz Tito of Croat and Slovenian origin, did everything to eliminate the pieces of evidence of the Croat-Muslim Magnum Crimen against the Serbs during the war.

A most notorious case happened with the death camp of Jasenovac which was demolished. Very soon after the war simply nothing was left as evidence of the 9th Circle of Dante’s Hell followed by the destruction of the written and other documents. After 1990 a new nationalistic government of Franjo Tudjman in Zagreb did everything to disgracefully whitewash a history of the NDH directly supported by the official scientific institutions in Croatia. In this context, one of the most shameful “scientific” publications was published in several languages by the Croatian Institute of History in 1997.[xiii]

The sources of genocide

Today, it is much more reliable to consult German and Italian sources on the NDH than the archival material from the Yugoslav archives. Therefore, the most useful reports to Berlin and Rome are by the German and Italian embassies in Zagreb, German General Artur von Flebs, German dr. Josef Fessl, German Wilhelm Hetl, German Lothar Rendulitz, German Herman Neubacher, German dr. Josef Matl, Italian General Pitzio Biroli, Italian General Mario Roata, Italian Colonel Guisepe Angelini, Italian Enzo Cataldi or Italian historian Salvatore Loi who published an extremely valuable anthology of the Italian documents and reports on the Italian military operations in Yugoslavia in 1978.  S. Loi’s account on the NDH is probably one of the most relevant and realistic. According to him, the NDH became transformed into the lake of Serb blood until mid-August 1941. The Croat-Muslim genocide against the Serbs was, according to the same author, the most barbaric part of WWII, even more, barbaric than the holocaust against the Jews.[xiv]

Subsequently, it is not of any surprise that U.S. President Th. F. D. Roosevelt told in 1944 that after the war the Croats as a nation has no right to their national state as they showed to be animals during the war. For such a nation as the Croats were, Roosevelt anticipated international monitoring but not any kind of Croatia. However, after the war, a Croat-led the Communist Party of Yugoslavia created an even bigger Croatia within Yugoslavia than it was before the war reducing Serbia to the borders before the Balkan Wars of 1912−1913.

Epilogue

Finally, the Croats backed by Vatican and Germany continued a policy of the NDH in 1991 and, in essence, succeeded as today in Croatia there are only up to 4 percent of the Serbs in comparison to 25 percent in 1940 or 12 percent in 1990.

*

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

[i] B. Petranović, Istorija Jugoslavije 1918−1945. Druga knjiga: Narodnooslobodilački rat i revolucija 1941−1945, Beograd: NOLIT, 1988, 25−51.

[ii] S. Srkulj, J. Lučić, Hrvatska povijest u dvadeset pet karata. Prošireno i dopunjeno izdanje, Zagreb: Hrvatski informativni centar, 1996, 105.

[iii] T. Judah, The Serbs. History, Myth and the Destruction of Yugoslavia, New Haven−London, 1997, 117.

[iv] М. Екмечић, Дуго кретање између клања и орања. Историја Срба у Новом веку (1492−1992). Треће, допуњено издање, Београд: Евро-Ђунти, 2010, 438.

[v] V. Maček, In the Struggle for Freedom, London, 1957, 230.

[vi] On this issue, see more in [В. Ђ. Крестић, Геноцидом до велике Хрватске. Друго допуњено издање, Јагодина: Гамбит, 2002].

[vii] According to Hrvatski narod – official NDH newspaper, dated on June 26th, 1941.

[viii] ХД Хрватска држава геноцида, Двери српске. Часопис за националну културу и друштвена питања, Год. XIII, број 47−50, Београд, 2011, 24−31.

[ix] V. Novak, Magnum Crimen. Pola vijeka klerikalizma u Hrvatskoj, Zagreb, 1948−Beograd 1986; V. Dedijer, Vatikan i Jasenovac, Beograd: Rad, 1987; M. A. Ривели, Надбискуп геноцида. Монсињор Степинац, Ватикан и усташка диктатура у Хрватској, 1941−1945, Никшић: Јасен, 1999; Л. Лукајић, Фратри и усташе кољу. Злочинци и сведоци. Покољ Срба у селима код Бања Луке Дракулићу, Шарговцу и Мотикама 7 фебруара и Пискавици и Ивањској 5 и 12 фебруара 1942. године, Београд: Фонд за истраживање геноцида, 2005.

[x] Р. Л. Кнежевић, Ж. Л. Кнежевић, Слобода или смрт, Сијетл, 1981, 44.

[xi] O. Talpo, Dalmazia: Una cronaca per la storia (1941), Roma, 1985. This book is of the crucial importance for the reconstruction of the Croat-Muslim massacres of the Serbs as it contains the large number of the Italian military and other documents from the Italian archives. See more on this issue in [S. Avramov, Genocid in Jugoslavija, Beograd, 1995].

[xii] C. Malaparte, Kaputt, Evanson IL: Northwestern University Press, 1997, 266; B. J. Fišer (priredio), Balkanski diktatori. Diktatori i autoritarni vladari jugoistočne Evrope, Beograd: IPS−IP Prosveta, 2009, 229.

[xiii] V. Žerjavić, Population Losses in Yugoslavia 1941−1945, Zagreb: Dom i Svijet−Hrvatski institut za povijest, 1997.

[xiv] М. Екмечић, Дуго кретање између клања и орања. Историја Срба у Новом веку (1492−1992). Треће, допуњено издање, Београд: Евро-Ђунти, 2010, 445.

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.

***

“All the time—such is the tragi-comedy of our situation—we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible… In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”—C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

There will come a time in the not-so-distant future when the very act of thinking for ourselves is not just outlawed but unthinkable.

We are being shunted down the road to that dystopian future right now, propelled along by politically correct forces that, while they may have started out with the best of intentions, have fallen prey to the authoritarian siren song of the Nanny State, which has promised to save the populace from evils that only a select few are wise enough to recognize as such.

As a result, we are being infantilized ad nauseum, dictated to incessantly, and forcefully insulated from “dangerous” sights and sounds and ideas that we are supposedly too fragile, too vulnerable, too susceptible, or too ignorant to be exposed to without protection from the so-called elite.

Having concluded that “we the people” cannot be trusted to think for ourselves, the powers-that-be have taken it upon themselves to re-order our world into one in which they do the thinking for us, and all we have to do is fall is line.

Those who do not fall in line with this government-sanctioned group think—who resist, who dare to think for themselves, who dare to adopt views that are different, or possibly wrong or hateful—are branded as extremists, belligerents, and deplorables, and shunned, censored and silenced.

The fallout is as one would expect.

Cancel culture—political correctness amped up on steroids, the self-righteousness of a narcissistic age, and a mass-marketed pseudo-morality that is little more than fascism disguised as tolerance—has shifted us into an Age of Intolerance, policed by techno-censors, social media bullies, and government watchdogs.

Everything is now fair game for censorship if it can be construed as hateful, hurtful, bigoted or offensive provided that it runs counter to the established viewpoint.

In this way, the most controversial issues of our day—race, religion, sex, sexuality, politics, science, health, government corruption, police brutality, etc.—have become battlegrounds for those who claim to believe in freedom (of religion, speech, assembly, press, redress, privacy, bodily integrity, etc.) but only when it favors the views and positions they support.

The latest victim of this rigid re-ordering of the world into one in which vestiges of past mistakes are scrubbed from existence comes from the New York Department of Education, which has ordered schools to stop using Native American references in mascots, team names and logos by the end of the current school year or face penalties including a loss of state aid.

Citing concerns about racism and a need to comply with the state’s Dignity for All Students Act, which requires schools to create environments free of harassment or discrimination, New York officials are telling communities—many of which are named after Native American tribes—that longstanding cultural associations with their towns’ Indian namesakes are offensive and shameful.

More than 100 schools in 60 school districts across New York State have nicknames or mascots that reference Native Americans. The cost to divest their communities of such branded names and images will be significant. One school district estimates that the cost to remove its Indians imagery from the gym floor alone will be upwards of $60,000.

This drive to sanitize New York schools of “offensive” Native American logos and imagery comes on the heels of iconoclastic campaigns to rid the country of anything and anyone that may offend modern-day sensibilities.

Monuments have been torn down, schools and streets have been renamed, and the names of benefactors stripped from prominent signage in the quest for a more enlightened age.

These are not new tactics.

Since the days of the Byzantine Empire, when “Emperor Leo III ordered the destruction of all Christian images on the grounds that they represented idolatry and were heretical,” political movements have resorted to destroying monuments, statues and imagery of the day as a visual means of exerting their power and vanquishing their enemies.

We have been caught in this intolerant, self-righteous, destructive, mob-driven cycle of book-burning, statue-toppling, history-erasing iconoclasm ever since.

As art critic Alexander Adams explains:

“Iconoclasm is an activity evenly distributed between both left and right of the political spectrum, mainly at the extreme ends… The intolerant ideology, which refuses to accept the co-existence of alternative views, takes the stance that…the ideals within the art are no longer utterable or supportable: they are actually injurious and dangerous to the vulnerable… The political activist reserves to himself the right to retrospectively edit our history for his satisfaction by removing monuments, those fixtures of civic life, embedded in the memories of generations… Iconoclasm is an expression of domination and a demonstration of willingness to act—illegally and unethically—to impose the will of one group over an entire population. It asserts control over all aspects of society… The campaigner argues that public art, accumulated piecemeal over 1,000 years of history, must reflect our society and values today—even if that means altering or erasing stories of the values our past society expressed via its monuments, or suppressing evidence of how we arrived at our current situation… The iconoclast believes that it is only the values of today that count—that it is only her values that count. She takes it upon herself to correct history through monstrous acts of egotism. That correction, when it involves destruction, permanently alters the cultural legacy. It shrinks the breadth of human experience available to the generations which follow ours.”

In such a world, there can be no debate, no journey to understanding, no chance to learn from one’s mistakes or even make mistakes that are uniquely your own; there is only obedience and compliance to the government, its corporate overlords and the prevailing mob mindset.

Censorship, cancel culture, political correctness, woke-ism, hate speech, intolerance: whatever label you assign to this overzealous drive to sanitize the culture of anything that might be deemed offensive or disturbing or challenging, be assured they are sign posts on a one-way road to graver dangers marked by “suppression, persecution, expulsion and the massacring of people.”

Whether those smashing monuments and erasing history are doing so for noble purposes or more diabolical reasons, the end results are the same: criminalization, confiscation, imprisonment, exile and genocide.

“Look at mobs which gather to smash monuments,” says Adams. “These monuments may be the statues of deposed dictators who terrorized populations, causing untold death and suffering. They may be monuments to fallen soldiers who died defending causes that are no longer fashionable. The mob’s anger is the same. The viciousness and triumphant celebrations are the same. Only the causes differ in seriousness, topicality and justification.”

Adams continues:

“The Civil War statue destroyers think they are assaulting the posterity of slave owners, but they themselves are in the grip of ideological fervor. They are unaware that they are running a biological code, hardwired in their brains by evolution and activated by political extremists. The activists of today heedlessly erase history they haven’t yet learned to read. They act as the hammer that extremists use to deface the cathedrals and museums our ancestors built.”

What’s different about this present age, however, is the use of technology to censor, silence, delete, label as “hateful,” demonize and destroy those whose viewpoints run counter to the cultural elite.

“In the last few years,” writes Nina Powers for Art Review, “what is understood to be contentious has become increasingly broadly defined… The range of what counts as acceptable gets smaller and smaller… [W]e thus find ourselves… in the midst of a new culture war in which the freedom to think, feel and express ourselves comes at the risk of economic impoverishment, social ostracism and mob justice.”

Where this leads is the stuff of dystopian nightmares: societies that value conformity and group-think over individuality; a populace so adept at self-censorship and compliance that they are capable only of obeying the government’s dictates without the ability to parse out whether those dictates should be obeyed; and a language limited to government-speak.

This is what happens when the voices of the majority are allowed to eliminate those in the minority, and it is exactly why James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, fought for a First Amendment that protected the “minority” against the majority, ensuring that even in the face of overwhelming pressure, a minority of one—even one who espouses distasteful viewpoints—would still have the right to speak freely, pray freely, assemble freely, challenge the government freely, and broadcast his views in the press freely.

Freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society.

The alternative, as depicted in Ayn Rand’s novella Anthem, is a world in which individuality and the ability to think for oneself independent of the government and the populace are eradicated, where even the word “I” has been eliminated from the vocabulary, replaced by the collective “we.”

As Anthem’s narrator Equality 7-2521 explains, “It is a sin to think words no others think and to put them down upon a paper no others are to see. . . . And well we know that there is no transgression blacker than to do or think alone.”

As I make clear in Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, we are not merely losing the ability to think critically for ourselves and, in turn, to govern our inner and outer worlds, we are also in danger of losing the right to do so.

The government’s war on thought crimes and truth-tellers is just the beginning.

*

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 Cancel Culture’s War on History, Heritage and the Freedom to Think for Yourself
  • 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.

***

Here is why Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 was actually legal under international law:

No one maintains that U.S. President John F. Kennedy lacked international legal authorization to invade the Soviet Union if the Soviet Union were to place American nuclear-warheaded missiles in Cuba 1,131 miles from Washington DC. Everyone recognized that if the Soviet Union and Cuba were to do that, it would constitute an act of aggression against the United States, because those missiles would be so close to America’s command-center in DC as to enable a blitz nuclear attack by the Soviet Union so fast as to possibly prohibit America’s strategic command to recognize the attack in time to launch its own, retaliatory, missiles.

This is the principle, that any major world power possesses the national self-defense right to prohibit any bordering nation from allowing weaponry and forces of a major world power that is hostile to this major world power to be placed in that bordering nation.

Whereas Cuba is 1,131 miles away from DC, Ukraine is only 300 miles away from The Kremlin.

JFK demanded from both Cuba and the Soviet Union that there will NEVER be Soviet missiles placed in Cuba, and the Soviet Union then promised that they would comply with that national-security demand by the U.S.; thus, WW III was averted.

This time around, the aggressors were America and Ukraine; and Russia imposed the same demand as JFK did, but its enemies were/are determined and clear aggressor nations — refused to comply.

Why does ANYONE allege that allowing the United States to place its missiles only 300 miles (a 5-minute missile-flight away) from The Kremlin would not constitute aggression by the U.S. and Ukraine against Russia? Allowing Ukraine into NATO would grant the Governments of U.S. and Ukraine a right to place U.S. missiles 300 miles from The Kremlin — something that no rational Government of Russia would ever allow to happen.

The Cuban-Missile-Crisis precedent acknowledged that Russia now has a national-defense right to demand that Ukraine NEVER be allowed into NATO.

On 17 December 2021, Russia demanded from both the U.S. and its anti-Russian military alliance NATO, promises in writing that Ukraine WILL NOT BE ALLOWED INTO NATO. On 7 January 2022, America and its NATO aggression-alliance both said no.

That left Russia either to capitulate to America and its NATO, or else to invade Ukraine in order to prevent that aggressor — America — from doing essentially what JFK had gotten the Soviet Union to do: to agree to the defending major world power’s extremely reasonable (actually necessary) demand and so promise NEVER to allow Ukraine into NATO.

America (and its NATO) forced Russia to invade Ukraine, in order to prevent nuclear “Checkmate!” by the U.S. regime.

All of the U.S.-and-allied propaganda organs (including academic ones) that use the lying phrase “Russia’s illegal invasion of ukraine” must therefore be recognized as being the liars that they actually are. (Otherwise: they must declare JFK to have been violating international law by threatening Khrushchev with an American invasion if Soviet missiles would be placed in Cuba.)

What the Cuban-Missile-Crisis example displays is a more detailed statement of the Westphalian Principle or “Westphalian State System” as Oxford Reference defines that:

OVERVIEW

Westphalian state system

QUICK REFERENCE

Term used in international relations, supposedly arising from the Treaties of Westphalia in 1648 which ended the Thirty Years War. It is generally held to mean a system of states or international society comprising sovereign state entities possessing the monopoly of force within their mutually recognized territories. Relations between states are conducted by means of formal diplomatic ties between heads of state and governments, and international law consists of treaties made (and broken) by those sovereign entities. The term implies a separation of the domestic and international spheres, such that states may not legitimately intervene in the domestic affairs of another, whether in the pursuit of self‐interest or by appeal to a higher notion of sovereignty, be it religion, ideology, or other supranational ideal. In this sense the term differentiates the ‘modern’ state system from earlier models, such as the Holy Roman Empire or the Ottoman Empire.

Richard Coggins

RTC

From:  Westphalian state system  in  The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics

That cites two “Empires” — Holy Roman, and Ottoman — but actually ALL empires violate Westphalianism. That includes today’s American empire.

During WW II, the advocates of Westphalianism were FDR and Stalin, and the opponents of Westphalianism were Churchill, Hirohito, Mussolini, and Hitler. Truman and his personal hero Eisenhower became FDR’s successors, and both of them were opponents of Westphalianism. This was the reason why the Cold War started: both of the first two American Presidents after FDR were imperialists. They created today’s military-industrial-complex-controlled America, the international American dictatorship that now exists and which has replaced FDR’s democracy.

An interesting sidelight to this is that whereas Sunni Islam, and the passion that some of them have for establishing an international “Caliphate,” accept imperialism or even advocate it (as Caliphate-proponents do), Shiite Islam opposes imperialism, and this has been one of the major reasons why Shiite Iran is rejected by all imperialistic Governments. Here is how Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei phrased this in his 21 October 2006 “Leader’s Speech in Meeting with Soldiers and Commanders of the Sacred Defense Era”:

There are two major differences between a defensive and an offensive war in terms of meaning and content. One difference is that an offensive war is based on transgression and aggression, but this is not the case with a defensive war. The second difference is that a defensive war is a place where zeal, courage and deep loyalty to ideals emerge. These ideals may be related to one’s country or … one’s religion. …. This does not exist in an offensive war. For example, when America attacks Iraq, an American soldier cannot claim that he is doing it for the love of his country. What does Iraq have to do with his country? This war is at the service of other goals, but if an Iraqi person resists this military invasion and presence inside his country, this means showing resistance and defending one’s country, national identity and those values that one believes in. …

Since the day the regime of Saddam attacked Tehran and struck the airport until the day Imam (r.a.) accepted the resolution – was a glorious era. And it continued to be a glorious era until Saddam attacked again and our revolutionary and mujahid people took over the entire desert. Basiji youth from throughout the country participated in the war and they put in an astonishing performance. This time – the second time that Iraq had attacked – they managed to make it retreat.

Between 1953 and 1979, Iran had been part of (i.e., a vassal of) the then-growing American empire, and Khamenei in that speech made a principled repudiation of THAT America. But that America is now bipartisan in both of America’s political Parties, and is at war against the anti-imperialist nations of today, mainly Russia, China, and Iran — but also against any nation that is friendly toward any of those three. The anti-imperialist nations are pro-Westphalian; the imperialist nations are (and always have been) anti-Westphalian.

Today’s international law doesn’t mention the Westphalian Principle, because FDR had died and the U.N. (which he invented and named) became created in Truman’s image, not in FDR’s; and so it accepts imperialism (which FDR passionately despised and loathed). That’s part of the gutting of FDR’s envisioned U.N., which has resulted.

*

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 Duran.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

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

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

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

***

In the lead up to the 2022 Qatar World Cup, the hosting of the tournament by the conservative Muslim state has been the source of much controversy in Western media.

On Thursday, less than 48 hours before the opening match between the host country and Ecuador, it was announced that alcohol would be prohibited from being sold in any of Qatar’s football stadiums. Controversy also arose on Monday afternoon when a plan for England captain Harry Kane to wear the rainbow-themed ‘OneLove’ armband in his country’s match against Iran, was cancelled at the last minute due to an intervention from FIFA.

What has received virtually zero-coverage or criticism in the run up to Qatar’s hosting of the World Cup however, has been Doha’s instrumental role in fuelling the 11-year long proxy war on Syria, a conflict that has led to thousands of deaths, an exacerbated refugee crisis, and the rise of ISIS.

In 2009, plans for the construction of a pipeline that would begin in the Qatari-managed North Dome gas field in the Persian Gulf, and which would then pass through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey on its way to Europe, were halted by the refusal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to take part, his close relationship with Russia being a deciding factor.

With the Arab Republic being a long-time opponent of the US-NATO hegemony, in which the Gulf States behind the pipeline play a key role, this refusal would act as a final straw for the regime-change lobby. A plan was quickly put in place to remove Assad from power.

To this end, the United States and a host of other countries would authorise a plan to provide arms, funding and training to Salafist militants in the hope that a sectarian conflict would topple Syria’s secular government, thus allowing a Western-friendly regime to be put in place.

Timber Sycamore, the official codename for this regime change operation, would officially erupt in March 2011, when protests in Damascus and Aleppo calling for government reform would rapidly escalate into violence that soon swept the entire country.

By 2013, the ‘Syrian Revolution’ had seen vast swathes of the Arab Republic come under terrorist control, with Salafist groups from neighbouring Iraq, itself having been destabilised following the 2003 US-led invasion, crossing over to form the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in April of that year.

In order to counter this onslaught and avoid the same fate that had befell Libya following a similar regime change operation, a common defence agreement between Syria and key-ally Iran was enacted and the Islamic Republic and Hezbollah would launch a military intervention in June 2013, with Tehran being acutely aware that had Damascus fell, Iran would have been next in line for the regime-change lobby.

Though this Iranian intervention would play a key role in repelling the Western-backed terrorists, what would perhaps be the most decisive factor in turning the conflict in Damascus’ favour would come in September 2015, when a Russian air campaign was launched in defence of the Arab Republic, allowing it to retake territories that had come under the control of the militants, such as the key city of Aleppo, liberated in December 2016.

Sensing that their regime change operation wasn’t going to plan, Washington’s Neocons would soon resort to desperate measures. In April 2017, a false flag chemical attack in the town of Khan Shaykhun was blamed on the Syrian government in the hope of triggering a US-led military intervention, something that almost came to fruition several days later when the then-Trump administration launched cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase.

Just stopping short of the full-scale intervention that had been hoped for, the same strategy would be carried out almost a year to the day later in the Syrian city of Douma, this time resulting in the United States, Britain and France launching airstrikes against government targets, again just stopping short of a military intervention that would have triggered a wider conflict between Russia and NATO.

Despite Qatar being a key player in the geopolitical impact of the Syrian war via its arming and funding of the terrorists who carried it out, a situation that almost led to a third world war, Doha has come in for little to no criticism from the Western media for its involvement amidst the 2022 World Cup coverage, Qatar’s banning of alcohol, and rainbow armbands, being a seemingly more pressing issue.

*

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 is licensed under CC BY 2.0

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

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

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

***

In 2004, Fidel Castro and Pres. Hugo Chávez founded what is now the Bolivarian Alliance of the peoples of our America, ALBA which now includes Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and the Caribbean island nations of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Dominica, St Kitss and Nevis, Grenada, Antigua and Barbuda and Santa Lucía. A year earlier, in 2003, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization was formally constituted, which now includes China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, India, Pakistan and Iran. Both organizations share practically the same principles of solidarity, equality among their members and mutual respect for different ideologies. This suggests that, at that same time, in different poles of the majority world, a common decision arose to build a world free of the economic strangulation and neocolonial aggression of the United States and its allies.

Since its inception, the leaders of the ALBA countries have denounced North American and European imperialism’s brutal exploitation and domination and its gangster diplomacy of “Do what we want or else…”. In May of this year, President Daniel Ortega declared at the 21st ALBA-TCP Summit:

“They have not stopped practicing the Monroe Doctrine, they have not renounced the Monroe Doctrine. In the name of democracy, they impose a tyrannical, imperialist, terrorist, international policy… imperialism has not changed, the essence of Imperialism is there, a totally criminal essence.”

At that same meeting, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro expressed,

“Enough is enough of the centuries of plunder, of invasions, of threats, of imperial hegemonism, this is our century! The 21st century… and our path is that of Latin America and the Caribbean, of ALBA, of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, this is our path, the path of equals, the path of respect, the path of inclusion, the path of unitary convocation, that is our path.”

At the same summit, Cuba’s President Miguel Díaz Canel also expressed the commitment of the ALBA countries to unity among diversity

“In the face of attempts at exclusion and selectivity, it is urgent to strengthen the authentic mechanisms of Latin American and Caribbean to integrate and act in concert. Together we will be able to effectively defend our sovereignty and self-determination without interference or external pressures….We call to unite, not to divide; to contribute, not to subtract; to dialogue, not to confront; to respect, not to impose.”

After decades of increasingly aggressive provocations on the part of the United States and the European Union, in February of this year the Russian Federation finally acted to defend itself. And in his historic speech on September 30, President Vladimir Putin elaborated the vision of a multipolar world, based on the same principles of ALBA and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, genuine cooperation, respect between equals, unity in diversity, a commitment to dialogue and international law. The similarity between the ALBA country leaders’ vision and the vision expressed by President Putin in his speech is very striking.

He spoke of the faith of the majority world’s peoples in a multipolar world in order to “strengthen their sovereignty and, therefore, to acquire true freedom, historical perspective, the right to independent, creative, authentic development, to a harmonious process.” President Putin made clear that it is also about faith in the human capacity to overcome differences, collaborate for the common good and create a world of solidarity. He stated explicitly, “Our values are love for neighbor, mercy and compassion.”

The contrast of these common visions of the ALBA countries, of Russia, China and their allies, with the practice of the West could not be stronger. As President Putin puts it,

“Western countries have been saying for centuries that they bring freedom and democracy to other nations. Everything is just the opposite: democracy becomes repression and exploitation; freedom, slavery and violence. The entire unipolar world order is inherently undemocratic and devoid of freedom. It is mendacious and hypocritical to the core.”

The truth of this categorical condemnation of the United States and its allies is self-evident in the colonial history of imperialism from its origins to its evolution over the last century to neo-colonialism. In the United States and Europe, since the introduction of universal suffrage last century enabled the Western elites to pass off their nations as democracies, in practice essentially, in exchange for guaranteeing their populations’ socio-economic development, those elites have been able to count on their countries’ peoples to collaborate in the looting of the majority world. This ensured that the peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America paid the costs of the prosperity and development of Western nations as, one way or another, they continue to do.

However, the scope of geopolitical power and control of majority world resources by Western elites is now more limited. In part, this setback for the West results from the growing cooperation and commercial and financial power of the nations of the Eurasian space. In turn, the increasing economic and diplomatic activity of China, Russia and their allies has promoted the development of their relations with the nations in Africa and in Latin America and the Caribbean, especially with the countries and peoples committed to the defense of their sovereignty.

The desperate response to the relative decline of their global power on the part of the American and European oligarchies takes three main forms. First, in their own countries, the exploitation of the labor force and the repression of dissent are increasing. Secondly, they act with greater aggression of all kinds against Russia and China and their regional allies such as Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua or Syria, Iran and the Democratic Republic of Korea. And the third form of the Western reaction to their decline is to apply greater intimidation and harassment against countries vulnerable to economic pressure to ensure that they remain obedient.

In North America and Europe, neoliberal policies implemented since the 1980s have normalized repression and economic exploitation. In the United States there is a permanent political offensive against the social security system and investment in public services generally. In Europe, public services are being cut or privatized. In the United States and the European Union there have been huge transfers of wealth to corporate elites both during the financial crisis of 2008-2009 and as part of the financial measures in response to the economic collapse caused by measures addressing Covid-19. At the same time, even the IMF recognizes that labor remuneration in the West has fallen in real terms. Likewise, the terms and conditions of work for people throughout the West are becoming increasingly precarious. Only 10% of the workforce in the United States is organized into unions. In European countries the average is 23% and generally much lower.

It is impossible to summarize concisely all the nuances of this reality. But among the main effects associated with increased domestic economic repression in Western countries and increased aggression overseas, have been censorship on social networks and suppression of information in the media, especially on international events. These practices reinforce the West’s extensive and intense psychological warfare against the majority world and facilitate the economic and military aggression and terrorism of the United States and its allies against any nation that tries to defend its sovereignty and independence.

This marks a deep and irreparable collapse of moral and intellectual integrity on the part of Western elites and their peoples, signaling a comprehensive, insidious spiritual defeat. On the other hand, a growing number of the majority world’s governments and peoples insist on their sovereign right to manage their international relations at the international so as to open up and promote new possibilities for national, regional and international development. Perhaps the most important expression of this faith in the future is the broad support for the so-called BRICS+ group of countries,  originally organized by China, Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa, from countries around the world, including Iran, Algeria, Turkey, Argentina, Egypt, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Thailand and even Nicaragua.

 A great many majority world nations clearly agree with the views of Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves of St Vincent and the Grenadines who observed this year on July 19th in the Plaza de la Revolución in Managua, at the 43rd Anniversary of the Sandinista Revloution,

I come from a small country in our hemisphere, but this small country believes and subscribes to large principles: The defense of sovereignty and independence, non-interference and non-intervention in our own affairs; so as to able to lead ourselves and our civilizations onward, and to be able to walk together with all the peoples around the world, in friendship but not in subordination. In that sense, we are friends with everyone and aspire for a Better World.”

*

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 Tortilla con Sal, translated from Spanish.

Stephen Sefton, renowned author and political analyst based in northern Nicaragua, is actively involved in community development work focussing on education and health care. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from TCS

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The West and the Majority World: Repression Versus Openness. Socially Destructive Neoliberal Policies Applied Since 1980s