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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Over the past two years, there have been thousands of stories, cases, studies and adverse events reported regarding horrific “side effects” and health detriment caused directly or indirectly by the COVID-19 “vaccines.” Most people have heard about, read about, experienced, or had a loved one experience physical damage from the Fauci Flu jabs, including the most popular kind, including blood clots, myocarditis, pericarditis, heart attacks, strokes, and SADS (sudden adult death syndrome). Yet, there is more, and much more damage going on than all of that, unfortunately.

Though the vaccine industry and pharma in general are protected from liability of their health-decimating “medicines,” and though mainstream media never publishes anything negative about vaccines, there are many adverse events happening that you probably don’t know about, and many of the victims are spreading the word, and even winning settlements and lawsuits.

Here are the top 7 most UNEXPECTED adverse events from the toxic spike protein injections, and the attributed/linked very serious health consequences

#1. Shingles develops (even in the eye)

#2. Sciatica shooting pains (often down the center of legs)

#3. Restless leg syndrome (RLS)

#4. Loss of motor skills and critical nerve damage

#5. Catch COVID multiple times after the shots

#6. Going blind, including developing optic neuritis (inflammation damages the optic nerve that sends visual info from the retina to the brain)

#7. Long, fibrous clots that lack post-mortem characteristics (not same as blood clots)

COVID-19 vaccines have been linked to the reactivation of the virus that causes shingles

New studies suggest a link between the Fauci Flu jabs and REACTIVATION of the shingles virus. This happens after the reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus (VZV), that can happen several times for some people. Several case reports indicate these shingles “flare-ups” and “eruptions” are happening shortly after getting a COVID-19 vaccine. In 2021, and article published by Trusted Source via NIH reported several cases of shingles eruptions after vaccination with mRNA jabs.

Serious nerve damage becoming a much more common “side effect” from the Fauci Flu stabs

There are two main types of nerve cells: sensory nerves (carry messages of pain, pressure, sensations) and motor nerves (tell muscles to move). These nerves are fragile and can be damaged rather easily, including by spike proteins blocking the flow of blood and neurons to key areas, plus damage to the protective covering (myelin sheath) of nerves, leading to weakness and sometimes paralysis.

Certain vaccines, like the COVID jabs, can cause acute nerve damage by causing inflammation of the brain and spinal cord (ADEM). Since the spike proteins travel throughout the body, polluting vital organs, other nerve damage gets done, and some of it is irreversible.

COVID “vaccines,” as they are mislabeled, can also cause brachial neuritis (a.k.a. Parsonage-Turner syndrome) that affects nerves that control muscles in the shoulders, arms, and hands. Symptoms include burning sensations, pins and needles feeling, and loss of function after the vaccine.

Blood clots caused by COVID jabs can result in devastating injuries, including permanent blindness and deafness

Blood clots can result in devastating injuries just about anywhere in the vasculature of the body. When clots occur in the brain in microvasculature (tiny blood vessels that distribute blood within tissues) of the eye, the person can experience impairment or total loss of vision. This is known to happen following vaccines, including COVID jabs.

Though the mass media and social media remain quiet about these events (ban, censor and delete posts as “misinformation” or “disinformation”), that does not mean they are not happening, and more often than one may think.

As it turns out, a quite large number of these incidents have been reported to government regulatory agencies, including VAERS (US system), the UK “Yellow Card” system, and Europe’s “EudraVigilance” database. In other words, mass numbers of visual injuries from COVID jabs are being reported worldwide. It’s actually a hot topic, and investigations are underway. Plus, add to that chaos sudden hearing loss followed by deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolisms cause by the Fauci clot shots.

Restless Leg Syndrome – Pilot study from 2021 reveals as much as 7% of those who receive COVID-19 vaccinations suffer from RLS

Nearly 3/4ths of those injected with spike proteins who suffer from Restless Leg Syndrome (RLS) afterwards had NEVER had RLS before in their lives. More than 13 percent of these victims of vaccine violence say that RLS did not go away after the first few days, meaning RLS for them could be long-term or even permanent. The conclusion of the pilot study also reveals that COVID-19 vaccination “may have provoked or lowered the threshold for RLS symptoms” in participants with previous RLS.

Triple-vaccinated for COVID show highest rate for catching COVID, repeatedly

Reports worldwide reveal that COVID-19 “vaccine” effectiveness continues to drop, even though the effectiveness was very weak to begin with. Now, studies show that humans who are TRIPLE-INJECTED are now three to five times more likely to become infected with Wuhan “gain-of-function” disease than the unvaccinated. Let that sink in for a moment.

These results are evident for all age groups, not just the elderly or immune-compromised.

What’s worse is that deaths are skyrocketing for the fully injected, meaning they’re either dying from the virus or from the toxic jabs, that cause blood clots and heart stress.

“The figures show that the case-rates are highest among the triple vaccinated in all age groups,” reports Daily Exposé (of the UK)… “But not just by a little bit, instead by a million miles. And the gap between the unvaccinated and triple vaccinated has been getting worse by the month.”

Do you believe you were injured by the toxic Fauci Flu jabs? Maybe you have strange, long, fibrous clots that no doctor has ever seen before. These are most likely from the Fauci Flu jabs, that collect heavy metals and form nano-particle clots that can be fatal.

Take the Vaccine Injury Claim Eligibility Quiz now to see if you are eligible to file a claim for compensation for a vaccine injury. It’s quick and easy. Then, bookmark Vaccines.news to your favorite independent websites for updates on experimental “vaccines” that cause blood clots, myocarditis, and severe, chronic inflammation.

*

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 Pandemic.news


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 

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” 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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

During a UN committee meeting, the head of the legal section of Russia’s Permanent Mission to the UN, Sergey Leonidchenko, said Russia expects US visas will be provided immediately to the Russian delegation to participate in the High-Level Week of the UN General Assembly session. According to him, the delegation has not yet received visas.

“This is an unprecedented situation… We expect the host state to issue visas to the minister, his delegation, and all accompanying persons as soon as possible, as envisioned by the agreement,” Leonidchenko said.

He further stated that due to the US visa policy, 34 Russian Permanent Mission UN diplomats and members of their families are unable to travel to their motherland, including for humanitarian reasons.

The only solution to resolve the issue of non-issuance of US visas to Russian diplomats is for UN Secretary-General António Guterres to initiate an arbitration procedure, according to Leonidchenko.

European Council fully suspends visa facilitation for Russians

Only last week, the European Council announced that it has fully suspended visa facilitation between the EU and Russia, thus reversing the agreement that served to simplify visa applications for Russian citizens.

The council, in a statement on its website, explained that the decision will entail increasing visa fees from €35 to €80 – more than double the initial agreement. More restrictive rules will also be implemented regarding multiple-entry visas.

It is worth noting that the EU will lose around €21 billion ($20.97 billion) if it bars Russian tourists from entering the bloc, State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin wrote on his official Telegram channel, commenting on what he called “the frenzy of proposals to ban our citizens from entering the EU continues.”

“Today’s decision is a direct consequence of Russia’s actions and further proof of our unwavering commitment to Ukraine and its people,” said Vit Rakusan, Czech Interior Minister, in a statement.

Last month, the Russian administration sent a notice letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres concerning the United States’ neglect of its responsibilities as the host country of the organization’s headquarters, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.

Lavrov stated that with the US being the host country of the UN Headquarters, it has the legal obligation to all members of the organization to take the extra mile so work can proceed smoothly and participation among all members is equal, adding that Russia sent a letter to the UN Secretary-General Guterres, calling attention to his responsibility to require the US to “behave decently”.

This comes after the United Nations Human Rights Council attempted to suspend Russia’s membership in the sub-organization per US Secretary of State Antony Blinken‘s request.

In response to a question regarding Russia’s participation in the UN General Assembly this September, Lavrov stressed that “Russia cannot be unrepresented at the UN, and Western countries are not allowed to decide these issues,” adding, “As for the level of our presence there – whether it will be a delegation from Moscow or, as you said, our American colleagues will prohibit the arrival of our delegation in the spirit of their liberty – we’ll 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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Still Fails to Grant Visas for Russian Delegation to Attend the United Nations General Assembly
  • Tags: , ,

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Unnamed American officials, according to the New York Times, have admitted that the explosives fired against Ukraine’s nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia have been fired against the plant by Ukraine’s Government, not by Russia’s Government, and furthermore these officials make clear that Ukraine’s attacks against the plant are a key part of Ukraine’s plan to win its U.S.-backed-and-advised war against Russia, on the battlefields of Ukraine, using Ukrainian soldiers.

Zaporizhzhia is a city in Ukraine that is in Russian-controlled territory, and Ukraine’s strategy is to destroy the ability of the plant to function, so that areas controlled by Russia will no longer be able to benefit from that plant’s electrical-power output. The United States Government helped Ukraine’s Government to come up with this plan, according to the New York Times.

This information was buried by the Times, 85% of the way down a 1,600-word news-report they published on September 13th, titled “The Critical Moment Behind Ukraine’s Rapid Advance”, in which it stated that, “Eventually, Ukrainian officials believe their long-term success requires progress on the original goals in the discarded strategy, including recapturing the nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia, cutting off Russian forces in Mariupol and pushing Russian forces in Kherson back across the Dnipro River, American officials said.”

When IAEA inspectors arrived at that plant on September 1st, after a lengthy period of trying to get there to inspect it but which was blocked by Ukraine’s Government, and the IAEA started delivering reports regarding what they were finding at the plant, no mention has, as-of yet, been made concerning which of the two warring sides has been firing those bombs into the plant. Even when the IAEA headlined on September 9th “Director General’s Statement on Serious Situation at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant”, and reported that the plant’s ability to operate “has been destroyed by shelling of the switchyard at the city’s thermal power plant, leading to a complete power black-out in” the entire region, and that “This is completely unacceptable.

It cannot stand.”, and closed by saying they “urgently call for the immediate cessation of all shelling in the entire area,” no mention was made as to which of the two sides was shooting into the plant in order to disable it, and which of the two sides was firing out from the plant in order to protect it against that incoming fire.

Previously known was only that the city of Zaporizhzhia has been and is under Russian control ever since March 4th. Consequently, all news-media and reporters have known that (since Russia was inside and Ukraine was outside) Russia has been defending the plant and Ukraine has been attacking it, but until “American officials” let slip, in this news-report, the fact that this has indeed been the case there, no Western news-medium has previously published this fact — not even buried it in a news-report.

So, although nothing in this regard may yet be considered to be official, or neutral, or free of fear or of actual intent to lie, there finally is, at the very least, buried in that news-report from the New York Times, a statement that is sourced to “American officials,” asserting that this is the case, and the Times also lets slip there that this “shelling” of that plant is an important part of the joint U.S.-Ukraine master-plan to defeat Russia in Ukraine.

It is part of the same master-plan, which the U.S. Government recommended to Ukraine’s Government, and which also included the recent successful retaking by Ukraine of Russian-controlled land near the major Ukrainian city of Kharkov, which city’s recapture by Ukraine is also included in the master-plan. Both operations — the shelling of the nuclear power plant, and the recapture of that land near Kharkov — were parts of that master-plan, according to the New York Times.

The Times report asserts that

Long reluctant to share details of their plans, the Ukrainian commanders started opening up more to American and British intelligence officials and seeking advice. Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, and Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to Mr. Zelensky, spoke multiple times about the planning for the counteroffensive, according to a senior administration official. Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and senior Ukrainian military leaders regularly discussed intelligence and military support.

And in Kyiv, Ukrainian and British military officials continued working together while the new American defense attaché, Brig. Gen. Garrick Harmon, began having daily sessions with Ukraine’s top officers.

*

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.

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 New Scientist

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

African nations are preparing for the United Nations Climate Conference (COP27) scheduled to take place in the Egyptian resort area of Sharm-el-Sheikh from November 6-20.

This gathering is taking place during a period of rising uncertainty due to burgeoning food deficits along with the crisis of accumulation and distribution related to agricultural products in general.

Energy costs have skyrocketed due to several important factors including the Pentagon-NATO war in Ukraine; the failure of the United States government to curtail inflation through price controls utilizing higher taxation rates against corporations; and the continuing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic which disrupted production and supply chains internationally. The last quarter of 2022 will be marked by increased military spending and a further decline in investor confidence due to the overall downturn within stock markets around the world.

Although the administration of President Joe Biden has been able to pass a so-called anti-inflation, prescription drug and climate change bill, these measures will not address the inability of working people, the oppressed and impoverished, to pay higher prices for food, rent and transportation in the coming months. In Europe, the president of France stated several weeks ago that it will be a cold winter on the continent.

Consequently, the COP27 Summit in Egypt will be compelled to counter the arguments of Washington on behalf of Wall Street and the Pentagon, by blaming other geo-political regions for the worsening effects of climate change. At present the U.S. capitalist system is preoccupied with maintaining the profitability and stability of multinational corporations.

Yet, the U.S. must at least pay lip service to the realities of climate change. Within its territorial boundaries, there has been drought, fires, floods and other extreme weather events where millions of people have been negatively affected. It was the U.S. which was the most severely impacted during the last two years by the pandemic. In excess of a million people perished as a result of one infectious disease since the early months of 2020. These developments placed extreme pressures on the healthcare system which is privately-owned and operated as well as the overall labor market where illness, death, family and community disruptions have hampered the capacity of the capitalist system to supply goods and services to the public absent an inflationary spiral.

An entry on the UN website for the COP27 event notes that:

“[T]he incoming Egyptian COP27 Presidency has identified a range of topics focused on enhancing implementation and raising ambition on a broad range of issues related to climate change. Egypt has further designated several thematic days for focused discussions, including through side events, panel discussions, round tables and other interactive formats to deliberate on and share with the wider audience…. The Glasgow outcomes also highlighted the centrality of urgently scaling up support, including appropriate finance, capacity building and technology transfer, to enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability to climate change in line with the best available science, considering the priorities and needs of developing country Parties.”

These principles which the Egyptian government wants to guide the COP27 proceedings cannot be viewed independently of the national and class interests of the U.S. and its allies within the European Union (EU). The war in Ukraine has shifted the focus in the EU to energy sufficiency in light of the actions taken by Moscow to restrict natural gas supplies to those states which have imposed sanctions against the government of President Vladimir Putin.

Africa and the Crisis of Climate Change

A pre-conference meeting occurred during early September in Cairo, Egypt where many leaders and officials within the African Union (AU) member-states debated and discussed their positions related to the upcoming COP27. During this gathering, several leaders criticized the western imperialist governments for their failure to reduce CO2 emissions while simultaneously reneging on commitments to provide assistance to lesser developed states which have the least ability to counter the effects of climate change.

These disagreements over apportioning blame for severe weather events and other environmental problems have been going on for decades. At the last UN Climate Conference in Glasgow, Scotland, the COP26, due to the influence of the imperialist states, was hampered in mandating the necessary reforms to improve the environmental quality of the earth.

In various states and regions in Africa severe weather events and drought have imperiled large population groups. In Mozambique and other Southern African countries, cyclones during 2021 turned hundreds of thousands of people into internally displaced persons (IDPs).

The Republic of South Africa in the KwaZulu-Natal province was hit by major flooding around the port city of Durban earlier this year resulting in the homelessness of thousands. In Ethiopia, Somalia and areas within Kenya in the Horn of Africa have not experienced normal rain patterns in several years. These events in Somalia and Ethiopia are compounded by intersectional conflicts which have been fueled by Washington and its NATO allies.

A report on the September conference in Egypt attended by AU leaders stated:

“The leaders of two dozen African countries have urged wealthier nations to uphold their aid pledges so the continent can tackle climate change effects for which it shares little blame. African ministers made their call in a communique at the close of a three-day forum in the Egyptian capital Cairo on Friday (Sept. 9) and two months before Egypt hosts the crucial COP27 climate conference in Sharm El-Sheikh in November…. We urge ‘developed countries to fulfil their pledges in relation to climate and development finance, and deliver on their commitments to double adaptation finance, in particular to Africa,’ the 24 leaders said in a closing statement. The African continent emits only some three percent of global CO2 emissions, former UN chief Ban Ki-moon noted this week. And yet African nations are among those most exposed to the effects of climate change, notably worsening droughts and floods. The African leaders said the financial aid was needed in view of ‘the disproportionate impact of climate change and nature loss on the African continent’.”

Prior to the meeting in Egypt, there was the convening of Africa Climate Week 2022 in Libreville, Gabon. This conference also put forward proposals for the reduction of environmental pollutants and the need for the industrial states to take responsibility for the damage done throughout the globe.

The Africa Climate Week began on August 29 and was attended by 1200 delegates from around the continent and other geo-political regions. African leaders were provided a platform to voice their concerns and to discuss various projects which have been implemented in recent years.

This event was held within the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The meeting was opened by the President Ali Bongo Ondimba who emphasized:

“For more than ten years, we have intensified our efforts to protect our remarkable forestry heritage and build a low-carbon economy. Consequently, Gabon, which has already achieved the objectives set by the Paris Agreement, is considered the most carbon-positive country in the world.”

These steps by AU member-states will inevitably clash with the objectives of the Biden administration. The initiatives put forward by the U.S. president are designed to curtail any mass movement demanding radical environmental policy changes. Moreover, the latest legislation signed during September is designed to win electoral support in the upcoming November midterms.

Before the advent of the coronavirus pandemic in the U.S., a growing movement led by youth was emerging to demand climate action. A debate surfaced even within the Democratic Party where the progressive wing attempted to advance a program for a “Green New Deal.”

The 2020 pandemic coupled with the presidential elections of the same year obliterated the hopes of environmentalists in regard to the Biden administration. A leading Democratic Senator Joe Manchin along with others blocked any legislative attempts to pass green energy policies.

Any debate involving policy matters related to climate change must take into strong consideration the role of the Pentagon in causing environmental damage around the world. The refusal by some elements within the environmental movement in the U.S. to link the question of climate change to the imperialist war machine has undermined the effectiveness of their campaigns. There can be no denying that Pentagon-instigated wars of regime-change and conquest are the major source of carbon dioxide emissions internationally. See this.

These conferences held in Egypt and Gabon provide a glimpse into the debates now underway among peoples represented by their governments and non-governmental organizations. The environmental movement in the U.S. should express their solidarity with governments and non-governmental groupings which are challenging the status-quo imposed by their own ruling class and state entities upon the majority of humanity.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Abayomi Azikiwe

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Azerbaijan’s undeclared special military operation against Armenia is the most destabilizing development to happen along Russia’s periphery since the latest US-provoked phase of the Ukrainian Conflict began in February. It could even ultimately prove to be a game changer in the worst way possible for Russian interests at the most sensitive time for its own special military operation considering last weekend’s setback in Ukraine.

Armenia and Azerbaijan blamed one another for reigniting hostilities along their shared border on Tuesday, the related tensions of which are connected to the Karabakh Conflict that has yet to be fully resolved despite November 2020’s Moscow-mediated ceasefire, which resulted in Baku reportedly attacking targets inside of its neighbor’s universally recognized territory. A mission led by the CSTO’s Secretary General will be sent to Armenia to investigate what just happened, but fighting still continues as of Wednesday morning local time. For all intents and purposes, it appears as though Azerbaijan is conducting is own “special military operation” against Russia’s mutual defense ally.

The exact sequence of events leading up to this latest violence has yet to be determined, but it’s still possible to piece together what happened. Prior to doing so, some context should be shared. First, Russian peacekeepers deployed to the parts of Karabakh that remain outside Baku’s control as a result of November 2020’s ceasefire, but armed Armenian groups have yet to vacate the area in accordance with that pact. Second, political unrest rocked Armenia after the ceasefire was agreed to. Third, Azerbaijan signed a declaration on allied cooperation with Russia in February 2022. Fourth, the CIA chief visited Yerevan in July. And fifth, Russia just accused the EU of wanting to push it out of the region.

The abovementioned facts reveal several relevant trends. First, Armenia remains reluctant to fully comply with the November 2020 ceasefire, but this procrastination hasn’t saved the government from becoming the object of many people’s fury. Second, the targeted authorities – just like any their peers whenever they come under significant pressure – might have calculated that they can distract the population on a patriotic basis. Third, Armenia re-embraced Russia after the November 2020 ceasefire following recent years of courting the West but still remains unreliable. Fourth, Azerbaijan has also since moved closer to Russia, but fifth, Baku still has close ties with Ankara, Brussels, and Washington.

This lead-up to the latest violence therefore suggests that Russia’s historical position in the South Caucasus has become much more complicated since the November 2020 ceasefire. Far from being the indisputable regional leader like it used to be, its influence is now being challenged by Turkey and the West. The first-mentioned and Azerbaijan are mutual defense allies since the June 2021 Shusha Agreement while the second is equally courting Baku and Yerevan through various outreaches by the EU and the US. The latter observation likely contributed to Russia’s inability to convince Armenia to fully comply with the November 2020 ceasefire.

Against this backdrop, it becomes comparatively clearer what probably transpired earlier this week. Azerbaijan apparently lost its patience with Armenia’s refusal to withdraw its unconventional forces from Karabakh, which Baku considers to be terrorists but Yerevan praises as patriotic defenders of their historical land. Accordingly, Azerbaijan concluded that the only way to force Armenia to comply with its legal obligations is to strike targets within its universally recognized territory that are considered to be supporting those same unconventional forces in some capacity or another. Regardless of the legal basis upon which Baku presumably planned to build its case, this still represents a significant escalation.

Unlike Russia which made a final diplomatic push for peace ahead of its own special militaryoperation that it commenced in Ukraine in order to restore the integrity of its national security red lines that NATO had crossed, Azerbaijan chose not to draw attention to the fact that it was planning to commence unilateral military action in defense of what it considers to be its interests. Furthermore, the perceived threat posed by Armenia to Azerbaijan is nowhere near the existential one that NATO latently posed to Russia in Ukraine ahead of Moscow’s military intervention there. Not only that, but Baku also clearly waited until Moscow experienced a military setback in Ukraine before launching its operation.

All of this suggests that Azerbaijan’s actions, for as legally justified as it might compellingly argue that they are, went against the spirit of its allied cooperation pact with Russia that was agreed to a little over half a year ago. After all, Moscow was clearly caught off guard by Baku’s preplanned escalation, which also cleverly carried with it some superficial similarities to its own special military operation in Ukraine so as to preemptively deflect criticism from the Kremlin. In spite of these optics, however, the West’s response has largely been muted. That in turn led to some speculating that Baku coordinated its military actions with Brussels and Washington, or at least tipped them off ahead of time.

In reality, the West is likely just behaving in as strategically opportunistic of a manner as possible since its leaders probably calculated that any outbreak of violence along Russia’s periphery is advantageous to their larger interests of dividing Moscow’s military focus. The US would silently celebrate a larger conflict in the South Caucasus no matter what it publicly says to the contrary since that development could distract Russia from Ukraine. In the worst-case scenario, it might be forced to dispatch more troops to its mutual defense allies in Armenia so as to preserve the integrity of the CSTO’s raison d’être, thus limiting the reserves that it could send to Ukraine and therefore weakening its position here.

Nevertheless, even though Azerbaijan’s actions are unfriendly to Russian interests and clearly play into the West’s, it still probably didn’t coordinate or even telegraph its intentions to the latter. More than likely, Azerbaijan only informed Turkey about this ahead of time and those two agreed to Baku’s unprecedented military escalation in order to put maximum pressure on Yerevan for the purpose of finally coercing it into fully complying with the November 2020 ceasefire. Both would have obviously predicted how the optics would be interpreted by Russia but still went ahead with it anyhow since they likely calculated that Moscow wouldn’t preemptively thwart their plans nor stop them afterwards.

That said, there are clear limits to how far Azerbaijan can go with its undeclared special military operation against Russia’s mutual security allies in Armenia before Moscow is compelled to intervene irrespective of the consequences that this could have for its ongoing mission in Ukraine in order to uphold the integrity of the CSTO’s raison d’être. Failing to do so and thus possibly allowing Azerbaijan (and potentially also NATO-member Turkey) to occupy parts of Armenia’s universally recognized territory (even if only temporarily) would result in Russia’s Central Asian partners losing faith in this Kremlin-led alliance, which could lead to a chain reaction of security crises in that strategic region.

Although Azerbaijan probably doesn’t have any such intentions of catalyzing those grand strategic consequences and might therefore wisely decide not to cross Russia’s red lines in Armenia, it shouldn’t automatically be assumed that its Turkish ally shares the same possible respect for Moscow’s regional security interests. In fact, Ankara might have cynically calculated that encouraging Baku to cross those same red lines or possibly even doing so itself could restore Turkey to its wayward Western allies’ good graces ahead of next summer’s general election. This could preempt their predictable meddling against President Erdogan if he proves himself capable of so seriously damaging Russian interests before then.

With this scenario in mind, which can’t be credibly dismissed considering the confluence of strategic factors at play, it can be concluded that Azerbaijan’s undeclared special military operation against Armenia is the most destabilizing development to happen along Russia’s periphery since the latest US-provoked phase of the Ukrainian Conflict began in February. It could even ultimately prove to be a game changer in the worst way possible for Russian interests at the most sensitive time for its own special military operation considering last weekend’s setback in Ukraine. If diplomatic means don’t successfully resolve this latest crisis, then it could quickly escalate in very unpredictable and dangerous ways.

*

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

Pakistan Copes with Unprecedented “Natural Catastrophe”

September 15th, 2022 by Sajjad Shaukat

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The unprecedented deadly floods and extraordinary monsoon rains which began in June, this year has destroyed lives, livelihoods and infrastructure in various regions of Pakistan, leaving one-third of the country underwater.

Media reported that owing to the floods, more than 2000 persons have died; more than 30 million of people have been affected. More than two million homes, 2 million acres of crops and some 3,000 miles of roads have been damaged. Half a million people were in displacement camps and many others were without shelter.

Officials say this year’s floods are comparable to 2010—when over 2,000 people died and nearly a fifth of the country was under water.

Foreign media called Pakistan’s flood as a result of climate change with a serious climate catastrophe.

The rain spell and floods have negative effects on the people in the flood-ravaged areas also from the pandemic diseases—as some persons have died.

Talking cognisance of large scale devastation, the Pakistan Government has declared a state of emergency. The government has established a flood relief fund, namely, Prime Minister’s Flood Relief Fund, 2022 for providing relief and rehabilitation to the flood-affected persons. The Fund accepts donations and contributions both from domestic and international sources.

Meanwhile, in a live telethon on August 29, 2022, Chairman of Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and former Prime Minister Imran Khan raised funds for victims of devastating rains and floods, and  received amount to over Rs. 5.5 billion…donated by overseas and domestic Pakistanis. In a second telethon held on September 11, this year, Khan collected approximately Rs.5 billion for the flood-victims.

Besides requesting other countries, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on July 2, 2022 appealed to the countrymen, including overseas Pakistanis, philanthropists and organisations to donate money in the relief fund for the help of flood affected people.

Country’s three armed forces, the entire Pakistani nation, civil society and humanitarian organisations (NGOs) have stepped forward to assist in the rescue and relief efforts which continue in the flood-ravaged regions, while the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) is also playing its role in this regard.

In fact, whenever the nation of Pakistan faces a major challenge, people look at armed, naval and air forces for support. It is quite true in case of the current flood circumstances, which have wreaked havoc in almost all provinces of the country. The Pakistan Army, Pakistan Navy Pakistan Navy and Pakistan Air Force are all actively participating in flood rescue and relief operations.

These forces have established relief funds for the victims of the flooding areas. In this spirit, all the general officers of the army have also donated their one-month salary to help the victims. Apart from this, other officers are also giving financial donations on a voluntary basis. Even, the Pakistan Air Force Women’s Association (PAFWA) has collected cash donations amounting to more than Rs 14 million.

And besides monetary assistance, all three branches of the country’s defence are distributing rations on-ground. Army has established more than 200 relief collection points across the country and Air Force has also set up camps. Donations by various segments of society are being dispatched to these flood relief camps.

Nevertheless, these three forces have been pounding and distributing packages—basic needs of life such as ration, cooked food packs, fresh drinking water, blankets, clothing items, tents etc. These armed forces have also set up medical camps which are providing with medical treatment and medicine to the flood-affected patients.

Particularly, the Pakistan Army is engaged in a massive rescue and relief operations in the areas affected by torrential rains and flash floods. Army has established a Relief and Rescue Organisation under Headquarters Army Air Defence Command to manage these operations. Army’s teams rescued a number of people stranded in the flood-affected areas, including women and children along with their belongings and shifted them to safer places. An example of the relentless bravery shown by the Army is that of Lieutenant General Sarfaraz Ali, Commander Engineers 12 Corps Brigadier Muhammad Khalid, Major Saeed Ahmed, Major Muhammad Talha Manan and Naik Mudassir Fayyaz who embraced martyrdom after their helicopter crashed during en route from Quetta to Karacha in relation to a rescue operation.

An arial view of Shahdadkot city covered with floods water in September 2022. (Photo by Ali Hyder Junejo, licensed under CC BY 2.0)

While, the fleet of helicopters of Army Aviation, the Pakistan Navy and Pakistan Air Force were deployed in flood-stricken areas. Their emergency response teams are also assisting civil administration in rescue and relief efforts of South Punjab, Balochistan and Sindh. Thus, these forces have also saved the life of thousands of individuals.

Notably, Director General (DG) of Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) Maj-Gen. Babar Iftikhar on September 1, 2022 stated that the nation was generously contributing to the relief efforts of the Army to support the people affected by the floods. He elaborated: “Since the beginning of the crisis caused by the recent monsoon rains, the armed forces were working day and night in the affected areas for the last 2 months”.

He added: “Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa had made detailed visits to the flood-affected areas of Sindh, Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Punjab and reviewed the ongoing relief operations on ground.

It is mentionable that on non-official level, donations have poured in Pakistan’s flood-ravaged regions from some western countries especially from British citizens of Pakistani origin and UK-based charities.

In this respect, The Guardian pointed out August 30, this year: “Aleena Khan, a Pakistani living in London who has family living in north-western Pakistan, where flooding from the Swat River has affected tens of thousands of people, began fundraising on Instagram. Khan planned to raise funds to send to her family…so that they could work on relief efforts directly or pass them on to organisations working in Pakistan. What started as a small appeal on Instagram…exploded into donations pouring in from all over the world…the UK [and from] across Europe…Yasrab Shah, the director of fundraising for British charity, Muslim Hands, confirmed the charity had raised at least £200,000 in emergency relief funds.”

The Guardian added: “In a letter addressed to [The then Prime Minister] Boris Johnson, Yasmin Qureshi, the Labour MP for Bolton South East and chair of the all party parliamentary group on Pakistan, said about £1.5m of financial aid pledged by the UK government to assist with the immediate aftermath of the floods was “insufficient”.

It is notable that many individuals, NGOs, welfare groups, including political and religious entities set ups camps in various cities and towns of Pakistan to collect basic necessities of life and have been dispatching to the floods-hit areas.

For instance, based in Lahore, Asani Trust and Bahria Town Housing Society have collected basic needs of life, including mosquito nets and sent to the victims of floods.

Another Lahore-based renowned NGO, Custom Health Care Society led by Dr. Asif Mahmood Jah, dispatched various goods as well as mobile health care vehicle with medical equipments to help the deserving persons, while he himself visited the flood-destructive places and provided the patients with medical consultation, including medicines.

In the meantime, many civilian volunteers of Pakistan are working on the frontlines to conduct rescue operations and deliver emergency relief. In this connection, a journalist of the Morning Edition spoke with one of them: Dr. Imran Lodhi, a climate activist and university teacher who led a group of students to deliver tents and food in Punjab province. Volunteer groups like his have been helping to mobilise people in communities who are trying to reach the affected areas.

2022 Pakistan Floods - August 27, 2021 vs. August 27, 2022 in Sindh.jpg

2022 Pakistan Floods – August 27, 2021 vs. August 27, 2022 in Sindh Source: https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/ Corrected Reflectance (Bands 7-2-1) Aqua / MODIS (Licensed under the public domain)

In this context, Faiz Paracha on the Website of Care International Org wrote on September 1, 2022: “Working with CARE international, I visited one of the worst affected areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa–Nowshehra and Charsada. Both districts have been devastated severely by the flood. Care has established a camp with its local partner (IDEA). This camp is accommodating some 400 families…provided tents, food items, kitchen utensils and hygiene kits. Drinking water tanks are provided twice a day…Fazilat, a 48-year-old Female Health Visitor in a small village in Upper Swat is working relentlessly in order to help the people in need”.

Pakistanis’ philanthropist contributions to the flood-affected people could be judged from another instance. A woman donated her entire gold jewellery to them.

Taking note of the drastic effects of the deadly floods and extraordinary monsoon rains, UN agencies and many western countries, including China, Japan and Islamic countries like Turkey have sent several planes loaded with aid, while the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been one of the most generous contributor, and sent so far 33 flights carrying aid for flood victims. Numerous rich countries as well as the European Union (EU) have also announced financial support. For example, the EU is providing €350,000, and the US just will provide $30 million in humanitarian aid to respond to the floods.

But, this financial assistance is not enough, as Islamabad requires $30bn to respond to the massive losses because of extraordinary floods and rains.

In this regard, during a two-day visit to Pakistan, the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres appealed to the international community on September 9, 2022  for massive financial support—flood-hit impoverished Pakistan needs about $30bn to recover from the floods, which he, himself assessed by surveying these areas through helicopter.

It is noteworthy that during his repeated trip to the flood-affected areas of Sindh on September 10, this year, talking to the media, army chief Gen. Bajwa urged the people of the country to help the flood victim generously and stated that the world will help to some extent.

Nonetheless, apart from the services of the armed forces, Pakistan has a tradition of volunteer help to cope with a catastrophe. This has been seen in case of the current sea-like flood waters which ravaged Pakistan; affecting millions of people.

*

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.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

What started as a one-man “shame-on-you” protest against the Justice Department—launched by comedian-activist Randy Credico—has gone viral as “Buy-a-Billboard-for-Julian” Campaign supported by activists worldwide

Co-Founder of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, Ben Cohen, pledged: “I’ll Match Each and Every Donation to The Julian Assange Mobile Billboard Campaign”

*

Two weeks ago CovertAction Magazine reported on the 15-foot-wide satirical billboards mounted on trucks and driven all over the nation’s capital to publicly shame the Justice Department and Democratic Party leaders for their illegal and immoral persecution of Julian Assange.

A picture containing text, person, outdoor, person Description automatically generated

Randy Credico addresses Assange Billboard Rally in front of Justice Department, August 17, 2022. [Source: Photo courtesy of Steve Brown]

Randy Credico never dreamed that his personal “poke-in-the-eye” campaign against the Justice Department would catch on the way it has. He had started with just one truck and one driver for a few hours a day—which was all he could afford. But suddenly, after CovertAction Magazine broke the story and posted photos of Credico’s billboards popping up all over Washington D.C., other news organizations started covering the story.

Then activist journalists like John Pilger, Max Blumenthal, John Kiriakou and many others began writing about the billboard campaign, praising it for the hope it inspired in so many who fervently campaigned and prayed for Assange’s release.

John Pilger—”When people ask, ‘What can I do?’, my response is to point to the billboard campaign created by the ever-imaginative direct action of one man, Randy Credico.”

Stefania Maurizi—”We need people taking to the streets to protest against the horrific treatment of Julian Assange. The Billboard project does a valuable work.”

Gabriel Shipton (Julian Assange’s brother)—”A billboard cruising the streets of D.C. with pictures of imprisoned and murdered journalists? This brainchild of Randy Credico is a powerful in-your-face message to those who decide who lives or dies.”

John Kiriakou—”I don’t usually experience ‘joy’ when walking the streets of Washington D.C.. But joy is what I felt when I saw a truck urging support for Julian Assange. I first saw it on Capitol Hill in front of of the Senate office buildings—then later in Chinatown, outside the Capital Arena where Roger Waters was performing—and then again the next day at Farragut Square, arguably the most heavily trafficked place in all of D.C., I wasn’t the only one who saw it. Thousands of Washingtonians did. And if it made even one go home and research Julian’s case, it was worth it. I can’t wait to see that truck again.”

After that, the dam broke, as the thousands who follow those journalists began reposting and retweeting the billboard photos to their thousands of friends and followers on Facebook and Twitter.

As a result, many who may never have heard of Julian Assange were now, at least, aware of him. And some—or, hopefully, many—might even look him up on their computers and smart phones, and start wondering exactly what kind of justice our Justice Department was really pursuing.

To top it off, Roger Waters, founder of Pink Floyd and longtime Assange supporter, showed up at the August 17 street rally for Assange in front of the Justice Department and delivered a resounding thumbs up to Credico’s billboard campaign.

A picture containing person, outdoor, mammal, people Description automatically generated

Roger Waters gives a thumbs up to Assange mobile billboard campaign in front of the Justice Department on August 17, 2022. [Source: Photo courtesy of Steve Brown]

Waters also plans to deliver an ear-splitting, 100-decibel shoutout for Assange to more than 400,000 cheering fans during his “This Is Not a Drill” concert tour, a radical political rock extravaganza he is taking to more than 20 major U.S. and Canadian cities, including Washington D.C., New York City, Kansas City, Denver, Salt Lake City, Portland, Las Vegas, Dallas, San Francisco and Los Angeles, Montreal and Toronto.

Like those at Waters’ sold-out Washington D.C. concert on August 16 (which this writer attended), his fans around the country will hear songs such as “The Bravery of Being Out of Range,” accompanied by 30-foot-high video-wall images of U.S. presidents, with captions like (under Ronald Reagan), “War criminal—killed 30,000 innocents in Guatemala.” And under Barack Obama, “War criminal—normalized the use of drone strikes.” And finally, under Joe Biden, the caption, “War criminal—just getting started.”

The cascading publicity and media attention now focused on Credico’s mobile billboards have sparked an international fundraising campaign to “BUY A BILLBOARD FOR JULIAN.” Its intent is to keep Credico’s trucks rolling, and keep the pressure on Joe Biden, and on Attorney General Merrick Garland, day after day, until they cease their illegal persecution of Julian Assange.

Co-Founder of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream Pledges: “I’ll Match Each and Every Donation to the Julian Assange Mobile Billboard Campaign”

Ben Cohen, activist co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, intends to make sure that the provocative giant billboards calling for Julian Assange’s freedom continue to roll up and down the streets of Washington DC.

In a recent message to Randy Credico (the radio journalist and political satirist who created the Julian Assange Mobile Billboard Campaign), Cohen pledged to match—not only the donations already given to the campaign—but also to personally match every new donation going forward.

Cohen urges, “If you haven’t given yet, please chip in what you can HERE to help FREE ASSANGE NOW—and I will double it.”

Credico’s brilliant idea for a mobile billboard campaign started small; it was his own one-man “shame-on-you” protest against the Biden Justice Department for its persecution of Julian Assange. But it soon went viral, inspiring donations from all over the world that have helped increase the frequency of the billboards.

They now show up and draw crowds at every iconic site in the nation’s capital—from the Department of Justice to the Washington Monument to the Capitol Building to the White House. Thousands of residents and visitors to the nation’s capital have seen them.

A picture containing text, outdoor, sky, road Description automatically generated

Billboard truck driving past Washington Monument. [Source: Photo courtesy of Randy Credico]

Ben Cohen is waiting to personally match your donation

A picture containing text, person, person, sign Description automatically generated

Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, founders of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream. [Source: tbnweekly.com]

It costs $500 a day to keep a truck and driver patrolling the streets of D.C. with Julian Assange billboards. If you would like to join those who are helping to keep those billboard trucks rolling, you can donate to buy all–or part–of a Julian Assange billboard HERE.

Further, don’t let Ben’s generous offer go to waste. It costs a lot of money to keep trucks and drivers patrolling the streets of DC every day of the week with Julian Assange billboards. You can help keep them rolling by donating HERE. Ben Cohen will be delighted to match your donation.

*

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.

Steve Brown is a member of the Editorial Board of CovertAction Magazine. He can be reached at [email protected].

Featured image: Assange billboard in front of the Capitol Building. [Source: Photo Courtesy of Randy Credico]

The Kharkov Game-Changer

September 15th, 2022 by Pepe Escobar

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Wars are not won by psyops. Ask Nazi Germany. Still, it’s been a howler to watch NATOstan media on Kharkov, gloating in unison about “the hammer blow that knocks out Putin”, “the Russians are in trouble”, and assorted inanities.

Facts: Russian forces withdrew from the territory of Kharkov to the left bank of the Oskol river, where they are now entrenched. A Kharkov-Donetsk-Lugansk line seems to be stable. Krasny Liman is threatened, besieged by superior Ukrainian forces, but not lethally.

No one – not even Maria Zakharova, the contemporary female equivalent of Hermes, the messenger of the Gods – knows what the Russian General Staff (RGS) plans, in this case and all others. If they say they do, they are lying.

As it stands, what may be inferred with a reasonable degree of certainty is that a line – Svyatogorsk-Krasny Liman-Yampol-Belogorovka – can hold out long enough with their current garrisons until fresh Russian forces are able to swoop in and force the Ukrainians back beyond the Seversky Donets line.

All hell broke loose – virtually – on why Kharkov happened. The people’s republics and Russia never had enough men to defend a 1,000 km-long frontline. NATO’s entire intel capabilities noticed – and profited from it.

There were no Russian Armed Forces in those settlements: only Rosgvardia, and these are not trained to fight military forces. Kiev attacked with an advantage of around 5 to 1. The allied forces retreated to avoid encirclement. There are no Russian troop losses because there were no Russian troops in the region.

Arguably this may have been a one-off. The NATO-run Kiev forces simply can’t do a replay anywhere in Donbass, or in Kherson, or in Mariupol. These are all protected by strong, regular Russian Army units.

It’s practically a given that if the Ukrainians remain around Kharkov and Izyum they will be pulverized by massive Russian artillery. Military analyst Konstantin Sivkov maintains that, “most combat-ready formations of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are now being grounded (…) we managed to lure them into the open and are now systematically destroying them.”

The NATO-run Ukrainian forces, crammed with NATO mercenaries, had spent 6 months hoarding equipment and reserving trained assets exactly for this Kharkov moment – while dispatching disposables into a massive meat grinder. It will be very hard to sustain an assembly line of substantial prime assets to pull off something similar again.

The next days will show whether Kharkov and Izyum are connected to a much larger NATO push. The mood in NATO-controlled EU is approaching Desperation Row. There’s a strong possibility this counter-offensive signifies NATO entering the war for good, while displaying quite tenuous plausible deniability: their veil of – fake – secrecy cannot disguise the presence of “advisers” and mercenaries all across the spectrum.

Decommunization as de-energization

The Special Military Operation (SMO), conceptually, is not about conquering territory per se: it is, or it was, so far, about protection of Russophone citizens in occupied territories, thus demilitarization cum denazification.

That concept may be about to be tweaked. And that’s where the tortuous, tricky debate on Russia mobilization fits in. Yet even a partial mobilization may not be necessary: what’s needed are reserves to properly allow allied forces to cover rear/defensive lines. Hardcore fighters of the Kadyrov contingent kind would continue to play offense.

It’s undeniable that Russian troops lost a strategically important node in Izyum. Without it, the complete liberation of Donbass becomes significantly harder.

Yet for the collective West, whose carcass slouches inside a vast simulacra bubble, it’s the pysops that matters much more than a minor military advance: thus all that gloating on Ukraine being able to drive the Russians out of the whole of Kharkov in only four days – while they had 6 months to liberate Donbass, and didn’t.

So, across the West, the reigning perception – frantically fomented by psyops experts – is that the Russian military were hit by that “hammer blow” and will hardly recover.

Kharkov was preciously timed – as General Winter is around the corner; the Ukraine issue was already suffering from public opinion fatigue; and the propaganda machine needed a boost to turbo-lubricate the multi-billion dollar weaponizing rat line.

Yet Kharkov may have forced Moscow’s hand to increase the pain dial. That came via a few well-placed Mr. Kinzhals leaving the Black Sea and the Caspian to present their business cards to the largest thermal power plants in northeast and central Ukraine (most of the energy infrastructure is in the southeast).

Half of Ukraine suddenly lost power and water. Trains came to a halt. If Moscow decides to take out all major Ukraine substations at once, all it takes is a few missiles to totally smash the Ukrainian energy grid – adding a new meaning to “decommunization”: de-energization.

According to an expert analysis, “if transformers of 110-330 kV are damaged, then it will almost never be possible to put it into operation (…) And if this happens at least at 5 substations at the same time, then everything is kaput. Stone age forever.”

Russian government official Marat Bashirov was way more colorful: “Ukraine is being plunged into the 19th century. If there is no energy system, there will be no Ukrainian army. The matter of fact is that General Volt came to the war, followed by General Moroz (“frost”).

And that’s how we might be finally entering “real war” territory – as in Putin’s notorious quip that “we haven’t even started anything yet.”

A definitive response will come from the RSG in the next few days.

Once again, a fiery debate rages on what Russia will do next (the RGS, after all, is inscrutable, except for Yoda Patrushev).

The RGS may opt for a serious strategic strike of the decapitating kind elsewhere – as in changing the subject for the worse (for NATO).

It may opt for sending more troops to protect the front line (without partial mobilization).

And most of all it may enlarge the SMO mandate – going to total destruction of Ukrainian transport/energy infrastructure, from gas fields to thermal power plants, substations, and shutting down nuclear power plants.

Well, it could always be a mix of all of the above: a Russian version of Shock and Awe – generating an unprecedented socio-economic catastrophe. That has already been telegraphed by Moscow: we can revert you to the Stone Age at any time and in a matter of hours (italics mine). Your cities will greet General Winter with zero heating, freezing water, power outages and no connectivity.

A counter-terrorist operation

All eyes are on whether “centers of decision” – as in Kiev – may soon get a Kinzhal visit. This would signify Moscow has had enough. The siloviki certainly did. But we’re not there – yet. Because for an eminently diplomatic Putin the real game revolves around those gas supplies to the EU, that puny plaything of American foreign policy.

Putin is certainly aware that the internal front is under some pressure. He refuses even partial mobilization. A perfect indicator of what may happen in winter is the referenda in liberated territories. The limit date is November 4 – the Day of National Unity, a commemoration introduced in 2004 to replace the celebration of the October revolution.

With the accession of these territories to Russia, any Ukrainian counter-offensive would qualify as an act of war against regions incorporated into the Russian Federation. Everyone knows what that means.

It may now be painfully obvious that when the collective West is waging war – hybrid and kinetic, with everything from massive intel to satellite data and hordes of mercenaries – against you, and you insist on conducting a hazily-defined Special Military Operation (SMO), you may be up for some nasty surprises.

So the SMO status may be about to change: it’s bound to become a counter-terrorist operation.

This is an existential war. A do or die affair. The American geopolitical /geoeconomic goal, to put it bluntly, is to destroy Russian unity, impose regime change and plunder all those immense natural resources. Ukrainians are nothing but cannon fodder: in a sort of twisted History remake, the modern equivalents of the pyramid of skulls Timur cemented into 120 towers when he razed Baghdad in 1401.

If may take a “hammer blow” for the RSG to wake up. Sooner rather than later, gloves – velvet and otherwise – will be off. Exit SMO. Enter War.

*

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.

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 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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

On September 12, US President Joe Biden issued yet another Executive Order illuminating the extent of the depravity that has taken hold of the US Executive Branch. In the face of overwhelming evidence pointing to the misnamed pandemic as the greatest medical scandal in history– even as the biggest crime ever committed against humanity– Joe Biden has labelled the COVID-19 fiasco a great display of Yankee knowhow in applied science.  He declares, 

“The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the vital role of biotechnology and biomanufacturing in developing and producing life-saving diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines that protect Americans and the world.”

Through federal agencies like the HHS, the FDA, the CDC, the NIH and the Pentagon, the US Executive Branch has major legal and moral responsibilities for safeguarding the public from lethal and injurious attributes that might arise from the design, manufacturing, and dissemination of new medical products like the COVID injections. On a monumental scale, the Biden administration has failed to protect its own citizens from the often lethal and crippling attributes of the COVID-19 clot shots. This American failure is having horrendous global ramifications.

The Biden administration simply looked the other way as Pfizer and other companies well known for their criminal records pushed ahead a totally experimental process of genetic modification through mRNA injections.

These injections included lipid nanoparticles that are instrumental in facilitating the bodywide replication of pathogenic spike proteins, including in the brain. The wanton destruction of natural human immunity forms an added feature of the damage purposely being wrought by these biological time bombs injected on the false pretext that they would stop the spread of COVID-19. Among the outcomes are new epidemics of cancer and still-born births. Another ironic outcome is that “COVID-19” continues as a disease mostly hosted and spread by those who have received COVID injections.

The Biden administration’s announcement of its intentions for the “American Bioeconomy” is telling. It can be seen as an indicator that Team Biden has every intention of continuing to stonewall and censor all the news that does not fit the original fairy tale that the COVID injections are “safe and effective.” The current custodians of the White House have no intention, it seems, of initiating much-needed federal investigations and studies to understand what went wrong and who is responsible?

In this case we are talking about something much more significant than a single elephant in the single room. We are looking at whole herds of dying and grievously wounded elephants passing away all over world in the full light of day. Under current circumstances it is increasingly clear that those like Biden, Trudeau and Macron who choose not to see the obvious have made a conscious decision to pretend they are still in the dark.

To continue this lie in the face of the well-documented worldwide information now available on the lethal and injurious effects of the injections, amounts to participation in premeditated murder. Of course much irony arises in applying the charge of murder to the operatives of the White House’s Oval Office, the worldwide headquarters of MURDER INC following the demise of the British and German Empires.

Instead of taking stock of the medical cataclysm still in its early stages, the preferred scenario for those in power is to continue to push the agenda of the power elites forward by avoiding any reckoning with questions like: Who did what to whom? Why? And what is to be done about it?

When it comes to dealing with the most vicious top dogs overseeing the really big crimes against all of humanity, the response always seems to be… . move along ladies and gentlemen…..Nothing to see here…..

The Democratic Party’s leadership is anxious to use this occasion to continue running with the political economy of the GMO effect. According to the White House, the accelerated production of Genetically Modified Organisms is a technological boon with widespread applications to many facets of its national policies. The new Executive Order proclaims, “Although the power of these technologies is most vivid at the moment in the context of human health, biotechnology and biomanufacturing can also be used to achieve our climate and energy goals, improve food security and sustainability, secure our supply chains, and grow the economy across all of America.”

The history of genetically modified seeds, “suicide seeds,” has a terrible record epitomized by the role of Round Up and its core ingredient, the herbicide glyphosate, in stimulating epidemics of cancer in humans as well as assaults on biodiversity. With his controlling interest in Monsanto, Bill Gates was only warming up for his notorious present role in the production of genetically modified human organisms. (GMHO)

There is nothing in the Executive Order promoting the takeoff of an American Bioeconomy that addresses the need to enforce the legal provisions of the Nuremberg Code. This Code outlaws medical experiments on human subjects without the informed consent of those subjects. Is the implication that the US White House is now giving a green light to any and all medical experiments on people who do not agree to be experimented upon? The new rule seems to be that it is not even necessary to tell us we are to be used as guinea pigs for experiments on our own persons.

There is lots of reference in the Executive Order to the need for respecting the principles of “equity” and “diversity” in the implementation of the new policies on biotechnology and biomanufacturing. No serious lip service is given, however, to the need to respect the most basic level of human rights and civil liberties. Rather it is made to seem that by mandating the loss of bodily autonomy, the way has essentially been opened to the engineering of transhumanism for the survivors of the depopulation scheme that has unfolded under the watch of the decrepit Biden regime.

Read the Executive Order 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.

Dr. Anthony Hall is editor in chief of the American Herald Tribune. He is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.

He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Zero Hedge


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Biotechnology Over Human Rights: US President Joe Biden Issues Executive Order Promoting “Biotechnology” and “Biomanufacturing” in “American Bioeconomy”
  • Tags: , ,

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The United States and 11 NATO members have started large-scale military drills in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Dubbed “Dynamic Mariner,” the war games will put several NATO ships in a region with a major Russian military presence, at a time of soaring tensions between Moscow and the West. 

The war games are led by NATO Allied Maritime Command, or MARCOM, and will begin Tuesday and run through September 22. It is unclear how many American soldiers are a part of the 1,500 NATO sailors taking part. At least the USS Forrest Sherman is participating.

Dynamic Mariner includes 50 surface ships, five submarines, five patrol planes and helicopters from the United States, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain and Turkey.

MARCOM Deputy Commander French Navy Vice Admiral Didier Piaton said this year’s war games are the largest in the Dynamic Mariner series. “This year’s event includes more assets than ever before, facilitating increased interoperability between our nations and enhancing operational readiness,” he said.

According to a press release from the US Navy, Dynamic Mariner will engage in cross-exercises with Turkish forces to conduct “surface, air, anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-surface warfare (ASuW), mine countermeasures, amphibious, hybrid, and force protection operations.”

The war games put dozens of NATO vessels in a region with a heavy Russian naval presence. Tensions between Brussels and Moscow are soaring as the West attempts to weaken Russia in Ukraine. The alliance’s provocative war games last year played a significant role in the escalation spiral which ultimately led to Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. Some of the largest war drills seen since the previous Cold War era were held for months throughout eastern Europe, including on Russia’s doorstep. Most critically, Kiev became a de facto NATO state and hosted major alliance exercises. Washington was deliberately crossing Moscow’s “brightest of all redlines.”

In the midst of the Ukraine war, NATO continues to hold major exercises, some even with Kiev’s participation, in member states like Estonia on Russia’s borders, simulating war with Moscow.

*

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.

Kyle Anzalone is news editor at the Libertarian Institute, assistant editor at Antiwar.com and co-host of Conflicts of Interest.

Connor Freeman is a writer and assistant editor at the Libertarian Institute, and co-hosts Conflicts of Interest.

Featured image: NATO exercise Dynamic Mariner begins in the Mediterranean. Image by NATO/Twitter

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Medical specialty boards are destroying their own credibility by threatening to decertify some of their most experienced and widely published diplomates, according to an open letter published in the fall issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Coauthors Eleftherios Gkioulekas, Ph.D., Marc Rendell, M.D., Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., and Raphael Stricker, M.D., summarize a letter with 1,200 signatories.

These physicians, whom the boards accuse of spreading “misinformation,” are pioneers in the development of life-saving treatment protocols for COVID-19, and more recently for COVID-19 vaccine injuries, the letter states.

“It is an unacceptable fallacy, based on circular reasoning, to use the opinions of public health agencies to define what is or is not ‘medical misinformation,’ and then to use that fallacy to investigate the board certifications of the very researchers who are conducting the research that these public health agencies depend on to justify their recommendations.”

The letter notes that “there are not yet ‘well-established medical facts.’ Officially proclaimed viewpoints are constantly changing.” Mask guidance changes recurrently. The CDC has admitted that current COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent transmission, and that their benefit is transient.

According to article 37 of the 2013 Helsinki Declaration, physicians may use unproven therapies when proven therapies do not exist or have been ineffective. Physicians have been able to discover and use safe and effective treatment protocols against COVID-19, based on repurposed drugs, and have saved countless lives by doing so, the letter states. It also cites the substantial scientific evidence that now supports these protocols.

Targeted physicians have also been reporting the growing evidence of serious vaccine adverse effects, the letter states, while medical societies have failed to speak up for the long-held standard for informed consent, which requires full disclosure of the most current and accurate data regarding all potential risks, benefits, and alternatives to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

The letter concludes that “it is not for the FSMB [Federation of State Medical Boards] or specialty boards to enforce consensus orthodoxies…. Open debate and discussion is the proper approach.”

Read the letter 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.

Featured image is from Alliance for Natural Health


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Covid Crisis: More Than 1,000 Scientists and Physicians Protest Specialty Boards’ Actions Against Dissenting Physicians
  • Tags: ,

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Read Part I, III and III:

Analysis of the Early Fighting in the First World War, 108 Years Ago

By Shane Quinn, August 08, 2022

Unspoken History: Early Fighting in World War I. France’s “Continental War Plan” Titled Plan XVII

By Shane Quinn, August 18, 2022

Analysis of the Early Fighting in the First World War, 108 Years Ago

By Shane Quinn, September 05, 2022


At the latter end of August 1914, in the face of German Army victories and advances, the Franco-British forces were in retreat all along the front west of Verdun, a city located 140 miles east of Paris. 

On 20 August 1914, the German 1st Army (Alexander von Kluck) had captured the undefended Belgian capital city, Brussels. Belgium’s position was extremely difficult and most of the Belgian Army, in spite of displaying staunch resistance against the Germans, was compelled to retire to Antwerp in northern Belgium. By 24 August, with the French and British having suffered reverses at Dinant and Mons in southern Belgium, the Western allies were withdrawing southward from Belgian soil towards the vital Paris region.

The German war strategy called the Schlieffen Plan looked at this stage to be running smoothly. One key reason, for the rapid German progress in August 1914 and Western allied losses, was due to the gross French military errors and miscalculations; such as the French having launched ill-advised attacks, from 7 August, into their former provinces of Alsace and Lorraine close to the border of Switzerland, and also in the Ardennes forest area. All of this conformed perfectly to what was laid out in Germany’s Schlieffen Plan.

The Battle of the Ardennes alone, between 21–23 August, resulted in 42,557 casualties for the French 3rd Army (Pierre Ruffey) and French 4th Army (Langle de Cary), in opposition to the German 4th Army (Albrecht Duke of Württemberg) and German 5th Army (Crown Prince Wilhelm). The fighting in the Ardennes saw 27,000 French soldiers killed in the course of a few hours on 22 August. This black day of the French Army had damaged its morale. Further losses, and continued poor French leadership, would lead to the remarkable mass mutinies of 1917, which permanently weakened the French Armed Forces as was starkly revealed in 1940.

In August 1914, French military intelligence had succeeded in underestimating German manpower strength in the West by hundreds of thousands of men. The French Army high command also felt its soldiers alone could defeat the German Army, but there was no logic to back up such a belief. The French were soundly beaten in the 6 months which comprised the Franco-Prussian War, ending in January 1871. In the more than 4 decades since, the gap between the Germans and French had widened, as Germany’s industrial strength and growing population left France trailing behind. The French military leader Charles de Gaulle said, “Our decline dates back to the war between Napoleon and the Russians [in 1812]”.

With the aid of England and Russia in 1914, the French at least had a fighting chance against Germany. This was looking less likely as August 1914 was reaching its end. The French offensives in Alsace-Lorraine and the Ardennes had been a fiasco. The French commander-in-chief, Joseph Joffre, who was responsible for these defeats, failed previously to discern that the main weight of Germany’s advance would fall elsewhere; as the German right wing was marching to the west of the Meuse river, through Belgium and into northern France. General Joffre realized this was definitely the case around 26 August, too late, when he cancelled the Ardennes offensive on that date.

The same day, 26 August, the British Expeditionary Force (John French), which had to withdraw from southern Belgium, fought a delaying action in the far north of France at Le Cateau. On 29 August, the French 5th Army (Charles Lanrezac) tried to stop the Germans at Guise, 100 miles north of Paris. Both of these Anglo-French efforts failed, though they did temporarily halt the march of the German right wing. At Guise, the German 2nd Army (Karl von Bülow) was stalled for 36 hours through to 30 August, while it had to wait in any case for the German 1st Army and German 3rd Army (Max Klemens von Hausen) to come up. Each hour of delay in the West meant that the Russian Army was advancing closer in the East.

On 31 August 1914, the Raymond Poincaré government fled Paris in some panic and moved to Bordeaux, taking with them the gold reserves from the central bank. At this point it must have appeared probable, to many observers, that the Germans were well on their way to knocking the Western allies out of the war. However, the French 2nd Army (Edouard de Castelnau) still controlled the Grand Couronné heights above Nancy, Lorraine’s largest city. The French 2nd Army was able, furthermore, to send troops to the west towards the Paris area while the French 3rd Army, under its new commander Maurice Sarrail who replaced Ruffey, continued holding on to Verdun.

Under the Schlieffen Plan, as envisaged by its renowned creator Alfred Graf von Schlieffen, his successor as German commander-in-chief, Helmuth von Moltke, should have been allowing the French 2nd and 3rd armies to advance further into the trap; thereby committing themselves to an area which contained little strategic importance close to Switzerland, and was held by the weaker German left wing; which was holding a line between the city of Metz over 100 miles south to the Swiss border. The decisive fighting meanwhile was taking place further west, where the German right wing was sweeping down on the Paris region.

That General von Moltke had not allowed the German left wing to fall back, and entice deeper into the net the French 2nd and 3rd armies, reveals that he failed to grasp the strategic concept set forth by Field Marshal von Schlieffen, concerning the German left wing. Now von Moltke was to show that he also misunderstood the strategic concept regarding the German right wing. Von Schlieffen had outlined that the right wing – which consisted of the majority of German Army divisions – would pass through Belgium, the southern Netherlands and northern France, cross the Seine river just above Rouen in the Normandy region, sweep around Paris to the west and south, and smash the French Army against the Swiss frontier like a sledgehammer striking an anvil.

Leading the right wing was the German 1st Army, which was designated to advance 40 miles west of Paris; and then, in a vast enveloping maneuver, to wheel back inward in an eastwardly direction, only when the German 1st Army had progressed well to the south of Paris. On 31 August, the very day the French government fled Paris, a definite departure from the Schlieffen Plan occurred when von Moltke granted the 1st Army commander, Alexander von Kluck, permission to shorten his march and wheel inward directly to the north of Paris, in the hope of finding the French flank and driving it east from Paris; rather than, again, performing such a move after having advanced to the west and south of the French capital, as von Schlieffen had envisaged.

Von Moltke decided to abandon the very essence of the Schlieffen Plan, the giant outflanking maneuver, in favor of a frontal assault on Paris, which had less chance of succeeding. As a consequence von Moltke ordered that they drive forward in the center, while the German 1st Army, which was to have been the hammerhead of the assault, was relegated to the role of flank guard.

What was worse than even this, was that for every mile the German 1st Army advanced prematurely southeastward the risk grew that it, which had intended to be the outflanker, would itself be outflanked by the French troops amassing around Paris. While Napoleon would have been turning over in his grave at the French military shortcomings in this war, von Schlieffen, who died early in 1913, would surely have been doing the same concerning the errors of his successor. Von Moltke had already weakened the German right wing, by sending 2 corps to surround Antwerp where the Belgian Army sought refuge. Then on 26 August, he dispatched a further 2 German corps to East Prussia to help guard against the Russian Army’s approach.

On 3 September, the Franco-British command finally became aware of the change in direction of the German 1st Army. The Allies knew it was marching diagonally across the face of Paris, with its flank exposed to a potential counterattack from the capital. This was not clear to the civilian population of Paris most of whom, by late August and early September, were afflicted by a mixture of unease and panic. There was a fear that the German Army was going to roll into the center of Paris, and that the war would be as good as over. If Paris was taken, the Germans would still have to destroy the remaining Franco-British forces in the field, and then march east to fight the Russian divisions.

At the beginning of September 1914 some protesters in Paris, disillusioned with how the war was going, demanded that the capital be declared an “open city”, in order to spare the famous metropolis and its treasures from German assaults. In the war’s opening weeks, according to historical analyst Christopher Klein, “Sporadic air raids hit the city [Paris] at night, resulting in damage more psychological than physical, but on September 2 a German biplane carpet-bombed the city with propaganda leaflets that read, ‘There is nothing you can do but surrender’.”

Tens of thousands of Parisians were cramming into train stations, a last-ditch attempt to flee the city before the Germans arrived. Staff at the Louvre art museum in Paris shifted its masterpiece paintings to Toulouse, in the south of France. The military governor of Paris, General Joseph-Simon Gallieni, forecast that the Germans would enter the capital by 5 September 1914, if nothing was done to stop them. At the end of August, the German right wing was within 100 miles of Paris. As the Allies quickly retreated across the front, the Germans in following days moved closer and closer to Paris.

By 3 September, the Germans were about 20 miles from Paris as the crow flies, having reached the commune of Meaux to the northeast of the French capital, after they successfully forced a crossing of the Marne river. The American scholar of history Vejas G. Liulevicius wrote, “It is said that German advance troops could see the Eiffel Tower in the distance”.

If so it was a deceptive vision. In early September, the reality is that the German armies were in a state of some confusion, and the threat to Paris was in fact passing. This had not been altogether surprising, when considering that General von Moltke made critical strategic alterations to the Schlieffen Plan in the heat of battle, which disrupted the flow of the German progress. In addition, the long marches were placing strain on Germany’s supply systems.

The fatal flaw in Field Marshal von Schlieffen’s war strategy, was that the Germans did not have the required number of troops in the West with which to eliminate the Western allies within the allotted 6 weeks, while keeping a watchful eye on the Russian Army in the East. This manpower shortage was merely overcome partly, by the German use of reserve units at the outset of the campaign.

“Western Front 1914; Schlieffen Plan of 1905. (Photo by Tinodela, licensed under the public domain)

The French implemented steps to restore the situation when, at 10 pm on 4 September, commander-in-chief Joffre issued orders for a general counterattack to be launched on 6 September; in the hope that the German 1st Army, and part of the German 2nd Army, would be crushed between converging assaults. Joffre’s decision to counterattack may have come after relenting to the pressure applied on him by General Gallieni, the commandant of Paris. Gallieni had warned Joffre that the Germans would advance in force west of the Meuse river, through Belgium and northern France, but his advice was ignored.

That September of 1914, the French plan of counterattack looked promising on the maps at headquarters. As it was, the Allied counterattack proceeded in slow motion. Most of 5 September was taken up getting the Franco-British armies into their starting positions. The Germans by now were aware of the coming Allied counterstroke, and they abandoned the attempt to take Paris. This was a difficult, but correct decision, which allowed Germany to regroup and save its armies.

On 6 September, the day that the First Battle of the Marne officially began, 3 corps from the German 1st Army recrossed the Marne river, in order to remove the possibility of encirclement and destruction. Due to the Franco-British sluggishness, the Germans got across the Marne completely unmolested. That they had to do so, shows how badly the German war strategy had gone awry. Von Moltke was rapidly losing control of his armies. By 6 September, a considerable gap was emerging between the German 1st and 2nd armies. The puncture in the German frontline was covered only by some cavalry, and other light infantry units called Jäger battalions. On 7 September, the British Army (the British Expeditionary Force now consisted of 3 corps) and the French 5th Army advanced northward to engage the German troops.

Military historian Lt. Col. Donald J. Goodspeed wrote that the Anglo-French troops again “moved with exasperating slowness and caution, though there was almost nothing in front of them. By last light, the British had pressed ahead only to within 4 or 5 miles of the Marne; Franchet d’Esperey’s 5th Army [Lanrezac was replaced] had not advanced quite so far. For a brief time, there had been a chance to cut off and destroy the German 1st Army, but between September 7 and 9 this chance disappeared. The British had advanced only about 8 miles a day and the French 5th Army rather less”.

It can be mentioned that the German 1st Army had advanced on average 12 miles per day, during a 15 day period in August 1914, covering 180 miles of ground; compared to the 8 miles a day covered by the British and less by the French 5th Army. Now as the Germans retreated over the Marne river, General von Moltke sat disconsolately in his headquarters, having suffered a nervous breakdown. He realized quite clearly that his strategic blunders may well have cost Germany the war. Von Moltke’s inadequacies undoubtedly contributed quite a lot to the Schlieffen Plan’s failure. Goodspeed noted, “The Germans would lose the war on the Marne, but they were to be spared a tactical defeat. In this they were unfortunate, for a quick victory by either side in 1914 would probably have been preferable to the long drawn-out agony that was actually in store”.

Kaiser Wilhelm II bears ultimate responsibility for the breakdown of the Schlieffen Plan. It was he who insisted, in 1905, that he wanted the reluctant von Moltke to assume the commander-in-chief position. Von Moltke had said at the time, “I lack the capacity for risking all on a single throw, that capacity which made the greatness of such born commanders as Napoleon, or our own Frederick II, or my uncle [Helmuth von Moltke the Elder]”.

In 1911, General von Moltke had let slip his lack of belief in the Schlieffen Plan. That year he wrote, “It will be very important to have in Holland a country whose neutrality allows us to have imports and supplies. She must be the windpipe that enables us to breathe”. Note the words “imports and supplies” which are necessary in an extended conflict only, nor does a country need a “windpipe that enables us to breathe” in a short war. Supporting his above comments von Moltke chose not to assail Dutch territory in 1914, because he did not wish to offend the neutral Netherlands. Von Schlieffen, on the other hand, had wanted a brief war which he knew Germany could win, not a long war which he knew they could not. On that basis, von Schlieffen designated a German invasion of the Netherlands in the event of war erupting.

Had the Schlieffen Plan succeeded in 1914, or were the Germans to be defeated that year, it is unlikely demagogues would have emerged to the extent they later did – such as in Italy with Benito Mussolini and in Germany with Adolf Hitler. Instead, 4 years of continental war created the sorts of hardships and instability in societies, which made possible fascist autocrats gaining power. Moreover, had the First World War been decided in a few months, though this is less certain, there might have been no Second World War, at least no second global conflict in which figures like Hitler and Mussolini would feature.

In the meantime, by 9 September 1914 the German right wing remained in a precarious position close to Paris, while the German left wing was at a standstill in northeastern France. With the situation beside the Marne especially hazardous, von Moltke dispatched his chief of intelligence, Lieutenant-Colonel Richard Hentsch, to visit the various German army headquarters by staff car, with the authority to order a retirement if necessary. At the headquarters of the German 3th, 4th and 5th armies Hentsch found everything in order; but with the German 2nd Army Hentsch perceived that its commander, Karl von Bülow, was badly on edge. It was agreed between Hentsch and von Bülow, if the British and French crossed the Marne river in force, that the German 2nd Army should retire to the north.

By 7:30 am on 9 September, the British managed to get portions of its I Corps and II Corps across the Marne river; but for some strange reason, they then halted at 11 am and did not resume their advance until late afternoon. The progress of the French 5th Army was almost non-existent. Regardless, because of the untenable German position beside the Marne, when Lieutenant-Colonel Hentsch arrived at German 1st Army headquarters, he ordered it to withdraw in agreement with its commander General von Kluck.

At dusk on 9 September the German 1st and 2nd armies, and the western half of the German 3rd Army, were falling back towards the Vesle and Aisne rivers, located approximately 80 and 90 miles respectively northeast of Paris. By now, the British were a mere 6 or 7 miles north of the Marne while, incredibly, the French had still not crossed the river.

Despite this, the remainder of the German 3rd Army had to conform to the retreat of the other German forces over the Marne. On 11 September, von Moltke ordered the German 4th and 5th armies to also retire. Goodspeed wrote, “The Marne was far from being a tactical victory for the Allies. Yet the Marne was the great battle of the war, the decisive turning point. The Germans were never again to be so near to victory, as they had been in those August and September days, not even in March and April of 1918. The great German plan had failed, and now Germany was faced with exactly that two-front war of attrition that her military leaders had always recognized she could not win”.

On 12 September, the day in which the Marne battle concluded, the German 1st and 2nd armies were back across the Aisne river dozens of miles from the French capital. Rather than defend the vulnerable Aisne river line, the German 1st and 2nd armies chose commanding defensive positions on the higher ground, about 2 miles north of the Aisne.

The German front in the West was established the following day, 13 September, and would remain so for the next 4 years. When Franco-British attacks on 13 and 14 September failed to break through the German lines, both sides began to entrench. On 14 September von Moltke was relieved of his role as commander-in-chief, to be replaced by Erich von Falkenhayn. Amazingly enough Joffre, whose errors were just as glaring or perhaps worse than von Moltke’s, would remain at the head of the French Army until mid-December 1916.

*

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.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs and history , having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Sources

Christopher Klein, “The First Battle of the Marne”, History.com, Original publication 5 September 2014, Updated 31 August 2018

Vejas G. Liulevicius, “Military Tactics of WWI: The Failure of the Schlieffen Plan”, Wondriumdaily.com, 1 December 2017

Pierre de Gaulle, “Ukraine, Trapped In A Spiral Of War”, Geopolitica, 5 July 2022

Encyclopaedia Britannica, “First Battle of the Marne World War I [1914]”, Britannica.com, 30 August 2022

Holger H. Herwig, The Marne, 1914: The Opening of World War I and the Battle That Changed the World (Random House Inc., 1 Dec. 2009)

Michael Duffy, “The Battle of Le Cateau, 1914”, FirstWorldWar.com, 22 August 2009

Parameters: Journal of the US Army War College, Volume 29, Issue 3

Donald J. Goodspeed, The German Wars (Random House Value Publishing, 2nd edition, 3 April 1985)

Kennedy Hickman, “World War I: Battle of Charleroi”, Thoughtco.com, 7 December 2017

Featured image: Francs-tireurs in the Vosges during the Franco-Prussian War. (Licensed under the public domain)


History of the World War II

Operation Barbarossa, the Allied Firebombing of German Cities and Japan’s Early Conquests

By Shane Quinn

The first two chapters focus on German preparations as they geared up to launch their 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, called Operation Barbarossa, which began eight decades ago. It was named after King Frederick Barbarossa, a Prussian emperor who in the 12th century had waged war against the Slavic peoples. Analysed also in the opening two chapters are the Soviet Union’s preparations for a conflict with Nazi Germany.

The remaining chapters focus for the large part on the fighting itself, as the Nazis and their Axis allies, the Romanians and Finns at first, swarmed across Soviet frontiers in the early hours of 22 June 1941. The German-led invasion of the USSR was the largest military offensive in history, consisting of almost four million invading troops. Its outcome would decide whether the post-World War II landscape comprised of an American-German dominated globe, or an American-Soviet dominated globe. The Nazi-Soviet war was, as a consequence, a crucial event in modern history and its result was felt for decades afterward and, indeed, to the present day.

Read the e-reader here.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Analysis of the Early Fighting in the First World War, 108 Years Ago
  • Tags:

Why the War in Ukraine Must be Stopped

September 15th, 2022 by Zoltan Zigedy

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Beyond ideas of Russian aggression and Nato encroachment lie the deeper causes of this war: competition for energy markets and resources between the East and West. This is not worth a single human life, writes ZOLTAN ZIGEDY

“WAR — what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!” Today, over 50 years after Edwin Starr’s Vietnam-era song reached number one on the Billboard chart, people are searching desperately to figure out what the six-month war in Ukraine is good for.

Of course, it depends on who you ask. For the weapons manufacturers in the US, Nato and Russia, the Ukraine war is a delightful gift. Weapons are pouring into Ukraine and quickly expended.

The arms makers enjoy what they must consider a rare opportunity to showcase new and inventive systems in actual combat, before the eyes of customers and against competitive adversaries. The Ukraine war — thanks to near-hysterical media alarmism — finds new customers throughout eastern Europe and beyond.

For bourgeois politicians, the war provides a great distraction from their failings and their corruption. The economic crises raging through Europe are obscured by the flames of war. Thanks to a compliant media, Europe’s leaders are transformed from inept bureaucrats into martial giants defending democracy, self-determination and national sovereignty.

For the narrow, reactionary nationalists, the Ukraine war is an inspiration. The tribal glory, heroism and sacrifice of war are the lyrics of nationalism. The decades of fragile European unity organised around partnership in US- led globalism was already stretched to the limits by the disastrous economic crisis of 2007-09.

The economic impact, the political contradictions, the mass displacements are fodder for the growth of right-wing populism and beyond. Further, the existing and emerging tensions between the culturally distinct, unevenly developed nations of Europe are highlighted by the war.

The irredentist impulses suppressed by socialism in eastern Europe are now inflamed by the Ukraine war. Multi-ethnic countries with ever-shifting borders use the war to rewrite their history and restore their myths. The destruction of the monuments to Red Army liberation in the Baltics is just one example of war-generated hysteria.

The energy corporations in both the US and Russia have benefited from the war. The US pressed the war on Ukraine and Europe to free them from their predominant dependence on Russian energy sources and to shift them to the vast fracking-liberated gas and oil supplies held by the US.

As I argued nearly six years ago and many times since, energy has been and remains at the centre of big power rivalry. In New Developments in Political Economy: the Politics of Oil, the then-intensifying US hostility towards Russia was explained by two factors. Firstly, Russian nationalisation of some of its energy industry freezing out US investors and secondly, the revolutionary opening of vast US energy resources through fracking.

In January of 2017 I wrote: “During the later years of the Obama administration, officials and a compliant press ginned up a new cold war against Russia. Sanctions, sabre-rattling and hysteria brought tensions far beyond the actual points of contention.

“An energy-hungry, resource-poor EU has grown dependent upon Russian energy supplies, particularly natural gas. As the US is fast achieving energy independence and beginning the export of liquefied natural gas, the battle for the European market is intensifying and driving hostility with Russia.”

With the invasion of Ukraine, the US found the cause celebre to wrest the enormous European energy market from the Russians.

Behind the provocations, the contests between Russian-friendly and EU-friendly presidential candidates, the EU and Russian Federation courtships, the 2014 coup, the suppression of the eastern Ukraine and the Crimean referendum lies energy imperialism.

After six months, the US is winning the “battle for the European market,” but at great costs to Europe.

US energy corporations are making profits, while the supplicating EU struggles desperately to shift to alternative energy sources and scrambles to build infrastructure to receive more expensive liquefied natural gas and find cheaper oil. Nothing short of an unnecessary war would produce this costly, unpopular result.

While US corporations enrich themselves from energy politics, the beginnings of a popular European blowback are now apparent. In Prague, for example, mass demonstrations are threatening the government over the war “sacrifices” imposed on the people, as energy prices skyrocket.

The beneficiary of this popular rising will likely be the populist right, unless the lame European left can extricate itself from decades of retreat from class partisanship and rank opportunism.

Ironically, the Russian energy sector has actually benefited from the disruption of traditional markets. Russia’s energy corporations have enjoyed incredibly high oil and natural gas prices, thanks to the chaos in the wake of the war.

But they have also found new customers to replace the business lost in Europe — growth in South Asia, Latin America and other regions has kept Russian oil shipments nearly at the level they were in 2019.

Of course, the price commanded by a barrel of oil is much higher today. As a consequence, Russia is earning $20 billion a month in oil sales now, compared to $14.6bn last year. The US-imposed sanctions war has failed miserably.

But aside from the corporations, the politicians and the ultranationalists, the war is good for no-one.

Ukrainians who might have believed that they were fighting for Western “values” of democracy and economic prosperity have seen their country — the poorest in Europe — become even more deeply mired in poverty.

They have seen the Zelensky regime outlaw opposition political parties, strip labour protections and criminalise speech and opinion.

Both Russia and Ukraine have acted forcefully against anti-war sentiment. In nearly all imperialist wars, the belligerents’ media serves as faithful lap dogs, recording every “official” announcement of victories and extolling the prowess of their respective fighters. Therefore, media reports must be taken with a grain of salt. In time, victories will become defeats and vice versa.

In this war, the US media has taken sides, marshalling an unparalleled propaganda blitz behind “heroic” Ukraine. The European news media does little better.

Consequently, truth in the advanced capitalist countries grows ever-more elusive. The war has done further damage to the already discredited monopoly media.

But the raw, direct human losses from the destructive power engaged by modern warfare are profoundly tragic. While we have no definitive reports, tens of thousands of military personnel surely have died, even more thousands have been wounded, maimed and mentally scarred.

Modern war exacts a nearly equal toll on civilians, regardless of the disclaimers of military apologists. We hear of millions of civilians uprooted from their homes.

Since the Ukraine war is an imperialist war fought over the energy supplies for one-sixth of global economic activity, it has huge consequences for the global economy.

Economic growth, jobs, transportation, utilities, every aspect of life dependent on energy in the EU is jeopardised by the war. The coming winter promises extreme stress on the European population denied access to essential energy supplies.

A global economy already reeling from galloping inflation and stagnant growth undoubtedly will be rocked by the US ruling class’s determination to reset the energy markets.

The war in Ukraine is the logical outcome of the unwinding of globalisation, a process that began with the 2007-09 world economic crisis.

As the post-Soviet global infrastructure collapsed, economic nationalism rose in the advanced capitalist countries. Competition intensified and rivalries became more virulent. Inevitably, economic competition leads to confrontation and confrontation leads to war.

The circumstances of war become less important and the deadly outcomes and possible escalations take centre stage. Today, the likelihood of a long, bloody war and its potential expansion beyond borders demand action.

As this tragedy unfolds, the only answer — the working-class answer — is to pull all stops to end it. We desperately need a militant movement to stop this war.

*

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 Libertarian Institute

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The statement comes in response to TRT World’s exclusive report revealing that an international board has been set up by the US to disburse a portion of frozen funds through a Swiss bank.

Afghanistan’s Taliban government has dismissed the Biden administration’s planned transfer of frozen Afghan assets to a Switzerland-based bank, asking the US to send the seized money directly to the Afghan central bank.

In response to a TRT World’s exclusive report published on Saturday, which disclosed the United States’s plans to release $3.5 billion to Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Taliban on Tuesday voiced their objections.

“We don’t agree with the transfer of money to the account indicated, but [we wish for it] to be transferred to Da Afghanistan Bank (DAB),” a Taliban official with the country’s central bank told TRT World.

The spokesperson, however, added that they are open to a third-party monitoring system as demanded by the US government.

For the US and its Western allies — which have so far refused to recognise the Taliban government — the major obstacle has been to find a way to spend the funds, excluding the Taliban.

Around $9 billion of Afghanistan’s central bank foreign currency assets held by US and other foreign banks were frozen after the Taliban took over Kabul on August 15, 2021, and drove out the US-backed government of President Ashraf Ghani.

The US State Department has neither confirmed nor denied TRT World’sreport.

As per TRT World‘s sources, an international board of experts has also been set up by the United States to disburse the money, the announcement of which is expected in the coming days.

The source said that DAB could receive some funds for end use, “but the US would want a strict compliance with anti-money laundering and terrorist financing protocols in addition to a third-party supervision of the funds.”

Last month, the US ruled out recapitalising Afghanistan’s central bank, Da Afghanistan Bank (DAB), as “a near-term option” after the late al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri was killed, claiming that the Taliban had raised concerns by harbouring him — in violation of the 2020 US troop withdrawal agreement.

The US has been in discussions with Switzerland about an establishment trust, which would serve as an account into which the funds could be disbursed.

Negotiations to release the funds, which are essential in mitigating what the UN is calling an “immensely bleak” future for Afghans, have centred around the $3.5 billion US President Joe Biden has set aside for Afghanistan.

The remaining $3.5 billion of the money seized from Afghanistan and withheld by the US Federal Reserve (FED) has been earmarked to be distributed as compensation to the victims of the September 11 attacks, which led to the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

A court decision on that is set to take place in October.

The US government has faced criticism for holding back Afghan funds at a time when ordinary Afghans are reeling under widespread hunger and poverty.

Many have slammed the US for politicising the funds and punishing the Taliban when Al Qaeda was actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

*

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.

Shereena Qazi is a Senior Producer at TRT World.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Outraged western leaders are threatening a price cap on imports of Russian natural gas after Moscow cut supplies to Europe this month, deepening an already dire energy and cost-of-living crisis. In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that Europe will “freeze” this winter unless there is a change of tack.

In this back-and-forth, the West keeps stepping up the rhetoric. Putin is accused of using a mix of blackmail and economic terror against Europe. His actions supposedly prove once more that he is a monster who cannot be negotiated with, and a threat to world peace.

Denying fuel to Europe as winter approaches, in a bid to weaken the resolve of European states to support Kyiv and alienate European publics from their leaders, is Putin’s opening gambit in a plot to expand his territorial ambitions from Ukraine to the rest of Europe.

Or so runs the all-too-familiar narrative shared by western politicians and media.

In fact, Europe’s arrogant, self-righteous posturing over Russian gas supplies, divorced from any discernible geopolitical reality, reflects precisely the same foolhardy mindset that helped provoke Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in the first place.

It is also the reason why there has been no exit ramp – a path to negotiations – even as Russia has taken vast swaths of Ukraine’s eastern and southern flanks – territory that cannot be reclaimed without a further massive loss of life on both sides, as the limited Ukrainian assault around Kharkiv has highlighted.

The western media has to carry a major share of the blame for these serial failures of diplomacy. Journalists have amplified only too loudly and uncritically what US and European leaders want their publics to believe is going on. But maybe it is time that Europeans heard a little of how things might look to Russian eyes.

Economic war

The media could start by dropping their indignation at “insolent” Moscow for refusing to supply Europe with gas. After all, Moscow has been only too clear about the reason for the shutdown of gas supplies: it is in retaliation for the West imposing economic sanctions – a form of collective punishment on the wider Russian population that risks violating the laws of war.

The West is well practised in waging economic war on weak states, usually in a futile attempt to topple leaders they don’t like or as a softening-up exercise before it sends in troops or proxies.

Iran has faced decades of sanctions that have inflicted a devastating toll on its economy and population but done nothing to bring down the government.

Meanwhile, Washington is waging what amounts to its own form of economic terrorism on the Afghan people to punish the ruling Taliban for driving out US occupation forces last year in a humiliating fashion. The United Nations reported last month that sanctions had contributed to the risk of more than a million Afghan children dying from starvation.

There is nothing virtuous about the current economic sanctions on Russia either, any more than there is about the blackballing of Russian sportspeople and cultural icons. The sanctions are not intended to push Putin to the negotiating table. As US President Biden made clear in March, the West is planning for a long war and he wants to see Putin removed from power.

Rather, the goal has been to weaken his authority and – in some fantasy scenario – encourage his subordinates to turn on him. The West’s game plan – if it can be dignified with that term – is to force Putin to over-extend Russian forces in Ukraine by flooding the battlefield with armaments, and then watch his government collapse under the weight of popular discontent at home.

But in practice, the reverse has been happening, just as it did through the 1990s when the West imposed sanctions on Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. Putin’s position has been bolstered, as it will continue to be whether Russia is triumphing or losing on the battlefield.

The West’s economic sanctions against Russia have been doubly foolish. They have reinforced Putin’s message that the West seeks to destroy Russia, just as it previously did Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Yemen. A strongman is all that stands between an independent Russia and servitude, Putin can plausibly argue.

And at the same time, the sanctions have demonstrated to Russians how truly artful their leader is. Economic pressure from the West has largely backfired: sanctions have barely made an impression on the value of the rouble, while Europe looks to be heading into recession as Putin turns off the gas spigot.

It will doubtless not only be Russians quietly rejoicing at seeing the West get a dose of the medicine it so regularly force-feeds others.

Western conceit

But there is a more troubling dimension to the West’s conceit. It was the same high-handed belief that the West would face no consequences for waging economic warfare on Russia, just as earlier assumed it would be pain-free for Nato to station missiles on Moscow’s doorstep. (Presumably, the effect on Ukrainians was not factored into the calculations.)

The decision to recruit ever-more east European states into the Nato fold over the past two decades not only broke promises made to Soviet and Russian leaders, but flew in the face of advice from the West’s most expert policy-makers.

Guided by the US, Nato countries closed the military noose around Russia year by year, all the while claiming that the noose was entirely defensive.

Nato flirted openly with Ukraine, suggesting that it too might be admitted to their anti-Russia alliance.

The US had a hand in the 2014 protests that overthrew Ukraine’s government, one elected to keep channels open with Moscow.

With a new government installed, the Ukrainian army incorporated ultra-nationalist, anti-Russia militias that engaged in a devastating civil war with Russian communities in the country’s east.

And all the while, Nato secretly cooperated with and trained that same Ukrainian army.

At no point in the eight long years of Ukraine’s civil war did Europe or the US care to imagine how all these events unfolding in Russia’s backyard might look to ordinary Russians. Might they not fear the West just as much as western publics have been encouraged by their media to fear Moscow? Putin did not need to invent their concern. The West achieved that all by itself.

The encirclement of Russia by Nato was not a one-off error. Western meddling in the coup and support for a nationalist Ukrainian army increasingly hostile to Russia were not one-offs either. Nato’s decision to flood Ukraine with weapons rather than concentrate on diplomacy is no aberration. Nor is the decision to impose economic sanctions on ordinary Russians.

These are all of a piece, a pattern of pathological behaviour by the West towards Russia – and any other resource-rich state that does not utterly submit to western control. If the West were an individual, the patient would be diagnosed as suffering from a severe personality disorder, one with a strong impulse for self-destruction.

Bogeyman needed

Worse still, this impulse does not appear to be open to correction – not as things stand. The truth is that Nato and its US ringmaster have no interest in changing.

Their purpose is to have a credible bogeyman, one that justifies continuing the massive wealth redistribution from ordinary citizens to an elite of the already ultra-rich. A supposed threat to Europe’s safety justifies pouring money into the maw of an expanding war machine masquerading as the “defence industries” – the military, the arms manufacturers, and the ever-growing complex of the surveillance, intelligence and security industries. Both Nato and a US network of more than 800 military bases around the globe just keep growing.

A bogeyman also ensures western publics are unified in their fear and hatred of an external enemy, making them readier to defer to their leaders to protect them – and with it, the institutions of power those leaders uphold and the status quo they represent.

Anyone suggesting meaningful reform of that system can be rounded on as a threat to national security, a traitor or a fool, as Britain’s former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn found out.

And a bogeyman distracts western publics from thinking about deeper threats, ones that our own leaders – rather than foreigners – are responsible for, such as the climate crisis they not only ignored but still fuel through the very military posturing and global confrontations they use to distract us. It is a perfect circle of self-harm.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the demise of the Soviet Union, the West has been casting around for a useful bogeyman to replace the Soviet Union, one that supposedly presents an existential threat to western civilisation.

Iraq’s weapons of mass distraction were only 45 minutes away – until we learned they did not, in fact, exist.

Afghanistan’s Taliban was harbouring al-Qaeda – until we learned that the Taliban had offered to hand Osama bin Laden over even before the 9/11 attacks.

There was the terrifying threat from the head-choppers of the Islamic State (IS) group – until we learned that they were the West’s arm’s-length allies in Syria and being supplied with weapons from Libya after it was liberated by the West from its dictator, Muammar Gadaffi.

And there is always Iran and its supposed nuclear weapons to worry about, even though Tehran signed an agreement in 2015 putting in place strict international oversight to prevent it from developing a bomb – until the US casually discarded the deal under pressure from Israel and chose not to replace it with anything else.

Braced for recession

Each of these threats was so grave it required an enormous expenditure of energy and treasure, until it had served its purpose of terrifying western publics into acquiescence. Invariably, the West’s meddling spawned a backlash that created another temporary enemy.

Now, like a predictable Hollywood sequel, the Cold War is back with a vengeance. Russia’s President Putin has a starring role. And the military-industrial complex is licking its lips with delight.

Ordinary people and small businesses are being told by European leaders to brace for a recession as energy companies once again clock up “eye-watering” profits.

Just as with the financial crash nearly 15 years ago, when the public was required to tighten its belt through austerity policies, a crisis is providing ideal conditions for wealth to be redistributed upwards.

Like other officials, Nato’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has sounded the alarm about “civil unrest” this winter as prices across Europe soar, even while demanding public money be used to send yet more weapons to Ukraine.

The question is whether western publics will keep buying the narrative of an existential threat that can only be dealt with if they, rather than their leaders, dig deep into their pockets.

*

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 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 InfoBrics

America’s Billionaires Collectively Control the Hegemonic U.S. Imperial Government

By Eric Zuesse, September 14, 2022

On September 13th, two very grim reports about the world’s future were published, one by America’s Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation, and the other by America’s Gallup polling organization; and both are data-based — as Melinda and Bill Gates expressed it in their joint Introduction to their new report, which is titled “The Future of Progress”: “We are data people, and this is a data report.”

NATO Opens Second Front in Effort to Bleed Russia Dry

By Kurt Nimmo, September 14, 2022

On Tuesday, the military forces of Azerbaijan shelled territory in neighboring Armenia. “The hostilities erupted minutes after midnight, with Azerbaijani forces unleashing an artillery barrage and drone attacks in many sections of Armenian territory, according to the Armenian Defense Ministry,” reports to the Associated Press.

Why Europe Won’t Exploit Its Huge Gas Reserves

By Alex Kimani, September 15, 2022

As energy prices continue to soar across Europe, with gas prices surging 26% on Monday after Russia stopped pumping via Nord Stream 1, the highly contentious fracking debate is now re-emerging on the continent, led by a new British prime minister with fossil fuels on her mind.

Video: The Threat of Martial Law. Corona Investigative Committee with Matthew Ehret

By Matthew Ehret-Kump and Corona Investigative Committee, September 15, 2022

This session is about the threat of martial law today, but with an empowering spin, how the oligarchy created a controlled demolition of the financial system in 1929, imposed shock therapy onto the American people and pushed eugenics & fascism as “Economic miracle solutions” between 1930-1934.

Kiev Resolute in Escalating the Conflict

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, September 15, 2022

Once again, Kiev makes clear its intentions to continue the war against Russia. On September 13, the Ukrainian government published a national security plan that provides for the extension of Western aid for decades. In the text, it is suggested that NATO states should continue to support Kiev in a variety of ways, including investments in the defense industry.

Charles III: How the New King Became the Most Pro-Islam Monarch in British History

By Peter Oborne and Imran Mulla, September 14, 2022

Two days after Truss became prime minister, King Charles III acceded to the British throne. A thoughtful man, he has studied Islam deeply, even going to the lengths of learning Arabic in order to read the Quran.

Why Russia Will Still Win, Despite Ukraine’s Gains. Scott Ritter

By Scott Ritter, September 14, 2022

The Ukrainian army began a major offensive against Russian forces deployed in the region north of the southern city of Kherson on Sept. 1. Ten days later, the Ukrainians had expanded the scope and the scale of its offensive operations to include the region around the northern city of Kharkov.

Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Organizations. History of America’s Imperialist Expansion in Eastern Europe, NATO Enlargement

By Prof. Gerald Sussman, September 14, 2022

The MSM have constructed an undiluted narrative about “Putin’s War” that disguises America’s imperialist expansion into eastern Europe. It is utterly Orwellian in its effort to project onto Russia what the U.S. and its main imperial ally, the UK (which a British journalist deemed “America’s tugboat”), have been doing non-stop since 1945—and indeed for centuries.

Those Angry at Rushdie’s Stabbing Have Been Missing in Action Over a Far Bigger Threat to Our Freedom

By Jonathan Cook, September 14, 2022

The truth is that the vast majority of those claiming this as an attack not only on a prominent writer but on Western society and its freedoms, have been missing in action for the past several years as the biggest threat to those freedoms unfolded. Or, in the case of Western government leaders, they have actively conspired in the undermining of those freedoms.

The Specter of Germany Is Rising. Diana Johnstone

By Diana Johnstone, September 14, 2022

The European Union is girding for a long war against Russia that appears clearly contrary to European economic interests and social stability. A war that is apparently irrational – as many are – has deep emotional roots and claims ideological justification. Such wars are hard to end because they extend outside the range of rationality.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: America’s Billionaires Collectively Control the Hegemonic U.S. Imperial Government

How the Arms Industry Scams the Taxpayer

September 15th, 2022 by Julia Gledhill

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Congress has spoken when it comes to next year’s Pentagon budget and the results, if they weren’t so in line with past practices, should astonish us all. The House of Representatives voted to add $37 billion and the Senate $45 billion to the administration’s already humongous request for “national defense,” a staggering figure that includes both the Pentagon budget and work on nuclear weapons at the Department of Energy. If enacted, the Senate’s sum would push spending on the military to at least $850 billion annually, far more — adjusted for inflation — than at the height of the Korean or Vietnam wars or the peak years of the Cold War.

U.S. military spending is, of course, astronomically high — more than that of the next nine countries combined. Here’s the kicker, though: the Pentagon (an institution that has never passed a comprehensive financial audit) doesn’t even ask for all those yearly spending increases in its budget requests to Congress. Instead, the House and Senate continue to give it extra tens of billions of dollars annually. No matter that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has publicly stated the Pentagon has all it needs to “get the capabilities… to support our operational concepts” without such sums.

It would be one thing if such added funding were at least crafted in line with a carefully considered defense strategy.  More often than not, though, much of it goes to multibillion dollar weapons projects being built in the districts or states of key lawmakers or for items on Pentagon wish lists (formally known as “unfunded priorities lists”). It’s unclear how such items can be “priorities” when they haven’t even made it into the Pentagon’s already enormous official budget request.

In addition, throwing yet more money at a department incapable of managing its current budget only further strains its ability to meet program goals and delivery dates. In other words, it actually impairs military readiness. Whatever limited fiscal discipline the Pentagon has dissipates further when lawmakers arbitrarily increase its budget, despite rampant mismanagement leading to persistent cost overruns and delivery delays on the military’s most expensive (and sometimes least well-conceived) weapons programs.

In short, parochial concerns and special-interest politics regularly trump anything that might pass as in the national interest, while doing no favors to the safety and security of the United States. In the end, most of those extra funds simply pad the bottom lines of major weapons contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies. They certainly don’t help our servicemembers, as congressional supporters of higher Pentagon budgets routinely claim.

A Captured Congress

The leading advocates of more Pentagon spending, Democrats and Republicans alike, generally act to support major contractors in their jurisdictions. Representative Jared Golden (D-ME), a co-sponsor of the House Armed Services Committee proposal to add $37 billion to the Pentagon budget, typically made sure it included funds for a $2 billion guided-missile destroyer to be built at General Dynamics’ shipyard in Bath, Maine.

Similarly, his co-sponsor, Representative Elaine Luria (D-VA), whose district abuts Huntington Ingalls Industries’ Newport News Shipyard, successfully advocated for the inclusion of ample funding to produce aircraft carriers and attack submarines at that complex. Or consider Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL), the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee and a dogged advocate of annually increasing the Pentagon budget by at least 3% to 5% above inflation. He serves a district south of Huntsville, Alabama, dubbed “rocket city” because it’s the home to so many firms that work on missile defense and related projects.

There are even special congressional caucuses devoted solely to increasing Pentagon spending while fending off challenges to specific weapons systems. These range from the House shipbuilding and F-35 caucuses to the Senate ICBM Coalition. That coalition has been especially effective at keeping spending on a future land-based intercontinental ballistic missile dubbed the Sentinel on track, while defeating efforts to significantly reduce the number of ICBMs in the U.S. arsenal. Such “success” has come thanks to the stalwart support of senators from Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, all states with ICBM bases or involved in major ICBM development and maintenance.

The jobs card is the strongest tool of influence available to the arms industry in its efforts to keep Congress eternally boosting Pentagon spending, but far from the only one. After all, the industrial part of the military-industrial-congressional complex gave more than $35 million in campaign contributions to members of Congress in 2020, the bulk of it going to those on the armed services and defense appropriations committees who have the most sway over the Pentagon budget and what it will be spent on.

So far, in the 2022 election cycle, weapons firms have already donated $3.4 million to members of the House Armed Services Committee, according to an analysis by Open Secrets.org, an organization that tracks campaign spending and political influence. Weapons-making corporations also currently employ nearly 700 lobbyists, more than one for every member of Congress, while spending additional millions to support industry-friendly think tanks that regularly push higher Pentagon spending and a more hawkish foreign policy.

The arms industry has another lever to pull as well when it comes to the personal finances of lawmakers. There are scant, if any, restrictions against members of Congress owning or trading defense company stocks, even those who sit on influential national-security-related committees. In other words, it’s completely legal for them to marry their personal financial interests to those of defense contractors.

The Cost of Coddling Contractors

Legislators arbitrarily inflate Pentagon spending despite clear evidence of corporate greed and repeated failures when it comes to the development of new weapons systems. Under the circumstances, it should be no surprise that weapons acquisitions are on the Government Accountability Office’s “High Risk List,” given their enduring vulnerability to waste and mismanagement. In fact, overfunding an already struggling department only contributes to the development of shoddy products. It allows the Pentagon to fund programs before they’ve been thoroughly tested and evaluated.

Far from strengthening national defense, such lawmakers only reinforce the unbridled greed of weapons contractors. In the process, they ensure future acquisition disasters. In fact, much of the funding Congress adds to the Pentagon budget will be wasted on price gouging, cost overruns, and outright fraud. The most notorious recent case is that of the TransDigm Group, which overcharged the government up to 3,850% for a spare part for one weapons system and 10 to 100 times too much for others.

The total lost: at least $20.8 million. And those figures were based on just a sampling of two-and-a-half years of that company’s sales to the government, nor was it the first time TransDigm had been caught price gouging the Pentagon.  Such practices are, in fact, believed to be typical of many defense contractors.  A full accounting of such overcharges would undoubtedly amount to billions of dollars annually.

Then there are weapons systems like Lockheed Martin’s F-35 fighter aircraft and that same company’s Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). Both are costly programs that have proven incapable of carrying out their assigned missions. The F-35 is slated to cost the American taxpayer a staggering $1.7 trillion over its life cycle, making it the most expensive single weapons program ever. Despite problems with its engine performance, maintenance, and basic combat capabilities, both the House and the Senate added even more of them than the Pentagon requested to their latest budget plans. House Armed Services Committee Chair Adam Smith (D-WA) famously remarked that he was tired of “throwing money down that particular rat hole,” but then argued that the F-35 program was too far along to cancel. Its endurance has, in fact, forced the Pentagon to restart older jet fighter production lines like the F-15, developed in the 1970s, to pick up the slack. If the U.S. is going to be forced to buy older fighters anyway, cutting the F-35 could instantly save $200 billion in procurement funding.

Meanwhile, the LCS, a ship without a mission that can’t even defend itself in combat, nonetheless continues to be protected by advocates like Representative Joe Courtney (D-CT), co-chair of the House shipbuilding caucus. The final House and Senate authorization bills prevented the Navy from retiring five of the nine LCS’s that the service had hoped to decommission on the grounds that they would be useless in a potential military faceoff with China (a conflict that should be avoided in any case, given the potentially devastating consequences of a war between two nuclear-armed powers).

No surprise, then, that a substantial part of the tens of billions of dollars Congress is adding to the latest Pentagon budget will directly benefit major weapons contractors at the expense of military personnel. In the House version of the military spending bill, $25 billion — more than two-thirds of its additional funding — is earmarked for weapons procurement and research that will primarily benefit arms contractors.

Only $1 billion of the added funds will be devoted to helping military personnel and their families, even as many of them struggle to find affordable housing or maintain an adequate standard of living. In fact, one in six military families is now food insecure, a devastating reflection of the Pentagon’s true priorities.

In all, the top five weapons contractors — Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman — split more than $200 billion in “defense” revenue in the last fiscal year, mostly from the Pentagon but also from lucrative foreign arms sales. The new budget proposals will only boost those already astounding figures.

Pushing Back on Contractor Greed

Congress has shown little intent to decouple itself in any way from what’s still known as “the defense industry.” There is, however, a clear path to do so, if the people’s representatives were to band together and start pushing back against the greed of weapons contractors.

Some lawmakers have begun making moves to prevent price gouging while improving weapons-buying practices. The Senate Armed Services Committee, for instance, included in its version of the defense budget a provision to establish a program that would improve contractor performance through financial incentives.  Its goal is to make the Pentagon a smarter buyer by addressing two main issues: delivery delays and cost overruns, especially by companies that charge it above-market prices to pad their bottom lines. It would also curb the ability of contractors to overcharge on replacement parts and materials.

The program to prevent further price gouging has a couple of possible paths to President Biden’s desk. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Representative John Garamendi (D-CA) also included it in the bicameral Stop Price Gouging the Military Act, an ambitious proposal to protect the Pentagon from outrageous contractor overcharges. The bill would close loopholes in existing law that allow companies to eternally rip off the Defense Department.

There are obviously all too many obstacles in the path of eliminating moneyed interests from defense policy, but creating an incentive structure to improve contractor performance and transparency would, at least, be a necessary first step. It might also spur greater public input into such policy-making.

Secrecy, Inc.

Here’s the sad reality of the national security state: we taxpayers will fork over nearly a trillion and a half dollars this year in national security spending and yet the policy-making process behind such outlays will essentially remain out of our control. The Senate Armed Services Committee typically debates and discusses its version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) behind closed doors. The subcommittee hearings open to the public rarely last — and yes, this is not a mistake! — more than 15 minutes. Naturally, the House and Senate will reconcile any differences between their versions in secret, too. In other words, there’s little transparency when it comes to the seemingly blank check our representatives write for our defense every year.

Sadly, such a system allows lawmakers, too many of whom maintain financial stakes in the defense industry, to deliberate over Pentagon spending and other national security matters without real public input. At the Pentagon, in fact, crucial information isn’t just kept private; it’s actively suppressed and the situation has only gotten worse over the years.

Here’s just one example of that process: in January 2022, its Office of the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation issued an annual report on weapons costs and performance.  For the first time in more than 30 years, however,  it excluded nearly all the basic information needed to assess the Pentagon’s weapons-buying process. Redacting information about 22 major acquisition programs, the director treated data once routinely shared as if it were classified. Given the Pentagon’s rocky track record when it comes to overfunding and under-testing weapons, it’s easy enough to imagine why its officials would work so hard to keep unclassified information private.

Scamming the taxpayer has become a way of life for the national security state. We deserve a more transparent, democratic policy-making process. Our elected officials owe us their allegiance, not the defense-industry giants that make such hefty campaign contributions while beefing up lawmakers’ stock portfolios.

Isn’t it time to end the national-security version of spending unlimited in Washington?

*

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.

Julia Gledhill, a TomDispatch regular, is an analyst at the Center for Defense Information at the Project On Government Oversight.

William D. Hartung, a TomDispatch regular, is a Senior Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and the author most recently of “Pathways to Pentagon Spending Reductions: Removing the Obstacles.”

Featured image is from NationofChange

Why Europe Won’t Exploit Its Huge Gas Reserves

September 15th, 2022 by Alex Kimani

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

As energy prices continue to soar across Europe, with gas prices surging 26% on Monday after Russia stopped pumping via Nord Stream 1, the highly contentious fracking debate is now re-emerging on the continent, led by a new British prime minister with fossil fuels on her mind. The European Union–which no longer includes the UK–plans to replace two-thirds of Russian gas imports by the end of the year, though analysts warn that the bloc’s best shot at replacing Russian gas imports will fall well short of the target. 

In 2021, the EU imported ~155 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas from Russia. Unfortunately, the bloc’s proposed gas replacements by the end of 2022–which include LNG (liquefied natural gas) diversification, renewables, heating efficiency, pipeline diversification, biomethane, solar rooftops and heat pumps–only amount to around 102 bcm annually, according to data from the EU Commission’s REPowerEU.

Proponents of fracking hold that Europe’s shale gas potential is needed now more than ever, though Germany, France, the Netherlands, Scotland and Bulgaria have all previously banned fracking. Now, the debate is being revived by recent moves in the UK.

Britain’s new Prime Minister Liz Truss has announced that the UK is lifting a 2019 moratorium on shale gas fracking as the country looks to ramp up domestic energy resources and help households and businesses struggling to pay soaring energy bills.

The lifting of the fracking ban comes just three years after the government ended its support for fracking after the authority supervising the oil and gas industry determined that “it is not possible with current technology to accurately predict the probability of tremors associated with fracking.”

Britain owns just two shale gas wells in Lancashire operated by Cuadrilla Resources. Cuadrilla CEO Francis Egan has welcomed the lifting of the ban, saying:

“This is an entirely sensible decision and recognises that maximizing the UK’s domestic energy supply is vital if we are going to overcome the ongoing energy crisis and reduce the risk of it recurring in the future. Without the strong measures set out today, the UK was set to import over two thirds of its gas by the end of the decade, exposing the British public and businesses to further risk of supply shortage and price hikes down the line.”

Despite its desperation, the rest of Europe is unlikely to follow–even if the revival of the debate has reignited talk of just how much shale potential Europe has, and why it’s not being tapped into.

Shale Gas In Europe

Europe has more recoverable shale gas than the U.S., according to estimates. However, the only major fracking activity is in Ukraine, which managed to wean itself off of Russian gas years ago.

Fracking in Europe has long been a contentious issue because of population density, in large part. This isn’t North America.

In 2016, Cuadrilla Resources won permission to frack as many as four wells in the UK, putting an end to years’ long battles with local authorities. Five years prior, the company had been forced to cease drilling after the government placed a one-year moratorium on fracking due to tremors caused by an exploratory Cuadrilla rig in northwestern England. In 2013, the company’s drilling activity was disrupted again after hundreds of protesters camped in a tiny village south of London and forced it to abandon its wells.

Meanwhile, in 2012, protesters in Zurawlow, a town in eastern Poland, successfully blockaded a fracking site while Greenpeace activists occupied a shale gas rig in Denmark.

Strong public opposition–along with tax concerns, regulatory delays, and poor output from a handful of test wells–drove away investors. Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM), Chevron (NYSE: CVX) and TotalEnergies (NYSE: TTE) were forced to abandon projects in Poland after exploration proved disappointing. Poor gas flows also halted progress in Denmark, with Total ditching shale gas drilling there.

The big problem with fracking in Europe is that some of the conditions that fueled the U.S. shale boom don’t exist in Europe. In most countries, it’s the state, and not private landowners, that owns the mineral rights to oil and gas in the ground. Contrast that with the U.S. where landowner’s cut can be as much as an eighth of production revenue. This in effect means that fracking does not yield big financial rewards for European landowners.

To garner more public support for the technology, the British government and some companies have previously proposed direct payments to people affected by fracking. However, environmental groups have strongly opposed the move, terming such payments as bribes. The situation is not helped by the fact that the population density in Europe is more than 3x that in the United States, fueling not-in-my-backyard protests. For instance, many rural projects have in the past been rejected because they would bring trucks and equipment used for fracking onto picturesque roads dating back to Roman times. Indeed, Gazprom has previously said that the difficulty in finding unpopulated land in Europe and enough water to exploit shale wells will help Russian gas stay competitive. Even better for Russia: it can produce gas for about a sixth of the break-even cost for U.K. shale.

Even after decades of fracking in the U.S. many Europeans still view the technique as untested.

It’s going to be interesting to see whether record high energy prices will finally convince Europeans to change their minds about shale gas fracking. Several European nations have already backed down and returned to burning coal at record levels to keep their power grids alive thus reneging on their climate goals.

But here’s why the environmentalists might still carry the day: studies have shown that although natural gas burns cleaner than coal and has reduced greenhouse gas emissions, the fracking process can negate these benefits. Fracking is dirtier than burning coal mainly due to the direct emission of harmful carbon dioxide and methane, both potent greenhouse gasses.

*

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.

Alex Kimani is a veteran finance writer, investor, engineer and researcher for Safehaven.com. 

Featured image is from OilPrice.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.

Visit and follow us on InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Guest is Matthew Ehret, a journalist, lecturer and historian. He is founder of the Canadian Patriot Review and the Rising Tide Foundation. He is the author of Untold History of Canada series.

This session is about the threat of martial law today, but with an empowering spin.

In detail:

  • How the oligarchy created a controlled demolition of the financial system in 1929, imposed shock therapy onto the
    American people and pushed eugenics & fascism as “Economic miracle solutions” between 1930-1934.
  • A level-headed analysis of Trump’s presidency and his political efforts in light of the modern depopulation/ deindustrialization campaign, without demonizing or glorifying him.

*

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 a screenshot from the video


The Clash of the Two Americas

Vol. 1 & 2

by Matthew Ehret

In his new two volume series The Clash of the Two Americas, Matthew Ehret introduces a new analysis of American history from the vantage point that the globally-extended supranational shadow government that managed the British Empire was never fully defeated and has acted within the USA itself since 1776 as a continuous multi-generational fifth column managing every significant event and assassination of American presidents for the next 250 years.

Click here to order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: The Threat of Martial Law. Corona Investigative Committee with Matthew Ehret

Kiev Resolute in Escalating the Conflict

September 15th, 2022 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Once again, Kiev makes clear its intentions to continue the war against Russia. On September 13, the Ukrainian government published a national security plan that provides for the extension of Western aid for decades. In the text, it is suggested that NATO states should continue to support Kiev in a variety of ways, including investments in the defense industry. In practice, the Ukrainian state has made an official statement that it intends to expand the conflict indefinitely, which makes any form of negotiation for peace impossible.

This document looks like an alternative to Ukraine’s unfeasible accession to NATO. Since 2014, Kiev has been planning to join the Western military alliance, but, despite the country having been used several times to attack Russian citizens and destabilize Moscow’s strategic environment, NATO has never really seemed interested in approving such a membership. By the rules of the alliance, states in conflict cannot be accepted, since NATO is a collective security pact that establishes that all members must cooperate with each other in case of war in any of the states. As Kiev had been in a civil conflict for the past eight years, membership would be impossible.

Obviously, this project became even more unrealistic with the start of the Russian special military operation. Despite actively helping Ukraine with military and financial assistance, the Western Alliance would not allow Kiev to gain membership as this situation would create an obligation for all other members to send troops to fight Russia. Then, faced with the impossibility of joining the alliance, the Zelensky government established a document of guarantees to create conditions for cooperation between Kiev and NATO.

The recently released document establishes the signing of the Kiev Security Compact, of which, among others, the US, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Canada, Poland and Turkey would be signatories. This would allow various NATO powers to act in an integrated manner with the Ukrainian Defense Minister, despite the fact that the country is not a real member of the alliance. It is still determined that other bilateral pacts must be concluded, seeking to reinforce a policy of collective security. The text, however, makes it clear that Kiev will continue to seek its entry into NATO, with such pacts being just a way of establishing conditions of integration at a time when membership is not possible.

Among the guarantees that Kiev demands from its partners, the document also points to the presentation of a list of military measures to be taken if Ukraine suffers any attack. Unable to demand that NATO troops be sent to face its enemies, Kiev demands that military aid be officialized, extended and improved. In addition, the supply with intelligence data and investments in infrastructure and defense industry are also required. The document even states that Kiev’s troops must participate in drills and missions operated by NATO and EU members abroad.

“The security guarantees will be positive; they lay out a range of commitments made by a group of guarantors, together with Ukraine. They need to be binding based on bilateral agreements, but brought together under a joint strategic partnership document – called the Kiev Security Compact. The Compact will bring a core group of allied countries together with Ukraine. This could include the US, UK, Canada, Poland, Italy, Germany, France, Australia, Turkey, and Nordic, Baltic, Central and Eastern European countries (…) Ukraine’s aspiration to join NATO and benefit from its mutual defense arrangements is safeguarded in its Constitution. This aspiration is the sovereign decision of Ukraine. Both NATO and EU membership will significantly bolster Ukraine’s security in the long-term”, the document says.

There is still no formal response on the part of NATO countries to the Ukrainian initiative, but considering the alliance’s destabilizing stance in the Ukrainian conflict, it is possible that some negotiations will move forward in this direction. NATO’s high degree of interventionism has been the main reason for the escalation of the conflict, which is why all possibilities for peace negotiations have been exhausted.

The Russian reaction, as expected, was extremely negative. The deputy head of Russia’s Security Council Dmitry Medvedev commented on the case severely criticizing the Ukrainian government and stating that such a “guarantee” program looks like a prologue to WWIII. He also warned about the imminent risks of an escalation of the conflict:

“The Kiev camarilla has given birth to a project of ‘security guarantees’, which are essentially a prologue to a third world war (…) If these half-wits go ahead with the rampant pumping of the most dangerous types of weapons to the Kiev regime, then sooner or later the military campaign will achieve another level”.

In fact, Kiev is just trying to circumvent its non-membership, seeking to receive the guarantees of a NATO member state, which cannot be accepted. The alliance must act rationally and prioritize peace over its anti-Russian plans. Agreeing to give Kiev “security guarantees” would be an affront to which Russia would be forced to respond.

*

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.

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

Featured image is from Stop the War

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The opening of the Black Sea corridor for the export of Russian grain allows Turkey to realize some of its interests, but more importantly, it allows Russian grain to reach the most vulnerable countries, which is critical since Ukrainian grain is ending up in the EU instead of the poorest countries. Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan will discuss the opening of the corridor for the export of Russian grain at the upcoming Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit to be held on September 15-16 in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. 

Although Western sanctions have not been directly imposed on Russian grain, sanctions have created export difficulties. Therefore, a corridor through the Turkish Straits is a solution and will also benefit Ankara’s coffers as utility companies in Turkish ports will profit. In addition, Turkey is the main supplier of flour to the European market, with the flour being made from Turkish, Russian and Ukrainian grains.

Moscow is facing some problems despite sanctions not being directly imposed against Russian grain. For example, there are issues with payments and settlements as many banks are simply afraid of sanctions. Sanctions also create problems with transportation logistics, especially with ships. Those logistical problems have led to an increase in the price of grain.

More importantly, the poorest countries lose access to basic foodstuffs because developed countries buy them instead. According to data, 345 million people around the world are already suffering from food insecurity, 2.5 times more people than in 2019.

From the Turkish perspective, presidential elections will be held next year, and with country experiencing major economic issues, Erdogan is hoping to close a deal that can boost his popularity. With difficulties on the domestic front, he is using foreign policy issues and nationalistic rhetoric aimed against the Kurds in Syria, the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, issues in the Mediterranean with Greece, and now global food insecurity, to gain votes.

At the same time, the US evidently does not care about poor countries that were not supplied with Ukrainian grain. In fact, Washington deceivingly accuses Moscow of creating fake news about who the grain was supplied to. Erdogan too, challenges the American position.

“The fact that grain shipments are going to the countries that implement these sanctions (against Moscow) disturbs Mr. Putin. We also want grain shipments to start from Russia,” Erdogan said at a news conference with his Croatian counterpart on September 8. “The grain that comes as part of this grain deal unfortunately goes to rich countries, not to poor countries.”

It is recalled that Putin said at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok that Russia will not cooperate with those who put up barriers against it. Although this at first was thought to mean oil and gas, this policy is also the same with grain.

None-the-less, to friendly states, Moscow not only intends to deliver 30 million tons of grain to those that need it by the end of the year, but in fact will increase those deliveries to 50 million in 2023.

Food supply in the modern world, and especially in the Global South, has deeper roots than the Ukrainian conflict. Food shortages, lack of solvent demand and climate change has created that problem. This is further worsened by transport logistics and the ban on Russian ships from entering European Union ports, as well as problems with insurance.

Although the US would ultimately want to ban the export of Russian grain, there cannot be a complete ban since grain is categorised as humanitarian goods. The grain harvest in Russia was good this year, making the export potential significant, and thus it will likely ensure that a food crisis does not emerge.

In any case, the delivery of Russian and Ukrainian grain to world markets is important in stabilising prices. Turkey in this way is positioning itself as an indispensable partner in alleviating a potential global food crisis. Despite around 100 cargo ships having left Ukrainian ports since July, Ukraine’s wheat has not reached its traditional clients in Africa at anywhere near its normal volume. With Putin and Erdogan expected to conclude an agreement in the coming days, Russia will be in a position to ensure that there is not a global scarcity or 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.

Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

US Life Expectancy Falls Again in ‘Historic’ Decline

September 14th, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

According to the latest statistics, life expectancy in the United States dropped precipitously in 2020 and 2021. In 2019, the average life span of Americans of all ethnicities was nearly 79 years. By the end of 2021, life expectancy had dropped to 76 — a loss of nearly three years

Even small declines in life expectancy of a tenth or two-tenths of a year mean that on a population level, a lot more people are dying prematurely than they really should be

Native Americans and Alaska Natives have the highest rate of diabetes out of any ethnic groups — 1 in 7 — and obesity is also common. Both of these conditions have been identified as comorbidities that make you more susceptible to serious COVID-19 infection

Aside from COVID, causes of death listed as contributors to this loss of life expectancy include accidental deaths, drug overdoses, heart disease, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis. However, excess deaths from all causes are wildly elevated, across age groups

That life expectancy has dropped by three years since the start of the pandemic can be explained by the simple fact that the primary “remedy” for COVID — the experimental mRNA COVID jabs — are the most lethal drugs in medical history

*

According to the latest statistics reported by The New York Times1 August 31, 2022, life expectancy in the United States dropped precipitously in 2020 and 2021.

In 2019, the average life span of Americans of all ethnicities was nearly 79 years. By the end of 2021, two years into the COVID pandemic and one full year into the mass inoculation campaign, life expectancy had dropped to 76 — a loss of nearly three years.

Even small declines in life expectancy of a tenth or two-tenths of a year mean that on a population level, a lot more people are dying prematurely than they really should be. And this was nearly THREE years or 35 times more.

What Has Caused Drop in Life Expectancy?

According to The New York Times, Native Americans and Alaska Natives have the highest rate of diabetes out of any ethnic groups — 1 in 7 — and obesity is also common. Both of these conditions have been identified as comorbidities that make you more susceptible to serious COVID-19 infection, which could help explain why life expectancy among Native Americans and Alaska Natives dropped by four years in 2020.

They do not necessarily explain the continued drop in life expectancy in 2021, however. According to Minnesota Chippewa tribe member Dr. Ann Bullock, former director of diabetes treatment and prevention at the federal Indian Health Service agency, the COVID jab campaign was very successful among Native Americans and Alaska Natives, which made the continued drop during 2021 “all the more upsetting.”

Bullock told The New York Times,2 “The Native American population did quite well in the vaccination efforts, and that made us feel that 2021 would not be as devastating as 2020.”

Aside from COVID, causes of death listed as contributors to this loss of life expectancy include accidental deaths, drug overdoses, heart disease, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis. As you might expect, the idea that the COVID shots might have something to do with it is completely dismissed, even though it’s the proverbial elephant in the room.

Lethal Traffic Accidents Are at 20-Year High

The increase in “accidental deaths” seem particularly odd, considering the many lockdowns, but it’s possible the COVID jabs might have something to do with this as well. According to the U.S. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), lethal traffic accidents have steadily risen during 2021 and 2022,3 reaching a 20-year high in the first quarter of 2022.

Some have started referring to these accidents as “vaccindents,” caused when jabbed individuals suddenly experience a stroke, heart attack or temporary black-out while driving.

It cannot be proven that side effects from the jab are causing these accidents, but it’s still something worth considering. The jabs are also known to cause mental fog, disorientation and confusion, which could contribute to any number of accidents, on and off the road.

‘Sudden Death Syndrome’ May Be Driving Down Life Expectancy

Excess mortality, a statistic that is related to but separate from life expectancy, certainly plays a role. Excess mortality refers to the difference between the observed numbers of deaths (from all causes) during a given time period, compared to the expected number of deaths based on historical norms, such as the previous five-year average. (Formula: reported deaths – expected deaths = excess deaths.)

Across the world, excess mortality has dramatically risen since the start of the pandemic, and barely a day now goes by without a healthy adult suddenly dropping dead with no apparent cause. People have died during live broadcasts, in the middle of speeches and during dinner.

Clearly, they were feeling well enough to go to work, to an event or a restaurant, and something caused them to instantaneously die without warning. These are the people making up these excess death statistics. They shouldn’t be dead, yet something took them out.

While COVID-positive deaths were part of the equation in 2020, excess deaths really took off after the rollout of the COVID jabs, and in 2021 far exceeded deaths labeled as COVID deaths.4

In the video above, John Campbell, retired nurse teacher, reviews excess death data in Scotland, where excess mortality is now so high across all age groups that the government has launched a formal inquiry to determine the cause.5 Data show excess deaths are 11% above the five-year average, and has remained above average for the past 26 weeks.

Healthy Athletes Dropping Dead at Record Numbers

Campbell also reviews the individual case of Rob Wardell, a 37-year-old champion mountain biker who died in his sleep mere days after winning the Scottish MTB XC championship.6 His partner, Katie Archibald tweeted:7

“I still don’t understand what’s happened; if this is real; why he’d be taken now — so healthy and happy. He went into cardiac arrest while we were lying in bed. I tried and tried, and the paramedics arrived within minutes, but his heart stopped and they couldn’t bring him back.”

Wardell is just one of several hundred athletes who have suddenly dropped dead, worldwide, and the one common denominator is that they all had one or more COVID jabs.

Between January 2021 and August 2022 (a period of 19 months), at least 1,249 athletes suffered cardiac arrest or collapse after COVID injection, and at least 847 died,8 with more being recorded as reports come in. Historically, the annual average of sudden death in athletes has been between 299and 69,10 so this is clearly nowhere near normal, regardless of what the “fact checkers” say.

Campbell goes on to review a paper in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology,11,12 which notes that 80% of athletes who die suddenly have no symptoms of family history of heart disease.

The authors suggest using genetic testing to identify athletes at risk of sudden cardiac death. Still, with the dramatic uptick in athletes suddenly dying, it seems beyond unreasonable to attribute such deaths to undiagnosed preexisting heart disease.

Excess Death Trend in the US

A National Institutes of Health preprint13 published mid-May 2022, reviewed excess all-cause mortality across 3,127 counties in the U.S. between March 2020 and December 2021. According to this paper:

“An estimated 936,911 excess deaths occurred during 2020 and 2021, of which 171,168 (18.3%) were not assigned to COVID-19 on death certificates as an underlying cause of death …

The proportion of excess deaths assigned to COVID-19 was lower in 2020 (76.3%) than in 2021 (87.0%), suggesting that a larger fraction of excess deaths was assigned to COVID-19 later in the pandemic. However, in rural areas and in the Southeast and Southwest a large share of excess deaths was still not assigned to COVID-19 during 2021 …

Excess death rates were highest in Mississippi (301 deaths per 100,000 residents) followed by Arizona (246 deaths per 100,000 residents) in 2020 and in West Virginia (298 deaths per 100,000 residents) followed by Mississippi (271 deaths per 100,000 residents) in 2021.”

Again, while a majority of the excess deaths were attributed to COVID (which we know simply means they had a positive PCR test at the time of death, or within a certain time period of death), 171,168 excess deaths were not attributable to COVID. So, why did so many people die that “shouldn’t” have?

Working Age Adults Dying in Record Numbers

Life insurance data tell an even more horrifying story. In January 2022, OneAmerica, a mutual life insurance company based in Indianapolis, reported that the death rate of working-age Americans (18 to 64), in the third quarter of 2021, was 40% higher than prepandemic levels — and these deaths were not attributed to COVID. They also had an uptick in long-term disability claims. According to CEO Scott Davidson:14

“We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business — not just at OneAmerica. The data is consistent across every player in that business.

And what we saw just in third quarter, we’re seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic. Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic. So, 40% is just unheard of.”

Dr. Robert Malone addressed OneAmerica’s finding in a Substack article, stating:15

“AT A MINIMUM, based on my reading, one has to conclude that if this report holds and is confirmed by others in the dry world of life insurance actuaries, we have both a huge human tragedy and a profound public policy failure of the U.S. Government and U.S. HHS system to serve and protect the citizens that pay for this ‘service.’

IF this holds true, then the genetic vaccines so aggressively promoted have failed, and the clear federal campaign to prevent early treatment with lifesaving drugs has contributed to a massive, avoidable loss of life.

AT WORST, this report implies that the federal workplace vaccine mandates have driven what appears to be a true crime against humanity. Massive loss of life in (presumably) workers that have been forced to accept a toxic vaccine at higher frequency relative to the general population …”

Excess Death Trends in England and Wales

Excess deaths are also soaring in England and Wales.16 As reported by The Telegraph17 August 18, 2022, for 14 out of the past 15 weeks, England and Wales have averaged an extra 1,000 non-COVID deaths per week above the seven-year average, and the percentage of people dying at home is disproportionally higher than expected (28.1% higher than statistical norm).

According to The Telegraph, the spike in excess deaths became very noticeable around the end of April 2022, and if this trajectory continues, the number of non-COVID excess deaths will outpace COVID deaths in 2022. The top three causes of non-COVID deaths in England and Wales are currently cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and cancers.18

Excess Deaths Should Be BELOW Average in 2022

Campbell also reviews data19 from the British Office for National Statistics that highlight an important point. People who under normal circumstances would have died in 2022 from old age and natural causes, already died from COVID, either in 2020 or 2021.

COVID (and state-enforced mistreatment of patients) caused the premature death of many, even if only by some months or a couple of years. And, since so many elderly had already died who statistically should have died this year, the excess death rate in 2022 should actually be BELOW average. But it’s not. It’s way higher so, clearly, something is very wrong.

People who should have decades of life expectancy left are the ones dying. As just one example, “an unprecedented series of sudden deaths among healthy children and adolescents” is being reported in Greece,20 and “forensic experts are unable to provide any clear explanation for this.” Between January 2020 and June 2022, unexplained deaths among children under the age of 19 rose from 70 to 138.

What’s Killing Younger Healthy People?

Since COVID-19 isn’t killing younger, healthy people, what is? What changed in 2021 that might have such a devastating effect on people’s health? Well, the most obvious change is that 67.7% of the global population has received at least one dose of the experimental COVID shots,21 and doctors and scientists have elucidated several mechanisms by which these gene transfer technologies might injure or kill. As reported by vaccine safety blogger Steve Kirsch:22

“Normally death rates don’t change at all. They are very stable. It would take something REALLY BIG to have an effect this big. The effect size is 12-sigma.23 That is an event that would only happen by pure chance every 2.832 billion years. That’s very rare. It’s basically never.

The universe is only 14 billion years old which is 1.413. In other words, the event that happened is not a statistical ‘fluke.’ Something caused a very big change … Whatever it is that is causing this, it is bigger and deadlier than COVID and it’s affecting nearly everyone.”

Kirsch lists 14 clues as to what this deadly “something” might be, including the following:24

In conclusion, that life expectancy has dropped by three years since the start of the pandemic can be explained by the simple fact that the primary “remedy” for COVID — the experimental mRNA COVID jabs — are the most lethal drugs in medical history.

*

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, 2 New York Times August 31, 2022 (Archived)

3 NHTSA August 17, 2022

4 Our World in Data Excess Mortality During COVID Pandemic

5 Scottish Parliament Inquiry Into Excess Deaths

6 The Telegraph August 24, 2022

7 The Guardian August 24, 2022

8 Good Sciencing Athlete Deaths

9 European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation December 2006; 13(6): 859-875

10 Circulation February 16, 2009; 119: 1085-1092

11 European Journal of Preventive Cardiology June 16, 2022; zwac080

12 Science Daily June 16, 2022

13 medRxiv May 17, 2022

14 The Center Square January 1, 2022

15 Robert Malone Substack January 2, 2022

16 Gov.UK Excess Mortality in England and English Regions

17, 18 The Telegraph August 18, 2022

19 ons.gov.uk Provisional Deaths August 23, 2022

20 Parliamentary Question e-00219/2022

21 Our World in Data COVID Vaccinations

22, 24 Steve.kirsch.substack January 3, 2022

23 Roundingtheearth.substack January 3, 2022

Featured image is from Mercola

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

Last week, Liz Truss took over as prime minister of what many consider to be the most Islamophobic government in British history.

A government which refuses to engage with the largest representative body of British Muslims and has framed an invidious security regime (Prevent) which targets them; in which a minister was sacked because her “Muslim woman minister status was making colleagues feel uncomfortable”. A government accused this week of treating Muslims like second-class citizens.

Little surprise: more than half of the members of the ruling Conservative Party entertain wild conspiracy theories about British Islam.

Two days after Truss became prime minister, King Charles III acceded to the British throne. A thoughtful man, he has studied Islam deeply, even going to the lengths of learning Arabic in order to read the Quran.

The new king is the most Islamophile monarch in British history. The contrast with his government is stark.

An electrifying speech

In a series of statements dating back several decades, King Charles III has rebutted the “clash of civilisations” thesis which argues that Islam is at war with the West. On the contrary, he argues that Islam, Judaism and Christianity are three great monotheistic religions which have far more in common than is generally appreciated.

Since 1993, the new king has been a patron of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies. In that year he delivered its inaugural address, entitled “Islam and the West“. It wasn’t the sort of speech on religion that most people expect from politicians and royals; they tend to utter little more than empty platitudes.

Then Prince of Wales, he launched into a sophisticated musing on Islamic civilisation and its relationship with Europe. The prince said that Islam is “part of our past and our present, in all fields of human endeavour. It has helped to create modern Europe. It is part of our own inheritance, not a thing apart.”

He urged people in the West to see past contemporary distortions of Islam: “The guiding principle and spirit of Islamic law, taken straight from the Quran, should be those of equity and compassion.”

He noted that women were granted the right to property and inheritance in Islam 1,400 years ago, paid tribute to the “remarkable tolerance” of medieval Islam, and lamented western “ignorance about the debt our own culture and civilisation owe to the Islamic world”.

The then-prince described Britain’s Muslim communities as an “asset to Britain” who “add to the cultural richness of our nation”.

Unlike those who demand that Muslims discard their identities in order to assimilate, Charles called for a process of two-way integration: Muslims must “balance their vital liberty to be themselves with an appreciation of the importance of integration in our society”, while non-Muslims should adopt a “respect for the daily practice of the Islamic faith and a decent care to avoid actions which are likely to cause deep offence.”

It was an electrifying speech: here was the heir to the throne telling Britain’s Muslims, most of them migrants from the former colonies, that their presence in the country was not just welcome but valued.

It’s hard to conceive of a greater contrast with recent interventions by Britain’s most senior politicians.

The ‘controversial’ prince 

In more recent years Charles’s attitudes towards Islam and the Muslim world have often caused controversy.

A 2018 book by royal correspondent Robert Jobson, written with the cooperation of Charles’s office, revealed that he opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, privately voicing his objections to Prime Minister Tony Blair. According to Jobson, Charles believed that “marching in carrying a banner for western-style democracy was both foolhardy and futile”. Charles has also told ministers that he no longer wishes to have his connections with Gulf leaders used for British arms companies to sell weapons.

Then there’s his sympathy towards the Palestinians, which may be why it was his son Prince William, and not Charles himself, who carried out the first royal visit to Israel in June 2018. It was only in 2020 that Charles made his first visit to Israel. He took care to visit the Occupied Palestinian Territories, where he declared it his “dearest wish that the future will bring freedom, justice and equality to all Palestinians”.

No recent British minister has uttered similar sentiments. When it comes to European Muslims, Charles is a critic of the secularism of France and Belgium, disagreeing with their bans on women wearing the face veil in public. He has no time for the anti-Muslim politics gaining ground throughout Europe.

Charles has come under fire for his charity work. Last June, the then-prince was in the headlines after the Sunday Times revealed that he accepted a suitcase containing a million euros in cash from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former Qatari prime minister. Charles’s charitable fund denied wrongdoing and there’s no suggestion at all that he benefited personally.

He may have made errors of judgement, but much of the press reporting has been ignorant and unfair.

Consider the flurry of sensational articles in July about a million-pound donation his charitable fund received from the family of Osama Bin Laden in 2013. There was no wrongdoing: the Bin Laden family is one of the most established in Saudi Arabia, and the implication of a connection with terrorism and Al Qaeda was nonsense.

A devout ‘traditionalist’

Anti-Muslim commentators mock Britain’s new king for his intellectual curiosity. The American neoconservative commentator Daniel Pipes is one example. His blog post entitled: “Is Prince Charles a Convert to Islam?” cites numerous pieces of “evidence” that he himself has become Muslim, including that Charles took part in a fast-breaking ceremony in Ramadan and his criticism of Salman Rushdie for insulting the “deepest convictions” of Muslims.

A century ago, similar false rumours once swirled around Winston Churchill.

In truth, the king is a devout Anglican whose deep engagement with Islam (as well as Judaism and Orthodox Christianity) is connected to his interest in Traditionalism, the esoteric 20th-century school of thought whose early proponents railed against the modern world, believing that all the great religions share universal truths that could be antidotes to contemporary woes.

Charles has engaged in particular with the works of Rene Guenon, one of Traditionalism’s most important thinkers. Writing in the early 20th century, Guenon – a French intellectual raised as a Catholic and educated at the Sorbonne – saw Western modernity, which “developed upon material lines”, as representing an “anomaly” in human history.

“If [Traditionalists] defend the past,” Charles said in a 2006 speech, “it is because in the pre-modern world, all civilisations were marked by the presence of the sacred.” By contrast, our current era is one of “disintegration, disconnection, and deconstruction”.

In an address to the Church of Scotland’s General Assembly in 2000, Charles warned that our age is “in danger of ignoring, or forgetting, all knowledge of the sacred and spiritual”. It’s this concern which underpins his environmentalism. Charles believes that the modern West “has become increasingly acquisitive and exploitative”, suggesting that we can re-learn the “trusteeship of the vital sacramental and spiritual character of the world” from Islam.

Guenon himself looked to the east, writing several books on Hinduism and Taoism before leaving Paris for Cairo. There he became initiated into the Ahmadiyya Shadhiliyya Sufi order and studied at Al Azhar, one of the world’s centres of Sunni Muslim scholarship. He died a Muslim in Cairo in 1951.

Guenon’s role in shaping the king’s worldview has bewildered many mainstream commentators. Military historian Max Hastings is one case in point. In a review of Charles’s 2010 book Harmony: A New Way of Looking at Our World, he wrote in the Daily Mail that the “chief peril to our royal institution in the decades ahead lies within his well-meaning, muddled, woolly head.”

Brutal criticism

Undeterred by the disapproving gaze of the British media, Charles used his position as Prince of Wales to further his ideas in a practical sense. In 1993, The Prince’s Foundation began to house the Visual Islamic and Traditional Arts Programme.

There, students produced Mughal miniatures, Ottoman tiles and Arabic calligraphy. Two prominent Traditionalist scholars were visiting tutors – philosopher Seyyed Hossein Nasr and scholar Martin Lings, who wrote a famous biography of the Prophet Muhammad and felt “struck by lightning” when he first read Guenon. The programme became The Prince’s Foundation School of Traditional Arts in 2004.

Charles’s love for Islamic art is on display in his personal life. Hence the Carpet Garden, inspired by Islamic gardens, at his Gloucestershire home Highgrove. Charles explained: “I planted fig, pomegranate and olive trees in the garden because of their mention in the Qur’an.”

All this places King Charles dangerously out of step with the Truss government and the Conservative Party she leads. If Charles returns to the subject of Islam, he is certain to open himself up to brutal criticism from the neoconservative right which sets much of the agenda for this Conservative government.

It remains to be seen whether, on the throne, he will continue to speak about religion as openly as he did when he was Prince of Wales. He needs to bear in mind the lesson of his mother, who astutely steered clear of public controversies. It is nevertheless profoundly significant that we have a king who openly admired Islam.

A bold statement

Mosques across the country wished their condolences on the death of Queen Elizabeth, and many Muslims have been noting the new king’s attitudes towards Islam.

In his sermon before the prayer last Friday in Cambridge’s eco-friendly mosque, Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad, the University’s Shaykh Zayed Lecturer in Islamic Studies, quoted extensively from Charles’s 1993 speech on “Islam and the West”, reflecting that Charles’s generous interest in Islam set him apart from much of the British political class. Noting that Charles learnt Arabic to read the Qur’an, he asked: “How many people in Parliament would do that?”

Will Charles follow the gentle example of his mother and quietly emphasise Britain’s traditions of tolerance and multiculturalism, in contrast to the nationalism of the Johnson and Truss governments?

There is some evidence that he will.

Consider King Charles III’s first address as sovereign: “In the course of the last seventy years, we have seen our society become one of many cultures and many faiths,” he said, before promising that “whatever may be your background or beliefs, I shall endeavour to serve you with loyalty, respect and love”.

This was a bold and unequivocal statement of pluralism. And anyone who has paid attention to Charles’ pronouncements and actions as Prince of Wales will know that he means it sincerely. It is a position that sets him apart from the British government.

*

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.

Peter Oborne won best commentary/blogging in both 2022 and 2017, and was also named freelancer of the year in 2016 at the Drum Online Media Awards for articles he wrote for Middle East Eye. He was also named as British Press Awards Columnist of the Year in 2013. He resigned as chief political columnist of the Daily Telegraph in 2015. His latest book is The Fate of Abraham: Why the West is Wrong about Islam, published in May by Simon & Schuster. His previous books include The Triumph of the Political Class, The Rise of Political Lying, Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran and The Assault on Truth: Boris Johnson, Donald Trump and the Emergence of a New Moral Barbarism.

Imran Mulla studies History at Cambridge University.

Featured image is by Mark Jones, licensed under CC BY 2.0

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Charles III: How the New King Became the Most Pro-Islam Monarch in British History
  • Tags:

U.S. Pours More Weapons Into Spiraling Ukraine Conflict

September 14th, 2022 by Liberation

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Secretary of State Antony Blinken is in Kiev on a surprise visit with a clear mission: Make the spiraling crisis even worse. Arriving this morning, Blinken met with the Ukrainian president Zelenskyy and vowed that U.S. backing for his country’s war effort will continue “for as long as it takes.” 

Coinciding with the visit, the Biden administration announced two new packages of weapons shipments together totaling $2.9 billion. One component amounting to nearly $700 million was announced by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, who is today on a seperate trip to a U.S. airbase in nearby Germany. This includes heavy weapons and ammunition for Ukraine’s military. Another $2.2 billion is for long-term military upkeep, roughly half of which will go to Ukraine. The other half will be divided up among 18 different Eastern European countries — a clear signal that this war is about the comprehensive militarization of the region to surround Russia, not simply a matter of self-defense for Ukraine.

While inflation causes huge hardships for workers and basic infrastructure like water systems are failing, the administration’s priority is yet again war and the profits of the weapons manufacturers.

This visit and arms shipments were timed to coincide with a major counteroffensive being waged by the Ukrainian military. While it is unclear to what extent the recent gains claimed by the country’s armed forces are in fact real, it is clear that the fighting has entered a new and intensified phase that Ukraine and its backers are portraying as the moment when they can turn the tide against Russia.

Statements from top U.S. officials make it clear that they view themselves as effectively co-combatants in this offensive — a profoundly reckless and dangerous position that brings the world closer to catastrophic conflict. Speaking today in Germany, Austin bragged, “now we’re seeing the demonstrable success of our common efforts on the battlefield.” Meeting with Zelenskyy, Blinken said, “We know this is a pivotal moment … your counteroffensive is now under way and proving effective.” Zelenskyy then thanked Blinken for “this enormous support that you’re providing on a day-to-day basis.”

As the fighting rages on, the fallout for the global economy is getting worse and worse every day. In retaliation for western sanctions, Russia has cut off gas exports flowing to Europe through the crucial Nord Stream 1 pipeline. This has sent energy prices soaring and gravely deepens an already massive inflation crisis. The effects of this will ripple out into the United States, especially if the energy crisis grows so severe that major European economies slip into recession.

In the face of this extraordinary volatile situation, the Biden administration has decided to throw fuel on the fire. Instead, they should be sitting down at the negotiating table to bring an end to this terrible conflict. This would require them to abandon plans to turn the entire region into a block of militarized states completely hostile to Russia — a long-term objective of U.S. empire, but one that is of no benefit at all to the people.

*

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: Blinken at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, Sept. 8. Credit: @SecBlinken

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The pro-war corporate press is justifying the billions of American taxpayer dollars sent to Ukraine by publishing outright propaganda and claiming that the Ukrainians are in the midst of a major military offensive to push the Russians out of the country. In reality, Ukraine’s NATO-backed forces have taken a mere 1.6% slice of Russian-occupied territory, and live maps show corporate media claims couldn’t be further from the truth, as the Russian military and pro-Russian forces are firmly entrenched in the long-contested eastern regions of Ukraine.

Ukraine’s offensive appeared to kick off over the weekend, as fighting heated up, much to the glee of Western media.

According to low estimates, Russia controls over 120,000 square kilometers of internationally recognized Ukrainian territory. This week, the Ukrainians took back a mere 2,000 square kilometers of that area, regaining the equivalent of just about 1.6% of the total area they’ve lost to Russia since the February ground invasion.

According to Western media outlets though, Ukraine has made massive and historic gains and has the Russians on the run. CNN claimed in a Monday report that the Russian military is in the midst of a “collapse” in northeastern Ukraine, where the bulk of recent hostilities has taken place.

That report was echoed by a chorus of other mockingbird media outlets, who have all championed American intervention in Ukraine, be it financial or physical.

In a quote widely lauded by the corporate press, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who was an actor before he entered politics, taunted Russia and President Vladimir Putin amidst the supposed Ukrainian offensive.

The Russian military is “demonstrating the best it can do – showing its back,” Zelenskyy said on Monday. “They made a good choice to run.”

Ukraine Live Map

Reality flies in the face of pro-war press reports on Ukraine’s offensive. Areas under Russian control are shown in red, while areas under Ukrainian control are shown in grey. Source: LiveUaMap.com

The open propaganda has raised alarms, and many online have speculated that American and Western media outlets are portraying Russian forces as weak and Ukraine on the cusp of victory in hopes of goading the public into signing off on further intervention. That has prompted widespread concerns that, if the international liberal order has its way, the situation could spiral out of control and ensnare the entire civilized world in conflict.

Despite the tough talk from Zelenskyy, the eastern regions of his nation remain under siege by Russian forces, as well as by the ranks of pro-Russian separatists made up of Ukrainian citizens.

As Western corporate media has neglected to report, legions of Ukrainian citizens are opposing their own government and military and siding with the Russians.

Since 2014, following the Soros-sponsored color revolution that overthrew Ukraine’s elected government, the nation’s Donbas region has sought to separate itself from Ukraine, and join Russia. At one point, a near-unanimous vote was cast by the region’s residents, with well over 95% of them voting to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation.

Donbas has split into two “Republics” with their own governments and military forces, Donetsk and Luhansk.

According to current figures, America alone has sent more than $40 billion worth of unaccountable taxpayer monies to Ukraine to support its fight against Russia. Increasingly, politicians and media figures have begun calling for further intervention, up to and including air support and boots on the ground.

Several media reports have emerged touting American leftists who have gone to Ukraine to fight for what they’ve been told by the media and the Biden Administration is a just cause. Additionally, there is growing speculation, fueled by eye-witness reports, that actual NATO and American soldiers are on the ground, fighting the Russians in Ukraine.

According to a shocking report issued by The Stew Peters Show back in June, the Biden-backed Ukrainian Nazi Azov Battalion massacred American volunteers, burning them alive as Ukrainian forces retreated from the Russian advance on Mariupol.

No foreign volunteers were to be left alive and at risk of being captured, Ukrainian authorities ordered.

Edward Szall, who joined Stew Peters for the horrifying news segment, dubbed the openly-Nazi Ukrainian Azov Battalion “Biden’s ISIS.”

*

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 National File

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pro-War Press Celebrates NATO, Coalition Forces Taking 1.6% of Russian-Occupied Ukraine

A Dirty Joke: Ukraine’s Hero Comedian President Zelensky

September 14th, 2022 by Gerald Celente

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Since the Ukraine War began in February, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has achieved global popularity that has reached historic proportions.

The most frequent comparison is Winston Churchill, the British imperialist who squared off against Adolf Hitler during WWII. Yes, Churchill with a murderous track record, but adored by the Western propagandists who cover up his long history of atrocities. (See: Winston Churchill: His Times, His Crimes (London: Verso, 2022).

And Zelensky, worshiped by the West and trumped up as a hero, shares elements of lies and deceit that mirror the Churchill narrative.

Clown Show

Across the spectrum – from comedians, actors, Presstitutes, politicians and presidents – Zelensky has been praised as a world leader of the first degree.

Former President George W. Bush called him “the Winston Churchill” of our time. Ben Stiller, the “Tropic Thunder” actor, met Zelensky in June and gushed, “You’re my hero!”

The Hollywood Reporter said Stiller was “beaming” during the visit.

But before Russia’s 24 February invasion, Zelensky was perhaps best known in the U.S. as the little-known leader who was on the other line of former President Donald Trump’s infamous phone call asking him to investigate Joe Biden and the former vice president’s troubled son Hunter. The call resulted in an impeachment inquiry that eventually led to Trump’s impeachment.

Zelensky, a law-degree-carrying comedian who played the Ukrainian president on a TV show, ran for office in 2019 and vowed to work to clean up the crony capitalism and corruption in Kyiv. The show was called “Servant of the People.”

Like Trump, who was a reality show champion, Zelensky used the momentum of a popular sitcom to kick-start a political career. This role was very specific: He was an outsider who would clean up Kyiv. And why not? His TV show was so popular; his political party took on the name. (Transparency International’s 2021 Corruption Perception Index ranked Ukraine 122nd out of 180 countries and is considered the second most corrupt in Europe. Russia comes in at 136th place.)

One of the platforms of Zelensky’s campaign was peace with Russia. As reported by Radio Free Europe “one of his two main promises was to bring the war to an end, a goal that polls have shown Ukrainians want to see accomplished more than anything.”

Playing the poll numbers which showed that the number two concern on the list of Ukrainians was to stamp out the corruption that ravaged the nation, Zelensky, promising “victory over corruption,” said he would be the candidate to wipe it out.

The act worked and Zelensky, who was 41 in the spring of 2019, carried 73 percent of the vote.

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

But Zelensky’s effort to negotiate for peace and clean up Kyiv’s corruption was seen by many to have failed, and it turned out that Zelensky was part of the problem all along.

Forbes wrote in 2021, “Life has become art. But for many Ukraine watchers and foreign investors – they want their money back. This Servant of the People real life movie version is not like the TV series. This is a flop.”

On the war front Zelensky saddled up with hardline Russophobes in the country who protested any concessions.

The president agreed that an election should be held in the Donbas region, but only under Ukrainian standards and with no Russian troops on the ground. At that time, Moscow denied any troop presence.

Zelensky previously agreed to the Steinmeier formula that would allow local elections to be held even before these troops leave the area. But he did not implement the provisions to end the deadly conflict. Instead, military battles between Kyiv and the separatist Donbas region escalated, with a reported 14,000 to 15,000 people killed.

There were some signs that tensions between the countries were easing – including prisoner exchanges – but in October 2021, Ukraine deployed an armed drone to the region that got tensions high again.

However, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Moscow’s recognition of the separatist region just before Moscow’s 24 February invasion.

Putin said the purpose of the operation was to protect people in Donbas who “have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime.”

Days before the invasion, Putin met with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and told reporters after the meeting: “Naturally, the issue of European security was also discussed in the context of the situation around a settlement of the conflict in Ukraine.”

“As you know, the Kyiv authorities are refusing to abide by the Minsk Agreements and the 2015 arrangements, as well as the agreements reached at later summits in the Normandy format…There is no progress on such important issues as constitutional reform, amnesty, local election or the special legal status of Donbas… Opportunities for restoring the country’s territorial integrity via a direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk continue to be ignored, like before. Ukraine is systematically violating human rights on a large scale and continues to endorse discrimination against Russian speakers at the legislative level.”

Sources told The Kyiv Independent that France and Germany urged Ukraine to comply with the Russian “spin” of the agreement to prevent war. The report said French President Emmanuel Macron asked Zelensky to talk with the separatists in the region, and Zelensky said no. Scholz also urged Kyiv to offer occupied territories in the Donbass some autonomy.

Kyiv has been opposed to the deal because it claims that the agreement would grant these territories “full amnesty for all combatants, the right to appoint their own prosecutors and judges and to develop their own political and economic ties with Russia.”

Corruption Club

On the corruption front, Zelensky’s top objection was the billions that Ukrainian oligarchs kept in shell companies overseas to avoid taxes. Critics say these offshore businesses are intended to be vehicles to avoid paying taxes to Ukraine.

Zelensky suffered a major political blow when the Pandora Papers leak occurred in 2021 to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. The documents showed Zelensky had off-shore shell companies and is “rather similar to his predecessors,” The Guardian reported at the time.

It turns out that Zelensky and his close associates maintained their own network of these offshore companies, according to the papers.

These companies were set up in 2012, long before he ran for president. Zelensky’s offshore companies were in the British Virgin Islands, Cyprus, and Belize. His partners were given plumb jobs in the executive branch of his government.

Zelensky’s office said at the time that the use of these companies was intended to protect him from pro-Russian forces, Al Jazeera reported. 

The report said two of the offshore companies belonged to Zelensky’s partners and used to purchase “three lavish properties in central London.” These papers said Zelensky transferred his stake in one of his offshore companies to a top aide and former business partner, Sergiy Shefir, just before he was elected.

Zelensky’s office said these companies were created to protect the group’s incomes from former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was considered pro-Russian.

The Al Jazeera report said that Zelensky’s office did not respond to evidence that his wife has continued to receive dividends from an offshore company.

Ukraine, by far, had the most politicians named in the Pandora Papers leak at 38. Russia came in second with 19.

Iryna Gerashchenko, a lawmaker from ex-president Petro Poroshenko’s party, claimed Zelesnky committed tax evasion.

“He and his accomplices took funds offshore without paying any taxes to the Ukrainian budget,” she tweeted.

Zelensky defeated the billionaire in 2019.

Ihor Kolomoysky

Zelensky’s relationship with Ihor Kolomoysky, the Ukrainian oligarch, has also been scrutinized after reports emerged of a secret payment of $41 million to Zelensky’s off-shore media company called Kvartal 95.

Iryna Venediktova, Ukraine’s head prosecutor, told reporters in 2021 that the revelations came as “no surprise” for law-enforcement agencies in the country, bykvu.com reported. She questioned the veracity of the report.

Kolomoysky was a major supporter of Zelensky’s bid for president.

On 20 July, Ukrainska Pravda first reported that Kolomoysky’s citizenship had been revoked over his dual citizenship. Kolomoysky holds citizenships in Israel, Cyprus, and Ukraine.

The Kyiv Independent reported that Kolomoysky has holdings in oil, metallurgy, mass media, and banking companies. He once reportedly joked that Ukrainian law bars dual citizenship, “but doesn’t say anything about triple citizenship.”

The Pandora Papers suggested that Zelensky was involved with money laundering from Kolomoysky’s PrivatBank that helped the comedian buy an apartment in London.

Zelensky also has a 15-room villa in Italy that he failed to disclose in his public asset declaration while running for office in 2019.

The Italian newspaper Il Tirreno recently reported that the villa, which is still owned by Zelensky, was rented out to a woman from the former USSR who now lives in London. The report noted that the woman likely rented the villa through a third party, but it is notable because Kyiv is calling on the EU to ban Russian tourists.

Zelesnky’s office referred The Trends Journal to a statement from the Italian property management company, San Tommaso SRL. The company denied the report that the property was rented out to a woman from the Russian Federation.

Zelensky The Draft-Dodger

During the 2019 campaign, Zelensky’s history of draft-dodging became a focal point that former President Petro Poroshenko tried to scrutinize. On April 13, 2019, Ukraine’s Defense Ministry took to Facebook to confirm that Zelensky ignored four draft notices on 15 April 2015, 23 June 2014, 15 August 2014, and 10 October 2015. “Citizen Zelensky V.O. did not arrive at the military commissariat at his call,” the post read.

The Defense Ministry and Zelensky’s office did not respond to emails seeking comment from The Trends Journal. Zelensky has been criticized since the start of the invasion for not allowing fighting-aged men to leave the country and using the strategy of issuing military summonses at gas stations and other public areas.

The New York Times reported that young men in Ukraine are required to do military service “unless they fall into an exempt category, like being enrolled in a university, having a disability or having at least three children.”

Corruption Rampant 

The European Court of Auditors released a special report in September that found “grand corruption and state capture” were still widespread in the country despite 20 years of European Union efforts to intervene and help in its reform agenda.

“The EU has long been aware of the connections between oligarchs, high-level officials, politicians, the judiciary and state-owned enterprises. However, it has not developed a real strategy for targeting grand corruption,” the auditors said in a statement.

Up until the Russian invasion, the EU has been the largest donor to Ukraine. The European Commission has committed around €5.6 billion to macro-financial assistance programs and €2.2 billion to assistance programs since 2014, the statement said. The Commission also guarantees European Investment Bank loans of €4.4 billion.

Juhan Parts, the member of the European Courts of Auditors responsible for the report “despite varied support the EU has offered to Ukraine, oligarchs and vested interests continue to undermine the rule of law in Ukraine and to threaten the country’s development.”

Freedom House’s 2022 report lists Ukraine as “partly free,” with a score of 61 out of a possible 100.

*

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: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky seen earlier this year. (Ukrainian Presidential Press Service)

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Ukrainian army began a major offensive against Russian forces deployed in the region north of the southern city of Kherson on Sept. 1. Ten days later, the Ukrainians had expanded the scope and the scale of its offensive operations to include the region around the northern city of Kharkov.

While the Kherson offensive was thrown back by the Russians, with the Ukrainian forces suffering heavy losses in both men and material, the Kharkov offensive turned out to be a major success, with thousands of square kilometers of territory previously occupied by Russian troops placed back under Ukrainian governmental control.

Instead of launching its own counteroffensive against the Ukrainians operating in the Kharkov region, the Russian Ministry of Defense (MOD) made an announcement many people found shocking: “To achieve the stated goals of a special military operation to liberate the Donbass,” the Russians announced via Telegram, “it was decided to regroup Russian troops…to increase efforts in the Donetsk direction.”

Downplaying the notion of a retreat, the Russian MOD declared that “to this end, within three days, an operation was carried out to curtail and organize the transfer of [Russian] troops to the territory of the Donetsk People’s Republic.

During this operation,” the report said, “a number of distractions and demonstration measures were carried out, indicating the real actions of the troops” which, the Russians declared, resulted in “more than two thousand Ukrainian and foreign fighters [being] destroyed, as well as more than a hundred units of armored vehicles and artillery.”

To quote the immortal Yogi Berra, it was “déjà vu all over again.”

Phases of the War

Russian bombardment of telecommunications antennas in Kiev, March 1, 2022. (Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine/Wikimedia Commons)

On March 25, the head of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Colonel General Sergei Rudskoy, gave a briefing in which he announced the end of what he called Phase One of Russia’s “special military operation” (SMO) in Ukraine.

The goals of the operation, which had begun on Feb. 24 when Russian troops crossed the border with Ukraine, were to cause “such damage to military infrastructure, equipment, personnel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine” to pin them down and prevent any significant reinforcement of the Ukrainian forces deployed in the Donbass region.

Rudskoy then announced Russian troops would be withdrawing and regrouping so that they will be able to “concentrate on the main thing — the complete liberation of Donbass.”

Thus began Phase Two.

On May 30 I published an article in Consortium News where I discussed the necessity of a Phase Three. I noted that

“both Phase One and Phase Two of Russia’s operation were specifically tailored to the military requirements necessary to eliminate the threat posed to Lugansk and Donetsk by the buildup of Ukrainian military power in eastern Ukraine. … [A]t some point soon, Russia will announce that it has defeated the Ukrainian military forces arrayed in the east and, in doing so, end the notion of the imminent threat that gave Russia the legal justification to undertake its operation.”

Such an outcome, I wrote, would “leave Russia with a number of unfulfilled political objectives, including denazification, demilitarization, permanent Ukrainian neutrality, and NATO concurrence with a new European security framework along the lines drawn up by Russia in its December 2021 treaty proposals. If Russia were to call a halt to its military operation at this juncture,” I declared, “it would be ceding political victory to Ukraine, which ‘wins’ by not losing.”

This line of thinking was predicated on my belief that “[w]hile one could have previously argued that an imminent threat would continue to exist so long as the Ukrainian forces possessed sufficient combat power to retake Donbass region, such an argument cannot be made today.”

In short, I believed that impetus for Russia expanding into a third phase would arise only after it completed its mission of liberating the Donbass in Phase Two. “Ukraine,” I said, “even with the massive infusion of military assistance from NATO, would never again be in a position to threaten a Russian conquest of the Donbass region.”

I was wrong.

Anne Applebaum, a neoconservative staff writer for The Atlantic, recently interviewed Lieutenant General Yevhen Moisiuk, the deputy commander in chief of the Ukrainian armed forces, about the successful Ukrainian offensive operation. “What really surprises us,” Moisiuk said, “is that the Russian troops are not fighting back.”

Applebaum put her own spin on the general’s word. “Offered the choice of fighting or fleeing,” she wrote of the Russian soldiers, “many of them appear to be escaping as fast as they can.”

According to Applebaum, the Ukrainian success on the battlefield has created a new reality, where the Ukrainians, she concludes, “could win this war” and, in doing so, bring “about the end of Putin’s regime.”

I wasn’t that wrong.

Soviet and NATO Doctrine

Russian military vehicles bombed by Ukrainian forces, March 8, 2022. (Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine/Wikimedia Commons)

War is a complicated business. Applebaum seems ignorant of this. Both the Ukrainian and Russian militaries are large, professional organizations backed by institutions designed to produce qualified warriors. Both militaries are well led, well equipped, and well prepared to undertake the missions assigned them. They are among the largest military organizations in Europe.

The Russian military, moreover, is staffed by officers of the highest caliber, who have undergone extensive training in the military arts. They are experts in strategy, operations, and tactics. They know their business.

For its part, the Ukrainian military has undergone a radical transformation in the years since 2014, where Soviet-era doctrine has been replaced by a hybrid one that incorporates NATO doctrine and methodologies.

This transformation has been accelerated dramatically since the the Russian invasion, with the Ukrainian military virtually transitioning from older, Soviet-era heavy equipment to an arsenal which more closely mirrors the organization and equipment of NATO nations, which are providing billions of dollars of equipment and training.

The Ukrainians are, like their Russian counterparts, military professionals adept at the necessity of adapting to battlefield realities. The Ukrainian experience, however, is complicated by trying to meld two disparate doctrinal approaches to war (Soviet-era and modern NATO) under combat conditions. This complexity creates opportunities for mistakes, and mistakes on the battlefield often result in casualties — significant casualties.

Russia has fought three different styles of wars in the six months since it entered Ukraine. The first was a war of maneuver, designed to seize as much territory as possible to shape the battlefield militarily and politically.

The operation was conducted with approximately 200,000 Russian and allied forces, who were up against an active-duty Ukrainian military of some 260,000 troops backed by up to 600,000 reservists. The standard 3:1 attacker-defender ratio did not apply — the Russians sought to use speed, surprise, and audacity to minimize Ukraine’s numerical advantage, and in the process hoping for a rapid political collapse in Ukraine that would prevent any major fighting between the Russian and Ukrainian armed forces.

This plan succeeded in some areas (in the south, for instance, around Kherson), and did fix Ukrainian troops in place and caused the diversion of reinforcements away from critical zones of operation. But it failed strategically — the Ukrainians did not collapse but rather solidified — ensuring a long, hard fight ahead.

The second phase of the Russian operation had the Russians regroup to focus on the liberation of Donbass. Here, Russia adapted its operational methodology, using its superiority in firepower to conduct a slow, deliberate advance against Ukrainian forces dug into extensive defensive networks and, in doing so, achieving unheard of casualty ratios that had ten or more Ukrainians being killed or wounded for every Russian casualty.

While Russia was slowly advancing against dug in Ukrainian forces, the U.S. and NATO provided Ukraine with billions of dollars of military equipment, including the equivalent of several armored divisions (tanks, armored fighting vehicles, artillery, and support vehicles), along with extensive operational training on this equipment at military installations outside Ukraine.

In short, while Russia was busy destroying the Ukrainian military on the battlefield, Ukraine was busy reconstituting that army, replacing destroyed units with fresh forces that were extremely well equipped, well trained, and well led.

The second phase of the conflict saw Russia destroy the old Ukrainian army. In its stead, Russia faced mobilized territorial and national units, supported by reconstituted NATO-trained forces. But the bulk of the NATO trained forces were held in reserve.

The Third Phase – NATO vs. Russia

Russian withdrawal from Kharkiv on Sunday. (Russian Ministry of Defense)

These are the forces that have been committed to the current fighting. Russia finds itself in a full-fledged proxy war with NATO, facing a NATO-style military force that is being logistically sustained by NATO, trained by NATO, provided with NATO intelligence, and working in harmony with NATO military planners.

What this means is that the current Ukrainian counteroffensive should not be viewed as an extension of the phase two battle, but rather the initiation of a new third phase which is not a Ukrainian-Russian conflict, but a NATO-Russian conflict.

The Ukrainian battle plan has “Made in Brussels” stamped all over it. The force composition was determined by NATO, as was the timing of the attacks and the direction of the attacks. NATO intelligence carefully located seams in the Russian defenses and identified critical command and control, logistics, and reserve concentration nodes that were targeted by Ukrainian artillery, which operates on a fire control plan created by NATO.

In short, the Ukrainian army that Russia faced in Kherson and around Kharkov was unlike any Ukrainian opponent it had previously faced. Russia was no longer fighting a Ukrainian army equipped by NATO, but rather a NATO army manned by Ukrainians.

Ukraine continues to receive billions of dollars of military assistance, and currently has tens of thousands of troops undergoing extensive training in NATO nations.

There will be a fourth phase, and a fifth phase … as many phases as necessary before Ukraine either exhausts its will to fight and die, NATO exhausts its ability to continue supplying the Ukrainian military, or Russia exhausts its willingness to fight an inconclusive conflict in Ukraine. Back in May I called the decision by the U.S. to provide billions of dollars of military assistance to Ukraine “a game changer.”

Massive Intelligence Failure

Russian military intelligence (GRU) headquarters, Moscow. (Hagidza/Wikimedia Commons)

What we are witnessing in Ukraine today is how this money has changed the game. The result is more dead Ukrainian and Russian forces, more dead civilians, and more destroyed equipment.

If Russia is to prevail, however, it will need to identify its many failings leading up to the successful Ukrainian offensive and adapt accordingly. First and foremost, the Ukrainian offensive around Kharkov represents one of the most serious intelligence failures by a professional military force since the Israeli failure to predict the Egyptian assault on the Suez Canal that kicked off the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

The Ukrainians had been signaling their intent to conduct an offensive in the Kherson region for many weeks now. It appears that when Ukraine initiated its attacks along the Kherson line, Russia assumed that this was the long-awaited offensive, and rushed reserves and reinforcements to this front.

The Ukrainians were repulsed with heavy losses, but not before Russia had committed its theater reserves. When the Ukrainian army attacked in the Kharkov region a few days later, Russia was taken by surprise.

And then there is the extent to which NATO had integrated itself into every aspect of Ukrainian military operations.

How could this happen? A failure of intelligence of this magnitude suggests deficiencies in both Russia’s ability to collect intelligence data, as well as an inability to produce timely and accurate assessments for the Russian leadership. This will require a top-to-bottom review to be adequately addressed. In short, heads will roll — and soon. This war isn’t stopping anytime soon, and Ukraine continues to prepare for future offensive actions.

Why Russia Will Still Win

In the end, I still believe the end game remains the same — Russia will win. But the cost for extending this war has become much higher for all parties involved.

The successful Ukrainian counteroffensive needs to be put into a proper perspective. The casualties Ukraine suffered, and is still suffering, to achieve this victory are unsustainable. Ukraine has exhausted its strategic reserves, and they will have to be reconstituted if Ukraine were to have any aspirations of continuing an advance along these lines. This will take months.

Russia, meanwhile, has lost nothing more than some indefensible space. Russian casualties were minimal, and equipment losses readily replaced.

Russia has actually strengthened its military posture by creating strong defensive lines in the north capable of withstanding any Ukrainian attack, while increasing combat power available to complete the task of liberating the remainder of the Donetsk People’s Republic under Ukrainian control.

Russia has far more strategic depth than Ukraine. Russia is beginning to strike critical infrastructure targets, such as power stations, that will not only cripple the Ukrainian economy, but also their ability to move large amounts of troops rapidly via train.

Russia will learn from the lessons the Kharkov defeat taught them and continue its stated mission objectives.

The bottom line – the Kharkov offensive was as good as it will get for Ukraine, while Russia hasn’t come close to hitting rock bottom. Changes need to be made by Russia to fix the problems identified through the Kharkov defeat. Winning a battle is one thing; winning a war another.

For Ukraine, the huge losses suffered by their own forces, combined with the limited damage inflicted on Russia means the Kharkov offensive is, at best, a Pyrrhic victory, one that does not change the fundamental reality that Russia is winning, and will win, the conflict in Ukraine.

*

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.

Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. His most recent book is Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika, published by Clarity Press.

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

In a major setback to plans for expanding US military presence in Japan, Denny Tamaki, the anti-US base governor of Okinawa, has won a second term in office, continuing his platform against US military bases in the prefecture. In the gubernatorial election held on Sunday, September 11, Tamaki won with a clear majority by defeating Japan’s ruling party candidate Atsushi Sakima.

As per the final results released on Monday, Tamaki, supported by a coalition of opposition groups and local movements, secured 339,767 votes, nearly 51% of the total votes polled. Tamaki defeated his nearest rival Sakima for the second time, with a margin of nearly 10%. Local conservative politician Mikio Shimoji, also a former parliamentarian and minister, stood a distant third with around 8% votes.

Tamaki, who has been serving as Okinawa’s governor since 2018, was supported by a coalition that included the Constitutional Democratic Party (CDP) and the Japanese Communist Party (JCP), along with the Social Democratic Party (SDP), Reiwa Shinsengumi (Reiwa), and local groups like Okinawa Social Mass Party (OSMP) and Okinawa Whirlwind.

Tamaki’s platform highlighted his long-standing opposition to the relocation of the US Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, one of the many US bases in the region, from Ginowan to Henoko Bay in Nago, both cities in Okinawa. The relocation plan has been especially controversial for Okinawans who have long opposed expansion or relocation of US military bases in the island.

Sakima, who served as the mayor of Ginowan, was supported by Japan’s ruling conservative coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and Komeito. Unlike in the 2018 election, when he lost against Tamaki for the first time, Sakima was upfront about his support for the relocation this time and closely aligned with the ruling coalition.

The election results are widely seen as a strong statement against the Futenma base relocation in the region. “The result suggests that the thoughts of people in the prefecture haven’t changed even a millimeter,” proclaimed Tamaki in his victory speech on Monday.

This was also echoed by Tamaki’s allies. In a statement responding to Tamaki’s re-election, JCP chairman Kazuo Shii said that the result “shows the unwavering will of the people of Okinawa.”

While conceding his defeat, Sakima admitted that his calls for Okinawans to oppose the base relocation “did not gain support,” and that his campaign will “strive to gain the understanding of the Okinawa people.” However, the ruling LDP has dismissed the impact that the results will have.

Hiroshi Moriyama, the election committee chairman of the LDP, tried to downplay the importance of the results, although admitting Okinawan opposition to the base relocation. “Since it is a local government election, there will be no direct impact on national politics,” he said, adding that the Kishida government still intends to continue with the base relocation.

Even though a prefectural governor’s powers are limited, Tamaki can still affect the relocation plan and the construction activities at Henoko Bay. During his campaign, Tamaki promised to cut short the construction period at Henoko Bay and also ensure that the land used by the Futenma base is returned to Okinawa by 2030.

The CDP, JCP, and other opposition groups have also called on the Kishida government to halt the relocation plans. “The Futenma base should be immediately closed and removed,” said Shii, adding that “The Kishida administration should take the result seriously and give up once and for all the construction of new bases.”

“It is time for the LDP-Komeito government to change its heavy-handed method of pushing the construction of the unnecessary Henoko base,” said Taro Yamamoto, legislator and leader of Reiwa Shinsengumi. Yamamoto also criticized the government’s attempts to link budgetary allocations for Okinawa to the base relocation.

Since the election of anti-base candidate Takeshi Onaga as governor in 2014, elections in the prefecture have witnessed major victories for the anti-base bloc, with three successive governor victories and four out of the six directly elected members to the National Diet being anti-base advocates. This trend was even more evident when 72% of Okinawans voted against the base relocation plans in a 2019 referendum.

Okinawa has a long history of hosting a large number of US foreign bases in Japan. After Japan’s defeat in the Second World War, the prefecture was under US military control until 1972. Okinawa was then handed back to Japan but the legacy of US control continues till today.

For an island that contributes to around 1.2% of Japan’s population, it hosts over 70% of the US military personnel in the country. Around two-thirds of US military infrastructure is also based there.

With the ruling LDP-Komeito’s long-standing attempts to undermine Japan’s pacifist constitution, and the rising tensions between China and the US, extensive US foreign bases in the neighborhood, especially in Okinawa, have been a source of major concern for the island’s residents who faced the brunt of WWII destruction in the Pacific theater.

*

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: Denny Tamaki, a long-standing advocate against US military presence in Okinawa, has been re-elected as Okinawa’s governor. (Photo: Global Times)

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

On September 13th, two very grim reports about the world’s future were published, one by America’s Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation, and the other by America’s Gallup polling organization; and both are data-based — as Melinda and Bill Gates expressed it in their joint Introduction to their new report, which is titled “The Future of Progress”: “We are data people, and this is a data report.”

Bill Gates’s essay there is titled “We need to change how we think about world hunger”, and opens:

“In February, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine interrupted the flow of grain from Europe to Africa, creating another humanitarian crisis on a second continent.”

Melinda Gates’s essay is titled “Gender equality depends on women having power, not just ‘empowerment’”, and opens,

“Economic progress for women is stalling worldwide — and COVID-19 is not the only reason why. But frankly, blaming COVID-19 alone would be a cop-out. We have to ask harder questions: Why do gender-neutral events like pandemics have gendered effects? And why, after decades of high-profile efforts to improve the lives of women and girls, is equality still generations out of reach?”

Both essays focus on different topics, but neither focuses on the chief driver of increased economic inequality itself, which is fundamental to everything that they discuss:

Its chief driver is their own and fellow-billionaires’ imperialism and the resultant soaring taxpayer-funded military-weapons-manufacturers’ and extraction-industries’ profits that derive from the resulting unique advantages that these billionaires derive from the empire that the Government that they and their fellow billionaires control for their own special economic benefit.

Only this structure empowers these billionaires to grab, for themselves and their friends, control over yet more of the world’s resources.

Whereas Melinda Gates mentions economic inequality as supposedly needing to be reduced in order to reduce gender-inequality (something which also has biological sources, which her essay ignores, as-if they don’t even exist at all);

and, whereas Bill Gates equally falsely assumes that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was not a necessary defensive measure by Russia against these billionaires’ obsession to gain control of Russia, to make it yet another U.S. vassal-nation;

America’s billionaires, themselves, collectively control the insatiable global-hegemonic-control-obsessed U.S. imperial Government, which systematically is forcing-up economic inequality throughout the entire world. They refuse to see what they don’t want to see; and, so, it gets censored-out of every organization that they control.

Gallup’s new report is a book, about which Gallup headlines “NEW BOOK: Blind Spot is now available. Get your copy today.” They announce:

The World Is Suffering

Anger, stress, sadness, physical pain and worry have reached new global highs. While it’s easy to blame everything on the COVID-19 pandemic, negative emotions have been rising for a decade.

A big problem is that leaders don’t know just how much unhappiness there is in the world today. They don’t know because they haven’t been paying attention to the right metrics. But they can start now.

Gallup’s new book, Blind Spot, shows leaders why measuring happiness and wellbeing is crucial to reversing the trend of rising global misery and the serious outcomes of unhappiness. …

Improving the world starts with improving people’s lives. And the first step is knowing how people’s lives are going. Find out what some companies are already doing to lead the way in this excerpt from Blind Spot.

From governments and corporations to communities and workplaces, leaders everywhere need to watch emotional and behavioral indicators as much as traditional economic indicators — and start focusing more on how people feel.

Full of captivating questions, answers and Gallup’s global research, Blind Spot shows them how.

The Gallup Press page on their book is bannered “Blind Spot: The Global Rise of Unhappiness and How Leaders Missed It” (no: they — agents of the billionaires —  created it, in serving their masters), and says:

RISING UNHAPPINESS

Anger, stress, worry and sadness reached record highs in 2021.

Unhappiness has been increasing globally for a decade, according to Gallup — and its rise has been missed by almost every world leader. That’s because while leaders pay close attention to measures like GDP or unemployment, almost none of them track their citizens’ wellbeing.

The implications of this blind spot are significant and far-reaching — leaders missed the citizen unhappiness that triggered events ranging from the Arab uprisings to Brexit to the election of Donald Trump.

However, in fact: an accompanying graph there, of “The Global Rise of Unhappiness” shows that, actually, this rise in unhappiness had started in 2014, after a significant decline in unhappiness was registered during 2013; so, the statement, by Gallup, that “Unhappiness has been increasing globally for a decade,” is actually false, according to Gallup’s own figures.

Screenshot of Negative Experience Index

It has been sharply rising for eight years. Globally, unhappiness has been soaring ever since 2014, not since 2012 — such as Gallup arbitrarily, and falsely, alleges by asserting that “Unhappiness has been increasing globally for a decade.”

In February 2014, the U.S. Government’s coup taking over control of Ukraine’s Government occurred, and the breakaway of two regions of Ukraine which had voted overwhelmingly for the democratically elected President of Ukraine that Obama had just replaced with a racist-fascist anti-Russian Government, produced the war in Ukraine, which has continued ever since.

The U.S. Government’s objective throughout this is to get its nuclear missiles based on Ukraine’s border with Russia, which is the closest part of Russia’s entire border to Moscow, so that America will then be able to launch from there and so blitz-annihilate Russia’s central command, in the Kremlin, in order that Russia won’t have more than five minutes from that launch in order to be able to launch its own missiles against America and all of NATO.

The Obama Administration were determined to overthrow and replace the democratically-elected-in-2010 President of Ukraine as soon as Ukraine’s new President said no, that same year, to both Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s personal urgings to bring Ukraine into the EU as a steppingstone for Ukraine to become admitted into NATO.

He said no; and, in this, he was expressing the will of the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians who, prior to Obama’s 2014 coup, feared NATO and considered it to be their enemy.

The U.S. Government and its allies, or vassal nations, have announced that they are going to get Ukraine into NATO, one way or another. Whatever else the war between Russia and Ukraine is, it is actually the war between the United States (America’s billionaires) and Russia (the people who live there and who overwhelmingly support Vladimir Putin as being their leader), and this war is being waged on the battlefield of Ukraine because that country has a border nearer to Moscow than any other nation does.

Ukrainians are America’s proxy army in this war. Russia is using its own army there, to protect Russians and Russia, against America and against Ukraine and the U.S. Government’s other vassal-nations.

If America’s billionaires were not so insatiable as to demand hegemony — controlling the entire world as they already control America’s own Government — then the negative trends since 2014, that both Gallup and the Gateses claim to care so much about, would reverse. And America’s billionaires will probably resist that fact with all of the wealth that they possess, and with all of the tax-monies that they and their vassal-nations can collect from their residents to pay for.

The deep insincerity of billionaires worldwide is likewise displayed in their fraudulent recommendations on global warminganother issue that is especially dangerous to the world’s poor.

*

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.

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 AIER

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Joe Biden “is fueling the fire in the Ukraine.”  — Roger Waters of Pink Floyd

It takes a musical artist to cut through the morass of propaganda to educate American mainstream media (MSM) about the Russia-Ukraine crisis and the roleof the United States in instigating that conflict for its own nefarious ends.

The MSM have constructed an undiluted narrative about “Putin’s War” that disguises America’s imperialist expansion into eastern Europe. It is utterly Orwellian in its effort to project onto Russia what the U.S. and its main imperial ally, the UK (which a British journalist deemed “America’s tugboat”), have been doing non-stop since 1945—and indeed for centuries.

Looking back, the U.S. under Truman began the policy of turning enemies (Germany, Japan) into friends and friends (the important war-time alliance with the USSR) into enemies. The CIA, established in 1947, was the main clandestine instrument of this policy, working closely with the neo-Nazi Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) to carry out acts to sabotage, divide and destabilize the Soviet state.

The OUN, in particular the faction led by the German ally Stepan Bandera and his second in command, Yaroslav Stetsko, OUN-B, was a violently anti-semitic, anti-communist, and anti-Russian organization, which collaborated with the Nazi occupation and actively participated in the slaughter of millions of Poles, Ukrainian Jews, and ethnically Russian and Ukrainian communists in the region. Nonetheless, The Washington Post treated Stetsko as a national hero, a “lonely patriot.”

The OUN-German alliance in 1941 was backed by the leaders of the Ukrainian Orthodox and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic churches. The latter’s archbishop, Andrey Sheptytsky, penned a pastoral letter that declared: “We greet the victorious German Army as deliverer from the enemy. We render our obedient homage to the government which has been erected. We recognize Mr. Yaroslav Stetsko as Head of State … of the Ukraine.”

On the occasion of the German invasion of the Soviet Union, the OUN put up posters in the western Ukrainian city of Lvov that read: “Do not throw away your weapons now. Take them in your hands. Destroy the enemy.…People! Know! Moscow, Poland, the Hungarians, the Jews are your enemies. Destroy them!…Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the Heroes! Glory to the Leader! [Bandera]”

Notably, this call for ethnic cleansing does not cite the Germans then occupying Ukraine, yet the fascist and neo-Nazi propagandists who are waging a war in the Donbas region today portray their forebearers as heroes for having defended Ukrainian nationalism from the Soviets and Germany. The Pentagon successfully pressed Congress to lift restrictions on training and providing military assistance to groups, such as the Azov Battalion, that are based on fascist or neo-Nazi ideology.

Azov Battalion fighters with NATO flag at left and Nazi flag at right. [Source: wsws.org]

As in the past, U.S. foreign policy is prepared to accommodate such sectors within its circle of allies. On December 16, 2021, a draft resolution of the UN General Assembly was listed as “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”

It passed by a recorded vote of 130 in favor (mainly the Third World, constituting the large majority of the world’s population), 51 abstentions (mainly the EU, Australia, New Zealand and Canada), and two opposed, the two being Ukraine and the United States. The Western European countries that Hitler conquered and occupied would not condemn present-day manifestations of Nazism and fascism.

Harry Truman, infamously declared as a senator in 1940 in response to Operation Barbarossa that “If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible.” This showed what little regard he had for the Russian and other Soviet people—which became more evident when he became president.

During his tenure in the White House, the U.S. helped rebuild the industrial capacity of Western Europe (in large part to prevent communists and socialists from winning elections), but he also launched a war on North Korea, destroying virtually every structure in the country through bombing, including incendiary and napalm weapons.

He initiated the Cold War, massively escalated the military budget, organized NATO, and used atomic weapons on civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in large part to block the allied Soviets from gaining territory in Japan in the last days of the war.

Perhaps Truman’s most destructive initiative was the creation of the CIA, a monster that he later claimed got out of hand, telling a friend “I never would have agreed to the formulation of the Central Intelligence Agency back in forty-seven, if I had known it would become the American Gestapo, ”though as president he supported its clandestine activities in Eastern Europe.

The immediate target was Soviet Ukraine, which the CIA hoped through its clandestine projects to “crack apart” with saboteurs behind enemy lines.

President Harry S. Truman signing off on creation of the CIA. [Source: historydaily.org]

Its task was a carry-over from the World War II covert action agency, the OSS, which had worked with partisan groups resisting the Nazi occupation. In Ukraine, the U.S. simply flipped the enemy by supporting Nazi insurgent organizations fighting the Soviet Union, the country that had just saved Europe from the scourge of Hitler’s Third Reich.

The CIA’s plan, part of its “stay behind” operations in Central and Eastern Europe, was to airdrop Ukrainians from the ultra-nationalist groups, in particular OUN-B, that would involve the smuggling of weapons, the uses of covert communication transmissions, spies, commandos, banditry, assassins and sabotage.

A declassified secret CIA history shows that the Agency refused to extradite the OUN war criminal Bandera to the Soviets in order to keep the underground movement and the destabilization efforts in Ukraine intact.

Instead, two branches of the CIA, the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) for covert operations and the Office of Special Operations (OSO) for clandestine projects for which the U.S. government provided cover, both protected the OUN and worked closely with the anti-Soviet Ukraine Insurgent Army (UPA) “for psychological warfare activities directed against Polish, Czechoslovakian, and Romanian targets bordering Ukraine.”

OPC and OSO “agree[d] that the Ukrainian organization [Ukrainian Supreme Council of Liberation], the governing body of the OUN, offers unusual opportunities for penetration of the USSR, and assisting in the development of underground movements behind the Iron Curtain.”

The CIA operation was codenamed PBCRUET-AERODYNAMIC, based on a top-secret document dated June 17, 1950.

The OUN

The OUN party congress in August 1939 called for an “ethnically uniform” state, a concept that escalated after 1941 with its commitment to a “cleansing operation against all enemies of the race.” Ukraine’s Jews, numbering about 1.5 million, were virtually annihilated by the Germans, aided by OUN’s Ukrainian Insurgent Army, the Ukrainian police, and by ordinary Ukrainian citizens. OUN was made up of a range of Ukrainian fascists, Nazis, and other extreme elements but also included Slovak Hlinka Guards, Ukrainian SS from the 14thGrenadier Waffen-SS (Galicia) Division, and mercenary German SS.

The mass murder of Poles (estimated at 100,000 to 200,000) escalated in 1943, again actively joined by the UPA. The OUN-UPA also collaborated with the Germans in rooting out thousands of Ukrainian Russians for extermination. Its self-appointed “prime minister,” Yaroslav Stetsko depicted Russians as a barbarian, non-European race, descended from Mongols and Huns.

After the war, the U.S. saw no problem with working closely with Stetsko who, in his own biography (1941), wrote: “I consider Marxism to be a product of the Jewish mind, which has been applied in the Muscovite prison of peoples by the Muscovite-Asiatic people with the assistance of Jews. Moscow and Jewry are Ukraine’s greatest enemies and bearers of corruptive Bolshevik international ideas.… I therefore support the destruction of the Jews and the expedience of bringing German methods of exterminating Jewry to Ukraine, barring their assimilation….”

Bandera Lobby Blog on Twitter: "That was a year after Oliver North's man & soon to be Chairman of the World Anti-Communist League, John Singluab, visited Yaroslav Stetsko's OUN-B/ABN headquarters in Munich,

Source: twitter.com

Neither his madness, nor the Nazi death camps, nor the three million Russian POWs who died in concentration camps nor the utter barbarity of the German and allied invasions changed the course of U.S. official thinking about how high-ranking Nazis and fascists could be useful to America’s war with Soviet socialism. Stetsko was given a broad welcome in Washington, where he was fêted by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush as an esteemed leader of the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, which originally was a Nazi German formation (noted by Stephen Dorril), and permanent ABN delegate to the World Anti-Communist League.

Rollback

By the early 1950s, after parachuting 85 agents into Ukraine, three-quarters of them captured, the CIA conceded that the project was a dismal failure. This did not deter the cold warriors from using regime-change mercenaries elsewhere, including the failed Bay of Pigs a decade later. With the Ukrainian insurgent movement crushed, many of the Banderites, including Mykola Lebed, one of the founders of the OUN and a lieutenant of Bandera trained by the Gestapo in ruthless methods of torture, became émigrés.

Lebed, who had served as the organization’s foreign minister and head of its notorious secret police, was described by the U.S. Army as a “well-known sadist and collaborator of the Germans.” He migrated to Munich after the war, where he played an important role in the newly formed and secretly CIA-run Radio Free Europe, the U.S.-funded propaganda organ that transmitted to Eastern Europe. RFE was joined by Radio Liberty (also run by the CIA and directed to the Soviet Union) and the Voice of America in not only broadcasting propaganda but also for relaying one-way coded messages to “stay behind” saboteurs.

Source: journalismisnotacrime.org

During the war, Lebed was said to have been a good pupil and favorite of the German Gestapo. Afterwards, relocated in Munich, Lebed enjoyed the patronage (as did Bandera) of Nazi intelligence officer Reinhard Gehlen, who himself had close operational relations with the CIA.

Gehlen later became head of West German intelligence, employing the Nazis he had worked with during the war, and helping the CIA by sharing information on Eastern Europe. When Lebed fell out with the post-war OUN-B in Germany, the CIA smuggled him and many other Ukrainian ultra-nationalists to the U.S.

With the endorsement of CIA Director Allen Dulles, Lebed worked in New York City (and lived in affluent Westchester County) under a false name as an anti-Soviet intelligence asset and was given citizenship. The far-right Ukrainians then and now have long been instruments of a Cold War policy. “Former members of the Ukrainian underground now in the United States,” the CIA wrote in a top-secret 1950 document, “will be exploited to the fullest extent practicable.”

In the early Cold War years, there were hundreds if not thousands of Nazis, including such war criminals as SS officer Otto von Bolschwing (a leading organizer of the Final Solution and an adjutant of Adolf Eichmann), brought into the U.S. from Germany, Ukraine, the Balkans, the Baltic states, and Byelorussia.

Also among them was Adolf Heusinger, “one of the many high-ranking Nazi and fascist officials who had been integrated into U.S. military and intelligence networks.” Heusinger had been Hitler’s Chief of the General Staff of the Army, and in 1961-1964 was appointed as Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, so fluid was the transition from being a high-ranking Nazi to becoming a military commander of the “Free World.”

Meanwhile, Bandera’s demand for total control of the OUN led to friction within the Germany-based fascist leadership. By 1950, the U.S. and UK were planning joint operations into Ukraine, but the CIA at that point decided to work more closely with the ZP/UHVR (foreign representation of the Ukrainian Supreme Liberation Council, the umbrella organization of all right-wing nationalist formations), while the British MI6 took on Bandera as their chief contact among the Ukrainians.

When Bandera was assassinated in 1959 after the U.S. refused to extradite him to the Soviet Union for war crimes, Stetsko took over the OUN.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the U.S. thought it at last had Russia in its grasp. Under the autocratic, vodka-driven rule of Boris Yeltsin in Russia, the U.S. was invited in to guide a neoliberal “shock therapy” program, which resulted in the complete destruction of the Russian economy.

American-style capitalism created a severe depression with massive unemployment, falling wages, loss of pensions, oligarchs taking over formerly state-owned industries, increased inequality and poverty, rising alcoholism, and a significant decline in life spans.

Although Yeltsin put up some resistance, the Clinton administration had its way in expanding NATO into Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, a violation of agreements made between George H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev on not expanding the military organization “one inch” to the east. This false promise was supposed to be a concession to the Soviets for not blocking German reunification and its NATO membership.

The Problem with 'Blame NATO First' – The Vaclav Havel Library Foundation

Source: vhlf.org

Henceforth, this began a steady progression of NATO enlargement, which certified Ukraine as a future member and a de facto associate member and brought arms deliveries, weapons training, and coordinated war games with the Ukrainian army in anticipation of a war with Russia—along with bank accounts for cooperating Ukrainian politicians.

Vladimir Putin proved to be a far superior Russian leader, turning around the economy, reining in many of the oligarchs, and restoring confidence in the Russian state. In Ukraine, the U.S. saw an opportunity in the 2004 presidential election to pull Ukraine away from the influence of Russia.

Along with visits to the country by high-level officials, the U.S. intervened by using several other channels, including the regime-change organizations, National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, Freedom House, George Soros’s Open Society Institute (now Foundations), and the ever-present CIA, to block the election of Russia-leaning Viktor Yanukovych and install a pro-American neo-liberal Viktor Yushchenko as president.

With U.S. help, Yushchenko prevailed but failed miserably as president. The fire alarm went off again for the U.S. in 2010, when Yanukovych was elected president. By then, Yushchenko was fully discredited as a leader, receiving only 5.5% of the first-round vote, thereby eliminating him. The U.S. has had a hard time picking winners.

The 2013-2014 anti-government protests, which started out peacefully in Kyiv’s Maidan (square), was urged on by visits to the streets by the U.S. undersecretary of state and regime change specialist, Victoria Nuland, who repeatedly met with coup plotters. Joining her were Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Chris Murphy (D-CT), who stood on a platform in the square with the neo-Nazi leader Oleh Tyahnybok to offer America’s support, presumably without formal authorization, for the illegal overthrow of Yanukovych.

This time the CIA was more fully involved in getting rid of the Russia-leaning president and very likely helped prepare the extreme right militia groups that took part in the sniper shootings and massacres of police and protesters in the Maidan, which forced Yanukovych to flee. The New York Times falsely attributed the shootings to his government. This set off resistance in the heavily Russophone Donbas region to the overthrow, which in turn was met by an assault by the Kyiv coup government and the deaths, up to 2022, of 14,000 soldiers and civilians.  

In interviews with European reporters in June 2022, Petro Poroshenko, who was a regular informant at the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv before he was sponsored by the U.S. to become president in 2014, said that while in office, he signed the Minsk agreements with Russia, France and Germany and agreed to a cease-fire merely as a ploy to buy time in building up the military and preparing for war. “Our goal,” he said, “was to, first, stop the threat, or at least to delay the war—to secure eight years to restore economic growth and create powerful armed forces.”

The Propaganda War

President Biden and other public officials have repeatedly used the phrase “unprovoked attack” to characterize Russia’s motivations as nothing more than territorial aggression. Such claims are made without credible evidence, as if the invocation of the name Putin is enough to establish any statement about him or the Russian state as proof by its mere utterance.

The problem, as many observers have noted, is that the mainstream media serve as little more than a national and international graphic transmission and amplification tool of the state and ruling-class consensus. This, of course, is nothing new, as more than 400 journalists from the MSM were discovered to have served as the eyes and ears of the CIA during much of the Cold War, as reported by Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein. There is evidence that at least some journalists continue to act as messengers for the Agency.

Those Washington Beltway insiders have problems understanding what constitutes provocation. The expansion of hostile U.S. and NATO forces and war games carried on to the gates of Russia, including the plan to add Ukraine and Georgia to the list of members, are clearly provocations. And if Biden’s memory is at all intact, he will remember how the Kennedy administration treated the presence of a single Soviet military base in the Western Hemisphere (in Cuba) as a threat to U.S. security. In that case, the Soviets had the good sense to back off.

The Maidan coup in 2014, which even the U.S. puppet president Poroshenko admitted was unconstitutional (i.e., illegal) and the subsequent banning of the Russian language and call for a general ethno-cleansing in public institutions and media by his government were provocations. So too were the military assaults in the Donbas region, instigated by the U.S.-armed and -trained neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, starting in 2015. Just prior to the Russian invasion, Kyiv put a massive formation of troops on the border with the breakaway oblasts, Donetsk and Luhansk.

The secession of Kosovo, following 78 days of U.S. bombing of Russian ally Serbia, had Washington’s full support and for Russians served as a precedent for the Crimea breakaway. Prior to the Russian invasion, Volodymyr Zelensky launched authoritarian purges of opposition parties that were accused of giving voice to Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Poroshenko and Zelensky refused to abide by the Minsk agreements. These too were provocations.

Map Description automatically generated

Source: wikipedia.org

Indeed, the 75-year history of U.S. efforts to destroy the sovereignty of the Soviet and Russian states is an unending provocation. The U.S. and NATO aggression against Russian allies in Syria and Serbia (and China) and the “color revolutions” in Belarus, Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere in the former Soviet region and the expanding list of sanctions against Russia are further forms of aggression. The amnesia of the MSM in this recent history would be difficult to comprehend were it not for the understanding that they in fact serve as instruments of state propaganda, what Louis Althusser called ideological state apparatuses.

As Noam Chomsky expressed it:

“It’s quite interesting that in American discourse, it is almost obligatory to refer to the invasion as the ‘unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.’ Look it up on Google, you will find hundreds of thousands of hits. Of course, it was provoked. Otherwise they wouldn’t refer to it all the time as an unprovoked invasion.”

If Chomsky is not convincing enough, perhaps the U.S./NATO warmongers might heed Pope Francis, certainly no Russophile, who ascertained that the invasion is the result of “the barking of NATO at the gates of Russia…. I can’t say if it was provoked, but perhaps, yes.”

The deluge of MSM propaganda against Russia and the embargo of voices that question the official story regarding the 2014 coup and the Russia-Ukraine conflict expose U.S. democracy as a model not worthy of emulation. There are few if any authoritarian states where suppression of news is of such magnitude and so institutionally entrenched as in the U.S.

Elsewhere, I have discussed the wide presence of former military and intelligence officials with ties to defense industries populating the broadcast and cable news channels as “expert analysts,” and the uses of white supremacist ideology by MSM reporters to depict displaced Ukrainians as a special group of “worthy victims.”

A central feature of the MSM reporting and celebrity culture has been the portrayal of Zelensky as a “hero,” selflessly defending Ukraine against tyranny. The hero image in America is an old trope taken from a long line of such larger-than-life military exemplars that include John Wayne’s characters in World War II, the construction of the Vietnam war criminal into “war hero” John McCain, the chicken hawk Ronald Reagan, Rambo, the Indian killer Daniel Boone, and so many others.

Propaganda is now openly a major part of the U.S. war arsenal, and the government does little to hide the fact. Apart from the massive arms shipments the U.S. and NATO allies are supplying Ukrainians to kill domestic and foreign Russians, some 150 American and other global PR firms, according to PRWeek, including a British company with close ties to the ruling Conservative Party, have offered to supply Ukraine with propaganda tools—weapons of mass deception.

At the same time, there has been close to no reporting on Zelensky’s less than sterile record on corruption, an endemic problem for Ukraine, which is ranked the by U.S.-, UK- and corporate-funded Transparency International as the most corrupt country in Europe. Apart from failing to bring down the oligarchs who rule the country (50 of whom hold 45% of the country’s wealth), including his own patron, the corrupt and U.S.-sanctioned Ukrainian-Israeli-Cypriot billionaire Igor Kholomoisky, Zelensky himself has been exposed in the Pandora Papers as a goniff, with millions stashed away in offshore accounts in the British Virgin Islands and in properties in London. His shuttering of the entire political, media and intellectual opposition makes it difficult for Ukrainians to get wind of his less-than-heroic financial machinations.

Exposure of these realities in the U.S. and UK social media or in books and journals leads to being labeled a Russian “bot” or “Putin’s useful idiot.” Perhaps the most authentic useful idiot is Russiagate Rambo Adam Schiff, Democrat from California and Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, who on the occasion of the Trump impeachment hearings in January 2020, said, “We fight Russia over there so we don’t have to fight them here.”

This is what passes for intelligence in Congress.

Takeaways

One must take seriously the insight of German political theorist Carl Schmitt, who argued that powerful nation states need to have enemies in order to define who they are, and that their “political actions and motives can be reduced to the distinction between friend and enemy.” For Schmitt, the “enemy” need not be construed as evil, but for the U.S., the enemy is always embedded with religious notions of immorality.

Schmitt ultimately lent his intellect to the service of the Third Reich, but the U.S. itself confirmed by its early “stay behind” actions in Ukraine and other parts of Europe that it was prepared to adopt some of the same tactics, if not ideology, of their Nazi recruits.

Constructing the Soviet Union, later Russia, as an enemy had at least three utilities: creating a national threat to divert public attention from the massive inequities within the corporate capitalist economy; justifying the building of a national security (police, imperialist) state and empire, built upon a military-industrial-media complex, with an extraordinary level of military spending as a hedge against depression; and organizing a broad propaganda complex modeled on the Office of War Information in World War II to maintain the legitimacy of the state as a moral force in a world threatened by evil leaders who seek to take away Americans’ freedom.

In reality, it is the U.S. itself which is stripping the country of its vaunted “four freedoms” and denying other countries, particularly in the Third World, of their independent paths to development and freedom.

The main point of the anti-imperialist argument is not to defend the war in Ukraine but to look more deeply into its causes. The U.S. has long been a highly militarized society and indeed has been out of war for only15 years of its existence.

And when the U.S. is not directly invading (into 84 countries to date), it sponsors invasions and coups against countries that run against its strategic interests (Chile, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Yemen, Brazil, Argentina, Angola, Venezuela, D. R. Congo, Gaza, Greece, Ecuador, Ghana and many others).

Map of countries the United States have fought in or occupied. Excludes airstrikes and special forces operations. [4500x2234] : r/MapPorn

Map of countries where the United States has fought in or occupied. Excludes air strikes and special forces operations. [Source: reddit.com]

The Ukraine crisis is also a sponsored war, as Kyiv’s assault on the Donbas region is ultimately in the U.S. interest, as its resources, including a “highly developed coal industry, ferrous-metallurgy industry, machine building, chemical industry, and construction industry, enormous energy resources, diversified agriculture, and a dense transportation network” are lusted over by transnational capital and finance.

Beyond Ukraine lies the vast territory of Russia and untold wealth of energy, strategic minerals, and other resources that call out to a globally expansionist and militarist corporate capitalist system like the U.S. There are certainly ways out of the present crisis in Ukraine, but they require the neutralization of the country and its conversion to a demilitarized state that, with the U.S. alliance, respects and enforces the rights and equality of its ethnic Russian population.

The West also has to acknowledge on some level Russia’s legitimate security interests, which have become compromised by the horde of NATO forces far too close to its borders. The concept of state security is enshrined in the United Nations Charter, and the avoidance of an even larger catastrophe requires that the U.S. act in compliance with UN dicta for peace and remove its obstacles to a negotiated settlement, which is in the long-term interest of Ukraine, Russia, and the rest of the world.

*

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

Gerald Sussman is a professor of international relations and author of numerous books, including Branding Democracy: U.S. Regime Change in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe (2010). Prof. Sussman can be reached at [email protected]. For more information, see his website at: https://www.pdx.edu/global-studies/profile/gerald-sussman.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Organizations. History of America’s Imperialist Expansion in Eastern Europe, NATO Enlargement
  • Tags: , ,

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Nothing I am about to write should be read as diminishing in any way my sympathy for Salman Rushdie, or my outrage at the appalling attack on him. Those who more than 30 years ago put a fatwa on his head after he wrote the novel, “The Satanic Verses,” made this assault possible. They deserve contempt. I wish him a speedy recovery.

But my natural compassion for a victim of violence and my regularly expressed support for free speech should not at the same time blind me or you to the cant and hypocrisy generated by his stabbing on Friday, just as he was about to give a talk in a town in Western New York.

British prime minister Boris Johnson said he was “appalled that Sir Salman Rushdie has been stabbed while exercising a right we should never cease to defend.” His Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, one of the last two contenders for Johnson’s crown, concurred, describing the novelist as “a champion of free speech and artistic freedom”.

Across the Atlantic, President Joe Biden stressed Rushdie’s qualities:

“Truth. Courage. Resilience. The ability to share ideas without fear… We reaffirm our commitment to those deeply American values in solidarity with Rushdie and all those who stand for freedom of expression.”

The truth is that the vast majority of those claiming this as an attack not only on a prominent writer but on Western society and its freedoms, have been missing in action for the past several years as the biggest threat to those freedoms unfolded. Or, in the case of Western government leaders, they have actively conspired in the undermining of those freedoms.

Prominent figures and organizations now expressing their solidarity with Rushdie have kept their heads down, or spoken in hushed tones against – or, worse still, become cheerleaders for – this much more serious assault: on our right to know what mass crimes have been committed against others in our name.

Rushdie has won trenchant support from Western liberals and conservatives alike, not for being a brave articulator of difficult truths, but because of who his enemies are.

Holding Up a Mirror

If that sounds uncharitable or nonsensical, consider this. Julian Assange has spent more than three years in solitary confinement in a high-security prison in London (and before that, seven years confined to a small room in Ecuador’s embassy), in conditions Nils Melzer, the former United Nation’s expert on torture, has described as extreme psychological torture.

Melzer and many others fear for Assange’s life if British and U.S. authorities succeed in dragging out much longer the Wikileaks founder’s detention on what amounts to purely political charges. Assange has already suffered a stroke – as Melzer notes, one of the many potential physical reactions suffered by those enduring prolonged confinement.

And all of this is happening to him, remember, for one reason alone: because he published documents proving that, under cover of a bogus humanitarianism, Western governments were committing crimes against peoples in distant lands. Assange faces charges under the draconian Espionage Act only because he made public the gruesome truth about Western military actions in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, there are differences between Rushdie and Assange’s respective cases, but those differences should elicit more concern for Assange’s plight than Rushdie’s. In practice, the exact opposite has happened.

Rushdie’s right to free speech has been championed because he exercised it to imagine an alternative formative history of Islam and implicitly question the authority of clerics and governments in far-off lands.

Assange’s right to free speech has been ridiculed, ignored or at best supported weakly and equivocally because he exercised it to hold up a mirror to the West, showing exactly what our governments are doing, in secret, in many of those same far-off lands.

Rushdie’s right to life was threatened by distant clerics and governments for questioning the moral basis of their power. Assange’s right to life is threatened by Western governments because he questioned the moral basis of their power.

Worthy Victims

If we lived in functioning democratic societies in the West – ones where power is not so deeply entrenched we are largely blind to its exercise – no journalist, no media commentator, no writer, no politician would fail to understand that Assange’s plight deserves far more attention and expressions of concern than Rushdie’s.

It is our own governments, not “mad mullahs” in Iran, who threaten the free society that permitted Rushdie to publish his novel. If Assange is crushed, so is the basis of our fundamental democratic rights: to know what is being done in our name and to hold our leaders to account.

If Rushdie is silenced, we will still have those freedoms, even if, as individuals, we will feel a little more nervous about saying anything that might be construed as an insult to the Prophet Mohammed.

So why are the vast majority of us so much more invested in Rushdie’s fate than Assange’s? Simply because our sympathy has been elicited for one of them and not the other.

Ultimately, that has nothing to do with whether one or the other is more worthy, more of a victim. It has to do with how much they have, or have not, served the interests of a Western narrative that constantly reinforces the idea that we are the Good Guys and they are the Bad Guys.

Rushdie and the fatwa against him became a cause célèbre for Western elites because he offered a literary sensibility to one of the West’s most cherished modern pieties: that Islam poses an existential threat to the values of an enlightened West. Here was a man, born to a Muslim family in India, attacking the religion he supposedly knew best. He was an insider spilling the beans, stating what other Muslims were supposedly too cowed to admit in public.

Though it was doubtless not his intention or his fault, he was quickly adopted as a literary mascot by Western liberals who were pushing their own “clash of civilizations” thesis. That is not a judgment on the merits of his novel – I am not equipped to make that assessment – but a judgment on the motivations of so many of his champions and on why his work resonates so strongly with them.

Racist Worldview

In a real sense, that is true of all literature. It earns its status within a cultural milieu, one policed by media elites with their own agendas. It is they who decide whether a manuscript is published or discarded, whether the subsequent book is reviewed or ignored, whether it is celebrated or ridiculed, whether it is promoted or falls into obscurity.

We tell ourselves, or we are told, that this process of weeding out is decided strictly on the basis of merit. But if we pause to think, the reality is that a work finds an audience only if it stays within a socially constructed consensus that gives it meaning or if it challenges that consensus at a time when the consensus is overdue being challenged.

George Orwell is a good example of how this works. He prospered – or at least his reputation did – from the fact that he questioned certainties about the “natural order” that had long been enforced by Western elites but had become hard to sustain after two world wars in quick succession. At the same time, he exposed the dangers of an authoritarianism that could be easily ascribed to the West’s main adversary, the Soviet Union.

Orwell’s body of work contains ideas that speak to universal values. But that is only part of the reason it has endured. It also benefited from the fact that the ambiguity inherent in those universal lessons could be recruited to a much narrower agenda by Western elites, readying for a Cold War that was about to become the tragic legacy of those two preceding hot wars.

Much the same is true of Rushdie. His novel served two functions: First, its main theme chimed with Western elites because it reassured them that their prejudice against the Muslim world was fully justified – not least because the novel provoked a violent backlash that appeared to confirm those prejudices.

And second, “The Satanic Verses” indemnified Western elites against the accusation of racism. Rushdie inadvertently provided the alibi they so desperately needed to promote their racist worldview of a civilized West opposed by a barbaric, insecure East. It served as midwife to the rantings of Islamophobic tracts like Melanie Phillips’ “Londonistan” and Nick Cohen’s “What’s Left?”.

Literary Sedition

For the past two decades, we have been living with the appalling consequences of the West’s smug condescension, its wild posturings, its violent humanitarianism – all masking a thirst for the Middle East’s most precious resource: oil.

The result has been the wrecking of whole countries; the ending of more than a million lives, with millions more made homeless; a backlash that has unleashed even more terrifying forms of Islamist extremism; a deepening self-righteousness among Western elites that has ushered in an all-out assault on democratic controls; an entrenchment of the power of the war industries and their lobbies; and a relentless undermining of international institutions and international law.

And all this has served as an endless excuse to delay addressing the real issue plaguing humanity: the imminent extinction of our species, caused by our addiction to the very resource that got us into this mess in the first place.

Sadly, the attack on Rushdie, and the ensuing indignation, will only intensify the trends noted above. None of that is Rushdie’s fault, of course. His desire to question the authority of the clerical bullies he grew up among is an entirely separate matter from the purposes to which Western elites have harnessed his personal act of literary sedition. He is not responsible for the fact that his work has been used to underpin and weaponize a larger, flawed Western narrative.

Nonetheless, Friday’s violent assault will once again be used to shore up a fearmongering narrative that empowers politicians, sells newspapers, and, if we can still see the bigger picture, rationalizes the West’s dehumanization of more than a billion people, its continuing sanctions against many of them, and the advancement of wars that fabulously enrich a tiny section of Western societies that continue to evade major scrutiny.

Hollow Joke

Those elites have evaded scrutiny precisely because they are so successful at vilifying and eliminating anyone who seeks to hold them to account. Like Julian Assange.

If you think Assange brought trouble upon himself, unlike Rushdie, who is simply a hapless victim caught in the crossfire of a menacing “clash of civilizations”, it is because you have been trained – through your consumption of establishment media – into making that entirely unfounded distinction. And those training you through their dominant narratives are not a disinterested party, but the very actors who have most to lose should you arrive at a different conclusion.

In Assange’s case, there has been an endless stream of lies and misdirections that I and many others have been trying to highlight on our marginal platforms before we are algorithmed into oblivion by Google and Facebook, the richest corporations on the planet.

As Melzer pointed out at length in his recent book, the Swedish authorities knew from the outset that Assange had no case to answer on sex allegations they had no intention of ever investigating. But they made a pretence of pursuing him anyway (and left the threat of onward extradition to the U.S. hanging over his head) to make sure he lost public sympathy and looked like a fugitive from justice.

Anyone who writes about Assange knows only too well the army of social media users adamant that Assange was charged with rape, or that he refused to be interviewed by Swedish prosecutors, or that he skipped bail, or that he colluded with Trump, or that he recklessly published classified documents unedited, or that he endangered the lives of informers and agents.

None of that is true – nor, more significantly, is it relevant to the case the U.S., aided by the U.K. government, is advancing against Assange through the British courts to lock him up for the rest of his life.

For Assange, the West’s much vaunted principle of free speech is nothing more than a hollow joke, a doctrine weaponized against him – paradoxically, to destroy him and the free speech values he champions, including transparency and accountability from our leaders.

There is a reason why our energies are so heavily invested in worrying about a supposed menace from Islam rather than the menace on our doorstep, from our rulers; why Rushdie makes headlines, while Assange is forgotten; why Assange deserves his punishment, and Rushdie does not.

That reason has nothing to do with protecting free speech, and everything to do with protecting the power of unaccountable elites who fear free speech.

Protest the stabbing of Salman Rushdie by all means. But don’t forget to protest even more loudly the silencing and disappearing of Julian Assange.

*

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 a MintPress contributor. Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.

Featured image is from MintPress News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Those Angry at Rushdie’s Stabbing Have Been Missing in Action Over a Far Bigger Threat to Our Freedom
  • Tags:

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

This article was originally published on AE911Truth.org on May 31, 2012.

Among all the highly credible video and forensic evidence indicating that WTC Building 7 was brought down by explosive controlled demolition on September 11, 2001, the accounts of explosions related by eyewitness Barry Jennings are particularly persuasive.

On 9/11, Jennings was the Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority. He and Michael Hess, the New York City Corporation Counsel, were rescued from WTC Building 7 before it collapsed at 5:20 p.m. On several occasions, Jennings stated that an explosion trapped them in WTC Building 7 and that he continued to hear explosions throughout the building until they were saved. As reported in October 2008, Jennings died on August 19, 2008.  Thus, the question emerges: Has the potential legal power and value of Jennings’ testimony been lost forever?

The short answer is “no.”  Even under the strictest rules of evidence that may apply, Jennings’ statements about the explosions at Building 7 should be admissible during any legal proceeding convened to determine the real cause of the collapse of Building 7 – be it in a criminal trial, before a grand jury, or during hearings before the New York City Council, the New York State Assembly, the US Congress, or any other formal bodies.

On the afternoon of 9/11, after Jennings and Hess were rescued from Building 7, Jennings told ABC-TV News:

“Well, me and Hess, the Corporation Counsel, were on the 23rd floor. I told him, ‘We gotta get out of here.’ We started walking down the stairs. We made it to the eighth floor [later clarified to be the sixth floor, see here at the 3:50 mark]. Big explosion! Blew us back into the eighth floor. And I turned to Hess and I said, ‘This is it, we’re dead. We’re not gonna make it outta here…’”

Tellingly, despite his prominence on national TV, Jennings was never called to testify before the 9/11 Commission, and his account was not included in the 9/11 Commission Report or the NIST WTC Reports. Similarly, the 9/11 Commission also completely ignored the firefighters’ reports of explosions in the Twin Towers, as contained in the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) oral histories, while making “fairly extensive use of the oral histories” for other purposes, according to 9/11 researcher Graeme MacQueen (see page 9 of the PDF, page 55 of the Journal ).

Sometime before 2008, during an interview with Loose Change filmmakers Jason Bermas and Dylan Avery, Jennings elaborated on the explosions he heard and felt in Building 7, saying (at the 5:45 mark):

“All this time, I’m hearing all kinds of explosions. All this time I’m hearing explosions. And I’m thinking that maybe it’s the uh, buses around me that were on fire, the cars that were on fire, but, I don’t see no [gesturing] you know, but I’m still hearing these explosions. When they [the rescuers] finally got to us, and they took us down, to what, what they, they, uh, called the lobby, because I asked them when we got down there I said, ‘Where are we?’ He said ‘This was the lobby.’ And I said, ‘You gotta be kidding me.’ Total ruins. Total ruins. Now keep in mind when I came in there, the lobby had nice escalators, it was a huge lobby. And for me to see what I saw, was unbelievable.”

There has been some confusion regarding the extent to which Jennings had, before his death, retracted portions of his account regarding his stepping over dead bodies at Building 7.  This side issue might have to be dealt with during any formal proceeding; however, Jennings never wavered from his statements regarding the explosions. Thus, his recorded statements remain highly credible and would still be of importance in helping to establish that Building 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition.

Image: A video released by NIST in 2010 shows Michael Hess calling for help from the 8th floor of Building 7, which further confirms Jennings’ account (Source: AE911Truth.org)

From a legal perspective, the problem would be how to introduce the Jennings video clips into evidence over any objections that may arise as to his testimony being hearsay. In legal settings, “hearsay” is generally defined as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Since Jennings’ statements (referenced above) were not made in a court of law (or other legal proceeding), and because those statements would be offered to prove that there were explosions at Building 7 on 9/11, the statements would necessarily constitute hearsay and thus potentially could be excluded from being introduced into evidence. However, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, most notably when the witness is unavailable (e.g., deceased). If it could be proven that Jennings is deceased, his statements regarding the explosions should be taken into evidence during any legal proceeding.

There has also been controversy over whether Jennings is in fact deceased, as well as mystery surrounding what the cause of death might have been.  But if and when the time comes—in court, at an inquest, or during a formal investigation or hearing—a certified death certificate would likely have to be obtained and introduced into evidence to show that Jennings is unavailable to testify. At that point, the video clips of Jennings’ compelling testimony about the explosions inside Building 7 could be introduced into evidence.

It should be noted that the video clips themselves would have to be authenticated. This could be done through the testimony of those present when the video was recorded, saying that what is observed on the clips is what the witnesses remember seeing and hearing Jennings say at the time of the interviews.

It should also be noted that Jennings’ account of being trapped in Building 7 with Hess and hearing explosions has been verified by Hess. There is even a video of Hess being trapped in Building 7, further corroborating his and Jennings’ accounts.

In addition, dozens of other witnesses heard explosions on 9/11—at least 118 (and counting) according to MacQueen’s research into the collection of oral histories from the FDNY.  With regard to Building 7 itself, the statements of first responders Craig Bartmer and Kevin McPadden have also been captured on video, and certainly corroborate the testimony of Barry Jennings.

Craig Bartmer, a former New York City police officer, and 9/11 first responder, stated:

“All of a sudden, the radios exploded and everybody started screaming, ‘Get away, get away, get away from it!’ And, I was like a deer in the headlights. And I look up, and…Two guys that I knew were on the transit radio. I don’t know if those tapes are out there… And I looked up, and… it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. You know the thing [Building 7] started peeling in on itself and, I mean, there was an umbrella of [expletive] seven feet over my head that I just stared at.  Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s hitting the ground behind me. And the whole time you’re hearing, THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM!  So, I, I think I know an explosion when I hear it, you know? So yeah, I wanna know what took that building down. I don’t think it was a fire, and it certainly wasn’t a plane…It had some damage to it but nothing like what they’re saying…Nothing to account for what we saw…I am shocked at the [official] story we’ve heard about it, to be quite honest.”

Kevin McPadden, an emergency medical technician, and 9/11 first responder, stated:

“Yeah, there was like, there was a whole lot of commotion. The firefighters were picking up, and they were starting to roll out…The Red Cross rep was like, he goes over and he says [to us], ‘You gotta stay behind this line because they’re thinking about bringing the building down.’…He goes over and he asks one of the… firefighters what was going on…He came back over with his hand over the radio and [you could hear] what sounded like a countdown.  And, at the last few seconds, he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard ‘three-two-one,’ and he was just saying, ‘Just run for your life! Just run for your life!’  And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions. Like, BA-BOOOOOM!  And it’s like a distinct sound…BA-BOOOOOM!  And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something. That, to me, I knew that was an explosion. There was no doubt in my mind…”

With or without Jennings’ testimony, the videos and images of the WTC 7 collapse prove it was caused by explosives (Source: AE911Truth.org)

Given all we know from the recorded statements made by Jennings, Bartmer, McPadden, and other eyewitnesses to the events of 9/11, as well as all the forensic and video evidence regarding the explosive destruction of Building 7, the question becomes, “Will we ever have a truly independent subpoena-powered investigation into what really happened on 9/11?”  That is the goal of AE911Truth. Until that day arrives, however, it’s vital that we continue to study, present, and preserve all of the 9/11 evidence, and take action locally and globally to educate the public far and wide.

*

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: Barry Jennings, minutes after being rescued from WTC 7, told ABC News that an explosion had trapped him in the building (Source: AE911Truth.org)

The Specter of Germany Is Rising. Diana Johnstone

September 14th, 2022 by Diana Johnstone

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The European Union is girding for a long war against Russia that appears clearly contrary to European economic interests and social stability. A war that is apparently irrational – as many are – has deep emotional roots and claims ideological justification. Such wars are hard to end because they extend outside the range of rationality.

For decades after the Soviet Union entered Berlin and decisively defeated the Third Reich, Soviet leaders worried about the threat of “German revanchism.” Since World War II could be seen as German revenge for being deprived of victory in World War I, couldn’t aggressive German Drang nach Osten be revived, especially if it enjoyed Anglo-American support? There had always been a minority in U.S. and U.K. power circles that would have liked to complete Hitler’s war against the Soviet Union.

It was not the desire to spread communism, but the need for a buffer zone to stand in the way of such dangers that was the primary motivation for the ongoing Soviet political and military clampdown on the tier of countries from Poland to Bulgaria that the Red Army had wrested from Nazi occupation.

This concern waned considerably in the early 1980s as a young German generation took to the streets in peace demonstrations against the stationing of nuclear “Euromissiles” which could increase the risk of nuclear war on German soil. The movement created the image of a new peaceful Germany. I believe that Mikhail Gorbachev took this transformation seriously.

On June 15, 1989, Gorbachev came to Bonn, which was then the modest capital of a deceptively modest West Germany. Apparently delighted with the warm and friendly welcome, Gorbachev stopped to shake hands with people along the way in that peaceful university town that had been the scene of large peace demonstrations.

I was there and experienced his unusually warm, firm handshake and eager smile. I have no doubt that Gorbachev sincerely believed in a “common European home” where East and West Europe could live happily side by side united by some sort of democratic socialism.

Gorbachev on June 13, 1989 in the market-square in Bonn. (Jüppsche/Wikimedia Commons)

Gorbachev died at age 91 two weeks ago, on Aug. 30. His dream of Russia and Germany living happily in their “common European home” had soon been fatally undermined by the Clinton administration’s go-ahead to eastward expansion of NATO. But the day before Gorbachev’s death, leading German politicians in Prague wiped out any hope of such a happy end by proclaiming their leadership of a Europe dedicated to combating the Russian enemy.

These were politicians from the very parties – the SPD (Social Democratic Party) and the Greens – that took the lead in the 1980s peace movement.

German Europe Must Expand Eastward

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is a colorless SPD politician, but his Aug. 29 speech in Prague was inflammatory in its implications. Scholz called for an expanded, militarized European Union under German leadership. He claimed that the Russian operation in Ukraine raised the question of “where the dividing line will be in the future between this free Europe and a neo-imperial autocracy.” We cannot simply watch, he said, “as free countries are wiped off the map and disappear behind walls or iron curtains.”

(Note: the conflict in Ukraine is clearly the unfinished business of the collapse of the Soviet Union, aggravated by malicious outside provocation. As in the Cold War, Moscow’s defensive reactions are interpreted as harbingers of Russian invasion of Europe, and thus a pretext for arms buildups.)

To meet this imaginary threat, Germany will lead an expanded, militarized EU. First, Scholz told his European audience in the Czech capital, “I am committed to the enlargement of the European Union to include the states of the Western Balkans, Ukraine, Moldova and, in the long term, Georgia”. Worrying about Russia moving the dividing line West is a bit odd while planning to incorporate three former Soviet States, one of which (Georgia) is geographically and culturally very remote from Europe but on Russia’s doorstep.

In the “Western Balkans”, Albania and four extremely weak statelets left from former Yugoslavia (North Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina and widely unrecognized Kosovo) mainly produce emigrants and are far from EU economic and social standards. Kosovo and Bosnia are militarily occupied de facto NATO protectorates. Serbia, more solid than the others, shows no signs of renouncing its beneficial relations with Russia and China, and popular enthusiasm for “Europe” among Serbs has faded.

Adding these member states will achieve “a stronger, more sovereign, geopolitical European Union,” said Scholz. A “more geopolitical Germany” is more like it. As the EU grows eastward, Germany is “in the center” and will do everything to bring them all together. So, in addition to enlargement, Scholz calls for “a gradual shift to majority decisions in common foreign policy” to replace the unanimity required today.

What this means should be obvious to the French. Historically, the French have defended the consensus rule so as not to be dragged into a foreign policy they don’t want. French leaders have exalted the mythical “Franco-German couple” as guarantor of European harmony, mainly to keep German ambitions under control.

But Scholz says he doesn’t want “an EU of exclusive states or directorates,” which implies the final divorce of that “couple.” With an EU of 30 or 36 states, he notes, “fast and pragmatic action is needed.” And he can be sure that German influence on most of these poor, indebted and often corrupt new Member States will produce the needed majority.

France has always hoped for an EU security force separate from NATO in which the French military would play a leading role. But Germany has other ideas. “NATO remains the guarantor of our security,” said Scholz, rejoicing that President Biden is “a convinced trans-atlanticist.”

Every improvement, every unification of European defense structures within the EU framework strengthens NATO,” Scholz said. “Together with other EU partners, Germany will therefore ensure that the EU’s planned rapid reaction force is operational in 2025 and will then also provide its core.

This requires a clear command structure. Germany will face up to this responsibility “when we lead the rapid reaction force in 2025,” Scholz said. It has already been decided that Germany will support Lithuania with a rapidly deployable brigade and NATO with further forces in a high state of readiness.

Serving to Lead … Where?

Robert Habeck speaking at protest before Green Party headquarters, Berlin, Oct. 28, 2020. (Leonhard Lenz/Wikimedia Commons)

In short, Germany’s military buildup will give substance to Robert Habeck’s notorious statement in Washington last March that: “The stronger Germany serves, the greater its role.” The Green’s Habeck is Germany’s economics minister and the second most powerful figure in Germany’s current government.

The remark was well understood in Washington: by serving the U.S.-led Western empire, Germany is strengthening its role as European leader. Just as the U.S. arms, trains and occupies Germany, Germany will provide the same services for smaller EU states, notably to its east.

Since the start of the Russian operation in Ukraine, German politician Ursula von der Leyen has used her position as head of the EU Commission to impose ever more drastic sanctions on Russia, leading to the threat of a serious European energy crisis this winter. Her hostility to Russia seems boundless. In Kiev last April she called for rapid EU membership for Ukraine, notoriously the most corrupt country in Europe and far from meeting EU standards. She proclaimed that “Russia will descend into economic, financial and technological decay, while Ukraine is marching towards a European future.” For von der Leyen, Ukraine is “fighting our war.” All of this goes far beyond her authority to speak for the EU’s 27 Members, but nobody stops her.

Germany’s Green Party foreign minister Annalena Baerbock is every bit as intent on “ruining Russia.” Proponent of a “feminist foreign policy”, Baerbock expresses policy in personal terms. “If I give the promise to people in Ukraine, we stand with you as long as you need us,” she told the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy (NED)-sponsored Forum 2000 in Prague on Aug. 31, speaking in English. “Then I want to deliver no matter what my German voters think, but I want to deliver to the people of Ukraine.”

People will go on the street and say, we cannot pay our energy prices, and I will say, ‘Yes I know so we will help you with social measures. […] We will stand with Ukraine and this means the sanctions will stay also til winter time even if it gets really tough for politicians.’”

Certainly, support for Ukraine is strong in Germany, but perhaps because of the looming energy shortage, a recent Forsa poll indicates that some 77 percent of Germans would favor diplomatic efforts to end the war – which should be the business of the foreign minister. But Baerbock shows no interest in diplomacy, only in “strategic failure” for Russia – however long it takes.

In the 1980s peace movement, a generation of Germans was distancing itself from that of their parents and vowed to overcome “enemy images” inherited from past wars. Curiously, Baerbock, born in 1980, has referred to her grandfather who fought in the Wehrmacht as somehow having contributed to European unity. Is this the generational pendulum?

The Little Revanchists

Stepan Bandera torchlight parade in Kiev, Jan. 1, 2020. (A1/Wikimedia Commons)

There is reason to surmise that current German Russophobia draws much of its legitimization from the Russophobia of former Nazi allies in smaller European countries.

While German anti-Russian revanchism may have taken a couple of generations to assert itself, there were a number of smaller, more obscure revanchisms that flourished at the end of the European war that were incorporated into United States Cold War operations. Those little revanchisms were not subjected to the denazification gestures or Holocaust guilt imposed on Germany. Rather, they were welcomed by the C.I.A., Radio Free Europe and Congressional committees for their fervent anticommunism. They were strengthened politically in the United States by anticommunist diasporas from Eastern Europe.

Of these, the Ukrainian diaspora was surely the largest, the most intensely political and the most influential, in both Canada and the American Middle West. Ukrainian fascists who had previously collaborated with Nazi invaders were the most numerous and active, leading the Bloc of Anti-Bolshevik Nations with links to German, British and U.S. Intelligence.

Eastern European Galicia, not to be confused with Spanish Galicia, has been back and forth part of Russia and Poland for centuries. After World War II it was divided between Poland and Ukraine. Ukrainian Galicia is the center of a virulent brand of Ukrainian nationalism, whose principal World War II hero was Stepan Bandera. This nationalism can properly be called “fascist” not simply because of superficial signs – its symbols, salutes or tatoos – but because it has always been fundamentally racist and violent.

Incited by Western powers, Poland, Lithuania and the Habsburg Empire, the key to Ukrainian nationalism was that it was Western, and thus superior. Since Ukrainians and Russians stem from the same population, pro-Western Ukrainian ultra-nationalism was built on imaginary myths of racial differences: Ukrainians were the true Western whatever-it-was, whereas Russians were mixed with “Mongols” and thus an inferior race. Banderist Ukrainian nationalists have openly called for elimination of Russians as such, as inferior beings.

So long as the Soviet Union existed, Ukrainian racial hatred of Russians had anticommunism as its cover, and Western intelligence agencies could support them on the “pure” ideological grounds of the fight against Bolshevism and Communism. But now that Russia is no longer ruled by communists, the mask has fallen, and the racist nature of Ukrainian ultra-nationalism is visible – for all who want to see it.

However, Western leaders and media are determined not to notice.

Ukraine is not just like any Western country. It is deeply and dramatically divided between Donbass in the East, Russian territories given to Ukraine by the Soviet Union, and the anti-Russian West, where Galicia is located. Russia’s defense of Donbass, wise or unwise, by no means indicates a Russian intention to invade other countries. This false alarm is the pretext for the remilitarization of Germany in alliance with the Anglo-Saxon powers against Russia.

The Yugoslav Prelude

Cutting firewood in Sarajevo during wars that broke up Yugoslavia, 1993. (Christian Maréchal/Wikimedia Commons)

This process began in the 1990s, with the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia was not a member of the Soviet bloc. Precisely for that reason, the country got loans from the West which in the 1970s led to a debt crisis in which the leaders of each of the six federated republics wanted to shove the debt onto others. This favored separatist tendencies in the relatively rich Slovenian and Croatian republics, tendencies enforced by ethnic chauvinism and encouragement from outside powers, especially Germany.

During World War II, German occupation had split the country apart. Serbia, allied to France and Britain in World War I, was subject to a punishing occupation. Idyllic Slovenia was absorbed into the Third Reich, while Germany supported an independent Croatia, ruled by the fascist Ustasha party, which included most of Bosnia, scene of the bloodiest internal fighting. When the war ended, many Croatian Ustasha emigrated to Germany, the United States and Canada, never giving up the hope of reviving secessionist Croatian nationalism.

In Washington in the 1990s, members of Congress got their impressions of Yugoslavia from a single expert: 35-year-old Croatian-American Mira Baratta, assistant to Sen. Bob Dole (Republican presidential candidate in 1996). Baratta’s grandfather had been an important Ustasha officer in Bosnia and her father was active in the Croatian diaspora in California. Baratta won over not only Dole but virtually the whole Congress to the Croatian version of Yugoslav conflicts blaming everything on the Serbs.

In Europe, Germans and Austrians, most notably Otto von Habsburg, heir to the defunct Austro-Hungarian Empire and member of the European Parliament from Bavaria, succeeded in portraying Serbs as the villains, thus achieving an effective revenge against their historic World War I enemy, Serbia. In the West, it became usual to identify Serbia as “Russia’s historic ally”, forgetting that in recent history Serbia’s closest allies were Britain and especially France.

In September 1991, a leading German Christian Democratic politician and constitutional lawyer explained why Germany should promote the breakup of Yugoslavia by recognizing the Slovenian and Croat secessionist Yugoslav republics. (Former CDU Minister of Defense Rupert Scholz at the 6thFürstenfeldbrucker Symposium for the Leadership of the German Military and Business, held September 23 – 24, 1991.)

By ending the division of Germany, Rupert Scholz said,

“We have, so to speak, overcome and mastered the most important consequences of the Second World War … but in other areas we are still dealing with the consequences of the First World War” – which, he noted “started in Serbia.”

Yugoslavia, as a consequence of the First World War, is a very artificial construction, never compatible with the idea of self-determination,” Rupert Scholz said. He concluded: “In my opinion, Slovenia and Croatia must be immediately recognized internationally. (…) When this recognition has taken place, the Yugoslavian conflict will no longer be a domestic Yugoslav problem, where no international intervention can be permitted.”

And indeed, recognition was followed by massive Western intervention which continues to this day. By taking sides, Germany, the United States and NATO ultimately produced a disastrous result, a half dozen statelets, with many unsettled issues and heavily dependent on Western powers. Bosnia-Herzegovina is under military occupation as well as the dictates of a “High Representative” who happens to be German. It has lost about half its population to emigration.

Only Serbia shows signs of independence, refusing to join in Western sanctions on Russia, despite heavy pressure. For Washington strategists the breakup of Yugoslavia was an exercise in using ethnic divisions to break up larger entities, the USSR and then Russia.

Humanitarian Bombing

Western politicians and media persuaded the public that the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia was a “humanitarian” war, generously waged to “protect the Kosovars” (after multiple assassinations by armed secessionists provoked Serbian authorities into the inevitable repression used as pretext for the bombing).

But the real point of the Kosovo war was that it transformed NATO from a defensive into an aggressive alliance, ready to wage war anywhere, without U.N. mandate, on whatever pretext it chose.

This lesson was clear to the Russians. After the Kosovo war, NATO could no longer credibly claim that it was a purely “defensive” alliance.

As soon as Serbian President Milosevic, to save his country’s infrastructure from NATO destruction, agreed to allow NATO troops to enter Kosovo, the U.S. unceremoniously grabbed a huge swath territory to build the its first big U.S. military base in the Balkans. NATO troops are still there.

Just as the United States rushed to build that base in Kosovo, it was clear what to expect of the U.S. after it succeeded in 2014 to install a government in Kiev eager to join NATO. This would be the opportunity for the U.S. to take over the Russian naval base in Crimea. Since it was known that the majority of the population in Crimea wanted to return to Russia (as it had from 1783 to 1954), Putin was able to forestall this threat by holding a popular referendum confirming its return.

East European Revanchism Captures the EU

The call by German Chancellor Scholz to enlarge the European Union by up to nine new members recalls the enlargements of 2004 and 2007 that brought in twelve new members, nine of them from the former Soviet bloc, including the three Baltic States once part of the Soviet Union.

That enlargement already shifted the balance eastward and enhanced German influence. In particular, the political elites of Poland and especially the three Baltic States, were heavily under the influence of the United States and Britain, where many had lived in exile during Soviet rule. They brought into EU institutions a new wave of fanatic anticommunism, not always distinguishable from Russophobia.

The European Parliament, obsessed with virtue signaling in regard to human rights, was particularly receptive to the zealous anti-totalitarianism of its new Eastern European members.

 European Parliament in Strasbourg, France. (U.N. Photo/Eskinder Debebe)

Revanchism and the Memory Weapon

As an aspect of anti-communist lustration, or purges, Eastern European States sponsored “Memory Institutes” devoted to denouncing the crimes of communism. Of course, such campaigns were used by far-right politicians to cast suspicion on the left in general. As explained by European scholar Zoltan Dujisin, “anticommunist memory entrepreneurs” at the head of these institutes succeeded in lifting their public information activities from the national, to the European Union level, using Western bans on Holocaust denial to complain, that while Nazi crimes had been condemned and punished at Nuremberg, communist crimes had not.

The tactic of the anti-communist entrepreneurs was to demand that references to the Holocaust be accompanied by denunciations of the Gulag. This campaign had to deal with a delicate contradiction since it tended to challenge the uniqueness of the Holocaust, a dogma essential to gaining financial and political support from West European memory institutes.

In 2008, the EP adopted a resolution establishing August 23 as “European Day of Remembrance for the victims of Stalinism and Nazism” – for the first time adopting what had been a fairly isolated far right equation. A 2009 EP resolution on “European Conscience and Totalitarianism” called for support of national institutes specializing in totalitarian history.

Dujisin explains, “Europe is now haunted by the specter of a new memory. The Holocaust’s singular standing as a negative founding formula of European integration, the culmination of long-standing efforts from prominent Western leaders … is increasingly challenged by a memory of communism, which disputes its uniqueness.”

East European memory institutes together formed the “Platform of European Memory and Conscience,” which between 2012 and 2016 organized a series of exhibits on “Totalitarianism in Europe: Fascism—Nazism—Communism,” traveling to museums, memorials, foundations, city halls, parliaments, cultural centers, and universities in 15 European countries, supposedly to “improve public awareness and education about the gravest crimes committed by the totalitarian dictatorships.”

Under this influence, the European Parliament on Sept. 19, 2019 adopted a resolution “on the importance of European Remembrance for the Future of Europe” that went far beyond equating political crimes by proclaiming a distinctly Polish interpretation of history as European Union policy. It goes so far as to proclaim that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is responsible for World War II – and thus Soviet Russia is as guilty of the war as Nazi Germany.

The resolution,

“Stresses that the Second World War, the most devastating war in Europe’s history, was started as an immediate result of the notorious Nazi-Soviet Treaty on Non-Aggression of 23 August 1939, also known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and its secret protocols, whereby two totalitarian regimes that shared the goal of world conquest divided Europe into two zones of influence;

It further:

“Recalls that the Nazi and communist regimes carried out mass murders, genocide and deportations and caused a loss of life and freedom in the 20th century on a scale unseen in human history, and recalls the horrific crime of the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi regime; condemns in the strongest terms the acts of aggression, crimes against humanity and mass human rights violations perpetrated by the Nazi, communist and other totalitarian regimes;”

This of course not only directly contradicts the Russian celebration of the “Great Patriotic War” to defeat the Nazi invasion, it also took issue with the recent efforts of Russian President Vladimir Putin to put the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement in the context of prior refusals of Eastern European states, notably Poland, to ally with Moscow against Hitler.

But the EP resolution:

“Is deeply concerned about the efforts of the current Russian leadership to distort historical facts and whitewash crimes committed by the Soviet totalitarian regime and considers them a dangerous component of the information war waged against democratic Europe that aims to divide Europe, and therefore calls on the Commission to decisively counteract these efforts;”

Thus the importance of Memory for the future, turns out to be an ideological declaration of war against Russia based on interpretations of World War II, especially since the memory entrepreneurs implicitly suggest that the past crimes of communism deserve punishment – like the crimes of Nazism. It is not impossible that this line of thought arouses some tacit satisfaction among certain individuals in Germany.

When Western leaders speak of “economic war against Russia,” or “ruining Russia” by arming and supporting Ukraine, one wonders whether they are consciously preparing World War III, or trying to provide a new ending to World War II. Or will the two merge?

As it shapes up, with NATO openly trying to “overextend” and thus defeat Russia with a war of attrition in Ukraine, it is somewhat as if Britain and the United States, some 80 years later, switched sides and joined German-dominated Europe to wage war against Russia, alongside the heirs to Eastern European anticommunism, some of whom were allied to Nazi Germany.

History may help understand events, but the cult of memory easily becomes the cult of revenge. Revenge is a circle with no end. It uses the past to kill the future. Europe needs clear heads looking to the future, able to understand the present.

*

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.

Diana Johnstone was press secretary of the Green Group in the European Parliament from 1989 to 1996. In her latest book, Circle in the Darkness: Memoirs of a World Watcher (Clarity Press, 2020), she recounts key episodes in the transformation of the German Green Party from a peace to a war party. Her other books include Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions (Pluto/Monthly Review) and in co-authorship with her father, Paul H. Johnstone, From MAD to Madness: Inside Pentagon Nuclear War Planning (Clarity Press). She can be reached at [email protected]

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

Featured image: Olaf Scholz, federal chancellor of Germany, meets Volodymyr Zelenskyy, president of Ukraine, in Kiev, Feb. 14, 2022. (President of Ukraine)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Specter of Germany Is Rising. Diana Johnstone
  • Tags:

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

A proposed regulation in Switzerland would make it a criminal offense to heat a gas-supplied building above 19°C (66°F) in the event of a natural gas shortage, punishable by up to three years in prison.

The draft regulation, presented by the Department of Economic Affairs, proposes extensive savings measures in the event of a natural gas shortage. Violations of the measures are not considered administrative offenses, but criminal offenses.

The draft regulation, which is based on the federal National Economic Supply Act, also imposes a cap of 60°C (140°F) on the heating of hot water in the event of a gas crisis in winter. The use of electric radiant heaters, warm air tents, as well as saunas and pools, would also be prohibited.

Since violations against this law would be criminal offenses, they are to be prosecuted by government authorities as soon as the responsible agency takes notice of them. They can result in judicial convictions, which may lead to criminal records for the person committing the violation.

Guy Parmelin, Switzerland’s Minister of Economic Affairs, tried to assuage fears during a press conference the previous week. Switzerland is “not a police state” and there are also guidelines in other areas that are “not constantly enforced,” Parmelin argued.

It was assumed that the population would comply with the guidelines of its own accord, according to the Swiss Minister.

Swiss officials did, however, admit that if overly motivated neighbors report someone who might be violating the heating guidelines, police would be obliged to investigate the claims.

The Swiss cantons (member states of Switzerland) have until September 22 to express their concerns and propose amendments to the draft regulation.

Preparations for a rough winter across Europe

Both Italy and Germany have announced that this winter they will turn down heating in public buildings significantly compared to previous years. Italy plans to turn down the heating in homes and businesses over the winter to a maximum of 19°C (66°F), while German cities are preparing heated public dorms for the poor and elderly.

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen insinuated in a recent speech that severe energy restrictions like these could soon be put in place all across Europe.

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Switzerland Mulls 3-year Imprisonment for People Who Heat Homes Above 66°F Amid Energy Crisis
  • Tags: ,

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

California Assembly Bill 2098, passed Aug. 29 by the California Senate and now awaiting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature, would subject doctors and others to disciplinary action — including having their licenses to practice medicine in California suspended or revoked — for spreading COVID-19 “misinformation.”

California is poised to become the first state to take legal action against medical practitioners accused of spreading COVID-19 “misinformation or disinformation.”

California Assembly Bill 2098 (AB 2098), passed Aug. 29 by the California Senate and now awaiting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature, would subject doctors and others to disciplinary action — including having their licenses to practice medicine in California suspended or revoked — for spreading “vaccine disinformation.”

The bill, which states that some of the most “dangerous propagators” of inaccurate information about COVID-19 vaccines are licensed healthcare professionals, declares it to be “unprofessional conduct” for a physician and surgeon to disseminate “misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.”

Gov. Newsom, who has until Sept. 19 to sign the bill, has not yet taken a public position on it, The New York Times reported.

The bill defines “misinformation” as any “false” information that is “contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.”

In an Aug. 30 tweet, Jenin Younes, litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, called the bill “horrifying”:

Physicians for Informed Consent on its website has an image of a physician with duct tape over her mouth accompanied by this statement: “If AB 2098 passes, I won’t be able to tell you what I really think.”

Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare epidemiologist, told The Defender, “Multiple states have already threatened or punished doctors for ‘spreading COVID misinformation.’ I had my license immediately suspended for this and await a hearing next month.”

Nass, a member of the Children’s Health Defense scientific advisory committee, continued:

“However, we have a First Amendment and often state laws that explicitly protect free speech.

“The California legislation, when signed, will be a first-in-the-nation attempt to legislate around the First Amendment and criminalize free speech.

“This will legalize what has already been carried out by what I would call ‘rogue’ medical boards who are unaware of our constitutionally guaranteed rights.”

AB 2098 was introduced in mid-February by California Assemblymember Evan Low — one of seven Democratic lawmakers who in January formed the Vaccine Work Group to develop legislation promoting the use of COVID-19 vaccines while “battling misinformation.” The bill passed the California Assembly in May.

Assemblymember Low said in a statement the bill would give California medical boards the “tools”necessary to bring “discipline actions” against licensed physicians charged with spreading COVID-19 misinformation.

“Due to their specialized knowledge and training,” Low said, “licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore must be held to account. The spreading of misinformation, of inaccurate COVID-19 information, contradicts that responsibility and threatens to further erode the public trust in the medical profession and puts all patients at risk.”

However, critics said that AB 2098 would have negative repercussions if it were made into law.

California Health Coalition Advocacy (CHCA), an organization that works to “expand, protect and promote the health and well-being of Californians,” in March wrote a letter to Assemblymember Low voicing its concerns about AB 2098.

In the letter, CHCA said doctors go through “rigorous education and training” and should be allowed to “voice their medical and professional opinions freely” and that the healthcare provider shortage might be “exacerbated” as an “unintended consequence” of the proposed law.

CHCA said it’s problematic that the bill defines “misinformation” as anything that goes against contemporary scientific “consensus,” as science is a continual evolution whose development has historically depended on considering minority voices.

Other opponents of the bill said the “standard of care” language is too vague and warned that it could be construed to mean whatever the government says it means.

Political commentator Robby Soave, a host of “Rising” on Hill TV, wrote in an article for Reason:

“Science is a deliberative process, and medical professionals need to be allowed to dissent from mainstream orthodoxies and challenge dominant perspectives. Patients deserve expert care, but it’s unreasonable for the government to compel ideological conformity in this field.

“Besides, the state has shown no particular aptitude for discerning what constitutes genuine misinformation. On the contrary, government actors have frequently instructed social media companies to be wary of perfectly legitimate points of view.”

“Science and medicine,” CHCA said in its letter to Assemblymember Low, “have historically been advanced through minority voices. The stifling of dissenting opinion will have long-lasting effects on the advancement of health care.”

CHCA continued:

“The understanding of the data and science related to COVID-19 continues to change as more studies are done. Standards of care are being updated as new information and treatments emerge.

“Any attempt at determining ‘contemporary scientific consensus’ will be fleeting.

“Top doctors in their field from UCSF, Stanford, and other well-respected institutions are speaking out about their lack of support for COVID-19 vaccines for children. Would these respected doctors be disciplined if AB 2098 were to pass?”

AB 2098 makes informed consent illegal

Some critics argued that if doctors risk losing their license by sharing any medical information not supported by “scientific consensus,” doctors will be unable to thoroughly discuss possible modes of treatment with patients and unable to provide patients with sufficient information to consent to treatments.

Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, a member of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, said in a Sept. 6 post:

“As a patient, you have rights to full informed consent prior to any medical intervention or therapeutic use. Furthermore, you have the right to access and try novel or off-label treatments, if you and your doctor determine this is the best choice for you. AB2098 will strip you of those rights.”

Some said the bill would “criminalize” patients’ informed consent process. Such medical censorship would mean “opening the gates to medical atrocities,” said Vera Sharav,  founder and president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection

“Criminalizing informed consent is the last step before medicine is weaponized — as a murderous, government-dictated endeavor,” Sharav told The Defender.

However, the American Medical Association (AMA), which strongly supports AB 2098, hopes other states will follow suit in “ensuring that licensing boards have the authority to take disciplinary action against health professionals for spreading health-related disinformation,” according to a new policy adopted at its mid-June annual meeting aimed at addressing public health “disinformation.”

The adopted policy expanded on prior efforts and called for the AMA to work with “health professional societies and other relevant organizations to implement a comprehensive strategy to address health-related disinformation disseminated by health professionals.”

In addition to equipping licensing boards with the legal tools to punish doctors for “spreading health-related disinformation,” the AMA’s adopted policy included these eight other priorities:

  • “Maintaining the AMA as a trusted source of evidence-based information for physicians and patients.
  • “Ensuring that evidence-based medical and public health information is accessible by engaging with publishers, research institutions and media organizations to develop best practices around paywalls and preprints to improve access to evidence-based information and analysis.
  • “Addressing disinformation disseminated by health professionals via social media platforms and addressing the monetization of spreading disinformation on social media platforms.
  • “Educating health professionals and the public on how to recognize disinformation as well as how it spreads.
  • “Considering the role of health-professional societies in serving as appropriate fact-checking entities for health-related information disseminated by various media platforms.
  • “Encouraging continuing education to be available for health professionals who serve as fact-checker to help prevent the dissemination of health-related information.
  • “Ensuring specialty boards have the authority to take action against board certification for health professionals spreading health-related disinformation.
  • “Encouraging state and local medical societies to engage in dispelling disinformation in their jurisdictions.”

COVID vaccines’ safety, efficacy not yet established

The safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines continue to be topics of scientific debate.

In July, seven highly distinguished medical researchers — including Peter Doshi, Ph.D., — wrote an open letter in The BMJ to the CEOs of Moderna and Pfizer asking the pharmaceutical companies to release clinical trial datasets for independent scientific review.

Doshi and colleagues noted the results of their recent study showing the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines exhibited a “risk increase” of “serious adverse events of special interest” — which raised concerns that “mRNA vaccines are associated with more harm than initially estimated at the time of emergency authorization.”

“COVID-19 vaccines are now among the most widely disseminated medicines in the history of the world,” they said. “Yet, results from the pivotal clinical trials cannot be verified by independent analysts.”

Doshi and colleagues added:

“The public has a legitimate right to an impartial analysis of these data. COVID vaccinations have cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, perhaps even rivaling the annual NIH [National Institutes of Health] budget for all aspects of biomedical and behavioral research.

“Transparency, reproducibility, and replication are cornerstones of high-quality science. The time is overdue for Pfizer and Moderna to allow independent scientists and physicians to see the original data and to replicate the analyses.”

*

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


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

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

What They’re Not Telling You About the New mRNA Boosters

September 14th, 2022 by Dr. Joseph Mercola

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

August 31, 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration authorized the reformulated mRNA COVID bivalent boosters, and they didn’t even allow members of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) to meet, discuss or vote on the matter

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) met for eight hours September 1, 2022, and authorized the untested boosters 13-to-1. CDC director Rochelle Walensky endorsed the recommendation later that evening

Pfizer’s new booster is a bivalent injection targeting Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5, which are the two currently in circulation, while Moderna’s shot targets the already extinct Wuhan strain and Omicron subvariant BA.1

The bivalent boosters will only be available to those who have already received the primary two-dose series and/or a monovalent booster at least two months ago

Pfizer’s bivalent booster was tested on a total of eight mice, and they only checked antibody levels, even though antibodies cannot tell you whether the shot actually protects against infection and symptomatic and/or serious illness. Moderna also used mice to ascertain antibody responses, but has not disclosed the number of mice used

*

With their authorization of reformulated COVID mRNA boosters without the standard steps of testing,1 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have completely abandoned science. They’re both simply rubber stamping whatever the drug industry wants to do, without any concern for public health whatsoever.

August 31, 2022, the FDA authorized the reformulated shots,2 and they didn’t even allow members of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) to meet, discuss or vote on the matter.

Instead, they pushed the matter before the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). ACIP met for eight hours September 1, 2022, and authorized the untested boosters 13-to-1.3,4 CDC director Rochelle Walensky endorsed the recommendation later that evening. As reported by Yahoo! News:5

“Because the Biden administration has pushed for a fall booster campaign to begin in September, the mRNA vaccine-makers Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna have only had time to test the reformulated shots in mice, not people.

That means the Food and Drug Administration is relying on the mice trial data — plus human trial results from a similar vaccine that targets the original omicron strain, called BA.1 — to evaluate the new shots …

That could be a potentially risky bet, experts say, if the shots don’t work as well as hoped … the lack of data in humans means officials likely won’t know how much better the new shots are — if at all — until the fall booster campaign is well underway.

The FDA’s decision to move forward without data from human trials is a gamble, experts say, threatening to further lower public trust in the vaccines should the new boosters not work as intended.”

What You Need to Know About the New Boosters

Pfizer’s new booster is a bivalent injection targeting Omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5, which are the two [alleged] currently in circulation, while Moderna’s shot targets the already extinct Wuhan strain and Omicron subvariant BA.1.6 The bivalent boosters will only be available to those who have already received the primary two-dose series and/or a monovalent booster at least two months ago. Per the FDA:7

“The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent, is authorized for use as a single booster dose in individuals 18 years of age and older. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent, is authorized for use as a single booster dose in individuals 12 years of age and older …

With today’s authorization, the monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are not authorized as booster doses for individuals 12 years of age and older … These monovalent vaccines continue to be authorized for use for administration of a primary series for individuals 6 months of age and older …

Individuals 18 years of age and older are eligible for a single booster dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent if it has been at least two months since they have completed primary vaccination or have received the most recent booster dose with any authorized or approved monovalent COVID-19 vaccine.

Individuals 12 years of age and older are eligible for a single booster dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Bivalent if it has been at least two months since they have completed primary vaccination or have received the most recent booster dose with any authorized or approved monovalent COVID-19 vaccine.”

No One Can Predict Safety of These Bivalent Boosters

For the record, these bivalent boosters are STILL under emergency use authorization (EUA) only, so manufacturers have no liability for injuries. This despite the fact that we now know that:

a) The lethality of COVID-19 was nowhere near what was initially feared (something Bill Gates is now openly admitting. A clip of him is included in “The Jimmy Dore Show” episode above)

b) The COVID shots increase your risk of COVID and prevent natural immunity from developing when you do get infected

c) The shots impair immune function in general, raising your risk of other infections and chronic diseases

d) We’re not in an emergency; COVID is now endemic and typically presents as a mild cold

e) Since the COVID shots are leaky, i.e., they cannot prevent infection, we cannot vaccinate our way out. As VRBPAC member Dr. Paul Offit recently told Science magazine,8 “Even if 100% of the population were vaccinated and the virus hadn’t evolved at all, [COVID] vaccines would do very little to stop transmission”

f) There are plenty of effective treatments, which by law negates the basis for EUA vaccines

According to the FDA, the reactogenicity profile of the reformulated shot is “overall similar to prototype BNT162b2 vaccine,”9 and based on U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) data, that’s hardly comforting.

As of August 26, 2022, VAERS has received 1,394,703 reports of adverse effects following the COVID jab,10 up from 1,390,594 the week before. That includes 134,530 urgent care visits, 175,020 hospitalizations and 30,605 deaths (up from 30,479 deaths as of August 19).

The real-world carnage is far worse than that though. Due to widespread underreporting, you have to multiply those numbers by an underreporting factor of 41 (or more) to get to closer to the true numbers. If you do the math, you will discover that the COVID jabs have been the No. 1 cause of death in the U.S. for the past two years, far exceeding heart attacks and cancers that were unrelated to the jab.

They are the deadliest drugs in medical history, bar none, and now reformulated shots are being green-lighted based on antibody data from mice alone!11,12 As Dore jokingly states, “It’s been tested on mice, now put it in your baby.” What could go wrong?

Mouse Antibody Levels Tell Us Nothing About Effectiveness

Pfizer’s bivalent booster was tested on a total of eight mice, and they only checked antibody levels. Moderna also used mice to ascertain antibody responses, but have not disclosed the number of mice used.13

But while the FDA, CDC, Pfizer, Moderna and the rest of this criminal cabal claim that mouse antibody levels are a testament to effectiveness, that’s simply not so. Your antibody level cannot tell you whether you’re protected against infection, symptomatic illness and serious illness.

This is why antibody testing has been discouraged throughout the pandemic as a means to determine whether the COVID shot is actually protective.14 Making matters even more ridiculous, Pfizer isn’t even releasing what little animal data they do have on this bivalent booster.

As crazy as it is, the FDA and CDC are now treating experimental gene therapy shots like regular flu vaccines.15 The seasonal flu vaccine is updated annually, without ever undergoing any additional safety or even efficacy testing. Efficacy is calculated after the fact. The COVID shots are now going to be updated, indefinitely, using that same process.

The problem is, you simply cannot compare the safety of changing the influenza virus included in the flu vaccine with the modification of mRNA included in a COVID shot, because they’re two very different technologies. The flu vaccine doesn’t program your body’s cells to produce a toxic spike protein.

When you change the mRNA, you change the spike protein produced, and without proper testing, there’s no way of knowing if the Omicron spike proteins will affect human biology the same way as the original spike protein, if they’ll be safer or more dangerous.

The Spike Protein Cover-Up

The CDC has lost all credibility, and no amount of internal reorganization will fix what dishonesty and anti-scientific recommendations have broken. As noted by Center for Food, Power and Life director Jon Sanders in a September 1, 2022, American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) article,16 CDC “facts” have a tendency to not age well these days.

They’re constantly updating their COVID webpages, tweaking verbiage to conform to the current narrative while memory-holing previous statements:

“November 23, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published information on something that was on everybody’s mind: vaccines against COVID-19.

In a page titled ‘Understanding mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines,’ the CDC wanted everyone to know what to expect with the coming vaccines, which were being put forth under ‘Emergency Use Authorization’ … the FDA and CDC assured everyone they would be ‘rigorously tested’ and ‘rigorously evaluated for safety.’

Also, since the first vaccines to be rolled out would be messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines … never before licensed for use in the U.S., the CDC wanted to explain to everyone how they would work. The CDC explained the difference in vaccine types this way:

‘To trigger an immune response, many vaccines put a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies. Not mRNA vaccines. Instead, they teach our cells how to make a protein — or even just a piece of a protein — that triggers an immune response inside our bodies. That immune response, which produces antibodies, is what protects us from getting infected if the real virus enters our bodies’ …

The CDC also provided ‘A Closer Look at How COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Work’ to put people’s minds at ease about the new kind of vaccine … From there we learned several things about the mRNA vaccines:

  • They cause our cells to make … the ‘spike protein’ used by the virus that causes COVID.
  • This spike protein is harmless (the CDC emphasized that fact with bold text).
  • The vaccine is injected in the upper arm muscle. Only the upper arm muscle cells … make the harmless spike protein.
  • An upper arm muscle cell makes only one harmless protein piece, then it breaks down the mRNA ‘instructions’ and gets rid of them.
  • The muscle cell displays the harmless protein piece.
  • The immune system recognizes the harmless protein piece is unnatural and builds up antibodies to it.
  • The immune system is now prepared to fight against an invasion by the real deal sporting that spike protein.”

Cha-Cha-Changes

Since November 2020, this and other CDC webpages covering COVID topics have undergone a large number of stealth revisions. For example, October 1, 2021, the CDC added the following section:

COVID-19 vaccines are not interchangeable. If you received a Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, you should get the same product for your second shot.”

Between October 18 and October 31, that section first changed to “You should get the same product for your second shot,” and later, “You should get the same product when you need another shot.”

As noted by Sanders, “This was the month in which CDC began to hedge on the total number of shots necessary to be considered ‘fully vaccinated.’” But then, November 3, when the CDC began promoting boosters, it changed the text again, now suddenly claiming that boosters did NOT need to match the product used for the primary series. Where’s the science to back that up?

In late October, the CDC also updated its “How mRNA Vaccines Work” section, adding: “Any temporary discomfort experienced after getting the vaccine is a natural part of the process and an indication that the vaccine is working.” They also changed its “Facts About COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines” sidebar, adding a third fact-heading that stated:

The mRNA and the spike protein don’t last long in the body. Our cells break down the mRNA and get rid of it within a few days after vaccination. Scientist estimate that the spike protein, like other proteins our bodies create, may stay in the body up to a few weeks.”

Before this, CDC adherents had likely assumed the spike protein vanished as rapidly as the mRNA. Then, in mid-June 2022, another round of revisions was made. Sanders writes, in part:17

“This update made two changes to the ‘How mRNA Vaccines Work’ section. It no longer used bold text to stress that the spike protein is ‘a harmless piece,’ even though it had done that consistently from the very beginning.

A bigger change was made to the ‘Any temporary discomfort’ sentence added in October 2021. Formerly that sentence read (emphasis added): ‘Any temporary discomfort experienced after getting the vaccine is a natural part of the process and an indication that the vaccine is working.’

The new sentence read (emphasis added): ‘Any side effects from getting the vaccine are normal signs the body is building protection.’ Readers were to adjust their expectation of natural/normal. Not ‘temporary discomfort’ but ‘side effects,’ and not a definitive ‘the vaccine is working’ but a more vague ‘the body is building protection.’”

CDC’s Biggest Fact U-Turns to Date

Fast-forward another month, and in mid-July 2022, the CDC was busy revising its COVID pages yet again. Importantly, they completely expunged the “fact” about mRNA and spike protein not lasting long in the body. So, as noted by Sanders:

“Our knowledge of the vaccines from the CDC has undergone great changes since November 2020:

  • The CDC is no longer so confident that the protein our cells are caused to manufacture by the mRNA vaccines is harmless that they display it in bold text.
  • The CDC no longer argues that our cells break down the mRNA soon after making the spike protein.
  • The CDC no longer says the spike protein may stay in the body only for a few weeks.

The constant churn of revisions leaves us with many questions, when the whole point of producing a page entitled ‘Understanding mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines’ was to prevent such a thing. They are, unfortunately, very big questions.

What does it mean if our cells don’t break down the mRNA and remove it soon? What does it mean if the spike protein they produce stays in the body much, much longer than we were originally told? Do they even know how long? What kind of lasting effects can vaccinated people expect? Are those effects exacerbated by boosting and continued boosting?

How prevalent are the effects? Do they differ for different people, and if so, by how much? Are those effects greater for small children? And are those effects at all related to the disturbing rise in non-COVID excess deaths in the U.K., Australia, and the U.S.?”

CDC Asked Facebook to Censor Claims It Has Since Revised

One of the biggest walk-backs among all these revisions is the CDC’s deletion of the claim that the spike protein is harmless and doesn’t last long in your body. A year earlier, in late July 2021, the CDC was in communication with Facebook, giving it talking points with which to debunk and censor claims that spike protein in the COVID shots is dangerous and cytotoxic. In a July 28, 2021, email, a CDC official provided the following counter-narrative:18

“Messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine are one type of COVID-19 vaccine. Messenger mRNA [sic] vaccines work by teaching our cells to create a harmless spike protein …” (Emphasis in the original.)

The CDC also gave Facebook counter narratives with which to censor and debunk the claim that the shots could cause myocarditis, and that VAERS is a good source for evaluating vaccine adverse effects and related deaths.19

COVID Shot Recommendations Are a Crime in Progress

In the final analysis, what the FDA and CDC have done to the American people is an unspeakable atrocity and an unforgiveable crime. They’ve lied about and obfuscated the facts. They’ve ignored science and tossed the precautionary principle out the window.

They’ve circumvented every possible rule designed to ensure safety. They’ve rewritten both history and the definition of medical terminology. They’ve operated outside the law and violated the Constitution, and to this day, they continue to put people’s health and lives at risk — all so that drug companies can cash in on drugs that don’t work, at least not for more than a few weeks.

Anyone who believes fewer than 10 mice is sufficient to determine safety and efficacy of reformulated mRNA gene therapy does not belong in a public health position and, apparently, that’s all but one person.

It’s truly unbelievable that only one ACIP member objected to this clear and apparent madness, but that’s where we are. If you are eligible for these bivalent boosters, I would suggest you think long and hard before going down that road. Of course if you read this newsletter you likely already do think before you go there. Fortunately an ever-increasing percentage of the population is also following your lead.

*

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, 5 Yahoo.com August 31, 2022

2 New York Times August 31, 2022 (Archived)

3, 13 Rumble, Friday Roundtable September 2, 2022

4 Pharmacy Practice News September 1, 2022

6 Sky News August 15, 2022

7 FDA August 31, 2022

8 Science August 30, 2022

9, 11 FDA.gov June 28, 2022

10 Openvaers.com Through August 26, 2022, All territories

12 The Atlantic August 25, 2022

14 Medical.mit.edu August 17, 2021

15 CNBC August 31, 2022

16, 17 AIER September 1, 2022

18, 19 Ago.mo.gov CDC emails to Facebook July 2021

Featured image is from Mercola


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 

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” 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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The long-awaited report on the Uighurs is out. It is sharp on China but contradicts the massive accusations that have been circulating in the West. The report was the subject of much wrangling and it threatens to become a weapon in the great geopolitical game between the West and China.

The context

It has been a long time coming, but finally the UN Human Rights Committee (OHCHR) report on the Uighurs has been released. The Uighurs are a Muslim population group in Xinjiang, a province in western China.

There is a great deal of controversy about this population group. Western countries in particular accuse China of “cultural genocide” while countries of the South,[1] including several leading Muslim countries, view it completely differently. For example, at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation summit in Pakistan in March 2022, China was invited as the ‘guest of honour’.

In the past, a lot of fake news about the Uighurs has been produced. That should come as no surprise. From the West, China is increasingly under fire. The use of human rights à la carte is a tried and tested means of pushing countries into a corner and arousing public opinion.

The report itself has been the subject of much debate. It took three years to get permission to publish it. There was a great deal of pressure from both Western governments and Beijing regarding the content and the date of publication. In such a context of wrangling and struggle for influence, neutrality is a relative term.

The report starts from the fact that the contested Chinese approach towards the Uighurs takes place against the background of “riots” and “violent incidents which the [Chinese] Government has consistently characterised as terrorist in character. In 2009, racist riots led to 197 deaths, mostly Han Chinese.

An estimated 300 terrorist attacks followed, resulting in dozens of deaths. During the civil war in Syria, thousands of Uighur Muslim extremists were active there, and sooner or later they would return to their homeland. According to the renowned American trade magazine Foreign Policy, it became increasingly clear that China had become a new target of the Jihad.

In response to these serious terrorist attacks, Beijing has embarked on a vigorous anti-terrorism policy.

The OHCHR released simultaneously with its report a 121-page report from China, which states that the state’s fight against terrorism in the region is “necessary and just,” takes place within “the rule of law,” and “fully respects and safeguards human rights”. However, OHCHR precisely considers China’s counterterrorism approach to be “highly problematic” in terms of respect for human rights.

The report

The UN report is based on the one hand on forty in-depth interviews of witnesses, and on the other hand on a number of official Chinese documents[2] which the report says are “highly likely to be authentic”. In both cases, however, it is not clear whether they are separate individual cases or a pattern of behaviour by the Chinese government. Either way, every individual is entitled to respect for his or her human rights.

For the many allegations in its report, OHCHR generally does not provide hard evidence. In addition to individual testimonies, the UN body draws conclusions or estimates based on certain indicators. Therefore, the report often expresses itself in the conditional mood.

We list the main conclusions of the report:

The most important allegation is the one about the so-called ‘Vocational Education and Training Centres’. A large group of Uighurs was temporarily deprived of their freedom and forced to attend classes in those centres. This was the case at least between 2017 and 2019.

Although this was done according to Chinese law, according to OHCHR, the deprivation of liberty was “arbitrary” because the criteria were too vague or too strict. Thus, many people ended up in the centers for “extremism”, an arbitrary charge according to OHCR.

According to the OHCHR, there is credible evidence that in these centers a number of Uighurs were victims of “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” as well as “sexual and gender-based violence”.

“Estimates of the number of people detained range from tens of thousands to over a million.” The report cannot provide more precise figures because the calculation was based, among other things, on a report by a local party secretary and on satellite images of “walled buildings,” which, however, are not necessarily certain to be such centres.[3]

Furthermore, Uighurs were subjected to mandatory family planning, according to the UN commission. The report also mentions the destruction of religious buildings, especially in the years 2017 and 2018. The Chinese government contradicts this, saying these were renovations.

The UN Human Rights Committee is sharp in its criticism of China, but does contradict the massive accusations that have circulated in the West. There is no mention of “cultural genocide,” “concentration camps” or “large-scale forced labour” in the report.

For its part, China strongly opposes the conclusions of the UN report which it says “ignores the human rights achievements” in Xinjiang, such as the complete eradication of poverty by the end of 2020.

Beijing also says it ignores “the devastating damage caused by terrorism and extremism to the human rights of people of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang”. There have been no terrorist attacks since late 2016. Furthermore, Beijing acknowledges to have convicted 13,000 people for terrorism and 30,000 people for illegal activities during that period.

Reactions and comments

Critical readers of the report mainly question the dimensions of the allegations and their possible consequences. If the human rights violations were indeed so serious and on such a large scale, why has there not been a large influx of refugees from the affected Uighur population?

Despite the fact that the OHCHR’s recommendations are moderate, this report will be seized upon to intensify the economic war against China and tighten the military squeeze on the country.

Another thing, on the issue of the Uighurs there is a lot of commotion in the West. This contrasts sharply with the attitude towards neighbouring India. Since the end of 2019, camps have been built in the north of the country to deport hundreds of thousands of so-called “illegals.

Muslims are increasingly the target of progroms. One such pogrom left 45 dead in March 2020. In 2021, a rally was held in the northern state of Uttarakhand where speakers called for genocide against Muslims and other minorities in the name of protecting Hinduism.

The province of Kashmir, home to mostly Muslims, is occupied by more than half a million Indian soldiers. In 2020, all telephone and internet connections were cut off for months. 7,000 politicians, businessmen and other prominent citizens were arrested without charge. All meetings were banned.

Why is there such a deafening silence about all these issues from our politicians or in the mainstream media? Why is it that some are allowed to do as they please while others are judged and dealt with very harshly? Apparently human rights are used as a weapon in the great geopolitical game.

In a 2018 speech, a former US chief of staff already outlined how the Uighur issue can be used to destabilize China from within. A human rights campaign is an important part of such a strategy.

*

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.

Marc Vandepitte is a Belgian economist and philosopher. He writes on North-South relations, Latin America, Cuba, and China. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] At the UN Commission on Human Rights in October 2021, 43 UN member states called on China to immediately admit independent observers, while 62 other UN member states, mostly countries of the South, argued that “disinformation” was involved.

[2] These include the China Cables, the Xinjiang Papers, the Karakax List, the Urumqi Police database and the Xinjiang Police Files.

[3] It is about a report by a local party secretary who claims that in a certain village 30 percent of the population had to be re-educated. Based in part on this, the report speaks of an estimate of tens of thousands to more than one million. “On the basis of the information currently before it, OHCHR is not in a position to confirm estimates of total numbers of individuals affected by the VETC system.” (VETC stands for “Vocational Education and Training Centres”.)

Featured image is from United World International

NATO Opens Second Front in Effort to Bleed Russia Dry

September 14th, 2022 by Kurt Nimmo

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

On Tuesday, the military forces of Azerbaijan shelled territory in neighboring Armenia. “The hostilities erupted minutes after midnight, with Azerbaijani forces unleashing an artillery barrage and drone attacks in many sections of Armenian territory, according to the Armenian Defense Ministry,” reports to the Associated Press. The premier corporate propaganda outfit cited serious damage to “civilian infrastructure and also wounded an unspecified number of people,” including 49 Armenian soldiers (later updated to 99 soldiers).

“There are reports of dead and wounded among civilians and military servicemen,” said Hikmet Hajiyev, a spokesman for the Azerbaijani presidency.

The latest clash between the two rivals follows the decades-old conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, yet again another instance of violence over ethnicity and culture. According to the “international community” (those onboard with the neoliberal agenda dictated by the US), the region is recognized as part of Azerbaijan.

The Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast has a population of 192,000, 76% Armenian and 23% Azerbaijani. There are Russian and Kurdish minorities.

The 1988-1994 war prompted the Russian Federation sent peacekeepers to the disputed separatist region.

NATO Is Prepping Azerbaijan for NATO’s War

The highly biased Wikipedia does not mention an important detail—the presence of NATO in Azerbaijan.

In 1992, toward the end of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict NATO initiated relations with Azerbaijan and invited it to join the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, described as a liaison program with the Warsaw Pact states following the fall of the Soviet Union. This NATO “friendship” spinoff has provided an open door to introduce NATO programs in Azerbaijan.

“Documents are the main national papers that define key principles and goals of Azerbaijan’s individual partnership with NATO. In these documents Azerbaijan expressed its readiness for cooperation with NATO in the areas such as defence and security sector reforms, developing military forces according to NATO standards, participation in the NATO-led peace operations, civil emergency planning, addressing the emerging security challenges as well as science, environment and public diplomacy,” declares the Mission of the Republic of Azerbaijan to NATO. (Emphasis added.)

Last December, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg invited President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan to NATO Headquarters in Brussels, reportedly concerning “the security situation in the South Caucasus region. President Aliyev also met with the 30 Allied ambassadors in the North Atlantic Council,” the NATO website reported.

The North Atlantic Council is the decision-making apparatus of NATO.

Azerbaijan participated in Worthy Partner 2022, a military exercise held at the training ground of the 4th Infantry Brigade in Vaziani, Georgia, and supported by the NATO-Georgia Joint Training and Evaluation Center, according to News.am.

“The purpose of Worthy Partner 2022 is to improve readiness and interoperability between Georgia, the United States, regional partners and allied nations to ensure a stable and secure environment in the Black Sea region.”

In short, the put an end to Russian presence there (despite the long-standing presence of Russia’s Sevastopol Naval Base in Crimea, home of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.)

Russia and Georgia became bitter enemies during the South Ossetia conflict. The brief war resulted in Russia establishing military bases in the Georgian province of Abkhazia. Russia recognized both provinces “as independent states, while most of the world has continued to consider them part of Georgia,” according to the Associated Press (as usual, no evidence is provided to verify this claim).

Ponars Eurasia released a memo in 2019 stating:

Under [Shavkat Mirziyoyev, president] Uzbekistan has been in high demand as a security partner. Russia has watched U.S. undertakings in Uzbekistan closely, making every effort to present its security cooperation as being more valuable to Tashkent than its partnership with Washington. The United States, however, has a distinct advantage in meeting Uzbekistan’s demands for high-quality professional military education (PME), one of the key pillars of Tashkent’s defense reform. Uzbekistan’s defense establishment is genuinely interested in transforming not only the out-of-date curriculum, doctrine, and training philosophy, but also the modes of thinking and learning in military education.

Mirziyoyev is characterized as an autocrat with tendencies of his mentor and predecessor, Islam Karimov, accused of boiling and freezing his opens to death.

The Ponars Eurasisa website has posted numerous links to articles favoring Ukraine in the conflict with Russia and its special operation to disarm and denazify the Ukraine.

Although Russia Federation President Putin is attempting to negotiate a truce between the opposing sides, the Armenia-Azerbaijan border clash has yet to de-escalate.

This ethnic and separatist conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh is a sideshow to NATO’s true intention in Uzbekistan. It is fair to say the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh plays a secondary role to the main objective—surrounding Russia (however, in the case of Uzbekistan, there is a very large buffer between the two countries, Kazakhstan).

Preparing the Kazakhstan Front

Relations between Kazakhstan and Russia were on good terms before the start of the conflict in the Ukraine. The two countries are founding members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, and are additionally part of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

The agreement included building the Baikonur Cosmodrome, but all of that is in question now that Russia has ordered the shutdown for a month of the Caspian Pipeline transporting oil from Kazakhstan’s massive Tengiz Field across Russia to the Black Sea.

Russia did this as part of the objective of closing down Europe as it continues to provide the regime in the Ukraine with arms and munitions totaling billions of euros. “Heavily dependent on fossil fuels, Kazakhstan is reliant on Russian pipelines for oil exports to Europe,” notes Reuters.

NATO and the US are prepared to inflame this situation to enlarge the offensive against Russia. Kazakhstan and Russia share the largest border in the world.

The US is determined to make headway in Central Asia. Sebastian Engels of the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies writes:

Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and the ever-present threat of Islamic extremism provide sufficient reason to stay engaged in Central Asia. Training programs that professionalize Kazakhstan’s military can offer a cost-effective way for the United States to further a lasting partnership with Central Asia’s most stable country. These efforts must be nested within higher-level strategies, thoughtfully planned in coordination with the host nation, carefully executed by appropriate personnel, and continually scrutinized for value added to the U.S. goals for the country and Kazakhstan’s military.

However, Kazakhstan has attempted to stay neutral while the war wages in Ukraine, and this has been viewed with displeasure by Russia.

Foreign policy analyst and Visiting Researcher at Russia’s MGIMO University, Clint Ehrlich,  tweeted a month before the outbreak of hostilities that the “situation in Kazakhstan is a much bigger deal than Western media is letting on… I believe it significantly increases the risk of NATO-Russia conflict.”

Part of the effort to destabilize Kazakhstan is to soften it up in preparation to, as US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin brazenly declared, “weaken” Russia so it cannot defend itself. Blinken also said Russia is actively trying to destabilize and occupy the country.

It is not clear if the recent riots in Kazakhstan are a product of NED (National Endowment for Democracy), a more subtle version of the CIA and its efforts to overthrow unfavored countries. The subversion unit is active in Kazakhstan.

“The New York Times and other mainstream media outlets depicted the violence as a result of the doubling of fuel prices and unhappiness with political authoritarianism and corruption,” opines PopularResistance.org.

Pepe Escobar wrote in Strategic Culture about the protesters provoking “total anarchy, robbery, looting, hundreds of vehicles destroyed, attacks with assault rifles, ATMs and even the Duty Free at Almaty airport [being] completely plundered.” This assessment dovetailed with that of Galym Ageleulov, a human rights activist in Almaty who participated in the protests. He described the crowd as “an unruly mob of…thugs…clearly organized by crime group marauders.”

This sounds a lot like the behavior of the Maidan thugs during the 2014 fascist coup d’Etat in Kyiv. They were graciously provided with treats by then Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Victoria Nuland, an especially vile bureaucrat married to top neon Robert Kagan.

“Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland [under Biden], run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats,” wrote the late Robert Parry of Consortium News.

Though there was no evidence that Putin had instigated the Ukraine crisis and indeed all the evidence indicated the opposite, the State Department peddled a propaganda theme to the credulous [more like actively complicit] mainstream U.S. news media about Putin having somehow orchestrated the situation in Ukraine so he could begin invading Europe. Former Secretary of State Clinton compared Putin to Adolf Hitler.

It reminds to be seen if Kazakhstan, with its sprawling frontier with Russia, will become a second front for the entirely insane effort to defeat Russia, assassinate Vladimir Putin, and break the nation into ethnically divided statelets controlled by the neoliberal bankster gang and its professional thieves, murderers, and hijackers of disfavored governments by way of NED color revolution and other means.

We should take Vladimir Putin and Russian General Valeriy Zaluzhnyi seriously. If Russia faces and existential threat, as seems to be the endgame for the one-world elite, it will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons to defend itself.

Of course, such a move would quickly escalate into a worldwide nuclear conflagration and the murder of all life on the planet, either directly or by way of nuclear winter.

Unfortunately, Americans are, by and large, wholly unaware or are blithely ignorant this prospect, instead playing the fool by putting Ukrainian flags on their social media accounts, totally unaware the Ukraine gambit fed by the US and its military-industrial complex. As the covid bioweapon demonstrated, Americans will do whatever their government instructs, so long as the right amount of fear and dread are employed.

Maybe radiation sickness while change their minds.

*

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.

Kurt Nimmo is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Al Mayadeen English

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on NATO Opens Second Front in Effort to Bleed Russia Dry
  • Tags: ,

How to Open a Mind: How Can “We Wake People Up” to the Dangers of the COVID Jab

By Dr. Emanuel Garcia, September 13, 2022

I am frequently asked by my friends and acquaintances in what I now call the “Resistance” – those who, like myself, fight for some common sense about human liberty and the practice of medicine during the Corona War in the Age of Covid – how we can ‘wake people up’.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the Politics of COVID: Calling the Liberals to Account

By Carl Boggs, September 13, 2022

In his earlier pathbreaking book on the great “Covid Pandemic”, The Real Anthony Fauci, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took on and discredited the major centers of power in American society that were, from the outset, responsible for what has become an unprecedented assault on humanity: Big Pharma, the intelligence apparatus, medical bureaucrats, corporate media, even the Pentagon.

9/11 Versus COVID: 21 Years of Wandering in the Fog After 9/11 Has Opened the “Gates of Hell”

By Emanuel Pastreich, September 14, 2022

It is with a heavy heart that we commemorate the  21st anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States. The attacks were most certainly terror, but the exact nature of that terror has been left intentionally ambiguous ever since.

OPEC+ with Russia’s Cooperation Has Kept the Alliance Together

By Steven Sahiounie, September 14, 2022

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is headed by Secretary General Haitham Al Ghais, who said on August 18 that the OPEC+ oil production deal wants to keep Russia part of the alliance beyond 2022.

India-China Agreement: Withdrawal of From Disputed Ladakh Border Area

By Uriel Araujo, September 14, 2022

China and India have agreed to withdraw their military troops from the disputed border area, near the latter’s Ladakh region in the Himalayas.Although there has been a lot of dialogue amid the tensions, this a somewhat surprising development, which, from an American perspective, could be the beginning of a nightmare.

Silencing the Lambs. How Propaganda Works

By John Pilger, September 13, 2022

In an address to the Trondheim World Festival in Norway, John Pilger charts the history of power propaganda and describes how it appropriates journalism in a ‘profound imperialism’ and is likely to entrap us all, if we allow it.

Donald Trump and the Espionage Act. Tense Political Atmosphere Ahead of the November Elections

By Abayomi Azikiwe, September 13, 2022

This was the first time in history that a former U.S. head-of-state has been targeted in an FBI raid let alone threatened with prosecution under federal law. Richard Nixon, the disgraced president who resigned in August 1974 over the attempt to cover up the break in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate building in Washington, D.C., was pardoned by his successor President Gerald R. Ford.

9/11 and the Trans Afghan Pipeline Project (TAPI): The Invasion of Afghanistan Had Been Planned Prior to 9/11. The Missing Enron Link

By Karin Brothers, September 13, 2022

The day after the events of Sept. 11, 2001, the United States demanded that NATO members follow Article 5 and join it in retribution for the attacks in New York and Washington, D.C.  While it came to be known that the US State Department had written a letter in August, 2001, claiming that the US military would be in Afghanistan by the following October, the questions of “why Afghanistan?” and “why October?” were not closely examined.

Video: The Corona Crisis: “We’re Dealing with Homicide, Maybe Even Murder”, Forced Vaccines in Nursing Homes

By Peter Koenig and Reiner Fuellmich, September 13, 2022

A German whistleblower video, clandestinely taken already in February 2021, of forced COVID vaccines in German Nursing Homes went public.  They were sent to Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, Attorney, whose reaction is: “We’re Dealing with Homicide, Maybe Even Murder”.

Never Let a Good Crisis Go to Waste. Relentless Ukraine Reporting Helps Conceal Other Conflicts

By Philip Giraldi, September 13, 2022

It is astonishing how many observers of war in Ukraine who should know better have been inclined to take at face value the assertions of “sources” that clearly originate among the various governments that are involved in the conflict.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: How to Open a Mind: How Can “We Wake People Up” to the Dangers of the COVID Jab

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The latest shipment was sent to Iraq in batches through the illegal al-Mahmoudiyeh crossing connecting Hasakah with northern Iraq, said the report.

Last week, according to SANA, more than 300 oil tankers were sent from the U.S.-controlled Syrian oil fields in Hasakah to U.S. bases in Iraq.

In Syria, people have struggled to secure gas for cooking and fuel for their cars and businesses. The scarcity of fuel also causes long daily power cuts.

On Aug. 8, the Syrian oil ministry said in a statement that U.S. forces were stealing 80 percent of Syria’s oil production.

U.S. forces and their mercenaries are stealing an average of 66,000 barrels of oil daily in Syria. It added that the country’s average daily oil production is estimated to have reached 80,000 barrels in the first half of 2022.

On Aug. 29, the Syrian oil ministry said in a statement that the U.S. practices in Syria, including its unlawful trafficking of Syrian oil, have so far caused direct and indirect losses of about 107.1 billion U.S. dollars to Syria’s oil and gas sectors.

*

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: U.S. military vehicle runs past the Tal Tamr area in the countryside of Hasakah province, northeastern Syria, Nov. 14, 2019. | Photo: Str/Xinhua

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US “Steals” 88 More Tankers of Syrian Oil: State Media
  • Tags:

Author’s Note

The following article, first published in May 2004, was part of my keynote presentation at the opening plenary session to the International Citizens Inquiry into 9/11. Toronto, 25-30 March 2004.

The main thrust of this 2004 analysis was that the issue of “foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks” was a “red herring” which has contributed to sustaining the “Big Lie”.

“Foreknowledge of the attacks” and “failure to act” uphold the notion that the terrorist attacks (“act of war”) “waged by Muslims against America” are  “real”, when all the facts and findings ultimately point towards coverup and complicity at the highest levels of the US government.

Richard Clarke who at the time was in charge of counter-terrorism on the White House National Security Council “apologized” to the American people and the families of the victims.

Clarke hinted to “intelligence failures” in the months leading up to 9/11: Had the White House acted in a responsible fashion, had they taken the intelligence briefings seriously, 3000 lives could have been saved on September 11, 2001.

According to Richard Clarke, Bush and the White House intelligence team ignored these warnings.

In a recent statement on PBS (August 2011), Clarke accused former CIA Director George Tenet and two other CIA officials, Cofer Black and Richard Blee of  “deliberately withholding critical intelligence” concerning the 9/11 attacks. The latter pertained to information regarding two of the alleged hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, Al-Hazmi and Al-Mihdhar.

Compare Richard Clarke’s recent statements [2011] with regard to foreknowledge and “intelligence failures” to those of 2004. Déjà Vu? Red Herring?

What this  August 2011 statement suggests is that the Bush administration was responsible for “intelligence failures” rather than coverup and treason.

Clarke’s statements sustain the “Al Qaeda Legend”, namely that Muslim hijackers were behind the attacks and that the information withheld by CIA Director George Tenet had not been made available to the White House and the US Congress.

Clarke hints that if this information had been made available, the attacks might have been prevented.

Clarke’s statements both then and now are supportive of the “Global War on Terrorism” Consensus.

Bear in mind that Richard Clarke was part of an intelligence team which covertly supported Al Qaeda operatives in the Balkans throughout the 1990s. Moreover, amply documented, the Islamic brigades and Al Qaeda including the madrassahs and the CIA sponsored training camps in Afghanistan are a creation of the CIA. The Taliban were “graduates” of the madrassahs, which formed a US sponsored government in 1996.

Clarke’s statements while challenging the role of the CIA, tends to sustain the Big Lie.

The official narrative remains intact. It assumes an Al Qaeda sponsored attack on America rather than a controlled demolition, as documented by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

The debate launched by Clarke is a subtle form of propaganda. It blames the CIA, which had “foreknowledge” of the attacks.

It centers on whether the Bush administration and the CIA were responsible for an “intelligence failure”, a “dereliction of duty” or sheer “incompetence.”

In all three cases, the Al Qaeda Legend and “the threat of Islamic terrorists” remains unchallenged.

The Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) remains functionally intact.

The foreknowledge debate cum “intelligence failure” debate sustains the “Big Lie”….


Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, September 11, 2011, September 14, 2022

 

“Revealing the Lies” on 9/11 Perpetuates the “Big Lie”

by Michel Chossudovsky

www.globalresearch.ca May 27, 2004

The original url of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404C.html


The Bush administration  had numerous intelligence warnings. “Revealing the lies”  of Bush officials regarding these “intelligence warnings” has served to uphold Al Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an “outside enemy”, which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus. 

America’s leaders in Washington and Wall Street firmly believe in the righteousness of war and authoritarian forms of government as a means to “safeguarding democratic values”.

9/11 is the justification.

According to Homeland Security “the near-term attacks will either rival or exceed the 9/11 attacks”.

An actual “terrorist attack” on American soil would lead to the suspension of civilian government and the establishment of martial law. In the words of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge: “If we go to Red [code alert]… it basically shuts down the country,”

“You ask, ‘Is it serious?’ Yes, you bet your life. People don’t do that unless it’s a serious situation.” (Donald Rumsfeld)

The “Criminalization of the State”, is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide “who are the criminals”, when in fact they are the criminals.

Revealing a lie does not necessarily lead to establishing the truth.

In fact the experience of the 9/11 Commission, which has a mandate to investigate the September 11 attacks, has proved exactly the opposite.

We know that the Bush administration had numerous “intelligence warnings”. We know they had “intelligence” which confirmed that terrorists had the capacity of hijacking aircrafts and using them to target buildings.

Attorney General John Ashcroft had apparently been warned in August 2001 by the FBI to avoid commercial airlines, but this information was not made public.

(See Eric Smith at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SMI402A.html )

The Pentagon had conducted a full fledged exercise on an airplane crashing into the Pentagon

(See http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RYA404A.html )

We also know that senior Bush officials including Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice lied under oath to the 9/11 commission, when they stated that they had no information or forewarning of impending terrorist attacks.

But we also know, from carefully documented research that:

There were stand-down orders on 9/11. The US Air force did not intervene.

(see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ELS305A.html ,

Szamuely at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SZA112A.html )

There was a cover-up of the WTC and Pentagon investigation. The WTC rubble was confiscated.

(See Bill Manning at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAN309A.html

The plane debris at the Pentagon disappeared.

(See Thierry Meyssan, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MEY204C.html )

Massive financial gains were made as a result of 9/11, from insider trading leading up to 9/11

(See Michael Ruppert, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html .)

There is an ongoing financial scam underlying the 7.1 billion dollar insurance claim by the WTC leaseholder, following the collapse of the twin towers

(See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO403B.html

Mystery surrounds WTC building 7, which collapsed (or was “pulled” down in the afternoon of 9/11 mysteriously

(For details see  WTC-7: Scott Loughrey at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html).

The White House is being accused by the critics of  “criminal negligence”, for having casually disregarded the intelligence presented to president Bush and his national security team, and for not having acted to prevent the 9/11 terrorist attack.

The unfolding consensus is: “They knew but failed to act”. 

This line of reasoning is appealing to many 9/11 critics and  “Bush bashers” because it clearly places the blame on the Bush administration.
Yet in a bitter irony, the very process of revealing these lies and expressing public outrage has contributed to reinforcing the 9/11 cover-up.

“Revealing the lies” serves to present Al Qaeda as the genuine threat, as an “outside enemy”, which threatens the security of America, when in fact Al Qaeda is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus.

The presumption is that these forewarnings and intelligence briefs emanating from the intelligence establishment constitute a true and unbiased representation of the terrorist threat.

Meanwhile, the history of Al Qaeda and the CIA has been shoved to the background. The fact that successive US governments since the Soviet-Afghan war have supported and abetted the Islamic terror network is no longer mentioned, for obvious reasons. It would break the consensus regarding Al Qaeda as the outside enemy of America, which is a crucial building block of the entire National Security doctrine.

This central proposition that Islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11 serves to justify everything else including the Patriot Act, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, the spiraling defense and homeland security budgets, the detention of thousands of people of Muslim faith on trumped up charges, the arrest and deportation to Guantanamo of alleged “enemy combatants”, etc.

The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush’s National Security Doctrine

Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive “defensive war” doctrine and the “war on terrorism” against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon’s propaganda campaign.

No Al Qaeda,

No war on terrorism

No rogue States which sponsor Al Qaeda

No pretext for waging war.

No justification for invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq

No justification for sending in US special forces into numerous countries around the World.

No justification for developing tactical nuclear weapons to be used in conventional war theaters against Islamic terrorists, who according to official statements constitute a nuclear threat.

(See  http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html ).

The Administration’s post 9/11 nuclear doctrine, points to Al Qaeda as some kind of nuclear power.

“The Pentagon must prepare for all possible contingencies, especially now, when dozens of countries, and some terrorist groups, are engaged in secret weapon development programs.” (quoted in William Arkin, Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable, Los Angeles Times, 9 March 2002)

Central Role of Al Qaeda in US Military Doctrine

The very existence of Al Qaeda constitutes the justification for a pre-emptive war against rogue states and “terrorist organizations”. It is part of the indoctrination of US troops fighting in the Middle East. It is also being used to justify the so-called “abuse” of POWs.

The objective is to present “preemptive military action” –meaning war as an act of “self-defense” against two categories of enemies, “rogue States” and “Islamic terrorists”:

The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. …America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.

Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction (…)

The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, (…). To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.”

(National Security Strategy, White House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html, emphasis added)

To justify pre-emptive military actions, including the use of nuclear weapons in conventional war theaters (approved by the Senate in late 2003),  the National Security Doctrine requires the “fabrication” of a terrorist threat, –ie. “an outside enemy.” It also needs to link these terrorist threats to “State sponsorship” by the so-called “rogue states.”

But it also means that the various “massive casualty-producing events” allegedly by Al Qaeda (the fabricated enemy) are also part of the propaganda ploy which consists in upholding the Legend of an outside enemy.

9/11 and War Propaganda

In other words, the forewarnings sustain the Al Qaeda legend, which constitutes the cornerstone of the “war on terrorism”. And the latter serves as a justification for America’s “pre-emptive wars”  with a view to “protecting the homeland”.

One year before 9/11, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) called for “some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor,” which would serve to galvanize US public opinion in support of a war agenda.

(See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html )

The PNAC architects seem to have anticipated with cynical accuracy, the use of the September 11 attacks as “a war pretext incident.”

The PNAC’s declared objective is “Defend the Homeland” and  “Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars”, perform global constabulary funcitons including punitive military actions around the World, and the so-called “revolution in military affairs”, essentially meaning the development of a new range of sophisticated weaponry including the militarisation of outer space,the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons, etc.

(on nuclear weapons see http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html,

(on the PNAC,  http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html )

The PNAC’s reference to a “catastrophic and catalyzing event” echoes a similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994:

“We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:.

 “…it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter was one of the key architects of the Al Qaeda network, created by the CIA at the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan war (1979-1989).
(See Zbigniew Brzezinski at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.print.html )

The “catastrophic and catalyzing event” as stated by the PNAC is an integral part of US military-intelligence planning. General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003) to the role of a “massive casualty-producing event” to muster support for the imposition of military rule in America.

(See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html ).

Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military rule will be established:

“a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event.” (Ibid, emphasis added)

This statement from an individual, who was actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels, suggests that the “militarisation of our country” is an ongoing operational assumption. It is part of the broader “Washington consensus”. It identifies the Bush administration’s “roadmap” of war and “Homeland Defense.” Needless to say, it is also an integral part of the neoliberal agenda.

The “terrorist massive casualty-producing event” is presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures.

General Franks’ statement reflects a consensus within the US Military as to how events ought to unfold. The “war on terrorism” is to provide a justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to “preserving civil liberties.”

Franks’ interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack will be used as a “trigger mechanism” for a military coup d’état in America. The PNAC’s “Pearl Harbor type event” would be used as a justification for declaring a State of emergency, leading to the establishment of a military government.

In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the US is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy.

Actual Terrorist Attacks

To be “effective” the fear and disinformation campaign cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated “warnings” of future attacks, it also requires “real” terrorist occurrences or “incidents”, which provide credibility to Washington’s war plans. These terrorist events are used to justify the implementation of “emergency measures” as well as “retaliatory military actions”. They are required, in the present context, to create the illusion of “an outside enemy” that is threatening the American Homeland.

The triggering of “war pretext incidents” is part of the Pentagon’s assumptions. In fact it is an integral part of US military history.(See Richard Sanders, War Pretext Incidents, How to Start a War, Global Outlook, published in two parts, Issues 2 and 3, 2002-2003).

In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled “Operation Northwoods”, to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to justify the invasion of Cuba:

“We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” “We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington” “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.”

(See the declassified Top Secret 1962 document titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba”, Operation Northwoods at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html ).

There is no evidence that the Pentagon or the CIA played a direct role in recent terrorist attacks, including those in Indonesia (2002), India (2001), Turkey (2003) and Saudi Arabia (2003).

According to the reports, the attacks were undertaken by organizations (or cells of these organizations), which operate quite independently, with a certain degree of autonomy. This independence is in the very nature of a covert intelligence operation. The «intelligence asset» is not in direct contact with its covert sponsors. It is not necessarily cognizant of the role it plays on behalf of its intelligence sponsors.

The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through what sources are they being financed? What is the underlying network of ties?

For instance, in the case of the 2002 Bali bomb attack, the alleged terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiah had links to Indonesia’s military intelligence (BIN), which in turn has links to the CIA and Australian intelligence.

The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament –which contributed to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war– were allegedly conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba (“Army of the Pure”) and Jaish-e-Muhammad (“Army of Mohammed”), both of which according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) are supported by Pakistan’s ISI.

(Council on Foreign Relations at http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html , Washington 2002).

What the CFR fails to acknowledge is the crucial relationship between the ISI and the CIA and the fact that the ISI continues to support Lashkar, Jaish and the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen (JKHM), while also collaborating with the CIA.

(For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Fabricating an Enemy, March 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html )

A 2002 classified outbrief drafted to guide the Pentagon “calls for the creation of a so-called ‘Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations Group’  (P2OG), to launch secret operations aimed at “stimulating reactions” among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction — that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to ‘quick-response’ attacks by U.S. forces.” (William Arkin, The Secret War, The Los Angeles Times, 27 October 2002)

The P2OG initiative is nothing new. It essentially extends an existing apparatus of covert operations. Amply documented, the CIA has supported terrorist groups since the Cold War era. This  “prodding of terrorist cells” under covert intelligence operations often requires the infiltration and training of the radical groups linked to Al Qaeda.

In this regard, covert support by the US military and intelligence apparatus has been channeled to various Islamic terrorist organizations through a complex network of intermediaries and intelligence proxies. (See below in relation to the Balkans)

Foreknowledge is a Red Herring

Foreknowledge implies and requires the existence of this “outside enemy”, who is attacking America.
Amply documented, the Islamic brigades and Al Qaeda including the madrassas and the CIA sponsored training camps in Afghanistan are a creation of the CIA. The Taliban were “graduates” of the madrassas, which formed a Us sponsored government in 1996.

During the Cold War, but also in its aftermath, the CIA using Pakistan’s Military Intelligence apparatus as a go-between played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam.

Every single US administration since Jimmy Carter has consistently supported the so-called “Militant Islamic Base”, including Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, as part of their foreign policy agenda.

And in this regard, the Democrats and the Republicans have worked hand in glove. In fact, it is the US military and intelligence establishment which has provided continuity in US foreign policy.

Media Reports on Al Qaeda and Pakistan’s Military Intelligence (ISI)

It is indeed revealing that in virtually all post 9/11 terrorist occurrences, the terrorist organization is reported (by the media and in official statements) as having “ties to Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda”. This in itself is a crucial piece of information. Of course, the fact that Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA is neither mentioned in the press reports nor is it considered relevant to an understanding of these terrorist occurrences.

The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to Pakistan’s military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan’s ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. Needless to say, this information is crucial in identifying the sponsors of these terrorist attacks. In other words, the ISI is said to support these terrorist organizations, while at same time maintaining close ties to the CIA.

In other words, the focus on foreknowledge has served to usefully distract attention from the US government’s longstanding relationship to the terror network since the Soviet-Afghan war, which inevitably raises the broader issue of treason and war crimes.

The foreknowledge issue in a sense erases the historical record because it denies a relationship between Al Qaeda and successive US administrations.

The administration is accused of not acting upon these terrorist warnings.

In the words of Richard Clarke:

“we must try to achieve a level of public discourse on these issues that is simultaneously energetic and mutually respectful… We all want to defeat the jihadists. [this is the consensus] To do that, we need to encourage an active, critical and analytical debate in America about how that will best be done. And if there is another major terrorist attack in this country, we must not panic or stifle debate as we did for too long after 9/11.”(New York Times, 25 April 2004)

Bush and the White House intelligence team are said to have ignored these warnings. Richard Clarke who was in charge of counter terrorism on the National Security Council until February 2003 has “apologized” to the American people and the families of the victims. Had they acted in a responsible fashion, had they taken the intelligence briefings seriously, 3000 lives would have been saved on September 11, 2001. But bear in mind that Richard Clarke was part of an intelligence team which was at the time providing support to Al Qaeda in the Balkans. (See below)

This new anti-Bush consensus concerning the 9/11 attacks has engulfed part of the 9/11 truth movement. The outright lies in sworn testimony to the 9/11 Commission have been denounced in chorus; the families of the victims have expressed their indignation.

The debate centers on whether the administration is responsible for an “intelligence failure” or whether it was the result of “incompetence.”

In both cases, the al Qaeda legend remains unchallenged. The fact that Al Qaeda hijackers were responsible for 9/11 remains unchallenged.

Source of Terrorist Warnings

Beneath the rhetoric, nobody seems to have questioned the source of these warnings emanating from an intelligence apparatus, which is known to have supported Al Qaeda throughout the entire post cold War era.

In  other words, are the terrorist warnings emanating out of the CIA a “true” representation of the terrorist threat or are they part of the process of disinformation which seeks precisely to uphold Al Qaeda as an “Enemy of the Homeland”.

Meanwhile, the issues of “cover-up and complicity” at the highest levels of the Bush administration, which were raised in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks have been shoved out.

The role of Bush officials, their documented links to the terror network, the business ties between the Bushes and bin Laden families, the role of Pakistan’s Military Intelligence (ISI) which supported and abetted Al Qaeda while working hand in glove with their US counterparts (CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency), the fact that several Bush officials were the architects of Al Qaeda during the Reagan administration, as revealed by the Iran Contra investigation. (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html

“The Saudis Did It”

All of this, which is carefully documented, is no longer relevant. It is no longer an issue for debate and investigation. What the media, as well as some of the key 9/11 investigators are pushing is that “The Saudis did it”. The outside enemy Al Qaeda is said to be supported by supported by the Saudis.

This line of analysis, which characterizes the 1 trillion dollar law suit by the families of the victims led by Lawyer Ted Motley, is evidently flawed. While it highlights the business ties between the Bushes and the bin Ladens, in does not challenge the legend of the outside enemy.

“The Saudis did it” is also part of the US foreign policy agenda, to be eventually used to discredit the Saudi monarchy and destabilize the Saudi financiers, who oversee 25 percent of the World’s oil reserves, ten times those of the US.
in fact, this process has already begun with the Saudi privatization program, which seeks to transfer Saudi wealth and assets into foreign (Anglo-American) hands.

The Saudi financiers were never prime movers. They were proxies. They played a subordinate role. They worked closely with US intelligence and their American financial counterparts. They were involved in the laundering of drug money working closely with the CIA. Thew Wahabbi sects from Saudi Arabia were sent to Afghanistan to set up the madrassas. The Saudis channeled covert financing to the various Islamic insurgencies on behalf of the CIA.

In other words, the “Saudis did It” consensus essentially contributes to whitewashing the Bush administration, while also providing pretext to destabilize Saudi Arabia.

“The Bush Lied” Consensus upholds “The Big Lie”

This emerging 9/11 consensus (“Outside enemy”, intelligence failures, criminal negligence, “the Saudis did it”, etc.) which is making its way into American history books, is  “they knew, but failed to act”.

It was incompetence or criminal negligence but it was not treason.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were “just wars”, they were undertaken in accordance with the National Security doctrine, which views Al Qaeda as the outside enemy. It is worth noting that at the outset of the war on Afghanistan, a number of prominent Western intellectuals, trade union and civil society leaders supported the “Just War” concept.

While the Bush administration takes the blame, the “war on terrorism”  and its humanitarian mandate remain functionally intact.

Meanwhile, everybody has their eyes riveted on the fact that Bush officials lied under oath regarding the terrorist warnings.

Yet nobody seems to have begged the key question:

What is the significance of these warnings emanating from the intelligence apparatus, knowing that the CIA is the creator of Al Qaeda and that Al Qaeda is an “intelligence asset”.

In other words, the CIA is the sponsor of Al Qaeda and at the same time controls the warnings on impending terrorist attacks.

In other words, are Bush officials in sworn testimony to the 9/11 commission  lying under oath on something which is true, or are they lying on something which is an even bigger lie?

The Legend of the “Outside Enemy”

The 1993 WTC bombing was heralded by the Bush Administration as one of the earlier Al Qaeda attacks on the Homeland. Since 9/11, the 1993 WTC bombing has become part of “the 9/11 legend” which describes Al Qaeda as “an outside enemy.”

In the words of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (April 2004) in sworn testimony at the 9/11 Commission:

“The terrorist threat to our Nation did not emerge on September 11th, 2001. Long before that day, radical, freedom-hating terrorists declared war on America and on the civilized world. The attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985, the rise of al-Qaida and the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the attacks on American installations in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, the East Africa embassy bombings of 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, these and other atrocities were part of a sustained, systematic campaign to spread devastation and chaos and to murder innocent Americans.” (See complete transcript of her testimony at (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC404A.html )

***

Below we provide evidence of US-Al Qaeda collaboration from official sources which confirms unequivocally that Al Qaeda was a US sponsored “intelligence asset” during the entire post Cold War era.  

POST COLD WAR ERA:  Time Line of Al Qaeda- US Collaboration

1993-1994 BOSNIAGATE  Clinton Administration collaborates with Al Qaeda (1993-1994) 
At the time of the 1993 WTC bombing, the Clinton Administration and al Qaeda were actively collaborating in joint military operations in Bosnia, as confirmed by an official congressional report emanating from the Republican Party.

The Clinton Administration’s “hands-on” involvement with the Islamic network’s arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials.

The Militant Islamic Network (page 5): Along with the weapons, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and VEVAK intelligence operatives entered Bosnia in large numbers, along with thousands of mujahedin (“holy warriors”) from across the Muslim world. Also engaged in the effort were several other Muslim countries (including Brunei, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Turkey) and a number of radical Muslim organizations. For example, the role of one Sudan-based “humanitarian organization,” called the Third World Relief Agency, has been well documented. The Clinton Administration’s “hands-on” involvement with the Islamic network’s arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by U.S. government officials.

(…)

In short, the Clinton Administration’s policy of facilitating the delivery of arms to the Bosnian Muslims made it the de facto partner of an ongoing international network of governments and organizations pursuing their own agenda in Bosnia…For example, one such group about which details have come to light is the Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization which has been a major link in the arms pipeline to Bosnia. [“How Bosnia’s Muslims Dodged Arms Embargo: Relief Agency Brokered Aid From Nations, Radical Groups,” Washington Post, 9/22/96; see also “Saudis Funded Weapons For Bosnia, Official Says: $ 300 Million Program Had U.S. ‘Stealth Cooperation’,” Washington Post, 2/2/96] TWA is believed to be connected with such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman (the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Osama Binladen, a wealthy Saudi emigre believed to bankroll numerous militant groups. [WP, 9/22/96]

bold added

Clinton Administration supported the “Militant Islamic Base”, Senate Press Release, US Congress, 16 January 1997,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html

original Senate Document  http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/iran.htm

The alleged terrorist Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman was sentenced as the mastermind behind the 1993 WTC bombings and subsequently convicted to life imprisonment.

From the Horse’s Mouth

In a bitter irony, the same individual Omar Abdul Rahman was identified in the 1997 Report of the Republican Party Policy Committee of the US Senate (see above) as collaborating with Clinton officials in bringing in weapons and Mujahideen into Bosnia. In other words, the Republican party confirms that Omar Abdul Rahman and Al Qaeda were US sponsored “intelligence assets”.

When Bill Clinton, appeared before the 9/11 Commission (April 2004), was he questioned on his links to the terror network, including the mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing?  No!

What can conclude: A Clinton-Osama-Abdel Rahman Triangle. The Foreknowledge issue falls flat on its face. What we are dealing with is “Treason” and Cover-up” on the history of the Clinton Administration’s links to the alleged “Outside Enemy”.  Treason is defined as:  “consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.”

1995-1999. NATO AND THE US MILITARY COLLABORATED WITH AL QAEDA IN KOSOVO (1995-1999)

We provide below several statements from Congressional records which point to US support to the terror network in  Kosovo (1995-1999) and which amply refute the existence of an “Outside Enemy”

  • Frank Ciluffo of the Globalized Organized Crime Program in a testimony presented to the House of Representatives Judicial Committee:

What was largely hidden from public view was the fact that the KLA raise part of their funds from the sale of narcotics. Albania and Kosovo lie at the heart of the Balkan Route that links the “Golden Crescent” of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the drug markets of Europe. This route is worth an estimated $400 billion a year and handles 80 per cent of heroin destined for Europe.  (U.S. Congress, Testimony of Frank J. Cilluffo, Deputy Director of the Global Organized Crime Program, to the House Judiciary Committee, Washington DC, 13 December 2000)

  • Ralf Mutschke of Interpol’s Criminal Intelligence division, also in a testimony to the House Judicial Committee:

The U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Osama bin Laden. Another link to bin Laden is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Jihad organization and also a military commander of Osama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict.

(U.S. Congress, House Judicial Committee, Washington DC, 13 December 2000)

  • Rep. John Kasich of the House Armed Services Committee:

 “We connected ourselves [in 1998-99] with the KLA, which was the staging point for bin Laden.” (U.S. Congress, Transcripts of the House Armed Services Committee, Washington, DC, 5 October 1999) 

  • In 1999, Senator Jo Lieberman stated authoritatively that

“Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values.”

In making this statement he knew that the KLA was supported by Osama bin Laden.

What can we conclude from these and other statements? The transcripts from Congressional documents refute the existence of the “outside enemy”.

Al Qaeda (our “intelligence asset”) supported and continues to support the KLA. The Clinton administration supported the KLA.  Secretary of State Madeleine Albright coveted KLA leaders Hashim Thaci.

Military Professional Resources (MPRI), a mercenary company on contract to the Pentagon was involved in the training the KLA.  The KLA was also trained by US and British Special Forces. But the KLA was also trained by Al Qaeda. The US collaborated in training a terrorist organization which has with links to al Qaeda, the drug trade and organized crime.

The Bush Administration has followed in the footsteps of the Clinton administration. The KLA is supported by the US military, while also being backed by Al Qaeda.

2000-2001: 8/01:  THE ISLAMIC MILITANT NETWORK, NATO AND THE US MILITARY JOIN HANDS IN MACEDONIA

Barely  a few weeks before 9/11, in August 2001, senior U.S. military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon (MPRI), were advising the self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA) of Macedonia.

Mujahideen detached by Al Qaeda from the Middle East and Central Asia were fighting in a paramilitary army, which was also  supported by the US military and NATO.

The NLA is a proxy of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In turn, the KLA and the UN-sponsored Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC) are identical institutions with the same commanders and military personnel. KPC Commanders on UN salaries are fighting in the NLA together with the Mujahideen.

Ironically, while supported and financed by Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, the KLA-NLA is also supported by NATO and the United Nations mission to Kosovo (UNMIK). In fact, the Islamic Militant Network also using Pakistan’s Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) as the CIA’s go-between still constitutes an integral part of Washington=s covert military-intelligence operations in Macedonia and Southern Serbia.

The KLA-NLA terrorists are funded from U.S. military aid, the United Nations peace-keeping budget, as well as by several Islamic organizations including Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. Drug money is also being used to finance the terrorists with the complicity of the U.S. government. The recruitment of Mujahideen to fight in the ranks of the NLA in Macedonia is implemented through various Islamic groups.

U.S. military advisers mingle with the Mujahideen within the same paramilitary force; Western mercenaries from NATO countries fight alongside the Mujahideen recruited in the Middle East and Central Asia. And the U.S. media calls this a >blowback= where so-called “intelligence assets” have gone against their sponsors!

But this did not happen during the Cold War! It happened in Macedonia in the months leading up to 9/11. And it is confirmed by numerous press reports, eyewitness accounts, photographic evidence as well as official statements by the Macedonian Prime Minister, who has accused the Western military alliance of supporting the terrorists. Moreover, the official Macedonian News Agency (MIA) has pointed to the complicity between Washington’s envoy Ambassador James Pardew and the NLA terrorists. In other words, the so-called “intelligence assets” were still serving the interests of their U.S. sponsors.

8/06 THE AUGUST 6, 2001 THE PRESIDENTIAL INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING (PDB)

The August 6 2001 intelligence briefing (PDB) prepared for President George W. Bush was entitled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US”.

PDBs are prepared at CIA headquarters at Langley and are presented to President Bush on a daily basis in the form of an oral briefing by CIA Director George Tenet. Below are selected excerpts from the PDB.
The complete text of the August 6, 2001 PDB can be consulted at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WHI404A.html

The presumption in media reports is that this August 6 PDB is based on an actual terror threat. In fact, what the PTB does is to fabricate a terror threat. Below are few selected excerpts.

“Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US.”

[This statement is disinformation. During that period the US was collaborating with Al Qaeda in the Balkans, see above]

“We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a … (redacted portion) … service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ’Umar ’Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

[Does the CIA Director inform the president that a proxy organization of Sheik Abdu Rahman was actually collaborating with US military inspectors in Bosnia as confirmed by the 1997 Republican Party Committee report.]

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

[Does the CIA Director advise the president that Osama bin Laden was in the UAE in July of that year receiving treatment for a kidney condition at the American Hospital in Dubai and that the American hospital has close links to the US embassy (See the report published in Le Figaro, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html )]

8/27-8/30 2001  AUGUST 27-30: MISSION TO ISLAMABAD AND RAWALPINDI FOR INTELLIGENCE CONSULTATIONS

From the 27th to the 30th of August 2001, barely a couple of weeks before 9/11, the chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees, respectively  Senator Bob Graham and Representative Porter Goss together with Senator Jon Kyl, were in Islamabad for “consultations”.  Meetings were held with President Musharraf and with Pakistan’s military and intelligence brass including the head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) General Mahmoud Ahmad.

(see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html

An AFP report confirms that the US Congressional delegation also met the Afghan ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef. At this meeting, which was barely mentioned by the US media, “Zaeef assured the US delegation [on behalf of the Afghan government] that the Taliban would never allow bin Laden to use Afghanistan to launch attacks on the US or any other country.” (Agence France Presse (AFP), 28 August 2001.)

The September FBI Report

An FBI report released to ABC news in late September 2001, which was subsequently confirmed by a Times of India report, suggests that Pakistan’s Military Intelligence (ISI), headed by General Mahmoud Ahmad, played a key role in transferring money to the 9/11 hijackers. General Mahmoud Ahmad had allegedly ordered the transfer of $100.000 to the alleged 9/11 ring-leader Mohamed Atta. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, The Truth behind 9/11, http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html )

As to September 11th, federal authorities have told ABC News they have now tracked more than $100,000 from banks in Pakistan, to two banks in Florida, to accounts held by suspected hijack ring leader Mohammed Atta. As well, this morning, Time magazine is reporting that some of that money came in the days just before the attack and can be traced directly to people connected to Osama bin Laden. It’s all part of what has been a successful FBI effort so far to close in on the hijacker=s high commander, the money men, the planners and the mastermind.21

Note the sequencing of these meetings. Bob Graham and Porter Goss were in Islamabad in late August 2001, meeting General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged “money man” behind 9/11. The meetings with President Musharraf and the Afghan Ambassador were on the 27th of August, the mission was still in Islamabad on the 30th of August.

9/ 4- 9/13: HEAD OF PAKISTAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE (ISI) ARRIVES IN WASHINGTON ON  SEPTEMBER 4, DEPARTS ON SEPTEMBER 13

General Mahmoud Ahmad arrived in Washington on an official visit of consultations barely a few days later (September 4th). During his visit to Washington he met his counterpart CIA director George Tenet and high ranking officials of the Bush administration including Richard Armitage and Colin Powell. At the US congress, the General meets up with Senator Joseph Biden, Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee (13 Sept), Senator Bob Graham and Representative Porter Goss. Graham and Goss, the men who hosted the general will alter be called upon to set up the Joint Senate-House Inquiry on 9/11.

9/9: THE ASSASSINATION OF THE LEADER OF THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE AHMAD SHAH MASSOOD

The leader of the Northern Alliance Commander Ahmad Shah Masood was mortally wounded in a kamikaze assassination on September 9, 2001. It happened two days before the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. Masood later died from wounds suffered in the suicide attack on the Saturday (9/15) following 9/11.

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the killing of Ahmad Shah Masood was barely mentioned. The broad media consensus was that the two events (9/9 and 9/11) were totally unrelated. Yet the Northern Alliance had informed the Bush administration through an official communiqué that Pakistan’s ISI was allegedly implicated in the assassination:

“A Pakistani ISI-Osama-Taliban axis  [was responsible for] plotting the assassination by two Arab suicide bombers.. ‘We believe that this is a triangle between Osama bin Laden, ISI, which is the intelligence section of the Pakistani army, and the Taliban'” (The Northern Alliance’s statement was released on 14 September 2001, quoted in Reuters, 15 September 2001)

‘Pakistan’s ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), the Taliban and Osama bin Laden appear to be behind this plot.'”
(AFP, 10 September 2001)

In other words, there is reason to believe that the 9/9 and 9/11 are not isolated and unrelated events.

According to official statements and reports, the ISI was allegedly implicated in both events: the September 9, 2001 assassination of Shah Masood and the financing of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Both these events directly implicate senior officials in the Bush administration.

While the US media tacitly acknowledges the role of Pakistan’s ISI in the assassination of Shah Masood, it fails to dwell upon the more substantive issue: How come the head of the ISI was in Washington, on an official visit, meeting Bush administration officials on the very same day Masood was assassinated?

Had Masood not been assassinated, the Bush administration would not have been able to install their political puppet Hamid Karzai in Kaboul.

Masood rather rather than Hamid Karzai (a former employee of UNOCAL oil company), would have become the head of the post-Taliban government formed in the wake of the U.S. bombings of Afghanistan.

9/10 OSAMA IN HOSPITAL ON 9/10, ONE DAY BEFORE THE ATTACKS ON THE WTC

Don Rumsfeld states that the whereabouts of Osama are unknown. Yet,  according to Dan Rather, CBS, Bin Laden was back in Hospital, one day before the 9/11 attacks, on September 10, this time, courtesy of America’s indefectible ally Pakistan. Pakistan’s Military Intelligence (ISI) told CBS that bin Laden had received dialysis treatment in Rawalpindi, at Pak Army’s headquarters:

[transcript of CBS report, see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CBS203A.html ,

see also http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml ]

It should be noted, that the hospital is directly under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon. U.S. military advisers based in Rawalpindi. work closely with the Pakistani Armed Forces. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America’s best known fugitive, but then maybe bin Laden was serving another “better purpose”. Rumsfeld claimed at the time that he had no knowledge regarding Osama’s health. (see CBS transcript above).

Needless to say, the CBS report is a crucial piece of information in the 9/11 jigsaw. It refutes the administration’s claim that the whereabouts of bin Laden are unknown. It points to a Pakistan connection, it suggests a cover-up at the highest levels of the Bush administration.

Dan Rather and Barry Petersen fail to draw the implications of their January 2002 report.  They fail to beg the question: where was Osama on 9/11? If they are to stand by their report,  the conclusion is obvious: The administration is lying regarding the whereabouts of Osama.

If the CBS report is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the Pakistani military hospital on September 10, courtesy of America’s ally, he could still be in hospital in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, when the attacks occurred.

In all probability,  his whereabouts were known to US officials on the morning of September 12, when Secretary of State Colin Powell initiated negotiations with Pakistan, with a view to arresting and extraditing bin Laden.

These negotiations, led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan’s military intelligence, on behalf of the government of President Pervez Musharraf,  took place on the 12th and 13th  of September in Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage’s office. The general also met Colin Powell in discussions at the State Department on the 13th.

9/11. THE FOLLOW-UP BREAKFAST MEETING ON CAPITOL HILL WITH GENERAL MAHMOUD AHMAD

On the morning of September 11, the three lawmakers Bob Graham, Porter Goss and Jon Kyl (who were part of the Congressional delegation to Pakistan) were having breakfast on Capitol Hill with General Ahmad, the alleged “money-man” behind the 9-11 hijackers. Also present at this meeting were Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S. Maleeha Lodhi and several members of the Senate and House Intelligence committees were also present. This meeting was described by one press report as a “follow-up meeting” to that held in Pakistan in late August. (see above) “On 8/30, Senate Intelligence Committee chair Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) ‘was on a mission to learn more about terrorism.’ (…) On 9/11, Graham was back in DC ‘in a follow-up meeting with’ Pakistan intelligence agency chief Mahmud Ahmed and House Intelligence Committee chair Porter Goss (R-FL)” 3 (The Hotline, 1 October 2002):

While trivializing the importance of the 9/11 breakfast meeting, The Miami Herald (16 September 2001) confirms that General Ahmad also met Secretary of State Colin Powell in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Again the political significance of the personal relationship between General Mahmoud (the alleged “money man” behind 9/11) and Secretary of State Colin Powell is casually dismissed. According to The Miami Herald, the high level meeting between the two men was not planned in advance. It took place on the spur of the moment because of the shut down of air traffic, which prevented General Mahmoud from flying back home to Islamabad on a commercial flight, when in all probability the General and his delegation were traveling on a chartered government plane. With the exception of the Florida press (and Salon.com, 14 September), not a word was mentioned in the US media’s September coverage of 9-11 concerning this mysterious breakfast reunion.

Eight months later on the 18th of May, two days after the “BUSH KNEW” headline hit the tabloids, the Washington Post published an article on Porter Goss, entitled: “A Cloak But No Dagger; An Ex-Spy Says He Seeks Solutions, Not Scapegoats for 9/11”. Focusing on his career as a CIA agent, the article largely served to underscore the integrity and commitment of Porter Goss to waging a “war on terrorism”. Yet in an isolated paragraph, the article acknowledges the mysterious 9/11 breakfast meeting with ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, while also confirming that “Ahmad :ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban”:

While the Washington Post scores in on the “notoriously close” links between General Ahmad and Osama bin Laden, it fails to dwell on the more important question: what were Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham and other members of the Senate and House intelligence committees doing together with the alleged 9/11 “money-man” at breakfast on the morning of 9/11. In other words, the Washington Post report does not go one inch further in begging the real question: Was this mysterious breakfast venue a “political lapse”, an intelligence failure or something far more serious? How come the very same individuals (Goss and Graham) who had developed a personal rapport with General Ahmad, had been entrusted under the joint committee inquiry “to reveal the truth on 9-11.”

The media trivialises the breakfast meeting, it presents it as a simple fait divers and fails to “put two and two together”. Neither does it acknowledge the fact, amply documented, that “the money-man” behind the hijackers had been entrusted by the Pakistani government to discuss the precise terms of Pakistan’s “collaboration” in the “war on terrorism” in meetings held behind closed doors at the State department on the 12th and 13th of September. 11 7(See Michel Chossudovsky, op cit)

9/12-9/13 THE AFTERMATH, THE ALLEGED MONEYMAN MEETS COLIN POWELL AND RICHARD ARMITAGE

Bear in mind that the purpose of his meeting at the State Department on the 13th was only made public after the September 11 terrorist attacks when the Bush administration took the decision to formally seek the cooperation of Pakistan in its “campaign against international terrorism.” despite the links of Pakistan’s ISI to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban and its alleged role in the assassination of Commander Massoud. 2 days before 9/11.

Meanwhile, the Western media in the face of mounting evidence had remained silent on the insidious role of Pakistan’s Military Intelligence agency (ISI). The assassination of Massoud was mentioned, but its political significance in relation to September 11 and the subsequent decision to go to war against Afghanistan was barely touched upon. Without discussion or debate, Pakistan was heralded as a friend and an ally of America. In an utterly twisted logic, the U.S. media concluded in chorus that:

U.S. officials had sought cooperation from Pakistan [precisely] because it is the original backer of the Taliban, the hard-line Islamic leadership of Afghanistan accused by Washington of harboring bin Laden. 9

The Bush Administration had not only provided red carpet treatment to the alleged “money man” behind the 9-11 attacks, it also had sought his ‘cooperation’ in the “war on terrorism”. The precise terms of this ‘cooperation’ were agreed upon between General Mahmoud Ahmad, representing the Pakistani government and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, in meetings at the State Department on September 12 and 13. In other words, the Administration decided in the immediate wake of 9-11, to seek the ‘cooperation’ of Pakistan’s ISI in “going after Osama”, despite the fact (documented by the FBI) that the ISI was financing and abetting the 9-11 terrorists. Contradictory? One might say that it’s like “asking Al Capone to help in going after organized crime”

9/11 Timeline

1. AL QAEDA IS BORN, THE COLD WAR ERA 

1979,  LARGEST COVERT OPERATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE CIA LAUNCHED IN AFGHANISTAN, CREATING THE ISLAMIC BRIGADES TO FIGHT IN THE SOVIET AFGHAN-WAR. AL QAEDA IS BORN

1985, PRESIDENT REAGAN SIGNED NATIONAL SECURITY DECISION DIRECTIVE 166 AUTHORIZING STEPPED UP COVERT MILITARY AID TO THE MUJAHIDEEN

1989- END OF THE SOVIET-AFGHAN WAR, END OF THE COLD WAR, STEPPED UP COVERT OPERATIONS IN THE (FORMER) SOVIET UNION AND THE BALKANS

1996 THE TALIBAN FORM A GOVERNMENT WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE US

2. POST COLD WAR SUPPORT TO AL QAEDA IN THE BALKANS

1991 BEGINNING OF CIVIL WAR IN YUGOSLAVIA

1993-1994 CLINTON ADMINISTRATION COLLABORATES WITH AL QAEDA IN BOSNIA

1995-1999. NATO AND THE US MILITARY COLLABORATE WITH AL QAEDA IN KOSOVO

2000-2001. THE ISLAMIC MILITANT NETWORK, NATO, THE US MILITARY AND THE UNITED NATIONS MISSION IN KOSOVO JOIN HANDS IN MACEDONIA IN SUPPORTING THE NLA

3. SHORT TIMELINE (JULY- SEPTEMBER 2001

7/01 JULY 2001: OSAMA BIN LADEN IN THE AMERICAN HOSPITAL IN DUBAI, UAE

8/06 THE AUGUST 6, 2001 THE PRESIDENTIAL INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING (PDB)

8/27-8/30 2001 AUGUST 27-30 MISSION OF SENATOR BOB GRAHAM AND REP PORTER GOSS TO ISLAMABAD AND RAWALPINDI FOR INTELLIGENCE CONSULTATIONS WITH PRESIDENT MUSHARRAF AND ISI CHIEF GENERAL MAHMOUD AHMAD

9/ 4- 9/13: HEAD OF PAKISTAN MILITARY INTELLIGENCE (ISI) ARRIVES IN WASHINGTON ON AN OFFICIAL VISIT. ARRIVES ON SEPTEMBER 4, DEPARTS ON SEPTEMBER 13

9/9: THE ASSASSINATION OF THE LEADER OF THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE AHMAD SHAH MASSOOD

9/10 OSAMA IN HOSPITAL ON 9/10, ONE DAY BEFORE THE ATTACKS ON THE WTC

9/11. 11 SEPTEMBER: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON WTC AND PENTAGON. FOLLOW-UP BREAKFAST MEETING ON CAPITOL HILL WITH GENERAL MAHMOUD AHMAD HOSTED BY SENATOR BOB GRAHAM AND REP PORTER GOSS. THE “WAR ON TERRORISM” IS OFFICIALLY LAUNCHED

9/12-9/13 THE AFTERMATH, THE ALLEGED “MONEYMAN” GENERAL MAHMOUD AHMAD MEETS COLIN POWELL & RICHARD ARMITAGE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO DISUCSS TERMS OF PAKISTAN’S COOPERATION IN THE WAR ON TERRORISM .

Who in the Bush Administration has Links to Al Qaeda?

The Bush administration accuses people of having links to al Qaeda. This is the doctrine behind the anti-terrorist legislation and Homeland Security.

This relationship of the Bush Administration to international terrorism, which is a matter of public record, indelibly points to the criminalization of the upper echelons of US State apparatus.

Colin Powell’s Role: From Iran-Contra to September 11

Both Colin Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, who casually accused Baghdad and other foreign governments of “harboring” Al Qaeda, played a direct role, at different points in their careers, in supporting terrorist organizations.

Both men were implicated –operating behind the scenes– in the Irangate Contra scandal during the Reagan Administration, which involved the illegal sale of weapons to Iran to finance the Nicaraguan Contra paramilitary army.

[Coronel Oliver] North set up a team including [Richard] Secord; Noel Koch [Armitage’s deputy] , then assistant secretary at the Pentagon responsible for special operations; George Cave, a former CIA station chief in Tehran, and Colin Powell, military assistant to U.S. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger...(The Guardian, December 10, 1986)

Although Colin Powell was not directly involved in the arms’ transfer negotiations, which had been entrusted to Oliver North, he was among “at least five men within the Pentagon who knew arms were being transferred to the CIA.” (The Record, 29 December 1986). Lieutenant General Powell was directly instrumental in giving the “green light” to lower-level Irangate officials in blatant violation of Congressional procedures. According to the New York Times, Colin Powell took the decision (at the level of military procurement), to allow the delivery of weapons to Iran:

Hurriedly, one of the men closest to Secretary of Defense Weinberger, Maj. Gen. Colin Powell, bypassed the written ”focal point system” procedures and ordered the Defense Logistics Agency [responsible for procurement] to turn over the first of 2,008 TOW missiles to the C.I.A., which acted as cutout for delivery to Iran” (New York Times, 16 February 1987)

Richard Armitage

Richard Armitage held the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration. He was in charge of coordinating covert military operations including the Iran-Contra operation. He was in close liaison with Coronel Oliver North. His deputy and chief anti-terrorist official .Noel Koch was part of the team set up by Oliver North. Following the delivery of the TOW anti-tank missiles to Iran, the proceeds of these sales were deposited in numbered bank accounts and the money was used to finance the Nicaraguan Contras. (UPI. 27 November 1987). A  classified Israeli report provided to the Iran- contra panels of the Congressional enquiry confirms that Armitage ”was in the picture on the Iranian issue.” (New York Times, 26 May 1989):

“With a Pentagon position that placed him over the military’s covert operations branch, Armitage was a party to the secret arms dealing from the outset. He also was associated with former national security aide Oliver L. North in a White House counterterrorism group, another area that would also have been a likely focus of congressional inquiry” (Washington Post, 26 May 1989)

CIA Director William Casey with the collaboration of Richard Armitage in the Pentagon “ran the Mujahideen covert war against the Soviet Union…” (quoted in Domestic Terrorism: The Big Lie The “War”) “Contragate was also an off-the-shelf drug-financed operation run by Casey.” (Ibid ).

Financing the Islamic Brigades

The Iran Contra procedure was similar to that used in Afghanistan, where secret aid was channeled to the militant Islamic brigade (US News and World Report, 15 December 1986). In fact part of the proceeds of the weapons sales to Iran had been channeled to finance the Mujahideen. :

“:The Washington Post reported that profits from the Iran arms sales were deposited in one CIA-managed account into which the U.S. and Saudi Arabia had placed $250 million apiece. That money was disbursed not only to the contras in Central America but to the rebels fighting Soviet troops in Afghanistan.”(U.S. News & World Report, 15 December 1986)

The Irangate Cover-up

Reagan’s National Security Adviser Rear Admiral John Pointdexter, who was later indicted on conspiracy charges and lying to Congress was replaced by Frank Carlucci as National Security Adviser. And Maj. General Colin Powell was appointed deputy to Frank Carlucci, namely “‘number two”  on the National Security team.

“Both came to the White House after the Iran contra revelations and the NSC housecleaning [i.e. coverup] that followed [the Irangate scandal]” (The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, 16 June 1987).

Needless to say, this housecleaning was a cover-up: Colin Powell was in on the Irangate affair

While several Irangate officials including John Pointdexter and Oliver North were accused of criminal wrongdoing, the main actors in the CIA and the Pentagon, namely Armitage and Casey, were never indicted, neither was Lieutenant General Colin Powell who authorized the procurement of TOW missiles from the Defense Logistics Agency .

Moreover, while weapons were being sold covertly to Iran,  Washington was also supplying weapons through official channels to Baghdad. In other words, Washington was arming both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. And who was in charge of negotiating those weapons sales to Baghdad? Donald Rumsfeld

How to Reverse the Tide

September 11 has been used profusely by the Bush administration as a justification for waging a preemptive war without borders.

It is part of the Administration’s doctrine of “self-defense”. But that justification is based on a lie: that America is under attack by an outside enemy.

The so-called “War on Terrorism” is a lie.

Realities have been turned upside down.

Acts of war are heralded as “humanitarian interventions” geared towards restoring democracy.

Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as “peace-keeping operations.”

The derogation of civil liberties by imposing the so-called anti-terrorist legislation is portrayed as a means to providing domestic security and upholding civil liberties.

This system relies on the manipulation of public opinion.

The fabricated realities of the Bush administration must become indelible truths, which form part of a broad political and media consensus. In this regard, the corporate media is an instrument of a de facto police state, which has carefully excluded, from the outset, any real understanding of the September 11 crisis.

Millions of people have been misled regarding the causes and consequences of September 11.

When people across the US and around the World find out that Al Qaeda is not an outside enemy but a creation of US foreign policy and the CIA, the legitimacy of the Bush Administration will tumble like a deck of cards.

In  other words, when the lies emanating from the seat of political authority are fully revealed, the perceived enemy will no longer be Al Qaeda but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, et al.

Bear in mind that the Democrats are also complicit. Democratic administrations have also supported Al Qaeda.

This relationship of successive US Administrations to international terrorism, which is a matter of public record, indelibly points to the criminalization of the upper echelons of US State apparatus.

Let’s use this information to dismantle the Bush Administration’s war plans. Sensitize our fellow citizens. Expose the “dubious links.”

Because when the truth trickles down, the leaders’ war and homeland security plans will not have a shred of legitimacy in the eyes of millions of Americans who believe that Al Qaeda is “A Threat to America” and that their president is committed to their security.

At this crucial juncture in our history, we must understand that antiwar sentiment in itself does not undermine the war agenda.

The only way to reverse the tide is to unseat the rulers, who are war criminals.

And the way to unseat the rulers is to break their legitimacy in the eyes of the people.

In other words, it is necessary to fully reveal the lies concerning the so-called “war on terrorism” to our fellow citizens, which were used to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and impose the police State in the US

A precondition for breaking the legitimacy of the Bush Administration is to fully reveal its links to international terrorism and its complicity in the tragic event of 9/11.

This objective can only be achieved by effectively curbing its propaganda campaign and spreading the truth through a grassroots citizen’s information campaign.

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

Visit and follow us on Instagram at @crg_globalresearch.

This incisive article by Emanuel Pastreich was first published on September 13 2021. Minor edits to original article

***

 

It is with a heavy heart that we commemorate the  21st anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States. The attacks were most certainly terror, but the exact nature of that terror has been left intentionally ambiguous ever since.

Those attacks led us into, seduced us into, two decades of unending wars, and massive fraud in a monster created by the merging of government and multinational corporations. Even today, those attacks continue to serve as a justification for a massive increase in military spending in the United States, and around the world.

This new reign of “terror” came at precisely the moment that we should have committed all of our attention, all of our resources and all of our imagination to combat climate change, and to rebuild our shattered society.

The entire concept of “terror” has evolved into a basic pillar of foreign relations, and terror has become also the primary approach to governance in the United States. The scientific method, diplomacy and common goals other than preparing for war, or encouraging trade and finance, have vanished from Washington D.C.

The “War on Terror” became the “rule by terror.” The reason is simple. Ultimately, the war on terror was a war on the truth.

We have not been able to seek out the truth since that fatal day 21 years ago; the scientific method has vanished from governance.

The is plenty of terror in America, ubiquitous, free-floating, undefined terror. Terror is the reason why we see a massive military buildup, the construction of concentration camps for immigrants, and the hype of the COVID-19 bogus virus.

That terror is what makes it possible for educated people to ignore the rule of finance, the corruption of government and the climate catastrophe.

It would be wrong to say that 9/11 was the cause of the collapse that we see today; it was the inflection point. Now, on the 20th anniversary, we have reached a new inflection point.

The COVID-19 terror has been unleashed on us in precisely the same manner as the 9.11 terror. But this time, our intellectuals and opinion leaders have been softened up, our citizens have been dumbed down and we face the real possibility of mass enslavement and mass genocide.

There is only one question for us: will we start to think scientifically about our future, or will we dive even deeper into irrationality and mass psychosis?

We have spent hundreds of billions, trillions, of dollars because of 9/11. Yet we have not started to take even the first step towards resolving the psychological and spiritual terror unleashed by 9/11 within the United States.

The prospect today for renewal in the United States is grim. American intellectuals cannot even discuss the reality of 9/11. The United States has never permitted an international investigation of that horror, or of the terror behind it. The vast majority of Americans act as if those who continue to demand an investigation do not exist.

Now that science is dead, after the collapse of two skyscrapers in less than 10 seconds, all that Americans about with regards to security is their opinion. Republicans have this opinion. Democrats have that opinion. But all those opinions are merely a matter of emotions, associations, or distorted memories.

But our country cannot be run on the basis of opinions. We cannot plan for the future, or evaluate the past, based on opinions. The fundamental issue in policy and in politics must be the search for the truth.

The Book of John gets it right:

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).

But what exactly does John mean by knowing the truth? John is not suggesting that truth will make us wealthy, or healthy or even that knowing the truth will make us feel good about ourselves. He hints, rather, that at the deepest spiritual level only the truth can free us from the restrictive barriers to our thinking and to our actions that result from denying the truth.

There are plenty of opinions about 9/11, and plenty of flimsy explanations, floating around. Few are scientific, and few explain how 9/11 is tied to the radical fragmentation of our world due to the emergence of new technologies that connect likes with likes around the world.

Tragically, we have used 9/11 as an excuse to lose all our rationality. We have lost all freedom and allowed our emotions to be manipulated by dark forces. We permit our society to be run by technological systems rather than by people.

Imagine you have eaten a spoiled egg. The terrible feeling in the stomach is never going to go away. The idea of vomiting up the egg is repulsive, and that act will be deeply humiliating in the best case. The vomit will cover your clothes, and will spread over the floor. You will have to admit your foolishness.

But if you refuse to vomit that spoiled egg up, if you pretend that you never ate anything, those stomach pains will only get worse. Eventually, you will fall gravely ill and, in time, you will witness the cold face of death.

Similarly, many Americans live comfortable lives and they convince themselves they can just ignore 9.11. That it had nothing to do with them.

The result? Terrorism has taken full control, hidden behind corporate logos and flashy advertisements.

There is no part of our precious Earth that is free from this new terrorism. We must muster the bravery to uncover the global networks that feed terror. Those networks will be found in very inconvenient places.

That true terrorism is invisible. Of course, things called “terrorism” are shown to us on television, often described as random acts by extremists. But terrorism’s true nature, its logic, remains obscured, concealed.

Terrorism is carried out, organized and financed by people who look normal, very ordinary. Experts have tried to convince us that terrorism is a product of the Middle East, or of South Asia. But that clearly was not the case.

When President George W. Bush declared the “War on Terror” after 9/11, it was a stunt for television. He falsely accused Islam of being the source of all evil.

The struggle for a decent and transparent government, in the United States and around the world, has gotten harder since then.

We are engaged in a war unlike anything previously.

We cannot tell exactly what we are fighting against. It has metastasized into COVID19 now. The form, and the method is different, but the terror is the same and its true source remains obscure.

*

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

This article was originally published on US Provisional Government/usprovgov.asia.

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 frequent contributor to Global Research.


I Shall Fear No Evil

Why we need a truly independent candidate for president

Author: Emanuel Pastreich

Paperback ISBN: 9781649994509

Pages: 162

Click here to order.

.

OPEC+ with Russia’s Cooperation Has Kept the Alliance Together

September 14th, 2022 by Steven Sahiounie

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is headed by Secretary General Haitham Al Ghais, who said on August 18 that the OPEC+ oil production deal wants to keep Russia part of the alliance beyond 2022. 

“We would love to extend the deal with Russia and the other non-OPEC producers … it’s very hard for me to imagine that the deal will not continue,” Al Ghais said.

“This is a long-term relationship that encompasses broader and more comprehensive forms of communication and cooperation between 23 countries. It’s not just in terms of production adjustment,” he said.

Oil production has gradually increased in Russia in the wake of Western sanctions, and Asian buyers have boosted sales.  Forecasts for output and exports by Moscow have increased until the close of 2025.

Russia, along with OPEC and its allies, has cooperated closely on oil production policy in the face of Western-imposed sanctions on Russia following the ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine which began in February.  The West, led by the US-NATO collusion, has used oil as a political weapon.

On September 5, a reduction in global crude oil output by 100,000 b/d in October was agreed upon by OPEC+ and its Russian allies, which was characterized by the Saudi-led cartel as a proactive move to stabilize the market and aimed at stopping a slide in oil prices.

This marks the first cut in production in more than a year by OPEC+ and its 23-member alliance, but only amounts to 0.1 % of global demand.  The last cut was huge in the face of crashing oil prices due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On September 2, the Group of Seven (G7) industrialized powers said it would put a price cap on Russian oil in December. The G7 is attempting to change the dynamic of oil prices by forming a buyers’ alliance.

Dmitry Peskov, the spokesperson for the Kremlin, threatened Russia would retaliate if the G7 imposed any price cap.

“Any actions to impose a price cap will lead to a deficit on (initiating countries’) own markets and will increase price volatility,” Russia’s Energy Minister Nikolay Shulginov said on the sidelines of the forum in Vladivostok.

In response to the threatened price cap to begin on December 5 and February 5, 2023, Russia will increase its shipments of oil to Asia.

Randy Ollenberger, a BMO Capital Markets analyst, doubted whether an oil price cap would damage Russia in financing its Ukraine operations. Sanctions imposed on Russia to date “have proved to be ineffective, and Russia has maintained crude oil and product exports at higher levels than anticipated, which has translated to record cash inflows,” he said.

Analysts at Goldman Sachs feel bullish on oil prices while forecasting an average oil price of $125/bbl Brent in 2023.

Modest production increases under OPEC+ began last year as market conditions began to bounce back.  In a market reaction to events in Ukraine, prices surged to almost $140 a barrel but recovered to about $95 as fear abounded on a potential economic slowdown in the West.

Another factor pulling down oil prices is the Iran nuclear deal negotiations which if reached would pose a boost in supply as it returns to the market. Saudi Arabia and the oil-rich Gulf Arab monarchies see Iran as a threat, not only to the price of oil and do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

OPEC is a Saudi-led cartel, and Saudi Arabia had enjoyed a very close relationship with the US under the President Trump administration. However, Trump was stymied by the Russian-Saudi coordination to limit oil production.  Trump wanted to use US security relations with the Gulf allies to insist they pump more oil into the market.

President Joe Biden has severely strained the US-Saudi relationship by calling Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) a killer and blaming him for the death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.

In a face-to-face meeting between Biden and MBS, the US President claimed he brought up the murder of Khashoggi in a closed-door meeting and said he considered him to blame.  According to Biden, MBS said he was not personally responsible for it.

The exchange is refuted by Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi minister of state for foreign affairs, who later told reporters that he did not hear Biden blame MBS.

Biden had hoped that his trip to Saudi Arabia would net him an increase in oil production to bring down energy prices in the US and Europe. However, Biden was not successful.

In November 2018, the CIA issued a report which found that MBS ordered the murder of Khashoggi, and it was carried out by an elite team of Saudi operatives under the direction of MBS in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul.

The CIA report cited the death squad used a Saudi government plane, as well as an intercepted phone call between the brother of MBS urging Khashoggi to go to the Consulate in Istanbul and giving his assurances for his safety.

Russia has surpassed its OPEC+ partner Saudi Arabia as the leading supplier of crude oil to China.

Russian cooperation within the OPEC+ oil alliance is focused on helping global consumers. Russia will continue developing its ties in the Asia–Pacific region where the majority of countries do not accept the “destructive logic of sanctions,” President Putin told the Eastern Economic Forum in the city of Vladivostok. He said Moscow would build new bridges with the area based on the principles of cooperation and economic benefit.

OPEC+ includes all 13 countries that are members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, plus 10 non-OPEC countries, including Russia, one of the world’s top oil exporters.

In 2019, OPEC signed a long-term cooperation pact with Russia, extending a partnership set up in 2017 to counter a surge of US oil that hurt OPEC’s pricing power.

*

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 Mideast Discourse.

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

Featured image is from MD

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on OPEC+ with Russia’s Cooperation Has Kept the Alliance Together
  • Tags: ,

Why Didn’t KPFA Defend Its Journalist?

September 14th, 2022 by Daniel Borgstrom

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Some newspapers defend their journalists, at least once in a while. When the charming prince of Saudi Arabia had Journalist Jamal Khashoggi sawed up into little pieces, the Washington Post expressed outrage, and the bad press cost the Saudis some embarrassment; for a while it even looked like they might not get to bomb Yemen any more.

The Post is of course every inch an establishment newspaper which houses neocons, neoliberals, warmongers, regime changers and more. It does not support Julian Assange, though it used and printed information he made available. Nevertheless, the Post did speak out for Khashoggi.

So imagine, for comparison, how KPFA 94.1 FM, our famously progressive, leftwing, radical radio station in the San Francisco Bay Area, might respond to the abuse of one of its journalists.

Well, here’s what happened.

Last September 17th, 2021, KPFA journalist Frank Sterling was arrested at a demonstration. Several activists were protesting a “Back the Blue” event honoring Antioch’s outgoing Police Chief Tammany Brooks.

Chief Brooks had protected officers involved in police brutality and had even hired a former San Francisco policeman who’d killed a homeless man. Some of the police chief’s admirers hassled the protesters, and the police moved in and arrested three people, including Frank.

“I was out there at the park as a protester and was documenting the rally and police abuses. And when I was documenting the arrest of [demonstrator] Shagoofa Khan and the brutality they were bestowing upon her, violating our civil rights, I was then attacked and tasered and held to the ground,” Frank reported.

Here’s a 13-minute video of the demonstration and the arrests, or watch the video below.

This happened in Antioch, an East Bay town on the San Joaquin River; it’s where Frank lives and covers local as well as regional news for KPFA 94.1 FM. He also attends Antioch City Council meetings to speak on matters concerning Native Americans, tenants’ issues, the rights of homeless people, police accountability and the need for police body cameras. He’s well known to city officials and to the police in Antioch.

Fortunately for Frank, this isn’t Saudi Arabia. In comparison, the Antioch police are mild and gentle. Although they occasionally choke and strangle people, they mostly prefer not to. And they’ve absolutely never, ever been known to “saw up” a journalist. In relating to Frank, they merely assaulted him, tasered him, arrested him, and confiscated his journalism equipment.

Those are occupational hazards for journalists, at least for those who raise uncomfortable issues. Frank Sterling does that and more. Journalist, activist, and Native American, he wears several hats both in the community and at KPFA. In addition to covering news events, he’s the technical director of the KPFA Apprenticeship Program. And he contributes to “Full Circle.” On Friday evenings, the station’s listeners hear his familiar voice: “Welcome to Full Circle . . . broadcasting from right here in Huichin — in that part of occupied Ohlone Territory known to settlers as Berkeley, California.”

Another hat he wears is that of Staff Rep on KPFA’s Local Station Board, the LSB. The day after that arrest was the board’s September meeting. “Are you doing okay?” board members asked him. “We saw a message that you got hurt.”

“I’m okay,” he assured us, though appearing still slightly stunned, and he briefly told us about it. “Thanks for everyone that reached out,” he said as he finished. “Thank you for your concern.”

The Contra Costa County DA, Diana Becton, was endorsed by progressives as a reformer. But we soon learned that she was charging Frank with resisting arrest. And as happens in court cases, it dragged on, month after month; at each court hearing a date was set for the next hearing.

(This same DA Becton declined to press charges against the Antioch officers involved in the death of Angelo Quinto.)

The Oscar Grant Committee mobilized support for Frank. They and members of the LSB’s minority caucus, Rescue Pacifica, accompanied him to court hearings.

A petition was circulated on his behalf. Veterans for Peace wrote a resolution in support of him.

Several non-corporate journalists publicized his case. The hosts of Hard Knock Radio and UpFront interviewed him. Steve Zeltzer of Work Week Radio also covered this, and Ann Garrison did an interview for the Black Agenda Report. Ann Garrison’s article is at several websites.

Although several KPFA programmers had interviewed Frank, there was also something the station itself could do. It could air “carts” (recorded messages) and send out emails to the membership list — these are things KPFA does during fund drives, and to announce speaker events, the crafts fair, and other events the station takes an interest in.

Although KPFA’s board is deeply divided on many issues, support of journalists would presumably be something that both sides could agree on. Moreover, Frank was well liked by people on both sides.

At the March 19th meeting, board member James McFadden brought this up with General Manager Quincy McCoy, who curtly dismissed the request.

“We’re not a political party,” the Manager replied.

There may’ve been some loud gasps, though not heard during this Zoom session where most microphones are muted.

This was KPFA, the radio station that stood up to Joe McCarthy & Co, bravely opposed the Korean War in an era when it took incredible courage to express a dissenting opinion. Likewise, KPFA strongly opposed the war in Vietnam and has spoken out against security state policies many times since. That has been KPFA’s traditional anti-establishment, anti-imperialist, antiwar stand.

It seemed unthinkable that the manager of this station would refuse to defend one of its own journalists. This manager was Quincy McCoy whose voice we often hear on KPFA airwaves, telling us: “This is a community station,” “Vigilant as always,” “Truth to power,” and “We have your back!” The manager who ends his emails with the slogan: “In times of crisis, unity is the only solution.”

Unity? Maybe not this time. Or, was there some misunderstanding here?

The board’s minority caucus, Rescue Pacifica, had written a resolution in support of Journalist Frank Sterling and asked the secretary to put it on the agenda. Although Rescue Pacifica is a one-third minority on this board, it did seem possible that this resolution might pass when put to a vote. But there was no vote. The secretary and chair, Carol Wolfley and Christina Huggins, kept the resolution off the agenda.

More was said about Frank Sterling’s case during Public Comments. This is where KPFA listeners, people attending the meeting who are not current board members, get to speak. The audio is about 35 minutes, and here are some excerpts:

“I’m disappointed this body did not even discuss support for Frank Sterling,” said KPFA staff person Sharon Peterson, “This is a news story that we should, in our ever vigilant position, be covering.”

“Why don’t you report the news of the journalist who was attacked twice by the Antioch police and tell people his next court date is in April?” asked Nancy Saibara-Naritomi from KPFT, the Pacifica sister station in Houston. “That is important.”

“I’m very concerned about the lack of support for Frank Sterling by the LSB,” said Steve Zeltzer of Workweek Radio. “And the manager said KPFA is ‘not a political party.’ Well, when does KPFA have to be a political party to support a journalist? . . . Journalists are under attack in this country. And for KPFA to be silent . . .”

Stan Woods, labor activist and former KPFA board member, said:

“[At any news outlet] if one of their journalists is under attack, falsely accused and arrested, the management of that station or newspaper or website comes to their defense.”

Several more spoke likewise, expressing support for Frank. The one public speaker who advocated non-support was former board member Sharon Adams. “The LSB’s role is not to make political pronouncements,” she declared. “One reason perhaps to avoid having the LSB make political announcements is that there are news reports about what happened there. For example, the Antioch Herald.”

The Antioch Herald, which Sharon recommended, is a conservative newspaper, a “Blue Lives Matter” and “Back the Blue” supporter. Its publisher has also been called out at city council for homophobic and transphobic remarks on his social media. Although investigative journalists and researchers do consider it important to read reports from across the political spectrum, including the Antioch Herald, it seemed strange that Sharon would not want KPFA to give its own views. After all, the very reason for KPFA/Pacifica’s seven decade existence has been to give independent news and views that are not likely to be heard from the commercial media.

Sharon Adam’s speech came as a surprise, even to those of us who are used to hearing her. She’d spent six years on KPFA’s board; she had been the treasurer, and at board meetings she had often functioned as spokesperson for the majority faction. And she is an attorney.

At the next LSB meeting, after the Pacifica National Board (which represents all five stations & 200 Affiliate stations) had stood by Frank and passed a resolution in his support, Sharon doubled down in her attack on Frank and accused him of assaulting a police officer.

So was Sharon speaking for herself? or for her faction? Her group, which uses several names, including “SaveKPFA,” “KPFA Protectors,” “New Day,” and Safety Net,” has a two-thirds majority on the KPFA LSB.

I wrote an email to all of the board members of Protectors/New Day, asking them if she spoke for them? I received no reply from any of them.

I suppose I shouldn’t have been so surprised. These are some of the same people who are petitioning the FCC to deny renewal of the WBAI license–if successful it will cost the network an asset valued at somewhere between $20 to $50 million. This fight has been going on for years, decades actually, and during the last couple of years it has become more intense.

Then, as endnote to all this, came a letter of resignation from Quincy McCoy, effective August 15th. He was general manager for nearly a decade and worked closely with the “Protectors”/”New Day” faction. There was controversy over various matters that happened on his watch, such as the non-payment of property taxes, and reports of an as of yet unexplained seven-month delay in presenting the financial documents needed for timely audits. Nevertheless, the “Protectors” loved him and praised him, and they refused to fulfill their yearly duty of evaluating his performance. They also said it’s “racist” to criticize this manager who is a person of color, (McCoy is African American). But when Frank Sterling’s supporters pointed out that to be consistent with that argument, the “Protectors” should also support Frank, also a person of color (Native American), they didn’t respond.

Why did Quincy McCoy resign? He didn’t say. But he did list his favorite people at KPFA, and among these was Sharon Adams, that star player of March 19th, as well as Carol Wolfley, the Secretary of the LSB, who sent a letter of support for the petition to the FCC.

This and other happenings at KPFA may indeed sound discouraging to KPFA listeners, and it is at times hard to be optimistic, but I don’t think it does any good to try to cover up the bad stuff. KPFA’s listener-members need to know what’s going on. We have to hang in there and work to preserve KPFA’s traditional antiwar voice and defend our journalists.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s website, Daniel’s Free Speech Zone.

Daniel Borgstrom is a member of the KPFA Local Station Board Rescue Pacifica Caucus.

Featured image is a screenshot from the video

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Didn’t KPFA Defend Its Journalist?

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

China and India have agreed to withdraw their military troops from the disputed border area, near the latter’s Ladakh region in the Himalayas. Although there has been a lot of dialogue amid the tensions, this a somewhat surprising development, which, from an American perspective, could be the beginning of a nightmare. Both Beijing and New Delhi have issued similar-worded statements emphasizing the need to promote “peace and tranquility” in the region. Some friction points along the border still remain, however, particularly in Depsang and Demchok. In any case, this disengagement is the de-escalation of a series of frictions and military standoffs that had been going on since May 2020.

In 1962, both countries fought a war over the disputed area, but an agreement has never been reached. Tensions pertaining to this issue began to escalate in early 2020, after India accused its neighbor’s troops of invading the territory New Delhi claims as its own. Washington has been supporting India in this quarrel, and its State Department even accused Beijing of orchestrating the border clashes.

For the US, any increase in Indian-Chinese tensions has always been desirable, as part of the American Indo-Pacific Strategy. Moreover, the US-led QUAD or Quadrilateral Security Dialogue has been described by many as a “new NATO” for the region.

India has thus been in a very complex position, being a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) which is seen by some experts as a potential counterweight to NATO, and at the same time a QUAD member. It faces tensions on its borders over disputed territories with two nuclear neighbors, namely Pakistan and China.

In any case, even amid serious bilateral contentions, Eurasian nations have found room for cooperation on quite a number of levels. Faithful to its historic pragmatism, New Delhi has managed to maintain close ties with Moscow, even while it has been getting closer and closer to Washington. With Beijing, however, the situation was quite severe.

In May 2020, for example, there were border clashes involving soldiers from both sides. Then, in June 2020, at patrolling point 14, troops from the two powers clashed for six hours. As a result of that, 20 Indian soldiers and 25-40 Chinese ones were killed at the Galwan Valley during this standoff. For a while, the two nuclear powers even seemed to be on the brink of a new war.

However, after May-June’s Indian-Chinese standoff, in September, the Kremlin was already laying the groundwork for a meeting in Moscow which was attended by both the Chinese Foreign Minister and his Indian counterpart. In February 2021, the two Asian countries were already “back to business”, engaged in a number of bilateral investment deals. Moreover, throughout the year 2021, there were discussions about disarmament of troops in Ladakh. In April 2022, Chinese Ambassador to India Sun Weidong stated that both nations should work together towards keeping their bilateral ties “on the right track”, while keeping a “long-term perspective”.

Throughout this period, however, Washington-New Delhi ties grew stronger and stronger, fueled by Indian-Chinese tensions. In late October 2020, both states signed a game-changer defense deal, the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA). This caused concern for many nationalist voices within India, which feared the country could lose part of its control over satellites to America. The very fact that it became part of a military communication network which includes its traditional rival Pakistan (a US ally) was also a point of tension.

In November 2020, during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)  summit, India accused the Pakistani authorities in Islamabad of using cross-border terrorism as an instrument of its state policy. At the same event, it also refused to support the Chinese BRI, being in fact the only country amongst the 8 SCO members to do so at that time. A large part of the project passes through Kashmir (claimed by both New Delhi and Islamabad).

Many analysts feared that in the context of a new emerging bipolarity, not to mention the new Cold War, the Hindu power would further strengthen its ties with the United States, as the latter is actively pursuing its policy of dual containment.

However, in spite of BECA, American pressure on India regarding Russia did not work: Moscow is delivering all S-400 systems to India by 2023, despite US sanctions. Both countries are also working on a new payment system for military deals, in a move which boosts the international de-dollarization process. Moreover, both India and China are sending troops to Russia for the Vostok 2022 drills.

Likewise, it would also appear that, border disputes aside, the country has no interest in antagonizing its Chinese neighbor and in fact they could further strengthen cooperation in other areas on a number of levels. Bipolarity looms in the horizon, but, alternatively, an age of multi-alignment and non-alignment might also be emerging.

In this scenario, India plays a somewhat pivotal role. Washington expects “absolute allies”, but increasingly overburdened as it is overextending its power in an effort to contain at once two superpowers (Russia and China), it has no choice but to practice restraint.

Indian nuanced foreign policy has always been pragmatic and multidimensional, and, by all indications, it will remain so, and thus the US cannot count on it for its cold war mentality driven agendas. Last month, Indian foreign minister Jaishankar said the “Asian Century” could only happen when his country joined hands with its Chinese neighbor. A small step towards it might have just been taken – and this in fact could be Washington’s greatest nightmare.

*

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.

Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.

Featured image is from Indian Punchline

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

 

 

 

 

 

In his earlier pathbreaking book on the great “Covid Pandemic”, The Real Anthony Fauci, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. took on and discredited the major centers of power in American society that were, from the outset, responsible for what has become an unprecedented assault on humanity: Big Pharma, the intelligence apparatus, medical bureaucrats, corporate media, even the Pentagon. 

Within this matrix of destructive power – the bearers of “higher immorality”, as C. Wright Mills once put it – Kennedy focused his bristling ire on such despicable public figures as Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, Robert Kadlec, Peter Daszak, and Avril Haines.  These Strangelovian figures were, in Kennedy’s words, among those “laying the pipe for totalitarianism”.

As trial lawyer for decades, Kennedy took on powerful corporations, holding them accountable for crimes against the environment.  He set up the ecological Riverkeepers programs that, since the 1970s, have expanded across the U.S. and the world.  In The Real Anthony Fauci he holds accountable a different pack of criminals – those implicated in a global Covid tyranny that has yet to run its full course.  Kennedy is now chair of the Children’s Health Defense board, on the front lines of fighting Covid hysteria.

Those Covid targets, of course, richly deserve to be savaged for their wanton transgressions: the brutal lockdowns, unscientific vaccine mandates, masking requirements, school closings, myriad coercive edicts, ongoing propaganda campaigns filled with lies and myths, censorship of dissenting voices, severe punishment of those simply wanting to make their own health choices.   Kennedy’s powerful critique, however, did not extend to those at the summits of U. S. governmental power – that is, mainly liberal Democrats who after all orchestrated these horrors and indeed hired Fauci and his gang of medical despots.   Kennedy named some names but not all the names that needed to be named, starting with President Joe Biden himself.

In his more polemical new book, A Letter to Liberals, Kennedy moves to correct this problem that stemmed, understandably, from his deep relationship with probably the most iconic of all Democratic party families.  Kennedy’s greater eagerness to hold leading Democratic liberals accountable this time must reflect his growing anger over the Covid-fueled deterioration of American politics.  He seems to have given the liberalism at the core of his party something approaching a harsh (and much-deserved) farewell, at least for this cycle of Democrats.  Any belief-system that so fluidly coexists with corporate oligarchy, political authoritarianism, and policies of social destruction surely deserves an obituary.

Kennedy writes: “This letter is a challenge to my fellow liberals to reexamine the scientific assertions upon which rest the oppressive policies that have savaged the prescriptions of traditional liberalism and the U.S. Constitution”.   The litany of draconian (also counter-productive) Democratic responses to Covid have by now thoroughly undermined the most basic premises of liberalism – in this case sustained attacks on virtually every freedom contained in the Bill of Rights, not to mention many others in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  For the U.S. and elsewhere, liberalism today serves mainly as a façade behind which obscene levels of state power and corporate wealth flourish as never before.

In A Letter to Liberals Kennedy brilliantly counters all the fictional narratives used by ruling elites to perpetuate endless crisis and its supposed antidote, expanded governmental power grounded in “new emergencies” and “saving lives”.   He carefully documents the massive harms – political, economic, social, personal – with enough clarity to render the text accessible a wide range of readers.  Most crucially, Kennedy demonstrates in case after case how the unscientific Covid political regimen (above all its vaccine mandates) has caused far more destruction than any conceivable good that might be claimed by sanctimonious liberal ideologues.  Many of these conclusions will be familiar to Global Research readers, yet Kennedy has managed to assemble the most salient information and analysis in one concentrated text.

One sad casualty of the Covid disaster is the death of critical thought among the most highly-educated and seemingly enlightened liberals – a problem extending to the vast majority of progressives and leftists, suddenly bereft of anti-corporate consciousness.  One wonders: how could these folks so readily, so quickly, and so totally have fallen in line with all the crude Big Pharma propaganda?  How could what passes for a robust liberal intelligentsia have so ritually embraced the continuous flow lies, myths, and fairy-tales?

Kennedy comments that such “blind faith in authority” is a feature of religion and autocracy, not science and democracy even as liberals prattle on about “saving our democracy”.  Not only is “blind faith” arbitrarily yielded to those at the highest levels of power, it is yielded to the very worst sectors of that power apparatus, whether Big Pharma, the medical establishment, deep state (CIA, FBI), and corporate media that progressives only yesterday deemed a conduit of corrupt ruling interests.   Liberals once upon a time seemed to know about Big Pharma colonization of medicine, government, and social policy, but the arrival of Covid apparently instilled bouts of dementia.

Worse yet, the liberals in charge – from President Joe Biden, the Fauci cabal, and CDC bureaucrats to the phalanx of Democratic governors and local public-health autocrats – have refused to openly discuss any key issues, instead opting to close down, shame, and punish alternative views.  Kennedy writes: “Unable to defend the scientific underpinnings of their ideology in debate, liberals rely on book bans and an arsenal of coercive muzzling strategies including deplatforming, delicensing, doxing, gaslighting, defunding, restricting, marginalizing, and vilifying physicians, journalists, and vaccine-injured Americans who complied but now refuse to toe the line.”   In American society, Kennedy himself has been among the most vilified targets.

While the ruling Democrats, corporate media, and tech giants regurgitate lie after lie about the efficacy and safety of poorly-tested vaccines, Kennedy brings forth abundant data from many countries – Ireland, Portugal, the UK, South Korea, Vietnam, Tunisia, Nigeria, many others – revealing a sharp rise in Covid deaths immediately after mass vaccination programs.  Such information is largely ignored within the corporate media or, when briefly acknowledged, is badly distorted or relegated to the realm of “conspiracy theory”.

Kennedy shows that many nations with extremely low vaccination rates – some more heavily reliant on such medications as HCQ and ivermectin, both demonized in the U.S. – have far lower death rates than such excessively-vaxxed countries as Israel and the U.S.  Thus Nigeria has just 1.5 percent of its population vaccinated, yet its Covid death rate is reported at 15 per million.  For the U.S., beholden to Dr. Fauci’s goal of maximum jab totals, the Covid death rate stood at 2,995 deaths per million, a staggering 200 times greater than much lesser-developed Nigeria.

In his earlier book, Kennedy demonstrated in great detail how sectors of the ruling elite – Big Pharma, the deep state, Silicon Valley, media outlets, the Pentagon – have been looking to  take advantage of global pandemic episodes for years if not decades.   Dark Winter 2001 represented one of the first such “events”, referred to by Kennedy as “the spooks and the simulations” that now dominate the mammoth biosecurity complex.  Three historical factors are at work here: dramatic increase in the role of Big Pharma within governmental agencies, the media, and medical establishment; steady corporatization of the Democratic Party and resulting decay of liberalism; expanded corporate globalization leading to prospects for a worldwide tyrannical “great reset”.

Kennedy argues that American liberals – and their kindred true-believers around the world – have followed a disastrous path of “orchestrated fear” and “blind trust”, suggesting not only that his Democratic Party has lost its way but easily could, in the wake of Covid, descend further into a cesspool of techno-authoritarianism.  Perhaps Kennedy is not ready to concede this prospect, but the Covid outrage has done more than anything to unveil Beltway liberals as representing little more than the high-minded pursuit of wealth and power.  They have also taken on the character of a modern War Party.  Meanwhile, in looking to silence dissent and crush opposition, the current stratum of liberal Democrats appears to seek something akin to a one-party state – a dictatorial system thriving on permanent crisis.

Modern-day liberals (with plenty of conservative help) have brought to the world one of the worst crimes ever inflicted on humanity – all in the name of “our democracy”, efforts to “protect human lives”, and (for many) to “save the planet”.   Protagonists of this barbarism include some of the “best” and most cultivated among Western populations – well-educated, enlightened, progressive liberals, the very same groups cheerleading the Ukraine proxy war against Russia that has brought the world ever closer to nuclear catastrophe.  The main culprits ought to be arrested and jailed, their futures scuttled — but alas, in a morally-corrupt order they wind up the beneficiaries of exalted governmental power, corporate privilege, generous incomes, even humanitarian and journalistic awards.

*

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.

Carl Boggs is the author of 25 books on topics ranging from social theory, popular movements, ecological politics, and U.S. foreign/military interventions.  One of his most recent books is Drugs, Power, and Politics (Paradigm, 2016).


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 

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” 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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

During the early morning hours of August 8, the Florida home of the 45th President of the United States Donald J. Trump at Mar-a-Lago was raided by a team of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents.

There was much speculation surrounding the raid on his private residence while Trump was away.

Later it was announced that Trump was in possession of classified documents of a sensitive nature which could reasonably jeopardize the national security of the U.S. However, Trump through his lawyers and public speeches denied having the documents saying those requested materials had already been turned over to the national archives.

This was the first time in history that a former U.S. head-of-state has been targeted in an FBI raid let alone threatened with prosecution under federal law. Richard Nixon, the disgraced president who resigned in August 1974 over the attempt to cover up the break in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate building in Washington, D.C., was pardoned by his successor President Gerald R. Ford.

Trump may have anticipated attempts to prosecute him in connection with the [alleged] January 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. Just minutes prior to the attack on the Capitol, Trump and his allies had urged those who were invited to Washington to “stop the steal” of the national presidential elections of 2020.

What has been remarkable are the reports which suggest that Trump could be prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act passed and signed under then President Woodrow Wilson. The purpose of the law was to imprison, deport, silence and neutralize critics of the U.S. involvement in World War I.

The former president and his supporters accused President Joe Biden’s Justice Department of conducting a politically motivated prosecution of Trump in order to prevent him from running for office again in 2024. Media reports and documents released indicate that the investigation is centered around the possession by Trump of classified information related to nuclear weapons technology.

Historic Prosecutions Under the Espionage Act

There were many people who spoke out against U.S. involvement in the world’s first imperialist war between 1914-1918. During the first three years (1914-1917) people from various political tendencies opposed any effort to enter the war in Europe.

By 1917, the sentiment among the ruling class and the Wilson administration had shifted to intervention. A draft was imposed and workers, nationally oppressed communities along with other social forces were expected to enthusiastically support the war. See this.

An opinion piece by Jameel Jaffer published in Politico analyzing the character of the 1917 Espionage Act notes the following:

“The Espionage Act is wildly overbroad. We know this from experience. Former President Woodrow Wilson signed the measure into law in 1917 and immediately began using it as an instrument of political repression. During and after the First World War, his administration used the Espionage Act to prosecute thousands of people for legitimate political speech. One of those people was the socialist and labor activist Eugene Debs, who was sentenced to a decade in prison for an anti-war speech that allegedly obstructed military recruitment. (It’s perhaps worth noting, given questions about Trump’s future, that Debs later ran for president from his prison cell.)”

Since the advent of WWI, there have been attempted and successful prosecutions of people under the Espionage Act. Daniel Ellsberg in early 1973 was accused under the same law for making public a Pentagon study which documented the propagation of falsehoods told to the people of the U.S. to maintain public opinion in favor of the Vietnam War.

After being charged, Ellsberg, a military analyst, was acquitted several months later in the failed attempt to send him to prison for 115 years. By the early 1970s it was common knowledge that the Pentagon and the White House were misrepresenting the actual situation in Vietnam and Southeast Asia as a whole. By 1973, most ground troops were taken out of South Vietnam and by April 30, 1975, the revolutionary forces had overrun the imperialist stronghold of Saigon, now known as Ho Chi Minh City.

Even during the Trump presidency several people were prosecuted under the Espionage Act and sentenced to terms in prison. At least five of them gained some notoriety in the mainstream press such Reality Winner, Terry Albury, Joshua Shulte, Daniel Hale and Henry Kyle Frese.

Winner, 26 a contractor with the National Security Agency (NSA) at the time of her indictment in 2017 plead guilty during the trial and was sentenced to five years in federal prison for leaking an NSA document. Albury, an FBI agent who is African American, was prosecuted and sentenced to four years in prison for leaking classified information. Shulte, Hale, and Frese were also sentenced during the Trump administration for leaking classified documents including some pertaining to the Chinese government and its military capabilities.

Two other figures, Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, and Edward Snowden, a former contractor with U.S. intelligence, are still wanted by the current administration. Assange has resisted extradition to the U.S. saying that he could not have a fair trial there. The co-founder of WikiLeaks has obtained and released materials which highlight crimes being committed by successive administrations in Washington. After being granted asylum by the Ecuador government and later having it withdrawn, Assange awaits while in detention further decisions by the British courts on his status.

Snowden is said to be living in the Russian Federation where he has been granted asylum. The former contractor has exposed many crimes which are being carried out by the intelligence services under the supervision of the White House and the Congress.

According to the Intercept, there has been no motivation attributed to Trump’s actions. The documents in the former president’s possession, which are of a classified nature, would only be useful perhaps for monetary compensation from a foreign government.

The Intercept report says:

“Now, Trump has found himself on the other end of an Espionage Act investigation. (President Joe Biden’s Justice Department authorized a search of Mar-a-Lago that cited the Espionage Act in its justification, but no charges against Trump have been filed yet.)

Unlike most of the people charged with the Espionage Act under the Trump administration, except perhaps Schulte, Trump’s theft of classified documents wasn’t aimed at exposing attacks on democracy, shining a light on government atrocities, or adding anything newsworthy to the public discourse.”

Under Section 793 of the Espionage Act Trump could theoretically be sentenced up to ten years in prison. If Trump’s supporters within the Republican Party use this Justice Department investigation and possible prosecution as a rallying cry for their candidates in November during the midterms and in the 2024 primaries and general election, the political atmosphere within the U.S. will become even more tense.

Political Implications of the Raid on Trump’s Residence

Of course, there is a political motivation inspiring the prosecution of Trump because this does take attention away from the failure of the Biden administration and the Congress to address some of the most pressing issues facing the U.S. during this period. Since the beginning of a full blown proxy war between Washington and the Russian Federation on February 24, unprecedented sanctions have been leveled at Moscow which are in effect weakening U.S. allies in Europe who are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

The inflationary spiral is not limited to the U.S. in the form of rising food prices, gasoline, heating and cooling costs, rents and other commodities. In the European Union (EU) states a real threat of a cold winter has already been projected by French President Emmanuel Macron.

It is highly unlikely that the situation will improve until there is some resolution to the Ukraine war. Yet the provocations continue in the Asia Pacific where the Biden administration is deliberately inflaming tensions with the People’s Republic of China.

Whether Trump is prosecuted under the Espionage Act or some other federal law, will not determine the outcome of the situation involving Russia and Ukraine. The ever-expanding military budget to fund the war in Ukraine and a heightening of tensions with Beijing, will continue to take away the much-needed resources to feed, clothe, house, transport and educate millions of people in the U.S.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Abayomi Azikiwe

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Donald Trump and the Espionage Act. Tense Political Atmosphere Ahead of the November Elections

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The reason health officials don’t want individual vaccine vials examined by independent scientists is because the vials are all different — and the mRNA in the shots is not intact

For an effective mRNA product, the mRNA integrity needs to be 100%, meaning all the RNA must be intact. Considering how ineffective the jabs are, it seems fair to question whether lack of mRNA integrity might be to blame

Fragmented RNA could potentially also be hazardous to health by generating incomplete spike proteins. While we do not know if incomplete spike proteins are dangerous, it’s possible they might contribute to cellular stress

The “bad batch” phenomenon may also be indicative of quality problems. Independent investigations have revealed that some lots of the shots are associated with very severe side effects and death, whereas other lots have very few or no adverse events associated with their use

However, the fact that “hot” lots are being released in a coordinated fashion suggests vaccine makers may in fact be doing intentional lethal-dose testing on the public, and that these “bad batches” are not merely the result of intermittently poor manufacturing

*

A 14-minute video (above) that has been overlooked for nearly two years has now resurfaced, exposing stunning information about the COVID-19 jabs and why health officials don’t want individual vaccine vials examined by independent scientists.

The reason, it turns out, is because the vials are all different — and the mRNA in the shots “is not intact.” Both of these pose potentially serious problems. In an August 31, 2022, Substack article, Steve Kirsch explains:1

“Even if you are getting 100% intact mRNA which would be really rare, you’re still not getting anything that resembles the virus. So the efficacy as far as PROTECTING you will be next to nothing.

However, what it will do very effectively, if you got reasonably intact mRNA, is to cause you significant harm. You are playing a game of chance with your immune system and what is in the bottle.”

The video notes that members of the European Parliament were only allowed to read the contracts with the drug makers after they’d been heavily redacted. Why the heavy-handed secrecy, even toward legislators?

Leaked Documents Reveal Serious Quality Issues

The finding that the mRNA in the shots was of questionable quality was revealed in a BMJ feature investigation article2 published in March 2021. As explained by the author, journalist Serena Tinari, cyber attackers retrieved more than 40 megabytes of Pfizer COVID jab data from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in December 2020.

The hacked data was subsequently sent to journalists and academics worldwide. It was also published on the dark web. Some of the documents show European regulators had significant concerns over the lack of intact mRNA in the commercial batches sampled.

Compared to the clinical batches, i.e., the shots used in the clinical trial, 55% to 78% of the commercial shots had “a significant difference in % RNA integrity/truncated species.”

In one email, dated November 23, 2020, a high-ranking EMA official noted that the commercial batches failed to meet expected specifications, and that the implications of this RNA integrity loss were unclear. In response to the findings, the EMA sent a list of questions and concerns to Pfizer.

While we do not know if and how the EMA’s concerns were actually addressed and corrected, the EMA authorized Pfizer’s COVID jab December 21, 2020. According to its public assessment report, “the quality of this medicinal product, submitted in the emergency context of the current (COVID-19) pandemic, is considered to be sufficiently consistent and acceptable.”

Similarly, Health Canada told The BMJ that “changes were made in their processes to ensure that the integrity was improved and brought in line with what was seen for clinical trial batches.” The EMA further tried to deflect concern by claiming some of the leaked documents had been doctored. As reported by The BMJ:3

“EMA says the leaked information was partially doctored, explaining in a statement that ‘whilst individual emails are authentic, data from different users were selected and aggregated, screenshots from multiple folders and mailboxes have been created, and additional titles were added by the perpetrators.’”

Intact mRNA Is Essential to Its Effectiveness

Curiously, when The BMJ asked Pfizer, Moderna, CureVac and several regulators to specify the percentage of mRNA integrity considered acceptable, none replied with specifics.

According to the British Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the FDA and Health Canada, the specification limit on RNA integrity is “commercially confidential.” What we do know — and the EMA has acknowledged — is that intact mRNA is essential for efficacy. As noted by The BMJ:4

“… the documents offer the broader medical community a chance to reflect on the complexities of quality assurance for novel mRNA vaccines, which include everything from the quantification and integrity of mRNA and carrier lipids to measuring the distribution of particle sizes and encapsulation efficiency.

Of particular concern is RNA instability, one of the most important variables relevant to all mRNA vaccines that has thus far received scant attention in the clinical community …

RNA instability is one of the biggest hurdles for researchers developing nucleic acid based vaccines. It is the primary reason for the technology’s stringent cold chain requirements and has been addressed by encapsulating the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles.

‘The complete, intact mRNA molecule is essential to its potency as a vaccine,’ professor of biopharmaceutics Daan J.A. Crommelin and colleagues wrote in a review article in The Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences late last year.

‘Even a minor degradation reaction, anywhere along a mRNA strand, can severely slow or stop proper translation performance of that strand and thus result in the incomplete expression of the target antigen.’”

For an effective product, mRNA integrity needs to be 100%. Considering how ineffective the jabs are, it seems fair to question whether lack of mRNA integrity might be to blame. We also do not know whether nonintact mRNA might be harmful.

As noted by Kirsch,5 “Unstable mRNA means the spike protein … cold collapse, making the whole process useless to support immunity, but still dangerous in terms of damage to cells. So, you get all the risk and no benefit.”

While our public health agencies claim fragmented RNA poses no health risk, just how do they know that? The leaked documents revealed they specifically did not have an answer to that question, and no research into the matter has been published, that I’m aware of.

Fragmented RNA May Produce Incomplete Spike Proteins

In May 2021, Stephanie Seneff, Ph.D., a senior research scientist at MIT for over five decades, published an excellent paper6 in which she highlighted several potential dangers of the COVID jabs, including the unknown hazard of injecting fragmented RNA. That same month, I interviewed her about her concerns. You can find that interview in “COVID Vaccines May Bring Avalanche of Neurological Disease.” In her paper, Seneff noted:7

“The EMA Public Assessment Report … describes in detail a review of the [Pfizer] manufacturing process … One concerning revelation is the presence of ‘fragmented species’ of RNA in the injection solution. These are RNA fragments resulting from early termination of the process of transcription from the DNA template.

These fragments, if translated by the cell following injection, would generate incomplete spike proteins, again resulting in altered and unpredictable three-dimensional structure and a physiological impact that is at best neutral and at worst detrimental to cellular functioning.

There were considerably more of these fragmented forms of RNA found in the commercially manufactured products than in the products used in clinical trials. The latter were produced via a much more tightly controlled manufacturing process …

While we are not asserting that non-spike proteins generated from fragmented RNA would be misfolded or otherwise pathological, we believe they would at least contribute to the cellular stress that promotes prion-associated conformational changes in the spike protein that is present.”

Kirsch points out that the EMA also expressed concern over visible particles in the vials, which The BMJ did not follow up on. “Is it still a problem?” Kirsch asks. That’s a good question, and the answer is probably yes.

But even worse is that we have absolutely no idea what these incomplete spike proteins are doing, none, zero, nada. It has never been directly examined. For that matter efforts to evaluate, and complications of the jab, have been consciously suppressed as have following simple metrics such as increases in all-cause mortality.

Deaths Dismissed and Side Effects Misclassified

The leaked EMA documents also showed that Pfizer dismissed all deaths in its trial as “unrelated to the vaccine,” even though no proper investigation was ever conducted. We now have additional evidence of this — just like the court-ordered FOIA documents showed what Pfizer did in their U.S. trials. At least they are consistent in implementing their fraud.

As reported by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) back in June 2022, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents, released by court-order, reveal Pfizer classified nearly all severe reactions in its trials as unrelated to the shot, even in cases where the health problems in question are extremely difficult to dismiss as anything other than a direct effect of the shot:8

“The latest release by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine documents9 reveals numerous instances of participants who sustained severe adverse events during Phase 3 trials. Some of these participants withdrew from the trials, some were dropped and some died …

The CRFs [case report forms] included in this month’s documents contain often vague explanations of the specific symptoms experienced by the trial participants. They also reveal a trend of classifying almost all adverse events — and in particular severe adverse events (SAEs) — as being ‘not related’ to the vaccine …

The many serious adverse events — and several deaths — recorded during the Phase 3 trials are also apparent in a separate, massive document10 exceeding 2,500 pages, cataloging such adverse events.

This document lists a wide range of adverse events suffered by trial participants classified as toxicity level 4 — the highest and most serious such level. However, not one of the level 4 (most severe) adverse events listed in this particular document is classified as being related to the vaccination.”

As just one example,11 a teenage girl got the shot September 11, 2020, and in mid-November 2020 was diagnosed with right lower extremity deep vein thrombosis, which we now know is a potential side effect of the jab. According to the CFR, her condition was due to a bone fracture that occurred before the date of her injection — a determination that seems questionable at best.

What’s the Cause Behind the ‘Bad Batch’ Phenomenon?

The “bad batch” phenomenon may also be indicative of quality problems. Independent investigations have revealed that some lots of the shots are associated with very severe side effects and death, whereas other lots have very few or no adverse events associated with their use.

According to howbadismybatch.com, a site that matches up vaccine lot codes with reports in the VAERS system, approximately 5% of the lots are responsible for 90% of all adverse reactions. Some of these batches have 50 times the number of deaths and disabilities associated with them, compared to other lots.12

Another website that basically does the same thing is TheEagle’s VAERS Dashboard. A video explaining how to use the dashboard can be found on Bitchute.13

However, an even deeper dive into this data suggests random quality issues are not the problem. In the video above, Reiner Fuellmich, cofounder of the German Corona Investigative Committee, and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, a former member of the German parliament, discuss this “smoking gun” evidence.

According to Fuellmich and Wodarg, the lot-dependent data suggests vaccine makers may be conducting secret experiments within the larger public trial. In other words, they appear to be doing lethal-dose testing on the public. The tipoff that these “hot” batches are not caused by intermittent poor manufacturing is the fact that they’re being released in a coordinated fashion.

Wodarg argues that the evidence for this is very clear from the data. Basically, the vaccine manufacturers are coordinating their lethal-dose experiments so that they’re not all releasing their most toxic lots at the same time, or in the same areas. This avoids detection through clustering.

New Boosters Will Not Undergo Additional Testing

Considering the multitude of open questions surrounding the safety of the original COVID shots, the fact that new, reformulated boosters will not require any additional testing whatsoever is beyond disturbing.

In the “Friday Roundtable” video above, Dr. Meryl Nass, Toby Rogers, Ph.D., Aimee Villella McBride, Polly Tommey and Brian Hooker, Ph.D., discuss the FDA’s decision to allow vaccine makers to reformulate their COVID shots without additional testing, in perpetuity.

As noted by Rogers, Pfizer’s bivalent booster against Omicron variants BA.4 and BA.5 was tested on a total of eight mice, and only to check antibody levels. Moderna also used mice to ascertain antibody responses, but have not disclosed the number of mice used.

That’s the extent to which these shots were tested. The original COVID jabs are the most dangerous drugs ever released to the public, and these newer boosters may turn out to be even worse.

As explained by Rogers, the shots “imprint” your immune system to respond only to the antigen in the shot, while simultaneously impairing your immune system so that it’s less capable of protecting you against other pathogens. Another term for this process is “original antigenic sin.” It essentially explains why those are jabbed are getting infected and sicker than those who avoided the jabs.

Rogers predicts we’ll be faced with a winter of severe illness and death among those who have gotten the jabs. All the rest of us can do is stand back, avoid the shots at all cost and “let the mainstream system self-destruct.” Hopefully, he’s correct in his other prediction, which is that the vast majority of Americans will reject these boosters.

*

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, 5 Steve Kirsch Substack August 31, 2022

2, 3, 4 BMJ March 10, 2021; 372: n627

6, 7 International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice and Research May 10, 2021; 2(1): 402-444

8, 11 The Defender June 22, 2022

9 PHMPT.org Pfizer documents

10 PHMPT.org Adverse events legend

12 Robert Malone Substack January 13, 2022

13 Bitchute December 29, 2021

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


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 

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” 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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Have you ever wondered how come that people, especially young people, almost in uniformity walk around in torn jeans? This includes highly educated university students and graduates. They have become lasting fashion models over the past two decades – and the fashion prevails. To the point that people pay more for ripped and used-looking pants than for new ones. Common sense has totally disappeared from the mainstream.

There are lots of every-day trend-setting facets, indoctrinated by media and propaganda – not only for commercial purposes, but for reasons of subtle but targeted mind-bending.

“Their” plot is brilliant. Gradually forging people’s minds into one direction, one template – is needed for eventually achieving total control.

Another little example, you may or may not know about: Car colors. Have you noticed, during the past two decades or so, the vast majority of cars – actually about 90% to 95% – are either black or white, or shades in between? All with the same purpose. We, the people, ought to think in a black and white pattern.

Some 15 years ago, responding to my remark that he had only black and white cars in his lot, a car dealer smiled and said, yes, that’s the norm. He added that about 90% or more of all the cars in Europe and the US (and maybe elsewhere) were black or white or shaded in between. He noted, this was done on purpose to influence people’s thinking. I was flabbergasted. But then observing it myself and today connecting the dots – it all makes sense. Brilliant. No coincidence.

Things seem to be changing a bit, as you may see now, more colorful cars are decorating our western road networks. But by far not enough. Will it last? Will people’s minds be open for colors? For a kind of societal “Color Revolution”?

Or is it just a little time-bound relief, making believe we actually have a choice.

What better occasion than the 21st Anniversary of 9/11 (2001), the wanton collapse of the NYC Twin Towers, to reflect on the endless lies, deceptions and targeted mind manipulation humanity has been exposed to for the last at least 100 years. All with the intent to enslave the population, control the people and reduce the population, so that the benefits and bounty of our generous Mother Earth may be shared among just a small elite – and their insect-eating slaves.

The rest of the surviving population serving the same elitist people and financial corporate organizations – becoming confined, physically and mentally, and digitized transhumans that obey 5G-emitted signals.

Dr. Mike Yeadon, former Pfizer Vice President and Pfizer’s Director of Research appeals to us, the People, to react now, before it is unretrievably too late, namely when this coming Global Northern winter 2022 / 2023 the last fatal crackdown on humanity may take place. Among other calamities, you may expect geoengineered freezing, famine, by artificially created energy and food shortages, blackouts, communication interruptions, lockdowns for a myriad of reasons, police patrolled streets and urban warfare to suppress protest movement – and more.

But be not afraid – just aware. And being aware should give us the power NOW to prevent the Reset bulldozer from implementing its agenda.

Dr. Yeadon calls on all people to imagine the unimaginable, namely that we have been and continue to be betrayed by our governments which work for the obscure all-controlling Cult Organization.

He warns us and recommends that we “experimentally” adopt the position that our government is actively working to harm us, to dismantle modern society and enslave all people in a digitally controlled totalitarian world. If we accept this realty, all we have been living through the last 2 ½ years makes sense and fits together. There are No coincidences.

See the full warning by Dr. Mike Yeadon.

We are living under a targeted mind manipulation, leading to total mind-control. Key instruments are:

(i) lying politicians, whom we trust since we (believe) having elected them, and since they are paid by our taxes;

(ii) the bought, 24/7 indoctrinating media, 90% of which belong to five huge international media corporations, all pulling on the same string, all funded by the same corporate finance giants;

(iii)  fashion – yes, fashion – and imposed lifestyle trends, and

(iv) ever newly invented fear campaigns, or “invisible non-existent viruses” – and

(v) the newest announced food and energy shortages, from where – they say – stems the astronomical inflation, for which to combat, societies’ debts – yours and mine – need to be charged higher interest rates.

Anything goes, lie after miserable lie, and people buy it. We know; however, the purpose is the contrary, namely leading to the ruin and collapse of western industry and civilization.

Who is to blame for it all? Of course, Russia-Russia-Russia, or rather President Putin. Another flagrant lie.

All is made in the US of A and in their vassal-Continent, called Europe; by bought, compromised and unelected criminal politicians, who enjoy wielding their dictatorial power over people.

People! Wake up to reality, before it is too late. There is not much time left.

You are also being sold a “Green Agenda” – supposedly preventing man-made climate change.

Be aware: Carbon as well as CO2 is a life support line. Without CO2, there are no trees, no plants, no life.

Today’s Green is yesterday’s Brown.

We are being lied to, that man-made CO2 is destroying our planet. We are drifting ever faster into a total-control, digital Fascist One World Order (OWO). Globalization is taking hold as we are doing nothing against it, and tacitly letting it happen.

Solidarity is out of the window, as the “Dark Cult Masters” invent ever new means to divide us, divide society, countries, political parties and even families.

Yes, climate change is man-made – but its not what you are made to believe. It’s called “geoengineering” – highly sophisticated weather manipulation. The kind that brought us in the Global North, in the summer of 2022 extreme heat waves and drought spells, never seen before in recorded history, destroying food crops, infrastructure, and outright killing livestock and vulnerable people.

Or, alternatively – extreme flash floods, never-heard-of catastrophic monsoon rains, also destroying agriculture, infrastructure and bringing death. See the case of Pakistan.

Geoengineering is amply documented. “Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) constitute instruments of “weather warfare”. They are an integral part of the US military arsenal:

“Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.”

Study Commissioned by the US Air Force: Weather as a Force Multiplier, Owning the Weather in 2025, August 1996

See:

Does the US Military “Own the Weather”? “Weaponizing the Weather” as an Instrument of Modern Warfare?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 31, 2022

 

Targeted mind manipulation – actions that make you believe what is not, or what is different from the visible, from the going narrative – is more than 100 years old. It’s solidly implanted in our western world’s minds.

Key watershed moments of this Dark Cult campaign of treason, include

1.     Federal Reserve Act 1913 – laying the groundwork for the US dollar to become fiat money, unrelated to the US-economy, to be produced at will and as needed – becoming the basis for western currencies debt-economies, with the banking system becoming ever more dominant – eventually digitally controlling YOUR income, your behavior, through digitally manipulated currencies, spendable according to YOUR behavior. – If not stopped NOW, western monetary systems are soon to become instruments to enslave us, the Common People.

2.     The Cold War, end of WWII – a targeted fear campaign against communism: The Soviets are coming, the Soviets are coming – be aware, be scared – we must contain them. The Berlin Wall that was translating into the term, the Iron Curtain, preventing Soviets’ ideas from spilling over into the freedom loving democracies of the west.

All the while, the Soviet Union, defeating Hitler’s Third Reich and winning WWII for the West, was so badly damaged by the war that they could never, even if they wanted to (they never had expansionist plans) be a threat to the armed-to-the-teeth west. The Cold War was a farce, another miserable lie, paveing the way to the next Watershed Moment in the war against humanity.

3.     Wanton Destruction of the Soviet Union, leading the way to a globalized One World Order (OWO). We are not there yet, and indications are that an ever-greater majority of people and countries are moving away from globalization; away from western economic and monetary systems, back to national sovereignty, and towards the East – opting for eastern associations, such as the China-Russia led Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – which by now encompasses about half the world’s population, controlling about a third of world-GDP.

4.     9/11 (2001) – marking the beginning of the end of freedom, as we thought we knew it – imposing the long-before-planned Patriot Act – depriving Americans of up to 90% of their civil and human rights, as the application of the Patriot Act supposes a State of Emergency and can be applied at will, by Presidential Decree or Congressional decision. Most Americans are still unaware to what extent their rights have been curtailed by the Patriot Act which needed an event like 9/11 to come to fruition. Europe followed suit by an ever more tyrannical – and it must be repeated – UNELECTED European Commission, that pretends calling the shots over 500 million Europeans; and finally,

5.     The Great Reset, alias UN Agenda 2030 – the ultimate tightening of the screws around societies and individuals’ necks, through an intense fear campaign, based on a fake, never isolated virus, denigrating and dangerous forced mask-wearing, social distancing – separating people from each other, lockdowns, work from home – travel restrictions, keeping people in place – reducing contacts as much as possible and gradually ever more restricting measures are being imposed, including a digital all-encompassing, QR-code based (or similar) ID – the final enslavement of humanity.

This, paired by a vaxx-campaign of an experimental and poisonous mRNA injection that has so far led to the death of millions of people, contributing significantly to one of the Great Reset’s goals, massive population reduction (40% excess deaths were recorded by insurance companies since the beginning of the vaxx-campaign, mid-December 2020); artificially creating food and energy shortages with all their ramifications, famine, starvation, death; destroying what’s left of western economies, moving the bankrupted assets to the elite-billionaires and the financial giants, like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and other Wall Street icons.

These preliminaries are paving the way to 5G-powered digitization of everything, including the human mind, converting surviving humans into “transhumans” – following Klaus Schwab’s (WEF CEO) dream: Owning nothing but being happy.

We are not there yet. But time is short.

Togetherness, initiated by a spiritual separation from the Dark Cult, from dictate and tyranny that emanates from the World Economic Forum (WEF) – and its colossal money masters; separating ourselves as societies from our current governments and monetary systems; initiating parallel societies and monetary schemes.

If we grasp the spirit of togetherness, rather than each one for himself, dynamics of new ideas may make this endeavor come through as a societal Reset, made by the People for the People.

*

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.

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

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

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

I am frequently asked by my friends and acquaintances in what I now call the “Resistance” – those who, like myself, fight for some common sense about human liberty and the practice of medicine during the Corona War in the Age of Covid – how we can ‘wake people up’.  How we can get fellow New Zealanders to recognize that the Covid jab that has been pushed upon us is actually dangerous and unnecessary, how we can get them to understand that masking and anti-social distancing are tools for control, how we can get them to understand that the “vax apartheid” system that prevailed, under so-called emergency Covid legislation, was both immoral and unfounded in rationality.

It’s a good question.  I know from my work as a psychoanalyst that simply telling someone what to think or what to do never did any good. Oh, occasionally a strong directive might persuade someone momentarily, but in the long run insight and reflection and critical thinking are modes that must be autonomously engaged. We often said, in my profession, that the goal of analysis was self-analysis, and so it is. Human beings have responsibilities and they have choices, and they may indeed abrogate such responsibilities and choices when, for example, a trusted State, through its mainstream media propaganda mouthpieces, issues a diktat; but this kind of uncritical submission is hardly worthy of a human being who aspires to any sort of liberty.

I have furthermore discovered that people who, I thought, were quite reasonable and intelligent – some of whom have been close friends for many decades –behaved, when it came to all things Covid, like a closed door.

One very dear friend “divorced” me some eight months ago when he found my positions on natural immunity, early treatment, the right to assemble and exercise freedom, etc., to have been too much. “You’ve gone over to the dark side,” he said, “I can never talk to you again.”  Last week this friend called me, mildly tipsy, and we had a rapprochement, and I said to him that I thought our friendship should transcend differences of opinion, given the close intertwined ties between our families over four decades, and I told him furthermore that I was the same person I had been when we first became friends: a “constitutionalist” – meaning that I regarded the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and Bill of Rights as exceptional political documents because of their acknowledgment that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were foundational; and that I didn’t read, watch or listen to mainstream media.

The second point caught his attention, drunk though he may have been, because I know this particular fellow to be addicted to these media. Whenever I have visited him at his spacious ranch-home in the Southwest, the Big Screen was on from dawn until midnight: ABC, CNN, CBS, MSNBC et al.  And I realised quite clearly that his reality was the “reality” that had been fed to him over many many years.

No, he is not psychotic, and no, he is not part of any “formation”: he has simply put complete faith and trust into his venerable communication authorities, so much so that to deviate even a small degree from their message would be unthinkable.

Perhaps the strength of his ties of friendship to me might allow him to entertain a different perspective, over time, but so far this has not been the case, certainly not as long as his ongoing reality merely mirrors what those immense paternalistic media friends have been portraying to him about lockdowns, masks, jabs, about the requirement to forego unalienable rights and, most of all, about fear.

The campaign to make everyone afraid has been immensely successful, one must admit. And in doing so it has allowed for a certain kind of line to be drawn, a line between those who lust for safety, and those who wish to live. Covid has, in the two and a half years of the Corona War, separated us very clearly. Those who have resisted the Siren song of the State are relatively few, though now growing in number.  Those who have swallowed the Grand Deception are more formally united, are strengthened in their numbers by fear, are closed to debate and callous towards the travails of those who differ. They here in New Zealand willingly embraced the apartheid system that created a two-tiered society: the jabbed and the unjabbed.  If the unjabbed lost their jobs, if the unjabbed couldn’t get a haircut or go to a gym or a theatre, that was their “choice.”

The much maligned and much misunderstood Freud wrote, in Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, that “in a group the individual is brought under conditions which allow him to throw off the repressions of his unconscious instinctual impulses. The apparently new characteristics which he then displays are in fact the manifestations of this unconscious, in which all that is evil in the human mind is contained as a predisposition.

Yes, we must acknowledge the presence and potential for evil in all of us, and we must also acknowledge the selfishness of individuals who, to save their own skins have reneged on their principles and betrayed themselves.

I am alluding here to overwhelming majority of physicians who out of fear and selfishness have failed to be real physicians when they abdicated their duty to the Hippocratic oath, informed consent and individualized medical treatment.

Yes, I understand, they would have come under attack by a corrupt Medical Council (under the thumb of the Federation of State Medical Boards) and Ministry of Health; yes, they would have had their licences to practice suspended; yes, they would have been fired from their jobs for exercising common sense and their right to choose what to allow into their bodies – at least initially.

But imagine if they simply stood up en masse for what was right. Would a totalitarian Government have dared to persecute us all? Would even a quisling organisation like the Medical Council have tried to investigate thousands instead of the dozens of doctors who spoke out? Would the Prime Minister of New Zealand have insisted on a sweetheart deal with a disreputable and unscrupulous pharmaceutical outfit like Pfizer and suppressed inexpensive and effective treatments for a trumped-up illness? Would the government have had the audacity NOT to mandate autopsies for those who died after having received the jab, and NOT to account for and fully investigate adverse events?  Would, in fact, this entire manufactured nightmare scenario have been allowed to unfold as it has, with its concomitant destruction of livelihoods, businesses, and societal fabric?

With respect to the opening of stubbornly closed Covid minds, I think there are two keys.

  • To show, by example, that the fear they assume and have been assaulted into believing is baseless. No amount of talking, reasoning, lecturing, dictating, cajoling or persuading will be able to achieve anything in comparison to a live demonstration of calm fearlessness.
  • To encourage, once an attitude of questioning has been engendered, a disavowal of mainstream media sources. In our vast proliferative decentralized realm of the internet one may occasionally lose one’s way, but one is far more likely to arrive at truth.

The Corona War is a means to an even greater and more terrifying end, as many of us know, with Climate Change restrictions and Digital IDs and Total Surveillance on the near horizon, if the New World Order of the World Economic Forum is realized. And it will be realized if individuals sell their birthright for a bowl of potage.  Many naively and unthinkingly follow the State’s directives; but many too know better and go along because they are both selfish and afraid.

I like to think the good in us outweighs the propensity for evil, and that the Covidian selfishness that has been so prominent is nourished more by fear. If that’s the case, we have a fighting chance.

*

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. Garcia is a Philadelphia-born psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who emigrated to New Zealand in 2006. He has authored articles ranging from explorations of psychoanalytic technique, the psychology of creativity in music (Mahler, Rachmaninoff, Scriabin, Delius), and politics. He is also a poet, novelist and theatrical director. He retired from psychiatric practice in 2021 after working in the public sector in New Zealand.

Featured image is from OneWorld


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How to Open a Mind: How Can “We Wake People Up” to the Dangers of the Covid Jab

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

A team of nine experts from Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and other top universities has published paradigm-shifting research about the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines and why mandating vaccines for college students is unethical.

This 50-page study, which was published on The Social Science Research Network at the end of August, analyzed CDC and industry-sponsored data on vaccine adverse events, and concluded that mandates for COVID-19 boosters for young people may cause 18 to 98 actual serious adverse events for each COVID-19 infection-related hospitalization theoretically prevented.

The paper is co-authored by Dr. Stefan Baral, an epidemiology professor at Johns Hopkins University; surgeon Martin Adel Makary, M.D., a professor at Johns Hopkins known for his books exposing medical malfeasance, including “Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won’t Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Heath Care”; and Dr. Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist, who is a professor in the UCSF Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, as well as the author of over 350 academic and peer-reviewed articles.

But among this team of high-profile international experts who authored this paper, perhaps the most notable is Salmaan Keshavjee, M.D., Ph.D., current Director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Global Health Delivery, and professor of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Keshavjee has also worked extensively with Partners In Health, a Boston-based non-profit co-founded by the late Dr. Paul Farmer, on treating drug-resistant tuberculosis, according to his online biography.

Risking Disenrollment

As the study pointed out, students at universities in America, Canada, and Mexico are being told they must have a third dose of the vaccines against COVID-19 or be disenrolled. Unvaccinated high school students who are just starting college are also being told the COVID-19 vaccines are “mandatory” for attendance.

These mandates are widespread. There are currently 15 states which continue to honor philosophical (personal belief) exemptions, and 44 states and Washington, D.C. allow religious exemptions to vaccines. But even in these states, private universities are telling parents they will not accept state-recognized vaccine exemptions.

Based on personal interviews with some half a dozen families, The Epoch Times has learned that administrators at some colleges and universities are informing students that they have their own university-employed medical teams to scrutinize the medical exemptions submitted by students and signed by private doctors. These doctors, families are being told, will decide whether the health reasons given are medically valid.

5 Ethical Arguments Against Mandated Boosters

Though rarely reported on in the mainstream media, COVID-19 vaccine boosters have been generating a lot of controversy.

While some countries are quietly compensating people for devastating vaccine injuries, and other countries are limiting COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, the United States is now recommending children 12 and older get Pfizer-BioNTech’s Omicron-specific booster, and young adults over the age of 18 get Moderna’s updated shot.

At the same time, public health authorities in Canada are suggesting Canadians will need COVID-19 vaccines every 90 days.

Against a backdrop of confusing and often changing public health recommendations and booster fatigue, the authors of this new paper argue that university booster mandates are unethical. They give five specific reasons for this bold claim:

1) Lack of policymaking transparency. The scientists pointed out that no formal and scientifically rigorous risk-benefit analysis of whether boosters are helpful in preventing severe infections and hospitalizations exists for young adults.

2) Expected harm. A look at the currently available data shows that mandates will result in what the authors call a “net expected harm” to young people. This expected harm will exceed the potential benefit from the boosters.

3) Lack of efficacy. The vaccines have not effectively prevented transmission of COVID-19. Given how poorly they work—the authors call this “modest and transient effectiveness”—the expected harms caused by the boosters likely outweigh any benefits to public health.

4) No recourse for vaccine-injured young adults. Forcing vaccination as a prerequisite to attend college is especially problematic because young people injured by these vaccines will likely not be able to receive compensation for these injuries.

5) Harm to society. Mandates, the authors insisted, ostracize unvaccinated young adults, excluding them from education and university employment opportunities. Coerced vaccination entails “major infringements to free choice of occupation and freedom of association,” the scientists wrote, especially when “mandates are not supported by compelling public health justification.”

The consequences of non-compliance include being unenrolled, losing internet privileges, losing access to the gym and other athletic facilities, and being kicked out of campus housing, among other things. These punitive approaches, according to the authors, have resulted in unnecessary psychosocial stress, reputation damage, loss of income, and fear of being deported, to name just a few.

22,000 to 30,000 Previously Unaffected Young Adults Must be Vaccinated to Prevent Just 1 Hospitalization

The lack of effectiveness of the vaccines is a major concern to these researchers. Based on their analysis of the public data provided to the CDC, they estimated that between 22,000 and 30,000 previously uninfected young adults would need to be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent just a single hospitalization.

However, this estimate does not take into account the protection conferred by a previous infection. So, the authors insisted, “this should be considered a conservative and optimistic assessment of benefit.”

In other words, the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 are essentially useless.

Mandated Booster Shots Cause More Harm Than Good

But the documented lack of efficacy is only part of the problem. The researchers further found that per every one COVID-19 hospitalization prevented in young adults who had not previously been infected with COVID-19, the data show that 18 to 98 “serious adverse events” will be caused by the vaccinations themselves.

These events include up to three times as many booster-associated myocarditis in young men than hospitalizations prevented, and as many as 3,234 cases of other side effects so serious that they interfere with normal daily activities.

At a regional hospital in South Carolina, the desk clerk sported a button that read: “I’m Vaccinated Against COVID-19” with a big black check mark on it.

“What about the boosters?” a hospital visitor asked. “It’s starting to seem like we need too many shots.”

“It does seem like a lot,” the clerk agreed. “It’s hard to know what to do.” But she did have some advice for the visitor: “Just keep reading and educating yourself, so you can make an informed decision.”

This new paper is essential reading for anyone trying to decide if they need more vaccines. The authors concluded their study with a call to action. Policymakers must stop mandates for young adults immediately, be sure that those who have already been injured by these vaccines are compensated for the suffering caused by mandates, and openly conduct and share the results of risk-benefit analyses of the vaccines for various age groups.

These measures are necessary, the authors argued, to “begin what will be a long process of rebuilding trust in public health.”

May the Force Be With Brave Scientists

The two co-first authors, Dr. Kevin Bardosh and Allison Krug, both thanked their families for supporting them to “publicly debate Covid-19 vaccine mandates” in the acknowledgments section of the paper.

As we wrote in May, an increasing number of scientists and medical doctors are speaking out about the dubious efficacy and disturbing safety issuessurrounding these fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccines. They do so fully aware of the personal and professional risks involved. They deserve our encouragement and support.

*

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.

Jennifer Margulis, Ph.D., is an award-winning journalist and author of “Your Baby, Your Way: Taking Charge of Your Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Parenting Decisions for a Happier, Healthier Family.” A Fulbright awardee and mother of four, she has worked on a child survival campaign in West Africa, advocated for an end to child slavery in Pakistan on prime-time TV in France, and taught post-colonial literature to non-traditional students in inner-city Atlanta. Learn more about her at JenniferMargulis.net

Joe Wang, Ph.D., was a Molecular Biologist with more than 10 years of experience in the vaccine industry. He is now the president of New Tang Dynasty TV (Canada), and a columnist for the Epoch Times.

Featured image is from Shutterstock


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘Unethical’ and up to 98 Times Worse Than the Disease: Top Scientists Publish Paradigm-Shifting Study About COVID-19 Vaccines
  • Tags: ,

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The day after the events of Sept. 11, 2001, the United States demanded that NATO members follow Article 5 and join it in retribution for the attacks in New York and Washington, D.C.  While it came to be known that the US State Department had written a letter in August, 2001, claiming that the US military would be in Afghanistan by the following October, the questions of “why Afghanistan?” and “why October?” were not closely examined.

There were no “hijackers” from Afghanistan and the Taliban had immediately been amenable to extraditing Osama bin Laden (who denied responsibility for 9/11); ultimately, the FBI found no evidence of bin Laden’s involvement.  Although the US had been negotiating a gas route through Afghanistan with the Taliban until August, 2001, the lack of success was not considered that significant.  And why the rush to invade Afghanistan before any investigation into 9/11 could be carried out?

Nafeez Ahmed, in his stunning Part II of “How the CIA made Google: “Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet“, connects the dots through President George W. Bush’s energy policy: specifically, Vice President Dick Cheney’s relationship with Enron and Ken Lay, variously CEO or Chairman of Enron. 

President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney’s administration came to office in 2001, in the middle of a California energy crisis which had caused a 10-fold rise in energy costs (largely due to Enron!).  Bush claimed that the energy situation would be his administration’s top priority.  Dick Cheney became chairman of a White House Energy Task Force, the “National Energy Policy Development Group”, which was to formulate national policy to deal with the energy crisis. 

The “National Energy Task Force” held secret meetings that set in motion not only U.S. energy policy but also foreign and military policy, specifically for Iraq and Afghanistan.  The long-sought transcripts of Dick Cheney’s meeting with Ken Lay and other Enron officials have never been made public, but it was clear that Lay’s vision of a TAPI pipeline — from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan, Pakistan and India — that the US would control became a key part of the government’s policy.  As Ahmed noted: “ensuring the flow of cheap gas to India via the Trans-Afghan pipeline [became] a matter of US ‘national security.’”

The problem became Enron’s financial stability.  Enron had invested $3 billion in the Dabhol plant in India, which India did not want to complete because it was uneconomical.  The US government tried to help Enron by pressuring India to complete the Dabhol plant: pressure that would continue until early November, 2001.  In June, 2001, however, the construction on the Dabhol power plant was shut down because the Trans-Afghan pipeline plan fell through.  The failure of the $3 billion Dabhol project threatened Enron’s financial stability; Ken Lay informed the Bush administration that month that Enron was in trouble.  It appears that by the next month, the administration started to look into invading Afghanistan.

That August, US officials were still trying desperately to salvage the Afghan pipeline route by negotiating with the Taliban; if the Taliban were able to secure the pipeline route through Afghanistan, the US promised to recognize the Taliban as the official Afghan government.   The US reportedly told the Taliban, “We will either make you very rich or we will destroy you.”  The Taliban faced two major problems, however. Firstly, Afghanistan would not benefit from the pipeline because it was not to access the gas going through its country.  More importantly, the Taliban did not control Afghanistan and they had no way of being able to secure the route through their country.

On August 15th, an Enron lobbyist informed White House economic advisor Robert McNally that Enron was facing a financial crisis that could cripple American energy markets.  That month, US officials claimed that the US would invade Afghanistan in mid- October. 

The US sprang into action. According to Ahmed’s article:

Two days before 9/11, Condoleeza Rice received the draft of a formal National Security Presidential Directive that Bush was expected to sign immediately. The directive contained a comprehensive plan to launch a global war on al-Qaeda, including an “imminent” invasion of Afghanistan to topple the Taliban. The directive was approved by the highest levels of the White House and officials of the National Security Council, including of course Rice and Rumsfeld. The same NSC officials were simultaneously running the Dhabol Working Group to secure the Indian power plant deal for Enron’s Trans-Afghan pipeline project. The next day, one day before 9/11, the Bush administration formally agreed on the plan to attack the Taliban. [emphasis added]

 Enron’s financial problems became evident in October, and on December 2, 2001, Enron filed for Chapter 2 bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy was one of the largest in U.S. history, eliminating $60 billion in assets and leaving thousands without their pensions and savings.

A largely unheralded event that December eliminated another U.S. motive for invading Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden, supposedly the point of the invasion, was widely believed to have died on December 17, 2001, from the advanced kidney disease he was known to have suffered from.

American theologian David Ray Griffin documented the evidence of bin Laden’s death in his 2008 book, “Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?” and also in an interview with Bonnie Faulkner in her Guns and Butter program of July 22, 2009 (accessible at the UNZ archive).  Besides facial differences in photos supposedly of bin Laden after December, 2001, Griffin noted the difference in bin Laden’s language; after that date, the language ascribed to bin Laden was far less religious in content. 

But for U.S. purposes, bin Laden died too early; too many soldiers and citizens were bent on 9/11 payback.  And the U.S. still harbored plans for the pipeline because its Afghan bases were placed at the key points in what had been the hoped-for pipeline route.

Because the U.S. had not been honest about why it had invaded Afghanistan, it could not find a valid excuse to end the war.  To finally put an end to the myth that Osama bin Laden was still living, U.S. President Barak Obama held a raid in May, 2011 that killed some poor Afghan, but the war still dragged on. The war on Afghanistan continued for 20 years, until a revived Taliban brought the NATO occupation to an abrupt end in July, 2021. 

Vengeful despite the devastation it had wrought on the country and on its society, the U.S. continues to punish and impoverish Afghans. Although the U.S. refused to count civilian deaths, one estimate claims that as many as one million Afghans were killed by NATO.

Most Americans have come to distrust the U.S. government and the mainstream media.  The fact that the government and media still blame the events of September 11, 2001 for:

  • Ÿ  the U.S. and NATO’s war on Afghanistan, (and at one point on Iraq);
  • Ÿ  the unending “War on Terror” that turned Muslims into terror suspects;
  • Ÿ  the “Patriot Act” with its elimination of American civil rights, and
  • Ÿ  the Presidential “AUMF” (the open-ended “Authorization to Use Military Force” which has been given wide interpretation to allow attacks on almost anyone, almost anywhere);

can be seen as valid reason for skepticism — which must be ongoing. 

*

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.

Karin Brothers is a freelance writer. She is a regular contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 9/11 and the Trans Afghan Pipeline Project (TAPI): The Invasion of Afghanistan Had Been Planned Prior to 9/11. The Missing Enron Link
  • Tags: , , ,

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

A German whistleblower video, clandestinely taken already in February 2021, of forced COVID vaccines in German Nursing Homes went public.  They were sent to Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, Attorney, whose reaction is: “We’re Dealing with Homicide, Maybe Even Murder”.

This video and the story behind it is ageless, because that’s what is still going on today, as subsequent whistleblowers from a number of other countries revealed. They depict the most horrendous pictures; how demented nursing-home inmates were force-“vaccinated” and as a result, most of them died within days or maximum 2 weeks.

This is eugenics by definition.

A Crime against Humanity – as defined by the Nuremberg Codex.

In the meantime, the Dark Cult leaders’ protection has been enforced with categoric censure and outright death threat. A talking witness may be in deadly danger. That doesn’t prevent us from observing how excess deaths have increased by an average of 40% since the beginning of vaxxing – around mid-December 2022, as reported by CDC and major insurance companies.

What you see in these short videos is clearly homicide or worse, murder. These people who administer the experimental, and often fatal mRNA shots must be brought to justice. And so must all those inventing, planning (2010 Rockefeller Report, Event 201, to name just a few), promoting and executing the covid-19 pandemic – lets call it “plandemic”.

They are first-degree eugenists. These people are ever unnamable. Similar to countries we have on this globe whose names may hardly ever be mentioned whenever they commit the most inhumane atrocities and crimes against humanities. Indiscriminately killing defenseless people. Lest, one risks severe sanctioning, prison, or worse.

What an absurd, rule- and lawless civilization we have become! – It’s the Rule of the Beast, as in very-very ancient times.

We are talking – without naming – about high-tech billionaires, oil monopolists and banking magnates, not to speak about the trillions of dollars-worth financial corporations, all of whom act behind the curtains through their conveniently visible instrument, the World Economic Forum (WEF).

All is well camouflaged. Yet, the messages of ongoing and future planned destruction are purposely seeping out – that we, the masses are useless eaters, that we will soon be replaced by robots and algorithms – and those who survive may be converted – before they are exterminated – into transhumans, manipulable by implanted chips – or vaxx-injected graphene oxide through ultra-shortwaves, such as 5G and soon to come 6G. But they will be happy owning nothing.

Is this just fear-mongering? – Unlikely. The diabolical cult needs to announce its nefarious actions in order for them to succeed. What is announced – “the useless eaters” – is in full swing. If we let them haplessly continue, they may indeed reach their goals by the end of UN Agenda 2030, and / or the Great Reset.

The first live images of what was going on already shortly after the introduction of the killer vaxxes were revealed by these short clandestinely and bravely taken videos – already just a few months after the vaxxes were introduced in December 2020.

That’s humanities’ fate.

But “fate” must not remain “fate”. We must not fear, as we are not powerless. To the contrary, we are many, they are few. We can organize in solidarity; and as Reiner Fuellmich says – these homicides, cum murders have to be brought to justice. And all those invisibles and unnamables – plus the pharmas – and those collaborators in high government offices with them.

We may be talking about Nuremberg on steroids.

Watch this video where Dr. Reiner Fuellmich talks about forced vaccination.

*

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.

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

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

Featured image is a screenshot from the video


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: The Corona Crisis: “We’re Dealing with Homicide, Maybe Even Murder”, Forced Vaccines in Nursing Homes

This Winter, Europe Plunges Into “The New Dark Ages”

September 13th, 2022 by Michael Snyder

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

First published on September 7, 2022

 

***

Could you imagine being sent to prison for three years if you dared to set your thermostat above 66 degrees Fahrenheit?  As you will see below, this is a proposed regulation that is actually being considered in a major European country right now.  If you have not been paying much attention to what is happening in Europe, you need to wake up. 

Natural gas in Europe is seven times more expensive than it was early last year, and that is because of the war in Ukraine.  Over the past few decades, the Europeans foolishly allowed themselves to become extremely dependent on gas from Russia.   In fact, more than 55 percent of the natural gas that Germany uses normally comes from Russia.  But now the war has changed everything, and Europe is facing an extremely harsh winter of severe shortages, mandatory rationing and absolutely insane heating bills.

Things are going to get very cold and very dark all over Europe in the months ahead, and those Europeans that choose to rebel against the new restrictions that are being implemented could literally find themselves in prison

Switzerland is considering jailing anyone who heats their rooms above 19C for up to three years if the country is forced to ration gas due to the Ukraine war.

The country could also give fines to those who violate the proposed new regulations.

Speaking to Blick, Markus Sporndli, who is a spokesman for the Federal Department of Finance, explained that the rate for fines on a daily basis could start at 30 Swiss Francs (£26).

19 degrees Celsius is just 66 degrees Fahrenheit.

If you live in Europe, prepare to dress very warmly this winter.

Some may be anticipating that they will just use portable radiant heaters to keep things toasty, but apparently using such heaters “would not be allowed” under the new regulations that Switzerland is considering…

Blick also reported that radiant heaters would not be allowed and saunas and swimming pools would have to stay cold.

This is serious.

We have never seen anything like this before, and the longer the war in Ukraine stretches on the worse the energy crisis in Europe will become.

An end to the era of cheap energy also means that a severe economic slowdown is in the cards, and this is already starting to show up in the numbers…

Europe is showing signs of heading into a recession as multiple economic surveys show the region’s services and manufacturing sectors slowing down while a large number of the continent’s citizens are struggling to cope with rising prices.

The S&P Global Eurozone Composite Output Index fell to an 18-month low in August at 48.9, according to a Sept. 5 news release (pdf).

The eurozone private sector “moved further into contractionary territory” in August. Both services and manufacturing output fell for the month.

Of course what we have witnessed so far is just the beginning.

Things are likely to get really bad this winter.

In fact, German Economic Minister Robert Habeck has publicly admitted that some parts of the German economy will “simply stop producing for the time being”.

Wow.

And the truth is that this is already starting to happen

In yet another truly astonishing announcement that demonstrates the desperation of this hour, German steelmaker ArcelorMittal, one of the largest steel production facilities in Europe, has shuttered operations due to high energy prices. (See their announcement here, in German.)

“With gas and electricity prices increasing tenfold within just a few months, we are no longer competitive in a market that is 25% supplied by imports,” said CEO Reiner Blaschek.

This comes after announced closures of aluminum smelters, copper smelters and ammonia production plants over the last few weeks. Ammonia — necessary for fertilizer — is now 70% offline in the EU.

Many more factories will be forced to shut down in the coming months.

Deeply alarmed by what is taking place, 40 CEOs from Europe’s metals industry have jointly issued an open letter in which they warn that their companies are facing an “existential threat to our future”

Ahead of Friday’s emergency summit, the business leaders of Europe’s non-ferrous metals industry are writing together to raise the alarm about Europe’s worsening energy crisis and its existential threat to our future. Our sector has already been forced to make unprecedented curtailments in the last 12 months. We are deeply concerned that the winter ahead could deliver a decisive blow to many of our operations, and we call on EU and Member State leaders to take emergency action to preserve their strategic electricity-intensive industries and prevent permanent job losses.

50% of the EU’s aluminium and zinc capacity has already been forced offline due to the power crisis, as well as significant curtailments in silicon and ferroalloys production and further impacts felt across copper and nickel sectors. In the last month, several companies have had to announce indefinite closures and many more are on the brink ahead of a life-or-death winter for many operations. Producers face electricity and gas costs over ten times higher than last year, far exceeding the sales price for their products. We know from experience that once a plant is closed it very often becomes a permanent situation, as re-opening implies significant uncertainty and cost.

This is what an economic collapse looks like.

Things are already so bad that scientists are even considering shutting down the Large Hadron Collider

Europe’s energy crisis is being felt by everyone – including the scientists working deep underground in Switzerland at the Large Hadron Collider.

The European Organization for Nuclear Research, better known as CERN, is even considering taking its particle accelerators offline.

This is due to the accelerators’ high energy demands, and the organisation’s desire to keep the region’s electricity grid stable.

So at least one good thing could potentially come out of this crisis.

But overall, the months ahead are going to be an immensely uncomfortable time for Europe.

As conditions become tougher and tougher, ordinary Europeans are going to become angrier and angrier.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is openly admitting that there will be “civil unrest”, but he insists that Europeans must make sacrifices in order to support the war in Ukraine…

Vladimir Putin’s ‘energy blackmail’ over Europe could lead to ‘civil unrest’ this winter, the NATO Secretary General has warned.

Jens Stoltenberg acknowledged that winter ‘will be hard’ as ‘families and businesses feel the crunch of soaring energy prices and costs of living’ in the coming months.

Writing in the Financial Times, the boss of the Western security alliance said that it is worth paying the price to support Ukraine.

Eventually, there will be tremendous civil unrest in major cities in the United States as well.

We are still only in the very early stages of this new global energy crisis, and it is going to turn all of our lives upside down.

Meanwhile, we are also plunging into a horrific global food crisis.  As I detailed a few days ago, even the head of the UN is admitting that there will be “multiple famines” in 2023.

Life as we know it is about to change.

Right now, all eyes are on Europe because things are starting to get really crazy over there.

Europe is going to descend into “the new Dark Ages” this winter, and the entire world will experience extreme pain as a result.

*

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.

Michael’s brand new book entitled “7 Year Apocalypse” is now available on Amazon.com. He has published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream and The Most Important News which are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe. 

Featured image is from The Economic Collapse

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Three Italian surgeons conducted a study analyzing blood from 1,006 people who developed symptoms after they got a Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna mRNA injection and found 94 percent of them to have “aggregation of erythrocytes and the presence of particles of various shapes and sizes of unclear origin,” one month after inoculation.

Erythrocytes are a type of red blood cell that carries oxygen and carbon dioxide.

“What seems plain enough is that metallic particles resembling graphene oxide and possibly other metallic compounds … have been included in the cocktail of whatever the manufacturers have seen fit to put in the so-called mRNA ‘vaccines,’” the authors wrote in the study’s discussion and conclusions.

Epoch Times Photo

An example of the complex and structured crystal/lamellar organization at 120x magnification. In the picture on the right side a “module” from the morphology and recurrent structuring occurring with great frequency. The aggregating forces are guided by the negative entropic context. (Courtesy of IJVTPR)

Epoch Times Photo

Here at 120x magnification (3xmagnification digitally produced) (a) and (b) show tubular formations that seem to be in different aggregative stages. (Courtesy of IJVTPR)

Franco Giovannini, Riccardo Benzi Cipelli, and Gianpaolo Pisano, are the surgeons who authored the study, which was published on Aug. 12 in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, practice, and Research (IJVTPR).

Epoch Times Photo

Details of studied cases. (Courtesy of IJVTPR)

They said their results are very similar to the findings of Korean doctors Young Mi Lee, Sunyoung Park, and Ki-Yeob Jeon, titled “Foreign Materials in Blood Samples of Recipients of COVID-19 Vaccines,” but that their 1,006 subjects represent “a much larger sample.”

“It could be claimed that, except for our innovative application of dark-field microscopy to mark the foreign metal-like objects in the blood of mRNA injections from Pfizer or Moderna, we have replicated the blood work of the Korean doctors with a much larger sample,” the Italian surgeons wrote.

“Our findings, however, are bolstered by their parallel analysis of the fluids in vials of the mRNA concoctions alongside centrifuged plasma samples from the cases they studied intensively,” they added.

Epoch Times Photo

Images of crystalline aggregation, regular and modular, with apparent “self-similar attitudes of fractal nature.” (Courtesy of IJVTPR)

Epoch Times Photo

This image at 120x magnification (3x magnification digitally produced)highlights a typical self-aggregating structuring in fibro/tubular mode. (Courtesy of IJVTPR)

Further studies are needed to define the exact nature of the particles found in the blood and to identify possible solutions to the problems they are evidently causing.

Out of the 1,006 cases, only 58 people showed a completely normal hematological picture via microscopic analysis.

Epoch Times Photo

Evident tubular formations at 120x magnification in the aggregative phase showing their complex morphology. (Courtesy of IJVTPR)

The researchers cited numerous studies to back up their findings, including the “well-known” tendency of fibrin to cluster, vascular toxicity of the spike protein, and other adverse effects.

They picked four cases and analyzed their pre and post-vaccination health status, while showing dark field microscopic images.

“We assert unequivocally that the 4 cases described in this series are representative of the 948 cases in which extraordinarily anomalous structures and substances were found,” the researchers wrote.

Epoch Times Photo

In this case, the assembly of particles takes on crystalline features; furthermore, there is an area of close influence, butterfly wings, in the context of which a crystalline-type organization occurs. (Courtesy of IJVTPR)

“In conclusion, such 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, usually at the time of a second mRNA injection, from a state of perfect normalcy to a pathological one, with accompanying hemolysis, visible packing and stacking of red blood cells in conjunction with the formation of gigantic conglomerate foreign structures, some of them appearing as graphene-family super-structures, is unprecedented. Such phenomena have never been seen before after any ‘vaccination’ of the past,” the researchers stated.

“In our experience as clinicians, these mRNA injections are very unlike traditional ‘vaccines’ and their manufacturers need, in our opinions, to come clean about what is in the injections and why it is there.”

Epoch Times Photo

Again, at 120x magnification, geometric figures tend to take shape in extremely complex aggregates. (Courtesy of IJVTPR)

Epoch Times Photo

A highly structured fibro-tubular configuration of structures that can coalesce together, reaching dimensions ten times their initial size. In (a) and (b) at 40x magnification, we see what appears to be a laminar linkage. In (c), at 120x magnification (3x magnification digitally produced), there is a composite which is 166.54 μm (DeltaPix Software) in length. (Courtesy of IJVTPR)

“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,” the authors wrote. “As far as we know, such self-aggregation phenomena have only been documented after the COVID-19 mRNA injections were first authorized, then, mandated in some countries.”

Graphene?

Graphene oxide is a type of material “considered two dimensional” and also considered “to be the strongest material in the world,” and the most conductive to electricity and heat, according to graphene-info.com.

Sherri Tenpenny, who has been ahead of the curve in vaccine adverse reactions, believes that these structures could be related to the strange clots embalmers have been finding in the corpses they treat since around the pandemic.

“Whatever is actually found to be in the shots, whether the components are graphene, aluminum, crystalline amyloid, disintegrated fibrin, highly charged nanotech particles, or something else, the disruption in the blood demonstrated on these slides is devastating and irrefutable, as are the corresponding histories of the patients involved,” Tenpenny told The Epoch Times.

“The rouleaux formations seen, for example, in figures 8, 16, and 22, represent widespread ‘sticky red blood cells’ which can lead to clots anywhere in the body. Figure 22 is especially frightening as this sample was taken only two days after the second Moderna jab,” she added.

Epoch Times Photo

Figure 8. (a) Deformation and erythrocyte aggregation with signs of hemolysis at 40x magnification. (b) A foreign crystallized tubular structure at 120x magnification. (Courtesy of IJVTPR)

Epoch Times Photo

Figure 16. This image, at 40x magnification, is extremely representative of the “Z potential” disorders, with aggregation and “rouleaux stacking” of red blood cells. (Courtesy of IJVTPR)

Epoch Times Photo

Figure 22. Image at 40x magnification showing aggregation and morphological modification of the erythrocytes two days after the second dose of a Moderna mRNA injection. (Courtesy of IJVTPR)

James Thorp, who has been analyzing the adverse effects of COVID vaccines, thinks that this study could answer some questions about the contents in the vaccines, he shared some of his findings and theories with The Epoch Times.

“Graphene oxide is an artificial, highly magnetic substance with widespread utilization. … While first discovered in 1859, graphene oxide has extensive commercial application, especially in the field of pharmacologic nanotech delivery systems in medicine. It has the potential of self-assembly within the blood by a variety of potential energetic mechanisms,” Thorp told The Epoch Times.

But Thorp thinks that the phenomenon involving metallic objects sticking to people’s bodies, apparently magnetically, is not related to the vaccines, as some have claimed.

“Last year many social media posts alleged that the COVID-19 vaccine contained substances that caused attraction to magnets and non-magnetized metals. We conclusively demonstrated that this was a false narrative. The neodymium magnets and non-magnetized paperclips attached to the human body in about 50 percent of testing subjects unrelated to the COVID-19 vaccines,” Thorp said.

“Interestingly no other medical study could be found in the medical literature that describes human magnetism prior to this manuscript. Magnets and paperclips have been around for centuries, and it would be quite peculiar had they stuck to the human body in the past and not be the focus of intense scrutiny and investigation. One might speculate that graphene oxide in our bodies was not present 30 years ago but slowly accumulated over decades of exposure resulting in attachment of magnets and paperclips to the human body. It is speculated the electromagnetic energy possibly even from cell towers and/or WIFI could stimulate the assembly of graphene oxide and interfere with the body’s own energetics fields,” he went on.

Potential Explanation of Abnormal Assemblies

Thorp, his brother Kenneth Thorp, a radiologist, and Paul Walker, a mechanical and electric engineer, published a three part study (part I, Part II, and Part III.) named “Aether, fields & energy dynamics in living bodies” on the Gazette of Medical Sciences.

Thorp is also of the opinion that the metallic-like objects could be the cause of the strange clots that embalmers have been finding.

“The basis of most illnesses, including COVID-19, and the basis of the COVID-19 vaccine complications are directly related to energy deficiencies. The vaccine causes disruption and diversion of energy away from the water, molecular and cellular levels, away from basic physiologic processes and toward the pathologic production of spike protein. This potentially explains many of the abnormal assembly of substances within the intravascular space including the substances noted by Cipelli et al. as well as the misfolded proteins resulting in blood clots, prion disease, Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease, amyloidosis, and countless other diseases,” Thorp said.

Felipe Reitz, a biologist from Brazil, also did peripheral live blood analysis on vaccinated vs unvaccinated people’s blood using computerized thermographic imaging.

“I have observed that vaccinated individuals present some particular changes in their blood and in their peripheral circulation with more frequency than non-vaccinated,” Reitz told The Epoch Times.

Epoch Times Photo

Dark field Microscopic photo of blood samples. (Courtesy of Felipe Reitz)

“I am observing individuals with one jab, two jabs, three jabs, and four jabs. Individuals that were vaccinated 18 months ago, 12 months ago, and 6 months ago. This probability permutation is very important to determine the number of injections per time as I noticed it determines the degree of severity of reaction in the person’s body. That could explain why some researchers using the same tools and techniques are differing in their results. That is because they are not considering the individuality here, time of exposure, and jab content. All these variables only create difficulties for the scientific community to reach a consensus although we are all correct in what we are finding, but our findings alone do not represent the total truth,” Reitz said.

“My comparison is based on signs of compromised immune system, indications of radiation exposure, blood electrostatic changes, size and number of platelets, fibrins, infections, chemicals and crystallization structures in the blood samples, and indications of graphene.”

Official Statements

Pfizer told Reuters in July of 2021 that their COVID vaccines do not contain graphene oxide.

“Graphene oxide is not used in the manufacture of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” Pfizer’s senior associate of Global Media Relations told the outlet.

James Smith, the former President and Chief Executive Officer of Thomson Reuters is a board member of Pfizer.

According to a fact sheet issued by the FDA, the Moderna vaccine does not contain graphene oxide.

Moderna and Pfizer did not respond to requests for comment.

*

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.

Enrico Trigoso is an Epoch Times reporter focusing on U.S. politics, health news, social issues, and a wide range of topics.

Featured image: These photos are at 40x magnification. At the left side, (a) shows the blood condition of the patient before the inoculation. The right side image, (b) shows the same person’s blood one month after the first dose of Pfizer mRNA “vaccine.” Particles can be seen among the red blood cells which are strongly conglobated around the exogenous particles; the agglomeration is believed to reflect a reduction in zeta potential adversely affecting the normal colloidal distribution of erythrocytes as seen at the left. The red blood cells at the right (b) are no longer spherical and are clumping as in coagulation and clotting. (Courtesy of IJVTPR)


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 

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” 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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

World Economic Forum (WEF) founder Klaus Schwab says that the forum welcomes “a diversity of ideas” after previously condemning Great Reset critics in Davos as the “frivolous fringe.”

We welcome a diversity of ideas, expressed in the spirit of respectful discourse and dialogue,” Schwab wrote in his opening statement for the WEF Annual Report 2021-2022.

“We believe that differences within and between societies can be bridged, and that we can and must strive for a golden mean,” he added.

Schwab can talk about welcoming a diversity of ideas all he wants, but when the forum is criticized, the unelected globalists revert to name calling.

Earlier this year, Schwab took aim at the uninvited, independent media outlets covering the WEF’s annual meeting in Davos, dismissing them as the “frivolous fringe” who were only there to hijack the WEF’s brand.

“There is no place for the frivolous fringe that seeks to distract and divert attention ­– and I condemn it wholeheartedly – particularly of those who have nothing to do with the World Economic Forum community and just [sic] to Davos to hijack our brand,” he said.

While Schwab wrote of respectful discourse and dialogue to bridge differences in society, the WEF’s own managing director Adrian Monck did the exact opposite in a recent essay where he labeled critics of the great reset agenda, particularly the phrase “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy,” as far right extremists, anti-Semites, bad faith actors, and white supremacists.

The WEF founder went on to say in the annual report that his organization would be placing “greater emphasis on ensuring that all parts of society are truly represented and engaged.”

But how can all parts of society be truly represented and engaged when any criticism to unelected globalist narratives is considered a disinformation campaign coming from racist fringe groups “who have nothing to do with the World Economic Forum community?”

“Own nothing, be happy. You might have heard the phrase. It started life as a screenshot, culled from the internet by an anonymous anti-Semitic account on the image board 4chan” — Adrian Monck, WEF, 2022

Reflecting back on history, Schwab wrote that “the main societal dividing line in our world was the division between the left and the right, between socialism and capitalism.”

“In that ideological battle, our natural position was that of a bridge-builder between the two sides,” he added.

It was OK to have oppressive regimes just as long as they collaborated with less oppressive ones.

But the paradigm is now shifting, according to Schwab.

Instead of a struggle between left and right, the new one is between globalism and nationalism.

“A new dividing line exists in politics and society […] between globalism and nationalism, between cooperation and protectionism, between embracing the new and preserving the old” — Klaus Schwab, WEF, 2022

“Today, a new dividing line exists in politics and society,” wrote Schwab, adding, “It is the division between globalism and nationalism, between cooperation and protectionism, between embracing the new and preserving the old.”

From an unelected globalist point of view, leaders who are elected to represent the will of their constituents should abandon their democratic duties and instead pursue more global agendas.

“Embracing the new” means implementing stakeholder capitalism where all power is given to hand-picked politicians, bureaucrats, and technocrats — the merger of corporation and state.

“Preserving the old” can be interpreted as maintaining the rights and freedoms granted under most constitutional republics and human rights charters.

The division, therefore, would be between those who want a global centralization of power and those who want power to remain with the people through democratic processes.

Klaus Schwab can say he wants to build a bridge between the divide, but in the very same statement, he concludes that his systemic approach to globalism through stakeholder capitalism and ESG scoring powered by the fourth industrial revolution is the only way forward.

How can one claim to welcome “a diversity of ideas,” but in the same statement turn around and say, “We have a duty to go against the disintegrating forces of our global system” — thus dismissing any ideas that aren’t pro-globalist out of a sense of duty?

If you don’t agree with the “forces of our global system,” what does that make you?

An extremist not worthy of having a voice?

“The mounting social pressures that we have observed, particularly in the past months, have led us to place ever greater emphasis on ensuring that all parts of society are truly represented and engaged” — Klaus Schwab, WEF, 2022

Remember when Schwab said that the forum was working to ensure all parts of society were truly represented and engaged?

There is only one narrative, and that is for citizens to surrender power, freedom, and autonomy over to unelected globalists, bureaucrats, and technocrats, so that they may finally implement their great reset over society and the global economy that they’ve been planning for many years.

And they will continue to exploit every “crisis,” real or imagined, to achieve their totalitarian agenda.

As Schwab concluded in the WEF’s annual report:

We have no other choice than to embrace global cooperation if we want to avoid political, ecological or social disasters.”

*

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.

The Sociable editor Tim Hinchliffe covers tech and society, with perspectives on public and private policies proposed by governments, unelected globalists, think tanks, big tech companies, defense departments, and intelligence agencies. Previously, Tim was a reporter for the Ghanaian Chronicle in West Africa and an editor at Colombia Reports in South America. These days, he is only responsible for articles he writes and publishes in his own name. [email protected]

Featured image is from The Sociable


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Klaus Schwab Says WEF ‘Welcomes Diversity of Ideas,’ Calls Great Reset Critics the ‘Frivolous Fringe’
  • Tags: , ,

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Attorneys Dan Watkins and Michael Hamilton announced in a national Press Conference September 7 the filing of their first-in-the-nation landmark lawsuit against three hospitals on behalf of families who had lost their loved ones with the “bounties” paid to hospitals for using the toxic combination of food and fluid restriction, remdesivir, mechanical ventilation, high dose morphine-midazolam respiration-suppressing cocktail to spiral patients down the dark road to death.

After more than 2 ½ years of daily COVID deaths in America’s hospitals, we finally have the first two attorneys in the US to take legal action boldly and courageously against three hospitals in Fresno, California for wrongful death, medical battery, elder abuse and other violations of patients’ rights to hold these hospital administrators, doctors and nurse accountable for such horrific patient abuses.

Truth for Health Foundation has pledged financial support for this lawsuit as one of our human rights defense efforts to serve the public good by helping protect public safety, defend patient rights, and defend life. Both Attorney Watkins and Attorney Hamilton have been engaged by Truth for Health Foundation to assist on several legal initiatives to help defend human and civil rights secured by law.

*

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.


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

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

Price: $11.50 

Purchase directly from the Global Research Online Store

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Remdesivir Wrongful Death Landmark Lawsuit Filed Against Three Hospitals in Fresno, California
  • Tags:

Russian Regrouping in Kharkov Will Speed Up Battle of Donbass

September 13th, 2022 by M. K. Bhadrakumar

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

The New York Times has disclosed that the US shared vital intelligence with the Ukrainian military and took part in the preparation of the latter’s current “counteroffensive” near Kharkov. No matter the Biden Administration’s motivations in publicising its role in what western media is celebrating as a success story — presumably, with an eye on domestic politics in America — it  could be factually correct. The media leak puts the dramatic happenings in the past 3-4 days in proper perspective. 

There are two ways of looking at the surge by the Ukrainian military: one, Kiev has inflicted a heavy defeat on the Russians and forced them to retreat, or, the American intelligence finally got wind of the  unobtrusive thinning out of the Russian frontline in Kharkov that had been going on in the recent weeks as part of a larger re-deployment of military formations, and shared the intelligence with Kiev, who of course gleefully acted on it. 

The New York Times report effectively confirms the latter reading of the situation, which has been the stuff of hearsay and whispers so far. 

Indeed, there has been hardly any fighting as such in Kharkov region during this Ukrainian surge, and the Russian focus was, unsurprisingly, to pull out the residual forces in the frontline under the cover of heavy artillery fire. The Russian operation ensured that there was no significant casualty. The  new frontline that was being steadily put together in the recent weeks (or months) along the Oskol River has crystallised. 

The withdrawal from the Balakleysko-Izyum direction stemmed from the Russian military command’s appraisal that no useful purpose would be served by maintaining such a frontline. In March, when Russian forces gained control of Izyum, the assumption was that it would help mount an operation from the north toward Sloviansk city in the Kramatorsk district of the Donetsk region. But as it turned out through the past 4 months, Russians apparently gave up that idea altogether. 

Make no mistake, the battle for Donbass still remains the number one priority for the Russian special military operation. The re-deployment from the Balakleysko-Izyum direction will now significantly strengthen the offensive in Donbass instead of weakening it, as some western journalists are speculating. The confusion arises out of the ancient legend of Izium being the “gateway” to the Donbass and the Black Sea. Whereas, today, with modern communication, Russian supply lines to the Donbass can be sustained even without such a “gateway” from the north.  

Second, Izyum itself is in a heavily wooded region — some call it Sherwood Forest — to its west where the Ukrainian forces had fortified themselves and the Russian presence had come under attack even previously also. Simply put, continued occupation of Izyum would only be a drain on manpower. 

That said, the optics of the happenings in the Balakleysko-Izyum direction have triggered a wave of criticism within Russia itself about inept mishandling by the military command, and some of it was even directed at President Putin himself. The military command comes under pressure to show “results” in the Donbass campaign. Suffice to say, there might be some rethink too on the Russian strategy so far to depend on militia groups to do the heavy lifting rather than regular troops from its armed forces.

In reality, Kharkov Region has been largely a sideshow so far. The fact that there are no plans to hold any  referendum in Kharkov — unlike in Kherson and Zaporozhia in the south in early September (which now stands postponed) — speaks for itself. 

To be sure, last week’s happenings in the Balakleysko-Izyum direction will come as a big morale booster for the Ukrainian armed forces. This will have implications for the future. For one thing, Kiev will have no  inclination whatsoever for peace talks. The thundering statement by Ukraine’s Minister of Defense Oleksiy Reznikov on Sunday sets the threshold of belligerence: “Kyiv is ready for negotiations after the vacation [by Russia] of all territories of Ukraine — within the limits of December 1, 1991. There are no more options for ‘February 24’ for Ukraine.” 

That is to say, the plans of the command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are to completely “liberate” all “occupied” territories, including Donbass and Crimea, and nothing less! Interestingly, Reznikov was reacting to a statement by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to the effect that Moscow does not reject negotiations with Ukraine, but further delay in peace talks by Kiev will complicate the possibility of reaching an agreement. 

According to the Secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council Danilov, Kiev is already considering options for accepting the surrender of Russia, as well as dividing it into several nice little states! Such a level of madness and war hysteria will make things extremely difficult for the Biden Administration to carry forward the incipient signs of moderation and realism that were straining to surface in the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s rhetoric during his visit to Kiev last Friday.

Blinken reacted cautiously when asked by the travelling media party about the Ukrainian “counteroffensive.” He said: “yes, we did get a comprehensive update on the counteroffensive… it’s very early but we’re seeing clear and real progress on the ground, particularly in the area around Kherson but also some interesting developments in the Donbass in the east.  But again, early days.” 

Earlier in Kiev, Blinken did not respond to President Zelensky’s bottom line during their joint media appearance that he regarded the US support to be “a guarantee of the possibility of returning our territories, our lands.” 

General Mark Milley, US chairman, Chiefs of Staff, also was noticeably circumspect about the Ukrainian counteroffensive in his remarks on Saturday in an interview with the National Public Radio. The general said it remains to be seen what is happening in the next few weeks. “It is a very, very difficult task that the Ukrainians are undertaking — combining their offence with manoeuver,” the general said.  

While the regrouping of troops in the Kharkov region will enable the Russian forces to concentrate their attention on establishing full control over the territory of the Donetsk, it is not as if the military command has turned its back on Kharkov.

The Russian Ministry of Defence on Monday stated that Russian Aerospace Forces, missile troops and artillery “continued to launch high-precision attacks” at the Ukrainian units and reserve forces in Kharkov region. The Ukrainian forces that used to be in well-fortified positions in that heavily wooded region have now stepped out into the open and are being targeted for intense air, missile and artillery strikes. 

The Russian MOD stated on Saturday that more than 2,000 Ukrainian fighters were killed near Balakleya and Izyum in the previous three days alone. For sure, a few thousand more troops would have suffered injuries too. Considering that a 15000-strong Ukrainian force is estimated to be involved in the entire Kharkov operation, that is a very heavy loss. Over time, Kiev may have little to celebrate about.  

*

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 Indian Punchline

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

On 6 September 2022, a conference organized by the Anti-Repression Foundation entitled “Information Gestapo: Ukrainian nationalist website Mirotvorets lists are used to suppress free speech and repress journalists” took place in Moscow”.

I participated in this conference with colleagues from several Western countries: Germany, USA, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, England.

All the journalists present condemned the very existence of Mirotvorets, while stressing that the attempt to silence them by scaring them would not work. They all confirmed that they would continue to do their work, regardless of the death threats against them.

It should be remembered that the Mirotvorets site publishes, among other things, personal data on journalists, scans of their passports, their addresses, information about their relatives and even information about their vehicles (in my case, my old car has all its data, including its VIN code and old registration number, published on this site). All this information makes it possible to track down journalists who are on Mirotvorets’ lists, and can only have been provided to this site by secret services (Ukrainian, or perhaps Western).

Mira Terada, the director of the Anti-Repression Foundation presented figures on the number of Western journalists listed on the Mirotvorets website. Of the 341 journalists listed on Mirotvorets, 83 are journalists from outside Russia, Ukraine, DPR and LPR (Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics). The overwhelming majority (80) are Western journalists.

She also recalled that several journalists had been killed after their data was published by the Mirotvorets website, such as Oles Bouzina, Andrea Rocchelli, Zemfira Soulaeïmanova, Andreï Stenine, Igor Korneliouk, Anton Volochine, and more recently Daria Douguina.

Calling the collection and publication of personal information an abhorrent violation of all international legal norms relating to the protection of the honor, dignity, personal data and life of journalists, the head of the Russian Anti-Robbery Foundation sent a letter to the head of the FSB, Aleksandr Bortnikov, calling for Mirotvorets to be classified as a terrorist organisation.

Russell Bentley said that the mafia structure that is Mirotvorets is in agreement with the fascist government of Ukraine, exposing independent journalists working in the Donbass to a real threat. He is convinced that journalists who share his view of events and are guided only by moral and ideological considerations are fighting against the Fourth Reich, against the Nazis of the 21st century.

Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett, added that her home country, Canada, actively supports and funds neo-Nazis in Ukraine and has spent over $1 billion to train Ukrainian soldiers. She also noted that the Canadian government includes direct descendants of Nazi collaborators who are proud of their origins. According to Bartlett, who cannot even imagine what awaits her if she returns to her country, and Canadian journalists are completely unconcerned about the activities of Mirotvorets. Canada, which has insisted for years that Ukraine is a democratic country, constantly turns a blind eye to the total lack of freedom of the Ukrainian media.

John Miller, a British journalist, was added to Mirotvorets’ “hit list” after reporting on the inclusion of the young Lugansk author Faina Savenkova in the Ukrainian site’s lists. I personally responded to John Miller’s assertion that journalists in Russian-controlled territory are not at risk even if they are on Mirotvorets. I reminded him that Darya Dugina was murdered in Russia, and that journalists living in the DPR, the LPR, or Moscow, risk their lives as much as those in Ukraine or in Western countries, where many Ukrainians have now found refuge.

Well aware of these risks, Dutch journalist Sonja Van Den Ende stressed the need for journalists to be extra careful, as she said Mirotvorets was created with the help of the CIA, NATO and the US. Commenting on the foreign policy of her native country, the Dutch war correspondent said that her country was waging an undeclared war against Russia and that anyone who criticized the neo-Nazis was an enemy of the Dutch state. Because of this, it would now be dangerous for her to return to her native country.

The same is true for Alina Lipp, the German journalist threatened with three years in prison in Germany for reporting on what is happening in the Donbass. According to the journalist, the repression also affected her parents: their bank accounts were blocked, they were forced to change their phone numbers, and Alina’s mother had to leave Germany because of the threats she was receiving. Following the terrorist attack on Daria Dugina, Alina is now paying more attention to her own safety.

Janus Putkonen, director and editor-in-chief of UMV-Lehti, linked the creation of Mirotvorets to Western intelligence services and condemned the inaction of foreign media and politicians who have ignored the clear human rights violations linked to the site’s activities for years. He said that Mirotvorets must be closed down to prevent such methods from spreading like a cancer to other countries in the world. He also called the site “the new Gestapo”.

I can only agree with this name. In fact, I have long called Mirotvorets a digital Gestapo, or Gestapo 2.0. As I said at the conference, if the Internet had existed during the time of Nazi Germany, there is no doubt that they would have invented a site more or less similar to Mirotvorets.

Personally, I have been aware of the risk posed by Mirotvorets for a long time. I did not wait for the attack on Daria Dugina to be careful, it only pushed me to reinforce the protection measures I apply.

All the journalists present will write a joint letter to the UN asking that the organisation adopt a resolution condemning the activities of Mirotvorets, which would serve as a basis for an international investigation into the organisation. If the FSB accedes to the request of the foundation against repression, Russia will conduct a parallel investigation and take measures against this terrorist site on a national scale. It is high time to end the impunity enjoyed by Mirotvorets, before more people pay with their lives for telling the truth about what is happening in Ukraine and the Donbass.

Video in Russian of the press conference:

*

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 Donbass Insider

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Journalists Demand that the Mirotvorets “Death List” Website be Classified as a Terrorist Organisation and Closed Down

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 InstagramTwitter and Facebook. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

***

Most Americans are unaware how close Russia and Ukraine came to ending the current war in April.

Last March 27, Ukraine president Zelensky told his people “Our goal is obvious – peace and the restoration of normal life in our native state as soon as possible.”

He was hinting at what went unsaid: Ukraine and Russia, brokered by NATO member Turkey, reached a tentative fifteen-point peace plan to end the month old war. Key points were Russia withdraw from all Ukraine except for breakaway Donbas and Crimea. Ukraine would pass on future NATO membership, pledging neutrality between Russia and NATO. Donbas and Crimea would undergo political transition based on self-determination to be recognized by both combatants. Ukraine security would be guaranteed by neighboring countries but no foreign troops would enter Ukraine.

What’s not to like?

For the US weapons makers, the end to a weapons manufacturing boondoggle. That $60 billion in free weaponry to Ukraine fighters has depleted our ammo dumps.

For the US military, the end to a new perpetual war, albeit a proxy one, to relieve the boredom of peace.

For the political class, the end to the new Cold War with Russia to weaken, marginalize, and keep them from economic integration with Europe.

So on April 9, Uncle Sam sent Boris Johnson, the latest version of America’s British Prime Minister poodle, to Kiev, to school Zelensky on who’s running the war. The UK, Johnson advised “was in it for the long run,” would not be party to any Ukraine, Russian agreement since the “collective West” saw a chance to “press” Russia and make the most of it. Johnson cannot be accused of subtlety.

Two weeks later, the US sent Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to Kyiv to reinforce Johnson’s warning and make clear the US and NATO were determined to use the war to “weaken” Russia. NATO ally Turkey has blamed the US and UK for sabotaging a promising chance to end the war early on.

When it comes to provoking, preventing and prolonging senseless war, America always fails the test of peace. Getting back to the question posed: Why did the US torpedo the April Ukraine war negotiated settlement?

Because we can.

*

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.

Walt Zlotow became involved in antiwar activities upon entering University of Chicago in 1963. He is current president of the West Suburban Peace Coalition based in the Chicago western suburbs. He blogs daily on antiwar and other issues at www.heartlandprogressive.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Did US Torpedo April Ukraine War Negotiated Settlement?