U.S. Regime Now Applies Maximum Brutality to the Ukrainian People

By Eric Zuesse, October 20, 2022

The lowest of the low in warfare is to send to the battlefront poorly trained troops and to have trailing behind them troops whose function is to shoot to kill any of those frontline poorly trained troops who try to retreat.

Pakistan in Search of Freedom and Security

By Mahboob A. Khawaja, October 20, 2022

The Pakistani ruling elite and the Generals are not open to reason and accountability. They cannot realize the imperatives of hopes and expectations of a new generation of educated and morally and intellectually competent people.

Ukrainian Military Chief Photographed with Far-right Nazi Paraphernalia

By Jason Melanovski, October 20, 2022

Ukraine’s Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, has been photographed several times in recent weeks while wearing or displaying photos and symbols associated with the far right and even neo-Nazism.

EU Foreign Policy Chief Calls ‘Europe a garden, the world a jungle’

By Drago Bosnic, October 20, 2022

On October 13, during the inauguration ceremony of the European Diplomatic Academy in Bruges, Belgium, the European Union’s foreign policy chief Josep Borrell stated that “Europe is a garden” while the (rest of the) “world is a jungle”. The remark can hardly be described as anything else but racist, given the colonialist legacy of the political West.

The Truth About ‘Trans’ – Neutralising the Powers of Creation

By Julian Rose, October 20, 2022

The creation of the Sexes is inseparable from the creation of the Universe. All of life depends upon the duality and complementarity of male/female. It is fundamental to existence itself. Does anyone think that a light bulb will illuminate without a positive and negative current to create the necessary friction?

Is China a Communist or a Capitalist Country?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, October 20, 2022

In the 1980s, the consensus among Leftists was that China was a socialist country. Debating the restoration of capitalism in China in Leftist circles was a taboo. Forty years later, sectors of the Left continue to portray China as a Communist country, despite ample evidence to the contrary.

The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan

By The Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, October 19, 2022

The Rockefellers are arguably the wealthiest and most powerful family in the history of the United States. For more than 100 years, they have shaped and directed America’s economic, financial, political, and public policy while simultaneously amassing one of the largest family empires in the modern era.

Putin Warns NATO Against ‘Global Catastrophe’

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, October 19, 2022

A limited intervention is Putin’s intent.  As I have made clear for some time, I think Putin is delusional.  The evidence is conclusive that Washington has widened the conflict and that the conflict is no longer limited except in Putin’s mind. 

How Incarceration Impacts Prisoners and Their Families’ Mental Health

By Sophia Young, October 20, 2022

Numerous studies have shown that the experience of incarceration can lead to a wealth of mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In addition, the stigma and shame associated with being incarcerated can make it difficult for individuals to reintegrate into society following their release, further exacerbating mental health issues.

Biden’s Gamble to Take Control of Europe’s Destiny. LNG Corporations and Washington “Work Hand in Glove” to Destabilize Europe’s Energy Market

By Azhar Azam, October 20, 2022

The Russian invasion of Ukraine provided a tremendous opportunity to the Biden administration to dominate Europe and the American fossil fuel industry that was “licking its lips” to hit the jackpot from the looming energy crisis. Since the outset of the war, the liquefied natural gas (LNG) corporations and Washington worked hand in glove to steal the European wallets of the European states and raise their dependence on the US.

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

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

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

***

Incarceration may be a judicial and rectification process for the criminals and convicts, but when in prison, their and their families’ mental health is severely impacted.

The effects of incarceration on mental health are far-reaching and can be devastating for both those incarcerated as well as their families.

Numerous studies have shown that the experience of incarceration can lead to a wealth of mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In addition, the stigma and shame associated with being incarcerated can make it difficult for individuals to reintegrate into society following their release, further exacerbating mental health issues.

For family members, the effects of incarceration can be just as profound. The loss of a loved one in prison can lead to feelings of grief, isolation, and anger. In some cases, family members may also experience financial hardship as a result of their loved one’s incarceration.

The toll that incarceration takes on mental health is significant and should not be underestimated. Although the United States incarceration rate has fallen in recent years, it’s clear that more work needs to be done to address the issue—more than 1.8 million Americans were incarcerated as of 2021.

With a better understanding of the effects of incarceration on mental health, we can begin to develop policies and programs that will help reduce its negative impact. In this article, we’ll explore the mental health effects of incarceration, both for those incarcerated and their families.

How incarceration affects prisoners’ mental health

Civilians face many stressors that can lead to mental health problems. For prisoners, these stressors are often magnified.

If you believe that offenders deserve punishment, then you may view these mental health problems as part of the natural consequences that come with breaking the law. But this is not an accurate or helpful way to think about the issue.

The reality is that most prisoners are not hardened criminals; instead, they are people who have made mistakes and are doing their best to rehabilitate themselves. The last thing we should be doing is compounding their problems by subjecting them to an environment that is known to cause mental health issues.

Incarceration can cause mental health problems for several reasons

First, prisoners are typically cut off from their support systems, which can lead to feelings of isolation and loneliness. Staying in touch with a loved one in jail is rife with challenges, both logistical and financial. And even if prisoners can maintain contact, the experience of being incarcerated can be so traumatic that it’s difficult for them to discuss it with their loved ones.

Second, the living conditions in many prisons are deplorable, with overcrowding, poor sanitation, and inadequate access to medical care being common complaints. Even if they’re not facing direct violence, prisoners may constantly feel on edge, leading to anxiety and stress.

Third, the routine of prison life is often monotonous and lacking in stimulation, which can lead to boredom and depression. For many prisoners, the days blend together, leaving them feeling hopeless and trapped.

Fourth, prisoners are routinely subjected to degrading and humiliating treatment, which can inflict serious psychological damage. In some cases, prisoners may be verbally abused, physically assaulted, or sexually victimized by other inmates or prison staff—leading to PTSD, anxiety, and depression.

Finally, the stigma of being incarcerated can follow prisoners long after they’re released, making it difficult for them to find employment or housing. Despite technically paying their debt to society, they often find themselves ostracized and alone on the outside. Many prisoners end up returning to the same old habits that got them incarcerated in the first place, perpetuating the cycle of crime and punishment.

How incarceration impacts families’ mental health

Aside from the prisoners themselves, no one is more affected by incarceration than their families. The loss of a loved one to prison can lead to a wide range of negative emotions, including grief, isolation, and anger.

In addition, family members often suffer financially when a loved one is incarcerated. In some cases, they may be responsible for paying the prisoner’s court-related fees. They may also have to shoulder the burden of maintaining the household on a single income. And if the prisoner is the primary caretaker, the family may need to find childcare or pay for other expenses related to their absence.

The mental health effects of incarceration don’t end there. Children with a parent in prison are more likely to experience symptoms of anxiety and depression. They may also have difficulty in school, both academically and socially. And the trauma of having a parent incarcerated can leave them at risk of developing PTSD later in life.

What can be done to help?

The cycle of incarceration and mental illness can seem impossible to break. Too often, we view prisoners as criminals and forget that they’re human beings with real emotions and needs. We need to remember that most prisoners will eventually be released back into society, so it’s in our best interest to help them rehabilitate while they’re incarcerated.

This means providing prisoners with access to mental health services, including therapy and medication. It also means improving the living conditions in prisons and ensuring that prisoners are treated with dignity and respect. Finally, it means breaking the stigma of incarceration by investing in programs that help ex-prisoners reintegrate into society.

Only by working together can we hope to break the cycle of incarceration and mental illness. But if we’re willing to put in the effort, we can make a difference in the lives of prisoners and their families.

*

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

Featured image is from AFT Media

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

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

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

***

The Facts Search for Meanings

People and nations once colonized by the European Empires remain colonized in thoughts, behavior and practices for ever. Pakistan is no exception in contemporary global affairs. Its systems of political governance, public institutions, legal systems and delivery of services if any to public are a replica of the British colonial systems.

The concept of national freedom and sovereignty was written on paper with dried ink and the masses unable to understand why there was no planned movement for nation-building with new public institutions, new systems of political governance, new and educated leadership to make the future happen out of planned ideas and ideals of the Pakistan Freedom Movement.

Today, the nation is crippled with catastrophic events of floods, insecurity and socio-economic and political exploitation.

The Pakistani ruling elite and the Generals are not open to reason and accountability. They cannot realize the imperatives of hopes and expectations of a new generation of educated and morally and intellectually competent people.

Future belongs to the new generation of educated people, not to the naive and obsolete Generals. They view “power” and “Pakistan” as their own property. The authoritarian leaders played with its destiny and future without being questioned. They are the wrong people, with wrong thinking and doing the wrong things. If there was any fair system of accountability, some of the Generals and accomplice politicians could well have faced firing squads for their crimes against the nation. Pakistan is continuously being incapacitated so much so that we lost one of our best neighbor friends – China. We, the People aspire for friendly relationships with all nations – America, the EU, Russia and China and others.

The established forces of evil and destruction are within Pakistan, not outside. Imperial doctrines of governance and control of people led to moral and intellectual decadence, repression, tyranny, conflicts and socio-economic and political miseries.

An elected legitimate government of PM Imran Khan was hurriedly dismissed by military intervention and a hoax legal judgment which violated the constitution. How can you restore normalcy in a rigged and naïve political culture of systematic corruption?

The quest for political change lacks the existence of public institutions to sustain reasoned politics, educated and intelligent leaders and proactive visions for change and adaptability to a critical future-making. The dream of a Progressive Pakistan was lost by conspiratorial Generals and accomplice wealthy landlords dating back to British colonialism.

The Generals and affluent landlords were the product of elusive manifestations rooted in longing to the British colonialism, not to Islamic thoughts and values. A snapshot of critical moment in time and history unfolds dark imagery of political governance and military coups. During the 75 years after the British Raj, Pakistan was morally, politically and intellectually dehumanized by FIVE military coups.

All coups were individualistic, conspiratorial and defied the aims and purposes of the national freedom movement. The Generals and ZA Bhutto conspired to lose East Pakistan, and India was allowed to occupy Kashmir, and we continued to lose more in socio-economic and political domains because of the dishonesty and failed leadership of Bhuttos, Sharifs and the Generals. These monsters stole billions and billions to own palaces in UK, France and Spain. The Thinking People of New Generation of Pakistanis view the Bhuttos, Zardari, Sharifs and Musharaf –  all in one slot – the most corrupt, crime riddled people who will never come to terms with reason and honesty to reflect on their own wrongdoings. They never imagined–how the present and future generations will remember them? Military generals do not build the nation or its socio-economic and political infrastructures, principles, values and standards or anything to do with future-making.  Their one-track mental microscope cannot imagine prevalent injustice, corruption and calamities unleashed by those that they collaborated to put into power.

The Nation Needs Soul-Searching

If the Generals and accomplice politicians were to realize the tensions of reasoned possibilities for a “progressive Pakistan”, they should have abandoned the primitive and redundant longings and be adaptable to change and participation of new age educated and honest people.

Most dreadful tragedies were orchestrated by design and dishonest figures. They played with its destiny and broke it as they were never part of the freedom movement and no relationship to the ideals of Pakistan.  The country was defeated by India in 1971 war as a part of conspiracy by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and General Yahya Khan. Altaf Qureshi (Editor, Urdu Digest) wrote “Skoote –Dahaka Say Purdah Uttha Hey” (1972), in which he described the details how Bhutto and Yahya Khan betrayed Pakistan and stabbed the nation and deserved firing squads but were not held accountable for their crimes. Are the Pakistanis still living in any rational denials of their own chapter of history?  (See “British Colonialism and How India and Pakistan Lost Freedom.” Global Research.org: 1/01/2022). ZA Bhutto sought help from Mrs. Indira Gandhi (PM of India) and agreed to defeat and surrender of Pakistan at Dhaka to become the next President, Martial Law administrator and chief minister. Ayub Khan had ousted him as a minister because of his conspiracy to defeat Pakistan in 1965.

Ms. Benzair Bhutto and her mother Nusrat Bhutto were alleged to be involved in the killing of General Zia ul Haq and 12 Pakistani Generals and 100 of others in a C-130 Bahawalpur plane crash, August 1988, and when she became PM, they traded-in lists of Sikh and Kashmiri freedom fighters with Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi (Lahore meeting), and thousands of them were targeted and killed by Indian security forces. Ms. Benazir Bhutto and Asif Zardari were indicted by a Swiss court on $60M money laundering crime but they still returned to political power.

Nawaz Sharif hijacked the PIA plane with General Musharraf on board and 265 or so passengers returning from Sri Lanka and wanted it to go to India. He was also involved in money laundering and twice dismissed on corruption charges, still became PM a third time. Sharifs, Ms. Bhutto and Zardari stole billions of dollars from the national treasury to buy properties in London, Paris and Spain. Ms. Bhutto and Zardari owned a palace in Dubai worth approximately $10B, and Sharif brothers have several apartment complex in London valued at $30B to $40B. Why can’t this stolen wealth be recovered to help the flood victims of Pakistan?  Why should Pakistan beg to foreign masters for$28B flood aid? In a highly corrupt culture of politics, no one dares to ask such rational questions. According to George W. Bush, General Musharraf and 12 other Generals were gifted with $2B to – “Pakistani Generals are paid” to do the job, wrote the NYT (07/2007) during the war in Afghanistan. No wonder, how Musharraf bought a $1.4 M villa in London’s suburb and allowed a retired US General to monitor the Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals. Pakistanis NEED soul-searching to realize the gravity of political corruption, national security and how the nation continued to flop in a global context.

Pakistan in search of Navigational Change

Young generations are disillusioned and are increasingly leaving Pakistan to Western countries. The brain-drain problem afflicts Pakistan adversely in socio-economic and political future-making as old and former subservient of British legacy run the country. With new generation migration, Pakistan is fast losing its best talents and energies for the present and future. In 2019, this author offered Imran Khan a logical plan for sustainable change (“Pakistan: How to change political culture of corruption and rebuild the future” Media Monitors Network, USA,2019). Most of his associates were uneducated and former loyalists of the current political opposition parties. None of them had any knowledge or experience in critical thinking, strategic planning and change or future-making. Why did Khan waste almost four years in fantasy of New Pakistan and failed to live up to his imagination. What Bruce Riedel, Brooking Institute, USA (“Battle for the Soul of Pakistan” ) former Obama’s advisor said a decade earlier, is now repeated by President Joe Biden, “most dangerous nation in the world.”

The recent floods ravaged Pakistan and devastated millions of poor masses and it was happening frequently but no one took any planned steps to protect life and habitats. There is an irresistible manifestation of new age, educated leadership to safeguard the nation, its freedom and security. But Pakistan is obsessed with political cynicism and corruption. Reason and revulsion will not restore normalcy but a moral reformatory revolution could save the future of the beleaguered nation. At the edge of reason, the turbulent Pakistan desperately needs new and honest people of educated generation to plan and reconstruct political change. Imran Khan if allowed to contest national elections has a challenge to THINK and plan for a navigational change and sustainable future-making. Pakistan urgently needs a savior, a person of proactive vision, honesty to pursue a navigational change for future-making; not Shahbaz Sharif, not Bhutto or the few Generals. The solution must come from the critical thinking hubs of the new educated generation – the intelligent Pakistanis to facilitate hope and optimism for a sustainable future of the beleaguered nation. You may find it relevant to see: “Pakistan- Leaders or Criminals” Uncommon Thought Journal, USA 2014. Under the present chaotic affairs, a new Government of National Unity should be formed under a non-partisan and non-political leader of moral and intellectual integrity for a period of two years; a New Constitution for a Presidential form of government should be framed with new public institutions under leadership of new generation of educated and honest people; and then a new election could give meaning and clarity to the purpose of democracy and to transform the ideals of a progressive legitimate functional democracy.  The Need is desperate for the Pakistani nation to think critically and see the mirror.  We ask the retired and conscientious Generals to come out and launch a peaceful march for political change and democratic stability. We ask the Ulemas / Islamic scholars to hold public protests and symbolic funerals of the corrupt leaders. What We, the people are rationalizing could be ridiculed by thugs and indicted criminals currently in power. But on the contrary those enriched with knowledge, logic of honesty and planned change for future-making will view it critically and seriously a genuine and timely pursuit negating fanaticism to ensure the national freedom, security and sovereignty of a stable Pakistan.

*

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

Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja specializes in international affairs-global security, peace and conflict resolution with keen interests in Islamic-Western comparative cultures and civilizations, and author of several publications including the latest: One Humanity and the Remaking of Global Peace, Security and Conflict Resolution. Lambert Academic Publications, Germany, 12/2019. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

***

The lowest of the low in warfare is to send to the battlefront poorly trained troops and to have trailing behind them troops whose function is to shoot to kill any of those frontline poorly trained troops who try to retreat. That is what the United States command (the “NATO command” as Russia calls it — though Ukraine isn’t a member of NATO, and all of the top-command decisions for Ukraine’s forces in this war are now being made by the U.S. Government and by no one else) of Ukraine’s war with Russia on the battlefields of Ukraine has ordered, and what Ukraine’s forces now are doing especially in the region of Kherson in Ukraine’s south.

There will be hell to pay for this by Ukraine’s President Volodmyr Zelensky when this war is over. He has become so desperate to stay in charge so that he allows this to happen to his people instead of his surrendering in order to save them from the double destitution of having warfare being imposed upon them now not only by the enemy’s forces — which is what happens in ANY war — but ALSO by ‘their own’ forces (who are actually being led by a foreign power — the U.S. Government). Before the U.S. coup in Ukraine in February 2014, the vast majority of Ukrainians considered NATO to be Ukraine’s enemy, but that switched to “friend” immediately afterward. What will be their opinion of NATO after this war is over and Ukraine’s total crackdown on its press is no longer in force? (The U.S. also has a press crackdown, but it is far milder. For example, a Google search for the pair “Ministry of Defense” and “Russia” brings up the “Ministry of Defense of Ukraine” but NOT of Russia. And though the Ministry of Defense of Russia is, in fact, live online, all that one sees of it in the United States is “403 Forbidden”, with no explanation as to whom is “forbidding” it, but that “whom” is the U.S. regime itself, acting through its various agencies, including Google — as is indicated in this and this.)

Joe Biden sits safe in his White House commandeering Ukraine to his own designs, while destroying it for the residents there.

Zelensky, for his part, is trapped, because if he were to lose the assistance that he is getting from America, he would be overthrown and torn apart by Ukrainians. For him to say no to Uncle Sam now would mean his own demise and his ending up in the history-books as having been not only a failed leader but also an evil one (which he is in any case, for his ruling on behalf of the United States, but the victor in any war always gets to write those books, and, so, ONLY by Uncle Sam’s winning its Ukrainian war against Russia will Zelensky have any remaining hope of surviving, either physically or reputationally).

Vladimir Putin had offered Biden a deal on December 17th, to stop America’s further expansion of NATO, in return for which there would be peace between Russia and The West (the U.S. Government and its vassal-nations or ‘allies’), but on January 7th, Biden (through his NATO) said no to that; and the only question remaining then was: When will Russia strike to neutralize Ukraine in order to prevent U.S. missiles from being posted in Ukraine about 300 miles away from Moscow (a five-minute missile-flight-time away from The Kremlin)? On February 24th, we got Russia’s answer: his “special military operation.”

And, now, things have come to this. At some point, either Biden or Putin will have to yield to the other. If Biden wins, then U.S. missiles becoming posted just five minutes away from The Kremlin (which is far too close for Russia to be able to launch its retaliatory missiles before Russia’s central command has been eliminated by a blitz American nuclear first-strike) will be only a matter of “when?” instead any longer of “if?”

However, if Putin wins, then America’s empire won’t be able to reach the all-encompassing global hegemony that has been its aim ever since 25 July 1945; and this Century, the 21st, will see the replacement of the international U.S.-and-allied dictatorship (America’s growing empire ever since 1945) by international leadership from Asia, and especially from Russia and China.

Both Russia and China have already made clear their condemnations of all empires, the very principle of empire, which is supremacism; and, so, they already are on record committed not to replacing existing empires, but instead as FDR was before Truman replaced him: to ending all empires and strengthening the U.N., so as to terminate imperialism itself.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Duran.

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

Featured image is licensed under the Public Domain

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

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

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

***

 

Ukraine’s Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, has been photographed several times in recent weeks while wearing or displaying photos and symbols associated with the far right and even neo-Nazism.

Zaluzhnyi’s twitter post in which he is shown wearing a bracelet with far-right insignia. [Photo: WSWS]

In one photo widely circulated on Twitter which was Zaluzhnyi’s own account posted, he can be seen walking with a gun while wearing a bracelet adorned with far-right symbols, including one symbol resembling a Nazi swastika. The bracelet is sold as a “Viking” bracelet in Ukraine and contains a number of symbols that are associated with Norse mythology and employed by far right and neo-Nazi movements worldwide.

The “Viking” bracelet Zaluzhnyi was wearing. [Photo: WSWS]

In another photo, Zaluzhnyi is shown standing in a military office with several other soldiers in front of a desk adorned with busts of OUN-B leaders and Nazi-collaborators Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych. Photos of both Shukhevych and Bandera are prominently hanging on the wall in the background. A separate photo taken in Zaluzhnyi’s office also has a bust of Bandera displayed on a table against a wall.

Zaluzhnyi with soldiers in an office, decorated with busts and portraits of Stepan Bandera and other Ukrainian fascists. [Photo: WSWS]

Supporters of the NATO-backed proxy war in Ukraine on Twitter and Western media outlets such as France24 have attempted to whitewash Zaluzhnyi’s choices of decoration by pointing out that the swastika on the bracelet is not as prominent as it appears in Zaluzhnyi’s Twitter photo. Zaluzhnyi has been depicted as a heroic figure in the Western pro-imperialist press and has even recently appeared on the cover of Time magazine. To acknowledge the role of far-right forces within Ukraine is tantamount to heresy within the corporate press, since it would expose the real character of the imperialist-backed war in Ukraine.

However, the bracelet, combined with the far-right paraphernalia openly displayed in Ukrainian military offices leaves no doubt that Zaluzhnyi is supportive of the use of far-right symbols and the veneration of Ukrainian World War II Nazi collaborators within the Ukrainian military.

The photos also clearly demonstrate the extent to which the far-right, rather than being merely a marginal element, is in fact closely linked to the highest levels of Ukrainian government and military, which themselves are in constant contact with the Biden administration.

On the same day that Zaluzhnyi posted the photo of himself wearing the far-right bracelet, he also revealed that he had just spoken with United States General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. According to Zaluzhnyi, he and Milley “match[ed] our clocks regarding the level of supply of the Ukrainian military with weapons and material.”

The photos of Zaluzhnyi associating himself openly with far-right figures and symbology also appeared on the same day that Azov Battalion fighters recently released by Moscow revealed that Azov’s Commander Denis Prokopenko had been in contact with both Zaluzhnyi and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky while being trapped within the Azovstal factory in Mariupol. According to Azov Major Bohdan Krotevych, “The whole operation of our exit was agreed to with government leadership. It was a tough operation.”

Zaluzhnyi was first appointed to his post as Commander in Chief by Zelensky in July 2021 and immediately displayed a predilection towards military escalation with Russia. In September of 2021, Zaluzhnyi permitted Ukrainian forces to open fire on Donbass separatists without having to consult first with military leadership. Later, in October of 2021, Zaluzhnyi ordered the first use of Turkish-supplied Bayraktar drones in a strike against separatist forces in Donbass. The attack drew a sharp rebuke from Moscow as the use of “foreign unmanned aerial vehicles” was clearly banned under the Minsk peace accord.

In November of 2021, Zaluzhniy made his support for the far-right public when appointed former Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh as his advisor. Yarosh previously led the Right Sector’s paramilitary formation the Ukrainian Volunteer Corps and played a leading role in carrying out Kiev’s war against the breakaway Donbass regions after the regular Ukrainian Armed Forces suffered from mass desertions and defeats. Zaluzhniy later refused to reveal the details of Yarosh’s role of advisor or of his dismissal from the post in December 2021 and it is still unclear exactly what role Yarosh played.

More recently, the city of Dnipro renamed one of its major streets after Stepan Bandera after the Mayor of the city promised Yarosh he would honor Bandera in the largely Russian-speaking city when the right time came. In September, Yarosh posted to Facebook that Ukraine should make territorial claims on several Russian regions and cities such as Belgorod, Kuban, Voronezh and continue the war into Russia to capture “Ukrainian lands.”

*

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

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

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

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

***

The Russian invasion of Ukraine provided a tremendous opportunity to the Biden administration to dominate Europe and the American fossil fuel industry that was “licking its lips” to hit the jackpot from the looming energy crisis. Since the outset of the war, the liquefied natural gas (LNG) corporations and Washington worked hand in glove to steal the European wallets of the European states and raise their dependence on the US.

In a hasty letter to Joe Biden on February 25, the country’s energy group, LNG Allies, sought the US president’s public support for ramping up domestic gas and oil production to support the allies abroad. It urged him to instruct the US Department of Energy (DOE) to immediately approve pending LNG export licenses and direct the independent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) act within six months.

Within three weeks, the DOE issued two long-term orders to authorize 0.72 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d) of LNG exports from Corpus Christi and Sabrina Pass in Texas and Louisiana to any country including Europe. A month later, the Department authorized two more long-term orders of 0.5 bcf/d of LNG exports from Golden Pass LNG and Magnolia LNG, operating in the same states.

America’s LNG export capacity is set to grow by a combined 5.7 bcf/d as three export projects – Golden Pass LNG, Plaquemines LNG and Corpus Christi Stage III – begin construction but they will not be operational before 2025. Meanwhile, ordinary Americans should be braced for the “severe impacts” of domestic gas diversion from the US in the form of high energy bills.

In a public façade, the influential gas industry wanted the Biden administration to use America’s strategic assets to help keep prices low, support international allies and move more natural gas to domestic consumers. Yet in effect, none of them cared for inflation-beaten Americans as the FERC in May approved three natural gas and LNG projects to push the country’s energy exports.

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) claimed the authorization improved the domestic natural gas infrastructure in those areas; the alliance between the gas industry and the White House to sell high-priced LNG and lock Europe dependence was clearly visible notwithstanding the action raised the heating bills of American households.

Prior to the Moscow-Kyiv war, America was already trying to dethrone Russia. Leveraging its vast influence in the continent, the US in 2021 finally managed to displace Russia and Qatar to become Europe’s largest source of LNG. This was despite the LNG imports of 13 European Union (EU) countries saw a drop of 4% from the previous year to 80 billion cubic meters (bcm), according to the European Commission (EC).

The US was already ratcheting up its LNG shipments to Europe. Per the DOE’s LNG Monthly, Washington almost doubled its LNG exports to the European Union (EU-27) and the UK from 3.4 bcf/d in November 2021 to 6.5 bcf/d in January 2022, the most shipped to Europe in a month. In January, the EC data showed a surge of 44% in the EU LNG imports from America. For 2021, the US LNG exports were estimated at more than 22 bcm with a projected value of €12 billion.

Once the war broke out, the US was best placed to ship more LNG to Europe at inflated prices. The continent is on track to refill its low natural gas inventories by switching to LNG (and coal) but at a price estimated to be more than 10 times higher than the historical average. So too the US emerged the world’s largest LNG exporter in the first half of 2022 on the back of increased LNG prices in Europe and now has the much greater room to maneuver to influence the European policies.

In March, Biden pledged to provide the EU, which bought 155 bcm of natural gas from the Kremlin in 2021, at least 15 bcm of more LNG to wean its dependence off Russia. Yet there’s a catch: the US gamble to replenish the European gas stocks with 50 bcm of further LNG by at least 2030 and take control of the continent’s destiny is a bridge too far.

According to the Refinitiv data, Washington by June had almost tripled its LNG shipments, 39 bcm of LNG, to Brussels; the expensive purchases elevates threats of economic recession in Europe that is gripped by rampant inflation, energy price spike and sluggish growth. As the US LNG is pollution-intensive over production by fracking, a technology broadly banned in the EU, a supply of 50 bcm of additional American LNG every year through the decade exposes the transatlantic commitment to climate change.

Since 2016 when the US began to export LNG, the Gulf of Mexico has been a key hub for LNG shipments abroad, most of which heads to Europe. The FERC approved several construction projects including in Texas and Louisiana; these export plants are a “lose-lose proposition” for the communities in the region, Europe and the climate for they emit large amounts of greenhouse gases with floods and hurricanes making 40% of the population across the coastline vulnerable.

Phlegmatic about Americans’ health and climate pledges, the Biden administration is rather keen to cement its status as the world’ top fossil fuel exporter on purpose: to deepen Europe’s dependence on the US. Bringing Tehran on the global market should help Brussels yet Washington is ascertaining Europeans do not heave a sigh of relief and are in need of America “even more” next year when the Russian oil flows are dried up.

Increasing Europe’s reliance on the US economy, military and culture is invariably a top American priority. Analyses that characterize the US empire as “humane” and scare the continent of America’s ability to wage war anywhere, invade any country at will and fight multiple wars simultaneously are part of a grand strategy to prevent the European economy from taking over the US and suppress its pursuit of strategic autonomy, let alone sovereignty.

The Biden administration’s gluttony to heighten the European strategic dependence on the US through a close and well-coordinated nexus between the White House and the gas industry puts America’s climate change promises on the back burner and delivers a free opportunity to itself to openly exploit the Ukraine war and elbow out Europe off the track of its strategic and economic autonomy.

But the strategy is facing a strong backlash at home where expected sharp price hikes in electricity and heating bills ahead of a harsh winter will test the inflation-battered Americans, whose raging response may be reflected in the November midterms. Europe too is feeling the pinch of the US economic pillage as the European leaders question the “great friendship.”

*

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

Azhar Azam is a private professional and writes on geopolitical issues and regional conflicts.

Featured image is from OilPrice.com

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

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

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

***

On October 13, during the inauguration ceremony of the European Diplomatic Academy in Bruges, Belgium, the European Union’s foreign policy chief Josep Borrell stated that “Europe is a garden” while the (rest of the) “world is a jungle”. The remark can hardly be described as anything else but racist, given the colonialist legacy of the political West. Worse yet, the very fact that Borrell was addressing an audience of the EU’s future diplomatic elite makes the statement even more concerning.

“Europe is a garden,” Borrell stated as part of a broader topic of building alliances to avoid conflicts and tensions with other powers and nations. “Most of the rest of the world is a jungle, and the jungle could invade the garden,” he added.

Either not realizing or caring about the gravity of his remarks, Borrell continued expanding this “garden/jungle” analogy.

“We have built a garden. Everything works. It is the best combination of political freedom, economic prosperity and social cohesion that humankind has been able to build – the three things together,” he continued.

He went on to describe the “garden” in ways that were especially offensive towards anyone not just outside of Europe, but the EU as well.

“The rest of the world [is] not exactly a garden… The gardeners should take care of it, but they will not protect the garden by building walls. A nice small garden surrounded by high walls in order to prevent the jungle from coming in is not going to be a solution. Because the jungle has a strong growth capacity, and the wall will never be high enough in order to protect the garden,” Borrell stated. “The gardeners have to go to the jungle. Europeans have to be much more engaged with the rest of the world. Otherwise, the rest of the world will invade us, by different ways and means,” he concluded.

Although Borrell probably realized that the speech was at least “problematic” and thus made an attempt to ease the rhetoric, this only backfired, as it was still supremacist, at the very least. The analogy can only be seen from the perspective of those who are allegedly “civilized” and the supposed “barbarians” waiting outside. Anyone outside of the “garden” would have no other logical choice but to come to such a conclusion. As previously mentioned, the fact that the future diplomatic elite of the EU was listening to “guidelines” like these doesn’t bode well for the bloc’s foreign policy in the upcoming decades. Naturally, showing such blatant disrespect by viewing the world as a collection of “barbarians” will certainly do no good for the relations between Brussels and the rest of the planet.

Expectedly, many other diplomats and world leaders criticized Borrell’s statements, including Nasser Bin Hassan Al-Shaikh, the Director-General of Dubai’s Department of Finance, who rightfully called the remarks a display of imperialism and racism. Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova also condemned the statement: “The ‘garden’ was built by Europe due to the barbaric attitude to the plundering of the ‘jungle’.”

It should be noted that this is certainly not the first time that high-ranking officials from the political West are giving such statements. In mid-April, during an address at the Atlantic Council, United States Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stated that anyone who refused to follow anti-Russian policies is essentially a “fence sitter”. Needless to say, this effectively included approximately 80% of the world’s population, as the vast majority of countries refused to take sides in the ongoing NATO encroachment on Russia’s western borders, which provoked Moscow’s reaction in Ukraine.

Those who suffered (and continue to suffer) under the jackboot of Western neoliberal “freedom and democracy” are precisely the countries Borrell called the “jungle”. This is particularly true for the Global South, the most exploited part of the world, which has been subjected to exploitation by the “garden”. With its invasions, (neo)colonialism, currency dominance, etc. the “garden” has been destroying much of the world for centuries.

During the (First) Cold War, it was precisely Russia that was instrumental in the liberation of the Global South. The superpower invested massive amounts of resources to help these countries. Unfortunately, after 1991, Western (neo)colonial overlords returned in full force. But, this time, it was “different”. The masters were bringing “freedom and democracy”, yet another euphemism for colonialism.

In addition, the world should make no mistake that the “garden” treats other Europeans no better than the world itself. NATO bombed and dismantled European nations as well, such as Serbia/Yugoslavia before it went on to destroy countless other countries around the world. Although the “garden” has been suffering one humiliating defeat after another in the last nearly 10 years, as evidenced by the failed invasion of Syria, the failed takeover of Crimea and the defeat in Donbass, the botched invasion of Venezuela, the humiliating defeat in Afghanistan and the ongoing defeat in Ukraine, the damage inflicted is still quite severe.

If the world is indeed a “jungle”, it’s in such a state only thanks to the sheer magnitude and scale of death and destruction brought upon by the “garden”. And even if it was the case that the “jungle” wanted to take revenge for approximately half a millennium of brutal crimes of the “garden”, who could blame it?

*

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

Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

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

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

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

***

The creation of the Sexes is inseparable from the creation of the Universe. All of life depends upon the duality and complementarity of male/female. It is fundamental to existence itself. Does anyone think that a light bulb will illuminate without a positive and negative current to create the necessary friction?

To remove this fundamental duality from the biological composition of human life is to nullify the creative spark of existence itself. It must be right at the head of the list of crimes against humanity.

Those who promote the sterilisation of the human race follow the same path as those who have already sterilised a large portion of the natural diversity of the planet, via industrial pharmaceutically controlled ‘farming’.

Bees and other insects that cross pollinate the male and female plant kingdoms – and therefore fertilise the fruits that follow – are a threatened species. Almost wiped-out by industrialist’s addiction to playing God with toxic anti-life weaponry.

This attack on ‘cross fertilisation’ has now moved-on to become a direct attack on ‘fertilisation’ per se. It includes an attempt to deny children the guidance necessary to enable them to avoid being trapped into sexually crippling themselves, thereby deleting their ability to grow-up as whole creative human beings.

It would appear that the prerogative of some is to understand ‘freedom’ as the right to escape from the biological integrity of one’s bodily existence. Which, in effect, means to escape from the inherent wisdom of one’s Creator. And the means to this end?  To render one’s biological condition ‘neuter’; an abstract notion coming from outside the laws of nature.

This notion, that it is both possible and desirable to be neither boy nor girl, neither male nor female, but something undefined in between can only have come about through a deeply perverse and purposeful top-down indoctrination process.

Well, we know something about this. In 1969, at a gathering of pediatricians in Pitsburg USA, a certain doctor Richard Day stood-up and communicated a remarkable polemic about the future of humanity which he asked the attendant doctors not to take notes about. However one doctor, Lawrence Dunegan, defied this call and managed to jot-down the basic story.

What he recorded is now a famous document which accurately described the precise plans/agenda of The New World Order cabal for the years ahead. One of Dr Day’s key statements was “We are going to make boys and girls the same.”

Making boys and girls the same is a process emanating from the Transhuman school now being promoted as part of The Great Reset of the World Economic Forum and its director Klaus Schwab.

The Great Reset will ‘re-set’ the sex of humankind to be ‘sexless’. Or to persuade males to become females and females to become males. Its aim is to contribute to depopulation goals by ensuring that no more procreation is possible for anyone other than the elite cabal who are to retain the privilege of having children via physical intercourse.

This ‘re-set’ has already been pronounced by Schwab’s leading advisor, Israeli Professor Yuval Noah Harari, who recently stated outright “We will create non organic humans, we will do better than God.” This view is not unique to Harari, having recently re-emerged via the thinking and writing of futurist and ‘singularity’ exponent Ray Kurzweil.

The promotion of a ‘Trans species’ is giving us a view of the darkest territory of the mind. The mind of the Luciferian/Masonic initiate.  This is the agenda for the deliberate dehumanisation of human kind. And it is now going public because its initiators clearly believe they can ‘reset’ the social, moral and ethical map of the world. This includes the social, ethical and spiritual evolution of humanity.

Dispensing with the laws of the Universe and replacing them with a goal of biological sterility, is an agenda coming from ‘the other side’. By this I mean, coming from the reversed consciousness of the despisers of humanity. Demonic forces.

But Schwab’s team has worked-out a way of selling this bleak future under the guise of offering ‘freedom’ to youth to do the cool/fashionable thing of the era, to become LGBT ‘non-biological’ in the name of exercising choice at an age when one has no basis for exercising such a choice.

At a point when one is entering the age of puberty one has one’s first sense of the vastness of human potential. A profoundly important and often unsettling moment in all our lives. A time of discovering what it means to be male and female and how society expects one to behave. At this time in life it is quite easy to be enticed into a self harming mode, out of an irrational urge to be nonconformist.

Many parents of such youth seem devoid of any will or instinct to direct their offspring along a road of health and sanity. While doctors and physicians offer the disfiguring surgery and debilitating drugs as though they were a routine medical procedure, exhibiting no ethical or moral fibre to resist the horror of what the Cabal expects of them – or the fees involved in performing the mutations.

The children, for they are such, think they are making this decision; but their unformed minds have been poisoned and stolen from them just at the point when they are at their most vulnerable and open. The psychological development of many is already disturbed and distorted by constant use of ‘must have’ mobile phones, the use of which their seemingly oblivious parents have failed to control.

One has an inescapable sense that the apocalypse is not the future, but the present. A whole raft of humanity is allowing itself to become a vector for a programmed descent into a torture chamber devised and run by the princes of darkness.

A number of those on the brink of being operated on have been persuaded not to go ahead, thank God. Some have spoken-out and said how hugely relieved they are that they were helped and saved from the tragic sterile journey which lay in wait for them. One can only hope that their testimonies are heard by others too confused to know which way to turn. By teachers and councillors whose professions are supposed to be founded on responsible counceling of the young.

How could anyone with a heart and a modicum of self respect possibly withdraw their guidance from highly vulnerable young people drifting and frightened within the present sea of abject confusion and corruption?

The New World Order is the father of The Great Reset. It is a prison camp run by soulless entities who resemble humans.

Each step of its manifestation is composed of a seemingly high ideal:

• ‘a universal vaccine’ for all ‘pandemics’. 
• ‘Zero carbon’ to end ‘global warming’.
• ‘Laboratory food’ to end ‘environmental exploitation’. 
• ‘A digital currency’ to prevent ‘fraud’.
• A ‘central electromagnetic surveillance system’ to ‘watch over’ all areas of one’s life.
• A ‘microchip under the skin’ for ‘convenient’ banking/shopping operations.

And now ‘Trans’ people, to prove the fact that it’s you’re ‘right’ to decide your sex, and not God’s. God, after all, might have got it wrong.

The creation of a non biological human race is absolutely central to the Transhumanist agenda. It is readily admitted as such by Klaus Schwab and Yuval Noah Harari. They genuinely believe that they – and their artificial intelligence engineers – can ‘do a better job than God’.

The supposed ‘removal of pain’ is a further component of this exercise. Much of society is already conditioned to to feel it can’t live without convenience and is increasingly averse to any form of hardship. In this ‘you can have everything’ supermarket of life, pain, hardship and creative effort can all be averted by a pill, an operation or a vaccination to neutralise the offending part of one’s DNA.

Aldous Huxley warned of this some eighty years ago. Most ignored that warning and are still ignoring it, pathologically conditioned as they are by the spellbinding techniques of the psychopaths that run the show.

So don’t ever laugh-off that which goes under the title ‘Trans’. Don’t think you’re going to be a ‘liberal free thinker’ by going along with the covert and overt destruction of the Divine Masculine and the Divine Feminine.

Offer instead profound thanks for the genius that brought such duality into existence, and join the resistance with all those who have learned to recognise just how deeply cunning and manipulative is the Saturnian cult that is out to capture the life force of our planet’s beloved children.

*

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

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, writer, international activist, entrepreneur and holistic teacher.  He is President of The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside and Co-founder of the Hardwick Alliance for Real Ecology HARE. His latest book ‘Overcoming the Robotic Mind – Why Humanity Must Come Through’ is strongly recommended reading for this time: see www.julianrose.info. 

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from 21st Century Wire

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

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

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

***

 

 

 

Sports stars are often adored like dumb show animals, suitably pretty, happily disposed to the cause they are paid for.  For the FIFA Men’s World Cup being held in Qatar next month, football can count on the face of former English star David Beckham as its prized animal.  This month, the principle-free player signed a 10-year contract worth £150 million to be the state’s culture and tourism ambassador.

For a Gulf state with an appalling human rights record, be it in terms of mistreating migrant workers, discriminating against women and criminalising homosexuality, this was quite a coup.  In a promotional advert wearily lasting 30 minutes, Beckham happily does what he is paid to do.  “People in Qatar are very proud of their culture,” he states.  Tacky observations abound.  “The modern and traditional fused to create something really special.”  The video also gives him a chance to strut any number of fashion labels.

In Blighty, this did not go down too well, at least in some quarters of chat land.  The breakfast talk circuit lit up with claims from Good Morning Britain presenter Robert Rinder that Beckham’s conduct had put “money before morals”.  (When was it different?)  “There should be basic requirements before you are entitled to [host such tournaments] and that’s not just about LGBTQ.  It’s about the 6,500 workers who died, it’s about the fact that Beckham’s daughter Harper would not be able to continue with her education [if she was Qatari] without the permission of a male relative.”

Fine stuff indeed, except that the organisation behind football, FIFA, was never one to quibble about the ethics and governing principles of the host nations.  The perennial hope of its officials is that moral ill-temper eventually cools off and loses interest.  Once the ball starts to move, the ethicists go on leave.  The fans, television networks and dignitaries will turn up, wolf down and guzzle what’s on offer.

Beckham, for his part, is playing the role of a cultural trainee, a vessel keen to be filled with the profound revelations of his hosts.  “David believes,” the insufferable Sun reports, “in Qatar’s commitment to progress and that the World Cup – the first to be held in the Arab world – can effect significant positive change.”  Not only did he believe “in the power of football to bridge differences but, crucially, has seen the progress on issues that matter.”

The paper also reports that the former player consulted his wife, Victoria, before signing the contract, which is about as banal as you can get.  The only thing of interest there is that Victoria was a member of The Spice Girls, who “famously sung about ‘girl power’”.

What, then, has been done in terms of actual protest?  At the coal face – or, in this case, the stadium face – are the workers who have every right to demand their wages and to protest maltreatment that has been a habitual feature of the kafala system.  It is them who face to lose the most.

Strikes have taken place protesting wage theft or the late payment of wages.  More are scheduled to take place. These tend to come in stages, with workers initially refusing to leave their accommodation and go to work, followed by protests on the street, sometimes in front of government buildings or the headquarters of the relevant company.

Human Rights Watch has noted the retaliation of the Qatari authorities to such measures.  A number of those participating in a strike that took place on August 14 were detained and returned – voluntarily, of course.  They had violated “Qatar’s public security laws”.

Other forms of protest are not quite so convincing.  Some seem to resemble a form of crude marketing, a case of booming self-promotion.  Instead of glossy, Qatar standard bearer Beckham, Denmark prefers the most modest of objections.  Their team uniforms will go monochrome.  The manufacturer, Hummel, offers a choice of three.  One is black.  “The colour of mourning,” we are told by the company.  “We support the Danish national team all the way, but that isn’t the same as supporting Qatar as a host nation.”

On its Instagram account, the company expressed its wish to “send a dual message”.  The kits were inspired by Euro 92, when Denmark won the European Football Championship, and a desire to “protest against Qatar and its human rights record.”  In a scarcely credible assertion, Hummel did not wish “to be visible during a tournament that has cost thousands of people their lives.”  Only, they will be, in the form of supplying kit to the Danish national team.

The response from the bombastically named Qatar Supreme Committee for Delivery and Legacy fumed at Hummel’s measures, disputing the assertion that “this tournament has cost thousands of people their lives.”  The Committee also rejected “the trivialising (of) our genuine commitment to protect the health and safety of the 30,000 workers who built FIFA World Cup stadiums and other tournament projects.”

Committee members need not worry.  Whatever the grumbling, attendance from country teams is bound to be comprehensive and complete.  Gone are the days when the sporting boycott, albeit unevenly applied, was used.  In its modern iteration, such protest, as sports columnist Cathal Kelly observes, is mightily nuanced and ineffectual.  “You don’t like how something is done?  Then find a way to turn a sad situation into an opportunity for self-aggrandizement.”

Kelly, after discussing the Danish example, notes the even more feeble response from Dutch manager Frank de Boer.  The Dutch team, de Boer promises, will wear “One Love” rainbow armbands during the matches.  “This is the biggest statement we can make.”  This does little to remove the stigma of complicity and collaboration: after the disagreement, the show continues as hypocrisy reigns in majesty.

Having done their bit to express stroppy disagreement, the Danish team and other competitors will still grace the stadia built in near-slave labour conditions; participate in activities supported by conditions tantamount to much the same; and enjoy the receptions and hospitality of a state with a brutal penal system.  The games will still be broadcast, the stream of revenue uninterrupted.  As with church attendees happy to part with a coin donation after a service, all can leave happy that a troubled conscience can rest as the world continues along its dark, unchanging way.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image: This is the logo owned by FIFA for 2022 FIFA World Cup. (Licensed under Fair Use)

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

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

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

***

Western leaders hopefully have “enough intelligence” to avoid a direct military confrontation with Russia, Vladimir Putin said. See this.

This report shows that the length of time taken by the limited operation in Donbass has not limited the conflict but greatly expanded it by giving the West plenty of time to get thoroughly involved.  Yet from his most recent statements Putin intends to insist on a limited conflict. 

This insistence explains what Putin means when he says it is necessary to understand what one means by the word “defeat” in the context of the Ukraine crisis.  Putin is saying that he has no intention of defeating Ukraine.  His aim is limited to driving Ukraine’s forces out of Donbass.  In other words, this is not a Russian invasion of Ukraine.  It is a police action in Donbass.  That it is a limited police action and not an invasion of Ukraine is why the Kremlin had no ready reserves and had to call a limited mobilization to have enough soldiers to finish the job.

A limited intervention is Putin’s intent.  As I have made clear for some time, I think Putin is delusional.  The evidence is conclusive that Washington has widened the conflict and that the conflict is no longer limited except in Putin’s mind. 

So the West is fighting a real war while Putin confines Russia’s participation in the war to a limited police action.  Putin’s recent statement that there is no need for any further Russian attacks on Western Ukraine’s infrastructure proves that he does not see Russia fighting a real war.  This sounds like a denial of the reality on Putin’s part.  As I see it, Putin’s position invites more provocations and more war-widening. The inability of the Kremlin to put a strong foot down is leading to wider conflict.

*

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

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

Featured image is from The Last Refuge

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

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

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

***

Gifts from the Fire: American Ceramics from the Collection of Martin Eidelberg, is worth a visit, at a minimum to appreciate the five pieces (four vases and a pitcher) from the hands of George E. Ohr (1857-1918), the self-proclaimed “Mad Potter of Biloxi.” While there are other pieces that capture the eye – the extraordinary glazes, and incandescent surfaces of Adelaide Also Robineau’s Three Vases (1905) come to mind – Ohr’s work is the jewel of the show.

His pottery was the most advanced, rebellious, fruitful, and original of its time – and there is little wonder Ohr is now regarded as prefiguring “modern art movements as diverse as Dada and Abstract Expressionism.” 

His use of traditionally functional forms that he then transformed into something completely afunctional (if not dysfunctional), was genuinely avant-garde. His deformed, abject, and unusable pots defied prevailing norms of order and beauty; pitchers and bowls could not do what was traditionally expected of them. “Their distorted shapes seem to provoke existing canons of beauty, while at the same time creating a strange new beauty of their own.”

“When I discovered the potter’s wheel,” Ohr recalled “I felt it all over like a wild duck in water.” While his early wares were characterized by Victorian ornamentation, Ohr soon began to manipulate traditional ceramic shapes into more sculptural, less utilitarian forms and apply boldly irregular glazes. He was nothing if not a master of the entire ceramic process: from digging the clay to marketing his wares. Part of what distinguishes Ohr and places him on a higher tier relative to contemporaries is that his pottery excels as pottery. That is, for Ohr, the ceramist creates shapes the way a poet creates verses. “My creations…” he would insist, “have an intrinsic value,” as shape.  His ceramics are not simply a vehicle for something else; not merely a ceramic canvas for a painting, molding or design. Or even a glaze. Ohr would create “some of the most original and remarkable patinas in the history of American pottery” – and although Ohr labored hard over his glazes, he would also emphasize that he was first and foremost, “a shape creator and maker.”

Image: Vase ca. 1897–1900 (Source: The MET)

In the exhibited pieces, we get a sense of the techniques and decorative motifs that Ohr introduced into art pottery. For example, crumpling, which makes the pot look as though it were falling or sagging, collapsing on itself, melting. A wonderful example of this is Ohr’s Vase (1897-1900), a piece that also highlights how impossibly thin Ohr manipulated his pottery. The unconventional surface of Vase is another marvel, with its glazed over blisters and intricate mottling, an exacting process “meticulously controlled” by the artist. It is yet another example of Ohr embracing features that would ordinarily be regarded as an accident, or mistake, and making it a valuable part of the ceramist’s repertoire.

Ohr also made use of ruffling, twisting, tubing and surface snakes. There are two examples of such snakes on display: including Vase (1897-900), with its curlicue “ears” for handles, and a mouth-like serpent near the base; and the strange, erotically charged and wonderfully twisted Pitcher (1896) with its delicately curling lips, and serpent extending upward from the base of the handle to the mouth. These snakes, so evocative of the snakes and serpents of Chinese vases, are not meant as realistic renditions. They tend to either encircle the pot once or, as in the case here, rest atop a curvature in the form. We also find Ohr using long, thin, snake-like handles on two vases, both of which reveal just how serenely elegant, impeccably balanced, and graceful his pottery could be.

Ohr remains timely because his work remains radical – its rebelliousness, its hooliganism (to use a word borrowed from the painter Adrien Ghenie) is still palpable. Clement Greenberg famously argued that the essence of modernism lies “in the use of the characteristic methods of a discipline to criticize the discipline itself, not in order to subvert it but in order to entrench it more firmly in its area of competence.”

This made Kant the quintessential, or the first real modernist thinker, because “he was the first to criticize the means itself of criticism.” Manet became the Kant of modernist painting – that is, the first to create “[m]odernist pictures by virtue of the frankness with which they declared the flat surfaces on which they were painted.” By extension, George Ohr is likewise the first modern ceramist. He subjects pottery to the same critical self-evaluation; reassessing its conditions of possibility not in terms of what can satisfy a practical interest, but solely in terms of the medium itself, the possibilities inherent within this material stuff, this clay.

That it should have taken somewhat longer for ceramics to come into its own is perhaps understandable given its close association with utilitarian objects, and hence its exclusion from the realm of fine art. With Ohr, ceramics unequivocally declares its autonomy, and its indifference to functionality, if not outright opposition. For the first time, pottery is about pottery, and not about what use that, at least in principle, could be made of it. Ohr is the father of modernist ceramics – precisely in Greenberg’s sense: Ohr turns ceramics back upon itself. Ceramics is now a process of critical self-reflection: he uses the traditional methods of ceramics to criticize the discipline itself, precisely to clarify and enrich ceramics’ special province, namely, shape.

Largely ignored during his lifetime, George Ohr produced some of the most advanced and daring ceramics of the nineteenth century. His pottery would seem to confirm Baudelaire’s suggestion that “strangeness forms an integral part of beauty.” One of the important features of his work is that he does not turn his back on the ugly, the grotesque, the deformed. With Ohr, the work of art is explicitly rendered an abject and misshapen thing. In Pottery, Politics, Art (2003) Richard Mohr writes: “[Ohr’s] rending and splattering… suggest a deeper signification…The theme is that of abjection.” This affinity for the rejected, the refuse, for what would ordinarily be judged as irredeemably flawed, and without value, is also, for Ohr, the outspoken socialist, a kind of metaphor for solidarity with the marginalized or subjugated groups of society, those that are brutalized and damaged by an inhumane system.

Gifts from the Fire: American Ceramics from the Collection of Martin Eidelberg will be on view at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, in New York City, through October 30, 2022.

*

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

Sam Ben-Meir is an assistant adjunct professor of philosophy at City University of New York, College of Technology. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The MET

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

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

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

***

There are signs that Turkey and Syria may be ready to repair their relationship after a decade of conflict has divided the two neighbors.

Turkish media Hurriyet reported on September 16 that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had expressed a wish to meet Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. According to Reuters on September 15, Hakan Fidan, head of Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization, had met multiple times with his counterpart, Syrian National Security Bureau Chairman Ali Mamlouk, in Damascus in recent weeks, according to four sources.

Mikhail Bogdanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, said on September 19, that Moscow is willing to organize a meeting between Syrian Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu.

Steven Sahiounie of MidEastDiscourse interviewed Alptekin Dursunoğlu to gain insight into what might be happening between Damascus and Ankara. 

Dursunoğlu has written

“Strategic Alliance the Story of Turkey-Israel Relations” (2000), “4 World Wars and the Middle East” (2005),”Batting Zero in Syria” (2012), “Proxy War in Syria” (2014), “The Middle East of the New Ottoman” (2016), and is currently writing “The Lost Narrative of the Resistance”.

*

Steven Sahiounie (SS): We have recently seen the Turkish leadership attempting to approach the Damascus government, even though Turkey was one of the main supporters of the US-NATO attack on Syria for ‘regime change’.  In your opinion, why does Turkey want to repair their relationship with Syria?

Alptekin Dursunoğlu (AD):  Turkey’s reversal stance is not limited to Syria. Turkey also reversed its stance against Egypt, the Emirates, the Saudis, and Israel. The Erdogan regime explains its efforts to improve relations with these countries with Turkey’s economic, political or regional strategic interests. However, the main reason for the “normalization” trend with Syria seems to be related to the interests of the AKP, not Turkey’s. There is a serious economic crisis in Turkey before the elections and the majority of the people think that the Syrian refugees are causing a decrease in their share of the shrinking economic cake. Some opposition parties also claim that Syrian refugees share the income of the people. They blame the AKP, which brought Syrian refugees to Turkey, for the current economic crisis.

Although it is a newly established party and does not say anything about any problem other than refugees, the racist Victory Party (Zafer Partisi) was the 6th party in the polls conducted in September. It is an important indicator that voters who said they would vote for the Victory Party in the next election also stated that in the previous election, 14% voted for AKP, 24% for CHP, 17% for Good Party (İyi Parti), and 9% for MHP. This social support that the Victory Party gained only through propaganda against Syrian refugees led other parties to turn their election propaganda into sending refugees back.

You are right, the armed groups in Syria have received the greatest support from the Erdogan regime since the beginning of the war. Except for the permission of the Syrian state, no foreign country has a military presence in Syria, apart from the United States and Turkey. Turkey appoints administrators and bureaucrats to the regions it controls in Syria, and opens institutions like its own land there. It pays the armed groups and uses them against the Syrian state. Although Turkey considers the armed groups that control Idlib as terrorists, it uses its bilateral relations with Russia to prevent a military operation that will bring Idlib under Syrian control.

Considering all these realities, it is difficult to see the Erdogan regime’s steps towards rapprochement with Damascus as steps in line with the common interests of the two states. Yes, it is in the interest of the two states that Turkey establishes good relations with Syria; but this was true not only now, but also ten years ago. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the Erdogan regime, which has set Syria on fire for ten years, will come closer to Damascus before the elections considering the two countries’ common interests. However, there is a realistic reason to establish propaganda superiority against opposition parties with the rhetoric “I am normalizing with Damascus, I will send the refugees back” in the elections.

SS: We have heard media reports that the AKP ruling party of the Turkish government ordered the Syrian opposition to leave Turkey by the end of 2022.  In your view, are these reports correct?

AD: The only source of this news is Sputnik Arabic service. It is a little hard to believe this news unless there is confirmation from the Syrian opposition or the MIT on this issue. Because Turkey’s expulsion of the Syrian opposition from the country may be the last step in normalizing relations with Damascus. There is no credibility in Turkey’s dismissal of the Syrian dissidents, even though there has not been even official public communication between the two sides and there is no agreement yet. However, it is clear that the opposition, who reacted negatively to Turkey’s steps towards rapprochement with Damascus, angered the Turkish authorities. MİT may have given harsh warnings to the Syrian opposition. They may have been asked to make statements that were not opposed to Ankara’s steps towards rapprochement with Damascus, but expelling them from the country does not seem to be a credible claim at all.

SS: After sending thousands of Radical Islamic terrorists to Syria through Turkey, how will Turkish President Erdogan be able to get rid of those terrorists?

AD: Of course, there is no such salvation. I think this is the main reason why Turkey insists on not allowing it, even though it is in Ankara’s interest at least as much as Damascus’s for Syria to regain its territorial integrity. At the moment, there is no foreign presence in Syria that Damascus does not want, other than America and Turkey. Syria’s territorial integrity is not in America’s interest. On the other hand, its military presence in Syria and its support for armed groups do not impose a financial burden on the United States. Because America plunders Syria’s oil and grain and both make money from oil and grain smuggling and fund the armed groups it supports.

However, the same is not true for Turkey. Turkey is feeding more than 4 million refugees scattered all over the country. In Kilis and Antakya, the refugee population has exceeded the local population. Turkey pays salaries to the personnel it employs and the armed groups it supports in the regions it controls in Syria from its own budget. Turkey meets the needs of the refugees it keeps here to prevent them from coming to Turkey. On the other hand, Turkey’s presence on Syrian territory does not bring security to Turkey, on the contrary, it gives the United States an excuse to protect Syrian Kurds. The PKK and its components, which Turkey considers terrorists, are bordering Turkey under American auspices. Because of all these, it is in Turkey’s interest, both economically and in terms of security, that Syria regains its territorial integrity and Ankara’s normalization with Damascus.

However, Turkey cannot achieve this normalization, which is in its own interest; because it does not know what to do with the thousands of armed militants and tens of thousands of family members that it has armed and used against Syria for ten years. Let’s assume that with the normalization trend with Syria, they are forgiven and accepted by Damascus. Well, what about the tens of thousands of “terrorists” in Idlib, who are on Turkey’s own terrorist list? For example, members of the Turkistan Islamic Party, both Syrian and non-Arab, and militants from the Caucasus formed a population of nearly 10,000 in Idlib. There is no choice but to kill them all or to be accepted by Syria, Turkey, Russia, or China. All of these options are next to impossible. When Turkey set fire to Syria in 2012, it thought it would only be a little affected by the smoke in its neighbor, and that the smoke would be temporary. But now Turkey is suffocating from the smoke of the fire it lit.

SS: Presently, there are heavy battles in the north of Syria between Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, formerly Jibhat al-Nusra, and other Radical Islamic terrorist groups.  In your opinion, has Turkey played a role in the divisions between the armed groups?

AD: I do not think that any military development in Idlib and the regions under Turkey’s control can take place without the knowledge and approval of Turkey.

SS: The AKP, the ruling party in Turkey, is aligned with the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, and have begun dialog with Damascus, and President Erdogan has said he is willing to meet with President Assad.  In your opinion, does this mean that Qatar, which is also aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood ideology, will also attempt to reach out to Damascus?

AD: Turkey had fought with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates over the Brotherhood and Qatar. The Brotherhood is now trashed, and Qatar has made peace with the Saudi axis, thus paving the way for Turkey to normalize with Egypt, the Saudis, and the Emirates. Ankara also has economic and mafia reasons for getting closer to the Saudis and Emiratis; however, Turkey had a partnership with Qatar in relations with these three countries. If Ankara’s rapprochement with Damascus is merely Erdogan’s electoral maneuver, Qatar may not accompany it.

*

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

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

---

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

**Voices from Syria**

Author: Mark Taliano

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

Year: 2017

Product Type: PDF File

List Price: $6.50

Special Offer: $5.00 

Click to order.

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

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

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

***

President Xi Jinping’s 1h45min speech at the opening of the 20^th Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing was an absorbing exercise of recent past informing near future. All of Asia and all of the Global South should carefully examine it.

The Great Hall was lavishly adorned with bright red banners. A giant slogan hanging in the back of the hall read, “Long Live our great, glorious and correct party”.

Another one, below, functioned like a summary of the whole report:

“Hold high the great flag of socialism with Chinese characteristics, fully implement Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, carry forward the great founding spirit of the party, and unite and struggle to fully build a modern socialist country and to fully promote the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”

True to tradition, the report outlined the CPC’s achievements over the past 5 years and China’s strategy for the next 5 – and beyond. Xi foresees “fierce storms” ahead, domestic and foreign. The report was equally significant for what was not spelled out, or left subtly implied.

Every member of the CPC’s Central Committee had already been briefed about the report – and approved it. They will spend this week in Beijing studying the fine print and will vote to adopt it on Saturday. Then a new CPC Central Committee will be announced, and a new Politburo Standing Committee – the 7 that really rule – will be formally endorsed.

This new leadership line-up will clarify the new generation faces that will be working very close to Xi, as well as who will succeed Li Keqiang as the new Prime Minister: he has finished his two terms and, according to the constitution, must step down.

There are also 2,296 delegates present at the Great Hall representing the CPC’s over 96 million members. They are not mere spectators: at the plenary session that ended last week, they analyzed in-depth every major issue, and prepared for the National Congress. They do vote on party resolutions – even as those resolutions are decided by the top leadership, and behind closed doors.

The key takeaways

Xi contends that in these past 5 years the CPC strategically advanced China while “correctly” (Party terminology) responding to all foreign challenges. Particularly key achievements include poverty alleviation, the normalization of Hong Kong, and progress in diplomacy and national defense.

It’s quite telling that Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who was sitting in the second row, behind the current Standing Committee members, never took his eyes off Xi, while others were reading a copy of the report on their desk.

Compared to the achievements, success of the Xi-ordered Zero-Covid policy remains highly debatable. Xi stressed that it has protected people’s lives. What he could not possibly say is that the premise of his policy is to treat Covid and its variants as a U.S. bioweapon directed against China. That is, a serious matter of national security that trumps any other consideration, even the Chinese economy.

Zero-Covid hit production and the job market extremely hard, and virtually isolated China from the outside world. Just a glaring example: Shanghai’s district governments are still planning for zero-Covid on a timescale of two years. Zero-Covid will not go away anytime soon.

A serious consequence is that the Chinese economy will most certainly grow this year by less than 3% – well below the official target of “around 5,5%”.

Now let’s look at some of the Xi report’s highlights.

Taiwan: Beijing has started “a great struggle against separatism and foreign interference” on Taiwan.

Hong Kong: It is now “administered by patriots, making it a better place.” In Hong Kong there was “a major transition from chaos to order.” Correct: the 2019 color revolution nearly destroyed a major global trade/finance center.

Poverty alleviation: Xi hailed it as one of three “major events” of the past decade along with the CPC’s centenary and socialism with Chinese characteristics entering a “new era”. Poverty alleviation is the core of one of the CPC’s “two centenary goals.”

Opening up: China has become “a major trading partner and a major destination for foreign investment.” That’s Xi refuting the notion that China has grown more autarchic. China will not engage in any kind of “expansionism” while opening up to the outside world. The basic state policy remains: economic globalization. But – he didn’t say it – “with Chinese characteristics”.

“Self-revolution”: Xi introduced a new concept. “Self-revolution” will allow China to escape a historical cycle leading to a downturn. And “this ensures the party will never change.” So it’s the CPC or bust.

Marxism: definitely remains as one of the fundamental guiding principles. Xi stressed, “We owe the success of our party and socialism with Chinese characteristics to Marxism and how China has managed to adapt it.”

Risks: that was the speech’s recurrent theme. Risks will keep interfering with those crucial “two centenary goals”. Number one goal was reached last year, at the CPC’s 100^th anniversary, when China reached the status of a “moderately prosperous society” in all respects (xiaokang, in Chinese). Number two goal should be reached at the centenary of the People’s Republic of China in 2049: to “build a modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced and harmonious.”

Development: the focus will be on “high-quality development”, including resilience of supply chains and the “dual circulation” economic strategy: expansion of domestic demand in parallel to foreign investment (mostly centered on BRI projects). That will be China’s top priority. So in theory any reforms will privilege a combination of “socialist market economy” and high-level opening, mixing the creation of more domestic demand with supply-side structural reform. Translation: “Dual-circulation” on steroids.

“Whole-process democracy”: that was the other new concept introduced by Xi. Translates as “democracy that works”, as in rejuvenating the Chinese nation under – what else – the CPC’s absolute leadership: “We need to ensure that people can exercise their powers through the People’s Congress system.”

Socialist culture: Xi said it’s absolutely essential “to influence young people”. The CPC must exercise ideological control and make sure the media fosters a generation of young people “who are influenced by traditional culture, patriotism and socialism”, thus benefitting “social stability”. The “China story” must go everywhere, presenting a China that is “credible and respectable”. That certainly applies to Chinese diplomacy, even the “Wolf Warriors”.

“Sinicise religion”: Beijing will continue its drive to “Sinicise religion”, as in “proactively” adapting “religion and the socialist society”. This campaign was introduced in 2015, meaning for instance that Islam and Christianity must be under CPC control and in line with Chinese culture.

The Taiwan pledge

Now we reach the themes that completely obsess the decaying Hegemon: the connection between China’s national interests and how they affect the civilization-state’s role in international relations.

National security: “National security is the foundation of national rejuvenation, and social stability is a prerequisite of national strength.”

The military: the PLA’s equipment, technology and strategic capability will be strengthened. It goes without saying that means total CPC control over the military.

“One country, two systems”: It has proven to be “the best institutional mechanism for Hong Kong and Macau and must be adhered to in the long term”. Both “enjoy high autonomy” and are “administered by patriots.” Xi promised to better integrate both into national strategies.

Taiwan reunification: Xi made a pledge to complete the reunification of China. Translation: return Taiwan to the motherland. That was met with a torrent of applause, leading to the key message, addressed simultaneously to the Chinese nation and “foreign interference” forces: “We will not renounce the use of force and will take all necessary measures to stop all separatist movements.” The bottom line: “The resolution of the Taiwan issue is a matter for the Chinese people themselves, to be decided by the Chinese people.”

It’s also quite telling that Xi did not even mention Xinjiang by name: only by implication, when he stressed that China must strengthen the unity of all ethnic groups. Xinjiang for Xi and the leadership mean industrialization of the Far West and a crucial node in BRI: not the object of an imperial demonization campaign. They know that the CIA destabilization tactics used in Tibet for decades did not work in Xinjiang.

Shelter from the storm

Now let’s unpack some of the variables affecting the very tough years ahead for the CPC.

When Xi mentioned “fierce storms ahead”, that’s what he thinks about 24/7: Xi is convinced the USSR collapsed because the Hegemon did everything to undermine it. He won’t allow a similar process to derail China.

In the short term, the “storm” may refer to the latest round of the no holds barred American war on Chinese technology – not to mention free trade: cutting China off from buying or manufacturing chips and components for supercomputers.

It’s fair to consider Beijing keeps the focus long-term, betting that most of the world, especially the Global South, will move away from the U.S. high tech supply chain and prefer the Chinese market. As the Chinese increasingly become self sufficient, U.S. tech firms will end up losing world markets, economies of scale, and competitiveness.

Xi also did not mention the U.S. by name. Everyone in the leadership – especially the new Politburo – is aware of how Washington wants to

“decouple” from China in every possible way and will continue to provocatively deploy every possible strand of hybrid war.

Xi did not enter into details during his speech, but it’s clear the driving force going forward will be technological innovation linked to a global vision. That’s where BRI comes in, again – as the privileged field of application for these tech breakthroughs.

Only this way we can understand how Zhu Guangyao, a former vice minister of finance, may be sure that per capita GDP in China in 2035 would at least double the numbers in 2019 and reach $20,000.

The challenge for Xi and the new Politburo right away is to fix China’s structural economic imbalance. And pumping up debt-financed “investment” all over again won’t work.

So bets can be made that Xi’s third term – to be confirmed later this week – will have to concentrate on rigorous planning and monitoring of implementation, much more than during his previous bold, ambitious, abrasive but sometimes disconnected years. The Politburo will have to pay way more attention to technical considerations. Xi will have to delegate more serious policymaking autonomy to a bunch of competent technocrats.

Otherwise, we will be back to that startling observation by then Premier Wen Jiabao in 2007: China’s economy is “unstable, unbalanced, uncoordinated and ultimately unsustainable”. That’s exactly where the Hegemon wants it to be.

As it stands, things are far from gloomy. The National Development and Reform Commission states that compared to the rest of the world, China’s consumer inflation is only “marginal”; the job market is steady; and international payments are stable.

Xi’s work report and pledges may also be seen as turning the usual Anglo-American geopolitical suspects – Mackinder, Mahan, Spykman, Brzezinski – upside down.

The China-Russia strategic partnership has no time to lose with global hegemonic games; what drives them is that sooner rather than later they will be ruling the Heartland – the world island – and beyond, with allies from the Rimland, and from Africa to Latin America, all participating in a new form of globalization. Certainly with Chinese characteristics; but most of all, pan-Eurasian characteristics. The final countdown is already on.

*

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

This article was originally published on Strategic Culture Foundation.

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

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

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

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

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

***

 

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

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

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

***

Have you heard of the book titled The Real Anthony Fauci by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.?

If not, it wouldn’t surprise me. Every major social media outlet banned it.

Bookstores and libraries boycotted it. And the mainstream media fought tooth and nail to make sure you didn’t learn about it. And when they couldn’t completely censor it, they wrote hit pieces against Robert Kennedy, Jr., himself!

Despite these vicious attacks, Kennedy’s book became a bestseller with more than 1,000,000 copies sold in less than a year! In fact, it rocketed to #1 on Amazon and landed on the bestseller lists of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and Publisher’s Weekly!

Now Jeff Hays Films has turned this best-selling book into a spellbinding documentary. It’s called The Real Anthony Fauci: The Movie.

And you can watch it ENTIRELY FREE starting October 18th!

Click here to watch the film.

*

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

Featured image is from the author

The Rise and Fall of the Great Reset — Professor Arthur Noble

By Rodney Atkinson, October 19, 2022

The brainless leaders of the West have fallen headlong for the concealed totalitarianism of Klaus Schwab’s global takeover agenda. Only the word ‘world’ in the disingenuous description ‘World Economic Forum’ (WEF) is accurate but was clearly designed to present Schwab’s criminal global and globalist intentions in a deceptively positive light.

Think Twice Before Calling the Cops: The Deadly Cost of Police Welfare Checks

By John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead, October 19, 2022

Think twice before you call the cops to carry out a welfare check on a loved one. Especially if you value that person’s life. Particularly if that person is disabled, mentally ill, elderly, autistic, hearing impaired, suffering from dementia, or might have a condition that hinders their ability to understand, communicate or immediately comply with an order.

What Is the EU?

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, October 19, 2022

The need to unite Europe grew understandably out of the devastation left behind after two catastrophic world wars. There is clear evidence, both in the successive European treaties themselves and in pronouncements by the would-be designers of Europe, that the European Union was intended from the outset as a gigantic confidence trick that would eventually hurtle the nations of Europe into economic, social, political, and religious union whether they liked it or not.

V-Safe Database Confirms COVID Jab Hazards

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, October 19, 2022

V-Safe, a database managed and monitored by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is a voluntary “after vaccination health checker” deployed to collect data on those who got the COVID jab. For the past 15 months, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) have fought a legal battle to get the CDC to release the V-Safe data.

Demonstrations in Support of Recent Coup in Burkina Faso

By Abayomi Azikiwe, October 19, 2022

There have been two military coups in the West African state of Burkina Faso since January as attacks by rebel groupings are fueling anxiety over national security concerns.

America’s Diabolic Plan to Subjugate and Break Up Russia

By Chaitanya Davé, October 18, 2022

We in America are led to believe that the allied forces led by Dwight Eisenhower were major factors in the defeat of Hitler’s Nazi Germany. This is a blatant lie. It was Russia, who was mainly responsible for defeating Hitler’s Germany. Russia had lost 26 million soldiers in that war while America had lost 419,400. Russia was allied with Europe and America until the end of World War-II. Then how did Russia become the adversary and a foe?

Decline and Fall of Western Civilization. Philip Giraldi

By Philip Giraldi, October 18, 2022

Europe will surely sink or swim in the upcoming year or two as soaring energy costs wreck economies and force major dislocations, a fate perhaps to be shared by a level of government debt and spending combined with a loss of any national purpose that will together initiate an irreversible decline in the United States.

Organize Your Community in Response to the Global Assault. Partial Shutdown of the Economy, On the Edge of Nuclear War

By Emanuel Pastreich, October 18, 2022

The decision of the Russian Federation to annex the Donbas region of the Ukraine, combined with the decision of the Ukraine to apply for membership in NATO, and for elements in the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations to support this haphazard, dangerous and thoughtless action, has brought us to the edge of nuclear war, or at least that it’s the impression we are given.

Time Magazine Is Right: Russia Isn’t as Isolated as Some in the West May Like to Think

By Andrew Korybko, October 18, 2022

Far from being “isolated”, close to half of humanity refused to condemn Russia during the latest UN vote, while the overwhelmingly vast majority of the global population is represented by governments that have defied the Golden Billion’s illegal sanctions.

Why Not Simply Abolish NATO?

By Prof Rodrigue Tremblay, October 18, 2022

As of now, it is a fact that the U.S. government and the American foreign affairs nomenklatura see NATO as an important tool of American foreign policy of intervention around the world. Since many American politicians do not anymore support de facto the United Nations as the supreme international organization devoted to maintaining peace in the world, a U.S.-controlled NATO would seem to be, in their eyes, a most attractive substitute to the United Nations for providing a legal front for their otherwise illegal offensive military undertakings around the world.

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

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

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

***

“This should have never happened. We shouldn’t be living in a society where you call for help and be killed.”— Mother of Damian Daniels, who was shot by police during a wellness check

Think twice before you call the cops to carry out a welfare check on a loved one.

Especially if you value that person’s life.

Particularly if that person is disabled, mentally ill, elderly, autistic, hearing impaired, suffering from dementia, or might have a condition that hinders their ability to understand, communicate or immediately comply with an order.

According to an investigation by The Washington Post, cops sent out on welfare checks ended up shooting or killing the very people they were supposed to assist in at least 178 cases over the course of three years.

Image is from Davis Vanguard

Atatiana Jefferson was neither disabled, mentally ill, elderly, autistic, hearing impaired, suffering from dementia. The 28-year-old Fort Worth resident was merely awake at 2:30 am, playing video games with her 8-year-old nephew in a house with its lights on and the front door open.

A neighbor, noticing the lights and open door, asked police to do a welfare check on the household. Instead of announcing themselves at the front door, police crept quietly around the house. Hearing noises outside, Jefferson approached her bedroom window to investigate.

Seeing Jefferson through the window, police yelled, “Put your hands up! Show me your hands!” Within seconds of issuing that order and without identifying themselves, police fired a single shot. Jefferson died on the scene.

Atatiana Jefferson’s death is yet one more grim statistic to add to that growing list of Americans—unarmed, impaired or experiencing a mental health crisis—who have been killed by police trained in the worst-case scenario and thus ready to shoot first and ask questions later.

The officer who fired the shot claimed he did so because he perceived “a threat.”

Be warned: to the armed agents of the America police state, we are all potential threats.

At a time when growing numbers of unarmed people have been shot and killed for just standing a certain way, or moving a certain way, or holding something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun, or igniting some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety, even the most benign encounters with police can have fatal consequences.

For those undergoing a mental health crisis or with special needs whose disabilities may not be immediately apparent, the dangers posed by these so-called wellness checks are even greater.

For example, Walter Wallace Jr.—a troubled 27-year-old black man with a criminal history and mental health issues—died in a hail of bullets fired by two police officers who clearly had not been adequately trained in how to de-escalate encounters with special needs individuals.

Wallace wasn’t unarmed—he was reportedly holding a knife when police confronted him—yet neither cop attempted to use non-lethal weapons on Wallace, who appeared to be in the midst of a mental health crisis. In fact, neither cop even possessed a taser. Wallace, fired upon fourteen times, was pronounced dead at the hospital.

Gay Plack, a 57-year-old Virginia woman with bipolar disorder, was killed after two police officers—sent to do a welfare check on her—entered her home uninvited, wandered through the house shouting her name, kicked open her locked bedroom door, discovered the terrified woman hiding in a dark bathroom and wielding a small axe, and four seconds later, shot her in the stomach.

Four seconds.

That’s all the time it took for the two police officers assigned to check on Plack to decide to use lethal force against her (both cops opened fire on the woman), rather than using non-lethal options (one cop had a Taser, which he made no attempt to use) or attempting to de-escalate the situation.

The police chief defended his officers’ actions, claiming they had “no other option” but to shoot the 5 foot 4 inch “woman with carpal tunnel syndrome who had to quit her job at a framing shop because her hand was too weak to use the machine that cut the mats.”

This is what happens when you indoctrinate the police into believing that their lives and their safety are paramount to anyone else’s: suddenly, everyone and everything else is a threat that must be neutralized or eliminated.

In light of the government’s ongoing efforts to predict who might pose a threat to public safety based on mental health sensor data (tracked by wearable data such as FitBits and Apple Watches and monitored by government agencies such as HARPA, the “Health Advanced Research Projects Agency”), encounters with the police could get even more deadly, especially if those involved have a mental illness or disability.

As Steve Silberman writes for The New York Times “Anyone who cares for someone with a developmental disability, as well as for disabled people themselves [lives] every day in fear that their behavior will be misconstrued as suspicious, intoxicated or hostile by law enforcement.”

Indeed, disabled individuals make up a third to half of all people killed by law enforcement officers. People of color are three times more likely to be killed by police than their white counterparts. If you’re black and disabled, you’re even more vulnerable.

A study by the Ruderman Family Foundation reports that “disabled individuals make up the majority of those killed in use-of-force cases that attract widespread attention. This is true both for cases deemed illegal or against policy and for those in which officers are ultimately fully exonerated… Many more disabled civilians experience non-lethal violence and abuse at the hands of law enforcement officers.”

For instance, Nancy Schrock called 911 for help after her husband, Tom, who suffered with mental health issues, started stalking around the backyard, upending chairs and screaming about demons. Several times before, police had transported Tom to the hospital, where he was medicated and sent home after 72 hours. This time, Tom was tasered twice. He collapsed, lost consciousness and died.

Image is from Post and Courier

In South Carolina, police tasered an 86-year-old grandfather reportedly in the early stages of dementia, while he was jogging backwards away from them. Now this happened after Albert Chatfield led police on a car chase, running red lights and turning randomly. However, at the point that police chose to shock the old man with electric charges, he was out of the car, on his feet, and outnumbered by police officers much younger than him.

In Georgia, campus police shot and killed a 21-year-old student who was suffering a mental health crisis. Scout Schultz was shot through the heart by campus police when he approached four of them late one night while holding a pocketknife, shouting “Shoot me!” Although police may have feared for their lives, the blade was still in its closed position.

In Oklahoma, police shot and killed a 35-year-old deaf man seen holding a two-foot metal pipe on his front porch (he used the pipe to fend off stray dogs while walking). Despite the fact that witnesses warned police that Magdiel Sanchez couldn’t hear—and thus comply—with their shouted orders to drop the pipe and get on the ground, police shot the man when he was about 15 feet away from them.

In Maryland, police (moonlighting as security guards) used extreme force to eject a 26-year-old man with Downs Syndrome and a low IQ from a movie theater after the man insisted on sitting through a second screening of a film. Autopsy results indicate that Ethan Saylor died of complications arising from asphyxiation, likely caused by a chokehold.

In Florida, police armed with assault rifles fired three shots at a 27-year-old nonverbal, autistic man who was sitting on the ground, playing with a toy truck. Police missed the autistic man and instead shot his behavioral therapist, Charles Kinsey, who had been trying to get him back to his group home. The therapist, bleeding from a gunshot wound, was then handcuffed and left lying face down on the ground for 20 minutes.

In Texas, police handcuffed, tasered and then used a baton to subdue a 7-year-old student who has severe ADHD and a mood disorder. With school counselors otherwise occupied, school officials called police and the child’s mother to assist after Yosio Lopez started banging his head on a wall. The police arrived first.

In New Mexico, police tasered, then opened fire on a 38-year-old homeless man who suffered from schizophrenia, all in an attempt to get James Boyd to leave a makeshift campsite. Boyd’s death provoked a wave of protests over heavy-handed law enforcement tactics.

In Ohio, police forcefully subdued a 37-year-old bipolar woman wearing only a nightgown in near-freezing temperatures who was neither armed, violent, intoxicated, nor suspected of criminal activity. After being slammed onto the sidewalk, handcuffed and left unconscious on the street, Tanisha Anderson died as a result of being restrained in a prone position.

And in North Carolina, a state trooper shot and killed a 29-year-old deaf motorist after he failed to pull over during a traffic stop. Daniel K. Harris was shot after exiting his car, allegedly because the trooper feared he might be reaching for a weapon.

These cases, and the hundreds—if not thousands—more that go undocumented every year speak to a crisis in policing when it comes to law enforcement’s failure to adequately assess, de-escalate and manage encounters with special needs or disabled individuals.

While the research is relatively scant, what has been happening is telling.

Over the course of six months, police shot and killed someone who was in mental crisis every 36 hours.

Among 124 police killings analyzed by The Washington Post in which mental illness appeared to be a factor, “They were overwhelmingly men, more than half of them white. Nine in 10 were armed with some kind of weapon, and most died close to home.”

But there were also important distinctions, reports the Post.

“This group was more likely to wield a weapon less lethal than a firearm. Six had toy guns; 3 in 10 carried a blade, such as a knife or a machete — weapons that rarely prove deadly to police officers. According to data maintained by the FBI and other organizations, only three officers have been killed with an edged weapon in the past decade. Nearly a dozen of the mentally distraught people killed were military veterans, many of them suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of their service, according to police or family members. Another was a former California Highway Patrol officer who had been forced into retirement after enduring a severe beating during a traffic stop that left him suffering from depression and PTSD. And in 45 cases, police were called to help someone get medical treatment, or after the person had tried and failed to get treatment on his own.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, as might be expected, has thus far continued to immunize police against charges of wrongdoing when it comes to use of force against those with a mental illness.

In a 2015 ruling, the Court declared that police could not be sued for forcing their way into a mentally ill woman’s room at a group home and shooting her five times when she advanced on them with a knife. The justices did not address whether police must take special precautions when arresting mentally ill individuals. (The Americans with Disabilities Act requires “reasonable accommodations” for people with mental illnesses, which in this case might have been less confrontational tactics.)

Where does this leave us?

For starters, we need better police training across the board, but especially when it comes to de-escalation tactics and crisis intervention.

A study by the National Institute of Mental Health found that Crisis Intervention Team-trained officers made fewer arrests, used less force, and connected more people with mental-health services than their non-trained peers.

As The Washington Post points out:

“Although new recruits typically spend nearly 60 hours learning to handle a gun, according to a recent survey by the Police Executive Research Forum, they receive only eight hours of training to de-escalate tense situations and eight hours learning strategies for handling the mentally ill. Otherwise, police are taught to employ tactics that tend to be counterproductive in such encounters, experts said. For example, most officers are trained to seize control when dealing with an armed suspect, often through stern, shouted commands. But yelling and pointing guns is ‘like pouring gasoline on a fire when you do that with the mentally ill,’ said Ron Honberg, policy director with the National Alliance on Mental Illness.”

Second, police need to learn how to slow confrontations down, instead of ramping up the tension (and the noise).

In Maryland, police recruits are now required to take a four-hour course in which they learn “de-escalation tactics” for dealing with disabled individuals: speak calmly, give space, be patient.

One officer in charge of the Los Angeles Police Department’s “mental response teams” suggests that instead of rushing to take someone into custody, police should try to slow things down and persuade the person to come with them.

Third, with all the questionable funds flowing to police departments these days, why not use some of those funds to establish what one disability-rights activist describes as “a 911-type number dedicated to handling mental-health emergencies, with community crisis-response teams at the ready rather than police officers.”

Increasingly, funds are being directed towards technologies that support predictive policing and behavioral and health surveillance. For instance, HARPA (a healthcare counterpart to the Pentagon’s research and development arm DARPA) would take the lead in identifying and targeting “signs” of mental illness or violent inclinations among the populace by using artificial intelligence to collect data from Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home.

It wouldn’t take much for these nascent predictive programs to give rise to healthcare versions of red flag gun laws, which allows the government to preemptively take action against individuals who may be perceived as potential threats. Where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts and the police.

In the end, while we need to make encounters with police officers safer for people with suffering from mental illness or with disabilities, what we really need—as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries—is to make encounters with police safer for all individuals all across the board.

*

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

This article was originally published on The 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 is by Tim Donovan / Flickr

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

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

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

***

The European Union (the EU) is officially characterized by a purposeful diffusion of political authority between supranational and intergovernmental institutions. Based on the idea of (quasi)shared leadership, it formally relies on a delicate institutional balance guarding declared equality between its ever more diverse members and managing potential and real tensions between the more and less populated and developed states. Such tensions are present in any federal construct and have been a key concern since the “original six” (EU6) founded the (West) European Coal and Steel Community (the ECSC) in 1951 (the Benelux, West Germany, France, and Italy).

The formal facts and official EU’s propaganda about itself is something that we all know and we agree that is an admirable and amazing concept, that all these different people (27 Member States today) from such colorful nations decided to live together with the main purpose of having a big and united community with trying to live in peace and comfort and to enjoy the developed medical and educational systems. It is all we always read in the press and see on TV, but there were no public releases about a single wrong or questionable decision or action taken by the EU.

So, what is more, interesting now: let’s have a look at some different opinions. I do not want to write about a “reality” because reality is such a subjective and questionable field, but I would like to draw the attention of a critical approach to the studies on the EU and European integration within the economic-political umbrella of the EU.

All theoreticians of the European unification within the umbrella of post-WWII (West)European Communities (today the EU) will stress four crucial points of the importance of this process:

1. It will bring to an end the millennial war-making between major European powers.
2. A unified Europe will anchor the world power system in a polycentric structure with its economic and technological might and its cultural and political influence (probably together with the rise of the Pacific states).
3. It will preclude the existence of any hegemonic superpower, despite the continuing military and technological pre-eminence of the USA.
4. European unification is significant as a source of institutional innovation that may yield some answers to the crisis of the nation-state.[i]

As a matter of very fact, European unification after WWII grew from the convergence of alternative visions, conflicting interests between nation-states, and between different economic and social actors. The very notion of Europe, as based on a (quasi) common identity, as highly, however, questionable. Nevertheless, the European identity, historically, was racially constructed against “the others”, the “barbarians” of different kinds and different origins (Arabs, Muslims, Turks, and today Russians), and the current process of unification is not different in this sense.

The unification was made from a succession of defensive political projects around some believed common interest (for instance, the Russian “threat” after the Cold War 1.0 and especially the 2014 Crimean crisis followed by the Russian humanitarian intervention in East Ukraine in 2022) among participating nation-states. The process of unification, therefore, was aimed at defending the participating countries against perceived “threats” in all of these cases, however, the final goal was primarily political but the means to reach this goal were, mainly, economic measures. As another matter of fact, from the very start of the process of European unification after WWII, NATO provided the necessary military umbrella.

Historically, the European debate about competing visions of the integration process after WWII was three-folded:

1. The technocrats who originated the blueprint of a united Europe (particularly the French Jean Monnet) dreamed of a federal state which practically meant the accumulation of considerable influence and power in the hands of the European central bureaucracy in Brussels, Strasburg, and Luxemburg.
2. The President Ch. De Gaulle (1958−1969) emphasized the opinion concerning the transfer of sovereignty to be known as intergovernmental and, therefore, it was placing the European wide-decisions in the hands of the Council of heads of executive powers from each Member State. De Gaulle tried to assert European independence vis-à-vis the USA and this is why France vetoed twice in 1963 and 1967 the British application to join the EEC considering that the UK’s close ties to the USA would jeopardize the European autonomous initiatives.
3. Indeed, the UK represented the third vision of European integration focusing on the development of a free trade area without conceding any significant political sovereignty. When Great Britain joined the EC (together with Ireland and Denmark) in 1973, after de Gaulle’s departure, this economic vision of the European integration (in fact, the EFTA) became predominant for about a decade.

Nevertheless, the original winning plan of Jean Monnet was from the very beginning to create a federal European supranational state – the United States of Europe into which will be merged the majority of the European nations including all the time extremely Eurosceptic Great Britain which finally left the EU on January 1^st, 2022 (the Brexit). This new superstate popularly called United Europe will have one Parliament, one Court of Justice, a single currency (the Euro), a single Government (today known as the European Council with its “Politbureau” the European Commission), single citizenship and one flag as the external attribute of the statehood.

That has been the plan all along. However, those who favor it knew well that the overwhelming majority of people from Europe would never sincerely accept European Unification in such a form. They would never willingly surrender their freedoms and national identities to become just a province of the European superstate as, in fact, a geopolitical project originally designed against the Soviet Union and its East European satellite states during the Cold War 1.0. So, what did the pro-European politicians in order to realize their geopolitical plan? They simply conspired to keep the truth from the people.

Now, the focal question became: What is the real truth behind the European Union?

The need to unite Europe grew understandably out of the devastation left behind after two catastrophic world wars. There is clear evidence, both in the successive European treaties themselves and in pronouncements by the would-be designers of Europe, that the European Union was intended from the outset as a gigantic confidence trick that would eventually hurtle the nations of Europe into economic, social, political, and religious union whether they liked it or not. The real nature of the final goal – a federal superstate like the United States of Europe – was deliberately concealed and distorted. It was to be released in small doses, to condition those who would never have accepted it until it would be too late for the whole process to be reversed or crucially changed.

*

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

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a Former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Note

[i] Featherstone K., Radaelli C. M., The Politics of Europeanisation, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2003; Cini M.,European Union Politics, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Featured image is from the author

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

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

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

***

V-Safe, a database managed and monitored by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is a voluntary “after vaccination health checker” deployed to collect data on those who got the COVID jab. For the past 15 months, the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) have fought a legal battle to get the CDC to release the V-Safe data

The V-Safe data confirms suspicions that the COVID jabs are dangerous in the extreme

Of the 10 million people enrolled in V-Safe, 7.7% (770,000 people) required medical care after getting the shot and 25% (2.5 million people) missed work or school or suffered a serious side effect that affected their day-to-day life

The V-Safe data also shows a massive immune reaction signal. Four million people — 40% — reported joint pain. Two million, or 20%, reported “moderate” joint pain and 400,000, 4%, classified the pain as “severe”

The formula the CDC uses to trigger a safety signal is seriously flawed, as the more dangerous a vaccine is, the less likely it is that a safety signal will be triggered. Still, even using that flawed formula, “death” meets all three safety signal criteria and should have been flagged, yet the CDC has taken no action. Congress has a duty to investigate the CDC’s failure to monitor safety

*

In an October 4, 2022, Fox News interview, civil rights attorney Aaron Siri, legal counsel for the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN), shared shocking V-Safe data obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention after multiple legal demands.

For more than 15 months, the CDC fought to not release any of these data. ICAN had to file two lawsuits and multiple appeals to get the CDC to hand it over, and when you see the data, you understand why.

What Is V-Safe?

By now, many know about the existence of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), a publicly available database for vaccine adverse event reports, jointly managed by the CDC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

V-Safe¹ is another database managed and monitored by the CDC. It’s a voluntary “after vaccination health checker” deployed to collect data on those who got the COVID jab.

Anyone in the United States can enroll in V-Safe, using their smartphone, after receiving any dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Parents can also enroll their underage children to keep tabs on health effects. During the first week after each dose, V-Safe will send you a daily text message asking for details on your health and well-being. After that, check-ins are sent out on an intermittent basis.

What Does V-Safe Show?

So, what does the V-Safe data, which the CDC was so reluctant to release, actually show? Are the COVID jabs as harmless as they’re claimed to be? Far from it.

As detailed by Siri, out of the 10 million people enrolled in V-Safe, 7.7% (770,000 people) required medical care after getting the shot and 25% (2.5 million people) missed work or school or suffered a serious side effect that affected their day-to-day life.

As noted by Siri, these numbers are extraordinary. One of the key messages we were given was that while COVID was not a significant threat to all people, getting the shot would limit the number of hospitalizations, deaths and days missed from work due to infection.

Well, we now see that 25% of those who got the shot ended up missing work or school because of the side effects, and 7.7% needed medical care. That’s staggering, and completely nullifies the CDC’s argument that everyone should get the shot, whether they’re in a high-risk category or not, and whether they’ve already had COVID-19 or not.

Massive Immune Reaction Signal

The V-Safe data also show a massive signal with regard to the jab causing an adverse immune reaction. Four million people, out of the 10 million — 40% — reported joint pain. Two million, or 20%, reported “moderate” joint pain and 400,000, or 4%, classified the pain as “severe.”

As noted by Siri, joint pain is often a sign of an immune reaction and could be cause for concern when it occurs after vaccination, especially when you consider that the shots were supposed to protect the elderly, who already tend to have joint problems.

The V-Safe database also reveals that even though fewer doses of Moderna were registered, it’s mRNA shot accounts for a larger portion of negative effects, compared to Pfizer’s jab.

ICAN has now built a searchable dashboard of this V-Safe data.² In the video below, Albert Benavides (who goes by the name Welcome the Eagle 88), an RCM expert, data analyst and auditor, provides a tour and overview of how to use the dashboard, including some of its strengths and weaknesses.

Why Did the CDC Fight to Keep V-Safe Data Hidden?

In an October 5, 2022, Substack article, Steve Kirsch commented on the V-Safe data dump:³

“V-Safe is a voluntary safety monitoring program put in place by the CDC to monitor adverse reactions after people take a vaccine. The V-Safe data shows that 33.1% of the people who got the vaccine suffered from a significant adverse event and 7.7% had to seek professional medical care.

These are extraordinary numbers. They clearly show the vaccines are unsafe, that the CDC deliberately hid this information from the American public, and that the drug companies falsified the data in the trials … the CDC is not protecting the American people. They are protecting the manufacturers of the vaccines.”

As noted by Kirsch, side effects could be either under- or overestimated in V-Safe, or both, as some might ignore V-Safe requests to answer questions, and others may only sign up or be incentivized to fill out the questionnaire if they suffer a problem.

Additionally, the options for reporting a side effect are predefined and very generic, so people might be experiencing effects that didn’t fit any of the predefined categories of injury. Importantly, death is not reportable to V-Safe, as dead people cannot use their phones. So, we have no way of knowing how many of these 10 million registered V-Safe users have died.

However, “Whether the rates in V-Safe is over-reported or under-reported is a red herring,” Kirsch says. “The issue that should concern everyone is the CDC concealed all the V-Safe data from everyone the entire time.”

In addition to spending taxpayer dollars to prevent the release of this information — which we have every right to — the CDC also stopped promoting use of V-Safe around May 2021, mere months into the COVID jab rollout. As noted by Kirsch, this was probably because “it became crystal clear that it was accumulating data that showed the vaccines were unsafe.”

CDC Ignored Clear ‘Death’ Signal

In an October 3, 2022, article,⁴ Kirsch also points out that the formula the CDC uses to trigger safety signals — described in its VAERS standard operating procedures manual⁵ — is “seriously flawed.” Could that be intentional as well?

In July 2021, Matthew Crawford published a three-part series^6,7,8 on how the CDC was hiding safety signals. In August 2021, Kirsch also informed the agency of these problems, but was, of course, ignored. Still, “even using their own flawed formula, ‘death’ should have triggered a signal,” he writes. Yet the CDC did not notify the public of what they’d found. Here’s an excerpt from Kirsch article:⁹

“If you want objective proof of total ineptitude by the CDC and the medical community in monitoring the safety of the COVID vaccines, this is the article you’ve been waiting for. We use their numbers and their own algorithm and show that it should have triggered a safety signal for ‘death.’

There is no way they can argue their way out of this one … We need look no further than the vaccine safety signal monitoring formula¹⁰ used by the CDC to prove our point …

The formula the CDC uses for generating safety signals is fundamentally flawed; a ‘bad’ vaccine with lots of adverse events will ‘mask’ large numbers of important safety signals … Let me summarize the key points for you in a nutshell:

PRR [proportional reporting ratio] is defined on page 16 in the CDC document¹¹ as follows …

A ‘safety signal’ is defined on page 16 in the CDC document as a PRR of at least 2, chi-squared statistic of at least 4, and 3 or more cases of the AE [adverse event] following receipt of the specific vaccine of interest. This is the famous ‘and clause.’ Here it is from the document:

Only someone who is incompetent or is deliberately trying to make the vaccines look safe would use the word ‘and‘ in the definition of a safety signal. Using ‘and’ means that if any one of the conditions isn’t satisfied, no safety signal will be generated. As noted below, the PRR will rarely trigger which virtually guarantees that most events generated by an unsafe vaccine will never get flagged.

The PRR value for the COVID vaccines will rarely exceed 1 because there are so many adverse events from the COVID vaccine because it is so dangerous (i.e., B in the formula is a huge number) so the numerator is always near zero. Hence, the ‘safety signal’ is rarely triggered because the vaccine is so dangerous.”

A Fictitious Example

Using a fictitious vaccine as the example, Kirsch goes on to explain how an exceptionally dangerous vaccine will fly under the radar and not get flagged, thanks to the CDC’s flawed formula:¹²

“Suppose we have the world’s most dangerous vaccine that causes adverse events in everyone who gets it and generates 25,000 different adverse events, and each adverse event has 1,000 instances.

That means that the numerator is 1,000/25,000,000 which is just 40 events per million reported events. Now let’s look at actuals for something like deaths. For all other vaccines, there are 6,200 deaths and 1 million adverse events total.

Since 40 per million is less than 6,200 deaths per million, we are not even close to generating a safety signal for deaths from our hypothetical vaccine which killed 1,000 people in a year … The point is that a dangerous vaccine can look very ‘safe’ using the PRR formula.”

Calculating Death Signal for COVID Jab

Next, Kirsch calculates the PRR (proportional reporting ratio) for death for the COVID jab, using VAERS data and the CDC’s definitions and formula.

As of December 31, 2019, there were 6,157 deaths and 918,717 adverse events total for all vaccines other than the COVID shot. As of September 23, 2022, there were 31,214 deaths and 1.4 million adverse events total for the COVID jabs. Here’s the formula as explained by Kirsch:¹³

“PRR = (31,214/1.4e6) / (6,157/918,717) = 3.32, which exceeds the required threshold of 2. In other words, the COVID vaccine is so deadly that even with all the adverse events generated by the vaccine, the death signal did not get drowned out!

But there is still the chi-square test. Chi-square test results were 18,549 for ‘death,’ which greatly exceeds the required threshold of 4. The CDC chi-square test is clearly satisfied for the COVID vaccine. Because the death signal is so huge, it even survived the PRR test.

This means that even using the CDCs own erroneous … formula, all three criteria were satisfied:

A safety signal should have been generated but wasn’t. Why not? … Does anyone care? Hundreds of thousands of American lives have been lost due to the inability of the CDC to deploy their own flawed safety signal analysis …

It’s been known since at least 2004 that using reporting odds ratio (ROR) is a better estimate of relative risk than PRR.¹⁴ I don’t know why the CDC doesn’t use it.”

CDC Cannot Claim It Didn’t Know

The CDC is responsible for monitoring both VAERS and V-Safe, and between these two databases, there’s no possible way they could ever say they didn’t know the shots were harming and killing millions of Americans.

The CDC also has access to other databases, including the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED), which (before it was intentionally altered¹⁵) showed massive increases in debilitating and lethal conditions, including a tripling of cancer cases.¹⁶

The findings in these databases have never been brought forward during any of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meetings or the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meetings, at which members have repeatedly voted to authorize the jabs to people of all ages, including infants and pregnant women.

If the CDC was in fact monitoring these databases, as required, there’s simply no way they could have continued to authorize these shots based on the data. Is that why these data were never reviewed? Probably. ACIP and VRBPAC members, for whatever reason, simply didn’t want to know the truth. But the CDC has known all along, and there’s no excuse for not sharing and acting on that data.

Help Spread the Word

The media are ignoring all of this — the V-Safe data and the CDC’s failure to act on a clear safety signal (and the signal being death, of all things!), even when using a formula that was flawed from the start. So, spread the word. Everyone needs to know these facts. It’s not speculation, it’s the CDC’s own data.

The CDC needs to explain why they spent our tax dollars to fight the release of the V-Safe data for 15 months, and why they didn’t halt the shots when a “death” signal was evident. The mainstream press, members of Congress, the medical community and Universities also need to explain why they refuse to investigate these CDC data. To that end, here are a few suggestions for how you can help:

*

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

Notes

¹ CDC V-Safe

² ICANdecide.org V-Safe Database

³ Steve Kirsch Substack October 5, 2022

^{4, 9, 12, 13} Steve Kirsch Substack October 3, 2022

^5, 10, 11 CDC VAERS Standard Operating Procedures January 29, 2021

⁶ Rounding the Earth Newsletter Part 1

⁷ Rounding the Earth Newsletter Part 2

⁸ Rounding the Earth Newsletter Part 3

¹⁴ Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety August 2004; 13(8): 519-523

¹⁵ WISPolitics February 10, 2022

¹⁶ Steve Kirsch Substack February 5, 2022 DMED

Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

---

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

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

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

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

***

There have been two military coups in the West African state of Burkina Faso since January as attacks by rebel groupings are fueling anxiety over national security concerns.

The latest putsch was led by Capt. Ibrahim Traore, who with his fellow officers, deposed Col. Paul Henri Damiba on September 30.

Traore cited the failure of the Damiba administration to curb a jihadist insurgency which has destabilized large swaths of territory inside the country since 2015. France, the former colonial power in what was then known as Upper Volta, has military forces in Burkina Faso ostensibly to protect the interests of Paris and the local government.

However, in Burkina Faso and other former French colonies in West Africa, demonstrations have surfaced over the last year demanding the withdrawal of military units and diplomatic personnel from Paris. During the United Nations General Assembly in September, the interim Prime Minister of neighboring Mali, denounced French involvement in his country while accusing the administration of President Emmanuel Macron of attempts to utilize mercenaries from Ivory Coast to overthrow the military regime in the capital of Bamako.

After the recent change of government in the capital of Ouagadougou, the French embassy and other institutions were violently attacked by Burkinabe youth carrying their national flags along with that of Russia. These incidents are a reflection of the strain relations between Paris and the African continent.

These political developments on the African continent should not be a surprise to any serious observers in the current period. A legacy of enslavement and colonialism continues to hamper the capacity of the continent to gain its appropriate position within the broader context of world affairs.

Burkina Faso since its independence in 1960 has been subjected to the presence of economic and military interests from Paris. Other states within the Sahel and broader West Africa region have been targeted for destabilization for decades.

Since the formation of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) and its French counterpart consisting of the Foreign Legion and Operation Barkhane, the social situation throughout many areas within the West Africa region has deteriorated. Guinea-Conakry, also a former colony of France, has undergone persistent turmoil since the military overthrow of the founding Democratic Party (PDG), once headed by President Ahmed Sekou Toure from 1958-1984.

Guinean administrations since 1984 have abandoned the PDG’s concept of the African Democratic Revolution, Pan-Africanism and Socialism. Yet, the living conditions of the people have not benefited from this shift to the right in regard to domestic and foreign policy.

Mali also underwent a revolutionary experiment in popular democracy and socialist orientation under the first post-colonial administration of President Modibo Keita who ruled the country from 1960-1968, when he was deposed in a military coup. Mali in modern times has undergone two military coups since 2020. Plagued by the same rebel insurgencies as neighboring Burkina Faso, Niger, Cameroon, Chad and Nigeria, military and intelligence assistance from the U.S. and France have only resulted in the lessening of the capacity of these states to address their own security concerns.

Imperialist Research Centers and Continuing Military Interference in Africa

Western think tanks which serve to rationalize imperialist foreign policy in Africa and other geo-political regions are attempting to attribute the dramatic shifts towards the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China as it relates to economic and security issues to some nefarious tactics utilized by Moscow and Beijing. These centers of imperialist strategic planning can never own up to the abysmal failure of neo-colonialism in Africa which has maintained the continent in a dependent status within the world economic system.

The International Crisis Group (ICG) provides one such example of the dishonest justification for the growing antagonism even among military forces within West Africa. Their position closely aligns itself with the U.S. Department when spokesperson Vedant Patel said:

“We have spoken clearly about the destabilizing impact of both rampant disinformation but also the Wagner Group’s activities globally. Countries where the group has been deployed find themselves weaker and less secure, and we’ve seen that in a number of cases in Africa alone.”

Nonetheless, the Russian-based military services company Wagner has only been operational on the continent for the last few years. This can easily be compared with the centuries of interference and destabilization efforts by the collective imperialism of the western capitalist countries in Europe and North America.

This same State Department official conveniently ignored the impact of AFRICOM and Operation Barkhane in West Africa. Many of the officers which have staged coups in West Africa over the last decade had close ties with Washington and Paris through military training colleges and joint maneuvers with the Pentagon, the European Union (EU) Forces, NATO and the French Foreign Legion.

This same article cited above also quotes the ICG deputy director for Africa, Rinaldo Depagne, as saying in response to the question as to whether Russia played a role in the recent changes in governance in West Africa:

“This is very difficult to say and to prove. But Russia is certainly closer to now cut a deal with Burkina than ever and certainly that Russia was with president – former President Damiba, and this for several reasons. First one is President Traore’s statement. And President Traore, eight days ago, said that it could solicit diversified military assistance without naming Russia, but everyone was thinking about Russia. Second reason, Yevgeny Prigozhin, the head of Wagner PMC Enterprise, offered to work with Traore. Third reason, we have now a legal act, and according to this act, the president negotiates and ratifies international treaties himself. So, it opened the door for him to decide whether he will work with Russia or not.”

Such viewpoints are being articulated in conjunction with the failed attempts by the State Department and the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs to coax African governments into taking a position in support of NATO in the Russian special military operation in Ukraine. U.S. President Joe Biden has invited African Union (AU) heads-of-state to attend a White House summit in December in the aftermath of the Russia-Africa gathering in Ethiopia in November.

Interestingly enough, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba was forced to cut short a trip to Africa following Russian missile strikes across his country beginning on October 10. Kuleba had proposed a Ukraine-Africa summit as well.

An earlier attempt by the U.S.-backed President Volodymyr Zelensky to address the AU only garnered two attendees. On a mass level there has been noticeable solidarity with the Russian Federation as it relates to the Ukraine situation. Even outside of the West Africa region, in states such as Ethiopia and South Africa, two of the largest economies and population groups within the AU, youth have held demonstrations where Russian flags were flown.

However, the reality of racial discrimination and brutality displayed by Ukrainian authorities during the early days of the Russian intervention has not left the minds of African governments and their people. African students studying in Ukraine during February and March of 2022, reported numerous incidents of beatings, denials of admission to public places and transportation facilities, among other problems.

Since these incidents, the western corporate and government-controlled media outlets have attempted to erase these horrible occurrences from the minds of African people and the world community. The openly Nazi militias and political organizations which have existed in Ukraine for decades are ignored in the diplomatic language and media accounts of events inside the country.

Lessons for the Peace and Antiwar Groupings within the Imperialist States

Those mainstream peace and antiwar organizations in Western Europe and North America have taken a political line quite similar to the U.S. State Department. The Russian Federation are viewed as aggressors while the threat of fascism and NATO expansion is largely ignored.

This undoubtedly is related to the fact that there is a Democratic administration in the White House with an evenly split Senate and slight majority within the House of Representatives. Although this political configuration in the U.S. has not delivered on the promises made during the 2020 campaigns which committed to social spending to alleviate poverty along with voting rights, a lessening of police brutality and women’s equality, what is actually transpiring is the worsening plight of African Americans through police brutality, institutional racism and benign neglect.

Women in the U.S. no longer have a legal right to their reproductive freedom while the rapid accelerating rates of inflation in the key sectors of the economy is disproportionately impacting the impoverished, nationally oppressed and other marginalized groups. The Biden administration has failed to stem inflation while the Federal Reserve Bank has induced a global recession sending shockwaves of uncertainty among both the ruling class and the majority working and oppressed peoples on a global scale.

The western-based social justice and peace organizations would be served well to study developments in Africa, Latin America and Asia. Rather than viewing their interests as inextricably linked to the capitalist class dominated by finance capital and imperialist militarism, the declining standards of living in the West can only be addressed through the international solidarity of the people to end all wars and exploitation by the ruling class.

*

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

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

Featured image: Mali solidarity demonstration for Russian cooperation (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

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

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

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

***

“The ‘Great Reset’ was introduced by the ‘World Economic Forum’, which is tightly coupled to the United Nations and the World Health Organisation.

Their agenda is to implement a global type of totalitarianism based on technocratic and trans-humanist ideologies. Part of that plan also includes re-engineering and controlling all life forms, including humans. […] While the outward expression of technocracy will appear as totalitarianism, the control centre is not an individual. Rather than a single person ruling by decree, technocracy relies on control through technology and algorithm. This is a very important difference. In short, there will be no individual to blame or hold accountable. The ‘dictator’ is an algorithm.”¹

“The Great Reset […] is not a conspiracy theory; it is an open, avowed, and planned project, and it is well underway. But because capitalism with Chinese characteristics or corporate-socialist statism lacks free markets and depends on the absence of free will and individual liberty, it is, ironically, “unsustainable”.²

A global conspiracy in disguise to promote totalitarianism

The brainless leaders of the West have fallen headlong for the concealed totalitarianism of Klaus Schwab’s global takeover agenda. Only the word ‘world’ in the disingenuous description ‘World Economic Forum’ (WEF) is accurate but was clearly designed to present Schwab’s criminal global and globalist intentions in a deceptively positive light. The two other concepts – ‘economic’ and ‘forum’ – are deliberately misleading and are falsifications of fact.

The WEF is not an exclusively or even a strictly ‘economic’ organisation at all: it promotes quack ‘economics’ as a means of ultimately enforcing Schwab’s Nazi-inspired absolutist politics by stealth. Nor is the WEF a ‘forum’: the purpose of a genuine ‘forum’ in the original meaning of the word is a meeting for democratic debate, but the sole purpose of the WEF is to implement its own agenda, which permits no discussion, no argument, and no challenge to its predetermined purpose as an instrument of implementing its programme for absolutist global dictatorship.

The adherents of that select group of self-professing elites from around the world who come together at the WEF’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, are brainwashed victims of Schwab’s envisaged New World Order. They are really conspiring to control the direction of society and politics worldwide. The WEF is a conspiracy in practice, not just a conspiracy theory. That is the open admission of its Founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab in his welcoming remarks at the WEF’s 2022 meeting:

“Let’s also be clear: The future is not just happening. The future is built by us – a powerful community as you here in this room. We have the means to improve the state of the world, but two conditions are necessary. The first one is that we act all as stakeholders of larger communities, that we serve not only our self-interest, but we serve the community. That’s what we call ‘stakeholder responsibility’. And second, that we collaborate. This is the reason why you find many opportunities here during the meeting to engage in very action- and impact-oriented initiatives to make progress related to specific issues on the global agenda.”³

The Great Reset, described by the Gatestone Institute as “a blueprint for destroying freedom, innovation, and prosperity,⁴ calls on a huge global network of thousands of global leaders from business, politics and civil society. They share variants of the Davos philosophy and are supported by a vast income from corporate membership fees. The WEF also has a youth wing called the ‘Global Shapers Community’: 9,655 ‘shapers’ work from 428 ‘hubs’ in 148 different countries to infiltrate politics and promote Schwab’s evil nonsense. On 29 August 2022 the US House of Representatives at long last introduced a ‘Defund Davos’ Bill (HR8748) which will follow Trump’s previous efforts to deny the use of taxpayer funding to support the WEF.⁵

Nazi credentials, Nazi affinities

Klaus Schwab, the stupendously arrogant, self-important charlatan who calls himself the ‘Executive Chairman’ of the WEF, made an absolutely astonishing statement at the annual meeting of 23 May 2022. In a glowing tribute to Ukraine’s Nazi allied President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was the WEF’s ‘guest of honour’ (!) and the main speaker during his international tour to solicit weapons for fighting Russia, Schwab said that Zelensky (a man who gives awards to avowed Nazis, imprisons opposition leaders and bans parties) is supported by “all of Europe and the international order”.⁶ There was not a single cheep of protest or dissent from the almost 2,500 leaders present drawn from politics, business, civil society and the media.⁷

Instead, Zelensky, whose speech had omitted mentioning any reference to the crimes that nationalist extremists had committed in his country, or the fact that he had breached the Minsk Agreements which were intended to achieve a peaceful solution to the Ukraine conflict, received a standing ovation after having in effect virtually thanked Ukraine’s Nazis for their crimes by simply describing them as “volunteers”.⁸

Zelensky and Schwab are two of a pathological political kind. Rodney Atkinson has exposed Zelensky’s intrinsic Nazism in two very important articles on his ‘Freenations’ website;⁹ I have repeatedly drawn attention to a photograph of Zelensky proudly holding up a Nazi T-shirt adorned with a large Swastika and symbols of the German Wolfsangel; and ‘The True Reporter’ website has similarly asked why some photographs of Zelensky show him wearing the Nazi Iron Cross.¹⁰ Yet there are ignorant and simple-minded people – a few Christian pastors and editors of Christian newspapers among them – who have not done their research and who dismiss such overwhelming evidence of Zelensky’s Nazi credentials as fake or because they are sympathetic to him and do not want to recognise the truth.

On 15 July 2021 the Ardara Press published a detailed study of the hidden Nazi past of Klaus Schwab’s family company, Escher Wyss, which amongst other barbarities exploited slave labour and Allied prisoners of war and manufactured key nuclear bomb-making technologies for Adolf Hitler.¹¹ Two days later the study was highlighted by the Christian website ‘Grandmageri’. The author recalls that the company was protected not only by Hitler himself, but by Switzerland, Britain and America, making Schwab a criminal foreign meddler in every sense. Hitler called Escher Wyss “a national socialist [i.e., Nazi] model company”. The Ardara study also mentions that CIA archive documents reveal that the Swiss engineering companies Escher-Wyss and Sulzer were being directed by the US Department of Energy and the State Department, and the author asks: “Do we really want a triple-agent lying spy running the “Great Reset” and “Build Back Better?”¹² Biden, Johnson and Trudeau have all used the WEF concept ‘Build back better’ when demonstrating their support for Zelensky and Ukrainian Nazism. The World Economic Forum is just a long-winded way of saying fascism.

Horrendously, the WEF has even called on governments, health officials and “humans” around the globe to consider the “rational” (!) arguments for implanting microchips in children’s brains.

Schwab insists that the idea of implanting a “tracking chip in your child” isn’t “scary”, arguing that chips “form part of a natural evolution that wearables once underwent” and that children will even grow to see them as “accessories” that will eventually be “considered a fashion item”.¹⁴ YouTube has produced a revealing video in which this evil plan for control of the human brain is discussed.¹⁵

‘Agenda ID2020’

The fundamental pillar of the Great Reset is a horrendous plan called ‘Agenda ID2020’,¹⁶ which is a blueprint for resetting the world in line with the objectives of the super-rich. Aided by the methods of the ‘Big Tech’ platforms, it promotes the idea of a massive population reduction. Agenda ID2020 was designed by Microsoft billionaire and Bilderberg member Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to reduce the world population by the use of vaccines. This is no figment of anyone’s imagination: read Gates’ own words:

“The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”¹⁷

This damning statement by Gates echoes the Nazis’ eugenics programme, which never disappeared but merely faded into the background for a few decades.

Agenda ID2020 is backed by the World Health Organisation (WHO), the Rockefeller Foundation, Accenture, and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), which is now simply called the Vaccine Alliance. GAVI is also a creation of Gates from 2001 and has its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, significantly next door to the World Health Organisation. These organisations collaborate collectively in promoting Schwab’s planned New World Order.

Immeasurable and lasting damage has already been done to the health, economies and freedoms of the world’s nations by what has been called the WEF’s “gathering of psychopaths trying to play God”;¹⁸ but their end may now be nigh following a Swiss referendum held on 7 March 2021, which blocked a proposed law intended to create a legal basis for an electronic identity system based on Agenda ID2020. The overall rejection rate was 64.4% (in some Cantons up to 70.7%)¹⁹ and was a massive blow to the World Economic Forum’s evil project. It will be interesting to see whether Schwab and his supporters will now be ousted from Davos, just as Hungary expelled billionaire globalist George Soros in 2019 for his “subversion politics” against the country and what the Jerusalem Post described as his “campaign of global chaos”.²⁰

The WEF is part of the West’s failing anti-Russia conspiracy

The WEF’s official slogan reads “Committed to improving the State of the World”, but the Davos meetings have done absolutely nothing to achieve such a goal. Schwab has never made any suggestion of how peace might be achieved in a pointless war that has killed many thousands of innocent people – many more Ukrainians than Russians. Instead of accepting the Putin-Lavrov proposals for peace negotiations, it was clear that the hidden (or perhaps not so hidden) agenda was to continue and escalate the war. As Peter Koening pointed out in a recent New Eastern Outlook article: “The applause [following Zelenski’s belligerent tone and demand at WEF 2022 for more killing-power from the West] was like enhancing the propagated and truly indoctrinated hatred for Russia within the Forum and around the world.”²³

Thus the WEF 2022 finally exposed its true geopolitical credentials by formally announcing that it had “severed all relations with the Russian Government and President Vladimir Putin” and “scrubbed Putin from the WEF website”,²⁴ making it nothing but a mouthpiece for US-NATO propaganda and aggression. Hence, apart from vastly increasing corporatism or economic fascism, the WEF’s Great Reset is also aimed at destroying Russia – and China – and recovering the dwindling hegemony of the Western nations as they rapidly lose their global leadership in an increasingly multipolar world.

Accordingly, the Great Reset is not a conspiracy theory, but a conspiracy in practice. Michael Rechtenwald of the Mises Institute, which is the world’s leading supporter of the ideas of liberty, puts it as follows and concludes that as “plans of a technocratic elite” it is “doomed to fail”:

“The Great Reset […] is not a conspiracy theory; it is an open, avowed, and planned project, and it is well underway. But because capitalism with Chinese characteristics or corporate-socialist statism lacks free markets and depends on the absence of free will and individual liberty, it is, ironically, ‘unsustainable’. The vast majority will not accept the Great Reset’s attempts to lock them away in an economic, governmental, and technological prison. Like earlier attempts at totalitarianism, the Great Reset is doomed to fail.”²⁵

The WEF’s planned New World Order demolished by Russia and China

Considering that America is rapidly accelerating into a police state ruled by Joe Biden and the Democrats, and that the European Union is also facing potential final collapse over its Covid-19 fiasco and the WEF-engineered energy crisis, the question now is: Who is left with the courage, the conviction, the strength and the ability to oppose the evil plans of the Great Reset which Klaus Schwab was so intent on reiterating to the world’s globalist elites at the 2021 Davos teleconference of the WEF? The answer is, of course: the very person who since 2015 has recognised, exposed and openly denounced the aims of Schwab and his duped followers – the bogeyman relentlessly misrepresented and systematically demonized by the West, namely Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Despite accelerating into global tyranny,²⁶ the Great Reset is destined to fail, though its promoters will desperately try to keep it alive for as long as possible. Putin was absolutely right when he mocked Schwab’s plans at the WEF’s 2020 meeting, which ironically had to be held online because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Putin told Schwab that his plans for a system of global government based on the ridiculous ideas of the Great Reset were not only “doomed to failure” but were also “counter to everything that modern leadership should be pursuing”.²⁷

When world leaders gathered at SPIEF 2022 (the St Petersburg Economic Forum), YouTube posted a further video headed “Russia and China just destroyed Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum”.²⁹

To paraphrase the main points of what Putin made absolutely clear in St Petersburg:

The era of the unipolar world, led by America and the WEF’s Great Reset, is over. The future world order, already in progress, will be formed by strong sovereign states. The rupture with the West is irreversible and definitive. No pressure from the West will change it. Russia has renewed its sovereignty. Reinforcement of political and economic sovereignty is an absolute priority. The EU has completely lost its political sovereignty: the current crisis shows the EU is not ready to play the role of an independent, sovereign actor; it is merely an ensemble of American vassals deprived of any politico-military sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot be partial: a country is either sovereign or a colony. Russia will invest in internal economic development and reorientation of trade towards nations independent of the US. The future world order, already in progress, will not be the one plotted by America and the WEF, but will be formed by strong sovereign states. It is a lesson that the godless West will be made to learn the hard way.

Archbishop Viganò exposes the WEF New World Order

The stupendous impudence of a man who presumes to arrogate to himself the role of creating a new global order in which “you will own nothing and you will be happy”³⁰ emerges from the content of Schwab’s absurd books The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016), its successor Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (2018), and most importantly his 110-page Covid-19: The Great Reset (2020). Sky News Australia’s host Rowan Deal called the WEF’s ideas “brazen”, “a terrifying coalition of big business and big tech”, and noted:

“What they should have added is ‘We the very rich men will own everything and be even happier’.”³¹

The Bible makes it clear that Jesus Christ, not a human being or a coalition of human beings as claimed by the drivel pontificated by Schwab, will “make all things new”. (Rev. 21:5) The contrast was underlined on 25 October 2020 by Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop of Ulpiana and former Apostolic Nuncio to the USA, who sent an Open Letter to President Donald Trump about the dangers of the so-called Great Reset and the progress of plans for implementing it.

Viganò is a man of deep insight into world affairs and a scathing critic of Pope Francis, whom he publicly called a “deceiver” and a “liar” and accused of turning the Roman Catholic Church into the “Synagogue of Satan”. Viganò is sometimes believed to be a convinced Protestant. He certainly preaches the Gospel faithfully. He had previously written to Trump on 7 June 2020 warning him that the plans of Klaus Schwab and the WEF for a Great Reset were a plot to “subdue humanity” and “destroy freedom”, and constituted “a global conspiracy against God and humanity”.

On 20 October 2020 a 47-minute video was live-streamed on YouTube2 in which Viganò issued his warning. Symbolically, the backdrop illustration to the video prominently showed images of Pope Francis, Joe Biden, Bill Gates and others, all of whom the Archbishop considers complicit in Schwab’s plans to implement the Great Reset.

The following transcript from Viganò’s call to action in an interview on the ‘Russian Faith’ website puts the Great Reset in its true Satanic perspective:

“If we observe the way in which the Great Reset and pandemic farce have been carried out, we notice that nothing of what has been done by the globalists has been inspired by good; on the contrary, we see that what inspires their criminal action is theological hatred of God the Creator and Saviour; what allows the spread of the planet-wide fraud is lies, blackmail, deceit, and corruption; everything for them begins and ends in the name of death, sickness, and terror. It is the infernal chaos opposed to the divine cosmos, disorder opposed to order, the good opposed to that which is evil. The mark of the Great Reset is the aversion of Satan to the wondrous work of Creation and even more to the miracle of the Redemption. ….. This gesture of the admirable humility of the Son of God contrasts with the proud and wicked cry of Lucifer.”³²

*

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

This article was originally published on Freenations.

Notes

1 Patrick Wood and Joseph Mercola: https://www.technocracy.news/wood-mercola-its-crucial-to-understand-what-were-up-against/. The Covid pandemic will be the subject of a separate study in its own right.

2 https://www.michaelrectenwald.com/great-reset-essays-interviews/what-is-the-great-reset

3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTfW-cchpYA

4 https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18825/great-reset-wef

5 https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/08/29/bill-introduced-to-block-wef-funding/

6 https://www.unz.com/pescobar/nato-vs-russia-what-happens-next/

7 For the full roster of WEF 2022 attendees see https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/meet-globalists-here-full-roster-davos-2022-attendees

8 https://en.news-front.info/2022/05/02/zelensky-thanked-the-ukrainian-nazis-for-their-crimes/

9 http://freenations.net/ukraines-institutionalised-nazism/; http://freenations.net/the-decadent-west-has-the-leaders-to-prove-it-new-york-times-signals-war-defeat%ef%bb%bf/

10 Photographs here: https://thetruereporter.com/why-is-zelensky-wearing-the-nazi-iron-cross/

11 https://adarapress.com/2021/07/15/exposed-klaus-schwabs-nazi-roots/

12 https://grandmageri422.me/2021/07/17/exposed-klaus-schwabs-nazi-roots-anyone-shocked/

14 https://slaynews.com/news/world-economic-forum-brain-implants-children/

15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgFaBGxppvs

16 For ID2020 and the network of other collaborating organisations see fn. 1

17 https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/02/gary-d-barnett/eugenics-is-alive-and-well-and-the-covid-19-scam-is-the-engine-for-accomplishing-depopulation/

18 https://vk.com/video273785430_456239742

19 https://tapnewswire.com/2021/03/digital-id-scheme-shot-down-by-swiss-voters-over-data-privacy-concerns/

20 https://www.jpost.com/opinion/our-world-soross-campaign-of-global-chaos-464770

21 https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/michael-yeadon-vaccine-death/

23 https://journal-neo.org/2022/06/03/the-world-economic-forum-s-wef-uncertain-conclusion/; Italics mine for emphasis

24 https://www.sott.net/article/465336-Klaus-Schwabs-World-Economic-Forum-cuts-off-all-relations-with-Russia-scrubs-Putin-from-WEF-website; Italics mine for emphasis

25 https://invesbrain.com/plans-of-a-technocratic-elite-the-great-reset-is-not-a-conspiracy-theory/; Italics mine for emphasis

26 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMHscEm1Uyc

27 See my article “The Globalists’ attack on America”, BCN 442

28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feWzzRB6EGk; Italics mine for emphasis

29 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPSgAxB85jU; Italics mine for emphasis

30https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcAO4-o_4Ug

31 Ibid.

32 https://russian-faith.com/opinion-video/vigano-satanic-great-reset-inevitable-so-divine-greatest-reset-video-transcript-n6188

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

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

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

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

***

This Sunday, October 16, marks the 20th anniversary of the law that authorized the invasion of Iraq and as the result of growing bipartisan consensus, Congress may just be on the precipice of finally repealing this decades-old war authority.

History speaks strongly to the motivation for its repeal.

Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, or the Iraq AUMF, in response to a request from President George W. Bush in October 2002. Enacted 13 months after the 2001 AUMF, which was directed against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, the Iraq AUMF was drafted for a very different purpose. Specifically, the resolution permitted the president to use armed forces as “necessary and appropriate” to “defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq” and to “enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”

The reference to such resolutions concerned the allegation that the Saddam Hussein regime was in breach of certain U.N. Security Council resolutions that prohibited the possession of weapons of mass destruction. A presidential commission concluded in 2005 that “not one bit” of the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that the regime had begun producing nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons proved correct. Yet this false claim seems to have become a minor footnote in the historical record of the war that followed.

Saddam was quickly deposed and President Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” and an end to major combat operations on May 1, 2003. Despite this declaration, and the former Iraq leader’s execution in 2006, the fighting continued. By the time President Obama officially declared the Iraq War over and removed all U.S. troops from the country in December 2011, it was estimated that at least 126,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed, along with 4,500 U.S. service members. Thirty-two thousand more troops were wounded in the war, which cost taxpayers approximately $800 billion.

With the Iraq War having been officially over for nearly 11 years, it begs the question as to why, apart from being a matter of historical interest, the law that authorized it even merits discussion. Indeed, prior to the post-9/11 era, the anniversaries of statutory force authorizations or declarations of war have been seldom observed, let alone accompanied by calls for their repeal.

That’s because, historically speaking, the repeal of such instruments hasn’t been necessary to mark a final end to their use by the executive branch. Prior administrations generally accepted that the end of a conflict rendered the statue that authorized it obsolete. This was the case even when the enemy was the same. For example, President Roosevelt never attempted to rely on the 1917 declaration of war against Germany to justify war against Hitler’s Nazi regime 24 years later. Rather, he sought a fresh authorization from the body with the constitutional power to “declare war.”

This has not been the case for the Iraq AUMF. Despite Congress’s very clear intent for the resolution, as exhibited by both its text and legislative history, successive administrations have interpreted the Iraq AUMF far beyond its original purpose.

These expanding interpretations began in 2014, when President Obama authorized the deployment of troops to Iraq to fight ISIS. While the Obama administration asserted that the 2001 AUMF provided congressional consent to this new mission, it also claimed that the Iraq AUMF offered “an alternative statutory basis on which the president may rely for military action in Iraq.”

The Obama administration would later broaden this interpretation, stating in a December 2016 report that the 2002 law also applied to operations against ISIS in Syria. In a footnote of this report, the administration asserted that the Iraq AUMF “reinforces the authority for military operations against ISIL in Iraq and, to the extent necessary to achieve these purposes, elsewhere.”

In 2018, the Trump administration went even further, claiming that the Iraq AUMF sanctioned the use of force to address both “threats to, or stemming from, Iraq.” This significantly stretched the law’s breadth, enabling its potential use to justify military action against any number of regional threats to Iraq, whether by non-state group or nation state.

Acting on this latest reading, the Trump administration invoked the Iraq AUMF to justify the targeted killing of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in January 2020, nearly 18 years after its passage. This justification was rejected by legal scholars. Congress responded by passing a resolution directing the cessation of hostilities against Iran. This resolution, which passed with bipartisan majorities in both chambers of Congress, was ultimately vetoed by President Trump.

Over the last few years, frustration has grown among an increasingly bipartisan majority in Congress over the executive branch’s usurpation of Congress’s constitutional power to decide if, when, and against whom, the United States goes to war.

While trepidation remains concerning how to approach the post-9/11 2001 AUMF, the Iraq AUMF is an entirely different story. The executive branch has confirmed that the Iraq AUMF is not needed for any current military operations. Its repeal would begin a long-overdue process of rebalancing the constitutional division on war powers, amounting to what many call “constitutional hygiene.” It would also prevent any further abuse of the law by an enterprising executive branch that has defined it more broadly and any lawmaker could have conceived in 2002.

This year, the House adopted an amendment from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif) to repeal the Iraq AUMF as part of the annual defense policy bill, the National Defense Authorization Act. Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Todd Young (R-Ind.) have filed a corresponding amendment to the Senate NDAA, which mirrors their standalone bill that currently has 51 cosponsors, including 11 Republicans. The bill cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June, 2021, by a bipartisan vote of 14-8.

Significantly, repealing the Iraq AUMF has the backing of the Biden administration. In June 2021, the Biden White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy, stating unequivocally “The Administration supports the repeal of the 2002 AUMF.”

This effort is also supported by a wide variety of organizations that reflect the bipartisan congressional support, including veterans groups the American Legion and Concerned Veterans for America, as well as September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, whose members all lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks. The endeavor also reflects the sentiment of the American people, with more than 80 percent of the public in favor of constraining the president’s war-making powers and increasing congressional oversight on the use of force.

On this 20th anniversary of the Iraq AUMF, it is important to reflect on the costs and consequences of this law. After years of bloodshed, billions of dollars spent, and the acquiescence of its constitutional war powers, Congress finally looks set to repeal this outdated war authorization. For a war-weary public, eager for their elected representatives to re-set constitutional checks and balances, the closure of this chapter couldn’t come soon enough.

*

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

Featured image: George W. Bush declares victory in Iraq War, USS Abraham Lincoln, San Diego, May 1, 2003

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

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

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

***

Bipartisan legislation introduced in the Senate would grant the Pentagon wartime procurement powers, allowing it to buy massive amounts high-priority munitions using multi-year contracts to help Ukraine fight Russia and to refill U.S. stockpiles.

The Senate Armed Services Committee’s chairman, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and ranking member, Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., proposed the legislation as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill, which the Senate is expected to vote on in November. It was offered instead of the critical munitions acquisition fund that the Pentagon and some lawmakers sought for the same purposes, before Senate appropriators rejected it.

The amendment, the text of which was released last week, offers multi-year contracting authorities typically reserved for Navy vessels and major aircraft. As drafted, it would let the Pentagon lock in purchases of certain munitions made by Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, BAE Systems and Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace over fiscal 2023 and 2024, a step aimed at encouraging manufacturers to expand production lines for sought-after munitions.

The Pentagon would also be permitted to team with NATO to buy weapons for its members in mass quantities, and for Ukraine-related contracts, the legislation would ease several key legal restrictions on Pentagon procurement through fiscal 2024 ― a sign lawmakers see the war dragging on.

The intent of the legislation is to spur the Pentagon and industry to move more aggressively by removing bureaucratic barriers, with an eye not only on Russia but the potential for a confrontation with China over Taiwan, according to a senior congressional aide who spoke to Defense News on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak with the press.

“Whether you want to call it wartime contracting or emergency contracting, we can’t play around anymore,” the aide said. “We can’t pussyfoot around with minimum-sustaining-rate buys of these munitions. It’s hard to think of something as high on everybody’s list as buying a ton of munitions for the next few years, for our operational plans against China and continuing to supply Ukraine.”

If the language becomes law, the Department of Defense would be allowed to make non-competitive awards to arms manufacturers for Ukraine-related contracts, an idea spearheaded in legislation from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and 13 other senators.

The Inhofe-Reed amendment would also grant special emergency procurement authorities reserved for contingency operations and waive a requirement that contractors provide certified cost and pricing data, a safeguard intended to help ensure the Pentagon is paying reasonable prices.

Criticism from Capitol Hill

The move comes amid criticism from Capitol Hill and the defense industry that the Pentagon is moving too slowly. Of the $6 billion Congress appropriated this year to buy equipment for Ukraine, DoD has awarded $1.2 billion, and of $12.5 billion appropriated to replace U.S. stockpiles of weapons sent to Ukraine, just $1.5 billion has been awarded, the Pentagon said Sept. 20.

“This is an effort to speed up contracting,” said Mark Cancian, a defense budget analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “We’ve been hearing from industry, when we talk to them about this issue, that they want to see a demand signal. DoD has been saying the right things but they haven’t been providing that demand signal. And when you look at the amount of money actually obligated, it’s very low.”

One aim of the amendment is to signal to the defense industry that it’s time to restart or to re-energize dormant supply lines. Lockheed CEO Jim Taiclet said during a July earnings call that the Pentagon had yet to put the contracts in place or coordinate with industry to buy more supplies, a process that could take two to three years. “And I can tell you the clutch isn’t engaged yet,” Taiclet said.

While the legislation will likely be welcomed by the defense industry, Julia Gledhill, a defense analyst in the Center for Defense Information at the non-partisan watchdog group Project on Government Oversight, said Monday that Congress should leave protections against defense spending bloat in place.

“Ukraine aid shouldn’t be another way for contractors to nickel and dime the Pentagon, wasting taxpayer dollars and undermining the purpose of assistance: to support the Ukrainian people,” Gledhill said. “But the amendment further deteriorates already weak guardrails in place to prevent corporate price gouging of the military.”

Mobilizing munitions manufacturing

Concerned about constraints on the U.S. defense industrial base’s ability to produce munitions to resupply U.S. stocks transferred to Ukraine, Congress this year appropriated $600 million in Defense Production Act funding. Some of the money is to expand domestic capacity and invest in domestic production of strategic and critical materials.

The Senate Armed Services Committee authorized $2.7 billion for future munitions production when it advanced the FY23 NDAA in June. And while multi-year contract authorities could save the Defense Department money on munitions procurement over annual contracts, they could also add several billion dollars more per year in non-discretionary spending to the defense budget topline – an annual, contentious debate in Congress.

The House NDAA, which passed 329-101 in July, contains a more limited critical munitions acquisition fund offered as an amendment from the House Armed Services Committee’s chairman, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash. That amendment would apply only to high-demand munitions transferred to Ukraine and its European neighbors.

The sheer volumes of weapons that the legislation authorizes contracts for equipment sent to Ukraine includes 750,000 XM1128 and XM1123 rounds for 155mm artillery; 1,000 M777 Howitzers; 700 M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems and 100,000 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems.

But it extends far beyond what the U.S. needs to replenish stocks sent to Ukraine. For instance, it authorizes contracts to procure up to 20,000 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles and 25,000 Javelin anti-tank missiles. That far exceeds the approximately 1,400 Stingers and 5,500 Javelins that the U.S. has sent to Ukraine from its stocks.

“These numbers are much larger than just replenishing stocks,” said Cancian. “These are huge numbers. They are not driven by what we’ve given to Ukraine, but sort of related to what we’ve given to Ukraine.”

“This isn’t replacing what we’ve given them,” he added. “It’s building stockpiles for a major ground war in the future. This is not the list you would use for China. For China we’d have a very different list.”

The amendment also authorizes buying up to 30,000 AGM-114 Hellfire missiles; 36,000 AGM-179 Joint Air-to-Ground Missiles; 1,000 Harpoon missiles; 800 Naval Strike Missiles; and 10,000 Patriot Advanced Capability – 3 air defense system and 6,000 MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile Systems.

The proposed legislation also authorizes contracts for 20,000 AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air missiles, which Ukraine has not fired extensively – if at all. Britain announced last week that it would donate these AMRAAM rockets to Kyiv for its use in the Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System, which the United States has pledged to provide in the future via the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.

Co-production with NATO

To that end, the legislation aims to facilitate co-production of weapons systems with NATO allies. For example, the proposed legislation also authorizes sharing designs for the large-caliber cannon, which Cancian noted was developed by Britain.

In a separate provision that would allow bulk weapons purchases between the U.S. and NATO, the amendment would expand existing authorizations that cover NATO’s bulk purchases of logistics support items, like fuel, to cover acquisitions of any kind. The idea is that the U.S. and allies would be able to pool resources for artillery shells and other weapons and potentially save costs by buying together.

European countries are focused on boosting the defense industry’s production capacity to provide for countries future needs and to backfill stockpiles sent to Ukraine.

While U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was in Brussels last week, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that the alliance had decided to increase stockpiles of munitions and equipment ― and to speed up aid deliveries to Ukraine.

Because allies are digging deeper into their stocks to be able to provide more support to Ukraine, “it’s important that we also are able to ramp up production,” Stoltenberg said, adding that emerging NATO plans would provide industry with the long-term demand it need to boost production.

Austin led a meeting of Ukraine donor nations in Brussels where the defense chiefs discussed how to keep supplying Ukraine “in the difficult months and years ahead” and pushed to “galvanize our industrial bases to fire up production for the systems to defend Ukraine, even while meeting our own security needs.”

In Washington last week, the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency’s director, James Hursch, projected U.S. arms sales would increase continuously over the next three years as the conflict fuels demand from Europe.

“They are drawing lessons from the conflict that we see today about the kinds of systems they need to have,” Hursch said, projecting demand for armored vehicles, precision fires and integrated missile defense systems.

*

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

Joe Gould is the senior Pentagon reporter for Defense News, covering the intersection of national security policy, politics and the defense industry. He served previously as Congress reporter.

Bryant Harris is the Congress reporter for Defense News. He has covered U.S. foreign policy, national security, international affairs and politics in Washington since 2014. He has also written for Foreign Policy, Al-Monitor, Al Jazeera English and IPS News.

Featured image is from Donbass Insider

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

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

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

***

 

The Black Alliance for Peace emphatically opposes the Biden administration’s draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council to call for the immediate deployment of a “multinational rapid action force” to Haiti. We have specifically asked two permanent members of the Security Council – the representatives of the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation – to veto this resolution.

Western nations, led by the United States, and supported by Canada, the Dominican Republic, and the Caribbean Community, among others, are at the forefront of the push for another foreign military intervention in Haiti. Through a global public relations campaign, they are justifying invasion by pointing to a “humanitarian crisis” (including a new cholera outbreak) that has come about as a result of “gang violence.”

Yet by now, we should know that when it comes to Haiti, we cannot trust the words of Western politicians and the coverage of Western media. In the context of the current “crisis,” politicians and media have worked overtime to shape the discussion of Haiti by highlighting particular details – while ignoring important historical facts.

In the first instance, when calling for a military invasion of Haiti and promoting a narrative of crisis, the western media does not acknowledge that the current “government” in Haiti is unelected and unaccountable to Haitian people. It also fails to acknowledge that one core demand of the people is for authentic Haitian self-determination. Therefore, the last thing the Haitian people want is another “humanitarian” invasion and occupation by the US and the “Core Group.”

Second, rarely does the media mention that, along with the demand for self-determination, the nationwide protests of hundreds of thousands of Haitian people have also been against the massive economic distress caused by a sharp increase in the cost of living. This increase was a direct result of a major increase in the cost of fuel – an increase decreed by the puppet Prime Minister and dictated by the IMF.

Third, media coverage refuses to implicate the U.S., France, and Canada in the 2004 coup d’etat which removed the country’s popularly elected president, eventually leading to the current crisis.

Much of what we hear about Haiti today is a distortion – or outright fabrication – of Haiti’s social and political reality. Much of it lacks historical context, especially when it comes to the unrelenting meddling of the foreign agents and institutions, for understanding the Haitian situation. Much of it is based in a deep racism that presumes that Black people are ungovernable while resenting the implications of Haiti’s historical commitment to Black freedom.

As a response to distortions and deceptions surrounding Haiti, the Haiti/Americas Team of the Black Alliance for Peace has compiled a dossier of recent statements, essays, and articles which collectively demonstrate both the imperial origins of Haiti’s crisis and the racist justifications supporting it.

We want to be clear: The crisis of Haiti is a crisis of imperialism.

The Black Alliance for Peace, in alignment with the wishes of the Haitian masses and their supporters, absolutely stands against any foreign armed intervention in Haiti, and continues to demand an end to the unending meddling in Haitian affairs by the United States and Western powers.

*

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

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

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

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

***

 

 

Abstract

To study the long-term effects of Fluoride toothpaste on human teeth, a two-month experiment has been carried out to simulate 47 years of exposure on a human tooth to Fluoride toothpaste under normal daily usage. Micro-cracks have shown up on both Enamel and Cementum surfaces, which is a sign of tooth degradation. While the Cementum surface has a much higher density of micro-crack networks. Cementum tends to get harmed by Fluoride more often than Enamel. This study does not include other factors such as chewing and the type of food residue stuck between teeth, which could potentially affect the tooth’s health even further.

Introduction

Our teeth are a crucial part of our body. We need them to be able to masticate our food into smaller pieces for easier digestion. When we masticate, sometimes small pieces of food can get stuck on our teeth. In order to clean our teeth, we will commonly brush our teeth around 2-3 times a day with toothpaste. Most commercial toothpastes (such as Crest^® or Colgate^®) we see in our supermarkets contain an ingredient known as Fluoride, with a typical percentage of 0.25%, while some brands contain up to 0.75% Fluoride. Prescription Dental toothpastes can contain 5 times more Fluoride than commercially available.

Although most Americans have positive associations with fluoride and envision tooth protection along with strong bones, fluoride is actually the by-product of industry and its toxicity was recognized at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution during the 1850’s, when iron and copper factories discharged it into the air and poisoned plants, animals, and people. The fluoride added to drinking water and toothpaste is a crude industrial waste product of the aluminum and fertilizer industries, and a substance toxic enough to be used as rat poison. [1]

Fluoride has been used in the US to treat drinking water and added to toothpaste, all of which started from a carefully planned marketing program that began before the Grand Rapids, Michigan, which became the first community to officially fluoridate its drinking water in 1945 [2]. The big hope for fluoride was its ability to immunize children’s developing teeth against cavities. Rates of dental caries were supposed to plummet in areas where water was treated, yet decades of experience and worldwide research have contradicted this expectation numerous times. Let alone overdosed fluoridation has been linked to Skeletal Fluorosis [3], Dental Fluorosis [4], Bone Fractures [5] [6], Fluoride Poisoning [7], Cancer [8] [9].

Since we are extremely concerned about the usage of Fluoride in the toothpaste commonly seen, an experiment has been planned to study the effect of Fluoride on human teeth under long term condition.

Materials & Methods

To figure out if fluoride contained in fluoride toothpaste is harmful to our teeth or not, an experiment of human tooth’s long-time exposure to fluoride toothpaste has been designed and carried out to monitor the change of tooth surface.

To simulate years’ usage of fluoride toothpaste on a human tooth, a real human tooth has been coated with prescription toothpaste for 2 months, which is equivalent to 47 years of exposure if 5 minutes of brushing with toothpaste per day is assumed as normal daily usage. The prescription toothpaste used here is Rising^® Denta 5000 Plus 1.1% Sodium Fluoride Prescription Dental Cream (5000 ppm Fluoride Plus Mild Cleaning System). The human tooth had been cleaned with distilled water and Acetone, and then recoated with this prescription toothpaste every day during the experiment before being stored inside a glass beaker. The tooth had been characterized by Optical Microscopy (OM) and Secondary Electronic Microscopy (SEM), before and after the experiment.

The outside of the human tooth is composed of two parts: crown covered by Enamel (Figure 1.) and root covered by Cementum (Figure 2.). The Enamel surface is smoother than Cementum. Micro-cell structures of 5~7 µm in diameter can be observed on Enamel, both in OM (Figure 1.) and SEM (Figure 3.)

Figure 1. Enamel on Crown, under Optical Microscope (OM) before the experiment.

Figure 2. Cementum on Root, under Optical Microscope (OM) before the experiment.

Figure 3. Enamel & Cementum, under Secondary Electronic Microscopy (SEM) before the experiment.

Results

After 2 months’ immersion of the human tooth in the Rising^® Denta 5000 Plus Fluoride toothpaste, the human tooth was washed clean and characterized with OM and SEM again to investigate any change on the tooth surface. The images taken are listed in the Figure 4 to 6 in the following. Notice that micro-cracks have been observed to appear on both Enamel and Cementum surfaces. Enamel surface started to show small groups of micro-cracks with stretching lengths of 50µm to 100µm (Figure 5.); while extensive micro-crack networks showed up on the surface of Cementum (Figure 6.). Obviously, the micro-crack density on the Cementum surface is a lot higher than the Enamel surface.

Discussion 

The micro-cracks that appeared on the human tooth should have made the tooth weaker and more brittle. The cause of micro-cracks is understandable since there is a possibility that the Fluoride ion in the toothpaste could react and even erode the Calcium in the tooth over a long period of time.

Figure 4. Enamel & Cementum, under Optical Microscope (OM) after 2months’ experiment; Specially, cementum has shown crack networks.

Figure 5. Enamel under Secondary Electronic Microscopy (SEM) after 2months’ experiment; Enamel started to show small groups of cracks.

Figure 6. Cementum under Secondary Electronic Microscopy (SEM) after 2 months’ experiment; Extensive micro-crack networks have shown up on the surface of the Cementum.

Conclusion

Fluoride is known to be a cancer-causing mineral that is commonly found in toothpaste and in some areas’ tap water. Fluoride can be possibly dangerous at high levels where it can weaken your bones and teeth. It can also be toxic to the brain and nerve cells with enough exposure to fluoride.

In a 2-month experimental study of the long-term effect of Fluoride toothpaste on human teeth, it is observed that micro-cracks have appeared on both Enamel and Cementum surfaces, which is a sign of tooth degradation. While Cementum surface has a much higher density of micro-crack networks, it seems that Cementum is more easily eroded by Fluoride than Enamel.

This study only investigated the effects of fluoride toothpaste on human teeth over a time interval (equivalent to 47 years’ exposure) and did not include other outside influences. Factors such as chewing and the nutrients of the food we eat are some other factors that can affect the tooth’s health even further. The PH value of food residues stuck between the teeth could be another factor to affect the pace of damage caused by Fluoride toothpaste to the teeth.

*

Acknowledgement: The figure included were obtained with the help of Wei Zhou. The primary author is grateful for his help and guidance in using optical and scanning microscopy.

Sources

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/fluoride-toothpaste#what-is-fluoride

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/myths/fluoridated-water-fact-sheet

Is Fluoridated Drinking Water Safe?

Notes

[1] Dr. Gary Null, “Fluoride: Killing Us Softly”, Global Research, March 03, 2018

[2] Joel Griffiths, “Fluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy,” Covert Action, Fall 1992, Vol. 42, p. 30.

[3] BETTE HILEMAN, “Fluoridation of Water- Questions about health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years”, Chemical and Engineering News, 8/1/88, p. 36.

[4] George Glasser, “Dental Fluorosis – A Legal Time Bomb!” Sarasota/Florida ECO Report, Vol. 5, No. 2, Feb. 1995, pp. 1-5.

[5] Christa Danielson et al., “Hip fractures and fluoridation in Utah’s elderly population,” JAMA, Vol. 268, Aug. 12, 1992, pp. 746-48.

[6] “Middletown, Maryland latest city to receive toxic spill of fluoride in their drinking water,” report by Truth About Fluoride, Inc., in Townsend Letter for Doctors, 10/15/94, p. 1124.

[7] Reprinted by M. Bevis, “Morbidity associated with ingestion/dialysis of community water fluoride,” CDC, Dental Div., 6/11/92, distributed by Safe Water Foundation of Texas.

[8] John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Burk, “Fluoridation of public water systems and cancer death rates in humans,” presented at the 57th annual meeting of the American Society of Biological Chemists, and published in Fluoride, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1977, pp. 102-103.

[9] Mark Lowey, “Scientists question health risks of fluoride,” Calgary Herald, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Feb. 28, 1992; in Griffiths, op. cit., p. 66.

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

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

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

***

We in America are led to believe that the allied forces led by Dwight Eisenhower were major factors in the defeat of Hitler’s Nazi Germany. This is a blatant lie.

It was Russia, who was mainly responsible for defeating Hitler’s Germany. Russia had lost 26 million soldiers in that war while America had lost 419,400. Russia was allied with Europe and America until the end of World War-II. Then how did Russia become the adversary and a foe?

On July 25, 1945, Harry Truman suddenly reversed the pro-UN  and anti-imperialistic foreign policies of his immediate predecessor, FDR, and set the U.S. government onto the path of America controlling the entire world, which meant, more than anything else, conquering the Soviet union—especially Russia—which had defeated Hitler—Both, FDR and Churchill had acknowledged at the time, but which was never said publicly and this historical fact became hidden by Operation Mockingbird after the war.

This was exactly opposite to what had been the central aim of FDR. It was for WW-II to be replaced by a new system of international law that would be produced and enforced by the U.N. getting rid of all imperialisms. FDR intended that after the war, he and Stalin would force the intensely imperialistic Churchill to accept this new anti-imperialistic reality, the U.N. would be a functioning global federal republic of all nations and sole source and enforcer of international laws, laws between nations. It was Truman, the cold warrior who created CIA in 1947 and NATO in 1949. The purpose being to dominate the world by any criminal means.

During World War-II, Russia was an important ally of USA and UK. As mentioned above, more than allied forces, it was Russia who defeated Hitler while losing millions of its soldiers. Yet, right after the war, Russia became an enemy, a boogeyman, created by Truman and supported by Churchill. Truman started the cold war. For what? Billions of dollars were spent in the unnecessary arms race rather than taking care of its citizens ever since. Truman even created the CIA and NATO, both hegemonic criminal organizations. Imagine how much better off and peaceful the world would have been if United States and United Kingdom had extended a hand of friendship to Russia? The criminals commit their crimes and go away while the world’s poor pay the price. That is the legacy of most American presidents with few exceptions ever since its birth.

Though Russia has done no harm to the United States, the United States had been planning to destroy Russia since the end of World War-II.

The Coup to install anti-Russian government in Ukraine was planned since June 2011.

Finally, U.S. was successful in carrying out the coup in Ukraine to overthrow the pro-Russian, democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovych and was replaced with pro-western, rabidly anti-Russian president Volodymyr Zelensky. The idea behind this coup was to make Ukraine anti-Russian so that it can be admitted into NATO. The chief objective to grab Ukraine has been to place America’s nuclear missiles on Russia’s border with Ukraine, only 5-minute flying time away from nuking Moscow. The idea behind being that if it is done that fast, then Russia’s command-and-control will be preemptively destroyed before Russia could launch retaliatory weapons.

Once Russia has been neutralized, it will be forced to obey  U.S. hegemony; will become a vassal state of the United States like the UK and other western European nations and then its vast resources will be made available for western powers to exploit and profit from.

U.S. and European countries view Russia, as Hitler did in 1941, as a vast arena for plunder. Through a combination of war and internal destabilization, these imperialist countries seek to instigate the breakup of Russia. Then, the U.S. will reign supreme amongst the nations of the world. This is the diabolical plan of the U.S. government.

There is another reason for the United States to fear and hate Russia. Washington derives its global power through its control and dominance of the U.S. dollar, as it has become the world’s reserve currency. This special status enables Washington to amass obscene deficits that do not in any way reflect America’s real productive capacity.

The U.S. dollar is the dominant currency used for most international trades since it replaced sterling in 1920s.Major commodities such as oil, gas, gold, base metals, and agricultural products are priced in and paid for, in dollars internationally. This has created huge global demand for the dollar, adding massive value to its worth, thus creating strong demand for US treasuries. This enables the United States’ federal government to print dollars by the trillions—creating money out of thin air—borrow without limit and spend with abandon.

The dollar dominance has afforded America great global power. But now, as never before, it is under threat as Russia, China and other countries are challenging the dollar hegemony.

Many countries have realized and are now seeking to ditch their dependance on the dollar as Washington has abused its status as issuer of the world’s reserve currency for decades.

Russia and China have drastically reduced their use of the dollar. About 90% of their bilateral trade was conducted in dollars in 2015, but since the start of US-China trade war, that has fallen to 46% and is rapidly declining further. Even US allies and friends, like Turkey and India, have begun trading in their respective national currencies when it suits them.

Since Ukraine-Russia War, the de-dollarization has picked up speed. For example, all the trade between Russia and India, worth billions of dollars, is now done in Rubbles and Rupees. Hence, this is the beginning of the end of dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

America’s growing use of severe sanctions against countries who do not obey its dictates, has fueled this trend as countries seek new ways of financing their trades without Washington’s ability to seize their money. “The U.S., by continuously using sanctions, is beginning to cut off its nose to spite its face,” said Anuradha Chenoy, formerly the dean of Jawaharlal Nehru’s School of international Studies in New Delhi.

This continued decline of the dollar as world’s reserve currency, the de-dollarization, and Russia-China alliance deeply worries the United States.

Any nation that does not obey Washington’s edicts and refuses to play the dollar game is met with a coup, a color revolution, a false flag, or brute military force. We saw that what Washington did in Iraq, Libya and many other nations that rejected dollar hegemony. But United States cannot directly attack Russia. So, this proxy war in Ukraine, using Ukrainian people as pawns to be sacrificed by thousands.

It is indeed a laughable matter to hear the US and NATO countries claiming that they are engaged in a “defense of democracy” and against “foreign aggression”. The Biden Administration’s claim that it is defending the sanctity of Ukraine’s national sovereignty against “foreign aggression”.

Just look at the countries invaded and/or bombed by the US in the last 30 years: Panama, Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, and Syria. Since World War-II, the United States has destroyed more than 50 democracies and/or democratic movements around the world.

To achieve this victory in World War-III, the U.S. government needs to deceive its population constantly like they did before invading Iraq in 2003 and the main-stream corporate media in America always is a happy partner to oblige.

That is why they have made Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, Iran, or China into a demon. Now Putin has been made a boogeyman. To an astute observer who questions everything he or she sees on American TV or reads on mainstream newspapers, everything fits into a pattern. U.S. corporate media always toes the government line just like they did prior to Iraq invasion in 2003. Ever since Russia invaded Ukraine, all the mainstream news media are condemning Putin but none of them criticize U.S. policy towards Russia which led to the invasion in the first place.

There are massive protests, against higher gas prices in Germany and France. Thousands of people are protesting, asking the French government to get out of NATO. But nowhere we see this news being reported in American mainstream news-media. Total black out. “Censorship by Omission”, to quote veteran Australian journalist John Pilger. Unfortunately, most Americans believe in this massive propaganda. So, U.S. crimes around the world go on unabated.

*

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

Chaitanya Davé is a chemist and chemical engineer and a successful businessman. Authored three books: CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: A Shocking Record of US Crimes since 1776-2007, COLLAPSE: Civilization of the Brink-2010, Capitalism’s March of Destruction. Author of many articles on politics, history, and environment Founder and President of “Pragati”, a non-profit charity foundation helping the poor villagers of India, Nepal, Haiti, USA-homeless and other poor countries. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Featured image is from Gallup

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

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

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

***

In a time of economic uncertainty, climate crisis, and the necessity for peace and stability for people and planet, over 220 organizations join together in an international campaign to end the United State’s F-35 program. Citing “harm caused abroad, cost of the program to the taxpayer, inefficiencies and failures, the environmental impact of F-35s, and the effects training has on local communities” the large coalition of organizations are joined by Ben Cohen, Roger Waters, Noam Chomsky and others in signing a joint letter addressed to President Joe Biden and members of the United States congress.

“I joined over 200 organizations from around the world in calling on the U.S. government to end the disastrous F-35 fighter jet program because as a global community we need to drastically change our priorities.” Roger Waters, co-founder of Pink Floyd continued, “To the people in the countries the F-35 is sold to and produced in, it’s time we demand a reinvestment into life, not war.”

The organizations signed on to the demand represent human interest groups from the United States, Canada, Mexico, Paraguay, Germany, Spain, Kenya, and Switzerland. With the intention of the US to sell the F-35s to countries around the world, citizens from those countries push back on the program and those sales.

“This is of deep concern to many of us in the country,” explains Ruth Rohde, board member at the Arms Information Centre in Germany.

“Germany is looking to buy the F-35 to carry American nuclear weapons stationed here. Not only is this going to be a large, unnecessary financial burden but also sustains the disastrous, indefensible threat of nuclear war on and from German soil.”

The coalition points out in the letter that not only is the F-35 program an extension of dangerous militarism but the jets themselves have proven to be a money-draining and faulty piece of machinery. Even The Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Adam Smith called the F-35 a “rathole.”

“The global community is fed-up with overpriced, underperforming weapon systems like the F-35. It’s a complete waste of tax-payer dollars that causes harm abroad and here at home in Vermont.” Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream and Vermont local continued, “The only people this project benefits are the executives at Lockheed Martin. Real security is knowing you can see a doctor when you’re sick, not a boondoggle fighter jet that can’t fly near thunderstorms.”

Cohen, along with many Vermont-based organizations represent the working-class families who unwillingly are subjected to the physically and mentally detrimental F-35 training program that terrorizes their neighborhoods. The noise caused by the F-35 hits 115 decibels which especially hurts and injures infants and children, the elderly, and the disabled. The F-35 has 300 to 600 takeoffs and landings a month. Madison, Wisconsin residents are the next on the list to be subjected to this violation of personal privacy.

The campaign to end the F-35 program is being spearheaded by CODEPINK: Women for Peace as part of their overall goal to end the war economy and create a stable and sustainable planet for all, not just a few.

“The F-35 program is a microcosm of the military industrial complex. Each year the U.S. government funnels massive amounts of money into the program while letting places in the U.S. go without clean water for months or years. Sustaining this program for any longer will have detrimental effects on human life and the earth.” Danaka Katovich, national co-director of CODEPINK.

The letter is being emailed to the White House and Congressional staffers this week as well as being hand delivered directly to select members of Congress.

The letter itself is just the beginning of the campaign. An international day of action is being planned for 2023 with thousands of people from four continents taking to the streets to stop President Biden from including the F-35 program in his defense budget proposal to be submitted to Congress for FY2024. Between now and the 2023 action, the 200+ organizations will be petitioning their elected officials and educating the public on the real life dangers and consequences of continuing the F-35 program.

*

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

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

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

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

***

The Trilateral Commission is the gatekeeper of the modern technocracy movement, and technocracy is ground zero for the global totalitarian (beast) system. This organization was co-founded 50 years ago by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Trilateralists are the ones today who are pushing the war on carbon, the war on food and the coming world war between Russia-China and U.S.-NATO. Their overall agenda represents a war on humanity and, as such, receives inspiration from the very depths of hell.

Since the Carter Administration in the 1970s, members of the Trilateral Commission have dominated every president since, both Democrat and Republican, to establish their self-proclaimed goal of  a New International Economic Order. For all who think the Commission is over-the-hill, you need to get a grip on what is actually happening.

Here are the top 10 Trilaterals controlling Biden. (Trilateral Commission current or former members are in bold type.)

Joe Biden is surrounded by TEN current and former members of the Trilateral Commission. They have become like a personal guard and policy controllers for virtually everything that Biden has pursued since his inauguration. Since the Trilateral Commission membership is global – only one third are Americans – these 10 interlopers collectively represent the interests of the global hegemony that is trying to destroy America.

First, foreign policy is locked down by Secretary of State Tony Blinken and his Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman.

Then there is Biden’s National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. The NSA is the gatekeeper of what reaches the president’s attention. During the Carter administration, Trilateral co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski was the NSA.

Three of the most important ambassadorships are occupied by Trilaterals:

• Mark Brzezinski, U.S. Ambassador to Poland.

• Nicholas Burns, U.S. Ambassador to China (who also served in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations).

• Ken Juster, U.S. Ambassador to India (who by the way also served in the Trump administration as deputy assistant to the president for International Economic Affairs).

China and India are the two most influential powerhouses of Technocracy in the world. And yes, Mark Brzezinski is the brother of MSNBC broadcaster Mika Brzezinski and son of the late Zbigniew Brzezinski. Are you surprised that Poland is currently in talks with the US about hosting nuclear weapons? Who do you suppose came up with that idea? The Brzezinski family was originally from Poland, so they have a deep history there (the Poles and Russians have a deep-seated hatred for each other going back centuries).

Domestic policy?

• Susan Rice, director of the Domestic Policy Council, is the dominant force who creates and oversees Biden’s domestic policy. Remember “Benghazi Sue”? She was President Obama’s National Security Advisor when the disastrous attack on Benghazi occurred in 2012 – then she infamously claimed the attack was over some totally idiotic video released in California.

Monetary policy?

• How about the vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Lael Brainard, If Fed Chairman Jerome Powell seems a little confused and bewildered at times, she is right there as his right-hand policy-maker.

• David Lipton, first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, is there to coordinate global monetary policy.

Environmental policy?

• John Podesta has recently been appointed senior advisor to the president for Green Energy Innovation and Implementation. This means he is in charge of spending the $370 billion on green programs that was authorized by Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Podesta was the original architect of environmental policy while serving in the Clinton administration. He also served as Hilary Clinton’s 2016 campaign manager.

To recap: foreign policy, domestic policy, environmental policy, and monetary policy are all dominated by current or former members of the Trilateral Commission. Cognitively challenged Joe Biden is nothing more that the home-boy puppet of this globalist cartel.

It’s time to stop seeing only what you think you know and start knowing what you can clearly see.

*

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

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

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

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

***

My wife and I completed a cruise recently that started in Venice, visited islands and historic sites in the Eastern Mediterranean, and concluded in Rome after stops in Valletta, Palermo and Naples. There were inevitably good things and bad things in terms of how the shore excursions were programmed, more bad than good unfortunately, and the costs of the extras provided by the carrier seem to have skyrocketed in the developing post COVID era, apparently making up for the losses sustained in dry dock over the past three years.

Most of the passengers on our ship were American or Canadian, but there were also large numbers of Europeans and residents of Australia and New Zealand. Being at close quarters with the Europeans in particular provided an interesting opportunity to learn what is driving the Old World to self-destruct like lemmings diving suicidally off the Norwegian cliffs. As both my wife and I are functional in a number of European languages, it also provided a good opportunity to exchange views in a non-threatening way and even to eavesdrop on those nearby in the ship’s bars and restaurants when they were discussing political and social developments in their homelands. It was also interesting nevertheless to note how politics intruded into an otherwise a deliberately apolitical experience, with the ship hosting a parade-around-the-deck march to raise money for and celebrate the Ukrainian refugees. My wife and I did not participate.

The days spent in Venice before the cruise began were enlightening, not to mention perilous when I had my pocket picked at a crowded vaporetto stop outside the Accademia Museum. The Filipino waiters in our ship’s bar were quite amused to learn that a former CIA officer, who regularly called for “gin martini shaken not stirred,” had had his wallet taken, with one bright spark asking “uh, how many people have you killed?” When I was explaining that I had not killed anyone he interrupted to say that “They probably deserved it.”

On our first day in Venice, my wife and I noted immediately the large number of formerly highly prestigious shops that were closed in Piazza San Marco, the tourist center of the city which normally attracts top level clients at top level prices. The signs of economic decline were even more visible the farther away one moved away from San Marco, to include the closure of many restaurants and bars. Italy is struggling, which has led a sharp shift to the right in the recent election. So too Britain, Germany and France are all in trouble and not finding any solutions coming from the hapless band of conniving politicians that have recently been elected. A few more steps downwards and the whole house of cards appears poised to collapse.

Of course, some European politicians are following the easy and approved course endorsed by President Joe Biden, blaming the continent’s energy crisis on Vladimir Putin instead of on their own bureaucratic fumbling and failure to protect the interests of their fellow citizens. No European that we met was willing to acknowledge the obvious truth, i.e. that the Ukraine crisis was based on issues that were fully negotiable and the Russian intervention was avoidable. One retired German official whom we met was particularly prone to never speaking ill of any politician. Unless they are Russian or Chinese, that is. He informed us that NATO should make clear its objective to remove Putin because “the man is a fascist” who “wants to recreate the Soviet Union.” I demurred that Putin is a nationalist who has been provoked deliberately and there is a difference, but our interlocutor was quickly off on another track, stating that Joe Biden has “done some really good things.” When we recovered from the shock of such a ridiculous assertion, I mentioned the arrival of 1.3 million illegal immigrants in the US on Honest Joe’s watch plus his toying with nuclear war in support of no known American interest apart from spreading something called “democracy,” which the United States no longer has, while also vilifying political opponents as “domestic terrorists.” And there is also that little matter of sending billions to Ukraine so it can “win,” whatever that means, in order to weaken Russia while also warning of an impending event called “Armageddon.”

I also spoke to a number of Italians about their recent election, in which conservative leader of the Fratelli d’Italia party Giorgia Meloni led a coalition that will likely make her the new Prime Minister by a comfortable margin. In the Western Media Meloni is regularly and inevitably linked to another former nationalist Italian leader, Benito Mussolini. The malaise of the people I spoke with over Italy’s decline was evident. They are watching everything move in the wrong direction, and, to their credit, few of them gave a rat’s ass over Ukraine. They did, however, react in their recent voting due to unelected European Union Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen, who, on the eve of the Italian elections, warned Italians that if they voted for the “wrong” i.e. conservative parties they would be punished. Asked about the surge of the right-wing political opposition, she threatened “we will see the result of the vote in Italy. If things go in a difficult direction — and I’ve spoken about Hungary and Poland — we have the tools.”

Beyond that, there did appear to be an age divide in terms of the Italian views relating to the voting and the likely new government. Younger voters several times said to me “It takes us back twenty years,” a reference to the more conservative politicians that prevailed at that time. Older voters, however, want the social disruption caused by the mass illegal immigration into the country and the accompanying Islamization to stop and they want protection for Italian jobs and businesses. Many of them mentioned the desire to preserve Italian and Catholic traditional culture. A retired school teacher also sagely observed that Italy should lead the charge in abolishing the European Parliament and getting rid of people like von der Leyen, as the European Union was designed as a free trade zone, not as a progressive dominated body empowered to pass laws and regulations impacting severely on the economies of member states.

Inevitably, Joe Biden denounced the Italian election results as a setback where “democracy is at stake” in order to convince US voter to cast their ballots for Democrats. He elaborated “You just saw what’s happened in Italy in that election. You’re seeing what’s happening around the world. And the reason I bother to say that is we can’t be sanguine about what’s happening here, either. I don’t want to exaggerate it, but I don’t want to understate it. And it’s the reason why I’m so concerned about and so interested in and so committed to seeing that the governors — Democratic governors — are elected.” The Biden comment, insulting to the Italians, was not much reported in the US media but was on the receiving end of a great deal of critical commentary in Italy. Several Italians I spoke to mentioned it disparagingly.

And given my own views on the usual very sensitive subject, I asked one Italian official with close ties to Fratelli d’Italia why Israel will be getting a pass from the new Prime Minister. Indeed, she, like her counterpart Liz Truss in Britain, embraces the close relationship with the Jewish state, forgiving its trespasses and crimes against humanity because it is expedient to do so. She also fully embraces the false narrative about Israel vs. the Palestinians. The official responded, with some candor, I thought, that Jews are not very numerous in modern Italy, but they tend to wield power considerably beyond their head count. They are very influential in the media and in some sectors of the economy, in particular, and it pays an ambitious politician to stay on their right side. I responded “Yes, it is the same everywhere, I am afraid.”

Shortly before our cruise ended, Joe Biden stuck his foot in his mouth yet again, and I was interested in hearing what the Europeans thought about the White House’s National Security Strategy – a congressionally mandated report supposedly outlining US security goals and foreign policy objectives, but which critic Jordan Schachtel describes as “…more unhinged than any of its predecessors. The NSS was once understood as a serious document compiling a list of actual threats to the nation. It now resembles a hyper-political Blue Anon fundraising mailer. Most of the items discussed in the supposed threat assessment have nothing to do with national security at all. And the things that are related to national security matters have major prioritization and politicization issues.”

In the document, the Biden administration has declared the intensifying competition with Beijing to be Washington’s biggest challenge and it boasts that “We must proactively shape the international order in line with our interests and values” before adding that “There is nothing beyond our capacity.” The document inevitably stressed the need for “constraining Russia,” and mentions that country 71 times. The Kremlin is described as an “immediate and persistent threat to international peace and stability… The United States will not allow Russia, or any power, to achieve its objectives through using, or threatening to use, nuclear weapons.” The US also has condemned Chinese business practices while simultaneously describing Russia as a “persistent threat” – can the US afford to have such adversaries turned into enemies, given its multiple domestic issues including out of control inflation and debt? Many Europeans are willing to let the US lead on such issues, but they also expressed concern that it would develop into a trade war at minimum and possibly much worse.

To our surprise, our German contact actually agreed that the President’s designation of not one but two major military and economic powers more-or-less as enemies is odd, not to mention seriously schizophrenic in that it contradicts other White House assertions about a global rules-based order based on cooperation. And Biden is taking no steps to mitigate his warlike talk, having already indicated that he will not meet with Putin in the upcoming G-20 summit in Indonesia in November. Can it be that because there is a US election coming up there will be another photo op of Joe flanked by Marines in front of Independence Hall bathed in red light and waving his tiny fist around?

I do not want to suggest that people who go on cruises are representative of anything beyond their demographic, i.e. moderately affluent and reasonably well educated by modern standards. But it is nevertheless interesting to observe how the Europeans generally are inclined to defer to what they know to be half-truths coming out of their governments. Europe will surely sink or swim in the upcoming year or two as soaring energy costs wreck economies and force major dislocations, a fate perhaps to be shared by a level of government debt and spending combined with a loss of any national purpose that will together initiate an irreversible decline in the United States.

*

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

This article was originally published on The 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].

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.

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

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

***

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

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

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

***

 

When an ugly power play marks the end of the career of a phenomenally successful politician, it presents a painful sight. From all accounts in the British press in the most recent weeks, it was clear that the night of the long knives was approaching for the most photogenic prime minister Great Britain and Northern Ireland ever produced — Liz Truss.

Enoch Powell, if I remember correctly, once said that the tragedy of most politicians is that they do not know when to quit public life before the sun starts descending westward on their career. Indeed, Truss invited upon herself such an ignominious end to her stunning political career. 

For, she should have known that in life, it’s more important to be aware of one’s weaknesses than strengths. But she was fired up by an overvaulting ambition to slip into the shoes of Margaret Thatcher, while it was crystal clear to anyone who watched her controversial visit to Moscow in February that Truss was perilously close to being exposed as an incompetent politician. Come to think of it, she eagerly sought an invitation from Moscow keenly seeking media headlines as a tough-talking diplomat even as the storms were gathering over Ukraine. 

But then, Truss probably believes that success and competence are not necessarily inter-related and politics is all about packaging and marketing — or, plain luck. She’s right in thinking so. Boris Johnson had his uses for her. But Truss ignored that Britain is not only sick but likely terminally ill, and only a politician with a magic wand can navigate the country out of its misery, and that she was not up to the task. 

The result is that within a month of her time as prime minister, Truss has proved that Elensky curse is real. If she wanted to abandon plans to scrap the scheduled increase in corporation tax from 19 to 25 percent, it was bad. But when she retracted, that was also bad. The political atmosphere  became sulphurous. 

Of course, a day is a long time in politics, but from the look of it, Truss is a burnt-out case and her days as prime minister are numbered. Attention has already turned to Rishi Sunak as her likely successor. Will that make any difference? 

Sunak bears an uncanny resemblance to Barack Obama — a voluble, charismatic, well-educated globalist, who would have acceptability with the country’s permanent establishment as someone who can be trusted not to upset the apple cart. But is that all that is needed to steer Britain out of crisis mode? 

A significant part of Britain’s travails today stems out of the West’s sanctions against Russia. According to a Sunday Telegraph report, by mid-April, British citizens were already militating against the sanctions due to rising prices, especially fuel price. The Guardian newspaper also reported that there would be inflationary pressure and economy will slow down in the UK following economic measures against Russia. 

“The shockwaves from the Russian invasion of Ukraine will cut UK living standards by £2,500 per household, lead to more persistent inflationary pressure and slow the economy to a standstill next year, economists fear,” the newspaper wrote in March. 

Market confidence has crashed, the value of the pound and government bonds is tanking and the Bank of England is restive, as investors fear that the British economy cannot possibly underwrite a £60 billion hit to public debt. 

On the other hand, public spending must be cut even at the risk of provoking a broader social explosion. But, how to find tens of billions of pounds of cuts in just three weeks? The sell-off of bonds and the fall in the pound prompted the Bank of England to raise interest rates more quickly than planned, which in turn sent mortgages soaring. 

The catch is, if Sunak is indeed brought in as PM, that will be the outcome of a palace coup and for the wrong reasons, especially his formidable manipulative skill in the corridors of power. Times wrote:  “Senior Conservatives are holding talks about replacing Liz Truss with a joint ticket of Rishi Sunak and Penny Mordaunt as part of a ‘coronation’ by MPs.”

“Around ‘20 to 30’ former ministers and senior backbenchers are attempting to find a way for a ‘council of elders’ to tell Truss to quit.” The coup is executed almost openly by the world’s banks and asset managers with the rising expectation that the new team might restore confidence in the UK economy — while, in reality, would satisfy the interests of the financial oligarchy. 

If the trick doesn’t work or if something goes seriously wrong, there is Plan B — a general election. The interesting part is that if the opposition Labour wins — as it well might with current polling figures showing that the Conservatives will be reduced to just 85 seats, down from 356, and their worst ever result by far — the interests of the financial oligarchy will remain utterly safe in the hands of Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, who can be trusted to subserve the global speculators and corporate boardrooms. After the overthrow of Jeremy Corbyn, there was a thorough purge of his flock of socialists. 

It is a dreary outcome. Recently, Al Jazeera featured a riveting report about the working of inner party democracy within the Labour, which shows “how the party’s bureaucrats, whose nominal function is to serve the interests of the party, attempted to undermine members supportive of Jeremy Corbyn,… Labour’s leader from 2015 to 2020,… the first unequivocally socialist leader of the party since the 1980s, (who) rode a wave of popular discontent against the political establishment, standing on a platform of public ownership of key industries, a strengthened welfare state, and an end to the austerity measures imposed by the Conservative government at that time.”  

Both in terms of the class war at home and Britain’s war against Russia and China abroad, no serious shift can be expected out of a regime change calibrated by the Deep State. The only silver lining is that Britain’s capacity to fuel the Ukraine war has drastically diminished as it fights its own battle for survival. With a 80,000-strong standing army — one-fourth the size of Eritrea’s —Britain was anyway punching far above its weight in Ukraine. 

The right thing to do is for the next UK prime minister to visit Washington without delay and prevail upon President Biden to end this senseless war in Ukraine and lift the sanctions against Russia, which bled the economies of the UK and other European allies. The heart of the matter is that Europe’s prosperity was built on the availability of cheap, reliable, energy supplies from Russia in huge volumes.

But it will be a dare-devil act — almost suicidal — for Sunak or any British politician to take on the Deep State. Will Sunak be up to it? Left to himself, he never sounded enthusiastic about the Ukraine war or the regime in Kiev. So, will the Deep State take chances? Indeed, that is precisely where the chances of Ben Wallace, the defence Secretary, would lie. A dark horse trotting down the path in the wilderness of British politics!

*

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

Featured image is from Tim Hammond / No10 Downing Stree / CC

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

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

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

***

The decision of the Russian Federation to annex the Donbas region of the Ukraine, combined with the decision of the Ukraine to apply for membership in NATO, and for elements in the United Nations and other intergovernmental organizations to support this haphazard, dangerous and thoughtless action, has brought us to the edge of nuclear war, or at least that it’s the impression we are given.

We will not know the true story for decades. And although we are being fed multiple false, or incomplete, narratives, it is entirely possible that the globalists intend to use the threat of nuclear war as a means to enforce a new form of totalitarian governance everywhere that goes far beyond the COVID19 reign of terror.

They may be cooperating with those who are branded as nationalists, or branded anti-globalists, cardboard messiahs like Trump or Putin, all working together to create a world on the edge, a world where anything goes.

Whatever performance the globalists and nationalists may put on to frighten us, the corporations and militaries around the world are playing footsie with each other: enemies at one level, silent partners at another.

They all know that once Russia and NATO move to a war economy, and a war command structure, the United States, and most every nation, will be drawn in and everything will be shut down.

At the same, Putin and Biden may be playing a game, and maybe their friends at the World Economic Forum told them that everything is under control. But once the military command system is put into play, it works like clockwork. Nuclear war may come in a few hours, even if the masterminds never intended it.

It may be a matter of days, weeks or months, but the system for governance, logistics, transportation, food and energy supplies, information (journalism) and education, medical treatment, even housing and clothing, will break down.

The last seventy years of easy living, of dependency on a money economy, of reliance on the Federal government and multinational corporations, has left most of us without the ability to produce food, clothing, furniture, or much of anything at all, on our own.

The current collapse, with or without world war, will be far worse than the fall of the Soviet Union.

Trust no one, but start to build relations of profound trust. Start with your family, extend a hand to your neighbors, and reach out bravely to like-minded people across the nation.

First and foremost, we must abandon all the false narratives about cardboard messiahs saving us that the corporate media has planted in our heads—and much of the alternative media that we rely on is also, ultimately, corporate.

We must rebuild the government from ground up. It is so corrupt, so broken, so contradictory, and so suicidal that in its present form it cannot lead us anywhere but towards the grave.

Putting a nice guy at the top, even if that were possible, will not stop this death march.

The only option is to create a legitimate government from the bottom up; we must start from your family members, from your neighbors, from your local government and only then work our way up. Once we control our own minds, our own families, and we are able to make our own decisions without being fed the mind-numbing trash, flavored conservative or progressive, called news, then we can build a real government, a real economy, and a real culture that grows from the people, and that has nothing to do with supercomputers or multinational investment banks.

This directive is meant to instruct you as to what you need to do now in coordination with the US Provisional Government so as to prepare for the initial shock and awe.

This directive is meant to start the process of organizing, beginning with your family, to create sustainable local communities that can supply food, water, housing, and other necessities in the face of systemic breakdown.

We will not be able to assist you during the initial stage; we can only offer directives. However, that approach is preferable as self-sufficiency is the only manner in which we can restore legitimate governance.

We will need entirely new systems that are run in a transparent manner by the people—with no global capital involved, for food production, water supply, energy supply, distribution, information and education, and housing.

Remember, there will not be a real government until you and your neighbors build one with your own hands. That “government” that you see out there today has become a criminal syndicate; it is not a government any more.

We have been offered a false choice by the bankers. They say we most chose between the government and the private sector. That false choice is the same in Washington and Paris, in Berlin and Moscow, in Tokyo and Beijing. That “private sector” means global capital, the banks and corporations, that run this broken system.

That is to say that the private sector is the same as the government but worse. The private sector is run by the rich in a totalitarian manner for their own benefit.

Rebuilding government means making it clear that the relationship must be between the government and the people, the community, to which the government is ultimately responsible.

What will happen next

A partial shutdown of the economy and of the functions of government, civil society and business is already in effect. That is only the beginning. Plans are in place for a complete shutdown, perhaps using the threat of nuclear war, or some other catastrophe, as an excuse to push through martial law, to isolate the citizens, to allow corporations to completely control all means of finance, production, distribution and sales, and to create complete dependency on government and on multinational corporations for the basics of life.

Basic principles

Attitude is essential. We must be spiritually and psychologically strong and we must overcome fear, irrational fear of the unknown. They will use hyped-up fear, terror, as the tool to control us—as they already have done with numerous fake school shootings, contrived racial attacks, and other incidents intended to convince us that the enemy is our neighbor who has different habits, and not the rich who wish to destroy us all. Divide, rule, and destroy is not just a strategy, it is now the only strategy.

We must quickly establish a healthy culture, which means overcoming the negative popular culture forced on us by the corporations, notably, the cult of the self, narcissism, the throw-away culture of consumption and waste, and the trap of emotional manipulation through gender and ethnic branding that is meant to destroy our personal autonomy.

That means a return to real values, real love, real family, and real responsibility to the community. It means moving away from the individual as the focus and embracing values like frugality and honesty.

We must look out for our families first as we prepare for a total systemic collapse. At the same time, we must have a strong sense of community so that we are ready to help each other, and to take risks for each other, when the situation demands it.

If we try to just save ourselves, we will not survive.

We need to identify who has what skills in our neighborhood, and what his or her role will be when the system breaks down.

Who has skills as a farmer, a doctor, a negotiator, a teacher, an organizer, a carpenter, a moral leader, etc.? Money is not the important factor in making these plans because money can very quickly have little value if the authority of public institutions dissolves, or if banks are shut down.

Having money in cash may be valuable, but it may be even better to buy things necessary for survival. Do so in coordination with others so we do not duplicate everything.

There should be two parts of our response which must undertaken simultaneously. First there must be an immediate response to the shutdown: stockpiling food and supplies, purchasing tools and objects with real value, and forming plans with friends and neighbors for how we can pool resources, reduce waste, change habits, and form a community quickly.

Second, we need a long-term program for sustainable agriculture, creating local manufacturing, and forming communities that are self-sufficient, communities wherein the means of production, distribution and consumption are controlled by the people in a democratic manner, much in the sense envisioned in the United States at the time of the signing of the Constitution. When everything else collapses, those local groups will become everything.

Self-sufficiency over months and years will require a major shift in our thinking about ourselves and our community. They will take time and careful planning. That part is not simply about surviving on food you have hoarded. Hoarding in itself will not protect you if everyone is a hoarder. We need a community.

The biggest challenge will be talking with your family about the crisis honestly and making a plan together. If you can do that, you are already halfway to the solution.

Next, snap out of denial! Overcome your shyness and start to discuss these matters seriously with your neighbors. The culture fed to us by television and movies encourages in us an obsession with personal needs and discourages the building a community. This poisonous culture must be exposed and driven out.

What you need to know:

The SAT test never asks you how to make water potable, how to create your own compost for your garden, which local plants are edible, or how to raise chickens. That is no accident. The multinational corporations want you to be dependent on what they supply and lacking in self-sufficiency. They are counting on this crash to bring you to your knees.

There are various manuals that can be bought, or downloaded, that can teach you how to compost, to farm, to raise animals, to purify water, to build your own home or furniture, to sew clothes, etc. Get these materials and study them. See how you can reduce your expenses through self-sufficiency rather than scrambling to get more money.

Money may disappear, or it may be reduced to digital currencies that can be cancelled, or made conditional, at any time. Barter and trust are critical to create economies that are not dependent on money. Eventually we can establish our own revolutionary currency based on real value.

We have been suckered into dependency on fossil fuels that are destructive to the environment through a long process over one hundred years. Reducing the use of energy, unnecessary travel, and other wasteful behavior can be transformative. Sharing resources, and working to create water mills, install good old fashioned wind mills, set up solar energy (and the best form of solar energy is using the sun to grow plants we eat), and manual labor will make us stronger and more independent.

That means learning new skills—actually old skills—and it means rejecting the growth cult. Build houses that will last for a hundred years, weave pants that will last for fifty years, and you will find that we do not need that much, that we are free for the first time. Teach yourself and your children to read, and to talk about the deep truths in the great books, and you will be liberated.

We must create our own logistics and distribution systems that are independent of the current import, logistics, distribution, sales monopoly run by multinational corporations. Breaking the control of global finance on what we buy is critical for survival.

We need to create our own networks to get out reliable news and analysis to family, friends, and neighbors. If necessary it can be done by word of mouth, printed documents, even hand-written notes. In some cases, the internet can be an effective medium, but increasingly the Internet is not our friend and if there is no electricity, there will be no Internet.

We need to teach our own children, and our neighbors’ children, and to teach ourselves, through a new educational system that is based in science and in ethical principles that go beyond the culture of narcissism.

Local governance based on the Constitution, and the great moral teachings of the past, one that involves citizens gathering to resolve difficult issues through meaningful debate and transparent policy proposals, will be critical.

We must deal with difficult questions like ownership. Obviously the land bought up by multinational corporations with fake money does not belong to them. But we must have a consistent policy concerning how that land is owned and administered, how it is farmed and how the food produced is shared. The banks and corporations clearly do not have any legitimate claim of ownership but we must set up logical and just definitions of what possession means to avoid chaos.

That process will require us to face the massive class conflicts that haunt our country, conflicts between us, conflicts and contradictions that have been covered over with identity politics by the left and with the hyping issues like illegal immigration by the right.

The problem of security

The fake declaration that a nuclear war has started may be accompanied by the use of 5G, or robots and drones, to attack citizens. These are real threats from within and we must be prepared.

The dangers of a shock and awe attack meant to completely demoralize and confuse us are high—but every one of these threats can be responded to if we are level headed, organized and committed to the cause.

It is a sad fact of history that we are always preparing to fight the last war. This next war will play out according to unfamiliar rules. The principles of war, however, are unchanging.

Safety first! But it is a mistake to start swinging your sword if you do not know who your enemy is.

Our enemies have gone to great length to cover their tracks, to hide behind those cardboard messiahs.

Let us start with our food, our water, our soil, and our air.

We will need to establish our own systems to assess the quality of air, of soil, of food, and of water, without relying on corporate or government controlled organizations. We must defend the quality of air and water because they are essential to life and they are under attack.

At the beginning, we cannot shoot down the planes engaged in geoengineering; we cannot stop low-orbit military satellites.

Yet, do not despair!

If we build up our network from the bottom up, one based on mutual support and mutual respect, eventually we will be able to reach to the heavens.

We must take down all the 5G towers that are used to assault our bodies, and our minds, using electromagnetic radiation. As those 5G networks are supposedly private property owned by Verizon, ATT, or others, this operation requires preparation. We need to explain to citizens, and to anyone who asks, or who challenges us, why the money used to build those towers was fake and why the organizations running 5G networks are criminal syndicates working to destroy us.

Such arguments will be difficult at first, but I have complete confidence that as things get worse, those arguments will eventually carry the day. Go forth with confidence.

Attacks by drones and robots are also entirely possible, especially if martial law is declared in response to a nuclear war, real or fabricated. There are ways to defend ourselves against these weapons, and to dismantle them. The first step is to talk with each other honestly and to start brainstorming.

The military, the intelligence community, and the police

It is a sad fact that the collapse of our civilization, and the profound corruption that has spread through all parts of the body politic, have rendered the organizations that are supposed to be concerned with safety and security as criminal syndicates that use their authority and supposed legitimacy to push through projects that benefit the few by destroying us.

Many an honest military officer, or police officer, has been destroyed in secret by the globalists, or forced to do terrible things in response to horrible threats.

The situation seems overwhelming, but it is far from hopeless. We have faced such challenges before in human history and once a serious discussion starts outside of banal consumer culture, real leaders with real solutions will emerge.

We have complete faith that a way forward will become manifest once we know the truth and that truth sets us free.

If you are a member of the police, of the military, or of intelligence, a man or woman who has a conscience, who cares about the Constitution and the rule of law, who is concerned about whether your children will survive, please allow me to make a suggestion.

Look around and see if you can identify others who have similar concerns. See if you can form a space in which you can speak with colleagues honestly, and assess what is going on accurately, a space wherein you can discuss what needs to be done. If you can create such a space, you have made tremendous progress.

Do not be concerned about whether it is two people, or a hundred people. Numbers are not important at this moment.

If you must take action that seems ineffective, do not be discouraged. Every single act of resistance, every effort to dismantle the rule of our nation by global capital, makes a real difference, even if it is not immediately visible.

Your historic contributions may not be recognized for decades. That is how history works. Those seeking immediate fame and glory are not to be trusted.

We must work for the country, for our children, but also for the children of others.

Your training in security matters is not so valuable in a government run by billionaires. You are slated for destruction sooner or later. There can be no doubt about that.

But among the citizens, your understanding could be a matter of life and death. You are desperately needed by the nation.

Finally, the United States of America is founded on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If the government rejects that contract between the people and the institutions empowered to use force, to effect the economy, then it is no longer a “government” but rather a criminal syndicate. If we are loyal to the people, follow the word and the spirit of the Constitution, are ethical in accord with natural law, we are the government, even if we are but a handful of people.

Our influence will expand exponentially as the crisis enters the next stage.

Back to the citizens of our nation.

Please contact the United States Provisional Government at any time if you have questions or suggestions. You are the ones who will lead and I have complete confidence that real leaders will emerge. They will not come from Harvard or Google. They may come from humble backgrounds, but they will be remarkable in every sense. What happens to me is totally, totally unimportant.

The United States Provisional Government is not here to offer you a service. That undemocratic concept of government as a service was promoted by corporations as a means of enslaving us.

We are here to help you organize into a community that will serve the role of governance from the ground up. The age of dependency on the Federal Government and on multinational corporations is over.

*

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

This article was originally published on US Provisional Government.

Emanuel Pastreich served as the president of the Asia Institute, a think tank with offices in Washington DC, Seoul, Tokyo and Hanoi. Pastreich also serves as director general of the Institute for Future Urban Environments. Pastreich declared his candidacy for president of the United States as an independent in February, 2020.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Countercurrents

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

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

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

***

What is called OPEC⁺, that is the 13 members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) together with 11 other petroleum exporting countries led by Russia, decided on October 5 to cut their oil production by 2 million barrels per day, starting from November. The US had been pressing OPEC not to take this decision. There had been hectic lobbying by the US to prevent this outcome, and several visits by top US officials to Saudi Arabia, including even by President Joe Biden, to press home the point. And yet OPEC decided otherwise; not surprisingly, this decision has been called in the western media “a slap on Biden’s face”.

The reason why the Americans were so keen to prevent a cut in OPEC output is three-fold: first, the consequent rise in world oil prices will exacerbate inflation in the US and elsewhere, leading to a pervasive rise in interest rates to counter it; this will further enhance the threat of a recession including in the US economy. Secondly, even leaving aside these effects that would take time to materialise, the rise in energy prices will have the immediate effect of hurting and hence annoying American consumers, which will have an adverse impact on the Democratic Party’s electoral prospects in the coming November elections to the Congress and the Senate in that country. Thirdly, there is the fear that any output contraction by OPEC will help Russia by increasing its oil revenue; and the US does not want such an increase because it defeats the very purpose of the sanctions that have been imposed on Russia in the wake of the Ukraine war.

So serious is the last of these considerations that the US officials visiting Saudi Arabia had been posing the issue as one where that country had to choose between America and Russia. And the OPEC decision to cut output has been seen as having a geopolitical significance, involving a cooling off in US-Saudi Arabia relationship.

The fact that a cut in oil output will help Russia is not in doubt. Indeed it will help Russia more than any other country. This is because several countries in OPEC⁺ have not been producing their full quota of oil. This group includes not only Nigeria and Angola, which have not made adequate investments in the past to boost their oil output, but also Russia, which has been producing less than its quota owing to the sanctions. The decision to reduce output by 2 million barrels a day, which will mean a reduction in the production quotas for all the participant countries, will still leave the Russian quota above what it currently produces. Russia therefore will not be cutting any output because of this decision. On the other hand, the ensuing rise in world oil prices will benefit Russia, so that its oil revenue will not just go up, but go up the most among all the major oil producing countries. For the US which has been spearheading the drive to impose sanctions on Russia to bring it to its knees, this represents a clear setback.

Why then did the OPEC decide to cut output? The argument they put forward for the cut is ironically analogous to the very argument that the metropolitan countries advance against the cut. The metropolitan countries’ argument states that the cut would aggravate inflation and hence lead to a rise in interest rates and herald a serious recession; OPEC’s argument is that the rise in interest rates that is occurring will cause a recession that will lower the demand for oil and hence its price, to forestall which there must be a cut in oil output. OPEC’s idea in short is to stabilise the world oil price in the face of the looming recession.

Typically when there is a reduction in demand for primary commodities but supplies do not fall as much, there is a fall in the prices. During the Great Depression of the 1930s for instance there was a sharp fall in the prices of primary commodities relative to manufactured goods, so that the terms of trade worsened for primary commodities, including for agricultural products. As a result, the peasantry everywhere, including in India, had got into debt; and this distress of the peasantry had radicalised it into participating actively in the anti-colonial struggle.

This fall in prices when there is a fall in demand with supply remaining unchanged is called “price adjustment”. As against this, when there is a fall in demand for a primary commodity, supply can be correspondingly reduced and prices kept unchanged, which is called “quantity adjustment”. What the OPEC is attempting is quantity adjustment in the oil market, while what the Americans want from them is price adjustment.

Of the two kinds of adjustment in primary commodity markets, quantity adjustment is likely to be much better from the point of view of the producers. An example will make this clear. Suppose demand falls by 10 per cent; if supply is also reduced by 10 per cent, with the price remaining unchanged, then the revenue of the producers falls by 10 per cent. But if the supply remains unchanged but the price is allowed to fall, the fall in price will be more than 10 per cent to keep demand unchanged (which is the same as saying that the demand for primary commodities is price-“inelastic”). Suppose the price falls by 20 per cent; in that case the revenue would have fallen by 20 per cent as well.

Price adjustment therefore would have brought in less revenue than quantity adjustment; in addition it would also have meant more costs than in the case of quantity adjustment, because there have been no output cuts. For both these reasons price adjustment is the worse option for producers.

OPEC’s decision therefore is not the product of any malicious intent, or any desire to cock a snook at the US, but makes perfect sense from their point of view. Of course, the fact that they have been able to stand up to the pressure being exerted by the US to keep output unchanged, is a sign of the changing times, of the challenge to US hegemony that is emerging even among countries that were its staunchest allies till the other day.

It is true that crude oil prices have been coming down of late. The price of Brent Crude, for instance, which was $120 per barrel in June this year, had come down to well below $100 by the time the OPEC decision was made. But then, it would be asked, would this decision not raise the inflation rate? Significantly, during the period of accelerating inflation, the corporate profit margins, including of the manufacturers of petro-products, have been increasing. Now, if crude oil prices rise, and this rise is merely “passed on”, then profit-margins remain unchanged and the ensuing inflation can be said to have been caused by the rise in crude prices. But if profit-margins also rise, then it is corporate greed, and not the rise in crude prices, that constitutes the immediate cause behind the inflation.

The fact that corporate greed has been the proximate factor behind the current upsurge in inflation in the metropolitan capitalism has been quite widely recognised. In fact in Britain there was a strong demand for raising taxes on oil companies that was articulated even by the centrist Liberal Democrats; but the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson turned it down.

What the US would like is a situation in which the rise in interest rate that is supposed to counter inflation via a reduction in aggregate demand works through two channels, not just one: first, by causing unemployment so that the workers’ bargaining strength is weakened to a degree where they cannot defend themselves against inflation through a corresponding rise in money wages; and second, by reducing primary commodity prices, especially oil that is so important for consumers, so that the consumer price-index is kept in check.

The idea in short is to control inflation in the metropolis at the expense of the workers and the primary commodity producers. What is never on the agenda is any reduction of, or even control over, the rising corporate profit-margins that constitute the proximate reason for the inflation. An output cut by oil producers prevents the working of the second of the above channels by preventing a price-fall in crude oil.

The US has announced that in November there would be a release of 10 million barrels of oil from American reserves to counter any price effects of the OPEC decision. That may take care of the November elections in America; but after November, even the American consumers will be further squeezed by the unfolding crisis.

*

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

Featured image is from NewsX

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

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

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

***

Far from being “isolated”, close to half of humanity refused to condemn Russia during the latest UN vote, while the overwhelmingly vast majority of the global population is represented by governments that have defied the Golden Billion’s illegal sanctions.

The US-led Western Mainstream Media (MSM) is slowly but surely recalibrating its weaponized anti-Russian information warfare narrative a bit closer to reality in response to the latest UN vote against that newly restored world power, which discredited claims of its so-called “isolation”.

Time Magazine, which can’t reasonably be accused by anyone as so-called “Russian propaganda”, just headlined a piece declaring that “A New U.N. Vote Shows Russia Isn’t as Isolated as the West May Like to Think”. This statement in and of itself openly defies the official position of the US Government (USG), thus representing a major shift in the public narrative at home.

This reputable outlet, at least in terms of how it’s regarded among average Westerners, correctly argued that their observation is based upon the fact that “nearly half of the global population” didn’t vote against Russia at the UN earlier this month. They also added that even among those that did, “not all votes in favor of the resolution should be seen as a sign of full support for Ukraine”, with Hungary and Saudi Arabia being accused by Time of tacitly supporting Moscow. Pressing that point, the magazine cited an expert who reminded readers that “Not all the countries that voted in favor of the resolution necessarily are doing so because they are then going to apply any serious pressure on Russia.”

These objectively existing and easily verifiable facts are crucial for people in the US-led West’s Golden Billion to keep in mind since that New Cold War bloc’s elite are actively trying to manipulate them. They want their citizens to support these elite’s radical anti-Russian policies that are being promulgated at the publicly acknowledged expense of their people’s socio-economic interests, or at the very least be deterred from peacefully protesting against them like what happened in Prague in early September. To that end, they’ve spun the false narrative that Russia is “isolated” as a result of these selfsame socio-economically counterproductive policies, hence the need to supposedly stay the course.

In reality, the basis upon which the Western elite’s claims rest with respect to demanding that their people indefinitely sacrifice their socio-economic standards in supposed support of Kiev is nothing but a deliberate misportrayal of the facts. Far from being “isolated”, close to half of humanity refused to condemn Russia during the latest UN vote, while the overwhelmingly vast majority of the global population is represented by governments that have defied the Golden Billion’s illegal sanctions. That just goes to show that those elite are lying to their people in order to manipulate them into passively accepting their imposition of socio-economically counterproductive policies for self-interested ends.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

UK Documentary Exposes Lies Behind ‘Safe and Effective’ COVID Vaccine Narrative

By Dr. Suzanne Burdick, October 18, 2022

A new U.K. documentary — “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion” — details how U.K. citizens were subjected to psychological pressure to comply with COVID-19 vaccination governmental policies under the “dubious mantra” of “safe and effective.”

Documents Point to Israeli Army’s 1948 Biological Warfare Against Palestinians

By Jordan News, October 18, 2022

The Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz has revealed the existence of documents that officially confirm that Israel poisoned Palestinian water wells in Acre and Gaza in 1948.

Westerners Live in Denial, Convinced They’re the Good Guys. Jonathan Cook

By Jonathan Cook, October 18, 2022

No one took responsibility for the explosion over the weekend that ripped through a section of the Kerch Bridge that links Russia to Crimea and was built by Moscow after it annexed the peninsula back in 2014.

NATO Learns Nothing and Forgets Nothing

By George Szamuely, October 18, 2022

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg recently addressed the Workers Youth League (AUF) summer camp in Utøya, Norway. The AUF is Norway’s largest political youth organization and is affiliated with the Norwegian Labor Party. The AUF summer camp is of course famous for being the scene of the horrific terrorist attack perpetrated by neo-Nazi Anders Breivik in 2011.

Pakistan: Criticizing Chief Of Army Staff = “Inciting Mutiny”, But Wanting to Hang the Former Prime Minister = “Free Speech”

By Andrew Korybko, October 17, 2022

“Something’s rotten in the state of Pakistan”, and it’s that the country’s institutions have been captured by American proxies through a post-modern coup, after which they began aggressively waging “lawfare” on all their critics.

Kharkov and Mobilization: “Tactical Victory for Ukraine, Strategic Victory for Russia”. Jacques Baud

By Jacques Baud, October 17, 2022

The recapture of the Kharkov region at the beginning of September appears to be a success for Ukrainian forces. Our media exulted and relayed Ukrainian propaganda to give us a picture that is not entirely accurate. A closer look at the operations might have prompted Ukraine to be more cautious.

Biden Signs Executive Order Designed to Unleash “Transhumanist Hell” on America and the World

By Leo Hohmann, October 17, 2022

If anyone needed proof that the powers pushing the levers behind the mindless moron who sits in the Oval Office are fully on board with the World Economic Forum/United Nations agenda of biomedical tyranny and transhumanism, look no further than the executive order that Joe Biden signed on Monday, September 12.

A Fast-Emptying Ark. Fewer Wild Animals Sharing the Earth with Us. The World Grows Quieter by the Day

By Bill McKibben, October 17, 2022

A vast new study finds there are 70 percent fewer wild animals sharing the earth with us than there were in 1970. Read that again. And again. To be more specific, the World Wildlife Fund’s Living Planet Index, which monitors 32,000 separate populations of species around the world, found that on average they were 69% smaller than they had been in 1970.

Many People Fully Vaccinated for COVID Are Now Going Blind

By Ethan Huff, October 17, 2022

We have heard all about the many cases of myocarditis and pericarditis post-injection, as well as recipients repeatedly testing “positive” for the virus even after doing the deed. But there is another concerning side effect occurring in the “fully vaccinated” for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) that is rarely mentioned: blindness.

Why Biden Is Unleashing a Full Scale Chip War Against China

By Marc Vandepitte and Jan Jonckheere, October 17, 2022

Recently, the US has identified China as its main enemy and is trying to thwart its economic and technological rise. Chips play a key role in this as they are the backbone of economic and military performance in the digital age. Whether the U.S. will succeed in its endeavor is highly questionable.

This incisive and timely article by award-winning author Professor Rodrigue Tremblay was publish by Global Research fourteen years ago in August 2008.

Let us build a Consensus for Worldwide Peace: Abolish NATO.

***

[NATO’s goal is] “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” Lord Ismay, first NATO Secretary-General

“We should immediately call a meeting of the North Atlantic Council to assess Georgia’s security and review measures NATO can take to contribute to stabilizing this very dangerous situation.” Sen. John McCain, (August 8, 2008)

“If we would have preemptively worked with Russia, with Georgia, making sure that NATO had the kind of ability and the presence and the engagement, we could have perhaps avoided this” [The invasion of S. Ossetia by Georgia and the subsequent Russian response]. Tom Daschle, former Senate Majority Leader and adviser to Sen. Barack Obama, (August 17, 2008)

“Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.” James Madison (1751-1836), fourth American President

*

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a relic of the Cold War. It was created on April 4, 1949 as a defensive alliance of Western Europe countries plus Canada and the United States to protect the former countries from encroachments by the Soviet Union.

But since 1991, the Soviet empire no longer exists and Russia has been cooperating economically with Western European countries, supplying them with gas and oil, and all types of commodities. This has increased European economic interdependence and thus greatly reduced the need for such a defensive military alliance above and beyond European countries’ own self-defense military system.

But the U.S. government does not see things that way. It would prefer keeping its role as Europe’s patronizing protector and as the world’s sole superpower. NATO is a convenient tool to that effect. But maybe the world should be worried about those who go around the planet with a can of gasoline in one hand and a box of matches in the other, pretending to sell fire insurance.

As of now, it is a fact that the U.S. government and the American foreign affairs nomenklatura see NATO as an important tool of American foreign policy of intervention around the world. Since many American politicians do not anymore support de facto the United Nations as the supreme international organization devoted to maintaining peace in the world, a U.S.-controlled NATO would seem to be, in their eyes, a most attractive substitute to the United Nations for providing a legal front for their otherwise illegal offensive military undertakings around the world. They prefer to control totally a smaller organization such as NATO, even though it has become a redundant institution, than to have to make compromises at the U.N., where the U.S nevertheless has one of the five vetoes on the Security Council.

That is the strong rationale behind the proposals to reshape, reorient and enlarge NATO, in order to transform it into a flexible tool of American foreign policy. This is another demonstration that redundant institutions have a life of their own. Indeed, when the purpose for which they have been initially established no longer exists, new purposes are invented to keep them going.

Regarding NATO, the plan is to turn it into an aggrandized offensive imperial U.S.-dominated political and military alliance against the rest of the world. According to plan, NATO would be enlarged in the Central-Eastern European region to include not only most of the former members of the Warsaw Pact (Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania and Hungary) and many of the former republics of the Soviet Union (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Georgia and Ukraine), but also in Asia to include Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and possibly admit Israel in the Middle East. Today the initially 12-member NATO has mushroomed into a 26-member organization. In the future, if the U.S. has its way, NATO could be a 40-member organization.

In the United States, both the Republicans and the Democrats see the old NATO transformed into this new offensive military alliance as a good (neocon) idea to promote American interests around the world, as well as those of its close allies, such as Israel. It is not only an idea actively promoted by the neocon Bush-Cheney administration, but also by the neoconservative advisers to both 2008 American presidential candidates, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama. Indeed, both 2008 presidential candidates are enthusiastic military interventionists, and this is essentially because both rely on advisers originating from the same neocon camp.

For instance, the rush with which the Bush-Cheney recklessly promised NATO membership to the former Soviet republic of Georgia and American military support and supply is a good example of how NATO is viewed in Washington D.C. by both main American political parties. For one, Republican presidential candidate John McCain envisages a new world order built around a neocon-inspired “League of Democracies” that would de facto replace the United Nations and through which the United States would rule the world.

Secondly, Sen. Barack Obama’s position [August 2008] is not that far from Sen. McCain’s foreign policy proposals. Indeed, Sen. Obama advocates the use of U.S. military force and multilateral military interventions in regional crises, for “humanitarian purposes”, even if by so doing, the United Nations must be bypassed. Therefore, if he ever gains power, it is a safe bet that Sen. Obama would not have any qualms about adopting Sen. McCain’s view of the world. For example, both presidential candidates would probably support the removal of the no “first strike” clause from the NATO convention. It can be taken for granted that with either politician in the White House, the world would be a less lawful and a less safe place, and would not be more advanced than it has become under the lawless Bush-Cheney administration.

However, it is difficult to see how this new offensive role for NATO would be in the interests of European countries or of Canada. Western Europe in particular has everything to fear from a resurgence of the Cold War with Russia, and possibly with China. The transformation of NATO from a North Atlantic defensive military organization into a U.S.-led worldwide offensive military organization is going to have profound international geopolitical consequences around the world, but especially for Europe. Europe has a strong economic attraction for Russia. Then why embark upon the aggressive Bush-Cheney administration’s policy of encircling Russia militarily by expanding NATO right up to Russia’s doorstep and by placing a missile shields right next to Russia? Wouldn’t it be better for Europe to develop harmonious economic and political relations with Russia? Why prepare the next war?

And as for Canada, under the neocon minority Harper government, it has sadly become a de facto American colony as far as foreign affairs are concerned, and this, without any serious debate or referendum to that effect within Canada. The last thing Canada needs is to go further on that mined road.

In conclusion, it would seem that the humanist idea of having peace, free trade and international law as the foundations of the world order is being cast aside in favor of a return to great power politics and gunboat diplomacy. This is a 100-year setback.

It is a shame.

Rodrigue Tremblay is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and can be reached at [email protected]  He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization

He is the author of the book ‘The New American Empire’  and the Code for Global Ethics,  

Author’s Website: www.thenewamericanempire.com/

---

The Code for Global Ethics: Ten Humanist Principles

by Rodrigue Tremblay

Humanists have long contended that morality is a strictly human concern and should be independent of religious creeds and dogma.

This principle was clearly articulated in the two Humanist Manifestos issued in the mid-twentieth century and in Humanist Manifesto 2000, which appeared at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Now this code for global ethics further elaborates ten humanist principles designed for a world community that is growing ever closer together.

Click book cover for more details. Order directly from Amazon

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

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

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

***

This urgent action involves calling your Members of the European Parliament (MEP) to make your voice heard. Julian is not only the candidate that best fits the rationale behind the Sakharov prize but also, of the three candidates, the one for whom the prize would have a life-saving impact: winning the most high profile human rights award the European Union has to offer would make it impossible for the UK to extradite and the US to pursue the case, and it is the most immediate way for Julian to be released. Julian Assange is the victim of a political case. The Sakharov Prize is a prize for freedom of thought and has a history of being given to political prisoners, including Nelson Mandela in 1988.

Calling our Elected Representatives is a very useful thing everybody can do. Do not just call the representative that you agree with politically the most. The objective is to make European representatives aware of the importance and urgency of Julian’s release, and that his freedom crosses political boundaries and matters to European citizens.

The three finalists:

• Imprisoned WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange
• Volodymyr Zelenskyy representing the people of Ukraine
• The Truth Commission of Colombia

The decision will be taken on Wednesday (19 October) by the Presidents of the political groups of the European Parliament. A list of the decision-makers to contact, how to contact them and tips about how to approach the conversation can be found further down this page.

The best way to carry your message to a MEP is to develop your argument verbally. In this way, you can adapt your speech to her/his answers, and express your great concern about the subject on which you are calling. MEPs do not receive many calls from citizens, then they are particularly sensitive to it.

Example conversation:

YOU: Hello, I’m [YourName], I’m an European citizen calling from [YourCountry], and I would like to talk to Mrs/Mr MEP, please.

ASSISTANT: Mrs/Mr MEP is not available, I am her/his assistant. Can I help you?

YOU: As far as I understand there will be a decision on the 19th of this month about the winner of the Sakharov prize, and I want to know whether Mrs/Mr MEP is aware of the importance of Julian Assange’s nomination and the fact that he is a political prisoner in need of the European Parliament’s protection through this prize.

ASSISTANT: I see. We had calls before. I have no time.

YOU: But it is very important! This is the most important press freedom case of our time and it affects European citizens and press freedom within the EU because it is an attack on freedom of thought, citizens’ right to know and the Parliament’s ability to take decisions based on factual, undisputed information about corporate crimes and war crimes committed by foreign powers.

ASSISTANT: All candidates are strong and it is not up to the individual MEP.

YOU: Of course all candidates are worthy a nomination but of the candidates Julian Assange is the one that is clearly the most deserving of this prize and for him the prize actually can make the difference between life and death, freedom and indefinite imprisonment for upholding the rights enshrined in the EU Charter! Julian Assange has been held in a high security UK prison for almost four years, he is not serving a sentence, and he faces 175 years if he is sent to the United States. Sakharov himself said that “the most powerful weapon is not the bomb, it’s the truth”, and truth is on the side of citizens and of justice.

ASSISTANT: Ok, I’ll speak with Mrs/Mr MEP about it.

YOU: Thank you very much for listening to me. If you wish, I can send you reference documents. I’ll call you again shortly to know what he/she thought. Have a good day.

And then, call the next MEP.

Tips

Stay polite and be yourself. Whatever happens, don’t forget the basic rules of courtesy and common sense. Whether you agree or disagree with the individual answering to you, and whatever the views of other members of her/his political group, don’t give a negative image of people who are advocating with the same purpose as you.

Most of the time, you will exchange with a Parliamentary assistant, and not directly with a MEP. It’s not a problem: engage the conversation. Assistants play an important role in the development of the MEPs’ positions.

If a question to which you don’t have the answer comes up, don’t panic. You are not expected to be an expert, only a concerned citizen. Tell the MEP you will research the answer and contact him/her back with more information, and come and ask us.

If you’re still not comfortable with the arguments, don’t give up. Ask what is the MEP’s position on the subject, and ask what are their arguments.

During a phone call, don’t hesitate to offer to call back with more information, to send documents, references, etc. and in a less urgent context, to meet with the MEPs. Sometimes, Parliamentary assistants will ask you to send an e-mail. Don’t hesitate to call back later to check if they’ve read it and what they thought of it. Documents to send include:

• the book by UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer on the case of Julian Assange: see this, French; German; and by email, this video of his presentation.

• A video of Stella Assange on why Julian Assange should win the Sakharov prize
• Amnesty International statement: Julian Assange’s ‘politically motivated’ extradition must not go ahead
• Reporters without Borders recent statements on Assange
• You can find other statements on the Don’t Extradite Assange Campaign’s Statements page

Who Decides the Final Winner

The following people will decide on the 19th of October (this Wednesday) as Presidents of the political groupings represented in the European Parliament:

Mr. Manfred Weber, President of the EPP (centre-right political group)
CONTACT: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/28229/MANFRED_WEBER/home
His assistants: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/28229/MANFRED_WEBER/assistants

Ms. Iratxe Garcia Perez, President of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, S&D (Centre-left political group)
CONTACT: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/28298/IRATXE_GARCIA+PEREZ/home
Her assistants: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/28298/IRATXE_GARCIA+PEREZ/assistants

Mr. Stéphane Séjourné, President of Renew (Liberal pro-Europe group, formerly ALDE)
CONTACT: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/197508/STEPHANE_SEJOURNE/home
His assistants: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/197508/STEPHANE_SEJOURNE/assistants

Ms. Terry Reintke and Mr. Philippe Lamberts, co-presidents for the The Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA), composed of mainly Green party and regionalist parties

Ms. Terry Reintke (co-President)
CONTACT: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/103381/TERRY_REINTKE/home
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/103381/TERRY_REINTKE/assistants

Mr. Philippe Lamberts (co-President)
CONTACT: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/96648/PHILIPPE_LAMBERTS/home
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/fr/96648/PHILIPPE_LAMBERTS/assistants

Mr. Marco Zanni, President Identity and Democracy (right-wing, Eurosceptic nationalist)
CONTACT: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/124780/MARCO_ZANNI/home
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/197508/STEPHANE_SEJOURNE/assistants

Mr. Raffaele Fitto & Mr. Ryszard Legutko, Co-Presidents for the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), a soft Eurosceptic, anti-federalist political group

Mr. Raffaele Fitto (Co-President)
CONTACT: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/4465/RAFFAELE_FITTO/history/9
Assistants for Mr. Raffaele Fitto: Alessandro Scuncio, Katia Bellantone

Mr. Ryszard Legutko (Co-President)
CONTACT: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/96796/RYSZARD+ANTONI_LEGUTKO/home
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/96796/RYSZARD+ANTONI_LEGUTKO/assistants

Ms. Manon AUBRY and Mr. Martin Schirdewan, Co-Presidents for the Left Group (GUE/NGL)

Ms. Manon AUBRY. Co-President
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/197533/MANON_AUBRY/home
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/197533/MANON_AUBRY/assistants

Mr. Martin Schirdewan, Co-President GUE/NGL
CONTACT: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/190517/MARTIN_SCHIRDEWAN/home
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/190517/MARTIN_SCHIRDEWAN/assistants

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

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

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

***

A new U.K. documentary — “Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion” — details how U.K. citizens were subjected to psychological pressure to comply with COVID-19 vaccination governmental policies under the “dubious mantra” of “safe and effective.”

The 55-minute film was produced by Oracle Films, in collaboration with Mark Shaman — a former ITV and BSkyB executive — and News Uncut.

The documentary opens with a statement by Dr. Aseem Malhotra, an influential consultant cardiologist trained by U.K.’s National Health Service, who said he was “doubled jabbed” and “one of the first to take the Pfizer vaccine.”

“After several months [of] critically appraising the data, speaking to eminent scientists at Oxford, Stanford and Harvard, speaking to two investigative medical journalists and being contacted by two Pfizer whistleblowers, I have reluctantly concluded that this vaccine is not completely safe and has unprecedented harms,” Malhotra said.

“Which leads me to conclude,” he added, “that it needs to be suspended until all the raw data have been released for independent analysis.”

Malhotra is not alone in calling for the suspension of COVID-19 vaccines, the film’s narrator said. “Many more scientists are alarmed at what is developing into a global issue.”

The narrator continued:

“Millions of vaccine injuries and thousands of deaths are being reported through official channels all across the world.

“Our government has been accused of covering up the emerging data, and the media are telling only one side of the story.”

The film also featured people like Georgia Segal, who said they were injured by a COVID-19 vaccine.

Segal, 35, collapsed after receiving a second dose of the Pfizer shot and is now officially registered as “disabled” due to her injuries.

Vaccine injury cases are typically reported by mainstream media as very rare. But according to the documentary, as of Aug. 24, the U.K.’s official Yellow Card reporting system via the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, reported more 432,819 reports of adverse reactions — including 2,240 fatalities — following COVID-19 vaccination, although not all reports will be confirmed as vaccine-induced.

The numbers of COVID-19 vaccination adverse reactions and deaths reported in the U.S., to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or VAERS, are higher still.

Between Dec. 14, 2020, and Sept. 30, 2022, there were 1,437,273 adverse reactions —  including 31,470 deaths – reported to VAERS.

Data collected by the CDC’s V-safe app and released this month show 782,900 people reported seeking medical attention, emergency room care and/or hospitalization following COVID-19 vaccination.

These numbers and the lack of public acknowledgment of the experiences of individuals such as Segal is “a scandal of such epic proportions” that “people don’t know where to begin with it,” said Dr. Clare Craig, a diagnostic pathologist, who was quoted in the documentary.

The U.K. government is in denial about vaccine injuries, according to Sir Christopher Chope, a member of the U.K. Parliament, who said the government tries “to promote vaccine confidence by covering up the adverse consequences for some of having been vaccinated.”

Chope said he is advocating for a private members bill that would speed up compensation and increase the maximum amount of compensation for those injured by a COVID-19 vaccine.

But for the vaccine-injured, it’s not just about monetary compensation — it’s about recognition and a return to good health.

Caroline Pover, featured in the documentary, is an author and public speaker who runs a pickling business. For 10 years, she supported a village in Japan that was devasted by a tsunami. She got the COVID-19 vaccine so she could make her annual visit to the village.

“My life has completely changed now,” Pover said. “It’s unrecognizable compared to how it was. For about five months, I did hardly anything. I couldn’t function at all. I was exhausted constantly. I was in constant pain — head and eye pain was relentless.”

She added:

“It’s not about the money. It’s about having a sense of purpose with your day: jobs and work. And if you can’t do those things, you do get to the point where you think, I cannot live like this. This life is no longer worth living.

“And we have lost people in the vaccine-injured community to suicide.”

The film went on to debunk Pfizer’s claim in fall 2020 that its COVID-19 vaccine was “95% effective” — a claim that led many governments around the world to “give the green light” to their public COVID-19 vaccination campaigns.

Pfizer’s methodology underlying the claim was flawed, Malhotra said, because the drugmaker cited only “relative risk reduction” and not “absolute risk reduction.” The two statistics are very different.

While the relative risk figure for Pfizer’s vaccine was 95% efficacy, the absolute risk was a mere 0.84% — meaning that you’d have to vaccinate 119 people to prevent just one person from catching COVID-19.

“Relative risk reduction is a way of exaggerating the benefits of any intervention,” Malhotra said.

“The guidance has been for many years that we must always use absolute risk reduction in conversations with patients, not just relative risk reduction alone. Otherwise, it’s considered unethical,” Malhotra added.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman and chief legal counsel Children’s Health Defense, interviewed Malhotra for the Oct. 7 episode of the “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast.”

‘We need to know the truth’

The film asked, “Did doctors do enough to enable informed consent?”

Craig said she thought what happened with informed consent was “hugely concerning,” adding, “What concerned me the most were doctors who weren’t informing themselves.”

Dr. Ros Jones, a retired consultant pediatrician, said, “They’ve been very busy and they haven’t done their own research. They’ve just accepted everything that they’re told.”

The documentary also asked, “Why did the government continue driving the vaccine campaign when scientists had learned it didn’t prevent infection, it didn’t prevent transmission, and statistics show the vast majority of the population was never at risk from serious illness?”

And while there remain “so many questions” on the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, the U.K. government “still pushes ahead with a program of immunization — and for children,” the narrator said.

In April, the U.K. rolled out COVID-19 vaccines for children ages 5 to 11. And this past summer, it added COVID-19 to the regular vaccination schedule for 5- to 15-year-olds — even though the U.K. government does not recommend the Pfizer shot for children under 12 or the AstraZeneca shot for anyone under 40.

The move prompted 78 prominent professors, doctors and analysts to write a letter stating:

“We strongly challenge the addition of COVID-19 vaccination into the routine child immunisation program, despite no demonstrated clinical need, known and unknown risks and the fact that these vaccines still have only conditional marketing authority.”

At the end of the film, the narrator emphasized that “proper, balanced science” needs to be done so that the public can reach “a sound conclusion” on the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines.

“We need to know the truth,” he added.

Watch ‘Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion’ here:

*

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

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

Featured image is from CHD

---

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

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

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

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

***

Hurricane Ian lashed at western Cuba on September 27, 2022. I waited desperately for a phone call from my friends in Puerto Esperanza, a small fishing village on the northern coast of Pinar del Río. Over a crackling phone line, my friends told me that the hurricane had ripped off the roofs of their houses and had cut their electricity supply. But they were safe. What comes next for them and their recovery from the loss and devastation caused by the hurricane is uncertain under the weight of a US blockade that is now being overseen by US President Joe Biden.

Since the Cuban Revolution triumphed in 1959, the United States has been at odds with the island’s independent path. This led to the start of a blockade on all trading activities between Cuba and the United States in February 1962, and the continued imposition of the blockade has put maximum pressure on the 11 million people who live on the island. Cubans have been resilient while dealing with these sanctions, which is “the longest embargo in modern history.” However, over the past five years, the United States has tightened its blockade by putting in place 243 new sanctions, reversing the process of normalization that began under former US President Barack Obama in 2014 (and culminated in Obama’s visit to Cuba in 2016). Despite Biden’s campaign promise to ensure a more balanced foreign policy toward Cuba, compared to the approach followed by former President Donald Trump, Biden has increased pressure on the country.

Maximum pressure

When the COVID-19 pandemic struck, Cuba was fortunate to have a robust public health care system and an innovative biotechnological industry. However, under Trump—and later Biden—sanctions put enormous pressure on Cuba’s ability to respond to the pandemic. As the number of Delta variant cases grew in Cuba, its only oxygen plant was rendered nonoperational due to the inability of the plant’s technicians to import spare parts because of the US blockade. As thousands of Cuban patients gasped for air, oxygen had to be rationed. Washington refused to make an exception. Cuban scientists created five vaccine candidates; only after most Cubans were vaccinated with these vaccines did Washington make an offer of donating US-made vaccines to Cuba.

Back in 2017, the United States said that the Cuban government had used sonic weapons to attack its embassy—a phenomenon called “Havana syndrome”—which was shown to be untrue. Nonetheless, it served as a pretext for the United States to freeze relations with Cuba. For example, tourism began to collapse, and the island lost revenue as more than 600,000 people from the United States stopped traveling to Cuba annually. The US government’s sanctions under Trump led to Western Union’s seizing operations on the island in 2020, cutting off the ability of families to send and receive remittances. Visa services were suspended by the US Embassy in Havana, and the largest wave of irregular migration since 1980 began as Cubans were forced to trek through Central America or across the Florida Straits to arrive in the United States.

Cubans suffered through this tightened blockade with the US offering no respite. The gross domestic product of the country began to shrink as the government and other entities could no longer purchase food, medicine, and oil because banks refused to handle these basic commercial transactions.

Using pain to put more pressure

On July 11, 2021, people across Cuba took to the streets to protest the difficult living conditions due to the scarcity brewed by the sanctions imposed by Washington. The US government, from Biden to the lowest employee at the US Embassy in Havana, did not waste any time before making a statement about the need to change the government in Cuba in response to the protests. They tried to spin the Cuban people’s protests over sanctions-related deprivation into an uprising for regime change, a core demand of a Miami mafia of Cuban exiles. The Cuban government was able to withstand that attempt by being as forthright as possible with the people about the range of problems that they face.

The year 2022 has not been any easier for the Cuban people. In August, the national energy grid began to suffermajor signs of decay after years without repairs or renovations. Power cuts, a stark reminder of the “special period” during the 1990s when Cuba faced a similar power situation, have become ever-present from one end of the island to the other. Some provinces go without electricity for eight to ten hours. Then came the explosion of the Matanzas oil storage facility that left Cuba without urgently needed fuel and resulted in dozens dying while fighting the fire that raged on for five days. While Mexico and Venezuela immediately sent firefighters and equipment, the United States could only contribute with technical advice over the phone despite the call by US activists, clergy, and intellectuals to provide more sizable aid.

Hurricane Ian’s assault on the island on September 27, 2022, has left behind devastation, with more than 50,000 homes damaged, Cuba’s tobacco crop deeply impacted, and its electricity grid damaged (although it is functional again for now).

Washington’s rigidity

All eyes turned to Washington—not only to see whether it would send aid, which would be welcome, but also if it would remove Cuba from the state sponsors of terrorism list and end the sanctions. Cuba’s inclusion on the list had been a last-minute decision made by Trump as he was leaving the White House (despite Cuba’s recognized role in the Colombian peace process). These measures mean that banks in the United States and elsewhere are reluctant to process any financial transactions, including humanitarian donations, for the island. The United States has a mixed record regarding humanitarian aid to Cuba.

Rather than lift the sanctions even for a limited period, the US government sat back and watched as mysterious forces from Miami unleashed a torrent of Facebook and WhatsApp messages to drive desperate Cubans onto the street. In Havana, a few hundred people spread across the city banged pots and pans and demanded water, electricity, and food. Foreign journalists eagerly expected scenes of heavy repression and mass arrests, but this time Cuba’s response was one closest to its political tradition. Leaders of the Communist Party began to arrive at protests to speak to the people. Angel Arzuaga Reyes, responsible for the party’s international relations department, while speaking of his experience in the Diez de Octubre neighborhood, said that in those tense moments, promises or immediate solutions couldn’t be made, but explanations and information could be given to all those protesting.

The Cuban people are not the kind to give up easily and have a history of resilience. Many Cubans are facing the crisis by laughing and fighting through it. Walking in Havana only a few days after the hurricane, the signs of recovery were clear. Brigades of electricians working nonstop reestablished power back in record time and volunteers have cleaned most of the city leaving very little trace of Hurricane Ian’s destruction. After his fourth visit to Pinar del Río since September 27, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, surrounded by an anxious crowd, said, “what we can’t do is surrender or remain with our arms crossed.” There is yet much to do, but Cubans are determined to overcome all obstacles that come their way.

*

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

This article was produced by Globetrotter.

Manolo De Los Santos is the co-executive director of the People’s Forum and is a researcher at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He co-edited, most recently, Viviremos: Venezuela vs. Hybrid War (LeftWord Books/1804 Books, 2020) and Comrade of the Revolution: Selected Speeches of Fidel Castro (LeftWord Books/1804 Books, 2021). He is a co-coordinator of the People’s Summit for Democracy.

Featured image is from Peoples Dispatch

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

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

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

***

The Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz has revealed the existence of documents that officially confirm that Israel poisoned Palestinian water wells in Acre and Gaza in 1948.

The paper reported in its Friday edition the discovery of official documents proving Israel’s poisoning of Palestinian water wells in 1948, in which prominent and well-known Israeli figures participated.

The disturbing story behind them was recently uncovered by historian Benny Morris and historian and Israel Prize laureate Benjamin Z. Kedar, following extensive archival research, the paper said.

This operation was partially exposed decades ago when rumors and oral testimonies were reported in newspapers and books about an attempt in 1948 by Israeli forces to poison wells in Acre and Gaza, contaminating drinking water with bacteria. However, only now, in Morris and Kedar’s research, has the “smoking gun” been revealed in the form of official documentation, according to Haaretz. The newly unearthed documents show that this operation was much broader in scope than earlier believed, and that other top military and political figures besides David Ben-Gurion were involved.

“We uncovered a lot of new information. We deciphered how the operation developed through its various stages; we discovered who authorized, organized, and controlled the operation; and how it was carried out in different areas,” Morris says. “We have a much fuller picture now, and one that is based in part on army documentation,” Kedar adds.

The pair recently published an article in the journal Middle Eastern Studies titled “‘Cast Thy Bread’: Israeli Biological Warfare during the 1948 War.” “Cast Thy Bread” was the operation’s code name. Naturally, most of the material related to the episode is censored, but when Morris searched through the Israeli army archives for any mention of the operation by name, he was surprised to discover numerous documents. Morris writes in the article that the censor apparently was not aware of what the code name referred to.

On April 1, 1948, David Ben-Gurion wrote in his journal about “the development of science and speeding up its application in warfare”. A month and a half later, he wrote about “biological materials” that were purchased for $2,000, the paper said.

It pointed out that now it became clear the extent of the link between what Ben-Gurion wrote and Israel’s purchase of biological materials, which appear to be a specific powder or liquid used to poison Palestinian well water.

The new documents revealed that these operations were supervised by well-known Israeli figures, led by: David Ben-Gurion, former defense minister Moshe Dayan, and former Israeli president Ephraim Katzir, among others.

The operation began in April 1948, when fears of an invasion by Arab armies were mounting. The plan was to poison wells in abandoned Arab villages as well as in Jewish locales that were due to be evacuated by new Israeli state. The idea was to prevent Arabs from returning to their villages and from settling in Jewish locales that would fall into their hands.

The documents show that Ben-Gurion was at the top of the pyramid. Below him was Yigal Yadin, who oversaw the military side of the operation. The operation was commanded by Yohanan Ratner. Initially, the top man in the field for the group was Dayan, who went on to become the Israeli army chief of staff and defense minister. The documents indicate that Dayan served as the smuggler who conveyed the bacteria from the science corps to different points throughout the country.

*

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

Featured image is from Envato Elements

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

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

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

***

No one took responsibility for the explosion over the weekend that ripped through a section of the Kerch Bridge that links Russia to Crimea and was built by Moscow after it annexed the peninsula back in 2014. 

But it was not just Kyiv’s gleeful celebrations that indicated the main suspect. Within hours, the Ukrainian authorities had released a set of commemorative stamps depicting the destruction.

Russian President Vladimir Putin was under no illusions either. On Monday, he struck out with a torrent of missiles that hit major Ukrainian cities such as Kyiv and Lviv. It was a pale, Slavic echo of Israel’s intermittent bombardments of Gaza, which are expressly intended to send the Palestinian enclave “back to the Stone Age”.

If the scenes looked familiar – an attack by one party, followed by a massive retaliatory strike from the other – the mood and language that greeted the Ukrainian attack and the Russian counter-attack felt noticeably different from what passes for normal western commentary about Israel and Palestine.

The blast on the Kerch Bridge was welcomed with barely concealed excitement from western journalists, politicians and analysts, while Moscow’s strikes on Kyiv were uniformly denounced as Russian brutality and state terrorism. That is not the way things work when Israel and Palestinian factions engage in their own rounds of fighting.

Had the Palestinians openly celebrated blowing up a bridge in East Jerusalem, a territory illegally annexed by Israel in the 1960s, and killed Israeli civilians as collateral damage in the process, who can really imagine western media reports being similarly supportive?

Nor would western academics have lined up, as they did for Ukraine, to explain in detail why destroying a bridge was a proportionate act and fully in accordance with the rights in international law of a people under belligerent occupation to resist.

Instead, there would have been thunderous denunciations of Palestinian savagery and “terrorism”.

In reality, Palestinian resistance nowadays is far more modest – and yet still receives western censure. Palestinians need only to fire a home-made rocket, or launch an “incendiary balloon”, usually ineffectually out of their cage in Gaza – where they have been besieged for years by their Israeli persecutors – to incur the wrath of Israel and the western powers that claim to constitute the “international community”.

Even more perversely, when Palestinians solely target Israeli soldiers, as they are unambiguously entitled to do under international law, they are similarly reviled as criminals.

Regular rampages

But the double standards do not end there. Western media and politicians were unreservedly appalled by Moscow’s retaliatory strikes on the Ukrainian capital. Despite the media’s emphasis on Russia’s targeting of civilian infrastructure, the number of civilians killed across Ukraine by the wave of missile hits on Monday was reported to be low.

Western media are far less horrified when it comes to Israel’s regular rampages across Gaza – even when Israel “retaliates” after much less provocation and when its strikes inflict far greater suffering and damage.

And, of course, it is not just Israel that is benefiting from this hypocrisy. The United States’ “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign that initiated the war on Iraq in 2003 – and so impressed western commentators – killed many thousands of Iraqi civilians. Russia’s strikes on Kyiv pale in comparison.

There are other glaring inconsistencies. After Russia’s missile strikes, Ukraine is gaining an even more receptive ear in western capitals to its demands for additional weaponry to help regain the eastern territories Moscow has annexed.

By contrast, no one in the West is suggesting that the Palestinians should be armed to help them fight off decades of Israeli occupation and siege. Quite the reverse. It is invariably western weapons that rain down on Gaza, supplied to the belligerent Israeli occupier by the very parties now condemning Russia.

And in stark contrast to Britain’s whole-hearted support as Ukraine battles to stop Russia’s annexation of its eastern territories, the UK’s prime minister Liz Truss stated only last month that she may reward Israel for its illegal annexation of Jerusalem by moving the British embassy there.

Irish lawmakers on Wednesday called out the West's​​ “double standards” for imposing sanctions on Russia after invading Ukraine but not doing the same to Israel over its violations in Palestine. pic.twitter.com/wbMI6meivW

— Middle East Eye (@MiddleEastEye) March 8, 2022

Whereas Palestinians are constantly inveigled to postpone their liberation struggle and wait for their occupier to agree to peace talks, even when Israel openly scorns engagement, Ukrainians are pushed by the West to do the exact opposite. They are expected to delay any negotiations with Russia and focus on the battlefield.

Similarly, those who promote talks between Israel and Palestine that are never going to take place are praised as peacemakers. Those who advocate for talks between Ukraine and Russia – when Moscow has expressed a repeated willingness to negotiate, even if its overtures are disparaged by the West – are rounded on as appeasers.

Russia, meanwhile, faces sustained and comprehensive sanctions imposed by western states to bring it to heel.

By contrast, those proposing a far weaker tool – grassroots boycotts – to pressure Israel to loosen its choke-hold on Gaza are smeared as antisemites and face legislation to outlaw their activities by the same western states sanctioning Moscow.

It is almost as if the “freedom-loving” West has an entirely inconsistent agenda when it comes to the plights of Ukraine and Palestine. Israel’s hold on Palestine is unfortunate but justified; Russia’s over Ukraine is emphatically not.

Ukrainian resistance to Russia’s “unprovoked aggression” is heroic. Palestinian resistance to Israel’s violence – invariably presented as self-defence – is terrorism.

Double standards

Western news at the moment is a litany of these double standards and legal and ethical contradictions – and yet barely anyone seems to notice.

Westerners, for example, are currently cheering the protests in Iran, where women and girls have taken to the streets and created mass disturbances in schools. Their protests were sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini after she was taken into custody for wearing her hijab head covering too loosely.

Western media celebrate these young women casting aside the hijab in defiance of the unaccountable clerics who rule over them. The West bewails the beatings and attacks they receive from a tyrannous, patriarchal Iranian theocracy.

And yet there is no comparable solidarity with Palestinians when they collectively defy an unaccountable Israeli occupation army that rules over them. When they turn out to protest at the fence Israel has built all around Gaza to imprison them, preventing them from leaving for work or to see family overseas, or to reach hospitals much better equipped than their own that have been under Israeli blockade for years, they are shot down by Israeli snipers.

Where is the applause for those brave Palestinian protesters standing up to their oppressors? Where are the denunciations of Israel for compelling Palestinians to endure a tyrannous, apartheid-enforcing Israeli military?

Why is it entirely unremarkable that Palestinians – young and old, men and women – are regularly beaten or killed by Israel, while the death of a single Iranian woman is enough to reduce the western media to paroxysms of outrage?

And why, just as pertinently, does the West care so much about the lives of young Iranian women and their hijab protests when it appears not to give a damn about these women’s lives, or those of their brothers, when it comes to enforcing decades of western sanctions? Those restrictions have plunged parts of Iranian society into deep and sustained poverty that puts Iranian lives at risk.

Such is the reflexive hypocrisy that Israeli women who have shown no solidarity with Palestinian women abused and killed by the Israeli army turned out last week to cut their hair in a public act of sisterhood with Iranian women.

Western dictates

There is nothing new about these double standards. They are entrenched in western thinking, based on a profoundly racist, colonial worldview – one that sees “the West” as the good guys and everyone else as morally compromised, or irredeemably evil, if they refuse to bow to western dictates.

That is highlighted by the current battle of an 88-year-old Palestinian businessman, Munib al-Masri, to win an apology from Britain.

At his instruction, two eminent lawyers – Luis Moreno Ocampo, a former chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, and Ben Emmerson, a former United Nations expert on human rights – have been reviewing evidence of crimes committed by British forces in the years before 1948, when the UK ruled Palestine under a mandate.

When Britain withdrew, it effectively allowed Zionist institutions to take its place and create a self-declared Jewish state of Israel on the ruins of the Palestinians’ homeland.

The evidence documented by Ocampo and Emmerson – which they describe as “shocking” – includes crimes such as arbitrary killings and detentions, torture, use of human shields, and home demolitions weaponised as collective punishment.

If that all sounds familiar, it should. Israel has been terrorising Palestinians with these same exact policies over the past 74 years. That is because Israel incorporated the British mandate’s “emergency regulations” permitting such crimes into its legal and administrative codes. It simply continued what Britain had started.

Masri hopes to present the 300-page dossier to the UK government later this year. According to the media, it will be “reviewed thoroughly” by the Ministry of Defence. But do not hold your breath waiting for an apology.

The reality is that Ocampo and Emmerson did not need to conduct their research. Nothing they tell the UK government will be a revelation. British officials already know about these crimes. And there is no remorse – as demonstrated by, if nothing else, the fact that Britain continues to back Israel to the hilt even while the Israeli military continues the same reign of state terror.

Israel’s task was to rebrand as a “western-style democracy” the British mandate’s brutal colonial rule over the Palestinian population. It is the reason Israel receives billions of dollars in aid from the US every year, and why it never faces consequences for any of the crimes it commits.

The ugly truth is that westerners dwell permanently inside their own bubble of disinformation, one puffed up by their leaders and the media, that allows them to imagine themselves as the good guys – whatever the evidence actually proves.

The double standards in the West’s treatment of Ukraine compared to Palestine should be a moment when that harsh realisation finally dawns. Sadly, western publics just seem to sink ever deeper into the comforting illusion of self-righteousness.

*

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

Jonathan Cook is the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His website and blog can be found at www.jonathan-cook.net

Featured image is from Jewish Voice for Labour

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

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

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

***

Up until now, the heated question has been about who is responsible for starting the war in Ukraine. Biden and the West call the war “unprovoked” and apportion all the blame to Russia; Putin and his partners say NATO expansion provoked the war and apportion all the blame to the US and NATO.

There is no doubt that the launching of a war without UN approval is illegal and that Russia bears responsibility for launching this war. But, eight months in, perhaps it is time to stop looking only at who started the war and start apportioning some of the blame to parties who are placing road blocks in the path of stopping the war.

Biden has said that he is “trying to figure out what is Putin’s off-ramp.” But we have passed several off-ramps. Though the person who drove the car up the on-ramp to the highway is responsible for driving on the highway, at some point, the person who drove passed multiple off-ramps also bears some responsibility for still being on the highway.

On October 9, former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said in an interview that the U.S. needs to “do everything we possibly can to try to get to the table to resolve this thing.” Mullen then said that it “really is up to . . .Tony Blinken and other diplomats to figure out a way to get both Zelensky and Putin to the table.” He then added, “the sooner the better.”

But the Biden administration has declined to push them to the table. Just two days after Mullen’s comments, The Washington Post reported that “US officials . . . have ruled out the idea of pushing or even nudging Ukraine to the negotiating table.” The Post quotes a senior State Department official as saying that “That’s a decision for the Ukrainians to make.”

Turkey has recently suggested the possibility of mediating talks between Russia and the West. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov responded that Russia would be open to that suggestion and “was willing to engage with the United States or with Turkey on ways to end the war.” State Department spokesperson Ned Price dismissed Russia’s comments as “posturing” and said Washington has “very little confidence” that Russia was making a legitimate offer. Perhaps he is right. But that is an off-ramp that, consistent with Mullen’s plea to “do everything we possibly can,” should be explored.

On October 5, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi told President Zelensky on the phone that India was prepared to mediate in peace efforts. That too is an off-ramp that could be explored. But there is no evidence that anyone has explored India’s offer.

These are not the first off-ramps that the West has driven pasts. In the early days of the war, Ned Price responded to suggestions for diplomacy during Russian attacks with the rejection that “those are not the conditions for real diplomacy.” One month later, Price again articulated a US rejection of negotiating an end to the war Russia had launched on Ukraine because “this is a war that is in many ways bigger than Russia, it’s bigger than Ukraine.” The State Department discouraged Kiev from negotiating on the key issues to end the war because there were “principles at stake here.”

In April, when a settlement seemed to be within reach at the Istanbul talks, then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson rushed to Kiev to correct Zelensky, telling him that Putin “should be pressured, not negotiated with.” He told Zelensky that, even if Ukraine was ready to sign some agreements with Russia, the West was not.” On August 24, in his dying days as prime minister, he repeated that call, saying that now was not the time to promote a “flimsy plan for negotiation” with Russia.

After a month of the promising talks bearing no fruit, a frustrated Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, said in an interview that

“There are countries within NATO who want the war to continue.” He said that “following the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting, it was the impression that…there are those within the NATO member states that want the war to continue, let the war continue and Russia get weaker.”

On October 11, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov claimed that “Should an offer for a meeting between Putin and Joe Biden no [sic] the sidelines of the G20 summit be filed, Moscow will review it.” On the same day, though, Biden said in a CNN interview that “I don’t see any rationale [sic] to meet with him now” and insisted that “I have no intention of meeting with him.” Biden then expanded the rejection of talks beyond the US, saying, “So I’m not about to, nor is anyone else prepared to, negotiate with Russia about them staying in Ukraine, keeping any part of Ukraine, et cetera.”

Recently, Moscow called on Kiev to return to the negotiating table. As Ned Price has said, this may just be “posturing.” On the other hand, as Admiral Mullen said, the US has to “do everything we possibly can to try to get to the table to resolve this thing.” If the US is “trying to figure out what is Putin’s off-ramp,” then they have to explore every off ramp.

As this horrible war reaches levels of danger unimagined at the start and risks elevating to levels that cannot be permitted, perhaps it is time to begin to apportion responsibility not only to those who started the war – a responsibility that cannot be shed – but also to those who refuse to stop it.

*

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

Ted Snider has a graduate degree in philosophy and writes on analyzing patterns in US foreign policy and history.

Featured image: Ukraine has began fielding US M777 howitzers to repel Russia

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

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

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

***

“The Tory Party is like a knight dying in his armour.” -Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, Oct 16, 2022

Liz Truss is proving to be the architect of her own spectacular demise.  She laid the mines in a fit of drunken ecstasy and decided to skip across them with an almost childish arrogance that has stunned her own party members.  Along the way, a few have gone off, doing her what can only be regarded as terminal political damage.

The effort to shift sole responsibility for the abysmal economic plan on tax cuts outlined in the “mini-Budget” to her Chancellor suggested a lack of awareness and authority.  It further suggested a profound lack of competence, if only because the Chancellor had simply done what he was supposed to do.

While Truss supporters suggested replacing Kwasi Kwarteng, pollical reality yielded something quite different.  They had been seen as a duo, immune to policy U-turns, keen to promote the “growth” agenda in the face of bizarrely named anti-growth sceptics.  Now, everything was for turning. “This,” came the message from Tory backbencher Craig Mackinlay to his colleagues, was “a double U-turn with the handbrake on.  Never U-turn.  Others will smell blood in the water knowing they can take bites out of your backside & dictate the agenda.”

The arrival of Jeremy Hunt as Kwarteng’s replacement was a clanging admission of failure.  The veteran cabinet minister had been a leadership contender himself, not to mention a backer of Truss’s main rival Rishi Sunak.  Acting in the role of de facto CEO, a position alien to Westminster, Hunt was given the job of dismantling what was proving to be a calamitously assembled set of promises.  Mistakes had to be admitted, though Truss was only reluctantly admitting that some had been made.

In his Sunday Telegraph column, Hunt claimed that getting debt falling and restoring market confidence would only take place with the making of “some very difficult decisions.”  He was pained to say that spending would not “rise by as much as we would have liked.”  Tax cuts would not be cut as quickly as had been hoped.  Some – and here, he was sounding positively heretical – would have to go up.

The PM, for her part, could not explain in her brief press conference on October 15 how removing her Chancellor would do more to pursue the agenda for more growth, let alone justify her continued stint in office.  She had also ditched yet another platform of her economic agenda: reversing the Corporations Tax.  Keeping the increase in place would, instead, yield £18 billion in revenue.

There is even a suggestion that reducing the basic rate of income tax next April will be pushed back by twelve months.  According to the Sunday Times, “The 19 per cent rate will now take effect at the time previously proposed by Rishi Sunak, Liz Truss’s leadership rival.”

In The Sun, Truss showed how blinkered she had become, channelling the ghost of Margaret Thatcher and the tumultuous Britain of the 1980s.  “We cannot allow Britain to be held back by a militant mob.  That is why we will push on this week with new measures to stop the chaos caused by guerrilla protests and to curb the power of militant rail unions.”  The “anti-growth coalition” led by Labour’s Keir Starmer would stifle free speech and shackle businesses “with ever greater mountains of red tape.”

Much of this was directed at the hope of calming the raging markets and the dousing rise in interest rates stemming from the Bank of England. “People across the United Kingdom rightly want stability and opportunity,” she said.  The mini-Budget was intended to “shield families and businesses this winter and the next” but had gone “further and faster than the markets were expecting.”  She tried to assure readers that she had listened and got it.

The delinquent management by Truss, equipped with policies a mocking Peter Hitchens suggests were bought on eBay, has even caused alarm across the Atlantic.  US President Joe Biden was willing to offer his few cents worth to reporters at an ice-cream parlour in Oregon.  “I wasn’t the only one that thought it was a mistake.”  The notion of “cutting taxes on the super-wealthy at a time when … I disagree with the policy, but it’s up to Britain to make that judgment, not me.”

Conservative MPs have been fuming and fulminating, much of it self-loathing given their role in making Truss PM in the first place.  An MP who did support her predicted that “she’ll be gone next week.”  One cabinet minister declared Truss “finished.  We’re not going to sit back and let her take the country and the party over the cliff.”

There have been letters to Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee, calling for a vote of no confidence, even if party rules disallow such a call for at least a year after the election of a new leader.  According to an unnamed “Tory grandee”, if one can trust the Mail on Sunday, “it just needs Sir Graham to change that rule and then we submit the letters.”  If not, Sir Graham could just as well be voted out and replaced by a more accommodating chair.

A fitting, if vulgar aside to the whole saga came from comedian and actress Miriam Margolyes on the standardly middle-brow BBC Radio 4.  While slotted in to speak about the passing of fellow Harry Potter actor Robbie Coltrane, she could not resist, in coming on the radio slot after Hunt, making mention of a desire to say “Fuck you cunt!” on greeting him.  Not perhaps the most mature observation, but not necessarily inaccurate.  Through the course of his career, both man and name have somehow converged.  And now, should the polls hold, his party faces electoral eradication.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University.  He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Clicksbox / Shutterstock

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

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

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

***

*

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

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017.

Featured image is from NaturalNews.com

---

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

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

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

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

***

Former Hawaii Congresswoman and 2020 presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has left the Democratic Party, saying that it has been taken over by an “elitist cabal of warmongers” who are “dragging us ever closer to nuclear war.”

On her podcast on October 11, Gabbard recalled that, when she decided to run for the Hawaii State House in 2002 at the age of 21 and had to select a party affiliation, she settled on the Democrats because she was inspired by figures like Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy, and by Democrats who opposed the Vietnam War and stood up for workers in Hawaii who were being exploited by large landowners.

The GOP by contrast appeared to her to stand for the interests of big business and the warmongering elite.

But today, Gabbard said, the Democrats are in the thrall of the military-industrial complex and use liberal rhetoric to support wars of aggression. They have pushed the world to the precipice of World War III and “don’t care who pays the price.”

The war in Ukraine, according to Gabbard was “not provoked by Vladimir Putin, but by the United States and some European nations in NATO that are using the Ukrainian military and people as chess pieces with the aim of regime change in Russia.”

The military-industrial complex is happy to send all those weapons to Ukraine, but, she asked, “if we vote to send these billions of dollars to Ukraine, is that strengthening our national security or undermining it?”

Gabbard said that she ran for president in 2020 because “she saw where we were headed.” She raised the danger of a potential nuclear holocaust in her campaign and on the national debate stage as a result of bellicose U.S. policies, but the “dominant politicians and media ignored her message and didn’t care—then or now.”

In an interview with Jesse Waters on Fox News, Gabbard noted that not one member of Congress on the left has opposed the war in Ukraine. “Where are the so-called progressives?” she asked. “Where are the peace champions, the AOCs, the Bernies, all the people who claim to be representing this movement? They’re absolutely silent, and they are the ones leading us into nuclear war.”

After making her announcement about leaving the Democratic Party, old smears were predictably revived about Gabbard’s “coziness with Syrian president and alleged war criminal Bashar al-Assad” (Max Burns, NBC News) and being “pro-Putin.” (Bill Kristol).^[1]

According to Gabbard, whereas the Democrats once stood for civil liberties, today’s Democrats advance censorship under the guise of a campaign for “fighting misinformation”—which allows the government to cancel out its critics.

Gabbard suggests that the Biden administration has also a) prosecuted conservative groups like anti-abortion activists who have a right to protest, b) demonized and pushed for defunding the police who are needed in communities, c) divided Americans by racializing almost every issue, d) labeled as terrorists parents who questioned changes to their children’s curriculum; and e) forgotten that the U.S. Constitution stands for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Gabbard clearly stands on the conservative side of the culture wars, adopting positions with which many on the left do not agree—though might consider.

However, she is right on the mark in her critique of the Democrats’ acquiescence to the military-industrial complex and advancement of dangerous foreign policies that threaten nuclear war.

The question is when will more self-styled progressives follow Gabbard’s lead and defect from a party that is as beholden to the oligarchic elite and national security complex as the Republicans?

And when will more Democrats speak out against the adoption of neo-McCarthyite tactics to silence critics—not just of the government’s Russia and China policies, but also its corrupted response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

*

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

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].

Note

1. Gabbard filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton who had said that Russia was “grooming Gabbard [who served in the U.S. military] to be a third party candidate” and that Gabbard was a “favorite of the Russians.” Kamala Harris’ campaign meanwhile suggested that Russia was behind Gabbard’s scathing critique of Harris’ record as a prosecutor during one of the 2020 Democratic Party primary debates. 

Featured image is from greatamericansyndicate.com

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

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

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 August 10, 2022

***

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg recently addressed the Workers Youth League (AUF) summer camp in Utøya, Norway. The AUF is Norway’s largest political youth organization and is affiliated with the Norwegian Labor Party. The AUF summer camp is of course famous for being the scene of the horrific terrorist attack perpetrated by neo-Nazi Anders Breivik in 2011.

Stoltenberg said little of note. Nonetheless, his speech was a remarkable demonstration of how little NATO has learned from the dramatic events of this year. A serious military conflict is taking place on the European continent, a conflict that NATO had played a substantial role in triggering through its unwavering insistence on scooping up as many countries in Europe, Central Asia and beyond into its military system, without any regard for the security concerns of others.

The war in Ukraine is moreover the second major conflict to break out on the European continent within the last 25 years. Both of these conflicts are inextricably linked to two NATO commitments: first, to limitless expansion and, second, to the elimination of Russia’s presence and influence from Western Europe once and for all. The war in Ukraine was triggered by the first commitment; the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia by the second.

Bombing of Yugoslavia down the memory hole

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

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

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

***

“Something’s rotten in the state of Pakistan”, and it’s that the country’s institutions have been captured by American proxies through a post-modern coup, after which they began aggressively waging “lawfare” on all their critics.

To paraphrase Shakespeare’s famous line from Hamlet, “something is rotten in the state of Pakistan” when criticizing Chief Of Army Staff (COAS) Qamar Javed Bajwa is equivalent to “inciting mutiny” while wanting to hang former Prime Minister Imran Khan is supposedly just “free speech”. PTI Senator Azam Swati was arrested on Thursday for sarcastically tweeting his congratulations to COAS Bajwa after the acquittal of incumbent Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif – who replaced his predecessor after a US-orchestrated post-modern coup – and his son Hamza in a money laundering case, which the First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Federal Investigation Agency’s Cyber Crime Reporting Centre claimed was intended to incite mutiny, among other charges.

By contrast, Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah has yet to have charges filed against him at the time of this article’s publication despite threatening former Prime Minister Khan that “We will hang him upside down” if he commences his promised Absolute Freedom March on the capital of Islamabad and PTI demanding that the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Agency (PEMRA) take action. Quite clearly, criticizing COAS – who many regard as personally responsible for the US-orchestrated post-modern coup against the former premier as punishment for his independent foreign policy (and especially its Russian dimension) – runs the risk of criminal charges while threatening to publicly execute the country’s former leader can be done with impunity, at least if the one doing so is a top security official.

As could be expected, America almost certainly won’t criticize its newly restored vassal since it tacitly approves of these undemocratic double standards that are implemented out of desperation to prevent a peaceful people’s revolution against its local puppets. It also plans to exploit the emerging regional processes that were unleashed by its latest regime change there to complete the grand strategic reorientation of South Asia, though there’s also speculation that it might be considering the possibility of former Prime Minister Khan returning to office, hence why he and the US have reportedly entered into some sort of contact with each other. It remains to be seen whether anything tangible will come from those reports, but they’re still intriguing to consider.

In any case and however it happens, “The Power Of The Pakistani People Will Defeat Their Unpopular Imported Government” sooner or later, but it would of course be best if the then-former coup regime doesn’t fully discredit the country beforehand. After all, it’s already exploited anti-terrorist legislation to previously charge the former premier for related crimes after he publicly announced his intention to file court cases against the ruling authorities over their allegedly inhumane treatment of his chief advisor. Now, the entire world sees that even serving Senators can’t publicly criticize COAS without fear of being punished on similar trump-up pretexts while the Interior Minister can threaten to publicly execute former Prime Minister Khan without getting in trouble (at least at the time of this article’s publication).

Returning back to the famous passage that was referenced in the introduction, “something’s rotten in the state of Pakistan”, and it’s that the country’s institutions have been captured by American proxies through a post-modern coup, after which they began aggressively waging “lawfare” on all their critics. They’re not just making an example out of Senator Swati, but are inadvertently suggesting that average Pakistanis are also persecuted for expressing similar “politically incorrect” opinions, though their trials and tribulations obviously don’t get any media coverage because they’re not public figures like he is. Likewise, just like Sanarullah threatened to publicly execute the former premier for related reasons, it can’t be discounted that he won’t order the security services to execute average folks too.

With these observations in mind, it should be abundantly clear that the latest example of undemocratic double standards in Pakistan is actually the worst such instance yet. Those watching everything play out from afar should shudder to think what life is like for those average Pakistanis who are displeased with their US-installed post-modern coup regime. They risk imprisonment or worse just like Swati and former Prime Minister Khan respectively if they publicly express similar dissent, though few would probably ever learn of their persecution considering the fact that they aren’t public figures like those two. Nevertheless, those abroad who truly support democracy, free speech, and human rights should raise their voices on those people’s behalf in order to inform the world about what’s happening in Pakistan.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from OneWorld

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on June 6. 2022

***

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is one of the most powerful organizations in the world. And, throughout the years, people at the WEF have said some truly insane and dystopian things. And they’ve managed to word these things in the creepiest ways possible. Here are the top 10 most insane things said by the WEF.

When one talks about the “global elite”, one usually refers to a small group of wealthy and powerful individuals who operate beyond national borders. Through various organizations, these non-elected individuals gather in semi-secrecy to decide policies they want to see applied on a global level.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is smack dab in the middle of it all. Indeed, through its annual Davos meetings, the WEF attempts to legitimize and normalize its influence on the world’s democratic nations by having a panel of world leaders attending and speaking at the event.

A simple look at the list of attendees at these meetings reveals the organization’s incredible reach and influence. The biggest names in media, politics, business, science, technology, and finance are represented at the WEF.

Page 34 (out of 58) of the list of attendees at the 2022 Davos meeting. Big names, big companies, big influence.

According to mass media, the Davos meetings gather people to discuss issues such as “inequality, climate change, and international cooperation”. This simplistic description appears to be custom-made to cause the average citizen to yawn in boredom. But topics at the WEF go much further than “inequality”.

Throughout the years, people at the WEF have said some highly disturbing things, none of which garnered proper media attention. In fact, when one pieces together the topics championed by the WEF, an overarching theme emerges: The total control of humanity using media, science, and technology while reshaping democracies to form a global government.

If this sounds like a far-fetched conspiracy theory, keep reading. Here are the 10 most dystopian things that are being pushed by the WEF right now. This list sorted is in no particular order. Because they’re all equally crazy.

#10 Penetrating Governments

The least one can say is that Klaus Schwab, the founder and the head of the WEF is not a fan of democracy. In fact, he perceives it as an obstacle to a fully globalized world.

In the 2010 WEF report titled “Global Redesign”, Schwab postulates that a globalized world is best managed by a “self-selected coalition of multinational corporations, governments (including through the UN system), and select civil society organizations (CSOs)”. This is the exact opposite of a democracy.

He argued that governments are no longer “the overwhelmingly dominant actors on the world stage” and that “the time has come for a new stakeholder paradigm of international governance”. For this reason, the Transnational Institute (TNI) described the WEF as “a silent global coup d’état” to capture governance.

In 2017, at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Schwab blatantly admitted what is continually dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” by mass media: The WEF is “penetrating” governments around the world.

Head of the World Economic Forum Klaus Schwab at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government in 2017:

“What we are very proud of, is that we penetrate the global cabinets of countries with our WEF Young Global Leaders… like Trudeau”pic.twitter.com/D6odR5mqI6

— Maajid أبو عمّار (@MaajidNawaz) January 25, 2022

Schwab said:

“I have to say, when I mention now names, like Mrs. (Angela) Merkel and even Vladimir Putin, and so on, they all have been Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum. But what we are very proud of now is the young generation, like Prime Minister [Justin] Trudeau, the President of Argentina and so on.

We penetrate the cabinets. So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half of his cabinet, or even more than half of his cabinet, are actually Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum. (…) It’s true in Argentina and it’s true in France, with the President – a Young Global Leader.”

In this outstanding talk, Schwab blatantly stated that Angela Merkel of Germany, Vladimir Putin of Russia, Justin Trudeau of Canada, and Emmanuel Macron of France were “groomed” by the WEF. He even adds that at least half of Canada’s cabinet consists of representatives sold to the WEF’s agenda. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is the absolute truth, confirmed by the head of the WEF himself.

#9 Controlling Minds Using Sound Waves

In 2018, one of the topics of discussion at the WEF was “Mind Control Using Sound Waves” (read my full article about it here). I did not alter this title for sensationalism, those are exactly the words used by the WEF.

This is the title of an actual article published on the WEF’s official website. It was deleted for obscure reasons, but it is still viewable in web archives.

In the article, the technology is touted as a possible treatment for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. However, the article also states that “it can cure you, it can get you addicted, and it can kill you”. It can also be used to completely control a person’s mind, remotely. The article states:

“I can see the day coming where a scientist will be able to control what a person sees in their mind’s eye, by sending the right waves to the right place in their brain. My guess is that most objections will be similar to those we hear today about subliminal messages in advertisements, only much more vehement.

This technology is not without its risks of misuse. It could be a revolutionary healthcare technology for the sick, or a perfect controlling tool with which the ruthless control the weak. This time though, the control would be literal.”

The conclusion of the article: Nobody can stop scientists from developing this technology. To prevent misuse, it should be regulated by organizations such as … the WEF. That’s convenient because some companies developing this technology are part of the WEF. Do you see where this is going?

#8 Pills That Contain Microchips

Once again, this title sounds like a far-fetched conspiracy theory cleverly worded for sensationalism. It is not. Here’s a video from the WEF’s 2018 meeting where Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, talks about pills that contain microchips.

Bourla says:

“FDA approved the first ‘electronic pill’, if I can call it like that. It is basically a biological chip that is in the tablet and, once you take the tablet, and it disolves into your stomach, it sends a signal that you took the tablet. So imagine the applications of that, the compliance. The insurance companies would know that the medicines that patients should take, they do take them. It is fascinating what happens in this field.”

Is this field truly fascinating? Or utterly dystopian? As Bourla himself said: Imagine the compliance. This kind of technology could easily open the door to all kinds of nefarious applications. Since then, COVID put Pfizer in a position of power never seen before for a pharmaceutical company.

Like Pfizer, the WEF is also using COVID to further its agenda.

#7 Praising Massive Lockdowns

In 2020 and 2021, cities around the world were subjected to massive and drastic lockdowns, causing job losses, suicides, drug overdoses, isolation, mental health issues, domestic abuse, bankruptcies, and homelessness. During this horrific period, children could not attend school for months and were essentially barred from interacting with other children. A slew of small and medium businesses was destroyed while large corporations strived.

Despite all of this, the WEF could not hide its love of drastic, life-destroying lockdowns. In fact, it released a video surrealistically called “Lockdowns are quietly improving cities around the world”. Here’s this piece of complete insanity.

The video states “Lockdowns significantly reduced human activity … leading to Earth’s quietest period in decades,” while showing dystopian images of empty cities and planes stuck on the ground.

Completely ignoring the immense human suffering caused by these lockdowns, the WEF considered it was all worth it because “carbon emissions were down 7% in 2020”.

When this thing was first posted, it garnered intense backlash. So the WEF deleted the video above and posted this tweet.

As you can see, despite deleting the video, the WEF kept praising lockdowns. That’s because the WEF would love to see “covidian” life become permanent.

#6 “Take a Peek at the Future”

Judging by comments on YouTube and social media, people absolutely hate videos created by the WEF. But they keep coming. Because they don’t care what you think. They just want to plant their seed of insanity into your mind. In a video titled “How our lives could soon look” (read my full article about it here), the WEF invites viewers to “take a peek at the future”. And it is BLEAK. It is all about making COVID life permanent.

This is how our lives could soon look.

Take a peak at the future: https://t.co/lOLgPc95VB pic.twitter.com/sR7l66C95C

— World Economic Forum (@wef) August 17, 2021

The video is filled with masked people, purell dispensers, and QR codes. This is the future they want. Then, there’s this nugget of insanity.

No. Go away.

The video proudly says:

“NASA has invented a system that can ID you from your heartbeat using a laser.”

As if that wasn’t enough, the video shows children stuck at home and being schooled through screens. The video ends by showing people wearing masks outside, like crazy people.

#5 Pushing For a Great Reset

As stated above, the WEF perceives the pandemic as an “opportunity”. It is not only an opportunity to reshape our personal existence but to restructure the entire world structure according to its principles. The WEF calls it “the Great Reset”. To promote this Reset (that absolutely nobody wants) the WEF released a propaganda video (it really fits the definition of “propaganda”). Here it is in all of its insanity.

When I posted an article about this video in 2021, the comments were not yet turned off. And I took a screenshot of the top ones.

This short video manages to contain an incredible amount of subversive messages. It even ridiculizes “conspiracy theories” while, astoundingly, confirming these theories.

The video also announced the “death of capitalism”.

While capitalism is based on a self-regulating system of offer and demand, the Great Reset looks to redefine the way businesses are evaluated through new parameters. The main one: Compliance with the elite’s social and political agendas.

Towards the end, the narrator utters this enigmatic sentence:

“And that’s all about getting the right people in the right place at the right time”.

While the video doesn’t quite explain what this sentence actually means in real-life situations, its implications are rather chilling. Instead of allowing successful individuals and businesses to grow organically, the elite’s system would interfere to “get the right people at the right place at the right time”, in accordance with its agenda. In other words, the system would be rigged and compliance with a wider agenda would be mandatory in a new economy.

The video ends with a call to viewers to get involved. However, of course, you’re not actually invited to the WEF. In fact, they’re actually looking to “recalibrate” your freedom of speech.

#4 “Recalibrating” freedom of speech

An easy way to identify world leaders who are groomed by the WEF is through their incessant railing against free speech. They absolutely hate it and they’re constantly calling for the internet to be censored and highly regulated. At the 2022 Davos meeting, Australian “eSafety commissioner” Julie Inman Grant stated that we need a “recalibration of free speech”.

Australian eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant tells the World Economic Forum we need a "recalibration" of freedom of speech. pic.twitter.com/zEq72wFhNf

— Andrew Lawton (@AndrewLawton) May 23, 2022

Grant said:

“We are finding ourselves in a place where we have increasing polarization everywhere and everything feels binary when it doesn’t need to be. So I think we’re going to have to think about a recalibration of a whole range of human rights that are playing out online. You know, from freedom of speech to the freedom to be free from online violence.”

Here, Grant essentially calls for censorship. She even believes that freedom of speech as a human right should be “recalibrated” using “online violence” as an excuse. There is no such thing as “online violence”. They love to equate speech with violence. It is an extremely manipulative way of justifying China-style censorship.

Free speech is, in fact, binary. Either it exists or it doesn’t. And they clearly don’t want it to exist.

#3 Tracking Your Clothes

The WEF wants to control your clothes. And they’ve made a video about it. Did I mention that people absolutely hate WEF videos? Here’s another one that got people’s blood boiling.

Using the environment as an excuse (as usual), the WEF announced the coming of clothing laced with “digital passports” that can be traced at all times. Backed by Microsoft (of course), these garments will apparently flood the market by 2025.

According to the WEF, these chips will allow fashion brands to resell their clothes. I have no idea how that would work. The video makes sure NOT to mention that this technology would be a great way of tracking those who ditched their smartphones.

But ditching your smartphone might become … impossible.

#2 “Smartphones will be in your body by 2030”

At the 2022 Davos meeting, Nokia CEO Pekka Lundmark claimed that, by 2030, “smartphones will be implanted directly into the body.” This would coincide with the coming of 6G technology, which is expected to be launched by the end of the decade.

For years, this site has been documenting the elite’s incessant push for transhumanism, which is the merging of humans with machines. They’re looking to accelerate this transition by making things people cannot live without (such as smartphones) available in transhumanist form.

Are you noticing their creepy eagerness to insert things inside our bodies?

#1 “You’ll Own Nothing. And You’ll Be Happy.”

This is probably the most dystopian moment in WEF history. In 2016, Ida Auken, a Member of Parliament in Denmark said:

“Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better”.

The WEF loved that quote so much that it tweeted about it.

The WEF also created a video (that everybody absolutely hated) titled “8 Predictions for the World in 2030”. Here’s a screenshot.

An article on the WEF’s website explains:

“I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes,” writes Danish MP Ida Auken. Shopping is a distant memory in the city of 2030, whose inhabitants have cracked clean energy and borrow what they need on demand. It sounds utopian, until she mentions that her every move is tracked and outside the city live swathes of discontents, the ultimate vision of a society split in two.

In this dystopian future, there are no products you can own. Only “services” that are rented and delivered using drones. This system would make all humans completely dependent on WEF-controlled corporations for every single basic need. There would be absolutely no autonomy, no freedom, and no privacy. And you’ll be happy.

Honorable Mention: Individual carbon footprint tracker

At the 2022 Davos meeting, Alibaba Group president J. Michael Evans announced the development of an “individual carbon tracker”.

Alibaba Group president J. Michael Evans boasts at the World Economic Forum about the development of an "individual carbon footprint tracker" to monitor what you buy, what you eat, and where/how you travel. pic.twitter.com/sisSrUngDI

— Andrew Lawton (@AndrewLawton) May 24, 2022

Once again, the WEF uses the environment to promote the micro-management of human behavior. Evans says that the tracker can monitor “where they’re traveling, how they’re traveling, what are they’re eating and what are they consuming on the platform”.

Notice that he used the pronoun “they” and not “we” because there is no way in hell he’s going to use that thing. Me neither.

In Conclusion

Upon reviewing this list, two common themes become obvious. The first theme is “penetration”. The WEF wants to penetrate governments using “Global Leaders” (aka Manchurian candidates). It also wants to penetrate our bodies through pills, microchips, and vaccines. It also wants to penetrate our minds using soundwaves, censorship, and propaganda.

The other theme is “control”. They want to control what we think, where we go, what we say, what we eat, and what we wear.

Do you know who agrees with the WEF? China. Censorship is widespread, a social credit system controls people’s behaviors and COVID is still used as an excuse for massive lockdowns and total population control. Not to mention the literal concentration camps. Despite all of this, Chinese officials are constantly present at WEF meetings. Why? Because China is basically a laboratory for the WEF’s policies.

With all of that being said, how can we counteract the WEF’s insanity? How can we vote them out if they were never voted in? A first step would be to elect – at all levels of government – representatives that want nothing to do with the WEF. If our elected officials treated the WEF as the rogue, illegitimate organization that it is, its influence would be greatly reduced.

Second, we can boycott every company that is part of the WEF. I realize this is easier said than done because many of these companies are virtual monopolies. However, if we stop giving them our money, they’ll stop using our money to poison our lives.

Then, they’ll own nothing. And we’ll all be happy.

*

Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

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

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

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

First published on October 6, 2022

***

The recapture of the Kharkov region at the beginning of September appears to be a success for Ukrainian forces. Our media exulted and relayed Ukrainian propaganda to give us a picture that is not entirely accurate. A closer look at the operations might have prompted Ukraine to be more cautious.

From a military point of view, this operation is a tactical victory for the Ukrainians and an operational/strategic victory for the Russian coalition.

On the Ukrainian side, Kiev was under pressure to achieve some success on the battlefield. Volodymyr Zelensky was afraid of a fatigue from the West and that its support would stop. This is why the Americans and the British pressed him to carry out offensives in the Kherson sector. These offensives, undertaken in a disorganised manner, with disproportionate casualties and without success, created tensions between Zelensky and his military staff.

For several weeks now, Western experts have been questioning the presence of the Russians in the Kharkov area, as they clearly had no intention to fight in the city. In reality, their presence in this area was only aimed at affixing the Ukrainian troops so that they would not go to the Donbass, which is the real operational objective of the Russians.

In August, indications suggested that the Russians had planned to leave the area well before the start of the Ukrainian offensive. They therefore withdrew in good order, together with some civilians who could have been the subject of retaliation. As evidence of this, the huge ammunition depot at Balaklaya was empty when the Ukrainians found it, demonstrating that the Russians had evacuated all sensitive personnel and equipment in good order several days earlier. The Russians had even left areas that Ukraine had not attacked. Only a few Russian National Guard and Donbass militia troops remained as the Ukrainians entered the area.

At this point, the Ukrainians were busy launching multiple attacks in the Kherson region, which had resulted in repeated setbacks and huge losses for their army since August. When US intelligence detected the Russians’ departure from the Kharkov region, they saw an opportunity for the Ukrainians to achieve an operational success and passed on the information. Ukraine thus abruptly decided to attack the Kharkov area that was already virtually empty of Russian troops.

Apparently, the Russians anticipated the organisation of referenda in Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhe and Kherson oblasts. They realised that the territory of Kharkov was not directly relevant to their objectives, and that they were in the same situation as with Snake Island in June: the energy to defend this territory was greater than its strategic importance.

By withdrawing from Kharkov, the Russian coalition was able to consolidate its defence line behind the Oskoll River and strengthen its presence in the north of the Donbass. It was thus able to make a significant advance in the Bakhmut area, a key point in the Slavyansk-Kramatorsk sector, which is the real operational objective of the Russian coalition.

As there were no longer any troops in Kharkov to “pin down” the Ukrainian army, the Russians had to attack the electrical infrastructure to prevent Ukrainian reinforcements by train to the Donbass.

As a result, today, all Russian coalition forces are located within what may become the new borders of Russia after the referenda in the four southern Ukrainian oblasts.

For the Ukrainians, it is a Pyrrhic victory. They advanced into Kharkov without encountering any resistance and there was hardly any fighting. Instead, the area became a huge “killing zone” (“зона поражения”), where Russian artillery would destroy an estimated number of 4,000-5,000 Ukrainians (about 2 brigades), while the Russian coalition suffered only marginal losses as there was no fighting.

These losses come on top of those from the Kherson offensives. According to Sergei Shoigu, Russian Defence Minister, the Ukrainians lost about 7,000 men in the first three weeks of September. Although these figures cannot be verified, their order of magnitude matches the estimates of some Western experts. In other words, it seems that the Ukrainians have lost about 25% of the 10 brigades that were created and equipped in recent months with Western help. This is a far cry from the million-man army mentioned by the Ukrainian leaders.

From a political point of view, it is a strategic victory for the Ukrainians, and a tactical loss for the Russians. It is the first time that the Ukrainians have taken back so much territory since 2014, and the Russians seem to be losing. The Ukrainians were able to use this opportunity to communicate about their final victory, undoubtedly triggering exaggerated hopes and making them even less willing to engage in negotiation.

Image: Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen (Source: Britannica.com)

This is why Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, declared that the moment “is not one for appeasement.” This Pyrrhic victory is therefore a poisoned gift for Ukraine. It has led the West to overestimate the capabilities of the Ukrainian forces and to push them to engage in further offensives, instead of negotiating.

The words “victory” and “defeat” need to be carefully used. Vladimir Putin’s stated objectives of “demilitarisation” and “denazification” are not about gaining territory, but about destroying the threat to the Donbass. In other words, the Ukrainians are fighting for territory, while the Russians seek to destroy capabilities. In a way, by holding on to territory, the Ukrainians are making the Russians’ job easier. You can always regain territory—you cannot regain human lives.

In the belief that they are weakening Russia, our media are promoting the gradual disappearance of Ukrainian society. It seems like a paradox, but this is consistent with the way our leaders view Ukraine. They did not react to the massacres of Russian-speaking Ukrainian civilians in the Donbass between 2014 and 2022, nor do they mention Ukraine’s losses today. In fact, for our media and authorities, Ukrainians are a kind of “Untermenschen” whose life is only meant to satisfy the goals of our politicians.

Between 23 and 27 September, there were four referendums in progress, and the local populations have to answer different questions depending on their region. In the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, which are officially independent, the question is whether the population wants to join Russia. In the oblasts of Kherson and Zaporozhe, which are still officially part of Ukraine, the question is whether the population wants to remain within Ukraine, whether they want to be independent, or whether they want to be part of Russia.

However, there are still some unknowns at this stage, such as what will be the borders of the entities that will be attached to Russia. Will they be the borders of the areas occupied by the Russian coalition today or the borders of the Ukrainian regions? If it is the second solution, then we could still have Russian offensives to seize the rest of the regions (oblasts).

It is hard to estimate the outcome of these referenda, although one can assume the Russian-speaking Ukrainians will most probably want to leave Ukraine. Polls, whose reliability cannot be assessed, suggest that 80-90% are in favour of joining Russia. This seems realistic due to several factors.

Firstly, since 2014, linguistic minorities in Ukraine have been subject to restrictions that have made them 2nd class citizens. As a result, the Ukrainian policy has caused Russian-speaking citizens to no longer feel Ukrainian. This was even emphasised by the Law on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in July 2021, which is somewhat equivalent to the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, which give different rights to citizens depending on their ethnic origin. This is why Vladimir Putin wrote an article on 12 July 2021 calling on Ukraine to consider Russian speakers as part of the Ukrainian nation and not to discriminate against them as proposed by the new law.

Of course, no Western country protested against this law, which is a continuation of the abolition of the law on official languages in February 2014, which was the reason for the secession of Crimea and Donbass.

Secondly, in their fight against the secession of Donbass, the Ukrainians never tried to win the “hearts and minds” of the insurgents. On the contrary, they have done everything to drive them further away by bombing them, by mining their roads, by cutting off drinking water, by stopping the payment of pensions and salaries, or by stopping all banking services. This is the exact opposite of an effective counter-insurgency strategy.

Finally, the artillery and missile strikes against the population of Donetsk and other cities in the Zaporozhe and Kherson region in order to intimidate the population and prevent them from going to the polls is further alienating the local population from Kiev. Today, the Russian-speaking population is afraid of Ukrainian reprisals if the referenda are not accepted.

So, we have a situation where the Western countries announce that they will not recognise these referenda, but on the other hand they have done absolutely nothing to encourage Ukraine to have a more inclusive policy with their minorities. Ultimately, what these referenda could reveal is that there has never really been an inclusive Ukrainian nation.

Moreover, these referenda will freeze a situation and make Russia’s conquests irreversible. Interestingly, if the West had let Zelensky continue with the proposal he made to Russia at the end of March 2022, Ukraine would more or less retained its pre-February 2022 configuration. As a reminder, Zelensky had made a first request for negotiation on 25 February, which the Russians had accepted, but which the European Union refused by providing a first package of €450 million in arms. In March, Zelensky made another offer that Russia welcomed and was ready to discuss, but the European Union once again came to prevent this with a second package of €500 million for arms.

As explained by Ukraïnskaya Pravda, Boris Johnson called Zelensky on 2 April and asked him to withdraw his proposal, otherwise the West would stop its support. Then, on 9 April, during his visit to Kiev, “BoJo” repeated the same thing to the Ukrainian president. Ukraine was therefore ready to negotiate with Russia, but the West does not want negotiations, as “BoJo” made clear again on his last visit to Ukraine in August.

It is certainly the prospect that there will be no negotiations that have prompted Russia to engage in referenda. It should be remembered that until now, Vladimir Putin had always rejected the idea of integrating the territories of southern Ukraine into Russia.

It should also be remembered that if the West were so committed to Ukraine and its territorial integrity, France and Germany would certainly have fulfilled their obligations under the Minsk Agreements before February 2022. Moreover, they would have let Zelensky proceed with his proposed agreement with Russia in March 2022. The problem is that the West is not looking for Ukraine’s interest, but to weaken Russia.

Partial Mobilization

Image: Russian president Vladimir Putin (Illustration by TPYXA_ILLUSTRATION/Shutterstock)

Regarding Vladimir Putin’s announcement of a partial mobilisation, it should be recalled that Russia has intervened in Ukraine with considerably fewer troops than the West considers necessary to conduct an offensive campaign. There are two reasons for this. First, the Russians rely on their mastery of the “operative art” and play with their operational modules on the theatre of operations like a chess player. This is what allows them to be effective with reduced manpower. In other words, they know how to conduct operations efficiently.

The second reason that our media deliberately ignore is that the vast majority of the combat actions in Ukraine is carried out by the Donbass militias. Instead of saying “the Russians,” they should (if they were honest) say “the Russian coalition” or “the Russian-speaking coalition.” In other words, the number of Russian troops in Ukraine is relatively small. Moreover, the Russian practice is to keep troops only for a limited period in the area of operations. This means that they tend to rotate troops more frequently than the West.

In addition to these general considerations, there are the possible consequences of the referenda in southern Ukraine, which are likely to extend the Russian border by almost 1000 kilometres. This will require additional capabilities to build a more robust defence system, to construct facilities for troops, etc. In that sense, this partial mobilisation is a good idea. In this sense, this partial mobilisation is a logical consequence of what we have seen above.

Much has been made in the West about those who have sought to leave Russia to avoid mobilisation. They certainly exist, like the thousands of Ukrainians who sought to escape conscription and can be seen in the streets of Brussels driving powerful and expensive German sports cars! Much less publicity has been given to the long queues of young people outside military recruitment offices and the popular demonstrations in favour of the decision to mobilise!

Nuclear Threats

As to the nuclear threats, in his speech on 21 September , Vladimir Putin mentioned the risk of nuclear escalation. Naturally, the conspiratorial media (i.e., those that construct narratives from unrelated information) immediately spoke of “nuclear threats.”

In reality, this is not true. If we read the wording of Putin’s speech, we can see that he did not threaten to use nuclear weapons. In fact, he has never done so since the beginning of this conflict in 2014. However, he has warned the West against the use of such weapons. I will remind you that on 24 August, Liz Truss declared that it was acceptable to strike Russia with nuclear weapons, and that she was ready to do so, even if it would lead to a “global annihilation!” This is not the first time that the current British Prime Minister has made such a statement, which had already prompted warnings from the Kremlin in February. Moreover, I would like to remind you that in April of this year, Joe Biden decided to depart from the US “no-first use” policy and thus reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first.

So clearly, Vladimir Putin does not trust Western behaviour that is totally irrational and irresponsible, and which is ready to sacrifice its own citizens in order to achieve objectives guided by dogmatism and ideology. This is what is happening in the field of energy and sanctions at the moment, and this is what Liz Truss is ready to do with nuclear weapons. Putin is certainly worried about the reactions of our leaders who are in increasingly uncomfortable situations because of the catastrophic economic and social situation they have created by their incompetence. This pressure on our leaders could lead them to escalate the conflict just to avoid losing face.

In his speech, Vladimir Putin does not threaten to use nuclear weapons, but other types of weapons. He is of course thinking of hypersonic weapons, which do not need to be nuclear to be effective and which can thwart Western defences. Moreover, contrary to what our media say, the use of tactical nuclear weapons is no longer in the Russian employment doctrine for many years. Moreover, unlike the United States, Russia has a no-first-use policy.

In other words, it is the Westerners and their erratic behaviour that are the real factors of insecurity.

I am not sure that our politicians have a clear and objective view of the situation. Ignazio Cassis’ recent tweets show that his level of information is low. First of all, when he mentions Switzerland’s role and neutrality in offering its good offices, he is a bit out of touch with geography. In Russia’s mind, Switzerland has abandoned its neutrality status and if it wants to play a constructive role in this conflict, it will have to demonstrate its neutrality. We are a long, long way from that.

Secondly, when Cassis expressed his concern about the use of nuclear weapons to Lavrov, he clearly did not understand Vladimir Putin’s message. The problem with today’s Western leaders is that none of them currently has the intellectual capacity to deal with the challenges that they themselves have created through their own foolishness. Cassis would probably have been better advised to express his concerns to Truss and Biden!

The Russians—and Vladimir Putin in particular—have always been very clear in their statements and have consistently and methodically done what they said they would do. No more, no less. One can of course disagree with what he says, but it is a major and probably even criminal mistake not to listen to what he says. For if we had listened, we could have prevented the situation becoming what it is.

It is also interesting to compare the current general situation with what was described in the RAND Corporation reports published in 2019 as the blueprint for trying to destabilise Russia.

Figure 1—From the RAND Corporation’s 2019 paper on how to destabilise Russia. This document shows that the US was aiming for a campaign of subversion against Russia, in which Ukraine was only an unfortunate instrument.

As we can see, what we are witnessing is the result of a carefully planned scenario. It is very likely that the Russians were able to anticipate what the West was planning against them. Russia was thus able to prepare itself politically and diplomatically for the crisis that was to be created. It is this capacity for strategic anticipation that shows that Russia is more stable, more effective and more efficient than the West. This is why I think that if this conflict is going to escalate, it will be more because of Western incompetence than because of a Russian calculation.

*

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

is a widely respected geopolitical expert whose publications include many articles and books, including Poutine: Maître du jeu? Gouverner avec les fake news, and L’Affaire Navalny. His most recent book is on the war in Ukraine, entitled, Operation Z.

Featured image is from South Front

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

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Important article first published on September 19, 2022

***

If anyone needed proof that the powers pushing the levers behind the mindless moron who sits in the Oval Office are fully on board with the World Economic Forum/United Nations agenda of biomedical tyranny and transhumanism, look no further than the executive order that Joe Biden signed on Monday, September 12.

By quietly getting Biden’s signature on this document, his handlers may have given us the most ominous sign yet that we stand on the threshold of a technocratic one-world beast system. Prepare to make your stand because it’s about to get much more intense.

This document’s Orwellian title, Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy, will assure that its significance will fly right over the heads of 99 percent of the media, even the conservative media.

They will read it and yawn. I plead with everyone reading this article to please not make that same mistake.

Because of the arcane scientific language in which this document is written, even most of those who take the time to read and study it (I assure you Biden did not) will not fully grasp what is being ordered by the White House.

That’s where we strive to help.

Karen Kingston, a former Pfizer employee and current analyst for the pharmaceutical and medical-device industries, helps us decipher what’s going on in this executive order.

Kingston stated in a Twitter post:

“Let me read between the lines for America. Biden’s Sept. 12, 2022, executive order declares that Americans must surrender all human rights that stand in the way of transhumanism. Clinical trial safety standards and informed consent will be eradicated as they stand in the way of universally unleashing gene-editing technologies needed to merge humans with A.I. In order to achieve the societal goals of the New World Order, crimes against humanity are not only legal, but mandatory.” (emphasis added)

We’re 🔩’ed.https://t.co/qjuf8MUXIO pic.twitter.com/3irdwjuEnx

— NEWSNANCY (@NewsNancy9) September 13, 2022

Here is one of the most disturbing excerpts from Biden’s executive order:

“We need to develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers…including through computing tools and artificial intelligence…“

Patrick Wood, an economist and author of several books on technocracy, has been following the transhumanist and global technocracy movements for four decades. He told me that Kingston is not overstating the issue.

He said this E.O. is proof that the executive branch is now owned lock, stock and barrel by the biomedical/pharmaceutical industry. It will be Katy bar the door from here on out.

“The transhumanists within Big Pharma have completely taken over government policy and taxpayer funds to promote their own anti-human agenda of hacking the software of life,” Wood told me. “It also clearly demonstrates who has the power, and who sets the policies in America.”

The mRNA injections that have already gone into the bodies of at least 70 percent of adults in the U.S. (and a smaller percentage of its children) mark the “gateway to transhumanism.” We have been told this by Kingston as well as by the late Dr. Zev Zelenko and Dr. Robert Malone, a co-inventor of the mRNA platform.

LeoHohmann.com was one of the first sites to blow the whistle on Moderna’s former chief medical officer, Tal Zaks, who told the world straight up in December 2017 that “We have hacked the software of life,” and that this mRNA gene-editing biotechnology would be incorporated into vaccines to treat and prevent all manner of illnesses. We’ve seen how well they work, with millions getting sick and tens of thousands dying after getting two or more doses of the Covid injections offered up by Moderna and Pfizer. With the FDA and CDC now totally on board, this mRNA technology is being included in scores of other vaccines, including flu shots.

The September 12 executive order was no doubt put in place as back up for the continued experimentation on the human population, and I expect the vaccine industry will exploit it to the max. Soon we will see the return of vax mandates, this time more ferociously policed and enforced than before.

This E.O. may also have been timed at least partly in anticipation of the new pandemic treaty that the Biden administration is hoping to get passed through the United Nations World Health Organization next year. This treaty will transfer sovereignty over matters of “health emergencies” from the national level to the WHO.

Wood said the E.O.’s intended consequences is to push the frontier of genetic modification of all living things and especially humans. He believes this will ultimately spark the biggest public backlash in modern history.

“Biden pledges not only funding but an all-of-government transformation to support this anti-human scheme from top to bottom,” Wood writes. “It also automatically blocks any agency or department from dissent.”

Below are just a few of the highlights quoted directly from the document:

• The term “biotechnology” means technology that applies to or is enabled by life sciences innovation or product development.
• The term “biomanufacturing” means the use of biological systems to develop products, tools, and processes at commercial scale.
• The term “bioeconomy” means economic activity derived from the life sciences, particularly in the areas of biotechnology and biomanufacturing, and includes industries, products, services, and the workforce.
• The term “biological data” means the information, including associated descriptors, derived from the structure, function, or process of a biological system(s) that is measured, collected, or aggregated for analysis.
• The term “key R&D areas” includes fundamental R&D of emerging biotechnologies, including engineering biology; predictive engineering of complex biological systems, including the designing, building, testing, and modeling of entire living cells, cell components, or cellular systems; quantitative and theory-driven multi-disciplinary research to maximize convergence with other enabling technologies; and regulatory science, including the development of new information, criteria, tools, models, and approaches to inform and assist regulatory decision-making.  These R&D priorities should be coupled with advances in predictive modeling, data analytics, artificial intelligence, bioinformatics, high-performance and other advanced computing systems, metrology and data-driven standards, and other non-life science enabling technologies.
• The term “life sciences” means all sciences that study or use living organisms, viruses, or their products, including all disciplines of biology and all applications of the biological sciences (including biotechnology, genomics, proteomics, bioinformatics, and pharmaceutical and biomedical research and techniques), but excluding scientific studies associated with radioactive materials or toxic chemicals that are not of biological origin or synthetic analogues of toxins.

What this means is that human beings will be data mined for their most personal possession, their DNA and genomic properties, and the government will offer no protection.

It will actually be encouraged and seen as a green light for biomedical practitioners worldwide. It is the goal of the technocratic proprietors of Agenda 2030 to catalogue, map out, and monitor every living thing on earth.

This was spelled out in the early 2000s by the late researcher Rosa Koire and put into book form in 2011 with “Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21.” Koire was a Democrat, but she understood that the takedown of America and indeed every nation of the formerly free world, would not be accomplished by the left or the right but by supranational globalists with an allegiance to no particular nation. In fact, these globalists detest the nation-state model that has dominated the world for thousands of years. Their goal is “global governance” and they say it out loud in their own documents.

Have no fear.

Do not be intimidated.

Truth will not be defeated.

Humanity will prevail against these anti-human eugenicist monsters because we have living souls and are created in the image of a Holy God with individual free wills.

Because of that, we humans are capable of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and the one and only triune God of the Bible. Those who take the bait of the globalists and submit to the world system will in essence be handing over their humanity in exchange for empty promises of safety and security. They will become transhumans, thus foregoing, at some point, their ability to connect with God. That’s a very big step and a decision that will face every human being sooner or later as this technology ramps up. Your very soul will depend on the choice you make. Will you follow God or will you follow man?

Above all, this is a spiritual battle.

We must continue to expose the sinister transhumanist agenda that these globalist predators did their best to keep hidden within a scientific vernacular that they know will wow and mystify the average person. We have decoded it for you in this article from two of the best Christian experts on the topic available in the world today – Karen Kingston and Patrick Wood.

*

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

Leo Hohmann is an investigative reporter on globalism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and where politics, culture and religion intersect.

Featured image is from LeoHohmann.com

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

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

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

***

 

 

 

As a prince, the new British monarch developed some curious attitudes to architecture.  He also proved to be a dedicated meddler behind building projects he did not like. Combined, this led to a number of interventions that cast a shadow over his accession to the throne.  What will Charles III do when it comes to the next grand building proposal to interrupt the London skyline?

On the evening of May 30, 1984, the then Prince Charles told leading architects assembled at Hampton Court to celebrate the 150^th anniversary of the Royal Institute of British Architects how exactly he felt about architecture, modern and past.  At last, he claimed, people were “beginning to see that it is possible, and important in human terms, to respect old buildings, street plans and traditional scales at the same time not to feel guilty about a preference for facades, ornaments and soft materials.”

A few bombs of accusation were also hurled at his unsuspecting audience.  Many planners and architects had “consistently ignored the feelings and wishes of the mass of ordinary people in this country.”  They were the destroyers and rebuilders, not the rehabilitators.

His preference was for “community architecture”, one that enabled “ordinary” people to express their views about how things should be done, breaking the “monopoly” architects had on taste, style and planning.  He took the Mansion House Square project of the great modernist Mies van der Rohe to build an office tower in the City of London as one example of a program that could have done with “a community approach”.

With a philistine’s sentiment, the Prince of Wales let his prejudices be known.

“It would be a tragedy if the character and skyline of our capital city were to be further ruined and St. Paul’s dwarfed by yet another giant glass stump better suited to downtown Chicago than the City of London.”

The proposal to extend the National Gallery also gave Charles his chance to utter those now famous words. The plan envisaged did not, he emphatically noted, complement the Gallery building, looking instead like “a kind of municipal fire station, complete with the sort of tower that contains the siren.”  Such a “high-tech approach” might make sense in the event that all of Trafalgar Square was abolished and built from scratch, “again with a single architect responsible for the entire layout, but what is proposed is like a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend.”

The efforts by the Prince of Wales to scupper the Mansion House Square project proved outrageously successful.  He received support from another quarter: the urban planners and government officials concerned about the creation of public spaces that might be used for protest.

His views were also expressed in an atmosphere of reaction and rejection – this was Thatcher’s Britain, a time, as Jack Self writes, of “historical pastiche” allied with “an obsession with preservation”.  The attack on modernism as brutalist, inhuman and of poor quality was misguided but powerful.

In May 2009, in another address to RIBA, Charles apologised for his “monstrous carbuncle” remark, declaring that he had not intended “to kick-start some kind of style war between classicists and modernists”, let alone wishing to “drag the world back to the eighteenth century”.  But the speech did little to conceal the fact that Charles was engaged in another enterprise of disruption, this time against the design of Lord Richard Roberts for the £1 billion redevelopment of Chelsea Barracks.  While wishing for the project to be dropped altogether, Prince Charles had successfully convinced the developer to make adjustments, including using more brick and stone buildings at the expense of glass and steel proposed in the original design.  Lord Palumbo’s assessment of that effort was acerbic: “I can only say God bless the Prince of Wales, and God save us from his architectural judgment.”

It was such behaviour that led to a spirited defence of Rogers by a number of architects, including five winners of the Pritzker prize, including Zaha Hadid, Norman Foster, Jacques Herzog, Pierre de Meuron and Frank Gehry.  Published in the Sunday Times, the letter, which was also signed by such luminaries as Ricky Burdett, David Adjaye and Renzo Piano, rebuked the Prince of Wales for his intervention.  “It is essential in a modern democracy that private comments and behind-the-scenes lobbying by the prince should not be used to skew the course of an open and democratic planning process that is under way.”

The parties urged that the Westminster planning committee be permitted to reach their decision without interference.  “Rogers and his team have played their part in engaging with the democratic process.  The prince and his advisors should do the same.”  If the prince wished to “comment on the design of this or any other project, we urge him to do so through the established planning consultation processes.”

As things transpired, this was not to be.  God, on this occasion, was not on the side of Rogers and his team, and Qatari Diyar, with links to the Qatari Royal family, duly withdrew the design.

In terms of architectural visions, Charles can point to Poundbury, his own faux-18^th century, anti-modernist village project in Dorset, replete with its own stunning anachronisms.  To aid his building projects in the Duchy of Cornwall, the prince secured the services of Léon Krier, a devotee of Nazi Germany’s chief architect and armaments minister, Albert Speer.  Krier was a perfect foil to Charles, both wishing to impose the re-invented past, in some form, on the present.  It should then come as little surprise that Poundbury’s realisation was of a project described by Stephen Bayley as “fake, heartless, authoritarian and grimly cute.”

As a constitutional monarch, Charles may well have to shield the more combative side of his interventionist approach to policy.  His fields of interest – in terms of hectoring officials to get his way – are many, a point revealed in the Black Spider Memos.  The 27 letters he authored to various government departments between late 2004 and early 2005 point to an individual very much at ease with being a meddler.  For a man who hates carbuncles, he is very willing for the world to have a few of his own.

*

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

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures at RMIT University. He is a regular contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is by Mark Jones, licensed under CC BY 2.0

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

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

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

***

 

I confess, for reasons I can’t fully explain, that when bad things are happening to animals I tend to look away in pain.

When bad things are happening to people I try to face those things squarely and do what I can, but there’s something about wildlife—perhaps the way its become implicated in our strange human game without having the slightest agency at all—that just confounds me; some kind of sad and disabling rage fills me. Sometimes, however, the truths are just too overwhelming to avoid.

A vast new study finds there are 70 percent fewer wild animals sharing the earth with us than there were in 1970. Read that again. And again.

To be more specific, the World Wildlife Fund’s Living Planet Index, which monitors 32,000 separate populations of species around the world, found that on average they were 69% smaller than they had been in 1970.

This is not because we had an overpopulation of bears and monkeys and parrotfish in 1970—I was alive then, and I’m pretty confident in my memory that we weren’t overrun with wildlife. Instead it’s because we haven’t reined ourselves in, in any way—it’s because we (with a particular emphasis on those with the most money and power) have claimed ever more of the planet for ourselves, often without really knowing it.

The WWF says “these populations, or trends in relative abundance, are important because they give a snapshot of changes in an ecosystem. Essentially, declines in abundance are early warning indicators of overall ecosystem health.” Fair enough—it clearly bodes ill for all of us that our waterways and forests can no longer support as many animals as once they could.

But that’s not what makes me so desperately sad. It’s that so many trillions of animals are dead, gone. The world is so much lonelier than it’s ever been before, at least in the long eons since fish started crawling out on land. The wondrous, comical, cruel, buzzing, gaudy, sexy carnival that is Life has shut down most of its tents; the symphony of grunts, squeaks, roars, belches and barks has faded to a diminuendo chorus. The creatures that always informed human dreams—that ended up on masks and totem poles, daubed on the walls of caves—have wandered away into the mist.

Over those five decades most of the decline can be traced to habitat destruction: the human desire for ever more stuff playing out daily, acre by acre, across the globe. I want a hamburger; a Brazilian entrepreneur wants money; together we hire (by the magic of ‘the market’) some poor soul who wants only to feed his family, and he cuts down another swath of rainforest, and with it a dozen species we haven’t even named yet. I want a house to live in and the wood must come from somewhere, and the coal and the oil to power it, and to power the car that takes me from there to the store; one of the ironies of the report is that wildlife has declined least in North America and Europe, in part because it had declined pretty steeply there prior to 1970, and in part because we’ve been rich enough to preserve some of our landscape. Rich enough because we’ve had access to so many other landscapes.

But in the decades ahead the report makes clear that climate change will be the main driver of what they call, in a technically precise but emotionally vacant phrase, “biodiversity loss.” As we raise the temperature (and the pH) of the oceans, we destroy those reefs that harbor so much of its beauty; as we raise the temperature of the air we drive animals up the mountain till they hit the summit, and north till they run out of north. As Benjamin von Brackel writes in his moving new book Nowhere Left to Go, “The closer they get to the Pole, the more the inhabitable territory shrinks. Earth is an ellipsoid, after all.”

If you want good news, it’s that populations can in fact recover—reproduction is a powerful force, and given some space, animals can rebound. (The authors of the new report note that when a couple of small and no-longer-useful dams were torn down on some New England streams, herring populations quickly rebounded from a few thousand to a few million, which doubtless did wonders for whoever eats herring too). There are paradoxes here: building out clean energy is going to take some land that’s useful for animals (see desert tortoises in the Mojave) but the scale of the destruction clearly in the offing if we don’t build out that energy means we should give the benefit of the doubt to sun and wind; still, learning to do it in ways that offer the fewest insults to the rest of creation is what we should aim for. Fill solar farms with native plants for bees and butterflies. Build them with wildlife corridors Use offshore turbines to build coral reefs. But above all don’t let the planet keep warming.

The WWF report points out that we can’t achieve the world’s Sustainable Development Goals (or SDGs) unless we prevent a climate-led biodiversity collapse. That’s true, and that’s crucial. And we also can’t have a whimsical, magical, various world. Today, as I write this, the fall color in Vermont has reached its apex for the year; the forest is fantastically decorated. I can hear, as I walk the dog in the evening, the hoot of the barred owl. A deer just sauntered by. It’s too much, and (compared with all prior history) not nearly enough.

In other climate and energy news:

+A big new report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis makes it clear that divestment from fossil fuel remains the smartest financial strategy, even on a year when Putin has driven the price of oil sky high

Competitive forces inside and outside the industry have undermined this once-mighty economic force. Politics now drives oil and gas prices, with the war in Ukraine serving as a vivid reminder of this stark reality.Market forces now favor fossil fuel competitors; cost efficiencies, innovation and public opinion are converging to move trillions of dollars to sustainable alternatives. Meanwhile, an increasing number of destructive weather events have underscored the destruction caused by climate change and increased public demands for solutions.

Investors should move away from fossil fuels because the coal, oil and gas sectors are confronted with competitive pressures that they are ill-prepared to navigate.

+People with disabilities—about a billion humans—are particularly vulnerable to the dangers of climate change, a new report finds. And they’re not consulted about any of it.

The researchers found that only 32 of the 192 countries that are signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s Paris climate accords in 2015 refer to people with disabilities in their official climate plans. Forty-five countries refer to disabled people in their climate adaptation policies and no country mentions disabled people in its climate mitigation plans. Many of the world’s biggest contributors to climate change – the United States, China, Russia, Brazil, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom – don’t figure people with disabilities into any of these plans, according to the report.

In the same vein, new data from around Europe makes clear that older people are far more vulnerable to heat waves:

At the peak of its heat wave, England recorded 2,803 excess deaths among those 65 and older, according to a recent analysis by the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and the Office for National Statistics. The government agencies said that was the highest figure among the elderly since they started tracking heat-related deaths in this way in 2004. “These figures demonstrate the possible impact that hot weather can have on the elderly and how quickly such temperatures can lead to adverse health effects in at-risk groups,” the groups said in a statement.

+Putin’s war seems to be speeding up the pace of Europe’s conversion to renewable energy, according to new data from Politico

But the next couple of years won’t be easy. The invasion caught the EU mid-straddle in its energy transformation. A lot of the groundwork for a greener future is in place, but capacity in everything from training workers to insulate buildings and install wind towers, to cutting red tape for wind and solar permitting, redesigning grids to handle renewables and ramping up hydrogen production, is still a work in progress.

For readers of this newsletter, the data on heat pumps is especially gratifying. Here’s what’s happening in Germany:

+Great reporting from Nina Lakhani in the Guardian about how Big Oil tries to buy support in the Black community by bankrolling politicians. So many nasty old names in play, including TC Energy, the company that tried to bring you the Keystone XL pipeline

TC Energy’s affiliates have spent $4.3m on lobbying in this election cycle, in addition to $200,000 in campaign contributions, according to federal campaign disclosures tracked by Open Secrets.

+Season 3 of the Matter of Degrees podcast is up and running! Hooray

+The good people at Good Energy have released a compelling new study of how much (actually how little) attention Hollywood pays to climate change: as the indefatigable Anna Jane Joyner points out, only 2.8% of scripts pay even passing attention to the greatest crisis of all time. (And thanks to unceasing campaigner Norman Lear, whose eponymous USC center helped with the report)

“I think what really surprised me is the fact that audiences believe that they care about climate change more than the characters on TV [and in film] do,” Joyner says. “And it was also striking to me that when climate disasters show up in television and film — droughts, heat waves, wildfires, monster hurricanes — they’re only connected to climate change in a script 10 percent of the time. When the fossil fuel industry comes up in a script, it’s only connected back to climate change like 12 percent of the time. Those are two areas where it feels like scripts should be making more of that connection when they come up.”

*

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

Featured image is from The Crucial Years

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

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

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

***

Imran Khan had been the extremely popular progressive populist secular (non-sectarian) democratically elected Prime Minister (PM) of Pakistan during 18 August 2018 to 10 April 2022, when he then became overthrown by a U.S. coup and replaced by Shebaz Sharif, the younger brother of Pakistan’s Nawaz Sharif, who was Pakistan’s 5th-wealthiest billionaire and who had been Imran Khan’s immediate predecessor as the PM. On October 14th, Geo TV in Islamabad Pakistan headlined “Imran Khan to be hung upside down if he launches long march: Rana Sanaullah”, and reported that Imran Khan was being threatened now with execution if he would actually hold his promised march protesting the coup that had forced him out.

Nawaz Sharif had championed and built upon the Islamist General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq’s military government’s policy of empowering the fundamentalist-Sunni (Saudi-Wahhabist-trained pro-jihadist) clerics in uniting Islamic law with Pakistan’s laws, so as to unite the aristocracy with the theocracy in Pakistan, with the aim being to benefit both the billionaires and the clergy, at the Pakistani public’s expense. Imran Khan is now organizing this protest march to call for a restoration of democracy to Pakistan, and to oust the Government’s control by the appointees of the aristocrats and the clergy.  

That headline’s phrase “long march” refers to Imran Khan’s promise to lead a million-plus-person “long march” to the capital city, which is Islamabad, to bring the downfall of the U.S.-led recently-installed coup-regime, which had installed Shebaz Sharif. “Rana Sanaullah,” in that headline, refers to the coup-imposed Federal Minister of the Interior, under Shebaz Sharif. Sanaullah was in a position to be able — with the rest of Shebaz Sharif’s Government (backed by the U.S.) — to carry out that threat.

Also on October 14th, Geo TV bannered “Rana Sanaullah will be arrested if he enters Punjab: Cheema”, and reported that, “Advisor to Chief Minister Punjab on Interior Omar Sarfraz Cheema said that Federal Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah Khan will be arrested if he enters Punjab.” Both the dictators (the aristocrats and theocrats), and the democrats (Imran Khan’s group), are “gunning” against each other; and, right now, the dictators — with the crucial help of America — have the upper hand. For this reason, Imran Khan has not yet announced a date on which his proposed march will take place. He is instead travelling the country to campaign for it.

Imran Khan refers to himself as being a “party of one,” because he is up against the entire existing corrupt Government of Pakistan, and so he founded and leads his own Party, PTI. A joint web-search for “Imran Khan” “PTI” and “wikipedia” brings up no “PTI” but instead shows just “Imran Khan,” and that article says “He is the founder and chairman of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), one of the largest political parties in the country.”

However, though PTI is “one of the largest,” all of the others are opposed to it, because PTI is opposed to both the aristocracy and the theocracy. They are, and have been, united with the U.S. Government, in order to oust Imran Khan from power. (Today’s U.S. Government always supports aristocrats and theocrats against democrats, in order to be able to extract its cut, for the benefit of America’s billionaires, via the IMF etc. — various money-laundering institutions of this global-gangland operation, America’s “rules-based international order.”)

The way they did this was by Pakistan’s Supreme Court ruling for a no-confidence vote against Imran Khan in the parliament to oust him as the Prime Minister; and the parliament then appointed Nawaz Sharif’s brother to replace Imran Khan. They would have liked to appoint Nawaz, except that, as Reuters had headlined on 24 December 2018, “Ousted Pakistani PM Sharif gets seven years’ jail for graft”, and, like any other pretend-‘democracy’, the aristocrats and theocrats who controlled Pakistan’s Government needed a public-electoral fig-leaf in order to give any permanency to their joint dictatorship over the country; so, they chose Nawaz’s younger brother instead.

Omar Sarfraz Cheema, in that headline “Rana Sanaullah will be arrested if he enters Punjab: Cheema”, is a member of Imran Khan’s PTI Party, which is the dominant Party in the Punjab region of Pakistan. When Rana Sanaulah threatened to get Imran Khan “hung upside down,” that was a threat which came not only from Pakistan’s aristocracy, and not only from Pakistan’s clergy, but also from the U.S. White House and Congress, which constitute the imperial center that has been enabling Pakistan’s aristocrats and clergy to control Pakistan. In the 15 October 2021 video “Imran Khan: The extended interview with MEE” (MEE being Middle East Eye, a news-source that isn’t under the U.S. regime’s thumb), at 5:40 in the interview, Khan, when he was asked what U.S. President Biden had said to him about Pakistan’s situation, Khan reluctantly admitted that Biden had refused to be in contact with him. (That interview is archived here, in case it might become removed from the internet.)  At that time, a year back, Khan was still hoping that the U.S. regime wouldn’t overthrow him (as it did).

Another, and even more telling, interview with Imran Khan had occurred on the night of 19 June 2012, when Julian Assange interviewed him by remote from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, and its youtube started being copied over six hundred times to the main Web archive, web dot archive dot org, but then all of those hundreds became mysteriously destroyed so that even at that archive, which is headquartered in the U.S., none of those copies any longer functions. However, the show can still be seen at RT, https://assange.rt.com/khan-episode-nine.html, from which it has been archived twice, such as here, and copies elsewhere also remain online, such as here and here and here and here and here, and the transcript of it is here; so, the U.S.-and-allied regimes might not be able to eliminate all copies of it from online. Anyway, this interview shows not only why Assange is being destroyed by the U.S./UK regime, but that they also are doing all they can to destroy Imran Khan.

19 June 2012 happened to be Assange’s first night being protected from the UK/U.S. regime inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, which was when the democrat, Rafael Correa, was leading that country.

Correa himself became replaced by the secret U.S. agent Lenin Moreno as Correa’s successor, who on 2 April 2019 allowed UK to drag Assange out to supermax solitary confinement in London’s Belmarsh Prison awaiting ultimate extradition to the U.S. (Assange isn’t a citizen of either country, but of Australia, which has done nothing to protect him or his rights as an Australian citizen, and is therefore obviously a slave-regime to the UK/U.S. regime — and yet Australians aren’t revolting against that slavery by their Government.)

Ever since, Assange has been effectively blocked to communicate to or with the public, so that he presumably will die either in that prison or else in one in the United States, basically a dead man, ever since 2 April 2019, who has never been tried in any court on any criminal charge (other than jumping bail on a cooked-up rape charge that was then dropped). It’s interesting that in the 19 June 2012 — the 9th — installment of The Julian Assange Show, interview with Imran Khan, both men were stoic about their likely becoming ultimately crushed by the global U.S./UK regime. Religions have their martyrs, but, so, too, do democrats. Aristocrats have only their greed, and their pretenses; but that is backed up by their enormous power — against which to revolt is the extreme form of courage and heroism.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Duran.

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

Featured image is from Multipolarista

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

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

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

***

Recently, the US has identified China as its main enemy and is trying to thwart its economic and technological rise.

Chips play a key role in this as they are the backbone of economic and military performance in the digital age. Whether the U.S. will succeed in its endeavor is highly questionable.

The key to the future

Technology is the key to the future. It is the basis for military might on the one hand, and economic productivity and a competitive position in the world market on the other.

Until recently, the US had an unassailable, dominant position on both fronts. The White House wants to maintain that hegemony at all costs, but the rise of China threatens to put an end to that.

According to US Presidential Security Adviser Sullivan, “we are facing a competitor that is determined to overtake US technological leadership and willing to devote nearly limitless resources to that goal”.

That is why the US has identified the People’s Republic of China as its main enemy and is trying to thwart the economic and technological ascent of this Asian giant.

Chip War

Semiconductors and chips[i] are particularly targeted. This makes sense, because in the future geopolitical supremacy may increasingly depend on computer chips. Chips are integrated circuits that are pretty much the nervous system of electronic devices.

Until last century, military strength was based on firearms, warships, fighter jets or (nuclear) missiles. In the digital age, chips are the backbone of economic as well as military performance.

According to James Mulvenon, an expert on Chinese cybersecurity, “the Pentagon has decided that semiconductors is the hill that they are willing to die on. Semiconductors is the last industry in which the us is ahead, and it is the one on which everything else is built”.

In early October 2022, the White House put its money where its mouth is. The Biden administration introduced sweeping export controls that will severely hamper Chinese companies’ attempts to obtain or manufacture advanced computer chips.

Under Trump, US companies were no longer allowed to sell chips to Huawei. Biden has now extended those trade restrictions to more than 40 Chinese companies, including several chip makers. The new measure effectively prohibits any US or non-US company from supplying those Chinese companies with hardware or software whose supply chain includes US technology.

The export restrictions not only target military applications but seek to block the development of China’s technological power by all means available. The strategy is to cut China off from the rest of the world in chip supply chains in order to deny it the opportunity to indigenize its semiconductor industry.

Paul Triolo, China and technology expert describes the new measure as a “major watershed” in US-China relations. “The US has essentially declared war on China’s ability to advance the country’s use of high-performance computing for economic and security gains.”

Conversely, the US is doing all it can to further increase its technological lead. For example, the White House’s National Science and Technology Council has just published a 47-page ‘National Strategy for Advanced Manufacturing’ that includes 11 strategic goals to increase US competitiveness in chips.

Geopolitics aside, the chip industry is also big business. The market capitalization of the largest listed chip firms now exceeds $4,000 billion. China spends more on computer chip imports than on oil.

Quest for allies

Although Biden claims to be eager to work with allies, this chip war is only initiated by the US. Experts admit that if other countries continue to supply China, the restrictions will have little effect. The only consequence then is that US chip companies will miss out on the large Chinese market.

In the past, the US already pressured other countries and regions to stop supplying high-tech products to China. In the case of chips, this mainly involves South Korea, Japan, the Netherlands and the de facto autonomous Chinese province of Taiwan. With the new measure, foreign companies working with US technology are now supposed to act following US restrictions. They must seek US permission on a case-by-case basis.

Of course, foreign countries are not eager to comply with that, because China is a very important if not the most important customer. Samsung, for example, is the world’s largest builder of memory chips. Partly as a result of the new measure, this South Korean company expects 32 percent less revenue. It remains to be seen whether and to what extent these countries will seek and find possible loopholes.

Washington especially wants to bring Taiwan along in its isolation strategy. Taiwan accounts for 92 percent of the world’s high-value chips. For China, imports from Taiwan are economically and technologically vital.

It is in the context of this chip war that the provocative visit by Pelosi and other US politicians to the separatist leadership of Taiwan must be viewed. Mid-September, the US Senate approved a bill providing $6.5 billion in direct military aid to the island. Washington is putting pressure on China on several fronts.

Chances of success?

Chips are the main engine of electronics. China itself manufactures about 12 percent of global production. That is by no means enough for its own use. Only one-sixth of what it needs in chips is produced domestically. Moreover, for the time being, it is still unable to produce the most advanced chips.

In other words, in terms of chips, the country is highly dependent on imports. Annually they account for about $400 billion. If that supply were compromised, it would not only mean a very large economic loss, but it would also seriously undermine technological progress. In this sense, chips are considered the Achilles heel of Chinese industry.

To overcome that dependency and catch up with the technological backlog, China is investing more than any other country in this strategic industry. The country has already made serious progress in a number of areas. For example, it has successfully produced a 7 nanometer chip.[ii] This puts it only one or two ‘generations’ behind industry leaders in Taiwan and South Korea.

But with these breakthroughs, it will remain dependent on imports of parts from other countries for the time being.[iii] It doesn’t have to stay that way. Analysys Mason, a leading consulting firm, says in a recent report that China could be self-sufficient in chips within three to four years.

In any case, the US restrictive strategy will motivate the Chinese government to allocate even more resources and make breakthroughs. Asia Times gives the example of the 2015 blocking of the supply of Intel’s high-end Xeon Phi processors to Chinese supercomputer makers. A year later, Chinese researchers developed those processors themselves.

In the past, the US has often succeeded in bringing countries to order and keeping them in line. However, whether it will succeed with China is highly questionable. By the end of this decade, we will know whether the US attempt to neck China’s chip industry has succeeded or failed.

*

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

Notes

[i] Semiconductors are electronic components based on semiconductor material. A diode and a transistor are examples of semiconductors. In a sense you can think of semiconductors as the building blocks of chips. Chips are integrated circuits, small in size. They are part of a computer or other electronic devices. In the mainstream media, there is usually no distinction between semiconductors and chips.

[ii] The company in question, SMCI, is reportedly now working on even more advanced 5 nanometer chips.

[iii] For example, China cannot make advanced semiconductor devices without EUV lithography equipment from ASML (Netherlands) and electronic design automation (EDA) tools from Synopsis and Cadence (US) or Siemens (Germany).

Featured image: Licensed under CC 3.0 – Jacobs School of Engineering, UC San Diego

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

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

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

 

---

The following text is Chapter VIII of Michel Chossudovsky’s Book entitled:

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

Price: $11.50 

DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

Or from the Global Research Online Store

---

 

Our Children Are the Victims

Student at the Lycée Valabre de Luynes-Gardannem, Aix-en-Provence, 16 years old Sofia Benharira  passed away on September 21 [2021] yes, 7 days after having received the deadly Pfizer vaccine. Two Heart Attacks, Thrombosis. May She Rest in Peace.

***

“Her daughter’s 13-year-old friend who did not want to take the COVID-19 vaccine. “Her Heart Stopped. She is in Critical Care. This is happening here right now in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Because she wanted to play soccer. 

She did not want to take the Vaccine. But when our Premier mandated the vaccine for children playing sport.  …. 

“I am disgusted with our government.”

(Powerful voice of a Canadian mother)

***

“Yesterday evening, we got news from France of a young man, 22 years old who died nine hours after having being vaccinated. He wanted to travel on a holiday to Greece. “He just wanted to live said his father. … he was my only son, and he died, killed by a crap vaccine that was never validated or properly tested”. 

The mainstream media provided its own interpretation quoting “authoritative medical sources”.

“It  wasn’t the vaccine which triggered Maxime Beltra‘s death. He died from an allergic reaction, they said: “a probable serious food allergy, according to medical sources”.

Now isn’t that a piece of authoritative fake news, quoting hospital officials. Today Our thoughts are with Maxime Beltra and his family.

***

If you permit this to go ahead [vaccine], I guarantee, there will be avoidable deaths of perfectly healthy children and severe illnesses in ten times as many. And for no possible benefit. Knowing what I know from 40 years training and practice in toxicology, biochemistry and pharmacology, to participate in this extraordinary abuse of innocent children in our care can be classified in no other way than Murder” –Dr. Michael Yeadon, prominent scientist, former Vice President of Pfizer

“Three doctors from Ontario died after the hospital where they worked started administering the fourth booster shot to their staff. Is it a coincidence or are they victims of this diabolical worldwide vaccination campaign?” –Mark Taliano, author, Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization

“This vaccine campaign will go down as the biggest scandal in medical history, … moreover, it will be known as the biggest crime ever committed on humanity.” –MP Christine Anderson, Member of the European Parliament, July 2022

 

Yes, It’s a killer vaccine. That message should be loud and clear. This is happening all over the world: children and adolescents are dying. Crimes against humanity, crimes against our children. 

Health authorities are routinely instructed to categorize vaccine-related deaths and injuries to COVID-19: “The vaccinated are dying of COVID.” It’s a boldface lie. 

 

Introduction

The vaccine was launched on November 9, 2020, barely six months after the March 11, 2020 lockdown. These two interrelated policy mandates constitute the strategic pillars of the COVID crisis:

• The lockdown was an act of economic and social warfare directed against all humanity.
• Amply documented (starting in early 2021) the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine is a poisonous substance which has resulted in a sustained upward trend in vaccine-related mortality and morbidity.

Peer-reviewed reports confirm the causes of vaccine-related deaths and injuries including, among others, blood clots, thrombosis, myocarditis and fertility.

The impacts of the vaccine are also documented by a secret Pfizer report which was released under freedom of information (see analysis below).

Video: Impact of COVID vaccinations on mortality (December 2020 – April 2021, selected countries), click here to watch.

The latest official figures at the time of writing (April 3, 2022) point to approximately: 

69,053 COVID-19 injection-related deaths and 10,997,126 injuries for the EU, US and UK combined for a population of 830 million people.¹

But only a small fraction of the victims or families of the deceased will go through the tedious process of reporting vaccine-related deaths and adverse events to the national health authorities. 

Moreover, the health authorities are actively involved in obfuscating the deaths and injuries resulting from the “unapproved” and “experimental” COVID-19 “vaccine”.

Based on historical data (Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESPH-VAERS) p. 6): 

These are official statistics based on a formal process of registration of deaths and injuries. The actual number of deaths and injuries triggered by the mRNA vaccine is much higher.

Multiply the figures by the relevant parameter to get the REAL numbers; we are talking about very high numbers.

 

The mRNA “Vaccine”. Hidden Agenda? 

The vaccine does not save lives nor does it contain the pandemic because there is no pandemic. It’s a money-making operation for Big Pharma in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Moreover, it’s not a one-time vaccine jab. Several doses are contemplated over several years.

It is applied worldwide and enforced by powerful financial Interest. Not a single country, with the exception of Burundi, Tanzania and Haiti, had the courage to refuse the mRNA vaccine.

While there is no reliable evidence, it is worth noting that the presidents of Tanzania and Burundi died under mysterious circumstances.

Haiti was the only country in the Western hemisphere which categorically refused to implement the mRNA vaccine.

In a bitter irony, immediately following president Jovenel Moise’s assassination on July 7, 2021, president Joe Biden promptly sent half a million vaccine doses (and more to come, courtesy of Uncle Sam) delivered by COVAX to Port-au-Prince six days after Moise’s passing.³

This first shipment to Haiti was part of a US Aid Program consisting of 500 million doses of the “killer vaccine” which was slated to be sent to a large number of developing countries.  

 

Big Money for Big Pharma

The US government ordered 100 million doses of the vaccine in the immediate wake of the March 11, 2020 lockdown. The EU purchased more than 1.8 billion doses, which represents four times the population of the European Union. It’s Big Money for Big Pharma, generous payoffs to corrupt politicians at the expense of taxpayers.

The objective is ultimately to make money, by vaccinating the entire planet of 7.9 billion people for SARS-CoV-2.

The COVID vaccine requires at least three doses. This is the largest vaccine project in world history and the biggest money-making operation for Big Pharma.

Worldwide, people are led to believe that the corona vaccine is a solution. And that “normality” will then be restored.

 

The mRNA Vaccine Is “Unapproved” and “Experimental” 

How is it that a vaccine for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which under normal conditions would take years to develop, was promptly launched on the 9th of November 2020?

Moreover, the vaccine announced by Pfizer, Moderna Inc, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is based on an experimental gene-editing mRNA technology which has a bearing on the human genome.

Coupled with the mRNA vaccine initiative is the development of a so-called digital passport which is currently being imposed on entire populations (see analysis below).

And why do we need a vaccine for COVID-19 when the WHO, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as well as numerous scientists have confirmed unequivocally that COVID-19 is “similar to seasonal influenza”? (See analysis in Chapter III)

Four major companies including Pfizer Inc, Moderna Inc, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (J&J) are involved in marketing the experimental mRNA vaccine with the relentless support of national governments.  

In the US, the “green light” to market the experimental mRNA vaccine was granted back in December 2020, despite the fact that according to the FDA, the vaccine is an “unapproved product”.

The FDA, in an ambiguous statement, has provided a so-called Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, namely “to permit the emergency use of the unapproved product, … for active immunization…”⁴ (See below)

To view the C-Span video, click here.

 

Déjà Vu: Flash Forward to 2020-2022

How on earth can you trust a Big Pharma vaccine conglomerate which pleaded guilty to criminal charges by the US Department of Justice including “fraudulent marketing” and “felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act”?

I should mention, however, that in 2009, Pfizer was so to speak “put on probation” by the US Department of Justice.⁷ It was obliged to enter into “a corporate integrity agreement” with the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). That agreement provided for “procedures and reviews to … avoid and promptly detect” misconduct on the part of Pfizer Inc.  

Johnson & Johnson and “the Opioid Epidemic” 

At the height of the corona crisis, barely covered by the media, coinciding with the launch of the COVID-19 vaccine in early November 2020, Johnson & Johnson (and its three distributors) (involved in the marketing of prescription opioids)  “reached a tentative multi-billion settlement with counties and cities that sued them for damages”.⁸ The class action lawsuit was “the largest federal court case in American history” (for further details, see Chapter VI pertaining to “The Impacts on Mental Health”).

Are these legal antecedents relevant to an understanding of Big Pharma’s vaccine initiative?

Johnson & Johnson is currently involved in the production and marketing of a COVID adenovirus viral vector vaccine which also entails genetic therapy (the above J&J class-action lawsuit is one among several lawsuits against J&J).

 

Human Guinea Pigs

In relation to the COVID vaccine, “fraudulent marketing” is an understatement. The mRNA vaccine announced by Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca is an “unapproved drug” based on the “experimental” gene-editing mRNA technology which has a bearing on the human genome.⁹

Moreover, the standard animal lab tests using mice or ferrets were not conducted. Pfizer “went straight to human ‘guinea pigs’.”¹⁰

“Human tests began in late July and early August [2020]. Three months is unheard of for testing a new vaccine. Several years is the norm.” (F. William Engdahl, Global Research, November 2020)¹¹

Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Vice President of Pfizer, has taken a firm stance: 

“All vaccines against the SARS-COV-2 virus are by definition novel. No candidate vaccine has been… in development for more than a few months.”

“If any such vaccine is approved for use under any circumstances that are not EXPLICITLY experimental, I believe that recipients are being misled to a criminal extent.”¹²

In early December 2020,  Dr. Michael Yeadon together with Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg “filed an application with the EMA“, the European Medicines Agency responsible for EU-wide drug approval, for the immediate suspension of all SARS-CoV-2 vaccine studies, in particular the Pfizer-BioNtech study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42).¹³

 

History of the SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Project 

There are many contradictions. The analysis below addresses the earlier stages of the vaccine project as well as the role of the 201 simulation of a coronavirus pandemic under the auspices of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine held in New York on October 18, 2019 (see Chapter I).

The COVID vaccine is a multi-billion dollar Big Pharma operation which will contribute to increasing the public debt of more than 150 national governments.

Supported by the fear campaign, money — rather than public health — is the driving force behind this initiative.

The GSK-Pfizer Partnership 

Five months before the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, two of the largest worldwide Pharma conglomerates decided to join hands in a strategic relationship. In August 2019, GSK confirmed the formation of a major partnership with Pfizer entitled the Consumer Health Joint Venture.¹⁴

The coronavirus was initially named nCoV-19 by CEPI and the WHO — exactly the same name as that adopted in the WEF-Gates-Johns Hopkins Event 201 (2019-nCov) pertaining to a coronavirus simulation exercise held in mid-October 2019. It was only later that COVID-19 was identified by the WHO not as a virus but as a disease: coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the virus was identified as “severe acute respiratory syndrome” coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). 

The Event 201 Johns Hopkins simulation (examined in Chapter I) addressed the development of an effective vaccine in response to millions of cases in the October 2019 simulation of an outbreak of a novel coronavirus entitled 2019-nCoV. The simulation announced a scenario in which the entire population of the planet would be affected:

“We ran a massive viral pandemic simulation.., 65 million deaths worldwide.”

“During the initial months of the pandemic, the cumulative number of cases [in the simulation] increases exponentially, doubling every week. And as the cases and deaths accumulate, the economic and societal consequences become increasingly severe.”

The scenario ends at the 18-month point, with 65 million deaths. The pandemic is beginning to slow due to the decreasing number of susceptible people. The pandemic will continue at some rate until there is an effective vaccine or until 80-90 % of the global population has been exposed. From that point on, it is likely to be an endemic childhood disease.¹⁶

To watch the World Economic Forum video, The 201 Johns Hopkins Simulation, click here.

 

The Central Role of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI)

The lead entity for the novel coronavirus vaccine initiative is the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), an organization sponsored and financed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Two weeks after the virus had been formally identified by the People’s Republic of China (Jan 7, 2020), a vaccine for the novel coronavirus was announced by CEPI at the Davos World Economic Forum on January 20-24, 2020.

Note the chronology: The development of the 2019-nCoV vaccine was announced at the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF) a week prior to the official launching by the WHO of a Worldwide Public Health Emergency (January 30, 2020) at a time when the number of “confirmed cases” worldwide (outside China) was 83 (see Chapter II).

The pandemic was launched by the WHO on March 11, 2020. And five days later, barely covered by the media, the first tests involving human volunteers were conducted by Moderna in Seattle on March 16, 2020.

The evidence suggests that the vaccine project was initiated at a much earlier stage. According to Richard Hatchett, CEO of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the project to develop a vaccine commenced not only prior to the discovery and identification of the coronavirus (January 7, 2020) but several months prior to the October 2019 simulation exercise (see interview with Richard Hatchett below).¹⁷

CEPI, on behalf of the Gates Foundation and the WEF, was seeking a “monopoly” role in the vaccination business the objective of which was a “global vaccine project”, in partnership with a large number of “candidates”.

The CEO Stéphane Bancel of Moderna Inc. described the features of the mRNA vaccine at a World Economic Forum press conference in Davos (January 2020). “We inject instructions … mRNA is a platform.” He confirmed that research was already well underway in collaboration with the NIS and CEPI. Click here to view the video.

Image: Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel (Licensed under GFDL, free to use)

On January 31, 2020, the day following the WHO’s official launching of the global public health emergency (PHEIC) and Trump’s decision to curtail air travel with China, CEPI announced its partnership with CureVac AG, a German-based biopharmaceutical company.

A few days later, in early February 2020, CEPI “announced that major vaccine manufacturer GSK would allow its proprietary adjuvants — compounds that boost the effectiveness of vaccines — to be used in the response” (the pandemic was officially launched on March 11, 2020).¹⁸

There were many “potential vaccines in the pipeline” with “dozens of research groups around the world racing to create a vaccine against COVID-19”.

 

The COVID-19 Global Vaccination Program 

CEPI (on behalf of Gates-WEF, which funded the 201 simulation exercise) played a key role in a large-scale worldwide vaccination program in partnership with biotech companies, Big Pharma, government agencies as well as university laboratories.

Screenshot from CEPI’s Twitter / No copyright infringement intended

The foregoing statement by CEPI was made nearly two months prior to the official declaration of a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The number of confirmed cases outside China on January 30, 2020 was 83. 

“We’re having conversations with a broad array of potential partners”. And critical to those conversations is: What’s the plan to make very large quantities of vaccine within a time frame that is potentially relevant to what people seem to be increasingly certain will be a pandemic, if it isn’t already there? …” [Richard Hatchett, CEPI CEO in an interview with stat.news.com] (emphasis added)¹⁹ 

 

Prior Knowledge of the COVID Pandemic. The mRNA Vaccine Was Already in the Pipeline

Of significance, Hatchett confirmed that the project to develop a vaccine commenced not only prior to the discovery and identification of the coronavirus (January 7, 2020) but several months prior to the October 2019 201 simulation exercise.

“We did that in the last year or so [early 2019]…  We are using the information that we have collected and have that team now thinking about opportunities for scaling vaccines of various different types. That is a work in progress. For some of the technologies the tech transfer [to a manufacturer] may be something that could be done in a time frame that was pertinent to the epidemic, potentially.

I think it is going to be really important to engage those folks who have access to really substantial production capacity. And having the big producers at the table — because of their depth, because of their experience, because of their internal resources — would be very, very important.

The candidate vaccines will be very, very quick. Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID [who has been spreading panic on network TV], is out in public as saying he thinks the clinical trial for the Moderna vaccine may be as early as the spring [2020]. (emphasis added)²⁰

Did CEPI Director Richard Hatchett, Dr. Anthony Fauci who heads NIAID, and Moderna’s CEO Stéphane Bencel have “prior knowledge” of the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic? 

Hatchett’s statements suggest that they had already been working on an mRNA vaccine in early 2019. Moreover, on December 12, 2019, two weeks prior to the official confirmation of the existence of a so-called “novel coronavirus” by the Chinese health authorities, Moderna Inc. together with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) had already “sent mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates” to a lab investigator at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (see Joseph Mercola, July 10, 2021).²¹

The CEPI-sponsored vaccine conglomerates had already planned their investments well in advance of the global worldwide health emergency (declared by the WHO on January 30, 2020).

Moderna announced on February 24, 2020 the development of “an experimental (messenger) mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, known as mRNA-1273″. “The initial batch of the vaccine has already been shipped to US government researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)” headed by Dr. Antony Fauci.

In the words of Fauci:

“Finding a safe and effective vaccine to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 is an urgent public health priority…This Phase 1 study, launched in record speed, is an important first step toward achieving that goal.”²²

Below are excerpts from the statement by Moderna which indicates “foreknowledge” as well as its collaboration with Anthony Fauci’s NIAID as early as January 13, 2020:²³

Moderna’s Work on a Potential Vaccine Against COVID-19

Moderna is proud to be among the many groups working to respond to this continuing global health emergency. This page summarizes key milestones in our work to advance our vaccine candidate (mRNA-1273) and responds to frequently asked questions.

Timeline of our response through March 16, 2020

On January 11, 2020, the Chinese authorities shared the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus.

On January 13, 2020, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Moderna’s infectious disease research team finalized the sequence for mRNA-1273, the Company’s vaccine against the novel coronavirus. At that time, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of NIH, disclosed their intent to run a Phase 1 study using the mRNA-1273 vaccine in response to the coronavirus threat and Moderna mobilized toward clinical manufacture.  Manufacture of this batch was funded by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI).

On February 7, 2020, the first clinical batch, including fill and finishing of vials, was completed, a total of 25 days from sequence selection to vaccine manufacture. The batch then proceeded to analytical testing for release.

On February 24, 2020, the clinical batch was shipped from Moderna to the NIH for use in their Phase 1 clinical study.

On March 4, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) completed its review of the Investigational New Drug (IND) application filed by the NIH for mRNA-1273 and allowed the study to proceed to begin clinical trials.

On March 16, 2020, the NIH announced that the first participant in its Phase 1 study for mRNA-1273 was dosed, a total of 63 days from sequence selection to first human dosing.

While Moderna Inc. initially stated that the first clinical trials would commence in late April (2020), tests involving human volunteers started in mid-March 2020 in Seattle (bear in mind the pandemic was officially launched on March 11, 2020).²⁴ 

Screenshot from WHO

 

Hidden COVID-19 Vaccine Injuries: The Microscopic Blood Clots

Many people who are vaccinated will not be immediately aware of the injuries incurred. The latter in many cases of “adverse events” are not discernible nor are they recorded. While “big blood clots” resulting from the vaccine are revealed and reported by those vaccinated, an important study by Canada’s Dr. Charles Hoffe suggests that the mRNA vaccine generates “microscopic blood clots”.

“The blood clots we hear about which the media claim are very rare are the big blood clots which are the ones that cause strokes and show up on CT scans, MRI, etc.

The clots I’m talking about are microscopic and too small to find on any scan. They can thus only be detected using the D-dimer test.” 

“These people have no idea they are even having these microscopic blood clots. The most alarming part of this is that there are some parts of the body like the brain, spinal cord, heart and lungs which cannot re-generate. When those tissues are damaged by blood clots they are permanently damaged.

“These shots are causing huge damage and the worst is yet to come.”²⁹

Click here to watch his interview with Laura Lynn Tylor Thompson (also available on Rumble channel).

Screenshot from the video / No copyright infringement intended

 

Do We Know What’s Inside the Pfizer Vaccine Vial?

The causes of vaccine-related deaths and injuries have not been addressed by the health authorities.

What is inside the vaccine vial? National health authorities have not made public the results of their lab exams. It is unclear as to whether those lab exams of the vaccine vials have been conducted.

Below is a review of the analysis and laboratory research conducted by the independent La Quinta Columna Spanish team.

Graphene Oxide Nano-particles

According to lab exams conducted by the Spanish La Quinta Columna research team, graphene oxide nano-particles have been detected in the vial of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.³⁰

The preliminary results of their research (analysis by electron microscopy and spectroscopy) are far-reaching. Graphene oxide is a toxin which triggers thrombi and blood coagulation. It also has an impact on the immune system. Graphene oxide accumulated in the lungs can have devastating impacts.

Click here to watch the interview with Ricardo Delgado Martin of La Quinta Columna.

Screenshot from the video / No copyright infringement intended

The results of the Spanish study, yet to be fully confirmed and ascertained, suggest that the recorded vaccine-related deaths and “adverse events” could be the result of graphene oxide nano-particles contained in the COVID vaccine vial.

Similarly, we call upon the national health authorities of the 193 member states of the UN which are currently vaccinating their people to conduct their own study and analysis of the vaccine vial. And if graphene oxide is detected, the vaccination program should immediately be discontinued.

See summary of their report entitled “Graphene Oxide Detection in Aqueous Suspension, Observational study in Optical and Electron Microscopy”. Read the full study (English).³¹

Also of significance (acknowledged by national health authorities), graphene oxide nano-particles are also contained in face masks.³²

 

The Electromagnetic Properties of the mRNA Vaccine

What is triggering the electromagnetic effects which have been detected in people who have been vaccinated?

These effects have been amply documented and confirmed by independent sources including those vaccinated. The national health authorities have failed to provide an explanation.

See the study conducted by the European Forum for Vaccine Vigilance.³³

Below are two videos produced by the Spanish Research team at La Quinta Columna.

To watch the video below, click here.

 

Big Pharma. Pfizer’s Near Global Monopoly

Hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake. This is the largest and most dangerous and expensive vaccine project in world history which is slated to be financed by tax dollars worldwide, putting an obvious strain on the public debt of numerous countries.

The vaccine program is accompanied by a “timeline” consisting of recurrent mRNA inoculations over several years. As documented above, it will have devastating impacts on mortality and morbidity worldwide.

What is at stake is a multi-billion dollar Big Money operation for Big Pharma with Pfizer in the lead.

Pfizer-BioNTech (allied with Moderna Inc.) is in the process of consolidating its worldwide (near monopoly) position by pushing out its major competitors including AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson (J&J).

Pfizer has been pressuring politicians to endorse their mRNA vaccine. Its political lobbying is also directed against its Big Pharma competitors. According to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism report:

One official who was present in the unnamed country’s negotiations described Pfizer’s demands as “high-level bullying” and said the government felt like it was being “held to ransom” in order to access life-saving vaccines.³⁴

Ironically, in the EU, the reported deaths and injuries were used by the European Commission to cancel the renewal of the contract with AstraZeneca, despite the fact that there were substantially more deaths and injuries associated with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

In April 2021, the EU Commission confirmed that it would “end AstraZeneca and J&J vaccine contracts at expiry”. “The Pfizer shot will take precedence”. Never mind your followup dose with AstraZeneca, the health authorities have instructed people to get their second or third jab with Pfizer or Moderna (thereby visibly violating medical norms).

Having sidelined its competitors, Pfizer-BioNTech has jacked up the price of the vaccine vial. Pfizer has literally cornered both the EU and US markets.

A near global vaccine monopoly is in the making by a company which has a criminal record with the US Department of Justice. 

The Secret Pfizer Report 

The confidential Pfizer Report released as part of a freedom of information (FOI) procedure provides data on deaths and adverse events recorded by Pfizer from the outset of the vaccine project in December 2020 to the end of February 2021, namely a very short period (at most two and a half months).

“By February of 2021, Pfizer had already received more than 1,200 reports of deaths allegedly caused by the vaccine and tens of thousands of reported adverse events, including 23 cases of spontaneous abortions out of 270 pregnancies and more than 2,000 reports of cardiac disorders.”³⁵

The Pfizer BioNTech vaccine was launched in the US on the 14th of December after the granting of Emergency Use Authorization on December 11, 2020.

In a twisted irony, the data revealed in this “insider report” refutes the official vaccine narrative peddled by the governments and the WHO. It also confirms the analysis of numerous medical doctors and scientists who have revealed the devastating consequences of the mRNA “vaccine”.

What is contained in Pfizer’s “confidential” report is detailed evidence on the impacts of the “vaccine” on mortality and morbidity. This data which emanates from the “horse’s mouth” can now be used to confront as well as formulate legal procedures against Big Pharma, the governments, the WHO and the media.

In a court of law, the evidence contained in this Big Pharma confidential report (coupled with the data on deaths and adverse events compiled by the national authorities in the EU, UK and US) is irrefutable: because it is their data and their estimates and not ours.

Bear in mind: its data is based on reported and recorded cases, which constitute a small percentage of the actual number of vaccine-related deaths and adverse events.

This is a de facto mea culpa on the part of Pfizer (Yes, it is a killer vaccine).

Pfizer was fully aware that the mRNA vaccine which it is marketing worldwide would result in a wave of mortality and morbidity. This is tantamount to a crime against humanity on the part of Big Pharma.

Pfizer knew from the outset that it was a killer vaccine.³⁷

It is also a mea culpa and treason on the part of corrupt national governments worldwide which are being threatened and bribed by Big Pharma.

At the time of writing, no attempt has been made by the governments to call for the withdrawal of the killer vaccine.

People are told that the vaccine is intended to save lives.

“Killing is good for business”: It is a multi-billion dollar operation worldwide. And Pfizer already has a criminal record (2009) with the US Department of Justice on charges of “fraudulent marketing”.

 

Concluding Remarks: The Vaccine Passport

The data from official sources as well as those quoted in the Pfizer report confirm unequivocally that the COVID-19 “vaccine” has resulted in an upward trend in vaccine-related mortality and morbidity.

The studies of Dr. Charles Hoffe, the Spanish research team (La Quinta Columna), the confidential Pfizer Report as well as numerous other studies unequivocally confirm that the mRNA “vaccine” is a “killer vaccine”.

So why are governments pressuring people to get vaccinated?

Heads of state and heads of government worldwide are being pressured, bribed, co-opted and/or threatened by powerful financial interests into accepting the COVID vaccine consensus.

The vaccine passport is the endgame, which constitutes a transition towards digital tyranny and depopulation (see Chapters XIII and XIV).

Endnotes

1 Doctors for COVID Ethics, June 22, 2022. J’Accuse! The Gene-based “Vaccines” Are Killing People. Governments Worldwide Are Lying to You the People, to the Populations They Purportedly Serve. https://www.globalresearch.ca/jaccuse-governments-worldwide-lying-you-people-populations-they-purportedly-serve/5750650

2 The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010. Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS). https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

3 Captaindaretofly, August 26, 2021. Several Anti-Covid-19 Vaccine Presidents Assassinated, Mainstream Media Silent, COVID-19 Jabs “Coincidentally” Rolled Out Just Days Later. https://www.globalresearch.ca/several-anti-covid-19-vaccine-presidents-assassinated-mainstream-media-silent-covid-19-jabs-coincidentally-rolled-out-just-days-later/5754040

4 FDA, January 3, 2022. Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/comirnaty-and-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine#additional

5 US Department of Justice, September 2, 2009. Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History: Pfizer to Pay $2.3 Billion for Fraudulent Marketing. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 KHN Morning Briefing, November 6, 2020. 4 Drug Companies Agree To $26 Billion Opioid Settlement. https://khn.org/morning-breakout/4-drug-companies-agree-to-26-billion-opioid-settlement/

9 F. William Engdahl, October 17, 2021. What’s Not Being Said About the Pfizer Coronavirus Vaccine. “Human Guinea Pigs”? https://www.globalresearch.ca/what-not-said-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine/5729461

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid. 

12 See this: threadreaderapp.com/…/1302725167588798467

13 Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg and Dr. Michael Yeadon, December 1, 2020. Petition/Motion For Administrative/Regulatory Action Regarding Confirmation Of Efficacy End Points And Use Of Data In Connection With The Following Clinical Trial(S). https://2020news.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Wodarg_Yeadon_EMA_Petition_Pfizer_Trial_FINAL_01DEC2020_EN_unsigned_with_Exhibits.pdf

14 GSK, August 1, 2019. GSK completes transaction with Pfizer to form new world-leading Consumer Healthcare Joint Venture. https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/media/press-releases/gsk-completes-transaction-with-pfizer-to-form-new-world-leading-consumer-healthcare-joint-venture/

15 Ibid.

16 Center for Health Security, n.d. The Event 201 scenario. https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/scenario.html

17 Helen Branswell, February 6, 2020. In effort to develop coronavirus vaccine, outbreak expert sees ‘hardest problem’ of his career. https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/06/cepi-coronavirus-vaccine-development/

18 GSK, February 3, 2020. CEPI and GSK announce collaboration to strengthen the global effort to develop a vaccine for the 2019-nCoV virus. https://cepi.net/news_cepi/cepi-and-gsk-announce-collaboration-to-strengthen-the-global-effort-to-develop-a-vaccine-for-the-2019-ncov-virus/

19 Helen Branswell, February 6, 2020. In effort to develop coronavirus vaccine, outbreak expert sees ‘hardest problem’ of his career. https://www.statnews.com/2020/02/06/cepi-coronavirus-vaccine-development/

20 Ibid. 

21 Joseph Mercola, July 11, 2021. NIAID, Moderna Had COVID Vaccine Candidate in December 2019. https://www.globalresearch.ca/niaid-moderna-covid-vaccine-candidate-december-2019/5749713

22 National Institutes of Health, March 16, 2020. NIH clinical trial of investigational vaccine for COVID-19 begins. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-clinical-trial-investigational-vaccine-covid-19-begins

23 Moderna, Inc. 2020. Moderna’s Work on a Potential Vaccine Against COVID-19. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000119312520074867/d884510dex991.htm

24 Mark Prvulovic, February 24, 2020. Moderna’s New COVID-19 Vaccine Ready for Human Trials; Stock Up 15%. https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/02/24/modernas-new-covid-19-vaccine-ready-for-human-tria.aspx

25 Associated Press, March 16, 2020. Coronavirus vaccine test opens as volunteer in Seattle gets 1st shot. https://www.q13fox.com/news/coronavirus-vaccine-test-opens-as-volunteer-in-seattle-gets-1st-shot

26 Peter Koenig, March 12, 2020. The Coronavirus Vaccine: The Real Danger is “Agenda ID2020”. Vaccination as a Platform for “Digital Identity”. https://www.globalresearch.ca/coronavirus-causes-effects-real-danger-agenda-id2020/5706153

27 Ibid.

28 Makia Freeman, November 13, 2021. The mRNA COVID Vaccine Is Not a Vaccine. https://www.globalresearch.ca/mrna-covid-vaccine-not-vaccine/5734464

29 Brian Shilhavy, July 14, 2021. Canadian Doctor: 62% of His Patients Vaccinated for COVID Have Permanent Heart Damage. “Microscopic Blood Clots”. https://www.globalresearch.ca/canadian-doctor-62-patients-vaccinated-covid-have-permanent-heart-damage/5750198

30 Ricardo Delgado and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 17, 2021. Video: Graphene Oxide: A Toxic Substance in the Vial of the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine? https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-graphene-oxide-a-toxic-substance-in-the-vial-of-the-covid-19-mrna-vaccine/5750340

31 Prof. Dr. Pablo Campra Madrid, June 28, 2021. Graphene Oxide Detection in Aqueous Suspension, Observational study in Optical and Electron Microscopy. https://www.docdroid.net/Ov1M99x/official-interim-report-in-english-university-of-almeria-pdf

32 Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 14, 2021. Face Masks Contain Graphene, A Poisonous Substance. https://www.globalresearch.ca/face-masks-contain-graphene-a-poisonous-substance/5749855

33 Mamer and Amar Goudjil, January 23, 2022. Study on Electromagnetism of Vaccinated Persons. https://www.globalresearch.ca/study-electromagnetism-vaccinated-persons-luxembourg/5749516

34 Madlen Davies, Rosa Furneaux, et al., February 23, 2021. ‘Held to ransom’: Pfizer demands governments gamble with state assets to secure vaccine deal. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2021-02-23/held-to-ransom-pfizer-demands-governments-gamble-with-state-assets-to-secure-vaccine-deal

35 Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, August 13, 2022. Bombshell Document Dump on Pfizer Vaccine Data. https://www.globalresearch.ca/bombshell-document-dump-pfizer-vaccine-data/5763397

36 Pfizer, 2021. Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) Received Through 28-Feb-2021. https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf

37 Ibid.

Featured image is from The Freedom Articles

---

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

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

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

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

First published on October 7, 2022

***

Despite reports that COVID-19 vaccines cause blood abnormalities, the American Red Cross and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration continue to brush off concerns that the massive vaccine campaign may have contaminated the country’s blood supply.

After the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of COVID-19 vaccines, blood clots were some of the earliest adverse events observed, and abnormal coagulation continues to be one of the most frequent and serious problems reported.

As of mid-September, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) — notorious for capturing only a minuscule proportion of adverse events — had received notification of more than 43,000 blood clotting disorders, including acute-onset problems in young children.

Clotting disorders make the blood clot “too easily,” generating clots that can travel through the bloodstream and increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes, among other potential complications.

Funeral directors and embalmers in the U.S. and U.K. have gone public with shocking descriptions of highly unusual blood clots in up to 85% of the bodies coming under their care — a “massive increase” compared to pre-COVID-19 vaccine times when ordinary-looking clots might be found in 5% to 10% of the deceased.

“In all my years of embalming, we would run across clots from time to time,” said Richard Hirschman, an experienced funeral director in Alabama, “but since May last year [2021], something about the blood has changed. It’s not normal. It’s drastic.”

The rampant clotting and the clots’ disturbing sci-fi appearance — “long fibrous entities that can completely block a vein or artery,” which Hirschman likens to calamari, rubber bands, spaghetti, worms or parasites — are just some of the concerns prompting questions about blood supply safety.

No ‘safety risks?’

About 55% of blood is plasma — which, among other functions, supplies proteins “for blood clotting and immunity” — with the remaining 45% consisting of red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets suspended in the plasma.

Depending on their blood type, individuals who give blood can choose to donate whole blood, plasma or platelets, or they can make a “Power Red” donation (a “concentrated dose” of red blood cells).

The American Red Cross says it will not accept blood from someone whose blood “does not clot normally,” but — following guidance from the same branch of the FDA that oversees vaccines — welcomes immediate donations from anyone who received one of the mRNA or other COVID-19 vaccines available in the U.S., as long as the person says he is “symptom-free and feeling well.”

The Red Cross claims to be independent but openly celebrates its “special relationship” with the federal government — a relationship that includes periodic appropriations and contracts.

In a recent tweet directed at potential blood transfusion recipients, the Red Cross clarified:

We don't label blood products as containing vaccinated or unvaccinated blood as the COVID-19 vaccine does not enter the bloodstream & poses no safety risks to the recipient. If you have safety concerns about potential blood transfusions, please speak with your medical care team.

— American Red Cross (@RedCross) September 14, 2022

The tweet generated numerous responses from the public accusing the Red Cross of disseminating “misinformation” and directing the organization’s attention to peer-reviewed publications contradicting its languid attitude.

In one of the most alarming studies, published in August in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, Italian surgeons described atypical clumping of red blood cells and the presence of “extraordinarily anomalous structures and substances” of “various shapes and sizes of unclear origin” in over 94% of symptomatic, COVID-19-vaccinated individuals whose blood they examined.

The 1,006 study participants, ranging in age from 15 to 85, received a first (14%), second (45%) or third (41%) dose of a Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccine about a month before the analysis of their blood.

Pointing to other studies that found foreign materials in the blood of COVID-19 vaccine recipients and in COVID-19 vaccine vials — materials “that the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and the many promoters of the experimental injections claimed were not in them at all” — the Italian authors concluded the vaccine-induced blood alterations were “likely … to be involved in producing the coagulation disorders commonly reported after anti-COVID injections.”

Putting the matter even more plainly, they stated:

“[S]uch abrupt changes as we have documented in the peripheral blood profile of 948 patients have never been observed after inoculation by any vaccines in the past according to our clinical experience. The sudden transition … from a state of perfect normalcy to a pathological one … is unprecedented. …

“In our collective experience, and in our shared professional opinion, the large quantity of particles in the blood of mRNA injection recipients is incompatible with normal blood flow especially at the level of the capillaries.”

Another study by Romanian researchers, sent to the Red Cross by the tweeting public, not only reported that Pfizer’s “vaccine-associated synthetic mRNA persists in systemic circulation for at least 2 weeks” but also noted, “extended plasma clearance times compared to estimates presented by mRNA vaccine manufacturers.”

Meanwhile, a case report from Germany presenting autopsy results for a man who died after receiving three “gene-based” COVID-19 vaccine doses (one AstraZeneca, two Pfizer) over a seven-month period conclusively revealed the presence of COVID-19 vaccine spike protein in both brain and heart — and particularly in small blood vessel cells.

These and other studies may be why members of the public like “Mary” incredulously tweetedback to the Red Cross, “Are you kidding? There is proof it enters other body cells like the heart, causing myocarditis; how do you think it gets to the heart from the injection site???”

The FDA has refused to release autopsy results in its possession for people who died following COVID-19 vaccination.

Out, damned clot

As early as May 2021, vaccine researchers were disclosing the “unexpected” entry into the bloodstream of the vaccines’ synthetic spike protein, while other pharmaceutical industry consultants admitted, “Some of the vaccine dose is going to make it into the bloodstream, of course.”

Around the same time, figures like Canadian physician Dr. Charles Hoffe were warning that technologies like CT scans and MRIs, which can identify large blood clots, would not find the “microscopic” clots affecting many of the COVID-19-vaccinated, who might “have no idea they are even having these microscopic blood clots.”

Hoffe was able to ascertain the widespread presence of micro-blood clots in his mRNA-vaccinated patient population using D-dimer tests that look for protein fragments associated with clots.

The Canadian doctor also cautioned that when blood clots damage the brain, spinal cord, heart or lungs, “those tissues … are permanently damaged.”

A year after these admissions, in May 2022, the FDA finally acknowledged the risk of “potentially life-threatening blood clots” in recipients of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID-19 vaccine.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) issued similar advisories about AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Other countries such as India and Denmark admitted to blood clot risks while trying to blame them on “faulty injection technique.”

Neither the FDA nor the EMA said a word about the clotting risks of the more widely used Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 shots, even though nearly 7 in 10 (69%) of the clotting disorders reported to VAERS as of mid-September were attributed to Pfizer’s shot, with another 22% linked to Moderna’s and only 9% to the J&J jab.

Although no VAERS reports thus far blame blood clots on the more recently authorized Novavaxvaccine, the far-from-traditional nanoparticle concoction not only delivers premade spike proteins — “consistently shown to create clotting issues” — but also residual insect and viral proteins and DNA contaminants.

Large risks from nanoparticles?

Nanoparticle technology is a prominent feature of the two mRNA injections and the Novavax vaccine, and biodistribution of the injected nanoparticles has been a growing cause for concern.

Well before COVID-19, mainstream news outlets alerted the public to nanoparticles’ tendency to “get into the bloodstream and accumulate elsewhere in the body” following oral ingestion — with “unintended effects on cells and organs” — and described how inhaled nanoparticles “work their way through the lungs and into the bloodstream where they can raise the risk of heart attack and stroke.”

On a website for laypeople, the European Commission discloses that nanoparticles “will move with the circulation into all the organs and tissues of the body,” also noting animal model evidence showing “that very small nanoparticles can transfer from a pregnant rat to the fetus.”

In their analysis of vaccinated individuals’ blood, the Italian authors quoted earlier noted their suspicion that some of the foreign materials they detected are “graphene-family particles,” materials that “have been intensively studied by researchers for decades and increasingly so since COVID-19.”

A comprehensive and hardly reassuring 2016 study in Particle and Fibre Toxicology described “toxic side effects” of graphene-family nanomaterials in many biological applications, reporting that they “can induce acute and chronic injuries in tissues by penetrating through the blood-air barrier, blood-testis barrier, blood-brain barrier, and blood-placenta barrier etc.”

That study also noted that long-term toxicity data are lacking.

Many unanswered questions

Recently, a Washington State couple, Cornelia Hertzler and Ron Bly came forward to tell the tragic story of their hospitalized infant son’s death-by-blood-clot last February.

The death occurred two weeks after the hospital administered an unauthorized blood transfusion to the baby, despite claims that, “Patients are free to refuse transfusions for any reason.”

According to the parents, who had clearly articulated their wish to use blood from directed blood donors, the hospital pooh-poohed their concerns and used “random blood” instead.

The infant’s eventually fatal blood clot became evident the very next day, with the clot, by his mother’s account, getting “worse and worse and slowly … inching closer to his heart.”

Although there is no way to know the COVID-19 vaccination status of those who donated the blood used in the baby’s transfusion, the fact that “most of the nation’s blood supply is now coming from donors who have been inoculated [against COVID-19]” raises many questions.

Existing blood banks may prefer to dismiss those questions as the fevered imaginings of “COVID skeptics” — arguing that requests for blood from unvaccinated donors “would be an operational can of worms for a medically unjustifiable request” — but farsighted entrepreneurs interested in providing such a service might not have to worry about battling for clients.

*

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

Featured image is from CHD

---

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

You may also purchase directly at DonorBox “Worldwide Corona Crisis” Campaign Page! (NOTE: User-friendly)

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

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

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

***

On October 10, a US-led coalition drone strike killed an IS terrorist in northeastern Syria.  The terrorist was riding a motorcycle in a village occupied by Radical Islamic mercenaries employed by Turkey near Tel Albyat.  Since the defeat of ISIS in Syria in 2019, the terrorist group now referred to as IS has some sleeper cells in the desert, and is especially prevalent in Idlib, which is protected by Turkey, and supplied with humanitarian aid by the United Nations.

IS terrorists killed in Syria by the US

On October 6, the US Central Command (CENTCOM) issued a statement saying that US helicopters descended on Muluk Saray village in Hassakeh province, near Qamishli, and deployed US commandos who killed a member of IS and wounded and captured others.  Rakkan Wahid al-Shammri, an IS official known to facilitate the smuggling of weapons and fighters, were killed and one of his associates was wounded and two others were detained by US forces. The two men taken into custody are an Iraqi national and a commander of a “military security faction.” The area is partly held by the Syrian Arab Army, and the US-partnered Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).  According to residents, three US helicopters carrying troops landed in the village after midnight and told residents by loudspeaker to stay indoors and keep their lights off with the operation lasting several hours.

Also on October 6, the US military launched a precision airstrike just after 6 p.m. local time in northern Syria, killing two more high-ranking IS officials. CENTCOM said the strike killed Abu ‘Ala, described as one of the terror group’s “top five,” who served as the deputy leader of IS in Syria. A second IS official, Abu Mu’Ad al-Qahtani, said to be responsible for prisoner affairs, was also killed.

In June, US forces captured an IS bomb-maker in an Aleppo area village controlled by Turkish-backed terrorists, the same group that is in Idlib.

Also in June, US forces captured Hani Ahmed al-Kurdi, described as an IS senior leader, during a helicopter raid in Jarablus, in northwestern Syria, not far from Idlib.

On July 12, the US said a drone strike near Jindayris, in northwestern Syria, had killed another “top five” IS leader, Maher al-Agal, described as the terror group’s top Syrian official.

In February 2022, Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi was killed in Idlib.  His real name was Amir Mohammed Saeed Abdul-Rahman al-Mawla, an Iraqi born in 1976 and believed to be an ethnic Turkman from the northern Iraqi town of Tel Afar. He was staying in the town of Atmeh, in Idlib province near the border with Turkey. The raid on the house killed him and 12 other people, including four women and six children.  US helicopters landed in the area carrying special forces and an explosion shook the area. The US says al-Qurayshi played a key role in targeting Iraq’s Yazidi religious minority.

In October 2019, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of ISIS was killed by a special US military operation ordered by President Trump. Baghdadi was also killed in Idlib, in the village of Barisha on the Turkish border. Both of the top IS leaders sought shelter in the northern province of Idlib, controlled by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the former al Qaeda affiliate in Syria.

Who controls Idlib?

The US has provided $1.5 billion in humanitarian assistance in Syria in 2022 alone, but that aid is strictly within those areas occupied by terrorists, such as Idlib, and some aid going to the SDF.  Syria is a big country, and 96% of the residents have never received even a loaf of bread from the US because the vast majority of the Syrian territory is under the administration of the central government in Damascus.

Idlib has replaced Pakistan as the favored safe haven for terrorists, as evidenced by the high-profile IS and al Qaeda terrorists having been killed by the US there. The head of IS, Baghdadi, was living near an HTS checkpoint and a Turkish military outpost.

James Jeffrey, a special envoy for Syria under former US President Trump, saw HTS as an asset. Jeffrey told PBS in an interview that while the group would remain listed as a terrorist organization, it was not on the United States’ target list. This statement serves as evidence of the double standards the US uses when dealing with, and utilizing terrorists as an American tool.

Aaron Stein, director of research at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, said “I think the general assessment is HTS is made up of jihadists that have American blood on their hands.”

Daniel Milton, director of research at the Combating Terrorism Center at the US Military Academy, said the fact that two IS leaders had been hiding out in Idlib “ought to cause us to reassess how we are thinking about the relationships between these [HTS, al Qaeda, and Islamic State] groups.”

The US policy has been to facilitate the provision of humanitarian aid to 3 million Syrians under HTS occupation in Idlib while letting Turkey manage all sorts of terrorist groups.

Turkey coordinates and cooperates with HTS, and is not targeting either al Qaeda or IS, and experts feel that there is no solution to Idlib but to eliminate all the terrorists.  However, the US is opposed to any military action to liberate Idlib from terrorist control.

The Kurds and al-Hol prison

Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are military allies of the US in northeastern Syria. The SDF administers a displaced-persons camp and the attached al-Hol prison holding IS terrorists. In January 2022, IS attacked the al-Hol prison to free jailed comrades, leading to a 10-day battle with the SDF that left some 500 dead.

Saleh Moslem, a politician from the Kurdish Democratic Union Party, spoke to Foreign Policy and said that according to the SDF most of the hundreds of fighters from the group who recently attacked al-Hol prison crossed over from HTS-controlled Idlib to free their fellow terrorists. “HTS is the remains of ISIS,” said Moslem.

The SDF and Turkey are enemies; however, the US-sponsored SDF fought and died in the battles to defeat ISIS. Turkey supports and protects HTS in Idlib, which follows the same ideology and agenda as IS. “HTS should be dismantled,” said Moslem, and added, “The US forces should target HTS too.”

What should be done?

The Biden administration should develop a plan with Turkey and Russia to bring Idlib under the control of the Syrian government.  The US support and protection of terrorists following Radical Islam should stop.  The US-NATO attack on Syria for regime change, which began in 2011, has failed. It is time to allow the Syrian people to rebuild their lives free of protected terrorist enclaves.

*

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

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

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

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

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

***

Diskussionen im Anschluss an meine Artikel haben mir deutlich gemacht, dass viele Zeitgenossen nicht verstehen, was ich zum Ausdruck bringen will. Dabei möchte ich klarstellen, dass man keinesfalls meiner Meinung sein muss (Die Gedanken sind frei); es ist mir jedoch ein Anliegen, dass man das, was ich sagen will, versteht – auch wenn man anderer Meinung ist oder sein will.

Mein drängendstes Problem ist die Frage, warum wir Erwachsenen unserer Jugend nach einem zumeist erfüllten Leben eine – wie zu befürchten ist – schreckliche Zukunft hinterlassen werden? Wenn ich auf der Straße, im Bus oder im TV die frischen, lebendigen und teilweise fröhlichen Gesichter von Jungen und Mädchen sehe, schnürt es mir das Herz ab, wenn ich daran denke, was auf sie zukommen wird. Wieso haben wir Älteren und wir Intellektuellen – denen von der arbeitenden Bevölkerung jahrelang ermöglicht wurde, sich umfassend zu informieren und zu bilden – nicht mehr Mut und Einfühlungsvermögen, um auch den Kindern dieser Welt eine lebenswerte Zukunft zu hinterlassen?

Wieso denken wir, nur die anderen sind für die gegenwärtigen Misere verantwortlich?

Nur wenn man die Auffassung vertritt, dass alle anderen – die Machthaber, Politiker, usw.  für das irdische Elend verantwortlich sind, dann bin ich selbst „aus dem Schneider“, kann „meine Hände in Unschuld waschen“ und muss auch nichts unternehmen, um das Schlimmste abzuwenden und um die Welt in eine andere Bahn zu lenken. Das ist dann ausschließlich die verdammte „Pflicht und Schuldigkeit“ dieser Übeltäter.

Sehen wir es aber so, dass wir Erwachsenen am Weltgeschehen unseren Anteil haben und mitschuldig sind, dass wir in einer Welt leben, in der Krieg, Verbrechen und Ungerechtigkeit an der Tagesordnung sind, weil die Welt so ist, wie wir sie eingerichtet oder – in Bezug auf bereits bestehende Verhältnisse – geduldet haben, dann würden wir vielleicht etwas unternehmen, um das zu verändern. Es kann sich niemand der Verantwortung entziehen. Wir sind immer mitschuldig, selbst dann, wenn wir Opfer sind.

Verstehen wir uns?

*

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

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel ist Lehrer (Rektor a. D.), Doktor der Pädagogik (Dr. paed.) und Diplom-Psychologe (Dipl.-Psych.). Viele Jahrzehnte unterrichtete er und bildete Fachkräfte fort. Als Pensionär arbeitete er als Psychotherapeut in eigener Praxis. In seinen Büchern und pädagogisch-psychologischen Fachartikeln fordert er eine bewusste ethisch-moralische Werteerziehung sowie eine Erziehung zu Gemeinsinn und Frieden. Sein Lebensmotto (nach Albert Camus): Geben, wenn man kann. Und nicht hassen, wenn das möglich ist.  

Featured image: “Whores of War,” original illustration by Mr. Fish.

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

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

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

***

It has now been several weeks since the EU and official EU statistics departments were forced to launch an official Europe-wide investigation into excess deaths among children because of an exclusive investigation conducted and published by The Exposé.

But countries across Europe are still “struggling” to conclude why so many children have died across the continent ever since the European Medicines Agency extended the emergency use authorisation of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine for use in children aged 12 to 15 in May 2021.

On the 29th of August 2022, we exclusively revealed that official mortality figures for Europe showed a shocking 691% increase in excess deaths among children up to week 33 of 2022 since the European Medicines Agency extended the emergency use authorisation of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine for use in children aged 12 to 15 in May 2021.

Source

Before this decision by the European Medicines Agency, deaths among children in 2021 were below the expected rate. But following the emergency use authorisation, we discovered that excess deaths among children had risen by a deeply troubling 1,599% by the end of the year compared to the 2017 to 2020 average.

Three weeks after our investigation, EuroMOMO, which provides the statistics, was forced to officially publicly acknowledge the elevated excess mortality among children and opened a Europe-wide investigation into the possible causes.

We conducted our investigation using the data published by EuroMOMO in their week 33, 2022 bulletin.

Here’s a snapshot of the bulletin published by EuroMOMO at the time –

Source

EuroMOMO failed to mention the elevated mortality among children aged 0 to 14.

But three weeks on from our investigation, EuroMOMO was forced to do so as can be seen in a snapshot of EuroMOMO’s week 36 bulletin –

Source

EuroMOMO also added a further note in its week 36 bulletin –

Source

However, four tweeks have now passed since the investigation was launched and the data shows that thousands of children have died in this period resulting in hundreds of further excess deaths.

Source

Unfortunately, EuroMOMO has nothing more to say on the matter in its latest update other than “Since mid-2021, some unusual excess mortality signals have been observed in the age group of 0-14 years. EuroMOMO is looking into the possible explanation for these signals, in consultation with participating countries in the network.”

Source

How many more children have to die before they finally admit the mistake that was made in offering them the Covid-19 injection?

You can read our original investigation in full below that has forced the European Union to conduct a Europe-wide investigation into why so many children are dying…

EuroMOMO is a European mortality monitoring activity. The organisation states that its aim is to “detect and measure excess deaths related to seasonal influenza, pandemics and other public health threats”.

Official national mortality statistics are provided weekly from the 29 European countries or subnational regions in the EuroMOMO collaborative network, supported by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), and hosted by Statens Serum Institut, Denmark.

The following chart shows the weekly excess deaths throughout 2020 and 2021 among children aged 0 to 14 across Europe. The graph has been taken from the EuroMOMO website and can be accessed here.

Source

As you can see from the above, deaths among children throughout 2020 were generally below the expected number of deaths. This trend continued throughout 2021 up to week 22, at which point excess deaths were recorded week on week until the end of the year.

What’s interesting about the fact excess deaths began to be recorded among children in week 22 of 2021 is that it coincides with the week the European Medicines Agency (EMA) granted “an extension of indication for the COVID-19 vaccine Comirnaty (Pfizer) to include use in children aged 12 to 15″.

Source

Just a few months later, the EMA also gave emergency use approval for the Pfizer vaccine to be administered to children as young as 5.

The following chart, extracted from the EuroMOMO website, shows the cumulative total number of excess deaths throughout both 2020 and 2021 from week 22 (the week the Covid-19 vaccine was approved for children) to week 52 (the end of the year).

According to EuroMOMO, Europe recorded 1,015 excess deaths among children during this time frame in 2021, whilst recording 491 fewer deaths than expected during this time frame in 2020.

The following chart shows the weekly excess deaths throughout 2022 among children aged 0 to 14 across Europe. The graph has been taken from the EuroMOMO website and can be accessed here.

The data so far covers up to week 33 of 2022 (mid-August), and as you can see the majority of weeks have seen deaths among children well above the expected rate. Week 24 saw a record 101 excess deaths among children aged 0 to 14.

The following chart, extracted from the EuroMOMO website, shows the cumulative total number of excess deaths throughout both 2022 up to week 33.

According to EuroMOMO, Europe recorded 841 excess deaths among children during this time frame compared to the expected rate.

Since the EMA first approved the Pfizer Covid-19 injection for use in children in May 2021, Europe has recorded 1,856 excess deaths among children aged 0 to 14 against the expected rate. This statistic alone is sickening because it represents an unbelievable 185,600% increase in deaths.

However, because that number is so unbelievably high it would be fairer to actually compare excess deaths among children post-Covid-19 vaccination against the average number of deaths among children in the previous few years.

The following chart shows the total number of excess deaths among children aged 0 to 14 in 2021 before EMA approval of the Covid-19 vaccine for 12 to 15-year-olds in week 22, compared to the same time frame in other years. The numbers have been extracted from the EuroMOMO website and can be accessed here.

The 2018 to 2020 average number of excess deaths among children across Europe between week 1 and week 21 equates to 191.3. But during the first 21 weeks of 2021, there were actually 198 fewer deaths among children than expected and 389.3 fewer deaths than the 2018 to 2020 average.

The following chart shows the total number of excess deaths among children aged 0 to 14 in 2021 following EMA approval of the Covid-19 vaccine for 12 to 15-year-olds in week 22, compared to the same time frame in other years. The numbers have been extracted from the EuroMOMO website and can be accessed here.

The 2017 to 2020 average number of excess deaths among children across Europe between week 22 and week 52 equates to 59.75. But during the same period in 2021, following EMA approval of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine for children, there were 1,015 more deaths among children than expected and 955.25 more deaths than the 2017 to 2020 average.

This means excess deaths among children throughout 2021 after EMA approval of the Covid-19 injection for children aged 12 to 15, increased by 1,599% compared to the 2017 to 2020 average.

The following chart shows the total number of excess deaths among children aged 0 to 14 in 2022 so far (Week 33) compared to the same time frame in other years. The numbers have been extracted from the EuroMOMO website and can be accessed here.

In 2022, children aged 5 and over across Europe have been offered the Covid-19 injection, and children aged 12 and over have been offered up to three doses of the Covid-19 injection.

The 2018 to 2021 average number of excess deaths among children between week 1 and week 33 equates to 175. But during the first 33 weeks of 2022, there were 841 more deaths among children than expected and 666 more deaths than the 2018 to 2021 average.

This means excess deaths among children throughout 2022 so far after EMA approval of the Covid-19 injection for children aged 5 and above, have increased by 381% compared to the 2018 to 2021 average.

Once we combine the figures for week 22 in 2021 onwards up to week 33 of 2022 (1,856 excess deaths), and compare them against the combined 2017 to 2020 & 2018 to 2021 average (234.75 excess deaths), we find that excess deaths among children across Europe have increased by 691% since the European Medicines Agency first approved a Covid-19 vaccine for children aged 12 to 15 in May 2021.