All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

In another decision at the United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ), the judges ruled 13-2 that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) must end its bombing operations and blockade in the city of Rafah.

This was the fourth hearing of the ICJ related to the lawsuit filed by the African National Congress (ANC) government in the Republic of South Africa which charged the State of Israel with violating the Genocide Convention.

The initial ruling in January stated that the claims of genocide were plausible and that the Zionist state must take action to end the siege upon Gaza. Since January, thousands more have been killed by the IDF in its ground offensive and aerial strikes against the people of Gaza. Israel is using food and water as a weapon of war where more than 35,000 have been slaughtered over the last seven months.

Since the Al-Aqsa Flood of October 7, the Israeli state has committed numerous crimes against humanity. The administration of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described Palestinians as subhuman animals deserving extermination.

An 18-page ICJ ruling on May 24 notes in its concluding paragraphs that:

“The Court also considers that the catastrophic situation in Gaza confirms the need for the immediate and effective implementation of the measures indicated in its Orders of 26 January 2024 and 28 March 2024, which are applicable throughout the Gaza Strip, including in Rafah. In these circumstances, the Court finds it necessary to reaffirm the measures indicated in those Orders. In so doing, the Court wishes to emphasize that the measure indicated in paragraph 51 (2) (a) of its Order of 28 March 2024, requiring the ‘unhindered provision at scale by all concerned of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance’, necessitates that the Respondent maintain open land crossing points and in particular the Rafah crossing.

In view of the specific provisional measures, it has decided to indicate, the Court considers that Israel must submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order, within one month as from the date of this Order. The report so provided will then be communicated to South Africa, which shall be given the opportunity to submit to the Court its comments thereon.” 

Even though the ruling of the ICJ in January was ridiculed and dismissed by the Israeli regime, no punitive actions have been taken by the UN body. In response to the ruling of May 24, the settler-colonial regime has accused the ICJ of antisemitism.

This ruling by the ICJ comes amid the growing opposition to the Israeli state. All over the world, there are ongoing mass demonstrations demanding a ceasefire and the opening of a political process to bring about the full independence of the State of Palestine.

Just days prior to the hearing on May 24, three European countries, Norway, Spain and Ireland, recognized Palestine as a state. After this declaration by these states, the Netanyahu administration withdrew their ambassadors.

The Israeli government has stated that they are not concerned with the policy decisions and court rulings which run counter to their interests. This same attitude prevails as well with its major supporter, U.S. imperialism. Biden has labelled the demonstrations which have wracked the college and universities campuses as “antisemitic”.

Biden has lost significant electoral support since the Israeli siege on Gaza in October. Most polls indicate the potentially close race between the incumbent and former President Donald Trump, who is also a big supporter of the Israeli regime. All the surveys of voters show the outcome of the race as being within the margins of error.

Response to ICJ Ruling in the West Asia Region

People have once again responded favorably to the ICJ ruling on the genocide in Gaza. Various organizations and governments have praised the Republic of South Africa for its legal initiatives on the current situation in Gaza.

When the South African government initially filed its legal complaints against Tel Aviv in December, the response of the regime was to say that Pretoria was acting as the “legal arm” of the Hamas Resistance movement. South African Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Naledi Pandor, who has been an outspoken critic of the IDF offensive in Gaza, emphasized that the ANC’s relations with the Palestinians did not begin on October 7.

Former ANC leader and the first democratically elected president of South Africa, Nelson Mandela, said that his country could not be fully independent absent the liberation of Palestine. This poignant observation holds true today not only for South Africa but for all oppressed and struggling peoples worldwide.

An article published by Al Mayadeen television based in Lebanon said of the ruling:

“’Israel had not provided sufficient information about the safety of the population during the evacuation process, or the availability of food, water, sanitation and medicine for the 800,000 Palestinians that had already fled Rafah so far,’ Salam (the chief justice) said, adding, ‘Consequently, the court is of the view that Israel has not sufficiently addressed and dispelled the concerns raised by its military offensive in Rafah.’ The court also ordered the occupation to open the Rafah connection between Egypt and Gaza so that humanitarian supplies may enter, as well as to enable access to the besieged enclave for investigators and to report back on its progress within one month. The ruling was accepted by a panel of 15 judges from throughout the world in a 13-2 vote, with only Ugandan and Israeli justices opposing it. The ruling was issued a week after being requested by South Africa as part of ‘Israel’s’ genocide charges. Outside, a small group of pro-Palestinian protesters waved flags and protested demanding a free Palestine.” 

The Ugandan government in response to an earlier vote by its national, disassociated itself from the actions of this individual serving on the ICJ. At present Uganda is the current Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Group of 77 plus China, both of which are staunch defenders of the rights of the Palestinians.

Israel Should be Expelled from the United Nations

In light of this series of rulings unfavorable to the State of Israel and its ally, the U.S., there should be an effort to expel Tel Aviv from the United Nations. There is precedence for such actions which date back five to six decades.

The racist apartheid regime which ruled South Africa prior to 1994 when the ANC came to power, was stripped of its privileges within the UN in November 1974. In regard to neighboring Namibia (earlier known as Southwest Africa under apartheid rule) during 1966, it was decided by the UN General Assembly that the then “mandate” of racist South Africa in Namibia had expired.

In a New York Times article from 1974, it reported on the deliberations surrounding the status of the racist apartheid regime in the UN. This NYT report emphasized:

“The General Assembly voted today to suspend South Africa’s participation in its current session. The decision was without precedent in United Nations history, but it did not exclude the South African Government from membership in the world organization itself. It means that the delegation will not be permitted to take its seats, speak, make proposals or vote. The vote of 91 to 22 was taken to uphold a ruling by the Assembly’s President, Foreign Minister Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria, suspending South African participation. The United States unsuccessfully challenged the ruling, which was also opposed by Britain, a number of Western Europeans and South Americans, and some others. Nineteen countries abstained.” 

Such a measure if enacted today would send a strong message to the occupation regime in Palestine along with Washington. The Biden administration has denounced the legal actions taken against Israel by the Republic of South Africa.

High-level Biden administration officials such as National Security spokesman John Kirby have declared that the lawsuit against Israel by South Africa has no legal merit. Statements of this nature have precipitated the condemnation of Washington alongside Tel Aviv among many people around the globe. See this.

Consequently, progressive mass organizations, governments and political parties have no other choice than escalating their campaigns aimed at liberating Palestinians from Zionist control. The struggle for the independence of the State of Palestine will continue to be a defining issue in international affairs.

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

Featured image: South African lawyers at the ICJ / All image 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 (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

The British High Court granted Julian Assange the opportunity to appeal the extradition decision to the United States on May 20. Although it is a victory in the specific judicial process underway, it is necessary to remember that we are faced with a farce trial that has been going on for 5 years, based on the violation of every rule of due process.

The British High Court was used as an instrument of torture in the political persecution against a journalist who has already served five years in a high-security prison, in solitary confinement, in conditions that have deteriorated his health without any real reason, only because he, an Australian citizen, should answer to the US judicial system that wants to try him for espionage and sentence him to 175 years in prison.

The “crime” committed by this investigative journalist is having discovered and brought to light war crimes committed by the United States of America. His persecution is a warning that the United States and its allies issue to anyone who dares to violate their “rules” by bringing the truth to light. The British High Court continued its action even when evidence emerged of the CIA’s attempt to kidnap and murder Assange while he was a political refugee in the Ecuadorian Embassy. The British High Court could have, on May 20, put an end to all this, it could have freed Assange, it could have at least decided to move him from the high-security prison to a place of detention where he could have recovered his physical and psychological health. The Court, instead, only postponed his extradition to the USA, thus prolonging his persecution.

The fact is that at the moment the presidential election campaign is underway in the United States: it would therefore be harmful for all the candidates if a trial were opened against Julian Assange, and his “crimes” would have to be listed, inevitably bringing to the fore US war crimes plan. Furthermore, at this moment, the major US university campuses are characterized by a strong movement of solidarity with Palestine, which denounces the war crimes committed by Israel with the substantial support of the United States. It would therefore be dangerous for the US establishment to bring Julian Assange before its tribunal, as the campus movement would rally to his defence. The decision of the British High Court to suspend the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States, continuing to detain him in conditions that undermine his physical and mental health, once again corresponds to the will and interests of the United States of America.

*

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

This article was originally published in Italian on Grandangolo, Byoblu TV.

Manlio Dinucci, award winning author, geopolitical analyst and geographer, Pisa, Italy.

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

Featured image source

O Ocidente continua a intensificar o seu discurso contra a Rússia. Recentemente, a antiga vice-secretária de Estado dos EUA, Victoria Nuland, afirmou que Kiev deveria bombardear o território russo com armas da OTAN. Segundo ela, Washington deveria permitir que Kiev realizasse tais ataques com armas americanas, o que mostra o avançado nível de belicosidade alcançado pelos apoiadores do regime neonazista.

Como é sabido, Victoria Nuland é uma das principais figuras públicas americanas por trás do regime de Kiev. Ela foi uma das principais estrategistas durante o golpe de estado de Maidan em 2014 e a subsequente política de nazificação e desrussificação da Ucrânia. A sua recente renúncia ao Departamento de Estado foi vista por especialistas de todo o mundo como um sinal de desespero, dado o colapso iminente do exército ucraniano.

Contudo, mesmo fora do cargo, Nuland continua a fazer campanha para que os EUA aumentem a sua participação no conflito e o nível de violência contra a Rússia. Ela pediu publicamente a Washington que autorizasse o uso de armas por Kiev contra alvos no interior da Federação, atingindo bases militares fora da zona de conflito. Segundo Nuland, esta é a melhor forma de os ucranianos impedirem os russos de realizarem as suas operações, razão pela qual atacá-los preventivamente seria uma estratégia interessante no atual contexto militar.

“Eles precisam ser capazes de impedir esses ataques russos que vêm de bases dentro da Rússia (…) Os Estados Unidos e os nossos aliados deveriam dar-lhes mais ajuda para atingir bases russas, o que até agora não estávamos dispostos a fazer ( …) Essas bases devem ser um alvo, sejam elas de onde os mísseis são lançados ou onde as tropas são treinadas”, disse ela.

Como podemos ver, ela argumenta que é justo atacar bases fora da zona de conflito, usando uma interpretação distorcida do direito internacional para justificar as suas reivindicações. Obviamente, numa guerra, os alvos militares são legítimos, mas ao atacar cidades no interior da Rússia, Kiev estaria a violar as próprias fronteiras do conflito. Segundo Kiev e o Ocidente, a guerra ucraniana tem como único objetivo recuperar o território ucraniano dentro das fronteiras de 1991. Portanto, em tal situação, Kiev estaria violando os seus próprios limites de ação militar.

No entanto, deve ser sublinhado que os ataques ucranianos já acontecem todos os dias em cidades russas fora da zona de lei marcial. Independentemente de os EUA o “permitirem” ou não, os ucranianos realizam frequentemente operações no território russo, sendo quase todos os alvos civis – razão pela qual é possível descrever tais incursões como terroristas. Nuland está simplesmente a pedir aos EUA que “permitam” que Kiev faça o que já faz todos os dias: matar civis russos nas áreas desmilitarizadas.

É um fato conhecido por qualquer especialista que os alvos prioritários do regime são os civis. Incapaz de vencer no campo de batalha e com o seu exército à beira do colapso, a Ucrânia aposta no uso do terror contra as pessoas comuns na Rússia como estratégia para melhorar a sua imagem e obter o apoio ocidental. Soma-se a isto o fato de que quanto mais dentro do território os ataques na Rússia são, mais a máquina de propaganda ocidental é capaz de descrever a artilharia ucraniana como “eficiente” e “capaz de vencer”, renovando os esforços ocidentais. Neste sentido, Nuland está a tentar levar a guerra adiante numa altura em que todos os parceiros ocidentais já parecem desesperados em relação à Ucrânia.

Não é surpresa que Nuland faça tais declarações. Embora tenha deixado o cargo, ela nunca deixará de fazer campanha pela guerra. A sua saída do cargo de vice-secretária parece ter sido uma mera manobra para continuar a atuar no lobby pró-guerra de forma não oficial, fora da atenção da mídia e da opinião pública. Agora ela tem a liberdade de agir sem ser responsabilizada por qualquer erro. Na prática, ela está em uma posição muito mais confortável agora, pois pode fazer tudo o que fazia antes, sem, no entanto, que suas ações irresponsáveis ​​causem problemas ao governo americano.

Da parte da Rússia, as palavras de Nuland apenas enfatizam que não haverá solução diplomática e pacífica e que a única forma de proteger as cidades russas não violentas da agressividade ucraniana é através da força militar. Moscou, se necessário, utilizará a sua artilharia e aviação de forma ainda mais incisiva contra as instalações estratégicas ucranianas para evitar a realização de novos ataques contra civis.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

 

Artigo em inglês : Nuland calls for serious escalation with Russia, InfoBrics, 24 de Maio de 2024

Imagem : InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, jornalista, pesquisador do Center for Geostrategic Studies, consultor geopolítico.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://twitter.com/leiroz_lucas

Author’s Introduction

There is a complex history behind Israel’s October 2023  Plan to “Wipe Gaza off the Map”.

It’s Genocide, An Absolute Slaughter:

 “We are going to attack Gaza City very broadly soon,” Israel’s chief military spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, said in a nationally broadcast address, without giving a timetable for the attack.”

It’s a criminal undertaking based on Israel’s doctrine of “Justified Vengeance” which was first formulated in 2001.

(See below: my January 2009 article published at the very outset of Israel’s 2008-2009 invasion of Gaza under “Operation Cast Led”)  

The “Justified Vengeance” doctrine propounds in no uncertain terms that (despite its limited military capabilities) Palestine rather than Israel is “the Aggressor” and that Israel has the right to defend itself.

It is now established that the Hamas October 7, 2023 attack was a False Flag operation carried out by a “faction” within Hamas, in liaison with Mossad and U.S. intelligence:

“U.S. intelligence say they weren’t aware of an impending Hamas attack. 

Did Netanyahu and his vast military and intelligence apparatus (Mossad et al) have foreknowledge of the Hamas attack which has resulted in countless deaths of Israelis and Palestinians.

Was a carefully formulated Israeli plan to wage an all out war against Palestinians envisaged prior to the launching by Hamas of  “Operation Al-Aqsa Storm”?

This was not a failure of Israeli Intelligence, as conveyed by the media. Quite the opposite”

Video. Justified Vengeance and False Flags. Michel Chossudovsky

Lux Media Video recorded on October 16, 2023

Below: detailed analysis and history of Israeli False Flag Operations against the People of Palestine

.

.

Click here or lower right corner of screen to comment or access Rumble 

.

The History of False Flags: “The Green Light to Terror” (1997), The “Bloodshed as a Justification” to Wage War

The late  Prof Tanya Reinhart confirms the formulation in 1997 of a False Flag Agenda entitled “The Green Light to Terror” which consisted in promoting (engineering) suicide attacks against Israeli civilians, citing “the Bloodshed as a Justification” to wage war on Palestine: 

“…This is the “green light to terror” theme which the Military Intelligence (Ama”n) has been promoting since 1997, when its anti-Oslo line was consolidated. This theme was since repeated again and again by military circles, and eventually became the mantra of Israeli propaganda… 

The ‘Foreign Report’ (Jane’s information) of July 12, 2001 disclosed that the Israeli army (under Sharon’s government) has updated its plans for an “all-out assault to smash the Palestinian authority” 

The blueprint, titled “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”, was presented to the Israeli government by chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, on July 8 [2001].

The assault would be launched, at the government’s discretion, after a big suicide bomb attack in Israel, causing widespread deaths and injuries, citing the bloodshed as justification.” (Tanya Reinhart, December 22, 2001)

Ariel  Sharon: “A 1948 Style Solution”

According to the Prof. Tanya Reinhart; “Mass expulsion could occur at some later stage  of the ground invasion [2002- ], were the Israelis to open up Gaza’s borders to allow for an exodus of population … Expulsion was referred to by Ariel Sharon as the “a 1948 style solution”. For Sharon “it is only necessary to find another state for the Palestinians”. -‘Jordan is Palestine’ – was the phrase that Sharon coined.” (Tanya Reinhart, op cit)

The “Hamas-Mossad Partnership”

What is now unfolding in Gaza is part of a longstanding intelligence agenda, which has been on the drawing-board of successive  Israeli governments for more than twenty years. Founded in 1987 with the support of Israel, “The Hamas-Mossad partnership” is confirmed by Netanyahu: 

“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas. … This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” (March 2019 Statement quoted by Haaretz, October 9, 2023, emphasis added)

“Support” and “Money” for Hamas

“Transferring Money to Hamas” on behalf of Netanyahu is confirmed by a Times of Israel October 8, 2023 Report: 

“Hamas was treated as a partner to the detriment of the Palestinian Authority to prevent Abbas from moving towards creating a Palestinian State. Hamas was promoted from a terrorist group to an organization with which Israel conducted negotiations through Egypt, and which was allowed to receive suitcases containing millions of dollars from Qatar through the Gaza crossings.” (emphasis added)

Benjamin Netanyahu’s position defined several years prior to the October 7, 2023 “State of Readiness For War” consists in the total appropriation of Palestine  Lands as well as the outright exclusion of the Palestinian people from their homeland:

“These are the basic lines of the national government headed by me: The Jewish people have an exclusive and unquestionable right to all areas of the Land of Israel. The government will promote and develop settlement in all parts of the Land of Israel — in the Galilee, the Negev, the Golan, Judea and Samaria.” (January 2023)

The Role of Mossad

The doctrine of “Justified Vengeance” initiated in 2001, is the cornerstone of Israel’s intelligence narrative. It provides a justification to carry out acts of genocide, with the support of the International community, first in Gaza, then in the West Bank. 

 “With an annual budget of about $3billion and 7,000 staff, Mossad is the second-largest espionage agency in the Western world after the CIA.”

These official figures are meaningless, intelligence agencies do not reveal the sources of their funding or the size of their staff (which are in excess of the figures quoted above).

Mossad (Foreign Intelligence) together with Shin Bet (Domestic National Security) and Aman (Military Intelligence) is the main actor in the conduct of  “false flag operations”. It’s covert capabilities are extensive. It has over the years infiltrated both  Hamas and the Palestinian National Authority, It also exerts –in liaison with US intelligence– control over Al Qaeda operatives, ISIS and Daesh throughout the Middle East.

Mossad’s mandate is to create “divisions” within the Palestinian Resistance Movement, while sustaining fear and routine terrorist false flag events against innocent Israeli civilians, which sustains the legitimacy of the “Justified Vengeance” narrative. 

Chronology

Let us briefly review the history, the various stages following the:

Failure of Oslo I and II (1993-95) and The Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (1995) 

2001. “Operation Justified Vengeance”

Presented in July 2001 to the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon by IDF chief of staff  Shaul Mofaz, under the title:

“The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”.

See the Analysis of  Tanya Reinhart and the Jane Report quoted above and in the article below).

“Operation Justified Vengeance” was also referred to as the “Dagan Plan”, named after the late General Meir Dagan, who headed Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence agency from 2002-2011. 

The longer term objective of  “Operation Justified Vengeance” (2001) was and remains the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland. 

2002. Decision to Build the Infamous Apartheid Wall by Sharon government

2004. The Assassination of Yasser Arafat

It was ordered by the Israeli Cabinet in 2003. It was approved by the US which vetoed a United Nations Security Resolution condemning the 2003 Israeli Cabinet decision. It was undertaken by Mossad. (See details in article below).

2005. The Removal, under Orders of PM Ariel Sharon of all Jewish Settlements in Gaza.

Proposed in 2003 by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, implemented in August 2005 and completed in September 2005. 

A Jewish population of over 7,000 was relocated. This relocation was required to transform the Gaza Strip into “An Open Air Prison”

2006. The Hamas election victory in January 2006.

Without Arafat, the Israeli military-intelligence architects knew that Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would loose the elections.

2008-2009. “Operation Cast Lead”

In 2008 the “Bloodshed Justification” was an essential component of the military-intelligence agenda, which was first formulated in the 2001 “Operation Justified Vengeance”: 

“The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”

The killing of Palestinian civilians was justified on “humanitarian grounds.”  as formulated in the “Operation Justified Vengeance Report”. 

***

Michel Chossudovsky, May 15,  2021, October 23, 2023, November 8, 2023,

Below is my article published in early January 2009, at the height of  the 2008-2009 Operation Cast Lead 

 

The Invasion of Gaza:

Part of a Broader Israeli Military-Intelligence Agenda

by Michel Chossudovsky 

January 2009

 

***

“Operation Cast Lead”

The aerial bombings and the ongoing ground invasion of Gaza by Israeli ground forces must be analysed in a historical context. Operation “Cast Lead” [2008] is a carefully planned undertaking, which is part of a broader military-intelligence agenda first formulated by the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001:

“Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago, even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas.”(Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)

It was Israel which broke the truce on the day of the US presidential elections, November 4:

“Israel used this distraction to break the ceasefire between itself and Hamas by bombing the Gaza strip.  Israel claimed this violation of the ceasefire was to prevent Hamas from digging tunnels into Israeli territory.

The very next day, Israel launched a terrorizing siege of Gaza, cutting off food, fuel, medical supplies and other necessities in an attempt to “subdue” the Palestinians while at the same time engaging in armed incursions.

In response, Hamas and others in Gaza again resorted to firing crude, homemade, and mainly inaccurate rockets into Israel.  During the past seven years, these rockets have been responsible for the deaths of 17 Israelis.  Over the same time span, Israeli Blitzkrieg assaults have killed thousands of Palestinians, drawing worldwide protest but falling on deaf ears at the UN.” (Shamus Cooke, The Massacre in Palestine and the Threat of a Wider War, Global Research, December 2008)

Planned Humanitarian Disaster

On December 8, [2008] US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte was in Tel Aviv for discussions with his Israeli counterparts including the director of Mossad, Meir Dagan.

“Operation Cast Lead” was initiated two days day after Christmas. It was coupled with a carefully designed international Public Relations campaign under the auspices of Israel’s Foreign Ministry.

Hamas’ military targets are not the main objective. Operation “Cast Lead” is intended, quite deliberately, to trigger civilian casualities.

What we are dealing with is a “planned humanitarian disaster” in Gaza in a densly populated urban area. (See map below)

The longer term objective of this plan, as formulated by Israeli policy makers, is the expulsion of Palestinians from Palestinian lands:

“Terrorize the civilian population, assuring maximal destruction of property and cultural resources… The daily life of the Palestinians must be rendered unbearable: They should be locked up in cities and towns, prevented from exercising normal economic life, cut off from workplaces, schools and hospitals, This will encourage emigration and weaken the resistance to future expulsions” Ur Shlonsky, quoted by Ghali Hassan, Gaza: The World’s Largest Prison, Global Research, 2005)

“Operation Justified Vengeance”

A turning point has been reached. Operation “Cast Lead” is part of the broader military-intelligence operation initiated at the outset of the Ariel Sharon government in 2001. It was under Sharon’s “Operation Justified Vengeance” that  F-16 fighter planes were initially used to bomb Palestinian cities.

“Operation Justified Vengeance” was presented in July 2001 to the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon by IDF chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, under the title “The Destruction of the Palestinian Authority and Disarmament of All Armed Forces”.

“A contingency plan, codenamed Operation Justified Vengeance, was drawn up last June [2001] to reoccupy all of the West Bank and possibly the Gaza Strip at a likely cost of “hundreds” of Israeli casualties.” (Washington Times, 19 March 2002).

According to Jane’s ‘Foreign Report’ (July 12, 2001) the Israeli army under Sharon had updated its plans for an “all-out assault to smash the Palestinian authority, force out leader Yasser Arafat and kill or detain its army”.

“Bloodshed Justification”

The “Bloodshed Justification” was an essential component of the military-intelligence agenda. The killing of Palestinian civilians was justified on “humanitarian grounds.” Israeli military operations were carefully timed to coincide with the suicide attacks:

The assault would be launched, at the government’s discretion, after a big suicide bomb attack in Israel, causing widespread deaths and injuries, citing the bloodshed as justification. (Tanya Reinhart, Evil Unleashed, Israel’s move to destroy the Palestinian Authority is a calculated plan, long in the making, Global Research, December 2001, emphasis added)

The Dagan Plan 

“Operation Justified Vengeance” was also referred to as the “Dagan Plan”, named after General (ret.) Meir Dagan, who currently heads Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency.

Reserve General Meir Dagan was Sharon’s national security adviser during the 2000 election campaign. The plan was apparently drawn up prior to Sharon’s election as Prime Minister in February 2001. “According to Alex Fishman writing in Yediot Aharonot, the Dagan Plan consisted in destroying the Palestinian authority and putting Yasser Arafat ‘out of the game’.” (Ellis Shulman, “Operation Justified Vengeance”: a Secret Plan to Destroy the Palestinian Authority, March 2001):

“As reported in the Foreign Report [Jane] and disclosed locally by Maariv, Israel’s invasion plan — reportedly dubbed Justified Vengeance — would be launched immediately following the next high-casualty suicide bombing, would last about a month and is expected to result in the death of hundreds of Israelis and thousands of Palestinians. (Ibid, emphasis added)

The “Dagan Plan” envisaged the so-called “cantonization” of Palestinian territories whereby the West Bank and Gaza would be totally cut off from one other, with separate “governments” in each of the territories. Under this scenario, already envisaged in 2001, Israel would:

 “negotiate separately with Palestinian forces that are dominant in each territory-Palestinian forces responsible for security, intelligence, and even for the Tanzim (Fatah).” The plan thus closely resembles the idea of “cantonization” of Palestinian territories, put forth by a number of ministers.” Sylvain Cypel, The infamous ‘Dagan Plan’ Sharon’s plan for getting rid of Arafat, Le Monde, December 17, 2001)

From Left to Right: Dagan, Sharon, Halevy

The Dagan Plan has established continuity in the military-intelligence agenda. In the wake of the 2000 elections, Meir Dagan was assigned a key role. “He became Sharon’s “go-between” in security issues with President’s Bush’s special envoys Zinni and Mitchell.”  He was subsequently appointed Director of the Mossad by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in August 2002. In the post-Sharon period, he remained head of Mossad. He was reconfirmed in his position as Director of Israeli Intelligence by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in June 2008.

Meir Dagan, in coordination with his US counterparts, has been in charge of various military-intelligence operations. It is worth noting that Meir Dagan as a young Colonel had worked closely with defense minister Ariel Sharon in the raids on Palestinian settlements in Beirut in 1982. The 2009 ground invasion of Gaza, in many regards, bear a canny resemblance to the 1982 military operation led by Sharon and Dagan.

Continuity: From Sharon  to Olmert 

It is important to focus on a number of key events which have led up to the killings in Gaza under “Operation Cast Lead”:

1. The assassination in November 2004 of Yasser Arafat.

Olmert and Sharon

This assassination had been on the drawing board since 1996 under “Operation Fields of Thorns”.

According to an October 2000 document

“prepared by the security services, at the request of then Prime Minister Ehud Barak, stated that ‘Arafat, the person, is a severe threat to the security of the state [of Israel] and the damage which will result from his disappearance is less than the damage caused by his existence'”. (Tanya Reinhart, Evil Unleashed, Israel’s move to destroy the Palestinian Authority is a calculated plan, long in the making, Global Research, December 2001. Details of the document were published in Ma’ariv, July 6, 2001.).

Arafat’s assassination was ordered in 2003 by the Israeli cabinet. It was approved by the US which vetoed a United Nations Security Resolution condemning the 2003 Israeli Cabinet decision. Reacting to increased Palestinian attacks, in August 2003, Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz declared “all out war” on the militants whom he vowed “marked for death.”

“In mid September, Israel’s government passed a law to get rid of Arafat. Israel’s cabinet for political security affairs declared it “a decision to remove Arafat as an obstacle to peace.” Mofaz threatened; “we will choose the right way and the right time to kill Arafat.” Palestinian Minister Saeb Erekat told CNN he thought Arafat was the next target. CNN asked Sharon spokesman Ra’anan Gissan if the vote meant expulsion of Arafat. Gissan clarified; “It doesn’t mean that. The Cabinet has today resolved to remove this obstacle. The time, the method, the ways by which this will take place will be decided separately, and the security services will monitor the situation and make the recommendation about proper action.” (See Trish Shuh, Road Map for a Decease Plan,  www.mehrnews.com November 9 2005

The assassination of Arafat was part of the 2001 Dagan Plan.

In all likelihood, it was carried out by Israeli Intelligence. It was intended to destroy the Palestinian Authority, foment divisions within Fatah as well as between Fatah and Hamas. Mahmoud Abbas is a Palestinian quisling.

He was installed as leader of Fatah, with the approval of Israel and the US, which finance the Palestinian Authority’s paramilitary and security forces.

2. The removal, under the orders of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2005, of all Jewish settlements in Gaza.

A Jewish population of over 7,000 was relocated.

“It is my intention [Sharon] to carry out an evacuation – sorry, a relocation – of settlements that cause us problems and of places that we will not hold onto anyway in a final settlement, like the Gaza settlements…. I am working on the assumption that in the future there will be no Jews in Gaza,” Sharon said.” (CBC, March 2004)

The issue of the settlements in Gaza was presented as part of Washington’s “road map to peace”.

Celebrated by the Palestinians as a “victory”, this measure was not directed against the Jewish settlers. Quite the opposite: It was part of  the overall covert operation, which consisted  in transforming Gaza into a concentration camp. As long as Jewish settlers were living inside Gaza, the objective of sustaining a large barricaded prison territory could not be achieved. The Implementation of “Operation Cast Lead” required “no Jews in Gaza”.

3. The Building of the Infamous Apartheid Wall

This was decided upon at the beginning of the Sharon government in 2002. (See Map below).

 

4.  The Hamas Election Victory in January 2006.

Without Arafat, the Israeli military-intelligence architects knew that Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would loose the elections. This was part of the scenario, which had been envisaged and analyzed well in advance.

With Hamas in charge in Gaza, using the pretext that Hamas is a terrorist organization, Israel would carry out the process of “cantonization” as formulated under the Dagan plan. Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas would remain formally in charge of the West Bank. The duly elected Hamas government would be confined to the Gaza strip.

Ground Attack, 2008-2009

On January 3, [2009] Israeli tanks and infantry entered Gaza in an all out ground offensive:

“The ground operation was preceded by several hours of heavy artillery fire after dark, igniting targets in flames that burst into the night sky. Machine gun fire rattled as bright tracer rounds flashed through the darkness and the crash of hundreds of shells sent up streaks of fire. (AP, January 3, 2009)

Israeli sources have pointed to a lengthy drawn out military operation. It “won’t be easy and it won’t be short,” said Defense Minister Ehud Barak in a TV address.

Israel is not seeking to oblige Hamas “to cooperate”. What we are dealing with is the implementation of the “Dagan Plan” as initially formulated in 2001, which called for:

“an invasion of Palestinian-controlled territory by some 30,000 Israeli soldiers, with the clearly defined mission of destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian leadership and collecting weaponry currently possessed by the various Palestinian forces, and expelling or killing its military leadership. (Ellis Shulman, op cit, emphasis added)

Nakba 2.0: Mass Expulsion and a Ground Invasion Contemplated

The broader question is whether Israel in consultation with Washington is intent upon triggering a wider war.

Mass expulsion could occur at some later stage of the ground invasion, were the Israelis to open up Gaza’s borders to allow for an exodus of population.

Expulsion was referred to by Ariel Sharon as the “a 1948 style solution”. For Sharon

“it is only necessary to find another state for the Palestinians. -‘Jordan is Palestine’ – was the phrase that Sharon coined.” (Tanya Reinhart, op cit)

 

L’Alta Corte britannica ha concesso a Julian Assange, il 20 maggio, la possibilità di appellarsi alla decisione di estradizione negli Stati Uniti. Seppure sia una vittoria nello specifico passaggio giudiziario in corso, è necessario ricordare che siamo di fronte a un processo farsa che va avanti da 5 anni, fondato sulla violazione di ogni norma del giusto processo. L’Alta Corte britannica è stata usata come strumento di tortura nella persecuzione politica ai danni di un giornalista che ha già scontato senza alcun reale motivo 5 anni in un carcere di massima sicurezza, in isolamento, in condizioni che gli hanno deteriorato la salute, solo perché lui, cittadino australiano, dovrebbe rispondere al sistema giudiziario statunitense che lo vuole processare per spionaggio e condannare a 175 anni di reclusione.

Il “reato” commesso da questo giornalista d’inchiesta è, in realtà, quello di aver scoperto e portato alla luce crimini di guerra commessi dagli Stati Uniti d’America. La persecuzione nei suoi confronti è un monito che gli Stati Uniti e i loro alleati lanciano a chiunque osi violare le loro “regole” portando alla luce la verità. L’Alta Corte britannica ha proseguito la sua azione anche quando sono emerse le prove del tentativo della CIA di rapire e assassinare Assange mentre era rifugiato politico nell’Ambasciata dell’Ecuador. L’Alta Corte britannica avrebbe potuto, il 20 maggio, porre fine a tutto questo, avrebbe potuto liberare Assange, avrebbe potuto perlomeno decidere di spostarlo dal carcere di massima sicurezza in un luogo di detenzione dove avrebbe potuto recuperare la sua salute fisica e psicologica. Ha invece solo rimandato l’estradizione negli USA prolungando in tal modo la persecuzione.

Il fatto è che in questo momento negli Stati Uniti è in corso la campagna elettorale per le presidenziali: sarebbe quindi dannoso per tutti i candidati che si aprisse un processo contro Julian Assange, in cui dovrebbero essere elencati i suoi “reati” riportando inevitabilmente in primo piano i crimini di guerra statunitensi. In questo momento, inoltre, i maggiori campus universitari statunitensi sono percorsi da un forte movimento di solidarietà con la Palestina, che denuncia i crimini di guerra commessi da Israele con il sostanziale appoggio degli Stati Uniti. Sarebbe quindi pericoloso per l’establishment statunitense portare Julian Assange davanti a un proprio tribunale, poiché il movimento dei campus si schiererebbe in sua difesa. La decisione dell’Alta Corte britannica di sospendere l’estradizione di Julian Assange negli Stati Uniti, continuando a detenerlo in condizioni tali da minarne la salute fisica e mentale, corrisponde ancora una volta alla volontà e agli interessi degli Stati Uniti d’America.

Manlio Dinucci

VIDEO :

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

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

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

*** 

On October 9, 2023, I posted this. 

What follows purports to be a description of the impenetrable Israeli security barrier around Gaza written by a former commander of a section of the fence. Whether it is or not, the description of the security barrier provided can be checked. It seems impossible that Hamas could have succeeded in a surprise attack:

Here’s what commander of the Kerem Shalom Battalion, who knows the area in detail, wrote…:

“Something here doesn’t add up to me!!! This is a mystery that I can’t find an answer to.

I happen to know how things work in Gaza and on the border. I was the commander of the Kerem Shalom sector (Rafih), I was in charge of the Kissuf sector, I know the perimeter fence very well, I know how the army works there. I was in the Shatti refugee camp in Gaza, I was in charge of the Jibaliya refugee camp, I would make ambushes on the fence and deep in the area. I met Gazans, ate and breathed Gaza.

The obstacle is built so that even a fox cannot pass it:

Set alerts according to 3 levels of pressure. She must alert when she is cut. There are 24/7 forces that are responsible for arriving within a few minutes, if not seconds, to the point where there is an alert in the fence. Every day do at least one penetration practice. Each subdivision has a standby squad whose role is to increase the force in an emergency situation. Observations scattered along the border cover every inch of it. The female observers are champions in identification. They don’t miss. They detect movement even before it even approaches the obstacle – day and night. 

At problematic points (dead areas) they place a tank with observation and detection capabilities, and a terrifying firepower. In some cases snipers are deployed in the field.

Every day before dawn there is a “dawn alert” procedure. At this hour all the forces are awake (in this case also the hour when hundreds of terrorists entered Israel). The night shift alternates with the day shift. The commander of each force inspects the axis to make sure there were no infiltrations during the night. Trackers that move on the axis know how to recognize traces. They know who crossed the fence, how much and even when.

Each scenario has a clear procedure. For example, a procedure for infiltrating terrorists, a procedure for taking hostages. Everything is written in blood and has been proving itself for years.

There are several other layers of security that this is not the place to talk about. In short, we are talking about an obstacle that proves itself for years and years.

So how the hell does a Palestinian tractor move towards the fence without anyone reacting to it?

How did the tractor manage to sabotage the fence for a long hour and open access to Israel without anyone reacting to it?

How did hundreds of terrorists and civilians cross the barrier without anyone on our side lifting a finger?

How did terrorists arrive on foot and in vehicles, armed from head to toe, to dozens of Israeli settlements, without any reaction from our side?

How did hundreds of terrorists stay in Israeli territory for long hours, shoot hundreds of Israelis, loot property, without there being even a single reaction on our side?

How did it happen that hundreds of terrorists kidnapped dozens of Israelis, surprised soldiers, officers when they were not ready, and kidnapped them to Gaza, without anyone stopping them?

How is it that one bullet was not fired?

How did all this happen under our noses?

Where did an entire division go?

Where did 3 brigades go?

Who swallowed 9 battalions?

What happened to 36 companies?

Where did an entire regular infantry brigade go that usually outnumbers the elite?

Where were all the reserve battalions that augment the regular army?

Where did thousands of soldiers go???

Someone here needs to provide explanations!!”

In view of this description of the security barrier, this statement by the Israeli General Halevi admitting the failure of the Israeli Defense Force to protect Israel from Hamas is obviously intended as a coverup for the fact that the attack was allowed in order to close the book on Palestine.

Since 1947 the world has done nothing to stop Israel’s absorption of Palestine, so naturally Israel expects no opposition this time. It looks like this is a miscalculation by Israel. See this.

General Herzl Halevi, October 2023

“The Cat is Out of the Bag”. Hamas is a Partner

Of utmost relevance to the analysis of Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, 

And in response to General Halevi’s (Above) Questions.

At Least “Part of the Answer” (from the Horse’s Mouth= Netanyahu) regarding the relationship between Hamas and Mossad: 

In March 2019, Prime Minister Netanyahu confirmed his alliance with Hamas in a recorded statement  to Likud Party Knesset members:  

“Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas. This is part of our strategy – to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.” (quoted in Haaretz, October 9, 2023) 

Consult Annex which describes the features of the fence.

Everything Points to Massive Fraud and Criminality by Netanhayu and his IDF-Mossad apparatus.

It is a criminal “False Flag” operation against Israeli civilians engineered by the Netanyahu government, which controls Hamas. 

It is “A False Flag” which has resulted in the deaths of countless Israeli civilians, which in turn has provided a justification “on fake humanitarian grounds” to Netanhayu’s criminal IDF military “revenge” against 2.3 million Gaza civilians.

It is a War against Palestinians and Israelis. 

And the international community applauds. 

Michel Chossudovsky,  Global Research, October 13, 2023 

---

Annex

The Features of the Gaza Fence (2021)

Defence ministry says the barrier spans 65km and that 140,000 tonnes of iron and steel were used in its construction  

Israel’s defence ministry said the barrier, which includes hundreds of cameras, radars and other sensors, spans 65km and that 140,000 tonnes of iron and steel were used in its construction,

“The barrier, which is an innovative and technologically advanced project, deprives Hamas of one of the capabilities it tried to develop,” Israeli Defence Minister Benny Gantz said, according to a defence ministry statement.

The ministry said the project’s “smart fence” is more than six metres high and its maritime barrier includes means to detect infiltration by sea and a remote-controlled weapons system.

Barrier against tunnels along the Israel-Gaza Strip border 2019 (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

The ministry did not disclose the depth of the underground wall.

Israel has maintained a crippling blockade of the Gaza Strip since 2007, which critics say amounts to a collective punishment of the impoverished enclave’s two million residents.

Israel prevents the importing of materials and equipment into Gaza and has imposed strict restrictions on exports, leading to a state of “paralysis” in several sectors of Gaza’s economy.

Egypt also upholds the siege, restricting movement in and out of Gaza on its border.

***

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

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: General Halevi (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)

Os líderes ocidentais já não disfarçam o seu objetivo de destruir e fragmentar a Federação Russa. Num discurso recente, a primeira-ministra da Estônia, Kaja Kallas, afirmou que a Rússia deveria ser “fragmentada” para facilitar a administração regional e evitar novas guerras. As suas palavras representam uma grave escalada na guerra de narrativas, com o desmantelamento territorial russo a tornar-se a agenda oficial de um país da OTAN.

Kallas defendeu o fim da Rússia como Estado durante um debate na capital da Estônia, Tallin. Segundo ela, a diversidade étnica russa é um impedimento à criação de uma arquitetura de segurança envolvendo Moscou. Ela lembrou a ideia de um Estado étnico – que é comum entre os nazistas alemães e os atuais neonazistas ucranianos – e propôs que cada povo dentro da Rússia vivesse sob o seu próprio Estado, quebrando a unidade da Federação.

Kallas disse que um cenário com nações pequenas é melhor para a Europa, praticamente admitindo o que vários analistas geopolíticos sérios vêm dizendo há muito tempo: o objetivo da OTAN é a destruição completa da Federação Russa. Ao propor que cada povo na Rússia tenha o seu próprio Estado independente, Kallas está simplesmente a fomentar o racismo interno e o separatismo na Rússia, o que representa uma séria ameaça à segurança nacional de Moscou.

Não só isso, Kallas também repetiu os discursos já comuns a favor do aumento dos esforços pró-ucranianos. Ela afirmou que é vital para o Ocidente ser capaz de derrotar a Rússia na guerra atual – sendo a fragmentação da Rússia um passo à frente, após a vitória militar de Kiev. Afirmou que o que impede os países ocidentais de fazerem mais pela Ucrânia é simplesmente o medo, concluindo que a OTAN deve superar as suas preocupações e ousar enviar toda a ajuda necessária para que a vitória ucraniana seja assegurada no campo de batalha.

“A derrota da Rússia não é uma coisa má porque então sabemos que poderia realmente haver uma mudança na sociedade (…) penso que se tivéssemos mais nações pequenas… não seria uma coisa ruim se a grande potência fosse muito menor (…) O medo impede-nos de apoiar a Ucrânia. Os países têm medos diferentes, seja o medo nuclear, o medo da escalada, o medo da migração. Não devemos cair na armadilha do medo, porque é isso que a Rússia. O presidente Vladimir Putin quer”, disse ela.

A posição de Kallas é absolutamente inviável na esfera diplomática. Qualquer possibilidade de boas relações entre Estados é destruída no momento em que um governo começa a defender abertamente a destruição de outros países. Além disso, é importante sublinhar que a ideia de etno-Estado, com cada povo necessariamente a viver num país independente, não tendo possibilidade de coexistência étnica sob a mesma grande potência, é precisamente a ideologia racista e extremista que legitima o nazismo.

Esta mentalidade racista tomou o poder na Ucrânia, após anos de promoção ocidental da russofobia e do ultranacionalismo. O Ocidente não está suficientemente satisfeito em usar apenas Kiev e planeja espalhar sentimentos nacionalistas entre todos os povos do espaço pós-soviético, criando uma situação de guerra permanente contra Moscou. Esta circunstância de intenso nacionalismo tornará viável a estratégia da OTAN de abrir várias frentes por procuração contra a Rússia.

Em diversas declarações, as autoridades de Moscou já deixaram claro que o crescimento do nazismo no ambiente estratégico russo é uma das principais preocupações do país. Nos países bálticos, a reabilitação do nazismo está tão avançada que já estão a ser implementadas políticas anti-russas do apartheid. Agora, aparentemente, os Bálticos querem ir mais longe e, além de espalhar o nacionalismo extremista nos seus próprios territórios, fomentar o caos racista entre os povos da Rússia.

No final, ao admitir que o separatismo na Rússia é o objectivo ocidental, Kallas está a deixar claro que não há boas expectativas para o futuro da diplomacia entre a OTAN e a Rússia. Moscou não tem outra forma de lidar com países que cooperaram abertamente com o separatismo étnico, a não ser considerá-los uma ameaça à segurança nacional russa. Kallas já é considerada uma criminosa na Rússia e existe um mandado de prisão contra ela devido às suas iniciativas de estilo nazista para destruir a memória soviética. Agora, é possível que a promoção do separatismo também passe a ser vista pelos russos como mais uma ameaça representada pela líder estônio.

Obviamente, os esforços ocidentais são inúteis, pois a sociedade russa parece mais unida do que nunca. E a atual unidade dos povos da Rússia deve-se não só à atitude natural de coexistência pacífica comum entre várias nacionalidades, mas também precisamente ao fato de o mal do nazismo estar atualmente a ameaçar novamente a Rússia. Tendo perdido 27 milhões de cidadãos na guerra contra o nazismo, a sociedade russa está consciente da necessidade de combater todas as formas de racismo e de separatismo étnico.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

Artigo em inglês : Estonia’s Kaja Kallas admits NATO’s goal of destroying Russian Federation, InfoBrics, 23 de Maio de 2024.

Imagem : InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, jornalista, pesquisador do Center for Geostrategic Studies, consultor geopolítico.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://twitter.com/leiroz_lucas

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Between the 1970s and early 1990s, over 30,000 patients in the UK were treated with blood transfusions or blood-derived products contaminated with HIV or hepatitis C. This led to more than 3,000 deaths and left thousands of people with ongoing health problems. A new report has concluded that UK authorities deliberately covered up and downplayed the scandal for decades, with drug companies such as Bayer and Armour Pharmaceuticals accused of knowing treatments were infected but continuing to sell them anyway. The scandal provides a shocking window into the profit-driven nature of the pharmaceutical ‘business with disease.’

The problem began when, during the 1970s, the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) was unable to meet the demand for blood and blood-derived products. As a result, products were imported into the UK from the United States and other countries where paid blood donors were used. These donors included prisoners and drug addicts at high risk of being infected with HIV or hepatitis C. Routine screening for HIV in blood and blood products didn’t begin in the UK until 1985, with screening for hepatitis C starting in 1991.

People with hemophilia and other clotting disorders were significantly impacted by the scandal as they received treatments made from large batches of contaminated blood plasma. Inevitably, therefore, infected individuals sometimes unknowingly passed on HIV or hepatitis C to their partners. Despite the growing number of victims, for many years the NHS and successive British governments refused to accept that any wrong had been done. In reality, however, the UK was one of the last developed countries to start screening blood for hepatitis C. It had also delayed the introduction of heat treatment for blood products to eliminate HIV. Clearly, therefore, while UK authorities have long pretended otherwise, the scandal was not an accident.

“A Day of Shame for the British State”

Following many years of tireless campaigning by those affected, the then UK Prime Minister Theresa May finally announced a public statutory inquiry in July 2017. Chaired by a former High Court judge, it aimed to examine why people were given infected blood and blood products, the impact on families, the authorities’ response, the support provided, questions of consent, and whether there was a cover-up. Evidence was collected between summer 2018 and February 2023.

The inquiry published two interim reports. The first one was released in July 2022 and recommended interim payments of at least £100,000 ($127,000) to victims. The UK government accepted this recommendation, and payments were made in October 2022.The second interim report, published in April 2023, recommended extending interim payments to bereaved parents, children, or siblings of infected individuals, and establishing a full compensation scheme.

The final report, published on 20 May 2024 in seven volumes, identifies systemic, collective, and individual failures in managing the risk of infections from blood products and responding to the consequences of the scandal. Its many recommendations include the immediate establishment of a compensation scheme, a formal apology, and, towards identifying undiagnosed cases, the routine questioning of new patients about pre-1996 blood transfusions.

Speaking in the UK parliament immediately after publication of the final report, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak called it “a day of shame for the British state” and said he wanted to make “a wholehearted and unequivocal apology for this terrible injustice.” Acknowledging that there had been an attempted cover-up of the scandal, including the loss and destruction of key documents, he committed to implementing the report’s compensation recommendations.

Two days later, however, on 22 May 2024, Sunak suddenly and unexpectedly called a general election, to be held on 4 July 2024. With his party widely predicted to lose this, it will seemingly now be left to Sunak’s successor to ensure the report’s many recommendations are fully implemented.

Drug Firms Knowingly Sold Infected Blood Products

The roles of drug companies Bayer and Armour Pharmaceuticals in the scandal are particularly shocking. The UK’s Daily Telegraph newspaper has described how, rather than withdrawing the infected blood products as soon as they realized what had happened, both companies deliberately continued selling them so as to avoid reducing their profits. Bayer’s marketing plan reportedly even outlined how it would dump the drugs in countries including Taiwan, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, and Australia.

Despite the reckless greed they exhibited, no lawsuits have ever been brought in the UK against either of these drug firms. For now, therefore, as is also the case with the COVID-19 vaccine scandal, any compensation payments to victims will likely be funded by British taxpayers. Estimates suggest the total cost of these could eventually reach £10 billion ($12.7 billion). Sir Brian Longstaff, who chaired the inquiry, says the scandal has destroyed “lives, dreams, friendships, families, and finances,” adding that the number of deaths is still increasing. His words provide a sobering reminder of why the pharmaceutical ‘business with disease’ must urgently now be brought to an end.

*

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

This article was originally published on Dr. Rath Health Foundation.

Executive Director of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation and one of the coauthors of our explosive book, “The Nazi Roots of the ‘Brussels EU’”, Paul is also our expert on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and has had eye-witness experience, as an official observer delegate, at its meetings. You can find Paul on Twitter at @paulanthtaylor

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the Public Domain

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

A reduction in stress-related brain activity may be behind some of exercise’s heart health benefits

People with higher levels of physical activity had lower stress-related activity in the brain and a 23% lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease compared to those who didn’t exercise regularly

Stress signals in the brain are linked to inflammation, hardening or thickening of the arteries, increased blood pressure and higher sympathetic nervous system activity

Exercise was about twice as effective in lowering cardiovascular disease risk among people with depression

If you’re middle-aged or beyond, focus on fun, social and moderate-intensity exercise; too much vigorous exercise can backfire

*

Part of the reason why exercise is so good for your heart may be its ability to help relieve stress. While exercise’s role in heart health is often attributed to related physical improvements, like improved circulation, blood pressure and blood sugar levels, physical activity also helps reduce stress levels, which is important because stress can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

A study led by investigators at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) revealed, however, that a reduction in stress-related brain activity may be behind some of exercise’s heart health benefits.¹

Exercise Boosts Heart Health by Lowering Stress-Related Brain Activity

Stress-related brain activity, which refers to the brain’s responses and changes in function due to stress, is linked to both heart disease and mental health issues like anxiety and depression. This activity is primarily associated with the amygdala, a part of the brain that plays a key role in processing emotions, particularly fear and stress.

When the amygdala is activated by stressful situations, it can influence other parts of your brain and the body, leading to various physical and psychological effects. For instance, the amygdala can signal the hypothalamus to initiate the release of stress hormones, such as cortisol and adrenaline.

These hormones prepare your body to react to a perceived threat or stressor, a response often referred to as the “fight or flight” response. Over time, however, repeated activation of this stress response and the resulting high levels of stress hormones can contribute to the development of cardiovascular disease and other health issues. 

Under stress, the functioning of the prefrontal cortex, which plays a role in cognitive functions such as decision making, emotional regulation and problem-solving, can also be notably impacted.

The featured study explored whether physical activity reduces stress-related brain activity and whether these brain changes help lessen heart disease risk, particularly in people with depression. It involved data from 50,359 participants from the Mass General Brigham Biobank, who completed a physical activity survey. Among them, 774 participants had brain imaging tests to measure stress-related activity.

Those with higher levels of physical activity had lower stress-related activity in the brain and a 23% lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease compared to those who didn’t exercise regularly.²

According to a Massachusetts General Hospital news release, the reductions in stress-related brain activity were “driven by gains in function in the prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain involved in executive function (i.e., decision making, impulse control) and is known to restrain stress centers of the brain.”³

“Individuals who exercise more had a graded reduction in stress related signals in the brain,” lead study author Dr. Ahmed Tawakol, a cardiologist at Mass General Hospital and associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, told CNN.⁴ “We found nice associations that exercise appeared to, in part, reduce heart disease risks by decreasing stress-related signals.”

Stress signals in the brain, Tawakol explained, are linked to inflammation, hardening or thickening of the arteries, increased blood pressure and higher sympathetic nervous system activity.⁵

Exercise’s Heart Benefits Even Greater for Those with Depression

The cardiovascular benefit of exercise was especially impressive among people with higher stress-related brain activity, including people with depression. Tawakol noted:⁶

“Physical activity was roughly twice as effective in lowering cardiovascular disease risk among those with depression. Effects on the brain’s stress-related activity may explain this novel observation.

Prospective studies are needed to identify potential mediators and to prove causality. In the meantime, clinicians could convey to patients that physical activity may have important brain effects, which may impart greater cardiovascular benefits among individuals with stress-related syndromes such as depression.”

Exercising at levels above recommended guidelines also led to a reduction in cardiovascular events, such as heart attack and stroke, but only among those with depression.

For people without a history of depression, no further reductions in cardiovascular disease risk were seen after about 300 minutes of exercise.⁷ Karmel Choi, clinical psychologist and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, further told CNN:⁸

“We know depression is an important risk factor for heart disease and it is also one of the most common stress-related conditions. Even though some people may be more susceptible to stress and its health consequences, here we see they may also stand to benefit more from exercise and its stress-modulating effects. Which is encouraging.”

What’s the Sweet Spot for Exercise?

Most Americans don’t exercise enough, but it’s important to find that sweet spot when it comes to exercise dosing. Exercise too little and you’ll miss out on important benefits, but exercise too much or too vigorously and you also risk harming your health.

A landmark study that radically changed my views on exercise was published by Dr. James O’Keefe, a cardiologist with the Mid-America Heart Institute at St. Louis Hospital in Kansas City, and three coauthors.⁹

If you’re sedentary and begin to exercise, you get a dose-dependent decrease in mortality, diabetes, depression, high blood pressure, coronary disease, osteoporosis, sarcopenia, falls and more. But people who are doing the highest volume of vigorous exercise start losing longevity benefits. If you’re doing full-distance triathlons when you’re in your 40s and 50s, your risk of atrial fibrillation increases by 500% to 800%.

However, in the case of moderate exercise — loosely defined as exercising to the point where you’re slightly winded but can still carry on a conversation — there’s clear evidence that more IS better and cannot be overdone. Perhaps even more surprising, moderate exercise, which includes walking, also improves all-cause survival better than vigorous exercise — about two times better, according to O’Keefe.

Too Much Vigorous Exercise Backfires

If your goal is to optimize your cardiovascular health and longevity, more is better for moderate-intensity exercise, but not for vigorous exercise. For high-intensity exercise, optimal benefits plateau at approximately 150 minutes/week. As explained in O’Keefe’s study, “Very large volumes of strenuous exercise and/or weightlifting may not be the ideal for optimizing longevity.”¹⁰ The study, a systematic review of research from 2011 to 2022, explained:

“[A] Harvard School of Public Health study that included 116,221 individuals assessed 15 times during 30 years of follow up suggests that if one’s goal is optimizing long-term CV [cardiovascular] health and overall longevity, more is better for moderate-intensity exercise.

However, the same cannot be said for vigorous exercise, where optimal benefits are achieved at approximately 150 minutes/week … For an individual whose goal is to decrease the risk of CVD and boost life expectancy, a routine of MPA [moderate physical activity] appears to be adequate.

Although chronically performing very high doses of VPA [vigorous physical activity] may attenuate some of the benefits bestowed by less extreme efforts, this is relevant for only about 2.5% of the United States (U.S.) adult population.

This is not to say that VPA is harmful; it substantially reduces all-cause mortality and CVD mortality compared to a sedentary lifestyle. Yet, the magnitude of the mortality and CVD risk reductions with high doses of VPA do not appear to be as substantial as for high doses of MPA.

In the Lee study,¹¹ chronically doing very high doses of moderate exercise reduced risks of all-cause mortality and CVD mortality at least two-fold better compared to chronically performing very high doses of vigorous exercise.”

Keep Exercise Social and Fun After 40

In our interview, O’Keefe further noted that he used to push his body with high levels of exercise, running triathlons, 5K and 10K races and marathons.

“But when I got to be about 45, I started to get palpitations and sometimes I’d get this aching after a really high intensity bike ride or things like that,” he said. “I realized, ‘Wait a minute, where did I get this notion that if exercise is good, this extreme exercise in middle age is better?’ It’s just not.” He continued:¹²

“Exercise is good for you — 70% of U.S. adults don’t get enough exercise, and they would be healthier getting more exercise, any exercise. In fact, the first 20 minutes of exercise will get you most of the benefits. Even getting out for a walk is dramatically better than sitting on the couch, sitting in front of a screen or sitting behind a windshield.

We have a sedentary lifestyle, and if you don’t actively incorporate movement into your day, you’re going to be in trouble, no question about it, just like following the standard American diet will absolutely get you in trouble. But about 2% of people are overdoing it. It might be 5%. Highly active people, competitive people. And it’s probably because the world you and I live in — I know a lot of people like this. I see patients like this all the time.

They come with AFib, or accelerated atherosclerosis with a lot of calcium in the coronary, or ventricular problems. It can even shorten your lifespan if you get really extreme about it … you don’t want to be exercising intensely for five, seven hours a day, let alone do a full-distance triathlon. You’re just asking way too much of your heart.

There’s an intuitive logic about this as well. Like everything in nature, you’re better off not [being] in the extremes. And that’s true with exercise. When you drill down on what types of exercise really correlate best with longevity, it’s not the maximum amount of high intensity interval training. Some of that’s important, but more is not necessarily better for vigorous intense exercise.”

In short, O’Keefe says, once you get into your mid-40s and 50s, exercise should be fun and stress-reducing, not competitive. In his analysis, O’Keefe also stresses the importance of “social exercise” over solo exercise: playing a game of pickleball with friends, for example. O’Keefe and colleagues published a study in 2018 that looked at long-term granular data on physical activity and longevity.¹³

It turned out playing tennis added 9.5 years of extra life expectancy, badminton 6.2 and soccer 4.7, compared to 3.2 years for jogging and 1.5 years for health club activities like weight lifting and running on a treadmill. At first, O’Keefe thought the analysis had somehow gone wrong. But then he realized it was the social aspects of the sports that conferred the added benefits.

“Exercising and making social connections at the same time, that is an absolute goldmine of a longevity activity. That means that even walking with your dog or your friend or [playing] pickleball is huge … The whole thing is to move your body in a fun, playful manner and make it social.”

Is Walking an Ideal Form of Exercise?

Walking is a powerful form of activity for a number of reasons. It’s free and accessible — you can do it virtually anywhere. And it’s gentle enough that most people can engage in it, even if you’re out of shape and haven’t exercised in a while. If you walk with a friend or group, you also get that social element that O’Keefe describes.

Research has shown that even a modest amount of walking offers significant longevity benefits. In a study of 3,101 adults, those who took 8,000 steps or more just one or two days a week had significantly lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality risk.

“The study’s findings suggest that for adults who face difficulties in exercising regularly, achieving the recommended daily steps only a couple days a week may have meaningful health benefits,” researchers wrote in JAMA Network Open.¹⁴

People who participate in outdoor walking groups also enjoy significant reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, resting heart rate, body fat, depression scores and body mass index, along with increases in VO2max, a marker of fitness level.¹⁵

Meanwhile, a review published in GeroScience¹⁶ found that walking is a powerful antiaging intervention that can reduce the risk of chronic age-related diseases like heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes and cancer, while relieving pain and improving function in musculoskeletal disorders.

The bottom line is, exercise is protective of your heart and overall health, in part by reducing stress-related activity in your brain, and in part by positively influencing everything from mitochondria health to your mood. If you’re middle-aged or beyond, focus on fun, social and moderate-intensity exercise that makes you feel rejuvenated and alive — not grueling high-intensity sessions that drain your energy or leave you with aches and pains.

*

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

Notes

¹ J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024 Apr 23;83(16):1543-1553. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2024.02.029

^2, 3, 6 Massachusetts General Hospital April 16, 2024

^{4, 5, 7, 8} CNN April 15, 2024

^9, 10 Missouri Medicine March-April 2023; 120(2): 155–162

¹¹ Circulation August 16, 2022;146(7):523–534

¹² Youtube November 22, 2023

¹³ Mayo Clinic Proceedings December 2018, Volume 93, Issue 12, P1775-1785

¹⁴ JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Mar; 6(3): e235174

¹⁵ Br J Sports Med. 2015 Jun;49(11):710-5. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2014-094157. Epub 2015 Jan 19

¹⁶ GeroScience. 2023 Dec; 45(6): 3211–3239

Featured image is from Mercola

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

While Russian forces are advancing in the Kharkov region, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is reportedly shouting at his generals out of fear that they are hiding the truth from him at a time when Ukrainian soldiers are “outraged.” This could partially explain why the Ukrainian president is making increasingly unhinged statements.

Ukrainian soldiers in Kharkov are “outraged” that Russian forces are able to advance so far and so quickly, The Economist reported. Some soldiers criticise delays in Western aid, and others suspect that “incompetence or even betrayal” played a more significant role in the emergence of this situation.

“Conspiracy theories are also emerging that politicians in Kiev or Washington are selling out Kharkov in anticipation of an ugly peace agreement. Official Ukrainian narratives, presenting a rosy picture, do not help calm nerves,” the British magazine wrote.

“Zelensky is being kept in a warm bath. We believe that the president should focus on the situation on the ground,” said Denys Yaroslavsky, an officer of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, to The Economist.

The London-based outlet added that Ukrainian officials are presenting a positive outlook, which does not help “calm nerves,” as mentioned. Instead, this is causing friction in Kiev, with Zelensky even “shouting at his generals.”

However, Zelensky’s outbursts are not limited to his compatriots. The Ukrainian president was exposed for verbally lambasting foreign ambassadors in Kiev. On May 21, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov commented that the Ukrainian leader hysterically demanded that his “peace formula” be a means of “bringing Russia to its knees” and that it be supported during the conference in Switzerland.

Switzerland announced its intention to hold a peace conference on Ukraine on June 15 and 16 near Lucerne. Representatives from about 160 countries were invited to the meeting. However, Russia did not receive any invitation since, as Lavrov highlighted, the conference was intended to be more of a concerted effort by the West to make Moscow capitulate.

“In late April, while discussing with foreign ambassadors in Kiev the idea of a ‘Swiss conference’, Zelensky, according to some of the participants, spent most of the time improvising hectically and almost hysterically to demand support for his ‘peace formula’ as a means of forcing Russia to its knees’,” Russia’s top diplomat said at a press conference on the results of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Kazakhstan.

“A person who does not feel the need to retain self-control begins to speak about what’s really on his mind,” Lavrov added.

Although Ukrainian soldiers fear an “ugly peace agreement” will emerge, it is unlikely to be achieved this year since Zelensky has legislated the ban on any peace negotiations with Moscow. There is little doubt that the Kiev regime, whether headed by Zelensky or not, will capitulate and accept a peace agreement that will include the recognition of a significant loss of territory, but until then, mobilisations and futile fighting, which is only delaying the end result, will continue with a lack of Western weapons.

Since Russia is clearly in control of the situation on the battlefield, many experts acknowledge that Ukraine will have to accept the loss of territories. And although some Ukrainian soldiers in Kharkov are “outraged” and blame the West for their lack of weapons, blame can only be laid on Zelensky for taking Ukraine on this dark path of war.

Nonetheless, Zelensky, on May 20, admitted that Kiev is in a “most difficult” situation due to the Russian offensive on Kharkov and lamented delays in Western assistance and the lack of authorisation to use Western weapons against targets on Russian territory.

“We are negotiating with partners so that we can use their weapons against buildups of Russian equipment on the border and even [on] their territory… So far, there is nothing positive,” the Ukrainian leader said.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov highlighted 21 that Ukraine’s permission to use Western-made long-range weapons against Russia is a demonstration that the Kiev regime is “slipping into hysteria.”

Peskov said on May 21 that the Kiev regime and Zelensky “have been making many statements in recent days, sometimes, in fact, slipping into hysteria. This is due to the extremely unfavourable frontline situation of the forces of the Kiev regime.”

The Russian military launched an offensive on the Kharkov region earlier this month to what Vladimir Putin said in March was to establish a “cordon sanitaire” to stop the Kiev regime’s attacks on civilians and critical infrastructure in Russia’s Belgorod Oblast. Although the Russian president earlier this month confirmed that there were no plans to capture Kharkov city, it is perfectly feasible that this decision could change if the Kiev regime refuses to negotiate a peace.

In this regard, only Zelensky can be blamed for Ukraine’s further loss of territory and mounting casualties, even if some Ukrainian soldiers try to blame the slow delivery of weapons from the West.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

A nationally coordinated effort to shut down Palestine solidarity encampments across the United States on university and college campuses has further exposed the links between imperialism and the ongoing genocide which has resulted in the deaths of more than 35,000 people over the last seven months.

President Joe Biden has repeatedly stated that the U.S. ruling class and governmental support for the State of Israel remains “ironclad.”

Such comments reflect clearly the indispensable role of the Zionist state in the overall geostrategic interests of the U.S. and its allies within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The Biden administration attempts to rationalize the unconditional assistance to Tel Aviv saying that the settlers have “no place else to go” while never expressing any sympathy for the plight of Palestinians living under the domination of the Zionist government for 76 years.

The position of the current administration in Washington has alienated it from many people domestically within the rubric of the Democratic Party electorate. A campaign to abandon Biden through voting “uncommitted” in the primary elections was born in the state of Michigan which has a large Arab and Muslim American population.

This campaign, initially labelled “Listen to Michigan”, garnered 101,000 votes during the primary elections in March. The same pattern has continued in other states, particularly those considered essential for a Democratic Party victory over former President Donald Trump in November.

Despite these rapidly unfolding developments on an electoral and mass level, the Biden White House along with the majority of politicians in both Houses of Congress have refused to heed the calls of the students and workers for an immediate ceasefire as well as a radical shift in U.S. foreign policy towards the Palestinians. It appears that the administration is willing to risk its own prospects for reelection rather than endanger the imperialist objectives in West Asia and North Africa.

On May 20, police at the aegis of the University of Michigan administration, tore down the Palestine solidarity encampment which had existed for several weeks. The removal of the encampment and solidarity activists at U-M represents a pattern implemented from California to Texas and New York state.

WSU Encampment Set Up

Despite this ongoing repression which has included the arrest and prosecution of students and faculty members on campuses around the country, at Wayne State University in the center of the city of Detroit, the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) on May 23 held a rally at the Welcome Center beginning at 5:30pm. After a series of speeches in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle, hundreds marched down Warren Avenue to the campus mall where an encampment was established.

SJP march down Warren Avenue to WSU encampment

SJP is one of the organizations which for years have kept the flames of Palestinian liberation alive on campuses. It is being supported by a host of organizations at the encampment which is called the “Popular University for Palestine”.

Whether the WSU encampment survives for one day or a month is immaterial. The existence of these manifestations is an indication of the widespread discontent with the foreign policy of the Biden administration. The students are demanding the disclosure of economic and political ties between WSU and the State of Israel. Once these disclosures are acquired, the students want the complete divestment from the apartheid state in Occupied Palestine.

Before the encampment was set up at WSU, a host of speakers were heard from various religious and political organizations including the Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Dawud Walid; Elena Herrada, a WSU alumni and community activist; a representative of the Moratorium NOW! Coalition, among others. WSU police maintained a watchful eye over the encampment while not revealing what their response will be to the presence of the Popular University for Gaza.  

SJP WSU encampment

The Detroit metropolitan area encompasses the largest concentration of Arab Americans in the U.S. This demographic is already playing a crucial role in domestic politics this election year.

One of the encampment organizers at WSU, Zeinab Aldhanem, said that:

“We are here to say that we want divestment and we want our voices heard because our voices have not been heard and they’ve actually been trying to silence us with passing certain rules that target us specifically and our actions. So we set up camp and hopefully, we’ll be here until we have divestment from the Wayne State University funds.” 

A statement issued to the press by WSU officials noted:

“Earlier this evening, a small encampment of pro-Palestinian protestors was set up on our campus. It is an evolving situation, with public safety on site to ensure that it is peaceful, safe, and non-disruptive to our campus operations.” 

However, over the last several weeks law-enforcement personnel have not been committed to the safety of students and faculty who are protesting against the higher educational ties with the settler-colonial regime in Palestine. Detroit police have been harassing Palestine solidarity demonstrations and in New York City, Mayor Eric Adams, has gone on record as being politically opposed to the demonstrations.  

Detroit Police Attack Palestine Solidarity Activists Outside Biden Speech at the NAACP Dinner

Prior to the WSU encampment, hundreds demonstrated on Sunday May 19 outside Huntington Place in downtown Detroit. The protest was against the visit of Biden who spoke at the so-called “Freedom Fund Dinner” hosted by the local branch of the NAACP.

Since the early 1990s, the Detroit chapter of the NAACP through its leadership, has served as a bulwark against the popular will of the workers and youth of the city in their quest for decent housing, quality education and freedom from police repression. This grouping has not defended those who are being evicted from their homes in the corporate campaign of ethnic cleansing. They were absent from the demonstrations opposing police repression during 2020.

Police set up barricades around the entrance of the venue to prevent the activists from getting close to Huntington Place. One white Detroit police officer told a leading Palestinian American activist to “go back to Mexico.”

The following day it was reported in the local corporate media that the video clip of this incident had gone viral. It was later announced that the policeman who was taped making the insults was suspended with pay pending a more thorough investigation.

After the demonstration was over outside the NAACP dinner, several activists from the Detroit Will Breathe (DWB) were violently attacked by the police. One of the activists from DWB was tased while he was already in police custody, having been knocked to the pavement and handcuffed.

Several were ticketed and released while others were threatened with police violence and arrests. A press conference was held the following day by DWB where they denounced the actions of the police.

DWB is no stranger to police repression. The organization grew out of the George Floyd rebellion of 2020. After Floyd was brutally murdered by Minneapolis police before the world, mass demonstrations and rebellions erupted across the U.S. and internationally.

On many occasions protesters from DWB were beaten and arrested on the orders of former police chief James Craig. Through a series of court actions, DWB won a temporary restraining order against the Detroit police after three months of repressive measures during the summer of 2020.

In 2020, the administration of former President Donald Trump evoked the Insurrection Act, a slave-era law enacted in 1807. This law empowered the president to deploy federal troops to quelch social unrest.

However, the social unrest was prompted by the blatant murder of African Americans by representatives of the state and private capital. Today, the mass demonstrations, encampments and electoral campaigns have been labelled by the Biden administration as “antisemitic”.

As in 2020, the White House and Justice Department are coordinating the attempts to crush the Palestine Solidarity Movement. These developments suggest that the U.S. remains a racist state committed to the continuation of the status-quo domestically and internationally.  

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of the Pan-African News Wire. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

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 (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Toronto, Ontario, Canada – Meet Ben Donato-Woodger, a political activist for Ontario NDP Party who claims to have had 10 COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines

In his June 18, 2023 Instagram post, Ben claimed he had taken 9 COVID-19 Vaccines and then had a 10th on Dec. 19, 2023.

Jan. 11, 2023: “You better believe I have a recurring task to get boosted every 84 days”

From Feb. 20, 2023:

Here he is with Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow, who herself pushed the “double jab” COVID-19 and Influenza Vaccines.

My Take…

Is COVID-19 Vaccine Injection ADDICTION a real phenomenon?

I believe it is.

From The Recovery Village:

“DrugAbuse.gov offers an insightful explanation based on brain image studies from people addicted to drugs. The study found, physical changes in areas of the brain that are critical for judgment, decision making, learning, memory, and behavior control in addicted people. Scientists believe that these changes alter the way the brain works and may help explain the compulsive and destructive behaviors of an addicted person.

In this case, addiction is demonstrated as both a mental, or psychological, and chemical, or physical, affect in the brain, thus providing evidence that addiction is both psychological and physical.

Not to mention, addictions are formed because they influence the part of the brain that controls pleasurable feelings—those creating a strong desire to recreate the pleasurable feelings associated with substances. Every single drug affects dopamine levels in the brain, creating the reward response, or formed need to keep supplying it with the substance.”

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Propaganda targeted dopamine levels of recipients with endless rewards

There has been no other medical procedure in history, that has been associated with so many rewards, as COVID-19 Vaccines have. Here is just a sample of such rewards:

• praise from politicians
• praise from the media
• praise from church leaders
• praise from teachers, professors
• praise from doctors, nurses, other healthcare workers

Those who took COVID-19 Vaccines were told they:

• were good citizens
• did the “right thing”, did “their part”
• prevented the spread of COVID-19
• protected others including the elderly, immuno-compromised, children
• protected the healthcare system from collapsing
• protected the economy and small business
• took society out of lockdowns
• were good, ethical, moral, caring people

Those who took COVID-19 Vaccines were given specific rewards:

• received special access to restaurants, sporting venues, and travel when the unvaccinated were restricted from the same activities
• were able to participate in certain sports as athletes or spectators
• received job security (they were allowed to keep their jobs)
• received career advancement in some cases
• received University/College program security (if students)
• received tribal rewards as members of an “approved majority”, members of a dominant (leftist) political movement, members of a dominant cultural (woke) movement
• received discounts on grocery shopping
• received free fries, burgers, donuts, joints, lap dances, ice cream, candy
• received money rewards
• received attention and praise from others on social media

With all of these rewards being constantly offered in exchange for COVID-19 Vaccination, it’s logical to consider that someone with addictive behaviour or tendencies could become addicted to the rewards associated with COVID-19 Vaccination.

Currently, these people are being exploited by mRNA con artists (politicians, media, corrupt doctors, big pharma). If COVID-19 Vaccine addiction is a real phenomenon, as I suspect it is, it adds another layer to “Vaccine Injury” that will have to be addressed over the long term.

*

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

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications. 

Featured image is from COVID Intel

---

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

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

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

The Rise of COVID 2.0? Beware the WHO’s Pandemic Industrial Complex

By Michael Welch, Dr. Meryl Nass, and Michelle Leduc Catlin, May 24, 2024

At this point in time when the worst of the sinister Coronavirus “pandemic” is thought to be behind us, the arrival of another alert of another killer disease may be stampeding toward us.

Escaping Mobilisation in Ukraine, Dead Unaccounted For, Nazis First to Withdraw, Western Media Sense Collapse, Urge Peace

By Rodney Atkinson, May 24, 2024

There are increasing signs of citizens fighting back against army recruiters on the streets and 46% of Ukrainians of military age say they will not fight in the war.

Against All Odds, Iran and Saudi Ties Remain Strong

By Steven Sahiounie, May 24, 2024

When word broke that the Iranian helicopter was thought to have crashed, Saudi Arabia was one of the first nations to offer all help and support to Iran. Ebrahim Raisi, the 8^th President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, died in a helicopter crash on Sunday, along with his Foreign Minister and others.

Washington Digs In Deeper on Its Support for Israel

By Philip Giraldi, May 24, 2024

Judging by developments over the past several weeks, it would appear that nothing going on in Washington matters quite as much as defending Israel no matter what the Jewish state does. The White House and its befuddled leader President Joe Biden are obsessed with every twist and turn of the Israel and media shaped narrative, basing it on two key words “terrorism” and “antisemitism.”

Indeed, There Is No Comparison. Israel’s Crimes Are Far Worse Than Hamas’. Jonathan Cook

By Jonathan Cook, May 24, 2024

There is one thing we should all be able to agree with Benjamin Netanyahu on: Any comparison between Israel’s war crimes and those of Hamas is, as the Israeli prime minister put it, “absurd and false” and a “distortion of reality”.

The Conflict in Ukraine: How Do Matters Stand?

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 24, 2024

Putin’s original goals were the liberation of the Donbas region, and denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine. How denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine were to be accomplished without the conquest of Ukraine was never clear.

Palestinian Resistance Denounces U.S. Floating Pier in Gaza

By Sara Flounders, May 24, 2024

The pier, built at a cost of $320 million, is part of the enormous $26 billion in additional aid to Israel that Biden recently approved as part of the supplemental aid package. That package was a public statement of complete support for genocide in Gaza. Committing 1,000 U.S. troops confirms the U.S. determination to escalate the brutal aggression against the Palestinian people.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

First published on March 7, 2024

Global Research Fundraising: Stop the Pentagon’s Ides of March

***

Since the Hamas raid penetrated the multi-tiered Israeli border security on October 7, 2023 (an unexplained collapse of Israel’s defensive capabilities), 2.3 million utterly defenseless Palestinians in the tiny crowded Gaza enclave have been on the receiving end of over 65,000 bombs/missiles plus non-stop tank shelling and snipers.

The extreme right-wing Netanyahu regime has enforced its declared siege of, in its genocidal words, “no food, no water, no electricity, no fuel, no medicine.”

The relentless bombing has destroyed apartment buildings, marketplaces, refugee camps, hospitals, clinics, ambulances, bakeries, schools, mosques, churches, roads, electricity networks, critical water mains – just about everything.

The U.S.-equipped Israeli war machine has even uprooted agricultural fields, including thousands of olive trees on one farm, bulldozed many cemeteries and bombed civilians fleeing on Israeli orders, while obstructing the few trucks carrying humanitarian aid from Egypt.

With virtually no healthcare left, no medications, and infectious diseases spreading especially among infants, children, the infirm and the elderly, can anybody believe that the fatalities have just gone over 30,000? With five thousand babies born every month into the rubble, their mothers wounded and without food, healthcare, medicine and clean water for any of their children, severe skepticism about the Hamas Health Ministry’s official count is warranted.

Netanyahu and Hamas, which he helped over the years, have a common interest in lowballing the death/injury toll. But for different reasons. Hamas keeps the figures low to reduce being accused by its own people of not protecting them, and not building shelters. Hamas grossly underestimated the savage war crimes by the vengeful, occupying Israeli military superpower fully and unconditionally backed by the U.S. military superpower.

The Health Ministry is intentionally conservative, citing that its death toll came from reports only of named deceased by hospitals and morgues. But as the weeks turned into months, blasted, disabled hospitals and morgues cannot keep up with the bodies, or cannot count those slain laying on roadsides in alleys and beneath building debris. Yet the Health Ministry remains conservative and the “official,” rising civilian fatality and injury count continues to be uncritically reported by both friend and foe of this devastating Israeli state terrorism.

It was especially astonishing to see the most progressive groups and writers routinely use the same Hamas Health Ministry figures as did the governments and outside groups backing the one-sided war on Gaza. All this despite predictions of a human catastrophe in the Gaza Strip almost every day since October 7, 2023, by arms of the United Nations, other besieged international relief agencies on the ground, eyewitness accounts by medical personnel, and many Israeli human rights groups and brave local journalists in that Strip, the geographic size of Philadelphia. (Unguided Western and Israeli reporters and journalists are not allowed to enter Gaza by the Israeli government.) (See the open letter titled, “Stop the Humanitarian Catastrophe” to President Biden on December 13, 2023, by 16 Israeli human rights groups that also appeared as a paid notice in the New York Times.)

Then came the December 29, 2023, opinion piece in The Guardian by the Chair of Global Public Health at the University of Edinburgh, Devi Sridhar. She predicted half a million deaths in 2024 if conditions continue unabated. (See her piece here).

In recent days, the situation has become more dire. In the March 2, 2024, Washington Post reporter, Ishaan Tharoor writes:

“The bulk of Gaza’s more than 2 million people face the prospect of famine — a state of affairs that constitutes the fastest decline in a population’s nutrition status ever recorded, according to aid workers. Children are starving at the fastest rate the world has ever known. Aid groups have been pointing to Israel restricting the flow of assistance into the territory as a major driver of the crisis. Some prominent Israeli officials openly champion stymying these transfers of aid.”

Tharoor quotes Jan Egeland, chief of the Norwegian Refugee Council:

“We must be clear: civilians in Gaza are falling sick from hunger and thirst because of Israel’s entry restrictions.” “Life-saving supplies are being intentionally blocked, and women and children are paying the price.”

Martin Griffiths, the United Nations lead humanitarian officer, said

“Life is draining out of Gaza at terrifying speed.”

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, according to the Post, warned of an

“‘unknown number of people’ – believed to be in the tens of thousands – lying under the rubble of buildings brought down by Israeli strikes.”

Volker Turk, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said

“All people in Gaza are at imminent risk of famine. Almost all are drinking salty and contaminated water. Health care across the territory is barely functioning.”

“Just imagine what this means for the wounded, and people suffering infectious-disease outbreaks. …many are already believed to be starving.”

UNICEF, the International Rescue Committee, the Palestinian Red Crescent, and Doctors Without Borders are all relating that the same catastrophic conditions are getting worse fast.

Yet, and get this, in this article, the Post still stuck with the “more than 30,000 people in Gaza have been killed since the ongoing war began.”

Just like the entire mass media, many governments, even the independent media and critics of the war would have us accept that between 98% and 99% of Gaza’s entire population has survived – albeit the sick, injured and more Palestinians about to die. This is lethally improbable!

From accounts of people on the ground, videos and photographs of deadly episode after episode, plus the resultant mortalities from blocking or smashing the crucial necessities of life, a more likely estimate, in my appraisal, is that at least 200,000 Palestinians must have perished by now and the toll is accelerating by the hour.

Imagine Americans, if this powerful U.S.-made weaponry was fired on the besieged, homeless, trapped people of Philadelphia, do you think that only 30,000 of that city’s 1.5 million people would have been killed?

Daily circumstantial evidence of the deliberate Israeli targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructures requires more reliable epidemiological estimates of casualties.

It matters greatly whether the aggregate toll so far, and counting, is three, four, five, six times more than the Health Ministry’s undercount. It matters for elevating the urgency for a permanent ceasefire, and direct and massive humanitarian aid by the U.S. and other countries, bypassing the sadistic cruelty against innocent families of the Israeli siege. It matters for the columnists and editorial writers who have been self-censoring themselves, with some, like the Post’s Charles Lane fictionally claiming that Israel’s military doesn’t “intentionally target civilians.” It matters for accountability under international law.

Above all, it lets weak Secretary of State Antony Blinken and duplicitous President Joe Biden be less servile when Netanyahu dismisses the low death toll by taunting them: what about Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

As a percentage of the total population being killed, Gaza can expose the Israeli ruling racist extremists to a stronger rebuttal for ending U.S. co-belligerent complicity in this never-to-be-forgotten slaughter of mostly children and women. (The terrifying PTSD on civilians, especially children will continue for years.)

Respecting the more accurate casualty toll of Palestinian children, mothers and fathers presses harder for permanent ceasefires and the process of recovery and reparations for the survivors of their Holocaust.

*

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

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

First published on March 17, 2024

Global Research Fundraising: Stop the Pentagon’s Ides of March

***

 

If you haven’t read the important Introduction yet, then we encourage you to read it first:

The Palestinian death toll has reached more than 30,000 with more than 70,000 wounded. About 70% of these casualties are women and children. Almost 80% of the housing infrastructure has been destroyed and so have scores of hospitals, schools, mosques, churches, cultural sites, businesses, and UN offices.

This obviously goes way beyond “self-defense.” So we must stop, and ask ourselves “Why?”

What’s really going on in Gaza, in the Middle East as a whole, and with Israel’s 9/11? And what can we learn by comparing Israel’s 9/11 to the United States’ 9/11?

Are there specific geostrategic interests in Gaza driving a depopulation agenda by Israel?

We’ll look at the natural gas fields discovered two decades ago immediately offshore of Gaza worth $453B.

We also examine the $55B Ben Gurion Canal project that Gaza is sitting in the way of. But first . . . an inquiry into the US geostrategic goals in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What are the parallels between 9/11 and Gaza? We found several. 

(We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to 9/11 Researcher Kevin Ryan for his initial research on the parallels of 9/11 & Gaza which he presented at the IC911 seminar Genocide & Empire.)

A. They Create the Original PROBLEM 

Part 1: Parallel — Previously Established and Geostrategic Goals — Coveting the Natural Resources of the Target Territory [this article]

Part 2: Parallel — A String of Historic and Recent Provocations and False Flag Operations

Part 3: Parallel — Patsies — Politically Useful Foreign Operatives with History of Violence — Developed by the State 

Part 4: Parallel — A Triggering Event — An Innovative Attack with Dubious Origins; A Manufactured Invasion from Foreign Operatives

Part 5: Parallel — A Catastrophic Intelligence Failure

Part 6: Parallel — A Military Stand-down — with an Obvious Uncharacteristic Delay in Response 

Part 7: Parallel — Foreknowledge of the Attacks

Part 8: Parallel — Dancing Israelis — During the Attacks

B. They Manage the Public REACTION

Part 9: Parallel — Propaganda with Outrageous Slogans from Government and Media to Manipulate Public Emotion; Crisis Actors

Part 10: Parallel — Atrocities Alleged to the Enemy with Ensuing Dehumanization

Part 11: Parallel — Denial of Alleged Atrocities by the Enemy

Part 12: Parallel — Opposition Media/Journalists Targeted

C. They Offer the Prescribed SOLUTION

Part 13: Parallel — Military Revenge Attack Prepared in Advance with No Investigation

Part 14: Parallel — Occupy Territory of the New Enemy — The Land Grab

Part 15: Parallel — Widening the Conflict to Achieve Original Broader Goals

Part 16: Parallel — Effect Regime Change of Enemy Leadership 

Part 17: Parallel — Enact a “Forever War” Policy 

Part 18: Parallel — $$ Billions Flow to the Arms, Oil, Banking, and Media Industries 

Part 19: Parallel — Extreme Public Censorship by Government, MSM, and Social Media 

Part 20: Parallel — Draconian Policies and Surveillance Instituted by Government 

Appendix A: Parallel — Malevolent Roots More Than 250 Years Old 

We’ve found quite a number of parallels and will be diving into each of them separately in upcoming parts of this series. As you see above, they fall into one of the 3 major elements of “false flag” operations: Problem-Reaction-Solution.

Who are “they”? We will explore the complex set of answers to that question in Appendix A of this series.

Today we dive right into Parallel #1:

“A Territory or Country Is Targeted for Previously Established Geostrategic Goals.” 

9/11: Project for a New American Century — NeoCon Think Tank 

We start with the 9/11 side of the equation — and find, most interestingly, that the goals of the 2001 Bush Administration were established by the incoming neoconservatives and laid out in their key paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses. These individuals founded the Project for a New American Century.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., that focused on United States foreign policy. It was established as a non-profit educational organization in 1997, and founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. PNAC’s stated goal was “to promote American global leadership.” The organization stated that “American leadership is good both for America and for the world,” and sought to build support for “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.”

Of the twenty-five people who signed PNAC’s founding statement of principles, ten went on to serve in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. [Emphasis added.]

Their goals?

• A “defense topline increase of $75 billion to $100 billion . . . level of spending within four years”
• Regional hegemony in the Middle East
• To “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars”

However, PNAC acknowledged in the document that:

“. . . the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.” [Emphasis added.]

President Bush wrote as much in his diary the evening of 9/11/01, “The Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century.”

These points are among the many discussed by the late David Ray Griffin in some of his books, including New Pearl Harbor — Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11.

Griffin finds that the very strategic goals sought and documented by the neocons in September 2000 were substantially achieved following the earth-shaking events of September 11, 2001.

9/11: Supreme Allied NATO Commander Revealed “Take Down 7 countries in 5 years” 

Bush Administration Goals Publicly

Apparently the Bush Administration had additional geostrategic goals as well. Gen. Wesley Clark, Ret. four-star US Army General, Supreme Allied Commander of NATO (during the Kosovo War), revealed these goals publicly in 2007.

He said that he had visited the Pentagon just nine days after the events of 9/11/01 and was told by another General, who had himself visited Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, that the decision to go to war with Iraq was already made. In addition, this other general, who had previously worked for Gen. Clark, said: “We’re going to take out seven countries in five years.” [Emphasis added.]

He further clarified which countries they were: “starting of with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off with Iran.” [Emphasis added.]

To date, the US has attacked, overthrown, and/or undermined most of these countries following the initial overthrow of Afghanistan.

The neocons who were brought in with the Bush Administration in 2000 must have come with these goals in tow. And today the US is still being pressured by the neocons to complete the unfinished dirty work on the remainder of “the list” by going to war with Israel’s arch enemies — Lebanon and Iran. Was the US support for Israel’s inordinate retaliation in Gaza, and the heavy blame that was being heaped on Iran, an effort to incite a broader regional war to take out these enemies of Israel as well?

9/11: Afghanistan — The Pre-9/11 Plan to Attack Taliban

The Bush Administration appeared to have set its sights on Afghanistan — well before September 11, 2001. After all, the Whitehouse agreed to the invasion plan on September 10 — the day before the catastrophic events of 9/11. Why?! Did they have foreknowledge of the attack? Did they have other motivations for invading the country?

So what was the chief strategic goal of the US empire in Afghanistan under the false front of the “coalition of the willing”?

We were told it was to find Osama bin Laden. But it took the most sophisticated intelligence systems in the world more than a decade to find him. It becomes clear that he was used to run cover for a much more profitable operation. Could it have been the coveting of specific resources and geostrategic importance of the country?

Before the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in 1996, the profits from opium poppy cultivation through the “Chain of Dope” netted $400B to $500B, which exceeded the profits from all the oil companies combined[1]. Afghanistan had exported an average of 3,300 metric tons per year according to the UN Office of Drug Control (UNODC). The Taliban then shut down the poppy cultivation in favor of food cultivation, reducing the 2001 poppy crop yield to just 185 tons — a decrease of 94%.[2]

The next year, under the pretext of going after Osama bin Laden, who was purportedly the “architect” of the 9/11 attacks, the US-led invasion of Afghanistan removed the Taliban from power along with its restrictions on opium production. The yield skyrocketed back 3,400 tons in 2003 (profits exceeded $180B per year) and then rocketed to 6,100 tons in 2006.[3]

Don Paul and Jim Hoffman also document all of this quite well in their powerful little book Waking Up From Our Nightmare — The 9/11/01 Crimes in New York City. In that book they describe the “Pop” — an exponential increase in profits going to corrupt Wall Street companies and banking institutions from the narco-dollars.[4] These profits put the oil business profits to shame.

 

What happened when the US was forced back out of Afghanistan by the Taliban in 2020? The Taliban this year succeeded in shutting down the opium production again by 95% — again, in favor of food production versus extraordinary profits.

 

 

So why did we really invade Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11? Could it have been those billions of dollars in heroin profits flowing into a corrupt banking industry? Or was it something else still?. . .

9/11: Afghanistan — The Gas Pipeline Project 

In the late 90’s Afghanistan found itself caught up in the middle of a massive geostrategic pinch that developed when countries to the north became rich from newnatural gas discoveries, whereas countries to the south were starved for natural gas.

NewsMax summarized the opportunity that the Taliban turned down, to its ultimate misfortune.

[A] U.S. company, Unocal, (since acquired by Texaco) along with several partners, including an Argentine and a Saudi oil company, signed agreements with Turkmenistan to build gas and oil pipelines in 1995.

In 1996, this agreement got further extended to include building a 36-inch natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, via Afghanistan. This line was to be extended later to India to serve a huge market with hundreds of millions of energy-starved people.

This required an agreement with the Taliban, the then effective rulers of Afghanistan. Unocal invited a Taliban delegation to their corporate head quarters in California. This resulted in an agreement signed in January, 1998to allow the pipeline to pass through their country.

In March, 1998 however, Unocal announced a delay in the pipeline project due to an ongoing civil war in Afghanistan. This tempted the Taliban — on April 30, 1999 — to conclude their own deal with Pakistan and Turkmenistan, thus excluding the U.S.

This led the U.S. government to retaliate, placing sanctions on Afghanistan.

In a final meeting with the Taliban, a U.S. delegation delivered an ultimatum…[E]ither you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.” [Emphasis added.]

Following the “attacks” of 9/11/01, the US had threatened the Taliban with war if they did not turn over Osama bin Laden. The Taliban offered to do that only if given evidence of his guilt.

The late Michael Ruppert discusses this threat on page 108 of his treatise Crossing the Rubicon:

And yet it was at this time that the American representatives delivered a reported ultimatum to the Taliban to surrender bin Laden, stabilize, and negotiate, or the choices would be between a carpet of gold and a carpet of bombs.[18] This ultimatum, widely reported in the European press, evoked a number of equivocal explanations from meeting participants. Pakistani Ambassador Niaz Naik, who attended the fateful meetings, agreed that the statement was made but denied that pipelines were the subject of the negotiations. This seems unlikely, because one is compelled to ask where the “gold” for the Taliban was going to come from if not from the pipelines. [Emphasis added.]

Apparently the Taliban chose the “carpet of bombs” offered to them in Germany by US diplomat Richard Armitage, because that is exactly what the Taliban was hit with in October shortly after the 9/11/01 “attacks.”

So why did we really invade Afghanistan? Why did we keep Osama bin Laden alive and on the run for a decade following 9/11? Indeed, Osama was the perfect boogeyman, keeping the $6.5 Trillion Global War on Terror alive. But there was a better boogeyman — Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq, mortal enemy of Israel — right on the other side of their other mortal enemy Iran. Iran would be almost surrounded by such a new regional US dominance.

But the invasion of Iraq would also require a pretext. Surely Saddam Hussein could be fingered for the attack on the World Trade Center! Afterall, he had provable ties to Osama bin Laden — because they were so very well acquainted. (Not). And surely he had weapons of mass destruction (Not!) OK, well, Sadam did have 140 billion barrels of oil reserves.

9/11: Iraq — How Did Our Oil Get Under Their Sand? 

Everyone seems to realize, in the wake of the US invasion of Iraq, that Saddam Hussein possessed neither weapons of mass destruction nor ties to Osama Bin Ladin. So what was the driving force to invade Iraq?

 

[In] a February 2002 address, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called that oily assertion “utter nonsense.”

“We don’t take our forces and go around the world and try to take other people’s real-estate or other people’s resources, their oil. That’s just not what the United States does,” Rumsfeld said. “We never have, and we never will. That’s not how democracies behave.”

Nonsense aside, the sands of Iraq in 2003 held oil… lots of it.

According to data from US Energy Information Administration (EIA) at the time, “Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil — the world’s second-largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and is a focal point for regional and international security issues.”

In 2014 the EIA reported that Iraq held the fifth-largest proven crude oil reserves in the world, and was the second-largest crude oil producer in OPEC. [Emphasis added.]

Even the Deep State mouthpiece CNN acknowledged the obvious — more than ten years ago:

 

Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.

It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom’s bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq’s domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West’s largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush’s running mate in 2000.

The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access. [Emphasis added.]

Gaza: An Early Vision: “The Greater Israel”

Some may be surprised to learn that Israeli history didn’t start on 10/7, just like US history didn’t start on 9/11. In the final article of this series we will go back more than 250 years to look at much deeper roots, including the roots of the cabal that has come to infiltrate Western banking, governments, and religions. In that upcoming article we will familiarize ourselves with the British Colony of Palestine and the Zionists’ goals for the artificial creation of the nation of Israel.

Primarily Muslims and Christians, and a much smaller number of Jews lived in Palestine relatively peacefully under the rule of the Ottoman Empire from the 14th century to the early 20th century.

Those three religious groups in the area eventually developed a loose affiliation as “Palestinians” beginning more than 1800 years ago, ever since the Romans had originally named the land “Palestine” during their occupation of the territory.

Following World War 1 the Ottoman Empire fell and the British became the controlling power of “The British Mandate for Palestine.” As the force of Zionism — the desire for a national homeland for the Jewish people — grew, along with tens of thousands of Jews emigrating to the area, violent conflicts between local Arabs and Jews also grew.

Jewish political activist Theodor Herzl (1860—1904) is credited as the father of modern Zionism and he influenced many Jews to emigrate to Palestine.

“We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country.” Theodor Herzl [Emphasis added.]

The above statement from the founder of Zionism, and many similar statements by other Zionist leaders, make it readily apparent that the transfer of the Palestinian Arab population, along with an apartheid policy (yet another crime against humanity) were inherent in Zionism from its inception.

Furthermore, the territorial ambitions of the Zionists far exceeded that of Palestine alone. According to Zionism’s founder Herzl, “[T]he area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” [Emphasis added] Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.” [Emphasis added.]

The ruling Brits attempted to resist the increasing numbers of Jewish emigres to Palestine in the early 1900’s, on the basis that the result was out-of-control sectarian violence. Jews comprised only about 2% of the half-million Palestinian population at the end of the Ottoman Empire before the turn of the century, their ranks climbed to about 11% by 1917, and rose to about 30% by 1945. The British Monarchy eventually yielded to the increasing international pressure calling for a Jewish homeland and signed the Balfor Declaration in 1917.

Eventually in 1947, exhausted by the many acts of sectarian violence and terrorism against the military rule, by, but not exclusively, Jewish groups (such as the Irgun, Lehi, and Hagenah) from 1938 to 1946 (see forthcoming Part 2: “A Rich History of Historic and Recent Provocations and False Flag Operations.”), they sought in earnest to fulfill their 1917 promise made to the Zionist Congress.

The late 80-year-old Rothschild said in an interview last year that his ancestors “helped pave the way for the creation of Israel”, forcing the British government to sign the Balfour Declaration in 1917.

The Rothschilds are commonly believed to have engineered WWI and waited until 1917 when Britain showed signs of trouble. The Zionist-oriented family then offered the British Government their assistance in funding the war and also convincing the US to formally engage in order to help Britain’s victory over Germany — in exchange for the British paving the way for a new nation of Israel in Palestine. [Emphasis added.]

Thus the Balfour Declaration was an official letter from the British Government Foreign Secretary James Balfour to Baron Rothschild:

Importantly, it stresses that, “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. . .” [Emphasis added.]

The following interview of Lord Jacob Rothschild (formerly “Bauer”) was conducted by Daniel Taub, former Israeli ambassador, celebrating the 100-year anniversary of the document. (Taub interviewed Rothschild at Waddesdon Manor in Buckinghamshire, a manor bequeathed to the nation by the Rothschild family in 1957, where the Balfour Declaration is housed.)

Click here to watch the video

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 had an immediate and harsh reaction from the Palestinian Muslim community. One representative declared, “[T]his will have as a result, the replacement of the Arabs by the Jews. . . It is opposed by All Arabs in the [Middle] East.” [Emphasis added.]

Click here to watch the video

 

Al Jazeera spoke with Avi Shlaim, a historian and professor emeritus of international relations at the University of Oxford, about the motivation behind the fateful document and its ongoing legacy:

Shlaim: This shows the absurdity of the Balfour Declaration in denying national rights to the 90 percent majority and granting it to the 10 percent minority. Arthur Balfour knew full well that his declaration contradicted the principle of national self-determination. In short, the Balfour Declaration was a classic colonial document, which completely disregarded the rights and aspirations of the people of the country.

Britain had no moral or legal right to promise Palestine to the Jews as a national home. The concept “national home” does not exist under international law, and one Jewish writer Arthur Koestler, summed it up by saying: One nation, Britain, promised the country of another people, the Palestinians, to a third people, the Jews. [Emphasis added.] 

See this.

The British approved the 1947 UN Plan to divide British Palestine into two separate states — one for Jews and one for Arabs. This started the 1947—1948 Arab Israeli War in which Israel nearly doubled the amount of territory originally granted by the UN, and which saw tens of thousands of Palestinians forced from the country.

Note that about half of the historic nation of Palestine was carved up and given to Israel, even though its population was 90% Palestinians. The 1947 UN fulfillment of the original English Monarchy Balfour Declaration fulfilled the 1917 promise (for a Nation for the Jewish People) to Lord Rothschild and to the 1899-founded Zionist Federation.

This was in return for his promise to pull some heavy strings in order to bring America into England’s war (WW1) which at the time they were losing to Germany.

As you can see by territory colored in black, today, Israel is in control of nearly all of Palestine — nearly doubling the area granted to it under the original UN Plan.

Accordingly, In the subsequent 1967 “Six-Day War”, Israel seized not only the remaining Palestinian territory but a significant portion of Syria to the north and of Egypt to the south.

This left Israel as an occupier of those territories and their people. But since then three-quarters of a million Israelis have illegally moved into and taken over significant portions of the occupied West Bank and Gaza territories (initially granted to Palestinian Arabs as a Palestinian State by the UN). The Israeli settlers were subsidized by the Israeli government and protected by their military, forcing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians out of their ancestral homes.

Interestingly, in 2005, Israel removed all of its settlers from the Gaza Strip. Senior advisor to Ariel Sharon, Dov Weisglass, noted, “[T]he significance of the [Gaza] disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. You prevent the establishment of the Palestinian State. . .” [Emphasis added]

Had the Israelis already begun their negotiations with those who became Hamas — knowing that within a year Hamas, founded and funded by Israeli and US intelligence (see Part 3 of this series), would win the 2006 Gaza Strip election and become the problem that would provide Israel the enemy it needed?

This 10-minute, fast-paced, graphically-rich, simplified summary of the history of the conflict by Johnny Harris seems to provide an objective assessment for those less familiar with the important facts and historical context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict during the last century:

 

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

When word broke that the Iranian helicopter was thought to have crashed, Saudi Arabia was one of the first nations to offer all help and support to Iran.

Ebrahim Raisi, the 8^th President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, died in a helicopter crash on Sunday, along with his Foreign Minister and others.

Raisi will be remembered foremost as a cleric. He was successful in garnering support from the political circles, as well as the religious ones. He studied Islam at the seminary in Qom, and called himself an ayatollah, which is a title reserved for high-ranking Shiite clerics. His black turban identified him as a descendant of the Prophet Mohammed.

Raisi had been seen as a possible successor to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as supreme leader, the highest political and religious position in Iran.

Following the death of Iran’s first supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989, Raisi was appointed prosecutor of Tehran, and took his position as a jurist based on Islamic law very seriously.

After taking office as president, Raisi faced a difficult situation because of U.S. sanctions on Iran. President Trump had torn-up the nuclear deal, and had launched a maximum pressure campaign of even more sanctions. In 1998, Richard N. Haas wrote that U.S. sanctions are not effective on major changes, such as ‘regime change’. But, the Oval Office and Capitol Hill refuse to stop imposing sanctions on countries around the world, regardless of their lack of success. The crushing sanctions on Syria are a prime example of sanctions killing citizens, but having no effect on ‘regime change’.

Iran’s economy was suffering under U.S. sanctions, but also the effects of corruption, nepotism and inefficiency, which are the same factors most of the regional countries in the Middle East are grappling with. Raisi promised the people he would tackle inflation, corruption and tax evasion and had some success. But by May-June 2022, the price of food had escalated to more than 80% compared with the same period in 2021.

After the government cut some subsidies, which caused a spike in prices of food staples, protests erupted across several provinces, which brought out the security forces, and resulted in the deaths of at least five people, while dozens were arrested.

Iranian officials acknowledge the right of citizens to protest, but will not allow the protests to evolve into chaos and lawlessness. Security forces in some cases used heavy-handed methods, which drew criticism from the west and Iranian opposition groups in the west. The Raisi government knew too well that western interests would be served if the protests were violent and disruptive to the country; therefore, they tried to manage the protests on a short leash.

Most countries are unwilling to trade or invest in Iran due to the U.S. sanctions. This handicapped Raisi and prevented his government from expanding and developing trade and foreign investment. Countries who might want to do business in Tehran are fearful of being cut off from trade with the U.S., but China was willing to buy a lot of Iranian oil.

Under Raisi, Iran increased oil exports to China, and China has also continued to invest in a broad range of Iranian industries, including oil and gas, lumber, and light manufacturing. By January 2022, Iran exported more than 700,000 barrels of oil per day, which was more than Iran exported before the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions in 2018.

Raisi set his eyes on developing ties with his Asian and Arab neighbors. His death came after a visit with the leader of Azerbaijan. Raisi’s first trip was to Tajikistan, where he participated in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in September 2021. The regional economic and security bloc, led by China and Russia, accepted Iran’s bid for membership 15 years after it applied. He pushed for trade with Central Asian countries, and by July 2022, he had traveled to Oman, Qatar, Russia, Tajikistan, and twice to Turkmenistan.

One of the most significant developments of Raisi while in office, was the expansion of ties to Russia despite the military operation of Ukraine. The Supreme Leader of Iran had issued a policy statement validating the Russian position in Ukraine. Basically saying, that given the U.S.-NATO threats to Russia in Ukraine, that Russia was justified in a military operation to prevent the western powers from setting up a military offensive position toward Russia within Ukraine.

When Putin visited Tehran, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei justified Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. “If you had not taken the helm, the other side [NATO] would have done so and initiated a war,” he told Putin.

Raisi met Putin three times in the first seven months of 2022, and Russia has bought Iranian drones. Concerning oil, the two countries have cooperated as part of OPEC+ to try to keep oil prices high.

Raisi’s foreign minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, also died in the crash along with others. He received a PhD in international relations from the University of Tehran, and during his career at the foreign ministry, he was posted to Iraq and Bahrain and had developed expertise on issues facing the region. Following Raisi’s directives, Amir-Abdollahian focused on improving relations with the Arab and Asian neighbors of Iran.

In August 2021, Foreign Minister Amir-Abdollahian participated in a regional conference in Baghdad, along with French President Emmanuel Macron. Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates also participated, with the goal of easing regional tensions. Iran continued to support an array of Shiite militias and political parties in Iraq.

In March 2023, China successfully broker a reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The surprise detente between Iran and Saudi Arabia followed years of bitter rivalry that had destabilized several Middle Eastern countries, including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Bahrain.

When word broke that the Iranian helicopter was thought to have crashed, Saudi Arabia was one of the first nations to offer all help and support to Iran. Saudi Arabia’s deputy minister of foreign affairs, Waleed Elkhereiji, on Tuesday offered condolences and sympathy to Iran following the deaths of President Ebrahim Raisi and Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, and personally called upon the Iranian ambassador to the Kingdom, Alireza Enayatiat, at the Iranian embassy in Riyadh.

Last year’s normalization of ties between the two regional powers paved the way for more direct flights. On April 22, the first group of Iranian pilgrims flew to Medina in Saudi Arabia for a ten-day religious pilgrimage for the first time after 9 years.

According to the Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson,

“Based on the two countries’ mutual willingness and negotiations carried out by their respective foreign ministers, the obstacles have been removed. The transportation of Hajj pilgrims to Saudi Arabia officially started today.”

Iran has suffered from past helicopters accidents.

September 29, 1980 a military helicopter crashed killing several high-ranking military officers, including the Defense Minister, Mousa Namjo.

August 16, 1980 the first Iranian President, Abu al-Ahasan bin Sadr, was in a helicopter crash but survived.

In 1994, a helicopter crashed killing the head of the Iranian Air Force in Isfahan.

January 5, 1995, a helicopter crashed killing the head of the Iranian Air Force, and 10 other officers.

June 2, 2013, Mahmoud Ahmadinajad survived a helicopter crash.

*

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

This article was published on Mideast Discourse.

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

All images in this article are from MD

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

 

“We saw the buildup of events from the swine flu of 2009, Zika, the Ebola scare of 2014, et cetera. Escalating throughout the 2010’s into the Covid scare of the past few years. And now, we are on the cusp of potentially another scare which might cause the actual political impetus and even the public to get on board with the idea of the World Health Organization swooping in to save the day with their brand new pandemic agreement.”

– James Corbett, November 2023[1]

“It is not a matter of if a pandemic will happen again; it is a matter of when.”

– World Health Organization (May 10, 2024)

 

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

At this point in time when the worst of the sinister Coronavirus “pandemic” is thought to be behind us, the arrival of another alert of another killer disease may be stampeding toward us. [2][3]

After over a year of seeing this moment in the distance, the monster is at the door, and we must either yield to the moment and hope it isn’t as bad as some have predicted, or fight with every fibre of our being to preserve the rights and freedoms that may well be sacrificed to the discretion of those who claim to safe-guard our public health.

From May 27th to June 1st, initiatives are being set before the World Health Assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization (WHO.) These include changes to the 2005 International Health Regulation and the introduction of the WHO Pandemic Agreement. [4][5]

What are the implications of these changes? Essentially, according to critics, it would turn the WHO from an agency giving advice on healing from the next pandemic to giving orders to the world. Taking control. [6]

If you recall, the advice during COVID-19 included lock-downs, and the massive PR campaign related to what turned out to be a dangerous COVID-19 vaccine. As Professor Michel Chossudovsky explains in his 2022 book, The Worldwide Corona Crisis: Global Coup D’etat Against Humanity, these initatives have had very negative effects on people throughout the globe. [7]

Should the motions be adopted, the WHO would have even more power to command faulty decisions to the masses.

As we witnessed during the Corona scare, free speech could be gone, doctors questioning the health authorities could lose their medical license, travel could be obstructed, surveillance of medical and online records an Orwellian outcome. All in an era when it seems to be getting easier and easier to diagnose pandemics! [8]

There is even the possibility that fighting climate change through the “One Health” principle can open the door to extending the reach of the WHO, and by extension the billionaires pulling the devolved WHO’s puppet strings. [9][10]

These are issues that should be brought to the attention of the masses. But, as is consistent with that other marionette, the Mainstream (legacy) media, major television, and radio stations will not likely go down this path. But the Global Research News Hour sees it as news that IS fit for broadcast! And this week, we will inspect some of the arguments put forward by critics.

In our first half hour, Michelle Leduc Catlin joins us. Formerly the spokesperson for the National Citizens Inquiry: Canada’s Response to COVID-19, she plans to partake in the Geneva Project in the European Union next week to rally against the WHO’s plans and put forward an alternative to the new normal of pandemic fear forever. She talks about the trip and what Canadians can do to help.

In our second half hour, we are joined by Dr. Meryl Nass. An outspoken doctor and researcher, she has been concerned for months about the direction the Pandemic Agreement and IHR regulations may take us. She explains in a little under half an hour the focus of her concerns, and what can and has been done to stop politicians from signing away the rights of ‘We the People.’

What follows is a brief review by Dr. Nass of what is at stake.

Michelle Leduc Catlin is a storyteller and citizen journalist. In 2023, she became the spokesperson for the National Citizens Inquiry in Canada, traveling across the country to hear and report on testimony from over 300 witnesses.  Michelle is currently freelancing as a writer and speaker/moderator, and will be bringing her journaling courses back online in combination with self-sabotage coaching services later this year.

Dr. Meryl Nass is a National Merit Scholar. She has entered MIT before completing high school; BS Biology 1974, MD 1980, Board Certified in Internal Medicine 1986. She has practiced medicine for 41 years. Traveled to over 50 countries, has 2 children, single parent. She was the first person in the world to study an epidemic and show it was due to biological warfare.

Her websites are https://meryl.substack.com/ and https://doortofreedom.org/

Selected publications on Biological Warfare, beginning 1991:

• The Labyrinth of Biological Defense

• Anthrax Epizootic in Zimbabwe, 1978-1980: Due to Deliberate Spread?

• Can Biological, Toxin, and Chemical Warfare be Eliminated?

• Anthrax Vaccine:: Model of a Response to the Biological Warfare Threat

(Global Research News Hour Episode 433)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Transcript of Dr. Meryl Nass, May 21, 2024

Global Research: The way the WHO sells it, they would prefer to streamline our approach so that the disastrous response to the last pandemic will not repeat itself. And there’s no question of high death and mortality rates that followed.

So trying to put through the changes to the way they act and advise, it would seem to be a great idea. But what concerns do you have about the specific changes the WHO has in mind?

Meryl Nass: Well, what the WHO has said is that we handled the pandemic so poorly last time that we need to do it better in future. We can’t let this happen again.

And so what they’ve suggested is that we centralize control into the WHO and let them manage pandemics going forward and other public health emergencies, quite a variety of public health emergencies. Now, the problem is that one of the reasons we did so poorly last time is because most countries were using the advice of the WHO, which of course, you know, was not to use hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin, to use remdesivir, you know, to lock down, all things that at least among those of us who looked very carefully, we feel were not helpful at all and probably actually contributed to the death rate. Another interesting thing is that the WHO normally is in favour of local control, you know, that projects should, or theoretically, they say projects shouldn’t come from, you know, the Global North, but should be the Global South at the local level or the country level should determine what projects they need to improve health in their country.

And yet, this plan of the WHO is so centralized that basically everybody in the world would be given the same instructions. Let me also say that even though the WHO, as you read initially, claims to have the public health expertise that’s the best in the world, they don’t. They have a bunch of pamphleteers, they have people who can write copy, they have a very hierarchical system, you know, nobody’s allowed to say anything unless it’s, until it’s approved by committees.

And they have a few physicians who haven’t practised medicine in many years, you know, like Mike Ryan. Who are the others? I can’t think of their names right now. And they’ve got some PhDs.

But these people really do not know much about medicine on the ground and what developing nations or anyone else needs. Mike Ryan, they are administrators, they are money people. And as I said, they did everything wrong during COVID.

And why they think they should get any authority to make any decisions for anybody else’s health is sort of beyond me and beyond anyone who looks at these documents.

GR: So you say they’re not really just actual doctors, they’re more like, I guess, pencil pushers who sit behind a desk and go for that sort of thing. That kind of experience is what they benefit from or something like that.

MN: Correct. I mean, Africa had two major, the largest two Ebola epidemics ever were in 2014 in West Africa and 2018 and 2019 in East Africa. And the WHO would not declare them, would not help.

And finally, after about 10 months of each one going on, the WHO gave them some help, but it wasn’t on the ground help. The WHO did not send people there to actually try to fix things. They came up with policies, and maybe it’s a bit of money, a bit of resources, but they have failed when they’ve tried to help manage pandemics.

The WHO declared a pandemic in 2009 for swine flu, which triggered the activated contracts for vaccines for swine flu that were worth tens of billions of dollars, that the WHO had initiated, had been basically the broker for nations and pharmaceutical companies who had signed contracts, sleeper contracts, contracts that nobody knew about, saying that when the WHO director general declared a pandemic in future, these contracts would be triggered and nations would be obligated to buy whatever amount of vaccines at whatever price had already been established. So this was triggered in 2009, only weeks after the definition of a pandemic, a level six pandemic had been changed, such that any cold, any new virus, and we have new viruses every day of the week, any new virus could be declared a pandemic. And so, you know, billions of people were vaccinated for a flu that was milder than a normal seasonal flu, well over a thousand people developed narcolepsy as a result of their pandemics, swine flu vaccinations, and those vaccines were given a liability shield so that the people who were harmed had nobody to sue.

And that is exactly what the WHO is trying to bring forward now. They want all the nations in the treaty, they want all nations to pass laws enabling unlicensed, rapidly produced vaccines to be rolled out for their entire population with a liability shield. So the same thing that happened in 2009 happened again for COVID, liability shield, because you can’t roll out a vaccine in a few weeks and expect it to work or expect it to be safe.

It’s never happened in the history of the world. It’s never happened. And so if you’re going to roll it out, you’ve got to put a liability shield on it because no manufacturer is going to be willing to take that risk, but they’re perfectly happy to have the citizens take the risk.

GR: So something about the WHO, I mean, I know like when it was created back about 70 something years ago, I mean, it wasn’t that bad, right? It was something that was basically helping fund, basically allowing resources to fund the poorer countries, but something happened between the 20th century when there are basically maybe three epidemics to a whole series of them, SARS and the pandemics that you just mentioned, basically making them, gearing them to, leaning towards more vaccination, essentially.

MN: Yes. So what’s happened is that the way of funding the WHO changed over time.

So over the last, say, 25 years, the WHO decided there should be public-private partnerships, and then that there should be a WHO foundation. And these were ways of bringing in money from, you know, corporations and philanthropies. And so currently, 85% of the WHO’s budget comes from donations rather than from dues.

So the member nations pay 15% of the budget, and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, you know, Rockefeller Foundation, Wellcome Trust, pharmaceutical companies, and nations, particularly nations with pharmaceutical industries, also donate. And so that is the funding stream. And so clearly the people who pay the most to the WHO have the most opportunity to influence its decisions.

And so the WHO, when it has its meetings and decides its program of work, et cetera, people at the table are not just the nation states, but they are also the stakeholders, the donors. So, you know, people from Bill Gates operation are there at the table almost all the time. And when the WHO actually needs real experts, they often come from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or other philanthropies, because unlike their claim, they do not have medical expertise.

There’s a lot of expertise they don’t have. And what that means is that for countries to decide to turn over decisions, massively important decisions, such as whether everybody in the world is going to be mandated to get an experimental vaccine for which there’s no liability, or whether the whole world will be locked down, why would you allow an unaccountable, unelected organization that gets most of its funds from private sources, why would you allow that institution to issue orders for the whole world?

GR: Yeah, so basically, you’re talking about something like a pharmaceutical industrial complex or a pandemic industrial complex, as opposed to the military industrial complex is a whole new section that has a devoted devotion towards, you know, profit making ahead of, you know, health promotion.

MN: I mean, I wouldn’t have believed it myself.

I mean, I knew there was corruption in the medical system, for sure. But the extent of the corruption, you know, the fact that these companies would be happy to roll out vaccines that they knew didn’t work or were harmful, and would keep rolling them out. And here we are, you know, three and a half years later, and they’re still rolling them out.

I had no idea anything like that could happen. And two thirds of the world population has been given a COVID vaccine, and none of them work for, you know, more than a few weeks, a few months at the outside. And then they start to make you more susceptible to COVID.

And then there’s a, you know, the panoply of horrendous side effects that they can cause. And that’s every manufacturer, I think, because they’re modelled on a spike protein, which is hot, which in itself is highly toxic. So the normal way to make a vaccine, you don’t use the toxic part of the bacteria or the virus.

Or if you do, you modify it and get rid of the epitopes, the parts of it that give it toxicity. That was not done in this case. So everybody was injected with an antigen that was highly toxic.

Why that was done, you know, we don’t know yet. Nobody’s tried to explain it. Now, you know, did the government, did the US government give the recipe to Pfizer and to Moderna? Who came up with these recipes that did not modify the toxic portions of the spike protein? Or were there other parts of the virus that could have been used instead? Questions that really aren’t being raised in the mainstream media.

GR: And I’m wondering if you could just go over some of the, I guess, more onerous aspects of the amendments to the International Health Regulations and the Pandemic Agreement that’s being put forward and how that would subtract from us our human rights.

MN: Thank you. So the, if now we’ve had about nine versions of the Pandemic Treaty now called the Pandemic Agreement, it’s had five names.

And we’ve had three versions of the amendments to the International Health Regulations. And we don’t have a final version of either document. So what I’m telling you now is based on what’s been in the majority of drafts of these two documents, but may not be there when they finally vote, if they vote, because they often avoid a vote and claim that they have a consensus.

So the WHO would be able to impose lock-downs. So borders could be closed. Everything we experienced with the lock-downs before could happen again.

Schools could be closed. Businesses could be closed, et cetera. Masks could be instituted.

Vaccines could be mandated. The chief scientist who has been brought into the WHO a year ago is Jeremy Farrar. He was previously the director of the Welcome Trust.

And he and Bill Gates created a charitable organization, so-called charitable, called CEPI, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation, whose goal is to roll out vaccines for emergencies in, develop them in 100 days, manufacture them in 30 more days, and at the end of 130 days, get them to everybody in the country. There’s no possibility of testing those vaccines in humans at that rate of speed. And so Jeremy Farrar being moved to the WHO means that even though the documents don’t say vaccines to be pushed out in 130 days, everybody knows that is, in fact, what the plan is.

In addition, there is a requirement for nations to control misinformation and disinformation. So nations will have to perform surveillance of all their citizens’ social media and censor them just as has happened, but worse. So it won’t only be YouTube censoring us, but it’ll include Twitter and everything else.

There are two particularly dangerous provisions. One is called One Health. It’s a very bizarre concept.

It hasn’t really been explained well. There have been 61 published definitions. It is some method by which you balance and evaluate the health of humans, plants, animals, and ecosystems together.

And that doesn’t seem to make any sense, and it doesn’t, but many billions of dollars have been pumped into this strange concept. And so there are One Health divisions in public health offices around the world, in universities around the world. And there have been many grants paid to scientists to write articles about how they use the One Health approach in one way or another.

And unfortunately, the Lancet that has a One Health commission, and I don’t know who paid for that, Lancet has had a hard time being able to find any evidence that this approach works well for anything. But what’s happened is that basically everything in the world has been put into the One Health basket, because if you include animals, plants, ecosystems, and humans, that’s everything. And it’s a mechanism for saying everything in the world is related to health, and now the WHO can issue orders to the world to manage climate emergencies, or ecosystem emergencies, or gun violence, or whatever, you know, problems with the food supply, bird flu, okay, therefore, we have to call all the birds.

GR: Oh, my goodness. So you’re saying that it doesn’t, you don’t even necessarily have to prove that there is a pandemic, but you could say anything, climate change, clean water, whatever.

MN: The director, these documents initially said the Director General of WHO could either declare a pandemic or the potential for a pandemic.

People didn’t like the term potential. So in the last draft, it’s called a likely pandemic, which is the same thing. And he can determine when the pandemic is over.

So he can extend it beyond what most people would think would be the end of the pandemic. That’s in the health regulation amendments. In the treaty, the treaty is actually active 24 seven all the time.

So the WHO would be able to issue orders all the time, if they are contained in the, if those issues are contained in the treaty, and One Health is in the treaty. The other bad part of this is something called the Biohub system, the Biohub network, and the pathogen access and benefit sharing system, which demands that nations find potential pandemic pathogens, which I call potential biological warfare agents, collect them, study them, create labs for studying them, sequence them, and then send the WHO specimens and sequences, and the WHO will share them widely around the world. So this is basically a proliferation of biological weapons.

It’s against the law, but the WHO doesn’t bother with the law. And it’s also a way that we can, because there are always accidents in laboratories, the United States reports 200 accidents using these potential pandemic pathogens in labs every year, we have about 200 reported accidents. And so demanding that every other country have these same labs is an invitation to many accidents, and presumably there will be many more pandemics.

GR: My goodness. Well, there has been resistance to this, you know, apparent changing of the guard of the WHO and the way they operate. So they’re not just an advisory body, they’re a governing body, right?

MN: The WHO would transition to be a governing body.

GR: Wow. Now, major resistance has been registered already in the United States, for example. Could you talk about some of the victories that have already come forward, or partial victories, you know, in response to this WHO order?

MN: Yes.

So we’ve had amazing victories in the U.S. So first off, 49 senators, every Republican senator has sent a letter to the president and co-sponsored a bill demanding that these treaties be put before the Senate for ratification. Now, most people think all treaties go before the Senate for ratification, because that’s what the Constitution says. But in fact, for 200 years, most of them have not.

They have been signed off by the executive branch. So this would demand that it go before the Senate. And if we can get this done, so the Biden administration doesn’t want it to go before the Senate, and it will require a law making it go in front.

And we’ve got 49 senators in favour. We’ve got 50-some-odd House members who have co-sponsored a bill doing the same thing. We need to get two additional senators who are not Republicans, and then we can pass this law.

And then we can kill these treaties, at least for the United States, at the level of the Senate. We’ve also had 22 Attorneys-General send a letter to the president saying that actually, according to the Constitution, the states have authority for health, not the president. And they do not agree with transferring that authority to the WHO, and they do not plan to carry out either direct or indirect orders from the WHO on health.

GR: That was just a few weeks ago?

MN: That was on May 8th, so two weeks ago tomorrow. And the senator’s letter was on May 1st. We also have several states that have passed legislation that will protect them.

Florida actually did last year. Utah passed legislation that will protect them in January. And Louisiana passed legislation in the Senate, and it’s passed in the House.

And then there was a slight change to bring the date it becomes active on to the date of signing by the governor, and it went to the governor yesterday. And the governor is in favour. So we’re expecting that Louisiana will have this bill, this law in place sometime this week.

And there are several other states that have passed resolutions or are in the process of passing bills to deny jurisdiction to the WHO or to direct the president not to obey the WHO. And so those are big victories. We’ve had a number of countries say that they don’t like these treaties.

However, so the prime minister of Slovakia, who came out about 10 days ago, 11 days ago, and said Slovakia would not be signing the treaties as they’re currently written. Five days later, there was an assassination attempt on his life, and he’s been in the intensive care unit ever since with multiple close range bullet wounds. And Iran was one of 11 countries that had written to the UN in September, not going along with this plan.

And the president and the foreign minister of Iran died in a helicopter crash two days ago. So I would advise heads of state to not, even though I asked them previously to publicly state what they would do ahead of time to give other countries, countries don’t like to go out on a limb on their own. They want company.

But I would say, don’t go out on a limb right now and say how your nation is going to vote. Instead, demand a roll call vote. That means every diplomat that votes yes or no has to have their vote recorded.

And so that diplomat and that country can be held accountable for their vote. This is something the WHO does not like to do, but it’s absolutely necessary when we’re talking about transferring sovereignty, transferring governance to this unaccountable international organization. People who vote yes need to be accountable.

And so it’s very important that we get a real vote and that we know how everyone voted. What else can I tell you?

GR: Well, I think maybe in about 30 seconds or so, is there anything, if listeners haven’t gotten involved up until now, is it too late to take action? Because it’s starting early next week. I mean, are there still measures that we could take too?

MN: Well, there’s still measures that, so because the treaties need to be ratified, even if the United States signs up to them, we can still have the Senate ratify.

And so it’s very important to contact your representatives and senators. Now, if you’ve got Republican senators, they’ve already signed on to this. But if you’ve got non-Republican senators, please urge them to pay close attention to this.

It’s really critically important for our freedoms going forward. I mean, I can’t tell you how critical this issue really is. This is the first real big play by globalists to start centralizing control over the entire world.

Call your representative. If they are a co-sponsor of bill HR1425, Tom Tiffany’s bill, to require Senate ratification, thank them if they’re a co-sponsor. If they’re not, beg them to please co-sponsor it and vote in favor.

Because if we can get this in front of the Senate for ratification, it dies and we are saved here in the United States. Now, if you’re in other countries, you demand the same thing of your leaders. You don’t want this in any country.

So I hope you will work with me. DoorToFreedom.org is an organization I founded a year ago to get information about what is going on to people. We have a ton, all kinds of information available that could be read by 12-year-olds or college professors.

We have videos, we have handouts. You name it, we’ve got it. And we’ve got copies of all the documents, every draft of every treaty, if you want to read them yourself, we would encourage that.

And I thank you, Michael.

---

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Judging by developments over the past several weeks, it would appear that nothing going on in Washington matters quite as much as defending Israel no matter what the Jewish state does. The White House and its befuddled leader President Joe Biden are obsessed with every twist and turn of the Israel and media shaped narrative, basing it on two key words “terrorism” and “antisemitism.” It plays out like this: Israel is a victim of terrorism from enemies seeking to destroy it and those who criticize the Israeli “self-defense” response are motivated by nothing less than antisemitism. It is also being claimed ludicrously in Washington that Israel is fully capable of investigating itself if war crimes actually were committed, something that it never has done, note particularly the lack of any follow-up in cases involving the recent killing of American citizens.

The necessity to support what are obviously parts of a suspect exculpatory narrative has administration clowns like Karine Jean-Pierre, Matthew Miller, John Kirby and Antony Blinken falling over themselves trying to explain developments using arguments which are frequently clearly based on lies. Sometimes the lies are huge, like the Blinken claims that the US foreign policy does not favor Israel and treats everyone the same, or that a thorough State Department investigation has failed to sustain the claims that Israel is engaging in war crimes to possibly include genocide.

The United States is also reflexively turning on any institution or government that has managed to anger Israel and its vitriolic psychopath leader Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The recent decision by Norway, Ireland and Spain to recognize Palestinian statehood brings to 145 the number of countries now taking that step. The move infuriated Netanyahu who summoned those countries’ ambassadors and called it a “reward for terror.” One wonders if the US will follow suit and either break diplomatic relations with those three otherwise friendly and even allied countries or in some other fashion punish or sanction them. That terrorism often operates in two directions and Israel has been a cruel, racist and capricious occupying power seems to have escaped the attention of the Washington punditry which is only engaged in finding in Israel a perpetual victim innocent of all charges.

And then there is the recent declaration by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague that it would be seeking warrants relating to possible war crimes for Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Yoav Gallant as well as the leader of Hamas Yahya Sinwar, plus his deputies Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh. This produced a scream of anguish from the White House which first argued that the ICC has no jurisdiction as Israel, like the US, is not a signatory to the Rome Treaty that founded the court in 2002 even though Palestine is. Joe Biden also said on Monday that “Whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence—none—between Israel and Hamas.” He backed up this legally irrelevant statement with the usual assertion that “we will always stand with Israel against threats to its security.” The court, in fact, was created to address war crimes and genocides that had escaped normal investigation and prosecution and the 124 signatory nations to it are empowered to arrest those named individuals who have outstanding warrants if they should happen to enter their jurisdictions.

The second argument being made both by Netanyahu and the Biden squeakers is that Netanyahu and Gallant are demonstrably government officials, not terrorists, while Sinwar and his colleagues are, meaning that different standards must be used to judge their actions. Of course, the Jewish state’s mass murder of 40,000 civilians by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and its deliberate use of starvation just might fit most people’s definition of terror, but apparently is not convincing to Israel, the US Congress, White House and the Zionist controlled mainstream media.

Interestingly, as a side issue, since the United States is complicit in the war crimes being committed by Israel due to its funding and arming Netanyahu’s war, it too might wind up charged by the ICC. It would be a real wake-up call and might make many Americans, including myself, very happy to see Biden and Blinken in a prison cell! And by implication the ICC’s charges are also an indictment of Israel’s other Western allies. If Netanyahu is guilty of murder, extermination and deliberate starvation of civilians, so are those who arm and fund Israel while giving it political protection. That includes not only Joe Biden, but also Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer in Britain and other Western European leaders who are sitting on the fence and regretting the death rates while also providing arms to Netanyahu. For Washington, however, unlike its European allies, given that there is a real potential threat against the US political leadership, a very sharp response has been triggered. Twelve GOP Senators have issued a threat letter to the court that stated that the US would sanction justices and other staff working for ICC as well as their families, including blocking their ability to travel to or through the United States and going after their assets. It ended with “You have been warned!” Several other bills are also currently moving through Congress that will directly challenge the authority and mission of the court, all being done to protect Israel.

And there’s more. Israel, which is frequently described as a “great US ally,” which it is not, and a “democracy,” which it is also not, is currently ranked in opinion polls as the most despised country in the world followed by the United States, which is rated as the country most likely to start a major war. The US, through direct Treasury transfers and various other “charity” gimmicks and trade subsidies, gives Israel, a tiny country, a huge $10 billion or so per year. This year, to fund the war, the flow has been closer to $30 billion and Biden has vowed that his mission is to keep Israel “secure” even if it means having to ignore the Constitution of the United States by engaging in a war that is not declared and which did not develop from a demonstrable threat to the United States or its vital interests. Israel, hardly a vital US interest in the real world, was completely capable of destroying Gaza without US help, it just would have had to spend its own money to do so.

The power of the Israel Lobby is such that, not only are Americans denied the truth by a twisted war narrative, critters in Congress are coming out of the woodwork to see what they can do to help “America’s greatest ally!” Bills in Congress include one particularly bizarre one that would legalize deporting to Gaza student-protesters who are arrested or detained while out demonstrating “pro-Hamas,” which is inevitably described as the felony referred to as “material support of terrorism!” The Republicans in Congress are currently taking the lead in launching legislation to benefit the Israelis, including some schemes that are so strange (or illegal) that they are worth noting. On May 17, legislation was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. Cosponsored by two Republicans, Chief Deputy Whip Guy Reschenthaler of Pennsylvania and Ohio Representative Max Miller, H.R. 8445 went largely under the radar to provide direct support for those wishing to serve in the Israeli army. Miller is Jewish and Reschenthaler appears to be a Christian Zionist.

The Congressmen are proud of what they have done.

“Over 20,000 American citizens are currently defending Israel from Hamas terrorists, risking their lives for the betterment of our ally,” said Reschenthaler in a recent statement. “This legislation will ensure we do everything possible to support these heroes who are standing with Israel, fighting for freedom, and combating terrorism in the Middle East.”

“As our closest ally in the Middle East continues to defend itself against terror, many brave Americans have decided to lend a hand,” added Miller. “I’m proud that this legislation extends important protections to those Americans who chose to risk their lives in the fight against terror.”

What H.R. 8445 aims to do is make a series of amendments to programs that ordinarily have only been available to active duty, reserve or National Guard members of the US military — the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). These amendments would do something absolutely unprecedented in extending the benefits provided by these programs to American citizens serving in a foreign military, in this case that of Israel.

The SCRA grants American servicemembers “legal and financial protections against default judgments in civil legal cases, reduces interest rates on any pre-service loans to a maximum of 6 percent, and provides protections against home foreclosures. USERRA ensures US servicemembers are covered by relevant “civilian job rights and benefits for veterans, members of reserve components, and even individuals activated by the President of the United States to provide Federal Response for National Emergencies.”

In effect, H.R. 8445 is a measure designed to provide federal government legal and financial protections to US citizens serving with the Israeli military in both Gaza and on the West Bank. Mostly consisting of dual national settlers from the United States, there are more than 23,000 US citizens serving in the IDF as of February 2024. Some Israeli army reservists living in the US have also been summoned back to Israel to fight. Twenty-one Americans in IDF units have been killed inside Gaza, another one died along Israel’s northern border with Lebanon, and another was killed in Jerusalem while serving in Israel’s border police.

This number of American-Israeli soldiers is in part fed by the presence of an estimated 600,000 Americans living in areas that are under Israeli control, prior to October 7^th. These settlers tend to be political hardliners supportive of the Netanyahu government’s war crimes and they often commit war crimes themselves directed against the local Palestinian population.

Pro-Israel sentiment runs deep in the White House but seemingly even more so in the GOP. Some Americans were rightly shocked when Representative Brian Mast of Florida shortly after the Hamas attacks on October 7^th, arrived on the floor of the House of Representatives wearing his Israel Defense Forces (IDF) uniform.

“As the only member to serve with both the United States Army and the Israel Defense Forces, I will always stand with Israel,” Mast wrote in a post on X, alongside several photos of him wearing the uniform.

Mast is a bit confused since as a US Congressman he is supposed to “always stand with America.” He should be impeached and shown the door, but, alas, there is little or no patriotic spirit in the federal legislature, which only asks itself “What have I done today for our good friend and ally Israel.” And worse might be coming. It is reported that

“House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Wednesday that he’s ready to move forward with formally inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress but he’s waiting on Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to sign on.”

Another Bibi victory parade in front of a cheering US Congress could be coming right up! It is the ultimate tragedy for our times that a war criminal should be thus glorified and many are beginning to think that the “wag the dog” relationship will inevitably lead to nuclear war triggered by the reckless Jewish state that will inter alia destroy the United States of America. It is definitely something worth thinking about it!

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TUR

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

There is one thing we should all be able to agree with Benjamin Netanyahu on: Any comparison between Israel’s war crimes and those of Hamas is, as the Israeli prime minister put it, “absurd and false” and a “distortion of reality”.

Here’s why:

• Israeli war crimes have been ongoing for more than seven decades, long predating Hamas’ creation.
• Israel has kept the Palestinians of Gaza caged into a concentration camp for the past 17 years, denying them connection to the outside world and the essentials of life. Hamas managed to besiege a small part of Israel for one day, on October 7.
• For every Israeli killed by Hamas on October 7, Israel has slaughtered at least 35 times that number of Palestinians. Similar kill-ratios grossly skewed in Israel’s favour have been true for decades.
• Israel has killed more than 15,000 Palestinian children since October – and many tens of thousands more Palestinian children are missing under rubble, maimed or orphaned. By early April, Israel had killed a further 114 children in the West Bank and injured 725 more. Hamas killed a total of 33 Israeli children on October 7.
• Israel has laid waste to Gaza’s entire health sector. It has bombed its hospitals, and killed, beaten and kidnapped many hundreds of medical personnel. Hamas has not attacked one Israeli hospital.
• Israel has killed more than 100 journalists in Gaza and more than 250 aid workers. It has also kidnapped a further 40 journalists. Most are presumed to have been taken to a secret detention facility where torture is rife. Hamas is reported to have killed one Israeli journalist on October 7, and no known aid workers.
• Israel is actively starving Gaza’s population by denying it food, water and aid. That is a power – a genocidal one – Hamas could only ever dream of.
• Israel has been forcibly removing Palestinians from their lands for more than 76 years to build illegal Jewish settlements in their place. Hamas has not been able to ethnically cleanse a single Israeli, nor build a single Palestinian settlement on Israeli land.
• Some 750,000 Palestinians are reported to have been taken hostage and jailed by Israel since 1967 – an unwelcome rite of passage for Palestinian men and boys and one in which torture is routine and military trials ensure a near-100% conviction rate. Until October 7, Hamas had only ever managed to take hostage a handful of the Israeli soldiers whose job is to oppress Palestinians.
• And, while Hamas is designated a terrorist organisation by western states, those same western states laud Israel, fund and arm it, and provide it with diplomatic cover, even as the World Court rules that a plausible case has been made it is committing a genocide in Gaza.

Yes, Netanyahu is right. There is no comparison at all.

*

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

Featured image is from the author

Iran – A Mysterious Helicopter Crash or Martyrdom

Peter Koenig, May 22, 2024

Putin’s Strategic Blunder

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 20, 2024

The COVID-19 Endgame: Global Governance, “Digital Tyranny” and the Depopulation Agenda

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 20, 2024

International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim A. A. Khan K.C. Accuses Palestine of Waging War against Israel

Prof Michel Chossudovsky, May 23, 2024

Usury: The Crime of the Ages. “Bankers’ Greed”

Richard C. Cook, May 22, 2024

Did the Dulles Brothers Seal Our Fate?

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 22, 2024

WEF’s Klaus Schwab Steps Back. What Does It Mean? Peter Koenig

Peter Koenig, May 23, 2024

Globalists Plot Worldwide Genocide Via WHO Pandemic Treaty

Richard C. Cook, May 12, 2024

The WHO Health Tyranny – Or Not?

Peter Koenig, May 20, 2024

Western Liars Aggressively Promote WWIII in Europe

Joachim Hagopian, May 17, 2024

Ebrahim Raisi, Iran’s President, Dies in Helicopter Crash Aged 63. “It Was Not Us” said Israeli Official “Who requested Anonymity”

Al-Jazeera, May 20, 2024

A Lawless World Driven to Brink of War and Political Assassinations. “Signs of Endgame Collapse”

Joachim Hagopian, May 22, 2024

Behold the Real “Axis of Evil”. Option C of Israel’s “Secret Intelligence Memorandum.”

Mark Taliano, May 20, 2024

The Shooting of Prime Minister Robert Fico: A Day That Will Live in Infamy. Corruption and Criminality Surrounding the Pandemic Treaty

Emanuel Pastreich, May 18, 2024

The Collapse of Dollar Hegemony Could Lead to World War III. Richard C. Cook

Richard C. Cook, May 19, 2024

2020 Documentary: Who Is Bill Gates? How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health

The Corbett Report, May 22, 2024

The Pashinyan Regime Now Uses Armenians as Guinea Pigs for Pentagon’s Bioweapons

Drago Bosnic, May 22, 2024

Former CDC Director Robert Redfield Says for the Third Time That Bird Flu Will be the Next ‘Great Pandemic’

Jacob M. Thompson, May 21, 2024

Dangers of ‘Normalizing’ Assassinations of ‘Non-compliant’ Foreign Leaders

Drago Bosnic, May 22, 2024

Red Alert: WHO Pandemic “Treaty” Is Now an “Agreement”

Jon Rappoport, May 15, 2024

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

After the Russian incursion into Kharkiv province the Ukrainian intelligence chief Budanov admitted in an interview with the New York Times that:

“All our troops are now either in Kharkov or in Chasov Yar. I used everything we have. Unfortunately, we don’t have anyone left in reserve.”

The French news agency AFP reported on Russia’s push into Kharkov:

The Ukrainian army is struggling to line up 250K men on the front line. “In all the brigades, there is a 40% shortage of personnel”

A Ukrainian officer admits:

 “We are facing a wave of desertion among young conscripts”

While a French soldier returning from the front after an observation mission noted:

“In Kiev, they no longer talk to us about arms but about recruitment problems”

Since the coming into force of the new troop mobilisation law on May 18th the streets of Ukrainian towns are deserted, big firms with predominantly male workforces are warning of loss of workers to the army and production cuts, workers are protesting and many are committing petty crimes in order to seek the sanctuary of imprisonment rather than be a victim of the ruthless TCC (Official Recruitment offices) and their press gang methods. Ukrainian MP Anna Skorokhod said in parliament:

Ukrainians are massively committing petty crimes in order to get to prison, not to the AFU (Armed Forces of Ukraine)

There are increasing signs of citizens fighting back against army recruiters on the streets and 46% of Ukrainians of military age say they will not fight in the war.

A Ukrainian soldier’s video (I have been able to insert only a screenshot below) from the front line relates the process of forced recruitment from the streets to death in the trenches for his three colleagues. He says of his three dead colleagues that they were taken to the trench with no officer and no training:

This is Mozerenko Pashko. Four days ago on the streets in Ternopil region he was taken away. Now he lies here. Here is Gontarenko Kolka he was taken three days ago in Dnipro – here he lies. They just drove us here like meat. There was no senior officer – just us. What to do or how to do it they did not tell us.

This is the fate of thousands of Ukrainians as armchair warmongers in London and Washington and the Baltic States pump in billions of Dollars which do no more than  buy Ukrainian corpses.

Huge Losses and Dead Unaccounted For

Due to the scale of losses, the Armed Forces of Ukraine cannot report on the dead in a timely manner, writes The New York Times.

Relatives note that everywhere they encounter neglect and inaction, bodies are identified from aerial footage taken from a drone, their deaths are reported by colleagues, but Ukrainian commanders “will not lift a finger for months” to find out the fate of Ukrainian servicemen or take their bodies.

The Ukrainian military leadership is simply overloaded with losses and is unable to properly account for the thousands of dead which of course makes Ukrainian dead and wounded figures totally unreliable.

Cities Deserted 

A resident of Zaporozhye, the owner of a small mobile phone store, said that there were almost no people left in the city. 

“There are no people on the street, no passers-by, no one goes anywhere. Almost no cars. In half a day, only two grandmothers came …………..I just give up.”

In the comments on the video, people write that the same thing is happening in all major cities. On the day the new law came into force the beaches of Odessa were empty and there was not a single man on the street.

Ukrainian Truckers Blocked the Kiev-Odessa Highway in Protest 

Hundreds of trucks blocked the highway protesting against the new law on mobilisation. According to a participant in the rally:

“Truckers are protesting against the draconian laws of the semi-legitimate ‘Ze-government’”

After mounting troop losses, the loss of Bakhmut, Avdeevka, and dozens of towns in western Donetsk, the loss of northern Kharkiv province to Russian troops and their advance towards Kharkiv city, President Zelensky’ popularity has never sunk so low. Since there is little hope in the West that the latest financial package from the USA and a similar one proposed by the EU will alter the course of the war in which Ukraine has run out of reserves, there is no demobilisation possible and front line losses are horrific there is now a growing move in the Western press to undermine Zelensky – since he is the main obstacle to peace negotiations.

Ukraine’s Nazi Troops First to Flee Battlefield

The Ukrainian channel “Cartel” reports on the cowardly track record of openly nazi troops who are now integrated into the Ukrainian forces like “AZOV”, “Right Sector’ AIDAR, and “Kraken”:

“It is significant that the nationalists were the first to run at the front. This is by no means the only and not the last case. With the loss of territories and the weakening of funding, unauthorized refusals of nationalist brigades to conduct hostilities will become a practice.

Thus, the most ideological and motivated units, such as the same “Kraken”*, “Right Sector”* or “Azov”*, immediately flee in case of danger. we have already seen this in (the fall of) Mariupol, Avdeevka, and Chasov Yar.

The Channel notes that cowardice may not be the only motivation since the troops were particularly loyal to the sacked General Zaluzhny and ignore the orders of the new commander-in-chief Syrsky whom they see as following the propaganda promotions of Zelensky rather than rational warfare. 

And given that even trained and motivated fighters refuse to fight, recruits snatched from the streets and public transport are unlikely to be able to hold back the professionally trained Russian military. This means that in the ranks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, there will also be an increase in the number of surrenders, which is already observed everywhere.”

Ukraine Army and Drugs

The German publication Junge Welt claims that Ukraine is awash with drugs and the armed forces are particularly affected. They write that Ukraine has become an important transit country for drug trafficking. Quoting the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, for military officers drugs are a “means of escape from reality.” Against the backdrop of failures at the front and falling morale, Ukrainian soldiers are becoming easy prey for drug dealers.

Drugs reach the Armed Forces of Ukraine in different ways – by mail or by taxi, where the cargo is disguised as food.

Western Media Urge Peace

With this catastrophic military situation Western governments seem to be preparing coordinated diplomatic action to convince Zelensky to accept the principle of negotiations.

The leading Washington DC publication “The Hill” – the most widely read website/newspaper among Washington lawmakers – writes:

A peace agreement with Russia will require difficult decisions from the West and Ukraine, but they must be made. 

It notes that further attempts to inflict military defeat on Russia are pointless, the Russian Armed Forces have a great advantage, and the positions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are rapidly deteriorating.

The US publication “Foreign Policy” says Biden should point out to Kiev that its goals are unrealistic – and criticised Washington’s strategy of endlessly pumping money into Ukraine which will ultimately fail.

“The Biden administration should publicly declare that the interests of Ukraine and America do not coincide and that Kiev’s stated goal of returning every inch of Ukrainian territory is unrealistic” 

The aim now, says Foreign Policy, should be peace negotiations. Indeed – the madness must end but all the Western powers can do is hold a “peace conference” in Switzerland to which Russia is not invited!

*

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

This article was originally published on Freenations.

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

I have tried to provide accurate analysis of the conflict in Ukraine. This is not a simple task as there is little publicly available information about how the Kremlin sees the widening of the conflict. France has sent troops. The US Secretary of Defense said that eventually NATO troops will be deployed to Ukraine, and European governments are preparing for war with Russia in 4 or 5 years.

Putin’s original goals were the liberation of the Donbas region, and denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine. How denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine were to be accomplished without the conquest of Ukraine was never clear.

The appearance of long-range missiles, that is, missiles whose reach extends beyond the battlefield into Russia, resulted in statements from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs that Russia would have to compensate for the missiles reach by taking more of Ukraine in order to create a buffer zone. As the missiles the West sends keep lengthening in range, the consequence is that the buffer zone keeps enlarging and the entirety of Ukraine will have to be conquered and occupied and a Russian-friendly government installed in Ukraine. Already there are reports of Ukrainian drone attacks on Tatarstan in central Russia one thousand kilometers from the front line in Ukraine. Clearly the conflict is not a limited military operation. See this.

Whether Putin understands that his “limited military operation” is no longer practical is unclear.

The Ukrainian Army has been defeated. More mobilization will only result in a higher Ukrainian death toll. So where does the conflict go from here?

I suspect the Russian military will bypass Kharkov and leave it surrounded and cut off. The remains of the Ukrainian military is likely to reposition on the west bank of the Dnieper River. Russia, if the Kremlin ever becomes serious about the conflict, will take Odessa unless US/NATO occupy Odessa first.

The question is whether this would bring an end to the conflict or would Western Ukraine fill up with NATO forces in order to maintain a hostile regime toward Russia. If the latter, the conflict ceases to be between Ukraine and Russia and becomes one of the West and Russia. Putin would have rescued the Russian territories, but Ukraine would remain militarized. This time with US/NATO.

The Kremlin’s failure to act decisively in the beginning will have left Russia with a festering problem.

Washington will further stress Putin with attempted color revolution in Georgia, like Ukraine a former Russian province. A successful color revolution would allow Washington to open a second front against Russia.

A color revolution in Georgia is Washington’s intent. The Georgian legislature recently passed the Transparency of Foreign Influence Act. The legislation would require Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) engaged in promoting the interests of a foreign power to disclose their donors.

Apparently, the legislature waited too long to face up to the threat. The foreign financed entities were able to put protesters in the streets of the capital for weeks and succeeded in pressuring the Georgian president into vetoing the bill. The government backed away from an earlier attempt in 2023 to pass the bill when confronted by street protests. See this.

The Biden regime said the legislation “undermines democracy,” and the EU said it would block Georgia’s entrance into the European Union. Of course, Georgia is not in Europe and has no business in the EU. Clearly, Washington and Brussels’ interest in a bill pertaining to Georgia’s internal affairs indicates that the legislation is understood as prevention against a color revolution and that the West intends such a revolution. Washington is offering preferential trade treatment if Georgia will leave itself open to overthrow. See this.

The prime minister of Georgia says the country needs the foreign agents law in order to protect Georgia from external forces that want to launch a “Georgian Maidan.” See this. One wonders if Putin again will stand aside and allow Washington to bring him more troubles.

Washington used Georgia against Russia in 2008 when Georgian troops invaded South Ossetia resulting in intervention by the Russian military. A successful color revolution would open a second front, or a replacement front, against Russia. There is no indication that the West intends to cease its provocations of Russia.

Gilbert Doctorow recently explained that the provocations have reached such a reckless and dangerous level that Russia is undergoing military exercises practicing the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe against NATO. See this.

Putin was forced to intervene in Donbas. He attempted to limit the intervention to Donbas, but the West insisted on widening the war. The war has now widened to the point that Russia is preparing, should the need arise, to wipe out US/NATO military capability in Europe.

Doctorow is not confident that the West will come to its senses. Neither am I.

*

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

Paul Craig Roberts is a renowned author and academic, chairman of The Institute for Political Economy where this article was originally published. Dr. Roberts was previously associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during the Reagan Administration. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Nas últimas décadas, o Ocidente adotou com bastante veemência a chamada “agenda woke”. Em todas as “democracias liberais”, a agenda LGBT e a ideologia queer foram promovidas em detrimento dos valores tradicionais. Há uma nova onda de mentalidade liberal radical que se espalha no Ocidente Coletivo, gerando vários efeitos negativos para as pessoas comuns de mentalidade conservadora.

Contudo, aparentemente, estas agendas estão prestes a atingir um nível ainda mais elevado na política ocidental. Recentemente, o chefe da OTAN, Jens Stoltenberg, afirmou que a aliança representa as pessoas LGBT e trans, radicalizando claramente o discurso do wokismo para um nível militar. Afirmou que a OTAN é contra todas as formas de “homofobia” e “transfobia”, reforçando a ideologia ultraliberal que já se tornou hegemônica em quase todos os países membros da aliança.

Curiosamente, na mesma semana em que Stoltenberg fez a sua declaração, o Departamento de Estado dos EUA alertou as comunidades LGBT americanas e globais sobre uma possível onda de ataques terroristas num futuro próximo. Segundo as autoridades americanas, o mês de junho, considerado o “mês do orgulho” pelo movimento LGBT, poderia ser escolhido como o momento apropriado para ataques de grupos extremistas. Acredita-se que os terroristas aguardam ocasiões como paradas do orgulho LGBT ou celebrações públicas para cometer assassinatos em massa.

Curiosamente, o Departamento de Estado dos EUA não explicou as suas razões para acreditar que tal onda de ataques irá ocorrer. Para que tais alertas sejam emitidos, espera-se que existam dados de inteligência sólidos que justifiquem medidas de proteção para grupos vulneráveis. Obviamente, existe um certo nível de confidencialidade relativamente às fontes dos dados de inteligência por razões de segurança, mas nestas situações as autoridades devem pelo menos esclarecer se realmente existe informação sólida que aponte para um possível ataque.

O fato de não existirem dados públicos que indiquem que grupos terroristas tenham como alvo pessoas LGBT lembra-nos outro “aviso” recente emitido pelos EUA. Pouco antes do brutal ataque terrorista à Câmara Municipal de Crocus, a embaixada americana em Moscou alertou os seus cidadãos para evitarem participar em celebrações públicas na Rússia, pois havia supostamente risco de ataques terroristas nas principais cidades do país. Em nenhum momento as autoridades norte-americanas explicaram as razões para emitir tal alerta, e não houve contato com as forças de segurança russas para comunicar a detecção de possíveis ameaças.

A razão do silêncio americano parece agora clara: indiretamente, os EUA são co-responsáveis ​​pelo massacre em Moscou. As autoridades russas descobriram o envolvimento ucraniano no ataque, tendo os assassinos islâmicos sido contratados pela inteligência ucraniana. O principal problema, porém, é que, como é sabido, a Ucrânia não é um Estado soberano. Kiev não atua sozinha, sendo todas as ações militares e de inteligência ucranianas comandadas, ou pelo menos observadas de perto, por instrutores e tomadores de decisões ocidentais.

Certamente, os EUA tinham conhecimento prévio de que os seus proxies estavam a planejar um ataque em Moscou, razão pela qual os cidadãos americanos foram avisados ​​para se protegerem. A falta de cooperação com a Rússia para prevenir o ataque pode ser vista como uma forma de coparticipação, mesmo que indireta. E isso nos traz diversas reflexões sobre o caso atual envolvendo a comunidade LGBT.

Esse tipo de situação é sempre um desafio para qualquer analista. É necessário evitar preconceitos em relação a teorias da conspiração infundadas. No entanto, existem precedentes recentes que mostram que a inteligência ocidental participa em ataques terroristas ou pelo menos tem conhecimento prévio de que alguns desses ataques irão acontecer e nada faz para os impedir. Utilizar acontecimentos de grande comoção pública para promover agendas políticas impopulares é uma ferramenta ocidental comum.

Na verdade, a agenda woke é extremamente impopular. Muitos ocidentais comuns de mentalidade conservadora procuram refúgio em países que respeitam os valores tradicionais, como a Rússia. Neste sentido, é possível que um ataque terrorista possa ser usado como desculpa para avançar ainda mais nas políticas pró-LGBT.

Ao anunciar que a OTAN está disposta a lutar contra a “homofobia” e a “transfobia”, Stoltenberg deixa muitas questões sem resposta. É possível que ele esteja a dar luz verde para que a agenda woke seja reconhecida no Ocidente como uma nova onda de “direitos humanos”, justificando assim medidas militares contra nações que “desrespeitam” tal agenda. A Rússia, a China, o Irã e todos os inimigos geopolíticos do Ocidente são comumente acusados ​​de violar os direitos LGBT, razão pela qual, num possível ataque contra esta comunidade, as potências multipolares seriam certamente acusadas de estarem por detrás do complô.

Obviamente, é possível que o Departamento de Estado dos EUA seja sincero no seu aviso, mas seria seriamente ingénuo excluir a possibilidade de uma operação de bandeira falsa para militarizar as agendas culturais ocidentais.

Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

 

 

Artigo em inglês : Could the West prepare false flag operation to militarize its woke agenda?, InfoBrics, 22 de Maio de 2024.

Imagem : InfoBrics

*

Lucas Leiroz, jornalista, pesquisador do Center for Geostrategic Studies, consultor geopolítico.

Você pode seguir Lucas Leiroz em: https://t.me/lucasleiroz e https://twitter.com/leiroz_lucas

Usury: The Crime of the Ages. “Bankers’ Greed”

By Richard C. Cook, May 22, 2024

When usury became widespread after 1500, citizens gradually lost all their rights and their human sanctity when they became debtors to the money lenders and were legally mere chattel whose entire well-being, and even their lives (debtors prisons), were sacrificed to the bankers’ greed.

WEF’s Klaus Schwab Steps Back. What Does It Mean? Peter Koenig

By Peter Koenig, May 23, 2024

As Schwab boasted on several occasions, “We are proud having been able to infiltrate Governments around the world with our Young Global Leaders (YGL)”. To mention just a few, Gates (Schwab protégé and international vaxx czar), Merckel (Germany), Trudeau (Canada), Macron (France), Rutte (Dutch), Jacinda Ardern (New Zealand – and many more.

Fire in the Soul: Nick Lyons: “Fire in the Straw, Notes on Inventing a Life”. Edward Curtin

By Edward Curtin, May 23, 2024

So let me tell you about my old friend Nick Lyons whom I’ve never met or talked to. Sometimes a friendship is forged unbeknownst to the friends. Lives that have intersected without meeting. I heard about his writing on fly fishing when I was reading something my forgettery has gratefully forgotten. Forgetting is a lost art.

UN General Assembly Ignores a Real Genocide in Jasenovac to Highlight a Phony One in Srebrenica

By Stephen Karganovic, May 23, 2024

A serious attempt is being made at the level of the United Nations to blank out the genocide that occurred in Croatia from 1941 to 1945, during World War II. That genocide is the subject matter of this conference. The suppression of that event from public awareness is being done perfidiously.

Did the Dulles Brothers Seal Our Fate?

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, May 22, 2024

The “Soviet Threat” which became Washington’s foreign policy mindset was a self-serving creation of Allen and John Foster Dulles. The consequences of their creation and its recreation by the US neoconservatives await us unaddressed.

The Pashinyan Regime Now Uses Armenians as Guinea Pigs for Pentagon’s Bioweapons

By Drago Bosnic, May 22, 2024

Armenian media outlets report that the epidemiological situation in the country has deteriorated drastically due to American involvement. At least 786 people have been infected as a result of the measles outbreak. The Pashinyan regime refuses to disclose any information about this controversy.

From COVID-19 to Campus Protests: How the Police State Muzzles Free Speech

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, May 22, 2024

The police state does not want citizens who know their rights. Nor does the police state want citizens prepared to exercise those rights. This year’s graduates are a prime example of this master class in compliance.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Margaret Kimberley, Executive Editor of Black Agenda Report, was invited to brief the United Nations Security Council on May 20, 2024, as a civil society representative. The subject of the meeting was weapons supplies to Ukraine as a threat to peace and security.

*

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you all for this opportunity to address the Security Council and to provide a briefing on the issue of peace as it relates to Ukraine and its connections with people in this country and all over the world.

As a journalist, Executive Editor of Black Agenda Report, and a member of the Black Alliance for Peace and of the United National Antiwar Coalition, and as a citizen of the United States, the nation which has taken a lead role in continuing this crisis, I am very eager to speak to this issue. As of now, the U.S. government has allocated nearly $175 billion for the Ukrainian war effort and to support the workings of Ukraine’s civilian government.

For the last two years we have seen a terrible war which would end if this country and others would stop providing arms and instead seek peace. There were opportunities for that very thing to happen in March and April of 2022, when the government of Turkiye hosted peace talks between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. The possibility of peace was lost when my country and others subverted these talks by promising the government of Ukraine that it would receive an endless supply of weapons with which to achieve a military victory. Not only has that victory been elusive, but thousands of Ukrainians, the people this country claims to care so much about, have lost their lives. And of course, many Russians have also perished in the fighting. The goal should be for the death toll to end for both nations.

We don’t have to guess why this huge sum of money has been spent. We need only recall what the president of the United States and his foreign policy team have said publicly. The Secretary of Defense famously said in a rare moment of candor, that the U.S. wanted to “see Russia weakened.” This is a dangerous goal for the United States to have at all. The world needs cooperation. It is the only way to avoid escalation and disastrous outcomes between the major powers. The U.S. shouldn’t be attempting to weaken any nation but should be continuously engaged in finding ways to prevent and to end conflicts.

Not only is the Secretary’s confession dangerous, but it has surely failed. President Biden himself said that U.S. imposed sanctions against Russia would “turn the ruble to rubble.” No such thing has happened, but other nations have suffered economically from the futile effort to keep Russian oil off of world markets. Global South nations in particular were most impacted by what turned out to be a failed effort against Russia. More developed nations, those in Europe, have been deprived of affordable gas supplies they reliably received from Russia for decades.

There have been other serious consequences and some of them have fallen on people in this country, the one most responsible for continuing the crisis. Project Ukraine as it is called is a bipartisan effort, with both Democrats and Republicans supporting the continued infusion of huge sums of money to the defense industry, the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) and to dubious projects in Ukraine itself. This funding is not just spent on the military but is literally supplying many domestic government functions within that country. Most Americans are unaware that small businesses in Ukraine are being supported with their public funds. At least $25 billion in non-military aid has been spent.

It isn’t as if people in this country aren’t in need of help. Money for weapons continues thanks to consensus among the political class while needy people here are being removed from the Medicaid program which pays for health care for low-income people, as well as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Students take on thousands of dollars in debt to attend universities. The same administration which is committed to spending money on weapons has never presented a plan to help the estimated 500,000 people in the U.S. who are unhoused. There are constantly calls to cut or end these programs altogether but the funding stream for war remains untouched. Democracy itself is in crisis because of these endless conflicts. War is not the only indicator of violence in the world and peace is not just the absence of conflict. War making leads to immiseration, which is antithetical to the concept of peace.

The U.S. public do not have the unanimity of opinion on Ukraine that one would expect considering that billions of dollars have been allocated. Even those who say they support this effort also say that they would like to see negotiations too. A recent poll indicated that 71% of people in this country would like to see a negotiated settlement instead of ongoing conflict.

But the millions of Americans who want an end to the conflict have been deprived of the representation we are supposed to have. Not only does the administration refuse to reconsider its position, but there are reports that President Biden wants to prevent future presidents from playing a different role. According to President Zelensky, he is working with the U.S. and other NATO nations on a ten-year plan to provide weapons. Joe Biden can only serve for a maximum of four and a half more years, meaning that he wants to make a commitment that a future president could not change. In so doing, he invalidates the concerns of voters in this country and of the people who are supposed to represent them.

An airman loads weapons cargo bound for Ukraine onto a C-17 Globemaster III during a security assistance mission at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, Sept. 14, 2022. (U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Marco A. Gomez).

As a citizen of the United States, I am frankly shocked by the lengths this country will go to in order to pursue a dangerous plan that is doomed to failure. The most recent tranche of U.S. weapons funding is dependent upon Ukraine mobilizing more men, approximately 500,000. Several million Ukrainians fled to nearby states in 2022 but now they are told they cannot renew their passports abroad. They must return to Ukraine where we see videos of men literally being press ganged into service, dragged off the street and forced to join the military. The freedom that is allegedly being fought for seems to require a lack of freedom for Ukrainians who face the risk of death on the battlefield. This corruption requires a steady stream of indoctrination and propaganda to keep the U.S. population from asking questions or actively opposing the war. I suppose that is why Secretary of State Antony Blinken thought it wise to perform with a Ukrainian band on his last visit to Kiev. Not only that, but neither the Secretary nor his handlers were aware that the song he performed, “Rockin’ in the Free World,” is a lament about poverty and hopelessness in a supposedly free world which isn’t truly free for millions of people. The administration is so divorced from reality that they thought it wise for Secretary Blinken to play this song as men are rounded up to be cannon fodder.

I want to add that this conflict didn’t begin in February 2022. It began years earlier with the U.S. plan to have Ukraine join NATO. In 2008 William Burns, then U.S. Ambassador to Russia, revealed in a cable known to us, because of the work of Wikileaks, that doing so would cross a Russian red line and potentially lead to “a major split, involving violence or at worst civil war.” As we all know Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange languishes in a UK prison, facing extradition to the country that has made an example of him because he has revealed secrets such as this cable.

I reiterate that there have been peace proposals in the past two years, with the most recent attempt being made by the People’s Republic of China, which has developed a comprehensive 12-point plan that could mean the end of destruction and suffering if it is given serious consideration.

Image: Nord Stream attack (Source)

Lastly, I would like to make a plea to the United Nations to use its power to investigate a catastrophic event that is tied to the Ukraine conflict. On September 26, 2022, the NordStream pipelines were destroyed in an explosion which also sent approximately 15 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, thus contributing to global warming.

Investigations have been closed without conclusion and at least one internationally known investigative journalist has provided evidence of U.S. responsibility. Sadly, no one in a position to investigate in this country has demanded an investigation. It is imperative that the United Nations undertake an independent investigation of its own. This is only possible if fantasies about domination are finally and firmly rejected. Doing so would free nations to be honest with one another, to struggle over issues but to resolve them without death or expenditures of money that are better used for human needs.

I end by thanking you profusely for this opportunity and for the work of the Security Council in upholding the United Nations Charter on behalf of the people of the world. Thank you so much.

*

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

Margaret Kimberley is the author of Prejudential: Black America and the Presidents . You can support her work on Patreon and also find it on the Twitter , Bluesky , and Telegram platforms. She can be reached via email at [email protected].

Featured image is from BAR

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

The “leaked” announcement came yesterday – 21 May 2024 – as a surprise to most. Klaus Schwab the “eternal” CEO and founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF) steps back, not down, just back. He will henceforth no longer be the Chair of the Davos Forum and others around the world, but will continue being the head of the Board of Trustees – where the money flows and where strategic decisions are made.

In other words, he will still be influential in how the WEF plays out its dystopian agenda, how the constant FEAR propaganda is spread around the world, like the fake climate change – which will eliminate agriculture and farming as we know it to reach “net zero” by an imaginary target year, shiftable, of course, adapting to circumstances dictated by the “rules-based order” as CO2 is our arch-enemy; and we humanity must “build back better” – an idiotic idiom, created already some two decades ago, though, hardly anybody understands what it means.

Schwab will most likely continue defending such hegemonic nonsense.

Same with “Net Zero”. The willing sheeple just nod when they hear some of these invented clever-sounding but dumb-to-the-bones expressions – the inventors laugh tongue in cheek, watching the ignorant going along with the meaningless sloganism.

This sort of things, Schwab will still be nurturing – instead of from the front, now from the back; less visibility, less exposure to negative critique.

Who will succeed Klaus Schwab at the helm of the visible WEF? No successor has been officially announced, though nothing is “official” these days at the WEF and its sister institutions of darkness, the World Health Organization (WHO), the castrated and bought United Nations (UN), and the less visible but still highly active Club of Rome.

Coincidentally, they are all Swiss-based. Tax free. And with diplomatic immunity.

For the time being, WEF’s President, Børge Brende, former Foreign Minister of Norway, will be acting for Klaus Schwab. He is a possible successor of Klaus Schwab’s, but others are mentioned, like Tony Blair, former UK Prime Minister, ally-in-lies with former US President Bush, triggering the war in Iraq, leaving more than a million deaths; as well as Christine Lagarde, current president of the European Central Bank (ECB) and former Director General of the IMF.

Noteworthy is also that Schwab’s family, children, are all involved in one way or another in the WEF’s activities. Any one of them could emerge and take over.

In any case, for now, no major changes in policies and approaches to world affairs should be expected. The dystopian Forum is likely continuing attempting to turn the world into a dystopian heaven for the rich and powerful.

In the words of The Defender (CHD), Schwab is a “figurehead for the most powerful globalist interests — the ‘controligarchs.’” Controligarchy is the term to keep in mind when we think about the set of tyrannical, power-thirsty billionaire-psychopath nut-cases, who will continue pretending running the world, if possible with the WEF as their platform, as long as We, the People, let them.

Klaus Schwab, now 86, created the WEF in 1971, then called the European Management Forum, converted to World Economic Forum in 1987. The non-profit institute was created to promote “stakeholder responsibility”, whatever that means, a slogan Schwab created and likes to use as of this day.

Quoting The Defender, as an NGO, the WEF has remarkable revenues: Some $500 million for the fiscal year ending March 2023 and cash reserves totaling 200 million Swiss francs ($219.5 million). Probably one of the world’s wealthiest NGOs.

Now, the new slogan to be promoted – and more so after this management change, will be Public-Private Cooperation. The World Bank and similar neoliberal agencies used to call it “Public-Private Partnership”, another term for “stakeholder capitalism” – same thing, different spelling, meaning essentially: The investment funds come from the public sector and the profit goes to the private partner. And guess who absorbs the losses, if there are no profits?

According to The Defender (CHD, 21 May 2024), a WEF spokesperson said the organization is “transforming from a convening platform to the leading global institution for public-private cooperation.”

No doubt the “convening” will still take place, in Davos, San Francisco, Dubai, China – and wherever else business and politics want to rub elbows and where Big Money may flow. And always near an airport where a thousand-plus private jets can land, as these top execs and billionaires could give a blue poop about the “noxious” CO2 they produce.

You know, CO2 is the stuff that heats up the earth, justifying “net zero” – end of farming, famine and hopefully for the WEF’s Great Reset and UN 2030 agenda lead to early death and rapid depopulation. It is the number one objective of the WEF, UN, WHO psychopaths – gradually but as fast as possible getting rid of as many “useless eaters” as they can. This, in the words of Israeli Yuval Noah Harari, Klaus Schwab’s close confident and adviser.

By the way, as ardent proponent of “net zero”, “building back better” and the notorious “climate change”, maybe Klaus Schwab, in his new role, talking from the “back”, will be able to explain why the by far world’s largest and most vicious and violent emitter of CO2, the US / NATO and western military, are never mentioned in connection with “net zero” — or as a contributor to the infamous hoax of “climate change”.

After all, they have kept bombing, shooting and killing at least 30 conflicts during the past 60 years, killing millions and millions of people, and by doing so, emitting millions and millions of tons of CO2.

And maybe, just maybe, Schwab, in his new “public-private cooperation” platform, may get an advisor who tells him that CO2 is the most important gas for life, along with oxygen. Life on earth could not breathe and subsist without CO2 being converted by the trees, mostly tropical forests, into oxygen. If Schwab’s protégé, Bill Gates, wants to cut down tropical forests, it is for a purpose.

Not to forget, the WEF’s Vax agenda. Remember during the last Davos event in January 2024, Schwab, Gates and Tedros were boasting about the coming of a new virus, potentially deadlier than covid called Virus “X”. It has not yet been identified, but is already somewhere “out there”.

Seriously. Would you believe such crap? Sorry, for the language, but no better word comes to mind!

To top it off, Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla, in a side-session of Davos 2024, had the guts to tell the people “We are already working on a vaccine” – for the up-and-coming – yet unknown – Virus “X”.

Other than attempting with all means to depopulate the world, Schwab, the unrefined German dictator-type, will certainly use his “behind-the-scene” platform to continue coercing governments into doing “the right thing” or else, and pursuing his pipe-dream of an all-digitized world, where Artificial Intelligence (AI) and humanity blend into transhumanism, manipulable with harmful, often deadly 5G, and soon to come 6G microwaves. Alarm: The Fourth Industrial Revolution is coming!

If Schwab has the final saying, human life would become a by-product of an all-digitized, roboticized world. But with peoples will prevailing, Schwab and the WEF will not have the final word.

*

For a good analysis of the moment, see the CHD’s summing up of Klaus Schwab’s WEF and what may be expected in the near future; edited by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

On a different note, let us look at how Schwab’s “stepping-back” announcement was “leaked” to the media. Rather unusually cryptic; no details; no particular reason and no advance warning, which is normally the pompous style of a WEF-type organization. Strange.

When writing the Schwab / WEF story, Michael Nevradakis referred to “fact-checkers” who had to deny rumors that Schwab may be gravely ill or even deceased.

Usually, when “fact-checkers” come to play, there is something fishy. Like there is no smoke without a fire.

Strange things are happening these days – the times ar-a-changing (a 1964 Bob Dylan song preceding the 1960’s “Flower Revolution”) in more ways than one. Arrest and other “warrants” are being issued to Netanyahu, Tedros, possibly Bill Gates, the Clintons and maybe many more.

Two bloody conflicts are being waged in Ukraine and Gaza / Palestine, with blood, deep-dark blood, all over the Western world’s “leaders” hands, faces and minds — almost all of them “implanted” into their leader-role by Klaus Schwab.

As Schwab boasted on several occasions, “We are proud having been able to infiltrate Governments around the world with our Young Global Leaders (YGL)”. To mention just a few, Gates (Schwab protégé and international vaxx czar), Merkel (Germany), Trudeau (Canada), Macron (France), Rutte (Netherlands), Ardern (New Zealand), and many more.

The future of the WEF remains to be seen. A legitimate question also asked by many “adversaries” of the WEF: Should there be a future for the WEF?

*

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

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

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

Featured image: DAVOS/SWITZERLAND, 27JAN08 – Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum addresses the audience during the session ‘Message from Davos: Believing in the Future’ at the Annual Meeting 2008 of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 27, 2008. (Copyright by World Economic Forum swiss-image.ch/Photo by Remy Steinegger)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

With lilacs in the dooryard blooming a week ago, I was struck by a sense of synchronicity so strong that I stood stone still and sniffed the air for its direction.  I had just written a little essay about my youthful days and the first fish I caught at the age of ten and my subsequent basketball obsession.  Now I was out for an early morning walk up the hill by the lake above the town across from the railroad tracks.  As I dawdled in the intoxicating fragrance of the lilacs, it transported me to other springs when my blood raced a bit wilder and I met a brown-eyed girl. In another bush a catbird sang a song I did not recognize at first.  For some odd reason, I associated it with Van Morrison’s tune, The Beauty of the Days Gone By. I want to write these words for you, and like the singer, raise your spirits high, so please listen to the song before you keep reading.  I’ve heard that these are the days of miracles and wonders, so it is possible to pause, listen, and then continue reading.  Flow  with me.

*

So let me tell you about my old friend Nick Lyons whom I’ve never met or talked to.  Sometimes a friendship is forged unbeknownst to the friends. Lives that have intersected without meeting.  I heard about his writing on fly fishing when I was reading something my forgettery has gratefully forgotten.  Forgetting is a lost art.  As that other fisher of intangibles Henry Thoreau said in Life Without Principle, “It is so hard to forget what it is worse than useless to remember.”  It takes desire to forget the inconsequential.  And desire to remember the profound.

The article said he had written a memoir that sounded interesting to me, for reasons I can’t explain.  So I got and read the book, Fire in the Straw: Notes on Inventing a Life.  It was published four years ago and moved me deeply for many reasons.  

I felt we had met long ago in some parallel reality, two city boys, one Jewish, the other Catholic, Nick from Brooklyn and I from the Bronx, different in age and other particulars, but joined by a passionate intensity tied to great literature, basketball, and most especially by a mutual sense that life’s deepest truths lurked beneath the surface, and in order to catch them, we had to develop an art of playing life well, whether that was in sports or teaching or writing.  An art that could lure meaning out of the deepest depths into consciousness.

Fire in the Straw is just that.  It is a beautiful and masterful book, lit up by such pellucid prose and unsparing self-examination that only an emotionally dead reader would not be deeply touched. Lyons writes in his introduction:

Except for a moment or two, my life I suspect is rather ordinary in its details – and I have persuaded myself to write about parts of it in this brief book only for several reasons: the selfish one of wanting – sometimes desperately – to understand what I did and what happened to me, what it might mean and why, and in the thought that some of my odd journey will interest people who have lived with similar events and strivings.

That is an understatement, for the tale he tells is universal, despite all its particularities.  Or perhaps because of them or the brilliant way he makes them so.  The ordinary concealing the extraordinary.  A life told in luminescent sentences that vibrate in the reader’s mind because they were composed by an artist’s loving hand.

Call it a memoir, an autobiography, or anything you like, if you are into categorizing books by content alone.  Goethe wrote of the “open mystery” of every form, and although it is often assumed that form and content comprise two separate aspects of writing (and this is true for most mediocre work where readers generally concentrate on the content exclusively), the finest writing consists of a marriage of form and content that ravishes the reader in unassimilable and mysterious ways. A marriage of true minds.

Homer said it best: “Sing in me, oh Muse, and through me tell the story.”

Nick Lyons heard the Muse and sings his life in this book.

It is a story, told by a man nearly ninety years-old, of a boy emotionally abandoned by his perpetually smiling and good-looking mother who sent him to a boarding school at age five;

a boy without a father but with a step-father whom he disliked and a mother whom he couldn’t love;

a child aware of adult phoniness who discovers in fishing a mysterious source of solace and sustenance;

a student bored by school but in love with basketball who practices obsessively and competes fiercely in the Brooklyn schoolyards;

a young man who earns a prestigious degree at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania only to find it hollow;

a soldier in France who discovers his love of reading and his basketball talent;

then a young man trying to find himself and his vocation who holes himself up in a cheap, tiny Greenwich Village apartment with the great books of literature that light a fire in his soul;

the professor of literature who takes on a second job at a publishing company to support his painter wife and four children and constantly struggles with debt;

and later an independent small press book publisher and writer about fly fishing; a self-questioner always trying to find meaning and a pattern in his life, a life that seemed to race ahead of him;

a devoted husband and loving and protective father who was lonely even when only one child was away; a man wildly juggling many balls for many years who finally found “success” and the cushion of money when he sold his small publishing company;

a contemplator of his soul-mate wife’s paintings where he sought the manifestation in color and stroke of something that he felt he lacked;

an artist always trying to answer a Sphinx-like riddle:

Who am I? How did I become who I am today? Did I become whom “you” wanted me to be?

None of this is ordinary because Nick Lyons is not ordinary, and with Fire in the Straw he has written an extraordinary book.

Sitting in his dead mother’s apartment waiting for the police to arrive, she a lonely seventy-four year-old that he never truly knew, his mother stiffening on a toilet seat, a sight that he only glimpsed and then avoided, he waits and waits cataleptically for the cops and the medical examiner (who, like Godot, never comes), looking at old photographs and musing about his parents’ lives and deaths, a father, Nat Ress, whose death preceded Nick’s birth, a mystery man, a pleaser with a “good heart” that he also never knew and never once asked his mother about but longed for still, a hole in his heart seeping sadness, thinking of photos of these two intimate strangers when once they seemed happy and in love.

For his father had died when Nick’s mother was six months pregnant with him, and the fact that both mother and son had survived a very difficult childbirth was a miracle.  Ah, to exist!

I did not find myself a part of the life seeping from the prints at first, then, as the images begat other more fluid, moving, images in my mind, as I sorted through them in some nagging urgency to make sense of them all, some meaning of them, I found the racing of my mind slow and slow again, just as I once had to slow down my life, which had been slipping steadily, inexorably, through my hands.  I had not been able to control it once.  I had been rigged up, like a puppet, playing a role that had been written out for me, a hostage to an alien script.

Hadn’t there been something small and mysterious, like a small flame in damp straw, hidden inside me?  I had scarcely known how to fan it forth.  And why?  For what reason?  I had always done what I had to do, little more.  I did what I was told.  I smiled when I was supposed to smile.  I tried desperately to remove those bands from my chest, that extraordinary, constant, unyielding pressure.  I kept looking at the little curly-haired boy in those photographs, now one, now four or five, now almost in his teens. . . . I looked at the photographs and they were part of some drama I could not quite understand, scattered and inchoate, and they were part of me and not a part of me and I tried to let them come closer but I still had a passive center, a place that could let an arrogant police captain swipe some of my mother’s few possessions and say nothing.

But the passive puppet becomes the man who keeps fishing in words.  I dare anyone to not be caught by them.  He flicks them out softly, like a fly over a running stream, and although some seem innocuous and part of a pedestrian telling, they suddenly flash and a crack opens in a mystery that stops you, that sends a shiver down your spine.

He tells us about his mother’s burial with these words:

A couple of diggers leaned on their shovels, a discreet distance to the left.  The rain had turned all of the exposed soil to mud.  I turned my head slightly, to the stone just to the left of where my mother’s stone would go, and there, with some dates, the last one in March 1932, three months before I was born, was my name, Nathan Ress [Nick’s original name before the hated step-father changed it].

It was just an old stone, with some dates and a name.  It wasn’t much and I’m not sure why, but I felt a heavy shock of disbelief and recognition and felt that the drama was done.

But it wasn’t.  His story continued and continues still as he approaches his ninety-second birthday.  We learn of his last journey to the basketball court to try to revive his youthful hoopster dreams, an amusing but futile effort; the death of his half-sister Annie, who suffered abuse at the hands of her father Arthur, Nick’s hated step-father; and the last dreamy years with his beloved wife Mari, to whom he was married for fifty-eight years, whose presence, stated or not, remains a light-motif throughout the book.

At one point about twenty years ago when they were in Montana and he was modelling for her, he writes:

It is a rainy day and Mari is painting her Big Enigma, a brown hump like the mountain, me.  She painted me, nearly forty-years ago, naked, in college.  She was always partial to cheap models who did not have to be flattered – herself, me – and I was cheap as dirt, thin then, and would sit for a smile though I couldn’t hold the pose for three minutes.

Now I am a mountain of a man, graying by the hour, but I can sit for days, reading or fussing with a few sentences.  Mari says under her breath that I have everything her regular models have, only more of it. . . .

Flashes of the forty years we’ve had of it together, the tensions and the falling-offs, the quiet moments, nights of passion, delusions, illusions, and, with our children, the great hungry city, the endless pressures of money, of a life crying, like the house of D. H. Lawrence’s rocking horse loser, “There must be more money.”

But with the ease that more money eventually afforded them, life – their lives – went on as they tend to do, softened by money but still the same.  The years passed and Mari died, as did one son, Paul.  Nick sits by “the sorry little pond” he built on the Catskill hillside near their summer house in Woodstock, New York.  He keeps fishing, always fishing, always fishing.

I like to sit on the dock in the heavy dusk and toss food pellets or pieces of bread to who will have them.  Sometimes I think of Nat, Rose, Arthur, or Annie, and a fire, and classrooms and offices and books and a tiny, snot-green room in Greenwich Village, and sometimes I think of Ice Pond, which I first fished more than three-quarters of a century ago, a close friend or two, and fish in the murky waters of my past.  And always now I think of Mari and Paul. . . .

I am flooded with questions I cannot answer. . . . She was here and she is gone, and Paul is gone, and their absences are raw and pungent and their memories precious. . . . Tonight I lumber back from the pond – a bear of a man, garrulous, bearded, often impatient with myself, walking with a rolling gate and a cane, with titanium hips and too much belly. . . . In the darkened glass of the studio [Mari’s], suddenly mirrorlike, I catch a glimpse of an old fellow with a beard and uncombed hair; he looks a little like a badly tied trout fly, but not someone who once thought he had no life. I smile. . . . There is a noise below me, in the sloping field, a whirring of wings.  It is merely a flock of crows rising from the high grasses, making the air tremulous in their departure, like all those years of fear and doubt and striving, of joy and love, rising, fluttering, and then, in a crazy crowd, gone.

“Sing in me, oh Muse, and through me tell the story.”

Yes, the beauty of the days gone by.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s website, Behind the Curtain.

Edward Curtin is a prominent author, researcher and sociologist based in Western Massachusetts. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).  

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 (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Unfortunately, we can presume that no one knows the answer to the title question, and what is worse, some people do not even want to. 

As we are already aware, in the very first weeks of this conflict there have been some ideas about how to get it to an end, shared in Moscow and in some circles in Kiev as well. Nevertheless this hope was quickly extinguished by Boris Johnson and direct pressure from the UK and the USA, not only uninterested in peace, but clearly determined to continuing the war for any (Ukrainian) cost, so the Kiev government has been ultimately forced to follow.

Who Does Not Want the Peace?

As a result, more and more Western observers are pondering over the apparent paradox of Western involvement in Ukraine, pointing out that it is definitely insufficient for Kiev to take the strategic initiative, let alone achieve a victorious breakthrough, but it fits perfectly into the scenario of maintaining a long drawn conflict, like the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, which was covered on television news somewhere between local tractors exhibition, sports and weather forecast.  These analysts, unable to understand Western strategy, repeat an error that perhaps similarly looped systemic historians would recognise.  The double assumption that the West expects a Ukrainian victory and that it wants peace is a mistake.  If the US and UK really wanted peace, then:

a) would not lead to war, 

b) would allow for a Ukrainian-Russian ceasefire as early as Spring/Summer 2022.

When nothing like this happened, the goals must be different.  This assumption makes much more sense than insisting that everyone in Western capitals has suddenly lost touch with reality.

Historians should associate that with the outbreak of the Great War.  To this day, multitudes of researchers cannot understand how it is possible that such experienced diplomacy as the English one did not save the peace, even though it could have done it with one telegram to Berlin (which was requested by the French, by the way).  However, the Foreign Office did no such thing and the scholars still try to understand the reasons of such a mistake, instead of accepting the obvious explanation that it was not a mistake, but a deliberate action aimed at escalating and spreading the European and then global conflict.

What End of the War?

No, more than two years after the outbreak, we are no closer to peace, because this is not the goal of this war assumed by its perpetrators, i.e. the United States, the UK and NATO.  But does the other belligerent, i.e. Russia, have a vision of ending the conflict? 

We can omit Ukraine in these considerations because, contrary to appearances, it is not an entity, but only a place of conflict, without any decision-making power.  The assumption that the Ukrainians have such power, or at least can regain it, was the Russian primary mistake in planning the original war goals, based on the belief that if Kiev is given a good shake, the ravenous oligarchs will leave it on their own, and neutralisation and denazification will be recognised by the Ukrainians themselves as meeting their vital interests.  From today’s perspective, such a plan seems embarrassingly naive, but everything indicates that this is exactly what the original Russian idea for a quick war without extraordinary military consequences looked like.

This plan fizzled out with Russian tank engines failing to capture Kiev when they had such an opportunity and was finally thrown off the table with the failure of the Istanbul Russian-Ukrainian talks.  However, there remains the question of what is next, to which no one can give a sensible answer. 

This is somewhat reminiscent of the situation with the COVID-19, when the only sensible question was never asked: what state would be considered the final end, how many ‘infected’ people should be there, then what percentage of the population should be vaccinated, in short, what must happen to stop tormenting people and destroying economy?  We have not known that for two years and we never found out in the end, because Putin shot COVID-19 from a tank, which was probably not planned in advance when the pandemic circus began and would last for two years.

Similarly, we do know nothing today: what should be Kiev’s victory? All we know is that there is no burning of Moscow, no capture of Donbas, no takeover of Crimea, so what: patching up the front, not so much broken by the Russians, but abandoned by deserting Ukrainian troops?  Besides, the Russians probably don not know how and where it will end either: on the full line of the Dnieper?  On the Dnieper line but with Odessa?  On the upheaval in Kiev, on the way to the Zbruch River (before 1939 border between USSR and Poland), or maybe to the Bug River (present Ukrainian-Polish border)?  And what is next, where does the idea come from that there is peace somewhere across the next river, as after all this time there is no other Reich Chancellery to raise a banner on saying ‘Well, we’ve done what we needed to do, it’s time to go home!’?  

Dancing on the Volcano

Unless both sides (once again, i.e. the West and Russia) have worked through the well-known strategy of the tickle game, turning it into an option of who gets tired sooner and has greater potential, i.e. into a scenario closest to the one known from the Western Front of the Great War.  Then the subsequent villages in Ukraine that the Russians enter after the Ukrainian desertion do not matter much, because there are almost as many villages in Ukraine, Poland and Romania as there are conscripts in Russia, so all this may take a very long time.

This war will last or it will smoothly turn into another one.  The current crisis may be deeper and longer than the previous one.  And we are still dancing on the volcano, deceived by the appearance of a small quasi-stabilisation.

*

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

Konrad Rękas is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

The leaders of Norway, Ireland and Spain have said their countries will formally recognise Palestine as a state next week for the sake of “peace in the Middle East“, prompting Israel to immediately recall its envoys.

L to R: Prime Minister of Norway Jonas Gahr Støre (CC BY 2.0); Prime Minister of Spain Pedro Sanchez (Ministry of the Presidency. Government of Spain); Prime Minister of Ireland Simon Harris (European Union)

Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store said on Wednesday that a two-state solution was in Israel’s best interest and the recognition of Palestinian statehood would come as of May 28.

“There cannot be peace in the Middle East if there is no recognition,” he said in Oslo.

Ireland’s Prime Minister Simon Harris made a similar announcement in Dublin, as did Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez in Madrid, to applause in parliament.

“In the midst of a war, with tens of thousands killed and injured [in Gaza], we must keep alive the only alternative that offers a political solution for Israelis and Palestinians alike: Two states, living side by side, in peace and security,” Gahr Store said.

“Recognition of Palestine is a means of supporting the moderate forces which have been losing ground in this protracted and brutal conflict,” he said.

Harris told a news conference: 

“I’m confident that further countries will join us in taking this important step in the coming weeks.”

Ireland’s foreign minister Micheal Martin said on X that the recognition will take place on May 28.

Sanchez, while announcing that Spain’s council of ministers would also recognise an independent Palestinian state on May 28, accused his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu of putting the two-state solution in “danger” with his policy of “pain and destruction” in Gaza.

“We hope that our recognition and our reasons contribute to other Western countries to follow this path, because the more we are, the more strength we will have to impose a ceasefire,” Sanchez said.

Click here to read the full article on Al Jazeera.

*

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

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

We are witnessing as I speak a train of events that is extraordinary – perhaps utterly scandalous would be a far better word. I wish to draw your attention to it.

A serious attempt is being made at the level of the United Nations to blank out the genocide that occurred in Croatia from 1941 to 1945, during World War II.

That genocide is the subject matter of this conference.

The suppression of that event from public awareness is being done perfidiously. They are not overtly comparing a slaughter of the magnitude of Jasenovac to another, lesser event.

They are trying to ignore Jasenovac altogether, or “cancel” it in contemporary parlance. I am referring of course to the Srebrenica resolution now before the General Assembly of the United Nations. It misrepresents and by disgusting virtue signalling purports to “memorialise” a phony, politically fabricated genocide whilst ignoring a genuine genocide that actually did take place in the recent past and in relative geographical proximity to Srebrenica.

If highlighting a Balkan genocide for the purpose of universal condemnation had been the real concern of the sponsors of the UN resolution, they would not have chosen as their focus a highly dubious example which pales by comparison to a genocide that is unquestionably real. Such a genocide occurred in Croatia, and you come together every year to pay homage to its victims. It is symbolised by the death camp of Jasenovac.

I do not intend to offer any legal or historical arguments concerning the genocide in Croatia during World War II, leaving that task to other presenters who will be speaking today. Instead, I will narrowly focus on the issue of Srebrenica which the global political establishment holds to be a starker example of genocide than even Jasenovac. Does Srebrenica qualify as a genocide and can it legitimately replace Jasenovac as the paradigmatic Balkan genocide?

Ustaše militia executing people over a mass grave near Jasenovac concentration camp (From the Public Domain)

In the mind of the globalist political establishment, that precisely appears to be the case. In their propagandistically reconfigured version of reality, Srebrenica indeed overshadows the massive slaughter of several hundred thousand innocent civilians in Jasenovac. It makes no difference to them that the slaughter in Croatia fully satisfies the criteria laid down in the Genocide Convention. Nor does it matter that it was committed with amply documented intent to exterminate all Serbs, Jews, and Roma within reach, to destroy the ethnic and religious communities to which the victims belonged.

The approach I will take to examine whether Srebrenica was a genocide comparable to Jasenovac, or to any other example of a real genocide that could be cited, is by stating a number of hard data points. As you undoubtedly know, a hard data point is a fact that is established, indisputable, and relevant for assessing the truth of a claim. Anyone asserting a contrary position is free to do so, but he must explain such a hard data point and harmonise it with the substance of his claim.

The essence of the Srebrenica genocide controversy, in the legal and political sense, is whether there is evidence of intent to exterminate the Muslim community.

Exhumations in Srebrenica, 1996 (Photograph provided courtesy of the ICTY.)

Absent provable genocidal intent, or dolus specialis, the loss of life in Srebrenica may be regretted and condemned but it cannot be raised to the level of genocide. The defining characteristic of genocide is the intent to physically destroy one of the categories of persons, ethnic, religious, or racial, protected under the Genocide Convention. That is not in dispute. All professionals are aware of that and accept it.

If we assume that the ripening of the genocidal design and the logistical preparations for its execution take a certain minimum period of time, it is reasonable to ask at what point and at what temporal distance from the events was genocidal intent established in Srebrenica, if it ever existed?

That is the first hard data point to which I wish to draw your attention. Testifying in November of 2001 before the Srebrenica Inquiry Commission of the French Parliament, the chief investigator of the Hague Tribunal, Jean-Rene Ruez gave the following answer to the question put to him by the Commission, whether it was true that prior to 9 July, 1995, which is two days before Serbian forces entered Srebrenica, there had been no plan to overrun the enclave, in spite of the fact that it was of great strategic significance to the Bosnian Serbs. Ruez responded as follows:

“In fact, the decision to seize the enclave had not been taken before 9 July, when General Mladic realised that it would not be defended. The initial objective was for the enclave to be narrowed down to the city limits of Srebrenica … “ [1]

This is an extremely significant admission to the effect that the Serbian side had no intention of even capturing Srebrenica prior to 9 July. Ruez’s assessment is based on documents to which Ruez had access in his capacity as the Hague Tribunal’s chief investigator. That is why Ruez’s statement may be considered a reliably proven fact.

If we bear in mind that the alleged genocide in Srebrenica took place between 13 and 17 July, this fact is of capital significance, coming from a knowledgeable source within the Hague Tribunal. It means that the intent to physically destroy the population of Srebrenica, or a part of it, could not have existed before 9 July, whilst the alleged genocide is said to have been conceived and launched only four days later.

The next hard data fact is provided by the military expert for the Prosecution of the Hague Tribunal, Richard Butler. His testimony concerning the sequence of events also is against the interest of the institution which he served, which enhances its credibility.

Testifying as a Prosecution witness in a Sarajevo Srebrenica trial in 2010[2] Butler furnished important information which bears on the issue of genocidal intent. As a prosecution expert, Butler also had access to the most sensitive and relevant documents. In that capacity, he testified that at least up to 11 July he had found no hint of the existence of a plan to exterminate Srebrenica Muslims. That is the date when Serbian forces took control of the enclave. Ruez’s chronology is therefore moved forward by Butler by at least two more days, confirming that there was no evidence that on the Serbian side anyone was planning to commit genocide even forty-eight hours before the imputed crime began to occur.

How could immensely complex logistical preparations for a killing operation of such magnitude be made at such short notice?

Other assertions made by Butler during his testimony make the existence of a genocidal plan equally dubious.

First, Butler confirms Ruez’s view that the original aim of the Serbian military operation was only to reduce the UN protected enclave to Srebrenica city limits.

Secondly, he confirms that Karadzić issued the order for Serbian forces to enter Srebrenica only on 10 July, a day before that actually happened.

That suggests that the takeover of the enclave was an improvised decision taken on the spur-of-the-moment and in light of the success of the military operation up to that point and was not part of a premeditated plan to capture the Muslim population in order to exterminate it. Third, Butler testified that he was “not aware” of the Serbian side shooting at civilians after 11 July, when Srebrenica was overrun and the operation ended, which is unusual behaviour for people with genocidal intent. Fourth, with regard to the deportation of the civilian population of Srebrenica, Butler testified under cross-examination that “there is no evidence in the documents” of prior planning to capture the enclave before the morning of 11 July, when the decision to enter Srebrenica was taken, so there could not have been a prior deportation plan either. Finally, Butler agreed under cross-examination that in the ranks of the Army of the Republic of Srpska there was no expectation that prisoners might be harmed “even up to 12 or 13 July.”

The critical question is whether this chronology of events, as described by some of the most knowledgeable Hague Tribunal Prosecution experts, can be harmonised with the proposition that the political and military leadership of the Republic of Srpska attacked Srebrenica with the intent to physically exterminate the Muslim population as such, as an ethnic or religious community? The Genocide Convention requires proof of such intention for the crime of genocide to be charged.

You decide.

Viewed from such a perspective, and that is my next hard data point, the questions raised by the distinguished Canadian legal scholar and expert for genocide, William Schabas, are eminently reasonable. Schabas asked:

“Can there not be other plausible explanations for the destruction of 7,000 men and boys in Srebrenica? Could they not have been targeted precisely because they were of military age, and thus actual or potential combatants? Would someone truly bent upon the physical destruction of a group, and cold-blooded enough to murder more than 7,000 defenceless men and boys, go to the trouble of organizing transport so that women, children, and the elderly could be evacuated?”[3]

Again, you decide.

With regard to the extent of human losses sustained by the Muslim population of Srebrenica in July of 1995, there is general agreement amongst all the authorities that on the day Srebrenica changed hands, 11 July, 1995, the population in the enclave was about 40,000. But we have another relevant hard data point, and that is the summary report of the UN Command in nearby Tuzla, dated 4 August, 1995. It is stated there that as of that day UN personnel in Tuzla had registered 35,632 refugees who had arrived in Tuzla from the enclave of Srebrenica. This document serves as a key marker of the demographic changes between 11 July and 4 August, 1995. It strongly suggests that the total losses from all causes sustained by the population of Srebrenica could not have exceeded 4,500. That is about half the figure that is commonly claimed.

Image: An agricultural knife nicknamed “Srbosjek” or “Serbcutter”, strapped to the hand. It was used by the Ustaše militia for the speedy killing of inmates at Jasenovac (From the Public Domain)

The next hard data point is the generally accepted fact that in July 1995 there were two significant causes of human losses amongst the population of the enclave. One was execution of prisoners of war, the other was combat deaths sustained by the mixed military/civilian column of the Muslim armed forces which was conducting a breakout from Srebrenica to the nearest territory under Sarajevo government control in Tuzla. In international law, execution of prisoners is a punishable war crime. Combat losses however are not subject to criminal prosecution. The Hague Tribunal has accepted the validity of that distinction and that is why it never indicted anyone for inflicting casualties on the retreating Muslim military column.

Estimates of legal combat losses sustained by the column during the break-out vary, but in every instance they are significant. The Hague Tribunal military expert Richard Butler estimates those losses at between 2,000 and 4,000, the UN military observer in Bosnia Carlos Martins Branco puts them at around 2,000. According to US intelligence officer John Schindler who was stationed in Sarajevo about 5,000 Srebrenica military-capable males were killed in combat after 11 July. EU peace negotiator Karl Bildt’s estimate is about 4,000, whilst the UN in their assessment of combat losses put the figure at 3,000. Because of the chaotic conditions there obviously is no precision in these estimates, but they give you a sense of the order of magnitude of post 11 July legitimate combat losses. To repeat, the infliction of these casualties is not a violation of the laws of war, there is no criminal liability attached to them, and these losses cannot be considered victims of genocide.

The remaining issue is how many execution victims could there have been. Execution of prisoners is a crime against humanity but please note that unless other conditions also apply even that is not sufficient to show that genocide was committed.

Between 1996 and 2001 forensic teams sent out by the Office of the Prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal conducted exhumations of mass graves suspected of being associated with the executions of Muslim prisoners. They processed and classified 3,568 cases. Their forensic analysis, supported by detailed autopsy reports, presented the following picture:

• 442 exhumed persons were undoubtedly victims of execution because they were found with blindfolds or handcuffs
• 627 individuals showed injuries from mine fragments or artillery projectiles, which rules out execution and is more consistent with combat death
• 505 individuals died of bullet wounds, which may indicate execution, but is also consistent with combat death

For the remaining cases, Prosecution forensic experts were unable to determine the cause of death.

Thus, the Srebrenica forensic picture is very diverse. It is not generally consistent with execution, as one would expect to find that it would be if the official account were true. That is a very important additional hard data point which the proponents of the death count of 8,000 must explain.

Finally, and with this I conclude my factual review, Hague Tribunal verdicts are highly inconsistent with regard to the actual number of execution victims.

In the Krstić verdict, the Chamber claimed that “7,000 to 8,000” were executed. In the Popović case the Chamber said that “at least 5,336 individuals were executed after the fall of Srebrenica.” In the Tolimir case the Chamber found that there were “4,970 executed victims.”

All those incompatible figures are final, being stated in the appellate judgments of the cases to which they refer. These diverse body counts are all based on essentially the same corpus of evidence, which did not vary substantially from one Srebrenica trial to another. Besides being drastically different amongst themselves, they also significantly exceed the empirical findings of the Prosecution’s own forensic experts.

Once again, you be the jury and assess the credibility of these inconsistent claims.

A quarter century after the event, I would submit that the toxic Srebrenica narrative is significantly more lethal than anything that actually occurred in July 1995.

Firstly, Srebrenica has served as the basis of the murderous Right to Protect doctrine which the collective West has abused to attack, devastate, and plunder a series of countries, beginning with the attack on Yugoslavia in 1999, followed by the military destruction and occupation of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and a number of other countries. The human cost of this global aggression unleashed using Srebrenica as the pretext so far has been about two million, ironically mostly Muslim lives. The official Srebrenica narrative served as the rationalization for the killing of at least 100 times more human beings than the number of lives presumably lost in Srebrenica in July 1995.

It is scarcely necessary to point out that the fostering of the official Srebrenica narrative, which may soon be enshrined in a UN resolution, is provoking permanent enmity between the Orthodox and Muslims, the two largest constituent groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina. One suspects that this animosity perfectly suits the globalist political agenda. Mutual distrust and hatred amongst the local population makes it possible for foreign interests to extend their presence and tutorship indefinitely and keep that strategically important part of Europe permanently under their control.

The sacralisation of the Srebrenica narrative as the contemporary model of genocide and the simultaneous suppression of Jasenovac, which by contrast fully qualifies as the true legal and moral standard by which to measure that heinous crime, is sad testimony to the disarray that prevails in the post-truth world in which we are trapped. All the more reason for both the Jasenovac Research Institute and Srebrenica Historical Project to press on with their noble task and never give up.

*

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

Stephen Karganovic is president of “Srebrenica Historical Project,” an NGO registered in the Netherlands to investigate the factual matrix and background of events that took place in Srebrenica in July of 1995. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.  

Notes

---

Rethinking Srebrenica

By Stephen Karganovic

Rethinking Srebrenica examines the forensic evidence of the alleged Srebrenica “massacre” possessed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. Even though the ICTY created more than 3,500 autopsy reports, many of these autopsy reports were based on bone fragments, which do not represent complete bodies. An examination of the matching femur bones found reveals that there were only about 1,900 complete bodies that were exhumed. Of these, some 1,500 autopsy reports indicated a cause of death consistent with battlefield casualties. Only about 400 autopsy reports indicated execution as a cause of death, as revealed by ligatures and blindfolds. This forensic evidence does not warrant the conclusion of a genocide having taken place.

Karganovic examines the events that took place in Srebrenica in July 1995 in a wholistic manner instead of restricting it to a three-day event. The ten chapters cover:

1) Srebrenica: A Critical Overview;

2) Demilitarization of the UN Safe Zone of Srebrenica;

3) Genocide or Blowback?;

4) General Presentation and Interpretation of Srebrenica Forensic Data (Pattern of Injury Breakdown);

5) An Analysis of the Srebrenica Forensic Reports Prepared by the ICTY Prosecution Experts;

6) An Analysis of Muslim Column Losses Attributable to Minefields, Combat Activity, and Other Causes;

7) The Genocide Issue: Was there a Demonstrable Intent to Exterminate All Muslims?;

8) ICTY Radio Intercept Evidence;

9) The Balance Sheet; and

10) Srebrenica: Uses of the Narrative.

• ASIN:‎ B0992RRJRK
• Publisher: ‎Unwritten History, Inc.; 2 edition (July 8 2021)
• Language: ‎English

Click here to purchase.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

In its millennia-old history, Armenia and its people suffered numerous calamities, particularly in the last 100-150 years when the Turks committed the Armenian Genocide, one of the worst in known history, killing up to 1.5 million Armenians (in addition to well over a million native Greeks and Assyrians). However, in recent years, yet another disaster befell this ancient nation. Namely, only a few years after the US/NATO intelligence services brought Nikol Pashinyan to power, the Turks and their vassals effectively finished the Armenian Genocide in Artsakh (better known as Nagorno-Karabakh). Well over 100,000 native Armenians from there were driven out of their homeland, where the Azeri occupation forces are now destroying the millennia-old (both Christian and pre-Christian) heritage of the magnificent Armenian civilization.

Virtually all contemporary troubles of the Armenian people have a name – Nikol Pashinyan. This horrible individual who has been promoting closer ties with the country’s archenemy Turkey instead of Russia since the 1990s pushed his way into power through the so-called “anticorruption” agenda. And yet, Pashinyan turned out to be far more corrupt than any of his predecessors. Even worse, he also showed his true colors as a NATO-backed dictator, particularly in recent months, when his henchmen started a more brutal crackdown on protesters. This entirely unprecedented behavior was never seen under any of the previous Armenian governments, making it yet another uniquely “Pashinyan-esque” feature of the ruling regime. Unfortunately, it seems this is only the tip of the iceberg, as they are doing something far worse.

Namely, in a report published by the reputable Weekly Blitz, the daily’s Chief Editor Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury revealed extremely disturbing details about US-run biolabs in Armenia. Citing Armenian sources, Mr Choudhury reports about a measles outbreak that’s now affecting hundreds of Armenian children. According to local media, the latest incident is a result of the Pashinyan regime’s support for the Pentagon’s bioweapons program in Armenia. For the United States, the unfortunate country is nothing but yet another pool of guinea pigs and it was precisely Pashinyan who enabled Washington DC’s exploitation of the Armenian people. As a result, they are now exposed to an unprecedented public health hazard. Armenia is just one of a string of nations affected by America’s incessant aggression against the world.

Neighboring Georgia has also been subjected to the Pentagon’s bioweapons testing. The mainstream propaganda machine has been trying to suppress reports about this, targeting globally respected journalists such as Dilyana Gaytandzhieva. Her revelations about the disturbing consequences of Washington DC’s biowarfare were far too “inconvenient” for the European Union, so Bulgaria’s most prominent investigative journalist was expelled from the troubled bloc’s parliament back in 2018 after she “dared” to confront the US Assistant Secretary of Health over hundreds of US-run biolabs in 25 countries around the world. Africa is particularly affected by this, as the US military is conducting all sorts of experiments in most countries on the continent. Worse yet, access to these biolabs is restricted even for the hosts.

American officials themselves don’t even bother denying the existence of these bioweapons facilities, although they usually resort to euphemisms when talking about it. For instance, Victoria Nuland, one of the most prominent war criminals in Washington DC, likes to use terms such as “biological research facilities”when talking about the ones found in Ukraine. One of the many reasons why Russia launched its special military operation (SMO) is precisely the existence of these biolabs where US services are building bioweapons for attacks on the Russian people. It’s hardly surprising that the Pentagon would want such facilities in Armenia. However, what’s truly disturbing is that the Pashinyan regime is ready to expose the Armenian people to such hazard, particularly in an attempt to hurt Moscow, Yerevan’s main historical ally.

Armenian media outlets report that the epidemiological situation in the country has deteriorated drastically due to American involvement. At least 786 people have been infected as a result of the measles outbreak. The Pashinyan regime refuses to disclose any information about this controversy. Informed Armenians are extremely concerned for their safety, as following the Soros-funded coup in 2018, at least 12 biolabs have been established and expanded in the South Caucasus country, all staffed by personnel sent by the Pentagon. It should be noted that most of these bioweapons facilities are located in the vicinity of residential areas and schools. Worse yet, earlier this year, Pashinyan’s Defense Minister Suren Papikyan signed an agreement with the US to establish another biolab in Gyumri.

It’s important to note that the 102nd Russian military base with 4000 soldiers is located precisely in Gyumri, which perfectly explains why the Pentagon is interested in establishing its presence there. It’s rather peculiar that Pashinyan dislikes the fact that the Russian military is in Armenia, so his government is working toward removing the base, although it’s the sole reason why the country has never been invaded by NATO member Turkey. At the same time, he wants to establish yet another American bioweapons facility that can cause a deadly epidemic not just in Armenia, but also elsewhere in the region and possibly beyond. The involvement of the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) is particularly concerning, as it deals with deadly biological materials that can be easily used as bioweapons.

The agreement between the US and the Pashinyan regime also includes the latter’s commitment to “jointly research” extremely hazardous pathogens and diseases that are not common in Armenia, including Ebola, monkeypox, the Marburg virus, Eastern equine encephalitis, as well as various types of the coronavirus. Expectedly, just like in Ukraine, Georgia, Africa and elsewhere, access to these biolabs will be limited to personnel authorized by the Pentagon. The Russian military has been warning about American bioweapons programs for years. In January this year, its Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Protection Troops revealed the massive scope of these illegal programs, as well as the horrifying consequences of US biowarfare in Ukraine and other countries. Unfortunately, war criminals at the Pentagon managed to hijack yet another country and expand their aggression against the world.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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 (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Alexander and Monks

When Alexander asked a group of Jain philosophers why they were paying so little attention to him, they replied –

“King Alexander, every man can possess only so much of the earth’s surface as this we are standing on. You are but human like the rest of us, save that you are always busy and up to no good, travelling so many miles from your home, a nuisance to yourself and to others! …. You will soon be dead, and then you will own just as much of the earth as will suffice to bury you.”

After Conquest

King Ashoka’s Inscription After the Kalinga War (Around 270 BC) (India)

This is what Ashoka declared in one of his inscriptions:

“Eight years after becoming king I conquered Kalinga.

About a lakh and a half people were captured, And more than a lakh of people were killed.

This filled me with sorrow. Why?

Whenever an independent land is conquered, lakhs of people die and many are taken prisoner. Brahmins and monks also die.

People who are kind to their relatives and friends, to their slaves and servants die, or lose their loved ones.

That is why I am sad, and have decided to observe dhamma (piety), and to teach others about it as well.

I believe that winning people over through dhamma is much better than conquering them through force.

I am inscribing this message for the future, so that my son and grandson after me should not think about war.

Instead, they should try to think about how to spread dhamma.”

“And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spares into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

But they shall sit everyman under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken it.”

—MICAH

Peace-loving people have always cherished a world without wars.

Yet war has remained a highly destructive force in human history, peaking in the 20th century when two world wars were fought alongside numerous other highly destructive wars and civil wars.

In the 21st century wars have become so destructive that potentially millions of people can be killed in a single day of war. These deaths can be of an extremely painful nature. Besides, as long as the threat and high risks of war remain, it is unlikely that humanity will be able to create the close, enduring cooperation needed for resolving other life-threatening critical problems like those of climate change and related issues of environmental ruin. Hence, in a way checking the threat of war has become like a survival issue now.

The possibilities of reducing the threat and risks of war can be explored at various levels.

One aspect is to limit the risks of damage by ensuring the weapons of mass destruction are never used.

Another aspect is to anticipate the causes which can lead to wars, particularly big wars, and then try to resolve these causes well in time.

Some economic factors relating to currency, trade or control over resources or land can lead to big wars and so it should be possible to avoid war by resolving these issues peacefully in time. If the countries involved in a conflict can instead by convinced that in fact their economic interests will be served by cooperation with each other, then possibilities of war can certainly decrease. In existing conflict-zones possibilities of future flash points which can worsen the situation rapidly can be identified and these can be reduced.

While all these possibilities have potential and should be explored, past experience suggests that the peace movement needs to have an imagination (backed by the necessary efforts) beyond this. At a time when the world is faced by nothing less than a survival crisis, the solution must be seen in a framework much wider than what was done earlier. A wider thinking of ‘no war ever in future’ must certainly be considered, instead of striving for peace only in bits and pieces.

Tolstoy had such a broad vision and he called upon youths, (including youths of his own country) not to join any army, and he asked soldiers not to fight any war.

However in practical life this is very difficult as very strong nationalist feelings exist in most countries, and these peak at the time of war, or risk of war, with a foreign power. So any voices for peace and restraint are unlikely to be prolonged or to spread widely in a situation of war or high likelihood of war. In addition if a country is not invading but instead it has been attacked in a highly unjust way then of course it will actually need courageous soldiers for completely ethical self-defence. 

So only isolated efforts here and there are not adequate and will not go very far. Instead sustained efforts for a worldwide peace movement are needed which cut across narrow national boundaries and call upon all people all over the world to join in a universal effort against wars. The moral strength of such a worldwide movement, the overall conditions of goodwill created by it, will provide opportunities to people living in conditions of any likely war to work on both sides to avoid any possibility of war.

Similarly the peace movement should strive to create such international peace institutions and mechanisms (or radically reform existing ones) so that it is possible to intervene at a very early stage of a possible conflict or invasion to check this.

For the peace movement to become as effective as to achieve such results, the principle of ‘universe as family’ should get increasing support and spread. This principle should emphasise our identity as world citizens whose commitment above all is to peace, justice and co-operation at the world level. Any destruction and animosity based on any narrow identity should be discouraged. Once this concept of world citizenship spreads and gives people their most rational identity, then a strong base for avoiding war, civil war and violent conflict will be created.

The next logical step will be to significantly reduce military expenditure. The size of the armed forces will be reduced heavily with alternative livelihoods provided for soldiers in work like disaster rescue and reconstruction as well as ecological regeneration. Their salaries and jobs will be fully protected, but the work they will be assigned will be based more and more on protection, not destruction. As people experience the benefits of this and billions of dollars. from military expenditure are diverted to disaster prevention, environmental protection and meeting needs of people, their commitment to peace will be further strengthened. A very important part of all disarmament efforts has to be to aim for the elimination of all existing weapons of mass destruction and to prevent the emergence of new such weapons like robot, AI and autonomous weapons.

*

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

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

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

“Politicians of both parties want to use the power of government to silence their foes. Some in the university community seek to drive it from their campuses. And an entire generation of Americans is being taught that free speech should be curtailed as soon as it makes someone else feel uncomfortable.”—William Ruger, “Free Speech Is Central to Our Dignity as Humans”

The police state does not want citizens who know their rights.

Nor does the police state want citizens prepared to exercise those rights.

This year’s graduates are a prime example of this master class in compliance. Their time in college has been set against a backdrop of crackdowns, lockdowns and permacrises ranging from the government’s authoritarian COVID-19 tactics to its more recent militant response to campus protests.

Born in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, these young people have been raised without any expectation of privacy in a technologically-driven, mass surveillance state; educated in schools that teach conformity and compliance; saddled with a debt-ridden economy on the brink of implosion; made vulnerable by the blowback from a military empire constantly waging war against shadowy enemies; policed by government agents armed to the teeth ready and able to lock down the country at a moment’s notice; and forced to march in lockstep with a government that no longer exists to serve the people but which demands they be obedient slaves or suffer the consequences.

And now, when they should be empowered to take their rightful place in society as citizens who fully understand and exercise their right to speak truth to power, they are being censored, silenced and shut down.

Consider what happened recently in Charlottesville, Va., when riot police were called in to shut down campus protests at the University of Virginia staged by students and members of the community to express their opposition to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Palestine.

As the local newspaper reported,

“State police sporting tactical gear and riot shields moved in on the demonstrators, using pepper spray and sheer force to disperse the group and arrest the roughly 15 or so at the camp, where for days students, faculty and community members had sang songs, read poetry and painted signs in protest of Israel’s ongoing war in the Palestinian territory of Gaza.”

What a sad turn-about for an institution which was founded as an experiment in cultivating an informed citizenry by Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, champion of the Bill of Rights, and the nation’s third president.

Unfortunately, the University of Virginia is not unique in its heavy-handed response to what have been largely peaceful anti-war protests. According to the Washington Post, more than 2300 people have been arrested for taking part in similar campus protests across the country.

These lessons in compliance, while expected, are what comes of challenging the police state.

Universities in the United States with Israel–Hamas war protests in April 2024. Columbia University is marked in red. Other colleges that had encampments are marked in green, and non-encampment protests are marked in blue. Click here to see the map. (Licensed under CC/Wikimedia)

What was unexpected were the campus protests themselves.

For those of us who came of age in the 1960s, college campuses were once the bastion of free speech, awash with student protests, sit-ins, marches, pamphleteering, and other expressive acts showing our displeasure with war, the Establishment and the status quo.

Contrast that with college campuses today, which have become breeding grounds for compliant citizens and bastions of censorship, trigger warnings, microaggressions, and “red light” speech policies targeting anything that might cause someone to feel uncomfortable, unsafe or offended.

Free speech can certainly not be considered “free” when expressive activities across the nation are being increasingly limited, restricted to so-called free speech zones, or altogether blocked.

Remember, the First Amendment gives every American the right to “petition his government for a redress of grievances.”

There was a time in this country, back when the British were running things, that if you spoke your mind and it ticked off the wrong people, you’d soon find yourself in jail for offending the king.

Reacting to this injustice, when it was time to write the Constitution, America’s founders argued for a Bill of Rights, of which the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, was very clear about the fact that he wrote the First Amendment to protect the minority against the majority.

What Madison meant by minority is “offensive speech.”

Unfortunately, we don’t honor that principle as much as we should today. In fact, we seem to be witnessing a politically correct philosophy at play, one shared by both the extreme left and the extreme right, which aims to stifle all expression that doesn’t fit within their parameters of what they consider to be “acceptable” speech.

There are all kinds of labels put on such speech—it’s been called politically incorrect speech, hate speech, offensive speech, and so on—but really, the message being conveyed is that you don’t have a right to express yourself if certain people or groups don’t like or agree with what you are saying.

Hence, we have seen the caging of free speech in recent years, through the use of so-called “free speech zones” on college campuses and at political events, the requirement of speech permits in parks and community gatherings, and the policing of online forums.

Clearly, this elitist, monolithic mindset is at odds with everything America is supposed to stand for.

Indeed, we should be encouraging people to debate issues and air their views. Instead, by muzzling free speech, we are contributing to a growing underclass of Americans—many of whom have been labeled racists, rednecks and religious bigots—who are being told that they can’t take part in American public life unless they “fit in.”

Remember, the First Amendment acts as a steam valve. It allows people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world. When there is no steam valve to release the pressure, frustration builds, anger grows and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation.

The attempt to stifle certain forms of speech is where we go wrong.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is “a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment…that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensiveor disagreeable.” For example, it is not a question of whether the Confederate flag represents racism but whether banning it leads to even greater problems, namely, the loss of freedom in general.

Along with the constitutional right to peacefully (and that means non-violently) assemble, the right to free speech allows us to challenge the government through protests and demonstrations and to attempt to change the world around us—for the better or the worse—through protests and counterprotests.

If citizens cannot stand out in the open and voice their disapproval of their government, its representatives and its policies without fearing prosecution, then the First Amendment with all its robust protections for free speech, assembly and the right to petition one’s government for a redress of grievances is little more than window-dressing on a store window—pretty to look at but serving little real purpose.

After all, living in a representative republic means that each person has the right to take a stand for what they think is right, whether that means marching outside the halls of government, wearing clothing with provocative statements, or simply holding up a sign.

That’s what the First Amendment is supposed to be about: it assures the citizenry of the right to express their concerns about their government to their government, in a time, place and manner best suited to ensuring that those concerns are heard.

Unfortunately, through a series of carefully crafted legislative steps and politically expedient court rulings, government officials have managed to disembowel this fundamental freedom, rendering it with little more meaning than the right to file a lawsuit against government officials.

In more and more cases, the government is declaring war on what should be protected political speech whenever it challenges the government’s power, reveals the government’s corruption, exposes the government’s lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

Indeed, there is a long and growing list of the kinds of speech that the government considers dangerous enough to red flag and subject to censorship, surveillance, investigation and prosecution: hate speech, conspiratorial speech, treasonous speech, threatening speech, inflammatory speech, radical speech, anti-government speech, extremist speech, etc.

Clearly, the government has no interest in hearing what “we the people” have to say.

Yet if Americans are not able to peacefully assemble for expressive activity outside of the halls of government or on public roads on which government officials must pass, or on college campuses, the First Amendment has lost all meaning.

If we cannot stand peacefully outside of the Supreme Court or the Capitol or the White House, our ability to hold the government accountable for its actions is threatened, and so are the rights and liberties that we cherish as Americans.

And if we cannot proclaim our feelings about the government, no matter how controversial, on our clothing, or to passersby, or to the users of the world wide web, then the First Amendment really has become an exercise in futility.

The source of the protest shouldn’t matter. The politics of the protesters are immaterial.

To play politics with the First Amendment encourages a double standard that will see us all muzzled in the end.

You don’t have to agree with someone to defend their freedoms.

Responsible citizenship means being outraged at the loss of others’ freedoms, even when our own are not directly threatened. It means remembering that the prime function of any free government is to protect the weak against the strong. And it means speaking up for those with whom you might disagree.

The Framers of the Constitution knew very well that whenever and wherever democratic governments had failed, it was because the people had abdicated their responsibility as guardians of freedom. They also knew that whenever in history the people rejected this responsibility, an authoritarian regime arose which eventually denied the people the right to govern themselves.

The demons of our age—some of whom disguise themselves as politicians—delight in fomenting violence, sowing distrust and prejudice, and persuading the public to support tyranny disguised as patriotism.

Overcoming the evils of our age will require us to stop marching in lockstep with the police state and start thinking—and speaking—for ourselves.

It doesn’t matter how old you are or what your political ideology is: it’s our civic duty to make the government hear us—and heed us—using every nonviolent means available to us: picket, protest, march, boycott, speak up, sound off and reclaim control over the narrative about what is really going on in this country.

The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, this is the final link in the police state chain.

If ever there were a time for us to stand up for the right to speak freely, even if it’s freedom for speech we hate, the time is now.

*

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

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.

Featured image: Scenes of the reinstated Gaza Solidarity Encampment at Columbia University on its fourth day. (Licensed under CC0)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Many historians believe, as do I, that the happiest period of history in the Christian West was during the High Middle Ages within the towns that had grown up most notably within Germany, Italy, France, and England.

Probably the most accessible chronicle of what life was like then may be found in Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales.”

At the centers of these towns were the Gothic cathedrals which were both spiritual and technological hubs. Characteristic of the economic life of the era was the fact that the Church had outlawed usury. This was the key to personal freedom.

The dividing line between that era and our own came into being around 1500, when the German Fugger family persuaded the Pope to begin to allow usury, a practice which quickly spread.

This practice assured that, gradually, all the wealth of society would inevitably accrue to the bankers, especially when they gained the privilege of creating paper money or book-entry credits “out of thin air” and then lending it at interest.

This was the greatest crime of the ages.

We need to remember that the Christian era began when Jesus made his last visit to Jerusalem by going to the Temple and throwing out the money lenders who had desecrated it.

The Temple symbolizes, of course, all human God-given life.

When usury became widespread after 1500, citizens gradually lost all their rights and their human sanctity when they became debtors to the money lenders and were legally mere chattel whose entire well-being, and even their lives (debtors prisons), were sacrificed to the bankers’ greed.

This was understood at the time. It’s what Shakespeare depicted in the “Merchant of Venice.” It’s what the Faust legends were about, with people now selling their souls to the devil as they ruined their fellow humans.

Now, 500 years later, the process is complete. The average person is a debt-slave, subject to regimes of endless war, subject at any time to being imprisoned for the most trivial offenses, and now worthy only of being killed off by the latest “plandemic.”

But humans would be free, so a handful of nations, led by the BRICS, are breaking away from the paradigm of slavery.

These nations are all marked by strong government-owned central banks that see their role as promoting societal welfare, not as prison-guards and propagandists who work for the bankers and other elites.

It now appears that the nations of the West controlled by the regime of usury have given up on world control and are trying merely to “secure the realm” by the ever-more perfect enslavement of their increasingly unhealthy and oppressed subject populations. Meanwhile, they push and probe around the perimeters looking for weaknesses among those nations who have said “no.”

There are indeed people in the West who seek to escape, but any organized movement is immediately crushed. Still, some few individuals may find a way…..Blessings to them.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Three Sages.

Richard C. Cook is a co-founder and lead investigator for the American Geopolitical Institute.  Mr. Cook is a retired U.S. federal analyst with extensive experience across various government agencies, including the U.S. Civil Service Commission, FDA, the Carter White House, NASA, and the U.S. Treasury. As a whistleblower at the time of the Challenger disaster, he exposed the flawed O-ring joints that destroyed the Shuttle, documenting his story in his book “Challenger Revealed.” After serving at Treasury, he became a vocal critic of the private finance-controlled monetary system, detailing his concerns in “We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform.” He served as an advisor to the American Monetary Institute and worked with Congressman Dennis Kucinich to advocate for replacing the Federal Reserve with a genuine national currency. See his new book, Our Country, Then and Now, Clarity Press, 2023.

“Every human enterprise must serve life, must seek to enrich existence on earth, lest man become enslaved where he seeks to establish his dominion!” Bô Yin Râ (Joseph Anton Schneiderfranken, 1876-1943), Translation by Posthumus Projects Amsterdam, 2014. Also see the Kober Press edition of The Book on the Living God here.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

 

March 7, 2024 (above) – 39 year old Christine Marie Persson, nurse at Beaumont Wayne in Michigan, died on March 7, 2024 after being intubated for 2 months. ER nurse, nursing supervisor and now an ICU nurse, she fell ill, and ended up on a ventilator. 

There aren’t many details available other than this: “Christy started feeling ill months ago and has been unable to work due to multiple doctor’s appointments, hospital admissions and dozes of tests. She was just starting to feel better, had finally returned to work and suddenly took a turn for the worse. She is now on a ventilator and fighting for her life in the very ICU where she takes such amazing care of her patients.” “she has had 8 surgeries.” “After a very courageous fight the past 2 months, Christine passed away peacefully on 3/7/24”

*

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine mandates continue to kill nurses by the hundreds. Here are 60 recent cases. 

May 13, 2024 – James Ryan Hansen, died on May 13, 2024. James was only 52 years old. He was a dedicated nurse.

 

 

May 8, 2024 – Louisiana – 45 year old nurse Gilbert Lashawn Fontenette died suddenly at his home on May 8, 2024.

 

 

May.2, 2024 – Windsor, ON, Canada – 22 year old Hannah Pare – Dedicated Nurse at WRH Ouellette Campus on the Neurology Floor, died due to complications following ‘routine’ surgery in Toronto to treat Audible Tinnitus.

May 2024 – UK Nurse Jody Gillie died suddenly in May 2024.

April 25, 2024 – Ohio: Registered Nurse, Kimberly Curry, 48, died April 25, 2024. She was diagnosed with Stage 2 triple negative breast cancer following her COVID Jabs.

Apr. 18, 2024 – Australia – 38 year old Luke Lynch, singer, comedic theatre actor and veterinary nurse who cared deeply for animals died suddenly.

Apr. 5, 2024 – AUSTRALIAN NURSE DEAD – 58 year old Australian nurse from Palm Beach, Colleen Hunter died suddenly in her sleep on April 5, 2024.

Mar. 29, 2024 – Manchester, UK – 35 year old Nurse Joanne Kelly presented with a cough and was found to have extensive bone metastases from an unknown primary cancer, only has weeks to live.

Mar. 28, 2024 – Bloomfield, NE – 32 year old Breanna Stanley, a Certified Nurse’s Assistant, died unexpectedly on March 28, 2024 from a pulmonary embolism.

Mar. 25, 2024 – Cranbrook, BC BC and Alberta nurse 51 year old Renee Nadine Melenka Sauer died suddenly on March 25, 2024 from a brain aneurysm.

Mar. 20, 2024 – Jerusalem, AR – Nurse Lisa Hassell died on March 20, 2024 after a battle with cancer. She was extremely excited to get COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines.

Mar. 19, 2024 – Karen Houghton, Celebrity Kris Jenner’s younger sister who was a nurse, died suddenly from sudden cardiac arrhythmia and cardiac arrest

Mar. 19, 2024 – UK Nurse Jan Newton developed sepsis and multi-organ failure.

Mar. 18, 2024 – CANADIAN NURSE DEAD – Stratford, Quebec 41 year old Marie-Michele Picard died suddenly March 18, 2024. She was a nurse.

Mar. 13, 2024 – 33 year old Natasha Mae Fester, died suddenly at her home.

Mar. 3, 2024 – 27 year old Canadian nursing graduate Granti Kissinger Yanga fell sick on March 1 and died on March 3, 2024. Lung aspiration and cardiac arrest.

Click here to read the full article.

*

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

Dr. William Makis is a Canadian physician with expertise in Radiology, Oncology and Immunology. Governor General’s Medal, University of Toronto Scholar. Author of 100+ peer-reviewed medical publications. 

---

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

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

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

There was a time in Europe when the slightest association with anything resembling Fascism (even if taken out of context) could ruin a politician’s career.

Try to imagine a Prime Minister’s own party’s youth wing throwing literal Fascist salutes during a mass demonstration in a major European capital and nothing happening to this leader. Now imagine the same Prime Minister remains an ally of the incumbent European Commission President after that. Well, that’s Meloni in a nutshell. With the Meloni-Von der Leyen political alliance, far-right politics and even neo-Fascism has now officially become mainstream in Europe – as long as it supports the European Union bloc itself and the Atlantic Alliance.

Anchal Vohra, a columnist at Foreign Policy, wrote last week on how Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni went from “fringe player” to “EU power broker”. Unlike other European leaders who are often labeled as “far-right”, she has vocally defended NATO against Moscow and, as Vohra describes it, she “even proved to be useful to the EU establishment when she convinced Hungarian President Viktor Orban to sign off on an aid package for Ukraine in February.”

Meloni’s government is in a coalition with Lega, the populist party led by Matteo Salvini, who is Italy’s Vice-Premier. Today’s Lega party is the informal successor of the far-right Lega Nord per l’Indipendenza della Padania. Meloni’s own party has openly Fascist connections, as seen in January, when members of it publicly performed mass Roman salutes in Rome during an event, which prompted indignation. Even so, she has thus far kept good relations with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who is the lead candidate of the European People’s Party (EPP), the continent’s largest conservative bloc.

Speaking at the Maastricht Debate, von der Leyen suggested she could cooperate with the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), who are known to be Eurosceptic, and are backed by Meloni. The next European Parliament could be the most “right-wing” in years, according to polls, so von der Leyen’s statement is actually not so surprising. In this scenario, Meloni could become “a parallel power center in a right-leaning European Parliament and yield unmatched influence on the commission president to push the body’s policy further right”, writes Vohra.

If one remembers the September 2023 Yaroslav Hunka scandal, it is easy to see that the phenomenon goes beyond Europe and the West is ready to embrace, whitewash or normalize even Nazism, as incredible as it may sound. 98-year old Mr. Hunka fought in the SS, the military arm of the German Nazi party (SS Division Galicia for Ukrainians) and yet was invited to speak at the House of Commons of Canada as a hero, where he boasted of having fought communism and received a standing ovation. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Recently, Canada’s memorial to Waffen-SS “Galicia” Division Ukrainian soldiers was removed after protests.

For a decade now, the West has been aiding, funding and whitewashing the most violent and radicalized and often openly neo-Nazi armed groups in Ukraine, which became a global hub for the far-right and White nationalists, according to TIME magazine.

Ironically, I wrote in June last year on how a Neo-Mccarthyist wave in Europe (not just in Poland) was persecuting dissident political parties, not just the far-right, but within the so-called Populist camp as well – for alleged ties with Russia.

This closely mirrors post-Maidan developments in Ukraine: in the Eastern European country there has been a war against part of the Orthodox Church, and at least 11 political parties have been banned so far over their “pro-Russia” stances. Volodymyr Ishchenko, a research associate at the Institute of East European Studies (Freie Universität Berlin), has explained that, since the 2014 Maidan revolution, “pro-Russia” has been in fact used as a label to marginalize “anyone calling for Ukraine’s neutrality” as well as “state-developmentalist, anti-Western, illiberal, populist, left-wing, and many other discourses.” In a similar manner, current anti-Russian feelings in the West also feed on the tradition of anti-communist speech and extremist nationalism.

There is in fact no contradiction between a European war against political “dissidents” and the mainstreamization of part of the far-right. Meloni, for instance, has changed her critical stance on the current European bloc, perhaps upon realizing that she needs it.

Rather than being part of a radical/populist takeover of Europe, Giorgia Meloni, who  (as Anchal Vohra describes her) acts as a “bridge” between “mainstream conservatives” and the “far-right”,  is part not just of the (real) “fascistification” of Europe: it is also about the co-opting and the domestication of populists, radicals, far-rightists and any currents that happen to oppose European alignment with US-led NATO (today, for a number of reason, those are found mainly in the European right). In other words, what we currently have is the Maidanization of Europe, and a radicalized NATOized continent.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

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 (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

A U.S. Senate roundtable discussion, hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson, tackled a taboo topic — why public health agencies have not studied the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children

In 1962, children received just five vaccine doses. As of 2023, children up to age 18 receive 73 doses of 16 different vaccines; the cumulative effects of this childhood vaccine schedule have never been tested

Research shows vaccinated children experienced significantly higher instances of various health issues, including allergies, asthma, behavioral issues and gastroenteritis

The 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to report on vaccine safety every two years, but the agency has “never submitted a vaccine safety report to Congress”

Health agencies have data on health outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated children, but they refuse to make it public, likely due to financial conflicts of interest

*

A U.S. Senate roundtable discussion, hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson, tackled a taboo topic — why public health agencies have not studied the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children — and have refused to make data on the topic available to the public.¹

“They do not publish the results [or] let any independent scientist in to look at that information,” Brian Hooker, chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense, said. “They refuse to publish the results and they really know why. It’s because the bloated vaccination schedule is responsible and is, I would say, in part responsible for the epidemic of chronic disorders that we see in children in the U.S.”²

In 1962, children received just five vaccine doses. As of 2023, children up to age 18 receive 73 doses of 16 different vaccines. The cumulative effects of this childhood vaccine schedule have never been tested.

Explosion of Childhood Vaccines Led to ‘Greatest Decline in Public Health in Human History’

Del Bigtree, CEO of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), referenced the significant increase in chronic illnesses that’s risen along with the number of childhood vaccines.

“In the 1980s, when we were giving 11 doses of about three vaccines, the chronic illness rate, which includes neurological and autoimmune disease, was 12.8%. Once we passed the 1986 [National Childhood Vaccine Injury] Act and we had the gold rush of vaccines explode … the chronic illness rate, neurological and autoimmune disease, skyrocket[ed] to 54%,” he said.³

However, that was in 2011 to 2012 — and might be even worse today. “We have no idea since then how bad this has gotten. But what you were looking at right there is the greatest decline in public health in human history,” Bigtree noted.⁴ He added:⁵

“None of the 14 routine vaccines on the CDC’s recommended schedule … was ever put through long-term double-blind placebo-based safety trials prior to licensure. Since this type of trial is really the only way to establish that a pharmaceutical product is safe, it is misinformation to state that the vaccines are safe.”

On the contrary, a number of studies suggest that unvaccinated children may be healthier than those who are vaxxed.

Vaccinated Children Have Higher Rates of Asthma, Neurodevelopmental Disorders and More

Dr. Paul Thomas, whose medical license was suspended due to his advocacy for informed consent regarding vaccinations, along with James Lyons-Weiler from the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK), conducted a study comparing the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.⁶

Their findings revealed that vaccinated children experienced significantly higher instances of various health issues, including:⁷

Notably, among the 561 unvaccinated children, none were diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), whereas 0.063% of children who had received some or all recommended vaccinations were diagnosed with ADHD.

“The implications of these results for the net public health effects of whole-population vaccination and with respect for informed consent on human health are compelling,” they wrote.⁸ The study also points out that the rate of autism spectrum disorder in their practice was half that of the U.S. national average (0.84% versus 1.69%). The rate of ADHD in the practice was also about half the national rate.

According to the authors, “The data indicate that unvaccinated children in the practice are not unhealthier than the vaccinated and indeed the overall results may indicate that the unvaccinated pediatric patients in this practice are healthier overall than the vaccinated.”⁹

At the roundtable, Hooker added, “‘When you look at developmental delays, when you look at asthma, when you look at ear infections, when you look at allergies, when you look at ADD [attention deficit disorder], ADHD, autism,’ unvaccinated children fare ‘way better.’”¹⁰

Aluminum Toxicity Alone Is a Problem

There are multiple mechanisms of potential harm when it comes to vaccination. One of them involves aluminum, the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant.¹¹ A demonstrated neurotoxin, aluminum is added to certain vaccines to increase the immune response and, with that, theoretically generate a higher response of protective antibodies.

However, repeated exposure to vaccine components such as aluminum could be harming children. As Hooker shared, “28 vaccines are given in the first year of life, one vaccine on the first day of life and upwards to eight vaccines when an infant is just 2 months old. If you look at the aluminum toxicity alone, it far surpasses the single-day toxicity limit for aluminum exposure in newborns.”¹²

A study funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that, among children with and without eczema, exposure to vaccine-associated aluminum was positively associated with persistent asthma. There was a 1.26- and 1.19-times higher risk of persistent asthma for each additional milligram of vaccine-related aluminum exposure, respectively, for children with and without eczema.¹³

Children who received all or most of the recommended childhood vaccines that contain aluminum received a cumulative aluminum exposure dose of more than 3 milligrams (mg). This group had, at least, a 36% higher risk of developing persistent asthma than children who received fewer vaccines, and therefore had a less than 3-mg exposure to aluminum.¹⁴

The study was observational in nature and stopped short of saying that it proves a link between aluminum-containing vaccines and asthma. The CDC also stated that it has no intention of altering its vaccine recommendations based on this study alone.¹⁵ However, the researchers pointed out that rates of asthma in U.S. children steadily increased in the 1980s and 1990s, then remained steady since 2001.

The 2001 date is significant, as most aluminum-containing vaccines were added to the childhood vaccine schedule before 2001. This includes, for example, diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DTaP), hepatitis B, some formulations of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines. According to the study:¹⁶

“There are many environmental and genetic risk factors for asthma, and any contribution from vaccine-associated aluminum has not been proven or supported through replication. However, because most aluminum-containing vaccines were added to the routine schedule prior to 2001 … observed national trends in asthma prevalence during childhood are not incongruous with the effect estimates observed here.”

COVID Shots Caused 30 Child Deaths for Every One Saved

COVID-19 shots were added to the U.S. childhood, adolescent and adult vaccine schedules after a unanimous (15-0) vote by the U.S. CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). By adding the shots to the vaccine schedule, it paves the way for U.S. schools to require them for attendance.

Pfizer and Moderna, the shots’ makers, were also granted permanent legal indemnity, which otherwise would have disappeared once COVID-19 shots were no longer protected under emergency use authorization (EUA).¹⁷ Yet the shots have proven disastrous for children.

Hooker told the roundtable research shows “that for every one child that is saved from death from COVID-19, there are 30 child deaths associated with the COVID-19 vaccine. So, the risk-to-benefit ratio in terms of mortality is 30 to 1.”¹⁸

A now-retracted narrative review published in the journal Cureus called for a global moratorium on mRNA COVID-19 shots,¹⁹ citing significant increases in serious adverse events among those who received the injections, along with an “unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio.”²⁰

When factoring in absolute risk and the “number needed to vaccinate” (NNV), a metric used to quantify how many people need to be vaccinated to prevent one additional case of a specific disease, the review found “for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”²¹

The authors of the paper also said the shots should be immediately removed from the childhood vaccine schedule, while boosters should also be suspended. “It is unethical and unconscionable to administer an experimental vaccine to a child who has a near-zero risk of dying from COVID-19 but a well-established 2.2 percent risk of permanent heart damage based on the best prospective data available,” the paper notes.²²

Heart damage from the shots includes myocarditis, which is inflammation of the heart muscle that can cause heart failure, abnormal heartbeat and sudden death. “Myocarditis is a serious disorder and 76% of all cases following COVID-19 vaccination, as reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System [VAERS], required emergency care and/or hospitalization,” Hooker said. However, the “CDC significantly downplays myocarditis as a side effect of the vaccine.”²³

Health Agency ‘Never Submitted’ Required Vaccine Safety Reports to Congress

The roundtable discussion occurred as part of a larger discussion on “Federal Health Agencies and the COVID Cartel.” The group included medical experts, political figures, journalists and whistleblowers who accused government, media and Big Pharma of censorship and coverups related to COVID-19 jab injuries.²⁴

Hooker testified that the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “report to Congress on the state of vaccine safety in the U.S. every two years.” However, he said HHS has “never submitted a vaccine safety report to Congress.”²⁵

Hooker also reported that health agencies have data on health outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated children, but they refuse to make it public. The data, which includes close to 30 years’ worth of information on more than 10 million people, is housed in a database called Vaccine Safety Datalink.

Despite Hooker making more than 120 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and going through “congressional representatives to get the Vaccine Safety Datalink itself,” he says, “It is simply something that they will not do.”²⁶ He believes financial conflicts of interest are the reason why:²⁷

“CDC buys and sells $5 billion worth of vaccines a year through the Vaccines for Children program. They also spend half a billion dollars a year … advertising and through public relationship campaigns for vaccinations in general, as compared to a woeful budget of $50 million that is being used for vaccine safety every year.”

In a discussion on Steve Bannon’s “War Room,” Hooker added that, as it stands, public health agencies are not protecting the public from vaccine injuries — something to carefully consider in your own medical decisions regarding vaccinations:²⁸

“The CDC, FDA and NIH (National Institutes of Health) are derelict in their duty … to protect children and adults against vaccine injury in order to report to Congress the state of vaccine safety science, and their responsibility to the American public and to public health in order to protect the American public.”

*

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

Notes

^{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12, 18} Children’s Health Defense February 29, 2024

^6, 8, 9 Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov; 17(22): 8674

⁷ Substack, COVID Intel, Dr. William Makis April 2, 2024

¹¹ Curr Med Chem. 2011;18(17):2630-7

^13, 14 The Epoch Times October 5, 2022

¹⁵ The Vaccine Reaction October 3, 2022

¹⁶ Academic Pediatrics September 28, 2022, Discussion

¹⁷ Substack, The Dossier October 18, 2022

¹⁹ Cureus January 24, 2024

²⁰ Cureus January 24, 2024, Abstract

²¹ Cureus January 24, 2024, Review

²² World Tribune February 5, 2024

^{23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28} Children’s Health Defense February 26, 2024 

Featured image is from Mercola

Iran – A Mysterious Helicopter Crash or Martyrdom

By Peter Koenig, May 22, 2024

While the cause behind the crash is not clear yet, it is worthy to note of the ongoing Israeli invasion of Gaza and an escalation of tension between Israel and Iran just weeks ago. It started with an Israeli unprovoked attack on Iran’s diplomatic mission in Syria, to which Iran responded with a military-infrastructure destructive retaliation – causing a minimum of human harm.

“Gain of Function” and Influenza A Virus

By Dr. Robert Malone, May 22, 2024

There is no clear consensus regarding what constitutes GOF research. In the current political climate where the role of US Government (NIH/NIAID, DoD/DTRA, USAID and by implication CIA) in funding of what is clearly GOF research seeking to increase human infectivity of bat Coronaviruses has created an opportunity for stakeholders to sow confusion and ambiguity concerning what actually constitutes GOF research.

A Lawless World Driven to Brink of War and Political Assassinations. “Signs of Endgame Collapse”

By Joachim Hagopian, May 22, 2024

The fact is, every single day now we are waking up to more perilously foreboding signs of endgame collapse, imminent world war between top nuclear powers, political assassinations, and yes, a polarized, seemingly out-of-control world, chaotically growing exponentially more unstable and violent by the week.

2020 Documentary: Who Is Bill Gates? How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health

By The Corbett Report, May 22, 2024

The transformation of Bill Gates from computer kingpin to global health czar is as remarkable as it is instructive, and it tells us a great deal about where we are heading as the world plunges into a crisis the likes of which we have not seen before.

The Rise of Pro-Palestine Encampments in Calgary, “The Police Went into Full War Mode in Riot Gear”. Robert Inlakesh

By Robert Inlakesh and Michael Welch, May 22, 2024

It was all peaceful until the police decided to come threaten them. They arrived with automatic weapons. They arrived in riot gear. They openly threatened to arrest and disband the encampment. They said that you are trespassing, even though these are students paying their tuition fees in a peaceful protest. The students actually came to the middle of the encampment.

The Bureaucratic Language of Evil: New Zealand’s Health and Disability Commission Renders a Verdict with Forked Tongue

By Dr. Emanuel Garcia, May 21, 2024

On 20 May 2024, New Zealand’s Health and Disability Commission handed down its decision on a case involving the death of a young New Zealander from myocarditis, inflicted by the Pfizer so-called vaccine, on 17 November 2021.

Russia Captured More Territory in Recent Weeks Than Kiev’s Counteroffensive – Washington Post

By Ahmed Adel, May 21, 2024

Russian forces have made advances in recent weeks, including in the Kharkov region, taking more territory than Ukrainian troops took during its failed counteroffensive in the summer of 2023, analysts told The Washington Post in an article published on May 17.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

 

 

 

“Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” – Winston Churchill

What Is Gain of Function Research (GOF)? 

There is no clear consensus regarding what constitutes GOF research. In the current political climate where the role of US Government (NIH/NIAID, DoD/DTRA, USAID and by implication CIA) in funding of what is clearly GOF research seeking to increase human infectivity of bat Coronaviruses has created an opportunity for stakeholders to sow confusion and ambiguity concerning what actually constitutes GOF research. Much of the resulting obfuscation has involved technical parsing of the definition of GOF in ways which conveniently support the interests of key stakeholders such as Dr. Peter Daszak and his EcoHealth Alliance organization, as well as Dr. Anthony Fauci and his famous denial and attack on the credibility of Senator Rand Paul during congressional testimony.

On October 17, 2014, the Obama White House issued a statement titled “U.S. Government Gain-of-Function Deliberative Process and Research Funding Pause on Selected Gain-of-Function Research Involving Influenza, MERS, and SARS Viruses” which included a brief statement incorporating a useful general definition.

Gain-of-function studies, or research that improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease, help define the fundamental nature of human-pathogen interactions, thereby enabling assessment of the pandemic potential of emerging infectious agents, informing public health and preparedness efforts, and furthering medical countermeasure development. Gain-of-function studies may entail biosafety and biosecurity risks; therefore, the risks and benefits of gain-of-function research must be evaluated, both in the context of recent U.S. biosafety incidents and to keep pace with new technological developments, in order to determine which types of studies should go forward and under what conditions.

Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison is a leading influenza GOF researcher who identified and published research demonstrating that four point mutations in the H5N1 hemagglutinin protein (analogous to SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein) which will convert productive and transmissible H5N1 from being restricted to birds to being able to infect and efficiently transmit between mammals (and potentially humans). In the 2015 workshop summary cited above, further details and discussions relating to the nature of GOF research are summarized in “Section 3: Gain-of-Function Research: Background and Alternatives”. In this section, Dr. Kawaoka described and classified types of GoF research depending on the outcome of the experiments.

The first category, which he called “gain of function research of concern,” includes the generation of viruses with properties that do not exist in nature. The now famous example he gave is the production of H5N1 influenza A viruses that are airborne-transmissible among ferrets, compared to the non-airborne transmissible wild type. The second category deals with the generation of viruses that may be more pathogenic and/or transmissible than the wild type viruses but are still comparable to or less problematic than those existing in nature. Kawaoka argued that the majority of strains studied have low pathogenicity, but mutations found in natural isolates will improve their replication in mammalian cells. Finally, the third category, which is somewhere in between the two first categories, includes the generation of highly pathogenic and/or transmissible viruses in animal models that nevertheless do not appear to be a major public health concern. An example cited the high-growth A/PR/8/34 influenza strain found to have increased pathogenicity in mice but not in humans.

Routine virological methods involve experiments that aim to produce a gain of a desired function, such as higher yields for vaccine strains, but often also lead to loss of function, such as loss of the ability for a virus to replicate well, as a consequence. In other words, any selection process involving an alteration of genotypes and their resulting phenotypes is considered a type of Gain-of-Function (GoF) research, even if U.S. HHS policies and definitions are intended to apply to only a small subset of such work.

One leading virologist, Dr. Subbarao emphasizes that such experiments in virology are fundamental to understanding the biology, ecology, and pathogenesis of viruses. He introduced the key questions that virologists ask at all stages of research on the emergence or re-emergence of a virus and specifically adapted these general questions to three viruses of interest (see below). To answer these questions, virologists use gain- and loss-of-function experiments to understand the genetic makeup of viruses and the specifics of virus-host interaction. For instance, as we all know based on the work performed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, researchers now have advanced molecular technologies, such as reverse genetics, which allow them to produce de novo recombinant viruses from cloned cDNA, and deep sequencing that are critical for studying how viruses escape the host immune system and antiviral controls. Researchers also use targeted host or viral genome modification using small interfering RNA or the bacterial CRISPR-associated protein-9 nuclease as an editing tool.

General Virology Questions and Questions Specific to Influenza, SARS, and MERS Research

• Why/how does the virus infect and kill mammals?
• What are the critical host range and virulence determinants of MERS-CoV?
• Why are some influenza strains more virulent than others?
• Do antiviral drugs work, and how does the virus become resistant?
• Can we identify antiviral drugs that are safe and effective for MERS-/SARS-CoV?
• What drives the evolution of influenza antigenic change and antiviral resistance?
• Do current or novel vaccines or monoclonal antibodies provide protection, and can the virus escape?
• Can we develop a SARS-/MERS-CoV candidate vaccine that is safe, immunogenic, and efficacious?
• Can monoclonal antibodies be used safely for prevention and treatment?
• Are there some influenza viral targets that will not allow escape from the immune system?
• How does the virus spread within animals or between animals?
• Why do some influenza strains spread efficiently while others do not?
• Could the virus cause a pandemic?
• What is the likelihood of (re)emergence?
• Will SARS or a SARS-like CoV re-emerge from bats or other animal hosts?

A Brief History of Gain of Function Research on Influenza A Viruses 

During a recent seminar and presentation at the 5/4/24 Rancho Mirage Summit, Dr. Lynn Fynn, MD (a pseudonym) presented a slide deck which briefly summarized the history of GOF research on Influenza A viruses, beginning with the H1N1 influenza virus associated with the infamous 1918 “Spanish Flu” pandemic (which was as much about bacterial pneumonia as it was about H1N1), and carrying through to the present situation with H5N1. She has kindly provided a copy of the deck and permission to republish on this substack.

This is a video clip from the above meeting, in which Dr. Robin Robinson (then serving as the Director, HHS/ASPR/BARDA) was asked about benefits obtained from H5N1 GOF research. Notable is that his answer focused on vaccine development. The subsequently developed and currently FDA authorized H5N1 vaccine does not incorporate any sequence information derived from GOF research. I am aware of no evidence that this or any other FDA authorized vaccine, antibody or drug development benefitted from H5N1 GOF research.

Click here to watch the video

*

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

All 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 (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Gaza and to a lesser extent West Bank have seen so much violence that talk of durable peace is almost vanishing in the local as well as international discourse. Most discussions just now are limited to very temporary solutions based on ceasefire and release of hostages. Of course this is very much needed just now but this should only be the first step in any quest for durable peace.

It needs to be stated loudly and emphatically today that hope for durable peace should never be lost. In the extremely difficult situations that exist today such hope is the only basis for carrying on many good efforts, and this hope should never be lost.

One basic reason why hope for durable peace has been diminishing at a fast pace is that peace has never been given a fair chance. Peace does not appear from miracles. We have to work for peace, work hard, and this can be a long haul. 

So much is being done on daily basis for war preparation, involving a very large number of people, with a very big budget provided for this and with enormous efforts being made for military strategy and planning. On the other side, how many people are working daily and with continuity for peace? How many of the best talents are engaged in preparing and improving peace plans? How much budget is provided for peace work? Is it even five per cent of the military budget? Is it even one per cent? 

If there is continuing sincere work on daily basis for peace for about five years, on a big enough scale, and if there is a firm faith in peace, peaceful solutions will emerge.

Just now we need immediate ceasefire, release of hostages and the start of a big relief and rehabilitation effort in Gaza. This is the top priority just now but in addition we need efforts for durable peace.

We need the strengthening of peace efforts in Israel as well as in Gaza and West Bank. Specific solutions that have the most chance of success will emerge as people and communities from both sides talk peace with each other. The world will then see that people can be much more committed to peace than their politicians are, and among people women can be most committed to peace. Give them a fair chance, give peace a fair chance.

Such durable peace efforts on both sides of the affected region should be backed and supported fully by a growing peace movement in the USA and other western countries, in neighboring Arab countries, in Iran and in fact in all parts of the world. A broad-based peace effort in Israel and Palestine which gets such wide support at world level is most likely to achieve durable good results.

This peace effort should be integrated well with justice concerns, but at the same time it will be necessary to avoid such exaggerated interpretation of justice concerns which makes it impossible to achieve reconciliation and peace. Peace is achieved in a process of give and take, and not on the basis of repeated recalling of all the terrible injustices and atrocities that have taken place in the past.

The basis of future peace with justice is likely to be that the two state solution emerges in such a way that the Palestinians have a sovereign state with a fair share of resources, and its area is defined in such a way that its people do not have to pass through Israeli gates or need permission of a different country for travelling within their country. At the same the two sides should have a peace agreement that they will not allow their territories to be used for attacks against each other. This will help to build trust. All those who contest elections –and hence can emerge as future leaders on both sides—will have to declare their commitment to peace agreements that are reached, and hence agree to work within this framework.

While such peace will be a big blessing for the people on both sides on its own, in addition it will be very helpful to both sides for coping with challenges like environmental crisis, including climate change and worsening disasters like sea-storms and droughts. This entire region with its aridity, deserts and coastal areas is very vulnerable to climate change.

So instead of the extremely aggressive slogans of present times, in a future of peace we may hear something like this—

Between the Sea and the River,

Two friendly nations can prosper, 

In droughts and in storms,

They are helpful and together.

*

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

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

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

Doing anything in your power to defeat an opponent is the very definition of total war. This entails everything from sabotage and terrorist attacks targeting civilians to assassinating your adversary’s top-ranking officials (or even the leaders themselves). Obviously, there’s also the possibility of direct war, including the usage of weapons of mass destruction (thermonuclear, biological, chemical). Conducting any of the aforementioned operations can easily escalate and lead to the latter. This is precisely why there’s the institution of diplomacy, a millennia-old practice that has been respected by all of the world’s civilizations(obviously, this automatically excludes the modern-day political West). Nazi Germany was one of the first modern nations that stopped honoring any diplomatic agreements, effectively reverting (geo)politics to a rather barbaric competition where everything is permitted at all times.

NATO, essentially its descendant, continued this practice. To this day there’s not a single agreement that the belligerent alliance signed that is worth more than the paper it was written on. The United States, as NATO’s leading member, fully embraced this approach and is now conducting its aggression against the world in a way that could be described as a crawling total war.

The warmongers in Washington DC and the Pentagon are openly talking about the so-called “decapitation strikes” on countries they don’t like, including military superpowers with the ability to simply wipe the US itself off the map. Former CIA directors and high-ranking officials, as well as sitting senators, are openly talking about “taking out” powerful global leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin. This was happening even at times when the latter was offering negotiations and mutually beneficial peaceful settlements.

The obvious question arises – if someone is openly threatening a person like Putin, who else could possibly feel safe in such a world?

This question becomes all the more relevant if we take into account the latest events concerning the assassination attempt on Slovakia’s Prime Minister Robert Fico and the death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in a highly controversial helicopter crash.

On May 19, Raisi and his Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian both died when their Bell 212 went down near the city of Varzaqan in northwestern Iran. Seven other high-ranking officials, including the governor-general of Tehran’s East Azerbaijan province Malek Rahmati, as well as the state representative in the region Mohammad Ali Ale-Hashem, were also killed in the crash. Although it’s still too early to say what exactly happened, some rather disturbing reports and details suggest that this wasn’t a mere accident.

The mainstream propaganda machine’s reaction to the assassination attempt on PM Fico and the death of President Raisi also raises serious concerns. Both the British Sky News and Financial Times published reports where they effectively tried to justify the terrorist who attempted to murder PM Fico, while the state-run BBC called the death of Raisi tragic, but still didn’t miss pointing out that he was supposedly “hardline”.

These incidents are highly beneficial to the political West, which fuels speculation about the possibility of its involvement in both cases. Fico was always highly critical of NATO’s crawling aggression on Russia, insisting that Slovakia doesn’t want to take part in it, while Raisi was a capable leader and also highly respected in the multipolar world. His and the death of Iran’s veteran diplomat Abdollahian is definitely a huge setback for Tehran, one that its adversaries will surely try to capitalize on.

The highly controversial details about the crash certainly haven’t helped dispel speculation about the possible foreign involvement. For instance, according to Turkey’s Transport Minister Abdulkadir Uraloglu, the Bell 212 helicopter that Raisi and Abdollahian flew in either didn’t have its emergency signal transmission system turned on or didn’t have one at all. It’s highly unusual that an aircraft transporting such top-ranking officials wouldn’t have a functioning system that could possibly prevent incidents like this, which further suggests that it could’ve been sabotaged. A malfunction is always a possibility and certainly shouldn’t be rejected entirely, but there are other peculiarities that suggest foul play. For example, relevant military sources report about an unusual arrival of a USAF C-130 aircraft to Azerbaijan that coincided with President Raisi’s departure from the border area where he met his Azeri counterpart, President Ilham Aliyev.

There’s speculation that electronic warfare (EW) systems could’ve been used to crash the helicopter. As Raisi was flown in a US-made Bell 212, which Iran acquired in large numbers back in the 1970s, this surely wouldn’t be a problem for Washington DC. Its services are quite familiar with the helicopter’s avionics, including the aforementioned emergency system. Bell 212’s reputation as a highly reliable aircraft is yet another unusual detail that suggests this wasn’t exactly accidental.

It should be noted that Iran itself is yet to accuse anyone of this. However, this is hardly enough to dispel such rumors, as Tehran would certainly want to avoid acquiring the reputation of not being able to protect its leaders and top-ranking officials. Iran has had numerous problems with its adversaries targeting high-ranking military officers and even its embassies, with the latest such incident resulting in a direct response.

However, targeting Raisi directly would be an unprecedented act of escalation that, if proven to be true, could prompt the Middle Eastern superpower to speed up its nuclear program. With the deployment of extremely low-yield warheads such as the 2-7 kt W76-2, the US is already trying to bait Iran into a “limited” nuclear war. Tehran has already demonstrated willingness to target America’s allies in the region, including Israel, which saw Iran’s retaliation for its strike on the latter’s embassy in Damascus. The country would certainly react far more resolutely in case a person of Raisi’s caliber was assassinated. Namely, many expected him to succeed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, so this fact alone would surely make Raisi a strategic asset of Iran, and thus, a prime target for its adversaries. The late president was also extremely important for the rapidly growing multipolar world, making his death all the more important for those who want to slow it down.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

On Monday May 20th, with the UN’s International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Yoav Gallant along with three Hamas leaders for war crimes, and President Joe Biden again repeating, “What’s happening is not genocide. We reject that,” still insisting that Zionist Israel is not engaging in genocide against Palestinian people, we live in an increasingly dangerous world. This comes just days after a failed assassination attempt on an EU national leader, and then the sudden death of Iran’s president and foreign minister, today’s outrageous tempo of disturbing world events is extremely ominous.

The fact is, every single day now we are waking up to more perilously foreboding signs of endgame collapse, imminent world war between top nuclear powers, political assassinations, and yes, a polarized, seemingly out-of-control world, chaotically growing exponentially more unstable and violent by the week. This unending stream of unfolding incidents signify escalating global destabilization, the globalists’ deliberate controlled demolition of our planet gone mad. None of this is by chance nor by accident. It simply reflects the systematic breakdown by diabolical design of all life as we’ve known it. Destructive omens of accelerating upheaval and potential mass death appear near daily now, coming in large shocking doses.

Image source

Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico was nearly murdered last Wednesday May 15th. He is only one of two EU national leaders friendly to Russia opposing military aid to Ukraine, and the only national leader alive in this world investigating Pfizer and the powerbroking co-conspirator culprits behind the COVID kill shot holocaust, determined to publicly hold them criminally accountable.

The three African leaders and last elected Haitian leader were all murdered several years ago for vehemently taking bold stands against the globalist agenda to commit human genocide with its bioweapon Big Pharma non-vaccine poison. Of course no accident that one of the largest globalist controlled news outlets Associated Press would a few hours after the Fico shooting, claim “Slovak authorities [are] saying he [the failed assassin] acted alone in a politically motivated attack.” Like clockwork, every time the embedded Establishment deceivers purport their “lone gunman” trope, instantaneously they reach their standard criminal coverup conclusion. Yet facts so often prove otherwise as the CIA and Mossad are notoriously guilty in scores of assassinations and political coups. JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King all readily come to mind.

A mere month and a half ago, writer Simon Tisdall’s Guardian article entitled “Once a relic of the cold war, political assassins are back with a licence to kill” open with:

In today’s lawless world, political assassination is the new growth industry – and anyone, famous or not, is a potential victim. Government-sanctioned killings are proliferating, with Russia, Israel, Iran and India leading the pack.

Tisdall was referring to the Israel’s April Fool’s Day assassination of high-ranking Iranian generals in the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, clearly a violation of international law. This in turn led to Iran’s April 13th restrained “payback,” launching the world’s largest drone and missile attack as Tehran’s first time ever striking precise military targets directly on Israel’s soil, hitting spy and military posts in the Negev Desert, specifically minimizing civilian casualties yet sending the clear message that Israel’s air defense system is in fact penetrable, despite the Zionist bravado lies hyping its infallible “Iron Dome.”

Image source

Within four days this last week, the world has witnessed assassination, albeit a failed attempt on the life of a rare EU national leader friendly with Russia, followed just four days later by what may be successful assassinations of another Russian ally in Iran’s president and foreign minister. On Monday May 20th, all the headlines reported Iran’s 63-year old President Ebrahim Raisi, his 60-year old Iran Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian and six other high-ranking Iran officials died the day earlier on Sunday May 19th, in an apparent helicopter crash in northwestern Iran’s East Azerbaijan province near the city of Varzaqan. Others killed include governor-general of East Azerbaijan province Malek Rahmati and representative of the Supreme Leader in East Azerbaijan Mohammad Ali Ale-Hashem.

Despite today’s instant GPS technology pinpointing specific location with a black box recording, reported heavy fog made search efforts difficult locating the crash site for forty rescue teams, which is suspicious in and of itself. AP stated that the crash occurred “on the side of a steep mountain” 12 miles south of the Iran-Azerbaijan border.

Instantly Israel denied any involvement, and of course the so-called harsh flying conditions at the time of the accident afford Israel’s notoriously automatic “plausible deniability” out. Reuters stated:

An Israeli official, who requested anonymity, told Reuters it was not involved in the crash. 

Israel’s track record for credibility in truth-telling has repeatedly been atrocious, especially as of late. Few nations or people trust Israel because this country possesses among the worst reputations for nonstop deception, not unlike its #1 Liar-in-Thief illegitimately occupying the White House and his treasonous DC regime.

The genocidal Israeli government has not disclosed its official response to the death of Iranian leaders. Yet Israel’s current Minister of Heritage Amichay Eliyahu, reacted to Raisi’s death posting an image of a wine glass on X with the caption “Cheers” underneath. Avigdor Lieberman, former defense minister and leader of the opposition right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party, told Ynet news that Israel “will not shed a tear for the death of the Iranian president.”

https://x.com/Eliyahu_a/status/1792411988347490615

Despite alleged bad weather, two other Iranian helicopters apparently carrying lesser important Tehran officials both made it safely back to their destination after attending a ceremonial event opening a joint dam project with Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev. But is this helicopter crash truly an accident or is it another Israeli terrorist attack targeting the top leaders of Zionist Israel’s archrival enemy Iran?

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei since 1989 declared five days of mourning while placing Republic of Iran’s second in charge, Raisi’s deputy Mohammad Mokhber as acting president until an election is held within 50 days.

The assassination against Iran’s leader Ebrahim Raisi would certainly not be Israel and its allies’ first deadly political hit. The bottom line is that over the last half decade alone, Israel and friends have been directly responsible for numerous targeted assassinations against both Iran’s top political and top military leaders.

Image: General Qasem Soleimani

It was under Israeli firster Donald Trump’s presidency, bought and paid for by Israel first money, that his then Secretary of State, fellow West Point graduate a decade my junior and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo on January 3rd, 2020, launched his CIA drone strike on Iran’s most senior military official, General Qasem Soleimani. Mike Pompeo is another boldface liar the day after he executed Soleimani, spouting off on CNN as a feather in his cap, smugly claiming the Iran general was working with the Middle Eastern terrorists when in fact Soleimani was in actuality eliminating them, effectively defeating US supported terrorist proxy groups like ISIS in both Syria and Iraq.

America’s war against Iraq based on another boldface US lie of Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent WMDs was yet another US Empire expansionist imperial war, where again US as the globalists’ battering ram bully was clearly on the wrong side of history. Gen. Soleimani assisted Iraq in ultimately removing the US military as occupiers in Iraq delivering another humiliating US war loss in 2011 only eclipsed almost a decade later by Afghanistan debacle.

For years, the US has flagrantly violated Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan’s national sovereignty rights, deploying US military occupiers on the ground against the will and rights of both the Baghdad and Damascus governments, not to mention Kabul’s. These nations know that the given US excuse used to this day to justify its unwanted presence – removing the so-called vestiges of Islamic State terrorists from the region, is an absolute lie since it’s both the US and Israel that have been primary creators and longtime supporters of their proxy ally terrorists in the US manufactured War on Terror operating for decades throughout the Middle East. Prior to ISIS, the US and Israel teamed up with Gulf State monarchies to create al Qaeda and Bush ally the bin Laden family to pull off the inside US-Israeli job 9/11, deliberately committing treason to kill 3,000 Americans to launch their preplanned “new Pearl Harbor” to take down seven nations in five years. It all known history now.

As Iran’s most popular general and second most powerful national leader behind only the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei at the time of his 2020 assassination, General Soleimani was chiefly responsible for not only successfully weakening both the Taliban but also virtually eradicating the US created, financed and trained Islamic State terrorists that had grown to become the world’s largest terrorist organization, as well as other US supported jihadist militant groups operating inside Syria and Iraq.

It was in late December 2021 that Israel’s then recently retired head of military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Tamir Hayman, admitted that Israel assisted the United States in Gen. Soleimani’s assassination, gloating:

Soleimani’s assassination is an achievement, since our main enemy, in my eyes, are the Iranians. Two significant and important assassinations can be noted in my term.

The other assassination Hayman boasted of illustrates how Israel historically uses its divide and rule strategy to control both Palestinian groups, Hamas in Gaza and Palestinian Authority (PA) in West Bank. Hamas was secretly created and financed by Netanyahu to pit Hamas against the PA, and as long as the Palestinian groups are fighting against each other, remaining weak, more easily controlled, they enabled Netanyahu’s longtime policy forbidding the two-state solution. In this case, Hamas accused the Palestinian Authority intelligence operatives of informing the IDF of the specific Gaza location of Palestinian Islamic Jihad commander Baha Abu al-Ata for another Israeli airstrike assassination in November 2019. Still another Israeli below-the-belt, heavy blow delivered to Iran a year later on November 27th, 2020 was the assassination of Iran’s leading nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahavadi.

Then came another lethal Jewish State airstrike assassination last Christmas Day 2023 in a Damascus suburb, targeting yet another Iranian General Sayyed Razi Mousavi, the senior adviser in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) credited with coordinating the military alliance between Syria and Iran. Then little more than a week later on January 3rd, 2024, the US and Israel undoubtedly coordinated its Middle East proxy ally ISIS to yet again cold-bloodedly massacre 84 more Iranian civilians, simply for honoring the loss of their heroic popular general, attending Soleimani’s memorial service on his fourth year death anniversary. That terrorist act was perpetrated to deliberately ratchet up wider tensions in the Middle East, once again brutally targeting Iran as victim.

Israel aggression toward Iran has never been countered by Tehran retribution killings, though more than justified. Just last month on the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr, Israel engaged in more targeted killing of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh’s three sons and four of his grandchildren. Haniyeh explained that Israel intentionally targeted his family at Shati refugee camp they visited relatives over the holiday. Targeted assassinations have been a protected way of life, seemingly reserved only for Jewish State “chosen ones.” No other nation-state even comes close to racking up such high frequency premeditated, heinously violent crime, though US would undoubtedly be the runner-up.

It didn’t take long for speculation to surge into overdrive, pointing to Israel as the most likely guilty suspect. According to DCM Global’s video released Monday May 20th, anonymous sources within the Tehran government claim that the helicopter pilot that transported Raisi and his staff to the event with Azeri President Ilham Aliyev inside Azerbaijan near its Iran border, was not the same pilot that transported them back to Iran for its accidental “hard landing.” The video further alleges that the second pilot was a Mossad agent. By the time search and rescue teams arrived at the alleged crash scene, the helicopter had been completely burned.

Fueling the high speculation over the sudden deaths of Iran’s president, foreign minister and other prominent officials, also come reports that a US Air Force C-130 aircraft suspiciously arrived in Azerbaijan near the time of Raisi’s helicopter departure. Conjecture centers around possible electronic warfare may have been used to jam the president’s aircraft to malfunction and ultimately cause the crash. Iran states that it purchased the Bell 212 helicopter in the early 2000s. The US would be extremely familiar with its avionics, potentially rendering Raisi’s copter in Azerbaijan nonfunctional. For many decades this Bell 212 model helicopter has maintained an excellent safety record, unlike Boeing aircraft in recent years. Thus, it is highly unusual for it to be involved in an accident, much less with a national president from a major regional power.

The timing of this fateful incident could not have come at a more intensely volatile moment during today’s growing pre-World War III conflict buildup. With the elderly 85-year old Supreme Leader Khamenei about ready to retire, again the timing here appears highly suspicious and troublesome. Raisi was considered the leading candidate to take over for Khamenei, much like he had served as president from 1981-89 under his aging predecessor Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini. 

With Israel playing a prominent role in murdering so many Iran’s top political as well as military and scientific leaders, Israel’s systematic targeting killing has gone on unchecked without consequence for three-quarters of a century. If strong conclusive evidence that Israel killed Raisi does emerge, will this latest, most egregious crime of them all also go unpunished? If history keeps repeating itself, then it will. But today we are living through extraordinary times calling for extraordinary, unprecedented measures. And radical change is in the air. Iran, the Muslim world and indeed the whole world is on the brink of revolt against the globalists’ Old-World Order-turned NWO. Growing opposition amidst so much public exposure of these blatant, unmasked crimes against humanity are reaching the point of no return.

It has been frequently reported that Iran and Azerbaijan have maintained strained relations in recent years. Despite Azerbaijan and Iran both being Shiite Muslim neighbors, it hasn’t stopped Caspian Sea oil-rich Azeri dictator Ilham Aliyev’s relations with Israel to grow increasingly cordial and cozy. After all, it was the Ashkenazim Jewish State that made all the difference supplying Azerbaijan the strategic drones that enabled it for the first time to tactically defeat Armenians on the battlefield in defense of their final Nagorno-Karabakh war lasting 45-days during late 2020. This action in turn set up Baku’s “lightning strike” in Nagorno-Karabakh last year, removing virtually all the remaining 120,000 Armenians uprooted from their rightful ancient homeland as war refugees fleeing for safety to the Republic of Armenia.

This symbiotic relationship between “odd fellows” Israel and Azerbaijan has Aliyev publicly supporting Israel’s war against Hamas today.

Thus, for Iran’s leader to attend a political event inside Azerbaijan with a proven untrustworthy despot so chummy with Iran’s chief nemesis Zionist Israel, may have been a mortally fateful mistake. And with Iran’s Foreign Minister Amir-Abdollahian of probable Armenian descent, it automatically renders this ill-fated trip all the more treacherously suspect. Aliyev has made no bones about erasing Armenians off the face of the earth, just as his unholy Khazarian mafia bedfellow Benjamin Netanyahu erases all Palestinians off the face of the earth. These two war criminal dictators Bibi and Ilham are two rotten peas from the same rotten pod.

*

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

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate, former Army officer and author of “Don’t Let the Bastards Getcha Down” exposing a faulty US military leadership system based on ticket punching up the seniority ladder, invariably weeding out the best and brightest, leaving mediocrity and order followers rising to the top as politician-bureaucrat generals designated to lose every modern US war by elite design. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In Los Angeles he found himself battling the largest county child protective services in the nation within America’s thoroughly broken and corrupt child welfare system.

The experience in both the military and child welfare system prepared him well as a researcher and independent journalist, exposing the evils of Big Pharma and how the Rockefeller controlled medical and psychiatric system inflict more harm than good, case in point, the pandemic hoax and kill shot genocide. As an independent journalist for the last decade, Joachim has written hundreds of articles for many news sites, including Global Research, lewrockwell.com and currently https//jameshfetzer.org, Inteldrop.org and  https://thegovernmentrag.com. As a published author of a 5-book volume series entitled Pedophilia & Empire: Satan, Sodomy & the Deep State, Joachim’s books and chapters are Amazon bestsellers in child advocacy and human rights categories. His A-Z sourcebook series fully document and expose the global pedophilia scourge and remain available free at https://pedoempire.org/content s/. Joachim also hosts the weekly Revolution Radio broadcast “Cabal Empire Exposed” on Friday morning at 7AM EST (ID: revradio, password: rocks!).

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 (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

[This video was produced in May 2020.]

Transcript below.

BILL GATES: Hello. I’m Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft. In this video you’re going to see the future.

SOURCE: Hello, I’m Bill Gates, Chairman of Microsoft

Who is Bill Gates? A software developer? A businessman? A philanthropist? A global health expert?

This question, once merely academic, is becoming a very real question for those who are beginning to realize that Gates’ unimaginable wealth has been used to gain control over every corner of the fields of public health, medical research and vaccine development. And now that we are presented with the very problem that Gates has been talking about for years, we will soon find that this software developer with no medical training is going to leverage that wealth into control over the fates of billions of people.

GATES: [. . .] because until we get almost everybody vaccinated globally, we still won’t be fully back to normal.

SOURCE: Bill Gates on Finding a Vaccine for COVID-19, the Economy, and Returning to ‘Normal Life’

Bill Gates is no public health expert. He is not a doctor, an epidemiologist or an infectious disease researcher. Yet somehow he has become a central figure in the lives of billions of people, presuming to dictate the medical actions that will be required for the world to go “back to normal.” The transformation of Bill Gates from computer kingpin to global health czar is as remarkable as it is instructive, and it tells us a great deal about where we are heading as the world plunges into a crisis the likes of which we have not seen before.

This is the story of How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health.

You’re tuned in to The Corbett Report.

Until his reinvention as a philanthropist in the past decade, this is what many people thought of when they thought of Bill Gates:

NARRATOR: In the case of the United States vs Microsoft, the US Justice Department contended that the software giant had breached antitrust laws by competing unfairly against Netscape Communications in the internet browser market, effectively creating a monopoly. Bill’s first concern was that the prosecution could potentially block the release of his company’s latest operating system, Windows 98.

SOURCE: Bill Gates Defends Microsoft in Monopoly Lawsuit

GATES: Are you asking me about when I wrote this e-mail or what are you asking me about?

DAVID BOIES: I’m asking you about January of ’96.

GATES: That month?

BOIES: Yes, sir.

GATES: And what about it?

BOIES: What non-Microsoft browsers were you concerned about in January of 96?

GATES: I don’t know what you mean: “concerned.”

BOIES: What is it about the word “concerned” that you don’t understand?

GATES: I’m not sure what you mean by it.

SOURCE: Bill Gates Deposition

STEVE JOBS: We’re going to be working together on Microsoft Office, on Internet Explorer, on Java, and I think that it’s going to lead to a very healthy relationship. So it’s a package announcement today. We’re very, very happy about it, we’re very, very excited about it. And I happen to have a special guest with me today via satellite downlink, and if we could get him up on the stage right now.

[BILL GATES APPEARS, CROWD BOOS]

SOURCE: Macworld Boston 1997-The Microsoft Deal

DAN RATHER: Police and security guards in Belgium were caught flat-footed today by a cowardly sneak attack on one of the world’s wealthiest men. The target was Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, arriving for a meeting with community leaders. Watch what happens when a team of hit men meet him first with a pie in the face.

[GATES HIT IN THE FACE WITH PIE]

RATHER: Gates was momentarily and understandably shaken, but he was not injured. The hit squad piled on with two more pies before one of them was wrestled to the ground and arrested; the others—at least for the moment—got away. Gates went inside, wiped his face clean, and made no comment. He then went ahead with his scheduled meeting. No word on the motive for this attack.

SOURCE: Bill Gates Pie in Face

But, once reviled for the massive wealth and the monopolistic power that his virus-laden software afforded him, Gates is now hailed as a visionary who is leveraging that wealth and power for the greater good of humanity.

KLAUS SCHWAB: If in the 22nd century a book will be written about the entrepreneur of the 21st century [. . .] I’m sure that the person who will foremost come to the mind of those historians is certainly Bill Gates. [applause]

SOURCE: Davos Annual Meeting 2008 – Bill Gates

ANDREW ROSS SORKIN: I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that Bill Gates is singularly—I would argue—the most consequential individual of our generation. I mean that.

SOURCE: Bill Gates Talks Philanthropy, Microsoft, and Taxes | DealBook

ELLEN DEGENERES: Our next guest is one of the richest and most generous men in the world. Please welcome Bill Gates.

SOURCE: Bill Gates on Finding a Vaccine for COVID-19, the Economy, and Returning to ‘Normal Life’

JUDY WOODRUFF: At a time when everyone is looking to understand the scope of the pandemic and how to minimize the threat, one of the best informed voices is that of businessman and philanthropist Bill Gates.

SOURCE: Bill Gates on where the COVID-19 pandemic will hurt the most

The process by which this reinvention of Gates’ public image took place is not mysterious. It’s the same process by which every billionaire has revived their public image since John D. Rockefeller hired Ivy Ledbetter Lee to transform him from the head of the Standard Oil hydra into the kind old man handing out dimes to strangers.

MAN OFF CAMERA: Don’t you give dimes, Mr. Rockefeller? Please, go ahead.

WOMAN: Thank you, sir.

MAN: Thank you very much.

ROCKEFELLER: Thank you for the ride!

MAN: I consider myself more than amply paid.

ROCKEFELLER: Bless you! Bless you! Bless you!

SOURCE: John D. Rockefeller – Standard Oil

More to the point, John D. Rockefeller knew that to gain the adoration of the public, he had to appear to give them what they want: money. He devoted hundreds of millions of dollars of his vast oil monopoly fortune to establishing institutions that, he claimed, were for the public good. The General Education Board. The Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research. The Rockefeller Foundation.

Similarly, Bill Gates has spent much of the past two decades transforming himself from software magnate into a benefactor of humanity through his own Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In fact, Gates has surpassed Rockefeller’s legacy with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation long having eclipsed The Rockefeller Foundation as the largest private foundation in the world, with $46.8 billion of assets on its books that it wields in its stated program areas of global health and development, global growth, and global policy advocacy.

And, like Rockefeller, Gates’ transformation has been helped along by a well-funded public relations campaign. Gone are the theatrical tricks of the PR pioneers—the ubiquitous ice cream cones of Gates’ mentor Warren Buffett are the last remaining holdout of the old Rockefeller-handing-out-dimes gimmick. No, Gates has guided his public image into that of a modern-day saint through an even simpler tactic: buying good publicity.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation spends tens of millions of dollars per year on media partnerships, sponsoring coverage of its program areas across the board. Gates funds The Guardian‘s Global Development website. Gates funds NPR’s global health coverage. Gates funds the Our World in Data website that is tracking the latest statistics and research on the coronavirus pandemic. Gates funds BBC coverage of global health and development issues, both through its BBC Media Action organization and the BBC itself. Gates funds world health coverage on ABC News.

When the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer was given a $3.5 million Gates foundation grant to set up a special unit to report on global health issues, NewsHour communications chief Rob Flynn was asked about the potential conflict of interest that such a unit would have in reporting on issues that the Gates Foundation is itself involved in. “In some regards I guess you might say that there are not a heck of a lot of things you could touch in global health these days that would not have some kind of Gates tentacle,” Flynn responded.

Indeed, it would be almost impossible to find any area of global health that has been left untouched by the tentacles of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

It was Gates who sponsored the meeting that led to the creation of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, a global public-private partnership bringing together state sponsors and big pharmaceutical companies, whose specific goals include the creation of “healthy markets for vaccines and other immunisation products.” As a founding partner of the alliance, the Gates Foundation provided $750 million in seed funding and has gone on to make over $4.1 billion in commitments to the group.

Gates provided the seed money that created the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, a public-private partnership that acts as a finance vehicle for governmental AIDS, TB, and malaria programs.

When a public-private partnership of governments, world health bodies and 13 leading pharmaceutical companies came together in 2012 “to accelerate progress toward eliminating or controlling 10 neglected tropical diseases,” there was the Gates Foundation with $363 million of support.

When the Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents was launched in 2015 to leverage billions of dollars in public and private financing for global health and development programs, there was the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as a founding partner with a $275 million contribution.

When the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations was launched at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2017 to develop vaccines against emerging infectious diseases, there was the Gates Foundation with an initial injection of $100 million.

The examples go on and on. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s fingerprints can be seen on every major global health initiative of the past two decades. And beyond the flashy, billion-dollar global partnerships, the Foundation is behind hundreds of smaller country and region-specific grants—$10 million to combat a locust infestation in East Africa, or $300 million to support agricultural research in Africa and Asia—that add up to billions of dollars in commitments.

It comes as no surprise, then, that—far beyond the $250 million that the Gates Foundation has pledged to the “fight” against coronavirus—every aspect of the current coronavirus pandemic involves organizations, groups and individuals with direct ties to Gates funding.

From the start, the World Health Organization has directed the global response to the current pandemic. From its initial monitoring of the outbreak in Wuhan and its declaration in January that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission to its live media briefings and its technical guidance on country-level planning and other matters, the WHO has been the body setting the guidelines and recommendations shaping the global response to this outbreak.

But even the World Health Organization itself is largely reliant on funds from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The WHO’s most recent donor report shows that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the organization’s second-largest donor behind the United States government. The Gates Foundation single-handedly contributes more to the world health body than Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Russia and the UK combined.

What’s more, current World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is, in fact, like Bill Gates himself, not a medical doctor at all, but the controversial ex-Minister of Health of Ethiopia, who was accused of covering up three cholera outbreaks in the country during his tenure. Before joining the WHO, he served as chair of the Gates-founded Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and sat on the board of the Gates-founded Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and the Gates-funded Stop TB Partnership.

The current round of lockdowns and restrictive stay-home orders in western countries was enacted on the back of alarming models predicting millions of deaths in the United States and hundreds of thousands in the UK.

HAYLEY MINOGUE: Imperial College in London released a COVID-19 report and that’s where most of our US leaders are getting the information they’re basing their decision making on. That 2.2 million deaths also doesn’t account for the potential negative effects of health systems being overwhelmed.

[. . .]

The report runs us through a few different ways this could turn out depending on what our responses are. If we don’t do anything to control this virus, over 80% of people in the US would be infected over the course of the epidemic, with 2.2 million deaths from COVID-19.

SOURCE: Extreme measures based on scientific paper

BORIS JOHNSON: From this evening I must give the British people a very simple instruction: you must stay at home.

SOURCE: Boris Johnson announces complete UK lockdown amid coronavirus crisis

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Enough is enough. Go home and stay home.

SOURCE: ‘Enough is enough’, Trudeau with a strong message to Canadians

GAVIN NEWSOM: . . . a statewide order for people to stay at home

SOURCE: California Gov Newsom issues statewide ‘SAFER AT HOME’ order

The work of two research groups was crucial in shaping the decision of the UK and US governments to implement wide-ranging lockdowns, and, in turn, governments around the world. The first group, the Imperial College COVID-19 Research Team, issued a report on March 16th that predicted up to 500,000 deaths in the UK and 2.2 million deaths in the US unless strict government measures were put in place.

Click here to read the full transcript.

*

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

This interview was recorded for the Global Research News Hour. Published May 18, 2024. Find a link here:

University Encampments and the Freedom Flotilla: Fighting Back Against Historical Racist Genocide – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, documentary film-maker, writer and political analyst, who has lived in and reported from the occupied Palestinian Territories. He has written for publications such as MintPress News, Mondoweiss, MEMO, TRT, and various other outlets. He currently works with The Last American Vagabond, Press TV and Quds News. Director of: ‘Steal of the Century‘ Trump’s Palestine-Israel Catastrophe

In this interview, RObert speaks of the uprisings of many university students against the Israeli actions in Gaza. He also talks about the decision by Israel to reject the ceasefire proposal they  submitted to Hamas only to reject it when Hamas agreed!

Global Research: You’re currently based in Calgary. Were you part of the pro-Palestine encampment at the University of Calgary, which was recently torn down by police?

Robert Inlakesh: Yes, I arrived there. I probably spent a good six hours there covering it.

I was filming with a bunch of the protesters and observing what was going on and wanting to document how it all played out. Of course, it took a violent turn due to the fact that the university, according to the information that I received from the students, they wanted to negotiate with the university. The university refused.

It said that we won’t listen to you, called the police in. The police arrived. The private security shut down all of the buildings.

The police blocked two exits, basically kettled all of the demonstrators in. There was a protest, which came actually in March towards the university and onto the campus to support the students. Within maybe a few hours of that protest arriving, the police showed up.

This was on the first day of the encampment. It was an extremely diverse encampment. You had conservative Muslims there standing next to people from the LGBT community.

Everywhere in between, we had people from the Blackfoot, different nations within the Blackfoot. Indigenous people came, gave their blessings for it to take place, this encampment on their land, their stolen land. They stood side by side with the students.

It was all peaceful until the police decided to come threaten them. They arrived with automatic weapons. They arrived in riot gear.

They openly threatened to arrest and disband the encampment. They said that you are trespassing, even though these are students paying their tuition fees in a peaceful protest. The students actually came to the middle of the encampment.

It was all on a loudspeaker. They were discussing and debating whether they should pack up the encampment and come back at another time, or they should stay essentially and try and defend the encampment. Before they could come to a conclusion, and they almost came to one, they stood there debating for maybe 10 minutes or so.

The police decided to push into the encampment. When it was not, let’s say, defended from the outside, it was easy for them to come in. They pushed through, smashed through the barriers, and began to initiate a small, let’s say, clash with the student demonstrators.

They locked arms. They stood there peacefully. They shouted the slogan, there is no riot here.

Why are you in riot gear? They repeatedly shouted this. Then there was a standoff for hours and hours. It looked like, okay, it’s going to end.

The students decided to come back at another day. The police told them that there will be no arrests made whatsoever. Then suddenly, as everything was being packed up, everyone was about to leave, the crowd at that point was very small in comparison to what it was before.

The police then decided to launch an attack. They went into full war mode. They shot people with rubber bullets.

They threw flashbangs down. They fired tear gas. People had gas that they got in their eyes, and some students were affected by that.

Also, they used batons. They hit an old woman in the head with a baton. They pushed another woman to the ground.

She hit her head. She apparently received hospital treatment. A friend of mine, who was organizing the demonstration, which came to support them, he was shot in the arm with a rubber bullet.

None of this was at all provoked by the students. It was completely peaceful. I was there the entire time.

The Canadian media covered this as if it was a clash, as if somehow the students had provoked this. In the CBC report, they didn’t even mention the word rubber bullets, which were fired. However, they implied it, but they didn’t mention it explicitly.

They were there. They saw what happened. They lied about it.

That’s how they disbanded the encampment on day one. That’s how they treated them. That’s how the university treated their own students.

GR: There wasn’t even rumors, people saying, well, they’re anti-Semitic, or they make me feel unsafe.

RI: Personally, I didn’t see any. For instance, there was no counter-protest there.

I didn’t see anything or hear anything from students in that university that said they felt unsafe. I might be incorrect, because when I was there, there might have been Jewish students who were pro-Israeli, who were on social media and saw it and were upset by this. That might have been the case.

That’s the case every single time these encampments are set up anywhere. You see that pro-Israeli students will claim that they feel persecuted. At that encampment, there were Jewish students and there were Jewish protesters.

There was a Jewish group there that came to support them in the protest that marched towards the encampment and stayed at the encampment. There were Jewish people there that were linking arms with the protesters and standing off against the police. Again, this was a diverse crowd.

You had indigenous people there. You had Black people, white people, people from all different backgrounds. You had people who were gay standing next to conservative Muslims, all in solidarity.

They put what might be in other cases causes for division aside. They united against the police to try and protect the encampment. In a call of solidarity with the Palestinians, there was nothing racist that happened there, nothing anti-Semitic that happened there.

They were very inclusive and it would be ridiculous to portray it as an anti-Semitic event. It was not at all. There was not a single person and none of those students that I spoke to would tolerate anything of that nature.

They were very explicit. If anyone makes any statements which can be interpreted as being anti-Jewish, they’re out. They’re not going to be tolerated.

GR: Can you comment on any evidence of the anti-Semitism or violence that the media and university officials and some politicians are latching onto at any of the sites?

RI: They’ll point to some instances where people, for instance, there was one case of a Jewish woman who’s pro-Israel. I believe she was a student. I can’t remember which university it was now.

I think you’ll know the cases as soon as I bring it up. She claimed to have been stabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag. The video came out, anything that contradicted what she tried to portray.

She was, of course, propelled by the media, made famous. She was put on Piers Morgan, Fox News, and CNN. They all talked to her as if she was a victim of being stabbed in the eye in an anti-Semitic hate crime.

She was there clearly trying to go in and debate people. She was judged as an agitator on that campus. There are other cases, for instance, where they point to masked people holding up signs that talk about the Qasem brigades coming to get the pro-Israeli students.

There’s one case, I think, of people that were shouting something about October 7 will happen again. In terms of your classical anti-Semitic rhetoric, I don’t think we’ve seen any of that. In fact, we’ve seen all of the racist slurs on the other side.

In fact, the pro-Israeli crowds have been screaming the N-word at people. They’ve been making, in terms of these fraternity students, these frat boys, they were making monkey sounds at Black students. They’ve been attacking violently in different areas like UCLA.

They attacked violently the encampment with fireworks and sticks and metal poles. We’ve seen that the attacks have been against the Palestinian side, the pro-Palestinian side. Also, a lot of even anti-Jewish rhetoric against the Jewish students who are standing in solidarity with the encampments, calling them as if they’re not real Jews, using the slur kapos against them, which is essentially a collaborator with the Nazis during the Second World War, and a number of horrible slurs that have been used against them.

If you look at the hate crimes and the violent attacks that have been happening, it’s overwhelmingly all on the side of the pro-Israeli students. They’re the ones committing the bulk of the attacks. Of course, the police as well are violently attacking people.

In terms of these incidents, even if there were a handful of these incidents, and let’s assume that all of these people are masked, were actually part of the pro-Palestinian encampments. Let’s just, for argument’s sake, take that at face value. Let’s take it at face value that the woman was stabbed in the eye with a flagpole viciously, an anti-Semitic hate crime.

Let’s just take that. These encampments are across the country, not just across the country, across North America, and across the West. It’s spread into Japan and Korea.

There are tens of thousands of students who are out there protesting. Their message is very simple. It’s not anti-Semitic.

This is just a media narrative that has been concocted in order to try and justify police brutality against them, cracking down upon them, silencing them, and ultimately making it seem as if they’re these crazy anti-Semitic Nazis who, for some reason, a ceasefire is equivalent to wanting to kill all Jewish people.

GR: It’s been suggested that big money people are funding this movement. Is it possible? It’s not as grassroots as it appears to be?

RI: Well, in order to support that claim, if you’re going to say people are funding it, it has to be something specific, which is put out there.

I’ve seen nothing to back up the claim that somehow somebody like, let’s say, George Soros, that’s the one that they claim most of the time that George Soros had given money through Open Societies to Jewish Voices for Peace. That’s an argument I’ve heard made, for instance. In the past, you saw that a contribution was made by Open Societies to Jewish Voices for Peace.

That was before any of this. There’s no information supporting that this action has been somehow supported monetarily by people with a lot of money, these philanthropists like George Soros. There’s nothing that supports that immediately these encampments have been backed by or this movement was started by somebody backed by George Soros.

It was grassroots. Even if people are receiving money in some of the encampments, trying to link this to a global movement where you see hundreds upon hundreds of campuses now around the world where the students are doing the same thing, really, is it because of some financing that could have came from Open Societies Foundation that all these students are out there willing to risk their degrees, risk their futures to be arrested, brutalized, perhaps even, in some cases, seriously injured? Are they willing to risk that because George Soros gave tens of thousands of dollars to Jewish Voices for Peace, according to a tax statement in 2018 or whatever it was? Does that make any sense? Is it plausible? No, I don’t believe it is. I have not seen any information which backs that.

Of course, there’s the claims from the NYPD that professionals were occupying what the protesters called Hinz Hall. They occupied a hall at Columbia and they renamed it Hinz Hall, which, of course, follows on from the tradition of other students occupying that very same hall and calling it Mandela Hall in the past in opposition to apartheid. They said there were all of these outside agitators and professionals, yet the NYPD couldn’t point to having arrested any of these outside agitators.

It was asked, how many people did you arrest that were non-students? And it could not answer the question. Their representatives couldn’t answer that question. And I think that’s very clear why they couldn’t answer that question, because it was clear that these were not outside agitators, these were students.

So that would be my comment on the funding from the outside, as I see it at this point.

GR: You wrote an article recently about Hamas agreeing to a ceasefire, but then Israel stepped away. Clearly, Israel didn’t want a ceasefire.

What is exactly the military point of attacking Rafah?

RI: Well, there is a point which they have raised. It’s due to intelligence chatter that they came up with the idea largely of attacking Rafah, which was to do with an alleged financing network for Hamas operating in Rafah and the civil administration. And this came largely from discussions within the Israeli intelligence community and even the Palestinian Authority Intelligence from within Rafah.

Of course, this is just an excuse because this is the only major Palestinian population centre that they haven’t raided yet. So they have claimed, the Israeli military have claimed that we eliminated the Qassam Brigades, so the armed wing of Hamas, their battalions in the north, in the centre of Gaza, we’ve eliminated all of them, which is nonsense, of course, they’re fully functional. And right now there is a battle ongoing in Chevalier in northern Gaza, and it’s probably the fiercest battle that we’ve seen in the entirety of the war.

And they said they disbanded all the resistance groups there, and they didn’t disband any of them, let alone Hamas, the smaller ones they didn’t, and they didn’t manage to kill them and defeat them. They’re still operational, even small groups with a lot less power than Hamas. And so the justification, essentially, for invading Rafah, the public one is, well, this is how we complete our war.

Netanyahu said since February that if we don’t go in, we lose the war. And the intelligence chatter before this was, well, you know, we went into northern Gaza, and we disbanded the financing network of Hamas there, and then we went into Khan Younus, and we disbanded the financing network there, which is not even true, by the way, when they go into different areas, you’ll see that they loot Palestinian banks, they loot businesses, the soldiers will even go through and steal women’s jewellery, for instance, and claim that somehow this was being used for financing Hamas. Of course, there have to be financing networks, there have to be a supply chain, there has to be people from the former civil administration prior to the war, which, of course, Hamas was the elected government there.

So anyone who is a police officer, for instance, or is working in any capacity with the civil administration is technically of the quote-unquote Hamas civil administration, including the health ministry, which coordinates with the United Nations and groups, you know, international organizations around the world, is run by professional doctors, is technically Hamas, you know, because it’s under the banner, Hamas is the governing force there. So in Rafah, they argued, well, we can disband this financing network. And of course, there are more people from the civil administration there, there would be more financing networks, quote-unquote, in Rafah, simply because there’s more people there.

But they don’t know where this is. If they knew where the, you know, some sort of structure was for disbanding Hamas, they would have already taken it out and killed them. They could do that from the air.

In terms of going into the tunnels, taking out the Palestinian resistance, freeing their prisoners, which are held in Gaza, they’ve not been able to do that anywhere else. Why would they be able to do it there? At the end of the day, when it came to the ceasefire proposal, which Hamas accepted, you’re very right in saying that Israel didn’t expect them to actually say yes to it. This was a ceasefire proposal, which was put together by the Israeli intelligence and by the CIA, and handed over to them.

And there were small amendments, very small amendments, for instance, on what days should Hamas release the Israeli prisoners? And should it be the bodies first of Israeli prisoners that have been killed in airstrikes by the Israelis themselves? Or should it be, you know, that they’re alive in the first stage? These little things, which could have been rectified very easily. And the CIA itself, well, unnamed US officials themselves, recognized that this proposal was essentially the same one that was handed to Hamas. So Hamas knew that what the Israelis were saying for the past week, Netanyahu had been saying, we need to go into Rafah.

Even if we have a ceasefire, we’re going into Rafah. We can’t accept a deal with Hamas. There has to be the dismantlement of Hamas in a post-war Gaza.

So of course, this denotes not having a ceasefire. If you’re saying that you want to invade Rafah anyway, you can’t invade somewhere during a ceasefire. That makes no sense.

And also, the deal that you’re doing in the ceasefire that you’re now negotiating for is with Hamas, the governing authority, or the leading faction within the Palestinian network of resistance groups. So you have to negotiate with Hamas. But the Israelis have been very clear.

They’ve been saying, Netanyahu has been saying, that they want to completely dismantle Hamas, and they want to continue with this goal. So you can’t have both. You can’t have a ceasefire with Hamas and a prisoner exchange with Hamas, but still invade and aim at dismantling Hamas at the same time.

Because who else are you negotiating with? There wouldn’t be a negotiation that is even needed if Hamas was dismantled. So these two things, these two narratives, contradict each other. And that’s why the U.S. freaked out.

Israel freaked out. It started launching its troops towards the Rafah crossing. They captured the Rafah crossing.

And by entering the Philadelphia Axis, they violated the Camp David Accords, which is the normalization agreement between Egypt and Israel. So technically, that’s a declaration of war against Egypt. So this is what they’ve done.

They’ve committed themselves to wanting to do a ground incursion into Rafah, where there were around 1.4 million people, hundreds of thousands have fled. And of course, the death toll will be insane if they go into Rafah. But also, there will be a military defeat on many levels inflicted by the guerrilla groups on the ground.

The Palestinian resistance will have something in store for them.

GR: Robert, I think we’ll have to close the conversation now. But thanks again for sharing your thoughts and analysis with our listeners.

RI: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

The leader and founder of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, is leaving his executive role and transitioning to a “non-executive chairman role” in 2025.

The truth is that Borge Brende, president of the World Economic Forum, already leads the day-to-day operations. Mr. Brende, a smart, sophisticated Norwegian negotiator with a proven track record, and he is primed to take on an even bigger role in the organization. His involvement in the Bilderberg meetings, including service on their steering committee and various roles within the United Nations, including Chairman of the UN Commission of Sustainable Development (2003-04), attest to his ability to build power and influence. He is the natural successor to Klaus’s vaulted title of executive chairman.

Schwab is an excellent cut-out villain cartoon character with his Germanic, authoritarian, and overbearing demeanor. He comes across as a two-dimensional figure, driven by corporatism and power, which makes him an easy target to hate. But the truth is that he has been coopting and coercing national leaders for decades.

Click here to watch the video

The Malone Institute put together a list of all the WEF Young Leaders Graduates and a list of US politicians who are graduates of the five-year long young leaders program, which can be found here.

Without Schwab at the helm, it will be harder to hold the WEF accountable for its corporatist agenda; that is a corporate governance of world affairs driven by its globalist mindset.

I predict that under Brende, the WEF will try to garner more power and influence among the “middle powers” (smaller nation-states), as the ability for more regulatory capture within the superpowers is already maxed out. As the middle powers crave a bigger and more important role on the world stage, they are an easy target for the WEF transnational corporations.

Already, the WEF website is courting these players as the next wave of world leaders. The WEF website states: “middle powers and regional groupings are emerging as alternative axes in today’s multipolar world.” By aligning these middle powers with the WEF, the corporatists will increase their wealth and power.

Some of the recent WEF articles on “middle powers” include:

Furthermore, I believe that in the future, the WEF will work to downplay the DAVOS-man opulent parties, opting instead for more exclusive and private venues. Where the press isn’t invited, as is the case with the Bilderberg meetings. The WEF leadership knows that they have a PR problem with the populist (center-right, libertarian, and conservative parties) throughout the world and Brende will act quickly to try to fix this. It will require a public relations overhaul of Klaus Schwab’s flagship policy agenda, which the WEF calls stake-holder capitalism. This, of course, is just another word for corporatism. Whereby there is a fusion of the unelected global leadership and transnational corporations in order for the largest corporations in the world access to enough power to rule the world. For our own good, of course!

The World Economic Forum is a tool for corporate globalists to rule the world through inverse totalitarianism. In effect, our nation, as well as many other nation-states, have been turned upside down while being captured by corporate interests that endorse authoritarian policies – hence “inverted totalitarianism”.

Here we are today.  In many ways, the hidden head of this unelected corporatist government structure is now the leadership of the World Economic Forum. This is where the heads of corporations, politicians, and other wealthy elites meet to decide the governing decisions of the world. A trade union of the thousand largest corporations in the world.

Resistance has begun, which is what makes the WEF so scared and defensive. That is why the WEF will have a facelift as soon as Schwab’s rule has ended. The WEF will try to become a behind-the-scenes power player once again. The hand inside the glove. It is our job to not let that happen.

This is why government, corporate interests, and “mainstream” media find alternate social media platforms that they can’t control to be so threatening.  They know social media, and the populist parties associated with it, are a threat to the corporatist globalist structure they have built over decades. They are worried that it is in danger of crumbling.

Resistance is not futile.

*

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

Featured image source

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

 

First, my sincerest condolences and deeply felt sorrow to Ayatollah Khamenei and the people of Iran, for the death of President Ebrahim Raisi, Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian, and other political personalities killed in a helicopter “accident” on 19 May 2024.

Both President Raisi and Foreign Minister Amirabdollahian were strong supporters and committed defenders of Palestine and of Palestinian rights.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei, immediately appointed Mr. Mohammad Mokhber, Iran’s first Vice-President, as Acting President until new elections, planned for end of June 2024. Mr. Mokhber follows ideologically in his boss’s footsteps. Therefore, no political change is to be expected.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has announced five days of mourning following the death of the country’s President.

Respecting Iran’s Constitution, the Supreme Leader announced new Presidential elections for 28 of June 2024.

See also this interesting interview by western Channel 4 News with an Iranian Professor (9-min video clip):

Investigations will, no doubt, reveal the truth of this helicopter disaster.

*

Israel on Monday denied involvement in the death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and of several Government officials of his entourage in a helicopter crash on 19 May 2024.

“It wasn’t us,” news agency Reuters quoted an Israeli official, who requested anonymity (Al Jazeera, 20 May 2024).

Very convincing, indeed.

Could it be an act of the Usual Suspects?

Maybe the Usual Suspects – plus one?

Several details point to a smelling rat – the smell of foul play.

Iranian media and many Iranian official voices call President Ebrahim Raisi’s death “martyrdom”. In Moslem parlage, this means an assassination. If it was somebody simply dying in a crash, it is just death by accident. By calling it “martyrdom”, Iranian sources have already stated that President Raisi has been killed by Iran’s enemies (Kevin Barrett). 

While the cause behind the crash is not clear yet, it is worthy to note of the ongoing Israeli invasion of Gaza and an escalation of tension between Israel and Iran just weeks ago. It started with an Israeli unprovoked attack on Iran’s diplomatic mission in Syria, to which Iran responded with a military-infrastructure destructive retaliation – causing a minimum of human harm.

Israel, the “Chosen One,” cannot allow being retaliated without further response. So, they did, but very lightly – hardly harmful – on instructions from Washington, hoping that this back-and-forth may not become a prelude to more death and bloodshed, or – God forbid – to a hot WWIII.

Of course, somebody like PM Netanyahu could not let that stand. He is also threatened with an arrest warrant from the ICC (International Criminal Court) in The Hague, which he is now fighting “diplomatically” by sending today (21 May) a mission to Paris and the EU; shall we call it to beg for help? “Begging for help” is usually not Israel’s style.

Or is it a mode of deviating attention from something much bigger, like the “presumed” assassination of President Raisi and his Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian?

PM Netanyahu and his military gang may have thought of and planned something much more devastating, not only a re-retaliation, but bringing Israel’s eternal feud with Iran onto yet another level.

Iran is and has always been a fervent defender and supporter of Palestine. They would never let Palestine be erased by Zionist-Israel. In addition, Iran is by far Israel’s strongest contender in the Zionist’s thrive towards a Greater Israel – dominating the Middle East and its hydrocarbon riches.

Besides, as a new BRICS member, Iran has become a close ally of China and Russia, both economically and militarily.

Economically, Iran plays an important role in the new BRICS-plus-five, whose priorities include dedollarizing the world’s monetary system. This does not bode well with the Western hegemon and its vassals. The Western hegemon includes Israel as a key actor; with the European puppets being useful “suicidal” idiots.

Yes, suicidal, because they are in the process of destroying themselves, following Washington’s dictate on sanctioning Russia, when cooperating with Russia and China would be an uplifting boom to Europe and a recreation of the globe’s by far largest market, the huge contiguous Continent Eurasia, reminiscent of the Ancient Silk Road, of 2,100 years ago.

Already then, this brilliant initiative was emanating from China. President Xi’s 2013 Belt and Road Initiative (also called the New Silk Road) is lending a hand to Europe for peaceful cooperation and socioeconomic development. So far, Europe, under the corrupt and unelected leadership of the European Union, has failed to accept, collaborate, and prosper. Instead, Europe obeys the dying empire’s orders to commit to their economic and social collapse.

How much longer will they remain in the dark, not ascending to the Light?

Therefore, maybe secretly with the help of the “Usual Suspects”, the Zionists in the name of Israel wanted to put a wrench in the wheels of progress. Defending the dying beast, prolonging the agony, pulling more people and societies into the Western abyss of misery.

Who are these elusive Usual Suspects? Mossad, CIA, and UK’s MI6. A potential downing of President Raisi’s Presidential Helicopter might bear the fingerprints of the infamous trio. If so, what more is to come?

Starting From the Beginning

The President of Iran took a helicopter trip to the border with Azerbaijan, where he participated in the inauguration of a new dam built by Iran; briefly also meeting the President of Azerbaijan, Mr. Ilham Aliyev. This visit may also have been an Iranian attempt to smoothen relations with Azerbeijan.

Having been part of the Persian Empire until the 19th century, Azerbaijan has deep historical ties with Iran. However, relations have not been the best, as Azerbaijan has been leaning increasingly to the West in recent years, despite her geographic and historically rather eastern political philosophy. Is this pulling away from the East, a mere voluntary sovereign action?

After the brief visit, President Raisi, his Foreign Minister, and other members of government, intended returning home. They never made it.

The Western official version goes that the Presidential Helicopter encountered strong adverse weather in the mountainous Azerbaijan – Iran region and crashed, leaving all eight chopper occupants dead.

Western media were also quick in reporting that thanks to Western sanctions, Iran was unable to import necessary parts to properly maintain her air force, that therefore the Presidential Helicopter was in bad shape.

The truth is very likely quite different.

As time goes on, new elements make the crash rather appear as a deliberate assassination. The international conspiracy – what it likely was – and the cover-up seem to have been well-prepared.

The plan was thoroughly thought out to the point – would you believe! – that ALL Weather Satellite imagery for that region on the day of the crash (19 May) was DELETED. See this.

So, there is no evidence of the much announced and repeated blizzard-like weather that downed the Presidential Helicopter.

Also, it appears that at the time of the crash, a US C-17 Globemaster III cargo aircraft was in the sky close to the site of the air-disaster. The C-17 is capable of rapid moves, strategic positioning and maintaining contact with major operating bases.

If this were to be indeed the case – the C-17 Globemaster plane in the sky, in theory, it would be possible that this plane could have used a Direct Energy Weapon (DEW) to down the Presidential Helicopter, right?

Furthermore, strange was the fact that the Presidential Helicopter’s emergency transponder seems to have been disabled, and so was the “mayday” emergency call function, so that no emergency signals were sent and received that could have located the chopper and come to rescue immediately.

And is it another strange coincidence that the Prime Minister of Slovakia, Robert Fico, also met with the President of Azerbaijan, days before Fico was shot in an assassination attempt. See this.

Again, see this, providing a run-down of the latest emerging events.

Remember the three Usual Suspects – and in this case, possibly one more. Could this one more be Azerbaijan?

Airplane “accidents” have often been used by opponents to eliminate political leaders in office. Here are some of the more prominent ones:

Panama President – Omar Torrijos died when his aircraft, a de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter of the Panamanian Air Force, crashed on July 31, 1981. It was a presumed assassination.

Ecuadorian President – Jaime Roldós Aguilera, died on 24 May 1981 in a plane crash. It was an assumed assassination, enhanced by the controversial absence of the plane’s black box. President Roldós’ firm stand on Human Rights brought him poor relations with then US President Ronald Reagon, mostly due to Washington’s violent interference in Latin America. Remember Jorge Rafael Videla, Argentina’s military dictator (1976-1981), and Augusto Pinochet, Chile’s military dictator (1973-1990)? 

The second Secretary General of the UN, Dag Hammarskjöld of Sweden, whom JFK called the “greatest statesman of our century”, was killed in a plane crash on 18 September 1961. Mr. Hammarskjöld was a crucial mediator between Israel and the Arab States, as well as between China and the US. Hammarskjöld was also a force for African decolonization. It is assumed that his strong involvement in helping liberating Congo may have killed him.

Prime Minister Rashid Karami of Lebanon was killed in a helicopter which was rigged with a remote-controlled bomb on 1 June 1987. He was considered one of the most important political figures of Lebanon in the 20^th Century, as he fought for better Muslim representation in the Lebanese government, and for Palestinian causes.

Prime Minister Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, Pakistan – died in a plane crash on 17 August 1988. He was a military leader, a proponent for a heavily Islam-influenced Pakistan. He also is reputed of pursuing nuclear arms for Pakistan to re-establish a power balance with India, after the Bangladesh Liberation war of 1971. He also supported the Afghan Mujahideen in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

And the count goes on, for sure, as leaders frequently move about in planes and helicopters, exposing themselves to the risk of “accidents” and sabotage by political opponents – internal and external.

*

The death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi and his seven companions in the helicopter flight from the Iranian border with Azerbaijan on 19 May 2024 needs to be investigated all the way to the truth. Justice must be done and further bloodshed, or worse, avoided.

*

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

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

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

Featured image: Raisi with Ilham Aliyev at the border with Azerbaijan, hours before his death (Licensed under CC BY 4.0)

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

On 20 May 2024, New Zealand’s Health and Disability Commission handed down its decision on a case involving the death of a young New Zealander from myocarditis, inflicted by the Pfizer so-called vaccine, on 17 November 2021.

The HDC’s media release stated unequivocally that Mr. Nairn’s death was found by the Coroner to have been directly caused by the Pfizer inoculation.

Commissioner Morag McDowell concluded that the man had not been informed of the potentially serious side effects of the “vaccine” (my quotation marks), and that “failing to provide this information was a prima facie breach of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights.”

Despite this breach, the Commissioner also noted that

“none of the sources of official information [i.e., New Zealand’s governmental authorities] explicitly required vaccinators to disclose the risk of myocarditis as part of the informed consent process prior to vaccination.”

The full decision is a curious and smug piece of legerdemain on the part of McDowell, that seeks at once to cover all bases, and by so covering, to dissipate any real culpability.

On the one hand, the Commissioner feels that practitioners are obliged to exercise their own critical judgment in providing appropriate warnings and advice to those who have engaged them, and on the other hand she merely slaps the wrist of the Ministry of Health for not issuing firm and specific guidance about myocarditis in the midst of the public health crisis.

Missing from the decision, and glaringly so, is the fact that any truly adequate informed consent would have entailed communicating to recipients of the provisionally authorised Pfizer jab that safety had not and could not have been established given the absence of anything approaching long-term evaluation. And as to efficacy … well, we all know by now that despite initial claims it has prevented neither infection nor transmission, thus relegating the gene-altering intervention to a species of treatment that should never have qualified it as a bona fide vaccine in the first place.

In an irony of majestic proportions those of us who dared to advise caution about the administration of this insufficiently tested agent had our medical licences suspended as a warning shot to any other uppity doctors who might have gotten it into their crazy heads that true informed consent was a pillar of their profession.

A young man, in the prime of a hopeful life, has died, quite unnecessarily, simply because a tyrannical government had an agenda to inoculate an entire population.

That same government perpetrated deceptions about the value of masks and ‘social’ distancing, and actively suppressed any motions in support of prevention and treatment of a pathogen they worked overtime to convince us was deadlier than the bubonic plague.

I had coffee today with a family in my environs who had held out against the persuasions to be inoculated — two elderly parents and a thriving youthful son not much older than Rory Nairn. They had all contracted covid or some flu-like illness, and they had all survived, old and young.

We sipped our drinks in solidarity to health and reason and our fundamental right to the sanctity of our bodies and souls. We rued the disingenuousness of a government that had created an apartheid state and pushed their invasive medical wares upon a naive populace.

I understand that Rory Nairn never wanted a piece of the Pfizer scam. It was the government’s multi-dimensional criminality that was directly responsible for his death — in pressuring him to get the lethal agent, and in failing to inform him of its lethal potential.

No amount of mealy-mouthed bureaucratic jargon from the HDC can hide it.

*

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

Dr. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand. Visit his substack at https://newzealanddoc.substack.com/.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Vaccine Reaction

---

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

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

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

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

In Mumia’s recent encampment messages to CUNY and PENN, he spoke to roaring crowds of approving students, proclaiming that “Students who protest against injustice, against racist violence, should be celebrated, lauded, and applauded.” He encouraged the rebel youth to answer the call of history, not to bow down, to recognize the rightness of their actions, and to keep fighting for humanity. What did you think an old Panther would say, other than to urge today’s youth to “Seize the Time” and “keep on keeping on”?

Mumia’s message, coming from a maximum-security prison, an institution from which the state plans to never release him, is an intergenerational handshake, made to a new generation of youth about to learn the devastating lessons of state harassment, violence, and terror. A new generation poised to learn the difficult and sobering message of where state-defying strategies can land you.

“Think about it,” he prompts, what is the nature of a state that punishes people for protesting against a genocide?

If we think about it, what does it mean that Mumia Abu-Jamal, a former rebel youth himself, should be forced to address the encampment students through the crackling lines of globeltel prison network phone system while being held captive in an enemy death camp?

This is a moment where we cannot fail to discern our collective force, to equate the liberation of Palestine with our own, and to equate the liberation of Mumia and all political prisoners with our own.

Mumia’s first published book, Live from Death Row, in the essay “The Lost Generation” he counters the assumption that the current generation of youth is directionless. Of them he claims,

“They are not so much lost as mislaid, discarded by this increasingly racist system that undermines their inherent worth. They are all potential revolutionaries, with the historic power to transform our dull realities.”

It was true when he wrote those words in 1995, and even more true now.

We salute the student protestors and are starkly reminded that Mumia’s future, their future, our future – all of our futures are entwined. Across the generations, across national divides, we remain coterminous factors in the equation for justice.

When We Love, We Win.

When We Survive, We Win.

When We Fight, We Win.

*

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

All images in this article are from PRU

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (only available in desktop version).

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

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

Global Research Wants to Hear From You!

***

This is not the first time Redfield has been vocal in affirmatively saying he believes bird flu will be the next pandemic.

In 2022, The WinePress cited an interview appearance on the Trinitarian Broadcasting Network (TBN) where Redfield warned bird flu would be the next great pandemic, with a lethality of 10-50%, warning that the government needs to make preparing for this the number one priority.

Yeah I think we have to recognize – I’ve always said that I think the Covid pandemic was a wakeup call. I don’t believe it’s the great pandemic.

I believe the great pandemic is still in the future, and that’s going to be a bird flu pandemic for man. It’s gonna have significant mortality in the 10-50% range. It’s gonna be trouble.

And we should get great prepared for it. I do believe the pandemic risk is a greater risk of the national security of the United States more than [North] Korea, China, Russia, Iran; and we ought to start investing proportional to that national security risk so that we’re prepared.

Unfortunately we’re not more prepared today then when the [Covid-19] pandemic, when I was [the] CDC Director. And we need to make proportional investment so that we are prepared, not the least of which is enhancing our manufacturing capability.

So now that we have new technology like the mRNA technology: it’s great that I can make a vaccine in 2, 4, 6, 8 weeks. But it doesn’t help me if I can’t manufacture 330 million doses.

So, this is a serious issue. I don’t think our politicians are focused on the magnitude of this issue. This needs to be approached with a budgetary perspective measured in multiple aircraft carriers, not in the 5, 8,10 million dollar budget we spend on public health on this nation.

Moreover, in 2023 Redfield was even more adamant in an interview with The Hill, this time specifying that the ‘great pandemic’ of bird flu would be a result of gain-of-function escaping a laboratory.

I do believe the next pandemic, and we’re going to have another pandemic and I think it’s going to be the great pandemic. I consider Covid a minor pandemic, the great pandemic’s going to come.

And normally, it would come from spillover – bird flu that learns how to transmit to humans and then go to human-to-human. But I think the species barriers are very real.

But it’s much more probable that it will happen because of gain-of-function research in a laboratory and then escape and then we’re going to have a pandemic… which will be much more brutal to the world than Covid was.

I told you that the great pandemic is coming. I think it’s gonna come not from spillover, it’s going to come from gain-of-function research or intentional bioterrorism. Alright, it’s going to be a bird flu virus that is manipulated to be able to transmit human-to-human, very similar to what we saw with Covid.

You know in 2014 that laboratory published that they finally learned to take their Covid virus, and have it bind to the H2 receptor and humanize mice, and therefore it could go human-to-human.

He said at the time.

Currently the mainstream media, and national and global health organizations have been incessantly warning about the spread of bird flu in meat and dairy, to other animals and people especially.

*

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

Featured image: Birds that have been put down because of avian influenza. The virus is spread by contact between healthy and unhealthy birds. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0)